AMBASSADOR'S COMMENTARY ON NEPAL

In its Wednesday, February 15, 2006 editions, The Wall Street Journal-Asia published this commentary on Nepal by U.S. Ambassador James F. Moriarty.  The newspaper headlined the article “Nepal’s Royal Mess.”

By James F. Moriarty

KATHMANDU -- For the past decade, Nepal has faced two overarching and intertwined challenges:  how to establish a functioning democracy and how to defeat a stubborn Maoist insurgency. Unfortunately, instead of cooperating to address these challenges, King Gyanendra has further alienated Nepal’s political parties over the past year, leading to significant military and political advances by the Maoists. Unless the King and the seven major political parties reconcile soon, this mountain kingdom could slide into chaos.

The United States has always understood Nepal’s struggle to prevent a takeover by the Maoists, who took up arms against the country’s then-parliamentary government in 1996. The King’s assumption of “temporary” authoritarian power on Feb. 1, 2005 was premised on fighting the terrorist group, with the promise to return Nepal to democracy in three years’ time. Last week’s municipal polls, the first in seven years, were supposed to be the first step in that process. 

As the polling day drew closer, however, it became clear that the elections were merely the King’s attempt to legitimize his autocratic rule. Instead of reaching out to the major political parties, the King’s government placed opposition leaders under house arrest and rounded up hundreds of political activists. Instead of working with the parties to return Nepal to democracy, the King and his ministers shied away from suggestions of compromise and reconciliation. Instead of accepting media freedom, the government has cracked down hard on Nepal’s lively independent media.

As a result, voter turnout was predictably low. In Kathmandu, less than 25% of the voting public turned out; in some places outside the capital turnout was half that level. Nationwide, only 15 % of seats were contested, 54 % had no candidates, and in 31% candidates were elected unopposed.  Most significantly, the nation’s seven major political parties boycotted the vote, labeling it a sham. And in large part, it was.

Given the palace’s failure to include the parties in the process, their decision to boycott is understandable. In contrast, the Maoist campaign of violence--assassinating candidates, bombing their homes and threatening potential candidates and their families--is despicable. Their call to arms is unabashedly direct: On Monday, the terrorist group’s leader, known as Prachanda, appeared on BBC television and speculated about the King’s possible exile or execution.

There have been attempts at compromise in the past. Frustrated by the continued standoff with the palace, the seven opposition parties entered into a 12-point understanding with the Maoists in November, during a four-month unilateral ceasefire called by the insurgents. A close reading, however, should give real pause to those who hoped that the 12-point document signaled a Maoist willingness to come into the mainstream. The understanding calls to “establish absolute democracy by ending autocratic monarchy, with all forces focusing their attack against the autocratic monarchy independently.” In short, the Maoists merely promised to continue what they have done for 10 years--that is, to murder, abduct, extort, and otherwise terrorize Nepal’s people in the pursuit of power.

Aside from Prachanda’s recent inflammatory remarks, Baburam Bhattarai, the Maoist second-in-command, drove this home in a series of op-ed pieces in Nepal’s domestic newspapers last month, stating “armed and unarmed struggle must go hand-in-hand” and “there cannot be any Chinese wall between armed and peaceful movements. They are interchangeable.” Mr. Bhattarai has stated explicitly that the Maoists hope to combine Maoist armed struggle with the political parties’ unarmed struggle to topple the monarchy.

This puts Nepal’s political parties in an awkward position. While proclaiming themselves champions of democracy, peace, and prosperity, they find themselves in “partnership” with a movement that settles arguments with a gun.

The time for honest dialogue between the King and the parties--including the willingness to compromise--is long overdue. The United States stands ready to deepen its relationship with Nepal and engage it on a variety of issues, including renewed assistance for the Royal Nepalese Army. But first we need to see movement toward democracy, human rights, and freedom by Nepal’s government. Nepal’s legitimate political forces--the monarchy and the major parties--must overcome their deep animosities. Until they unite, there is little reason to hope that the Maoists will unilaterally abandon their addiction to violence or their hopes for a totalitarian state.