Former foreign minister and Nepal’s ambassador to the U.S. and India, Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, is an old-hand in Nepali diplomatic circles. In his interview with Pranab Kharel and Biswas Baral, Thapa spoke about Nepal’s current foreign policy regime, the role of UNMIN and Nepal’s foreign policy priorities.

As someone who has had a long and distinguished career in foreign service, how do you assess the current state of Nepal’s foreign policy?

Thapa: I jokingly tell some people that Nepal has no foreign policy and whatever foreigners do here is our foreign policy. Our political leaders have given that liberty to foreigners in Nepal. Our foreign policy is also influenced by the volatile situation in the country. On the other hand, if we look at the global scene, the cold war, demise of the Soviet Union making America the sole superpower, and emergence of Europe as the challenger to that superpower and emergence of both our neighbours (India and China) as major actors on the global scene; these developments, combined with a transitional politics and fragile social and political situation in Nepal, calls for a more thoughtful policy framework and a conduct that is consistent with the larger national interest and Nepal’s place in the world. Unfortunately, my feeling is that the ideological divides among parties doesn’t allow for a coherent foreign policy. Foreign policy is the extension of our domestic policy. It is the external dimension of how you strengthen yourself in the world and what space you carve out for yourself in the world.

In Nepal’s case it seems to be other way round - domestic policy is the extension of its foreign policy - as argued by Leo Rose.

Thapa: That was then. Remember Rose wrote that immediately after the departure of the Rana regime. In the 1950s Nepal was in a different transition. After the collapse of Rana regime, there was only one major political party here in Nepal and in many ways what Rose witnessed then has changed a great deal. If Ross was alive today, he would probably see a different picture.

Was not going abroad for political support part of that political culture? So what difference is it today that they continue to travel abroad for political support?

Thapa: Basically the difference is this transition where every body is seeking to dominate the emerging scenario. The larger view of national interest in terms of border, control of natural resources, one’s identity as a citizen and an ideological framework that will dictate our distance or proximity with other ideological group… all this is in transition and Nepali public have not given clear mandate to one single party. In Nepali we call it hodbazi. We have arrived at that stage. I see an absence of a towering political personality to whom all Nepalis, regardless of their belief and faith, can look up to pull themselves from this transition and take them towards a visionary future. Somehow such personalities are not there. This is true in case of both foreign and domestic policy. In case of latter, there are too many actors trying to influence Nepal’s future course. As I have been saying, the tragedy of Nepal is that there are too many well-wishing foreign friends. They may be source of comfort in one sense, but they also leave us utterly confused and divided.

How do you view New Delhi’s role in the current transition?

Thapa: I had the privilege of serving as Nepal’s ambassador in India for six long years. It’s a big country.  But in its foreign policy conduct, in spite of the internal political divide, one finds consistency. Whether in dealing with the Ranas, or the Shahs or the democrats, they have conducted themselves consistently over the period with a single dimension and their interpretation of framework treaties that guide our relationships differ from our definitions. We have at times given different versions and conducted ourselves differently. May be as a small country we are more vulnerable than they are. But I think India’s policy — whether it’s with Nepal or any other neighbour — has a degree of consistency. And that is based on the framework enshrined in the series of agreements reached. We don’t find parties in India interpreting their relations with Nepal differently. Whereas in our case each party and in fact within the party, there are different opinions and that is one reason why I call it a state of confusion. You cannot have a foreign policy like shooting from the hip — each one for himself with a different gun. The kind of queuing up to go to our neighbour for blessings or sympathy has scarred our foreign policy conduct.

You spoke about the consistency that is there among Indian political parties regarding Nepal. But certain party leaders have come up with their own interpretations on Nepal’s transition.

Thapa: I recall that whether you were looking at the border issue or the citizenship issue or the issue of natural resources including water, you didn’t find inconsistency with the Indians. When CPI and CPM were about to become the part of the national government in the previous coalition of Manmohan Singh, people like Sitaram Yechuri and others came here. Their apprehension was no different from that of a Congress leader. They didn’t contradict another party in their own country.

But weren’t there voices in Delhi that talked about India’s foreign policy being hijacked by the communists?

Thapa: Yes, but that was their internal picture and it didn’t result in any change of instrument that dictate relationship between Nepal and India. What I am saying is in foreign policy the policy framework is very important and it has to be based on national consensus. But the conduct is also very important. If you make yourself subordinate or dependent on somebody’s goodwill to strengthen your position at home then you are surrendering your sovereign position as a citizen. I am not singling out India — there may be others — but India’s influence in Nepali politics cannot be compared with any other country. We have not been able to extricate ourselves from that mindset of dependence that started with the Ranas.

Monarchy was one of the key pillars of India, but with the institution gone, do you think India is struggling to find a partner that it can communicate with and which can guarantee stability?

Thapa: Each nation looks at its neighbour form its own angle of promoting its national interests. It is we who have to define our national interests. This is where we have been failing. I fail to understand why our political leaders interpret what others think. They become the spokespersons of foreign power. They should create goodwill but they should not come back and pronounce that this is what India thinks. I have served under both the systems (the Panchayat and democratic governments). I was ambassador in both Washington and Delhi after 1990. And Monarchy was not the dominating part of the government then. I think the foreign policy framework started to appear more and more flexible not only because we were thinking differently but also the global scenario was changing. Around the time Berlin wall collapsed, the cry for freedom even in Nepal became louder. Also, in our part of the world, China and India (were) going for a more liberal economic system. And all of a sudden you saw trade and transit between India and Nepal was influenced by certain thinking in New Delhi. When India liberalised its economy it could no longer look at Nepal differently. Our economy was much more liberal than theirs and they saw Nepal as subverting India’s closed economic design.

What is your take on the recent controversy over the UN Secretary General’s report on Nepal?

Thapa: My feeling is that firstly there is much to be desired in terms of the effective conduct of the UN mission here. They are far more visible and less effective. In spite of that the reason we went to UN was that we didn’t want any other major centre of power acting as an arbiter in essentially what is our internal dispute. It would have been ideal if we could have done it between ourselves. With the extended term of the UNMIN ending soon, it would have been ideal for the SG not to talk about the kind of government (he wanted to see) in Nepal. I feel personally that he went too far. But on the other hand it’s for the government to criticise directly; I find the government is cornering itself. When the mandate of the UNMIN expires, the same government will have to go to the SG and ask for an extension. But if we don’t extend it, who is going to take its place? Who is going to look after all these containers and everything that is being monitored by the UN? It seems the only alternative to UN is a more effective UN. I think the government went too far in publicly criticising the SG. It could have quietly, through diplomatic channels, told the SG that this is not your jurisdiction. But for our Permanent Representative at the UN to tell the SC that SG was wrong, is indicative of the lack of diplomatic finesse.

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.