Submit your Article

Starting on 3 Nov 2017, the Université de Montréal, a premier higher education institution in North America and beyond, initiated an ambitious journey that involved hundreds of citizens that came together to discuss Artificial Intelligence.

In partnership with multiple stakeholders including the provincial and local governments and academic think tanks including the prestigious Mila—Quebec AI Institute, the goal of this exercise was ambitious and pioneering at the same time: defining the key ethical principles who should drive the development of AI.

Through multiple sessions covering different topics and themes, around 500 participants started discussing broad ranging ethical principles that should always be at the foundations of any discourse on AI. The whole undertaking was defined as a “collective”, an informal initiative where associations, think tanks, government agencies, academic institutions and citizens come together to discuss and deliberate on one of the most daunting topics of our society.

We are talking of an unprecedented technology with untapped potential that, at the same time, carries enormous risks. The shift towards an AI centered economy, if not properly and adequately managed could trigger tectonic consequences that can be devastating.

Nepal recently approved its first ever AI Policy. This is, without questions, an important milestone for the country but from here, where to go? How to ensure that this new document will be different from other policies that, almost by default, always struggle to get implemented? The new policy envisions also a set of new institutions like an AI Regulation Council and a National AI Center.

A new AI-driven and centered governance is being shaped but will these institutions be effective, meaningful and, importantly, inclusive? Will experts and citizens alike be enabled and allowed to participate beyond the usual tokenistic approaches? Like for climate change, our societies are utterly unprepared for what might happen with an unregulated AI.

As I wrote in this column a few weeks ago advocating for a new set of multi-stakeholder governance that can address the challenges of climate warming, I do believe that an emerging nation like Nepal that aspires to become a lower middle income economy over the next decade, must be prepared. Both challenges, climate and AI, will test the resilience of our systems.

Certainly, more developed and industrialized nations will have to face more daring times, especially in relation to the shocks their economies might suffer from a race to the bottom in which corporations will cut their work-force and rely more on AI agents. In both cases, the resilience of our political systems, especially in democratic settings like the ones Nepal is enjoying, could come under stress.

We are already aware of the risks associated with waves of social media driven waves of misinformation and disinformation. These problems are going to be further magnified by AI. That’s why we need to talk about a Just Transition, an important element of the climate discourse, also for the rollout of AI, ensuring that no one is left behind, including the most vulnerable classes.

Frankly speaking, the concept of leaving no one behind might be way too timid for a future dominated AI. Actually, the risks posed by the AI are more about crashing and rolling over millions of people rather than leaving them behind. In order to be able to tackle a potentially devastating scenario, the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence based at Stanford University, has come up with a series of important research papers inspired by what the Founding Fathers of the American republic had done with the Federalist Papers.

Entitled the Digitalist Papers, the contributions, written by renown luminaries from across different disciplines, offer insights and suggestions to ensure that AI systems can, as Dario Amodei explained in a powerful essay, “Machines of Loving Grace”, be capable of doing incredible and so far unthinkable things for the benefits of humanity.

Amodei, the CEO and co-founder of Anthropic, is one of those sector leaders who are the most aware of the potential downside of an unrestricted, unethical turbocharging of AI systems. Among these essays that are aimed at rethinking America’s social compact and strengthening its democratic political systems in such a way that it can thrive in an era of AI, Lawrence Lessing, a legal scholar at Harvard Law School, penned “Protected Democracy”.

In an era where democracies are already being tested and are showing deep cracks in the system, Lessing calls for forums where citizens can discuss and deliberate without any undue influence and undeterred by the polarization that already is eroding the trust in democracies. He proposes the establishment of forms of “protected democracy” based on citizens being able to come together, discuss and deliberate based on reasons and facts. “Democratic choice requires participants engaging on the basis of a common understanding of a common set of facts. We already don’t have that; AI will give us even less” he wrote.

“We live now in an unprotected democracy. As we come to our views about what is to be done and who is to be supported, we are exposed to information by a media that has an agenda unrelated to crafting collective, coherent understanding”. Lessing thinks of citizens’ assemblies as forms of “protected assemblies”.

The risks associated with AI can derail the democratic fabric of the United States of America due to its power to further polarize the society by spreading misinformation, disinformation and overall turbocharging orchestrated campaigns of maligned political influence. It will also widen the equality gap because AI systems will be controlled by a miniscule group of powerful interests, a combination of political and economic actors within a few nations.

Lessing concludes,”We, as a people, are thus increasingly vulnerable politically to the effect of AI.” While the Digitalist Papers are focused on America, also developing nations, especially democracies like Nepal, must be prepared. That’s why it is important to start a conversation in a very structured fashion on how AI can shape the future development trajectories that Nepal is striving to achieve.

Deliberative democracy, a topic I often cover in my pieces, can truly make the difference in involving and engaging the people, especially the young ones, in a future where AI will increasingly play a significant role. Slowly the effects of AI systems that potentially might not be completely under human control whose outcomes cannot be understood (the problem of interpretability), will also be felt here in Nepal.

This is not a dystopian scenario but the phase in which AI reaches the level of Artificial General Intelligence, AGI that equals and exceeds human capacities, is not far from now. AGI will be the biggest scientific breakthrough that, as fascinating and as potentially scary as it will be, will represent a steppingstone for a further giant jump, the arrival of an inevitable superintelligence akin to what we watch now in the movies.

Internationally, there have been also discussions to create a Global Citizens Assembly focused on AI. ISWE Foundation, a leader in the promotion of transnational models of citizens’ deliberation, together with Connected by Data, has already conducted some studies. Can also the policy makers of Nepal imagine similar initiatives in which the people are empowered to first understand and second to decide how AI could be developed?

Because of its young generations who thrive in the digital world, Nepal could stop being a slow mover that just simply copycats the best practices. While it would be silly not to learn from the experiences matured by the major developed economies in the field of AI, Nepal must also take the lead. From a late adapter, the country could become a trailblazer at least in terms of showing the world that is doing its homework to lay down a pathway to harness AI for the benefit of its people.

On 4 Dec 2018, after a year of intensive debate, amid the cold of Quebec’s winter, the Montréal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence was endorsed. Its ten principles are centered on well-being, respect for autonomy, protection of privacy and intimacy, solidarity, democratic participation, equity, diversity inclusion, prudence, responsibility and lastly sustainable development. The declaration is a blueprint to guide any nation trying to develop a safe and secure AI framework.

It was a truly pioneer document that ensured some basic forms of legitimacy because citizens ‘participation was a key cornerstone to the whole initiative. Interestingly as a collective, the stakeholders involved in facilitating the discussions also conducted other activities including research and educational training on AI and human rights.

How will AI help transform Nepal? Will the country be able to gain from this new technology while minimizing its side effects or will the nation continue to blindly follow others without any homework? For AI to be a WIN WIN in the country, let’s involve and engage its citizens. The AI policy that the federal government just approved is important but the way it will be executed will be even more crucial.

The 70th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral relationships between Nepal and China is an important milestone for both nations but it is obvious to say that Nepal has been benefitting the most from this relationship.

Over the years, Nepal proved to be a reliable and trusted partner for Beijing and it is worthy to observe that Kathmandu was able to forge a strong relationship with China without putting its own strategic interests in jeopardy. Co-habiting a space hemmed between India and China, while it can bring multiple advantages, can also be a tricky endeavor.

Balancing off different interests and trade-offs between New Delhi and Beijing requires high skills in navigating foreign diplomacy without forgetting in the equation, the role of the United States that, with the exception of the incumbent administration in Washington, has also been a strong and important partner for Kathmandu.

Thanks also to the presence of different communist parties in the country, Beijing has been able to assert its influence and it is remarkable how swiftly China has been capable of boosting not only its development assistance but also its soft power in Nepal.

I often read mesmerizing reports from reporters invited to China to observe firsthand and then report and explain back home the huge improvements in the lives of Chinese citizens over the last 30 years, enhancements that have been accompanied by a turbo state-led capitalism that supported China’s rise. I have a huge admiration for China’s history and ancient civilization while as someone who grew up in the West, I have also a critical view of certain policies and positions taken by Beijing.

I never expected China to turn itself into a democracy but at the same time, I do not have an uncritical view of some of its approaches related to human rights and freedom of expression. Yet I always had a strong desire to try to understand the nuances of certain policies because in politics as well as in governance, we cannot simplify everything through “white and black” lenses and this is particularly true for a complex country like China.

Because understanding the ways the Chinese Communist Party works and the multilayered governance structure of its political and administrative systems are complex endeavors that require a lot of expertise.

In short, observing and trying to make sense of what is happening in China is indeed a fascinating thing and I do believe that the West should make a much bigger effort at grasping the nuances of China’s political system.

Nepal, despite its links with India, has managed, quite successfully, at building important bridges with China. At the same time, even in relation to the Road and Belt Initiative, Beijing’s flagship global program, Nepal has been able to push back with due respect and smartness. At the same time, the civil society of Nepal has been able to forge stronger relationships with peers in China and slowly a stronger knowledge of the country is emerging and this is a good thing.

Yet, I do feel that members of the press corps and activists should also develop a more holistic understanding of China. I never believed that a paradise on Earth exists, a nation capable of embodying perfection in all its spheres of life where no problems exist. This not only applies to China but also Europe, Australia or the United States of America or any other nation.

As a European, I can be proud of our democratic credentials and freedom of speech I can enjoy back home. I can also certainly assert that the EU has also been struggling with double standards and I wish the Europeans could always walk the talk in matters of upholding human rights domestically but also in their foreign policies. So, I do not take it easily to criticize the second biggest power on Earth, especially when China has been doing a lot for the nation that has been hosting me for many years.

Yet, as Nepal’s consciousness of India has matured over the years because the citizens of the former know very well the mindset, culture, politics and foreign policies of the latter, I do believe that slowly a more “complete” view of China will emerge.

From Beijing’s perspective, this inevitable evolution of views is not necessarily a negative thing because real partnerships require the space also to vent some criticisms or simply different perspectives. As China might sometimes vent its frustrations toward Kathmandu, it is normal that Nepal can be in a position to question certain policies and positions taken by Beijing, not out of disrespect, but simply out of sincere and trustworthy commitment to make the bilateral relationship stronger. This would happen because the rapport between the two will be enhanced when the interests of the smaller partner are better addressed and the latter becomes more assertive.

Nepal learned how to navigate its relationships with its south neighbor, developing a sense of self-confidence in also pushing back whenever needed. At the end of the day, such a level of candid approach might annoy New Delhi but at the end of the day, India knows that the relationships are stronger when both parties feel comfortable at expressing each other even if the positions are different.

Eventually, the same would happen with the northern neighbor. This would represent a new level of relationships between China and Nepal that, rather than being one-sided, are more mutually beneficial because they are more balanced.

Finally, I want to take an appreciative view of what China has been doing for Nepal. With the exception of the Ring Road work that I believe has been poorly designed (see the number of lethal accidents that have occurred so far since the revamped partial motorway has opened from Koteshwar to Kalanki), China has been playing a huge and very generous role in supporting Nepal.

I recently read of plans that China will build a bone marrow transplantation facility at the BP Koirala Memorial Cancer Hospital in Bharatpur, Chitwan.

There are also discussions on important expansions at Civil Service Hospital in Kathmandu, a hospital entirely built by China that, since its start of operations, has already seen important upgrades. These are key infrastructure projects for Nepal, very tangible initiatives at direct benefit of local peoples. At the same time as Nepal is proceeding to graduate from the category of least developed nations, would it not also be essential for Kathmandu to start doing something to help China? I do understand that this might look like a ridiculous proposition but instead I do believe that Nepal is about to reach the point where it can also show gratitude to its northern neighbor.

As Kathmandu tries to learn more about the almost unimaginable improvements in the lives of Chinese people and how Beijing has been prioritizing the right to development, Nepal can also show its templates and success stories. For example, how the nation halved its poverty and levels of social exclusions and how its political system, despite its own issues like instability and corruption, proved to be indispensable for such progress. Nepal could also do much more in promoting its culture and way of dealing with internal problems and differences and why not establish an exchange program where hundreds of Chinese students come here to learn about the country?

If millions of Chinese students have flocked to the USA, why not have some of them also learn Nepal’s way to development and prosperity? Frankly speaking, the university system in Nepal, while having its own share of challenges, also counts with some best practices. Higher education is just one area where Nepal could do something to reciprocate China’s generosity.  Without a doubt, there are many other areas where Nepal can do its bits to show that it is not taking China’s generosity for granted.

On July 23, the International Court of Justice issued a groundbreaking Advisory Opinion clarifying that states have an obligation to tackle climate warming. The ruling, while not binding, also affirmed, in an unequivocal way, the duties and responsibilities of nations who have been historically responsible for the emission of carbon fossils. The AO is certainly charting a new phase both in the field of climate negotiation and in the realm of climate litigation, with the latter set to expand and scale in ways that are difficult to imagine.

At the same time, it might be useful to reflect about the trajectory, the pathway that led to the Hague where the ICJ is located. We should not forget that it all started with a group of law students at the University of South Pacific in Suva, Fiji. They were the ones, emboldened with sheer confidence and ambition, who had started working on the rationale, the legal case for which the ICJ should step in. It was because of their irreverence and perhaps recklessness that we have reached this turning point in the fight to uphold the Paris Agreement. Their stories have been celebrated worldwide and rightly so and by now, there have been many articles, videos about them.

However, let us not forget that, it is also worth remembering another part of the story. It was because of the Government of Vanuatu that the case for an AO could be brought to the General Assembly of the United Nations, an indispensable step to reach the ICJ. A small island nation of approximately 320.000 people was able to gather the required support from other member-states and convince them of the urgency of approaching the ICJ. It was a long and complex journey that started in 2019.

When I first heard this story, I could not stop thinking about the following question: if the students that had dared to start this process were from Nepal, a nation much bigger and powerful than Vanuatu, would they have received the same level of support from their own government? Well, this is an inescapable question.

While it is true that the federal government in Kathmandu embraced the case during the hearings at the Hague, I have been wondering if Nepal would have been able to garner the 105 co-sponsor nations at the General Assembly without whom the resolution would have never passed. Perhaps the key question is not really about the diplomatic capacities of Nepal at the UN. Probably it would not have been unimaginable for Kathmandu to bring together enough co-sponsors like Vanuatu did, ensuring that the resolution paving the way for ICJ’s intervention would pass through consensus at the General Assembly.

The real question to ask ourselves is another one: would, at first, the government have listened and backed a group of its own law students? This is a fundamental aspect to discuss. It is also important to remember that Nepali youths were also very active in supporting the cause globally. Some of them have been taking the lead at national and regional level through the World’s Youth For Climate Justice, the global movement that was initially spearheaded by the students at the University of South Pacific.

The same group of youths played an important leadership role in ensuring that the Government of Nepal could have a strong representation when the country defended the need for an AO during the official hearings at the ICJ in December last year. It is probably safe to say that without their involvement, Arzu Rana Deuba, the Foreign Minister of Nepal, would not have given a strong and convincing statement at the Hague.

Therefore, it is appropriate now to think about the future months when the AO’s principles will start reverberating in the international community and yes in the court of justice around the world. While it is impossible to summarize here through a few lines some of the legal principles and substantive statements from the ICJ, it is worthy to remember that the justices also expressed their opinion on the states’ responsibilities to prepare the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These are the commitments that all the parties to the Paris Agreement have pledged to implement in order to reduce (in jargon, “mitigate”) their carbon emissions.

According to the AO, the preparation and implementation of NDCs are not entirely discretionary for the governments. In practice, it means that these documents must be ambitious and each respective country must have concrete plans to effectively implement them so that they can scale back their emissions. Only in this way, the entire international community can collectively be able to limit global warming to 1.5°C as per the Paris Agreement.

Even more far bridging is the fact that parties to the Paris Agreement not drafting or not doing enough to implement the NDCs, can be found in breach of international law and their action or omission can be considered an internationally wrongful act. This is a very important aspect of the AO that perhaps has not received adequate attention as most of the commentary has been on the duties and responsibilities of industrialized nations’ responsible for anthropogenically-induced climate change.

For developing and emerging nations, the part of the AO on the NDCs requires utmost attention. Preparing an ambitious NDC is a complex task and Nepal has been showing leadership when it recently finalized its latest version, the third overall since the approval of the Paris Agreement. It also means that the country needs to introspect and reflect on the tools and policies at disposal to ensure that it can do whatever it can to implement the NDC. While many of its components will depend on foreign assistance on the part of the polluting industrialized nations, a lot of its implementation will rely on effective and transparent governance at both national and local levels.

And here another question: does Nepal have in place effective mechanisms to ensure that those parts of the NDCs under its direct control, the ones implementable without any form of foreign aid including funding for loss and damage or even possible future compensation, can be achieved? Even in the case of Nepal being able to receive the much-needed climate finance from outside, will the country be able to use these resources effectively and transparently? That’s why it is appropriate for the nation to brainstorm on the most effective tools and mechanisms to ensure that Nepal does whatever is possible to implement the NDCs parts where it has a direct control on the outcomes.

One way to start rethinking the national climate governance is to have solid mechanisms to engage members of the civil society. We could imagine a National Climate and Biodiversity Council consisting of members of civil society, including representatives of academia. It is important to also include the area of biodiversity because, as we know, we are talking about two sides of the same coin even if then, at the international level, nations have the burdensome duty of dealing with two completely different negotiation mechanisms.

Half of the seats available in the Council should be assigned to local youths who would represent the whole diversity of the nation, therefore also ensuring the participation of youths from historically marginalized communities that, so far, have been less involved and engaged on climate work. The Council should not be just a sounding board for the government but a platform that can, on one hand, propose ideas and solutions, while, on the other, keep a check on the government’s implementation of the NDC.

The central level body at the federal level could work in partnership with similar mechanisms at provincial levels with some sort of loose and light coordination between the two levels. Memberships could come through consensus and ensure that certain criteria are met in order for someone to be able to claim a seat. I am talking about a voluntary role that, if obtained, will only be for a limited amount of time, perhaps one year or maximum two years with the possibility to renew it for another year.

Another option would be to have a body that is exclusively composed of youths, a Youth Climate and Biodiversity Council but I am afraid such an approach would only invite tokenistic results and its work might not be taken seriously. Remembering how the international community got this trailblazing AO is paramount. A small group of law students were able to initiate a global movement and, with the right support, they made history. Then, why not entrust more policymaking responsibilities, including some forms of decision making to them in implementing the Paris Agreement at the national level? After all, who can better ensure that AO will be literally upheld and put into practice?

As I am writing this essay, the first day of the BRICS Summit chaired by Brazil in Rio de Janeiro has concluded. Some official statements have already been released, all centered on highlighting the importance of the Global South to emerge and thrive in a world so far dominated by developed nations from the West.

With both President Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin of Russia absent, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India surely can take advantage of the stage, championing together with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil the role of the developing nations.

“The Global South has often been a victim of double standards. Whether it is development, distribution of resources or security-related issues, the interests of the Global South have not been prioritized; India has always considered it its responsibility to rise above its own interests and work in the interest of humanity, " said PM Narendra Modi at the 17th BRICS Summit

It could be tempting to discuss the double standards of the Prime Minister who has always been very keen to cement his relationship with the Global West, especially with the leaders of the G7 but let’s set this aside.

Instead, let’s focus instead on what the BRICS could represent for a country like Nepal. There is no doubt that BRICS can have an important role in reinforcing a multipolar order. At the same time, there is the risk of this bloc polarizing the world further, especially if Russia and China succeed at pushing a strongly anti-western narrative.
It is one thing to lament the unfairness and imbalances facing the Global South, but a completely different matter if there is an open, continuous and unabated hostility toward the West in the way that both Russia and China are keen to unleash. This is the dilemma that Indonesia is facing as the latest nation officially joining the bloc as a full member.

Indonesia, like India, is one of the strongest representatives of the modern non-alignment in foreign policy. De facto, there is no longer a united nonaligned movement of nations but rather, we are talking of the strategic approach of nations like India, Indonesia and Nepal. With the multiple geopolitical crises arising, non-alignment is increasingly becoming a difficult balancing act for the capitals embracing it.

Therefore, the BRICS has a strong purpose and clear mission but only at a theoretical level because in practice, the bloc remains divided. It is one thing to rally around high rhetoric clamoring for justice and equality in the world but it is another thing to put together a coherent set of initiatives, considering also the divergent views that its members have on human rights and democracy.

Yet, there is no doubt that the BRICS cannot become a united and coherent geopolitical bloc, it has some geopolitical aspirations, given the fact that it has been welcoming new members for quite some time. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were officially accepted in 2023 during the South African chairmanship of the BRICS.

In practical terms, there is already a BRICS “global” bank, the New Development Bank (headquartered in Shanghai) under former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff. While the NDB’s work is still somehow disappointing and underperforming, the potential is clear despite a “sibling” rivalry with Chinese’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). In addition, the Brazilian Presidency this year has been extremely careful at promoting very concrete areas of cooperation like climate change and artificial intelligence.

These factors make BRICS more relevant than G20 and G7, groups that, by design, are to be much more loose and unstructured platforms. Taking into account the strengths and the potential of BRICS but also its structural weaknesses, especially now that it is at risk of losing its strategic focus with its expanded (and diverse) membership, could it be worthy for Nepal to consider applying for a partner status membership?

There are many nations with this looser and less demanding type of affiliation, officially called the “BRICS Partner Countries”. It is an increasingly large group (as per now, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Nigeria have this status). These are nations that want to ride on the potential of BRICS without a full commitment to it. While they can bring an additional collective strength, these nations further stress the internal divide between democracy and authoritarian nations already existing among the full members of the BRICS.

It would not be unimaginable for Nepal to consider this level of partnership with the BRICS. Most importantly, Nepal would gain some visibility and have some tangible gains, especially in terms of enlarging its very limited global presence and establishing more South-South partnerships.

But, strategically speaking, the number one priority for Nepal would be to find ways to reactivate the process of cooperation in South Asia. The SAARC, despite being moribund, should remain the “North Star” for the country’s foreign policy. BIMSTEC and initiatives like “Nepal-India-Bangladesh Corridor could play an important role but none can match the unlimited potential of the SAARC.”

BIMSTEC, no matter its added significance, would never play a fundamental role like the SAARC. The former is a connector, a bridge between two different regions, South Asia and Southeast Asia and Nepal needs to expand its relationship with a nearby region with an incredibly dynamic market. But, in matters of international cooperation and possibly regional integration (the former is the linchpin for the latter), Nepal needs to find an “engine” to maximize its economic potential and develop holistically while eradicating poverty.

Such a propeller can be only found in South Asia and it is called SAARC. With SAARC, there would be a real possibility of creating a common pan-South Asian market and united regional economy. But we all know the current status of this regional body that has been adversely impacted by the relationships between India and Pakistan. There might be creative ways for Nepal to restart the process of regional cooperation but perhaps, Nepal needs to think of itself as its engine rather than delegating this essential and yet untapped function to a regional body.

It might be high time for Nepal to think differently and out of the box and overcome the structural obstacles from two nations in the region that are not interested in leaving the past behind.
Regional cooperation and regional integration in South Asia cannot be blocked by a risky rivalry that, if left unchecked and uncontrolled, can threaten the whole region. Why should not Nepal expand its horizon and strategically imagine itself as a member of bigger forums while also not giving up its strategic interests in its own backyard and truly push for reviving the dream of a more united South Asia?

Perhaps we are really entering an era of disruptions driven by trade wars and more and more accentuated geopolitical rivalries even among core allies. The new Trump administration has started over the weekend a trade war with its most important economic partners, Canada and Mexico with whom it is legally bound by a free trade agreement, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Tariffs, even of lesser magnitude, have also been imposed on China’s products and it is now certain that the European Union is going to be the next one to be hit.

The future of USAID is in jeopardy, hundreds of its senior staff are on forced leave, its website is offline.  Instead of talking peace, Trump is using the same authoritarian playbook and the same logic of the Russian president, Putin, to insinuate possible territorial takeovers of allied countries.  Amid this upheaval, it is easy to reach an easy conclusion. 

There are even concerns of a possible breakdown of the liberal order, with the United States of America entering a new tumultuous era driven by “America First” policies. How could a nation like Nepal make sense of this rapidly evolving and disruptive situation? Is it the end of an era of cooperation among nations, a period that, notwithstanding its imperfections, offered some stability and predictability even among competing and rival nations? For once, at least apparently, Nepal seems to be on the safe side of this nascent chaos. 

Yes, even a possible closure of USAID won’t constitute a devastating blow for Nepal. After all, its geography has granted Nepal with what I call a “Double Safety Net”, often taunted as a double constraint but, in this unfolding time, a guarantee for stability and, if the quality of national governance would help, national prosperity. This “Double Safety Net” is called India and China. 

If Nepal keeps playing its cards well in balancing the interests of these two giant neighbors (and so far, it has done a pretty decent job at it), then the country will be in a relatively safe space. Yet, as we know, there have been endless talks and opinion essays on how the country should avoid dependency, especially from the angle of underwriting unsustainable infrastructure and economic projects.

It might be worthwhile for Kathmandu to see the current developments in the international arena as an opportunity to go beyond India and China and dare to play a much bigger role internationally. What the world sees as an era of increased geopolitical and economic frictions and much pronounced tensions among nations could become a golden era for Nepal’s enhanced cooperation with the wider world. 

Such a new approach could envision multiple initiatives that could be categorized in two distinct but interconnected folds. On one hand, Nepal could expand its diplomatic horizons by fostering stronger relationships with other developed and emerging nations around the world. On the other hand, instead, the country could set the benchmark for ambitious and innovative national policies that could make Nepal a harbinger and trailblazer for sustainable development and climate policies.

This essay will, to begin with, focus on the former, an outward foreign policy which could unleash Nepal to gain a new image of itself internationally. Let’s start from the neighborhood. Singhadurbar could play a much proactive role in reinforcing ties with its South Asian peers, especially countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. With Dhaka, it is almost inconceivable that there has not been any major interactions with the new interim government under Muhammad Yunus, the de facto Prime Minister of Bangladesh. It might be that New Delhi, considering its closeness with the former regime led by Sheikh Hasina, is putting some obstacles.

Yet Kathmandu should really go unleashed in strengthening its relationships with Dhaka and other capitals, including Thimphu. It is granted that energy-focused diplomacy could help reinforce existing ties, especially with Bangladesh. Such effort at bilateral level should be complemented by a new approach to resuscitate the SAARC, a moribund organization. Kathmandu could inject some vitality in this important body no matter what PM Modi of India thinks of it.Unleashing Nepal’s foreign policy in the region means projecting self-confidence and assertiveness whenever national interests demand and regardless of what others say.

As much as a new, tangible emphasis on South Asia would be much welcomed, unleashing Nepal’s foreign policy would also signify a new focus on boosting vital diplomatic relationships already in force. Think of the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Australia, for example. The relationships between Nepal and these powers are already consolidated but they could reach a new height. This would be possible if Kathmandu manages to swap the existing perceptions and underlying narrative of its relationship with them from the angle of being a country in need of developing aid to a nation that can become a trade and economic partner. 

But Nepal could do much more and be even more ambitious in the international arena. 

Here the country could dare to reach out to other lower-middle income economies and middle powers in the wider Asia-Pacific region but also in Africa and South America. Let’s think, first of all, about Southeast Asia, an area whose regional architecture, the ASEAN, is way ahead than the SAARC, in terms of cooperation among its members. The ASEAN bloc will soon roll out a new strategy, the so-called Vision 2045. We should wonder if the officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kathmandu are doing their homework to understand how Nepal could better harness its ties with the region once the new strategy is in place.

But Singhadurbar could even go beyond South East Asia at least in terms of mapping out potential synergies within the African and South American continents. There is a need to engage other peer nations in these vast areas with high potential of economic growth. It might be unimaginable to prospect the possibility of a Prime Minister of Nepal undertaking an international tour of East and Southern Africa nations or visiting the capitals of Argentina, Brazil and Peru and Chile. Yet an ambitious foreign policy, while prioritizing what is more doable and feasible in the short term, should not shy away from bolder steps.

In any given year, there are very few occasions to talk about volunteerism, about the “duty to serve”. These are topics that should be truly embedded in our lives and should be seen as one of the main focuses of our daily conversations.

Considering the staggering and mounting problems societies around the world are facing, it is not an exaggeration to imagine citizens to be driven by their own lives’ goals but also engaged in the pursuit of the common good.

As idyllic as it might sound, it should not be unthinkable to foster a sense of community belonging in which volunteering and serving others become a natural thing to do, a sort of duty that is not a burden but a personal relief that gives people joy and satisfaction.

Instead, there is a dearth of celebrations for a “holistic giving culture”, barring a few exceptions like the International Volunteer Day (Dec 5) and the Nelson Mandela International Day (July 18).

July 18 is another call for action to remember the contributions of Mandela, the father of modern, free and democratic South Africa often referred to as Madiba—his clan name.

There is another special occasion that is normally celebrated only in the USA on the third Monday of each January: Martin Luther King Day or MLK Day. Martin Luther King Jr was the quintessential icon of the civil rights movement, who fought against segregation and a racial system that basically was a form of apartheid. Both Madiba and Martin Luther King Jr picked tough battles against political systems at a very high personal cost.

These were against apparently insurmountable roadblocks, structures of power which, by design, were alienating and discriminating against large parts of populations living in their respective nations that, in both cases, happened to be people of color.

Madiba initially had chosen to take a violent path against the white supremacist regime of South Africa but years and years of detention made him understand that the only way forward was peace obtained through dialogue and reconciliation.

Martin Luther King Jr instead was crystal clear from the outset about the changes he and with him, many others, were envisioning for a different, more just and truly united America, could materialize only through nonviolent civil disobedience. Driven by his Christian faith, King Jr said, on 19 Aug 1967, in Atlanta, “power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”

In one of his most important public addresses titled ‘Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution’, delivered at Morehouse College Commencement, on 31 March 1968, King Jr shared: “It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence”.

“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love,” he said during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance address on 10 Dec 1964, in Oslo.

King Jr knew deeply that nonviolence and peaceful resistance were the only methods which could have resulted in a better, more human nation.

Violence would have brought only more blood and with it, an unending cycle of revenges and retribution. King Jr invested in building a real organized movement because creating a more equal society was not just his job. Rather, it was a collective effort of a myriad of citizens, including numerous white Americans, who stood for justice and against bigotism, racism and hatred.

King Jr and many others, who even laid their lives for the societal changes they were envisioning, had realized that those changes could only materialize with a dedication at building people’s skills, starting with principles and values-based leadership.

There are many definitions of leadership but to me what counts the most is that leadership starts with personal endeavors, with a personal commitment at trying to be better not just for self-improvement but also for the enhancement of the society.

One of the most famous quotes of King Jr that has been one of the central messages of MLK Day since its initial nationwide observance in 1986 was: Everybody can be great because everybody can serve.

To serve others, you need to be driven by unassailable and universal principles and values and by doing something for others, you will always end up learning something, enhancing your leadership capabilities.

“You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love,” is another nugget of wisdom from King Jr.

It is indeed paramount to think about embedding our society with a culture of service, a culture of helping each other.

The concept of “duty to serve” could be imagined as a call for action in which people are neither compelled nor obligated to help others but make a personal choice to dedicate some of their time, skills and energies to the society.

State agencies in Nepal and elsewhere should facilitate and make it possible for citizens from all walks of lives to be involved and be engaged in public lives, driven not by a spirit of self-interest but by altruistic aims. Volunteerism, unfortunately, is too often discounted and neglected. Nepal is also a striking example and itself a contradiction.

The country has high social capital but state agencies are not doing enough to capitalize on it. By the way, what happened to the draft National Volunteering Policy that was supposed to be endorsed years ago?

With or without such a policy, it is never late to talk about volunteerism and service and it is never a lost cause to talk about ways to promote them.

MLK Day is a federal holiday in the USA; it should be embraced universally.

And let’s not forget that we cannot avoid talking about key and inalienable rights when we talk about volunteerism.

Certainly, you can also volunteer in authoritarian regimes and many of these nations do promote volunteering and yet, theirs is just a very convenient and disingenuous approach.

Because what’s the point of genuinely serving others if you do not have freedoms and your rights are not respected?

That’s what King Jr fought for, let’s not forget it.

This piece is an exercise at connecting the dots and at making some assumptions of situations that have recently occurred that, though apparently unrelated, could be linked to the same thread. I am also, quite boldly, attempting to formulate some theories of Let’s start with the most banal, perhaps frivolous of all these facts. It is about the recent qualification game for the AFC Challenge League played by the Bhutanese side Paro FC against the Nepal’s Martyrs Memorial A-Division League champions Church Boys. 

Just a day before the game, the Japanese football star, now semi-retired, Keisuke Honda, playing for the Bhutanese’s side, lamented, ironically, about the miserable conditions of the football pitch assigned to his team for one of the pre-game training sessions. 

It so happened that, while the team reached the Bhadrakali football ground, workers were still mowing the grass. It is rumored that Honda, used to the highest standards of football after a strong career with some of the most renown European clubs, had said “Is this a joke?”, expecting that such preparatory work like cutting the grass would be done well in advance. 

A day later, I was with a group of youths I have been working with, all smart young students committed to doing good in the society. They are all nice and serious about their work and together we are working in a new dimension of human rights. One of them, mentioning the embarrassing moment, said, ironically, something like the following: “Another track record for Nepal!”. 

In the end, the pitiful conditions of the main pitch of the Dasharath stadium also brought humiliation for the whole country.

The following day we had scheduled an important meeting with a key stakeholder, something we had been trying to schedule for almost two months. It was decided by the group to meet one hour before the meeting to discuss and finalize a few points in the agenda to be discussed. I was running twenty minutes late and I tried my best to inform everyone. 

All the team arrived much later than me and the person who had made the comment on Honda’s amazement about the country’s preparedness to host an international game was the last to arrive and I had to wait outside the office for him even if our official meeting had already started. To me this was also a small embarrassment.
Tragic accidents take place all too often on the country’s roads. 

For example, it is a catastrophic occurrence that buses fall down ravines or, just over a month ago, two buses were hit by landslide on the Mugling-Narayangadh section of the highway during a night trip through a road that should have been precautionary closed. 

When these incidents happen, we hear the usual blames like lack of rules or non-compliance with existing regulations, be they in terms of allowing old vehicles on the road or the lack of common sense on the part of those who drive recklessly. But I am wondering if instead, on the top of an utter disregard for these fundamental laws of the road, the problem is wider and much more systemic than what we might think. The assumption I am daring to make in this column is that many of the challenges affecting the country are due to factors related to the sphere of personal behavior.

Yes, while there is often a lack of appreciation for regulations and laws, such disregard is more a symptom rather than the cause of all these problems.

As we know, putting all these situations together does not only affect the image of the country but also hits the confidence that the people have in their own country. Even we could say that the whole performance as a society is negatively affected. 

What I am talking about instead is that at the bottom, there is a combination of factors that do affect people’s performances and as consequence have a serious impact at societal level. It is not just about small embarrassments per se like the one related to a football pitch’s conditions, these are things that could be easily shrugged off. But, starting from small things, literally speaking minutiae to much more serious affairs, gigantic impacts at system level might come as a result. 

My theory is this: The lack of attention to details combined with a tendency to downplay our own responsibilities while blaming others can bring appalling effects. If you think about road accidents, it is almost a miracle that the country’s roads do not see more lethal accidents. 

On a recent journey to Jorpati, I saw the nonchalant attitude at not observing the undivided line that separates the two senses of direction. To be clear, I am also not immune to some responsibilities as I often ignore some of the most basic traffic rules while I drive like a crazy bicyclist. 

In short, small matters do matter a lot and, taken together, we get the country about which so many people complain about. This is also related to the general (mine included) attitudes related to punctuality. Most of the people, obviously not all, do not bother much about arriving on time. In a scenario where everybody has the same approach, well, there is no big impact as a meeting simply will start later but what if the same tardiness is also applied for other, much more important issues or tasks? 

It is also about personal accountability because people might tend not to care as much as they should in situations where their actions can make a difference, even a small one, if implemented. And to me personal accountability is a big deal because without it, we will hardly have the tons of personal leadership that an ambitious but still developing nation requires to advance and progress. There is a clear link between the two and the former is a sort of precondition to the latter without which nothing can happen. It might be that one of the problems is that leadership in a cultural setting like the one existing in the whole of South Asia and perhaps beyond is always understood in terms of authority. 

This is a misconception because equating leadership to power and personal authority is one of the best ways of disempowering and disenfranchising people from assuming their responsibilities. The end results can vary: it can bring to being late in a meeting or being late at mowing a pitch. But it could also bring to delaying till last minute important tasks and, by the way, it can also lead to a lack of competitive performances at the highest levels of the sports.

Such an approach, tragically, could also lead to preventable deaths on the road. That’s why it is important to work at a behavioral level when we try to fix the most common problems, either the small or big ones. Without such effort, even the stringiest regulations might fail to have an impact and we all know the consequences. 

Finally, do not forget that details matter a lot!

Views are personal

Over the last three weeks, I have been trying to follow as closely as possible the dramatic situation unfolding in Bangladesh.

As I write this, Sheikh Hasina is no more the Prime Minister of the South Asian country.

The violent protests were triggered by the decision of a High Court in Bangladesh to reinstate extremely generous public jobs quota for the descendants of the martyrs and veterans, who had fought the independence war against Pakistan.

Disenfranchised students, alienated from a system that is corrupted and rife with governance malpractices, protested to assert their rights at getting the jobs available.

Initially peaceful, the protests soon turned into a violent and bloody mayhem with the state machine showing total brutality.

Indeed, the state’s reaction was harsh, vicious, ruthless and cruel.

Law enforcement agents and members of the students’ wing of the Awami League, the thuggish BCL, showed no mercy, no containment.

As a consequence, extreme violence was unleashed. And then, finally, the regime fell.

Abu Sayed, an unarmed student standing with his arms stretched in defiance, was savagely shot dead.

Student leaders were taken away from their homes in the middle of the night and even those recovering in hospitals were forcibly removed from their beds despite the pleas from doctors and family members.

The result was hundreds of students killed and thousands jailed. The picture is complex due to the fact that Bangladesh could be defined as a semi-authoritarian regime governed by the same person, Prime Minister Hasina and her party, the Awami League, for 15 years.

Indeed, there have not been competitive elections since 2011 and the Awami League has become an overtly dominant party.

Geoffrey Macdonald, a Senior Advisor for the International Republican Institute and a Visiting Scholar with the US Peace Institute wrote, just a few months ago, an analysis on the current political situation in Bangladesh.

It was fittingly entitled “A Perilous Moment for Bangladesh’s Democracy” as the author describes the features of a polity that de facto could soon increasingly become close to resembling a single party system.

The opposition parties, especially the Bangladesh National Party and the Islamist Jaamat, have been at the receiving end of the government’s crackdowns over the last decade, and are now unable to operate freely, allegedly joined in the protests.

For the government, they were the main culprits, the cause for the violence that ushered in.

According to an official narrative that the former ruling party was spinning, they were even plotting to take over the official residence of PM Hasina.

In the end, the mass movement driven by students but filled by common people did the job.

Law enforcement officers also paid a high price as some of them even got killed and wounded.

The situation has been even more chaotic and difficult to understand with the government officially banning the internet for over 150 hours.

While it is hard to put all the pieces together, what is certain is that too many students paid with their lives and this should have never happened.

The internet ban is something I experienced firsthand. Over the last two weeks, I tried to access local news outlets from Bangladesh multiple times, to no avail. 

Then I contacted a promising academician from Dhaka, someone I had met in the course of an international conference. A brilliant scholar, he refused to comment on the developments, even anonymously.

He felt ashamed about what was unfolding in his country but it was too sensitive, too risky to comment.

His refusal was an indicator that it is indeed a dangerous time for democracy and liberties in the country.

At the end, last week, I got in touch with Jahed Salim, a senior reporter with Massranga Television, who was willing to share his views.

During our interaction, the situation was getting much better and no one was forecasting the fall of the Awami League.

“After the imposition of curfew, normalcy seems to be returning to the whole country, including the capital Dhaka. With the easing of curfew, offices, courts and business establishments have reopened. Till now we have not received any reports of disturbances in the whole country” he shared via email.

I asked Jahed if there would be some sort of accountability and justice for what happened.

“A judicial inquiry has been arranged into the early riots, especially the killings by the police on July 17. In this case, I think action will be taken according to the inquiry report. But the violence also took place with the brutal killing of members of law enforcement agencies. I feel that the government is very strict on this matter”.

Indeed, despite the limited freedom of expressions, newspapers like the Daily Star have been unequivocally adamant at demanding accountability.

Hasina, after further escalating the tensions by calling the students “traitors”, had exercised restraint, with a promise to deliver justice. She also paid a visit to some of the youths wounded in the violence.

It was all too late.

Yet, apparently many in Bangladesh harbor doubts on bringing to justice those who disproportionately used force, especially against unarmed students.

“The issue of BCL, the former ruling party youth organization, will probably be seen “politically”. I don't think anyone will be brought to justice,” Jahed had explained me.

The latest developments indicate that there will be accountability and the members of the BLC will pay a heavy price, but hopefully their punishment will follow the rule of law rather than the chaos and hatred of revenge.

The involvement of opposition parties in the protests is now almost an indisputable fact. They saw an opportunity and exploited it by causing destruction.

“Although it is called a students’ movement, the main opposition parties got involved. This has been observed in the past few movements. Since they cannot go on the streets due to the sternness of the government, they infiltrate various movements and try to achieve their interests,” Jahed explained.

“There was a real possibility that external forces comprising members of some of the opposition parties would carry out such brutality if given the opportunity. Because they have been conducting activities underground for a long time. However, the students’ movement had no idea that it would become like this. It is very painful.”

I asked him if there was any possibility that the protest focused on employment quotas, would turn into something with a far more broadened and radical agenda, the overthrow of the ruling party.

He had rejected that possibility but what happened is the opposite.

People in Bangladesh have started expressing a strong antipathy and dissatisfaction against PM Hasina and her party.

Those who dared to oppose the government in the past were at risk of facing serious consequences.

Let’s not forget that in January Nobel Laureate and Grameen Bank founder Professor Muhammad Yunus was convicted to a six-month jail term due to some bogus charges of money-laundering, tax evasion and corruption in some.

Now Prof Yunus is going to play a key role in the interim government.

In this case, my interlocutor proved wrong but many were thinking the same. Over the weekend, there was a turning point with people expressly demanding the PM’s resignation, something that was not seen as a possibility just a few days ago.

“It seems that the students will not go for any attempts at pulling down Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from power. However, those who are on the opposition that are trying to use the opportunity. They have already called on everyone to unite in a one-sided demand for the downfall of the government”.

Yet what happened in Bangladesh showed how protests can quickly turn into something much bigger.

In the case of Bangladesh, a peaceful mass movement by students turned into a bloody crackdown by the authorities and then it turned into a real revolution.

If, after the initial violence, there was a different reaction, a real remorse, the Awami League could have introspected and saved itself

In the last days before her fall, Sheikh Hasina tried to make amends with the students, inviting them to the palace but the lid was already open, years of ruthless governing could not be undone with a belated request of dialogue.

What is happening in Bangladesh is extremely concerning.

What unfolded in Bangladesh has been brutal and traumatic, a black chapter for the whole of South Asia.

This is unfortunate because democracy is way too important, not only for the young citizens of Bangladesh but also for all the citizens of South Asia.

Nepalis should take note of what is happening not that far from home.

They should re-assert their commitment to upholding one of their most precious, though sometimes often undervalued assets: Democracy and rule of law based on justice and fairness.

Now a new chapter is opening for Bangladesh and hopefully the high-stake confrontations among parties, nepotism and violence of the past will be undone and democracy now will have a real chance to flourish.

Views are personal