Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
By Murari Sharma
Breaking with the past has been the recurrent theme of the outgoing Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachand’. That is understandable for someone who came to power after a decade-long armed insurgency in which more than 13,000 people lost their lives. In 2008, people voted his party -- the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) – in as the largest in the Constituent Assembly and catapulted him to the head of a coalition government. That theme might have prompted. Dahal to resign his post over the row of the army chief’s dismissal. Lord Palmerston has said great nations have no permanent friends or foes; they only have permanent interests. That maxim applies to small and not-so-small nations as well. But nothing is written in stone in politics. The ruling elite defines and pursues national interests in a way that is consistent with their worldview, vision for the country, ideological choice, and strategic constraints. Yet preserving sovereignty and territorial integrity, enhancing national dignity, and promoting economic and social well being of people are seen as relatively permanent naftional interests of a normal state.
How did the Dahal government perform in terms of pursuing permanent national interests in the foreign policy realm? It promised change in a revolutionary flourish but could not deliver during its 9-month rule. In the continuum of change in Nepal’s foreign policy, Dahal’s period has been one of the most vociferous in rhetoric and most lackluster in delivery. Let us take a brief tour of history to make clear what I mean.
Prithvi Narayan Shah, the great, unified Nepal by doing what his predecessors had never even contemplated -- annexing small principalities along the Himalaya’s foothills, through diplomacy and conquest. Going against the grain of King Prithvi’s counsel to avoid the peripatetic British in India, his successors concluded the Treaty of Sugauli and set up diplomatic relations with Britain in 1816. They also opened the Tibet frontier.
The Ranas sought closer friendship with the British empire. Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana helped the British crush the Indian sepoy mutiny in 1857, won back Banke and Bardia from them, and visited Britain and France. Nepal supported the British government in two world wars. The Rana regime also established diplomatic relations with the United States in 1947 and France in 1949.
Upon the Rana oligarchy’s demise in 1950, King Tribhuvan forged intimate ties with the newly independent India. The two countries grew so close that, it is said, the Indian ambassador used to sit in Nepal’s cabinet meetings. King Mahendra tried to reverse his father’s policy. On his charge in 1955, Nepal established diplomatic relations with China and joined the United Nations and the Non-aligned Movement, whose mandates -- the Charter of the United Nations and the Panchasheel -- constitute our foreign policy’s bedrocks.
For the first time, Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala, the first elected Prime Minister, tried to strike a balance between New Delhi and Beijing. Thinking beyond the box at the time, he also courageously set up diplomatic relations with Israel and visited Tel Aviv in 1960, making Nepal the first South Asian country to do so.
After nipping democracy in the bud in 1960, King Mahendra went, in his second innings, back to his old policy. He played China card quite frequently to neutralize Indian influence in Nepal, shutdown Indian checkpoints on Nepal-China border, and tried to build the country’s independent identity in the international community. Rapid expansion of diplomatic relations and of development activities with foreign assistance were other hallmarks of this period.
Although King Birendra reduced the frequent use of China card, he stepped on Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s toes by importing Chinese light arms in 1989, for the first time in a clear contravention of the Nepal-India Treaty of 1950. Gandhi refused to renew the transit treaty with Nepal creating a political impasse and causing a serious economic crisis and broad discontent among the Nepalis.
Tapping this popular discontent, the banned political parties launched a successful agitation for democracy, human rights and civil liberties. King Birendra conceded power to people in 1990, became a constitutional monarch, and paved the way for elected government. It was truly one of the most unprecedented breaks with the past, because for the first time in Nepal’s history the Nepali people were able to decide their own policy – both domestic and foreign.
Bucking any suspicion to the contrary, the successive democratic governments took a largely balanced and pragmatic foreign policy route, despite some of their rhetorical differences based on ideological leanings. However, Prime Minister Girija Koirala visited Japan before going to India. It was the first breach in the ritual of our prime ministers visiting New Delhi as their first foreign destination.
King Gyanendra, who ascended the throne after the Royal massacre of 2001 wiped out King Birendra and his entire family, acquired military assistance not only from India but also from several other countries to control the Maoist insurgency. He portrayed his quest to tame the Maoists as an integral part of the global war on terror. In a stark contrast to other Nepali leaders, King Gyanendra became pretty inaccessible to Kathmandu-based diplomats, who love to socialize with top leaders and to interfere in the host country’s internal affairs too much.
Adventures of the Maoist-led govt
This brief history shows that breaking with the past is something that has been happening all the time in Nepal’s foreign policy domain. Naturally the outgoing Prime Minister Dahal, who came to power after the monarchy was abolished last year, wanted to do things as differently and as quickly as possible in all areas. Now let us have a look at how much change Dahal has been able to bring in the external policy arena.
Dahal’s government did not serve Nepal well by going beyond its brief, either. The Nepali people wanted his administration to maintain law and order, provide basic services to them, and write a new constitution within the stipulated timeframe. They have no stomach for their leaders’ big talks and expensive foreign junkets -– often for their entire extended family -- which produce no value for the country. But our leaders went against our people’s desire and priority anyway. |
Prachand made his maiden foreign trip as prime minister to China to witness the closing of the Olympic games only to undermine the visit and anger Beijing by telling that his first visit abroad was going to be to India. It demonstrated his lack of confidence and damaged Nepal’s standing in the world community’s eyes.
He postponed his visit to Norway and Finland at the last minute in January this year, without citing any crisis or some other compelling reason. Apparently the decision was casual and immature. He also frivolously, without adequate prior consultation, made a request to Norway to construct a medium-size hydropower project in Nepal as a gift to him. Norway rejected the request to our huge embarrassment.
His government was about to appoint ambassadors who failed to secure Parliament’s endorsement. Although some candidates are good, the lack of parliamentary approval will always create a crisis of confidence and legitimacy for them in host countries. Even John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations and a recess appointee, faced this situation, because the Senate did not confirm him.
Prachand was striving for a communist takeover at home but paying lip service to democracy and civil liberties abroad. The recently surfaced videotape outlining his strategy to capture power has made it all too clear. No wonder why his party remains on the US terrorist watch list. This all has seriously undermined Nepal’s credentials in the international community as a new democracy.
The prime minister revealed to the media after resigning his post that he had sought India’s support to save his chair by promising not to conclude the proposed new friendship treaty with China without approval from New Delhi. You do not do that as a sovereign nation. If you do, you do not share it publicly.
These examples show serious flaws in the outgoing prime minister’s character and his government’s attitude and approach to foreign policy and diplomacy. The world does not respect those countries and leaders, and their representatives, who manifest a lack of maturity, moral strength, confidence, legitimacy, or credentials. All these gaps have occurred apparently due to the arrogance of the prime minister and the foreign minister and their desire to go beyond their brief.
Out of their arrogance, these leaders have trampled all established diplomatic decorum and norms and damaged the country’s reputation. Some might say out of ignorance, but I have my doubts. Though these politicians might have been new to the diplomatic scene, they could have got sound advice from neutral experts and unbiased professionals. But they listened to their own cliques and acted like impetuous, norms-busting bullies. The community of nations, which deeply cares about established diplomatic standards, could not appreciate it.
Dahal’s government did not serve Nepal well by going beyond its brief, either. The Nepali people wanted his administration to maintain law and order, provide basic services to them, and write a new constitution within the stipulated timeframe. They have no stomach for their leaders’ big talks and expensive foreign junkets -– often for their entire extended family -- which produce no value for the country. But our leaders went against our people’s desire and priority anyway.
Although some of them are curious to know what our revolutionary leaders are like, our friends and allies share our people’s priorities and aspirations -- if my experience with the United Kingdom is any guide. They want the new constitution first, because it would tell them exactly where Nepal stands as a nation, where it is going from here and how they should respond to its priorities and overtures. For them, all governments under the interim constitution are interim with limited mandate and to be treated accordingly.
I am not suggesting that the outgoing government should not have done some groundwork for enlightened foreign policy and diplomacy. But the prime minister squandered that opportunity by being high-handed and by picking up wrong fights, burning bridges, and making too many enemies. Irrespective of who leads, the next government should change the course and focus on the Nepali people’s immediate priorities. It should leave the business of formulating new, long-term policies and their execution to the new government to be elected under a fresh constitution.
The Way Forward
The new government, however, may not have to start from scratch, though. In foreign policy, there is already a blueprint available, in the report presented in 2006 by the High-Level Foreign Policy Review Committee, which I had the privilege to chair. Some of us may think the report goes too far in some areas and not far enough in others. But we need to bear in mind that it is a consensus document that accommodates the views of all committee members representing different political parties.
Promoting Nepal’s national interests is at the heart of the panel’s report. This document proposes numerous fundamental changes in foreign policy and in diplomatic orientation and practices. It outlines the manner in which Nepal could better protect its sovereignty and independence, establish correct relations with its neighbors, and expand cooperation with its development partners and friends. Our future lies in working actively and closely together with neighbors, friends and allies on such areas as trade, tourism, water resources, and investment.
Good foreign policy alone will not be enough to make a difference. You need competent diplomats, appropriate diplomatic processes and credible performance standards to produce desired results. Therefore, appointing capable diplomats, giving them concrete indicative targets to meet and helping them to perform as well as streamlining the business processes to make all this possible, constitute the key tenets of the report. Many other countries, including the United Kingdom, have moved in this direction with remarkably positive outcomes.
This should be the way forward for Nepal’s foreign policy and diplomacy. Although I understand his innate hunger for breaking with the past, Dahal has failed to act. Giving the young republic a fresh constitution, which would have been the most significant snapping of links with the bygone era, seemed to be the last thing on his mind. He preached old sermons in foreign policy and practiced discredited methods in diplomacy. I hope the next government, whoever might lead it, will avoid these mistakes and deliver on immediate priority areas. This will be consistent with Lord Palmerston’s advice.
(A former foreign secretary and former Nepali envoy to the United Nations, Sharma was Nepali ambassador to the United Kingdom until recently.—Ed.)
Courtesy: Global Nepali magazine.
View Comments