Diplomatic Vacuums and Political Turmoil in Nepal
Nepal is currently facing a significant challenge in its diplomatic network, with numerous ambassadorial positions left vacant or in transition. This situation has created a leadership vacuum that is affecting the country’s ability to maintain effective representation abroad. The issue stems from a recurring pattern of recalling ambassadors following changes in government, often without timely appointments of successors.
Current Status of Ambassadorial Positions
As of now, 21 ambassadorial posts are either vacant or in transition, including some of Nepal’s most critical missions. In particular, 11 countries have been without Nepali envoys for the past 10 months, while six other missions have remained without ambassadors for four months. The four-year terms of career diplomats serving in seven more countries ended on July 21, further compounding the issue.
The vacancies have had a direct impact on Nepal’s representation in key countries such as the United States, China, India, and others that are vital to its political, economic, and security interests. Missions in Washington, Beijing, Berlin, Tel Aviv, Kuala Lumpur, Doha, Moscow, Riyadh, Madrid, London, and Tokyo have lacked resident ambassadors since the Sushila Karki-led government issued a blanket recall on October 17.
Political Appointments and Recalls
The recalled ambassadors were among 17 political appointees nominated on July 29, 2024, by the government led by then-prime minister KP Sharma Oli, which was backed by the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. The recalls continued after Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government came to power. On April 5, it recalled ambassadors serving in India, Australia, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Denmark, and South Africa, less than two weeks after taking office.
This repeated pattern of recalls reflects a long-standing practice in Nepal, where changes in government lead to the removal of political appointees abroad, often without timely replacements. A separate group of career diplomats from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also entered a period of uncertainty. Ambassadors to Austria, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Egypt, Myanmar, Oman, and Brazil completed their four-year, non-renewable terms on July 21.
Government Actions and Challenges
The Cabinet on July 22 allowed the career diplomats to continue working on an interim basis until new ambassadors are recommended and receive agreement, or formal approval, from their host governments. The exception is Brazil, where the current ambassador’s term runs until October 17. The situation has been further complicated by the government’s decision to close three missions. In its budget speech on May 29, it said the embassies in Brazil, Denmark, and South Africa would be shut as part of an expenditure review. But none has yet been formally closed.
With those three missions excluded, the government now needs to nominate and appoint ambassadors to 21 missions. The prolonged vacancies are weakening Nepal’s ability to pursue its political, economic, and strategic interests abroad, according to diplomats and foreign-policy experts.
Impact on Diplomatic Engagements
The absence of ambassadors has affected high-level diplomatic engagements. For example, Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal’s visits to India and China were hampered by the lack of resident ambassadors in New Delhi and Beijing. Similarly, during Rabi Lamichhane’s visit to India, there was no resident ambassador in New Delhi to provide official state-level representation.
The diplomatic gap was further exposed when Indian foreign secretary Vikram Misri’s planned official visit to Nepal was abruptly cancelled on May 11. Diplomats say the presence of a senior ambassador trusted by the political leadership could have helped resolve misunderstandings before the visit was called off.
Broader Implications and Concerns
The prolonged absence of ambassadors is exposing deeper weaknesses in Nepal’s foreign policy machinery. Officials and former diplomats warn that diplomatic representation cannot be sustained indefinitely through charge d’affaires alone. Former secretary Arjun Bahadur Thapa emphasized that an ambassador can request and receive high-level meetings that are not accessible to lower-ranking officials.
International relations analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta highlighted the broader erosion of Nepal’s foreign policy institutions at a time when geopolitical shifts are becoming increasingly complex. He questioned why ambassadorial appointments had failed to become a government priority, arguing that the prolonged vacancies conveyed an image of a weakened foreign policy.
Former foreign secretary Shanker Das Bairagi noted that Nepal’s own rules provide a framework intended to prevent prolonged vacancies. However, governments have repeatedly failed to begin the process on time, citing administrative delays and political considerations.
“This has become an entrenched practice in our governance, and it reflects very poorly on the state,” Bairagi said. He added that host governments often express their frustration diplomatically when Nepali missions remain without ambassadors for extended periods. Prematurely recalling envoys while failing to appoint replacements, he said, damaged Nepal’s credibility.
“Leaving our most critical international stations unmanned for nearly a year is simply indefensible,” Bairagi said.
