Kathmandu: Some political leaders, bureaucrats and observers in Kathmandu have said that Nepal needs to cautiously navigate the relations with China, especially regarding the BRI loans, as South Asia’s Himalayan nation increasingly finds itself caught between the geopolitical rivalry involving India and China, its two closest neighbors, and the US.
In an event entitled “Navigating Strategic Implications of BRI for Nepal” organized by Social Innovation and Foreign Policy (CESIF) in Kathmandu on Wednesday, experts said Nepal needs to carefully balance its relations with its immediate neighbors as well as with the US.
Ajaya Bhadra Khanal, CESIF’s Research Director, highlighted the geopolitical complexities and long-term implications of BRI as China’s comprehensive vision for a new world order. “The BRI Implementation Plan is not just an infrastructure development plan but a comprehensive strategic framework, negotiating which must involve a detailed assessment of their social, political, economic, and strategic consequences for Nepal,” he said.
Dr Prakash Sharan Mahat, Former Minister for Finance and Foreign Affairs of Nepal. echoed the observation that BRI is China’s strategic tool to globalize its engagement and increase its presence and influence to achieve its national interests and broader visions. He also highlighted his Nepali Congress’(his party’s) stance: “There should be a common yardstick for Nepal’s engagement with all partners, which must prioritize the country’s national interests.”
However, Nepal has had “the tendency to lack preparations and make last-minute decisions, due to which we face problems eventually,” he added, “therefore, we must take as long as it takes to reach a consensus based on Nepal’s own national interests and priorities, and not sign the Implementation Plan in haste.”
Pradeep Gyawali, CPN-UML leader and Former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal, emphasized the need for sufficient discussions on important bilateral and multilateral agreements, especially in its dealings with the neighboring countries and superpowers, before committing to agreements with long-term consequences.
“Instead of assessing where Nepal’s interests and priorities align with the Chinese Initiative and how to benefit from it, our discussions and debates have been limited to a loan versus grant narrative,” he said. “Nevertheless, Nepal should not accept loans to advance any large infrastructure project under current circumstances.”
Citing the example of Pokhara International Airport, Raj Kishore Yadav, Chairperson of International Relations and Tourism Committee of Federal House of Representatives, warned that Nepal must consider some serious concerns, such as debt-sustainability, lack of transparency, and geopolitical implications of the BRI-funded projects. “Transparent discussions on major foreign policy choices constitute a fundamental aspect of democracy, but neither the MoU nor the Implementation Plan of the BRI has been discussed in the parliament and civil society platforms,” he said. “Nepal should not sign the Implementation Plan without proper and transparent discussions.”
Madhuraman Acharya, Former Foreign Secretary and Foreign Policy Expert, characterized BRI in Nepal as a “classic case of how not to negotiate,” as it featured negotiation under duress, top-down negotiations, and politicization. “BRI Implementation Plan is essentially an explanation or formalization of the ‘strategic partnership between Nepal and China, agreed during Xi Jinping’s Nepal visit in 2019,” he contended. “Such a comprehensive agreement should not be signed in haste, without negotiating on Nepal’s national interests.”
Dr Govinda Raj Pokharel, Former Vice Chairperson of the National Planning Commission of Nepal, emphasized that Nepal’s top priority should be on securing a trade route with China, which is “one of the most important national priorities but is often overlooked in negotiations.” He underscored the importance of identifying national priorities well in advance, because a failure to do so “significantly undermines our ability to negotiate effectively.”
Comment