Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Nepal Peace Talks at the Crossroads

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 11/7/2006

Lately Nepal has seen a worrying wave of political bickering. For the moment, politicians are working flat-out to meet demand, which has already been forecasted to rise more in the next few weeks. For ordinary Nepalese, of course, all this is good news: it drives political uncertainties away.

The Seven Allied Political Parties (SPA) and the Maoists will have to respond somehow to the people's concern. But it is yet not known what they will do, as Nepal is struggling to secure its newfound democracy, and to absorb the impact of new political openings

.Nepal, experts say, has a geopolitical priority: its relations with China, the U.S., and India, and the linking of this to the rest of the world. So according to them Nepal cannot decide on her own what she wants and what she doesn't.

But considering all these obstacles, Nepal must step ahead and take bold actions. Both the SPA and the Maoists, whose representatives are due to meet for the next round of the summit talks, have to demonstrate political commitment. If not, negotiations could yet die a slow death from lack of interest.

Analysts say much more than anything, the American factor is standing between the SPA and the Maoists at the negotiation table. The U.S. has been always saying that Maoists should not be included in the interim government before they are disarmed, and warned of stalling all assistance if they were inducted in the government with arms.

The U.S. went a step further and said that the claims made by Maoists regarding the wide public support they enjoy are not factual. Talking to a group of Indian journalists and intellectuals in New Delhi on Monday, The U.S. ambassador to Nepal, James Francis Moriarty said that the Maoists "would get a very few votes if elections are held in the present context and that the U.S. believes that the Maoists should not be included in the government until their arms are managed," according to media reports.

Furthermore, it has been learned that India and the U.S. on Monday held discussions on the situation in Nepal. Ambassador Moriarty met with Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and Joint Secretary (North) in External Affairs Ministry Pankaj Saran and exchanged ideas on the developments in Nepal, according to the Indian media reports.

Moriarty left for New Delhi on Sunday for consultations with his Indian counterparts and officials at the India's External Affairs Ministry on current developments in Nepal. Upon learning about the meeting, most analysts said that whatever happens, the Nepalese will still have to listen to the twin voices of America and India. Clearly Nepal will remain at least under the indirect authority of these two nations, whose policy on Nepalese independence has always been ambiguous.

Moriarty is returning to Kathmandu on Tuesday after a two-day visit to the Indian capital, and his visit assumes high significance as the visit took place at a time when the summit talks between the government and Maoists are taking a decisive turn on the arms management.

In the midst of this recent development, what are the Maoists doing. Not succumbing at all to the continued pressure from Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and the world that they separate their army and weapons before joining the interim government, the Maoists have put forth a another counterproposal stating they are even willing to take part in Constituent Assembly elections "peacefully" without joining the interim government.

Sources say PM Koirala, is said to have told Prachanda that he would discuss the new proposal with his party colleagues first.

Politicians in Nepal believe that the Maoists may be making a tactical mistake by moving away from arms management, as it would have given them a prime role in the interim government. They argue that joining the interim government should be the Maoists' first priority: the longer they hang onto their weapons, the harder it will be for them to embark on a nonviolent political campaign.

Likewise, in another interesting development, it has been reported by a Nepalese daily (Annapurna Post) that on Sunday a senior Maoist leader said that his party will not surrender its arms before the Constituent Assembly elections.

While addressing the second convention of Seti Mahakali Mukti Morcha in the far western town of Dhangadi, Dev Gurung, a member of the Maoist negotiating team, claimed that if the Maoists were to lock up their arms right away, the Nepali Army (NA) would engineer a coup.

Gurung accused "pro-palace and foreign agents" within the Nepali Congress (NC) Party as being responsible for prolonging the summit talks. He also accused Moriarty and the NA of working to prolong the talks, according to the report.

The U.S. ambassador to Nepal's claim about Maoists is not a joke, and it is justifiable on various grounds. The Maoists are not abiding by the code of conduct and are continuing forceful extortions. Notwithstanding the commitment of the party leadership not to collect forceful donations and break the ceasefire code of conduct signed by the government and the Maoists.

Maoist rebels are collecting donations forcefully from various businesses and people, though the Maoist leadership has been refuting this claim.

But the reality is very different. The Maoist cadres have been threatening businesses and people to give donations and also warning of dire consequences if they failed to comply with their orders. The Maoists have also been continuing the acts of abduction and torturing people, but the party leadership has remained tight-lipped on such issues.

Meanwhile, according to the Congress Party, Maoist cadres defied the ceasefire code of conduct by disrupting their peaceful program. The party was holding a village party campaign in Nelmudi VDC of Kalikot district on Saturday when the Maoists intervened.

The party said that the Maoist cadres not only disrupted their program but also severely beat dozens of district leaders and workers of the party. They tore apart NC's party flag, vandalized the podium and abducted some leaders, according to Nepalese media reports.

These unlawful acts show that even in the contemporary Nepal, to Maoists tyranny still matters more than ideology. If the Maoists want peace in Nepal, they must first agree to leave their arms because people are still afraid of Maoist's guns.

No wonder, if they leave arms and join the interim government, not only will it mean more legitimacy to their party, it will also mean the departure of some foreign interests in Nepal. Nepal will once again be a country of "sovereignty, liberty and independence."

And one thing more. Maoists must stop blaming the U.S. and other parties for the failed negotiations, because they are the major culprits. They must realize this, the sooner the better. How can a democratic nation like America accept Maoists joining the interim government without their arms management?

The prospect of Maoists joining the interim government with their arms worries the United States, who sees Maoists, arms as a threat to Nepal. But behind that disagreement lies, on American side, deeper understanding of the Nepalese future.

America wants the Maoists to disarm first and then join the interim government to establish lasting peace in Nepal, as it knows that if peace talk does not succeed in Nepal, then in all ways, it will be held accountable.

But it is wrong to say that no "democratic deficit" remains even if the Maoists join the interim government by laying down their arms. The Maoists then may set the political target, but the SPA will be left to decide how quickly it should be pursued.

It may be true that, in the long term, it is impossible to reduce The Maoists by keeping them away from the Nepalese politics, and that nothing is lost by giving them a chance. But such tradeoffs undoubtedly exist in the short run.

The true case for the SPA-Maoist amalgamation is not that there is no loss of democracy, but that the loss is more than matched by the political gain. According to one view, it will be provided the Maoists are given the space,: otherwise, amalgamation means nothing, and the benefits of democracy will not flow.

And it lends credibility to a promise made during Prachanda's series of interviews, when he said that Maoists will compromise more radically than many supposed, or indeed, than his manifesto entitled anybody to think. What other startling initiatives, one cannot help but wonder, lie ahead?

Will the Maoists disarm? This is a million-dollar question. Nonetheless, the optimistic equation is simple: if they disband their arms, they will be able to join the interim government and once they join the government, there will be no reason for the foreign interference in the Nepalese politics, and the responsibility for Nepal's territorial integrity will then rest where it properly belongs.

Meanwhile, for now, the efforts of the outside world, through the U.N., to disarm the Maoists must remain as relentless as ever. They must, however, ensure that the Maoists' arms never again menace anyone else. For though they may be no immediate threat to Nepal today, they remain a potential threat to everyone as long as they are with the Maoists. If Nepal is to live with the Maoists, it must never relax its efforts to revoke the Maoists' arms.