Can we imagine, before 2030, Nepal attending a G20 Summit as an invited participant? At present, this proposition may sound preposterous, impractical, even impossible. But allow me some space to explain why it may not be entirely out of reach.

First of all, this question concerns Nepal being invited only as a guest to the G20, a symbolically important platform with considerable convening power. It is a space where leaders from the most influential nations of both the Global South and the Global North converge to discuss some of the most pressing contemporary issues.

It is also a forum where other countries that matter are invited. For instance, leaders from middle powers and still-influential nations such as Spain, the Netherlands, and Singapore regularly attend as guests. At this moment, Nepal does not count for much in the international arena. But if upcoming elections were to herald a new era of genuine good governance anchored in political stability, the story could be very different.

No one can predict Nepal’s post-election political scenario. Yet, with a degree of optimism, we could assume that if national politics were cleaned up and properly fixed under a serious prime minister and a stable governing coalition, the country could acquire the conditions necessary to be taken more seriously.

It is hardly conceivable that even five years of complete political stability would allow Nepal to become a lower-middle-income economy. But if politics deliver at the local, provincial, and federal levels, and if a capable federal government is in place, then a credible trajectory can at least be set.

In the international arena, Nepal could begin to be noticed by punching above its weight with an unassuming confidence rooted in inner strength. If such a scenario were to materialize, the country could gain prominence not only regionally but also globally.

There are several areas where Nepal could showcase expertise and help elevate global conversations starting with the obvious one: climate justice.

Nepal must significantly deepen its engagement with the UNFCCC Secretariat, the guardian of the Paris Agreement. At COP30, the so-called “Mountain Agenda” was formally acknowledged, but a long journey remains before it evolves into a concrete action plan. One of the central goals of national diplomacy should be to pursue this agenda effectively, even with shoestring budgets.

In this context, the Sagarmatha Sambaad should become an annual event, possibly focused primarily on climate change but designed in a way that connects meaningfully with other critical issues such as artificial intelligence, inequality, and business and human rights. These themes are intrinsically linked to climate justice. AI-driven data centers, for instance, are already showing major impacts on local ecosystems and carbon emissions. Climate warming disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, widening existing inequalities. Meanwhile, the business and human rights agenda becomes essential when countries seek to build climate-resilient infrastructure.

This web of interconnected issues could turn the Sagarmatha Sambaad into a recognized regional and international platform for serious debate. The goal should be to reach a point where the government’s efforts to invite respected speakers gradually fade, because diplomats, scientists, and political leaders actively want to come to Nepal, unwilling to miss the opportunity the Sambaad offers.

Kathmandu or Pokhara should also bid to host major dialogues within the UNFCCC framework. As I have written before, this is not organizationally impossible.

Beyond climate, democracy-building remains one of Nepal’s genuine success stories, despite the messiness and corruption of national politics. There is no perfect democracy anywhere, and no democratic society without corruption scandals. Even Nordic countries—often considered ideal—face their own challenges, albeit better managed.

This is precisely why a future federal government should take a bolder stance in promoting democracy and human rights internationally. Nepal could partner with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN agencies to host major events in Kathmandu through a sustained series of initiatives.

Another opportunity lies ahead as the UN and the international community prepare to discuss a post-2030 development agenda, once the current Sustainable Development Goals expire. Nepal could host early convenings and, more importantly, lead intellectually, especially on the localization of the SDGs, an area long neglected despite its potential to place people at the center of development and governance.

In doing so, Nepal could champion democracy, human rights, and localized development in any future global framework.

Such engagement, which embraces global issues from the perspective of a developing nation seeking sustainable prosperity, could significantly alter how global leaders perceive Nepal. Bold ideas matter. Barbados, for instance, reshaped debates on debt sustainability through innovative proposals. Nepal, too, could initiate internal reforms that allow intellectuals, scientists, business leaders, and young people to propose and share ideas more easily.

In essence, the state must find ways to open itself to its own citizens. This would allow Nepal to attend global summits with meaningful propositions, rather than delivering scripted speeches shaped by international agencies.

Consider artificial intelligence. Nepal has never meaningfully participated in global AI summits, likely due to ignorance, lack of foresight, and chronic political instability. Yet an opportunity may soon arise, as India is set to host a major AI Impact Summit in February, which could offer Nepal a chance to engage and network.

Finally, if Nepal aspires to global recognition, it must not neglect the regional arena. Just days ago, SAARC marked its 40th anniversary. The regional organization is in disarray. Yet Nepal should not abandon the pursuit of regional cooperation.

Even if India and Pakistan continue to block progress at the leadership level, Nepal should seek to invent new ways of fostering South Asian collaboration. SAARC is more than just leaders’ summits; it includes technical mechanisms that, if supported—even symbolically—can still make a difference.

Nepal should adopt a pragmatic approach: advance whatever cooperation is possible without requiring top-level political consensus. Simultaneously, it could invest in the creativity of South Asian civil society by convening regional gatherings aimed at reimagining cooperation beyond current geopolitical constraints.

One immediate, symbolic step could be for Prime Minister Sushila Karki to formally visit the SAARC Secretariat, an easy logistical task, yet rich in meaning. As for BIMSTEC, Nepal should continue its engagement, hoping gradual progress will follow.

All these steps point toward one objective: raising Nepal’s international profile through a deliberate, tailored strategy. Such a strategy would move incrementally, setting higher horizons step by step.

Nepal can be ambitious internationally while remaining grounded and humble, demonstrating a new way of conducting diplomacy—quietly, but with determination. If these elements converge into a coherent policy agenda, then it may not be so unimaginable for Nepal to one day receive an invitation, as a guest, to a G20 Summit.