Nick Bryant Goes to Nepal to Attack America from Last Nights BBC

Note the interesting formulation: it is the United States that is responsible for "intensifying the conflict." The United States can't win. When it supports authoritarian governments (such as in Pakistan or Egypt for fear of an even worse alternative) the left complains bitterly. But when America ends such backing to purse an agenda of democratisation, using troops if necessary (such as in Afghanistan and Iraq), the left complains bitterly that this is yet another example of American imperialist intervention that only intensifies conflict.

In this case Bryant seems to be arguing that the United States should leave the two sides alone, on the assumption that this will reduce the violence. But again we don't know who is funding the guerrillas and whether their funding will also come to an end. One can't but think that what Bryant really wants is an end to American support for the Nepalese government so that the Maoist guerrillas can win. And if this happens Bryant will probably return to Nepal in a couple of years to complain bitterly that the country is a human rights basketcase and ask why doesn't the United States do something to stop the new Maoist government from impoverishing and butchering its own people.

I didn't know anything about the Nepalese civil war before Bryant's report (although I have done a little reading on it today and I haven't found anything that mentions the role of American foreign policy). And now I still don't understand it -- except for Bush=bad, preemptive war against "terror"=bad, America=bad.

# by Nicholas

Good article. Worth reading the whole taco.