Foreign bogey or sincerity?

A weak and vulnerable nation often makes compromises. A corrupt and ambitious leader lacking ability also might make compromises. And these kinds of compromises will not be without long-term effects in the life of a nation and its people. A country like Nepal passing through a deep crisis and a civil war-like situation will therefore be more prone to these kinds of compromises. Former Prime Minister G P Koirala and leader of the main opposition in parliament Madhav Kumar Nepal expressed fear that there was a possibility that the foreign powers will use the present turmoil in the country to create a play space for themselves in detriment to the national interest. The joint assessment of the situation and the inference reached by two very prominent leaders of the country was scary and terrorising enough.

Madhav Nepal even claimed that he had seen a secret intelligence report to substantiate his argument, and his prescription to get out of the situation was to have the Sher Bahadur Deuba government out of power. Koirala and Nepal’s obvious fear of foreign powers setting up their base in Nepal was not difficult for anyone to guess which powers they were referring to. US Ambassador to Nepal Michael E Malinowski was forthright in dispelling these doubts and fear as he said that America had no interest in having a defense base or using the Himalayan Kingdom as a springboard against China. The US role in South Asia, including Afghanistan, has no doubt increased in the wake of global campaign against terrorism, following the September 11 attack. As far as Nepal is concerned, its fight against ‘terrorism’ has drawn the US, China, India and Russia together in support of its fight against anti-development, anti-modern tendency as well as the cult of individual killings launched by the Maoists. This tendency has also come as the biggest hurdle in the way of a meaningful peace initiative. Now the onus lies with the Maoists who broke away from the talks last time, disappointing an overwhelming majority of the people.

A domestic conflict can normally be solved through internal efforts up to a point. Clandestine imports of arms, suspected involvement of mercenaries in the attack on free citizens and a large scale destruction of infrastructures are not something that would win people’s support. Play of foreign powers — be it in any part of the globe — on the pretext of containing violence will automatically recede once the Maoists sincerely call off the violence and show interest in the peace initiative. And unless that happens, the Maoists will be blamed for creating a situation for the state operation against them. Koirala and Madhav Nepal – if they are serious at all for the peace process — should try to bring the government and the Maoists together instead of creating the bogey of ‘foreign powers’. Any peace process in which the concerned parties in the conflict are not involved would be futile.