Submit your Article

Q. Your New Year resolu­tion?

A. This year it’s all about self care and self love. Nothing else.

Q. Alternate career choice?

A. Stylist.

Q. Most misunderstood thing about you?

A. People often mistake me for a snobby lady full of attitude. After they meet me, they are like “Oh my god! You’re so humble and sweet”.

Q. Your celebrity crush?

A. Shawn Mendes.

Q. You were star struck when you met?

A. Varun Dhawan and Sushmita Sen.

Q. One thing you do to cheer yourself up?

A. Dance like no one is watching.

Q. Something that people would be surprised to know about you?

A. I am very spiritual and have healing abilities.

Q. Your best and worst purchase?

A. Best purchase is my Varsace clutch and worst purchase could be shoes which I bought and have not worn even once.

Q. A question you hate to answer?

A. I answer every question. I am an open book.

Q. A quote you live by?

A. One day at a time.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Pradeep Kumar Gyawali has come under flak for his recent US visit. At the center of the controversy was a statement from the US State Department which says the US wants Nepal to play a “central role” in the “Indo-Pacific” region. Some say Nepal should not be a part of the Indo-Pacific strategy, which is aimed largely at checking China’s military rise in the region. In this interview with Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai, the foreign minister says Nepal never acceded to be a part of any such strategy. He also pointed out the foreign policy priorities of Oli government.

What are the foreign policy priorities of Oli government?

The overarching motto of this government is: “Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali”. Our foreign policy is aimed at achieving this goal. Broadly, we are working on four areas: immediate neighbors, development partners, labor destinations and regional multilateral organizations. We attach highest importance to our neighbors and our focus with them has always been economic development. I am trying to enhance mutual trust and promote cooperation with our neighbors, in line with our national priorities. At the same time, our engagement with other key development partners has increased. Of late, our role in international arena has been more active, visible and productive.

Recently there seems to be an emphasis on expanding our foreign relations beyond our two giant neighbors.

We have embarked on a journey of stability and economic development. Our journey to prosperity has garnered global attention. To benefit from this, we are going to organize an international investment summit in March. When I meet my counterparts abroad at bilateral and multilateral forums, I convey the message that we want economic prosperity. I request them to support our tourism, and provide preferential facilities to our goods and services. Political stability is our major attraction.

Your recent US visit drew a lot of attention. Many were critical of Nepal’s closer embrace of the US.

Nepal adheres to the principles of non-alignment, Panchasheel and world peace. Guided by this spirit, we attach high importance to our relations with all countries. The spirit of ‘amity with all and enmity with none’ guides all our external relations. At the center of our foreign engagement is economic diplomacy. Global powers have their own ambitions, and regional powers have their own agenda. Nepal engages with all based on its domestic priority and necessity. We won’t be involved in any activity that is against our basic foreign policy principles or that impinge on genuine concerns of our neighbors. Perhaps due to the long transition there is a tendency in Nepal to be overly suspicious.

Your American counterpart, Mike Pompeo, projected Nepal as a central part of the US’s ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’? Is that a right characterization?

Let me correct you. America has never said Nepal would be a central part of Indo-Pacific Strategy. They only talked about our pivotal role in this region. Nepal is current Chair of SAARC and immediate past chair of BIMSTEC. In this light, America may have expected greater role and visibility of Nepal in this region. I have made it clear that we do not have any global ambition. Our only ambition is economic development and prosperity. We want to graduate from LDC at the earliest and be a middle-income country by 2030. To meet those objectives, we need more investment. In bilateral meetings, it is natural that we put forward our expectations and they put forward their own. Ultimately, it is up to us to take or reject their offers based on our necessity and requirement.

Of late the geopolitical competition in Nepal between India, the US and China seems to have intensified. How do you balance those powers?  

We never compare our relation with one country with another. Each relation is unique. Our relation with India is age-old. There is high people-to-people contact, of which the open border is the perfect symbol. We also have historical relations with China and it continues to support Nepal’s goals and aspirations. China is the second-biggest economy in the world and we want to connect with China for our economic development. Our engagement with China will further increases as a transit country. America is supporting our development projects and various areas of social development. It has been doing so since 1950s.

There is competition as well as engagement among big powers. We should not think there is only competition.  Of late, there is growing engagement between India and China. There is trade dispute between America and other countries and there are tensions but there is also dialogue. We are closely analyzing those developments.

In your bilateral discussions in the US, what were the Americans mostly interested in?

First, they appreciated Nepal’s role in this region. They also expected Nepal to play an even bigger role. As an active participant of SAARC, BIMSTEC and other regional organizations, America perceives Nepal as a leader of this region. Second, the peace process in the Korean peninsula is gaining momentum. My counterpart was optimistic on this. America is of the view that countries should have a common position on UN Security Council proposal on North Korea. I clearly said that Nepal is in favor of denuclearization in the Korean peninsula and that Nepal wishes for the success of the ongoing peace dialogue.

Third, America officials wanted Nepal to give more attention to fair business and competitiveness when development projects are selected. Similarly, American officials advised that Nepal should think of its pay-back capacity on development projects. I clearly said that Nepal needs resources. We made it clear that we want investment and we want loan. But Nepal would also try to make terms and conditions favorable on development aid. I also requested American companies to invest in Nepal.

Some say the Americans wanted Nepal to crack down on North Korean activities on Nepali soil.
No such issues were discussed. As far as UN resolution on North Korea is concerned, Nepal supports it.

What is the status of relation with India?

We are satisfied with progress in Nepal-India relation. Our main concerns were development projects and there has been progress. Of late, India has amended its power guidelines, paving the way for greater energy cooperation. Now we can use Indian grid to supply electricity to third countries. The progress on inland waterways is also encouraging. Our produce are gradually getting access to Indian markets. Our bilateral mechanisms are regularly holding their meetings. There are commitments on both sides.

What then explains India’s refusal to accept the EPG report?

The EPG was formed at the initiation of two prime ministers. We are happy that there is an understanding on both sides on contentious issues. It is big achievement. I do not doubt the commitment of political leadership on EPG. But there are some spoilers in Nepal-India relations. The implementation of EPG could hamper their interest, and hence the delay.  

What about our relation with China? There is no progress on the BRI.

We have identified some projects under the BRI and shared them with China. Some implementation mechanisms on BRI projects have also been established. We are now finalizing detailed reports and funding modalities of around a dozen projects under the BRI.

Q. Your best and worst pur­chase

A. Best purchase would be my car and worst purchase would be the pair of shoes I bought for Rs 12,000 thinking they were genuine. They were not.

Q. Alternate career choice

A. What I am doing right now is my alternate career choice. My dream career was to join the army.

Q. ‘Call Kantipur’ or ‘It’s my show’

A. Right now, ‘It’s my show’. 15 years ago, it would have been ‘Call Kantipur’

Q. Someone you want to interview

A. Former King Gyanendra

Q. Most difficult to interview

A. Guests who answer with a “yes” or “no” to a long ques­tion and people who are shy to open up in front of the camera

Q. The quote you live by

A. ‘Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have great­ness thrust upon them’ by Shakespeare. I get con­fused by this quote. Was I born great, am I doing great or was greatness thrust upon me?

Why is the government performance considered so dismal?

Recent political changes created high expectations. It is not possible to fulfill all these expectations at once. The government has undertaken some positive initiatives but the results are as not evident yet.

Is it right to say that this government has no clear vision and policy?

I do not think so. In the initial days, the government pursued an independent foreign policy, and settled internal issues on its own without foreign help. The government also established balanced relations with neighboring countries based on mutual trust. It formulated laws to implement the constitution and make the federal structures functional. Local levels are also working effectively. The government must also be credited for taking decisive steps to implement the social security scheme. The policy of providing loans on the basis of educational certificates has been implemented, which helps curb rising unemployment. However, we have not been able to perform satisfactorily on the governance front. We have not done enough to curb corruption and deliver good governance.  

Is there a rift in party leadership?

The focus of our recent intra-party discussions is the fact that this government should not be allowed to fail. Its failure will lead to multiple crises in the country. Intra-party debates are thus centered on how to make the government’s works more effective and result-oriented. There is a view that the party must have a decisive say in running the government, and that the government’s weaknesses must be corrected but its positive tasks should be recognized.

Is the dissatisfaction centered on what is perceived as KP Oli’s monopoly in government?

Intra-party discussions are centered on two broad areas. First, how do we establish party control over government functioning? Second, how does the government prioritize economic prosperity and social justice? There is also consensus in the party that the current model of leadership, with two chairmen, is appropriate.

There are reports that Pushpa Kamal Dahal prevailed over KP Oli in the recent Standing Committee meeting.

Discussions in the party were not aimed at encouraging one chairman and discouraging another. The spirit of the discussions was that the two chairmen as well as the nine-member secretariat must share the blame for our recent failings. As PM Oli is leading the government, it is natural that he is criticized more.

But it is true that Dahal has of late played an apposite role in terms of party ideology, organizational structure and self-criticism. He has shown a sense of urgency. He was instrumental in making the meeting a success. But the meeting has not weakened PM Oli either. It has rather created a basis for collective leadership.

There are also demands that the party should implement a ‘one-man, one-post’ formula.

The party statute incorporates this principle. But it does not mean that one chairman should get one specific responsibility right now. Since we are in a phase of historical transition in terms of party unification, we have decided to move ahead with two chairmen. We are not in a position to assign specific responsibility to a particular chairman.

But in terms of practicality, the chairman who is leading the government should give more priority to government issues, while the chairman who is not in government should give more time to party organization. In terms of broader organizational structure, the ‘one-man, one-post’ formula is appropriate, at least until the party’s next General Convention.  

Do you think PM Oli will hand over government leadership to Dahal after two and half years?

It is not appropriate to talk about this right now. After a long time, there is hope of stability. We must support the government. The government leadership should not be confined to time frames.

But past governments in Nepal have collapsed because of intra-party disagreements over power-sharing.  

Politics and culture change with time. Now we have a stable government, which needs to be strengthened. Power issues are secondary. If there is an understanding in the party, we can take any decisions, including on government leadership.

Are there regular consultations between the party and the government?

In a multi-party democratic set-up and especially under communist party rule, it is the party that runs the government. Government policies and programs must be discussed within the party, which is not happening. The party cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government, but it should have a say in broader policy and structure.  

In a separate context, why do you think India is reluctant to receive the report of Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG)?

The Indian government’s is delay is inappropriate. It signals the perception that there has been a sea change in India’s Nepal policy post-blockade is untrue. Otherwise, there is no valid reason to delay receiving the EPG report.  

Do you think the internal politics of Nepal and India are hampering bilateral relations?

India is currently in electoral mode, with fast-approaching national elections. This has influenced bilateral relations. So far as Nepal is concerned, no internal factor is hampering relations with India right now. Some decisions of the Indian establishment have created friction between the two countries and affected India’s own interests, which is being realized in India. Again, the election season could be one reason behind the delay in receiving the EPG report.

Separately, what did you make of Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s statement that Nepal has convinced the US not to view Nepal from an Indian lens?

One dialogue or meeting cannot deliver such positive results. But FM Gyawali knows better because he discussed these issues with American officials. He is the right person to ask if there have been any changes in America’s approach to Nepal. But it would be premature to conclude that the US approach to Nepal has changed.

Does the foreign minister’s US visit signal a fresh approach of reaching out to countries beyond India and China?

Our geopolitical location has provided us with great opportunities as well as risks. If we conduct our foreign policy with maturity, our geopolitical location will benefit us. But if we fail to do so, it would adversely affect out national sovereignty and interest. We must tread carefully. We should not be unduly encouraged by one event or incident.

The US State Department says that the US now views Nepal as a central plank of its Indo-Pacific strategy. What is your reading?

We should try to enhance bilateral relations with other countries. But I don’t think the US extended its invitation to our foreign minister only to discuss bilateral issues. America formally talked about Nepal’s role in its Indo-Pacific strategy and requested us to play a central role. We should be cautious. We should not be involved in any such strategy. When I heard the US talk about Nepal’s central role in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy, I was surprised. What does it mean? The US government seems intent on forcing Nepal to back this strategy.

Is this strategy against china?

It is obviously against China. It is not in the interest of Nepal either.

There are also reports that the US sought Nepal’s help in curbing North Korea.

The Americans are saying that they want peace on the Korean Peninsula. The US is seeking our support in its proposal to the UN on North Korea. Similarly, America has, in a roundabout way, sought our help in curbing North Korean activities in Nepal and downsizing the North Korean embassy in Kathmandu. The US also wants us to restrict visas to North Korean citizens. It is a part of their strategy to put more pressure on North Korea.

Finally, as a former foreign minister, can you tell us where the biggest threats to Nepali interests have traditionally come from?

Everyone knows the most immediate threat comes from the southern neighbor, and then from western countries. There are no immediate threats from China. China’s interest in Nepal is limited to Tibet. China would otherwise not interfere in our internal affairs.