The term "popular uprising" arouses the most puerile fantasies of the Left and the editorial classes. The romanticism becomes even more frenzied when the target of mob ire is a monarch who claims to be a reincarnation of a God and, consequently, wears a permanent, arrogant sneer.
For the past few days, televised images of tens of thousands of demonstrators wearing red bandanas and flaunting red flags have thrust Nepal into the forefront of the international bleeding hearts agenda. The issues too seem clear-cut: An exasperated people demanding democracy and representative government versus a tottering King who presides over a decrepit feudal order. Lurking somewhere in the background are barefoot rebels, quaintly professing Maoism, who have braved it out for nearly a decade in inhospitable conditions.
At a pinch, it almost seems like a replay of Cuba in the last days of Batista, Nicaragua in the throes of the anti-Somoza insurrection and the final hours of the Shah of Iran.
The democratic right to be reckless cannot be taken away from starry-eyed idealists. It has become fashionable to mock those who shed tears for the world's only Hindu kingdom. Yet, before India joins the clamour for a republican order, it is prudent to look dispassionately at the implications of a monarchical collapse in Nepal.
First, it is instructive to remember the awkward fact that the monarchy in Nepal as in Bhutan epitomises order, continuity and tradition. There may be misgivings over King Gyanendra's dogged determination to play the benevolent despot and there is justified concern at the reckless ways of Crown Prince Paras.
However, it is sometimes necessary to separate the individual from the institution, a distinction that the British were good at drawing in their dealings with Princely states.
Secondly, if the choice in Nepal was between democracy and autocracy, there would have been little room for confusion. Tweaking the system to dilute the discretionary powers of the monarch is overdue and even King Gyanendra has recognised its necessity, albeit belatedly. But it is an open secret that the seven-party alliance that was cobbled together at the behest of India doesn't have either the wherewithal or the purposefulness to manage the show on its own. It needs the active backing of institutions such as the Royal Nepalese Army which has so far been outside the purview of civilian control.
Maybe this anomaly needs correction but this is best done if the monarchy acts as a bridge during the transition. Dispensing the monarchy and the 1990 Constitution at this juncture will trigger fresh divisions in an already fractured society.
Thirdly, Nepal has been in a state of civil war for a decade. The Maoists, contrary to ill-informed perceptions, did not initiate their insurgency against the monarchy. They took up arms in 1996 against the democratically-elected Nepali Congress government. That insurgency has been continuing. The plea for democracy is a merely a Maoist ruse to first forge a united front against the monarchy and then gobble up all the political parties.
If there are elections to a Constituent Assembly, the Maoists will prevail because they have the guns and the political parties just have slogans. By rejecting the King's offer to join the Government the political parties have played into the hands of Maoists, a wrong-turn that delights the new busybodies like CPI(M)'s Sitaram Yechuri.
Finally, for India, the biggest danger in Nepal comes from a full-fledged civil war, leading to a Maoist takeover. The Nepalese "revolution" will not stop at Biratnagar as some suggest.
To survive, the Maoists have to make either make Nepal a dependency of China or create support systems for the revolution in India. The latter is the rationale behind the Naxalite red corridor. This is why it is in India's national interest to deal with a chastened King rather than Comrade Prachanda. Without the King, the political parties will be like Kerensky waiting to yield before Lenin.
The last thing India needs is turbulence in Nepal that will make another IPKF-type misadventure inevitable. India needs a buffer and for that role there is no alternative to the King.
Posted by: john ||
04/23/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
There are an awful lot of red flags with hammers and sickles being waved by these "pro democracy" protestors.
Here is what Gwynne Dyer has written about the maoists "Comrade Prachandra", the 42-year-old former horticulture teacher who is the Nepali Maoists' leader, never gives interviews, but the deputy leader, Baburam Bhattarai - whose PhD thesis was a Marxist analysis of Nepal's problems - was chilling when asked whether his movement's policies would be similar to those of the Khmer Rouge: "There is no independent and authentic account of events in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge available so far. Whatever is emanating from the Western media appears to be highly exaggerated." In other words, they are the same.
If the Maoists win, an early Indian intervention might spare the Nepalese population the worst horrors of a Khmer Rouge-style genocide, but only at the cost to India of a long and thankless guerilla war in Nepal. Nepal is heading straight for hell, and nobody in the country seems remotely capable of stopping it.
The Himmalayas protect the Indian subcontinent. If Chinese troops enter Nepal, or the maoists take over, it faces the prospect of the vulnerable gangetic plains being open to attack.
It cannot allow that. There will be war.
Posted by: john ||
04/23/2006 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I am not sure there will be war with China over Nepal, but if the Maoist take over or look like doing so, India will invade.
In conjunction with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement that the Islamic Republic has successfully enriched uranium, both Hugh Hewitt and Bill Kristol invoked the Rhineland analogy as a warning for America to act promptly to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran. It is an apt analogy -- not necessarily because the threat of a nuclear Iran closely parallels that of Hitler's Germany, but rather, because the United States politically and diplomatically finds itself nearly as hamstrung as France was during the Rhineland crisis seventy years ago.
During the 1920s and 30s, France, more than any other great power, sought to take measures aimed at deterring and containing Germany. Repeatedly, they sought defensive security guarantees from both Britain and the United States. A pacifist Britain and an isolationist United States, however, refused to provide such concrete commitments. During the interwar years, France felt itself increasingly isolated diplomatically, and in some cases even demonized in the English speaking nations for trying to "dominate the continent" by keeping Germany weak. In 1936, therefore, a war-weary France recognized that any military action taken against Hitler would likely have to be taken alone.
There are indeed many similarities between the sad plight of France during the Rhineland crisis and the ominous situation facing the United States in regard to preventing a nuclear Iran today. Similar to the Germans occupying the German Rhineland, the Iranians are violating international mandates, but they are doing so within their own territory. While in 1936 many did not consider the German actions to be aggression, asking "how can a nation illegally occupy its own territory", so too do many today question the right of the US to militarily invade to prevent a nuclear Iran.
Also like the Rhineland occupation, a nuclear-armed Iran would substantially alter an already precarious strategic paradigm. Nukes in the hands of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs would run the risk of undermining nearly every major American foreign policy goal in the Middle East -- be it stabilizing and democratizing Iraq, rolling back the tide of Jihadist terrorism, or securing global energy resources. Just as the mandated demilitarization of the Rhineland was strategically well founded, so too are there sound reasons why the international community has forbidden the development of Iranian nuclear weapons.
As Ilan Berman recently stated in the Claremont Review of Books, possible ramifications of a nuclear Iran include:
1) A Middle Eastern arms race, as other states seek to counter-balance the Iranian bomb,
2) Expanded proliferation as Iran exports its nuclear know-how,
3) Increased terrorism, as an emboldened Tehran, secure behind its nuclear shield, expands its use of terrorist groups to strike against the West,
4) Strategic blackmail, as Iran threatens US forces in the region as well as vital energy supplies, and
5) Greater longevity for the reigning Iranian mullahcracy.
A nuclear Iran, as the Bush administration has stated, is indeed "unacceptable".
However, as Bill Kristol noted in the Weekly Standard, so too did the French declare Germany's Rhineland occupation "unacceptable", while taking no decisive action to stop it. Fear, of both renewed war and diplomatic isolation, intervened and made sound strategic choices impossible. It is vital that we understand the similar binds that are precluding decisive American action today.
First, America is war-weary. Although American losses in Iraq are nowhere near French or British losses in even a medium-sized battle of the First World War, a three-year-running 24 hour news cycle has taken its toll on the American psyche. A sizeable percentage of the American population has lost the stomach for the war in Iraq. Accordingly, a new, dramatically larger war against Iran, with a much larger population of 70 million, a larger and more able armed forces, and substantially tougher terrain, is politically almost unthinkable at the present juncture. Many believe that Iraq was an unnecessary war, and regardless of the strategic benefits, the American people will likely not support another preemptive war against another Middle Eastern regime to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
Second, America, like France during the Rhineland crisis, stands largely alone in its potential willingness to take military action against a very dangerous emerging threat. Echoing France's plight in 1936, polls reveal that many Europeans believe that America, the nation willing to deter the strengthening tyranny, poses a larger threat to global security than does the Islamist Republic itself. Indeed, a cursory navigation of the leftern-most regions of the blogosphere will reveal that more than a few Americans also believe this nonsense.
A unilateral military action runs the substantial risk of further diplomatically isolating America -- not only in the Middle East that we are risking blood and treasure to liberalize, but from essential allies as well.
War may indeed come with Iran, but for the American people to get behind it, such would necessitate a truly egregious action by the Iranians. It is one of the hallmarks of the American democracy that long and bloody wars will not be accepted in the absence of a clearly visible rallying event. Going back to the Revolution, with the Boston Massacre, the Stamp Acts, and the Intolerable Acts, Americans have necessitated a great offense against them before they will send their sons to die in large numbers. The Civil War was, of course, precipitated by myriad such acts -- be it bleeding Kansas and John Brown, the beating of Senator Charles Sumner, and of course, ultimately, Fort Sumter.
In World War I, America would not commit until the Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare, sank the Lusitania, and sent the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico. Even after Adolf Hitler's numerous invasions, genocidal policies, and full-scale bombing of London, the United States would not enter World War II until Japan flew onto American territory and bombed the Pacific Fleet. Afghanistan, Iraq, and the implementation of the Bush administration's proactive Middle Eastern policy necessitated the catalyst of September 11th. In the absence of such flagrant provocation, America will not rally to militarily destroy the Iranian regime. The Bush administration likely knows this. The question is, do the Mullahs?
#1
Going back to the Revolution, with the Boston Massacre, the Stamp Acts, and the Intolerable Acts, Americans have necessitated a great offense against them before they will send their sons to die in large numbers. The Civil War was, of course, precipitated by myriad such acts -- be it bleeding Kansas and John Brown, the beating of Senator Charles Sumner, and of course, ultimately, Fort Sumter.
Great article, but my only complaint is that these were not really "big events" - unless you are referring to them as historical events. In this light you could refer to the Mohammed cartoon as a "big event".
Pearl Harbor and 911 were "big events". 911 was our big event that will carry us through this generation. A subway bombing or a suicide bomber or some other bizarre yet-unknown incident could now be sufficient to persuade us.
These guys put to much stock in the incoherent ramblings of the university wack-outs, Kos Kids and Air America types. They would be wise to note that Air America couldn't float itself in a single US city.
#2
If our oil supply had depended on the Rhineland and if Hitler had spent 27 years referring to us as "The Great Satan" and supporting terrorism against us, then perhaps the sleeping giant would have awakened sooner. Besides, projecting power across the world was considerably more dificult for us then as compared to now.
#3
"Egregious action" - like, say, American Hirsohima(s) where domestic Amer cities are attacked wid "dirty bombs", but which in reality are PC, disguised decapitation strikes against Dubya-GOP.
Hillary and GORE-KERRY-DEAN, etc. will be POTUSes becuz they weirdly and mysteriously survived the terror attacks of Clinton-happy terrorists. The post 9-11 MSM > Muslim govts. in general, even Saddam Hussein and Osama, preferred Saint Bill or his policies. i.e. keep the illegal $$$ and illegal tech transfers flowin' while doing nothing to retaliate against domestic and international terror attacks on American interests.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
