Plugging Diplomatic Loopholes

With the government’s decision to withdraw from the US State Partnership Programme (SPP), Nepal has ridden out a geopolitical storm, thanks to the broader understanding shown by the government, political parties, civil society and media fraternity. The rejection of SPP indicates that Nepal can forge consensus on the key foreign policy issues that were botched up by ham-fisted approach of political and bureaucratic actors in the past. This has once again reaffirmed importance of non-alignment and balanced policy that shuns any form of adventurism in the country’s international relations. Nepal requires common stand in fixing cracks in foreign policy but divisive and partisan politics has bruised its international image and weakened its ability to deal with mighty neighbours and global powers.

While handling the SPP, the country’s diplomatic fault lines have also come to the fore, impelling the coalition government to make some corrective steps. It said Nepal would not participate in any military alliance and decided to correspond with foreign missions through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The then army leadership had reportedly bypassed the Foreign Ministry and written to the Kathmandu-based US embassy, seeking to join the SPP considered to be one of the components of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. 

Blame game

At one point, the government, political parties, Nepal Army and the US embassy were seemingly at draggers drawn over the SPP but a reconciliatory tone saved the day. The nastier part was that the army and main opposition party crossed swords and blamed each other for pushing the SPP proposal. The opposition leader, who headed a government in 2015 when the then army chief formally requested the US embassy for SPP participation, claimed that he was kept in dark about this. 

Though the army could not forward such important proposal without the government’s consent, the remarks of retired Major General of NA raised eyebrows of many. Writing on his Facebook, he had accused the then CPN-led government of being a ‘pawn’ of China and argued that maintaining strong relations with the US and West was necessary to ‘counter’ the northern neighbour in Nepal. Does it behove him to make blistering comments against a particular party or nation given his high public position in the past? This amounts to be a sort of anarchism that vitiates internal unity and invite external meddling.  

The SPP episode has again forced the government to instruct all its agencies to correspond with foreign missions through the Foreign Ministry as per the diplomatic norms and international practices. However, it is not the first time that the government has made such a decision. In 2011, the government had issued Diplomatic Code of Conduct to conduct its official meetings, contacts, negotiations and communications with foreign governments, international organisations, their representatives and other officials in a more systematic and dignified manner.

Its Article 6 (4) reads: “Correspondence done on behalf of the Government of Nepal with foreign missions, resident representatives of regional and international organizations and diplomatic officials must be sent through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in keeping with the Government of Nepal (Allocation of Business) Rules and the Government of Nepal (Transaction of Business) Rules.” The Ministry is supposed to provide necessary advice or suggestion to the agency concerned with regard to such correspondence as soon as possible. This provision has been openly flouted while corresponding with the US embassy seeking SPP participation.

Similarly, it is necessary to invite representative of the Foreign Ministry and other related ministries while meeting ministers, ambassadors or senior officials of the foreign governments. The Ministry’s representative should prepare the record of talks held on those occasions, according to the code of conduct. But there has been a tendency among the political leaders to flout this diplomatic code as they meet foreign delegates, diplomats and leaders. Diplomacy is a sensitive and important affair of the state. The breach of diplomatic norms and values invites unintended consequences for the country and sours its ties with the neighbours and friendly nations. 

The secret meeting between former prime minister KP Sharma Oli and the chief of Indian intelligence agency drew strong reactions from different quarters for it violated the basic diplomatic norms and practice. As the foreign ministry’s representative was not invited to record the talks between the two sides, the public is still unknown about the details and motives of the surreptitious rendezvous, which was followed by the unprecedented political and constitutional crisis in the country.    

Coordination 

The government’s mechanisms, too, have the responsibility to implement the diplomatic code of conduct. The bureaucracy should convince and remind the political leadership of the significance of diplomatic code in strengthening relations with the foreign governments. At the same time, it is imperative for the government agencies to consult and coordinate with the foreign ministry while entering agreements on bilateral or multilateral cooperation, loans, grants or exchange programmes with the foreign governments or donors. 

Meanwhile, the bureaucracy at the Foreign Ministry has also run the gauntlet for giving a short shrift to the ambassadors appointed on political quota. Some former ambassadors have recently shared that the Ministry did not respond to and cooperate with them when they approached it for consultation on vital diplomatic matters. This is not the first time that the politically-appointed envoys complained of ministry’s non-cooperation. Even in the past, this kind of complaints surfaced. 

On the other hand, employees at the ministry and foreign missions insist that the envoys appointed on political quota lack basic diplomatic knowledge and skill, which has a negative impact on the conduct of diplomacy. However, the high-calibre politically-appointed ambassadors can better handle tricky diplomatic issues compared to the career diplomats. The political parties should appoint competent and experienced persons to the ambassadorial positions so as to minimise conflict between the bureaucracy and politically-appointed envoys and effectively execute the nation’s foreign policies.

(The author is Deputy Executive Editor of this daily.)