Submit your Article

The term “diplomacy” comes from ancient Greek, where it was used as a verb (diplo¯o) to designate double folding (diploun) and as a noun (diploma) to denote official documents that were folded and gave the bearer a specific set of rights. Originally, diplomas functioned as something resembling modern passports, but gradually, through the medieval era, the term was used about any sort of document granting privileges. However, the concept expanded to cover not only the total body of treaties, but also the total body of those engaged in negotiating such treaties, is unclear.

Diplomacy is understood as an art and practice of managing international relations through negotiations, dialogue, and cooperation. The United Nations often understood that diplomacy is a mechanism to prevent conflict, resolve conflicts, resolve disputes, and promote peace and friendly relationships among sovereign nations. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna, Austria, formalized the diplomatic ranks and the Concert of Europe. Later, in 1961, the first major international convention, the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,” happened, which codified the rules of diplomacy on a global scale.

Since then, with the globalization and fast-paced world, the dimensions of Diplomacy have been changing. What are the challenges that diplomats are facing in the 21st century? After visiting over 15 diplomatic institutions and international organizations in Europe, including the European Commission, the US mission to the EU, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Kosovo Specialist Chambers, etc and talking with diplomats across Europe this month. In this piece, I am jotting down what I have learned from them.

From backroom to people-centered diplomacy

Traditionally, diplomacy is often regarded as an activity of closed doors which is dominated by elite negotiations among state representatives. In contrast, modern diplomacy emphasizes engagement with people. Public opinion, civil society, and grassroots actors now play a significant role in shaping international relations.

In an increasingly multipolar world, where diverse political systems and cultural values coexist, diplomats must communicate not only with governments but also with the broader public. This requires empathy, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to build trust across societies. For example, public diplomacy initiatives such as cultural exchanges, educational programs, and international broadcasting (e.g., BBC World Service or Voice of America) aim to foster mutual understanding and influence global perceptions.

People-centered diplomacy has also been critical in crisis situations. During the Covid-19 pandemic, governments relied heavily on transparent communication to maintain public trust and coordinate international responses, highlighting that diplomacy now operates as much in the public sphere as it does in private negotiations.

The rise of digital diplomacy

As Tom Fletcher argues in his book The Naked Diplomat (2016), the digital age has transformed how diplomats engage with global audiences. Social media platforms have become essential tools for communication, outreach, and influence.

A striking example is Hiroshi Suzuki, whose creative and personable use of social media has made him a viral cultural bridge between Japan and the United Kingdom. On St David’s Day, he posted a video on X of himself quietly eating a Welsh cake, accompanied by a cup of tea in a mug adorned with a red dragon, while also showcasing origami daffodils that symbolized a blending of Japanese and Welsh cultures. The post went viral, capturing widespread attention and admiration. His approach reflects a broader shift in diplomacy, where effective communication extends beyond policy messaging to include empathy, visibility, and genuine human connection through digital platforms.

During the Russia-Ukraine war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has strategically used social media to appeal for international support. This reflects a broader trend of political figures relying on digital platforms to shape public opinion and influence global narratives during crises.

Expansion of diplomatic actors

Modern diplomacy is no longer the exclusive domain of states. The rise of “polilateralism” reflects a growing involvement of non-state actors such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and technology companies in global governance.

Organizations like Greenpeace influence environmental negotiations, while corporations such as Google and Microsoft play critical roles in areas like cybersecurity, digital governance, and artificial intelligence policy. These actors often possess resources and expertise that rival those of states, making them indispensable partners in addressing global challenges.

This shift complicates diplomacy but also makes it more inclusive, requiring diplomats to engage with a broader network of stakeholders.

Facilitators and network managers

In this complex landscape, diplomats are increasingly acting as facilitators rather than traditional negotiators. Their role now involves coordinating among multiple actors such as states, international organizations, private sector entities, and civil society.

For instance, climate diplomacy under frameworks like the Paris Agreement requires diplomats to bridge interests among governments, scientists, activists, and businesses. The success of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2015) depended heavily on negotiators’ ability to reconcile the differing priorities of developed and developing countries.

Need for quick diplomacy

The pace of global events has accelerated dramatically, driven by technological advancement and real-time information flows. Crises such as geopolitical conflicts, financial shocks, and pandemics require immediate diplomatic responses.

For example, during the Russia-Ukraine war, diplomatic decisions regarding sanctions, humanitarian aid, and security alliances were made rapidly, often under intense global scrutiny. This “quick diplomacy” places pressure on diplomats to act decisively while balancing strategic interests and long-term consequences.

Diplomacy in the 21st century is no longer confined to formal negotiations between states. It is dynamic, multidimensional, and deeply interconnected with society, technology, and global networks. From people-centered engagement and digital diplomacy to the rise of polilateralism and rapid decision-making, the evolving nature of diplomacy demands adaptability, creativity, and strong communication skills.

Ultimately, modern diplomats must not only represent their states but also connect with people, navigate complex global systems, and respond swiftly to an ever-changing world.

The author is a graduate student of Global Affairs (Governance and Policy) at the University of Notre Dame, USA. He is also a recipient of the Diplomacy Fellowship 2026 by Nanovic Institute for European Studies

In mid-Feb 2025, Pokhara, the tourism capital of Nepal, announced a ‘Pokhara Visit Year 2025’ with the goal of welcoming 2m tourists to the country in 2025. At that time, Pokhara had announced the target to draw in 1.5m tourists to the bustling metropolis alone. Recent estimates suggest that around 40 percent of tourists visiting Nepal also visit Pokhara. For 2025, the target was to increase this figure to 60 percent. The tourism capital is developing different packages to achieve this goal by attracting tourists, Indian tourists in particular.

This Visit Year program, initiated by the provincial government with support from the Nepal Tourism Board, aims to promote Pokhara’s unique natural beauty, thrilling adventure activities, and rich cultural experiences, and to further establish the image of Pokhara at the international level.

At present, domestic tourism in Nepal is gaining momentum. A culture of traveling during holidays is gradually developing, which is a positive sign for tourism. Social media platforms such as Facebook and X are playing a major role in attracting tourists. Despite various challenges facing Nepal’s tourism sector, there has been a noticeable revival of activity. The arrival of tourists to Pokhara and other major cities during Dashain and Tihar has created renewed enthusiasm in this sector.

According to 2024 statistics, France received the highest number of tourists (102m), followed by Spain (93.8m), the United States (72.4m), China (64.9m), and Turkey (60.6m). In the same year, India received 18.8m tourists, while Nepal welcomed 1.147m tourists.

France’s Eiffel Tower and Dune of Pilat paragliding attract tourists, while the desert nation Dubai draws visitors from around the world through manmade infrastructures such as Burj Khalifa, Dubai Mall, Jumeirah Burj Al Arab, and Dubai Miracle Garden. Compared to these countries, Nepal enjoys an excellent climate and extraordinary natural sites. If Nepal can invest even modestly in infrastructure and promotion, it can get attractive dividends from the tourism sector. Nepal has numerous rivers comparable to France’s Gorges du Verdon. Nepal shares many comparable geographical advantages with France and several other countries that have a thriving tourism industry.

Most tourists visiting Nepal come for religious purposes, visiting sites such as Pashupatinath, Janaki Mandir, Muktinath, and Lumbini. Other tourists make it to destinations such as the Sagarmatha region, Chitwan and Bardiya National Parks as well as Pokhara.

In recent years, China has achieved remarkable progress in information technology and infrastructure, surprising even powerful nations like the United States. From the Great Wall to the Forbidden City and cities like Shanghai’s Bund, China has attracted millions of tourists. Just as China developed tourist destinations like the Li River and Yellow Mountain, Nepal too has immense potential to attract tourists by promoting its diverse locations.

The average stay of tourists visiting Nepal is 12 days. By improving infrastructure, increasing tourist numbers, and extending their length of stay, millions of unemployed Nepalis can find employment or self-employment, playing a vital role in economic development. Tourism does not benefit only tourism businesses; it impacts the entire economy, including agriculture, industry, and banking and financial institutions, positively. Increased tourist arrivals and longer stays raise demand for human resources in tourism, generating direct employment, while increased demand for food and vegetables boosts agriculture and generates indirect employment and positive growth.

Nepal’s hotels are capable of providing international-standard services, but many food items—meat, vegetables, and other ingredients—still need to be imported. If international tourists could be served Nepal-produced meat, fish, and local dishes, and developed a taste for Nepali cuisine, food tourism could significantly support the tourism industry, increase demand for domestic products, create jobs, and positively impact the national economy.

France leads the world in food tourism; people travel there from all over the globe to enjoy local cuisine and wine. Countries such as Ireland, the Philippines, and Canada place special emphasis on attracting tourists through local food, while major cities like London, Paris, New York, Berlin, Madrid, Kuala Lumpur, Barcelona, Lisbon, and Rome have achieved strong tourism growth through culinary tourism.

According to recent studies, the world’s most visited tourist attractions include the Eiffel Tower (France), the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal (India), the Colosseum (Italy), Machu Picchu (Peru), the Sydney Opera House (Australia), Santorini (Greece), Petra (Jordan), and Niagara Falls (USA).

In 2024, Japan achieved a 47 percent increase in tourist arrivals, driven by currency devaluation that made travel packages cheaper, expansion of air routes to improve access from different countries, and simplified visa and administrative procedures. Saudi Arabia achieved a very impressive 73 percent growth by prioritizing tourism and diversifying away from an oil-based economy through various initiatives. In earlier years, Paraguay and Tajikistan also significantly increased tourist arrivals by prioritizing tourism.

Paraguay, whose GDP growth rate was negative until 2011–2012, has now achieved more than five percent economic growth, with tourism playing a key role. Favorable weather, clean roads, strong security arrangements, comfortable transportation, and cultural programs during travel have helped attract tourists.

Saudi Arabia attracts millions of religious tourists during Ramadan, just as India draws millions to its religious sites. Likewise, South Korea and Sri Lanka attract millions of religious tourists annually, making a major contribution to their economies.

Nepal, with its large Hindu population and as the birthplace of Gautaam Buddha, holds immense potential for religious tourism. Just as Muslims aspire to visit Mecca at least once in their lifetime, religious tourism programs can inspire Hindus to visit Pashupatinath, Muktinath, Vyas and other sacred shrines, while attracting Buddhists from around the world to Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha. By doing so, tourism could promote  and significantly help the nation’s economic growth. For this, it is essential that all stakeholders focus on the conservation and promotion of Nepal’s heritage to attract tourists.

Every Nepali must develop a positive mindset toward tourism and Pokhara must play a key role in this endeavor. Tourism is not just a sector; it is the hope of the nation and the people. Therefore, let us promote this sector with the theme: Tourism that leads, planting future seeds.

There was a time when the UK was an undisputed world super power, backed by an empire and navy that spanned the entire globe in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, particularly from 1945 to 1990, the world order boiled down to a bipolar structure, dominated by the USA and the USSR (present-day Russia) as the competing super powers. Since 1990, the USA has remained the only super power of the world. Nevertheless, the emergence of BRICS in the international arena as a major alliance for economic and social cooperation—grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law—signals the beginning of multipolarism. Russia regained its military strength, while China has taken the world by storm with its rapid economic rise within the period of 20 years, establishing itself as a formidable global power.

India with vast human and natural resources, along with a fast-growing economy and a strong push toward high-technology innovation, is playing a pivotal role not only in this region, but also on the global arena as an emerging power. The way the international economic and strategic powers are taking shapes in the global political economy signals the dawn of a new global order. The Russia-Ukraine war and the US, Israel-Iran war have shown how powerful nations play to achieve their own interests at the cost of human lives. The global scenario paints a gloomy and miserable picture that poorly affects small states with weak economies.

Balancing

Nepal’s geopolitical position, located between two major powers, remains inherently vulnerable despite efforts to maintain diplomacy in a balanced way. Prithvi Narayan Shah’s strategic assertion that ‘Nepal is a yam between two boulders’ continues to be equally important and relevant even after more than two centuries. Against this backdrop, neither the geography of Nepal can be altered nor its   neighbors chosen. Nepal must build its socio-economic strength in line with the ground realities of its geostrategic position. This means, drawing lessons from the past experiences, the government must read the writing on the wall and keep abreast of the shifting regional and global order to foster its development efforts and balance its delicate foreign policy. Nepal can neither bear the biting cold of the north nor the scorching heat of the south. Similarly, it cannot withstand the damaging storm from the west. It must, therefore, steer a middle path by developing strong institutional relations followed by the art of diplomatic balance.

In practice, previous governments have often been criticized for pursuing an unbalanced foreign policy. Ineffective handlings of policy across different governments has made neighboring and friendly countries skeptical of Nepal’s diplomatic governance. Weak institutional coordination and a lack of continuity in diplomatic initiatives have projected an image of naivety in the conduct of foreign policy.

Nepal’s geopolitical location is both a blessing and a burden. However, Nepal is a landlocked country, but it is not ‘mind locked’. The mind is a powerful source of action and innovation. Focusing on knowledge-based human resources, innovation, technology, digital connectivity and energy corridors is immensely important, as these elements significantly reduce the constraints imposed by physical boundaries. There is ample scope to develop Nepal through its enhanced economic connectivity between India and China, provided that the trust of its neighbors is secured. Over the past couple of decades, successive political governments have mainly centralized their actions to build ‘vote banks’, rather than steering national interests and development efforts in a way that ensures citizens’ satisfaction.

While dealing with its immediate neighbors, Nepal must not forget that the US as a super power is taking more interests here in recent years, primarily to counter China as its strategic competitor, and at times to balance its hidden agenda toward India. In view of this landscape, Nepal must remain vigilant in safeguarding its sovereignty and national interests by implementing its foreign policy principles into effective and consistent action. So long as the political leadership continues to adopt this reality in a sensitive manner and stays free from the pressure and influence of powerful countries, Nepal’s national interests will be definitely safeguarded.

Learning lessons

In international relations, there are no permanent friends or foes. It is national interest that ultimately determines who can be regarded as a real friend. The government of Nepal has no option left but to resolutely and rapidly strengthen its economy beyond its present condition. Otherwise, its voice in regional and global platforms will be marginalized and rendered inconsequential. Development is determined not only by its resources, it takes inspiring shape through committed will of the government and altruistic implementation of realistic policies.

One of the basic flaws of Nepal’s governance system is its persistent failure to learn from past experiences. It tends to forget even the gravest crises with alarming haste.

Coming days will be more critical and perilous due to the covert and overt power struggles among global powers that will directly affect vulnerable nations like ours. How the present government calibrates its tactical moves in foreign policy is a matter of serious and sensitive consideration. Nepal’s strategic situation demands greater cooperation with its immediate neighbors rather than distant power, maintaining a balanced approach. Unless Nepal’s diplomacy ensures that its foreign policy is strategic, coherent, focused on national interests, balanced in engagement and proactive, frequent critiques of its implementation will continue.

Nepal stands at a moment that feels different from its many past political transitions. This time, the shift is not just about who governs, but about how governance is expected to work. Citizens are no longer satisfied with rhetoric or symbolic change. They are demanding results. That shift, subtle but powerful, may define whether this moment becomes a turning point or just another missed opportunity.

The recent reform narrative reflects deeper structural pressures. Years of uneven economic performance, governance fatigue, and institutional drift have converged into a public demand for accountability and delivery. As highlighted in recent analysis, the political transition underway is less about electoral arithmetic and more about a renegotiation of the social contract between the state and its citizens. At the heart of this reset lies a simple but difficult question: can Nepal move from a system that manages problems to one that solves them?

The illusion of stability

On paper, Nepal’s macroeconomic indicators do not signal a crisis. Growth has hovered around four to five percent, remittance inflows remain strong, and the banking system appears liquid. But beneath this surface lies a fragile structure.

Remittances now account for over one-fifth of GDP. While they sustain consumption and support foreign exchange reserves, they also mask deeper weaknesses in domestic productivity. An economy that relies heavily on exporting labor cannot indefinitely postpone the need to generate jobs at home. At the same time, Nepal’s trade deficit remains persistently high, reflecting a structural inability to produce competitively at scale. Industrial output is limited, and agriculture continues to employ a majority of the workforce while contributing a declining share of GDP. This mismatch is not just an economic issue; it is a governance failure rooted in policy inertia and weak execution.

The credit misallocation problem

Perhaps the most telling indicator of structural imbalance is where money flows within the economy. A significant portion of bank credit continues to be directed toward real estate and trade rather than productive sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

This is not accidental. It reflects a system where lending decisions are driven more by collateral security than by economic value creation. Land, often overvalued administratively, provides safety for lenders but diverts capital away from sectors that generate employment and long-term growth. This pattern creates a cycle. Productive sectors remain underfunded, growth remains subdued, and the financial system continues to favor low-risk, low-impact lending. Breaking this cycle requires deliberate regulatory intervention.

Here, institutions like Nepal Rastra Bank have a critical role. Policy tools such as differentiated risk weights, targeted refinance schemes, and credit guarantees can help redirect capital. But these tools must be applied consistently and with clear intent. Half measures will only reinforce existing distortions.

The execution gap

Even where resources are available, Nepal struggles to use them effectively. Capital expenditure consistently falls short of allocations, with a persistent gap between budgeted and actual spending. This is not merely a technical issue. It reflects deeper institutional weaknesses. Project preparation is often inadequate. Procurement processes are slow and complex. Subnational governments, despite increased fiscal autonomy, lack the technical capacity to implement projects efficiently.

The result is a paradox. Funds remain unused while infrastructure gaps persist. Development slows not because of lack of resources, but for want of capacity to deploy them. Addressing this requires more than procedural reform. It calls for investment in institutional capacity, particularly at the local level. Without that, fiscal federalism risks becoming a system of decentralised inefficiency rather than decentralised development.

Digital progress, structural limits

Nepal’s digital payments ecosystem has grown rapidly. Mobile banking users have surged, and QR-based transactions are now common in urban areas. This is often cited as evidence of financial innovation. But payments alone do not constitute a financial system. The deeper promise of fintech lies in expanding access to credit, enabling data-driven lending, and integrating financial services into everyday economic activity.

That transition has yet to happen.

Open banking frameworks, alternative credit scoring models, and digital identity systems remain underdeveloped. Without these, the digital ecosystem risks becoming a thin layer of convenience rather than a driver of structural change. The next phase of reform must therefore move beyond payments. It must focus on building a data-driven financial architecture that supports small businesses, farmers, and first-time borrowers.

Governance and trust

Ultimately, economic reform cannot be separated from governance. Trust is the invisible infrastructure that underpins development. Where trust is low, transaction costs rise, investment slows, and policy effectiveness diminishes.

Nepal’s trust deficit is well-documented. Corruption, inconsistent enforcement, and weak accountability have eroded confidence in institutions. Rebuilding that trust requires more than high-profile actions. It demands consistency, transparency, and fairness in everyday governance.

This includes strengthening oversight in vulnerable sectors such as cooperatives, where recent failures have exposed serious regulatory gaps. It also requires credible mechanisms for accountability that are insulated from political influence. Trust is not restored through declarations. It is earned through predictable and impartial action over time.

The risk of partial reform

The current reform momentum is encouraging. But history offers a cautionary note. Many countries have initiated reforms only to see them stall or reverse due to political pressures, institutional resistance, or lack of follow-through.

Nepal faces similar risks.

Coalition dynamics can dilute policy direction. Bureaucratic inertia can slow implementation. External shocks, particularly in remittance flows, can strain macroeconomic stability. To navigate these risks, reforms must be anchored in strong institutions and supported by broad-based consensus. They must also be sequenced carefully. Attempting too much at once can overwhelm capacity, while delaying critical reforms can erode momentum.

From opportunity to outcome

Nepal’s current moment is rare. Political change, demographic pressure, and technological possibility have aligned in a way that creates genuine opportunity.

But opportunity alone is not enough.

The real test lies in execution. Can policies be implemented effectively? Can institutions be strengthened to sustain reform beyond political cycles? Can technology be integrated in a way that expands opportunity rather than deepening inequality? These are not abstract questions. They will determine whether Nepal moves toward a more productive, inclusive, and resilient economy, or continues along a path of incremental change and recurring frustration.

The shift in public expectations is already clear. Citizens are no longer willing to accept governance that manages decline. They expect governance that delivers progress.

Meeting that expectation is the true measure of this reset.