To me, the Royal government's foreign policy -- particularly vis-a-vis India vs. China -- seems to be driven by antiquated principles and policies that are rapidly loosing their relevance in the modern political arena. Therefore, I find both the Royal governement's tactic of playing the China card and the above writer's belief in it's relevance amiss. It's economics, stupid! The militaristic and sensational national politics approach to international relations are of far less importance in today's world, if not completely irrelevant. Accordingly, I believe the dynamics of Indo-China relations have also evolved far above military, borders and nationalist zeals. China, with arguably the fastest growing economy in the world, has much more to gain by improving it's relations with India, another country of promising economic growth, than by risking to sour it over a tiny, poor, meaningless (in terms of affecting global politics) Nepal. Like everything else up this Royal government's sleeves, the China card, as it is perceived by narrow-minded oldies in the government, therefore, belongs to the 1960's, which would obviously have absolutely no relevance whatsoever in modern world. The Royal government should take no easy breath over China's stance on Nepal as an "internal matter," for that is only standard in Chinese foreign policy when it comes to troubled countries, be it Iraq under Saddam, Serbia under Milosevic, Sudan, or Nepal. Having said that, I still believe China's relatively nonchalant approach to Nepal will change if the Indo-Nepal troubles rise upto the level of territory -- territorial encroachment by India into Nepal, if it becomes real and threatening, I am of the belief that it would significantly raise Chinese eye brows. This is one of the reasons why I do not buy Royalist argument that India would take over Nepal should hte royal government give way to increased democracy -- New Delhi too has much more to lose by irritating Beijing over Kathmandu. Indo-Chinese economic benefits are mutual.