(Reproduced as posted at the following URL: http://nepal.usembassy.gov/sp_06-12-2007.html)
Speech by U.S. Ambassador James F. Moriarty To Friends and Supporters of the Community Information Center – Pokhara
Shangri-La Hotel, Pokhara
June 12, 2007
Thank you all very much for coming today. It is a pleasure to be back in Pokhara again. Soon I will depart Nepal, after completing my three-year assignment as Ambassador here. I love Nepal and its people. My wife and I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of living among you, enjoying your culture, and making many new friends.
Concerns for the future
It is because of my own personal admiration for Nepal, and my country’s interest in your successful democratic transition, that I came to speak with you today. I am concerned about the future of Nepal.
This year can be a turning point for Nepal. A successful Constituent Assembly election, carried out in a free and fair manner, should prove a giant step forward in the establishment of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Nepal. That is the hope of the Nepali people. That is the goal of American foreign policy in Nepal. Indeed, my Embassy has been working hard over the past year to support your election. We will continue to do this, especially now that the Government of Nepal has decided to hold the election in Mangsir [mid-November to mid-December]. Nepal has many friends and admirers in the United States, all of whom want to see Nepalis decide their own future through a free and unfettered democratic election. Former President Jimmy Carter is one of these friends, and, as some of you know, he is visiting Nepal for three days beginning tomorrow.
The promise of a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Nepal is, however, in danger. These threats are growing; we read about them every day in the newspapers. Maoist Young Communist League cadre kidnap businessmen and attack political leaders from other parties during their meetings. JTMM cadres confiscate private property in the Terai and kill locals. The list of these crimes is long and growing.
I have been told repeatedly over the last year that the most important thing in Nepal is the peace process. I have been accused of derailing this process by speaking out against atrocities by Maoists and other groups. I think many would agree, however, that these atrocities, not my words, are threatening the peace process. Peace is not just the absence of war. Maoist violence and intimidation are derailing the peace process, and the consequences threaten the future of all Nepalis.
Obstacle One: Maoist Conduct
Like you, I share the hope that Nepal may soon have a true, lasting peace, and that it will establish prosperity and democracy for the long-term. There are two main obstacles to this end goal at the moment. The first is the Maoists’ failure to bring their conduct in line with the standards of mainstream political parties in multiparty democracies.
Over the past year, we had all hoped that Maoist behavior would improve in line with their various commitments. That has not happened. We had all hoped that the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord would mean that all People's Liberation Army combatants would be placed in UN-managed cantonments. Instead, this resulted in a massive, cynical recruitment drive by the Maoists and those cantonments were filled with fresh recruits, many of whom are children. Those recruits have now received over five months of military training and political indoctrination in the camps.
Meanwhile, many seasoned PLA combatants remained outside the camps and were placed by the Maoist leadership in a new organization: the Young Communist League. Most of the leadership of the YCL consists of senior PLA officers, including one who bragged in a recent interview that he had assassinated a senior police official in Kathmandu. Why are these PLA leaders still active in the countryside when they were supposed to be in the cantonments?
We all wished that inclusion of the Maoists in the Interim Parliament would lead to an improvement in their behavior. Instead, we find Maoist parliamentarians bringing pistols into the Assembly, threatening their fellow MP's, and repeatedly gherao'ing the Speaker.
Finally, we had all hoped that the entry of the Maoists into the government on April 1 would prompt them to behave like a mainstream political party. Instead, the Maoists have forcefully reminded the people of Nepal that April 1 is also called April Fool's Day. Since that date, the YCL has run amok, the Maoist ministers of Forests and of Local Development have called for bandhas against the government they work for, and the Maoist Minister of Information and Communications has publicly stated that the Prime Minister, his boss, has a criminal mind. Once again, the Maoist leader, Mr. Pushpa Dahal, has stated in a public interview that the Maoists have no intention of joining the political mainstream. His party's actions over the past year suggest that all Nepalis should take these words of Mr. Dahal very seriously.
No mainstream political party anywhere in a multi-party democratic system is allowed to maintain its own armed groups. Yet this is exactly what the Maoists have done. Nor should a political party be permitted to carry out, with impunity, crimes of extortion, abduction, and intimidation Again, however, this is exactly what the Maoists continue to do, particularly through their YCL.
In the two months that Maoists have been in the Interim Government, they have certainly made clear that when their leaders talk about creating their own “political mainstream,” it is one with no place for the civil give and take, the transparent debate and decision-making, or the critical commitment to nonviolence that characterize normal political parties in a democracy.
As our Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor said recently in Kathmandu, the message of the United States is clear: Nepal cannot have ballots and bullets in a democratic process. Intimidation and violence have no roles whatsoever in the democratic development of any country. Nothing justifies the use of violence as a political tool. Yet hardly a day goes by without the press reporting on Maoist atrocities. And let me be clear – there is no difference between the YCL and the Maoist leadership. They are two parts of one whole and the actions of the one are a direct result of the decisions and intentions of the other.
On Sunday, Mr. Pushpa Dahal reportedly assured the Prime Minister that the people who threw stones at the UN car I was traveling in in Damak were not YCL cadre. That is simply not true; the individuals who threw the stones were local Maoists who carried YCL placards. Mr. Dahal should acknowledge that fact, and should ensure that in the future neither diplomats nor Nepali citizens are treated with such contempt by the YCL.
Obstacle 2: Ethnic division
The second obstacle to peace, prosperity, and democracy in Nepal is ethnic division. There is an urgent need to address this issue of inclusiveness -- all groups in Nepal must be given a voice in the political, economic, and civic affairs of the nation. How this happens is a matter for the people and political leaders of Nepal to determine. No group has the right to turn to violence to push its agenda. But if the grievances of marginalized groups are not addressed soon, the level of violence will almost certainly increase, especially in the Terai. And the growth of violence among ethnic groups, would raise the specter of chaos and even disintegration in parts of Nepal.
While striving to include all groups and address their concerns, Nepal must simultaneously focus on law and order. It is extremely important that the rule of law be reasserted in society. Nepal has solid criminal laws, and crimes are crimes. JTMM cadre members guilty of murder and kidnapping must be held accountable for their actions. Similarly, cleaning garbage from a park should not absolve anyone of the crimes of abduction, extortion or physical abuse. All perpetrators of crimes, no matter what their political affiliation, should be arrested, tried and, if found guilty, punished.
Ten days ago, the Maoists abducted Mr. Prasai, held him overnight, publicly humiliated him, and then handed him over to the police. Mr. Prasai had serious accusations of financial malfeasance against him. The police should have arrested him before, and the Government should have ensured it happened. People should have publicly been demanding his arrest. But before they seized him, the Maoists had not called for his arrest. Nor did they use their position in the government to press for his arrest. So, let's call the Maoist action what it was: politically-motivated vigilantism. If the Maoists can practice vigilantism, why can't other groups? Why can't other groups arrest YCL members who are kidnapping and intimidating people throughout the country? I'll tell you why not: because that would lead to the law of the jungle and to the total collapse of law and order. Vigilantism was wrong when it was perpetrated by pro-royalist groups in Kapilvastu under the King's regime and it's wrong when practiced by the Maoists.
Freedom from Fear
The Nepali people deserve to live their lives without fear. Removing this fear will be absolutely crucial to the success of your Constituent Assembly election. Freedom from fear is everyone’s basic human right. After a decade of armed conflict, and a year of continued Maoist impunity, it is time the people of Nepal enjoyed this right. Fear must be drained from Nepal so optimism and confidence take its place. In order to do this, democracy must triumph over totalitarian, one-party rule.
Democracy means rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. It includes transparency in government institutions; politicians accountable to their constituents; and consultation and consensus building. It is a process, not a one-time, end result, and it is a system tolerating many parties and opinions, not one party backed by paramilitary thugs which forces its views on all others.
The United States is pleased to support the Nepal Government’s efforts to fulfill its mandate to provide peace and democracy to the people. This year the US Government will provide more than $50 million in foreign assistance to Nepal. Of this, we are planning to allocate $8 million for democracy programs that support the elections process, the justice sector, and human rights organizations. We will provide nearly $18 million for health program activities, including the fight against HIV/AIDS, and $6 million for vocational education and agriculture programs. The US Government has provided $8.3 million for food aid and humanitarian assistance programs this year as well. We will also give more than $10 million to support national and local peace-building initiatives and efforts to improve public understanding of the requirements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the code of conduct, and a Constituent Assembly process.
In this context, I want to talk about a recent development that is particularly worrying to me. According to Human Rights Watch, there are an estimated 6,000-9,000 children now living in the cantonments with the Maoist People’s Liberation Army. This is in direct violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. No country should tolerate having children living in such conditions. These children belong in schools, not in cantonments. This is an egregious violation of the human rights of these children. By addressing this issue quickly and removing the children from the camps, the Maoists could demonstrate a real, concrete commitment to the peace agreement.
It has been more than a year since their insurgency ended, yet the Maoists’ addiction to violence, extortion, and intimidation continues unabated. Last February, I expressed my desire to welcome the Maoist leader to the democratic mainstream by shaking his hand. I have had the honor to shake many Nepalis’ hands during my time here, yet it looks like I will depart Nepal without shaking Mr. Dahal’s. Given his failure -- and his party’s failure -- to renounce violence, I could not do this in good conscience.
An Historic Opportunity
Pushpa Dahal and the rest of the Maoist leadership have an historic opportunity before the Constituent Assembly election to prove to the Nepali people and the world that their party really is committed to democracy and peace. I hope the Maoists seize this opportunity and genuinely renounce violence. Maoist assurances that they are peace loving democrats have been proven hollow daily by the violent actions of their cadre. If the Maoists want the people’s trust and support, they must win it through democratic competition and free elections – and not through violence.
In April 2006, the Nepali people rose up and demanded peace and democracy. They demanded transparency and accountability from all sides. The process of building a democratic government and democratic culture is a long one, but it is absolutely essential. I urge all of you to continue to have the strength of will to attain, and then sustain, democracy. The United States, like other friends of Nepal, will help you where we can. But in the end, as you well know, Nepal’s future is the hands of the Nepalis themselves. Make the best of it.
Related Posts:
Where are Moriarty's Haters Now?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-moriartys-haters-now.html
Should Indian Federal Tax Rupees be Used to Fund Nepal’s Communist Experiment?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/should-federal-indian-tax-rupees-be.html
The Idiot’s Guide to the Maoist Playbook
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/01/idiots-guide-to-maoist-playbook.html
Myth #1: Dispelling the Myths of Nepal’s Peace Processhttp://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-1-dispelling-myths-of-nepals.html
Myth #2: “Moriarty’s insistence on Maoist disarmament is interventionist policy.”
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-2-moriartys-insistence-on-maoist.html
Myth #3: “The Americans are contributing to an eventual meltdown in the peace process, which will ultimately precipitate another political crisis in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/10/myth-3-americans-are-contributing-to.html
Calling a "Spade," a "Spade" - "The Antics of Maoist Collaborators in Nepal's Parliament"
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/09/calling-spade-spade-antics-of-maoist.html
18 comments:
What he is saying is right but when he had chance to reverse all this he trumpeted all BS (India see, US do shit) He knew all this would come to fore beforehand but now as a "born again" he speaks but its too late and has no consequence.
Bon Voyage
Mr. Moriarty is saying goodbye to Nepal with a frank honest and on-the-button appraisal of the immediate problems facing this country. I admire his candor in saying that he will not be shaking Mr. Dahal's hand when he leaves Nepal. Now let us hope that the US Government continues to support democracy and sovereignty in Nepal and that the new Ambassador will reflect this approach by presenting her credentials to the proper person.
History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America
Location Period Type of Force Comments on U.S. Role
Argentina 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected
Chile 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels
Haiti 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated
Nicaragua 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields
Panama 1895 Naval, troops Marines land in Colombian province
Nicaragua 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto
Cuba 1898- Naval, troops Seized from Spain, U.S. still holds Navy base at Guantanamo
Puerto Rico 1898- Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues
Nicaragua 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur
Nicaragua 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields
Honduras 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republic 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution
Cuba 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election
Nicaragua 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up
Honduras 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest
Nicaragua 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto
Honduras 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war
Cuba 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in Havana
Panama 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election
Honduras 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests
Nicaragua 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas
Mexico 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution
Dominican Republic 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo
Mexico 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists
Haiti 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts
Dominican Republic 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation
Cuba 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate
Panama 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections
Honduras 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists
Costa Rica 1921 Troops
Panama 1921 Troops
Honduras 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife
Panama 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike
El Salvador 1932 Naval Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt
Uruguay 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength
Puerto Rico 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce
Guatemala 1954-? Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion and coup d'Etat after newly elected government nationalizes unused U.S.'s United Fruit Company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua; long-term result: 200,000 murdered
Panama 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation
Cuba 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails
Cuba 1962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union
Panama 1964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return
Dominican Republic 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels
Chile 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts democratically elected Marxist president
El Salvador 1981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash; long-term result: 75,000 murdered and destruction of popular movement
Nicaragua 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution; result: 50,000 murdered
Honduras 1982-90 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders
Grenada 1983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution
Bolivia 1987 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region
Panama 1989 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed
Haiti 1994-95 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup
Venezuela 2002 Command operation Failed coup attempt to remove left-populist president Hugo Chavez
Haiti 2004- Troops Removal of democratically elected President Aristide; troops occupy country
My Point -- it's not only the Maoists we should be wary of. If you want to look at the credibility factor, please bring everything into the equation.
That's a nice list Abhi. Are you friends with Daniela?
If you want to bring the credibiilty factor into play (specially on Nepal), can you also come up with a list of political interventions that India has performed in OUR OWN REGION - SOUTH ASIA? Or do you expect America to invade Nepal with their Marines too?
To further your "alarm" could you also clarify what the strategic American interest in Nepal might be?
Very curious to understand your point other than a long list of American military interventions since that country was formed.
If you can, please post a URL for where you obtained the data as well. That should help with brining "everything into your equation."
Thanks.
Damit! If only America and not chicken sh*t India had a strategic interest in Nepal, we would have been a prosperous nation and the Bahunist Maoists would never have emerged.
We are unlucky to never have been part of the British Raj and now, to not be a part of the American strategic interest.
If we were a part of the British Raj, we would have been a part of India since 1947. We don't need the US to have a strategic interest in Nepal; its development and military assistance will suffice. Let's stop spewing defeatist nonsense!
As everyone seems to be busy talking about what is good for Nepal and what is not. No one leaves any stone unturned when it comes to blaming someone for this and somebody else for that. And, in the midst of all this, the one thing that most significantly defines democracy—elections—is sidelined. So the obvious question becomes who wants election in Nepal?
I Love Nepal, do you?
For those of us who still are confused, let me shed some light.
As of 1990, Nepal has become a de-facto state of India. Our foreign, domestic and economic poilcies are all dictated by India. Nepali politicians can't even take a sh*t without asking India.
We lost hurnderds of our brother is combat, because India decided to shelter the Moaists. They were the puppet masters, all along.
At least if we were a part of India, we would have less baseless pride and more federal aid money for our people to feed themselves.
Nepali Blogger: Answer to your question is easy. Anyone who thinks they can win (at a give time) wants elections in Nepal.
Look at the second amendment to the interim constituion. Now the NC and monarchy fate are tied to one another.
This is all a big circus show for the masses. If they don't start to prepare immediately, there will be no elections in November either.
My apologies for leaving out the reference.. didn't mean to.
Here it is:
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html
The point is not to say US will "invade" Nepal. The point is to question James Moriarty when he talks about whether or not Maoists should be trusted. We first should be able to trust Mr. Moriarty to be able to believe his statements about anyone else. Second, we Nepalis are perfectly capable of making decisions and thinking on our own and I do not appreciate when a representative of a powerful country like US tries to meddle with OUR politics instead of trying to help the situation. That's all. I thought we all were on the same side here, i.e. Nepal.
Thanks Abhi, for the link.
I still fail to see any connection between a long list of American military interventions, your verification that your goal is not to say US will invade Nepal, and trusting James Moriarty. I am still lost on your logic.
You are right about one thing - there is no reason to question moriarty on his view about not trusting the maoists. Just read the papers and they prove again and again, that moriarty has always been right. There is not one single agreement that the maoists have not broken or shifted.
So it is not a question of trusting or not trusting moriarty, the evidence is infront of us to make the judgment.
I agree with you that we are capabile of thinking and making decisions on our own. But capability is different from action and if you are confident these capabilites, you should not be bothered by anyone speaking as they see fit. Right? Becasuse we can listen to all sides and make up our own minds, like in any democrcacy.
If thousands of Nepalis can enjoy America's freedoms of speech, Moriarty is welcome to enjoy Nepal's newly found freedom of democratic speech too. Hoina ta?
I think we still are on the same side.... we don't have to agree on each and every thing. This is democracy, right?
One question I have is what do you prefer? Truthful, fact-based criticism and warnings from moriarty abotu the Moiasts or sly deceptive support, calling maoists terrorists, giving nepal arms and then becomign the peace maker hero like India?
Dani:
I appreciate you engaging me in a conversation with you. I like your way of thinking.
Without beating around the bush too much, I would just like to answer the question you asked me.
I prefer truthful and helpful insights from Mr. Moriarty. However, when he makes statements like this: "the individuals who threw the stones were local Maoists who carried YCL placards. Mr. Dahal should acknowledge that fact, and should ensure that in the future neither diplomats nor Nepali citizens are treated with such contempt by the YCL," then I have to make a decision about whether I should trust Mr. Dahal's words over Mr. Moriarty's or vice versa. Given the history of Maoists in Nepal (we can definitely live without this kind of movement) and the history of the US government (Mr. Moriarty is representing US govt. even though his individual thoughts might be different), I choose to take Mr. Dahal's words over Mr. Moriarty's.
That aside, as a diplomat of a very influential nation, he should make judgment calls on what kinds of statements may trigger further instability in a country that's in a very volatile state. His utter disregard of the possible impact of his statements on the country's transitional period just to take a stand against the Maoists and the communist ideology is unacceptable. The nation is quite aware of the atrocities committed by the Ranas and the Shahs in a grandiose scale and then the Maoists, Nepali Congress, and other parties in a different way. We are dealing with the Maoist problem the best we can and in my view we are doing pretty good in comparison to developing countries around the world in similar situations. Moriarty's solution of declaring Maoists as terrorists and mobilizing Nepalese Army is just a reflection of the US foreign policies and her ways of dealing with important matters whether it be South America, Israel-Palestine conflict or the middle-east situation.
About the free speech bit, Mr. Moriarty is of course allowed to exercise the right of free speech but as a diplomat he needs to be cautious of what that might entail.
Abhi: If you would rather believe Pushpa Dahal over Moriarty, that's your choice. But if Moriarty was lying, don’t you think Abraham Abraham (along with the whole world of media) would have challenged? Abraham was in the car with Moriarty at the time of the stoning.
Just facts Abhi. Moriarty did not declare the Maoists terrorists, our government (and India before that) did. The democratic government mobilized the army, not Moriarty. Being a diplomat doesn't mean Moriarty should avoid the truth even when many MPs complain about the same things Moriarty said in private.
Abhi, you sound like you are in the camp of people who think everything is alright as long as the Maoists are happy and the process of "no war" carries on. I am in the group that says the process of peace must be upheld by ALL sides, INCLUDING the Maoists. The focus for me is what the Maoists are doing to undermine the peace process.
The focus for you seems to be how to keep the peace process alive, even if it means hiding the complete truth for the sake of continuing the process. This is why you feel Moriarty is irresponsible and shouldn't be trusted and why I say Moriarty's line has remained the same since he came to Nepal and everything he said is accurate. Just read the news and look around you.
You don't have to believe me but maybe you will believe if you ask Guru Raj Ghimire, or the NC girls the YCL beat up, or the villagers of Rukku, Rolpa, Sallyan… may be you will believe them and understand that they now, they also believe people like Moriarty.
Interesting discusion here.
I think our tranisitional period is fragile because the Maoists are making their own rules not because Moriarty is speaking the truth.
We are dealing with the Maoist problem like it is a bad dream that we will wake up from. Instead of making the Maoists keep their part of bargain, we bending to their every demand. For example, second phase of monitoring.
Again we are no where and UN is looking like a fool.
I am very disappoint that it is always moriarty that is speaking things that MPs should be speaking in the House.
This is what is shameful- that diplomat has had to say what our own people do not have the courage to say.
Thanks Dani. You have a solid argument. I'll have to reconsider my thoughts on Mr. Moriarty, but you'll have a hard time convincing me against the imperialism as a whole.
Abhi, I didn't think we were debating about American imperialism. I was just talking about Nepal and Nepali interest. I have no desire to talk about American imperialism because it is just a moot point - one cannot decisively aruge one way or another.
But I read one news and thought about your doubt on YCL stoning Moriarty. To put any doubts you may have in mind to rest, please read this following article:
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jun/jun17/news01.php
Note that Gajural admists that it was YCL that stoned Moriarty's car, even as Paushpa denied that it was YCL.
I rest my case.
Abhi,
Interesting that you mention whether to trust Moriarty over Prachanda by citing the YCL throwing stones at the ambassador example. I guess that you don't live in Nepal, because the whole incident was played out on the evening news clearly showing maoist cadres throwing stones at the ambassador's vehicle. Infact, they were arrested by the govt. on seeing the video evidence only to be released later????
Post a Comment