Nepal and their new Prime Minister

**~~attilavolciak07~~** · August 20, 2008, 08:39 AM

Well, I don't know how many of you have heard of this, it happened two days ago, but Nepal has elected a Maoist Prime Minister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prachanda
He apparently was the leader of a former guerilla Maoist group. He unleashed the People War in Nepal in which 13,000 were killed on both sides, but my question is
"How will this affect US-Nepal relations, you know, because they are Maoist?"
For those who don't know, Maoism is a type of communism based on the beliefs of Chinese chairman Mao Zedong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism

**Andrew87** · August 20, 2008, 08:53 AM

one question: how the hell did this happen?

[ looks at what the russians are trying to do in Georgia ]

oh... now i get it

**~~attilavolciak07~~** · August 20, 2008, 09:21 AM

They got 230 seats in Parliament as well.
I think Nepal made the list of countries 'to get' for america

**Kanaric** · August 20, 2008, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by attilavolciak07

They got 230 seats in Parliament as well.
I think Nepal made the list of countries 'to get' for america

If we cared about a landlocked himilayan backwater.

**Mithie** · August 20, 2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Kanaric

If we cared about a landlocked himilayan backwater.

Nepal is a very important cultural and religious center for Asia.

And let's not forget the Gurkas were some of the most badass warriors ever produced and I'll give them top odds going toe to toe with any other special forces operators in the world.

Nepal has a cultural history of producing the finest warriors and tacticians in the world since the 2nd century, BC.

Infantry Battle School Brecon of Mandalay anyone?

**Mithie** · August 20, 2008, 09:22 AM

Not a bad guy really, by any stretch of the imagination.

His economic policies are far from left leaning. He promises to make Nepal into an aggressive economic arbitrator between Chinese and Pakistani markets, as well as focusing on building up an industrial infrastructure to exploit Nepal's natural resources. Nepal's mountains currenly holds the water source which flows both north and south and supplies over 6 million people.

He also has a few fairly drastic social policies, like delegating a large chunk of federal funds to social projects like strengthening the education sector. Of course this would raise taxes, and he's got a lot of flak for focusing on social projects instead of agricultural projects.

The man is fairly intelligent and well spoken - I'm sure you'd agree if you saw him speak - even if you didn't speak the language. He also projects a very passionate personality, and his position on bringing the social and economic elite into line makes him very popular with the lower and middle class Nepalese, who are, frankly, tired of waging war on their behalf.

**~~attilavolciak07~~** · August 20, 2008, 09:26 AM

I don't think his is bad or anything, well being a Socialist I agree with some of his policies, but I just wonder if America might take a 'closer' look at him just because 1. He was a former guerilla leader and 2. He brands himself a Maoist

**Mithie** · August 20, 2008, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by attilavolciak07

I don't think his is bad or anything, well being a Socialist I agree with some of his policies, but I just wonder if America might take a 'closer' look at him just because 1. He was a former guerilla leader and 2. He brands himself a Maoist

Nepal was so much worse before the revolution.

Gyanedra Shah ran the country straight into the ground, fostering his social and economic elite while turning the country into some sort of proto-feudalist society. The communist party gained a lot of popularity during the 1960s because communism is an idealism that by its very nature, is the best theology to get an insurgency rolling.

The fact that he was a guerilla leader only makes him more attractive in the eyes of the new regime - particularly since the former regime was so goddamn awful and the people want a change. He considers himself a Maoist because Mao booted the Japanese out of China - paralleling his booting of the previous regime from power. He's also Maoist in his policies of fostering an educated industrial and agricultural class which will form the backbone of the new nation's labor force, which, since the vast majority of Nepal's citizens belong to that category, makes him extremely popular.

**the_mango55** · August 20, 2008, 12:43 PM

*were*

Macedonina once ruled over much of the ancient world as well. It doesn't make them important today.

And America doesn't care what the "cultural and religious centers" of the world do, only the economic and military centers.

**Mithie** · August 20, 2008, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by the_mango55

*were*

Pretty sure the Ghurkas are still around today, and they're still as badass as ever.

Also pretty sure a bunch of European nations still send their special forces to train in Mandalay, since the Infantry Battle School Brecon is still considered the definitive training ground for modern infantry tactics, and the Ghurka instructors there are highly coveted.

And America doesn't care what the "cultural and religious centers" of the world do, only the economic and military centers.

... and the geographical position of Nepal, right between the borders of China and India, two of the largest economically developing giants of Asia, doesn't strike you as important? Or how about the fact that the mountains of Nepal supplies 6 million Chinese and Indian residents with fresh water?

Or how about two out of the three Himalayan passes between China and India are inside Nepal?

The only reason Nepal is currently in a severe economic nadir is mostly thanks to the former royal regime driving it forcefully down into the ground.

**Viking Prince** · August 20, 2008, 02:06 PM

I cannot find a llink at the moment, but I recall the Maoist leader wants to disenfranchise all Gurkhas serving in foreign governments as well as their families still living in Nepal.

Also, they withdrew from the government when it appeared their leader would not be allowed to be PM -- some silly idea of needing a majority vote. This guy is not a democrat. I am certain more will come.

**Heathen Hammer** · August 20, 2008, 02:55 PM

I won't be surprised, that if Nepal has valuable resources, american government will suddenly become "concerned" about establishing "democracy" in it, by bombing the hell out of it.

**Hookah Smoking Caterpiller** · August 20, 2008, 02:58 PM

OH NOEZ A TINY STATE HAS BECOME COMMUNIST! THEY MIGHT CUT OFF OUR SUPPLIES OF YAK MILK AND SNOW AND YETIS!

**~~attilavolciak07~~** · August 20, 2008, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Modern Life is Rubbish

OH NOEZ A TINY STATE HAS BECOME COMMUNIST! THEY MIGHT CUT OFF OUR SUPPLIES OF YAK MILK AND SNOW AND YETIS!

:hmmm:I would think strategically that America and India could use Nepal because of their border with China.

Please show respect for other countries, they have feeling too

**Kiljan Arslan** · August 20, 2008, 05:08 PM

I wonder how long till things start going to hell there?

**Farnan** · August 20, 2008, 05:35 PM

Nepal will likely retain its relations with Britain and the US, Britain's especially was valuable to it.

**Kiljan Arslan** · August 20, 2008, 05:35 PM

I have no respect for those who adopt such a murderous ideology as Maoism. In truth I am not as much against communism as against certain kinds, mainly being Stalinism and Maoism, the others I dislike but tolerate.

**Hookah Smoking Caterpiller** · August 20, 2008, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Kiljan Arslan

I have no respect for those who adopt such a murderous ideology as Maoism. In truth I am not as much against communism as against certain kinds, mainly being Stalinism and Maoism, the others I dislike but tolerate.

Are you hating on the Maoism because its name is similar to that of Mao, or because you hate the idea that rural peasants can be an organ for revolutionary change?