Kathmandu: Rumors were afloat some two months ago that though the constitutional monarch favored Madhav Nepal, the UML leader, for the Prime Ministerial post but then he could not proceed to do so for fear of how the countries of the developed West and neighboring India will react to such an appointment in this Himalayan Kingdom.
This rumor got more or less substantiated when the Indian Ambassador, Shyam Saran, secretly met the communist leader, Madhav Nepal, at the Hotel Everest and convinced Mr. Nepal not to dream the prime ministerial post for some more time to come.
Yet another rumor that Nepal’s donor community, including the lone super power, would wish not to see the growth of the communists in this Himalayan Kingdom for fear of the fact that that would mean a virtual capture of the country by both the REDS in Singh Durbar and in the Jungles and thus the West apparently indicated the Palace not to lean in favor of the communist candidate, Madhav Nepal.
This means that Madhav Nepal’s prospects of becoming of the country’s prime minister this time around had been damaged not only by Koirala but by the unsubstantiated rumors circulated in the capital that the developed West would not take that very appointment in a good taste.
However, things have become different.
If one were to believe Madhav Nepal what he beamingly said to the Danish Charge de’ Affaires at the Russian Embassy reception this Sunday then what becomes pretty clear is that the “allergy” what the US apparently possess for the communists, including the UML, is a misnomer.
Look what Madhav Nepal said to the Danish envoy.
” Well, I received a call from Janet Bouge one evening at my private residence. It was a call some time when the country was in the search of a new prime minister. Ms. Bouge informed me in clear terms that if Singh Durbar had a government led by the UML, the United States of America would take that appointment in an easy manner. We will not object to that.”
Should this mean that the United States of America now considers the UML as a communist party as good as Koirala’s congress or Pashupati Rana’s RPP?
But why is this change in the US perception toward the UML? Has the UML changed of late? Does the US conclude that the communists housed in the UML were tooth-less snakes and that they have practically lost their previous dogmatic image?
While Mr. Madhav Nepal have reasons to rejoice over what Ms. Bogue told him over telephone, however, equally distressing is the fact that yet another US diplomat preferred to keep silence when only recently the communist leader asked him whether his country would have accepted a communist government led by the UML in Singh Durbar?
Robert Boggs, a US diplomat considered to be an expert on South Asian affairs, was the one who opted not to answer Madhav Nepal’s blunt question at a Danish embassy reception only a few days ago.
Which one is the US official position regarding Madhav Nepal’s question?
If Ms. Bogue is talking what Madhav Nepal said the other day, then why Mr. Boggs preferred not to respond to the communist leaders’ simple question?
Be that as it may, what implies from the two separate events is that the US is in a dilemma on how to take the UML, the former firebrand communists.