A “positive development”! Time was such an election result would have been a casus belli, or something pretty near, at least in the eyes of the U.S. (Remember what happened to Chile.)
Why such a change in international attitudes?
Why can’t such change be applied to U.S.-Cuban relations already?
What will the Maoists actually do in/with/to Nepal?
For the humor-impaired: not literally, of course. Merely a phrase intended to invoke the memory of Reagan’s dramatic demand and the actual destruction of the wall by individuals not related to Gorbachev.
A few reasons. First off is that the royal government of Nepal has had almost no legitamacy with anyone ever since the prince killed off the entire royal family after a bad dinner party. There are few people in the world who recognize it as anything but a “we don’t know what else to do” government. The Maoists, though baddies, do have some legitamite support.
Another is that there are just about no natural resources in Nepal, nor much of anything worth fighting for. The only industry there is at all is tourism…and how many people do you that have visited Nepal? For all practical purposes Nepal is already pretty much controlled by India, and not much is going to change that.
Why can’t such change be applied to U.S.-Cuban relations already?
Because we hate Castro, but we probably don’t even know the king of Nepal’s name. And Nepal is in the middle of nowhere and exports nothing.
What will the Maoists actually do in/with/to Nepal?
I once stumbled into Maoist controlled Nepal. The people there were no friends of the Maoists, who’s recruiting tactic was to throw a party, get everyone drunk, and then tell them they were joining the army or else…but people were sympathetic to their cause.
Nepal is a dirt poor nation, and in recent years there has been a spate of people losing their land to the handfull of landowner families that own like 80% of Nepal. A lot of times there is trickery involved in this, as people who can’t read have to take the other guy’s word when they sign a contract. This has made a lot of people upset. Add that to the fact that the government is a monarchy with (as mentioned above) essentially no provinence except random chance.
Will they make anything better? History says probably not. But most people seemed to think it was worth a shot.
What does “Maoist” even mean nowadays, anyway?
[/QUOTE]
Not much.
FWIW these are probably the world’s friendlist rebels, at least to outsiders. They actually issued a letter to tourists welcoming them into their country and pointing out it’s wonders. They really do plan to rule Nepal, and they recognize the almsot the entire GDP is tourism, so they are quite dedicated to making people feel okay there.
Well, it’s a new Castro, and I don’t think a whole lot of people outside of Cuba have any sort of opinion on him. So there’s an opportunity for change.
By and large it’s all linked to the fall of Communism as “global movement” designed to overthrow “the bourgeoisie” in every country in the world. From COMINTERN to Cominform and later strong collaborations between communist parties across the globe, there was a genuine fear that the goal of all communists was global communism. There was evidence that communism was effectively spreading like a disease, and that its members wanted it to pretty much overtake the world–by any means necessary (violent revolution or peaceful victories at the ballot box.)
As the Soviet Union grew weaker throughout the Cold War, and you saw rifts in international communist ideology become more and more prominent I think people quit being afraid that the reds were trying to take over the world.
Now that there is no major power like the USSR seeking to spread communism over the world, it’s not something the west fears. The west has little fear of home grown communism these days.
The United States never cared about Chile in and of itself, it cared about Chile as yet another vector for the spread of Soviet-supported communism. The fact that communism as an international movement is dead is why no one cares.
Communism arising independently in a few third world countries doesn’t alarm anyone. Chinese communism, which is not concerned at all with spreading itself over the globe, is likewise not very threatening.
The United States and other western countries never feared the ideas behind communism. Most western leaders realized they could deal with communists by giving in to some of their demands but keeping the existing power structure intact. This gives the people enough satisfaction that they have no desire to get involved in the communist movement. Essentially the best strategy the west had for keeping communism from developing internally was to give in to a few of the reds’ demands, throw them a bone, and deflate the vigor of many of their members so that only a few die-hard people still support the idea.
That’s even how Otto von Bismarck dealt with workers in Germany who started advocating for socialist reforms–he gave in to many of them in order to deflate the movement and keep the existing power structure intact.
The fear during the Cold War was primarily of the Soviets extending their sphere of influence over many non-Western countries, like India, China, et al. and then more or less eradicating the west by force.
That fear wasn’t entirely rational, but it was what it was.
Someone has to stand up in a position of power and advocate a normalization of relations. Then that person has to get elected to high office, then he has to get his ideas implemented. Strong interests, many of them Cuban expat, will work against such a person throughout their attempts to do this.
It’s much more a matter of domestic politics than it is a matter of foreign policy when it comes to Cuba.
I think the article’s predictions are pretty spot on. They’ll try to modernize Nepal. I think another reason people aren’t too concerned about this is the system they are getting rid of wasn’t too great, and it looks like Nepal will have a system where competing ideas can win at the ballot box.
A big problem many people had with communist states during the Cold War was they tended to establish themselves and then outlaw any other forms of political opposition, so that once a state was controlled by a communist party, all political opposition was effectively outlawed. It doesn’t seem that this will be the case in Nepal.
That’s a GQ question, not a question for debate IMO.
Really, I think it has more to do with the soviet union and communism being the boogey-man then and terrorism being the flavor for today. Now if some sort of muslim-terrorist-funded party was democratically elected to power and promised far-reaching yet sensible reforms, then we’d be calling it a travesty. E.g. hamas.
Communism never presented a true threat to the west, same as terrorism doesn’t now. It was pumped-up by politcians. And the people it did, actually, threaten, were the rich, including all the millionaires in Congress. Ironically, our hatred for communism was greatest when it best looked like it had the chance of being a successful, beneficial form of government (ie, in the 50s).
Did anyone ever care when Mongolia went Communist? Did anyone care when it went democratic?
Or: Nepal isn’t strategic in any way. And, at this point, communism is a bad joke.
Put those two together, and the strategic significance of this is somewhere between zero and a negative number.
Very interesting interview (not with anybody actually in Nepelase politics or government, but with a journalist and a human-rights activist who have been following it all closely). This is interesting:
What’s this have to do with pickle production?