NATIONAL 3 -(Spotlight Weekly)

Frankenstein Reaction?

As it seeks to turn the heat on the government, the agitating UML-led communist opposition gets caught on the wrong foot over American ambassador's comments

By KESHAB POUDEL

SCENE 1:
Date: January, 2001
Venue: Kathmandu

In his statement at a USAID function, American ambassador Ralph Frank makes a vague reference to the problem of corruption in Nepal and emphasises the need for good governance.

Newspapers including the country's "number one" daily "report" him the following day as directly castigating the government. The opposition parties bank on the ambassador's statement to lambast the government, without even bothering to check if the ambassador had been correctly quoted. The main opposition leader and the general secretary of the Nepal Communist Party (UML), Madhav Kumar Nepal, takes the lead in launching a tirade against Prime Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala.

Ambassador Frank also reiterates the American government's support for "a democratically elected government and the non-violent opposition." The opposition including the main opposition leader is not bothered by this statement. They keep quiet.

Nepal : Double speak

None of the above remarks by the envoy of the world's only super power is seen as "interference" in Nepal's internal matters.

SCENE: 2:
Date: April 12, 2001

Venue: Kathmandu

In a rejoinder to reports about him in a pro-UML vernacular weekly, American ambassador Ralph Frank says, "under no circumstances does the United States support or advocate the overthrow of an elected government through violence or non-constitutional methods. Ultimately, of course, the problems facing Nepal need to be resolved by Nepalis."

The remarks create a big uproar in the opposition circle. The communist opposition gets angry. They denounce the Frank remarks. Again, the main opposition UML takes the lead. Politburo member and Foreign Relations Department chief, Jhalnath Khanal, issues a formal statement. He accuses the American ambassador of interfering in Nepal's internal affairs.

TIMING:

When ambassador Frank made his first statement, the UML-led communist opposition was preparing to start agitation against the Koirala government. Their main issue: rising corruption. To the communist opposition, "capitalist and imperialist" American envoy's (non)statement came in handy.

Frank's second statement came just before the joint street agitation of the UML and more radical leftist outfits. The communist opposition stopped short of admitting that they wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government through non-constitutional means.

Ambassador Frank : Candid

But as they vowed to depose Koirala's majority government on the strength of a hammer-and-sickle flag-waving mob, a mere restating of his government's policy by the American ambassador became anathema to them.

Three months ago, ambassador Frank was a hero. Today, he is a villain. That's how the communist opposition sees him. The issue is not: if the American ambassador was right or wrong in making such statements.

The issue is: if the communist opposition has acted and reacted rightly. The government and the ruling Nepali Congress did maintain one standard, that of keeping quiet on both occasions. Wisdom of their silence may be debatable. But can there be a debate on the double standard of the opposition?

The communist opposition was loud and noisy in reacting to the American ambassador's both statements. But, for different reasons. It was happy and did not see "foreign interference" when the Frank statement suited it.

The communist opposition was angry and saw "imperialists' injection" to the "ailing" government when the Frank words did not go well with the "revolutionary" ways of breaking the street-railings and torching the cars.