US policy towards Nepal : Unrealistic and disastrous - Sundar Mani Dixit
Filed under: Article
US ambassador James Moriarty’s recent statements have caused concern amongst Nepalis who are hoping for a lasting peace through the ongoing negotiations between the government and the Maoists. While holding forth an impressive aid amount for peace, democracy and development, he has tried to obstruct the Maoists’ entry into an interim government till they lay down their arms. This is an unrealistic and even disastrous stand for Nepal’s future and thus needs to be reversed.

The ambassador unveils aid for peace, democracy and development all of which are impossible or in danger unless the Maoists can be permanently brought into the political mainstream. The successful people’s revolution with the peaceful support of the Maoists had demanded elections to a constituent assembly (CA) through the agency of an inclusive interim government with the Maoists in it.

This was imperative because the grassroots reality is that there can be no elections without Maoist support. And without CA polls as soon as possible there is every danger of the king coming back to power with the army’s help. The army, barring the name change, remains what it was yesterday: a loyal and committed royalist force. It is only the show of people power in the streets that has held it back so far, but the people can’t come out on the streets forever. Any delay in quickly getting a CA in place can be deadly.

someone ask this sundar dixit, how is that a Unrealistic and disastrous . Maoist do need to give up their arms before they join the government.

"there is every danger of the king coming back to power with the army’s help"......what the hell is this about now...is mr.dixit acting as a PR representive of maoist or what.

who can you guarentee that if maoist were let to join the govt without laying down their weapons, they wouldnt later start the civil war again.

maoist giving their arms will be disastorus? do you have a brain. there cant be a better news than that if that is possible.

and you know what. this govenment already has given so much to maoist. it is the turn of maoist to show they are for long lasting peace.

Sunder Mani Dixit sure does talk from his ASS. He is a Maoist propaganda machine without a shred of doubt. The pressure should be on the Maoists to renounce voilence unequivocally, not pander to thier every whim and fancy. The maoists cannot eat thier cake and also have it. Extortion, intimidation, forced conscription continue unabated despite the so called "ceasefire". Nine civilians have been killed since "ceasefire". They are hardly an indication of their 'change of hearts'. Where is the voice against these Moaists atrocities? WHERE?

We should excercise ZERO tolerence to voilence and terrorism. Why don't these zealots understand that there is such a thing called ballot, and that you can go to power through ballot boxes. You don't kill people because they don't subscribe to your views.

You know, people keep talking endlessly about the 21 people who died during Maoist infiltrated Janaandolan and the need for bringing those guilty to justice. Why donesn't anyone talk about the thousands killed by the maoists and nine innocent people since the declaration of the ceasefire. Where is the talk of punishing the maoists?

Maoists are being treated like heroes by the SPA led government and the media. The maoists haven't given us enough reasons to believe that they are committed to renouncing voilence for good. They should prove that through actions and not mere words.

PS. Mr Dixit claims to represent the voice of 'civil society' - well he can shove it up his ass coz he surely does not represent a lot of people like myself.

We should act against SPAM and we will be acting soon. Get ready for the fight to save your country from terrorists and Maoists!

"Armed Maoists in government wiill be much less dangerous than an injured king licking his wounds and waiting" - SM Dixit.

oh yeah? Is this guy out of his mind or what?

Even when the king was all powerful as opposed to "injured", people enjoyed a high degree of personal, social, cultural and economic freedom, albeit some restrictions were placed on freedom to assembly. The king did not extort money or "taxes", forcefully recruit people, seize private properties, or go on a killing spree like the Maoists. The king did not put unnecessary demands on the village folks like the maoists do. And the king relinquished power when the death toll climbed to 21. How can this looney say that the king who has virtually no power at all is more dangerous than the armed blood thirsty Maoists whose hands are soaked with blood of thousands of people? They have murdered more people than you would care to count. I couldn't care less about the fate of the king but surely these terrorists pose far more danger to the people and the nation. Also, the US has no control over the path the Nepalis choose to take, but surely the path the US chooses to take is within its discreation.

This thread has gone off the course. Some clarifications to give Dr. Ds blahblah a context:

(1) "Even when the king was all powerful as opposed to "injured", people enjoyed a high degree of personal, social, cultural and economic freedom."
- Not true. King's private army routinely abducted and raped women in the countryside. Business was held hostage by royal relatives. Muslims were attacked in Kathmandu. Even the worst form of Maoist lawlessness in the rural areas was better than army rule.
(2)"The king did not extort money or "taxes", forcefully recruit people, seize private properties, or go on a killing spree like the Maoists."
- Not true again. Royal goons forecibly collected "taxes" for royal tours, forced people to join vigilante groups, and killed more people in one year than the entire decade of insurgency.
(3) "The king did not put unnecessary demands on the village folks like the maoists do."
- How do you know? Villagers were forced to "sell" foodstuff to army even when they didn't have enough to eat.
(4) "And the king relinquished power when the death toll climbed to 21."
- Say it again--relinquisehd? Forced to withdraw will better describe the graceless manner he gave up absolute powers.
(5) "the king who has virtually no power at all is more dangerous than the armed blood thirsty Maoists whose hands are soaked with blood of thousands of people?"
- That's because king's hands are dipped in the blood of more innocents than Maoists. Check your facts--army has killed most of 14000 victims of Nepalese civil war.
(6) "surely the path the US chooses to take is within its discreation. "
- Agree. If for nothing else, SPA idiots should include Maoists in the cabinet to see what US does to reduce its vacation expenses in Nepal. US aid is paltry. Most of it is utilised by US citizens and their bootlickers in Kathmandu.
(7) "US policy towards Nepal : Unrealistic and disastrous"
- No Dr. DsUS thrives when poor countries suffer. Their policy towards Nepal is very realistic and very profitable.

With this background, US policies towards People's Movement and Nepal needs to be discussed.

May Lord Buddha Bless Us All

I do believe that US flourishes when countries are poorer. US has foreign policy that is only benifical to US. Although I am not an economist, I have this opinion: There is only so much money in the world (world economy). So for a country to get very rich, the other country has to get very poor!

Imagine how much money US earn from foreign students, the money they bring from their country every year(this is only a small example). And very less go back to the country. These royalist are blind or shall I rather say, too dumb to see the truth. They only thing they know is how to swear (which is equivalent to crying for me) (http://science.howstuffworks.com/swearing2.htm) and believe their dumber masters. But I have respect for people who put some effort to understand the reality. But they don't event attempt to do that.

Has any of you seen the movie "syriana"? Altough it is just a movie it has shown a very realistic US foreign policy.

Well, I think that the world economy is like the business game (byapar), i used to play when i was a kid. When I win I am so happy that I dont want my loser sister to stop playing, so that I would give her some amount. The amount she would pay back to me in course of time when she happens to be on my land with bunglaw!!
(note: you would understand it if u had played byapari)

Anyway, it has been there from the ancient times. The jamindaars would have all the lands on their name and would lend money to the farmers so that they would work for them in the fields and whenever the jamindaars want they can use those poor ones.. The names have changed but the rule is same I think. The rich countries like US with the money in the name of donation is making be their kathputali. The industrialised countries give moeny so that we can buy their stuffs ~

This particular incident is a typical example I think.

"Imagine how much money US earn from foreign students".....how much does US earn from foreign students....do you write your check to your uni or to IRS.

do you know, how much we here in US loose in taxes from the money that mexicans, latinos, indians and even us nepali send back home. US doesnt make much from the fees we pay, taht goes to the uni, and at the end of the yr, whatever profit they show, or loss, they pay taxes .

and by the way, have you ever thought, how much US money is spended in foreign students or immigrants. most immigrants work without SS, they dont pay taxes, but they still get the same benefit as a tax payer would get.

this nepali girl that was missing, where do you think the money is comming from for her search efforts, you think she ever paid taxes.

so guys, please dont talk stuff thats just not true or right.

The things you said is right to some point, but it does not mean that i am wrong. I am talking about general US economy policy. Yes, we pay to US universities and not IRS. The the university is inside USA, don't you understand? You can get rich if your father gets rich, you will have benefits, if your brother is rich. Same thing applies to the whole country. So even if the University pays taxes, it has earned profit (from you) and the US has earn profit from tax (the university shares the part of their profit to the big brother). Take some time to think before you start yapping again.

There is a huge controversy over illegal workers. The huge businesses profit in the end because of illegal workers. And these business do support US economy.

Why do you think Bush is unwilling to send illegal immigrant back to their country?

Oncee the moists are disarmed, they will be killed by the people with stones all over the country.

As we see the situation in Nepal, anyone would think that the problem lies between the King, seven Political parties, and Maoists. And why? What each of them wants? We'd find answers for that also. One may say political parties want full-fledged democracy. Similarly Maoists want the communism, and King wants to re-establish Panchayat or something like that in other form. It may sound weird to you at first, but I see this crisis in completely other way. This is not any kind of conflict between Nepalese themselves. This is something between India and Nepal. It's a grand and interesting game. At the same time, highly challenging for both the states. Every one of us knows the Indian approach of trying to dominate others, especially the neighbouring countries. Defence and foreign affairs related decisions of Bhutan, are directly handled by India. Nothing new about it, right? Which country in the SAARC except Bhutan is happy with India? Forget SAARC, what about other neighbors ? China? Burma? Mentioning these issues just to rethink on India's foreign policies! Now let us go to what's there between India and Nepal? Care to see it thru big brother's side. India 's average economic growth rate has reached around 7.5% which is one of the best in world today. India is second largest market in the world in terms of population. Foreigners are seeing China and India as the new markets of this age and investing here rapidly. Bottom line is- India is developing. But how long people will invest in India if basic infrastructure is not there? How much investments would be there in Agricultural industry if outsiders don't see basic irrigation facilities in the field? In other way, when other area is developing, what about large Indian farmer population? When they'll prosper if irrigation is not there? And most importantly, energy is vital for all development- industries, technology and everything. India is not capable of producing the required amount. India has successfully taken control over Bhutan's energy resources and already started to have the benefit. Bhutan is also getting something out of it but in cost of sovereignty.


Now comes Nepal's part. Nepal is second richest in water resource having potential of large amount of energy. Enough energy to cater India's energy need for industrialization and irrigation and clean drinking water for eastern India (perhaps more than that). For that, India can have straight business deals with Nepal. Take it if you want, but please pay. But no! India wants all those in the way they got from Bhutan. They want to have total control in any hydro projects that'll be build in Nepal. They want to give us something out of it- lot less value than what we deserve. Since history India has been trying for this and as it was obvious for them to getrefusal. In the mean time, foreigners wanted to invest in Hydro projects in Nepal. But India always fumed and fretted for any manipulation in rivers will lead to flood in India. So, all the big projects were cancelled. India didn't stop. They wanted to get the resources according to their desire. When Nepal refused, they came into games with long vision. What I interpret the game could possibly be as such- Change the non cooperative government of Nepal. Keep people in power that will be ready to sell the resources of the country for some money. And if required, will be ready to sell the whole country. India knew that until and unless royal family is in power, it's not possible. This is because for the royals, Nepal is the only place in the world where they will get highest degree of respects and they'd never sell the country. For that, India played the key role to instill democracy in 2046 and implant corrupted people in the government. According to the plan, some leaders of ours sold out rivers and lands during the 15 years. That we all know. Now India could not depend only on those dogs. For that, how to make Nepal completely helpless in shortest period? So that Nepal will come down on the ground with knees. There won't be any other option remaining for Nepal and finally turn towards India and beg them to utilize our own resources, and give some riots two feed Nepalese twice a day. Attack on the source of economy was the simplest route towards Nepal's bring down. And then something happened out of blues. Maoists were born in western Nepal which is the hub of ayurvedic medicine and one of Nepal's major exports. The area is still under Maoists control and no one knows how much of yarshagumba is smuggled from there every year. Country's revenue is going in vain. And let us recall, it was Girija's tenure and whole Nepal knows how Maoists flourished in no time.


Besides that, major objective of giving birth to Maoists was to attack the spinal of Nepal's economy- tourism. And things happened accordingly. Nepal broke and got trapped into the crisis we are seeing today.. Now please don't doubt on who gave birth to Maoists. India was the first to call Maoists as terrorists when Nepal government was still calling it as insurgents. After that, US hit listed Maoists of Nepal in top ten among the world terrorists. Nepal government never called them terrorists those days. And in many cases, we have seen Maoists leader making rounds to Delhi in the same fashion as Girija and his daughter. The recent meeting between the parties and Maoists leaders occurred in Delhi. How could India arrange the facility when Maoists are terrorists? Do they want to send a message that Lashkar-e-taiba should be entertained by governments of various nations?And surprisingly, nowadays Indian media do not writet the word "terrorists" for Nepalese Maoists. The respected word given by them these days is "Nepal rebel". This is all happening because of the slavish mentality India possesses due to 200 years of British rule.
Anyways, now let us come to the major issue.



After knowing all these, I m not in a condition to agree that the dispute in Nepal is for democracy. What I believe is it is for nationality. It is for saving the nation. It is for raising the nation with what we have. It is for replying back to all those who try to play with us. Now, it's up to your intellect to identify who is working for what. What King is doing, parties are doing, and Maoists are doing. It'll be a very appreciable opinion if you say what those pancheys are doing again here? We should not forget that democracy is nature's law. When you are born, you come along with your freedom. No force can stop you for that. Let's see the cause and what's happening around. Democracy within the boundary is so important? Or democracy in a country will be there when a country will be there? Let all Nepalese get together and stop the external force for some time when Nepal will try to lift up in a position from where no force would be able to bring it down. Democracy is always there. When Nepalese can change the government in 2046, same Nepalese can change the government again in 2066. And if required, forever free Nepalese could change the system around the world. We don't have to doubt in our capability. But the current need is not "restore democracy" as India is saying. Current need for each and every Nepali is to "save and raise the nation". When US envoy to India made one statement related to India's internal politics last week, whole India shouted back to the ambassador. This is something good we need to learn from Indians. When India, and other far away nations are repeatedly trying to interfere our internal matters,our corrupted media (do I have to name the media which have bosses of Non Nepalese origins? Or you find it yourself) is not tired of singing their songs everyday. These Medias are responsible for creating a pessimistic environment in the nation. People are not protesting those external interferences which are vital in present. Restoring Democracy is not the issue as far as I understand. What if democracy is restored tomorrow immediately? Same old faces who tried to help the neighbor more than own country itself will be back to power. And the process of losing the nation's independency which has been stopped temporarily through king's move will get momentum again. But if Nepal and Nepalese succeeds to pause that external force for some more time, its strength will be minimized. Many things can happen within few years. Zest is- country first! Now, If you don't agree on this, I am open to have your opinion. If you feel that there is some logic in what I have said, please forward it to as many Nepalese as possible. There is nothing good happening to you within 24 hours or 3 days or 1 week or so forth. But only God knows, long term benefits could be there.

kathmandu_np, Are you trying to hide my educative post above or wot? with your comment that doesn't really help nepal, but your own ego?

Sajhauser said:

"There is only so much money in the world (world economy). So for a country to get very rich, the other country has to get very poor!"

No wonder Sajhauser is a Prachanda fan.

Wealth is created through trading of goods and services. The Chinese are richer than ever before, the Indians are richer than ever before and so are Americans.


Shaiva,

If that is the level you are willing to stoop, hey more power to you.

this has been going around in email for a while. For the writer, India was good when it supported the monarcy, now India is bad when it stopped supporting the monarch. And he/she is trying to reason why...I think it has a lot of statements that gives false sense of hope.

"Nepal is second richest in water resource having potential of large amount of energy." Although it might be true theorotically, india doesn't have any need to buy electricity from nepal, because it already has nuclear power, which his much more efficient and cheaper than hydro power.

With due respect to Dr.Dixit,a pioneering doctor,I have to say.
What US is saying is right.If our leaders dont have the guts to say what is obvious,someone has to say it.
What does Prachanda think of himself,he cannot always lie and get away with it.He sounds like a godfather of peace and his kids go on a rampage killing and abducting people.How can that happen and WHY THE HELL OUR LEADERS ARE QUITE.
Now today he has partially corrected himself after Mr.yechuri asked him to do so.TO WHOM IS THIS GUY LOYAL TO ?? NEPALI PEOPLE OR HIS MASTERS IN INDIA.
By the way i will choose any one,the parties orthe king but not this killer and his team.If he is ready to leave his weapons and tame his gorillas then may be we,nepalese can think of accepting him but the present senario increasingly proves"Kukkur le gooo khana chod daina"

"Wealth is created through trading of goods and services". That is true. But how much does US pay by exporting services? I'm sure its less than how much they'd pay their citizen. But then, how much would the business owner in china and india pay the labourers? Do you know the kind of life of a factory worker in China? As China is starting to capitalize, there has been a huge disparity of cash distribution in China. I came to know abt this from one of my friends who came from rural china. China does not have a strong infrastructure. China is bound to crumble down one day.

I am not trying to spread communism here. Just because I happen to belive what is true in reality, doesn't make me a communist. Just because I attempt to reason, doesn't make me a communist. I haved never said communism works!

Nepal's source of income is thru tourism. But it country will not / cannot rise if the infrastructure is not good. And when only the rich ones get benefit, infrastructure cannot be good.

There has to be some 'giving back' policy. why do you think US gives benefits to under average earners?? if they don't, internal terrorism will rise in US also.

no one here to agrue aginst me?

"As China is starting to capitalize, there has been a huge disparity of cash distribution in China"

Nobody's arguing with your because your argument is pure and utter baloney. USA also has a pretty big disparity in term of cash distribution, but you cannot deny that America is an economic powerhouse. Guess what, China's economic model used to be completely in sync with communism, and it got them nowhere. Prachanda and Co have in fact accused China of not staying true to Mao Zedung's visions. T Only after Deng Xiao-Ping reformed China's economic system, and made it more capitalistic did China see any real economic improvements. Some Chinese cities have already topped the "most expensive cities" list. In other words, capitalism is working wonders in China. If you're going to use China to bolster your argument, then you may want to explain why Deng Xiao-Ping and Co decided to reform China's economy. India is opening up as well. The crux of the matter is that Communism sounds good on paper, but in practice is a total failure.