Submit your Article

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

In a democracy, freedom of speech, a fundamental right, allows individuals to scrutinize and comment on government actions. However, the act of governing is far more complex than merely facing criticism. Governance, especially in challenging times, requires far more than addressing public grievances; it requires leadership, skill and unwavering commitment.

The current government of Nepal, led by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, is a coalition of the two largest parties in the Parliament with a two-third majority. This government has faced both support and significant backlash, from within the country and beyond. All this is very natural as leaders are under the microscope in a democracy.

While the government as a whole is often scrutinized, one figure stands out—Minister for Foreign Affairs Arzu Rana Deuba. Her diplomatic skills, leadership and ability to handle sensitive negotiations have earned her respect both at home and abroad.

She has demonstrated a deep understanding of international relations. Her speeches in national and international forums reveal a leader, who not only speaks knowledgeably but also acts with clarity and confidence. From engaging with neighboring countries to participating in multilateral discussions, she has consistently represented Nepal with dignity and insight. Her ability to build and sustain relationships with global counterparts has positioned Nepal in a more favorable light internationally.

One of her most commendable actions came when she intervened in the case of Bipin Joshi, a Nepali citizen in Hamas’ captivity. Deuba’s constant engagement with her counterparts in Israel, Qatar and Egypt played a key role in making the negotiators keep in mind the only Nepali, who is held hostage. Her swift response and diplomatic outreach not only demonstrated her commitment to protecting Nepali citizens abroad but also highlighted her ability to act decisively in crisis situations.

Beyond this, Deuba has made significant strides in strengthening Nepal’s relations with its neighbors and the international community. Her official visit to China was an important step in ensuring Nepal’s active participation in global economic and infrastructural projects. Her ongoing efforts to maintain cordial relations with India have also not gone unnoticed. 

Her recent trip to Bangkok, though officially for personal medical reasons, may have included meetings with Indian officials to facilitate Prime Minister Oli’s visit to India as soon as possible. If so, it would be yet another example of her deft handling of foreign relations and her proactive approach to improving ties with Nepal’s southern neighbor.

Her leadership extends beyond diplomacy as she has been an advocate for the rights of Nepali expatriates, ensuring their concerns are heard in the government’s policy decisions. Her efforts in highlighting the Nepali migrant workers’ issues at international fora have earned her praise from labor organizations and advocacy groups alike. Furthermore, her work in advancing gender equality and empowering women has made her a role model for women aspiring to enter politics and diplomacy.

Even as the government continues to face its share of criticism, Deuba has managed to navigate the complexities of foreign policy deftly, making significant strides for Nepal on the global stage. 

In times of political uncertainty, leaders like Deuba remind us that effective governance is not only about managing domestic affairs but also about strengthening a nation’s position in the global community. She has earned the respect and admiration of many, both at home and abroad. Her tenure as Foreign Minister is a testament to her capacity to lead with dignity, skill and a sense of responsibility. Her work deserves recognition, not just for the immediate successes but for the long-term impact she is poised to have on Nepal’s foreign relations.

The author, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, has been practicing corporate law for around three decades. Views are personal 

Rayo ko saag, or mustard greens, is more than just a leafy vegetable in Nepal. It’s a cultural icon, a nutritional powerhouse, and a symbol of Nepali identity. From traditional dishes like gundruk to modern green smoothies, this humble green continues to evolve while maintaining its timeless significance. Its ability to nourish both body and soul ensures that rayo ko saag will remain an essential part of Nepali cuisine for generations to come.

A staple of Nepali cuisine

Nepali cuisine is deeply connected to the land, relying on ingredients that have sustained its people for centuries. Among these, rayo ko saag (Brassica juncea) holds a special place in the hearts and kitchens of Nepali people. This vibrant, nutrient-rich vegetable is an integral part of the country’s culinary heritage, enjoyed across all communities and regions.

Nutritional and health benefits

Rayo ko saag is not only delicious but also packed with essential nutrients, making it a staple in the Nepali diet. 

It’s high in Vitamin A, C, and K, which support vision, immunity, and bone health. It also contains folate, calcium, potassium, and magnesium for overall well-being. It contains beta-carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin, which combat oxidative stress and reduce the risk of chronic diseases.

Its high fiber content aids digestion and helps detoxify the body. The potassium in rayo ko saag helps regulate blood pressure, while its omega-3 fatty acids promote cardiovascular health. It contains glucosinolates, known for their anti-inflammatory and cancer-preventive properties.

Vitamin K and calcium contribute to strong bones, reducing the risk of osteoporosis. Its high vitamin C content strengthens the immune system. Antioxidants in the greens help maintain healthy skin and slow the aging process.

Culinary uses

Rayo ko saag is a key component of Nepali meals, often served alongside the national dish, daal bhat tarkari (lentils, rice, and vegetables). Its versatility allows it to be used in various traditional and modern dishes.

Stir-fried with garlic, ginger, and chilies, this simple dish is a staple in Nepali households. Fermented and dried mustard greens are turned into gundruk, a traditional preserved food that adds a tangy flavor to soups and curries. 

It’s combined with potatoes, lentils, or other vegetables for hearty side dishes. Young mustard greens are pickled with spices and oil for a flavorful condiment. Saag paneer is a fusion dish where mustard greens are cooked with cottage cheese and spices, perfect for special occasions.

Rayo ko saag is now blended into green smoothies for a nutrient boost. Deep-fried mustard greens in chickpea batter make a crispy and flavorful snack. The greens are also blended into creamy soups or added to broths for extra nutrition. Mustard greens are being incorporated into global cuisines, from pasta to stir-fries.

Cultivation and sustainability

Rayo ko saag is a hardy, cool-season crop that thrives in various climates and soil types, making it popular for home gardens and commercial farming. It prefers well-drained, fertile soil with a pH of 6.0 to 7.5 and thrives in cool temperatures and tolerates frost, making it ideal for Nepal’s mountainous regions.

It’s best grown in autumn and winter but can be cultivated year-round in temperate climates. It requires regular watering, weeding, and protection from pests like aphids and caterpillars.

While rayo ko saag is traditionally a seasonal vegetable, advancements in agriculture have enabled year-round cultivation in greenhouses and controlled environments. However, its flavor is most robust when grown in cooler temperatures, making winter the ideal season for enjoying this green.

Comparison with other greens

Though rayo ko saag is a beloved staple, Nepali cuisine also includes other nutritious greens. Chamsur ko saag (garden cress) is rich in iron and vitamin C. It has a peppery flavor but it’s less common outside Nepal. Watercress shares similar health benefits but lacks the distinct earthy taste of mustard greens. Spinach and kale are popular globally, but their taste and texture differ from rayo ko saag, offering variety but less authenticity in traditional Nepali dishes.

The essence of rayo ko saag

For me, rayo ko saag is a symbol of home and heritage. Its presence in daily meals connects families to their roots and traditions. For those living abroad, the aroma of freshly cooked rayo ko saag evokes memories of childhood and family gatherings.

Though primarily associated with Nepal, rayo ko saag is gaining global recognition for its health benefits and versatility. Ethnic grocery stores in countries with large Nepali communities often stock mustard greens, allowing the diaspora to stay connected to their culinary heritage.

Rayo ko saag is a timeless treasure in Nepali cuisine. Its nutritional value, cultural significance, and culinary versatility ensure its place in Nepali households for generations to come. Whether served traditionally or innovatively, this beloved green continues to be a symbol of health, heritage, and home.

The author is a London-based R&D chef

The Ozone layer knows no political boundary—nations do. Yet, it is the only common roof beneath which life flourishes. This roof is decaying, getting weak enough to filter out lethal rays of the Sun, contributing to global warming. The effects are evident: melting of the snow-capped mountains, rising sea levels, and deteriorating climatic conditions on Earth. That is inviting an adverse change in the ecosystem.

While political interests of nations may vary, they should not outweigh the cost of environmental degradation, which affects all life. There is no denying the fact that the developed nations in their race for industrialization have always been the major contributors to the emission of gases that deplete the ozone layer. From mining Bitcoin to constructing a skyscraper, the price has been paid heavily by the environment. This underlines the need for strong global policies and accountability to reduce further environmental damage. Given what we have seen so far, recent developments in international politics in the wake of Trump’s executive order to withdraw from the Paris Agreement raise common concerns since the environmental crisis is a global one.

Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on 20 Jan. Upon his swearing into office, he has signed a number of executive orders that have become the subject of heated debate over the policies set for his term.

Views remain sharply divided on particularly those orders which portend grave implications for withdrawal from international obligations. However, Trump’s policies were expected generally to be mired in controversy, based on cardinal principles of the “America First” policy that he put forward during his first tenure as the 45th president of the US. As a nation, national interest plays a central role, often at the expense of international obligations. The emphasis on national interests in the administration’s policy is a reflection of the “America First” principle that marked Trump’s presidency, where domestic interests were placed above international commitments.

International political practices, from the ethical point of view, should surely rest on the very basic principle of acknowledging “inevitable interdependencies while also protecting sovereign rights” a principle the US seems unconcerned with. The question thus arises whether a nation like the US, long believed to be an inspiration for humankind’s greatest problems, actually should step aside from international commitments.

The Paris Agreement, which was adopted in 2015, was negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. In 2016, it was opened for signature, and with great enthusiasm, almost every nation including the United States, signed the agreement. In addition, the main goals of the Paris Agreement are to Limit Global warming by reducing the temperature below, boost adaptation, fund developing nations, ensure transparency, and review progress every five years.

Similarly, Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention UNFCCC and Article 2 of the Paris Agreement articulate this principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” clearly. Supported by developing nations, CBDR recognizes that climate change is indeed a problem of the world, while responsibility for its resolution lies with each country’s history of GHG emissions and existing resources. Poor countries insist that developed, industrialized countries like the United States need to bear the burden of carrying a larger load given their historical responsibility and availability of superior resources and technology. The Paris Agreement represented an outstanding opportunity for the United States to demonstrate commitment and leadership, given that it is one of the world’s largest carbon emitters. However, its withdrawal in 2019, rejoining in 2021, and the decision to withdraw from the agreement again in 2025 shows unconformity in International Environmental Policies.

Article 28 of the Paris Agreement provides that the signatory state may withdraw by sending a written notification to the depositary. Based on this, Trump signed executive orders to begin the process of withdrawal from the agreement. Therefore, there is no legal obligation of the United States to adhere to the agreement commitments but under moral grounds, it has failed to prove its global leadership.

Despite the US’s reluctance to follow through with international agreements, the country has a domestic legal regime and regulations dealing with environmental concerns such as climate change, air, and water pollution, and resource depletion with inter-agency cooperation between the federal government and the states as well as local government entities. Therefore, we should not be judgmental regarding the United States' concerns with environmental crises. However, its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement suggests that though the US might be effective in responding to environmental crises within its national boundary, it is reluctant when it comes to global cooperation.

US environmental aid to Nepal ends after the US exits the Paris Agreement. Nepal, a Himalayan country one of the most vulnerable to environmental crises, pleads the principle of Common But Differentiated responsibility (CBDR). In her oral pleadings at the ICJ, Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba Rana advocated the principle following the request for an Advisory Opinion from the states on climate change. “We are bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change in a disproportionate manner,” said Rana Deuba. “We have been penalized for the mistakes we never made, for the crimes we never committed.”

The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a “selfish move against a shared responsibility” that underlines the tension between National economic priorities, political ideologies, and global environmental obligations. While the withdrawal does not create any legal obligation, it does raise moral questions about US leadership and foreign policy. Whether driven by ignorance or reluctance, the decision has profound implications for the global fight against climate change.