That small power countries face an uphill task to stay relevant in the global order, where symbiotic play is the name of the game, is a given. Various theories prevail on how such nations should be guided. At one extreme is the Swiss model of neutrality, with a rules-based liberal worldview. Whereas, on the other end, is the model of South Korean realist strategic-alliance—with the backing of powerful mainstream nations.

Nepal, at various stages, swings to romanticising both models, but never has been quite close to adhering to either. We have our reasons for why we should remain different from the two. Nepal has maintained equidistance as the long-prevailing mantra in foreign policy. The theory implicitly meant a focus on building reliance upon internal strength on all frontiers.

Times changed. We grappled to keep up with the pace of building strengths. Conflict at home occurred in an era where nations were busy participating in globalisation. Nepal wobbled on amid the challenges while rooting on to our national interests and pursuing customised notions of security, human rights and development.

Too often, we are laden with the pressure of the past, obstructing ourselves from charting a course towards a fresh perspective. While it is essential to pay heed to the lessons learnt, our turning point in time calls for a need to re-focus on our foreign policy substance and conduct.

Business-like alliances have come of age as the way forward for many countries as they move from a policy of non-alignment to pursuing strategic autonomy. Nepal’s foreign policy is in need of a fresh lens to strategise the channelling of investments, elimination of poverty, reduction of inequalities, and to tackle the problems associated with out-migration and climate change. Each of these issues requires dependable collaborations.

The substance

It is only recently that we have come to embrace the theory of equiproximity. This entails implementing proximity not just geographically, but also by virtue of norms. How this theory is to be executed is our present-day challenge. Fundamentally, this requires building upon earnest and confident partnerships backed by strong domestic institutions. Our traditional bastions in being able to strike relevance to the outer world have mainly been cultural, natural or philosophical; in other words—mountains, wildlife, the buddha and peacekeeping.

While these are still relevant, it is now pertinent to transcend them as it is becoming increasingly important to diversify and innovate. To this end, endeavours to encapsulate Nepal’s relevance globally in the realms of commerce and security would be weighty steps. Two examples in this regard. On commerce, a robust strategy to connect our contributions to the global value of the supply chain in trade would bear significance. Likewise, the power of building proximate cyber partnerships for security interests is another instance, which, if strategised well, could be a powerful tool to level up our standing in this data-driven information age.

Nepal being landlocked may have been a visible barrier over centuries. Still, the present digital world allows us to build strengths in ways beyond the traditional notion of access to physical raw materials.

The negotiating powers of a small power nation can be elevated. The International Law of the Sea, with its provisions to safeguard the interest of landlocked countries, continue to be relevant today. Yet, what we have been faltering with is the ability of our domestic power to negotiate. The equation put—we have to be able to offer some good for others if we are to seek results for our own. In sum, harnessing the potentials of the fourth industrial revolution for modern-day elements of power would be an impactful transformation for Nepal.

The conduct

Guided by the rule of law, transparency and accountability, our outreach of foreign policy interests would attain refinement by streamlining the thoroughly driven forward-looking national process. In a post-conflict democratic setting, varied notions stemming from pluralism pertaining to foreign policy is a natural and evolutionary process. A more pronounced groundwork would be of value at this juncture for structuring our discourses, setting modalities of critique and establishing suitable forums for foreign policy reviews. It is of common parlance, yet a pending arduous task in our context, to deliver the conduct through the ideal two-fold processes; first, the understanding that the domestic process means prudent navigation through divergences among us, and second, striking the symphony of national coherence as a conclusive element to heighten the negotiating power while dealing with the outer world.

Moving past the times of foreign policy initiatives limited at intergovernmental levels, cooperation needs to be broadened and supported at public-private levels and at experts’ level for channelling the vast range of work at all dimensions. Our qualified Nepali youths may well be residing abroad, but innovative ways exist to enthuse their capabilities to be put in the goals for national interests.

The transient international order

One significant global shift to take into account while we factor in our foreign policy substance and conduct is that we face a time where challenges to the spirit of multilateralism are being considered as a severe threat. Straightforward calls are being made by contesting powers—on this side or the other. A solid macro-level vision is now a sine qua non to be above and beyond what may be a trajectory of polarised power politics among new actors. Global analysts have pointed out that the rise of unilateralism is after all, not new. Though the discourse tends to be largely drowned by the treatment and commotion as if this is novel and as if we are suddenly lost in the traction. The reality is, this is an age-old cycle of politics stemming from the time when humans learnt to walk. True to the earliest forms of inter-tribal conflict, empires, cities and modern-day nations have undergone the same tussle of the powerful versus the powerless. Smaller power entities/nations always had to make choices amid the theatrical display of the interests of the bigger ones. The question for us is how have the smaller ones displayed wisdom enough to elevate their own level of negotiation—that is, to survive and thrive on.