|
|
|
|
Monarchy stands
firm
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - People of Nepal, numbering
nearly 25 million, continue to be trapped in a
crossfire between the forces representing a feudal
monarchy on the one hand and a 10-year-old Maoist
rebellion on the other. Over 13, 000 lives have
been lost in the process; agony of widows and
orphaned children in indescribable. The economy,
based on subsistence farming, would have already
collapsed if the remittances sent by Nepalis
working mainly as unskilled labor in the Gulf
countries had not kept it floating.
But it
is uncertain how long these Nepalis will find it
wise to send money to a place where security of
life and property is under constant threat. Media
reports filtering into the capital city from
outlying districts tell a message of a reign of
terror in rural Nepal. The Kathmandu valley, which
houses three of the country's 75 districts, is a
kind of island.
Units of the Royal Nepal
Army (RNA), Armed Police Force and Nepal Police
under the army's "unified command" are heavily
mobilized to salvage the palace and its
paraphernalia.
How much positive
difference has King Gyanendra's direct rule
brought to Nepal since he assumed state powers
February 1? Almost all the ministers the king
appointed to the government he constituted under
his own chairmanship on February 2 keep telling
the public that there has been a marked
improvement in the law and order situation in the
intervening period. But this is not a widely
accepted claim, though Nepalis across the country
cannot fearlessly express their voices on such
issues in view of the censorship introduced on
February 1. (The emergency was lifted after three
months, but the authorities have not withdrawn
gazette notices on censorship.) A culture of
self-censorship is developing, to the dismay of
Nepali intelligentsia and their well-wishers
abroad.
Armed rebel groups keep attacking
security forces, making fatal onslaughts on
innocent civilians, recruiting children for their
militia and extorting money from villagers to
finance the "people's war," which the Maoists have
promised will eventually transform Nepal into a
people's republic. Half of Nepal's population is
illiterate; this leaves them vulnerable to
exploitation by both government as well as rebel
forces.
Monarchy and Maoism are
ideologically poles apart, but in present-day
Nepal there is one agenda where protagonists of
both sides share a common stand: they hate
political parties. That is why some analysts
suspect they have been working in tandem, and this
perception is not without a basis. Senior Maoist
leader Baburam Bhattarai, for instance, once
publicly claimed that his party had forged a
"working unity" with King Birendra a few months
before he was slain in a mysterious palace
carnage, in June 2001. But he did not explain what
such a unity would entail.
Another ground
for speculation was provided by the present king's
incumbent foreign minister, Ramesh Nath Pandey,
also during the reign of the late king. Pandey,
who then was only a king's nominee in the upper
house of parliament, admitted in a newspaper
interview that he had had secret meetings with top
Maoist leaders - billed terrorists by the
government of the day. Adding an element of
curiosity, Pandey declined to disclose their
whereabouts for the sake of the safety of Maoists.
He also did not mention who authorized those
clandestine meetings. Political developments of
the recent past portend more complexities.
Circumstances have made Nepalis hostage in
their own country, compelling them to seek help
from those who possess capabilities to rescue
them. They also appear in need of support from
those who can stand up and say that questions of
human rights and democracy are no longer issues of
any other country's concern.
To the
international community, Nepal is a fragile state
- on its way to becoming a failed state. And this
has become a matter of grave concern to Nepal's
friends in the neighborhood and abroad. Together
with India and China, Nepal's two paramount
neighbors, the United States, Britain and its
other European partners are keen to prevent Nepal
from becoming another Afghanistan, Iraq or
Cambodia.
"One does not need to tell the
people of Nepal that they are facing a very
serious crisis," said visiting UN envoy Lakhdar
Brahimi at a news conference July 15. He said
return to constitutional order and multi-party
democracy was one of the three elements on which a
solution to the ongoing conflict rested. Brahimi,
senior advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan,
said the UN remained available to provide
necessary assistance.
Donald Camp, a
senior US State Department official, was another
recent visitor to Nepal who made it clear to King
Gyanendra and his associates that restoration of
democracy was needed to address the Maoist
insurgency. "The world and the United States find
unacceptable a return to pre-1990 Nepal," Camp
said, alluding to the absolute monarchy that Nepal
was made to endure for 30 years after 1960. He
referred to President George W Bush's inaugural
address in January reiterating American commitment
to democracy around the world, and added: "This
includes Nepal as well." These remarks were made
public less than an hour before Camp's scheduled
audience with King Gyanendra, on June 28.
Envoys of India and the United Kingdom are
among those diplomats who also have publicly aired
their views in favor of restoration of democracy.
They, together with other partners within the
European Union, believe that since there is no
military solution to the Maoist insurgency, the
king should restore democracy so that adequate and
legitimate political strength could be built to
deal with the rebellion. London, Delhi and
Washington, the three capitals that have been
informally but jointly taking initiatives on Nepal
for some years, have put military assistance to
Nepal's army on hold since February 1. The Royal
Nepal Army has received only non-lethal supplies
in the preceding months. Several of Nepal's
important donors, including Denmark, have given
indication that their developmental assistance to
Nepal could discontinue unless democracy is
restored. ( China, Russia and Pakistan consider
the February 1 coup as Nepal's internal affair.)
King Gyanendra's government considers such
a stand untenable, amounting to interference in
Nepal's internal affairs. Indian ambassador Shiv
Shankar Mukherjee and British ambassador Keith
Bloomfield were summoned to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs to be told that their remarks went
beyond the diplomatic duties they were supposed to
fulfill. Bloomfield was given a second reprimand
after he spoke to an academic group about the
principle of rule of law. He said he picked up the
issue because King Gyanendra himself had mentioned
its importance in his proclamation of February 1.
Earlier, security men had turned away US
ambassador James Moriarty from the entrance of the
house where Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad
Koirala was placed under arrest. It was at the
time the Foreign Office issued a circular to all
Kathmandu-based diplomatic missions explaining the
newly introduced conditions under which they could
meet persons under house arrest and detention.
One of the royal advisors, retired army
General Bharat Keshar Simha, once went to the
extent of publicly demanding that the Indian envoy
be declared persona non grata and expelled from
Nepal. In one recent occasion, Kirtinidhi Bista,
one of the two vice chairmen in the king's
cabinet, flatly brushed aside the idea of
accepting external assistance or mediation in
resolving the conflict in Nepal. Bista's reaction
that the royal government was capable of resolving
"the Maoist problem ourselves" came right after
his meeting with visiting UN envoy Brahimi.
The Maoist problem
How is it
possible now? Why wasn't it possible in the past
years? If resolution of the Maoist problem is
indeed as easy a task as Bista seems to suggest,
then wouldn't it let skeptics repeat their old
argument that the Maoist movement was nothing but
a creation of palace hardliners who were looking
for a pretext to destabilize democracy and prove
it unsuitable for a country like Nepal?
But if this is not the case, and what
Bista was saying now was a genuine, spontaneous
and innocuous expression of zeal and patriotism,
then analysts believe that the government's
assessment of the current situation is not
realistic at all.
How can one gloss over
the stark scene where Maoists carry out armed
onslaughts on both government as well as civilian
targets? What specific measures has the royal
government taken since February to prevent
reckless deaths and destruction across the
country? It is common knowledge that despite their
best efforts and wide publicity, the RNA remains
largely on the defensive. A common perception is
that unless the army intensifies its offensive
capabilities, the Maoists' military strength is
unlikely to be weakened, and rebel leaders won't
be forced to agree to sit for negotiations.
Here, the million-dollar question is, when
can this situation be changed? How many more
thousand lives will have to be lost before any
credible initiatives begin? Can the UN or the
international community afford to remain silent
spectators while the spate of killings and damage
go unabated? Kulchandra Gautam, a Nepali citizen
currently holding a senior UN post, is one of
those intellectuals who does not see any harm in
accepting external assistance/mediation if the
means available within Nepal cannot resolve the
challenge. Gautam has told Nepali intelligentsia a
number of times that a stage comes when the UN is
compelled to take measures aimed at stopping the
violence from spreading.
In fact,
Brahimi's trip to Kathmandu is being seen as
meaningful in this context. Brahimi said Kofi
Annan, who met Gyanendra in Jakarta in April, had
been watching developments in Nepal "with growing
concern". Annan, he said, wrote two letters to the
king and spoke to him on telephone after the
February coup. Nepal, a UN member since 1955, has
already worked twice in the Security Council as a
non-permanent member. Seasoned Nepali diplomats
concede that by voluntarily giving a role to the
UN, Nepal stands to make gains in these
extraordinary circumstances. Besides, the UN is an
organization that leaves the country once its
assigned job is completed - like in Cambodia.
"Why should there be any hesitation to
involve the UN if the government has nothing to
hide," wondered analyst Devraj Dahal, who is also
associated with the German foundation, Friedrich
Ebert Stiftung.
In the past, whenever the
possibility of giving the UN a role came in public
debate, India would oppose the idea for reasons
never fully explained. This stand, however, has
altered in recent times, especially after February
1. "None of these powers [India and the US] would
oppose UN mediation, if it served their strategic
or other important interests," commented The
Himalayan Times, a pro-Indian newspaper published
in Kathmandu, on the eve of Brahimi's visit to
Nepal.
Britain, too, according to
diplomatic sources, would support a growing UN
role for Nepal. Americans have so far appeared
less enthusiastic about the UN , because they
think the UN is too soft on the Maoists. They
might change this position once the Indians and
British convince them about the UN's usefulness.
In a way, the UN has already entered Nepal
- through its human rights agency, Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
- OHCHR. The royal government signed an agreement
in April, permitting the agency to set up its
office in Nepal, with a mandate to monitor
violations of human rights. The new office, headed
by former secretary general of Amnesty
International, Ian Martin, is in the process of
beginning its mandated work.
(Vice
chairman Bista, who spoke against a UN role during
Brahimi's visit, might not have fully realized the
implications of the agreement Foreign Minister
Pandey concluded earlier with the human-rights
chief who is based in Geneva.)
King
Gyanendra , who has remained indifferent to
internal political unrest, continues to ignore
messages and appeals coming from the international
front. Of course, he has granted audiences to a
stream of international visitors in the past
couple of months, and almost all of them have
heard the king reiterating his commitment to
democracy and human rights.
But those who
believe that actions speak louder than words have
found themselves thoroughly dismayed. "Yes, the
deeds do not appear to be matching the words,"
said a South Asian diplomat who did not want to be
identified. The most recent example surfaced on
the night of July 14, when the Narayanhity Royal
Palace announced induction of a dozen ministers,
within hours after the king met Brahimi. Most of
the newly appointed ministers are persons known
for their anti-democratic backgrounds.
A
few days before, the king had surprised many
through the appointment of retired army generals
to important diplomatic posts. Loyalty is taking
precedence over competence in matters relating to
appointments and promotions. Nepal, which has not
had a parliament or elected government since 2002,
has become a country to be ruled through a string
of royal decrees. And there is no plan for
parliamentary elections in the foreseeable future.
People who initially gave the king the benefit of
the doubt for his February 1 move, have realized
now that the royal proclamation was indeed a thin
veil for a power-grab.
He did not take
that action to resolve the Maoist insurgency,
monitors of contemporary trends have concluded.
Hence, it is preposterous to expect the king to
restore democracy as promised. The alliance of
seven major political parties has now understood
that there is no alternative to a decisive,
nationwide movement for the restoration of
democracy.
To India, the world's largest
democracy, Nepal has become a test case. The US
and the UK, too, known for their long democratic
traditions, would not like to see Nepal sliding
back to the medieval era of autocracy.
But
how will US and other initiatives work to restore
democracy in Nepal? Will it be through
organizations such as the Washington-based
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was
active in Kyrgyzstan "Tulip" revolution?
Speculation abounds, especially in context of
Nepal's location: China, Nepal's northern
neighbor, is the US's biggest rival.
Nevertheless, King Gyanendra can avert the
looming disaster if he wants to. And the method is
simple: he can preempt potential external moves by
giving back power to the Nepali people. A prompt
step along this line could still help retain a
ceremonial role for the monarchy. All he needs to
do is read the writing on the wall.
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
|
|
|
|
