The abrupt decision of the government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal to recall 11 ambassadors from key diplomatic posts, including those in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom, has sparked considerable controversy. Despite the government's insistence that these recalls are part of its routine duties, the move has been widely criticized by political analysts, former diplomats and experts. Recalling ambassadors is not an uncommon practice following a change in government. However, the manner and timing of these recalls are crucial. Abrupt decisions can send the wrong signals, both domestically and internationally. In this case, the recall of Nepal's Ambassador to India, Shankar Sharma, just before a significant diplomatic event in New Delhi, has not only tarnished Nepal's diplomatic image but also highlighted how our political leadership makes ad hoc decisions purely guided by their vested political interests.
Jennifer Garner celebrated as Hasty Pudding’s Woman of Year
Furthermore, the selective recall of ambassadors raises suspicions about the motivations behind these decisions. The decision not to recall ambassadors to China and Russia, despite their appointments under the same previous coalition, suggests an inconsistent and politically motivated approach. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of Nepal's foreign policy and suggests that decisions are influenced more by internal political dynamics than by national interest. Reportedly, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Narayan Kaji Shrestha had suggested recalling only those ambassadors with poor performance. Unfortunately, this suggestion from the country’s top diplomat was allegedly overshadowed by political pressures from Prime Minister Dahal and UML Chairman KP Oli. The lack of a formal proposal from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs further highlights the ad hoc and politically charged nature of these recalls.
Although some may see the decision as natural, decisions of this sort can have far-reaching consequences for the country. They not only disrupt the continuity and effectiveness of diplomatic missions but also send a message of instability and unpredictability to the international community. It is crucial for the government to adopt a more measured and strategic approach to diplomatic appointments and recalls. All political parties must understand the fact that ambassadors are not mere political appointees; they represent the nation and play a vital role in maintaining and enhancing bilateral and multilateral relationships. Their recall should be based on performance and strategic needs, not political expediency. As a newspaper, we urge our major political parties to forge a consensus to allow ambassadors to complete their four-year terms irrespective of which government appointed them. It is important for the government to prioritize stability and continuity in its diplomatic missions and ensure that such critical decisions are made with the nation's best interests in mind, free from undue political influence or consideration.
