Over the last month, the country has been so self-absorbed in the March elections that making sense of what is happening outside the country might have been a low priority for the vast majority of citizens engaged in national politics.
And rightly so.
Each election is a high-stakes endeavour on its own. Yet this one, as everyone knows, is really a special one.
So it is not only understandable but also totally justified that people focus on their nation’s future with a single overarching goal: turning the page on the recent history of Nepal.
This is, after all, the only way to lay the foundations for what the nation should really become now: a truly prosperous and happy country for all. Such a process should not happen through idiotic party slogans but through what truly matters—effective and inclusive governance.
Moreover, the disinterest in foreign affairs is also justified by the boredom related to Nepal’s own strategic approach to it. The national discourse about foreign politics has always lacked imagination, constrained by traditional binary choices centred on the two neighbouring nations, with occasional additional squabbles about determining the USA’s interests in Kathmandu.
To some extent, in terms of foreign affairs and geopolitics, Nepal has been in a sort of silo.
Its isolation is certainly not in terms of physical connectivity. For example, the Nepali diaspora and the international tourists visiting Nepal are testimony to a country that is increasingly linked to the world.
Yet the country remains so peripheral to the big “games” happening in the realm of geopolitics that its strategic importance is rarely taken into consideration and it barely registers within the broader international community.
In short, Nepal is discounted in global affairs and does not matter enough in the eyes of the key policymakers around the world shaping foreign policies.
Why, after all, should a still-developing nation plagued by internal issues be taken seriously?
But as a country’s conduct in foreign policy is determined by its own internal politics, these upcoming elections could change the equation.
While no new government would drastically prioritise foreign affairs over its own national governance-related issues, by default, if good governance were to materialise internally, then foreign policy would also benefit.
I would rather like to focus on some possible new contours of Nepal’s foreign policy.
A new reformist government, either led by one party with a majority of seats or by a coalition of like-minded parties, should drastically redraw the conceptual boundaries of national foreign policy.
Actually, what is needed is a total reframing of it.
Let me explain why Nepal should be in need of a new foreign policy approach.
A strategic and bold rethinking of Nepal’s foreign policy is, first of all, demanded by changes in the international order, with a more multipolar world emerging.
With a new approach, Nepal needs to find its own space in this complex and evolving scenario where rivalries among big powers will increase and international cooperation among nations is becoming less certain.
Foreign Affairs Minister Gyawali and Bulgarian Foreign Affairs...
Second, because of its own internal weaknesses, the country has often thought of itself only in terms of its two big neighbours, south and north of the border.
Both India and China have been so predominant not only in influencing national affairs but also in occupying the mindsets of the politicians and officials running the nation’s foreign policy.
Therefore, Nepal should look for a reset. If I could pick one word to define this approach and the mindset that should emerge from it, I would go for this: “beyond.”
Beyond what?
First, beyond China and India—an opening to the wider region and the world.
Let’s start by setting aside any equivocations about the first pillar of the “Beyond” approach. It does not mean that Nepal should disregard or deprioritise Beijing and New Delhi. The two neighbours will always remain important.
What should instead change is ensuring that attention to these two strategic partners does not overwhelm Nepal’s foreign policy.
Why should Nepal’s foreign affairs be defined and constrained by always ending up with the traditional “yam between two boulders”? I read about it ad nauseam. Let Nepal get over it.
Second, beyond the status quo: national interests first, no matter others’ interests.
Linked to the above, Nepal should also stop thinking of itself only in terms of making sure at any cost that it is not seen as aligned with anyone.
The nation should develop a clear vision of its priorities and pursue them while enhancing its own national interests without worrying too much about what other nations might think.
National interest first means being confident in pursuing policies that help the country become stronger.
It inevitably means that Nepal needs to make choices and informed decisions regardless of other nations’ positions.
Third, beyond India’s objections in relation to regional cooperation.
Nepal should do whatever it can to reactivate SAARC or other forms of regional cooperation. The model should not necessarily be the process of regional integration within the EU but rather the imperfect and gradual approach of ASEAN.
The fact that New Delhi has strong reservations about SAARC and is, de facto, blocking efforts to revive it should not prevent Nepal from actively engaging other South Asian nations in discussions about the future of the region.
Fourth, beyond traditional boundaries: reaching out to other regions.
Beyond South Asia, Southeast Asia should become a natural priority. This should not be too difficult even if BIMSTEC never becomes a truly relevant platform.
Nepal needs to work mostly at the bilateral level and also consider engaging regions far beyond its current horizons.
If Nepal really wants to become a middle power, it should not shy away from developing an approach that enables it to reach new partners—from the Pacific to Africa to Latin America.
A plan of action to ensure value is created through the network of embassies around the world is also indispensable.
In this case, the country’s ambassadors should assume greater responsibilities and authority, acting as local CEOs of Nepal’s brand overseas. As a result, a different type of evaluation of their work must also be conceptualised and practiced.
Fifth “Beyond”: leveraging its democratic credentials.
Nepal should start thinking of itself as an emerging middle-income country whose vision goes well beyond its current posture and should begin by being proud of its political system.
Why not project abroad one of its strongest credentials—its democratic traditions and experience?
This means ensuring that its foreign policy is always aligned with its democratic values and traditions.
What does it mean in practice? Being unafraid to criticise human rights abuses and violence, even when committed by superpowers.
Sixth, beyond the current foreign investment pitch: does Nepal truly want foreign investors?
We often read about how presidents, prime ministers and other top business leaders promote Nepal to foreign investors.
But are we sure this is the right way? Why should a major multinational firm choose Nepal over another developing country? Is the country truly prepared to have foreign companies playing a significant role in the national economy?
Too often, especially from the perspective of domestic business elites, such pitches appear driven by convenience and self-interest.
Opening the doors to foreign investors also means accepting competition within the country. Is this what the country truly wants, or does it simply want to focus on selling complex, often disruptive and very expensive hydropower projects?
Seventh, beyond tourism and the diaspora: they are not enough.
These sectors will remain important and strategic, but Nepal cannot become overly dependent on them.
Even in terms of attracting foreign tourists, are we sure that Nepal’s unique selling points and branding are sufficient? Getting to the country is increasingly expensive.
Restaurants catering to foreigners are also costly, and there is sometimes a tendency to exploit tourists’ purchasing power.
What about the ambition of making Nepal a luxury, world-class destination?
This can happen, but the nation would need to undertake a major transformation. High-end tourists expect efficiency and excellent organisational management—qualities that cannot be found only within five-star hotels.
Eighth, beyond traditional areas of foreign policy.
There are areas where Nepal could play a far more significant international role. The country should identify a few domains of global policy that will be crucial for the future of humanity.
Ethical AI could be one of them. Considering the country already has some expertise in ICT and has expressed ambitions to develop the sector, Nepal should be present in global discussions.
The future of the Agenda 2030 will also become a priority from 2027. Can Nepal play a proactive role in shaping the next round of the SDGs and their governance?
Then there is climate and biodiversity action. Small nations like Vanuatu and Barbados are already punching above their weight with innovative proposals. Nepal could also come forward with bold initiatives, including within the emerging Mountain Agenda under the UNFCCC framework.
Ninth, beyond the traditional role the UN plays in the country.
A new government should consider becoming more selective in how it engages with the UN and international financial institutions like the World Bank and ADB.
Too often, new projects are signed without public input, leaving citizens to read vague press releases that do little to explain how millions of dollars in international aid will actually be spent.
Perhaps it is time to reduce the overall role of the UN in the country and focus cooperation only on areas identified as national priorities.
Tenth, beyond the centralised approach: allowing provincial governments to conduct economic missions abroad.
True federal nations allow their provinces a degree of autonomy in promoting their culture and economy internationally. This would require coordination but not necessarily authorisation from the federal government.
Implementing the New Approach
Preparing a “Beyond Mindset” and its implementation strategy should not simply produce another internal policy document drafted without public input.
The upcoming government could first develop a working paper outlining its vision and priorities in foreign policy.
Then, through genuine public engagement, discussions with experts, civil society and youth should be initiated. Facilitating a national debate is essential.
A new approach to foreign policy does not require radical breaks with Nepal’s traditional partners. But turning a new page will require imagination and determination.
In short, Nepal needs to move beyond the “yam between two boulders” syndrome that has long limited its potential.
A new government can finally free itself from this mindset. If it ensures strong internal governance, Nepal will be able to pursue a confident and independent foreign policy—and the old narrative may finally fade away.
