James T Walsh is a former US Congressman with strong links to Nepal. He represented New York for over 18 years in the US House of Representatives. He served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal in 1970-72, speaks fluent Nepali and maintains his links with this country. Walsh was instrumental in drawing congressional attention to the pro-democracy movement in April 2006 by organizing congressional hearings. He was also closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process. In this email correspondence with John Narayan Parajuli, Walsh spoke about current US policy towards Nepal, Nepal-India-China relations and the rudderless state of the US State Department.

 

 

 How do you see current US policies towards Nepal?

 

I don’t see any specific activity related to Nepal. Trump is very focused on international trade, but on bilateral deals only. Among countries in the region, China is the big focus. US-China relations are cool. US-India relations, on the other hand, are warm. Our State Department is rudderless right now. I see no significant activities focused on Nepal.

 

Nepal is also more and more focused on relations with India and China—often seemingly at the expense of relations with other countries. Does that worry you and other friends of Nepal in the US?

 

China and India are competing, as you know. Relations with these two countries are far more important for Nepal. Nepal’s friends would want you to get the best from each country, but caution about quid pro quo. But we like India better.

 

With China now asserting its presence, including by using its considerable financial muscle, the power balance in Nepal has truly changed. What kind of rela­tions can the US have with Nepal in such a changed context?

 

The US at the moment is very inwardly focused. Brexit shows that the UK is too. Same with Russia. China is acting imperialistic. I am worried about where this is all going

 

Nepal is transitioning from a uni­tary system to a federal system. Are there things that it can learn from the US experience?

 

It is a delicate balance between the states and the federal govern­ment. An all-powerful federal gov­ernment would be bad. Power likes to consolidate itself at the top, so beware! Our judicial system and the free press are real strengths. There seems to be in the world today a real trend towards strongman govern­ments. Look at Russia, China and the US. That is bad for the world. Smaller countries may want to emulate them, especially if charis­matic leaders are involved. The role of the press is key. Don’t let your government control the press.

 

A powerful executive isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But with the provision of such a strong president, how does the system of checks and balances between the different branches of govern­ment work in the US?

 

The legislature needs to control the money, with no opportunity for interference by a republican executive.

 

Control the money. We call it the power of the purse. Reject any idea of a line-item veto. The exec­utive must accept the budget as voted on by the legislature or he can veto it and possibly be over­ridden. If the executive gets to pick and choose what gets spent, he will have too much control.

 

Anything you would like to add at the end?

 

My son was just elected Mayor of Syracuse. He has 3,000 ethnic Nepali Bhutanese as constituents (former Bhutanese refugees). It is wonderful to have Nepali spoken in my hometown. I plan to volunteer for language training and help them with English.