06-02-2005, 11:15 PM
Rudradev posted this on BR.. I think we must also keep in mind the latest UN itch to study human rights 'abuses' against dalits as 'racism'. The xtian powers in the US and by proxy the UN view the hindu resurgence and all expressions of hindu power as a threat and would like to cut it down to size.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This could be important.
I gleaned the following information from some fairly high-level officials in the UN whom I met socially last week.
-The UN is soon to open its largest "human-rights monitoring mission" in the world , in Katmandu, Nepal. It will have over 50 monitors stationed there within the next few months.
-Nepal is viewed (or spun, for the benefit of UN functionaries) as a hotbed of political violence and a source of political instability in "South Asia". The blame for the "Maoist revolution" is being laid squarely on the "Hindu-led, casteist monarchy that has consistently denied the Nepalese people social, political and economic freedoms" (verbatim quote). It was amply suggested, if not stated, that India's influence had been complicit in maintaining the Hindu monarchical status-quo.
-The figure that is being bandied about is 12,000 dead. The term "genocide" is liberally used in the Nepalese context. The need for "progressive social and political change" was being earnestly highlighted.
-The forecast is that Nepal will end up as "either a Hindu Republic (as in Islamic Republic) or a Maoist Republic".
-The spin on the Maoists is one of condescending sympathy. Condescending because "only in South Asia would they have a Maoist revolution decades after Mao's original revolution has been discredited by realpolitik". Sympathy because at some level it is being spun as a desparate, justified struggle. As the "Kashmir struggle" has also been spun in the past.
-The view of India's role is that India will probably not act unilaterally to intervene militarily in Nepal, "because India has its eye on a permanent seat in the Security Council, so it will probably behave itself".
-The view of China's role simply does not seem to exist. Nowhere in the conversation was it even suggested that China might play a role in the current goings-on in Nepal.
-What was most surprising to me, is that the UN officials I spoke to seem to be actually looking forward to being posted in Nepal... with their families, including small children. Very strange indeed for a country that they're talking about as a Rwanda or Kosovo in the making. So at some level, in spite of everything, the UN feels safe there.
So what then, is the UN's game in Nepal?
My conclusion: The UN has recognized that the neocon GOTUS' actions in Iraq have put them in serious danger of being rendered impotent and irrelevant. They know that they cannot re-establish their relevance by going against the GOTUS, in fact by any means other than by ingratiating themselves with the GOTUS. What they are doing in Nepal is actually serving as the GOTUS' cats paw to achieve this purpose. The GOTUS would love to establish a significant military presence in Nepal...squarely occupying the high ground between India and China, its two major competitors of the unfolding century. The UN, with its largest-ever-human-rights-mission, is going in first as the thin edge of the American wedge.
Ironically, the UN officials I spoke to were openly resentful of the Bush regime and critical of its actions in Iraq. I wonder if they recognize that they might be serving as that same regime's proxies in Nepal?
Another thought. If India, China and the US are likely to constitute the premier corners of the 21st Century's triangular geopolitical contest... and China and the US are permanent members of the UNSC... how much can India trust the UN as an organization, especially if it turns out that we are denied permanent membership in September?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This could be important.
I gleaned the following information from some fairly high-level officials in the UN whom I met socially last week.
-The UN is soon to open its largest "human-rights monitoring mission" in the world , in Katmandu, Nepal. It will have over 50 monitors stationed there within the next few months.
-Nepal is viewed (or spun, for the benefit of UN functionaries) as a hotbed of political violence and a source of political instability in "South Asia". The blame for the "Maoist revolution" is being laid squarely on the "Hindu-led, casteist monarchy that has consistently denied the Nepalese people social, political and economic freedoms" (verbatim quote). It was amply suggested, if not stated, that India's influence had been complicit in maintaining the Hindu monarchical status-quo.
-The figure that is being bandied about is 12,000 dead. The term "genocide" is liberally used in the Nepalese context. The need for "progressive social and political change" was being earnestly highlighted.
-The forecast is that Nepal will end up as "either a Hindu Republic (as in Islamic Republic) or a Maoist Republic".
-The spin on the Maoists is one of condescending sympathy. Condescending because "only in South Asia would they have a Maoist revolution decades after Mao's original revolution has been discredited by realpolitik". Sympathy because at some level it is being spun as a desparate, justified struggle. As the "Kashmir struggle" has also been spun in the past.
-The view of India's role is that India will probably not act unilaterally to intervene militarily in Nepal, "because India has its eye on a permanent seat in the Security Council, so it will probably behave itself".
-The view of China's role simply does not seem to exist. Nowhere in the conversation was it even suggested that China might play a role in the current goings-on in Nepal.
-What was most surprising to me, is that the UN officials I spoke to seem to be actually looking forward to being posted in Nepal... with their families, including small children. Very strange indeed for a country that they're talking about as a Rwanda or Kosovo in the making. So at some level, in spite of everything, the UN feels safe there.
So what then, is the UN's game in Nepal?
My conclusion: The UN has recognized that the neocon GOTUS' actions in Iraq have put them in serious danger of being rendered impotent and irrelevant. They know that they cannot re-establish their relevance by going against the GOTUS, in fact by any means other than by ingratiating themselves with the GOTUS. What they are doing in Nepal is actually serving as the GOTUS' cats paw to achieve this purpose. The GOTUS would love to establish a significant military presence in Nepal...squarely occupying the high ground between India and China, its two major competitors of the unfolding century. The UN, with its largest-ever-human-rights-mission, is going in first as the thin edge of the American wedge.
Ironically, the UN officials I spoke to were openly resentful of the Bush regime and critical of its actions in Iraq. I wonder if they recognize that they might be serving as that same regime's proxies in Nepal?
Another thought. If India, China and the US are likely to constitute the premier corners of the 21st Century's triangular geopolitical contest... and China and the US are permanent members of the UNSC... how much can India trust the UN as an organization, especially if it turns out that we are denied permanent membership in September?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->