NATIONAL 1 (Spotlight Weekly)]

Frank Comments

By KESHAB POUDEL

American ambassador Ralph Frank's recent comments on Nepal and Nepalese affairs made headlines. All leading dailies wrote editorials. It became the talk of the town in Kathmandu's cocktail circuit and the much-touted "intellectual" gatherings.

Ambassador Frank's speech at the USAID's 50th anniversary function in Nepal did touch on the brighter and the darker sides of the present-day Nepalese society. What caught the attention of many was the latter, especially the concern at the current state of affairs. Here, the Nepalese "intelligentsia" and the "mainstream" press, who apparently brushed aside the brighter side of the ambassador's remarks as a mere diplomatic courtesy, sought the justification of their oft-repeated pessimism in the darker side of his speech.

Frank's concern over the "anti-government insurgency" and his plea for the political leaders and the government officials to renew their commitment to "good governance" was received with glee. He did not name the "Maoist" insurgency nor did he utter the word "corruption" in his 900-word speech. But these were the words that made into the headlines of the leading dailies. Editorial comments and the letters to editor the following days were based almost entirely on the non-statement by the ambassador.

Frank's non-statements were widely quoted to poke fun at the Nepalese leaders and make a mockery of the democracy while his real comments were largely ignored. Going by ambassador Frank's real comments (SPOTLIGHT, February 2), he strongly advocated democracy, democratic institutions and peaceful opposition. "Ö countries succeed best in the development process when they have chosen elected, representational democracy as the form of government; when they have developed strong democratic institutions including an independent judiciary and a free press; and when they have a vibrant opposition that is free to engage in peaceful, constructive, non-violent protest."

He spoke highly of the progress Nepal made in the past 50 years: Education, health, infrastructures witnessed significant progress, so did the transition to democracy and market reforms. He said that Nepal has made "incredible progress in a relatively short period of time" and that America is proud to be a part of the efforts that have resulted in this "dramatic progress."

Frank also spoke highly of the potential that Nepal does hold for future. "Nepal has within itself the tools to create a prosperous future for all Nepalis." But none of these highly encouraging words from the envoy of the world's only superpower got the notice they deserved, as if they had no meaning at all. Surprisingly, they did not go off well with the Nepali "intelligentsia" and the "mainstream" press, nor did his sincere advice to stop the bandhas.

Apparently, these remarks were shrugged off as nothing more than diplomatic niceties. Perhaps ambassador Frank was well aware of the kind of reaction that would follow. He said that he was concerned at "the current atmosphere of distrust and negativismÖ." As it turned out the negativism is not only "resulting in an increasing climate of violence in expressing political dissent" but also in growing opportunism of a section of the Nepalese intelligentsia in expressing frustration over not getting their share of the (power) pie.

Ambassador Frank did not name Maoist rebellion. He only referred to "anti-government insurgency". If this was a reference to the on-going Maoist violence, this is the first time that the United States official has made public comment, though indirect, on the Maoist insurgency. This leads to a crucial curiosity: Will the comment lead to the resolution of the five-year-old problem whose economic cost has been "far greater"?

The curiosity stems from the recent movement on the Bhutanese refugee problem. Soon after the US officials including the former president Clinton made first public comment on the problem, efforts to resolve the ten-year-old issue got a momentum and the refugee verification process received a boost, with a seemingly unprecedented shift in the Bhutanese "foreign policy". Analysts wonder, if a similar shift in the Nepalese Maoist rebels' policy is on the cards after ambassador Frank's "concern".

The two problems have at least one thing in common. If the Bhutanese refugees came to Nepal through the Indian territory and will have to follow the same route on their way to the home, the Nepalese Maoist rebels have not concealed the fact they get training and supplies from their comrades across the southern border.