Google Groups
Subscribe to nepal-democracy
Email:
Visit this group
Showing posts with label Maoist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maoist. Show all posts

Saturday 4 April 2009

Nepal is main venue of anti-China activities

Chandra Prakash Gajurel
Polit Bureau Member, Nepal Communist Party-Maoist

Chnandra Prakash Gajurel

TGQ1: The Chinese foreign minister recently said that China was ready to safeguard Nepal’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Is it that the country has been pushed to that level?

Gajurel: It is not so at the moment. Nevertheless, the Chinese Ambassadors and Ministers have been talking on that line since long. The Chinese have been saying since long that if there is any sort of attack on Nepal’s sovereignty and geographical integrity, China will be ever ready to support Nepal. China might have told so sensing that of late foreign interference, more so from the immediate neighbor, has increased in Nepal.

China perhaps told these things upon studying the Nepali scenario as it stood today.

From when such interferences began to your knowledge?

Gajurel: The unequal treaties that we have signed with immediate neighbor in itself tantamount to interference. But why this issue took a different dimension in these days is because only last Thursday, the parliament members raised the issue that at 54 different places Nepal’s lands have been encroached upon by the other side. We can call such acts as interference or even encroachment. Of the total 54 places where Nepalese lands have been illegally occupied, there are two such places wherein a sizeable chunk of our lands have been already amalgamated by the other side.

Well, what must be kept in mind is that there has been interference in Nepal’s politics from that side and it has also been seen that the other side pushes its instructions every now and then. Isn’t it?

TGQ2: Has the time already come to invite third country to resolve Nepal-India border dispute?

Gajurel: No! It is not that. The time has not come yet. We must resolve our issues bilaterally.

But your Home Minister recently sought the Chinese support to resolve the Kalapani land dispute with India?

Gajurel: We have felt that the Indian interests in Nepal have exponentially gone up in these days. We, however, don’t want to tease India in this regard and come up as a different sort of nationalists. This would not be logical. Neither we want to “use” India. But the time has come that we must put the entire Nepali perspective in a positive and forceful manner for the perusal of the Indian government.

TGQ3: Why it is that we always raise the issue of 1950 treaty but shelve the matter every time. What could be the reason?

Gajurel: This is a paradox. All happen to raise this issue but shelve it sine die.

At least, I could raise this issue at a New Delhi seminar recently. Many Indians told me that at least you put your things straight. To tell you frankly, the 1950 Treaty has become a “burden” for the Indian establishment as well. Neither it can abandon the treaty nor can it carry on with it.

The treaty is in itself a faulty one in that it has no provision of affecting a review on a timely basis. Either you scrap it or bear with it. This is the position.

When we talk of scrapping the treaty, India gets irritated. India maintains that how come Nepal got the strength to challenge the Indian establishment? The other side presumes that it should be China behind such Nepali strength?

Be that as it may, the treaty as such has already become a “heavy” burden both for Nepal and India to put it plainly.

TGQ4: Two of your ministers recently sneaked into the Chinese territory without informing the government. Doesn’t this event force one to raise questions as regards the motive of such a secret visit?

Gajurel: This is impossible. No ministers can do that. I too went to Lhasa but did not inform the party. I went to Lhasa without introducing myself to avoid making an issue out of the visit.

However, while crossing half of the bridge, one Chinese police officer recognized me and demanded certain documents. Luckily, the party unit too was present there which facilitated my easy entrance into Khasa.

But it was a case associated with the government ministers? Wasn’t it?

Gajurel: Why to make a mountain out of a mole? Has it been written any where that it would be a crime if one stepped into the Chinese land? It would have been a different matter if some high Chinese officials had arrived there and met with the Nepalese ministers. But it was not so then why to blow up the issue out of proportion?

TGQ5: There is the growing fear among the population that Nepal could turn up some time soon into Yugoslavia and Haiti if India, the US and China are allowed to play in Nepal?

Gajurel: If we talk of the recent days activities, Kathmandu has become the venue for initiating anti-Tibet activities. While China was busy with its Olympic games, each and every day there could be seen anti-China activities. The anti-China activities went to the extent that some enthusiasts even tried to climb the Nepali mountains wearing “Free-Tibet” vests.

The Dalai Lama lives in Dharmashala, India. However, there were no such protests against China in India. Now it has been an established fact that the Dalai men came down to Kathmandu and encouraged the anti-China protests during that time. It became evidently clear that some one tried to make Nepal their play ground.

If China senses a threat to its security, it will not remain as a mere onlooker. The talk of Yugoslavia is thus not in the talk for nothing.

2008-12-09 16:11:59
Source: Telegraphnepal.com.np

The day of the generals

SHYAM K.C. While presenting his party's vision of a new constitution last week, the Maoist party chairman told a Constituent Assembly (CA) committee that his party was for multi-party democracy and that it was committed to generally accepted human rights norms. As if to illustrate the sincerity of their leaders' pledge, Maoist-aligned groups took out demonstrations in different parts of the city to protest against the Supreme Court order regarding the tenure extension of some senior army officers. Similar protests by the Maoists were reported on Thursday in Nepalgunj. (The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister said that the judiciary and the army stood in the way of “democratisation”, obviously meaning that kangaroo courts and the Maoist-aligned army should replace the existing judiciary and the national army.)
The Maoist protestors must have been incensed by the court's audacity to overrule a decision taken by a government elected by the people. After all, can't a government elected by the people do what it deems fit or proper or right? In most cases, decisions free of corruption and emotional underpinnings will ensure that the rights of the people are safeguarded at all times, and that no government decision infringes on the rights of the citizens, whether such citizens are employed by the government, private firms or corporations.

Did the government break an established precedent when it refused to extend the term of office of six brigadiers?
Not long ago, when a long-term lease on a piece of land owned by Nepal Industrial Development Corporation (NIDC) and used by a five-star hotel as an approach road ran out, NIDC wanted to reclaim possession of the land and close the road. The Supreme Court was moved by aggrieved parties, and the court ruled that the approach road should continue to be used as usual. Did not NIDC that owned the land have any right? Why did the court rule against the legitimate owner of the land? (There is a similar case about a closed path and road to the east of Sundhara. The Employees Provident Fund took possession of the land, and those trying to protect the Sundhara area have yet to move the court to legally open up the closed footpath and road. Surely, if a property used as a road for 25 years can continue to be used as a road, then the path and road used by the common people for over 100 years deserves at least the same treatment, if not more.)
The Supreme Court has had the distinction of upholding the basic rights of the people who have to face the colossal giant called the government. This is true not only in the post-1990 period but also during the panchayat era when the government, probably dissatisfied with the political leanings of some of its employees, had served them notice terminating their service. Some of these notices were upheld, but in many cases where the termination was not in accordance with the prevailing laws, rules, regulations and precedents, the employees had come out victorious against the all-powerful government. If such things can happen during the iron rule of the panchayat era, is there any plausible reason as to why this cannot or should not happen in a liberal democracy led by the most liberal of liberals, the Maoists?
The Maoist-led government has faced a series of reverses at the apex court. A media report said that the court ruled against the government in as many as six different but major cases. This may be due to the fact, as the prime minister admitted while addressing the nation sometime ago, that the Maoists and their coalition partners were not as experienced in governing as some other parties, like the Nepali Congress. But it must not be forgotten that the apex in any country is the last hope of individual citizens against the wilful imposition of the powerful on the weaker sections of the populace.
An individual waging battle against a powerful government is unthinkable, but the apex court in a democratic country makes the unthinkable possible. The court is also the last resort for those in the military who believe that they have been wronged by the military or by the government. The army and police personnel also have individual rights like any of us. The apex court sees to it that the individual, no matter how weak, gets his or her justice and that the government, simply because it is rich (thanks to taxpayers' money) and powerful (thanks to the army and police and other security agencies) cannot do what it wants throwing all accepted democratic norms and practices to the winds.
In a democracy as opposed to monocracy (or even mob rule, if you will), decisions are not taken based on personal likes and dislikes nor out of personal grudges. But there are rulers who do so, and the one place where the victims can be protected against their whimsical decisions is a court of law. Whether true or not, reports have been in the air for some time that the defence minister and the army chief do not see eye to eye on many issues, and that the government decision not to extend the terms of office of six brigadiers stemmed from this decision. But if the government took the decision throwing precedents to the winds and on the basis of personal likes and dislikes of individuals, such a decision certainly made the day for the generals.

Posted on: 2009-03-29 22:53:48



Friday 3 April 2009

Unlike Indians the Chinese keep up with their words and promises

Mohan Baidya Pokharel ‘KIRAN’
Senior Leader, United Maoist Party

On Threat of A counter Revolution

The people want to see a complete change. There are nevertheless, great challenges ahead of us in our fight for the preservation of our nationalism and total freedom. Mainly, the threats are emerging from the reactionary camps and foreign forces. In this situation, it is still not very clear if the people will emerge as victor. Thus we see that the threat of a counter revolution is still looming large. We are not afraid of the prevailing situation, I think it is rather, we have analyzed the situation quite well. And, also we are completely aware of the ongoing and possible conspiracies against us. We believe that the possibility of a counter revolution remain intact until we draft the new constitution. To clarify more, there is also the presence of reactionary forces in the Constituent Assembly who are conspiring through various means.

On Nepali Congress

The NC has both positive and negative sides. To stand against the monarchy and the stand for republic declaration is the positive part of the NC. But the major question where will the NC stand in the process of drafting the new constitution? In the Ethnic, Gender and Regional issues where will the NC stand, it will perhaps determine the inclination of the NC? To tell you frankly, over the issues of Nationalism and Republic, NC has been still stuck with the status quoist mindset. Surfacially, the NC also seems to be democratic outfit but internally it is not so. Thus we have been watching it very carefully.

On Foreign Interference and India

Clearly, the foreign interference is at an all time high. However, it is completely a false allegation that we came into the peace process with the foreign support. There was the Indian support in the Peoples uprising, there were other forms of support as well. Altogether, it does not and should not mean that we have no moral to raise the issues of national interest now.

There has been the tradition that Nepali politicos reach agreements in New Delhi. The 2007 B.S. agreement was reached in New Delhi. However, the 12-Point Agreement reached between the Seven Parties and the Maoists in New Delhi was made in the interest of Nepal itself but not in the interest of New Delhi.

Nevertheless, now, India is doing all it can to extract “compound interest” out of the 12-Points Agreements made in New Delhi. It is also visible.

Security wise, relation with neighbors is based on mutual trust. One must respect the other. The relationship is based on certain values. But, India has been adopting different principles. If our identity is threatened we will not remain silent. This is it. We must raise the issue of abrogating all the past unequal treaties with India including that of 1950 Treaty. Similarly, issues of land occupation in Susta, Kalapani, Pashupatinagar must also be raised. In the issues of Citizenship, water-resources and Security—we must stop abiding by the long drawn Indian strategy.

The world has changed lot, India must thus also revise its strategy and sign treaties with Nepal on equal basis. We want to have good relations with India but that relation must remain free from coercion.

On Strong ties with China, fears in India

Unlike Indians, the Chinese, on the other hand, keep up with their words and promises. The Chinese policy of non-interference is well practiced even as of today. Whereas the Indians have been using the transitional period in Nepal for their benefit, occupying our lands and unnecessarily interfering in our exclusive affairs. The Chinese would never do that. China is clear in its intent whereas India is still unclear.

On Broader Democratic Alliance

Our administration is set with either the erstwhile Panchayati or multi-party period mindset. Old mindset is still prevalent in our administration. We still practice old laws and regulations. However, the Maoists are the ones who advocate in favor of building new structure by demolishing the old redundant ones. Basically, this is what the people also want from us. But, we have been trapped by those plagued with old mindset and we have been paralyzed. Look at the difficulty, we have to continue with the old setup, yet have to bring something new as well. Unless we remove the old, how can we build a new one? We must need a breakthrough at this point. We are searching for the path where we can push our agenda. The people have sacrificed their blood for change but not to retract.

On Performances of Government

In reality, we are also not satisfied. There are various reason for this, however, it is also not that the government has already tied its hands and sitting in an idle mood. We are doing our best to make the government becoming more effective as demanded by the people at large. But, the UML- our partner, is taking on the turtle stance.

But, since we are already in government, the possibilities are either we fail or we succeed. Let me guarantee, we will not fail. And, it is not that we have to stick to power for long, we can take on the road to yet another revolution. If we can’t bring changes while being in the government, we will adopt revolutionary measures to achieve our set goals and objectives.

On whether Mohan Baidya has surrendered to Prachanda?

I have not surrendered to any one, Prachanda is our party boss thus I respect him. On ideological grounds, I have never surrendered. We always move ahead holding healthy debates and discussions. We have already devised our new strategies to run the party affairs. We did not limit ourselves to the “Democratic Republic”, we took the line to establish typical kind of Democratic Republican order. We favor a Peoples’ Federal Democratic National Republic. While adopting the line, no one has been defeated, the party has won. The People’s desire has been fulfilled.

We want our form of republican order immediately. The old model of republic can not address the problem of the people but only the peoples’ republic can which is what is our ultimate goal.

(Dristi Vernacular Weekly, 17 March 2009)


Tuesday 22 May 2007

PM Koirala tells Maoist top brass to halt YCL activities

KATHMANDU, May 22 - Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala Tuesday reiterated that the already overdue eight-party meeting could not take place until the Maoist wing Young Communist League (YCL) changes its ways. In a meeting with Maoist leadership this morning, the PM said that the YCL's activities were becoming increasingly unruly and maintained that the top level meet could not begin until the league mends its ways. Talking to media persons after the two-hour long meeting with the PM government spokesperson and Maoist Minister for Information and Communication Krishna Bahadur Mahara said that the PM had urged the Maoists to halt the YCL activities and see through the implementation of the peace accord honestly.
The Maoist side including chairman Prachanda had sought the PM's attention towards the growing confusion in the nation because of the uncertainty surrounding the Constituent Assembly (CA) polls and urged the latter to call an eight party meet immediately. The Maoists also asked the government to immediately release funds as per yesterday's government ratification of Maoist benefits and construction of houses for the combatants. Mahara informed that the meeting had also discussed the second phase of the UN-monitored PLA verification. Besides Prachanda, another top Maoist leader Babu Ram Bhattarai was also present during the meeting.
Source: The Kathmandu Post, May 22, 2007

Maoists to continue their struggle for republic: Bhattarai

Kathmandu, May 20: Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, the second in command in the Maoist party, on Sunday reiterated the party's demand for declaring Nepal a republic. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) will continue its struggle through the streets, the parliament and the government until the country is declared a republic, Bhattarai said while addressing a programme organised by the former inmates of the Nepal Army.The Maoists would not pull an inch back from their demand for a republic, Bhattarai was quoted by Nepalnews as saying.
The ruling coalition of eight-political parties had earlier decided that the Constituent Assembly in its first sitting would decide the fate of the monarchy.Since the Election Commission has expressed its inability to hold Constituent Assembly polls on the scheduled date of June 20, the parties have been undecided on new date for holding the elections.Bhattarai's statement came amid reports that the Maoists were planning a nationwide agitation in protest against the government's failure to implement the agreement reached on the upkeep of People's Liberation Army (PLA) and management of cantonments.
Maoists can resolve Terai problem in two weeks: Prachanda
Kathmandu, May 20: Nepal Maoist chairman Prachanda has said that his party can resolve the problems in the Terai region bordering India within 15 days, blaming the pro-palace and Hindu extremists for the disruptive activities aimed at derailling the Constituent Assembly polls. "If the government gives us the responsibility based on an understanding, that is not a difficult task," Prachanda said, adding that he had already requested the Prime Minister for such a responsibility. Prachanda said that pro-palace and feudal elements and Hindu extremists were engaged in violent and disruptive activities in Terai to derail Constituent Assembly polls.
The Maoist leader also emphasised the need to deal properly with India in order to resolve Terai problem. "The traditional spineless leadership cannot properly secure the nation and people. Without appropriately dealing with New Delhi, Terai problem cannot be resolved. In changed circumstance, one should also be able to present oneself in tough manner," Prachanda said. The top Maoist leader said he will employ both negotiation and retaliation to tackle the unrest in Terai. "We know Goit, Jwala Singh very well. They were with us for four-five years. We know how to tackle them, which the Congress doesn`t know. By understanding their psychology we can do both negotiate or retaliate," said Prachanda while interacting with mediapersons yesterday.
The leaders of two factions of Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), Jai Krishna Goit and Jwala Singh were previously associated with the Maoists. Likewise, president of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) Upendra Yadav, too, was a Maoist leader in the past. The JMM and MJF along with other groups in the Terai plains are agitating for greater political and economic rights for the region.
Source: Nepalnews, May 21, 2007


Nepal poll delay may cause trouble

Indrani Bagchi
NEW DELHI: The delay in announcement of dates for constituent Assembly elections in Nepal may make it easier for the Maoists to go back to their wild ways. The Koirala government is hedging on declaring the elections, which is key to establishment of a more democratic Nepal. This has given Maoists the opening to turn the tables on the government. In this, the Maoists have help from the Left, but the seven-party alliance is still looking for ways to give the monarchy a toehold in any future arrangement. According to sources, this is rooted in the fact that many in the interim Nepalese government fear elections. While India is trying to push the government towards a decision, it's still willing to let the government look for ways to give the discredited monarchy some space.
It's not going down well with the Maoists, whose agitation on conditions of the militias' camps are a sign of deeper dissatisfaction. Meanwhile, the younger Maoists, many members of the Youth Communist League, have returned to looting and extortion in the provinces. In fact, as things are turning out, the onus of keeping the Maoists on the straight and narrow path belongs to the seven-party alliance (excluding the Maoists). The Maoists will be good only as long as the others are playing by the rules. This, said sources here observing developments in Nepal, is both good and bad. Good, because it keeps the democratic government on its toes and prevents it from doing the typical South Asian thing of promising governance and rarely delivering. But, bad, because it could, given the Maoists' past record, give them an inordinate handle on the government.
It's a concern shared by international conflict-resolution groups like the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG). In its report, ICG says that while Nepal's Maoists have accepted multi-party democracy and have lost their appetite for all-out war, they could still resort to physical confrontation if the peace process stagnates. A year after King Gyanendra was forced out, Maoists were in the government. The compromise from their military stance has brought them benefits and power of being in legitimate control. These advantages need to percolate down to cadres in the provinces, many of whom have given up their arms. This is where, say sources in India, the Maoist leaders bear the responsibility of managing expectations and explaining the democratic process to cadres more comfortable with the gun. "Making the political process work is up to other actors as much as the Maoists," says Rhoderick Chalmers of ICG. "If the mainstream parties are committed to the peace agreement and keep their side of the bargain, Maoist leaders will find it much easier to persuade their followers that compromise is the best way forward."
Source: The Times of India, May 21, 2007

Maoist-Nepal opposition to hold fresh talks in Delhi

Nepal's Maoist guerrillas and opposition parties are in the process of holding fresh talks in New Delhi, the kingdom's private media reported on Tuesday. A senior Maoist leader, Agni Sapkota, has confirmed that leaders of seven opposition parties and the outlawed Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) would hold fresh parleys in New Delhi to review the loose alliance between them, the Himalayan Times daily reported. Some senior leaders of two major opposition parties, the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist, are already in the Indian capital, the Kathmandu Post daily said.
If true, this would be the sequel to a reported secret meeting held between the two top leaders of the Maoists and leaders of the opposition front of seven parties in New Delhi late last year.
The secret meeting ended with both sides agreeing to a 12-point agreement that includes the Maoists pledging not to attack political workers and unarmed people and allowing people displaced by the 10-year insurgency to return home. The secret understanding, when it was made public, drew mixed reactions.
It was flayed by Nepal's government headed by King Gyanendra, which came down heavily on the opposition parties as well as the Indian government, saying they were abetting terrorist activities. While most of the international community as well as the United Nations welcomed the pact as a step towards bringing the rebels to the political mainstream, it was however also criticised by the US ambassador to Nepal, who calls it a ploy by the Maoists to exploit the parliamentary parties and capture power.
A fresh round of talks between the Maoists and opposition leaders on Indian soil would newly vex Nepal that accuses New Delhi of harbouring double standards on terrorism. Last year, the understanding between the rebels and the parties resulted in the former extending a unilateral truce called by them. With the outlaws having called a weeklong blockade of Kathmandu valley from March 14, to be followed by an indefinite nationwide shutdown from April 3, the parties have been urging a re-think.
Source: The Hindustan Times, March 7, 2007

Nepal's Government Agrees to Pay Maoist Fighters in Camps

Liam Cochrane
Nepal's government has agreed to begin making monthly payments to Maoist former rebels now living in U.N.-supervised camps. In return, the Maoists will allow the United Nations to resume efforts to verify the former fighters' identities, and check for child soldiers in the camps. Liam Cochrane reports from Kathmandu.
For seven months the former fighters of Nepal's Maoist party have stayed at 28 camps across the country, as part of a peace deal made last year.
Under the deal the Maoists agreed to abandon their armed rebellion and join an interim government and parliament.
The United Nations has registered more than 31,000 Maoist fighters, but has yet to verify that all troops are over 18 years old. It also wants to check to be sure new fighters were not recruited after the peace process began.
Last month, the Maoists blocked U.N. verification until conditions were improved in the camps and salaries were paid to their fighters.
Nepal's Cabinet decided Monday to give a monthly allowance, equal to $46, for each Maoist fighter in the camps, which are also known as cantonments.
"I think we have solved a major problem with cantonments," said Krishna Bahadur Mahara, the spokesman for the government and also a senior Maoist leader.
Mahara said the monthly payments would be given to all 31,000 Maoists currently in the camps, not just those verified by the U.N. to be legitimate soldiers.
The Cabinet decision on allowances could mean a breakthrough for the U.N. verification process - a key part of last November's peace deal.
"UNMIN has been ready to do this process now for the last couple of months, so this would be very good news and we would seek to meet with the Maoist leadership very soon so that we can iron out the details and commence that process," said Kieran Dwyer, the spokesman for the U.N. Mission in Nepal.
The United Nations says it can begin verification within days. Final arrangements must first be cleared by the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee, a body made up of representatives from the U.N., Nepal government and Maoist army.
Source: Global Security.Org, May 21, 2007

Party Unity : Ideological Basis A Must

Yuba Nath Lamsal
The recent remarks of the Maoist chairman Prachanda's on the possible unity among the leftist forces have sent quick and serious ripples in the Nepali political spectrum. Some centrist and rightist political groups are busy in readjustment, realignment and polarization following the Maoist supremo's remarks which was later echoed by CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal. CounterThe two factions of the Nepali Congress are more seriously doing groundwork for the unification. Similarly, the chairman of the Rastriya Janasakti Party Surya Bahadur Thapa, immediately after returning from the Delhi sojourn, hinted the need for forging a "democratic alliance" to counter the left forces.The talk of the left unity has, of course, created paranoia in the rightist camp. It is because the leftist parties dominate the interim parliament and, if the constituent assembly polls are held on the united platform, there is a strong likelihood of left parties sweeping the elections. Political parties are assets in the multi-party democracy. There must be different political parties on ideological ground. At present, three political forces are representing different ideologies and these three forces are dominating Nepali politics.
However, all of these forces are divided and fragmented. Nepali Congress represents the centrist ideology with democratic socialism as its official document, although in practice it has been promoting capitalism and Westminster type of democracy. The Nepali Congress was the only party that had been representing the centrist politics for more than five decade. As the Nepali Congress remained united as the only centrist party, it dominated Nepali politics and remained in power more than any other political force in the post 1990 political era. But it was divided four years ago as a faction led by its Sher Bahadur Deuba broke the relation with the mother party and formed a new group called Nepali Congress (Democratic) party.The Nepali Congress, right from its inception, championed and fought for multi-party political system, political freedom, human rights and open society. For its unflinching faith in multi-party democracy, the western countries supported the Nepali Congress as the only democratic force in Nepal. But much change has taken place in Nepali politics over the years. All other political forces have come up embracing multi-party democracy and open society more vocally and vibrantly.
However, the western countries still view Nepali politics and political parties with the same old eyes. The leftists are strong in Nepal. If all the leftist parties were combined, they are in majority. But Nepali communists are always divided and fragmented. As a result, they always remained in opposition. At present, more than a dozen communist parties exist in Nepal and each party claims to be the genuine representative of the poor and downtrodden people. Now CPN-Maoist and CPN-UML are the strong and mainstream leftist forces in Nepal. They have equal number of seats in the interim parliament and equal share in the cabinet. The difference between the two is that CPN-UML was established as a second largest force through the verdict of people in the last general election. CPN-Maoist has been established as a force through the armed revolution, and it has recently joined peaceful and competitive politics.
In terms of popular verdict, it is yet to be tested. The rightist force is also in existence in Nepal. This force, too, is fragmented. The monarchy and feudal system is its ideological base and support. Since the monarchy, the patron of feudalism, is on the verge of crumbling, the rightist force is seeking a new ideological ground and tactics for its survival and existence. It is trying to create a new political alignment so that its existence and identity would remain intact. For more than three-decade during the king's absolute regime called the Panchayat system, this palace pampered rightist force enjoyed political power summarily suppressing the people's fundamental rights and party activities. Strangely, these rightist forces are trying to portray themselves as the democratic force and forging an alliance with the Nepali Congress to counter the rising left force in Nepal. The two factions of the Nepali Congress advocate the same ideology and political and economic programme. Both the factions revere BP Koirala as their source of inspiration. Similarly, all the communist parties believe in Marxism, Leninism and Maoism.
All of them revere Marx, Lenin and Mao as their international leaders and source of inspiration. The rightist parties support he monarchy and feudalism. Although some of them have lately spoken of a republican set up, it is their tactical move to survive in the changed political context and serve their long-term goal and interest. In a multi-party democracy, parties with similar ideology and programmes should not remain divided and fragmented. The parties should be created and united on the basis of ideological basis. If the alignment and polorisation is just for power devoid of ideological basis, the unity would not last long. Such alignment among the differing ideological bases would be disastrous for themselves in the long-run. It would create a crowd of visionless and opportunist people instead of a party with committed and dedicated cadres. We have a bitter experience of the past. After the 1990 political change, the major political, parties especially the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, welcomed everyone, including those who had been tainted in corruption and misuse of power during the Panchayat regime.
These people entered the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML with a design to defame and damage the image of the parties. They were, to a large degree, successful in their mission. When king Gyanendra took over power, these people jumped into the royal camp. The political parties did not understand this design. Now the rightist elements are talking of a 'new democratic alliance', which could be another plot to damage the parties. Moreover, there should not be any paranoia among other political forces as the Nepali communist parties can never be united. The history is witness that Nepali communists have never learnt lesson from the past and they will prefer to remain in a small groups rather than in creating a strong and united party.
Caution
The Jana Andolan II succeeded because of the unity of the eight parties. The mission of the Jana Andolan II has not been over. The mission would be over only after the election to a constituent assembly. Thus, the unity among the eight parties must remain intact until the election to a constituent assembly. The move for a new equation excluding the leftist force could be a conspiracy to derail the ongoing political and peace process. We can easily imagine who could benefit if the present political process was derailed. The political parties especially the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoists need to be extra cautious in this present scenario.
Source: The Rising Nepal, May 22, 2007

Monday 21 May 2007

Maoist commander warns of protests

KATHMANDU, May 20: Deputy Commander of the CPN-Maoist's army Barsaman Pun (Ananta) Sunday warned of agitation from tomorrow if the eight political parties and the government did not solve the problems of cantonments and fix a date for the constituent assembly election.

"We will be forced to go for agitation, as the government did not work according to the agreement for managing the Maoist cantonments," Ananta said at the Reporters Club Nepal. The movement will be peaceful with the aim of establishing republic in the country, he informed. Nabindra Raj Joshi of NC (Democratic) said that the activities of the YCL had created obstacles for holding CA elections. "Nobody has right to hold law in their hands."

Chandra Bhandary of Nepali Congress (NC) said that all youths irrespective of their ideology should join hands for holding CA polls. Political analyst Dr. Surendra KC said that that several other organisations like the YCL might emerge if activities of the YCL were not controlled in time. "The activities of the YCL will bring shame and ill-repute to the Maoists themselves," he added.

General Secretary of Democratic Youth Association Indra Lal Sapkota said the youths were ready to extend support to stop all kinds of corruption, but all their activities comply with the law.

The state mechanism should be activated to stop all kind of crimes and activities like those of the YCL, he added. Vice president of Nepal Tarun Dal Mahendra Yadhav said that the all activities of the YCL should immediately be stopped as they were acting against the existing laws and their activities were detrimental in maintaining law and order.

However, president of the YCL Ganeshman Pun (Rasmi) tried to defend that their activities were directed towards controlling corruption and crimes that prevail in the state of transition.

Valley in-charge of the YCL Sagar said that the YCL' s activities would be continued as they were directed towards corrupt ones and smugglers.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 20, 2007

State of the nation: Where are we headed for?

Ajit N S Thapa

It has been over a year since Jana Andolan II forced King Gyanendra to hand power back to the seven-party alliance (SPA) through the restoration of the dissolved House of Representatives. People had great expectation that the nation would have permanent peace, they could live with a sense of security and that full democracy would prevail through holding of free and fair
Constituent Assembly (CA) polls. However, these hopes have been dashed.

The nation is bleeding with a rise in the level of violence and vandalism committed both by the Young Communist League (YCL) and the Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), who have raised arms demanding self-rule and better deal for the Tarai people. Furthermore, diverse groups such as Janajatis, Chure-Bhawar and others are demanding proper representation and autonomy and have launched protest programmes such as bandhs and strikes, which have crippled the economy. Though the Maoists are now in both the interim parliament and the government as per the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the SPA and the Maoists, they are unable to stop YCL cadres from taking law in their own hands.

The Maoist affiliated Tarai Mukti Morcha is also creating havoc in Far Western Nepal, attacking CDO offices in Dhangadi and Mahendranagar and seriously injuring the assistant CDO in Dhangadi. The JTMM (both Goit and Jwala Singh factions) attack each other regularly and recently. The Goit faction murdered Nava Raj Bista, an engineer working in Siraha and kidnapped and subsequently released another senior engineer, Murali Ranjitkar. These actions are meant to send a strong signal that the Tarai is only for the Tarai people. The nation is going through a rapid process of disintegration with the government standing by as a silent spectator. The Home Ministry seems to be content with giving condolences to the families of the deceased instead of taking measures to control criminal activities.

The Election Commission has expressed its inability to conduct the CA polls on the stipulated date of June 20. The government has not been able to announce a fresh election date but its constituents are busy blaming each other, as well as regressive elements and foreign intervention, for the delay. The Maoists have announced that since the CA polls will not be held on time, they will launch a nationwide movement from the streets and the parliament to declare Nepal a republic. This is totally against the CPA wherein it was clearly agreed that the first meeting of the elected CA would decide on the monarchy’s fate. The Maoists have not only started street agitation but have also registered a motion in the parliament with the apparent backing of 15 lakh pro-republic signatures demanding that the House declare Nepal a Republic.
In the case of a referendum, people might opt for a republic, especially as the King squandered the legitimacy of monarchy in an ill-advised and unwarranted act of brinkmanship by taking on direct control of state power against the spirit of the Constitution. In a democracy, the process of decision-making is more important than even obtaining correct results. The Maoists might be right in judging the predilection of the people but they must exercise due process to achieve the end result. If they are not happy with the CPA regarding the process to decide on the fate of monarchy, they could re-negotiate with the SPA to hold a referendum, a stand consistently taken by the CPN-UML. It is also regrettable that the Maoists have not yet returned the land and properties of the displaced people.

Decision-making process within the EPA is not holistic, but fragmented and piecemeal. Such an ad hoc approach has resulted in hurried amendments to the interim constitution. The demands for proportional representation, autonomy within a federal system and a fair deal to the Tarai people demanded by the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, JTMM and strongly backed by all Tarai MPs across party lines have not been adequately addressed. Similar demands have been made by the Janajatis who have called for a national political conference.

The government has appealed for calm among the agitating parties and has announced that it will resolve outstanding grievances through dialogue and towards this end has formed a peace committee under the leadership of the minister for peace and reconstruction. However, no meaningful negotiations have commenced so far as both the Tarai people and Janajatis feel that the government has not yet created a conducive environment for meaningful dialogue. In this light, it is clear that the nation is going through a harrowing period. There is a need for national understanding and cooperation to extricate the nation from the present quagmire. Towards this end, the eight parties would do well to take stock of the situation and seek cooperation of other parties, civil society, religious and professional bodies to build a New Nepal.

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 21, 2007

Saturday 19 May 2007

Nepali Revolution and International Relations

John Mage
A revolutionary civil war in Nepal ceased de facto with the popular triumph over King Gyanendra in April 2006, and de jure with the peace agreement reached in November 2006. The Royal Nepal Army ("RNA") now calls itself the Nepal Army, and the peace agreement requires its democratization under the authority of the new government that includes the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). As of the date of writing this has not yet occurred and the Nepal Army is still commanded by those, primarily of the quite literally feudal elite, who -- with U. S. "advisers" -- had pursued the civil war with lawless brutality and impunity. Yet it is important not to underestimate the extent of the revolutionary changes in Nepal. Today both Nepal Army and the revolutionary armed forces (the People's Liberation Army or "PLA") are given in substance equal status under a peace agreement negotiated by the Nepalis themselves, and administered with the assistance of the United Nations.
In the period following the June 1, 2001 massacre of the Nepali Royal Family, the People's War begun on February 13, 1996 by the underground CPN(M) moved from a regional insurgency in which local guerrilla forces battled police units but did not fight the RNA to a full-fledged revolutionary civil war. After the murder of King Birendra and his immediate family, the RNA was deployed against a mass-based revolutionary force that emerged nationwide, in control of substantial territory, and with a formally organized army, the PLA. The question was thus posed whether the contenders would be treated in practice as equals in the international arena.1
After "9/11" the United States intervened militarily in Nepal and sought to brand the revolutionaries as "terrorists" -- denying them not only legitimacy but (in the U.S. view) placing them outside the scope of universally recognized international law relating to armed conflict. The years since 2004 have seen the gradual acceptance by Nepal's neighbors of the legitimacy of the revolutionaries; the process corresponds to their gradual abandonment of the "terrorist" terminology. Maoists now participate in the government of Nepal and the United States alone in the world continues to call the CPN(M) "terrorists." Though manifest dangers remain, these developments constitute a vigorous reassertion of Nepal's independence in the face of foreign intervention in its affairs.
Entrance of the United States into Nepali Affairs: the Tibetan "Khampa" Guerrillas
Prithvi Narayan Shah (1723-1775), founder of the Nepali state unified under his rule in 1769, famously compared Nepal's geopolitical situation to a "yam" balanced "between two boulders." Nepal's history has justified this view: when China is weak Nepal has come under such overwhelming influence from India as to put its independence in question. During the century from 1842 to 1945, when Chinese unity and power collapsed, Nepal's international relations fell wholly under Indo-British control. The only foreign representative permitted in Kathmandu was the British resident. After independence the new Indian regime attempted with mixed success to assert the pre-existing Indo-British domination over Nepal. India imposed an unequal treaty upon Nepal in 1950, and for more than six years in the 1950s there was an Indian "military mission" ensconced in Kathmandu. But as the strength of revolutionary China grew, the room for Nepali initiative increased. By 1955 diplomatic relations were resumed with China, and thereafter Nepal joined the United Nations, and diplomatic missions were exchanged with the United States and the USSR.
In 1959 China reasserted its control in Nepal's neighbor Tibet, and the Dalai Lama fled from Tibet to a CIA-subsidized base of operations in India. In December 1960 Nepal's King Mahendra (1955-1972) staged a coup, dismissed the parliamentary government headed by Nepal Congress leader B.P. Koirala, and subsequently instituted a "partyless Panchayat" regime dominated by the Palace. India supported the deposed Nepal Congress leaders, and protested strongly when Mahendra proposed to China the construction of a motorable road linking Kathmandu and Tibet. In the fall of 1962 New Delhi imposed a blockade on landlocked Nepal. But very shortly thereafter the Border War with China broke out, and India -- desperate at the swift Chinese success and unwilling to confront Nepal as well -- terminated the blockade. The conflict with China brought India to seek assistance from the United States, then "Red" China's foremost enemy.
The United States is far from Nepal, has insignificant trade relations with Nepal, fewer of its citizens visit Nepal as tourists than from various smaller European nations, and yet in its assertion of global power has become the main source of foreign intervention in Nepali affairs. The first U.S. diplomatic contact with Nepal -- a mission headed by Joseph Satterthwaite, Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs -- occurred only in 1947, simultaneously with the end of British rule in India. Satterthwaite later characterized his mission as amounting to "the eventual end of the exclusive control of Nepal by the British." Although a second mission headed by senior State Department official Chester Bowles arrived during the Korean War in 1951 with the first "aid" program, no permanent legation was established until the Tibetan events of 1959.
Following defeat in the Border War, India dared not permit guerrilla operations against China from its territory. Nepal, impoverished and with a small and poorly equipped army, was unable to prevent the establishment on its territory of CIA-trained and -financed Tibetan anti-Chinese guerrillas. From the early 1960s until 1973 the U.S. and their CIA "Khampa" Tibetan contras occupied two districts in Nepal that bordered Tibet: Walanchung-gola in the east of Nepal and Mustang in the west. Only after the 1972 Nixon visit to Beijing, and the consequent U.S. abandonment of support for various anti-Chinese military operations, did the newly crowned King Birendra and the RNA dare to move against the Khampa contra camps. The arms and munitions recovered were all of U.S. manufacture.
The Foreign Policy of King Birendra (1972-2001) and the Start of People's War
Once the U.S./Khampa contras were suppressed, King Birendra quickly established a close personal relationship with China. His father had made one state visit to China, in 1961. Birendra visited as crown prince in 1966 and, as King, made visits in 1973, 1976 (including a visit to Tibet), 1978, 1979, 1982 (again visiting Tibet), 1987, 1993, 1996, and finally in 2001, three months before his murder. His relations with India were, in contrast, tense in the extreme. In 1989 Birendra's government had arranged a deal, over Indian protest, under which the RNA was to purchase Chinese arms. When the Tiananmen incident paralyzed China, India again imposed an embargo on Nepal and offered support for an insurrection. As tensions mounted and supplies of petroleum products grew scarce, the Indian Foreign Secretary arrived in Kathmandu with an offer to support the monarchy against the agitating political parties in return for adherence to a humiliating draft "friendship" treaty. Instead Birendra yielded his paramount power, and compromised with the growing democratic mass movement headed by a coalition of the Nepal Congress and various Communist parties, for the moment united in pursuit of a democratic regime.
Under the ensuing 1991 constitution, the King retained personal command over the RNA and a primary role in foreign affairs, but internal administration was turned over to a government of the political parties responsible to an elected parliament. The "parliamentary" governments of the post-1991 period quickly discredited themselves by crude lust for the profits of office. And the police continued to crush opposition with an enthusiasm comparable to that of the prior "partyless Panchayat" regime. The revolutionary Communists gathered in the underground CPN (Unity Centre) were represented in the parliament by nine members of the United Peoples Front, and in the impoverished districts of Rapti zone in mid-western Nepal the Front had won district and village elections. Elected leaders such as Jhakku Prasad Subedi, chairman of the Rolpa District Development Committee, were targeted for assassination by goons of the royalist and Nepal Congress parties. Protest meetings were attacked by the police, and speakers shot. An increasing number of party activists fled their homes, and the occasional act of retaliation against police attacks occurred.
In November of 1995 the government, a coalition of Congress and royalists, launched a police invasion of Rolpa code-named "Operation Romeo." Atrocities committed by police in "Operation Romeo" brought the villages of Rolpa to a fever pitch. On February 13, 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), formed from components of CPN (Unity Centre) in 1995, launched People's War with attacks on the most notorious of the police outposts. In the next years guerrilla actions eliminated police outposts across Rolpa and Rukum districts, and in several other districts in other zones of the country as well. In late September 2000 hundreds of armed fighters moved out from the Rukum base area on a single file mountain track over a 13,000-foot pass to attack the police post in Dunai, the district centre of Dolpa. Local inhabitants did not warn the police, and the attack ended in victory for the revolutionaries. The post was captured with all its weapons, and political prisoners were liberated from the district prison across the river.
The Murder of King Birendra and the Royal Family
Birendra did not deploy the RNA. At Dunai there was an army post just a few hours' walk upstream that did not come to the help of the police. As attacks eliminated some of the last of the police posts in Rukum and adjoining districts, Birendra was besieged with demands that the RNA be thrown into the fight against the revolutionary youth in the hills. Yet Birendra refused, visited China, and was reported to have established secret contacts with the revolutionaries. On June 1, 2001, he was murdered along with all his immediate family. Nothing can be said with certainty about this crime, except that most Nepalis think the official story -- that Crown Prince Dipendra, high on alcohol and drugs and angry because he was not permitted to marry the woman he loved, slaughtered his entire family -- is false. The surgeon who operated on Dipendra in an unsuccessful effort to save his life stated unequivocally at the time that his bloods showed no trace of alcohol or drugs. And a surviving palace servant has recently come forward to say that she saw Dipendra shot through the head and prone, while the shootings continued.
The Chinese reaction of deep concern was immediate. Madan Regmi, chairman of Nepal's "China Study Centre," and at that time a confidant of Chinese officials, immediately visited China and gave an interview on his return to Nepal in July 2001. Though denying that his sources were official, Madan Regmi repeated the charge that the murdered royal family were victims of a plot caused by Birendra's close relations to China. He also quoted "reliable" (but unofficial) sources as saying that China in the immediate aftermath of the murders had "subtly" warned India against any military intervention.
Shortly after the accession of King Gyanendra -- who had been out of Kathmandu on June 1, 2001 -- the revolutionaries captured a major police post at Holleri in central Rolpa, taking 71 prisoners. Gyanendra, acting through Prime Minister Girija Koirala, ordered the RNA into action for the first time. But the local commanders of the RNA and the revolutionary forces were able to arrange a peaceful resolution, and Girija Koirala resigned. He was succeeded as Prime Minister by Sher Bahadur Deuba, also a leader of the Nepal Congress, and known to be close to the U.S. embassy. A cease-fire was arranged, and the revolutionaries in September 2001 organized massive rallies, and took steps to formalize their rule, holding the First National Convention of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and a National Convention of the United Revolutionary People's Council, a coordinating centre for an emerging alternate government in the areas cleared of police presence.
Gyanendra's new Deuba-led government took advantage of the cease-fire openly to begin preparations for bringing the RNA into action. Attacks on known and suspected Maoists began; local leaders were assassinated. The PLA responded on November 23, 2001, with a successful attack on Ghorahi, the district headquarters of Dang district, capturing a primary arsenal of the RNA. Two other district headquarters in other parts of the country were also successfully attacked. A State of Emergency was declared on November 26, 2001, and the full-scale deployment of the RNA ordered. These events marked the emergence of a qualitatively higher stage ("strategic equilibrium" in the Maoist lexicon) of the revolutionary conflict, in which two armies and two regimes faced each other in a nationwide civil war.
In the ensuing winter and spring of 2002 the Gyanendra regime was able to mobilize external support from all international forces. Then BJP Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, on a visit to Nepal, was the first to term the Maoists "terrorist," a lead that the Nepal Congress government soon followed. Thereafter, India provided substantial military assistance. The Palace also took immediate steps to conciliate China, culminating in Gyanendra's state visit in July of 2002. The Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Wu Congwong, had on May 11, 2002 already called the revolutionaries "terrorists" and said that China's policy was to describe the revolutionaries as "anti-government outfits" and avoid the use of the term "Maoist." The Ambassador then traveled to the revolutionary Gorkha district with his military attaché, said that the RNA was "doing a good job" and that China would provide "necessary assistance." In the aftermath of "9/11" China was eager not to antagonize an aggressive emboldened U.S. regime that now intervened in Nepal with military supplies and personnel.
The Rocca Period (2001-2004)
A new U.S. policy of active military intervention in Nepal commenced with the April 2001 nomination of Christina Rocca as the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia. According to authoritative sources, Mrs. Rocca, a career officer of the CIA from 1982 to 1997, was closely involved in the CIA operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. She then supervised the buy-back by the CIA of the unused Stinger missiles they had themselves introduced. Rocca later served as legislative assistant to right-wing Senator Brownback of Kansas, known for his zealous advocacy of Tibetan independence and of a hard line towards China. With this outlook, the Rocca period (2001-4) was to see the close co-ordination of U.S. intervention in Nepal with the then BJP Indian government.
In June 2001, days after Birendra was assassinated, a U.S. "Office of Defense Cooperation" with Nepal was established in the Kathmandu embassy. Shortly following the resignation of Girija Koirala in late July 2001, Christina Rocca herself arrived in Nepal for meetings with "security" officials. Deuba had been prime minister only for days before his meeting with Rocca.
On January 18, 2002, less than two months after the resumption of warfare and the imposition of the State of Emergency, then U.S. Secretary of State General Colin Powell arrived in Nepal. He was accompanied, among others, by Christina Rocca, and by Vice Admiral Walter Doran, Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell met with Gyanendra, Deuba, and then Chief of the Army Staff General Prajwolla Shumshere Rana. Shortly afterwards the Bush administration announced it was seeking an initial special appropriation of $20 million for the Nepalese security forces, and a team of U.S. military advisers from the U.S. Pacific Commandarrived in Nepal, including a Colonel of the U.S. Marine Corps, the chief of the Logistic Plans Division and the Deputy Chief of Engineering. This group was followed by mobile teams that worked with RNA ground units on matters of military tactics. Programs that had for years brought RNA officers to U.S. military schools were greatly expanded. RNA officers were sent to the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army and General Staff Colleges, the National Defense University and the Asia Pacific Center for Strategic Studies. An immense U.S.-aided expansion of the Security Forces (RNA and the paramilitary Armed Police Force) began. By 2005 the pre-2001 force of approximately 35,000 had increased to above 100,000, with a proclaimed goal of 150,000 by 2008.
Gyanendra's Deuba-led government, flush with U.S. patronage, dismissed the elected parliament in the spring of 2002 when a parliamentary majority emerged in favor of ending the State of Emergency. But the policy of internal militarization with U.S. support did not yield the intended results; instead, the revolutionary movement spread rapidly to districts previously unaffected. The Palace now changed course, dismissed the U.S.-backed Deuba in October 2002, and installed royalist Lokendra Bahadur Chand as Prime Minister charged with seeking a truce and negotiations. An angry Christina Rocca arrived in December 2002 and immediately acted to abort the peace talks. In a public statement she termed the revolutionaries "terrorists" and compared them to Pol Pot. And as soon as she departed, the U.S. embassy in Kathmandu initiated the process of placing the revolutionaries on U.S. "terrorist" lists. Nonetheless a cease-fire was achieved on January 29, 2003. The royal government made the truce possible by agreeing to three conditions: to stop calling the Maoist led revolutionaries "terrorists"; to lift rewards offered for the arrest of the leaders; and to withdraw international police warrants for them.
From the first the United States opposed the truce and looked for ways to provoke a return to civil war. In January 2003, as the truce was being negotiated, a 49-member team of U.S. military "experts" arrived in Nepal to train with the RNA, and the first shipment of what was eventually to amount to more than 8,000 M-16 rifles arrived. On February 4th Christina Rocca was quoted by Reuters as looking on the newly announced truce skeptically: "maybe this is a reason for hope but the fact of the matter is it's a deteriorating situation," she said, "the situation in Nepal is really not looking very good." In May, as talks between Palace and Maoists got under way, the U.S. embassy announced that the Maoists were now formally designated "terrorists" and had been placed on two of the three U.S. "terrorist" lists. The RNA, with U.S. advisers at every elbow, then sabotaged the peace talks. The RNA command rejected the agreement reached by the government's peace negotiators that the RNA would not patrol further than 5 kilometers from their barracks. At the very moment that a critical round of peace negotiations commenced, on August 17, 2003, an RNA unit in the village of Doramba in Ramechap district murdered in cold blood 18 unarmed Maoist activists. A subsequent investigation revealed that "the dead persons . . . were all arrested in connection with a political meeting and while marching them with their hands tied at their back, they were lined up on the track and shot dead." The Doramba massacre by the U.S.-advised RNA terminated the truce. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage then announced the finding that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) "poses a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten . . . the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" and their formal designation on the highest category U.S. "terrorist" list.
The resumption of civil war in the fall of 2003 saw the highpoint of U.S. military involvement in Nepal. Elaborate permanent quarters for U.S. "advisers" were constructed adjacent to RNA headquarters in the centre of Kathmandu. Through its International Military Education and Training Program (IMET), the U.S. trained the security forces in "special operations." There ensued "a policy to allow mass disappearances accompanied by tacit approval at the highest levels of state to use mass torture, extra-judicial killings and other gross abuses."ii The government announced a plan for "Village Defence Volunteers," based on Latin American paramilitary "death squad" models. This proved too much for the European Union Heads of Mission in Nepal, who up to this time had followed the growing U.S. intervention without adverse public comment. They warned, with diplomatic understatement, that in other countries such plans "have often been responsible for grave violation of human rights."
Christina Rocca's December 2003 visit was marked by a U.S. bid for RNA troops to be sent to Iraq (a request politely deflected by the Nepal government), a session with Gyanendra, and by a meeting with RNA chief General Pyar Jung Thapa, who reported to her on plans for the "Village Defence Volunteers" paramilitary vigilantes, asked for more weapons, helicopters, surveillance equipment that would enable the army to find and kill the revolutionary leadership, and the continuation of counter-insurgency training. At the start of March 2004 high-ranking U.S. security officials again arrived in Nepal. The team, led by J. Cofer Black, Coordinator for the Office of Counter-terrorism of the U.S. State Department, flew to the Mid-Western Division Headquarters of the Royal Nepalese Army in Nepalgunj. In April another group of U.S. soldiers arrived in Nepal to conduct "joint training exercises" with RNA's recently established "Special Forces" units such as the "Ranger Battalion," commanded by officers trained in, and specially selected by, the United States.
The BJP regime's Ambassador in Kathmandu, Shyam Saran, professed to see no change in India's Nepal policy in its acceptance of U.S. military intervention. Acquiescence vitiated the Indian interpretation of the unequal 1950 treaty as prohibiting Nepal from seeking military assistance from other states, but an emerging U.S.-Indian military co-operation took precedence. At the end of 2003 Saran was quoted as saying that India and the United States were "on the same wavelength."
Changes on the International Scene in the Spring of 2004
The April-May 2004 Indian elections unexpectedly turned out the BJP government and brought to power a Congress-led government that depended for its majority on the left parliamentary parties. The new government at first followed the existing policy of co-ordination with U.S. policy, and military assistance to the RNA continued. Ambassador Saran, personification of that policy, in June 2004 was promoted to Foreign Secretary, the top Foreign Service position in the Ministry of External Affairs.
A significant change in China's position was set out by its Ambassador Sun Heping in an address on May 28, 2004. Implicitly repudiating previous Ambassador Wu Congwong's assertion of two years before that the Maoist revolutionaries were "terrorists," he explained that calling them "anti-government forces" is not the same thing as the "terrorist" tag used by India and the United States. He emphasized that hostile activities by Tibetan separatists was China's major concern in Nepal.
This turn coincided with a major change in U.S. diplomatic personnel. The U.S. Ambassador to Nepal, Michael Malinowski, had played but a minor role. Policy was being made in Washington, and Christina Rocca was not hesitant to come to Kathmandu. In the spring of 2004 Malinowski was suddenly removed prior to the scheduled end of his term, and replaced by a far more powerful figure, James F. Moriarty, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council and former Political Officer at the U.S. embassy in Beijing. Moriarty was well known for his advocacy of a policy of accomodation to China. U.S. support for its Tibetan clients was to be, as before, a bargaining counter.
Another career change occurred at this same moment. On May 14th, 2004, Rabinder Singh, the Joint Secretary handling South-East Asia in the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) abruptly went to Nepal, was issued a U.S. passport, and left for refuge under CIA protection in the United States. In RAW he had, reputedly, been responsible for Nepal. Thus an era, one that commenced with the murder of King Birendra, in which the CIA and Christina Rocca could manage the relations of both India and the United States with Nepal came to a close.
After the failure of the 2003 peace talks, Gyanendra again called U.S. favorite Deuba to head a war government. The United States put intense pressure on the parliamentary Communist Party of Nepal (UML) to join the Deuba government, in the belief that only a coalition of the Palace and the primary political parties would have the strength successfully to pursue the civil war. In the summer of 2004 this policy appeared to have succeeded, and the CPN (UML) joined the government. But this resulted only in the exodus of many of the remaining UML cadre, who by this time wanted no part of King, civil war, or the United States. The parliamentary political party government proved unable to exercise any control over the U.S.-advised security forces, and the civil service fought bitterly against the reappearance of spoils-seeking politicians.
The Royal Coup of February 2005
Believing from RNA intelligence that the CPN (Maoist) was on the verge of an inevitable and devastating split, in February 2005 Gyanendra formed a government based on the armed forces with royalist ministers personally loyal to the King. The leaders of the political parties, including the erstwhile ministers now charged with corruption, were placed under arrest. The Palace thought it could then resume peace talks with one or the other of the factions into which it believed the CPN (Maoist) had split, while retaining for the RNA the military assistance of India and the United States. These calculations were mistaken. The CPN (Maoist) did not split, indeed the vigorous internal debate gave rise to unity on a higher level. Attempts to resume negotiations were spurned. And the government of India under intense pressure from the left parliamentary parties suspended military assistance to a Royal autocracy that had discarded the last shreds of parliamentary legitimacy.
Given the necessity of reliance on the command of the RNA to effect the coup, and given the close relations of the RNA command with the United States, Ambassador Moriarty's denial of prior knowledge can hardly be credited. Far more likely is that the Palace had been given reason to believe in U.S. assistance, which was only denied after it became clear that the Palace had garnered neither internal nor Indian support.
Gyanendra then turned for arms to China, which had refused to condemn the February 2005 coup, terming it an "internal affair." A major gesture to China had been the January 2005 closing of the Tibetan Welfare Office in Kathmandu days before the coup, a move inconceivable before the new U.S. policy represented by the arrival of Moriarty. And China responded favorably, much to the anger of Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran who henceforth reputedly saw matters from a different perspective. In June 2005, five armoured personnel carriers arrived in Nepal from China. In September 2005, China was reported to have agreed to provide arms and ammunition worth approximately US$22 million. And in late November 18 trucks carrying military hardware from China were reported to have crossed the Nepal-Tibet border.
Meanwhile, the vigilante death squad plan was put into effect by the RNA . In February 2005 squads murdered several dozens of unarmed "pahadi" hill people and burned over 700 houses in Kapilvastu in the Terai, claiming the victims to be "Maoists." These semi-official communalist murders were immediately denounced by the European Union ambassadors and "Human Rights" groups. Moriarty, recalled to Washington for consultations, was reported to have pointed to these death squad activities as reasons for "optimism." Moriarty returned to Kathmandu in May 2005 and did not deny the report when confronted with it, merely stating that there was a "range of opinion" about the Kapilvastu death squad outrage. Moriarty said his main concern was that the RNA was running out of bullets. Not wishing openly to break ranks with India or the European Union on the question of military assistance to the increasingly isolated royal regime, the United States turned to its Israeli surrogate. In August a "huge cache" of 5.56 mm bullets for the U.S. M-16 rifles was reported to have been supplied to the RNA by Israel.
Christina Rocca soon followed Moriarty to Kathmandu on what was to be her farewell visit, along with a planeload of "non-lethal" military assitance. Rocca set out U.S. policy: pressure was to be put on the Palace to end the standoff with the parliamentary political parties, and to step up the civil war. Despite Tibetan anger there were no hard words for China, and tacitly a new co-operation emerged in arming the RNA: "non-lethally" by the U.S. and its U.K. satellite, and lethally by Israel and China.
The gradual divergence in Indian and U.S. policy that had commenced with the flight of Rabinder Singh and the arrival of Moriarty now broke into the open. The leaders of the parliamentary parties, except for Deuba who remained charged with personal corruption, were freed from detention in May 2005, and India now encouraged them to undertake an urban uprising against the Royal government. Indian intelligence correctly assessed that the Royal regime was now without any base outside the military. The leaders of the major parliamentary parties, long among India's most valued contacts in Nepal, could only hope to re-emerge as a dominant force by leading a uprising against the King in the cities, where the armed Maoist presence was slight and where the parliamentary parties still had cadre and active student organizations.
The popular response to the renewed agitation of the parliamentary parties was minimal, and leaders of the parties and their Indian interlocutors as well were driven to the realization that only by reaching agreement with the revolutionaries could an insurrectionary plan have any hope of success. "Terrorist" disappeared from Indian officials' vocabulary; within the year the declaration was made that the Maoists "are not terrorists." By late July 2005 local activists of the parliamentary parties were openly co-operating with the Maoists in the countryside, and suddenly the protests in the cities began to attract large crowds.
Conclusion
In August the PLA defeated the RNA in a frontal assault on a fortified base at Pili, in Kalikot district. The September 2005 meeting of the central committee of the CPN (Maoist) at Chunwang in the liberated district of Rukum set out the terms for agreement with the parliamentary political parties, and announced a unilateral three-month truce. Negotiators -- notably Bam Dev Gautam of the CPN (UML) and Comrade Prakash of the CPN (Unity Centre/Masal) -- traveled to the liberated district to prepare the groundwork for a formal pact. But the two primary leaders of the parliamentary parties, Girija Koirala of the Congress party and Madhav Nepal of the UML, refused to go to Rolpa -- in Nepal, but in liberated territory -- for the final negotiations, insisting on a foreign, Indian, venue. The Indian government was forthcoming, and successful negotiations between the revolutionaries and the political parties on a joint insurrectionary course concluded in November 2005 (the "12 Point Agreement").
The United States openly sided with the Palace in denouncing the agreement, insisting that the Maoists were "illegitimate" and not proper parties to a settlement. But events now moved quickly, and in short order it was Gyanendra and Moriarty who were isolated. In April 2006 a coordinated urban insurrection carried out jointly by the political parties and the Maoists challenged the security forces, the last remaining stronghold of the Palace. At length the command was forced to tell the King that their troops were no longer willing to fire on the citizenry, and the Palace gave in.
In a final move aimed at splitting the insurrectionary coalition, the long-expired parliament -- elected for a maximum five-year term in 1999, and in which the revolutionaries were not represented -- was recalled by the Palace. A government of the parliamentary parties, headed by Girija Koirala, was installed and tasked itself with reaching a peace agreement with the revolutionaries and meeting their demand for elections to a Constituent Assembly. A peace agreement, providing for a partial disarmanent to be monitored by the United Nations, was reached in the fall of 2006. The agreement in substance gave equivalent status to the Nepal Army and the PLA, and was welcomed by the international community. Moriarty, after an initial outburst of petulance, kept his silence. By early 2007 the carefully realistic Chinese were meeting with the revolutionaries, and the designation "Maoists" appeared in China's media. Even the British, slipping the leash, in March 2007 issued a visa to Chandra Prakash Gajurel, the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Maoists. On April 1, 2007, the Maoists entered the government.
The formidable U.S. military intervention in Nepal has, for the time, been thwarted. The United States continues to term "terrorist" -- and threaten criminal sanctions against -- the CPN(M) and its supporters. This is, at minimum, confirmation that hostile U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of Nepal keeps on. Yet, although the Nepal Army remains more under U.S. than Nepali command and covert actions aimed at a resumption of civil war in Nepal are certain to continue to occur, the worst of the danger has passed. U.S. global power is on the decline, that of China on the increase. A renewed Indian military intervention also would face difficulties. As Prithvi Narayan Shah understood at the start of a dynasty that is today in its final days, the stronger China the less Nepal has to fear from India.
The popular triumph of April 2006 and the subsequent peace agreement were accomplished by the Nepalis themselves. Despite the ongoing manipulation of communalism by both domestic and foreign enemies, the revolutionary forces in Nepal now have a breathing space to move toward a new democracy free of the most dangerous forms of foreign military intervention. This is a substantial achievement.
Source: Economic and Political Weekly, May 19, 2007

Maoists pushing nation to dangerous polarization

PRAJWAL SHRESTHA
Amid confrontations and clashes with opposing parties and also the police, the Maoists are moving ahead with the political programmes, which are bringing the country to a dangerous situation. What the Maoists have shown is that the party has done its homework and it has well made plans on how to move ahead. This can hardly be said of the other traditional parties like the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML). They are in virtual political wilderness and it is difficult to see them making any impact, if an election is really held.
In fact the UML has just tried to follow in the Maoists footsteps by simply echoing what this extreme Left party has been saying. For example, the Maoists called for quick constituent assembly polls and the UML followed, then the Maoists called for a republican state and the UML again did the same, now the Maoists disturbed parliament proceedings and the UML is following suit. This party has done the same, regarding its stance about Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. During all this time, the Nepali Congress, which calls itself the “biggest” political party, has remained a mute witness. Sporadic statements from leaders without mass base are just not enough for the party to counter the overwhelming political advantages the Maoists are gaining.
Meanwhile, the Maoists are pushing the nation to a dangerous situation by unilaterally calling for the nation to be declared a republic. Even a staunch communist like Nepal Workers and Peasant Party chairman Narayan Man Bijukche has criticized such a demand. He explained that more time should be given to replace an institution that had been in the country for more than 200 years. Instead, Bijukche accused the bigger parties in the eight party alliance of selling themselves to India. “When top level leaders go there to consult about even small decisions, what else can you say?”, he questioned in a TV interview.
It is unclear at whose insistence the Maoists are following their present stance of unilaterally calling for a republic, but, what is sure is, they are inviting a violent confrontation to the country by doing so. Like Bijukche, the leaders of the other parties in the eight party alliance must wake up to the threat being manifested by the Maoists. If these parties want their existence to continue, specially as democratic parties, then they must not allow the Maoists to trample over the rights of millions of Nepalese. Even after days of forceful campaigning, what could the Maoists do, just raise, what they claimed to be one million plus signatures. Critics have said that there were thousands of “repeated” signatures. But what all must be aware about is the politically effective manner in which they presented the signatures to the Speaker. But still, it was only a few so called mainstream media which like in the past, gave encouraging coverage to the event. Otherwise, most general people are fed up by the constant disturbances being created by the Maoists. The Americans have done well by not removing this group from its terrorist list. After all, the party at present, though in the parliament and also the government, is doing nothing but “terrorizing the prime minister, the other parties, security personnel and the people in general.
Source: American Chronicle, May 17, 2007