Mr. Moriarty, Take Note
By Madhav K. Rimal
James F. Moriarty, the US envoy to Nepal, is perhaps one of the rare envoys who enjoys creating ripples in the troubled waters. US envoys generally belong to a special class. They not only carry a lot of weight, they carry a lot of burden also. As the lone super power, at the moment, and undeniably the most powerful and influential nation in the world, if the US thinks she has the authority to do what she pleases, who can stop her. George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq is the example. Morality and human values don’t mean anything in politics and are sacrificed at the snap of the little finger. No ghost need come from hell to tell us that all big and powerful countries think only of safeguarding and furthering their own interests. They won’t bat their eyelids even to send thousands of innocent men and women in their prime to their untimely and cruel deaths if it serves their purpose.
One must be able to understand that, in the present age, all envoys carry out the plans, programs and directives of their governments. The days when envoys used to declare wars are no more. As such, Moriarty has done nothing more than successfully pursuing his government’s policies. And we think he deserves a pat on the back. We must understand that unlike our government, the US government doesn’t make policies on the spur of the moment. Neither do their envoys try to further the political party’s interests that appoint them. In our country, our politicians think their parties are bigger and more important than their nation. That’s why there is such a big tug o’ war in the appointment of the envoys.
Does one need any further explanation about the intentions and integrities of Nepali politicians? Moriarty, we think, is an excellent representative of his country. He has been working in the best interests of his country. Instead of finding fault with his behavior, if we analyze the workings and behavior of our government objectively, perhaps, we would not be prejudiced against Moriarty. The total absence of a strong and stable foreign policy that safeguarded our national interests and an efficient and honest machinery to implement it, has turned our foreign service into a lucrative institution for wining and dining and luxurious life style.
Even more important is how many of our envoys possess a personality that can impress and influence the host government? Needless to state, Moriarty belongs to a different class. It is, indeed, true that the present US policy towards Nepal might not be to our liking nor beneficial to our national interest. But we must understand no nation makes policies to please or benefit others. If the United States is over-solicitous to maintain their unique global hegemony and searching ways and means to further strengthen it, shouldn’t it be viewed as natural? If they think their closer relations with India would help them achieve their objective, who are we to blame them? Of course, they need not have sacrificed poor Nepal’s interests to the extent of endangering her integrity. But they must have their constraints, their quid pro quo with India. However, we think they have backed a wrong horse. An old American diplomat friend I met recently in Washington D.C. had confided to this scribe that the Bush government has been ill-advised. The new democratic government that is sure to take the reins will definitely make drastic changes in the policies. “ India,” he had told me, “cannot catch up with China in another hundred years, even if the United States (read Bush government) opened its nuclear arsenal to her. The gap between them will keep on widening as China races to become a super power.” Moriarty or the US government could indeed have influenced India not to drive Nepal to the extent that she might not be able to cope with the fissiparous tendencies generated by India’s destabilizing Nepal. But her own ambitions must have outweighed her interest in Nepal’s solidarity. This scribe did take up the issue of India’s aiding and abetting Maoists’ violent incursions against Nepal from the sanctuaries in India with Moriarty’s predecessors, which was blatantly violating the US President’s avowal to fight against global terrorism. But they just smiled and shrugged their shoulders. It was evident by their behavior that the US government would do nothing that might antagonize India. Granted that Nepal’s utility as a window on China had evaporated long back. But pushing a small, poor and helpless country to be disintegrated by its giant and mighty neighbor would, in no way, augment American stature in the world as a champion for democracy and the weak. This will only drive them to their only succor- China. And as far Nepal is concerned, the Chinese would never leave Nepal totally friendless. If in the changed context, the Chinese might have to think twice or thrice to maintain their traditional stance, even if Nepal’s satellite politicians don’t solicit the Chinese, the Nepali people are fully confident China will come to their rescue whenever needed. So, Moriarty do take note and don’t pursue a policy that won’t serve you for long. Because, it is full of potential dangers of not only disturbing peace in the region but also driving the millions of Hindus to the fold of terrorism with the possibility of joining hands with millions of Islamic terrorists.
