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. Tulasi Sitaula, a former government secretary, said the government should have ensured that the United States continued to fund the preparatory work in accordance with the agreement. 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. 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. Prithvi Man Shrestha is a political journalist for the Kathmandu Post that deals with government issues such as corruption and irregularities in the government machine. Before arriving at the Kathmandu Post in 2009, he worked for three years at nepalnews.com and Rising Nepal. The signing of the pact will take place on September 14, 2017 in Washington, D.C., between Nepal and the MCC, in the State Department`s contract room. Finance Minister Gyanendra Bahadur Karki and McC Chief Jonathan Nash have designated the compact agreement. Foreign Minister Gyawali has repeatedly denied that Nepal`s MCC is talking about the IPS. He said there was nothing to fear, as the implementation of projects under the MCC would be guided exclusively by the pact. The Nepalese Congress, under whose leadership the pact was signed for the first time, defends the same position. Congress says the government must abide by the agreement that does not talk about the IPS, regardless of what officials say, even American officials. Congress called on the government to prioritize the pact for the ratification of this house meeting of the House of Representatives and to extend its cooperation in this process. Opposition leaders have even warned that it would be “suicidal” for Nepal if Parliament rejected the pact, as it would have lasting consequences for diplomatic relations between Nepal and the United States.

There are several cases of the United States partially or completely ending compacts for various reasons. The pacts for Madagascar and Mali were completely suspended, while those of Nicaragua and Honduras were partially withdrawn. In Mali, the end of the military coup followed at the end of March. Section 2.7 makes it clear in Section 2.7 that funds cannot be used for the military, but some readers consider Section 6.8, which provides immunity for MCC employees in “all courts in Nepal,” and fear that this could be used for military purposes. There is no doubt that diplomats should continue to enjoy diplomatic immunity, but should immunity be granted for other activities? Isn`t that a violation of Nepal`s sovereignty? Nepal was the first South Asian country to qualify for the pact after completing 16 of the 20 political indicators.