Dhruba Hari Adhikary

Conventional wisdom forbids sober people from counting chickens before they are hatched. In the post-modern world, however, patience is a commodity in short supply, and it is palpably reflected in almost all walks of life. The restless crowds and queues in front of urban fast-food joints provide a visible example.  

The trends are indeed ubiquitous and too numerous to be counted. Nepal’s parliamentary committee tasked to quiz nominees for high-level positions including ambassadors is definitely not an exception. A meeting of this committee on December 6, press reports say, “unanimously” endorsed three ambassadorial nominations, enabling the government to initiate bilateral correspondence aimed at appointing ambassadors to India, the United Kingdom and the United States. At the hearing, some of the committee members expressed desire to get a pledge from would-be envoys towards arranging exchange of visits at heads of state level. At least two of the nominees purportedly offered such assurances. Whether such an undertaking warranted at that very initial stage merits a separate discussion. 

Significance of tagline
Anyhow, once formalities are completed, Professor Shreedhar Khatri, Dr Shankar Sharma and Gyan Chandra Acharya will be appointed Nepal’s ambassador ‘extraordinary and plenipotentiary’ to the USA, India and UK respectively. While an ambassador is traditionally — and almost universally — entitled to add words ‘extraordinary and plenipotentiary’ in his/her formal designation, it is unclear if such a tagline carries any significant meaning in the present-day world. I have heard it from some seasoned Nepali diplomats. One of them, who had had a stint as ambassador in a Western country a decade ago, agreed that the evolving procedures hardly left any room for him to work as someone who is both extraordinary and plenipotentiary!

Coincidentally, three previous ambassadors — accredited to Washington, New Delhi and Beijing — had earlier held ministerial positions. Once they took up diplomatic assignments they too inherited additional titles of extraordinary and plenipotentiary. However, that did not make substantive difference; outstanding disputes with neighbours remained unresolved. And the MCC controversy refused to go away from the scene. “Deuba recalls 12 envoys appointed by Oli,” read a newspaper headline on September 22. All of them were political appointees. Shortly before that, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba had cancelled all 11 ambassadorial nominations made by the outgoing administration. 

Understandably, in the bygone era when means of transport and communication were virtually non-existent, envoys sent to foreign lands obviously needed to be fully empowered to declare a war or sign a peace treaty. The host country was required, mostly on a reciprocal basis, to treat and protect the incoming envoy as someone who was extraordinary and plenipotentiary.   

Over time, this practice and the rules related to conduct of diplomacy have changed. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) replaced most of the arrangements that existed until then. Perhaps it was the age when a famous British diplomat, Sir Henry Wotton (1568-1639), wrote a jocular comment on the role of an ambassador: “An ambassador is an honest gentleman who is sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.”  It is a different world now. Practises including those in the diplomatic field have undergone profound changes.

Travelling is easier these days and tools of communication have become handy. Nepali missions abroad, for example, can instantly transmit and simultaneously receive messages from the ministry located in Singha Durbar. In Kathmandu, the foreign minister and the foreign secretary (billed as head of the foreign service) work together to formulate policies to protect and promote national interests. Undoubtedly their timely instructions facilitate the job of fieldworkers. 

In an evolving situation worldwide, the post of an ambassador is a little more than a ceremonial one. Since most of the important and sensitive decisions are taken in the ministry back home, all an ambassador can do is to implement them efficiently. Of course, diplomatic dexterity helps enhance required efficiency in implementation, and periodic reports filed from the spot can be invaluable inputs for developing plans and strategies. That’s why ambassadors’ contributions are still relevant. There is no substitute for a competent ambassador. 
  
Ideally, Nepal should have ambassadors in all 171 countries having diplomatic relations with us. But such a proposition would appear preposterous even for rich and powerful countries. Considerations such as necessity and affordability require selection of countries for opening/maintaining diplomatic missions including those headed by ambassadors. Nepal currently has 39 diplomatic missions abroad, some of which are consulates. The number of embassies which are to be headed by an ambassador stands at 20. In other words, the Deuba government has to fill in these positions through new nominations. Since Deuba heads a coalition of five parties, he is sure to be facing demands for ‘quotas’. And there is no guarantee that new aspirants would be as deserving candidates as the first three have been.

Pertinent question
A broader yet pertinent question arises here: does Nepal need these many missions entailing expenditures running into tens of millions of rupees annually? Not really. Some of the missions were opened to provide employment to fellow politicians (and also to retired bureaucrats) by their leaders in authority. Why should Nepal, for instance, have a separate embassy in Canada when Nepal’s interests there can be effectively looked after by the embassy based in the United States? Besides, Canada does not have its embassy in Nepal.

Similarly, a separate embassy for Spain is a waste. One of the missions located in adjoining European capitals can serve the purpose. Denmark closed its mission in Nepal a while ago whereas Nepal continues to maintain its mission in Copenhagen. It can be conveniently relocated in one of the Scandinavian countries. The UN-related missions too deserve a fresh look. The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also shows four consulates in China. Are they essential? Conversely, Kathmandu needs to forcefully pursue its efforts to open a mission in Thimphu. It may also be worthwhile to have Nepal’s presence in Male, the Maldives.

A recent news report indicated Turkey’s interest to open its embassy in Kathmandu. A high-placed official source confirmed this report. Nepal can reciprocate as its mission in Ankara can be a convenient outpost for countries in the Central Asia region. In conclusion, it is high time for an appraisal, along with a thorough review of reports presented by expert panels in the preceding years.

(Adhikary is a journalist active since 1978 and writes on regional issues. dhrubahari@gmail.com)