{"id":17609,"date":"2026-05-27T06:55:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T01:10:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=17609"},"modified":"2026-05-27T06:55:46","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T01:10:46","slug":"american-interest-in-the-himalayas-amidst-geopolitical-competition-and-nepal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=17609","title":{"rendered":"American Interest in the Himalayas Amidst Geopolitical Competition, and Nepal<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

# Prem Sagar Poudel<\/strong><\/p>\n

The three-day visit of U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Sara B. Rogers to Nepal, commencing on May 30, not only signals a new chapter of intensifying geopolitical competition in the Himalayan region but also demands a profound analysis of the multidimensional impacts it may have on U.S.-Nepal relations, the regional balance of power, and Nepal’s neighbourhood policy. As the most senior American visit since the formation of the government led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah, it appears to seek to institutionalise Washington’s growing interest in Nepal.<\/p>\n

Rogers’ visit must be understood not as an isolated event, but as the third and most senior link in a carefully orchestrated chain of American diplomacy. Earlier, in April, Assistant Secretary of State Sameer Paul Kapur and President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy for South and Central Asia, Sergio Gor, had already made separate visits to Nepal. Three high-level visits within the span of two months make it clear that Washington’s interest in Nepal is not incidental but strategic. At the heart of this interest appears to be an American effort to redefine Nepal’s strategic position between China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region and India’s traditional dominance.<\/p>\n

Given that Rogers’ portfolio lies in the realm of public diplomacy and public affairs, it can be inferred that the purpose of this visit is not confined solely to governmental dialogue but also aims to strengthen people-to-people ties, educational exchanges, cultural cooperation, and information flows. The successful ascent of Mount Everest on May 20 by U.S. Embassy Public Affairs Chief Mike Harker, followed just ten days later by the Under Secretary’s visit, suggests this is no mere coincidence but a carefully calibrated strategy of ‘soft power’ projection. Harker’s Everest ascent has lent a symbolic dimension of ‘courage’ and ‘achievement’ to American diplomacy, while Rogers’ visit seeks to give it policy and institutional shape.<\/p>\n

Since assuming office, Prime Minister Shah has consistently declined individual meetings with any foreign ambassadors or high-ranking officials. He has also declined to meet the Indian Ambassador, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, and the President’s Special Envoy. The collective meeting held on April 8 with heads and representatives of diplomatic missions based in Kathmandu has broken with the traditional practice of individual courtesy calls. While this new style signals Nepal’s desire to maintain equidistance from all major powers, it also raises questions over the effectiveness of high-level visits.<\/p>\n

The question of whether Rogers has requested a meeting with the Prime Minister has become the central diplomatic drama of this visit. Should she have requested a meeting and it be denied, that would signal clear tension in U.S.-Nepal relations. Conversely, should the Prime Minister restore the tradition of an individual meeting on this occasion, it could send a message of special priority accorded to the United States, which would raise serious questions about Nepal’s balance with its neighbours. This very dilemma exposes the delicate nature of Nepal’s diplomatic balancing act.<\/p>\n

Nepal’s geographical position has established it as a ‘land bridge’ between China and India. China’s growing involvement in BRI projects, electricity trade, and cross-border infrastructure development has accorded Nepal a significant place in Beijing’s strategic calculus. On the other hand, the open border, cultural affinity, and deep economic interdependence with India have rendered Nepal-India relations unique. Amidst the competition between these two major powers, America’s increasing interest is making Nepal’s diplomatic balancing ever more complex and sensitive.<\/p>\n

During the visits of U.S. Assistant Secretary Kapur and Special Envoy Gor, discussions were held on improving the trade environment, attracting foreign investment, and expanding economic ties. Rogers’ visit, centred on public diplomacy, now signals clearly that the United States is not merely pursuing economic and political engagement in Nepal, but has also begun to adopt a strategy of winning ‘hearts and minds.’ This trend could herald the beginning of a new era of ‘soft power’ competition between China and the United States in Nepal.<\/p>\n

The growing interest of external powers in a sovereign nation like Nepal can have a mixed impact on regional stability. On the one hand, multilateral engagement offers Nepal the opportunity to mobilise external resources for development and prosperity. On the other, if Nepal fails to maintain its diplomatic balance, there is an equal risk of it becoming a battleground for competition between two great powers. The lesson history teaches is that smaller nations often become the first victims of great power rivalry.<\/p>\n

Although Prime Minister Shah’s new practice of collective meetings signals Nepal’s desire to maintain equal relations with all major powers, the long-term success of this policy will depend on Nepal’s internal political stability, economic self-reliance, and diplomatic skill. Nepal must be able to transform the challenge of balancing China’s BRI, India’s ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy, and America’s ‘Indo-Pacific’ strategy into a diplomatic opportunity.<\/p>\n

The possibility of Rogers’ visit having a direct impact on Nepal-China relations is, for the time being, limited. China views Nepal as an important partner in its ‘Belt and Road’ initiative, and bilateral cooperation is primarily centred on economic and infrastructure development. However, as American engagement increases, China may also seek to further strengthen its presence and influence in Nepal. This competition could manifest particularly in the fields of public diplomacy, cultural exchange, and media cooperation. This may also offer Nepal an opportunity to benefit from the ‘competition for influence’ between two great powers, though this will require exceptionally nuanced diplomatic skill.<\/p>\n

For India, growing American presence in Nepal could prove to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, American engagement may help counterbalance China’s increasing influence, which aligns with India’s strategic interests. On the other, India may perceive the United States as encroaching upon its traditional sphere of influence in Nepal, which could create subtle unease between New Delhi and Washington. Given that India has placed Nepal at the centre of its ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy, the American presence could challenge the effectiveness of this policy. Nevertheless, considering the current heights of the strategic partnership between India and the United States, this unease can be expected to remain manageable.<\/p>\n

Under Secretary Rogers’ visit is a serious test of Nepal’s diplomatic capacity and maturity. This visit offers Nepal an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to maintaining its sovereignty, independence, and a balanced foreign policy. At the same time, it serves as a reminder of the challenge Nepal faces in striking a balance between its developmental needs and geopolitical realities.<\/p>\n

Only if Nepal, while pursuing a policy of friendship and cooperation with all major powers, succeeds in maintaining a diplomatic equilibrium centred on its national interests and regional stability, can this visit yield a positive outcome. To this end, Nepal must not delay in strengthening its diplomatic apparatus, maintaining policy clarity, and establishing transparent dialogue with all its partners. Otherwise, the peaceful and beautiful Himalayan land will not remain free from the risk of becoming yet another centre of geopolitical competition. Nepal’s diplomatic success lies not merely in balancing between great powers, but also in carving out a dignified place for itself while preserving its national interests and identity.<\/p>\n

(Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has studied Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues in depth.)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t