Handling rising geopolitical tensions

Nepal is already caught in the geopolitics of great power competition, and we cannot escape from it. The only option left for us is building our capacity to deal with the fast-changing geopolitical situation. There is a national consensus that Nepal should use the current situation as an opportunity to advance its economic interests. Foreign and geopolitical experts, including this scribe, often wonder whether we have built our capacity to deal with the complex, uncertain, and chaotic world. In one way or another, Nepal is already bearing the brunt of increasing geopolitical tensions. The pressing issues that the global community is confronting are growing tensions between the US and China, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Taiwan tension, the Middle East crisis and the impacts of climate change. The impact of those issues in Nepal is evident in the conduct of foreign policy, the economy, and to some extent, the domestic political landscape. Over the past few years, we have already become hostages of indecision, ill-decisions, delayed decisions, or fractured decisions on important bilateral, regional or global issues.

To deal with the complex geopolitical situation and other global issues, Nepal needs to pay serious attention to strengthen the existing mechanisms and create new structures, if required. First, it needs to make the existing mechanisms effective. Second, it needs to work out whether it needs new mechanisms. Third, there should be effective and timely coordination among the key state institutions. 

Let's begin with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA). The ministry has 10 divisions covering all countries, regional and global organizations. However, these divisions fall short of human resources and expertise to deal with global issues, given the workload of all divisions. The creation of divisions is based on geography, not issues. Like in many other countries, there are no think tanks within the ministry to support its functioning. Nor is MoFA tolerant or positive about the government think-tank, the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA). MoFA officials have yet to realize the importance and role of think-tanks. They think, since they are involved in all bilateral, regional and multilateral negotiations, they have first-hand information on all issues and do not require inputs from any think-tanks. That is why, for a long time, the IFA has been left totally paralyzed.

And it is because of this hubris, the units within MoFA have failed to produce in-depth reports on important bilateral and regional issues. Take the examples of America's Indo-Pacific Strategy and China's Belt and Road Initiative. There has been no serious research and studies on either of these. As MoFA has not developed its capacity, other ministries and departments cannot take its support. Based on conversations with government officials, this scribe can conclude that there is a vague understanding of these issues among them, and they are facing difficulties in taking decisions. There is another side to the story too; there is a lack of independent experts and scholars who can conduct in-depth study and research on what Nepal's position should be in the changing geopolitical situation. There are some non-government think-tanks doing research, but government agencies and officials do not take them seriously due to their poor quality.

The underlying problem is that there is a serious flaw in the appointment of the foreign minister. Those who have at least some idea about foreign policy or geopolitics should be appointed foreign minister. On the one hand, the tenure of foreign ministers is usually short, while on the other, it takes several months for them to grasp the basic knowledge of how MoFA functions and what the key issues are. Foreign embassies or permanent representatives are one of the important wings of the ministry. However, they are almost dysfunctional. Barring some exceptions, Nepal is sending inexperienced, low-profile politicians as its ambassadors to key global capitals such as New Delhi, Washington and Beijing. 

There are some basic problems with ambassadors appointed on political quotas. First, they lack knowledge of the basics of how diplomacy works. Second, they usually do not cooperate with their respective division at the ministry; they do not even feel comfortable reporting to the foreign secretary. They work directly with the foreign minister or the prime minister. Whereas, career ambassadors have the tradition of not taking decisions out of fear of being dragged into controversy. That is why they confine themselves to day-to-day administrative tasks. There is, therefore, a need for a complete overhaul in the functioning of the ministry and its units.

Another equally important issue is the lack of cooperation between state mechanisms, mainly the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers (OPMCM). Currently, there is a lack of coordination between OPMCM and the Foreign Minister. In some cases, the OPMCM takes decisions without consulting or informing MoFA. One example of this is the appointment of ambassadors. There is also a lack of coordination between the foreign ministry and other ministries. In principle, all decisions and communication related to foreign policy should be conducted through MoFA, but this is not happening. At the same time, there is a lack of consultation between MoFA and security agencies. Not only is there a lack of coordination among ministries, but there is also a lack of coordination between MoFA, and provincial and local governments.

Experts have been raising this issue for a long time. But political leaders do not take these issues seriously because they are wielding foreign policy to advance their party and personal interests. If all the activities and processes are made transparent, they fear losing the privilege of making secret deals or appeasing others to remain in power. This is why they usually do not want to include MoFA officials in talks with other countries, except in formal delegation-level meetings. At the same time, Nepal seriously lacks capable human resources to deal with the complex geopolitics. This should be our priority issue although it may not be a priority issue for our politicians. Our politicians should realize that they alone cannot handle foreign policy in this complex geopolitical situation. Politicians may have certain issues with the foreign ministry, but there cannot be its replacement. They, however, have all rights to restructure it.