Submit your Article

All is not well between China and KP Oli. The Nepali prime minister is miffed by the Chinese insistence of late that he should rather resign than cause a split in the ruling Nepal Communist Party. Nor are the Chinese all that pleased with Oli, who, they feel, isn’t doing enough to push BRI projects in Nepal. Oli’s off-the-cuff readiness to split the NCP, which China helped come into being and in which it has invested so much, also irks the northern neighbor.

Cornered in his own party and with the outside power that hoisted him to the PM’s chair displeased, Oli has chosen a familiar tactic: ship-jumping. Until the new constitution’s promulgation in 2015, Oli was among New Delhi’s most trusted henchmen in Kathmandu. But when he saw his fortune lay in opposing Indian highhandedness over the Nepali constitutional process, he swiftly ditched his old allegiance. Overnight, he turned into an ardent advocate of cultivating China as a balancing power against India. This anti-India stand paid him handsomely in the 2017 federal elections. 

He is now trying to reach out to his old contacts in New Delhi, sending feelers of his readiness to bury the hatchet. The recent spate of high-level Nepal visits of top Indian officials—and some covert trips the other way—suggests the same. In other words, Oli is seeking India’s help to prolong his tenure in power. In doing so, he has, among other stuff, promised not to needle India over border issues again. 

In the weeks and months ahead, he will try to convince the Indians that he is remorseful of his past pro-China stand and ready to make amends. The new message will be that India has to back him politically if it wants to check growing Chinese influence in Nepal. New Delhi seems to be taking heed and again appears ready to give him a second chance, largely for the lack of a batter alternative given the balance of power in Kathmandu. If Oli digs in and splits his party, so much the better. In the Indian eye the NCP is a Chinese construct and its disappearance would again give India a chance to play kingmaker in Kathmandu. Standing in the way is China. 

Given the enormous Chinese leverage inside the NCP, it won’t be easy for Oli to split it and still retain majority support within the party. Nor will a sudden switch to India be a cakewalk. But Oli’s goal is not long-term survival. He is more minded to keep his government intact for a bit over the next two years that remains in his term. Oli will deal with the next political hurdle when he gets to it. 

Amid the flurry of high-level visits between Nepal and India, Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe is coming to Kathmandu as well, signaling that China won’t allow India to regain its dominant role in Nepal easily, not the least because it is seen as doing US bidding here. China under Xi Jinping is a beast on the prowl. Gone are the days when it reluctantly allowed India the upper hand in Nepal. 

Talks of increasing geopolitical competition on Nepali soil have become such clichés. But Nepal appears poised for a rare post-monarchy no-hold-barred open tussle between India and China for sway. India reckons it can regain its lost clout and is counting on American support for the same. China, now under an imperious leader who has set his sights on South Asia, is in no mood to back down either. 

Political forecasting is a fraught endeavor, as the analysts who based their prognostications on polls ahead of the US presidential elections and Bihar’s state-level elections are finding out. Politics is not hard science, with neat causes and effects. We must perforce exercise caution when talking of the impact on Nepal of the election of Joe Biden as American president or of the BJP’s stellar showing in Bihar. Heck, Biden has not even been legally elected the US president (the Electoral College votes are tallied only on Jan 6). And Bihar’s attitude towards Nepal is as predictable as the course of Koshi River.

Not long ago, people were livid with Prime Minister KP Oli for granting an audience to RAW Chief Samant Goel. The Nepali government head meeting the chief of India’s external intelligence agency generated a lot of hullaballoo. Why were diplomatic protocols being so openly flouted? Why had the Nepali PM descended so low? Personally, I saw nothing wrong. Goel had come to Nepal as PM Modi’s envoy and as such Oli could not have declined to meet him. I would also rather that our top politicians did these meetings out in the open, rather than in hush-hush, as if they had something to hide.

Then, look at the results. Yes, the optics might have looked bad. But soon after Goel, Indian army Chief M.M. Naravane came to Kathmandu. This in turn cleared the way for the visit of Indian foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla. And Shringla’s trip, if we are to go by feelers from New Delhi, could be a precursor for the coming of Indian Home Minister Amit Shah. All these are signs that India-Nepal ties are slowly getting back on track. Yet if you believed some of the commentary in Nepali media following Goel’s visit, Nepal-India ties were doomed.

Nepal-US relations are less complicated than Nepal-India ties. Yet the contours of the former may be even harder to track. The US, after all, is oceans away. Yet we have already started speculating about the Biden administration’s Nepal outlook. I don’t think it will have one. It all depends on how the Biden administration hedges between India and China—and that will be just one variable factoring into US calculations.

Further complicating things these days is the impact of social media and fake news. Without a shred of evidence, over 70 million Americans unquestionably gulped down Trump’s trope on election fraud. After our cable TV provider cut the broadcast of CNN and BBC (which I now see on YouTube), I started watching Turkey’s TRT World and Russia’s RT. The American, Turkish, and Russian broadcasters report on same events and yet with different facts—yes, different facts, whether on US electoral fraud or Nagorno-Karabakh or Syrian refugees. Likewise, the Nepali (social) media landscape has become so crowded and noisy, it’s getting hard to discern fact from fiction.

Nepal-India ties seems to be on better footing than was the case before Dashain. But it will only take one little poke to the nationalist Nepali psyche for the ties to come tumbling down. The MCC compact remains in parliamentary limbo. Our top leaders continue to cuddle up to China. If Nepal was sure about what it wanted from its international friends and if there was broad consensus on Nepal’s foreign policy, perhaps we would not have to rely so much on the crystal ball of international relations.

It’s not unusual for old ideas, even the ones you once seriously considered, to completely escape your mind. I was recently reminded of one such forgotten idea: Nepal-India-China trilateralism. The occasion was an AIDIA webinar in which I was invited to speak along with other guests from the three countries. The first question that crossed my mind when I got the invite: why now? This pie-in-the-sky dream is clearly not being realized soon. 

But then turning Nepal into a ‘vibrant economic bridge’ between the two Asian giants has been a stated foreign policy goal of the Oli government. India, mindful of China’s already considerable sway in Nepal, has shown no interest in it. Now in light of escalating border tensions between India and China—and Nepal’s own border skirmishes with India—the trilateral idea appears doomed. One suggestion offered in the webinar, by Indian and Chinese speakers alike, concerned the pursuit of trailaterism through track II and track III mechanisms. Build a consensus on it at an intellectual level before kicking it up for consideration at the political level, they suggested. 

An interesting idea, I thought. But, again, what is the point when those making the final decision simply don’t want to hear of it, especially in India? Instead, Nepal can look to improve its ties with the two neighbors separately, and if it can gain their confidence in due course, maybe then pursue the trilateral idea.  

Separately, the Chinese seem perturbed by India’s growing strategic proximity with the US and its implications for South Asia. They don’t understand why Nepal, a great friend of China, cannot follow Sri Lanka’s example and dismiss the MCC compact out of hand. Why is the ruling Nepal Communist Party, with excellent brotherly ties with its Chinese counterpart, hesitating to do the right thing? They also link the paucity of progress in BRI projects in Nepal to American interference, this time via the MCC. 

The burgeoning US-India strategic links also put the Chinese in a bind. They wanted to work with India under the BRI framework to keep the Americans from making mischief in South Asia. But the prospect of such extensive India-China cooperation in the region is getting bleaker. The India-China rivalry in Nepal may hence get an added edge in the days ahead. 

The Chinese attitude to the Oli government seems to be hardening too. Besides the long delay in BRI projects and Nepal’s hesitance to drop the MCC compact, their suspicions of Kathmandu have been heightened by the recent Nepal visits of RAW chief Samant Goel and Indian army chief M.M. Naravane, especially the latter, who insinuated China as the origin of Nepal’s claims over Kalapani. What is cooking in Kathmandu, they would like to know? 

The Chinese had for some time been trying to persuade the Indians of the mutual benefits of connecting the big markets of North India and West China. Nepal said it would be more than happy to act as a bridge between them. Made perfect economic sense, too. But as the recent Indian boycott of Chinese goods in India—and the Indian Premier League’s cancellation of its 440-crore-rupee-a-year contract with Chinese mobile giant VIVO—suggests, nationalism trumps economic calculations any day. If only the Indians and the Nepalis understood the ice-cold Chinese logic of pursuing development and poverty-alleviation at all costs. 

In 1782, Nepal, under the regency of Rajendra Rajya Laxmi Devi, was pushing ahead with its expansion campaign started by the regent’s late father-in-law, Prithvi Narayan Shah. In the same year, King Thongduang (Rama I) initiated the Chakri dynasty rule in Siam (now Thailand).

Nepal threw out the 240-year-old Shah dynasty in 2008. But the Thai Chakri monarchy remains unharmed. Instead, the current monarch, Vajiralongkorn (Rama X), seems intent on tightening his hold. At his prodding, police are cracking down on Thai youths who have been taking to the streets asking for greater accountability from their profligate and promiscuous monarch. They would also like to see greater respect for democratic norms from Thai military. 

The year 2001 was the Shah dynasty’s beginning of the end after a largely popular king and his family were gunned down in a royal massacre. He was replaced by a determined autocrat with no truck for democratic norms. Making matters worse, King Gyanendra and his spoilt son, Paras, were suspects in the killing of King Birendra’s family. People just didn’t trust the new monarch who had ascended the throne under such unpropitious omens.   

Something similar happened in Thailand. In 2016 King Bhumibol’s (Rama IX’s) death brought Vajiralongkorn to the Thai throne. The former was widely revered, even deified. The latter is as widely loathed. It’s hard to love him too. The new king is a free-spending playboy who has been putting up in a luxury hotel in Germany—in the warm embrace of his 20 concubines—to escape Covid-19 in Thailand.  

Thai youths had seen enough. They have been out on the streets for months, protesting against the unearned privileges of their king. But their grievances run deeper. The constitutional constraints on the monarchy and the military he controls were lifted following the army’s 2014 coup. Even before that the armed forces frequently removed popularly elected governments. The tipping point came in February this year when the progressive Future Forward Party, with 81 seats in the 500-member lower house, was banned on trumped-up charges. 

Those accustomed to unearned privileges for long assume things will always be the same. But, then, a sudden tsunami sweeps everything away, as happened with Nepal’s Shah monarchy.    

Today’s youths are supposedly lazy and complaisant, quick to pick a fight on social media but shy of any kind of direct political activism. Yet what we see is the opposite. The youths are right now at the forefront of political protests, everywhere from the US to Thailand to Nepal. They want greater democratic freedoms, an end to old unearned privileges, and less racial and economic inequality. It would be foolish to take them lightly.

Who would have thought the Shah monarchy, with its considerable public support and long legacy, could be pushed aside so easily? The protesting Thai youths may not get all they want this time; the monarchy-backed Thai junta is way too powerful right now. But the king’s blatant disregard of popular sentiments and the junta’s ham-fisted crackdown tactics suggest the days of the old Thai establishment are numbered too. The Chakri dynasty has survived for longer than the Shah dynasty. But not by much. 

The demand for death penalty for rapes in Nepal tacks to the illiberal winds blowing across the world, helped in no small part by the speedy growth of social media. Of course, most of us are outraged when we first hear of an incident like the Sept 23 rape-and-murder of a 12-year-old Dalit girl of Bajhang district. Pre-social media, we had time to think through such cases, and to weigh evidence for the efficacy of extreme measures like death penalty before we jumped to conclusions. We would then know capital punishment as a crime-deterrent is ineffective, and often counterproductive.  

On paper, Pakistan hangs the rapists of minors. But when a minor is actually raped there, it is the victim who cops more of the blame for appearing ‘slutty’ or wearing ‘revealing’ clothes. Seldom are the men punished. Bangladesh—with over 1,000 cases of sexual assaults in 2020 alone—just reinstated death penalty for rapes. Yet it is expected to have minimal deterrent effect. In one survey, nearly 90 percent of men who admitted to sexually assaulting women in Bangladesh said they expected to get away with it. The Maldives flogs women who have premarital sex. Things are no better in Sri Lanka (which has lately been in the news for systemic rape of male Tamil detainees). where Tamil detainees the police the ‘rape capital’ of South Asia. Then there is Bhutan, where the husband of a raped woman is liable for compensations for the wife’s ‘adultery’. 

The attitude to sexual violence and rapes is as blasé in India. Men feel entitled to physically prevail upon women, and many of them express surprise when told they might be prosecuted for ‘having sex’ with a woman of their choice. India has had no letup in rapes since the hanging of the four gang-rapists in the Nirbhaya case in March, anecdotal evidence suggests. 

The problem, again, is lack of conviction for rapes—perhaps as little as 5 percent of all sexual offenders in South Asia are punished—thanks to the corrupt and tardy legal systems. Legal scholars in SAARC member states are nearly unanimous that guaranteed punishment would be a stronger deterrent for rapes than the provision of death penalty. After all, if nobody is convicted, even death penalty becomes meaningless. 

Only authoritarian states like China and North Korea still routinely mete out the death penalty for rapes. A democratic Nepal has been forced to consider this radical option, partly as people here are losing their trust in the government. Perhaps they would be okay with a long prison sentence for rapists if they were sure that these rapists would serve out their time.  

Thankfully, women MPs in Nepal have been more sober-minded. Some are still gung ho on death penalty, yet most of them say they are open to other options, including chemical castration of convicted rapists and longer jail terms.   

The growing voice of our women is another thing that is worth celebrating. Nepali women—our MPs, lawyers, rights activists—are more than capable of working out just and effective punishments for sexual offenders. This in turn emphasizes the need to have more women in decision-making bodies. Our new constitution outlining guaranteed women’s representation goes some way towards ensuring this. But, again, it’s just the first step.   

Even until a couple of years ago, rare were commentaries in official Chinese media pointedly directed at India. The Middle Kingdom didn’t see the South Asian giant as worthy of its attention, much less consider it a strategic rival. Things have changed. Now not a day goes by without The Global Times, the Chinese communist party mouthpiece, spewing venom against the Indians, who have supposedly forgotten their place. What hasn’t changed is the old Chinese obsession with America.  

India and the US are consolidating their ties under the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Quad. When the foreign ministers of four Quad member states—the US, Australia, Japan, and India—recently met in Tokyo, they recommitted to fighting for an Asia not dominated by a single power. Anti-China sentiments have been crystallizing in all four countries, and the ‘concert of democracies’ seems determined to together contain China.

Speaking at the Tokyo meet, in a clear reference to China, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar expressed India’s commitment to “upholding the rules-based international order, underpinned by the rule of law, transparency, freedom of navigation in the international seas, respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, and peaceful resolution of disputes.”

Such anti-China polarization in turn sharpens the geopolitical rivalries in South Asia. Addressing the (virtual) UN General Assembly not long before Jaishankar, Nepali Prime Minister again invoked his country’s abiding faith in ‘non-alignment’. “We believe in amity with all and enmity with none,” he thundered. But his government’s foreign policy antenna tuned to Beijing’s signals, such vows of non-alignment sound hollow. Oli has of late tried to cool tensions with India—for instance, by stopping the publication of a Nepali school ‘reference book’ accentuating the border dispute at Kalapani—yet there is no doubt where his fealty lies.  

Friends and foes keep changing in the uncharitable world of international relations, and it matters not whether your pal is a dictator or a democrat. But can a country as precariously placed as Nepal afford to pick sides? Didn’t Nepal first embrace multilateralism in the 1950s with the realization that there was no other way to safeguard its sovereignty? Taking a unilateral course could prove costly. The spate of fake news in India over China’s supposed designs on Nepal is already disconcerting. 

Both domestic and foreign observers of Indian foreign policy now broadly agree that having failed on nearly all vital domestic fronts, appearing tough against China and Pakistan is Narendra Modi’s last lifeline. This entails India taking a hard line against smaller neighbors like Sri Lanka and Nepal, lest they irrevocably spin into China’s orbit. 

For over 250 years, maintaining a delicate balance between India and China has been Nepal’s survival secret. When one power posed a threat, it sought help from the other. But such manipulation—partly made possible by the sheer difficultly of communication between the British India and the Qing China—is no longer an option in this interconnected world of instant communication. Just as Nepal, a key BRI member, has been invited to play a pivotal role in the Indo-Pacific Strategy, it will in time be asked to support the Quad. I am unaware of any homework on how the country will deal with this 21st-century ‘democracies v dictatorship’ challenge. 

Valerie Julliand was appointed UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP’s Resident Representative to Nepal in 2016. As she left the country after finishing her term at the end of September for Indonesia, where she will serve as the new UN Resident Coordinator, Julliand recounted her experience in Nepal in this email exchange with APEX’s Biswas Baral. Here she describes her experience of dealing with the aftermath of 2015 earthquake, women’s empowerment, Nepal’s federal challenges, the country’s development aspirations, and her overall experience living and working here.

Helping the country deal with the devastating impact of the 2015 earthquakes was one of your first major challenges in Nepal. Can you share some of your reflections from that time? What were the lessons?

I came to Nepal at a time when the country, and city that was to become my home, were recovering from the devastation of the earthquake. Months had passed, but the recovery efforts were still very much ongoing and of course reconstruction to some extent continues to this day. In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, the UN system began to work with the government to ensure a quick and effective response. The priority of course was to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance to those most effected and to start rebuilding homes and communities.

Nepal chose an owner-driven reconstruction approach, allowing for people to build their homes back with the government’s funding support. As a result of which some 500,000 houses have been rebuilt, an amazing achievement really. Given the enormous scale of the crisis, the choice of using a uniform approach to reconstruction is understandable, but it is important to also reflect on its limitations. The inequality and diversity among those impacted by the earthquakes meant that there was also a need for a more differentiated and targeted approach. This need was highlighted by the UN and humanitarian community at large, and it was our role to support the government in ensuring the necessary readjustments to reach those furthest behind.

It is so important for us to remember that sometimes in our efforts to reach the largest number of people, the most vulnerable and marginalized might struggle to access the relief and assistance they need. A female-headed household or person with a disability is likely to have specific needs for support. I am so glad that as part of the earthquake response efforts, we were able to establish the Community Feedback Project with the support of the British Embassy (previously DfID), because this allowed the humanitarian community, including the government to hear from affected communities. It essentially brought their voices to the decision-making table and I think this made our response stronger and more adapted to the needs of those we aimed to serve. This has continued in humanitarian response efforts since then, including the 2017 floods and the Covid-19 response.

The biggest lesson of course is that so much of the life saving work happens prior to a disaster and that is why it is so important that the government has put in place new legislation and policy on disaster risk reduction and management. What is essential now, is to ensure that this is implemented, and legislation enforced. I see a great opportunity provided by federalism in strengthening the disaster risk reduction and management efforts, as this is an effort that requires all three tiers of government from the federal to the local.

You have been a strong advocate of women’s representation in decision-making bodies. The UN played a vital role in ensuring greater representation of women in the last local elections. Why was this important?

Women make up half of the population of the world and of course, half of the population of Nepal. The importance of women being in elected office or present at the decision-making table really should need no justification. Nonetheless, across the globe women’s leadership and political participation is restricted and we are underrepresented in elected office, the civil service, and private sector. As the UN, it remains one of our key priorities to change this, because we cannot claim to have democratic and inclusive societies until women are allowed to participate fully and equally in decision making across private and public life.

Nepal has made enormous progress in women’s representation in political office, with 14,000 women (including 6,500 Dalit women) holding 41 percent of all locally elected positions. This really is the result of the unrelenting work of the Nepali women’s movement. Though the numbers changed overnight, the gender discriminatory norms and stereotypes that have been barriers to women’s equal participation unfortunately have not. Thus, we must work together to build an enabling environment for these women to be able to deliver on their mandates. They must be allowed to do their work safely, their voices respected and heard, and their skills and leadership recognized.

As the UN, it is not only important to provide the necessary support to increase the skills and capacities of elected representatives, irrespective of gender, but to support in building an enabling environment that allows women leaders to succeed, and for this we must together transform discriminatory norms. It is only with this, that we can truly build a gender equal and inclusive democracy.  

Nepal has just started on its federal journey and it’s been a tough start. What do you see as the major challenges for Nepal’s federal project? How do we overcome them?

I must say that being witness to the federalization process in Nepal and seeing the engagement and commitment of the provincial and local governments has been a great privilege. I have been particularly encouraged to see the dedication to localize the Sustainable Development Goals to inform development planning across the country. Of course, the transition to federalism requires years to unfold and many challenges remain, however this process is essential for the realization of the commitments to equality and inclusion of the government of Nepal.

Federalism is not only a process of changing government structures, laws and policies, but of changing mindsets and perhaps that is the most difficult challenge ahead. This requires a change in the thinking of each and every person living in this country and a recognition of the incredible opportunities that bringing political decision making and governance structure closer to the people provides. I look forward to following how the foundations of a federal Nepal become ever stronger in the years to come.

In your view, what three or four areas should Nepal focus on in order to meet its development aspirations? And how can the international community help?

I am happy to have seen that Nepal’s development aspirations and vision really focus on inclusion and building a more equal and just society. With a constitution such as Nepal’s, the foundations for this are strong. Of course, multiple challenges remain and areas which will need focus from the government, civil society, and the private sector, and of course the international development community. First, there is a need to start consciously shifting discriminatory norms and practices that continue to prevail in Nepal and which marginalize women and girls and other historically excluded groups. Gender and social inclusion responsive planning and policy making is needed irrespective of sector. Only by dismantling historical structures of discrimination can Nepal truly build a sustainable future for all. This is not easy of course, but I believe Nepal is on the right path that it must see through to the end.

A key challenge which remains, and one which intricately relates to gender and social inclusion, is that of access to justice. A functioning justice system is key not only to protect and guarantee the human rights of all citizens, delivering justice to both victims and accused, but essential for accelerating progress across the 17 SDGs and realizing the Agenda 2030.  Justice is also the most efficient way to ensure changes in—and counteract—the norms and practices detrimental to many groups in Nepal, pending the change of mentality and mindsets.

As I have mentioned earlier, for Nepal to truly build the foundations for a sustainable future, it must learn the lessons of its past and ensure that disaster risk reduction and management is given the attention and emphasis it needs. If progress made is regularly lost due to disaster and environmental degradation, not only are precious resources wasted, but the lives of the very people the country wants to protect are placed in danger.

Besides earthquake, Nepal is also prone to natural disasters like floods and landslides and the new effects of climate change. How do we mitigate these risks and what role has the UN played in this?

The vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters, together with continued environmental degradation, poses a real threat to Nepal and its people, and endangers the gains made towards achieving the sustainable development goals. The UN has a normative role and technical expertise in policy development and capacity building in the areas of climate and disaster risk reduction, effective emergency response, sound environmental management, and sustainable recovery. It is one of the core areas of our work in our collaboration with the government. The UN in Nepal has a unique partnership with a consortium of Universities led by Durham University, on a project to examine how to use local knowledge and new interdisciplinary science to inform better decision making and reduce the impacts of multi-hazards in Nepal. This partnership has been seen as a model in the region.

The UN works on strengthening the capacity of national and sub-national levels as well as local communities to mitigate risks of, prepare for, respond to and recover and rebuild from the effect of disasters and climate change. It is important to remember, that disasters impact people differently and often women and those from marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted in crisis. Pre-existing and intersecting inequalities mean that women and girls, persons with disabilities or a Dalit person will experience adverse consequences and have different resources, capacities and coping strategies than others.

As the UN, it is our responsibility to highlight these needs before and after the crisis and work with the government to address them. Most importantly, women and those from marginalized groups must be provided an opportunity to participate fully in the planning and implementation of disaster risk reduction and management and humanitarian response. This makes for a stronger and more effective approach.

As I mentioned earlier, Nepal has put in place a strong legislative and policy framework on disaster risk reduction and management. What is important now is to ensure the implementation of that legislation—so that roads and houses are not built in landslide prone areas and are seismic resistant, and environmental degradation is curtailed.

What has been the UN’s role in helping Nepal deal with the ongoing Covid-19 crisis? What are our major challenges? How do we better equip ourselves to deal with such pandemics in the future?

As is the case globally, the UN’s Covid-19 health response is led by WHO, building on its long-standing partnership with the Ministry of Health and Population. In the context of the pandemic WHO has provided technical support across a wide range of areas including strengthening data generation and management; developing necessary guidelines and protocols; strengthening laboratory capacities; and ensuring regular, reliable and accessible communication to the general public. Across the world, health systems have been placed under enormous pressure and this is no different for Nepal. Here the government has been able to take a number of steps to strengthen its health care system to cope with the pandemic, capacities which we hope will remain as the country recovers. 

As we know, the Covid-19 crisis goes beyond a health crisis and as such the overall UN response addresses water and sanitation needs, education, nutrition and protection to name a few.  Another central focus for the UN is of course in supporting the government to address the socio-economic impacts of the crisis and to ensure a timely and inclusive recovery that focuses on the needs of those most affected. We must never forget the individual lives impacted—the women now isolated at home with their abusers, the meals skipped by families as they cope with lost livelihoods, or the migrants who have not only lost their jobs but are stigmatized and discriminated upon their return home.   

As the UN, we have just completed a socio-economic framework to guide our work in the coming 18 months to support the country in its long-term recovery of the crisis. It is important to remain vigilant, ensuring that progress made towards the Sustainable Development Goals is not lost in the aftermath of the pandemic and rather that we use this as an opportunity to address the systemic weaknesses and long-standing inequalities in society.

In terms of your last question on equipping ourselves, I really think it is time for us to critically reflect individually and collectively how we treat the people and our planet. I hope that this pushes us towards taking effective action for a more sustainable and inclusive future, but I do fear that we are so stuck in our ways that real change will be hard to come by. What is needed is a change in mindsets, an openness to address the wrongs of the past, and commit to a carbon neutral and environmentally sustainable future.

What overall impression of Nepal and Nepalis do you take back? Can you tell us about some of your more memorable moments here?

My most treasured memories are of the encounters and conversations I have had with people across this country, hearing of their experiences and I am grateful to each of them for their trust. The people of Nepal are hospitable, friendly and kind; it is this that I will take with me as I leave my home of four years. I have come to love this city and country, its incredible landscapes, diversity of culture and people.

When the Soviets opposed Nepal’s UN membership in 1949, the country had to wait for six more years before it was admitted to the global body in 1955. The newly independent India, a de facto Soviet ally at the time, wanted to secure its hold over its traditional backyard. The Soviets also saw Nepal as falling under the American camp after the establishment of Nepal-US diplomatic ties in 1947. The small landlocked country thus became an early victim of Cold War politics. 

Nonetheless, back in the 1950s and 60s, Nepal wielded some influence abroad, whether under King Mahendra or briefly under BP Koirala. They were perhaps the only two leaders in Nepali history who could deal with their foreign counterparts as equals, betraying no inferiority complex. Koirala held his own against Jawaharlal Nehru and Zhou Enlai. His 1960 address to the UN General Assembly—where he held forth on ‘big power complex’, China’s UN membership, Algerian independence, among others—has not been matched by another Nepali leader since. 

Mahendra was also completely at ease chatting up head of Soviet Presidium Kliment Voroshilov or American President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His 1960 state visit to the US, with roadside crowds cheering his motorcade, and his address to the joint session of US Congress, were both unprecedented.

Perhaps it’s no accident that the two times Nepal has been a member of the UN Security Council (1969-70 and 1988-89) were during the Panchayat days. With the domestic population under the monarch’s absolute control, he could focus his attention outwards, contributing to a consistent foreign policy. The prowess of diplomats like Risikesh Shah, Yadunath Khanal, and Bhek Bahadur Thapa who were at his disposal would also be hard to replicate today.  

Prolonged instability after the 1990 democratic change—greatly exacerbated by the Maoist insurgency—did significant damage to Nepal’s international standing. As the newly liberated political parties fought for power among themselves, Nepal’s national interest was compromised, once again showing that only a stable country can successfully project is power abroad.  

As the head of a powerful government with two-thirds majority, KP Oli has some clout on the international stage. Under Oli, Nepal has generated more interest abroad than at any other time since 1990. Yet nobody takes him seriously. This again owes to political in-fighting in Nepal, even within the ruling NCP, and the country’s ad hoc foreign policy (the abrupt dismissal of Leela Mani Poudyal as Nepal’s envoy to China a case in point). Even among the ruling NCP, factions compete for ambassadorships. 

Nepal’s increasing proximity to China, to the exclusion of everyone else, is also doing damage to her carefully cultivated non-aligned image. In fact, Nepal is these days known more for having a government closely aligned to its communist brethren to the north than it is as a vibrant federal democratic republic. Nor does the country have a coherent foreign policy. It is still the norm to hand out ambassadorships based on personal connections. Unnecessary embassies have been opened abroad while the ones that needed strengthening have been neglected. The two-third Oli government cannot even pass a long-agreed foreign compact through a parliament it controls. 

On the 75th anniversary of the United Nations, it is worth looking back at the days when Nepal was both seen and heard in important capitals and forums.