Pragmatism: India-Iran,US-Nepal’s Maoists

ENTHUSIASMS & FOREBODINGS By Rene Q. Bas

THE Times of India’s report had the headline: “US warms up to Nepal Maoists.”
Most neutral observers expected the stunning victory less than a month ago of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists)—which must be distinguished from the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist). CPN (M) got the most seats in the constituent assembly elections of the world’s only remaining Hindu kingdom. The Maoist party’s Chairman Prachanda (whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal) will soon form a government in coalition with other leftist parties and some centrist parties.
More astonishing to leftists (than to centrists and rightwingers) is the news announced on Friday that on May Day (a very important symbol of the Left) the American Ambassador to Nepal, Nancy Powell, met with Chairman Prachanda at his residence.
“US Ambassador Nancy Powell met on Thursday with CPN (M) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to discuss the outcome of the April 10 elections, CPN [M] plans for the Constituent Assembly, and the future of US-Nepal relations,” the US Embassy statement released on Friday said. “This was their first meeting. The meeting occurred in advance of Powell’s return to the United States for consultations on US-Nepal relations.”
As Times of India reports it, “Powell provided an overview of current US government assistance to Nepal and sought Prachanda’s assurances that the new government led by his party would respect current donor agreements and ensure the safety of those implementing them.”
She also urged the Maoist leader to make sure that “all Maoist organizations illustrate their commitment to the political process through their words and actions.”
TOI quoted Prachanda as saying that the meeting was “extremely positive” and that his party would remain committed to multi-party democracy.
The US State Department still has the Nepal Maoists on its watchlist of terrorist organizations even if the CPN (M) is now an important member of the outgoing ruling coalition. But in April, once it became certain that CPN (Maoists) would lead the incoming government, Washington announced that it was going to continue supporting Nepal.
This is a big change in US policy. The US normally freezes all assistance to governments that include any individual leader or political party identified as a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism.
Powell and Prachanda had encountered each other at a meeting hosted by the UN. Times of India asked Prachanda “if she warded him off as a terrorist” and “a smiling Prachanda” replied, “She neither said anything negative nor asked any question. She just listened. We hope she would ask her government to create a conducive environment and lift the terrorist tag on us.”
Former US President Jimmy Carter who, with his wife, is known to be old friends of India (which has been the protector of the Nepalese monarchy), gave the Nepal Maoists his endorsement. Times of India said Carter had described the Maoists as “more the victims of violence during the election than the aggressor.”
Carter criticized the Bush administration for cutting off “all channels of communication with the Maoists, even after they had laid down arms and joined the peace process.” He “advised Washington to do business with the former rebels.”
I wonder if Ka Satur is hoping for a development like this here?
Business with Tehran
Pragmatism is also the policy in New Delhi, though it caused some friction with the US last month. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahma­dinejad visited the Indian capital last week (April 29). Earlier in April, President Bush asked New Delhi to urge Ahmadinejad to comply with what the UN requires of Iran in it’s nuclear program. India’s foreign office, said the Press Trust of India, replied to the White House saying it needed no guidance on the way it conducted its bilateral relations.
The publicized Indian reply to President Bush would appear to be unpragmatic, considering that the USA and India have a nuclear cooperation agreement and India wishes to continue to sell its products and professional services to Americans.
But it was deviously pragmatic to let Iran hear that New Delhi is not America’s errand boy. For if India is to keep its economy growing the way it has in the past decade, it must triple its energy supply, at least.
Iran’s strategic importance, its own quest for energy stability and security makes it necessary for New Delhi to continue being its friend and partner.
The energy cooperation India wants with Iran includes laying down a $7-billion pipeline through Pakistan. India’s need for more and more energy as it progresses to First World status, just like China, drives it to have deals and close connections with odious contacts.
Indians, just like the Chinese, are big investors—$2.5 billion—in the land of the genocidal Sudanese. India is competing with China over Burma’s oil and natural gas.
The Indian military buys a lot of arms from the United States. India has a lot of American BPO clients.
I’m sure American Harvard Business School types love India’s pragmatism.(Manila Times)