Nepalnews. com Emergence of Kathmandu-Washington-Delhi triangle

Kathmandu: Nepal as a Nation-State has some credible reasons to be happy over the fresh political developments in her neighborhood vis-à-vis the Maoists insurgency.

While the United States of America, the lone super power, had from the very beginning hinted this Kingdom that she would do all the needful in tackling the Maoists issue even if she had to support Nepal militarily and in effect the US did support Nepal as per its commitments. Needless to say, the US never seduced the government to go in for a sort of war with the Maoists. This policy appears to remain unbroken.

The US support irritated the Maoists radicals to the extent that the latter began propagating that the entire Nepali establishment were guided by the dictates of the United States of America. The insurgents came heavily down against the US policy towards Nepal time and again and in the process made certain US establishments their targets and some of its officials were killed by the Maoists. The latest being the bombing of the American center which they are yet to take the responsibilities.

It could be a mere supposition indeed but the fact is that the US line of thinking vis-à-vis the Maoists and the Nepali establishment appear closer to each other, if not identical.

For example, the United States of America discards the theory of "mediation" by any third party which is coincidently the posture taken by the Deuba establishment.

The US says that it would not mind a sort of "facilitation" by a third party instead of mediation. The Deuba set-up too appears close to this American theory but has yet to spell it out in clear terms.

The Americans deduce that the Maoists have yet to exhibit their sincerity for a multi-party democratic set up and maintain that the rebels were providing signals that their real goal is "one party" rule.

The Nepali establishment together with the major political parties too has been demanding a commitment for the democratic order from the rebels, which is not yet forthcoming. Instead, the Maoists at times hint that they will not settle for less than what they call a republican order in Nepal. Nevertheless, to recall, the Maoists have recently hinted that they respect the multi-party system which they ventilated while sending six questions to the Deuba government last week. However, the rebels are yet to declare their firm commitments for the system now in place.

The US favors secret talks with the Maoists as and when it happens. Prime Minister Deuba is on record to have said the other day in Pokhara that the talks with the Maoists will be secretly held which even the media could not get an inkling of the event.

The US in the process has indicated that there was no threat to democratic system either from the King or for that matter the Nepali Army. If Madhav Nepal were to be believed to what he said Monday evening upon his return from the Palace after a meeting with the King, Ambassador Moriarty's assurance ( see TKP dated 4 October, 2004) also comes true. To recall, Madhav Nepal said that he found both the King and the army positive for the peace talks, which implies that the system remained safe and that neither the King nor the army would pounce on the prevailing system of governance in the country.

Significantly enough, Ambassador Moriarty indirectly signals the monarchy to mend his differences with the political parties and says that "it can't stand by itself; it needs to work with legitimate political forces".

In saying so, Ambassador presumes that the King in the recent months did ignore the role of the political forces and that now he should correct his actions.

Not very surprising, the major political parties now in the streets too wish that the King proceeded taking them all in confidence. The message is that if the King and the legitimate political forces came closer, it would enhance their capabilities while negotiating with the Maoists. There is also a hidden message in the US thinking that if these major forces came closer would easily alienate the Maoists to the extent that the latter would be pressed hard to come to the negotiating table.

Surprising though it may appear, the fact is that the US line of judgment is not against the talks, which is what the government here is also reiterating time and again. However, what is also very clear, by implication, is that both would prefer to go to any extent if the Maoists rejected the offer of talks and continue to terrorize the population much the same way that they have been doing now.

Now let's take up the Indian stance now.

India wants no foreign mediation in Nepal, not even that of the UN for its own exclusive reasons. The US line is the same. Nepali establishment has made it abundantly clear that she can do it on its own.

India now sees the insurgency as a threat to its own security. This is what Nepal had been convincing India from the very beginning. India now realizes the insurgency as a common threat.

India had been unequivocally telling Nepal that she wished the continuation of multi-party democracy under a constitutional monarchy. The US is committed to this consideration.

The Indian authorities have already equipped Nepal with lethal weapons, the US only recently managed yet another consignment of weapons after its information was attacked on September 10.

All put together what comes to the fore is that at the moment Washington, New Delhi and Kathmandu constitute a triangle that is clearly not averse to the supposed peace talks with the Maoists but concurrently appears prepared to face the challenge if the rebels opt for a war with the State.

(Based on US Ambassador Moriarty's interview published October 4, 2004-ed). Sphere: Related Content