On/Off the Record

By P.R. Pradhan

 

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Narayankaji Shrestha paid a nine-day-long visit to China. On his way to Beijing, Minister Shrestha also visited Chengdu, Chongqing, and Lhasa. From Lhasa, he went to Kailash Mansarovar for a leisure trip. What Nepal achieved from such a long tour by the DPM and Foreign Minister, is a burning question.

Before his departure to Beijing, it was expected that Nepal would give final approval to the projects under BRI (Belt and Road Initiatives). Nepal signed on BRI seven years ago, and since then, the implementation part of BRI has been impending. 

According to different reports that appeared in the local media, Chinese Ambassador Chen Song held several rounds of meetings with Prime Minister Pushpakamal Dahal and DPM Shrestha for immediate implementation of the projects under BRI.

PM Dahal and also DPM Shrestha agreed to the implementation of the project, however, in the last hours, PM Dahal instructed DPM Shrestha not to take any decisions on BRI and other agreements that were inked during the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Kathmandu and our Prime Minister Pushpakamal Dahal's Beijing sojourn.

According to reports, Raghubir Mahaseth, DPM and Minister for Physical Development and Transportation, was asked to prepare the necessary document for cabinet approval on BRI, however, he declined to develop the report, saying that Nepal cannot accept any infrastructural projects on debt. After Mahaseth’s refusal, PM Dahal asked the Chinese envoy to convert the BRI projects under a grant or reduce the interest rates to below one percent. 

At a time when DPM Shrestha was preparing to visit China, Indian professor S.D. Muni was in town and holding meetings with those known to be pro-Indian and pro-West “intellectuals” about how the Chinese presence and activities could be reduced in Nepal. Those “researchers” who are serving the American INGOs and creating propaganda by publishing anti-China research papers, were also present at the meeting. As those anti-China groupings have become active in Nepal, the possibility of Indo-American pressure on PM Dahal and UML chair K.P. Sharma Oli against the endorsement of the BRI projects cannot be ignored.

Of late, Nepal’s foreign policy has fallen into the doldrums. Mainly, those leaders—Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, PM Dahal and UML Chair Oli—are in the race to win Delhi’s confidence for them. After the formation of a new coalition government in partnership with the UML, India has suspected any possible role of Beijing. Dahal and Oli have felt that the present coalition cannot continue without Delhi’s blessings. Delhi has given special guidelines to Deuba, Dahal and Oli for reducing China’s presence in Nepal. Although these leaders cannot speak openly against China, however, by action, they are trying to maintain distance from Beijing.      

Viewing the global recession, we believe, the era of grants has been over. The other thing is that either they are on grants or soft loans, there are excessive conditions imposed by the West and a minimum 40 percent of such grants go back to the donor countries. However, we don’t see such conditions imposed by BRI. Talking about high-interest rates, any delay in infrastructural projects by one year would add a minimum of 20 percent increase on the project costs due to the price hike on the construction materials. Delaying implementation of projects for reducing some percent of interest would be expensive for Nepal-like country. Moreover, annoying one neighbur to please another neighbor does not abide by the foreign policy principles adopted by Nepal. If we rely upon one country, it may be harmful from the point of security strategy. For example, just recently, India refused to renew the electricity procurement deal for one year by renewing it only for three months. India denied providing new entry routes for aircraft bound for Nepal. We experienced a very bad situation when India imposed an economic blockade immediately after the devastating earthquake in Nepal. India has demonstrated the attitude that it is not a good neighbor to be trusted. In such circumstances, we should not rely on one neighbor only and we should develop balanced and equidistance relations with both immediate neighbors. Unfortunately, our leaders, for their pity interests, are practicing the policy of pleasing India and the West by annoying our other neighbor, an economic giant and also a superpower.   

Already, the Nepal government gave a message to Russia by discarding its openhearted support for Nepal. Although Nepal’s foreign policy is based on non-alignment, it seems, it has taken the membership of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, which may invite a serious crisis in our sovereign existence.