{"id":22297,"date":"2026-08-11T07:23:56","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T01:38:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=22297"},"modified":"2026-08-11T07:23:56","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T01:38:56","slug":"beyond-meetings-with-ambassadors-foreign-policy-must-be-institutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=22297","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Meetings with Ambassadors: Foreign Policy Must Be Institutional<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dragon Media Editorial<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prime Minister Balendra Shah\u2019s separate meetings with Indian Ambassador Naveen Srivastava and Chinese Ambassador Chang Maoming have once again brought Nepal\u2019s diplomatic practice into discussion. But the central question is not who was met first or who was given greater importance. The more important question is whether Nepal\u2019s foreign policy should be driven by the personal style of individual leaders or by the institutional framework of the state.<\/p>\n

It is both normal and necessary for the head of government to maintain dialogue with diplomatic representatives of friendly countries. Restricting communication is not a diplomatic solution. Such engagements should instead be conducted on the basis of clear agendas, coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, institutional records and defined national priorities. Diplomacy anchored in state continuity is always stronger than diplomacy dependent on personal memory or individual relationships.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s foreign policy does not belong to any particular prime minister, minister or political party. Its foundations are national interest, sovereignty, mutual respect, non-alignment, the principles of Panchsheel and independent decision-making. Governments may change, diplomatic styles may differ and priorities may evolve, but the fundamental direction of the state\u2019s foreign policy should not repeatedly shift with changes in leadership.<\/p>\n

Questions have long been raised in Nepal about informal and inadequately documented contacts between foreign diplomatic representatives and political leaders. High-level diplomatic engagement therefore needs to become more structured and formal. The answer, however, is not to reduce dialogue. The appropriate response is to strengthen institutional procedures with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the centre of diplomatic coordination.<\/p>\n

India and China are Nepal\u2019s two closest neighbours and are directly connected to the country\u2019s geography, economy, security, trade, transit and long-term development. Nepal needs regular, credible and result-oriented dialogue with both. It must also move beyond the tendency to interpret closer engagement with one neighbour as a signal against the other.<\/p>\n

Improving relations with India should not be interpreted as an anti-China message, just as expanding cooperation with China should not be viewed as an anti-India move. Nepal\u2019s relations with every friendly country should develop on the basis of its own national requirements and interests.<\/p>\n

Close relations with the two neighbours do not require Nepal to distance itself from other friendly countries. In a changing global balance of power, Nepal can expand relations with all major partners. But no external relationship should weaken Nepal\u2019s independent decision-making. That is the practical meaning of an independent and non-aligned foreign policy.<\/p>\n

Foreign ambassadors are official representatives of friendly states. Dialogue with them is necessary, but the limits of diplomatic access to Nepal\u2019s domestic political processes must remain clear. Nepali leaders, in turn, should not use meetings with ambassadors as instruments of domestic political messaging or as signals directed at third countries. Diplomacy is not merely a language of symbolism; it is a sensitive instrument for protecting and advancing national interests.<\/p>\n

The more important question now is not whether Prime Minister Shah meets ambassadors, but what Nepal achieves through such engagements. Unless dialogue produces tangible progress in trade, investment, transit, infrastructure, energy, tourism and people-to-people relations, the value of ceremonial meetings will remain limited.<\/p>\n

The direction of Nepal\u2019s diplomatic reform should therefore be clear. High-level foreign engagements should take place with the knowledge and coordination of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Important discussions should be properly documented. Commitments, negotiations and pending agendas should be institutionally transferred even when governments change. Only such arrangements can build diplomatic memory and continuity within the state.<\/p>\n

For a country located in a strategically sensitive geography like Nepal, stability and institutional capacity in foreign policy are closely linked to national security. Governments change, leaders change and diplomatic styles evolve. But the interests of the state and the fundamental direction of foreign policy must remain consistent.<\/p>\n

The latest ambassadorial meetings should therefore not be interpreted as a diplomatic victory or defeat for any side. They should be treated as an opportunity to strengthen institutional foreign policy. Dialogue should remain open, the process should remain institutional, and Nepal\u2019s national interest should remain the ultimate standard governing every external relationship.<\/p>\n

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