Nepal’s foreign policy needs change more than continuity

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Nepal is situated in a unique geo-strategic location, which has further strengthened and enlarged its strategic value and significance in the international arena in general and in the regional power politics of Asia. Nepal is not only a country between the world’s two fastest growing economies but also a bridge between South Asia and East Asia—the regions that have attracted more international attention and priority because of their rising economic and military power and prowess.

Based on the newer concept on international relations and developments in the region, Nepal should reshape its foreign policy and extract maximum benefit out of this geo-strategic situation. However, our politicians, bureaucrats and foreign policy interlocutors have not been able to utilize this strategic opportunity in the optimum interest of the country. This is either because our policy makers and people who are in-charge of conducting diplomatic affairs and foreign policy are simply unaware of this opportunity or they are acting at others’ behest.

The world has changed tremendously due to technological innovation and advancement.  What used to be impossible in a few years or a decade ago has now become a reality. The revolution in the information technology has reduced the world into a small global village and people of any corner of the world lucky enough to have instant access to information of any part of the world with a click of computer mouse. Accordingly the old concepts in all areas of knowledge and other activities have also taken a paradigm shift and new concepts have evolved. Similar case is with the foreign policy and concept of national interest as well as international security. However, Nepal’s concept and style of conducting its diplomacy and foreign policy is based on the medieval concept. We have still not come out of this outdated style of functioning and thinking especially when it comes to the formulation and conduct of our foreign policy.

 Foreign policy, as it is said, is an extension of domestic policy. A sea change has taken place in the sphere of our domestic policy and politics. But our foreign policy and its conduct are guided by the concepts and conditions of the early 20^th century. We have seen systemic changes in our policy and governance. In terms of policy, too, Nepal has undergone a big change and transformation. During this period, we have overthrown the oligarchic system of Ranas and brought about a new era of liberal democracy for the first time in 1951. When the multi-party system was trampled with the brutal boots of the king, Nepal came under king’s absolute and authoritarian  regime for three decades denying the basic political and civil rights of the people. The sustained struggle of the Nepalese people not only put the absolute regime of the king to an end but also finally abolished monarchy thereby declaring Nepal as a federal democratic republic. These changes are epoch-making and phenomenal, which have huge impact not only on Nepal’s internal political life but also have regional influence and impact.

However, these changes have hardly been reflected in our foreign policy. Foreign policy is something that should not remain rigid and the priorities and conduct of foreign policy need change based on the changes in both national and international situation. Continuity and change are the basic features of foreign policy of any country including Nepal which we must realize. In the name of continuity, we should never remain rigid and give continuity to the old concepts that are no longer relevant and valid in the present changed context. We have to adapt change to serve our national interest. Similarly, change should not mean change and compromise in our fundamental interest and strategies. There are certain permanent features in the conduct of foreign policy, which should be given continuity.

But the way Nepal’s foreign policy is being handled seems to be guided by the period of Rana regime, when foreign policy was defined as strategy of survival of the rulers. During this period, the Ranas thought they could retain their hold onto power with the backing of British colonial rulers in India and accordingly adopted their strategy and foreign policy. Guided by the concept of survival, the Rana rulers adopted the policy of appeasing the British rulers even by compromising Nepal’s own national interests. The foreign policy of Ranas was totally British-India centric and they even chose to antagonize or ignore the immediate northern neighbor China just to please the British.

Nepal’s founder Prithivi Narayan Shah had laid a basic guideline of Nepal’s foreign policy and suggested his successors to maintain equi-distance and shrewd approach in handling both the neighbors for Nepal’s survival strategy. However, Nepal’s rulers gave up this policy soon after Jung Bahadur Rana rose to power and introduced Rana family oligarchy which lasted for over a century until 1951.

Prithivi Narayan Shah, based on Nepal’s unique geo-strategic location, described Nepal’s position as that of “yam between two boulders” and this strategy has remained in place for more than two centuries. This concept is still being preached in the foreign policy formulation of Nepal even today, which has limited our scope to enlarge our foreign policy priority and flexibility. Thus, the ‘yam between two boulders’ concept holds no more significance in the present interconnected world. In the present globalized era when border are being dismantled and the world has been interconnected, the old concept of defining foreign policy and international  relations on the basis of physical size the land connectivity have become obsolete.

Against this background, we must rise above the ‘yam’ concept. Nepal is a unique case which can be developed as a transit country for trade between China and India. China is desperately seeking to enter into South Asian market of which India occupies a lion’s share. Similarly, India is also vigorously trying to enter into Chinese market. Nepal, thus, can and should be a transit country between these two countries. Moreover, both the countries may be willing to invest in Nepal to have access to market across the border provided we are able to create conducive atmosphere.  Since Nepal is located in the vital point, it needs to extract maximum benefits. Gone are the days of fully depending on a particular country. In the case of Nepal’s trade and transit, situation has changed drastically due to China’s focus on Tibet’s development. Tibet has seen phenomenal changes in recent years in terms of industrial and infrastructure development.  Now Nepal’s may always not be India locked. The possibilities of opening to northern frontier and through it to the rest of the world are growing. China has already connected Tibet by a railway with the rest of China and the same railway link is being extended to Nepal-China border, which will provide tremendous opportunity for Nepal to be connected with the rest of the world. Moreover, being landlocked is not a problem for countries in other parts of the world. There are many landlocked countries in Europe, but they have no problem at all and they enjoy the same kind of facilities that the littoral countries. This is because the countries sincerely respect international laws and rights of the landlocked countries. But the problem is in South Asia as Nepal is being exploited and squeezed from its landlocked position. Nepal had no other option but to cope with its unruly neighbor as far as the transit facilities to the sea ports are concerned. In the first place, it is Nepal’s weakness not to take this issue to the international arena and assert it s legitimate rights.

Now Nepal is no more a ‘yam between two boulders’. It is a vibrant bridge between the two large economies and between South Asia and East Asia. We, thus, need to adopt more proactive and pragmatic foreign policy but not merely passive and reactive foreign policy. Our foreign policy pundits often emphasize the need for balanced relations with our two immediate neighbors. At the same time, some advocate the middle-way approach in handling relations with our two immediate neighbors. Balanced foreign policy is fine. But middle way approach does not find a place in the foreign policy lexicon of any country in the world. Foreign policy is not something to be conducted measuring in a weighing scale. What counts in the foreign policy is the national interest. There is no question about the need for maintaining friendly and cooperative relations with all countries in general and immediate neighbors India and China in particular. But that does not mean that Nepal has to compromise on each and every thing and issue in the name of balanced and cooperative relations.

So far as relations and policy with our two immediate neighbors are concerned, we are neither pro-Indian nor pro-Chinese. Neither do we have any ill-will against India nor with China. We want our national interest to be strictly protected and promoted. Being patriotic does not mean that one has to be against any other country. We are against only those countries and elements that harm our national interest. This is and should be the bottom line of our foreign policy. But this has not been the case with us and our rulers often compromise our national interests under pressure from certain country or countries even antagonizing other friend. This is unbalanced foreign policy, from which we must depart and begin afresh for a more balanced, pragmatic and proactive foreign policy.  This is necessary to cope with the newer challenges of the 21^st century. We are not in the era of Rana oligarchic rule nor do we are under monarchy. This is the republican era—the people’s ere— in which people’s views are duly addressed. The demand of the people is to have a break from its old style in the conduct of foreign policy. We need more change than continuity in the conduct of our foreign policy in order to protect Nepal’s national interest in the present era of globalization, modernization and democratization.