James Moriarty, the United States of America's ambassador to the Kingdom of Nepal spoke to Brendan Trembath of Australian Broadcasting Corporation last week. This talk is not only interesting and sheds some light on U. S. government's attitude towards the Maoist problem in Nepal, it also helps to understand, even to a small extent, why the Americans are keen on helping Nepal to fight the Maoists. The Ambassador apprehends "The threat that the Maoists represent to the people and the government of Nepal and worry that a Maoist take over would be absolutely horrific. Their goal is a people's republic. You know, it sounds eerily to what Pol Pot did" (underscoring is ours). Since terrorism knows no political barriers or boundaries the ambassador thinks these Maoists "want to export their revolution, so it would be terribly destabilizing if these guys took over." That's why "we have put them on our terrorist list too, so we consider them to be terrorists." And according to their many a time repeated commitment they are bound to fight global terrorism, which should also include Maoist terrorism in Nepal. But it has come as a great surprise when asked by the questioner who were behind the Maoists the ambassador said, "We don't have any evidence of outside support." Such misleading statement from the ambassador of the 'Numero Uno' power not only gives a wrong impression to the world but would also lessen its credibility in the long run. As it is their reputation has suffered a big jolt when WMD were not found in Iraq for which Iraq was totally devastated. But, perhaps, big and strong powers can blatantly defy world opinion. May be it is their proud privilege. What kind of evidence of outside help does the ambassador need when despite being the first big nation to brand the Nepali Maoists as terrorists, it has become as clear as daylight that the Indians are not only giving the terrorists safe sanctuaries, but permitting them free training camps and their political leaders hobnobbing with them and the terrorists being escorted under official intelligence surveillance? If these are not unbeatable proofs of outside help, we would like to know what sort of evidence would satisfy the ambassador? Granted they have long-term interests with India and small Nepal as a pawn can be easily sacrificed to save the queen. And, as far India's interests in Nepal are concerned, we are fully cognizant of the fact for more than five decades and know why they are nakedly following the double standard. But, if the lone super power, who as a good friend and expected to champion the cause of smaller and weaker nations of the world like Nepal and help them defend their independence and sovereignty, started giving a Nelson's eye to their Herculean problems. What are they supposed to do? As such, we would really appreciate if the representatives of our good and friendly countries become more realistic and saw our calamitous problem in the right perspective and sincerely extended their hands of cooperation to King Gyanendra, who, at the moment, is the only person who can pull Nepal out of the fire. We are not against a popularly elected representative government but we will vehemently oppose the government formed by politicians whose loyalties lie elsewhere. Consequently, we would like to exhort our very good friend, the United States government, not to behave in any prejudicial manner that may corner King Gyanendra and profit the anti-national Nepali politicians, which is sure to jeopardise our very sovereignty .

Madhav Kumar Rimal
Chief Editor & Publisher