– Kedar Bhakta Shrestha
Nepal’s Former Ambassador to Belgium and the USA
Ambassador in Washington 2004-2006:
Returning to Washington in the summer of 2004, I founded myself in a familiar turf – having served there as the Deputy Chief of mission from 1980 to 1984.
There were still some old hands there – some retired but some still working in elevated positions.
Also, a lot of persons holding important positions were familiar ones who had served in Kathmandu in the earlier years.
I set upon the usual diplomatic chores with renewed focus on economic diplomacy – trade, investment and tourism.
One sticking point was that of duty free access to our garments after 1 January 2005 when the Multi-Fiber Agreement (under which our garments were allowed to be imported duty-free in the US within the allotted quota system).
The expiry of the MFA at the beginning of 2005 suddenly stopped the duty free privilege for our garments thereby severely hitting our exports.
We had to lobby different departments of the government as well as the US Congress.
This proved to be a long drawn out affair with different pressure groups working at cross purposes.
The Maoist insurgency was at its height during 2004 and this was a matter of concern for the US government. Nepal had procured some arms from the United States and negotiations were on for additional arms.
United States had long been associated with Nepal’s development process in different sectors – from health to education to human resource development to infrastructure and agriculture to industry.
The Millennium Development Corporation had just been established and Nepal was being considered as one of the countries in our region to be included in its programs.
After a long period, an agreement has been signed between the two countries whereby US is to contribute US 500 million dollars and Nepal 130 million dollars for Nepal’s infrastructure development- improving road system and constructing transmissions lines linking India.
But the fate of the MCC still hangs in balance as it has been highly politicized and its ratification by Nepal’s parliament remains uncertain.
A major joint venture between Panda Corporation of Texas and the Soaltee Group had completed the 45 MG capacity Upper Tamakoshi Hydro project.
There were some problems regarding payments for purchased power by NEA to the company due to misinterpretation since the permission was for 36 MG only.
The takeover of power by then King Gyanendra in February 2005 changed the entire scenario in Washington.
It set off a host of negative reactions in Washington’s governmental, congressional, media and NGOs circles.
All of a sudden, it seemed Nepal became the subject of everybody’s interest and concern.
I had to face groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, Asia Society as well as the State Department and the Senate.
I did appear at the live interview of CNN.
I was front-paged on the weekly Diplomatic Courier.
The Nepalese diaspora also were up in their arms against the King’s move.
I really had a tough and testing time. But I had felt that I had carried out my duties only as a professional.
After Girija Prasad Koirala became the Prime Minister, I, along with 11 other Nepalese ambassadors were recalled and I returned to Kathmandu in June 2006.
I said then and would say even today – no regret and no complaint.
Nepal’s Foreign Policy – An Analysis:
Many years ago, someone at the top hierarchy of Nepal asked me whether Nepal had a foreign policy.
A few years later, also a top personality of Nepal raised the same question to me.
These queries compelled me to ponder over the matter – is it that Nepal does not have a foreign policy? I always felt otherwise and do so today as well.
My observation is that Nepal has a clearly articulated foreign policy based on adherence to the principles of the UN, NAM, peaceful coexistence, national sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of others and peaceful resolution of conflicts (Panchsheel tenets).
While saying so, it has also to be borne in mind that within the broad framework of these principles, a country’s foreign policy does change or gets modified in terms of greater or lesser focus to issues, a certain tilt, priority, preferences as and when required in the overall national interests, as and when situation demands.
Foreign relations are guided by foreign policy which in turn, is shaped by a country’s national interests.
We have come a long way from the early fifties to the modern times in asserting ourselves in the conduct of our foreign policy. The construction of the road to Tatopani road linking the Tibetan border and removal of the Indian check Posts from our northern borders were some of the earlier acts that Nepal took in that regard.
As time went on, we started to act independently and on our own, on many of the world issues in forums like the UN on issues like declaring the Indian Ocean as a nuclear-free zone, transit rights of the land locked countries to and from the sea.
We were able to separate the trade and transit treaties with India which had hitherto been lumped together.
We felt more confident as time passed and started to act with greater acumen in our dealings with the outside world and more specifically with our immediate neighbors.
Our geo-political situation compels us to walk a tight rope.
China is a rising world power, poised to match its GDP with that of the United States in the next 12/15 years.
Its huge investments in enhancing its military capacity will also make it a formidable military power.
On the other hand, India is fast rising as a global economic power and is expected to replace UK as the world’s fifth largest economy.
Situated as we are between these two rising nations, we should be able to benefit from the economic progress made by them by catching the opportunity of enhanced trade and investment with both the countries.
Let us briefly discuss the different and probable neighborhood, regional and world scenarios that are likely to impact us.
Nepal-India-China Relations:
History shows that bulk of our external relations and dealings have been with India.
This is due to our close historical, cultural and social ties.
The open border and free movement of people is of a unique nature in the world.
Consequently, the relations between the two countries are of multi-faceted and multi-dimensional nature.
Closeness have also brought about, on many occasions, various problems, differences, unpleasant situations and misunderstandings.
We have also gone through unwanted interference and high- handedness on occasions.
The visit of India’s Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar, as Prime Minister’s special envoy, just days before the adoption of Nepal’s Constitution , to pressure Nepal to defer to do so is a blatant exercise in arm twisting diplomacy.
The blockade that followed soon after has left a deep chasm in our bilateral relations no matter how much India tries to stay clean in this matter.
The slow pace in our trade and power negotiations is really painful. Why does it take such delay in implementing many of the projects that India has agreed to?
How do we explain delays in cases such as the preparation of the DPR of the Pancheshwar project?
It was supposed to be ready within six months of the signing of the Mahakali Treaty in 1996.
Even if the Maoist conflict may be an excuse, we have come a long way since peace was restored.
A new constitution has been adopted and an elected government is in place. Gujral doctrine of non-reciprocity in dealings with smaller neighbors had given fresh hope of a new beginning but it was already dead on arrival.
The blame for this less than happy situation also lies with our side.
There are elements in our country whose actions and utterances invite such behavior from across the border.
Our foreign policy has to be based on and guided by our national interests.
When a matter is of vital interest to our security and national interests, we must come together and speak with one voice.
We must be confident enough to feel and act in a manner that would send signals to all that we are capable of solving our internal issues ourselves without any outside interference or involvement.
We are aware that India has some sensitive concerns in Nepal.
We should convince India of our full and unwavering commitment to address her genuine concerns.
But she should stay away from trying to micromanage things here.
Since 1951, much waters have flown down the rivers of Koshi and Mahakali and Nepal’s ability to handle both its internal issues and external relations have grown exponentially.
Our relations with our other immediate neighbor China has been cordial and friendly.
Having signed the Nepal – China Boundary Agreement way back in 1961, we have no border problems.
She has been a generous partner in our development activities.
Lately, during the last 12/15 years, Nepal’s trade with China has skyrocketed, although vastly in the latter’s favour.
It is evident in the Nepalese market places which are flooded with Chinese goods.
Talking about trade activities, it would be relevant here to keep in mind the growing volume of bilateral trade between India and China- currently in the neighborhood of 100 billion dollars and still growing year after year.
Situated as it is between these two rapidly growing huge economies,
Nepal should try to extract maximum benefits from its geographical location.
Even if we are able to let a fraction of the ongoing trade exchanges between India and China pass through Nepal, we would stand to achieve substantial gain.
Of course, we will have to build appropriate infrastructure to facilitate such trade exchanges.
The BRI put forth by China has initiated serious discussions all over. Nepal has also thrown its lot with this initiative with or without fully understanding its full implications.
How and in what manner will Nepal be involved in it, the project identifications, the modalities of construction, supervision, operating, handling and financing are immensely complicated issues. We need to be very clear about all these aspects before making any firm commitments.
We should also bear in mind some of the sensitive issues of China and must assure the latter of our avowed policy of addressing her concerns.
We also need to closely watch, study and interpret India-China relations as it will impact us in all manners. As I see it, in the near and not too distant future,
India and China will carry forward their relations on the basis of a) cooperation side by side with b) competition with occasional c) confrontation but not leading to a major d)conflict.
India and China will cooperate with each other in the international arena in areas such as trade and environment where their interests converge vis-a- vis the western powers.
But they will compete with each other in expanding their influence in the region and beyond.
Under her “look east” policy, India’s extended contacts with countries like Australia, Vietnam, Philippines and Thailand, growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean and South-east Asian region are examples of its increasingly assertive moves.
China’s BRI and the so called “string of pearls” moves are aimed and asserting itself in the region and beyond.
They will confront each other with the occasional skirmishes in the border areas. However, it is unlikely to result in a full scale conflict as they are both aware of the grave risks involved in such actions.
China – US Relations and the Changing World Order:
The trajectory of China-US relations in the days ahead is something we should be closely following since it will have a bearing in our dealings with both of these countries.
The phenomenal rise of China as a world economic and military power has given a lot of disquiet to the United States.
The latter now sees China as its main rival. China’s growing assertiveness in the region and beyond has prompted United States to take counter measures like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising the United States, Japan, Australia and India.
Lately, Nepal is also being drawn into this push and pull game. Nepal has already become a party to China’s belt and road initiative.
Now, the United States is trying to lure Nepal into the Quad ambit.
The unusual gesture of the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo inviting then Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali for talks in Washington is a clear indication of US attempts to woo Nepal.
It will not be in the overall interests of Nepal to link up with such arrangements in any way whatsoever.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the world for a while, seemed to have become a unipolar one with the United States calling the shots on most occasions.
The phenomenal growth of China and the gradual shift of wealth towards the east (China, Japan, Korea, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc) slowly showed the trends of an evolving multi polar world.
The present scenario still puts the United States at the top with China slowly but steadily catching up.
The next in order would be the European Union, Japan and India in economic terms with Russia in military terms.
The BRICS Group, if able to act in unison (which is unlikely, except in economic terms), would be a formidable force in world affairs.
Rising economies like Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and Nigeria would be in the next line of countries in the pecking order.
What seems clear is that in the days ahead, the trend is that of a multi-polar world with US and China at the top with a host of other nations/ groups wielding their own power and say in regional and world affairs.
The establishment of the BRICS Bank and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, both headquartered in China seem to be potential rivals to the post-Second World War Bretton Woods institutions like the World Bank and the IMF.
The launching of the BRI has raised a whole range of questions, doubts and misgivings.
Also, multiple setups and groups like SAARC, BIMSTEC, BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal) and their workings directly impact Nepal.
Under these varying and changing scenarios, what should be the course of Nepal’s foreign policy in the days ahead? I venture to make a few suggestions below.
1. Our policy and actions must be based on and guided by our overall national interests. No deviation or exception in this regard.
We have to build a national consensus and speak with one voice in matters relating to our foreign policy.
2. Maintain a balanced relationship with both of our immediate neighbors while taking into account their sensitivities and concerns.
3. Be alert so as not to be caught in an awkward position in the web of the emerging complex world like e.g. QUAD and the BRI – initiatives of the super power USA and the rising power China.
4. Play an increasingly pro-active role in our regional organizations/ groups like SAARC, BIMSTEC and BBIN. As current chairman of SAARC, Nepal should play the lead role in reactivating SAARC.
5. Pursue more vigorously economic diplomacy by enhancing our capability.
6. While focusing on our immediate neighbors, not to lose sight of the region beyond ASEAN, Korea, Japan, Australia and of course the European Union as well as Russia.
7. Continue to play an active and useful role in the UN and its sister organizations.
8. Develop our diplomatic capabilities. Political appointees to the ambassadorial post cannot be done away with but should be gradually reduced.
However, such appointments must be made strictly on the basis of merit.
Text courtesy: AFCAN Review, Vol. 2, 2021
Concluded: Ed. Upadhyaya.