While unveiling a draft national commitment framework, based on the manifestos and commitment papers unveiled by six national parties, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers labelled Nepal as a “buffer state” that aims to turn into a “vibrant bridge” between India and China.

The document says this will happen through multilateral economic partnerships and connectivity mechanisms, thereby ensuring national security and stability.

But several foreign policy observers question the use of the terminology—“buffer state”—which they say is not contextual, and does not represent the current geopolitical realities. Some of them also raised objections to the use of the word “equidistance” in the conduct of foreign policy, referring to this sentence: “With the belief that military alliances, arms races, and war hinder peace, we will follow a policy of equidistance and equi-proximity with all countries, reads the commitment paper.”

“In international politics and diplomacy, each word used has a specific meaning. Nepal has never referred to its geopolitical position as a buffer state, and neither have its neighbouring friendly nations used such terminology,” former foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali wrote on Facebook. “There is no endless enmity or conflict between our neighbours, which would make such a term relevant.”

When Gyawali was foreign minister in 2022, the National Planning Commission and Institute of Foreign Affairs, which is under the aegis of the foreign ministry, published a research paper titled, “From a buffer towards a bridge, Nepal’s new foreign policy.”

According to the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, a buffer state is a small, typically independent country situated between two larger, rival, or potentially hostile powers, functioning as a neutral zone to prevent direct conflict. So does Nepal qualify as a buffer state?

“Nepal’s traditional identity of a buffer zone needs redefinition to adapt to the changing economic, security and political developments in the neighbourhood,” says Dev Raj Dahal, a political analyst.

Foreign policy analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta believes that just because Nepal lies between two great countries does not mean we have to call ourselves a buffer state.

“Identifying as a buffer state certainly does not help to build our confidence,” Bhatta told the Post. “The term might be correct theoretically, but the broader implications of classifying ourselves as a buffer state are problematic.”

To Bhatta, the term is a product of competitive geopolitics of colonial era, negative, and also undermines Nepal’s sovereign status.

“Perhaps this is why King Birendra rejected the idea of a buffer state and rather identified Nepal as a country that connects two great civilisations of Asia: India and China,” he said.

Former prime minister Baburam Bhattarai once called for the transformation of Nepal from a buffer state to a vibrant bridge between India and China. In this context, the Chinese had pushed the idea of “trilateral cooperation” between Nepal, India and China. Later, the Chinese also proposed ‘China, India plus one’ in the South Asia region. “But India was not keen on either trilateral cooperation or the ‘plus one’ arrangements,” said a retired Nepali diplomat who asked to remain anonymous.

Most of the foreign policy experts who spoke to the Post also expressed reservations over words used by the government, like “equidistance” and “equi-proximity”.

“The dimensions of our relationships may vary based on issues, partnerships, and contexts. In that sense, our relationships may not always follow the same scale or volume,” said Gyawali.

After the political changes of 2006, the government had formed a high-level committee to suggest the new foreign policy direction when KP Sharma Oli was deputy prime minister and minister for foreign affairs. The panel submitted its report, which for the first time recommended pursuing the policy of “equidistance and equi-proximity”.

Bhatta believes the two words are jargons and they do not characterise Nepal’s realities.

“Many of these terminologies were floated merely for the purpose of conducting what scholars call ‘diplomacy by words,” he said. “Nepal is neither small nor is it a buffer. It is, rather, a vibrant and thriving middle-sized sovereign state that carries thousands of years of political and cultural history.”