Moriarty, Maoists and the Nepal conflict

By Krishna P. Adhikari

The recent remarks by James F. Moriarty, the US Ambassador to Nepal, are disturbing—to say the least.

Even though many people in Nepal who love peace and democracy have praised the American stance against the direct rule of the king, the state of confusion surfacing repeatedly in the statements of the US diplomats have given rise to the suspicion about the real intentions of the US in helping resolve Nepal crisis.

It is clear that like India and Britain, the American policy on Nepal is based on so called twin pillar theory: the institution of monarchy and parliamentary parties should work together in order for the supremacy of parliamentary democracy. At a time when these policies are legitimately being questioned not only by the Maoist insurgents but also by those who believed on constitutional monarchy in the nation, the American stance is marked by confusion and controversies.

Nepalese people are not still assured about America’s Nepal policy that the Bush administration would not at any time make an excuse of Maoist-phobia to lend its support to the royal regime. This is likely to be so because of the American tendency observed in other international arena that its vested interests have often overridden rhetoric of safeguarding democracies. Thanks to the extreme absolute trajectory exerted by the royal regime, it is increasingly making it difficult for US to lend its direct support.

Despite the earlier illusion about the monarch, both centrist and centre-left parliamentary political parties have now learnt a firm lesson that the ever-ambitious monarchy at present is not only a formidable institution, but also an obstacle to the democracy and peace process. However, the US still seems to be in a state of confusion on what to do on Nepal’s crisis. This confusion has been expressed repeatedly through statements that not supporting the king is to strengthen the Maoists, whereas supporting it is to strengthen the absolutism.



James F. Moriarty, the US Ambassador to Nepal
(File photo)

The recent remarks by Moriarty urging the so-called twin institutional pillars to work together in order to weaken the Maoists is fraught with the miscalculation of present complexities. It is very irresponsible advice that only makes things more complex. Despite competing roadmaps to return to democracy among different forces of national polity, one very welcoming and genuine gesture inching towards the peace process is the common understanding among the parliamentary parities that without resolving the Maoist problem there is no other way to a return to peace. Without return to peace, there is no way to have full-fledged democracy. In addition, peace is only possible through negotiations and understanding, not the war. Nepal has already tested all sorts of political equations, including the one Moriarty has emphasised. The bitter reality is that none of them have succeeded to resolve the crisis.

Fortunately, the history has brought us an excellent opportunity to be seized for making peace to happen in the country. This is an excellent opportunity because the Maoists are hinting at taking a pragmatic approach to come to the mainstream. This seems very imperative that they have made commitment to multiparty system. We have never had as opportune moment as this. This is not the time to suspect and play the blame game, it is rather a time to capitalise the opportunity. We should not entice the Maoists, who still have strong military base as well as spirit to fight, to perpetuate civil war, we rather should encourage them on their way to returning to the peace process. Thanks to the pact between the parliamentary parties and the rebels, peace is becoming increasingly possible. If genuine efforts are made, there are chances of an amicable deal that can give us an opportunity to transform and modernise Nepal in a genuine democratic line where ‘all pillars’ may still coexist.

The reiteration by the US envoy for reconciliation between the king and parties in order to form a consolidated force against Maoists is flawed right from the beginning since such pact that works against the Maoist will do nothing but prolong the war. It is also unrealistic not to accept Maoists as a legitimate political force. Any advice of alienating the Maoists runs the risk of leading the country to the state of anarchy mired by ethnic violence. At a time when the Maoists are inching towards pragmatic process of peace- making such advice only add to the suspicion that the US does not want peace to happen in Nepal.

Unfortunately, the monarchy-- which is increasingly seen as the source of feudalism and ultra rightist nationalism, protector of aristocratic elitism, creator of neo-Panchayat absolutism with centralist dictatorial governance system, and the source of politicisation of national army against democracy and people-- has shown no interest to resolve the crisis. When it is as clear as the broad daylight that Nepal’s problems cannot be solved militarily, the sheer negligence of the royal government towards peace process shows that it does not want the war to end.

If the US is genuinely wishing to help Nepal return to democracy, it should take even serious measures to pressurise the king to initiate the peace process and restore democracy, and encourage the rebels to come to mainstream through non-violent means. This is a real chance to resolve the problem politically which once gone out of hand is sure to be a missed opportunity. Before getting another opportunity like this, we will have to pay too much cost. We want it happen now so that we can start rebuilding our nation before it is too late and completely ruined.

(Adhikari is pursuing Ph. D. at the University of Reading, UK. Please send your comments to feedback@mos.com.np or Krishna.adhikari@ntlworld.com)

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to editors@mos.com.