By Rabi Raj Thapa
In a recent podcast, a former U.S. president remarked, “When you sit behind that desk in the Oval Office, you learn something about yourself real fast. You learn that every word you say carries weight and credibility. Every sentence, every off-hand remark, every post put into the world either builds trust or burns it.” How far the Balen government can abide by this wisdom remains to be seen, and the Nepali people are watching closely.
Former President Bill Clinton termed the U.S.–Iran peace deal a mismanaged diplomatic episode and has also criticized Donald Trump’s use of Truth Social as an inappropriate channel for communicating government policies.
At present, it remains unclear who holds the proper authority to dispel confusion created by media hype surrounding serious issues such as the State Partnership Program (SPP) and the recent uranium extraction deal in Mustang—issues that could drag Nepal into a prolonged diplomatic quagmire.
Serious diplomacy is not merely a performance; it is also a process of careful deliberation. The recent meeting between Chinese Ambassador Zhang Maoming and Home Minister Sudan Gurung, described as “very candid but straightforward,” sounds serious and somewhat alarming. Why the ambassador chose to meet the home minister rather than the foreign minister is particularly noteworthy.
Meanwhile, the Nepal government hosted U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Samir Paul Kapoor, who was actively engaging with government officials, business leaders, and cultural experts. These interactions carry significant political and diplomatic implications.
On the other hand, Nepal has rather abruptly and unanimously declared itself a “buffer state”—a move that is both surprising and perplexing.
We must remember that Nepal once enjoyed a strong reputation as a bold, neutral, and impartial nation, maintaining good relations with nearly all countries, including the United States, the former U.S.S.R., Great Britain, China, and India. Nepal also earned a coveted seat as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for two times. It has been an active member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) since its inception and has embraced the South Asian philosophy of Panchasheel alongside its neighbors.
Now, however, Nepal appears to have set aside these longstanding principles and adopted the unusual concept of a “buffer state.” What exactly does this mean, and how does it redefine Nepal’s relationship with the rest of the world? The government must clearly explain and justify this position to both the Nepali people and the international community. Does it imply an open field for competing geopolitical agendas such as MCC, SPP, and BRI without reservation?
Recent remarks by U.S. lawmakers highlighting Nepal’s strategic location between India and China—along with Kapoor’s observation that preventing dominance by any single power in South Asia remains a key U.S. objective—are both serious and significant.
All of this underscores the urgent need for a strong cadre of professional diplomats equipped with wisdom, knowledge, and experience to navigate complex foreign interests and challenges. Effective diplomacy requires a deep understanding of international relations, global politics, and the evolving geopolitical order. At present, it seems that a handful of PhD holders, think tanks, NGOs, and foreign advisers alone cannot sufficiently strengthen government decision-making or address the growing complexities of the global environment.
It is surprising to see the Nepal government moving away from its established foreign policy visions, values, and principles such as non-alignment and Panchasheel. The concept of a “Zone of Peace,” proposed by the late King Birendra, was uniquely suited to Nepal’s context. Likewise, the Core Policy Strategy Doctrine (Rastriya Mul Niti) of 2044 B.S. could still serve as a valuable reference for preserving Nepal’s sovereign and independent foreign policy.
However, prime ministers over the past three decades have gradually abandoned these guiding principles. Whether the new “buffer state” approach can safeguard Nepal’s interest remains uncertain.
Regardless of the chosen foreign policy, a country requires trustworthy and competent government institutions. Nepal’s national security strategy should not be altered abruptly or in an ad hoc manner. Sudden policy shifts create confusion not only among citizens but also among neighboring countries and international partners. The public has the right to understand the government’s rationale, analysis, and transparency in decisions with far-reaching consequences.
It is hoped that this government—composed of uncorrupt, affluent, and highly educated ministers—will not fall into the traps set by foreign interlocutors, whether governmental or otherwise.
Login to add a comment