Pentagon ABC: Divide and Rule, the China, Nepal, USA power dynamics

Pentagon ABC: Divide and Rule

By Mohan Nepali    January 18, 2008

A united power is difficult to cope with. The divide-and-rule manta has been used not only within a country but also in international politics. Although it has become a basic formula for ruling classes all over the world to maintain their ruling power by suppressing their peoples, it has equally been used by dominant international powerful players.

The divide-and-rule mantra has become a basic arithmetic of political power. Almost all kinds of political power gamblers like to use this method, but all of them do not succeed so notably. However, dominant international forces have appeared more successful in the divide-and-rule tournament.

With the downfall of the Soviet Social Imperialism in the 1990s, the United States of America has become a more successful user of this ruling trick. The CIA was able to buy KGB agents and officers who became very instrumental in dividing the very powerful Soviet Union into 15 different states. The one historical power of the globe turned into many beggar states. Their scientists and scholars began to work as security guards and salespersons. Thousands of rubles became equivalent to a few dollars. Dollars replaced rubles in the Russian market. Those divided states were compelled to ask other nations for sustenance grants.

Yet, this type of division did not result with a night’s preparation. A long and detailed background work took place before this happened. The CIA had even used Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein against the then Soviet Union. Today the United States claims it is the only superpower while China and India are also trying to convert themselves into superpowers.

As the divide-and-rule mantra has yielded tangible results globally for the USA, it has further promoted and modified it to continue dividing the world and to maintain its supremacy.

Directly sponsoring political parties, providing them money, training and weapons, and providing other military packages to puppet governments are some overt methods used by the Pentagon while mobilizing brains through INGOs, operating secret intelligence services (e.g. voluntary services) and running even research centers are other covert ways.

Similarly, penetrating into parties ideologically different from one another and extremizing them towards different ends has become a common infiltration method used by the CIA. After Nepal’s now-outgoing King Gyanendra in April 2006 retreated from his direct rule that he began after his 1/2 coup d’etat in 2005, the US Administration proposed more military aid to the royal government with a clear-cut view to interfering with Nepal’s internal affairs. It tried to directly enter Nepal’s government army in the name of military cooperation. The then US ambassador to Nepal James F. Moriarty visited Nepal Army’s barracks and indecently told commanders to do this and that.

James F. Moriarty visited Nepal’s Terai region (bordering India), met Madhesi leaders and instigated them to take actions against the Maoists. Immediately after this, devastating communal violence erupted in the Terai region. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, comprising not only armed robbery, smuggling and kidnapping gangs from both India and Nepal but also political workers and supporters from different mainstream parties ranging from moderate to ultra-rightist views, massacred 29 civilians in Rautahat in March 2007. The massacre is globally known as the Gaur Carnage. The Nepal government became too powerless to punish the directly involved killers roaming in the streets of Gaur. Moreover, the Nepal government even refused to accept the formal information report from the victims’ side. This aroused certain questions: Where did they get money and weapons from? Why did the Nepal government’s district security apparatus became a mere spectator while the massacre took place before their eyes continuously for three hours? Why did the Nepal government not punish the directly involved killers roaming around? And why did the government refuse even to register a formal information report from the victims’ relatives? No matter how superficial human rights field reports regarding this massacre are, they prove gross human rights violations. But the government remained sound asleep in this matter. Therefore, fact-minded analysts (who feel insecure themselves) estimate logically that some kind of big hand was in the background of the Gaur carnage that nearly reverted Nepal back to civil war. This happened while Nepal was rapidly heading towards conflict transformation process along with the ceasefire meant for peaceful settlement of the country’s political and socio-economic crises.

A similar divide-and-rule trick has been used by India through its Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Analysts believe that there are three major trends within the Nepali Congress and two trends within the UML. It is not yet clear whether there is CIA and RAW penetration into the Communist Party of Nepal [(CPN)-Maoist].

The acceleratingly flourishing China has become a big headache to the US Administration. US media always pressurize the White House to devise military, political and economic strategies to cope with the growing power of China. China becomes an everyday topic for American media and columnists. One formula the US Administration has applied more frequently in China is becoming active there through green INGOs and NGOs. As China lacks the universal type of political freedom, it is not that easy for the CIA to operate through their puppet political organizations. As China, by shooting down an American spy plane, has already demonstrated its abruptness in countering intelligence activities, it is natural for the CIA to seek more covert and subtle ways.

The application of the divide-and-rule mantra can be seen in other parts of the world, be they Latin American or African nations. More apparently, this can be seen in the Arab world. Long-term effects of the divide-and-rule formula have not been studied. However, it would not be wrong to believe that the divide-and-rule formula at least contributes to weapon production and business, including international political instability. Is it good? The question is there.