Every time talks with the Maoists seem to be getting somewhere, a monkey wrench flies in from nowhere and destroys all trust.
The common wisdom in Kathmandu is that there will be no dialogue with the Maoists. And there will be no attention paid to what the government keeps calling "the Maoist problem," until after the Congress Party tamasha in Pokhara in January. I don't think it would be considered "too political" to reiterate that the Nepali people crave peace and security, and that the longer the country and the people have neither, the harder it will be to reinstall both. Positions will harden further, more people will either be dislocated from their homes, jobs and schools, or join the Maoists, and the chaos and corruption in the capital will be even less controllable than at present.
If we wait much longer to talk, compromise, and give the people the kind of government they long for, it may be too late. We could get to that point immortalised in nursery rhyme where "all the king's horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again". In the aftermath of the failed fiasco of the t?te-?-t?te between the deputy prime minister and the Maoist's Kathmandu chief in November, and the closing down of schools, rumours are running rife again. One is that the status quo classes are selling off property and investing in gold. And are our police getting a "strike force" trained by some foreign "special forces" unit? Internationalising this insurgency may have some dangerous ramifications for Nepal.
One area in which there should be no qualms about internationali-sing the issue would be in finding reputable international institutions specialising in conflict resolution. Because the situation is getting so serious and the present government seems to be focussing more on factional quarrels in the run-up to Pokhara, this may actually be one way out. Provided both sides are serious about talks, these negotiations could be held in a far-away neutral venue such as Geneva with capable and experienced negotiators.
It might actually be useful for both parties to confront their disagreements from a comfortable distance, and far away from media glare and domestic posturing. Physical and mental detachment and a neutral venue could cool passions and hardline positions on both sides, and create a better atmosphere for compromise. The cost would be negligible compared to the money looted by Maoists from provincial banks, and by defaulting businessmen from the big banks in Kathmandu.
A neutral observer and mediator, whether counselling parties in a failing marriage or parties to a deadly conflict, can be quite desirable. But a pre-requisite is serious commitment to finding a negotiated solution on both sides. You can't go into this in a half-hearted way, as a strategy to buy time, or to follow a two-track, carrot-and-stick approach. Up until now, every time we thought the talks might be getting somewhere, a monkey wrench flies in from nowhere and destroys all trust. There are professionals specialising in negotiating ceasefires and compromise solutions to insurgencies. Why don't we make use of them?
If that sounds far-fetched, another place to start would be to look at a negotiator from the Army to talk on behalf of the government and the people. The Maobadis have hinted in the past that they would not be averse to talking with the army. After all, the Maoists consider themselves at war, so negotiating with representatives of the military apparatus would make sense to them.
Since the Congress Party is so fragmented that it seems unable to agree on anything, one can only, very tentatively, put one's last extant hope in the good patriotic sense of the group of ten parties of the moderate left. If they could only put aside their political differences, and temporarily unite to work for the good of this rapidly deteriorating country, they might actually have a good chance to succeed. Were they to unite to make peace with the Maoists, and agree on changing the Constitution, they could prove a real and positive force. How about it comrades? How about cobbling together a United Front for peace?
