Realization of consensus-based foreign policy

Yuba Nath Lamsal

In an anniversary function of Nepal Council of World Affairs, Chairman of the Interim Election Government Khil Raj Regmi has raised one very pertinent issue that is related to formulation and conduct of Nepal’s foreign policy. He said foreign policy should be consensus-based. The remark itself is nothing new. What is new is the realization by the people in power about the long felt need of consensus on some vital national issues including foreign policy.

Foreign policy watchers and experts have long been demanding that the key political actors reach a broader consensus on what should be Nepal’s foreign policy, its goals and priorities and tools to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. However, consensus-based foreign policy has been elusive in Nepal especially after the 1990 political change that ushered in a multi-party political era. As a result, there have been marked inconsistencies and discrepancies in the conduct of foreign policy.

This is also a reason why Nepal’s conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy has been weak after 1990. Until 1990, there was, to a large extent, consistency on foreign policy issues as the goal of the Panchayat was to protect and preserve the monarchy and its active role in politics. Since the regime lacked democratic legitimacy at home, Panchayat and the monarchy tried to boost their image and obtain legitimacy in the international arena through proactive diplomacy. During the Panchayat regime, the monarchy used to directly handle some of the vital issues including foreign policy. Thus, there was inconsistency in the conduct of diplomacy.

The political parties and their activities had been banned during the Panchayat regime. Although parties could not properly and openly spell out their foreign policy priorities, they used to criticize the policies of the King’s absolute regime including the conduct of foreign policy. But the parties could not bring about change and new direction in Nepal’s foreign policy even after the 1990 political change. The dispensation after the 1990 political change continued with the same basis and priorities of foreign policy even after change in political system. This is a testimony that Nepal’s foreign policy has been marked more by continuity than change.

Foreign policy is the issue that has some priorities and goals which normally do not change. The national interests that include mainly the protection of sovereignty, national independence and territorial integrity remain as permanent components of foreign policy of any country in the world. Different approaches can be adopted to safeguard these interests. Such approaches may change depending upon the situation and context at home, in the neighborhood and in the international arena. The approaches applied by Panchayat regime in the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy have remained unchanged even now. But Nepal, soon after the 1990 political change, abruptly from the idea of‘ Peace Zone Proposal’ that had been endorsed by 116 countries in the world. The Peace Zone Proposal had nothing to do with the regime but concerned with the idea that sought to declare Nepal as a zone of peace. The recognition and approval of Nepal’s idea by 116 countries was definitely a significant diplomatic achievement, which could be used to advance Nepal’s image and interest further in the international arena. But the government that came to power after 1990 political change took a U-turn in this issue, which can be dubbed as a serious diplomatic blunder on the part of Nepal. This diplomatic debacle under aegis of our southern neighbor marked a downhill slide in Nepal’s credibility in the international arena. This also marked a point of departure from conducting independent foreign policy and weakened our position in asserting our rights and interest in the international forums and also gave rise to subservient diplomacy.

There has not been any improvement in the conduct of independent and pro-active foreign policy and diplomacy even after the 2006 systemic change that saw abolition of monarchy and establishment of a republican democracy. Despite this huge political change, Nepal’s foreign policy has remained as weak as ever and in some cases, the situation has deteriorated. Foreigners have become more influential in shaping our domestic policies and external meddling has intensified. Our political leaders seem to have increasingly become helpless in determining their own affairs. Instead they seem to have become tool of external powers.

As a result, Nepal’s strategic strength has become its weakness. 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. But Nepal has not been able to reap its benefit mainly due to lacuna in conducting proactive diplomacy for the larger interest of the country and the people. Thus, Nepal needs to reshape its foreign policy and extract maximum benefit out of this changing geo-strategic situation and newer developments in the international arena and in the neighborhood.

We are still in the old era when it comes to the conduct of foreign policy. We still continue to define Nepal’s position as a ‘yam between the two boulders’. With newer developments, such a 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. We must now rise above the ‘yam’ concept. Nepal is not a yam but a land link or a land bridge between Asia’s two economic powers—India and China. Nepal is not only a bridge between India and China but it also serves as a link between South Asia and East Asia. Similarly, we need to rise above the concept of maintaining ‘equidistance’. The concept of ‘equidistance’ or ‘ equi-proximity’ is not foreign policy basis but a military doctrine. Nepal is not a military state but a vibrant democracy.  The ‘ equi-distance’ based foreign policy is no longer valid and relevant in the present context. ‘ Equi-distance’ means to maintain certain distance with the neighbors or keep them at distance. Today’s world is interconnected due to technological innovations and advancements. The revolution in the field of information technology has reduced the world into a small global village. In this interconnected world, countries have to intermingle with one another and share knowledge and benefits for the common good of humanity. This should also be the basis of Nepal’s foreign policy in the present context. Thus, Nepal now needs to depart from this equidistance and equiproximity but adopt the policy of engagement with our two huge neighbors in the conduct of the foreign policy.

Since Nepal is situated in the vital geo-strategic location, we must extract maximum benefits out of this position. Given this position, Nepal can be developed as a hub for trade between China and India. China is 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 developed as a regional commercial center 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. 

Nepal is a landlocked country.  But some tend to describe Nepal’s position as India-locked more than the landlocked one. It was definitely true in the past because great Himalayan border with China had created barrier for trade and transit with the rest of the world through northern points. India was the only opening for us to have access to the rest of the world. But situation has changed and is changing fast due to developments in the Tibet Autonomous Region of China. China has invested much in Tibet for its infrastructural development. High speed rail has already linked Tibet with the rest of China and this railway link is being extended to areas close to Nepal’s border. Moreover, China has shown its willingness to extend the railway link to Kathmandu and also to Lumbini. Thus, the northern routes are also opening for Nepal’s trade with other countries.

This situation demands change in our regional outlook and accordingly change in the conduct of foreign policy. We need to get actively engaged with both of our countries and take benefit from the high-paced economic growth of both India and China. Thus, we need to rise above the old and obsolete concepts and approaches but develop a new vision and pragmatic approach in the conduct of foreign policy. The political parties, therefore, are expected to shun their partisan agenda and reach a broad consensus on foreign policy goals, priorities and approaches so that this would be our permanent feature no matter whoever person or party goes to power.