New government and BRI in debate

Regarding the internal politics of the party and the country, foreign diplomats visit the leader's house and office every now and then and our mood is focused on fixing the date of the foreign visit without delay. It has become a tradition that who congratulated or not, who gave first or when will become a subject of public debate, and along with these, bilateral relations with that country, mutual interests, common problems, issues and possibilities of understanding and agreement, as well as starting discussions about the future. In this regard, in a program on BRI illusions and reality last week, we had a chance to listen to the responsible persons of Nepal's communist parties, former ambassadors of China-Russia and left intellectuals. After listening to the opinions of most of the speakers, it felt as if there is no need for Nepal to think about the ground reality such as Nepal's strategic importance, geopolitical sensitivity and balance, and the internal situation, as the competing world powers that have advanced aggressively in terms of power and diplomacy are in the neighborhood. .

' Public Diplomacy and Proxy Walk'

Public diplomacy is a very effective soft power and tool to influence and use local ideas and decision makers in any country to work in favor of their interests, through which a country Can create, increase and maintain influence and pressure on another country. It is used by large, developed and powerful countries in a more effective manner on small, weak and less developed countries. Local leaders, employees, and intellectuals, who are much ahead of their embassies and diplomats in the thinking and interests of those countries, are creating ideas, advocating and lobbying for issues. Such lobbying is not only in favor of one country in another country, it can also happen in a third country in favor of competing powers. In such a situation, rather than focusing on the strong and weak aspects of a subject or project, the society becomes polarized in support and opposition, a planned or created illusion takes place and doubts are created, but it becomes a complicated situation.

Looking at the recent experience of Nepal, when a debate about an external project and investment starts in the country, most of the discussions are based on data, logic, facts - debating and listening, the participants are based on political-ideological edge, proximity or self-centered support. It seems to be presented. Its direct impact reaches the party and politics. The irresponsible and apolitical practice of agreeing to projects or conditions while in government and withdrawing from the 'agenda' of the agreement reached by the opposition and exaggerating it and making it controversial is losing Nepal's credibility among international donors and development partners on the one hand. On the other hand, it will be difficult to reach the level of state decision-making internally and the government side will become 'nationalist', and its implementation will be very challenging. In this situation, the ego will wake up in Shaktishrastra and take the 'field' by itself, pressure will be created by foreign officials through thick grip and trickery, as a reaction, rivals or competing powers will be dragged in the name of 'justice and rescue' and the country will become the country of Shaktishrastra's 'proxy walk'. There are also plenty of experiences. Whether in collaboration with India, in the American Million Challenge Corporation (MCC) or under the BRI project, Nepal has been facing this fate for decades.

Confusion in Nepal

The practice of working with foreigners or neighbors in Nepal is more confusing. Being landlocked, the neighborhood is primary in Nepal's foreign policy and practice, but there is no consensus on equality or equidistance. But by forcibly forgetting the movement towards the north, which was very close even until the middle of the 20th century, the neighborhood relationship is explained based on the seemingly single multifaceted relationship with India that has developed in recent times. And, no matter what the grant or assistance is, the combination from India is suspected and suspected. In terms of economic and development partnership, Nepal's left-wing and right-wing sides seem to be more loyal than necessary regarding the northern neighbor, who does not want to be the first in terms of economic and development partnership, and they praise and promote the Chinese dream. The same group, which sees the Indian small grant development project which runs with the approval of the local government of Nepal as 'Lampsarism', seems to be unaware of the assistance that China has been providing in the northern border municipalities in heavy machinery, food grains, etc. without the coordination of the Nepali mechanism and advocates that any loan from China should go to BRI.

Another topic to discuss here is trade deficit. Looking at the ratio of goods bought and sold, Nepal's largest trade deficit is with China. Two years ago, while Nepal exported goods worth Rs 1 to China, it imported goods worth Rs 126 from China. This year too, the trade deficit with Nepal is the weakest with China. The main reason for this is that the border area of ​​Nepal is not the 'Mainland China' but the Tibetan area and the reduction or closure of the movement of Nepalese at the border in the north. Likewise, China itself is indifferent in investing and implementing the projects that have been agreed in the name of 'connectivity'. And, China's main interest is to become another South Asian country with a large territory and population besides Nepal itself, so it seems to be moving forward with the mentality of delaying until favorable conditions are created for this. It has been eight years since the two countries agreed on BRI with the Chinese President's declaration of Nepal's dream of helping to realize the dream of changing the landlocked situation to a landlocked one, but the two countries have agreed on BRI except for the Chinese one-sided announcement to name Pokhara Airport as BRI. Not one of the said projects can be started. But instead of suggesting ideas and points for dialogue with the Chinese side on how to increase Nepal-China trade, improve the trade deficit and strengthen and ensure mutual interests, instead of looking at Chinese internal and strategic practices, they scold those in Nepal's bureaucracy and government based on official statements and public documents. The group seems intent on doing this.

experience of other countries, debate in Nepal

Whether it is because Nepal was not included in the initial map of BRI drawn by China or because the government agreed to it only later, Nepal did not become a party to/suffer from the initial weakness of BRI. This was also an opportunity for us when Nepal's main challenge is that there is no adequate study, research and discussion before the consensus agreement. But even now, whether Chinese loans are necessary for Nepal or not is not in the discussion itself, but most Nepali leaders and top bureaucrats say that there is no need for Nepal to go ahead with loans under the Chinese model of BRI. Our realism behind this argument is the strongest proof of our experience of developing structures over the past two decades. We cannot spend even half of the 'development budget' managed from internally collected revenue and 60 to 70 percent of the work papers will be prepared and made in June. Since they cannot mobilize their own resources, it does not seem reasonable to look at external loans. One-two billion projects per year can be done by ourselves, if we can do it well, the speed of our country's development is good. Whether it is the Congress's stance of 'loans not grants' or the bureaucracy indifferent to the Communists who say 'let's go ahead with the project even if we are in debt', the essence of the shared spirit of both of them is that we should first make the ability, efficiency and commitment to use the money in the right place and seek and beg for foreign assistance if it is not enough. yes That statement was also in MCC and it is also in BRI. Nepal was a little excited in MCC as Nepal did its internal homework and prepared a project according to the needs of the time and requested for investment and got a grant. It seems that Nepal could also advance some projects if it gets a grant under the same conditions in the BRI that has been agreed upon.

BRI developed in the Western world and its own thinking and principles, and third world countries depending on the policies and programs of financial institutions may be able to become alternative creditors and diversify their financial dependence. But it is an illusion to think that under the Communist regime, China has put forward an alternative development model for economic justice and equality, and it will transform the less developed and developing countries, including Nepal, overnight, and free them from old debts. Due to the Chinese system where transparency is not mandatory, it is easy to get financial benefits in the name of the project, so the development middlemen, high administrators and politicians in most of the third world countries where political unrest, poverty and corruption are prevalent are interested in the Chinese project. What should be understood here is that some projects of national need and strategic importance are not invested only on the basis of calculation and analysis of returns and benefits, if internal financing is not available or if subsidies are not available, then we have to go for loans, but we have to look at the status of financial management to turn the economy towards needs. It seems that such ambitious projects have become more of a problem in some of the less developed countries, which have happily agreed to "swallow the bone without looking at the neck" based on China's policies and proposals. It is not the case that only positive results of BRI have been seen as it has reached the end of a decade. China itself is in constant 'consultation' with development partners. The page is taking nourishment, listening, learning and improving. Establishing and increasing partnerships with established banks and financial institutions in the world. Studies of now-failed projects cite China's commercial debt, high interest rates, fast repayment terms, weak local decision-making, participation and ownership, negative environmental and social impacts, and rampant corruption as the main reasons. But what should be understood from most of the unsuccessful projects here is that the country's internal needs and practices, 'negotiation skills' and the ability to explain and convince China of its situation seem to be the basis for benefiting from the BRI project.

Next exercise

All political parties in Nepal are ideologically in favor of benefiting from BRI. But as much as Nepalis are friendly to China, China does not seem to be friendly to Nepal. Even Nepal itself is not becoming transparent. Documents such as BRI MoUs or Agreements are not accessible to the public and scholars. The government cannot clarify and answer even those who discuss and question about BRI based on vague or unconfirmed information. If possible, the party led by the previous government will stop China/Party by saying that they can proceed with grants if possible, loans with low interest rates and some important but if they cannot get support from elsewhere, they will not move forward. Nepal, a less developed neighbor, has not been able to move forward in the BRI, so the message has not been sent positively to the rest of the world. Therefore, China seems to be in favor of implementing BRI. This is the reason for China's unilateral declaration that Pokhara Airport is a BRI project, which started before Nepal-China agreed on BRI. Nepal also does not want to lose credibility among the donor agencies by completely withdrawing from what has been agreed, but it is not sure that its national interest will be ensured and secured before the implementation of the BRI project. It would have been helpful for the government if the opinion makers' debate had focused on academic studies and practical and objective analysis rather than on the pros and cons of BRI.

Amidst the fact that the situation is complicated and the future may become more complicated, it seems necessary for Nepal to publicize the collective practice of creating a standard for large projects with external investment and the all-party commitment to strictly implement it. For that, (a) not only by increasing commerce and 'connectivity', but also taking advantage of other strategic projects including BRI by concealing weaknesses, (b) strategies used by competing world or regional powers to create/increase pressure and leverage and debt trap or To decide on debt diplomacy (Pakistan Gwanka and Sri Lanka Hamuwatta and the external donor or development of physical economic development and structure centered projects Partner builds to celebrate, (d) to have financial investment basis, (Bangladesh) on the foreign constitution and feasible economic development / feasible economic development / feasible economic development project from Bangladesh, the proposed foreign aid project from the project, negative disagreements in the project, even negotiations to return, returns or even getting back to the value of the project. Below, (F) of Development Project Partner in any foreign investment, (F) of any foreign investment, no use of credit diplomacy or strategic conflicts.