DEC 01 - The 18th Saarc Summit was held last week with much pomp and ceremony. As always, the fractious relationship between India and Pakistan, the region’s two largest states, took centre stage, with the icy interaction between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Three expected agreements—on energy cooperation, roads, and railways—looked to be held hostage. It was only after gentle nudging from Prime Minister Sushil Koirala that a framework agreement on energy cooperation was salvaged, with the two others expected in three months.Anil Giri and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke toDinesh Bhattarai , foreign affairs adviser to Koirala, about the role played by the prime minister, the failure to implement past agreements, and the evolution of Nepal’s foreign policy.
How would you assess the recently concluded Saarc Summit?
Before the Summit, Nepal was considered a country in transition, being involved in the peace process for so long and having recently emerged from conflict. But the success of the Saarc Summit has sent a message to the world that Nepal is capable of organising such a large summit effectively, efficiently and without any problems. I would say that Nepal has now come out of the transition and is again a responsible member of the international community.
Many are of the opinion that tensions between the two largest countries—India and Pakistan—have held back Saarc as a regional organisation. At the Summit, initial friction seemed to thaw towards the end, facilitated by Prime Minister Sushil Koirala. Can you elaborate on how exactly this happened?
The tensions between India and Pakistan are congenital, and there have always been mutual suspicions and doubts. But despite that, they came to the Saarc forum, shared a table and accepted their responsibilities. In the end, they even agreed on common actions. This is a region which has a big trust deficit, but all leaders talked about connectivity—air, road, and rail. Our prime minister also talked about waterways connectivity. When our Foreign Minister was inviting Saarc leaders to the Summit on behalf of PM Koirala, to get to Pakistan from Kabul, he had to fly back to Dubai. This shows how the region is more connected to the outside than within. But PM Koirala emphasised that if we are able to build bridges and establish mutual trust, all other forms of connectivity will follow.
India and Pakistan are big countries that have their own internal problems, which we do not interfere in. But PM Koirala played an important role in bringing India and Pakistan together to sign the framework agreement on energy cooperation. His diplomacy was able to untie the knot that had developed at the ministerial level. He made sure that the Summit would not pass by without a solid outcome. Saarc provided a setting for all leaders to come together but it was the leadership of PM Koirala that led to the breakthrough.
In Saarc’s almost 30-year history, many agreements have been signed but rarely implemented. Isn’t there a danger of history repeating?
Some have called Saarc a ‘no-action, talk-shop’. Others have said that Saarc leaders only meet to decide when to meet next. This kind of criticism is valid but we must look at Saarc’s history. It was formed during the Cold War and despite many doubts and suspicions among member-states, they came together to form Saarc. The positions of the eight countries do not converge, but despite that, they have all stayed together. This must be appreciated. Also, because it was a latecomer to the regional cooperation fold, it has been more of an imitator than an innovator. Its activities have expanded extensively. Therefore, the Kathmandu Summit has declared Saarc’s third decade as a decade of implementation. At least now, we have come to recognise our problems and areas where it is possible to cooperate and take collective action. For implementation, there must be infrastructure and the basic infrastructure is trust. Another thing that the PM emphasised in his speech was the fact that all Saarc member-states have leaders who were elected democratically through elections. That is a good sign. Since the people are once again at the centre, there are new hopes and expectations from these leaders. Let us hope that with democratic leaders at the helm, the implementation part will also go ahead.
One criticism of the failure of implementation has been the weak role of the Saarc Secretariat. Isn’t it time to strengthen this institution?
First, the Secretariat must be given enough resources to function adequately. There has been talk of strengthening the Secretariat but it is up to the member-states to decide. Earlier, they decided to increase the term of the Secretary-General from two years to three years. So decisions like these can be made. The Secretariat needs both financial and human resources. Kathmandu is host to the Secretariat and we are proud of that fact. But it needs to look and function like the headquarters of a regional organisation. The member-states agree that the Secretariat needs to be strengthened but there is no time-bound framework for that.
At the Summit, China expressed a desire for deeper engagement with Saarc. Is it time to elevate China from its Observer status?
The world is rapidly changing. There have been massive geopolitical shifts and South Asia occupies a very important place in that shift. China borders South Asia and China’s economic rise and its eradication of poverty have become the success stories of this century. But I am not aware of any formal communication from China seeking membership in Saarc. The speech by the Chinese representative mentions three things—deepening integration with Saarc; ‘elevate’ China’s relations with Saarc; and how China can help promote peace and development in South Asia. Since China has not categorically proposed membership, let us wait and see how they do it in the future. There is no provision in the Charter to have any country as a dialogue or strategic partner, as many have argued for China. So perhaps the Charter needs to be revisited. That can only be done through consensus—all members have to agree.
Nepal currently heads another regional organisation—the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (Bimstec), whose Summit will also be held in Kathmandu in the coming months. How will the Sushil Koirala government shoulder the responsibility of leading Saarc and Bimstec, along with its domestic priorities?
Regional cooperation has emerged as an important aspect of Nepal’s foreign policy. This is well reflected in Nepal chairing two regional organisations. Yes, this is a daunting challenge, especially given the domestic situation of the country. But national leadership and ownership are fundamental to any success in these organisations. So at this juncture, the PM’s leadership is an opportunity for the country. The Saarc Summit has sent a political message that despite being in the midst of writing a constitution, Nepal is capable of taking ownership of its regional responsibilities. Nepal also sent the message that it is serious on the economic front was by signing the Power Trade Agreement with India and two Project Development Agreements. Diplomatically, Nepal is the fifth largest troop contributing country to UN Peacekeeping. Our soldiers are not fighting for territory but to uphold peace, stability, democracy, and development. Nepal is now showing the world that it is on the right track and is ready to participate in the international community.
Nepal’s foreign policy has long been criticised for being ad-hoc and directionless. Can we expect the assertion of a bolder foreign policy?
Foreign policy is a national policy; it is not the policy of any party or individuals. We have seen how things transpire when individuals try to play on their own in foreign policy initiatives. This is no good. Foreign policy is a central issue and will remain so even after becoming a federal country. It is a prime ministerial prerogative in our context. So we need to work to develop consensus on foreign policy. On the national interest, all parties, no matter their political orientation, are together. Take the example of the peace process. Political parties that were poles apart were able to come together for the national interest and to promote sovereignty. If territorial integrity, democracy, national sovereignty, and human rights are common to all parties, why can we not come together on foreign policy? The Saarc Summit was a matter of national prestige and I think we have been able to keep that prestige because all parties came together.
Given Nepal’s sensitive geopolitical location, what are its foreign policy challenges?
Nepal has started to increasingly figure in the foreign policy of both emerging and established powers. Because of our location, two markets of more than 2.6 billion people are at our doorstep and the whole world is watching these two economies. But where do we stand? What are we doing to benefit from the economic dynamism of these two countries? Nepal’s geography is often cited as a handicap for development but things have changed. We are a dynamic location. But to take advantage, we must put an end to this prolonged transition immediately. We must also realise the significance of our location. Our foreign policy, therefore, must walk a tightrope. But our geopolitical location is also our soft power, which we must use very cautiously. If all parties are able to come together on foreign policy and make cautious use of this soft power, Nepal will prosper in no time. The PM has said that Nepal’s foreign policy begins with its neighbours. I would underline the word ‘begin’. It will not end there. Our immediate priority is India, China and the neighbourhood but it continues further. Multilateralism is an important aspect of Nepal’s foreign policy. We have good relations with the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. We are open and remain engaged with all as we need all friends. We want to develop this nation with the goodwill, support, and cooperation of both our neighbours and established powers.