By Binod P Bista
Foot dragging by the leaders of
major political parties that once proved their strength in the Constituent
Assembly is not only adding to the lingering confusion, now in its fifth year
of the interim constitution, but also pushing the country to a disastrous
state. Confusion and uncertainty have become the hallmarks of today’s Nepal.
This unfortunate situation has emerged largely as a result of inaction more
than bad actions during the transition phase that Nepal is in today. The
confusion is so all pervasive that it has trickled down to all strata of the
Nepali society. Even the Nepali elite seems to have come into its grips. At a recent
seminar organized by the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) with support from
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (a German foundation also located in Nepal), and
participated by senior officials of the foreign ministry, former ministers and
ambassadors together with university professors and media members covering
international relations, this fact is revealed openly and clearly.
The foreign minister admitted
that Nepal is in a complex, uncertain and volatile state today. Nevertheless,
development assistance needed to be ‘fully aligned with national priorities and
needs’ and to this end, focus needed to be provided on economic
diplomacy. The minister also informed the meeting that the government is
contemplating to initiate reform measures including training and grooming,
deliniation of duties and responsibilities, increasing number of appointments
of career diplomats in foreign missions and embassies, as well as increasing
the number of staff positions in the ministry of foreign affairs. With a view
to building a strong, capable and professional diplomatic machinery the
government will revamp the research and training capacity of its institutions.
IFA, too, will be revamped, broadened and strengthened, among other measures,
that the government would take. As a speech delivered by a member of the
incumbent government there is hardly any confusion on the future plans of the
government.
However, as always, Nepal’s
problem has remained at its execution side as plans and programs are made as if
in vacuum without any regard given to the existing situation, systems and machineries, availability of resources, human as well as financial, and the
will of the government to get the task done within the prevailing acts and
regulations.
One of the paper presenters bluntly
stated that ‘’Nepal is a state without a state’’ in the context of
creating/recreating new history after the Jana Andolan II. Irony of present day
Nepal reflects a sense of lost direction as everybody is harping on consensus
but nobody agrees on anything. In discussing Indo-Nepal relations, the expert
stated that both sides lacked imagination while dealing with contentious
issues. Trust and confidence of neighbors should provide the starting point for
a pragmatic foreign policy of Nepal. Chinese increasing concern on security
sector, witnessed by high level military delegations in a frequent manner,
calls for serious understanding and timely action of the issue. If left
unattended Nepal will surely follow the path of a failed state.
Academicians of Nepal do not have
an inkling of the operations of the foreign ministry. Absence of predictability
of cabinet members holding important portfolios such as foreign or defense in a
new government does not provide enough time for required preparations in giving
continuity with issues at hand. Role of academicians and civil society is
stunted most of the time. From a transit point concept to being a ‘vibrant
bridge’ (needs further explanation by the government what it means by vibrant
bridge) how much preparations have been made by Nepal whether it could fulfill
this role of a bridge between India and China. In a simple sense a bridge,
unless used by individuals and businesses, remains an unused structure serving
no purpose. Similarly, unless India and China agree to use Nepal as a ‘transit
point’ for their goods Nepal’s potential will remain defunct and useless.
Member of a media, supposedly covering international relations, seems to have
no good idea as to ‘who determines foreign policy and who conducts it’ in Nepal.
This certainly raises a serious question : Is Nepal playing a blind hand
in conducting her foreign policy ?
Another paper presenter and a
former ministry official indicated the difficulty of strengthening the office
of foreign secretary despite several attempts made for more than a decade. The
presenter believed that foreign policy in Nepal had been formulated and applied
for political gains and which seems to be continuing even today, and thus
outlined the need for institutionalization of decision making system. A policy
planning section was the requirement in the ministry to streamline foreign
policy, so he said. Another senior expert opined that the government should
institute a system of reward and retribution in all missions which then can be assessed
and monitored by members of civil society and non-resident Nepalis. He also
valued independent activities (outside of government sanctions) taken up by one
of the political appointees which he thought did make a useful contribution to
Nepal. One of the prominent members of a civil society (perhaps INGO)
boasted that his delegation was able to meet prominent government leaders of a
country at a time when the head of state of Nepal was denied such courtesy. The
highly educated, widely traveled and supposedly knowledgeable person took this
incidence of humiliation of a nation as his personal victory.
One senior diplomat and a former
minister of another time viewed that Nepal’s foreign policy is crafted by a
foreigner/s. When the president of Nepal says that Nepal is going down the
failed state status, and the Prime Minister says he does not have the keys to
run the nation, and when there is a confused domestic policy, fragmented Nepali
society and over-politicized political parties trying to outsmart each other,
how can we even think of coming up with a new foreign policy ?
Universally, regime change does not change national policies but sadly it seems
to be occurring in Nepal of late. This is a dangerous trend.
The dilemma of ‘to do or not to
do’’ seems to be in the minds of Nepali elites. Granted that the
consensus among majority political parties forms a basis for the formulation of
a foreign policy, which has to be built on the existing policy-well tested and
surviving, a nation per se cannot keep on waiting in eternity to conduct its
relations with neighbors and friends, especially at times of crises.
Courtesy: The Reporter, August
20, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment