Posted on 04/13/2006 10:23:12 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
That he has managed to get Marxist leader Sitaram Yechury, former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and US President George W. Bush on the same side of the debate on Nepal reveals all you need to know about King Gyanendra’s ham-handed power play in the Himalayan kingdom.
Since a shocking regicide put him in charge of Nepal’s destiny in June 2001, Gyanendra’s burning desire to restore royal absolutism has consistently outpaced his judgment on the prospects for his own survival or the collective interests of his country.
Most authoritarian rulers extend their rule either by mobilising valuable external support or by dividing their domestic opposition. However, the ambitious but inept Gyanendra has few friends left in the world or at home.
Much like President Musharraf in Pakistan, Gyanendra was betting that the Bush administration might separate itself from New Delhi and back him in the presumed fight between Palace and Maoists. The Bush administration, however, is also for promoting democracy. Unlike Musharraf, Gyanendra is not in a position to tilt the scales in Washington in favour of the status quo by citing the great war on terror. Further, the Bush administration appears to have taken a political decision to follow the Indian lead in Nepal.
Gyanendra has also sought to play the China card. Beijing, which initially played along in the hope of expanding long-term strategic influence in Nepal, now seem to be having second thoughts. When Chinese State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan was in Nepal in March, he found time to interact with opposition political leaders. This in spite of Tang visiting the kingdom as a state guest.
Meanwhile, domestic backing for Gyanendra has long evaporated. As he sought to dominate Nepal, Gyanendra was faced with two opponents — the political parties who wanted restoration of constitutional rule and Maoists who demanded abolition of the monarchy. By trying to divide the political parties and playing the fool with the Maoists, Gyanendra achieved the impossible of getting both opponents together on one platform.
Even the most elementary survival strategy on the part of the Palace demanded peace with one of the opponents. As he shunned repeated advice from India that he make up with the political parties and strengthen his hands vis a vis the Maoists, Delhi played a part in bringing the other two elements in Nepal’s power struggle together.
Gyanendra’s crackdown is yet another reminder that India should not labour under any illusions about Gyanendra’s ability to follow either his own enlightened self-interest or that of Nepal as a whole.
Yet, New Delhi seems paralysed in taking the next steps on dealing with the Nepal crisis. Forget for a moment the talk of big bully India intervening in Nepal’s internal affairs.
It is Gyanendra who is mobilising different groups within India to keep Delhi’s decision-making on Nepal off balance. Despite Brajesh Mishra’s warning that Gyanendra is digging the grave of the monarchy in Nepal, the RSS and VHP continue to fawn upon the only Hindu king in the world.
If Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi have criticised the communist parties for “communalising” India’s foreign policy on Iran, they should be giving no quarter to the Hindutva crowd on Nepal.
In India, the BJP is only part of the problem. The Palace in Nepal retains enduring political links to India’s own princes and thakurs, some of whom have considerable clout in the Congress Party. Above all, the Ministry of Defence and the Army have been among the strongest opponents to any policy that antagonises King Gyanendra.
Both cite concerns about the need to keep the Royal Nepal Army in good humour and keep in mind the reality of Nepali Gorkhas serving in the Indian Army. There are others who point to the Maoist threat to India.
None of these reasons justify India’s masterly inactivity on Nepal. While questions remain about the sincerity of the Maoists in joining the national mainstream, for the moment the target of India’s policy energy must be the king.
By his reckless actions, he has made himself the main problem in Nepal. An Indian failure to put Gyanendra immediately on notice would have a number of dangerous consequences.
In the last few years, much of the world, including the United States and the European Union have waited for India to take the lead on Nepal and agreed to coordinate their policies with those of New Delhi. If India holds back, other powers would soon begin to act on their own.
If India does not act immediately, the ground situation — worsening by the day — would compel India to consider more drastic remedies in the future. That could include military intervention to prevent state failure in Nepal.
New Delhi continues to hope that Gyanendra would come up with a new political initiative, which could come as soon as Friday. If the king, however, makes a half-cocked move, the temptation to postpone hard decisions would be irresistible.
Resisting that temptation, India should make its bottomline clear. Restoration of parliament, formation of a national government, peace talks with the Maoists, and a schedule for elections to a new Constituent Assembly that would write a new political future for Nepal.
If Gyanendra falls short of that framework, India should be prepared to impose new sanctions against the king. India rightly recognises that any such sanctions should not hurt the ordinary people in Nepal. But it is entirely possible for India to move quickly towards a comprehensive arms embargo and a set of “smart sanctions” targetting the key functionaries of the regime — especially their assets abroad and their right to travel.
If Gyanendra comes to terms with reality, a purely ceremonial monarchy might yet have a place in Nepal’s future. If he can’t, India must be prepared for a republican Nepal.
They were the third-largest bloc in parliament! An exception? You've just admitted that you were lying when you said that the Congress Party is the "right wing." It isn't, it's centrist, and you knew it when you said it and you know it now. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool, but it sure isn't getting you (or Tailgunner Joe) very far.
Yeah kinda like the "centrists" in your own country who just gave away your homeland to Jihadist killers? Like those centrists?
Oh now you're just being ridiculous. The last US President to oppose normalized trade relations with Communist China was Lyndon Johnson.
Yes, the situation's entirely analogous. You sure got a good command of them metaphors, Joe. < /s >
You made the charge, you should substantiate your allegation that the President supports free trade with the Chicoms. Most conservatives do not and opposed permanent normal trade relations.
It sure does seem like you think Israel giving half their country to HAMAS terrorists was such a good idea that more "democratic" terrorists should take over their countries too.
Are you kidding me? You're certifiable.
...
President Grants Permanent Trade Status to China Statement by the Deputy Press Secretary President Bush Grants Permanent Normal Trade Relations Status to China
Today the President signed a proclamation granting permanent normal trading relations (PNTR) status to the People's Republic of China and terminating application of Jackson-Vanik provisions to China. Taking effect January 1, 2002, this is the final step in normalizing U.S.-China trade relations and welcoming China into a global, rules-based trading system. It marks the completion of more than a decade of bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and the beginning of a process of working constructively with China to help it fully implement its commitments on trade liberalization.
Congress authorized these actions subject to the President's certification that the final terms of entry for China into the WTO were at least equivalent to those agreed to bilaterally between the United States and China in 1999, and China's successful entry into the WTO. The President certified the equivalency of the final terms on November 9, 2001; China formally became a WTO member on December 11, 2001.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011227-2.html
You're frankly not worth my time. You're talking out of your ass, and I have business to attend to. Take care.
That means nothing since Bill Clinton already normalized trade relations in 2000.
They are "third largest" that control 2%. And when the king sacked the corrupt government, it is one of the RPP member who the king nominated to be the PM. So, yes, they are indeed exception. And you are the one who is lying.
"The Democrats are the most conservative major party in the United States*
*aside from the Republicans, who are the exception."
If they are part of the political crowd, then the king nominated one of its members the PM, after sacking the corrupt government. So, wouldn't that make the king pro-political party also?
the problem with Nepal is that it is a very very diverse country. The king is generally supposed to be a apolitical monarch like that in England. A sort of unifying figurehead. The people we made the constitution messed up and didnt do that. There needs to be a symbolic king though the alternative is ethnic strife.
The King was an apolitical monarch, and there was a constitutional monarchy, with a functioning democracy, but the king grew tired of that, so he threw the leaders of the government in jail, banned all political parties, free speech and freedom of the press, and installed himself as absolute dictator. Kind of makes George III look modest. And now the nimrods on this thread are calling the elected anti-Communist Prime Minister and his allies, "Communists," which is about as bizarre as anything can be.
Indeed. Without the "feudal king" as a unifying factor, Nepal is not even a country. Nepal was never a country before, just a hodge podge of ethnicities.
Only after Prithvi Narayan unified it, then it became a country. If the monarchy is overthrown, there will be bloodbath as people don't see themselves as countrymen, but as enemy nationalities.
"Nepal" will break into hundreds of smaller Racial-States. The Maoists are already doing it by creating "ethnic liberation zones" in western Nepal. The corrupt politicians are fanning it with their backward agenda. And India is financing them both.
What an insightful analysis. The king suspended the legislature just because he was "tired" of them. It had nothing to do with the civil war or the maoists at all. You make such perfect sense.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1488436.cms
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=66081
reading the constitution you see it was not a constitutional monarchy like england. In england the king is appointed by the people and "governs" with their consent this is how the Republic of England went back to a monarchy. In Nepal the king had real power and according to the constitution, what he did was ok as long as it was for a few months. Basically the king can legally dispose of the government and rule directly but must explain why to parliament, that is where he messed up. If you ask me the constitution was messed up.
there was once a word for that, Balkanization.
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.