Following the recent elections and the Rastriya Swatantra Party’s (RSP) landslide victory, the debate on Nepal’s foreign policy has resurfaced. Yet the fundamentals of foreign policy remain intact because they are built on the notion of defending national interests. The tenets of national interests entail at least three factors—core, vital and peripheral. While core and vital interests are directly related to the existence of the state (political, economic, social and territorial), peripheral interests, for their part, are secondary but contribute immensely in consolidating vital and core interests.

That said, all these interests are intrinsic and interlinked. Hence, it can be argued that national interests are permanent. Among other reasons, this is why foreign policy largely remains static even with subsequent changes in the government(s). What may change, however, is the process by which these interests are fulfilled. Foreign policy orientation and approaches/strategies need to be readjusted or reoriented when major political shifts take place, whether through revolution, the arrival of new political actors, or any other crisis that may exert a deeper impact on the political, economic and social structure of a country.

Foreign policy might also need to be (re)adjusted when a neighbourhood is hit by a severe economic and political crisis or entangled in a broader geopolitical engagement. Likewise, any major shift in global geopolitics and geo-economics impacting existing power structures in world politics could force countries to revisit their foreign policy priorities. Taken together, these three conditions are only partly available at the moment, and they do not necessarily demand major overhauls in Nepal’s foreign policy. Nepal changed its foreign policy priorities with every political change beginning in 1950.

If we consider the aforementioned factors, Nepal’s foreign policy priority might not necessarily change with the arrival of new political actors, mainly the RSP. For all practical reasons, the rise of the RSP has not only changed the political landscape, but it has also contributed to some sort of regime change, that is, the regime of the ‘resident’ political parties has crumbled down. These parties have their own way of running foreign policy—largely normative, reactive and guided by the constitutional framework. Yet occasionally, they have also sidestepped constitutional provisions and gone for geopolitical adventurism precisely because some of them were ideologically driven. The RSP—for its part—is new in the context of foreign policy. It does not necessarily carry any ideological baggage, but there is a fear that it might be carrying some geopolitical baggage. If the latter proves to be true, the country will face serious problems in navigating the complex geopolitical situation.

Based on the RSP’s manifesto and recent statement by its top leader, the party is said to believe in developmental diplomacy. This certainly is a great idea. Moreover, it seeks to convert Nepal into a ‘vibrant bridge’ and prefers to go beyond neighbourhood in the country’s engagement at the international level. But such expressions are not new. Apart from a vibrant bridge—which is not exactly an entrepot—might have its own pros and cons given Nepal’s location between two competing and conflicting neighbours. Whether Nepal as a bridge will be able to carry the loads remains to be seen. Moreover, what is important for all foreign policy observers is how they want to move beyond the region. Whether that move would be able to strike a fine geopolitical balance in the neighbourhood and beyond is another factor that needs to be carefully examined.

That being said, what certainly worries all of us is how the upcoming government positions itself in the rapidly evolving geopolitical and geo-economic situation. Given the volatile nature of international politics, complex geopolitics, and the weakening of the rules-based international order and its instruments. Today, we have reached the point where global politics is dominated by the US, but its paraphernalia are driven by the re-emerging powers—India and China. Interesting as it may be, these two neighbouring countries of Nepal have dominated global geopolitics for more than 2,000 years.

The territorial survival of the Nepali state is contingent on its relations with its neighbours, while societal survival is dependent on the region. This is a complex dilemma that we have developed over the years, creating many problems in the conduct of foreign policy. They together demand that whoever comes to power rebuild and reinvigorate relations in the neighbourhood and beyond. But sadly, we have only created more problems in the neighbourhood in one way or another in recent years. Perhaps the time has come to move ahead rather than be stuck with the issues that do not yield results and only sour relations.

The contentious issues can only be resolved by enhancing trust on both sides, which is not the case now. The new government must prioritise trust-building and uphold the agreements inked by the previous government, as it is the legitimate ‘inheritor’ of the state. Nepal must embrace both the BRI and the MCC, whether one likes them or not, without jeopardising our national interests.

Apart from geopolitics, the upcoming government’s priority should be economic development, and foreign policy should be oriented in that direction. We have long been ranting about economic diplomacy, but it has not really reaped the benefits. Today, global politics has transformed, with globalisation weaponised and replaced by geo-economics. Likewise, international cooperation is spiralling down, FDI is declining, and development assistance from traditional development partners in the West, as well as from other countries, is declining. Whatever support is coming is only used for the civilising mission, which certainly is not Nepal’s priority. These circumstances warrant exploring funds to create economic opportunities within the country rather than signing labour agreements. This is how we exercise autonomy in foreign policy.

West Asia is boiling, and job opportunities in the West are declining as well. Keeping these developments in mind, Nepal has to engage more with neighbours whose economic growth is booming and are emerging as major markets—and will continue to be so (provided they balance geopolitics) in the days to come. It is high time we adopted a pragmatic approach to foreign policy, but that does not mean we have to be a geopolitical launching pad or be trapped in security alliances floated by various powers. In this regard, however, what is important is avoiding unnecessary geopolitical adventurism in foreign policy when global governance is at its lowest level, and the order itself is in disarray. Unlike in the past, foreign policy should not be used either to remain in power or to get into the helm of power.

Scrapping the provisions of the political appointment of ambassadors is just as vital. This has gravely spoiled Nepal’s foreign policy professionalism. The time has come to appoint diplomats as ambassadors. Yet the fact remains that foreign policy is the prerogative of the executive head of the government. This is also a high time for us to change the narratives in our foreign policy. We cannot and should not be victims of small and landlocked state syndrome and get rid of Leo Rose’s survival trap. Perhaps, proper geopolitical codes should not be crafted for that.