Remarks to the Nepal Council of World Affairs

Released by U.S. Embassy Kathmandu

Today, in the spirit of the long friendship Nepal and the United States have enjoyed, I want to talk about two concepts that I think are absolutely vital for Nepal at this point in its history: democracy and reconciliation.  Before I do so, however, I would like to explain why my country, the United States, has the temerity to speak out on issues such as this.

In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that the United States “will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.”

Freedom, my friends, is the cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world at this crucial moment in our history.  It is also the cornerstone of our engagement with Nepal at this crucial moment in your history.

Freedom, civil rights, and democracy—these are principles upon which my nation was founded.  They are principles we live by today.  They are principles we hold dear for our future.  As my president’s personal representative to Nepal, I believe they are principles essential to the future of your country as well.

Nepal today is at a cross-roads: Unless the principles of freedom, civil rights, and democracy once again take root through a process of true reconciliation among the legitimate political forces, I fear that your country will inexorably slide toward confrontation, confusion, and chaos.  The continuing divisions between the Palace and the political parties aid only the Maoists and their plans to turn Nepal into a brutal and anachronistic state.

I get asked all the time why the United States is so keenly interested in Nepal.  This coming year the U.S. government will provide more than $44 million in bilateral developmental assistance—for health programs, good governance, and hydropower; for victims of conflict and to support democracy and peace.  This support is proof positive of our continuing support for Nepal, but what drives that support?

Our concern over regional stability is of course one factor.  With a violent, ideological Maoist insurgency desiring to take over the state and then to export its revolution to peaceful neighbors, there is much to worry about.  But our other concern is something that my President has in fact pinned his second term on: freedom.  As a nation defined by both liberty and democracy, the United States wishes to see the expansion of both around the world.  We believe freedom is a birthright of all people and that a rights-based democracy is the best way to balance majority desires and minority protections.

In your 12 years of active democracy, Nepal achieved much to be proud of.  Literacy rates improved, roads were built, development accelerated, foreign investment went up, and people had a voice through elections.  Young democracies, however, never sail on calm seas.  Undeniably, there was corruption and faltering policies and chaos in your political institutions.  But that happens in every young democracy.  Look at my own country in its first few decades of democracy.  Things were surely chaotic.  We know how challenging it can be to develop democratic institutions, but Nepal was working through those challenges before 2002.

In fact, Nepal could well be just one of many newly developing democracies around the world -- struggling, but slowly creating a new democratic space -- if it were not for one thing: the Maoist insurgency. 

Some have painted the insurgents as a group of socialists who just want to give more rights to the downtrodden and to get the government to pay attention to rural peoples and social justice.  Such goals are laudable, but other political parties are addressing them without violent tactics.  We hope that one day the Maoists too will become part of the political mainstream and give up arms, but for now their own words and actions say otherwise.  They want to collectivize agriculture -- a recipe for mass starvation.  They want to re-educate class enemies -- a plan to wipe out educated, free-thinking people.  They want to export their revolution -- a war that would threaten all of South Asia. 

We can never forget that we are dealing with ideologues who have all the violent hallmarks of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and who continue to insist on the righteousness of their armed struggle.  Theirs would not be a regime of benevolent socialism.  It would be an authoritarian assault on all free Nepalis.  Every day the Maoists assail democracy itself through attacks on political party workers, local government offices, journalists, human rights workers, and other innocent civilians who want nothing more than peace.  The Maoists have done nothing to indicate that they are prepared to change, and they do not abide by democracy.  Their actions speak louder than their words.  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.  And absent elections, there can be no functioning democracy.

Nepal’s legitimate political parties also must bear some of the responsibility for resolving the crisis currently confronting the country.  While they were in power, the parties were seen by many Nepalis as squabbling tribes who put partisan and personal interest above the needs of the country.  Out of power, the parties have taken few steps to address their shortcomings, including corruption, nepotism, lack of intra-party democracy, and lack of transparency.  Until they effectively address these shortcomings, the parties will not be able to win back the trust and confidence of many Nepalis.  But the shortcomings of individual parties do not mean that democracy cannot work in Nepal.  Instead, it only underscores the need for elections, and functioning democracy, so that the people of Nepal can sit in judgment on their would-be leaders. 

Clearly, the actions of February 1 represented a big step back from democracy.  While we saw some progress in April and May with the release of most political detainees and an end to the formal state of emergency, since then we have seen little movement toward the Government’s own stated goal of multiparty democracy.  On paper, the Government’s four-point plan is laudable, including as it does cleaning up corruption, attacking terrorism, imposing fiscal discipline, and ensuring good governance.

Yet how can the government say it is imposing fiscal discipline when two of its ministers are loan defaulters?  How can the government say it is serious about fighting corruption when it willfully ignores the Asian Development Bank’s own report regarding the alleged corruption by former Prime Minister Deuba?   How can the government say it is operating with good governance under the rule of law when the extra judicial RCCC’s recent verdict looks more like a political vendetta than a serious exercise of judicial authority and when people who exercise their constitutional right to freedom of expression are imprisoned for sedition?

Six months after the imposition of direct rule on February 1, with a questionable cabinet full of Panchayat-era politicians and even a convicted criminal, the government seems to have gone back on its own core principles.  If the Palace is serious about its commitment to democracy, it must act so in both word and deed.

We call on the Government to restore all civil liberties, including freedom of the media and freedom of personal expression.  We call on the government to release all political detainees.  We call on the Palace to reach out to the political parties with sincere proposals that reflect their common agenda of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy and a return to full electoral democracy.

For their part, the political parties must keep an open mind and accept a hand, if offered.  That doesn’t mean accepting everything the government says at face value, but it does mean being willing to negotiate in good faith to find a solution to Nepal’s problems.  The common minimum program by the seven parties is a good start -- we are pleased they are working together in a broad coalition.  But obviously an eighth actor needs to be included, if Nepal is to progress -- the Palace.  The parties should make clear that they are ready to discuss all ideas in order to find a common path forward to a functioning democracy.  That’s what political parties do.  They compromise, they discuss, they form coalitions, they work together to create policies and governments that fulfill the will of the people.

The people want reconciliation.  They want peace.  The way to achieve peace is with a democratic government united against the Maoist assault on Nepal. 

One thing people never seem to talk about is democracy itself and what kind of democracy Nepal wants.  The 1990 constitution was groundbreaking, and it functioned fairly well for 12 years.  The goal is to get back to such a functioning democracy.  Implicitly that means elections.  Democracy is of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Democracy is elected government.  Democracy is vibrant political parties and free political discourse.  How can Nepal get back to that?  That is for Nepalis to decide.  But you won’t get there without all the legitimate political forces on board -- that means the parties and the Palace.

For the sake of Nepal’s children -- your children -- the children caught in the conflict outside Kathmandu, the children who now carry guns, the children who only want education and jobs and a peaceful future, the children who will one day grow up to govern this country -- the legitimate political forces should rise above their differences and come up with a plan to work together.  Otherwise there may not be a country to govern.

As President Abraham Lincoln famously declared when my own country’s existence was threatened by the Civil War: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  These thoughtful words are more than eloquent rhetoric; they are truth.  And they ring true here and now.  Nepal will not endure if its legitimate political forces are divided.  You must act now to preserve your children’s future.

To conclude my remarks today, it is not for the United States to say how Nepal should construct its democracy.  But we do say unequivocally that you should have it.  And urgently so.  The time for rhetoric is over.  The time for action is now.

Thank you.