The United States is facing a dilemma in Nepal: freeze military and other aid to punish the king for stifling democracy or watch Maoist guerrillas assume greater control of the Himalayan outpost.
Washington Washington considers the communist rebels as terrorists and has been a key backer of the Nepali government’s battle against the insurgents, providing badly needed weapons and training to the country’s army.
When King Gyanendra sacked the government, declared an emergency and took absolute power last week, the United States strongly condemned the move and sought immediate restoration of democracy but stopped short of freezing aid to the impoverished and lacklocked nation, sandwiched between India India and China China.
“All of this is under review, we are reviewing all options and consulting with our allies,” a US State Department official told AFP.
The United States had allocated 45 million dollars in aid for Nepal in the year to September 2004, 10 percent of which was for security, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. For fiscal 2005, 44 million dollars has been set aside with only one third for security related activities.
Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca is enroute to Europe where consultations with allies will include Nepal, the official said.
Nepalese soldiers patrol a street in KathmanduThe State Department has already held consultations with India India, Britain and China China in Washington Washington and in the region.
“The King’s move really turns the clock backwards in terms of democracy and getting a handle on the insurgency,” which has claimed more than 11,000 lives since 1996 when the rebels launched their struggle to set up a republic in the world’s only Hindu kingdom.
Aside from the United States, India India and Britain have been important backers of Nepal’s drive to crush the insurgency and have also condemned the King’s move.
Gyanendra said he sacked the government because it failed to quell what is believed to be the worlds fastest flourishing and most successful Maoist movement in the post-Cold War period.
Analysts say the dilemma faced by the big powers is whether to suspend aid to pressure the king to restore fundamental rights or watch the guerrillas make easy work of the poorly-equipped Nepali army.
“King Gyanendra justified his coup on the need to beat back the Maoists, but it will have exactly the opposite effect”, said former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, who leads an international think tank.
“An absolute monarch undermining democracy will only aid the Maoists and do nothing to reduce the risk of them coming to power,” said Evans, president of the International Crisis Group, in a report made available in Washington Washington.
The report said “the only way to achieve peace in Nepal was through effective military action combined with a political strategy that undercuts Maoist positions.
“Neither is possible without a broad-based democratic government”.
Some analysts question the credibility of US demands for a return of democracy in Nepal after having fully backed “war on terror” ally Pakistan Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power from a democratically elected government.
Others point to Nepal’s possible shift towards China China for leadership, citing for example the sudden closure of the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama’s office in Kathmandu and a Tibetan-run refugee center for thousands fleeing alleged persecution.
China China has been pressing Nepal not to harbour those fleeing Tibet Tibet since it crushed an anti-Beijing uprising there in 1959.
“King Gyanendra himself is reported to favor moving toward a closer relationship with China China, and has recently conducted a high profile trip to the PRC,” said US legislators Frank Wolf and Mark Udall said in a letter to colleagues criticizing the harassment of Tibetans in Nepal.
Pramit Mitra, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he doubted the king’s power grab would trigger greater US military involvement in Nepal, citing greater US priorities in Iraq Iraq and Afghanistan Afghanistan.
“The only thing this will do is force a few people in the State Department to think more deeply about Nepal but how much attention will that generate? Very little if you ask me,” he said.
