Neighborhood as a foreign policy priority

In the preamble, it is said to "develop a balanced and broad international relationship by giving priority to national interests and concerns", while in point 8, it is mentioned that "we agreed to strengthen national independence, sovereignty and geographical integrity".

Normally, such a formula that dictates foreign policy and relations is not included in the equation agreement. After the change of alliance, the Prime Minister making international relations a part of the document of power sharing means a self-evaluation of the recent past, i.e. the policy and behavior taken earlier and a 'course correction' of the dissatisfaction created by it. This is the new alliance and the new roadmap drawn by the Prime Minister on its strength. Because the prime minister has the trust of KP Sharma Oli, who has advanced foreign relations with national interests at the center and has enhanced Nepal's international image. There is no evidence that this domestic politics has been affected by geopolitics as it has been dragged into the public debate.

This article focuses on the debate on foreign relations priorities. On the path to the future, when the past takes precedence from the time Nepal became a nation to a federal democratic republic, there comes a legacy, relativism prevails. Likewise, even if we use the same lens to look at Nepal from a developed country, it does not lead to a solution-oriented conclusion. The Prime Minister is the same but when the coalition is new, if the government makes international relations the basis for change, it must be considered that there has been a serious deviation in this issue in the previous coalition. The solution to that deviation is not another deviation. Just as Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda's first visit to India after becoming Prime Minister, similarly Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Narayankaji Shrestha's first visit was to China. The difficulty of understanding these visits as the government's inclination may not give a true picture. The

is basically trying to draw the foreign policy and the future drawing of relations towards a positive debate. Communist China and Nepal do not have a correct squeeze as a communist government or India with BJP and a Hindu nation in Nepal. Because every government has become a self-interested character in the realist world, the nexus of ideas has now faded. So what to do now? While the basic principles of foreign policy are continuing, the changes in the world order must also be addressed. Apart from that, Nepal should be clear on some issues. Preference of

policy

First, Nepal should introduce a policy of 'neighbourhood priority'. In the manifesto, the parties said that foreign relations should be promoted by giving priority to India and China only in roundabout language. India and China have not stated exactly in the policy language that they will be Nepal's first priority. Not only by putting it in the manifesto, every government should bring and implement the 'India and China first' policy. In the Integrated Foreign Policy-2077, the basis for setting foreign policy and relationship priorities has been laid, but the priorities have not been determined. Now the government should publicize that Nepal's first priority in its policy announcement or speech is its neighbors, namely India and China. Neighbor first policy should be brought in plain language and not in roundabout terms. It does not make sense that America, Europe, developed countries, and the United Nations are not priorities.

Why has Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi prioritized neighbors with geographical and maritime boundaries through 'Neighborhood First' and Chinese President Xi Jinping through 'Peripheral Diplomacy'? Did New Delhi and Beijing really prioritize their neighbors based on this policy or not? Those are the issues of debate. Kenneth Waltz's theory of balance of power advocates the view that larger and stronger nations should not form alliances with nations that are comparatively weaker than themselves. It says that countries with small and weak economic conditions need the mutual trust of strong neighbors. However, it calls for a parallel power or a choice between two major powers for existence, to which Nepal disagrees. This principle does not apply in the case of a weak nation between two powers.

When India and China bring a policy of putting 'neighbors first', Nepal need not be alarmed to say that India and China are the first priority of its foreign relations. If we go to India or China first, it will bring complicated results, which Nepal does not have the strength to face. But equilibrium behavior is not absolute equilibrium behavior, it is relative equilibrium. Nepal's relationship with India and China may not be compatible. It should not be assumed that due to favoritism and prejudice, a balanced relationship cannot be maintained. The level of the relationship with India and China is to maintain the same level of balance.

It is not a policy 'departure' to say that developing balanced and broad international relations by prioritizing national interests and concerns, strengthening national independence, sovereignty and geographical integrity. Actually, Nepal's international relations are not in danger because of the principle of foreign policy, it is because of the mistakes seen in diplomacy, i.e. foreign policy operations. It is the result of power-centered and faction-centered diplomacy.

Geopolitical theorists have portrayed geography as both a boon and a curse. Robert Kaplan's 'Revenge of Geography' and Tim Marshall's 'Prisoners of Geography' these famous books have depicted that some countries are blessed with geography and some are cursed. But the authors of the book "Why Nations Fail" Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson claims that countries have failed because of the "Theory of Ignorance" of the rulers, not because of geography and culture.

A tendency is that when rulers fail, geography and geopolitics are blamed and geography is made a partner. Even this classical defense of a failed ruler has now failed. The truth is that geography does not change. Nepal no longer enjoys immunity from the landlocked nation between China and India. That is why it is said that geography and selfishness are permanent.

Identification of selfishness

Another sensitive issue in foreign policy is national interest. According to the latest census, the national interest of Nepal's 29.2 million people should be the same because the nation is the collective form that citizens are familiar with and express. What is the national interest of Nepal? This is a topic that frequently comes up in public debate but is always left unanswered. Strengthening national independence, sovereignty and geographical integrity is the national interest of Nepal. It is Nepal's national interest to protect Nepalis abroad. The development and prosperity of Nepal is the national interest of Nepal. The list can be extended.

Can Nepal conduct diplomacy with its neighbors and foreign relations or as a whole, keeping national interests at the center? Or does a country advance its national interest only and expand the relationship? does not Because when one country takes a stance on its national interest, the national interest of another country is affected. Therefore, mutual interest must be compromised. When Nepal promotes relations with India or makes agreements, Nepal looks after Nepal's national interests, while India looks after its interests. When both interests are put together and mutual interest is sought, there is consensus. In this, relatively small and economically backward nations can expect generosity from emerging neighbors, but such generosity is not binding. Like - ten thousand megawatts of electricity in ten years, MCC, BRI are examples of that. Not only did India, China and America come to this agreement because they were concerned about the development of Nepal and felt pain from the living standards of Nepalese people, they also have their own interests there. That is, these are the products of mutual self-interest taking shape.

When a sovereign nation sets foreign policy principles and priorities, the entire nation agrees. When a free and sovereign citizen is not fragmented in his national interest, manifest in a common interest, then other matters take a natural course. Among the many debates in Nepal, one of the most discussed debates is that the foreign policy should be changed according to the changes in the world. It has evolved into a more figurative debate. Changes in the world are a collective effect of changes in countries. Even looking at the impact on the balance of world power for a moment, Nepal does not need to change its national interest, it is enough to redefine it. Similarly, even accepting the fact that China is emerging as the first superpower and India as the third superpower, Nepal does not need to change its neighbor first policy. Naturally, Nepal will be affected by the development of geostrategic, space competition, artificial intelligence or the world of data.

No other country has geopolitical compatibility like Nepal. To be between two world powers is to have the harmony and support of those powers. If there is a war between China and India, Nepal will be hurt as a result of it, although Nepal will not be a victim of a planned attack by either of them. Nepal can naturally benefit more when India and China come together. Therefore, Nepal should continue to advocate diplomatic dialogue as an informal and unannounced mediation in the relationship between China and India, not conflict, understanding, military war. This is possible within the principle of neighbor preference and balance. That does not mean that Nepal does not have to define or prioritize its relations with other countries except India and China.

About 200 countries in the world are important for Nepal, but their priorities are definitely set. Whether non-alignment is in the case of military alliances or in the case of development, Nepal can go for the policy of multi-alignment. Nepal has already done cooperation with developed countries on the basis of mutual interest and respect, it should be made more effective. Nepal should be aware of the strategic moves of any power nation that uses Nepal against the sensitivities of its neighbors. Let the government think about this.