[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18966-18968]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                      THE UNITED STATES AND NEPAL

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the situation in 
Nepal, which has received too little attention by the Congress.
  I will not take the time to discuss in detail the history of this 
tiny country wedged between China and India. Suffice it to say that not 
only is Nepal among the world's least developed countries, it is also 
facing a ruthless Maoist insurgency and a political crisis instigated 
by King Gyanendra which together threaten to turn Nepal into a failed 
state.
  Last year, after receiving disturbing reports of widespread human 
rights violations by the Royal Nepalese Army, including arrests, 
disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings of civilians, the 
Congress imposed a number of conditions on our military aid to Nepal. 
Those conditions required the Nepalese Government to (1) comply with 
habeas corpus orders issued by the Supreme Court of Nepal; (2) 
cooperate with the National Human Rights Commission to identify and 
resolve all security related cases of individuals in government 
custody; (3) grant the National Human Rights Commission unimpeded 
access to all places of detention; and (4) take effective steps to end 
torture by security forces and prosecute members of such forces who are 
responsible for gross violations of human rights.
  Unfortunately, not only have those conditions not been met, the 
situation was made significantly worse on February 1 when King 
Gyanendra, with the backing of the security forces, dissolved the 
multiparty government, arrested and jailed political opponents, human 
rights activists and journalists, and declared a state of emergency. 
The state of emergency has since been lifted, but civil liberties, 
including freedom of the press and association, remain restricted, the 
former Prime Minister has been jailed for corruption by an 
extrajudicial, politically motivated anticorruption commission, and 
arrests of journalists and democracy activists continue.
  Speaking with one voice, the United States, Great Britain, and India 
condemned the King's actions as a setback for democracy. They said it 
would make it more difficult to resolve the Maoist problem, and each 
country imposed varying types of restrictions on military aid. Since 
then, however, the American Embassy has adopted a more nuanced 
approach, sending mixed messages that have been widely interpreted as 
giving equal consideration and validity to the views and actions of the 
King and the political parties. Unfortunately, the impression today of 
Nepalese pro-democracy and human rights activists is that the United 
States is not fully behind them.
  The army insists it is complying with habeas corpus orders of the 
supreme court. This is deceiving, however, because the security forces, 
often in plain clothes, have been re-arresting people who the court has 
ordered released. In some instances they have waited at the courthouse 
steps to take people back into custody immediately after they are set 
free by the court. Since these arrests are often made without charges, 
the whereabouts and treatment of these people is often unknown.
  In April, the term of the National Human Rights Commission expired 
and the Government reconstituted the Commission in a manner that was 
incompatible with the 1990 Nepalese Constitution. The membership of the 
Commission has also changed, with the exception of the chairman. Not 
surprisingly, none of the current members, appointed by the palace, 
expressed publicly any disagreement with the King's February 1 actions, 
including the arrests and curtailing of civil liberties. The chairman 
of the Commission even expressed support for the King's actions. This 
has caused legitimate concerns about the Commission's independence.
  There is conflicting information about the Government's cooperation 
with the National Human Rights Commission in resolving security related 
cases of persons in custody. According to human rights groups, the 
situation has not improved. The Commission has said it is getting 
better access to places

[[Page 18967]]

of detention, but it is not clear how meaningful this access is. We 
know there are large numbers of people who have disappeared, yet we are 
informed that when members of the Commission visit army barracks they 
have seen few detainees, are led around by army escorts, and that some 
barracks where detainees were reported to be held were completely 
empty. There is a concern that the army is summarily executing 
prisoners. Meanwhile, the International Red Cross has suspended its 
visits to prisoners because of the army's failure to provide the access 
it requires.
  The issue of ending torture and prosecuting members of the security 
forces who commit gross violations of human rights is also difficult to 
assess. According to human rights groups, torture is routinely 
practiced and impunity remains the norm. The army claims it disciplines 
its members who violate human rights, but many of the cases it cites do 
not involve human rights violations. According to the army officer who 
heads the army's human rights cell, complaints about human rights 
violations by the army are ``much ado about nothing.'' Those words 
speak volumes.
  Under our law, the Secretary of State is to determine whether the 
conditions have been met. As a sponsor of the law, I would expect that 
prior to making any determination she would consult with 
representatives of reputable human rights groups, including the U.N. 
High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as with the British and 
Indian Governments. It is important that we and they be seen as united 
on these issues. In that regard, I would hope that she would consider 
the implications of such a determination in the context of the larger 
political crisis. We do not want to do anything that could be seen as 
further evidence that the United States supports the King when he is 
using the army and police to crush the forces of democracy.
  Last week, the Senate revisited the conditions on our military aid 
for Nepal. Since those conditions were enacted prior to February 1, 
they have in large measure been eclipsed by subsequent events. The 
Senate determined that modifications were needed, and those changes 
were adopted unanimously on July 20, 2005, in an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2006 State-Foreign Operations-appropriations bill.
  Nepal is a breathtakingly beautiful country facing immense 
challenges. The majority of its people are illiterate, subsistence 
farmers who are caught between the Maoists, who extort money and food, 
forcibly recruit their children, and commit atrocities, and the army 
which mistreats and often shoots those suspected of sympathizing with 
the Maoists.
  The King, while professing to support democracy, seems determined to 
take the country back to the pre-1990 feudal days. This is not the 
first time he has dismissed the Prime Minister, and since February 1 he 
has surrounded himself with elderly advisers from the Panchayat era. He 
has ignored repeated urgings by our ambassador, and other governments, 
to sit down with representatives of the political parties to develop a 
plan for the prompt restoration of multiparty democracy.
  As in any country where multiparty democracy has existed for only a 
decade and a half, Nepal's fledgling political parties suffer from 
internal divisions and are struggling to establish their credibility 
with the Nepalese people. This should surprise no one. Democracy is 
never perfect, and that is particularly true in an impoverished, 
isolated kingdom whose people have been ruled by a monarchy that 
ignored their needs for centuries. Yet, despite these obstacles, 
Nepalese journalists, political activists and civil society continue to 
speak out.
  What is the alternative? A Maoist ``people's republic'' that could 
plunge Nepal into darkness? A return to an active monarchy that is 
accountable to no one?
  Nepal is at an historic juncture. The Maoists have made steady gains 
over the past decade. Once a minor irritant, today they are a national 
menace. Even since 2001, when King Gyanendra ascended the throne and 
became commander in chief of the army, the Maoists have grown stronger. 
Although they are unable to hold territory or to seize power in 
Katmandu, they pose an increasing threat to the security and 
livelihoods of Nepal's people.
  The King has made a tragic blunder, and the Nepalese people are 
paying a heavy price.
  Former Prime Minister Deuba is in prison, which the State Department 
has rightly called a setback for democracy. This week there were new 
arrests. On July 25, several dozen journalists and civil society 
leaders were arrested and detained for over 24 hours during a peaceful 
protest. On July 27, a pro-democracy student leader, Gagan Thapa, was 
arrested while attempting to visit fellow detained student leaders. Mr. 
Thapa is reportedly being held on suspicion of sedition. His arrest is 
a threat to all democracy activists and should be strongly condemned by 
the State Department.
  The King's strongest card is the army, but it lacks an effective 
counterinsurgency capability, it cannot defeat the Maoists in territory 
as rugged and isolated as parts of Afghanistan, and it has abused and 
alienated the very people it is supposed to protect. The army needs to 
demonstrate that it is worthy, if it wants U.S. support.
  Earlier this year, in order to avoid criticism at the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission, the King agreed to permit the U.N. High Commissioner 
for Human Rights to open an office in Nepal and deploy human rights 
monitors. This is a welcome development, which the U.S. should strongly 
support. If the UN monitors are provided with unimpeded access, they 
should be able to determine if the Maoists are prepared to stop 
attacking civilians and recruiting children, and if the army is serious 
about respecting international humanitarian law.
  Recently, the U.N. Secretary General's Special Adviser traveled to 
Nepal to assess the situation. He concluded that a solution to the 
crisis rests on three elements: ``a return to constitutional order and 
multiparty democracy, an end to hostilities, and inclusive national 
dialogue towards a negotiated solution to the underlying causes of 
conflict.'' The U.N. has a long history in Nepal, and it could play a 
key facilitating role on each of these elements. I would hope that the 
State Department would publicly support this.
  No one should minimize the challenges. The Maoists have yet to 
demonstrate that they are ready to abide by a ceasefire, which should 
be a prerequisite for negotiations on their political demands. But our 
policy should be unambiguous. Democracy is the only viable alternative, 
and we should make clear that we unequivocally reject the King's 
imperial ambitions, that the days of an active monarchy are over, and 
that we support the political parties. Whether that means the 
restoration of the 1999 Parliament or the formation of a new 
constituent assembly, is for the Nepalese people to decide, but there 
should be no doubt that we support a political process that is open, 
transparent, inclusive and accountable to the people.
  Democracy and dialogue are the key to peace in Nepal, and we should 
do everything possible to reaffirm our willingness to work with the 
political parties, with Nepalese civil society, the Indian Government, 
the British Government, other key countries, and with the United 
Nations, towards that end.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, which if agreed to by the 
Senate-House conference committee will apply to U.S. military aid for 
Nepal for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Nepal.--
       (1) The Congress condemns the Maoist insurgency's 
     atrocities against civilians, including torture, 
     extrajudicial killings, and forced recruitment of children.
       (2) The Congress recognizes the difficulties the Royal 
     Nepalese Army (RNA) faces in countering the Maoist threat, 
     but deplores the violations of human rights by the RNA.
       (3) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'' may be made available for assistance for 
     Nepal only if the Secretary of State certifies to the

[[Page 18968]]

     Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Nepal, 
     including its security forces:
       (A) has released all political detainees, including those 
     detained before February 1, 2005;
       (B) has restored civil liberties, including due process 
     under law, freedoms of speech, the press and association, and 
     the right of movement;
       (C) has demonstrated, through dialogue with Nepal's 
     political parties, a commitment to a clear timetable for the 
     return to multi-party, democratic government consistent with 
     the 1990 Nepalese Constitution;
       (D) is ensuring that the Commission for Investigation of 
     Abuse of Authority is receiving adequate support to 
     effectively implement its anti-corruption mandate and that no 
     other anti-corruption body is functioning in violation of the 
     1990 Nepalese Constitution on international standards of due 
     process;
       (E) has determined the number of and is complying with 
     habeas corpus orders issued by Nepal's Supreme Court and 
     appellate courts, including all outstanding orders, and the 
     security forces are respecting these orders;
       (F) is restoring the independence of the National Human 
     Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC) in accordance with 
     constitutional provisions, including providing adequate 
     funding and staff;
       (G) is granting civilian prosecutors and judicial 
     authorities, the NHRC, the Office of the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal, and international 
     humanitarian organizations, unannounced and unimpeded access 
     to all detainees, witnesses, relevant documents, and other 
     requested information, and is cooperating with these entities 
     to identify and resolve all security related cases involving 
     persons in government custody; and
       (H) is taking effective steps to (i) ensure that Nepalese 
     security forces comply with the Geneva Convention on Law of 
     Land Warfare; (ii) end torture, extrajudicial killings, and 
     other gross violations of human rights; and (iii) prosecute 
     and punish, in a manner proportional to the crime, members of 
     such forces who are responsible for such violations.
       (4) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements of 
     paragraph (3) if the Secretary certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that to do so is in the national security 
     interests of the United States.

                          ____________________