What is becoming evident is the process of Indo-Pacific strategy graduating from economic to security, and finally to military alignment. It is not yet clear in which form or spirit Nepal is figuring in this combination.

Is the Indo-Pacific strategy only an economic or a military grouping? Given its tradition, Nepal feels comfortable with economic, not with the military association. However, the question is gaining momentum amidst the backdrop of Nepal getting willy-nilly drawn in the Indo-Pacific stratagem. The visit of Nepal’s Foreign Minister to Washington in December last year, and camouflage surrounding its outcome has brought the question on a sharp focus. The hasty and redundant statement on Venezuela by Pushpa Kamal Dahal, in the capacity of the Chairman of the ruling Nepal Communist Party and the subsequent comment by Nepal’s Foreign Ministry, has fuelled the fire of controversy which stretched out beyond the domestic boundary to the international concern.

Under the garb of Indo-Pacific strategy, Felter made no secret of the renewed interest to further deepen military cooperation as the desire of US to bolster cooperation in security and political fronts, besides its decade-long cooperation in socio-economic development.

What is becoming evident is the process of Indo-Pacific strategy graduating from economic to security, and finally to military alignment. It is not yet clear in which form or spirit Nepal is figuring in this combination.

If we go by Michael R. Pompeo, US Secretary of State, he focused on the economic aspect and mentioned security in passing. He made it clear by stating, “Make no mistake, the Indo-Pacific, which stretches from the United States west coast to the west coast of India, is a subject of great importance to American foreign policy…this region is one of the greatest engines of the future global economy, and it already is today. And the American people and the whole world have a stake in the Indo-Pacific peace and prosperity. That is why the Indo-Pacific must be free and open…it means we want all nations, every nation, to be able to protect their sovereignty from coercion by other countries.”

“At the national level, free means good governance and the assurance that citizens can enjoy their fundamental rights and liberties…it means we want all nations to enjoy open access to seas and airways. We want the peaceful resolution of territorial and maritime disputes. This is the key for international peace and for each country’s attainment of its own national aims. Economically, open means fair and reciprocal trade, open investment environments, and transparent agreements between nations, and improved connectivity to drive regional ties – because these are the paths for sustainable growth in the region.”

Pompeo has, however, laid stress on the clear vision the Trump administration has formulated for the Indo-Pacific in the 21st century. To quote him, “It is an American vision that is deeply engaged in the region’s economic, political, cultural, and security affairs. Like so many of our Asian allies and friends, our country fought for its own independence from an empire that expected deference.

We thus have never and will never seek domination in the Indo-Pacific, and we will oppose any country that does. Rather, we aspire to regional order, independent nations that can defend their people and compete fairly in the international marketplace. We stand ready to enhance the security of our partners and to assist them in developing their economies and societies in ways that ensure human dignity. We will help them. We will help them keep their people free from coercion or great power domination.”

When the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia, Joseph H Felter visited Nepal, following Mr. Gyawali’s jaunt to the US, he gave a different impression. He expressed a clear desire to further deepen military cooperation with Nepal. While calling Nepal an “important security partner” of the US in South Asia, he disclosed willingness of the US government to further enhance military cooperation in various areas such as capacity enhancement, military professionalization, civil-military relations and modernization of the army. He also pledged to extend support for military hardware and Nepal Army’s efforts to establish a National Defense University.

Felter stressed US’s enduring partnership with the Nepalese military since long ago and said he was in Kathmandu to ask what Nepal was in need of. “From the defense perspective, Nepal is an important security partner. It has an important role to play in regional stability,” he said. Under the garb of Indo-Pacific strategy, Felter made no secret of the renewed interest to further deepen military cooperation as the desire of US to bolster cooperation in security and political fronts, besides its decade-long cooperation in socio-economic development.

While dismissing suggestions that the Indo-Pacific Strategy was a military alliance and that it was aimed at containing the rise of China, Felter had said that this strategy aims to boost the strength of its partners to defend their sovereignty and safeguard the rule-based world order.

It should be recalled here that only a month ago, commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral, Philip S Davidson had visited Kathmandu to bolster military cooperation with Nepal. It is also to be noted that the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of the USA has outlined a number of strategies to promote its security interest in the Indo-Pacific region, with a provision to appropriate $1.5 billion for each fiscal year from 2019 through 2023. This includes expanding defense cooperation with its democratic partners in South Asia including Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

Felter, meanwhile, said that this strategy aims to build the capacity of its partners to build their capacity to defend their sovereignty and safeguard the rule-based world order. The Indo-Pacific Strategy focuses on working with partners across the Asia-Pacific region to build its capacity to secure their independence. They are protected by rule-based international order and they are not going to be threatened.

While dismissing suggestions that the Indo-Pacific Strategy was a military alliance and that it was aimed at containing the rise of China, Felter had said that this strategy aims to boost the strength of its partners to defend their sovereignty and safeguard the rule-based world order.

Felter also clarified that Nepal had not been asked to choose a side between countries even as the US recognizes Nepal as a part of its broader Indo-Pacific Strategy. “We want a prosperous and securely independent Nepal. That’s our interest. That’s your interest. That is our shared interest,” he had said.

Has Nepal understood what Felter’s expression implies and what it does not? Can Nepal separate the economic aspect from that of security and, finally, from the military in its association with Indo-Pacific caucus? Can Nepal appear useful to the strategy without hurting the Chinese especially when it has joined the BRI? Nepal’s stand appears an enigma embroiled in confusion.