Prime Minister Balendra Shah, who assumed office on March 27, held a joint meeting with Kathmandu-based ambassadors on April 9. Though his decision was highlighted as a departure from the traditional practice of meeting ambassadors one-to-one, the event seems to have been ill-conceived, as any new prime minister would prefer to establish personal contact, at least with the envoys of countries with which Nepal has vital relations. In the parliamentary system, it is the prime minister who decides the course of diplomatic relations in the best interests of the country, the foreign minister who leads diplomacy, and the Foreign Ministry that executes it through ambassadors.
On Aug 10, Prime Minister Shah walked back on his approach to diplomacy by meeting ambassadors individually. He met with the Indian and Chinese ambassadors on the same day, first the Indian envoy and then the Chinese. Why did the meetings take place on the same day, and why was the Indian envoy met first? Why did he not meet the Chinese envoy first, as alphabetically “C” comes before “I”? Perhaps the answer lies in geography: India is Nepal’s eastern, southern and western neighbor, while China is its only northern neighbor.
A few months ago, the new government unveiled its national commitment framework, portraying Nepal as a “buffer state” that aims to become a “vibrant bridge” between India and China. We have once again fallen into the old trap of diplomatic jargon, ignoring the reality that a bridge helps the two sides it connects to flourish, while the bridge itself merely serves as a means. Providing different routes for China to connect with India for its trade and strategic purposes can hardly benefit Nepal. We have to concentrate on developing our own economy so that our products can be exported to China and India to balance our trade deficits with them. We often forget that the balancing act appears easy but is difficult to practise. Putting two legs in two boats may look safe, but if the boats drift apart, the rider will fall.
The centuries-old saying of Prithvi Narayan Shah that “Nepal is a yam between two boulders” might have been relevant at the time, when the mighty Mughal Empire of India was losing its grip over its territories and the East India Company was expanding its political power by acquiring control over Bengal and Bihar, while mighty China was then a sleeping lion. However, Nepal fought wars with Tibet, while the Shah kings and Mukhtiyars sought help from China. The Rana prime ministers obtained support from British India to secure the continuation of their oligarchy. Sadly, even the present dispensation seems unable to depart from this usual course.
It should be realized that Nepal is no longer a yam between two boulders, but a growing plant between two giant banyan trees whose branches overshadow Nepal and prevent it from receiving the full rays of their development. We very often define our foreign policy by divorcing it from our internal policy and basic national needs. We forget that foreign and domestic affairs are inextricably linked in a symbiotic and often blurred relationship, in which domestic policy acts as the foundation for foreign policy. Foreign policy serves to protect national interests, which are defined by internal needs such as economic development, security, political stability and territorial integrity.
In short, foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. These two, by their interdependent nature, shape national interest formulation and economic diplomacy, which are essential for the country's growth and existence. Since the days of Prithvi Narayan Shah, Nepal has been treated as a “political project” by its rulers. Even the Nepali intelligentsia has often supported the concept to suit its interests. The result is that around 6 to 7 million youths are working abroad as migrant workers, while nearly 2,000 youths queue up at Tribhuvan International Airport every day to leave the country for work. Sadly, villages in the far-western districts are being emptied as entire families migrate to India for employment. The fault lies with us, as we have never made the interests of the people our supreme goal by transforming Nepal into a “people’s project” while formulating our foreign policy.
It is a truism that China is superior to India in many respects. It is difficult for India to compete with China in economic, military and technological advancement, as well as in mass production. However, even today, China is not easily accessible by road for meeting our daily needs for heavily consumed items such as petrol, diesel, gas, food grains and sugar. It may take a decade or more to complete all-weather roads, while the distance to seaports remains a major barrier to international trade. Moreover, China is an export-oriented economy and may have little interest in importing our products on a significant scale to balance our trade deficit with it. Can we afford any further delay in transforming our policy?
On the contrary, the geographical situation with India is different. Our rivers flow southward due to geographical reasons. We can easily share water and hydropower resources for mutual benefit. We have both road and rail links to the sea for international trade, which also provide relatively easy procurement and transportation of food grains, petroleum products and other goods. Hence, the need of the hour is to be realistic and rebuild trust in our relations.
Trust can be built if genuine and practical expectations are brought from both sides to settle chronic issues. Only then can we be optimistic about the future. We must, first of all, understand the genuine grievances and needs of our people and try to address them. Our leaders must erase from their psyche the psychological fault line of mistrust created by history in order to usher in a new era of cooperation and mutual trust for the betterment of both peoples.
