Is the Indo-Pacific Strategy in Conflict with Nepal’s Sovereign Balance?

Recently, the visit of a four-star General from the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) to Nepal and the frequent landing of US military aircraft have created ripples in Nepali political and diplomatic circles. At a time when the Government of Nepal has officially taken a clear stance of not participating in the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), this high-level visit by the INDOPACOM commander and increasing military assistance raise serious questions about Nepal’s sovereignty, its non-aligned foreign policy, and its relations with its two powerful neighbors—China and India.

The United States has been claiming that it advanced the Indo-Pacific Strategy primarily with the objective of creating a free, open, and prosperous region. However, there is a debate regarding the nature of this strategy, not just in Nepal but internationally. There are clear indications that this strategy is progressively moving from economics to security and ultimately towards military alliance. Nepal is a nation that has traditionally felt comfortable with economic partnerships but has always remained cautious about military engagement. In this context, the visit of the INDOPACOM commander seems to further reinforce the US desire to draw Nepal into the military aspect of this strategy.

Nepal has officially decided not to participate in the IPS. Even while ratifying the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement in parliament, the government maintained a clear position that Nepal would not join any military alliance. However, despite officially staying away from the IPS, welcoming a high-ranking military official like the INDOPACOM commander and accepting continued military assistance makes Nepal’s foreign policy appear ambiguous. On one hand, Nepal feels the undeniable pressure from China and India, while on the other, it finds itself unable to completely distance itself from US aid and partnership. Thus, Nepal finds itself trapped in a complex geopolitical dilemma.

The continuous landing of US military aircraft and the recent US announcement to transfer two more M28 Sky Truck aircraft to the Nepali Army have forcefully raised the question of sovereignty. An independent nation has the right to exchange military assistance with any country according to its needs. However, when this assistance becomes part of a larger geo-strategic game, it can put a question mark on that nation’s non-alignment itself. Although US officials state that this assistance is provided to defend Nepal’s sovereignty and enhance its capacity, there is suspicion that this could be another means to indirectly associate Nepal with the IPS.

Nepal’s geo-strategic importance can never be denied. Any kind of military activity in Nepal directly affects both China and India. China has been viewing the Indo-Pacific Strategy as a US attempt to encircle it. In such a situation, China might perceive the US military commander’s visit to Nepal and military assistance as a sign of a threat to its security. Recently, during Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit to China, the Chinese side’s claim that Nepal had joined the Chinese Global Security Initiative (GSI) caused a stir in Nepal, which was immediately denied by Nepali authorities. This shows how sensitive and cautious Nepal is about maintaining balance between two major powers.

Similarly, India will also not view the US military presence in Nepal comfortably. India considers itself the predominant power in South Asia and views the increasing influence of another major power in its neighborhood as contrary to its interests. At a time when Nepal-India relations are already strained due to the border dispute (Kalapani), this could further complicate bilateral relations.

The foundational pillars of Nepal’s foreign policy are the principles of Panchsheel, the Non-Aligned Movement, and sovereign equality. Being a small nation, Nepal has always faced the challenge of maintaining balanced relations with major powers. In this context of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, Nepal needs to adopt an extremely cautious, clear, and nationally consensus-based policy. Completely rejecting or blindly accepting the INDOPACOM commander’s visit and military assistance are both not in Nepal’s interest. What is needed is a broad debate on the purpose and consequences of these activities, keeping transparency and national interest paramount. Nepal must reiterate its commitment not to allow its land to be used for activities against anyone and undertake diplomatic initiatives to take its two large neighbors into confidence. The need of the hour is to develop a “Nepali Model” that strengthens international relations while safeguarding national interests—a model that can provide stability and prosperity not only to Nepal but to the entire region.