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?
