Nepal's 'buffer state' label sparks debate among foreign policy experts

The Kathmandu Post views the government's recent classification of Nepal as a 'buffer state' with skepticism, a sentiment echoed by many foreign policy experts. While the draft national commitment framework, intended to guide Nepal's foreign policy, highlights a vision of becoming a 'vibrant bridge' between India and China through multilateral economic partnerships, the specific use of the term 'buffer state' has drawn sharp criticism.

“

In international politics and diplomacy, each word used has a specific meaning. Nepal has never referred to its geopolitical position as a buffer state, and neither have its neighbouring friendly nations used such terminology.

This terminology, according to former foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali, is not only historically inaccurate for Nepal but also irrelevant in the current geopolitical landscape. Gyawali points out that Nepal has never been officially referred to as such by its neighbors, and the concept of a buffer state typically arises between hostile powers, which is not the case between Nepal and its two giant neighbors.

“

Nepal’s traditional identity of a buffer zone needs redefinition to adapt to the changing economic, security and political developments in the neighbourhood.

Analysts like Dev Raj Dahal and Chandra Dev Bhatta argue that while Nepal's geographical position between India and China might theoretically align with the definition of a buffer state, embracing this label is problematic. Bhatta emphasizes that the term carries negative connotations from the colonial era and undermines Nepal's sovereign status. He suggests that King Birendra's vision of Nepal as a connector of civilizations is a more fitting and confidence-building identity.

“

Identifying as a buffer state certainly does not help to build our confidence. The term might be correct theoretically, but the broader implications of classifying ourselves as a buffer state are problematic.

From a Nepali perspective, the debate over 'buffer state' versus 'vibrant bridge' is crucial. It reflects a desire to move beyond a passive, geographically determined role to an active, economically driven one. The government's draft, despite its controversial terminology, acknowledges this aspiration. However, the strong reaction from experts underscores the need for careful articulation of Nepal's foreign policy identity, one that accurately reflects its agency and aspirations in a rapidly evolving regional dynamic, rather than relying on outdated geopolitical labels.

“

Perhaps this is why King Birendra rejected the idea of a buffer state and rather identified Nepal as a country that connects two great civilisations of Asia: India and China.