Reshaping foreign policy priorities in the changed context

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Articulating the 19^th century’s British foreign policy in clearer and forceful manner, Hennery John Temple Palmerstone, who served as British prime minister two terms and also served as the foreign secretary under Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, way back in 1948, said, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow”. He made these remarks in the House of Commons in reply to queries of parliamentarians on post World War II British foreign policy. His articulation of foreign policy is so apt that they are not only the bases of British foreign policy but the guidance and inspiration for foreign policy makers of the entire world. It is now more than 64 years since he spoke about British foreign policy. But these remarks are as valid today as they were more than half a century ago.

In politics as well as diplomacy, there is, definitely, neither permanent friend nor permanent enemy. But there is always permanent interest, for which countries and governments pursue their foreign and strategic tools in the realm of international politics.  The countries clearly define the priorities of their foreign policy to protect their national interests and accordingly apply them. The foreign policy tools vary depending upon objective domestic and international situation and country’s geo-political conditions. The foreign policy tools that are appropriate in one given time or with a particular country and condition may be redundant and unsuitable in another given situation and with other country. The overall goal and strategy of foreign policy remains constant that is guided by the national interest  and the approach of achieving this goal may vary which can be determined by foreign policy interlocutors and diplomats assigned for a particular task.

There is, of course, no hard and fast rule in the conduct of the foreign policy and diplomacy. It is, therefore, said that no fixed foreign policy is the best foreign policy. This is a view of one school of thought. Some people term it as a pragmatic school of thought in foreign policy formulation and conduct. According to people who subscribe to this school are of the view that national interest is the goal whereas foreign policy and diplomacy are the key tools that play important role towards achieving the fundamental goal of the country in the international arena. In case of a fixed foreign policy tool, a country will have limited options to respond to new international situation.

The world is changing fast and getting complicated. With the unprecedented invention and innovation in the field of science and technology in general and information and communication technology (ICT) in particular, the world has become a small global village and it is getting narrower. In this modern and changed national and international scenario, traditional approach in the conduct of foreign policy cannot meet the newer challenges the world is facing. In the conduct of foreign policy, a broad perspective with concrete definition of national interest and priorities is highly required. The narrow perspective only limits the scope and jurisdiction of foreign policy interlocutors, which may not cope with the present day international scenario characterized by multiple complexities. More leeway and leverage are given to the foreign policy interlocutors to determine the course of actions and foreign policy tools to deal with the particular situation and with the particular country keeping national interest at the centre stage.

The concept of foreign policy, therefore, is a new phenomenon, although the basic tenets and features of dealing with external forces and countries had been devised long ago differently by different countries. But these policies were basically guided by military doctrine as the countries were heavily militarized and the concept of nation state had hardly emerged.

So far as Nepal's foreign policy is concerned, it is ambiguous, vacillating and unclear. In fact, those who are in charge of the formulation and conduct of Nepal’s foreign policy are not aware what exactly are our national interests, priorities and tools. Prior to the unification of Nepal, there was no foreign policy at all. Even after the unification and until 1950, Nepal did not have its defined national interest and foreign policy. Since national interest was not defined, there was no question of formulating foreign policy and its priorities and tools. Foreign policy is said to be the extension of domestic policy. Nepal’s policy was guided more by military doctrine rather than any concrete domestic as well as foreign policy for a longtime until 1951 political change. Prior to 1951, the national interests were defined as the interests of the rulers. The situation did not significantly change and improve even after the 1951 political change especially on matters pertaining to foreign policy. But this political change was the phenomenal event that brought about a new sense of thinking and awareness in politics and other sectors. This political change also opened up avenues for diversifying our relations with the international community and formulating foreign policy. However, foreign policy as such was not devised but the age old military doctrine was given continuity, which was said to be the foreign policy.

Most Nepalese tend to believe that Prithivi Narayana Shah, who unified several small principalities into a single Nepal, was the principal propagator of Nepal’s foreign policy. In his wise counsels to his successors, Prithivi Narayana Shah has described Nepal as a ‘yam between the two boulders’ referring to Nepal’s geostrategic position and location as it is between the two big and powerful countries—Chinese empire to the north and British colonial empire to the south. In his counsels, he has suggested the authorities to remain watchful against the southern rulers, who are very clever or cunning, and be friendly with the northern rulers. This implies that Nepal should be very cautious in dealing with British (current India) and be cooperative with China that is relatively more trustworthy. This is taken as a basis for Nepal’s foreign policy. But this, too, is not the overall basis of Nepal’s foreign policy but can be dubbed as the neighborhood policy. Although situation has vastly changed compared to the period of Prithivi Narayana Shah, the analysis about our two immediate neighbors is as valid today as it was during those years.  Although British colonial rulers left India way back in 1947, the colonial policies continue even today so far as New Delhi’s Nepal policy is concerned.

 Nepali foreign policy is based on this concept and our foreign policy makers still describe Nepal’s position as a yam between the two boulders and talks of equi-distance or equi-proximity as the basis of relations with our two powerful neighbors. But the concept of equidistance or equi-proximity is not a foreign policy basis but military doctrine. This is an example how Nepal has still not come up with a clear-cut definition of foreign policy and its priorities. Similarly, gone are the days to geo-strategically define Nepal as a ‘yam between the two boulders’. The yam concept limits our foreign policy scope, which implies that our foreign policy should be shaped in line with the relations and policies with the two immediate neighbors. Nepal is a sovereign and independent country and it should formulate and advance its foreign policy independently. Both China and India are our important neighbors but their policies do not and should not necessarily shape our foreign policy. We need to come out of the old concept of conditioned foreign policy which we have been practicing for years, decades and even centuries.

The world has changed so is our national situation. We are not in Rana era nor are we in 1951 or 1960s. We are in the era of globalization and our foreign policy too needs to be shaped in line with the globalized world rising above the narrow concept of ‘yam between the two boulders’. Although geo-political condition is a major determinant in formulating foreign policy but it is not the sole factor in the present world in which people and countries have overcome and transcended the geographical barriers. In the past, south was the only Nepal’s opening to the rest of the world because Himalaya had been a great barrier for the northern opening. But situation has changed with China building infrastructure in Tibet and connecting it with the rest of China by railway network, which is already close to our border. This will provide us tremendous opportunities for our development, trade and even diversifying our international relations.

The political considerations, too, have changed which are more favorable for Nepal to reshape its foreign policy. The historic popular movement of 2006 that abolished 24-year old monarchy and declared Nepal a federal democratic republic is a positive development which has been hailed by the international community. This is an opportunity for Nepal to take maximum benefit from the international community for peace, stability, development and economic transformation. This has proved us with a scope to redefine, reshape and reprioritize our foreign policy to cope with the newer challenges and problems taken place in our own neighborhood, region and in the world. As articulated by former British Prime Minister, we, too, have no enemy—either permanent or temporary. We have only friends because Nepal does not tend to harbor any ill-will and animosity towards any country in the world. If we have any foe, that is poverty and backwardness. The international community has tremendous goodwill for us, which we must utilize for our development. But the first and the foremost necessity at present is to reorient our foreign policy.