Submit your Article

Late in June, the federal government brought together in Kathmandu the honorary general consuls of Nepal in different countries, spending more than Rs 12 million to host them and to inform about Nepal. As the invitations were sent out only days before the start, only 21 of 64 honorary consul generals could make it. These are people appointed by the government of Nepal to promote the country’s interest abroad. Unlike ambassadors and consulate generals,
they are not paid.

Nepali ambassadors abroad were not amused as the government had invited them without prior consultations with them. As Non Resident Nepalis with little diplomatic experience are these days appointed as honorary consuls, the Foreign Ministry sees them as pretty much useless. The shambolic Kathmandu jamboree did nothing to improve their image.

Madan Kumar Bhattrari, a former foreign secretary, advises that such gatherings be held at or near the countries were these consuls serve, or if the program is to be held in Nepal, they be given enough time to prepare.

As per the Vienna Convention, the post should go to those who have close understanding of the country/society they are based in. This is why, says Mohan Krishna Shrestha, a former chief of protocol at the foreign ministry, foreigners instead of Nepalis are best placed to promote Nepal abroad.

Currently NRNs serve as honorary consuls in Australia, Canada, Belarus, Cyprus, Portugal, the US and Germany. They seem to have no responsibility besides catering to high-level Nepali dignitaries when they go visit these countries. This is also the reason foreigners are not interested in taking up the job.

During the Kathmandu gathering, Prime Minister KP Oli urged the honorary consuls to promote Nepal as a tourism destination ahead of the ‘Visit Nepal 2020’ and to create a conducive environment for the realization of the slogan “Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali”.

The gathering highlighted the country’s political situation, the aspect of tourism promotion, and economic diplomacy. But the honorary consuls, who are appointed on a purely political basis, are in no position to achieve these goals. They are often completely divorced from the realities of the countries and cities they are based in.
Nepal has diplomatic ties with 166 countries. There are 30 Nepali Embassies, three Permanent missions of Nepal to the United Nations (New York, Geneva and Vienna), Permanent Residence for the UN, and Six Consulates General of Nepal. The idea is to have honorary consuls in places that are not served by these diplomatic missions. And yet if we look at Nepali honorary consuls abroad, they typically serve in places quite close to the national embassies.

There are honorary consuls even within Nepal, 45 of them, who have been appointed by Nepal to act as a bridge with different countries. In practice they have no discernable duty, even though they are given facilities like diplomatic-plated vehicles, access to VIP lounge in International Airport, easy entry into Singhdurbar and to VIPs. Honorary consuls abroad do not get these facilities.

As things stand, these honorary consuls, in Nepal or abroad, are as good as useless, with only a handful of exceptions. So long as their roles are not clearly defined and so long as the posts are not given to those of high social standing, as envisioned in the Vienna Convention, they will continue to be useless. The honorary consuls are also a tragic reminder of how political meddling has skewed our foreign policy priorities.

The author heads the ‘Political, Current and Foreign Affairs’ bureau at Annapurna Post daily

With the intent of building mutual understanding and developing greater cooperation with their neighbors, the Chinese are proposing a ‘win-win’ formula. Some Chinese offi­cials say, albeit indirectly, that Asia should lead the world. It’s certainly true the Chinese are enjoying rapid prosperity. Driven by feelings of nationalism and ‘Asia first’, they are pursuing development on a war footing. They see all this as a step toward global supremacy.

Based on my conversations with Chinese officials and academics here, I sense that China is hungry for global leadership. To some extent, it has embraced western ways and liberalized its society. Still, Chinese leaders are not used to listening to any kind of criticism. They may not say it, but their displeasure is reflect­ed in their faces.

Claiming they are already estab­lished in Europe, America and Afri­ca, the Chinese are now eying the markets of South Asia and West Asia (aka Middle East). To that end, they have chosen Nepal as a ‘launch pad’—even though they accept this is a daunting task. There may be another reason why they picked Nepal. Until recently, the Chinese were aloof with Nepal’s domestic politics, but they are now a force to reckon with in almost every sphere of Nepali politics and economy. The calculation could be that they are well-placed to influence events here.

China has been making a case for greater connectivity between South Asia, South East Asia and other regions through railways. It is actively working on reviving the old Silk Route and connecting with South Asian and South East Asian countries. China’s haste is evident; it wants to rapidly expand its market, and subsequently its supremacy, in these regions.

China intends to enhance regional and global connectivity, which it sees as key to development, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The trilateral trick

Speaking to some journalists from Nepal, Singapore, The Philippines, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Mongolia and Myanmar in the last week of March, Zhang Zhixin, Division Director of Asian Affairs at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said his country is keen on promoting mutual collab­oration, development, peace and prosperity. He said China is looking to connect with Nepal via railways and expressed his happiness that the project to extend the rail link from Kerung to Kathmandu has been dis­cussed at the highest level. “But such a costly project will not be feasible with grants alone,” he said, while also pointing out the importance of expanding road networks between the two countries.

In reference to the Indo-Pacific Strategy being pushed by the US, Professor Zhu Caihau said China is more concerned about charting its own path than competing with America. “It’s not for China to talk about the US Indo-Pacific Strategy. The onus is rather on individual countries to study it.”

What about accusations of a debt trap that China faces? “The BRI has been connecting maximum num­bers of countries. It is not only a transport network but also an eco­nomic one. China takes into account what its neighbors want and offers help accordingly,” says Zhu.

She stressed that China is par­ticularly interested in lifting Asian countries up. Speaking about Nepal, she said, “If Nepal plays its part well, the concept of trilateral cooperation between China, Nepal and India can succeed.”

Although India hasn’t signed on to the BRI yet, the Chinese are confi­dent that the Indians will eventually come around. Senior Researcher Me Xinyu said, “China can move ahead only with the help of its neighbors and friends”. Citing the example of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), he said, “Of the 22 projects, nine have been completed and 13 are in progress. The project has created 70,000 jobs for Paki­stanis.” He said he was saddened by the negative publicity around the BRI projects in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. “There is such publicity even in Nepal. The problems arose not because of the BRI, but because of internal reasons in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.”

Qi Xin, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Economy and Trade Cooperation under the BRI, said trilateral cooperation between China, Nepal and India would provide an easy means for Nepal to pursue development. “Transport facility, fuel sup­ply, free trade and infrastructure development will all improve if trilateral cooperation moves ahead.” Almost all Chinese participants said there would be no problems if Nepal deals with its two neighbors on an equal footing.

China seems hungry for global leadership and has embraced western ways to some extent

 Although India hasn’t signed on to the BRI yet, the Chinese are confident that the Indians will eventually come around

Always a yam?

During the 1962 Sino-India war, India was concerned that Nepal was covertly supporting China. There were similar fears in 1973 when Nepal accepted Chinese aid for the construction of the Ring Road in Kathmandu. Westerners share the Indian suspicion that Nepal leans toward China. To dispel such doubts, some Chinese recommend that Nepal lay stress on trilateral cooperation, which they take as a part of the BRI.

During the last days of the Rana rule, in April 1947, US President Harry Truman had sent to King Tribhuwan a letter that explicit­ly recognized Nepal’s indepen­dence. At the time, India had the support of another superpower, the Soviet Union. Since that time, Nepal has been a geopolitical pawn in big-power rivalry.

Perhaps we can make the Chinese see that American presence in Nepal predates the start of the communist rule in their country, and Nepal will never allow its soil to be used for any anti-China activity. The Americans too could be more receptive to the idea of close cooperation between two age-old neighbors and the huge benefits that closer Nepal-China ties offer to a poor, landlocked country. The Indians, for their part, should be made to understand how serious Nepal is about trilateral coopera­tion and turning the country into a ‘vibrant economic bridge’.

 The Oli government appears proactive in diplomacy. Even though Pradeep Gyawali heads the foreign ministry, all major for­eign policy decisions are taken by the prime minister. On foreign pol­icy, PM Oli has prioritized diplo­matic visits along with ambassa­dorial appointments and fixing of diplomatic priorities. Soon after becoming prime minister, Oli welcomed his then counterpart from Pakistan, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. In parsing Abba­si’s Kathmandu visit, the close China-Pakistan link was invoked at the time, as was India and Paki­stan’s mutual animosity. But even before that, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj had already come to Nepal to wish the PM-in-waiting best of luck, in another visit that was loaded with geopolitical significance.

Emphasizing the role of India and China in Nepal’s development, PM Oli has repeatedly called for more investment in Nepal from the two big neighbors. PM Oli vis­ited India immediately after join­ing the government. People had expected him to visit China soon after. But he refrained, apparently not to annoy India so early in his term. In fact, Oli came to power with the promise of completely rewriting relations with India and China. He also promised better rela­tions with Gulf and donor countries and declared Nepal would adopt country-specific foreign policy, and that Nepali diplomacy would chart new paths.

OLI’S FOREIGN POLICY

 The prime minister took a bold step to remove India’s field office in Biratnagar

But he seems confused. Presi­dent Bidya Devi Bhandari’s purpose­less Qatar visit, his own needless Costa Rica visit and also the later hosting of the Asia Pacific Sum­mit gave mixed messages to the international community. Govern­ment co-hosted the Asia Pacific Summit even though it was being organized by a religion-promot­ing INGO. Most recently, he was at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. PM Oli did not get to address an important session there and returned home empty-handed.

PM Oli has in recent times been known as someone keen to culti­vate ties with China. Yes, he did go to China one and half months after his India visit, but there could be no consensus on implementation of any of the important bilateral proj­ects in the pipeline. The proposed cross-country railway also didn’t materialize, even though the prime minister does not tire of talking about it. Most crucially, the financial modality of Kerung-Kathmandu Rail is as yet unclear. Nor is PM Oli’s bid to make Nepal a ‘vibrant economic bridge’ between India and China anywhere close to fruition.

The government seems to be working at its own sweet pace. It has appointed ambassadors in vacant missions, however, it seems ill-equipped to handle geo­politics. In the meantime, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali visited United States along with India and China. He has already gone to the European Union head offices twice. Gyawali became the first Nepali for­eign minister to officially visit the US, where he assured the Ameri­cans of Nepal’s central role in the Indo-Pacific and of cooperation on North Korean issues.

But PM Oli and his government have also done some good. He took a bold step to remove India’s field office in Biratnagar. His initiative to make Indian Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Nepal happen and his successful hosting of the BIMSTEC Summit were both appreciated.

Speaking in Davos, PM Oli emphasized the need for deeper cooperation in trade, investment and connectivity in South Asia as the region has tremendous potential for economic growth through mutual cooperation. That may be true but he didn’t then specify how greater regional cooper­ation was possible.

Most recently, the needless ruckus that the ruling Nepal Communist Party caused over Venezuela, thereby alienating the US, was more evidence of the immaturity of this government’s diplomacy.

In sum, the Oli government seems confused about its foreign policy priorities. The prime minister seems to have the right intent, as is evident in some of his laudable diplomatic initiatives. What his government is failing in is execution.

A cabinet meeting last week appointed Amrit Bahadur Rai as Nepal’s Permanent Repre­sentative to the United Nations in New York. It is only the second time in Nepal’s history that the govern­ment has replaced an ambassador by going against the established norm whereby after the completion of an ambassadorship, a diplomat must serve for at least two years at the ministry before taking up new ambassadorship. Rai had just com­pleted his term as the ambassador to South Africa. The current foreign secretary, Shanker Das Bairagi, declined the UN appointment as he expects to be Chief Secretary. Hence the government appointed Rai, a joint secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Rai is the third-ranking senior joint secretary at the ministry. Bharat Raj Poudyal, who is currently lead­ing the UN division in the ministry, could have been the next UN candi­date as he is the senior-most candi­date. Likewise, Sewa Adhikari, who is currently the Nepali ambassador to Pakistan, is the second-ranking senior joint secretary.

Rai’s appointment is reflective of the politicking inside the ministry. The crucial UN posting is impossi­ble to get without political connec­tions. This has put a large number of officials in a dilemma over whether they should cultivate such connec­tions. According to one Nepali diplo­mat in New Delhi, Nepal is perhaps the only country in the world that recruits retired diplomats as ambas­sadors on the pretext of utilizing their experiences, as if there were no other alternatives.

The trend is reminiscent of the Panchayat era when only a limited number of people got such appoint­ments, time and again. Today as well, there are plenty of capable peo­ple, but only a few with right polit­ical connections get the opportu­nity. Joint Secretary Krishna Prasad Dhakal was recently recalled from New Delhi, where he was serving as the deputy head of mission, and has again been appointed ambassador to the UAE. Dhakal has not served in the ministry for a long time, but still got the coveted post because of his political connections.

This yes-man culture has adversely affected the ministry’s function­ing. Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, Min­ister for Foreign Affairs, defended Rai’s appointment, saying that Rai was chosen to make ambas­sadorial appointments inclusive. Gyawali added that ambassadors are sent to missions on the basis of their capacity (rather than based on their seniority).

However, former Permanent Rep­resentative to the United Nations Office in Geneva, Dinesh Bhattarai, says, “The UN missions should be led by either a former foreign sec­retary or an experienced political leader. The government is violat­ing this practice and is conducting diplomacy in a childish manner.” He added that appointing political­ly-inclined career diplomats is not a good practice.

The government should do proper homework before appoint­ing ambassadors. High level polit­ical appointees should be sent to important missions like New York and Geneva. Likewise, the ambas­sadors to the US, the UK, France, China (Permanent Security Council members) and India should be well versed in both diplomacy and inter­national relations. Not just anybody can be sent to these places.

Most MoFA officials have tech­nical knowledge but they seem to lack substance. Soon, the ministry will face a scarcity of joint secre­taries, most of whom have been appointed as ambassadors. Three weeks ago, the government had recommended ambassadors to Canada, France, Switzerland, Thai­land, and Kuwait, all from among career diplomats.

It also decided to recall the ambas­sadors to South Korea, Spain and Bangladesh, who were appointed by the previous government. Last week, a new ambassador to Israel was appointed and the govern­ment is in the process of appointing ambassadors to India, the UAE and Malaysia as well.

Before, ambassadors used to will­ingly resign after the formation of a new government under a different party. The trend has changed now.

Nepal has 30 embassies, three Per­manent representative UN offices in New York, Geneva and Vienna, and six general consulates. It is about time that the MoFA cultivated country- and sector-specific experts. Failure to do so will seriously under­mine Nepal’s diplomacy.

The author heads the Political, Current and Foreign Affairs Bureau at Annapurna Post national daily

Nepal’s journey to republican­ism has not been a smooth one, one reason being the lav­ish luxuries enjoyed by our VVIPs that sometimes dwarf even those enjoyed by our ex-monarchs. People are not amused. One of the reasons they over­threw monarchy was the Royal Place’s open exploitation of public resources. The monarchy was abol­ished, and a republic proclaimed. Yet the leaders of the new repub­lic, starting with the President, have so far given a poor account of themselves. The president’s rather extravagant ways are making people compare her lifestyle to that of the former monarchs.

Austerity with public resources should be a hallmark of democratic leaders. In this, the president, the ceremonial head of the state, should set an example, as she is the custo­dian of the new republic. But she instead appears determined to milk the state dry.

As if the sumptuous 160 ropanis of land on which Sheetal Niwas (President’s Office) sits were not enough, the government is shifting the adjacent Nepal Police Academy. The premier training facility for the national police force is being moved to expand the President Office premises and build a helipad.

Separately, the president already has twos set of motorcade. Yet an electric vehicle is being added, and an additional Rs 160 million sought to get her new bullet­proof cars. Combined with the Rs 1.5 billion that has been set aside for a helicopter to be used by the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and other VVIPs, this represents a gross misallocating of state resources in a relatively poor country.

It increasingly looks like the cere­monial president styles herself after the queens of yesteryears as she tries to match their opulence.

In addition to the aforementioned lavish amenities, the president has also developed a thing for need­less foreign junkets. The president’s high-level state visits are normally fixed by the calendar and budgeted accordingly. However, the Bidhya Devi Bhandari’s recent visits, such as to Qatar and Poland, have been ad hoc and made purely at the behest of the president.

Apparently, the President’s Office continuously lobbied with the Qatari government to get Bidhya Devi Bhandari invited to Doha. Inter­estingly, while 10 government offi­cials accompanied Bhandari on her Qatar visit, another 27 were allowed to tag along, at an additional cost of Rs 13 million. The final bill from Poland, where the president took along an even bigger retinue, is yet to be published.

This is unbecoming of the head of the state and the first female presi­dent of the republic. The damaged credibility of her office will be hard to restore.

 In what was a case of blatant misuse of taxpayer money, the government recently splurged on an international summit orga­nized by a controversial INGO. The direct engagement of Prime Minister KP Oli in the Asia Pacific Summit 2018, organized by the Universal Peace Federation (UPF), has attract­ed widespread criticism, includ­ing from ruling party leaders. The UPF has in the past been accused of being involved in evangelical activi­ties in Nepal. While he has been rather tardy in his regular work, PM Oli shifted to Soaltee Crowne Plaza for four full days so that he could directly supervise the summit. Then, with­out the approval of the cabinet, PM Oli accepted from the UPF a $ 100,000 cash prize for his ‘leader­ship role in democracy and good governance’. According to the con­stitution, VIPs and VVIPs are pro­hibited from receiving such rewards without the consent of the cabinet. “The award PM Oli has received is no more than a gift for his backing of the summit,” says former Chief Secretary Bimal Koirala.

There are no strict rules on the conduct of such programs if they don’t impinge on national interest. But the involvement of the whole state apparatus to arrange for a program being organized by a controversial INGO is problem­atic. No less than Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense Ishwor Pokharel personally received the dignitaries when they came to Kathmandu for the conference, and he also saw them off when they were leaving via Tribhuvan Inter­national Airport. This was not just undiplomatic but also a troubling indicator of the weakness of the Nepali state.

While he has been tardy in his regular work, PM Oli shifted to Soaltee Crowne Plaza for four full days to supervise the summit

Former Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya is of the view that as the Foreign Ministry invariably plays a big role in the organization of such summits, senior ministry officials should have undertaken rigorous research on the background of the organizers before approving such conferences on Nepali soil.

The direct involvement of the prime minister’s advisors in the management of the summit is also troubling. Instead of advising the prime minister against such summit they instead seem to have heartily supported the endeavor. According to Ek Nath Dhakal, the UPF Nepal chief, the prime minister’s foreign policy advisor, Rajan Bhattarai, had himself gone to Myanmar to invite Aung San Suu Kyi.

Spokesperson of Nepal Commu­nist Party (NCP) Narayan Kaji Shres­tha has expressed serious concern over the excessive engagement of the government as well as of senior party leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal in the controversial summit. He said he had time and again sug­gested that such a program hosted by a controversial INGO should not be allowed, to no avail. However, “I personally did not take any part in the summit,” he said.

Common people were irate that the government was misusing state resources, violating diplomatic norms and adding to their difficulty by imposing an odd-even rule for the vehicles during the summit.

Another influential NCP lead­er Bhim Rawal says he is worried that the government had actually approved some money for the sum­mit and urges the government to make proper disclosures. Ruling party standing committee mem­ber Ghanashyam Bhusal agrees. “How can the government support an endeavor that the organizers themselves have failed to justify?” he questions.

Instead of burnishing the coun­try’s image, as the prime minister would like the country to believe, the Asia Pacific summit has further deteriorated the international stand­ing of Nepal. Hun Sen, Prime Minis­ter of Cambodia, is himself is a con­troversial ruler, who came to power from elections whose legitimacy has been questioned by the internation­al community. Suu Kyi, Foreign Min­ister of Myanmar, another attend­ee, is also a controversial leader because of her indifference to the plight of the Rohingya refugees. The remaining dignitaries were also not free from controversy.

Inviting such tainted figures to a questionable summit could further isolate Nepal from her neighbors and deter her real international friends from helping her. If Nepal’s voice is not heard in the internation­al arena tomorrow, the Oli govern­ment will have to shoulder the bulk of the blame.