Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Opinion

Prof. Krishna P. Khanal, Political Science Department, T.U, Nepal

Foreign policy is made on a number of facts. Unless there is a solid reason no change is made despite a government is replaced by a new one.’

B. P Koirala

Four decades ago, B.P. Koirala made the above statement when he was about to take the office of Prime Minister following his party’s victory in the first ever held parliamentary elections in Nepal. One could imagine who else at that time could be the better placed leader than him to initiate change in Nepal’s foreign policy in fact, he did too But he knew well that there were time-honored traditions and geopolitical limits which could not be reversed and had rather to be maintained while fulfilling the aspiration of the country in the changed context Ills expression reflected his mental set he was against playing sentiments and slogans for short-term gain motivated by domestic political consumption. Indeed, the NC government under B.P. Koirala’s leadership had restrained “using foreign policy issues to holster its domestic political position.”

Since 1990 we have been once again practicing multiparty based competitive political process Popular mandate expressed through secret ballot of the adults is the basis of authority of the government. Political parties are the principal actors. Policies of the country including those over foreign affairs are made according to the priorities set by them. Right from their very foundation in the late I 940s major Nepali political parties such as the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party have developed their respective foreign policy perceptions. During their long journey it may be noticed that they have made adjustments in their perceptions and behavior in the changed context of their respective roles within the political system In the present context of parliamentary system of government, though our parties have often tried to minimize their differences in key foreign policy issues, the tatter have also become a subject of serious division, including split within she party Particularly, relations with India and those related to security, water resources, border regulation. etc. are areas where public and political opinions are widely divided. The present Constitution ( 1990) of the kingdom provides that treaties related to the security and sharing of natural resources having long-term effect should be ratified by a two-third majority in the Parliament This suggests that our political parties need to develop a consensus on major foreign policy matters and give them continuity.

Foreign policy is an area of state affairs where no sudden change is expected, because choices before its makers are relatively few and its execution is aimed at bringing about change in the behavior of actors beyond its national boundary. Foreign policy that a nation formulates considerably depends on the positive response fl-nm the external environment for achieving desired results Thai explains why the policy pursued by nations vis-à-vis others is expected to he based on the harmony of interests. Diverse interests tend to create conflict with the external environment The policy- makers, despite changes within the country, have to interact with the external environment in a given setting. Change and continuity in foreign policy, therefore, depend on both external and internal environment ‘[he task of creating conducive environment beyond the national boundary by implementing foreign policy is that of diplomacy which is usually the sphere of foreign ministry. A nation is in constant interaction with both external and internal events which testify the dynamics of foreign policy with short-term as well as long-term effects.

The foremost objective of foreign policy of any country- big or small, developed or least developed- is to preserve and promote its national interest. Although its scope and interpretations may vary from country to country depending on their respective perceptions and capabilities, national interest at the minimum, comprises the nation’s territorial integrity, independence and national survival. We have come to the end of the present century. Most of the fundamental components of our foreign policy were evolved during the second half of this century At the global level, with some exception of difference in ideological perceptions, no many differences are noticeable in the policy contents of the major political actors of the country. ‘In recent years, a framework of cooperation is also taking shape in South Asia with growing commitment to free trade and functional collaboration. Foreign policy issues need to be insulated from the “rough and tumble” of domestic political debates. It is high time, therefore, to have an introspection of our current policies and seek for more credible options to seize new opportunities and face challenges of the next century.

Evolution of Nepal’s Foreign Policy

Ever since the foundation of present Nepal as a nation-state in the latter half of eighteenth century three elements- geopolitics, historical experiences and our perceptions of a place in the international community- appear to be the most striking factors shaping the substance and course of our foreign policy. Beginning with King Prithvi Narayan Shah, the founder of the present Kingdom, we have realized our geopolitical limits vis-à-vis our neighboring countries and accordingly, for most part of the history, it has been our best effort to pursue a balanced relationship with both of them The ‘tarul’ concept as visualized by King Prithvi Narayan except for a century of family oligarchy of the R.anas, has remained a fundamental reference for all the successive regimes and rulers. The Rana regime pursued a policy which kept Nepal dependent on British power in India in its external affairs while remaining isolated from the rest of the world. The then internal and external situation was also favorable for the Ranas to pursue such a policy which helped them to sustain their family oligarchy within the country

With the end of British colony in India and concomitant resurgence of nationalism all over Asia, Nepal also had to make readjustments both internally and externally. Internally, a political change dislodged the Rana regime and marked the beginning of multiparty politics with the king as a constitutional head. Externally, it had to cope with the emergence of communist ( China across the northern border. Renewed friendship and newly established diplomatic ties with China in the l950s proved instrumental in developing a balanced relationship with both the neighboring countries in successive years.

Geopolitics and history are considered as the most important variables determining a nation’s foreign policy. A nation’s freedom of choice or limitations in the formulation and execution of foreign policy is determined by its geopolitical location and its course of history Nepal’s location in the central Himalayan zone with an extension towards south has not only conditioned its internal physical settings but has had distinct impact on the evolution of its international personality. Such a location not only denied us a direct access to the sea but also a claustrophobic situation between the two colossal neighbors- India and China. Such crude geopolitics has almost rendered Nepal’s foreign policy to ‘tight-rope walk’ between the two neighbors. Similarly, its perception of and aspiration for a place in the international community, which make substantial contents of foreign policy, have often several psychological and symbolic bearings.

Nepal’s search for a place in the international community began in the late l940s when the British withdrawal from India had become a foregone conclusion. For the Rana rulers in Nepal, who greatly depended on British India for support and strength, it was a severe jolt. In their bid for getting new sources of support they adopted a policy which sought to expand Nepal’s diplomatic and friendly ties beyond India and Tibet. This marked a reversal of the ‘isolationist’ policy adopted by the Rana rulers for more than a century and opened Nepal to the emergent world Accordingly, diplomatic relations were established with the United States and France Nepal had also applied for the UN membership in 1949 which was frustrated by the Soviet veto. But this policy received no serious commitment and drive. Because Mohan Shumsher, the last Rana Prime Minister, who had initiated the change was more concerned with getting the support of the new ruling elite of India for the safety of the regime rather than pursuing a broad policy frame. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which he concluded with India in 1950 and subsequent political developments in Nepal once again defined and confined its foreign policy within the Indian context.

The end of Rana regime in I 951 and the beginning of democracy in Nepal was marked by the growing dependence on India for the management of both domestic and foreign affairs The era of ‘special relations’ with India characterized the overall course of Nepal’s foreign policy. But such over dependence on India was not received well in Nepal. Except for some quarters, political and public opinion within the country was very much critical of it. There was a growing demand that Nepal should also have relationship with China, which had emerged as a new force in Asia. It had reasserted its sovereign position in Tibet and stopped Nepal’s traditional linkages with Tibet based on 1856 Treaty. India had recognized (Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. It had become imperative for Nepal to review the old structure of relationship and accommodate suitable changes across the northern border. With the tacit consent of India, talks were initiated with China to establish diplomatic relationship. In 1956 the two countries formally established diplomatic relations which had far reaching impact on the evolution of Nepal’s foreign policy

Nepal’s admission to the United Nations in 1955 is another landmark over the evolution of Nepal’s international personality. It suddenly extended Nepal’s interaction with the international community. Meanwhile, a new government had come to power, for the first time with a popular mandate expressed through the parliamentary elections held under the newly enacted constitution based on parliamentary democracy. The NC government under the leadership of B.P Koirala was determined to pursue a stable foreign policy based on closer understanding and friendship both with India and China as well as to expand Nepal’s international contacts. Even in the most difficult phase of history coinciding with the outbreak of revolt in Tibet against Chinese rule and growing dispute between India and China over the border, Nepal had been able to have confidence of both of its mighty neighbors. There were chances of politicizing Nepal- China relations in the context of developments in Tibet and the question of Mt. Everest. The ruling Nepali Congress had spoken out critically about the Chinese action in Tibet. However, the government kept itself insulated from such political sentiments in its foreign policy behavior. Until 1950 Nepal had diplomatic relations only with four countries, namely, the United Kingdom, India. the United States and France. During a period of another ten years i e by the end of 1960, it was extended to twenty-seven countries. Despite some initial constraints, the 1950 revolution, had, in a real sense, opened Nepal to the world at large. The reversal of democracy in 1960 by the active monarchical rule had serious implications for Nepal’s foreign affairs particularly with India. However, King Mahendra effectively handled it for the consolidation of his political action within the country. He blamed political parties particularly the NC and its leaders as pursuing ‘pro-Indian’ policy while undermining Nepal’s independence. He tried to give a ‘nationalistic’ coverage to his action. There were deliberate move at the political level to give ‘anti-Indian’ orientation both in domestic and foreign policy matters. Relationship with (‘ China received the highest priority so as to balance India. which had made public its resentment to the King’s action reversing the democratic process. Foreign policy strategies applied by King Mahendra proved useful instruments to consolidating the royal regime.

In the subsequent years of party less panchayat system, Nepal’s foreign policy received further consolidation and diversification. Nonalignment in general and ‘equal relations’ with India and China in particular had become the basis of foreign policy. Nepal’s projection in the international forum was enhanced with its active participation in nonalignment movement (NAM) from its very inception The overall handling of foreign affairs under monarchy, except for the late 1980s, remained dynamic and contributed significantly for the growth of Nepal’s independent personality in the comity of nations. Today we have diplomatic contacts with more than one hundred countries and we participate in almost all the major international forums and organizations There is a consensus among the major political forces in the country that within the given resources, Nepal should continue to play an active role in the international forum within the parameters of nonalignment. Text courtesy: Excerpts from the author’s paper presented at a IFA/FES seminar held in Kathmandu on August, 1999-ed.