Coming Anarchy in Nepal

The 20th century may be a bad guide to the 21st, but it’s the only one we’ve got so we’re forced to use it. History doesn’t repeat itself, but the better we know history the less surprised we’re likely to be by what happens next.

Robert D. Kaplan, March 7, 2000

On 1 June 2001, Nepal’s crown prince, drunk and heartsick over parental disapproval of his fiancée, shot and killed the King and nine other members of the royal family before turning the gun on himself. (The details of the fratricide are all according to official government reports, with no independent confirmation. This may have been a coup for all we know.) The immediate royal family eliminated, the king’s younger brother Gyanendra was crowned head of state. His biggest challenge has been combatting the Maoist insurgency. Earlier this year he abolished the Parliament and took complete control of the government in what he said was an attempt to more effectively combat the rebels.

When will democracy be reinstated, ask a few hopeful optimists, as if that was the issue. Don’t count on democracy, not to mention peace or stability, in Nepal anytime soon. The best guide to the future of Nepal is the pattern of collapse and chaos in monarchies in undeveloped states. Consider the following three recent examples:

CAMBODIA
1969: King Sihanouk leaves for China to recieve medical care.
1970: The absent king is dethroned and the monarchy abolished in a military coup.
1975: Khmer Rouge capture the Cambodian capitol of Phnom Penh, marking the start of a genocidal cleansing that kills millions of civilians, approximately one in seven of the entire population.

AFGHANISTAN
1973: King Zahir Shad deposed by brother-in-law Daoud in bloodless coup.
1978: Daoud murdered in Marxist coup. Communist regime established.
1979: Communist regime faces collapse to tribal insurgency, and the Soviets invade to prevent the regime from collapsing. Two decades of chaos begin.

ETHIOPIA
1974: The Derg, set up to investigate mutiny in the army, depose King Haile Selassie.
1975: After attempts at a constitutional monarch fail, Selassie is imprisoned and later strangled.
1977: Two consecutive presidents are murdered before the Derg elect Mariam Mengistu as head of state. The Red Terror, collectivization, civil war, and a famine lead to the death of millions.

I could give other examples, even from the West—the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution—but the second half of the 20th century is fresh in our minds. Call it the Curzon Chaos Theorum. The progression from king to chaos in just half a decade goes through the following four steps:

1.) An anti-egalitarian yet stability-preserving monarchy is abolished in a coup.
2.) An authoritarian dictatorship is established, lasting only a few years as discontent grows.
3.) A peasant movement installs a totalitarian proletarian regime “in the name of the people.”
4.) A reign of terror begins.

Nepal is approaching the terminal stage of step two. Tourism has plummeted, taking the economy with it. The military have little discipline and terrorize civilians (Nepal now has the highest number of unexplained disappearances in the world). The free press has been abolished—soldiers who should be in the field are instead wielding black markers. And the Maoist rebels are gaining ground.

What about peace talks? Maoist leader “Prachanda” (his chosen, one-word name ala Pol-Pot and Stalin) has refused to meet with the government, promising instead to topple the monarchy and install a Maoist Communist Republic. Peace talks were tried in 2003 and were a disaster—the Maoists took the opportunity to regroup, rearm, and go back to killing civilians who dared to disagree with their doctrine as soon as it was convenient.

So, what should the US do? Had we been a little smarter a little earlier, we would have sent some Special Forces to train the army to be a more effective, humanitarian fighting force. Just read Kaplan’s recent articles (and upcoming book) where he discusses the positive effect a small regiment of intelligent soldiers can have in places like Niger, Mongolia, and Colombia. Alas, it’s probably too late for Nepal. Faced with a choice of backing a totalitarian King or Maoist rebels—which would have been a no-brainer during the Cold War—the US, Britain, and India have all criticized the King. Yet backing Gyanandra is the best choice of a lot of bad options, and certainly better than what Amnesty International is advocating:

Nepal’s human rights crisis has deepened since King Gyanendra declared a state of emergency and suspended fundamental rights on February 1. Hundreds of politicians, student leaders, journalists, and human rights defenders have been arrested. This is occurring against a backdrop of thousands of grave human rights violations. Please join Amnesty International in urging Secretary of State Rice to immediately suspend all U.S. security assistance to Nepal.

Human rights violations are deplorable, but the elephant in the room is a Maoist insurgency overrunning the countryside that is just as bad as the Khmer Rouge. We’re talking about illiterate peasants with no education adhering to a blind devotion to violent insurgency. They slaughter teachers and destroy schools, bomb bridges and roads, abduct children into their army, terrorize villages, and would do much worse give half a chance. Somehow Amnesty can’t muster the energy (or moral clarity) to include these unfortunate details in their press releases. Idealists wagging their finger and poo-pooing the abolition of democracy are being pennywise and pound foolish. To quote a Nepalese democracy activist:

If Nepal were a functioning democracy, the King’s take-over of the government would have been unthinkable. But in a calamitous circumstance of Nepal where Maoist atrocity and killing has risen dangerously, the most important priority is the restoration of peace and normalcy.

As it happens, the Bush Administration has managed, intentionally or otherwise, to follow Amnesty’s advice: all military aid to Nepal has been suspended since the February coup. The result? The army is running out of ammo and Gyanendra is now getting cozy with China and North Korea, two regimes who will sell him arms on the cheap and won’t give two shakes about his human rights record. So we’ve forfeited any influence we had over the King and have lost geopolitical ground. Thank you Amnesty—mission accomplished.

When chaos, collectivization, and genocide do arrive in Nepal, don’t expect foreign powers to do anything about it until it’s too late. No one has any interests at stake—sorry, KNF. That’s just the cold hard truth. The US and the EU will say things but won’t lift a finger until it’s all over. Eventually, China and/or India will invade ala Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia in 1979 and only then will the reeducation camps, starvation brought on by collectivization, the torture chambers, the mass graves, the death squads, and the executions come to light. In the aftermath, Amnesty and their myopic ilk will find something about US foreign policy to criticize while solemnly saying “never again,” as if they mean it. Mark my words.

UPDATE! Despite being so despondent, I was overjoyed to read that New Delhi has lifted the arms embargo on Nepal and is working with the government. This editorial in the Times of India couldn’t say it better: “Talking to Nepal is good, now think out of the box.” Amen—we’re going to need it…