Are foreigners setting our domestic agenda?
Yuba Nath Lamsal
It is said that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy, which implies that domestic politics sets foreign policy agenda. But this may not always be applicable in all situations and context. The foreign policy is the agenda and guidelines set by a country to deal with external powers and forces. The internal politics may change and even systemic change takes place internally, the overall foreign policy priorities and objectives remain unchanged because foreign policy of any country is always guided and strictly based on national interests. The national interest of the country does not change with the change in internal political dynamics.
The internal political dynamics and external circumstances definitely have impact on the scope and approach in the conduct of foreign policy of nations. However, it does not and should make any significant difference in the overall characteristics, dynamics and objectives of foreign policy of any country.
The defense of national boundary is the first and the foremost objective of security and foreign policy of any country. The traditional concept of defending boundary is through the military power. It is this reason why all countries in the world created strong army to defend its territory. The power and prowess of the ruler in the past used to be compared with the strength and size of the army. In the present global context characterized by technological revolution, gone are the old concepts of depending solely on military power. Media, technology, economic leverage are other tools that are more effective than military power in the conduct of foreign policy and protect national interests. The modern concept of diplomacy is to serve one\'s own national interest is through applying soft power which includes persuasion and negotiation. On the table of negotiation and in the process of persuasion, economic clout and ability of diplomatic maneuvering play crucial role. Most of the countries now opt for the soft power in the conduct of foreign and security policies.
However, there are some countries that still rely on hard power to protect national interest. This is coercive method, which has often been proved to be counterproductive. Coercion is a kind of war that, unlike persuasion, seeks to force the other side to come to terms. The war has also two aspects-- soft war and hard war. The soft war is the application of the coercive methods which includes economic sanction, media propaganda, threat and intimidation, which is being applied by the United States against North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. The hard war is the use of military power and attack which is being practiced by NATO countries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nepal cannot afford to opt for hard power. At the same time, it has also not been able to project its soft power image in the international arena because of its diplomatic inefficiency. Nepal is small not only in physical size but also in terms of population, economy and military power. Nepal is surrounded by two giants-India and China, which are emerging as global powers in terms of economic strength and military power. China is already second largest economy and fourth largest military power in the world. India is also emerging as an international economic and military power. Nepal, therefore, can never imagine matching the military strength with its neighbours. These circumstances and conditions have limited Nepal\'s options in security and foreign policy strategy.
But we cannot and should not take these circumstances and condition for granted when it comes to defending our territory and border. But Nepal has failed to devise appropriate strategy to cope with these conditions. Perhaps, Nepal is one of the few countries in the world that do not keep surveillance on their border. As a result, our border is being constantly and deliberately encroached by our neighbour. Against this background, the best way for Nepal to protect and serve its national interest is active, wise and mature diplomacy at the bilateral and multilateral forums.
But Nepal\'s conduct of the foreign policy and diplomacy so lethargic and weak that it has not at all been able to project Nepal\'s image abroad and protect its national interest. One can easily imagine how Nepal can protect its national interest abroad when it cannot defend its own boundary. In the present context, it looks as though Nepal has no foreign policy. Nepal\'s foreign policy, if there is any, is either in the state of flux or in the state of confusion.
Although Nepal\'s foreign policy is said to be guided by adherence to the principles and ideals of non-alignment and the United Nations, the practical aspects are often wavering, which may not be compatible with its long-cherished principles. This state of flux and confusion in the conduct of foreign policy has resulted in failure and humiliation in bilateral and multilateral forums. Nepal\'s utter failure in conducting foreign policy and diplomacy can be seen in the poor dealing with a small South Asian neighbour Bhutan on the issue of refugee repatriation and also a humiliating defeat in the election for chair of UN General Assembly for 2012.
The diplomacy during the Panchayat regime was also not independent as it covertly capitulated to regional and international powers often compromising our national interest and overtly it tried to conduct foreign policy in relatively more independent way. Although it lacked democratic legitimacy back home, efforts of Panchayat in foreign policy and diplomatic front were definitely more efficient, which had boosted Nepal\'s image and clout in the international arena including the United Nations, to a large extent. Acquiring seats twice in the Security Council as a non-permanent member in the period of two decades since the entry into the comity of nations is no less significant for a small country like Nepal. This is a reflection of Nepal\'s international clout and image created by its delicate and appropriate diplomatic handling. It has now been almost two decades that Nepal has not even got a single chance in the UN Security Council. This shows weak diplomacy and inherent flaws in the conduct of our foreign policy.
Nepal is an independent and sovereign country and, in principles, has its independent foreign policy. But, so far as the practical conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy formation are concerned, our domestic agenda are set by foreigners and what to talk of foreign policy formulation and its conduct. Nothing can be more shameful and disgusting than this for an independent and sovereign country. The recent developments especially over the last couple of years are its testimony. It looks as though Nepali parties are not capable of forming their own government without foreigners\' advice and suggestions. Worse still, we either seek foreigners\' consent or provide them ground to interfere in our internal affairs. Some of our leaders and parties that claim to be patriotic also cave in to the pressure of foreigners.
Although all international powers are interested in Nepal and they are playing their own games to serve their national interest, the role and game of our immediate southern neighbour is more visible and, to a large extent, objectionable, which is not compatible with the accepted norms and values of international diplomacy and rules. The last four years since the initiation of the ongoing peace process have seen worst incidents of external meddling and interference in our domestic affairs. The 12-point agreement, which is the basis of peace process, was signed in India. New Delhi claims to have played midwifery role for the deal. India, by its conduct, tends to seek its dividend in the form of free hand in handling Nepal\'s foreign and security affairs and interference in internal politics. As the Maoists are the part of the 12-point deal that brought the insurgents into open and peaceful politics and were also established as the largest political force of Nepal, India\'s calculation was that the ex-rebels would accept New Delhi\'s diktat as other political forces had been doing. However, the Maoists did not compromise on the issue of national interest. India failed to understand that patriotism is one of the fundamental bases on which the Maoist party was created and they cannot be like other parties that are being manipulated by foreigners. In addition, Maoists\' ideological foundation is Marxism, Leninism and Maoism or MLM. The fundamental position of the MLM is opposed to imperialism, expansionism, capitalism, colonialism and neo-colonialism including globalization and liberalization. The Maoists, as the genuine follower of MLM, have designated India as an expansionist force which is flexing muscle in South Asia with support from imperialist force in the world. The fundamental policy of the Maoists is, thus, against the current Indian establishment, although the Maoists have stated that they have brotherly and friendly relationship with the people of India, most of whom are poor, downtrodden, exploited and discriminated by the ruling class. These policies were explicitly reflected in the Maoists\' documents and their leaders\' other policy speeches.
Thus, India soon changed its strategy and adopted the policy of containing Maoists in Nepal. The first anti-Maoist policy of India was visibly implemented in Rautahat almost four years ago in which criminals were brought from across the border, who killed several Maoist cadres. The Rautahat carnage is believed to have been ostensibly engineered by India\'s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the intelligence agency of India. Since then, the rift and animosity between the Indian establishment and Nepal\'s Maoists has come to the open and intensified. India adopted the policy of clipping the wings of the Maoists and completely eliminating the Maoists and other patriotic forces in Nepal. In the past, Indian policies used to be implemented in Nepal mainly through the Nepali Congress and later the CPN-UML. But it was not possible to implement Indian design through its traditional friends because the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were part of the alliance with the Maoists and they would not risk to antagonize the Maoists in the expense of the fledgling peace process. India, therefore, created Madhesi force not only to contain the Maoists but also to control Nepal\'s politics. The Madhesi groups are India\'s creation and they are working strictly on the instruction of New Delhi. This became more visible from the split of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) into two groups last year. This was done to create non-Maoist alliance and install it in power. As long as the MJF remained intact, the possibility of the formation of non-Maoist government was not possible because chairman of the MJF was in favour of the alliance with Maoists, which was against India\'s policy.
The second split in the MJF was also engineered by India on the eve of extension of the life of the Constituent Assembly (CA). The ruling coalition that consisted of the Maoists, CPN-UML and the MJF had the initial plan to extend the CA term and accordingly registered a bill in parliament. Even if other parties did not extend support, there was a fair chance for the passage of the bill by a two-thirds of members of parliament which the ruling coalition had commanded. By splitting the MJF once again the ruling coalition was deprived of the two-third majority. This shows that Indian interference is naked and blatant in Nepal.
If the developments and incidents in the recent past particularly after the Jana Andolan II in 2006 are any indication, foreigners and external forces are setting our political agenda, which is most unfortunate on the part of the patriotic Nepalese people. The external meddling in Nepal has been an open secret since the Sugauli Treaty that was imposed upon Nepal by the British imperial power in 1814 after a protected war. The Independent India has claimed to be the successor of colonial power and has continued to adopt colonial policy towards its small weak neighbours including Nepal. The continuity of colonial policy is a fact that India is not yet decolonized. As a result, the small South Asian countries including Nepal have suffered. it is now high time, all South Asian countries need to come and act together against India's hegemonic and expansionist design.
It is said that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy, which implies that domestic politics sets foreign policy agenda. But this may not always be applicable in all situations and context. The foreign policy is the agenda and guidelines set by a country to deal with external powers and forces. The internal politics may change and even systemic change takes place internally, the overall foreign policy priorities and objectives remain unchanged because foreign policy of any country is always guided and strictly based on national interests. The national interest of the country does not change with the change in internal political dynamics.
The internal political dynamics and external circumstances definitely have impact on the scope and approach in the conduct of foreign policy of nations. However, it does not and should make any significant difference in the overall characteristics, dynamics and objectives of foreign policy of any country.
The defense of national boundary is the first and the foremost objective of security and foreign policy of any country. The traditional concept of defending boundary is through the military power. It is this reason why all countries in the world created strong army to defend its territory. The power and prowess of the ruler in the past used to be compared with the strength and size of the army. In the present global context characterized by technological revolution, gone are the old concepts of depending solely on military power. Media, technology, economic leverage are other tools that are more effective than military power in the conduct of foreign policy and protect national interests. The modern concept of diplomacy is to serve one\'s own national interest is through applying soft power which includes persuasion and negotiation. On the table of negotiation and in the process of persuasion, economic clout and ability of diplomatic maneuvering play crucial role. Most of the countries now opt for the soft power in the conduct of foreign and security policies.
However, there are some countries that still rely on hard power to protect national interest. This is coercive method, which has often been proved to be counterproductive. Coercion is a kind of war that, unlike persuasion, seeks to force the other side to come to terms. The war has also two aspects-- soft war and hard war. The soft war is the application of the coercive methods which includes economic sanction, media propaganda, threat and intimidation, which is being applied by the United States against North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. The hard war is the use of military power and attack which is being practiced by NATO countries in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nepal cannot afford to opt for hard power. At the same time, it has also not been able to project its soft power image in the international arena because of its diplomatic inefficiency. Nepal is small not only in physical size but also in terms of population, economy and military power. Nepal is surrounded by two giants-India and China, which are emerging as global powers in terms of economic strength and military power. China is already second largest economy and fourth largest military power in the world. India is also emerging as an international economic and military power. Nepal, therefore, can never imagine matching the military strength with its neighbours. These circumstances and conditions have limited Nepal\'s options in security and foreign policy strategy.
But we cannot and should not take these circumstances and condition for granted when it comes to defending our territory and border. But Nepal has failed to devise appropriate strategy to cope with these conditions. Perhaps, Nepal is one of the few countries in the world that do not keep surveillance on their border. As a result, our border is being constantly and deliberately encroached by our neighbour. Against this background, the best way for Nepal to protect and serve its national interest is active, wise and mature diplomacy at the bilateral and multilateral forums.
But Nepal\'s conduct of the foreign policy and diplomacy so lethargic and weak that it has not at all been able to project Nepal\'s image abroad and protect its national interest. One can easily imagine how Nepal can protect its national interest abroad when it cannot defend its own boundary. In the present context, it looks as though Nepal has no foreign policy. Nepal\'s foreign policy, if there is any, is either in the state of flux or in the state of confusion.
Although Nepal\'s foreign policy is said to be guided by adherence to the principles and ideals of non-alignment and the United Nations, the practical aspects are often wavering, which may not be compatible with its long-cherished principles. This state of flux and confusion in the conduct of foreign policy has resulted in failure and humiliation in bilateral and multilateral forums. Nepal\'s utter failure in conducting foreign policy and diplomacy can be seen in the poor dealing with a small South Asian neighbour Bhutan on the issue of refugee repatriation and also a humiliating defeat in the election for chair of UN General Assembly for 2012.
The diplomacy during the Panchayat regime was also not independent as it covertly capitulated to regional and international powers often compromising our national interest and overtly it tried to conduct foreign policy in relatively more independent way. Although it lacked democratic legitimacy back home, efforts of Panchayat in foreign policy and diplomatic front were definitely more efficient, which had boosted Nepal\'s image and clout in the international arena including the United Nations, to a large extent. Acquiring seats twice in the Security Council as a non-permanent member in the period of two decades since the entry into the comity of nations is no less significant for a small country like Nepal. This is a reflection of Nepal\'s international clout and image created by its delicate and appropriate diplomatic handling. It has now been almost two decades that Nepal has not even got a single chance in the UN Security Council. This shows weak diplomacy and inherent flaws in the conduct of our foreign policy.
Nepal is an independent and sovereign country and, in principles, has its independent foreign policy. But, so far as the practical conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy formation are concerned, our domestic agenda are set by foreigners and what to talk of foreign policy formulation and its conduct. Nothing can be more shameful and disgusting than this for an independent and sovereign country. The recent developments especially over the last couple of years are its testimony. It looks as though Nepali parties are not capable of forming their own government without foreigners\' advice and suggestions. Worse still, we either seek foreigners\' consent or provide them ground to interfere in our internal affairs. Some of our leaders and parties that claim to be patriotic also cave in to the pressure of foreigners.
Although all international powers are interested in Nepal and they are playing their own games to serve their national interest, the role and game of our immediate southern neighbour is more visible and, to a large extent, objectionable, which is not compatible with the accepted norms and values of international diplomacy and rules. The last four years since the initiation of the ongoing peace process have seen worst incidents of external meddling and interference in our domestic affairs. The 12-point agreement, which is the basis of peace process, was signed in India. New Delhi claims to have played midwifery role for the deal. India, by its conduct, tends to seek its dividend in the form of free hand in handling Nepal\'s foreign and security affairs and interference in internal politics. As the Maoists are the part of the 12-point deal that brought the insurgents into open and peaceful politics and were also established as the largest political force of Nepal, India\'s calculation was that the ex-rebels would accept New Delhi\'s diktat as other political forces had been doing. However, the Maoists did not compromise on the issue of national interest. India failed to understand that patriotism is one of the fundamental bases on which the Maoist party was created and they cannot be like other parties that are being manipulated by foreigners. In addition, Maoists\' ideological foundation is Marxism, Leninism and Maoism or MLM. The fundamental position of the MLM is opposed to imperialism, expansionism, capitalism, colonialism and neo-colonialism including globalization and liberalization. The Maoists, as the genuine follower of MLM, have designated India as an expansionist force which is flexing muscle in South Asia with support from imperialist force in the world. The fundamental policy of the Maoists is, thus, against the current Indian establishment, although the Maoists have stated that they have brotherly and friendly relationship with the people of India, most of whom are poor, downtrodden, exploited and discriminated by the ruling class. These policies were explicitly reflected in the Maoists\' documents and their leaders\' other policy speeches.
Thus, India soon changed its strategy and adopted the policy of containing Maoists in Nepal. The first anti-Maoist policy of India was visibly implemented in Rautahat almost four years ago in which criminals were brought from across the border, who killed several Maoist cadres. The Rautahat carnage is believed to have been ostensibly engineered by India\'s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the intelligence agency of India. Since then, the rift and animosity between the Indian establishment and Nepal\'s Maoists has come to the open and intensified. India adopted the policy of clipping the wings of the Maoists and completely eliminating the Maoists and other patriotic forces in Nepal. In the past, Indian policies used to be implemented in Nepal mainly through the Nepali Congress and later the CPN-UML. But it was not possible to implement Indian design through its traditional friends because the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were part of the alliance with the Maoists and they would not risk to antagonize the Maoists in the expense of the fledgling peace process. India, therefore, created Madhesi force not only to contain the Maoists but also to control Nepal\'s politics. The Madhesi groups are India\'s creation and they are working strictly on the instruction of New Delhi. This became more visible from the split of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) into two groups last year. This was done to create non-Maoist alliance and install it in power. As long as the MJF remained intact, the possibility of the formation of non-Maoist government was not possible because chairman of the MJF was in favour of the alliance with Maoists, which was against India\'s policy.
The second split in the MJF was also engineered by India on the eve of extension of the life of the Constituent Assembly (CA). The ruling coalition that consisted of the Maoists, CPN-UML and the MJF had the initial plan to extend the CA term and accordingly registered a bill in parliament. Even if other parties did not extend support, there was a fair chance for the passage of the bill by a two-thirds of members of parliament which the ruling coalition had commanded. By splitting the MJF once again the ruling coalition was deprived of the two-third majority. This shows that Indian interference is naked and blatant in Nepal.
If the developments and incidents in the recent past particularly after the Jana Andolan II in 2006 are any indication, foreigners and external forces are setting our political agenda, which is most unfortunate on the part of the patriotic Nepalese people. The external meddling in Nepal has been an open secret since the Sugauli Treaty that was imposed upon Nepal by the British imperial power in 1814 after a protected war. The Independent India has claimed to be the successor of colonial power and has continued to adopt colonial policy towards its small weak neighbours including Nepal. The continuity of colonial policy is a fact that India is not yet decolonized. As a result, the small South Asian countries including Nepal have suffered. it is now high time, all South Asian countries need to come and act together against India's hegemonic and expansionist design.
Comments
Post a Comment