amit

KATHMANDU (AFP) - Pakistan is ready to provide arms and counter-insurgency training to help Nepal face down an increasingly bloody Maoist revolt, Islamabad's outgoing ambassador here Zamir Akram said in an interview.

Photo
AFP/File Photo



"We are ready to share our experience and, hopefully, this will help Nepal," Akram said in the interview with the Rising Nepal published on Friday.

"So, we are ready to help in whatever way we can. Pakistan is also facing terrorist threats on our western border. We have developed some kind of expertise, especially in the use of high-tech equipment by the terrorists," he told the state-run English daily.

"We, within the SAARC level and at the bilateral level, have offered an exchange of information," he added, referring to the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) which groups Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

"We have offered possibilities of training. We are also ready to provide arms if that is required by Nepal."

Last month, India and Britain suspended military aid to Nepal after King Gyanendra seized power, firing the government, imposing emergency rule and vowing to tackle the Maoist uprising that has claimed 11,000 lives since 1996.

The United States is mulling similar action amid reports Gyanendra is considering turning to neighbouring China for arms if the flow of weaponry to help Nepal's ill-equipped army battle the Maoist rebels dries up.

Akram declined to be drawn into commenting on the king's power grab, saying it was an "internal" matter and that Pakistan believed in "non-interference".

"We believe the issue here is peace and security. We believe that the people of Nepal and all the political forces that are operating need to cooperate with each other to find a solution by themselves. This is how we look at it, and we feel the people and the government of Nepal are capable of finding the solution," Akram said.

India has made a similar call, urging Gyanendra to reconcile his differences with Nepal's political parties to help stem the rapidly "deteriorating" economic and security situation in the kingdom.

India, which shares a nearly 1,600-kilometer (990-mile) border with Nepal, is anxious for an end to the political crisis.

It is concerned that Maoist violence could spill into Indian states where radical leftist groups are powerful.

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_050311062740

My Opinion: this is a big concern for India. This can possibly create an Anti-India Nepal. Nepal is so lucky that so many countries want to pur their presence there.

Karthik

So one authoritarian regime reaches out to another. Wonderful. How the seizure of power would help in defeating the maoists is beyond me.

__________________
"There is no excellence in all this world that can be separated from right living." - David Star Jordan My Blog

Blademaster

If King Gavendra of Nepal accepts such help, then NPA better invade Nepal.

If they don't, then the leaders of NPA are too stupid to run India. There is no way in hell that India will let Nepal accept such help from Pakistan. If Nepal do, then India will give full support to the Maoists and support the overthrow of King Gavendra.

By all rights, India should invade Nepal to secure the borders and ensure that no cross border terrorism take place in Nepal.

ajaybhutani

jsut a few points i would like to mention
1. its UPA( united progressing allicance.) while the previous one was NDA.
2. In principle india cannot go with maoists as they are also in india doing acts of terrorism( indian maoists are believed to get funding from the nepali maoists.).
3. Extending borders with china is not a very good idea but surely if we need to choose between a bigger border with china and a nepal controlled by pak or say maoists( if pak dsnt help) i think we better invade it for the sake of poor nepalise who deserve a better chance to elect new leaders. Though later we can even go for a vote to including it in the indian union or maybe give it a ikindof autonomy under india. ( Depending upon the world reaction and the prople of nepal and their choice.
4. China';s reaction to india increasing its grip and coming near is to be watched though i dont think chain anty more thinks of india as a country which will attack it but more like a potential trading partner. We can be optimistic but we need to make the chineese believe that its for good for all ( even china by say linking the chineese terrorism with maoists or nepal or showing that bigger trade routes will open etc etc).
5. We need lots of support for it and that too soon for surely the condiditon is quite bad with the king not even ready to talk with indian representatives.

keshto patel

How much more will Natwar Singh lose for India?


14 March 2005: There are limits to the bloodymindedness of Natwar Singh’s conduct of foreign policy. Against military opinion expressed within the government, and despite exhortations from other quarters, including this magazine, India pursued a policy of democracy-or-nothing in Nepal, on the adamancy of Natwar, and now, this has blown on our face.

Since he captured power in a coup, King Gyanendra had been suing for resuming Indian military assistance against the Maoist rebels, but these requests were repeatedly turned down, because India took a moral position for a return of democracy in Nepal. Moral positions are fine so long you have the power or levers to enforce them, and since the UK, with really nothing to lose, backed the Indian position, we were basking in the glory of straightening out Nepal. Or that is what we thought.

The US, for all its pro-democracy talk, was not willing to suspend such military assistance as it gives to Nepal against the insurgents, and China had held out assurances to King Gyanendra that it would veto any censure moves in the UN against the coup. Despite these early warnings of a possible derailment of India’s pressure tactics on Nepal, we stepped on the gas, culminating with a wholly unnecessary admission by the foreign office spokesman that all military aid to the kingdom had been terminated.

Nepal is your immediate neighbour in the North East, not your enemy, and together with Bhutan, they provide buffers to China in Tibet. You may pressure such a neighbour in private, very privately, but you don’t slap it around in public, if such slapping around gains you nothing but cheap publicity, and brings no extra credit to your democracy. To this day, there is no logical explanation for why India went public with terminating assistance to Nepal.

Not all, Nepal’s foreign minister, Ramesh Nath Pandey, waited two weeks and more, before last week’s visit to India, for an audience with Natwar Singh, but Natwar wouldn’t deign to see him. Ramesh Nath told our ambassador in Kathmandu that the Indian desire for a sixty-day fight to the finish with the Maoists was unrealistic because of the terrible state of Nepal’s civil-military interface, but a hundred days would give the king room to return some of the previous democracy. It took some convincing for the ambassador to get Ramesh Nath to New Delhi, but here, Natwar Singh introduced further conditions, demanding an end to the emergency, release of detained politicians, and bringing some of them into a council to fight the insurgents. In return, India would consider resuming military aid.

Natwar had to recommend the final position to the Union cabinet, whether or not to resume aid, and on Ramesh Nath’s return, one of the conditions was met, prominently, the release of jailed politicians. But Indian assistance didn’t happen along, because as we published intelligence on Saturday, Ramesh Nath was on the line to the Pakistan foreign minister, Mehmud Ahmed Kasuri, requesting for emergency military assistance.

At our time of publishing the intelligence, Pakistan had not gone public with its aid offer to Nepal, but subsequently did, understanding its huge propaganda consequences against India and in its favour, as a friendly power in South Asia. Kasuri’s response to Ramesh Nath’s request, according to diplomatic sources, was warm, and almost enthusiastic. Nepal wanted eight military items on an emergency basis, including two hundred rocket launchers and two thousand automatic grenade launchers, and Pakistan readily accepted to supply them from its own army stocks, at a minimum forty per cent down payment. It said it would deliver the weapons free at Kathmandu, a small price to pay for showing down India.

Now Pakistani aid to Nepal has the Indian government in a panic. According to the papers, Natwar who is abroad is rushing back, and the whole recent relations with Nepal will be gone over. As face-saver, India will probably repeat its pious democratic exhortations to Nepal, but privately concede to the king’s request for weapons. But any great advantages from this may not flow to India, because India has effectively lost its lever with Nepal. Earlier, Nepal was seeking alms at our table, but we were too haughty to pay heed, but with Pakistan intervening, India is being forced to be friendly again. The lever is lost in the sense that Nepal controls it now. It knows anything can be obtained from India by playing the Pakistan card, and this card will be used until it exhausts itself.

Nepal’s example is not the only one. During Rajiv Gandhi’s time, Myanmar sought Indian aid and infrastructure assistance, but we turned our nose up against its dictatorship. China quietly stepped in, to our subsequent mounting alarm, and all through the Eighties-Nineties, it rapidly expanded its presence, its businessmen capturing local trade, its trunk roads opening vast dark Burmese interiors, China controlled Burmese ports by virtue of expanding and upgrading them, and its crowning glory was to establish military outposts and listening stations in Burmese islands commanding a vast view of India’s defence assets on the eastern seaboard. Only after the NDA came to power were vigorous attempts made to contain Chinese influence, and it is in exercise of this that the Burmese military junta has now cracked up against the North East insurgents holed up there.

The point is, you must have a realistic assessment of your power, reach, and quality of levers. Although India had advance warning of King Gyanendra’s coup, the warning even conveyed through this magazine, it could do little or nothing to prevent it. If India had put effective pressure on the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) to pressure the king against a coup, he may have held back, because without the RNA’s backing, he is powerless, but Natwar Singh and the Indian government trusted the diplomatic route, which failed them.

Once this failed, both parties should have understood the limits of diplomacy, and dealt with the emerging Nepal situation in more unconventional ways. But no, there was more of the same, a high moral principle of democracy was made, the roping in of Britain in this was trumped up as a great victory, and unbearable pressure was put on Nepal. To their eternal shame, some Indian commentators backed this exercise, losing sight of the real picture. But now that Nepal has countervailed with Pakistani aid, the whole Natwar Singh strategy has collapsed, and India is in a panic rush to save the situation. How long are we going to pay for the blunders of Natwar Singh?

amit

I think it would be India's best interest to make Nepal another Bhutan. Where India has great influence.

Rahul

Keshto-ji, for once we are in agreement, Natwar Singh is an overly idealistic non-aligned-movement moron. The sooner he leaves, teh better for the region (less uncertainty in India's foreign policy, less unnecessary tension) and for indo-US relations (he seems to act like those closet-commies that ran foreign policy during Nehru's time with their "non-aligned" nonsense)

__________________
Am out of town for a while and then have tons of work coming up at school. Will be back once that's all done.

Samudra

Natwar , must go.

However ,this "help" from Pakistan to Nepal will never materialise.

Take my word for it.

India and the US are deep in bed when it comes to dealing with Nepal.
Uncle needs India to look after the dragon.

So now you can guess why an "all weather" ally of China will not be allowed to help Nepal.

keshto patel

You dont know how how internation politics works.

Let me send you my subscription of foregn affairs as a gift.
You need some lessons here.

lemontree

We would be much obliged if you could share it with the rest of us too.
Coming to Nepal. The denial of arms to Nepal is as per the international stand. However, the govt (ruling and opposition I hope), are aware that the Nepal moaist problem is a grave threat for India. Gyanendra is waiting for India to blink on the arms issue as he has got feelers from Pakistan. He will never take China's help because it is presently China that is arming the moaists rebels.
The maoists rebelion in Nepal is aimed at India, to contain us. China wants India to be embroiled in a state of termoil.
At present the Kashmir problem takes too much of time and resources. Indian does not want to step into Nepal. But once it does, there may be no turning back. The UK and US would be side by side with us in Nepal.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

amit

Mr keshto patel. I've noticed that you've been very insulting to many. Either tone down a bit or leave. It is rude if you imply someone to be stupid. Poletics is impossible to define. Scenarios can work any way. These are all speculations. Also, I just completed a Foreign Affairs course at school. Do you have a major in it. Sorry, I don't want to sound rude.

Anyway, it seems like India is at an awkward position because it does not have anything that attracts western powers yet are in conflicts with other countries that the US finds strategic.

Samudra

He He.No.Thank you.
Atleast i type my posts without spelling mistakes.

Sure , i dont know how internation politics works.

I know a little of international diplomacy , which i presume i will not understand in the future , if this conversation with you were to be continued any longer , for, all we hear from you is hate all non-BJP/Hindus.

Srirangan

^^ No spelling mistakes up there Samudra

Anyway, about Nepal. I don't mind the king killing of the maoists. But then the king is a China friend. So I don't want the king to be in power either. ANd he's not the real king anyway. To hell with 12th century monarchy.

Let the IA step in and install a democratic govt. Prolly next summer.

__________________
I rant, therefore I am.

bull

Well let the diplomacy do the job..indian army is too thibly spread i think it wont be able to do the job in nepal.

__________________
What's the difference between people who pray in church and those who pray in casinos?
The ones in the casinos are serious.

ajaybhutani

i think nepal will be more like a cakewalk. For how much force we need to capture it.

Though if we can influence the nepali army agaisnt the king it will end up with a little blood shed( primarily king and his supporters. ) Can this be done ?