Yes-man diplomacy

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

It’s politics, stupid

You have probably already come across pieces on porn and alcohol regulations, and on other crackpot theories that Hinduism, patriarchy and capi­talism are responsible for rapes and other criminal activities in the country. Yes, there’s a porn ban in effect and the government is enforcing stricter alcohol con­trol (i.e., making it impossible for alcohol companies to sponsor cul­tural, sports or any other events, to put up billboards or to adver­tise in any media). Not many have dared ask the correlation between porn, alcohol and rapes and other criminal activities. How many rapes are committed because of porn and how many under the influence of alcohol?

 If porn and alcohol led to rapes and crimes then Europe and even Japan would be pretty dangerous places to live—but they aren’t. There are many western countries where you can get porn in cable and you have beer commercials on national TV. Actually you have beer and hard liquors commer­cials in Chinese TV channels, and nobody draws any connection between crimes and alcohol there. Of course, porn is banned in China to prevent the spiritual pollution of its citizens, as the argument goes. But the curious ones can go to any book store and under photography section find books on human body photog­raphy with nude and semi-nude models. Porn is banned but cele­brating the beauty of human body is not. And no, Japan, and China and European countries aren’t any more dangerous than many South Asian countries with porn and alcohol bans.

Now the question is, what made our all-powerful govern­ment make silly decisions that make no sense whatsoever? The real reason that Nepal is becom­ing dangerous is not because of porn or alcohol, but because of politics. Yes, it’s bad governance and corruption that have made Nepal unlivable.

If I know I can pay money or use political and personal connec­tions to get just about anything done, wouldn’t I be emboldened? This is exactly what’s happening. People aren’t afraid to commit crimes because they know their political connections, wealth or their parents will bail them out. The police find themselves help­less. The politicization of police force has made police officers think 10 times before arresting a criminal. When you see people arguing with police officers on the streets, refusing to follow legiti­mate and valid orders, you know the country has issues with how it’s governed.

Don’t get me wrong. Nepal Police is an impressive organiza­tion and its officers are compe­tent. But the political system has thus far not shown any interest in utilizing their skills and trainings to rid the country of crimes and criminals. They have to follow government orders, and the gov­ernment is influenced by party leaders, donors, the powerful ones and who not! The govern­ment sits idle, no matter how seri­ous the charge or how heinous the crime committed by family members and friends and neigh­bors of political leaders and big businessmen. The police then have to ignore court rulings and charges filed against criminals and pretend they do not even see most wanted criminals when everybody else sees them chatting up the prime minister and home minister. The police have to deny any such sighting and sheepishly tell us, “we are leaving no stone unturned to nab the culprits.”

This is it. No porn, and no alco­hol is to be blamed for rape and other crimes. Instead, the govern­ment, if it is serious about safety and security of its people, should stop interfering and influencing police investigations and have a “no exceptions” policy. Crimi­nals, no matter who they be, say, even the president’s son or the prime minister’s daughter, won’t be spared. That would do.

Threat from within

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli believes the country has achieved a lot in the past ten months under his leadership. While addressing the federal parliament on Jan 6, Oli looked calm and com­fortable, and presented a rosy pic­ture of the country. He highlighted figures that, according to him, were historical on many fronts, such as the annual economic growth projec­tion, revenue generation, remittance and more. He reaffirmed his com­mitment to strengthen five areas, namely the legal sector, government organizations, human resources, the budgetary system, and the audit system. He also responded to minor criticisms raised on social media.

There is something funda­mentally wrong with PM Oli’s perception of the way the country is being governed. He genuinely believes everything is fine. He is not worried about the situation of impunity, corruption, economic disarray and other everyday issues of public concern. While people are getting increasingly disillusioned with this government, Oli’s problem is that he is never ready to accept it. Oli’s perception could have been based on the advice he receives from those close to him. But there are clear signs that he faces threats from his own people, in that he is being misled.

The paradox of this government is that it has sold the biggest dream in history but has built a network of incompetent people in key sectors to achieve it. We have seen the fall­ing apart of most government insti­tutions and authorities. As in the past, every government institution has turned into a playground for political profiteering. If competent people get a chance to run public institutions, they can turn things around. Kul Man Ghising has shown how a single individual can make a lot of difference.

But the Oli government seems to be undermining the leadership of competent individuals in public institutions. There are several orga­nizations that are filled by incompe­tent people. Let’s take the example of the Nepal Airlines Corporation (NAC), which has been dragged into controversy and which may give us a larger picture of the country’s gov­ernance. Unfortunately, Oli might be unaware of his own people’s involvement in thwarting his dreams for the nation.

The NAC is as important an orga­nization as the NEA in transforming the destiny of this country. It has huge potential in creating oppor­tunities and generating revenue. A few months ago, PM Oli force­fully appointed Madan Kharel as the Executive Director and Chairman of the NAC, against the will of the Tour­ism Minister and Secretary. PM Oli made Kharel the all-powerful direc­tor. It’s his second appointment in the office.

I doubt Oli appointed Kharel to tarnish the NAC. But it is increas­ingly clear that Kharel is working to ruin the organization, declare it bankrupt and hand it over to some private interest group. Under his leadership, it might be the end line for the NAC. If he fails in this mis­sion, he could be sacked anytime.

 A few months ago, PM Oli forcefully appointed Madan Kharel as the Executive Director of the NAC

Since Kharel’s appointment, the NAC has fallen into decline. He has not made a single effort to save the organization. We can critically examine the wide body controversy and the role of the Exec­utive Director in this regard. The NAC is facing a loss of 10 million rupees every day because of incom­petent management. Rather than making plans and executing them to rescue the NAC, Kharel spread wrong information to the media about its solvency status. It’s a pity that the head of the organization cannot even understand its basic financial circumstances.

By way of comparison, if we pur­chase some business property with a bank loan, do we just worry about the loan or make plans to earn profit from the property? We should cer­tainly be mindful of the loan, but we should be more excited about the opportunity, make a series of business plans and work towards making profits. But Kharel is doing just the opposite in the NAC.

I present this case as an example of the paradoxical nature of the Oli government. The prime minis­ter is tirelessly selling a dream of a prosperous Nepal, but in charge of this project are incompetent and corrupt folks.

Washington watch

The meeting between Minister of Foreign Affairs Pradeep Gyawali and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Dec 18 was significant in many ways. This was not just the first engage­ment at that level in 17 years since the Nepal visit of then US Sec­retary of State Colin Powell in January 2002. According to for­mer foreign minister Ramesh Nath Pandey, this was the first ever official invitation to a Nepali counterpart from US Secretary of State. Nepali heads of state have been to the United States on official visits only on three occa­sions: King Mahendra visited the country twice and King Birendra once, according to records on the US State Department website.

In 71 years of bilateral relations, this was only the fifth official high-level engagement between the US and Nepal—not including the ones at the undersecretary and assistant secretary of state levels. Why then is America sud­denly giving importance to its relations with Nepal?

 

Make America great again

For cues, one needs to look at the churning inside the US gov­ernment since the inauguration of Donald J Trump as the 45th President in January 2017.

President Trump’s sloganeer­ing under the broad theme of ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) may appear crude given his mercurial nature. But there is lot more sophistication there than meets the eye. While Trump is the salesperson (to his base), there are several architects behind this major reordering of American economic, security, for­eign and environmental policies, among others.

On the economic front, the trade and tariff war with China and even with US allies is what Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, describes as an effort to reorder the global supply chain to make it Ameri­ca-centric again. Bannon, a for­mer navy officer and investment banker, argues that America has a limited window of opportunity before China becomes too power­ful to be confronted on economic terms. Bannon may have left the White House, but there are oth­ers in the US administration who share his worldview.

With the elevation of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State straight from the CIA, American security and for­eign policies appear to be morphing into one. Pompeo, a former hawkish Congressman from Kansas, is the first former CIA director to take charge of the State Department. Histor­ically, the next career stop for former CIA chiefs is either the Pentagon or the National Security Council. That is because, at the heart of America’s decision-mak­ing process, there used to be an imaginary line between security hawks and doves—giving com­peting but useful inputs to the President for the best course of action. (Ex CIA Director Walter Bedel Smith did become Under­secretary of State in 1953 and a few were appointed ambassadors at a later stage, but none became the chief diplomat).

These are not just personnel changes in America; these are major changes in terms of world- view. Empires and big powers need well-defined enemies to ensure internal coherence. Trump’s team has decided that China, not Russia, is their next strategic rival, and that current efforts to contain Beijing have been inadequate. Even the ‘civi­lizational risk’ posed by Islamic terrorism seems to have been downgraded under Trump’s pres­idency, as demonstrated by the decision to pull out troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

 

Nepal’s challenges

America also appears to have decided that it will no lon­ger outsource its initiatives to its allies or proxies but rather take direct charge—in large part due to the fact that the allies are no longer in lockstep with the new American approach. Japan, India and South Korea have been undergoing their own rapprochement with China. This means the wish of Nepali officials and strategic thinkers, who have been urging the US to stop looking at Nepal through an Indian lens, might just come true. But this isn’t without risk—particularly against the backdrop of Nepal seeking to court both China and the US. Yes we need to diversify our relations, but we also need to attain internal coherence and clarity on what our national interests are. Subse­quently, we also need to build our negotiating capacity.

As winds of a new cold war blow, Nepal has to understand the changes within the US to avoid being caught in the crossfire and misled by false expectations. America, under Trump, wants to retain its preeminent status, with­out necessarily wanting to bear the cost it entails—as indicated by its continued demands from NATO and other allies to pay their ‘fair’ share.