On December 7 (December 22), US President-elect Donald Trump threatened to take back control of the Panama Canal as an important national capital for the US. He is angry that American ships are being charged high shipping charges.

The next day, the President of Panama, José Raúl Munillo, responded by saying, ``Every square kilometer of the Panama Canal and the area connected to it belongs to Panama, always. And, the sovereignty and independence of Panama will not be compromised by anyone.' 

This 82 km long waterway connecting the Andhra Ocean and the Pacific Ocean through the Caribbean Sea was built by the United States in 1914. Its full ownership was transferred to Panama in 1999. It is of strategic importance to the US as it carries about 5 percent of world maritime trade and connects the two oceans within a short distance. After the US, China uses this route more commercially and strategically. 

President Munillo claims that America has been treating Panama as its subordinate geography for a long time. Washington seems concerned that its influence in the Latin American region has weakened in recent years.

Now Trump's threat to take control of the Panama Canal seems to be guided by the strategy of pre-emptive sphere of influence (Cackyard Diplomacy). Which says, the Latin American region is its traditional sphere of influence, in which no power from China, Europe or Asia is forbidden to enter. 

After January 20, President Trump's statements regarding the Panama Canal became a matter of waiting. But from this, it can be estimated that Trump has the idea of ​​prohibiting the entry of a second country into his previous sphere of influence - that too through the use of force.

The expression of taking Greenland Island from Denmark and making Canada the 51st US state is further proof of that. This article focuses on the pre-dominance diplomacy sought to be restored by the Shakti nation. Trump has highlighted its relevance, but in the form of interference and pressure. And, these characteristics are also seen in the emerging powers of the multipolar world. Which can be a hindrance for countries like Nepal which are traveling towards development which are of strategic importance. 

theoretical vision 

Although this exact language is not written down, theorists of international relations have different opinions about 'wickyard diplomacy'. In the general sense, it is more than a neighborhood-centered policy, but in the case of Shakti Rashtra, it has been understood as a diplomacy of influence and control over the neighborhood.

has also been practiced as a way of controlling the sovereignty of weak neighboring countries. So as it is trying to re-emerge as the common character of Shaktishrastra, it is looking for a proper and sovereign response, where exaggeration should not be allowed. 

because today is not the time for continued dominance over traditional spheres of influence or interference with the sovereignty and independence of those spheres. No independent and sovereign nation can tolerate such pressure. That doesn't mean inviting the Seven Seas to intervene to level the neighborhood. Behavior with self-respect is also expected from neighbors. 

According to classical realist theorist Hans Morgenthau's concept of 'power politics and spheres of influence', great powers naturally seek to dominate their immediate neighbours. The ``Monroe Doctrine'' introduced by US President James Monroe in 1823 is a classic issue of sphere of influence diplomacy, denying any influence other than the US in South American nations.

If this realistic world is dominated by an anarchist international system, it can be considered natural, but another strong power will try to break the sphere of influence. The emerging powers may influence the subordinate but currently independent nations. That means there may be competition and rivalry. 

Similarly, Immanuel Wallerstein of the world system theory of international relations has said that by dividing the countries into the core, semi-periphery and periphery, the powers will try to impose dominance on the countries in their periphery. As such, the US tries to deny the entry of another competing power to its territory as much as possible. Panama cutting ties with Taiwan and accepting it as an integral part of China is not a favorite subject of the American ruler. This also applies to Russia, India and China. 

According to Jan Mearsheimer, another offensive realist, the only reason great powers seek to maintain regional dominance is to prevent competing powers from coming around them. That is, another external force cannot extend its influence around itself. For example, the Russia-Ukraine war was caused by Russia's desire not to expand NATO's influence in its traditional sphere of influence. As a

, after Zhlodimir Zelensky took the policy of allowing Ukraine to join NATO, it led to war. Also, Zbigniew Brzezinski, through the book "The Grand Chessboard", considered Eurasia as the center of geo-political power balance and held the opinion that America should maintain control over it. Through that, competing countries have brought policies to stop the rise of China and Russia. This is close to the 'heartland' theory of geo-politics. 

In essence, a Shakti nation tries to control or maintain influence over its surroundings, but when it asserts sovereignty and independence, countermeasures are inevitable. 

changed state 

As Trump has signaled the policy of restoring the Monroe Doctrine, the tendency to become its followers is also seen in other powers. In relation to Russia, probably because of his personal relationship with President Putin, he will try to end the war as per the pre-announcement. But the relationship with China does not seem to be different from President Biden. If that happens, it seems that the policy of 'China control' will continue, the natural effects of which will be seen as far as Nepal.

Not only America or President Trump, Nepal's huge neighbors India and China, even Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping, sometimes show their fascination with the former sphere of influence. However, this giant neighbor of Nepal is not only focused on the fascination of dominance in this former sphere of influence.

The interests of New Delhi and Beijing are naturally dominant in their neighbourhoods, but they have also extended their influence to the world. From a country-specific point of view, 'BRI' and 'Act East' policies are its solutions, while BRICS, Global South, Shanghai Cooperation Organization are common solutions. It is also a nation that is advancing with the expansion of influence and relations in the neighborhood. 

Today's world is not colonial and cold war era. This world is not even a thought-driven world. It is a world of business, technology and data. It is not a moral, but a practical world. Looking at it that way, as the superpower nation has practiced the diplomacy of regaining traditional influence in the surrounding countries, it is now in danger of crossing the border of freedom and autonomy. 

A powerhouse may have 'backyard' nostalgia, but it must be controlled. China's Middle Kingdom concept presents China as the cultural and political center of East Asia, thereby influencing its policy toward Taiwan and the South China Sea. Western efforts to break the same Chinese influence have now transformed the region into an area of ​​global tension.

Similarly, historical and cultural ties with South Asian nations shape New Delhi's policy towards South Asian nations, which sometimes even creates tension in the region. Colonial powers may be reminded of the authoritarian past of the countries they ruled. While those countries have been practicing independence for decades and they have also progressed in development. This change in the situation should be felt by those who consider it a Shakti nation. 

In a changing context, sphere-of-influence diplomacy is likely to deny the sovereignty of small countries and undermine neo-imperialist tendencies. Similarly, if an outside power tries to maintain control over those old spheres of influence, it will lead to conflict. This is the situation in Nepal now. The tripartite competition and rivalry of the policy of India trying to maintain its traditional sphere of influence, China trying to expand its influence and America trying to use Nepal strategically can be seen here.

As the American interest and influence in Nepal is increasing now, it looks like a policy of 'controlling China', which is equally likely to take the form of a policy of controlling India in the course of time. Both India and China view Nepal through a historical, cultural and geographical lens, with nostalgia for past ties.

The issue of whether the Prime Minister of Nepal should visit India or China first or whether the head of the government leaning towards India in South Asia or not has also become an issue due to the foresight of the three. The issue of whether or not people close to China came to power in South East Asia is also a picture seen from the same historical relationship. 

balance with soul respect 

Unlike America and Europe, as mentioned above, India and China are also liberals who have come out of that traditional thinking. For example, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar in his latest book 'Why India Matters' has mentioned that India has moved away from the traditional policy of non-alignment and towards multi-alignment.

Similarly, he said that Prime Minister Modi's 'Neighborhood First' policy is based on 'non-reciprocity' and not on 'reciprocity', which means - an attempt to restore the 'Gujral Doctrine'. In the same way, China has also given its example through the policy of 'shared destiny, shared development'. In principle these are welcome. But the impression seen in this behavior should also be felt by the neighbors. 

Looking aside the prejudiced thinking, this government led by Prime Minister Oli has practically maintained balanced relations with India and China. From the point of view of New Delhi and Beijing, Kathmandu's policy and behavior may not be the same.

Since Nepal puts its neighbors as the first priority, it addresses the specific interests of its neighbors. But that means that Nepal is not the same Nepal, which the neighbors treat as a traditional sphere of influence or consider as a 'buffer state'. Nepal now wants to become a possible bridge, transit center between South Asia and China. 

Along with that, Nepal has introduced itself as a soft power on the regional and world stage and its effective expansion is necessary. SAARC, BBIN, BIMSTEC are examples of that. Such regional structures emphasize cooperative engagement rather than competitive engagement.

Nepal should ask India and China to give priority to mutual benefits over historical claims, which will expand the contact network and reduce the fear of specific dominance. However, Nepal has never forgotten and will not forget the history and civilization of this region.

The way the Prime Minister's possible visit to India after his visit to China is being diverted from debate to controversy is also wrong. Visits are at appropriate times. Most important is Nepal's active diplomatic dialogue, which should focus on advancing mutual benefits.