Submit your Article

The foremost challenge in Nepal’s foreign policy comes from the adjustments we should make in the changing geopolitical and international circumstances, including managing the conflicting interests, geopolitical rivalries, and strategic competition of our neighbors and great powers. The strategic competition between India and China is not new. Another great power, the United States of America, has entered the scene, sometimes with competing strategic interests. We have to operate without being a playground for competition among our neighbors and great powers. Nepal does not wish to be drawn into the “geopolitical contest”, “strategic competition”, and “big power rivalry”. The three-way geopolitical competition in Nepal involving India, China, and the United States is not necessarily against Nepal’s interests, as it can generate benefits and opportunities in aid, trade, and investment. We should develop relations with all powers, focusing on our interests and without taking sides in their geopolitical contests. During the Cold War era, we managed to maintain the best relations with the superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—and obtain aid and support from both. There is no reason why we cannot maintain the best relations with India, China and the United States and benefit from their support and cooperation simultaneously. We should deal with them based on our national interests while finding a niche in their competition so we can benefit from them. Because of our relations with major powers and immediate neighbors, we often face difficulty in reaching decisions regarding the initiatives or proposals they bring from time to time, also because they sometimes contain competing interests. The United States of America has been pursuing its Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) and seeking to apply it in the countries of the “Indo-Pacific Region,” including through its Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). China has launched multiple initiatives, including the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Global Development Initiative (GDI), Global Security Initiative (GSI), Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), etc. We should develop principles for dealing with diplomatic proposals from great powers or our immediate neighbors. We should accept them if they are in our interests and not entertain any if that undermines our foreign policy principles. According to our policy on non-alignment, we cannot become a party to any security or military alliance. We should avoid any overture that has a political or strategic objective that seeks to use us against one or another power or neighbor. We should respond to such proposals by assessing their economic viability and benefits rather than political preferences. We should retain our decision-making autonomy without being compelled to choose for or against such proposals. If we maintain such clarity and keep reiterating them, decisions concerning them will be easier. We should take into account the emerging alliances and partnerships in the region, without being dragged into their competition. They include the IPS, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), the trilateral partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (AUKUS), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), etc. We need not fear them but rather be vigilant without taking sides while not missing opportunities arising from them for our economic development. We must assess changes in geopolitics and adjust our policies accordingly. Though the world has become a“global village,” geopolitics is back. Geopolitical tensions have increased with the rise of new powers in every region, including ours. There was a time when the power that commanded the seas ruled the world. Then, whichever power controlled the Eurasian mainland extending from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic, exercised supremacy. Today, the power that commands the Asia-Pacific region can have geopolitical sway. Now called the Indo-Pacific Region, it is rapidly evolving as the center of gravity for geopolitical contests. The balance of power is shifting to developing countries, particularly in Asia. The continent is retaking its lost dominance in the world economically. Asia has also become a new theater of great power contestation, including in the South China Sea. Our region, South Asia, remains a geopolitical hotspot, thanks to the strategic competition involving great powers, Indo-Pakistan relations, extremism and terrorism, unresolved boundary issues, and the crisis in Afghanistan. The 2017 Doklam standoff and the 2020 Galwan Valley border scuffle between India and China highlight the potential risks of unresolved bilateral boundaries in regional stability and security. India and China cooperate on several issues and platforms while engaging in competition in others. They cooperate on climate change, development, and global governance. Both are members of the BRICS, SCO, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), etc. Their bilateral trade has reached $135bn. They have a stake in working together for their interdependence and regional stability. We have seen what can happen when they bypass us. Their 2015 agreement for opening the Lipulekh Pass for trade and pilgrimage came without consulting us. An African adage says, “Whether the elephants are dancing or mating, the grass will get crushed in either case”. In the past, we handled geopolitical challenges without compromising our independence and sovereignty. We should keep a constructive engagement with our neighbors and great powers by diversifying our relations, resolving outstanding issues, strengthening regional cooperation and economic integration, pursuing political stability and economic development, and fostering national unity. We need not fear geopolitics but handle it according to our interests. It is our priority to maintain the best relations with India and China and benefit from their economic progress. We need to find a niche to benefit from their competition, especially in the economic realm, without being dragged into their sides. Both are our sources of trade, tourism, investment, and aid. So far, little automatic spillovers from their economic growth have come to Nepal. We must take proactive action to benefit from their economic growth. Nepal’s unifier king, Prithvi Narayan Shah, likened Nepal to a ‘yam between two rocks’. The ‘yam’ needs to extend its roots into the crevices of the ‘boulders’. Nepal should seek economic integration with India and China, enter their supply and value chains to benefit from their economic rise. In economic growth, Nepal is a slow-moving tortoise between a marching elephant (India) and a flying dragon (China). It would be in our interest to invoke the Rhino (Gaida) in us to match them with an equally-robust growth trajectory. At the least, we can move like a rabbit—fast and vigilant—to benefit and catch pace with both. We can benefit from India and China by promoting trade opportunities, offering ourselves as a transit economy, focusing on infrastructure development, including connectivity projects, attracting tourists and FDI, and transferring technology, knowledge, and skills from them. We need to move beyond the slogans of ‘transit economy’, ‘dynamic bridge’, ‘land-linked economy’, and ‘trilateral cooperation’ that our leaders keep reiterating. We need evidence-based studies, proactive diplomacy and specific proposals and agreements. The opportunity to serve as a transit economy may not be there forever. We need to catch such opportunities until they are around with us. We must strive to maintain the best relations with our immediate neighbors with a respectable framework of relations based on sovereign equality and mutual benefit. We need to resolve outstanding issues with India, concerning the review of the 1950 treaty and the Kalapani-Lipulkeh-Limpiyadhura boundary issue, including through the logical conclusion of the report of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) instituted bilaterally. We should focus on building trust and confidence at the political levels and continue to work at diplomatic and technical levels to safeguard Nepal’s national interests and resolve the outstanding issues with neighboring countries, mainly India. With China, we should find a way to implement projects under the BRI and bring into operation the bilateral transit and connectivity agreements. This is an excerpt from the speech of the author delivered at second YKN lecture series

Let’s start with a story. AZ Consulting Group is an organization that works toward improving management practices in client companies. Abhay and Nirav (names changed) are colleagues at AZ who manage the HR and IT teams. They worked closely to digitize human capital management for one of their clients to deal with talent and performance management challenges, skill development, and flexible work practices. While Abhay and Nirav tried to make life easier for their client, they sometimes had issues with each other. Abhay believed that Nirav was not great alone if Abhay didn’t provide him with the information about their client. At the same time, Nirav thought Abhay couldn’t do anything without his technological guidance. Abhay and Nirav were self-focused, and how they behaved toward each other hurt their relationship with the client company. Let us try to explore how. Abhay had worked with Pranay (name changed), who was the manager of the IT team before Nirav. They were part of a similar project, which was successful. Abhay could have shared the resources and insights from that project with Nirav, but he chose not to. Nirav eventually proposed an information management system to make HR-related information accessible to employees of their client company. Abhay saw some things that could have been improved in his proposal but didn’t insist on the necessary changes. The system Nirav proposed would make HR-related information accessible across every department without any boundaries whatsoever. Since the client company valued transparency and openness, Nirav thought his idea was outstanding no matter what Abhay thought. When Abhay and Nirav consulted the HR team and some key decision-makers, they seemed happy with the idea. However, neither Abhay nor Nirav made it a point to clarify to the clients that the employees could even access performance reports and feedback across all departments. When Abhay didn’t see Nirav bringing it up, he thought, ‘Well, why should I talk about it? It is his idea.’ The client company assumed there would be an inter-departmental flow of information on a generic level, with which they were encouraged to move forward. There was a massive backlash within two weeks of the system’s launch. Some employees had joined the client company a few months back and were a part of the biannual performance reviews. There was no harm in sharing the generic insights from their performance reviews with the other employees within and across their respective departments anonymously. Instead, the system showed every detail of the one/one interviews and performance feedback with disclosed identities. This incident created many problems in the client’s company. It triggered the new employees, and some old employees were on the verge of leaving the company because of the prevailing mistrust. When the client company’s managers consulted the AZ Consulting Group team, neither Abhay nor Nirav was ready to take responsibility for what had happened. Each one insisted on the role the other had to play in inviting the disaster for their client. Although the senior management at AZ intervened and was ready to make amends, the client eventually rolled back the project, and the companies never worked with each other again. Who was responsible for what happened? This incident dented AZ Consulting Group’s relationship with its client. We aren’t sure what happened to Abhay and Nirav in the aftermath but you might be wondering whose fault it was. Maybe Abhay should have shared insights from previous projects to help Nirav identify the blind spots of their efforts much earlier. Maybe Nirav needed to be extra careful regarding the sensitivity of the system. He should have mindfully considered the loopholes of his idea before implementing it. The client could have been more inquiring about the approach before bringing everyone from their organization on board. Whose fault? Who was responsible for what happened? Was it Abhay, Nirav, or the client company? A self-focused mindset perpetuates a lack of accountability What do you think might have happened in the headquarters of the AZ Consulting Group after the incident? Abhay might have pointed fingers at Nirav and his team for whatever happened; for not considering his feedback. Nirav might have blamed Abhay for not supporting and guiding him well. There could be so many possibilities. But what harmed AZ Consulting Group’s relationship with its client? In a single phrase, the answer is—a self-focused mindset. Abhay and Nirav were self-focused from the very beginning of the collaboration. Each saw the other as an irrelevance to ignore and an obstacle to overcome. Each saw the other as an object—dismissing their needs, objectives, and concerns. It eventually meant bad news for the collaboration and their relationship with the client. Not even once did they think about how their behavior toward each other and the underlying (self-focused) mindset would impact the project. One of the many things that a self-focused mindset does to us is that it makes us unaccountable for our actions. It prevents us from seeing the impact we have on those around us. It prevents us from thinking about shared outcomes and goals. It blinds us from acknowledging the part we have to play in making things better or worse. Impact-focused mindset: The key to overcoming the costs of a self-focused mindset Had Abhay and Nirav shown openness and care toward each other and the collaboration, they might have worked better as a team. With an impact-focused mindset and accountability toward their actions, they might have been able to see each other as people, people with needs, objectives, and challenges similar to their own. Had they operated with an impact-focused mindset, we know it would be a completely different fate for both companies. Rather than taking corrective measures and making amends, even in the immediate aftermath of the mishap, Abhay and Nirav took things personally and didn’t accept their mistake. Eventually, it led them to compromise their integrity and cost them their client. We have no clue whether Abhay and Nirav stayed in AZ. What we know is that organizations and employees can readily become self-focused in such high-stakes situations. In this case, the client could have easily sued AZ and the rest would be a bitter history. When an organization audits its financial reports at the end of the year, it can often overlook one aspect—the unresolved conflicts resulting from the team members’ self-focused mindset. These unresolved conflicts are the most expensive yet unaccounted cost in a company’s balance sheet—a perspective we must be careful of if we are to live and lead impactfully. The author is the linchpin at My Emotions Matter, an education initiative that helps individuals and teams learn the mindset and skills of Emotional Intelligence. You can learn more at myemotionsmatter.com

While engaging in discourses on the foreign policy of Nepal in formal and informal forums, some new thoughts and somewhat ‘innovative’ ideas have emerged, influenced by the changing dynamics of global power politics. In a thought-provoking lecture titled ‘Safeguarding Nepal’s National Interest: Foreign Policy Choices in the Changing International Environment,’ under the Yadu Nath Khanal lecture series organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Former Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya on June 25 shared an interesting perspective. He recommended that Nepal should adopt a policy of ‘multi-alignment’ instead of strictly adhering to the traditional ‘non-alignment’ stance. Acknowledging the shifting dynamics of international politics, Acharya believes that Nepal can better safeguard its national interests by adopting a more flexible and pragmatic approach toward international relations. While internalizing the sensitivities of geo-strategic location, I have presented my perspective in this write-up in a way backing-up this thought of a seasoned diplomat and author of many books, including a famous one ‘'Nepal Worldview'’. Let us define non-alignment and multi-alignment first. Non-alignment is a policy stance where a country chooses not to align itself with any major power bloc or alliance. Non-aligned countries aim to maintain their independence, sovereignty, and neutrality by avoiding formal military alliances or entanglements in conflicts between major powers. Non-alignment was a policy of the Cold War era when non-aligned countries refrained from aligning themselves with the West-led NATO or the East-led Warsaw Pact. The dynamics of international relations have evolved since the Cold War, and the term ‘non-aligned’ may not have the same significance today as it did back then. Nepal is a non-aligned state that has protected its national sovereignty and territorial integrity in major geopolitical turbulences over the decades.  Multi-alignment is a policy approach in which a country actively seeks to engage and maintain relations with multiple powers or regional blocs. Unlike non-alignment, multi-alignment does not imply complete neutrality or a lack of formal alliances. Instead, it emphasizes diversifying diplomatic, economic, and security ties with various countries or groups to safeguard national interests and increase strategic flexibility. By engaging with multiple actors, a multi-aligned country aims to leverage its relationships to maximize benefits, access resources, and pursue its goals effectively. This approach allows countries to navigate complex geopolitical environments and adapt to shifting power dynamics. Multi-alignment is new for Nepal, unlike its southern neighbor India, which has adopted it by terming it as a ‘multi-engagement’ policy.  Should Nepal follow a multi-aligned policy then or just remain multi-engaged? Nepal has adhered to a non-aligned stance since the 1950s, primarily as a means to maintain its independence, sovereignty, and neutrality during the Cold War. During that period, many countries, particularly smaller nations, chose to remain neutral as a survival strategy and to avoid being drawn into the conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. Nepal's adoption of non-alignment allowed it to assert its own interests and avoid alignment with either of the power blocs. But the situation has changed since then. On the one hand, the Cold War is over, while on the other, there have been errors and blunders in the implementation of non-alignment. Despite deviations from the core principles of non-alignment in some cases, the fundamental principle of maintaining independence, sovereignty, and neutrality has so far remained the guiding force. Given the economic significance and influence of China and India in the region, Nepal must continue to engage with both countries to benefit from economic partnerships, trade opportunities, and infrastructure development. At the same time, maintaining relations with other countries, including the United States and other western powers, can bring additional benefits in terms of investment, and development assistance. A multi-aligned policy approach can offer Nepal strategic flexibility and the ability to navigate its complex geopolitical environment effectively. By engaging with multiple powers, Nepal can leverage its relationships to advance its national interests, access resources, and enhance its development prospects. This is no time to be a mere spectator of developments in our periphery and be submissive to any hegemon. It doesn’t mean that Nepal should immediately embrace the multi-aligned policy; at least we should start contemplating the pros and cons of multi-alignment. Unlike regional powers China and India, which have strategic goals to achieve globally, Nepal has to focus on its strength in the development process.      It is important for Nepal to carefully assess its national priorities and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the potential benefits and risks associated with a multi-aligned approach. This includes considering the potential impact on its relationships with neighboring countries, managing any potential conflict of interest, and ensuring the protection of Nepal's sovereignty and independence. It is important to note that multi-alignment does not necessitate membership in specific security-related alliances such as the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) of the US or the Global Security Initiative (GSI) of China. A multi-aligned state can out-rightly refuse to become a member of initiatives focused on security and military cooperation. However, Nepal has engaged or can still engage with specific programs or initiatives that are not security-related. For example, participation in the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) of the US, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China and the Act East Policy (AEP) of India can offer opportunities for economic cooperation, infrastructure development, and regional connectivity without compromising Nepal’s national interest. When engaging with these programs, Nepal should carefully evaluate any conditions or terms attached to them and assess their implications for national interests and sovereignty. Understanding the geography and geopolitics of the region is crucial for Nepal to navigate new policy orientations.   Nepal should forge partnerships and collaborations with various nations and global actors, regardless of their ideological or political orientations. Rather than being biased toward any specific country, government or ideology, multi-alignment allows Nepal to engage with diverse actors and explore different ideas, which can contribute to the formulation of a unique Nepali perspective on development. For peace, progress and prosperity of Nepal and the Nepalis, the Nepali state should recognize the importance of engaging with different powers and seeking their support in national endeavors.

Europe is regarded as the most literate, civilized, and developed continent in the universe. Sadly, this narrative is getting weaker, thanks to recent instances of inhuman behavior on the part of some Europeans, to say the least. Recently, the white supporters of Valencia racially abused the famous footballer, Vini Jr, by chanting monkey slogans against him. This is not the first time the footballer has faced racial discrimination on the pitch. Time and time again, Europe is showing hatred toward black players. Mario Balletoli, Samuel Eto, Drogba, and even Mollato players like Danie Alves have been the victims of racial discrimination in different European leagues. Why are the Europeans or the whites abusing black players? Is the ghost of racial superiority still haunting the whites? Quite long ago, Rudyard Kipling wrote the poem titled ‘White Man’s Burden’. Kipling, through his poem, has glorified the magnanimity of white skin. The poet’s sole motive was to show the whole world that the whites were born to civilize the non-whites. The whites also assumed that people outside Europe were barbaric, savage, irrational, and uncivilized. They have even designed fake narratives about the color ‘black’ and Africa. From the colonial era to date, the same racist mindset is at work, on the football stadium and beyond. Like White Man’s Burden, Brahmanism in South Asia has debased cultural practices that divide people into different castes and sub-castes. The castes determine the cultural and social values of people. For instance, people born into thread-wearing castes (high castes) get certain privileges, whereas the lower castes or the Sudras (Untouchables) have to face caste-based discrimination throughout their lives. People have even lost lives or faced torture over caste matters.  Few years ago in Nepal, some ‘high-caste’ people killed Navaraj BK along with his five friends in west Rukum for BK’s attempt to marry a ‘high-caste’ girl. This caste superiority of the Hindus has started its journeys abroad. In particular, the Hindus of Nepal and India are showing casteist colors in Europe, America, and Australia by following in the footsteps of their ancestors’ ‘ill-conceived’ Brahmanism, which states that only the thread-wearing (Thagadhari) caste is rational and pure whereas other castes, especially the Sudars, are ‘impure and irrational’. The Dalits based abroad are finding it hard to get into relationships, get rooms, land jobs and attend social gatherings, mainly due to a casteist system and Brahmanism prevailing in Nepali and Indian diasporas. In its 2016 survey report, Equality Lab, a US-based NGO, stated that at least one in four Dalits in the USA has faced verbal or physical assault, and two out of every three said they have faced discrimination at work. A case in point: In early 2020, Prem Pariyar was almost at a breaking point over targeted harassment, discrimination, and exclusion by the dominant caste group’s students at his alma mater, the California State University in East Bay, the United States (Al-jazeera). Increasing cases of caste-based discrimination abroad show that the so-called Hindu high castes are taking caste supremacy with them out of the Indian subcontinent. This is a matter of serious concern for Dalit communities and people working for Dalits rights. Aware of the tendencies of the ‘high castes, the Seattle City Council recently passed laws against discrimination, becoming the first US city to ban caste discrimination and the first in the world to pass such a law outside South Asia. Both the White Man's burden and Brahmanism stand for superiority of certain races. The international civil society should work to prohibit these kinds of racist and discriminatory thoughts as part of global efforts to end discrimination of all sorts.