Strategic Approach To Foreign Policy

Yuba Nath Lamsal:-- Domestic politics and foreign policy are interlinked. Domestic politics is concerned with relations among different political actors and stakeholders within a country, while diplomacy is politics among countries on an international scale. Politics deals with the internal governance of a country and diplomacy is concerned with international governance. Every country thus adopts a broad policy and accordingly uses tools and tactics to protect and promote the interests of the country in the international arena. Foreign policy is, therefore, called an extension of domestic policy. But this might not always be the case. Sometimes, it may be just the opposite. There are cases and examples when external dynamics have changed the domestic political course in some countries. The world is more interdependent and more interconnected than ever before, owing mainly to economic globalisation and advancement in the field of technology. No country in the world is fully self-reliant but depends, one way or the other, on other countries. Events and developments occurring in any country can have regional and global repercussions. Global ripples The present Ukraine war and the Middle East conflict are examples of how events in one particular country can create global ripples. Countries and governments are, therefore, compelled to build relations with one another and accordingly deal with the developments taking place in the world in the interest of their own country. In international politics, no country is a permanent friend or permanent foe. What is permanent is the interest. Powerful countries always seek to enlarge their power and influence, while weaker and less powerful countries struggle for survival. This has been the phenomenon right from the origin of civilisation. International diplomacy has revolved around this concept — enlarging power and influence versus survival tactics. In this quest to preserve interests lies the present geopolitical rivalry in the world. Former US president John F Kennedy has said, ‘domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us,’ underscoring the significance of foreign policy and diplomacy for the survival and prosperity of a nation in the vicious geopolitical rivalry. The pivot of geopolitical rivalry has now shifted to Asia, more particularly in our neighbourhood. With both of our immediate neighbours emerging as key actors in the game of international power politics, Nepal’s challenge in coping with this scenario has further risen. This geopolitical reality demands tight-rope walking for Nepal. A slight miscalculation and misstep may land us in trouble. In the present context, our two immediate neighbours are definitely important but equally important are other countries that have significantly contributed to Nepal’s development and helped in difficult circumstances. The United States, European countries and Asian friends like Japan, South Korea and Australia, too, have been our key development partners and friends. Nepal needs support from all our neighbours, friends and partners. Thus, our foreign policy and diplomacy should be directed towards winning the confidence and trust of all and maintaining a delicate balance. We cannot afford to align with any country at the expense of others. Nepal’s stated foreign policy is based on the principle of non-alignment, the United Nations Charter and Panchasheel (five principles of peaceful co-existence). The non-aligned policy seeks to refrain from being part of any security and military alliances or umbrella of any particular country or power bloc. However, non-alignment does not mean to be neutral on all issues and values. There cannot be neutrality when international and humanitarian laws and values are at stake. Although the government’s avowed foreign policy is non-aligned, some political parties and leaders sometimes seem to have either not understood the geopolitical reality or simply ignored the state’s policy on certain issues. Parties and leaders often exhibit a double standard in their rhetoric and actions as they say one thing when they are in the government and do the opposite when they are out of power. Their double standard was clearly visible on the issue of the United States’ Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The US and China are rivals and they are scrambling worldwide to amplify their presence and influence. Nepal may not be an exception. Parties had different versions and views on the MCC but finally MCC project was ratified in parliament with a two-thirds majority. Similarly, parties and politicians have conflicting views and versions on China’s BRI and its other associated schemes like Global Civilisation Initiative (GCI), Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Security Initiative (GSI). Recently, China has announced one more initiative called the Global Governance Initiative (GGI). Nepal has, in principle, accepted BRI but so far no project has been approved under it. Nepal has supported GDI but has not made its position clear on China’s other initiatives. However, a recent claim of China in the aftermath of former Prime Minister KP Oli’s visit in connection with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation conference, stating that Nepal supported GSI, triggered controversy in the media. However, the government denied it. Geopolitical contours The geopolitical contours of the world keep changing and countries accordingly adjust their foreign policy priorities and diplomatic approach. The old world order, too, is on the cusp of change. The US-led unipolar world order seems to be changing into a multi-polar order in which China, India and Russia have emerged as new players. The foreign policy cannot be static and its approaches need to be changed depending upon newer developments and changes occurring in the neighbourhood and international landscape The newer world order can be both an opportunity and, at the same time, it may pose even greater challenges in the conduct of our foreign policy and diplomacy. If we conduct our foreign policy in a shrewder and pragmatist manner, the new situation can be turned into an opportunity. It may pose a greater challenge if we commit the slightest mistake in maintaining perfect balance and fail to win the trust of major actors in international politics. It is, thus, necessary to be strategic in the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy in the larger interest of the country. However, strategic thinking in the conduct of our foreign policy seems to be lacking. (The author is a former chief editor of this daily and a former ambassador. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)