"The new
president of the World Bank, Al fasan was someone who would listen to the US
Department of State before taking any decision. He cancelled the (Arun III)
project at the instance of the State Department. India from the very beginning
was not in favor of Arun III. India had requested the United States, which had
the project cancelled in order to oblige the emerging regional power " (Adhikari
2064 BS: 296).
During the initial phases of its
history following the national unification, Nepal vigorously defended its
sovereign independence and identity. In doing so, it had often to repulse the
attacks from the British East India Company as well a joint attack from Tibet
and China and at times had to make compromises or gratify. Learning from
various world ideologies, Nepal has been moving forward in the direction of
change under the leadership of liberal democratic and communist parties even as
the journey is marked with bumps and jolts. The continued process of
transformation and transition is slower compared to the contemporary times and
the expectations of our own countrymen.
The Nepali people have gained
major achievements in terms of their democratic rights compared to what they
had achieved 70 years ago. However, Nepal remains one of the least developed
countries in the world and the people have been deprived of minimum economic
rights. If democracy is the basis for economic prosperity, there is no
alternative to bringing about economic transformation in order to further
consolidating the democratic achievements.
Behind every positive or negative
political changes in Nepal, the struggle waged by the Nepali people have not
been enough and the impact of the country’s geostrategic location are somehow
reflected on them, where it is the changes in February 1951 Delhi compromise,
or the presence of the Indian leaders at political meetings at Chaksibari in
Kathmandu or the 12-point “understanding” concluded in New Delhi in 2005. It
can thus be easily assumed that Indian ruling and their capitalist classes have
their interventionist presence behind Nepal’s instability and economic
backwardness.
A report prepared by the Oxford
University team found that 65 percent of Nepalis live in poverty. On the other
hand, Nepal’s Genie coefficient is the highest in Asia. A large portion of
productive labor force has migrated to participate in the international labor
market. Domestic industrial productions have either declined or not been able
to increase and yet the Malls and departmental stores are well stocked. This
shows remittance sent home by migrant laborers are being spent on importing
consumer goods. Export income can support the import of only petroleum goods
and vehicles (Acharya 2067BS). The political leadership may blame political
instability for the economic situation but they have no alternative to making
the situation better. Failure to achieve economic growth and prosperity would
only fuel social and industrial unrest. The country would be ultimately trapped
into the vicious circle of declining investments, employment opportunities and
productivity.
Exactly 100 years ago in the
fiscal year 1909-10, Nepal’s total export was Rs. 32,855,162 while import was
Rs. 16, 137,675. In other words, if the country imported goods worth Rs. 49, it
exported goods worth Rs. 100. Nepal’s export was 51 percent bigger than
imports. During 1910-11, exports import ratio was Rs. 100: 46.16 (Stiller
1999). Today, we imported goods worth Rs. 100 but exports are worth Rs. 16. As
a result, trade deficit has increased to alarming level (Acharya 2067BS). Trade
deficit has swelled near to Rs. 300 billion. More than 65 % of foreign trade of
Nepal is with India. The trade deficit
with India is the biggest. The contribution of remittance to the gross domestic
product has increased to 22 percent and yet the current accounts balance of
payments remains vulnerable. Agriculture, on which 65 percent of population
depends for livelihood, contributes only 31% to the GDP. These economic indicators
suggest the need for a pro-active intervention in favor of a fundamental
transformation in the present economic structure that has produced very little
result.
The economic growth and
prosperity in a number of countries depends on the attitudes of political
leadership. Take for example our two neighboring countries. India’s first 40
years after independence were wasted in socialist slogans and underdevelopment.
Following policy reforms introduced in the 1990s stressing on market and the
private sector, India’s economic growth rate has increased to average 8 percent
annualy. It is a different matter that income disparities have also led to the
proliferation of the Naxalite movement. China, which marched from crisis to
crisis during Mao’s socialism, has achieved economic growth rate that has
surprised the world at a time when the political system and party structures
remain intact. In the last 30 years, China’s economic growth has averaged 10
percent. Economic growth and opportunities, despite the resultant economic
disparities, have pulled 400 million people out of poverty.
The country must determine the
political course before it embarks on the task of transforming the economic
situation. On the basis of the Jana
Andolan of 2006, Nepal has become free from the clutches of monarchy and is
marching towards democratic republic. However, it is yet to be decided whether
it would be bourgeoisie republic with all the ingredients of liberal democracy
or end in a compromise between the janabadis
and udarbadis by the
communist-dominated Constituent Assembly. Nepal can determine economic
strategies only after this key issue is resolved. Once the political and
economic courses have been determined, the foreign relations will be shaped
accordingly. Economic policies are complimentary to political policy. Consensus
among political parties is therefore critical for building common grounds and
basis for sustainable national economy with the broad goals of faster economic
growth (Pyakuryal 2067).
Economic diplomacy is never uni-dimensional.
It is determined on the basis of interaction between national interests. It is
also related to the relative strength and economic capacity of the countries.
Being a small country, it may not be possible for Nepal to influence the policy
of friendly countries but it is possible by adjusting to other’s national
interest in order to defend our own national interest. Once the development
strategy is in final shape, it would be easy for diplomats to foster relations
with bilateral and multilateral donors and agencies to promote political and
economic relations in the interest of the country. In such a situation, it
hardly matters which party is in power. India’s economic policies have not
changed despite the transfer of power from the rightist government of Bharatiya
Janata Party under the leadership of Atal Behari Vajpayee to the present
government led by the Congress I’s Manmohan Singh. It is necessary for us to have a similar
situation.
Each country is endowed with
natural resources. Nepal has also a number of natural resources such as land
area, forest resources, rivers, Himal, medicinal herbs and minerals. There is
no paucity of cheap labor. The topographic and climatic variations offer
tremendous opportunities for the development of tourism sector. All we need to
do is identify areas of comparative advantages before embarking on the task of
defining the goals and objectives of economic diplomacy.
If we decide to emulate the
progress of neighboring countries, stable policy environment should be created
in order to identify the areas of comparative advantage, mobilize foreign aid,
explore direct (FDI) and indirect (Portfolio) private foreign investments and
lobby in favor of Nepal’s national interests at regional and international
forums. All policy matters related to these areas concern economic diplomacy.
An attempt will be made in this paper to
briefly touch on the history of economic diplomacy in Nepal, Political
Dimension of contemporary international relation in the context of Nepal and
the future prospects of economic diplomacy.
Review of Nepal’s Economic Diplomacy
King Mahindra Malla of Kathmandu
(1561-74) visited Delhi to meet Moughal Emperor Akbar and requested him the
right to issue currency in his own name. Having sought Akbar’s permission, King
Mahindra began minting silver coins in Nepal. The coin became popular as Mahindra
Malli. It was also during King Mahindra’s time that an agreement was reached
with Tibetan rulers to circulat Nepali currency in Tibet. This could be an
important context for economic diplomacy (Wang Chung 2005). Whether they are
relevant in the present context may be debatable but these are examples of how
former rulers had pursued foreign policy in a pragmatic manner. Such practice,
which played a key role in promoting economic development during the medieval
times, continued until King Prithvi Narayan Shah encircled the Kathmandu Valley
which disrupted trade with Tibet.
After the unification the entire
focus of the rulers were to prevent the British from access to both local
markets and resources. The commercial treaty signed with the objective of
confining unstable King Rana Bahadur to India became inoperative once he
returned home (Acharya 2063BS). The Nepal Durbar failed to give continuity to
Nepal’s age-old trade relations and minting with Tibet after the national
unification. Nepal’s cautious approach to the British India had remained intact
until Bir Shumsher ascended to power.
The worst compromise on national
interest ever made by a Nepali ruler to remain in power was by Chandra
Shumsher. By openly supporting Younghusband’s Tibet Mission during 1903-04 at
the orders of Viceroy Lord Curzon, he broke Nepal’s traditional friendly ties
with Tibet and China that was conducted independent of Nepal’s relations with other
countries. Secondly, the Tibet Mission also led to the diversion of trade
between Tibet and South Asia being undertaken through Kathmandu route to
Sikkim-Kalingpong and Calcutta. Since then, Nepal has been deprived of economic
and other benefits it had been receiving from the trans-Himalayan trade.
It was also during the time of
Lord Curzon that the British India began officially treating Nepal as one of
the states under its domain, thus dismissing Nepal’s independent recognition
extended by the then British minister for Indian affairs (Stiller 1999). It was
only after Chandra Shumsher’s unusual cooperation and gratifying the British
during the World War I that Britain and Nepal signed a treaty in 1923 to
recognize Nepal as an independent sovereign state. Chandra Shumsher also used
diplomatic relations for economic benefits by sending a few Nepalis to study
technical subjects in Japan. The British, in recognition to Nepal’s
contributions of its citizens to the British Army to fight in the World Wars I
and II, provided development assistance.
Nepal’s foreign policy began to
be redefined around 1951. Nepal began to vigorously pursue her independent
foreign policy following the establishment of formal diplomatic relations with
the United States, China, Russia, and acquisition of the membership of the
United Nations. The credit for using economic diplomacy for the first time goes
to the first popularly elected government. According to B. P. Koirala (2055
BS):
I told Premier
Chou En-lai that I have a plan to develop the country. We therefore need all
the economic assistance from you. I probably mentioned to him that India was
providing Rs. 180 million. He replied, “We would provide slightly less than
that amount.” I asked him why couldn’t he
provide same level of assistance as India. He told me, “This may be good for
neither you nor us. This may not be good for you because if we provide you
higher level of assistance, India may be alarmed. It is not proper for us
because it will give a message to the world that we would like to compete with
India. We want to develop friendship with you. Therefore we would provide you
less. Do not take this otherwise.” … He gave me such a nice advice.
This shows that Koirala was in a
position to learn from Chou En-lai lessons for Nepal’s economic diplomacy and
its major dimensions and dynamics. It also shows that economic assistance,
loans and trade relations are integral part of domestic politics, security
strategy and foreign relations. This aspect will be discussed later.
In India’s context, Koirala (2055
BS) has this to say:
I used to argue
that Nepal should have unhindered access for its products in the Indian markets
but will control Indian products and impose taxes to discourage their imports.
This may sound to be unequal but was essential for our economic development.
Koirala’s experiences during his
visits to China and India speak volumes on the political dimension of economic
diplomacy. Just because a country wants, the other country would neither allow
free promotion of trade nor provide development assistance or credits. The
success of policies designed to expand bilateral trade opportunities, attract
investment opportunities and economic development of the country depend on the
domestic political situation and development strategies as well as the other
country’s foreign and economic policies. Economic diplomacy is thus not just
economics but also politics.
The Koirala Administration could
not even complete 18 months in power. The first ever attempt by the Nepali
state for promoting national interest instead of the personal political
interest of the rulers was thus hijacked before it could produce results. For a
long time since then, the entire focus of Nepal’s foreign policy was to expand
diplomatic ties to provide legitimacy to the rule by absolute monarchs.
Economic relations were never part of the strategy to promote economic growth
and transformation.
The major focus of the Panchayat
time diplomacy was to use China card in order to bargain with India some
concessions and assistance and to minimize Indian pressure. However, Nepal was
not able to resist Indian interference while exercising her sovereign rights.
Some of the examples include the Indian presence at Kalapani, construction of a
new barrage at Tanakpur, Indian obstructions in the construction of the road
across Karnali river and the economic blockade unilaterally imposed by India
after its refusal to extend the trade treaty twice, adding hardship on the
small landlocked nation. It was also during the Panchayat regime that India had
imposed unequal treaty on Nepal in 1965. In other words, King Mahendra had
concluded a treaty against Nepal’s national interest to maintain his regime
while keeping the people in dark about the treaty.
During the Cold War, Nepal was
able to attract substantial amount of development assistance, loans and grants
from super powers to serve their own vested interests. However, the most
remarkable achievement during the period was the development of human resources
as a result of the Colombo Plan offering scholarships to Nepalis to study
technical subjects in India, Soviet Union, China and other countries and the
contribution made to the development of economic infrastructure. Public
corporations were established. The infrastructure built during those periods
has made it possible for the country to make strides in transportation,
hydroelectricity, health and education. These successes are more due to Nepal’s
geostrategic location and the global strategic balance of power than the
pursuit of economic diplomacy. This is the importance of Nepal’s geostrategic
location.
The political changes in Nepal
before 2006 are more or less the by-products of the global political
developments. The change in 1951 was the results of the collapse of imperial
powers and the emergence of democratic and communist regimes following the end
of the World War II. The change in 1960 was possible largely as a result of the
Indian security strategy and the American policy of supporting totalitarian
regimes as a bulwark against communism. Nepal was a victim of regional strategy
of India, which aspired to be a regional power, to turn it into a subordinate
state. Nepal was under the influence of global ideological trends.
The Western capitalist powers
felt reduced threats from the Soviet Union and its allies following the
economic stagnation among Warsaw Pact countries in the 1980s. This was the time
when the banks in the United States and Britain had substantive petro dollars
in savings while the eastern European economies stagnated. As a result, the US
under Ronald Reagan and Britain under Margaret Thatcher started restructuring
their economies based on the principles of neo-liberalism. This was mainly
designed to seek investment opportunities for the accumulated savings and encourage
governments in the developing countries to emulate American political and
economic values favorable to its national interests. Undoubtedly, it was part
of the American security strategy.
The United Nations Security
Council, World Bank and International Monetary Fund were used as instruments for
this purpose. Both the World Bank, which is traditionally headed by an American
national, and the International Monetary Fund, whose chief was appointed only
at the consent of the European Union, have been used as strategic weapons for
the expansion of Western interests. Nepal, which was receiving concessional
loans until the policy changes, was forced to accept their harsh aid
conditions. The sovereignty of several developing countries like Nepal has
eroded as a result of the intervention by the global agencies in the name of
globalization. Nepal has also been subject to similar harsher conditions from
the Asian Development Bank, which has been under heavy Japanese influence. As a
result of these pressures, foreign relations as well as domestic economic
policies had also to be changed substantially. The conditions played a major
role in the privatization of the public enterprises and total mess in the
agricultural sector.
The democratization wave hit
Nepal in 1990. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the US as
an unchallenged super power left an impact on Nepal’s foreign and economic
policies. The parliamentary government headed by the Nepali Congress had its
foreign policy conducted on the basis of the Washington consensus. The role of
the state shrank while that of the private sector increased. The spineless
thinking to measure the government’s success in terms of the flow of aid and
loan remained dominant.
Despite the dramatic policy
changes, Nepal did not leap frog on diversification of export trade,
identification of areas of comparative advantages and attraction of foreign
direct investment in areas of long-term importance. The only notable progress
during the period are the increase in tourist arrivals to 400,000 during the
1998 Tourism Year and the institutional trading of Nepali labor in Malaysia and
the Gulf countries.
This was the period that marked a
significant decline in the export of carpet, garment and pashmina. Neither the
state nor the private sector could do anything to promote alternative exports.
As a result, imports far outstripped exports. Some positive trends in trade
with India since early 1990 also began to faded away, making Nepal ever more
dangerously dependent on India. The Nepal government’s helplessness is
reflected in the recent Indian decision to prevent Kantipur daily’s import of newsprint from a third country. Here is
another example of India’s hegemonic policy:
India had also
objected to the construction of the double-lane Bardibas-Sindhuli-Banepa road
being built with assistance from the Japanese government. When Japan refused to
oblige, India insisted on single lane road. … India prevented foreign
investment in the Babai Irrigation Project. Why does India do so? When I
visited Thailand’s capital Bangkok as a finance minister, I met my Thai
opposite number. He then narrated me an incident: “India had objected to the
regional economic cooperation grouping Burma, Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan. I
fail to understand one thing. When it comes to Nepal’s development, India
creates all the hurdles directly or indirectly? Why does India do so?” I just
laughed and replied: This is because they want to keep us poor (Adhikari 2064
BS: 296).
Even after the transformation to
a republic, Nepal has not been able to pursue an independent foreign policy. The
then Prime minister Prachanda, who choose to visit China first to participate
in the concluding ceremony of the Beijing Summer Olympics, has paid a heavy
price. He was the first prime minister to have visited China before first
visiting India. Several independent media houses have also been punished for
not obliging India. Such political pressures are reflected in diplomacy in
general and economic diplomacy in particular.
Nepal has initiated to
institutionalize economic diplomacy only after the restoration of democracy in
1990. A high level task force was already set up in 1992 that recommended a
number of structural reforms in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
operationalize economic diplomacy. Labor attaches have been appointed in a
number of countries with a view to managing labor migrants, and orientations on
economic diplomacy are provided to ambassadors and other staff assigned to
diplomatic mission overseas. The lingering political instability has delayed
progress on development strategy as well as structural reforms and human
resources.
Political Dimension
Diplomacy is the power game. It
is a game to control others, neutralize them or use them to one’s advantage. It
is a new form of war. Although economic diplomacy is being understood as the
mobilization of foreign policy for creating opportunities of economic growth
and prosperity, Wars, imperialism, colonialism, international organizations,
treaties and conventions are basically reflection of the same interest.
Agreements and treaties are also influenced by balance of power. According to
Adam Smith,
Exportation was
encouraged by drawbacks, sometimes by bounties, sometimes by advantageous
treaties of commerce with foreign states, and sometimes by the establishment of
colonies in distant countries (http://www.econlib.org).
The first and second points
referred to by Smith relate to enhancing competitiveness of goods while the
last two points help develop friendly market. Taking advantage of external
markets without the need for indentifying areas of comparative advantage is a
far more pragmatic course.
According to Khanal (2059 BS),
developed countries tend to mobilize unlimited resources for the promotion of
their global interests which are preserved through technical, strategic,
military, political and economic organizations at the national, regional and
international levels. This shows that no assistance, loan and grant provided by
multi-lateral, regional or international NGOs are free from strategic and
political interests of major powers. This perspective has been formulated even
more forcefully by Fukuyama, who argues for the use of American soft power for
promoting the emergence of middle class attuned to the American value system
and its global interest and the establishment of democratic regimes. He also
describes the sponsored propaganda of vote rigging in Ukraine, Serbia and
Georgia, mobilization of the popular revolt and the establishment of regimes
suited to the American interests, and named several persons who led the civil
society at the time (Fukuyama 2007: 136-8).
Fukuyama also refers to several
world organizations like the United Nations, which are either incapable of
taking quick decisions favoring American national interest or are dominated by
countries whose interests clash with those of the United States and recommends
creation of global organizations that endorses the American decisions or give
legitimacy to American interventions.
According to Khanal, there is a general
tendency in Nepal to link a particular policy to an individual. For example,
China’s domestic modernization and the liberalization of her foreign policy is
linked to the policy of Deng Xiaoping. This could be true to a certain extent.
…However, we must understand that serious strategic and economic interests
(rather than individuals) have governed the policy changes in China and the
United States. What are involved are national interests of each countries
involved, and the individuals are superfluous (Khanal 2059 BS). The
perspectives of someone recognized as the architect of Nepal’s modern diplomacy
indicates that national interests are at the core of foreign policy of a
country.
The government has been providing
a grant of Rs. 1 million to each of the village development committees.
However, the Indian Embassy can provide lump sum Rs. 50 million to any VDC
without even asking any agency of the Nepal government. A former member of the
National Planning Commission told an interaction that once the Indian Embassy
wrote a letter to the Nepal government, asking to raise the ceiling of amount
it could provide to any one in Nepal from Rs. 30 million to Rs. 50 million. As
required, the approval of the NPC was sought. The NPC formally discussed the
proposal but rejected on the grounds that the loyalty of the party leaders or
workers negotiating such assistance between the recipient and the Indian
government would be towards the Indian government. However, the very next day
the news by the official media said the Indian proposal has been accepted and
approved. The major beneficiaries of such assistance have been the leaders and
workers of all political parties.
It is true that Nepali
bureaucrats, security officials, traders, businessmen and leaders and workers
of the political parties thus favored by India have been invested by India.
Even today, the sons or daughters of most Nepalese with high portfolio,
including the Prime Minister and political leaders are studying in India under
Indian scholarships. Most scholarships are provided at the recommendation of
the political leaders. This is the spider web of Indian diplomacy, which is one
of the several reasons why the growing trade deficit between Nepal and India
has not been able to be narrowed down.
On the other hand, the legitimacy
of any state power or government is measured in terms of the country’s economic
prosperity and the opportunities available to the people. Most of the dictators
in the third world countries had survived on the goodwill of superpowers in the
post-colonial period when the world was bipolar led respectively by the United
States and the Soviet Union. The demand for rights and prosperity of the people
were suppressed with the help of the masters. This situation changed
dramatically following the end of the Cold War in 1990s. The legitimacy of the
regimes now depends on the popular support, thus the emphasis on economic
development. But the tendency of world or regional powers has not been changed
even after 1990 in the question of economic dominance. That has created
political and social instability among the newly democracies like Thailand,
Nepal, Pakistan and South Africa.
Economic policy of any country is
no more a matter of independent choice. Global integration of the economies is
the reality. Countries such as North Korea and to some extent Myanmar that have
failed to march with global economy are sick and fragile. Independent policies
without adjusting to the policies of the World Trade Organization, World Bank
and International Monetary Fund are next to impossible. Those with power and
money dominate such multilateral organizations.
The world economy is being
managed on the basis of Washington consensus. However, the consensus has
weakened gradually. As a consequence, efforts are being made for creating the
Beijing Consensus as an alternative and make structural changes in the World
Bank on the basis of the changing balance of power in order to enhance the
roles of emerging powers such as China, Russia, India, South Africa and Brazil.
Proposed Beijing Consensus has two important aspects. The first aspect is to
end the dominance of dollar in the world market and create an alternative world
currency. This is primarily aimed at reflecting the reduced economic influence
of the United States and its developed capitalist allies. It takes into account
a number of factors including the origin of the global economic meltdown in
2008 and the Chinese investment of US$150 billion in US bonds (Stiglitz 2010).
The second aspect is the kind of challenge it poses to the US political value
system on which its foreign policy is based (Subedi 2010).
Only recently, China has
overtaken Japan as the world’s second largest economy. China is the emerging
world power. Emerging powers like China and others exert pressures on the US
dominated institutions to open up for democratic reforms. Until 10 years ago,
the trade between China and India was to the tune of $1 billion. That was the
time when it was said that Chinese goods had swamped India. Today the total
volume of trade between the two countries has swelled to $50 billion, and the
balance of trade is favorable to India. The growing trade would have impact on
their relations. Nepal should take the advantage out of this flourishing trade
at least as a transit country as the travel distance between India’s Siliguri
and Delhi via Nepal is much shorter by hundreds of kilometers.
But Nepal has to focus its
diplomacy to free itself from being playground of world powers. Recently at the
joint meeting with presidents of all four Madhes-based political parties at a
dinner reception, the visiting special envoy of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh, Shyam Saran told them that a Maoist-led government was not possible
unless the peace process came to a conclusion and urged them to their role in
the prime ministerial elections accordingly. One of the participants quoted
Saran as saying, “Maoist-led government was not acceptable to India, which
looks at Nepal as a peaceful democratic special neighboring country. India has
fully understood that it would not remain unaffected by the political
instability in Nepal” (Kantipur 2010: August 6). The report also said Saran
urging the Madhes parties not to run after majority government but to back
democratic values as this was a vital issue in the context of sensitive Madhes
politics and the right to self-determination of the Nepali people.
On the other hand, Chinese
Ambassador in interviews with various newspapers asserted that China would not
remain a silent spectator in case there was foreign intervention in Nepal. It
is a rather strong expression aimed at India. It shows that Nepal has to
develop favorable strategy to survive in the changing context of global power
relation.
The changing nature of the global
balance of power will certainly leave an impact on Nepal. The tourism market
dominated by the arrivals from European countries, United States and Japan so
far will see growing impact from fresh arrivals from China and India. Our
tourism policy must focus on these traditional but emerging markets. The
Pashmina, carpet and garment export needs to be diversified to cater to the
Chinese markets. In order to be able to do so, we must get out of the South
Asian level of human resources and products (Pyakuryal 2067 BS). The country
must get ready for the changes in the global economy in order to identify areas
of advantage and make commensurate policy changes. It is clear that we may not
move forward at the current pace and style.
Conclusion
Nepal for a long time during its
modern times remained a British satellite state or neo-colony. It opened to the
outside world only 60 years ago. India has been exerting pressure on the
country. It has suffered from the conflicting strategic interest among India,
China and the US. As a result of India’s hegemony, Nepal has not been able to
formulate independent economic and foreign policies. Nearly a third of Nepal’s
trade is with India. The exchange rate of the Nepali rupee is pegged to the
Indian currency. Trade deficit with India has been growing. This has not led to
the promotion of Nepal’s interest or prosperity.
Nepal is mired in poverty. The
comprador ruling class thrives on rent seeking. Our main priority should be
implementing independent economic policies for the development of the country,
attracting foreign direct investment in industries and infrastructure,
liberalizing policies in order to boost trade, providing better salary and
working conditions for Nepali migrant workers goring overseas and making Nepal
an attractive tourist destination are important considerations for promoting
economic development. These are the areas where diplomatic cooperation and
support are required. These are also the main attractions of Nepal’s economic
diplomacy. Unfortunately, we have been the victims of our own political
instability, policy confusion and wrong leadership attitudes.
Time has now come to build our
own attitude. Only internal political stability helps promote such policy
formulation. Human resources and structures come only after the policy is in
place. We can learn lessons from our own experience and mobilize economic
diplomacy for promoting Nepal’s prosperity. The political, diplomatic and
intellectual class should not make any further delay in building conducive
environment for promoting Nepal’s economic growth and prosperity.
(Paper Presented in a Seminar in Kathmandu, few yrs ago)
References
Acharya, Baburam. 2063 BS.
Nepalko Samchipta Britanta. Kathmandu: Srikrishna Acharya.
Acharya, Keshav. 2067 BS. Mulyankan monthly, Vol 182, Asar.
Adhikari, Bharat Mohan. 2064 BS. Mero Jivan Yatra: Kehi Samjhana (My Journey:
Some Memories, in Nepali). Kathmandu: ??
Fukuyama, Francis. 2007. After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads.
London: Profile Books.
Kantipur daily, August 6, 2010.
Khanal, Yadunath. 2059 BS. Yadunath Khanal: Life and Ideas.
Pulchok: Sajha Publications.
Koirala, B. P. 2055 BS. Atmabritanta. Patan: Jagadamba
Prakashan.
Pyakuryal, Bishwambher. 2067 BS. Mulyankan. Asar 2067.
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2010. Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of
the Global Economy. London: Penguin.
Stiller, Ludwig F. 1999. Nepal: Growth of a Nation. Kathmandu:
Human Resources Development Center.
Subedi, Jhalak. 2067 BS. “Khula
Bazarko Khulapatan”, Kantipur, Asar
26.
Wang, Chung. 2005. Nepalko Rastriya Surakchatmak Rananiti tatha
Nepal-Chin Sambandha. Kathmandu: China Study Center.
