The questions raised by seven former Nepali ambassadors to China over the relatively open celebration of the Dalai Lama's birthday in Nepal deserve serious attention. Whether or not the government intended to signal any policy shift, the episode has created room for doubt at a time when Nepal can least afford misunderstandings with any of its neighbors. The government must therefore take immediate diplomatic measures to reassure China that Nepal's long-standing commitment to the One China policy remains unchanged and that Nepali territory will never be allowed to be used against any of its neighbors including China. For a country situated between two rising powers, stable relations with both China and India are not a matter of choice but of national interest. Nepal cannot change its geography, and it should not pursue policies or allow actions that unnecessarily erode the confidence of either neighbor. The emergence of even a perception that Nepal's policy toward China may be changing is therefore a matter of concern. The concerns appear to stem not only from the Dalai Lama's birthday celebrations but also from a series of recent developments that have fueled speculation about Nepal's foreign policy direction. The activities of the controversial TOB group during the Gen-Z movement, reports of its perceived proximity to some members of the current government, and growing international advocacy regarding Tibetan refugees have together created an atmosphere in which China's suspicions may have deepened. Whether these perceptions are justified is secondary; in diplomacy, perceptions often carry as much weight as reality.
Imperative of Strong Diplomatic Initiative in Border Dispute
Nepal has consistently maintained that it adheres to the One China policy and does not permit its territory to be used against China. Successive governments have reiterated this position, including during recent high-level exchanges with Beijing. The government has announced no policy change, and there is no official indication that Nepal has departed from its long-established stance. However, diplomatic credibility depends not only on official statements but also on actions and public messaging. When developments on the ground appear inconsistent with declared policy, doubts inevitably arise. Many Nepalis and members of the Tibetan community may regard celebrations of the Dalai Lama's birthday as religious or cultural events. China, however, views Tibet-related activities primarily through the lens of national security and territorial integrity. Nepal may not be obliged to share that perspective, but it cannot afford to ignore it. Sensitivity to the legitimate security concerns of neighboring countries has long been a cornerstone of Nepal's foreign policy and should remain so. The statement issued by the former ambassadors should therefore not be dismissed as unnecessary alarm. Rather, it should be seen as a timely reminder that preserving trust requires constant attention. If seasoned diplomats who have represented Nepal in Beijing believe recent developments warrant clarification, the government should treat their concerns as constructive advice rather than criticism. The immediate priority should be to restore confidence. Nepal should engage China through established diplomatic channels and clearly reaffirm its unwavering commitment to the One China policy. It should once again state, in unequivocal terms, that Nepali soil will not be used for any activity directed against any of its neighbors, including China. Such reassurances would merely reaffirm Nepal's long-standing policy; they would not represent a concession to any external power.
At the same time, Nepal must continue to uphold its humanitarian responsibilities and constitutional commitments while ensuring that these do not become sources of strategic misunderstanding. Balancing humanitarian concerns with legitimate security sensitivities has never been easy, but Nepal has successfully maintained that balance in the past. There is no reason it cannot do so again through careful, principled, and consistent diplomacy. More broadly, Nepal must pursue an independent and balanced foreign policy that avoids creating the impression of aligning with any particular power. Whether the issue involves China, India, the United States, the MCC, the Belt and Road Initiative, or Tibetan refugees, decisions must be guided solely by Nepal's national interest. Equally important is ensuring that these decisions are communicated clearly and implemented consistently. Trust, once weakened, is not easily restored. Nepal has spent decades building mutual confidence with China on sensitive political and security issues. It should not allow ambiguity, poor coordination, or diplomatic complacency to undermine that hard-earned goodwill. The government must act swiftly and transparently to dispel any doubts, reaffirm Nepal's established commitments, and ensure that relations with China remain stable, predictable, and based on mutual trust. At a time of growing geopolitical competition, restoring and preserving that trust is not merely a diplomatic necessity—it is a national imperative.
