[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11650-S11651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             NEPAL'S FUTURE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are times in virtually every 
country's history when years of underdevelopment and conflict give rise 
to opportunities to change course. Such times are rare, and such 
opportunities are too often missed.
  I think of our Civil War, which caused so much loss of life and 
devastation. It preserved the Union, and it led to the emancipation of 
some 3 million African slaves. Nothing can diminish those achievements 
or the sacrifice of those who gave their lives. But instead of 
providing the former slaves with the equal rights to which they were 
entitled, until passage of the Civil Rights Act a century later African 
Americans suffered from racially discriminatory laws that kept them in 
an inferior status. The country remained bitterly divided because of 
it.
  Nepal today faces its own historic choice.
  For more than a decade, Nepal has been plagued by an internal armed 
conflict in which savage brutality was inflicted on impoverished 
civilians by Maoist insurgents and the Royal Nepal Army. Over 13,000 
people died, mostly noncombatants, and virtually no one has been held 
accountable for those crimes.
  For more than two centuries, Nepal has been a monarchy whose Kings, 
with rare exception, denied the rights and ignored the needs of their 
people who remain among the world's poorest. In February 2005, King 
Gyanendra, a narcissistic, arrogant autocrat, seized absolute power, 
jailed his opponents, and muzzled the press, only to relent in April 
2006 in the face of mounting international pressure and the protests of 
thousands of courageous Nepali citizens.
  Nepal's previous experiment with multiparty democracy during the 
1990s had been disappointing. The leaders of the country's political 
parties distinguished themselves by amassing personal fortunes and 
doing little for the people.
  But since the restoration of civilian government in April last year 
there has been impressive progress. A Comprehensive Peace Agreement was 
signed, Maoist combatants have gone into cantonments, the army has been 
confined to barracks, and the Maoists, until today, were part of the 
interim Government. The King has been stripped of all political power, 
although the ultimate fate of the monarchy has yet to be decided. The 
word ``royal'' has been eliminated from Government institutions, 
including the army. Elections for a Constituent Assembly to be held in 
June were postponed, but they have been rescheduled for November 22. 
The assembly is to draft a new constitution.
  Also during this period, Nepal's ethnic minorities, women, and other 
groups who have long been persecuted and denied a voice have demanded 
equal rights and representation. This poses both challenges and 
opportunities for the Government.
  The international community, including the United States, has 
supported the peace process directly and through our financial 
contributions to the United Nations which has performed key monitoring 
functions. Recently, the United States provided $3 million to purchase 
the ballots for the elections.
  Much has transpired since April 2006, when I last spoke in this 
Chamber about political developments in Nepal. Today, just 65 days 
before Nepal's elections, I would like to address my brief remarks to 
the people of Nepal and to Nepal's political parties, including the 
Maoists.
  On November 22, the people of Nepal will be presented with one of two 
options: They will either have a historic opportunity to create a 
legitimate, representative government which can only be achieved 
through a popular vote or they will be denied that opportunity. If the 
elections are held, Nepal will continue on a path that can bring its 
governmental institutions and its society into the modern age and begin 
to finally address the poverty and injustices that gave rise to the 
conflict. If they are denied, the Nepali people will likely see their 
country become more fragmented and ungovernable and more vulnerable to 
external influences over which they have little control.
  Recent developments have been both encouraging and troubling. Perhaps 
that is to be expected in a country of multiple ethnic groups speaking 
some 93 languages that is struggling to transform itself.
  The bombings in Kathmandu 3 weeks ago, other violent acts perpetrated 
by newly formed armed groups in the Terai and members of the Maoist 
young wing, the Young Communist League, and the Maoists decision to

[[Page S11651]]

withdraw from the Government illustrate the fragility of the process.
  Moreover, the leaders of the Congress parties and the Maoists have 
done little to prepare for the elections. At times, party members have 
seemed more interested in furthering their own personal ambitions and 
in derailing the electoral process altogether. The leading party of the 
left, the UML, has done more to prepare. But all parties will need to 
promptly step up their election activities if voters are to have the 
informed choice they deserve.
  On the positive side, the Election Commission deserves credit for a 
voter registration process that has reached Nepal's remotest villages. 
There is no doubt that the people are eager to go to the polls, just as 
they were determined to put an end to the King's abuse of power.
  Over the past 3 years, I have observed the fortitude of the Nepali 
people's desire for peace, for justice, and for a meaningful voice in 
government. Their desire is shared and admired by the American people.
  To the Maoists, I would say that it was you who called for a 
Constituent Assembly. Saying you are committed to the democratic 
process at the same time that you withdraw from the Government, make 
new demands that contradict previous commitments, support disruptive 
economic strikes, and threaten to return to confrontation is not the 
way to earn the people's trust and support that are necessary to become 
an effective force for change. Nor is it the way to earn the trust of 
the United States.
  I have campaigned for elective office five times over more than 30 
years, and I know something about earning the people's trust and 
support. It does not come from dogmatic speeches or lofty party 
platforms or manifestos. It does not come from saying one thing and 
then doing the opposite. It certainly does not come through the use of 
violence, threats, and extortion. It comes by showing that you deserve 
the people's trust and support. There is no better way to begin that 
process than to seize this opportunity and show the people that you can 
make the government work for them.
  History is replete with examples of armed groups that achieved 
popular legitimacy through the democratic process. If the Maoists win 
seats through free and fair elections, uphold the commitments they have 
made in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and other agreements, and 
devote themselves to working for change peacefully, I am confident the 
United States will treat them as rightful members of the elected 
Constituent Assembly or of the Government. We may disagree with their 
positions on some issues but not about their right to serve in 
Government and to advocate for those positions.
  I know the Maoists are looking to the United States to lift our 
restrictions on their party and its leaders and to remove them from our 
list of terrorist organizations. In order for that to happen, the 
Maoists need to take unequivocal, positive steps. The cases of the 
murdered Nepali security guards need to be satisfactorily resolved. The 
party's resumption of land seizures and the reopening of so-called 
people's courts are steps in the wrong direction.
  To the other political parties in Government, I would say that it is 
time to make good on your commitments. Not only the Maoists but 
traditionally marginalized groups as well are increasingly skeptical 
that the Government is serious about delivering on its key commitments 
to the peace process, whether downsizing and reforming the army, 
supporting land reform, or creating jobs and opportunities for minority 
groups that have long been disadvantaged and ignored. While those 
groups should pursue their grievances through a vigorous election 
campaign, not through obstruction of the democratic process, the 
failure of the parties to govern and match rhetoric with action 
threatens the elections, as does the Maoists' saber rattling.
  The leaders of Nepal's political parties know that the power of 
holding office comes with responsibilities, and the spotlight is on 
them. Lasting legitimacy comes not only through the ballot box but in 
the day-to-day ability to honor commitments and improve the lives of 
all citizens. This is their chance to put the Nepali people and their 
country first, by showing that they believe in effective, accountable 
government. If they do not, the United States, and I suspect many other 
countries, will no longer afford them the legitimacy they will need for 
our continued support.
  Mr. President, Nepal's path to the future may be decided in the 
waning months of this year. Although a small country wedged between two 
emerging giants, Nepal is unique in more ways, more beautiful ways, 
than most other countries its size. Today, the United States--Congress 
and the Executive--are united in our desire to help Nepal become a 
democracy whose Government is representative of Nepal's remarkably 
diverse population and where the fundamental rights of all people are 
respected.

                          ____________________