Submit your Article

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.

How many cooking gas cylinders does an average Nepali household have? How many of them are empty, how many are in use and how many are full? How many of them are safe for use and how many are unsafe—and need scrapping?

What percentage of cooking gas consumers have some knowledge about safety precautions they should take while handling the flammable material? Do they have fire extinguishers in their houses? Do they know how to use the extinguisher?

Thursday’s gas cylinder explosion at a momo shop in Kamalpokhari has once again given rise to a slew of difficult questions regarding the safe handling of cooking gas cylinders at the household level. 

These questions make sense because cooking gas cylinders and gas stoves have become a part and parcel of an average Nepali household. Leave the cities, it is not uncommon to find gas cylinders and stoves in far-flung areas of the country.

It is quite possible that an average Nepali household has more than one gas cylinder (filled) because supply-related obstructions of the past have taught us to have a cylinder or two for rainy days. 

Imagine more than one cylinder at almost every house in a city with high population density. Add to it a general lack of awareness on safety measures that one should take while handling gas cylinders and stoves. 

The scenario sends a chill down the spine, doesn’t it? It should. 

Of course, the consumer should know about safe handling of gas cylinders and stoves. But the buck does not stop there, and it should not. The onus is on the Nepal Oil Corporation, the sole importer and supplier of petroleum products throughout Nepal, as well as other relevant government authorities to inculcate in the consumer a safety culture pertaining to the use of gas cylinders and stoves. 

The momo shop gas cylinder blast, in which around 12 people sustained injuries, also harks back to a promise our political leadership made some years ago, to supply cooking gas in the consumers’ kitchens through a pipeline. The big talk at that time was that all you have to do is turn on the pipe and the gas will flow (provided you have paid the bill, of course). 

While much water has flown down our rivers since then, the gas is yet to come through the gullible Nepali people’s pipelines. 

In summary, both the government and the consumer should learn lessons from the Kamalpokhari blast and do their bit to lessen the risks of such blasts. 

In the long run, the political and bureaucratic leadership of a country with considerable hydropower potential should switch from dirty and costly fuels to clean and green energy if it is indeed serious about achieving national progress and prosperity, and bringing happiness to the masses. 

Addressing the House of Representatives on Thursday, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the leader of the main opposition party, the CPN (Maoist Centre), started his speech by expressing dissatisfaction at the absence of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and senior leaders from the ruling party, the CPN-UML. 

Dahal remarked that, as per parliamentary traditions, when a leader of the opposition addresses the House, it is customary for the leader of the largest party and the Prime Minister, to be present. While Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba arrived a bit late, Prime Minister Oli was notably absent.

During an hour-long speech, Dahal voiced his concern regarding the government’s recent decision to issue multiple ordinances. He questioned the constitutional validity of such ordinances as they were brought forward just six before the Parliament was due to convene. 

The former prime minister accused the government of taking a shortcut in issuing ordinances and claimed that it demonstrated a lack of proper intention and transparency. He raised questions about the necessity of such ordinances, especially considering that the ruling parties had previously boasted of their strong mandate and two-thirds majority. 

Dahal expressed skepticism over the recent ordinances related to land reforms. He questioned whether the new land-related ordinances would ease the process of granting land rights to marginalized communities, including Dalits, indigenous people, and squatters. He warned that the amendments might complicate matters rather than solve them. Dahal also highlighted the discrepancies between the government’s actions and the promises made regarding land rights, emphasizing that the new policies appeared to favor the wealthy and urban elites over the rural poor.

“These amendments seem to benefit the land mafia and real estate developers, while leaving the poor and marginalized people struggling for their basic rights,” he noted.

A significant portion of Dahal’s address was dedicated to the government’s social media regulation bill. He said that while he had long been aware of Prime Minister Oli’s intentions regarding social media regulation, the tacit support of other ruling parties, especially the Congress, to the controversial bill was alarming.

He questioned Congress’s alignment with the government’s move and said, “I know Oli’s intentions, but how can you support such a bill now? Yesterday, you stood against such measures, and today you are supporting them.” He asked the Congress leaders if they really want a country where a citizen is barred from asking questions, from holding government to account.

He accused the government of trying to move forward in an authoritarian manner and intentionally causing distress to the citizens. He added that the government’s political retribution and the misuse of state power had become commonplace

In an attempt to defend himself from allegations related to the controversial ‘Shera Durbar’ incident in Nuwakot, Dahal challenged the government to investigate his possible involvement. “If I am involved in the Shera Darbar case in any way, let the investigation begin,” he said. He further claimed that the government was using the issue to tarnish his reputation, with an aim to find some link, no matter how tenuous, to attack him and his party.

 “The government has been working hard to frame me in this case,” Dahal said.

The case involves the alleged illegal possession of land in Nuwakot, which is thought to have been occupied by Dahal’s former private secretary. Following a prolonged investigation, the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police has concluded that the land should be returned to the government.

Dahal also accused the government of causing hardship to the citizens. He expressed frustration over the government’s tendency to press serious charges even in situations where a simple resolution could have been found. “In situations where things could be settled through discussions, citizens are being shackled and dragged from one district to another, with severe charges being placed. Is this arrogance of power, or fear of the people?”

He also accused the government of trying to move forward in an authoritarian manner and intentionally causing distress to the citizens. He added that the government’s political retribution and the misuse of state power had become commonplace.

He linked this to the incident involving the Pathibhara Cable Car dispute, where the police had fired shots, and the introduction of the social media regulation bill, which he argued was an attempt to legally control freedom of expression. “What is this? Are you above the people’s sovereignty? Are you above the constitution? Are you the masters and the citizens your slaves?”

Further criticism was directed at the government’s treatment of Rabi Lamichhane, the leader of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), who was suspended from Parliament despite being released on bail by the court. Dahal raised concerns about the political motives behind Lamichhane’s suspension, accusing the government of orchestrating a political revenge campaign.

He addressed the Speaker of the House, requesting a re-evaluation of Lamichhane’s suspension, calling into question its fairness and constitutional grounds. “Even after being released on bail, how can Lamichhane’s suspension be justified? We need to reconsider this issue in light of the constitutional principles of justice,” he urged the Speaker.

Dahal emphasized that the current government’s strength was evident when it came to pursuing political revenge. He argued that the opposition leaders were being unfairly painted as villains despite the lack of evidence.

Lawmaker Sobita Gautam from RSP also expressed regret over the decision to suspend Lamichhane and urged for a swift correction of the decision. “My party and I deeply regret this decision, and I request the Parliament Secretariat to correct it as soon as possible,” Gautam said. “I humbly request that the suspension be revoked.”

“Parliamentary rules have provisions for suspension only if an MP is sent to jail by a court. But the suspension notice was posted without a court case,” she said. “The law was meant to prevent MPs from being targeted unnecessarily.”

Similarly, Sumana Shrestha, MP from RSP raised concerns about the social media bill, which has been registered in Parliament, and highlighted the growing protests from youth against the bill. She brought the issue to the government’s attention. “Protests have started on social media since yesterday. There is a growing voice against the social media bill the government has registered,” she said. “Will the government listen to this voice? I am raising this issue to attract the government’s attention.”

She also suggested engaging the youth for further discussions on the bill. “Invite the youth and let them discuss. We’ve seen that the bill can pass through this House even if they are pushed. What is content creation? The government has brought this bill without even understanding basic social media matters,” Shrestha said.

The US foreign policy has evolved through key turning points. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) established US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, while the Spanish-American War (1898) shifted it from isolationism to imperialism. World War I (1917) marked the US’ entry onto the global stage, followed by World War II (1941-1945), which solidified its leadership. The Cold War (1947-1991) focused on containing communism, the collapse of the Soviet Union marking the end of a bipolar world. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) was a setback, while the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) reaffirmed dominance. Post-9/11, the War on Terror reshaped priorities, and more recently, the US pivot to Asia (2011). Return of Donald Trump to the leadership of the US—a world power for two centuries that led a unipolar world for three decades—is sure to create ripples throughout the world.

When Donald Trump came to power in 2017 as the 45th POTUS, he was quite an outsider, lacked an organized transition team and even faced demonstrators, who shouted ‘not my president’. His first term was characterised by two impeachments by Democrats-led House and investigations Trump terms witch-hunt. After a gap of four years, Trump has returned to White House as an experienced and much organized leader. Which of his election promises will get implemented is yet too early to predict, but some hints are visible.

National interest first

So far, countries are formed on common agendas, and existence of common enemies shape national unities and alliances. What seems special is, Trump-led America is more likely to focus on the economy, reducing financial losses in the name of alliances and international cooperations. To safeguard American national interests, a Trumpian doctrine may evolve over the years, which believes in each ally spending for its security. Trumpian doctrine may emphasize the use of economic and other measures to discipline any country or region, as seen with its signals to Greenland, Canada, Panama, Mexico and Columbia. 

Two centuries past, the Monroe doctrine survives in new and wider forms. The Soviet Union’s Brezhnev Doctrine (1968) justified military intervention in socialist countries to maintain communist rule, while Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (1930s-1940s) aimed to expand its control over East Asia. Italy’s expansionist policies under Mussolini also sought regional dominance, particularly in the Mediterranean and North Africa. India’s ‘Look East’ and ‘Act East’ policies focus on strengthening ties with Southeast Asia and countering China’s influence. Russia’s Eurasian Doctrine similarly asserts dominance over former Soviet republics, echoing the Monroe Doctrine’s regional focus. 

The US has a history of withdrawing from international institutions like UNESCO and WHO, and threatening to withdraw from conventions and protocols related to climate change, global warming and carbon emissions. For decades, economic benefits have remained a central element of US foreign policy.  Look how it played a leading role in the formation and promotion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization, shaping global trade rules and norms. But it is not difficult to understand that the US considers trade liberalism as a means, not a principle. Throughout both GATT and WTO history, the US has frequently used trade threats or sanctions to achieve its goals, such as imposing tariffs, export restrictions or launching formal complaints at the WTO. See, during trade disputes with countries like China, how the US has threatened or imposed tariffs on a wide range of goods. Trump is not an outlier in this aspect.

Foreign policy

As elsewhere, the American foreign policy has been guided by national interests. If the US made adjustments like alliance with or against Great Britain, Russia, Germany and Japan, they were based on calculated risks and benefits. Look how successfully the US has created alliances with one-time foes Germany, Japan and Italy, against the Soviets, and again attracted members of former Soviet-led Warsaw Pact in NATO, operating mainly against Russia.

American foreign policies have proved pragmatic, and their implementation sharp. As proposed by Henry Kissinger, the US normalized relations with China in the 1970s to counterbalance the Soviets, strategically isolating the Soviet Union. It was a way to gain leverage in the Vietnam War and to reshape US influence in Asia, recognizing the long-term economic and diplomatic potential of engaging China. By opening relations, the US wanted to foster global stability and influence China’s integration into the global order.

Looking at American history of u-turning foreign policies, Trump’s reluctance to wage wars and efforts to global peace are a continuity. Trump’s meeting with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un demonstrated the former’s ability in making friends of foes. The meetings took place at a time when the North’s historical friend China had consistently called for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, aligning with the United Nations Security Council sanctions on North Korea, and asked it to participate in multilateral talks such as the Six-Party Talks.

Trump initiated the process of withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan. In February 2020, the Trump administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, which outlined the conditions for the US withdrawal. On Iran, while Trump maintained a tough stance and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, he also repeatedly suggested he was open to negotiations and even expressed a desire to meet with Iran’s leadership. His administration pushed for a new, more comprehensive agreement, but Iran rejected talks unless sanctions were lifted first. 

Trump was skeptical of military interventions, especially in the Middle East, questioning the value of US presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. His “America First” policy focused on reducing military footprints abroad, emphasizing diplomatic solutions over foreign entanglements and long-term military campaigns.

Prompt actions

What makes Trump’s second term special is the prompt implementation of new policies. Within 24 hours in the Oval Office, among other measures, Trump has ordered to withdraw from the WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement, to try and limit automatic birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, to deport illegal immigrants, to change the name ‘Gulf of Mexico’ to ‘Gulf of America’, to revoke an executive order signed by Biden aimed at reducing the risks from artificial intelligence and to recognize only ‘two sexes, male and female’.

Within days, deportation of illegal immigrants began. Look how Trump ordered to take tariff measures when Columbia refused to take deported migrants, and ultimately made it cooperate with the US. International adjustments were seen even before Trump assumed office. Israel-Hamas ceasefire, and change in Zelensky’s tone are some examples. Trump wasted no time in handling gender issues, simply barring transgenders from military service.

As a response to changing US policies, most of the world is likely to make relevant adjustments. We are set to bear the brunt of freezing of US funds for 90 days and expulsion of illegal Nepali immigrants. In the end, what matters is not ‘right and wrong’. It is all about success or failure. If the US under Trump makes disproportionate economic, technological and military advances, Trumpian doctrines can become a norm, in America and beyond. 

The author is a professor at Tribhuvan University