How many ambassadors?

The main goal of Nepal's foreign policy 2077 is said to be promotion of national interest. Among the eight objectives set by it are protecting sovereignty, etc., contributing to the social and economic transformation of the country through economic diplomacy, protecting the interests of the Nepalese community engaged in business and employment abroad, and promoting the 'soft power' of Nepal.

Similarly, KP Sharma Oli's government made 12-point criteria for appointing ambassadors in 2075 with the aim of 'stopping the political appointment' of unqualified people. It included (high) educational qualification, good command of English language and people who have gained expertise about the country to be appointed will be given priority.

In the year 2075, the government also announced the 'national strategy of economic diplomacy'. It mentions that out of 178 countries with which Nepal has established diplomatic relations, economic diplomacy will be conducted with 36 countries, including two neighboring countries, India and China. In addition to South Asian countries, there are Japan, Britain, Germany, South Korea, Australia, America, Russia, Canada and some major European countries in the countries that have developed a national strategy of economic diplomacy. Even since the formal announcement of conducting economic diplomacy was made in 2050, at least four suggestions given by foreign experts to make economic diplomacy effective have remained in the report drawer.

Unfortunately, like many other policy, strategy and recommendation reports of Nepal have suffered the same fate, foreign policy, economic diplomacy and criteria for appointing ambassadors have also been thrown into the trash. The cause and effect of this is the petty, petty and self-motivated power politics in the country. Every time the power partners or the equation changes, ambassadors working on national importance are recalled and a new face is appointed to take over the positions. All political parties active in national politics are equally guilty and irresponsible. This is the reason, Nepal's status on the world stage has stopped being displayed anywhere. This is the result of the disdainful treatment faced by Nepalis who go to the diplomatic missions here to apply for visas and the humiliating questions asked to Nepali passport holders when they go on international trips. Nepali passport is among the weakest five countries in the world.

Defense of national interests is not an abstract concept. In today's world, the priority of any country's diplomacy is the promotion of economic interests, followed by the protection of the geographical integrity of the country. Needless to say, that requires effective economic diplomacy. And, the importance of Nepal's economic diplomacy has been undermined by the ever-widening trade deficit, declining bilateral grants and loan aid, and record foreign capital investment. Nepal's diplomatic reputation is declining at a more alarming rate.

Nepal's original and rich civilization, culture, way of life, way of thinking, social diversity, language-art-literature etc. through diplomacy based on 'soft power' to promote the interest of the nation has been proved to be even more ridiculous. The issues of education, health and climate change are yet to be included in Nepal's diplomatic map. Needless to repeat, the minimum requirement is that the person appointed as an ambassador for conducting economic diplomacy should be an expert on both the priorities and needs of the country's economy and the economic contribution that the development partner countries that he will take diplomatic responsibility can make to Nepal. Similarly, a diplomat who is appointed to conduct diplomacy based on 'soft power' must be a person who has achieved the status of a philosophical thinker. But it has been a long time since all these expectations seemed to be mere wishful thinking. Power politics tends to worsen rather than improve it and it has become a constant 'industry' for political parties to change ambassadors whenever there is a change of power. This senseless and unreasonable practice has become an unnatural situation that reflects the shameless and inefficient politics in the country and is reflected all over the world.

why ambassadors keep changing?

Nepal is one of the rare countries that change its ambassador continuously without any reason. When one party is in government, the appointed ambassadors are automatically declared incompetent, untrustworthy and unqualified to serve the nation's interests as soon as another political party is in power. To some extent, there are instances where the ambassadors sent by Nepal to that country have been changed four or five times during the tenure of the same ambassador appointed to Nepal by the same friendly country. This completely unnecessary practice has become the subject of great criticism in the entire diplomatic community, no one respects the ambassadors appointed by Nepal and all the friendly countries depend only on their own missions.

Every time there is a change of power, there are many important tasks to be done in the country to establish the justification for that change of power. Now the economy is not only in a sluggish state, it is gradually drifting towards a long cycle of recession. Dairy farmers are on the road. Victims of microfinance and cooperatives are rushing to Kathmandu from district to district for justice. Many bills of economic importance presented in the Federal Parliament have not been discussed. MLAs do not attend the annual budget and financial bill discussion in the Parliament building to reach a quorum. The political parties have not even been able to make this issue an immediate agenda within their responsibility. But for a long time, leaving all these tasks aside, the rush to change ambassadors with the sole purpose of providing attractive facilities to some of their workers has been the top priority of the government. And this time the same parable is repeated.

There is often an exercise to establish the justification of such a change by arguing that only those who have political appointments have changed in this way and those appointed by the foreign service have not changed. As a matter of fact, ambassadors are sent on political appointments to countries that are of great importance in the country's diplomacy. It is natural. However, those ambassadors have received notice of dismissal before one or two years have passed since they were appointed and in some cases, they have not even reached the respective country to resume their post with the appointment letter. How can you expect so much from them?

undiplomatic exercise

It is a common diplomatic practice that when a person sent by a government as an ambassador of his country is returned like this, the country that is 'hosting' him has committed a big crime or dishonesty. There is nowhere in the world the practice of repeatedly changing ambassadors in Nepal's style without causing any such act of character degradation or without creating a situation of major direct ideological or policy disagreement with the changed power. This has not only tarnished Nepal's international image, but has also created a big hurdle in institutionalizing the country's diplomacy and making the institutional memory of foreign affairs effective and efficient.

Those who have been appointed to the honorable position of ambassadors are forced to return to the country without even saying goodbye to the stakeholders of the diplomatic circle of the government like a fugitive criminal. They don't have a natural answer to the question of why they were suddenly taken back, which makes going to a farewell a very awkward and unnatural situation. And, those countries do not give any respect to ambassadors who change frequently in a short period of time, Nepal's internal politics has created the tradition of giving the honor of 'Dean' to the most senior ambassador working in that country.

No matter how many criteria are used in appointing ambassadors, extreme political arbitrariness prevails over merit. The power politics of Nepal has gone far from the tradition of appointing a person who has the specific diplomatic skills required in the country, who has authentic qualifications in that field, who has the ability to easily access the political circles there and who has made an identity within the country intellectually/characteristically. Perhaps this is the reason, even those who get the appointment, take the appointment with the mindset of getting this attractive job, and even if they are deposed in a humiliating manner, they are unable to feel shame and inferiority. It is difficult to directly disqualify appointees. However, those who are appointed in this way will not be able to show any significant progress due to the fear that even those who have the ability and will to do something will be called back.

The strange and contradictory practice of awarding ambassadorships to ex-employees who have been embroiled with the political leadership while working in ministries and in some cases became part of self-interested transactions and appointing them to political quotas has been increasing in recent times. This shows how powerful political leaders are trying to reduce the appointment opportunities of their own workers for their own interests, and the process of using power centers to get ambassador positions based on flattery of those who have been in the bureaucracy for a long time and have not even done anything worth looking at, has also increased.

In this extremely ad hoc cycle of appointing and dismissing ambassadors, it is not visible on the surface that the country has to suffer direct economic losses. Every time the ambassador changes, a large amount of money is also being spent unnecessarily from the country's treasury for the traveling and coming expenses of the ambassador and his family.

In the end, the country's foreign policy and diplomacy, which is a tool to make it result-oriented, cannot be conducted on the basis of national political consensus, so the country has come to such an unnatural and shameful situation. The justification and financial cost of such dirty practice cannot be established in any way other than political jealousy, revenge and awarding jobs to some people around the leader at the expense of Nepalese taxpayers. It is a great misfortune that the political leaders, who are moving the chairs like a game of 'musical chairs' in the administration of power, are unable to agree on the minimum requirements that do not tarnish the international image of the country, no matter how much they play internally. It does not help from any angle, from raising resources for the economic development of the country to promoting its goods and services in the international market. It is certainly not true that the political top leadership of Nepal, who always strives to show themselves as omniscient, does not understand this fact. Deliberately and repeatedly taking such decisions contrary to the perceived reality is automatically an act of treason.