Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
Senate Floor,
On Nepal's Future
September 18, 2007

Mr. LEAHY.   Mr. President, there are times in virtually every country’s history when years of under-development 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.  As one of many Americans who care deeply about Nepal’s future and who want Nepal and its people to thrive and prosper, today I offer some constructive observations as Nepal approaches this crossroads.   

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 multi-party 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 an 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 three 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 withdraw from the government all 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 three 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 accord 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 Branch – 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.  

I yield the floor.

# # # # #