Foreign Policy And National Interest
Yuba Nath Lamsal
In the absence of a clear-cut definition, the national interest often gets blurred. Different forces and people interpret national interest differently to suit their own personal and partisan agenda. Only a definition of national interest will determine the broader objective and strategy of our foreign policy. Prior to foreign policy formulation, it is necessary to articulate a broader national goal to be achieved in the international front. The national goal and interest alone will guide the country’s foreign policy.
Most countries in the world have a broad yet specific definition of national interest and their foreign policy goal. However, Nepal does not seem to have one. As a result, our foreign policy is conducted on an ad hoc basis. This is one of the reasons why our foreign policy priority has vacillated at times with the change of government. Frequent swings and shift in foreign policy and its priorities ruin the country’s credibility in the international community.
Clear goals
The foreign policy goal should basically be of a short-term and long-term nature, which should be clear and not ambiguous. Based on the long-term goal, short-term strategies are adjusted and approaches are devised to meet the broader goals and national interest. A school of thought in foreign policy and international diplomacy advocates that a country should not have a rigid and fixed foreign policy. Foreign policy is an issue that must be adjusted with the changing international scenario.
National interest alone is a permanent thing that sets the overall goal and agenda of foreign policy. As in politics and the security sphere, foreign policy, too, has its strategic and tactical values and steps. With the turn of events in the international arena, a country adopts its strategy and tactics to meet its national interest and achieve the foreign policy goal.
The means adopted for achieving the specific objectives need not and should not be single or static but varied and dynamic. Foreign policy options should be left open so that the interlocutors of foreign policy as well as the government can adopt different strategies out of the many options available to ensure that its national interests are best protected.
But this is not to say that the foreign ministry or even the government should be left with the arbitrary power to decide on foreign policy beyond the national mandate. Foreign policy is not a monopoly of a particular party or government. It should be developed on the basis of national consensus so that the fundamental principles of the conduct of foreign policy does not vacillate and change with the change of government.
For this, the parliament can formulate a broader framework in consultation with different stakeholders like the civil society, professional bodies, the business community and diplomats. The government then can act within the jurisdiction and framework provided by Parliament.
Geography, the level of economic development, nature and volume of trade, political setting and tradition, cultural and social values, military strength, physical and population size and location constitute conditions for foreign policy strategy. In the case of Nepal, we have limited options.
In terms of size, population, economic and military strength and trade scenario, Nepal is in a weak position. In addition, its landlocked nature has further limited our options. We have no choice other than to deal with our two immediate neighbours - India and China. The mountain terrain has made business, economic and other contacts with China difficult, compelling Nepal to rely heavily on India for trade and transit. This geopolitical situation has made Nepal’s foreign policy India-centric.
Nepal’s current boundary was determined by the Sugauli Treaty concluded between Nepal and British India in 1816. Following the treat, Nepal’s international contact was limited to British India. Although foreign policy as such had not yet been devised and developed, the survival strategy was the sole objective of Nepal, which determined its policy and relationship with other countries.
Nepal had already lost sizable territory in the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-16. Nepal knew well that British imperialism was very powerful and any attempt to antagonise the British would cost Nepal dearly. Thus, Nepal adopted the policy of appeasing the British rulers in India, which was viewed by the rulers in Nepal as the best way to safeguard Nepal’s independent political identity. This policy continued until 1951.
The political change in 1951 brought about a new era in Nepal’s foreign policy as well. As Nepal opened up to the outside world, Nepal slowly tried to diversify its relations with other countries. In 1955, diplomatic relationship with China was established. And Nepal began expanding its relations with countries around the world. Despite Nepal’s efforts to diversify its relations in the world, its basic foreign policy was constrained due to the geographical conditions.
But Nepal failed to explore its strategic and other options which could have given rise to a more independent foreign policy. Nepal continued to harp on the concept of a ‘yam between two huge boulders’ without making any efforts to redefine and remold its strategy.
By the time Nepal entered the United Nations, much change had taken place in the international arena and power politics. The international situation had also changed. British imperialism had already left South Asia. India got independence from British rule in 1947 whereas at the same time a new nation - Pakistan - was created out of what used to British India.
Similarly, the United Kingdom, which was a global superpower and had its presence on all continents prior to World War II, was reduced to a mere European power. Although the Allied power led by the United Kingdom won the war over the Axis power in World War II, the United Kingdom was heavily weakened as it lost colonies one after another. After World War II, the United States emerged as the superpower of the capitalist camp whereas the Soviet Union led the socialist world challenging the monopoly of the United States in world politics. A new balance of power emerged in the international power politics, which is known as the Cold War era. The world got divided into two distinct blocs.
But newly independent countries - the Third World - like Nepal refused to align themselves with any of the two camps. The newly independent and liberated countries needed the goodwill and support of all the countries in the world, irrespective of ideology and political system, for the consolidation of independence, freedom and democracy. The non-aligned movement is the outcome of this thinking in international diplomacy.
The democratic political era that began with the overthrow of the Rana regime in 1951, which also ushered in a new thinking and diversification in Nepal’s foreign policy, temporarily came to an end in 1960 following King’s Mahendra’s authoritarian step to dismantle democracy. Although the Panchayat era was a dark period from the democratic political standpoint, it was epoch-making from the perspective of Nepal’s foreign policy and international relations.
The credit for adopting a non-aligned foreign policy basically goes to King Mahendra and the Panchayat regime. Also it was a period that saw expanded diplomatic relations with a host of nations in the world, which was given continuity by his successor King Birendra. King’s Birendra’s period, too, is notable as it marked an era of pro-active foreign policy that enhanced Nepal’s image in the international community.
This was a period when Nepal was twice elected to the United Nations Security Council from the quota of non-permanent seats. This was a remarkable feat of Nepal’s foreign policy, which the country has not been able to achieve in more than two decades after the 1990 political change. The Zone of Peace proposal which was recognised widely in the international community and supported by 116 countries was no less an achievement of Nepal. Unfortunately, this was scuttled soon after the 1990 political change for reasons not known. The ZoP proposal was a good initiative to boost Nepal’s international image, which should have been continued by the later regimes.
Coping with newer challenges
This swing in foreign policy is the result of lack of definition of national interest. National interest does not change with the change of regimes. However, Nepal’s national interest was interpreted as a strategy to protect the regimes. This caused oscillation and vacillation in our foreign policy. Now it is high time we defined our national interest in clear terms and accordingly adopted a foreign policy strategy to cope with newer challenges in the present complex globalised world.
In the absence of a clear-cut definition, the national interest often gets blurred. Different forces and people interpret national interest differently to suit their own personal and partisan agenda. Only a definition of national interest will determine the broader objective and strategy of our foreign policy. Prior to foreign policy formulation, it is necessary to articulate a broader national goal to be achieved in the international front. The national goal and interest alone will guide the country’s foreign policy.
Most countries in the world have a broad yet specific definition of national interest and their foreign policy goal. However, Nepal does not seem to have one. As a result, our foreign policy is conducted on an ad hoc basis. This is one of the reasons why our foreign policy priority has vacillated at times with the change of government. Frequent swings and shift in foreign policy and its priorities ruin the country’s credibility in the international community.
Clear goals
The foreign policy goal should basically be of a short-term and long-term nature, which should be clear and not ambiguous. Based on the long-term goal, short-term strategies are adjusted and approaches are devised to meet the broader goals and national interest. A school of thought in foreign policy and international diplomacy advocates that a country should not have a rigid and fixed foreign policy. Foreign policy is an issue that must be adjusted with the changing international scenario.
National interest alone is a permanent thing that sets the overall goal and agenda of foreign policy. As in politics and the security sphere, foreign policy, too, has its strategic and tactical values and steps. With the turn of events in the international arena, a country adopts its strategy and tactics to meet its national interest and achieve the foreign policy goal.
The means adopted for achieving the specific objectives need not and should not be single or static but varied and dynamic. Foreign policy options should be left open so that the interlocutors of foreign policy as well as the government can adopt different strategies out of the many options available to ensure that its national interests are best protected.
But this is not to say that the foreign ministry or even the government should be left with the arbitrary power to decide on foreign policy beyond the national mandate. Foreign policy is not a monopoly of a particular party or government. It should be developed on the basis of national consensus so that the fundamental principles of the conduct of foreign policy does not vacillate and change with the change of government.
For this, the parliament can formulate a broader framework in consultation with different stakeholders like the civil society, professional bodies, the business community and diplomats. The government then can act within the jurisdiction and framework provided by Parliament.
Geography, the level of economic development, nature and volume of trade, political setting and tradition, cultural and social values, military strength, physical and population size and location constitute conditions for foreign policy strategy. In the case of Nepal, we have limited options.
In terms of size, population, economic and military strength and trade scenario, Nepal is in a weak position. In addition, its landlocked nature has further limited our options. We have no choice other than to deal with our two immediate neighbours - India and China. The mountain terrain has made business, economic and other contacts with China difficult, compelling Nepal to rely heavily on India for trade and transit. This geopolitical situation has made Nepal’s foreign policy India-centric.
Nepal’s current boundary was determined by the Sugauli Treaty concluded between Nepal and British India in 1816. Following the treat, Nepal’s international contact was limited to British India. Although foreign policy as such had not yet been devised and developed, the survival strategy was the sole objective of Nepal, which determined its policy and relationship with other countries.
Nepal had already lost sizable territory in the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-16. Nepal knew well that British imperialism was very powerful and any attempt to antagonise the British would cost Nepal dearly. Thus, Nepal adopted the policy of appeasing the British rulers in India, which was viewed by the rulers in Nepal as the best way to safeguard Nepal’s independent political identity. This policy continued until 1951.
The political change in 1951 brought about a new era in Nepal’s foreign policy as well. As Nepal opened up to the outside world, Nepal slowly tried to diversify its relations with other countries. In 1955, diplomatic relationship with China was established. And Nepal began expanding its relations with countries around the world. Despite Nepal’s efforts to diversify its relations in the world, its basic foreign policy was constrained due to the geographical conditions.
But Nepal failed to explore its strategic and other options which could have given rise to a more independent foreign policy. Nepal continued to harp on the concept of a ‘yam between two huge boulders’ without making any efforts to redefine and remold its strategy.
By the time Nepal entered the United Nations, much change had taken place in the international arena and power politics. The international situation had also changed. British imperialism had already left South Asia. India got independence from British rule in 1947 whereas at the same time a new nation - Pakistan - was created out of what used to British India.
Similarly, the United Kingdom, which was a global superpower and had its presence on all continents prior to World War II, was reduced to a mere European power. Although the Allied power led by the United Kingdom won the war over the Axis power in World War II, the United Kingdom was heavily weakened as it lost colonies one after another. After World War II, the United States emerged as the superpower of the capitalist camp whereas the Soviet Union led the socialist world challenging the monopoly of the United States in world politics. A new balance of power emerged in the international power politics, which is known as the Cold War era. The world got divided into two distinct blocs.
But newly independent countries - the Third World - like Nepal refused to align themselves with any of the two camps. The newly independent and liberated countries needed the goodwill and support of all the countries in the world, irrespective of ideology and political system, for the consolidation of independence, freedom and democracy. The non-aligned movement is the outcome of this thinking in international diplomacy.
The democratic political era that began with the overthrow of the Rana regime in 1951, which also ushered in a new thinking and diversification in Nepal’s foreign policy, temporarily came to an end in 1960 following King’s Mahendra’s authoritarian step to dismantle democracy. Although the Panchayat era was a dark period from the democratic political standpoint, it was epoch-making from the perspective of Nepal’s foreign policy and international relations.
The credit for adopting a non-aligned foreign policy basically goes to King Mahendra and the Panchayat regime. Also it was a period that saw expanded diplomatic relations with a host of nations in the world, which was given continuity by his successor King Birendra. King’s Birendra’s period, too, is notable as it marked an era of pro-active foreign policy that enhanced Nepal’s image in the international community.
This was a period when Nepal was twice elected to the United Nations Security Council from the quota of non-permanent seats. This was a remarkable feat of Nepal’s foreign policy, which the country has not been able to achieve in more than two decades after the 1990 political change. The Zone of Peace proposal which was recognised widely in the international community and supported by 116 countries was no less an achievement of Nepal. Unfortunately, this was scuttled soon after the 1990 political change for reasons not known. The ZoP proposal was a good initiative to boost Nepal’s international image, which should have been continued by the later regimes.
Coping with newer challenges
This swing in foreign policy is the result of lack of definition of national interest. National interest does not change with the change of regimes. However, Nepal’s national interest was interpreted as a strategy to protect the regimes. This caused oscillation and vacillation in our foreign policy. Now it is high time we defined our national interest in clear terms and accordingly adopted a foreign policy strategy to cope with newer challenges in the present complex globalised world.
Comments
Post a Comment