Need To Upscale Diplomatic Acumen

Domestic policy can defeat us but foreign policy can kill us” John F Kennedy, former president of the United States, once said amplifying the role and ramification of foreign policy on domestic politics.  It is generally said that foreign policy is the extension of domestic policy. However, Kennedy’s this famous statement manifests how powerful and significant is foreign policy in setting domestic agenda. In the present globalised and inter-connected world, external events and international politics influence and impact domestic policy and politics more than ever before.

Geopolitics is the study of inter-relations between geography and politics and geography’s impact on politics. In other words, geography is the principal determinant of a country’s power and leverage in the international politics with powerful impact in domestic politics. The location, geographical features within and around the country, access to sea and its nature, territorial conditions, natural resources and its neighbourhood atmosphere are determinant factors of a country’s power and role. Tim Marshals, thus, says geography is the key determinant for the fate and future of any country. In his famous book, ‘Prisoners of Geography’ he says “the land on which we live has always shaped us… shaped the wars, the power, politics and social development of the peoples that now inhabit nearly every part of the earth”. 

Leverage 

The location of a country is always important factor to determine the role and significance of a country in the international power game.  Geography gives some countries leverage and upper hand in the international power politics whereas the geography, at the same time, renders some countries vulnerable. Context and time are also important that play key role. The countries that were important player and factors in the geopolitical game in the 20th century may not be equally important in the changed geopolitical context of 21st century, whereas those which were less important in the past have become more important at present. 

At the height of the Cold War, the world was bi-polar and the principal rivals in the international power politics were the United States and the Soviet Union. All countries in a way or the other were confronted with the bipolar geopolitical reality and subsequent superpower rivalry. But the degree of its impact varied depending upon the geographical position countries were located. Europe definitely faced more heat than other continents simply because one the two super powers (Soviet Union) was located in European continent. The principal theatre of super power rivalry was also Europe, which was divided into American and Soviet spheres of influence. The Western Europe remained the US sphere of influence whereas the Eastern part fell into the lap of the Soviet Union. Other continents, too, felt some kind of pressure or tension of the global geopolitical rivalry between the two power blocs.

Asia was not the principal theatre of superpower rivalry in the beginning but in the later part of the 20th century, Asia turned out to be major theatre of conflict. Afghanistan, Cambodia and some countries in the Middle East turned out to be a major conflict zones as a direct fall out of super power rivalry to expand their sphere of influence. However, the scenario changed dramatically with the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 and the global order changed into unipolar with the United States remaining as the sole super power. 

Despite two super powers trying to divide the world into two spheres of influence, some countries did not want to be aligned with any of the two camps and chose to remain neutral or non-aligned. These countries created the Non-aligned Movement or NAM. 

Despite their public rhetoric to be non-aligned, most of the members of the non-aligned movement in a way or the other had closer relations with either of the two super powers. India, for instance, had entered into a long-term security agreement with the Soviet Union and it was taken as Soviet-ally, whereas China moved closer to the United States after US president Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 and his long handshake with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Countries mostly developing and the least developed ones declared themselves non-aligned in principle but they had leaning towards either of the two camps. Soon after the Cold War came to the end, the relevance of non-aligned movement has largely lost its relevance and remained only in name. 

Nepal still abides by the non-alignment as a pillar of its foreign policy principle. Despite the changes in political systems, Nepal continues to stick to non-alignment. Non-alignment for Nepal is more important and necessary today than ever before. But non-alignment does not mean to be neutral on each and everything. At a time when values, laws and principles are at stake, one cannot and should not remain neutral. There cannot be neutrality when the question of justice and injustice comes to the fore. In several other events and developments that unfurled in our region as well as in the world, Nepal’s position has always been perfectly compatible with the values and principles that have been enshrined in the United Nations charter.  The latest incident is Russia-Ukraine conflict in which Nepal took its principled stance.  

Have engagements

During the last Cold War, the two superpowers were far away from Nepal. Being far away from super powers was an advantage for Nepal, to some extent. Now the new Cold War is brewing in which one of the key actors is our immediate neighbour. The epicentre of 21st century’s geopolitical rivalry is Asia or our neighbourhood.  Both rivals are our friends and partners. China is our neighbour with which we share border and have multiple engagements. At the same time, the United States too is our important development partner and have many engagements. We cannot choose one at the expense of the other. 

Similarly, Nepal’s other immediate neighbour, India, is rising by leaps and bounds. In South Asia, there is a triangular rivalry among US, China and India. It demands delicate handling of our foreign policy and diplomacy. In this newer geopolitical scenario and power rivalry, Nepal is, thus, required to scale up its diplomatic capability and also a new strategic culture at the level of our neighbours to cope with the newer challenges in the international politics. 

((The author is former chief editor of this daily and former ambassador. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)