Nepal lacks strategic thinking in foreign policy

Yuba Nath Lamsal

It is unfortunate that foreign policy remains to be the most disputed sphere in Nepal’s political spectrum. Foreign policy is something that requires national consensus and a unanimous voice of all political parties and the people irrespective of their different political and ideological line and leaning. The national consensus is foreign policy because the core objective of the formulation and the conduct of foreign policy of any country is to protect and serve the national interest. But our parties define and interpret foreign policy, its objectives and priorities in different ways to suit their partisan interest.

It would, therefore, worthwhile to go back to a little past and delve on how different regimes, rulers and parties defined and prioritized Nepal’s foreign policy. While interpreting and analyzing Nepal’s foreign policy, one should begin with the foreign policy counsels given by late Prtithivi Narayan Shah, who is the unifier of modern Nepal. Prior to Nepal’s unification, there was no foreign policy as such in Nepal as this Himalayan republic had been scattered into different tiny principalities. With the rise of Prithivi Narayan Shah and his unification campaign, Nepal not only emerged as a nation state but it also laid a basis of foreign policy. Small country situated between two giants of Asia, Prithvi Narayan Shah clearly visualized the danger the threat emanating from both the north and south for Nepal’s survival and existence. He quickly thought that a cautious, mature and pragmatic policy was necessary to not only deal with these two Asia’s empires but also to safeguard Nepal’s independence and its sovereign status. Thus, the policy of equidistance or equi-proximity Nepal has been maintaining viz-a-viz its two immediate neighbors are said to have borne out from the wise counsels of the late king Prtithivi Narayan Saha. It is said that Prithivi Narayan Shah told his successors as well as those who are around the corridor of power to follow certain ground rules in dealing with the neighbors. He described Nepal as a ‘yam between two boulders’ clearly defining Nepal’s complex geostrategic position and suggested to maintain equally friendly relationship with both of its neighbors. However, the late king has suggested his successor to maintain extra caution in dealing with the ‘clever’ southern power.

Although the situation during the time of Prithivi Narayan Shah does not exist now as much change has taken place both at home and in the neighborhood, the geo-strategic position continues to remain unchanged. During Prithivi Narayan Shah’s time, India was under colonial rule and China was a backward feudal state. Nepal was in the unification campaign. Although Prithivi Narayan shah laid the foundation of a unified country Nepal’s unification campaign continued until 1914. The Anglo-Nepal war and Sugauli Treaty finally put brake on Nepal’s expansionist drive.  But the geo-strategic position of Nepal demanded a shrewd foreign policy and the counsels of Prithivi Narayan Shah was its clear hint.

After Prithvi Narayan Shah’s demise, Nepal got entangled with internal power rivalry in the royal court of Nepal, which was partially responsible for reduced priority to foreign policy. The rulers concentrated their effort son consolidating their power in the domestic front and accorded a little priority to foreign policy and defending Nepal’s national interest abroad. The Sugauli Treaty had limited Nepal’s scope for territorial expansion as well as the expansion of Nepal’s influence. The priority was to defend its existence no matter what its status should be. The Sugauli Treaty was virtually imposed by the British rulers and Nepali authorities was forced to accept it, Through this treaty, British power established its superiority in Nepal and Nepal’s rulers, too, accepted, though hesitatingly in the beginning. But it later became as our fait accompli and the southern rulers often interfered in Nepal’s internal affairs, which has been given continuity even after India won independence. Since Nepal’s rulers concentrated their strength and efforts on consolidating power through any means possible, British rulers took it as an opportune moment to meddle in Nepal's internal affairs. The short-sighted people with high ambition for power often sought support from British rulers, which gave an open space for the neighbors to meddle in Nepal’s internal affairs and politics.   

Since then Nepal’ foreign policy became India centric grossly ignoring its geo-strategic strength. Every policy of Nepal were either guided or influenced by the southern neighbor. It was useless to expect any dynamic and decisive role and action in foreign policy front during the Rana oligarchic regime as the rulers always ingratiated the British colonial rulers in India just to protect their regime. With the end of British raj in India, Nepal, too, saw a systemic change overthrowing the century old Rana family tyranny and establishing multi-party system in 1951, thanks to popular movement. There had been great expectations from all quarters from the new regime that was installed on the foundation of the popular movement. But the change of system, too, failed to live up to popular expectations. In political front, it was marked by a height of instability leading to frequent change of government. In the foreign policy front, this was a worst period. The rulers of Independent India turned out to be more conservative than the British raj. India had definitely played supportive role in the democratic movement of Nepal. But the role it played after the political change in Nepal was objectionable. Anyway, this phase also got over with the passage of time as Nepal asserted its authority and India, too, might have realized its mistakes. Despite some discrepancy, instability and distortions, the 1951 political change had positive impact on two counts. The first and the most important aspect is its political dimension as it marked the end of Rana’s family rule thereby establishing an open political system with granting civil and political rights to the people. The second positive aspect was the diversification in Nepal’s foreign policy front. Although feebly and in a slow process, Nepal started establishing contacts and diplomatic relationship with other countries including its northern neighbor China after 1951 political change.

Despite diversifying diplomatic relations, influence of foreigners remained as strong as ever in its domestic affairs. With the misadventure of King Mahendra, who trampled elected the multi-party democracy and imposes his self-styled partyless Panchayat system tried to create a façade of its independent foreign policy. But in reality, the rulers of Panchayat talked loud about national interest in public and entered into secret deal with certain powers at the cost of Nepal’s national interest.  Some efforts were definitely made to boost Nepal’s image in the international arena during the Panchayat.

But the situation worsened after the 1990 political change in the foreign policy front. The political parties that came to power or parties they had ambition to go to power tried to seek foreign blessing rather than consolidating their relations with the people. This mentality of the parties and leaders weakened the ability of handling of Nepal’s foreign policy. Political parties lack consensus on foreign policy. Different parties defined foreign policy priorities differently in a way that suit their partisan interests. In the election manifesto, parties do mention a short paragraph about foreign policy. But that is only for the sake of show but not action. Some parties even openly advocate the interest of the foreigners more than Nepal’s own interest. The first elected Prime Minister after the 1990 political change said publicly that democracy and human rights were the basis of his government’s and party’s foreign policy. The CPN-UML that came to power after in 1994 election described national interest as its foreign policy basis, objective and priority. The UCPN-Maoist is more vocal on the issue of nationalism and national interest. 

Even the government does not have foreign policy strategy. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is supposed to be the body that should devise foreign policy strategies, plans and action. But the Foreign Ministry is bankrupt of strategic thinkers and planners. Most of the people in the Foreign Ministry seem to be running after people in power to ensure plum positions and postings.

This has weakened our position in handling foreign policy and diplomatic ability abroad. It is the diplomacy that protects Nepal’s national interest abroad and boosts Nepal’s image in the international arena. Thus, the Foreign Ministry needs to be revamped and a high level mechanism of experts need to be created to devise foreign policy strategy and advise the government in the conduct of foreign policy and international diplomacy.