(no subject)
Apr. 28th, 2006 09:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danalwynI have gotten back from my second conference. So far, I've never presented anything that has anything to do with what I'm supposed to be doing.
I'll talk more about conferences in general later. However, I guess I should do something serious now. I blame this on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elvesarepretty, because today instead of starting on the top of my news feed as usual, I read up on Nepal, a subject about which my facts are still sparse. This is because the facts are still sparse.
Nepal reminds me a bit of Gettysburg. Neither Meade nor Lee intended to fight at Gettysburg. Nevertheless, this was where their armies ran into each other, so this was where they fought. Nobody wanted an uprising in Nepal, and none of the major powers wants a clash. Nevertheless, there is trouble underfoot, so a clash is what we're going to get.
Nepal makes observer of the International scene nervous just by existing. It sits between the two unfriendly Asian powers, on one side the Chinese, whose entire grand strategy is so hidden in mystery that sometimes we suspect that not even they know what it is, on the other side the Indians, whose government sometimes seems to be even more chaotic than even the Americans. These two nations have not had an historically pleasant relationship, and the two of them spend a great deal of time stepping rather carefully around each other in an attempt not to step on each other's toes.
The good news is that no superpower, regional power, or even non-power wants a fight in Nepal. Everyone in the international community agrees on this one, from the State Department bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom, to the ambassadors in the United Nations, to the bums living on the street in Nigeria. Even Osama bin Laden probably doesn't want anything to go down in Nepal (although I'm not in sympathy with him). Since everyone has agreed to this simple plan, nobody seems to know what to do now that one has broken out.
China has a bit of paranoia in their makeup. Consensus is that they would not be happy with letting India take posession of Nepal. India feels likewise about China. This is not a real difficulty, because neither nation really wants Nepal, and in fact, if they had it, they would probably be trying to give it back. Even though, on paper, Nepal is strategically located between the two powers, it occupies a position in one of the most inhospitable and intractable mountain ranges on the face of the Earth. Neither nations is about to begin invading over the Himalayas, and neither nation is particularly worried about the possibility. At the same time, neither nation wants other countries (read, the United States) building their own bases there. The Chinese have made it clear that they don't want the US in North Korea. Nepal may be farther from Beijing, but that doesn't make the PRC any happier. At the same time, as chummy as we may be with the Indians in this day and age, they don't want us poking around nearby either.
That leaves the Nepalese themselves to straighten out their problems, which is about as likely as the Iraqis strengthening out their government. Not only is the problem one of a corrupt government versus a popular opposition, it's also a conflict with significant ethnic and class issues. And, to top all that off, there are caste issues. The thing is now so complicated that it's hard to tell who is fighting for what where, and who is going to take over when the dam breaks.
Of course, the International Community knows who they want to win, namely the opposition parties, who are still pushing for democratic change in Nepal. That includes a large number of democratic reformists, determined students, and idealistic leaders. The problem is that, of the three main power blocks, the opposition seems the one least likely to win. They are severely lacking in foxhole strength, a concept that's gotten outdated recently, and has been replaced by rifle strength: the number of rifles you can put into the hands of your supporters. Everyone is acutely aware that there are two powerhouses sitting at either end of the negotiating table, the Maoist insurgents, and the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA).
There are parallels for the Spanish Civil War, which was fought by two political sides over a moderate middle. If you remember your history, one side was composed of paranoid maniacs, authoritarian idealistic fanatics who were perfectly willing to engage in genocide on their own people if it would assist them in pursuing their ideal world. The other side was made up of fascists. Whichever side you came down on, you lost. The situation in Nepal is similar, except that it's a whole hell of a lot colder.
On one side, you have the Maoists. This is strange, after all, the only other Maoist group in the world is the ever-unsuccessful Shining Path guerrilla movement in Peru. Nobody likes Maoists. To make it worse, these Maoists appear to strongly depend on recruits from the Magar tribal group, which makes them suspect. They are also total bastards, but they have weapons. Their early guerrilla raids resulted in the destruction of most of the local governments and police forces; now they are content to struggle with the RNA. They are numerically inferior, rumored to have several thousand actual soldiers, but they outnumber the military forces available to the political opposition by a long shot.
On the other side, you have the RNA. In its traditional incarnation, the RNA had 70,000 troops, centered around 15 infantry brigades. These numbers are subject to change. Lacking the initiative in a country where it's difficult to travel, they reply by arming the so-called "vigilante groups", being heavy handed, oppressing the oppressed, and generally behaving like asses. At the same time, they're the army that the government, whatever the government turns into, will have to use to enforce its rule.
It's hard to tell which side has the moral high ground. Is it better to gang-rape underage girls, or force them into service as sex slaves? On one hand, it's over faster, on the other, at least they feed them. It's questions like these that make the ethics board nervous whenever I go to talk to them. On one hand, the RNA beats and shoots suspected Maoist sympathizers, engages in torture, supports vigilante groups that mutilate and rape citizens, and kill peaceful demonstrators. On the other hand, the Maoists kidnap villagers and children to serve as forced labor, sex slaves, and human shields. On the morality scale, -1000 may be better than -1001, but it both looks like rock bottom to the rest of the world. Any stable solution that excludes the Maoists (especially if they still stick to the dictum of a People's Revolution, will do nothing to stop the guerrilla war that is tearing the country apart. Any solution that ignores the RNA leaves the dominant military force in a situation where they have nothing left to lose. Whatever new government there is will probably have to use both Maoist insurgent forces and government troops to restore order to the country, despite the fact that both groups are filled with human rights abusers, homocidal maniacs, and the usual refuse that rises to the top when there's an opportunity to do harm to other people.
The only hope is that the centrist opposition gets its act together and comes up with enough support, or, without that, enough brute force to keep this whole thing from blowing up in people's faces. It's one of those situations where the International Community does not want to pick sides. They don't want the king, they don't want the Maoists, but they can't think of a way to keep one of those parties from trying to seize power.
One thing is certain. Unless the moderates can gain the support of the RNA, without offending the Maoists, this is going to be long, bloody, and without much of a solution. And don't expect anyone else to interfere.
I'll talk more about conferences in general later. However, I guess I should do something serious now. I blame this on
elvesarepretty, because today instead of starting on the top of my news feed as usual, I read up on Nepal, a subject about which my facts are still sparse. This is because the facts are still sparse.Nepal reminds me a bit of Gettysburg. Neither Meade nor Lee intended to fight at Gettysburg. Nevertheless, this was where their armies ran into each other, so this was where they fought. Nobody wanted an uprising in Nepal, and none of the major powers wants a clash. Nevertheless, there is trouble underfoot, so a clash is what we're going to get.
Nepal makes observer of the International scene nervous just by existing. It sits between the two unfriendly Asian powers, on one side the Chinese, whose entire grand strategy is so hidden in mystery that sometimes we suspect that not even they know what it is, on the other side the Indians, whose government sometimes seems to be even more chaotic than even the Americans. These two nations have not had an historically pleasant relationship, and the two of them spend a great deal of time stepping rather carefully around each other in an attempt not to step on each other's toes.
The good news is that no superpower, regional power, or even non-power wants a fight in Nepal. Everyone in the international community agrees on this one, from the State Department bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom, to the ambassadors in the United Nations, to the bums living on the street in Nigeria. Even Osama bin Laden probably doesn't want anything to go down in Nepal (although I'm not in sympathy with him). Since everyone has agreed to this simple plan, nobody seems to know what to do now that one has broken out.
China has a bit of paranoia in their makeup. Consensus is that they would not be happy with letting India take posession of Nepal. India feels likewise about China. This is not a real difficulty, because neither nation really wants Nepal, and in fact, if they had it, they would probably be trying to give it back. Even though, on paper, Nepal is strategically located between the two powers, it occupies a position in one of the most inhospitable and intractable mountain ranges on the face of the Earth. Neither nations is about to begin invading over the Himalayas, and neither nation is particularly worried about the possibility. At the same time, neither nation wants other countries (read, the United States) building their own bases there. The Chinese have made it clear that they don't want the US in North Korea. Nepal may be farther from Beijing, but that doesn't make the PRC any happier. At the same time, as chummy as we may be with the Indians in this day and age, they don't want us poking around nearby either.
That leaves the Nepalese themselves to straighten out their problems, which is about as likely as the Iraqis strengthening out their government. Not only is the problem one of a corrupt government versus a popular opposition, it's also a conflict with significant ethnic and class issues. And, to top all that off, there are caste issues. The thing is now so complicated that it's hard to tell who is fighting for what where, and who is going to take over when the dam breaks.
Of course, the International Community knows who they want to win, namely the opposition parties, who are still pushing for democratic change in Nepal. That includes a large number of democratic reformists, determined students, and idealistic leaders. The problem is that, of the three main power blocks, the opposition seems the one least likely to win. They are severely lacking in foxhole strength, a concept that's gotten outdated recently, and has been replaced by rifle strength: the number of rifles you can put into the hands of your supporters. Everyone is acutely aware that there are two powerhouses sitting at either end of the negotiating table, the Maoist insurgents, and the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA).
There are parallels for the Spanish Civil War, which was fought by two political sides over a moderate middle. If you remember your history, one side was composed of paranoid maniacs, authoritarian idealistic fanatics who were perfectly willing to engage in genocide on their own people if it would assist them in pursuing their ideal world. The other side was made up of fascists. Whichever side you came down on, you lost. The situation in Nepal is similar, except that it's a whole hell of a lot colder.
On one side, you have the Maoists. This is strange, after all, the only other Maoist group in the world is the ever-unsuccessful Shining Path guerrilla movement in Peru. Nobody likes Maoists. To make it worse, these Maoists appear to strongly depend on recruits from the Magar tribal group, which makes them suspect. They are also total bastards, but they have weapons. Their early guerrilla raids resulted in the destruction of most of the local governments and police forces; now they are content to struggle with the RNA. They are numerically inferior, rumored to have several thousand actual soldiers, but they outnumber the military forces available to the political opposition by a long shot.
On the other side, you have the RNA. In its traditional incarnation, the RNA had 70,000 troops, centered around 15 infantry brigades. These numbers are subject to change. Lacking the initiative in a country where it's difficult to travel, they reply by arming the so-called "vigilante groups", being heavy handed, oppressing the oppressed, and generally behaving like asses. At the same time, they're the army that the government, whatever the government turns into, will have to use to enforce its rule.
It's hard to tell which side has the moral high ground. Is it better to gang-rape underage girls, or force them into service as sex slaves? On one hand, it's over faster, on the other, at least they feed them. It's questions like these that make the ethics board nervous whenever I go to talk to them. On one hand, the RNA beats and shoots suspected Maoist sympathizers, engages in torture, supports vigilante groups that mutilate and rape citizens, and kill peaceful demonstrators. On the other hand, the Maoists kidnap villagers and children to serve as forced labor, sex slaves, and human shields. On the morality scale, -1000 may be better than -1001, but it both looks like rock bottom to the rest of the world. Any stable solution that excludes the Maoists (especially if they still stick to the dictum of a People's Revolution, will do nothing to stop the guerrilla war that is tearing the country apart. Any solution that ignores the RNA leaves the dominant military force in a situation where they have nothing left to lose. Whatever new government there is will probably have to use both Maoist insurgent forces and government troops to restore order to the country, despite the fact that both groups are filled with human rights abusers, homocidal maniacs, and the usual refuse that rises to the top when there's an opportunity to do harm to other people.
The only hope is that the centrist opposition gets its act together and comes up with enough support, or, without that, enough brute force to keep this whole thing from blowing up in people's faces. It's one of those situations where the International Community does not want to pick sides. They don't want the king, they don't want the Maoists, but they can't think of a way to keep one of those parties from trying to seize power.
One thing is certain. Unless the moderates can gain the support of the RNA, without offending the Maoists, this is going to be long, bloody, and without much of a solution. And don't expect anyone else to interfere.