Dev Gurung Sir welcome to our Channel.
Thank you.
I am going to start by current issue. What is the point of America seeking a clarification from the Nepal government, after a statement released by Foreign Ministry of China which says that Nepal government opposes any movement against China, no involvement in any Military Alliances and disapproves on the Indo Pacific strategy?
The statement released by China is following our non-alignment policy. There is no difference in spirit of Nepal government’s foreign policy and statement released by Chinese foreign ministry. American embassy’s interference about this matter is not reasonable. This is about independent foreign policy of Nepal. Nepal is always flowing non-alignment policy and Panchaseel’s theory. I think US embassy force Nepal to involve in Indo-Pacific Strategy. That’s why, the Indo-Pacific Strategy is US policy and they are expecting among the country under their control for military alliance in Indo-Pacific region. America is lobbing in the name of aid for the military alliance, not forming any international law or treaty, or any multinational agreement. Particularly, it is started from Japan, Korea like countries at first. Nepal can state own opinion that we don’t want to involve into that military alliance. Nepal is independent country and can express not to accept such alliance. Nepal can express it anywhere. Asking for clarification by American embassy for the statement is seems a kind of interference in Nepal’s internal affairs and foreign policy, where we are not.
Yesterday, in a regular press conference by Nepal Government, Gokul Baskota couldn’t clarify that Nepal is not a part of Indo-Pacific Strategy. Intellectuals criticized such behaviour as a vacillating character of government on foreign policy. How do you analyze?
I haven’t got the chance to hear live what did he said in media. Anyway the government policy is accordance with the principle of Panchsheel and non-alignment policy. Nepal could not in the favor of war instead in the favor of peace. Nepal is not in the favor of any military alliance or competitions. Nepal has taken the policy to raise ahead by the competition or process of peace and development. Nepal government has that policy. There might be some lapses human being have limitations, they can do mistake but in overall, policy of Nepal is based on the Panchsheel, non-alignment and No one can use Nepali land to disturbance the development of others. Nepal government is firm in this policy.
What is the reason of, particularly the authorized person of Nepal government couldn’t say clearly that Nepal isn’t involved in indo-pacific strategy?
It depends up on person-specific expression. There might be difference in stress and idea; it depends on who is expressing in which language and where s/he is expressing. But we have to observe in the gist. The core policy of both Party and government these days is non-alignment; that government is in the leadership of our Party. There is not any policy of alignment with any power and war.
We are firm to our non-alignment policy and if someone tries to provoke against our neighbor by showing us any plan and project, which is not acceptable for us, saying that; is Prachanda pointing towards MCC project?
Whatever he told is accordance with Nepal’s foreign policy, because land of Nepal should not be used against any other countries. Main point is that, the territory of Nepal should not be misused against any other countries. If the temptation were shown to use, these are wrong. I think his statement means Nepal doesn’t fall into temptation. Either he is pointing MCC or not is not come out publicly. So, noting could be said about this subject now. As far as the issue of MCC, two years ago, the US government’s Millennium Challenge Corporation and Nepal government’s Ministry of Finance focus including Nepal’s $ 130 million primarily to expand Nepal’s transmission line of 630 millions, it seems to have been focusing on building Cross border transmission Line 400 KV for trading with India. Such remnants seem to have compromised to repair the strategic roads. The things that are financially assisted are not the objections if that contribute to development, to the cooperation. We do not consider being economically viable with any other country in the world, but there is some of the underlying issues are ambiguities, some are delusions. Particularly 2-3 things we have objection on it. First of all, the agreement was signed on Sept. 2017, and the US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs visited Vietnam in 2019 said there the MCC project (which is also supporting $ 500 million in Nepal) is integral part of the Indo-Pacific Strategic Partnership. At the time of confusion, the US Defense Secretary visited Nepal on 2019 January or February. At the time of that visit, he said the same at the press conference here too. He said that the MCC project is part of Indo-Pacific. Since the defending officials have brought this as part of the Indo-Pacific, it should be considered again if it is the part of the Indo-Pacific. The second point, what is mentioned in that agreement paper is that 400 KV transmission line will be extended from Butwal, Bhairahawa through India and making cross border transmission line extended up to Nautana Gorakhpur. It is a matter of jurisdiction of India and Nepal to extend this cross-border transmission line. This is the matter of jurisdiction between the two countries, India and Nepal. Why to deal with the USA which is the jurisdiction of these two countries? Without consent with (India and) Nepal why deal with the United States, even international law may not appropriate. Likewise, what is said in a point in the agreement is that needs to take for permission of India as well. If India also has to agree, it is not a bilateral, tripartite agreement. How can a trilateral deal implemented with a bilateral agreement? It may also be against international law. So such issues create confusion.
I also want to be clear that in the bilateral issues of US-Nepal, India has also entered into a trilateral. What happens in this?
If the MCC project is to construct a transmission line up to India, it would not be possible to make the transmission line without the consent of India and Nepal. It is not possible to mix third country in the bilateral agreement by passing a cross border and building a transmission line up to India. The other thing is that if the agreement is a tripartite, then it should be tripartite agreement. Here is seen as a bilateral agreement and third parties are also drawn. While there is no agreement with the third party, it does seem a bit controversial. It has certainly been the topic of discussion. If any amendments, modifies or converts are to be made, it is necessary on the basis of mutual consent.
What did the tripartite agreement signify?
Currently, the MCC project has not come as a tripartite agreement. It has come as a bilateral agreement. This is a bilateral agreement signed two years ago. But there is a point that has to get the consent of India as well. Secondly, the transmission line from Bhairahawa to Gorakhpur, crossing the border transmission line has been discussed. India’s transmission line is discussed. It would be wrong to mention that the agreement between the two countries would extend the transmission line of the third country. Therefore, what is said as being two-sided does not seem to match. Either the third party had to be removed completely, or the third party had to be compromised and made trilateral. Therefore, in India, the construction of the transmission line also seems to be attracted in a tripartite way. But an agreement has been reached between the two parties. Eight points deal has been done. Since that has happened, it seems to conflict with international law. It seems that it needs amendment. This seems to require much discussion and refinement. Part of India either had to be removed from there or even India had to make a tripartite deal. Because of that, it seems a bit confusing. What the American authorities defied as part of the Indo Pacific was contrary to Nepal’s policy. Nepal does not involve in Indo-Pacific Strategy, but it is a part of Indo-Pacific as they keep as a condition, that’s why it is necessary to revise the MCC Project. Indo-Pacific Strategy is a kind of military alliance, the US Department of Defense Pentagon’s report on June 1st 2019 on the military and security of the Indo-Pacific, the Spirits of the report primarily concerned with the military and security. There seems to be a process to participate in it making member and requesting to every nations. And since 2018 Nepal and Sri Lanka have also been involved in it. Since then, the issue is also raising the question, without the permission of Nepal why Nepal is mixed in the Indo-Pacific? Therefore, from a diplomatic level, there is a need to clarify that Nepal is not in the Indo Pacific Strategy.
Embassy has demanded a clear view from the government on Prachanda’s statement. Please make a bit clearer?
First of all, the US seeks clarification with the Government of Nepal; the manner seems to be a kind of interventionist. Indo pacific region is not American part; it is Asia over and above South Asia. The interests and concerns of the South Asia and Asian organizations, solely the concern and interest of Indo-Pacific region’s countries. In the case of the United States, why is the concern over the land and sovereignty of others? For this reason, it is also an intervening step towards making the Indo Pacific. Second, they have started the process of taking it as a military alliance, which clearly shows to evoke of war in Asia. Third, is it necessary to intervene on the issue of independent foreign policy of the countries in the Indo-Pacific region? None has right to comment about the foreign policy of the countries in the Indo-Pacific region. Fourth, why was it announced that Nepal is a partner of the Indo Pacific Strategy, in the Department of Defense Pentagon’s report without the consent of Nepal? Therefore, there seems to be some kind of force to involve Nepal in the Indo-Pacific, and to use the territory of Nepal against the neighboring country. Since this is against the foreign policy of Nepal, it seems that Nepal must protest.
I want to be clear about yet another thing, some time ago a book was published by ‘RAW’ a few sentences targeted to Prachanda which was raised highly in the Nepali media. And now it is also being debated as the second controversial manifestation after Venezuelan case of Prachanda. One after another, you see a conspiracy or a general process over the Prachanda.
It seems to me to be a bit of a conspiracy, the book written by a retired officer working in India’s security agency which is written as a story. A book written as a story seems to be more a fiction than a factual history, a factual statement, rather than it’s an autobiography. The writing process has started by creating imaginary characters and placing them in fictional characters. For that reason, it seems wrong to associate it with Prachanda. Secondly, the reality of the past is a matter of Nepal’s internal politics. In the matter of internal politics, there is no need to take any interest and concern. It’s not diplomatic way to involve or spoil Prachanda’s political career like that way, which is solely internal matters. Secondly, whether the Venezuelan case or the Chinese Foreign Minister’s meeting, the two stances taken in each case are correct. Regarding Venezuela, the written statement has come forward. It is not good that any imperialist powers in the world will intervene in any sovereign country. The people there have the right to make their own decisions in political matters. What kind of system to maintain, what kind of leadership to choose is a matter of the people’s self-determination? That kind of freedom and the right to self-determination is interfered by the United States in Venezuela, is the opposing matters to the sovereign of any country. It is not a question of whether it is far, near or not connected to the border. When that happens, everyone should resist the intervention. The UN Charter says, no interfere in any country; no country can interfere in others’ internal affairs. There is mention to protect sovereign rights. The UN has stated that to protect the sovereignty of its members. That defense is a defense of the UN Charter. So the statement about Venezuela that came out seems to be fundamentally correct. The issues that have been made public by the Chinese Foreign Ministry are according to the Foreign Policy of Nepal. When the leaders meet, talk, naturally follows or based on their foreign policy, the UN Charter, the principle of non-alignment, the principle of Panchsheel to any countries that we do as well. That is why what he had talked about seems to right, therefore, the idea that disputing it is not in the national interest. If there are people who think differently than the interests of nationality, they will try to force it into a negative way. From a positive angle, it is not unlike foreign policy.
If it is about the sovereignty or freedom of the country, Should there create any controversy?
As I have said before, in the present, there is class society, which is becoming globalized. Two contradictory assumptions can be drawn with regard to any aspect or event in relation to class conflicts. There is a perception of national interest; there is also a perception against national interest. Such perceptions come from both for and against. We have to categorize the perception between nationalistic and surrender, because in the class society, there is the differences in the attitude of everyone. From the angle of class, third world countries, including Asia, Latin America, Africa, are oppressed nations, and under the leadership of US imperialism, world imperialism is the sadist. There is a natural difference between the oppressed and oppressing or sadist. That is where the world’s main struggle is centered. It is because of this central focus that contradiction is inherently affected when it comes to the nationality of Nepal. Their interest can certainly have an impact, Nepal’s independence impact to the third world countries. According to the imperialist interest talking in favor of the interests of the third world countries impact the interests of imperialism. This is a matter of dialectical relationship. That is why it is a natural and universal law as well.
I have come to the end; your party is in government. Almost two-thirds of the majority, now citizenship became hot issue to provide citizenship for foreign son in laws, according to the news. The same issue is raised for foreign daughter in laws. The Citizenship Bill is not yet passed by Parliament. What has it been like so far?
Regarding the citizenship bill, the committee is currently under discussion. Since the committee is in discussions, has not passed by Parliament, so it’s not the perfect time to comment. The committee will pass it in time. Accordingly, the Full House also pass the bill sooner or later, for that reason, since it is in a pending state, it does not seem to be necessary to comment publicly.
The other thing I added at the last, whether the Terai people complain will be addressed or not?
The main thing is on the basis of constitution. There is no situation beyond the constitution. We will seek right or wrong as by the constitution. There is no possibility of enacting an Act differently than the principal of the constitution. That is why it is a matter of making the law as far as the constitution has granted or concerned. As soon as the Act imbalance against the principle of the constitution then reversed by the court. Any act can be reversed; therefore, it is necessary to follow the principles of the constitution as it is necessary to stick to the principles of the constitution. As far as some of the publicly comments, the debate is within the constitution. That is not a debate within the Act. The constitution is not in the process of being amends. The country now facing a crisis, the process of revising the constitution is like opening a box of Pandora. It is like to move the country towards instability and chaos. If the country pushes to instability and chaos Nepal’s sovereignty will be in danger. Therefore, whatever system was established, even if the constitution is valid or not, there is no alternative to implementing the constitution. It has to be implemented and taken to permanent stability. The sovereignty of the country is stability permanently then the time come to amends the weaknesses of the constitution. That’s why, this is not the right time to open or amend the constitution.
