I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s
NC, UML say the same thing

Kathmandu: One will have to watch developments in Sher Bahadur Deuba's key partner in government, the UML, to await immediate political developments. For one thing, government-party relations have never been cordial in Nepal. When the party leadership is not actually present in government. Just as in the early 1950, after B.P. Koirala assumed the NC leadership when M.P. Koirala was Premier the UML's Madhav Nepal has already begun giving strictures to government in which its party members remain at best baffled.

Government positions have made it convenient for Madhav Nepal to shuffle his party portfolios that have already irked UML ministers. But, when the party leaders begin dictating government certainly become shaky specially when the party leaders himself shakes their strength in party positions.

The quagmire that UML members of cabinet are getting into is worth analyzing indeed. The cabinet decides that fruitful peace talks will only be entertained when the Maoists show a definite gesture towards such. The UML party leader is free to talk on his position regarding the peace talks, which is in direct contradiction to decisions of government in which the UML remains.

UML government ministers are aware that there is no win-win situation in declaring an immediate cease-fire and calling for talks unless a minimum agreement on the agenda at the talks is arrived at. The ministers moreover, are aware that such agreement must take place prior to the talks in order for the formal meetings to yield results. It is this that keeps the ministers mum. There is nothing that can prevent Madhav Nepal from cashing in on the politics issuing ultimatums in contradiction to the government standpoints. The ministers can only helplessly say that they will get-put of government if and when the party says so. The impression is that Nepal's UML is preparing the populist ground for just this.

Not surprisingly the other junior partners in government whose leadership is not represented there, the RPP is facing similar problems. In contrast to the UML, however the RPP's chairman, Pashupati Rana, being challenged more aggressively for what seems to be his individual choice of representation in the government. If representation in government has facilitated Madhav Nepal to consolidate his party position by firstly, ensuring replenished coffers; secondly distributing additional party positions in lieu of government positions by party members and, government standpoints, the RPP's Pashupati Rana appears to have united diverse opposition against him to trigger a collective demand to summon the party assembly.

Of course there are subterranean rumblings within Deuba's own party itself for not having allowed key party strongmen a berth in his cabinet. This of course, Deuba may withstand through indirect funneling of perks to the disgruntled as head of cabinet. Again, this is exactly why the Sadbhavana's Badri Mandal claimed a ministerial post despite coning a peg-down from his previous position as Deputy Prime Minister. He is after all, the party chairman and can satisfy inner rumblings through perks he will distribute organizationally.

All things said therefore, it is the UML that is likely to decide the fate of government and it is the UML's Madhav Nepal who will shoes to do so far sake of his inner organizational compulsions. That this will impinge on government priorities is hardly a matter of the party general secretary's concern. He must, after all compete with the initiatives of Girija Prasad Koirala of the NC with whom the Maoists admit dialogue has taken place. Koirala who still heads a four party agitation against the coalition on grounds of 'regression" is attempting a revival of his flagging political clout with claims that immediate talks must be held with the Maoists and that this should be unconditional, Curiously, competitor Madhav Nepal is saying the same thing. It is another matter that both Koirala and Nepal where partners in suppressing the "People's War" as late as the last general elections.

Will India allow the UN to meddle in Nepali affairs?

Kathmandu: Nepal's self-proclaimed elites and academia appear visibly divided over whether the "good offices" of the United nations systems be sought in order to tackle the Maoists issue or an exclusively home-grown scheme as usual be continued to handle the same.

Whether Nepali establishment likes it or not, the UN representatives, presumably the strong emissaries of UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, are arriving soon to take stock of what they call of assessing the Nepal situation as that stood today.

The fact is that if Nepali establishment has some reservations over the possible UN mediations efforts then what is equally true is that the "lone super power", the United States of America, too has exhibited her interest that if the UN preferred to remain at a distance would be more than a welcome move.

This is what the US Ambassador James Moriarty hinted, indeed in an implied fashion while talking to NTV interview Monday evening.

Contrary to the US posture, what is also very much clear is that the allies of the US, the European countries, have times and again exhibited their interest in favor of the UN mediation in the Nepalese case.

The contradiction lies here.

Prachanda prefers the UN mediation. The government rejects his preference outrightly claiming that since it were an internal matter and hence invitation to any third party would be undesirable.

Whether the Nepali establishment is reiterating so under the fear of the US or for that matter of that of India is still to be ascertained.

However, what remains to be seen is that how India will allow the UN mediation in Nepal given the fact that the first four of the forty "original" point demands go out rightly against Indian interests in Nepal.

The question remains how, apart from India, the US will react to UN mediation, if at all it is invited by Nepal, to settle the Maoist issue?

How the Indian authorities will react if the Maoists stress on severing all the unequal treaties with India at time of the talks will have to be watched.

Equally enlightening would be to watch as to how the UN would impress upon India to heed to the demands of the Maoists?

The Himalayan question remains: Will India allow the UN to come to Nepal?

Moreover, the UN must now spell out as to in what manner it wishes to support Nepal? As a facilitator? As mediator? Or guarantor?

Kul Chandra Gautam, a top ranking official of the UN system, who is arriving here shortly, has to explain the UN scheme of things vis-a-vis Nepal and her problems.

UML's changed stance bodes ill for Deuba cabinet

Kathmandu: Political undercurrents have suddenly become high in this Himalayan Kingdom.

Political leaders of various shades, in government or in the streets, are ventilating their inner voices caring little as to what impact it would have on the country's already turbulent politics.

Ministers in the Deuba cabinet at times forget that they are tied to certain ministerial ethics.

The fact is that ministers belonging to the UML camp speak diametrically opposite to what the ministers of the Deuba party reiterate.

Yet another minister, independent or a royal nominee or give it any name, Dr. Mohsin, has an altogether different version to depict the country's politics and for addressing the Maoists issue.

Thanks that the NSP man, Badri Prasad Mandal, is silent and thus is not creating any sort of confusion in the minds of the laymen as his cabinet colleagues have been doing of late.

The cabinet has become like an untamed circus horse that is entertaining the population.

Certainly bodes ill for the nation.

As if this were not enough to make a laugh of the country's politics, Madhav Nepal, the strongman of the UML, has begun issuing strictures in the name of the government under Deuba that his party will prefer to quit the government if things did not change as per his dictates.

Madhav Nepal upon his return from Korea is a changed personality now, infer analysts. What made Mr. Nepal to pass on threat loaded statements against a government that has been partnered by his own party men is not only surprising but fraught with dangers as well.

Is Madhav speaking on his own or reiterating some thing that he has been told to is what is boggling the minds of the political analysts here.

If he were speaking on his own then question could be asked as to what factors made Mr. Nepal to change his tone against his own party government?

Similarly, questions could well be raised as to, if he were not speaking on his own , which force on earth did change his minds that he is prepared to even bring about a total collapse of the Deuba establishment.

Madhav Nepal's challenge to Deuba or say to his government comes at a time when the man issuing strong worded statements understands better that the moment UML decides to quit from the government, the Deuba cabinet will fall the next minute like a house of cards. When he understands the calamity that would come to the scene after UML's quitting the government then what forces him to risk instability in the country?

Or is it that he has been told to do so by certain inimical quarters that do not wish to see a stable Nepal? Or is it that he has been advised by the Maoists to bring about a collapse of this government and secure the next prime minister ship?

To recall, the Maoists have time and again said that since Deuba's establishment were a continuation of regression and hence their talks with this set would be an impossible affair. Looking at this possibility what could be said fairly that in the recent months and weeks, Madhav Nepal's tone and gestures towards the Maoists issues appear rather positive.

But it is hard to imagine that even if the incumbent government collapses, what was the guarantee that things in a changed atmosphere will favor the elevation of the UML leader to the ranks of the nation's next prime minister? Will the monarch prefer Madhav Nepal as against Deuba who is largely considered to be very loyal to the King? Even if the King, let's suppose for a moment, decides in favor of Mr. Nepal, what about the reactions of the quarters, within and without, who apparently do not wish to see nepal filled by the REDS!

At yet another level, how Madhav Nepal will justify his actions if he manages a collapse of this government to his formers colleagues still roaming around Ratnapark? How he will convince Koirala and others in the coalition against regression? What will happen to UML's theory that with the reappointment of Deuba as prime minister, regression had been partially corrected?

With UML's departure from the present cabinet what will happen to the theory of regression? Will it continue to reiterate that regression was partially corrected or will join the band of those who see the regression still intact?

These were some questions that Madhav Nepal will have to answer if he secures the collapse of this government.

It will have to be watched as to how Madhav Nepal proceeds in the days ahead.

Nepal's conspiratorial politics remains par excellence.

India and China have important role to play

Ambassador Moriarty, U.S

Kathmandu: The United States Ambassador to the Nepali Court, James F. Moriarty, in his first Television interview granted Monday evening has confessed that his country did differ on some counts with the European countries based here.

He, however, also made it profusely clear that the US differed with its allies on Maoists issue on "change (difference) in emphasis" and that there was plenty of room for its "improvement".

"Differences are not that huge with the European countries. However, how to proceed to tackle the Maoists issue could have some difference", he went on to say.

Talking on US policy in Nepal, the Ambassador, however, said that "not a dramatic shift" from what it was in the past meaning that the US has effected certain changes of late in its perception towards Nepal and hence slight changes might see in Nepal-U.S bilateral ties.

To a query of the NTV questioner, Moriarty did hint that the US could lift the terrorist label from the Maoists but prior to taking such a decision his country would prefer to wait until the insurgency verified its actions by actual deeds.

" Overtime yes!" is what the Ambassador maintained. "If they join the negotiation process and ultimately take part in the elections and refrain from acts of violence, we might change our decisions", continued the US diplomat.

He in the same vein also made it clear that both India and China have a very important role to play in this regard.

" Both China and India would wish to see a Nepal that is neither anarchic nor a bizarre government with discredited ideas", Moriarty said.

Regarding allegations that he was pressing certain political parties in joining the government that tantamount to a sort of interference in Nepali affairs, the Ambassador made it clear that he had no intention of interfering as such in Nepali affairs and all that he "suggested" the parties outside the government either to join the establishment or at least support it from outside.

Ambassador Moriarty apparently hinted that he was against the UN mediation in the government-Maoists talks. He, however, shifted the issue of whether the UN be invited or not onto the heads of the people and the government of Nepal.

Nevertheless, Ambassador Moriarty did say that if the UN were invited, it might say, "Do this or do that".

"Mediation implies heavy involvement", concluded James.

SA countries believe in 'otherness'

Kathmandu: The Bangladesh Ambassador to Nepal, Humayun Kabir has said that the South Asian region is known in the world as a region having "negative distinctions" and that the countries belonging to this part of the world still lack a sense of "togetherness" but instead believe in "otherness".

The Bangladesh diplomat made these comments at a talk program organized by the Central Department of Political Science, T.U. last week.

"Unfortunately, our region is bogged down in poverty", said the Ambassador adding that his country had already devised a homegrown tool to fight poverty which being the establishment of Grameen Bank.

Talking on B'desh-Nepal bilateral relations, the Ambassador noted that both the countries had tremendous goodwill for each other.

According to Ambassador Kabir, the two countries were at the moment concentrating their efforts in the direction of increasing the volume of trade; establishment of joint venture investments and building up of infrastructure support inside Bangladesh so that Nepal benefits for her exports to third countries.

Prof. Habibullah, HoD, Political Science Department, greeted the Ambassador.

Ambassador Ambrosini leaving Nepal

Kathmandu: The outgoing Ambassador of France, Monsieur Claude Ambrosini was greeted last week for a farewell reception hosted by the Alliance Francaise here in Kathmandu at their premises in Tripureshwor.

On the occassion Ambasador Ambrosini lauded the efforts of the AF in enhancing Nepal France ties over the years.

The president of the AF, Mr. Pashupati Rana highlighted the contributions made by Ambassador Ambrosini and First secretary Mme. Domnique Plasard in playing vital role for the improvement of Nepal-France ties in their tenure at the office. Pravin Rana deputy director at the AF also paid his respect to the two out going diplomats.

Opinion | Dateline | National |  5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Tête-à-tête with Amandine | Past