Three Point Agreement struck

[Saorsa]

The Maoist demanded the resignation of the PM and the formation of a national government under their leadership, which would operate according to consensus rather than majority.

What that means in practice is a government dominated by the Maoist agenda. The coming year is going to be an interesting and hopefully a very productive one.

CA term extended by a year
PM to resign within a week

KIRAN CHAPAGAIN, KOSH RAJ KOIRALA AND THIRA L BHUSAL

KATHMANDU, May 28: The term of the Constituent Assembly has finally been extended for a year with 580 votes in favor and five against, at a meeting of parliament that began at 11:45 pm on Friday.

Speaker Subas Nembang announced the term extension at 1:25 a.m.

The CA extension became possible after the three major parties -- UCPN-M, NC and UML-- which between them hold a two-thirds majority in the CA sealed a three-point deal late in the evening Friday.

Top leaders of the three parties had struggled throughout the day over the specificity of the agreement and its wording. But they finally agreed on the text of the deal at around 11 p.m. and it was signed by UCPN-M Chairman Puspha Kamal Dahal, NC Acting President Sushil Koirala and UML Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal.

One thing that is still not clear in the three-point deal is within how many days Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal will resign. Despite Maoist insistence on naming a specific date for the PM´s resignation, NC and UML leaders refused to do so.

Even after the signing of the agreement, Maoist Chairman Dahal was insisting that the prime minister will have to resign in the next three or four days but UML leaders were arguing that he could resign in a week´s time.

The deal brings to an end a political deadlock plaguing the country for the last one year since Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal resigned as prime minister after his failed attempt to sack then army chief Rookmangud Katwal.

Out of power, the UCPN-M launched a series of protests to force the government into a compromise, if not to remove it from power.

On May 1 it had announced an indefinite general strike demanding resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal. Following their general strike debacle, the Maoists had maintained that they would not agree to extend the CA term unless Prime Minister Nepal resigned.

The general election for the CA was held on April 10, 2008. The two-year term of the CA to draft a new constitution expired at midnight Friday.

Politics ahead

Though the parties have agreed to extend the CA they are yet to reach an agreement on a number of complicated issues. They will now have to negotiate and agree on three key issues -- taking the peace process to a logical end, writing the constitution, and power sharing.

The parties have agreed that they will soon begin negotiations on each of these issues and will reach a comprehensive deal before a new national consensus government is formed. The parties are yet to agree on who will lead the national consensus government.

Three-point agreement

1. We are firmly committed to consensus and cooperation to take the peace process to a logical conclusion and to immediately complete the remaining tasks of the peace process and accomplish the historic responsibility of writing a new constitution.

2. Though significant progress has been made toward constitution drafting process, all the works have not been completed yet. So we have agreed to extend the term of the Constituent Assembly by one year.

3. We are ready to move ahead on the basis of consensus to accomplish the above-mentioned responsibilities and works as soon as possible by forming a national consensus government. We would like to make it clear that the prime minister of the present coalition government is ready to resign as soon as possible.

UNMIN hails deal

The United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) has welcomed the agreement of the parties to extend the CA term.

"I welcome the decision by the parties to take the necessary steps to extend the tenure of the Constituent Assembly. The parties now have a precious opportunity to address outstanding peace process issues without further delay," UNMIN Chief Karin Landgren told myrepublica.com.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The Maoist demanded the resignation of the PM and the formation of a national government under their leadership, which would operate according to consensus rather than majority.

As a Marxist I would not be arguing for a 'national goverment' operating 'according to consensus' - I would be more inclined to go for the straight-forward and simple majority of workers and peasants and b*gger the right.

[RED DAVE]

The Maoist demanded the resignation of the PM and the formation of a national government under their leadership, which would operate according to consensus rather than majority.

What that means in practice is a government dominated by the Maoist agenda. The coming year is going to be an interesting and hopefully a very productive one.We shall see. Meanwhile, the Maoists are committed to maintaining capitalist relations of production.

I wonder what would happen if workers in a small factory seize the place and demand that it be nationalized under their control. Would the Maoist "national" government, which includes a good helping of capitalists, support this action? Will the peasants be allowed to seize the land?

We shall see.

RED DAVE

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

The above critiques are largely devoid of substance. At this point, I anyway think that conclusions should be drawn about Prachanda and the party he leads. As we shall recall, the UCPN(M) had been proposing to unilaterally declare a constitution and initiate new rebellions. What I tried to stress earlier that I don't think many people took very seriously (or took much interest in anyway) was the objective they were after in respect to that though, which was precisely their reinstatement into the political establishment so that they can finish the great work of dismantling the PLA. They have now, it appears, achieved that objective or at least have begun once again down that road in earnest. Yet "we shall see" remains the prevailing critique. Too many RevLefters have been caught up in this whole logic that, as the saying goes, "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing"; that if the tactics look 'militant', that somehow implies the objectives must be. We need to get more serious than that if we're really aiming to change the world for the better.

Without attempting to anger anyone (as I know Prachanda and his party remains a very sensitive issue for many RevLefters), I do think this is a development that speaks volumes about the political line that the former CPN(M) (now the UCPN(M)) has taken up over the last five years and which it seems very committed to. I worry greatly for the future of the revolution in Nepal. More specifically, I fear greatly that it has no future. The fact that this agreement is "hailed" as a positive accomplishment by the same organization (the UN) that's presently locking down the PLA and its arms in cantonments should surely be taken as signatory of its direction.

I know it's not terribly popular (at least on these forums) to call Prachanda a revisionist, but frankly I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Too many RevLefters have been caught up in this whole logic that, as the saying goes, "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing"; that if the tactics look 'militant', that somehow implies the objectives must be.
I will be the first to admit that I know relatively little about the situation in Nepal. I will also be the first to admit that if the Maoists achieve power and overthrow completely capitalism/feudalism in the country I will congratulate them. I will also wait and see if they move towards the establishment of a democratic socialist society.

My gut instinct is that making compromises with parties on the right and looking to advance through 'consensus' is fraught with danger and paving the way for counter-revolution. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and only time will tell.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Getting beyond dogmatic "hunches" about reaching agreements and into the realm of serious theoretical analysis, it's not per se that making deals, even with reactionary parties, is a formula for counterrevolution. It's the terms of any such agreements that are truly important. It's entirely possible to reach tactical agreements with reactionary parties toward the achievement of specific objectives that hasten a revolutionary situation forward or that advance the revolutionary struggle overall. Mao led the CCP in doing so in China with the KMT; they agreed to form a temporary united front toward the end of resisting and finally defeating the Japanese occupiers. In the process of that unfolding, the balance of forces shifted fundamentally in favor of the revolutionary side. So that was a real example of hastening forward the emergence of a revolutionary situation.

Hypothetically speaking, had the Maoists (now former Maoists) in Nepal in 2006 for example reached an agreement with the reactionary parties to defeat the monarchy and then part ways, that would probably have been a good thing that would have advanced the people's war overall. Now I'm not saying that such an agreement was necessarily possible (I don't know all the details of the internal situation in Nepal at the time either), but I'm just trying to point out a hypothetical example of what a positive agreement with reactionary parties might have looked like in Nepal in the revolutionary context as it had developed at that particular point. But the terms of the agreement reached in 2006 instead reflected the eclectic approach to problem-solving the CPN(M) leadership had adopted the previous year. Eclectic meaning involving the combining of two diametrically opposing positions into one. Agreement on the need to defeat the monarchy was reached, but only on the condition that the people's war be ended. And the CPN(M) agreed to those terms, thus abandoning their revolutionary struggle rather than advancing it.

We need to draw out the lessons here in terms of the underlying methodology that has gotten Nepal's revolution to this sad state since that time so that we can do much better in the future.

[NaxalbariZindabad]

As a Marxist ... I would be more inclined to go for the straight-forward and simple majority of workers and peasants and b*gger the right.

How can they do that? :confused:
Kidnap the reactionaries and replace them?

[Bonobo1917]

The Maoist demanded the resignation of the PM and the formation of a national government under their leadership, which would operate according to consensus rather than majority.
If the Maoists lead a government operating according to consensus, then any government member can block any decision, just by saying: I don't agree. That means that, even if the Maoists hold a large majority, the other parties can block anything that they don't like. It looks to me as if this is a further step towards adaptation into the establishment with a symbolic victory for the Maoists in return.

[Saorsa]

As a Marxist I would not be arguing for a 'national goverment' operating 'according to consensus' - I would be more inclined to go for the straight-forward and simple majority of workers and peasants and b*gger the right.

That doesn't exist in the CA. And at this point, the Maoists have decided not to just 'bugger' the CA, but instead to see it out to its conclusion. Things on the ground are probably a bit more complex than we can understand from over here on our computer chairs. Revolutions are rarely 'straightforward and simple' in real life.


We shall see. Meanwhile, the Maoists are committed to maintaining capitalist relations of production.

They want to develop a modern industrial economy and they want to carry out land reform, i.e. the extension of private property relations throughout the countryside. That's what the development of 'national industrial capitalism' means. Nepal requires foreign investment in order to develop the hydro power needed to transform its economy and standard of living, so a certain amount of foreign capital will be present as well.

Since socialism in one country is impossible, it's difficult to understand why you would criticize them for this.


I wonder what would happen if workers in a small factory seize the place and demand that it be nationalized under their control.

I've never heard of Nepali workers seizing a workplace and demanding it be nationalised, but there have been reports (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/) of Maoist-led seizures of workplaces.


Would the Maoist "national" government, which includes a good helping of capitalists, support this action?

We don't know. There's no evidence in the past to suggest that they wouldn't, but it would very much depend on the circumstances.


Will the peasants be allowed to seize the land?

They have been so far!

[Saorsa]

The fact that this agreement is "hailed" as a positive accomplishment by the same organization (the UN) that's presently locking down the PLA and its arms in cantonments should surely be taken as signatory of its direction.

The PLA has the keys to unlock the guns. The PLA regularly train with their weapons, maintain their weapons, and carry them around the camp perimeter. The PLA is not disarmed.


I will also be the first to admit that if the Maoists achieve power and overthrow completely capitalism/feudalism in the country I will congratulate them.

Isn't that impossible in one country?


If the Maoists lead a government operating according to consensus, then any government member can block any decision, just by saying: I don't agree. That means that, even if the Maoists hold a large majority, the other parties can block anything that they don't like. It looks to me as if this is a further step towards adaptation into the establishment with a symbolic victory for the Maoists in return.

That's not how consensus works. Consensus doesn't mean that you get every single person involved to agree 100%, it means that a decision is made based on all the opinions represented, which naturally means that the dominant opinion dominates the final decision.

Anyway, we will see how it works in time.

[Bonobo1917]

Still, if there is disagreement, and consensus is the only agreed mechanism to take decicions, a minority can prevent consensus to be reached and so block decisions. I think it would be naive to expect the non-Maoist parties to just go along with what a Maoist majority would want. That is not why the non-Maoist parties take part in such a government.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Isn't that impossible in one country?

Of course not - the overthrow of capitalism can occur in one country - the building of socialism cannot. Just as Lenin outlined the need for a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country to assist the building of socialism in Russia - revolutionaries in Nepal would also require support and solidarity from an advanced country to preserve the revolution and to build socialism in Nepal.

I am surprised at you CA - that is pretty much the abc of Leninism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Of course not - the overthrow of capitalism can occur in one country - the building of socialism cannot. Just as Lenin outlined the need for a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country to assist the building of socialism in Russia - revolutionaries in Nepal would also require support and solidarity from an advanced country to preserve the revolution and to build socialism in Nepal.

I am surprised at you CA - that is pretty much the abc of Leninism.

Okay, so your point is that, yes, it's impossible to develop socialism in one country, but it's not to demolish capitalism? So, what do we do when abolish capitalism then? Just sit there & wait for the world to do the same thing & then start developing socialism?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Okay, so your point is that, yes, it's impossible to develop socialism in one country, but it's not to demolish capitalism? So, what do we do when abolish capitalism then? Just sit there & wait for the world to do the same thing & then start developing socialism?
I am sure the Maoists would attempt to establish a bureaucracy in the image of the Chinese CP - but then again they could shock me and move to establish genuine workers democracy and appeal for solidarity from the international working class.

[Saorsa]

Of course not - the overthrow of capitalism can occur in one country - the building of socialism cannot. Just as Lenin outlined the need for a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country to assist the building of socialism in Russia - revolutionaries in Nepal would also require support and solidarity from an advanced country to preserve the revolution and to build socialism in Nepal.

I am surprised at you CA - that is pretty much the abc of Leninism.

I can agree with that statement, I was just checking what you meant. This is the whole point of the Maoist concept of New Democracy, as the transitional phase between the workers and peasants seizing state power and the emergence of the possibility of socialism.


I am sure the Maoists would attempt to establish a bureaucracy in the image of the Chinese CP - but then again they could shock me and move to establish genuine workers democracy and appeal for solidarity from the international working class.

Well, I doubt you'll support whatever they come up with anyway, but they won't be establishing anything in the image of the Chinese CP. The major break the Maoists have already made from past communist practice is their (still theoretical) concept of multi-party competition continuing under the DoP, with any party that supports the revolution and opposes imperialism allowed to compete.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You make the UCPN(M) look like cynical and shady figures who will fool the Nepali workers and establish Soviet-style central planning

I think that might actually be a better thing rather than a group wanting to establish a bourgeoisie republic and bring in capitalism and engage in this class collaborationist nonsense with consensus rule and whatnot before they do anything to establish any economic socialism or planning of any kind...

[Saorsa]

bourgeoisie republic

This is what they're currently fighting against. I have posted many party documents that make this clear.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Comrade Alastair wrote:
Since socialism in one country is impossible, it's difficult to understand why you would criticize them for this.
Jolly Green Giant wrote:
Of course not - the overthrow of capitalism can occur in one country - the building of socialism cannot. Just as Lenin outlined the need for a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country to assist the building of socialism in Russia - revolutionaries in Nepal would also require support and solidarity from an advanced country to preserve the revolution and to build socialism in Nepal.What we see demonstrated here are two things:

1) That clearly Prachanda's remaining supporters are Trotskyists, not Maoists, and...

2) The real nature of Trotsky's historical opposition to the principle of taking the initiative and building socialism in one country without just waiting around for external circumstances to improve. Look how it's being applied here: in defense of building an export-centric sweatshop economy on the basis of foreign direct investment and 'special economic zones'!

The verdict on the possibility of establishing socialism in one country has been in since 1928. The principle has been indisputably historically proven correct in both the Soviet Union under Stalin and in China under Mao and I, unlike the supposed Maoists on RevLeft, uphold that principle. Relying first and foremost on revolutionary self-development, rather than on foreign bailouts, is basic to modern communism. Enough said on that.


Comrade Alastair wrote:
Well, I doubt you'll support whatever they come up with anyway, but they won't be establishing anything in the image of the Chinese CP. The major break the Maoists have already made from past communist practice is their (still theoretical) concept of multi-party competition continuing under the DoP, with any party that supports the revolution and opposes imperialism allowed to compete.All the establishment parties in Nepal (now including the UCPN(M)) are supporters of imperialism and foreign domination. Most of them favor continuing to rely on India for "development", while Prachanda prefers rapprochement with China. And, once again, yes the UCPN(M) is aiming to model its economic development path on capitalist China's. (http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=5029) The agreement recently reached in Nepal was backed by, among others, the United States of America and by the United Nations, which is presently occupying the country and holding the remaining PLA fighters (or, more accurately, former fighters) in cantonments.

And the supposedly theoretical political structure described above is nothing new or innovative at all, by the way. It's called social-democracy. (Or Menshevism, take your pick.) The concept has been long since discredited.

In support of real new democratic revolution, that involves the people rising up and seizing state power and establishing a people's republic as the immediate-term objective, not four years of parliamentary maneuvering within the bourgeois political framework.

[Saorsa]

I don't think socialism in one country is impossible. I was commenting on the fact that he, as a Trotskyist, would hold that opinion.

Socialism is a transitional period between the creation of a DoP and the achievement of a classless, stateless society. I don't believe it is a process that can become even close to finished in one, backward country, but it is definitely a process that can and should be begun.

And I do not believe it is inevitable that a revolution will degenerate if it doesn't spread beyond one country. I'm no Trotskyist.


Relying first and foremost on revolutionary self-development, rather than on foreign bailouts, is basic to modern communism.

The Nepali masses can't build hydropower dams through mass mobilisation and enthusiasm - they require foreign investment to make this possible.


The agreement recently reached in Nepal was backed by, among others, the United States of America and by the United Nations, which is presently occupying the country and holding the remaining PLA fighters in cantonments.

Lolz, black helicopters over Kathmandu!

There are probably only a few dozen completely unarmed UNMIN personnel in Nepal. You seriously think this counts as an occupation, and that the PLA is being forcibly held in the cantonments by these people?

The reactionary parties in Nepal are constantly attacking the UNMIN for being 'pro-Maoist' and threatening to kick it out of the country. You really think they'd do that if the UNMIN was in charge of an occupation and had the PLA imprisoned?

The PLA can leave whenever it decides to, and it's the PLA, not the UNMIN, who has the keys to the guns.


In support of real new democratic revolution, that involves the people rising up and seizing state power and establishing a people's republic as the immediate-term objective, not four years of parliamentary maneuvering within the bourgeois political framework.

Mao went through over two decades of revolutionary struggle before capturing state power - compared to that, Nepal's struggle has barely even begun! During that time there were plenty of retreats and plenty of tactical concessions made to advance the overall struggle. Mao called off land seizures, Mao put the Red Army under KMT control and took the red stars off the soldier's caps, at one point Mao surrendered virtually the entire south of China and all the liberated zones within it to the KMT! Mao lived in the real world, unlike you.

Read this document. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_06.htm) After the end of WW2, Mao went into the Chunking Negotiations with the KMT, where the CCP was discussing how to merge the KMT and CCP armies and how to merge the parallel government with the KMT government. It was only after these negotiations failed that the CCP resumed the armed struggle, and it did so in an objectively favourable international situation which simply does not exist today.

It's easy to condemn from afar. Frankly, it is disgustingly arrogant to tell the UCPN (M) that they're not moving fast enough. Your life isn't on the line here! If they try to seize state power and fail, they die. That would probably fill your dogmatic heart with joy, but thankfully the people on the ground in Nepal see things somewhat differently.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Comrade Alastair wrote:
It's easy to condemn from afar. Frankly, it is disgustingly arrogant to tell the UCPN (M) that they're not moving fast enough.

I wasn't aiming to put a 'time limit' on the process of revolutionary struggle, but rather to insist that it should be revolutionary struggle. I fully realize the protracted people war generally takes a fairly long time (hence why it's called a protracted war). And I'm supportive of genuine revolutionary struggles that are being fought at present, such as the PPW in India for example currently being led by Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Neither do I find (false) allegations of chauvinism appropriate. I've been aiming to draw out real lessons from this experience, not to just go around bashing or whatever. If I was aiming to do the latter, I'd task myself with it daily, like you provide updates to this forum daily. In point of fact, of late I've generally steered away from the subject of the situation in Nepal simply because do feel so adamantly about it on this forum (and a few other places).

And matter-of-factly, I in fact am ready, willing, and aiming to put my own life on the line toward the aim of revolution and socialism in my own country. That's why I associate myself with the RCP, USA.

Throwing around allegations of chauvinism in the face of any criticism is a poor choice of tactics, but a consistent one in your case. I can scarcely think of any time I've so much as mentioned Nepal when you haven't been there to toss that one at me.


The reactionary parties in Nepal are constantly attacking the UNMIN for being 'pro-Maoist' and threatening to kick it out of the country. You really think they'd do that if the UNMIN was in charge of an occupation and had the PLA imprisoned?

The reactionary parties side with the army in that they simply prefer the PLA go out of existence, with their (former) fighters perhaps being arrested rather than integrated into the army or otherwise given an amnesty. That doesn't mean the UN has recently become a pro-communist organization. And, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, yes the PLA has come under their (the UN's) authority.


After the end of WW2, Mao went into the Chunking Negotiations with the KMT, where the CCP was discussing how to merge the KMT and CCP armies and how to merge the parallel government with the KMT government. It was only after these negotiations failed that the CCP resumed the armed struggle, and it did so in an objectively favourable international situation which simply does not exist today.

It was a gesture they did to appease Stalin because he was bringing down pressure on them to re-integrate themselves into normal society. Stalin did a lot of stuff like that with regard to the Chinese Communists that was wrong. Mao later came out with a critique of many such errors of Stalin's in 1958.

As I've also stated before, I'm not suggesting that the UCPN(M) should go for the seizure of power immediately. Not in this international climate. Realistically, this is for a united front against the imperialists and other prospective invaders. My point though is that it should be a united front that's developed from within the framework of people's war, much as was the case in China during WW2 for example.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is what they're currently fighting against. I have posted many party documents that make this clear.

Everything so far seems to revolve around the Maoists wanting to build "capitalism with a human face" with special economic zones and muck about in the cesspit of parliamentary democracy and making slight reforms ("extending private property relations to the countryside"...); where's the revolution? How does one fight a bourgeoisie republic by wanting to build strong capitalism and institute private property reforms? How is it not just reforming a bourgeoisie republic into a different style of the same thing?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Takayuki:

While I understand the essence of what you're getting at -- that the UCPN(M) is clearly a reformist party -- and view that as a correct assessment, I would point out also that for example the redistribution of land to the tiller is an important and necessary component of genuine new democratic revolution. From the way you wrote your post above, you would at least seem to be convinced that it's possible to simply 'skip' whole historical stages of development. It's not possible. To some degree, they tried to initially in Russia, tying the accomplishment of the democratic tasks of the bourgeoisie (e.g. land redistribution) directly to socialism. But they discovered the hard way that it was necessary to separate the democratic tasks of the bourgeoisie from the task of building socialism in earnest into distinct (but unified!) stages. Mao built on the foundation of that understanding in developing the concept of new democratic revolution. It is correct for communists in oppressed, feudal countries to first accomplish the democratic tasks of the bourgeoisie and thus establish the historical and material foundation on which to make the leap to socialism.

The difference between new democratic revolution and what Prachanda is aiming to carry out, however, is that Prachanda's idea of new democratic revolution doesn't take place under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat doesn't acquire an effective monopoly on political power in Prachanda's model, but rather shares it with the enemy. The smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus as part of new democratic revolution is what connects these democratic tasks to socialism.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, I'm not one to tell the comrades of Nepal how to conduct their struggle, but one has to be a little disappointed that they said they would not do something, and then turn around and did it. One could guess they did an assessment of their forces, and of the ruling classes forces, and determined they could not seize power, at least not without a maximum of blood shed, and are opting for a longer term option to give them more time to split the military.

I'd think, from a strategic stand point, a demand for new elections would have been a good one. Given what we've been seeing from afar, I'd expect the Maoists to command a majority government.

[Saorsa]

The reason I so often accuse you of chauvinism and get annoyed by what you have to say is that you're not an honest debater. I can debate other dogmatic, idealist types on this forum (such as, say, Red Dave) who talk a lot of rubbish, but at least they do tend to take in facts when they are presented to them.

You, like the RCP you're affiliated to, proceed from the standpoint of defending ideology and trying to keep it pure and intellectually static. Don't even bring up the New Synthesis, as it does not represent any kind of substantial development of MLM and indeed just represents the RCP's abandonment of MLM and its degeneration into an Avakianite personality cult. Badal, chief military strategist during the PW in Nepal, recently critiqued the sectarian approach of the RCP in the latest Red Star. You should read what he has to say - this is a man who has done a thousand times more for proletarian revolution than your cult leader.

However, the main problem I have with you is not that you belong to a cult and have bad politics. It's that you don't listen to facts, and you don't actually know that many about Nepal. You've read the RCP, perhaps the CPI (M) and perhaps a handful of other polemics against the UCPN (M), you've read a bunch of press reports and out of context quotes from party leaders, but you don't appear to have studied the facts on the ground in any real depth let alone studied the actual UCPN (M) party documents.

The rubbish you're talking about the UNMIN is evidence of this. First, you claimed that Nepal was under a UN occupation!!! Then when I pointed out how ridiculous this was, you just brushed that aside and came up with another assertion that has no basis in reality, and has been ASSUMED by you based on what you know about the UN and its role in the third world. This is the problem when people study only the general, but not the particular. The UNMIN has been succesfully used by the Maoists to increase the size of the PLA in the cantonments, and to facilitate a peace process ON MAOIST TERMS that has so far led to CONCRETE GAINS for the Maoist party. You can cover up your eyes and ears and try to ignore it all you want, but the facts speak for themselves.

You made this assertion:
And, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, yes the PLA has come under their (the UN's) authority.

I don't know quite what you mean by 'as far as the rest of the world is concerned'. Are the facts on the ground in Nepal defined by the opinions of people in Guatemala? Anyway, moving on... this statement simply isn't true. The PLA is legally under the authority of the Army Integration Special Committee, made up of representatives of all the major parties. In practice the PLA continues to be led and controlled by the PLA commanders, who are in turn led by the UCPN (M), but let's leave that to one side for the moment. The AISC has no practical control over the PLA, but it is legally in charge.

Who else has authority? Well, the government of Nepal pays the wages of the people in the cantonments and pays for their general upkeep, and technically has the power to stop payments. This is concrete authority, backed up by a concrete threat.

Now, what does the UNMIN itself actually do? You've claimed that it is in 'authority' over the Maoists - is this true?

The UNMIN tells us that
Resolution 1740 (2007) established UNMIN with a mandate to:

monitor the management of arms and armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Maoist army, in line with the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

assist the parties through a Joint Monitoring Coordinating Committee in implementing their agreement on the management of arms and armed personnel

assist in the monitoring of ceasefire arrangements

provide technical assistance to the Election Commission in the planning, preparation and conduct of the election of a Constituent Assembly in a free and fair atmosphere

That's the UNMIN's job description. It doesn't pay the bills, it didn't build the cantonments, it doesn't have any weapons, it doesn't even have a particularly large team in Nepal. Hardly an occupation!

You may also find this news report interesting, where the UNMIN clarified its actual role after a bunch of PLA troops were caught outside of the cantonments.


KATHMANDU, FEB 16 - United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) on Tuesday said the recent media reports have incorrectly attributed responsibilities to UNMIN that go beyond its mandate.

Issuing a press statement in response to the recent media commentary on its monitoring role, UNMIN said that it is guided by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Agreement on Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies (AMMAA). “In its monitoring role, UNMIN does not supervise or control the Nepal Army or the Maoist army,” read the statement.

Under the AMMAA, responsibility for management of the Nepal Army and the Maoist army lies with their respective chain of command. UNMIN has not been requested to manage directly any army personnel, cantonments or barracks.

“It is also the responsibility of both parties to provide UNMIN with accurate figures of the number of personnel under their command,” it said.

http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/02/16/national/unmin-clarifies-its-arms-monitoring-mandate/308519/

I don't have time right now to respond to all the rest of your post, I'll do that later. But I want to briefly comment on another baseless assertion you made:


The difference between new democratic revolution and what Prachanda is aiming to carry out, however, is that Prachanda's idea of new democratic revolution doesn't take place under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat doesn't acquire an effective monopoly on political power in Prachanda's model, but rather shares it with the enemy.

Where did he express this idea? What is his model? What is your evidence for this?

This is typical of the RCP. You make a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims, then dodge responses until people give up out of frustration. What should be clear from my brief response here is that quite simply, MRD does not know what she's talking about, and is making a lot of very harsh attacks on the UCPN (M) despite this lack of accurate knowledge.

[chegitz guevara]

The reason I so often accuse you of chauvinism and get annoyed by what you have to say is that you're not an honest debater.

You, uh, might want to make clear to whom you are writing (Monkey Riding Dragon), immediately following my post as you do. :)