Friday, July 29, 2005

More Ambassador Follies

British Ambassador to Nepal, Keith Bloomfield winding-down after a long day of Nepal bashing.

They must be having an ongoing wager....

Keith Bloomfield and James Moriarty must have a running bet going to see who can say the most poorly-researched and insipid comment while representing their country in public. Our absolutely lost British Ambassador to Nepal, Keith G. Bloomfield has done it again. Right on the heels of Moriarty's statements, Bloomfield takes the lead and refuses to let Moriarty last more than a full day as the stupidest man in Nepal! This one begs for a blogdai line-by-line skewering so here we go. (Blogdai comments in blue)

Commenting to that Royal mouthpiece, The Rising Nepal, Bloomfield said there was a "world of difference" between the Maoists and the Al Qaeda. The Maoist conflict was "an armed insurrection involving thousands of a country's own citizens in a classic guerrilla warfare environment with political and socio-economic demands, many of which are shared by the mainstream political parties." Mind-numbingly stupid. Keith, you have just given your indirect support to the Maoists by lionizing them as ordinary citizens with legitimate concerns. You've also managed to give the impression that a Maoist-7-party merger would be alright because it would just unite a lot of nice fellows who share the same viewpoint. You are saying they are not terrorists but more like community activists. These "activists" drill holes in pregnant women, abduct school children, kill teachers and blow up civilian busses. How quaint. Sounds a bit like the IRA from your neck of the woods, eh Keith? Just a bunch of good Irish lads with legitimate reasons for killing, right?

But the Al Qaeda, he said, was a "worldwide extremist network" involving "only a tiny minority of a minority religious group in the UK, with no coherent negotiable demands or formal structure". So, Maoists are bigger, they stay home, have coherent demands and a formal stucture and therefore, are not terrorists? Bloomfield speaks from some narrow playbook with narrow ideas. Reminds me of a British politician, while speaking of the atrocities in Darfur, opined that (paraphrasing) "...well, we shouldn't call what's happening in Darfur genocide because one shouldn't devalue the term."

Later, with regard to combatting terrorism on its on soil, Bloomfield sais Nepal ".. was pursuing "misguided policies" alienating the international community." Maybe because many in the international community refuse to call Maoists the terrorists that they are.

So, this is what may be happening here: Nepal is not considered a choice post for a diplomat. In fact, many diplomats are shelved here to keep them out of the spotlight or to wait out the remainder of their stagnated careers. Nepal is supposed to be a benign, harmless posting for benign, lightweight diplomats. All of a sudden, benign little Nepal becomes hot on the world stage and idiots like Moriarty and Bloomfield are thrust into the spotlight to offer the first lines of opinion from their disengaged countries. They aren't relly supposed to speak, but here they are offering up their unqualified and highly undiplomatic views, for all the world, and more tragically, for all Nepalis to hear. It is not diplomacy and it is not fair to the people of Nepal. -


August 6, Update: And now the fallout...
Those of our readers who think blogdai is wasting time by criticizing ambassadors should get a look at the Nepali Times August 5-ll letters in response to bloomfield's comments. Again and again, every public utterance of an ambassador--even if he is mentally retarded (like Bloomfield)--is taken seriously by the media and public and should not be ignored. Comments from the Times are below:

Keith Bloomfield’s outright denial of double standards on terrorism (Letters, #258) is as interesting as Tony Blair lying about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. How can Bloomfield say Bin Laden does not have a clear political or social demand? The United States made Bin Laden a hero when he was leading 3,500 men to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and branded him a terrorist when the conflict was over. Is asking British (and other) troops to quit Iraq not a political goal? If Nepal’s Maoists’ atrocities are to be solved politically, why not also solve the Iraqi insurgents’ resistance against foreign occupation? If Bloomfield does not recognise the Maoists rebels as terrorists, then, why did his government send weapons to crush them under the Deuba regime?

B Raj Giri, email

• The dubious and patently self-serving definition of terrorism offered by the British envoy exposes the western hypocrisy in their dealings with the Third World. Terrorism is simply the use of intimidation and violent methods against a legitimate state and civil population, it does not matter who the target is, what the intention is or how many people are behind the attack. An evil such as the taking of human life cannot be justified because ‘thousands’ of people support such killings. For example, hundreds of thousands of Hutus were involved in the slaughter of Tutsis, does the size of participation and support make such crimes democratic and legitimate? The contorted logic coming out of this English fellow is this: those who attack us are terrorists, those who kill Nepalis are freedom fighters. My question to the English queen’s emissary is this: what was the crime of the thousands of dead Nepalis that you are going out of your way to legitimate and protect their tormentors and killers? I also challenge Bloomfield to prove his assertion that those who attacked Britain are just a few individuals.

Patrick McGuire, Thamel

• In response to my letter citing clear double standards of Britain in dealing with al Qaeda and the Nepali Maoists, Keith Bloomfield has given an even more doubtful response. He says there is a difference in ‘an armed insurrection involving thousands of a country’s citizens in classic guerrilla terrain, with political and socio-economic demands many of which are shared by the mainstream parties’ and al Qaeda, ‘which is a worldwide extremist network involving a tiny minority, with no coherent negotiable demands or formal structure’. How can an extremist outfit with a worldwide network involve only a ‘tiny minority’ and without ‘formal structure’? Why look at the bombings by one extremist outfit with an outdated ideology in London and another in Chitwan with different glasses?

Preeti Koirala,Baneswor

• From the perspective of a victim, it hardly matters whether terrorist activities are caused by an armed insurrection involving thousands of a country’s citizens or by al Qaeda. One is not a lesser evil than the other. Even in Northern Ireland the British paramilitary had to kill about 4,000 people, mostly civilians, in the 1960s-90s until the terrorists were forced to tone down their agenda. As a Nepali I am concerned that Bloomfield’s remarks can further mislead our international friends about the brutality of a movement which does not have any social base. If he still thinks that the political parties represent the popular voice in Nepal and their willingness to join the Maoists is the certificate of their political worth, then one really wonders how Nepal’s international partners can help the Nepali people.

Dibya B Gurung, New York

• When Keith Bloomfield denies having double standards on terrorism he proves precisely that he has double standards. When the bombs explode in London killing innocents it’s terrorism, when they explode in Nepal killing innocents it’s an insurgency.

M Ramesh,email

• The majority of Nepalis feel and share the pain of the British people and pray for the families of the victims of the London terror attacks. We have faced similar outrages for 10 years now. But Britain must be careful not to violate civil liberties and human rights while fighting terrorism otherwise the UN may table a resolution under Item 9 in Geneva. Nepal may also be forced to cut some of its aid to Britain but because we have a ‘special relationship’, we may maintain our ‘non-lethal’ aid of supplying Gurkhas for frontline service in the British Army. Nepal stood by Britain for 189 years, putting down a mutiny in India and sacrificing our youth in two world wars. How can it cite a ‘special friendship’ while desecrating the blood of our noble ancestors who fought shoulder to shoulder as friends? Britain should be restraining the Europeans and helping the Americans in their Nepal policy. Never has a country had more ungrateful friends than you…

Rabin Rai,ex-British Gurkha

• Exploding a bus packed with civilian causing the deaths of more than 40 men, women and children in Nepal is not an act of terrorism for Britain. The Maoists have killed more than 800 civilians 450 soldiers, 350 policemen and 130 personnel from the armed police force over the past 18 months and yet it is hard for the British to see the Maoists as terrorists. Will it take a nexus between the Maoists and those responsible for the London bombings on 7/7 for the Maoists to be recognised officially as terrorists? The United States State put the CPN-M on its terrorism exclusion list but Washington’s closest ally and partner Britain does not see the Maoists as terrorists.

Rahul Thapa,email

• If it isn’t acceptable that innocent people are killed in the furtherance of a political, religious or ideological agenda, does that still mean the difference between armed insurrection and al Qaeda somehow justifies it? How did the British government first respond to IRA activities? Isn’t it part of the diplomatic code not to comment on the internal matters of other countries?

Akshyata Maskey,email

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

To Ambassador Moriarty: Shut Up!

American ambassador to Nepal, James F. Moriarty sporting a blogdai-approved appendage.

The old sour apple is at it again. Ambassador Moriarity shows his contempt for Nepal and his spoiled impatience at being stationed in Kathmandu with yet another series of clueless quotes. Blogdai wonders what genius in Washington told Moriarty to conduct his speech with blunt, frightening alarmism. Is this the U.S. voice in Nepal? Out of touch, tabloidish, and with just a cursory knowledge of Nepal's political history. There is an obvious attempt here, and in prior Moriarty statements, to talk in a demeaning way towards Nepal.

Moriarty's latest:

"Why would the Maoists be willing to give up now? Their party fought insurgency for nine years and now they see their opponents crumbled, dividing themselves, mired in acrimony," he said.

"If I were a Maoist, I'd think I was making good progress...I would try to put differences between the parties and the palace, and get them to do the Maoist business of tearing down the political structure," he added.

In an amazing feat of stupidity, Moriarty unfurls the full length of his intellectual vapidity as he opines the following:

-The Maoists got stronger after Feb. 1 takeover.
-The King tried to reach out to the Maoists after the takeover.
-Babu Ram's return has made the Maoists stronger.
-Nepal's very existence is at stake.

Moriarty, after almost predicting the patter of little-red feet down Durbar Marg closes by saying: The Maoists have to realize that they have no hope to victory. Why then the imminent disaster scenario, ambassador?

Moriarty also keeps up the drumbeat of "peaceful negotiations" as being the only way to solve the Maoist problem, but then creates his own stalemate by saying that the rebels have not changed their tactics and are bent on overthrowing the government. Blogdai guesses that Moriarty has refused to acknowledge any Maoist history prior to his arrival as ambassador or he would have seen what a fruitless exercise peace talks have turned out to be. Amazing there, James, how you can acknowledge how Maoists probably will not change their tactics yet stress that they must change their tactics and enter into peaceful negotiations.

There is one fact that drives the ambassador's thinking and speech: JAMES F. MORIARTY DOES NOT WANT TO BE IN NEPAL.

We should be aware of this the next time he issues one of his disengaged, callous statements about Nepal's situation.


Thursday, July 21, 2005

The Seven Party Army

Feeling that their time is slipping away, the seven-party alliance today announced that Maoists no longer need to lay down their arms before the parties will talk to them.

None other than Mahdav Khumar Nepal broke the news today. This is ominous. by doing this, the parties are giving tacit approval to the Maoist's armed brutality.

The Mahdav's and the Girija's of the former government now make it clear what their view of democracy entails. If we don't get our way, then we'll form an army and take over. "No compromise," they are saying by this maneuver.

So what we now have here is, essentially, a politically-expanded Maoist army.

Can we now stop sniveling about how Nepal was robbed of its democracy? Look at the type of men who were formally charged with guarding Nepal's constitution. Not a whiff of reconcilliation or intelligent debate; these are men who are ready for an all-out push to further their rigid, uncompromising positions. Talk about Panchayat!

The good thing is, now we have everyone under one roof; no ambiguities. I doubt the parties have the brains to understand that they can now be considered as armed rebels and fair game for the RNA. Blogdai couldn't be happier.


India: Arrogant and Clueless

Indian State Minister for External Affairs, Rao Inderjit Singh, arrives in Kathmandu and immediately bribes officials by offering a new Pajero to anyone who will support India's bid for the UNSC . (KOL photo)

On the same day that Girija vowed there would be no compromise with the Monarchy, and on the heels of India's endorsement of the 7-parties's political platform, India has the unmitigated gall to ask for Nepal's support in its bid to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

This is the penultimate display of Indian political philosophy. Play both sides of an issue at once and see which angle affords the most gain. Throw your support behind a corrupt old fossil like Girija while tacitly acknowledging that the legitimate current government of Nepal rests with the King.

India wants this Security Council seat badly; and as we often see, Indian greed trumps all other issues.One of our readers here at blogdai suggested that G. extort every bit of aid and compromise he can from India as the price of his endorsement. Blogdai says, go for it. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for Nepal to see India groveling, hat-in-hand, at its doorstep.

Without even a hint of irony, The Statesman, India's biased and nationalistic mouthpiece which broke the story of India's plan, publishes, in the same issue, a gushing and ridiculous fluff fantasy on the heroism of Girija--claiming that the old crook is the only chance to save Nepal.

This is India mocking Nepal to the highest degree. Do they think Nepalis would simply forget India's arrogant and aloof behavior of the the last 10 years and simply bow down to "big brother?" Also, is it me or is anyone else out their having trouble recalling an example of Girija "saving Nepal" during the last 10 years?


Girija's vow:
India visit:
Girija fluff article:

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Maoists Don't Negotiate

Maoists hit themselves in the head repeatedly in an attempt to eliminate any remaining common sense they may posess.

Blogdai gets tired of all those pundits in the media, experts in the UN, and idiots in the 7 parties spewing out vociferously how we must bring the Maoists to the negotiating table and work out a peaceful solution. Well, it makes Blogdai feel a little vociferous as well:


Everyone should get this through their heads as soon as possible. Maoists have had many good chances at the negotiating table and have either walked away abruptly or sabotaged talks by refusing to negotiate. They use talks to regroup for other attacks, period.

Maobadis are not rocket scientists; they have a very simple and strict plan--no variations. They base their operations on Mao's own concepts of a phased revolution. Maoists can't seem to think beyond these concepts of "Stratgic Defense," "Strategic Balance," followed by a "Strategic Offensive." From their own admissions, they are now waiting for the appropriate moment to stage their "Offensive." Also by their own admission, that spate of failed talks from 2000 to 2003 was considered a perfect execution of Mao's "Strategic Balance" phase.

Reporter Suman Pradhan recently returned from talking with Maoists in Rolpa and his interview with a Maoist big-shot was quite telling. Comrade Prashant, Mr. Maoist, tells our reporter:

“The Shining Path failed when Comrade Gonzalo misread the international situation,” said Prashant. “He could not take advantage of the contradictions in the international situation at that time. Without taking such advantage, he mounted a last-ditch attempt on Lima and failed. We are not making that mistake. We know the international situation and are determined to take advantage of it before we make the final push.”

Does that mean that whatever is happening in Delhi and the reported Maoist contacts with other international powers are an attempt to take advantage of the contradictions in the inherent international situation?

Comrade Prashant only smiled.

So are all these recent gestures only a tactical move?

No answer.


Friday, July 15, 2005

Indian Media Goes Berserk

It must be the monsoon...

The typically tabloidish Indian media has outdone themselves this week. In a breathtaking feat of hysterical non-research and low-brow conjecture, big brother India trips, not once, but twice over its own forked tongue.

One of our savvy readers pointed out that some outfit called "News Insight" reported that Nepal was to be governed by the UN for one year. That's a good one; the UN can't even govern themselves much less a sovereign nation. This report was way off the mark. When actual persons with actual brains were asked about this proposed takeover in Washington, the response showed a predictable annoyance with shoddy reporting: "As a State Department official I am unaware of any such proposal from the United States to the UN. (Also) A Nepali diplomat in Washington speaking on condition of anonymity said, "I have no idea" when asked about the purported proposal." Who ever these idiots at "News Insight" claim to be, they show a fundamental lack of journalistic ethics and standards.

UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi was in Nepal this week and wasted no time in playing down the UN takeover rumor. "Neither us nor anybody is needed, (the) UN believes that the Nepalese are capable of developing the necessary process which would allow them to achieve peaceful resolution, which we all wish to see," said Brahimi.

He however added, "If our help is requested, we can't say no."

According to his assessment, the situation in Nepal was not "as bad as it can be." He requested, "Please do something, work together now when the situation is not too bad."

Brahimi also said, "UN will continue to take a keen interest in the situation in Nepal and stay closely engaged. It will remain available to provide its assistance in whatever form it may be needed."He said that none of those with whom he held meetings here has talked to him about possible UN mediation in Nepal. "Nobody has spoken in that (mediation) fully exact term," said Brahimi responding journalists' question in a press conference in at UN House today.

So, in our second feat of Indian media foolishness, the Indian press refuses to let go of the "News Insight" fallacy even as it is personally refuted by the UN envoy and the State Department. The Hindustan Times, hearing only what it wants to hear, comes out with: UN WILLING TO HELP NEPAL SOLVE CONFLICT NOW,000500020003.htm Focusing on taking Brahimi's quotes out of context to create an air of impending UN takeover in Nepal, quite a different story emerges:
"Please do something to solve the problems now. If allowed to slide, it may really be difficult to resolve," "A solution is needed immediately," "If our help is required, then we can't say no."

At the same time, our old friends at India's "Telegraph" chime in with the same out-of-context banter. They use sound-bites to full effect: “One does not need to tell the people of Nepal that they are facing a very serious crisis,” and “A solution is needed urgently." The Telegraph continues to paint its picture by inferring that the situation is so dire that Brahimi could only make his statements as "a parting shot."

What gives India? Blogdai surmises that a free and democratic press in India simply means a license to make-up stories and editorialize factual statements. Anyway, why not make up stories about Nepal? The average Indian reader could care less about what goes on in Nepal, much less the accuracy of reporting on same, right?

Blogdai guesses that our brave friends at the Hindustan Times were so concerned about Nepal's imminent collapse into anarchy that they forgot to mention that they were one of the first newspapers to break the news of the new $28.5 million upgrade to India's embassy in Kathmandu.,000500020003.htm. Sounds more like an Indian take-over to me.


Update, July 18: The UN is, once again, is light-years behind the news curve; they just now came out with their version of the above story. With quick, time-critical analysis of the situation, the UN shows us all that it's better to be late than never with a story. My, wouldn't they just do a fine job of running Nepal? Rumor has it that the UN, after much deliberation, is about to make a startling announcement condemning atrocities committed during World War I. Stay tuned..

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Summer Break!

Lhotse and Lhotse Shar from upper Pangboche trail. (Photo blogdai)

Blogdai frequently forgets to take a break, apologies all around.

Looking forward to seeing all my Western, Nepali, and Indian friends when they return to my sacred harlot: Kathmandu, this fall. For all of our tourist friends, we are gathering full, up-to-date trekking information and will post it here; any information from readers will always be appreciated an accepted! Hopefully we can stretch your Maoist tax money farther.

Meanwhile, research continues....


Sunday, July 10, 2005

To Our Readers in Nepal

Since G. is blocking a few sites, blogdai, through the suggestion of some of our readers , is providing a list of proxy sites. Log on and you can surf all banned sites. This was taken from the very good--and banned--International Nepal Solidarity Network site. Those of us in Kathmandu, check out the site through any of the below listed proxy servers. You can even access if you absolutely must. -=blogdai

How to visit blocked sites
Some websites have been blocked by the authorities in Nepal.
Please learn some ways to visit blocked sites:
Go to
At “Free Anonymous Surfing” type the address you want to visit in the text box after “http://”.
Click “Surf”
After clicking you will see next page with terms and conditions. Go down of that page.
Click “Surf Anonymous”
Now you can see the site you want to visit, below the advertisement.
Some other proxy websites are:

There are other free softwares which can be used with proxy ip to view the blocked sites. it might be slow and a little headache, but it does work even if the government of Nepal blocks the above sites. goto and search for proxy software or anonymous surfing software.

So far, blogdai has confirmation that is a viable proxy from Nepal. Guardster, on the other hand, does not seem to work.

This looks like it will be an ongoing competition with those of us posting proxy servers versus the Government who is blocking these servers as soon as they are realized. So, smart, computer-savvy readers: keep posting viable proxy server addresses here. We will publish some, and cache others so that our Nepali friends can recieve some proxy addresses privately, via e-mail, without the public scrutiny of G. and hes censors.


Thursday, July 07, 2005

The Makeover Continues

Paras proudly displays his award ribbon for "Most Improved Drinking Skills" won at a local Karaoke bar in Tokyo this week. (KOL photo)

Paras is in Japan now. The purpose of the trip is irrelevant other than to give our Prince another chance at a photo-op and a speech during this new makeover period.

Sounding frightfully king-like, our boy regally speaks the Royal line when he intones: “…both our countries recognize the people as the strength of the institution of the monarchy,” Prince Paras said, “and the institution of monarchy is totally devoted to the service of the people.”

This is practice stuff. Boilerplate crap designed to make Paras look like a good guy. Does anyone truly believe the King would allow Paras to make a speech that introduces some new policy initiative or, say for example, made a comment on the Maoist situation? Not on your life. Paras is a political liability and his speeches and appearances will reflect this for a while.

This is the first act in a long production designed to groom Paras for the Throne.