Friday, February 18, 2005

The China Timeline

Let's look at events from a different perspective. Blogdai has always believed that China was in the thick of planning this takeover long before it actually occured. Curious threads emerged while blogdai was doing research. Conspiracy theroists: have at it! Also, a new feature will be the sporadic "diplo-speak" translations. Diplomats are trained to say something that means something else. -=blogdai

April 2004: Pro-Bush hawk U.S. ambassador to Nepal Michael Malinowski is replaced by pro-China ambassador Michael Moriarty. Malinowski was abruptly replaced with just six months of service in Nepal remaining.

July 2004: Ambassador Moriarty urges Maoists to lay down their arms. He later states that the U.S. government will do "anything" for peace in Nepal


November 2004: King agrees to arms deal with Pakistan resulting in potential arms purchases for the RNA of up to $100 million.

December 2004: Moriarty opines about Nepal: "This place was never a nation state up until the 1950's. It was a bunch of subjects of the Nepali king." Diplo-speak translation: Some of the most blunt and caustic words to ever come from a U.S. diplomat anywhere. He is saying that government does not apply outside of Kathmandu and that the democracy movement of the 1990's has failed to take hold. His tone implies that Nepal is a backwater and cannot properly maintaining democratic reforms. In the same statement he drops his bomb shell: "There is a real possibility that there will be a Maoist government here." He has diplomatically created a sense of imminent disaster. He has opened the door for drastic measures and given tacit approval to fight and defeat the Maoists by any means necessary. The two statements, when taken together, are meant to suggest that the current system of government in Nepal is incapable of dealing effectively with the Maoists.

December 2004: King abruptly cancels his India trip where he famously avowed to "speak his mind". This was done on the flimsy premise of respecting dead Indian bureacrat Narasimha Rao.

January 2005: Nepal closes the Tibetan Welfare Office in Kathmandu-bowing to Chinese pressure. U.S. response from ambassador Moriarty "expressed our strong concern to Nepalese officials that operations allowing the entry and transit of Tibetan refugees through Nepal be allowed to continue." Also, U.S.'s Christina Rocca weighed in with: "Nepalese officials have told us that these changes will not affect the welfare of Tibetan refugees living in or moving through Nepal." Translation: "Strong concern" means the U.S. will keep its hands off of the Tibetan political hot button for a while. Rocca's statement means "who cares?" Notice the lack of explicit condemnation. The U.S. is officially taking no position with regards to Tibet during this crisis.

February 2005: Takeover. China: "-- China respects the choice of Nepalese in developing their own country and sincerely wishes the nation to realize social security, economic development and ethnic pacification." "Ethnic pacification" should scare the shit out of Tibet watchers. China is thumbing its nose at the world by saying this. They are also saying that the King's move had the tacit approval of the Chinese. The speed and detail of the statement leaves no doubt that China wants the world to know that it is backing this King.

U.S. initial response from the State Department's Richard Boucher demanded an “immediate move toward the restoration of multiparty democratic institutions under a constitutional monarchy." Pure lip-service to the international community. "Move toward the restoration.." is a vote of approval not a condemnation.

Pakistan responded that recent developments in Nepal were its internal matter. "A foreign ministry statement issued on Thursday quoted the prime minister as telling the Nepalese king that Pakistan strictly adheres to the principles of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of
states." Translation: We're happy with our arms deal. We not only support the takeover but we'll use China's language of "non-interference in the internal affairs.." to reinforce China's dominance over this process.

The U.S., after appeasing the world by threatening to cancel military aid to Nepal by saying that is was ". . a step that will be seriously considered," ambassador Moriarty finally comes clean on U.S. intentions:``If we cut off our security assistance it will embolden the Maoists,'' and towards the King: ``If he delivers on his commitments, he will turn this all around.'' And on Feb. 18 Moriarity admonishes the Nepali people to "hang in there." Translation: Green light King G. Do whatever you think is necessary and the Yanks will stay out of your way. Just don't take too long and don't act like a repressive idiot in the process.

Analysis: The timing of the closure if the Tibetan Welfare Office was not just curious, it was well-planned. The Chinese got to their old, bought and paid for ally in the government, State Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prakash Sharan Mahat to work the deal. You remember him: he helped the Chinese ambassador to Nepal orchestrate the repatriation of Tibetan refugees last year. He was an easy target and a symbol of corruption. The Chinese wanted to use this contact before the takeover. It got them their nasty revenge on the Tibetans and didn't tarnish their plans for the King. In blodai's mind, this shows some real advance planning on the part of the Chinese. Plus, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan's statement was released almost concurrent with the King's announcement of the takeover.

India goofed-up big time by suspending military aid to Nepal. It gave the King his excuse to go to Pakistan and China for arms. Recognizing this, India is now tripping all over itself trying to get back into the picture. They are now returning their ambassador to Kathmandu with quasi-acquiescent statements like:

``We have to deal with whatever government is in office, but our sympathies lie with the democratic forces in that country.''

No one, not the U.S. and eventually not India , is going to deny military assistance to Nepal, in spite of what every one of them will say in the next few weeks. To back out of Nepal militarily would invite China and Pakistan to assert themselves to a greater extent. Nobody wants another Chinese satellite filled with imported extremists.

The U.S. policy is as simplistic as the administration that created it: Stop terrorism around the world. The Maoists are terrorists. Stop the Maoists. Democracy later.

Pure Speculation: Nepalis knew this takeover was coming as early as last October when the king began to make plans for an India visit. Blogdai thinks the Yanks may have been in on it before that. Too many spooks in Kathmandu to keep this info under cover. China orchestrated this thing and may play a bigger role in eliminating the Maoists. Watch for Pakistan to act as a funnel for Chinese money and materiel.


-=blogdai



13 Comments:

At 5:11 PM, February 18, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eat this! and invite all your regressive buddies to lick this.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1488427,00.html

Letters to the Editor



February 18, 2005

Role of UK arms in Nepal conflict
From Sir Menzies Campbell, QC, MP for Fife North East (Liberal Democrat)



Sir, I support the Government’s decision to recall our Ambassador to Nepal (report, February 15). The King’s recent assumption of direct control and detention of political activists (letter, February 5) is not only in contravention of human rights and civil liberties; it will undermine democracy and is likely to intensify the Maoist insurgency. But it is regrettable that the British Government should have both gifted and allowed the sale of military equipment to the Nepalese Government in recent years, in contravention of its own arms export rules.
The Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria published by the Foreign Office provide that licences should not be issued where there is a “clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression” or where the exports would “prolong armed conflict or aggravate existing tension”.



Successive annual Foreign Office reports have concluded that both sides had committed gross and widespread human rights abuses. The 2004 report states that years of conflict have led to “a human rights crisis”.

Nevertheless, over the past three years the UK gifted to the Nepalese Government, inter alia, two military helicopters, radios and night vision goggles, and two Islander aircraft. Export licences were granted in categories covering arms and automatic weapons such as rifles, revolvers, pistols and explosive devices.

Last May I tabled a motion in the House of Commons objecting to such exports.

The Government should not have breached its own rules and should prohibit any further transfers of military equipment to Nepal, lethal or nonlethal, until democracy is restored and human rights are respected.

If we are serious about human rights, we should not be exporting arms to those who abuse them.

Yours faithfully,
MENZIES CAMPBELL
(Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesman),
House of Commons.
February 15.

 
At 6:31 PM, February 18, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

blogdai needs to be careful about his spellings. I noticed at least two mistakes in the first paragraph.

Might be a stickler point but correct spelling makes things more readable.

My two cents.

 
At 1:22 AM, February 19, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

fighting for peace is like #@$%^&% for virginity

 
At 3:59 AM, February 19, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Moriarty
...

 
At 9:03 AM, February 19, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Apologies all around for the spelling. blogdai was tired when last piece was posted, but that is still no excuse. Spell-check has been run and 12 errors found and corrected! Thanks again to our keen-eyed readers. -=blogdia

 
At 9:17 AM, February 19, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

UK's contributions to Nepal's military have been cursory and nominal at best. Blogdai has yet to see or even hear of any UK contributed aircraft in Nepal. In the name of research, however, we will ask around.

Yes, another blistering statement from parliament. So, who determined clear human rights violations from either side in this conflict? Yes, they are there but has British parliament declared this officially yet? In other words, has any legislation been put into motion to stop arms sales to Nepal? No. This is another grandstanding letter that has no real effect. "..full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Oh, and expect the British ambassador to return to Nepal shortly.

This reminds me of some politician from the UK, Chris Mullin was his name, I believe, who said of the crisis in Darfur (paraphrasing): "...well, we don't want to call it genocide because we'd prefer to not devalue the meaning of the term.."

Bottom line on arms sales: What Bush does, Blair will do.

As for "eating" or "licking" anything, blogdai prefers dal bhat.

blogdai

 
At 3:27 PM, February 19, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice article on the China dimension.

What lurks behind the curtains, beyond the horizon, within the mists of the nontransparent structures of governance?

I agree with your assessments of the diplo-speak by all parties concerned.

 
At 7:44 PM, February 19, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Very poetic. Was that second paragraph a quote perchance? -=blogdai

 
At 1:29 AM, February 20, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of the weapons I've seen in the hands of the soldiers on the streets of Kathmandu this afternoon have been 30 year old British Army hand me downs - FN rifles , those god awful Stirling Sub Machine guns and even a Ferret Armoured Car - it's like a 70's action man set out there ! God knows what this "non - lethal military aid" is that Jack Straw is banging on about - Helicopters and phone tapping equipment perhaps ? Gotta raise a few more bob to slaughter more wogs in Iraq

 
At 8:46 AM, February 21, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Except for the machine gun on the top that old Ferret has the most non-lethal presence of anything I've seen. Have you ever seen two of them together? Me either, I think Nepal has only one.

Let's see, non-lethal stuff: Packs, communications equipment, training, trucks and logistical materiel, basically anything that is not designed to kill the minute you take it out of the box. -=blogdai

 
At 10:08 AM, February 22, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Britain suspends military aid to Nepal"

what happened to your prophetic "Bottom line on arms sales: What Bush does, Blair will do."

Britain suspends military aid to Nepal

Britain has become the second country, after India, to suspend military aid to Nepal in the wake of recent political developments in the Himalayan kingdom.

Reports on Tuesday quoted British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, as saying that the British government had decided to suspend a planned package of military assistance to Nepal in the light of the latest situation there.

The three million pound ($2.5 million) package of non-lethal equipment announced in January included vehicles, night flying and communications improvements and bomb disposal equipment.

"We are now considering with key international partners what our longer term policy for providing assistance to Nepal should be, including assistance with a humanitarian purpose," Straw said.

Straw also urged His Majesty King Gyanendra to restore democratic government, according to Reuters news agency.

Britain had recalled its ambassador to Kathmandu, Keith G Bloomfield, for consultation last week. The British envoy returned to Kathmandu Sunday.

Meanwhile, in New Delhi, spokesman of the Indian External Affairs Ministry, Navtej Sarna, told reporters Tuesday that no military supplies had been delivered to Nepal since February 1. India has also urged the Nepal government to restore political process, lift restrictions on press and release all detained political leaders, cadres, academics and rights activists.

Nepali authorities are yet to comment on Indian and British governments’ latest decision. nepalnews.com by Feb 22 05

 
At 11:38 AM, February 22, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Big deal, says blogdai. Suspend non-lethal aid? it was a big pose and posture gesture. Brits and Euros can afford to do this; their aid to Nepal will never be of the type needed to affect a change in the Maoist situation.

The only significant form of military aid to come out of that part of the world in the last 10 years was the 5000 Belgian minimi machine guns that were delivered to Nepal a few years ago. Guy Verhoofsted took a lot of heat for that move, so that should tell everyone about appeasing the home crowd in Europe and the U.K. when it comes to real "lethal" aid to Nepal

It is a luxury to be able to assuage public opinion when one is not a first-tier participant in the situation. The current list of players are: India, the U.S., China, and Pakistan..that's it.

Blogdai also took some heat for almost guaranteeing to everyone that the British ambassador would return to Nepal: guess what?

It would have been diplomatically significant if the U.K. had not only suspended their military aid but issued a statement condemning the U.S. and others for continuing with same. So what do we have? More bluster with no effect.

You rightly point out the big shocker however: India. Blogdai never thought they would pull this stunt. Looks like all the cards are on the table now.

Let's do some math: Political parties want to overthrow the Monarchy and are openly advocating an alliance with the Maoists. India stated recently that is "supports 100 percent" Nepal's political parties.

Maoists-The Political Parties- and India. Sure sounds like they are all on the same page now, doesn't it?

Maybe blogdai should call this the "Trinity of Evil."

It is an open secret that Delhi has always wanted a somewhat unstable Nepal; it reinforced Nepal's dependence on big brother India. The Maoists have been killing people in Nepal for a decade now. During that time, 11,000 Nepalis were slaughtered. Where was big brother during all of this?

The Maoists originated, were trained and receive weapons and materials through India and at India's whim. Make no mistake about it.

India cutting off arms to Nepal is only significant in that it is an anti-monarchy, pro-Indian control gesture. India had better reconsider because China won't waste this opportunity.

-=blogdai

 
At 11:46 AM, February 22, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hunchaa dai! "Big brother" India steal land and cross border to steal water in the Terai---whole country full of Hritk Rohan.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home