As a superpower, the United States of America has every means to think of under the sun to help Nepal out of its current quagmire. It has political, military and economic might to influence the course of events in a tiny country like ours. Politically, for example, the US President George W Bush did help cancel the planned visit of King Gyanendra to New York in September last year during the special UN General Assembly session. Militarily, it was the hardware and software assistance the US extended to the Royal Nepalese Army that prevented, as the Maoists admitted, the rebel takeover of the Nepali government. Economically, the US has a big hand in diverting the external assistance from Nepal since the royal takeover on February 1, 2005, which is driving it to the point of bankruptcy.

They are the things of the past. What about the ways the US can really help Nepal in future? It can definitely bring all our political actors together by persuasion or by coercion. But, on the contrary, Ambassador James F. Moriarty is pleading for an accord between the palace and the political parties with the single aim to isolate the Maoists. Even if he succeeds in doing so, he is not helping to solve the problem of the Maoists he considered the core issue in Nepal. On the other hand, he is hitting hard at the 12-point accord between the seven political parties and the rebels, an understanding that paves the way, as he prescribed several times, for bringing the Maoists into the non-violent competitive political mainstream.

Moriarty, representing a formidable power of the world, should better be proactive in resolving the conflict instead of reacting in resentment to the initiatives coming from internal forces of Nepal.

The United States has every capability to twist the arms of any of our actors in conflict towards resolution or aggravation. To our regret, it is pushing it from bad to worse in aggravation.

The other way the United States can help Nepal is by taking help from it. Moriarty recently admitted that he might not have understood the Nepali politics in its true colours. But he should have no difficulty in understanding the basic nature of the Nepali people and their problems. Is it not clear to him that the people are honest, loyal and brave? Is it not clear to him that their main problem is poverty and destitution? Is it not clear to him that they can go to distant and unknown lands for earning bread despite grave risks? Does he not see a big potential in them to help the Americans in difficult countries at critical times? President Bush faces internal criticism for engaging US troops in troubled spots around the world. Would it not be a great relief for him to replace his troops with those from Nepal with less cost but greater effectiveness?

Americans would do a great service to Nepal by taking help from the Nepalis to work for them in all kinds of contingencies. The British once fought with the Nepalis but made great friendship with them after they understood the intrinsic merit of our people. Can’t the Americans follow the British example by seeking to hire our boys and girls for formidable duties with formidable economic incentives? Is Moriarty not impressed by how our soldiers are fighting even short of bullets and state-of-the-art weapons and the rebels combating in tatters, barefoot and with outmoded guns?

He can imagine how they would be fighting if given half-a-million-dollar outfit entailing the bullet-proof vests and nutrition pills that the American soldiers are endowed in their deployment abroad. If two billion dollars get diverted to Nepal out of this new Nepal-American accord from, say, 80 billion dollars Americans are annually spending in Iraq, there will neither be poverty nor conflict in our country, let alone communism and numerous communist parties.

If giving or taking help is not acceptable to the Americans, they better keep quiet and remain indifferent to our conflict, conundrum and conflagration. We suffered but survived during 100 years of the Rana rule, 30 years of one-man rule, and 12 years of democratic but corrupt rule. In the same process, we will suffer but still survive the direct royal rule and so will we do if and when the Maoists take over. By Moriarty’s reckoning, we won’t have to wait for long to see it all happening. Even when the Maoists start ruling this country, they cannot be as arbitrary and authoritarian as they contemplate. Vietnam or Laos is a good example of initial communist rule giving slowly in to the inevitable and enviable economic liberalisation and social modernisation. Are we not fated to taste a communist regime given the dominance of leftist forces around us? That could be the only unavoidable process of getting rid of the absolute power of the obsolete ideology. If the Americans stand nonchalant, we will pass over all these historic processes pretty fast. Sooner the better.

Shrestha is co-coordinator, Volunteers

Mediators Group for Peace