Views of a Nepali Economist

European Games

On January 11, I had written that the constant spat and disagreement between Nepali political parties has broader repercussions. I had argued that forces that are quiet at other times take advantage of the political chaos, and attempt to undermine the Nepali state and the political process.

An example of such attempt was the British ambassador trying to insert himself into Nepal’s religious matters by asking that the new constitution grant Nepalis a right to convert their religion. We all knew which religious conversion the ambassador was promoting (conversion to Christianity, in case you are wondering).  Another example was the Indian ambassador asking KP Oli to clarify his Freudian slip targeted towards the Madhesi leadership.

It is time the Nepali leaderships tell foreign ambassadors that we appreciate their help on many matters, but there are some matters they should wisely sit out on. However, now the Europeans appear to have joined the circus. A group of EU ambassadors have been discovered to have conducted a meeting with the divisive Madhesi political activist CK Raut.

The EU ambassadors claim that CK Raut requested to meet them on “humanitarian grounds.” However, any diplomat would know that holding clandestine meetings with a known secessionist, no matter what the grounds, is problematic. It can be seen as undermining the Nepali state. Did the EU ambassadors not know that Raut had been arrested by the Nepali state and charged with sedition and is out of jail on bond? They must think Nepalis are fools to believe that the ambassadors were unaware of the consequences of their action. They are smart diplomats. They knew very well what they were doing, and they still did it.

As representatives of their respective states, the EU ambassadors’ meeting with Raut can be seen as an interference on Nepal’s sovereignty. The United Nations’ “Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty” mentions that “… no State shall organize, assist, foment, Finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.” Therefore, the EU ambassadors violated the international non-intervention, non-interference principle when they met with Raut, an individual recognized and charged by the Nepali state as a secessionist. The ambassadors should also know that such charges were not laid on Raut by some autocratic dictatorship. Raut was charged as a secessionist by the justice system of a democratic state.

How would the French people feel if the Nepali ambassador to France starts holding clandestine meetings with Basque nationalists on “humanitarian grounds”? Would the Spanish government appreciate the Nepali ambassador to Spain holding meetings with the Catalan secessionists on humanitarian grounds? The more important question is: was the meeting with Raut a one-off meeting with these EU ambassadors or was that the only meeting the Nepali media found out about? How many times have the EU representatives held meetings with the known secessionist?

The EU ambassadors should have considered the reaction that their action would generate. Their actions could put a strain on the long-term relationships that Nepal has with the EU states. Some of that stress has started to materialize. The Nepali government has started to question if the Europeans only met with Raut or if they are also funding his activities. For the sake of both Nepalis and the European missions in Nepal, the Nepali government should launch an investigation to determine who has been funding Raut’s secessionist activities. The EU missions should hope that they aren’t found supporting Raut’s activities directly or indirectly.

The Europeans have been here before. They funded and provided legitimacy to fringe ethnic actors and groups during and after the Madhes movement. That came back to bite them. A number of donors, including the DFID, had to distance themselves from such actors because they were undermining the Nepali peace process. The Raut incident suggests that the Europeans are at it again. Why do they keep courting extreme fringes when there are plenty of moderate voices that could use their support?

The Nepali state has been very hard-at-work trying to ensure that isolated actors like Raut are kept at bay from getting a larger stage. However, by holding meetings with a declared secessionist, the Europeans are legitimizing such isolated actors and their actions. In the process, they are undermining the Nepali state that is already fragile. The EU states are known for asking for accountability from Nepali actors and institutions that they support. Are the EU representatives and ambassadors accountable to anyone?

(c) Copyright: Mukesh Khanal