I had taken a short hiatus from writing this column. For an academic, balancing research, teaching, and the pressures of public commentary often means one has to step back from the writing routine once in a while. However, with the recent high-profile visit of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to China, I felt this was an opportune moment to pick up my writing again.

In April 2016, I wrote about Oli’s official visit to China and the media coverage it received. At that time, while Indian media extensively covered the visit, the English-language press in China offered little commentary, although Chinese outlets did publish plenty of headlines. Despite this, Chinese media coverage of Nepal has generally been optimistic, albeit often bland and prosaic.

However, the situation has grown more complicated in recent years. With the slow progress in the implementation plan for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) since Nepal joined the project over seven years ago, concerns about trade imbalances, debt dependency and tensions with India over China’s growing influence in Nepal have surfaced. The media hysteria surrounding the BRI, both in Nepal and India, has further frustrated both sides. Against this backdrop, seeing how Chinese news outlets framed Oli’s visit this time was interesting.

Oli’s visit generated substantial and coordinated media coverage. In major Chinese English-language outlets such as People’s Daily, China Daily, Global Times, CCTV, CGTN and Xinhua, the framing oscillated between strategic cooperation, historical camaraderie, and the promise of economic transformation with a forward-looking tone focusing on development cooperation and mutual benefits. Coverage also incorporated human interest angles and increased multimedia content, suggesting an effort to engage a wider audience. Given the state-controlled nature of Chinese media, critical coverage remains rare, and alternative views are often subtly implied through language choices or omissions.

One dominant theme in the coverage was political cooperation. Articles emphasised the "everlasting friendship" and the growing "strategic partnership" between Nepal and China. The reaffirmation of Nepal’s commitment to the "One-China" policy was framed as highly appreciative, a natural extension of historical and cultural ties, portraying Nepal as a reliable partner aligned with China's broader geopolitical interests in South Asia. This optimistic coverage may be seen as overlooking the strain it may put on its traditionally close relationship with India. However, an editorial in China Daily attempted to reassure India, clarifying that Oli’s choice of China for his first visit was not aimed at India.

Another prominent theme was the economic opportunity presented by the BRI. Coverage highlighted Nepal’s transformation from a "landlocked" to a "land-linked" nation through improved infrastructure—roads, railways and ports. Chinese outlets cited Xi Jinping’s comments during the visit, underlining the “transformative” potential of the BRI for Nepal’s modernisation and economic growth. These portrayals focus on the benefits of enhanced regional connectivity, trade and investment, presenting the BRI as a win-win for both countries. However, concerns about Nepal falling into a "debt trap," particularly related to projects like the Pokhara International Airport, were largely absent in Chinese media coverage. Global Times, more critical in its stance, quoted Chinese sources lambasting Indian portrayals of Nepal’s BRI ties as a debt trap, citing India’s hegemonic attitude and its failure to respect Nepal’s sovereignty.

Geopolitical balance and Nepal's sovereignty appeared as another theme in discussions about Nepal’s growing engagement with China. Chinese media presented these ties as a strategic diversification, reflecting Nepal’s desire to assert its independence in foreign policy and maintain neutrality between global powers. Yet, concerns regarding Nepal’s increasing dependence on Chinese capital and infrastructure—such as rising debt and its impact on Nepal’s autonomy—were barely addressed.

Tourism also emerged as a key theme, especially with the Visit Nepal 2025 initiative. Chinese media focused on the economic potential of attracting more Chinese tourists, highlighting the boost to revenue and local businesses. Nepali businesses were portrayed as highly optimistic, with no mention of potential challenges. Arjun Prasad Sharma, honorary vice president of the Nepal Chamber of Commerce, was quoted by Global Times saying, “The Nepali business community loves to import from China.” Concerns about Nepal’s potential over-reliance on Chinese tourism, which could limit diversification in the sector, were seldom mentioned. While Chinese media celebrated the economic benefits, they rarely addressed the risks of depending on a single country for such a crucial sector.

Another theme in the coverage was Nepal’s potential to benefit from China’s technological advancements. Chinese media highlighted opportunities for Nepal to emulate China’s successes in information technology, renewable energy and transportation infrastructure. These stories underscored the transformative potential of technology transfer and economic cooperation, yet they failed to acknowledge Nepal’s limitations in implementing such ambitious projects. Political instability, resource constraints and a lack of capacity to absorb advanced technologies could hinder the successful application of these solutions. The practical challenges Nepal faces in integrating these technologies into its infrastructure require more nuanced media scrutiny.

The lack of direct interviews or attributions from Nepali critics of the BRI or other aspects of Nepal-China relations is notable. Most often, criticism comes from Indian media or critics, leaving Nepal without its own voice. This absence of Nepali agency in Chinese coverage raises questions about the depth of engagement with diverse viewpoints.

Overall, the dominant themes in the coverage align closely with China’s official stance on Nepal, but this time, there is a noticeable shift in approach. Chinese outlets have included more opinion-based content, with editorial pieces offering perspectives from external contributors. Multimedia content, such as photo displays and video features, has also increased, reflecting a desire to engage a broader audience interested in Nepal-China relations.

Interviews with Nepali students and professionals and side stories, such as a profile of a Nepali professional making an impact in China, suggest a multifaceted view of the relationship, extending beyond state-level interactions. This suggests China’s growing interest in Nepal’s cultural and social spheres and deepening bilateral ties.

Nepali-language coverage in CRI Nepal and CGTN, often featuring identical content, further indicates China’s greater effort to engage the general Nepali public. Although Chinese media often cite Indian media in their coverage of Nepal, particularly relating to controversies surrounding the BRI, some Chinese media cited Nepali outlets for context, reflecting their desire for the authenticity of Nepali perspectives.

The increased breadth of coverage may signal the upcoming 70th anniversary of bilateral relations, which is likely to bring even more media attention to Nepal-China ties in the coming year.