Nepal should learn from its debacle in its bid for the non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council

By M . K. Pokhrel

Guatemala and Venezuela are likely to lock horns once again in several more rounds of the inconclusive election at the United Nations for a non-permanent seat of the Security Council from Latin America, on October 25, 2006. But Nepal lost the vote to Indonesia for the Asian seat in the very first round on 16 October 2006 and lost it shamefully.

No doubt, Indonesia, a good friend, has had its strengths. It is the largest Muslim nation in the world; though not as many as Nepal, it has contributed troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations; and it has been able to resolve the Aceh insurgency in the wake of the major tsunami that took thousands of lives two years ago. The South East Asian countries and many Muslim nations would rally behind Indonesia in such contests.

Nepal is no less strong in this area. The Himalayan country has been contributing troops to UN peacekeeping operations since 1958. Currently, it is one of the largest troop contributors, much larger than Indonesia; and its peacekeepers have been serving honorably in many conflict-stricken countries. Nepal’s march towards full democracy and conflict resolution were plus points. Its absence from the Council membership for nearly two decades, as opposed to Indonesia’s one decade, was also a strong factor in Nepal’s favor.

Nepal’s Permanent Mission to the UN was not robust enough to inform and convince diplomats in New York that that there was regime change in Nepal. On the eve of the election, several ambassadors were still under the impression that the royal rule still prevailed in the country. The Mission leadership also suffered serious credibility gap in the diplomatic community due to its shifting support for the royal rule and democracy in a quick succession.
The Republic of Korea, a close friend and a more formidable challenger for the Council seat, had withdrawn from the Council race to concentrate its efforts on getting its Foreign Minister, Ban Ki-Moon, elected as UN secretary-general. That had left only two candidates in the fray and raised Nepal’s prospects for success considerably.

To be sure, the 14-month royal rule put Nepal in an extremely disadvantageous position vis-à-vis its competitors. In that situation, it would have been impossible to win the vote. But the situation changed as soon as the king retreated from his rule and South Korea withdrew from its race. It was a golden opportunity for Nepal to make up for the lost 14 months. It bears mention here that Nepal has, at times in the past, been able to do better than Indonesia and the Republic of Korea in various competitive UN elections.

While Guatemala and Venezuela have gone through more than 30 rounds of indecisive election, the verdict for Nepal was swift and cruel. Nepal lost in the very first round, 28 votes to Indonesia’s 158, more than the requisite two/thirds votes in a 192-member General Assembly. This is what has made Nepal’s loss truly shameful.

I have no do doubt that everyone with the responsibility to promote Nepal’s candidature for the Security Council did their best. They all deserve appreciation. And yet, the country lost the crucial election to a prestigious body. So, it is essential to figure out what went wrong with the election so that such debacles can be avoided in the future.

Let’s first talk about Kathmandu. The Government of Nepal, in particular the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did their utmost to seek votes from UN member states by approaching the Kathmandu-based diplomatic missions and using high-level visits to lobby. During his visit to Cuba for the Non-aligned Summit and to New York for the 61 st session of the UN General Assembly, Deputy Prime Minister Khadga P. Oli—who is also in-charge of the Shital Niwas– met with as many of his counterparts as possible and made a strong pitch for support to Nepal’s candidatures. So did some other senior delegates to the General Assembly from Nepal.

However, the government should have done more. The deputy prime minister and one or two other ministers should have visited a number of Asian, African, Latin American and Eastern European countries, where Nepal does not maintain its diplomatic presence or which are not represented in Kathmandu. That did not happen. Amidst the Maoist parallel government in rural areas of Nepal, Kathmandu could not assure the international community that there would be no Maoist takeover.

What is more, the government should have promptly appointed ambassadors to fill more than a dozen vacancies and mobilized them to garner support for Nepal. It should also have at least reassigned the sitting ambassadors so that they could make a fresh start in a new place. By keeping in place some of the ambassadors appointed under the royal regime, the government failed to demonstrate regime change on the most visible front and forced our diplomats to convert themselves from diehard supporters of the discredited royal regime one day to the staunch backer of democracy the next day. This has weakened the credibility of our diplomats.

The Permanent Mission of Nepal to the United Nations tried to do its best to secure votes for the country. Mission officials met with their counterparts, hosted lunches and receptions for New York-based diplomats, established diplomatic relations with a couple of countries and fixed as many appointments as possible for the deputy prime ministers to meet with his counterparts from different countries, in New York.

From the ignominious election result, it is clear that the Mission’s efforts fell far short of collecting enough votes to make the loss look not so shameful. The Mission failed in fours areas. First, it was not quick enough to act to benefit from the withdrawal of the Republic of Korea from the Security Council bid. Secondly, it was not robust enough to inform and convince diplomats in New York that that there was regime change in Nepal. On the eve of the election, several ambassadors were still under the impression that the royal rule still prevailed in the country. Thirdly, the Mission leadership also suffered serious credibility gap in the diplomatic community due to its shifting support for the royal rule and democracy in a quick succession.

Fourthly, in a most serious error of judgment, the Mission failed to get its priorities right and gravely undermined Nepal’s prospects to win the ballot. It should not have taken the chairmanship of the Fourth Committee and vice-chairmanship of the Fifth Committee of the United Nations in the very session when it was also trying to gain the Security Council seat. Countries like Nepal with limited political clout and economic strength focus all their efforts on winning the prestigious Council seat and do not divert their attention elsewhere.

Had these shortcomings been addressed in time, there was a good chance for Nepal to win the Security Council election. At least, the defeat would not have been so devastating. Nepal should learn from this debacle.

(Pokhrel is a US-based political commentator keeping close watch on international relations.)

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])