Military Diplomacy: A flower sewn into a gun

After the tsunami in Indonesia at the end of 2004, the US military launched a massive humanitarian aid and disaster relief program. A poll the following year found that 65 percent of Indonesians were favorable toward the United States. At that time, some countries criticized the US-led war against terrorism. But in Muslim-majority Indonesia, that anti-war sentiment dropped from 72 percent to 36 percent.

In December 2014, an Air Asia plane crashed in the Java Sea of ​​Indonesia. The military, aircraft and warships of nine countries were involved in the search. Several days later, a Singaporean naval team found the original fuselage. He informed Indonesia, but Singapore's defense minister announced this success before Indonesia through Facebook. In 2014, when the Malaysian Airlines plane went missing, 48 aircraft and 57 ships from 13 countries were searched. After the 2072 earthquake in Nepal, more than 50 planes and helicopters from more than 10 countries and hundreds of foreign soldiers were deployed. In these accidents and disasters, those countries publicized their involvement in their own colors. To interpret

critically, deploying troops quickly and participating in international cooperation means demonstrating the deployability and capability of your army. International relations are fundamentally driven by competition and power struggles. In such an environment, the objective of all armies is to establish their character. For example, the Israeli army helped in the search and rescue (search and rescue) and injured treatment in Nepal's 072 earthquake and other disasters. This army is considered to be excellent in the agile deployment of medical capabilities during emergencies. However, he has to get an opportunity to prove it somewhere.

What is military diplomacy?

Military diplomacy is the exercise of power without the use of force, threats and violence. The origin of this concept can be traced back to the end of the Cold War. British security policies of the 1990s elaborated on this. But in practice it was decades ago in eastern countries. For example, Nepali army displays its prowess on Shivratri here. According to army experts, traders from Tibet and Jogis from India used to come to Kathmandu during Shivratri. Therefore, to spread the message that the Nepalese army is strong to the north and south, it was a smart move to increase the number of parades, parades and cannons at the same time.

Show of power is also a form of military diplomacy. A less threatening display of power in coastal countries is called 'gunboat diplomacy'. This method is considered to be a somewhat harsh form of military diplomacy, as it involves bringing out giants and state-of-the-art warships and warships loaded with weapons and ammunition. For example, the US Navy will move warships and warplanes towards the South China Sea as soon as there is a slight strategic upheaval. Recently, it is reported that he has demonstrated such power in the South China Sea up to 10 times a year.

strategic policy focuses on winning the summer while most military diplomacy is soft. Military diplomacy is based on mutual moral trust, since cooperation with the military of other countries is necessary even if it is to spread its power. Collaborative military diplomacy enhances military skills and mutual trust in the international world. Soldiers are also used to mixing and mingling in different cultures and geographies. It also strengthens the operability of the army. Officials of the Ministry of Defense are also involved in some of these cases. Therefore, it is broadly called defense diplomacy.

Military diplomacy has its ugly side. For example, because one army helps the army of another country to carry out a military 'coup' or state capture, the region in West Africa towards Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea is called the 'coup belt'. In the recent state capture in Niger, the fact that the army supported by the private sector (Wagner Group) and Russia also helped. So with military engagement abroad comes both opportunity and risk.

Nepali army's foreign interaction

Now it comes to the question of what is the diplomatic face of the Nepali army? Our military conducts bilateral and multilateral cooperation with various countries. Its cooperation in disaster relief and mitigation is intensive. A number of agreements have also been reached regarding military cooperation. There are interactions with foreign counterparts in the purchase and sale of arms, equipment and material grants. Meetings with ambassadors and foreign military officers are frequent. Exchange visits of defense and military officers are also similar.

Nepal has sent military attachés to some countries including India, China, America, UK. Honorary Maharathi posts are exchanged with India (although the same offer from China does not go ahead). As part of their studies, Nepali soldiers spend months in military academies of different countries. Joint military exercises like Surya Kiran with India, Mount Everest with China and peace efforts with the US are conducted. Soldiers from many countries participate in training in Nepal, ranging from mountain warfare to jungle warfare. During these, the Nepalese army has been practicing with hundreds of soldiers from more than 20 countries.

Deploying UN peacekeeping forces is an integral part of Nepal's military diplomacy. In the last 66 years, the Nepali Army has deployed more than 150,000 soldiers in 44 UN missions. Some of them were sent to sensitive and high positions. In this mission, Nepal has earned honor and respect and 73 soldiers have also lost their lives. A part of the diplomatic world sees the deployment of troops of small countries in the United Nations forces only with financial benefits. Because the countries that send many soldiers there are economically weak. Another argument is that there are many theaters of war in the world for big countries to learn war. For Sana, the UN deployment is an important platform to show and practice their abilities.

If the military-diplomatic component of the Nepali Army, which has such a wide presence around the world, is to be taken in a planned manner for the sake of national interest and foreign policy objectives, an integrated policy seems to be difficult. That could become the document of tomorrow's extended military diplomacy. However, to decide what to do through military diplomacy, we must first understand what are the goals and objectives of Nepal's national interest and foreign policy. Here policy coordination between foreign affairs, military requirements and the direction specified by the constitutional documents is necessary. Dhanush can be different for everyone. But it is imperative that the arrows hit the same target.

Nepal's constitution has declared people's rights, self-respect, border security and economic development as 'national interest'. The director theory also emphasized the establishment, continuity and expansion of relationships based on this. Foreign Policy 2077 aims to strengthen and promote national interests by strengthening external relations based on universal equality, mutual benefit and respect. Its main purpose is to enhance the dignity of the nation by protecting its sovereignty, geographical integrity and independence.

Ethical expectations may differ, but realist international relations says that relations between countries are never based on equality, but on priority. All countries compete to be better than others. These moral expectations and realities determine the color of military diplomacy.

An example of how military diplomacy can become a friction point in trying to maintain balanced foreign relations is the 2018 BIMSTEC joint military exercise. At that time, India was coordinating this exercise. Nepal decided at the last moment not to participate in this exercise. India's displeasure with the Oli government's move was clearly publicized. But its roots were also connected to other political events and actors. Through this exercise, the debate started that India was trying to form a military alliance of BIMSTEC countries. After the dispute, the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli called the Indian ambassador and asked him to understand Nepal's diplomatic obligations.

A difficult aspect of military diplomacy is that not all of its effects are immediate and direct. For example, the indirect diplomatic initiative taken by the Nepali Army to open the Indian blockade in 2007 was seen directly. But the effects of many other efforts are only visible in the long run or indirectly. As the impact is not directly visible, specific budgets and resources are not allocated to such activities. In such a situation, the army has to manage internal resources and advance military diplomacy. How to proceed

?

First of all, military diplomacy is not ad hoc, it needs to be structured. It needs to synthesize the country's diplomatic goals and strategic path. If there is a specific action plan in it, it is easy to see whether its effect has been/has not been in the defense of the national interest. Therefore, the initiation, impact and vitality of military diplomacy is determined by the policy dialogue and preparation between defense and foreign affairs. This is not possible with the single effort of the Nepali Army or the Ministry of Defense alone, nor can the foreign sector alone cook bread. Because in this matter, the subject matter expert is the army, while the methodological expert is foreign affairs.

Sadly, neither military nor defense diplomacy is given a visible place in foreign policy 2077. There are two possible reasons for this, either that its draft did not reach defense and military, or that lobbying was insufficient for clear military diplomacy.

The first step to strengthen military diplomacy is to formulate an integrated policy on international engagement of the Nepali Army. It can explain the scope and extent of participation of Nepali army and foreign army in peacekeeping, various operations, training, studies and military exercises. It can also identify activities and required resources to strengthen military diplomacy.

In which countries to appoint military attache, in which not to, why to do it and what is its policy significance can be revealed. Does Nepal have an economic-strategic interest in that geographical area? That there is a large presence of Nepali citizens and it is considered necessary to activate military diplomacy for their benefit. Are those countries a decisive force influencing our regional security or can the international platform become a tool for the implementation of Nepal's military diplomacy? The benefits of these appointments to the national interest can also be objectively demonstrated. This provides a basis for monitoring and evaluating whether or not benefits have been achieved.

What small countries show to others is their ability to deal with their challenges and their operational readiness with weapons and training. In the event of a defense challenge, a country with less power will create fear or doubt about the future consequences in the enemy's side and discourage him from doing what he is trying to do. For example, Singapore, a small and prosperous country, has built two strategic pillars for its defense - deterrence and diplomacy. Thus, military diplomacy should not only be aimed at crisis management, but should also be aimed at averting it before it occurs. Relationships established in long-term military interactions, programs, and training serve as communication channels to resolve such crises.

In today's international politics, we are neither a superpower nor a middle power. Our style is one of multilateral military cooperation and a balanced but prudent foreign policy. What we do militarily is to stay agile and keep relationships cool. In spite of this, as a nation, we should also be able to question relationships that compromise our basic heritage such as human rights, sovereignty, geographical integrity, and freedom of expression. Whether it is Palestine or Kashmir, Tibet or Taiwan, we must not leave the constitutional foundation we stand on when questions arise on these matters. Claims on geography have their own historical dimensions. In such a case, the foreign ministry emphasizes policy-based relations, the military may have to look at activity-based (operational) relations. For example, it is not that the Nepalese army will not talk with the Taiwanese army (Republic of China Army). But foreign policy on institutional relations may be different.

Thus a constant debate on some questions between our good, active and unethical has become inevitable. What must need to be done to cover the foreign policy and foreign activity with foreigners? How can our participation be used for the national interest and diplomatic targets of the country in the United State? We are told that we have exercised for peace. Some have called it a lack of financial gain. If the objective is not only financial, what to change this gift? What are the financial resources needed to develop the Nepali Army as an integrated military diplomacy and what are the human resources and policymakers and policy environment? Some of the questions can not find the sheet only by turning a sheet of phen, requires cultivated, objective and continuous debate. & NBSP;

(राजनीति मात्र होइन, उद्योग, व्यवसाय, कृषि, शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य, पर्यटन, बैंकिङ, सिनेमा, साहित्य सर्वत्र अहिले निराशा छ । देशले यो निराशाको भारी लामो समय बोक्न सक्दैन । सजीव विश्वास प्रवर्द्धन गर्न कान्तिपुरले सुरु गरेको छ विचार शृंखला– 'Export When Various Experts will be written by different experts, constantly preposition, constantly.)