Submit your Article

If China wants to promote a new world order based on cooperation, respect and the rise of the Global South, then the optics at Tianjin’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit did not help. “We should advocate for equal and orderly multipolarisation of the world, inclusive economic globalisation and promote the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system,” President Xi Jinping of China said.

And yet, looking at the group picture of all the world’s leaders attending the conclave, I could not help but feel some form of sympathy for United Nations Secretary-General Guterres. He was relegated not at the center of the group, close to the host, President Xi. Rather you could notice him on the far right, the last person in a long row, very far from the real fulcrum of power projection during the ceremony.

I found this quite disrespectful for the United Nations and the role that they have been playing to promote multilateralism. This is especially true if you look at the track record of Guterres, an old style European socialist with a progressive mindset, who has always been trying to highlight the role of the Global South. The Global Times, the most influential English language media of China and the global megaphone for the Chinese Communist Party, wrote in its editorial the following: “President Xi pointed out that this summit carries the important mission of building consensus, unleashing cooperation momentum, and mapping out a blueprint for development.”

China is the second most powerful nation in the world with one of the most fascinating civilizations. Over the last two decades, it has greatly consolidated its rising status of a global power, a position that is now undeniable as Beijing is directly challenging Washington. With what is happening at the White House under a president who is, simply and plainly speaking, unfit to lead the highest office of the country that happens to also be the leader of the so-called Free World, it is natural that China is exploiting the situation.

In a certain way, it is positive for the world to have a truly multilateral order in place where countries like China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Brazil, just to mention a few rising nations, can take a leading role. I must say that leading always implies a huge responsibility and I wish that democratic principles and respect for human rights that, let’s not forget, are universal and not a western construct, could be applied to everything and everywhere. Unfortunately, it is not the case. Yet despite the differences, nations can talk and dialogue with each other even if they disagree. The use of the force should always be the very last resort and territorial conflicts should not find space in our times.

Yet Russia continues with its aggression in Ukraine and it seems disinterested in any real peace initiatives. In this scenario, it is a good thing that India and China are finally back to talking to each other and are trying hard to reset their bilateral relationships. I would wonder if the same speed of reconciliation and re-approchement between Delhi and Beijing had occurred if Kamala Harris were in the White House.

Probably the answer is yes because it is inevitable that both nations must learn to co-live in the same region but not at this velocity and depth. “Right choice for India, China to be ‘friends’, President Xi told PM Modi of India with the latter also stressing the importance of cooperation between the two countries. “We are committed to take forward our cooperation based on mutual trust, respect and sensitivity,” were the words of Modi.

Together, these two nations can truly inject a new impetus to global cooperation led by the South but as I was saying, aspiring to lead the world comes with big responsibility. President Xi is correct at deploring, as he did in his speech at the SCO, a unilateral world order where someone can bully others. This is what the White House has been doing not only against China and India but also with the Europeans and Canadians, the closest allies of the USA.

Over the past decades, China has been supporting a multitude of infrastructure around the world through its Belt and Road Initiative. This is something extremely positive even though there have been many concerns, some of which valid while others blown out of proportion, about the sustainability of the loans coming from Beijing.

Something Nepal has been fully aware of, as Kathmandu has been negotiating with its northern neighbor with due respect but also self-confidence and readiness to defend its national interests. It is apparently clear that with the void being created in Washington, China can assert itself and project its strengths, confidence and a new vision of the world. But Beijing should do more on a global level, building stadiums, hospitals, legislature building and railways is not enough.

Can President Xi assert his influence to nudge President Putin of Russia to truly seek to put an end to the war in Ukraine? Can China reassure its partners in the West that its long-sought process of reunification with Taiwan would only happen peacefully and without the threat of use of force?

Barring a few nations, no one is disputing the one-China policy but the current status quo is better than potential bloodshed in the South China Sea. In addition, many western nations have serious concerns about China’s campaign of overt and covert influence in their democratic systems.

I am at risk of being hypocritical here because, critics might say, this is exactly the same playbook that the Americans—and to a lesser extent—the Europeans have been using since the end of the second world war and certainly we cannot erase from history the scourge of colonization. As President Xi reminded the world from the stage of Tianjin that China is no more ready to accept double standards, he must himself set the high standards.

The Global Times reported that the Chinese president, during his meeting with UN SG Guterres, said that “history has revealed that multilateralism, solidarity and cooperation are the right answer to global challenges”. Therefore, it would be a great gesture for China to uphold a new world order by elevating the role of the United Nations, including by proposing new initiatives that can truly create a level playing field.

An example of good leadership on the part of China was seen during the recently held World AI Conference in Shanghai where the host nation proposed the establishment of a global AI body. This is what Guterres has been trying to promote for years and China could be a true force for good to counter the hegemonic model of AI development that the Trump administration is pursuing.

As a European living in Asia, I wish the EU could stand up on its own more strongly and promote its approach that while, far from being perfect, it is centered on the respect for human rights and democracy. Meanwhile, the rise of China and India are inevitable and should be welcome

In this context, with President Xi encouraging nations members of SCO “to oppose the Cold War mentality and bloc confrontation,” China is embracing a morally correct position. Yet will the big “dragon” further assert itself in a way that will truly respect and listen to other nations, especially those with a different political system from its own and search for a real “win-win”? Will Beijing truly espouse the UN as a global institution to co-lead the new form of multilateralism that is emerging?

Guterres, who strongly believes in the role of the Global South, should become a central ally to China’s new aspirations and vision of the world. And finally, let’s admit that the optics of that picture in Tianjin were bad.

It is my great honour to address the SCO Plus Meeting in Tianjin, a city that ever shines with beauty, culture and innovation. Let me extend warm greetings and best wishes of Nepali people for the success of this Meeting as well as continued progress and prosperity of all SCO Member States. My delegation joins me in expressing our sincere gratitude to the Government of China for the generous hospitality and excellent arrangements made for the meeting. We live in an age of extraordinary progress: in science, technology, and innovation.

Yet, this progress is overshadowed by deep fractures: widening inequalities, economic turbulence, climate emergencies, and conflicts that defy borders. In such a world, no nation can stand secure in isolation. No people can prosper in fragmentation. This is why multilateralism is an imperative of our time. Yet we must face a harsh truth. Rule based order has been challenged. Peace and justice remained elusive. Thus, multilateralism is in crisis. And this crisis is not only external. It also stems from its failure to deliver. Multilateral forums promise much. Too often, they deliver little. Promises without progress erode trust.

But abandoning multilateralism is not the answer. We need a revitalised multilateralism now. We must make the global governance system more effective and efficient by placing the United Nations at its core. In this context, the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) proposed by China would help strengthen the multilateral system by making it a more just, inclusive and equitable community with a shared future for humanity. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization will complement the spirit of revitalized multilateralism based on sovereign equality,

Further, there is an urgency for a revitalized SCO:

• More united,
• More integrated, and
• More resilient to tackle deepening geopolitical, economic, and ecological shocks that threaten our shared future

Nepal, a proud Dialogue Partner since 2016, looks forward to getting admitted as a full member. We cannot speak of peace without addressing regional security. Threats cross borders every day. Terrorism robs societies of safety and opportunities. Climate change multiplies risk. Nepal, with the Himalaya in its heart, feels its wrath directly. While our mountains serve as global climate stabilizers, they are being stripped of their snow reserve endangering the lives of billions living downstream. Emerging threats such as cyber-attacks, pandemics, ecological shocks are not confined to borders. With just five years left to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, we are clearly off-track.

In these turbulent times, regional cooperation is a tool to tackle shared challenges—economic, technological, ecological. Nepal’s commitment to regional cooperation is steadfast, and our relations with SCO members are strong. The path ahead requires three shifts. First, from isolation to connectivity. We must foster regional peace, progress and prosperity through enhanced physical, economic, digital, socio-cultural and people-to-people connectivity. Second, from confrontations to consultations. Disagreements are natural, but disputes need not to be destructive. By embracing the Shanghai Spirit, we should step up dialogue and diplomacy to nurture deeper understanding.

Third, from competition to cooperation. The world needs more partnership not partition. By working together, regionally and globally, we can build a just, inclusive, and resilient order and achieve sustainable development. Such “whole of the world” coordination will ensure that no nation is left behind.

In conclusion, Nepal reaffirms its commitment to enhance regional cooperation within SCO. We support a rules-based, inclusive multilateral system for a sustainable future. Let us uphold the Shanghai Spirit. Let us strengthen friendships, partnerships, and good neighbourly relations. A resilient and prosperous SCO region is within our reach, when we are committed to act together.

Nepal has many provisions in place to safeguard public health. All health facilities, and health-related educational and training institutions in Nepal need to follow strict regulations of several statutory bodies. Medical Education Commission serves as the central authority for regulating domestic health professional education institutions. Those seeking accreditation must first obtain a Letter of Intent, fulfill required infrastructural and academic standards, submit a self-evaluation report, and undergo periodic evaluation. Institutions are graded based on performance, with continued underperformance potentially resulting in de-accreditation.

Academic institutions need accreditations from concerned councils. Nepal Medical Council recognizes medical colleges and manages the registration and licensure of doctors, including dentists. Nepal Nursing Council accredits nursing education providers, conducts licensing exams and maintains the nursing registry. Nepal Ayurvedic Medical Council regulates traditional medicine programs. Nepal Pharmacy Council works in the field of pharmacy. Accreditation for allied health programs such as public health, physiotherapy, and medical laboratory sciences is handled by the Nepal Health Professional Council.

Students have to pass domestic entrance examinations before they can join such educational programs, whether they join domestic or foreign schools. The graduates are allowed to practice only after registration with respective councils, for which they have to pass the licensure tests. Implemented properly, these criteria ensure quality of registered health workers.

Whether the state, philanthropic institutions or the students themselves pay, producing health workers costs a huge amount of money, time and effort. In this age of global village, we cannot and should not bar such human resources from seeking a career abroad. But we should do everything to attract the workforce the country badly needs.

Look at the figures. From 2020 to 2023, the NMC issued Good Standing Certificates to 1,087 doctors in 2020, 1,502 in 2021, 2,189 in 2022, and 2,582 in 2023, totaling 7,360 certificates over the four-year period. Concurrently, between 2002 and early 2025, approximately 45,000 nurses received certificates to migrate abroad. Although about 45,000 doctors were registered with the council as of Jan 2024, fewer than 15,000 remained actively practicing in Nepal. This stark contrast underscores an accelerating brain drain, particularly acute in rural areas.

While better work environments and higher salaries are major factors, bureaucratic hurdles prevalent in our regulatory bodies and councils are not less responsible for accelerating brain drain, especially by failing to facilitate human resources educated abroad in getting registered in Nepal. These manifest in the forms of equivalence certificates and no objection certificates.

Issue of equivalence

Currently, all foreign graduates, including domestic products in some cases, need their educational degrees recognized by relevant Nepali institutions. Common practice is, instead of issuing recognition letters, these institutions issue equivalence certificates, frequently mentioning ‘in relevant field’, keeping open a space for future misunderstandings and conflicts.

Up to now, Tribhuvan University Curriculum Development Center (TUCDC) is trusted with this task for higher education degrees. The duty may look both as the state recognition and a lucrative income for TU, but CDC faces a myriad of challenges. Among HEIs ranging from high-end to low-end, there are innumerable differences in their performances, thanks to their available resources, institutional capabilities, philosophical outlook and autonomy in framing academic programs. Quality issues are not limited to poorly-performing, weak universities. A renowned university strong in other fields can have poor performance in health sciences.

Let us try to simplify the procedures. Universities and their academic programs do reflect sociopolitical values and technological stages of their countries and societies; their products may not exactly match our products. MIT graduates may excel in physics, Oxbridge products may outperform in history, but TU graduates are the best yardstick for Nepal. So, based on program and subject-specific parameters, the country needs to develop a high-ranking dynamic list of HEIs and programs whose products would be ‘recognized’ automatically, only those who wanted ‘equivalence’ would need to apply with the TU. For others, let us ask them to obtain ‘recognition’ or ‘equivalence’ letters for their degrees. ‘Recognition letters’ fulfil two purposes: prevent the use of fake degrees, and avoid unnecessary torture to graduates from foreign HEIs. As to educational criteria for employment, let the employers decide. Like other countries, we can fix minimum durations of study and entry criteria. We should also be specific on degrees earned with lateral entries, credit transfers and online learnings. As for faculty-wise duration, the country should make the total duration of vertical degrees postschool one of the parameters. 

Many a time, products of domestic institutions have objected to applying to TUCDC for equivalence, questioning why TU should evaluate degrees offered by other Nepali institutions. Against such a background, the University Grant Commission is trusted to shoulder the task from the beginning of the next fiscal year (July 17). Compared with TU, which alone hosts about 80 percent of all students against 20 percent shared by all remaining 27 HEIs, the UGC is an insignificant bureaucratic unit. The problems facing TUCDC will not go away just like that. Needed are policy reforms, not replacements of regulating hands.

Issue of NOCs

The No Objection Certificate (NOC) policy, originally meant to regulate foreign exchange, now unnecessarily obstructs students who do not require financial support from Nepal Rastra Bank. Many students fund their studies through scholarships or families abroad, yet face delays due to mandatory NOC processing, often missing admissions or visa deadlines. With over 110,000 NOC applications last year, the system is overloaded and outdated. Most countries do not require such clearances unless public funds are involved. We should make NOC optional for non-forex applicants, easing bureaucratic friction and empowering students to pursue global education without such obstacles.

Requiring foreign medical graduates to produce an NOC for degree equivalence or professional council registration is both illogical and unjust. Denying students equivalence or licensure for failure to produce a pre-departure NOC punishes them for a procedural formality that holds no relevance to their qualifications. Academic merit, not outdated paperwork, should guide professional recognition.

Nepal is in urgent need of such reforms to cope with alarming brain drain.

Tensions between governments and social media platforms are on the rise around the world. States are pushing for regulation to combat disinformation, curb hate speech, safeguard national security, protect minors and assert sovereignty over digital space. Tech companies, however, long accustomed to operating globally with minimal state oversight, are often reluctant to comply with country-specific rules.

Increasingly, governments are requiring local registration or licensing as a condition to operate.

While some platforms accept these demands, many resist, particularly in smaller and less influential countries that lack the leverage to enforce compliance. Nepal offers a telling example of this ongoing battle. Over the past few years, the government has attempted to regulate major platforms, though critics fear such moves could also restrict freedom of speech and expression.

On August 28, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology issued a seven-day deadline for all social media companies—domestic and international—to register locally or face progressive deactivation. While platforms like Viber, TikTok, Global View, We Talk and Nimbuzz have complied, most major players like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, LinkedIn, Reddit, Snapchat and WeChat continue to operate without registration. Telegram, under pressure, has begun the process.

The requirement is not just about paperwork. Registered platforms must designate a local point of contact, a grievance officer and a compliance officer, effectively obliging them to establish a physical presence in Nepal. The policy reflects growing public concern over disinformation, hate speech and illegal content that many believe threaten social harmony.

However, enforcement of this policy is challenging. With millions of Nepalis relying on these platforms for communication, business and entertainment, abrupt bans could spark public outrage. The 2023 TikTok ban, lifted only after months of negotiation, demonstrated both the limits of state power and the possibilities of enforcement. TikTok’s eventual re-registration showed that, with sufficient pressure, even global giants can be brought to the table if they see enough value in the local market.

Nepal is not alone in this regulatory push. In 2024, Malaysia introduced licensing requirements for platforms with over eight million users. While some platforms complied, others like Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, and Google’s YouTube, are still negotiating. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is often held up as a global benchmark. It rebalances the responsibilities between users, platforms and public authorities, and the protection of fundamental rights. Nepal could draw lessons from the DSA, particularly in ensuring that regulations are not solely punitive, but also protective of democratic values.

Another growing area of concern worldwide is the protection of minors. In 2025, Australia became the first country to impose a mandatory minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms through its Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill. Non-compliance to this legislation carries heavy fines. Nepal, which is seeing increasing reports of online harms affecting children, should consider similar protective legislation.

One of the thorniest issues in social media governance is content moderation. Although tech companies have deployed large moderation teams and AI-driven tools, governments see these efforts as inadequate, especially when it comes to locally sensitive content or criticism of state policies. But beneath this lies a deeper tension: while governments claim to be fighting disinformation, they may also use regulation to suppress dissent and limit freedom of expression. In countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, India and Indonesia, social media rules have often been doubled as tools of political censorship. The same risk exists in Nepal too. Regulation is necessary, but it must not be weaponized to silence critics or undermine the press. A strong legal framework should guarantee that posts from independent or mainstream media are protected, and that takedown requests are transparent and subject to oversight. In the neighboring countries, the Indian government has taken a slew of measures in order to regulate social media platforms.

Another pressing issue is privacy. Social media companies collect vast amounts of personal data, raising concerns about misuse, surveillance and inadequate safeguards for users. Addressing these challenges requires more than registration requirements alone. As Nepal finalizes its Social Media Bill, it should adopt a multi-stakeholder governance model, bringing together not only government agencies, but also platforms, civil society, journalists, academia and international partners.

Open dialogue with major platforms can help align expectations, clarify provisions and ensure mutual accountability. Beyond that, sector-specific laws, robust data protection frameworks and digital literacy campaigns are essential. Regional cooperation, particularly among global south countries facing similar challenges, could amplify Nepal’s voice and build a stronger front for fair regulation.

So far, Nepal’s approach has leaned too heavily on government control. For regulation to be effective and democratic, the country must shift from a control mindset to a governance mindset—one that balances accountability with protection of rights. The relationship between states and social media companies is at a critical juncture. For Nepal, this is an opportunity to craft a regulatory framework that tackles online harms without undermining digital freedoms. A thoughtful, inclusive and globally informed approach could allow Nepal to emerge as a leader in social media governance rather than just another regulatory battleground.

Ultimately, the challenge lies in striking a balance between free speech, content moderation and privacy. Constant dialogue between the government and platforms is essential, given that tech companies operate globally but also be held accountable locally. Another hurdle is the aggressive lobbying that media platforms extensively engage in against regulatory efforts—a trend already visible in Nepal.

Stronger rules inevitably affect the business interests of social media companies, and resistance is fierce. Global experience shows that states face significant pushback whenever they attempt to rein in tech giants. Nepal must navigate this pushback carefully, ensuring its regulatory ambitions protect citizens without stifling democratic values. In conclusion, regulation of social media is still an evolving concept  in many countries and there is no one-size-fits-all model; the only way is to closely follow the steps taken by other countries, and learn from each other. Nepal should also closely follow the attempts being made for global governance.