E-Kantipur

On the eve of his departure for New York, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai invited about fifteen persons (mostly former foreign ministers and former ambassadors) to ascertain their views on Nepal’s role at the United Nations and on bilateral and multilateral talks he was going to hold with foreign leaders. It was a good gesture on the part of the Prime Minister, though it was not an entirely his innovation as some of his predecessors have also undergone similar exercises before their trips to Nepal’s two immediate neighbours, China and India. The first Maoist Prime Minister Dahal had invited persons at his official residence and later, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal of CPN -UML also followed it by inviting  about thirty persons before his departure for New Delhi.

Any country’s foreign policy tries to promote country’s interests in various ways. It has both symbolic and substantive aspects. Symbolically, national independence, sovereignty and freedom of action needed to be manifested in country’s dealings with other countries — big and small. Being a sovereign country, it has the same voting right as any other nation including the only superpower, the US. So a sovereign country is treated equally with all paraphernalia. Nepal’s strong desire to get the membership of the UN since the late 1940s was the vindication of being recognised as a sovereign independent nation. Nepal was proud of being a non-permanent member of Security Council twice as if it was the only guarantee to its independence and safeguard of territorial integrity. During the Cold War, much value was added to smaller countries with both the superpowers — the US and the Soviet Union — trying to court them as part of their strategies to establish their status as hegemonic powers.

The greatest beneficiaries of the Cold War were less developed and less powerful countries like Nepal. There had been a competition for providing aid and grants or in engaging the rulers and other political elites through various means. So the symbol and substance were at hand during that period. The picture is drastically changed since the end of the Cold War. Some countries, particularly the darling of big powers, are now almost neglected or are in the lurch.

For Nepal, achievement of symbolic time and substantive values at the same is found not in the UN or in any other super power but in the country itself. The decline of UN is evident across the world as there has been a tendency of bypassing this organisation by influential powers that tend to use this body for legitimising their own actions they take for their own purposes.  Although good bilateral relation need to be in place with the countries that matter much for strategic and developmental purposes, they cannot be reliable tools for managing internal crises. Nor can they dictate terms because of Nepal’s location between the two aspiring powers. Nepalis themselves have to achieve their internal and international recognition by departing from conventional thinking on country’s foreign , security and economic policies. 

First, political leaders of various parties can agree on a consensus for common agenda they set. Such agendas can be consolidation of the gains of 2006 revolution, establishment of a political order based on the principles of democracy, socio-economic transformation and social justice by raising the standard of living of common people, uniform   educational opportunities to all regardless of class and other social and economic hierarchies. The gap between private and public education needs to be bridged for averting disparity gap in society.  Governance based on universally accepted principle of accountability and legitimacy both in constitutional- legal and performance is needed to create a new political and social culture with a mission of making Nepal a less corrupt country.

Nepal’s internal crises are multiplying with the increasing number of unemployed youth, cultural deviations, population growth, crisis of governance and eroding norms of organisational solidarity and leadership role. As all parties are hit by intra-party conflicts challenging the existence of organisations themselves, how will these parties and leaders project the image of the country before the world? Nepal’s impressive record of adjustment and change now needs to be consolidated with single purpose in mind, ie development of the country in all respects. Such transformation alone can project our image adding both symbol and substance in country’s national and international status.

For designing a sound foreign policy, adequate home work is essential. What is the state of Nepal’s relations with its immediate neighbours China and India? How can Nepal maintain cooperative and cordial relations with both, without becoming pro and anti by invoking the slogan of rashtrabad?  Historically, Nepal’s rashtrabad (xenophobia) was motivated by conquest and war. During the wars with the East-India Company, anti-foreigners campaign constituted rashtrabad. With the signing of the Treaty of Sugauli (1815-16) and other treaties concluded with the southern power, the nature of relationship changed until the emergence of People’s Republic of China in 1949. Such geo-political developments could prompt Nepal to continue the old relations with India, although with the clear recognition of Nepal’s independence and sovereignty and maintaining good relation with China. And for the first time in history, Nepal came into direct contact with China in 1955. India’s China policy could also facilitate  developing Nepal’s bilateral relations with its northern neighbor, because India itself had reconciled to the absorption of Tibet by China. Relations between China and India however strained after the flight of Dalai Lama from Tibet in 1959, leading to border conflict in 1962.

Judged by the developments taking place since 1959, Nepal had the most difficult time to manage geo-political balance as both the neighbours had already become inimical to each other.  Nepal’s highest degree of geo-political maneuverability was evident in the 1960s though India, at the outset, was not agreeable to what Nepali side had done for developing Nepal-China relations. The signing of Kodari road was singled out for Indian misunderstanding  with the latter criticising the Nepali King for opening the Himalayan route that, in India’s view,  could pose a threat  to the entire South Asian region. But both King Mahendra and Indian leaders knew the nuances and practices of geo-politics and tried to remove occasional pinpricks in bilateral relations. The demand of the abrogation of the 1950 Treaty also became a hotly debated subject since the 1960s, but no serious study has been made on the overall ramifications of the Treaty. The casual incoherent utterances can hardly help resolve outstanding problems that often arise in relations among nations. Only policies coolly devised on the basis of rationality can be productive for image projection as well as for country’s development.

As of today, political parties do not seem to give priority to foreign policy, notwithstanding the noises they make from time to time. Since foreign policy is an extension of internal policy, congenial political order is a precondition for its design. It also demands minimum consensus on such other areas as inclusive economic and social development.

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.