(1) The Maoists have committed themselves to the idea of a multi-party democratic republic. In that system you acquire power through the ballot box. Power does not flow through the barrel of a gun. The Maoists have to by then have emerged as a political party without an army. Otherwise they are suspect. That is step 4.
(2) Step 3 is the idea of a constituent assembly. Such elections have to be free and fair. The people are not going to be made to vote under the threat of the gun. That is a total no no. Step 3 is also about the Maoists having become a political party without a standing army.
(3) Step 2 is peace talks with the interim government of the seven party alliance. Those talks will be about political reasoning, not as to who is stronger militarily. There also it is not about the gun. One outcome of those talks is already certain: elections to a constituent assembly. Another outcome of those talks stays uncertain: what to do with the two armies. One, their partial integration. Two, full integration. Three, disband both armies. If you go the integration route, the question is should that be done before the elections to a constituent assembly, or after? The Maoists want to do it after because they feel their army will get a larger share in the integration formula. I can see why they feel that way, but that thinking is problematic. If the Maoists get 20% of the vote in the constituent assembly, they will then demand that 20% of the army should be from their side. That is precisely the wrong way to integrate the two armies. You don't want one army with two loyalties. If there is to be integration, that has to happen before the constituent assembly elections. And the less fighting there is between the two armies now, greater the chances of integration. Personally I am for disbanding the two armies.
Switzerland (07/05) The army has virtually no full-time active combat units
The New York Times > Magazine > In the Magazine: Without a Doubt it's Sweden that has no army
Women making history today | csmonitor.com In contrast to Israel, Sweden has no sworn enemies and no standing army.
There are several reasons why I am for disbanding both the armies. (1) That is the quickest, surest way to ensure free and fair elections to a constituent assembly. (2) The RNA and the PLA have fought each other too bitterly for too long to ensure a smooth integration. (3) There are no Madhesis in either the RNA or the PLA. That is like neglecting half the country. (4) Nepal is not about to go to war with either India or China. (5) Nepal is a poor country. It needs to be spending on education and health.
Whether the two armies get disbanded or integrated, that process will be political and not military.
Note that steps 4,3 and 2 all are political. There are no military combats involved.
(4) That brings us to step 1. How to topple this regime and install a seven party interim government? This is where the problem lies. The Maoists have been arguing that it is not possible to bring this regime down unless it is also attacked militarily. They want the seven party alliance to wage their peaceful street protests. And they want themselves to keep hitting militarily. Actually they would prefer a "fusion" of the two. That not forthcoming, they are okay with the two-pronged strategy.
I would like to argue the Maoists have, if anything, delayed the demise of this regime by engaging in armed conflict. They have attacked with a newfound ferocity, true, but if they keep going down that path, you are looking at resumed US military aid, which might or might not be a military victory for the king, but it sure will be a major political victory.
If the Maoists as a political party without an army is the idea for steps 2,3 and 4, why do they insist on something entirely different for step 1, especially when step 1 has to happen before steps 2,3 and 4 can take place?
Maoist violence fuels the monarchist propaganda that they are the ones who will save the country from the Maoists.
Maoist violence shrinks the political space for a decisive mass agitation which is what will topple this regime.
Maoist violence makes more possible resumed US military aid. That weakens the global isolation of the king. That creates fissures in the global coalition for democracy in Nepal.
The Maoists may argue that because the king did not reciprocate their ceasefire, they have been forced back to going to violence. I thought they were republicans. Why are they so enslaved to what the king does or not? The Maoist action plan should not depend on the king. The king's not reciprocating the ceasefire hurt the king. The ceasefire hurt the king big time. That is why he tried so hard to break it. He succeeded when he managed to break the ceasefire.
The Maoists do not have to stand there helplessly. But they do have to end their offensives. And they do have the option to go on active defense.
There can be no Maoist military offensives during this decisive phase of the movement. That is what it boils down to.
I have said time and again it is very hard to do what the Maoists have been trying to do. And it does not help their process that the king is so hostile, and the seven party alliance can sometimes act like it has all the time in the world.
But all that is a reason to hasten the demise of this regime. And you do that be ceasing the violence. Make space so people can throng into the streets.
In The News
Nepal Rebels Free Four Polish Trekkers Washington Post, United States
Nepal: Civilians at Risk as Conflict Resumes Reuters AlertNet, UK
INTERVIEW-Nepal rebel chief's father awaits son's homecoming
Civilian Casualties Soaring in Nepal: HRW Himalayan Times, Nepal
Bring Rights Abusing Soldiers to Civilian Courts: OHCHR
Security beefed up amid fears of Maoist infiltration in stir
India facing tough time along Nepal, Bhutan borders Kantipur Online, Nepal
Nepal Army Admits Beating Villagers, Forms Probe Panel Nepal human Rights News, Nepal
Troops Beat Over 100 Villagers in West Nepal Army Barrack
Paris Protests Against Nepal's Crown Prince Over 'Sexual Cleansing ... 365Gay.com
Nepali army attacks rebel meeting, five said killed Reuters AlertNet, UK
No Improvement in Nepal's Press Freedom Situation: Int'l Mission
UML Urges Maoists to Announce Fresh Truce
Alliance Urged to Come Up with Common Agenda
Nepal turns down fact-finding request of international media
Polish trekkers are not with us: Maoists Nepaleyes, Nepal
Maoists Abduct Two Polish Climbers
SPA should urge UN for resolving conflict: Gautam
Why it’s time for Nepal monarch to step aside Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
2 comments:
This is a military dictatorship, a dictatorship of the RNA which happens to have the king at its head. And what happens when people throng into the streets against a military dictatorship? If you are lucky, the military decides it is too difficult to hold onto power. If you are unlucky, then you end up with what happened in Argentina, in Chile, in Mexico, in Indonesia, and so on. In other words: a massacre.
The military/royal government has already announced that it will treat the heads of the SPA as if they were Maoists because they are working with the Maoists, and that they will stop the agitation at all costs. What do you think this means? This is not code language for 'We will not like your protest but when we see how many of you there are, we will stand down'. It is code language for: 'If you try to throng in the streets, the streets will run red with blood'.
And THEN what happens? If the democratic forces, including the Maoists, have laid down their arms, they are then completely DEFENCELESS against the military dictatorship. There will be a mass slaughter. If on the other hand the Maoists maintain their weapons, and the military government cracks down on the SPA, then the Maoists can fight back and liberate Kathmandu from the crackdown. Either way it will not be pretty. But would you prefer that people just lay down their means of defence and say, 'Please, O Great King, give us democracy'?
(1) Getting the people out into the streets is not about requesting the king for democracy. This is about raising the political consciousness of the people, this is about exercising the sovereignty of the people. The king is irrelevant.
(2) I am not saying the Maoists should disarm now. What I am saying is it should go on active defense and stop its military offensives.
(3) Military crackdown is not an option. This is 2006. The global hue and cry will be strong. Gyanendra and the top generals will all get sent to jail for life if there is a military crackdown.
(4) A massive, decisive peaceful protest over days is what will bring this regime down. That protest will declare a revolutionary parliament that will take over the power.
(5) They don't have the option to butcher the people. A massacre is not an option for them.
Post a Comment