With the feasibility study of the Nepal-China cross-border railway in progress, foreign policy experts and observers have stressed the need to improve road connectivity with China, citing the geographical and engineering challenges associated with railway development.

Speaking at an event organised on Tuesday by the Centre for Social Inclusion and Federalism (CESIF) on Nepal-China relations and Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s recent visit to China, they said connecting with both India and China by having north-south corridor roads would greatly benefit Nepal, instead of investing on the railway.

Former minister and Nepali Congress leader Minendra Rijal questioned the very rationale of bringing Chinese rail to Kathmandu. “What will we export to China and what will we import from Tibet through the railroad? So let’s build roads instead.”

He also stressed the need for completing the Kathmandu Ring Road project, which is assisted by China, and questioned its ‘renewed commitment’ to help build the Tokha-Chhahare tunnel, and a cross-border transmission line, which he said was supposed to be funded under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Expressing surprise at Nepal’s ‘departure’ from One China policy to One China principle as mentioned in the joint statement released by the two sides after the prime minister’s China visit on September 23-30, Rijal said that was the only new thing in the prime minister’s China visit. “Otherwise, the visit was full of optics but little in substance.”

Former foreign secretary Madhu Raman Acharya pointed out an increasing trend of trivialising dealings with China, adding that many agreements and understandings tend to favour China.

“If any project is of interest to China, they are completed on time. Be it the Pokhara airport or the Academy of Armed Police Force.”

He said the security issue has become prominent with the opening of the border points with China. “The prime minister’s visit was lacking in substance and visible impact,” he added.

Acharya said he recently visited the northern border, Tibet and other parts of China and found that the difficult geography poses a significant challenge to developing a railroad.

Nepal should prioritise inviting investment from China over seeking aid and grants from the northern neighbour.

“There was no substance in the agreement except for the transmission line between Kerung and Rashuwagadhi,” he said. “Of the seventy agreements signed since former prime minister KP Sharma Oli’s visit to China, only a few are actually being implemented.”

Acharya also expressed concerns over the language in the joint communiqué against Taiwan’s independence.

Sishir Khanal of the Rastriya Swatantra Party said the prime minister’s visit was not clear enough in its objectives and expressed concerns over the change in Nepal’s stance from ‘One China policy’ to ‘One China principle’.

“There is a stark difference in what the prime minister stated publicly before his departure and what we achieved during the visit. We failed to raise the map and boundary issues with China, traditional border points have not opened yet, and there is no progress in opening the remaining ones. The BRI has come to a standstill, and the visit has grossly failed to chart out the future course of our relations.”

The participants were nearly unanimous that the agreements signed during this and previous visits have not been successfully implemented. They said Nepal must better understand China’s strategic concerns and strongly raise matters of Nepal’s interests with China.

Former secretary Purushottam Ojha said the visit was another bundle of repetitions of commitments.

While the roads on our side of the border are in a sorry state, we have agreed to open six border points with China, the former commerce secretary wondered. He also stated that Nepal needs road connectivity more than a railroad.

Lal Shankar Ghimire, who had served for over a decade at the finance ministry and was involved in several negotiations with the Chinese government, claimed that there is a deficit of trust between the two sides.

“We also failed to understand the BRI,” said Ghimire. “The BRI is a plan, not a funding agency.”

He also stated that the Chinese rail cannot be extended beyond Kerung.

Tsering Lhamu Lama (Tamang) of the ruling CPN (Maoist Centre) highlighted the importance of opening border points between Nepal and China and termed the prime minister’s visit successful.

Raj Kishor Yadav, chairperson of the International Relations and Tourism Committee at the House of Representatives, expressed the need for maintaining a balanced relationship between China and other world and regional powers.

“When the Chinese ambassador made remarks against India, we summoned the foreign minister and foreign secretary and asked them to seek clarification from the Chinese ambassador, but the government kept quiet. The government and Ministry of Foreign Affairs hesitate to speak about China, and sometimes about India. Our institutional memory is weak… we have to reframe the country’s foreign policy based on national interest,” Yadav said.

“We should stop the tendency of comparing relations with India, China, the United States and others as each relation is independent.”