"The Verge of Collapse"
Well, who's going to say it? No one? OK then, blogdai will do the honorable thing and say what should be obvious to everyone in Kathmandu:
Nepal is most definitely NOT on the verge of collapse.
Amazing that blogdai feels so compelled to butt heads with ambassador Moriarty on this, but has Moriarty even stopped to consider the obvious reason why there will be no "collapse?" The biggie is that Nepal's national military, the Royal Nepal Army, is still of one mind and still answers to one commander: the King. As long as the army is not fractionated, Nepal will not collapse, period. The Maoists can't beat 'em and won't even face 'em in numbers large enough to trigger a "collapse." Plus, the Maoists can't take Kathmandu and--thank god--the political parties can't pry loose control of the RNA from the King for their personal use. There are also no "splittist" factions in the army that might cause one concern over their loyalty.
So why all the fanfare, ambassador? Do you just want to see people living at a high level of anxiety? When asked about this in his latest interview, Moriarty seemed impishly proud of himself for causing chaos: " ….I wanted to create a debate about Maoists’ intentions. I want the people to say each other what’s Moriarty saying, why is he saying that, what is he saying about other peoples’ intentions and as long as I get people talking about that I think I accomplish my purpose. " No, your "purpose" is to represent your country and not be a catalyst for internal strife in Nepal. The ambassador's comments are intentionally inflammatory and ill-conceived. He should be removed from office.
But what a remarkable interview it was! Vijay Kumar of Frontline seemed to get to the heart of this man Moriarty. What we got was a portrait of a rambling, semi-focused ambassador who feels Nepal is so insignificant in world affairs that he can routinely ignore diplomatic protocol and "rile things up a bit" for his amusement. Blogdai's favorite highlights below:
"I can’t endorse the parties working with violent Maoists who are for violent overthrow of the state." (and) "Oh…there is absolutely nothing wrong with the parties and the Maoists trying to come up with the solution and get back to the bourgeois parliamentary democracy."
"Politics are very confusing and we have been constantly strained in understanding them.."
"Strange it may seem but my Nepali language is probably better than my understanding of Nepali politics."
"..... my understanding of Nepali politics is flawed.."
" One of the biggest gaps that I have been hitting up is of course Maoists’ intentions."
One wonders what kind of extraordinary talent ambassador Moriarty must possess to be able to predict the imminent collapse of a nation without having so much as a rudimentary knowledge of its political machinations.
It seems Moriarty's lack of political curiosity on all things Nepal allows him to consider no event prior to the phony Maoist ceasefire as being significant. He is just NOW coming to the realization that the Maoists don't negotiate. He is just NOW realizing that the 12-point agreement is a bunch of political tripe. Readers of blogdai need only to hit their scroll button to find that we posted this information months ago. A prudent observer would wonder why the most powerful nation in the world can't send to Nepal an ambassador who is better prepared.
One of the biggest things bothering blogdai, and an out-and-out lie by Moriarty is this perception that he has been against the King's takeover all along.
"... the day after the takeover by the king last year we were telling Washington look this is very counterproductive ..." Well James, WRONG! Immediately after the takeover you were very public in saying the following:
``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 of 2005 Moriarity admonishes the Nepali people to "hang in there."
At the very least we should ask ourselves if this is behavior appropriate to an ambassador. Can we cite instances around the world where an overly-outspoken ambassador such as Moriarty has achieved a positive outcome through such controversial statements? We should ask if Moriarty's remarks have helped or hurt the situation in Nepal. And, we should seriously ask: Is James F. Moriarty sufficiently qualified to represent the United States of America as its ambassador to Nepal?