Nepal: Foreign Policy Challenges Discussions on Nepal’s foreign policy generally evolve around its two immediate neighbors and very rightly so. The precept enunciated by King Prithivi Narayan Shah, the founder of united Nepal in his famous sermon of “Nepal is a yam between two boulders” (‘This nation is like a gourd between two rocks”-Dibya Upadesh) is the main source of Nepal’s foreign policy. Nepal has enjoyed best of relations with both its contiguous neighbors ever since and that alone has helped Nepali rulers to protect and preserve Nepal’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is also to be noted here that Nepal lost a chunk of its territory after losing war in the early 19th Century to the British Empire that had colonized most of Africa and Asia including India. Even during the great change that took place around the Second World War, primarily responsible for creating favorable conditions for independence of most countries of the Indian sub-continent, and afterwards, impending threat against Nepal’s independence was averted on account of significant change in the regional architecture that supported Nepal’s leaders to take timely action, Actually, during this period the constant threat of the British Empire’s expansionist design from the South died out permanently and emergence of a new China under a communist regime on the North seems to have offered a good scope for a pragmatic foreign policy for Nepal. Nevertheless, during the transition period of 1947-1951, the last of the Rana Prime Ministers signed a treaty with independent India known as the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship, often discussed and debated in Nepal. A third burst of change is in-the-making in the Asian region, particularly resulting from the rising economic might of Nepal’s immediate neighbors-China and India, and though Nepal’s position (on independence) today is much better than when it was during the early 1950s, yet the level of comfort in terms of exercising full sovereignty faces several problems. Currently, Nepal seems to have strained her relations with its Southern neighbor India in spite of that country’s support in bringing the then insurgents (Nepali Maoists) and an alliance of seven political parties that ultimately ended internal conflict. That conflict, lasting over a decade, took over thirteen thousand lives and caused destruction of public infrastructure that Nepal had created with great efforts. Moreover, India’s overwhelming concern against the terrorists’ attack taking place in its homeland including the financial capital Mumbai threatening to upset its financial progress should be a matter of grave worry to its contiguous neighbors, particularly Nepal having a long open border. Although Nepal does not seem to have any problem as such with its Northern neighbor, China, yet it cannot remain complacent to the Chinese concern often reflected against the protests staged (and possible disturbance in Lhasa) by the followers of Venerable Dalai Lama and others in Nepal which it considers as a threat to the protection and preservation of its integral part adjoining Nepal- the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Internally, Nepal is grappling to come to terms with its highly ambitious transformational agenda that is expected to usher in progress and prosperity to the country through an all-inclusive democratic governance under a republican set up. Ever since Nepal has been declared as a ‘federal democratic republic’ through its interim constitution written by the ‘resurrected’ members of parliament, the duly elected members of the constituent assembly are trying to figure out: a system that would fulfill the demands of all the people from mountains to hills to Terai plains at one stroke. Currently, Nepal’s political make up has two distinct characteristics: Nepali Congress Party and its allies that believe in parliamentary system of democratic governance similar to India’s political parties following capitalist economy under a free and open market; Nepali Communist Party (particularly CPN-UCPN-Maoists and scores of other left parties) whose socio-economic development model (under experimentation) is doubted by many in Nepal and abroad. Another major communist party of Nepal that headed Nepal’s government in 1995 and also pursued established capitalistic economic model for a brief period, the CPN-UML, supported the CPN-UCPN-Maoist party’s economic policy later. China’s successful economic development model has, however, offered an excellent hope to the remaining communist parties of the world including Nepal. Presently, Nepali communists dominate the political scene through its sheer strength in the Constituent Assembly as well as strong cadres based character. The lone superpower, the United States of America’s openly stated policy of democracy (western style, liberal one) as an essential factor in protecting and preserving the US’s interests globally, especially pronounced after the terrorists’ attacks against it, calls for a serious consideration by all countries including Nepal. Also, the increasing role of the international community to support regime change in pursuit of democracy and open markets has necessitated that every country remained alert to its policies and priorities. Development cooperation, earlier in the form of Official Development Assistance (ODA) being complemented largely by Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and now remittances from foreign employment, has remained an influential factor in the economic development of developing countries. The cost to development is spiraling higher due to a variety of reasons, the prominent among them being sustainable development (particularly environmental friendly technologies requiring high cost), securing the rights (sometimes exorbitant) of local inhabitants affected by mega projects, and of late additional trans border security arrangement against terrorists’ threats. The influence of the external factor on the political and economic development of a country is gaining considerable strength today. Since political and economic developments are two sides of the same coin, no country can move forward without finding an appropriate balance between the two. There are also scores of regional, sub-regional, cross regional and international economic and trade groupings from which a country can choose from to suit its development agenda. Since peace and security have become an integral part of effective trade, members of some such groupings have also agreed to enter into peace and security agreements besides economic cooperation. ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations), by signing the treaty of amity and cooperation in Southeast Asia, has clearly provided full thrust to the maintenance of peace, security and stability as a necessary condition for socio-economic progress and prosperity of this association. It has further defined the rules of the game for the association to be: mutual respect for independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all member nations; right of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion; non-interference in the internal affairs of one another; settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner; renunciation of threat or use of force; and effective cooperation among themselves. Besides these principles required for sustainable development of every member nation under an atmosphere of peace and harmony, the ASEAN members have also agreed to adhere to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The European Union is no different when it comes to adherence to democracy, transparency, good governance, fundamental freedoms and others. Additionally, the birth of the EU took place to avoid future wars in the continent so that the people of the continent could achieve peace, prosperity and stability by overcoming divisions of the continent. ASEAN and EU could be lumped together as similar organizations committed to securing, peace, stability and progress in their groupings. The other groupings such as NAFTA, APEC, MERCOSUR, BIMST-EC have adopted socio-economic development as the main agenda. SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) has clearly specified that this grouping would keep bilateral issues away from its discussions. Security discussions are confined to common problems such as terrorism, narcotics, disease and the like. Besides these regional groupings, there are other important groupings such as the Non Aligned Movement (NAM), Group of 77 (G77), the least developed countries (LDCs) as well as Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs), primarily for garnering support and providing strength to the collective efforts of developing countries in the international political and security matters, economic and social issues and member specific, i.e., the LDCs of which Nepal is a committed member, founder member in most. Given the interplay of these and some more forces at the national, bilateral, regional and multilateral levels, formulation and execution of Nepal’s foreign policy demands a clear and unambiguous approach to protect, preserve and further Nepal’s national interests. A critical analysis of Nepal’s present day foreign policy is warranted in order to lay a foundation for future measures. It: is often seen that Nepal’s political parties and their governments either lean too much on established guidelines or come up with new and ambitious but untested agenda that, in the long run, could be detrimental to the interests of the nation. An objective analysis on the core principles of Nepal’s foreign policy, backed up by its supporting measures and executing mechanisms and instruments needs to be worked out by a group of academicians, practitioners and representatives of public (including civil society) for detailed discussions and acceptance by the public at large. ‘Committee for international relations and human rights’ of Nepal’s constituent assembly (CA) cannot be expected to come up with extensive foreign policy directions and executing mechanisms. The best it can do is to clearly outline the core principles and directives of Nepal’s foreign policy in the new constitution that must be binding to all future governments of Nepal. Based on such principles the all-party government is expected to come up with a white paper on Nepal’s foreign policy, obviously a time consuming but extremely vital task for the protection, preservation and promotion of Nepal’s independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty. Overview of Nepal’s foreign policy: Nepal’s state policy of isolationism with the outside world during the British Raj in India (1858-1947 A.D and the reign of Weakening Qing Dynasty in China (1644-1911 A.D.) served it well as protection from foreign intervention was deemed necessary to preserve Nepal’s independence. Its direct link for trade with Tibet on the North, China being far away and less concerned about Nepal, provided for Nepal’s basic minimum needs. Minting of coins for Tibet (called Mahendramalli-started during king Mahendra Malla’s time and later negotiated by Prithivi Narayan Shah) was a constant source of revenue for the maintenance of its military, among others. In line with the Nepal’s founder’s policy in neighborly relations, maintenance of friendly and harmonious relations with its two immediate neighbors can be taken as a highly successful period in Nepal’s foreign relations at the time. (“Maintain treaty of friendship with the Emperor of China. Keep also a treaty with the Emperor of the Southern Sea.”—Dibya Upadesh). On the face of rising British Empire and the war that led to Sugauli Treaty whereby Nepal lost a chunk of its territory, Nepal’s sole concern during this period would have been to protect its independence and territorial integrity from foreign aggression.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:59:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015