{"id":18822,"date":"2026-06-16T11:29:44","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T05:44:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=18822"},"modified":"2026-06-16T11:29:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T05:44:44","slug":"the-empty-wall-in-beijing-nepals-party-state-diplomacy-put-to-the-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=18822","title":{"rendered":"The Empty Wall in Beijing: Nepal’s Party\u2013State Diplomacy Put to the Test<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

A single photograph released from Beijing has ignited an intense debate in Kathmandu’s political and diplomatic circles. The image shows Nepal’s Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal seated face to face with Liu Haixing, Minister of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC). Behind Liu stand the national flag of the People’s Republic of China and the party flag of the CPC. Behind Khanal, however, only the empty wall of the meeting room is visible. Nepal’s national flag does not appear there.<\/p>\n

That very visual triggered a sharp reaction on social media. Some called it a diplomatic insult to Nepal. Opposition political circles questioned the government’s preparation and its regard for diplomatic decorum. Nationalist commentators interpreted it as yet another example of a great power treating Nepal as a subordinate partner. Yet this photograph, and the controversy it has generated, cannot be adequately understood through emotional reactions alone. Beneath its surface lie serious questions about Nepal’s shifting diplomatic practice, the increasingly blurred line between party and state, and the intensifying great power competition in the Himalayan region.<\/p>\n

Before reaching any conclusion, it is essential to distinguish what the photograph actually shows and what it does not. The meeting in question was not a formal state to state bilateral engagement organized by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was a party to party dialogue hosted by the International Department of the CPC Central Committee. In such a context, it is not unusual for the host party to display its party flag alongside the national flag. The framework of party diplomacy does not carry an obligation to always grant the visiting side symbolic equality of a state level character. It would therefore be a hasty conclusion to regard this photograph as automatic proof of a deliberate insult to Nepal’s sovereignty.<\/p>\n

But to say this is not to suggest the controversy is baseless. For this incident has raised legitimate questions about the preparedness, role clarity, and diplomatic sensitivity of the Nepali side. The problem is not confined to how the Chinese side arranged the room. The core question is in what capacity the Nepali representative was present there.
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

Shishir Khanal arrived in Beijing carrying two identities. He is the sitting Foreign Minister of Nepal, meaning the chief diplomatic representative of the state. He is also an influential leader of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). The question arises precisely here: was he present at that meeting as the Foreign Minister of the Government of Nepal, or as a party representative?<\/p>\n

If he was present there as Nepal’s Foreign Minister, the absence of Nepal’s national flag would constitute a serious diplomatic lapse. A foreign minister represents the state, not merely a party or a faction. Under such circumstances, national symbols, seating arrangements, and the visual message of a public photograph are all sensitive matters. The Nepali side ought to have sought clarity beforehand regarding the format, the capacity, and the visual protocol of the meeting.<\/p>\n

But if he participated primarily as an RSP leader in a party to party dialogue, then the visual effect, however awkward, can be understood on a certain basis. The CPC could claim it was engaging there with a political party, not with the Government of Nepal. Yet herein lies the core problem. A sitting foreign minister cannot easily shed his official persona. Even when present in a party role, the shadow of his ministerial identity enters that very room. When the photograph is made public, ordinary citizens do not see only an RSP leader there. They see the Foreign Minister of Nepal seated without his national flag. Whatever the technical explanation of protocol, the public visual message has already produced its political effect.<\/p>\n

It is for this reason that the episode must not be confined to one of two extreme conclusions: either “China insulted us” or “everything was perfectly normal.” The reality is more complex. This incident is a mirror exposing the ambiguity of Nepal’s party\u2013state diplomacy.<\/p>\n

State diplomacy operates through formal channels: foreign ministries, embassies, official talks, and summits. In it, national flags, seating arrangements, press releases, official titles, and statements are all taken as signals of sovereign equality. Party diplomacy, by contrast, is of a different nature. The international departments of political parties, ideological exchanges, leadership dialogues, training, and network building are its common instruments. The International Department of the CPC has been conducting precisely such dialogues with political parties around the world. For China, this is not merely an ideological relationship. It is also a means of building ties with future political forces, opening alternative channels of communication, and presenting its governance experience.<\/p>\n

The problem arises when the person participating in party diplomacy also holds a government post. In such a situation, the party dialogue begins to assume the character of state engagement. The Beijing meeting is an example of this. Formally, it may be a party dialogue, but when the participant is Nepal’s Foreign Minister, its visual message, its signaling, and its domestic political meaning automatically become far broader.<\/p>\n

This episode can also be viewed in connection with RSP Chairman Rabi Lamichhane’s visit to New Delhi. He travelled to India at the invitation of the Bharatiya Janata Party. That visit was also presented as a party to party dialogue. Yet it too raised questions within Nepal: in what capacity are Nepal’s influential political leaders engaging with the ruling parties of great powers? Are they representatives of the state or of their party? How do the visual messages of such visits connect with Nepal’s non aligned foreign policy, its national dignity, and its strategic balance?<\/p>\n

Although different, these two events in Beijing and New Delhi reveal a similar pattern. Nepal’s new and influential political forces are expanding party level relations with large neighbors and great powers. This is not wrong in itself. In countries with multiparty democracies, party diplomacy is a natural practice. But Nepal appears to lack clear guidance on how to connect such diplomacy with the dignity of the state, the continuity of foreign policy, and public messaging. It is this very weakness that turns an ordinary photograph into a subject of national debate.<\/p>\n

The Beijing meeting must also be seen in the context of China’s broader party diplomacy practice. China appears to have been expanding direct contact not only through traditional state level relations but also with political parties, youth leaderships, new forces, and alternative political groups in various countries. In Nepal too, it is natural that not only the old parties but new forces connected to young urban voters fall within China’s interest. Such dialogue can help Beijing understand Nepal’s changing political landscape, build relations with future leaderships, and compete against Indian and Western influence.<\/p>\n

For Nepal, this carries both opportunity and risk. The opportunity is that Nepal can keep open multiple channels of communication with all major powers. Party level dialogue can complement state level relations. The risk, however, is that if such dialogues proceed outside the coordination of the Foreign Ministry, outside minimum protocol, and without clear benchmarks of national interest, Nepal itself ends up sending ambiguous signals. A great power can, as needed, present a party representative as a state representative, and when controversy arises, can limit it by saying “this was merely a party dialogue.” For a small state, such ambiguity is not safe in the long term.<\/p>\n

It is therefore not appropriate to lead the matter of the absent flag in Beijing solely down the easy path of accusing China. This is a sign of Nepal’s own institutional weakness. In Nepal, the Foreign Ministry has still not been able to become the central coordinator of all international engagements. Political parties build their own international relations. Leaders travel abroad on personal or party invitations. But there is insufficient preparation regarding the relationship of those meetings with the state, their protocol, their public messaging, and their strategic meaning. As a result, a single photograph taken abroad becomes a diplomatic controversy in Kathmandu.<\/p>\n

The solution is not to stop party diplomacy. In today’s multipolar world, Nepal’s political parties will engage with China, India, the United States, Europe, Russia, or other powers. This is a natural part of democratic politics. But such engagement must take place within clear rules, institutional coordination, and a minimum foundation of national dignity.<\/p>\n

Nepal must no longer delay in formulating a clear policy for party\u2013state diplomacy. First, when any government office holder participates in party activities abroad, their capacity must be clear in advance. Whether they represent the state or the party must not remain ambiguous to the host, the Nepali embassy, the Foreign Ministry, or the public. Second, a minimum protocol standard must be maintained for any foreign meeting in which a sitting minister participates. Even if it is a party dialogue, the Nepali side must be vigilant about the visual message of the national flag, official titles, seating arrangements, and public photographs. Third, the Foreign Ministry must be given a coordinating role in all international engagements of senior political figures. This is not a matter of control; it is a matter of safeguarding the state’s dignity and strategic balance. Fourth, the government or the concerned party must provide timely and clear information about the nature and purpose of such meetings. Silence turns social media speculation into apparent truth.<\/p>\n

The empty wall in Beijing ultimately speaks less about China and more about Nepal. It has exposed the weaknesses of our diplomatic structure, our party\u2013state relations, our management of symbols, and our public communication. The image of the missing national flag does not merely display the decor of a room. It also raises the question of how clearly and maturely Nepal has been able to define its diplomatic role.<\/p>\n

Nepal must not view this incident only as a limited controversy over a diplomatic insult. It must take it as an opportunity for institutional reform. Party diplomacy can continue, but no party convenience can stand above the dignity of the state. Engagement with great powers is necessary, but in such engagement, Nepal must be able to make its own status, language, symbols, and voice unmistakably clear.<\/p>\n

The geopolitics of the Himalayan region is becoming intense, fluid, and competitive. At such a time, the strength of a small state lies not only in its geography, army, or economy, but also in its institutional clarity and diplomatic discipline. The Beijing photograph has reminded Nepal of precisely this lesson. So that the flag absent today does not turn into an absent voice tomorrow, the rules governing Nepal’s party\u2013state diplomacy must now be made clear.<\/p>\n

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