Two months ago, the Nepali people staged a series of mass public protests to restore Parliamentary rule and emasculate their absolute monarch. One of the side effects of this has been hope for a final end to Nepal's long-running civil war, with the Maoists unilaterally declaring a ceasefire, beginning talks to join the interim government, and pledging to participate in elections to a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution next year. But now, the US seems to be trying to fuck that up, by threatening to cut off aid to Nepal if the Maoists join the government without giving up their weapons. The reason? The Maoists are terrorists. The fact that they are terrorists who are showing every sign of wanting to work within a democratic system rather than in opposition to it doesn't seem to matter.
Hardarse tactics from the US are not what Nepal needs right now. Instead, it needs time for the parties to come to trust one another, and for the negotiations to work themselves out. The American threats seem calculated to disrupt that, to drive a wedge between the Maoists and Nepal's government, and prevent any final settlement from emerging. It seems that the US would prefer to see a bloody civil war drag on, than risk seeing communists gain power via the ballot box...
5 comments:
Neil: Give it time, and I think that will come.
As for who is promoting what, it is worth remembering that the Nepalis themselves seem quite happy with the current situation of working towards peace. Against that backdrop, the US action can only be seen as outside interference, and in a way which seems calculated to upset the best chance of peace they have had in years.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 7/03/2006 12:59:00 PM
Here's a proof case I ave recently written. Unfortunately, in this format, the references have been excluded. Jared.
Proof case on responsibility for casualties in Nepal’s civil war
This proof case is concerned with disproving the assertion that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)-led insurgency has, itself, killed 13,000 or more people since 1996. The mainstream media consistently implies that the Maoist Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) is responsible for 13,000 deaths in Nepal. However, it is unable to state categorically that Maoists are responsible for the majority of killing. This proof case supports the claim that PLA is not definitively responsible for the majority of these deaths.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), an international NGO, stresses that ‘Most - about two-thirds - of those killed were victims of targeted or indiscriminate attacks and summary executions by the Royal Nepal Army (RNA).’ Similarly, according to Nepal-based Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC), referring to the year 2005, ‘… over 1,500 people have been killed this year with roughly two-thirds of those killed by government troops and the rest by rebels.’
Most of the annihilations carried out by the PLA are accounted for in the removal of RNA and Nepal police posts from the rural districts, and in the assassinations of government officials and district commanders. The CPN(M) publishes estimations of military, police, and government casualties in publicly available ‘War reports’. It has made public apologies for civilian deaths it has caused. It has invited human rights organizations to investigate those incidents. The RNA has remained silent on the killing of non-combatants, and the mainstream media has reproduced that silence. This silence - what is not said about casualty responsibility and civilian casualty rates – is one indicator that the PLA is not primarily responsible for the civil war deaths in Nepal.
In the year from the January 2005 state of emergency declaration, journalists lost legal protections gained in 1991, and more than a thousand journalists lost their jobs. In that same period 273 journalists were arrested and 147 were physically assaulted. Since 1996 this type of repression has distorted news reports on which casualty estimations are based.
In 2002, the United States Congress approved US$12 million to train RNA officers and supply 5,000 M-16 rifles. Since 2003, it has become difficult to keep track of Western financial and military support for the RNA. The RNA was provided with the capability for efficient killing.
Lastly, killing is not a part of the CPN(M)s political programme. In January 1995 the CPN(M), then in parliament, announced that if 40 basic reforms were not initiated for Peasants, Workers, and minorities in 1995, a revolution would be initiated. To bolster its human rights claims against the CPN(M) the mainstream press has invoked the words Khmer Rouge. The CPN(M), however, is pro-industrialization, has improved literacy, and has actively protected intellectuals in Kathmandu. The CPN(M) has been quick to point out that it was the U.S state that supported the Kymer Rouge throughout the 1970s, especially when Cambodia went to war on Vietnam.
It is unfeasible to imply that the Nepalese Maoists have killed 13,000 people in the civil war. A proper deconstruction of casualty responsibility shows that the Maoists have inflected much fewer fatalities than the RNA. The Maoist’s honesty about casualties they have inflicted makes them a more credible source than the RNA. The implication that the Maoists have carried out the majority of killings is discredited by the fact that Nepalese journalism, from which the mainstream press draws its figures, has been repressed. The existence of abundant weapon-supplies to the RNA suggests that the RNA has inflicted many casualties. These points of evidence substantiate the claim that the Maoist PLA should not be held responsible for the majority, or even half, of the casualties inflicted in Nepal’s civil war.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/03/2006 01:46:00 PM
Jared: At this stage, I'm not that fussed by finger-pointing over who has killed how many. What matters is that it looks highly likely that it is going to stop, unless this American move screws it up.
(And you can use basic HTML such as links in comments, BTW)
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 7/03/2006 01:56:00 PM
"The US cut funds to the Nepalese Govt after King Gyanendra seized absolute power last year, which I assume is what liberals would have wanted. I can't see how that was anything other than democracy promotion."
Actually, this is a really distortive position. The US sends over consignements of more than 5 thousand M-16s, plus military aid like, for example, $20 million cash injections. When they stop such 'aid', because of how various geopolitical problems effect them, they are heralded as being democratic. Elsewhere they have been heralded as 'advancing human rights' becasue they stopped sending weapons and guns after half a decade of doing so. JP.
Posted by Anonymous : 7/03/2006 03:57:00 PM
I think the Nepalis are the best people to decide what works for them, rather than the US or any other superpower jumping in.
I didn't see much evidence of US aid in Nepal when I was there, so losing it might be no great loss. A lot of the "aid programs" that were going on involved building dams to generate electricity for India - and I suspect the revenue was going into the kings pocket rather than being spent on anything for the people.
Posted by Rich : 7/04/2006 09:54:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).