NOTE: This NEFview is adapted from the speech Aneka Rebecca Rajbhandari (Co-founder, The Araniko Project) gave in commentary on the keynote by Dr. Brian Wong (Assistant Professor, HKU), as part of the Nepal-China 101 report launch event. The full transcript was originally published on The Araniko Project’s Substack here.
A little context and I have to mention, I first went to China a little over a decade ago and began pursuing China seriously as an academic interest almost six years ago. Since then, I have attended many seminars on Nepal-China relations, both here and in China. Much of our discussion has understandably focused on major issues: geopolitics, BRI, infrastructure, soft power, and connectivity.
Over time, I have found myself wondering: when did we skip the foundations and move straight to the bigger questions?
That is why I am genuinely glad that we finally have something called Nepal-China 101. “101” may sound basic, perhaps even like something we should already know. Very often, we do not.
A strong understanding of trade, business, energy, tourism and the institutions that shape them gives us a much better foundation for discussing the larger questions. And I think this report makes an important contribution by establishing that baseline from Nepal’s perspective.
Brian spoke today about moving from the static idea of “equidistance”, which we have heard very often, towards “equal proximity.” I find this a useful way of thinking about Nepal’s foreign relations. Equal proximity gives Nepal space to cultivate all these relationships with confidence.
China and India are our neighbors, while the other countries will remain important partners and I’m wondering if this is what Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meant when he quoted 远亲不如近邻（Close neighbor is better than a distant relative）.
The report led me to think about what makes that proximity meaningful for Nepal. For me, the answer is capability.
Across trade, renewable energy and tourism, the report identifies substantial opportunities alongside gaps in legal frameworks, regulatory capacity, infrastructure, payment mechanisms, market knowledge and implementation. We have ambition, and capability is what connects that ambition with outcomes.
Considering the mention of orthodox tea. The report notes that Nepal’s orthodox tea exports to China increased by more than 88% during the first eight months of 2024. This reminded me of my recent visit to the 20th Beijing International Tea Expo, where I learned that this was the first time in two decades Nepali tea entrepreneurs themselves had participated in this major annual event.
However, Nepal was already represented in this Beijing expo but through Chinese distributors, but repackaged and sold at considerably higher prices. Nepali producers themselves had very little visibility in that market. I also must mention that the expo was held at the National Agriculture Exhibition Center, and for anyone who has lived in Beijing long enough, we all know it’s just one subway stop away or roughly 2km from the Nepali Embassy in Beijing.
This is what the report aptly describes as “geographic proximity coupled with institutional distance.” And I think this idea travels well across the three sectors covered in the report.
Market access becomes valuable when businesses understand how to enter the market. Border openings become useful when exporters can meet quality and inspection requirements. Energy cooperation becomes productive when legal and technical frameworks support it. Tourism grows when we understand how Chinese travelers discover, evaluate and navigate destinations.
This is why I find the news that Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is developing country strategy papers for key bilateral partners encouraging.
China requires China-specific capacity, as we have written in The Araniko Project extensively, success in today’s China is best done by people who are already embedded into the Chinese society. And importantly, much of this expertise already exists within Nepali society. However, we still hear many Nepali analysts and experts complaining saying “we don’t understand China”, to me this is a rather lousy argument and disregards the Nepali diaspora including Nepali students in various discipline, entrepreneurs and professionals who have spent years if not their whole life navigating the Chinese ecosystem and have succeeded
Capacity-building can therefore begin by recognizing, organizing and using the knowledge we already possess.
This brings me to another familiar idea: Nepal as a bridge between India and China, a metaphor that has already been exhausted.
A bridge derives its value from connecting two places, and its usefulness depends upon the movement taking place across it. India and China already have substantial direct trade, their own routes and crossings, and multiple channels of engagement. Their relationship also evolves according to calculations largely outside Nepal’s control.
This raises a useful question: How can Nepal make its geography valuable on its own terms?
Brian offered an interesting possibility in his Nepali Times article: Nepal as a relatively neutral “whisperer” between China and India, and as a cradle of people able to speak across the Himalaya.
I would extend that thought to knowledge connectivity. China is investing enormously in AI, renewable energy, advanced manufacturing and scientific research. India has deep capabilities in technology, digital infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, space and higher education. Nepal sits between to both.
Our universities, research institutions, businesses and young people are therefore geographically positioned beside two enormous centers of knowledge, technology and economic transformation. This, to me, is one practical expression of equal proximity. Each relationship brings different possibilities. Nepal’s task is to understand what it seeks from each relationship and develop the institutional capacity to pursue those priorities. That requires clarity about our interests, our red lines, the areas where cooperation is most valuable, and the outcomes we want from engagement.
And ultimately, I think this gives us a useful way of thinking about the future of Nepal-China relations. We should continue asking: How much value stays in Nepal? And perhaps most importantly: Is engagement expanding Nepal’s choices?
So, if I could place one enabling condition underneath Brian’s ideas of history, autonomy, transparency, creativity and humanity, it would be capability. The capability to understand our partners, to negotiate effectively, to implement what we agree upon, and to mobilize the expertise Nepal already possesses.
Geography gives us proximity. Diplomacy builds relationships. Capability determines what we can do with them.
Finally, if Nepal-China 101 gives us a foundation for building that capability, then it has already made an important contribution: helping Nepal understand the current relationship more clearly and identifying the opportunities more precisely and hopefully, we can engage China with greater confidence and agency.
Co-founder, The Araniko Project
