Foreign Minister Yadav has violated all diplomatic protocols’ : Murari Raj Sharma The Maoist-led administration has recalled Nepali envoys to USA and India, among others, citing change in the government. But similar move to recall ambassador Murari Raj Sharma, Nepali envoy to UK, has invited a big controversy after the Ministry said it had sacked Sharma ‘for violating diplomatic norms.’ When contacted by Nepalnews, Sharma-- who is a former Foreign Secretary and former Nepali envoy to the UN-- hit back at the Shital Niwas mandarins. Excerpts of the exclusive interview:
Reports say you were going to write a letter to the British Foreign Secretary denouncing the political and diplomatic direction taken by the present govt? If that’s true, wouldn’t that have been a violation of established diplomatic norms?
Yes, I was planning to write a letter to the British Foreign Secretary. No, I did not denounce the political and diplomatic direction of the Nepali government.
Would you not inform the person who you had an appointment with if you could not keep it and tell him why? I wanted to inform the Foreign Secretary why I would not be able to keep the appointments that were made with the Speaker of the United Kingdom and other senior dignitaries. Despite the knowledge about them, the Nepali government had asked me to return home before those appointments. Not keeping them without prior information would have been a serious breach of diplomatic protocol and stark disrespect of these dignitaries.
In the draft letter I shared with Kathmandu, there was dissatisfaction about political and diplomatic direction of the present government, but no denunciation.
You recently said that it was wrong on part of the government to recall ambassadors who are yet to complete their terms? Isn’t it the right of an elected govt. to recall ambassadors, if it deems it fit?
It all depends on how the system is set up. Our old system allowed the government to appoint and recall ambassadors as it saw fit, as Parliament was not involved. Under the current Interim Constitution, nominee-ambassadors have to be approved by Parliament, and our batch of ambassadors had gone through that vetting process. I am not aware of any amendment in the relevant law consistent with the Interim Constitution's provision. It is for legal specialists to ascertain whether or not rules should have been amended in line with constitutional provisions.
Is it true that the present controversy has its roots in long-running differences between you and a senior official at Shital Niwas? Or, were there any broader reasons?
When the ambassadors to India and the United States were recalled, the government said they were pulled out on grounds of incompetence, which was not true; and this time, the Foreign Minister has said that those ambassador who were not cooperating with the government had been recalled. This is an ugly set of lies |
No, I have no difference with any senior official at Shital Niwas. I only have an issue with Upendra Yadav, as Foreign Minister, who acted callously, but not even with him as a person, because I do not know him personally very well. What I know now about him is this: He keeps changing arguments about the ambassadors' recall. For instance, he first echoed the Prime Minister's assurance to the ambassadors that they would not be recalled based on their political conviction; then the Minister began to say he wanted to recall all ambassadors perceived to be close to the Nepali Congress, because that party was not in government; when the ambassadors to India and the United States were recalled, the government said they were pulled out on grounds of incompetence, which was not true; and this time, the Foreign Minister has said that those ambassadors who were not cooperating with the government had been recalled.
This is an ugly set of lies. Our ambassadors to Washington and New Delhi were very competent people and cooperated fully with the government, as far as I know. My performance as ambassador in London has been pretty satisfying. You can verify it from the increased British assistance and tourist arrivals in Nepal, as well as from the enhanced trade and investment relations between the two countries. Promoting Nepal in the accredited country is the best form of cooperation ambassadors can deliver to the government.
Your letter to the Prime Minister also courted controversy. Could it also have played a role in the government’s decision to recall you?
The Foreign Minister had tried to recall me in November 2008 together with the other two ambassadors, the government did not agree. Then he plotted an awkward situation so he could find a pretext to call me back or otherwise benefit from me.
He created a horrible and false pretext in January this year. He sought to prevent me from joining the Prime Minister's proposed visit to Norway, which was cancelled at the last minute, by refusing to cosign the Letters of Credence for me. True to the form, the Minister's office kept changing the reasons. First, they said I was not asked to seek agreemo from the Norway government. When I drew their attention to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' instruction through a letter of 20 April 2008 to that effect, they went to say that I was not included in the Prime Minister's entourage to save cost, though the Norwegian government had included me in the program. Anyway, the Foreign Minister demonstrated utter diplomatic incompetence and created an embarrassing situation for Nepal when the scheduled presentation of my credentials to the King of Norway on 15 January 2009, on the eve of the Nepali Prime Minister's visit to that country, had to be cancelled at the last minute.
It was my obligation to inform the Prime Minister about what had happened to save him from an embarrassing situation. My letter to the Prime Minister was leaked to the media, a common occurrence in Kathmandu. The Foreign Minister then began to complain about my letter to the Prime Minister, though it was he who had violated all diplomatic protocols: disrespecting the agrement of a friendly country, wasting the time of the head of state of an important friend, and creating a situation in which an ambassador could not join his head of government's visit to a foreign country, a serious diplomatic flaw.
Finally, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled me. Around the time of recall something interesting happened. B. P. Yadav, the constituent assembly member from the MJF, the Foreign Minister's party, came to visit London before I was called back and stayed on with us for many days thereafter. He asked me for three things to save my job: I should find NGOs to do projects in their area; I should join their party; and I should contribute money to their party. I outright refused to contribute money to his party stating that I would neither accept a bribe nor give it to anyone. I am not sure whether the visiting Constituent Assembly member was speaking for his party, for himself, or for the Foreign Minister. Neither am I sure whether the alleged non-cooperation of recalled ambassadors with the government had anything to do with it.
Now you draw your own conclusion.
What are you going to do now?
I will go back to Nepal as soon as my son's GCSE and my wife's heart operation are over.
nepalnews.com Mar 25 09
.png)
