Sir Earnest Mason Satow in his famous book “Guide to Diplomatic Practices” says, "Modern diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between governments of independent states". This is implying that diplomacy is the exclusive domain of government, in other words, Foreign Ministry. Although, the underlying purpose, practice, and actors remain largely unchanged, diplomacy, the main instrument for conduct of interstate relations, has undergone transformations. Factors of influence are the communication revolution, the rise of multilateral organizations, and the global influence of the internet, which have transformed the manner and methods of practicing diplomacy.
Role definition
As a result, the increased participation of non-state actors in foreign policy is a phenomenon more pronounced in developed and even in developing countries, these days. Their growing involvement in foreign policy formulation and even in its practice has called into question the traditional claims of diplomacy as being an exclusive domain of the Foreign Ministry. In a post-modern world, the role of foreign policy and its conduct is defined primarily for the peace, progress, and general welfare of the people. Pro-people foreign policy has therefore become the name of diplomatic game. In many developed countries conduct of foreign policy has no longer remained the exclusive prerogative of a Foreign Ministry. Diplomacy as a profession has also undergone changes of far-reaching consequences in terms of definition, qualification, and role- the expectation of what a “diplomat is and is not supposed to be. Participation of citizens has become more and more important to help and oftentimes to force the government to act for the larger interest of the people and peace. We have come to see in democratic countries, informed citizens have started to realize they should not stand as a mute by-standers when the government takes unpopular decisions affecting the lives of people. A range of diplomatic actors called non-state actors have also emerged within and outside of states often acting independently from the Foreign Ministry by using different tracks, or channels. Increased power and influence of these non-state actors, also called (Track 2 actors) operating through multi-tracks have made it necessary to rethink of diplomacy and role definition of diplomats, as well as the tasks of foreign Ministry.
Where is Nepal?
In Nepal, too, public awareness about foreign relations management issues are growing fast. Of late, various foreign policy experts, independent think-tanks, intellectuals and informed media houses, called non-state actors, have emerged and been in the forefront to ask questions to, and influence government decision-making process over, issues related to practice of foreign policy.
I believe a proper pro-people foreign policy is not only about making only tall promises, such as our governments often do during election campaigns, only to forget them once-and-for-all after they have won the elections. Little do they care that a pro-people government should be seen as being responsible and making sincere efforts to conduct foreign relations in an open and transparent manner. The Foreign Ministry must, therefore, put in place separate mechanism to inform the public about every important developments or decisions on international relations that may have significant implications for our national interest, through regular press releases, press briefings and interactions with the concerned non-state actors informed of international issues.
This is also called inclusive foreign policy. The pursuit of inclusive foreign policy would entail periodic interactions with track2 diplomatic actors, such as former ambassadors, foreign policy experts, academics and business community, not only for information-dissemination about the important foreign policy activities but also for purpose of seeking their valued inputs and recommendations on important foreign policy agendas.
As a matter of fact, exercise in public diplomacy in foreign relations management is a bridge between the ministry and the general public. It helps to conduct foreign relations in an open, inclusive and participatory manner. The government and its operational organ, the foreign ministry, therefore, must step up institutional and operational efforts to respond to the growing public awareness and expectations to know about the way the Ministry has been functioning. The foreign ministry must also lend its ear to their suggestions, if any, in terms of how the Ministry should reinvent itself for the new role and functions. It has to realize that the era of the practicing foreign policy in an aura of exclusivity is no longer workable. The idea that practice of modern-day foreign policy must be placed in the service and welfare of the people and the country is fast gaining ground. Nepal can't and shouldn’t remain impervious to these growing trends. It should take the views of informed public into serious account in the formulation and execution of foreign policy.
Conclusion
Conduct of foreign relations in an open, transparent and inclusive manner by engaging with the informed public and track2 diplomatic actors have shown that such efforts in fact help in gaining public support to important foreign policy decisions. Lack of operational transparency would fuel apprehension and create confusion among the informed public. It can ignite trouble, thereby putting international relations at potential risk. We saw for ourselves in our country, not too a distant past, how the public, media, and intellectuals for lack of information reacted negatively against the Project Agreement Nepal government had done with the Millennium Challenge Corporation of the US . The government was accused, and rightly so, of not fully informing the country about the knots and bolts of the agreement, giving rising in its wake ugly anti-American street protests. Although the agreement was done in good faith, the government failed to inform the public in time about the Agreement through exercise in public diplomacy. This only helped to fuel, not foil, the public confusions and suspicions. It offered unnecessary space for those who assumed the agreement had a vicious geo-political angel to it. Violent street protests with so many distorted disinformation about the US put our relations with the US under serious strain. The stony silence kept by foreign ministry compounded the situation further and nearly brought the US and China face to face in Nepal. Luckily, it was averted and Nepal could escape from a disastrous geo-political confrontation. The government must draw a lesson from this luckily averted danger. It should begin thinking anew that engaging and interacting with non-state diplomatic actors and informing the public about important foreign policy decisions is in the best interest of the country.
The world is suddenly looking unfriendly and forbidding. The war on Ukraine looks not relenting anytime soon. China's growing economic, military and technological prowess is seen by the western powers led by the US, as seriously threatening the international peace and security. Various security alliances are formed. In such a scenario, Nepal has to deal not only with its two immediate neighbors but also with a new triangular force at a time, that of India, China and the US. The growing interest of the US in the Indo-pacific region means that it is no longer a distant country for us to deal with. The Chinese perceive alliances such as the QUAD, the AUKUS and the IPS are security and defense alliances aimed against China, primarily to contain its maritime power march in the indo-pacific region. China is therefore seemingly sensitive to any US activities in countries of the Indopacific region in general. Because of Tibet being its soft belt, China is extremely sensitive about any of the long-term US presence in Nepal. India, too, doesn’t feel at ease with the US and Chinese presence in Nepal. So, managing relations with these three competing powers with obvious interests in Nepal is not as easy as it is not impossible, either.
It can be possible through the interplay of deft diplomacy, a show of consistent and credible international behaviour creating internal political and economic stability. This would mean developing internal resilience by first establishing internal political and economic stability. I think, our ability in building internal resilience and pursuit of national consensus foreign policy with the show of consistent and credible behavior would help us gradually earn external trust and acceptability. We must not, therefore, allow to continue our present domestic politics that is marked with chaos, misrule and corruption. We must change our mind-set. Therefore, for a safe, sound and sensible way of conducting foreign relations, exercise in public diplomacy and pursuit of inclusive foreign policy seem to me to be one of two best available options in the days ahead.
(Thapa is a former Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)
