Nepal’s Foreign Policy In A Mess
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Some foreign policy pundits tend to believe that the best foreign policy is ‘no foreign policy’. People who subscribe to this theory are of the view that the rigid foreign policy often handicaps a country to act and manipulate in the particular situation when international diplomacy is in disarray. If a country does not have its set foreign policy, it can adjust its position in the given situation to promote its national interest.
Although this is not exactly the case, circumstances have it that Nepal appears to have subscribed to this view. Given the state of our diplomacy and national image in the international arena, it looks as if Nepal does not have its set foreign policy. Our officials in the Foreign Ministry always act on ad hoc basis and Nepal seems to have lacked its long-term goal and vision in the conduct of foreign policy and international diplomacy. As a result, Nepal’s image has been deteriorating in the international arena and our national interest has always come under attack.
The basis of foreign policy of any country is the national interest. International relationship is established and foreign policy is conducted with other countries taking into account the national interest at the top of all other agenda. Nepal has not been able to pursue its national interest with countries it has greater stakes. In every front of diplomacy—be it with its immediate neighbours or with other countries or regional and international forums— Nepal’s diplomatic incompetence has been more than visible. Even a small country like Bhutan has outmaneuvered Nepal in the diplomatic tricks on issue concerning refugee repatriation. The refugee issue has remained unresolved for about two decades in which Nepal has utterly failed.
Foreign policy is the extension of country’s domestic policy. But Nepal’s domestic policy and politics are not moving smoothly and are often marked by uncertainty. Its fallout has also been reflected in the foreign policy front. Every time when Nepal is in internal political trouble, external forces often play and meddle in our internal affairs. More visible is our southern neighbour that tries to keep the politics of Nepal under its grip by hook or by crook. Unfortunately, our political parties and leaders often dance to the tune of foreigners that has invited external intervention in our internal affairs.
In other countries, political parties, despite their differences in ideology, programmes and policies, get united when it comes to foreign policy and security issues. Nepal’s political parties are far apart on every issue including foreign policy. They define national interest to suit their own personal and partisan interest. The tendency of our leaders to approach the foreigners and seek their support for their personal and partisan interest is the main cause of external interference in our affairs. Ambassadors of some powerful countries can meet with our prime minister and politicians at any time of their choice and advise ‘to do or not to do certain things’. Worse still, there are instances that our leaders and politicians visit foreign embassies to meet the ambassadors and seek their help in our domestic affairs which cannot be greater shame than this for our national dignity.
The oscillation and vacillation in our foreign policy has cost heavily in our national image abroad. When the government changes foreign policy priorities also change. This has been so in the absence of a long-term vision and specific goal in foreign policy. When Nepal was created more than 240 years ago, our security and foreign policy had been to defend its border and territories, which continued till the Sugauli Treaty was signed. The Sugauli Treaty put Nepal’s expansionist mission to an end. As a result, Nepal not only lost a sizable portion of its territories but also lost its independence in conducting its foreign policy. Some of the provisions of the Sugauli Treaty required Nepal to consult with the British rulers in India prior to having any kind of relations with other countries. This limited Nepal’s foreign policy options.
Prithivi Naryan Shah, the founder of modern Nepal, is considered the father of Nepal’s foreign policy as he set some guidelines for Nepal’s foreign policy. The concept of non-alignment and policy of equidistance or equi-proximity was first mooted by Prithivi Narayan Shah as he asked to maintain good and friendly relationship with both the northern and southern neighbours with utmost caution. In theory, this concept has still remained in place but our foreign policy is India-centric in practice as Nepal is India-locked more than the land-locked. The rulers that came to power after the Sugauli Treaty thought that their interests would be best served under the protection and patronage of British colonial rulers in India. The policy of Nepal’s rulers—be it Ranas or Shah kings—had been to please the British India, which was dubbed as Nepal’s foreign policy until 1951 prior to the establishment of multi-party political system. The 1951 political change, indeed, brought about different dimensions to Nepal’s political outlook and other spheres of affairs. However, the foreign policy of Nepal did not significantly change as it continued to remain under India’s security ambit.
When India attained independence from British raj, it had been expected that independent and democratic India would depart from the British colonial policies in all fronts including foreign and security policy. But the democratic India continued its colonial legacy vis-a-vis its policy towards small neighbours including Nepal. Soon after it attained independence, democratic India hastened to reach a bilateral treaty in 1950 with the dictatorial regime of Nepal that had been counting its days in the wake of popular movement for democracy. the 1950 Treaty that was signed between democratic India and dictatorial Rana regime sought to further tighten New Delhi’s grip over Nepal virtually turning Nepal into India’s satellite state infringing its sovereignty. Several provisions of the 1950 Treaty are objectionable, which need to be reviewed and changed.
India centric foreign policy continued to remain in place until Nepal formally decided to establish diplomatic relations with its northern neighbour China in 1955. Prime Minister Tanka Prasad Acharya not only established diplomatic relationship with China but also took several bold decisions to reduce Indian influence and hegemony in Nepal. But the real momentum in diversifying Nepal’s foreign policy began with the rise of king Mahendra in power. Although discredited politically as he trampled democracy and imposed authoritarian system, King Mahendra’s role is, indeed, exemplary, in pursuing Nepal’s independent foreign policy and establishing Nepal’s image as an independent and sovereign country in the international arena, to the dismay of our southern neighbour. Nepal not only got membership of the United Nations but also played important role in founding the Non-Aligned Movement. It was during this period when Nepal widely diversified Nepal’s foreign relations and established diplomatic ties with several other countries in the world. King Birendra continued this policy and even went one step forward by declaring Nepal a ‘Zone of Peace’, which was supported and recognized by more than one hundred countries in the world including China and two superpowers. This was an important achievement in Nepal’s foreign policy. Unfortunately, the ‘Zone of Peace’ concept was dropped after political change in 1990 ostensibly under pressure from New Delhi.
With the restoration of multi-party system in 1990, Nepal foreign policy also took ‘U’ turn and again entered into the old concept of India centric policy. The elected government that came to power after the general election in 1991 declared that the basis of Nepal’s foreign policy would be democracy and human rights. Democracy and human rights are the basis of governance but cannot be the basis All the governments that came to power following the 1990 political change often subscribed to theory and policy that our southern neighbour preferred, which continues even today in the republican era. Our political parties and governments appear to be more concerned with the interest of foreigners than our own. Be it border encroachment, 1950 Treaty, the Mahakali Treaty or other issues including sharing of water resources, some of the leaders openly champion the cause of India more than the cause of Nepal and Nepalese people. Here lies the fundamental flaws, which have put the conduct of Nepal’s foreign and security policy in a mess.
Some foreign policy pundits tend to believe that the best foreign policy is ‘no foreign policy’. People who subscribe to this theory are of the view that the rigid foreign policy often handicaps a country to act and manipulate in the particular situation when international diplomacy is in disarray. If a country does not have its set foreign policy, it can adjust its position in the given situation to promote its national interest.
Although this is not exactly the case, circumstances have it that Nepal appears to have subscribed to this view. Given the state of our diplomacy and national image in the international arena, it looks as if Nepal does not have its set foreign policy. Our officials in the Foreign Ministry always act on ad hoc basis and Nepal seems to have lacked its long-term goal and vision in the conduct of foreign policy and international diplomacy. As a result, Nepal’s image has been deteriorating in the international arena and our national interest has always come under attack.
The basis of foreign policy of any country is the national interest. International relationship is established and foreign policy is conducted with other countries taking into account the national interest at the top of all other agenda. Nepal has not been able to pursue its national interest with countries it has greater stakes. In every front of diplomacy—be it with its immediate neighbours or with other countries or regional and international forums— Nepal’s diplomatic incompetence has been more than visible. Even a small country like Bhutan has outmaneuvered Nepal in the diplomatic tricks on issue concerning refugee repatriation. The refugee issue has remained unresolved for about two decades in which Nepal has utterly failed.
Foreign policy is the extension of country’s domestic policy. But Nepal’s domestic policy and politics are not moving smoothly and are often marked by uncertainty. Its fallout has also been reflected in the foreign policy front. Every time when Nepal is in internal political trouble, external forces often play and meddle in our internal affairs. More visible is our southern neighbour that tries to keep the politics of Nepal under its grip by hook or by crook. Unfortunately, our political parties and leaders often dance to the tune of foreigners that has invited external intervention in our internal affairs.
In other countries, political parties, despite their differences in ideology, programmes and policies, get united when it comes to foreign policy and security issues. Nepal’s political parties are far apart on every issue including foreign policy. They define national interest to suit their own personal and partisan interest. The tendency of our leaders to approach the foreigners and seek their support for their personal and partisan interest is the main cause of external interference in our affairs. Ambassadors of some powerful countries can meet with our prime minister and politicians at any time of their choice and advise ‘to do or not to do certain things’. Worse still, there are instances that our leaders and politicians visit foreign embassies to meet the ambassadors and seek their help in our domestic affairs which cannot be greater shame than this for our national dignity.
The oscillation and vacillation in our foreign policy has cost heavily in our national image abroad. When the government changes foreign policy priorities also change. This has been so in the absence of a long-term vision and specific goal in foreign policy. When Nepal was created more than 240 years ago, our security and foreign policy had been to defend its border and territories, which continued till the Sugauli Treaty was signed. The Sugauli Treaty put Nepal’s expansionist mission to an end. As a result, Nepal not only lost a sizable portion of its territories but also lost its independence in conducting its foreign policy. Some of the provisions of the Sugauli Treaty required Nepal to consult with the British rulers in India prior to having any kind of relations with other countries. This limited Nepal’s foreign policy options.
Prithivi Naryan Shah, the founder of modern Nepal, is considered the father of Nepal’s foreign policy as he set some guidelines for Nepal’s foreign policy. The concept of non-alignment and policy of equidistance or equi-proximity was first mooted by Prithivi Narayan Shah as he asked to maintain good and friendly relationship with both the northern and southern neighbours with utmost caution. In theory, this concept has still remained in place but our foreign policy is India-centric in practice as Nepal is India-locked more than the land-locked. The rulers that came to power after the Sugauli Treaty thought that their interests would be best served under the protection and patronage of British colonial rulers in India. The policy of Nepal’s rulers—be it Ranas or Shah kings—had been to please the British India, which was dubbed as Nepal’s foreign policy until 1951 prior to the establishment of multi-party political system. The 1951 political change, indeed, brought about different dimensions to Nepal’s political outlook and other spheres of affairs. However, the foreign policy of Nepal did not significantly change as it continued to remain under India’s security ambit.
When India attained independence from British raj, it had been expected that independent and democratic India would depart from the British colonial policies in all fronts including foreign and security policy. But the democratic India continued its colonial legacy vis-a-vis its policy towards small neighbours including Nepal. Soon after it attained independence, democratic India hastened to reach a bilateral treaty in 1950 with the dictatorial regime of Nepal that had been counting its days in the wake of popular movement for democracy. the 1950 Treaty that was signed between democratic India and dictatorial Rana regime sought to further tighten New Delhi’s grip over Nepal virtually turning Nepal into India’s satellite state infringing its sovereignty. Several provisions of the 1950 Treaty are objectionable, which need to be reviewed and changed.
India centric foreign policy continued to remain in place until Nepal formally decided to establish diplomatic relations with its northern neighbour China in 1955. Prime Minister Tanka Prasad Acharya not only established diplomatic relationship with China but also took several bold decisions to reduce Indian influence and hegemony in Nepal. But the real momentum in diversifying Nepal’s foreign policy began with the rise of king Mahendra in power. Although discredited politically as he trampled democracy and imposed authoritarian system, King Mahendra’s role is, indeed, exemplary, in pursuing Nepal’s independent foreign policy and establishing Nepal’s image as an independent and sovereign country in the international arena, to the dismay of our southern neighbour. Nepal not only got membership of the United Nations but also played important role in founding the Non-Aligned Movement. It was during this period when Nepal widely diversified Nepal’s foreign relations and established diplomatic ties with several other countries in the world. King Birendra continued this policy and even went one step forward by declaring Nepal a ‘Zone of Peace’, which was supported and recognized by more than one hundred countries in the world including China and two superpowers. This was an important achievement in Nepal’s foreign policy. Unfortunately, the ‘Zone of Peace’ concept was dropped after political change in 1990 ostensibly under pressure from New Delhi.
With the restoration of multi-party system in 1990, Nepal foreign policy also took ‘U’ turn and again entered into the old concept of India centric policy. The elected government that came to power after the general election in 1991 declared that the basis of Nepal’s foreign policy would be democracy and human rights. Democracy and human rights are the basis of governance but cannot be the basis All the governments that came to power following the 1990 political change often subscribed to theory and policy that our southern neighbour preferred, which continues even today in the republican era. Our political parties and governments appear to be more concerned with the interest of foreigners than our own. Be it border encroachment, 1950 Treaty, the Mahakali Treaty or other issues including sharing of water resources, some of the leaders openly champion the cause of India more than the cause of Nepal and Nepalese people. Here lies the fundamental flaws, which have put the conduct of Nepal’s foreign and security policy in a mess.
Comments
Post a Comment