KATHMANDU: The labyrinth of geopolitical tug-of-war in a purely volatile world with its own set of norms of values backed up by economic mightiness and ideological variations are creating tension–making the survival of the economically vulnerable countries on edge of the sword.

Nepal, which resides on Graham Allison’s Thucydides Trap of US-China potential conflict; on which rising power always challenges the status quo making the war inevitable like that of the Peloponnesian War.

The multiple variations of security and development arrangements in the transition world from bipolar to multi-polar where rules are often set and broken for their vested interest make the international system anarchic.

The biased interpretation of the world order and ganging up against one another puts the small states at greater risk.

In this regard, China’s new Global Security Initiative (GSI) is something to look upon as it was first announced in the Bao Forum in April 2022 and has been laid under themes of maintaining world peace and preventing conflicts and war (same as that of Indo-Pacific Strategy in Indian-Pacific Region or NATO in Europe), upholding multilateralism and international solidarity and building a better world beyond the pandemic.

Above all, based on the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s website; it foretells that the GSI is the avenue to safeguard world peace and tranquility.

On August 2022, Nepali Foreign Minister Narayan Khadka held a talk with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Qingdao, Shangdong—where Minister Khadka reiterated about Nepal’s usual agenda; Nepal’s firm commitment to a one-China policy will never allow Nepali soil against China, Nepal’s support to China’s legitimate position on internal affairs such as Tibet and Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

But here is the issue that puts our serious attention on the Chinese side mentioning Nepal’s agreement with the concept of the Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Security Initiative (GSI) in terms of her participation and study.

This is something thrilling in the contemporary scenario because this sounds more like participation in a military strategic venture rather than more focused on the humanitarian scenario.

The Nepali side till now has been mute on this issue of her participation in GSI.

The clarity on GSI has yet to be identified. However, the body language of the GSI seems likely to Chinese venture of security architecture equal to that of the US-NATO or Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Way Forward

We had recently rejected the State Partnership Program (SPP) claiming it as the US security umbrella and silence on GSI could challenge our harmonization of adopting policies in foreign affairs.

The global political environment and our foreign policy strategy of non-aligned hardly reconciles and frequent proxy wars in Nepal under the domain of the US-China policies put us at a greater hazard of international survival.

Every initiative in Nepal now has either an American or Chinese-made label and choosing the best policy to achieve our vested interest is needed.

Secondly, left, center left or rightist orientation in foreign policies often seems suicidal —-more urgency of the unilateral foreign policies adopted from the common understanding of all major political parties in Nepal.

To conclude, we can spare time for left-right debate inside Nepal policies but we need an internationalism approach in our foreign policies supported by all political parties in Nepal that reconcile with the changing global environment.

Above all, Nepal should clear its stand on this current GSI issue.