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?