Nepal geopolitics: opportunities, threats and challenges after COVID-19

In this context, the most pressing foreign policy issue for Nepal is how to deal with three powers – India, China, and the West and one region, the Gulf (although the Gulf itself is also divided). Can it turn geopolitical challenges into opportunities, or will it be forced again to adjust its foreign policy as per the requirement of its neighbors and the so-called development partners? For all practical reasons, having an independent foreign policy in this interdependent world is certainly difficult yet Nepal is positioned to have all the capacities to navigate from the existing geopolitical undercurrents and defend its interests– core, vital, peripheral, and other time-bound ones. In this regard, neither Nepal should neither be a prisoner of geography nor should it hold the view that geopolitics is only for the big powers. In fact, what should certainly be kept in mind yet again is that in the geopolitical struggles, big powers always need small and medium-sized states on their side to advance their strategic goals. Also, it is not always the states which would be driving geopolitics in the future, in contrast, they will largely be influenced by the private companies, corporate houses, and individuals. Therefore, geopolitics has more than one dimension. For all practical reasons such responses, at the outset, cannot be pursued, if pursued, they can only narrowly define national interest in today’s context. The system of international politics is not only anarchical but also hierarchal. They may be suitable for the survival of the regime, but for the state, we certainly need to understand which direction the threats are coming from. For the state like Nepal, we should, focus more on balancing the threats rather than power. When the former is suitable for states like Nepal, power is suited for powerful states. This is where it becomes important regarding developing future alignments. While some of them could certainly be beneficial, others may come up with their own security commitments/obligations and may even pose risks as well. Hence, comparative advantage should be factored whilst doing so as it would alone enhance the bargaining capacity and allows us to reject certain things that are not congruent with national interests. We must understand the fact that there are competitive offers for developmental projects, and international relations are becoming competitive. Foreign policy and relations with the states should not be decided in the street or under duress of the crowd as has been the case since 1990 when foreign policy has been taken to the street for political benefit. China and India is politically competitive, economically cooperative and militarily confronting militarizing the Himalayas. Human capitals are departing as migrant workers vacating national industrialization. Politicization is rampant. Absence from the country and non-appearance on electoral rights of migrated citizens is not signs of stability and a resolution of transition. “National strategic needs” is not national priorities. Lack of strategic thoughts and strategic national planning is driving Nepal as diplomatically ineffective, politically untrustworthy, geopolitically inefficient and economically inefficacious. Opportunity for the political party leaders is still prevalent to find a political way out but with less time.