The country is in the midst of election fever. People across the nook and corner of the country are going to cast their votes in less than a couple of days from now. Political parties of all hues and manners and their candidates are busy as bees doing rounds of their constituencies with folded hands and false smiles on their face, all asking for votes from the people. But it appears, doubts and trepidation seem to have gripped the mindset of many voters as the date for casting votes nears. It is seemingly difficult to read their thoughts whether or not they have really woken up from their stupors. Meanwhile, the election manifestos, if one reads them closely, particularly of major political parties look less than encouraging. They offer nothing tangible in terms of innovative ideas, novelty in vision, including a clear road map as to how to go about realizing them.
It is my intention here only to dwell upon the foreign policy aspects as articulated in their manifestos. By and large all parties have reiterated the same principles and objectives as enshrined in the Constitution. Defending and preserving country's supreme national interest and maintaining best of relations with all friendly countries in general, and with the immediate neighbors in particular, in light of their fast growing economic and military prowess have seemingly been the major preoccupations of all. However, these are only the theoretical underpinnings, pleasant only to hear and read.
We have been hearing those lofty foreign policy ideals many a time from our political leaders in the past. But the ground realities speak a different story. There is no escaping Nepal's international image and respect are in the process of fast erosion because of the dismal handling of foreign relations by all the governments in the past and the one now. In the subsequent paragraphs, I will endeavor to give my humble personal impressions and the reason why Nepal is constantly losing its international respectability and visibility.
Managing foreign relations
I think there is as much difference in meaning between maintaining and managing foreign relation as it is between preaching and practicing them. All countries wish and preach their fervent desire to maintain hassle-free relations with other countries. However, we have seen when it comes to managing relations with their vital national interest in mind; the very countries pursue a different path. This is the common character that all countries have pursued and will continue in managing their foreign relations. Saying one thing and doing just the opposite is one of their characteristics. Little wonder when Henry Kissinger says, "Power is the main instrument in the conduct of foreign policy."
I think our government is well aware about these basic fundamentals of international relations management. But, they have failed to practice foreign relations in keeping with the challenging demands of contemporary international systems that have brought to bear upon us. It seems to me that all the governments of post-republican Nepal at different points in time have largely utilized foreign policy only as a tool for making lofty speeches abroad on their trips, as well as to reward the ambassadorial positions to their political acolytes, relatives and rich business people.
This is not how foreign relations are managed. A proper and informed management of foreign relations presupposes making a clear distinction between domestic and foreign relations issues. This means conducting themselves in a more dignifying and diplomatic manner in line with the standard diplomatic norms by our politicians and ministers.
Charity begins at home
This simple adage is true when it comes to managing best of relations, both at home and internationally. When domestic political and economic situation is in doldrums, high-sounding theoretical talks on how the looming geo-political threats in the country can and should be dealt with will take us nowhere. Such talks may at best signify the symptoms but not offer the cure. Our government and political leaders in the days ahead should first begin works for keeping our own house in order. Only then can the work to chart a clear roadmap, including appropriate response strategies to cope with the emerging and existing foreign policy challenges be possible.
Whichever political party forms the next government must think through this simple adage and set in motion the house cleaning exercises. The first and foremost important requirement is the change in their personal haywire diplomatic behavior, in their interactions with foreign dignitaries. The next step would then be the ending of all manners of political interference in the day-today working of foreign ministry.
Diplomatic Code of conduct
I have often been writing and reiterating the need for building domestic resilience to earn international respect and credibility. This would entail a display of consistent and credible international behavior by the governments and political party leaders. A continued messy domestic political situation, lack of effective diplomacy in properly managing foreign relations, frequent flaunting of established international norms by our ministers and politicians in meeting foreign diplomats is something that has seriously undercut our international image.
As a result, foreign diplomats too have begun to breach diplomatic code of conduct by meeting directly with our ministers and senior officials without prior consent, or knowledge of Foreign Ministry. This is simply unacceptable, as it runs counter to diplomatic respectability and sensitivity. Moreover, this is something no other countries in the world practice when it comes to interacting with foreign dignitaries.
There is no denying that effective practice of foreign policy requires effective application of diplomacy. It is as simple as that. To begin with, we must begin by taking small reform measures to set our own house in order. Politicians and ministers that come next after the election must bear this simple truth in mind. The diplomatic code of conduct has been prepared, fine-tuned and put in place by different governments at different times. Strange, however, all governments that came to power have consistently shown reluctance to put the Code in practice.
Why the diplomatic code of conduct, which was always practiced during the Panchayat era was suddenly began to be openly flaunted, especially by post-republican governments of Nepal. Some think and rightly so, our post-republican Prime ministers are largely to blame for starting this diplomatic breach, followed then gradually by influential politicians and ministers. It is widely believed all our Prime ministers felt it diplomatically demeaning having to practice the Diplomatic code. Experts suspect because they had their personal agendas to discuss, they wanted to keep their diplomatic meetings as secret as possible. Abiding by the Code would have obliged them to channel all their meetings, interactions and communication, including the purpose, with all foreign dignitaries only through the Foreign Ministry.
Moreover, they have to allow a note- taker from the Foreign Ministry to record the gist of every such diplomatic meeting for institutional memory! That could perhaps be one important reasons why the noncompliance with the diplomatic Code of conduct began and has been continuing. Clearly, the lion's share of the blame for such breaches goes to all the Prime ministers who allowed this practice to go on with impunity. If meeting with diplomats at their whims and pleasure of the prime minister and other politicians and ministers has to be stopped it is the Prime minister who must lead by example.
We will have to see how seriously the next government will take steps towards stopping this flagrant violation of the diplomatic code of conduct. Making commitments is not adequate in this respect. It must be confirmed by its conduct.
Envoy appointment
Our social Medias and press have been consistently writing sharp and revealing pieces on how political appointment of nonprofessionals, particularly unqualified ones, as ambassadors continues, despite relentless public criticisms. All governments in power at different point in time have been shamelessly continuing this undemocratic and undiplomatic practice. Experts on foreign affairs think many of the political nominees picked and appointed are, by and large, diplomatic greenhorns. They have neither professional competence, nor a modicum of diplomatic exposure and experience to qualify for the appointment. Examples have been cited how these diplomatic greenhorns because of their controversial deeds had brought disgrace and dishonor to the international image and prestige of the country. Why are governments lured into making such controversial appointments, even in the face of big public opprobrium? There are certain reasons, such as a few, cited below.
Becoming an Ambassador is itself a big measure of recognition in Nepal, regardless of the quality of performance. It elevates one's social status and increases pseudo-intellectual height. It offers opportunities to join diplomatic gatherings and to rub shoulders with diplomats and other elites of the capital city, at home or abroad.
Moreover, to become an ambassador requires no diplomatic or professional skill in Nepal other than to be in the good book of political leaders in power that is the reason why there is so much attraction to grab the position at least once in life.
However, this is not at all to mean that all non-career appointees are unqualified for the appointments. There are many well experienced, knowledgeable, able and well-articulated experts. But these self-respecting people would hate knocking at the ministers' doorsteps!
Conclusion
Ernst Friedrich Schumacher in his famous book "Small is beautiful" underlines how important it is to attend to small things before attempting at tackling greater challenges. We must also begin reforms from fixing small knots and bolts. We know reform is not one time evens. It is a continuing process. It may take a while for reforms to take roots. What is required is to stop the gap between commitment and conduct.
Hence, this kind of unfair and undiplomatic show must stop soon enough by whichever party forms the next government, should be ready for launching reforms cited above without hesitation and trepidation. It should grant a greater degree of institutional autonomy and operational freedom to the Foreign Ministry to conduct foreign relations free of direct and unnecessary political interference. In other words, Foreign Ministry must be allowed to sharpen its operational teeth and augment its in-house diplomatic prowess. To put it simply, because seeing is believing the practice of constant political interference in the management and conduct of foreign relations and flagrant breach of "Diplomatic Code of Conduct" must be seen as being permanently put to end by the next government. The buck of reforms stops at the door of the next prime minister.
(Thapa is a former Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)
