By Our Reporter
Kathmandu and Beijing are once again moving into a familiar rhythm: meetings, mechanisms, project reviews, and promises to speed things up. On paper, it looks like progress. In practice, it reflects something deeper about Nepal’s foreign policy habits, especially its shifting approach toward China depending on who is in power in Kathmandu.
The recent push to expedite China-funded projects underlines this renewed momentum. The third meeting of the Mechanism for Facilitation on the Implementation of Nepal-China Cooperation Programmes is expected in Kathmandu in early June. Officials from both sides, led by Nepal’s Foreign Secretary and the Chinese Ambassador, will review stalled projects, identify bottlenecks, and try to push long-delayed infrastructure forward. At the same time, preparations are also underway for high-level consultations in China.
The list of projects under discussion is long and politically significant. It includes the Jilong-Kerung-Kathmandu cross-border railway, highway upgrades like Syaphrubesi-Rasuwagadhi, transmission lines, tunnel roads, industrial parks, and urban infrastructure such as the Kathmandu Ring Road upgrade. Many of these fall under the broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which Nepal formally joined through agreements in 2017 and later reaffirmed in 2024.
On the surface, this looks like a development partnership finally gaining speed. But beneath that surface lies a more strategic reality that Nepal cannot ignore. China is not just a development partner. It is also a geopolitical counterweight in Nepal’s foreign policy balancing act.
Nepal sits between two large neighbours, and the influence of India has historically been deep in trade, culture, mobility, and politics. In that context, engagement with China is not only about infrastructure financing. It is also about maintaining strategic balance. When Nepal deepens cooperation with Beijing, it expands its diplomatic space. When it neglects that relationship, it risks narrowing its options.
This is why continuity in policy matters. Yet Nepal’s approach toward China has often shifted with each change in government. Agreements are signed, frameworks are announced, and then implementation slows or gets reshaped depending on political priorities in Kathmandu. The result is a cycle of enthusiasm followed by delay. China, on its part, has shown consistent interest in pushing projects forward, especially in infrastructure, energy, and connectivity sectors.
Officials now say Beijing is increasingly focused on identifying bottlenecks and ensuring execution. Feasibility studies for key projects such as the Jilong-Kerung railway are already completed, with reports expected soon. Letters have also been exchanged to accelerate tunnel roads and cross-border links. Yet many other projects remain stuck at concept or pre-feasibility stage, waiting for administrative alignment within Nepal.
The gap is not just technical. It is institutional. Nepal’s ministries often forward projects to the Foreign Ministry without completing internal groundwork. Coordination across agencies remains weak. As a result, even well-funded initiatives lose momentum before they reach execution stage. This slows down development and weakens credibility with partners.
There is also a political layer. Different governments tend to re-evaluate or reinterpret previous commitments, which creates uncertainty in long-term cooperation. China, which prefers stability and continuity in project execution, responds to this unpredictability by focusing on mechanisms and formal review structures. That is why meetings like the upcoming facilitation mechanism matter. They are designed to keep projects from falling into political drift.
From Nepal’s perspective, the benefits of stronger engagement with China are clear. Chinese assistance comes in multiple forms, including grants, interest-free loans, and concessional financing. It has already supported sectors such as transport, energy, health, education, and industrial development. Major projects like transmission lines, highways, industrial parks, and cross-border infrastructure carry long-term economic value if implemented properly.
But the challenge is not availability of projects or partners. It is delivery. Without timely implementation, even high-profile initiatives lose impact. Delays increase costs, reduce efficiency, and weaken public trust in development planning. This is where governance discipline becomes as important as foreign policy ambition.
Nepal needs to approach its relationship with China not as a short-term political instrument, but as a long-term strategic framework. That means consistency across governments, regardless of political ideology. Infrastructure projects that span years cannot survive on shifting priorities every election cycle.
At the same time, deeper engagement with China should not be viewed in isolation from Nepal’s broader foreign policy balance. Strengthening ties with Beijing does not require weakening ties with New Delhi. But it does require clarity, coordination, and confidence in Nepal’s own national priorities. Strategic balance only works when policy remains steady, not reactive.
The government under Prime Minister Balendra Shah now faces a practical test. If Kathmandu wants to maximize the benefits of its relationship with China, it must fix internal bottlenecks first. That includes completing feasibility studies on time, improving inter-ministerial coordination, and ensuring that approved projects move beyond paper agreements.
It also requires a shift in mindset. Foreign partnerships should not be treated as political trophies. They should be treated as long-term national assets. That means resisting the temptation to reset priorities with every cabinet change and instead building institutional memory that survives political turnover.
China has already shown willingness to engage through structured mechanisms, joint consultations, and technical cooperation. Nepal now needs to match that consistency with its own administrative discipline. Otherwise, even the most ambitious cooperation frameworks will continue to move slowly, trapped between intention and execution.
Login to add a comment