OBOR means lots of opportunities for Nepal

Prof Dr. Dai Yonghong is a noted Chinese scholar associated with a number of academic and cultural institutes. He is a senior fellow at the Centre for Security and Development of Western Frontier of China. He is also serving as the director of the Institute of South Asian Studies/Centre for Trans-Himalaya Tourism and Culture Studies. Professor was recently in Kathmandu to attend a regional seminar on ‘One Belt One Road Initiative and South Asia’ here.

Professor Dai noted that the Belt & Road Initiative will bring opportunities to Nepal in the form of enhanced connectivity, trade, investment and economic cooperation. He talked to Ritu Raj Subedi and Modnath Dhakal on the importance of the Belt & Road for Nepal as well as its geopolitical dimensions in South Asia and beyond. Excerpts.  

How should the Nepalese people understand the One Belt One Road initiative? What does OBOR mean for Nepal?

As you know, OBOR was proposed more than three-and-a-half-years ago. This actually is an initiative not only for China but also for the neighbouring countries. So, OBOR means opportunities for Nepal because it promotes new international thinking of economic development and international economic cooperation. If Nepal can work closely by becoming a part of the OBOR initiative, Nepal will highly benefit from the rapidly growing Chinese economy in the next few years. China is the world’s second largest economy after the United States. Likewise, Nepal will have an opportunity to improve its infrastructure. At the same time, we improve trade, investment, education, health care, agriculture and cooperation in many other areas.

There is no doubt that OBOR will bring lots of opportunities, but the Nepalese government and people are still in confusion regarding how those opportunities will reach them. Some are worried about the geopolitical complexities between China and India. Here, I would like to say that Nepal should continue to maintain cordial relations with India. Besides, being a close friend of Nepal, India is a rising power in South Asia. Nepal should try to integrate its economy with both its neighbours. Indians might be thinking that they should have greater influence in Nepal, but I think that these two fast trends of economic development can balance the development here. I would like to say that India is not inactive in OBOR, it is active, but the government is late to officially recognise its presence in the international initiative. Actually, there are no reasons for China and India to confront each other over any issue.

How do you see delay on the part of the Government of Nepal in signing the OBOR agreement?

Yes, the Nepalese government has been a little bit slow in signing the agreement, but it doesn't mean that Nepal doesn't want to work with China on this initiative. Maybe Nepal is more involved in its domestic issues this time. Different political parties have different issues and interests, so it takes time to reach a consensus on any matter. But there have been consensus on OBOR recently, and the government is sending a delegation to Beijing to participate in the OBOR Summit.

There has been news that Nepal was hesitant to sign the agreement due to pressure from its southern neighbour. What is your reading about this?

Economically, Nepal is dependent on India - sometimes to a larger extent and at other times lesser extent. There is a debate as to whether Nepal should be involved in OBOR. Different political parties might have different opinions in this regard.

Shouldn’t there be a separate bilateral framework to guide other agreements with China besides OBOR?

Some agreement can be signed outside the framework of OBOR while some can be integrated into it. For example, OBOR is a joint effort of neighbouring countries as well as European and African nations. OBOR's major focus is on trade, infrastructure and investment. For a political agreement, we have devised instruments for coordination. Some agreements may not be closely related to OBOR.

Do you mean that OBOR includes trade, investment and development while issues like diplomacy and culture fall outside its domain?

Countries have multiple ties with each others. OBOR is an open and inclusive framework. It's not something that we enforce. We need to have flexibility.

Infrastructure development is not adequate in Tibet while China says that road and railway connectivity would be developed up to Kerung from Lhasa and Shigatse. Don't you think that there should be better infrastructure in Tibet to make Nepal a part of OBOR?

It is necessary to have peace and security in the region. We will have better infrastructure development in Tibet soon. We will build good infrastructure up to Kerung.

How does China view Nepal's importance in implementing OBOR in South Asia?

Nepal is very important in the implementation of OBOR. We highly value the role and importance of Nepal in this regard. The unique geographical position of Nepal has made it even more crucial in the region, and China has a long historical relationship with it. We never think of sacrificing Nepal to maintain better relations with India. Even Chinese President Xi Jinping has said that China wants to see better relations between Nepal and India. We always wanted better relations between Nepal and China, but I would like to ask whether India has the same opinion with regard to the bilateral relations between Nepal and India. It's not something that China wants to have its say on bilateral relations between Nepal and India. China is a big country. So is India. Thus, both of them should play their role in the development of smaller countries and supply of quality goods in the region.

Does OBOR include any strategy to work with the private sector?

Both public and private enterprises work together to implement this initiative because some major investments will be made jointly by the government and private sector. Private companies can play a decisive role in health care, education and other services, and can contribute significantly to building large infrastructure projects like expressways.

India and the USA keep saying that OBOR is an instrument of soft political power to exercise China’s hegemony in the region and world.

We follow the values that help maintain the sovereignty and integrity of small as well as post-modern bigger countries. And this OBOR is not a product of a hegemonic concept. Sometimes I am very surprised to see that some Western media always wish China got weaker and weaker. When China improves its economic, political and economic power, they express security concerns. They just want to see a weaker China, not a stronger one. It is unfair for China because as the Chinese philosopher Confucius says, we want to see a better world, a better India, a better Nepal or a better America, or even a better Japan. We don't have any selfishness in our part. So, it’s an exaggeration that China wants to impose its hegemony in the region.

Also, does it mean that being a strong nation is being hegemonic? No. If the country is strong, it can help the small and weaker countries to develop. OBOR is for the same. Being the second largest economy in the world, we have the advantage of capital, technology and management, which can play an instrumental role in the development of the entire region. OBOR is the platform where we, all, can jointly review OBOR for mutual benefit. Therefore, I must say India and Japan should look positively at the initiative. If anyone is fearful of a strong China and wants to see it weaker, it's a kind of psychological sentiment. They want to develop themselves, but not see China developing itself.

Being a socialist country, how do you see OBOR as a vehicle of globalisation? How do you connect communist philosophy with OBOR?

Actually communism is a philosophy that shares benefits created through joint efforts. Everyone should benefit from development. It’s a harmonious society, and it’s the goal of the Chinese government. Our aim is to reduce the gap in income, and distribute the benefits among the people. Our aim is to create a mutually consulted and jointly reviewed development vehicle that can helps all neighbours to mutually develop. It looks like a communist philosophy as we want to create an international community of a common destiny. But it is not an ideological concept. Other countries are also following the same way. For example, US president Donald Trump is working to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, and create jobs for everyone. Broadly speaking, communism is like humanity, you create together and share together.

Recently, China seems to be promoting Confucianism rather than Maoism. Is there a philosophical departure?

Confucianism stresses on peace, coordination and respect. The Western ideologies try to create some tension between capitalism and socialism. It is up to a country to choose either of them. Democracy and freedom are good for human beings, but the Western-style democracy and freedom may not contain universal values and norms. The country should decide what is suitable for them. 

(Published in The Rising Nepal, May 7, 2017)