[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27278-27279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE SITUATION IN NEPAL

  Mr. LEAHY. It may seem strange that on a day when the Congress is 
debating the budget resolution, I would be asking the Senate to turn 
its attention for a moment to the remote and tiny nation of Nepal.
  I do so because for the past several years, a ruthless Maoist 
insurgency and a corrupt, repressive monarchy have brought that 
impoverished but breathtakingly beautiful country to the brink of 
disaster. It is important for the Nepalese people to know that while 
they may live half a world away, the difficulties they are facing have 
not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Congress.
  It has been almost 9 months since Nepal's King Gyanendra dismissed 
the multiparty government, suspended civil liberties, and arrested the 
prime minister along with other opposition political leaders, human 
rights defenders, prodemocracy student activists, and journalists.
  The king's explanation was that democracy had failed to solve the 
Maoist problem. He said that he would take care of it himself and then 
restore democracy after 3 years.
  It is true that Nepal's nascent democracy had not solved the Maoist 
problem. Neither had the king. In the 4\1/2\ years since King Gyanendra 
assumed the throne and became commander in chief of the Nepalese army, 
the Maoists have grown from a minor irritant to a national menace. 
While the Maoists use threats and violence to extort money and property 
and they abduct children from poor Nepalese villagers, the army often 
brutalizes those same people for suspicion of supporting the Maoists. 
Like most armed conflicts, defenseless civilians are caught in the 
middle.
  What the Nepalese people desire most is peace. Despite the king's 
autocratic maneuvers on February 1, many would have given him the 
benefit of the doubt if he had a workable plan to quickly end the 
conflict. Nine months later, it is clear that he does not. One can only 
wonder why King Gyanendra thought that he could defeat the Maoists by 
dissolving the government, curtailing civil liberties, and surrounding 
himself with a clique of elderly advisers from the discredited, 
feudalistic Panchayat era.
  The United States, Great Britain, and India criticized the king's 
actions and have urged him to negotiate with Nepal's political parties 
to restore democratic government. Unfortunate-
ly, although he has released most political prisoners and reinstated 
some civil liberties, the king has increasingly behaved like a despot 
who is determined to consolidate his own power.
  In the meantime, the Maoists declared a ceasefire. The violence has 
reportedly decreased, although abductions and extortions have continued 
apace. Whether the ceasefire is a sinister ploy or a sincere overture 
for peace may never be known, however, because it is due to expire next 
month and neither the king nor the army has indicated a willingness to 
reciprocate.
  Against this disheartening backdrop, the Congress, on November 10, 
2005, approved my amendment to impose new restrictions on military aid 
for Nepal. On November 14, President Bush signed it into law. I want to 
briefly review what we did, and why.
  The amendment says that before the Nepalese army can receive U.S. 
aid, the Secretary of State must certify that the Government of Nepal 
has ``restored civil liberties, is protecting human rights, and has 
demonstrated, through dialogue with Nepal's political parties, a 
commitment to a clear timetable to restore multi-part democratic 
government consistent with the 1990 Nepalese Constitution.''
  This builds on an amendment that was adopted last year, which 
required the Secretary of State to certify that the Nepalese army was 
providing unimpeded access to places of detention and cooperating with 
the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, to resolve security related 
cases of people in custody. Unfortunately, the Secretary was not able 
to make the certification. Not only were the NHRC's members replaced 
through a process that was contrary to Nepal's constitution, the 
International Committee of the Red Cross suspended its visits to 
military detention centers because it was denied the free access it 
requires.
  The Nepalese Government objects to any conditions on U.S. aid, 
arguing that the army needs help to fight the Maoists. The army does 
need help, but it also needs to respect the law and the rights of the 
Nepalese people. The Congress took this action only after it could no 
longer ignore the pattern of arbitrary arrests, disappearances, torture 
and extrajudicial killings by the army. The army's abusive conduct, 
coupled with the king's repressive actions since February 1, have 
contributed to a political crisis that threatens not only the future of 
democracy but the monarchy itself.
  Economic aid to support health, agriculture, hydropower, and other 
programs through nongovernmental organizations is not affected by my 
amendment. If the situation changes and the Secretary of State 
certifies that the conditions in U.S. law have been met, military aid 
can resume. But that alone will not solve the Maoist problem. The 
Maoists are expert at intimidating the civilian population and carrying 
out surprise attacks and melting back into the mountains. While they do 
not have the strength to defeat the army, neither can they be defeated 
militarily.
  The only feasible solution is through a democratic political process 
that has the broad support of the Nepalese people. Perhaps seeking to 
placate his critics, the king, without consulting the political 
opposition parties, announced municipal elections for February 8, 2006. 
Not surprisingly, the parties say they will not participate in an 
electoral process dictated by the palace and when the army and the 
king's handpicked representatives have taken control of local affairs 
and are unlikely to relinquish power.

[[Page 27279]]

  The U.S. Embassy is skeptical of the Maoists' intentions and has 
publicly discouraged the political parties from forging an agreement 
with the Maoists. This is understandable, since the Maoists have used 
barbaric tactics that should be universally condemned. But this 
conflict cannot be won militarily and the king has rejected a political 
accommodation with the country's democratic forces. He is imposing new 
restrictions on the media and civil society, and he has spumed offers 
by the international community to mediate. Nepal's younger generation, 
who see no role for the monarchy in Nepal's future, are taking to the 
streets. It may not be long before the army is faced with a fateful 
choice. Will it continue to side with the palace even if it means 
turning its weapons on prodemocracy protesters and facing international 
censure, or will it cast its lot with the people?
  It is a choice that we may also have to make. For the better part of 
a year, the United States and others friends of Nepal, as well as many 
brave Nepalese citizens, have tried to nudge the king back toward 
democracy. It has not worked. With the king increasingly imperious and 
isolated and the political parties already making overtures to the 
Maoists, what is to be lost by calling for the Maoists to extend the 
ceasefire, for the army to reciprocate, for international monitors to 
verify compliance, and for representatives of all sectors of society 
who support a democratic, peaceful Nepal to sit down at the negotiating 
table?
  There are no guarantees, but it would test the Maoists' intentions 
and it might create an opening for agreement on a democratic process, 
with the support of international mediation, that can finally begin to 
address the poverty, corruption, discrimination and other social ills 
that have fueled the conflict. The people of Nepal, who for generations 
have suffered far more than their share of hardship and injustice, 
deserve no less.

                          ____________________