Need To Rebalance Foreign Policy

The new left coalition government, led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, has crafted an eight-point deal which, among others, spells to move ahead “with political stability to strengthen national sovereignty, independence and geographical integrity and socialism-oriented socio-economic development.” It vows to broaden balanced international relations based on national interests and concerns.  In the quickly changing pace of the world order, small states like Nepal have got to think strategically, know the stakes and act cautiously to find common cause to concert with other nations for cooperation. Robustness of national security, economic revitalisation and institutional effectiveness of its ministries and missions are the indispensable conditions that help to buoy leadership enthusiasm for political stability and independent foreign policy manoeuvre.  

Certain belief that the unity of the left forces - CPN-UML and CPN - Maoist Centre suits the Chinese desire which once pursued this initiative is, however, exaggerated. It may not spur euphoria that all treaties and accords signed with it will be really pursued given the geopolitical constraint top Nepali leaders face. It has inhibited them from participating in the Boao Forum for Asia. The corresponding Chinese policy shift to multi-party engagements in Nepal is governed by realistic calculus, not idealpolitik.

Strategic geography

Nepal's strategic geography has great value. It provides a leverage to gravitate the gaze of neighbours and global powers. But its internal politics of attrition, not the prudent art of exploring positive possibility of common ground, has hoisted popular concern of natives and due diligence of external powers on its external conduct. It is a high risk strategy to pull politics to opposite extremes by left and non-left polarisation exhausting national psychology and will.  Such a strategy equally erodes the golden mean vital to pursue coherent foreign policy goals and strike a balance between bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.  

On March 7 Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced that China would continue to deepen people-to-people and strategic relations with the nations that are partners of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Nepal has signed an accord on BRI in 2017, expecting Chinese support in the development of the nation’s infrastructure programmes such as airports, cross-border railway and hydroelectricity. The two nations have also signed Trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network as a part of BRI to ease trade, tourism, progress and strategic partnership, aiming to turn Nepal from landlocked to land-linked nation and give impetus to its political and economic diversification plan.   

In no way increased development cooperation with China would dent India’s “comfortable” ties with Nepal.  China itself is at ease with India’s self-defining moment, indigenization drive and spending substantial amounts in Nepal’s high impact community development and hydropower while it openly displayed reservation about the MCC. One can hardly ponder any momentous  shift in the foreign policy of Nepal except a certain rebalancing desire to adapt to the pivoting of Western and non-Western nations to Asianization of world politics. Both sets of actors can serve as a lynchpin of its diversification and diplomacy. 

 As the Indian and the Chinese aspiration, power and outreach grow up and bridge the gap with Western powers, Nepal has to build a high-stake relationship with them not only in terms of interests based on realism but also share common values without losing the resilience of its heritage of intellectual and cultural identity and self-rule. To be sure, culture defines national identity relative to all others. Now the international community has a gaze on its foreign policy and sees whether it is capable of carrying out global obligations on issue areas including climate change, social and gender equality, transitional justice and human rights and constantly monitor and evaluate its performance. 

All big political parties of Nepal are the constituent parts of the same political establishment. They derive authority from it, stick to constitutional imperative and flirt with the Anglospheric worldview as a source of legitimacy. Nepal’s heavy dependence on India on essential goods and the West on knowledge, technology, capital, expertise and governance practices have shaped its reasonable freedom of choice but estranged itself from developing cooperation with the Eurasian pole of power like during Panchayat. As a chairman, it has to give life to SAARC. The nation’s foreign policy ability to rebalance in the past was a proof of its diplomatic art, skill, strength, resilience and wisdom. 

Its foreign policy strategy of diversification of economic and political relations, like globalisation now, knits many nations and international regimes together which provides it needed resources, if not leverage to adapt to the ascent of multi-polar world order through non-aligned robs. Each power - India, China, Japan, the US, the EU and Russia - carefully watch whether the left-dominated coalition government reverts to a rebalance in the crossroads of geopolitics and evoke its traditional sprit of non-alignment to utilise the cooperation of all nations, or drifts to one side for reasons of soft power affinity defying the centrality of its pivotal position and recoiling to only India, China and the US.

Nepali leaders have to learn from the nation’s long history that its survival and resilience is attributed to the vigour of self as an independent nation and to remain credible to the neighbours that the robustness of its statehood can ensure their legitimate security. The realisation of socialism-oriented progress requires the reversal of neo-liberal economic policy that sought pre-mature de-agrarianisation and de-industrialisation and converted once food surplus and exporting nation to grain importing one. It needs reestablishing import-substituting industries which had backward linkage with the modernisation of agriculture and forward linkage with trade and commerce, retaining labour, brain and capital within the nation and overcoming deficits in many areas of economy. 

The constitutional goal of the creation of an egalitarian society entails a redistributive regime so that social solidarity and cohesion work towards the achievement of public goods. Attaining political stability entails the spirit of constitutionalism, admin ability and political institutionalisation so that all the actors coordinate their goals and functions and improve the performance legitimacy of the regime. Securing the goal of national sovereignty demands national self-determination of Nepali politics espousing the capacity for self-governance without undue external intervention and acquiring the autonomy of the state from powerful interest groups of society, adoption of proper laws and formulation of suitable public policies by the parliament affirming popular sovereignty in matters of liberty, choice and wellbeing of Nepalis. 

The theory of sovereignty equips the nation with an efficient and responsible political, bureaucratic and epistemic community and manages to defend itself cohesively across national territory and populations.  This needs reducing external dependence through cognitive, political and economic diversification and aptly enforcing diplomatic code of conduct. It helps to prevent the penetration of great power geopolitics into its soft and hard power resources to set free centrifugal forces. The role of the epistemic community, a group of professional and specialised experts in the art of foreign policy, is vital to put a lid on such forces, understand implications of the changing geopolitical context and conceptualise its focus beyond the traditional game of regime imperative and its partisan validation.

Nepal’s historically evolved strategy of golden middle sought to avoid internal and external extremism. Its policy of non-alignment can optimally serve the rebalancing act and widen the scope of its international relations. National independence manifests itself in withdrawing self from the whirlpool of big powers rivalry and conflict, warding off detrimental external infiltration through their proxies, reducing their security dilemma and threat by building certain level of trust, cultivating an instinct for self-preservation and devising policies for self-defence of national identity and destiny. 

Dependence on the one side of the power bloc reduces freedom of action, limits one’s own initiative and constrains adaptability to changing geopolitical milieu. This is why Nepali leaders often sought to escape from its ascribed status of a buffer or a part of a great game of containment, counterbalance or pushback of great powers’ manoeuvres. As Nepalis are emigrating in various parts of the world and enlarging the bigger gaze of national identity it is bound to enlarge its credence in foreign policy articulation.  

It is equally important to build trust with resurgent Russia and resolve the problems of Nepalis joining its army.  Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha's request to the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to expedite the repatriation of dead bodies of Nepalis, provide compensation to their family and facilitate the return of those serving in the Russian army is a step forward in diplomacy from a frosty distance for long to constructive engagement. So far Russia has agreed for the compensation and expressed its willingness to cooperate with Nepal on various fronts of development. 

National conscription

Nepal has also to find suitable contact to negotiate on the release of Nepalis from Ukraine and Hamas control. Nation-building requires national conscription, not allowing natives to be recruited in foreign armies in the hope of reaping huge remittance at tearful costs. This raises a critical question: Does Nepali non-alignment mean to disband its people joining the Russian army or also other nations who are members of NATO, SEATO and QUAD? Does Nepal becoming a dialogue partner of SCO offset this by rebalancing tact? Obviously, Nepal has kept reservation on being a member of China’s global security initiative although it is positive of other two initiatives on development and civilization. 

At a time of eroding efficiency of the UN, global governance needs cooperation of all scales of nations on global public goods including the management of the environment, reduction of the taproots of conflict and promotion of a culture of international understanding, justice and peace. In this context, Nepali foreign policy needs to articulate that humanity needs a non-zero sum game of world politics and global responsibility to allay the fear of strategic escalation for humane reasons of just order, stability and peace.

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues.)