Intense Debate Over SPP

Narayan Upadhyay

The US government's State Partnership Programme (SPP) has occupied a considerable level of political debate, media space and citizens’ psyche. Whether Nepal should sign the SPP agreement during our Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to the US has divided opinion among political leaders, parties, media and people at large. If media reports are any sign, many in the nation have looked askance at SPP, believing it to be an American military programme.

The accord on the American programme, yet to be inked between Nepal and the US, has unleashed a barrage of blame games across the nation. Intending to clarify its position that it had not 'pressurised' the Nepali government from signing the accord, the US stated the Nepal had requested it to ink the agreement. In this regard, the Nepali side dispatched letters in 2017 and 2019 to the USA for inking the agreement on SPP. The Nepali Army reportedly wrote the letters on both occasions when UML chair KP Sharma Oli was at the helm of the government. CPN-Maoist Centre chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal Pranchanda and CPN-Unified Socialist chair Madhav Kumar Nepal blamed Oli for sending the letters, but Oli tried to shirk responsibility. 

The UML chair stated the army did not show him the letters. At first sight, this statement from Oli does not hold water, as several know him for obfuscating facts. He has done so umpteenth of time since he was prime minister. Following Oli's statement, one could well ask a pertinent question - how could a government head remain unaware of matters related to signing agreements with another nation? 

Surprisingly, the UML functionaries raised the matters in the parliament and other forums as if the current alliance government were the one that took SPP forward. In the meantime, the matter became knottier after the army stated that they pushed the matter forward to receive American assistance on disaster relief. The army said it had already received helicopters from the US while another aircraft was on its way to Nepal. This has only made the existing situation more turbid.

Resentment

The mood in the nation at present is against the agreement. Communists have shown strong resentment against the accord. Many cite that SPP is a part of America's Indo-Pacific Strategy, a military programme. They opine that the country can seek or should become part of the development programmes proposed by any nation but not any strategic programme. Why is there so much rancour over SPP? It is because of our geopolitical situation and foreign policy, which dictates us not to join any bloc led by superpowers.

Because of this reason, several leaders from the ruling coalition asked the government not to sign the SPP accord as it would undermine Nepal's neutrality and non-aligned foreign policy. Pranchanda, Nepal and Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) chair Upendra Yadav opined that the nation should reject SPP as 'it was against the national interests.’ Foreign Minister Narayan Khadka, while furnishing replies to the International Relations Committee of Parliament, apprised that the matter was a closed chapter. Minister Khadka stated the Prime Minister had told him that the SPP was not in the best interest and welfare of the country. Nepali Congress leaders such as Bishwa Prakash Sharma, Gagan Kumar Thapa and others voiced against the SPP.   

As a small nation in the region, Nepal, given her geopolitical situation, should not be a part of any strategic programme that drags her into a military alliance with other nations. It must show its resilience to fend off any coercion from any quarter to ink controversial pacts, agreements and understandings that would undermine the nation's sovereignty and the geopolitics in the region. Security analysts maintain that since Nepal is sandwiched between two rising economic and military powers-- China and India, it has to respect the security sensitivities of the two immediate neighbours. 

In the meantime, Nepal is a firm adherent to and supporter of the Non-Aligned Movement that bars it from becoming a member of the military alliance of any nation. It is in the best interests of Nepal's credibility as a non-aligned nation, which accords the highest priority to peace in the region and world if it maintains its position as a neutral nation joining no military partnership.

The issue has cast a shadow over the PM's US visit. However, it is heartening to note that the Prime Minister discussed and deliberated on the matter in an all-party meeting at full length, after which the PM is expected to take a call on the matter. The leaders of the coalition have had a common understanding that the country should not ink any agreement on a military pact. The PM stated that his visit to the US would not harm our national interests.

Code of conduct 

In the meantime, the fiasco over letters dispatched to the US also reminds us that there should be strict adherence to the code of conduct introduced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) while dealing with the foreign programmes. Though the MoFA has implemented its code of conduct, necessitating all of our government bodies and ministers to seek the ministry's permission while dealing with foreign countries, missions, and armies, many of our institutions have overlooked the code of conduct. 

This often creates an unfavourable situation, especially when the nation needs to maintain its position on agreements and understandings. Such a prevailing controversy has called for strong supervision of our institutions and ministries to compel them to go through the MoFA’s channel or seek the government's permission. If our authorities cannot do this, our nation and governments will continue to experience awkward situations.

(Upadhyay is Managing Editor of this daily.)