US-Maoist Relations: Guided By Cold War Era
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The policy of the United States on Nepal’s Maoists still seems to be shaped by the perceptions of the Cold War despite the sea change in Nepal’s political landscape over the last five years. The Maoists have not only given up the armed insurgency and joined peaceful politics, but they have also proved their supremacy in competitive politics.
The U.S. as the champion of liberal democracy uses certain yardsticks in measuring the degree of democracy and freedom. One such yardstick is free and fair elections. In the Constituent Assembly election held three-and-a-half years ago, the Maoists won over 50 per cent of the seats in the first-past-the post system, and emerged as the largest force in the proportionate system.
Signs of thaw
The recent days have seen some signs of thaw in the fallacy and mistrust between the Maoists and the United States. The increased engagement between the U.S. and the Maoists is definitely a step towards building mutual trust. The interactions, meetings and exchanges have, however, yet to transform the misgivings into a partnership. The Maoists have offered an olive branch to the United States and sought to build and develop mutual relations based on international norms of diplomacy and shared values. However, Washington’s cold response puts Nepal’s largest political force and the world’s mightiest country still at unease.
As part of engaging and interacting with the Nepali Maoists and also with the objective of helping write Nepal’s constitution, the U.S. Department of State, in collaboration with some civil society groups, had organised a 10-day conference in Boston in July last year. In it, over two dozen delegates from all the major parties, including the UCPN-Maoist, had been invited.
The Boston Negotiation and State Building Programme for Nepali Political Leaders’ or the ‘Boston Initiative’ was an effort at also having better rapport with the Nepali Maoists. But the U.S. refused visas to some of the Maoist leaders who had been invited to the Boston Initiative, following which the UCPN-Maoist called back all of its members. Although the conference went on, the core purpose of the Boston Initiative was defeated.
The core problem with the relationship between the Nepali Maoists and the United States is the ideology which has guided their perceptions at looking at one another. The United States is a capitalist democracy, characterised by a pluralist political system, universal franchise, periodic elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and proper checks and balances among the three branches of the government. On the economic front, it champions a market economy in which the market determines everything.
In stark contrast, Nepal’s Maoists adopt Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its guiding ideology. The UCPN-Maoist sees the United States as the global leader of imperialism which protects and patronises feudal, capitalist and bourgeoisie regimes and groups all over the world. The UCPN-Maoist has analysed the present state of Nepal as being in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial situation, which they want to dismantle and establish a new system in which there is no exploitation and discrimination.
The Maoist model of revolution is the Chinese Revolution. The Maoists’ first target was the monarchy and they succeeded in dismantling it. During the insurgency, the United States saw the Maoists through the prism of Nepal’s monarchist regime and backed the Nepali monarchy against the Maoists. This US policy has not changed even after the abolition of monarchy.
Even in the present context, the UCPN-Maoist and Washington are suspicious of one another. This mistrust, which is marked by psychological fear, has a negative bearing on Nepal’s stability and its fledgling peace process. The Maoists are open and want to work closely on certain shared interests and issues. The situation of the Cold War does not exist, and the issue of ideology should no longer affect the diplomatic relationship between the two.
There have been instances of cooperation between the capitalists and the communists for a common cause in the past. During World War II, the United Kingdom, United States and France entered into an alliance with communist USSR to fight against the Germans. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States and communist China cooperated with one another against the onslaught of Soviet imperialism.
When ideology was put aside in the fight against a common enemy and for a shared interest in the past, there should be no reason why Washington should not be pragmatic in having a better working relationship with the UCPN-Maoist.
Moreover, the UCPN-Maoist does not pose any threat to the interests of the United States either in Nepal or in the international arena. Although the Maoists regard the United States as the global imperialist leader, they have not designated Washington as their principal enemy.
The United States is now fighting a war on terror especially against Islamic fundamentalism. Although the UCPN-Maoist does not support the way the US is waging this war, it in no way supports any kind of theocratic regime and politics being advocated by Islamic groups including Al Queda and the Taliban. In principle, the US and UCPN-Maoist have a common view on religious fundamentalism.
The United States has some principal policy objectives in Nepal, which include Nepal’s independence and territorial integrity; peace and stability, democracy, poverty alleviation and religious freedom. The Maoists also hold a similar agenda in Nepal. On the issue of national independence and territorial integrity, the Maoists are more serious than any other political party and force and this is their highest priority.
Based on historical facts and India’s neighbourhood policy, the Maoists have concluded that Nepal’s sovereignty and independence are under threat from nowhere but India. On the question of religious freedom, the US and UCPN-Maoist have common views as secularism is a Maoist agenda.
If the United States wants Nepal’s sovereignty and independence intact, it must work closely with the UCPN-Maoist. So far as the issues of peace, constitution are concerned, the desired objective cannot be achieved by isolating and marginalising the largest political force of Nepal. Secondly, the Maoists have joined peaceful politics, and should they continue to be marginalised, the ex-rebels would be left with no option but to go back to the jungle and launch an armed insurgency once again.
Collaboration
Now the question is whether to give continuity to the peace and democratic process or to invite another round of armed conflict. If the United States wants peace, stability and democracy, it should collaborate with the UCPN-Maoist and not only with the forces that were rejected by the people.
The policy of the United States on Nepal’s Maoists still seems to be shaped by the perceptions of the Cold War despite the sea change in Nepal’s political landscape over the last five years. The Maoists have not only given up the armed insurgency and joined peaceful politics, but they have also proved their supremacy in competitive politics.
The U.S. as the champion of liberal democracy uses certain yardsticks in measuring the degree of democracy and freedom. One such yardstick is free and fair elections. In the Constituent Assembly election held three-and-a-half years ago, the Maoists won over 50 per cent of the seats in the first-past-the post system, and emerged as the largest force in the proportionate system.
Signs of thaw
The recent days have seen some signs of thaw in the fallacy and mistrust between the Maoists and the United States. The increased engagement between the U.S. and the Maoists is definitely a step towards building mutual trust. The interactions, meetings and exchanges have, however, yet to transform the misgivings into a partnership. The Maoists have offered an olive branch to the United States and sought to build and develop mutual relations based on international norms of diplomacy and shared values. However, Washington’s cold response puts Nepal’s largest political force and the world’s mightiest country still at unease.
As part of engaging and interacting with the Nepali Maoists and also with the objective of helping write Nepal’s constitution, the U.S. Department of State, in collaboration with some civil society groups, had organised a 10-day conference in Boston in July last year. In it, over two dozen delegates from all the major parties, including the UCPN-Maoist, had been invited.
The Boston Negotiation and State Building Programme for Nepali Political Leaders’ or the ‘Boston Initiative’ was an effort at also having better rapport with the Nepali Maoists. But the U.S. refused visas to some of the Maoist leaders who had been invited to the Boston Initiative, following which the UCPN-Maoist called back all of its members. Although the conference went on, the core purpose of the Boston Initiative was defeated.
The core problem with the relationship between the Nepali Maoists and the United States is the ideology which has guided their perceptions at looking at one another. The United States is a capitalist democracy, characterised by a pluralist political system, universal franchise, periodic elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and proper checks and balances among the three branches of the government. On the economic front, it champions a market economy in which the market determines everything.
In stark contrast, Nepal’s Maoists adopt Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its guiding ideology. The UCPN-Maoist sees the United States as the global leader of imperialism which protects and patronises feudal, capitalist and bourgeoisie regimes and groups all over the world. The UCPN-Maoist has analysed the present state of Nepal as being in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial situation, which they want to dismantle and establish a new system in which there is no exploitation and discrimination.
The Maoist model of revolution is the Chinese Revolution. The Maoists’ first target was the monarchy and they succeeded in dismantling it. During the insurgency, the United States saw the Maoists through the prism of Nepal’s monarchist regime and backed the Nepali monarchy against the Maoists. This US policy has not changed even after the abolition of monarchy.
Even in the present context, the UCPN-Maoist and Washington are suspicious of one another. This mistrust, which is marked by psychological fear, has a negative bearing on Nepal’s stability and its fledgling peace process. The Maoists are open and want to work closely on certain shared interests and issues. The situation of the Cold War does not exist, and the issue of ideology should no longer affect the diplomatic relationship between the two.
There have been instances of cooperation between the capitalists and the communists for a common cause in the past. During World War II, the United Kingdom, United States and France entered into an alliance with communist USSR to fight against the Germans. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States and communist China cooperated with one another against the onslaught of Soviet imperialism.
When ideology was put aside in the fight against a common enemy and for a shared interest in the past, there should be no reason why Washington should not be pragmatic in having a better working relationship with the UCPN-Maoist.
Moreover, the UCPN-Maoist does not pose any threat to the interests of the United States either in Nepal or in the international arena. Although the Maoists regard the United States as the global imperialist leader, they have not designated Washington as their principal enemy.
The United States is now fighting a war on terror especially against Islamic fundamentalism. Although the UCPN-Maoist does not support the way the US is waging this war, it in no way supports any kind of theocratic regime and politics being advocated by Islamic groups including Al Queda and the Taliban. In principle, the US and UCPN-Maoist have a common view on religious fundamentalism.
The United States has some principal policy objectives in Nepal, which include Nepal’s independence and territorial integrity; peace and stability, democracy, poverty alleviation and religious freedom. The Maoists also hold a similar agenda in Nepal. On the issue of national independence and territorial integrity, the Maoists are more serious than any other political party and force and this is their highest priority.
Based on historical facts and India’s neighbourhood policy, the Maoists have concluded that Nepal’s sovereignty and independence are under threat from nowhere but India. On the question of religious freedom, the US and UCPN-Maoist have common views as secularism is a Maoist agenda.
If the United States wants Nepal’s sovereignty and independence intact, it must work closely with the UCPN-Maoist. So far as the issues of peace, constitution are concerned, the desired objective cannot be achieved by isolating and marginalising the largest political force of Nepal. Secondly, the Maoists have joined peaceful politics, and should they continue to be marginalised, the ex-rebels would be left with no option but to go back to the jungle and launch an armed insurgency once again.
Collaboration
Now the question is whether to give continuity to the peace and democratic process or to invite another round of armed conflict. If the United States wants peace, stability and democracy, it should collaborate with the UCPN-Maoist and not only with the forces that were rejected by the people.
Comments
Post a Comment