Bhimnath Baral
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
PNC, Pokhara, Nepal

Abstract:

After the unification of many tiny states into a single and unified state, the foundation of Nepalese foreign policy was coined by brave, visionary and nationalist king Prithivi Narayan Shah. On the basis of geo-reality, his foreign policy based on non-alignment and neutrality is still relevant. But the subsequent rulers could not maintain their foreign policy images. The trend of changing foreign policy tilt with every change in regime in general and leader in particular created difficulty in foreign policy making. The geo strategic location of the country on the one hand and continuous political instability in the country on the other, always created threat for its survival. The geographical proximity of two Asian powers and their security concern further added more threat upon our independence. All these conditions have played influencing role in the determination of foreign policy choices. Since, Nepal is in advantageous position to benefit from India and China, after a long transition, the newly elected government has almost single choice to act as a balance of local, regional and global interest. So the main objective of this article is to analyze the patterns and trends of Nepalese foreign policy choices. Secondary sources of data are used to achieve the objectives.

Introduction:

Modern world is characterized by interdependency nature. Here the states are the major units of international system who always take part in interaction with the aim to protect their interest. In this age of growing interdependence no nation can remain in isolation. So there are always reasons for interactions among the actors of world community to form international processes. Their interactions are best reflected on the policies adopted by the state towards other states. These policies are generally known as foreign policies which involve regulating and conducting external relations of the state with respect to other in the international scenario. Like internal and domestic politics, a state should pay special attention to the careful formulation and successful execution of foreign policy. It is only through the adoption of sound foreign policy and its effective implementation that a nation’s sovereignty is preserved, international dignity is enhanced and the national interest promoted (Thapa, 2014:1). A careful foreign policy enhances a nation’s power and prestige in the comity of nations.

Achievement in foreign policy also increases the government’s credibility in the eyes of public internally as well as externally (Malhotra, 2014:156). So foreign policy has been a very sensitive issue for every policy maker. A nation’s foreign policy is formulated on the basis of its position vis-à-vis of the states in the international system. Since it is too hard for a country to remain in isolation in the present day world, it must follow the established pattern of relationship with other and act accordingly. A state must set up the long term and short term objectives clearly to maximize the benefits it can acquired from the established system (Khanal, 2009:98). In such situations, it becomes the primary responsibility of every state to adopt the adequate policy to serve their interest.

Though the interest of the state may vary from time to time, it can best be preserved by adopting reasonable foreign policy (Baral, 2072:95). But all the states are not equally found capable in making sound foreign policy in regard to protect and promote their interest. Basically, the small powers like Nepal are unable to make adequate choice in their foreign policy matter. To many extent, Nepal has been struggling hard for its survival in the anarchic international system where there is no super sovereign authority over state to maintain global order and enforce rule (Dahal, 2011:31). It became a compulsive necessity for Nepal to make various choices in foreign policy matter to be survived in several challenging modes of history. Through out its history, Nepal has always been cautious when it comes to dealing with both of its immediate neighbours (Republica, 2016:6). Even after the advent of democracy to till date, Nepalese foreign policy choice has been remained changing. The tendency to change foreign policy tilt with every change in government has posed difficulty for Nepal to maintain internal cohesion and external adaptation (Dahal, 2011:1). However, Nepal has never remained under the colony of any power country in its history. Our ancestors could preserve the survival of the nation even in the critical days of nation building.

So, the questions automatically arise that what were the major pattern and trend of Nepalese foreign policy? Why different choices were made in foreign policy matter? and how it could be possible for Nepal to preserve the independent identify of the nation? This article aims to achieve the answer of the questions.

Objectives of the Study:

The principal objective of this article is to analyze the changing dynamics of Nepalese foreign policy. Besides this, the specific objectives are as follows:

# to present a brief account of the evolution and development of Nepalese foreign policy.
# to assess the changing pattern and trends of Nepalese foreign policy.

Methodology:

In spite of its small strength, Nepal was able to maintain its existence during its early stage of nation building. It was possible through the adoption of adequate foreign policy. But along with the passes of time, foreign policy making and its execution has become a challenging task. So, this article is mainly related with the changing pattern and trend of Nepalese foreign policy in different modes of history. So, the study is made on descriptive and analytical design. The required data is acquired from secondary sources i.

e. books, journals, newspapers, documents and previous research works as well. Documentary method is used. The nature of data is qualitative.

Concept of Foreign Policy:

International system is composed with different actors. There is continuous interaction among the various actors of global system for the purpose of protecting and promoting their interest. Every actor and their behavior is determined by the fundamental instinct i.e. national interest. The way of dealing or the pattern of interaction of an actor with the another actor mostly influenced by the core thinking of national interest. By taking this fact into mind, every actor is guided by certain policy. Such policy pursued by a nation while dealing with the other is generally known as foreign policy.

Foreign policy has been defined by several scholars and thinkers on their own accord. It refers to the ways in which the central governments of sovereign states relate to each other and to the global system in order to achieve various goals or objectives (Jaiswal, 2016:2). A foreign policy is generally designed to help, protect and promote country’s national interests, security, economic prosperity and independent international image. According to Robert Jackson and Georg Soresen (2013:252) “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”. “Foreign policy”, as Schleicher views “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, 2014:156). “Foreign policy”, according to 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 “(Quoted, Thapa, 2014:1-2). In the words of Rodee “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 in Dahal, 2009:21).

On the whole, it can be said that foreign policy is the instrument to promote national interest. It is the policy pursued by a state in course of dealing with international community. It is the guideline on the basis of which a state conducts its foreign relations and behaves at international level.

Besides the above definition, foreign policy analysis is based on a broader context of academe .

The concept is determined by several theories. Though theory and policy does not necessarily lead to any one clear policy option, in most cases there will be several different options. Even so, the choice of theory how policy makers view the world is likely to affect the choice of policy (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013:252). However there are two broad theories with different values emphasizes in the formulation of policy i.e. realism and liberalism. Realism is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power (Goldstein and Pevehouse , 2008:43). It is based on pessimistic view of human natural. Human are self interested and egoistic. The relations are conflictual and may always lead to war and foreign policy decision making is influenced by the value of national security and state survival (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013:312). Realism is based on a view of the individual as primarily selfish and power seeking. Individuals are organized in states, each of which acts in a unitary ovary in pursuit of its own national interest (Mingst, 2004:66). So, the main concern of foreign policy makers is to manage their insecurity.

The liberal approach on the other hand, emphasizes the great potential for human progress in modern civil society and the capitalist economy, both of which can flourish in states which guarantee individual liberty. Freedom and democracy are the core values of relations of this school of thought. The liberalists are more optimistic about the prospects for peace and see the rules of international relations as slowly, incrementally evolving through time and potentially becoming more and more peaceful (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2008:84). This evolution results primarily from the gradual build-up of international organization and mutual cooperation and secondarily from changes in norms and public opinion.

The above theories are very relevant in the analysis of the patterns and trends of Nepalese foreign policy. Nepal’s geostrategic position sometimes overrides the basic assumptions of the established theories. From realistic point of view, Nepal has been struggling hard for its survival since the very beginning of nation building. Preservation of national independence has long been the most formidable problem of Nepalese foreign policy. According to liberalists, “relations between liberal states will be collaborative and cooperative” (Jackson and Soresen, 2013:309). But it could not be realized while making analysis of foreign policy of Nepal and its immediate neighbours.

The specific policies pursued by the various governments may have varied from time to time in accordance with changing circumstances, but certain basic considerations have delimited both the style and the content of their responses to external influence and challenge (Rose: 1971:277).

No doubt, a nation formulates its foreign policy keeping in view of its various national interests and objectives. For this, general, internal and external determinants also play varying degree of role due to which foreign policy takes different terms and shape in different countries. The view of policymakers a country’s approach towards outside world is likely to affect the choice of policy. Policy of isolation, policy of special relation, policy of equidistance, policy of zone of peace, policy of nonalignment and the policy of equi-proximity have remained the major foreign policy choices of Nepal. The trend and pattern of changing foreign policy is discussed in the following points:

Evolution of Nepal’s Foreign Policy:

Nepal, as a landlocked country, is strategically located between two very strong and powerful countries of Asia, China and India. Due to the unique geographical location of the country, the rulers have remained cautious from the very beginning regarding relations with foreigners particularly the two immediate neighbours. This fact is reflected very well in Prithvi Narayan Shah’s teaching (Divya Upadesh). It was during second half of eighteenth century, the brave, visionary and nationalist late king Prithvi Narayan Shah provided not only the basis for modern Nepal’s foreign and security policies but has also contributed in shaping its worldview (Khanal, 2009:96). He stated that Nepal is yam between two boulders.

He further said that great friendship should be maintained with the Chinese emperor. Friendship should also be maintained with the southern seas (The British) (Aryal and et. al., 2011:15). His suggestion was not to engage in an offensive attack, fighting should be done in a defensive basis. If it is found difficult to resist in the fight then even means of persuasion, tact and deceit should be employed (Acharya, 2070:13).

# Independent Foreign Policy:

As Prithvi Narayan Shah was fully aware about geostrategic reality of Nepal and had suggested his followers to adopt independent foreign policy. This spirit can be vividly seen in this ‘Dibya Upadesh’. But the succeeding rulers couldn’t maintain independent and non-aligned foreign policy as Nepal involved in wars with Tibet and British India in 1792 and 1814 respectively (khanal, 2009:100). As a result, Nepal’s boundary was more or less fixed. Basically, the Sugauli Treaty (1816) had limited Nepal’s external relations and British India remained the only focus of Nepal’s external dealings. The crisis in foreign policy and its subsequent consequences could be seen right from the Sugauli Treaty.

# Policy of Isolation:

British India-centric foreign policy had introduced in Nepal after Sugauli Treaty. Jung Bahadur’s rise in power after Kot Parva on the night of September 14, 1846 established Rana rule and resulted in a major redefinition of Nepal’s foreign policy (Lamsal, 2017:4). A practical Politician like Jung Bahadur was also award of the decline of Chinese power and it was not in a position or willing to challenge the British power in the Himalayan area and he adopted British -centric foreign policy (Rose, 1971:106) . The chief aim of the Rana prime ministers, includes that of Jung Bahadur, had been to keep up good relation with the United Kingdom. As a result, Nepal in those days looked at the international problems from the British point of view (Khanal, 2000:1). Nepalese foreign policy was given additional emphasis with Jung Bahadur’s visit to England as the visit strengthened his view that British rule in India was not going to be easily overthrown and that the confrontation with the British would be something like playing with fire. The ties of relation became more close when Nepal assisted the British ruler to suppress Sipoy Mutiny of 1857 (Thapa: 2016:14). Jung Bahadur’s visit to Europe via-Britain, contribution of Nepalese army in world wars in support to Britain also supported to make the relation more close. All these factors kept Nepal in isolation from the rest of the world. It is true that the policy of isolation would eventually also prove to be beneficial to the continuation of Rana regime and to serve the country from British usurpation as well (Sharma, 2006:15). Finally, during Rana days Nepal was thus isolated from the current of world opinion, parochial conservatism, distrust and doubt- all these elements cast their weight on the foreign policy in the past (Khanal, 2000:2).

# Policy of Special Relation:

The political change of 1950 brought 104 years old Rana oligarchy into an end. The newly introduced democratic system paved new pattern in foreign policy outlook. However, Nepal’s external relation during king Tribhuwan’s rule were dominated by India. The two countries were described as having had “special relation” with each other (Muni, 2016:59). This relation was mainly confined with our southern neighbor. Nepal’s relation with China was rarely cared. There were various factors that accounted for “Special Relations” between Nepal and India. The tie of special relation between Rana ruler and British India was rooted during Rana rule. After British departure from sub–continent, no substantial changes occurred in the situation. Signing of tripartite agreement providing for the British recurrent of the Gurkha soldiers in India, peace and friendship treaty of 1950, extradition treaty with India in 1953 etc. were the major events to have special relation with India (K.C. 2072: 1-22). It was also stated that the peace and friendship treaty was concluded at a time when Nepal feared a Chinese threat, particularly after the Chinese occupation of Tibet (Saran, 2017:153). It was also in practice that Indian ambassadors to Nepal had to attain the cabinet meeting. Govinda Narayan, the home secretary of Utter Pradesh, was deployed as the special secretary of king Tribhuwan (K.C., 2072:14) Besides these, India’s role in Anti Rana movement and familiarity of Nepalese freedom fighters with Indian soil were also responsible for the situation. When we talk about special relation, the matter of dependency, special direction and interest came upon the small states (Shahi, 2073:133). All these situations created India’s open influence in Nepalese foreign policy.

# Next issue  to be concluded with Non-aligned Foreign Policy: Ed. Upadhyaya. N. P.

# Our own contact email address is: editor.telegraphnepal@gmail.com