The government has claimed that the visit has been a historical success. But it has not outlined the criteria on which such a claim has been made
Prime Minister Oli has returned after paying a visit to China upon the invitation of Chinese Premier Li Qiang. Opinions were divided regarding whether it will be successful or be yet another fiasco as have been the several visits in the recent past barring a few exceptions. Now that the Prime Minister is back after signing a 12-point joint communique, an analysis is being made by commons and connoisseurs alike of the much-hyped visit in every political nook and corner.
A fleeting glance of the communique will reveal that China has pledged aid virtually in all possible areas. The Government of Nepal simply does not appear to have the wherewithal to manage the different aid packages. China had offered so much help in the past that it had to go begging to different ministries and departments due to deficient functioning of Nepal. One of the glaring examples is the inability to prepare land for construction due to lack of coordination between the different ministries. The Ministry of Forest and Environment as well as the Ministry of Transport are often found at loggerheads in a road project.
Prior to the visit, the national expectation was that several projects capable of changing the face of the nation, especially regarding connectivity between China and Nepal, would not only be talked about but a beginning for its construction would be made. What is needed for Nepal from China are new projects, such as the Jilung/ Keyrung-Kathmandu cross-border railway. Because such a project has not been executed so far, and it is beyond the capacity of Nepal. The communique has made mention of this project towards beginning the feasibility survey, but when it will start is still uncertain.
Nepal has very little connectivity to the north with virtually all existing towards the south with India. The existence of the porous border between Nepal and India has also helped a great deal towards this end. But an agitation launched by the Madhes-based political parties, with the alleged backing of India, leading to a border blockade in 2015had virtually paralysed the country. Such quarrels between neighbours are quite common. For example, China had closed a key border crossing, the Gants Mod, after the visit of spiritual leader Dalai Lama to Mongolia in 2016,causing heavy congestion at freezing temperature.
It is thus necessary to have a few alternatives instead of banking solitarily either on the northern or the southern neighbour. This is where the connectivity to the north is essential in times of such unexpected crises. But the difficult terrain of the north coupled with one of the highest altitudes in the world with mercury plummeting to well below zero makes it a tough nut to crack. And it is not a simple cakewalk for a country like Nepal. Only China with its financial and technological might can execute such a project.
The people are also offended with the signing of agreements for constructing a town hall in Amargadhi, Dadeldhura and a sports complex in Damak, Jhapa, which the Nepal government could itself execute with its own resources. That these projects were mooted in the home constituencies of the reigning and former Prime Ministers Oli and Deuba has further sparked considerable controversy. In fact, private companies have shown considerable interest in such projects, but the government has not been able to motivate them as can be seen in the construction of the Chitwan Cricket Stadium, which was initiated but later abandoned by the comedy celebrities Dhurmush and Suntali.
The other debate is on the acceptance of Chinese cooperation regarding whether it should be a loan or grant. Nepal is naturally afraid that it may fall prey to the debt trap as was said to be the case of Sri Lanka after the construction of the Chinese-funded Hambentota Port Project. The bigger partner of the coalition, the Nepali Congress(NC), had insisted on grants because of this reality. The government has said that cooperation does not necessarily mean loans, but there is no dearth of people who think otherwise. There are still others who opine that one cannot wish loans out of existence as countries around the globe are seen to take one or the other kind of loan alongside the grant.
Such semantical problems have occurred in the past also after the conclusion of the foreign visit especially to India. Now it has also spilled to China. When Girija Prasad Koirala visited India in 2006, he was alleged that he signed a treaty with India while he maintained that it was an agreement and not a treaty. Then the opposition party, the Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) raised much hue and cry in this context.
Some predictions were also made that the agreements with China may lead to the break-up of the NC-UML coalition, the kind of which was seen in India when the Left Front led by Prem Karat pulled out of the United Progressive Alliance after India's Prime Minister signed an Indo-US Nuclear Deal with the United States in 2006.However, the NC and UML appear to be on the same page in this respect. Both have maintained that the agreement is on the Belt and Road Initiative Framework alone and not on the mode of financing.
The government has claimed that the visit has been a historical success. But it has not outlined the criteria on which such a claim has been made. In fact, it has belied the foreboding that the Pokhara airport loan would be converted to a grant. But the Prime Minister's statement that the issue was not raised at all has left the people rather disappointed.
Judged against this backdrop, the Oli visit can also be dumped with those innumerable visits that the Nepali prime ministers have made in the past which were mediocre at best. It has raised multiple issues without any clear executional modality. It can thus be portrayed as yet another trip of missed opportunities.