Another Long
March In Nepal
By Gary Leupp
17 February, 2005
Counterpunch.org
While
the U.S. is absorbed in building an empire in the "Greater Middle
East," which will strengthen its position vis-a-vis other imperialist
powers throught the "New American Century," a revived specter
of communism emerges throughout South Asia. And there's not much the
U.S. can do about it.
The official rationale
of Bush foreign policy (aka "the War on Terror") is simultaneously
crystal clear and highly, even ridiculously unclear. To the minds most
inclined to find satisfaction in simple concepts, the war is between
Good and Evil, conducted by a very good president against whomever God
instructs him to smite in this world filled with evil-doers. The administration
encourages this conception, especially in its Christian fundamentalist
base. The U.S. government official will sometimes even articulate this
mindset (which the French early on labeled simplisme or "simple-ism")
to foreign counterparts; Wolfowitz shocked the Europeans in February
2002 when, asked what the administration meant by the term "axis
of evil," that Bush had just uttered in his state of the union
address, merely responded: "Countries must make a choice."
Bush, echoing Matthew 12:30, had declared, "You're either for us
or against us." So the War on Terror is a war of good Christian
America against all opposition, which is evil. Wolfowitz is not a Christian
fundamentalist and does not think in such terms himself, but the Bush
administration uses the religious language and simple concepts to explain
and exalt its policies.
To some, the War
on Terror is a war on Islam. Many Americans are highly influenced by
Christian evangelicals like Franklin Graham, who calls Islam a "very
wicked and evil religion" with a different god than that of Christianity.
Gen. William Boykin, holding a senior Defense Department post, has addressed
church gatherings and asserted not only that Bush was chosen by God
but that the Muslim god is not his god, and that U.S. forces confront
Satan in the Iraqi resistance. On the one hand, Bush has stated all
along that he regards Islam as a religion of peace, and that the war
is not against Islam. He has expressed perplexity that Muslims would
actually think that. He may in fact privately share Graham's views.
Franklin's father Billy, best known of U.S. evangelists, met Dubya in
1985 and according to the president's official bio helped wean him from
alcoholism in 1986.
So when pious Muslims
around the world learn that the president of the United States' religious
mentor, who raised him up from sin, believes their religion "wicked
and evil" you can imagine why they'd actually think he's anti-Muslim.
(Ask yourself why the president, educated at Yale, where he performed
poorly, and Harvard, where one professor recalls him saying people were
poor because they were lazy and that the Civil Rights Movement was communist,
would be perplexed. The professor in question, Yoshi Tsurumi, has also
recalled that Bush would say things in class and thereafter deny ever
saying them. It may be that this president can say insulting things
once, then forget or deny them, or just smirk and wonder why the hell
it should matter.) Meanwhile there are within the administration some
true Islamophobes, such as neocon Elliott Abrams, the Reagan-era official
convicted of lying to Congress about Iran-Contra and now in charge of
promoting democracy around the world.
To the dispassionate
reporter or academic trying to analyze administrative motives, the war
is often interpreted as primarily one against "Islamist" extremism,
in the aftermath of al-Qaeda's attack on the U.S. But this is a hard
category to define, and to distinguish from mere Islamic fundamentalism,
which is prevalent in many places, as is Christian fundamentalism. The
U.S. continues to work with lots of Islamic fundamentalists, and indeed,
it has often maintained closer ties with regimes that promote fundamentalism,
such as Saudi Arabia or the new Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, than
those that enforce secularism, like Syria or Saddam's Iraq. The CIA
happily recruited Muslim extremists from all over the world to wage
jihad against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Plainly
the administration would like to see a sort of Islamic reformation that
would reduce anti-American feelings in the Muslim world, but officials
must realize that the U.S. was generally admired by that world before
Washington set out on its "war on terror." A Zogby International
poll, released June 11, 2002, showed that in nine Muslim countries the
most admired foreign country was the U.S. That was before the U.S. conquered
two Muslim countries, killing tens of thousands, embraced Sharon as
"a man of peace," isolated Arafat, endorsed an Israeli strike
against Syria, tortured Muslims in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, threatened
Iran, sought to oust ElBaradei as IAEA head, etc. Intelligence reports
now state baldly that U.S. actions are fomenting more and more Muslim
hostility.
The current targets
most closely in the crosshairs are Syria, a secular nation, and officially
Shiite Iran. The U.S. alleges that both harbor Islamic terrorists. Specifically,
they harbor members of Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hizbollah. The first
two of these are Palestinian organizations whose beef is with Israel,
not the U.S., while the latter is a major Lebanese political party that
in its early years attacked U.S. troops only when they set up camp on
Lebanese soil. 9-11 has been used to legitimate efforts at "regime
change" in Syria and Iran, partly on the grounds that they have
ties with these Islamic "terror" groups, even though the latter
are quite different from al-Qaeda and had no connection to the 9-11
attacks. Iran stands accused of al-Qaeda links, but the accusation smacks
of disinformation. Anyway the "war on terror" could be viewed
as essentially an effort to eradicate organizations violently hostile
to Israel, to topple regimes that harbor them, and to prevent Iran from
ever acquiring a nuclear weapon. It that sense it's presented as a war
on "Islamist terrorism."
But lest the Muslim
should suppose that Bush is only picking on them, the administration
targets "evil" North Korea and Cuba, and might in theory expand
the terror war to target any of the "terror sponsoring" nations
or "international terrorist organizations" on its lists. The
latter include everybody from Irish nationalists to Tamil separatists
to communist parties. The "terror war" concept, like most
simple concepts, is flexible. Nevertheless it seems clear to me that
the game plan is to gain strategic control over all of Southwest Asia,
a region that produces 70% of the world's oil. Having done that, the
U.S. could face Europe, Japan and China well into this century from
a position of greatly enhanced strength, controlling the flow of oil
and maintaining a vast network of military bases from Central Asia to
the Persian Gulf. Some believe this necessarily for the continued primacy
of the U.S. economy in the face of global competition.
This, I think, is
the real essence of the "war on terror." It reflects the needs
of the military- industrial complex, and if it has the additional advantage
of providing a final solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict (by defeating
anti-Israel "terror" and generating Israel-friendly Muslim
regimes) this will please them as well as the other props of the Bush
administration, the neocons and the Christian fundamentalist right.
The first of this triad may feel a certain necessity to pursue the Project
for a New American Century scenario (regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria)
but differ from the neocons on the matter of urgency. One sees this
in the Weekly Standard's repeated calls for Rumsfeld's resignation and
for a dramatic increase in the size of the U.S. military over the next
few years. You see it too in the PNAC's veiled call for a draft. The
ideologically-driven neocons want to seize the time, and have the whole
conquest done during the second Bush administration, no matter how creatively
messy. Others in the administration seem inclined to proceed more slowly,
projecting hostility to the targeted nations while declaring, as Condoleezza
Rice recently did, that attacks are not on the agenda.
In any case, the
"war on terror" is practically speaking primarily a war to
transform Southwest Asia or what the neocons like to call "the
Greater Middle East." The inclusion of North Korea in the "axis
of evil" in Bush's shocking 2002 state of the union address was
probably an effort to obfuscate this fact and make the evolving terror
war, then in its initial stage, seem less specifically aimed at the
Muslim world. The attention of the administration is, I believe, quite
concentrated on Middle Eastern real estate.
Meanwhile, in Nepal...
The Bushites are
preoccupied with creating their empire, fighting against governments
which actually mount no challenge to U.S. imperialism (in the Leninist
sense), governments willing to work out accommodations with the U.S.,
and normalize diplomatic and trade relations. In early 2003, Saddam
Hussein, fearing invasion, offered the U.S. unlimited weapons inspection
rights, oil concessions, and Iraqi support for any U.S. Middle East
peace plan, in exchange for calling off the planned attack. In March
2003, Richard Perle rejected the proposal as a "no-starter,"
demanding instead that as the price of peace Saddam should leave Iraq
and his army surrender to U.S. forces. Saddam, with a history of CIA
ties, wasn't opposed to the U.S. system. Nor are the Iranian mullahs,
really, who preside over a capitalist economy largely dependent on foreign
capital.
But while the administration
with long-term inter-imperialist relationships in mind proceeds down
its road to Damascus, far off in the Himalayan foothills revolutionaries
dead-serious about overthrowing capitalism and imperialism are making
steady progress. The People's Liberation Army of the Communist Party
of Nepal (Maoist), which has been waging a People's War since 1996,
might actually soon seize state power. They had already gained control
of much of the Nepali countryside when popular King Birendra and other
members of the royal family died in a mysterious shooting rampage in
2001. Birendra's brother Gyanendra succeeded him and has been an unpopular
monarch from the outset. Maoists stepped up their military campaign
after he took the throne, prompting the prime minister to step down.
The next prime minister announced a truce with the rebels, and peace
talks began in June. The Maoists demanded an end to the monarchy and
the convening of a convention to write a new constitution, eventually
dropping the first demand. But no progress was made, and the Maoists
resumed fighting in November. Gyanendra proclaimed a state of emergency.
In January 2002 Colin Powell paid a visit to Nepal, the first ever visit
by a U.S. secretary of state, denounced the Maoists as "terrorists,"
called the war against them part of the war on terror, and offered military
aid. Gyanendra officially designated the rebels "terrorists"
as well.
But since then the
CPN(M) has steadily consolidated control over the countryside, following
Mao's strategy of encircling the cities. In the capital of Kathmandu,
it repeatedly demonstrated its ability to shut the city down by calling
general strikes (bandh). Its student and women's organizations held
large demonstrations, pressing demands, wielding much clout in the city.
The government held a second round of talks beginning in May 2003, having
bowed to a rebel demand that the "terrorist" label be removed.
These too broke down. In recent months the rebels have shown their ability
to shut down all roads leading to the capital. Last month the king of
neighboring Bhutan told reporters in India, "today the Maoists
have total control more or less of the whole country."
That was before
Gyanendra, on Feb. 1, sacked the prime minister and his cabinet, declared
martial law, cut phone and internet lines to Kathmandu, arrested dozens
of political leaders and announced he was assuming direct rule for three
years. Nearly all political commentators believe this move will only
strengthen the insurgency.
For several years
the king, parliamentary parties, and the Maoists have engaged in a triangular
power struggle. The parties support the constitutional monarchy and
deplore Maoist violence, but want talks. The Maoists express contempt
for the parties, including the several ostensibly "communist"
ones, and insist, with Mao, that "political power grows out of
the barrel of the gun." But they unite with the parties in protesting
policies of the king. After the breakdown of the second round of talks,
they stated that they would only be interested in direct talks with
the monarch himself. Now Gyanendra has called for such talks, and indicated
he's even willing to discuss a constituent assembly. But it may be too
late for the king. The Maoists have declined his offer. "Gyanendra
has pushed the country into darkness _ there is no justification for
immediate talks," stated CPN(M) leader Prachanda. Meanwhile, on
Feb. 9, the Maoists busted out 145 prisoners, including comrades, from
a jail in the western district of Kailaliat.
The king of Bhutan
is worried, because Bhutan has its own embryonic Maoist insurgency.
India has a huge Maoist movement with an increasing degree of organizational
unity. Attacking police and landlords, the Maoists have taken control
of much of the region around Hyderbad and for some years have been able
to shut the city down when they call a bandh. The Maoists of Nepal and
India make no bones about the fact that they are coordinating actions
and envision People's Wars enveloping much of South Asia, including
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
One scenario is
Indian military intervention in Nepal, producing a Maoist-led nationalistic
response, accompanied by protests from the Indian masses and stepped-up
guerrilla war within India. But China, however unhappy with a Maoist
regime on the Tibetan border (a real Maoist regime to shame the capitalist-roaders
in Beijing), would be even less happy with Indian troops in Nepal. The
Maoists' victory may come at a time when the U.S. is bogged down in
a broadened war against "Islamic terrorism" and has few resources
to fight the old bugaboo, communism. Which after all was pronounced
dead, with some fanfare, after the collapse of the USSR.
The revival of communism
as a global challenge would be the Bush administration's worst nightmare.
Maoists aren't likely to hijack planes and crash them into American
skyscrapers. But they're likely to strive to build egalitarian societies
free of foreign domination, inspiring others in the process, including
many in the imperialist countries. It has happened before (think 1968).
Back in October 2002 I wrote an article in which I cited a British officer's
statement to the Telegraph that the Maoists would "continue to
gain ground. Unless something dramatic happens, it's only a matter of
time before they win." I suggested then some of the possible international
consequences:
The radical left
throughout the world would be heartened by a victory, somewhere; impressed
to see the red flag planted, as the secretary-general of the CPN(M),
Prachanda, likes to put it, atop Mt. Everest, the roof of the world.
(I think particularly of the Maoists in the Philippines, and their 14,000-strong
New People's Army, who are also engaged in a people's war and have control
over 8,000 villages throughout the Filipino archipelago; and of the
Senderistas in Peru, who show some signs of revival.) The governments
of the world---virtually all of them---would be very highly displeased,
and mainstream intellectuals puzzled. The victory would, after all,
constitute a challenge to the Fukuyama thesis (about the "and of
history" as a clash of ideologies) and the Huntington thesis (about
the "clash of civilizations"). We'd be back to the old capitalism
vs. communism discussion, which was supposed to be behind us, all settled,
and consigned to the rubbish heap of history!
Let the discussion
begin.
Gary Leupp is Professor
of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative
Religion.He can be reached at: [email protected]