Most of the leaders of more than 70 countries from around the world who attended the Munich Security Conference in Germany last week acknowledged that the post-World War II world order was over. German Chancellor Friedrich Mainz said that the post-1945 order no longer exists.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who participated in the conference, announced the dissolution of the old world and the beginning of a new era. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that the world has already entered a multipolar order. Some time ago, Prime Minister Mark Kenney of the Davos Economic Forum in Canada had said that there is no alternative to moving forward in a new way, accepting the reality of a multipolar world.

The inevitable birth of a multipolar world has taken place. However, what we should consider here is that the new multipolar world will be more uncertain and filled with bitter competition, and it may not be as loving and friendly as we thought.

Against this background, it is necessary to review and discuss the eight decades of world politics and the foreign policy adopted by Nepal in the past. For this, the debate on what Nepal's future foreign policy should be in the light of the policies adopted by Nepal in the past, the current situation, and the changes in the balance of power in world politics will be relevant.

Non-alignment and the legacy of Panchasheel

As a result of the Cold War, Nepal also conducted its foreign policy based on the policy of non-alignment and the Panchasheel principle. Nepal has been adopting the policy of non-alignment to this day. The current constitution has made the United Nations Charter, non-alignment, Panchasheel, international law and world peace its guiding principles.

Despite the increasing polarization in world politics in the past decade, Nepal has adopted a balanced and neutral policy. In the meantime, Nepal has not been without various strategic, military and tactical proposals from powerful countries at different times. Nepal did not want to be included in either the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) put forward by the US or the Global Security Initiative (GSI) put forward by China.

In the light of the Panchasheel principle, non-aligned foreign policy and the 10-point explanatory declaration passed by the parliament along with the MCC project, Nepal decided not to participate in the US program SPP, which is considered a structure of a military character. Instead, Nepal has always tried to keep itself non-aligned and neutral.

Probably because it did not want to join the strategic partnership of any power, Nepal could not achieve the expected success in mobilizing foreign capital required for economic development and prosperity. As a result, it became difficult for Nepal to advance its international cooperation on multilateral and economic issues as expected. In the first decade of this century, Nepal also tried to advance the concept of trilateral cooperation with India and China. However, due to the structural thinking and inequality of neighboring countries, it could not take concrete shape.

Primacy in Neighborhood Policy

Another important aspect of Nepal's foreign policy is primacy in neighborhood policy. Nepal has been giving high priority to its relations with India and China, which share direct borders. Nepal-India and Nepal-China relations have their own historical and characteristic features, which Nepal should analyze on the basis of its neighborhood policy.

In some specific contexts and situations, when Nepal cooperates closely with China, India becomes suspicious, and in other situations, when Nepal and India seek closer ties and exchanges, China becomes agitated. Moreover, Nepal's increasing cooperation with China has become a matter of even greater concern for India. There are many examples of Nepal's bilateral relations with another neighboring country being suspicious of the other neighbor. How to end such a situation is an important issue for Nepal.

China, India and Nepal relations should not be reduced to bilateral relations only. It is necessary to develop China, India and Nepal relations as bilateral, trilateral and multilateral relations. The proposal for China-India-Nepal trilateral cooperation that Nepal has been proposing should be viewed against this background. This will help build an environment of trust between the three countries and cooperate in areas of common interest.

Nepal should first and foremost pursue its neighborhood policy by keeping its national security and national interests at the forefront. Only then should we adopt a policy that addresses the interests of our neighbors. Moreover, while addressing the interests of our neighbors, we should consider how much it is supporting our national interests.

Maintaining diplomatic balance with neighbors who are indirectly competing for their strategic and tactical interests is the most challenging situation for Nepal.

Geopolitical challenges and opportunities

As discussed above, the current world scenario is complex and uncertain. The competition between the US and China has expanded to the structural level. The US is moving forward with a ‘winning’ strategy rather than a management approach to its competition with China. With Trump’s resurgence, protectionist policies have gained further momentum in the US. US President Trump has given great importance to transactional foreign policy. But the Indo-Pacific strategy has been more prominently expressed in the new US national security strategy.

Recently appointed US Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kapoor has stated during his hearing that he is prepared to work with the new government of Nepal formed after the election and that he will work with India to stop China’s expansion and influence in South Asia. In addition, US officials have also made public statements that the US will not accept the dominance of any one country in South Asia, which could further complicate the regional equation.

Meanwhile, in Japan, conservative leader Sanae Takaichi won a clear victory in the recent elections. And, she has put forward a policy of remilitarization of Japan and increase in defense spending, which seems to increase further tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. 

The improvement of China-India relations long after the Gawan Valley clash will play a positive role in the peace, stability and development of our region.  But what should not be forgotten here is that the main reason behind the improvement of relations between China and India is the change in the balance of power in the world. 

There has been no improvement in the structural differences between them and there is no possibility of such a relationship remaining harmonious in the near future.  At the recent Munich Security Conference, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had expressed his opinion in favor of a 'larger multipolar' world order, which shows that India is also aware of the new world order and the changing balance of power in Asia. 

Moreover, with the growing interest of the US in Nepal, convergence between India and the US towards China on some issues seems to be developing.  In this sense, Nepal has been faced with a challenge of how to manage and balance the trilateral interests and competition between the US, India and China.

Emphasis on multilateralism and multi-participation

Nepal has been a strong advocate of multilateral diplomacy based on its size and structural capacity. However, Nepal's participation in multilateral diplomatic forums has not expanded as expected. The United Nations is weakening. And, Nepal has not been able to pay enough attention to participating in newly developed structures like BRICS. Meanwhile, regional cooperation has not been as successful as expected due to the conflict and mismatch between India and Pakistan. SAARC has become almost dead. The issues of regional cooperation expected to be achieved through BIMSTEC and BBIN have been overshadowed.

In terms of international relations, it is finding it difficult for middle powers like Nepal to navigate the current complex geopolitical landscape and take effective steps. They are not able to adopt an appropriate strategy to pursue the goals of development and international cooperation while protecting their sovereignty. Probably, most small and medium-sized countries are going through a similar ‘dilemma’. These countries are searching for ways to address these challenges in their own relative terms.

In the current context of building a new world order, small and medium-sized countries should also get an opportunity to play their role in shaping international relations. For that, Nepal needs to take the initiative of dialogue and cooperation with organizations and countries that are in line with its characteristic features.

Even amidst the transitional uncertainty of the new world order, Nepal can strengthen its stance of non-alignment. In the current changing world scenario, all countries have started building alliances and partnerships of a different and mixed character than those of the past Cold War. In such a situation, multi-alignment, which can also include strategic and military features, is not suitable for Nepal. Instead, it is desirable for Nepal to adopt a policy of multi-engagement based on the spirit of non-alignment. This helps Nepal to stay away from military alliances by cooperating with all power centers on pressing issues such as economic, political and climate change.

Future direction

Nepal's foreign policy has long been guided by national interests rather than ideological trends or Western values. This policy is based on non-alignment and the Panchasheel, which has helped Nepal remain balanced among the great powers.

The interests of foreign power centers are permanent. They usually wait for the right time and opportunity to implement their policies and programs. We have directly experienced the political vacuum and transition period seen after the Gen-G movement, when these powers were more active than usual. The great powers see such transition periods as opportunities, which provide an opportunity to expand their influence in medium-sized countries like Nepal.

The forces that have emerged after the recent political changes seem to lack a clear political action plan and a long-term geopolitical vision. They seem to lack the ability to understand and analyze the complex geopolitical situation in depth, which adds to the challenge in policymaking that prioritizes national interests. Over time, this lack may be reflected in foreign policy formulation and decision-making processes.