Dev Raj Dahal

The fast changing world of globalisation, connectivity and interdependence among citizens, corporations and nation-states have turned the state-centric balance of power imprecise, entailing new imagination about the drivers of world politics. Geopolitics operates at all scales—global, national and intra-national. Its mastery rests on the ability of statespersons to control the scope and strategy of politics and match means to enlightened national interests. The binary facet of old geopolitics based on land and sea power projection has acquired new dimension now with the rise of Asia, transformation in science, technology and connectivity and return of conservatism, populism, nationalism and identity politics. It has rescued geopolitics from reductionist, determinist and ideological catch.
The macro context of changing Asiainisation of world politics and promotion of regime interests by political leaders, economic clout of market institutions and non-state actors shape foreign policy choices. One can see how MNCs, INGOs, solidaristic bodies and international institutions influence foreign policy of Nepal but remain outside the costs of their actions. 
First, the boundaries of climate change, human rights, technology, market economy and civil society are transcending national sovereignty and affecting the autonomous capacity of states to formulate and execute foreign policy. Geopolitics is also informed by environment, history, economy and popular culture. The market, propelled by missionary zeal of profit, is conquering the spaces of ecology, society and politics while science and technology are shifting the balance of power from the state to the commercial, non-governmental and non-state world unravelling the unity of the state, economy and citizenship. Obviously, this shift has generated huge wealth for leaders having monopoly on politics, business and civil society without creating healthy community. Unless the wealth is fairly distributed where even the poor can afford basic services and build stake on institutional system, the state-society tension will open new fault lines in the periphery.
Second, the new geopolitics captures the geographic context of multi-level human interaction which is beyond any classical state-centric thinking narrated by historical trends of the rise and fall of states. The growth of new forces operating across the world and influencing the state decisions, and interdependence transcend the nationalist and globalist debate breeding multi-polarity in economic order and competition of virtual cyber and artificial intelligence resembling a new game among major powers having effects. The central dynamics of world politics is now orbiting around the competition of the US and China.
China’s ascendance is benefitting a lot from the former’s America first policy, withdrawal from major global initiatives including climate change, rift with allies on trade and defence scale up and an image of a waning superpower where its allies are assessing their security relationships and debating whether they can fully depend on the architecture of Atlantic, NATO consensus or Indo-Pacific Strategy or bilateral alliances to keep their security. Some prefer a realist position of self-help, others rely on collective self-defence such as Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe set up to face Russian assertiveness, still others adjust to the Chinese initiatives. 
Third, leaders play mix game based on the calculation of their national interests. British policy of self-distancing from the EU and joining China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), Italy’s joining of BRI, India’s joining of AIIB, SCO and BRICS and Germany’s deepening economic cooperation reflect a policy of realpolitik. The EU and Japan have recently made a deal to link Europe and Asia and coordinate infrastructure, transport and digital projects as a counter to China’s BRI. India is less interested in BRI partly because of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and partly on the grounds of its territorial integrity. Yet, it is a member of BRICS, SCO, Boao Forum for Asia and maintains strategic neutrality between China and the USA.
The US strategy to maintain its supremacy in the world, India’s aspiration for global power and counter many initiatives of China including BRI has brought Nepal in the forefront of geopolitics. The US defines Nepal a strong pivot in the Indo-Pacific Strategy to contain China but there is a lack of consensus within the ruling Communist Party of Nepal. The USA has suggested fragile Nepali leaders to become pro-Nepal to safeguard sovereignty, security and freedom. When both neighbours are engaged in creating a strip of buffer zone for their security how long can Nepali leaders remain aloof from controlling buffers and borderland politics? How can the heartland of Nepal act as a centripetal force for the strategic unity of Nepal’s Himalayas and Terai? Does the “diversification” of strategic partnership help Nepal to maintain foreign policy autonomy without re-socialising habit-driven elites to the historical coherence of national interests?
Combining Eurasian land-based continental and maritime trade-dependent global strategy, China defends globalisation finding it suitable to the global scale project of the centrality of Eurasian geopolitics of heartland through BRI, CPEC and Silk Road initiative. But the growing strategic partnership of South Asian leaders with outside powers especially with China, the USA, Japan, EU, Russia and Islamic countries has made their ties more regime oriented and geopolitical rather than rule-based benefitting the ordinary citizens. India has improved ties with the US on trade, commerce, security and multi-scale exchange of official visits, increased defence cooperation with Russia and economic cooperation with China.
The USA’s policy to clip India to control China’s expanding influence in South Asia, Indian Ocean, South China Sea and the Arabian Sea is febrile.  Its back away to America first shows frail leadership of the liberal order.  Despite territorial dispute and huge trade deficits, India seems keen in getting the Chinese support for its permanent membership in the UN Security Council. Nepal has accepted $500 million Millennium Challenge Corporation American aid as an incentive for joining Indo-Pacific Strategy. Its major component, inter alia, is designed to support 400 KV New Butwal-Gorakhpur transmission line project. 
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Nepal on October 12-13 presents a historical landmark. It elevated bilateral ties to a strategic level like those with India and the USA. Earlier Nepal has signed trade and transit treaties with China, declared Nepal’s northern 15 districts facing Tibet a “restricted zone,” pledged commitment to one-China policy, not to allow its territory to be used against China and sought to alleviate the Chinese fear of global convergence of interests on Tibet, a place of enormous geostrategic value for its location as a roof of world which also possesses huge subterranean resources such as blue water, uranium and petroleum products. China, considering it a gateway for South Asia, has set up a mechanism to coordinate Chinese aid and investment to Nepal, signed deals on border management, mutual legal assistance and organise joint military exercises.
Ruling communist parties of China and Nepal have signed a deal to deepen party to party ties where the later has found Xi Jinping Thought as a pedagogic devise for a model of progress. As a rising superpower, China is proactive in its initiatives and strategy and stressed on wider level of cooperation under BRI and trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network through rail, tunnel, opening more routes to the north and upgrading the existing ones. The ties are enriched by cooperation on educational, health and economic and ecological areas. The implementation of BRI, infrastructure, energy and trade and transit projects and corridors help Nepal to transform from what Xi Jinping said “land locked to land-linked nation” enabling it to play suitable regional and global roles.
He has underlined two vital factors of mutual interests “more exchange and experience sharing on governance and development to deliver greater benefits to the peoples,” strengthening Nepali state’s ”capacity and will to carry on law enforcement,” “broader defense contacts for common Himalayan security” to fight subversive internal and external elements and “ensure the safety of peoples and trade” by extending cooperation on matters of training, equipment and technologies. The new geopolitics is informing a new foreign policy debate about Nepal’s ability to promote national interests in a competitive yet reordering of the rules of world politics. 

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