KATHMANDU: The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) bill, which has been registered in the parliament, has been the talk of the town of late.
Most likely, the bill will be tabled for discussion soon, yet, a sort of dilemma prevails in the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).
When MCC, the largest-ever project in Nepal based on foreign grants, is under consideration for being ratified from the parliament, retired Chief of Army Staffs, Rookmangud Katawal, Gaurav Shumser Rana and Rajendra Chhetri have unequivocally made their stance clear dismissing rumors that MCC is based on military involvement. As the project seems focused on infrastructure building, MCC deserves to be ratified instantly.
Khabarhub approached the aforementioned retired Chief of Army Staffs to find out how Nepal Army, as an institution, could be regarding this project brought to criticism being interpreted as a part of US military affairs in the Indo-Pacific region.
Here are some excerpts of the conversation Ishwar Dev Khanal, the Editor of Khabarhub, had had with them:
MCC having military connection and interest is baseless. The protests against it are mere rumor-based: Katawal
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a development project assented by all legitimate political parties. I see no military involvement or any relationship in it. Therefore, criticizing a good-willed development project based on rumors and without understanding the crux of the issue is unfortunate, and might even paralyze Nepal-US bilateral relations.
I would suggest utilizing this project would be in Nepal’s broader interest rather than nitpicking it. Most of the discussions on MCC here are baseless and unsubstantiated. It is ridiculous to note that some politicians have been hell-bent in disseminating rumors that the US Army would parade in Nepal provided the MCC grant is ratified by Nepal’s parliament.
I would term those remarks or criticisms as purely uncorroborated, which ultimately would weaken the bilateral trust. I am shocked at the way facts are distorted. Any development projects with lots of positive impacts for a country like Nepal should be embraced with enthusiasm. To be more precise, I don’t see any United States’ hidden or underlying interest behind this project. It is also inappropriate to associate a development project like MCC with Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS).
What also needs to be clear is that MCC is a development project brought into effect long before President Donald Trump came to power, whereas IPS is a strategy put forward by Trump Administration.
As MCC is grant aid, Nepal must ratify it and make room for its successful implementation. Since MCC is not targetted against any other country, I don’t understand why people are trying to interpret it as a project spearheaded against a specific country. It’s strange why people who readily accept grants from India or China are hell-bent on opposing this US grant.
MCC is granted as per our priorities, judging it from a strategic perspective would be unfortunate: Rana
Since the MCC grant is offered to Nepal as per the country’s interests and priorities, this is purely a development project. It has no military connection.
MCC will help promote Nepal’s economic growth, hence should not fare the fate of the Arun III Project. It will be unfortunate if this grant is refused by exaggerating the issue of sovereignty. The question is simple: If we can accept BRI, what is wrong with MCC?
Interpreting it as a military strategy based on forged information and wrong analysis would be unfortunate. Why should we sacrifice our national interest with the fear that some other countries might misinterpret it in their own way? What needs to be understood is that MCC is a project having a long-term positive impact on Nepal’s development and prosperity. It’s not related to any military relations and involvement.
Failure to endorse it from parliament may result in the decline of trust from the US side. We should not forget the fact that the US is a global leader and hard power. We should not hesitate to abide by the commitments and agreements inked between the two countries.
Baseless criticism and faulty perspectives should not ruin the landmark project that can change the fate of the country in the long run. Do we need to sacrifice our national interest and prosperity by bothering how a third country would react?
MCC is a development project, it has no connection with military affairs: Chhetri
MCC is not related to military affairs or such a strategy. The current discussion, I believe, is based on fake information and foul motifs. Nepal has to think about her national interest and should make room for its implementation by ratifying it without delay.
The ratification of MCC promotes national development and prosperity. The MCC grant will have a long-term positive impact and boost Nepal’s national economy, hence protesting it is useless.
Comment