Strike A Delicate Balance In Foreign Policy

The survival, stability and progress of Nepal pivot on its act of nurturing internal social cohesion and balancing with the neighbours — India and China and other great powers. Successful adaptation in the changing geo-strategic landscape is central to ensure its destiny and affirm the nation’s historical aspiration of sovereignty. The interconnected world supposes Nepali leaders to discern that big nations should not take any decisions in areas of its vital interests but in mutual consultation in matters of shared interests. There is a risk in appeasing one power at the cost of another and even not calculating its own enlightened public and national interests for leaders’ imperatives of survival. 

One crucial fact they must ward off is livid competition of great powers within the nation, some even fermenting divisive forces with the likelihood of multi-polarising its geopolitics.  Nepal has to preserve its external space of manoeuvre in the centre of two most populous neighbours without losing a sense of freewill and larger horizon. To protect the nation’s essential aspects of sovereignty the founder of modern Nepal Prithvi Narayan Shah embraced self-chosen isolation and defined a worldview, a frame for cognitive map. Ranarchy preferred a neutral buffer between imperial British India and tributary ties with the celestial Chinese empire until its downfall.  

Non-aligned policy

During Ranarchy Nepal began to share architecture, education, laws, institutions, values and policies of the Anglo-Saxon world while being frosty to China. It had made many sacrifices to preserve its independent identity by becoming closer to British India, allowed its people to be recruited in their armies, set up residency and economic cooperation, its participation in great wars and signing treaties that recognized Nepal’s fully independent status.  Nepal had, however, adopted a non-aligned foreign policy during the phase of Sino-Indian and US-Soviet cold war since the fifties. They all competed for their influence in Nepal and pledged to aid its progress.  Each, however, deemed the other undermining it. 

How can Nepal cooperate with security, ideological and political affinity with Anglo-Saxon powers without losing its spirit to undertake autonomous manoeuvre between them and newly ascending powers - China and Russia who are competing with the US in astropolitics? Nepal has maintained security linkage with diverse nations of the Anglo-Saxon sphere by allowing its people to be conscripted in their armies. Such a leverage of Nepal does not exist with the Sinosphere shaped by China’s bilateral relations and its global initiatives on security, development and civilisation. Nepal’s strategic partnership and trans-Himalayan connectivity are aimed at upscaling cooperation and utilising the changing notion of space.

The realism of the new Cold War, Global South’s decolonisation of development and democracy and mercantilism in the US entail Nepal to properly diagnose the changing constellation of global powers where India, China and Russia have converging interests. Nepal can reap benefits from the extraordinary rise of neighbours, forge communication and connectivity, acquire regional market access for its hydropower and engage in beneficial cooperation if its diplomacy of balancing act does not run counter to their genuine expectations. Geopolitical condition has forced Nepal to follow a foreign policy of realism and diversification of international relations despite its fight for the idealism of Panchsheel and claim for justice in the international forums. 

It cannot escape from the influence of the power-oriented model of global politics. Its option is to pursue small state politics on various scales and participate in multilateral diplomacy. Nepal now finds itself at the centre of the struggle among India, China and the USA as they seek security, economic and technological and soft power influence despite the need to collaborate on the management of pandemics, escalating climate emergency, migration, terrorism, AI, energy supplies, trade facilitation and astropolitics. These global issues require global statecraft of realpolitik. The USA and India have common cause to contain China’s growing geostrategic heft in Asia and South China Sea.  Both have advised Nepal not to sign Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with China for its negative effects on debt and dependence.

 During Prime Minister K. P. Oli’s recent official visit to China, both the nations signed a 9-point agreement and Framework for Belt and Road Cooperation. Altogether 10 projects were selected to be implemented under the BRI with a view to enhance connectivity, infrastructural and industrial development, energy cooperation, trade and tourism. Though Nepal had signed MOU on the execution of BRI in 2017, negotiations on the modality of financing projects hit a snag.

 Only after seven years of pause, the ruling coalition government of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML reached an understanding to give fresh impetus to BRI framework agreement for technical support and financing development which involves choices on grant, loan and joint investment expecting the nation’s tangible progress in many areas.  Prime Minister Oli also asserted the claim of a sovereign nation to visit China first as he is sincerely waiting to visit India also. On December 11, the visiting US assistant secretary of state Donald Lu sought the transparency of the BRI agreement.

India is keeping its global strategic autonomy but shares common platforms with China and Russia on BRICS, de-dollarization, SCO, issues of global south, improvement on the scale of bilateral trade despite brawl on the border. In Ukraine, both have kept neutrality, did not share the Western perception of Russia and sought to improve ties. Nepal’s policy makers defined its strategic autonomy by becoming critical of Russia evident also from its voting in the UN and remaining cold to  its proposal of cooperation in a dozen of areas. QUAD has stitched India in alliance with the USA, Japan and Australia to counter China. 

The US Indo-Pacific Strategy is a part of China containment policy in South China Sea. Smaller nations worried about their identity, deem their ties with mighty China powerful leverage to cut their dependence, receive tangible benefits and diversify international relations. Nepal’s primary leverage is its strategic geography which is of great stake for both neighbours, workers mobility to various labour-shortage nations, swelling of diasporas and conscription of Nepalis in the armies and police of various nations, hydro-potential and cultural and natural sites for tourist attraction and religious pilgrimage. 

But the weakening of Nepali state and frequent change of governments make neighbours wary of its nonalignment. Only a stable Nepal can serve as a hedge against likely manoeuvres of external powers to coddle geopolitical vulnerabilities of neighbours contrary to their security. Nepal also prefers to come out of a “sandwich” system of politics based on international determinism of landlocked geography and psychological fear of claustrophobia. Its strategic partnership with India, the USA, the UK and China is deemed to step out of this site and use a life of choice in a multi-polar world. For Nepal, China is one of the biggest investors, large development partner and a friend to rely on in crisis times. 

The persisting irritants between Nepal-India ties — border disputes, energy cooperation, use of Pokhara and Bhairahawa airports and declining exports to India have to be resolved through dialogues. Think tanks of Indian ruling parties are engaging Nepali leadership in shaping the course of its foreign policy and evolving common approach in many issues including climate change of the Himalayas. Nepal is inviting Indian businessmen to invest in infrastructure, energy, tourism, agriculture and information technology.  

Nepali political establishment is thankful to the USA for supporting the Nepali constitution at a time when India withheld its recognition and its elites have gravitational proximity to the USA and its aid agencies and destination of their children for education and migration. The masses of its workers are, however, lured to the labour markets in Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Gulf region. China knows the geopolitical limits of Nepal and its leaders’ temptation to lean to Anglospheric worldview as they have supported regime change and granted legitimacy. Nepali leaders’ excessive reliance on Western educated consultants, NGOs, civil society and solidarity-based organisations have made the nation’s foreign policy relatively independent of India and China, increased global outreach and diversified its international relations.

There is convergence in the values of human rights, democracy, civil society, media, laws, education, health and development policies. These factors continued to deconstruct its Sanskritic worldview derived from the Gangetic belt. Fearing the steady loss of influence in Nepal, India is fostering its soft power policies through people-to-people relations and seeking convergence in internal political system and foreign affairs. Nepali elites’ affinity with the West is premised on common democratic fraternity, support to them and offering many opportunities including solidarity in times of legitimacy crisis.

Entrepreneurial dynamism 

Many Western nations have built democratic contact groups to lobby their policies, ideologies and strategic orientations while China is diversifying its political ties with various Nepali parties.  Nepal now is hit by debt, trade and aid dependence, scant investment and enormous financing gap affecting its infrastructure development, education and health. Nepal cannot race ahead if its two neighbours are inching to become global power while its leaders recoil from taking worthy initiatives essential to foster internal social cohesion and external entrepreneurial dynamism. 

Nepali planners and foreign policy strategists need to skilfully create mental maps in terms of national needs, navigate the challenges the nation is facing and strike delicate balancing of ties with the neighbours and great powers by increasing its acceptability. This enables them to harvest benefits from many poles of power that characterise present day world politics. Nations harness their ties with other nations not only on the basis of geographical proximity, shared population and culture or proximity of values and shared national interests. 

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues.)