{"id":22679,"date":"2026-08-14T07:32:23","date_gmt":"2026-08-14T01:47:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=22679"},"modified":"2026-08-14T07:32:23","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T01:47:23","slug":"first-visit-delhi-or-beijing-no-nepal-must-come-first","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=22679","title":{"rendered":"First Visit: Delhi or Beijing? No, Nepal Must Come First<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

As interest grows over where Prime Minister Balendra Shah will make his first foreign visit, an old question has resurfaced in Nepal: Delhi or Beijing? For years, Nepal\u2019s political and diplomatic discourse has tended to interpret a prime minister\u2019s first visit to India as a tilt toward New Delhi and a first visit to China as a sign of greater proximity to Beijing.<\/p>\n

But the real test of Nepal\u2019s foreign policy is not the direction in which the prime minister\u2019s first aircraft flies. What matters is the agenda he carries on behalf of Nepal, the problems he seeks to resolve, the projects he advances and, ultimately, what Nepali citizens gain from the visit.<\/p>\n

Nepal must now move beyond the symbolism of foreign visits toward diplomacy measured by results.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s relationship with India is deeply rooted in trade, transit, energy, tourism, employment, investment and extensive people-to-people ties. For a landlocked country, Indian territory also remains critically important for Nepal\u2019s access to the sea. With China, Nepal has considerable potential in infrastructure, technology, tourism, agriculture, industrial production, the digital economy, market expansion and improved connectivity across its northern frontier. It is not in Nepal\u2019s interest to treat these two relationships as competing alternatives.<\/p>\n

Rather than assuming that greater engagement with one neighbour requires greater distance from the other, Nepal should focus on converting opportunities with both into national production, employment, trade, energy development and connectivity.<\/p>\n

A 90-Day Preparation Cycle Before Major Visits<\/h3>\n

One of the persistent weaknesses of Nepal\u2019s high-level foreign visits is the gap between preparation and implementation. Formal agendas are prepared, understandings are reached and joint statements are issued, but the institutional system for measuring subsequent progress remains weak.<\/p>\n

To address this problem, Nepal could establish a National Diplomatic Coordination Committee chaired by the prime minister. The foreign minister could oversee its operational coordination, with participation from ministries responsible for finance, industry, energy, agriculture, infrastructure and other relevant sectors, along with the National Planning Commission, Nepal Rastra Bank and necessary regulatory bodies. The committee should also draw on sector-specific advice from the private sector, former diplomats, economists, security and infrastructure experts, and research institutions.<\/p>\n

Where possible, a 90-day preparation cycle should be introduced for major foreign visits. During the first 30 days, national priorities and unresolved issues should be identified. The next 30 days should be devoted to developing negotiating proposals and assessing their costs, benefits and potential risks. During the final 30 days, Nepal\u2019s negotiating strategy should be finalised.<\/p>\n

The committee should seek consensus wherever possible. When disagreements arise over trade, security, finance or long-term national obligations, the relevant agencies should submit written options outlining the benefits, costs and risks. On that basis, the prime minister could determine the government\u2019s final political position. In the case of international agreements, the constitutional and legal procedures governing approval and ratification must remain fully applicable.<\/p>\n

The process should not end once the visit is over. Internal reviews should be conducted every three months to assess the status of commitments, identify responsible agencies and determine where implementation has stalled. Once a year, the government should issue a public report on foreign policy and diplomatic achievements.<\/p>\n

Such a system would help transform foreign visits from personal or governmental achievements into a continuous institutional process of the state.<\/p>\n

Making Economic Diplomacy Measurable<\/h3>\n

Economic diplomacy should lie at the centre of Nepal\u2019s foreign policy. Expressing concern about trade deficits is not enough. Export products, target markets, timelines and responsible institutions must be clearly identified.<\/p>\n

For China, Nepal could place tea, pashmina, large cardamom, medicinal herbs, handicrafts and processed agricultural products under a five-year export programme. Using actual export levels in 2026 as a baseline, Nepal could aim to at least double exports of these priority products by 2031. Such a target should not remain a declaration. It must be linked to production capacity, quality certification, packaging, transport, customs facilitation and market promotion.<\/p>\n

Relevant agricultural agencies should work on production capacity and sanitary certification. Industry and commerce authorities should take responsibility for quality standards, packaging, export procedures and trade facilitation. Nepali embassies and trade-promotion bodies should be expected to deliver results in market identification, business networking and brand promotion. The private sector, meanwhile, must ensure quality production, reliable supply chains and timely exports.<\/p>\n

With China, Nepal also needs a clear agenda for keeping northern border points operational throughout the year, expanding tourism, developing agro-processing industries and linking Chinese investment more closely with domestic production and exports.<\/p>\n

With India, priority should be given to energy trade, transit costs, industrial supply chains, market access for Nepali products and productive investment. Energy agreements should clearly address not only the volume of electricity to be traded but also pricing principles, payment mechanisms, transmission capacity and construction timelines.<\/p>\n

The expansion of electricity exports to Bangladesh can likewise be connected to transmission arrangements through India and to the wider regional energy architecture.<\/p>\n

The success of foreign visits should no longer be measured by the number of memoranda signed. It should be assessed by how much exports increase over five years, how much foreign investment enters productive sectors, how many jobs are created and how many projects are completed within agreed timelines.<\/p>\n

Multilateral Diplomacy and New Partnerships<\/h3>\n

Nepal should not allow its foreign policy to be confined to its relations with Delhi and Beijing. At the United Nations, Nepal can advance a clearer international agenda around Himalayan ecology, climate finance, glacial lake risks, the protection of mountain communities and its contribution to peacekeeping.<\/p>\n

Within BIMSTEC, Nepal\u2019s priorities should include a regional energy grid, electricity trade, transport connectivity, digital connectivity and stronger economic links between the Himalayas and the Bay of Bengal. Nepal has substantial potential for electricity generation, while the wider region has growing energy demand. Diplomacy should convert that complementarity into a multilateral economic opportunity.<\/p>\n

SAARC may have been weakened by political differences, but its relevance has not disappeared. Nepal can take initiatives toward its gradual revitalisation by focusing on relatively less contentious areas such as health security, disaster management, climate change, education, food security and people-to-people connectivity.<\/p>\n

Similarly, Nepal can pursue more focused partnerships with the United States in digital infrastructure, higher education, technology and research; with Europe in climate technology and the green economy; with Japan in infrastructure and technical human-resource development; and with South Korea in industry, skills and employment. Opportunities for cooperation with Russia and other partners in energy, science, education, technology and industrial development should also be explored in a systematic manner.<\/p>\n

Such diversified relations would strengthen Nepal\u2019s strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy does not mean maintaining equal distance from everyone. It means preserving the ability to build necessary closeness according to national interests while retaining independent decision-making.<\/p>\n

Foreign Policy Is Also a Citizens\u2019 Issue<\/h3>\n

Foreign policy should not remain confined within the state machinery. Once the government publishes its annual diplomatic report, universities, research institutions, civil society and the media should be able to conduct independent public assessments of its performance. This would help citizens see the gap, if any, between government declarations and actual achievements. After all, the ultimate impact of foreign policy is felt in citizens\u2019 daily lives.<\/p>\n

Lower transit costs can reduce the cost of goods. Electricity exports can generate investment and employment. Productive foreign investment can create opportunities within the country. Greater agricultural exports can raise farmers\u2019 incomes. Better border infrastructure can reduce transport costs, while expanded tourism connectivity can stimulate local economies.<\/p>\n

Foreign policy, therefore, is not merely about embassies, ministries and high-level meetings. It is directly connected to market prices, employment, industry, farmers\u2019 incomes and the country\u2019s economic future.<\/p>\n

It is natural for India, China or any other partner to pursue its own national interests in relations with Nepal. The decisive question is not whether they seek their interests. The real question is how clearly Nepal defines its own interests, how effectively it negotiates for them and how capable it is of implementing the agreements it reaches.<\/p>\n

If Nepal has its own agenda, measurable targets, a capable negotiating team, clear timelines and a credible monitoring system, relations with powerful countries can become opportunities. If Nepal\u2019s own priorities remain unclear, the priorities of others will inevitably become more influential.<\/p>\n

Therefore, whether Prime Minister Balendra Shah\u2019s first foreign visit is to Delhi or Beijing should not be interpreted as a diplomatic victory for one capital or as evidence of Nepal\u2019s geopolitical tilt. Wherever the first visit may be, Nepal itself must remain the first priority.<\/p>\n

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

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