Parliamentary ratification of the $500 million U.S. grant has long been bogged down due to disputes within Nepal`s ruling Communist Party. In accordance with an agreement signed in 2017 between Nepal and the GCC, ratification by Parliament is necessary to implement the programme. “Their recent delegations have suggested that they could withdraw from Nepal instead of amending the agreement,” said a Finance Ministry official on condition of anonymity because he does not have the power to speak to the media. Those in the ruling party also argue that the program is part of the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific strategy to “contain China.” Some also made an exception to a clause in the MCC agreement stipulating that the pact will prevail over existing Nepalese laws. Some of the ruling leaders say that ratification of the U.S. program in its current form violates Nepal`s sovereignty, and they have called for some changes to the agreement. The United States is generally not cautious. She made it clear that the MCC was part of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Many in Nepal therefore view the GCC agreement as a violation of the constitution of Article 51 M of Nepal, which imposes a strong principle of non-alignment on the country. At the initiative of the Nepalese government, an agreement to improve roads and energy infrastructure was signed with the MCC, for which the United States agreed to provide $500 million in grants to the country.

At the time the MCC pact was signed on September 14, 2017, the Government of the Nepal Congress (NC) was in power and the Maoist party at the time (later merging with the Communist Party of Nepal (Communist-Leninist Party) and the Nepal Communist Party was part of the coalition government. The agreement has many asymmetrical qualities. Under Section 7.1, the ICC`s “Nepal`s Priority National Laws” agreement, while Section 5.1 (iii) states that CCC funds cannot be used to violate U.S. law “or U.S. government policy.” But the real controversy is not about the asymmetrical nature of the agreement, but about the Nepalese phobia that U.S. aid is part of the Indopapacific strategy and can be used for military purposes. In a recent interview with the Post Office, a senior Treasury official said the United States had not shown its willingness to change the agreement. Since CMC financial assistance must be approved by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. government expects the same commitment from host countries. That is why most countries ratify the MCC pact through their parliaments.

However, their agreements do not say that in the event of a contraction, the provisions of the pact will take precedence over national laws, according to the expert who previously worked for the MCA. However, it is not confirmed whether Nepal, by the mere ratification of the MCC, would be part of the American military alliance and that it would oppose any third country. The pros and cons of the GCC could have been discussed before the country accepted it. Most skepticism about the MCC seems more favourable to domestic consumption than to realism. Nepal must demonstrate its intelligence, talents and courage to judge whether the MCC is really in the interest of the nation or not. If there were any doubts about this, why did Nepal sign an agreement with the MCC? However, another part of the ruling party, led by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, has defended the pact and wants the current session of the House of Representatives to ratify it. Nepal`s Primary Congress also voted in favour of immediate approval of the agreement.