[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1523-1524]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       A STEP BACKWARDS IN NEPAL

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week, for the second time in 
less than 3 years, King Gyanendra of Nepal dismissed the multiparty 
government and declared a state of emergency suspending fundamental 
constitutional rights. Apparently, he will assume the duties of the 
deposed Prime Minister and appoint a new cabinet.
  Throughout its troubled past, Nepal has suffered from the neglect and 
often violent and corrupt misrule of many monarchs. For that reason, 
those familiar with its history may not be completely surprised by this 
unfortunate development.
  Yet one would have thought that in the 21st century, this type of 
thing would, by now, be a distant memory. At a time when a vicious 
Maoist insurgency is gaining ground in Nepal, it would be hard to 
conceive of a worse time for the King to repeat his past mistake.
  There is no military solution to this conflict. Nepal is a place 
where, not unlike Afghanistan, a handful of extremists with rifles and 
explosives can wreak havoc and easily disappear into the rugged 
countryside. By terrorizing rural villagers and exploiting the 
Government's neglect of them, the Maoists have steadily extended their 
reach to large areas of the country.
  The Nepalese army, while somewhat more effective than a few years ago 
when it performed little more than ceremonial duties, has likewise 
alienated much of the rural population by arbitrarily arresting, 
disappearing and killing civilians suspected of sympathizing with the 
Maoists. Today, the army, rather than defending democracy, is defending 
the King. It is clear that the King and the army concocted this 
together, despite having assured the UN High Commissioner for Human 
Rights last week that concerns about violations of human rights would 
be addressed.
  This year, the United States plans to provide some $40 million in 
economic aid to Nepal. Much of this is channeled by USAID through 
nongovernmental organizations. But we are also providing support to the 
Nepalese government, as well as training and equipment to the Army. In 
fact, several months ago we approved the transfer of $1 million in 
fiscal year 2004 military equipment that had not initially been 
appropriated for Nepal.
  The Indian government, to its credit, issued a strong statement 
critical of the King's actions. The State Department has also called 
for the immediate restoration of multiparty democracy. King Gyanendra 
is on notice that he will be held responsible for infringement of the 
rights of free speech and assembly, or abuses of citizens who have 
defended human rights and democracy.
  The State Department should also make clear that unless democratic 
government and fundamental rights are promptly restored, the United 
States will cut off aid to the government and the army under Section 
508 of the Foreign Operations Act which was designed to deter and 
punish this type of act. Regardless of whether or not the King may have 
acted within his authority under Nepal's constitution, and I do not 
know if he did or not, that is not the issue. The intent of our law to 
safeguard democracy is clear. The price is losing U.S. aid. 
Furthermore, if the $1 million in military equipment previously 
transferred has not yet been delivered, it should be withheld.
  Everyone who has followed Nepal's recent history would agree that its 
10 year ``experiment'' with democracy has not been easy. Democracy is 
never easy, and no one should minimize the threat the Maoists pose. But 
the answer is not to undermine democracy. The answer, as President Bush 
expressed in his Inaugural Address, is to work, with help from the 
international community, to strengthen democracy. The United States 
Congress would welcome that opportunity.
  King Gyanendra has made a tragic blunder. He still has time to 
prevent a

[[Page 1524]]

momentary crisis from becoming a disaster for his country and perhaps 
for the monarchy itself.

                          ____________________