Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s decision to meet the Indian and Chinese ambassadors on Monday marks a welcome break from what had appeared to be a period of limited high-level diplomatic engagement. It should also be the beginning of a more active and purposeful approach to foreign policy. For nearly four and a half months after taking office, Shah kept direct meetings with foreign diplomats to a minimum. His preference appeared to be for ambassadors and visiting foreign officials to deal largely through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Some initially viewed this as an attempt to bring greater discipline and consistency to diplomatic dealings. But diplomacy cannot run entirely through paperwork and protocol. A head of government must also engage directly with representatives of foreign governments in Kathmandu, particularly when such engagement serves Nepal’s national interests. That is why Monday’s separate meetings with Indian Ambassador Naveen Srivastava and Chinese Ambassador Zhang Maoming matter. The meetings, held at Singha Durbar and lasting about 45 minutes each, reportedly covered bilateral relations, development cooperation and areas of mutual interest. Shah also stressed the importance of Nepal’s relations with both of its immediate neighbors. Of course, this does not mean the prime minister must meet every foreign official who seeks an appointment. A prime minister’s time is limited, and diplomatic access should have a clear purpose. But ambassadors representing countries that matter to Nepal’s security, economy, trade, investment, development and international standing should be able to seek an appointment without unnecessary hurdles. High-level diplomatic engagement is an important instrument of statecraft and should be used judiciously rather than avoided.
Economists suggest ‘course correction’ to boost morale of priva...
A prime minister, who routinely refuses or delays such meetings risks creating an impression that Nepal is either uninterested in engagement or uncomfortable with diplomatic interaction. Neither impression serves the country’s interests. Shah has attracted considerable attention abroad. His rise from Kathmandu mayor to prime minister has been followed with interest well beyond Nepal. That attention creates an opportunity, but international goodwill must be reinforced through engagement, communication and a willingness to receive foreign officials as well as visit other countries. A head of government cannot enhance Nepal’s international profile simply by remaining at home. This becomes particularly important as India’s Foreign Minister prepares to visit Nepal to invite Shah to participate in the BRICS Summit in India. Such an invitation should not be treated as a mere diplomatic courtesy. For Nepal, participation in high-level international and regional forums can provide opportunities to present its economic interests, deepen relationships, expand cooperation and raise its international profile. Shah should therefore respond to diplomatic invitations and overtures with maturity rather than suspicion. He need not accept every invitation or every request for a meeting. He should, however, assess each one on the basis of what it can deliver for Nepal. The principle should be straightforward: engage when doing so advances Nepal’s interests, decline when it does not, and ensure that personal preferences do not become state policy. Nepal’s foreign policy also demands balance. Meeting the Indian and Chinese ambassadors separately was appropriate because relations with both neighbors carry enormous strategic and economic importance. At the same time, Kathmandu must maintain effective and consistent channels with the United States, European countries, Japan and other development, investment and trading partners.
This does not mean treating all relationships identically. Nepal’s ties with India and China have a unique geographic, economic and strategic significance. Its relations with the United States, European countries, Japan and other partners are also important to its development, trade, investment, technology and international engagement. A balanced foreign policy should recognize these different dimensions while avoiding unnecessary alignment with any particular power. Shah’s latest outreach should therefore be seen as more than two routine diplomatic meetings. It is an opportunity for the prime minister to become a more active part of his government’s foreign policy machinery and to ensure that diplomatic engagement is aligned with national priorities. A confident government does not shy away from diplomatic engagement. It uses such engagement to advance its interests while safeguarding its sovereignty and policy independence. If Shah wants to strengthen his government’s credibility and enhance Nepal’s international standing, he should keep the door open to purposeful diplomatic engagement. More importantly, Nepal sits between two powerful neighbors, requiring Kathmandu to navigate the sensitivities of its relations with India and China carefully while also maintaining constructive ties with the United States, European countries and other international partners. The prime minister and his supporters should remind themselves that diplomatic engagement is not a concession to foreign powers. It is one of the essential tools through which a sovereign country communicates its priorities, protects its interests, builds partnerships and advances its national objectives.
