Biratnagar: The Centre for Social Innovation and Foreign Policy (CESIF) organized a Provincial Seminar in Biratnagar on “China’s role in Nepal’s Infrastructural Development” on Friday. The seminar aimed to decentralize foreign policy discourses in Nepal and disseminate CESIF’s research findings on China’s engagement in Nepal’s infrastructure and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) sector at subnational level.
Nepali Congress leader and Former Minister for Defence Dr Minendra Rijal expressed his disagreement with the joint statement issued following Prime Minister Oli’s visit to China. He specifically took issue with the inclusion of the phrase “Nepal supports China’s efforts for the reunification of Taiwan” and the use of the term “Xizang” to refer to Tibet. Rijal emphasized the importance of maintaining a balanced relationship between Nepal’s two neighbors, India and China.
Vijay Kant Karna, CESIF’s Executive Chairperson, said that the BRI is a strategic tool for China to advance its vision for an alternative world order, and the “Framework for Belt and Road Cooperation,” signed during PM Oli’s recent China visit, was a significant milestone in Nepal-China relations.
Former ambassador Madhuraman Acharya said, “Nepal tries to please the superpowers more than it should and often loses its interest in attempts to not displease anyone.” Nepali leaders also tend to publicize their position for domestic consumption, which not only creates socio-political polarization but also reduces our negotiation capacity, he said. Ambassador Acharya highlighted the importance of understanding China’s strategic interests when engaging with the country. He stressed the need to recognize China’s mercantile ambitions and its long-term strategic approach to relations.
Amish Raj Mulmi, researcher and writer, highlighted the economic, political, and security dimensions of Nepal-China relations. He emphasized Nepal’s role as Tibet’s largest trading partner, China’s focus on political stability through ties with Nepal’s communist parties, and Beijing’s security concerns over preventing anti-China activities related to Tibet.
Comment