If you haven’t heard about the coup in Nepal, you shouldn’t blame yourself. After all, Nepal is a monarchy, so when the monarch asserts power, you can’t hardly call it a coup, can you?
Take a look at this anonymous note we got at ZNet. The entire country has been shut down. There is another piece on ZNet about this with a bit more analysis.
If you haven’t heard about the coup in Nepal, you shouldn’t blame yourself. After all, Nepal is a monarchy, so when the monarch asserts power, you can’t hardly call it a coup, can you?
Take a look at this anonymous note we got at ZNet. The entire country has been shut down. There is another piece on ZNet about this with a bit more analysis.
Take a look. And then, for an exercise, 1) assess what this coup has to do with freedom and democracy, and then 2) take a guess which side the US is on.
I am confused by Znet’s
I am confused by Znet’s attitude towards the civil war in Nepal. The articles linked are clearly alligned with consitutional monarchy and hostile to the peasant rebels on general principle. Over the course of this war, Z has run exactly one article that says what the rebels are fighting over and since then has run a train of stories, including the one you link to above, that even discusses effective counter-insurgency.
From the article: “What is clear is that this has been a radical step exposing the institution of kingship to flak, when other approaches could have been tried. Such as using the inherent powers of kingship to cajole the political parties to work together and put up a political front against the insurgents. But the king’s deeply held feelings towards the parties seems to have blocked off this avenue towards resolution. The calls made since King Gyanendra took over informally in October 2002 for an all-party government or revival of the Third Parliament, all of which would have provided political challenge to the Maoists on their home ground, are now for naught.”
Uh, okay. Why on earth would an ostensibly radical information clearinghouse in the USA such as Znet want Nepalese political parties to “come together” behind an absolutist godking in support of one of the most backward and oppressive systems in the world? That’s what the US State Department wants, among others.
This article is a lament from a “mainstream” party that has lost any initiative, and wants the king to “bring the parties together.” Why? To defend a system that the people of Nepal are rejecting? The Maoists are fighting for a social and poltical revolution that will break the back of the king and his feudal supporters. They are arming women instead of just complaining about patriarchy and promise that their fight won’t end at their own borders.
It’s great that the Maoists are winning. It’s disheartening that the post-everything left is so intent on burying communism in favor of a permanent opposition that they won’t even include links to information on what’s happening on the ground.
It’s also not as if Z can’t find a fuller range of information. Right now, Monthly Review is highlighting Babaram Bhattarai’s recent piece on the end of the monarchy and the class polarization inside Nepal. Maybe if the Maoists took foudnation grants and wasted their time at conferences instead of in the rural villages of Nepal they might get the respect to present their ideas to the leftist readers of Znet…
You can wax poetic over Chavez, I guess, even though the rich still have servants and promises to defend the sanctity of private property. But let a revolution come along that promises to turn that whole system over, and suddenly Z isn’t interested in a diversity of opinion.
And if you’re talking about
And if you’re talking about a “media coup,” you could at least mention that the editors of the CPN’s paper were murdered years ago, when the “mainstream” parties still had “freedom.” Again, Z should know better than to engage in such selective reporting that only serves to reinforce anti-communist dogmatism.