Submit your Article

As Jan 20 approaches closer and President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office in the White House, states are sensing terrible tremors in foreign policy around the world. Trump’s ‘Truth Social’ diplomacy is already creating huge shocks in foreign policy and multilateralism even before he assumes the oath of office of the presidency. Trump is arguably the only president in American history to be equally admired and despised both within and outside the country. Most of Trump’s detractors blame that his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement is a trivial insignia of nationalistic vanity rather than being a patriotic big headedness. Trump, however, has been irrefutably successful in synonymizing ‘Trumpism’ and ‘Republicanism’ and shrewdly synthesizing it into ‘Populism’ in US politics.

The President-elect has declared that he will impose heavy tariffs on all exports from China, Canada, Mexico, and the BRICS countries, including tech and EVs. China, on the other hand, has announced a ‘zero-tariff’ policy for small states, particularly LDCs. Trump’s “great wall of tariff” may lead to crucial tensions in the tech, trade, and diplomatic affairs between the US and China under Trump 2.0, which would have global repercussions. Many Americans may still be unaware whether the ‘blanket tariff’ that could raise inflation is actually an American ‘policy’ or just a ‘threat’, put forth as a negotiating tactic that the president-elect is likely to impose on its major trading partner, close neighbors, and longstanding allies. Besides, the linkage between the taxes that Americans pay and the tariffs that the Trump administration is likely to impose on foreign exports should be understood by the general public.

Trump has avowed of taking back Panama Canal, controlling Greenland, and has urged Canada to join the US as its 51st state in a Christmas message under his ‘Truth Social’ discretion. Panama Canal is a waterway in Panama that connects the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, which was built by the US and handed over to the Panamanian government nearly 25 years ago. Greenland is a sovereign territory of Denmark, while Canada is a G7 member and NATO ally. The chances that Trump would again raise the issue of the origin of Covid-19 towards China cannot be denied, which could widen the trust gap between the US and China.

Trump made immutable mistakes by emboldening some of its adversaries including Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkey, among others, during his first term as the US president. His adversaries have become skeptical of his emotional intelligence and diplomatic avenues due to his frequent use of coercive and irrational language through his erratic tweets during his first term. He is now annoying US allies and key partners, which could bring irrevocable debacle in US foreign policy. Trump is, perhaps, assuming that the Nixon-Kissinger model of the “Madman Theory—act mad and other countries won’t dare trifle with you”—could work for him too.

In his dealing with North Korea, Trump applied the “Kernel of idea” from Madman Theory, possibly to give the impression that he was “irrational and volatile” so that North Korea would less likely provoke the US in fear of potential consequences. Madman theory sometimes may go truly furious in case of action and consequences if the strengths and strategies of the adversaries are undermined.

Trump has abandoned a number of multilateral alliances, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the nuclear missile accord with Russia during his first term. As a result, the US dramatically lost credibility, reputation, reliability and trust of its allies. The US is likely to witness more severe forfeiture under Trump 2.0 as he has threatened to walk-out from NATO and other significant multilateral alliances.

The main concern, however, may be whether these unusual strategies truly fall under modern US foreign policy? Do rational Americans want a military confrontation (or colonial war) in any part of the world under the monologue of neo-colonialism or political hooliganism?

From an American perspective, Trump is accomplishing American goals, such as economic growth, immigration control, border security, and nationalism. Enhancing American security and economic interests are truly a nationalistic idea. The interests of the US, however, are global. America firmly believes in globalism, liberalism, open world economy, and multilateralism. America is not just a country in the North American continent; it is a responsible global power. America is the world's most powerful nation not just because of its economy, strong domestic institutions, technology, or military might, but also because of its pragmatic foreign policy, soft power, visionary engagement in multilateral organizations, and trustful allies and partners. America’s masculine foreign policy, unwavering hold on global leadership, and distinct legacy have made it a great power. American security is said to be characterized by its emphasis on democracy, multiculturalism, multilateralism, and international law.

By the end of World War II, the US was still the most powerful country in the world, controlling over 35 percent of the world’s production, and it had the ability to (re)shape the world according to its wishes.  American values abroad are gradually waning. Is America on the verge of decline? What will be the American position in the years to come, question many critics?

When we examine the precise causes and consequences of the rise and fall of great powers or various empires, constricted ideas or disparities in development have resulted in power struggles. Their power primarily centered on the conflict between their militaries’ ascent and social forces, ethnic nationalism, economic development, colonial and hegemonic behavior. Additionally, power struggles have led to the extinction of empires following the annexation of such power.

Presumably, with a limited global presence and an isolationist foreign policy, America cannot sustain its position as a major power in the long run. The absence of US leadership in the world would leave ample ground for its adversaries to create more challenges or trouble for it. America is the only multicultural nation in the world where people from all over the world dwell or aspire to dwell. While America is winning the hearts, minds, and spirits of tens of millions of people worldwide, Trump's massive deportation plan would certainly weaken its soft power and essence of multiculturalism.

However, Trump’s initiative for peace in the Korean Peninsula and last-minute decision to withdraw the order to strike Iran in his first term must be admired. Trump’s decision to fire his “hawkish” National Security Advisor John Bolton during that situation suggests that he opposed war in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East. Reportedly, Bolton was aggressive in pushing war and later advised then President Trump to employ the ‘Libya Model’ of unilateral denuclearization for North Korea and the ‘Iraq Method’ for Iran. Trump is said to have rejected both the outrageous prospects and avoided the war. Trump instead emphasized the ‘New Method’ for peace negotiations. He is expected to use that ‘New Method’ in his second term to bring peace around the world, although what that ‘New Method’ is still not known. Optimistically, it can be asserted that Trump does not want war. Yet the crucial concern is- does Trump want absolute peace and wish to preserve an essence of stable global order?

The president-elect has pledged to put an end to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. He is expected to advocate for a similar course of action to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and establish enduring peace in the Middle East.

Whether Trump truly wants absolute peace and steady international order, he needs to start peace negotiations from Beijing. To date, the legitimacy of Pyongyang and Kremlin peace negotiations has been contingent on how smoothly Beijing’s trade operates. Thus, Trump must first make real headway in settling the trade and tariff issues pertaining to China. Similarly, the US-North Korea and US-Iran negotiations must be conducted sensibly through diplomatic and political channels, else North Korea and Iran could rise as strong contenders not only to the US allies in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East, but also to the US itself.  

Iran asserts that it is a powerful country (more so than Iraq was) and has the ability to retaliate for any strikes against the US allies. Tehran has maintained good relations with the Kremlin, Beijing, and Ankara, which could make Washington feel weaker than all the former four combined. North Korea is equally marshaling the clout of missile and nuclear technology and showcasing to Washington that Pyongyang is not alone in world politics, as it has been strongly backed up by Beijing and the Kremlin. North Korea and China are “as close as lips and teeth, communist brothers in arms…,” as Mao Zedong put it. Strategically, Pyongyang and Tehran assume that they both are as strong as Washington. While the US, under Trump 2.0, is likely to create a huge gap of trust with its allies and multilateral communities, its adversaries could take advantage of gradually waning American strength.

Chinese people are reportedly very appreciative of Donald Trump's China policy, despite the fact that it was largely humiliating; this could have led to China taking a more focused approach to accomplishing its economic, technological, and diplomatic and foreign policy goals. Since China’s opening up, the US and China have maintained good trade relations despite their long standing political rivalry. President-elect Donald Trump is anticipated to play a statesmanship role in fostering friendly, vibrant, and harmonious US-China ties, much like President Richard Nixon did in establishing US-China diplomatic relations in the past.

In the face of experiencing two near-death experiences during his election campaign, Trump's tremendous resilience must be cherished. Trump has become more composed, brave, and strong following these failed assassination attempts. He resembles a deceased man who has miraculously come back to life. The way he has got a new life, the similar way he is expected to bring peace, hope, natural life, and aspirations to people around the world with a greater generosity and wider spirit. The rest of the world would be incredibly grateful to Trump if he could, as he previously declared, put an end to the ongoing international conflicts and promote amicable US-China relations. Essentially, if President Trump played a sensible role in bringing international peace, stability, and balanced order, the entire world would applaud him, perhaps not only in this generation but also in the generations to come.

Taking into account sensible geo-location, highly unstable global geopolitical situation, vulnerable digital space, and the magnitude of AI threats, Nepal's security architecture has specific limitations. For Nepal, the conventional idea of security might not be operational. Therefore, it is imperative that Nepal adopt a practical security strategy that involves increased trust, strategic partnerships, and techno-economic cooperation with both its immediate neighbors and other global powers. The most crucial matter is that Nepal should be aware of the geopolitical rivalry between China and India or the US and China and logically implement a policy to balance relations with them.

Nepal should be ready to handle any fallout from occupation of Taiwan, which might result in a massive ‘crossfire’ between China and the US that could directly affect Nepalese security and sovereignty. Nepal would have suffered greatly on all fronts—politically, economically, digitally, physically, and psychologically—if it had not been able to diligently manage the geopolitical balance between the competing superpowers. For Nepal, the most important foreign policy choice would be whether to align with one or remain neutral, while the main concern would be how Nepal could balance between them and defend itself in that circumstance. Both the options, however, would be costlier to Nepal. Perhaps neither China nor the US would ensure Nepalese security in that critical situation. China would accuse Nepal of failing to participate in its Global Security Initiative (GSI) on time, while the United States would accuse Nepal of dwindling to participate in the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) or State Partnership Program (SPP) in advance. Yet, both the superpowers have made an effort to persuade Nepal to support their cause through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to some extent.

Nonetheless, Nepal must assess realistic foreign policy and promote techno-economic cooperation by initiating a ‘better relationship initiative’ with all the major powers, including its immediate neighbors. This could help to alleviate all of those persistent domestic and international challenges and to achieve foreign policy goals. Essentially, Nepal should practice time-sensitive policy to reduce the ‘trust deficit’ with its immediate neighbors and other powers, which could strengthen bilateral relations and raise the possibility of applied security and stability.

The author is a techno-geopolitical analyst and geostrategic thinker

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, passed away at the age of 100, leaving behind an enduring legacy as a humanitarian, advocate for peace, and champion of human rights. His life was a testament to humility and service, symbolizing the principles of a true humanitarian. Carter’s most significant contributions came after his presidency, proving that former leadership roles can be harnessed for greater societal good.

In contrast to many global leaders who cling to power until their last breath, Carter chose a different path. In Nepal, politics is often seen as a lifetime occupation, with leaders reluctant to step away from the political stage. Carter, however, demonstrated that one's impact can extend far beyond the tenure of an official role. Despite facing numerous challenges during his presidency—including the energy crisis, Soviet aggression, and the Iran hostage crisis—he remained steadfast in his principles and commitment to service. His post-presidential work earned him global admiration, not just as a former US president but as a global humanitarian.

Nepali leaders could greatly benefit by emulating Carter's qualities: resilience, integrity, dedication, and adherence to personal principles. Carter provided a clear vision and skillset to create meaningful change even after leaving office, a lesson Nepali politicians should adopt.

Carter was not widely popular during his presidency, particularly when he sought re-election. The American public doubted his leadership during tough economic times. However, his unwavering resolve to serve humanity became his hallmark. Through the Carter Center, he addressed global challenges, including health care, democratic governance, and human rights. Even in declining health, he continued his mission to improve lives worldwide, exemplifying hope and resilience.

Nepali leaders, by contrast, often fail to contribute meaningfully outside the political arena. This stems from an identity crisis and an egoistic mindset that prevents them from engaging in other areas of service. Nepal has many academically and professionally capable former leaders who could contribute to nation-building through education, economics, or social initiatives. Yet, few follow Carter’s example of using their experience to serve the greater good.

Carter’s simplicity and discipline stand in entirely contrast to the materialism and extravagance that characterize many Nepali leaders’ lifestyles. His unwavering integrity, commitment to peace, and belief in human rights shaped his legacy. Nepali leaders often foster corruption and social inequality through their pursuit of luxury and power. Carter, on the other hand, will be remembered not for his presidential power but for his modest, principled life. The current fragility of Nepali society—marked by political dilemmas, misinformation, and populist agendas—calls for leaders who prioritize unity, social harmony, and fact-based solutions. Nepali leaders must abandon political biases and work towards strengthening democracy, ensuring justice, and promoting economic prosperity.

Carter came to office in 1976, offering a fresh alternative following the Watergate scandal. His administration emphasized transparency, human rights, environmental conservation, and historic achievements like the Camp David Accords, a historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. However, economic struggles and international crises overshadowed his presidency. Despite these setbacks, Carter never wavered in his honesty and commitment to his principles.

One of Carter’s most profound statements reflects his philosophy:

“I believe that anyone can be successful in life, regardless of natural talent or the environment within which we live. This is not based on measuring success by human competitiveness for wealth, possessions, influence, and fame, but adhering to God’s standards of truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love.”

Carter’s dedication to doing even small things with consistency and humility made him a leader for the people rather than for a party. Nepali leaders can learn from his legacy that serving the people and pursuing greater causes outweigh political ideologies or party loyalties. Jimmy Carter’s life is a reminder that leadership is not confined to holding office but is defined by one’s actions and principles. Nepali leaders must focus on building a legacy that future generations can admire. This is the time to act—to strengthen Nepal’s democracy, foster social justice, uphold the rule of law, and pursue economic prosperity. By embracing Carter’s values of service, humility, and integrity, Nepali leaders can transform their country into a more just and prosperous society. 

President Jimmy Carter exemplified humility, integrity, and a committed dedication to public service, with his most impactful accomplishments occurring after his presidency. Through his efforts to improve global health, uphold human rights, and promote peace, he demonstrated that true leadership extends far beyond the confines of political office. Unfortunately, many Nepali leaders remain fixated on retaining power and struggle to contribute meaningfully outside the political sphere, often constrained by personal ego. By embracing Carter's values of simplicity, resilience, and service to the greater good, Nepali leaders could strengthen democracy, foster social harmony, and build an enduring legacy that inspires many generations to come. The question remains: Will they rise to the challenge?

The nation’s main communist party, the CPN-UML, is now dealing with internal problems. Following the expulsion of senior leader Bhim Rawal and the suspension of two female leaders, Binda Pandey and Ushakiran Timalsena, carried out under the watch of party chair KP Sharma Oli, an alarming trend of intolerance towards dissenting voices emerged, implying that the party lacks democratic culture. Rawal was removed after years of criticizing Oli, which prompted him to run for chairman of the party at the 10th convention in Chitwan. Pandey and Timalsena were suspended for voicing concerns about the party and its leadership receiving land contributions for party offices from a tainted businessman accused of tax evasion and the Lalitaniwas land scam.

A week after his dismissal, Rawal established his new patriotic but non-communist party, accusing Oli of turning the UML into a personal domain in which fealty to him is essential for life. This tendency of purging or marginalizing opponents inside the UML is not new, but it has become more prominent under Oli’s term. Notable senior officials have left the UML due to internal disagreements. Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal, both former prime ministers, quit the party to create the CPN (Unified Socialist) after years of disagreement with Oli’s leadership. Similarly, senior leader Bam Dev Gautam has removed himself from the party, claiming that it has no space for leaders like him since he, too, is a critic of Oli. These departures indicate a culture of intolerance.

Political experts claim that under Oli’s leadership, the UML has become a party controlled and dominated by the Oli supporters. Leaders such as Shankar Pokhrel, Ishwar Pokhrel, Bishnu Rimal, and Gokul Baskota are often seen attacking individuals who criticize Oli. Meanwhile, personalities like Pradip Gyawali, Yogesh Bhattarai, Yuv Raj Gyawali, and others who have demonstrated a hatred for following Oli’s lead, have been marginalized. Open discussion on party leadership choices has been restricted, increasing concerns among those who hold grudges against Oli and his staunch supporters. Following Rawal’s expulsion and the suspension of others, many UML leaders remained silent, highlighting the party’s underlying fear.

The infighting within the UML is not unique. The CPN (Maoist Center) faces a similarfaces a similar problem: almost no one can speak out against party head Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s policies or actions. Inside the Maoist party, Dahal has faced claims of marginalizing dissidents while consolidating his control as the party chair.

Former Maoist leaders Baburam Bhattarai, Mohan Baidhya Kiran, Biplav, Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal, and Top Bahadur Rayamajhi are among the leaders who left the party after falling out with Dahal.

The examples described above show Nepal’s socialist parties’ hypocrisy. Despite their dictatorial character, these parties often claim to be the advocates of democracy. The UML, for example, has often declared its support for democratic ideals in manifestos and public statements. However, the behaviors of its leaders reveal a different tale.

Rawal’s removal, together with the suppression of other dissident voices, points to this inconsistency. As Rawal pointed out in his harsh critique, Oli’s leadership has reduced the UML to a “shadow of its former self,” violating the very principles on which it was founded. The same may be argued for other communist parties, particularly the Dahal-led Maoist Centre, that have disliked opposition in parties, though they have claimed that they followed democratic norms in the nation’s polity.

Unlike the communist parties, the Nepali Congress (NC) has taken a more democratic approach to controlling internal dissent. While the NC is not as ideal as many of its staunch supporters believe, it has tolerated major disagreement inside the party without resorting to expulsions or suspensions. NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba, General Secretary Gagan Thapa, and senior leader Shekhar Koirala often disagree on key matters pertaining to the party, politics, and the nation, yet the party has managed to retain a sense of tolerance of dissenting voices.

The contrast between the NC and the leftist parties underscores the need for introspection within Nepal's communist factions. To maintain credibility and cohesion, parties like the UML and Maoist Centre must cultivate a democratic culture that values dissent as an essential component of organizational health. Leaders must recognize that open debate is an opportunity to address flaws, not a threat to authority.

If the UML continues its authoritarian trajectory under Oli, it risks further fragmentation, as seen with previous high-profile defections. Similarly, the Maoist Centre must learn from these lessons and prioritize inclusivity and transparency. Only by fostering democratic values within their structures can Nepal’s political parties claim legitimacy as proponents of democracy on the national stage.

Bail hearing is the crux of the criminal justice system. It plays a crucial role in a fair legal system. When someone is arrested, the court must decide whether they should stay in jail or be granted bail based on conclusive evidence. This evidence typically includes the First Information Report (FIR), statements from victims and witnesses, evidence gathered from the crime scene, the statement of the offender, medical reports, and more. The goal is to determine whether the accused should remain in custody before their trial or be allowed to go free.

At a bail hearing, the key question is whether there is enough evidence to justify pre-trial detention. This decision should not be influenced by the strength of the case or a final judgment of guilt but by concerns such as the risk of flight, the possibility of evidence tampering, or the threat to public safety. Courts usually rely on prima facie evidence, meaning evidence that appears to support the charges at first glance but is not conclusive.

Many countries make clear distinctions between bailable and non-bailable offenses. However, in Nepal, the legal system does not differentiate in this way. This gives judges significant discretion in deciding bail. While judicial discretion is important, it has led to a troubling trend in Nepal where courts often deny bail even when the evidence is weak. This is especially true in cases involving serious charges like rape, murder, human trafficking, or drug trafficking, where the accused is frequently sent to judicial custody, not because of solid evidence, but because of the severity of the charges pressed.

The fundamental principle of criminal justice is that a person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, in Nepal, the opposite often happens: an accused person is treated as a criminal before their innocence is proven. This goes against the very foundation of a fair justice system. Merely accusing someone does not make them a criminal; they remain an accused person until proven guilty. Yet, in many cases, the presumption of innocence is ignored when bail is denied, violating this fundamental right and often leading to significant harm before a trial.

The Supreme Court of Nepal has set a clear precedent, stating that bail should still be granted if the accused is not a significant flight risk, does not pose a danger to public safety, and there is no compelling evidence justifying detention. However, district courts often fail to follow this precedent. The reasons for this include pressure from media trials, societal expectations, influence from NGOs, and even fear of repercussions from the Judicial Council. This malpractice can have a severe impact on the human rights of the accused, particularly their right to freedom, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial.

Article 20 of the Nepali Constitution guarantees the right to justice, including the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Denying bail without strong evidence directly violates these rights. The practice undermines both the legal process and the fundamental freedoms of individuals. Bail is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and should only be denied in cases where there are clear reasons for detention, such as a flight risk or a threat to public safety. This principle is also backed by international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which affirm the presumption of innocence and stress that pre-trial detention should be a last resort.

Despite these legal protections, Nepal’s criminal justice system faces serious challenges such as overcrowded prisons, delayed trials, and excessive pre-trial detention. These problems often result in individuals being detained unnecessarily, violating the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” When bail is denied based on weak evidence, it treats the accused as if they are already guilty, taking away their freedom and causing harm even before a verdict is reached. The impact of this is far-reaching: individuals may lose their jobs, face social stigma, and endure emotional trauma all before their guilt or innocence is decided in court.

Challenges to justice

One of the significant challenges in the bail process is the role of prosecutors. Often, prosecutors bring serious charges based on limited or weak evidence, which can unduly influence bail decisions. Serious charges like murder, rape, or terrorism may automatically lead to bail denial, even when there is little evidence to support them. When prosecutors file charges with the intention of securing a conviction rather than based on solid evidence the courts are often pressured into denying bail without adequate justification.

For example, a prosecutor files a case involving a simple fight between two or more people, where the injury is minor, and there is no intent to kill anyone. However, the prosecutor still charges the offender with attempted murder, leading the judges to reconsider granting bail. Similarly, in drug-related cases, even when a person is merely a user and not a dealer, they may be charged with trafficking, a far more serious offense. This escalates the severity of the crime without a clear basis in fact.

Additionally, a growing trend has emerged in Nepal where, if more than three people are involved in a crime, the prosecutor charges them with organized crime even if the crime does not meet the legal definition of organized crime. This is often done without evidence of a criminal hierarchy or any clear leader. By inflating the seriousness of the crime, the prosecutor may pressure the court into denying bail, further violating the human rights of the accused.

The price of freedom

Denying bail based on the severity of charges alone, without solid evidence, inflicts significant harm on the accused. This practice not only violates basic human rights but also contradicts international legal standards, which state that pre-trial detention should be used as a last resort.

To address these issues, Nepal’s criminal justice system must undergo significant reforms. Courts must base bail decisions on clear and convincing evidence, not just the severity of charges. Judges should follow strict guidelines to ensure bail is not used as a tool of punishment before a trial. There is a saying “Whether criticized or praised, whether money comes or goes, whether one dies today or in the distant future, without worrying about any of these things, those who walk the path of justice never waver.” For this kind of fair judgement, a judge must be provided with a conducive working environment, where there is no fear from society, media trials or NGOs. Only then can they truly deliver justice. Only then can they secure the human rights of the accused in the true sense.

Real justice comes from a system that respects human dignity, ensures a fair trial, and upholds the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Only when these principles are upheld can Nepal’s criminal justice system be truly fair. The price of freedom should not be determined by the whims of prosecutors or the severity of the charges alone. It should be based on the facts and the evidence. The time to act is now, before more innocent people are unjustly punished by a broken system that is meant to protect them.