Submit your Article

The social contract is a profound idea rooted in the busy marketplace of human society centuries ago. Forged in the fiery debates of the Enlightenment, this philosophical foundation holds that individuals trade under the protection of the state. Visionaries such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau articulated this contract theory as an explanation for why people prefer to live under rules rather than without them.

In today’s interconnected world, this concept is at work in the global trade landscape. In these networks, individuals as well as nations agree on rules for mutual prosperity. 

Against this backdrop, the arrival of President Donald Trump and his trade policies have stirred up a storm in this global landscape. In 2017, Trump began imposing tariffs on imported goods, targeting countries like China, Canada and Mexico to protect American workers and industries. 

He further expanded these measures after taking office for a second term in 2025, declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address a trade deficit of over $1.2trn in 2024. He imposed 10 percent tariffs on all countries, including rates as high as 145 percent on China, effective from April 9, targeting countries with the largest US trade deficits.

Retaliatory tariffs from countries such as China and the European Union could harm American exporters, such as farmers, potentially reducing job gains. If the economic harm outweighs the benefits, the government may be failing in its duty to promote the welfare of citizens.

Globally, Trump’s tariffs test the fragile threads of the international social contract. Like Locke’s conditional agreement, trade agreements are mutual. By acting unilaterally, Trump’s policies risk violating this contract. This could lead to retaliation and market turmoil. Japan’s prime minister called it a ‘national crisis’, and JP Morgan raised the risk of a global recession to 60 percent.

Proponents argue that the global trading system was already broken, with countries like China engaging in unfair practices. From a Hobbesian perspective, Trump’s tariffs assert US sovereignty to protect its citizens, risking a flawed global contract. Yet they also risk destabilizing the cooperative framework that has underpinned post-World War II prosperity.

A philosophical lens

In the swirling currents of global trade, where nations vie for advantage, the ideas of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau cast distinct lights on the unfolding drama of President Trump’s tariffs. Each philosopher, with his unique vision of the social contract, offers a way to understand the motives, actions, and ripples of this modern trade saga.

Imagine a world where countries act like wary travelers in a lawless land, each guarding their own treasures. For Hobbes, this is the state of nature—a realm of raw competition where chaos looms without a strong hand to guide it. In his 1651 work Leviathan, he saw nations, much like individuals, needing a powerful sovereign to impose order. Trump’s tariffs, launched in 2017 and intensified in 2025, seem to fit this mold: bold moves by the United States to assert control, protect its industries, and carve out security in a turbulent trade landscape. Yet, Hobbes dreamed of an unchallenged ruler whose word was law. The reality of global trade tells a different story. As nations like China and the EU fire back with their own tariffs, markets tremble and Japan’s Prime Minister calls it a “national crisis”. This resistance reveals a world that bows to no single power, challenging Hobbes’ vision of a tidy, obedient order.

Locke steps into the tale with a gentler view, one rooted in rights and reason. Writing in 1690, he saw people coming together to protect their natural rights to life, liberty and property, forming a government only with their consent. Locke might nod at Trump’s aim to shield American workers and businesses, seeing it as a government’s duty to safeguard its people’s economic freedom. But he’d pause at the way these tariffs were imposed—unilaterally, without the nod of global partners. For Locke, legitimacy hinges on agreement, and actions that stray from the public good risk breaking the contract. When tariffs drive up prices, potentially hiking the cost of an iPhone by 30 percent or adding $1,280 to household expenses in 2025, Locke might warn that the government is failing its own citizens, betraying the very trust it was meant to uphold.

Then there’s Rousseau, who in 1762 wove a vision of the “general will”—a collective spirit where people unite for the common good. He’d peer closely at Trump’s tariffs, asking: do they truly reflect the heart of the American people or do they serve a narrower agenda? Protecting jobs in steel towns might seem to honor the general will, rallying communities hit hard by global trade. But Rousseau’s gaze would stretch further, to the global stage. By favoring American interests over shared prosperity, these tariffs spark retaliatory volleys that could shrink the US GDP by 0.8 percent or cost 740,000 jobs if unchecked. Rousseau might argue that such policies fracture the unspoken pact among nations, sowing mutual harm where cooperation could have flourished.

Together, these philosophers weave a rich tapestry of questions about Trump’s tariff war. Hobbes sees a bold bid for order in a chaotic world, yet stumbles against global defiance. Locke champions the protection of rights but demands consent and care for the public good. Rousseau seeks a collective will that binds both nation and world, wary of actions that pit one against the other. Their voices echo through the clatter of trade disputes, reminding us of the delicate dance between national pride and global trust, between safeguarding one’s own and honoring the shared bonds that keep the world turning.

The heart of the matter

Trump’s tariff war lays bare a core tension: can a nation honor its domestic social contract while upholding its global commitments? Domestically, tariffs address real concerns about job losses and economic decline, but their costs—higher prices and potential job losses from retaliation—raise doubts about their alignment with the common good. Globally, unilateral actions challenge the mutual consent that underpins trade agreements, risking a breakdown in the global social contract. 

The tariffs reflect a broader distrust in globalization, fueled by perceived inequities in trade. Yet, the path forward is fraught. As nations grapple with rising costs and market instability, the principles of social contract theory remind us that legitimate governance, whether at home or abroad, requires mutual agreement and a commitment to shared prosperity.

The Non-Resident Nepali Association (NRNA) was founded in 2003 during a turbulent period in Nepal’s history. Amid the Maoist insurgency and deepening political instability, a group of dedicated Nepalis living abroad came together in Kathmandu to create a global organization that would represent the interests of the diaspora and serve as a vital link to their homeland. 

The founding principles were centered on unity, inclusion and service. One of their first and most poignant demands was for dual citizenship—a legal recognition of the emotional and cultural ties that many Nepalis abroad continue to hold even after acquiring foreign citizenship. This request was more than a legal issue; it was about identity, belonging and the enduring connection to one’s roots.
Despite the strong start and noble intentions, the NRNA’s journey has not been without challenges. As Nepal transitioned from a monarchy to a republic and experienced various waves of political change, the NRNA too began to experience internal discord. Leadership rivalries, political interference and factionalism began to weaken the organization's unity.

Some leaders were perceived to be prioritizing personal gain over community service, eroding the trust and credibility the NRNA once commanded. Moreover, the Government of Nepal repeatedly failed to deliver on key promises—most notably the introduction of dual citizenship and diaspora-friendly investment policies. This lack of follow-through not only discouraged active participation from the diaspora but also deepened the divide between the homeland and its global citizens. 

I strongly emphasize that the time has come for sincere introspection. This is not a call to assign blame, but a collective appeal to revisit the founding ideals of the NRNA. Reform is no longer optional—it is essential. Without a structural and philosophical overhaul, the organization risks becoming irrelevant. To restore credibility and purpose, the NRNA must prioritize transparency, inclusiveness and democratic governance. The vision must be reignited, not just with words but with visible actions that rebuild public confidence and inspire the younger generation of diaspora Nepalis. 

A major critique raised is the overly broad and simplistic definition of the NRNA’s constituency—Nepalis who have lived abroad for more than 180 days. This definition fails to cultivate  the rich diversity within the diaspora community. 

From blue-collar migrant workers in the Gulf to settled professionals in Europe to business leaders and academics in the USA, the needs and aspirations of each group vary greatly. Trying to serve such a diverse population with a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective. In this situation, I  recommend that the NRNA adopt a segmented approach by creating specialized committees and empowering local chapters to better represent their unique communities. Diversity should be seen not as a challenge, but as a strength that can be harnessed for broader impact. 

Dual citizenship remains one of the most important and emotionally resonant issues for the diaspora. Many who have taken foreign citizenship still feel a strong cultural and familial connection to Nepal. They wish to maintain this bond—not just symbolically, but legally and practically. 

These individuals are often highly educated, financially capable and deeply committed to contributing to Nepal’s growth through investment, mentorship, transformation of knowledge and innovation. However, current Nepali laws make their involvement complicated, with vague policies, unclear legal frameworks and the looming threat of double taxation. I argue that these individuals are not asking for special privileges but rather a framework that acknowledges their desire to contribute meaningfully to Nepal’s future. I would like to suggest long-term visas, clear legal protections for investments and the right to retire peacefully in Nepal as achievable and impactful policy measures. 

Concrete proposals for change 

Structural and governance reforms: Form an independent election commission to ensure fair and transparent leadership elections. Introduce term limits and eligibility criteria to prevent monopolization of leadership. Promote inclusiveness by creating dedicated roles and committees for women, youth, migrant workers and professionals. 

Decentralization: Give more authority to national coordination councils and NRNA chapters to address region-specific issues effectively.  Avoid overly centralized leadership, which often becomes detached from grassroots concerns. Decentralization will encourage innovation and ownership at all levels. 

Transparency and accountability: Publish financial reports regularly and conduct independent audits of projects and events. Establish formal systems for member feedback, grievances and dispute resolution to ensure internal democracy and trust. 

Cultural engagement: Support efforts to preserve the Nepali language, heritage and traditions among second-generation NRNs. Encourage educational and cultural exchange programs that allow younger generations to visit Nepal and understand their roots. 

Facilitate investment and return: Advocate for simplified investment policies and legal guarantees that attract diaspora entrepreneurs. Promote NRN-friendly residential areas, business zones and retirement homes that provide a welcoming environment for returning expatriates.

Forge global partnerships: Build strategic relationships with international organizations, think tanks, and universities. Leverage NRNA’s global presence to amplify Nepal’s voice on the world stage and open doors for collaboration and development aid. 

The NRNA was founded on the dream of unity and national contribution, and while its journey has encountered setbacks, the vision remains as relevant as ever. The Nepali diaspora is a treasure trove of knowledge, talent and resources. Reforming the NRNA to better serve this community is not just a strategic move—it is a necessity. If reformed with care and vision, the NRNA can once again become the vital bridge between Nepal and its global citizens, fostering not just emotional ties, but tangible progress for generations to come. 

On April 22, the tranquil Baisaran meadow near Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir was converted into a site of extraordinary catastrophe. Militants reportedly associated with The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), executed a violent assault on the group of tourists, leading to the deaths of at least 26 (25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen) victims and injuries to more than 20.

This assault is among the most lethal strikes on civilians in the area since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. In the last 35 years of the Kashmir conflict, tourists were spared even in the height of militancy. This has changed now, it has been visible from the attack in Raesi, Jammu, last year, which took the lives of nine Hindu pilgrims. And so many other things have also changed in the course of the previous 24 hours in the South Asian geopolitical landscape. The attack coincided with four main events that happened recently. 

On the day of the attack, US Vice-president JD Vance was visiting India, interestingly on the same day Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi was in Jeddah meeting with the Saudi Prince and officials. Two other incidents that happened earlier but have a significant impact on the nature, psyche and politics of the attacks, extradition of Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian citizen who served in the Pakistani military for some time, from the USA to India. 

It reignited the old scars of the terrible 2008 Mumbai attacks, which were a paradigm shift in the global approach to fighting terrorism from South Asia. After a lengthy legal battle, Rana was extradited to India. The last but most significant event which had a colossal impact on the Pahalgam attack was Pakistan’s Army Chief Gen Asim Munir’s remarks on the ethnic two-nation theory between India and Pakistan, which is true for Pakistan but not for India because it is a civic democratic nation. He also referred to Kashmir as their ‘jugular vein’, provoking a load of religious sentiments just weeks before the attack, the clips of which are making rounds on social media. 

The preliminary intelligence findings from India suggest that five culprits, three from across the border and two locals, were involved in this heinous attack. India, in response, took a slew of diplomatic decisions, the most important of which is the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, which survived three full-scale wars and many terror attacks perpetrated by Pakistan on Indian soil. 

Other than that, India has declared the defence attaches of Pakistan’s High Commission in New Delhi as persona non grata and given them a week to leave the country. Along with this, the newer development or any escalation from the Pakistani side may result in military retaliation. 

Consider this: in Feb 2025, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif showed a desire to pursue dialogue with India as it is the only ‘way forward’. Even before that, Pakistan’s ruling party’s patron, Nawaz Sharif, has called for normalizing ties with India. India, meanwhile, has been firm in its approach of not indulging Pakistan unless it dismantles the terror apparatus of the country. India has also been successful in de-hyphenating its relations with Pakistan vis-à-vis global powers, as India and Pakistan are not seen through one lens. 

For India, in the current geostrategic setting, the only rival is China, which is mainly accurate. It has also been successful in creating new ties with Pakistan’s traditional Gulf partners. 

Comparatively, Pakistan’s situation is in the doldrums. Its economy is growing at a meagre 2-3 percent, one of the lowest in South Asia, with a volatile inflation, which went as high as 39 percent in 2023. It also has a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, which is why there needs to be multiple bailout packages from the IMF. Politically, Pakistan has always been in turmoil, where its most popular leader has won an election engineered by the Army, which has installed Shahbaz Sharif as Prime Minister of Pakistan. Still, the driving seat of power is, as usual, with the Army. 

For the longest time in Pakistan, the Army has maintained one of the most venerated positions and a symbol of national unity. It started slowly eroding when the failure of the state became apparent in the last two decades, the tenure of ex-Prime Minister Imran Khan, who was also the Army’s favourite at one point, was in the tussle. His removal prompted protests that echoed to many cantonments in Pakistan, where protesters attacked the army’s establishments. It was the most visible frustration of Pakistanis toward the venerated institution. Pakistan is also grappling with autonomy and secessionist movements in Balochistan, which has also caused forced disappearances of many ethnic Baloch who allege that the state has a direct involvement in these incidents. Islamabad has been rocked with protests by Baloch people.  

In addition to that, in March 2025, the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), an ethnonationalist militant organization, attacked the Jaffar Express, which runs from Quetta to Peshawar and hijacked it. The attacks caused the loss of 31 lives, including 18 soldiers who were travelling on that train. Other than that, after the Taliban came to power, Pakistan’s relations with its northern neighbour have been sour. There has been a condition of low-intensity conflict on the Durand line. Last year, the usually quiet western border of Pakistan with Iran also rocked when Iran launched a series of missile strikes on Pakistan. Paradoxically, for the previous few years, leaving few incidents, Pakistan’s border with India has been relatively peaceful, which has changed with sudden developments. 

It is in this context that General Asim Munir’s remarks and subsequent attack in Kashmir need to be read. Pakistan’s deep state knows that these attacks will have strong retaliation from India, which will help in fuelling nationalist fervor. Nevertheless, it also needs to be clarified that Pakistan’s reason to exist, the “two-nation theory”, which General Munir put so much emphasis on failing more than 50 years ago after the creation of Bangladesh.

It also needs to be noted that Gen Munir was supposed to retire this year, but last year, through an amendment, he extended the tenure of the Army chief for five years. It is a well-known fact that Pakistan’s army is the cause of many structural ailments in the country, and has to face the heat coming from society, causing a significant loss to its venerated position in the country.  Now, with this attack and retaliation from India, the Pakistani Army has tried to find some breathing space to run away from its structural problems. Still, this gamble can be a double-edged sword in a fast-changing situation. 

President Vladimir Putin has extended an official invitation to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to attend a military parade in Moscow on May 9, a day marking the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. The diplomatic reward offered by Russia for North Korea’s military involvement in the war in Ukraine has far surpassed expectations. 

North Korea’s military and diplomatic standing has changed significantly compared to its position prior to the war, before its arms transfers and troop support. In addition to receiving favorable treatment from Russia, North Korea is now capturing the attention of key European nations backing Ukraine. South Korea, Japan and China are increasingly anxious about the potential regional impact of North Korea’s growing leverage with Russia. 

Since the start of the second Trump administration—which this year has begun prioritizing short-term economic interests without distinguishing between allies and adversaries—North Korea’s leverage with Russia is inevitably set to grow even stronger. Notably, in contrast to the previous Biden administration, the Trump administration has remained silent on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is pushing for an end-of-war settlement that favors Russia. 

Trump has launched the most basic and straightforward realist strategy of balance of power—that is, an attempt to detach Russia from China, which is the United States’ primary hegemonic rival, and align it with the US. Whether this strategy will succeed remains uncertain, but Trump is now trying to draw Russia away from China in much the same way that former President Nixon had pulled China away from the Soviet Union in the 1970s. 

Putin, who combines authoritarian rule at home with a reckless yet experienced command of international politics, clearly understands Trump’s intentions and is looking to exploit them as much as possible in end-of-war negotiations. Trump is reportedly invited to the May 9 military parade, and naturally, Chinese President Xi Jinping has been invited too. We may even witness a surreal scene where Trump and Xi are seated on either side of Putin, with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un standing beside Trump, smiling, as they all watch the procession of Russia’s latest weapons. 

The prospect of the leader of North Korea—the world’s most internationally isolated pariah state—standing shoulder to shoulder with the heads of the US, China and Russia is extraordinary. Though unlikely, should it come to pass, it would deliver a profound shock not only to America’s allies in Europe and East Asia, but also to China. The mere discussion of such a scenario underscores that North Korea’s leverage over Russia has emerged as a key variable in the security dynamics of Europe and East Asia.

If Kim attends Russia’s Victory Day parade and stands alongside Xi on either side of Putin, it is worth thinking about what that would mean for China. Most importantly, it would mark China’s entry into a trilateral military and comprehensive alliance framework with Russia and North Korea—an alignment it has long avoided. The formation of such a trilateral structure would push established Western powers to increase their vigilance, containment efforts and pressure on China. 

Together with Russia and North Korea, China would undeniably be seen as a threat to the military, economic and technological security—that is, the converging securities—of the leading Western nations. While the Global South—developing countries—may not respond strongly, China would suffer a serious reputational blow by being branded a security threat to the developed world. 

China would also, in effect, be officially acknowledging North Korea’s leverage over Russia. In terms of international political and security dynamics, China and North Korea have long had aligned strategic interests, with North Korea lacking any viable patron state other than China—leaving it in a position of absolute disadvantage to China. 

However, Russia has now emerged, at least partially, as an alternative backer, introducing a significant new variable into the Sino-North Korean relationship that cannot be ignored. As part of its military cooperation with Russia, North Korea has been acquiring a range of advanced strategic weapon technologies from Moscow to strengthen its independent military capabilities. Russia has already formally recognized North Korea’s nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. 

For North Korea, this represents a diplomatic triumph—like rain after a long drought. But for China, it marks a serious blow to its national interests, and this new reality is expected to become more deeply entrenched in the coming years. To date, China has refrained from offering explicit support or endorsement of North Korea in the military domain, including its nuclear weapons program. In particular, Beijing has consistently maintained a cautious and reserved position regarding North Korea’s nuclear armament.

Then how should China respond to the deepening rapprochement between North Korea and Russia? Over the past two years, as Russia-North Korea ties have gained momentum, China has largely ignored the situation and remained unresponsive. To some extent, North Korea’s military support for Russia has brought indirect benefits to China, as Beijing itself has avoided providing military aid to Moscow. 

However, the outcome has been an increase in North Korea’s leverage over Russia. One possible course of action for China is to refrain from participating in the Russia–North Korea military cooperation and begin with a passive response, in order to avoid being drawn into a trilateral military alliance framework with Russia and North Korea. Trump is expected to pursue direct negotiations with North Korea this year. North Korea, in turn, will likely seek to make the most of its leverage over Russia during this process. 

Perhaps the first thing to watch is who will attend next month’s Russian military parade. Kim? Trump? Xi? From Japan and South Korea to France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Poland, all eyes are on which direction the shadow of China—looming behind Russia and North Korea—falls. The United States, of course, is watching as well.

The author is a professor of Political Science and International Studies at Yonsei University