February 24, 2006

Ambassadors of western democracies, particularly the United States and England , express the need for reconciliation between the King and the political parties

By KESHAB POUDEL

Bloomfield : Tough but Friendly

The U.S ambassador James F. Moriarty seems to have disturbed a hornet’s nest by expressing opinion of his country regarding the alliance between armed and violent Maoists and unarmed political parties.

After his address to a meeting on February 15, some of the broadsheet papers have launched a tirade against him. At a time when the country has been passing through a very critical phase, the role of reconciliation – which was played by political leaders like B.P. Koirala in the past – has, unfortunately, found no taker in the country.

For the first time in the history, perhaps Nepalese people seem poorer in the question of conscious leadership. Thus, the situation is going beyond the apprehension and control of Nepalese leadership.

Sandwiched between two powerful neighbors India and China , Nepal ’s prolonging instability and violence have already generated a kind of uneasiness in capital of both the neighbors. The reactions expressed by the government officials in New Delhi and Beijing in recent months is enough to demonstrate their concern.

In a sense, it is not unexpected that others who may have a concern in Nepalese affairs cannot remain mute and silent before its neighbors collide with all their military might. “Friends and well wishers of Nepal - who have a stake in the stability and peace of the region – could not restrain themselves within the diplomatic niceties. So the reactions are there from the distant friends like the US and England ,” said an analyst.

“As I have done repeatedly, and as the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command did in Nepal here two weeks ago, the United States continues to call for reconciliation between the King and the parties. We did so again last week after the failure of the municipal elections. Major international partners have urged a similar course. I make the same common sense plea here today,” said the U.S ambassador Moriarty in his recent speech. “For Nepal is now facing a choice between three possible futures. If the King and the parties reconcile, they can find a path back to genuine democracy and an effective means to counter the insurgency.”

Moriarty addressed a gathering around the same time when Antony Stokes, the head of South Asia Group at British Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom visited Nepal . Stokes met Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala and reportedly conveyed his government concerns about Nepal ’s political equations including the seven parties Maoist alliance. “Stokes is learnt to have told Koirala that the 12-point understanding with the Maoist was not in favor of the parties. Stoles reportedly suggested for reconciliation,” writes The Himalayan Times.

Stokes is a second foreigner after the US ambassador Moriarty to say that alliance between the parties and the Maoists was ultimately going to harm the parties.

The growing concern expressed by the diplomats of western countries showed that the peace in Nepal may set the destiny of Nepal as well as region.

Geographically, Nepal is still a yam between two neighbors but the current global situation has added new players like western democracies particularly the United States of America and the United Kingdom . Though they are far away from Nepal , they are in a position to influence internal politics as well as strategic equations.

Earlier, these two countries have reportedly said that they will see Nepal from New Delhi ’s eyes. For the first time, the US and the UK has declared their own policy to Nepal through their ambassadors and emissaries. “The west seems to have realized the unique position of Nepal and declared their own policy. They don’t have immediate security and economic interests in Nepal . Their policies are more realistic and friendly to this country whereas both the bigger neighbors of Nepal have their own security interests as their primary concern. Thus, that may be realistic but not all the time friendly,” added the analyst.

“I do believe that despite the vast geo-political and geo-strategic changes that have recently occurred in the world, particularly on the subcontinent, by and large, we continue to maintain close security relationship between our two countries. Its graph has had minor fluctuations. But when one looks at it through a historical prism, these fluctuations are insignificant. Having said that this, I must also caution that, as we enter the globalization era, and faster the geopolitical and strategic changes occur, New Delhi and Kathmandu will have to show much greater sagacity, perceptiveness and understanding to maintain the steadfastness of these ties,” writes India’s former chief of the army Ved Prakas Malik in his article India-Nepal Security Relations.

Similarly, Chinese scholars, too, have expressed concern over Nepal ’s security ties with next door neighbor. “ Nepal ’s independence is essential prerequisite elements for China ’s security. Thus, Nepal remaining under India security umbrella is constant threat to China ,” writes Wang Zong, in his book Nepal ’s National Defensive Strategy and Nepal-China Relation.

Although high-level visit by a Chinese leader to Nepal was postponed in the last minute, it is expected to be rescheduled for March just after the visit of the U.S. president George Bush to India who is coming in his important mission to deal with the pressing problems of the region.

As the president is not visiting neighboring country Nepal , some high level decisions seem to have been taken by the State Department regarding Nepal ’s problem. Coinciding with that, the visit of Antony Stokes, the head of South Asian Group at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was also significant.

The US and the UK :

A Well Meaning Diplomacy

Both America and Britain have common approach to deal with global terrorism. American and British support to democracy and fighting terrorism is common strategy all over the world.

Till now they seem to have slightly different policies regarding Nepal as were expressed by respective ambassadors. The US ambassador Moriarty remains always consistent in persuading both the monarch and constitutional forces to reconcile and work for restoration of democratic process. The present British ambassador Keith Bloomfield - whose tough but sincere advice - invited a lot of criticism from Royalist camp. As an expert on counter terrorism, his role has been portrayed as a very complicated one.

Interestingly, both the countries almost simultaneously have declared the similar policy towards Nepal . They have expressed that peace must be restored first. The King and the forces abiding to the constitution must come to reconciliation and work together. They unequivocally expressed serious reservations about the Delhi declaration between the Maoist and the seven parties.

The message was clear, between the lines, that both the countries can put any kind of pressure upon the King to restore the democratic process and allow the constitutional forces assume their legitimate position. It is also clear that these two counties will never support the unnatural alliance of the political parties and the Maoists. The message of the recent statement seem to be that if there is a polarization between the King and army and the Maoists and seven agitating parties, these countries could not let Nepal collapse and submit to violence and anarchy.

But their sincere concern has invited a lot of scathing criticisms from various quarters. “The recent statements given by western countries including the US and England opposing the seven parties and Maoists understanding are aimed at strengthening the hands of despotic monarchy. One of the aims of our understanding is to bring the peace in the country through holding the elections of constituent assembly. As always, the US ambassador is also supporting despotic monarch,” said Lilamani Pokharel, vice president of United People’s Front, a radical communist outfit. “American ambassador does not understand the contents and words of our agreement.”

However, the leadership in India has divided opinion regarding its relations with neighbor. The old hawkish security strategists have not yet come out of the lopsided traditional strategy. There are many persons including Indian prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram (the Finance Minister) who carry a great hope in leading India towards faster development but the same is not with all others who are decisive in the inner politics.

This inner contradiction is too high to expect the desired role from the government in India . Perhaps, this was the reason west could not have come forward to speak so much so clearly about Nepal ’s problem. The message is not alone for Nepal ’s internal forces but it is for Nepal ’s neighbors, too. Peace in Nepal is related with the peace in the region as Nepal lies between two big military powers.

“The concerns expressed in Nepal reflects the gravity of the problems which both Washington and London seem to have realized. China seems to be very alert and watchful of the whole development in Nepal . The postponement of Chinese deputy prime minister’s visit is not for nothing. Perhaps, China wants to observe the American president’s visit to Indian and its outcome before it speaks anything about Nepal ,” said the political analyst. “Forces within Nepal , however, have very narrow outlook to analyze Nepal ’s problems, which have bigger dimensions in which not only two immediate neighbors but these two distant but influential countries have also significant role in ensuing situation.”