Ambassador Moriarty Remarks for Lunch with Journalists in Butwal

October 26, 2005                                                   << in nepali>>

It is a pleasure to be with you here in Butwal.  I travel outside of Kathmandu on a regular basis to better understand developments in Nepal, and that is why I am in this region this week.  Trips like this one also permit Lauren and me to enjoy the natural beauty of your country, which is breathtaking.

Before taking your questions about U.S. views on Nepal, though, I want to take note of two important recent advances in the world for democracy and freedom.  First is the October 15 constitutional referendum in Iraq.  This referendum was an important step forward for the Iraqi people, and we congratulate the millions of Iraqis who participated.  Once again, Iraqi voters defied the threats of terror and violence to make their voices heard.  This referendum was obviously a critical step in Iraq’s democratic political process.

Similarly impressive were the September 18 parliamentary elections in Afghanistan, which President Bush justifiably called “a major step forward in Afghanistan’s development as a democratic state governed by the rule of law.”  There is strong commitment in that nation to assuring a democratic future for its people, and the international community is helping make that commitment a reality. 

In Nepal, meanwhile, the King recently announced that elections for the House of Representatives would be conducted by mid-April 2007, and the Election Commission said that municipal elections would be held on February 8, 2006.  Linked to this development, of course, are the government’s promulgation of a new media ordinance amending previous media acts, and the Election Commission’s new Code of Conduct for media to cover elections.

Elections are obviously important for the restoration of democracy, but we are troubled by the circumstances surrounding the announcements of these upcoming polls in Nepal.  Given both the failure of the King to reach out to the political parties to discuss the elections with them, and the announcement of new media restrictions, Nepalis and the international community alike worry that the King is less interested in conducting free and fair elections than in elections intentionally designed to validate his continued rule. 

It is not too late to alter this course, however.  We call on the King to begin good faith talks with the parties as a first step, because without their participation, the parliamentary elections are unlikely to have national or international legitimacy.  In other words, if municipal elections next February and parliamentary elections in 2007 occur without the robust participation of the legitimate political parties, we fear that these elections will be a hollow exercise. 

In the context of holding elections, we are deeply troubled by the government’s recent moves to restrict media.  The new ordinance on media coverage and ownership appears at odds with the spirit of free and open, democratic government.  The seizing of radio equipment from Kantipur FM on October 21 at gunpoint, and apparently without any judicial authorization, by state authorities was shocking and disappointing.  And the Election Commission’s Code of Conduct for media covering elections also is worrisome.  Imposing restrictions on media does not advance democracy.  Clearly, such measures are at odds with the goal of promoting free and fair elections in Nepal.

As I have said before on several occasions, the twin goals of the United States for Nepal are the restoration of democracy and prevention of a Maoist takeover.  We believe, more so than ever, that the best way forward to reach these goals is through unity of the legitimate political forces – the political parties and the monarchy.

If the King were to reach out to the political parties, we hope that party leaders – who say they are the people’s representatives – would embrace elections as the best way to give the people a voice.  Numerous polls and my own interactions with people during my travels around the country show clearly that the Nepali people want democracy and want to be able to hold their leaders accountable.  The political parties have an opportunity during the ceasefire to engage with their constituents and prepare themselves for contesting elections.

Despite declaring a ceasefire, the Maoists have done nothing to indicate that they are prepared to abandon violence in the long-term, and abductions and extortion continue unabated.  Let us not forget that the Maoists have used force and the threat of force to prevent elections from being held in Nepal since 1999.  The seven-party alliance, for its part, has decided to hold talks with the Maoist rebels.  People in the parties tell me they are carefully gauging the actions of the Maoists while at the same time worrying that what the Maoists want is to establish one-party, authoritarian rule in Nepal.  So we strongly caution the political parties against considering any kind of formal relationship with the Maoists, unless and until the Maoists firmly renounce violence, put down their weapons, and commit to supporting the democratic process.

Thank you. I’d be happy to take your questions over lunch.

##