Randy
W. Berry, US Ambassador to Nepal, is
a career diplomat and a member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of
Minister-Counsellor. Berry has served as a diplomat since 1993, and spent
more than twenty years abroad on assignment for the U.S. State
Department. Before assuming office in Nepal last year, he worked as
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia in the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labour. He earned his B.A. from Bethany College,
Kansas in 1987 and did graduate work at Adelaide University, Australia in 1988.
Berry talked
to Gopal Khanal, Ritu Raj Subedi and Modnath Dhakal of The Rising Nepal on
topics of Nepal-US relations, its development assistance and Indo-Pacific
Strategy, among others. Excerpts:
It has been seven decades since Nepal and the USA
established relations. How do you assess the bilateral ties between the two
countries?
We have very old engagement, and it’s a relationship founded
on bilateral confidence and common values. America is a long way away and we
don't share borders, we don’t share continents. But America is a friendly
democratic state with inclusiveness and equality. USA is a very diverse country
so is Nepal. Major challenge for such countries is to address the aspirations
of the diverse communities.
We have maintained federal democratic state for the last
two-and-a-half decades but still we are finding challenges in realising the
aspirations mentioned in the constitution. Hence, I would like to request you
to stick to the democratic values like freedom and openness. But it takes a
long time to establish its fundamentals. The USA and Nepal might be on a
different path yet share similar democratic norms and principles.
Our engagement with Nepal government is based on three
dimensions. The first is to promote political stability and security, greater
transparency and good governance. The second is to create economic opportunity
and growth and the third is to make Nepal a strong trade partner with the USA.
Our national security interest is best served by most of the same identical
policy of the government. But the result is to support the country in basic
policy.
This relationship is truly unique, it’s
unparalleled and has witnessed decades of consistency. It’s very strong
and is being made stronger. Apart from the government to government engagements,
there are various kinds of other relationships like people to people and
culture to culture. We have active conversation on the types of policies that build
the relationship between the two nations. There is a mutually productive
environment.
Nepal has entered a new phase of economic prosperity following
the decades of instability and moved ahead with the motto of 'Prosperous Nepal,
Happy Nepali'. How is the USA looking at these developments? How can your
country support Nepal in it?
I would like to answer the second part of the question
first. The United States gives priority to political stability, inclusive
democracy and economic growth so our nature of support to Nepal will include
these dimensions. Nepal's aspirations have gone up with the recent political
developments, stability and implementation of federalism. Economic growth and
opportunities as well as access to education are key to the success in
achieving the national motto 'Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali'. Many people know
that the USA also believes in national happiness which is documented in the
famous phrase 'Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness'. I think the best way to
make people happy is to put more money in the pocket of grassroots people.
The US has granted duty free market access to 66 Nepali
products since Obama administration. How has this facilitation helped Nepal's
international trade?
Statistics show that it has been beneficial to Nepal. The
USA is importing more Nepali goods than any other country except India. It is
happening under the Nepal Trade Preference Programme (NTPP) which has created vibrant trade between the two countries.
The US is maintaining this policy since it is helping the Nepali economy,
growth of which is the priority of the USA as well. We have promoted this
programme, even though we are facing trade deficit with the countries like
Nepal.
NTPP or any aspect of our bilateral trade agenda is to create vibrant
trade for my country as well as yours. While Nepal is exporting its products to
the USA and producers here are benefitted from it, our people are getting the
benefit of those goods. What is disappointing is the NTPP is not utilised to
its full potential. There are certain categories which can promote greater
uptake which are yet to be exploited.
Nepal has been a part of Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) which has recently announced the support of 500 million US dollars
support to Nepal's connectivity projects. How can it push forward Nepal's
prosperity agenda?
If we look at the general environment and economic
opportunity in the country, it has lots of potential. The construction of
high-voltage transmission lines and maintenance of strategic roads will provide
further support to development initiatives. The MCC projects are jointly funded
by the USA and Nepal government as the latter puts in 130 million dollars in
it. It’s a common objective – to create world class major infrastructure within
the next five years. It will contribute to the country's future not only as an
energy sufficient country but as an energy exporter as well.
The impact of the MCC compact will be immense because it
comes with clear terms, transparency, accountability and anti-corruption
measures with fairness and openness in procurement and implementation as
well as sharply defined budget. There is a very little flexibility in the
contract. I think that it is good because a lot of contractors and investors
will be impressed by the implementation of such time-bound projects. It will
demonstrate the success of the project on time and on budget. It’s also about
building investment confidence in Nepal and abroad. This is not about the US
government giving money to Nepal to do something, it’s a combined investment of
the both countries that will demonstrate that Nepal is an investment
destination.
You said MCC is one of the best projects that can enhance
Nepal's capacity in infrastructure development and maintenance. It is also good
that the project includes the latest technology transfer in road maintenance. Against
this backdrop, if Nepal succeeds in completing the projects in time, should it
hope for further support of such kind?
The technology transfer is an absolutely critical part of
this cooperation. If you look at the US-Nepal cooperation in a historical perspective,
it’s about investing in people, expertise building and sustainable development.
We want to bring in our expertise that is required here and that can help in
economic development. The broader development perspective includes social
justice, sustainability, and productivity. Investing in people and making them
stronger should be the priority of any development work. In response to the
second question, I would empathetically say- Yes.
The MCC is promoting compacts
around the world and what we have seen is that the successful implementation of
the first part has seen the announcement of further support. However, it is not
necessary that the future projects are from the same area. The decision about
it is based on the implementation capacity of the recipient country, its needs
and the importance of the project. We have seen countries moving from one
compact to another compact and creating economic opportunities for their people
and investment environment.
Last year, there was a visit of Nepali Foreign Affairs
Minister to the US which happened after a gap of about 17 years. The US
Secretary of State had also termed it 'historic'. In this context, should Nepal
hope that there would be any reciprocal visits from the USA in near future?
The visit was a historic one and I think that it should have
happened long ago. Both the countries are benefitting from the relationship. I
don't believe in the donor-recipient kind of relationship. We want to develop a
kind of relationship that Nepal wants. About the high-level exchange, I will
say yes but I don't know when.
Nepal's foreign minister said that he discussed the
issues of Indo-Pacific Region in the meeting with his US counterpart. But later
it was reported in the media that they discussed about the Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Would you enlighten us on the issue?
I think there was a problem in translation which changed the
‘Indo-Pacific Issue’ to strategy. May be there are not appropriate connotations
for the word 'strategy' in Nepali language. However, I would talk about the elements
that were raised during the meeting. The Indo-Pacific Strategy is about the
concept of free and open society. Greater
transparency, accountability, freedom of media, freedom of speech and assembly
are at the core of democratic values that the US wants to promote.
What I believe has happened with the Indo-Pacific meeting
that people interpreted it as whether you can join it or not. It’s a completely
erroneous question as there is nothing to join. It’s a mistaken presumption. Experts
are in discussion whether Nepal should join the Indo-Pacific Strategy but it’s
just a name given to the policy of the US and there is no invitation to join. If
you think of the international community as an open highway and you are driving
a car, IPS is a rule based internationally recognised system to move ahead. We
are not asking anybody to get in our car and at the same time not asking
someone to take us in their car.
When talking about IPS, the China-proposed Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI) comes automatically in. Why have these two become contentious?
I think that Nepal is a part of the Indo-Pacific Region like
other countries in the region. IPS is not the counterpart of the BRI. We just
want to promote democratic values – freedom and openness - throughout the
globe. We seek to promote an internationally recognised forum for the same.
Many Nepalis are staying in the US. This demographic
shift has influenced the US-Nepal ties at cultural and social levels. But
President Donald Trump's critical approach to the foreign migrant workers has
scared many of them. How do you assure Nepalis that they need not to worry
about the new policy and can work or study confidently?
The USA has always thrived through inclusive democracy throughout
its history. I am proud of my country that it offers economic and other
opportunities regardless of where you have come from and to which race you
belong. Nepali-American community is expanding and being mature, and they have
increased engagement in local politics. We have seen Nepali immigrants involved
in developing policies and supporting the local and state governments.
However,
immigrants violating the law is another issue. Nepali community has contributed
to the country through their hard work and hard study. Apart from the
Nepali-American citizens, the US has about 13,000 Nepali students currently
pursuing their higher education. We have more Nepali students per capita than
any other country in the world. That’s significant. They will bring new
knowledge and skills to Nepal. It will help both the countries in the long run.
The US President has adopted the 'American First'
strategy that has seemingly threatened the liberal world order which was
created after the World War II at the initiatives of the US itself. Is the USA
set to dismantle this world order and withdraw into the cocoon of isolation?
Nations and governments have their own interest. And I am
here to serve the interest of my country. It is best served when Nepal is free,
democratic, sovereign, developed, inclusive and secure. All US international
support is the part of our national interest as well, the rebuilding of Europe
was also the same. It’s not the charity or goodwill gesture. We want
international security and stability.
The USA is blamed for looking at Nepal through the eyes
of the regional actors when it comes to the foreign policy approach. What is
your take on this?
I knew that no interview would be completed without this
question. To my view, it
makes no sense to look at Nepal through the lens of other countries. We
have good relations with both India and China. With the nature and type of our
engagements in Nepal, I don't see any rationality in that blame. It’s a
completely mistaken idea.
The balance of international affairs has shifted to Asia
where there are two rising economies – India and China, and Nepal is between
these two nations. How do you see the opportunities and challenges to Nepal in
this context? How do you see the future of South Asia?
It’s a very broad question. Nepal can be benefitted from its
own independent decision on national security interest. It has foreign policy
priority of making stronger ties with the neighbours. Nepal is not a finite
entity to be manipulated by any power. It can make decision on its own
sovereign capacity. It’s not a zero-sum choice that Nepal has but in fact Nepal
has opportunities to make strong and positive relationships not only with the
two immediate neighbours but also with the entire international community.
Your Facebook Gufgaf
has drawn mixed reactions. Why do you think it was necessary?
I don't think there was any such thing in the content of the
gufgaf. It was about responding to
the queries of youth. It was public and transparent. Diplomacy today is a very
different thing, and public relations have become a very important part. You
have to rely on other types of communications as well.
Published in The Rising Nepal on 29 August 2019.
