http://www.thenewstribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/2153334p-10223010c.html

MARCIA R. LIEBERMAN: Free Nepal

The Providence Journal
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005 11:55 AM (PST)


(SH) - On Feb. 1, King Gyanendra of Nepal seized absolute power. The following days, though not bloody, have seen a repression as savage, swift and thorough as any the world has known.
Yet this little Himalayan kingdom, whose spectacular scenery and friendly people have enchanted visitors, rarely makes the news, and few Americans are aware of the royal sledgehammer that has slammed down on its people.

King Gyanendra has placed every prime minister since 1990 under house arrest and armed guard, and deprived them of access to guests, newspapers, radio, TV or phone service. At least 150 political leaders and student activists, plus scores of journalists, lawyers and human-rights activists have been seized. Others have gone underground.

Among those being held at detention centers are the former president of the Nepal Bar Association, its current secretary, and the president and general secretary of the Federation of Nepali Journalists. The current president of the Kathmandu chapter of the National Bar Association has gone into hiding, as have 14 lawyers and human-rights defenders who signed a statement calling for restoration of democracy.

There is fear that, as in the last State of Emergency, in 2001, some of those arrested may be "disappeared."

King Gyanendra cut all telephone lines, e-mail and Internet access (land lines but not mobile service were restored on Feb. 7; e-mail, on Feb. 8). The airport was initially closed, main roads out of Kathmandu were blocked, and bus travel into and out of the capital placed under a 72-hour blockade.

All fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and of assembly, were abrogated, and property may be seized by the government. All criticism of the king, the army and his new puppet government is banned. Armed military officers were stationed in newspaper offices and television stations to censor every word.

These thunderbolts did not descend out of a cloudless sky. Many Americans assume that the trouble began with the palace massacre in 2001, when the crown prince shot his father, King Birendra, and most of the rest of the royal family. There is, however, no connection, except insofar as Gyanendra was not present then, and thus succeeded his older brother.

In 1990, after bloody demonstrations for democracy, King Birendra had accepted constitutional monarchy and elected parliamentary government. Gyanendra opposed the move.

One glaring defect of the 1990 constitution granted the monarch control of the army. And since 1990, in the newly established parliament, the political parties jockeyed for power, and corruption remained unchecked.

Nepal, some 23 million in population, is mired in poverty, with conditions in most rural areas still medieval. Disillusioned and disaffected, people flocked to a rebel movement initiated in 1996. The rebels call themselves Maoists, but are not supported by the Chinese. The true comparison is to Peru's Shining Path, or the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Opposed to what they consider "bourgeois" democracy, the Maoists sought to abolish the monarchy and create a one-party state.

Although to the oppressed peasants the Maoists seemed to offer reform, they proved to be coercive and brutal - nearly matching the country's military. The royal army, operating with impunity, has adopted a policy best described as "shoot first, ask questions later."

In 2002, barely a year after his coronation, Gyanendra dismissed parliament and sacked the prime minister, calling him incompetent for being unable to hold planned elections - an impossibility during widespread conflict. Two years later, after growing popular demonstrations for democracy, Gyanendra reappointed the prime minister, but did not restore parliament. And now he has again sacked the hapless prime minister, and dismissed his government (appointed, not elected), on the same grounds.

The situation has evolved into a military and political stalemate. The Maoists control large portions of the countryside, but they are unable to take Kathmandu or the other urban centers. Nearly 11,000 people have lost their lives fighting in the countryside, while Kathmandu, guarded by the army, has been mainly untouched.

King Gyanendra says that he had to seize power in order to unleash the army and rout the Maoists, and that this could not be done while civil liberties prevailed. Yet under the constitution, the king already had control of the army, and it has been fully deployed against the Maoists - but is unable to defeat them.

King Gyanendra cannot "save" democracy by destroying it. Instead of ending the Maoist rebellion, his brutal crackdown may drive people deprived of legal opposition over to the Maoists.



Marcia R. Lieberman, a Brown University visiting scholar, specializing in Tibetan art, serves on the board of Hands in Outreach, which provides educational sponsorships to disadvantaged children in Nepal.

View/Share this post only

I almost agreed with all of what Marcia had to say, except for the last paragraph where she mentions that all aid should be halted. But my question is, aren't you then hurting the same public that you want to bring democracy too? Surely, there is a better alternative to this, then to go with the old fashioned Bush Administration rhetorics.

South Africa's transformation for instance has taken place by dialogue, compromise and negotiation, relatively peacefully so we know it is possible. World democracy is only a notion. For all that the US-UK-Australian alliance has committed a catalogue of diplomatic blunders, the UN has also been revealed to be deeply flawed by this event. We need a better balance between the wealthy countries that underwrite UN activities, and the rest of the world that should be (but isn't) providing that body with democratic legitimacy. The West should not have to bribe minor tyrannies to carry out outstanding UN resolutions, and the well-bring of the Rest should no longer be thwarted by apparently arbitrary vetoes and enervating handouts.

The US didnot attend to the Kyoto treaty where our planet's global warming watchdogs have issued warnings for the mass destuction if not acted NOW. But the US administration doesnot think it to be necessary. Why is there poverty, curroption and bribery at the highest level? Why is there sanitation problems and illuded basic health care facilities around the world? Millions of people are living in poverty and are drying through diseases? What is being done? NOTHING. They are busy freeing people from democracy. Its a joke really.

If the west wants to rid global dictatorship, It should look towards eradicating poverty, providing basic health care facilities, potable water and sanitation and make sure that medical care is available to many, if not all. The cutting off aid to people of Nepal where innocents are living under massive poverty and and issues of healthcare, is a ridiculous thinking.Therefore I believe that the emphasis is on taking more responsibilty for our actions as a group on a national and international level.

If there was imminent threat from any country to another country, or if there were acute atrocities going on, no member of the international community would refuse their support for military intervention. We should stand alongside the time where people decide what they want and not anybody else wants.

In the modern world it is very easy to take some decisions, and it is very hard to take some. King Gyanendra for example, have stood outright to make decisions that apparently affect people's lives. Whether it be good or bad, we hope nothing worse can happen, then what has already, with more then 11,000 innocent lives being lost by this insurgency.

Therefore I think the article should summon to the fact that not everything can be decided through cutting off aids and ill-advised wars of choice. It should however focus more on how the aid can be provided to the "people of Nepal" at times of such crisis. How they can be reached at where humanitarian and economic losses are burgeoning massively? Therefore it should ask the world's governing bodies and the countries that provide aid to Nepal that the aid it provides will be reached to people living in remote areas, where a young mother cries to save her child from terrorists, where a father ploughs his land all day long to save his family for their day to day living, where childrens are deprived of education, where a young little girl dies of disease that could have been cured had the health care facility been nearer. That is what I think the time demands.

Excellent Insight Frost ! maybe you should write to the scholar herself, she might double take her words on cutting the aid :).