It is a routine phenomenon with every new government to form a new cabinet. Accordingly, ministers in various ministries, including one in the foreign ministry have recently been appointed. A retiree from the Foreign Ministry, having served for nearly three decades, my attention has obviously been drawn by the appointment of a well-read and articulate woman as foreign Minister, which is a welcome development. But it remains to be seen if she will be able to demonstrate the kind of leadership determination and dedication to effectively deal with the multiple operational problems piling up in the ministry.
There is no denying she may have good and honest intentions to give the best of her as a new foreign minister! But it all depends upon how much operational freedom and trust she will be able to exercise and enjoy from the PM and the political party that has recommended her name. Let us wish her the best of luck and wait with our fingers crossed!
Institutional decay
In every country, the Foreign Ministry remains at the forefront. It is considered the international eye of any government through which to look into and interact with the international community. Its officials, called diplomats, are the mouthpiece of a government to conduct advocacy projects for internal image and external credibility and secure international understanding and goodwill from other countries. That is why in developing and the least developed countries conduct of foreign relations to shore up international cooperation and assistance for vital national development agendas through exercise in effective diplomacy has been the utmost priority. Call it economic diplomacy, or diplomacy for development, they stand to serve the same purpose.
How does our Foreign Ministry fare in terms of developing institutional strength and individual capacity of the ministry and its officials? The picture that emerges before is far from sanguine. With the exception of a few self-made competent officials, the rest are simply diplomats in name only. It is not to say that freshly recommended all young officers from the Public Service Commission are less deserving. I have met some of them who look very sharp, well-focused, and very motivated. But no sooner than they join the Foreign Ministry they gradually begin to lose their intellectual sharpness and appetite for knowledge enhancement on international relations. The atmosphere in the ministry is so discouraging when it comes to grooming and honing them in the art of diplomacy that these young and bright officers soon feel suffocated. There is no good library in the ministry well-stocked with books by renowned scholars and on international relations.
The ministry never conducts periodic issue-based in-house debates and discussions among the officers on issues of international economic and strategic importance having implications for Nepal. The senior officials have little time to think over such issues. They are busy running around the Foreign Minister with folded hands and oily tongues to impress upon him in their favor. They are not found keen enough about promoting among officials innovative ideas, creative thinkings and constructive suggestions for effective institutional development? Are they a little concerned about promoting innovative ideas for effective institutional development? Over time young and bright officers also begin to dance to the tunes of their seniors. Today, the Foreign Ministry has become like a filthy cesspool where once the bright and bold officers have turned into mere careerists devoid of intellectual thinking, analytical sharpness, and diplomatic dexterity required of them. In sum, it would not be out of place to say that the foreign ministry today has been on its way to a continued institutional decay and irrelevance.
I think, it has been increasingly realized among informed experts the sharp and progressive erosion in the ability, credibility, and deliverability of our diplomats and diplomacy is largely owing to the lack of meaningful institutional reforms. Foreign Ministers have never been seen as political leaders with visions. They are never seen seriously engaged in reform agendas. Their main preoccupation has become the appointment of ambassadors and running the day-to-day administration as per the wish of the Prime minister. Our Diplomacy, its operational aspects in particular, hence stands, if I may, in dire need of meaningful and massive reforms.
Second is the institutional flaw inherent in our Foreign Ministry; every joint secretary in the Ministry begins to see himself/herself as eminently qualified for the Ambassadorial appointment no sooner than he is promoted to that position, irrespective of whether he/she has earned enough experience, exposure, knowledge and diplomatic skill for the job. Of course, there is nothing wrong for them to aspire for that appointment. What I am trying to say is that even they also need to earn that appointment on the basis of their competence and performance evaluation. Similarly, it is my considered view that Ambassador's post is not a holiday pleasure trip bestowed upon someone nearest and dearest by the government, primarily by the prime minister! Nor should it be measured only in terms of the monetary benefits.
The story will remain the same until there are no transparent guidelines to seriously examine the intellectual, social, cultural and economic capital of a candidate. Without putting in place a rigorous performance evaluation mechanism in the ministry to measure performances of ambassadors' in the Missions, as well as those of the Joint Secretaries' in the Ministry, to underline the fact that even the Foreign Ministry's Joint Secretaries should earn this appointment through their demonstrated diplomatic competence, caliber and knowledge it is futile to talk of reforms. Just like all our fingers, not all the Joint Secretaries may be equally qualified or suited for the job by virtue of his/her merely becoming the joint secretary, as is the case now. On the contrary, even a competent Under Secretary can and should be considered for the appointment, based on his/her performance evaluation.
As far as improving implementation of pressing foreign policy issues is concerned, there is no need to make long policy reform speeches by the PM, or foreign minister! What I have stated above is something every detached and impartial foreign policy expert of our country has long been saying and writing. Several reports have been prepared under instruction from, and submitted to, governments with time-suited recommendations, only to be left to be moth-eaten in the cabinet at the far corner of the Ministry.
So, what can be done? What could be the real way out of this reform deadlock?
The answer, or solution to breaking this recalcitrant reform-resistance is the sincerity, determination and steely resolve of one person and that person is the Prime minister!
I am only reiterating this because many foreign policy experts have already shed extensive light on this issue. Ours is a prime ministerial system. If the PM really wants he has the ability to create ambience favorable to launch institutional reforms. The Prime minister must begin the reform process from himself. He must stop handpicking foreign minister on his personal whim and pleasure. Instead, he should choose one who is experienced, knowledgeable, competent and has clear vision about foreign policy issues. Then the PM must always encourage and allow him to work independence of any personal or political interference. In terms of launching operational and institutional reforms of the MoFA or in matters of envoy name selection, the Foreign Minister must enjoy the full trust of his Prime minister. He should allow similar operational freedom to the foreign Secretary in carrying out administrative functions.
Only then will the Foreign Minister be able to command respect of the foreign Ministry. The Prime minister then must initiate and practice the process of compliance with the Diplomatic Code of Conduct in meeting with foreign dignitaries. He must ensure and observe himself first that all the requests for courtesy calls on him by foreign ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries are channeled only through foreign Ministry. He must get his ministers, too, to follow the same process. The PM must keep constant eye on whether the FM is carrying out his responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner and whether he has given importance to quality of work and competence and capability of officers or has been swayed by nepotism and favorites.
Depending upon the revaluation, the PM should not hesitate to take actions, as appropriate, against any, including the FM, if found derelict in duties and shirking from their responsibilities, as appropriate, but well in time.This will send down chill into the lazybones and work procrastinators in the Ministry. They will be compelled either to swim with reforms or sink!
But, will the PM really show that courage of conviction and confidence and vow to make a new beginning for instituting sweeping reforms to make the entire bureaucracy functional!To cut a long story short, the present PM has all the ingredients of a leader, who is bold and imaginative and can take such bold decision, if he really wants to.
Otherwise, the Foreign Minister, however much capable and reform-minded, cannot succeed. Therefore, without the Prime minister's serious intention and encouragement, all talks of reforms and practice of pragmatic foreign policy that she may have up in her sleeves will remain unimplemented. The buck of reforms, thus, stops at the Prime minister!
