Tweet
There isn't a thread on this yet.
Chaos on the roof of the world
Feb 3rd 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
Nepal’s king has seized power from his government, detained leading politicians and cut off communications with the outside world. Though the Himalayan country is a small, faraway place, its slide towards becoming a failed state threatens to spread unrest, and even terror, across South Asia
FOR nine years, the people of Nepal have suffered dreadfully as a civil war has raged between government forces and Maoist guerrillas seeking to impose a communist state. Around 11,000 have been killed and there have been gross abuses by soldiers on both sides. On Tuesday February 1st, amid signs that the rebels’ attacks have intensified in recent weeks, the Himalayan country’s monarch, King Gyanendra, announced that he was declaring a state of emergency, sacking his government and assuming direct rule for three years. Political leaders, including the dismissed prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, were put under house arrest. Local news media were censored—soldiers were posted in newsrooms to enforce a ban on criticising the king's move—and residents in the capital, Katmandu, found themselves unable to make international phone calls.
The king accused Mr Deuba of having failed both to organise fresh elections and to start peace talks with the rebels, as he had demanded of his sacked prime minister. Less than three years ago the king had kicked out Mr Deuba for much the same reasons, only to bring him back last year in response to foreign and domestic pressure to restore democracy. Some observers suspect that, after reluctantly giving Mr Deuba his job back, the king deliberately set him up to fail. The deadline for the elections, this April, was unrealistic, given the rebels’ ability to deliver on their threats to sabotage them. And the Maoists have shown no interest in peace negotiations—they ignored a mid-January deadline that Mr Deuba had set for them to agree to talks.
On Wednesday, the king announced a new cabinet of cronies, chancers and nobodies, giving the impression that he intends to call the shots. He seems to think he can defeat the rebels militarily, though this is unlikely. Indeed, there is a small but growing possibility that the rebels could defeat the government, which has abandoned much of the country to the guerrillas since the uprising began in 1996. In many Nepalese villages, schools are almost the only central-government institution still functioning. But the rebels have even begun kidnapping teachers and their pupils to indoctrinate them and extort “taxes”. The rebels called a general strike in protest at the king's coup but the media censorship meant that this went unheard.
Alarm among Nepal’s neighbours
Nepal’s 27m people are among the world’s poorest, and most outsiders know little of the place, other than its having the world’s highest peak, Mount Everest. In the early 1950s Gyanendra was briefly the country’s boy king, aged only four years. He returned to the throne in 2001 after a bizarre shoot-out at the royal palace, in which his more popular brother, King Birendra, and several other members of the royal family were shot dead by Crown Prince Dipendra, who was high on drink and drugs (and later turned the gun on himself). Many Nepalese continue to regard their ruler as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the Hindu god of protection. But Gyanendra has turned out to be a poor protector. Indeed, some subjects now regard him as one of the main obstacles to ending the conflict—and talk of replacing the monarchy with a republic.
If this were purely an internal crisis in a small and distant country, the world could afford to look shamefacedly away. But it isn’t. As Nepal descends towards becoming a failed state, its conflict threatens to spill over into neighbouring countries, spreading unrest and perhaps even terror across parts of South Asia. Last week, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of neighbouring Bhutan gave a warning that Nepal’s revolt could escalate out of control, affecting both India and his own tiny state. International condemnation of the Nepalese king's coup has been stronger than he might have expected. India expressed its “grave concern” and on Wednesday the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, pulled out of this weekend's South Asian summit, forcing its postponement, rather than sit at the summit table with King Gyanendra.
While trying to convince the king to form a united front with the country’s political parties against the rebels, India (along with America) has been providing military aid to the Nepalese government. Not just for altruistic reasons: India has a spreading Maoist insurgency of its own, now affecting around a quarter of India’s nearly 600 administrative districts. India says Nepal’s Maoists have formed links with the 20-odd Indian Maoist insurgent groups, known as “Naxalites”, and with some of the vicious groups fighting secessionist wars in India’s north-east.
The Naxalites now pose a serious security threat in half a dozen of India’s states, including Bihar and Jharkhand, close to the border with Nepal, where tens of thousands of police and troops have been deployed this week to protect voters in state elections. Nevertheless, as polls opened on Thursday, a total of 14 people were killed in rebel attacks across the two states. There are indications that the Maoists menace Bangladesh, too. If they were to take Nepal, this would only encourage their counterparts across the region to step up their revolts.
If the crisis deepens further and puts India’s own security at risk, it might be tempted to borrow George Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive invasion. As yet, India has not shown any signs of contemplating a military intervention—which would sound alarm bells in China, Nepal’s other big neighbour. Nevertheless, the Nepalese Maoists have in recent months been trying to whip up nationalist fervour against possible interference by India. They have even started trench- and tunnel-digging in some areas to prepare for Indian bombing.
The Maoists’ main demand is for an elected assembly to draft a new constitution, something that many of the country’s political parties may now accept. But the king will not, for he realises that the likely outcome would be a republic. To prevent a complete collapse of Nepal, followed perhaps by a regional conflagration, some sort of international mediation—possibly involving a United Nations peacekeeping mission—is needed. Unfortunately, India is not keen on this as it would set a precedent for Kashmir, a disputed territory in which Indian and Pakistani forces have been trading blows for decades.
Feb 3rd 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
Nepal’s king has seized power from his government, detained leading politicians and cut off communications with the outside world. Though the Himalayan country is a small, faraway place, its slide towards becoming a failed state threatens to spread unrest, and even terror, across South Asia
FOR nine years, the people of Nepal have suffered dreadfully as a civil war has raged between government forces and Maoist guerrillas seeking to impose a communist state. Around 11,000 have been killed and there have been gross abuses by soldiers on both sides. On Tuesday February 1st, amid signs that the rebels’ attacks have intensified in recent weeks, the Himalayan country’s monarch, King Gyanendra, announced that he was declaring a state of emergency, sacking his government and assuming direct rule for three years. Political leaders, including the dismissed prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, were put under house arrest. Local news media were censored—soldiers were posted in newsrooms to enforce a ban on criticising the king's move—and residents in the capital, Katmandu, found themselves unable to make international phone calls.
The king accused Mr Deuba of having failed both to organise fresh elections and to start peace talks with the rebels, as he had demanded of his sacked prime minister. Less than three years ago the king had kicked out Mr Deuba for much the same reasons, only to bring him back last year in response to foreign and domestic pressure to restore democracy. Some observers suspect that, after reluctantly giving Mr Deuba his job back, the king deliberately set him up to fail. The deadline for the elections, this April, was unrealistic, given the rebels’ ability to deliver on their threats to sabotage them. And the Maoists have shown no interest in peace negotiations—they ignored a mid-January deadline that Mr Deuba had set for them to agree to talks.
On Wednesday, the king announced a new cabinet of cronies, chancers and nobodies, giving the impression that he intends to call the shots. He seems to think he can defeat the rebels militarily, though this is unlikely. Indeed, there is a small but growing possibility that the rebels could defeat the government, which has abandoned much of the country to the guerrillas since the uprising began in 1996. In many Nepalese villages, schools are almost the only central-government institution still functioning. But the rebels have even begun kidnapping teachers and their pupils to indoctrinate them and extort “taxes”. The rebels called a general strike in protest at the king's coup but the media censorship meant that this went unheard.
Alarm among Nepal’s neighbours
Nepal’s 27m people are among the world’s poorest, and most outsiders know little of the place, other than its having the world’s highest peak, Mount Everest. In the early 1950s Gyanendra was briefly the country’s boy king, aged only four years. He returned to the throne in 2001 after a bizarre shoot-out at the royal palace, in which his more popular brother, King Birendra, and several other members of the royal family were shot dead by Crown Prince Dipendra, who was high on drink and drugs (and later turned the gun on himself). Many Nepalese continue to regard their ruler as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the Hindu god of protection. But Gyanendra has turned out to be a poor protector. Indeed, some subjects now regard him as one of the main obstacles to ending the conflict—and talk of replacing the monarchy with a republic.
If this were purely an internal crisis in a small and distant country, the world could afford to look shamefacedly away. But it isn’t. As Nepal descends towards becoming a failed state, its conflict threatens to spill over into neighbouring countries, spreading unrest and perhaps even terror across parts of South Asia. Last week, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of neighbouring Bhutan gave a warning that Nepal’s revolt could escalate out of control, affecting both India and his own tiny state. International condemnation of the Nepalese king's coup has been stronger than he might have expected. India expressed its “grave concern” and on Wednesday the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, pulled out of this weekend's South Asian summit, forcing its postponement, rather than sit at the summit table with King Gyanendra.
While trying to convince the king to form a united front with the country’s political parties against the rebels, India (along with America) has been providing military aid to the Nepalese government. Not just for altruistic reasons: India has a spreading Maoist insurgency of its own, now affecting around a quarter of India’s nearly 600 administrative districts. India says Nepal’s Maoists have formed links with the 20-odd Indian Maoist insurgent groups, known as “Naxalites”, and with some of the vicious groups fighting secessionist wars in India’s north-east.
The Naxalites now pose a serious security threat in half a dozen of India’s states, including Bihar and Jharkhand, close to the border with Nepal, where tens of thousands of police and troops have been deployed this week to protect voters in state elections. Nevertheless, as polls opened on Thursday, a total of 14 people were killed in rebel attacks across the two states. There are indications that the Maoists menace Bangladesh, too. If they were to take Nepal, this would only encourage their counterparts across the region to step up their revolts.
If the crisis deepens further and puts India’s own security at risk, it might be tempted to borrow George Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive invasion. As yet, India has not shown any signs of contemplating a military intervention—which would sound alarm bells in China, Nepal’s other big neighbour. Nevertheless, the Nepalese Maoists have in recent months been trying to whip up nationalist fervour against possible interference by India. They have even started trench- and tunnel-digging in some areas to prepare for Indian bombing.
The Maoists’ main demand is for an elected assembly to draft a new constitution, something that many of the country’s political parties may now accept. But the king will not, for he realises that the likely outcome would be a republic. To prevent a complete collapse of Nepal, followed perhaps by a regional conflagration, some sort of international mediation—possibly involving a United Nations peacekeeping mission—is needed. Unfortunately, India is not keen on this as it would set a precedent for Kashmir, a disputed territory in which Indian and Pakistani forces have been trading blows for decades.
Smiley
Comment