Submit your Article

Nepal, a country famed for its stunning natural beauty and varied biodiversity, is home to myriad marginalized communities whose lives are deeply intertwined with the forests that cover around 40 percent of its landmass. These localities include indigenous people, Dalits and diverse ethnic populations struggling with extensive hurdles due to factors like socio-economic disparities and ecological shifts. At the same time, these communities exhibit significant resilience and adaptability in facing the challenges in their daily lives.

A lifeline 

Forests in Nepal are not just natural wonders; they also serve a fundamental to survival and cultural essence of various marginalized communities. Indigenous groups in particular depend on forests for vital resources such as food, medicine, firewood and income through non-timber forest products (NTFPs). According to a study by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), over 60 percent of rural households depend on forest resources for their livelihoods, though restricted forest policies often limit the access to those resources.

Policies and impact

Despite their heavy resilience on forests, marginalized groups frequently experience difficulties due to national forestry strategies that value conservation more than community rights. Local voices have been historically ignored in the process of policy-making due to the government’s centralized framework for forest management strategies. Many indigenous community people are unaware of the legal validation of their land holdings, exposing them to risk to displacement and deforestation. 

To illustrate, the Forest Act of 1993 was implemented with the goal of shifting forest control and advocating community forest-based management but many marginalized groups are still facing challenges vis-a-vis integration and recognition.

Cultural identities

The cultural value of forests cannot be exaggerated. For many marginalized groups, forests serve as a divine sanctuary. Traditional environmental knowledge passed on to descendants plays an important role in sustainable forest management. Indigenous practices often reinforce the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable resource use.

As the entry to forest declines due to external challenges such as logging, harvesting and agricultural expansions, these cultural links become fragile. Waning ancestral forest conservation practices not only disrupt biodiversity but also undermine the cultural history of communities.

A harsh climate 

Climate change creates more challenges, especially for marginalized communities that rely on forests for their livelihoods. Unpredictable rainfall patterns increase the risk of natural disasters and bring about changes in ecosystem patterns, exacerbating economic instability as well as food insecurity. As an example, shifts in the weather cycle are mainly to blame for crop loss/damage and decrease in farm productivity in several parts of Nepal. 

More often than not, marginalized communities lack commodities and assistance needed to tackle these challenges effectively, to the detriment of their health, education and the economy.

Rights, wrongs and roles 

In response to these challenges, grassroots movements have surfaced for defending the marginalized communities’ rights over land and forest resources. Organizations such as the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) have been raising the voices of these communities in policy-making processes and political discussions for years. 

Resilient community forestry programs have shown how local populations influence sustainable management practices. A case in point is Ramechhap where community-led initiatives have shown that putting local communities at the forefront of forest conservation yields encouraging results.

Conclusion 

Problems facing marginalized communities living around forest areas in Nepal show the need for inclusive forest protocols that honor their rights and roles in conservation initiatives. 

By promoting an alliance between government agencies, NGOS and local communities in forest conservation, Nepal can create a more balanced approach to conservation. Educational advancement and capacity-building training can help these communities manage forests more sustainably. 

In conclusion, realizing the hardships and adaptability of marginalized communities is crucial for ensuring sustainable development of Nepal’s forestry sector. By admiring their traditional knowledge

and practices vis-a-vis conservation, Nepal can move forward to a more inclusive future where both communities and forest coexist and thrive.

Perhaps we are really entering an era of disruptions driven by trade wars and more and more accentuated geopolitical rivalries even among core allies. The new Trump administration has started over the weekend a trade war with its most important economic partners, Canada and Mexico with whom it is legally bound by a free trade agreement, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Tariffs, even of lesser magnitude, have also been imposed on China’s products and it is now certain that the European Union is going to be the next one to be hit.

The future of USAID is in jeopardy, hundreds of its senior staff are on forced leave, its website is offline.  Instead of talking peace, Trump is using the same authoritarian playbook and the same logic of the Russian president, Putin, to insinuate possible territorial takeovers of allied countries.  Amid this upheaval, it is easy to reach an easy conclusion. 

There are even concerns of a possible breakdown of the liberal order, with the United States of America entering a new tumultuous era driven by “America First” policies. How could a nation like Nepal make sense of this rapidly evolving and disruptive situation? Is it the end of an era of cooperation among nations, a period that, notwithstanding its imperfections, offered some stability and predictability even among competing and rival nations? For once, at least apparently, Nepal seems to be on the safe side of this nascent chaos. 

Yes, even a possible closure of USAID won’t constitute a devastating blow for Nepal. After all, its geography has granted Nepal with what I call a “Double Safety Net”, often taunted as a double constraint but, in this unfolding time, a guarantee for stability and, if the quality of national governance would help, national prosperity. This “Double Safety Net” is called India and China. 

If Nepal keeps playing its cards well in balancing the interests of these two giant neighbors (and so far, it has done a pretty decent job at it), then the country will be in a relatively safe space. Yet, as we know, there have been endless talks and opinion essays on how the country should avoid dependency, especially from the angle of underwriting unsustainable infrastructure and economic projects.

It might be worthwhile for Kathmandu to see the current developments in the international arena as an opportunity to go beyond India and China and dare to play a much bigger role internationally. What the world sees as an era of increased geopolitical and economic frictions and much pronounced tensions among nations could become a golden era for Nepal’s enhanced cooperation with the wider world. 

Such a new approach could envision multiple initiatives that could be categorized in two distinct but interconnected folds. On one hand, Nepal could expand its diplomatic horizons by fostering stronger relationships with other developed and emerging nations around the world. On the other hand, instead, the country could set the benchmark for ambitious and innovative national policies that could make Nepal a harbinger and trailblazer for sustainable development and climate policies.

This essay will, to begin with, focus on the former, an outward foreign policy which could unleash Nepal to gain a new image of itself internationally. Let’s start from the neighborhood. Singhadurbar could play a much proactive role in reinforcing ties with its South Asian peers, especially countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. With Dhaka, it is almost inconceivable that there has not been any major interactions with the new interim government under Muhammad Yunus, the de facto Prime Minister of Bangladesh. It might be that New Delhi, considering its closeness with the former regime led by Sheikh Hasina, is putting some obstacles.

Yet Kathmandu should really go unleashed in strengthening its relationships with Dhaka and other capitals, including Thimphu. It is granted that energy-focused diplomacy could help reinforce existing ties, especially with Bangladesh. Such effort at bilateral level should be complemented by a new approach to resuscitate the SAARC, a moribund organization. Kathmandu could inject some vitality in this important body no matter what PM Modi of India thinks of it.Unleashing Nepal’s foreign policy in the region means projecting self-confidence and assertiveness whenever national interests demand and regardless of what others say.

As much as a new, tangible emphasis on South Asia would be much welcomed, unleashing Nepal’s foreign policy would also signify a new focus on boosting vital diplomatic relationships already in force. Think of the European Union, Japan, South Korea and Australia, for example. The relationships between Nepal and these powers are already consolidated but they could reach a new height. This would be possible if Kathmandu manages to swap the existing perceptions and underlying narrative of its relationship with them from the angle of being a country in need of developing aid to a nation that can become a trade and economic partner. 

But Nepal could do much more and be even more ambitious in the international arena. 

Here the country could dare to reach out to other lower-middle income economies and middle powers in the wider Asia-Pacific region but also in Africa and South America. Let’s think, first of all, about Southeast Asia, an area whose regional architecture, the ASEAN, is way ahead than the SAARC, in terms of cooperation among its members. The ASEAN bloc will soon roll out a new strategy, the so-called Vision 2045. We should wonder if the officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kathmandu are doing their homework to understand how Nepal could better harness its ties with the region once the new strategy is in place.

But Singhadurbar could even go beyond South East Asia at least in terms of mapping out potential synergies within the African and South American continents. There is a need to engage other peer nations in these vast areas with high potential of economic growth. It might be unimaginable to prospect the possibility of a Prime Minister of Nepal undertaking an international tour of East and Southern Africa nations or visiting the capitals of Argentina, Brazil and Peru and Chile. Yet an ambitious foreign policy, while prioritizing what is more doable and feasible in the short term, should not shy away from bolder steps.

The US foreign policy has evolved through key turning points. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) established US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, while the Spanish-American War (1898) shifted it from isolationism to imperialism. World War I (1917) marked the US’ entry onto the global stage, followed by World War II (1941-1945), which solidified its leadership. The Cold War (1947-1991) focused on containing communism, the collapse of the Soviet Union marking the end of a bipolar world. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) was a setback, while the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) reaffirmed dominance. Post-9/11, the War on Terror reshaped priorities, and more recently, the US pivot to Asia (2011). Return of Donald Trump to the leadership of the US—a world power for two centuries that led a unipolar world for three decades—is sure to create ripples throughout the world.

When Donald Trump came to power in 2017 as the 45th POTUS, he was quite an outsider, lacked an organized transition team and even faced demonstrators, who shouted ‘not my president’. His first term was characterised by two impeachments by Democrats-led House and investigations Trump terms witch-hunt. After a gap of four years, Trump has returned to White House as an experienced and much organized leader. Which of his election promises will get implemented is yet too early to predict, but some hints are visible.

National interest first

So far, countries are formed on common agendas, and existence of common enemies shape national unities and alliances. What seems special is, Trump-led America is more likely to focus on the economy, reducing financial losses in the name of alliances and international cooperations. To safeguard American national interests, a Trumpian doctrine may evolve over the years, which believes in each ally spending for its security. Trumpian doctrine may emphasize the use of economic and other measures to discipline any country or region, as seen with its signals to Greenland, Canada, Panama, Mexico and Columbia. 

Two centuries past, the Monroe doctrine survives in new and wider forms. The Soviet Union’s Brezhnev Doctrine (1968) justified military intervention in socialist countries to maintain communist rule, while Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (1930s-1940s) aimed to expand its control over East Asia. Italy’s expansionist policies under Mussolini also sought regional dominance, particularly in the Mediterranean and North Africa. India’s ‘Look East’ and ‘Act East’ policies focus on strengthening ties with Southeast Asia and countering China’s influence. Russia’s Eurasian Doctrine similarly asserts dominance over former Soviet republics, echoing the Monroe Doctrine’s regional focus. 

The US has a history of withdrawing from international institutions like UNESCO and WHO, and threatening to withdraw from conventions and protocols related to climate change, global warming and carbon emissions. For decades, economic benefits have remained a central element of US foreign policy.  Look how it played a leading role in the formation and promotion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization, shaping global trade rules and norms. But it is not difficult to understand that the US considers trade liberalism as a means, not a principle. Throughout both GATT and WTO history, the US has frequently used trade threats or sanctions to achieve its goals, such as imposing tariffs, export restrictions or launching formal complaints at the WTO. See, during trade disputes with countries like China, how the US has threatened or imposed tariffs on a wide range of goods. Trump is not an outlier in this aspect.

Foreign policy

As elsewhere, the American foreign policy has been guided by national interests. If the US made adjustments like alliance with or against Great Britain, Russia, Germany and Japan, they were based on calculated risks and benefits. Look how successfully the US has created alliances with one-time foes Germany, Japan and Italy, against the Soviets, and again attracted members of former Soviet-led Warsaw Pact in NATO, operating mainly against Russia.

American foreign policies have proved pragmatic, and their implementation sharp. As proposed by Henry Kissinger, the US normalized relations with China in the 1970s to counterbalance the Soviets, strategically isolating the Soviet Union. It was a way to gain leverage in the Vietnam War and to reshape US influence in Asia, recognizing the long-term economic and diplomatic potential of engaging China. By opening relations, the US wanted to foster global stability and influence China’s integration into the global order.

Looking at American history of u-turning foreign policies, Trump’s reluctance to wage wars and efforts to global peace are a continuity. Trump’s meeting with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un demonstrated the former’s ability in making friends of foes. The meetings took place at a time when the North’s historical friend China had consistently called for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, aligning with the United Nations Security Council sanctions on North Korea, and asked it to participate in multilateral talks such as the Six-Party Talks.

Trump initiated the process of withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan. In February 2020, the Trump administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, which outlined the conditions for the US withdrawal. On Iran, while Trump maintained a tough stance and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, he also repeatedly suggested he was open to negotiations and even expressed a desire to meet with Iran’s leadership. His administration pushed for a new, more comprehensive agreement, but Iran rejected talks unless sanctions were lifted first. 

Trump was skeptical of military interventions, especially in the Middle East, questioning the value of US presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. His “America First” policy focused on reducing military footprints abroad, emphasizing diplomatic solutions over foreign entanglements and long-term military campaigns.

Prompt actions

What makes Trump’s second term special is the prompt implementation of new policies. Within 24 hours in the Oval Office, among other measures, Trump has ordered to withdraw from the WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement, to try and limit automatic birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, to deport illegal immigrants, to change the name ‘Gulf of Mexico’ to ‘Gulf of America’, to revoke an executive order signed by Biden aimed at reducing the risks from artificial intelligence and to recognize only ‘two sexes, male and female’.

Within days, deportation of illegal immigrants began. Look how Trump ordered to take tariff measures when Columbia refused to take deported migrants, and ultimately made it cooperate with the US. International adjustments were seen even before Trump assumed office. Israel-Hamas ceasefire, and change in Zelensky’s tone are some examples. Trump wasted no time in handling gender issues, simply barring transgenders from military service.

As a response to changing US policies, most of the world is likely to make relevant adjustments. We are set to bear the brunt of freezing of US funds for 90 days and expulsion of illegal Nepali immigrants. In the end, what matters is not ‘right and wrong’. It is all about success or failure. If the US under Trump makes disproportionate economic, technological and military advances, Trumpian doctrines can become a norm, in America and beyond. 

The author is a professor at Tribhuvan University

In a democracy, freedom of speech, a fundamental right, allows individuals to scrutinize and comment on government actions. However, the act of governing is far more complex than merely facing criticism. Governance, especially in challenging times, requires far more than addressing public grievances; it requires leadership, skill and unwavering commitment.

The current government of Nepal, led by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, is a coalition of the two largest parties in the Parliament with a two-third majority. This government has faced both support and significant backlash, from within the country and beyond. All this is very natural as leaders are under the microscope in a democracy.

While the government as a whole is often scrutinized, one figure stands out—Minister for Foreign Affairs Arzu Rana Deuba. Her diplomatic skills, leadership and ability to handle sensitive negotiations have earned her respect both at home and abroad.

She has demonstrated a deep understanding of international relations. Her speeches in national and international forums reveal a leader, who not only speaks knowledgeably but also acts with clarity and confidence. From engaging with neighboring countries to participating in multilateral discussions, she has consistently represented Nepal with dignity and insight. Her ability to build and sustain relationships with global counterparts has positioned Nepal in a more favorable light internationally.

One of her most commendable actions came when she intervened in the case of Bipin Joshi, a Nepali citizen in Hamas’ captivity. Deuba’s constant engagement with her counterparts in Israel, Qatar and Egypt played a key role in making the negotiators keep in mind the only Nepali, who is held hostage. Her swift response and diplomatic outreach not only demonstrated her commitment to protecting Nepali citizens abroad but also highlighted her ability to act decisively in crisis situations.

Beyond this, Deuba has made significant strides in strengthening Nepal’s relations with its neighbors and the international community. Her official visit to China was an important step in ensuring Nepal’s active participation in global economic and infrastructural projects. Her ongoing efforts to maintain cordial relations with India have also not gone unnoticed. 

Her recent trip to Bangkok, though officially for personal medical reasons, may have included meetings with Indian officials to facilitate Prime Minister Oli’s visit to India as soon as possible. If so, it would be yet another example of her deft handling of foreign relations and her proactive approach to improving ties with Nepal’s southern neighbor.

Her leadership extends beyond diplomacy as she has been an advocate for the rights of Nepali expatriates, ensuring their concerns are heard in the government’s policy decisions. Her efforts in highlighting the Nepali migrant workers’ issues at international fora have earned her praise from labor organizations and advocacy groups alike. Furthermore, her work in advancing gender equality and empowering women has made her a role model for women aspiring to enter politics and diplomacy.

Even as the government continues to face its share of criticism, Deuba has managed to navigate the complexities of foreign policy deftly, making significant strides for Nepal on the global stage. 

In times of political uncertainty, leaders like Deuba remind us that effective governance is not only about managing domestic affairs but also about strengthening a nation’s position in the global community. She has earned the respect and admiration of many, both at home and abroad. Her tenure as Foreign Minister is a testament to her capacity to lead with dignity, skill and a sense of responsibility. Her work deserves recognition, not just for the immediate successes but for the long-term impact she is poised to have on Nepal’s foreign relations.

The author, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, has been practicing corporate law for around three decades. Views are personal