Nepal

Troubled waters
By ARNALDO MUSA

Recent events in Nepal cast a shadow over the peace agreement that the rebel chieftain Prachenda and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala signed last November and subsequently implemented, regardless of the former’s spot-on remark that such arrangement highlighted “the Nepalese’s victory over the reactionary forces bent on keeping Nepal in the past”.

A string of popular demonstrations, the blockade against the capital city itself and statements that the end of the10-year-old war was nowhere near, betray the dissatisfaction the government caused by trying to disarm the rebels, without ensuring their safety, after they accepted being stationed in seven points of the country. No less upsetting was the official decision to appoint new ambassadors without prior consultation, as required by the covenant.

The U.N. intervention in the matter brought rain on the rebel parade, since they will have control over the insurgents’ arms, to the extent that 111 Ghurkas, members of a mercenary army which the British colonialists consistently used in the past, will be in charge of keeping an eye on the arms depots, despite U.N. assurance that the rebels “will have the keys”.

In the meantime, the Royal Army remains intact and will “absorb” the fighters pending the creation of a Constituent Assembly in which, it’s been promised, the rebels will play a significant role. This means that after the June 2007 election, King Gyamendra will neither be a Head of State nor be held responsible for cracking down on the Nepalese people.

A NECESSARY LOOK AT THE PAST

In the late 1950s Nepal saw the dawning of one of the first Asian democracies ever, although from then on hunger, social inequality and abuse of power took root and, to a large or a lesser extent, paved the way for the beginning of a popular guerrilla war in 1996.

A confusing episode on June 1^st, 2001 sparked a radical change in the country’s future. King Birendra, whose leanings were relatively liberal, was murdered –together with his whole family– by one of his children, who then killed himself. The only possible heir to the crown was no other than Gyanendra, his rise to power clouded by solid suspicions, as yet unconfirmed, that he had taken part in the carnage.

The struggle gained even more strength that year, so the Royal House received considerable military assistance mainly from the United States, Great Britain and Belgium, all under the well-worn excuse of ‘the fight on terrorism’.

In the last few years, parliamentary dissenters concurred on the so-called Seven Parliamentary Alliance (SPA) and turned it into the breeding grounds of the broad political spectrum opposed to the King. In November 2005 the SPA signed a 12-point political agreement with the rebels, whose revolutionary plans had reached a peak since the previous month of August.

These sectors, flocked together in a common bloc opposed to the monarchy, gave free rein to their frustration and took to the streets, but were brutally repressed by the government.

Last April 24, cornered by every political and social group which demanded his resignation, the King agreed to sign the 12-point agreement and to reinstate the House of Representatives he had previously dissolved. He also requested that the SPA name a new Prime Minister. In these circumstances, the rebel leaders issued an appeal against any pacts with the royalty, albeit they eventually gave the possibility the go-ahead and made a peace deal which is now navigating through troubled waters.