Nepal is currently engrossed and embroiled in its Parliamentary sanction of the American Compact Aid Program. Nepal’s foreign policy administration is in business as usual and is it evaluating the status of the country’s international relations of late?
In a sense, its connivance over the geopolitical competition is naïve towards overpowering and threatening the very survival of the seat of government in Kathmandu.
Nepal’s pivotal relations with India and China are like the wintry chill of the Hills. And with distant great power neighbors like the US, the UK, European countries and Russia is replete in cases of maintaining ties with Nepal in different frontiers of diplomatic scope and capitalization.
The Americans and Europeans promote, sustain and stabilize democracy in its infant stage undergoing a prolonged transition so that Nepal does not fall under an orbit of authoritarianism of any type or kind when such a political system endangers liberty, justice and human rights.
This is an epic fight between democracy versus illiberal politics either in Nepal or any part of a Non-Western country in the post cold war world order.
Nepal has forged formal diplomatic ties with 173 countries and its presence is growing with Diaspora and migrant workers in different spots of the globe.
Israel is dissatisfied with the dual diplomacy of Nepal to recognize the State in signing diplomatic relations in 1960 as one of the first Asian countries to do so and to abstain or provide reservations of armed activities and solutions to resolve Israeli-Palestinian discord.
Citizens are thankful to the government of Nepal for anti-COVID 19 measures albeit complaints of inefficiency, corruption and abuse of personal protection equipment safety gears. Nepal meanwhile witnessing a series of political instability heralded after the democratic introduction is not new in its political history.
The current history of Nepal in this matter is no different and history teaches us lessons that we always forget and do not remember that the ideals of democracy and conceptual practice in government and governance have been under severe trials and tribulations given the specific nature of our state and society.
This cannot be an excuse to achieve excellent polity and better our human conditions.
Nepal has been unable to focus on effective, efficient and equilateral international relations when internal determining episodes undermine it.
Political pragmatism can rectify and amend conduct and behavior in the modus operandi of the state and bureaucratic apparatus.
So reconciling realism and liberalism rescues the country from valid criticisms to pursue critical action or critical praxis to contain disintegration, disorder and decay in the polity.
To address challenges of public and international affairs, it cannot happen overnight or fortnight to end two recurring salient features of Nepal’s politics.
One to end political dualism percolating our political perception of democracy versus extremism (communism or hyper-nationalism) and other to control political dualism of polemicist of ideologues on petty policy issues to settle scores or avenge their character assassination.
In recent times territorial neighbors have perpetuated cartographic anxiety and border trespassing. It violated the sanctity of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with both India and China.
While populist authoritarianism is on the rise in many countries and classical powers are emerging in international politics, Nepal has to rejuvenate its school of international relations theory too.
This has to align with universal norms and values to pacify that non-western perspective are not against the West nor any origins of epistemic practices currently applied in the world.
It raises numerous questions. How do we see the life world, external affairs and global affairs? What policy stimulants do we formulate in deliberative democracy to grapple with policy vectors that are indigenous or local?
How can we meet the challenge of exogenous epistemological practices by an indigenizing blend of sovereignty? Why is the Red Code in the Himalayas allegedly turning it into another Indo-China peninsula of SouthEast Asia in making? Is it so?
Does Nepal undertake proactive diplomatic exercises to relieve the country from the onus of geopolitical constraints?
How can Nepal resolve border problems and issues of blockade with India and China in the pretext and context of one or another reason? These queries like many others are serious to take note of in responding.
The Constitution of Nepal 2015 is inclusive and radically democratic. Nepal does not need to reset bilateral or multilateral relations when this covenant is the result of 75 years of political struggles inside Nepal.
Diplomacy based on our foreign policy should be followed and pursued wisely taking into consideration the changes and dynamics of the post-Cold War epochs.
Nepal need not yield to power politics but pursue democratic power politics inside and outside the frontiers either immediate or distant.
Nepal has to forget and forgive the harms and hurts done to us in the past in taking risks to plod democracy in the mountainous country. It is Nepal’s magnanimity to start international relations afresh and a new to commence liberty and justice program of action concomitant with stipulated national plans, goals, mission and vision.
In Nepal’s internal affairs, great powers are unnecessarily breaching the concept of sovereignty vested in the people and are disallowing democracy to blossom and its stronghold to the grassroots level. India, China and America are covertly and overtly indulged in catering their knowledge products in goods (Aid, Trade and Infrastructure Building).
Nepal’s politics got captive of these agendas spoiling our time to regroup to defend our purpose and principles in this space and time.
We are celebrating Nepal-America bilateral relations of 75 years marred by this Grand Aid Program. Similarly, with a long ally of Britain, veterans and Gurkhas problem of equal pay and pension system needs amicable solutions to forge a strong bond with the British Government and people to defend free and open society.
Israel is dissatisfied with the dual diplomacy of Nepal to recognize the State in signing diplomatic relations in 1960 as one of the first Asian countries to do so and to abstain or provide reservations of armed activities and solutions to resolve Israeli-Palestinian discord.
Israel has to understand it has a comparative advantage in trade with Nepal and Nepal has huge migrant workers serving it and in West Asian countries.
Nepal avows to maintain international peace and security even when domestic crisis-ridden insecure situations enveloped us. Likewise, the European Union is active in developing partnerships and social sectors in Nepal.
Bilateral European countries are said to be channeling assistance to this political consortium and reducing bilateral engagements. Nepal has good and affable relations in East Asia wherein labor and education seekers go to South Korea and Japan.
Diplomacy based on our foreign policy should be followed and pursued wisely taking into consideration the changes and dynamics of the post-Cold War epochs.
Political ideas become strategic in this regard to enhance warrior-like statecraft to defend creed, purpose and principles of liberalism and democracy in contemporary times. It is political reordering in changed circumstances to respond to an unease state of affairs in 3 S – status, solutions and strategy.
It is constant to comprehend and perceive great power competition in other geopolitical hotspots that burden our space too.
A soft spot of small states is in economic and political well-being if otherwise, it becomes hotspots of great power rivalry.
An ex-premier of Nepal used to repeat a grand design in making is not apt but the grand strategy is certainly in spheres of influence.
So to discern tensions and pressures of international power politics that disturbs the peace, insecurity and prosperity, (inter)national leadership stock takes this fact and contains untoward events jeopardizing national integrity, national identity and national interests.
Political ideas become strategic in this regard to enhance warrior-like statecraft to defend creed, purpose and principles of liberalism and democracy in contemporary times. It is political reordering in changed circumstances to respond to an unease state of affairs in 3 S – status, solutions and strategy.
Foreign and security policy experts to take into account geopolitical risks, challenges and opportunities of late, to ascertain FSP solutions based on policy heritage, insight of current affairs and incisive initiatives in the offing, and conjecture future trends and transformation based on hindsight and political psyche. International relations are getting currency when arguments and discursive battles are overt and covert. History is of any guide, prepare today for tomorrow.
Comment