By Our Reporter

The dust stirred by the claim that Nepal has joined China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) shows just how sensitive foreign policy choices are for a small state caught between big powers. During Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit to Tianjin for the SCO Plus Summit, the Chinese foreign ministry suggested that Nepal had endorsed not only the Global Development Initiative (GDI) and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) but also the GSI, which Beijing sells as its answer to the US Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Back home, Nepali officials were quick to dismiss the claim. Foreign Secretary Amrit Bahadur Rai clarified that Oli expressed support only for the GDI. Tourism Minister Badri Pandey, who was part of the delegation, said GSI or GCI were not even on the table. Oli’s economic advisor Yuba Raj Khatiwada went further, calling the Chinese version “fake news.” The tone of these responses reveals more than routine clarification—it underlines Nepal’s anxiety about being seen as tilting toward a military or security bloc.

That anxiety is well-founded. Nepal’s foreign policy, rooted in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and its long tradition of non-alignment, has always kept it away from alliances. Parliament made this clear during debates on the US MCC compact, and earlier governments refused to participate in Bimstec military exercises in 2018 and the US-led State Partnership Program in 2022. The message has been consistent: Nepal does not join security arrangements, whether pushed by Washington, New Delhi, or Beijing.

If Nepal were to embrace the GSI, the fallout would be immediate. India would read it as a direct provocation, especially with the Lipulekh dispute still unresolved. The United States would see it as Nepal aligning with China’s security vision against the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Either way, Kathmandu would risk alienating partners whose support it needs on trade, aid, and development. That is why officials scrambled to put distance between themselves and Beijing’s narrative.

At the same time, Beijing’s statement cannot be dismissed lightly. China has been aggressively marketing its initiatives as counterweights to the West, and sometimes uses vague language to project greater buy-in than actually exists. By floating Nepal’s name, Beijing may be testing how far it can push the narrative and how Nepal responds.

The episode serves as a reminder: Oli’s China visit has done little to change Nepal’s careful balancing act. The country remains firm on one point—it cannot afford to trade its non-alignment policy for promises of global security architecture designed elsewhere.