In light of Chinese Envoy Chen Song’s latest controversial remarks on India, Nishchal N Pandey, Director of Centre for South Asian Studies, a Kathmandu-based think-tank, talked to the Post’s Nishan Khatiwada on the conduct of foreign envoys in Kathmandu and about Nepal’s overall foreign policy failings.

Why do you think one after another foreign envoy in Kathmandu has been making controversial remarks?

There are different stages in diplomatic communications. Whatever grievances, complaints or suggestions an envoy may have are mentioned quietly to the host government. But when such complaints and suggestions are unheard or remain unaddressed, media diplomacy is conducted to influence the audience. What is worrying is that our public is also getting split in favour or against major powers, which will ultimately hamper official dealings with those countries. There has been a tectonic shift in international relations and in how nations conduct diplomacy, with proliferation of social media usage in communications.

Some say this is a “bipolar world order” with the United States and China competing for global political, military, economic and technological supremacy. This is similar to the bipolar mental illness that causes unusual shifts in a person’s mood and energy levels. Therefore, I would like to call this an anarchic international order in which global power struggles enter small countries. There is shadow-boxing inside small countries in almost all theatres around the world. We cannot escape this great power politics but we can surely leverage it for our own benefit in terms of infrastructure development and increased investment. Big powers are no longer content with small nations taking a neutral position. They want us to take sides and be vocal in their power struggle and this is what makes the whole situation so complex.

How should Nepal respond in such a situation?

The Cold War era was no different but Nepal managed to sail through the rough weather, receiving assistance from both the US and USSR, and from India and China. Instead of succumbing to this aggressive diplomacy being practised by major powers, and being overwhelmed by a barrage of disinformation and propaganda campaigns, we need to adjust ourselves in a way that we cooperate and benefit from all instead of landing up in an exclusive relationship and receiving the brunt of the other.

For instance, we can ask for increased flights from China to make the Pokhara International Airport fully functional. This will be a win-win situation for both countries. Speedy implementation of the MCC compact will likewise soften the Nepalis who feel the American grant has ulterior motives. As with the malaria control programme first initiated in 1954, successive generations of Nepalis will remember American generosity in the health sector that genuinely helped the country.

India has successfully organised the G20 Summit and has championed the cause of the global south and even brought in the African Union as the 21st member, which will allow India to be the voice of developing countries. Therefore the global powers are very much in our midst. It depends on our capacity to reap maximum benefit from their rise. We have reasons to feel anxious about their mutual animosity and confrontation but ultimately whichever regime or government is in power, Nepal will choose what is best for it.

At times, the two immediate neighbours have been directly and indirectly hinting that Nepal should minimise/limit the relationship with the other. The Chinese ambassador’s recent remarks are a case in point. How do you analyse this situation?

I am not surprised. There is deep suspicion but limited engagement between India and China at the moment. But this could be a transient phase. History is replete with examples of Sino-Indian relations moving from confrontation and competition to that of cooperation on key areas but we should be mindful of how long this takes. The future trajectory of India-China relations has a bearing not only on Nepal but the whole of South Asia. The current strategic cooperation between India and the US also has direct implications on Nepal as their relations are a by-product of the common Chinese threat and they would want to see smaller South Asian countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka move further away from China.

On the other hand, both India and China need to contend with the rising influence of the US inside South Asia. These are mutually contradictory. Residual meaning is basically that we should be completely in their strategic ambit but any nation needs options in foreign policy. All major powers vying for supremacy need to comprehend that Nepal will not be a proxy of any power.

Nepal is also the region’s oldest sovereign country. If we could successfully leverage this contradiction in the past, there is no reason why we can’t do it now.

Does Nepal have any guidelines, laws related to the conduct of foreign diplomats?

With the objective of conducting official meetings, contacts, negotiations and communications with foreign governments in a systematic and dignified manner, a Diplomatic Code of Conduct was unveiled back in 2011. It is well known that foreign diplomats based in Nepal get unhindered access to senior political leadership, including ministers and secretaries which Nepali diplomats in foreign capitals can only dream of. Unfortunately, not only diplomats but the Nepali leadership itself flouted this Code of Conduct, rendering it ineffective. Therefore, self-assessment is required.

What have been the major shortcomings in Nepal's foreign policy and diplomatic practices?

Political instability with frequent change of governments forced Nepal to be inward-looking while weak institutions prevented us from adequately responding to the challenges of this new era of confrontation. Given that big powers have political clout and enormous resources to shape opinion and even influence internal decision-making, we must clearly lay down our priority areas and seek support without jeopardising national interest. We must stress on high-level visits as we used to in the past. It has been 53 years since a US vice president visited Nepal. No Secretary of State since Colin Powell has paid a visit. Highest-level interaction provides sustained momentum to bilateral ties. Not only from the US but from other countries too, we need to redouble efforts to arrange high-level visits.

Younger generation of Nepalis must not forget that French President Mitterrand, German Chancellor Kohl, and Emperors Akihito and Naruhito too had visited Nepal. Our embassies need to be re-energised and all line ministries commit themselves to achieving concrete results and not limit themselves to routine work. It has been felt that a few senior leaders have monopolised critical decision-making in Nepal no matter which combination of parties or equation is in power. They must collectively and carefully address foreign policy difficulties and lacunas and respond to the criticism that we are not doing enough.