|
Nepal
& Bush Administration: Into thin air
Conn
Hallinan
Tucked
into the upper stories of the Himalayas, Nepal hardly seems
ground zero for the Bush administration's next crusade against
“terrorism,” but an aggressive American ambassador, a strategic
locale, and a flood of U.S. weaponry threatens to turn the tiny
country of 25 million into a counter-insurgency bloodbath.
More than 8,000
Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996, and the
death rate has sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400
American M-16 submachine guns, accompanied by U.S. advisers,
high-tech night fighting equipment, and British helicopters.
For most Americans,
Nepal, birthplace of the Buddha and home to Everest, the world's
high mountain, is a charming tourist haven. For the native Nepalese,
42% of whom, according to the World Bank, live below the poverty
line, Nepal is a land enchained by caste, riven with ethnic
rivalries, and dominated by a feudal landlord class.
The central
protagonists in the current war are King Gyanendra, who abolished an
elected parliament last year, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)
(CPNM), which is leading a rural insurrection, and a group of five
political parties that found themselves out in the cold when the
monarchy took over.
The Bush
administration has concluded that the civil war threatens to make
Nepal a “failed state” and a haven for international terrorists,
leading it to place the CPNM on the State Department's “Watch
List,” along with organizations like al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, and
Lebanon's Hezbollah.
U.S. Ambassador to
Nepal, Michael E. Malinowski, compares CPNM leader, Baburam
Bhattarai, to Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. Malinowski,
whose track record includes service in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
advocates an all-out military offensive aimed at the insurgency, and
recently told the New York Times that the CPNM, “literally have to
be bent back to the table.”
But it was the
Nepalese government's attempt to crush rural unrest that sparked the
civil war in the first place, and virtually no one thinks there is a
military solution to the insurrection. “The government forces,
under the present policies, could win a couple of battles here and
there,” writes analyst Romeet Kaul Watt in The Kashmir Images,
“but will never win the war.”
Roots
of War
The present war
finds it roots in both the ongoing poverty of a nation that is 85%
rural, and the failure of the government to institute land reform
measures following the restoration of representative government in
1990.
King Mahendra,
father of the present King, dismissed an elective government in
1960. He ruled until his death in 1972, when his son, King Birendra,
took over, and eventually restored democracy. But when conditions
did not improve in rural areas, peasants began agitating against
onerous rents. The government responded by sending the military into
the countryside--Operation Romeo and Operation Kilo Sera II--that
did little more than radicalize poor farmers and recruit members for
the CPNM.
The war, like most
civil wars, has been brutal. While most of the civilian deaths are
attributed to government forces, Amnesty International accuses both
sides of “unlawful criminal deaths.” The CPNM has assassinated
government supporters and police, and occasionally bombed Kathmandu
. The government has “disappeared” opponents, razed villages,
and executed CPNM members and their supporters.
Over the past two
years the Royal Nepal Army has beefed itself up to 72,000, but it
isn't large enough to win a war against the CPNM's 4,000 core
members and 15,000 or so militia supporters. In any case, most of
the Army is concentrated near the capital, Kathmandu.
However, with the
recent influx of U.S. M-16s, Belgium FAL submachine guns, and
British helicopters, the army has grown more aggressive, and death
rates have climbed. A government massacre of 19 villagers set off
the latest round of fighting. In the first month following the
collapse of a seven-month cease-fire, civilian deaths tripled.
According to the Nepal human rights group, Informal Sector Service
Centre, 800 of the 1,100 deaths since the end of the cease fire have
been inflicted by government forces.
A major culprit in
the escalating death rate is the appearance of modern assault
rifles, the real “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Since 1990, more
than five million people have died in wars around the globe, upwards
of 90% of them from AK-47s, M-16s, FALs, German G3s, and Israeli
Uzis. According the Red Cross, more than 60% of civilian casualties
are caused by submachine guns, and the United Nations Development
Program estimates that small arms kill 300,000 people a year.
Modern assault
rifles are far more deadly than the previous generations of weapons
because they combine rapid-fire power with high velocity ammunition.
The combination of “Rounds Per Minute” (RPM)--the AK-47 delivers
600 RPMs, the M-16 up to 950 RPMs--and the enormous speed of the
bullets, is a deadly one. Fatalities from wounds have skyrocketed,
particularly in places where medical care is primitive.
At $13.3 billion a
year, the U.S. is the number one arms dealer in the world, far ahead
of the Russians ($5 billion) and the French ($1 billion). The bulk
of that--$8.6 billion--goes to developing countries like Nepal.
Small,
Savage Wars
Besides killing and
wounding civilians, these small but savage wars inflict enormous
indirect damage. Studies on Cambodian and Bosnian refugees by
Richard F. Mollica, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical
School, found that more than two-thirds suffered from clinical
depression and almost 40% from Post Traumatic Stress Disorders.
But efforts to curb
the small arms trade have met with stiff resistance. A recent
proposal by Canada to ban the sale of small arms to “non-state
actors” was derailed by the Americans, who have used such forces
as an extension of foreign policy in places like Afghanistan and
Central America.
Our ally in this
war hardly fits the alleged aim of promoting democracy the Bush
administration talks so much about. One of King Gyanendra's first
acts was to dismiss the elected government of Prime Minister Sher
Bahadur Dueba for alleged “incompetence.”
Kathmandu has been
the focus of demands for democracy and the reinstatement of
parliament ever since, including one demonstration that drew 8,000
in late December. The Nepalese daily, Rajdhani, reported Jan. 25
that the five political parties had thrown their support behind a
growing student movement demanding a republic. According to Rajdhani,
“The parties decided to support protests of women, labourers,
farmers, intellectuals, and different professional organizations as
well.”
Krishna Sitaula,
central committee member of the Nepal Congress Party, warned that
the attempt by the King to impose an autocracy would backfire and
hinted that the insurrection in the countryside and the protests in
the cities might have common ground. “Right now, the country is
moving towards a republic,” he said, adding, “Maoists will give
up violence and join us in the movement.” Whether the CPNM would
actually do that remains unclear.
The U.S. has once
again aligned itself with absolutism in its war on “terror,” a
war that is not only costing Nepalese lives, but has wrecked the
economy and tanked the lucrative tourist trade. For the second year
in a row, the Nepalese economy shrank.
It is also heating
up an area of the world with explosive potential. Nepal borders both
India and China (Tibet). Both generally support the royalist forces,
but neither is too happy about the growing U.S. involvement.
According to the
Asia Times, last summer Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwai Sibal warned
against “outside assistance” to Nepal, and the Indian press is
grumbling about the U.S. ignoring a 1950 Friendship agreement--one
that greatly favored India--between New Delhi and Kathmandu.
Publicly India and China have soft-pedaled their opposition to U.S.
intervention, but if the war expands, it could spill over into both
countries. Tibet is restless under Beijing 's rule, and northern
India has a number of long-standing separatist movements.
According to the
New York Times, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID)
is exploring ways to add another $14 million in “insurgency
relevant” aid to the $17 million in current U.S. military aid. AID
was one of the main funnels for the U.S. government's support for
the South Vietnamese regime.
While it seems a
stretch to compare Vietnam to Nepal , replace “terrorism” with
“Communism,” and the parallels are disturbingly similar. In his
book “In Retrospect,” former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara admitted that the U.S. was “wrong, terribly wrong,”
about Vietnam . He recently told Doug Saunders of the Globe &
Mail (Canada) pretty much the same thing about the U.S. in Iraq:
“It's just wrong what we're doing. It's morally wrong, it's
politically wrong, it's economically wrong.”
One can only hope
that 30 years from now we don't read similar words about U.S.
intervention in Nepal.
Conn
Hallinan is the provost at the University of California at
Santa Cruz and a political analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus |