By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

Many events in the country have proven to be watershed moments in history. Our foreign policy is just one of them. Since the second half of the twentieth century, foreign policy has predominantly revolved around India and China. Now, there is a need to re-engineer our foreign policy, moving away from what we say is ‘traditional neutrality’, which has been chiefly guided by the principle of non-alignment. 

The history of Nepal’s foreign policy began after King Prithivi Narayan Shah laid the foundation of modern and unified Nepal and charted basic guidelines of foreign policy. However, after the restoration of democracy in 1990, our foreign policy has always stirred a debate among our intellectuals and experts alike, with many calling for a shift in foreign policy as an urgent need.

Every country has a blueprint for foreign policy. It guides them to drive a meaningful change – be it politically, economically or militarily. Their foreign policy plays a key role in maintaining a cordial relation with foreign countries, mainly its immediate neighbours. In addition, it also helps to foster economic and political relationships with foreign countries. On the contrary, we lack a foreign policy which is not influenced by those in power for their gains. 

To say, our foreign policy is guided by the interests of those in power rather than a blueprint. The government of the day pursues it on an ad-hoc basis. It does not adhere to international practices but tends to follow its political manifestoes even in the case of foreign policy. This is the reason why we have not been able to position ourselves strongly on the international stage.

Every time there is a change of guard, there is a change in policy as if it is their inherent property, and they change it as per their desire and not for the broader interest of the country. When the Nepali Congress comes to power, it tends to incline towards our southern neighbour. But communists prioritise their northern neighbour beyond the Himalayas and pursue policies accordingly. The intention of the Nepali Congress and Communists is understandable. Both want to please their masters.

In a rapidly changing global order, China and India are emerging as Asia’s powerhouses. Both are eyeing to establish themselves as the ultimate power in the region. In this regard, China is eager to expand its global influence – be it through the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, or the Global Peace Initiative. This intent is manifested in China’s growing footprint in Eastern Europe and helping many Eastern European countries in pursuing their infrastructure development.

Common sense tells us that foreign policy should not change with the change in government. But it is very strange and surprising to note that our foreign policy becomes subject to change when a new government comes into power. The one-China policy which the communists’ government gives utmost priority to is not entertained by the Nepali Congress when it comes to power.

Given our geo-strategic location, both China and India are equally important for us in realising our rapid economic growth. Over the years, India and China have helped us on multiple fronts – be it consolidating our hard-won democracy or infrastructure development. Our foreign policies should not prioritise one over the other. This would not augur well for a country in transition.

In May 2017, Nepal signed the much-touted Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – a massive Chinese infrastructure development strategy that aims to connect Asia with Africa and Europe through land and sea routes. While the communists committed to implementing the BRI with heart and soul, the Nepali Congress seems against the BRI, citing some reasons. Many say that India was not happy with the agreement, and it exerted pressure on the Nepali Congress, which is perceived as pro-India, to oppose the agreement. The result: none of the BRI projects have been implemented as of today.

A few years later, in February 2022, the Nepalese parliament ratified the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) – a US$ 500 million grant compact. This time, Beijing expressed some reservations and mobilised some of its pet leaders to stand against the compact. Nevertheless, Nepal vowed to join both the MCC and BRI, reflecting amity with all and enmity with no policy. As a country in transition, it would be folly to reject either or both.

China is eager to expand its influence in Nepal – be it politically or economically – while India has historically enjoyed its clout in Nepal. Now, even the US has shown its keen interest in expanding its sphere in Nepal, and it is anybody’s guess why it is doing so. However, Nepal should stay away from their competition, maintaining equidistance with Beijing, Delhi and Washington.

We need a strong foreign policy which is not guided by the interests of power-mongers and uncanny politicians. We need a blueprint foreign policy that can drive a meaningful change in the country from political and economic aspects. Any project, whether MCC or BRI, should not become the victim of the grand designs of some corrupt politicians. As long as it does not threaten our sovereignty and nationality, we need to embrace it wholeheartedly and implement it for the betterment of the nation – socially, economically and politically.

We can only hope that our politicians comprehend this reality and collaborate effectively.  They should not attempt to please their political masters and hold the nation hostage. In economic size, strength and capabilities, Nepal falls under the category of small power. But we still can influence many decisions if we have vibrant foreign policy. This is a truth that everyone needs to understand and adhere to.