Friday, March 03, 2006

Moriarty In The Soup


Some Questions For Moriarty
  1. Are you aware of the magnitude of the furor you have created in Nepal and in the Nepali diaspora and among the friends of Nepal? Are you aware the magnitude is greater than the furor created by Prachanda recently through his three major interviews?
  2. Are you into this for the glamor of it?
  3. Why do you keep describing the king as a constitutional force? Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court of Nepal that has given a very clear hint as to the lack of constitutionality of the king's status since the coup last year?
  4. Would you describe 2/1 as a coup? If not, how would you describe it?
  5. If peace and democracy be the goal for Nepal, the king is the number one roadblock, the number one villain, the number one hindrance to that end. Would you agree?
  6. You want the king and the seven party alliance to seek common ground. The Maoists want the king, the seven party alliance and themselves to seek common ground. Are the Maoists one step ahead of you?
  7. Are you for or against the idea of a roundtable conference as put forth by the Maoists?
  8. If a constituent assembly was good for Iraq, it is good also for Nepal. True or false?
  9. Which Maoist outfit in the world has ever stood for a constituent assembly?
  10. Which Maoist outfit in the world has ever declared a unilateral ceasefire like the Nepali Maoists?
  11. Which Maoist outfit in the world has ever consistently respected the UN?
  12. Are you ideologically against the idea of UN involvement in Nepal's peace process? If so, why?
  13. Do you think your understanding of the Nepali Maoists is too bookish? In that your knowledge of the Nepali Maoists depends more on what groups with similar names did in places like Cambodia, Peru, even China?
  14. How much of the recent Nepali Maoist literature have you read?
  15. Does the 12 point agreement not make it clear that the Maoists are for multi-party democracy, rule of law and human rights?
  16. The Maoists claim they have made an ideological leap from the goal of a communist republic to a democratic republic. Do you believe them or not?
  17. And if it is true they have made that leap and are in the process of such a transformation, would you agree that that is a very difficult undertaking on their part?
  18. Have you heard of or read about any Maoist or communist outfit in the world that might have made such an ideological leap?
  19. If not, can the Nepali Maoists be credited with some originality?
  20. If indeed they are in the process of making such an ideological leap, do you think your hostility towards them makes it harder for them to make such an ideological leap? And if such a leap be in the best interests of peace and democracy, are you actually hurting the prospects of peace and democracy in Nepal?
  21. Is America a republic? Why is it a republic? Why is it not a monarchy? Why does it not have a constitutional monarchy? If a constitutional monarchy be such a good idea, will America today invite the Queen Of England to play that role in America as well? Monarchies can be reinstalled.
  22. What is so wrong with the idea of a democratic republic for Nepal?
  23. Was the American war for independence peaceful? Was the American civil war to abolish slavery peaceful? Was the French revolution peaceful? Were the American and French revolutions communist revolutions?
  24. Nepal is number one in terms of human rights violations in the world today. Do you think the king as the chief executive needs to be taking responsibility? 75% of the deaths in Nepal's civil war have been the RNA's doing? Should the RNA be taking responsibility?
  25. There is this widespread feeling that you have been harsh on the seven party alliance, and not at all harsh on the king? Why not? If the king is the number one villain, then why not?
  26. A lot of the Kathmandu intelligentsia are harsh on the political parties, more so than on the king. Are you like them?
  27. What are the differences between Gyanendra and Musharraf on the democracy question?
  28. Will America provide logistical support to the seven party alliance's peaceful democracy movement? If not, why not?
  29. If the military aid to the RNA has cost America millions of dollars, will America support the democracy movement to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars? If not, why not?
  30. Why was the introduction of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan violent? Can democracy be introduced in Nepal peacefully? If yes, what makes Nepal so different and special?
  31. What if the king sticks to his so called roadmap? Will you keep lecturing the seven party alliance?
  32. Do you lecture the seven party alliance because they are out of power and thus easy targets?
  33. Do you lecture the king like you lecture the seven party alliance?
  34. You have never met Prachanda or Baburam, the seven party leaders have. Why are you right about the two, why are the seven party leaders wrong?
  35. If the Maoists were to agree to either integrate the two armies or abolish the two armies before the country goes through a constituent assembly, would your fears about the Maoists evaporate off? If not, why not? Could you get the king to come around to the idea of abolishing the two armies?
  36. King Gyanendra is a dictator. True or false?
  37. What do you think of this: Proposed Republican Constitution 2006?
Baburam Moriarty Debate
India, Europe, US For A Constituent Assembly
Moriarty Deserves Your Ears
Narayan Singh Pun, I Want Your Number
Lenin, Mao
Possible Framework For A Negotiated Resolution

Less Heat, More Light – US Policy on Nepal

- Dipta Shah

The re-assertion of American policy vis-à-vis Nepal has attracted a barrage of criticism from various quarters. Critics who have fretted and bristled at the American emissary’s recent formulations on Nepal will now have to contend with the concise reiteration of that very thesis, this time delivered by US President George Bush (in the symbolic and weighty company of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh). The substance and premise of past and anticipated critiques of America’s Nepal policy are themselves in need of critical review.

The most serious, anti-American allegation posits that the US view promotes war in Nepal. This censure is forwarded on the untenable assumption that the 12-point agreement is a guaranteed panacea for sustainable peace.

The reality is that politically, structurally, and strategically, the 12-point agenda is tilted towards the interests and intentions of the Maoists. That the 7-party alliance became convenient after February-1 and that the agreement with the Maoists was acknowledged from a position of weakness are facts. Given these circumstances, a vibrant debate on the practicality and tenability of the 12-point agreement is a valid and necessary discussion that should not be thwarted by rhetorical diatribes or anecdotal threats.

The recent American perspective forces Nepalis to ask some long overdue questions about the 12-point agreement. Intriguingly, the Americans are accused of promoting violence for recommending reconciliation and unity amongst the very constitutional forces that jointly brought about the new Nepali state in 1990. In less polarized times, this advice was regarded as both sound and balanced by the same quarters now determined to dismember it.

Other than replaying the perverse assertion that the American stand is “pro-violence”, critics are incapable of forwarding a convincing case as to why the potential for violence in Nepal is not diminished when the two legitimate halves of the 1990 constitution stop assaulting each other, and instead, focus jointly on a strategy to address the insurgency in a lasting and coherent fashion.

Another line of dissention conceives that the US is interfering and taking the side of the Palace against the “democrats.” To the contrary, the recent statement by the American Ambassador is no less disparaging than EU or Indian statements since February-1. Nepali intelligentsia appears oblivious to this fact.

Meanwhile, the same Nepali intelligentsia touts conspiracy theories (ranging from “Anglo-Saxon hegemony” to American anti-communism) but remains complacent, forgiving, and often laudatory about India’s interests and intentions in Nepal. How is questioning Indian motives “hollow nationalism,” but attacking the US position, “true, democratic nationalism?”

Indian intentions in Nepal deserve ten times more scrutiny from Nepalis than do US interests. This is a reality imposed by our geo-political location, by the evolution of Indian hegemony in South Asia and by the fact that many facets of the Maoist insurgency are sustained through Indian links.

The Maoist insurgency has given rise to an existential crisis in Nepal. Yet, Nepali intellectuals waste no time questioning the putative interests of a distant USA while remaining quiet on the much more proximate, obvious and documented Indian links to Nepal’s crisis.

On the subject of interests, another view - that the US is somehow advancing its national interests (at the cost of Nepali interests) - also needs to be dissected. Precisely what American interests are forwarded by a position that asks Nepalis to scrutinize and discuss the discrepancies in the actions and words of the Maoists? Is it in Nepal’s or America’s interest to ask responsible constitutional parties to be mindful of a political course that may usher in an era of greater turmoil and tyranny for all Nepalis?

How is it in only in the US interest to draw attention to a trajectory that potentially commits non-violent democratic forces on a collision course with an armed Maoist outfit? Why should Nepalis not worry about whose version of democracy is ultimately going to prevail – democracy as the Nepalis and the world know and accept or “democracy” with all the caveats imposed by an armed insurgent group that continues campaigning amongst its rural support base for a “dictatorship of the proletariat?”

Should the situation in Nepal spiral out of control, there is no impetus for the American diplomatic presence to remain. The Americans are pursuing their agendas of economic and political engagement with China and India independent of Nepal. Let there be no doubt that tangible US interests in these aspects can and will be pursued with or without a sovereign Nepali state.

Further, who is viewing the world and the American role in Nepal with ‘cold war’ lenses? Is it the US or its knee-jerk leftist critics in Nepal who are incapable of operating beyond an anti-American world-view? It’s high time that Nepali intelligentsia acquainted themselves with the 21st century. Conjuring images of America’s losses in the Vietnam war has no relevance to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. The only images that should be on the radar are those that transpired in Cambodia after the American departure from Vietnam.

With all other angles exhausted comes the personal attack on the American emissary – that Ambassador Moriarty is an elitist who is in cahoots with and favors Nepal’s traditional elites.

First, those who forward this charge are themselves bonafide members of various elite cliques in Nepal, be it of the urban educated literati or the INGO-fattened urban consumer class. Second, which is more elitist, trying to start a necessary national debate on the intensions of an armed and avowedly radical outfit or trying to cover up and curtail debate under the façade that such deliberations may dis-empower urban political bosses in their parochial fights?

Despite the various attacks launched on the American position in Nepal, the facts are transparent for all to analyze. There is absolutely nothing that has been said or done that should prevent democratically inclined elements from reconciling, reevaluating and moving forward in unison. There is however, everything to loathe and fear from elements that are bent on imposing their polar positions on Nepal and Nepalis – either from the righteous right or from the lunatic left. 1

In The News

No talks with King in present circumstance: RPP chief Rana NepalNews
Government not serious about rights issues: OHCHR
NC (D) to call on Maoists to abide by 12-point understanding
Nepal King should restore democracy: US President
Police defend top cop in the backdrop of a series of expose
Maoists bomb WFP, govt offices in Jhapa

Visitors

2 March12:03McGill University, Canada
2 March12:53Bahrain Telecommunication Company, Bahrain
2 March12:58School of Oriental and African Studies, London, United Kingdom
2 March14:14University of Missouri, Columbia, United States
2 March14:27Metr. State College of Denver, Denver, United States
2 March15:39University of Maryland, Baltimore, United States
2 March16:08Dow Jones International, United States
2 March16:44United Nations, New York, United States
2 March18:20United States Army, United States
2 March19:10United States Navy, United States
3 March00:49UniNet Thailand Education and Research Network, Thailand 1

at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)