Maoist insurgents control 80% of the countryside and have set up working, alternative governments. Nepal’s seven main parliamentary parties are allied against the King, but do not support the Maoists, although all have joined in a united front against the King.

They did not do this out of ideological unity. The reason that the parliamentary parties have come out in opposition to the monarchy and formed a tactical alliance with the communist insurgents is the strength of the insurgency itself.

Once the [Maoist] rebellion began, the country’s police unleashed a wave of violence and terror against the rural population. Peasants in conflict areas were deemed “Maoist supporters” and often brutally tortured and killed. With the aid of U.S. military “advisors” and millions of dollars, the Royal Nepalese Army quickly joined the battle, and the repression increased exponentially. The army has been cited as one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. (Nepal: Security Forces ‘Disappear’ Hundreds of Civilians, Human Rights Watch, May 1, 2005)

Despite these significant obstacles, the insurgents have gained much ground throughout Nepal. They currently control about 80 percent of Nepal’s countryside, with growing influence in the cities among the urban workers.

They operate an alternative government—what they call the People’s Republic of Nepal—in the parts of the country they control. These liberated areas consist of nine national and territorial autonomous regions. In these areas, the CPN(M) is building people’s committees and mass organizations and carrying out sweeping democratic reforms. The presence of the king’s government is “now limited to the capital, district headquarters and highways,” according to CPN(M) politburo member Pavrati.

In addition, there is a brutal, medieval caste system in Nepal in which Dalits are barely considered human and have no rights. Discrimination against women is equally entrenched, and slavery still exists.

These unbearable living conditions have made the armed uprising popular especially among the peasants and young people.

Where is the U.S.? Supporting the King, of course.

U.S. aid is quietly funneled to Nepal’s king through third-country conduits. The United States also conducts joint exercises with the murderous army and supplies it with thousands of M-16 rifles, communication and night vision equipment, and training in counterinsurgency.

India and China also don’t want the King to fall. Will there be foreign intervention when he does? And then too will come the struggle for power between the Maoists who want socialism and the parliamentary parties who want some, but not major, changes. However, it’s clear who the peasants support, and that’s the Maoists.
[tags]Nepal[/tags]

No Comments »

Photo from The Telegraph UK. “Nepali riot policeman runs away from protesters.”

Bloomberg: Nepal sets curfew for fourth day; opposition vows more protests

The only thing that matters short-term now is how long the Army stays loyal, and I’m thinking, not much longer. Would you risk your life to protect this ruling class?

Another policeman, who is sometimes put on detail to protect the unpopular Crown Prince Paras, complains bitterly at the way the royal offspring berates attendants and even hits them in unprovoked fits of rage.

At a dinner I attended with the family of a government minister last week, the official’s wife complained wearily: “I’m so tired of all this talk of democracy.” Afterwards, a fellow diner, who is a Sandhurst-trained officer, branded his hosts “awful people” and confided: “I support democracy.”

[tags]Nepal[/tags]

2 Comments »

“We had a democracy once, but you crushed it”

On foreign policy, Democrats would have you believe that Bush is the most reckless President and that he has ripped the United States away from a tradition of cooperative diplomacy by violently overthrowing governments.

But as former New York Times reporter Steven Kinzer points out, the opposite is true.

Bush is actually following and escalating a long-established tradition.

Beginning with the ouster of Hawaii’s monarchy in 1893, the United States government has not hesitated to overthrow governments – fourteen by Kinzer’s count – that stood in the way of its political and economic goals.

One example from the fourteen: Fifty-three years ago, the United States launched Operation Ajax to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran – Mohammed Mossadegh.

Now it looks like Bush is preparing for Iran again.

In 1953, Mossadegh was fed up with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company – now BP – pumping Iran’s oil and shipping the profits back home to the United Kingdom.

Mossadegh said — hey, this is our oil, I think we’ll keep it.

Bad idea.

For the United States government, close to the Big Oil Companies, decided to overthrow Mossadegh’s government.

Kinzer, who has written a number of books documenting a century of regime change overseas, puts it this way:

“Imagine today what it must sound like to Iranians to hear American leaders tell them — ‘We want you to have a democracy in Iran, we disapprove of your present government, we wish to help you bring democracy to your country.’ Naturally, they roll their eyes and say — ‘We had a democracy once, but you crushed it.’”.

Is Bush insane enough to invade Iran and use nukes too? Sure. But with his popularity so abysmal and some of the generals now in near open revolt, this may act to stop him. However, the important point to realize is Bush is not an aberration, but an extreme example of the continuing policy of imperialism that has governed the US for decades. That he is greedier, more bloodthirsty, and markedly less competent than his predecessors simply helps make it all the more clear.

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government.” — Rev. Martin Luther King, April 4, 1967.

5 Comments »