Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is in China for a four-day official visit. This visit is expected to finalize and sign the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) implementation framework between the two countries.
Nepal’s engagement with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has reignited debates about transparency, accountability, and national priorities.
Following the alliance between the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML and the announcement of PM Oli’s China visit, discussions around BRI resurfaced in Nepal, with critics questioning the motives behind key decisions and project selections.
Hidden agendas behind the alliance
On November 20, 2024, Basanta Basnet, Editor of Online Khabar, published a commentary suggesting that discussions about the BRI agreement had occurred between the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML well before their alliance was formalized on July 14, 2024.
Supporting this claim, a July 1 meeting of Nepali Congress office bearers and former officials decided to oppose loans under BRI-related projects. Yet, the BRI agreement seemingly played a pivotal role in the negotiations between Nepal’s two largest political parties, alongside other political trade-offs that favored their top leaders.
Details of the agreement remain confined to top leaders of both parties, Sher Bahadur Deuba and KP Sharma Oli, the principal architects of the current grand alliance. Despite attempts by some Nepali Congress leaders and intellectuals in Kathmandu to present alternative narratives, evidence suggests that a consensus on the BRI proposal was foundational to their political partnership and the formation of the new political alliance to form the government.
Departure from diplomatic norms
Nearly two and a half months after the formation of the government, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli announced an official visit to China for December 2024. What stood out was the informal manner in which the visit was communicated—through a two-party political mechanism rather than formal channels. This departure from established norms underscored the alliance’s preference for party-centric decision-making over official channels.
The announcement reignited debates in Kathmandu, with commentators framing it as if Nepal were engaging with the BRI for the first time. However, Nepal’s BRI involvement dates back to 2016 during KP Sharma Oli’s premiership and continued under the coalition government led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal in 2017. Notably, Congress leaders involved in the initial agreement process raised no concerns about transparency, suggesting a tacit acceptance of the initiative at the time.
Diverting public discourse
After forming an alliance with the CPN-UML, the Nepali Congress faced challenges in shaping a favorable narrative, given the ruling CPN-UML’s apparent China tilt.
As BRI-related issues dominated headlines, Congress leaders diverted attention from substantive matters to superficial debates.
One tactic involved steering public discourse toward loans versus grants, with Congress leaders emphasizing their preference for grants. However, this oversimplification ignored a critical reality: not all grants benefit national development while not all loans are detrimental.
Similarly, the alliance also started discussion on the title of the BRI agreement. They highlighted their preference for the heading “Framework for Cooperation on Jointly Building the BRI” over China’s proposed “BRI Implementation Plan.” While framed as a commitment to Nepal’s interests, critics argue that this focus on title was a calculated and deliberate distraction from the agreement’s substantive issues.
This strategy echoed the approach taken during the endorsement of the USA-funded Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact, where a 12-point interpretative declaration was crafted to address concerns at people level. The differences between MCC and BRI, however, are on the part of transparency and trust.
Business interests with China
Many believe the Nepali Congress’s position on China and the BRI differs from that of the CPN-UML. Some Congress leaders, with backing from media outlets and Kathmandu-based intellectuals, have sought to portray the party as more transparent and principled. However, political analysts remain skeptical.
“The perception that the Nepali Congress champions transparency and accountability in its dealings with China is outdated,” a senior NC leader told The DMN News. “The current reality is starkly different. The party’s top leaders are driven by personal gains, prioritizing power retention over principles or ideology.”
Beyond politics, business interests have increasingly influenced Nepal’s relationship with China, and the Nepali Congress is no exception.
During Sher Bahadur Deuba’s administration, Nepal decided to purchase 26 armored personnel carriers (APCs), 72 tactical vehicles, and ammunition for the Nepal Army from China at inflated costs, Republica had reported. This decision, had it been made by a communist-led government, would likely have been interpreted as a clear tilt toward China. However, it received little attention as the decision was taken under a Congress-led government.
Observers argue that business relationships with Chinese nationals now serve personal rather than national interests. A foreign policy analyst noted, “Foreign policy decisions are driven by the personal gains of a few powerful politicians, who manipulate crucial matters for their benefit.” Businessperson close to the Nepali Congress have also pursued partnerships with Chinese nationals, further sidelining national interests.
Question of credibility
The current ruling alliance compromise country’s the two largest political parties, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, which are often perceived as ideologically distinct. However, the reality suggests otherwise. Both parties, particularly their current leadership, have demonstrated significant alignment on various issues, driven by their shared desire to maintain power at the national level.
This convergence has raised questions about the ideological foundations of these parties and their commitment to distinct governance principles.
Needless to say that one area where this unity is apparent is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Leaders from both parties have claimed their unity for the BRI agreement, presenting a unified front on this critical geopolitical issue.
Just before the Prime Minister’s departure for Beijing, influential leaders from both sides, along with ministers, assured the public of their alignment regarding the BRI deal. This united stance is noteworthy but has also drawn attention to the motivations behind such cooperation, which appear more pragmatic than ideological.
Despite this unity, question remains regarding the government’s approach to the BRI.
If an agreement is signed in Beijing, it is likely that the details of the implementation plan will remain undisclosed. Such a lack of transparency would not only hinder public accountability but also exacerbate concerns about the potential long-term consequences of Nepal’s participation in the initiative. The absence of public consultation or disclosure risks undermining trust in the government’s decision-making process.
On the other hand, if the BRI agreement is not signed in Beijing, the credibility of the current government will face serious scrutiny. As a coalition of the two most powerful political forces in the country, the government is expected to demonstrate strong leadership, especially on matters involving international affairs and diplomacy. Failure to secure the BRI deal could be interpreted as an inability to navigate complex geopolitical challenges, casting doubt on the government’s competence and credibility.
Comment