The decision of the last government to open residential embassies in Bahrain and Oman as well as Consulate-General and Consulate offices, respectively, in Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China and Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, must surely have been received by the Nepali community living and working in these places with much delight.
Realizing the need to open new diplomatic missions to cope with the pressure built by an ever increasing Nepali population in different parts of the world, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had long been working on a number of reform agenda aimed at bringing about tangible and qualitative changes in its functioning. The initiative to open new missions may be assumed as a step in this direction.
Clearly, Bahrain and Oman emerged as top priorities mainly owing to the fast swelling Nepali Diaspora living and working there. According to conservative estimates, each of these countries hosts around 40,000 Nepalis who are employed in diverse fields. The actual numbers could be much higher if we consider the unpleasant truth that a number of Nepalis follow tortuous routes to reach these destinations, through illegal land and sea corridors in the neighboring countries.
Nepali embassy in London
It is equally plausible that the government chose Guangzhou in view of the fact that it has not only developed as one of the busiest commercial hubs in China but is also home to a sizable number of Nepali businessmen as well as students, both within the city and in the vicinity. As a matter of fact, the need for a Nepali mission in this bustling cosmopolitan city had long been felt.
In a similar vein, Saudi Arabia being a vast country, it had become urgent for Nepal to open a Consulate at a location from where a good number of Nepalis could be provided services quickly and effectively. There can be no argument about Jeddah’s pick for another mission in Saudi Arabia, although cities like Dammam with high concentration of Nepali workers must also have been considered.
Diplomatic missions have the overriding responsibility of protecting and promoting the national interests of their native countries. This calls for constant engagement in activities aimed at nurturing mutually beneficial cooperative relations. But the sobering reality is that Nepali missions are resource-starved and constrained in discharging their expected responsibilities. This does not mean that they can escape punitive action for negligence and underperformance. Rather dereliction of duty should be taken very seriously and duly punished. At the same time, those who stand out through their hard work should be duly rewarded. Especially, ambassadors and mission chiefs should be given to clearly understand that they will be recalled if they are below par in carrying out their duties.
Nepali missions in major labor-destination countries spend most of their time in addressing and mitigating the woes and worries of the migrant population on a day-to-day basis. Quite often, the presence of unruly players in the field, with conflicting interests and even ulterior motives, spoil the environment. Although these problems are mainly home-grown, missions should be able to skillfully engage the authorities in the host country and also the stakeholders back home to find acceptable solutions. A slight destabilization in this delicate linkage could trigger series of bottlenecks in managing and resolving the crisis, plaguing the foreign employment sector, both at home and overseas.
It is common knowledge that teamwork is the mantra for success at all institutions, and diplomatic missions are no exception. A fine balance of adequate budget, personnel and proper oversight is therefore a must, in the absence of which the missions cannot be expected to run smoothly, let alone produce the desired outcomes. But, more than anything else, competent heads of missions can make the difference. Apart from being good managers, they invariably need to possess consummate diplomatic skills to argue their case forcefully and persuasively. This means that their communication skill should be excellent if not impeccable, and those capable of reading between the lines stand better chances of succeeding than others. Particularly ambassadors should have no illusion about their rights and duties as well as limitations.
It is a pity that more than half a dozen Nepali embassies and missions have remained leaderless for a long time, thanks mainly to the scramble for bhaagbandaa (quota) by our political leadership, which has greatly eroded Nepal’s diplomatic image in the international community. So there should be no more dilly-dallying in making these appointments; nor should this matter be held hostage to partisan interests and tug-of-war.
Our diplomatic space is shrinking. It is time for serious deliberation on how to arrest this ominous trend.
What has crippled our diplomatic missions, to a large extent, is that our political leadership is much too happy to hobnob with foreign diplomats. Because of this, not only is Nepal losing its dignity, but the county is also failing to consolidate and fully mobilize its diplomatic missions. In most countries ambassadorial jobs are held by Joint Secretaries or equivalent ranks of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sometimes, even junior officials get the opportunity, depending on the practice and priorities of the sending countries. Let us hope the non-partisan new government will heed these salient points while making future ambassadorial appointments.
One might also be interested to know whether our own diplomats, like their foreign counterparts in Nepal, enjoy similar privileges in their stations overseas, including in the neighboring countries. Unfortunately, the answer is a big NO! The hard reality in our case is that, sometimes, the wait for even courtesy calls with government officials other than those from the Foreign Ministry is agonizingly slow. Our ambassadors or heads of missions face more or less the same fate and ignominy everywhere. It is equally important to note here that in contrast to what we observe in Nepal, political leaders in other countries resist from making uncalled-for overtures to the local diplomatic community.
Whether we like it or not, our diplomatic space is shrinking. It is therefore time for serious deliberation on how to arrest or even reverse this ominous trend. Let us hope future political leadership shows greater commitment to right the past wrongs in the diplomatic sector.
The author is former Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
pantnarayan@gmail.com
Related story
Mend or End: Nepal in the eyes of Chinese journalist
