Submit your Article

 In over a year of the KP Oli government, the prime minister claims to have brought relations with India and China on an even keel. The other boast is that the long-desired goal of ‘diversifying’ Nepal’s relations away from India and China is being realized, with the country inching closer to the US and other big and small powers around the world. PM Oli was recently in Vietnam and Cambodia as part of this larger goal. Yet there are plenty of critics of Oli’s foreign policy. They accuse his government of lacking seriousness and a clear foreign policy direction. One of them is former Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey. Biswal Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai caught up with the veteran foreign policy analyst.

 As a former foreign minister, how do you see the evolution of our foreign policy?

In South Asia, Nepal has the longest history of international relations. When we started cultivating relationships with the world, there was not a single independent country in South Asia. When we established diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom (UK) in 1816, Nepal was the only independent country in South Asia. Likewise, we had established a consular level relationship with France as far back as 1943. We had formal relations with the US (1947) before we did with India (1950). Almost a decade later, we established diplomatic relations with China.

During the Cold War, Nepal was at the center of global attention and many countries supported us. India first helped us to build a hydropower project and also constructed the first highway in Nepal. Talking about the US, there used to be 74 districts in Nepal. The whole Chitwan valley was Malaria-infested and unlivable. The American River Valley project in Chitwan eradicated malaria, and helped make the area Nepal’s 75th district. Nepal’s accounts system was traditional and it was an American-aided project that helped modernize it. The Soviets established an agriculture factory in Birgunj and a cigarette factory in Janakpur. The Chinese established a shoe factory in Kathmandu. During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, Nepal’s relations with India, China and the US were close.

How about now? Do you think the KP Oli government has got its foreign policy priorities right?

Unfortunately, we have lost the core vision of our foreign policy. Do we know what we want to achieve? We are confused. In the past 10-12 years, our actions have been contradictory and not in keeping with basic foreign policy principles. For example, when Russia intervened in Ukraine in 2014, we kept mum. We have inherited a glorious history from our forefathers; our responsibility is to keep it intact and hand it over to the next generation. But right now our foreign policy is flipping and flopping. As a result, in the past one and a half decades, Nepal has faced many debacles in the international arena.

But haven’t Nepal’s relations with its two neighbors improved of late?

The thing is, we have lost the trust of our two neighbors. We cannot achieve anything unless we regain their trust. The loss of the tri-junction point of Lipulekh is the perfect example of this. No recent government has had the courage to take up this important issue with India and China.

The prime minister recently visited Cambodia and Vietnam, reportedly as part of his government’s ‘diversification’ policy. How did you see the visit?

Foreign policy is not an area of adventures; it is a disciplined task in terms of our thinking, our approach and our moves. Even though we have diplomatic ties with both Vietnam and Cambodia, the visits to those countries do not support the diversification of our international relations. In fact, diversification is a wrong word in international relations. Foreign policy is not an arena where you look to ‘diversify’, but to promote your national interests.

Second, we must have a sense of timing and purpose when we conduct our foreign policy. Nepal is already in the strategic radar of the US, India and China. In this situation, how are we going to safeguard our national interests through Vietnam and Cambodia?

The PM has said there have been agreements to bring in tourists from those countries. As a former tourism minister, I am surprised because how many tourists come to Nepal from Cambodia and Vietnam? How many passengers will be there if we start regular flights with them? I do not want to use the word ‘childish’ here, but this is exactly what it is.

One of the specific goals of Nepal’s new national security policy is to prevent another ‘blockade-like situation’. Isn’t diversification justified in this context?

It is an interesting question. The fact remains that when there was a blockade in 1989, China, Russia, Germany, France, the US, and several other countries spoke in favor of Nepal. I remember that the US Congress’ foreign relations committee expressed its concerns over the blockade. But how many countries supported Nepal during the latest economic blockade in 2015? None. Why? Have we evaluated that? In the 1970s and 1980s, we fought the election of UN Security Council twice and won each time with record votes. In 2005, we lost the same election very badly. Why?

You talk about security policy. If you look back, every new government says it would like to change the country’s foreign, economic and defense policy. These are not matters to be taken lightly. The basic point is we have lost the thrust of our foreign policy. The foreign policy of a country never changes; it is permanent, no matter which government comes to power. Foreign policy is about national interest and national interest never changes.

Human beings are emotional because they have hearts. A nation does not have a heart so it is not emotional. The nation is very calculative because it always seeks the best way to serve its interests. Our forefathers protected our national interests, and enhanced the country’s repute because they were loyal to Nepal. They worked in the interest of the country. We should look to emulate them.

How do you view the communist government reaching out to the US?

First, let’s be clear, we do not have a communist government now. It is a democratically elected government. Second, as I already said, Nepal is on the strategic radar of the US, China and India. It is natural for the Americans to be interested in Nepal, a neighbor of two mighty markets in India and China. One (China) is already a global power and another (India) is an emerging one. Nepal’s position in the global power system gives us immense opportunities as well as challenges. If we can work in the national interest, Nepal will greatly develop in the next one and half decade. If we fail to work in the national interest, the country’s stability would be endangered.

Are our state mechanisms capable of leveraging the strategic competition between major powers to our advantage?

Nepali voters took a very wise and mature decision in the last election as they voted for a two-party system. But we have not been able to do justice to the voters. The parliamentary system is not on the right track. No prime minister in a parliamentary system goes on a non-significant foreign trip for a week while the parliament is in session. Also, the opposition is not functioning. So there is a vacuum.

Both India and China understand that their interests will be safeguarded if there is political stability in Nepal. Unfortunately, the two-third government is not functioning the way a strong government is supposed to. We have also been unable to institutionalize our democratic institutions. Without this, the country will not be strong. People are frustrated because of pervasive corruption, muscle power and criminalization of politics.

Let’s talk about Foreign Direct Investment in Nepal. We are saying Nepal is the best place to invest and yet investors are not coming here, even though there are two huge markets right next door. When our foreign minister was in China, one Chinese diplomat with deep knowledge about Nepal publicly said that Nepal needs stability in law. We hear same thing from the Indian side. A few weeks ago, the American Ambassador in Nepal tweeted about corruption and stability in law. All democracies are facing tremendous pressure. People are losing faith in the democratic process. This may happen in Nepal as well.

In a separate context, what does Nepal playing a ‘central role’ in the American Indo-Pacific Strategy mean?

Again, Nepal is on the strategic radar of India, China and the US. It is normal for them to try to look after Nepal, to cultivate ties, and to bring Nepal closer. We should not be surprised by this. In an unprecedented move, the American government invited our foreign minister to Washington. This was a major event in bilateral relations.

When it comes to the Indo-Pacific Strategy, there are many questions, interests and doubts. The statements from the US State Department, our Washington embassy and our foreign ministry were contradictory. This shows something was amiss. In foreign policy, timing and word-selection are important. Relations between India, America and China will continue to be conflict-ridden unless the shape of the new world order is clearly established.

This period of transition is risky for every country, and Nepal is in a sensitive strategic location. We have to carefully formulate our diplomacy, foreign policy and other components of the state. For a long time to come, Nepal will have to deal with three important actors in global politics: India, China and America. We have to look after, enhance and safeguard our national interest, to assure the others that their genuine interests will be protected. But we need a capablegovernment for this.

When we talk about the Indo-Pacific Strategy, there is a lack of a clear understanding about what it means to Nepal. How do you see this strategy?

When you conduct state affairs, sometimes it is better to show confusion to protect your interest. Nepal should not be involved in any conflict. Our policy should be to remain neutral. There is no need for Nepal to take a clear stand on it. The bottom line is: We would like to have very good relations with India and China, and with America as well. In diplomacy, you should not overplay your hand. Sometimes, not saying anything is the best policy. When there is no need to speak, why do you speak?

Q. If you had just one day to live, how would you spend that day?

A. I would acknowledge everyone who helped me grow and then I would sleep in my mother’s lap till the end of my time here.

Q. When you are down, what keeps you going?

A. When I am down, I look back at how far I have come and how strong I have become and that feeling keeps me going.

Q. What is an opinion you hold that most people would disagree with?

A. Apologizing to people even when you are not at fault, just to make them feel better, is okay.

Q. What does your perfect day consist of?

A. As it is said “the morning shows the day”, an early morning stroll to a local market like Asan, a proper workout and a good breakfast.

Q. What would be your superpower?

A. Being able to travel anywhere in this world at any time.

Q. What is an issue you feel deeply about and wish to highlight?

A. The plastic solution.

Q. What comes to your mind when you hear the word ‘fame’?

A. It gives us a voice to reach out to a lot of people without much effort, which we can use to address many issues.

Q. One Nepali celebrity you absolutely admire and why?

A. Not one but the duo Madan Krishna Shrestha and Hari Bamsha Acharya are my absolute favorite! I admire them for their down-to-earth nature, sense of humor and friendship.

 Q. What do you like the most about your fans?

A. My fans are my mood-boosters. Their warm messages, love, respect and support keep me going even when I am having a hard time.

Q. If you had only one day left to live, what would you do?

A. Spend the entire day with my family and loved ones.

Q. An advice that has stuck with you?

A. “It is not about what happens to you but about how you react to it”. This has taught me to be mindful of my actions.

Q. Your alternate career choice?

A. Since I belong to a business-oriented family, I am involved in business and see myself becoming one of the top businessmen 10 years down the line.

Q. Did you always want to be an actor?

A. No, I never thought of becoming an actor. It just happened!

Q. Your best and worst purchases?

A. Best purchase is my car. I can’t think of anything I regret buying.

Q. What would you like to say to aspiring actors?

A. Make sure that the script you select has good content. Be mentally and physically prepared to take what it requires to be in the film industry.

Q. Are you someone who likes to live in a happening city or its quiet outskirts?

A. I prefer quiet outskirts because I am someone who is constantly looking for my own space. I always seek for a more peaceful environment.

 One year after the formal unification of the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center), the new Nepal Commu­nist Party (NCP) has only now finalized the chiefs and secre­taries of its 77 district commit­tees. Party leaders hail this as a major achievement toward full-fledged organizational unification. However, there is still considerable dissatisfac­tion in the party over the deci­sion-making of its top leaders, and organizational issues at the local level are yet to be settled. This is happening against the background of growing public frustration with the functioning of the communist government. Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Shyam Shrestha, an analyst of left politics in Nepal, for his insights.

 How do you evaluate the federal government’s performance thus far?

Latest data show the country’s Gross Domestic Product is growing by 6.8 percent, a definite increase from previous years. So the size of the national economy has grown. In terms of economic stats, the gov­ernment is not so weak. But expec­tations with this government were high because of its two-third com­mand in the national parliament and because of the ruling party’s effec­tive control over six of the seven pro­vincial governments. The NCP made big promises in its election manifes­to and people are judging it on that basis. Another basis of evaluation is how the government is handling the country’s key priorities. These two bases give us grounds for objective analysis. For one, serious problems have emerged in the implementa­tion of federalism.

What problems are you referring to?

The first problem is related to budget allocation. Provincial and local governments cannot fully exer­cise the rights bestowed on them by the constitution if they face a funding crunch. They are short not only of financial but also of human resources. Provincial governments were not given enough financial resources. In last year’s budget, 71 percent was captured by the cen­tral government even though the center does not have many rights. Only 29 percent of the budget has been allocated to provincial and local governments. The alloca­tion is not compatible with federal structures, with a center without many rights keeping more than two-thirds of the budget. This has created a serious problem in the implementation of federalism. Sim­ilarly, the government has failed to mobilize enough staff. The provin­cial government does not have the right to mobilize the police forces, and provincial level home ministries are without any role. The constitu­tion, on the other hand, envisages powerful provincial governments.

What is the state of the local gov­ernments?

They are not doing well either. Let’s take the example of education. Local governments are empowered to exercise rights related to edu­cation but the center is recruiting the teachers. Recently, the National Education Commission submitted its report to the federal government. The commission has outlined areas that need to be separately imple­mented by federal, provincial and local governments. It has been over three months since the government received the report but it has not been made public yet. This is a cen­tralized, anti-federal mentality. Par­ty co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has himself expressed displeasure at this state of affairs.

Is it because those in power now are not committed to federalism?

This is a reality. Earlier, KP Oli used to say publicly that federal­ism was not his agenda. But now that he has become the country’s prime minister, the onus is on him to implement the constitution. British Prime Minister Theresa May cam­paigned to remain in the EU before Brexit, but she now has the respon­sibility to implement it. The same applies here. Sincere and effective implementation of federalism is the prime minister’s political and consti­tutional responsibility.

You mean PM Oli himself is not honest about the implementa­tion of the constitution?

Yes. There is inadequate bud­get for the effective functioning of federal structures. The center has monopolized the budget but devel­opment expenditure is low. Most of that budget will be spent at the end of the fiscal. The NCP mani­festo promised radical change in agriculture by ensuring irrigation facilities. The manifesto also states that the country will be self-reli­ant on food within two years. But the budget allocated for agri­culture has been slashed by more than half. This shows the true intent of our prime minis­ter. Farmers are getting very low prices for their produce and yet consumers are overburdened. The government has failed to lessen the role of brokers who are capturing the market. Another problem is that the NCP base is the lower and lower-middle classes but the gov­ernment is serving the interests of the middle and high classes. It seems unaware of the class it represents and how it should function to keep its constituencies intact.

In a separate context, a year after formal party unification, NCP leaders claim to have settled dis­puted issues. What do you think?

Top leaders did not take unifi­cation seriously. Party unification does not mean two leaders coming together. First, there should be ideo­logical unification. Second, there should be amicable unification of organizational structures. They announced party unification despite differences on ideology and orga­nizational structures, which was a blunder. Now they are facing the consequences. They should resolve both ideological and organizational issues through serious discussions.

But you could argue ideological coherence was never their prior­ity and that unification was just a quick way to get to power.

Yes, ideology is not their prior­ity. There has been no discussion or debate on party ideology after unification, even though the two parties came from separate back­grounds. The Maoists glorified the armed insurgency and they believed in bullets. The UML prioritized the parliamentary front. One party glo­rifies the 10-year-long insurgency while another condemns it. They need to think of how to bridge this ideological gap. Still, they have huge differences, which is why Maoist leaders still talk about Janabadi Kranti (People’s revolution) while former UML leaders adhere to the parliamentary path.

How do you see the NCP? Is it a communist or a democratic socialist party?

It would be a big thing if the NCP could be a democratic socialist par­ty. That would be revolutionary. In many Scandinavian countries run by democratic socialist par­ties, the government is responsible for education and health. Norway, Switzerland and Denmark are not communist nations but their govern­ments nonetheless look after senior citizens, and health and education. In our case, Dr. Govinda KC has to stage a fast onto death to improve the health sector. KC, who belongs to the bourgeoisie, is demanding health reform and the communist government listens to him only at the eleventh hour. It is a matter of shame for the government. The constitution clearly mentions that health and education should not be left in the hands of businesses. The government puts on a mask of com­munists but it is pushing a capitalist agenda in practice.

Even in capitalist countries, the state takes the responsibility of health and education. Political ide­ologies are immaterial. But in Nepal crucial areas such are health and education are captured by business­men while the government looks on helplessly. This is not the working style of a communist government with a two-third majority.

Do you think the unification will last?

If they do not take immediate steps to resolve ideological and other dis­putes, unification will be in grave jeopardy, for three reasons. First, ideological and other backgrounds of the two parties are different. Sec­ond, there is growing dissatisfaction over party functioning. Third, even top leaders are saying that justice has not been done. There are com­plaints that a few leaders exercise a monopoly. Madhav Kumar Nepal’s command over the party is strong as he served as its general secretary for more than 15 years. Similarly, Bam Dev Gautam and Jhala Nath Khanal also have a strong hold. Maoist min­isters are not happy with PM Oli. The ideological as well as organizational issues remain unresolved. The orga­nizational structure is becoming more complicated. There also are questions of intra-party democracy.

How do you assess the supposed power-sharing formula between Dahal and Oli?

There may be a dispute as Oli is not ready to step down easily. The party is not working according to a system, and there is a bureaucratic mindset. If a communist party func­tions in a bureaucratic way, it cen­tralizes power at the upper level and creates anarchy at lower levels. Only a participatory approach will sustain unification. The way the party is currently functioning will deepen dissatisfaction among the rank and file, ultimately leading to a split.

There are reports that top lead­ers are ganging up against Oli.

This is because of Oli’s own behavior. I see the possibility of big changes in internal alliances. Dahal, Nepal, Khanal and Gautam have all suffered at Oli’s hands. If these four leaders come together, there would be a change in power balance in favor of this alliance. There are high chances of such an alliance and PM Oli fears this. The power balance is unstable. If the four leaders come together, Oli, already in a minority in the politburo, will face the same situation in the Central Committee and other organizational structures.

Now, the party is like an alliance of different factions, which are based more on differing interests than on ideological differences. Now they are united only because they are in power and disunity could throw them out of power. There are many ways to sustain party unity but senior leaders don’t seem serious about it. So it will be hard to keep the party unity intact.

Is the rift between Oli and Dahal widening?

Yes, due to some pressing issues related to federalism. Similarly, there are reports that PM Oli has not given much importance to min­isters of former CPN (Maoist Center) and constantly interferes with their work. Minister for Education Giriraj Mani Pokhrel, Minister for Industry Matrika Yadav and other ministers have expressed dissatisfaction over the PM’s working style.