Posted on 11/22/2005 11:44:21 PM PST by sagar
Nepal's Maoist rebels entered a pact with opposition politicians yesterday in a move to isolate King Gyanendra, who seized full power nine months ago.
Under the deal the communists, who control most rural areas, would lay down their arms under United Nations supervision while a new constitution is drafted. They say they will become a democratic party if the king is removed.
More than 12,500 people have died in their near 10-year campaign to turn the Himalayan monarchy into a communist republic.
The announcement came in statements from the Maoists and seven opposition parties, following recent talks in New Delhi.
Both the opposition and the Maoists are opposed to King Gyanendra, whom they call a "tyrant". Since his coup in February, when he argued that 12 years of democracy had allowed the Maoists to flourish, his uncompromising style of leadership has forced his enemies closer together.
The statement issued yesterday said: "It is our clear understanding that unless the autocratic rule is ended and full democracy is restored, there will be no peace or progress in the country." It was not clear if all the parties were determined to ending the monarchy but the Maoist leader Prachanda - The Fierce One - said: "We are committed to end the autocratic monarchy and establish full democracy through a forward-looking political solution."
The parties say they will support the Maoist demand for a new constitution if the rebels end their violence.
Girija Prasad Koirala, president of Nepali Congress, the largest political party in Nepal, stressed that the agreement was not a formal alliance with the Maoists, but he added: "We will be fighting the monarchy from separate fronts".
Madhav Kumar Nepal, of the Communist Party of Nepal, called the announcement "a breakthrough to restore peace in the country and end the Maoist conflict".
Diplomats, however, cautioned that there could be no lasting ceasefire without the support of King Gyanendra, who controls the army and opposes writing a new constitution that may sideline or abolish the monarchy.
"It could be that they've presented a proposal to which they know the king can't agree in an attempt to deepen his isolation," said one western diplomat.
"......and the king is a Hindu god."
I am a Hindu and to me the King is no God.
Communism is rarely attractive for a majority of any people in a democratic society. In the Nepali case, the devil is in the details: for example, will the ceasefire allow civil government to be restored in rebel controlled areas? I don't pretend to be an expert, I just think the Indian interest and that of the US are substantially similar here.
It's foolish to think one can make deals with communists. They take one step back and two steps forward. The end result is always the same.
You may not want communism, but you advance their cause.
I don't disagree but there is more than one way to skin that cat. The Indian geostrategic interest lies in preventing China from gaining defacto control over Nepal; and that is obviously our interest as well.
Even Hitler was an enemy of Communism.
......... And so Britain and France were appeasing him.
For me both communism and dictatorship are enemies.
Getting the communist-created UN involved is the worst idea of all. A United Nations Development Program report from 2004 urged "land redistribution" and "agricultural reform" to deal with the problem of "Landlessness" in Nepal. National Strategy for Sustainable Development (nssd) - Nepal. The UN will give Nepal the Bobbie Mugabe "land reform" treatment. They'll have about as much "democracy" as Chavez' Venezuela. And India will be next.
Hitler was a socialist. If Britain and France appeased Hitler because he was anti-communist, then why did they side with Stalin against him? Why did they declare war only on Germany when he and Stalin both invaded Poland together as allies?
"And India will be next."
India does not allow the UN on its soil.
Besides we have had reasonably effective land reforms a long time back and it has paid off.
World Bank Loans to Andhra Pradesh: Financing bloodshed and impunity?
THE PATTERN OF ABUSE: RURAL VIOLENCE IN BIHAR AND THE STATE’S RESPONSE
Your moral equivalence crap will come back to bite you on the ass.
Remember, you don't really have to be a dictatorship for international socialists to call you nazis.
Hitler was a socialist.
Hitler was simply a dictator. Britain and France appeased Hitler until he turned the table by signing a non aggression pact with USSR.
If Britain and France appeased Hitler because he was anti-communist, then why did they side with Stalin against him?
When you are getting it up your butt, you would ally even with the devil.
India doesn't like how the UN supports terrorists against India, but they seem to have no qualms about forcing the same terrorist-loving UN rule on their Nepalese brothers.
So what was India's excuse for siding with the USSR in the Cold War then? Why did they sell their soul to the devil?
Let me get some things straight here.
If the Maoists guerillas ask for violence then I have no problem giving it to them. If the Maoists want to surrender and join the mainstream then too we should be giving them a chance.
BTW Andhra Pradesh is the fastest growing economy anywhere in India. And if you haven't heard the latest about Bihar, the worst political party ever to have been in power in India just has been dealt a crushing defeat. In a democracy things can change for better, not so under a dictatorship.
"So what was India's excuse for siding with the USSR in the Cold War then? Why did they sell their soul to the devil?"
Because another superpower was supporting another dictatorship across our western border.
The UN will help the Maoists consolidate their control over the countryside.
Once the Maoists control Nepal, the next step will be to launch attacks over the border into their "Compact Revolutionary Zone" in India.
"India doesn't like how the UN supports terrorists against India, but they seem to have no qualms about forcing the same terrorist-loving UN rule on their Nepalese brothers."
Whats matters is whether Nepal wants a UN brokered peace deal. For India if it paves way for democracy its just fine which ever way it comes. India's business is to put pressure on both sides to allow democracy a chance.
What's the difference?
If the Maoists take over there will be a mass genocide. China may sell weapons to Nepal. Big deal. It's not as if they are getting ready to invade. Nepal only look to them for supplies because the US and India have cut them off, the same way we cut off Chiang, Batista, Somoza, the Shah, et cetera, et cetera.
I don't think so for various reasons, mostly because the Maoists won't penetrate into the cities and because the Indians would intervene if it started. As much of an historical romantic as I am, even I know the days of absolute monarchies are over. The King needs needs to lighten up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.