London Puppet Maoist Leader Explains Use of Truce

[Guest guest]

By Steven C. Baker

FrontPageMagazine.com | July 25, 2003

 

"...during an interview on May 28, 2001, Prachanda admitted that “the

[people’s war] would not be discarded until the final construction of

Communism.†He confirmed, “Our talk of negotiation [with the

government] is a revolutionary tactic advanced in a conscious and

balanced manner after drawing lessons from the same negative

experience in Peru.â€

 

Nestled in the rugged Himalayas, the little known mountain kingdom of

Nepal could not seem to be more removed from current geopolitical

concerns. Yet on its frozen mountains a revolutionary battle rages.

For seven years, Maoist rebels have sought to establish a second

totalitarian state in central Asia, at the price of thousands killed

and an entire nation left ravaged by its violence.

 

Beginning in February 1996, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists led by the

Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) -- CPN(M) -- and its leader “Comrade

Prachanda†(his real name is Pushpan Kamal Dahal) launched an ongoing

effort to overthrow the Kingdom of Nepal’s constitutional monarchy and

replace it with “a doctrinaire Communist dictatorship.â€

 

Various news sources confirm that as a result of the ensuing violence

almost 8,000 people have died to date. To make matters worse, the

guerrillas recently initiated new attacks yet the government remains

committed to a January ceasefire agreement and an ineffectual and

misguided “peace process.†(Sound familiar?)

 

Despite the determination of Prachanda and his followers over the last

seven years to build a Communist state, the government of Nepal

remains convinced that negotiations with the Maoist rebels will cement

a lasting peace and ensure a more democratic future for the people of

Nepal. However, after taking into account what is known of the CPN(M)

and the brutality of its self-proclaimed “people’s war,†it is certain

neither democracy nor a cessation of violence will come via a

government sanctioned peace process.

 

Prachanda’s own words offer damning evidence of his radical and

violent intentions, signaling his long-held conviction that the

constitutional monarchy must be overthrown. For instance, during an

interview on May 28, 2001, Prachanda admitted that “the [people’s war]

would not be discarded until the final construction of Communism.†He

confirmed, “Our talk of negotiation [with the government] is a

revolutionary tactic advanced in a conscious and balanced manner after

drawing lessons from the same negative experience in Peru.†It seems

he hopes to avoid the same fate that befell the Shining Path (Sendero

Luminoso) terrorist movement in Peru. These statements alone forewarn

of a miserable future for the people of Nepal and for the “peace

process†naively hoped to end the Maoist insurgency. But when

complemented with additional facts, it becomes obvious that the

government’s current course of action vis-à-vis the rebels may lead to

a strategic catastrophe.

 

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is a member of the Revolutionary

Internationalist Movement (RIM), a radical organization whose “guiding

ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.†In a revealing February 1,

1998, “public statement†to the Central Committee of the CPN(M), the

Committee of the RIM made the following statement:

 

“The participation of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the

Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, the concern and assistance

given by your Party to the advance of the Communist movement in the

South Asia region and throughout the world, even at difficult moments

in your struggle, inspire us. The Committee of RIM and the CPN (M)

will continue to march forward as in the past-united by our

all-powerful ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and determined to

accelerate the development of the world proletarian revolution.â€

 

In 2001, Prachanda in turn thanked the RIM for its uninterrupted

support over the years: “The present rapid pace of development would

have been inconceivable without the support of Communist

revolutionaries and freedom-loving people of different countries, and

particularly the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, during the

period of the historic initiation of the People's War.â€

 

RIM’s extremism is evidenced by two of its notable founding members:

the Communist Party of Peru (PCP) â€" also known as the Shining Path, a

Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization; and the Revolutionary

Communist Party, USA (RCP), led by Not In Our Name “peace†activist C.

Clark Kissinger.

 

According to Dr. J. Michael Waller, the Walter and Leonore Annenberg

Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World

Politics, Shining Path “was the most violent guerrilla and terrorist

organization ever seen in the Americas…[it] waged a Khmer Rouge-style

war of extermination against entire rural populations.†It is

precisely Shining Path’s tactics that are so revered by Prachanda,

Nepal’s Maoists and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

 

If the Maoists of Nepal are to be judged by their American comrades,

they must be a violent aberration, indeed. According to Dr. Waller,

the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA is so extreme “even other

Communists think [it] is off the charts.†The RCP’s national spokesman

Carl Dix is a convict who “believes in world revolution.†He is also

“a staunch supporter of the Maoist people’s wars in Peru, Nepal and

the Philippines.â€

 

RCP Chairman Bob Avakian is equally radical. During an interview

conducted by Dix and published by RCP’s Revolutionary Worker on June

16, 2002, Avakian denounces the U.S. repeatedly as one of “the biggest

terrorists in the world by far, far and away†and states this

terrorist regime, the U.S. government, should be “toppled and replaced

by a revolutionary system.†Nepal is merely putting into practice

Avakian’s deepest desires.

 

A further caveat to the government of found in a letter sent by the

RCP, USA to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to commemorate the

“One Year Anniversary of the People’s War in Nepal†(February 13,

1997). It reads in part:

 

“It is a great testimony to the strength of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

and is an important victory and source of inspiration not only for the

CPN(M) but for the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, of which

we are proud to be a participant together with you and other comrades

all over the world…â€

 

“The CPN(M) has declared its intention to carry through the armed

revolutionary struggle until the complete defeat of the reactionary

regime… (emphasis added).

 

“Comrades, the Revolutionary Communist Party fully supports you. The

revolutionary warfare in your country is every day more a shining

beacon for the oppressed masses in the United States and the world

over, pointing to the path of People's War, which alone can bring

about the defeat of imperialism and reaction and open the door to the

bright new future of socialism and Communism.â€

 

Two years later in a letter to the Central Committee of the CPN(M),

the Central Committee of the RCP, USA exposed their common bond as

members of RIM:

 

“What you have achieved over the course of three years is not only a

victory for the CPN(M) but also for the Revolutionary Internationalist

Movement in which we are joined together. We are united in a common

cause for a Communist new world.â€

 

Finally, the incriminating bill of particulars would not be complete

without mentioning that the CPN(M) is a recognized terrorist group.

The State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 notes that:

 

“The Maoist insurgency poses a continuing threat to U.S. citizens and

property in Nepal. Repeated anti-U.S. rhetoric and actions suggest the

Maoists view Western support for Kathmandu as a key obstacle to their

goal of establishing a doctrinaire Communist dictatorship.

Furthermore, the Maoists have forged cooperative links with extremist

groups across South Asia. In 2002, Maoists claimed responsibility for

assassinating two U.S. Embassy guards. In a press statement, they

threatened foreign missions, including the U.S. Embassy, to discourage

foreign governments from supporting the government of Nepal.â€

 

Despite these facts, RCP’s Avakian has urged support for “the Maoists

in Nepal, waging a war of liberation, [a] People’s War.†Moreover, he

condemns the United States Government for its decision to describe the

Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) as a terrorist group, and instead he

contends that the insurrection is a “military struggle.â€

 

As prophetic as it is timely, William Shakespeare’s admonition “‘Tis

time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss†offers a sound basis against

which to judge the long term strategic consequences of a successful

Maoist insurgency in the Kingdom of Nepal.

 

The insurgency may seem inconsequential in light of other world

events, but its significance is noteworthy. As Richard Fisher, Asian

Security Studies Fellow at the Center for Security Policy told me

recently, “The larger context for the U.S. is the ongoing contest for

pre-eminence in the Eurasian land mass. Events from NE Asia, SE Asia,

South Asia to the Middle East will be determined by who is the prime

power in Central Asia. Nepal is one of many sideshows.†The real

contest is between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and India.

Should Nepal become a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist state led by the ignoble

Comrade Prachanda, it is likely to result in two things:

 

First, Prachanda himself declared during a May 2001 interview that he

hoped that Nepal could be used “as a base area of world revolution,

internationalist in content and national in form.†Still more,

Prachanda is quite willing “to develop close solidarity with the

struggles in other countries.†Consequently, a win for the Maoists

would place Nepal in the pro-PRC camp and offer a proxy through which

like-minded governments and individuals may influence events in the

region and affect the balance of power internationally. In fact, in a

February 24, 2003, statement contemptibly titled “Seven Short Yearsâ€

(tell that to the people of Nepal) -- which marks the 7th anniversary

of the insurgency -- the Committee of the Revolutionary

Internationalist Movement reaffirms that “[Comrade Prachanda’s]

struggle has rightfully won the support of the progressive forces in

South Asia and around the world.†The letter also expresses its

confidence that “under the leadership of Comrade Prachanda the party

will be able to…transform Nepal into a bright red base area of world

proletarian revolution†(emphasis added).

 

Second, it does not require a leap of faith to imagine an

anti-American regime such as Prachanda’s working with its

internationalist brethren in the United States and abroad to attack

U.S. interests worldwide. It is also conceivable that the totalitarian

nature of a Prachanda regime will eventually find common cause with

virulently anti-U.S. elements in the Islamic world. This hypothesis

is not as far fetched as many delusional liberals may contend. Most

recently, Fidel Castro’s secular regime in Cuba worked with the

radical Islamist state of Iran to block U.S. broadcasts to the latter

country. But were we not scolded ad nauseam by the Left prior to

Operation Iraqi Freedom that secular tyrants do not work with

religious fanatics? Once again the Left has shown its bias and its

ignorance.

 

The recommended prescription for this situation is straightforward.

The United States should work closely with India to ensure that the

Maoist insurgency is extinguished. A “peace process†between the

current government and the Maoist rebels should be discouraged; it

will only prolong the bloodshed and raise doubts about the long term

viability of a democratic Nepal. Once the insurgency has been

defeated, the United States and India must pressure the government of

Nepal to return to the democratic agenda that it pursued prior to the

start of the insurgency.

 

Domestically, the United States Government can take an immediate step

to curtail foreign support for Prachanda’s revolution. It should

formally designate the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement a

terrorist entity based on its overt support for the Communist Party of

Nepal (Maoist). This sanction against the RIM would directly penalize

one of its strongest members, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.

 

The February 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism concludes

by stating that if terrorism is defeated “in all its forms, we [can]

promote a freer, more prosperous, and more secure world†(emphasis

added). The destruction of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist form of

terrorism that now plagues the people of Nepal would certainly make

the people of the United States â€" and central Asia â€" more secure and

more free.

Steven C. Baker is a Research Associate at the Center for Security

Policy in Washington D.C.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9090