Nepal: Stealth of Nations
Predicaments gripping the fourth player in Nepal's deepening conflict are gradually coming to the fore, as the first
three continue their struggle for predominance with greater determination.
While much of the world condemned King Gyanendra's Feb. 1 takeover of full political powers, China, Russia and Pakistan
chose to view it as an internal matter. The working alliance among the other three external principals – India, United
States and Britain – to prevent Nepal from total collapse, which predated the palace takeover, appeared to be holding
strong.
Recently, however, two indications of the difficulties the international community faces in promoting, peace, democracy
and development in the strategically placed kingdom have emerged. Earlier this month, an Indian online magazine reported
that the United Nations had developed a plan to administer Nepal for one year.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was said to have cleared the arrangement with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan. Under the plan, the U.N. would lead the way toward restoring democracy in Nepal by keeping its constitutional
monarchy and mainstreaming the Maoist insurgents. The U.N. mission, envisaged along the lines of the ambitious 1993
operation in Cambodia, was prepared by India and co-sponsored by the United States, Britain and Belgium, according to
NewsInsight.com.
The plan involved King Gyanendra's transfer of executive powers to the United Nations. During this period, the world
body would implement 20 mega development projects in remote Nepalese districts, revive police institutions to restore
public confidence in them, and hold free and fair internationally monitored elections. The Royal Nepalese Army and the
Maoists would agree to a ceasefire.
On the surface, at least, the plan represented a win-win situation for all three internal players -- the monarchy,
mainstream parties and Maoists. Specifically, U.N. involvement provided the rebels with enough cover to return to the
negotiating table, a demand they have been making in recent months.
NewsInsight.com also noted that U.N. involvement would stanch fears of an Indian takeover, a highly sensitive issue in
the kingdom. Since three of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – assuming that France would
articulate the European Union's policies -- were involved, the other two, China and Russia, would be hard-pressed to
object to a noble endeavor allowing Nepalese politicians and people to rebuild their country.
The NewsInsight.com disclosure gained added credibility as it came at a time when Lakhdar Brahimi, special adviser to
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, was visiting the kingdom. The enthusiasm, however, was deflated the following day
when the United Press International, the only major international news organization that reported on the subject, quoted
U.S., U.N. and Nepalese sources denying knowledge of any such proposal. Brahimi, too, at the end of the visit said he
felt the Nepalese people were capable enough to resolve their conflict.
Since no response was issued by India, a major architect of the plan, NewsInsight.com chose not to issue either a
retraction or confirmation. As a trial balloon, though, the report continues to soar high.
A second, and perhaps more ominous, proposal doing the rounds involves Washington D.C.-based National Endowment for
Democracy (NED). During her visit to Nepal in May, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca reportedly told
senior opposition politicians that Washington would promote democracy in the kingdom through the NED.
The entry of the NED, which has made headlines through its recent role in the "color-coded" revolutions in Central Asia,
has raised alarms in Nepal's two giant neighbors already uneasy with Washington's rising profile in the kingdom.
China cannot be unaware of the NED's relationship with its ethnic Muslim Uighur minority. Beijing, moreover, views the
NED-inspired "tulip revolution" in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan as part of a U.S. strategy to contain China.
Chinese and Turkish properties were singled out for looting and arson in Bishkek on the eve of the protests that drove
President Askar Akayev from power in March.
Beijing had been very successful in persuading Akayev, using investment, foreign aid and military-political support as
leverage to check the Uighur diaspora. Under the NED-driven new regime, Beijing fears Bishkek might be inclined to
support Uighurs across the border. In the past, Chinese media have reported Beijing's concern over the possibility of
Uighur separatists operating from Nepal. The presence of the NED in the kingdom also raises the specter of an aggressive
U.S. involvement on the Tibet issue.
Although India would appear to be less ill-disposed to an NED role in Nepal – that, too, to promote the kind of
democratic freedoms New Delhi itself advocates – sections of the country's security and military establishments appear
alarmed. New Delhi is particularly worried about possible NED meddling in its turbulent northeast, where several violent
insurgencies have been raging over the past five decades.
According to one estimate, more than 200 NGOs are operating in some of the seven states in the region. "A number of them
have sought security clearance for projects on subjects unheard of in areas where such studies neither appear relevant
or feasible, according to sources in New Delhi," according to the Asia Times.
Over the years, Christian missionaries have been increasingly active in the region. New Delhi is also deeply concerned
about large-scale illegal immigration into the northeastern states from Bangladesh – which Indian media and analysts
consider a hotbed of rising Islamic fundamentalism.
Any overt U.S. interest in such a volatile region brings back bitter memories among Indians who recall a study prepared
by the Special Operation Research Office of the Washington-based George Washington University. The objective was to
conduct sociological research in India's northeastern states as well as Bhutan and Sikkim. That study was seen as a
precursor to "Project Brahmaputra," which some Indians saw as a CIA-devised effort to isolate the region from the rest
of India.
Although the plan never got off the ground, it has left lingering suspicions. The strong response to U.S. Ambassador
David C. Mulford letters to the chief ministers of Assam and Nagaland last year, offering the U.S. Federal Bureau of
Investigation's assistance to investigate the serial blasts in the two states, had roots in that mindset.
Tom Daschle, the former U.S. Senate majority leader, is currently on a fact-finding visit to Nepal under the auspices of
the National Democratic Institute, an affiliate of the NED. His conclusions are expected to provide the basis for the
next stage of NED activities.
The larger point here is unmistakable. If the conflict in Nepal escalates to the point of threatening regional security,
external powers would scramble to act regardless of traditional ideological considerations. The United States, after
all, supported a Cambodian opposition alliance that included the Khmer Rouge in an effort to build a counterweight to
the Vietnamese-installed government in Phnom Penh. New Delhi, for its part, has already opened its own channel with
Nepalese Maoists, whom it had designated terrorists months before Kathmandu had.
"Once external power centers exert their influence to this extent in a country's conflict, the costs of the resolution
of the conflict far outweigh the benefits," Narayan Khadka, a prominent member of ousted prime minister Sher Bahadur
Deuba's Nepali Congress (Democratic), wrote recently in The Kathmandu Post. Similar forebodings have begun to appear
more regularly in media commentaries reflecting virtually every political persuasion. Will they be heeded in time?
*************
Sanjay Upadhya, a Nepalese journalist based in the United States, has been a Fulbright Scholar at New York University
ENDS