Friday, June 12, 2009

An Open Letter to the United States of America

(Courtesy: Birat Simha)

To:
Mr. Robert O’Blake
US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia

Your visit to Nepal on 12-13 June, today and tomorrow, is appropriate, timely and welcome. The papers say that you will be discussing a broad range of issues with top officials of the new government in Nepal during your visit to Kathmandu. I further understand that this is your first visit here in your present official capacity. As the representative of the United States and its new dynamic president, Barack Obama, we Nepalis expect much from your visit.

This country is going through a unique process. Some call it the birth pangs of democracy. Others are not so generous. Democracy, as envisaged by the drafters of your constitution, has not even showed its face in this euphemistically termed “New Nepal”. A communist rebellion was appeased by weak political parties with external support from a close neighbour. The country was declared secular, federal and a republic without putting these major issues to the people by the democratic process universally called “referendum”. The election of April 2008 was termed fair by the likes of Mr. Jimmy Carter who did this country no service by his callous statements. The past nine months of the Maoists-led coalition government has not improved this country by even an iota. The increased revenues are cited as an achievement. But these revenues were not able to be utilized for development. They remain useless in government bank accounts or perhaps in the deep pockets of some politicians.

Now we have a Prime Minister who lost the election in two constituencies. Our Foreign Minister is also similarly qualified. The Nepali Congress party, considered the harbinger of democracy in this country, is not democratic within itself. The CPN-UPL, to which party the new PM belongs to, does not even have enough internal unity to choose its ministers for the new cabinet. The Madhesi Janadadhikar Forum, with its quixotic demand for “One Madesh, One Pradesh” is splintered down the middle. These are the three largest parties in the Constituent Assemble, after the Maoists – all with internal in-fighting resulting in political impotence.

The Maoists, as every red-blooded American is aware of, are hell-bent on creating a “People’s Republic”. Their current flirtation with multi-party democracy is merely a tactical step towards their ultimate goal of state capture. No hope of democracy from their side.

So, Mr. O’Brien, representing the most powerful democracy in the world today, what are you going to do to help foster democracy in Nepal? We are fully aware of your country’s interest in Nepal as a potentially soft under-belly of China. But Nepal’s foreign policy vis-à-vis the Tibet issue is very different from the United State’s or India’s. It has to be because we must live with our two giant neighbours. During the past two years, Tibet’s office in Nepal has been closed down. Tibetan protesters at the Chinese Embassy here have been arrested, some rather viciously. Nepal does not have the luxury of American indulgence in Tibetan rights. Your actors, such as Richard Gere, may come here and highlight the issue of “freedom for Tibet”. But for us, China is a powerful neighbour who has also helped us much in development and with whom, I might add, we have no border encroachment problems. If the US wants Nepal to support the Tibet freedom movement, the geo-political equations here have to change drastically. Mind you, as a country which was never colonized, it would also be difficult for us to accept any overt forms of external intervention.

Mr. O’Brien, our new government has stated that the conclusion of the peace process and the timely drafting of the new Constitution are its priorities. And they should be. But how do we conclude the peace process when 19,000 rebel fighters are still camped in various parts of the country at the government’s expense, when it is an open secret that they have access to far more fire power than the few old guns locked up under UNMIN supervision, when the Maoists’ youth wing, the YCL, create havoc at will, when Maoist members of the CA openly declare that they can take over Kathmandu in a mere 12 hours. How is peace possible in this scenario? As for the Constitution, alas we here do not have any Jeffersons, Adams or Franklins which your country was fortunate to have in the 1760’s. We simply have a motley crew of power-hungry politicians. So let not America be surprised if the constitution making process is delayed or even aborted.

Democracy has rights and obligations. Few politicians in Nepal think about the latter. Leadership is a sin qua non. Alas again, we do not have anyone with the leadership stature of a George Washington. Of course, we also do not have anyone with the moral stature of a Abe Lincoln. Enough of what we do not have. We do have, I believe, a vibrant youth population who are seeing their dreams of a happy future fade away. A lot of them are educated and aware. Even the political parties have a “few” of them, except the fossilized leadership in these parties ignores the aspirations and potential of youth. You, Mr. O’Brien, have a President well under 50 years in age. The venerable icon of Nepali democracy (and I do revel in sarcasm at times) is nearing 90!

Let me not ramble on, Mr. O’Brien. We need support from America in the construction of a strong and vibrant democracy in this country. We know you have the ability to help us with this – and without outsourcing it regionally. We expect a lot from the fresh leadership in your country. And we too think, “Yes, we can!”

14 comments:

Subodh Rana said...

The writer might have added what a strong country does when a province wants to break away, yes we miss Abe Lincoln.

Dipak Gyawali said...

Birat Simha's open letter to Mr. Robert O’Blake must be made obligatory reading for America's foreign policy barons. The core of the problem lies, as Simha has correctly highlighted, in the US outsourcing its Nepal policy to New Delhi. The reality of Nepal's geo-political tectonic forces and the historical fault lines within this complex country would inevitably warp and distort such a misguided policy: they have and it has led to the current mess in Nepal.

Way out? How about starting with an honest admission that Jana Andolan II was anything but that?

Those of the press and civil societies who accused King Gyanendra for being undemocratic and autocratic, a King that kept calling for elections to restore the functioning of the 1990 Constitution, now find that the wind of triumphalism has now gone from their sails. They brazenly told us that their beloved party leaders -- who the rest of us saw as incompetent, corrupt or blood thirsty all during the decade of 1995-2005--were the only legitimate rulers of Nepal and that they were the only ones that could solve the country's political woes. They now rule, at least virtually, after losing elections, but the scale of their misrule is no longer virtual. The Maoists, they claimed, were now mainstreamed democrats: we see how they are now back to overt violence that they covertly never left. The total loss of legitimcacy of the civic movement leaders of Jana Andolan II also lies at the root of today's malaise. This and the other rude fact -- that the hidden agendas of the SPAM-led street protests and the unaccounted financial support to these civil society leaders and their partisan press by the so-called 'international community' are no longer hidden but out there in the open, hanging as dirty linen -- should be enough to start such a reflection, if Nepali public life is to be spared more comical political acrobatics.
Dipak Gyawali
Patan Dhoka

Anonymous said...

Who's this O'Brien person?

Birat Simha said...

Thank you, Dipak ji, for recommending my 'open letter' to the US foreign policy establishment. I gather that Mr. Blake, in his press conference here before leaving Nepal yesterday, took a firm stance on the Maoists and their YCL. A promising sign indeed.

The term "jana andolan" has become so cliched that it now leaves only a bad taste in the mouth. I fully agree with you that the so-called Jana Andolan II was anything but. Democracy, as practiced in Nepal post-1990, is a morass of quibbling power and money-crazed politicians who give two hoots for the people, so the "jana" in jana andolan is totally out of place.

Our politicos did unite for a few months with the sole purpose of removing the monarchy. Once this was done, in a most undemocratic and unconstitutional manner, they went back to their dog-fighting horse-trading ways.

Our only redemption is a strong liberal multi-party democracy with a constitutional or ceremonial monarchy, the latter to prevent this country's fragmentation. Can we hope?

Anonymous said...

First, America advised the political parties to have dialouge with stupid King Gyanendra. Second, it advised stupid King to have dialouge with the political parties. Third, it advised political parties to gang up with the Maoists. This is what happened up to the eve of JA II. Now, the country is advising Maoists to have dialouge with the political parties. For sure, tomorrow, it will be advising the political parties to have dialogue with the Maoists. The country is slimply flickering from one position to the other.

ddhungel@hotmail.com said...

I do agree with Birtat Simha's observations on democracy and leadership. I also wished that we had the leaders like George Washington and Abe Lincoln. I would have been very happy if he had also included the name of Nelson Mandela. Alas, as he thinks we are living with a very different type of leaders. Thus the question for which we have to get a answer is how we can build a democracy that is really accountable to the people and have new breed of leaders that are dedicated, visionary and could steer the country from the current increasing chaotic condition and can secure a honorable place for the country in the comity of nations. Can we have these things through the sermons coming from an Lanky American diplomat or a Punjabi Viceroy or will have to wait for another round of bloody conflict? Can we not encourage our younger breeds, more educated than people of my generation, exposed and love their country from the core of their heart and would like to have a new compact for New Nepal signed in Kathmandu not outside the country, like Delhi treaty I and II, could take the leadership in building the country – a country that is prosperous and peaceful and once known for its Shangri-La and always smiling people. Also challenge the so called experts representing bi or multi-lateral organizations and who are taken as the holy animal and whose words are considered the words of wisdom by our current leaders I sincerely hope and wish that Birat Simha and others who love their country would start thinking about these things and share their views.

Dwarika N Dhungel
Baneshwor,
Kathmandu

Ps: I had

Dipak Gyawali said...

Birat,
Both you and Dr Dhungel challenge not just me but all the plural Us that are committed to Nepalis living in a free society to re-think democracy and politics therein. Seeing where professional politicians and the Westminster model have taken this country, that re-thinking is no longer a luxury: it has become an imperative. That search in the depths of our being where hope still lives and flickers has to begin with the basics of the what and how of a free society managing its affairs must look like. On this count, I am essentially a (Karl) Popperian who thinks that democracy in whatever variant would only be an instrument that needs to assure freedom for the people to decide their future without having to resort to violence. The starting point might have to be that "new compact" alluded to by Dwarikaji that sheds the "apabhramshi" shibboleths of the past, especially those affixed with the all-legitimizing "jana".
Thanks to both for pushing the envelope of the debate.
Dipak Gyawali

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Nepali sisters and wife are being raped, map of Nepal is being wontonly skewed, streets are the fiefdom of all political parties- what the hell is happening here. Or are we way far too gone do anything-shame on us.

The only recourse is backtracking to 1990 Consitution or just hand over the power to the Maoist, better yet let the Indians rule or be a part of India. May be then our sisters and wife will be safe. As is all political parties are paid and bought- they have no iota of Nepaliness in them or the majesty to protect their women, borders or basic need of the citizens.

Shyam Prasad Adhikary said...

Utterly-butterly impressed by your thought-provoking comments on Mr. Simha!s article.Having read ,hurriedly,Mr.Simha!s thoughts ,as a staunch believer in freedom of speech in a democracy,I cannot help appriciating for his examples of America -born leaders and uridite political legendry icons whom he has cited so glaringly in his "Open-Letter".Doctor Dhungel!s suggestion in his comment as to why the name of the south African llegendry figure like Nelson Mandela has been left out to be mentioned in the letter equally holds true and relevent.Dr.Dhungel doese deserve my appriciation for pin-pointing the appropriate reference of a person who is known universally as a apostle of peace and sacrifice for his motherland.Mr.Simha!s thoughts in his open letter and Dr,Dhungel!s rejoinder ,both stand out relevant in their own rights and premises.There,I find no contradictions n controversies .Reading in-between the lines,Mr.Simha ,perhaps,thought it more appropriate and relevent to address the visiting American minister by referring to the names of American leaders n political thinkers and impress him.Dhungel!s contention is why other equally renouned leaders and political thinkers of other countries and continents are left out to be mentioned in his article?As a suggestion ,his point could be well taken.The differences are of "would have been better if included" and of Mr.Simha!s predetermined priority to mention American leaders only,perhaps,more impressed and influenced by their leadership knowledge and traits.I,therefore,candidly see the "Open letter,," no bone of contention and appriciate both the views putting at par.

Jhalak said...

Hey Sanjay, what does it matter who Birat Simha is? Are you bothered by the writing ("status reort") or the writer?

That aside, what exactly is the point you're making? That because nations are guided by self-interest that Nepalis should stand down and let people like Ian Martin and Samuel Tamrat give it to us up the back side?

Birat Simha said...

Mr. Sanjay Amatya,

You are not clear on whose "behalf" I am writing this letter, because I did not write it on anyone's behalf. I have my own mind and my own convictions. On what basis do you call this letter a "status report"? It does not seem you know what such reports are, so probably you are no manager yourself.

Since you enquire who I am, I am a retired international civil servant with 30 years work experience abroad.

Your last sentence smacks of the "ke garne" attitude that is the bane of complacent Nepalis like you.

Anonymous said...

Well said Birat

Anonymous said...

www.unnepal.org

Looking Past the Moment of Truth

Dear Nepali Perspectives, I had written what is below in response to an article that came out on Republica.  I may have written someth...