Nepal’s Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle and India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar have discussed the changing nature of international cooperation, the future of multilateralism and the growing importance of regional and subregional partnerships.

The conversation explored whether cooperation in areas such as disaster response, nutrition and clean energy requires formal institutional arrangements or whether countries can achieve better results through flexible partnerships based on shared interests.

Wagle highlighted India’s assistance to Nepal following the 2015 earthquake and the recent climate-related disasters in Rasuwa and Bhotekoshi, acknowledging India’s prompt response and support.

He then raised broader questions about the international order, arguing that growing geopolitical tensions and trade fragmentation have challenged the traditional assumption that regional cooperation would eventually lead to a stronger multilateral system.

Jaishankar responded that although formal institutional arrangements remain useful in certain areas, countries are increasingly favouring flexible, issue-specific and results-oriented cooperation over cumbersome structures.

The following is an edited Q&A of the conversation.

Q&A: Swarnim Wagle and S. Jaishankar on International Cooperation

Swarnim Wagle: The four examples you gave yoga, millets, solar power, and disaster response were particularly compelling.

On disaster response, I can speak from experience as Nepal’s Finance Minister. We received extraordinary assistance from India, not only following the recent climate change-related disasters in Rasuwa and Bhotekoshi but also after the 2015 earthquake. In both instances, India was among the first to respond, arriving within hours of the disaster. Nepal remains very grateful for that support.

I would like to connect this experience with the broader global discussion.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, particularly during the 1990s, multilateralism was widely regarded as the preferred approach to international trade and economic cooperation. Regional arrangements such as NAFTA, SAFTA and AFTA were often seen as intermediate steps, with the ultimate objective being to multilateralise regionalism.

The idea was to allow countries and regional blocs time to adjust before moving towards a broader multilateral order. However, this process depended on the major powers sustaining and supporting the multilateral system.

In recent years, that commitment appears to have weakened. We are witnessing greater fragmentation, the emergence of trade blocs and countries increasingly prioritising their own interests.

Even in areas you highlighted, such as disaster response, nutrition and clean energy, there is a question about how cooperation can be sustained.

Do you see greater scope for institutionalising cooperation at the bilateral, trilateral, subregional or regional levels? Some of the initiatives you mentioned have been institutionalised through the United Nations, while others appear to depend on the goodwill of the governments in power.

Should we establish formal institutions to sustain these efforts? In other words, are we moving in the opposite direction—towards regionalising multilateralism? In an increasingly multipolar world, do we need corresponding governance structures to support cooperation?

S. Jaishankar: Formalisation was very much part of the political orthodoxy that many of us grew up with. However, what we have seen over the past two decades is that, in many cases, countries are increasingly reluctant to make formal commitments.

The process of negotiating formal arrangements can consume so much time and energy that the original purpose sometimes gets lost. Countries then become preoccupied with questions such as who will bear the costs, how the arrangements will operate and what rules will govern them.

Moreover, if you look around the world, many existing formal groupings are themselves facing difficulties. So, while you are asking whether we should formalise more arrangements, it is worth recognising that many of the institutions already in place are struggling.

My view is that formalisation is useful where it makes sense. The International Solar Alliance, for example, demonstrates how institutional arrangements can support cooperation.

However, there are many situations, issues and agendas where it makes much more sense to keep cooperation going without creating a formal institution.

Consider BRICS. Many people may not immediately recognise that BRICS does not have a permanent secretariat or a written charter signed by all its members in the way some other international organisations do. In that respect, it is quite different from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The appropriate approach depends on the issue, the partners involved and the level of commitment they are prepared to make.

If I were to identify a broader trend, I would say that international cooperation is moving towards arrangements that are more ad hoc and involve like-minded countries.

At one point, I asked my colleagues to prepare a list of the different cooperative arrangements India had pursued over the previous decade. We were approaching 50 groupings across different areas, including trilateral, quadrilateral and other partnerships among like-minded countries.

This reflects the way countries increasingly want to work today: through a relatively light framework that focuses on outcomes rather than creating something cumbersome and difficult to manage.

The emphasis is increasingly on practical cooperation, flexibility and delivering results.