Nepal: Where The U.S. Can Make A Huge Difference
By Krishna Singh Bam
The alarm expressed by the U.S. government last week over the possibility of an alliance between Nepal’s mainstream
opposition parties and Maoist rebels against King Gyanendra has put Washington’s stand on the kingdom’s crisis at odds
with India’s.
The fact that India has been using the Maoist insurgency to further its own aims in Nepal has not been lost on key
Americans. Peter Burleigh, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for instance, wondered not too long ago how
senior Nepalese Maoist leaders so easily accessible to Western reporters based in India could evade Indian security
agencies.
The U.S. has forcefully affirmed that the Maoists could not be considered a legitimate political force until they enter
into peace negotiations with the government in good faith, abandon their weapons, and come into the political
mainstream. Whether this marks a belated recognition of the futility of Washington’s effort to coordinate policy with
New Delhi on Nepal remains unclear. It does provide an opportunity for the United States to help Nepal restore peace and
stability and become a truly free and prosperous democracy.
The U.S. statement came days after seven U.S. Congressmen urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to devise a coherent
policy on Nepal. In an October 28 letter, the Congressmen urged Rice to call a high-level intra-agency group to
"discuss, develop and implement" the strategy to address the situation in Nepal.
As the congressmen stated, a package of diplomatic intervention, economic development, and restoration of civil security
is urgently required to pull Nepal out of the quagmire. For the last eight months, the United States, like much of the
world, has urged King Gyanendra to embrace democratic governance. The royal government has announced municipal and
parliamentary elections within the next two years. However, the mainstream opposition parties have threatened to boycott
the elections and forge an alliance with the Maoists. Mid-ranking members of the opposition alliance privately suggest
that their top leadership is guided and goaded by India.
Let there be no mistake. Nepalis are a realistic people. They recognize that India is a giant neighbor that could extend
great benefits for Nepal. However, the all-round subjugation India has enshrined as its policy on Nepal has posed a
major hurdle. From imposing patently unequal treaties on Nepal to encroaching the kingdom’s territory, India has not
been a very credible partner. Worse, Indian leaders blame the aggrieved Nepalis for the misfortune gripping the kingdom.
Other South Asian countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka – not to speak of Pakistan – have been complaining of this
heavy-handedness.
What Nepalis really desire is the opportunity to exercise unencumbered the sovereign rights they are entitled to as an
independent nation. Throughout its 237-year history, Nepal has been cognizant of the sensitivities of its other giant
neighbor, China. Despite Nepal’s traditionally close multi-faceted ties with India, the kingdom cannot ignore the
imperative of mutually beneficial cooperation with the Chinese. If Nepal, for instance, deepens transport links with
China by building roads, it could help ensure cost-effective supply of food grains to perennially deficit areas in the
north. Why should India view every Nepalese move to deepen ties with China as a brandishing of an anti-India card?
The Nepalese aspiration to consolidate its independence and sovereign rights will only deepen in the years ahead,
regardless of whether it remains a monarchy or becomes a republic. For several years now, the United States has taken
the misguided course of forging its policy on the kingdom in consultation with India. This has raised the suspicions of
China, needlessly heightening tensions in an already volatile region.
Few believe that the Maoist rebels can be defeated militarily. Fewer still quibble with the grievances they have brought
to the fore. Despite their fiery rhetoric, the Maoist leadership recognizes the impossibility of mounting a total
victory against the present government. The question of whether they can sustain a radical hardcore communist government
in this day and age becomes irrelevant.
Since many of the Maoist strings are being pulled across Nepal’s southern border by mid-level functionaries in the
security and intelligence establishment in India, there is a real fear of continuing chaos. U.S. policymakers must not
lose sight of the fact that sections of the Indian establishment have been instrumental in forging a mainstream-Maoist
alliance against the palace. Recent Indian media reports are sufficient to establish the extent official Indian
connivance in crafting this unnatural alliance.
There is enough historical evidence to suggest that India’s purpose is not to ensure peace, stability and democracy in
Nepal. It is to weaken the kingdom to its core and fulfill India’s decades-long desire of bringing the last independent
Himalayan kingdom under its diplomatic and security umbrella. India annexed the former kingdom of Sikkim in 1975, after
engineering political strife. Although still a nominally independent kingdom, Bhutan has handed over its foreign and
defense policies to India.
Ever since Nepal opened itself to the rest of the world in the 1950s, the United States has proved to be a true friend
in word and deed. Washington provided firm support to Nepal’s effort to become a member of the United Nations, an
initiative caught in successive Soviet vetoes. It has assisted Nepal’s development in such vital fields as health,
education, transportation.
Legions of Peace Corp volunteers have lived and worked with ordinary Nepalis. Many former volunteers currently occupy
senior positions in U.S. government, business and academia and remain strong friends of Nepal. As the United States
strives to advance peace and democracy around the world, it is in a unique position to help Nepal strengthen its
sovereignty.
For most Americans, King Gyanendra’s dismissal of a multiparty government and takeover of full executive powers on
February 1 has brought the restoration of democracy as the prime imperative. Important as this endeavor is, it must not
obscure Nepal’s aspiration to gain full sovereignty. By crafting its own policy on Nepal, based on shared values and
decades-old ties, the United States can make a huge difference.
ENDS