Did Nepal's China-India balancing act cause it to ditch the US-run SPP security initiative?

Washington's plans to further contain China by expanding the United States military's presence in Asia were dealt a major blow by Nepal's recent decision not to join an US-run security initiative, analysts said.

After weeks of swirling rumours, Kathmandu late last month announced its intent to walk away from the State Partnership Programme.

The SPP, which the US embassy in Nepal was at pains to emphasise "is not and has not ever been a security or military alliance", would have allowed military-to-military training and education in support of "common defence and security goals" as well as broader cooperation in areas such as natural disaster response. The programme is run by the National Guard, the US military's reserve force.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

Kathmandu's decision not to join the SPP, which was preceded by fierce domestic debates and controversies, will set back US expansion plans in the region, analysts said. But it is also a move that sources said India would have tacitly backed - despite New Delhi's own desire to keep Chinese influence in check.

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba is set to visit the US later this month, sparking speculation of how the two countries will move past this hump in the road.

China's nationalist Global Times tabloid has reported that the pair are likely to sign an arms agreement worth some US$19.8 million during Deuba's visit, but neither side has confirmed this yet.

The SPP traces its roots to the fall of the Iron Curtain and was initially devised as a way of minimising instability and encouraging democratic governance in former Soviet states.

In the decades since, the programme has expanded to cover some 93 nations, including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives, with the aim of "carrying out activities to build partner capacity, improve interoperability and enhance US access and influence, while increasing the readiness of US and partner forces to meet emerging challenges," according to a US National Guard fact sheet, which also said the SPP was "guided by State Department foreign policy goals".

Such language raised eyebrows in Nepal. For many in Kathmandu, joining the SPP would have meant the Himalayan nation - sandwiched between China to its north and India on all other sides - was casting its lot in with the US, thereby disturbing the delicate balance it has tried to maintain between its neighbours.

According to the US embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal had twice asked - in 2015 and 2017 - to join the programme, before its request was eventually accepted in 2019.

But lawmakers in the country's parliament questioned last month whether Washington was in fact pressuring Kathmandu to sign up, with opposition leader Pradeep Gyawali - who served as Nepal's foreign minister from 2018 until June last year - reportedly saying "signing the SPP will push the country into a geopolitical conflict".

Gagan Thapa, general secretary of Prime Minister Deuba's own ruling party the Nepali Congress, also spoke out against the programme, telling parliament that "Nepal was never in favour of serving the strategic interest" of other countries.

"When there are strategic interests, we should stay away from powerful countries. This is not just my opinion; our constitution also says the same," he was quoted saying by The Kathmandu Post.

The major sticking point for many MPs appeared to be concerns that by signing the SPP Nepal would be entering into a military partnership.

But political and foreign affairs analyst Suresh Chalise, who is also a former Nepalese ambassador to both the US and Britain, emphasised that the SPP was "not all that bad".

"Nepal is vulnerable to natural disasters and some of SPP's objectives are very relevant to Nepal," he said, citing the US embassy's fact sheet that highlighted the role America's National Guard plays in disaster relief.

This year's general elections were also a factor in the Deuba administration's decision to walk away from the SPP, according to Chalise. "The decision was taken in haste, mainly due to pressure from the coalition partners in the government," he said.

Beyond the domestic politics that shaped Nepal's decision to walk away from the SPP was Kathmandu's desire not to upset either of its larger neighbours.

In February, after the Nepalese parliament ratified a US$500 million grant from the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin reacted sharply, saying that "China has stressed repeatedly that international formal cooperation ... should not interfere in other country's internal affairs to engage in coercive diplomacy, undermine other sovereignty and interest out of selfish interests."

Earlier, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying had called the MCC a "gift with an ultimatum", adding "there should be no political strings attached, no coercive diplomacy and certainly no infringement of other countries' sovereignty and interests for selfish gains."

A retired military general in Kathmandu, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said both Nepal's neighbours loomed large when it came to the SPP. "A decision like this would mean an increased US military presence in the region and that's a prospect neither of the two countries seem to be enthused about," he said.

"Naturally, the Chinese were concerned with the SPP, which had an overt military component."

Adding to the intrigue surrounding the SPP was the flurry of US diplomatic activity to Nepal in the lead up to it being scrapped - including a visit by US undersecretary of state for civilian security and human rights, Uzra Zeya, in May followed by General Charles Flynn, commanding general of the US Army Pacific, in early June.

When Nepal decided it was not going to join the programme after all, foreign ministry spokesman Wang said China commended the decision, adding that the SPP would go "against the national interests of Nepal and its long-held non-aligned, balanced foreign policy". A fortnight later, Beijing dispatched a seven-member delegation led by the Communist Party's international liaison department chief Liu Jianchao to meet senior Nepalese leaders including Prime Minister Deuba.

Delhi made no such public statements, but is widely believed to have found itself sharing Beijing's concerns about an increased US military presence in the region. India and Nepal share deep military ties, with upwards of 20,000 Nepalis serving in the Indian Army's Gorkha regiments, which are named after a 16th century Nepalese kingdom. It is also tradition for the two armies to confer the title of "honorary general" on the other's chief.

Nepal's army issued a statement last month denying that it had ever entered into an SPP agreement, and stressed that it was "always clear about" the fact that it would not be "entering into any military partnership with anyone in the future such that it has an adverse impact on the non-aligned foreign policy adopted by Nepal, its special geopolitical position and strategic sensitivities". Namgya C Khampa, acting Indian envoy to Nepal, happened to be meeting with Nepali Army chief General Prabhu Ram Sharma on the same day.

Observers say Delhi was likely worried about the effects of the SPP on its own ties with Nepal and its influence in the country.

"The Indian Army offers training and capacity-building to Nepalese soldiers and these moves have helped cement ties between the two forces," said the retired general in Kathmandu. "The SPP would have meant that the US National Guard would have stepped into these exact same roles."

Chalise, the retired ambassador, agreed.

"India would not like any big power in its neighbourhood," he said. "India would like to see a stable Nepal but without any big power's influence."

This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).

Copyright (c) 2022. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.