Nepal Insurgency
US Jittery Over Nepal
by Ramtanu Maitra
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC16Df01.html
The developments in Nepal since February 1, when King Gyanendra seized dictatorial powers in an effort to quell a Maoist insurgency, have put the foreign policy machinery in Washington into high gear. On March 2, in a statement before the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Donald Camp told legislators, "I want to assure you and the committee that the administration is deeply engaged in helping to resolve the current crisis in Nepal. President [George W] Bush's declaration of the United States's support for freedom around the world very much extends to Nepal."
The pressure is on New Delhi to bring the Nepali king to heel, and is expected to mount further when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits India for a day on March 16. Announcing her visit, which was set up on short notice, an Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman said March 4 that the discussions between Rice and Indian authorities would include Nepal.
The ball has also started rolling in Kathmandu. Nepali Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey held talks with Indian leaders during his "working visit" which began March 7, the first high-level trip to India after King Gyanendra's takeover of power, it was announced. "Pandey is paying a working visit to India and the current political situation of Nepal will naturally dominate the bilateral talks in Delhi," Nepal's Foreign Secretary Madhuraman Acharya, who is accompanying Pandey, said.
Shared concerns
In New Delhi, External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh told news reporters on March 6 that "the developments in Nepal constitute a serious setback to democracy and bring the monarchy and mainstream political parties in direct confrontation with each other".
"In view of the current disturbed conditions in Nepal, the question of military supplies to Nepal is under constant review," Singh added. "India is concerned that a further deterioration of the situation in Nepal will result in spill-over effects across the open border, particularly in the neighboring states. We have taken steps to strengthen security in border areas."
New Delhi's concerns about the suppression of democracy and the deterioration of the security situation along the India-Nepal border echo Washington's concerns. In his testimony to American lawmakers, Camp stated, "We are concerned about abuses and atrocities by Maoists and human rights abuses by government security forces including extra-judicial killings and 'disappearances'. We continue to vet units receiving US assistance to ensure that none is implicated in human rights violations. An amendment to the FY 2005 Senate Appropriations bill stipulated that Foreign Military financing could be made available to Nepal if the secretary of state determined that Nepal was taking a number of steps to improve the human rights practices of the security forces. We have made it clear to the government of Nepal that we expect to see appropriate, timely and transparent investigations of any credible allegations of abuse and that failure to do so could jeopardize our ability to continue assistance. We will continue to convey our strong concern about human rights violations by the security forces to the highest levels of the Nepal government and urge swift investigation and punishment."
Within hours of King Gyanendra's dramatic move, New Delhi sent a clear message concerning the abolition of constitutional fundamental rights and the suspension of the democratic system in Nepal. India's call for the restoration of democracy may not be viewed seriously by the Nepali king - or by the international community, for that matter, as Delhi has never been a stickler for democracy in other countries - but the fact remains that it was New Delhi who played the key role in helping bring down the absolute monarchy in Kathmandu in 1990 and establish a parliamentary democracy in Nepal in the first place. The latest reports indicate that India has stopped arms shipments to the Nepali king.
A complex coup
The "royal coup" has triggered a torrent of confusion, and raised many questions. What or who led the king down this turbulent path? Does he know how to avoid falling into the snake pits strewn across the garden path? Who should he trust?
Analysts point out that the real intent of King Gyanendra was never a secret. On that fateful Friday night, June 1, 2001, in Narayanhiti Palace in Kathmandu, when the then-Crown Prince Dipendra reportedly wiped out almost his entire family and then took his own life, Prince Gyanendra became King Gyanendra. Soon after taking over, in a rare press interview, King Gyanendra said that unlike his brother, the murdered King Birendra, he would not be an onlooker and allow the growth of violent Maoists.
New Delhi, of course, did not like the Friday night massacre, but quietly liked the new king's determination to eliminate the Maoists. After all, India's Maoists were gaining ground and it is hardly in New Delhi's interest to see Kathmandu soft-pedaling a Maoist movement along its border. In fact, when the Indian ambassador to Nepal, Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, who was withdrawn in the wake of the king's takeover but returned to Kathmandu on February 20, met Royal Nepali Army (RNA) chief General Pyar Jung Thapa in his Kathmandu headquarters soon after the royal takeover, Thapa hinted at invoking the 1950 India-Nepal Friendship Treaty to seek Indian troops to deal with the Maoist insurgency.
Officials say New Delhi was immediately divided on the request: Natwar Singh insisted that no assistance be given, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urged a gentle, more measured response, in view of the Royal Nepal Army's extraordinary past contribution in working in tandem with the Indian army. The Indian position, as it was eventually communicated, was that India could not deny troops if asked.
Indeed, neither India nor the US or the United Kingdom would like to see the Maoists gaining ground in Nepal. If Gyanendra's purpose is to go after the Maoists, none of these countries would be expected to protest.
The China factor
But there are wheels within wheels. To begin with, some analysts in New Delhi claim the February 1 coup by King Gyanendra had the blessings of Beijing. These analysts point to the fact that Gyanendra forced the Nepali cabinet to shut down the Tibetan cultural center affiliated to the Dalai Lama following the Christmas weekend visit to Hong Kong of King Gyanendra's son, Crown Prince Paras, and the fact that the coup itself took place after his second trip to Hong Kong in January. The same analysts cite another reason for believing King Gyanendra got some vocal support from China: namely, the king's decision to open the Lhasa-Kathmandu Road. This road had been built but never opened. New Delhi thought it had a say on this matter; but the king clearly thought otherwise.
These two "events" preceding the coup gave the impression to the US and the UK that China was meddling in Nepal's affairs. This was particularly upsetting for these two Western powers and to India as well, because the Nepali king was getting arms and weapons from all three for his army.
The UK, the US and several European countries have already expressed reservations about continued arms assistance to Nepal. This raises a possibility that the king may turn toward China. China does not seem to share the concerns of the other neighbors for a situation it deems to be Nepal's internal affair.
What troubles New Delhi even more is the response of Islamabad to the coup. Islamabad summarily dismissed the fretting of New Delhi, Washington and London by calling the coup the "internal affair" of Nepal. New Delhi cannot forget that during a visit to Kathmandu last June, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz offered to sell defense equipment to Nepal and was also ready to provide financial assistance in this regard. He said on that occasion that Pakistan was willing to offer military aid to support defense and security cooperation.
What New Delhi notes ruefully is that Pakistan never really condemned the Maoist movement within Nepal. China, by contrast, was always categorical in condemning the Nepali Maoists and supporting the royalty. Following a mid-June trip to Beijing last year, Nepali General Pyar Jung Thapa revealed to state radio and television that China would step up "security cooperation" with Nepal. This will improve Kathmandu's ability to militarily counter the anti-monarchy insurgency that started in 1996, Thapa said. In Beijing for a week, Thapa held talks with top military officials such as Defense Minister General Cao Gangchuan and General Liang Guanglie, chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army. Neither side has revealed the extent of China's military assistance to Nepal.
US aid to Nepal
"King Gyanendra himself is reported to favor moving toward a closer relationship with China, and has recently conducted a high profile trip to [China]," said US legislators Frank Wolf and Mark Udall in a letter to colleagues criticizing the harassment of Tibetans in Nepal.
But beyond the China and Pakistan factors, India and others feel betrayed by the king. The US has also become a major provider of military assistance to Nepal, allocating over US$29 million in grants to pay for US weapons, services and training from October 2001 to October 2004.
US military assistance to Nepal increased dramatically after 2001: in mid-2001, Washington anticipated spending some $225,000 the following fiscal year (October 2001-September 2002) on the military training of Nepalese troops and did not plan to provide any financing (via grants and loans) for military purchases by Nepal. After September 11, $20 million was added in a supplemental allocation. In fiscal 2003, Nepal received $3.15 million from the Foreign Military Funding program and $500,000 under another program. For fiscal 2004, the Bush administration asked Congress for $10.6 million financing.
The US had allocated $45 million in aid for Nepal in the year to September 2004, 10% of which was reportedly for security. For fiscal 2005, $44 million has been set aside with only one third for security-related activities.
Following the royal coup, US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca went to consult with European allies on Nepal, among other issues. Washington has a series of military arrangements with countries bordering China, stretching from its new bases in the Central Asian republics through Southeast Asia to its formal allies in northeast Asia: Japan and South Korea. The Bush administration sees the Nepal insurgency as another "domino" in its international "war on terrorism", arguing that the country could become a "failed state" and hence a haven for terrorists.
It is not unlikely that Washington will exercise its oft-used weapon of sanctions against Kathmandu. Some time ago, it was reported that the US was threatening to raise the issue of human rights in Nepal in the United Nations and other world forums. Nepal was threatened with expulsion from the UN, the World Trade Organization, and so on. According to Indian intelligence, Nepal has approached China to veto any such threat. US ambassador to Nepal James Moriarty, who was recalled to the US for consultations in the wake of the royal coup but has since returned, recently hinted to the media that the US, India, the European Union and others who have been supporting Nepal's government will be looking for action soon if the country is to avoid punitive action, including aid cutbacks.
[Ramtanu Maitra writes for a number of international journals and is a regular contributor to the Washington-based EIR and the New Delhi-based Indian Defence Review. He also writes for Aakrosh, India's defense-tied quarterly journal.]
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing
by Ramtanu Maitra
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC16Df01.html
The developments in Nepal since February 1, when King Gyanendra seized dictatorial powers in an effort to quell a Maoist insurgency, have put the foreign policy machinery in Washington into high gear. On March 2, in a statement before the US House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Donald Camp told legislators, "I want to assure you and the committee that the administration is deeply engaged in helping to resolve the current crisis in Nepal. President [George W] Bush's declaration of the United States's support for freedom around the world very much extends to Nepal."
The pressure is on New Delhi to bring the Nepali king to heel, and is expected to mount further when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits India for a day on March 16. Announcing her visit, which was set up on short notice, an Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman said March 4 that the discussions between Rice and Indian authorities would include Nepal.
The ball has also started rolling in Kathmandu. Nepali Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey held talks with Indian leaders during his "working visit" which began March 7, the first high-level trip to India after King Gyanendra's takeover of power, it was announced. "Pandey is paying a working visit to India and the current political situation of Nepal will naturally dominate the bilateral talks in Delhi," Nepal's Foreign Secretary Madhuraman Acharya, who is accompanying Pandey, said.
Shared concerns
In New Delhi, External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh told news reporters on March 6 that "the developments in Nepal constitute a serious setback to democracy and bring the monarchy and mainstream political parties in direct confrontation with each other".
"In view of the current disturbed conditions in Nepal, the question of military supplies to Nepal is under constant review," Singh added. "India is concerned that a further deterioration of the situation in Nepal will result in spill-over effects across the open border, particularly in the neighboring states. We have taken steps to strengthen security in border areas."
New Delhi's concerns about the suppression of democracy and the deterioration of the security situation along the India-Nepal border echo Washington's concerns. In his testimony to American lawmakers, Camp stated, "We are concerned about abuses and atrocities by Maoists and human rights abuses by government security forces including extra-judicial killings and 'disappearances'. We continue to vet units receiving US assistance to ensure that none is implicated in human rights violations. An amendment to the FY 2005 Senate Appropriations bill stipulated that Foreign Military financing could be made available to Nepal if the secretary of state determined that Nepal was taking a number of steps to improve the human rights practices of the security forces. We have made it clear to the government of Nepal that we expect to see appropriate, timely and transparent investigations of any credible allegations of abuse and that failure to do so could jeopardize our ability to continue assistance. We will continue to convey our strong concern about human rights violations by the security forces to the highest levels of the Nepal government and urge swift investigation and punishment."
Within hours of King Gyanendra's dramatic move, New Delhi sent a clear message concerning the abolition of constitutional fundamental rights and the suspension of the democratic system in Nepal. India's call for the restoration of democracy may not be viewed seriously by the Nepali king - or by the international community, for that matter, as Delhi has never been a stickler for democracy in other countries - but the fact remains that it was New Delhi who played the key role in helping bring down the absolute monarchy in Kathmandu in 1990 and establish a parliamentary democracy in Nepal in the first place. The latest reports indicate that India has stopped arms shipments to the Nepali king.
A complex coup
The "royal coup" has triggered a torrent of confusion, and raised many questions. What or who led the king down this turbulent path? Does he know how to avoid falling into the snake pits strewn across the garden path? Who should he trust?
Analysts point out that the real intent of King Gyanendra was never a secret. On that fateful Friday night, June 1, 2001, in Narayanhiti Palace in Kathmandu, when the then-Crown Prince Dipendra reportedly wiped out almost his entire family and then took his own life, Prince Gyanendra became King Gyanendra. Soon after taking over, in a rare press interview, King Gyanendra said that unlike his brother, the murdered King Birendra, he would not be an onlooker and allow the growth of violent Maoists.
New Delhi, of course, did not like the Friday night massacre, but quietly liked the new king's determination to eliminate the Maoists. After all, India's Maoists were gaining ground and it is hardly in New Delhi's interest to see Kathmandu soft-pedaling a Maoist movement along its border. In fact, when the Indian ambassador to Nepal, Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, who was withdrawn in the wake of the king's takeover but returned to Kathmandu on February 20, met Royal Nepali Army (RNA) chief General Pyar Jung Thapa in his Kathmandu headquarters soon after the royal takeover, Thapa hinted at invoking the 1950 India-Nepal Friendship Treaty to seek Indian troops to deal with the Maoist insurgency.
Officials say New Delhi was immediately divided on the request: Natwar Singh insisted that no assistance be given, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urged a gentle, more measured response, in view of the Royal Nepal Army's extraordinary past contribution in working in tandem with the Indian army. The Indian position, as it was eventually communicated, was that India could not deny troops if asked.
Indeed, neither India nor the US or the United Kingdom would like to see the Maoists gaining ground in Nepal. If Gyanendra's purpose is to go after the Maoists, none of these countries would be expected to protest.
The China factor
But there are wheels within wheels. To begin with, some analysts in New Delhi claim the February 1 coup by King Gyanendra had the blessings of Beijing. These analysts point to the fact that Gyanendra forced the Nepali cabinet to shut down the Tibetan cultural center affiliated to the Dalai Lama following the Christmas weekend visit to Hong Kong of King Gyanendra's son, Crown Prince Paras, and the fact that the coup itself took place after his second trip to Hong Kong in January. The same analysts cite another reason for believing King Gyanendra got some vocal support from China: namely, the king's decision to open the Lhasa-Kathmandu Road. This road had been built but never opened. New Delhi thought it had a say on this matter; but the king clearly thought otherwise.
These two "events" preceding the coup gave the impression to the US and the UK that China was meddling in Nepal's affairs. This was particularly upsetting for these two Western powers and to India as well, because the Nepali king was getting arms and weapons from all three for his army.
The UK, the US and several European countries have already expressed reservations about continued arms assistance to Nepal. This raises a possibility that the king may turn toward China. China does not seem to share the concerns of the other neighbors for a situation it deems to be Nepal's internal affair.
What troubles New Delhi even more is the response of Islamabad to the coup. Islamabad summarily dismissed the fretting of New Delhi, Washington and London by calling the coup the "internal affair" of Nepal. New Delhi cannot forget that during a visit to Kathmandu last June, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz offered to sell defense equipment to Nepal and was also ready to provide financial assistance in this regard. He said on that occasion that Pakistan was willing to offer military aid to support defense and security cooperation.
What New Delhi notes ruefully is that Pakistan never really condemned the Maoist movement within Nepal. China, by contrast, was always categorical in condemning the Nepali Maoists and supporting the royalty. Following a mid-June trip to Beijing last year, Nepali General Pyar Jung Thapa revealed to state radio and television that China would step up "security cooperation" with Nepal. This will improve Kathmandu's ability to militarily counter the anti-monarchy insurgency that started in 1996, Thapa said. In Beijing for a week, Thapa held talks with top military officials such as Defense Minister General Cao Gangchuan and General Liang Guanglie, chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army. Neither side has revealed the extent of China's military assistance to Nepal.
US aid to Nepal
"King Gyanendra himself is reported to favor moving toward a closer relationship with China, and has recently conducted a high profile trip to [China]," said US legislators Frank Wolf and Mark Udall in a letter to colleagues criticizing the harassment of Tibetans in Nepal.
But beyond the China and Pakistan factors, India and others feel betrayed by the king. The US has also become a major provider of military assistance to Nepal, allocating over US$29 million in grants to pay for US weapons, services and training from October 2001 to October 2004.
US military assistance to Nepal increased dramatically after 2001: in mid-2001, Washington anticipated spending some $225,000 the following fiscal year (October 2001-September 2002) on the military training of Nepalese troops and did not plan to provide any financing (via grants and loans) for military purchases by Nepal. After September 11, $20 million was added in a supplemental allocation. In fiscal 2003, Nepal received $3.15 million from the Foreign Military Funding program and $500,000 under another program. For fiscal 2004, the Bush administration asked Congress for $10.6 million financing.
The US had allocated $45 million in aid for Nepal in the year to September 2004, 10% of which was reportedly for security. For fiscal 2005, $44 million has been set aside with only one third for security-related activities.
Following the royal coup, US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca went to consult with European allies on Nepal, among other issues. Washington has a series of military arrangements with countries bordering China, stretching from its new bases in the Central Asian republics through Southeast Asia to its formal allies in northeast Asia: Japan and South Korea. The Bush administration sees the Nepal insurgency as another "domino" in its international "war on terrorism", arguing that the country could become a "failed state" and hence a haven for terrorists.
It is not unlikely that Washington will exercise its oft-used weapon of sanctions against Kathmandu. Some time ago, it was reported that the US was threatening to raise the issue of human rights in Nepal in the United Nations and other world forums. Nepal was threatened with expulsion from the UN, the World Trade Organization, and so on. According to Indian intelligence, Nepal has approached China to veto any such threat. US ambassador to Nepal James Moriarty, who was recalled to the US for consultations in the wake of the royal coup but has since returned, recently hinted to the media that the US, India, the European Union and others who have been supporting Nepal's government will be looking for action soon if the country is to avoid punitive action, including aid cutbacks.
[Ramtanu Maitra writes for a number of international journals and is a regular contributor to the Washington-based EIR and the New Delhi-based Indian Defence Review. He also writes for Aakrosh, India's defense-tied quarterly journal.]
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing
posted by Roguentin at 7:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home