Nepal
I love hearing our president talk about why we went to war in Iraq. Almost every speech he gives, or his staff gives, tells us that we are fighting for the people of Iraq. We deposed of a tyrant leader who was ruling only for himself and terrorizing his people. We have brought to the people of Iraq the right to a democratic government, which apparently was what the people of Iraq have always wanted but were denied due to their despot leader. It was our moral obligation as a fellow free democratic society to step in and save them from tyranny and bring to them the joy of free elections.
For some reason, however, this natural right to democracy and this moral obligation to step in and make things democratic only applies to countries in the Middle East and to countries that aren’t very vocal in their desire for democracy. Apparently only Middle Eastern countries are eligible for help from the United States in becoming a democracy. Those other nations throughout the world who want democracy must fend for themselves.
Since 1980 the people of Nepal have voiced their desire for free democratic elections. They have taken to the streets in protest, as a nation, twice (once in 1990 and again in 2006). Both times the people were able to force negotiations with the King and his government and both times a free democratic system of government was promised to them. From 1991 until 2001 there was a very unstable attempt at a constitutional monarchy in Nepal but due to the inexperience of the Nepalese government these years consisted mostly of a constantly bickering house, government corruption and in 1996 a Maoist bid to take control of the countries parliament from within that resulted in a civil war, which has caused the deaths of over 13,000 Nepalese people.
In 2001 the crown Prince, after having a fight with his father, killed his family with two automatic weapons before turning the guns on himself. The end result of this catastrophe was a new King on the throne who promised democratic reforms and political change. In 2004 with the resurgence of the Maoist resistance to the monarch’s rule and the continuation of political instability public support for the king began to greatly diminish.
To crush the Maoist movement, in 2005, the King dismissed the entire government and took back full executive powers. Through that time there was a continuing Maoist movement and public disapproval of the king. In early 2006 a joint, nationwide strike, led by The Seven Party Alliance and supported by the Maoist movement took place to protest the King’s idea of multi-party democracy. Finally, due to the civil-unrest on April 21 of 2006 the King announced that he would give up absolute power and would return power to the people. Then on April 24th the King called for the reinstatement of the House of Representatives, which has led to today, Friday April 28th, being the first meeting of the new Nepalese government.
I know I have gone on a kind of tangent giving the history of Nepalese politics but I ask you now where were the United States during all of this. We are talking about a nation where the people, as a nation, have publicly voiced their desire to form a democratic government. A nation that has come so close to forming a government that failure was only due to inexperience and tragedy. If the United States feels a moral obligation to help other countries to form democracies what better chance than this to illustrate this cause? They wouldn’t even have had to send in troops, all they would have had to do was send advisors, yet, still nothing. Why you ask? Well, at the end of the day what good would helping Nepal do for the United States? Nothing really. They are not a super-power by any means. They have no global weight to throw around and most importantly they have no natural resources that could aid the United States financially in any way. This all leads me back to my point. When you hear that the reason why we are in Iraq is to spread democracy can you really believe them? Especially when there was a nation, such as Nepal, where the people have been practically begging for democracy, as a nation, for almost thirty years?
My answer is no, of course not. Spreading democracy is the excuse that the Unites States likes to use to give itself some moral ground to walk on when we do things for our own gain. We have used this excuse before in places such as Vietnam and Korea and where did that get us. Luckily for us our technology is such that it is easier for us to go to war and wipe out entire defense forces quickly allowing us to walk in and take over. Yet, I have a feeling that if Iraq weren’t a big desert and was instead a jungle covered landscape we might very well be in the same position we were in back in the 60’s and 70’s.
After saying all this I would like to say that I am one of those people who believes in what George Washington, our first President, believed. I believe that the Unites States should not interfere with international problems and become entangled in affairs that we have no reason to be involved with. So instead of the United States helping Nepal it is my belief that the United States should never have gotten itself involved with the Middle East at any point in it’s history. The only reason why we are there and the only reason why we have ever gotten ourselves involved in any international conflict, is for our own gain, either politically or financially. We may claim that we are doing things to help people but we all know that at the end of the day if there is no political or financial advantage to getting ourselves involved in something, we wont get involved. Sad but true.

