 |
|
| Kathmandu, Thursday March 13, 2003 Falgun 29, 2059. |
|
Dual policy at home and abroad
By DR SHREEDHAR GAUTAM
Some days ago the Indian Prime Minister, Atal
Behari Vajpayee, while responding to the debate in the parliament over the Iraq issue,
said India would follow a middle path, that is, neither active nor passive policy. He
meant that India would oppose unilateral military action on Iraq but would support if
endorsed by the UN. He could not say categorically that war on Iraq would be unjustified
whether unilateral or multilateral. Similarly, Pakistan professes to be safeguarding
Muslim interest, but it allows US forces on its soil. Iraq is facing imminent danger of
human catastrophe because of the dualistic policies of many countries, including Russia,
France and China. If these countries had adopted a tough line in the UN, America would
never have dared to introduce the 1441 resolution earlier. Now Anglo-American alliance is
going to press for second resolution to give Iraq just 10 days’ ultimatum to disarm
it or face the consequence. America still thinks that it can muster majority votes in the
Security Council, if not the majority of the permanent members.
It is more than clear that the US was not
interested in the peaceful solution to the so-called Iraq crisis and its focus was on the
forceful overthrow of the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. However, the three permanent
members France, Russia and China, behaved in such a way as if they had the full faith in
the sincerity of American politics, especially in America’s version to see Iraq
disarmed peacefully. Of course, we appreciate Russia, France and China’s stand on
Iraq issue and their firm opposition to the imminent US led war. However, they have failed
to point out the root cause of Iraq crisis. If there is any crisis, it is not because of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but because of the superpower’ obsession with a
man who is not ready to placate the western world at the cost of his country’s
independence and sovereignty. Now, by opposing American unilateral action, the three
permanent members are simply trying to show that they are alive, if not assertive. Their
voice against the only superpower should have come much earlier when America had showed
its real intention in the disguise of disarming Iraq.
America had been emboldened by China’s
absence during the crucial vote for the authorisation of force against Iraq by the UN in
1990. China showed neutrality by voting neither against nor in favour of the resolution.
Right thinking analysts term China’s stand in 1990 as the most unbecoming and immoral
one. Moreover, China still has not abandoned the socialistic path, at least in name.
Therefore, people expected it to vote against the resolution when Russia and France voted
along the US line. France showed dualistic policy first by voting in favour of using
force, and later abandoning its earlier policy of not bombing Iraqi cities and confining
to Kuwait to pressurize the vacation of the country by the Iraqi forces. Later France
succumbed to superpower’s pressure and participated in the bombing of Iraqi cities
mercilessly. France, Russia and China’s dualistic policies have cost the humanity a
lot. Now too, if they succumb to the earlier type pressure, the suffering of humanity will
be beyond measurement.
Neutrality in politics becomes dangerous, also
at the national level. If we look at our national politics, we will realize that we have
suffered a lot because of the neutral path taken by certain political leaders. For
instance, since the days of his accession to power, Girija Prasad Koirala was growing more
and more authoritative, disregarding all constitutional norms and values. He could have
been checkmated appropriately if the other Congress leaders had shown courage to expose
his anti democratic stance in the party affairs as well as in the governance. He
humiliated Krishna Prasad Bhattarati several times for personal sake and was instrumental
in his defeat in the first general election. However, the politicians like Ram Chandra
Paudel, late Mahendra Narayan Nidhi and Sher Bahadur Deuba trod the middle path and did
not come out openly against Koirala’s design to disturb party and the democratic
experiment. Sometimes, revolt is necessary in a political party when it diverts from the
declared policy. One of the reasons why Nepali Congress has become so weak in the present
context is its contradictory policies. Ironically, Koirala, who breached all the norms of
political sincerity, has now become the Champion of the revival of democracy. Middle path
walkers like Ram Chandra Paudel and Sher Bahadur Deuba missed opportunity by not siding
with Bhattarai, when Koirala unceremoniously threw the old man out of the office. . He
used the same old man to win the election in the last general election, but from the next
day of Bhattarai as Prime Minister, he started ‘Bhattarai Hatao’ campaign. Such
a gross violation of democratic norm was not effectively opposed and blocked by the middle
path politicians like Ram Chandra Paudel for safeguarding their personal position at the
cost of party and democracy.
Like in Nepali Congress, the UML is also the
victim of dualistic politics. The proponent of people’s multi party democracy, the
late Madam Bhandari, became the first casualty of the dualistic policy. He could not see
the contradiction in his politics and adopted the suicidal policy of championing for
communism without disturbing the existing social set-up. After his death, leaders like Bam
Dev Gautam and Jhala Nath Khanal have followed the legacy of dualistic policy. They are
middle path walkers and so always opt for the safe position for them in any future set up
that emerges out. For instance, Gautam broke rank with UML with great fanfare, but his
party ML failed miserably because neither he could present different philosophy than UML
nor could he show political sincerity in the last general election. He tried to grab votes
of the Maoists by exhibiting artificial sympathy. Now he is back to UML and his political
reliability is at low ebb. Jhal Nath Khanal, one of the finest voices in the UML, is a
capable man, and an almost flawlessly engaging politician. However, he too has failed to
expose party leaderships’ anti-people policies fearing the loss of his own position
in the party apparatus.
In fact, Nepal’s politics is in perpetual
quagmire because of dual character. There are signs of possible substantial talk between
the government and the Maoists, but there is little likelihood of emerging out any clear
future picture for the nation’s development. Neither the government nor the Maoists
are free from their dualistic politics. The government has neither the political will nor
the competence to solve vexed problems of the nation. The Maoists too have to clarify the
rationality behind the strategy of an all out war abruptly, and then becoming restless for
dialogue without achieving any objective of their declared goal. They have to prove the
logic behind their strategy of waging "people’s war" isolating the party
from the common people and the like-minded left leaning forces. If they believe in
dialectical materialism, they cannot escape without clarifying their dual
character. We hope the nation will no more become the victim of dualistic politics.
Other Stories
|
