Need Pragmatism and Prudence in Bilateral Relations with Neighbours
ASIA--PACIFIC, 23 Nov 2015
Kedar Neupane – TRANSCEND Media Service
14 Nov 2015 – The Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Nepal addressed the 23rd session of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 4 November 2015. The high level delegation was to impress the member states of the United Nations Nepal’s growing humanitarian tragedy and solicit international support for exerting moral pressure on India. The Deputy PM’s visit to Geneva had taken place at the backdrop of his failed mission to New-Delhi for resolving the cross-border traffic. The undeclared objective of the high level delegation, as rumored, was aimed at tarnishing Indian image as it was lobbying for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Purportedly, members of civil society from Nepal also were in Geneva for staging protest demonstration in front of the United Nations Office against India. On the same day, several representatives of the UN member states spoke, in inside the UN assembly hall, on human rights in Nepal but rarely on Indian blockade. This diplomatic offensive from Nepal was a success or failure is not obvious right then. Only time will tell if this contributed positively in resolving the Nepal’s crisis.
The UPR is an international review process of the human rights records of 193 UN Member States and Nepal is one of them. Each State review is done by a group of three States, known as “Troika” and the troika (Latvia, Qatar and Morocco in Nepal’s case) was selected through drawing lots soon after elections for the Council membership in the General Assembly. Big or small, the most powerful or weak among the community of nations, seventy-three member states of the UN took the floor and made 196 recommendations, covering a range topics associated with human rights record of Nepal. Expression of concerns ranged from abolition of all forms of discrimination to universal rights of children and women and disquiet over assistance to victims of earthquakes, etc. Several states emphasized discrimination of women’s rights which were not equal to men in the new constitution.
The UN member states, however disparate they are, made dispassionate and interesting comments depicting the state of Nepal’s human rights record. If these were any measure of expressions for support to Nepal’s diplomatic offensive against Indian economic hegemony it was not hard to gauge that Nepal’s diplomacy needed more homework. Viewing from the comments and themes shared by a number of countries Nepal has a long way into this path.
The Netherlands, the only country from Western EU states, commented on the ongoing Nepal/India situation and called upon the Nepal’s Delegation to continue dialogue with India with a view to fully restore cross border traffic. No other country made any direct reference to the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Nepal on Nepal/India situation. On the contrary, countries expressed varied comments on human rights record of Nepal. For example; Spain was concerned about nationality of children through either parent. Sweden commented on discrimination against Hindu minority population, and Madhesis’ claim of not being adequately represented in the constitution and resulting loss of life in parts of Nepal. Cyprus advocated freedom of assemblies and protection of peaceful protests. Switzerland, friendly country, expressed concerns over the excessive use of force for managing demonstrations and reminded the principles of proportionality in every use of force and firearms. France was concerned over impunity of law enforcement authorities. Portugal, USA, UK called upon Nepal to accede to the international convention and protocol on refugees and asylum-seekers.
From Eastern Europe, Czech Republic requested to end all forms of discrimination against women and Dalits while Ukraine wanted the delegation to ensure an inclusive dialogue with all minorities. Hungary requested progress on the amendment to citizenship law, apparently accepted by Nepal at the 2011 UPR, in connection with millions of people who are without official status. Montenegro requested a policy on zero-tolerance over torture and culture of impunity while Estonia commented on reprisals against journalist.
New-Zealand requested persecution of those who committed human rights violations during the civil war and emphasized rights of women to acquire, retain and transfer citizenship to their children on an equal basis with men. Australia urged Nepal to collaborate with regional and global institutions in protecting the rights of migrant workers as there are millions of Nepalese working abroad.
From African nations, Botswana was concerned over the persecution of human rights defenders while Sierra Leone was concerned over the unequal rights of women and their children’s right to citizenship. From South America, Mexico commented on the protection of rights of indigenous people while Costa Rica talked about Tibetan refugees and minorities. From the Middle-East and North-Africa, Algeria requested Nepal to ratify ILO Convention on workers’ rights and Egypt requested the same.
It is likely that the concerns aired by Nepal’s Deputy PM and Foreign Minister on cross-border stand-offs with India may not even be reflected in the final adoption of the UPR document. This posturing has equally displayed Nepal’s failure in handling domestic concerns and maintaining harmonious relationships with southern neighbor. Wide spread difficulties, faced by Nepalese, should have been, no- doubt, the top most priority of the government. Given the fact that Nepal had previously endured two Indian blockades and, just prior to the adoption of new constitution, India had apparently shared its serious reservations and displeasure with Nepali Congress-led government to which the UML was the major partner should not have come as surprise to the UML-led government. Looming seriousness with range of difficulties arising out of blockade of Nepal (announced or not) by India could have been anticipated under the prevailing situation. Clearly, the new government did not foresee nation’s vulnerability and failed to strategize and prepare contingency mitigating plan, particularly when major festivals like Dashain, Tihar and Chat were approaching.
The government must now wisely diversify and enhance economic relations with China while cordially maintaining balancing trade relations with India. Closer economic partnerships with both neighbours are geographical reality and should be based on pragmatism. Otherwise, it will be only a pipe-dream if we are to believe that Nepal will be economically prosperous at any given time without support and massive capital injections from China and India.
One wonders why Nepal could not conclude bilateral economic integration agreements separately with China and India in so many years of central level planning for growth and development. Economic security is no less important than political freedom. The leaders of India and China are cooperating at strategic level while temporarily freezing past disputes and have demonstrated their political maturity to realize possible economic gains. This development should positively contribute in the development of Nepal’s economy if economic partnership is forged with them.
It was remarkable to hear the Deputy PM and Foreign Minister of Nepal who declared, during the UPR session in Geneva, that, by the end of next decade, Nepal will be graduating to middle-level-income economy from one of the least-developed economies and the state of current economic catastrophe . Media reports, on the other hand, indicate businesses and industries are closing across Nepal due to economic standoff with India. It sounds preposterous that economic graduation is achievable under the continued political quagmire and misplaced economic and political direction without due recognition of significance of closer economic partnerships, taking full advantage of comparative economics, with the neighbouring countries.
The focus seems to be shifting away from resolving disputes with agitating political minorities to India bashing through inflated nationalism. Nepalese are beginning to wonder where is heading to. How are the leaders going to pull citizens out of perennial poverty, build a nation devastated by two major earthquakes and avoid political blunders? When can a citizen expect government’s due diligence in good governance with accountability, pragmatic economic management, and getting rid of rampant corruption and self-perpetuating grandiose? There is a serious problem of perception. If policies are misplaced and actions are imprudent no one could be blamed this time for it will be nation’s misfortune due government’s repeat missteps.
Government efforts should focus on building nation in economic terms for economic prosperity will boost national image, sovereignty and independence. No country could afford to remain gridlocked in redundant political dogmatisms of the past century. The world saw the two Presidents of China and Taiwan, archrival nations, who on 7 November 2015 met in Singapore and broke the ice after 66 years of animosity and distrust between them. This is about leadership with visions of nation who are able to rise above party functionary. Likewise, on 1 November, three leaders from South Korea, China and Japan held a three-way summit in Seoul dumping the historical animosity for reducing tensions and disputes for peace, stability and economic gains. If Nepal and India’s leaders cannot manage themselves no one should shy away from seeking friendly nation/person help defuse stand-offs and resolve the crisis situation.
___________________________________________
Mr Neupane is president of We for Nepal Association in Geneva. He is a retired senior United Nations official and currently lives in Switzerland. His e-mail is Neupanek1950@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 23 Nov 2015.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Need Pragmatism and Prudence in Bilateral Relations with Neighbours, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.