Foreign policy is a mixture of continuity and change. Experience stresses the importance of keeping the country focused on its own agenda in order to avoid costly aberrations and embarrassing mistakes. It might be instructive to note what went wrong in the previous years. First, there was no evidence that foreign policy was a priority of the government. Second, the weakness of Foreign Service professionals and ineptitude of political leadership resulted in the defeat of Nepal in the election to a non-permanent seat in the Security Council. Third, the country lost enormous opportunities.

There is thus a need to chart a new direction in Nepal’s strategic vision, mission and plans.

The government would do well to fill the diplomatic vacancies soon. On the one hand, Nepal needs to convince the international community that the peace process is irreversible and that it needs greater support from them than before to make peace permanent. Obviously, Nepal’s diplomacy should be aimed at retaining and if possible increasing the official development assistance from foreign countries and to narrow the gap between commitment and disbursement. On the other hand, if the peace process breaks down, the country will plunge into chaos, perhaps inviting foreign role in restoring order.

The diplomatic machinery needs to be revamped, too. A separate, professional diplomatic service with suitable incentive packages to attract the talented youth might be a step in the right direction. Foreign policy should be geared towards taking full advantage of economic opportunities and minimising the negative effects of globalisation.

It is advisable for Nepal to focus on bilateral ties with its immediate neighbours. Though a renewed focus on Nepal-India and Nepal-China relations does not necessarily mean a reduced role in regional forums like SAARC and BIMSTEC, uninformed decision to join multilateral organisations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation will do the country more harm than good. Nepal indeed has few alternatives to comprehensive, forward-looking and interactive relationships with its two neighbours based on two-way economic linkages.

Stress is also being placed on foreign employment. While remittances may help keep macro-economic variables in shape, foreign employment is no answer to domestic unemployment.

In the short-term, our foreign policy goal will mean that the Labour Ministry does not make a mess of the Korean offer of providing annual employment for 5,000 Nepalis in South Korea. Equally important is bilateral MoUs on labour with Malaysia, Gulf countries and Israel. Besides, opening embassies in labour-importing countries shows how the fundamentals of foreign policy have changed. While critics argue that economic diplomacy is redundant, the economic dimension of diplomacy has lately acquired great significance. Hence, it is in keeping with the changed realities that Nepal’s foreign policy priorities should be reoriented.