Nepal raises brows with envoy postings
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Prime Minister Prachanda's bid to transform the country into a
"new" Nepal through a Maoist agenda with a human face now confronts external
challenges. And these are not just confined to the policy level.
Persons identified to be posted as ambassadors in key capital cities such as
New Delhi, Washington, London and Paris, with the crucial responsibilities of
convincing Western donors about the viability of the young Himalayan republic's
developing political system, often attract public controversy even before their
actual appointment.
The latest announcement to spark a stir was made on February 11, involving the
three nominees for envoys to Washington, London and Berlin. Among them, the man
selected for Germany, Suresh Man Pradhan, is a senior officer at the Ministry
of Foreign
Affairs; hence he is likely to go through the confirmation hearing at a
parliamentary committee in a few days. And the chances of his name being
accepted by the host government are fairly bright.
But the sailing may not be as smooth for the two other men. Since the man
picked to represent Nepal in Britain - Dr Ram Swarat Raya - is a professor of
physics, members of the parliamentary committee may raise questions regarding
his suitability for such an important diplomatic assignment as the United
Kingdom.
The most stinging of criticisms is directed at the person pegged to be the
country's next envoy to the United States. He is Sukhdev Shah, a former
employee of the Washington-based International Monetary Fund. While his ability
as an economist is not being scrutinized, his eligibility to hold a Nepal
government post - and in Washington once again - is being called into question
in a lively media debate. He purportedly possesses a US Green Card, “though he
is not a US citizen", assured Shyamanand Suman, advisor to Foreign Minister
Upendra Yadav, to The Himalayan Times newspaper on February 15. Foreign policy
analysts see this statement as an admission that Shah's nomination is
disputable.
The issue is that a Green Card gives foreign nationals official immigration
status (Lawful Permanent Residency) in the United States. So where does his
loyalty lie - in the country in which he was born or the country of which he
intended to be a citizen?
Former foreign minister Chakra Prasad Banstola is also of the view that someone
holding a Green Card could not be made anything beyond an honorary consul
general. "Having a green card is like having a citizenship certificate," he
said, alluding to the facilities such a person is entitled to in the United
States. Experts on foreign policy matters and diplomatic practices worldwide
recall cases where persons whose loyalty was in doubt were not given diplomatic
assignments.
One of the most striking examples surfaced in neighboring India, where the
Hindu-nationalist government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee made a US citizen of
Indian origin an advisor to the Indian Embassy in Washington. However, the
controversial appointment was scrapped immediately after the Congress Party's
Manmohan Singh took over the reins of government.
Meanwhile, Sheikh Hasina, newly-elected prime minister of Bangladesh, proposed
during her earlier tenure to give a major diplomatic appointment to the
father-in-law of her married daughter, a longtime resident of the US. But she
canceled the appointment in the face of the inevitable acrimony. Back in Nepal,
Naryan Khadka, a professor of economics, was not considered eligible for
ambassadorship merely because his wife was of Canadian descent.
Even if some of the issues in question are brushed aside as extenuating
factors, analysts say that Shah's protracted 30 years of absence from Nepal is
too significant to gloss over.
"How can a person without the firsthand knowledge of Nepal's ground realities
reasonably be expected to represent this country in a major Western capital,"
wondered Madhab Khanal, a former foreign service officer who once had a stint
as the chief of protocol.
Those who share this standpoint also underline the importance of contributions
any potential ambassadorial nominee has made for his/her country. Equally
important is the prospect of such a person offering any worthwhile services to
Nepal after the completion of his/her tenure as a diplomat. The chances of
Shah, who is already in his late 60s, making any substantive contribution for
Nepal appear negligible. After all, he has landed property in the US where his
family intends to live permanently.
"Very few among the ambassadors nominated by the parties in power since the
1990s have been allowed to complete their tenure of four years, leading to a
loss of national prestige on the world platform simultaneously increasing a
substantial financial burden on the national exchequer," said an incumbent
foreign service officer who did not wish to be identified.
Officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concede that sending - and
recalling - an ambassador with his extended family and two attendees is indeed
a costly project. But the present Maoist-led government does not seem to be
different from its "capitalist" predecessors.
"A responsible government in a democratic setup cannot afford to misuse
taxpayers' money like this," was how Professor Jayaraj Acharya, a former
ambassador to the United Nations, reacted over the recklessness being witnessed
under a coalition which is essentially a transitional government. Its mandate
runs till May 2010 when Nepal is required to have a new constitution with a
concomitant announcement for a fresh parliamentary election.
Shah and the professor selected for the London post are nominees of Foreign
Minister Upendra Yadav, who heads a newly-organized regional political party,
the Madhesi Janaadhikaar Forum, based in Terai - flatland in the south
bordering India.
Through an unofficial understanding, Yadav got these two quotas in lieu of one
post Prachanda wanted for his nominee, considering the importance of having his
"own" man in New Delhi. But the nomination of the man tipped for this
assignment, Surendra Kumar Karki (who used to go by the names of Ram Karki and
Partha Chhetri, among others, during the decade-long insurgency that ended in
2006) could not be immediately approved by the coalition cabinet in view of the
reluctance informally conveyed by New Delhi primarily because of his previous
activities in India.
A detailed front page report in the News Front weekly on February 16 implied
that Karki's appointment as ambassador to India would turn out to be something
beyond a diplomatic faux pas. In 2004, he was arrested by Indian authorities
and handed over to Nepal, and was released only after the Maoists joined the
coalition government in the aftermath of the April uprising of 2006. Besides,
the woman Karki married while in exile in India is now a senior government
official in Sikkim, the country India annexed in 1975.
Sources in the Maoist camp maintain that while they hope that Karki will
eventually be acceptable to New Delhi, the Maoist leadership could find an
alternative post for him in another country. The government, which initially
recalled envoys from Washington and London, is reportedly preparing to issue
marching orders to some other ambassadors presumed to be sympathetic to the
opposition Nepali Congress.
This is despite the fact that those appointments were made with the endorsement
of the parliamentary committee responsible for confirmation hearings.
Currently, Nepal has 25 embassies and three consulates abroad. Incidentally,
Nepal is the only country to have a diplomatic mission in Lhasa, Tibet, where a
full-fledged consulate is at work. The Prachanda-led coalition has already
begun a scheme to open three more embassies, in Canada, South Africa and
Kuwait.
Whether a transitional administration can add long-term financial liabilities
to the nation remains a moot point. Foreign office sources refused to refute
speculation that new missions were being proposed to accommodate party workers
of other coalition partners. "The political leaderships appear to be in a state
of complete disarray as far as the national agenda and basic objective of
foreign policy are concerned," former officer Khanal observed.
Indeed, somewhere along the line, the political leadership appears to have
overlooked the fact that Nepal needs a foreign service comprised of highly
competent officers and diplomats who at times can outwit their Indian and
Chinese counterparts. It is essential for survival.
But the existing scenario is the opposite of what is needed. Unlike men and
women selected for other constitutional posts, such as those in the election
commission, public service commission or anti-corruption commission, who are
required to meet a set of qualification standards and age considerations among
others, and are entitled to an assured tenure, the ambassadorial aspirants do
not have to fulfill such standards, even though the post is also a
constitutional one.
In the words of Kirtinidhi Bista, a former prime minister, the international
community is perplexed and worried about Nepal as the revolutionary leaders
continue to turn their eyes away from the constitution-writing process and
concentrate on the perks and privileges of power.
"The entire responsibility of safeguarding national sovereignty and rescuing
the Nepali society from going into pieces lies with the present leadership,"
Bista said in a newspaper article published last week. "It cannot escape from
approaching dangers nor can others involved in this collective responsibility
go scot-free."
Dhruba Adhikary, a former head of the Nepal Press Institute, is a
Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
