Bhim Nath Baral
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science,
Prithvi Narayan Campus, Pokhara, Nepal 
Abstract:
This article aims to analyze the foreign policy behavior of Nepal. It is viewed from the lens of small power. It is evident that international system has remained under the dominance of greater powers despite the presence of large number of small powers. Most small powers have faced the problem of survival and it is their prime concern to protect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. Their interest is always threatened by several internal and external elements. Nepal, a small South Asian country, is situated in a very sensitive region from geo-strategic point of view. It has its own determinants in its external behavior. Nepal exhibited different behaviors in different modes of history by taking the matter of security and stability into consideration. However, history tells that policy of independence, policy of isolation, Indo-centric special relations, non-alignment, neutrality and balanced relation remained in practice in its foreign policy behavior. The research is qualitative in nature and data are collected from secondary sources. It is prepared in descriptive and analytical design.
Keywords: Balance, bandwagon, indo-centric, neutrality, zone of peace.
Introduction:
Foreign policy is regarded as a vast and vague discipline on the basis of which all international relations are conducted. It is the outcome of state in the universal system. It is the process undertaken by a sovereign state going beyond its domestic affair in pursuit of national objective. The scholars of different time have viewed the concept from their own. Even though their views and definitions vary, they have a common view that foreign policy is meant primarily for the preservation and promotion of national interest of a state. Goldstein & Pevehouse (2009) state that foreign policies are the strategies governments use to guide their actions in the international arena. The policies spell out the objectives state leaders have decided to pursue in a given relationship or situation (123). “Foreign policy”, in the words of Valerie M. Hudson, “is the strategy or approach chosen by the national government to achieve its goal in its relations with external entities” (2012, p.14). It refers to the ways in which the functioning governments of sovereign states resemble to each other in the international system in order to attain targeted goals (Jaiswal, 2016, p. 2). A foreign policy is generally prepared for the purpose of protecting and promoting a state’s national interests, security, economic prosperity and independent image in international forum. In the view of Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, “foreign policy is the management of external relations and activities of nation states, as distinguished from their domestic policies. It involves goals, strategies, measures, methods, guidelines, directives understandings agreement and so on, by which national governments conduct international relations with each other and with international organization and non-governmental actors”(2013, p. 252). “Foreign policy”, in the words of Schleicher, “refers to the actions (including the words) of government officials to influence human behavior beyond the jurisdiction of their own state. In the border sense, foreign policy includes the objective, plans and actions taken by a state related to its external relationship” (Quoted, Malhotra, 2014, p. 256). “Foreign policy”, in the view of Padelford and Lincoln, “is the key element in the process by which a state translates its broadly conceived goals and interests into concrete courses of action to attain those objectives and preserve its interests”. According to George Modelski, “foreign policy” is, “the system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behavior of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment” (Modelski, 1962, p. 67). Similarly, Rodee opines, “Foreign policy involves the formulation and implementation of a group of principles which shape the behavior pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to protect or further its vital interests (Quoted, Dahal, 2009, p.21).
Small power, on the other hand, has no specific definition. Some scholars view it focusing on area, size of population and economy. Similarly, power position of a state is evaluated from the perspective of distribution of resources and in some way, it is accounted on the basis of the behavior they exhibit in international community. Some are viewed from security point of view as they rely on others in their security. Likewise, idea of perception and their involvement in regional and global organization are also taken as the determinants of small power ranking. However, size of population and geography, economy and military are taken as the major factors to determine small power category. In the view of Long (2017), while interpreting the framework of global south policy, small powers are for the most poor, weak, underdeveloped, alienated in global institution and lack of material powers to bring about system-wide change in their own interests (185-205). In this context, Nepal, with the area of 1,47,181 sq. km. is the 40th largest country in the world in terms of population and the 94th largest country in the world in relation to geographical size. So, it is not a small but is average-sized. However, it looks small before the large neighbors.
Small states are always worried about the protection of their vital interest. The task is very challenging for a small country like us having strategically critical location. They have different ways of behaving conditioned by several tangible and intangible factors. Nepal also has the experience of different behaviors in its foreign policy dealings. So, the question automatically arises that, as a small power what behavior Nepal exhibited in its foreign policy determination. The paper aims to address the answer of this fundamental question.
Objectives and Methodology:
The primary objective of this paper is to explore the foreign policy behavior of Nepal. Including this, it has also the specific objectives to assess the pattern of Nepal`s foreign policy behavior. In spite of its small capabilities, Nepal maintained its existence during its challenging modes of historical events of nation building. But it faced several challenges of survival during its long journey of nation building. Along with the passes of time, foreign policy making and its execution has become a challenging task. So, this paper is mainly concerned with the foreign policy behavior exhibited by Nepal during different crisis. As a descriptive and analytical design, it follows qualitative review method to achieve its targeted objectives. Different books, journals, newspapers, documents and previous research works provide secondary data necessary for the completion of this study.
Theoretical Review:
Realism, liberalism and constructivism, the dominating theories of international relations, have been applied for better understanding of the matter.
Political Realism is considered as the leading theory in understanding international relations. International relations are concerned with the study of power relation from the perspective of political realism (Goldstin & Pevehouse 2009, p 43). In the words of Donnelly political realism includes major propositions like anarchism, egoism, groupism, and power politics 00(24+2008, pp. 150-182). The relations are based on conflict mode that creates struggle being guided by the value of state survival and national security. (Wohlforth, 2008 pp. 131-149). It has less optimistic view of human relation. Furthermore, Mingst opines that human nature is basically selfish and power oriented and people are organized in states, where the activities of each individual are guided by the value of national interest (2004, p. 66). The values are motivated by power relations.
To sum up, the realists believe that the desire for more power is rooted in the imperfect nature of humanity. So, states are continuously involved in a struggle to increase their influence. With regard to small power, the advocates of realist theory assume that small powers will balance against threatening states or bandwagon with them. It also predicts that as the structure changes small powers will adjust their foreign policy appropriately. Jesse & Dreyer made the following predictions regarding the behavior exhibited by small states:
# Small states should react to structural constraints, most likely by bandwagoning or balancing.
# As threat levels increase, small states should act more and more realist along the lines of bandwagoning or balancing.
Foreign policy choice is constrained for small states and the smaller they are, the greater the constraint. The more constrained the choice, the more the state should follow bandwagoning or balancing (2016, p. 1).
On the other hand, the liberal theory claims great potential for human progress in contemporary society with free and competitive economy. According to Mingst, political liberalism claims that human nature is basically good and the people themselves are able to establish better social order. He further adds that injustice, war and aggression free society can be established through institutional reforms. But it requires joint effort (Mingst, 2004, p. 62). Similarly, liberal thought argues that both small and large states jointly compose the international system. Necessary change is achieved through international co-operation and institutional arrangement. The theory is optimistic in the elimination of unwanted war that obstructs human progress (Stein, 2008, pp. 201-221).
The new liberalism considers globalization as the universal situation of world relations. States and their engagement in their economic, social and cultural interactions bring the domestic and traditional society together. According to Moravcsik, “globalization breeds distinguished demands from societal individuals and groups with regard to foreign affairs. Likewise, state represents the demands of a subject of domestic individuals and social groups, on the basis of whose interests they define “state preferences” and act instrumentally to manage globalization” (Moravcsik, 2008). Regarding the nature of global system, he determines that state behavior is shaped by the pattern of interdependence among state preferences.
It is more rational to develop international cooperation than restoring to war. So, war and violence appear as irrational deviations that result from defective reasoning and that harm the interest of opposing state. According to this theory, actors are naturally cooperative. Despite of many subjects of disagreements, they are able to manage all war-prone situations. The rules and institutional arrangements are the efforts towards mutual gain (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2009 p. 86). Reciprocity in international relations helps international cooperation that can ensure lasting international peace. The peacekeeping missions of United Nations and the efforts towards disarmament are some instances of cooperation as advocated by liberals.
Domestic factors are more important factors of small state foreign policy choice. On the one hand small state’s foreign policy is often constrained by a lack of institutionalized domestic institution. Lack of domestic capabilities to produce a coherent foreign policy limits the foreign policy option of small power. In the same manner, changes in domestic actors, particularly those who can capture government, often directly lead to foreign policy changes (Jesse & Dreyer, 2016, p. 45).
To conclude, change in the actors or the institutions is more responsible to bring change in the foreign policy of small power and the government formed there in. According to Jesse & Dreyer, this change may occur because of any or all of the followings:
A change in control of the government as different parties control key leadership position (e. g., the prime minister),
# A change in domestic institutions that lead to a change in the number of influences of veto players,
# A change in the power of non-governmental actors to influence policy decisions (military, courts, public opinion) (2016, p. 49).
Liberalism focuses on international cooperation rather than power rivalry. Contrary to the realists, this theory concludes that state behavior is more cooperative regardless of their size and capabilities. Democracy, trade, institutional affiliation and human values reduce the fear of uncertainty and make possible to establish peaceful world (Thorhallsson, 2018, p. 24).
The liberals project a “collective security” arrangement which can be useful tool in ensuring security for a small state. But the outbreak of the Second World War created serious question on the relevancy of this theory. Realizing this fact Thorhallsson remarks that institutional preparations of the liberals to display peace, development and democracy are highly dominated and influenced by the existing dominating powers of the world system. So, the small states most of the time stands at the receiving end in such organizational provisions (2018).
Social constructivism, on the other hand, has recently been appeared as one of the chief theoretical waves in contemporary international relations. Nicholas Onuf was the person who coined this theory in 1989. It was later developed by Alexander Wendt. This theory views the international system constituted by idea rather than material forces.
Their external behavior is influenced by the internal make-up of states (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013, p. 229). It assumes that behavior of the state is guided by shared interests, which developed from the shared ideas and identities of peoples rather than the material power of the states. Viewed from research programme, one of its fundamental contributions to the field has been to show that moral norms-and thus ethics- matter in world politics (Price, 2008, p. 317).
This theory emphasizes the ability of actors with in the international system to pursue goals related to security through the development and practice of norms. A norm is defined as a standard of appropriate behavior for actors within a given identity. Norms are established by the evolution of precedents, historical practice and customary international law. The formation of norms, rules and shared understanding on a global scale impacts the identity of the nation (Jesse & Dreyer, 2016, p. 45). This theory rejects the assumption of realism of the primacy of tangible material factors; instead substituting identity and interest.
Moreover, identity and interests are generated through long-term historical processes, both domestic process and the process of interaction with the international system. According to Hurd, international relations should be viewed through social structure on the basis of which institutions are formed and actors are involved in the event. People’s understandings and beliefs guide their behavior in the interaction with global community (2008, p. 213).
Thorhallsson, a prominent scholar of small power, recommends us to apply constructivism in different sense than that of liberalism or realism. He argues that ideas and identities play significant role in shaping individual behavior and international system. Actors’ behavior is also considered a framework that highlights the role of ideas and identities in shaping system and individual behavior. Identities, interest and inter-subjective beliefs are more responsible in shifting the behavior of states (Thorhallsson, 2018, p. 25).
Jesse & Dreyer summarize that a change in foreign policy is common when the changes occur in norms and identity. This change may occur because of any or all of the followings:
a. The beginning or ending of an established norm,
b. The development of a new identity, and
c. The changing of an identity (2016, p. 49).
Small state/power behavior:
Whatever may be the definition, foreign policy involves the process of creating decisions, making decisions or implementing decisions, which is ‘relational’. It is ‘relational’ in the sense that the intention of foreign policy is to influence the behavior of other actors because finding equality in international system is very difficult. Doesn’t matter whether the state is small or big, state’s behavior is always governed by the core values of national interest i.e. preservation of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2009, p.50). T
he states are not sufficient in themselves. A state requires both human and material resources that needs cooperation of others as well as coordination with other actors. Small powers are more optimistic on this. Foreign policy, as both process and output, is also a link between the activities taking place with in a state and the global scenario outside it.
Morgenthau, a strong advocate of political realism, has given top priority to the use of force. On the basis of this element he classified the behavior of state into three categories. First, a state seeks to possess power by adopting the policy of status-quo. Second, states that seek to enhance their position in global hierarchy by increasing external expansion. Third, states that are satisfied with the rate of their power and they do not care about enhancing their power (Morgenthau, 1997).
Small powers are much more worried about their survival in international system. It is very rare for them to play a dominant role. Their behavioral pattern revolves around the real potentialities they pose.
They do not always behave exactly the same way and that no single theory best explains their choices of foreign policy. The general pattern seems that when small powers are threatened by larger powers, the small power does not act according to realist predictions, instead social constructivists theories are better predictors. Conversely, when a small power threatens/is threatened by another small power, the behavior seems to approximate realist theory (Jesse & Dreyer, 2016, p.177). Small powers indeed are different from large powers which behave in a different manner and are worthy of being studied as completely separated and different unit of analysis. They are deserving of research and the development of a theory that explains their foreign policy behavior.
According to Hey, the small powers exhibit the certain common behaviors. Such behaviors include a narrow scope of foreign policy issues, behavior is limited within immediate geographical arena, low level of participation in global affairs, focuses on using diplomatic and foreign policy instruments, more attention on the implementation of international law and other “morally minded ideas” involvement in multilateral institutions, choose neutral position, depend on superpowers for protection, focus on cooperation rather to involve in conflict and spend a disproportionate amount of foreign policy resources on ensuring physical and political security and survival (2003, p.5).
The state has its own way of behavior based on diverse factors. Maurice A. East outlines some of the options used by these states in their external dealings. His research finding concludes that small states prefer to minimize the cost of operating foreign policy by initiating more joint action and by directing their attention toward joint or multiple actor targets, make minimum use of verbal action, behave in an anti-balance manner and rely frequently more on the economic technique of statecraft than the largest states (East,1973).
Besides above all, various theories have their own predictions in explaining small power behavior. There is clear distinction in small power behavior as advocated by realist and social constructivist theories. According to realists, the small powers will try to balance against threatening states or bandwagon with them. In contrary to realists, the constructivists argue that small power foreign policy will be constrained by certain values and norms whereas the liberals argue that small power’s behavior will be dictated by the interest of domestic actors as constrained by domestic coalition (Jesse & Dreyer, 2016).
In this context Nepal’s foreign policy behavior is found under the influence of all three theories as mentioned above. Though small in strength, Nepal fought several wars with powerful neighbours. The wars were fought mainly for the protection of vital interest. Again, as advocated by liberalists, Nepal involved in many peace treaties and its involvement in various regional and global forums by maintaining bilateral and multilateral agreements with the purpose of achieving world peace. Nepal’s history of bravery and peace, close ties with the immediate neighbors on the basis of culture, religion, race, geography and host of other dimensions have affected Nepalese foreign policy behavior as argued by constructivists.
# Thanks to the distinguished Bhim Nath Baral, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Prithvi Narayan Campus, Pokhara, Nepal.
# Concluding part to begin with: The evolution of Nepalese foreign policy: Upadhyaya. N. P.