Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Trump have had a love-hate relationship. The two populist leaders have now fallen out, threatening a full scale Indo-American trade war. Many of Nepal’s exports to the United States like garments and rugs are also what India sells to the US. So, after Donald Trump announced additional tariffs on Indian exports to total 50%, Nepal could have an advantage. But this is only if the government plays its cards right and develops a long term strategy to boost export of items in which it has comparative advantage, and find new export products. The recent fallout ostensibly comes after India ignored western sanctions and continued to purchase Russian oil, and could be linked to Trump’s meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday in which he wants to use India as a bargaining chip. “Trump has not honoured any international trade agreements, making the global trade regime unstable,” says economist Posh Raj Pandey. This could mean that the US could still pull back on tariffs, just as he has given China a reprieve of another 90 days this week. Compared to other South Asian countries, including India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Nepal faces a relatively low tariff rate of 10%. Theoretically this could put Nepali exports at an advantage for items like garments and other products like tea. But it also carries its own risks.  <figure><img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250814090852_1d2fe71e4f7c5f82d72240714c6a7a140d59230096eac995ca3264a5c2ed00a2.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="20250814090852_1d2fe71e4f7c5f82d72240714c6a7a140d59230096eac995ca3264a5c2ed00a2" data-rendition-name="original" width="1266" height="860" loading="lazy" alt="Nepal-US trade graph NT"></figure>  Some 64% of Nepal’s imports are from India, and US tariffs could make those products more expensive. A stronger USD vis-a-vis the INR would also devalue the Nepali rupee and increase the cost of imports from India of raw material for its exports, for example, garments. The manufacturing sector in Nepal has never reached its true potential, its main export items to India are soya and palm oil which are actually just bulk imports of the same oils repackaged for export. Domestic production lacks capacity to keep up with demand. “Nepal’s productive capacity must be increased in order to boost exports, and the market should be diversified for Nepal to take advantage of a competitive market,” says Pandey. Indian exporters could try to reroute their finished products through the open border with Nepal, changing the tag from ‘Made in India’ to ‘Made in Nepal’ to avoid US tariffs. China did this by relocating its factories to Vietnam in the past, but such re-labelling may result in punitive measures. “It is not worth the risk, we should be careful. Besides, there is no domestic value addition in such cases,” states Kharel. Nepal has a trade deficit with the US of Rs7.64 billion, which is probably why Trump has not increased tariffs on Nepal’s exports to more than 10%. Nepal’s main exports to the US are ready-made garments, dog chews and carpets. Nepal had preferential market access to the US, but did not take much advantage of it. “Nepal’s garment export to the US stands at Rs2 billion, and we could try to increase production and export more to take advantage of relatively lower tariffs, but reaching production worth Rs10 billion is not practical and Nepal does not have the capacity either,” says Pandey. Furthermore, if Nepal increases exports to the US and creates a trade surplus, it may raise eyebrows in Washington and Nepal could be slapped with higher tariffs if Trump is still around. In a modern multilateral world, Donald Trump has pressed ahead unilaterally, using tariffs to arm-twist allies to get all kinds of concessions, even those not related to trade. Trump thinks he is doing this to protect the domestic US industry, but it is already backfiring with higher domestic consumer prices. Adds Pandey, “Trump has used the tariffs as a Swiss Army knife to cut through everything. The tariffs are used as an instrument for national security, to increase investment and even to end conflict.” Trump claimed he initiated the ceasefire between India and Pakistan over their recent conflict by threatening both countries with tariffs. New Delhi denied Trump’s claims, while Pakistan acknowledged his role, even nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize. REGIONAL HEGEMON “India had wanted to establish itself as a regional hegemon by aligning itself to the West,” says Paras Kharel, executive director at South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics, and Environment (SAWTEE). But the tariff tiff with India may have thrown that strategy off kilter. Most countries use diplomatic channels to resolve existing trade issues. However, Trump has chosen the path of coercive diplomacy, which was seen in his response to issues like migration and the use of veto power at the United Nations. India is the world's third largest consumer of oil, with Russia accounting for 30% of the country’s oil imports. Russia was also the largest arms supplier for India, but that has decreased in recent times, as India shifted towards the US, Israel and France. India is the largest arms importer in the world, and is making more and more purchases from American manufacturers of weapons systems. But India has already retaliated by cancelling planned imports of military equipment from the US. Uncertainty looms large as Trump’s volatile flip-flopping upends global trade. The unpredictability was underlined by Trump extending his tariff truce for China by 90 days, saying Beijing "has been dealing with it nicely". The tariff threat on Indian exports could also be similarly postponed if New Delhi appeases Trump with compromises. But Modi seems in no mood to give up India’s national interest, especially by allowing American agricultural imports. Modi is all set to visit China for the first time in seven years for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit on 31 August in Tianjin. This could signify the beginning of a major realignment in geopolitical alliances in the Asia-Pacific. Nepal is a small player, but when India and China are buffeted by global turbulence, it will rock Nepal as well. Nepal therefore needs to boost trade capacity to take advantage of new opportunities. Says Pandey, “Nepal needs to diversify its exports, find new markets and seek alternative finance sources.”

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

thumbnail

viewImage

Nepal and the US-India tariff tiff

Will President Donald Trump give his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping a gift? While Trump prizes unpredictability, Xi aims to position China as a force for global stability. Thus, there is a widespread assumption that China will rush to fill the vacuum left by an increasingly nationalist and isolationist United States.
The Chinese leadership has no interest in filling America’s shoes. Attempting to do so could cost China dearly just when it is undertaking a broader economic reorientation at home. The world may be tired of US interventionism – and, now, of <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/trump-s-first-month">Trumpian aggression</a> – but that does not mean it is ready to welcome an abstemious superpower.&nbsp;
China has studiously avoided becoming involved in major crises beyond its <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/trans-himalayan-handshake">immediate neighbourhood</a>. Though it has proposed global initiatives on ‘development’, ‘security’, and ‘civilisation’, and articulated a vision of multipolarity in which all countries are treated equally, its efforts to realise these goals have not gone beyond economic statecraft.
While foreign commentators debate what <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/what-is-xi-jinping-s-big-surprise">China’s vision </a>entails – with some describing it as a potentially benevolent hegemon, and others as a malevolent one – Chinese authorities and intellectuals are more immediately concerned with weathering the storm that Trump has unleashed.
Viewed from outside, China’s core <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/staying-neutral-in-a-us-china-confrontation-8qni2ij1">national interests</a> seems straightforward: to replace the US as global leader. But pursuing that role may contradict other core interests, such as maintaining regime legitimacy and security, orchestrating a continuous rise in living standards, and reunifying Taiwan with the mainland.&nbsp;
These goals might best be served by maintaining a cold peace with the US, rather than embracing conflict with it.
Having watched the US, China knows all too well that being a <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=4815">global superpower </a>would inevitably draw it into regional conflagrations that it would prefer to avoid. But China also knows that it has benefited massively from the relatively stable world economy that the US and its allies helped bring about.
China needs to retain enormous amounts of resources and manpower domestically to tackle its biggest challenges. Chinese leaders must <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/nepal-s-bubble-economy">manage an economy</a> that is no longer driven primarily by property development and exports, while preparing for the possibility that one of its largest trading partners could descend into total isolation.
Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs and escalatory duties in response to Chinese countermeasures were a wake-up call. Whatever happens in the trade war, China urgently needs to rebalance its economy by stimulating greater domestic demand.
While Chinese leaders have long acknowledged the need for such a rebalancing, they have been slow to follow through with the necessary policies. Public messaging notwithstanding, they have continued to prioritise industrial output over living standards, and capital investment over consumer spending. But the prospect of losing one of its biggest export markets should change this calculation.
Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/turning-point-in-us-india-relations">Turning point in US-India relations</a>, Shashi Tharoor
Similarly, China has an interest in building resilient supply chains for critical technologies in order to circumvent US chokepoints. A significant share of national resources has already been redirected toward promoting domestic innovation.&nbsp;
With the Sino-American rivalry intensifying over the past decade, Chinese leaders have come to regard domestic innovation as a strategic necessity.
Beyond boosting domestic innovation, China is eager to seize opportunities to set the global governance agenda for emerging technologies.&nbsp;
Its recent successes in <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepal-needs-to-be-more-intelligent-about-ai">AI</a> – most notably <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/artificial-censorship">DeepSeek</a>’s release of low-cost models that rival those from top US developers – have created a strong impetus for China to amplify its voice. China’s message – that a handful of rich countries should not be able to monopolise the technologies that will determine everyone’s economic future – undoubtedly resonates with many around the world.
During the post-Liberation Day staring contest with the US, China convened an impromptu gathering of the all-powerful Politburo and Chinese ambassadors stationed abroad. The purpose was to assess China’s relations with its neighbours, and the stature of those in attendance spoke to the sense of crisis that had swept through the country’s top leadership.&nbsp;
More to the point, the meeting confirmed that China’s strategic orientation remains focused on its own region – not the global context.
Beijing remains fully committed to maintaining strong ties with the Kremlin, viewing Russo-Chinese alignment as a geographical and strategic necessity. The two countries’ 4,209km land border gives China more than enough reason to work with Russia.&nbsp;
China’s ultimate focus is not Russia but its long-term rivalry with the US. An axis with President Vladimir Putin’s regime might well offer a workable (if imperfect) solution to the containment strategy that America has been pursuing against China.
Likewise, China has been de-escalating tensions with India, another large, nuclear-armed neighbour. Both know that the structural and historical strains on their relationship – characterised by an obvious power imbalance and mutual mistrust – will not be easily eliminated. But both also know that predictable, stable ties will yield big benefits over time, especially in a new multipolar order.
PAX SINICA
Beyond managing relations with its immediate neighbours, China has sought to mobilise the Global South behind reforms to multilateral institutions.&nbsp;
When Chinese leaders and diplomats speak of ushering in an ‘orderly multipolarity’, they mean an international order in which the non-Western world has much more clout. Hence, China is a strong advocate of the recent BRICS expansion, and of proposals to redistribute voting shares within Western-dominated international financial institutions.
China has also sought to shape the agenda at United Nations-affiliated institutions where the US historically has had less influence, such as at UN Trade and Development and the South Centre. It can assume a limited leadership role without directly confronting the US and the rest of the G7.&nbsp;
China does have a foreign-policy interest in subtly countering US influence in the developing world, which is why it builds large-scale infrastructure and addresses long-ignored development needs there without making any demands about democracy, human rights, and accountability.&nbsp;
Instead of offering security guarantees, China offers roads and bridges. In exchange, it can secure access to critical raw materials and open new markets for its state-owned enterprises and private companies at a time when the US and Europe are closing their doors.
China did broker a modest rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and its Global Security Initiative <a href="https://www.iiss.org/research-paper/2024/10/the-global-security-initiative-chinas-international-policing-activities/" target="_blank">aims to</a> foster international cooperation in counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, biosecurity, and emerging technologies.
But in the case of the <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/how-to-agree-an-armistice-in-ukraine?%2F=">Russia-Ukraine </a>and<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/mortality-in-the-gaza-israel-war"> Israel-Hamas</a> wars, it has avoided taking direct responsibility, let alone providing any security guarantees. Of course, China’s self-proclaimed neutrality on the war in Ukraine has not gone unchallenged.&nbsp;
In Gaza, China has criticised the US for supporting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s agenda of continuing the war. But unlike Iran – which China relies on for oil – these other flashpoints have been kept at arm’s length.
Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/world-wars">World wars</a>
China would face three big challenges in pursuing even partial or limited global leadership. First, given America’s accelerated withdrawal from international affairs, China might struggle to sustain its commercial engagement with many parts of the world. After all, the US wants to impose drastic costs on those who do business with China, and it may well get its way.
Second, China cannot avoid engagement in dangerous security situations forever. Sooner or later, it will have to develop a truly global foreign policy. In fact, simply putting its own Global Security Initiative into practice would require it to do much more heavy lifting, not only in setting the agenda but also in terms of deploying security personnel and resources. America may be retreating, but that does not mean it will sit idly by and watch China try to increase its own influence.
Third, China still needs to orchestrate a domestic economic rebalancing – a process that will have enormous global consequences. Shifting from export-led growth to greater domestic consumption will take years, and the push to rebalance may run up against China’s ambition to remain a global manufacturing powerhouse.&nbsp;
The latter objective is already causing tensions with Europe and some developing countries whose domestic manufacturers are struggling to compete with Chinese national champions (such as the electric-vehicle maker BYD).
Even as its economy continues to grow, China will remain a largely self-centered and reluctant superpower. Unlike the US, its domestic political economy calls for a more restrained foreign policy, focused primarily on its immediate neighbours and commercial opportunities in the Global South.
As the world grapples with the decline of US power and the shift toward multipolarity, China will increasingly become the centre of gravity in the global economy. The rivalry between a political and military superpower and an economic one will be dangerous for everyone. Both must tread carefully to prevent economic warfare from escalating into a conflict that all would regret.
&nbsp;©Project Syndicate&nbsp;
Yu Jie is a senior research fellow on China in the Asia-Pacific Program at Chatham House.

What China wants

US President <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/trump-s-second-coming">Donald Trump</a>’s decision to<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/how-usaid-cut-affects-nepal"> dissolve USAID and effectively cut American assistance</a> to countries across the world, including Nepal, has forced many aid-supported programmes and projects to shut down, directly impacting Nepalis across the country who benefit from <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/aid-rarely-aids-agriculture-in-nepal">aid-funded services</a>.
USAID-funded projects have provided direct budgetary support to projects in key sectors including health, education, agriculture, infrastructure, economic growth, humanitarian aid and women and children empowerment.&nbsp;
The aid cuts have meant that people directly or indirectly employed in USAID-funded projects have found themselves without jobs, while its impact has reverberated across those that have indirectly benefitted from spillovers of American aid, such as the hospitality business operators,<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/kathmandu-s-unreal-real-estate-prices"> real estate</a> owners, transport providers, and <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/nepal-airlines-privatisation-still-stuck">airlines</a>.&nbsp;
The abrupt shutdown of the largest bilateral aid agency in the world has significant impact and far-reaching consequences.
Historically,<a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/regular-columns/Connecting-dots/aid-back-basics,929"> foreign aid </a>has been the focus of intensive public debate both globally and in Nepal. Critics in donor countries—particularly those from the political right—view it as antithetical to their <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/national-interest-or-nationalism">national interests</a> and a waste of <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/the-taxman-looteth">taxpayer resources</a>.&nbsp;
Meanwhile, those in the ideological left in recipient countries view it as help that comes with strings attached, a tool of neo-colonialism. Many are of the opinion that such assistance enriches people associated with the aid system rather than intended beneficiaries. So much so that Nepalis cynically refer to the aid-NGO complex as ‘डलरको खेती’ ( dollar farming).
Nepal’s leadership across the political spectrum have not pulled any punches in their criticism of aid institutions— <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/14-years-after-conflict-no-closure-in-nepal">the Maoists</a> have called them ‘agencies of imperialism’, while nationalist discourses from the political right draw connections between foreign aid and <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/nepal-britain-mark-centenary-of-1923-treaty">Nepal’s sovereignty</a>.&nbsp;
Aid is, of course, essentially political—not just in terms of how it has been instrumentalised by donors, but also how it has been appropriated and used by the beneficiaries— governments, employees, consultants, NGOs, the private sector, and communities. However, viewing aid solely from its imputed political intentions is as naïve as it is counterproductive.
Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/missing-links-in-nepal-s-mcc-debate">Missing links in Nepal’s MCC debate</a>
While there is no denying that foreign aid is an instrument of soft power that comes with conditions, it has facilitated access to public services, generated direct and indirect<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/foreign-employment-revival"> employment </a>and livelihood opportunities and empowered <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/the-marginalised-on-the-margins">marginalised communities</a> that have fallen through the cracks of the establishment.
Indeed, foreign aid has contributed significantly to the Nepal’s rapid socio-economic change over the last seven decades, such that the country has arguably become accustomed to and dependent on <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/e75-million-eu-aid-to-nepal-for-covid-19-ckmyfbkq">international funding</a>. USAID was by no means the only source of grants and loans that provided Nepal with resources for numerous government and non-government programmes, projects and personnel.
But while the volume of aid has varied historically, Nepal had so far been immune to such ‘aid-shocks’ that compelled the government and people to imagine and work in a context with little or no international assistance. &nbsp;
And it is not just the US that is pulling up stakes, other donor countries are similarly reconsidering their positions on bilateral aid. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a reduction in foreign aid from 0.5% of its GDP to 0.3%—primarily to accommodate an increase in the country’s defence spending.
Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/the-great-game-2nd-half">The Great Game, 2nd Half</a>, Sonia Awale
More donor countries will follow suit as their taxpayers—particularly those on the populist right—demand their government increasing spending on their own domestic public services, the military, and the private sector. The shrinking pot will directly impact multilateral agencies that rely heavily on funding provided by western donors to support their programmes across the world.
Some see the western world’s retreat from foreign assistance as an opportunity for emerging powers like China to fill the vacuum and expand their sphere of influence regionally and beyond. Nepal has been receiving aid and development assistance from <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/stemming-asia-s-democratic-decay">Asian regional and global powers</a> like India, China and Japan over the past decades.&nbsp;
However, the nature, priorities, and the modality of aid from Asian powers has been notably different to that of western donors. It is therefore unlikely that China or India will offer aid to Nepal using western liberal frameworks, or be able to displace Western donors completely.
If nations in the region are successful in completely replacing western donors in Nepal, this will denigrate possibilities for the country to either bargain better and ‘forum-shop’ for aid that aligns with its national interests, or diversify sources of aid.&nbsp;
As such, it might be time for Nepal to reevaluate its reliance on foreign aid, not just from the US, but from global and regional powers. So, the ‘end of aid’— if it comes to that— need not be end of development in Nepal.
Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/trump-shock-wave-hits-nepal">Trump shock wave hits Nepal</a>, Sudiksha Tuladhar
Data from the government of Nepal shows that foreign aid’s relative share in the national budget has been declining over the decades. In comparison, Nepal earns overs $30 million in remittances a day. Much of Nepal’s development is directly supported by <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/the-new-equaliser">migrant remittances</a>, which remains under-acknowledged.&nbsp;
Decreasing its reliance on foreign aid could mean that Nepal’s leadership is obligated to rethink its development priorities. &nbsp;The government could increase its fiscal capacity to fund development programmes that are critical to its development objectives, demonstrably cost-effective and meet the real needs of communities.&nbsp;
Additionally, there could be increased efforts to raise revenue from wealth and income taxes, attract foreign direct investment, and cut back on ‘white elephant’ projects—symbolic gestures designed to feed the egos of political leadership but serving little purpose or public good.&nbsp;
All of this would ultimately be to the benefit of the Nepali people, reducing waste and corruption, encouraging a more responsible approach to government expenditure, and promoting a more careful husbandry of the country's own resources.&nbsp;
To be sure, this change will not happen immediately. &nbsp;It will be a slow and deliberative process, one that is likely to reset the development contract between Nepali state and citizens.&nbsp;
Some have likened the flow of aid to the rush of heroin— something that provides a high and a momentary sense of extraordinary well-being but it is addictive and damaging. And like any debilitating dependency— being made to quit its reliance on foreign funding cold turkey will be challenging for Nepal.&nbsp;
As things stand, it remains to be seen if as a result of President Trump’s cost-cutting rampage, Nepal might emerge as a leaner but fitter state after recovering from a painful period of withdrawal from its reliance on foreign aid.&nbsp;
Jeevan R Sharma is a Professor of South Asia and International Development at the University of Edinburgh, and has authored publications on migration, development and social change in Nepal. David Seddon is Director of Critical Faculty, and is author and co-author of various publications on Nepal.&nbsp;

The end of aid

Of all the geopolitical stunts <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/trump-s-second-coming">Donald Trump</a> has pulled since returning to the White House, the United States’ votes at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 4 March stand out as the most revealing. The US opposed a seemingly innocuous resolution establishing an International Day of Peaceful Coexistence and reaffirming the<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/how-will-nepal-develop-in-the-next-decade"> UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development</a>. Despite its symbolic nature, the US voted against the resolution, with representative Edward Heartney <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-the-un-meeting-entitled-58th-plenary-meeting-of-the-general-assembly/" target="_blank">explaining</a> that the US ‘rejects and denounces the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course’.&nbsp; Despite US opposition, the resolution ultimately passed with 162 countries voting in favour, two abstaining, and only three, the US, Israel and Argentina, voting against. Then the US was the sole vote against a resolution reaffirming ‘the right of everyone to education … including equal opportunities for young women' likely because it conflicted with a pillar of the Trump administration’s domestic agenda: dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250311100316_36e63634a5e29d69a64b4245e40401c4f731ee12a6918545f64e04023762bf09.jpg" data-media-id="editor_3" data-image-id="20250311100316_36e63634a5e29d69a64b4245e40401c4f731ee12a6918545f64e04023762bf09" data-rendition-name="original" width="800" height="533" loading="lazy" alt="UNGA 1"> <figcaption>The General Assembly also voted on a draft resolution titled Education for democracy with only the United States voting against it.</figcaption> </figure>  These moves may well foreshadow America’s withdrawal from the UN, something Elon Musk and other Trump supporters have <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/nypost.com/2025/03/02/us-news/elon-musk-appears-to-back-us-withdrawing-from-nato-the-un/" target="_blank">urged</a>. Trump has <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/theconversation.com/trump-pulls-out-of-who-and-paris-how-did-international-bodies-get-through-deglobalisation-last-time-around-247919" target="_blank">already pulled</a> the US out of the WHO, and abandoned the Paris climate agreement.&nbsp; His administration has also <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-and-ending-funding-to-certain-united-nations-organizations-and-reviewing-united-states-support-to-all-international-organizations/" target="_blank">withdrawn</a> the US from several UN bodies, including the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and is now reassessing its involvement in the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).&nbsp; This week, the non-profit group Civicusannounced the inclusion of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/09/watchlist-decline-civic-freedoms-civicus">US on its 2026 Watchlist</a>, alongside the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Italy, Pakistan and Serbia. <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/trump-s-first-month">The Trump administration </a>is not merely unhappy with certain international institutions, it is fundamentally opposed to any multilateral framework that even suggests equality among countries. Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/trump-shock-wave-hits-nepal">Trump shock wave hits Nepal</a>, Sudiksha Tuladhar Some analysts <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/theglobalobservatory.org/2024/11/what-might-be-in-store-for-the-united-nations-under-a-second-trump-presidency/" target="_blank">argue</a> that a complete US withdrawal from the UN is unlikely, given the disproportionate influence America wields through its Security Council veto. But given Trump’s law-of-the-jungle approach to <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/the-geopolitics-of-nepal-s-politics">geopolitics </a>even that advantage may no longer seem essential. Should the US leave the UN, the financial consequences could be immediate and severe. As the UN’s largest financial backer, the US <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/financingun.report/un-financing/un-funding/funding-entity" target="_blank">contributed a record $18.1 billion</a> in 2022, accounting for roughly 20% of the organization’s total funding. Notably, more than <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/financingun.report/un-financing/un-funding/funding-entity" target="_blank">70%</a> of US contributions went to just four UN entities: 40% to the World Food Programme (WFP), 12% to the High Commissioner for Refugees, 10% to UNICEF, and another 10% to the Department of Peace Operations. And since much of this funding was <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/UN%20Orgs%20Graphic%20051823.pdf" target="_blank">channeled through USAID</a> which Trump has shut down, it may have already vanished. Given the current geopolitical climate, it would take nothing short of a miracle for other governments to step in immediately to fill the gap. As a result, many critical and life-saving UN programs are now at risk.&nbsp; Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/the-great-game-2nd-half">The Great Game, 2nd Half</a>, Sonia Awale The paradigm shift in US foreign policy does not necessarily signal the impending decline or outright collapse of multilateralism and the UN system despite the Trump administration bullying individual countries rather than work through international institutions.&nbsp; As the world’s leading superpower turns its back on global cooperation, the system of multilateral governance that the US helped establish nearly eight decades ago could begin to unravel. Paradoxically, <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/trump-s-diminishing-power-and-rising-rage">Trump’s actions</a> could also serve as a catalyst for greater <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/how-usaid-cut-affects-nepal">international cooperation</a>, impelling other countries to work together more closely. The reason is simple: no matter how vehemently the White House denies it, <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/living-with-climate-anxiety">humanity’s most pressing challenges</a> are global in nature. They will not go away simply because Trump refuses to acknowledge them. <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/nepal-needs-to-get-its-climate-act-together">Climate change</a>, <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/environmental-destruction-is-a-medical-emergency">environmental degradation</a>, extreme <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/institutionalised-inequality">inequality</a>, <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/is-free-health-care-possible-in-nepal">emerging health threats</a>, the rise of disruptive <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/comment/tech-and-transition-in-nepal">new technologies</a>, and the erosion of stable employment all transcend national borders.&nbsp; Global solidarity is thus not just a moral imperative but an existential one. Many political leaders seem to understand this and <a href="https://archive.ph/o/8f1Hp/https:/geopolitique.eu/en/2025/03/06/lula-ramaphosa-sanchez-joining-forces-to-overcome-global-challenges/" target="_blank">remain committed to multilateralism</a>. International negotiations on taxation, climate action, and development financing are moving forward, even without US participation. In fact, the absence of the US, which has all too often acted as a spoiler anyway even under previous administrations, could pave the way for more ambitious and effective global agreements. In this sense, the current climate of uncertainty and upheaval could represent a unique opportunity to build a truly international movement for progressive change.©Project Syndicate&nbsp; Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is a member of the Club of Rome’s Transformational Economics Commission.

The UN vs Trump 2.0

It has been four days since Donald Trump officially re-entered the White House, and he has already signed executive orders and pardoned dozens of his storm troopers. The best thing you can say is that at least he keeps his promises.
<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/trumpet-call">America’s election</a> is not just about the United States. The rest of the world does not vote for American presidents, but what they do and do not do has far-reaching consequences for the planet. Quitting the climate deal in the middle of the Los Angeles wildfire calamity, and dropping out of the World Health Organization (WHO) as the world prepares for the next pandemic is not even in America’s own self-interest.
The presence at the swearing in of tech billionaires, who were seated in front of Trump’s own cabinet picks, rammed home the point that America is now an oligarchy. The tech and business world have fallen in line, with global implications. Meta’s announcement that it will stop fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram will impact Nepali society and politics .&nbsp;
Trump spoke with Chinese president Xi Jinping before his inauguration, and it seems to have been a meeting of minds between the two authoritarians: the TikTok ban was immediately halted. For all the bluster and brinkmanship, those threats against China appear to be just bargaining.&nbsp;
Trump invited President Xi for his inauguration, who sent his deputy Han Zheng. India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar was also present.&nbsp;
For Nepal, the impact of Trump’s second term will be governed by how US relations with India and China develop in the next five years. Having said that, the US Embassy in Kathmandu has always held importance beyond Nepal to serve as a Tibet listening-post. If the Trump-Xi bonhomie grows, it will affect US support for the Tibet freedom movement, and the Dalai Lama succession question.
On India, the Trump administration is expected to continue Joe Biden’s strategy of holding a slightly reluctant India in its Indo-Pacific embrace to counter China’s increasing economic and military influence in the region.&nbsp;
Trump has not followed through on his threats of tariffs on Chinese imports from “day one”. This suggests a less hostile and more pragmatic approach towards Beijing. That did not mean he held back criticism of China in his speech: notably when he blamed China for being a big polluter, and not paying more to WHO.&nbsp;
“The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity,” Trump said after announcing the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and revoking the Biden administration’s EV mandate.&nbsp;
It is true that China has become the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, although in per capita terms it is still much below the US. China also leads in global renewable energy efforts, it is the biggest manufacturer and exporter of EVs, and has made photovoltaics, lithium batteries and wind turbines affordable to the world.
One can dismiss territorial claims on Panama, Greenland and the ‘Gulf of America’ as deranged, but his “drill, baby, drill” and “frack away, Pennsylvania” all promise to keep America as the biggest producer of fossil fuels. &nbsp;
As a consequence, America itself will see more intense hurricanes, coastal erosion, wildfires and weather extremes. But it will be countries like Nepal at the frontlines of the climate emergency that will pay the heaviest price.&nbsp;
Last year was the warmest year on record as global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial level for the first time – that target was set to be met by 2050 in Paris ten years ago. Nepal has experienced its warmest January yet this year, and the wildfire season has started early.
Another direct impact on Nepalis will be Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The crackdown at the Mexican border will affect hundreds of Nepalis taking the backdoor routes to reach America. Stricter immigration will also affect tens of thousands of Nepalis who are currently in the US or are planning to go study there.&nbsp;
Budget cuts of USAID for reproductive health, human rights and social welfare, and US withdrawal from being the largest donor of WHO will mean less funding for healthcare and the social sector in Nepal.&nbsp;
Washington will further lose its moral high ground in Nepal on issues like transitional justice, human rights, democracy and press freedom. Nepal was already feeling less pressure from the West, and it is now steadily aligning itself with curbs in resurgent India and China.&nbsp;
It will be even more hypocritical for the US to espouse freedom and democracy in the rest of the world after its refusal to call Israel out on its war crimes in Gaza. Trump will take credit for the Gaza ceasefire, and will lean on Ukraine to accept peace terms with Russia.
By the looks of it, Trump is just getting started.&nbsp;
Shristi Karki

Trump’s Second Coming

The shock wave of the return of Donald Trump to the White House, as well as the Republican control of the Senate and possibly the House, will impact not just America but people across the world.
In South Asia, it will mainly change the way Washington views and deals with China and India, and in more unpredictable ways. The impact on Nepal will be governed by how US relations with the country’s two giant neighbours develop in the next five years.
“Compared to Harris who has been focused more on multilateralism and maintaining allies, Trump is more confrontational and unilateral,” says National Assembly member and former Foreign Minister Bimala Rai Paudyel. “There is fear that Trump’s policies will push the world to become even more polarised than it is now.”
India and China will both be able to fill the gap left by Trump America’s retreat from global and regional leadership. They will be able to take advantage of Trump diluting relations with or abandoning traditional allies in Europe and Asia.
Although India is in the western camp, New Delhi has wanted to call its own shots. It is using its growing economic clout to thumb its nose at the EU and the US. For example, India has got away with importing oil from Russia despite western sanctions.
Says Akhilesh Upadhyay, Senior Fellow at the Strategic Affairs Center, IIDS: “From a traditional security perspective, Nepal is bang in the middle of China and India. China and America have a great power rivalry, and it is unclear which way Indian axis will go.”
India can also benefit if Trump follows through on threats on more tariffs on Chinese imports. Even though the Biden-Harris administration has been punishing China with tariffs and other barriers, Trump has in the past been more belligerent on Beijing.
“On the one hand, India is close to US in Quad, on the other hand, it takes part in BRICS where it works with Russia and China, and the Shanghai Cooperation. It remains to be seen how the US relationship plays out with our two big neighbours,” adds Upadhyay.
Since the enemy of an enemy is a friend, Washington has regarded India as its bulwark against increased Chinese economic and military clout. But New Delhi has not always gone along with US strategic interests, and does not really like the Americans being too involved with India’s smaller neighbours.
On the downside, A Trump administration could curb the influx of Indian IT workers in US, and the easy access Nepali students have to those jobs in the US could also be scaled back.
Some experts say which party is in the White House will not affect policy South Asia, and Nepal even less. But a Trump win could mean less development assistance to Nepal, particularly in reproductive health, human rights, and social safety.
Nischal Pandey at the Centre for South Asian Studies in Kathmandu says that the few state-level visits between the US and Nepal — from King Mahendra’s address to the joint session of US Congress during President Eisenhower tenure in 1960 to Ganesh Man Singh being received at the White House by President Bush Sr after 1990, to US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s visit in 2002 during George HW Bush’s term — have all been during Republican administrations.
He adds, “Historically, Republican presidents and administrations have been &nbsp;interested in Nepal than Democratic ones.”
More directly, Nepalis aspiring to migrate to the United States could find it more difficult. There are currently about 300 Nepalis waiting in Mexico for human traffickers to smuggle them into the United States, and that border is going to be tightened even more.
Earlier this year, Sao Paolo airport in Brazil had 150 Nepalis stranded after arriving to take the Darien Gap backdoor to the US. Another 200 headed out to Brazil were stuck at Addis Ababa airport, forcing Ethiopia to ban visas to Nepalis.&nbsp;
Trump has threatened a 20% tariff on Mexican imports if it does not stop migrants. He plans to deport 11 million undocumented people, he may not be able to carry it through but the threat is there for Nepalis in the US without papers.
Trump’s strong rhetoric on China could be bargaining brinkmanship, and it will be interesting to see how he balances this with Sino-Russian alignment. Biden did not roll back bans on Huawei and restrictions on TikTok, and US security concerns about China’s rise is a bipartisan issue, just as Gaza is. Harris would not have done things differently in those sectors.&nbsp;
Says MP Bimala Rai Paudyal: “Trump’s win could cause economic tensions with China, which will affect trade here as well, this is something we will need to prepare for.”
America’s moral authority to lecture countires like Nepal on transitional justice, human rights, democracy, and press freedom will be diminished during the second Trump term.&nbsp;
Reproductive rights, support for family planning projects in Nepal through the UN system may also fall like it did during his earlier presidency. Foreign aid through USAID could also be cut.
But perhaps the more indirect impact on Nepal of the Trump presidency will be his rollback on America’s commitment to curb climate change which will accelerate melting of the Himalayan icecap with major impact on water supply downstream in Asia.&nbsp;
“America’s climate commitments and goals will be impacted by Trump who doesn’t believe in climate change,” says Paudyal. “The current work on loss and damage, and carbon trading depends significantly on US funding, and the world looks to the US to be proactive.”
If Trump can bring the Ukraine war to a close by cosying up to Putin, a peace deal may improve fuel and food situation globally. There are thousands of Nepalis in the Russian Army, at least 50 have died, and they could finally come home.&nbsp;
Concludes Upadhyay: “As for Nepal, the Trump administration should see Nepal as a soverign nation on its own right rather than through the prism of great power rivalry either between US and China.”

Shristi Karki

Trumpet Call

As of late October, the presidential election in the United States is on a knife’s edge. The only reasonably certain scenario in the immediate future is that the outcome on election day will be bitterly contested, and that some level of violence is highly likely if Harris is declared the winner.
I leave it to others to try to read the tea leaves about how the events of the next few months will unfold, and I will not attempt to elaborate on the formidable threats to human rights, international stability, and US democracy that will be unleashed if Trump gains the presidency. &nbsp;
These threats have been widely discussed. But there is surprisingly little discussion about the implications of a Harris presidency. To be sure, by bringing a woman – and a second person of colour – into the Oval Office, Harris’s victory would mark an historic step forward. &nbsp;
Preventing a second Trump term would, in itself, be of paramount importance. &nbsp;But what would President Harris actually be able to do? &nbsp;It might be useful to speculate about what we might realistically expect from a Harris administration.
To begin with, we should bear in mind that the implementation of President Harris’s domestic agenda will be severely constrained by a divided Congress (at least for her first two years) and by a conservative Supreme Court. This means she will not be able to pass most of the ‘big ticket’ items she has proposed in her campaign – more progressive taxation, extensive family-oriented programs, expanded access to home-ownership, etc.
She might be able to deploy her regulatory authority in some policy areas (health and environment) and – not insignificantly – she will also undoubtedly try to push ahead incrementally in areas of racial justice, gender equality, and public safety.&nbsp;
However, she will face serious pushback on many of these efforts from the Court. What she will be able to do is to defend and continue the dramatic achievements of the Biden &nbsp;administration in infrastructure and environment, achievements that have already been encoded in law.&nbsp;
The historic significance of the Biden legislative legacy has been obscured in the heat of the current campaign by the diffuse demand for ‘change’. But we should not allow unrealistic expectations about further advances to blind us to the importance of defending the major progress made during his presidency.
President Harris will have more political leeway in defining US foreign policy. &nbsp;Here, however, she will inherit daunting international crises – not only the terrible wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, but the ongoing threats to international stability caused by the rise of China, continuing threats from Russia and Iran, and challenges to international cooperation posed by climate change, cybersecurity, and global migration, among other things.&nbsp;
Again, however, we should not underestimate the enormous importance of the fact that she is not Trump. She might not be able to work miracles, but in contrast to Trump, we can count on her to place a high priority on US alliances, and international cooperation in security and the global economy – essential preconditions for managing the problems we face abroad.
The profound cultural, racial, and economic divisions that currently imperil American democracy preceded the rise of Trump and can be expected to persist beyond a Harris presidency. &nbsp;Moreover, many of the more immediate steps necessary to reduce these divisions are beyond her control.&nbsp;
We cannot move forward without bringing Trump and his associates to legal account. This will be a deeply controversial, but necessary step. But it is one that Harris should not attempt to influence. &nbsp;Beyond that, American democracy cannot fully rebound without either the re-democratisation of the Republican party or the emergence of a new conservative party that would replace it. &nbsp;
What we can realistically hope for is that President Harris will be able to build on Biden’s achievements, maintain sound economic policies, and prevent international crises from spiraling out of control. &nbsp;If she does that, she will also have played an important part in healing American democracy. &nbsp;
Robert R. Kaufman is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University. He is co-author of Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World, Cambridge University Press, 2021.
This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from <a href="https://toda.org/global-outlook/2024/prospects-for-a-kamala-harris-administration.html">the original</a> with their permission.

Prospects for a Kamala Harris administration

The first, and potentially only, debate between the 45th and 46th presidents of the United States constituted a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/trump-biden-debate-result-takeaways-00165701" target="_blank">clear win</a> for Donald Trump, as far more viewers focused on <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/joseph-biden-jr">Joe Biden</a>’s apparent physical and mental infirmities than Donald Trump’s evasions and trafficking in partial or outright lies.&nbsp;
The question now, though, is what, if any, difference it will make in the presidential election that is now just four months away.
The debate most likely increases the odds that Trump will occupy the Oval Office come noon on 20 January, 2025. Going into Thursday night’s debate, Trump was <a href="https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/the-somewhats-election-soft-biden-disapprovers-key-for-both-candidates/" target="_blank">slightly ahead</a> in many of the national polls and, more importantly, in the half-dozen swing states that will most likely determine the election’s outcome. The debate only added to this advantage.
The context favours Trump. This year has already proven to be a tough one for incumbents seeking re-election, as outcomes in <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/india-election-results-bjp-disappointing-victory-good-news-for-democracy-by-shashi-tharoor-2024-06">India</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/30/world/europe/france-elections.html" target="_blank">France</a> and Britain have demonstrated. Polls also show a low approval rating for the prime ministers of <a href="https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-s-Kishida-approval-rating-sinks-to-new-low-of-25-Nikkei-survey#:~:text=TOKYO%20%2D%2D%20Support%20for%20Japanese,that%20launched%20in%20October%202021." target="_blank">Japan</a> and <a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/bleak-poll-results-justin-trudeau" target="_blank">Canada</a>, which could lead to a change of leadership in those countries. Biden and the US are poised to be consistent with this trend.
Like many of his fellow incumbents, Biden has struggled to manage rising immigration and economic challenges. His failure to deal effectively with the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7227y6nqzmo" target="_blank">southern border</a> has allowed some <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/4423296-matthews-illegal-immigrants-double-under-biden-and-thats-just-the-start/" target="_blank">ten million</a> men, women, and children to enter the US illegally. Then there are the effects of inflation, something voters are reminded of every time they go to the grocery store or fill their car with gasoline. Biden can point to domestic and foreign-policy accomplishments, but they are less salient to many Americans.
Most critical is the question of his <a href="https://wfin.com/fox-health-news/doctors-express-concern-about-bidens-apparent-cognitive-issues-during-debate-troubling-indicators/" target="_blank">age</a>. Doubts are widely and deeply held that Biden is simply too old for what is arguably the world’s most demanding and important job. He is 81, turns 82 in November, and, if re-elected, would turn 86 while still in the White House. And he is an old 81.&nbsp;
As the debate demonstrated, he walks stiffly, loses his train of thought, and has a weak and raspy voice. Trump is only three years younger and makes little sense when he speaks, often taking bizarre rhetorical detours, but manages to project a more vigorous image.
Given Biden’s <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/28/biden-seeks-to-project-confidence-amid-concerns-over-debate-performance" target="_blank">better outing</a> at a campaign stop the day after the debate, some believe he can bounce back. After all, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama recovered from poor debate performances. But that was because they were seen as great orators who simply had a bad night. Biden’s problem is that his poor showing reinforced an already-entrenched narrative that will be difficult, if not impossible, to alter. His performance could even threaten to turn him into something of a lame duck, further weakening his influence at home and abroad.
All this said, Biden will be the Democratic Party candidate chosen at the party’s convention this August unless he takes himself out of the running and frees his pledged delegates to vote for someone else. Who this someone would be – Vice President Kamala Harris, a sitting governor or senator, a member of his cabinet – is anybody’s guess.
It is obvious that Biden and his inner circle are resisting calls (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/opinion/biden-election-debate-trump.html" target="_blank">including from sympathetic editors</a> at major news outlets) for him to step aside. Neither he nor his loyal lieutenants, many of whom have been close to him for decades, have given any indication that the president will bow out.
Biden’s declining political fortunes could well prove to be a drag on other Democratic candidates come autumn. It is possible that a Trump victory could help bring about a Republican takeover of the Senate at the same time Republicans hold the House of Representatives. Together with a Supreme Court that has increasingly demonstrated sympathy for positions supported by Trump and congressional Republicans, this would bring about the American equivalent of a parliamentary system, with power consolidated in the hands of a party that is better understood as radical rather than conservative.
There would be few checks on power strong enough to mitigate this imbalance; on the contrary, Trump’s plans to weaken the independence of the <a href="https://protectdemocracy.org/work/trumps-schedule-f-plan-explained/#:~:text=In%20October%202020%2C%20the%20Trump,to%20the%20president%20when%20hiring." target="_blank">civil service</a>, together with his promise to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/donald-trump-wants-control-justice-department-fbi-his-allies-have-plan-2024-05-17/" target="_blank">politicise</a> the Justice Department and regulatory agencies, would concentrate power further. Trump would be free to lower taxes, impose tariffs, further restrict access to abortion, ease already loose controls on gun ownership, enforce immigration law as he sees fit, and increase the enormous debt.
Foreign policy would also be vulnerable to significant change, because the US political system gives broad latitude to the executive. It is quite possible that Trump would reduce or even eliminate US support for Ukraine, hollow out US commitments to NATO, give Israel an even freer hand to prosecute <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/29/hezbollahs-plans-israels-threats-is-either-side-ready-for-war" target="_blank">war</a> in Gaza and Lebanon and build settlements, refuse to participate in global efforts to combat climate change, and prioritise bilateral trade issues with China over broader concerns with Beijing’s behavior abroad.
Elections have consequences, and this one more than most, given that the differences between the candidates far exceed any similarities. In the wake of a debate that appears to have tipped the scales against Biden, and with no way of knowing if someone else will be the Democratic candidate and how he or she would fare, US friends and allies should prepare themselves for potentially major changes come January.&nbsp;
© Project Syndicate
Richard Haass is President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-03). He is the author of <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/588988/the-bill-of-obligations-by-richard-haass/" target="_blank">The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens</a> (Penguin Press, 2023) and the weekly Substack newsletter <a href="https://richardhaass.substack.com/" target="_blank">Home &amp; Away</a>.

The world should prepare for Trump

<figure><img width="1500" height="1125" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110111128/636cd2ca9c7e80680e08f933jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>All photos: ADHIKAAR</figcaption></figure>In the four years of the Donald Trump administration in the United States, there have been over <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/mpi-report-catalogs-immigration-executive-actions-trump-presidency" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">400 anti-immigration executive actions</a>. This made the role of human rights and social justice organisations like the US-based non-profit, Adhikaar, even more critical.Their strategy was to “buy time” for a more friendly administration so there would be more space to advocate for reforms while migrants were protected from deportation. As Joe Biden prepares to be sworn in on 20 January, after a tumultuous few months including the storming of the US Capitol, there is hope for non-US citizens including Nepalis whose lives have been in limbo for the past few years.Nepali Times spoke with Adhikaar’s Executive Director Pabitra Benjamin, Director of Organising and Programs Narbada Chhetri, and Campaigns and Communications Manager Prarthana Gurung about how the  <a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.nepalitimes.com%2Farticle%2Fnation%2Fconcern-over-temporary-protected-status-of-Nepalis-in-US%2C4072&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNFI8vujOQmisshhawL9lTumixJbRA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Temporary Protected Status</a> (TPS) under a Biden presidency will affect Nepalis.Nepali Times: First off, how is Adhikaar working on TPS? Pabitra Benjamin: Adhikaar has been around since 2005, and we describe ourselves as a ‘workers centre’ in that we focus on workers from low-income jobs, especially informal sector workers that are not unionised and do not have the same labour standards -- such as nail salon workers, domestic workers and gig workers. We work with new immigrants so worker rights and immigration rights have both been important focus areas. We also work on language and healthcare justice issues and have a reach of 10,000 Nepali speaking people from Nepal, India, Bhutan, Tibet and Burma.  Adhikaar fought hard to get TPS status to Nepal and it required advocacy, lobbying with congressional members and coalition partners to push the Obama administration in that direction. The Nepal Embassy had sent a letter requesting for TPS status, but that is not enough. Lobbying is key. It was important as it would give Nepalis, including undocumented workers, a legal status, allow them to visit home while also being important for rebuilding Nepal. We have also been fighting for the renewal of TPS after the Trump administration <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nepalitimes.com%2Flatest%2Fus-extends-tps-for-nepal%2F&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNHLld70fKLPOg8zH0TPa92S-ukxEg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cancelled it for many countries, including Nepal</a>. A lot of people under the TPS status have been here for a while, so we are fighting for their permanent residency. Prarthana Gurung: We have been pushing for permanent residency for TPS holders but it takes a couple of years at the minimum. After Trump terminated TPS we had to challenge it and buy time by filing a lawsuit to prevent deportations. We started talking with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other legal organizations in 2018, and did a nationwide search for plaintiffs who could represent Nepal. We filed in 2019, and we won a preliminary injunction. So even if TPS was terminated, people could not be deported while the judicial branch investigates the rationale for termination. In September, the 9th Circuit Court backed the government’s decision not necessarily on the arguments of the case, that it was racially biased, that the Trump administration did not follow the rules and protocols, and that you cannot separate parents from their US-born children -- but on the basis that the judge in the lower-court who created the preliminary injunction did not have the authority to do so. Our lawyers appealed this decision, and for now, the timeline for TPS holders has been auto-extended till October 2021. <img width="1988" height="1326" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110111128/636cd2ce9c7e80680e08f934jpeg.jpg" alt="">Narbada Chhetri: The frequent changes and uncertainty can be nerve-wracking for TPS holders because their lives are in limbo. There is a lot of uncertainty about their future but there is also hope. Every time the TPS is terminated, we have used litigation to allow them to remain legally in the US, which has helped build trust.But more importantly, we have helped empower TPS holders to share their stories, focused on their leadership skills, empower them politically and be part of the movement. They lead the meetings with DC officials, and we are just a mediator. In 2019, we mobilised 300 Nepali TPS holders and in September 2020, over 100 came to DC in the midst of the pandemic to advocate as they have taken ownership of this movement. It is because they turn out to share their stories, to lobby in DC, to be a part of the movement that they are seeing they have a role in changing what happens in Congress.Pabitra Benjamin: For Adhikaar, it is not about being their ‘saviours’, but ensuring that they have the power to change the laws and policies that directly impact them. Politically empowering the most impacted communities and working in coalition with like-minded organizations from other communities to pressure those in Congress is what creates change and how we have succeeded so far. <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepalis-hopeful-about-biden-presidency/">Nepalis hopeful about Biden presidency</a>, Priti Thapa <figure><img width="2040" height="1530" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110111128/636cd2d29c7e80680e08f935jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>TPS coalition rally with TPS holders from other countries.</figcaption></figure>What do you think will change for TPS and other Nepali visa holders under Biden? Pabitra Benjamin: A big part of our litigation strategy has been to buy time to get into a more pro-immigration government. With the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nepalitimes.com%2Fbanner%2Fnepalis-hopeful-about-biden-presidency%2F&amp;sa=D&amp;sntz=1&amp;usg=AFQjCNEHdieUt9Dmxsf5rjvaf-FxaJfa4g" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biden administration</a> and a more friendly Democrat-majority Congress, there is now more room to push our demands.In fact, just a few days ago, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris said she wanted to introduce legislation for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and TPS recipients from day one to provide them Green Cards so we are in a wait-and-see mode. The other strategy is to look at a settlement of the case and see what comes out of it. From the very beginning litigation by itself was not going to give us what we wanted which is permanent residency. It is a tool to extend the timeline to fight for permanent residency. We have already started having meetings with the transitional team of the Biden administration and are looking towards a redesignation of all countries to maintain their TPS status.If redesignation is not possible, we are also asking for other ways to help TPS status holders to stay in the US.One such alternative is to get Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) that will allow those who have lost TPS status to get DED status which can be designated by the President. Redesignation requires Department of Homeland Security to do country assessments and is a long, convoluted process that involves embassies and the State Department for an 18-month extension. We are hopeful that if the redesignation happens, it will be for all TPS countries and not on a country-by-country basis.But both these have the ultimate objective of buying time to help TPS holders win permanent residency through Congress. The President doesn’t have the power to provide permanent residency, it is up to Congress to pass the legislation which Biden would then have to sign off on.We were involved in writing the legislation of HR-6 (American Dream Provide Act 2019). We made sure that all Nepalis who were in the US in 2015 and qualified for TPS but did not get it would also qualify for permanent residency. This means PR for 30,000 Nepali, which is a big deal.We are fighting a bigger fight than just TPS. We are also looking at comprehensive immigration reform. It is broken, and reform is overdue by decades, so we want to push for comprehensive immigration reform including a pathway to permanent residency for undocumented workers or those in the middle of a status. Within that it is to make sure TPS holders and DACA recipients get permanent residency.Adhikaar does not necessarily work with diversity visas, but we expect the Biden administration to roll back the limit on diversity visas by the Trump presidency. <img width="2100" height="600" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110111128/636cd2d69c7e80680e08f936jpeg.jpg" alt="">What was the status of undocumented workers during the pandemic?Narbada Chhetri: Vulnerability is relative, TPS workers at least had work permits and pay taxes. Undocumented workers were disproportionately impacted. Because they do not pay taxes, they did not get benefits like everyone else. In addition, they also do not have insurance nor the confidence to access healthcare. Adhikaar supported 768 Nepalis financially. It is easy to forget that undocumented workers are doing essential jobs as well. It is because a domestic worker takes care of a doctor’s child, while he or she in the hospital fighting to save lives.Many undocumented workers are still under a lot of financial and mental stress, especially those who have spent an enormous amount of money to come here through irregular channels, and continue to pay lawyers or loans back home. Pabitra Benjamin: Undocumented workers do not have desk jobs, they have to be physically present at their workplaces, which increases their levels of risk to exposure. There is some potential conversation on support for PR in the case of essential workers. When we fight for what essential worker means, it is also the delivery workers, Uber, Lyft drivers and domestic workers. Any pro-immigrant benefit that goes to essential workers should go to them as they were also doing essential work during the pandemic.What has Adhikaar’s engagement with elected officials like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the Representative for New York’s 14th Congressional District been like? And your experience mobilising voters of Nepali origin?Pabitra Benjamin: The focus for Adhikaar is about building the power of Nepali speaking workers, but services do not just come from anywhere. It requires fighting for policy changes, building relationships with elected officials including Congress members, state representatives and city officials. They understand that we provide something unique: we have a large reach with the most impacted communities of over 10,000 Nepali speaking individuals, and as numbers speak in politics there is trust in the organisation. <img width="1988" height="1326" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110111128/636cd2da9c7e80680e08f937jpeg.jpg" alt="">Narbada Chhetri: When we first started in 2007, there were not many Nepalis with voting rights, but that has changed and so has our civic engagement and reach. The good thing is that those who win come back to us and keep their promises, which has been encouraging whether it is our work on health insurance for TPS holders, a bill for nail salon workers, language justice for health provision in hospitals, litigation for TPS and so on. We choose who we work with based on issues. If there is a common cause, we engage with them as representation is important.Prarthana Gurung: Representation is important. We fall under new immigrants and as our communities grow, it is exciting to see people who look like us running for office, but that is not sufficient. We not only need representation but also need people who take our interest, support us, and can be held accountable, not just to those who vote for them but also to everyone including those without voting rights in their districts whom they represent.Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/a-biden-presidency-climate-and-the-himalaya/"> A Biden presidency, climate and the Himalaya</a>, Sonia Awale

Under Biden, hope for Nepali migrants in US

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181116/636be0969c7e80680e083dffjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="2544" height="1298"/><figcaption></figcaption></figure>Outside my window this Saturday morning, the Seattle sky is a typical November grey. But it is such a momentous day of brightness in hope. For the first time in almost four years I breathe with ease and comfort , a deep soothing sigh of gratitude and emotional relief for myself, my family and our country.Today, a good man and a good woman won. Deservedly. Faith in the substance of character and decency, ethics, integrity and sincerity of purpose for public service, true patriotism and dignity in the office of our highest house is rekindled. Hopefully, we have exorcised the demons of negativity that saturated our daily air these torturous four years. It’s done now and we all have to heal.<a style="font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/ununited-states-of-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">(Un)United States of America</a>, Kunda DixitWe are still in the midst of the worst pandemic of our lifetime. Daily infections are raging to unprecedented levels and sees no end. This is what Joe Biden has inherited. Along with severe economic recession and political and social rancour, the likes of which we never have seen.But for now, there is jubilation in the streets, even in the knowledge that the road ahead is challenging and paved with distrust, chaos, conflict and division. We have placed our destiny in the hands of someone steady, someone who has survived the long odyssey of death and defeat, the loneliness and pain of separation from his loved ones and the humiliation of public scrutiny.He is here because he never gave up and takes this pedestal as a position of grave responsibility and not as an entitlement. He will not give up on us and nor will he cast blame or make excuses.There is much anger and frustration and rightly so. America seems to have changed in so many ways these past four years and we seemed to have seen an agitated shift in our nation’s demeanour. It felt for so long that we’d lost our moral moorings in a vile invasion of all our democratic values of social inclusion, compassion and empathy for the less fortunate and a return to extreme tribalism.We are a deeply wounded giant but we will recover quickly, revive and regain. For that is how the great heroes and great champions bounce back from aberrations and anomalies. And today is day one.<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109181116/636be09a9c7e80680e083e00jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683"><figcaption>This photograph by Evan Vucci of Associated Press of a defiant Donald Trump at the White House refusing to concede went viral.</figcaption></figure>Just for now our moral outrage at what we endured can now exult into a catharsis of celebration for normalcy, even if momentarily. Let us cherish this moment and remember well what it felt like to almost lose it.Camelot is not a place, but an experience - one that we can all aspire to again and create. Where truth is again valued and not mocked and where we can all come together to do what make sense for all of us and not just for me.<a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/nation/The-winter-of-our-spring,1331" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/nation/The-winter-of-our-spring,1331&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1604884839999000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE8v50QRCMcAWtbiZ1Yle6coE2y1w">Tashi T Sherpa</a> is Creative Director and CEO of Khangri Sourcing based in Seattle.

Good man and woman won

It was 30 years ago this month that investment into ‘Baby Arun’, the 201MW first phase of the run-of-river Arun III project, was brought to a screeching halt when the World Bank officially withdrew its support. This brought about profound and fundamental changes in the way Nepal’s power sector subsequently developed. Nepalis suffered debilitating power outages between 2008-2016 due to shortages attributable to the cancellation. At the same time, the gap left by Baby Arun was filled by private sector investment in ways that were not obvious in 1995. It took 30 years, but in many ways Nepal’s power sector is more healthy today than it has ever been, and likely better than if the project was built as planned. At a projected budget of $1.08 billion, Baby Arun would have cost the equivalent of Nepal’s entire annual government expenditure in 1995. It was to be funded by concessional grants and loans from multilateral and bilateral funders, including the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), KfW, and investment by the government itself. At the time, Nepal’s total electricity generation capacity was only 230MW, and the trajectory of the power sector changed dramatically following the cancellation. In the past 30 years, $5.4 billion has been invested in the power sector led by private investors, and much of it from domestic banks and pension funds (table, right).  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250829150840_c13d6f9f34d7163832b3089eabdad6f20d2d5cef3a53039e0432add2be6c32f0.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="20250829150840_c13d6f9f34d7163832b3089eabdad6f20d2d5cef3a53039e0432add2be6c32f0" data-rendition-name="original" width="984" height="521" loading="lazy" alt="30 years after Baby Arun"> </figure>  Nearly 70% of the new megawatts generated were by private independent power producers (IPP) in the past 30 years, while the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) and its subsidiary companies added 30% of new capacity. Almost 80% of total debt financing came from domestic banks and employee retirement funds. International assistance for power generation dropped dramatically over this time, accounting for only about 15% of investment. Before 1995 new power projects used to be entirely dependent on foreign aid. Since 1995, 63% of new generation came from 171 small hydropower projects with an average capacity of 12MW, while 4% was from 21 solar photovoltaic and biomass projects developed by local IPPs.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250829150844_5bc299fc78be90b95ce4727b0b3bdaa4542e17e126718cc8725d136630ffc097.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="20250829150844_5bc299fc78be90b95ce4727b0b3bdaa4542e17e126718cc8725d136630ffc097" data-rendition-name="original" width="988" height="503" loading="lazy" alt="30 years after Baby Arun"> </figure>  Over three decades, investment in Nepal’s power supply came primarily from new actors that had never before been involved in this sector. The rate of electrification rose from 10% to close to 100% -- sufficient to meet domestic needs during most of the year, and in 2024 made Nepal a net exporter of power to India for the first time in its history. As practically all the new investment in this period went into run-of-river hydro and solar projects, rather than into hydropower reservoirs with seasonal storage, Nepal continues to rely on imports from India during the dry winter months. Surplus electricity generation for export during the monsoon is slated to grow rapidly as another 200 solar and hydro projects are nearing completion of construction, with over 5,000MW of power capacity. Private Power The cancellation of Baby Arun inadvertently accelerated the entry of the private sector into Nepal’s power generation. The government enacted the Electricity Act in 1992 to attract private IPPs and diversify away from total dependence from international aid, but had been struggling for several years to conclude the first agreement with the 60MW Khimti Project. There remained a large gap between the tariff that the government thought was reasonable versus what was demanded by the Norwegian investor Statkraft, and the private sector arms of the World Bank and ADB that were financing the project. The shock of World Bank withdrawal from Baby Arun put tremendous pressure on the government, then led by the UML as it is now. The Bank’s decision to terminate its involvement was ostensibly, at least partially, taken in response to a letter critiquing the project sent by the UML while it was in the opposition.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250829150848_7fb3641d776fe86a09ad60a758f7e16660a409fdb15e541644f13646b0894347.jpg" data-media-id="editor_2" data-image-id="20250829150848_7fb3641d776fe86a09ad60a758f7e16660a409fdb15e541644f13646b0894347" data-rendition-name="original" width="949" height="446" loading="lazy" alt="30 years after Baby Arun"> <figcaption>BAD NEWS: Newspaper clippings from the early 90s on tender announcement ahead of loan approval (left) and secrecy surrounding environmental assessment (centre) of Arun III before its eventual cancellation in August 1995.</figcaption> </figure>  The government was forced to soften its position and agree to the investors’ terms following the cancellation of Baby Arun. It directed NEA to sign a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Khimti. It was concluded in January 1996, and this was followed by a second PPA in July 1996 with Panda Energy, the American developer of the 45MW Upper Bhotekosi project. The expensive USD-denominated agreements to buy power from two international private producers, with price escalation clauses tied to the New York Consumer Price Index, sent alarm bells ringing. There was worry that the country was heading towards unaffordable tariff rates for the consumer and potential bankruptcy for NEA as a result of inevitable future weakening of the Nepali Rupee. The government had strong-armed NEA into signing these agreements, and realised that concessionary financing terms that Nepal was used to receiving for public sector projects such as Baby Arun and Kali Gandaki A, that included below-market interest rates and 40 years repayment period with a 10 year grace period before starting repayment, were not the norm for private sector investors. Nepal’s status as a less than attractive destination for foreign investment meant that the country had few options but to accept expensive dollar PPAs from international developers with the high commercial interest rates and short repayment periods imposed by their banks because of high investment risks. In the end, the government ended up having to additionally provide a sovereign guarantee in order to close the deal at the insistence of the lenders – committing it to repayment in case NEA defaulted on paying the IPPs. It is reasonable to assume that the extraordinarily high political cost of agreeing to the PPA terms would have meant that no government would have willingly agreed to them in 1995 had it not suffered the trauma of the loss of concessionary-financed public sector projects as large as the Baby Arun. It has taken NEA 25 years to consider offering dollar-denominated PPAs again: to cover the foreign exchange portion of the investment in the 216MW Upper Trisuli-1 and 120MW Rasuwa-Bhotekosi Hydropower projects. It seemed unlikely at the time, but it turned out that the dire situation Nepal found itself in 1995 planted the seed to mobilise investment for affordable power from within the country. Double Whammy After the dual shock of first losing investment in Baby Arun and having to sign expensive power purchase agreements with international IPPs, the first proposal for an alternative strategy to mitigate the risk of foreign currency investment into hydropower projects came from a group of engineers within the Arun III team at NEA. Led by <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=4900">Deputy Director Damber Bahadur Nepali,</a> engineers convinced the leadership that NEA needed to invest in a subsidiary company to build a series of locally-designed and domestically-financed projects that would have lower cost with rupee-denominated PPAs. They registered the Chilime Hydropower Company Limited (CHCL) in October 1995 with 51% shares from NEA, 25% from its employees, and 24% available for the general public, 10% of which was prioritised for local residents at the project site. The 22.1MW project is in Rasuwa on a tributary of the Trisuli, and mobilised debt financing from the Employee Provident Fund, which manages retirement savings for employees of the government, public enterprises, and private sector institutions. CHCL’s experience showed that NEA employees themselves believed that individual hydropower projects with operational independence from NEA could be developed profitably in Nepal by its own engineers -- and they were willing to put their own money on the line. Chilime also demonstrated that there was money in the country, particularly with retirement funds, looking for opportunities for long-term investments. Following completion of Chilime in 2003, CHCL led the formation of three other NEA subsidiary companies that completed construction in 2023 and 2024, producing 168.3MW using fully rupee-tied investment. NEA’s largest subsidiary, the Upper Tamakosi Hydropower Limited, completed construction of its 456MW plant in 2021.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250829160812_ce9ab8b49c598970db3f5bf0a079061ef52f153b28d9f4ead2bb1b26bfd7c2f3.jpg" data-media-id="editor_4" data-image-id="20250829160812_ce9ab8b49c598970db3f5bf0a079061ef52f153b28d9f4ead2bb1b26bfd7c2f3" data-rendition-name="original" width="3000" height="1571" loading="lazy" alt="30 Years after Baby Arun"> <figcaption>DAMNED: The $700 million 456MW Upper Tamakosi built entirely with domestic funds before it was destroyed by the September floods last year. </figcaption> </figure>  There were some delays and cost overruns on this run-of-river project, the largest in the country with a final cost of over $700 million -- all of it sourced domestically. The five subsidiary companies launched by NEA have produced almost two times as much new power as NEA has over the past 30 years. Seven other NEA subsidiaries are currently constructing projects to add another 474MW to the national grid. But even more important than NEA subsidiaries have been local IPPs: Nepali companies which have over the past three decades enthusiastically entered the hydropower sector. From a regulatory perspective, the credit for mobilising domestic private investment to engage in power generation goes to Minister of Water Resources Shailaja Acharya, who in 1998 offered a flat feed-in-tariff of Rs4/kWh for hydropower projects under 10MW. This upfront offer removed a major barrier that early developers had faced of having to spend money to carry out a detailed feasibility study before they could even start tariff negotiations with NEA. She had laid the foundation stone of the Chilime project, and proved to be the champion of opening up the sector for domestic IPPs. The guarantee of a PPA with a fixed tariff, irrespective of project specifications, gave small power developers the confidence to apply for survey licenses and invest in feasibility studies so they could directly approach commercial banks and make a case for their project producing required revenue to repay loans. Domestic IPPs started adding power to the national grid in 2002. Their contribution was initially modest, and first projects were small and commercial lenders who took time to be confident about providing debt financing to a sector which had previously not been considered suitable for private sector investment. While the first 10 years were slow, with less than 10MW being added to the grid each year, this increased twenty fold over the following ten years, resulting in the equivalent of a Baby Arun being added by Nepali IPPs to the grid each year. A total of 84 IPPs added 232MW, 328 MW, 454MW, and 400MW of new generation to the grid in 2021-2024 (graph). There was explosive, exponential growth as domestic developers have surged ahead to account for 76% of the new megawatts added to the grid since 2020, compared to 24% by NEA and its subsidiary companies. The megawatts that IPPs are adding have followed the classic ‘hockey stick curve’ with the ‘breakout point’, signaling the rapid growth phase in 2020. Private producers are expected to accelerate new generation in the coming years with 300 solar and hydropower projects adding 11,000MW. Another 166 hydropower and 96 solar projects are currently in the survey stage, and are in line to add another 11,000MW to the construction pipeline. One major challenge is finding financing required for the projects. Domestic investment will no longer be sufficient to finance this ambitious pipeline of renewable energy projects. Project developers as well as NEA and the Electricity Regulatory Commission will have to leverage their substantial experience accumulated through the construction of over 200 projects to attract regional and international investment and hedge the risks of dollar-denominated PPAs. Following the cancellation of Baby Arun, <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/people-power/decentralising-power-in-nepal">Nepal developed a highly distributed power sector</a>. The national electricity grid is currently supplied with power from a remarkably decentralised array of hundreds of hydropower and solar photovoltaic projects spread across 43 districts and all seven provinces.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250829150848_0c3aa66b34bfb08380a624f397bf3ebb4126f4d6b41a26115848b496876f501b.jpg" data-media-id="editor_6" data-image-id="20250829150848_0c3aa66b34bfb08380a624f397bf3ebb4126f4d6b41a26115848b496876f501b" data-rendition-name="original" width="1228" height="867" loading="lazy" alt="30 years after Baby Arun"> </figure>  This presents a sharp contrast to the pathway of a few large public sector hydropower projects with a sprinkling of private sector projects that was envisioned as part of NEA’s investment planning when Baby Arun was being considered the front runner for investment. The strategy then was to allow public sector investment in a few large hydropower projects with thermal plants to fill the gap. Knowing what we know now about acceleration of climate change impacts and increased extreme weather events, following this path would have made Nepal’s power sector highly vulnerable. Decentralised generation greatly improves the resilience of Nepal’s power supply as damage to power plants in one part of the country need not affect other areas that have their own generation. Following the investment plan where over two thirds of the country’s power supply would have come from power plants on the Arun River, would have greatly imperiled Nepal’s energy security. All rivers in Nepal are susceptible to flooding from cloudbursts made more frequent by climate change. The Arun River which is fed by glaciers in Tibet is also at risk to glacial lake outburst floods. Bikash Pandey is Director of Clean Energy and Circular Economy at Winrock International. People Power is his regular column in Nepali Times on global energy issues relevant to Nepal. <h2>Decentralised and Diversified</h2> In the 30 years since the cancellation of ‘Baby Arun’: Hydropower projects constructed cover capacities ranging from less than 1MW to 456MW and developed by IPPs from across the country with strong local involvement in purchasing equity shares. Renewable energy sources contributed to the generation mix through solar IPPs that further contribute to climate resilience, and cover shortfalls during low rainfall. The government is committed to solar contributing 10% of the power on the grid. Increasing solar beyond this target and providing incentives to project developers to invest in utility-scale battery storage would further improve resilience. BIG ARUN: The 900MW Arun III project under construction since 2018 at Num in Sankhuwasabha (pictured, below) is a separate initiative by a different project developer using a different financing modality. The ‘Baby Arun’ version of Arun III was cancelled in 1995.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250829150852_df534df5166eb5a9bb4cbe101627bdec7ac1df2a405a9d3988d1c86fcc8ecdeb.jpg" data-media-id="editor_7" data-image-id="20250829150852_df534df5166eb5a9bb4cbe101627bdec7ac1df2a405a9d3988d1c86fcc8ecdeb" data-rendition-name="original" width="1750" height="1312" loading="lazy" alt="30 Years after Baby Arun"> </figure>

30 years after Baby Arun

An average Nepali could live 3.3 years longer if air pollution is reduced to meet the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline, according the annual <a href="https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/">Air Quality Life Index</a> 2025 published this week. The annual average concentration of tiny suspended particles in the air (PM2.5) in Nepal in 2023 was 38.3 μg/m3, nearly eight times the WHO standard, and 10% higher than 2022. Thirty years ago, air pollution in Nepal was half the current levels. WHO says particulate concentration above 5μg/m3 &nbsp;is<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/what-is-invisible-is-more-dangerous"> hazardous to health</a>.&nbsp; The most <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/why-is-the-air-in-bhaktapur-so-bad">polluted parts of Nepal</a> are along the Indian border in Rutahat, Mahottari, Dhanusha, Parsa and Bara districts in Madhes Povince where average life expectancy is reduced by as much as 5.3 years.&nbsp; People in Sarlahi, Siraha, Saptari, Morang, Sunsari, Rupandehi and Jhapa are also dying at least 4 years earlier. The Air Quality Index 2025 report which is published annually by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, says the figure is relatively lower for Kathmandu and Lalitpur at 2.6 and 2.4 years. After the Madhes, Kosi and Lumbini Provinces are the most polluted — especially in towns along industrial corridors and near the border. Karnali Province was by far the cleanest, followed by Sudurpaschim. Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/epicentre-of-pollution">Epicentre of pollution</a>, Sonia Awale  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250828060856_136770cc84e114e8993af82e6a682c45d9458060e4ecf45f18e9f210673e1279.jpg" data-media-id="editor_4" data-image-id="20250828060856_136770cc84e114e8993af82e6a682c45d9458060e4ecf45f18e9f210673e1279" data-rendition-name="original" width="753" height="584" loading="lazy" alt="AQLI map"> <figcaption>Potential gain in life expectancy from permanently reducing PM2.5 from 2023 concentration to the WHO guideline.</figcaption> </figure>  Air pollution is now the leading external<a href="https://nepalitimes.com/editorial/cleaner-air-longer-lives-0z0okfeu"> threat to life expectancy in Nepal</a>, exceeding both tobacco and diet-related risks, which reduced average lifespans of Nepalis by 1.9 years and 1.3 years respectively. The Air Quality Management Action Plan for Kathmandu Valley introduced in 2017 had identified vehicular emissions, brick kilns, and construction as the most polluting. It adopted measures to strengthen air quality monitoring, develop emissions inventory, and conduct impact assessments. Other major sources of emissions in Nepal include <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/no-smoke-without-fire-p7vb9dcj">forest fires</a>, crop residue and garbage burning as well as transboundary pollution from India and Pakistan. The report says India is the world’s most polluted country with the particulate concentration in 2023 at 41 μg/m3, an average resident in India could live 3.5 years longer if pollution levels were brought down to meet the WHO guideline. Residents of New Delhi on average would live 8.2 years longer if they breathed clean air. South Asia has some of the world’s most polluted cities. On some winter days, Kathmandu records the worst air quality in the world. In 2023, PM2.5 concentrations in South Asia declined by 9.6% between 2021 and 2022 due to lockdowns during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. ‘After a dip in 2022, particulate pollution in South Asia increased by 2.8% in 2023 — though it remained 7% lower than in 2021,’ <a href="https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/report/annual-update-2025">states the report</a>. ‘In the region’s most polluted countries, particulate pollution’s impact on life expectancy is nearly twice that of childhood, and maternal malnutrition and more than five times that of unsafe water, sanitation and handwashing.’ Elsewhere, unprecedented wildfires caused particulate concentrations to rise to levels not seen since 2011 in the United States and since 1998 in Canada. China also registered a decline in air quality, an increase of 2.8% in particulate pollution in 2023 relative to 2022, the first in a decade since the start of its ‘War on Pollution’ in 2014.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250828060856_94860b929d0fb161220ad72ecb76fcd29ba8e306bd6b844485a4171dadb6bb47.jpg" data-media-id="editor_8" data-image-id="20250828060856_94860b929d0fb161220ad72ecb76fcd29ba8e306bd6b844485a4171dadb6bb47" data-rendition-name="original" width="754" height="501" loading="lazy" alt="AQLI line graph"> <figcaption>Annual average PM2.5 concentration in Nepal from 1998-2023.</figcaption> </figure>  Globally, the PM2.5 concentration in 2023 was 1.5% higher than in 2022, and nearly 5 times the WHO guideline. If global particulate pollution were permanently reduced to meet this guideline, an average person around the world would gain 1.9 years of life, adding 15.1 billion total life years to the <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/the-future-is-older">global population</a>, the report adds. ‘Particulate pollution remained the greatest external threat to human life expectancy in 2023, with <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/air-pollution-is-more-dangerous-than-smoking">its impact comparable to smoking</a> and surpassing other major health risks,’ the report says. ‘Its toll on life expectancy is more than 4 times that of alcohol use, 5 times that of transport injuries or unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing, and more than 6 times that of HIV/AIDS.’ The report also highlights the need for open data, and says that accessible air quality information has translated into reduced particulate concentrations and gains in life expectancy in the United States, China, and Poland. Besides data, the report says, investment in monitoring and other air quality management infrastructure must be matched by political will, ambitious policies, capacity building, and sustained enforcement.

Warning: breathing is hazardous to health

It cannot be a coincidence that after pushing bills to constrict freedom of expression and allow greater <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/security-or-espionage">surveillance of citizens</a>, Nepal’s government is now tightening controls on civil society.
In a <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/guest-editorial/command-and-control">series of recent moves</a> journalists have been sued for contempt of court, imprisoned for YouTube videos, or ordered by courts to desist from investigating corrupt officials.
An amendment to the Print and Publications Act that would hand the power to shut online media to the Chief District Officer (CDO). Another draft Bill would allow a political appointee to head a new Media Council with the power to revoke a journalist’s license. The draft counter-intelligence Bill would let random officials to arbitrarily tap phones, read emails and trail citizens.
Now comes yet another draft Bill that would replace the <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=10675">Social Welfare Council (SWC)</a> with direct government control over registration, regulation, and management of non-governmental organisations, nonprofits and charities. There are more than 54,000 NGOs, 200 international NGOs registered with the SWC.
The draft makes civil society organisations needlessly jump through hoops to carry out work that complements the government in the social sector. Critics say the Bill was drafted without any consultation with <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/comment/nepal-s-rights-groups-must-step-up-4r4z6ck4">civic groups</a>.
“This Bill’s content is questionable whether it intends to allow for civil society organisations in Nepal a free space to operate,” concludes Dr SP Kalaunee, Country Representative of BlinkNow Foundation and Chair of the Association of International NGOs in Nepal (AIN). “The draft seems oriented towards controling rather than facilitating the work of civil society organisations.”
The Bill will be open for feedback from the public, and integrates the National Directives Act (1961), Association Registration Act (1977), and the Social Welfare Act (1992) and proposes dissolving the SWC and replacing it with a new Social Welfare Department under the Ministry of Women, Children and Senior Citizens.
Non-government groups will now be required to get approval from the Registrar Office, the CDO or the provincial government depending on their area of operation. Those working across provinces will have to get permission from the federal government. &nbsp;
The government says the Bill is intended to vet organisations to see if they are engaged in espionage, violate national security, assist a foreign state, commit treason, cause strife between federal units, or incite communal violence.&nbsp;
CSOs working in Nepal have long called for legislation to better facilitate their work, minimise administrative and bureaucratic red tape which have posed operational challenges. But they are opposed to such drastic control.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/the-crow-and-the-scarecrow">The crow and the scarecrow</a>, Om Astha Rai
The NGO Federation of Nepal also issued a statement this week calling the Bill ‘retrograde and cumbersome’. It added: ‘Most of its provisions are intended to further constrain and control civil society organisations rather than facilitate and strengthen them, and reduce the role of citizen participation … it is an attack on our civil liberties, inclusivity, and transparency, and curtails our <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=5156">democratic values and constitutional rights</a>.’ &nbsp;
<a href="about:blank">Nepal’s graduation</a> from least-developed country status next year may mean less aid for Nepal, and higher interest rates on loans from multilateral creditors. The <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/how-usaid-cut-affects-nepal">closure of USAID </a>and reduction in bilateral grants means the work of INGOs will be even more vital – especially to meet its <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/target-2030-for-maternal-and-newborn-health">SDG targets by 2030</a>.&nbsp;
“We are competing with other countries at a time when the global aid environment is shrinking, so the support we receive is directly dependent on a conducive environment for INGOs to operate and function,” says Kalaunee. “INGOs follow regulations of the nations they operate in, they will not protest or wait around for governments to change their minds or policies.”
Social safety net
Since 1977, the work of non-governmental actors in Nepal has been regulated by the Social Service National Coordination Council (SSNCC) chaired by Queen Aishwarya.
After the <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/one-moment-30-years-ago-today">1990 People’s Movement</a>, King Birendra set up the Social Welfare Council (SWC) as an autonomous body in 1992 through the Social Welfare Act. But since then the SWC has been dogged by controversy and allegations of corruption and extortion.
In 2018, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) filed a Rs315 million corruption case against 14 individuals, including the Minister of Women, Children and Social Welfare and SWC chair Badri Prasad Neupane and other officials for violating public procurement laws to rent out three hectares of its property around Bhrikuti Mandap.
Civil society groups have for years called for reforms in the SWC, and a report was drawn up to restructure it before this Bill proposed its dissolution. INGOs in particular will now have to go through the Social Welfare Department and multiple ministries for permissions.
A particularly objectionable provision in the draft stipulates that NGOs must have a Board of Director made up almost entirely of secretaries of various ministries. The NGO Federation has urged the government to take a civil society-friendly approach and not tangle its work in red tape and control. It says the government has no option but to revise the bill in its current form.
“Civil society organisations need an open space to operate, and an autonomous body to oversee them,” says Kalaunee. “Non-government organisations support in the areas prioritised by the government but by definition they cannot be a part of government.”

Big, beautiful Bills

A cosy art space in Thamel comes alive this month with soft light filtering through glass windows and settling gently on ceramic works that radiate both silence and strength. Much like specks of dust shimmering in a sunbeam, fragments of uneven mirrors scattered at the centre of the exhibition catch fleeting reflections of passersby that force visitors to reflect on <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/review/the-fabric-of-society">life and society</a>. From a distance, the mirrors resemble playful, anime-style sunny side ups in bright shades. It may look random, but on closer inspection the <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/multimedia/hari-the-potter">meticulous craftsmanship</a> reveals itself in every curve, giving more permanent shape and form to the artist’s fingers on the original clay. Alongside are cups, vases, and plates adorned with <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/review/facades-and-flowers-from-nepal-to-italy">delicate sketches</a> of animals, houses, and trees. Some have inscriptions drifting across surfaces like floating letters. The vases rise in varying heights, dressed in muted greens, while some are blended with soft browns and yellows.&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2025082711084_3ccb0e0e002bee9521867cbca82d56a1dc1e3ed799c5159fc07adc6f674325ab.jpg" data-media-id="editor_3" data-image-id="2025082711084_3ccb0e0e002bee9521867cbca82d56a1dc1e3ed799c5159fc07adc6f674325ab" data-rendition-name="original" width="1080" height="810" loading="lazy" alt="Firing her imagination"> <figcaption>Photo: DALAI-LA ART SPACE</figcaption> </figure>  “Ceramics have taught me patience in unpredictability,” says ceramic artist Aishworya Shakya, 26, whose work is currently on display at Dalai-la gallery in Thamel. Shakya began with simple drawings, but as she delved deeper into her studies of fine arts, she began exploring new concepts and methods of idea formation. She found herself increasingly drawn to <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/banner/take-to-pottery-during-the-pandemic">the expressive potential of ceramics</a>. “Clay is flexible and transformative, and the process of turning it into a hardened form is cathartic,” she explains. “For me, it’s about free forms, feelings, and the intangible, which often take shape in <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/multimedia/kiran-manandhar-in-the-abstract">abstract ways </a>through ceramics.”  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20250827100812_4e2efcf1284d6589d5eafb34b276b8d4c69ebba9453efe4af9a70c51b2e31d6f.jpg" data-media-id="editor_6" data-image-id="20250827100812_4e2efcf1284d6589d5eafb34b276b8d4c69ebba9453efe4af9a70c51b2e31d6f" data-rendition-name="original" width="739" height="985" loading="lazy" alt="Firing her imagination"> <figcaption>Photo: DALAI-LA ART SPACE</figcaption> </figure>  The writings on her finished ceramics are deeply rooted in her academic explorations of personal history. Shakya contemplated family relationships, and transformed them into patterns and inscriptions on clay — giving her private meditations an extension on <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/review/an-ode-to-the-ordinary">life and lessons</a>. “It is never fixed what I want to make when I begin,” says Shakya. “There might be a frame, but never anything too specific. My forms come through an intuitive process. If I try to meticulously plan everything, it never works out, so I just let it flow.” What begins as an imagined idea often transforms through the process, shaped by the unpredictability of clay and fire, keeping her grounded and open-minded. Shakya’s works usually undergo three rounds in the furnace: beginning with bisque firing, followed by layers of engobe underglaze mixed with pigments, which she applies in three coats before the second firing. Finally, she adds the glaze before the final firing. The most demanding part is actually in <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=13617">preparing and mixing the clay</a>, removing bubbles, and refining it so the final product has at least some predictability, she says.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2025082711080_d4856f6f195e9b2ad06144832121da0068aaf0f94800c483b278a204fbf3865e.jpg" data-media-id="editor_9" data-image-id="2025082711080_d4856f6f195e9b2ad06144832121da0068aaf0f94800c483b278a204fbf3865e" data-rendition-name="original" width="1280" height="960" loading="lazy" alt="Firing her imagination"> </figure>  The title Burned and Being comes from the ceramic-making process itself. “But more than just the process, it is an embodiment of my existence. As a person learning to take up space, I am filling my surroundings with things that inspire and align with me to create a sense of being and take a stand for myself,” Shakya explains. The artist is now looking ahead to expand her art beyond vases and mirrors to explore more sculptural forms. Burned and Being Till 30 September 11am to 7pm Dalai-la Art Space, Thamel