In democracies under strain, the most important truths often arrive too late, uttered hesitantly by those who should have spoken earlier. A striking case occurred on 5 July 2025, when Ty Cobb—former White House special counsel—accidentally revealed, in what he thought was a private Facebook comment, that Donald Trump was “worse than anyone in our history.” The post went viral, becoming an insider’s indictment few external critics could match. Cobb wrote that Trump “has real contempt for the country, appoints wholly unqualified people to key positions,” and even “killed worldwide healthcare efforts monitoring pandemic producing diseases including Ebola.”&nbsp; He added that Trump had “just kicked 12 million people off Medicaid, eliminated child food support” and witnessed a personal net worth growth of over USD 3 billion, describing it as “purely personal, corrupt and [with] zero policy-based support.” These were not partisan talking points but hard facts previously reported and now authoritatively confirmed. Yet, these truths surfaced only by accident, underscored by Cobb’s insistence that his words were “not intended for wide circulation.”&nbsp;  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2025082715088_8992956bf90a632ae105a501c931cfff9d2224915248555ee7c5f053daf43517.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="2025082715088_8992956bf90a632ae105a501c931cfff9d2224915248555ee7c5f053daf43517" data-rendition-name="original" width="448" height="624" loading="lazy" alt="Reluctant truth-tellers and institutional fragility"> </figure>  That phrase has become emblematic of a deeper malaise: the unwillingness of insiders to speak candidly until their words escape by chance. That reluctance reflects a broader pattern observed in recent United States politics: internal criticism is rare, delayed, or voiced only after political risks have diminished. The effect is a dangerous silence that leaves citizens uninformed and institutions weakened. This dynamic is not unique to the United States. In Brazil, military officials who privately questioned Jair Bolsonaro’s authoritarian drift remained publicly loyal until after his defeat. In Hungary, European Union officials observing Viktor Orbán’s erosion of judicial independence offered only anonymous briefings, avoiding open confrontation that might have spurred international pressure.&nbsp; In both cases, the absence of early internal dissent permitted leaders to consolidate power and normalise abuses. When insiders delay speaking out, authoritarians gain vital time to dismantle checks and neutralise opposition. By the time the truth emerges, the institutional landscape has shifted. In fragile democracies and post-conflict settings, this pattern means early warnings that might prevent damage often go unheard. Such disclosures share a familiar anatomy: reactive, surfaced only after leaks or visible collapse, lacking in formal documentation, and offered by individuals whose credibility matters—but only too late.&nbsp; Silence often stems from various motivations: a belief that one can moderate from within, fear of being labelled partisan, or hope that self-correction via institutions is possible without personal sacrifice. However, these strategies frequently fail. The ‘adult in the room’ stance can instead enable wrongdoing. Autocrats learn to interpret silence as consent, and the public, unseeing of internal resistance, struggles to mobilise. By contrast, international experience shows that early truth-telling—however uncomfortable—is more effective. In Myanmar, civil servants—rather than staying silent—mounted one of the most powerful civil disobedience movements in the region, walking off the job in protest the day after the 2021 coup. Their defiance emboldened popular resistance and showed how decisive, collective action can shift political momentum, even if it could not reverse the coup.&nbsp; In South Korea, prosecutors exposed political meddling that catalysed civil society and led to the president’s impeachment. In Guatemala, judges and prosecutors brought down entrenched corruption networks from within government, enabling international action. Strengthening democratic resilience therefore requires reconfiguring incentives. Whistle-blower protections must be strengthened so that independent institutions can act swiftly on credible disclosures. Civil society and media networks should be prepared to amplify insider warnings before they are suppressed. We must build institutional cultures that treat early truth-telling as civic duty, not betrayal. International organisations can help by developing rapid-response mechanisms to protect and amplify important disclosures. Secure channels should preserve source anonymity while enabling coordinated global responses. Institutions must be ready to intervene when systems falter. Civil society, meanwhile, must reduce the personal cost of speaking out—through legal support funds, secure communication tools, and rapid media response strategies. The goal must be to make courage less costly, and delay less tempting. Ty Cobb’s unintended post was more than an accidental slip: it was a mirror held to institutional fragility and the perils of delayed honesty. As he put it, “I could of course be tilting at windmills but don’t really have much choice if I want to sleep at night given the stakes as I see them.” When insiders wait for the perfect moment to speak, that moment rarely arrives—and the public pays the price. Democratic societies cannot rely on accidental disclosures to expose institutional failures. Instead, the international community must build systems that reward courage over caution and recognise that institutional silence in the face of authoritarian behaviour is too often indistinguishable from complicity. Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy.&nbsp; This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from <a href="https://toda.org/global-outlook/2025/reluctant-truth-tellers-and-institutional-fragility.html">the original</a> with their permission.

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

thumbnail

viewImage

Reluctant truth-tellers and institutional fragility

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

<img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221107171136/636934219c7e80680e03dfdajpeg.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="720"/>NEW YORK – The drama of Donald Trump’s presidency has centered around whether an extremist president would be able to carry out an extremist policy agenda against the will of the majority of Americans. So far the answer has been no, and the midterm elections make it far less likely. Yet Trump’s rising frustrations could push him over the edge psychologically, with potentially harrowing consequences for American democracy and the world.None of Trump’s extremist policy ideas has received public support. The public opposed last year’s <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/27/more-americans-favor-raising-than-lowering-tax-rates-on-corporations-high-household-incomes/">Republican-backed corporate tax cut</a>, Trump’s effort to <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/23/support-for-2010-health-care-law-reaches-new-high/">repeal the Affordable Care Act</a> (Obamacare), his <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/24/most-americans-continue-to-oppose-u-s-border-wall-doubt-mexico-would-pay-for-it/">proposed border wall with Mexico</a>, the decision to <a href="http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/05/07/rel5c.-.iran.pdf">withdraw</a> from the Iran nuclear agreement, and the imposition of <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/10/americans-are-generally-positive-about-free-trade-agreements-more-critical-of-tariff-increases/">tariff increases</a> on China, Europe, and others. At the same time, contrary to Trump’s relentless promotion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), the public favors <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/two-thirds-of-americans-give-priority-to-developing-alternative-energy-over-fossil-fuels/">investments in renewable energy</a> and <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agreement_by_state/">remaining</a> in the Paris climate agreement.Trump has tried to implement his radical agenda using three approaches:<ol><li>To rely on the Republican majorities in the two houses of Congress to pass legislation in the face of strong popular opposition. That approach succeeded once, with the 2017 corporate tax cut, because big Republican donors insisted on the measure, but it failed with Trump’s attempt to repeal Obamacare, as three Republican senators balked.</li> 	<li>To use executive orders to circumvent Congress. Here the courts have repeatedly intervened, most recently within days of the election, when a federal district court <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/climate/judge-blocks-keystone-pipeline.html">halted work on the Keystone XL Pipeline</a>, a project strongly opposed by environmentalists, on the grounds that the Trump administration had failed to present a “reasoned explanation” for its actions. Trump repeatedly and dangerously oversteps his authority, and the courts keep pushing back.</li> 	<li>To rally public opinion to his side. Yet, despite his frequent rallies, or perhaps because of them and their incendiary vulgarity, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx?g_source=link_newsv9&amp;g_campaign=item_203198&amp;g_medium=copy">Trump’s disapproval rating</a>has exceeded his approval rating since the earliest days of his administration. His current overall disapproval rating is 54%, versus 40% approval, with strong approval from around 25% of the public.</li></ol>In the midterm elections, which Trump himself described as a referendum on his presidency, the Democratic candidates for both the House and Senate <a href="https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2018/results/hq">vastly outpolled</a> their Republican opponents. In the House races, Democrats received 53,314,159 votes nationally, compared with 48,439,810 for Republicans. In the Senate races, Democrats outpolled Republicans by 47,537,699 votes to 34,280,990.Nonetheless, the Republicans hold a slight majority in the Senate, where each state is represented by two senators, regardless of the size of its population, because they tend to win their seats in less populous states, whereas Democrats prevail in the major coastal and Midwestern states. Wyoming, for example, elects two Republican senators to represent its nearly 580,000 residents, while California’s more than 39 million residents elect two Democratic senators. Democrats win more votes, but Republicans win more seats.Without control of the House, however, Trump will no longer be able to enact any unpopular legislation. Only policies with bipartisan support will have a chance of passing both chambers.On the economic front, Trump’s trade policies will become even less popular in the months ahead as the American economy cools from the “sugar high” of the corporate tax cut, as growing uncertainty about global trade policy hamstrings business investment, and as both the budget deficit and interest rates rise. Trump’s phony national-security justifications for raising tariffs will also be challenged politically and perhaps in the courts.True, Trump will be able to continue appointing conservative federal judges and most likely win their confirmation in the Republican-majority Senate. And on issues of war and peace, Trump will operate with terrifyingly little oversight by Congress or the public, an affliction of the US political system since World War II. Trump, like his recent predecessors, will most likely keep America mired in wars in the Middle East and Africa, despite the lack of significant public understanding or support.Nonetheless, there are three further reasons to believe that Trump’s hold on power will weaken significantly in the coming months. First, Special Counsel Robert Mueller may very well document serious malfeasance by Trump, his family members, and/or his close advisers. Mueller kept a low profile in the run-up to the election. We will most likely hear from him soon.Second, the House Democrats will begin to investigate Trump’s taxes and personal business dealings, including through congressional subpoenas. There are strong reasons to believe that Trump has committed serious tax evasion (as the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html">recently outlined</a>) and has illegally enriched his family as president (a lawsuit that the courts have <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/donald-trump-emoluments-clause-dc-maryland/index.html">allowed to proceed</a> alleges violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution). Trump is likely to ignore or fight the subpoenas, setting the stage for a major political crisis.Third, and most important, Trump is not merely an extremist politician. He suffers from what author Ian Hughes has <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H44BMM6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1">recently</a> called “a disordered mind,” filled with hate, paranoia, and narcissism. According to two close observers of Trump, the president’s grip on reality “<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/27/inside-the-mind-of-donald-trump-219074">will likely continue to diminish</a>” in the face of growing political obstacles, investigations into his taxes and business dealings, Mueller’s findings, and an energized political opposition. We may already be seeing that in Trump’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/us/politics/matthew-whitaker-donald-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur&amp;fbclid=IwAR0MxF9dqRt5w1M5HT6Gy6syoaqbsJjfg6SRlN4JhcdURUrV-btCv_pHgt4">erratic</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdFe-LmFRV8&amp;t=1s">aggressive</a> behavior since the election.The coming months may be especially dangerous for America and the world. As Trump’s political position weakens and the obstacles facing him grow, his mental instability will pose an ever-greater danger. He could explode in rage, fire Mueller, and perhaps try to launch a war or claim emergency powers in order to restore his authority. We have not yet seen Trump in full fury, but may do so soon, as his room for maneuver continues to narrow. In that case, much will depend on the performance of America’s constitutional order.  © <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/weaker-trump-more-unstable-and-dangerous-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2018-11?utm_source=Project+Syndicate+Newsletter&amp;utm_campaign=8154a24117-sunday_newsletter_18_11_2018&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_73bad5b7d8-8154a24117-93570157##" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Project Syndicate</a>Jeffrey D Sachs is Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University and his books include <a href="http://jeffsachs.org/books/the-end-of-poverty/">The End of Poverty</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Building-New-American-Economy-Sustainable/dp/0231184042" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Building the New American Economy</a>, <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a-new-foreign-policy/9780231547888">A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism</a>.

Trump’s diminishing power and rising rage

Samsung Nepal has opened pre-orders for the Galaxy A57 5G and A37 5G. Both phones run Samsung’s One UI 8.5, featuring AI capabilities like voice transcription, Circle to Search, and photo editing. They feature a 50MP triple-camera system, a Super AMOLED display, and six years of OS and security updates.

Galaxy A series

Know your Ministers

‘One early morning, we heard the ambassador’s wife cry out, “Ram, Ram, Ram!” A disaster has befallen Nepal!” She had heard on the radio that a fire had consumed Singha Durbar." This is not about the arson attack on 9 September 2025, but the one on 8 July, 1973. It started in the South Wing of the then single-largest building in all of Nepal. It took two days to bring the blaze under control, requiring the use of explosives to demolish one wing to protect the imposing western facade. As Bhekh Bahadur Thapa recalls in the English translation of his memoir A Life in Public Service: Nepal from Autocracy to Democracy, he was then on leave from the Nepal government serving with the IDRC in Ottawa.&nbsp; He had already served as Nepal’s Finance Secretary at age 25, went on to be Finance Minister and Governor of Nepal Rastra Bank. He was already younger than some of the GenZ ministers in Nepal’s present RSP government. Thapa, now 89, was at the launch of the book in February which was attended by former diplomats and bureaucrats. After speeches by panelists, there was a question from the audience about how Thapa had managed to be the diplomat he was, managing Nepal’s international relations on the world stage.&nbsp; Writer and journalist Akhilesh Upadhyay, who was moderating the panel, responded by going into the section of the book where we see Thapa as an ambassador to the US, playing tennis with White House officials, cultivating a network of contacts to project the identity and welfare of Nepal, and making it possible for a state visit by King Birendra to Ronald Reagan’s America. The book is full of anecdotes that suggest Thapa was a clever and strategic diplomat, always calm and unruffled, easily making friends in high places with his maturity and engaging sense of humour. Thapa’s memoir is heavy on details about Nepal’s administrative history during the years he was active in public service, serving as minister and ambassador under three kings: Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanendra, and alongside five prime ministers.&nbsp; Aside from an insider look on how certain treaties, development deals and research projects in Nepal came into fruition, Thapa goes into great detail about his personal and professional relationships with the kings, ministers, ambassadors, foreign leaders and politicians.&nbsp; As a reader, one is struck by the level of detail around the events that unfolded in Nepal over the years during Thapa’s tenure. Was Thapa recording a journal over the years of the events and the conversations that transpired, or were they committed to his phenomenal memory? Either way, the reader gets a glimpse of Nepal’s recent history from the early days of the Panchayat, through the People’s Movement and the democracy period, the Maoist insurgency, Royal Palace massacre of 2001, and Gyanendra’s coup of 2005.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2026041204048_125dc8ae300a1e33124f394abe724d42727f83e067b0201d2008b58d60c459a4.jpg" data-media-id="editor_0" data-image-id="2026041204048_125dc8ae300a1e33124f394abe724d42727f83e067b0201d2008b58d60c459a4" data-rendition-name="original" width="1584" height="1000" loading="lazy" alt="How to win friends and influence nations NT"> </figure>  Not enough is said about the political parties of the time whose presence led to the way Nepal’s multiparty democracy came to be shaped. The book keeps its focus on the administration and the key figures around it, mostly those in the Panchayat era. Towards the second half of the book, we do start to hear about political parties, but not in great depth. Another figure whose presence in the book is conspicuously less prominent is that of his wife, Rita Thapa — the person who seems to have rescued him every time financial quandary or family care became a challenge. Yet, we do not see her as a full person. Perhaps because of the personal tragedies in his life, the children are also barely mentioned.&nbsp; The book is therefore less personal and more technical. Throughout, we learn about Thapa’s thinking as he navigated the world of diplomacy to win him the trust of those who mattered. There are tips here for a new generation of Nepali officials and diplomats about how much commitment and focus is needed to be good at one’s job and serve the national interest. This book adds to tomes that have been written on Nepal’s fragile relationship with India. ‘India has always wished for Nepal to remain dependent on it,’ writes Thapa, who served as Nepal’s ambassador to India and later in the Eminent Persons Group &nbsp;on Indo-Nepal relations that has been allowed to languish. The book has several insights into the Indo-Nepal trysts with diplomacy and agency.&nbsp; China’s role is also recorded, viewed through conversations during a visit to Beijing, but all that was before Nepal’s neighbour to the north emerged as a world economic and military power. The book also has such sudden instances of quirkiness and humour. For instance, we see a young Thapa in America explaining to a government official why he would like to return to Nepal instead of settling down in the US. “Because, Nepal is beautiful,” he said. The text is immaculate and does not read much like a translation, credit for which clearly goes to the team that put the edition together: translator Prawin Adhikari, &nbsp;Anagha Neelakanthan and Bhekh Thapa’s daughter, Manjushree. As Nepal enters a new era of governance and diplomacy, A Life in Public Service: Nepal from Autocracy to Democracy should be essential reading for students of political science, economics and foreign affairs who can gain a fresh perspective on the country’s trajectory.&nbsp; There are dozens of forgotten state secrets recorded in the book, but the reader must also remember this is a story told from one person’s perspective and there may be others.&nbsp; So, what really made Thapa the diplomat he was? I met him in 2004 at the Kantipur TV studio when he was serving as king Gyanendra’s foreign minister. He was there for a studio interview, and I was just done with my English newscast.&nbsp; He surprised me at the door: “Pratibha! I’ve been reading your articles in The Kathmandu Post. You must keep writing.” I thanked him, glad to have been noticed for my work by a stranger. That was perhaps one of the things that set Thapa apart — he excelled at staying close to those in power, while also noticing those who were not.  <figure> <img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/20260412040412_213e706136a038ec9f5e2b8c6d7f7c1e9ceed9479e22fe2884872ad7bd20955f.jpg" data-media-id="editor_1" data-image-id="20260412040412_213e706136a038ec9f5e2b8c6d7f7c1e9ceed9479e22fe2884872ad7bd20955f" data-rendition-name="original" width="1136" height="702" loading="lazy" alt="Book details"> </figure>

How to win friends and influence nations

Prime Minister Balendra Shah on Wednesday broke tradition and met with 17 foreign envoys collectively, a move that was a notable departure from how his predecessors operated.&nbsp;
Shah had already set himself apart by talking less, listening more, and delegating to trusted friends. But by meeting all ambassadors at one go in the presence of the Foreign Ministry, he signalled a paradigm shift in how he wants Nepal to be seen: no longer just balancing India and China, but as a country confident about its <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/opinion/guest-editorial/tripolar-contestation-over-nepal">strategic importance and place in the world</a>.
In just two weeks, the <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/rsp-dos-and-don-ts">RSP has sprung into action </a>on multiple fronts to implement its ambitious 100-point, 100-days action plan. It has taken short-term measures to mitigate the impact of the Gulf war, as well as medium- and long- term measures to streamline the bureaucracy. A few high-profile figures have been made examples of to drive the message home.
Earlier this week, the government recalled six politically appointed ambassadors, the most notable being long-serving Shankar Sharma from New Delhi. The Kathmandu District Court issued arrest warrants against former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his former foreign minister wife Arzu Rana on charges of money laundering and corruption.
Each ministry has been trying to clean up the accumulated rot from the past three decades: regulatory overhaul of microfinance, education, health and service delivery.&nbsp;
These actions widely disseminated campaign-style on YouTube and TikTok have made most Nepalis hopeful that the party they installed in power means business.
<div class="embed-block"><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Freel%2F1279862820757799%2F&show_text=false&width=560&t=0" width="560" height="314" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe></div>
BACKLASH
But such attempts to overhaul a long-entrenched political culture were bound to face backlash. In their impatience and enthusiasm to get things done, some of Prime Minister Shah’s ministers have over-reached.
It was common knowledge that government-paid advertising in the mainstream press was kickback-driven, but the PMO’s directive that official notices be published or broadcast only on state-run media has been denounced — especially as the media industry struggles to stay afloat.
More serious are some recent appointments by ministers of relatives and figures closely associated with the RSP to key positions. This has rankled because this party built its political plank on ending nepotism and graft.&nbsp;
News that Home Minister Sudan Gurung allegedly had not paid rent on leased land, which illegally encroached on the lake in Pokhara did not help. &nbsp;
Prime Minister Shah himself has come under scrutiny for appointing a kitchen cabinet full of male buddies from his time as Kathmandu mayor. To douse criticism he brought in as adviser investigative journalist Deepa Dahal, who has exposed corruption in high places of the previous coalitions.&nbsp;
Shah’s appointment of another political adviser Asim Shah to the head Constitution Amendment Task Force, is also seen as problematic. He is a filmmaker and former lawmaker, but does not have a background in constitutional law.&nbsp;
Even more controversial is the Cabinet’s decision to appoint RSP Chair Rabi Lamichhane’s legal counsel, Narayan Kandel, as Attorney General. Kandel used to be a UK permanent resident, and does not have as much experience practicing law in Nepal.&nbsp;
Kandel’s appointment drew flak and raised eyebrows, and with the pending legal cases against Lamichhane this appointment represents a flagrant conflict of interest.
Health Minister Nisha Mehta was also accused of favouritism after reappointing Junu Shrestha, wife of Labour Minister Dipak Kumar Shah, as member of the Health Insurance Board which had earlier suspended her. The Labour Minister’s rambling rant at the Board’s meeting on Tuesday has not helped the RSP’s image.&nbsp;
(UPDATE: On Thursday, Prime Minister Shah sacked the Labour Minister after the RSP found him in breach of the party's code of conduct and discipline. He served 14 days in the Cabinet, one of the shortest tenures for a minister in Nepal )
It is hard to know what <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/ball-in-balen-s-court">Balendra Shah is thinking</a>, and how Rabi Lamichhane is going to justify some of these moves. After all, making politics, governance, and bureaucracy a meritocracy has been the core tenet of the RSP, and it risks alienating its mainly youth base if these missteps persist.
But at least for now, most RSP supporters seem to be giving the party the benefit of doubt.