Submit your Article

I had come to see off my 84-year-old uncle, who uses a wheelchair at Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport. He was flying to New Delhi. We had chosen to fly him with India’s premier airline, Vistara, which prides itself on its joint ownership by two iconic brands, TATA and Singapore Airlines. Not to leave anything to chance, his son booked him on Business Class.

Kathmandu airport has two business lounges—the one managed by Radisson Hotel is a 20-odd-step climb on the first floor. There are no elevators. Soaltee Hotel operates the second lounge, which is on the ground floor. While the airline had booked a wheelchair for my uncle, it invited him to the first-floor lounge as it only had an agreement with the Radisson lounge. Forty minutes of discussion with three staff levels later, Vistara finally agreed to make an exception and allow him to the ground floor lounge. Had I not persevered, my uncle would have been denied using a lounge he was entitled to because of his age and disability.

The Nepal office of the otherwise outstanding Vistara had not used the prism of disability and aging when deciding to make an exclusive contract with one lounge, while other international airlines operating out of Kathmandu hedge their bets and let passengers choose a lounge. Making policies and guidelines on disability and aging requires complex multidimensional advocacy and leadership communication. Ideally, the organizations would have an aging and disability focal point that would be empowered enough to examine all client-facing decisions of the organization through the aging and disability lens. The Human Resources heads need to ensure that in their induction programs, disability and aging are featured in the curricula.

Clearly-articulated leadership communication on a company's commitment to creating inclusive products is a must and needs to be frequently repeated. There are, of course, trailblazers–Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, has spoken publicly about his commitment to making Microsoft products and services accessible to everyone. He believes that people with disabilities can significantly contribute to the workplace. Julie Sweet, CEO of Accenture, has said that her firm is committed to creating a culture of equality where everyone can advance and thrive and making its products and services accessible.

Soon, more airlines and airport operators will realize the economic imperative of using the aging lens in business decisions. WHO predicts that the number of people aged 65 years and older will increase from 1bn in 2020 to 1.6 billion in 2050. Also, the number of older adults who travel internationally will increase from 100m in 2015 to 260m in 2030. Growing up, I have known my uncle as a confident person whose wit and swift decision-making always got him out of any tight spot. He has been a sportsman for the better part of his life. However, with age, I see irreversible changes, which make airports and flights a challenge, especially when traveling alone.

Airports can be large and complex, with long distances, confusing signage and crowds. Elderly passengers may have difficulty finding their way around, especially if unfamiliar with the airport. Trust in the person pushing your wheelchair is critical for not getting an anxiety attack. A pleasant surprise was the Special Assistance staff at Delhi’s IGIA airport. The gentleman pushing the wheelchair was experienced in dealing with elderly passengers and showed patience and compassion at every stage of the journey. This highlights the importance of appropriately recruiting and training staff dealing with elderly passengers.

Airlines must understand the challenges elderly passengers face to provide them with the best possible experience. Luckily, there are global best practices that go beyond the standard priority boarding, wheelchair assistance, and special seating. Japanese airports have several features that make them more accessible for elderly passengers, such as clear and concise signage, elevators and escalators throughout the airport, and accessible restrooms. The UK government has a program called the ‘Passenger Assistance Request Service (PARS)’, which allows passengers to request assistance with tasks such as boarding and disembarking the plane, using the restroom, and managing their luggage. The United States has many laws and regulations in place to protect the rights of elderly and disabled passengers. For example, the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) requires airlines to provide reasonable accommodation to passengers with disabilities. The ACAA also prohibits airlines from discriminating against passengers with disabilities. This might be why Delta, United and American Airlines CEOs have often publicly committed to making their products friendly for older people.

It is important to note that the needs of elderly passengers can vary depending on their circumstances. Airports and Airlines should be prepared to work with elderly passengers to identify and address their individual needs and train their staff to deal with elderly passengers. This includes training on how to identify and address the needs of elderly passengers and provide them with the best possible service.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) both recognize the importance of travel for older adults. Travel can allow older adults to stay active, learn new things and connect with loved ones. However, it is crucial for older adults to be aware of the challenges they may face when traveling and to take steps to mitigate those risks. 

Airplane manufacturers Airbus and Boeing are already working on several initiatives to make their aircraft more accessible to people with disabilities, such as wider aisles and more accessible lavatories. They are also working with airlines to create new training programs for flight attendants to assist passengers with disabilities. This is all great, however, for elderly passengers and those with disabilities, reaching the aircraft comfortably is the first challenge. It’s time for airlines and airports to put on the lenses of aging and disability and then up their game. 

The author is a global health diplomat-practitioner specializing in strategic partnerships, high-level advocacy, and strategic leadership communication 

The militant Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip have launched an unprecedented, multifront attack on Israel, firing thousands of rockets. Dozens of Hamas fighters infiltrated the heavily fortified border at several locations, catching the country off-guard during a major holiday. Israel has reported at least 40 casualties while other international media say the death toll has reached 100.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel was ‘at war’ and called for a mass mobilization of army reserves.

The Nepali government has strongly condemned the ‘terrorist attack’ in Israel that left nine Nepalis injured. “At this critical hour, we express our solidarity with the Government of Israel,” stated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Nepali government extended heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies to the people and Government of Israel, as well as to the victims of this cruel attack and their families. “We wish for a speedy recovery of the injured,” added the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Nepali government received information that a farm where 14 Nepalis were working came under attack. Nine Nepalis have been reported injured, with two of them in serious condition.

The Embassy of Nepal in Israel is in close communication with the Nepalis living in the affected areas. The Embassy is also in contact and coordination with Israeli authorities to ensure the safety, security, and rescue of the Nepalis, as well as providing medical treatment for the injured, officials say.

Given the situation, Nepali nationals in Israel are urged to remain cautious and follow the safety measures advised by the authorities, the Ministry stated.

American President Joe Biden has strongly condemned the “appalling assault against Israel by Hamas terrorists from Gaza” and mentioned that he has spoken with Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu.

In a statement released by the White House, Biden conveyed to the Israeli leader that “we stand ready to offer all appropriate means of support to the Israeli government and the Israeli people”. Biden also emphasized that the Jewish state “has a right to defend itself and its people”. He warned against any other party hostile to Israel seeking advantage in this situation.

The president underscored that his administration’s support for Israel’s security is “rock solid and unwavering”.

Various other Western leaders also condemned the Hamas attack and expressed their support for Israel.

Contact

Nepal Embassy in Israel: +972(0)35168085

Amb Kanta Rizal: +972545864423

1st Secy Arjun Ghimire: +972528289300

Email: [email protected]

The world around Nepal has been turning at a dizzying pace even as we remain in turmoil as ever. Gone is the unipolar world that was under the command of the sole superpower after the fragmentation of the Soviet Union in the early 90’s. 

Looking back, Nepal has always sought to reach out to a wider world. It established its first diplomatic relations (with the United Kingdom) in 1816 and now has formal ties with around 180 countries. It joined the United Nations on 14 Dec 1955 and has also been part of the Non-Aligned Movement founded in 1961. 

It is a founding member of the grouping called South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) that dates back to 8 Dec 1985 with its secretariat set up in Kathmandu on 17 Jan 1987. 

In February 2004, Nepal became a member of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation that was established on 6 June 1997.

Nepal, though, took quite a long time in joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) established on 15 June 2001, becoming a dialogue partner seven years ago—only on 22 March 2016. 

Had our political leadership been thinking long and hard about such associations and what they bring to the table? Well, anything is possible. 

Fast forward. 

In our neighborhood, China is emerging as the second largest economy with a nominal GDP of $19, 423.48bn and as the second most powerful country in the world, militarily. India is not lagging far behind, with a PPP GDP of $3,591.03 and as the fourth strongest military force in the world. Beyond the neighborhood, Russia is again emerging as a formidable power, along with a number of other countries like Indonesia, South Korea, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Brazil, South Africa and Turkey.     

India recently hosted the G20 summit that saw the 24-year-old 20-member grouping welcome one more member to its fold—African Union, to be formally inducted later—in the presence of one more country from our extended neighborhood, Bangladesh (a robust economy in its own right), which was invited as a guest, along with Egypt, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Singapore, Spain and the UAE.

Climate change was one of the agendas of the summit and Nepal happens to be one of the countries suffering the most from the impact of this largely manmade disaster but seems to have lost its voice in the international arena. 

After the summit, a number of questions have arisen. They are: What does the apparent snubbing of Nepal at the summit that took place in a country with which we have cordial relations mean? Does it mean Nepal’s concerns, including those related to climate change, can easily be brushed under the carpet? What does it mean for Nepal’s standing in the comity of nations? 

There’s no doubt that the summit would have given Nepal, a member of the Global South, a golden opportunity to share its worries with the world and make big polluters accountable for a huge GHG emission that has wreaked havoc around the world, in the form of ozone depletion, rising temperatures, glacial retreat on the Himalayas, flash floods in the plains and a steady rise in sea levels.  

The summit was a huge miss for Nepal, given that the 19 G20 countries account for 85 percent of global gross domestic product, over 75 per cent of global trade and two-thirds of the globe’s entire population—not to mention a huge GHG footprint, the main culprit behind climate phenomena like glacial retreat, glacial lake outburst floods and rising temperatures.  

For now, let’s leave G20 aside and move on. 

BRICS, thus far a grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and an economic mammoth in its own right, has also been hogging the limelight of late. The 15-year five-nation club, comprising 40 per cent of the world’s population and more than 25 percent of global GDP, has been positioning itself as an economic counterweight to the West. What’s more, the non-military bloc is growing bigger with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates set to join it at the start of 2024.    

This, even as Nepal finds itself in ever-deepening crises on socio-economic, socio-religious and socio-political fronts, not entirely of its own making. Perhaps a desolate SAARC secretariat located in the heart of Kathmandu, a silent spectator to a long-running enmity between South Asia’s two giants that has been holding the bloc hostage for far too long, best explains Nepal’s dilemmas.  

Against this backdrop, ApEx asked a number of experts whether Nepal should strive to join emerging blocs like BRICS to make its voices heard and its presence felt in international fora. Here’s what they had to say.  

Professor Katak Malla, Expert on International Law

BRICS is a huge commodity market that seeks to curtail Euro-dollar domination. Nepal should not join any of the military blocs, it should remain non-aligned but it should of course join blocs like BRICS. If we become a BRICS member, we can use Chinese and other currencies for trade and commerce instead of having to rely on the Euro and dollar, and we can make our voice count using this forum. SAARC, of which Nepal is a founding member, has remained moribund because of enmity between Pakistan and India, and there are calls for reforms in the United Nations—amid the rise in the fortunes of several countries—to make the world body more representative.  

Political instability and the rule of law are lacking in the country. First and foremost, Nepal’s leaders and the public should mend ways to arrest this slide. The government should come up with a relevant domestic policy before joining any bloc.  

Pradip Gyawali, Former Foreign Minister and UML Leader

We are a small economy and as things stand now, we seem to be in no position to benefit from blocs like BRICS. Even if we strive to join the bloc, it’s unclear how BRICS members will respond.  

Many countries are seeking an alternative to the US-led global economy, they are rooting for de-dollarization. BRICS does not seem to be a strategic bloc, it appears to be a trade and cooperation forum, which is good for us. Overall, Nepal should look upon initiatives like BRICS positively. As for the CPN-UML, it favors multilateralism. In the long run, I think, it is in our interest to join blocs like BRICS as dependence on the dollar will decrease with increase in the use of local currencies.  

Khadga KC, Professor, Department of International Relations and Diplomacy, TU 

Being a relatively small state, Nepal always needs to prioritize multilateralism. Engaging more with regional and multilateral frameworks could be beneficial, however, we are not benefiting much from our association with WTO and BIMSTEC. So, I don’t think we need to rush in to socialize with the emerging economies. 

Rajan Bhattarai, Chief, CPN-UML’s Foreign Affairs Department

Nepal should step up efforts to join any sub-regional, regional and international organization whose objectives are compatible with her foreign policy objectives and priorities. 

With Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the UAE set to become its new members on Jan 1 next year, BRICS (comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa at present) is one such organization that our country should make efforts to be a part of. The bloc aims to promote international peace, stability, cooperation and investment and these objectives are similar to Nepal’s foreign policy objectives. 

So, our country should make attempts to be a member of this grouping. If our party—the CPN-UML—comes to power, we will intensify our engagements to join sub-regional, regional and international organizations whose vision, missions and objectives are in sync with our foreign policy objectives and priorities. Of course, BRICS is one of the organizations that we will strive to join. 

Sagun Sunder Lawoti, Spokesperson, RPP

King Prithvi Narayan Shah fittingly called Nepal a yam between two boulders. Our two neighbors are rising, signifying the transformation of a unipolar world order into a multipolar order, even as we find ourselves in a deep crisis.  In terms of size, our two neighbors are far bigger than us. At the same time, more than half of the countries around the world are smaller than us—in terms of population and geographical area.  As such, size is a relative term.  We as a nation need to work out ways to deal with a changing world that is offering both challenges and opportunities. What should our policy vis-a-vis blocs like BRICS and G20 be? What does the rise of neighbors mean for us? What challenges does it pose and what opportunities does it offer? Nepal has immense geostrategic advantage and opportunities. But then our leaders are focusing on petty interests rather than long-term national benefits.

Surya Raj Acharya, Political Analyst

BRICS is a grouping of emerging economies, of countries transitioning from developing to developed economies. It is basically a non-strategic and non-military bloc focused on trade and commerce. 

Bangladesh recently tried to join the grouping, but failed. It was but natural for that country to seek BRICS membership because it has a robust economy. Another case is the UAE, which will be formally inducted into BRICS soon. The UAE has made huge strides on the economic front over the decades and it deserves to be in the bloc. 

Given the size of their economy, countries like Thailand, the Philippines and Bangladesh fit the bill. 

As a country of geostrategic significance, Nepal should strive for BRICS membership in the long run. Nepal’s geopolitical location gives it an edge and the size of the country is no bar, though the size of the economy matters. 

Having said this, the present scenario is not rosy. The economy is not doing well. Besides, there’s no clear roadmap on how to deal with China, India, the United States and the European Union. The country seems to have no coherent foreign policy, thanks to the absence of well-defined domestic policies of which foreign policy is an extension. Petty interests of political parties have taken precedence. The rulers don’t even know what our national priorities are. Nepal’s international standing has taken a beating. 

We must first agree on our national interests and national priorities and this should be reflected in our domestic policies. Our national interest, not petty interests of political parties, should guide our foreign policy. 

In the long run, we should strive to join blocs like BRICS because they enable us to raise our profile, bring in foreign direct investment and benefit from technology transfer as well as trade and commerce partnerships.   

Dhawal Shumshere Rana, Leader, RPP 

There’s a huge gap between BRICS member-states and Nepal. They are emerging powers and they won’t induct us into the grouping given this gap. At present, it’s futile for Nepal to even think about it.    

The group of G20 

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

China

France

Germany

India

Indonesia

Italy

Japan

South Korea

Mexico

Russia

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

Turkiye

The United Kingdom

The United States

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

Member-states

China

India

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Russia

Pakistan

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

Dialogue partners

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Cambodia

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Turkey

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Maldives

Nepal

Pakistan

Sri Lanka 

Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC)

Bangladesh

India

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Myanmar

Bhutan

Nepal 

The joint press statement issued after Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s China visit contains elements that can drag Nepal into the geopolitical rivalry between China and US, experts have warned. They fear that the statement may even give rise to questions over Nepal’s long-standing policy of non-alignment.

It is obvious that Nepal does not want to get caught in the US-China rivalry. But Clause 6 of the statement reads, “Recognizing that the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal Government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, the Nepali side is against ‘Taiwan independence’.”

Though not explicitly mentioned in the document, parts of GCI and GSI have been incorporated in the press statement.  In the past, Nepal used to reaffirm its commitment to one-China policy without further elaboration. The document explicitly states that Nepali side is against Taiwanese independence. The document further says that Nepali Nepali side reiterated its firm commitment to the one-China principle.

Geopolitical analyst Vijay Kanta Karna argues that it is wrong to mention “principle” instead of “policy” in the joint statement. “How will Nepal apply this principle in other areas?” he questions, describing the use of the word “principle” instead of “policy” in the document as ‘very concerning and disturbing’.

According to Karna, Nepal has been consistently expressing commitment to “one-China policy” in the official document without much talk about Taiwan. Now, however, Nepal itself has gotten involved in this issue, he observes, “Nepal has become a part of international geopolitics between America and China unnecessarily, This is an unwarranted statement.”

This policy is different from the policy that the erstwhile Sher Bahadur Deuba government had adopted. When US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 visit to Taiwan caused tensions, Nepal just said it was closely following the developments and reiterated its commitment to one-China policy, despite pressure from the Chinese side to side with it on the issue of Taiwan. The statement shows Nepal is trying to align with China’s national security, Karna says.

Foreign policy expert Gopal Khanal agrees that there was no need for Nepal to mention Taiwan in the joint statement because our one-China policy covers all issues. As there was no progress on BRI, Dahal agreed to such a language to appease the Chinese, Khanal says: Such acts may put us in a difficult situation.

On Global Security Initiatives (GSI) and Global Civilizational Initiative (GCI), China expected Nepal to support and welcome the initiatives. According to the officials, this was mentioned in the first draft of the statement, only to be omitted after the Nepali side did not agree. Nepal has welcomed the Global Development Initiative (GDI) with two projects under it already implemented in the country.

“China supports Nepal’s independent choice of social system and development path that suits its national conditions,” the joint statement reads further, in a marked departure from the past. 

PM Dahal’s China visit has failed to make remarkable progress on development cooperation and it was heavily focused on security issues. Per the statement, the two sides agreed to expedite the ratification of the China-Nepal Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, though the matter is sub-judice in Nepal’s Supreme Court.

The reasons behind the inclusion of terms like ‘social system’ and ‘development path’ in the joint statement aren’t clear, either. According to analyst Karna, ‘social system’ is a part of GCI and Nepal’s development path has already been determined in Nepal’s Constitution and there are no questions over it in Nepal. Experts fear that such carelessness on the part of the PM may affect Nepal’s principled position of not engaging in great power confrontations and sticking to the policy of non-alignment.