Inaugural Session A one-day interaction on A Debate on Foreign Policy of Nepal: Issues, Options and Future Directions was organized by the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA), in association with Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) at The Malla Hotel, Kathmandu on December 28, 2009. The programme was chaired by the then Executive Director of IFA Prof. Dr. Gopal Pokharel. Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) Jhal Nath Khanal was the keynote speaker, while the then Officiating Foreign Secretary Durga Prasad Bhattarai was the guest of honour. Delivering his welcome address, Prof. Pokharel said that Nepal's foreign policy needed to revised with the passage of time. Making an overview of the country's foreign policy, he said that Nepal had opened up to the outside world following the political change in 1951. He said that foreign policy of Nepal is based on the United Nations Charter, Panchasheela, non-alignment, international law and regional cooperation. He said that Nepal has given importance to relations with immediate neighbours as well as the great powers. He further said that the process of formulating an inclusive constitution has been going on. Meanwhile, leader Khanal inaugurated the programme and released A Compilation of Joint Communiqués and A Foreign Service Training Textbook, which were published by IFA. Officiating Foreign Secretary Bhattarai praised IFA for organizing the event on such a relevant issue. He said that it was mandatory for Nepal to be competent to deal with other countries. He also said that Nepal should make timely revisions in her foreign policy. "It is time to review foreign policy and tools being used to achieve the objectives," he said. He said that the seminar of that nature would be useful and assured that the Foreign Ministry officials would be taking part in such gatherings. Presenting his keynote address, chief guest Khanal said that Nepal was passing through an important historical moment. "This is a challenging period when we need to focus on the country's development and reconstruction," he said. He stressed the need to move ahead by utilizing knowledge and natural resources for the country's development. He said that the country's foreign policy should be revised keeping the changing international scenario in mind. "We must review and reorient our foreign policy as per globalization and the development of science and technology," he said. He said that due to globalization, new powerhouses were emerging and the world's equation was changing. "We have to identify our priorities and move ahead accordingly," he said. Highlighting tremendous development prospects of Asia, he said that the region excelled all other regions until the 15th century. "As Nepal is situated at a strategic location in Asia, we have a lot of challenges and opportunities," he said. He emphasized the need to concentrate efforts on strengthening unity among the countries of South Asia region. He said that Nepal had gained unique experiences from the two immediate neighbours—India and China. He said that the new foreign policy should incorporate the changes that have taken place in the country's domestic policy. He said that Nepal should come up with both short-term and long plans. At the end of the inaugural session, Ms. Anjan Shakya, Deputy Executive Director of IFA, extended her vote of thanks. Ms. Shakya said that the country's foreign policy required relevant changes. She was of the opinion that the ambassadors needed to work as the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) to promote and protect the national interest. Working Session The working session was chaired by Prof. Sridhar K. Khatri, Executive Director of South Asia Center for Policy Studies (SACEPS). Two prominent scholars—Dr. Shambhu Ram Simkhada and Madhavji Shrestha—presented their working papers. Debate on Foreign Policy of Nepal: Issues, Options and Future Directions Dr. Shambu Ram Simkhada Foreign policy is the external reflection of a country's internal policy. If we look at Nepal's politics today, we do not have to be genius to argue that, in fact, there are too many issues that need the kind of reflection in a way we are engaged in. When we talk about options, one of the underlying themes of foreign policy that is discussed often times is the famous saying of Lord Palmerston: In foreign policy, there are neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies; there are only permanent interests. But if we define that saying in the Nepalese context, in fact, we have permanent friends. Having permanent friendship with our two neighbours—India and China-- is our permanent interest. So, this underlines the need for an absolute creative thinking in foreign policy. Of course, when we talk about future options, and look at our international political dynamics, especially when the politicians lead and technicians are left around, I almost feel like an engine malfunctioning plane on which only cabin crew is struggling to try and develop an operating manual while the plane is passing through two very huge mountains. In turbulence in the dark, cockpit crew are boxing themselves in the cockpit. So, my first advice is to bring technicians and politicians together because ultimately what is required is a policy. It is a reflection of certain geographic realities and historic necessities. Secondly, policies, to quote Henry Kisinger, you can never divorce policy from personality in the sense that policies also reflect the perceptions and worldview of ruling political elites. Unless they recognize those realities and necessities, then policies happen on what famous Prof. Robert George said, "When perceptions deteriorate into misperceptions, they create havoc." I do not think that I need to elaborate too many instances even recent ones to talk about the havoc of perception in the internal Nepali politics on our foreign policy. I do appreciate the role of the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) and FES in trying to at least engage in this discussion and debate that is so critical because foreign policy has always been a defining element of Nepal's statecraft historically. Many of us are aware of the fact that I have continuously written and talked about the need for at least a minimum level of consensus among the major actors in the area of foreign policy since 1991. Now we have a multi-party democracy system of governance. There may be differences in ideologies and views, as there is internal competition for power. That is what pluralism is all about. To sustain the democratic exercises, major actors must come around and recognize some salient elements of foreign policy. Unless there is an agreement on those major issues among them, the whole discourse will be useless. In that sense, you may be aware of my agenda of three Is—Issues, Institutions and Individuals. I am delighted that the chief guest Jhal Nath Khanal very clearly highlighted some important elements that are critical in our discourse of defining elements. There are seven elements in my three Is. The first I (issues) is in relation with India and China. Those are perhaps the most fundamental elements of our foreign policy. Now I have argued a whole range of issues, including an article on transforming relations with India and China. Due to limitation of my time, I would not go into details of my three Is. These relationships touch upon all aspects of politics, economics, society and security. Now this relation is significant because this discussion of foreign policy touches upon all aspects of development. There are relations, which are vital but are also complex. So, they need special attention and priority, especially from policymakers. If we are talking about foreign policy, technicians can recommend ways but ultimately, political leadership makes decisions. I would suggest that in fact you have debates here that become a roundtable discussion between experts and decision makers. Besides historical dimensions, there are two new elements in this vital relationship. One is the threat posed by continuing poverty, particularly in South Asia, especially the scourge of terrorism. That has completely transformed the thinking globally and more so in the region. As a result, we must be sensitive to the fact that there is one of the defining dimensions of the new foreign policy that will influence our relationship. When we talk about vital relationship with India and China, obviously it is becoming clearer. Tibet is the central core in the garland of relations between China and South Asia. Nepal is right in the middle. That will be very critical issue. In fact, now we maintain our traditional policy of absolute commitment to one China policy while protecting our image as a tolerant and democratic society and maintaining those values. The second issue is globalisation, which is an issue that is debated much but understood very little. Globalisation has tremendous opportunities. It is a phenomenon that is going to entirely influence the way we do business in all sphere of our life. So, those who comprehend the issue well and create an environment where we can make the use of opportunities, there are tremendous potentialities. But otherwise, there are also risks. Many of us are aware of the case I have cited often how the case of our national airline while 10 international airlines are coming to Nepal, take away enough from the Nepalese market. Look at the state of the Nepal Airlines. In my view, that is a critical example of the tremendous opportunities. If you know how to use them, it is a golden egg. If you don not know how to use them, we will get to that stage. In that process, I think, globalisation affects us nationally but affects the region and South Asia as well. It also affects interrelationship with our two friendly and great neighbours. In that sense, this is the issue that we must reflect much more deeply that what the attention that we have given so far. My third issue is proactive role in the international arena. There is a whole range of issues. But I would only cite two examples—our role in the UN and the case of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). These issues have been much-hyped. But when I was an ambassador in Geneva, I was the coordinator of the LDCs' group. It must not be at the cost of the UN bodies. The fourth issue is economic diplomacy. I have argued much about it. Let us not talk about making Nepal Singapore and Switzerland. Let us make Nepal better. The most important element is the application of knowledge and know-how. Option and future direction: When we talk of option, great powers use their size, economic and military strength to project power outside, whereas for a small country that is located between two ancient civilizations—the superpowers of tomorrow, the challenge is to harness the potential. We need to keep our house in order. Otherwise, we cannot take advantage. With the end of the Maoist's People's War, we believed that the politics of violence was over. We agreed to do away with violence as an instrument of political change. The second resolution was related to the Maoist army combatants in the cantonments. Thus, we had outlined all the elements necessary to resolve that problem. But unless the politicians agree, technicians can do nothing. Thirdly, the political parties reached a consensus on key principles of drafting the constitution and its promulgation. The government has a principal role to play to assist the CA in areas of good governance, law and order, relief to the conflict victims, free and fair election and new constitution and hand over power. We must stop using foreign policy and security policy only in relation to the rise and fall of any one party or power. Floor Discussion Bishwa Kant Mainali: The Times of India published a news report in which it has blamed former king Gyanendra and Paras to be the masterminds of the murder of the then king Birendra and his family members. Recently, Indian Ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood went to India after meeting with Chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist. As a foreign policy expert, how do you see it? Keshav Raj Jha: During your presentation, you said that foreign policy should not be used as a weapon by indirectly referring to the UN Secretary General's recent statement. The UN chief had called for a constitutional national government in Nepal. But the idea was sharply criticized by the establishment. My experience in the UN was that I found foreign policy for a small country like Nepal to be the only missile or weapon which can be used for safeguarding the nation. We do not have nuclear weapons but we have our tongue and we can speak to the world community if we were put to a very disadvantageous position. We should always advocate our rights to exist and maintain our sovereignty and in dependence through the means of foreign policy. I recall a quote of the Filipino Foreign Minister Carlos P. Romulo, who not only told me about it but also other young diplomats when I was serving as an alternative delegate to the UN. So, how can you say that foreign policy should not be used as a weapon? Would you like to clarify it, please? Prakash Thapa:You know that Nepal has failed to resolve the problem of Bhutanese refugees. They are living at camps for the last several years. Several thousands of refugees have been resettled in Europe, America and Australia. What would be its result if they were awarded Nepali citizenship? Dr. Ram Dayal Rakesh: As India and China are our immediate neighbors, Nepal should have maintained good relations with them. We have focused on traditional relations, but ignored cultural ties. Gajanand Agrawal: Whether we have any concrete foreign policy as compared to other countries? Dr. Simkhada's response: I was very delightful to participate in this kind of discussion, especially with distinguished friends. Of course, given the time constraint, I have not read the piece in The Times of India. This is an issue. I think, it is better for us to leave it to the history. I have never shied away from preserving interest of Nepal with firmness and effectiveness. You can see quite a few examples but there is a difference. Instead of blaming others, we should keep our purse safe and secure. If you talk about the concept of yam between two boulders, first it was yam. Then, they came up with dynamite. Now it has come to be a bridge. We can use foreign policy very effectively. I meant a reference about option. Big powers use their size, economic strength and military power to project power outside. For a small country like Nepal, foreign policy is a principal tool of statecraft. There is no question about it. But I want to know whether it was a missile. Unless you are clear about your own interest, irrespective of how many missiles you have launched, it will not hit the target. On the issue of Bhutanese refugees, Prakash Thapa has expressed his strong opinion. A couple of days ago, I came to know that the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) transferred about 30,000 refugees to other countries. I shared the agonies of the Bhutanese refugees in the camps. My argument is that let us end their agonies of staying in the camps such a long time. Being a litterateur, Dr. Rakesh has brought out the question of cultural relationship. In my presentation, I mentioned that our relationship with India and China encompasses a whole range of relationships—economic, political, social and cultural. I could not go into details. That is what our relationship is so vital. Those relationships must be nurtured, but not misused. I accept your point in the sense that we must be giving priority to cultural dimension. It is a very important part of our exercise. Chairman Prof. Khatri's observation: Let us talk about the issue of Bhutanese refugees. I do not think it is a question of numbers, it is a question of how badly that whole issue was conducted by Nepal. If you look at it from a long perspective in strengthening our machinery, I think that is the issue that needs to be handled. I regret that your last question was not answered, but that may be the central issue that we will be facing and discussing today. Is there is the country's foreign policy? Madhavji Shrestha can touch on this issue. But let me also suggest that each seminar and each paper and session resolves around certain themes. I am glad to say that after 2006, issues in Nepal's foreign policy have been discussed not vigorously but at least it has been discussed more in detail than after 1990. Following 1990, there was a danger that we followed a blind path. I can give you one example and there are some members of that group here. There is an organization of retired career ambassadors who have an organization and had a very extensive discussion on foreign policy issue and recently also. Some of the issues are being discussed over and over again. The next speaker is from the Foreign Ministry. Maybe, he will be able to answer the questions. A Pragmatic Approach to Foreign Policy Madhavji Shrestha Apparently the political change in Nepal demands for a fresh look at the substantial style of the conduct of foreign policy. The change itself should not be just a matter perceived but it should reflect a reality experienced all around the national life. It needs to be followed by the changed behavior and attitude. We understand that as Arnold Bennett has said; "Any change, even a change for the better is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts" Leaderships, therefore, should be highly aware of the defective sides of the change and work relentlessly toward eliminating them for the better prospect. Alongside the domestic change, the global scenario has also passed through the stage of change from the uni-polar world to that of the multi-polar one in recent years. Eminent experts on international affairs including Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth have now predicted the evolving of the world system as a "1+x world" with the United States as the lone super power with a variable number of other major powers playing their respective role with their interests and concerns taken into their hearts. Coincidently, the domestic change in Nepal and the change in the international atmosphere insist us to adopt new approach in our conduct of foreign policy. Evidently, re-adjustment to the changing environment has now become not only a desirable thing but also a compelling element. Addiction to and indulgence in the old setting and mindset of the by gone era have to be minutely re-examined to enable Nepal to meet new challenges thrown up by the emerging situation. Surprisingly, Nepal is still exhibiting its weakened ability to see new regional and global situation in their right perspectives, because the country is now plunged into the political turmoil with political fragmentation at its apex and with no genuine democratic consolidation in sight in the foreseeable future. Vividly, experiences gained from the earlier period insist on the leadership to have far fetched vision and take right actions for the appropriate conduct of foreign policy in the situation prevalent now. Unmistakably, adamant and indifferent work culture would not serve the national and people's aspirations and needs that are sky rocketing at the moment. Today, people's awareness and their concern have assumed greater magnitude and value in the formulation and implementation of not just domestic policy but also of foreign policy in the national life. In reality, people's era and dominance is on rise irresistibly in these early years of the 21st century. Nepal is no exception to this development. Naturally, people's confidence and opinions have to be noted perceptibly, while pursuing the trajectory of foreign policy, if a democratic consolidation is to be ensured in Nepal. As an implementing tool of foreign policy the conduct of diplomacy itself has become more and more open and predictable with the speed of time and situation. The tall wall of the secret diplomatic move has almost been torn apart by the exerting pressure of the fundamental and democratic right to information as demanded by the people. We need to walk through the emerging track that will strengthen our sovereignty and national independence with the strong support of the people for which the following newer practices have to be embraced. It is also to be noted that our national interests would have to be kept in the core of our heart while proceeding with the current of the pro-people trend. New Touchstone of Diplomatic Efforts To accommodate the people's say manifestly, the increased importance of public interest in the handling of foreign policy calls for the conduct of public diplomacy to resolve any major problem or issue with any country, which would have bearing on the people's life. Public diplomacy is an appropriately developed tool that searches the feels and pulse of the people on any foreign policy question at home. This would ensure the public support in managing diplomatic concerns. Similarly, efforts should be made to win "hearts" of foreign people for favorable opinion by reaching out to them through contacts and communications by use of the media. An eminent person William Cecil Burleigh says; " "Win hearts and you have all men's hands and purses" Personal touch with concerned important individuals and groups are far more significant than any other means. Public diplomacy thus addresses people both at home and abroad with the appropriate program chalked out and sufficient capability shown by the executers of foreign policy and diplomacy. Nepal's diplomacy at the official level and contact is ,as of yet, considered inadequate to meet greater needs and challenges, nor is the diplomacy at the level of people-to people enough to take it to a greater height. In the present context of Nepal, both these Track I (official) and Track II (people's level) diplomacy seem not sufficiently capable to move ahead on the proper track. To cope with intractable issues and irritants with other countries efficiently and effectively, the blending of both appears advisable and pragmatic in every sense. Nepal, therefore, needs to encourage and prod the one and a half diplomacy- a right mix of the official as well as people's diplomacy that can go a long way to ensure the public support to the government policy. One supplements and compliments the other. As a weaker country, especially in terms of economy, technology and resources, Nepal can hardly be able to own hard power to impress upon other countries for several decades to come. This concern is undeniable from every consideration. However, given the ongoing situation and the appropriate context developing in the country most recently, Nepal can muster soft power at home. Soft power is nothing but a much valued point of attraction to make good impression on others. This magnetic power can be augmented by Nepal with the consociational democracy developed satisfactorily and equitable social justice dispensed virtuously. Although the task ahead seems formidable in an underdeveloped Nepal, the reach is within our ability provided the Nepali political leadership moves on with vision, understanding and tolerance. Certainly, such steps would enhance Nepal's image abroad with points of attraction gained for the country, which in turn greatly facilitates to conduct foreign policy with the useful tool of soft power on hand. If pursued with consistency and coherence in its dealings with the external world, Nepal can show its new ability to update the marshalling of its foreign policy sensibly with the people's favor and appreciation won for the foreign policy concerns and questions. The bastion of popular support and consent would largely strengthen national and democratic forces to preserve and promote the free wheeling journey of Nepal in the world in a visible way. If the political leaderships move on untiringly and warily, Nepal can, to a greater extent, gain on the foreign policy front. For all this to achieve, appropriate mechanisms and preparedness are highly needed. If not, we cannot go beyond where we are now. Reflective thinking indeed turns experience into insight to beneficially conduct foreign policy for advancement of the country. We need to see the situation around us in its proper and comprehensive perspective. Political Initiative Currently the pal of the political uncertainty is looming large over the Nepali horizon. Unfortunately, this has attracted the interfering advices and suggestions from our immediate neighbors and beyond. The Nepali people indeed never desire such an unfortunate situation prevailing in their beloved country. If such a situation runs for long and goes beyond the political management, no one can predict the fate of the Nepali people. However, despite the highly unsatisfying relationships among political leaders, the top brass of the Nepali politics often tend to meet each other somehow giving a glimmer of hope. The frequent meetings among them to find a solution prove this case, albeit without any positive result so far. The political leaders of all hues have to be aware of and sensitive to the long lingering aspirations of the people. The trust of the people is the greatest asset for them. If they waste this highly valued asset, they are sure to lose everything they cherish. Opportunity does not frequently come at their command. They must be able to seize it when it is on hand. To keep Nepal as a sovereign political identity, the leaders must heed the Cri du Coeur (inner voice) of the common men and women who have tossed them up to the positions of power and popularity. Only with their support, they could remain in the political scene to work for Nepal. Their lead motif, therefore, must be to work for the wellbeing of the people, not just for their cadres and sycophants, because the people's affection is the greatest power that the politicians could ever possess. It is both their strength and tool that equip them with ability and courage to ward off any unnecessary foreign interference. With this view at the core of their hearts all members of the Constituent Assembly must realize and work hard consistently to declare Nepal as a politically neutral country by enshrining it in the constitution itself. For this, strong, unequivocal, and consensual endorsement from all 601 members must come to firmly demonstrate the strong desire of the Nepali people to keep Nepal as a free and independent country in the current complex regional situation. It would be much appreciable that if the declaration is put for the popular referendum before the Nepali people, they would not lag behind to extend massive support. After all who do not want the sovereign and independent journey of the country in this complex age? Certainly, this declaration as part of the constitution highly reinforced by the massive support of the people would work as a panacea to save Nepal from the frequent external interference for a genuine democracy to flourish and a truly independent Nepal to exist. Naturally, politicians would not have to look at the outside world for any political concern of Nepal's purely domestic politics. However, Nepal must be able to make intensive and extensive diplomatic campaigns to get this great constitutional provision realized and recognized by all the international community. We are all aware of how in July 1962 the then Lao government made the declaration of neutrality, which was recognized by the international community including five veto wielding powers of the United Nations. The political neutrality of Nepal should not look like the neutrality of Switzerland that has been adopted since 1815. As a politically neutral country, Nepal would not have to keep away from contributing peace keeping forces at the call of the Security Council for which Nepal's contributions have been acknowledged by the United Nations and the international community. The political neutrality, however, means that Nepal would not interfere in the matters of other countries in whatever form, nor does it want any sort of interference from other countries in its internal concerns. Most importantly, such constitutional declaration would keep our big neighbors and other countries assured of no trouble coming from the soil of Nepal. If the CA could declare Nepal as a politically neutral country unanimously and get it endorsed by the direct popular votes, it would certainly go down as an unprecedented declaration, not so far undertaken in any other country. It would highly be pertinent to quote here a significantly striking line from the renowned former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, William E. Gladstone who had said; "Here is my first principle of foreign policy: good governance at home." However regrettably, Nepal at this moment lacks satisfactory governance. Unless the worsening situation on the political front is arrested soon, the country will further plunge into the political morass. Let wisdom, understanding, reciprocity of interest and tolerance come to the political leaders of the country to consensually run the government for an effective conduct of foreign policy with intent to enhance the good image of Nepal for an independent journey in the international arena. Following Madhavji Shrestha's presentation, Chairman Prof. Khatri made the following brief comment: It is a short paper, but there are a lot of ideas in it. If I may summarize the key points, he is arguing basically public diplomacy, one and half track diplomacy, soft power and also the idea of declaring Nepal as a neutral country not in the line of Switzerland but in a different context. However, it has to do with the constitutional framework. Floor Discussion Prakash A. Raj: As a neutral country endorsed unanimously by the CA and also approved by referendum, in what way is the concept of neutrality different from the zone of peace that was proposed earlier? You have given an example of Laos in 1963. But in case of Laos, a mere declaration of neutrality did not stop foreign interference there. Getting involved in conflict in which the super powers were also there in years after 1963. How do you suggest that your proposal will also work in Nepal? You talked about Switzerland. But one of the reasons why Switzerland was declared as a neutral country and was able to continue to be a neutral country by not being involved in the First and the Second World Wars. But all the citizens had to undergo militia training for some time. Would not the same thing like that would be in Nepal if your proposal were to be considered? Lal Babu Yadav: What do you think about foreign policy of Nepal? What changes have come about in Nepal's foreign policy before and after the restoration of democracy? It is said that Nepal has faced more interferences from foreign powers after 1990 than before. What do you say about it? What do you think of economic diplomacy? Is an aid promotion the major component of economic diplomacy or how can you promote trade rather than aid? Dr. Bishnu Hari Nepal: The idea of people's diplomacy is appreciable. This is the new perspective of foreign policy in the 21st century. What type of diplomacy was adopted by Nepal during the 240 years of autocracy? Gajananda Agrawal: Foreign policy is blind and deaf. The Public-Private Partnership (PPP) has already been failed for the last 60 years. There is no economic diplomacy and no diplomat is an economist. India and China are physically close neighbours of Nepal. But we have blood relation with India, but not with China. Prof. Jitendra D. Khand: Nepal is located in a strategic location. How should the country manage its relations with the two immediate neighbors? Shambhu Rana: We have to reorient our foreign policy. We are only talking about India and Nepal. Defense is a hardcore issue in foreign policy. How should we strike a balance in international relations? Nischal Nath Pandey: I was enthused by the proposition of public diplomacy. I think hundreds of articles were being written by international media about Nepal. I want to quote three headlines: "Tunnel at the End of Lights: Nepal forever on the Prink", "The Striking Shangri-La", and "From Absolute Monarchy to Banana Republic." Who is going to respond to these international plethoras of media reactions about Nepal and her situation? Is it the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, the Nepal Tourism Board, the Department of Information, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Embassies abroad. If we cannot write even a letter to the editor, forget about public diplomacy and promoting our candidate for Nobel Prize for Peace. Prof. Mohan Prasad Lohani: When I was associated with the IFA in 1998, we organized training for 12 section officers, who were fresh recruits. At the end of the programme, we invited senior diplomat Y.N. Khanal. He spoke without any note for nearly two hours. One of the important points he had made was that he asked the new officers to take foreign policy seriously because Nepal is neither militarily strong nor economically sound. Our potent weapon is foreign policy and instrument is diplomacy. We must learn to use diplomacy very skillfully and cautiously. That was his point. When I was with the IFA, I saw six Foreign Ministers. When one Foreign Minister comes up with his/her own proposal to strengthen the institute, he is out. So, political stability should come first. That is my priority. Dr. Dambar Bir Thapa: If I am not mistaken, I have heard you saying that non-alignment has become obsolete. How would you justify your argument at a time when the non-alignment movement has been expanding with so many conferences being held in different countries? Narayan Prasad Mishra: When we did not have foreign policy in a written form long back, one of the then Rana Prime Minister was asked about our foreign policy. His reply was that to have good relations with all was foreign policy. I think that was our foreign policy. As a diplomat, do you see any more than that? What is people's diplomacy and what are your suggestions for making it more efficient and sufficient? Khaganath Adhikari: What is soft power and what are its elements? Keshav Raj Jha: Madhavji Shrestha has given food for thought. But I am surprised that none of paper presenters focussed on options and future direction to foreign policy. They only raised issues. If this is the style of working, there is no point of sponsoring such a kind of seminar by donors. The paper presenters should at least stick to their topics on which they were asked to make their opinions and solicit responses from intellectuals and enlightened community. Paper presenter Shrestha's response: The Zone of peace is a political concept, which is not legally binding, while neutrality is legally binding. It comes under the international law. In 1962, Laos was declared as a neutral country and was accepted by international community, including the veto powers. But unfortunately, they could not make proper political balance in their own country. Then, they failed. In case of Nepal too, if we go like this, we cannot maintain our neutrality. Foreign interference will come again and again if we fail to maintain political balance. We need to converge the political divide. If we can maintain political stability, we will not have to face the case of Laos. Switzerland has been maintaining neutral policies since long. But when there was the Napoleon war, its neutrality was violated by all quarters, especially by the forces of Napoleon. After the defeat of Napoleon, the Vienna Conference was held in 1815 and the convention recognized that Switzerland be made permanent neutral country. At that time, international affairs were concentrated only on Europe. Only after the World War II, international relations and matters came to Asia. When we talk about foreign policy, we must have some course of action supported by diplomacy. But after the political change of 1990, we could not make any planned foreign policy. So, our foreign policy has been working just as a reactive process by establishing relations with the external world. If the leadership is strong enough and they give serious thoughts to it, they must plan on how we should approach on bilateral and multilateral matters about international issues and problems. Yes, we have foreign policy. It is reactive, but not proactive. To make it proactive, we must plan. About economic diplomacy, the government of Nepal has enumerated 4/5 items—foreign aid, trade, water resources, foreign investment, foreign employment, etc. We must give attention toward attracting Director Foreign Investment (FDI). This is the most important component of economic diplomacy. Foreign aid may come and go. Trade is also very important component. But when we talk about FDI and trade, we need to maintain domestic stability. We must be clear about legislature and economic matters. Unless and until domestic situation is improved, economic diplomacy may not be successful. We have failed to achieve much in the field of economic diplomacy because we could not maintain domestic stability. We do not have any clear direction after 1990. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the importance of non-alignment has decreased. In this context, we should have formulated some ideas and policies. But no one cared about it. We have blood relation with the south. Out of 74 million population of Switzerland, about 65 per cent speaks German, 25 per cent French and 9/10 per cent Italian. From racial point of view, they have close relations with Germany. But they have never bowed to Germany. During the World War I and II, neutrality was violated in Switzerland. Regarding my paper, Dr. Khand and Prof. Lohani raised questions and gave suggestions. I will take all of your questions very heartily. Options for actions are what I had remarked at several forums. Nepal's foreign policy is travelling on one trajectory, but that trajectory is not directed correctly. Of course, we are called a non-aligned nation. We take part in summits of the non-aligned nations on a regular basis. But there is no outcome of the meetings. Yes, during the 1960s, 70s and 80s, non-aligned foreign policy played a very positive role. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the importance of non-aligned foreign policy has certainly decreased. I think that even under the non-aligned foreign policy, we must take the trajectory of socio-economic development. Each summit declares the socio-economic objectives, but that never come into reality. This is what is lacking. So, our action should be to maintain the fundamental questions of national sovereignty in dividends and socio-economic progress. We must prepare programmes for achieving these objectives. Coming to the question of Nischal Nath Pandey, I have already said we have 28 missions and embassies and three consular general's offices. None of them are promoting public diplomacy. Our ambassadors and other staffers are not trained for that. So, I have pleaded for an effective public diplomacy so that we can defend us whenever such questions come. Concerning foreign advices and suggestions, foreigners make them as per their interest. But such suggestions should come for the interest of Nepal. Political slogans of non-alignment are made, but during the days of globalization, what we need is socio-economic progress. Unfortunately, non-alignment could not play for the improvement of socio-economic status because all these non-aligned countries are developing ones. I am pleading for blending of official and public diplomacies. Nepal has yet to start this. Of course, we have official level of diplomacy, but no one knows how far it is effective because results are not visible. So, let it be strengthened by the people's initiatives and ideas so that the government may also have some sort of engagement to take our diplomatic efforts forward. Soft power is well described by Prof. Joseph Nai, who belongs to the Herbert University. According to him, soft power means a point of attraction. Public diplomacy is a blending of official and non-official diplomacies. Soft power should guide the future direction of Nepal's foreign policy. This is what I think. We must be able to maintain strict neutrality and let it be legally binding. I do not think that the Nepalese people object to it. But when questions of interpretation appear, they should be put in referendum, majority of the people will support it. The Chairman's comments Thank you Madhavji for taking so many questions. I appreciate the effort. As the Chair, again let me take this opportunity to just voice some of my reflections on the discussion and also some of the issues that would be considered. First of all, I must say that this is the first meeting I have chaired after a very long time where I had not seen any paper in advance and also at the same time where one of presenters had to leave before the session could be concluded. That made awkward not only for the Chair but also for the audience. I do hope that the IFA will think twice about it because there are certain requirements that need to be maintained regarding any conference and the amount of time that you invested to do so. And it does make it difficult to have a fruitful interaction when the normal decorum is not maintained. Having said that, let me also touch on some of the things that usually happen in meetings of this nature. When a title is put and sometimes not all the issues are covered. I do agree only some of the elements come, but I must say and do admire the efforts made by Madhavji in his paper. He covered not only what he considered to be the issues but also what future directions might be. Although he may not have emphasized to the extent that he wanted to see what public diplomacy, track and half track diplomacy meant and they could always be discussed. The other thing that I would like to touch on or relate basically to a question that came from the floor during the first presentation: does Nepal have a foreign policy. I would say that you may not agree that Nepal has a foreign policy, but it does. The main question is not whether Nepal has foreign policy or not. The real question should be: is Nepal's foreign policy adequate and responsive to the changing environment? It is being articulated in a manner that would benefit the nation. Do we have the same mechanism to sustain that type of forward-looking policy and is the political environment conducive to do so even through the mechanism may or may not be there? These are all inter-related issues and I do not think it is related just to the question whether or not foreign policy exists. Because after certain mechanisms or processes are established, that mechanisms operate under a pilot's control. The main thing is their balance along the way. Do you make a just and how do you go about it? I think this is the main challenge. One of the main issues that has really come up during the discussion is the question of house being in order. This is related to the question of foreign policy also. If your house is not in order, how do you define what the national interests are? I must also add the question of national interest more than ever before. As far as I know, issues have been discussed more openly in the last few years than ever before in the history of Nepal. The dramatic change that has come within the last few years brought this issue up. Going back to the 1970s, we had difficulties even in talking openly about Nepal's foreign policy because it was looked after by the Palace. Some efforts were being made, some headway was made. After 1990, that became an open platform for discussion. And it is everywhere you can see both critical and supportive articles. Some of them are even forward-looking and constructive. With the security issue, there must a strategy related to foreign policy. It is a constructive process where the people are participating in debates to define what the priority should be. Nevertheless, there are ideas on the table and there is even talk of developing a whitepaper on a comprehensive national security strategy which includes basically foreign policy strategy. So, I think we have now become more forward looking than before. But the main problem is that there are obstacles on the way and we still have not moved adequately in a forward looking direction. I think, the other points need to be looked at in a more positive way and this is where I am worried about Nepal's foreign policy direction. We have a political process that is too much concentrated on party politics, and frankly speaking, parties do not have time to look at broader foreign policy issues. If they do, it is in terms of visits and contacts on how they can elevate their positions. That does not increase national interest in the changing context. Nevertheless, the element is there. We have a bureaucracy that works. But have adequate information, resources and exposure been given to the bureaucracy to move forward? The problem is when your house is not in order, such issues do not become a priority and there is a certain cost to be met. Let me touch on few elements that, I think, would be useful in terms of looking at future of Nepal's foreign policy. Whether you like it or not, Nepal's foreign policy, to a large extent but not entirely, is with neighbours. I think this is a critical point and a clear reassessment of Nepal's relations with neighbours. At the meeting of this nature, we must focus on certain fundamental points. For instance, what we have seen basically is the phenomenal growth of both India and China. We are stocked right between them whether we like it or not. My view is not always bad, it can also be beneficial. But have we looked at beneficial side? There are advantages also. The growth of China and India could be beneficial for Nepal. There is a beautiful study done on landlocked states. Countries do not have good future if neighboiuring countries have difficulties probably in terms of infrastructure, transportation and other areas. Now if you really look at it, these countries are developing. The development of infrastructure in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and others would be beneficial for Nepal. There must be a substantive study on China and India. China's policy has changed dramatically over the last three decades. And I have been observing India for the past three decades. There is a perceptible change in India's policy towards Nepal as well. The problem is that even the Indian politicians cannot move their bureaucracy in the right direction that they want. It is a struggle even for them. And we in Nepal look at India in a way that it is monolithic in terms of policymaking process. There is division and discussion going on. And what I find fascinating is that whereas India used to speak with one voice on foreign policy, there is now a multitude of voices in India on foreign policy. The most evident was the 1998 Nuclear Test when parties contested. Look at the position of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). On the climate change issue after Copenhagen, there is a serious debate going on. Even towards neighbours, serious debates are going on. But we have not done our homework here. And I do not blame the Foreign Ministry. It is also intellectuals and other individuals who have also not made those efforts. If we can do that, a substantive input is given in this direction. It is not amazing that when Barack Obama was present in the Copenhagen conference, China did not even send the Prime Minister. China sent a junior person to sit with Obama to discuss the climate change issue. That shows that how confident China is. And China will be the strongest economic power in the world by 2027. But we do not have policy towards China. The people are amazed how the Maoists have developed that contact mostly at the party-level in terms of negotiating with the authorities. That is good in the sense that the Maoists have been active, whereas other parties have been sleeping. It is only lately that this type of arrangement has been developing. I think, the long-term implications, studies are essential. The question of Tibet policies and interventions are very relevant. This is the question which the media raises very often. I was just looking at the publication of IFA and counted the number of visits to India by the Nepalese Prime Ministers since 1990, it is 12. But the number of visits by the Indian Prime Minister is just one. That is Nar Singh Rao's visit in 1992. The balance there is skewed. How do you bring up issues if that is going to be the criteria? One of the most neglected points of our foreign policy has been inability to really understand India at all. You do not understand India just by reading The Times of India or The Hindustan Times and The Indian Express. That is superficial. Most of us do that politicians do not go beyond that. And the worst part is we believe foreign policy should be based on the information. It does not operate that way. The other point that I would like to raise very briefly is in terms of foreign policy opportunities at the global level. There are two points. One is increasing vulnerability of Nepal. In terms of influence that the outside world has on internal policymaking process which we see international agencies, including the UN Commissioner not for Refugees but for Human Rights and UNMIN—sometimes go beyond their mandate on certain issues. On top of that, what we have do is to have the opportunities that are there. Believe me, it was not the Government of Nepal's policy to promote migration. It was the poor Nepalese people who put their money in their own investment. They have made the migration a success for Nepal. As a result, around 1.2 billion dollars coming into Nepal every year. That is official. If you add unofficial, it will be nearly 3 billion dollars. These rural people are risking and the government is riding free. We need to have substantive work done in this area and I am hoping the IFA will take up these serious long-term policy framework that can be completed from six-nine months' time with an productive output would result in what Keshav Raj Jha was talking about future direction and that is what can be possible, but not from the meeting of this nature. We have failed to demand a foreign policy. When our house is in disorder, and blame the Foreign Ministry for doing its work, that is very convenient. But we cannot do it unless we have a systematic policy mechanism. We had two high-level task forces in the Foreign Ministry which had given recommendations. Has there been any follow-up whether or not the recommendations have been monitored? What are the problems for monitoring? There is no need for more and more high-level task forces if the basic mechanism of implementation does not operate. And who has the responsibility—the bureaucracy or the politicians? I think, when you are talking about public diplomacy, you are talking about accountability also. And here accountability has to be raised to the Foreign Ministry and the political masters, who have the responsibilities at the same time. There is so much expansion of our missions abroad. I am not sure when we were the part of the task force and did a recommendation to open embassies in limited countries. Now we have stretched to South America and South Africa. I am not sure how they will be economically justifiable. We are not very sure what objectives in Australia are. Proliferation of diplomatic missions should not be an option where you can have political parties in power to appoint ambassadors as gifts or have place retiring diplomats to go afterwards. It must have a meaningful place in foreign policy framework which supports the national interest. For future projections, there will be a long-term serious strategy that will be again commissioned by the IFA or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to look at some of these fundamental points. We have to sit together in a gathering of this nature. It is good to generate heat and have ideas floating, but for policy implementations, we need concrete data and information and actual direction that the government should follow. And that, I think, is the essential message that we need to take from the session of this nature. Again, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Gopal Pokharel for asking me to chair the session and also to thank Dr. Shambhu Ram Simkhada and Madhavji Shrestha for their presentations. I would also like to thank all the participants for making the session very interesting. Thank you very much. Debate on "Foreign Policy of Nepal: Issues, options and future Directions" Organized jointly by the Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) in close cooperation with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Hotel Mall, December 28, 2009. Date: December 28, 2009 (Monday) Venue: Hotel Malla, Lainchaur. Inaugural Session: 10:50am-10:55am Registration 10:55am-11:00am Arrival of chief guest Hon'ble Jhala Nath Khanal, CA Member, & Chairman, Nepal Communist Party (UML) On Dais: Chief Guest Hon'ble Jhala Nath Khanal, CA Member, & Chairman, Nepal Communist Party (UML) Mr. Durga Prasad Bhattarai, Officiating Foreign Secretary, MoFA Prof. Dr. Gopal Prasad Pokharel, Executive Director, Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) Ms. Anjan Shakya, Deputy Executive Director, Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) 11:00am-11:05am Offering of the bouquet to the Chief Guest Hon'ble Jhala Nath Khanal, Member, CA & Chairman, Nepal Communist Party (UML) 11:05am-11:10am Welcome address by Prof. Dr. Gopal Prasad Pokharel, Executive Director, Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) 11:10am-11:12am Inauguration of the National Debate by the Hon'ble Jhala Nath Khanal, CA Member, & Chairman, Nepal Communist Party (UML) by lighting the traditional lamp 11:12am-11:13am Book Release by Chief Guest 11:13am-11:15am Speech by Mr. Durga Prasad Bhattarai, Officiating Foreign Secretary, MoFA 11:15am-11:20am Key Note Address by Chief Guest Hon'ble Jhala Nath Khanal, CA Member, & Chairman, Nepal Communist Party (UML) 11:20am-11:25am Vote of thanks by Ms. Anjan Shakya, Deputy Executive Director, Institute of Foreign Affairs (IFA) 11:25-11:30am Refreshment Session Chair: Prof. Sridhar K. Khatri, Executive Director, SACEPS 11:30 -11:45 Paper by Dr. Shambhuram Simkhada, Former Ambassador "………………." 11:45-12:00 Paper by Mr. Madhavji Shrestha, Former Joint Secretary, MoFA "Pragmatic Approach of Foreign Policy" 12:00-12:30 Floor Discussion 12:30 -12.45 Response by the paper presenters 12:45 –13:00 Remarks by the Chair 13:00 Lunch