NC leader and former finance minister Dr Ram Sharan Mahat argued, however, that just signing the bilateral agreement was not enough if the Maoists don´t mend their ways.[break]
Mahat demanded that the prime minister, who is claiming to be giving protection to foreign investment in the country, ensure protection for Nepali citizens also. "The prime minister, who is talking about protecting foreign investment in the country, must answer whether he is ready to protect the property of Nepali citizens," he said. He demanded that the Maoists immediately return property seized during the insurgency to the rightful owners.
"There is nothing to rejoice over the signing if the prime minister reached the agreement just to please New Delhi, but it would really be a welcome development if the Maoists have undergone ideological transformation in a true sense," Mahat said while addressing parliament on Monday. "We want the Maoists to translate it into action."
He recalled that it was none other than Dr Baburam Bhattarai who launched nationwide protests some 20 years ago when the then NC-led government adopted the policy of promoting foreign investment in the country.
He read out clause six of the 40-point demand that Bhattarai submitted to the NC government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba.
"The domination of foreign capital in Nepali industry, business and finance should be stopped". Bhattarai submitted the demand to Deuba before announcing an armed insurgency against the state and going underground.
Mahat said the signing of BIPPA was not in itself a big achievement as claimed by the prime minister. According to him, membership of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank Group and the country´s own Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act were adequate in themselves to ensure protection and promotion of foreign investment.
"I see neither anything to object to in the provisions nor any point in rejoicing over it," Mahat said. "But the main concern is whether or not the Maoists are truly transformed."
Interestingly, Ekraj Bhandari, lawmaker from the prime minister´s own party, objected to the signing of the bilateral agreement. He also said the provisions of MIGA and the country´s other laws were enough for the protection of international investments in the country and signing a bilateral agreement was unnecessary.
"Do we want to treat India as a most-favored nation or what other reason has compelled us to sign the agreement?" Bhandari said.
He also demanded that the bilateral agreement be implemented only after endorsement by two-thirds of parliament. He argued that since the agreement had provisions of national importance and would have long-term impact it needed to be ratified by the House.
Pradeep Gyawali of the other big opposition party, CPN-UML, criticized the prime minister for failing to sign other agreements which should have been priority for Nepal, such as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
He also pointed to vagueness in BIPPA with regard to compensation and cautioned against the possibility of misuse of such a provision at the time of implementation.
The lawmakers made the comments after the prime minister defended BIPPA while briefing parliament about his four-day India visit and the agreement itself.
Bhattarai said it was high time the agreement was signed so as to ensure foreign investment in the country. "On the one hand, we all advocate attracting foreign investment, and on the other we are against signing such an agreement. Isn´t that contradictory in itself?" the prime minister said in parliament.
He said it has also become essential to reduce the yawning trade deficit with India. "Therefore, we need to ponder how to make the agreement more productive instead of opposing it," the prime minister said.
BIPPA´s Article 6
Compensation for losses
Investors of one contracting party whose investments in the territory of the other contracting party suffer losses owing to war or other armed conflict, a state of national emergency or insurrection or riots in the territory of the latter contracting party shall be accorded by the latter contracting party, treatment, as regards restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlement, no less favourable than that it accords to its own investors or to investors of any third state. Resulting payments shall be freely transferable.
Related story
SC quashes writ challenging BIPPA
