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. -

-=blogdai

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


30 Comments:

At 2:58 PM, July 30, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am fed up with this depressing cynicism on this message board.

As much i love Nepal, even i can see that politics in Nepal has not become 'hot on the world stage'. The reality is that Nepal is nothing more than a small pawn in global politics and has no real importance in international affairs. Indeed it barely registers outside Delhi.

To proclaim otherwise is fantasy. Nepal is a beautiful country and it is tragic to see it be torn apart by political instability.

The muffled voices of two light weight diplomats has no bearing in Nepal or Nepali politics and you know that. The reason they sound like idiots is because they are just shuffling (rather than stamping) their whimsical government views on the matter. The fact that both the British and American views on Nepal are so incoherent and only slightly audible goes to show how much Nepal registers in their foreign policy -it just doesnt.

Nepal will only become "hot on the world stage" if a. the presenct balance becomes unstable. b. The Maoist reach their endgame and trigger a domino effect across the northern states of India. c. It is discovered that Prachanda has links with Al Quida and has been developing Nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of stopping Kevin Costner direct another movie.

I agree with much of your general anaylsis on the situation in Nepal but your abject cynicism deserves a slap in the face. It is easier to criticise and bemoan that everything is terribly wrong but it is quite another thing to actually do something about it. Are you willing to do something or are just going to continue your cynical posturing?

 
At 3:06 PM, July 30, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please just get back to the analysis and less of the BBC inspired "its all gone to pot..."

 
At 4:05 PM, July 30, 2005, Anonymous manan said...

Bloomfield's not saying anything new here. Most Nepalis don't, in my opinion, feel that every Maoist is a creature of the dark, hellbent only on destroying and killing as much as he can. There may be some in the organization who are sadists and murderers, but can you not find such types in the army and the armed police?

Still, Bloomfield was wrong to consider that the London bombers were just marginal figures who wanted to kill foreigners at any cost and preserve their version of Islam; surely his country's participation in the Iraq war fed into the anger those people felt.

However, I agree with Bloomfield's general assumption that the 7/7 bombers are a different type altogether. For our Maoists, at least in principle, don't make a point of blowing up as many civilians as they can to prove their
capabilities; they abduct, they lie, they blow up buildings, but they don't terrorize for the sheer sake. As Bloomfield said, theirs is an insurgency with a purpose. Contrast their methods with those of the Iraqi insurgents, who kill 25 to 30 innocents on an average day, and you might see what the difference a Maoist and a real terrorist is. We had one bus bombing, and the Maoist leadership made an apology. Zarqawi doesn't apologize for killing innocents; he thinks that's allright as long as it serves the grander purpose.

 
At 5:49 PM, July 30, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

We've had quite a bit more than one bus bombing, thank you. Landmines, murders, abductions; yes, I can see that the Maoists don't kill citizens at will now.

Are we ignoring Dailekh and the women there? I believe they were citizens.

Yes, Prachanda apologized for his latests blunder and that makes it ok now? He also apologized for killing a journalist last year, and apologized for terrorizing citizens and extorting money during peace talks before that. Apologies from Maoists are useless without subsequent corrective action. They mock us.

To try and encapsulate the entire Maoist issue down to one bus bombing and one apology is selective at best, foolhardy at worst.

Sorry about the cynical tone. How about a nice trekking report instead? Bloomfield and Moriarty are the voices of their countries and it would be a real "slap in the face" if their idiotic remarks were allowed to stand without critique.

What Nepal are both of you seeing? Perhaps the critical tone of this discourse can be better viewed as an attempt at fostering a greater accountability from those who direct statements towards our "small pawn." Without it, opinion and rhetoric will swing with the tide of Western fancy.

-=blogdai

 
At 11:36 PM, July 30, 2005, Anonymous PoliticalKanchha said...

Blogdai,

how bout a promise to your faithful readers that you will not comment on the comments of diplomats.

ambiguity and balance is what you will always find there.

someone with your talent should be exploring more important issues.

btw, you never answered whether you were still stationed in Nepal or not?

 
At 1:45 AM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

politicalkanchha,

I don't think Blogdai ever answers questions like this.

His comments are always an analysis of what he has read in the English based newspapers (all online), other blogs, indian news websites and so on. I have never seen him comment on something he has read in Nepal or read in Nepali.

It is my gutt feeling that he is neither Nepali or that he is based in Nepal most of the time. Perhaps he visits occassionally.

I have been living in Nepal for 20 years now and even I know that the views of ambassadors of the UK and USA are generally ignored because both countries are not greatly interested in Nepal.

 
At 1:50 AM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why this obsession with these two particular ambassadors?

You sound bitter in a lot of your comments on Nepal but particularly when you are commenting on the British and US Ambassdor.

Rehab for you.

 
At 3:53 AM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=47137
Well done Bloomfield, Nepal does not suit this failed monarchy, it suits anew republic, like India, or China, They are no better than Nepal, so why are they allowed to get rid of their mad slug-lookalike monarchies, but we can not, well done and shame on the royal eunuchs for critisising him

 
At 6:59 AM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have hod lots of negative comments here, blogdai.

 
At 10:25 AM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous manan said...

3000 Nepalis were killed last year. Who did most of the killing?

I am in no way trying to suggest that Maoists are a peaceful lot. Their actions show otherwise. But it is my belief that they are far from the bloodthirsty brutes that they are sometimes portrayed to be. As I said, that may be true for some of them, just as you'd except quite a few cruel types to enlist in the army.

Yes, on occassion they've chosen to murder teachers, journalists and the like. But do the military's methods differ by much? Isn't it true that ordinary villagers fear the army just as much as they do the Maoists?

 
At 10:57 AM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed they do.

Blogdai has a tendency to stereotype all Maoists as evil terrorists; all politicians as corrupt criminals & the king as the man to bring law & order to the country.

He ignores the complexity of the situation in favour of simplistic black and white view of the political situation in Nepal.

Such a misrepresentation is dangerous and misleading -particulary for all the foreigners who visit the message board and swallow his views whole.

The Maoists are not all brutal murderers in the same way that not all the politicians are corrupt criminals.

Its just not so simple, blogdai.

 
At 11:02 AM, July 31, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

politicalkancha (can I use "PK?")

Thanks for the vote of confidence. If I have an obsession here, it is with accuracy and the exposing of political ineptitude and manipulation, be it from the Western media or from ambassadors. It just so happens that the two ambassadors seem to be outdoing themselves this week. I would much rather obsess over Paras or one of the Koiralas.

Again, Anonymous, our purpose is to keep accuracy up. Yes, ambassadors and their comments are worthless. But, first hand, (mero ghar Bagh bazaar ma) mero Nepali saatis listen to every utterance about their country with much interest and seriousness.

Should Nepalis ignore comments from ambassadors? Sure. Will they? No. Is a comment by Moriarty claiming that nepal was (paraphrasing) "...just a bunch of feudal states" and "..could be taken over by Maoists imminently" something that should be ignored?

We take to the streets in protest whenever people like Madhuri Dixit and Hrithik Rosha make their foolish comments; is it prudent to claim that Nepalis ignore out of hand, similarly foolish comments made by the spokespersons for the world's superpowers?

I have no great issues with either Moriarty or Bloomfield; they are lightweights, true. But what we must see here is that, whether we ignore them or not, they are directing world opinion and policy towards Nepal with their words. Unfortunately, to Westerners, they are figures of authority on all subjects Nepal.

It is up to us, here in this forum, to highlight their abuse of this authority whenever possible.

To that end, we have succeeded. Pro or con, where else would you have the opportunity to even discuss these ambassadors, much less render an opinion about their relevance, than here?

-=blogdai

 
At 11:19 AM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with that the ambassador's words are nothing more than fluff. I do not see why everyone takes issue with Blogdai for simply pointing this out. His analysis is valuable. The obsessiveness is immaterial. I for one have learned a little bit more about our embassy crew in Nepal.

Vive le discussion.

 
At 11:34 AM, July 31, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

There are no clean hands in this entire situation, sure. But if you are an apologist or a defender of Maoism, prove it. Saying things like the situation "is not that simple" is fine, but back it up.

Simple is the way the world wants their news about nepal. Moriarty and Bloomfield are simpletons. Their words stick in the minds of people who don't care about Nepal as law and all one should care to know about the situation. "Simple" moves the most minds, and therefore, directs policy.

Can you give an example of Maoists being "good guys" say, after 2000? Their ideals may have some merit, sure, but have they ever given one indication or clue as to how they might implement their ideals if given the power? How would they handle the day-to-day business of government? They've not given us a hint, have they? Only numb ideological rhetoric.

At best, their vision is a strict, autocratic rule of principles loosely based on communism with no room for individual initiative or expression. Sound like a good thing to you?

 
At 11:16 PM, July 31, 2005, Anonymous Alison said...

Blogdai,

No doubt you have seen the following article:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050729-110026-1289r.htm

in which Baburam states that the Maoists "are not attempting a final military victory right now" and that they consider it "prudent to go through the substage of a democratic republic"...

Even when trying to reinforce their sympathy for, and commitment to, democractic values, the long-term aims are not buried far below the surface...

I did find it extremely disappointing that any journalist would conduct an interview with a key maoist personality (regardless of current influence) and make absolutely no reference to the violence and thuggery that seem inextricable from the realisation of maoist 'ideals' in Nepal today.

In relation to the many comments made in relation to the US and UK ambassadors - I think the issue is much less that people in Nepal take their comments seriously.

It was noted in an earlier response that Nepal is not hot on the world stage - that is true, very true.

But it is precisely this fact that makes comments by the ambassadors more powerful than they should be - externally, Nepal is granted so little airtime by the press that it usually only occurs in response to comments made by 'expert diplomats' from Western countries - and in the absence of other information, this influences and shapes opinions in other countries.

 
At 2:00 AM, August 01, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is ridiculous.

The Ambassador's are unimportant in shaping policy and the reason why they sound like they don't know anything about Nepal is because they are following the policy directive that was nicely typed up for them in DC or London.

Just let it go and concentrate on the keys issues. Even here, Blogdai needs to spend more time analysing the issues. So much of his comments are are an over simplification of what is going.

And Alison, here is an interesting question...

If journalists did not inteview the Maoists, how would someone like you who is based on the other side of the world be able to make the analysis that you did?

If Maoists were silenced and ignored by Journalists, how could we possible entertain the idea of understanding what they are about?

There is just no logic in your statement. You either want people to understand the political situation so they can make an informed decision or you do not want them to.

This blog can be frustrating reading at times because it curses the over simplification of the western media yet is guilty of the very same problems.

It begs the question, is Blogdai living in Nepal?

 
At 2:41 AM, August 01, 2005, Anonymous Alison said...

To 'anonymous',

At no point in my post did I pass judgement on whether the maoists should or should not be interviewed.

I never suggested that the maoists should be 'silenced'.

I simply made an observation that the interview did not contain any questions that challenged the actions and/or ideology of the maoists, or forced them to defend recent behaviour (ie abductions, bombings, torture etc)

Yes, I do want "people to understand the political situation so they can make an informed decision" - to quote your own words - however I maintain that in order to so, people need to be given the complete picture, and not just the messages that the maoists wish to reinforce.

And just to clarify, I referred to the ambassadors influencing opinion, not policy - which are two very different things.

I acknowledged that the ambassadors are not key players in the local scene, but unfortunately their views and statements are given far more credence outside of Nepal than they are worth by virtue of their position.

 
At 6:42 AM, August 01, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2 AM Anonymous, BlogDai has already answered your question (kind of). ;-)

Tapaain Nepali bolnu hunchha?

Some very good points here. I am still waiting for 10:57 Anonymous to give examples of good Maoists, non-corrupt politicians, and who he/she thinks would be better able to lead Nepal out of the current stalemate.

I am also curious... perhaps someone here can enlighten me... what are the main ideological differences between the CPN-M and the CPN-UML, other than the use of terrorism by the former? Excuse my ignorance... I am just trying to learn something here...

Ramta

 
At 8:13 AM, August 01, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous would like to give the Maoists a voice via journalists so that it will help all of us in "understanding what they are about" as he/she says; yet somehow embassy officials should be ignored?

One wonders why ambassadors do not warrant the same need to be understood, in anonymous's view, as the Maoists.

A blog seems to be the place where one would expand analysis and theory. Not supress it.

 
At 5:25 PM, August 01, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

I'm still going over that Babu Ram interview with The Washington Times. Great stuff...

For our arguments here, apparently, Moriarty's statements are so worthless that they give encouragement to the number two leader in the maoists. From the Times, Babu opines to wit:

" It is not only our sincere belief but the real apprehension of even our opponents, like the U.S. ambassador to Nepal, that the revolutionary forces may any time overrun the tottering royal regime."

So, anonymous, while you're ignoring the babble of ambassadors, the Maoists are getting great encouragement. Might just spur them on to greater things, who knows?

But again, forget ambassadors, they say nothing important, right?

Let's close this chapter by saying that whatever the voice of a superpower says about Nepal, no matter how insipid, is of great importance to Nepal's situation.

-=blogdai

 
At 3:39 AM, August 02, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you missed anonymous's earlier point.

Maoists will give credence to any report that supports there movement. It should come as no surprise that they give weight to the Ambassador.

Ambassador's have had little or no effect upon the political situation in Nepal. Their meddling comments mean absolutely nothing to what is going on in Nepal.

You can keep running with this if you like but i don't think you will get any where.

 
At 7:29 AM, August 02, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

The Times article quite clearly shows Babu Ram using Moriarty's statements as a rallying point.

If these statements were worthless, and more importantly, if the Maoists were in a position of strength, Babu would not have given a comment like this.

Perhaps we are debating the same point. Yes, these comments are foolish, but it was not the content of what was said but rather the effect that was so important. Kantipur immediately broke stories about "Maoist attacks imminent.." Why? because we all felt that the spokesman for the U.S. must have access to intelligence that is unavailable to Nepal.

We here at blogdai jumped on Moriarty months ago when he uttered these statements. They frightened Nepalis and cheered-on the Maoists. For that reason, Moriarty's words are as dangerous as they are irrelevant. There are immediate, obvious and verifiable effects from his words. So why do you insist on brushing them away as nothing?

Do you have an insight that we here at blogdai, the Nepal news media, and the average citizen do not? You have neither showed us the research that supports your view nor shown us how we've "missed the point." Could you most kindly provide a little more strength for your arguments next time? We would all love to hear what led you to your opinion.

-=blogdai

 
At 5:09 PM, August 04, 2005, Anonymous Ragamuffin said...

This Blimey jew is without a bloody clue. The geezer is no more than a meddlesome busy-body, right?

 
At 8:48 PM, August 04, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Well, we live in a reactive society where you can call someone a "Mick" or a "Wop" and you're liable to get a playful but terse rebuttal from someone from that group; but using "Jew" in the context you have, is realized as a blasphemous utterance guaranteed to get you a condemnation from the ADL.

Bloomfield is a fool, but not because he may or may not be Jewish. His foolishness is in no way related to his ethnicity or religious practice.

Just as the western media would not dare speak against even the most liberal use of the term "democracy" by acknowledging the necessary removal of Nepal's corrupt parties; Blogdai will not bite, thank you, on the international "sacred cow" of the perceived anti-semitism in your remarks.

The culture of perpetual victim-hood is all-powerful, all knowing, and all paranoid.

Please choose your words more carefully.

-=blogdai

 
At 9:41 PM, August 04, 2005, Anonymous manan said...

"Can you give an example of Maoists being "good guys" say, after 2000? Their ideals may have some merit, sure, but have they ever given one indication or clue as to how they might implement their ideals if given the power?"

"Some merit?" How about they want to make Nepal an egalitarian country, while the King would like to make it once more his own little plaything?

And yes, they would if they came into power introduce some very nasty ideas, private initiative would be no more, but that's not close to happening, is it? I think the leadership has realized that a Maoist takeover of the country is unlikely, that they had better go back into negotiations, give up some of their extremist ideas. Isn't that what the Baburam-Prachanda crack symbolized?

That the King did not respond to that, and that the two went back together shows well how bringing peace to the country is not his real goal. No, he wants to keep the image of Maoists as total fanatics and terrorists alive so he can appear to be doing something. Its a tactic he's learnt from his old friend Pervez Musharraf, with the difference that the latter rules a country that has both Islamic extremists in high echelons of power ,bad relations with most of its neighbors, and nuclear weapons. And he's a selfmade guy. He doesn't buy himself a fleet of Rolls Royces while his countrymen starve, he's not the overpriveleged scion of a family that has had for two hundred years itself subsidized by the nation. Kingdoms have in neighboring India, with the exception of the Scindhias, become political nothings. That's the way it should be. But here in Nepal, we still have someone trying to fight the forward thrust of history, if you ask what the Maoist vision for Nepal is, it can't be worse than that of its current "leader", who stocks his government with lapdogs, jails dissidents, has the army run amok, thumbs up his nose at the world, and
lives as opulently as his family ever has while those he calls his subjects get pushed down evermore into poverty.

 
At 5:52 AM, August 05, 2005, Anonymous Ragamuffin said...

Hey BD,

Why are you so damned paranoid for calling a "Jew" a jew?

Don't you worry, mate. I actually meant to say Limey not Blimey, old chap.

B'NAI B'RITH'S ADL is used to hide the truth by screaming "ANTI-SEMITISM! to anything that they construed to be against the "chosen people".

How about them being ANTI-SEMITE themselves because SEMITE people also include the ARABS if you know your anthropology.

The words "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Semitic" are, in fact, semantic misnomers. Jews constitute no more than 10 percent of the world's Semites. The overwhelming majority of Semites are Arabs. Furthermore, most Jews today could not trace their ancestry back to the Holy Land and, therefore, are not true Semites at all. Ninety percent of the world's Jews are descended from converts to Judaism, mostly the Khazars in what is now the southern USSR.

 
At 7:58 AM, August 05, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

manan, you've distilled the issue down to its primary point: What would you rather have? Maoist autocracy or royal autocracy? Nicely done.

Rag, I tend to think of the Sharon's of the world and those who constantly have their fingers poised to press the anti-semitism button as being ant-semetic themselves. I can't abide by those who will not tolerate a little ribbing from time to time; it is a forced superiority complex.

Forget the line about all the atrocities committed in the past either; the mark of a forward-thinking culture is their ability to move on. Many in the "Semite" community refuse to do so. Too bad. Victimized cultures have a real chance to teach the world about humanity when they move past their history.

Look at how many Cambodians were wiped out under Pol Pot. And talk about atrocities, fully one quarter of the Tibetan population was killed when the Chinese invaded. Plus, roughly 6,000 monasteries destroyed. Ironically, Tibetans are often the first to laugh at jokes about their culture and backwardness. These are the people we learn from.

So, no, I still won't bite on this issue, and yes, perhaps I am a bit paranoid; but the thought of irate Israeli backpackers taking over this thread is more than I can bear.

-=blogdai

 
At 9:25 PM, August 08, 2005, Blogger Binnie said...

Enjoyed the ambassador follies—continued! Reminds of The Ugly American where the Ambassador can't actually read (nor have any one read to him with any success) the papers.

 
At 3:53 PM, August 09, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Can't and won't I think. Both Moriarty and Bloomfield come to the table with a drumbeat and an agenda.

A little reading of the papers as you say would give them enough background and historical context to make actual relevant comments about Nepal. We can't have that, can we?

To the U.S. and the U.K., Nepal is just a place to ram home the dogmatic and inflexible opinions that keep the fringe constituents of Blair and Bush happy. Their comments are neither innovative nor forward thinking.

Thankfully, there is a serious move to expel at least bloomfield from Nepal. Let's hope Moriarity gets scheduled for a boot as well.

-=blogdai

 
At 4:00 PM, August 09, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is inconceivable to me how anyone in a powerful position like Keith Bloomfield can get away with the things that come out of his mouth.

How can people who are selected as the voice of their country spew out such foolishness?

I utterly disagree with previous comments saying that these people are ignored and have no relevance. How dreadfully uninformed!

Ambassadors speak the policy of their countries. It is ashamed that the people of Nepal think that British sentiment and wisdom lie with this imposter.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home