NEPAL'S AMBIGUITY IN INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY:AVOIDING "TRAP" IN GREAT POWER COMPETITION

Owing to Nepal's geostrategic location, and neutral foreign policy that Nepal has been pursuing historically, Nepal's ambiguity towards Indo-Pacific strategy is not inexplicable. However, the display of such ambiguity has been perceived by Nepal's southern neighbour and the U.S. as Nepal's proximity to China through Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI). Taking the same perception into consideration, this paper aims to analyses how Nepal's entry into China-led BRI is only economic, not strategic. But, Nepal's failure lies in its diplomatic inability to convince India and the United States that Nepal's entry into BRI is only economic. Even Nepal has not been able to convince China, from whom Nepal is aspired to attain economic benefits, about Nepal's participation in joint military exercise under Indo-Pacific design. Nepal could have convinced China that joint military exercise was meant only for the disaster preparedness. If Indo-Pacific strategy is helpful for Nepal in mitigating natural disasters and crises, BRI too is useful for getting connected with the global value chain. Therefore, Nepal needs to be loud and clear about its preferences. But, Nepal has failed to compartmentalize economic aspirations against strategic interests. While it has not been compartmentalized, ambiguity has resulted. But, whether such ambiguity will lead anywhere? Do the foreign policy objectives of equidistance and neutrality always yield ambiguity? Why Nepal cannot articulate clear-cut foreign policy against such ambiguities? Blames are often laid on Nepal's geo-strategic location, on whose vicinity there is the presence of immensely powerful neighbourhood. Taking the aforementioned research questions into consideration, this paper argues that Nepal should make an endeavour to resolve such ambiguities by essentially exercising “meticulous diplomacy," which is usually practised to avoid predicaments. But, "meticulous diplomacy" should not be misunderstood as passive diplomacy. Rather, it is a balanced approach. Hence, this paper concludes with a note that Nepal's apparently ambiguous stance over Asia-Pacific is the result of Nepal's disinterestedness to be dragged into the great power competition in the Himalayan region. Thus, Nepal's ambiguity in Indo-Pacific strategy is to avoid being trapped in the great power competition. Therefore, if Nepal is ensured by India and United States that Indo-Pacific strategy is more about institutions, infrastructure, cross-border cooperation and open rules-based order, it might help Nepal to get rid of such ambiguities. It is where "meticulous diplomacy" prevails, and ambiguities are brushed aside to materialize connectivity and reciprocity.