[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Page S439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DEMOCRACY AND PEACE IN NEPAL

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the many things one learns as a 
Senator is that speaking out about autocratic, corrupt and abusive 
governments invariably elicits a response.
  The victims of such regimes, including human rights and prodemocracy 
citizens who are often imprisoned and tortured, express their 
appreciation. Knowing that they have supporters halfway 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 1 when King Gyanendra 
dissolved the multiparty 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 4-month 
cease-fire, 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 2, the Maoists ended their cease-fire 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 promonarchy 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 prodemocracy citizens, including several political party 
leaders, have been imprisoned around the country.
  Two weeks ago, the police used tear gas and water cannons 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 anticorruption 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.
  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.

                          ____________________