Re: Western aid - good or bad?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ YetiZone Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]


Posted by Keith (in California) on May 13, 2002 at 16:13:25:

In Reply to: Western aid - good or bad? posted by huw on May 11, 2002 at 21:21:00:

Speaking as an American, and one who fell in love with Nepal for the first time in March 2001, I would be concerned if the US became involved militarily in the Maoist conflict.

I think that a lot of American's would never admit, but believe strongly that the state of the world situation is largely due to the arrogance of the West being "best". It seems that whenever America asserts itself into other conflicts (usually only to protect economic interests such as oil), we solve the political problem to our own selfish satisfaction, then we leave, often to the detriment of the country involved. Afganistan is the perfect example. The US created the environment in which the Taliban could rise to power by leaving the country in turmoil after helping to eliminate the Russian invaders. Once the Russians were gone, we left, with little regard for how the country would eventually put itself back together. I fear that a similar situation would occur in Nepal with American involvement. However, the fact that Europe repeatly fails to step up, America is left to be the World's police force.

One of my concerns is that the Maoist conflict would eventually become similar to the Indian/Kashmir conflict. I foresee a time when Nepal may become fractured due to the conflict, and then vulnerable to India and even China. Having no economic base other than tourism, those sorts of political pressures could be devistating.

For the time being I would feel perfectly safe traveling in Nepal, although guarded, but I have serious concerns for the future if the conflict grows.


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ YetiZone Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]