| Username |
Post |
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 06-Dec-03 09:24 AM
Here's an excellent piece by one my favorite columnists, Suman Pradhan. Its a great piece because with all that happening in Nepal and the world, some people in all their sanity have started to believe that Nepal is facing a threat to its independence. Not only the Maoists in Rolpa, but some scholars in the US too seem to believe that if the situation in the country continues to deteriorate, then we will be under China, India and the US-- an argument that's way too farfetched.
Coincidently, some points raised by SP seems to coincide with some of the points that I raised on one of the Sajha discussions on this "threat" thread, which I can't relocate due to some problems with this site right now.
However, Suman missed out (?) or deliberately refrained (?) from this: We all know who is behind the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Although, our Southern neighbor at first promoted the insurgency to achieve its economic, political and other interests in Nepal, a strong US presence in Afganisthan, and the UN resolutuion against terrorism changed everything. Again, I am not saying that our Southern neighbor is totally following the UN resolution 1373, but it certainly is making it harder for it to pursue its interests in Nepal. Neither it could just pull the cord out of the Maoists, nor it could dircetly support the Maoists, and this somehow put an end to India's seeking the pre and post 2007 saal role in Nepal. Moreover, the then PM Sher Bahadur Deuba's outright refusal even to seek the Indian help, let alone bringing the Indian troops in Nepal was a severe blow to the long term Indian strategy and plan. Their plan was scrapped by a Nepali amateur politician! And some observers believe that this was one of the reasons for his dismissal, and given the degree of Indian influence in Nepali politics, this argunment cannot be dismissed outright. But again, neither India, China nor the US had or have any ambition to annex Nepal. It just doesn't seem a good idea, however, one cannot also outright dismiss the fact that our sourthern neighbor and the US always had intersest in Nepal- whether it be the US fu nding a Free-Tibet/anti China campaign in the 60s and early 70s, or India wanting to make Nepal another Bhutan. OK, I am little off with my own farfetched analysis. But its kind of hard to believe that the super-powers and emerging regional powers have totally given up on their geo-political ambitions. Maybe they have found some better alternatives to bring Nepal under theirt influence. OK, its saturday night and you know, I might be a bit off with this. So accept my apologies beforehand and enjoy Suman's brilliant piece.
Happy reading!
If
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 06-Dec-03 09:27 AM
The great mind game
SUMAN PRADHAN
- Pore over a map of South Asia, especially its north-western parts, and what do you see? First, you will probably see the world’s most dangerous hotspot - the small beautiful and bloody Kashmir - where many security experts see a future nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. A little east of this contested land lies Kalapani where the borders of India, China and Nepal converge. The great Tibetan Plateau spreads in a wide arc just north of this strategic triangle.
Now look a little further west. There sits Pakistan, reportedly a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. Up north beckons Afghanistan where the Americans are still fighting a resurgent Taliban two years after supposedly bombing them into oblivion. Beyond lie the great countries of Central Asia - the ‘stans’ where just a century ago, the mighty British Empire and the Russians fought for power and influence in what has since been called “the Great Game.”
Since Nepal sits just a few hundred miles from all these strategic locations, we can be forgiven for thinking that this beautiful country of ours, which lay in splendid isolation for centuries, holds some importance for regional and global players.
Regional players, understandable. After all this yam has stood as a buffer zone between our two big boulderly neighbours forcing us on a Panchasheel-based foreign policy couched in the language of non-alignment.
But global players? Is Nepal really that strategically significant that big powers vie for power and influence here? Has Kathmandu become the South Asian version of Cold War-era Vienna where NATO and Warsaw Pact spies tried to outdo each other? In other words, is there a new Great Game going on beneath our noses?
I’ve been poring over the map of South Asia, mulling this very very important question for weeks. But I still can’t see why we would be significant enough for a murky game by foreign hands.
For one, we don’t have oil and we don’t possess natural gas deposits. There’s no pipeline politics to speak of unlike in Central Asia. All we have is water, and so far no one seems to be interested in it except our southern neighbour, which exercises a monopsony right over it.
We also don’t have Islam. This is after all a Hindu state where all other religions, Islam included, can be grouped in the “others” column in the statistics yearbook. Osama and his ilk therefore don’t stand a chance here.
But why is it that many Nepalis still believe that we are in the middle of another Great Game? Could it be the importance - also called bragging rights - that comes with being a land over which great powers compete? This is a distinct possibility given that constant chest- thumping about Lord Buddha, Mt Everest and the Gurkhas has been our national tendency.
But that alone can’t explain this buzz I hear of a Great Game underway here. No, not even Lucknow can explain this. There must be something hidden beneath the surface, something that is waiting to be uncovered. Could it be the Maoists and their pure if primitive brand of Maoism? Hmmm.
Let’s explore this angle a little further. The rebels have this amazing theory that as their “People’s War” intensifies and gains success after success, the Indian Army will be forced to intervene. That will in turn invite Chinese intervention, leading to US counter-intervention.
I find this scenario a little far-fetched though, more like the hair-brained scheme of a bored strategic analyst who has nothing better to do than punch crazy theories in his computer.
Why would the Indians want to take control of a country which seems to be utterly ungovernable? After their bloody experience in Sri Lanka, do they want to “play” in terrain supremely suited for guerrilla warfare? What will they gain, aside from the water (which they are getting anyway)? And why antagonize China with all this?
If the Indians don’t want to play, why would the Chinese be interested? Being the cradle of a 5000-year-old civilization, the Chinese take the long-term view. For instance, when Chou En-Lai was asked about the French Revolution, he reportedly said it was too early to comment. So the Chinese view on the Maoist rebellion may be a long way in coming since it has only been seven years.
But our Maoist comrades are pretty confident in their analysis that some day, they will come face to face not just with the military might of India but also US Special Forces. No one quite believes this, and my American friends almost laughed me off the chair when told of the Maoist’s views. “Yeah, right. Wait till we send an aircraft carrier up the Karnali,” they quipped in unison.
I mean, why would the Americans be interested if the Indians and the Chinese are not? Sure the potential for nuclear conflict exists, but that’s in Kashmir, not here. Ok there’s the Tibet question, but the Americans already tried that in the 1950s without much luck. They may be seeking a military base in Nepal, I’m told. But for what purpose? To ring China? But didn’t the Chinese ambassador discount that recently by proclaiming he didn’t see US presence in Nepal?
In conclusion then, there’s no Great Game to speak of, only mind games. Unless of course you consider heightening Indian, Chinese, US and EU concerns over Nepal as yet another manifestation of international power politics.
(The writer can be reached at )
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 06-Dec-03 10:52 AM
great piece because with all that happening in Nepal and the world, some people in all their sanity have started to believe that Nepal is facing a threat to its independence= great piece because with all that happening in Nepal and the world, some people in all their sanity have started to believe that Nepal is facing a threat to its independence and Suman's piece provides an informed perspective to look at this "threat".
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 06-Dec-03 12:22 PM
I mean, why would the Americans be interested if the Indians and the Chinese are not? Sure the potential for nuclear conflict exists, but that’s in Kashmir, not here. Ok there’s the Tibet question, but the Americans already tried that in the 1950s without much luck. They may be seeking a military base in Nepal, I’m told. But for what purpose? To ring China? But didn’t the Chinese ambassador discount that recently by proclaiming he didn’t see US presence in Nepal?
_
I think the Americans got involved with the Free Tibet/Khampa "issue" in the 60s till the early 70s. In 1974/75, His late Majesty, wrote a letter to the leader asking hom to surrender with all his weapons, which the Khampa leader (baba yeshi/yashi?) declined the RNA was sent there. The Americans by the late 60's realized that it didn't make much sense for them to support a bunch of tribal fighters. So they started retracting from the mission. Plus, the Sino-US rapproachment of the early 70s was a key factor in US scrapping Mission-Tibet.
I also disagree with the claim that Americans are seeking a base in Nepal. I mean, why would America want to involve itself actively in Nepal that is in such a deep mess. Again, some people have this idea that Nepal can be used for espionage and counter-espionage activities, and this seems to result from watching too many classic spy movies of the 30s. Believe it or not, the US had developed this brilliant technology taht alloowed it to read every diplomatci communication between Germany and Japan and otehr nations in the 40s! (for more on this code breaking, read the NY Times best seller, Roosevelt's Secret War). The US spent a great deal on developing advanced espionage techniques and things have been different. There are technologies that can record things accurately than a human eye or brain; there's magic dust; there's satellites and what not. So, if the US wants to say, learn about the Chinese/Indian/Pakistani military build ups and their nuclear weapon movements, it can do it in a comfortable room in DC or in a submarine in the Pacific.
Militarily too, what's tehre to gain by risking its men in a country like Nepal? We have Mt. Everest and Lumbini, but you can't take them with you to America. We have rivers, but transporting water to the US from Nepali rivers will take 300 years at least. The only interest that the US seems to result due to the insurgency. Although, Nepal's Maoists are too insignificant to make it to the security and foreign policy agenda of the US, branding it a terrorist organziation and supporting the governmnet at this point makes it look like the US is after every terrorist organziation, whether they are operating from Rolpa or Rwanda or Rumenia. Its a "chori pitera buhari tarsaune" strategy. There are far many terrorist organizations which are better equipped and more anti-Ameican than the Maoists, so, by pretending to come after the Maoists by helping us with M16 A2 and 17 million dollars, the US is actually sending out signals to big and more powerful terrorist organziations to stop their activities.
|
