Diplomatic and Economic Dimension of Nepal’s Foreign Policy

Nepal’s foreign policy evolved in different periods of history in different manner. The Shahs (1742-1845), the Ranas (1846-1950), the democratic governments (1951-1958), the first elected government of the NC led by Prime Minister BP Koirala (May 27, 1959-Dec. 15, 1960) and non-party Panchayat polity conducted their foreign policies in their way. King Mahendra during his period gave clear shape to Nepal FP particularly intending to reduce Nepal’s over-dependency on India and diversifying its foreign diplomatic and commercial relations with countries of the world including China, Pakistan and the western countries. The Panchayati governments under King Birendra (1971-1989) undertook the policy of diversifying diplomatic and commercial relations with the countries of the world, remained active in international regional forums and maintained cordial relations with Nepal’s immediate neighbors. The democratically elected governments in post -1990 periods continued the basic elements of Panchayat and made certain changes in FP dynamics. The SPA (Seven Party Alliance) government in post April 2006 also stressed its dynamic relations with countries of the world. India in post 2006 period became too much active in Nepal’s politics in different forms. The coalition government led by the CPN Maoist, during 100 days of governance has attempted to bring some minor changes in Nepalese foreign policy by maintaining friendly relations with Nepal’s immediate neighbor- India and China and with other global powers, including the US. The visits of the Nepalese prime minister to the US, in course of taking part in the 63 & 64 Sessions of the UN General Assembly, their meetings with the US president George Bush and President Obama and their urge to the US to support Nepal, their visits to China and India had strengthened relations with these friendly countries.

During the period of the coalition government led by the CPN Maoist, many important foreign dignitaries have visited Nepal and assured financial support to Nepal, which is one of the important achievements of the CPN-Maoist led coalition government The coalition government led by the CPN Maoist, thus, has tried to become an active player in international politics. In short, Nepal remained very active in international political arena, in the UN, in the group nonaligned, least developed, landlocked countries (LLCs) and poor countries; and in regional politics and diplomacy, and diversified its diplomatic and commercial relations with countries of the world.

Diplomatic issues and challenges:

The diplomatic challenges and issues, which the democratically elected government in post CA election has to solve, and address among others: Include encouragement to inclusive and participatory democracy, meet the expectations of the Nepalese people and needs of the present-day international politics in the changed political context. In post April 2006 days, a number of issues normally raised by the conscious section of the people of the foreign policy and diplomacy include factors like: What are the objectives, goals and priorities of Nepalese diplomacy? What should b the criteria, qualifications and pre conditions for the diplomatic agents (e.g.: career diplomats vs. political activists)? Is it essential to frame a comprehensive law, rules and regulations for the democratic government in the days to come to regulate their behavior in this sector? What should be the responsibilities of the diplomatic agents for a small, landlocked and LDC like Nepal in the current global context? Can the Nepalese diplomats be categorized on the basis of the countries they are accredited for? What priorities should Nepal give on its interactions with foreign countries and officials? What should be the practical basis of establishing permanent embassies in foreign countries and establishing diplomatic relations with them? Should the diplomatic agents be appointed for a certain period of time or should it be characterized by spoil system with the incoming and outgoing of party in power/government or Afno manche vs. Ramro manchhe to meet the needs of the time and situation? Are they adequate to meet the expectations of the people in the changed political context? How can the diplomatic sector be made more inclusive and truly democratic? Have the Nepalese residential embassies abroad been successful in achieving the country’s objectives or failed to implement and fulfill them in their mission and goals? How can good governance including transparency and inclusive democracy be promoted in this sector? What types of training and skill development are to be promoted to diplomats? Is the role played by Institute of Foreign Affairs (established in 1993 and reconstituted in 1998 with the aim to providing training opportunities, research works and counseling for newly appointed Nepalese diplomats abroad) adequate in this direction or should it be made more dynamic to fulfill these objectives in the days to come? How far has Nepal succeeded to utilize “Diaspora diplomacy” in favor of its own interests (e.g. Bhutanese refugee case, installation of the smashed border pillars, to mention a few)? What about Nepal’s peace diplomacy (e.g. declaring Nepal a zone of a proposal peace which was recognized by nearly 117 countries of the world) and the constitutionally declared policies of the Nepalese state in institutionalization of peace in the country and in the world? How can Nepal’s role be made more effective and dynamic in the regional diplomacy (e.g. in the SAARC) sub-regional diplomacy (e.g. sub regionalism or often known as growth quadrangle, comprising India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan? Is the diplomatic mechanism the job of the elite class people only, in the light that Harold Nicolson considers the birth in high class family as essential precondition for diplomatic agents? What about the contributions of non-resident Nepalese (NRN) in Nepal and the “Diasporas” investment in Nepal in return for double citizenship? Should they be given double citizenship? These are the issues which the democratically elected government in post CA period has to address properly (e.g. to meet the needs of the people in the 21st century) and make the Nepalese diplomacy more dynamic. Nepal has a long history of politicization of foreign policy and diplomacy. The ex-PM (e.g. MR Koirala in 1962 was made the US ambassador), the ex-chairman of the Rastriya Panchayat/Unicameral legislature (Ram Hari Sharma in 1980 became the ambassador to Federal Republic of Germany), the ex-ministers and political activities, chiefs of the Army staff and Army officers -have been appointed as Nepalese ambassadors abroad. In this context, the parliament in the post CA election has to frame a clear cut law, rules and regulations and policies governing this sector (e.g. career diplomats vs. political activists) the lack of consistency in foreign policy and diplomatic behavior has also created confusions in this sector. The activities of the diplomatic agents in Nepal in last few years in post-April 2006 periods have become controversial issues in Nepalese politics, foreign policy and diplomacy, raising a number of issues including: to what extent the foreign ambassadors and envoys can intervene in the internal affairs and politics of Nepal? Does not the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 set certain restrictions on their behaviors and activities? According to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, the diplomatic agent is not expected to take part in any local disputes and other internal or political affairs of the state where s/he has been sent, s/he shouldn’t discuss the desirability or otherwise of a pending legislation in that state or incur the displeasure of the accredited state by his /her interference in its internal affairs, or offend it in any matter whatsoever. (Tandon and Tandon,1985:339-340).

Economic issues and challenges:

The Nepalese foreign policy in to-day’s globalized context also faces economic challenges. Nepal in global politics has failed to make strong advocacy against global inequality of wealth and come and resources; address the issues of North-South conflict effectively inside and out-side the UN and strongly advocate for new international economic order(NIEO), failed to play effective role in WTO and in international economic system. Nepal has also been ineffective in rejecting the world divided into capitalism and communism and advocating for the interests of the LDCs and LLCs. Nepal’s advocacy of the concept of economic diplomacy has practically been a more slogan and no concrete achievements have been so far made.’’ Its attempt to reduce debt and maximize foreign aid and international economic diplomacy ended in total failure. It has also failed to attract aid and foreign capital/direct investment and effectively encourage economic and technology cooperation with other countries. Nepal moreover could not expedite the process of exploitation and expansion for foreign trade in to-days globalized context. The traditional approaches of Nepalese foreign policy to attract simply foreign aid and increase only in the volume of bilateral and multilateral aid (deciding as the success of its foreign policy) have not changed. In order to reduce foreign debt and attract foreign aid, it has to undertake a number of practical measures. The Nepalese embassies abroad and the ambassadors played no significant roles in this direction. It has also failed to reduce it’s over dependency on India in many respects and no effective long-term and term measures have been promoted in this respect. The development of tourism and the exploitation of huge water resources under UN or multilateral cooperation (or water politics) found no top priority among the ruling elites. The objective of Nepalese FOREIGN POLICY since the panchayat period has been the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of the landlocked states and LDCs granted by international law but practically speaking Nepal could achieve less in this direction. Nepal can also act as transit country between China and India but the Nepalese leaders are less concerned to this subject which can benefit Nepal in many ways.

The remittances, which have served as the backbone of the country’s economy, remain not properly regularized and mobilized and its governance needs to be properly regulated. The remittances accounted for over 25% of the total foreign exchange receipts in the years 2060—2061 BS according to NRB statistics (Dawadi, 2005: 14).But as the majority of the workers in the Gulf countries are either drivers, farmers, guards ,builders, and sheep-herders or physical labors of different nature working hard in the hot environment ,earning less than $ 1000 a month, it would be advisable to the government that massive practical training be imparted to them before they are sent to these countries. It is, however, important to note that they provide more foreign currency earnings than exports, tourism, and foreign aid combined.( quoted from Dawadi,2005:15).The GON has to undertake practical labor policies keeping in view the interests of the Nepalese workers and the country’s situation. Nepal has opened nearly 108 countries for Nepalese workers .There is nearly half million to 700000 mostly unskilled and semi-skilled Nepalese workers working only in the Gulf countries (IFA,2005:1l). In spite of the brutal killing of 12 Nepalese workers in Iraq on August 31, 2004, the flow Nepalese in Gulf countries is tremendously increasing the government has failed to properly regulate the behavior of the man power companies that are reported in media of cheating the innocent Nepalese in the name of providing foreign employment. The government failure to provide those intending to go foreign countries for jobs effective training (e.g. language and other skill oriented) has led them to stand in the row of unskilled labor defaming Nepal’s international prestige. Nepal has also failed to diversify its commercial relations with maximum countries of the world (that would help to reduce it’s over dependency on India in all matters) and establish consulates in many metropolitan cities in the Western countries. Nepal’s attempt in making advocacy and group formation of least develop countries (LDCs), landlocked, small and poor countries is also not adequate. It has also failed to create a balance between imports and exports in its international trade. Its attempt to acquire more trade and transit routes is also not adequate.

Posted on : 2010-02-06 09:18:42

Comments (0)