US should not fear Maoists in Nepal
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Although they are in better position today than during the time of Peoples' War, the relations between the United States of America and the UCPN-Maoist are still uneasy, much to the chagrin of young Himalayan republic's fledgling peace and stability. The crisis of trust that has embittered the relationship between the world's only super power and Nepal's largest political force is mainly owing to psychological fear and flawed perception in understanding one another. This is more so on the part of Washington as it unnecessarily suspects the intention and behavior of the UCPN-Maoist. If Nepal's peace, stability and prosperity are to be institutionalized, the suspicion and differences between the Maoists and the US must be narrowed down and a working partnership built to cope with the present changed context.The United States still carries the old ideological baggage that existed during the Cold War era when it comes to dealing with communists and revolutionaries across the globe. The United States perceives the communists and revolutionary forces as ideological and security threat. With the end of the Cold War this situation no longer exists. Despite far-reaching changes taken place in the sphere of international power balance and security perception, the United States' outlook towards the communists does not seem to have changed. So is with its relationship with the UCPN-Maoist, the largest political force of Nepal.The Maoists in Nepal by no means pose any kind of threat to US interests anywhere in the world nor do ex-rebels ever regard America as their principal enemy. It is true that the United States and Nepali Maoists have ideological differences, but UCPN-Maoist does not at all intend to reflect this ideological difference in the diplomatic relationship with any country and government in the world including the United States. The issue of Ideology and ideological difference is an academic subject which has nothing to do with diplomatic relationship and conduct of country's foreign policy.Gone are the old days of ideological hangover of the Cold War era when the United States and the Western countries treated the communist countries as their nemesis and vice versa. In the post Cold War world, national interests and pragmatism have replaced ideological egoism in shaping international relations and conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy. Communists are more pragmatists in the conduct of foreign policy and international relations. This can be substantiated by the cooperation between the revolutionary communists and capitalist United States and the western world on some key international issues. In the World War II, communist Russia took part in the war along with the allied force that included the United Kingdom and France, among others, against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Feudal Japan. Also during the Cold War, Communist China and capitalist America cooperated with one another to check Russian social imperialism. The cooperation between Russia and the United Kingdom in the World War II was not based on ideological compatibility but on the ground of objective reality and necessity. Nazism, fascism and feudalism were the common enemy of the capitalist United Kingdom and the communist Russia. The alliance between the United Kingdom and Russia in the World War II was a tactical move against the common enemies. The objective analysis of international situation required socialist Russia to take part in the war against fascism that gave certain dividend to socialist camp in the post word era. Until World War II, Soviet Union was the sole socialist country but the role played by the Soviet Union during the war helped establish socialist regimes in different countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. The power and process of the socialist bloc that was established immediately after the World War II continued until the Soviet Union degenerated into socialist imperialism. Similar case is with cooperation between the United States and China, which was also not ideology based but guided by the objective necessity of the international situation. Nikita Khrushchev's rise to power in Russia marked the beginning of chasm in the international communist movement. Denouncement of Stalin's policy and deviation from Lenin's approach created fissures in the fraternal relationship with Russia and China. Henry Kissinger, who was then national security advisor to US President Richard Nixon and later became US secretary of State, cashed in on China-Russia rift and used this opportunity to bring China and United States closer for which Pakistan also played a vital role. The visit of the US President Richard Nixon to Beijing in 1972 and meeting with Mao Zedong saw miraculous thaw in the hostility between China and America and also changed the perception of both the countries to look at one another. This historic Nixon-Mao meeting turned US-China relations into friendly and cooperative ones. This was made possible despite two countries pursuing different ideologies.If it was possible between the United States and China, why can't it happen between the United States and the UCPN-Maoist? There are more sensible ground for closer ties and cooperation between the United States and the UCPN-Maoist. Like US-China relationship during the Cold War, the Maoists and Washington can have similar rapport in the post Cold War period. America knows well that ideology is not practiced when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations with other countries. Realism and national interests are what shape foreign policy and relations in the post Cold War era. If we look at the Maoists' analysis on the international situation and international forces, it becomes clearer as to who the UCPN-Maoist deems its allies and who its foes are. The Maoists have classified international forces into three categories-fraternal, friendly and hostile. Fraternal are those forces that share common ideology. At present there is not a single country in the world with which the Maoists can have fraternal relationship. There are revolutionary communist parties in the world which it calls fraternal parties and organizations. In the second category (friendly forces) are the countries having friendly relationship and willing to help Nepal without interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal. The United States falls under this category. And the third category is the country or countries that are either hostile to Nepal or overtly and covertly interfere in Nepal's internal affairs. India falls under the third category. The Maoists have, thus, adopted their policy with different countries based on this analysis and accordingly want to develop relationship with other countries.In its political document recently adopted by the Palungtar plenum the party has made its position clear viz-a-viz international forces. The Maoists have designated the United States as the leader of global imperialism. However it does not consider the United States as a direct threat and does not deem Washington its principal enemy. The UCPN-Maoist has clearly designated the Indian expansionism as its principal foe and it underscored the need for launching a national liberation movement against Indian expansionism.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. Similar are the agenda of the UCPN-Maoist. On the issue of national independence and territorial integrity, the Maoists are more serious than other political forces and this is their highest priority. The Maoists have sensed threat to its national independence and territorial integrity from Indian expansionism whereas other parties tend to collaborate with India. On this issue, the Maoists and the United States share identical views. So far as the peace and stability are concerned, the Maoists are committed to peace process and constitution writing. The Maoists have declared that they would make sincere efforts for constitution and peace until the last hours and should these efforts fail they would launch popular revolt to achieve the goal of peace and constitution. The UCPN-Maoist is the party of poor and proletariats and its goal is to lift people's livelihood for which poverty alleviation is its number one economic priority. The other important issue that the United States has accorded priority in Nepal is religious freedom. On this issue, too, the policy and objective of the United States and the Maoists complement. It is the Maoists that raised secularism and incorporated in the national agenda. Other parities had not been prepared to accept secular agenda but the Maoists' pursuance compelled all to accept this. As a result, Nepal has now been declared a secular state.So far as the democracy is concerned, the Maoists' definition of democracy is not compatible with that of America. But the Maoists have already joined the peaceful politics and multi-party competitive political system and proved their superiority even in the bourgeoisie democracy. The UCPN-Maoist contested the election held on multi-party basis in which the Maoists emerged as the largest party. The international observers including the Carter Center have hailed the election as free and fair. Thus, democratic country like the United States should not have any kind of apprehension and reservation in having friendly and cooperative relationship with the political force that commands overwhelming popular support. Attempt to ignore and marginalize the Maoists is tantamount to disregard the people's verdict, which would ultimately be a disregard to democracy. The United States ought to understand the fact that collaboration with the forces rejected by the people does not at all strengthen democracy, peace and stability in Nepal.Moreover, there are some common agenda that the United States and the UCPN-Maoist share in the international arena. The United States is currently fighting war on terror perpetrated by religious fundamentalists like Al Qaeda and Taliban that want to establish theocratic regimes on the basis of Sharia laws- Islamic religious rules. The Maoists have their stated policy that opposes any kind of religious and theocratic rule in the world and also violent activities in the name of religion. In this point as well, the interests of Maoists and the United States converge.Moreover, the Maoists have never wanted to hurt the interest of the United States in Nepal and elsewhere, although they, in principle, are against imperialism. The Maoists are aware and cautious not to mix ideological issues with diplomatic relationship.The regional power balance in South Asia, too, requires deeper understanding and stronger relations and cooperation between the United States and the UCPN-Maoist. Nepal is sandwiched between Asia's two giants which are far bigger in terms population, territorial, economic and military size and strength. As a small country, Nepal's survival strategy is the core security and foreign policy priority. Nepal's survival, security and development have often come under threat from dubious nature and hawkish and hegemonic attitude of southern neighbour India. This is the issue that has created friction between Nepal and India. The Maoists have raised this question more prominently and with more emphasis than ever before that have strained the relations between Nepal's Maoist and New Delhi. If the core objective of the United States is to protect Nepal's independence and territorial integrity, cooperation and better understanding with the UCPN-M are more necessary. The Maoists have always offered an olive branch and expressed their willingness to work together with the US on areas of mutual interests. Now onus lies on Washington to reciprocate. Since the Maoists have joined open politics and the United States supports democracy in the world, it is an opportune time for both sides to cooperate with one another which would be beneficial not only for Nepal but also boost Washington's image in South Asia.The author can be reached at: yubanath@wlink.com.np
Although they are in better position today than during the time of Peoples' War, the relations between the United States of America and the UCPN-Maoist are still uneasy, much to the chagrin of young Himalayan republic's fledgling peace and stability. The crisis of trust that has embittered the relationship between the world's only super power and Nepal's largest political force is mainly owing to psychological fear and flawed perception in understanding one another. This is more so on the part of Washington as it unnecessarily suspects the intention and behavior of the UCPN-Maoist. If Nepal's peace, stability and prosperity are to be institutionalized, the suspicion and differences between the Maoists and the US must be narrowed down and a working partnership built to cope with the present changed context.The United States still carries the old ideological baggage that existed during the Cold War era when it comes to dealing with communists and revolutionaries across the globe. The United States perceives the communists and revolutionary forces as ideological and security threat. With the end of the Cold War this situation no longer exists. Despite far-reaching changes taken place in the sphere of international power balance and security perception, the United States' outlook towards the communists does not seem to have changed. So is with its relationship with the UCPN-Maoist, the largest political force of Nepal.The Maoists in Nepal by no means pose any kind of threat to US interests anywhere in the world nor do ex-rebels ever regard America as their principal enemy. It is true that the United States and Nepali Maoists have ideological differences, but UCPN-Maoist does not at all intend to reflect this ideological difference in the diplomatic relationship with any country and government in the world including the United States. The issue of Ideology and ideological difference is an academic subject which has nothing to do with diplomatic relationship and conduct of country's foreign policy.Gone are the old days of ideological hangover of the Cold War era when the United States and the Western countries treated the communist countries as their nemesis and vice versa. In the post Cold War world, national interests and pragmatism have replaced ideological egoism in shaping international relations and conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy. Communists are more pragmatists in the conduct of foreign policy and international relations. This can be substantiated by the cooperation between the revolutionary communists and capitalist United States and the western world on some key international issues. In the World War II, communist Russia took part in the war along with the allied force that included the United Kingdom and France, among others, against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Feudal Japan. Also during the Cold War, Communist China and capitalist America cooperated with one another to check Russian social imperialism. The cooperation between Russia and the United Kingdom in the World War II was not based on ideological compatibility but on the ground of objective reality and necessity. Nazism, fascism and feudalism were the common enemy of the capitalist United Kingdom and the communist Russia. The alliance between the United Kingdom and Russia in the World War II was a tactical move against the common enemies. The objective analysis of international situation required socialist Russia to take part in the war against fascism that gave certain dividend to socialist camp in the post word era. Until World War II, Soviet Union was the sole socialist country but the role played by the Soviet Union during the war helped establish socialist regimes in different countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. The power and process of the socialist bloc that was established immediately after the World War II continued until the Soviet Union degenerated into socialist imperialism. Similar case is with cooperation between the United States and China, which was also not ideology based but guided by the objective necessity of the international situation. Nikita Khrushchev's rise to power in Russia marked the beginning of chasm in the international communist movement. Denouncement of Stalin's policy and deviation from Lenin's approach created fissures in the fraternal relationship with Russia and China. Henry Kissinger, who was then national security advisor to US President Richard Nixon and later became US secretary of State, cashed in on China-Russia rift and used this opportunity to bring China and United States closer for which Pakistan also played a vital role. The visit of the US President Richard Nixon to Beijing in 1972 and meeting with Mao Zedong saw miraculous thaw in the hostility between China and America and also changed the perception of both the countries to look at one another. This historic Nixon-Mao meeting turned US-China relations into friendly and cooperative ones. This was made possible despite two countries pursuing different ideologies.If it was possible between the United States and China, why can't it happen between the United States and the UCPN-Maoist? There are more sensible ground for closer ties and cooperation between the United States and the UCPN-Maoist. Like US-China relationship during the Cold War, the Maoists and Washington can have similar rapport in the post Cold War period. America knows well that ideology is not practiced when it comes to foreign policy and diplomatic relations with other countries. Realism and national interests are what shape foreign policy and relations in the post Cold War era. If we look at the Maoists' analysis on the international situation and international forces, it becomes clearer as to who the UCPN-Maoist deems its allies and who its foes are. The Maoists have classified international forces into three categories-fraternal, friendly and hostile. Fraternal are those forces that share common ideology. At present there is not a single country in the world with which the Maoists can have fraternal relationship. There are revolutionary communist parties in the world which it calls fraternal parties and organizations. In the second category (friendly forces) are the countries having friendly relationship and willing to help Nepal without interfering in the internal affairs of Nepal. The United States falls under this category. And the third category is the country or countries that are either hostile to Nepal or overtly and covertly interfere in Nepal's internal affairs. India falls under the third category. The Maoists have, thus, adopted their policy with different countries based on this analysis and accordingly want to develop relationship with other countries.In its political document recently adopted by the Palungtar plenum the party has made its position clear viz-a-viz international forces. The Maoists have designated the United States as the leader of global imperialism. However it does not consider the United States as a direct threat and does not deem Washington its principal enemy. The UCPN-Maoist has clearly designated the Indian expansionism as its principal foe and it underscored the need for launching a national liberation movement against Indian expansionism.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. Similar are the agenda of the UCPN-Maoist. On the issue of national independence and territorial integrity, the Maoists are more serious than other political forces and this is their highest priority. The Maoists have sensed threat to its national independence and territorial integrity from Indian expansionism whereas other parties tend to collaborate with India. On this issue, the Maoists and the United States share identical views. So far as the peace and stability are concerned, the Maoists are committed to peace process and constitution writing. The Maoists have declared that they would make sincere efforts for constitution and peace until the last hours and should these efforts fail they would launch popular revolt to achieve the goal of peace and constitution. The UCPN-Maoist is the party of poor and proletariats and its goal is to lift people's livelihood for which poverty alleviation is its number one economic priority. The other important issue that the United States has accorded priority in Nepal is religious freedom. On this issue, too, the policy and objective of the United States and the Maoists complement. It is the Maoists that raised secularism and incorporated in the national agenda. Other parities had not been prepared to accept secular agenda but the Maoists' pursuance compelled all to accept this. As a result, Nepal has now been declared a secular state.So far as the democracy is concerned, the Maoists' definition of democracy is not compatible with that of America. But the Maoists have already joined the peaceful politics and multi-party competitive political system and proved their superiority even in the bourgeoisie democracy. The UCPN-Maoist contested the election held on multi-party basis in which the Maoists emerged as the largest party. The international observers including the Carter Center have hailed the election as free and fair. Thus, democratic country like the United States should not have any kind of apprehension and reservation in having friendly and cooperative relationship with the political force that commands overwhelming popular support. Attempt to ignore and marginalize the Maoists is tantamount to disregard the people's verdict, which would ultimately be a disregard to democracy. The United States ought to understand the fact that collaboration with the forces rejected by the people does not at all strengthen democracy, peace and stability in Nepal.Moreover, there are some common agenda that the United States and the UCPN-Maoist share in the international arena. The United States is currently fighting war on terror perpetrated by religious fundamentalists like Al Qaeda and Taliban that want to establish theocratic regimes on the basis of Sharia laws- Islamic religious rules. The Maoists have their stated policy that opposes any kind of religious and theocratic rule in the world and also violent activities in the name of religion. In this point as well, the interests of Maoists and the United States converge.Moreover, the Maoists have never wanted to hurt the interest of the United States in Nepal and elsewhere, although they, in principle, are against imperialism. The Maoists are aware and cautious not to mix ideological issues with diplomatic relationship.The regional power balance in South Asia, too, requires deeper understanding and stronger relations and cooperation between the United States and the UCPN-Maoist. Nepal is sandwiched between Asia's two giants which are far bigger in terms population, territorial, economic and military size and strength. As a small country, Nepal's survival strategy is the core security and foreign policy priority. Nepal's survival, security and development have often come under threat from dubious nature and hawkish and hegemonic attitude of southern neighbour India. This is the issue that has created friction between Nepal and India. The Maoists have raised this question more prominently and with more emphasis than ever before that have strained the relations between Nepal's Maoist and New Delhi. If the core objective of the United States is to protect Nepal's independence and territorial integrity, cooperation and better understanding with the UCPN-M are more necessary. The Maoists have always offered an olive branch and expressed their willingness to work together with the US on areas of mutual interests. Now onus lies on Washington to reciprocate. Since the Maoists have joined open politics and the United States supports democracy in the world, it is an opportune time for both sides to cooperate with one another which would be beneficial not only for Nepal but also boost Washington's image in South Asia.The author can be reached at: yubanath@wlink.com.np
Comments
Post a Comment