Understanding the BRI: A Holistic and Comprehensive View beyond the Nine Projects

Discussing What BRI is, as well as the future of Nepal—its economic survival and prosperity—and assessing a critical opportunity are too important for the nation to ignore. This is not just a theoretical discussion about international development. It is a matter of survival, a matter of whether Nepal remains trapped in stagnation or chooses to embrace the winds of change that are blowing across Asia and the world.

Let me begin by framing the conversation around the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which was launched by China in 2013. The BRI is not a geopolitical tool; it is a fundamental reshaping of global development dynamics. Spanning Asia, Africa, and Europe, the BRI aims to create a vast network of infrastructure, connectivity, and economic collaboration that has the potential to redefine the future of countries like Nepal. The Chinese government has already invested over $1.3 trillion in more than 140 countries through the BRI, with projects that cover everything from highways and railways to ports, energy, and telecommunications. These projects are not about charity; they are investments with the power to transform the economies of the nations they touch.

But as we stand here today, Nepal finds itself at a crossroads. Nepal has been an official partner in the BRI since 2017, yet the country’s participation in this monumental initiative has been marred by indecision, political instability, and an illusory commitment to “misshaped neutrality” in the face of pressing choices.

In fact, Nepal’s future economic trajectory hinges on the decision it makes regarding the BRI and its ability to break free from the stagnation that has plagued it for decades.

1. The Politics of Stagnation: How Nepal’s Political Instability Is Holding It Back

The first obstacle Nepal faces is political instability. In the last 15 years, Nepal has cycled through ten governments. Ten! Thatis a staggering number by any standard, and it is a major reason why Nepal has failed to unlock its economic potential. Political change in Nepal is not just about leadership turnover; it is about a complete reset of policy priorities, each government coming in to power with its own agenda, its own vision, and often its own set of contradictions.

This kind of constant turnover has paralyzed development. The policies are never implemented consistently enough to create long-term structural change, and this political instability discourages both domestic and foreign investment, including that from China. Nepal’s inability to focus on sustained economic growth is evident .Look at the country’s GDP growth rate, which is forecast to stagnate at just 2.8% in 2024. This is far below the global average, especially when you consider that countries like Bangladesh (6.5%) and Vietnam (7.1%) are growing at much faster rates.

There is a direct correlation between political instability and economic stagnation. Countries that have embraced long-term strategies, such as Ethiopia and Kenya, have seen their economies grow as a result of stable governance and focused infrastructure investment. For example, Kenya’s Mombasa-Nairobi railway, financed through the BRI ,has cut travel times and boosted trade within the region. In contrast, Nepal, with its unstable political environment, remains stuck in the mud, barely able to implement the most basic of infrastructure projects.

In Nepal, development seems not a priority. People are frustrated and care more about who is in power. The constant policy shifts have left Nepal unable to make the bold decisions necessary to transform its infrastructure, economy, and position on the global stage. This is not just a political issue; it is an existential one. Nepal must choose between continued political paralysis or a bold, unified commitment to development.

2. The Illusion of “Mis-shaped Neutrality”: Nepal’s Geopolitical Paradox

Another key issue that continues to plague Nepal is its so-called “neutrality.” Nepal prides itself on its position as a neutral country, claiming to balance its relationships with China, India, and the united states. However, this so-called neutrality is an illusion—one that is simply untenable in the current geopolitical landscape.

In 2015, Nepal was subjected to a harsh border blockade by India, which cut off the supply of essential goods—fuel, food, and medicine—for several months. This blockade was not just an inconvenience; it was an act of aggression. It revealed the true power dynamics in South Asia: Nepal is caught in a tight grip of its southern neighbor. When it claims that it can remain neutral, it actually lends itself to over-dependence on and manipulation by India. This stance is simply not sustainable in the modern world.

When Nepal engages in neutral diplomacy, it inadvertently subordinates its own interests to its southern neighbor and the extraterritorial superpower. By trying to maintain favorable relations with India, United states and China, Nepal ends up conceding sovereignty to the more aggressive powers. It is important to recognize that this “neutral” stance has not led to favorable outcomes for Nepal. Instead, it has placed the country at the mercy of external forces, leaving Nepal with limited room for strategic maneuver.

Furthermore, Nepal has been hesitant to fully embrace Chinese investment through the BRI, largely due to concerns over Indian opposition. But this is where the geopolitical miscalculation becomes evident. India has maintained an iron grip on Nepal’s foreign policy and trade routes for decades, yet Nepal has remained dependent on India’s goodwill, which is frequently withheld for political reasons.

Meanwhile, the United States, through the Millennium Challenge Corporation  (MCC), has also offered aid to Nepal, but this comes with strings attached—strings that undermine Nepal’s sovereignty. The MCC stipulates that any infrastructure projects funded by the U.S. cannot involve China, limiting Nepal’s ability to leverage the full potential of the BRI. It’s a classic case of aid colonialism—providing funds while imposing restrictions on Nepal’s ability to chart its own course.

3. The Reality of the Belt and Road Initiative: what Nepal can do

It’s crucial to understand that the Belt and Road Initiative is not so me evil scheme to impose Chinese dominance; rather, it is an opportunity for Nepal to take control of its economic future. In fact, the BRI offers Nepal the ability to break free from the dominance of its southern neighbor and become a key player in the global economy. Nepal must recognize that the BRI is not a threat; it is a lifeline.

The“debt trap”narrative surrounding the BRI has been widely misrepresented. It is not Chinese loans that cause countries to fall into debt; it is the mismanagement and lack of transparency in local governance that leads to financial instability. Nepal must avoid the pitfalls of mismanagement and focus on the long-term benefits of strategic infrastructure projects.

Let’s consider some examples. Nepal’s infrastructure is woefully underdeveloped. The country has a road density of just 0.3 km/km²—lower than Afghanistan, a nation that has endured years of war. To put this in perspective, Nepal’s infrastructure needs are far greater than just a few road projects or small-scale projects that are currently on the table. What Nepal needs is a comprehensive, integrated approach to development that focuses on long-term infrastructure projects, energy independence, and connectivity with global markets.

The BRI can provide that. For example, Nepal has significant hydropower potential, with the capacity to generate up to 50,000 MW of electricity. By partnering with China under the BRI, Nepal could not only meet its domestic energy needs but also become a major exporter of clean, renewable energy to neighboring countries like Bangladesh. In fact, Nepal could provide enough electricity to power the entire country of Bangladesh.

Moreover, a rail link between Nepal and China, under the BRI, would transform trade routes, slashing cargo costs by 40% and bypassing India’s blockades. Nepal’s strategic location between China and India gives it a unique advantage, and by leveraging the BRI, it could act as a hub for regional trade and connectivity.

4. A Path Forward: Breaking the Chains of Stagnation

The path forward for Nepal is clear: the country must prioritize long-term development over political short-termism. It must embrace the BRI as an opportunity for growth and diversification, and it must break free from the cycle of political instability and geopolitical manipulation.

You need National Consensus rather than Partisan Fight

Nepal needs to establish a National BRI caretaker Authority, one that is immune from political shifts and focused on the long-term development of the country’s infrastructure. This Authority should be led by professionals—engineers, economists, and development experts—who understand the intricacies of large-scale infrastructure projects. Countries like Ethiopia and Kenya have demonstrated the importance of a centralized authority to execute the BRI efficiently, and Nepal can follow suit.

Energy Independence: Defy the Blockades

Nepal should prioritize the development of its hydropower potential. The Budhi Gandaki Hydropower Project, one of Nepal’s largest planned projects, could provide a much-needed boost to the country’s energy sector. It’s time to stop relying on imports and start exporting power to the region, building a foundation for economic growth that will last for generations.

As the renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs once said: “Development is not a spectator sport. ”Nepal must not sit idly by while other nations forge a head. The time for action is now.

Reject Aid Colonialism

Nepal must move away from Western aid dependency and instead focus on investment-driven growth. This is Chinese experience during the last four decades. The BRI offers the potential to build infrastructure that will actually generate revenue for Nepal, creating a sustainable economic model, without any string attached.

Conclusion: Nepal’s Moment of Reckoning

Nepal’s decision on the BRI is not just an economic one; it is a decision about its future. Nepal stands at a crossroads. It can continue down the path of stagnation, caught in a web of political instability, geopolitical manipulation, and aid dependency, or it can seize the moment and embrace the Belt and Road Initiative as an opportunity, alternative to break free from its historical constraints.

TheBRI is not perfect. No development model is. But it is a pragmatic solution to very real problems. Nepal cannot afford to delay any longer. It must act, decisively, and embrace the future.

As the renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs once said: “Development is not a spectator sport. ”Nepal must not sit idly by while other nations forge a head. The time for action is now.

I want to say to my Nepali friends and colleagues, your people endure 12-hour daily power cuts during dry seasons while you debate abstract “risks of working with China. ” Your farmers haul goods on ox carts while BRI builds 3,000 km/year of African railways. This is not genuine neutrality—it is criminal negligence.

Today’s debate on the BRI should not be about how many Chinese projects to be included. It is Nepal’s last exit from the poverty trap. I would encourage my Nepali friends to assume a more holistic and comprehensive view on the BRI. Please Build the roads, Generate the power, Expel the foreign manipulators. The nine projects you are talking about are just a start—but only if you stop counting and start constructing.

(Yunsong is an Associate Dean in School of International Studies in Sichuan University, Coordinator of  China Center for South Asian Studies and Deputy Director in Institute of South Asian Studies.)