Transparency needed in APECF investment

Nepal is in need of serious investments, both domestic and foreign, to buoy its flagging economy up. But that does not mean that we should accept investments that have the potential of harming rather than helping us. We are still not in a position to confidently take sides on the proposed US$3 billion investment by the Asia Pacific Exchange and Cooperation Foundation (APECF) to develop Lumbini but the manner in which events have unfolded since the news about APECF’s plan in Nepal broke in the latter half of June gives us enough room to be skeptical about the intent and the motive behind the project.



The denial by United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Friday that it has not entered into any agreement with APECF to develop Lumbini as was earlier claimed casts the latest doubt on the credibility of the project that was already in the midst of a controversy as many pertinent questions continue to remain unanswered. To begin with, why did Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who as the country learnt only quite recently is the co-chairperson of APECF, had to make secret trips to Malaysia to supposedly take part in the foundation’s meetings? If things were really straight-forward, wouldn’t Dahal have tried to score brownie political points by shouting from the rooftops on how he has been able to secure such a significant investment that has the potential of changing the face of Lumbini and tremendously expanding the scope of the country’s religious tourism industry?



Let us for a moment assume that China through this foundation, which it reportedly backs, is simply trying to expand its soft power and absolve itself of the sins that it committed from 1949-1978 when it was involved in systematically destroying places of worship. But why is it doing it in such a questionable manner through an organization that is itself facing many questions regarding its credibility?



Too many questions that do not have any convincing answers have emerged with regard to the project. In the interest of the nation, those must be answered before the project is allowed to move forward. We are not investment averse. We continue to stick to what we had written soon after the first news about APECF’s proposed plan became public two months earlier: “Our foreign policy should be dictated by reason, not emotions. If such investments help us prosper economically, without compromising on our national interests, we should welcome it.”



The point here is the preservation of our national interests. And to understand whether it is really a well-meaning venture, what we simply need is complete transparency. Considering the colossal size of the proposed investment, nothing less will suffice.

Related story

Investment Board collaborates with KPMG to promote investment p...