Shun Partisanship In Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is the face of a nation to the outside world. It should be formulated using a whole-of-government approach, incorporating inputs and insights received from inter-ministerial consultations and collaboration. The Foreign Ministry should play a central role in coordinating these efforts. An independent and self-respecting foreign policy is based on a cool, realistic and objective assessment. There must be a central unifying theme to bind all national actors for preserving sovereignty, protecting nations’ long term interests and projecting the image of the country. As foreign policy is closely linked with the domestic situation, it is considered an extension of domestic policy. 

While the strength at home carries strength abroad, domestic crisis complicates diplomacy abroad. The more powerful a country becomes at home, the more effectively its image projected and credibility enhanced abroad. Foreign policy goes beyond national frontiers but operates within an overall context of national interests, values and objectives. Internal unity and cohesion revitalises the foreign policy and produces significant weight. As there are countless variables affecting the conduct of foreign policy, it is very difficult to predict what the world would look like in coming decades. 

Evolving trends

Running foreign policy is a sensitive and difficult job.  It requires an efficient, effective and strong diplomatic machinery to closely, critically and comprehensively study and analyse existing and evolving trends, figure out their underlying messages and possible implications on national interests. If there is a unified approach to foreign policy, it works better. Partisanship and foreign policy do not go together. External powers exploit domestic difficulties to their advantage and generate unintended costs and consequences. 

After the advent of democracy in 1990 and establishment of republic in 2008 following the People’s Movement in 2006, foreign policy base has been considerably widened. Foreign policy components include an array of actors. It is no longer the exclusive preserve of foreign offices, ministers and officials. Globalisation has introduced forces that are active in driving their own agendas. Today, foreign policy making cannot be divorced from media, civil society, academics, and informed public. Their intrusive character has become a fact of life. Their wishes and concerns get reflected in foreign policy formulation and articulation. 

Democracy gives options and opportunities to optimise bargaining positions. Governments have limits to what it can say. Foreign offices are seen preferring cautious step by step approach. Non-officials’ channels could be used to voice concerns and send messages across. Policy will stand or fall to the extent it commands the public support and confidence of domestic constituencies. An illuminating and frank interaction with the public will help work out a solution to intractable problems. People have become aware of realities, make their own assessments. Theirs’ can be message to the government that any deals devoid of mutual respect and mutual reciprocity are not acceptable.  

Government machinery should be smart enough to use non-official sources, e.g. second track/third track diplomacy for advancing national interests. Foreign policy is about the supreme interests of its people. It should really work to create opportunities for its citizens.  Government should put in place appropriate diplomatic machinery backed by good intelligence, competent human and adequate material resources which should be fully geared to respond directly, openly, and create opportunities, utilise them to promote cooperation and resolving differences with neighbours and beyond.  Personal relationships by themselves can only achieve results when other dynamics are at work in tandem.  

What troubles Nepal’s foreign policy is rhetorical commitment, double standards, partisanship and populism? Complacency should have no place in foreign policy.  Double standards not only undermine the credibility and but they also diminish its performance. Nepal’s foreign policy is not tied to any ideology.  Its foreign policy priorities lie with its immediate neighbours. While working to further strengthen, deepen and widen relations with neighbours, Nepal remains constructively engaged with all global powers and actors. 

Diplomacy is a process. It should be at work at all times. Where diplomacy stands as the first, best and last line of defence in a country like Nepal, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has never been a priority for the government. While the leadership seldom gives much thought to strengthening the Foreign Ministry, they pretend to show expertise in every aspect of foreign policy. How the geopolitics of the rise of China and India and their relationship with the super power USA reflects and intersects should be of great concerns for Nepal? At a time when the unprecedented rise of Nepal’s neighbours - China and India brings both opportunities and challenges at doorsteps - Nepal’s concerns and understanding of evolving dynamics about neighbourhood and beyond appear minimal. 

Nepal's neighbours, friends, and well-wishers should not harbour any illusions that Kathmandu would align itself with any of these three capitals, whether in an anti or pro stance, let alone consider going for an alliance. There is no question of Nepal taking any side. While Nepal remains respectful to the legitimate concerns of its neighbours, it also expects complete reciprocity from them. We must learn to be better friends, better neighbours and better development partners, based on mutual respect, trust and benefit. Equating Nepali nationalism with anti-Indianism for momentary gains is a misguided perspective.

Evolving geopolitics

Given the evolving geopolitics in the post-Cold War and post-post-Cold War, intensifying competition between the United States and China, rapid downturn in Sino-Indian relations, and increasing tensions between them, Nepal’s geographical location is in their central attention.   Kathmandu has good reasons to be uneasy and even nervous about the rapidly shifting geopolitics in the neighourhood and beyond.  Yet Kathmandu cannot overreact to what is unfolding in the region. Leaders should be acutely aware of playing something to a domestic audience and practicing populism and partisanship for personal momentary gains at the cost of national interests. An unprecedented level of partisanship and duplicity in Nepali politics has shaken country’s image and damaged credibility. 

It seems consensual centrepiece of Nepal’s leaders to indulge in double standards, partisanship and populism.  Foreign policy of a geopolitical sensitive nation like Nepal requires speaking with one voice, and extra-caution. It needs an undivided attention and coordinated response.  This is essential for a consistent, coherent, pragmatic, and resulted oriented foreign policy. A new generation of challenges are staring at us. These challenges include among others rapidly shifting geopolitics, economics, pandemics, technologies, climate change, and the proliferation of small arms with brutalising effects. Nepal’s leadership lacks the ability to see the world through the prism of changes, and do necessary homework in coordination with experts and strategic community in the country. The homework should start without delay. 

(Bhattarai, Ph. D., is a faculty member of the Institute of Crisis Management Studies (ICMS), Tribhuvan University. dineshbhattarai@tuicms.edu.np)