Spread the love

On/Off the Record

By P.R. Pradhan

Again, the Foreign Ministry is learnt to have constituted a task force to reset Nepal’s foreign policy. This is not a new thing in the Foreign Ministry as whenever there will be a new foreign minister, he will try to reset his own foreign policy. Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s own colleague and presently Nepal’s ambassador to China, Mahendra Bahadur Pandey had also tried to reset a new foreign policy. Where is the report prepared by him, we don’t know. Following the resetting effort of Minister Gyawali, an NC activist who claims to be a democratic intellectual, Geja Sharma Wagle has suggested for redefining Nepal’s foreign policy.

Wagle has advised for introducing a new practical foreign policy amicable to today’s global political scenario. Wagle, however, has suggested the formula that Nepal’s foreign policy should be based on non-alignment, Panchasheel and the UN Charter. These are not new areas identified by the writer.

Nepal, considering her geopolitical location, cannot jump or adopt a new foreign policy except reviving Nepal’s traditional foreign policy practised during the Panchayat days.

The main formula of Nepali foreign policy was invented by Great King Prithivi Narayan Shah. Nepal a yam in between the two boulders; maintaining equidistance relations with the two immediate neighbours; maintaining defensive policy on war is the basic and practical foreign policy introduced by the Great King. On the base of the very policy, King Mahendra modernized and adopted practical foreign policy, establishing Nepal as an important nation in the international arena. Nepal became member country of the United Nations, Nepal became the founding member of the non-aligned movement, Nepal established diplomatic relations with dozens of countries along with bilateral support for Nepal. King Mahendra’s diplomacy was for Nepal’s modernization, industrialization and infrastructural development.

King Birendra also followed his father’s path contributing further to proposing Nepal as a Zone of Peace (ZoP). This proposal was recognized by 116 nations except for India. This proposal was announced by King Birendra immediately after the annexation of Sikkim, an independent Himalayan Kingdom and formation of Bangladesh by splitting Pakistan. This JoP move was for safeguarding Nepal’s sovereignty from the Indian expansionists, not for saving his throne. Why India didn’t accept ZoP, it is clear and how the ZoP was abruptly removed from the 1990 constitution by the political leaders involved in writing the constitution, they are unable to justify. After the introduction of the 1990 constitution, not only international consequences of Nepal’s foreign policy were overshadowed, an independent nation Nepal turned as an India-dependent nation. Nepal’s effective foreign policy during the Kings’ days cannot be compared with the present era in the country. The Panchayat system lasted for 30 years. In the 30 years, Nepal had become the non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for two times. Since 1990, we have already spent 30 years and we have not been able to secure the position again, this is the reality.

Since 1990, our political actors are solely depended on India and they are following the Indian policy. For example, when India sent a Vice President-led delegation to attend the NAM Summit, following the Indians, Nepal also sent the Vice President-led delegation to the Summit. India, giving less priority to the NAM movement, sent its ceremonial vice president having virtually no role in the governance. To note, India is no more a non-aligned nation as Indian external affairs minister S Jaishankar has also mentioned it recently. Yet, Nepal cannot align with any of the multinational military pacts. This is our ground reality. But our leaders were naïve on the significance of the non-aligned movement and tried to undermine the Summit by sending a deputy ceremonial chief of the nation.

Since 1990, a new tradition has been started in Nepali politics. After assuming the post of the prime minister, every new prime minster started to put the first leg in Delhi before starting his foreign trip as if the newly designated ambassador presenting the letter of credence.

Either our political leaders are naive or they are worried about their Indian bosses, they are found speaking very lightly on issues related to foreign policy. Our ambassador to China, also a former foreign minister, had once said that King Mahendra had sold the Kalapani territory by taking two boxes of gold. Now, when his own party claimed on the Kalapani territory as Nepali soil, the Indians have not been able to present any document that Nepal’s king had sold the territory to India. How will such a person perform as an ambassador in China and how much China will trust on such a person who makes such false statement on Nepali territory? None other than Kamal Koirala, one among the senior leaders in the then UML, has many times publicly claimed that he was asked to pay 3 million rupees earlier to his assignment as the ambassador to South Korea. He had no money, still, he had paid 1.5 million rupees to the leaders in the then UML party. When the ambassadorial position becomes the item for sale or the opportunity for a foreign junket or a place to relax by leaders’ relatives, Wagle or Minister Gyawali’s redefining or resetting of foreign policy doesn’t work. There is a need for reviving our traditional foreign policy by ending all these anomalies, which is impossible under this system.

People’s Review Print Edition