When I heard my friend, Minister of Defence General Mr. Chan Chun Sing, during the debate in Parliament on the Presidential address on 26 September, say that Singapore’s strongest defence and deterrence is not any weapon system, but its people’s “collective will” to fight for what they believe in — “That together, we must contribute as a whole-of-nation to safeguard our future” — it resonated deeply.
He also touched upon neutrality as a foreign policy being a dangerous concept for small states, stating that trying to maintain it would be akin to being pulled by two giants — any squeeze from one side would push Singapore towards the other, only promoting more pressure to return to a “balancing position.”
He added, “We must not fall into the trap of our own echo chamber to confirm our own biases. While we will not take sides, we must take positions based on principles – principles that best promote Singapore’s long-term survival and success. We are ultimately responsible for our own destiny, but we must earn our right to determine that destiny. Only when we are successful can we have the right to choose our path, and not be held ransom or hostage by others. Then we can truly say that we will neither be bribed nor bullied.”
This, of course, reflects Singapore’s geographic position and its principled domestic strategies and foreign policy that have brought success. For Nepal, geography is different — a small state between emerging power China and rising power India — but the global power rivalry between the US and China presents comparable challenges in shaping domestic strategies and foreign policy engagements.
Transparency serves sovereignty. Secret agreements and opaque deals undermine public trust and parliamentary authority. Every significant foreign engagement should face public scrutiny. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for arrangements that might compromise national interest.
The world will continue to transform — faster and more forcefully in the years to come — and Nepal must prepare for a considerably wider range of scenarios, especially as the Interim Administration searches for a new political-security order. Domestically, the national strategic environment is marked by fear, with traditional political parties being disowned by the people and unseasoned youth rising on the stage following the Gen Z uprising.
To anticipate and respond to both domestic and international challenges, Nepal must understand the geopolitics of South Asia deeply and the global landscape wisely, formulating strategies that ensure internal cohesion and uphold national principles.
Nepal stands at a crossroads. Sandwiched between China and India, and caught in the gravitational pull of the great power rivalry between the US and China, Nepal faces a question that will define its future: Should it practice neutrality or adopt a principled foreign policy?
While these terms are often used interchangeably, the distinction between them could determine whether Nepal becomes a prosperous, sovereign nation or merely a buffer state in someone else’s game.
The Neutrality Trap
Neutrality sounds appealing in theory. Maintain equidistance from all powers, they say. Don’t take sides. Keep everyone happy. But this seemingly safe path often leads to a dangerous place: paralysis and irrelevance.
True neutrality requires treating all parties equally, regardless of their actions or our interests. It means we would respond identically to a neighbour that respects our sovereignty and one that encroaches upon it. It demands we give equal consideration to investments that empower our people and those that trap us in debt. It asks us to be blind to whether agreements enhance our autonomy or diminish it.
In practice, neutrality often becomes a cover for weakness. When we refuse to articulate clear principles about what we stand for, we invite others to define our interests for us. When we fail to distinguish between partnerships that respect our sovereignty and those that undermine it, we become not neutral but directionless.
Nepal’s geography makes pure neutrality impossible anyway. We cannot be equally distant from India when we share an open border, intertwined economies, and deep cultural ties. We cannot pretend China’s infrastructure ambitions affect us the same way they affect distant nations. And we cannot ignore that US-China rivalry increasingly shapes the regional order within which we must operate.
The Case for Principled Foreign Policy
A principled foreign policy is different. It establishes clear criteria based on national interest, sovereignty, and long-term prosperity, then applies these consistently across all relationships. It is not anti-anyone; it is pro-Nepal.
What might such principles look like? Sovereignty is non-negotiable. Any agreement, investment, or partnership must enhance — not compromise — our decision-making autonomy. This means scrutinizing all foreign military cooperation, being transparent about security agreements, and ensuring Parliament exercises proper oversight. The recent State Partnership Program (SPP) controversy demonstrated what happens when we fail this test.
Economic partnerships must empower, not entrap. We should welcome investment from any source that creates jobs, transfers technology, and uses transparent financing. We should be wary of projects that saddle future generations with unsustainable debt, regardless of their origin.
This applies equally to China’s global governance theory through the Global Common Shared Future concept that upholds the Belt and Road Initiative, the Millennium Challenge Compacts, funding through INGOs, or any other initiative.
Strategic autonomy requires diversification. Depending too heavily on any single power is a vulnerability. A principled approach means actively cultivating relationships with India, China, the US, Europe, and multilateral institutions — not to play them against each other, but to ensure no single partner can dictate terms.
Engaging to maintain neutrality and “balance” without clear principles will only invite contesting powers to apply more pressure, trying to shift the so-called “balancing point.”
Transparency serves sovereignty. Secret agreements and opaque deals undermine public trust and parliamentary authority. Every significant foreign engagement should face public scrutiny. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for arrangements that might compromise national interest.
Regional stability is a national interest. Nepal prospers when South Asia prospers. A principled foreign policy supports regional cooperation, peaceful resolution of disputes, and connectivity that benefits all neighbors—not infrastructure that serves only the interests of external powers.
Navigating the India-China Dynamic
India and China’s competition presents both risks and opportunities. A neutral approach would pretend their rivalry doesn’t affect us and treat both identically. A principled approach acknowledges the reality while protecting national interests.
With India, the special and unique relationship demands both special consideration and clear boundaries. The open border, cultural ties, and economic integration make India naturally significant. A principled policy would deepen this relationship while firmly establishing that geographic proximity does not mean political subordination. The 2015 unofficial blockade was a test—proof that even close relationships require explicit understandings about sovereignty and mutual respect.
With China, massive infrastructure investments offer development opportunities but require careful management. A principled approach would welcome connectivity projects that genuinely serve Nepali interests while maintaining vigilance regarding debt sustainability, environmental impact, and ensuring that projects employ and train Nepali workers—rather than simply importing Chinese labor.
The key is applying the same standards to both. If we question the security implications of agreements with one neighbor, we must apply equal scrutiny to the other. Transparency in financing Nepal’s development—whether from China, India, the U.S., trilateral arrangements, INGOs, bilaterals, or multilaterals—must be demanded uniformly.
The U.S.–China Rivalry: Opportunity or Threat?
The intensifying U.S.–China rivalry tempts some to see Nepal as a potential beneficiary, able to extract concessions from both sides. This is dangerous thinking.
A neutral approach would try to ignore this rivalry or profit from it opportunistically. A principled approach would acknowledge it—while refusing to become a playing field for it. We should engage with both China and the U.S. based on what specific partnerships offer Nepal, not on how they position us in their rivalry.
Without delay, as Nepal faces internal challenges with its constitution, governance, and electoral justice, it is time to own our positions—not be a mouthpiece or proxy for others. We must earn the right to be principled and respected globally.
This also means accepting development assistance from the U.S. while rejecting military entanglements. It means participating in Chinese connectivity projects only on transparent, sustainable terms. And it means refusing to allow our territory to be used for intelligence gathering, military exercises, or other activities that could make Nepal a target in someone else’s conflict.
Engaging to maintain neutrality and “balance” without clear principles will only invite contesting powers to apply more pressure, trying to shift the so-called “balancing point.”
The Path Forward
A principled foreign policy requires courage. It means sometimes saying no to powerful partners. It means accepting short-term costs for long-term sovereignty, stability, and national credibility. It demands that political leaders rise above partisan calculations and think generationally.
It requires institutional reform: parliamentary oversight of foreign agreements must be strengthened; civil society should have access to information about major projects; and our diplomatic corps must be empowered to negotiate from clear principles—not political expediency.
Most importantly, it requires national consensus. Across party lines, we must agree on core principles: sovereignty is paramount, transparency is essential, and Nepal’s interests come first. Within these guardrails, different governments can pursue varying emphases, but the foundation must remain solid.
Nepal has survived as an independent nation for centuries—not by being the strongest, but by being the wisest. Our ancestors understood that sovereignty is not given, but earned through principled choices. They knew that a small nation between great powers must be clear about its interests and consistent in defending them.
The choice before us is not between India and China, or between East and West. It is between drift and direction, between neutrality that masks weakness and principles that project strength. It is between being a buffer that others use and being a bridge that we control.
As my friend Chan rightly stressed, neutrality is a “dangerous concept” for small states, and foreign policy is “not about balancing, calibrating, and remaining neutral.” Nepal must build competences that cannot be easily replicated—so that the three competing powers (China, India, and the U.S.), along with Asian powers like Japan and South Korea, EU nations, and others see value in working with Nepal.
Without delay, as Nepal faces internal challenges with its constitution, governance, and electoral justice, it is time to own our positions—not be a mouthpiece or proxy for others. We must earn the right to be principled and respected globally.
Nepal’s prosperity and sovereignty depend on making the right choice. The time for principled foreign policy is now.
(Basnyat, a Major General (Retd) of the Nepali Army, is a strategic analyst and is associated with Rangsit University, Thailand.)
Comment