KATHMANDU: Prime Minister (PM) KP Oli’s visit to China has concluded, and within Nepal’s ruling coalition, there are differing views on the implementation of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Particularly, leaders within the communist parties have called for the smooth advancement of the BRI.
The visit also marks a departure from the tradition of newly-elected prime ministers visiting India first, a practice that has prompted ongoing debate.
But what is the stance of the main opposition Maoist Center on the Prime Minister’s visit to China and the BRI?
A conversation with former minister Ram Karki, also the leader of the Maoist Center:
Prime Minister KP Oli attempted to leverage the “China card” during his tenure, and some Maoist leaders have suggested that he should have visited India instead. What is the Maoist position amid this debate?
The Maoists’ foreign policy approach is based on non-alignment. This non-aligned stance is more a necessity than a preference.
Our foreign policy is shaped by our size, our resources, and the realities of our neighboring countries.
To understand the current situation, it’s important to look at the context of the visit.
First, Nepal’s Foreign Minister visited India, and then the Prime Ministers of Nepal and India met at an international forum.
Nepal’s Foreign Minister also held talks with Chinese officials. Following this, the Prime Minister’s visit to China was decided.
Given this backdrop, the approach of pitting one neighbor against another, which was adopted by King Mahendra, is no longer feasible.
In the past, China and India were seen as economically underdeveloped countries on the periphery.
Today, both have emerged as powerful economic and political actors seeking to play an influential role in global affairs.
In this context, Nepal should have focused on how to advance its internal security policy, its national priorities, and its long-term development strategy. Unfortunately, Nepal still lacks a coherent, long-term development vision.
Discussions on these issues are often reactive, driven by external events. When someone is about to visit another country, there are debates.
At other times, we remain silent or bury our heads in the sand. No political party has taken the initiative to ask, “What are Nepal’s national interests? What are our priorities?” If you ask 10 leaders from the same party, you’ll likely get ten different answers.
For example, when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Nepal, we failed to clearly articulate our priorities or expectations.
Similarly, when the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited, we did not take the opportunity to set out what we wanted from India or China.
Nepal has not defined its own priorities in these relationships. Until we clearly state what we need—whether in terms of grants, loans, or development aid—we will continue to drift without direction.
Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda’s recent statement on “China card’ to the Indian media has drawn criticism for being biased. What was the intent behind that statement?
The media in India has longstanding ties with Nepal, and there have been various issues, including symbolic ones like the tradition of applying tika.
The statement in the Indian media must be viewed in that light. The main issue here is the unspoken tradition that Nepal must always visit India first.
This was historically our compulsion when China was weaker and India held greater regional influence under British colonial rule.
This compulsion still lingers in Nepal’s mindset, and it is also maintained by certain segments of the Indian political establishment.
The question now is whether the current government has effectively managed diplomatic balances.
We, as Maoists, stand for a non-aligned foreign policy. Non-alignment doesn’t mean avoiding contact with anyone; it means treating all countries equally.
Nepal’s primary concern is managing relations with our immediate neighbors, India and China, but we also maintain traditional diplomatic ties with other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom.
We must pursue balanced and equal relationships with all.
Just as the country was divided over the MCC (Millennium Challenge Corporation), the implementation of the BRI is now linked to global security, a matter that the Nepali Congress views with suspicion. As you mentioned, does this align with the principle of non-alignment?
The Nepali Congress party is divided. Whenever the Nepali Congress tries to act as a united front, it ends up divided.
They want to balance old traditions, like cow worship, with modern concerns, which creates contradictions. So, when the Congress speaks, it’s important to ask, “Which Nepali Congress are we talking about?”
Now, Nepali Congress is arguing that Nepal should not take loans from China. But consider this: when Pokhara and Bhairahawa airports were being constructed, the same people involved at that time now criticize the BRI. Why were these airports rushed into construction?
The flights weren’t even finalized, and geographically, Bhairahawa is not well-placed, nor is Pokhara. These projects were built hastily without thinking ahead.
So, who should be held accountable for these rushed decisions? Are they not guilty of poor planning? Why were they spending so much money on these projects?
This tendency to act without proper foresight has been damaging. The same pattern is repeating with the BRI. Now that Nepal has entered the MCC agreement, we must move forward with the BRI too.
There were allegations that powerful leaders in the Maoist Center, like Barsaman Pun, took loans from China and gave contracts to Chinese firms, thus burdening Nepal with costly loans. This accusation points to your own party, doesn’t it?
Let’s investigate everything. After mistakes are made, we can analyze them, even if they were made years ago.
Some major theorists are still being evaluated, even two hundred years later. In politics, nothing escapes scrutiny.
Even if things aren’t accounted for today, future generations will hold us to account. Ultimately, the national interest should come first.
As for China, we need to proceed with the BRI because we are committed to it. China is our neighbor.
Over the years, China’s culture and civilization have advanced without resorting to colonization or force. China’s rise is due to its own policies.
Therefore, when the MCC was being debated, some people argued it should be fast-tracked, but now, when it comes to the BRI, they argue nothing should be done. That raises questions about consistency and integrity.
Should we pass some documents in Parliament to address the concerns raised about the BRI, similar to the way we did with the MCC? Is there a need for a formal process before we move forward?
I’ve said in Parliament before that we must first ensure our own position. What I am suggesting is that we advance the proposal for a “Zone of Peace” in the new global context.
Our Parliament should make it clear that Nepal will not be drawn into the upcoming tensions, the Cold War, or new global factions.
We must establish that our foreign policy will remain non-aligned and then present the “Zone of Peace” proposal to friendly countries.
In the context of the BRI, Krishna Bahadur Mahara and Dr. Prakash Sharan Mahat have been quite active. Now, the Nepali Congress party is at the forefront of criticism. The Maoist leadership seems somewhat hesitant on the issue. Is this because there was insufficient debate when the agreement was initially signed?
Everyone knows that the party’s institutional life is weak. Individuals are active, but the party as an institution is somewhat dormant.
However, everyone agrees that the country’s interests must come first. This principle applies not only to China but also to India and the U.S.
Our job now is to analyze the BRI and see how we can benefit from it. For example, if China is building a road through the mountains to connect with India, we need to understand how this will impact Nepal and how we can benefit from it.
Our role is not just to stand by and wave as countries come and go; we must actively engage.
If China builds a road through Mustang, and also invests in our Arun Valley and the Dudhkoshi-Karnali basin, we need to understand how these projects fit into the bigger picture.
Prime Minister Oli has emphasized that the agreements made earlier are in the process of being implemented. However, implementation has been delayed due to internal issues on our side.
Take the case of Chinese tourism. There were declarations to bring Chinese tourists to Nepal, but no preparations were made for that.
Now, Nepal should train at least 50,000 primary school teachers, a similar number of health workers, and 500,000 farmers across the country.
Not the leaders who claim to be farmers, but the actual farmers. If we can send people involved in agriculture to China for training and bring back that knowledge and technology, we can move forward.
Only then will we be able to genuinely benefit from these initiatives.
Has the BRI context strengthened the voice of Communist unity?
The same way we have engaged with the MCC, we should approach the BRI in a similar manner.
The two should not be seen as separate issues. We need to align our strategies and objectives to ensure that both the MCC and the BRI serve Nepal’s national interests effectively.
You are also discussing within the party whether you will rise or fall from this situation. What does that mean?
The workers, farmers, and shepherds of Nepal are skeptical. If they come to the conclusion that the Maoists can no longer lead them, they will form their own political force.
If that happens, our relevance in national politics will end. It is the workers and farmers who made us strong, who established our identity.
When we shifted our focus to the elite classes and began prioritizing their concerns, our decline began.
We should have stayed true to our political principles, but over time, we became weak because we sidelined those principles and promoted people who didn’t align with them.
Our core principles have always been about the liberation and empowerment of workers and farmers.
Now, can this political movement continue with the Maoists as they are?
To regain the confidence of the people, we need to show them that we have changed in practice and returned to our original principles.
Without that, it will be difficult for our political movement to survive and thrive.
Comment