|
|
|
|
Nepal losing its
way
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Friday, as so often happens in
Nepal, turned out to be a day of two decisive
actions last week, although neither was as tragic
as the palace massacre of June 1, 2001, or as
dramatic as some of the events thereafter. One
took place at Shital Niwas, the building that
houses the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the
other at the headquarters of the Royal Nepal Army.
Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya, the top
diplomat at the Foreign Ministry, separately
summoned the ambassadors of India and the United
Kingdom to his office and conveyed the royal
government's strong displeasure over their
interference in Nepal's internal affairs. "The
government would highly appreciate if friendly
governments refrained from suggestive and
subjective remarks on the internal political
affairs of the kingdom," the ministry said in the
aide memoire handed over to the envoys at
the end of the meetings. Neither Indian Ambassador
Shiv Shankar Mukherjee nor British Ambassador
Keith Bloomfield (currently holding the presidency
of the European Union in Nepal ) made any public
comments about their meeting with Acharya.
This Nepali demarche, obviously
issued at the instructions of King Gyanendra's
palace, appeared to be a response to the
well-publicized reactions from New Delhi and
London to events unfolding in the country. Both
reactions, released on May 16, "welcomed" the
joint position Nepal's major political parties
have taken, saying they offered a good basis for
dialogue with the king. Ostensibly, the palace
took this as support for the political parties,
and thereby an attempt to meddle into Nepal's
domestic politics. The palace found these
utterances unpalatable, even though the country is
passing through an extraordinary phase.
On
May 8, seven main political parties formed a
united front and decided to launch a movement for
the restoration of democracy. Their first joint
nationwide public protest was held last Sunday. It
remained largely peaceful. Slogans included a
demand for the reinstatement of parliament, which
was prematurely dissolved three years earlier, on
May 22, 2002. It had completed only three years of
its five-year term. The front's second public
rally is scheduled for this Friday. Christina
Rocca, the visiting American assistant secretary
of state for South Asia, also praised the move,
describing it as an "encouraging first step" in
the reconciliation process. But the Foreign Office
did not serve any protest note to the American
envoy in Kathmandu. Analysts believe that royal
officials might have reasoned that the messages
given to Delhi and London would ultimately reach
Washington.
Last Friday's second event was
conducted in the presence of senior army officers.
A select group of editors was invited to listen to
an audio tape in which top Maoist leader Pushpa
Kamal Dahal, known as Prachanda, was heard saying
that the Indian government had invited the Maoist
leadership to New Delhi for dialogue. Prachanda
also said Indian authorities assured him that his
comrades detained in India would be freed if he
(Prachanda) withdrew disciplinary action taken
against his deputy, Baburam Bhattarai. Bhattarai
has been stripped of his party posts over
disagreements with Prachanda.
Later,
Prachanda issued a statement from his hideout
saying that the tape was old and contained remarks
made in a different context. Thus, unwittingly
perhaps, he admitted that the voice contained in
the tape was his.
These revelations remove
all doubts that India is dealing with Nepali
Maoists, who are conducting a violent insurgency.
New Delhi is simultaneously assisting the Royal
Nepal Army by supplying it arms. Visibly
embarrassed, the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu
promptly issued a press release, expressing doubts
about the authenticity of the tape. Then it chose
to place emphasis on India's continued military
assistance to the Nepal Army "to deal with the
challenges posed by the Maoist insurgency".
On the same day, American Ambassador James
Moriarty gave an interview to the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation in which he said he did
not believe the Maoists were getting any help from
outside. "We don't have any evidence of outside
support," he told the interviewer. This lends
credence to the perception that Washington, which
has forged a "strategic partnership" with New
Delhi, tends to see Nepal through Indian
spectacles.
Some Indian media reports
conceded that these developments "strained"
Nepal-India relations, and reported that New Delhi
was sending a senior diplomat on a damage-control
mission.
Analysts monitoring these
developments have mixed reactions. For example,
Jaya Raj Acharya, a former ambassador to the
United Nations, said that Nepal, which is
sandwiched between two giants (India and China),
could ill-afford to open more belligerent fronts.
"Hasty and knee-jerk reactions can only push this
country to a deeper crisis," he said.
Others don't see any harm if Nepal wanted
to take advantage from its strategic location:
Nepal is one of those countries on a border that
separates the free world from a communist empire.
(This is a slightly changed analogy drawn up by
Finland's renowned diplomat Max Jakobson about his
country's location alongside the former Soviet
Union.)
In fact, said analyst Dev Raj
Dahal, a new geopolitical realignment is placing
Nepal in a vortex of cross-pressures. The US is
challenging growing Chinese influence in the
Central and South Asian regions. Recent events in
Uzbekistan, for example, have to be seen in the
context of the US bid to consolidate its power in
this strategically crucial region near China's
border.
Likewise, London, Washington and
New Delhi continue to coordinate their policies in
the South Asian region. Their shared perception is
that Nepal is getting closer to China, especially
after the royal takeover on February 1. That is
why they are putting pressure on the king to
reverse his step. Had the US not been jittery
about the possibility of China raising its profile
in Nepal, Moriarty would not have reacted to media
reports saying China and Pakistan could offer
military assistance to Nepal, after India
temporarily withdrew its support after the king's
takeover. "It is not easy for them to do so [offer
assistance], taking into consideration the
international scenario," Moriarty said.
On
the other hand, China knows the importance of
Nepal as the US advances its strategy of
encircling China's southwest border. Hence Beijing
is unlikely to let Nepal become a failed state
below its underbelly, Tibet. It is also
interesting to see Japan making a fresh pledge of
US$17 million in grants, after India, the United
Kingdom and the US announced their intention to
stop assisting Nepal.
In the light of
growing rapprochement between China and India, so
goes an argument, Nepal has lost its traditional
significance as a buffer zone. But this is not a
universally shared point of view. Stephen P Cohen,
a fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the
New York Times (April 10) that the China-India
relationship would remain trouble-free on issues
related to trade and culture. "But as soon as you
get some confrontation, on the border, Chinese
goods flooding into India, or an incident at sea,
or in Tibet or Nepal, then things quickly become
much more nationalistic and complicated."
Anyhow, last Friday's diplomatic
communication did not come out of the blue. In the
interview given to Time (April 25), King Gyanendra
expressed disappointment over the initial response
from the international community to his takeover
of power. "It's a question of survival for Nepal"
has been his main argument. Extreme situations, he
pleaded, call for extreme measures. Earlier, on
March 7, the Foreign Ministry sent a circular to
all diplomatic missions in Kathmandu asking them
to understand the sensitivities of the situation
while trying to meet persons being held under
detention.
Meanwhile, most political
workers and human-rights activists have been
released after a major roundup on February 1.
Officials claim that the remaining detainees, who
number fewer than 200, will be set free within
days.
Tulsi Giri, senior of the two vice
chairmen in the royal cabinet headed by King
Gyanendra, is more sore at foreign countries,
particularly India. Posing itself as an elephant,
India treats Nepal as an ant, he told a gathering
of government officials at the border town of
Birgunj recently.
New Delhi's sole aim,
many argue, is to bring Nepal under its security
umbrella. Now this possibility has become remote
as several other players, including the US and the
UK, have marched in.
All the king's
men
While the changing international
scenario might have helped the king to take
measures aimed at projecting himself as an
assertive monarch dedicated to salvaging and
enhancing Nepal's identity as a nation, doubts
persist regarding his commitment to restoring
democracy within three years. The methods he has
applied in the past four months and the persons he
has recruited to achieve his objectives do not
encourage conviction that he is a forward-looking
leader.
All indications are that he wants
to be a powerful monarch, thus the chances for
elected representatives to govern the country
through democratic procedures appear slim. Whether
or not such an executive monarchy can develop a
popular base eventually is a matter of conjecture.
Officially, Nepal has not been under
emergency rule since the beginning of this month.
But the situation on the ground, especially in
far-flung districts, is anything but normal. Armed
Maoist rebels continue to kill civilians, and
carry out deadly attacks on army barracks and
police posts. Although restrictive guidelines
imposed on the media immediately after the king's
proclamation of February 1 do not permit the free
flow of information between the capital and rest
of the country, speeches by the king's hand-picked
ministers, together with announcements made
through state-owned media outlets, provide a clue
that the country is not out of danger.
Dhruba Adhikary is the
vice-president of the Nepal Press Institute. He
has been a Dag Hammarskjold Fellow at the United
Nations. (Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for
information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
