Understanding the Core of Diplomatic Protocol
Diplomatic protocol is more than just a set of rules; it is a fundamental standard of decorum and mutual respect that governs human interaction, especially in high-level politics. It is rooted in restraint and refined behavior, ensuring that interactions between states and their representatives are conducted with professionalism and courtesy. The Vienna Convention formalizes these standards, providing a framework for how states and their representatives should interact. While these guidelines are not always rigid, they serve as a foundation for maintaining order and respect in international relations.
In recent times, Nepal has faced significant challenges in upholding these standards. The current situation is concerning because there is a noticeable breakdown of these protocols. When prime ministers meet ambassadors in private or ministers hold meetings without the knowledge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it represents a violation of diplomatic dignity. This deviation from established norms undermines the integrity of the country’s diplomatic engagements.
The Importance of Sartorial Choices
The appearance of leaders during international meetings plays a crucial role in diplomatic communication. Recent events involving Prime Minister Balendra Shah have highlighted some significant flaws in this regard. While his decision to hold a collective meeting with all foreign ambassadors at Singh Durbar could be seen as a positive move toward “balanced diplomacy,” his choice of attire was problematic. Wearing the national dress during such an occasion is a matter of sovereignty and dignity.
Opting for casual wear, such as a T-shirt or sunglasses, during these formal meetings can be considered a “diplomatic flaw.” Leaders represent the entire country, and their conduct must reflect the nation’s values and pride. The Chief of Protocol should have been more proactive in briefing the prime minister on the expectations for such high-level events. If a leader is properly briefed and still chooses to ignore these standards, it suggests a need for significant improvement in how the office views its international responsibilities.
Evaluating the Substance of Diplomatic Sessions
Some suggest that the collective meetings represent a new way of handling foreign relations. However, it is important not to over-interpret these events. The collective gathering was essentially a call—a “hi and hello” session for ambassadors to offer congratulations after the elections. No substantive bilateral issues were discussed or complex negotiations done in that forum. International practice does not forbid such collective interactions for ceremonial purposes, but the real issue lies in whether this signals a return to a more disciplined system or if it is just a one-off event.
The deterioration of protocol began in earnest during the mid-2000s, marked by administrative lawlessness. During this period, there were major breaches, such as when an incoming ambassador met with the prime minister before presenting his credentials to the state. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not informed of the meeting, leading to a decline in standards.
The Role of Leadership in Restoring Diplomatic Standards
The responsibility for fixing this system lies at the top. The Prime Minister’s Office is the critical “stop” for these diplomatic breaches. If the prime minister issues a clear directive that he will meet no foreign dignitary except through the channels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the system corrects itself immediately. Without that will from the top, any new manual or written code of conduct is essentially meaningless.
The current culture of “careerism” needs to be addressed. Officials should focus on building the institutional strength of the ministry rather than personal advancement. While the number of embassies and diplomatic positions has increased, the quality of articulation and negotiation has dropped significantly.
Managing Strategic Priorities in Diplomacy
While basic should be equal, we must be realistic about strategic priority. Diplomacy is a highly sophisticated and exclusive system where status is meticulously observed. Our immediate neighbours and major global powers naturally hold higher priority due to economic and strategic interests. We are currently in a complex triangular relationship involving our two neighbours and the United States, which requires a high degree of “diplomatic alertness” and skill.
The test for the current administration is how they manage these high-stakes, individual meetings. Will they continue to use the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the gatekeeper, or will they revert to the uncoordinated, direct access of the past? This is where diplomatic guile is truly tested.
The Risks of Private Conversations
Private, unrecorded conversations with foreign dignitaries pose specific risks. These are not private conversations between individuals; they are interactions between sovereign states involving vital national interests. In formal diplomacy, it is a technical requirement to have a note-taker from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This ensures that there is an official record—minutes of the meeting—that documents what was discussed and what commitments were made.
In high-level diplomacy, it is often prudent to use an interpreter even if the leader is proficient in English. It allows for greater precision in language and gives the leader crucial time to think before responding. Diplomacy is about much more than just “knowing English”; it is about maintaining decorum and ensuring that every word serves the national objective.
Assessing the Current Administrative Shift
Some commentators have described recent events as a “restructuring” of our foreign policy. However, this is an oversimplification and, quite frankly, incorrect. A single collective meeting does not restructure foreign policy, which is based on permanent, long-term principles. What needs restructuring is our diplomacy—the art and technique of negotiation itself.
We need to focus on grooming specialists who are fluent in the languages and cultures of the countries they are assigned to. Cultural affinity can bring nations closer together. Currently, our diplomatic articulation is among the least effective in South Asia. We have seen a shift toward careerism rather than a genuine career built on merit.
Learning from Other Nations
We can learn a great deal from how other nations prioritize diplomacy as a primary tool of national power. Look at Pakistan. Despite their internal challenges, their diplomats are known to be some of the most articulate and effective in the world, often outmanoeuvring much larger neighbours in international forums like the United Nations. They identify their brightest prospects early and groom them specifically for strategic locations such as Washington, Beijing, or Geneva.
In Nepal, we once had diplomats of a similar calibre who were given the freedom to promote the national interest with great skill. When the leadership selects the best-quality people and trusts them to do their jobs, the results are evident. We managed to navigate the complexities of the Cold War and secure aid from multiple sides because our diplomacy was handled by competent professionals.
Addressing Concerns of Foreign Envoys
There have been reports that some foreign envoys in Nepal are unhappy with the new symbolic fences being built by the current administration. However, any dissatisfaction from foreign envoys is misplaced. There is a well-known saying: “Good fences make good neighbours.” For many years, the fences of Nepali diplomacy were torn down, and everyone felt they could bypass formal channels and walk right into the halls of power.
If the current administration is rebuilding those fences by insisting on formal protocols and making the leadership less easily accessible, it is a positive development for our sovereignty. A strong fence does not prevent communication; it ensures that communication happens through the proper, respected channels.
The Impact of Political Stability on Protocols
Political stability certainly provides the space for protocols to be institutionalised, but the willpower of the leader is the primary factor. Even in a state of instability, a strong prime minister can insist on maintaining formal standards. In many countries, these systems have become so institutionalised that no foreign official would even attempt to bypass the foreign ministry; it is simply not done.
In Nepal, we have suffered from a situation where the interests of various political factions often converged for personal gain, leading to a neglect of national diplomatic standards. Our foreign policy was sometimes treated with a lack of consistency—praising a neighbour one day and criticizing them the next based on political convenience. By building these symbolic fences and adhering to a professional code of conduct, we are asking to be treated with the same respect that any other sovereign nation expects. If we maintain our dignity and follow established systems, the international community will have no choice but to treat us with the respect we deserve.
