When did the One China Policy become the One China Principle? A question worth revisiting

Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal's Beijing visit has reignited debate over Nepal's use of the terms 'One China Policy' and 'One China Principle'

Navita Srikant

June 15, 2026

Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal's Beijing visit has reignited debate over Nepal's use of the terms 'One China Policy' and 'One China Principle'

Did Nepal quietly change its China policy?

As Nepal’s Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal undertakes an official visit to China at the invitation of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, it is both timely and relevant to reflect on aspects of Nepal’s foreign-policy doctrine that warrant thoughtful examination.

The visit also presents an opportunity for the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which is leading Nepal’s foreign affairs portfolio for the first time, to demonstrate the principles it has consistently championed: institutional processes, transparency, accountability, and democratic legitimacy in national decision-making.

In that spirit, this may be an appropriate moment to revisit Nepal’s historical foreign-policy doctrine and ensure that long-standing national positions continue to be articulated in a manner that reflects established policy and institutional consensus. For decades, Nepal’s official position was commonly expressed as adherence to the One China Policy. In recent years, however, some bilateral documents have referred instead to the One China Principle, prompting questions among diplomats, scholars, and foreign-policy observers regarding when this terminological shift occurred and whether it reflected a formal change in policy.

If such a transition did take place, it is reasonable to ask whether it was preceded by a cabinet decision, parliamentary deliberation, or a documented review of Nepal’s diplomatic doctrine. Clarifying this issue is not about revisiting Nepal’s friendly relations with China, nor about questioning established commitments. Rather, it is about ensuring that significant developments in foreign-policy language and doctrine are supported by transparent institutional processes.

Many observers note that this apparent shift emerged during periods when communist-led governments were in office. Whether the change was substantive or merely terminological, the question remains worthy of examination. Important foreign-policy positions are strongest when they are anchored in clear institutional mandates and public legitimacy.

As a party that has emphasized accountability, transparency, and reform, RSP has an opportunity to place Nepal’s historical position and national interest first, while strengthening confidence that Nepal’s foreign-policy commitments continue to rest on clear, well-defined, and institutionally endorsed foundations.

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.