Dev Raj Dahal
Senior Political Scientist/Analyst
Kathmandu, Nepal
Introduction:
“When bulls fight, the calf is terrified,” ancient Nepali aphorism.
The multidimensional aspects of globalization have interlinked the peoples, non-state actors, states and regions and shifted international relations to global relations. It is propelled by spectacular advances in modern science and technology, communication, trade and commerce, investments, tourism and international cooperation underlying the efforts of the international community to establish a cosmopolitan culture of modernity and rule based liberal international order. The excursion of “globalization is more reality than choice” (Haass, 2017:287). It is leading the world to poly-centricity, a world away from the hegemony of superpowers and broader relations away from the nationalization of factors of production, circulation and exchange in a post-Westphalian frame. In a period of great power rivalry, small states matter a great deal for their numerical strength, an ability to serve as bridge among powerful nations and propensity for cooperative, just and peaceful international order. For small states like Nepal, balancing foreign policy in a polycentric world where even great powers tolerate their freedom of maneuver, demands adaptive insight and strategy and strong coordinating mechanisms among various institutions, actors of governance and stakeholders. In a new power shift from the West to the East, a return to autarky, tribalism, fundamentalism and atavistic nationalism may not be a wise option to play by the rules of the game and cultivate what Norbert Elias calls the “civilizing processes” (2000:70) of global relations. Both demand a habit of self-control, not self-extension.
Globalization has helped Nepal to adapt to multicultural fusion of the alchemy of modernity and its own heritage of enlightenment providing opportunity for citizens to elevate the standards of living. In an age of planetary ecological issues, migration, digital communication, economic interconnections, pandemic and complex web of interdependence cooperation and solidarity are essential elements for the security, survival, progress and peace of states-big and small. But without devising a proper inter-state institutional mechanism of containing risks and competing for leverages, interdependence brings with the globalization mutual vulnerability making “each the hostage of the other in the economic realms” (Waltz, 1970: 206). Interdependence does not mean that the international system is either stable or set in a perfect equilibrium of power where international laws, norms, processes and institutions moderate the behavior of states and non-state actors for a well-governed order. For small states like Nepal whose development process is largely reflexive, not endogenous, subject to the vagaries of ups and downs (Viotti and Kauppi, 1987:407) of the neighbors and international regimes diversification and dynamism of internal production structures of the real economy are essential to the availability of public good to all citizens and management of their livelihood needs. No state can boast its survival advantage, viability, moral authority and legitimacy without satisfying the fundamental rights and aspirations of its citizens.
Each state, as a basic unit of the modern world system, seeks more autonomy to act than the other to escape from the cost of dependence and maximize power and wealth relative to other states for continued existence, self-defense and progress, if not domination. This applies to regional cooperation as well. The transnational dimension of small states requires their increased interaction with other states without losing internal equilibrium of power. The civics book, therefore, instructs national leaders to be “vigilant with the powerful” (Mueller, 2017:105) for its passion for domination of the weak states. For small states like Nepal any lack of vigilance and agility would diminish its élan vital, the vital impulse, that granted it needed security and diplomatic agility for successful adaptation to a changing geopolitical milieu and sustained international acceptability, stature and identity.
The development in modern science and technology has connected it with the multitude of global actors hitherto unimaginable from whose activities escape seems difficult. Small states behave differently in the international system from the bigger ones when they find a changing balance of power among them and naturally shift their conduct in “response to changes in power relationship” (Keohane, 1990:132).
To keep national identity healthy institutional preparedness and leadership response to changing nature of global forces are vital.
“National identity means the features of language, culture and history that make a nation unique among the world’s nations, that contribute to national pride, and that a nation’s citizens view themselves sharing” (Diamond, 1019: 52). For Nepal, the international environment is fundamental because it affects its domestic social evolution, economic progress, political stability and foreign policy maneuver. “The need to overcome the deficiencies of inadequate domestic markets, the need for aid and investment to supplement domestic resources, and the need for protection against adverse external developments from which these countries suffer.. testify to the necessity for an abiding concern with external developments” (Rothstein, 1977: 5). Acting appropriately and in an opportune time entails knowing changing conditions of great powers’ conduct, gaining knowledge about their stake in it and mitigating the disruptions triggered by their technological innovations and other forces. Obviously, “international society reflects global norms despite the background condition of anarchy” (Lynch, 2017: 28) and the prevention of this negative effects of anarchy “calls for a continuing audit of the world level of insecurity” (Lasswell, 1965:20).
Nepal cannot cut off itself from the global context of climate change, great power rivalry for influence, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, migration and the shortages of land, water, energy and fertilizers and their economic and political consequences (Johanson, 1989:302).
Nor can it isolate from postmodern centrifugal effects of identity politics that is opening geopolitical cleavages and draining the vigor of historically evolved robust national identity of Nepali state. Similarly, the sharing of soft powers such as democracy, human rights, education, law and development policies have built “attributional affinity” with certain regional and global powers while keeping gravitational aloofness from the others thus setting their vigil on its foreign policy behavior. Nepali leaders’ collective political will and commitment to a stable foreign policy, however, would not grow unless they are well informed about critical geopolitical issues, evade their negative effects, understand the sources of national power and find the scope for an interdependent choice. It helps to set off autonomous maneuvers without being a prisoner of landlocked geography and a policy trap between expansion and containment strategies of great powers.
The primacy of domestic interests of powerful countries over international order marks the crisis of multilateralism and return of geopolitics where power, not persuasive diplomacy, is briskly pursued. Obviously, the geopolitical game is not played by the rule of law. Domestic strength, authority and capacity, as perceived by national leaders, are the sources of national power which implies that the options for small states, like Nepal, in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy can determine their position, role and relevance in the future. In this context, those small states can flourish who have the long-term cognitive map, knowledge, grit, skill and ability to innovate, adapt and boost the aspiration for national progress, mobilize human and non-human resources and acquire a niche to adjust to the regional and global geostrategic shift. Small states with a clear vision, enterprising population and economic strategies have reaped most of the benefits from globalization and avoided vulnerability arising out of dependency catch.
Even in digitized world geographical location matters when it “comes to economic integration, transportation, energy distribution and physical security” (Carafano, 2018:1). Political geographers organize politics at three significant scales—dynamic international theatre, the nation-states and circulation patterns across intra-national social classes where each component competes for survival advantage (Taylor, 1984:2) and comparative and competitive gains. Sustaining a robust coherence and linkage among these scales is helpful for Nepal to manage its geopolitical heartland, Kathmandu, other strategic areas surrounding it, buffer zones and frontier politics adjoining neighbors’ security concerns. Erosion of the Westphalian (1648) state-centric order by transnational forces, sub-states, demographic change, communication, transportation, marketing strategy and climate change has imposed obstacles now to determine the organization and efficacy of its political space, the Nepali state, with legitimate monopoly on power and long for a viable national independence. “National independence and collective self-assertion against foreign nations can be understood as a collective form of freedom” (Habermas, 2008: 209).
Globalization has unleashed the rising intensity of inter-governmental relations which is governed by the density of international agreements on various regional and international issues and unequal distribution of their burdens and benefits. For example, “different state agencies-regulatory agencies, courts, executives and increasingly also legislatures-are networking with their counterparts abroad. Learning from counterparts can be considered major goals of trans-governmental exchanges” (Zuern, 1999:16) and strengthen state autonomy and capacity.
Nepal cannot neglect the social cleavages existing in its society as they would damage the nation’s capacity for an active foreign policy and would infuse corrosive effects on its credibility because some great powers are enmeshed in those cleavages and supporting their clients through the soft power of ideas and hard power of legitimacy and economic aid.
The growth of transnational factors in domestic society, societal denationalization through solidarity abroad and economic globalization are compelling fresh adjustments to Nepal’s hard scramble for survival and hone the ideology of nationalism as a potent instrument of power and mobilization of both mass and elite (Scalapino, 1972: 3). The decision making formal authority from territorial Nepali state mechanism is gradually shifting to unbounded informal networks and de-territorialized space where policy interaction is determined not only by the state authority as political realists defend but also by the ideas of the pluralists.
The pluralist disaggregate the Nepali state into different components such as all intra-state forces, bureaucrats, army, leaders of political parties, the business community, civil society, representatives of NGOs, INGOs, multi-nationals, community organizations, social forces, etc. They are shifting Nepali society from Gemeinschaft inherited community rooted in collective interest) to Gesellschaft (self-chosen society based on individual self-interest) and empowering the latter to participate in shaping the ends and means of foreign policy. The cross national solidarity of post-state forces and tribalization of pre-state forces have tempted them to influence the Nepali state’s international behavior. These actors socialize policymakers about the changing local, national, regional and world conditions and provide inputs. They equally compete with the national state for global resources, ideas and technologies. Many small states have offset their size through functional efficiency and product specialization to participate in the global market. To help reduce the prosperity gap between the rich and the poor nations the G-77 even demanded North-South dialogue and New International Economic Order in the past which, however, remained only tormenting.
Globalization has blurred the Westphalian separation of boundaries of domestic politics and foreign policy of Nepal and exerted pressure on regime change to avert maladaptation. The nation can learn how other small states have leveraged their strength through product specialization and growth of their own MNCs.
Many multinational corporations such as Samsung and Hyundai Motor of South Korea, Telecommunication Company-Singtel of Singapore, Nestle of Switzerland, Nokia of Finland, Volvo of Sweden and Philips of Dutch, etc. have national identities and serve the national interests of the mother states and welfare gains for all nations engaged in world trade and commerce.
This is precisely the reason even ordinary Nepalis discus the transnational dimension of national forces where the nation ha specialization in security, mountaineering, tourism and herbal products The responsibility of the National Security Council and International Relations Committee of House of Representatives of Nepali parliament lies in building national consensus on major foreign and security policy challenges-geostrategic shift, climate change, flood control, border encroachment, cross-border crime, migration, human trafficking, debt management, trade balance, capital flight and transit access etc. The egotistic pursuit of self-interest erodes the basis of shared interest and cannot enable the leaders to solve bilateral, regional and global problems. They need multi-level governance with rules, regimes, leaders and institutions and multi-track diplomacy essential to serve enlightened national interests through the enforcement of commonality.
It would be pertinent to narrate the costs and benefits of globalization for small states like Nepal, define flexible response strategies and formulate the line of the foreign policy along with the nation’s geostrategic imperative for survival, stability, identity and freedom of maneuver and adopt “hedging, balancing and bandwagoning” (Ziegler 2021: 30) without decoupling from the neighbors and the great powers including the United States of America. It can selectively lean its policy to one or the other as per changing circumstances and specialization with the principle of comparative advantage, not on the basis of leadership’s personal preference, whim and temper. The evolution of democratic norms has led to the decline of the utility of coercive force and increased small states like Nepal’s ability to influence the international system through collective voice owing to their numerical weight and selective domination of various sectors of the market.
Latin American small states have favored regional economic integration to overcome their size of market and seize opportunity to create economic viability (Ashoff, 1988: 6). Switzerland is famous for gold reserves quality watches, dairy products, and a site for international institutions attracting international conferences. The general policy motivations of small states like Nepal are the search for: security and survival autonomy and sovereignty, national identity, equality among states sustainable development and peace. These are morally desirable to fend for itself and maintain its integrity (Waltz, 1979: 132). Nepal’s strategies to achieve foreign policy goals underlined in the Constitution of Nepal involve: good neighborhood policy, use of geostrategic leverage, exploitation of great powers’ discord, cautious diplomatic maneuver and active foreign policy with resilient economic statecraft (Dahal, 2005: 38-55).
Attentive citizens and native scholars often ask: should Nepali decision makers uphold the realm of new global context for engaging in opening foreign policy choices and strengthening state power in the poly-centric world order? Do political leaders, legal authority and policymakers imbibe contextual learning about the nation’s ecology, history, society and heritage of tolerance of diversity while formulating policy choice or swayed by ideological rhetoric contrived in an entirely alien context presuming that exogenous economic policy and political and legal paradigms are the best solutions of Nepal’s problems of sustainable development? Does the gaze of mainstream media and civil society inspire national affinity or flirt to popular geopolitical pulls for a frequent regime change less attuned to address globalization imperatives? This study seeks to spotlight globalization as a larger game-changer, shifting geopolitical milieu pivoting on the Asianization of world politics, adaptation in neighborhood, reasons of state, critical issues of small states, national construction, partnership with nature, vital resource as leverage and presents a brief conclusion.
End text.
# Text courtesy: Excerpts from the recently published book, (2022) “Small States in a Globalised World”, by Centre for Nepal And Asian Studies (CNAS), Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
# the entire editorial board of the telegraphnepal.com is highly indebted to the senior political scientist of Nepal, Professor Dev Raj Dahal and the Executive Director of the CNAS Dr. Mrigendra Bahadur Karki.
# published in the larger interest of the global audience: Chief Ed.
Upadhyaya N. P.