Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
A Lost Year For Democracy And Peace In Nepal
February 1, 2006
Mr. President,
one of the many things one learns as a United States Senator is that
speaking out about autocratic, corrupt and abusive governments
invariably elicits a response.
The victims of
such regimes, including human rights and pro-democracy citizens who
are often imprisoned and tortured, express their appreciation.
Knowing that they have supporters half way around the world gives
them hope.
The officials of
those governments and their supporters respond differently. Knowing
that they cannot honestly defend their ill gotten gains and abuse of
power, they do what they can do. They attack the messenger. And
they do so through distortion and outright fabrication.
I have made
several statements about the troubling situation in Nepal, a poor
country with the most majestic mountains on Earth, which has
received too little attention by the Congress. It is a country
struggling against a determined Maoist insurgency that has brought
extortion, brutality and false promises of a better future to
virtually every province.
And it is a
country in which an autocratic monarchy has sought to consolidate
its grip on power and take the country backwards after a decade of
fledgling democracy.
One year has
passed since last February 1st when King Gyanendra
dissolved the multi-party government, curtailed civil liberties and
imprisoned political opponents. He has ignored appeals of the
United States, India and Great Britain, as well as the United
Nations, to negotiate with the leaders of Nepal’s political parties
on a plan to restore democracy.
When the Maoists
unilaterally announced and then extended a four month ceasefire, the
army and the palace rejected out of hand the suggestion that
reciprocating could test the Maoists’ intentions and possibly create
an opening for dialogue to end the conflict.
What we are
witnessing in Nepal is, put simply, a struggle between the
discredited, anachronistic past, and the possibility of a democratic
future.
There is also a
third possibility. A Maoist government that imposes its will on
whomever remains in Nepal after a mass exodus, and which further
destabilizes an already troubled region.
Predictably,
those who have enjoyed the undeserved benefits of absolute power and
privilege want to hold on to what they have. They seem to believe
that the Maoists can be defeated by military force. As desirable as
that might be, there is no evidence to support it.
Those who see the
King’s repressive policies as reckless and playing into the hands of
the Maoists, have risked their freedom and their lives by calling
for an inclusive democratic process. And, as the situation
continues to deteriorate, calls for a republic are growing louder.
On January 2nd
the Maoists ended their ceasefire by triggering bombs in several
locations. A few days later they killed 12 police officers in
Katmandu. They have carried out attacks in Nepalganj and other
cities, causing civilian casualties. A week ago, in an apparent
attempt to derail the controversial municipal elections scheduled
for February 8, gunmen who are suspected of being Maoists killed a
pro-monarchy party member in the city of Janakpur. These brutal
acts should be universally condemned. There is absolutely no
justification for the use of violence to terrorize civilians or to
disrupt an election.
But neither can
it be said that the United States has an effective policy when it
appears to amount to little more than blaming the Maoists and
repeating over and over that the King should reach out to the
political parties. He should, but for almost a year he has refused
to do so and absent stronger pressure there is no reason to believe
that he will.
It also begs the
question of what is the legitimate role in the 21st
Century for a monarchy that has squandered its moral authority and
shown no competence for governing.
Three weeks ago,
in the King’s latest attempt to quell mounting public criticism of
his failed policies, the palace announced a preemptive curfew and a
ban on political demonstrations. Since then, hundreds of
pro-democracy citizens, including several political party leaders,
have been imprisoned around the country.
Two weeks ago,
the police used tear gas and water canons to break up a rally in
Katmandu, and more political protesters were arrested. The former
Prime Minister remains in custody after a widely ridiculed “trial”
by the King’s hand picked anti-corruption commission.
The Nepali people
want peace. But nearly a year after King Gyanendra justified his
power grab as necessary to defeat the Maoists, they are stronger and
peace is more elusive. As many others have said, the only viable
way forward is through dialogue, including the Maoists, under United
Nations or other international auspices, with the clear purpose of
developing a broadly accepted plan to restore and strengthen
democracy.
To those of
Nepal’s ruling class who in various opinion pieces have distorted my
words, mischaracterized my record and questioned my motives, I can
only say that sooner or later they will have to face reality. They
could help save their country, but not if they continue to bury
their heads in the sand and malign those whose only desire is to see
a democratic, peaceful Nepal.
Mr. President,
Nepal is a beautiful country with a remarkable culture. Its people,
as resilient as they are, do not deserve the hardships of caste
discrimination, poverty and violence that they endure daily. The
Maoists have shown no respect for the rights of civilians. But
neither has the King shown that he has a workable plan to stop
Nepal’s downward spiral. His decision to hold municipal elections
has only widened the gap between himself and the leaders of the
political parties who were never consulted, who see this latest move
as part of a calculated strategy to consolidate his power, and who
have said they won’t participate.
Far more creative
and persuasive leadership is urgently needed in Nepal, including
from the army, as well as from the United States, India, China and
other friends of Nepal, to prevent a tragic situation from becoming
a disaster.
#
# # # # |