Rudderless Diplomacy

(Courtesy: Chiran Thapa)

Immediately following Nepal's loss at UN Security Council polls, the Foreign Minister (FM) reacted with tirades against the Maoists and the Media. He blamed the Maoists and the nocuous foreign media coverage for the loss. He even claimed that Nepal would have won the elections had it not been for these two adverse elements. There is some validity in the FM's assertion. But such rationalization only dispenses partiality. Rather these two elements are quite minute when compared to the larger picture of diplomatic bankruptcy that Nepal is currently suffering. In essence, Nepal's diplomacy is plagued by a triple whammy.

First, Nepal does not have a coherent foreign policy. Second, Nepal does not have competent diplomats. Third, Nepal does not have the luxury of allocating adequate financial resources for diplomatic ventures.

Although Nepal vaunted of a possible victory at the UNSC polls, it was a no match and a no win situation to begin with. First, Nepal's clout in the global political arena is dwarfed when compared to its competitor Indonesia. Having the largest Muslim population in the world, and with a much stronger economy, Indonesia irrefutably wields more influence than Nepal. Second, the amount of effort expended by Nepal was abysmally minimal. Also, Nepal's lobbying efforts were severely hampered by the absence of ambassadors in twelve crucial missions. Third, the diplomatic manpower allocated for this endeavour was inadequate and unsuitable. Only five officers were commissioned at Nepal's Mission to the UN. And of the five commissioned officers, only one had the proper experience and knack for such an undertaking. Fourth, this venture was poorly funded. While Nepal's competitor had copious resources allocated for their endeavour, Nepal lagged far behind its competitor.

The international community's refusal to coronate Nepal with a temporary seat at the Security Council speaks volumes. For whatever reasons, it deemed Nepal ineligible for the position and voted overwhelmingly in favour of Indonesia. Despite Nepal's contribution to numerous UN led peace operations, the rejection of Nepal's candidacy by an overwhelming majority at the General Assembly clearly suggests that the international community deems Nepal as less capable of serving global security interests. However, the analysis cannot be limited to the international community's lack of faith in Nepal's capability vis à vis Indonesia. Rather the loss should be imputed to the utter ineptness of Nepali Diplomacy on various fronts.

The crux of the problem primarily lies in the inherent absence of a coherent foreign policy. Before even delving into the notion of foreign policy, configuration of our national objectives and interests becomes imperative. Only when national objectives and interests are clearly defined, can a foreign policy be formulated in accordance. However, Nepal's national goals and interests have been lost amidst fiery political speeches, grandiose agendas and petty squabbles. Till date, Nepal has yet to outline the objectives and interests of the State. Hence, rather than abiding to a cogent policy, Nepal has been compelled to operate on whimsical ad-ho-cism since time immemorial.

Apologists most likely would be quick to point to the "Panchasheel," "Dibya Upadesh" and Nepal's adherence to the UN charter to validate the existence of Nepal's foreign policy. An aggregate of Panchasheel, Dibya Upadesh and Nepal's adherence to the UN charter has for long been perceived by many as Nepal's foreign Policy. Although sound as a basis from which a foreign policy can be derived, these separate principles cannot be interpreted as a comprehensive foreign policy. These principles are simply guidelines. And it fails to encapsulate the current needs and aspirations of the Nepali polity in a globalized era.

Another closely related problem Nepal faces is a deficiency of capable diplomats. A majority of the Nepali diplomats today are ill-equipped to represent Nepal at the global stage. Among an array of examples that manifest this stark reality, Nepal's dismal performance at the UNSC polls sufficiently reflects diplomatic ineptitude. Certainly the lack of a coherent policy, the Maoist excesses and the negative media coverage must have abetted Nepal's loss at the UN. However, to simply inculpate these elements would not suffice. Rather, the loss should also be attributed to the inability of the diplomats representing Nepal at the UN. The bottom line is that these individuals who were entrusted with the task of conveying Nepal's position and convincing their interlocutors failed miserably. Not only has this abysmal loss belittled Nepal's stature in the international arena, but it has also substantiated diplomatic inadequacy in wooing the international community.

Diplomacy is an enterprise which necessitates an untiring supply of talented individuals to convey and convince foreign counterparts. Nepal's Foreign Ministry seems to have no dearth in quantity, but is in dire need of qualified individuals in its labour pool.

The deficiency of qualified diplomats stems from the recruitment process. Two available ingresses into the diplomatic corps are through Lok-Sewa examination and the political patronage. Lok-Sewa examination has long been the gauge to select officers for Foreign-Service. Although it has been realized that this examination is quite inadequate to gauge the required proficiency, it is the only mode of official selection. Given the inherently flawed recruitment practices, one can only imagine the quality of new recruits.

Political patronage is another innate recruitment feature for the diplomatic corps. The Foreign Ministry has always been perceived as the one of the most lucrative amongst the ministries. With opportunities to travel frequently, earn dollars while living abroad and other perks, most people in the bureaucratic apparatus covet a position in this ministry. Due to comparatively handsome dividends available for the staff, the bureau consistently heeds to political patrons to absorb unqualified individuals from other ministries. Also, a majority of the ambassadorial appointments are a result of patronage rather than proper credentials. Hence, transfers and appointments of unqualified individuals as a result of patronage has further adulterated the process and made the diplomatic corps more effete.

To make the diplomatic corps more robust, other countries send their candidates to attain proper education at the best academic institutions. They are also busy luring other talented graduates with lucrative offers. Unfortunately in Nepal's case, each successive government have remained ignorant in this front. Instead of attracting properly groomed recruits, there is a systemic tendency to frustrate aspiring candidates. Bhutan on the other hand, serves as a quintessential example of a country which has been grooming its candidates at the best universities in order to enhance its diplomatic performance. While the Bhutanese diplomatic corps is more robust than ever, Nepal keeps on falling behind the astute Bhutanese diplomacy. Even after years of diplomatic endeavours, Nepal has yet to outsmart the Bhutanese delegation and elicit a favourable outcome in the refugee dilemma.

So does Nepali diplomacy suffer simply because of incoherent foreign policy and diplomatic personnel ineptitudes? There is no simple answer to this question. Although personal idiosyncrasies certainly contributed to Nepal's loss at UNSC polls, it does not depict the whole picture. The lack of a clarity and purpose resulting from a nebulous foreign policy certainly could have disoriented Nepali diplomats. But, yet another factor that contributed to the failure of the Nepali diplomatic endeavour is destitute. The shabby and uninviting conditions of the diplomatic residences and offices along with the scanty budgets allocated for each diplomatic mission succinctly reflect the destituteness. While Indonesians splurged thousands of dollars for their campaign, Nepal had barely any comparable resources allocated for this national purpose.

Also, with a salary scale, barely adequate for subsistence in the local ambiance, it is understandable why the zeal to entertain diplomatic counterparts for a national purpose hardly crosses a Nepali Diplomat's mind. While these diplomats stretch to make ends meet, the pursuit of national agenda becomes a secondary undertaking. For diplomats, invitations to receptions, banquets, dinners, lunches and other congregations are innately intertwined with the diplomatic enterprise. However, the incapability to reciprocate due to impecuniousness has frustrated the attendance of the Nepali delegation at these congregations. Instead of attending these congregations and capitalizing on such opportunities, these diplomats are morally compelled to be diffident. Given such diffidence, it would be impractical to expect of efficacious results from the diplomatic corps.

Diplomacy is one instrument among many that a State may utilize to realize its national interests and accomplish national goals. Today, the significance of diplomacy has crested as more and more states prefer to employ it as "the" instrument in inter-state relations. Even the United States, with numerous instruments at its disposal, has opted for diplomatic strides to resolve issues with adversaries like North Korea and Iran. Developed countries have numerous instruments at their disposal to serve their national interests. But, for a land-locked impoverished country like Nepal whose livelihood depends on foreign aid, the usage of other instruments (military might or economic strength) to further national interest is extraneous. Diplomacy is the only instrument available for Nepal. Diplomacy serves a triple purpose for Nepal. It is a not only a magic wand and a begging bowl, but is also Nepal's line of defence. Unfortunately even the sole instrument in Nepal's arsenal borders on being impotent.

While Nepal remains mired in the ongoing peace venture, a diplomatic fiasco of such immeasurable magnitude elapsed fairly unnoticed. As a dozen or so ambassadorial positions are yet to be filled even six months after the royally appointed ambassadors were recalled, the only retained royal appointment delivered the most disastrous result in Nepal's diplomatic history.

It is understandable why the peace process has superseded all other priorities but the continuation of indifference regarding unkempt diplomacy is critically inimical to the viability of the polity. Today, there is an exigent need to transcend beyond petty blame shifting tendencies and acknowledge that Nepali diplomacy is in tatters and then put considerable efforts into mitigating this adversity. Certainly, reforming Nepal's diplomatic enterprise by itself is a formidable task. Although the need to identify the interests and goals of the polity is paramount, there is hope that the formation of a newly elected government will address that need. However, a more daunting challenge would be to cultivate a new generation of diplomats who are skilled, and committed to promoting the national agenda in the international marketplace. But recruitment of talent would not suffice. Adequate resources must be allocated for diplomatic ventures. Unless Nepal manages to produce such diplomats and provide them with the necessary tools, Nepal will continue to incur diplomatic fiascos and promises of a more prosperous future will remain unfulfilled