Submit your Article

As Jan 20 approaches closer and President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office in the White House, states are sensing terrible tremors in foreign policy around the world. Trump’s ‘Truth Social’ diplomacy is already creating huge shocks in foreign policy and multilateralism even before he assumes the oath of office of the presidency. Trump is arguably the only president in American history to be equally admired and despised both within and outside the country. Most of Trump’s detractors blame that his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement is a trivial insignia of nationalistic vanity rather than being a patriotic big headedness. Trump, however, has been irrefutably successful in synonymizing ‘Trumpism’ and ‘Republicanism’ and shrewdly synthesizing it into ‘Populism’ in US politics.

The President-elect has declared that he will impose heavy tariffs on all exports from China, Canada, Mexico, and the BRICS countries, including tech and EVs. China, on the other hand, has announced a ‘zero-tariff’ policy for small states, particularly LDCs. Trump’s “great wall of tariff” may lead to crucial tensions in the tech, trade, and diplomatic affairs between the US and China under Trump 2.0, which would have global repercussions. Many Americans may still be unaware whether the ‘blanket tariff’ that could raise inflation is actually an American ‘policy’ or just a ‘threat’, put forth as a negotiating tactic that the president-elect is likely to impose on its major trading partner, close neighbors, and longstanding allies. Besides, the linkage between the taxes that Americans pay and the tariffs that the Trump administration is likely to impose on foreign exports should be understood by the general public.

Trump has avowed of taking back Panama Canal, controlling Greenland, and has urged Canada to join the US as its 51st state in a Christmas message under his ‘Truth Social’ discretion. Panama Canal is a waterway in Panama that connects the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, which was built by the US and handed over to the Panamanian government nearly 25 years ago. Greenland is a sovereign territory of Denmark, while Canada is a G7 member and NATO ally. The chances that Trump would again raise the issue of the origin of Covid-19 towards China cannot be denied, which could widen the trust gap between the US and China.

Trump made immutable mistakes by emboldening some of its adversaries including Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkey, among others, during his first term as the US president. His adversaries have become skeptical of his emotional intelligence and diplomatic avenues due to his frequent use of coercive and irrational language through his erratic tweets during his first term. He is now annoying US allies and key partners, which could bring irrevocable debacle in US foreign policy. Trump is, perhaps, assuming that the Nixon-Kissinger model of the “Madman Theory—act mad and other countries won’t dare trifle with you”—could work for him too.

In his dealing with North Korea, Trump applied the “Kernel of idea” from Madman Theory, possibly to give the impression that he was “irrational and volatile” so that North Korea would less likely provoke the US in fear of potential consequences. Madman theory sometimes may go truly furious in case of action and consequences if the strengths and strategies of the adversaries are undermined.

Trump has abandoned a number of multilateral alliances, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the nuclear missile accord with Russia during his first term. As a result, the US dramatically lost credibility, reputation, reliability and trust of its allies. The US is likely to witness more severe forfeiture under Trump 2.0 as he has threatened to walk-out from NATO and other significant multilateral alliances.

The main concern, however, may be whether these unusual strategies truly fall under modern US foreign policy? Do rational Americans want a military confrontation (or colonial war) in any part of the world under the monologue of neo-colonialism or political hooliganism?

From an American perspective, Trump is accomplishing American goals, such as economic growth, immigration control, border security, and nationalism. Enhancing American security and economic interests are truly a nationalistic idea. The interests of the US, however, are global. America firmly believes in globalism, liberalism, open world economy, and multilateralism. America is not just a country in the North American continent; it is a responsible global power. America is the world's most powerful nation not just because of its economy, strong domestic institutions, technology, or military might, but also because of its pragmatic foreign policy, soft power, visionary engagement in multilateral organizations, and trustful allies and partners. America’s masculine foreign policy, unwavering hold on global leadership, and distinct legacy have made it a great power. American security is said to be characterized by its emphasis on democracy, multiculturalism, multilateralism, and international law.

By the end of World War II, the US was still the most powerful country in the world, controlling over 35 percent of the world’s production, and it had the ability to (re)shape the world according to its wishes.  American values abroad are gradually waning. Is America on the verge of decline? What will be the American position in the years to come, question many critics?

When we examine the precise causes and consequences of the rise and fall of great powers or various empires, constricted ideas or disparities in development have resulted in power struggles. Their power primarily centered on the conflict between their militaries’ ascent and social forces, ethnic nationalism, economic development, colonial and hegemonic behavior. Additionally, power struggles have led to the extinction of empires following the annexation of such power.

Presumably, with a limited global presence and an isolationist foreign policy, America cannot sustain its position as a major power in the long run. The absence of US leadership in the world would leave ample ground for its adversaries to create more challenges or trouble for it. America is the only multicultural nation in the world where people from all over the world dwell or aspire to dwell. While America is winning the hearts, minds, and spirits of tens of millions of people worldwide, Trump's massive deportation plan would certainly weaken its soft power and essence of multiculturalism.

However, Trump’s initiative for peace in the Korean Peninsula and last-minute decision to withdraw the order to strike Iran in his first term must be admired. Trump’s decision to fire his “hawkish” National Security Advisor John Bolton during that situation suggests that he opposed war in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East. Reportedly, Bolton was aggressive in pushing war and later advised then President Trump to employ the ‘Libya Model’ of unilateral denuclearization for North Korea and the ‘Iraq Method’ for Iran. Trump is said to have rejected both the outrageous prospects and avoided the war. Trump instead emphasized the ‘New Method’ for peace negotiations. He is expected to use that ‘New Method’ in his second term to bring peace around the world, although what that ‘New Method’ is still not known. Optimistically, it can be asserted that Trump does not want war. Yet the crucial concern is- does Trump want absolute peace and wish to preserve an essence of stable global order?

The president-elect has pledged to put an end to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. He is expected to advocate for a similar course of action to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and establish enduring peace in the Middle East.

Whether Trump truly wants absolute peace and steady international order, he needs to start peace negotiations from Beijing. To date, the legitimacy of Pyongyang and Kremlin peace negotiations has been contingent on how smoothly Beijing’s trade operates. Thus, Trump must first make real headway in settling the trade and tariff issues pertaining to China. Similarly, the US-North Korea and US-Iran negotiations must be conducted sensibly through diplomatic and political channels, else North Korea and Iran could rise as strong contenders not only to the US allies in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East, but also to the US itself.  

Iran asserts that it is a powerful country (more so than Iraq was) and has the ability to retaliate for any strikes against the US allies. Tehran has maintained good relations with the Kremlin, Beijing, and Ankara, which could make Washington feel weaker than all the former four combined. North Korea is equally marshaling the clout of missile and nuclear technology and showcasing to Washington that Pyongyang is not alone in world politics, as it has been strongly backed up by Beijing and the Kremlin. North Korea and China are “as close as lips and teeth, communist brothers in arms…,” as Mao Zedong put it. Strategically, Pyongyang and Tehran assume that they both are as strong as Washington. While the US, under Trump 2.0, is likely to create a huge gap of trust with its allies and multilateral communities, its adversaries could take advantage of gradually waning American strength.

Chinese people are reportedly very appreciative of Donald Trump's China policy, despite the fact that it was largely humiliating; this could have led to China taking a more focused approach to accomplishing its economic, technological, and diplomatic and foreign policy goals. Since China’s opening up, the US and China have maintained good trade relations despite their long standing political rivalry. President-elect Donald Trump is anticipated to play a statesmanship role in fostering friendly, vibrant, and harmonious US-China ties, much like President Richard Nixon did in establishing US-China diplomatic relations in the past.

In the face of experiencing two near-death experiences during his election campaign, Trump's tremendous resilience must be cherished. Trump has become more composed, brave, and strong following these failed assassination attempts. He resembles a deceased man who has miraculously come back to life. The way he has got a new life, the similar way he is expected to bring peace, hope, natural life, and aspirations to people around the world with a greater generosity and wider spirit. The rest of the world would be incredibly grateful to Trump if he could, as he previously declared, put an end to the ongoing international conflicts and promote amicable US-China relations. Essentially, if President Trump played a sensible role in bringing international peace, stability, and balanced order, the entire world would applaud him, perhaps not only in this generation but also in the generations to come.

Taking into account sensible geo-location, highly unstable global geopolitical situation, vulnerable digital space, and the magnitude of AI threats, Nepal's security architecture has specific limitations. For Nepal, the conventional idea of security might not be operational. Therefore, it is imperative that Nepal adopt a practical security strategy that involves increased trust, strategic partnerships, and techno-economic cooperation with both its immediate neighbors and other global powers. The most crucial matter is that Nepal should be aware of the geopolitical rivalry between China and India or the US and China and logically implement a policy to balance relations with them.

Nepal should be ready to handle any fallout from occupation of Taiwan, which might result in a massive ‘crossfire’ between China and the US that could directly affect Nepalese security and sovereignty. Nepal would have suffered greatly on all fronts—politically, economically, digitally, physically, and psychologically—if it had not been able to diligently manage the geopolitical balance between the competing superpowers. For Nepal, the most important foreign policy choice would be whether to align with one or remain neutral, while the main concern would be how Nepal could balance between them and defend itself in that circumstance. Both the options, however, would be costlier to Nepal. Perhaps neither China nor the US would ensure Nepalese security in that critical situation. China would accuse Nepal of failing to participate in its Global Security Initiative (GSI) on time, while the United States would accuse Nepal of dwindling to participate in the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) or State Partnership Program (SPP) in advance. Yet, both the superpowers have made an effort to persuade Nepal to support their cause through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to some extent.

Nonetheless, Nepal must assess realistic foreign policy and promote techno-economic cooperation by initiating a ‘better relationship initiative’ with all the major powers, including its immediate neighbors. This could help to alleviate all of those persistent domestic and international challenges and to achieve foreign policy goals. Essentially, Nepal should practice time-sensitive policy to reduce the ‘trust deficit’ with its immediate neighbors and other powers, which could strengthen bilateral relations and raise the possibility of applied security and stability.

The author is a techno-geopolitical analyst and geostrategic thinker

Nepal can transform into a developed nation only if it succeeds politically, diplomatically, and economically, moving from a surviving ‘small state’ to a significant ‘influencing power’ by defying the notion of traditional theories of international relations that ‘bandwagon’, ‘bargain’, or ‘buffer’.

A variety of political shocks and waves have been sparked following Donald Trump’s triumph as the 47th president of the United States, both domestically and internationally. The president-elect vowed supporters that he would make America’s future “bigger”, “bolder”, “richer”, “safer”, and “stronger” during his victory speech. As a longstanding superpower, America has many domestic and international challenges to deal with. Trump’s rationale to preserve American greatness, diplomatic intelligence, and the legacy of American thinking on foreign policy, however, is yet again to be tested.

The interests and policies of the United States have a significant impact on those of numerous nations, both bigger and smaller, including its partners, allies, and adversaries. The greatness of America is largely dependent on how well it handles a variety of international issues, such as the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, its relations with rising superpower China, the EU, and NATO, as well as how responsibly it handles several transnational issues such as climate crisis, cyber terrorism, maritime security, and nuclear and AI threats, among others.

The “bigness” of Israel—a small state in the Middle East—has been constantly questioned by many nations, perhaps as a result of American vested interest in the region and beyond. In contrast, Nepal’s small state status is high, definitely as a result of the enormous, rising neighbors on both sides. Bigness usually occurs as a relative phenomenon of smallness. The ‘bigness of smallness’ in this context refers to the small state’s geostrategic credibility both within and outside of the region.

Despite the fact that small states are less likely to use their economic or military might to alter the actions of larger states, they can still have a significant impact on global discourse and the development of the international order. It takes more than just military prowess, economic power, or geographic advantage for states to leave a lasting impact. They must take a calculated risk and project a ‘paragon of diplomacy’ in order to gain the trust of larger nations.

Small states in regional integration

Nepal, one of the world’s small powers, has greater significance in regional politics. Nepal’s existing geo-location, positioned between two rising economic giants—China and India—has drawn constant attention and careful scrutiny from the World Powers. This could perhaps be by assessing the soft potentials and natural resources of Nepal or perhaps by thinking that Nepal can become a stable hub to challenge or counter challenge the immediate neighboring powers. Nepal’s location has become more significant in the region than ever before because of the Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI’s) projection of Nepal as a bridge connecting China and the rest of South Asia.

One example of the bigness of smallness is the role played by Singapore and Vietnam in the US-North Korea summit in 2018 and 2019 respectively, where their bases facilitated the two nuclear-armed rivals host the meeting successfully. Vietnam has proven to be equally trustworthy to the east and west, while Singapore’s history of neutrality, dependability, trustworthiness, and security is one of the factors that led to its selection as the summit location.

Despite its small size, Iceland's location is crucial for transatlantic security. Iceland is perhaps the only nation without an armed forces in the world. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) counts Iceland as one of its founding members due to its geostrategic location. The geo-location of Iceland has strengthened the US-Iceland relationship. It is said that Iceland’s geo-strategic position is more important to US security than the security of Iceland itself.  The geo-location of Georgia, Ukraine, Kosovo, and Macedonia is also crucial for collective NATO security, while from the Russian perspective, Ukraine’s possible accession to NATO poses a threat to its national security.

Another instance of small states advancing the interests of larger states is the US’s historical relations with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Although things were different in the recent past, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives are thought to serve Chinese interests in the BRI. In the Middle East, Jordan’s stability is again largely under US interest. Tunisia is another small state with geo-strategic importance for regional stability in the Middle East and North Africa. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have made exemplary efforts in promoting the norms of sustainable development and leadership attempts in the climate crisis within the UN, which shows the examples of Nordic countries acting as environmental champions. Despite their smallness, the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) are having a significant influence on the international discourse.

The bigger states now have to acknowledge that small states are the primary drivers of economic growth, peace, and security. The role of small states is crucial for economic integration, soft partnerships, connectivity, access, and regional integration.

The bigness of Nepal

Nepal’s geostrategic significance has been steadily increasing in recent years. As evidenced by the history of South Asian politics and recent developments, Nepal’s geostrategic location in the region has gradually changed from a ‘safe zone’ to a ‘buffer zone’, to a ‘competition zone’, and finally a ‘clout of attraction’. Nepal must, therefore, play very smart and cautiously in its political, diplomatic, and economic dealings if it hopes to maintain its growing prominence.

The growing geostrategic rivalry in Nepal between the US, China, India, and the EU shows how important Nepal is to all of these nations. The competition between China and the US, India, or the EU in the areas of trade, energy, investment, diplomacy, and railway connectivity in Nepal demonstrates the country’s geostrategic importance. A new milestone in Nepal-China strategic relations was reached in 2016 when Prime Minister Oli visited China and signed ten agreements in a variety of sectors, granting Nepal access to four Chinese seaports for trade with a third nation. Nepal’s geo-strategic credibility has been assiduously enhanced by China’s confidence in Nepal as the protector of the security and stability of the Tibetan region and a geo-strategic soft partnership in the BRI. Prime Minister Oli should strategically step up in bringing the previous agreements to execution, with the interests of the country at the forefront, as he has received a formal invitation to visit China in the first week of December.

In an effort to counteract China’s increasingly powerful influence in the region and beyond, India is also demonstrating its influence in Nepal through a customized strategy. Nepal’s geostrategic significance increases as India works harder to keep China out of South Asian politics. Because of the delicate and unstable nature of the Tibetan region, the BRI's soft partnership, and China’s security concerns, Nepal would be more strategically significant even if India wanted China to be a part of South Asian integration.

Beyond Nepal’s regional bigness, Prime Minister Oli’s participation in the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with the vision of becoming a developed country by 2043, as well as his speeches at Harvard and Columbia University, the two top universities in the world, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2018, marked a new beginning for Nepal to improve its coexistence in the global economy, trade, and diplomacy. Several admirers both domestically and internationally have praised Prime Minister Oli’s valiant attendance at the 79th and 73rd sessions of the UN General Assembly, where he presented the country’s image with a broad foreign policy outlook.

Oli has become Nepal’s first prime minister in office to speak at esteemed universities like Harvard, Columbia, and the World Economic Forum. He nobly reaffirmed the need to use global governance to address the new transnational issues instead of pleading for sympathy and grants. This demonstrates Nepal's aptitude to effectively defend its sovereignty and its equal standing in the global arena as a model of multilateral diplomacy. In recognition of the shifting global political, diplomatic, economic, and globalization landscape, Nepal organized the “2019 Nepal Investment Summit”, which drew in over 700 high-ranking international investors, policymakers, industry experts, speakers, dignitaries, influential figures from the global economy, and high-ranking government representatives from about 40 nations.

The key question, however, is whether the succeeding administrations have been sufficiently strategic to seize and capitalize on those opportunities.

The BRI induced bigness

India’s denial of participation in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) might have made Nepal more strategically important to China. Nepal now has to play a geo-strategic role in the region as a participant of the BRI. Trilateral cooperation between China, India, and Nepal would have been possible if India had signed the BRI project. China and India would then trade through Nepal. India and China would have benefited far more from that than from trade with the United States or Europe, which could again heighten Nepal’s bigness.

For China and India’s security, Nepal’s geostrategic location is more crucial than Nepal itself. India and China are geographically close to Nepal, so Nepal’s security—or lack thereof—will have an impact on their security. India’s constant concerns about security and China’s pursuit of economic dominance can only be resolved by a strategy known as ‘Broad Regional Integration’, or the new BRI, in which Nepal can serve as an integrating link.

Nepal is thought to be the link between China and South Asia in the BRI after signing the prospect. In 2019, President Xi visited Nepal. He might be open to making a second trip to Nepal. Nepalese delegates are being invited by Beijing and Delhi in succession. Nepal is regularly visited by leaders and officials from China and India. Prime Minister Modi has already made four trips to Nepal during his previous terms as India has retracted its diplomatic path to the country. In his third term as India’s prime minister, he is probably going to make his trip to Nepal in the foreseeable future. The fourth BIMSTEC summit was successfully held in Kathmandu. Nepal is viewed as a mediator by all of the regional organizations’ member states, which enhances Nepal’s geostrategic importance. Furthermore, as the latest SAARC chair, all eyes are on Nepal to restart the stalled SAARC process. 

Nepal, however, must take a calculated step forward and demonstrate exceptional diplomacy in order to gain the trust of larger economies. Nepal has never been a supporter of bloc and alliance politics. And it shouldn't. Instead, it should continue to uphold its neutral, reliable, compliant, and lofty ideals. The idea behind economic perspective is to practice economic dynamics in a way that promotes security, connectivity, and peace. Nevertheless, in order to serve the interests of the country and enhance its steadily rising international profile, Nepal must create a thorough ‘Political Intelligence Culture’ and practice ‘Stately Economic Diplomacy’ with a broad vision of building Nepal as a developed nation.

Vision 2043: Building a developed nation 

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli underscored Nepal’s prospect to achieve developed nation status by 2043 during his speech to the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). He, however, did not specify how the country would accomplish such an ambitious mission. It might not go as smoothly as anticipated, yet it would neither be impossible to accomplish this mission. The fact that a number of development indicators—such as economic competitiveness, political stability, diplomatic influence, social integrity, quality of life, academic recognition, scientific and technological innovation, tech and data sovereignty, public services, and foreign policy—lag well behind international metrics may make it more difficult. Conversely, it might be achievable if the vision and philosophy were turned into reality with pragmatic policy and action. The country should be passionate enough to adjust and grasp the pace of transformation—both within and outside—and aspire to thrive by cooperating with the international community, especially with development partners, including those in close proximity.

Nepal can be transformed as a developed nation only if it succeeds politically, diplomatically, and economically, moving from a surviving ‘small state’ to a significant ‘influencing power’ by defying the notion of traditional theories of international relations that ‘bandwagon’, ‘bargain’, or ‘buffer’. To put it another way, it has to understand the ‘bigness of smallness’ in reality and promote ‘self-help’ in order to realize the eminence of a developed nation. The country must, in fact, prudently use its ‘soft powers’ and internal values—such as geography, history, natural resources, culture, morale, civilization, and education—as well as foreign policy, technology, modernism, infrastructure, and research and development such that it can smoothly attain the status of a developed nation.

The author is a geo-strategic thinker and techno-geopolitical analyst

Nepal’s latest population census highlights ‘rapid demographic changes’, with an aging population and declining growth, particularly among the young and dynamic. A nation’s youthful, healthy, fertile and educated population is regarded as a vital ‘element of national power’, playing a key role in advancing national security, interests and economic productivity. The overall well-being of current generations, including their health, mindset, and values like humanism and compassion, directly impacts the future prosperity of societies and nations. Ensuring the welfare of today’s population is crucial for sustaining future generations.

As Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli prepares to attend the ‘Summit of the Future’ and address the 79th UNGA session, Nepal has the chance to capitalize on its internal strengths and promote its values on a global stage. By leveraging its ‘soft power’ in international forums, Nepal can enhance its foreign policy objectives, aligning with its mission of achieving ‘Happy Nepali, Prosperous Nepal’.

An analysis of the post-1990 foreign policy shows that Nepal could neither pragmatically understand “national interests” nor lucidly identify its “natural interests”. Tactlessly, Nepal’s national interests have been ambiguous along with recurrent changes in government and their policies in the last 34 years, while natural interests have been destined within the super-hoax of ‘nationalism’.

Nepal’s natural interests should be aligned in securing its territories and borders, including the rivers and the Himalayas. Based on treaties, historical accounts and official documents, Nepal’s “natural boundaries” trace the origins of the Mahakali River in the west, the Mechi River in the east and the Himalayas in the north. Nepal can accomplish its natural interest through strategic alignment with both the neighbors and advance national interest by conducting a balanced foreign policy with all powers. Nepal should understand national interests by embracing rational policies based on changing dynamics of geopolitics, international ties and diplomacy.

While national politics in Europe has witnessed the resurgence of the far-right, an unprecedented congress-communist coalition has emerged in Nepal, with KP Oli playing a crucial role in the country’s political chess game. Oli is considered the most astute political leader in contemporary Nepali politics, second only to King Mahendra, and is thought to have the same level of sensitivity as BP Koirala when it comes to foreign policy and international diplomacy.

Yet, the crucial concern is—can Oli be daring enough to programmatically handle a variety of present-day pressing issues in domestic, regional and external affairs? In the domestic sphere, the most persistent issues that need to be handled with utmost sensibility are the essence of democratic governance, economic prosperity, development, political stability, territorial sovereignty, and national security. On the regional front, the immediate neighbors—China and India—are trying to narrow down their misunderstandings and resolve various pressing issues including the border issues by improving their relations, while both of them are likely to improve relations with Nepal as well. 

They are expected to resolve persistent issues with Nepal as well. China has constantly put Nepal in its development and diplomatic priority, while India has most recently revised its aid policy to Nepal. In this regard, Nepal ought to maintain a balance in its relations with both parties by prioritizing its own national interest, regardless of their covert political agendas. 

Indeed, the Oli government will encounter numerous foreign policy challenges from all sides. The most important concerns, however, will be striking a delicate balance in the country’s relations with China, India, the US and the EU.

With an eye toward the North, Oli himself signed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) deal with China in 2017, and it is anticipated that his current administration will rationally carry it out. The Oli government has already started facing multiple pressures on foreign policy, including the status of BRI implementation within the parliament as well as from outside. Given that the alliance with the CPN (Maoist Center) was recently crushed, Oli may have to endure pressure from the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) in the name of maintaining communist unity in Nepal. PM Oli should be sensible enough in implementing the past agreements or initiating new ones with both India and China by keeping national interest above all else. In the current tenure, Oli should astonishingly initiate talks with China to grant visa-free travel to Nepali citizens in China. This would not only help strengthen people-to-people contact and enhance trade activity by opening several connectivity options between China and Nepal but also help elevate the global status of the Nepali passport, which would indeed lead Oli at the helm of foreign policy.

While turning toward the South, border and trade issues and the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report are ever-pressing concerns. Oli has garnered huge support by including in Nepal’s map the territories of Kalapani, Lympiadhura and Lipulekh on the basis of historical evidence like land tax payment papers and historical accounts, and the formation of the EPG, so Oli is expected to be more apprehensive with revisiting, and resolving these issues. India, however, has its own share of problems and foreign policy challenges, as it has recently witnessed unprecedented politico-electoral changes, while the opposition in the Indian Parliament has emerged stronger. Chances of the Indian National Congress winning the next election and forming a government are greater. In light of the impending change of power in New Delhi, the Oli administration ought to strengthen ties with the ruling party along with the opposition in the Indian parliament. This is because the Congress has openly backed Nepal on a number of issues, most notably the blockade in 2015, when Oli was leading the government in Kathmandu. India, however, is carefully balancing its relations with all powers, including the US, China, Russia, and the EU, with the Modi government acting in a very dynamic manner and conducting a shrewd and sensible foreign policy with all of them. The Oli government in Kathmandu ought to do similar stratagem in foreign policy execution with its immediate neighbors to the north and south as well as other powers to the west,

Looking Westward, implementation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and potential pressure on the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) as well as the State Partnership Program (SPP) cannot be ruled out, which will be Oli government’s foremost foreign policy challenges. Meanwhile, the US is on the verge of a presidential election, which might bring dramatic results by shocking not only America but also the entire world. The US election of 2024 is probably going to be a whimsical one, especially with President Joe Biden pulling out and Vice-president Kamala Harris entering the presidential race. Since a failed assassination attempt a few weeks ago, former president Donald Trump has received tremendous sympathy and support—both political and moral—within the Republican Party and outside of it. Since then, Trump has grown braver, stronger and calmer, all of which may help him win the election. Yet, a large section of Americans are worried whether the US would be winning. Nevertheless, Harris’s endorsement has indeed traumatized Trump and his team, as she is considered a strong contender for presidency. Thus far, America has largely suffered from identity and racial politics since its establishment. So, the likelihood that the American people will elect a president of ‘race’ and ‘color’ is minimal, regardless of one's attributes, appeal, strengths, exposure, or charisma. The presidential race is not likely to be so easy for both of them.

Nevertheless, if Harris wins the US presidential election, she is most likely to continue Biden’s foreign policy, including the IPS and Taiwan and Tibet policies. She is also likely to follow the path of confronting China, which will largely affect not only South Asia, but the entire world. 

Her administration will surely support Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. This means the international war, uncertainty, and chaos will continue, marked by growing US-China rivalry, while Russia will remain the biggest enemy of the West, including the US, EU, and NATO. 

At the same time, chances of growing India-Russia proximity affecting India-West relations are higher, which will have a significant bearing in South Asia and beyond. In addition, the risks that Taiwan issues will be heated up cannot be ruled out, which will directly affect Nepal in all aspects—security, economy, politics and diplomacy. While Nepal has already suffered from the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine wars directly and indirectly, as a significant number of Nepalis  have lost their lives in the Russia-Ukraine war and in Palestinian captivity, Nepal will suffer much more from the Taiwan occupation and corresponding consequences.

Alternatively, should Trump win the US presidential election, the country’s foreign policy will change, affecting not only its friends and allies but also every nation on the planet, including its most formidable adversaries, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. In any case, regardless of the winner—Harris or Trump—the US remains in a position where a major shift in its foreign policy will have a substantial impact on the rest of the world, including Nepal and its immediate neighbors.

Nepal’s foreign policy should therefore be utterly sensible, rational, and pragmatic, rather than being influenced by fear-psychoses, imperceptible hypotheses, or submissive philosophy, given the country’s sensitive geo-location and the ongoing competition between global and regional powers in South Asia, especially in Nepal. Thus, it is necessary to pragmatize the conventional approach to foreign policy making in light of realism, facts, data, information, history, intelligence and changing dynamics in techno-geopolitics and international relations. So, it is necessary to establish a robust and all-encompassing intelligence unit at the Prime Minister’s Office, which could supervise various sub-units such as the desks for the US, China, India, and the EU, with foreign policy experts employed to maintain the respective desks and offer the Prime Minister real-time advice and information as well as practical recommendations based on dynamism in international political and diplomatic spheres.

Oli, however, has largely suffered from some problems of “makeover leadership”, such as high vision, big dreams and patronizing expectations. He needs to be more pragmatic and patriotic than nationalistic at the moment, yet the nationalistic agenda can be emphasized based on national consensus. Also, he needs to take every criticism as an input for his mission on nation-building. Oli is said to be an idealist and is believed to be capable enough to inspire the nation, stimulate the citizens, and envision several steps ahead of contemporary Nepali leaders. Subsequently, Oli should be able to take the major political parties into confidence to develop a consensus on significant domestic and foreign policy issues, while democratic governance and political stability need to be at the core of the efforts.

That being said, the Oli government ought to strive not only for economic and political stability but also for the establishment of a prosperous nation, the preservation of Nepal’s territorial sovereignty, and the affirmation of its sovereign dignity. Meanwhile, Oli must once again demonstrate that he is a nationally acclaimed ‘true patriot’ leading the country with a strong sense of economic patriotism, spirited leadership and rational intelligence. He needs to show his distinct charisma to cement friendly relations with foreign leaders through ‘personal diplomacy’, while personal diplomacy can play a significant role in solidifying Nepal’s relations with other nations even when bilateral relations go low. As a patriot, PM Oli must exhibit his valiant persona and immense sense of patriotic morality to stand tall, neck-to-neck and shoulder-to-shoulder with leaders of neighboring and other powers such that he could gear up the momentum of diplomatic and foreign relations to safeguard national interests.

Considering the implications of international political, diplomatic, and security intelligence, the government must view intelligence through a wider lens, examining it from military (or security) intelligence to political intelligence to diplomatic intelligence to emotional intelligence (of the leaders and diplomats). Political and intelligence culture can help understand foreign policy and military and security affairs in depth. The powerful countries frequently practice astute intelligence and counterintelligence, while some of them also regularly push political and diplomatic propaganda to influence countries like Nepal. Where are the diplomatic intelligence systems in Nepal? Can foreign policy succeed without any significant intelligence mechanisms?

Nepal should rationally invest in intelligence, especially political and diplomatic intelligence such that it could rationally enhance diplomatic engagement with its friends and strategic partners. The National Security Council and National Investigation Department (NID) need to be strengthened with regards to expertise, resources and responsibilities. Diplomatic intelligence, a pragmatic approach in contemporary diplomacy, needs to be potently exercised so that there won’t remain ample ground for diplomatic mishaps. When it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy, a careful calibration of words matters. Most significantly, emotional intelligence—the capacity to identify, comprehend and control one's own emotions as well as understand, identify, and influence the emotions of others during bilateral negotiations—is highly prized in diplomacy and diplomatic relations.

Even with all of these persistent challenges on both domestic and foreign fronts, PM Oli cannot bring about a radical change in the nation on his own. A comprehensive ‘political culture’ is necessary to pledge domestic political stability, envision perpetual democratic governance and advance national interest, while a strong “intelligence culture” is necessary to safeguard territorial sovereignty and national security. Essentially, these goals can only be achieved through broader national consensus among major political parties as well as the cohesive will of the people, society, intelligentsias, constitutional stakeholders and the nation.

The author is a techno-geopolitical analyst/geo-strategic thinker. Views are personal

Amid changing politico-electoral dynamics in India, its relations with immediate neighbors are likely to be transfigured. Nepal-India relations, however, have been mostly centered on “belief”, ‘over-belief”, or ‘crises of belief”, largely swayed by elite rulers.

Beyond government-to-government relations, Nepal can strengthen its relations with the formidable opposition in the Indian parliament through party-to-party ties, or shadow government relations, given the steadfast support Nepal has garnered over the years from the Indian opposition on political, diplomatic, economic, trade, environmental, demographic and geographic issues.

Nepal should use tact and tone rather than counteract emotions to advance its national interests through a variety of avenues, including institutional, diplomatic, public and personal.

Nevertheless, both the neighbors need to broaden their perspectives and lessen the antiquated stereotype of one neighbor over the other by laying emphasis on truth, trust, tone and respect as cornerstones of their relationships for tracing a conscious and concrete relationship roadmap.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons against the West—the US, NATO and the EU—thanks to his country’s tech and nuke strengths. North Korea is threatening the US by flexing its sophisticated defense system; Israel and Iran are threatening each other on the strength of their high-tech missiles and AI drones; while the US and China are intimidating one another with their superior AI and defense-security capabilities.

Amid escalating tensions, what if states use AI to control nuclear weapons, operate fighter planes and deploy AI soldiers on battlefields? If they use AI to control nukes, consequences could go beyond the control of humans, impacting humanity immensely, warn AI pioneers. The sapiens’ decisions to develop AI are precise and constrained, whereas AI’s decisions could go against human indoctrination, triggering imprecise and unrestrained actions. Thus, states should act sensibly and regulate AI through multilateral tech and diplomatic channels. 

Since the end of Cold War I and emergence of a liberal international order, the extent of globalization has profoundly impacted culture and universalized the education system. Nepal is one of the few countries that has been unable to foster its culture or internationalize its education system due to a massive influence of international culture and education. 

While Tribhuvan University, Nepal’s oldest varsity, has adopted a new procedure for choosing officials, it should next build a reliable transnational network and internationalize Nepali education to advance national interests and project soft power for executing public diplomacy, fostering good neighborliness and advancing national interests. A strong education system and a justifiable cultural exchange program help countries understand each other better. Essentially, a high-quality national education system not only boosts productivity but also broadens the spectrum of soft power in foreign policy, leaving a much stronger impression of the country in international platforms.