Submit your Article

The world is witnessing an unprecedented shift in the global balance of power, shaped by fluctuating levels of trust—ranging from distrust to over-trust—among allies, partners, and rivals. While long-standing adversaries inch closer to trust, former allies are drifting apart.

For nearly eight decades, the United States has dominated the global order, emerging as the unipolar leader after World War II. Historically, international politics has been reshaped after great wars, but US President Donald Trump disrupted this pattern, attempting to redefine global dynamics without such a transition. His disregard for alliances, multilateralism, and diplomatic norms—along with his defiance of the traditional "balance of power" principle—has stunned scholars, analysts, and foreign policy experts worldwide.

A stark display of this shifting order unfolded in the Oval Office last week when the presidents of the US and Ukraine engaged in a tense, televised exchange. The meeting resembled a coercive business negotiation rather than a diplomatic discussion. The Ukrainian president appeared pressured into signing a critical mineral deal, reducing the encounter to a stage-managed spectacle. The scene was less about strategic partnership and more about power dynamics, with Ukraine seemingly treated as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

Has Trump's approach advanced American interests, or has it weakened the country’s global standing? Following the heated Oval Office confrontation, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was hailed as a “dignified hero” by EU leaders and US Democrats. Unlike past leaders who complied with Washington’s directives, Zelensky defied the American president, refusing to yield to pressure. However, this did not translate into a victory for Ukraine. Instead, the United States suffered a diplomatic setback, fracturing its alliances and reinforcing global skepticism about its leadership.

The diplomatic rift between the US and the EU on the Ukraine issue signals potential realignments. Analysts warn that institutions like NATO and the Transatlantic Alliance could face an existential crisis as America's credibility erodes. Critics argue that no US president has misunderstood trade, tariffs, multilateralism, or diplomacy as profoundly as Trump. Even his former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has condemned his foreign policy as reckless, warning that it may jeopardize American security rather than strengthen it.

Meanwhile, key global players—including India, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Japan, and South Korea—are quietly observing America’s struggles, ready to exploit its diplomatic missteps. Trump’s policies, which have alienated allies while appeasing adversaries, raise serious concerns about the future of US leadership. Can a nation maintain global dominance when it mistreats its allies and emboldens its rivals?

Trump’s erratic foreign policy has further complicated global tensions. Instead of working toward a resolution in Gaza, he mocked an AI-generated video, “Trump Gaza,” on his Truth Social platform—an act widely criticized as insensitive. While the US frames its national interest as “merciful” in Jerusalem, its stance in Gaza and Kyiv appears markedly inhumane, raising ethical concerns.

The shifting power dynamics extend beyond Ukraine. If Trump applies similar coercion to Taiwan, the US could effectively hand over the island to China, fulfilling Beijing’s long-standing ambition. A comparable approach toward Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines could dismantle critical alliances like QUAD and AUKUS, leaving America increasingly isolated. The notion that Trump might either dismantle NATO or invite Russia to join it—an idea reportedly echoed by his close advisor Elon Musk—reflects the volatility of his global strategy.

Under Trump's leadership, US foreign policy has become a source of global instability. The question remains: Is this a calculated shift or a dangerous slip in America’s 250-year legacy? Many analysts believe that the post-Cold War world order, which once revolved around the US, is now giving way to a multipolar system where Washington is no longer the sole authority.

While Trump claims to be fostering global peace, his actions suggest otherwise. The possibility of a major global conflict looms large. China has already warned that it is prepared to confront the US—whether in trade, tariffs, or war—until the end. If tensions escalate, and relations with the EU, Canada, and the Middle East remain strained, Washington may find itself without key allies in a potential US-China conflict.

A nuclear confrontation, though unthinkable, could prove catastrophic for humanity. Sensible voices across the world, including this author, oppose all forms of war. However, if Trump continues to push the boundaries of international diplomacy, the US may face unprecedented domestic turmoil. A political crisis could even lead to constitutional amendments limiting presidential authority. Some foresee a scenario where Trump faces mass protests, possible impeachment, or even resistance from the US defense and intelligence community.

As global alliances shift, other nations are stepping up. The EU may seek stronger ties with China, while Saudi Arabia leverages its position in Middle Eastern politics. Russia continues to assert itself, while India navigates its role with strategic shrewdness. The US, once the dominant force in global geopolitics, is now at risk of losing influence across multiple regions.

For Ukraine, the only viable path forward may be direct negotiations with Russia. While Zelensky has called for NATO intervention, the West must prioritize peace over prolonged military engagement. Without diplomatic talks, Ukraine's chances of securing a lasting resolution remain slim. If Israel can negotiate with Hamas, Ukraine too can engage in dialogue with Russia.

In this era of global upheaval, Nepal must tread carefully. Given its strategic location between two rising powers—China and India—Nepal must resist external pressure that could drag it into conflicts resembling Ukraine’s plight. Instead, it should focus on internal stability and self-reliance, strengthening its institutions, economy, and diplomatic standing.

To thrive in an increasingly complex world, Nepal must enhance its global competitiveness in areas such as political stability, technological innovation, data sovereignty, and social integrity. Rather than seeking leniency from global powers, Nepal should cultivate its own strengths and maintain a balanced foreign policy rooted in nonalignment and the principle of “amity with all, enmity with none.”

As the global order shifts, peace remains the ultimate objective. True leadership lies in diplomacy, dialogue, and cooperation—not in coercion and conflict. The world must work collectively to prevent further geopolitical fragmentation and prioritize stability over discord.

The author is a geostrategic thinker and techno-geopolitical analyst

The  Social Media Bill  has raised important questions about freedom of expression and the right to privacy—two fundamental rights enshrined in Nepal’s Constitution. This article examines these issues, exploring how social media shapes relationships, the ethical dilemmas of digital self-disclosure, the increasing risk of misinformation, and the need for effective regulation to balance innovation with responsibility.

Miller’s ethnographic research demonstrates that social media has transformed how people interact and communicate. Platforms like WhatsApp encourage private, trust-based conversations among family and friends, while Snapchat fosters close connections through self-deleting messages. Facebook has evolved into a space where different generations interact, while Twitter has become a battleground for public discourse, activism, and debate. Cultural contexts influence how people use social media. In India, caste structures impact online engagement, while in China, migrant workers rely on digital platforms to maintain long-distance social ties. These examples highlight how social media both reflects and reshapes traditional values, reinforcing some social norms while challenging others.

Replogle’s study explores the ethical challenges of self-disclosure on social media. Public response to personal sharing often depends on an individual’s social status. Television anchor Robin Roberts was praised for openly discussing her cancer diagnosis, while actor Leonard Nimoy successfully used social media to campaign against smoking. However, when Lisa Bonchek-Adams, a non-celebrity, live-tweeted her battle with terminal illness, she faced criticism, illustrating biases in how society perceives digital self-disclosure.

These cases raise concerns about privacy, emotional vulnerability, and online judgment. The monetization of personal stories on platforms like YouTube and TikTok further complicates this issue, blurring the line between advocacy and exploitation. This also raises ethical questions about whether platforms should bear responsibility for ensuring that personal narratives are not manipulated for profit.

A new bill to regulate social media has been introduced in the National Assembly, proposing strict penalties for those who spread false or misleading content through fake accounts. The bill aims to establish legal frameworks for how social media operates and is used in the country. Under Section 27, individuals are banned from creating anonymous or fake profiles to spread false information.

According to subsection 2 of the bill, individuals caught engaging in such activities could face up to three months in prison, a fine of Rs 50,000, or both. For more serious offenses—such as using fake profiles to harm national sovereignty or disrupt public order—violators could face up to five years in prison and fines of up to Rs 1.5m.

The bill also includes provisions against inciting illegal activities through social media. Those who encourage unlawful acts online could face additional penalties, including one extra year of imprisonment. Public officials and individuals receiving state benefits who are found guilty of violating these laws could face even harsher punishments, with penalties increased by 50 percent.

Additionally, anyone using children or minors to engage in such activities could face further legal action, including an extra year of imprisonment. Our constitution protects both the right to privacy and the right to information. However, the balance between these rights has long been debated. The recent ordinance on social media has intensified concerns over whether government regulations are necessary safeguards or excessive restrictions. Supporters argue that every right has limitations, citing the legal principle of Volenti Non Fit Injuria—which holds that individuals who voluntarily expose themselves to risk cannot later claim harm.

Cybercrimes have become a major concern in Nepal, with social media being the main platform for offenses such as identity theft, cyberstalking, fraud, sexual exploitation, and defamation. Children are among the most vulnerable to these threats. While the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) 2063 provides some regulations for digital activity, its vague provisions fail to define cybercrimes explicitly.

Guilbeault’s research sheds light on how social media is exploited to manipulate public opinion and spread misinformation. AI-driven bots generate fake engagement, inflating the visibility of misleading content and fueling political polarization. Facebook’s algorithm is designed to promote content that generates strong emotional reactions, leading to an environment where misinformation spreads more rapidly than factual information.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal highlighted the risks associated with data harvesting and voter manipulation, demonstrating how social media can be weaponized for political influence. Attempts to regulate misinformation—such as the Honest Ads Act (2018)—have struggled to keep pace with the evolving tactics of digital disinformation campaigns. Guilbeault argues that, without regulatory intervention, platforms will continue prioritizing engagement-driven content, further eroding trust in news media and democratic institutions.

Addressing social media’s challenges requires collaboration between governments, tech companies, and users. Strengthening digital governance can mitigate the risks of misinformation, privacy violations, and unregulated data collection. As social media continues to influence personal relationships and public opinion, well-structured policies are essential to protect users while fostering genuine connections online.

A more responsible digital environment also depends on ethical self-disclosure and stronger media literacy. Users must be aware of the consequences of sharing personal information, while educational initiatives can help individuals identify and resist digital manipulation. Governments and tech companies must promote algorithmic transparency, ensuring that platforms serve the public good rather than amplifying harmful or misleading content.

The regulation of social media should not equate to censorship but rather ensure a safe and democratic digital space. Policy development should involve input from various stakeholders—including the public—to create fair and balanced solutions. Striking a balance between protecting free speech and preventing digital harm will be crucial in shaping the future of online communication.

As Nepal and the world navigate digital governance, the focus must be on promoting innovation while ensuring ethical responsibility. Transparent AI systems, improved content moderation, and legal frameworks that protect both user rights and public interest are critical to achieving this balance. Governments, tech companies, and individuals must work together to create a digital landscape where social media fosters meaningful connections without compromising privacy, integrity, or democracy.

The author is an advocate and development practitioner

Nepal has made significant strides in enshrining women’s rights within its constitution, yet the real-life implementation of these rights remains far from ideal. While legal frameworks and policies exist to promote gender equality, the deeply ingrained societal mentality, particularly in rural areas, continues to act as a barrier to true empowerment. Even in modern urban spaces, although progress is evident, patriarchal norms still dictate many aspects of women's lives.

The Constitution of Nepal guarantees gender equality and explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender. Laws have been enacted to ensure equal property rights, access to education and protection against domestic violence. In 2015, Nepal’s new constitution was hailed as one of the most progressive in South Asia regarding women’s rights. It mandates equal pay for equal work, sets a minimum quota for women’s representation in government and criminalizes discrimination based on gender.

However, merely having rights in the constitution does not equate to their full exercise. Many women, especially in rural areas, still struggle to claim their rights due to cultural and social constraints. The gap between legal provisions and their implementation remains significant. While some progress has been made in legal awareness and advocacy, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

Mentality in rural areas

Nepal remains a country where a significant portion of the population resides in rural areas. In these regions, women’s roles are still largely confined to household duties, and their opportunities for education and economic independence are severely restricted. Child marriage, though illegal, remains a common practice. According to a UNICEF report, about 40 percent of Nepali girls are married before the age of 18, with many of them forced into these marriages due to economic hardships or traditional beliefs. This not only deprives them of education but also exposes them to domestic violence and health risks associated with early pregnancy.

In many villages, women are still discouraged from seeking higher education or employment, reinforcing their financial dependency on male family members. Parents often prioritize their sons’ education over their daughters’, believing that investing in a girl’s future is unnecessary because she will eventually marry and move into her husband’s household. This outdated mindset prevents many women from attaining financial independence and self-sufficiency.

Additionally, the harmful practice of Chhaupadi, where menstruating women are isolated from their homes, persists despite being outlawed. Women are forced to live in small, unhygienic huts during their periods, facing harsh weather conditions and health hazards. Several deaths have been reported due to suffocation, animal attacks and exposure to extreme cold. Despite government intervention, the practice continues in many remote areas because of deep-rooted superstition and lack of education.

Domestic violence remains a significant issue, with many women suffering from physical, emotional and psychological abuse. Although laws exist to punish perpetrators, societal stigma prevents victims from coming forward. Many fear ostracization from their communities or worry about the lack of support from law enforcement agencies.

Urban spaces: Progress and challenges

In cities like Kathmandu and Pokhara, women’s participation in the workforce and politics has increased. Women now hold key positions in various sectors and activism for gender rights is more vocal. However, deep-seated biases still exist. Workplace harassment, wage gaps and societal expectations that women must prioritize family over careers continue to hinder genuine equality.

Despite constitutional provisions mandating at least 33 percent female representation in government, women in politics still struggle with gender discrimination. They often face character assassination and are expected to conform to patriarchal standards. Even when they attain leadership positions, they are frequently sidelined in decision-making processes.

Sexual harassment in public spaces remains another pressing issue. Women commuting via public transportation or walking alone at night frequently report cases of harassment, yet law enforcement often fails to take these complaints seriously. The normalization of such behavior discourages victims from seeking justice and reinforces a culture of silence.

Moreover, while legal protection against domestic violence exists, enforcement remains weak. Many cases go unreported due to victim-blaming culture and inefficient law enforcement mechanisms. Women who challenge traditional gender roles are often labeled as “too modern” or “rebellious”, indicating that even in urban areas, societal perception still limits their freedom.

Intersection of caste and gender discrimination

Women from marginalized castes, particularly Dalits, face even greater challenges. Dalit women are subjected to both gender and caste-based discrimination, making it even harder for them to access education, healthcare and employment opportunities. They are more likely to be victims of violence and have less access to legal recourse.

In rural areas, Dalit women are often forced into exploitative labor conditions and suffer from untouchability practices, which persist despite being legally abolished. Many are denied entry into temples and public places and are socially ostracized if they attempt to challenge these norms.

One of the most effective ways to improve women’s rights in Nepal is through education and economic empowerment. Girls’ education must be prioritized, and incentives should be provided to families to keep their daughters in school. Scholarship programs and awareness campaigns can help shift the mindset that prioritizes boys’ education over girls'.

Vocational training programs can also help women gain financial independence. Access to microfinance and small business loans can enable women, particularly in rural areas, to start their own businesses and become self-reliant. Economic independence is a crucial factor in breaking the cycle of oppression and domestic violence.

The rise of social media and activism has played a significant role in highlighting gender-based discrimination and injustices faced by women in Nepal. Movements such as #RageAgainstRape and #WomenMarch have brought attention to issues like sexual violence, gender pay gaps and reproductive rights. The media has also helped expose cases of abuse and discrimination, pressuring the government to take action.

However, media portrayals of women can still be problematic. Many television shows, advertisements and films continue to reinforce gender stereotypes, depicting women as submissive and dependent. Challenging these narratives and promoting positive representations of women in media is crucial for changing societal attitudes.

Government role

The government must also strengthen law enforcement mechanisms to ensure that women’s rights are not just written in the constitution but actively protected and practiced. Many women hesitate to seek justice due to inefficient legal procedures, corruption and the fear of retaliation from perpetrators. Establishing more women-friendly police stations and fast-track courts for gender-based violence cases could help address this issue.

Moreover, policymakers must focus on closing the loopholes in existing laws and ensuring their effective implementation. For example, while laws against child marriage exist, they are often not enforced strictly. A stronger judicial system, along with grassroots awareness campaigns, can help in eradicating these issues.

Legislative changes alone cannot bring about real equality. A fundamental shift in mindset is required, starting from families and educational institutions. Schools should integrate gender sensitivity training, and families should encourage equal opportunities for both sons and daughters. Additionally, community-driven awareness programs can play a crucial role in dismantling outdated patriarchal beliefs.

It is also crucial for men to be actively involved in the fight for gender equality. The movement should not be seen as a “women’s issue” alone but as a societal issue that affects everyone. Encouraging men to challenge toxic masculinity and support gender-equal policies will create a more inclusive society.

Women’s rights in Nepal remain a paradox—legally recognized but socially restricted. The constitution provides a strong foundation, but societal mentality, particularly in rural areas, continues to hinder progress. Even in urban settings, gender biases persist. True change will only come when laws are not just written but actively enforced, and when society fully embraces the idea that women deserve equal rights in every aspect of life. Until then, the struggle for genuine gender equality continues.

Have you ever imagined a scenario where the National Police issue search warrants or execute arrests with the assistance of AI tools?

Would any type of ethical safeguards be respected in such a process? 

Would human control over the final decision of taking action, in the pursuit of justice, against an alleged perpetrator of a crime, be assured? 

In the EU AI Act, the first ever legislation governing the use of artificial intelligence entered into force in August 2024 and in the process of phase-wise implementation, there are clear provisions on when and in which circumstances, and under which type of oversight, the law enforcement agencies can make use of AI-enhanced tools. For example, AI-powered real-time facial recognition in public places is prohibited but there are exceptions for law enforcement agencies of the member-states. 

Indeed, the Act has come under fire for allowing too many loopholes for police use. But, in a trailblazing move, it has also put in place a risk-based approach with four levels of risks, including AI deployments with unacceptable risks that are forbidden. It is to be updated and revisited to ensure it will remain a “fit for purpose” instrument for a technology with apparently unlimited potential. 

This example of emerging AI regulations in the EU proves the complexities in finding a right balance not only on how to make the most effective use of the AI. It also shows the challenges of ensuring that ethical guardrails are in place before the deployment of new AI instruments whose full potential and capacities are still not fully comprehended. That’s why the recent news that the Nepal Police has not only acquired some AI software from India but also trained some of its staff on its use should be taken as very alarming. 

In a fast-evolving scenario of AI development where there have been a lot of talks about regulations but much less action, the recent government act of issuing a draft AI Policy is a positive step. The draft lists out several worthwhile policy objectives and it correctly highlights how any development and use of artificial intelligence in the country should always be focused on the creation of positive impacts for the wider society. Yet there are concerns about the lack of specificities and technicalities in relation to the implementation of any future AI regulations. At the same time, it is vital to contextualize any AI Policy with the urgent need for the country to have in place strong data protection and privacy laws, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure that Nepal still lacks.

Finalizing the AI Policy, therefore, would require, as suggested by the Digital Rights Nepal and AI Association Nepal, establishing a robust framework to ensure proper conduct in the way data protection and privacy rights are ensured by AI developers and their users. These represent major conundrums not only for Nepal but for the international community as a whole and are crucial themes widely underlined by the UN High Level Advisory Body on AI through its Governing AI for Humanity report.

One of the major deficiencies of the draft is its “generalized and listing all” approach without any timeline. For example, legislating a data protection framework would be itself a gigantic effort with a high degree of complexity. Addressing it head-on alone would, as a consequence, demand a strong sense of urgency on the part of the legislator and executive powers. But lack of specificities is not the only problem of the draft. 

A concerning aspect is also the system of governance that is envisioned to govern AI in the country. First of all, the document foresees the creation of an AI Regulatory Council whose chairperson would be the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. Together with other very high-ranking officials, including the Governor, this mechanism would, among others, issue ethical AI guidelines and standards.

The draft also envisions a National AI Center that, among other things, will be in charge of regulating the development and use of AI at the national level and overall coordination and evaluation of AI development.

It is crucial to reassess the purpose of establishing a high-level body like the AI Regulatory Council, as their effectiveness is often questionable, with many of such high-level bodies struggling to even meet the quorum for meetings. Instead, the focus should shift toward empowering an institution like the National AI Center, which could serve as the "guardian" of future AI legislation and ensure its proper implementation.

For example, the EU AI Act established a powerful European AI Office within the European Commission, giving it wide-ranging powers, including enforcement and implementation. But this is not the only mechanism created through European legislation. There are also a Scientific Panel, composed of independent experts in the field of AI and the Advisory Forum, representing a diverse selection of stakeholders. There is also a European Artificial Intelligence Board comprising representatives of member-states. This open, inclusive approach to governing AI development where together with policymakers, experts and members of the civil society have a seat on the table, is innovative.

At RightsCon 2025, held in Taiwan on 24-27 Feb 2025, AI discussions emphasized inclusivity, ethics and accountability in AI governance and development. Key sessions explored civil society’s role in AI policymaking, particularly in Asia and Latin America, and the integration of global perspectives for responsible generative AI. Topics like multilingual AI, neurotechnology governance and feminist AI highlighted the need for diverse voices in shaping equitable AI systems. Further, sessions on AI for climate action, healthcare and natural resource governance underscored its potential to address global challenges while ensuring rights-respecting approaches. The conference also discussed AI bias, fairness and the democratization of AI infrastructure, advocating for transparency and public participation. It is important for Nepal to consider these issues while finalizing the AI draft policy and legislating AI regulation. 

Moreover, recently, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has developed a new report, “How Leaders in the Global South Can Devise AI Regulations that Devise Innovation”, that should be thoroughly taken into consideration. 

If Nepal wants to really become an emerging IT hub as envisioned by the government, then it needs to step up its tempo on AI regulation. The country should have a holistic AI framework in place founded on strong data and privacy rights pillars. Together with strong ethical guardrails, Nepal can design an agile system that, while not over cumbersome, can ensure safety and AI alignment with human rights. 

By studying global practices and adapting them to local context, Nepal can have an ethically solid and innovation-promoting AI framework in place.

Any use of AI tools by state agencies, including law enforcement, should be stopped before any such a framework is established.