Policemen remove a roadblock set up by opposition party supporters in Katmandu, Nepal, Tuesday April 11, 2006. Although most parts of Katmandu remained peaceful opposition party supporters clashed with policemen in isolated pockets.Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Stay strong...for Freedom.
Suggesting that the United States, and thus the tax payers of that nation, are responsible for the welfare of the people of Nepal is so… “last century.” The Monroe Doctrine, gunboat diplomacy, United Fruit, the Cold War are all dead horses not really needing to be flogged any longer. Likewise, the paternalistic assumption that it s the responsibility of the tax payers of the United States to establish and maintain stable governments and/or robust economies within other sovereign nations is not only anachronistic, but misguided.
The list of nations that experimented with Marxism and abandoned it is long and impressive. There are only five states still adhering to Marxism and two of those are quickly abandoning planned economies and throwing their lot in with the capitalists… Marxism has never weathered the storm of capitalism so they won’t last long. If the citizens of Nepal opt to follow the path of Marxism despite the glaring evidence across the globe that it is a flawed concept and a failed experiment, then what grounds does another sovereign state have to step in and intervene? Yes, there are large scale human rights violations under the “Maoists” (sic) of Nepal, but so to are those abuses going on under the authority of the security forces. Rather than good confronting evil, it is more rational to see the situation as corrupt vs. corrupt. Is it the United States that needs to intervene? Why the United States? Why not the European Union? (The EU has been chest thumping for years… allow them to spend their tax money on Nepal) Why not the United Nations? (The UN is the body the Nepalis have asked to intervene, why not let them?) Why not India and China? (Those two nations stand to risk most if Nepal crumbles into an anarchic state due to the insurgency. Why does it always have to be the US? Despite what the media in Katmandu keeps trumpeting, the insurgency does not have global impact and will not send shockwaves across the planet. This is a localized issue and need localized solutions. The United States is not the logical choice. Welcome to the 21st Century.
all hail nepal
Post a Comment