Sri Lanka's sputtering peace process has virtually broken down. The Tigers returned to their favored tactic of suicide bombings - wounding the Army chief. The Sri Lankan government replied with air raids that, of course, killed civilians - further inflaming the situation. The Norwegian government is trying to get the parties to sit down to reinvigorated peace talks in Oslo (sound familiar?)

In successfully attacking the Sri Lankan army HQ, the LTTE showed that it has maintained its terror capabilities and the return of war to the long suffering island promises major bloodshed.

The return of warfare to Sri Lanka has implications for India as well. India sent a peacekeeping for to Sri Lanka from 1987 to 1990 because Tamil seperatism in Sri Lanka threatend to inspire similar activity among Indian Tamils. The Tigers later assassinated the Indian PM who ordered the military action, Rajiv Gandhi.

No nation wants to see warfare break out just beyond its borders, but LTTE terrorism is a particular problem for India. Finally, the Indian government claims the LTTE is aiding the Indian Naxalite and Nepalese Maoist terrorism and has links to the ISI.

It appears likely that, in the face of massive popular protests, Nepal's King will either be removed from power, or play a diminished role in the country's politics. Unfortunately, this does very help impoverished, isolated Nepal with its biggest single problem: a violent Maoist insurgency that has killed about 13,000 people over the last ten years and threatens Nepal's biggest industry - tourism.

The King dismissed the elected government in 2002 because the political parties were squabbling with each other and not making any headway against the Maoists. (Not that the King has done much better.) Now the Maoists have been supporting the protests and will likely have a prominent position within Nepali politics. Political theorists will argue that this role will moderate the Maoists. This is unlikely - they are Maoists (that is they are a bit nutty.) Also, governing Nepal is no picnic. Because it is so mountainous there is a severe shortage of arable land. Because it is isolated, there has been minimal industrial development. Because there is a Maoist insurgency, the tourist trade is in trouble. Add it all up and you have a recipe for chronic under-employment which is (in my humble opinion) the leading cause of terrorism and insurgencies.

The new government will come in with high expectations and probably not be able to fulfill them.

Besides the human rights issues, there are some broader strategic implications to events in Nepal. Neighboring provinces of India have a nasty Maoist insurgency of their own. This New York Times piece describes the war well - but claims there is no real connection between the Nepali Maoists and the Indian Maoists (also known as Naxalites). Indian Intelligence begs to differ, noting that at the minimum they publicly >established a coordination committee and discuss a Revolutionary Corridor including Nepal and six Indian states.

Having a secure haven in Nepal will only strengthen the Naxalites. Their attacks are growing in violence (over 1000 were killed last year) and sophistication - last year the Maoists raided a prison and freed hundreds of their detained colleagues.

This will only add to India's difficulties with several domestic ethnic insurgencies and the always problematic Bangladesh and Pakistan on their borders.