‘Politics of disaster’ does little to help those on the ground - 2026-09-06
The most revealing thing about the catastrophic floods that struck the China-Nepal border on August 26 may not be the destruction itself, but how quickly a natural disaster was turned into a geopolitical argument.
The focus shifted toward China - its infrastructure, its hydropower projects and, increasingly, allegations that Chinese construction was somehow "responsible" for the disaster. For some reason, everything China builds must be approved by Western powers.
The New York Times has since framed the Chinese response primarily through the lens of information control and censorship. At the same time, certain Western voices have also used the disaster to raise questions about China's conduct.
Nonetheless, the emerging scientific evidence points to something considerably less convenient for those attempting to turn the catastrophe into an indictment of Beijing: The disaster was triggered by a sudden collapse of a glacier and rock mass in Mount Langtang Lirung of Nepal.
The temptation to blame a Chinese dam, hydropower project or other infrastructure appears to have been driven, at least in part, by the geography of the disaster. The flood crossed an international frontier. Chinese infrastructure was visible in some of the most badly affected areas. And China is already the subject of intense geopolitical scrutiny across the Himalayas.
But geography is not causality.
A road is a road. It can carry soldiers, traders, rescue workers, tourists and pilgrims.
The only road leading toward the Gyirong border crossing was severely damaged.
Once the G216 national highway was reopened, heavy machinery, search teams, life-detection equipment and rescue dogs could reach areas that had previously been accessible only through aerial operations.
That is an important fact to remember when discussing infrastructure in disaster zones.
Infrastructure can be vulnerable to nature without being the cause of nature's violence.
The Chinese response also extended beyond its own territory. Chinese rescue workers worked through difficult terrain and continuing rain to restore access.
China provided Nepal with emergency financial assistance, humanitarian supplies and specialist personnel.
The first batch of 50 tons of relief supplies reached Kathmandu, while Chinese tunnel-rescue specialists were sent into Nepal to assist with the search for workers trapped inside hydropower tunnels.
China subsequently provided another shipment of emergency supplies, including drones, DNA identification equipment, water-purification equipment and lighting devices, along with Chinese DNA experts.
Nepal itself has acknowledged the role of Chinese specialists. Its foreign ministry said tunnel-rescue teams from India, China and South Korea were working with the Nepali Army in the affected areas.
China also handed Nepal $2 million in emergency government assistance and another $200,000 from the Chinese Red Cross to Nepal's Prime Minister Disaster Relief Fund.
Perhaps more significantly for the future of disaster management, China shared satellite imagery, hydrological information and early-warning data with Nepal.
Chinese meteorological and water authorities established direct communication with their Nepali counterparts, while China provided information concerning an upstream barrier lake.
These are not the actions of a country that can simply be inserted into the role of villain because the disaster happened in a politically sensitive border region.
When families are desperately searching for missing relatives, when rescue teams are navigating unstable mountains and flooded tunnels and when thousands of people need food, water, communications and medical assistance, turning an evolving humanitarian crisis into an immediate geopolitical morality play does little to help those on the ground.
The phrase "politics of disaster" can sound cynical until one watches how quickly a catastrophe becomes a proxy battle over an existing geopolitical rivalry.
If China is already considered a suspect actor, every disaster occurring near Chinese infrastructure can begin to look like evidence of wrongdoing. That is not how causality works.
China was affected by the disaster. Chinese citizens died in the disaster. China then mobilized to respond to it. China assisted Nepal in responding to it.
The Himalayas are becoming an increasingly dangerous environment as climate change alters glaciers, permafrost, precipitation patterns and mountain stability. The answer cannot be to politicize every time a landslide, avalanche or glacier collapses. It has to be better monitoring. Better early-warning systems. Better cross-border data sharing. Better roads and communications. Better rescue capabilities. And, above all, cooperation between the countries that share these mountains. China's response should be judged on those terms.
At a time when thousands of families are still waiting for answers and rescuers are still searching through mud, rock and flooded tunnels, perhaps the most responsible thing the international media can do is resist the urge to turn grief into geopolitics.
The Himalayas have already produced enough destruction. They do not need a second disaster manufactured in the court of public opinion.
Source: Global Times
