Foreign Policy Challenges

C. D. Bhatta

Kautilya in his famous Arthashastra says that "the welfare of a state depends on an active foreign policy". By 'welfare of the state', Kautilya meant both security of the state and welfare of the people living in that particular state. This leads us to conclude, at the outset, that the overarching aim of any foreign policy is to protect national interest and the interest of the citizens living within the nation.

Welfare state

Kautilya provides various methods in conducting statecraft, inter-state relations, which may prove useful even today. But for a small state like Nepal, the 'welfare' notion is the best option that we can chose from his recipe. And nation-states can only attain the Kautilyian welfare notion of state and citizenry when their foreign policy, economic policy and domestic policy intersect each other for broader public welfare. What can be said here is that the important pillar on which a nation-state rests is domestic policy, economic policy and foreign policy and efficient handling of these policies to safeguard national sovereignty and integrity, and protect national interest which ultimately reinvigorates confidence building measures between the state and society. Thus, the foreign policy of a country is not only the natural extension of its domestic policy, as normally interpreted, but the sum total of domestic and economic policy.

What is true, however, is that unless we have stable domestic politics, it is impossible to have a stable foreign policy. This is particularly applicable in a state like Nepal where everything, including foreign policy, runs on whims and fancies. The non-settlement of political issues is forcing Nepali citizens to bear the brunt on the foreign and economic policy front. The vacant ambassadorial positions for more than a year and the near collapse of the Melamchi and West Seti episodes, apart from the Bhutanese refugee problem, could be classic examples in this context. One can argue that our economic policy is in a mess, where everything has been diluted under the pressure of reaction. One of the major mandates of the 2006 political achievement was the 'people first approach' in every aspect of governance, including foreign policy. But one year down the road, it appears that the people first approach was merely floated to obfuscate the citizens. The open-ended political environment in the country has generated many new issues and challenges in the foreign policy front. Against this backdrop, Nepal's foreign policy requires a new direction. We simply cannot conduct our foreign policy on the basis of the old modus operandi and doctrines. The whole world is watching how the Nepali state will accommodate the far leftists in mainstream politics, how we deal with our immediate and distant neighbours and the international community as a whole; and overall how we craft our economic polices. All these facts need to be incorporated, revisited, resolved and explored in tune with the changed political scenario.

In the past, foreign policy was conducted merely to fulfill the vested interests of the political parties and their henchmen. The mismatch in the conduct of foreign policy by the post 1990s governments has resulted in the biggest foreign policy fissures with many issues remaining either unsettled or unattended at all. There never was any consensus on key foreign policy issues among the then political parties. Nepal's external relations came into limelight 'if and only if' they could be used to balance domestic political gains. This has repeatedly created public frustration against the successive ruling regimes. Even today we have the same faces in the government who might have the same interests, and this stands as a major challenge in operating the country's foreign policy. Perhaps, this can be avoided by having a common consensus on issues of national interest (nation first approach) such as geography, economy, political traditions, military, external situations and historical imperatives.The main thrust of statecraft should be Kautilya's 'welfare of the state', whatever the domestic disparities. This Kautilyian notion can only be achieved when we have a vibrant economic diplomacy in place (to get more investment) to salvage the nation from the ruins of war and give a boost to our economy. Nepal's foreign policy under the changed political context should, therefore, run under a new economic dimension to keep abreast with the changing global political economy. Nepal's economic diplomacy should take a full swing, and diplomatic missions abroad should be directed to market Nepal abroad, in addition to providing services to the Nepalis, in a way that we can take full advantage from tourism, investments and others alike that we lost to other regions of the world due to the heightened political tensions in the country.

Country's image

In addition to addressing unresolved foreign policy issues and uplifting the country's economy, we also need to adopt sound public diplomacy to clean up the country's image at the international level. The Nepali state should be able to take the international community into confidence that Nepal's political forces genuinely want sustainable peace and speedy economic recovery. We cannot allow peace overtures to go astray. Make full use of it to bring the Maoists completely into the institutional life of the state. For this, we need to be internally democratised (particularly our parties) and accommodative. This will lead us to achieve Kantian perpetual peace and Kautilyian welfare of the state.

Source: The Rising Nepal, June 8, 2007