Kathmandu: The US Embassy in Kathmandu reiterated on Wednesday that the State Partnership Program (SPP) is not and has not ever been a security or military alliance. The embassy’s response comes after a number of media outlets on Tuesday and Wednesday published reports claiming that the US is pressuring Nepal to join SPP. The reports are based on the document, which the US Embassy in Kathmandu has rubbished as fake.
(Related: US embassy says the ‘leaked’ document regarding State Partnership Program is fake)
The lawmakers in parliament made reference to the contents of the document to prove their points that the US is pressuring Nepal to sign the SPP agreement. The government ministers had to clarify that no proposal on SPP has ever been received by the government.
Interacting with a group of journalists in Kathmandu on Wednesday, the embassy officials said that the SPP has existed for 25 years worldwide and is recognized as a beneficial bilateral program. “There is no proposed SPP agreement. That is false,” said Charge’ d’Affaires Manual P Micaller, Jr.
According to him, Nepal applied for SPP in 2015 and again in 2017 and the US accepted Nepal’s application in 2019. “Independent of SPP, the US bilateral relationship that has focused on people-to-people connections including student and professional exchanges, diplomatic engagement, military partnership, trade, and common values remains strong,” he said.
During the discussion, Micaller addressed the concerns and questions raised about the SSP and the controversies that the ‘fake’ document has created over the last few days. Here are those questions and his answers:
What is SPP?
The State Partnership Program is an exchange program between an American state’s National Guard and a partner foreign country. The US National Guard domestically supports US first responders in dealing with natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. SPP has existed for over 25 years and includes over 80 partnerships with over 90 countries, the majority of which are not in this region. In the event of natural and other disasters, ranging from hurricanes to earthquakes, floods, and fires, the United States seeks to share the best practices and capabilities of our National Guards—our first-line responders.
Examples of SPP programs include:
• Morocco: The Utah National Guard (UTNG) supports a multinational exercise where the military from both countries develop and advance medical capabilities. The humanitarian mission allows each country’s military to work together to enhance Moroccan civilians’ access to medical care.
• Romania: The Alabama National Guard (ANG) and Romania have strengthened ties through COVID-19 response. In 2020, a Romanian delegation of civilian and military personnel, made up of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) and medical specialists, visited healthcare facilities in Alabama to discuss medical emergency and COVID-19 response.
• Bangladesh: The Oregon National Guard (ORNG) supports the Tiger Lightning Exercise at the Bangladesh Institute of Peace Support Operations Training. Members of the ORNG train alongside their Bangladeshi counterparts on regional crisis response and counter-improvised explosive device/explosive ordnance disposal capabilities.
Is there a military component?
The US National Guard domestically supports US first responders in dealing with natural disasters, such earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. Through SPP, the National Guard has military-to-military cooperation in support of both countries’ security goals by leveraging whole-of-society and government relationships and capabilities. This especially includes a focus on humanitarian and disaster readiness which the National Guard is uniquely trained to address. The ability or inability to respond to disasters is a security issue.
Is SPP a military alliance?
No. SPP is not an alliance of any kind.
Is SPP a China containment tool?
No. SPP has existed for over 25 years and includes over 80 partnerships with over 90 countries, the majority of which are not in this region, and the majority of which began long ago.
Why is the US pressuring Nepal for an SPP?
The United States is not pressuring Nepal. Nepal applied to join SPP twice, first in 2015 and again in 2017, and the US accepted Nepal’s request in 2019. The United States has consistently worked with the Government of Nepal to provide help to people in crisis—most recently during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2015 earthquake. Through the SPP, the United States works with over 90 other countries to share the best practices and capabilities of our National Guards—our first-line responders. SPP can be an effective means of facilitating this type of cooperation.
Is SPP a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy?
SPP is mentioned in Indo-Pacific Strategy Reports, but this post-dates Nepal’s two requests to join SPP, which began in 2015. It is once again important to remember IPS is NOT a military alliance—that’s disinformation.
Why did General Flynn visit now? What happened during his visit?
During the past two years official visits of all kinds, including diplomatic, political, development and military leaders, were significantly curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that travel is normalizing around the world, General Flynn visited Nepal to meet with senior leadership of the government of Nepal and the Nepal Army to discuss the long US-Nepal partnership on humanitarian assistance and disaster management, and to commend Nepal for its strong support for UN Peacekeeping Missions. Throughout our decades-long bilateral relationship, the US has consistently supported Nepal during times of crisis, and in strengthening its disaster preparedness capabilities. General Flynn did discuss the status of SPP with his interlocutors but without pressure and unrelated to any requirement to sign anything. There was nothing handed over. There is no “agreement” to sign. Claims to the contrary are false.
What is the connection of SPP with MCC?
There is no connection whatsoever with MCC. Efforts to link MCC with SPP are dishonest and false.
Who is behind this disinformation then?
We do not know, but it is clearly someone intent on using humanitarian-focused US programs as a means to an end, whether political or strategic.
Comment