Nepal’s foreign policy is continuing on its old path despite the dramatic changes that have been experienced in the region and beyond. Notwithstanding the dramatic political changes at home, there seems to be no visible indicator of which direction the new Nepal needs to take in order to achieve its twin goals of security and socio-economic development. Time is ripe for Nepal to decide its course of action in its external dealings in light of the developing regional and international scenario in the last one and a half decade. Regrettably, the domestic political scene is fuzzy and unpredictable.

Experts on international affairs believe the world is now less politicised and more interconnected as a result of technological advancement. Eminent authors like Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Slavoj Zizek are noted poststructuralists who have highlighted the forces of technology replacing politics in interstate relationship. They imply depoliticisation sustained by technology that guides the management of foreign policy, initiated by technical experts in tandem with bureaucrats.

But the world would never be depoliticised till the decision-making power remains under the grip of politicians. True, the behaviour of the key political players in foreign affairs is now more influenced by non-political elements. But politics is still a highly important ingredient in international affairs. An eminent writer, Jenny Edkins, thinks so because visible fights between democracies and non-democracies are a reality now. This is undeniable under the globally prevailing circumstances. A weaker country like Nepal with a fledgling democracy has to look into the intricacies of interstate relationship. This is imminent as Nepal needs to make its external journey both pragmatic and expedient to keep up with the evolving trend.

In this context, observers believe that the underpinning components of (a) connectivity (b) commonality (c) conditionality and (d) compatibility are now the most important elements in the conduct of the foreign policy of Nepal as its relations with the internal community, and international and regional organisations are realistically related. Experts believe that ground realities instead of lofty ideals and assumed principles need to chart the course of foreign policy.

First, in execution of Nepal’s foreign policy, the highly realistic importance of connectivity, especially geographic and contractual, assumes top priority in its dealings with India and China. Of course, our historic connectivity with the UK and the US cannot be undermined. This element should indeed lay the foundation to build on our relations with those countries. There should be no emotive feelings while trying to achieve the primary objective of constructing appropriately designed contacts with them.

Second, the need to see the commonalities between the problems of the underdeveloped and land-locked countries around the world is of no less concern. In reality, prevalence of poverty in other countries like Nepal naturally compels them to unite to make their voices heard in international forums. The united stance taken by the countries of similar socio-economic backgrounds could, in turn, help the developed countries see and help cure their festering wounds. Nepal together with like-minded countries should move ahead in initiating the policy to work together.

Third, the question of conditionality should also capture the attention of those who implement the country’s foreign policy as challenges of terrorism, extremism and separatism remain as destructive forces hovering over the nations that vow to fight such evil tendencies.

Nepal, as a country suffering the consequences of such nefarious elements, should work towards making international alliance comprising the nations in similar plight in order to root out such ills. Alliance for such purposes should remain in place until forces with sinister motives are dead and buried.

Fourth, the question of compatibility, if the above components are embraced, will hardly arise in the conduct of Nepal’s foreign policy as it does no harm to us or to any country which enjoys bilateral contacts with Nepal; nor will it restrict the option of any country to act independently as a sovereign and responsible political member. Nepal as an independent political entity need not deviate from what it has embraced for long, nor feel constrained to participate in the international forums gainfully. In the prevailing situation, these factors are cogent elements that Nepal should embrace, instead of deliberating on other non-realistic concerns, to steer its foreign policy towards the achievement of greater national interests. Nepal can safely conduct a consistent and coherent foreign policy with the adoption of these new elements on the basis of a realistic approach. There needs to be no deviation from Nepal’s independent stance as well.

Shrestha is ex-foreign ministry official