Interviews
Certain issues in diplomatic practice require sensitive handling
Nepal’s handling of diplomacy has come under criticism, most recently after the concurrent visits last week of the Chinese and the Mongolian delegates.Nepal’s handling of diplomacy has come under criticism, most recently after the concurrent visits last week of the Chinese and the Mongolian delegates. Earlier, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba’s visit to Goa had also sparked controversy. Meanwhile, the third meeting of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG), an autonomous body set up to review the entire gamut of bilateral relations between Nepal and India, has been postponed to February. The body, which was created during the Indian blockade last year, has been asked to identify ways to strengthen relations between the two countries over the longer term. In the previous meetings, the Nepali side has pushed the revision of Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950 as a priority agenda. Mukul Humagain and Anil Giri spoke to Rajan Bhattarai, an EPG member and CPN-UML lawmaker about the body’s progress so far, the conduct of Nepal’s foreign policy in recent times and the ongoing political deadlock.
Why was the third EPG meeting postponed?
In the first meeting in July, we decided to prioritise the 1950 Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty, as the two countries’ modern relationship is anchored on this mother treaty. In the second meeting in October, we made our position on the treaty clear, and both sides decided to discuss details in the third meeting. According to the EPG’s terms of reference, a meeting has to be held every three months. So our third meeting was supposed to take place in January, but due to elections in India, the Indian side asked us to prepone it to December. But later, they asked that the meeting be postponed to February. We have accepted their request.
We are consulting experts on foreign affairs and the 1950 treaty, and preparing points for discussion. A major concern for us is our security arrangement with India and the national treatment provision present in the 1950 treaty, but I cannot disclose details now.
The EPG was formed last year when Nepal-India ties reached their lowest ebb. Now that you have taken part in two meetings, how optimistic are you about EPG’s success?
Although the EPG was formed last year under the Oli-led government, the concept behind it was agreed upon in 2011 during Baburam Bhattrai’s prime ministership. It was first mentioned in the joint communiqué during Modi’s visit to Nepal when Sushil Koirala was the prime minister. So all the three major parties can take ownership of the mechanism. It is a unique body in our age-old bilateral relationship with India.
There have been many contentious issues between the two countries. The unique nature of the EPG has made it easier for both the sides to talk about their concerns and grievances more openly. I am confident that the EPG will be successful in its task and will deliver a valuable report.
The change in government seems to have slowed down the implementation of the agreements that the Oli-led government reached with China. What is your take on this?
A major priority of any government is to ensure that its foreign policy serves its national interests. The agreements that the Oli government reached with China are consistent with our current national needs.
A major agreement with China is regarding connectivity—through rail, road or air—which is a pressing issue for us. At a time when far-flung countries are benefitting more than us by trading with China, we are losing out by not prioritising our connectivity with the northern neighbour. Moreover, Tibet has become increasingly more accessible and a lot of development activities are taking place there. Nepal should take advantage of this. For instance, if the Chinese national grid has reached Tibet, why should we not explore the possibility of exporting electricity to China through cross-border transmission lines? Our development depends to a great extent on the connectivity we establish with China.
Moreover, regardless of which government signs an agreement with another country, it has to be continued. In our history, different regimes and governments have signed important agreements, many of which are not in our interest but bind us nonetheless. It is the responsibility of every government to advance the agreements with China, mainly because they serve our national interest.
The concurrent visits of the Chinese and the Mongolian delegates to Nepal sparked some controversy. Earlier Deuba’s visit to Goa and PM Dahal’s attempt to exaggerate the extent of his participation in BRICS had drawn criticism. Are these signs of an unsteady foreign policy?
I agree that the practice of our diplomacy in recent times has been unsatisfactory. Nepal’s geo-strategic location is both an asset and a threat. The basic features of our foreign policy has not changed over time despite various domestic political changes in the country.
In the present world, the rise of India and particularly China has made them more conscious of their vulnerabilities. As such, Nepal should be more sensitive about their valid concerns. Since Prithvi Narayan Shah’s time, we have firmly maintained a policy of ensuring that Nepal’s territory is not used to hurt the core interests of our neighbours.
The recent events that you speak of do indicate a threat of our policy makers deviating from the fundamental aspects of our foreign policy. Maybe we are unknowingly getting involved in regional power games, which could be very dangerous for a small country like Nepal. There are certain issues in diplomatic practice that require sensitive and dexterous handling. Weakness on this front can have serious unintended consequences.
The joint statement released after PM Dahal’s visit to India drew controversy for stating that both countries hold similar views on major international issues. Now it has been reported that India has proposed that Nepali peacekeeping force be represented under its command. Has there been erosion in our government’s ability to assert an independent foreign policy?
If media reports are correct, then it is a serious matter. If India has made such a proposition, then it should not be accepted. Nepali peacekeeping forces are the only substantial contribution Nepal makes in the UN. The international community holds our peacekeeping forces in high regard for their number as well as professionalism.
The PM’s visit to India and the joint statement, though it drew some controversy, can be understood in terms of the commonalities we share with India. As a developing country in the region, Nepal faces similar concerns as India and other developing countries in issues like climate change or free trade. So the joint statement makes sense if we are talking about an issue-based understanding. However, India’s foreign policy has been shifting. India’s long-held non-alignment policy seems to be changing. So is its relationship with countries like Pakistan and China. Even global politics is not what it used to be a decade ago. So our relationship with other countries may not be the same as before. These changes in regional and global dynamics were not properly taken into consideration while drafting and signing the joint statement.
Does this point to the need for redefining our foreign policy?
There are a few fundamental aspects of our foreign policy that cannot change as they are dictated by geography. However, we need to consider the aforementioned changes, as well as new developments in our national priorities, while formulating our foreign policy.
It is a pity that we do not have a comprehensive foreign policy document. So we should create one and keep redefining our priorities. For instance, earlier we focused mostly on American or European tourists, but now with a growing middle class in both China and India, these countries have become our top tourist-sending countries. Until recently, we could not imagine any market other than India for exporting our electricity, but with the plan of a Saarc regional grid and greater access to Tibet, a diverse market is a distinct possibility now. We should be able to take advantage of these changing dynamics in our own neighbourhood through smart foreign policy. Sadly there is excessive focus of our politicians and intellectuals on the constitution.
Speaking of the constitution, how have you assessed the country’s
current political deadlock?
We finally promulgated the constitution after years of negotiations; it was endorsed by a majority of the CA members. It is sad that the issues that had been resolved have again been brought to the fore even before the constitution is implemented. Many people have reservations about the statute and their concerns should be addressed. But as we issued the constitution in a democratic way, the reservations should also be dealt democratically.
In my opinion, the parties should go for polls with their agenda and let the people decide what to do next. Failure of the constitution will not bode well for the country. The parties that endorsed the statute should safeguard it. Implementing the constitution at such a time can only show political maturity that we have gained from years of struggle. Provisions can be amended any time, depending on what the situation demands. That’s what we should do instead of thwarting the progress we as a country have made so far.