Foreign minister Ramesh Nath Pandey, recently on a visit to India, has reiterated that the government will not allow any international quarters to ‘broker peace and stability for the resolution of the Maoist problem’. In an interview to India’s Press Trust of India on March 5, Pandey raised the bogey of the ‘common’ threat to India and Nepal, and even other neighbouring countries, coming from the Nepali Maoists ‘operating in collusion with their ultra-Left counterparts in India”, and called on the international community to treat the Maoist insurgency as a ‘phenomenon of international terrorism’. He alleged international ‘double standards’ on the definition of terrorism, even seeking to equate Maoist insurgency with religious militancy in other countries.

On the other hand, there is no dearth of countries or credible international agencies, including the UN, ready with all needed help to resolve the ten-year-old insurgency within a democratic framework. For example, Norway, which is brokering peace in the Sri Lankan conflict, has shown a willingness to do so, provided all sides agree to it, according to Norwegian ambassador to Nepal Tore Toreng. However, the problem lies in the government’s intransigence. The Maoists, for their part, have made any peace talks conditional on a considerable international role. The seven-party alliance, the civil society and public opinion do appear to be in favour of this idea.

Unfortunately, the government’s position happens to have the support of India and the US, though for different reasons. Neither Nepal’s rejection of international role on the ground that it is a sovereign country or that the Maoist problem is an internal problem, nor these countries’ view that the Nepalis can resolve the problem by themselves is supported by facts. International facilitation or mediation means the use of international good offices for a political solution; such an agency cannot dictate terms, as some of foreign diplomats are doing here. If this is not acceptable to Nepal, it can well be argued, on what moral authority is Nepal importunating India and the US for the resumption of lethal military hardware. Undoubtedly, it is seeking arms not for the defence of the country, but for suppressing the Maoists, who are also Nepalis, and, for weakening the mainstream political parties who are fighting a pro-democracy battle. If Nepal can send its troops on UN peacekeeping missions in other conflict-torn countries, which also hold their sovereignty equally dear, is it not gross double standards on the part of this unelected and therefore unaccountable government to refuse international mediation, even that of the UN?