History shows that many countries have faced difficult circumstances because they failed to maintain geopolitical balance. The most striking example today is Ukraine. A balanced foreign policy is particularly important for small, landlocked and weaker states. Such a policy helps protect and promote vital national interests including a country’s sovereignty and prosperity.
Despite centuries of geopolitical competition and external challenges, Nepal has remained an independent nation, largely due to its diplomatic prudence. However, the current geopolitical rivalry and the self-interested agendas of major powers have placed increasing pressure on weaker states. Against this backdrop, this article examines how Nepal can safeguard and advance its key national interests while navigating an increasingly competitive geopolitical environment.
The Balen (Balendra) government which secured overwhelming public support in the general election held on the foundation of the Gen Z movement has emphasized a balanced foreign policy centred on national interests.
After decades of political instability that caused fluctuations in Nepal’s foreign policy, the first priority must be to rebuild trust and confidence among neighbouring countries and the international community. Setting the goal of a balanced foreign policy is one challenge but implementing it is equally difficult and complex.
The first prerequisite is to ensure domestic political stability because foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics.
Only when the country’s internal political posture is strong can its external diplomacy become equally effective.
How can Nepal achieve balance?
King Prithvi Narayan Shah observed long ago that “Nepal is like a yam between two boulders” and advised maintaining equal relations with the rulers of the north and the south. Even then, Nepal’s complex geopolitical position underscored the importance of external balance. Before attacking the eastern states of Vijayapur and Ambapur, he wrote to Warren Hastings, Governor of the East India Company, stating that once those territories were freed from Chautariya Buddhikarna Rai, Nepal would continue paying the same amount of tribute that the Company had previously received from them. This was an attempt to preserve geopolitical balance.
Later, during the tenure of Bhimsen Thapa, the Nepal-British War began over the issue of tribute. Although complete balance in foreign relations may not be achievable, failing to maintain even a minimum level of balance can create serious challenges to national interests.
During the Panchayat era, Nepal maintained external balance by playing the “China card” and the “India card,” while diversifying its foreign relations. After the restoration of democracy, Nepal adopted a more India-oriented foreign policy. Following the establishment of the republic, the country alternated between policies perceived as favouring China and India. This inconsistency also affected domestic politics and contributed to prolonged instability.
During both periods, external interference intensified. Political instability undermined long-term strategic thinking in foreign policy causing Nepal to miss more than two decades of opportunities for economic development.
As a result, Nepal remained one of South Asia’s poorest countries and became excessively dependent on a single neighbour.
At the end of the Panchayat system, Nepal’s economic dependence on India stood at around 23 percent. Since then, that dependence has nearly tripled. Under such circumstances, pursuing a balanced foreign policy becomes extremely difficult.
Practising balance in South Asia
Many countries seek to balance their foreign policy by engaging external balancing powers.
India has moved away from its traditional policy of non-alignment and adopted a strategy of multi-alignment, establishing strategic partnerships with more than two dozen major powers.
Mongolia has sought to balance Russia and China by embracing the United States as its “third neighbour.”
Bangladesh has expanded relations with China and Pakistan to counterbalance India.
Pakistan has sought foreign policy balance by strengthening ties with China, the United States and Arab countries in light of its rivalry with India.
Sri Lanka and the Maldives have also expanded relations with China in an effort to balance India.
Nepal similarly invited the United States into its diplomatic framework as British colonial rule in India was ending and later expanded relations with Israel under the same strategy.
More recently, India itself appears to have adopted a similar approach.
Smaller South Asian countries have often faced pressure from India when attempting to pursue balanced foreign policies in support of their national interests.
Nepal has been the country most affected by this. It has faced four economic blockades and one military embargo imposed by India. Nepal’s proposal to declare the country a Zone of Peace, maintain friendly relations with all countries and pursue economic development was also rejected by India.
By establishing diplomatic relations with the United States and later with Israel, Nepal also sought to achieve greater strategic balance.
India, meanwhile has successfully maintained autonomy, flexibility and balance by developing strategic partnerships with both the United States and Russia despite the two powers being geopolitical rivals. This approach enabled India to pursue an independent position during the Russia-Ukraine war and continue purchasing Russian oil.
How can balance be achieved?
A person crossing a wooden footbridge over a river must pay attention to two things.
First, the bridge itself must remain stable. One cannot afford to lose balance.
Second, domestic politics must be stable. Only then can diplomatic engagement become more dynamic.
Without active diplomacy, neither balance nor development can be achieved.
Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Tarique Rahman recently visited Malaysia and China, securing agreements on investment, trade, worker protection and the China-Myanmar-Bangladesh Economic Corridor. Only through high-level diplomatic engagement, negotiations and mutual understanding can countries like Nepal and Bangladesh accelerate economic development. Diplomatic inactivity risks leaving countries behind in geopolitical competition, increasing their isolation and eventually forcing them to accept conditions imposed by more powerful states.
Only sustained diplomatic engagement allows a country to seize international opportunities in a timely manner and advance its national interests.
Nepal should place national interests at the centre of its foreign policy while pursuing mature and balanced diplomacy with major powers including India, China and the United States. It should work toward long-term plans based on mutual benefit and trust.
In today’s geopolitical competition, all three major powers expect appropriate respect and recognition from other countries. Powerful states have also been known to bully weaker countries, reduce assistance, impose blockades or force them into conflicts.
For that reason, countries like Nepal should not hesitate to show appropriate diplomatic courtesy, respect and protocol in their dealings with major powers.
Institutional strengthening and maturity
A bitter reality in Nepal is that diplomacy has often been driven more by the discretion of political leaders than by institutional processes or professional expertise.
External influence on Nepal’s diplomacy is another enduring challenge. In some cases, treaties and agreements have prioritised political interests over national interests. At other times, hasty decisions taken without strategic foresight have had negative consequences for the country and its people. Ignoring institutional decision-making in foreign affairs has reflected a lack of maturity.
Many agreements have become deeply controversial because they were driven by partisan, factional or personal interests rather than the national interest.
There have also been instances where politicians made careless public statements on foreign affairs, held inappropriate meetings with foreign representatives, violated diplomatic protocol or pursued external relations based on party interests instead of national priorities. Such actions have undermined balance in Nepal’s foreign relations.
There are many examples where such behaviour has not only weakened governments but also contributed to their collapse. If external balance is disrupted, the consequences will inevitably affect domestic politics as well.
Protecting national interests while carefully navigating competing interests among major powers is an extremely challenging task. In diplomacy, the choice of words, timing, attire, body language, agenda, presentation and level of respect shown can all influence bilateral relations.
Nepal can achieve balance by conducting its foreign relations on the basis of diversification, flexibility, self-reliance and national interest while pursuing mutual benefit.
Since threats to national security often originate from external sources, Nepal must analyse these challenges carefully, gather timely intelligence and respond effectively by ensuring close coordination between its intelligence services and diplomatic institutions.
Technology also plays an increasingly important role in diplomacy. Nepal should focus on how modern technologies can be used to make its diplomatic efforts more effective.
