Nepal's misguided foreign policy needs correction
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The foreign policy issues and conduct of diplomacy are both simple andintricate. It is simple because the foreign policy is the extension of thedomestic policy and if the domestic policy is clear, it would also be easierto set foreign policy goals and conduct diplomacy accordingly. It becomesproblematic only when the domestic polices get complicated that make foreignpolicy goal blur. Since the foreign policy is guided by the nationalinterests, the internal policies often dictate the foreign policy agendawhich make the job of interlocutors of foreign policy of a particularcountry easier.The conduct of foreign policy is intricate in the sense that the conduct offoreign policy and diplomacy is something like sailing through murky andtricky water of international power politics, in which two plus two is notalways four. The conduct of the foreign policy may be simple for big powersbecause they have set agenda and tools in the conduct of diplomacy. Theyapply multiple strategies to achieve their foreign policy goals. Thepowerful countries have better economic clout, military strength andtechnological control, which serve as the backing force for their conduct offoreign policy in the international arena. The use of soft power like mediaand money are their first priority to achieve their goals in theinternational politics. Should soft power strategy fail, they use the hardpower or military means to bring the certain country or ruler to theirterms.The more difficult and complicated it becomes for a poor, resource strappedand weaker countries like Nepal that does not have powerful tool toinfluence in the world of diplomacy. The poor and weaker countries likeNepal do not have resources and capability to resort to coercive diplomacybut have to rely on soft diplomacy. Against this background, the best toolof foreign policy conduct should be a wise and shrewd diplomacy that notonly protects one's national interests but also keeps the reputation andimage on the international political spotlight, which Nepal should follow.The diplomacy becomes weaker when the definition of interest blurs. InNepal's case, the national interest has never been the priority of foreignpolicy. In the past, the national interest was defined to suit the interestof the regime and all strategies at home and abroad were made to protect theinterests of the regime and its masters. This was so because the regime didnot command popular legitimacy. When the ruler's paramount goal was toprotect the regime, it capitulated to foreign powers often compromising thenational interests.The international power politics has been further complicated at the presentmulti-polar world. The Cold War had polarized the international communityinto the United States and the Soviet Union. The bipartisanism in theinternational power politics also had a serious impact on the execution ofdiplomacy for every country in the world. Although many of the developingcountries chose to remain neutral and joined the non-aligned movementrefusing to enter into any of the two blocs, it did not happen so inpractice. Every country, one way or the other, had to show their allegianceto either of the camps on each and every international issue. This was adifficult situation for countries like Nepal because it had to have friendlyrelationship with the countries belonging to both the blocs. This wasNepal's compulsion because of its geo-strategic location as Nepal issituated between India and China having opposite stance on the internationalsituation during the Cold War. Although both China and India had, inprinciple, stated that they would not align with any of the two blocs,India, in practice, had entered into strategic and military pact with theSoviet Union whereas China was opposed to it. Non-alignment policy was,thus, Nepal's compulsion rather than choice.The international situation changed after the collapse of Soviet Unioncreating a unipolar world led by the United States. Some analysts describedthe new situation characterized by the unipolar world as easier one forsmaller and weaker countries that could not afford to align with any bloc.But the end of the Cold War did not ease the situation in the internationalarena because the global conflict turned into numerous regional conflicts.In such a situation, the smaller and weaker countries found it difficult tomaintain their neutral stance when the conflict took their next door.The unipolar world is not likely to remain for a long time. The world issoon going to be a multi-polar one because some new powers are emergingclearly challenging the United States of America. Although China hasrepeatedly made its position clear by stating that it by no means wants tobe a super power, its economic and military might has already created Chinaas a global power and likely to be super power in near future. China isalready second largest economy and fourth mightiest military power. Within acouple of decades, China has been projected to be the largest economy andalso the super power. Similarly, the Russian Federation is also revivingfast its earlier image of the global power and all indications havesuggested that Russians would be key world power in near future. Similarly,the countries like South Africa and Brazil are also emerging as globalpowers. This changing situation is a testimony of the fact that the worldwould no longer remain the unipolar but turn into a multi-polar one.In this new situation, the conduct of diplomacy would be further complicatedespecially for Nepal as it is situated between two rival economies andmilitary powers-China and India. China is already a global power whereasIndia is flexing its military muscle in South Asia with backing from theUnited States.Moreover, the traditional concept of foreign policy and security has changeddrastically in the world due to technological revolution. The improvementand innovation in communication and transportation technology and facilitieshave diminished the size of the world making it a small global village.Incidents taken place in one corner of the globe immediately reacheverywhere and create reactions immediately from all over the world. Therevolution in information technology has made communication process easierand shorter because of which countries can reach out to other immediatelyand instantly as and when certain event takes place and developments occur.The technological innovations have indeed made the job of diplomats mucheasier. But challenges for diplomats and interlocutors of foreign policycontinue to remain as daunting as ever.If we look at the case of Nepal, it becomes clearer that we have not beenable to extract maximum benefits from the newer technological evolution andchanged international situation. Nepal's diplomacy, instead, is becomingweaker and less effective. The world of diplomacy has become morechallenging and sometimes frustrating when one fails to cope with thechanged national and international context. So is with Nepal as diplomatschosen to pursue Nepal's national interests abroad and uphold Nepal's imagein the international arena have often seem to have failed miserably. Butthere is no measuring rod to judge who fared better and who failed in theabsence of clear-cult guidelines and priorities of foreign policy anddiplomacy with particular country. Most diplomats are chosen on the basis oftheir loyalty and link with the party/parties or person in power but not onmerit and capability. One can easily imagine how hand-picked person who doesnot have any knack and knowledge of basics of diplomacy and internationalaffairs can fare better.Moreover, the failure of setting foreign policy priorities impacted on theappropriate conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy. During the Panchayatera and even after, the foreign policy basis was defined as unflinchingfaith on the ideals of the United Nations and the principle ofnon-alignment. There is no shade of doubt that Nepal must have faith in theUnited Nations. The interests of poor, small and weaker countries like Nepallies on strong and effective United Nations. Despite such rhetoric andpolicy of many countries in the world, the United Nations has not beenstrong enough and effective in tackling the challenges that the developingcountries are facing. It is being increasingly felt that the United Nationshas become an instrument to legitimize the actions-both moral and immoral-of the western big powers specially the United States of America. This ismainly so because of the economic and military influence of the big powersin the international arena. The actions and decisions of the big powers donot necessarily match with the interests of developing countries in theworld. But the voice of the small countries is so meek in the United Nationsthat their concerns are either not heard or simply not listened to. Thesmall countries in the developing world take part in the annual generalassembly meeting of the United Nations and adopt resolution on variousinternational issues and problems. But such resolutions are only morallybinding which are often not implemented. The real decision making powerrests with the Security Council that too with five permanent members havinga veto power. The developing countries do not have due representation in theUnited Nations Security Council and they have no say in the decision-makingof the world body. In this context, the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy must be wiseand pragmatic to uphold Nepal's image in the international arena. Nepal doesnot have options other than diplomacy. Thus, the diplomacy must be effectiveand shrewd. The first and the foremost priority of foreign policy should bethe protection of national interests. But national interest never becamepriority of our foreign policy. During the Panchayat, Nepal's foreign policywas conducted from the Narayanhity Palace and the entire efforts of itsdiplomacy were to gain international legitimacy and support of theinternational community for king's absolute regime. After the politicalchange in 1990, the Nepali Congress regime spelled out the basis of Nepal'sforeign policy as being democracy and human rights. The democracy and humanrights may be the basis of the relationship with the countries but cannot bethe guiding principle of foreign policy. But the minority government of theCPN-UML was quick to correct the foreign policy of the country and definedthe national interest as the fundamental goal foreign policy of Nepal.However, this government lived short and the conduct of foreign policy anddiplomacy remained under the shadow of instability. This has continued eventoday which needs to be reversed so that national interests guide theforeign policy and conduct of diplomacy.
The foreign policy issues and conduct of diplomacy are both simple andintricate. It is simple because the foreign policy is the extension of thedomestic policy and if the domestic policy is clear, it would also be easierto set foreign policy goals and conduct diplomacy accordingly. It becomesproblematic only when the domestic polices get complicated that make foreignpolicy goal blur. Since the foreign policy is guided by the nationalinterests, the internal policies often dictate the foreign policy agendawhich make the job of interlocutors of foreign policy of a particularcountry easier.The conduct of foreign policy is intricate in the sense that the conduct offoreign policy and diplomacy is something like sailing through murky andtricky water of international power politics, in which two plus two is notalways four. The conduct of the foreign policy may be simple for big powersbecause they have set agenda and tools in the conduct of diplomacy. Theyapply multiple strategies to achieve their foreign policy goals. Thepowerful countries have better economic clout, military strength andtechnological control, which serve as the backing force for their conduct offoreign policy in the international arena. The use of soft power like mediaand money are their first priority to achieve their goals in theinternational politics. Should soft power strategy fail, they use the hardpower or military means to bring the certain country or ruler to theirterms.The more difficult and complicated it becomes for a poor, resource strappedand weaker countries like Nepal that does not have powerful tool toinfluence in the world of diplomacy. The poor and weaker countries likeNepal do not have resources and capability to resort to coercive diplomacybut have to rely on soft diplomacy. Against this background, the best toolof foreign policy conduct should be a wise and shrewd diplomacy that notonly protects one's national interests but also keeps the reputation andimage on the international political spotlight, which Nepal should follow.The diplomacy becomes weaker when the definition of interest blurs. InNepal's case, the national interest has never been the priority of foreignpolicy. In the past, the national interest was defined to suit the interestof the regime and all strategies at home and abroad were made to protect theinterests of the regime and its masters. This was so because the regime didnot command popular legitimacy. When the ruler's paramount goal was toprotect the regime, it capitulated to foreign powers often compromising thenational interests.The international power politics has been further complicated at the presentmulti-polar world. The Cold War had polarized the international communityinto the United States and the Soviet Union. The bipartisanism in theinternational power politics also had a serious impact on the execution ofdiplomacy for every country in the world. Although many of the developingcountries chose to remain neutral and joined the non-aligned movementrefusing to enter into any of the two blocs, it did not happen so inpractice. Every country, one way or the other, had to show their allegianceto either of the camps on each and every international issue. This was adifficult situation for countries like Nepal because it had to have friendlyrelationship with the countries belonging to both the blocs. This wasNepal's compulsion because of its geo-strategic location as Nepal issituated between India and China having opposite stance on the internationalsituation during the Cold War. Although both China and India had, inprinciple, stated that they would not align with any of the two blocs,India, in practice, had entered into strategic and military pact with theSoviet Union whereas China was opposed to it. Non-alignment policy was,thus, Nepal's compulsion rather than choice.The international situation changed after the collapse of Soviet Unioncreating a unipolar world led by the United States. Some analysts describedthe new situation characterized by the unipolar world as easier one forsmaller and weaker countries that could not afford to align with any bloc.But the end of the Cold War did not ease the situation in the internationalarena because the global conflict turned into numerous regional conflicts.In such a situation, the smaller and weaker countries found it difficult tomaintain their neutral stance when the conflict took their next door.The unipolar world is not likely to remain for a long time. The world issoon going to be a multi-polar one because some new powers are emergingclearly challenging the United States of America. Although China hasrepeatedly made its position clear by stating that it by no means wants tobe a super power, its economic and military might has already created Chinaas a global power and likely to be super power in near future. China isalready second largest economy and fourth mightiest military power. Within acouple of decades, China has been projected to be the largest economy andalso the super power. Similarly, the Russian Federation is also revivingfast its earlier image of the global power and all indications havesuggested that Russians would be key world power in near future. Similarly,the countries like South Africa and Brazil are also emerging as globalpowers. This changing situation is a testimony of the fact that the worldwould no longer remain the unipolar but turn into a multi-polar one.In this new situation, the conduct of diplomacy would be further complicatedespecially for Nepal as it is situated between two rival economies andmilitary powers-China and India. China is already a global power whereasIndia is flexing its military muscle in South Asia with backing from theUnited States.Moreover, the traditional concept of foreign policy and security has changeddrastically in the world due to technological revolution. The improvementand innovation in communication and transportation technology and facilitieshave diminished the size of the world making it a small global village.Incidents taken place in one corner of the globe immediately reacheverywhere and create reactions immediately from all over the world. Therevolution in information technology has made communication process easierand shorter because of which countries can reach out to other immediatelyand instantly as and when certain event takes place and developments occur.The technological innovations have indeed made the job of diplomats mucheasier. But challenges for diplomats and interlocutors of foreign policycontinue to remain as daunting as ever.If we look at the case of Nepal, it becomes clearer that we have not beenable to extract maximum benefits from the newer technological evolution andchanged international situation. Nepal's diplomacy, instead, is becomingweaker and less effective. The world of diplomacy has become morechallenging and sometimes frustrating when one fails to cope with thechanged national and international context. So is with Nepal as diplomatschosen to pursue Nepal's national interests abroad and uphold Nepal's imagein the international arena have often seem to have failed miserably. Butthere is no measuring rod to judge who fared better and who failed in theabsence of clear-cult guidelines and priorities of foreign policy anddiplomacy with particular country. Most diplomats are chosen on the basis oftheir loyalty and link with the party/parties or person in power but not onmerit and capability. One can easily imagine how hand-picked person who doesnot have any knack and knowledge of basics of diplomacy and internationalaffairs can fare better.Moreover, the failure of setting foreign policy priorities impacted on theappropriate conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy. During the Panchayatera and even after, the foreign policy basis was defined as unflinchingfaith on the ideals of the United Nations and the principle ofnon-alignment. There is no shade of doubt that Nepal must have faith in theUnited Nations. The interests of poor, small and weaker countries like Nepallies on strong and effective United Nations. Despite such rhetoric andpolicy of many countries in the world, the United Nations has not beenstrong enough and effective in tackling the challenges that the developingcountries are facing. It is being increasingly felt that the United Nationshas become an instrument to legitimize the actions-both moral and immoral-of the western big powers specially the United States of America. This ismainly so because of the economic and military influence of the big powersin the international arena. The actions and decisions of the big powers donot necessarily match with the interests of developing countries in theworld. But the voice of the small countries is so meek in the United Nationsthat their concerns are either not heard or simply not listened to. Thesmall countries in the developing world take part in the annual generalassembly meeting of the United Nations and adopt resolution on variousinternational issues and problems. But such resolutions are only morallybinding which are often not implemented. The real decision making powerrests with the Security Council that too with five permanent members havinga veto power. The developing countries do not have due representation in theUnited Nations Security Council and they have no say in the decision-makingof the world body. In this context, the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy must be wiseand pragmatic to uphold Nepal's image in the international arena. Nepal doesnot have options other than diplomacy. Thus, the diplomacy must be effectiveand shrewd. The first and the foremost priority of foreign policy should bethe protection of national interests. But national interest never becamepriority of our foreign policy. During the Panchayat, Nepal's foreign policywas conducted from the Narayanhity Palace and the entire efforts of itsdiplomacy were to gain international legitimacy and support of theinternational community for king's absolute regime. After the politicalchange in 1990, the Nepali Congress regime spelled out the basis of Nepal'sforeign policy as being democracy and human rights. The democracy and humanrights may be the basis of the relationship with the countries but cannot bethe guiding principle of foreign policy. But the minority government of theCPN-UML was quick to correct the foreign policy of the country and definedthe national interest as the fundamental goal foreign policy of Nepal.However, this government lived short and the conduct of foreign policy anddiplomacy remained under the shadow of instability. This has continued eventoday which needs to be reversed so that national interests guide theforeign policy and conduct of diplomacy.
Comments
Post a Comment