Development and security aid to Nepal to go together – United States of America

Kathmandu: The United States of America has made it abundantly clear that while on the one hand it is encouraged by the announcement of a ceasefire by the government and the Maoists rebels recently, then on the other she has also hinted that the US is pained to learn the “differences between the Palace, the interim government, and the political parties” which she thinks “threaten to undermine the chance for dialogue that the ceasefire provides”.

In a statement made by the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Donald Camp, in Washington last week, the US also wishes to hint the potential political forces of the country to forge a united front to deal with the situation provided by the announcement of the ceasefire.

A close look at the statement made by Donald Camp, a few things come to the fore.

Firstly, Mr. Camp maintains that the US will have two pronged policy to continue with its policy in Nepal by simultaneously increasing the development aid in an effort to alleviate the legitimate grievances that helped give rise to the Maoists insurgency in the first place and by supplying the government with security aid inorder to enable the Royal Nepal Army to contain the maoists threat.

This means that the US will have carrot and sticks both for the Maoists. At yet another plane, the US wishes to send warning signals to the Maoists stating that it would be wise for the insurgency to make the talks with the government a positive one or else it might declare the insurgency a terrorist outfit.

Secondly, the US, better late than never, recognises that one of the root causes for the spread of insurgency in the country could be the “grievances over corruption, vast inequalities in opportunity, access to government services, and poverty” and concludes that the talks between the government and the Maoists rebels “must address these problems”.

Undenyingly, the US this time appears to have gone deeper into the possible root causes that could have caused the insurgency to take a frightening dimension in a short span of seven years.

Thirdly, the US also makes it clear that the security forces too have at various intervals committed human rights abuses for which it says: ” We have unfortunately seen an unacceptable abuses over the last year on both the sides”. Having noted this, the US side gleefully maintains that it has convinced the RNA for the creation a Human Rights Cell which is perhaps already in existence.

Fourthly, the US clearly admits that Nepal is “one part of the world in which Indian, Chinese and American interests are in almost perfect consonance”. Donald Camp however, in the statement doesn’t divulge what the American interests were in this country which were in total agreement with the interests of the Indians and those of the Chinese?

Fifthly, the US wishes to claim the present decision of the Maoists to go in for talks with the government as a “tangible demonstration of our policy success”. This means that directly or even indirectly, the US must have played a major role in bringing the two warring rivals together that resulted in the announcement of a ceasefire. How the key players in Nepal will take US admission is altogether a different matter. More so, how the Maoists will react to this US claim will have to be watched. However, analysts say that the US began taking keen interest in the Maoists affairs when Ms. Christina Rocca visited Nepal last December.

Sixthly, the US gives a clean chit to this government and says the present government led by Mr. Chand was not an “unconstitutional” one as described by Koirala and Madhav Nepal but instead it was an “interim government”. This perhaps should bring Koirala and Madhav Nepal to senses.

And lastly, the US doesn’t hide its concern over the statements made by the Maoists wherein they wished to replace the constitutional monarchy with an absolute communist regime which for the US amounted to be “overtly hostile”. The US also appears to have taken serious note of the insurgents defending the Khmer Rouge as one indication of the kind of instability and humanitarian catastrophe that might follow a take over. If this would have materialised, predicts the US, would have made Nepal a “failed State”.