Nepal’s king faces exile or execution: Maoist chief

Reuters ^ | 13 February 2006

[ncountylee]

NEW DELHI - Nepal’s King Gyanendra will ultimately be exiled or executed because he has closed the door to any political compromise since seizing absolute power a year ago, the reclusive leader of the country’s Maoist rebels said.

“The king has taken steps that do not give any room for compromise,” Prachanda told the BBC in an interview broadcast on Monday. “It would be correct to say that the path that he has taken is the road to hell.”

The Maoists have been fighting since 1996 to overthrow the world’s only Hindu monarchy and install communist rule, a revolution that has killed at least 12,500 people and shattered the economy.

Prachanda, who has lived an underground existence for more than two decades, last year forged a loose alliance with the main political parties to topple the king and restore democracy.

“I believe that it (Nepal) will be a republic state in less than five years,” Prachanda said in the interview, which the BBC said was the first he had ever given for television.

“The king, I think, will either be executed by the people’s court or he might be exiled. For the king, today’s Nepal has no future. We don’t see a future for him and the Nepali people don’t either. The king might be finished or he might leave.”

[R.W.Ratikal]

Nepal has it right. The best form of government is a monarchy tempered by an occasional assassination.

[monday]

"Dictatorial monarchs are always better than communist dictatorships.

Maybe you should look up the relative meanings of "authoritarian" and "totalitarian." Your ignorance is an embarrassment."

I agree that dictatorial monarchs are better than communist dictatorships, however, supporting dictators is almost always a vary bad idea, not only from a public relations standpoint, but from a practical one as well. Remember when we supported Saddam Hussein against Iran? That was when Iran was supported by the Soviet Union.

In a fight between a rat and a snake, it's usually best not to take sides. Neither make reliable allies. That you don't know this must be an embarrassment for you?

[monday]

"The peacenik quotient on this thread is a little surprising. It's as if y'all have forgotten what the hell communism was, and is."

We haven't forgotten, but then we haven't forgotten that it is almost impossible to force people who are determined to live in slavery to be free. Ultimately it is Nepalis who must decide what form of government they want. We cannot make that decision for them.

If we attempt it, we risk the danger of driving them into the arms of communism. Remember Vietnam? The harder we fought, the more determined the Vietnamese people became that communism was what they wanted. It's only now, twenty five years later, after a new generation has grown up, that Vietnam is slowly turning capitalist once again.

You cannot force people to be free. It is a lesson they must learn on their own.

[Teacher317]

We've got major operations in two other nations, and problems brewing in two more... and you want to race out to Nepal, which has no military value whatsoever?

Maybe you harbor some odd affinity for the "containment" doctrine of 2 generations ago, but in case you hadn't noticed, it's not really needed anymore. There are less than 5 communist nations on earth, and one is reforming via its economy, and one is simply waiting for its octagenarian dictator to pass on. The rest of the globe keeps slowly progressing towards democratic reforms.

(There were 21 Democratic nations on earth less than 100 years ago. Now there are 120+. Containment is not exactly a major concern.)

[LexBaird]

Well, we aided the Afghan mujahiddin in the 1980s, with excellent results.

The establishment of Al Queda and the Taliban, for example?

[California Patriot]

There may be other things that can be done in addition to supplying weaponry. But I don't think supplying arms requires a "vital" interest. U.S. troops would. My assumption is that a communist government in Nepal would provide another safe haven for terrorists, although admittedly a small one. It could also disrupt in some way our attempts to make an alliance with India. Communists always hate the U.S. and always try to make trouble for it. But even the humanitarian concern of preventing the people of Nepal from coming under a communist government
is enough, in my view, to justify strong U.S. support for the suppression of the guerrillas.

[California Patriot]

We're not looking for a reliable ally. We're looking to prevent a disaster, at least for the people of Nepal.
Communist governments are worst than most non-communist authoritarian governments.

[California Patriot]

We never tried to force the people of Vietnam to be free. We tried to give them a chance to decide by keeping back the totalitarian brutes. And no, I don't think most Vietnamese supported the communists. I know of no evidence for that claim, beyond shallow leftist slogans.

It's very sweet to think of Nepalis, or anyone else, "deciding what form of government they want." But usually, the shape of such things is set by men with guns.
In Nepal, at least, there are men with guns who don't want anything like democracy, and other men with guns who either prefer it or would tolerate it.

On one side, we have communists, who have no intention of letting the Nepalis decide anything for themselves. On the other hand, we have an old-fashioned monarchy that has allowed measures of democracy, pulling back on them because it is under mortal threat. Prospects for your scenario are better if the communists are not only defeated, but defeated very soundly.

Therefore, the morally responsible person, rather than wash his hands of a situation, tries to decide which men with guns are best, or least-bad. A country with interests as vast as the U.S. must often make such decisions in regard to foreign relations.

If this government stays in power, there will be a better chance for freedom than if the communists win.

[California Patriot]

China is still communist, and it's huge. Establihshment of a new communist regime in Asia, however small the country in question, would encourage the hard-liners in Beijing and North Korea and Cuba, all of which are serious problems for the U.S. There's also Hugo Chavez, a Castro with oil. Your view of the state of the world is at least five years out of date. I can only hope that, as a "Teacher," you aren't successful at impressing this on your students.

And no, I don't want to "race out to Nepal," if this means U.S. troops. I made that clear. I want to sell the Nepali government whatever it wants or needs to kill the commies.
What is the big sacrifice there? How does it detract from Iraq or Afghanistan?

[California Patriot]

I don't believe Al Qaeda and the Taliban were the result of our intervention. Perhaps they were the result of insufficient intervention, however.

There were both good and bad Afghans fighting the Soviets. At the time, the Soviets needed to be defeated. We provided the necessary means. Probably we should also have been more helpful to the good Afghans after the Russkies were pushed out.

[California Patriot]

Clarification: Sell or GIVE the Nepalis what they want.
Still not much of a sacrifice, and I can't see how it affects the Iraqi or Afghan operations.

[LexBaird]

I don't believe Al Qaeda and the Taliban were the result of our intervention. Perhaps they were the result of insufficient intervention, however.

There were both good and bad Afghans fighting the Soviets. At the time, the Soviets needed to be defeated. We provided the necessary means. Probably we should also have been more helpful to the good Afghans after the Russkies were pushed out.

The defeat of the Russians left a power vacuum in Afghanistan that the Taliban filled. Bin Laden got his start and his credentials as a mujahadeen. What happened was due to the law of unintended consequences. By uncritically aiding the mujahadeen, "good" and "bad", we set up the dominoes that ended in the 9/11 attacks.

Now, you are proposing the same uncritical strategy for Nepal, as long as the Chicoms are the enemy. Even if the result is a well armed, well trained absolute dictatorship supported by radicals.

[California Patriot]

Why would the result be an "absolute dictatorship"?

Why would it be "supported by radicals"?

Are there Muslim extremists in Nepal?

I think the communists would be more likely to ally with Muslim extremists than a traditional Buddhist monarchy would. I am proposing that we help the monarchy fight the communists.

Yes, Afghanistan should have been done better, and if there are elements on the side of the Nepalese government who might side with Muslim radicals, please let me know.

Until you can do that, your post is unpersuasive at best
and presents no parallel whatsoever between the Afghan situation and the Nepalese situation.

[sagar]

Very well said, your post # 28.

This is for # 33.

"Are there Muslim extremists in Nepal?"

Countries that have muslims are going to have "Muslim extremists"(normal muslims, just following the Quran -- killing, religious zealotry, and just plain nuts). That being aside, there are no jihadists operating on the national level. Southwestern Nepal has considerable Muslims and are suspected to have Kashmiri/Indian terrorist ties. Other than that, no Muslim extremists in Nepal.

"I think the communists would be more likely to ally with Muslim extremists than a traditional Buddhist monarchy would."

The commies aren't short-sighted. They know all too well that Muslims are not friends of communism. And Nepal is a Hindu monarchy(the royal family is Hindu), not Buddhist. Although there is considerable support for the monarch from the Buddhists than from the Hindus.

Young Buddhist monks hold portraits of King Gyanendra and Queen Komal while participating in a pro-monarchy peace rally in Katmandu

"I am proposing that we help the monarchy fight the communists. "

There used to be open American support for the monarchy. But that has changed. Americans(Sen. Patrick Lehy included) chant the "democracy" mantra, which in reality is communist-lite. In Nepal, "democracy" means Nepal Communist Party(United Marxist-Leninist) -- their media name is 'NCP(UML)' and the socialist Nepali Congress duking it out. Not much democracy, eh.

"Yes, Afghanistan should have been done better, and if there are elements on the side of the Nepalese government who might side with Muslim radicals, please let me know."

Interestingly, the king is now seeking Chinese and Pakistani help. India and USA have dumped him completely.

Protesters chant anti-king slogans as they march through a street in Katmandu, Nepal, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006. Thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Katmandu Thursday, as early results showed pro-government candidates sweeping local elections that were marred by rebel attacks, the shooting of protestors and low turnout. On left Nepal's communist party flag is seen. (AP Photo/Bikash Rauniar)

Protesters chant anti-king slogans as they march through a street in Katmandu, Nepal, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006. Thousands of protestors flooded the streets of Katmandu Thursday, as early results showed pro-government candidates sweeping local elections that were marred by rebel attacks, the shooting of protestors and low turnout. (AP Photo/Bikash Rauniar)

Activists of Nepal's agitating seven political parties shout slogans to protest against the Nepalese army opening fire on protesters in Dang, 500 kilometers (350 miles) southwest of Katmandu, Nepal, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006.

Pro-democracy activists of Nepal's seven political parties shout slogans against King Gyanendra, and urge people to boycott the municipal election during a torch rally in Patan, near Katmandu, Nepal, Friday Feb. 3, 2006. The communist rebels, who are fighting to replace Nepal's monarchy with a socialist state, have increased attacks since calling a halt to their cease-fire last month. The rebels have bombed the houses of several mayoral candidates in the past few days and launched a major attack in a western Nepal town, killing at least 20 security personnel and taking dozens of others hostage. (AP photo/ Binod Joshi)

[California Patriot]

Thanks for the well-informed briefing. I wish discussion on FReep was on this level more often.

It sounds like Bush is letting this one slip through the cracks.

"Democracy" should never mean the option of going communist. And I still think a communist government and outside Muslims radicals would be perfectly willing to use each other against the West.

[Jacob Kell]

Actually, Nepal might well be important, at least to some degree. It's next door to India, is it not? And India has it's own problems with issues related to the caste system, and Naxalite terrorism. A Maoist victory in Nepal would no doubt destablize India, and by extension South Asia in general.

[California Patriot]

Yes, India is one of the brighter spots in the world, at least potentially, for the U.S. Our enemies of all stripes would love to interfere with our budding alliance.

In geopolitics, every country can matter, and Nepal being on India's border is enough in its own right to make the country significant.

[LiveBait]

You are probably right, to a degree. Maoist victory in Nepal would obviously have negative consequences across the region, and India will be one of the most important areas of transition in the upcoming century. I suspect that the relationship between India and Nepal is rather one-sided, however... I imagine the worst case scenario would make Nepal the Cuba to India's USA.

[Jacob Kell]

True, but I suspect that India is more vunerable than the US. It has more serious problems with the caste system, for example.