Who Represents the Foreign Policy in Nepal?

All ministers and political appointees are talking about Nepalese foreign policy creating confusion over whose views represent Nepal’s foreign policy

By KESHAB POUDEL

 

Ambassador Moriarty : Concern of a friend

Time and again first vice chairman Dr. Tulsi Giri rebukes the western ambassadors particularly British ambassador Keith Bloomfield and US ambassador James Moriarty.

Now the chairman of Rajsabha (State Council) Parshunarayan Chaudhari has followed the same line. Dr. Giri has several times expressed critical views against these ambassadors and now other officials including Chaudhari have joined the chorus.

“Ambassadors are interfering Nepal’s internal affairs. We are ourselves capable to solve our problems,” thundered first vice chairman Dr. Tulsi Giri recently addressing a mass meeting in Gaur.

Chaudhari, chairman of state council, who does not have anything to do with foreign policy, too had harsh words about the statements issued by western diplomats. “We know what we need to do. We don’t need prescription of foreign ambassadors,” said Chaudhari indirectly hinting the statement given by two important western diplomats US ambassador James Moriarty and British ambassador Bloomfield. Both the ambassadors recently traveled to Nepal’s remote parts including Maoist-affected areas meeting political workers, district level government officials, judges and security personnel.

So far as these ambassadors are concerned, they have not been found suggesting any kind of domineering interest in Nepal and none of their remarks go against this nation’s interest.

Time and again, they have been emphasizing the need for national reconciliation and unity between the King and democratic forces. Sometimes they appeared to have transgressed the usual diplomatic niceties but all that appears as a sincere concern about Nepal’s peace and progress.

Wherever the British ambassador and the US ambassador visited, they stressed the need of unity between the King and democratic forces. Although their personal style of speaking might be different, they are genuinely concerned about rule of law, multiparty democracy, human rights, and individual freedom.

The countries that they represent do not have any extraterritorial interest to involve in Nepal. These countries have provided enormous support to Nepal in various times in sectors ranging from forestry to education and infrastructure development to health.

Though bitter in style their words have to be understood not as provocative remarks but as sincere suggestions. Was it proper for these octogenarian persons in the office - Dr.Giri and Chaudhari - to be impatient and use harsh criticisms directed particularly at these diplomats?

Nepal has an interim government in the absence of elected House of Representatives under the chairmanship of King Gyanendra. The King has been vocal to the press as to the public too but there has been no such anguish or criticism over the opinion of these diplomats. He seems to have taken those opinions in their appropriate spirits. There is a foreign minister also in the government who is always prompt and loud in his utterances. Foreign minister Ramesh Nath Pandey has not yet been on record opening duel with the diplomats of friendly countries.

There is obviously an uneasy and embarrassing contradiction going on simultaneously. One may be bewildered to understand who represents the government policy regarding foreign policy matters. The King or first vice chairman holding the portfolio of Land Reform and Water Resources Ministry Dr. Giri or chairman of Rajsabha or the foreign minister Pandey or Information and Communication minister Tanka Dhakal, who is official spokesman of the government who uses powerful medium of state propaganda.

As long as the King is there, he has the final word of the government and he has not yet reacted negatively. So far as the departmental responsibility is concerned, the foreign minister Pandey is the appropriate person to tackle the questions posed by diplomats based in Nepal.

And in the last, the information minister can be counted if he goes into his propaganda warfare. In such a situation, one has to analyze the importance of persons who are not supposed to transgress the issues beyond their limit.

Diplomats naturally have their handicaps as they don’t have their own means of propaganda and activists at their disposal. Whatever they express, they might not have been properly reported in the press. If the context is not fully produced, any sincere opinions can be misunderstood.

Even Kantipur, a broadsheet daily of largest circulation, had to regret for mistaken reporting of so-called non-existent statement of British ambassador Keith Bloomfield.

Whether through the misreporting or criticism, political parties and private sector media, too, are not favoring US ambassador Moriarty’s good suggestion for reconciliation. Although western support to restoration of multi-party democracy also include the free press and rule of law, media, which are now opposing media ordinance limiting the freedom of speech, are taking lead to oppose Moriarty’s recent statement along with the leaders of seven political parties. Some influential members of civic society who have been launching nationwide agitation, too, opposed the US reaction.

“US ambassador James F. Moriarty tried to give legitimacy to the King’s action,” said CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal returning from his two-week-long visit to India seeking support from India for democratic movement launched by them. “I can say for sure that the Indian establishment and the people will never be impressed by any move taken by the King with a view to seeking international legitimacy for his February takeover,” said Nepal defending India - which has number of interests including most sensitive security interest in Nepal (The Himalayan Times, November 13).

Whether first vice chairman Dr. Tulsi Giri or opposition leader like Madhav Kumar Nepal or chairman of state council Chaudhari and members of civic society, they hold the consensus opinion so far as criticizing western envoys are concerned.

“These barbarians (Nepalis) do not know where there interests lie,” wrote Brian Hudgson, the first British resident to the court of Nepal. Although it was harsh observation on Nepalese, what the first British resident representative Hudgson said about one and half century ago is still valid.