Whose international, whose relations?

The idea of relations is as old as human civilization. First, humans entered into relations with nature. Then, possibly into a tribe. And, with rituals. And, slowly with clans, classes, and castes. Hence, it is clear that humans haven’t always endured under states, which are considered the key actors, today, in steering International Relations (IR). The component of relations in IR goads anybody willing to explore how states and non-state actors have popularized the genus of relations through their approaches and engagements. Situating the word “international” just before the term “relations” has popularized the lexicon but politicized the entire idea of relations in a very nebulous manner.  Already, the discipline of sociology and anthropology finds human relations complex. Historians and political scientists have spent decades acknowledging the intricacies of studying the relations between states and individuals, groups, and associations. In social sciences, various methods and methodologies, narratives, and narratologies are familiarized as an attempt to twig the intricacies associated with various forms of relations. Despite the hurdles faced by different disciplines in analyzing various forms of relations, IR boldly and bluntly defines relations. Precisely, IR takes no less time to rakishly haul the component of relations to the level of the states through the establishment of embassies, placement of envoys, and practices of diplomacy. Perceiving the admission of relations into the bilateral and multilateral fronts, one may enquire about two things:  whose international? And whose relations? Whose international?

As a prefix, inter either means between or among. National is etymologically concerned with a nation or country or people of a nation. The discipline of international relations schools the concept of international to its pupils by coaching them untiringly that international is about what happens between or among countries and their people.

But, which countries and which people? Is the definition of international the same for all countries and their people? Does the understanding of the powerful countries about international vary from the responses of the less powerful countries toward the domain of international? To the former, the international may be the site of influence and authority. To the latter, it’s possibly the realm of both, opportunities and threats. While the state’s approach to international affairs is principally determined by power, the general public’s interactions with international affairs are frequently influenced by class, access, literacy, language, roles, and status. For instance, there may be more differences than similarities in the perceptions of international people by the Nepali migrant workers toiling in a GCC country and the official Nepali diplomats assigned to the same country. To the labor migrants, international may mean a site of livelihood strategies, while to the diplomats, it is more about boosting one’s career, contacts, and exposure. Conditioned by one’s access and ability, the realm of internationalism is not only relative but also hierarchical. Before the establishment of the League of Nations, internationalism was narrowly European. With the launch of the United Nations, international was levied on developing and third-world countries in the name of global peace and security.  After the end of bipolarity in 1990, however, the developing world was unprecedentedly enticed by wide-ranging changes taking place on economic, political, and technological fronts. Nepal’s earliest fascination with the international community was driven by its rulers’ interest in getting access to European commodities and adopting the lifestyle of the British colonizers and residents. Following the political change of 1950, however, Nepali leaders and rulers cherry-picked west-educated Nepali men, who were fluent in speaking and writing English to interact with the international community. After 1990, international entered Nepali households through the policies of liberalization and privatization. Whose relations? The domain of international thrives on interest-based relations, not necessarily on the interests of the States but also of the non-state or transnational actors. They may be international organizations or non-governmental organizations. They may be individuals, lobbyists, interest groups, or pressure groups. While all kinds of relations, from social to political, are historically shaped and defined by the power elites, their interests are palpably manifested in Nepal’s foreign relations, particularly through the bureaucratization of national interests. As such, a country’s national interest is monolithically reduced to the interests of the elite groups. For instance, we often hear in TV talks and election campaigns about the need to increase the export of Nepali goods to foreign countries so that Nepal’s trade deficit could be reduced. But, while endorsing that narrative, we pay no heed to the financial profits reaped by the business communities through exports of goods and services. Do the interests of the merchants and traders epitomize the interest of the entire Nepali people? We have been socialized to endorse such interests in the name of scanty employment opportunities offered by those business communities or pretentiously in the name of economic interdependence and reciprocity. Such narratives should be understood in the historical continuity of the rulers-traders nexus. Politicians seek financial favor from the business communities in the form of Chanda or donations. In turn, the former is obliged to ease the Dhanda or economic activities of the latter.  Recently, the Maoist-led government negated the proposal dispatched by the Ministry of Agriculture demanding to test Indian vegetables for pesticides arguing that such a test could jeopardize Nepal’s ties with India. Thus, it was clear whose interest the government was promoting to maintain what relations. Historically, Nepal’s foreign relations is branded for divulging the disputes between the interests of the Nepali ruling class, be they the Shahs, Ranas, or the parties.  Of late, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s decision to halt the then former foreign minister Bimala Rai Paudyal’s scheduled visit to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva revealed a discrepancy in the commitment of Nepali political actors toward human rights issues and transitional justice. Triggered by her personal wrath, Poudyal portrayed her posture publicly as the representation of wider social relations, while Dahal has constantly feared being persecuted for his felonies during the decade-long Maoist insurgency. In that sense, the international community is dreadful for him. After all, today’s international is not only about the English language. It’s also about the regime established by human rights and international law, which lay down certain obligations and duties that states are bound to respect.