As Hubert Humphrey, former Vice President of the United States, once said, “Foreign policy is really domestic policy with its hat on”. The recent Nepal visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Yi and the official India visit of Nepal’s Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba should be analyzed within Nepal’s evolving political context. The resumption of high-level meetings, regardless of immediate gains, should also be seen as a good start in the rebooting of Nepal’s relations with India and China.

For example, Prime Minister Deuba raised outstanding border issues during the summit with his Indian counterpart and there was general understanding to address it through dialogue. This was indeed an icebreaker in the Indo-Nepal border dispute. Similarly, Nepal has successfully communicated with China its continued need for development assistance, preferably grants.

Nepal’s relations with two big neighbors have gone through many ups and downs in the past six years. KP Oli, now the leader of the main opposition, in his first stint as prime minister, signed the ‘Transit and Transportation Agreement’ with China in 2016, aiming to diversify Nepal’s third-country trade. In his second stint, Oli led the process to amend Nepal’s constitution to unveil a new map of Nepal by incorporating Kalapani, Limpiyadhura and Lipulekh.

However, Oli’s foreign policy approach was criticized for its vacillation between two neighbors, initially tilting towards China and later making overtures towards India. Oli famously ratchetted up anti-India sentiment through nationalistic rhetoric, including mocking India’s national emblem and also making an unsubstantiated claim over Lord Rama’s birthplace. However, in his last few months in office, Oli extended an olive branch to India by meeting India’s intelligence chief in Baluwatar and expressing his intent to mend fences by resuming high-level meetings. It was viewed by many as a 180-degree foreign policy turn from China towards India—just to save his chair.

When Deuba came to power in July 2021, he had challenges of improving strained relationships with both China and India. The recent visit from China seems to be more of a Chinese push, particularly after the disintegration of Nepal Communist Party, the formation of Deuba-led government, and parliamentary ratification of the MCC compact.

PM Deuba and his team seem to have made many attempts to reach out to India, including for party-to-party exchanges and interactions.  In late August 2020, the NC invited the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Foreign Affairs Department Chief Vijay Chauthaiwale for a Nepal visit and an NC team led by Prakash Sharan Mahat went to India.

In light of growing India-China competition in Asia, the US alliance with India, the American bid to counter China, the economic challenges brought by Russia’s invasion to Ukraine, and development challenges posed by climate change and the coronavirus, Nepal needs to reboot its foreign policy, particularly with its two big neighbors, and the resumption of high-level meetings is a step in right direction.

In foreign policy literature, weak states are those that lack resources or economic power or, alternately, those without strong foreign relations. Understanding its geography is vital to understating Nepal’s foreign policy, but in the emerging world order with multipolarity and multilateralism, it is equally important to understand how a state can maintain its foreign policy space bilaterally and multilaterally—regardless of its size and location.

The 2015 constitution of Nepal aims to pursue “an independent foreign policy based on the Charter of the United Nations, non-alignment, principles of Panchsheel, international law and the norms of world peace, taking into consideration of the overall interest of the nation.” However, these guiding principles enshrined in the constitution need to be tweaked in line with the emerging world order and evolving relationships.

For example, the principle of neutrality has also been evolving. For example, Switzerland has abandoned its traditional neutrality to join Western countries in imposing sanctions against Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. Together with 141 UN member states, Nepal voted in favor of a UN resolution deploring the invasion, although Nepal’s two big neighbors China and India abstained from voting. Nepal’s position this time was strikingly different to those of India and China, not because Nepal wanted to be different, but because Nepal chose a straightforward position to call a spade a spade.

For decades, although there has been occasional tilting towards one or the other, Nepal’s geography as a landlocked country has always been considered a key for balancing India and China. The traditional sense of balance of power was largely based on the principle of being cautious to the interests of its neighbors rather than maximizing Nepal’s opportunities as an economic link. Nepal’s new foreign policy approach to India and China, two emerging global powers, should be based on a connectivity-driven development strategy with a shift from a ‘landlocked’ state to a ‘land-linked’ state, focusing on cross-border infrastructure investments for transport, trade, information and power connectivity.

The ratification of the MCC compact has signaled to the international community that Nepal is open for foreign aid investment. This might have worked as a reverse psychology: China decided to send its foreign minister to assure Nepal on Sino-Nepal relationships.

A sense of competition among major powers in supporting its development is what Nepal needs for the self-sufficiency of its economy. Most importantly, Nepal’s foreign policy reboot should be based on two principles: The principle of engagement with all major powers for Nepal’s socio-economic development, and the principle of mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity, security and sovereignty.

During the recent visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang, Nepal and China reinvigorated bilateral ties by signing nine agreements, related to grass to railway and vaccines to economic and technical cooperation. None of these agreements, however, were about the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), from which many countries in the world are benefitting as a development financing mechanism.

As a follow up to Wang Yi’s visit, Nepal needs to put more effort into achieving its long-term strategic goals by focusing on results-oriented discussions on security, development assistance and investment (including on BRI), as well as transit, trade and tourism.

Nepal has also experienced a blockade-like situation from China since January 2020. China has halted issuing visas to Nepali traders. China is Nepal's second largest trade partner after India; however, it is not the second largest trade partner for Nepal's exports. This means Nepal needs more open and productive follow up discussion with China on a preferential trade agreement.

In 2016, Nepal signed a landmark Transit and Transportation Agreement with China, followed by the signing of protocol on its implementation in 2019. However, Nepal’s transit deal with China has made no headway even after six years. Similarly, Nepal signed on to the BRI in 2017 with much expectation, but so far not a single project has taken off. These examples clearly point to lack of direction, planning and negotiation with China on issues of strategic importance.

Nepal’s relations with India have been severely strained, particularly after the 2015 undeclared blockade and dispute over Kalapani. There were no high-level visits between India and Nepal after the global spread of coronavirus. Although the main opposition party speculated that Prime Minister Deuba went to India to seek its blessings ahead of elections, this official visit has rather opened up a door to discuss all outstanding issues and strengthen multi-faceted relations.

Nepal and India agreeing to expand sub-regional cooperation in power and energy under the framework of BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal) and to engage in bi-directional power trade are welcome news given the potential of clean energy to tackle the challenges posed by climate change. However, the real success of Deuba’s recent visit will depend on whether India will be open to resolve border disputes, grant more air routes, import more electricity during the summer, provide access to Bangladesh for electricity export, and be open for China-India-Nepal cross-border infrastructure development under the ‘trans-Himalayan connectivity’ concept.

With both India and China, Nepal should continue emphasizing its ambition and aspiration to be a country that could help markets in South, Central and Southeast Asia integrate.

The author is a member of the board of directors at the Institute of Foreign Affairs, Nepal

A shorter version of this article was published in the print edition of The Annapurna Express on 7 April 2022.

“New rules or a game without rules?” asked Russian President Vladimir Putin almost a decade ago, questioning the US-led unipolar international order. The Western world mostly ignored Putin’s remark. In 2014, Russia sent its military into Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. In 2022, it declared an all-out war against the same country.

The West has now retreated from the global stage thanks to its expensive war on terror, economic depression, and a rise of populism and nationalist politics. These in turn have shrunk its military advantages.

As Ukraine became vulnerable, Russia questioned its statehood and accused NATO of jeopardizing Russia’s security. It also inexplicably accused Ukraine of committing genocide against its Russian-speaking citizens. So, on February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine.

It is worth recalling that Ukraine was the world’s third largest nuclear power at the end of the Cold War—until it was denuclearized under bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions. Its denuclearization was frequently heralded as a victory for arms control, as Ukraine was portrayed as a model in a world rife with potential nuclear powers.

But the security and territorial guarantees that came with the disarmament proved to a mirage. In reality, no force could prevent the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014 or Russia’s all-out war against Ukraine at present. This is why every middle-income country in the world aspires to possess nuclear warheads to deter potential aggressors: denuclearization and security arrangements just don’t work. Now, the nuclear dilemma is once again haunting Ukraine and other geo-strategically vulnerable states around the world.

Nepal’s vulnerable geo-strategic location has always endangered its very existence. Both India and China seemingly want to exploit the country to gain geo-strategic advantage.

The Cold War-era diplomacy of great powers centered on enticing weaker states with infrastructure projects—national highways, industries, university buildings, government secretariat buildings, student exchange programs, scholarships, etc. That kind of diplomacy had, to an extent, proved worthwhile for Nepal. But then any development assistance for Nepal was always contingent on serving the larger strategic interests of big foreign powers.

British India saw Nepal as a buffer against Imperial China. Independent India pursued the same British-era strategic policy, which continues to this day. China wants a strictly neutral Nepal. The US and the West, meanwhile, need Nepal to check the ambitions of a rising China.

Things are going from bad to worse. The Americans are pushing hard on the MCC compact and the Chinese are doing the same with the BRI, suggesting neither side is ready to give an inch. They will also ask Nepal to increasingly do their bidding. 

Gradually, Nepal is being obliged to ratify agreements, development protocols and strategic assurances that ultimately weaken its sovereignty, independence and autonomy. A strategically weak Nepal can hardly decide on its own, a fate similar to Ukraine’s.

The country has had to feel the burnt of the recent uptick in US-China rivalry. The relations with India also remain dicey. Nepal as a poor and unarmed country is left without choice—it has no option but to explore a safe strategic space from which it can rally for global peace, vocalize its neutrality and advocate non-alignment.

We need to be well aware of any potential strategic miscalculations while dealing with great powers—for instance, Ukraine had virtually signed its suicide note by agreeing to disarm.

The contracts and compacts Nepal signs can trap it geopolitically under the guise of development. Nepal must learn from the fate of Karna who surrendered his Kavacha and Kundala—body armors and earrings—to Lord Indra, and was then slaughtered in the battlefield.

Nepal’s Kavacha and Kundala are neutrality, advocacy for peace and non-alignment. We should not make the mistake of surrendering these attributes that have guaranteed our sovereignty and independence for so long.

The author is a PhD Scholar at the Department of International Relations and Diplomacy (DIRD), Tribhuvan University, Nepal.

Do you dread taking feedback? I know I have for the longest time, even from those who mean well to me. Thoughts like, “Malai ta yeti pani aaudaina!”, “Maile jahile kaam bigarchu” would repeatedly play in my head even though the inputs I received were most needed for my growth. It took me a long time to overcome this pattern as I went through inner conflict when receiving feedback.

As I look back, most of the remarks directed my way during school on my assignments or exam tests- either came in the form of praise or insult. There was no in-between. My actions either made me ‘Gyaani baccha’ or a ‘Kaam nalagne manche’ at home. In my relationships, when I met other people’s expectations, I became ‘Ramro’, ‘Maya garne’ or ‘Care garne manche’. But the moment I thought about myself, I got greeted with comments like, “You only think about yourself”.

Over the years, I internalized the criticism and labeling from others as my internal voice. So much so that even when the people who wished well for me gave me any feedback—it became a reason for me to look down upon myself. Of course, it didn’t serve me but it took me a long time to realize this.

No one is to blame. My parents, teachers, friends, acquaintances, loved ones—they didn’t know there was a better way out, neither did I. They treated me the way others treated them. They considered normal, what they found normal around them. Sadly, I absorbed this black-and-white labeling from the people around me. So, even when no one would be around to label my actions good or bad, I started doing so on my own without any external prescription.

Let’s take an example. I once accepted a client’s renewed proposal without first checking-in with my supervisor. The next day when I informed my supervisor about it, he made me aware of how my actions had led to a loss of revenue for the organization.

The moment I received that feedback, I had judgmental thoughts like, “I can’t do anything right!” But eventually, I started looking for the deeper messages behind those judgments. I made an effort to transform them into feelings and needs.

How was I feeling?

Despite trying to help and contribute, my actions fueled a misunderstanding. I felt angry, hopeless, and sad.

What were the underlying messages behind my feelings?

The unpleasant feelings of anger, hopelessness, and sadness came from my unmet needs of being effective in what I do and remaining accountable to my team.

It’s easier to keep labeling, blaming, and criticizing when things go wrong. We either exert this blame outside or take it in. In my case, I blamed myself.

The good news is that self-awareness can help us look beyond the surface of judgments. In any situation, if I know how I am feeling and what my needs/expectations are, I can ask myself: What options do I have? It can help me think of choices that I can make to become a better version of myself.

So, what options did I have

Since I wanted to be effective in what I do and remain accountable to my team, I consulted my supervisor and talked to the client. I informed the client about the problem and recommended a possible solution, which thankfully eventually worked out.

I questioned myself many times why I couldn’t take feedback constructively. Why did I perceive it as an attack? (It wasn’t meant to be an attack on me). I continually reflected and found out that I lacked awareness about my deeper feelings, needs, and choices/actions that would help me take the feedback constructively and work on it.

Instead of bloating myself with pride when I did something well and ripping myself of my worth if I failed at something else, I started connecting with my feelings, needs, and actions. This practice helped me work on my relationship with myself and helped improve how I took feedback. The next time you receive feedback, ask yourself the same set of questions: What are your feelings? What are the underlying messages behind those feelings? What are your options?

The author is Linchpin at My Emotions Matter, an education initiative that helps individuals and teams learn the mindset and skills of Emotional Intelligence. Learn more at myemotionsmatter.com.

About Us

The Annapurna Express is your one-stop guide to all the important developments in politics, business, society, entertainment, technology, automobiles, travel and much-much more. Our goal is to keep our readers informed and entertained with our eclectic selection of news, views and reviews. ApEx, Annapurna Media Network’s first and only English language product, is targeted at thoughtful readers with high purchasing power. We are not just another news weekly, but a newspaper that is going to be read all through the week for our exclusive and targeted contents.

Chairman
Capt. Rameshwar Thapa

Publishing Director
Sachan Thapa

Editor
Kamal Dev Bhattarai

Senior Correspondent
Cilla Khatry

Copy Editor
Kumod Dewan Basnet

Online Coordinator
Sanjaya Lama

Correspondents
Anushka Nepal
Pratik Ghimire

Contributors
Aprajita Jha
Keyur Basnet
Nihar R Nayak
Ravi M Singh
Sunny Mahat

Designers
Binod Kumar Shrestha
Kiran Shrestha

Photo/Video
Pratik Rayamajhi

Contact Address
Corporate Tower, Tinkune, Kathmandu, Nepal
Post Box no. 24999
Phone: +977-1-4482305, 4482199
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]