Submit your Article

Nepal can transform into a developed nation only if it succeeds politically, diplomatically, and economically, moving from a surviving ‘small state’ to a significant ‘influencing power’ by defying the notion of traditional theories of international relations that ‘bandwagon’, ‘bargain’, or ‘buffer’.

A variety of political shocks and waves have been sparked following Donald Trump’s triumph as the 47th president of the United States, both domestically and internationally. The president-elect vowed supporters that he would make America’s future “bigger”, “bolder”, “richer”, “safer”, and “stronger” during his victory speech. As a longstanding superpower, America has many domestic and international challenges to deal with. Trump’s rationale to preserve American greatness, diplomatic intelligence, and the legacy of American thinking on foreign policy, however, is yet again to be tested.

The interests and policies of the United States have a significant impact on those of numerous nations, both bigger and smaller, including its partners, allies, and adversaries. The greatness of America is largely dependent on how well it handles a variety of international issues, such as the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, its relations with rising superpower China, the EU, and NATO, as well as how responsibly it handles several transnational issues such as climate crisis, cyber terrorism, maritime security, and nuclear and AI threats, among others.

The “bigness” of Israel—a small state in the Middle East—has been constantly questioned by many nations, perhaps as a result of American vested interest in the region and beyond. In contrast, Nepal’s small state status is high, definitely as a result of the enormous, rising neighbors on both sides. Bigness usually occurs as a relative phenomenon of smallness. The ‘bigness of smallness’ in this context refers to the small state’s geostrategic credibility both within and outside of the region.

Despite the fact that small states are less likely to use their economic or military might to alter the actions of larger states, they can still have a significant impact on global discourse and the development of the international order. It takes more than just military prowess, economic power, or geographic advantage for states to leave a lasting impact. They must take a calculated risk and project a ‘paragon of diplomacy’ in order to gain the trust of larger nations.

Small states in regional integration

Nepal, one of the world’s small powers, has greater significance in regional politics. Nepal’s existing geo-location, positioned between two rising economic giants—China and India—has drawn constant attention and careful scrutiny from the World Powers. This could perhaps be by assessing the soft potentials and natural resources of Nepal or perhaps by thinking that Nepal can become a stable hub to challenge or counter challenge the immediate neighboring powers. Nepal’s location has become more significant in the region than ever before because of the Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI’s) projection of Nepal as a bridge connecting China and the rest of South Asia.

One example of the bigness of smallness is the role played by Singapore and Vietnam in the US-North Korea summit in 2018 and 2019 respectively, where their bases facilitated the two nuclear-armed rivals host the meeting successfully. Vietnam has proven to be equally trustworthy to the east and west, while Singapore’s history of neutrality, dependability, trustworthiness, and security is one of the factors that led to its selection as the summit location.

Despite its small size, Iceland's location is crucial for transatlantic security. Iceland is perhaps the only nation without an armed forces in the world. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) counts Iceland as one of its founding members due to its geostrategic location. The geo-location of Iceland has strengthened the US-Iceland relationship. It is said that Iceland’s geo-strategic position is more important to US security than the security of Iceland itself.  The geo-location of Georgia, Ukraine, Kosovo, and Macedonia is also crucial for collective NATO security, while from the Russian perspective, Ukraine’s possible accession to NATO poses a threat to its national security.

Another instance of small states advancing the interests of larger states is the US’s historical relations with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Although things were different in the recent past, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives are thought to serve Chinese interests in the BRI. In the Middle East, Jordan’s stability is again largely under US interest. Tunisia is another small state with geo-strategic importance for regional stability in the Middle East and North Africa. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have made exemplary efforts in promoting the norms of sustainable development and leadership attempts in the climate crisis within the UN, which shows the examples of Nordic countries acting as environmental champions. Despite their smallness, the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) are having a significant influence on the international discourse.

The bigger states now have to acknowledge that small states are the primary drivers of economic growth, peace, and security. The role of small states is crucial for economic integration, soft partnerships, connectivity, access, and regional integration.

The bigness of Nepal

Nepal’s geostrategic significance has been steadily increasing in recent years. As evidenced by the history of South Asian politics and recent developments, Nepal’s geostrategic location in the region has gradually changed from a ‘safe zone’ to a ‘buffer zone’, to a ‘competition zone’, and finally a ‘clout of attraction’. Nepal must, therefore, play very smart and cautiously in its political, diplomatic, and economic dealings if it hopes to maintain its growing prominence.

The growing geostrategic rivalry in Nepal between the US, China, India, and the EU shows how important Nepal is to all of these nations. The competition between China and the US, India, or the EU in the areas of trade, energy, investment, diplomacy, and railway connectivity in Nepal demonstrates the country’s geostrategic importance. A new milestone in Nepal-China strategic relations was reached in 2016 when Prime Minister Oli visited China and signed ten agreements in a variety of sectors, granting Nepal access to four Chinese seaports for trade with a third nation. Nepal’s geo-strategic credibility has been assiduously enhanced by China’s confidence in Nepal as the protector of the security and stability of the Tibetan region and a geo-strategic soft partnership in the BRI. Prime Minister Oli should strategically step up in bringing the previous agreements to execution, with the interests of the country at the forefront, as he has received a formal invitation to visit China in the first week of December.

In an effort to counteract China’s increasingly powerful influence in the region and beyond, India is also demonstrating its influence in Nepal through a customized strategy. Nepal’s geostrategic significance increases as India works harder to keep China out of South Asian politics. Because of the delicate and unstable nature of the Tibetan region, the BRI's soft partnership, and China’s security concerns, Nepal would be more strategically significant even if India wanted China to be a part of South Asian integration.

Beyond Nepal’s regional bigness, Prime Minister Oli’s participation in the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with the vision of becoming a developed country by 2043, as well as his speeches at Harvard and Columbia University, the two top universities in the world, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2018, marked a new beginning for Nepal to improve its coexistence in the global economy, trade, and diplomacy. Several admirers both domestically and internationally have praised Prime Minister Oli’s valiant attendance at the 79th and 73rd sessions of the UN General Assembly, where he presented the country’s image with a broad foreign policy outlook.

Oli has become Nepal’s first prime minister in office to speak at esteemed universities like Harvard, Columbia, and the World Economic Forum. He nobly reaffirmed the need to use global governance to address the new transnational issues instead of pleading for sympathy and grants. This demonstrates Nepal's aptitude to effectively defend its sovereignty and its equal standing in the global arena as a model of multilateral diplomacy. In recognition of the shifting global political, diplomatic, economic, and globalization landscape, Nepal organized the “2019 Nepal Investment Summit”, which drew in over 700 high-ranking international investors, policymakers, industry experts, speakers, dignitaries, influential figures from the global economy, and high-ranking government representatives from about 40 nations.

The key question, however, is whether the succeeding administrations have been sufficiently strategic to seize and capitalize on those opportunities.

The BRI induced bigness

India’s denial of participation in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) might have made Nepal more strategically important to China. Nepal now has to play a geo-strategic role in the region as a participant of the BRI. Trilateral cooperation between China, India, and Nepal would have been possible if India had signed the BRI project. China and India would then trade through Nepal. India and China would have benefited far more from that than from trade with the United States or Europe, which could again heighten Nepal’s bigness.

For China and India’s security, Nepal’s geostrategic location is more crucial than Nepal itself. India and China are geographically close to Nepal, so Nepal’s security—or lack thereof—will have an impact on their security. India’s constant concerns about security and China’s pursuit of economic dominance can only be resolved by a strategy known as ‘Broad Regional Integration’, or the new BRI, in which Nepal can serve as an integrating link.

Nepal is thought to be the link between China and South Asia in the BRI after signing the prospect. In 2019, President Xi visited Nepal. He might be open to making a second trip to Nepal. Nepalese delegates are being invited by Beijing and Delhi in succession. Nepal is regularly visited by leaders and officials from China and India. Prime Minister Modi has already made four trips to Nepal during his previous terms as India has retracted its diplomatic path to the country. In his third term as India’s prime minister, he is probably going to make his trip to Nepal in the foreseeable future. The fourth BIMSTEC summit was successfully held in Kathmandu. Nepal is viewed as a mediator by all of the regional organizations’ member states, which enhances Nepal’s geostrategic importance. Furthermore, as the latest SAARC chair, all eyes are on Nepal to restart the stalled SAARC process. 

Nepal, however, must take a calculated step forward and demonstrate exceptional diplomacy in order to gain the trust of larger economies. Nepal has never been a supporter of bloc and alliance politics. And it shouldn't. Instead, it should continue to uphold its neutral, reliable, compliant, and lofty ideals. The idea behind economic perspective is to practice economic dynamics in a way that promotes security, connectivity, and peace. Nevertheless, in order to serve the interests of the country and enhance its steadily rising international profile, Nepal must create a thorough ‘Political Intelligence Culture’ and practice ‘Stately Economic Diplomacy’ with a broad vision of building Nepal as a developed nation.

Vision 2043: Building a developed nation 

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli underscored Nepal’s prospect to achieve developed nation status by 2043 during his speech to the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). He, however, did not specify how the country would accomplish such an ambitious mission. It might not go as smoothly as anticipated, yet it would neither be impossible to accomplish this mission. The fact that a number of development indicators—such as economic competitiveness, political stability, diplomatic influence, social integrity, quality of life, academic recognition, scientific and technological innovation, tech and data sovereignty, public services, and foreign policy—lag well behind international metrics may make it more difficult. Conversely, it might be achievable if the vision and philosophy were turned into reality with pragmatic policy and action. The country should be passionate enough to adjust and grasp the pace of transformation—both within and outside—and aspire to thrive by cooperating with the international community, especially with development partners, including those in close proximity.

Nepal can be transformed as a developed nation only if it succeeds politically, diplomatically, and economically, moving from a surviving ‘small state’ to a significant ‘influencing power’ by defying the notion of traditional theories of international relations that ‘bandwagon’, ‘bargain’, or ‘buffer’. To put it another way, it has to understand the ‘bigness of smallness’ in reality and promote ‘self-help’ in order to realize the eminence of a developed nation. The country must, in fact, prudently use its ‘soft powers’ and internal values—such as geography, history, natural resources, culture, morale, civilization, and education—as well as foreign policy, technology, modernism, infrastructure, and research and development such that it can smoothly attain the status of a developed nation.

The author is a geo-strategic thinker and techno-geopolitical analyst

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s upcoming visit to China in the first week of December marks a notable departure from the Nepali tradition of newly appointed prime ministers prioritizing India for their first international visit. In his previous terms, Oli adhered to this unspoken convention, but this time, India has not extended an invitation despite his four months in office, signaling what some interpret as a shift in India’s approach to Nepal.

Oli’s visit is generating significant attention both domestically and internationally, largely due to his track record of signing strategic agreements with China during his past tenure. This will be his third official visit to China as Nepal’s prime minister; he previously visited in 2016 and 2018. Notably, during his premiership, Chinese President Xi Jinping also made a landmark visit to Nepal in 2019, the first by a Chinese leader in over two decades.

In 2016, as Nepal was recovering from months-long economic blockade imposed by India, Oli signed a Transit and Transport Agreement with China, granting Nepal access to Chinese ports for essential imports and reducing Nepal’s reliance on India. The agreement also marked a major shift in the age-old Nepal-India relations. This agreement was formalized in 2019, further strengthening bilateral ties between Nepal and China. 

Although high-level exchanges between Nepal and China are not new, Oli’s upcoming visit is under heightened scrutiny.

One of the major focuses of this visit is China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with which China has long urged Nepal to make concrete progress. Discussions are ongoing about a BRI implementation plan—a topic broached but left unresolved during former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s visit to Beijing. Nepal is also expected to request debt relief on a Chinese loan for Pokhara International Airport, potentially in exchange for BRI commitments. India and Western countries have expressed implicit concerns, warning Nepal of potential debt risks and corruption associated with the BRI. While Nepal signed the BRI framework in 2017, specific project implementation has stalled due to Nepal’s reservations and external pressures.

Oli’s visit also highlights Nepal’s complex diplomatic balancing act amid growing international interest in its relations with China. India and Western nations are increasingly wary of Chinese influence in South Asia, including in Nepal, and are closely monitoring this visit. Within Nepal’s ruling coalition, there is a disagreement over engagement with China; the Nepali Congress is cautious about progressing with the BRI, whereas Oli’s party, the CPN-UML, advocates for advancement. Oli has sought to maintain coalition harmony by consulting coalition leaders, including Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, as they work to finalize the agenda.

A few days earlier, UML and NC held a meeting to discuss Oli’s planned China visit. The two parties agreed that Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba would work on the agenda of the visit after consultations with NC leaders. The meeting between UML and NC indicates that Prime Minister Oli wants to deal with China without upsetting his coalition partner.

Over the past few years, mainly after Xi Jinping’s Nepal visit in 2019, bilateral cooperation between two countries is ever expanding. Along with continuous development partnership, two countries are cooperating in the new areas. Another vivid change in China’s engagement in Nepal is through its Communist Party of China. Over the past few years, CPC has been engaging with Nepal’s major parties, particularly focusing on communist parties. Senior leaders of CPC continuously visit Nepal and China is also inviting Nepal’s political parties from center to local levels. Similarly, China also organizes sessions with leaders of Nepal’s major parties to inform about the decisions taken by CPC and Chinese government.

In the third week of Oct 2024, Chen Gang, Secretary of China’s Qinghai Province, led a delegation visiting Nepal with two major objectives, first organizing an interaction program with Nepal’s political parties and another to meet Nepal’s political parties. The delegation shared the decisions made by the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee which has taken some important decisions in the areas of opening up after 1978. This is just an example CPC often organizes such programs in Kathmandu and Beijing. In January this year, Sun Haiyan, Vice minister of the international Liaison Department of CPC, conducted a high-level discussion with the leaders of parties represented in Nepal’s Parliament. In the program, she made a remark that some forces are trying to spoil Nepal-China relations so Nepal’s political parties should be cautious of it.

Since President Xi’s visit in 2019, China’s presence in Nepal has expanded beyond government-to-government partnerships, notably through the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) directly engaging with Nepal’s political landscape. Dozens of delegations mainly from three communist parties—CPN-UML, CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Center)—have visited China to participate in various programs. Leaders from NC, Rastriya Swatantra Party and other fringe parties have also visited China over the years, but not quite as often as the communist parties.

Senior CPC leaders have also frequently visited Nepal, fostering ties primarily with Nepal’s communist parties and facilitating interactions that include briefings on CPC policies. In October 2024, Chen Gang, the CPC Secretary of China’s Qinghai Province, led a delegation to discuss recent CPC decisions and further bilateral cooperation, underscoring this growing political engagement.

CPC is mainly engaging with Nepal’s communist parties, often advising them to unite and form one powerful communist force. In August this year, when Nepal faced unprecedented floods and landslides, it was the CPC and not the Chinese government that rushed to provide relief to the disaster survivors. The CPC channelized the aid through Nepal’s major political parties. 

There is no doubt that China’s influence in Nepal is increasing at different levels. The rising presence of Chinese NGOs, which were virtually absent a decade ago, is one example. Organizations such as the China Foundation for Rural Development (CFRD) now actively participate in health, education, agriculture, and disaster relief in Nepal, often collaborating with UN agencies on initiatives like the Global Development Initiative (GDI). 

China’s influence in Nepal has grown significantly over the past decade, and Oli’s visit is expected to further deepen this relationship. Should Oli secure agreements with China that align with coalition interests, particularly with Nepali Congress’s consent, Nepal’s relations with India and the broader international community may experience further shifts.

Mike Carey, a Republican with extensive knowledge of Nepal and a co-chair of the Nepal Caucus, has been elected to the US Congress, representing Ohio’s 15th District. Carey received 192,477 votes (53 percent), defeating Democratic candidate Adam Miller, who garnered 148,452 votes (43 percent).

Carey, born in 1971, attended the Marion Military Institute and served as a US Army officer. He also spent over two decades as an executive with one of America’s largest privately owned energy companies based in Ohio, where he was known for advocating energy independence and reforming the country’s energy policies.

Carey has consistently supported the Nepali community, earning recognition and honors from several Nepali organizations for his contributions. His election to Congress further solidifies his commitment to fostering ties between the US and the Nepali community.

Voters had the chance this election to break the highest glass ceiling in American politics by electing Kamala Harris the nation’s first female president. Instead, they returned Donald Trump to the White House, a comeback that relied on significant—even somewhat improved—support among women.

Some female voters on Wednesday mourned the missed opportunity to send a woman to the Oval Office and wondered when, if ever, it might happen.

“I am just aghast,” said Precious Brady-Davis, a Black transgender woman who’d just won a two-year term on a Chicago-area water management board—but her joy in that was tempered. “I am disappointed in my fellow Americans that, once again, we did not elect a qualified woman to the presidency.”

Those who supported Trump—like Katherine Mickelson, a 20-year-old college student from Sioux Falls, South Dakota—said the race came down to values and to issues like the economy, not gender. Even Harris herself sought her place in history without dwelling on her gender.

“While I think a lot of women would like to see a female president, myself included,” Mickelson said, “we aren’t just going to blindly vote for a woman.”

Despite the history-making potential of Harris’ campaign, she wasn’t able to expand on President Joe Biden’s 2020 support among women to cement a win, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 120,000 voters nationwide. Fifty-three percent of women supported Harris, compared with 46 percent for Trump—slightly narrower than Biden’s advantage among them in 2020.

The prospect of electing the first female president didn’t rank high as a motivator for voters. Only about 1 in 10 voters said the fact that Harris would be the first woman was the single most important factor for their vote, while about one-quarter said it was an important driver, but not the most important.

Denise Martin in Georgia had a grim view: “I really feel like the majority of Americans still aren’t ready for a woman. They are so short-sighted.” That included, she said, some fellow female voters.

Women were more likely than men to say electing the first female president was at least a factor in their vote, VoteCast showed, though few said it was the main driver and about four in ten women said it wasn’t a factor.

Black women were especially motivated by the potential for the first female president—about a third said it was the most important factor.

Maya Davis theorized that Harris’ identity as a Black and South Asian woman “absolutely” played a role in her defeat. As a Black woman herself, the 27-year-old North Carolina attorney said she’s constantly forced to prove herself.

“I don’t think there’s anything she could have done differently, unfortunately,” she said of Harris. “Maybe not be a woman.”

Female supporters of Trump, 78—who adopted a hypermasculine campaign style, used sexist tropes and vowed to protect women “whether they like it or not”—said they found his rhetoric perhaps unfortunate or hyperbolic, but less troubling than concerns about the economy, immigration and abortion.

Krissy Bunner of Greenville, South Carolina, called Trump a “promoter of women” and said the future is “so much brighter” for them because Trump was elected.

“He does so much, you know, for us,” the 56-year-old said. She described women who favored Harris as misled by the media, and said Trump’s stringent border policies and stance on barring transgender athletes from women’s sports would benefit all women.

Virginia King, 19, of Dallas, spoke about Trump’s unscripted nature. “He’s just kind of outspoken about what he thinks and what he does, whereas other people hide it,” she said. “It’s probably not ideal, but it doesn’t make me not support him.”

Other women found the former president’s bombast ominous and feared a second Trump term would further threaten their rights two years after his Supreme Court appointees helped overturn the right to abortion.

“All of women’s protections are going to go away if you don’t protect the basic fundamental issue of democracy to begin with,” said retired teacher Mary Ellen Brown, 66, of Newtown, Pennsylvania. Brown said she dressed in black Wednesday and feared her family was losing faith in their country.

After Harris stepped into the race in July, Trump doubled down on banter that many found paternalistic—and worse—as he tried to close the gender gap. He also offended many by calling Harris “stupid” or “lazy.” His running mate, JD Vance, called the vice president “trash.”

The discourse didn’t bother Nina Christina, a North Carolina nurse more worried about feeding her children. Christina, 35, voted for Trump and said she just hopes to avoid being “underwater.”

“It shouldn’t be this difficult to survive in everyday life,” said Christina, adding that Harris already had a chance to fix the economy.

Harris, 60, bypassed the suffragist white worn by Hillary Clinton in 2016 and rarely spoke about the glass ceiling during a frenzy of energetic campaign stops since becoming the Democratic nominee in July.

Her supporters welcomed the upbeat mood after what they saw as a series of setbacks for women’s progress in recent years: a workload surge during the pandemic, when children were sent home from school in 2020; the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022; and the steady drumbeat of #MeToo cases, some lodged against Trump.

In Minneapolis, 90-year-old Audrey Wesley—who’s voted in more presidential elections than she can count off the top of her head—said she’d been hoping a Harris victory would usher in a bipartisan resurgence.

“I can’t believe a man that has done this much against the law can even be running for president,” Wesley said, referring to the litany of legal battles, including sexual assault allegations, Trump brings to the office. “Our system is broken.”

Relatively few voters said Trump’s legal cases were a major factor in their decision-making this election, according to AP VoteCast. Only about a quarter of Trump voters said the legal cases involving Trump were at least an important factor, but about eight in ten Harris voters did.

Some women voters experienced the gender gap within their own homes or families—women like Dee Bertino, 55, of Moorestown, New Jersey, who spent her first date with her husband arguing about trickle-down economics. Twenty-five years and two sons later, she mailed in a ballot for Harris while her husband voted for Trump.

Bertino said her top concern was women’s rights, but she also bemoaned the lack of civility she felt Trump had unleashed. Her husband, Bob, 58, with whom she runs a sexual health company, also supported abortion rights, she said, but felt the economy, immigration and other issues were more important.

Having a woman president is “not that big” for me, Bertino said. “But I truly believe that our democracy is facing its largest threat in history, and Trump must be stopped.”

Bertino and her husband hotly debate politics and the election. That’s not true for Martin, in Peachtree City, Georgia,

Martin, 61, is a flight attendant. Her partner is a pilot. He voted for Trump, for the third time. She voted for Harris. Speaking about politics is fraught and painful, and they know to avoid it.

When Clinton lost in 2016, Martin said, she was beside herself and couldn’t talk to her partner for days. This year, Martin had hoped to privately celebrate the ascension of the first female president, a woman she supported not because she was a woman, but because she was the right candidate: “so thoughtful, so smart, so well-spoken.”

But the news did not seem good, so she went to bed. She awoke to see the race called for Trump, and grew tearful. Among her chief concerns: the future of democracy; health care, especially reproductive care for young women; respect for science; climate policy; and the United States’ standing in the world.

As Clinton herself has said, Harris didn’t need to emphasize the gender issue, because the public has grown more accustomed to seeing female candidates. Seven women, representing three political parties, ran for president in 2020.

”We now don’t just have one image of a person who happens to be a woman who ran for president—namely me,” she told the AP in September. “Now we have a much better opportunity for women candidates, starting with Kamala, to be viewed in a way that just takes for granted the fact that, yes, guess what? She’s a woman.”

Trump voter Elizabeth Herbert, a retired homeschool teacher from Wake Forest, North Carolina, saw Trump as a strong leader and family man. She would still like to see a woman president. She just didn’t embrace Harris.

“I think a woman could do a great job as president,” she said. “I don’t think she is the right woman.”

Some women who’d voted for Harris told AP they were too stunned to speak about the news. “I’m devastated,” texted one; “I’ll need a little time,” another wrote. Others said they were forcing themselves to move forward.

“We’ll get through today and then get some rest,” Martin said, looking forward to playing trivia with her friends later.

“The world is going to change, but we have to find our way in it. We can’t let this ruin us.”

AP