The Democratists can't tolerate the existance of monarchies even in tiny insignificant countries out of the fear the masses might realize it's a superior form of government.

Has Kerry sided with the Maoists yet?

I am not sure how this is any different from the general policy towards "building democracies" that begun in the 1990's. Even the Iraq War can be seen as the inevitable outcome of the policies of the 1990's towards Saddam, inevitable if one believes the US would not capitulate and simply "surrender." At some point, a decision would have to be made - sanctions could not have lasted forever.

Despite what both the right and left say, the conduct of American diplomacy seems to be fairly continuous.

I have always supported the ruling authorities of Nepal. I hunted elephant with the king's brother just a few years prior to his assisination. That experience is seared into my memory. It was shortly after I became a United States Senator. Now, as for the Maoists, I do not condone their tactics, but I understand their legitimate concerns and support some of the valid issues they raise. I would be intersted in exploring this issue with our friends in china, when I next meet with the leadership there, as I have regularly done from time to time over the past several years.

"Stability is dead."

Unless we're talking about somewhat more powerful countries, of course.

Name one.

More powerful than Nepal? China.

We're destabilizing China too.

It's a very precarious sumo battle, played out in extreme slow-motion, considering the size of China and the financial co-dependence between the US and China.

So slow-motion, in fact, that one may call it stability.

Want to bet?

If you think we disagree that China slowly but surely will become more free and more free-market, there is no need to bet. I think that's the way things are going.

Also, the US is heavily dependent on China financially, and it is a situation that needs to be untangled with patience.

For the time being, I consider this stable and, while it moves as molasses, I hope it moves as quickly or as slowly as it needs, and see no need to accelerate it artificially.

I know we disagree on many things, and I take those 'philosophically' and am not too terribly attached to the outcome. On this one, I sincerely hope I'm right.

We are accelerating it though, via support for Taiwan, Mongolia, Tibet, Christian missions, toppling North Korea, pushing free trade, etc. It's only from too close in that it isn't obvious that we are a force for its instability.

Accelerating... very carefully. And slowly. Not quite the same pace as, say, accelerating regime change in Iraq.