APRIL 15, 2008
Last Sunday, during a nationally aired discussion of whether President Bush would attend the Olympic opening ceremonies in Beijing, Stephen Hadley, President Bush's National Security Adviser, repeatedly and erroneously referred to Tibet as “Nepal”. Said Mr. Hadley, “The president thinks that the way to address the issue of Nepal is not by a statement that you are not going to the opening ceremonies…what he is doing on Nepal…” and so on. Five times Hadley spoke of Nepal, meaning “Tibet”, and five times the interviewer, George Stephanopoulos, either didn’t deign to listen or didn’t see the big deal in correcting the jarringly obvious mistake. Even the producers glued to their offstage monitors apparently didn’t get it.
Click here for youtube download 
Hadley is not a moron. Somewhere in his memory bank, Hadley knows that Nepal is an independent nation recognized by the United Nations while Tibet is an ancient civilization that was colonized and subsumed by the Chinese in the 1950s. But the sloppy speechifying which stood uncorrected by prominent newsman (who, after all, gets paid to exploit such blunders) points to a far deeper, systemic and ominous problem in the United States. America’s complacency with dodgy Asian geography is, in fact, one of the reasons the 21st century will be Asia’s century, not America’s. Asians have their globes dusted off, their bifocals squeaky clean and their attitudes greedy and fine-tuned for getting the fine print right.
Why should Americans give a damn about Tibet or Nepal?
Since 10 March 2008, when a few score of Tibetan monks peacefully
gathered to protest the 49th anniversary of the 1959 Lhasa uprising
against Chairman Mao’s communist invasion, echoed by Tibetan refugees
demonstrating in Nepal, (Tibet’s neighbor to the south), the two
civilizations have exhibited the extent to which, historically, Nepal
and Tibet have been linked to one another and, in turn, have forced
fluctuations within the political stances of neighboring China and
India, the Goliaths of Asia. This was further thrown in to relief on 10
April 2008, when Nepal held its historic elections. The Maoists caught
the world off-guard by emerging as clear-cut victors -- a landmark
change in government that will effect not only the domestic political
landscape, but will force shifts within pan-Asian foreign policy as
well. If America expects to be a player in Asia in the 21st century, it
had better bone up on the jigsaw pieces of China, Tibet, Nepal and
India – all distinct yet interlocked societies – an ineluctable quartet
of mosaics that cannot move away from one another and, as a result,
will increasingly add to the dynamics of 21st century politics.
Two links for basic history on Nepal and Tibet:
1.
For an historical analysis of Tibet’s plight since communist China’s
1950s invasion by communist China, read my piece written for the Harvard South Asia Journal .
2. For a look at the history behind Nepal’s current political situation, read my article: "Nepal's Political Situation" .
BUT WHAT’S HAPPENING IN NEPAL AS OF 16 APRIL 2008?
HOW WILL NEPAL’S NEW GOVERNMENT AFFECT INDIA, TIBET AND CHINA?
WHERE DOES THIS PUT THE UNITED STATES?
Immediate results of the elections.
The
intense desire in Nepal for a change has resulted in its former Maoist
guerrillas securing a landslide win in the historic constituent
assembly election. The constituent assembly will not only write a new
constitution, but has already promised to abolishing the 240-year-old
monarchy.
Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's Nepali Congress
(NC), which won the last general election in 1999 and enjoyed the
support of the international community, has now been defeated
decisively, having managed to wrest only 32 seats. The Communist Party
of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), once the second largest party
in the country, is running third with 29 seats. (These figures are as
of April 15.)
One
of the major surprise elements of the election, is the emergence of
women, who came away with almost 10 percent of the seats in the
constituent assembly. This may not seem like much to Westerners, but it
is a huge victory in a country stagnated by an ancient patriarchal
society consistently dismissive of women’s rights. Not surprisingly,
most of the female victors come from the Maoist party. (During the
civil war, 30% of the Maoist cadres were women.) Also, the Muslim
community got its first woman representative as the debutant ethnic
party, the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, saw its contestant Karima Begum
win from the Terai plains. 
In
general, the twice-postponed election also saw the rise of ethnic
parties from the Terai. The Forum won 21 seats (so far) while another
new Terai party, the Terai Madhes Loktantrik Party headed by former NC
minister Mahanta Thakur, captured seven seats.
International Reaction
As
it became increasingly clear that the Maoists would lead the next
government, congratulations poured in from the diplomatic community.
The ambassadors of India, Japan and Norway, as well as UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's special representative for Nepal, Ian
Martin met with and congratulated Maoist leader Prachanda.
The United States
Although
the United States has recognized the Maoists’ victory, Washington is
caught in a political cul-de-sac. The State Department still lists the
Maoist Party as a terrorist organization – something that, according to
former US president Jimmy Carter, should be rectified at the earliest
possible date. So far, the State Department has issued a neutral
position: "We look forward to the formation of an assembly that
reflects the will of the Nepali people, ready to begin the important
work of framing a constitution that addresses their needs."
Indeed,
some of the staunchest critics of the Maoists are now predicting that
the elections will force the former rebels to behave, in exchange for a
chance to rule the country. That the Maoists will use the polls to try
and seize power once and for all is a “stereotypical and unrealistic
fear,” according to David Pottie, associate director of the democracy
program at the Carter Center. American Ambassador Nancy Powell
predicted that the Maoists would be “constrained” by the logic of
parliamentary politics even as they tried to assert their ideological
agenda. Rhoderick Chalmers, Nepal head of the Brussels-based
International Crisis Group said, "My gut feeling is that this victory
will make the Maoists more and more of a responsible party…They now
have a tremendous burden of expectations to deliver on their promises,
and they are intelligent enough to realize they can't do it on their
own."
Tibetan Refugee Community in Nepal
For the 20,000 Tibetan refugees left stranded in Nepal, the Maoist
victory has been very bad news. Maoist Chairman Prachanda, the presumed
leader of the new government, has assured the press that he will not
tolerate any funny business from Tibetans. "The Nepalese government
will never allow other powers [read Tibetans] to conduct activities
against China by using Nepalese territory." What the refugees most
dread now is the extent to which the Maoists will not tolerate their
position.
Even
so, yesterday, armed police detained at least two-dozen Tibetans trying
to protest in front of the Chinese embassy in Kathmandu, the first
anti-China protests since the election last week. And today about 80
Tibetan protesters, many of them young monks and women, were arrested
while staging an anti-Beijing demonstration in Kathmandu. “We will
continue our protests until the Chinese suppression of Tibet ends," one
protester shouted as he was put in a police vehicle.
China
China's
policy towards Nepal has not been ideology-driven insofar as Beijing
kept in view the imperatives of inter-state relations almost up until
King Gyanendra was forcibly ousted in 2006. But since then, Beijing has
swiftly adapted to the emergent democratic forces in Nepal with great
pragmatism and forged working relations with all political parties,
including the Maoists. China's interest in Nepal has increased almost
exponentially. 
According
to Jiang Yu, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, “China is happy to
see the smooth Constituent Assembly Election in Nepal. Nepal is China's
friendly neighbor. We respect the Nepalese people's choice of their
social system and development road in line with their own national
conditions. It is our sincere hope that Nepal can realize political
stability and economic development at an early date. China will
continue to provide assistance to Nepal within its own capacity.”
But
the recent unrest in Tibet has added a further dimension. Tibetan
activists in Nepal have been particularly strident. And as noted above,
on this issue the Chinese will never release their grip, whoever is in
power in Nepal.
It’s likely that Prachanda will attempt to
maintain equidistance between India and China in political terms. But
when it comes to China, Beijing is certain to pounce on any
anti-Chinese sentiments in Nepal, given the strategic criticality of
Nepal’s northern border. Nepal’s border is, after all, key to Tibet's
security and stability. Ideologically, if China's current Central Asia
policy is anything to go by, Beijing will continue to flex its muscles
at Nepal when it comes to the “Three Evils: Terrorism, Religious
Extremism and Separatism.” According to China’s Evil Meter, the Dalai
Lama is the ringleader of all of the above.
Nepal’s Military
The
Maoist victory has made Nepal’s conservative military establishment
uncomfortable, to say the least. Traditionally loyal to Nepal's Hindu
monarchy and, until recently, fighting the Maoists in a 10-year civil
conflict –at least 13,000 people were killed during the guerilla war –
the army has adamantly resisted the suggestion that they absorb Maoist
ex-rebels into its ranks.
"Our stand is that politically indoctrinated people cannot be taken into the national army," one general recently said.
Will
Prachanda have the upper hand in this debate? What if the army is
forced into an untenable position? Could not they revolt and stage a
coup backed by the more traditional political parties? As has been
proven in the last week, anything is possible in Nepal. It’s probable,
however, that at this juncture, Prachanda is unlikely to play his cards
too aggressively. Instead, the Maoists are likely to take their time
over the integration of their fighters into the army.
"I don't
think the Maoists want to stir up that particular nest of hornets... or
make a powerful enemy of an armed force," said Kunda Dixit, editor of
the Nepali Times.
But here’s another possibility: One of my
personal sources told me yesterday that behind-closed-doors discussions
between the Maoists and the military are currently hammering out a
“face-saving deal” in which a least a few senior members of the former
rebels will be given “suitable ranks” within the military. Whatever the
outcome, this particular situation remains a particularly sensitive and
potentially explosive one.
India
Prior
to the election, Delhi was obviously lukewarm about the prospect of an
outright Maoist victory. The Indian establishment has traditionally
worked with the Nepali Congress, a party that belly-flopped in the
polls last week. One of India’s major concerns is the prospect of the
Maoists galvanizing revolutionary movements within India. Like everyone
else, Delhi didn't anticipate a tidal wave of support for the Maoists
in Nepal. But how likely is it that Prachanda will actively engage in
the exportation of Maoism into India, at least in the near future? If
there is a risk for New Delhi, it lies with its own Maoist insurgency,
active in more than dozen states. "Maoists in Nepal have their hands
full, and they have an agenda for their own country," said Ajai Sahni
of New Delhi's Institute for Conflict Management. "But it will be a
tremendous encouragement to Indian Maoists."
One way or another,
Delhi has found it’s diplomatic feet. On 14 April, Foreign minister
Pranab Mukherjee welcomed the Maoist win as "a positive development".
Indian
politicians have often grumbled, in terms of their relations with
Nepal, that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. In
some respects this is true. Nepalese political parties of every
persuasion have tended to fan anti-Indian feelings whenever it served
partisan purposes. (Although in many cases it was well deserved.) This
cycle, intensified by the revolving-door Nepalese governments since
1990, has resulted in a lot of hard feelings on both sides of the
border. The Maoists, too, have at times taken advantage of Nepal’s
general distrust of India. And yet virtually every Nepalese party has,
at one time or another, accused India of sponsoring the Maoist
insurgency. In trying to deconstruct this Indo-Nepali labyrinth for
myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone who says they can make
sense of it is a damn liar.
The Maoists' biggest challenge –
after decades of corruption and ill governance -- will be to deliver on
the changes they have promised and that Nepal desperately needs.
Education, healthcare, development and social justice are likely to top
their agenda. Now that they have achieved legitimacy, they know they
cannot bring prosperity to Nepal without the support of India, its main
trading partner and donor and the source of its fuel.
The King
Prachanda
said yesterday that the 240-year-old monarchy will be abolished sooner
rather than later: “I think within one month all these things should be
cleared and I hope and I expect that within one month we will organize
the first meeting of the first assembly and that first meeting should
abolish the monarchy,” Prachanda told NDTV. Noting that the issue of
ending of monarchy has already been incorporated in the interim
constitution, the Maoist leader said all parties have agreed on it.
He
discounted the view that there could be a demand for ‘ceremonial
monarchy’. “No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that from within the
constitutional assembly there will be any kind of opposition because
all parties have already taken their position against monarchy in favor
of the republican system,” he said.
Senior Maoist official
Prababkher chimed in: "We may not declare a republic on the first day
of the first constituent assembly meeting. Declaring a republic may
take a few days, but there is no doubt it will happen."
The
king will not leave willingly. And no doubt he is still hoping for a
last minute comeback. Although other mainstream parties have agreed
with the Maoists to sack the unpopular King Gyanendra, some politicians
have taken the stance that Nepal should keep some kind of monarch as a
symbol of the neutrality of the country sandwiched between Asian giants
China and India.
If
King Gyanendra is kicked out of the palace and left vulnerable to a
host of legal actions brought against him, where would he flee? The
most likely refuge would be India. Reports have come out that he is
considering the Sikar district of Rajasthan, home of his
daughter-in-law Himani — wife of Nepal’s crown prince Paras Bikram
Shah. (If the reports are correct in stating that secret negotiations
have already taken place with India, it may be likely that Karan Singh,
scion of the erstwhile royal family of Kashmir and Congress leader, may
have had a role in it.)
There are other rumors as well. One
friend, who has access to the inner circle of royalists, told me that
the king isn’t the least bit worried. Gyanendra believes that a close
read of last December's amendment reveals that ending the monarchy and
creating a federal republic are to be done at the same time – and that
could take a very long time. The theory goes that there will be plenty
of opportunities in the interim for the whole question of the monarchy
to be revisited – with a softening of feelings for the Shah dynasty.
Time
will tell. But in the meantime, let us hope that American officials and
ABC television personalities will learn to publicly distinguish the
difference between Nepal and Tibet.
……………………………………………..
