Over the past few years, I have repeatedly heard from western diplomats one particular observation about Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) that runs along following lines: During their tenure in other countries many diplomats invariably end up displeasing the host government for one reason or the other. But during troubled times the foreign ministry in these host countries helps sort things out, not so in Nepal. In fact the foreign ministry in Nepal pursues perceived violations of Vienna Conventions with great zeal, they say, issuing public ultimatums instead of delivering a démarche privately. On many occasions foreign diplomats in question are publicly humiliated through coordinated leaks to the media of the blow-by-blow account of the dressing down. In leaking these exchanges, MoFA officials forget that diplomacy is an art of disagreeing, constructive ambiguity and allowing the other side to save face. It is also about calling in quid pro quo favors in national interest when circumstances demand. Unlike in Nepal, the permanent establishment in most countries take note of treatment meted out to their folks.
In an interview towards the end of this tenure in late 2011, former US Ambassador to Nepal Scott H. DeLisi had pointed out in reference to Nepal’s foreign policy outlook that ‘the world is bigger than India and China.’ While the US ambassador was clearly worried about declining US and western influence in Nepal, he did have a point.
In the years since DeLisi’s friendly reminder, Nepal has become even more myopically focused on the two neighbors, to disastrous consequences in 2015-16 in the form the Indian economic blockade. As we didn’t have friends, no other traditional power sided with us to protest New Delhi’s actions, at least publicly. There was no discussion in any of the international forums or any powerful western capital of the cost of India’s punitive actions.
The eerie international silence over Nepal’s suffering had been preceded by a series of poor judgements on the part of the MoFA. We have seen a repeat of these poor judgments in the past several months—beginning with the childish reaction over the EU statement on election oversight. While Nepal reserves the right to disagree and even rubbish any statements issued by entities of foreign governments, in doing so some civility and decorum needs to be maintained. Publicly vilifying a whole bloc of 27 EU nations and their representatives may earn some brownie points at home, but it does nothing to further Nepal’s interest abroad. What it does is perpetuate certain image of Nepal and it hampers Nepal’s national interest. Take for instance the EU ban on Nepali airlines from flying into their airspace. Sure it may have started on technical grounds of Nepal’s poor safety record, but its continuation seems political.
The second instance has been the chest-thumping over the government decision to close down the UN Department of Political Affairs Liaison Office in Kathmandu. No one is contesting the sovereign right of government of Nepal to ask bilateral or multilateral entities to pack their bags and leave when their relevance has been exhausted, but it didn’t warrant so much of bragging and leaks designed to cast aspersions on the DPA activities as a whole. The government could have simply thanked the UN and asked it to close shop, if it felt strongly about it.
The third instance, perhaps not directly related to MoFA but where it is nonetheless complicit with its inaction: the attempt to portray projects supported by UNDP and others at the request of government of Nepal as an ‘infiltration in the hallowed halls of the government’—through a series of leaks. The media has also done a poor job by not trying to report the other side of the story or to question the motive behind the leaks or to contextualize this assistance. In its gung-ho jingoistic fervor, it has forgotten the basic principle of journalism—balance and some basic research. Equally troubling is the failure to distinguish between donors, bilateral agencies, multilateral agencies and NGOs.
In not coming to the legitimate defense of the bilateral and multilateral agencies that have signed multi-year framework agreements with the government of Nepal, clearly spelling out the areas of their support, MoFA continues to abandon its responsibility. This cements certain perception that Nepal government entities are at best unreliable and at worst feckless. And you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to calculate how this translates into Nepal’s standing or lack thereof in the international arena. How do you conduct proper diplomacy with respective capitals/headquarters when their representatives routinely cable not-so-positive reports on Nepal?
