The video clip referred to in the Washington Times editorial may located at the following URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL-OuByKFJQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyrepublica%2Ecom%2Fportal%2F&feature=player_embedded
Video of Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) telling his Maoists how they plan to install a one party communist republic in Nepal (and how they've used the international community as "useful idiots").
EDITORIAL: Nepal's Maoist double-cross
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/07/nepals-maoist-double-cross/
So the chairman of Nepal's Maoist radicals brags that he and his fellow-travelers tricked United Nations officials and admits that the 2006 peace deal was a sham - and gets caught on videotape doing it. The video of the recently resigned Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, was shot in January 2008 and just surfaced.
Revealingly, he instructs his fellow communists not to be fooled by the compromises struck with Nepal's democratic government. Seizing total power, he makes clear, remains the communist goal.
The latest crisis in Nepal is a useful case study in communist duplicity and instructive for those who believe that the path to peace with guerillas is cutting deals with them. The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) joined Nepal's government after a decade-long insurgency that left more than 12,000 dead. Under terms of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the Maoists agreed, among other things, to cut the size of their force in half, place their weapons under U.N. supervision and participate peacefully in the political process. In the 2008 elections, the Maoists emerged as the largest party in parliament with 30 percent of the vote, and Prachanda was named prime minister.
But the communists didn't consider the war really ended. The Maoists steadily maneuvered to increase their power with a view toward implementing their revolutionary agenda.
The latest step was an attempt to remove Nepal Army Chief Gen. Rookmangud Katawal, who had resisted Maoist demands to integrate their guerrilla army into the national force. He maintained that the "former" guerrillas are brainwashed fanatics seeking to seize control of the army. He's got a point.
Nepal's President Ram Baran Yadav blocked Prachanda's move to sack Gen. Katawal. Prachandra resigned in protest. Nepal's Supreme Court now has the case.
Prachanda says it is a question of civilian control of the military. That's rich. Meanwhile communist thugs are taking to the streets in coordinated demonstrations calling for further intervention from the U.N.
The video of a relaxed Prachanda addressing his party faithful exposed the Maoists' cynical manipulation of the political system. In true communist spirit, Prachanda said that the compromises struck with the government were only tactical expediencies, and that the "bidroha," or rebellion, was still on. He joked about how they duped the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) into thinking they had 35,000 fighters when in fact they only had 7,000 to 8,000, which allowed them to swell their ranks to 20,000 while claiming to be demilitarizing. And he confirmed Gen. Katawal's suspicions by saying it would take only a small number of his guerrillas to establish "complete Maoist control" of the Nepal Army.
He added that they had not turned over their weapons as required and that relief money earmarked for the victims of the civil war would be diverted to party coffers. "You and I know the truth," he slyly told his comrades, "but why should we tell it to others?"
In an unguarded moment, Prachanda revealed he is still a terrorist at heart and those who make deals with him are dupes. "Why would we abide by [the peace deal] after we win?" he said on the tape. "Why would we follow it when we have the upper hand?"
The situation in Nepal and Pakistan's Swat Valley illustrate the risks in bargaining with extremists, who do not change their goals, only their methods. The lesson is important when contrasted to Sri Lanka and Colombia, where we have seen the value of taking the fight to insurgents. U.S. deal makers should understand that there is more than one way to lose a guerrilla war. Sometimes it happens with the stroke of a pen.
5 comments:
people however were misguided about maoists intention. this is a success on maoists side but the truth came out although it is bit late.
Specially when pens are used by "useful idiots"... love it!
Prachandaphobia
The releasing of nearly one and a half year old CD on Comrade Prachanda addressing PLA members spread like a wildfire in the gossip markets of Kathmandu. I don't think public minds were diverted, as Prachanda himself said, it was designed to divert public attention from "civilian supremacy", the cause for his resignation. There are three issues that need to be looked into (1) the contents of the tape; (2) the timing of its release; and (3) the manner in which it was transmitted. At first, I was also shocked viewing few clips until some one wrote in the blog that the whole CD is of 80 minutes and one need to have full viewing to understand the meaning and context in which Comrade Prachanda was speaking. Another blogger, after listening to the speech, commented, "More tempted to join the Maoist Party now". People who are really worried with the contents of the speech (fooling UNMIN on the size of the PLA, takeover of the state by force, politicization of NA, diversion of budget allocated for the martyrs and cantonment, roughing up with the enemies) should refresh their memory by recalling what he spoke in open, in the full view of TV cameras, at Baluwatar during his first public appearance. He accused RNA, the precursor of NA, of raping innocent Nepali girls and opined for a dramatic reduction in the size of the army. As far as I could remember, besides some murmuring from the corners of RNA, the media people, the vanguards of Nepal's freedom and democracy, virtually kept silent. Why so much fuss now? Is it because the comment was made on RNA and not on NA? Prachanda is a changed man now? Forgotten about his recent blurbs – bauko birta and mafiadom in media? The last one actually hurt few media houses.
Let us look at the timing. Why was CD released now and not before? It could have been released prior to the holding of CA elections in April 2008. Given the date of the CD January 2008, the possessor must have it for a long time. Agreed that it was just made available by an insider within the Maoist Camp, why had it to be released now, immediately after his resignation? It is sheer stupidity to ignore the timing of CD release. Late poet Bhupi Sherchan wrote something like this bravery is not just the presence of courage but an absence of a brain. Quiet pathetic for an institution supposed to be laid on the foundations of bravery.
One can fairly understand the element of propaganda designed to discredit Prachanda when the same thing is iteratively transmitted with clips and comments from a number of TV, radios and newspapers. There is also a rumor that a media house went to the extent of screening exclusively for the foreigners working here in Nepal. Now, we are into a more stupid situation if it is true, as reported in a vernacular broad sheet, that the President viewed the CD, courtesy of NA, prior to the eruption of Maoist-CoAS row. There is an American saying, "You need, at least, two people to have a conflict but to resolve it, restraint from one is enough". There is also a German saying, "When two people fight, there is always a third person to laugh." By the way, who is turning whom to be a joker here?
The eleventh hour before totalitarian domination is here upon us and we still have the useful idiots in our "Civil Society" falling into the trap, and possibly some of our southern parties will still back the Maoists for their own agenda of One Madesh One Pradesh.
Well, UNMIN(United Nations Mission In Nepal) has always acted acted in favour of the communist Maoist Party(the party still being in the USA's terrorist list). Here are some of my observations..
1). A secret videotape of Prachanda was released(this can be viwed in www.Youtube.com), where he is seen coaching the combatants and discloses that they actually had only 7-8 thousand cambatants but UNMIN verified almost 20,000. I have no further comments on that except that these so called combatants and the party in their name is recieving a huge sum of money from Nepali TaxPayer's money. UNMIN on top of that doesnt disclose any detail.
2).Ian Martin, the former chief of UNMIN himself was highly influenced by Marxist doctrine. His activities here was condemned by all so was called back. But what he became succesful in doing was, getting a replacement his choice. Also Ian Martin is a known homosexual and in a country like Nepal where homosexuality is a big deal, it is reported that he was supplied with boys by the maoist party.
Also most of the members in the UNMIN team comprises of people from South American countries.
We can easily see the partiality, whenever any member of the former combatants is caught outside of the cantonment UNMIN is the first to the rescue. But they utterly refuse to help Government in any way when it comes to monitoring them. UNMIN isnt even monitoring them.For example, Ram Hari Shrestha, a businessman was kidnapped and killed in the UNMIN monitored maoist cantonment. And one of the person charged with the murder(who recently got promoted in the party hierarchy) is still in the protection of the cantonment where they are immune from the law as it is under the protection of UNMIN.
3).The party has almost the same structure as Hitler's Nazi party. Though the leader of the party Puspa Kamal Dahal a.k.a. Prachanda is more like Stalin than Hitler in appeareance, character and atrocities. Nazi had a military and paramilitary forces, the SS and the SA, while Nepali maoist has the same. PLA is the military force while YCL is the paramilitary. Hitler had Dr. Goebbels as his main wing man while Prachande has Dr. BabuRam Bhattarai. Though Prachanda is constantly prosecuting Baburam Bhattarai whenever he sees him stronger than himself. He was arrested by the party once, and at a newer event, he has been labelled as foreign agent .
Post a Comment