By Sharachchandra Bhandary

The world is more interconnected than ever, yet international relations are becoming increasingly divided. Geopolitical rivalry, armed conflicts, trade tensions, strategic competition and economic uncertainty are making cooperation more difficult. Differences among nations are inevitable. The real challenge is finding ways to manage those differences through dialogue rather than confrontation.

That is why multilateralism matters.

The United Nations remains the foundation of the international multilateral system. Established after the Second World War, it created a common platform for countries to work on peace and security as well as economic, social and humanitarian issues. The UN has its limitations, and the call for reform has been heard for decades. Nevertheless, its basic importance remains unchanged: it provides sovereign states, large and small, with a common table.

But contemporary multilateralism extends well beyond the United Nations.

Over the years, regional and functional organisations have emerged to deal with particular economic, political, security and development concerns. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and BRICS have different memberships and objectives, but each provides a forum for dialogue and practical cooperation.

These platforms do not necessarily compete with the UN. They can complement the universal system by bringing countries together around regional or sector-specific concerns.

South-South Cooperation has also gained greater relevance. Developing countries have accumulated valuable experience in areas such as infrastructure, agriculture, public health, technology, disaster management and climate adaptation. Sharing that knowledge can help countries build their own capacity while allowing them to contribute to solutions rather than remaining only recipients of assistance.

The current sequence of major multilateral events involving China is particularly interesting.

China hosted the SCO summit in 2025. This year, it is hosting APEC, with the Asia-Pacific Economic Leaders’ Meeting scheduled to take place in Shenzhen in November. Following the BRICS Summit in New Delhi this September, China is set to assume the BRICS chairmanship and host the next summit in 2027.

The SCO, APEC and BRICS are different forums with different purposes. Yet their sequence provides an opportunity to examine China’s engagement with several important forms of multilateral cooperation.

This should not be seen as evidence that any single country leads multilateralism. Multilateralism is fundamentally a collective process. Its value lies in bringing countries with different political systems, economic interests and strategic perspectives into dialogue.

The real test is what happens beyond the summit halls.

Multilateral cooperation becomes meaningful when political understanding is translated into practical results. Connectivity, trade, investment, development finance, public health, energy, technology and environmental protection are areas where cooperation can make a direct difference to people’s lives.

BRICS provides one example. The grouping is marking two decades of cooperation in 2026 and has developed into a broader platform for emerging and developing economies to discuss global governance and development. The New Development Bank is one practical expression of this approach.

The Delhi-Ghaziabad-Meerut Namo Bharat Regional Rapid Transit System in India, supported by the New Development Bank, is an example of how multilateral development financing can be turned into infrastructure that improves connectivity and access to employment, education and other services.

For Nepal, the importance of multilateralism is particularly direct.

A relatively small, landlocked country situated between two major Asian economies, Nepal has a strong interest in an international environment based on sovereign equality, peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and mutually beneficial cooperation. Multilateral forums give Nepal an opportunity to engage with major powers while ensuring that its own interests and concerns are heard.

Nepal should therefore avoid viewing international relations through the narrow prism of choosing one camp or another. Its national interest lies in maintaining constructive relations with all, expanding economic and development opportunities and safeguarding its sovereignty and strategic independence.

South-South Cooperation can add another dimension to this approach. Countries facing similar development challenges can share experience, technology and practical solutions. Nepal can learn from other developing countries while also contributing its own experience.

Climate change makes such cooperation increasingly urgent.

Nepal contributes very little to global greenhouse-gas emissions but remains highly vulnerable to climate change and the growing fragility of the Himalayan environment. The devastating disaster of August 26 brought that vulnerability into sharp focus.

The disaster, involving glacier-related hazards, flash floods and destructive debris flows, caused extensive loss of life and damage. The precise interaction of glacier dynamics, geological conditions, extreme weather and a warming climate requires continued scientific study. But the tragedy has once again demonstrated the vulnerability of high-mountain environments and the risks faced by communities downstream.

For Nepal, climate diplomacy cannot remain limited to statements at international conferences. It needs to produce practical cooperation in scientific research, glacier and weather monitoring, hydrological information sharing, early-warning systems, disaster preparedness, search and rescue, climate adaptation, technology transfer and access to climate finance.

South-South Cooperation can make a useful contribution in these areas. Countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America have valuable experience in dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes and other natural hazards. Sharing technology and practical knowledge can strengthen the capacity of vulnerable countries.

The August 26 disaster also demonstrated a basic reality of geography: nature does not recognise political boundaries. Rivers cross borders and mountain systems connect countries. A hazard in one part of the Himalayas can have consequences far beyond its immediate location.

This gives multilateralism a distinctly human dimension.

When a country faces a disaster on such a scale, assistance should not be determined by political alignment. Scientific expertise, technology, rescue capabilities, humanitarian supplies and financial support should be available on the basis of need and shared human responsibility.

The different layers of multilateralism therefore have complementary roles. The United Nations provides the universal framework. Regional organisations address regional concerns. Economic groupings can promote development, investment and connectivity. South-South Cooperation can facilitate the exchange of knowledge, technology and development experience.

No single institution can address every global challenge. What matters is whether these different mechanisms complement rather than undermine one another.

The same principle should apply to relations among major powers. Multilateralism should not become another arena for bloc confrontation. Countries do not need to share the same political system, development model or strategic outlook to cooperate where their interests converge.

Indeed, the ability to cooperate despite differences is a fundamental test of multilateralism.

China’s successive hosting of the SCO, APEC and, next year, BRICS offers an opportunity to observe this process across different platforms. The three forums differ significantly, but together they illustrate the variety of forms that international cooperation can take.

China’s role in these forums should therefore be viewed as part of the broader evolution of the international system, rather than simply as a contest over who leads multilateralism. The responsibility for making multilateralism work ultimately belongs to all participating countries.

For Nepal, the lesson from the Himalayas is particularly clear. The August 26 disaster was first and foremost a national tragedy, but it also highlighted the need for greater international cooperation in a region facing increasingly complex environmental and climate-related risks.

The broader challenges facing the world point in the same direction.

Diplomacy cannot prevent every conflict, but dialogue can help prevent disagreements from escalating. Economic competition will continue, but cooperation can reduce its damaging effects. Climate change cannot be addressed by any country acting alone.

The world therefore does not need less multilateralism simply because countries disagree. It needs effective multilateralism precisely because they do.

For Nepal, multilateralism is not an abstract concept discussed only in international conference halls. It is closely linked to national development, climate resilience, disaster preparedness, regional stability and the country’s ability to safeguard its sovereignty and national interests.

In the final analysis, multilateralism is not about eliminating national interests. It is about recognising that, in an interconnected world, many national interests can be protected more effectively through cooperation.

Countries do not need to agree on everything to work together on what matters to everyone.

The author is Executive Editor of Rastriya Samachar Samiti (RSS), the National News Agency of Nepal, and writes on international affairs, diplomacy and regional geopolitics.