Key deal in Nepal hits roadblockI first read it on Samudaya after receiving a tip on Google Talk: the Maoist-parties talks had failed. There was a link to the source: Nepali Times. And there was an article in an Indian newspaper, published at INSN.Hindu A crucial agreement that would involve Nepal's Maoists joining the seven-party alliance of parliamentary parties in a "peaceful non-violent agitation" against the monarchy has hit an eleventh hour roadblock. Party leaders are under intense pressure from King Gyanendra and Washington not to take their partnership with the rebels any further.
After many days of talks at an undisclosed location in the vicinity of the Indian capital, negotiators from the two sides agreed on the language of a draft "7-plus-one communiqué." This would take last November's 12-point agreement forward by launching a Nepal-wide campaign of demonstrations against the "autocratic monarchy."
The joint appeal has to be approved by leaders of the seven-party alliance, but in the face of threats from Narayanhiti Palace and dire warnings from the United States against having any truck with the Maoists, the parties' leadership decided to withhold their endorsement.
Meeting in Kathmandu on Friday to discuss the possibility of a joint appeal or two "parallel" appeals to be issued separately by the parties and Maoists, senior alliance leaders like Girija Prasad Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba failed to reach an agreement on a course of action and postponed a final decision to Sunday.
As matters stand, there is no deal between the Maoists, and the parties and sources familiar with the course of the negotiations say there is considerable bitterness in the rebels' camp as a result. The Maoists, said one source, were looking for a "respectable exit from the present national stalemate" and felt the draft communiqué offered a balanced way forward for themselves and the parties.
..... the seven-party alliance leadership had now developed cold feet is purely a result of pressure from the King and [the U.S. Ambassador to Nepal] James Moriarty .....
With the U.S. administration ranged openly against any further deepening of political relations between the Maoists and the parties, India has been reluctant publicly to articulate its view that there is still plenty of scope for the two to work in tandem.Within days of Mr. Moriarty's attack on the 12-point understanding, the Indian side informed the leadership of the Nepali Congress, the UML and other parties that the U.S. Ambassador's negative assessment of the understanding was not shared by New Delhi. But with Washington keen for the parties to sever their ties with the Maoists, India appears to have gone back to sitting on the fence.
The apparent Indian indifference to the outcome of the last few days of negotiations, say sources, has led the alliance leaders to wonder whether New Delhi would provide them with the necessary cover should King Gyanendra respond with a heavy hand to the formal initiation of a joint agitation with the Maoists.
With the King likely to announce dates for fresh parliamentary elections, the party leaders are increasingly finding themselves in a difficult position. There is pressure from their cadres for a more sustained and widespread agitation and the proposed agreement with the Maoists was intended to galvanise public protests in the Kathmandu valley.
My first reaction was a little disbelief. My second has been to find out all the details. I guess I will have to wait. What broke the talks will be a revelation.
If the Maoists want a communist republic, they are not going to get it. And if they don't want a communist republic, only a progressive democratic republic, it is in their best interests to come real clean with that position.
China breaking its silence and coming out to basically parrot the Moriarty line seems to have tipped the balance. The Chinese want the "two constitutional forces" to talk. The king is not a constitutional force, and the parties are out of power, abused.
For all the work to garner global support for the democracy movement, ultimately it is not about the foreign powers. It is about the people of Nepal. It is about raising their political consciousness to come out into the streets to earn democracy.
On the other hand, we do have to give the Maoists the benefit of doubt. If they argue only a "fusion" of violent and non-violent struggle will dismantle the current regime, do they at least deserve a debate? I think they do. But the democratic camp has not engaged them at that level.
You can not seek a political solution, and then be surprised that the Maoists have not magically transformed themselves into being just another political party. Transformation takes time. You have to do it in stages. You have to sell it to your cadres.
At some level the big powers are being outright disrespectful. They are acting oblivious to the king's misdeeds. Where was China when the king turned Nepal into the number one country in terms of human rights abuses? Where has America been? Both have supported the king when he and his men have looted the state treasury.
Is it true the Maoists have been trying to make the point that the seven party alliance just sits around doing nothing and so they have to come forth to fill the vacuum? That the seven party alliance has not been proactive enough?
I for one hope the talks might have failed, but that they have not ended. That there will be a second round.
Those who will thwart all attempts at a political solution, have they not seen enough bloodshed in the country yet?
Some of the mistakes made by the seven party alliance have been:
- The utter inflexibility on the issue of House revival. That gets presented as the prime goal.
- Not being proactive enough in terms of protest programs.
- Not enough open introspection on the experience of the 1990s.
- Taking criticism of some select parts of the 12 point agreement as a criticism of the entire document.
- Going on long vacations that force the Maoists to come up with programs of their own.
- Not firm enough in their commitment to the idea of a constituent assembly.
- Carrying illusions about the king. Having expectations of him.
- To sound like he works for the king.
- To see the devil in the eye and still not see it.
- To not praise 10 of the 12 points.
- To be more in tune with the existing power structure than the democratic aspirations of the Nepali people.
- To not have read enough literature of the Nepali Maoists.
- Pumping money into the RNA to the tune of millions, but none to the democracy movement and thus having fuelled the civil war. Wars make money for some people and companies.
- To say there is no military solution, but then get in the way of a political solution.
- To have been on the king's side when the Maoists declared their ceasefire.
- But where have you been the entire time?
- Define "constitutional force."
- To not realize "fusion" will not work. Violence prevents the democracy movement from taking off.
- To not come around to the idea of dismantling the two armies before taking the country through a constituent assembly.
- To not defining their idea of a multiparty democracy.
- Playing into the hands of the right wingers in power who do not want the Maoists to stop the violence.
Moriarty does not know what he is talking about. And the king is not on our side. So why feel the pressure? The misguided souls of the US State Department don't have a clue. These are people who wanted to hand over power to the Baathists in Iraq after Saddam was gone. Their quest is "stability," not justice, not democracy.
Moriarty's party, the Republican Party, is not making sense in Washington DC, with the largest debts and deficits of any government in human history. And Moriarty is but that party's reflection in Kathmandu.
And Deuba does not know what he is talking about.
The Movement Has To Go On
The foreign powers always come along later on. Moriarty is proof. He was opposed to the first round of talks between the Maoists and the parties. But then he reluctantly came along after the 12 point agreement was so well received by the Nepali people.
Ambassadors mean only so much. And some don't mean anything at all, like Bolton at the UN.
It is pathetic how the likes of Deuba are so eager to feel foreign "pressure." When it is one bureaucrat talking, it is one bureaucrat talking. Your job is to think of 27 million Nepalis. This fight is to establish the sovereignty of the Nepali people once and for all, not to take it from the king to hand it over to the foreign powers.
Go Back To Talking
The talks have to go on. What was the "7-plus-one communiqué?" Make it public. If it was good, sign it, implement it.
Moriarty In The Soup
Baburam Moriarty Debate
Moriarty's Irresponsible Mainstream
Do The Maths
Moriarty is for a constituent assembly. The Chinese want the king to talk to the parties. The only way that is possible is for the king to accept the idea of a constituent assembly. The Maoists are for a constituent assembly. Looks to me like we all are in agreement, all except the king.
In The News
Deal Off Samudaya
Hush Hush Maoists Talks Near Delhi Draw Blank The Telegraph
Parties trapped in the Maoists’ conspiracy: Home Minister Thapa NepalNews
Blockade enters the fifth day; Life remains crippled
China in favour of unity among constitutional forces: Tang
Maoists training new recruits, says govt Gulf Times, Qatar
China asks Gyanendra to initiate dialogue with pol parties NewKerala.com, India
China asks Gyanendra to initiate dialogue with parties Hindu, India
More troubles in Nepal Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
Armed escorts to break Maoist blockade in Nepal Times of India, India
Visitors
| 19:28 | Claranet, United Kingdom |
| 21:44 | Verizon Online, Terre Haute, United States |
| 22:55 | Verizon Online, Boston, United States |
| 00:06 | Nepal (wlink.com.np) |
No comments:
Post a Comment