On April 24, President Bidya Devi Bhandari is going to Beijing to take part in the second Belt and Road Ini-tiative (BRI) conference. There are reports that China is preparing to roll out the red carpet for Bhandari. While in Beijing, Bhandari will address the BRI conference, and reportedly sign a slew of agreements with her Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, including on a protocol to the 2016 Trade and Transit Agreement. Some say President Bhandari’s visit will give clear signs of Nepal’s abiding commitment to the BRI, at a time when the Chinese project seems to have stagnated in Nepal. Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Nepal’s former Ambassador to China Tanka Karki for his views on the visit and on Nepal-China relations. 

 

Why is China giving President Bhandari such importance?

Nepal and China share a 1,400-km-long border. There has been continuous interaction between the two countries for a long time. We help each other, and we support each other’s genuine inter­ests. The Chinese side understands the value of geographical proximity. Not only now, China was extending a helping hand to Nepal even when China was not economically strong.

 

Neighborhood policy figures prominently in China’s overall for­eign policy. The Chinese realize the importance of peace and stability in the neighborhood. There are no political differences between the two countries. That is why China is giving Nepal utmost priority. I think Bhandari’s visit is taking place in this larger context.

 

How is President Bhandari’s visit going to differ from previous high-level visits to China?

I think it is a regular visit. In Chi­na’s diplomatic dealings, there is no influence of ideology. If someone thinks the Chinese are giving more priority to this government due to its communist ideology, they are totally wrong and they do not under­stand Chinese foreign policy. Their foreign policy is rather directed by their national interest and mutual interest. I don’t see a difference in President Bhandari’s visit compared to such visits in the past.

 

What accounts for the delays in the implementation of the BRI projects in Nepal?

Before us are big powers such as India, China, Russia, the US, and others. These powers all exert their influence. Also, instead of focus­ing on our own national interest and issues, we are more sensitive to others’ interests and issues, which could have affected progress on BRI projects. We should be guided by our needs and interests; such an approach will help us gain credi­bility. But in the name of making others happy we are accepting unjust demands and pressures.

 

Nepal’s participation in the BRI means Nepal can no longer be pro­jected as a ‘Himalayan barrier’. To eradicate poverty, we have to try to reap benefits from three major powers: China, India and the US. At the same time, we should not enter­tain unjustifiable interests of those countries. Joining the BRI means our access to the outer world would be easier. It also means coming out of the old mindset of confining ourselves to only one side of the Himalayas.

 

Even when China was not economically strong, it was extending a helping hand to Nepal

 

Are you hinting at pressures from India and western countries for the delay in selecting projects under the Belt and Road Initia­tive?

India is boycotting the BRI and western countries are divided over it. This means there are ideological differences over this project.

 

More specifically, is Indian and American pressure the reason for the delay?

In my observation, there is obvi­ously external pressure. But we have not developed the ability to resist such pressure.

 

There is also talk of a debt trap. How do you see this?

There have been attempts to blame China in the name of debt-trap diplo­macy. First, it is mass-scale propa­ganda warfare. Second, you if take a loan from others you are responsible for its proper utilization. It is our responsibility to execute projects cleanly and create an environment of paying back loans. You cannot maintain a corrupt structure at home and then blame China. There is talk of a debt trap in Sri Lanka. In a recent seminar I attended, a Sri Lankan professor said that the debt trap story is not theirs. He shared a different story. It is about propagan­da and we should not run after what others say. We cannot emerge out of poverty only by mobilizing internal resources. We should take loans and correct our defective mechanisms rather than blaming those who loan us money.

 

Is the new US Indo-Pacific Strate­gy a counter to China’s BRI?

Mainly, we should give priority to our relations with our two giant neighbors, India and China. The changing global context and our development needs encourage us to maintain cordial relations with western powers and take their help in emerging out of extreme poverty. But Nepal’s best interest still lies in maintaining balanced relations with India and China.

 

Have there been sincere efforts to maintain such a balance?

We have to do a lot of homework to maintain a fine balance between the two countries. To some extent, there has been progress in our relations with China after the political change in 2006. All powers have under­stood that Nepalis do not want to live under the influence of external forces, and we want cordial relations with all counties. On foreign policy, we need to figure out areas of mutual interest. Genuine interests should be accommodated while unjust ones should be strongly resisted.

 

There is much talk about Chinese railway. Is it feasible?

Railway connectivity between Nepal and China will mean Nepal is no more Himalaya-locked. In a real sense, we will be connected to both India and China as well as with global powers. Railway connectiv­ity between the two countries will ensure our strategic autonomy.

 

But there are reports that rail connectivity with China is too costly.

It is not true. For example, it takes at least 45 days if you bring goods via seaports from Japan. But with Chinese railway, it would take no more than 10 days. It saves us cost and time. If we have such a rail­way, the current hassles in Kolkata port would be relaxed because they will then have to compete against Chinese transport links with Nepal. When we initiated a railway line with China, India proposed the Raxu­al-Kathmandu railway. Both are ben­eficial to us. India alone cannot meet our demands. We need support from India, China and western countries.

 

How do you see recent Ameri­can positions and statements on growing Chinese investments in Nepal?

There is a big tug-of-war to reor­der the existing global system. The bipolar world created after the Second World War collapsed in 1989. The short-term unipolar world order with America at the top is no longer feasible. In the post-1989 period, the polariza­tion between North and South has escalated dangerously. Even within countries, the gulf between the rich and the poor is widening. A new world order which can bridge these gaps is inevitable. Now, we should focus on minimizing poverty and strengthening our institutions. Quiet diplomacy may be in our best interest right now.

 

How would you evaluate the Oli government’s handling of foreign policy?

Despite some shortcomings, I think it is broadly on the right track.

 

Has the government been suc­cessful in balancing major pow­ers: India, China and the US?

We do not have the capacity to balance major powers. Creating an environment of trust with all major powers will be a big achievement. We should have no trust deficit, which might create problems. There should be no suspicion in bilateral relations with those countries.

 

Ideology aside, is the Oli govern­ment tilted toward China?

I will say we have not done enough to benefit from China.