Submit your Article

It’s good that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, along with his advisors and cabinet members, took part in the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2019. On Jan 22 and 23, PM Oli addressed two panels titled “Strategic outlook on South Asia” and “Shaping the future of Democracy” respective­ly. Our prime minister attending the global platform and making an effort to draw world attention to a small country like Nepal car­ries enormous symbolic value. Let’s congratulate him on this. He did the right thing by attending the forum. In the past few years, the WEF has evolved into a social and polit­ical forum, shifting away from its original focus on promoting free trade and globalization. There is increasing realization among the forum’s organizers about the close relation between econom­ic and social development. This becomes clear if we look at this year’s themes.

Among the major themes this year were globalization, climate change, mental health, the rise of populism, China’s economy and Brexit. For the first time, the forum prioritized mental well-be­ing and there were six sessions on mental health covering topics like depression, anxiety, loneliness and Alzheimer’s. Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, is one famous face who has in the past raised the issue of mental health at the WEF.

There will definitely be a lot of discussion on PM Oli’s formal and informal talks on the sidelines of the Davos summit. What I would like to do here is draw PM Oli’s attention to mental health, some­thing I have been involved with for a long time.

Nepal is a young country. Of the nearly 30 million Nepalis, around 35 percent fall under the age group 25-54, which is consid­ered the most productive years. Only around 5 percent of the pop­ulation is estimated to be above 65 years.

Because of a diverse array of factors, Nepalis are increas­ingly suffering from mental health problems. As there is a dearth of opportunity for Nepali youth in their own country, they go abroad to work. Others leave the country for education and never return. While this may be economical­ly beneficial for the migrants and their families, the separa­tion it entails creates many emotional and psychological problems. Today, many house­holds in Nepal function more or less like old-age homes.

Among those who return from abroad, many will have passed their working age, and the state is constitutionally bound to take care of its senior citizens. That will put the exchequer under enormous stress.

Nepal invests almost one-fifth of its national budget on social pro­tection, covering socially vulner­able groups like children, those with disabilities, single women, the poor and the elderly. The gov­ernment increases its social secu­rity budget every year as the pro­portion of the socially vulnerable population, including the elderly, keeps growing.

From a mental health per­spective, Oli’s visit to Davos could have been an eye-open­er. After being briefed on those Davos sessions on mental health, perhaps he now has a bet­ter inkling of how poverty and migration affect the well-being of his people.

Therefore, post-Davos, PM Oli should adopt a two-pronged strat­egy in order to avert this impend­ing crisis. His first focus should be on creating productive jobs for the youth so that they have every incentive to stay behind and work in their own country. His second focus should be on investing in the mental well-being of his people.

It is long past the time that we seriously discussed our men­tal well-being in the changed social and political context. For instance, loneliness is no more a problem of rich western countries alone. It’s emerging as a major issue in developing eastern coun­tries too. How we tackle the men­tal health issues of our people will also determine the country’s fate. Prime Minister Oli, please take note.

On Nov 15, 2018, Madan Khar­el, the then newly appoint­ed Executive Chair of the Nepal Airlines Corporation (NAC), held a press conference flanked by his deputies, including Manag­ing Director Sugat Raj Kansakar. The press conference was called to address the White Paper issued by the NAC management on the national flag carrier’s financial health and long-term plans.The media basically carried the pronouncements verbatim. No critical questions were asked and there was no effort to even check the math presented in the event. The message that came out the press conference was clear: The NAC is on the brink of bankruptcy and the government would have to inject cash to bail it out.

The timing of the press confer­ence, which came hot on the heels of reportedly advanced discus­sions with Ethiopian Airlines for a strategic partnership, was also suspect. To be fair, the Tourism Ministry itself has recommended that the government inject Rs 20 billion as part of its plan to restructure the NAC. While the NAC’s financial health isn’t great, it does earn significant revenue from ground handling alone—about Rs 3.5 billion annually, the same as the total annual repay­ments on its four Airbus loans. That is a significant cushion.

The optics of the press con­ference has hurt both the NAC’s attempts to find a strategic part­ner and its branding efforts among customers. Who would want to invest in a company that is about to file for bankruptcy? Even if that was not the intention, that has been the effect. The airlines business, like any other, revolves around managing perceptions. Would passengers want to fly in an airline if its management is openly talking about its potential bankruptcy? Even on a good day, the NAC is known for delaying or cancelling flights, or worse, grounding its fleet.

This week the NAC has told its creditors it cannot service its quarterly installments

An open secret

This week the NAC has told its creditors it cannot service its quarterly installments due for Jan­uary and has asked for an exten­sion. This despite no significant reduction in its total earnings in December-January. Is this another stunt to kill two birds with one stone: force the government to inject cash while deterring any potential strategic partner?

There are plenty of reasons to doubt the NAC management’s willingness to bring in a strategic partner; a new partner means a change in the management philosophy and style. Would the current appointees really give up their lucrative perch? A perch that provides them with all kinds of perks and privi­leges without corresponding expectations and certification of a good performance. Even without bringing in a strategic partner, what plagues the NAC is an open secret: mismanagement.

Two core issues

The national flag carrier’s administrators, most of whom are political appointees, have been unable and unwilling to do what is required of them to make the corporation profitable. There are two core issues: overstaff­ing and mismanagement of the fleet and flight schedules. Even if laying off excessive staff is polit­ically touchy given how union­ized government entities are, the NAC should still make profits just by flying the four new Airbus­es 18 hours each. And there is the additional cushion from the ground handling business. This combined with a strict fleet main­tenance regime would address its perennial image problem by ensuring minimum delays or can­cellations—thus increasing its mar­ket share. The NAC flies in such profitable destinations that there is no reason its flight occupancy should be at 50 percent, other than its image problem of being extremely unreliable.

For both potential partners and customers, the press conference perpetuated that perception, albeit in different ways: for inves­tors, it amplified the risk factors and for customers, it gave them another reason not to fly with the airline. Increasingly, the NAC’s problems appear more like inter­nal sabotage than just corruption and incompetence.

 I’m pretty much an intro­vert and it took me decades to speak up for myself and against injustice. But a cou­ple of weeks ago I really had enough. In my regular haunt in Lazimpat, where I eat at least twice a week, mainly break­fast but also lunch, a woman came in, wrapped up in a down jacket, hood up, sunglasses on, carrying two huge bags of shop­ping. She sat by the window so I didn’t hear what she ordered but I did heard her ask for water, then a spoon, then the wifi password—okay so far; pretty basic stuff. She continued to ask for a whole list of other, pretty unnecessary, items from the busy staff. When her food arrived my attention was drawn again by her loud voice. The food was just ‘not right’! This was ‘not the way to make pizza at all’. The pizza had too much cheese on it! Well, first, who says this? Ever? Second, why order pizza if you don’t like cheese? The waitress offered to get her something else. In reply to her question, the waitress said, no, she would not have to pay for the second dish, only the pizza. When the second dish arrived, again she was shouting loudly across the room that she didn’t like it.

She suggested the chef be sacked to let ‘one of the many unemployed in Nepal take his job’. One of the many, who ‘could make much better food than him’! The young waiter and waitress were looking quite helpless now and this was all I could take. I marched over to her table and told her, “if you don’t like the food, fine, it’s down to personal taste, but there is no need to announce loudly across the restaurant. You could go and discuss with the chef; why blame the waiters?” I also pointed out that the food was fabulous, as the many regu­lar customers would agree. Quietly she paid up and left the restaurant still muttering that the food was not good. I later asked the waitress if she had paid. Yes, but only for the cheaper second dish.

While it was easy for me to challenge one woman, it is harder to stand up to the big bullies in this world

Somehow she was the epit­ome of what is wrong with the world at the moment. Those who shout loudest and who assume a mantel of control and confidence often get away with a lot of nonsense, while the rest of us look helplessly on. The world is watching the unfolding (or perhaps crumbling) of the latest nonsense coming out of the White House. One man is shouting louder than others, taking control of things he is not qualified for other than by ceremonial office. There is very little anyone else can do except quietly down-tools, and make what is probably no more than a symbolic gesture.

Across the Atlantic in the UK we watch while the politicians fight among themselves as to who has the best ability to take over the playground, aka Brexit, negotiations. Of course, I could go on to list many more examples of bullies flexing their muscles while we regular folks are in despair wondering what the outcome will be. It does seem that the only person who may benefit from all this mayhem is another larger than life playground bully looking on from afar, but seeing ample potential to step in once the other kids exhaust themselves with all their infighting. Isn’t this the way con­flict starts?

While it was easy for me to challenge one woman and stand up for those who were, momentarily, unable to speak for themselves, it is harder to stand up to the big bullies in this world. Especially if they have the power and abil­ity to take away our liberty through muzzling the press, imprisoning us, or replacing us with their cronies.

A cabinet meeting last week appointed Amrit Bahadur Rai as Nepal’s Permanent Repre­sentative to the United Nations in New York. It is only the second time in Nepal’s history that the govern­ment has replaced an ambassador by going against the established norm whereby after the completion of an ambassadorship, a diplomat must serve for at least two years at the ministry before taking up new ambassadorship. Rai had just com­pleted his term as the ambassador to South Africa. The current foreign secretary, Shanker Das Bairagi, declined the UN appointment as he expects to be Chief Secretary. Hence the government appointed Rai, a joint secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Rai is the third-ranking senior joint secretary at the ministry. Bharat Raj Poudyal, who is currently lead­ing the UN division in the ministry, could have been the next UN candi­date as he is the senior-most candi­date. Likewise, Sewa Adhikari, who is currently the Nepali ambassador to Pakistan, is the second-ranking senior joint secretary.

Rai’s appointment is reflective of the politicking inside the ministry. The crucial UN posting is impossi­ble to get without political connec­tions. This has put a large number of officials in a dilemma over whether they should cultivate such connec­tions. According to one Nepali diplo­mat in New Delhi, Nepal is perhaps the only country in the world that recruits retired diplomats as ambas­sadors on the pretext of utilizing their experiences, as if there were no other alternatives.

The trend is reminiscent of the Panchayat era when only a limited number of people got such appoint­ments, time and again. Today as well, there are plenty of capable peo­ple, but only a few with right polit­ical connections get the opportu­nity. Joint Secretary Krishna Prasad Dhakal was recently recalled from New Delhi, where he was serving as the deputy head of mission, and has again been appointed ambassador to the UAE. Dhakal has not served in the ministry for a long time, but still got the coveted post because of his political connections.

This yes-man culture has adversely affected the ministry’s function­ing. Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, Min­ister for Foreign Affairs, defended Rai’s appointment, saying that Rai was chosen to make ambas­sadorial appointments inclusive. Gyawali added that ambassadors are sent to missions on the basis of their capacity (rather than based on their seniority).

However, former Permanent Rep­resentative to the United Nations Office in Geneva, Dinesh Bhattarai, says, “The UN missions should be led by either a former foreign sec­retary or an experienced political leader. The government is violat­ing this practice and is conducting diplomacy in a childish manner.” He added that appointing political­ly-inclined career diplomats is not a good practice.

The government should do proper homework before appoint­ing ambassadors. High level polit­ical appointees should be sent to important missions like New York and Geneva. Likewise, the ambas­sadors to the US, the UK, France, China (Permanent Security Council members) and India should be well versed in both diplomacy and inter­national relations. Not just anybody can be sent to these places.

Most MoFA officials have tech­nical knowledge but they seem to lack substance. Soon, the ministry will face a scarcity of joint secre­taries, most of whom have been appointed as ambassadors. Three weeks ago, the government had recommended ambassadors to Canada, France, Switzerland, Thai­land, and Kuwait, all from among career diplomats.

It also decided to recall the ambas­sadors to South Korea, Spain and Bangladesh, who were appointed by the previous government. Last week, a new ambassador to Israel was appointed and the govern­ment is in the process of appointing ambassadors to India, the UAE and Malaysia as well.

Before, ambassadors used to will­ingly resign after the formation of a new government under a different party. The trend has changed now.

Nepal has 30 embassies, three Per­manent representative UN offices in New York, Geneva and Vienna, and six general consulates. It is about time that the MoFA cultivated country- and sector-specific experts. Failure to do so will seriously under­mine Nepal’s diplomacy.

The author heads the Political, Current and Foreign Affairs Bureau at Annapurna Post national daily