Prince Charles, the heir apparent to the British throne, was 31 when he first visited Nepal in 1980. The young Charles would leave a lasting imprint on Nepal, as it was after his 'Royal Trek' of the Annapurna range that the place became a popular haunt of visiting Western tourists. To this day, thousands continue to visit Nepal every year just to trek there (a flow which was slowed only by the freak 2014 snowstorm that killed 40 trekkers). Coincidentally, the younger son of Prince Charles, Prince Harry, is also 31 as he visits Nepal for the first time. The visit of the photogenic British prince—being undertaken on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the establishment of UK-Nepal relations—could, just like his father's visit, be a big boost to Nepali tourism that was badly battered by the devastating earthquakes last year. In his note of thanks to Nepal government for his warm welcome in Kathmandu on Saturday, Prince Harry paid his respect to those who perished in the earthquakes. "I want to show all those people around the world who want to help," he added, "that this is a country open for business—so please come and visit again."Indeed, the best way for people around the world to help Nepal is to visit the country and revive its struggling tourism sector, which contributes six percent to the national GDP. As Prince Harry said, Nepal is now truly open for business. We hope his five-day Nepal visit will send out a strong message that the country is completely safe and its natural beauties compelling as ever. But we should not forget that Prince Harry is in Nepal as the representative of the British government, to mark the bicentenary of Nepal's oldest diplomatic relation. With the British military and economic power only a fraction of what it was at the start of the 20th century, how meaningful is the UK-Nepal ties in the changed context? What message is Britain trying to give by sending Prince Harry (the fifth in line to the British throne), as opposed to, say, Prince William, the elder son of Prince Charles (the second in line)? Is Price Harry's visit thus no more than an obligatory gesture to mark the bicentenary?
Nepalis have not forgotten that the British government chose to needlessly complicate relations with Nepal last year. British Prime Minister David Cameron, in his joint statement with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi—who was visiting Britain at the time—had aired his disagreements over Nepal's new constitution, in what was a purely internal matter for Nepal. This confirmed the suspicion in Kathmandu that western powers like the US and the UK increasingly rely on India to do the right thing in Nepal on their behalf, that they have no specific Nepal policies as such. Is that really the case? Or are Nepal's diplomatic relations stagnant largely because of our own failure? It is perhaps a bit of both. In the case of Britain, it could be more open and honest about its relations with the traditional home of the Gurkhas. But Nepal would also do well to first clearly articulate its foreign policy priorities in the changed context. If we could do so, our engagement with the rest of the world would be a lot more fruitful.
Related story
The ultimate trek
