I am surprised by the media attention received by Carter’s visit and his political consultations. He is a semi-moron, semi-senile irrelevant ex-politician who runs a few charity organizations which are good for nothing. Everyone knows pretty well that he holds neither power nor affluence in American politics.Carter funds an NGO in Nepal and that’s all.

Despite this, the Nepalese politicians are running after him like a mad dog.I understand this as sheer mediocrity of Nepal’s political leaders. Besides, it is the reflection of lack of confidence, and obsession for the white inherent in them.

If you expect a mediator or a peacemaker in Carter then it is perhaps too much to ask from him. The Carter Center — in political term, is simply an organization for monitoring elections and, to certain extent, validating them as having gone through due process. I think that is where his expertise lies and precisely where his influence ends.

Apart from his controversial acts at home — incessant criticism of Bush administration, to his overtly courageous acts of attempts at breaking ice with sworn enemies of his government, Carter has become a sort of ‘activist’ against US government’s traditional policies toward other states. If viewed from that angle it is no surprise that Carter would actually recommend removing ‘terrorist’ tag from the Maoists. However, how much sway he has with his home government in actualizing such critical issue is beyond me.

But here is the thing though. When we have our own government — which officially comprises of Maoists in country’s legislative body to begin with, and two powerful nations on either side endorsing Maoists wholeheartedly as legit political players, what makes anyone think Carter’s visit or speech now should sound any different from political language that has been continuously spoken by Nepali, Indian and Chinese governments since last year?

Perhaps Moriarty rather than Carter is an oddball. At least, Carter, given his reputation, can be expected to be out of line at times. But what of Moriarty? Wasn’t he the most redundant US emissary ever? On one hand his government kept tagging Maoists as unfit to play by the rules in democratic setting; one the other hand his government pretty much bypassed Moriarty and left it to the Indians to define its policy in Nepal who, apparently, had such soft corner for the rebels that they actually facilitated the whole process by which Maoists would become a key political player in Nepal today.

On a more self-reflective note: what has changed since last year that we have so wholeheartedly begun to detest foreign emissaries coming to our country and pumping-and-dumping their democratic rhetoric while the country continuously accelerates towards political instability? The ‘openess without limitation’ has not only provided fertile grounds for radical self-interest groups of Nepal and elsewhere, but has opened access for foreign governments in exercising their neo-colonial tendencies in Nepal’s domestic affairs. How are we any different from an Indian colony today, or how far we from becoming a Chinese autonomous state tomorrow?

Thuli,

Agreed! But don’t you think it requires a little courage and a little manganimity to browbeat the political condition of a country like Nepal where most nations have lost interest in.

I have went through recent books written by Carter where he has implicitly lauded south asian culture and their system of belief. Politics aside, could it be one of his attempts to rejuvenate our country in every possible way?

All I have to say is, for a person who not only is global political figure ( you might agree he is obsolete) but is also writer and a rationalist,Carter does not necessarily have to be involved in Nepal affairs as it would never give him enough mileage for his worldwide campaign in thrashing Bush adminstration.

I think an ovation to his generosity is the least we could afford.

It is written, announced and elaborately explained: “In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism … in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them … ”

Yet the bourgeois gentlemen who call themselves Social-Democrats (G, S et al) , who do not belong either to the broad sections or to the mass believers in defencism, with serene brow present the views thus: “The banner [!] of civil war” (of which there is not a word in the theses and not a word in the dictum!) has been planted (!) “in the midst [!!] of revolutionary democracy …”

“…neither power nor affluence”

Don’t you mean INFLUENCE? Who’s senile now? Carter runs a lot more than an NGO in Nepal and has done all kinds of good since his presidency.

@Thuli: Carter has never stopped being “influential” since his presidency. There are those who run politics with power and others who do with courage. He’s not without flaws, but then who is. Go read his books.

What does this mean? In what way does this differ from riot-inciting agitation?
It is written, announced and elaborately explained: The great Communist Party of Nepal Maoist is the only possible form of revolutionary government, and therefore the task is to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses. Yet opponents of a certain brand present the views as a call to ‘civil war in the midst of revolutionary democracy’!

carter fuck you