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.