Nepal: Foreign policy challenges-Key turning Points

Binod P Bista

Foreign Policy Expert, Nepal

After a lapse of uneventful period, at least in terms of foreign policy initiatives except astute diplomatic maneuvers by the rulers of Nepal following the death of Prithivi Narayan Shah, Nepal seems to have acted in a timely manner to bolster its position as an independent nation in two time periods. First, the Hindu-Muslim Riots in northern India and formation of an interim government in1946 seems to have forced Nepal (Rana regime] to give away its traditional isolationist policy (restriction of diplomatic relations to other countries that Nepal regularly interacted with). On hindsight, it was a blessing in disguise for consolidating Nepal’s independence as well as sovereignty. By raising the Nepali legation at London and British legation at Kathmandu to embassy status, existing contacts with each other through the government of India changed to direct contacts. Also, steps were taken to expand contacts beyond British-Indian- Tibetan relations to the United States and China.

Pronouncement of new policy: establishing diplomatic relations with all countries of the world.

A treaty of friendship and commerce was signed with Washington in April 1947, followed by diplomatic relations after ten months. However, accreditation was made to Nepal’s embassy in London for Washington and the US accreditation was given to its embassy in New Delhi. Nepal’s overtures to China did not produce immediate results not as a matter of less interest of China but of Chiang Kai-Sek’s preoccupations with communist rivals. However, it did not preclude continuation of diplomatic contacts between Nepal and the nationalist government of China. These events, boosted later by Nepal’s state policy of entering into diplomatic relations with all countries of the world as proclaimed by Prime Minister Mohan Shumshere JBR in 1948, can be taken as a turning point in Nepal’s relations with foreign countries. It appears that Nepal sought to establish relations with China, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and such other countries as well and also applied for United Nations membership in 1949. Among others, Soviet Union’s (now Russian Federation) objection to Nepal’s UN membership at the time questioning Nepal’s sovereign status frustrated Nepal’s campaign but gave full credence to Nepal’s opening up policy. The ‘standstill agreement’ between the governments of Nepal and India that recognized independent India as a successor power to the British and the terms of relationship as it existed prior to India’s independence, i.e., 1923 treaty that recognized Nepal’s sovereignty certainly played a vital role at the time, which was later replaced by the 1950 treaty.

Execution phase:

The second important event took place at a time when the political situation in the South Asian region, particularly India, was fluid and volatile. Following India’s independence, Nepal was also able to free herself from the clutches of Rana Oligarchy in the year 1950. At around the same time the Chinese communist party (CPC) took control of China, and the emergence of two distinct superpowers (Unites States of America and Soviet Union) fiercely engaged in the cold war created some opportunity for Nepal for expanding its

external relations beyond its closest friends and neighbors (India, UK and the US as the status of Nepal’s relations with Tibet was in serious doubt especially after India signed an agreement with China in 1952 and converted its mission in Lhasa to a Consulate General level).

Notwithstanding this superficial advantage, three major factors appear to have worked in favor of Nepal at the time: Chinese ‘historical’ claim imposed on Tibet raised general apprehensions in Nepal and India whether Mao Zedong (Chinese leader) would stop at Tibet or proceed further claiming Nepal (who had once listed Nepal as one of the dependent states seized by the British-Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Assam as five fingers that he mentioned in 1937); Newly independent India was trying to come to grips with problems caused by separation of Pakistan and possible threat of secession of other states; Existence of the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship between Nepal and India. These three significant factors seem to have nudged the then Indian establishment to follow a pragmatic course of action and not obstruct establishment of Nepal-China diplomatic relations taking place in 1955 immediately after King Mahendra’s accession to throne in Nepal. Nepal was also admitted to the United Nations during the same time. It can be said that in the early 1950s there existed a real opportunity for Nepal to further push ahead with its distinct foreign policy initiatives for consolidating and strengthening Nepali people’s desire to live as an independent and sovereign nation, that it was, free from foreign intervention and pressure. Fortunately for Nepal, its constitutional monarch, King Mahendra, seized this opportunity in time since he was also a staunch nationalist with vision par excellence.

The significance of this historic feat in Nepal’s foreign policy can be better appreciated when viewed from the fact that prior to this action Nepal, though independent, followed India’s counsel to a large extent in most matters including its security and external relations. It must be admitted that the new developments including its diplomatic relations with both contiguous neighbors, India and China, Nepal was able to retain its policy of independence and non-alignment and preserve its core foreign policy tenets by not siding with any one country during the war that took place between India and China later. Thus, the Yam remained intact in spite of the boulders colliding directly in 1962. Apparently seen as a border conflict between the two neighbors but other issues such as 1959 Tibetan uprising, asylum to Dalai Lama by India played a significant role in that conflict. Fortunately for Nepal use of air force was not resorted to in that war fought along the Himalayas.

Consolidation phase:

The third major initiative in Nepal’s foreign policy can be traced back to the early period of King Mahendra’s rule, indirect and direct. It can be termed as a period of consolidation and strengthening of Nepal’s foreign policy’s goals that it set earlier. Nepal took one of the most important decisions in its foreign policy chapter by becoming a founder member of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) at the height of cold war. It was also during his reign that Nepal talked it out with India to remove Indian military missions and check posts along its northern frontier causing high discomfort to China. This timely action supported Nepal’s established foreign policy base of maintaining a delicate balance between its two neighbors for its survival, stability and progress. Prior to the restoration of democracy in 1990, Nepal, under King Birendra, proposed that Nepal be declared a Zone of Peace and thus further expansion of diplomatic relations continued in pursuit of garnering wider support for the proposal. Absence of support from India and the then Soviet Union cut the steam out of Nepal’s proposal. Occasional differences and misunderstanding between Nepal and her neighbors did not go far enough to scuttle the best of relations that Nepal had inculcated with its neighbors. It must have been a very happy outcome for Nepal and her neighbors. Additionally, Nepal became an important member of various regional and sub-regional bodies such as SAARC as well as party to international treaties and instruments, most notable among them being non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council on two occasions (1969-1970 and 1988-1989), further consolidating its rightful role as an independent and sovereign nation of Asia.

Nepal today is fully acknowledged and accepted by the world as an independent and sovereign country that is trying hard to make up for the lost opportunity owing to the isolationist policy that had remained a preferred option for survival during the era of imperialism and colonialism. People of Nepal, especially the present leaders, must appreciate the gigantic efforts made by their predecessors regardless of the system of governance, which alone has saved the sanctity of Nepal and its citizens. One can easily imagine the Herculean tasks that the forefathers had to accomplish in the midst of real threat in the past from Nepal’s immediate neighbors in different time periods. The task of building a new Nepal has been made easy by the courage, vision and hard work put forth by the governments who led Nepal in the past 200 years. The best gift that they left for the present day generation was to hand over an intact Nepal that is independent, sovereign and proud.

Current developments:

After full restoration of parliamentary democracy with constitutional monarchy in the 1990, Nepal formally announced its foreign policy in its constitution. The directive principle states that objective of enhancing the dignity of the nation in the international arena by maintaining sovereignty, integrity and independence of the country”. Under state policies of that constitution, it states that “...foreign policy of Nepal shall be based on the principles of the United Nations Charter, nonalignment, the principles of Panchsheel, international law and the value of world peace” Also, ....pursue a policy of making continuous efforts to institutionalize peace for Nepal through international recognition, by promoting cooperative and good relations in the economic, social and other spheres on the basis of equality with neighboring and all other countries of the world.

The interim constitution (2007) arrived at by the political parties’ alliance and the then insurgents (Maoists) that ejected the institution of monarchy and declared Nepal a republic has similar directive principles as well as state policies in Nepal’s foreign policy as per 1990 constitution. Except that it states in sub-clauses 3 and 4 of article 155 (ratification of, accession to, acceptance of or approval of treaties and agreements) that unless a treaty or agreement is ratified, acceded to, accepted or approved in accordance with the article, it shall not be binding on the government of Nepal or the State of Nepal”. In addition, another sub clause (4) states that “Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) and (2) no treaty or agreement shall be concluded that may be detrimental to the territorial integrity of Nepal”.

Commitment resolution on Rome Statute:

Very little or no public discussions have taken place, except by the human rights bodies, while deciding by the Nepali parliament on a commitment resolution directing the government to ratify the Rome Statute. Owing to earlier treaties with the UK and India, Nepal is allowing its citizens to be recruited in the military of those countries, besides contributing to the troop’s requirement of the United Nation in Peace Keeping missions. While the involvement in UN Peace Keeping operations would not normally create any problems to the Nepali soldiers on ground the same would not apply to the soldiers deployed by either the UK or India in conflict areas. So, in this sense, the fate of Nepal’s soldiers would be similar to those of the United States of America whenever it decides to take unilateral military action against its enemies. It is thus necessary to conduct a serious study of the ICC Statue by knowledgeable legal and constitutional experts (with requisite knowledge of international law), fully taking into account the reality prior to ratification of the Statute by Nepal.

To be continued with “Revision of 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950” next week. Ed.

Post your Comment here

TERMS OF USE:The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any persons) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).