Two important things to know about the 4th BIMSTEC Summit; One good and one bad

The fourth Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Summit held at Kathmandu, Nepal has concluded and the chairmanship has been handed over to Sri Lanka.

The overall summit was concluded with an 18-point Kathmandu Declaration, which primarily focuses on to abide by and fulfil the initial principals of BIMSTEC. Similarly, the member countries also signed BIMSTEC Grid Inter-connection Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). According to the MoU, the countries will be permitted to establish and inter-connect grids cross country for effective and efficient energy generation and trade. Given the fact that Nepal has such huge potential in Hydroelectricity, this might in fact be a great opportunity for us. If all the ongoing projects are completed in estimated time and start production right away, soon we’ll be producing electricity above our consumption level. So through this MoU we can easily sell our energy to other BIMSTEC countries.

Despite our optimism, we also have to acknowledge the degree to which this MoU will be functional for all and not just few powerful countries. Prior to this, similar agreement was also signed during SAARC summit. The result of which is still to be realized. So far Nepal has done agreement with India and Bangladesh for energy trade, and if this takes the desired effect we’ll be able to sell our electricity as far as Thailand.

The other topic that our representatives should have raised in the summit is the increasing burden of our trade deficit. If we see the table below, we have trade deficit with each of the other countries under BIMSTEC.

So, if the topic of free trade and the alternatives to lower the deficits were brought along then that would have been the real achievement of this Summit for Nepal. However, as sources have mentioned the topic was brought once but didn’t get too much attention. It might on one hand be the result of our representatives’ lack of conviction to push the topic into light and on the other hand might be the other parties’ interest to maintain trade superiority.

The three day summit had caused a lot of trouble for the people residing in the valley, especially in case of transportation. Due to the poor planning and overly-exaggerated priority given to the summit, not just the regular life but people fighting their deaths in Ambulances were also held up.

However, coming down to the point the question remains, was the summit successful and beneficial to Nepal? Was it worth the trouble that, we, as citizens of this country had to go through? And who is going to be the judge of it all?