On Thursday, October 16, the government decided to recall ambassadors who were politically appointed during the tenure of former Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. The ambassadors to China, Germany, Israel, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan have been instructed to return to Nepal by November 6.
Although the official tenure of an ambassador is four years, Nepali ambassadors rarely get to complete their full term. With each change in government, it has become common practice to replace ambassadors. The recent decision is yet another example of this trend. Most of the recalled ambassadors were appointed on July 31, 2024. While a government’s tenure in Nepal is supposed to be five years, none has completed a full term yet.
According to stakeholders, frequent changes in ambassadors can have several negative impacts, most importantly, damaging the nation’s image.
Netra Prasad Timilsina, Nepal’s ambassador to Malaysia, who has also been recalled, says that such instability harms the country’s reputation.
“People in Malaysia often laugh at Nepal’s diplomatic instability,” he says.
Timilsina adds that he is frequently asked why Nepal changes its ambassadors so often, and his answer is always the same: the instability of the government.
“The international community here in Malaysia had just started to know me, and now the government has recalled me,” he says. “This constant change frustrates people here because they have to start from scratch every time, with introductions and relationship-building.”
Just nine months after his appointment, the government has decided to replace the ambassador again.
“Once more, people here will laugh at us,” he says. “I feel so embarrassed.”
Timilsina calls this a “harmful practice” and hopes that future governments will end it.
Similarly, Deep Kumar Upadhaya, former Nepali ambassador to India, says that the impression of foreign nations toward Nepal has been deteriorating continuously, and such actions by the government are partly to blame.
“A weak foreign policy is the main reason behind this situation,” says Upadhaya. “The status of our passport is weakening every year, and such factors add fuel to the fire.”
Observers also note that frequent ambassadorial changes disrupt projects, missions, and the Nepali community in host countries, while weakening the credibility of Nepal’s representatives.
“Because ambassadors cannot serve long enough, they fail to clearly communicate Nepal’s priorities to the host nation,” says foreign affairs analyst Mahabir Paudyal.
As a result, Paudyal adds, foreign governments may develop trust issues with Nepali envoys and hesitate to discuss plans and projects that could benefit both countries. Echoing Paudyal, Timilsina also says that frequent changes prevent ambassadors from working to their full potential, affecting not only diplomatic relations but also the Nepali diaspora abroad.
The government has faced backlash for its decision. Experts argue that a government whose main objective is to hold elections in March should focus on strengthening diplomatic relations instead of recalling ambassadors.
Foreign policy expert and former foreign affairs advisor to former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Rupak Sapkota, says the decision contradicts the very purpose for which this government was formed.
“This is an important time for Nepal to build strong relationships with foreign countries,” he says. “Such actions will definitely leave a negative impression.”
According to Upadhaya, the decision makes it seem as though the new government is following in the footsteps of its predecessors, from whom the public had grown frustrated.
“At present, the government should prioritize addressing issues that emerged after the Gen Z Protest,” he says.
The government has not yet completed its cabinet expansion, and the position of foreign minister remains vacant.
“The government should have appointed a foreign minister first. I don’t understand this rush to recall envoys,” says Paudyal.
Currently there is no parliament to conduct parliamentary hearings for ambassadorial appointments.
Therefore, even if the government makes recommendations, the ambassadors would have to be sent without a parliamentary hearing. According to the provision, an appointment can be automatically confirmed only if the hearing does not take place within 45 days.
However, since there have already been significant questions raised in the past regarding officials appointed without parliamentary hearings, the government could once again face criticism if it follows the same process for appointing ambassadors this time.
Meanwhile, Paudyal also mentions a condition under which recalling ambassadors could be justified.
“The interim government’s decision to recall ambassadors, most of whom are political appointees, can be justified only if it can appoint in their places competent, qualified individuals with a sound understanding of geopolitical realities and sensitivity toward Nepal’s position amid complex global tensions.”
“The question is,” he asks, “can this government do so?”
