Submit your Article

US President Donald Trump arrived in Beijing on Wednesday for a new round of face-to-face talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping from May 14 to 15, at a particularly delicate moment in global politics and the international economy.

The meeting marks the first in-person discussion between the two leaders since the Busan agreement last October, during which both sides agreed to suspend further escalation of the US–China trade war for one year.

While a flare-up in the Middle East delayed the summit by a month, the easing of tensions with Iran has finally cleared the path for what many view as the most consequential diplomatic inflection point of 2026.

Amid a fragile global recovery and uncertainty in international markets, the Beijing meeting is being closely watched to determine whether both powers can move from “crisis management” toward a more sustainable form of strategic equilibrium, with significant implications for global economic stability.

During their first meeting on Thursday morning, President Xi congratulated the United States on its 250th anniversary, while President Trump praised Xi as “a great leader,” setting a warm and friendly tone for the opening of the summit.

President Xi noted that China and the United States should be partners rather than rivals, emphasizing that the relationship between the two countries carries implications not only for their peoples but also for the future of the world. President Trump described the gathering as “the biggest summit,” highlighting that a top business delegation accompanied him.

A US official said the two sides are expected to continue discussions on establishing new mechanisms for trade and investment coordination, with cooperation in agriculture, aerospace, and energy also likely to feature prominently.

Beijing, meanwhile, has framed the visit as an opportunity to stabilize bilateral ties amid growing global uncertainty. In remarks on Monday, China’s Foreign Ministry emphasized the need to expand mutually beneficial cooperation, manage differences, and “inject greater stability and certainty into a turbulent and changing world.”

Guidance from Strategic Analysts

Analysts broadly agree that the summit reflects a shared short-term interest in stabilizing China–US relations, even as deeper strategic tensions remain unresolved.

Zhao Hai, director of the International Politics Program at the National Institute for Global Strategy, argued that the primary “product” of this summit should be predictability. For the private sector, specific policies are often less damaging than the volatility created by uncertainty over what policies may emerge tomorrow.

This view mirrors the “managed strategic competition” framework championed by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The goal in Beijing is not necessarily to bridge a decade-long trust deficit during a three-day summit, but rather to prevent further accidental escalation. He emphasized that careful coordination and transparent dialogue are essential to maintaining long-term stability.

Economic Frictions and Business Impacts

While Chinese state media frame economic relations as both a stabilizing foundation and a key driver of broader China–US ties, US tariff policy continues to sit at the center of bilateral disagreements.

Beijing views these measures as “unreasonable restrictions,” while the Trump administration continues to use tariffs as its primary tool of economic leverage.

John McLean, chairman of the China–UK Business Development Centre, noted that shifting US tariff policies are creating deep uncertainty, prompting many companies to delay or reconsider long-term investment plans.

Economic data, however, presents a more nuanced picture of self-inflicted costs. A recent study by the Kiel Institute, a leading German economic research body, found that foreign exporters absorb only about 4% of the tariff burden, while the remaining 96% falls on US businesses and consumers.

These findings underscore that although tariffs are often framed as measures to protect American industries, their indirect effects continue to influence pricing, supply chains, and investment decisions.

For small and medium-sized enterprises, the consequences have been particularly severe. Philip Crawley, who operates a laser equipment import business in California, reported that tariffs imposed last year cost his company millions of dollars, forcing it to slow operations, reduce employee pay, and postpone hiring plans.

Glen Calder, president of Calder Brothers in South Carolina, said his steel costs increased by 25% even before US tariffs took effect, as markets anticipated higher trade barriers.

Strategic competition may be conducted at the state level, but its economic consequences are often absorbed by businesses, workers, and consumers navigating unpredictable policy environments.

Continued Investment Interest in China

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the current climate is the resilience of corporate interest. Despite ongoing challenges, many US businesses continue to view China as a critical market.

According to the American Chamber of Commerce in China, around 60% of American companies still plan to invest in the Chinese market, reflecting enduring confidence in China’s economic opportunities.

The rationale is clear: China accounts for roughly 17% of global GDP, contributes approximately 30% of global economic growth, and is projected to export nearly $4 trillion worth of goods in 2025.

Its sheer economic scale and growth potential make it difficult for companies to overlook, providing strong incentives to maintain or expand investment even amid uncertainty.

Looking Ahead: Cooperation and Strategic Stability

President Xi noted during today’s meeting that success for one country can represent an opportunity for the other. China has maintained a relatively consistent stance toward Washington, rooted in the belief that the Pacific is large enough for both powers.

This summit offers a rare opportunity to clarify intentions and move beyond the zero-sum rhetoric that has dominated much of the 2020s.

Reducing uncertainty in trade, investment, and technology would benefit businesses and global markets alike, reinforcing the idea that long-term stability is a shared asset rather than a concession.

Reducing the “noise” surrounding trade and technology is not merely a diplomatic victory — it is the oxygen global markets need to breathe again.

The arrest of Nepal Investment Mega Bank (NIMB) Chief Executive Officer Jyoti Prakash Pandey has triggered a debate over a fundamental question in Nepal’s financial system: when a company collapses and the government steps in, who has the first right over pledged assets: the state or the lending bank?

The dispute emerged after the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police arrested Pandey on Tuesday on allegations that NIMB illegally auctioned assets pledged by Smart Telecom with the intention of depriving the government of its claim. The bank, however, has insisted that it merely exercised its legal right to recover loans backed by collateral.

The Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) revoked Smart Telecom’s licence in April 2023 after it failed to pay renewal fees and other dues reportedly amounting to nearly Rs 20 billion. Before its collapse, Smart Telecom had borrowed around Rs 5.2 billion from a consortium led by NIMB and including Prime Commercial Bank. The financing was extended through letters of credit, overdrafts, and various long- and short-term loans. Smart Telecom had pledged its network infrastructure, machinery, and telecommunications equipment as collateral for the loans.

According to the bank, it initiated recovery proceedings when the company defaulted on repayments. In September last year, the bank published a public notice announcing the auction of Smart Telecom’s pledged assets. Ncell Axiata eventually won the auction with a bid of Rs 4.6 billion.

The bank has argued that the auction was conducted fully within the framework of Nepal’s banking and secured transaction laws. NIMB has primarily relied on Section 57 of the Banks and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA), 2017, which allows banks to auction collateral if borrowers fail to repay loans or violate loan agreements. The provision grants banks broad powers to recover principal and interest “notwithstanding anything contained in the prevailing Nepal law.”

It has also cited the Secured Transactions Act, 2006, under which the collateral had already been registered with the Secured Transactions Registry Office years before Smart Telecom’s licence cancellation. Section 28 of the Act gives priority to security interests according to the order of registration, while Section 46 authorizes secured creditors to sell or dispose of collateral in case of default.

NTA officials say the authority was still conducting valuation and liability assessments when the bank auctioned the equipment. According to the regulator, the sale occurred without coordination or approval from the authority, even though the company was already under regulatory management.

From the bank’s perspective, however, the issue is straightforward: the loans were backed by legally registered collateral, the borrower defaulted, repeated notices were issued, and the pledged assets were auctioned in accordance with banking laws.

Financial sector experts say this principle is central to the functioning of the banking system itself. Unlike ordinary businesses, banks primarily operate using public deposits. The money they lend does not belong to promoters or executives alone; it belongs largely to depositors. As a result, recovering bad loans is not merely a commercial decision but also part of a bank’s  responsibility.

They say if banks are unable to enforce collateral rights, financial institutions would become more reluctant to lend to large infrastructure or corporate projects if the enforceability of collateral becomes uncertain after government intervention or regulatory action. Further, they say weakening banks’ recovery rights could ultimately threaten depositors’ money parked in banks and increase systemic financial risks.

Past Supreme Court verdicts have also set a precedent that a second charge cannot be created if the bank has first charge on the security. The apex court issued the verdicts in cases filed against different banks by government agencies like the Land Revenue Office and Revenue Investigation Department. 

The case is therefore likely to become a landmark test of how the government balances two competing priorities: protecting public revenue and safeguarding public deposits held in banks.

Whatever the court eventually decides, the outcome could shape future lending to highly regulated sectors such as telecommunications, aviation, hydropower, and infrastructure, where large corporate borrowing often depends heavily on the legal certainty of collateral recovery.

The government has reduced the number of federal ministries to 18 in order to maintain administrative reforms and austerity, reduce unnecessary recurrent expenses and boost up performance. 

A meeting of the Council of Ministers today decided to lower the number of ministries from existing 22 to 18 by approving the 'Nepal Government (Work Division) Regulations, 2083'. 

According to Prime Minister Balendra Shah's Press and Research Adviser Deepa Dahal, the government has retained the Ministry of Finance, Home, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs. 

Similarly, the Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Supplies, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Civil Aviation, and the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation have also remained unchanged as per the decision. 

Prioritizing technology and innovation, the government has separated science and technology from the erstwhile Ministry of Education and established a new 'Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation' to handle newly added innovation-related tasks. 

In the reorganization of other ministries, extensive adjustments have been made, merging ministries with similar functions, it is shared. 

With this, there will now be the Ministry of Education and Sports, Ministry of Communication, Ministry of Youth, Labor, and Employment, and Ministry of Land, Cooperative, and Human Resources. 

Similarly, the Ministry of Women, Children, Gender, and Sexual Minorities and Social Security, Ministry of Health and Food Security, Ministry of Infrastructure Development, and Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, and Environment have come into existence. 

The information technology-related tasks, previously carried out by the former Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, are now merged into the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. 

Immediately after the formation of the new government, a plan to review the number of ministries for administrative reform and cost-cutting was put forward under the '100-Point Agenda for Government Reform.' 

To implement the plan, the division of work, renaming, and merging of ministries were carried out based on the report submitted by the 'Restructuring Management Secretariat,' chaired by Secretary Govinda Bahadur Karki, adviser Dahal informed. 

The move has been taken to solve the problem of excessive operational costs due to having more ministries than necessary and to make the state machinery more efficient.

The government’s policies and programs have been tabled in the Parliament for deliberation amid protest from the opposition parties. 

Finance Minister Dr Swarnim Wagle presented the document on behalf of Prime Minister Balendra Shah in the second meeting held on Wednesday.

Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal had allowed Finance Minister Wagle to table the government’s policies and programs in the Parliament.