A country’s foreign policy is deeply connected with its national security. I examine foreign policy from two approaches.

The national security umbrella encompasses numerous components, including factors like social unity, geographical location, and border peace.

Similarly, economic development is yet another factor influencing foreign policy. Even if the country has remained secure for an extended period, it has eventually been exploited by the rest of the world.

However, when a country demonstrates signs of improvement, subsequent challenges arise. Hence, every country should establish its connections with this in mind.

Nepal would not have survived its lengthy history without the diplomatic efforts of our ancestors.

They also employed social diplomatic skills to establish the nation as an independent entity on the global map of countries.

They achieved this, even if it involved reducing needs and sometimes increasing domestic production, ultimately attaining self-sufficiency.

Our country has two significant neighbors, each possessing distinct traits. These two countries are not identical.

These two civilizations rank among the greatest globally. In terms of population, these countries are respectively the first and second largest in the world.

They represent the largest markets both economically and in terms of market volume. Thus, we must maintain a balanced friendship with neighboring countries.

Our foreign policy experts and scholars have long recognized that our security is inherently linked to our ability to define the security interests of others.

We should not compromise our security interests, but above all, we can be secure when we consider the security interests of others as well. This is achievable only through maintaining balance with them.

However, this equilibrium has eluded us. We have sustained an imbalance in this regard, and if that balance is disrupted, any country is at risk, potentially experiencing a tragic event.

Now, Ukraine is widely recognized as a free country, with its freedom respected by all.

However, Ukraine was unable to address Russian security interests. There exists a national need for them to seek development from the West.

Because this balance could not be maintained at any point, a situation of confrontation and war has emerged.

Consequently, in similar cases, we have advocated for a peaceful solution to the Ukraine problem.

We oppose any country’s war or intervention in Ukraine. This policy is grounded in the United Nations Charter Declaration and aligns with our foreign policy.

In the context of Nepal, we resemble learned professors when in positions of authority.

As soon as we are slightly removed from that responsibility, we begin raising questions like innocent students, without allowing for a cooling-off period of one to two months or even a year.

When faced with such questions, I often reflect on my teachings as a professor. What were my insights? How did I perceive this issue? It appears that they did not consider these aspects.

Due to the instability in Nepal, many people assume responsibility for short periods.

However, the positive aspect of this is that if everyone takes responsibility, when one encounters an issue, there’s a collective effort to resolve it.

This situation is significant, underscoring the necessity for political parties to mature.

While our nation is not inherently small, due to the presence of two major countries nearby, we are perceived as such.

In both countries, stability and single-party governments have prevailed for extended periods. We are hastily establishing relations in different countries, even on a party basis.

Our standpoint should emphasize facilitation over neutrality. Walking in alignment with the principles of peace seems appropriate.

While there may be a semblance of balance on paper, in practice, agreements with influential countries tend to transform our political parties into satellites of surrounding political entities. This is an aspect that warrants contemplation.

There is a growing tendency to involve foreign entities in domestic political disputes.

When summoned, foreigners intervene, and if interests diverge, relationships are strained.

This trend impacts aspects like national freedom, dignity, and autonomy. Thus, we must establish the boundaries of our national interests through communication among all parties.

This might appear apprehensive, but our nation’s safety rests on our understanding of history and experience.

Despite adverse circumstances, our country has managed to preserve its national sovereignty, unity, and integrity, rendering panic unnecessary.

However, we must focus on bolstering national unity. As long as political parties fail to unite, the divisive policies between national parties, especially regarding foreign policy or seeking foreign support, are unfortunate for our nation.

We should avoid such paths and prevent others from venturing down them.

Establishing a national consensus on foreign policy matters is imperative. Geopolitical shifts are underway, and while we traditionally interpreted the term ‘geopolitics’ militarily, it now connects with development. A dialogue with intellectuals is crucial.

Presently, countries globally face challenges in maintaining relations and policies amid the dominance of major powers.

This encompasses defense, economic cooperation, bilateral relations, and diplomacy.

Rejecting this approach risks straining bilateral relations with those countries.

Thus, we must glean valuable aspects from various countries’ policies. Our discussions often deviate to unrelated foreign policy matters.

I’ve consistently understood a non-aligned foreign policy as refraining from joining military alliances.

However, I disagree with the notion that it implies neutrality.

A nation possesses its conscience and the responsibility to voice it. If a nation is unable to express itself, its survival is jeopardized.

In fact, there’s a proposal to integrate the Office of the Non-Resident Nepali (ONM) into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which we are considering for restructuring.

Therefore, it’s every nation’s right to express opinions, and this right should be respected universally.

However, as soon as neutrality is declared, it implies conflict between two countries.

Our standpoint should emphasize facilitation over neutrality. Walking in alignment with the principles of peace seems appropriate.

Achieving equilibrium is not a mathematical formula for maintaining relationships.

Much of our business is conducted with India, and it’s imperative to never let our relationship with them deteriorate. Simultaneously, we must also leverage our ties with China.

Isolation won’t foster development; we need the cooperation of our neighbors. If we unite and establish an internal consensus on this matter, I don’t foresee significant objections from the relevant countries. Even those countries have yet to grasp Nepal fully.

India acknowledges the natural scope of Nepal’s relationship with China, and China reciprocates regarding its relationship with India. Trade is also a factor between them.

This approach resonates with other nations, indicating that if we don’t strive to balance our relationship policies and internal politics, mature neighboring countries exist as well.

They have experts who think critically rather than forming opinions haphazardly. I believe these nations would align with Nepal’s interests.

Regarding bilateral and multilateral relations, Nepal has consistently prioritized their importance, irrespective of whether they pertain to Nepal or not.

Regardless of the numerous doors on our two sides, we should keep them open. The process of development must be accelerated.

Recent concerns have emerged over foreign policy. Currently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs encompasses 283 positions and oversees 40 embassies and missions.

The nation derives enduring advantages from this visit. I wish to assure you that by adopting a similar approach with our northern neighbors, we will take the initiative to broaden and fortify our relations in the country.

The ministry operates two departments, with the International Tourism Committee playing a role.

In fact, there’s a proposal to integrate the Office of the Non-Resident Nepali (ONM) into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which we are considering for restructuring.

Two divisional desks are being contemplated within the ministry. Addressing the laborers who have left the country is an issue that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will tackle separately. Efforts are underway to ensure their safety.

Despite the number of countries, their primary goal remains exporting goods abroad.

However, we must also focus on economic diplomacy, monitoring local industrialists, offering support, attracting foreign investment, and providing international assistance to Nepal’s industrialists. Our efforts extend to these areas as well.

Recently, I chaired an inter-ministerial secretary-level meeting during which we endeavored to consolidate the agendas of the pertinent ministries concerning the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister to China. What are the viable agendas, and what takes precedence over altering the agenda?

Taking all aspects into consideration, the government has progressed. It will sustain relations with neighboring countries, considering the longevity of these relationships.

The Prime Minister’s successful visit to India covered several areas, including connectivity, transit, and trade matters.

The nation derives enduring advantages from this visit. I wish to assure you that by adopting a similar approach with our northern neighbors, we will take the initiative to broaden and fortify our relations in the country.

This country is on the path from being an emerging economy to becoming one of the largest economies.

(Minister of Foreign Minister NP Saud’s speech at a program titled “Challenges and Opportunities in Nepal’s Foreign Policy” in Pavilion Hall, Durbar Marga in Kathmandu)