Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

June 20th, 2007

Tags

Comments

13 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Future of the Nepalese Monarchy

The crisis in Nepal previously covered here and here was tentatively resolved by a coalition government established in May 2006. This government included the party of the Moaist insurgencies. We haven’t posted about Nepal since, but needless to say we were never optimistic about the preservation of power between King Gyanendra as a former dictator, the parliament with no power base or support, and the armed Maoists.

Now, the Nepalese PM has said King Gyanendra should abdicate and appoint his four-year-old grandson as a ceremonial figurehead—the king and the crown prince are simply too unpopular for the monarchy to survive. The proposal is being seen as an attempt by pro-monarchists to save the institution by recasting the King in a purely ceremonial role, but the Maoists have declared that, cute face of the new king notwithstanding, their party will not accept any form of monarchy. Of course they won’t—they’re Maoists.

Meanwhile, Communist Party/Maoist Chairman Prachanda asked the government to authorize the Maoists leaders and their cadres to carry weapons, on grounds that the Maoists are being targeted by local administrations and the State Police. The government said no. Which to me means the Maoists won’t ask for permission next time.

Finally, Jimmy Carter weighs in: “My opinion is the United States should establish some communication with the Maoists because it is obvious that the people of Nepal have accepted the Maoists as playing a role in the shaping of the future of this country.” Coddling violent, unelected Maoists who run “reeducation” camps and abduct children must be a tough habit to break. (The Bush Administration insists the guerrillas must completely renounce violence and establish their credibility as a peaceful entity before they can be removed from the terrorist list.)

Comments to this entry

Kit
June 20, 2007
2:11 pm
Since when does communication = coddle? According to the dictionary they still have very different meanings.
Curzon
June 20, 2007
2:25 pm
True -- but I guess my focus was not on "communication" but on the words that it was "obvious" that "the people" of Nepal have "accepted" the Maoists as "playing a role in the shaping of the future of this country."
Chief Wiggum
June 20, 2007
3:55 pm
I can't say Jimmy Carter is the worst president of all time because I haven't studied all of them. But he is certainly the worst president in my memory. A while back, he tried to pass the mantle to GW Bush, but later recanted. Why anyone cares what he thinks or says is beyond me. Maybe it's because he's so much more moral than the rest of us.

Here are excerpts from a 2002 NRO article by Jay Nordlinger entitled "Carterpalooza":

_You who read Impromptus have heard me say: When I was growing up, I perceived the Arab-Israeli conflict as a great civil-rights drama. The white oppressors were the Israelis, and the black sufferers and innocents were the Arabs, in particular the Palestinians. Menachem Begin, I thought, was George C. Wallace, and his defense minister, Ariel Sharon, was Bull Connor._ (This was in the early '80s.)

While in office, Carter hailed Yugoslavia's Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.”? He said of Romania's barbaric Ceausescu and himself, _“Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.”?_ While out of office, Carter has praised Syria's late Assad (killer of at least 20,000 in Hama) and the Ethiopian tyrant Mengistu (killer of many more than that). In Haiti, he told the dictator Cédras that he was _“ashamed of what my country has done to your country.”?_

Said Carter of the “Great Leader,”? _“I find him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country”?_ (well, he was absolute ruler). He said, _“I don't see that they [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”?_

On almost any issue Carter advocates, you will find him on the side of tyranny and oppression. I'm not even going to get into his funding from Gulf Arab states. He should be required to register as a foreign agent.
Chief Wiggum
June 20, 2007
4:23 pm
From an "article":http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813077590&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull in today's Jerusalem Post entitled "Father of the Iranian Revolution."

_Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter's military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: "The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. 'One cannot do that to a holy man,' he said."_
zenpundit
June 22, 2007
2:41 am
Actually, Carter had significant problems with those dictatorships that were well-disposed toward the United States, even moreso if they were actually *allied* with the United States.

Had Carter won reelection in 1980, it is a given that the communist FMLN, which was turned back only with military assistance rushed in by the Reagan administration over the strenuous objections of the holdover Carter -appointed ambassador, would have taken over El Salvador.

Carter managed to show some steel, at least in terms of approving covert assistance, only with undermining the Jaruzelski martial-law regime in Poland and against the Soviets in Afghanistan. I attribute that partly to Brzezinski's ascencion over the incompetent Cyrus Vance, whose across the board appeasement/retreat positions were costing Carter electoral support and partly to Carter feeling personally betrayed by Brezhnev.
Curzon
June 22, 2007
3:01 am
ZP: One colleague said to me recently that "Carter discredited human rights as a guiding light of foreign policy, while Blair has saved it and branded it for the 21st century. "

Needless to say if Carter was in power now, we'd be calling for the King to resign, democratic order, and wipe our hands of the ordeal when the Maoists pulled a Pol Pot in a few years.
Chief Wiggum
June 22, 2007
5:23 am
The heraldsun.com quotes "Brzezinski":http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/heraldsuncom-brzezinski-avoid-disaster-with-iran/ from a speech given at Duke University:

_“We expected that the U.S. leaving Vietnam would result in massive killings and genocide and so forth, and collapse of the dominoes in Southeast Asia,”? he said. “It didn't happen. How certain are we of the horror scenarios that have been mentioned in what will take place in Iraq?”?_

We have another "fool or liar" scenario. Take your pick.
Chief Wiggum
June 22, 2007
5:25 am
Ooops. Click on "Brzezinski" for the link, not "heraldsun.com."
snow
June 22, 2007
7:06 am
No, no mass killings or genocide after the US bailed out and betrayed its South Vietnamese allies. All was peachy in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam afterward. Carter and his minions need to be completely ignored.
moorethanthis
June 22, 2007
3:51 pm
I personally wouldn't trust Brzezinski, but that's mostly because he seems to have a great need to revise/play up his own achievements in government - see his interview segments in Eugene Jarecki's documentary 'Why We Fight'. As for comparing Indochina with Iraq, the post-1975 situations in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam came from completely different backgrounds, causes and actions of the forces on the ground. The rise to power of the Khmer Rouge couldn't have happened in Vietnam, and vice versa. So comparisons between the three countries is pretty stupid, let alone between that region thirty-odd years ago and present-day Iraq.
snow
June 24, 2007
8:36 am
moorethanthis, who's comparing Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to Iraq?
Curzon
June 24, 2007
1:13 pm
Moorethanthis: there are very real parallels to Cambodia and Nepal. In Cambodia as in Nepal, a discredited power-hungry monarchy and a weak parliament without a power-base are challenged by a growing Communist/Maoist insurgency led by a somewhat educated peasant devoted to Marxist ideology and unafraid to use violent methods, including reeducation and death, against those who don't follow the party's orders.

The comparison isn't used to predict Nepal's future, but to be aware of how bad things could be.
moorethanthis
June 25, 2007
5:09 pm
Brzezinski compared Indochina post-US pullout to Iraq, in the quote posted by Chief Wiggum:

"We expected that the U.S. leaving Vietnam would result in massive killings and genocide and so forth, and collapse of the dominoes in Southeast Asia,”? he said. “It didn't happen. How certain are we of the horror scenarios that have been mentioned in what will take place in Iraq?"

I happen to dislike bad historical analogies, so thought it worth pointing out.

However, Curzon is right. The parallels between Cambodia and present-day Nepal are obvious enough.