Submit your Article

 Earlier in the week, a video of motorists in Kathmandu protesting and violating the ‘no vehicle’ restriction imposed to allow President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s motorcade to pass went viral. Being made to wait out in a cold night for 40 minutes, with no sign of Her Excellency, would have tested the patience of the most jaded commuter. A day later, newspapers carried the story of President Bhan­dari’s upcoming trip to New York where she will take part in the 63rd session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women and be a part of the ‘High-Level Roundtable: How Women Leaders Change the World’.

A ceremonial head of state, Bhandari has a knack of get­ting into controversy in her country. She apparently wants the most lavish of motorcades, a more opulent President’s Office—even if the adjacent police academy has to be razed for the purpose—a spanking new chopper to crisscross the country, and she likes the high and mighty bowing and scraping before her. In comparison, her foreign trips have drawn a more balanced response. Widely criticized for ‘inviting herself’ to Qatar, Bhandari was also lauded for her measured speech highlighting Nepal’s pre­carious climatic position at the UN climate meet in Poland.

 So long as the bird is killed, what does it matter who throws the stone?

On April 24, she will fly to Beijing to attend the second BRI conference. Foreign Ministry sources say the visit will be meaningful as Bhandari will discuss important BRI projects with her Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping; and the long-stuck BRI projects in Nepal could finally get some momentum. Moreover, she will formally invite President Xi to Nepal. The communist government, in this light, seems intent on using the good offices of the president to secure its diplomatic goals. This is more astute than may appear on the surface.

As Nepal is pulled even deeper into the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, and with Prime Minister KP Oli seen in New Delhi as an old China sympathizer, the communist government is looking to get closer to China via the president: So long as the bird is killed, what does it matter who throws the stone? Bhandari, who seems in total comfort in the patriarchal world she inhabits back home, may struggle to assert herself as a ‘woman leader who can change the world’. But while she is in the Big Apple, the communist government will be happy if she can carry out a less demanding responsibility: Can she do some legwork to expand Nepal’s diplomatic relations beyond the existing 163 countries and add a feather to the Oli government’s diplomatic cap, for instance?

The Americans seldom fail to remind the world of the perils of falling into China’s ‘debt trap’, as embodied in President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia Joe Felter did the same during his brief stay in Nepal earlier this week. As reported in The Kathmandu Post, and speaking like a spokesperson for the Nepal government, Felter said: “We welcome a constructive relation with China, we welcome the investment by China, but as long as that investment is designed to serve the interest of Nepal and not just China.”

The Chinese were not amused. A day later, Chinese Ambas­sador to Nepal, Hou Yanqi, told the Global Times, “The sup­port and assistance China has offered have no political strings attached and [China] does not interfere in [Nepal’s] domestic affairs.” It is “very ridiculous” for someone to try to interfere in friendly relations between China and Nepal, she added.

Those fearful of ‘autocratic’ China’s influence have long invoked the dangers of getting close to the dragon

Those fearful of the rise of ‘autocratic’ China’s influence in Nepal have long invoked the dangers of getting too close to the fire-breathing dragon. “Look at what happened in Hambantota!” is their most common refrain. But as Ameet Dhakal recently reported in Setopati, there is an alternative narrative to Hambantota. Accord­ing to the prominent Sri Lankan economist Nis­han de Mel he quotes, the Lankans also offered the US and India a chance to operate the port. Both declined. This correspondent has himself heard more than one Sri Lankan intellectual say there should be a more nuanced reading of the monolithic ‘BRI is evil’ narrative.

It is also interesting that the US is reminding Nepal of the dangers of the BRI when the Chinese are themselves skeptical of the big infrastructure projects Nepal wants them to build under the initiative. For instance, they have in recent times told Nepali officials that a costly cross-border rail may not be in Nepal’s economic interest. “Even if China builds the rail line, who will ensure its upkeep in Nepal? Does Nepal have enough railway engineers, for instance?” one Kathman­du-based Chinese official recently asked this correspondent. Instead, “why not focus on more economically feasible and bilaterally beneficial projects?”

Far from looking to trap Nepal in debt it cannot repay, the Chinese approach in Nepal has been more business-minded in recent times, which is perhaps how it should be. And who says good business decisions don’t make geostrategic sense?

No foreign policy expert from either India or Nepal that this correspondent talked to believed India and Pakistan would go to a full-blown war, even as tensions have considerably risen following the terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir last week. “No doubt things are going to escalate. We do not know how India will retaliate,” says Brookings India’s Constantino Xavier (See interview this week). But “I do not see a possibility of war.”

Nepali analysts like Nishchalnath Pandey of the Center for South Asian Studies in Kathmandu, a private think-tank, and Indra Adhikari of the Institute of Foreign Affairs, a government one, also doubt there will be a large-scale war. What is interesting though is that all three analysts believe recent developments will further weaken SAARC, an organization that was already stuck in limbo after India refused to take part in the 2016 summit slated for Islamabad.

In Xavier’s reckoning, the mounting Indo-Pak tensions will naturally make India pursue alternative regional connectivity projects like BIMSTEC and BBIN that do not include Pakistan and downplay the utility of an organization like SAARC, which includes Pakistan, as “Pakistan has consistently blocked the way” to regional cooperation via SAARC. Xavier believes SAARC is not the only game in town.

Pandey has a slightly different take. “Yes, SAARC is already dysfunctional,” he says. “However, it has at least provided a platform for leaders of member countries to meet and have free and frank discussion.” Not just that. As Nepal is the current chair of SAARC, “it’s our responsibility to ensure that even at a time like this regional cooperation endeavors aren’t left in the doldrums”.   

Adhikari of the IFA also rules out an all-out war. But she says pressure could mount on Nepal to pick sides. “Forced to make a choice, the sentiment will naturally be in favor of India,” she adds. “Nepal and India are treaty allies, our soldiers serve in the Indian army and we depend on India for so much.”

Yet she is confident that even in the event of a war, Nepal won’t be coerced to choose sides. “India never consulted us during its previous wars with Pakistan. There is no reason things should be different this time,” Adhikari says.

Unlike in India, there is still a huge constituency in Nepal that believes SAARC is still the best platform to deal with regional issues. As its current chair as well as the permanent host of its secretariat, Nepal will continue to fly the SAARC flag.

It’s been a torrid one year for the KP Oli government. Having cemented the merger of the country’s two biggest communist outfits, and commanding over a two-thirds majority in the federal parliament, the government has cre­ated a semblance of stability in a notoriously turbulent polity. In theory, this should have helped attract the much-needed FDI and goaded our own businesses and industries to invest in job- and capital-creation. But with the federal government blasé about its woeful capital spending, despite the prime minister’s repeated assurance of swift and adequate infra­structure spending, the economy appears wobbly: there is a severe liquidity crunch in the BFIs, the trade deficit continues to tick up steadily, and economic growth has stalled. There has been no meaningful progress in big-ticket proj­ects that PM Oli likes to talk about endlessly—rail-links with both India and China, water-link with India. The government has asked for patience as most of PM Oli’s first year in office was spent “laying the ground”. As proof, the prime minis­ter on Feb 13 unveiled an unemployment allowance scheme and a day later, a ‘people’s hydroelectricity’ scheme. Yet there is no clear modality for either. Meanwhile, corruption has ballooned and the rule of law deteriorated. Press freedom is under threat. Transitional justice has been shelved, to potentially dangerous consequences.

 Oli has tried to diversify Nepal’s foreign relations away from the two giant neighbors

On foreign policy, the government may claim success. Relations with India have been ‘normalized’ following the blockade-time low. The Oli government also seems to be in China’s good books. Further, it has tried to diversify Nepal’s foreign relations away from the two giant neighbors. As a part of this process, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali made a landmark visit to the US, even though NCP co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s mistimed comments on the US inter­vention in Venezuela severely dented the US outreach.

To give it the benefit of the doubt, it was the first govern­ment formed under the new constitution and it has had to spend most of the past year formulating laws to make the federal formula work. Yet even on law-making, progress has been slow and there has been little consultation with the stakeholders. As it enters Year Two, the government will make another round of big promises to make up for lost time. Promising big things has always been a strong suit of PM Oli. It is in follow-through that he falters.