NATIONAL 2 (Spotlight Weekly)]

After The Cook Visit

The first ever visit of Nepal by a British foreign secretary leaves a number of important message to the Himalayan kingdom

By A Correspondent

The British foreign secretary Robin Cook spent only a little more than 24 hours in Kathmandu. But the first ever visit of Nepal by the British foreign secretary will be remembered for many years to come.

On the surface of it, the visit was nothing more than a goodwill stop-over in Kathmandu. Mr. Cook had little thing to do in the last leg of his three-nation Asian tour which earlier took him to South Asia's regional power, India, and an important South East Asian country, Thailand.

Nepalese FM Bastola(left) shaking hand, with cook : Firm grip

Little, he had to do in Nepal. But a lot, he had to say. And what he said in Kathmandu may well make a lo of difference to what the Nepalese government, or for that matter, other political actors do.

Apart from the customary emphasis on the traditional relations between the two kingdoms and the glorious link established by the Gurkha soldiers, Mr. Cook's remarks stand out on two counts.

One, his outspoken comment on the Maoist problem. Two, his unequivocal support for Nepal's democratic transition. Importantly, both are linked with each other in the present-day Nepal.

Needless to say, as is amply clear from the avowed goal of the Maoist insurgents, the insurgency is a direct threat to the constitutional monarchy and multi party democracy. On the other hand, the democratic transition has been made more difficult by the situation arising out of the insurgency, which has got overt or covert support of a number ofelements ñ internal as well as external ñ seeking to derail Nepal's democratic transition.

That Cook did put Nepal on his itinerary under such circumstances canhardly be brushed aside as a mere coincidence. Importantly, there was not even an iota of doubt that Cook was fully aware of the developments in Nepal. The confident and the assertive comments that he made whether in the official talks or in answers to questions of reporters were proof of this.

Cook repeatedly made it a point to stress that both Nepal and Britain share the common virtues of constitutional monarchy and multi party democracy. And that despite some aberrations and problems here and there, there can not be going back from these virtues.

Prior to the visit, he told this weekly that "constitutional democracy in Nepal is relatively new and problems in both the process of democracy and development are understandable." Cook further said that "Britain has a clear record in promoting democracy and development among the world's poorest countries."

During his stay in one of the world's poorest countries, Nepal, he further emphasised on the points he had made prior to his first visit to the Himalayan kingdom.

No less important was the point-blank remarks he made on what is being seen as a major threat to Nepal's constitutional monarchy and multi party democracy -- the Maoist insurgency.

He described the Maoists as terrorists and strongly condemned them. Cook was clearly concerned about the rights violation not only by the Maoists but by the government as well. But he singled out the Maoists as "the root cause of the problem."

This is a far cry from the conclusion drawn by many Kathmandu-based "elite" over the sip of Red Label or San Miguel. The Pajero or, in the least, Maruti-driving "elite" have since long considered the rampant poverty and the indifference of the state to the poor as "the root cause of the Maoist problem."

But the foreign secretary of one of the world's richest countries had other ideas. He said that the Maoists are frightening the people away from development projects, and that they have forced development workers to evict from their areas.

Apparently, Cook thought the problem lies elsewhere. Significantly, reports in a section of the Nepalese vernacular newspapers quoted officials of the British foreign office as saying that they have wondered about the source of supply of arms and training to the Maoists. The reports have hitherto been not denied.

It is in this light that the British foreign secretary's advice to the Nepalese government to seek the solution of the problem through dialogue should be viewed.

Instead of prescribing the pills of force, Cook recommended dialogue in curing the Maoist ills. Recalling Britain's own experience in Northern Ireland, he hoped that the (Sher Bahadur) Deuba commission will pave the way for dialogue.

This may taste as a bitter pill for a government which apparently is preparing to mobilise army, but Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala can ill afford to ignore the advice of the only member of the world's Big Five, which has constitutional monarchy and multi party democracy.