{"id":18004,"date":"2026-06-03T10:55:06","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T05:10:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=18004"},"modified":"2026-06-03T10:55:57","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T05:10:57","slug":"dialogue-balance-and-shared-development-nepals-new-foreign-policy-in-the-mirror-of-chinese-diplomacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=18004","title":{"rendered":"Dialogue, Balance and Shared Development: Nepal’s New Foreign Policy in the Mirror of Chinese Diplomacy<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

# Muna Chand<\/strong><\/p>\n

The sweeping changes witnessed in Nepal’s foreign policy and diplomatic conduct within a short period since the formation of the government led by Prime Minister Balendra (Balen) Shah have naturally sparked debate. This debate has become all the more pertinent after Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal pointed to the need for diplomatic restructuring, citing geopolitical polarisation, the climate crisis and technological advancement. The question arises: are these changes merely an administrative priority, or a risky experiment that runs counter to established international diplomatic practice? This question must be analysed through the triangulation of international practice, diplomatic norms and pragmatic reasoning. In this context, the diplomatic philosophy, style and experience that China has developed over the past seven decades offer a clear mirror in which to evaluate Nepal’s current experiment.<\/p>\n

Since assuming office, Prime Minister Shah has conducted most meetings in a collective format. The government side has interpreted this as ‘optimal use of everyone’s time’ and an ‘economic diplomacy centred approach’. China’s diplomatic practice, however, teaches that while multilateral forums and collective dialogue have their own importance, they can never substitute for bilateral engagement. The very first principle of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, jointly propounded by China with India and Myanmar in 1954 and later adopted by King Mahendra as the Panchsheel policy, is ‘mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty’. The tangible expression of this respect is precisely regular, direct and dignified high level bilateral dialogue. The tendency to avoid one on one meetings for extended periods and to keep the Foreign Ministry as the sole point of contact unnecessarily obstructs the process of ‘mutual trust building’ that China has always emphasised. In China’s experience, there are sensitive matters that can only be resolved through direct meetings at the prime ministerial or presidential level, and for that purpose, a flexible interpretation of diplomatic protocol proves far more fruitful than a rigid one.<\/p>\n

In this same context, the recent incident of the Foreign Ministry publicly calling for applications for ambassadorial posts has exposed another facet of Nepal’s diplomatic restructuring. By portraying ambassadorial appointment as an ordinary administrative recruitment process, this approach has raised questions over both the dignity and the confidentiality of diplomacy. An ambassador is not merely a civil servant, but a distinguished personality sent to a host country as the personal representative of the head of state, representing the entire nation. China understands this well. In China, ambassadorial appointments are made through a highly confidential and meticulous internal process, in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the ruling Communist Party select individuals honed through years of service, expertise and testing. They are not subjected to the mental ordeal of public debate, parliamentary hearings or open calls for complaints. The reason is clear: from the very first day of appointment, an ambassador must be able to present a dignified and unwavering image before the government and people of the host nation. An individual who has passed through a process of public hearings, opposition and controversy may naturally be viewed with suspicion by the host country as well. This causes irreparable damage to that person’s negotiating capacity, credibility and effectiveness. In Chinese philosophy, great importance is attached to the congruence of ‘mouth and hand’. A nation that publicly places its own representative in a circle of suspicion weakens its own standing on the world stage. In this regard, appointing ambassadors with clear goals, objectives and an action plan, following serious internal study, research and evaluation, is the hallmark of governmental accountability and diplomatic maturity.<\/p>\n

Another defining characteristic of China’s diplomacy is the concept of ‘shared development’ and ‘mutual benefit’. Currently, seventeen Nepali embassies are without ambassadors, honorary consuls stand suspended, and groundwork is underway to reduce the number of missions abroad. This signals a kind of diplomatic contraction. While the argument of administrative frugality is not wrong in itself, it must be viewed in the light of China’s ‘development oriented diplomacy’. The root of the success of China’s Belt and Road Initiative lies precisely in the active and robust presence of Chinese diplomatic missions in those countries. On a daily basis, they serve as a bridge across all five dimensions: policy coordination, infrastructure connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration and people to people ties. If Nepal genuinely wishes to emphasise economic diplomacy, then the restructuring of its foreign service should mean not reducing the number of missions, but transforming them into powerful centres for development and investment promotion. The aspiration to achieve economic gain becomes baseless once the very structures are dismantled.<\/p>\n

The government’s ambitious goal of transforming Nepal from a ‘buffer state’ into a ‘vibrant bridge’, and its policy expression of ‘equal distance and balanced proximity with all’, sounds appealing and mature to the ear. However, China’s modern diplomatic practice invites a redefinition of these notions. China has always pursued a policy of ‘friendship with all’ and ‘partnership with all’. Yet, the greatest feature of China’s ‘partnership diplomacy’ is its stratified and active engagement. It is not a policy of remaining passive and equidistant in the name of ‘equal distance’ from everyone; rather, it is a process of building a vibrant network of dialogue and cooperation at various levels with every partner, based on the nature, depth and priority of each relationship. For China, ‘equal distance’ means not staying far away from all, but establishing an equal level of access to dialogue and trust with all. Therefore, the lack of high level engagement with neighbours and major powers, which former Foreign Minister NP Saud has remarked is harmful in the long run, appears in China’s view as a flawed practice of ‘balance’. True balance means simultaneously tightening the knots of regular, transparent and trustworthy relations with both neighbours, not keeping both waiting for extended periods.<\/p>\n

The core spirit of China’s diplomacy is ‘timeliness and pragmatism’. It accepts change, but insists that the process must be gradual, thoughtful and preservative of the foundation of relationships. The view expressed by a Foreign Ministry official that ‘to do something new, old things must be torn down’ is fundamentally different from China’s cultural and diplomatic thinking. The key lesson China has learned over four decades of reform and opening up is not to ‘tear down the old’, but to ‘build the new higher upon the foundation of the old’. The current trends seen in Nepal, such as an undeclared moratorium on foreign visits, the reduction of international parliamentary contact to zero, and the practice of keeping representatives of friendly nations in a state of constant uncertainty, may be interpreted through China’s experience as an ‘extremist implementation of necessary administrative reform’. This carries the risk of causing immediate damage to Nepal’s decades long efforts in building international credibility and networks, when this very trust capital is the greatest asset of a small and developing nation.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, viewing Nepal’s diplomatic experiment through the mirror of China yields a clear inference. Prime Minister Shah’s spirit of frugality, good governance and prioritisation of economic development is in itself positive and commendable. There is no disagreement between China and Nepal on this goodwill and desire for innovation. However, the very nature of diplomacy rests on ‘relationships’ and ‘dialogue’. Restructuring it should mean not contracting the number and access of meetings, but enhancing their quality, strategic depth and long term impact. Likewise, restructuring diplomacy does not mean turning ambassadorial appointments into a subject of public examination and hearings. Rather, true reform lies in enhancing the institutional capacity to send forth the person representing the nation with dignity, trust and a clear mandate. The centrepiece of China’s diplomatic philosophy is ‘coexistence, shared development and a collective future’. The beautiful goal Nepal has set of becoming a ‘vibrant bridge’, while keeping its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interest supreme, can only be realised by connecting more with the world, by engaging more, and by becoming a more trusted partner. This bridge cannot be built through self centred restraint, rigid interpretation of protocol, and a tendency to view one’s own representatives with suspicion. It is only possible through open dialogue, active participation, unwavering trust in one’s representatives and flexible pragmatism.<\/p>\n

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