Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal’s former Ambassador to Denmark
The world is interconnected and inter-dependent. The advancement of science and technology has reduced the world into a small global village. In this interconnected world, no single country is fully self-sufficient and self-reliant on all facets. All countries, big or small, powerful or weak and developed or developing, are intertwined together requiring cooperation and coordination among nations. This is the defining feature of globalization from which an individual, a society and a nation cannot escape.
Right from the time when Homo sapiens moved from African jungles to Asian and European landmass forming dots of civilizations, the concept of nationhood evolved. Civilization is the product of human interaction and endeavors. States were born and developed. In the human history, since the first state evolved in Sumeria (present Iraq), several states were born and disappeared from the map of the world. The process of birth and disappearance of states continues even now albeit in slower pace.
States are de-facto and de-jure.
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of the States has defined the state and its features. According to the Montevideo Convention, the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: 1. permanent population; 2. a defined territory; 3. government; and 4. capacity to enter into relations with other states. Territory, government, population, a set of rules or constitution are only part of key features and attributes of a modern state. However, these features only make a de-facto state. A state requires recognition from other states to become a de jure or a sovereign state. International recognition is, thus, a key component in the formation and development of modern states. It is only after international recognition as a de jure state, a country acquires the right to establish diplomatic relations with other countries, be a member of the United Nations and enter into treaties with other countries and international organizations under the international laws.
This is why and how the concept of foreign policy evolved which appeared as a dominant feature of the statehood. In other words, the concept of foreign policy was born along with the drawing of boundaries of countries.
Foreign policy is thus, as observed by Christopher Hill, is “the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually a state) in international relations”. In other words, foreign policy is the extension of domestic policy. The domestic policy influences and, to a large extent, determines foreign policy of a country. The domestic policies and priorities may change but foreign policy goals remain permanent as national interest is the principal guide and drive of foreign policy of any country. In the words of Lord Palmerston, there is no permanent enemy and permanent friend but there is only permanent interest.
The national interest is determined by geography and other geopolitical considerations. As far as the national interests of Nepal are concerned, the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal has clearly defined Nepal’s national interests and foreign policy goals and priorities. The Constitution, in its Article 5 (1), has defined national interests as: “Safeguarding of the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality, independence and dignity of Nepal, the rights of the Nepalese people, border security, economic wellbeing and prosperity”. The core objectives and goals of Nepal’s foreign policy are, thus, protection of these above mentioned national interests.
Similarly, the fundamental objective of Nepal’s foreign policy, as enshrined in the constitution, is to enhance the dignity of the nation by safeguarding sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence, and promoting economic wellbeing and prosperity of Nepal. It is also aimed at contributing to global peace, harmony and security.
The Directive Principles of the Constitution (Article 50.4) states: The State shall direct its international relations towards enhancing the dignity of the nation in the world community by maintaining international relations on the basis of sovereign equality, while safeguarding the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence and national interest of Nepal, while the State Policy (Article 51) on priorities of foreign policy are defined as to: 1. To conduct an independent foreign policy based on the Charter of the United Nations, non-alignment, principles of Panchasheel, international law and the norms of world peace, taking into consideration of the overall interest of the nation, while remaining active in safeguarding the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and national interest of Nepal; 2. review treaties concluded in the past, and make treaties, agreements based on equality and mutual interest.
Based on the constitutional provisions, Nepal’s foreign policy is to be guided by the following basic principles, which are:
1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty;
2. Non-interference in each other’s internal affairs;
3. Respect for Mutual equality;
4. Non-aggression and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
5. Cooperation for mutual benefit;
6. Abiding faith in the Charter of the United Nations;
7. Value of world peace.
Foreign policy is a dynamic vocation, which requires both continuity and change depending upon national political dynamics and international context and situation. A country adopts its foreign policy priorities as a whole or in part while dealing with a particular country or with a particular international event taking into account its national interest. The national interests of a country or countries may enlarge and its priority may change due to geopolitical considerations and international dynamics. Thus, the dynamics of foreign policy priorities also change. The rigid foreign policy often handicaps a country to act and manipulate in the particular international and regional situation and context to maximize national interests of a country. In such a scenario, foreign policy of a country may take a paradigm shift especially at a time when international diplomacy is in disarray. Thus foreign policy needs both continuity and change to adjust its position and protect its national interest in the given international situation.
Nepal’s foreign policy is also marked by both continuity and change. The geopolitical reality of Nepal has been the permanent feature, which guides our foreign policy conduct. Nepal’s location between world’s two giant nations-India and China– has posed both challenges as well as provided opportunities to us. China has already been a global power with its mighty economy. According to a recent research report of McKinsey & Company, US-based worldwide renowned consulting company, China has already emerged as the world’s wealthiest country surpassing the United States for the top position. In terms of military might and technological innovation, too, China is capable of challenging the world’s sole superpower the United States. India, too, is the world’s fifth largest economy. These two countries have rising clout in the international arena. Both of these our two neighbours are important players in the international power politics.
Some tend to define Nepal’s geopolitical position as a ‘yam between the two boulders the dictum late king Prithivi Narayan Shah advocated back in the second half of 19th century referring to Nepal’s delicate position. Analysing the geopolitical situation of the time and behaviour of our two powerful neighbours namely the British India in the South and China in the north, late king Prithivi Narayan Shah provided the basis for Nepal’s foreign policy underscoring the need for handling our foreign policy more delicately and sensibly.
Nepal’s foreign policy basis has been guided by the same dictum since then, whether we accept it or not. The geopolitical situation has not changed as Nepal continues to remain between the two powerful countries. This geopolitical situation and our location requires us to handle our foreign policy and diplomacy more skilfully, which alone can serve our national interest.
If we prudently, delicately and skilfully handle our foreign policy at the best interest of our national interest, we can definitely extract maximum benefits from this geopolitical reality. But it requires soul searching and self-assessment whether we have been able to capitalize this new geopolitical reality for our national interest. If we look critically at our behaviour and handling, we have utterly failed to maximize our national interest and taken due benefits.
The international power is shifting to Asia. The 19th century was European century in which Britain was the leader and Europe was the epicentre of world power. Britain had dominant presence worldwide. There used to be saying that ‘sun never sets in the British empire’ referring to Britain’s colonies in all continents of the world. However, after the Word War II, national liberation movements surged across the world and Britain lost its colonies one after another thereby marking a sharp decline in its global presence and power. After the World War II, international power shifted to America as the United States emerged as the world leader, thus, creating 20th century as the American century. With the Soviet Union’s disintegration in 1991, the United States turned out to be the sole superpower having dominant role in the international politics and order.
With the dawn of a new millennia or the 21st century, the world order has seemingly started to change. The Europe-American centric international power has slowly started shifting again—this time to Asia. Asia is rising fast both economically and militarily. Predictions have it that the 21st century will be the Asian century. There are 28 countries in Asia of which some countries have already become world powers and some are in the process of emerging as global powers. China has risen as a global power in terms of economic strength, military might and technological advancement capable to challenge the sole superpower United States. India is currently the fifth largest economy and has the potentials and ambition to rise as a global power. Similarly, Japan is third largest economy. Israel is yet another Asian country which has superior military and technological prowess. Turkey is a transcontinental military giant in West Asia. Indonesia is also a potential power of Asia. So Asian countries are rising powers in the new millennia.
Nepal’s location between the two great powers of Asia–China and India—is very significant from geopolitical standpoint. China and India are not only global powers but also geopolitical and strategic competitors. India and China have unique relations as they are both competitors as well as partners. They are competing strategically and cooperating economically.
The Cold War has resurfaced in the world, the epicentre of which is Asia. The genesis of the Cold War goes back to the Potsdam conference in 1945. However, some are of the opinion that the US act of dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima of Japan on August 6, 1945 without informing its wartime allies, in reality, gave birth to the crisis of trust between the United States and the Soviet Union and sowed the seed of the Cold War.
The Potsdam Conference which was participated in by the United States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom, charted the post-war Europe’s map. Germany was partitioned into different zones and Europe was divided on the basis of ideology. It is not only Europe but the entire world started getting polarized into two camps one was led by the United States and the other by the Soviet Russia. Even some Asian countries aligned with different power blocs.
Nepal and many countries in the developing world could not afford to align with any of the two power blocs and chose to be neutral thereby creating a new group called the Non-aligned Movement. However, some countries despite being the member of the Non-aligned Movement, had in a way or the other strategic and security alliance with either of the two big powers. India, for instance, is one of the founders of the Non-aligned Movement but had entered into a long-term comprehensive security partnership with Soviet Union, while India’s rival Pakistan was US ally. China distanced itself from the communist Soviet Union and, after Nixon-Mao historic meeting in 1972, moved closer to the capitalist United States. In fact, the Non-Aligned movement did not function, in practice, and is, now, in the moribund state although its relevance still exists especially for weaker countries.
In the lexicon of realist foreign policy, non-alignment has a little relevance. Countries conduct their foreign policy based on their national interest. Alignment cannot be permanent and countries may change position depending upon the national and international situation. In the conduct of foreign policy, the non-alignment can only be a tactics but not a strategy. In the views of propagators of realist theory of international relations, a country takes and should take position in the turn of event or events in the international arena taking into account the national interest. But most of the countries in the developing world took non-aligned position during the Cold War, which was then appropriate for their national interest as they could not afford to take side of one bloc antagonizing the other in the bitter rivalry of two superpowers. Nepal, too, joined this bandwagon of non-aligned movement and still continues to be, which is in Nepal’s best interest. However, the non-alignment does not mean to remain indifferent from the events taking place in the international arena and non-aligned countries did raise their voice loudly and clearly on issues that were contrary to the international law, norms and values enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the principles of non-aligned movement. The concept of non-alignment is more relevant for Nepal in the present context in which two of our immediate neighbours are in two different poles in the newer Cold War.
Many people are of the view that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. It is true that after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, US remained the sole superpower and there was no other country to challenge US’ dominant role in the global power politics. The United States dictated whereas the rest of the world took notes. However, the Cold War, in reality, did not end but remained only in a dormant state for some years or decades since 1989 which has recently resurfaced with the rise of China as a global power player. Only the form of the Cold War and its actors have changed. The Cold War earlier was ideological and now it is economic. However, the United States is trying to give ideological colour to this new form of the Cold War.
Asia has come to be a new theatre of geopolitical rivalry between big powers. The big power rivalry in Asia is of quadrangular nature: 1. between the United States and China, 2. between China and India, 3.between US-India combined and China, 4. between China Russia combined and USA. These countries are recalibrating their power projection and building their own strength in Asia. China containment has been the primary strategic goal of the United States at present with which Washington has devised new strategic initiatives and accordingly created a number of Asia-focused alliances. China, too, is building counter strategy to its strategic benefit. The Indo-Pacific Strategy, Australia UK-US alliance or AKUS, Tran-Pacific Partnership and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) of the United States, India, Japan and Australia are some Asia focused alliances and initiatives undertaken by the United States primarily aimed at containing China, while Washington has entered into bilateral security and strategic arrangements with a number of countries in Asia and the Pacific region. India’s Act East Policy is also guided with the motive of playing its active role and building grater collaboration with countries in the Indo-Pacific region clearing aiming to check China. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is China’s strategic project apparently under the façade of economic cooperation seeking to enlarge its presence in Asia and beyond, although Beijing denies it and says the BRI is purely an economic initiative for the shared benefits for all countries. Similarly, China has built strategic partnership with a number of individual countries and also with some regional groupings.
The new scenario in the international arena in which Asia is emerging as the centre of gravity, Nepal’s strategic and geopolitical position demands more strategic culture and pragmatic approach in dealing with the newly emerged powers of Asia and in the conduct of our foreign policy and diplomacy. It is said that foreign policy is an assertion of sovereign power in the international arena and we, accordingly, need to direct and reorient our policy and conduct in a way from which we extract maximum benefit out of the situation for our national interest. If we fail to handle this situation prudently in commensurate with our larger interest and also without jeopardizing our friends’ core interests, there is always danger that Nepal may be caught in the crossfire of this fierce geopolitical rivalry of great powers.
End text.
Text courtesy: Annual Journal 2022, Nepal Council of World Affairs( NCWA).
# Copy handed over by Shri Buddhi Narayan Shrestha-the Vice President of the NCWA.
# Thanks the distinguished author Mr. Lamsal.
Our contact email address is: editor.telegraphnepal@gmail.com
References:
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. (https://www.jus.uio.no/ english/services/library/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml)
Christopher Hill – The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan
Constitution of Nepal Dibya Upadesh of late king Prithivi Narayan Shah
Yuba Nath Lamsal- https://risingnepaldaily.com/opinion/asian-century-in-the-making Me Cauley M, The Origin of the Cold War