BRI Yes; BRI No!

By P.R. Pradhan

In today’s Nepal, no foreign policy is Nepal’s foreign policy. Nepal’s two immediate neighbors, India and China, must have been unhappy with the performance of the leaders and political parties in the government. Russia, the USA, the UK, Pakistan — all the nuclear power countries — are not satisfied with the performance of Nepal.

The USA wants to develop its base in Nepal to contain China and, not surprisingly, to contain India. India wants Nepal to discourage the Chinese presence in Nepal. Russia wants to strengthen its relations with Nepal but the latter doesn’t want. For example, Russia offered to support some 13 projects in Nepal but Nepal didn’t respond to the Russian offer. Israel is unhappy as Nepal votes against Israel discarding aged-old diplomatic relations between Nepal and Israel. The then-Israeli ambassador felt uncomfortable and talked to the local media saying that Nepal could remain neutral by not taking part in the voting. Similar complaint the Russian diplomats have expressed regarding Nepal’s voting in the UN.

Undoubtedly, Nepali diplomacy has become very weak since the country adopted multiparty democracy followed by yet another political change in 2006. Historical records confirm that Nepal performed the best, balanced and matured foreign policies during the Kings’ era. Since the 1990 political change, India started to behave Nepal as an India-protected nation. The Indian micro-management became rampant in Nepal’s domestic affairs.

Nepal’s sovereignty and independence are safeguarded by establishing excellent and balanced relations with the two giant neighbors. Either playing the China card or the India card doesn’t suit Nepal. Taking the Indo-American side and irritating China or challenging India by taking the Chinese side is not wise for Nepal. Nepal must give top priority to her relations with India and equally with China as Nepal is bordered by the two giant countries.

Chinese President Xi Jinping explored the Belt and Road Initiative for the infrastructural development of friendly countries. China has money and she wanted to use the money for the infrastructural development of the friendly countries under the Global Development Initiative. In 2017, Nepal signed the Memorandum of Understanding for joining the BRI club. Meanwhile, the Indo-American lobby became active to keep aloof Nepal from BRI. Americans offered the MCC grant project and also the State Partnership Program under the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) with the plan of containing China. Understandably, China will not tolerate it if Nepal moves ahead with the American IPS which our political leaders in the government should understand.

Moreover, the BRI issue was brought into a hot debate by the two ruling parties, Nepali Congress and UML, before Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli’s official visit to China. Finally, the alliance government agreed to accept the BRI only on grants not on debts. The Nepali Congress leaders advocating for the MCC and SPP developed a narrative that the Chinese loans may push Nepal into the debt trap, therefore, Nepal should not and never take the Chinese debts. To note, the China-initiated BRI is not a charity project to offer grant. The Nepali Congress leaders’ idea was to avoid inking on the BRI. On the other hand, the Chinese side rejected the Nepali proposal, therefore, the document was not signed at the main agreement signing ceremony in the presence of the Nepali PM and his Chinese counterpart on December 3. Again, after the removal of the “grants” by replacing them with “aid/financing”, the BRI agreement was signed on Wednesday, December 4, by organizing a special program in Beijing.

Prime Minister’s economic advisor Yub Raj Khatiwada remarked that the document denotes both projects under aid and debt. However, upon his arrival at the Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA), PM Oli clarified that there was no agreement for any Chinese debt project during his visit to Beijing. Foreign Minister Dr Arzu Rana, also a member of the PM’s entourage, clarified that there was no agreement on any debt project. Her husband and President of the Nepali Congress, Sher Bahadur Deuba and Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak said that the PM had inked on the BRI agreement according to the understanding developed between the NC and the UML. Meanwhile, NC leader Gagan Thapa publicly stated that his party won’t allow the Chinese debt projects taking lessons from the countries fallen into the debt trap due to the Chinese loans. To note, Thapa is known to be a vocal of the Indo-West lobby. Prakash Sharan Mahat, NC’s spokesman, also clarified that NC won’t accept any project based on debts.  

To conclude, the signing of the BRI agreement is a milestone for Nepal. If the present government doesn’t accept any project under the BRI, the future governments can accept. Considering the need for investment capital for infrastructural development, Nepal cannot avoid debt offers from China as well as from other countries.

However, the responsible leaders should not make relations with friendly countries an issue of public debate.