Month: March 2021

More from Author

• Evaluating Nepal’s new foreign policy

To practically implement the new foreign policy, it is important to integrate it with core national interests and priorities.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently drafted Nepal’s new foreign policy. The document seems to be prepared in haste with little or no consultations with political parties and foreign policy experts, demonstrating the ownership crisis. The document fails to bring out the road map of Nepal’s foreign policy.

Foreign policy is the face of every country, also called an extension of domestic politics. So, interaction with political parties and related experts while drafting the policy becomes important. Foreign policy should be the voice of every party of the nation. Yes, there will be different agendas and goals of different political parties. But there should be some common goals or targets in important matters like national security and foreign policy.

All major parties have international affairs departments. Government could have interacted with them.

Nepal Communist Party (NCP) government made another big mistake. It has its own International Department but the same party government didn’t discuss any issues related to foreign policy within the party. Nor did it include the voices of the experts.

The government has been trying to bring out a new foreign policy for two years. They, thus, had a good deal of time for discussing foreign policy at the Federal Parliament. The International Relation Committee (IRC) of the House of Representatives is one of the best bodies to consult with. The IRC’s job is to show a healthy pathway to the government, especially to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It would have been better if the government had discussed the policy in the IRC, as it has representatives from all major parties in the parliament. It did not, which is why IRC members are not happy with the government’s approach to bringing out the document without consulting them.

The new foreign policy document is voluminous but it lacks SWOT analysis, and elaborated strategies on addressing, among others, economic diplomacy, labor diplomacy, climate change and soft power. The document is vague in its objective and thus it makes the challenges specified in the last chapter of the policy document appear irrelevant. Similarly, the policy broadly talks about Nepal’s engagement with its neighbors, major powers, and its commitment towards multilateral organizations—such as the UN, SAARC, and others. But it does not spell out a candid policy framework.

While discussing track-two diplomacy that is included in the policy document experts showed ambiguity and skepticism for their alignment with party interest. They raised questions on why the government would prefer track-two diplomacy to existing formal channels. How could this protect the national interest of Nepal? Experts are of the view that the document should have included integrated national security issues.

Right after the government came out with the document, the questions were raised about the need to amend it before implementing it. It is not good when we have to amend the foreign policy now and again. In foreign policy, we should visualize the plans of other countries and their activities. This needs a wide range of discussion among all related stakeholders. The government needs to consider this aspect before implementing the policy.

Despite several shortcomings, many believe that the effort of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in bringing out the Foreign Policy Document is a stepping stone in documenting our foreign policy, which in the past did not exist. But to practically implement the policy, it is equally important to integrate it with core national interests and priorities.

That said the initiative to bring out a new foreign policy is a good start. We should learn from our past mistakes and get prepared for a new beginning.  The government, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, should ensure that the policy gains larger ownership from all stakeholders.

Source: https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/evaluating-nepals-new-foreign-policy/

One of the important functions of Nepal’s security agencies (viz. Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, and Nepali Army) is also to provide VIP security to selected dignitaries.

Based on the information provided by the National Intelligence Department, different persons are provided with different categories of security.

However, the misuse of security personnel deployed in such security arrangement, by former or current high post holders, has been the management issue since long.

It is not that the Home Ministry does not have directives to regulate such security arrangements, but still one can find multiple instances where people having no security threats are also provided with VIP security.

Another important issue is the excess number of security personnel deployed for this purpose. Therefore, the Home Ministry must make a close assessment of whether the security of VIPs in Nepal is based on the Need or Obsession?

Such a statement by the country’s executive head is a serious security issue. Now, it is up to the security agencies of Nepal to figure out and analyze the actual risk based on minute assessment and take necessary actions, if need.

Regarding this, not long ago the Home Ministry has directed Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force to return their personnel deputed to the residences of some of the VIPs on duties other than security because most of the personnel sent were found to have been exploited in other works. But, still much remains to be done.

At present, among others, former and current dignitaries including head of state, prime ministers, home and other ministers, justices, chief commissioners, secretaries, and even lawmakers have been using personal security officers (PSOs).

Just the three VVIPS (the president, vice-president, and prime minister) of Nepal have 675 security personnel safeguarding them, which as per close estimates costs easily over 18 million per month.

Coming back to our original issue, many other dignitaries in Nepal are also found to have always been surrounded by a huge security presence, just like they are in a serious security threat as was during the era of armed insurgency in Nepal.

For the prime minister alone around 315 security personnel are deployed in high-security vehicles, offices, and residences, and around 90 security personnel are deployed in the ‘Z Plus’ system with state-of-the-art weapons.

Despite such security arrangements, prime minister K. P. Sharma Oli has recently confessed fear of life-threatening physical assault on him.

Such a statement by the country’s executive head is a serious security issue. Now, it is up to the security agencies of Nepal to figure out and analyze the actual risk based on minute assessment and take necessary actions, if need.

But the question that arises here is whether such a threat to the PM should be disclosed in the public circle?

Security officials and experts say the remarks are politically motivated and it even objectionable in terms of minimal governance responsibilities and duties. If not, why did the Prime Minister make such a statement at this time?

This is a wrong message flowed from the PM himself. Only when a leader loses credibility and popularity, he/she does so!

There is always some level of threat to VVIPs and VIPs. That is not a new topic. But to tell the people that I am in danger and any time there could be an attack on me implies that not only him but no one is safe in the country.

The person who is responsible for keeping the country free from internal and external security threats is feeling insecure, then the question automatically raises is how others can feel safe. Despite all the high-level security, it is a shame to say that he has a security threat.

Who is the ‘threat’ to the Prime Minister? No one I can assume. Indeed, I am surprised by such a statement by the PM. In retrospect, it is a political statement made out of being frightened by the opposition to his move within the party.

In the lack of close assessment deployment of personnel for securities of VIPs, providing them multilayer security umbrellas is becoming a show-culture for the most, if not all.

It seems that he is trying to get the support of the general public and activists through emotional means amidst this political uproar.

Coming back to our original issue, many other dignitaries in Nepal are also found to have always been surrounded by a huge security presence, just like they are in a serious security threat as was during the era of armed insurgency in Nepal.

Today level of risk to these dignitaries is average. Therefore, it is a total loss of tax payer’s money to provide such a costly and heavy security presence for a large number of current and former government officials, politicians, and other senior persons.

Nevertheless, whenever the threat is confirmed, a committee lead by the Home Ministry could decide which category of security is to be given to these VIPs at any time.

In the lack of close assessment deployment of personnel for securities of VIPs, providing them multilayer security umbrellas is becoming a show-culture for the most, if not all.

Therefore, to make the deployment arrangement based on the need rather than an obsession, the Home Minister needs to amend the existing directives and scientifically deploy security personnel for the VIPs in days to come.

(Mr. Joshi is the Chairperson of Nepal Centre for Security Governance (NCSG), a Kathmandu-based think-tank)

Source: https://english.khabarhub.com/2021/05/167597/