Kathmandu, Sept 2: Nepal has firmly rejected Beijing’s claim that it supports China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI), even as Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli attends the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin. The dispute arose after contradictory statements from the Chinese foreign ministry and Nepal’s own officials regarding Oli’s talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The Chinese side said Nepal backed all three Chinese initiatives—the GSI, Global Development Initiative (GDI), and Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). Nepali ministers and aides quickly dismissed this, stressing that Kathmandu only supports the GDI, which is linked to UNDP, and has repeatedly refused to join the GSI and GCI. “Our stance on GSI is categorical: Nepal cannot be part of any security or military bloc,” former ambassador Bishnu Pukar Shrestha said. Foreign Secretary Amrit Bahadur Rai confirmed that during the Xi-Oli meeting, Oli expressed support for GDI alone.

Tourism Minister Badri Pandey, part of the visiting delegation, said no such agenda on GSI or GCI was even discussed. Prime Minister’s economic advisor Yuba Raj Khatiwada labeled the Chinese claims “fake news,” while Ambassador Krishna Prasad Oli reiterated from Beijing that the visit was proceeding smoothly and no agreement had been reached.

China has pushed its new initiatives globally to counter the West’s influence, after advancing the Belt and Road Initiative. While some cultural programs under GCI have been quietly introduced in Nepal, GSI remains a red line. Analysts describe the GSI as Beijing’s attempt to reshape global security frameworks and protect its overseas investments. Nepali leaders, however, have consistently avoided joining security blocs, citing the country’s long-standing non-alignment policy. Past governments rejected participation in Bimstec military drills in 2018 and the US-led State Partnership Program in 2022, and Parliament also clarified Nepal’s position during the MCC debate the same year.

This pattern of resistance underscores Kathmandu’s reluctance to be drawn into strategic rivalries. A retired general questioned whether Oli, even if he privately assured Beijing, had the authority to alter Nepal’s official position without consulting security agencies or political partners. “Whose position would that be—Oli’s personal stance or the Nepali state’s?” he asked.

The dispute over Lipulekh also resurfaced during the visit. Nepal maintains the pass is its territory, but India and China recently agreed to resume trade through it. Foreign Secretary Rai said Oli raised this with Xi, urging recognition of Nepal’s claim. Yet China’s official readout omitted any reference to Lipulekh, hinting at divergent priorities.

Nepali officials appeared unfazed, saying China chose not to highlight the issue publicly. Ambassador Oli described it as “their choice.” Still, the absence of Lipulekh in Beijing’s statement raises doubts about how forcefully Oli pressed Nepal’s position, and whether Beijing is willing to challenge its recent understanding with India.

In the end, Oli’s China visit has highlighted two unresolved tensions: Nepal’s refusal to endorse China’s security agenda, and the lack of traction on its demand over Lipulekh. Both reflect Kathmandu’s delicate balancing act between asserting sovereignty and managing relations with its powerful neighbors.

People’s News Monitoring Service