National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

“Anarchy And Chaos In Nepal Represents Threat To The Stability Of The South Asia And To Vital US Interests”

— James F. Moriarty

JAMES F. MORIARTY, the ambassador of the United States of America to Nepal, has had a long experience of working in different parts of the world representing his government. Moriarty also served as the chief of the general affairs (political) section of the American Institute in Taiwan and subsequently as political Minister-counselor at the US Embassy in Beijing. He also served as a political officer in Islamabad. Prior to appointment as an ambassador to Nepal, Moriarty worked at the National Security Council, where he initially worked as director for Asian affairs and later as special assistant to the president and senior director for Asian Affairs. Moriarty speaks Chinese and Urdu. His wife Lauren Moriarty is currently the US ambassador to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum. Excerpts of his statement and replies to media queries on July 20 at his first news conference in Kathmandu (Compliled by KESHAB POUDEL):

I am very happy to be here in Nepal. I could not think of a more exciting time to be in your beautiful country. Most of the people of Nepal as well as the United States wish to see peaceful, prosperous and democratic Nepal. Everything I do and everything my embassy does while I am here will be geared towards Nepal achieve that vision. In the last eight years, Nepal has confronted not only the normal problems of development and attempts to strengthen democratic institutions but also an increasingly brutal Maoist insurgency. Through extortion, torture, bombing and abductions, the Maoists have created a reign of terror throughout the country. The recent political instability has made the situation even more difficult. I hope that the newly selected multi-party cabinet will work with the palace to convince the Maoist forces to lay down their arms and come to the negotiating table with serious intent to bring peace to Nepal. I also hope that those parties that have not yet entered the coalition will either do so or at least come to the consensus of action with the government so that the government can effectively address the problem facing the people of Nepal. Let me use this opportunity to lay to rest speculation that the change of ambassador means a change of US policy towards Nepal. It does not. We continue to seek peaceful, prosperous and democratic Nepal. If Nepal is pushed into anarchy and chaos, that will pose the threat to the stability of the South Asia and to vital US interests. We need Nepal to succeed. That is why we have provided security assistance totaling nearly 22 million dollars over the past three years to help the Nepalese government for the security of the people. We also continue to conduct joint training exercises in Nepal - at least two to three exercises per year. These exercises focus primarily on training and medical trauma, public health and military war fare for Nepali side and giving US personnel an opportunity to train in high altitude. While we have some mountains in the United States, they are not high as here in Nepal. I want to stress that all of our military training have human rights elements that is mandated by US Congress. We strongly condemn the human rights violation by all sides - Maoists and the government forces alike. Assistant secretary Christina Rocca on her visit to Nepal on December 2003 made that very clear. She also made clear that the government forces must hold the highest standard and any violation must be prosecuted in transparent manner. Ultimately, however, if there is to be a democratic, peaceful and prosperous Nepal, there needs to be economic development. That is where we, the United States, have focused our efforts. Since the beginning of formal US-Nepal relations in 1951, we have provided over 700 million dollars in development aids to Nepal. In the past this money helped to eradicate malaria in the terai – the former land of fever. The funding also supported the Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation at its inception. We supported to develop first automatic telephone exchange, radio network, roads, hydropower, agriculture and forest management. We continue to support the Vitamin A program, which is implemented in all the districts of Nepal and it has helped to reduce infant mortality by over 30 percent. I like to stress here that our economic assistance is not only much larger than our security assistance but it has also grown much more quickly. Our development assistance jumped from 24 million dollars in 2003 to 40 million dollars in 2004. I have already mentioned that we have given 22 million dollars in security assistance over the past three years. But we have given some 64 million dollars for economic development in that period. We will continue to work with the government of Nepal and with the civil society here towards the goal of establishing democracy, peace and prosperity.

On Peace Process And Dispute Resolution

If the Maoists want to lay down their arms and participate in the peaceful political process, then at that point - whenever we reach that point - you will find a peace process that will lead to real resolution of the problem. Absence of this on the part of the Maoists will make it very hard to get to the successful conclusion of negotiation. So all our emphasis has to be geared towards convincing the Maoists that this is the time to give up violence. If the Maoists are willing to abandon violence, there are number of ways that you can reach an agreement. If they are not, there is no particular outside mediator that can wave a magic wand and lead to a reasonable resolution of the insurgency. All actors either inside Nepal or outside Nepal should be finding ways to pressure the Maoists to come sincerely to the negotiating table. I think there is unity of purpose among the outside world. I think that everybody wants violence in Nepal to stop. I hope that over the time you will see the international community effectively pulling together to ensure that the Maoists begin to abandon violence and come to the negotiating table.

On Elections

With respect to whether the elections is possible, it’s a decision for the people and government of Nepal to take. But there is a reign of terror in Nepal. Everybody in this room probably knows somebody - close friends or relatives - who have suffered under the hand of the Maoists, who had to give money to the Maoists. Under that sort of atmosphere, it is hard to see how you can have free and fair elections unless you have some sort of agreements with the Maoists to lay down their weapons so that people can freely vote.

On US Mediation

We would to anything that will help. I personally think that we would become tremendously complicating factor in the negotiations. The Maoists have made it clear that they have very strong views about us.

On India Factor

I think any American official will readily acknowledge that India has tremendous role to play here in Nepal given its size and proximity. I would tell you that ever since I have been in the National Security Council, Nepal's topic of concern was frequently raised with the Indian government. I would tell you that we also frankly increasingly encourage and the government of India to understand what has been going on here that can have a direct effect on Indian's national security. About the issue of terrorism across the border, I read the statement of the Indian ambassador who also said that there are clear links between the Maoists and groups in northeast India who want to tear down the Indian states. It is very dangerous for India. Let me say two things. We do frequently raise this issue with the Indians and we are becoming more encouraged by our conversation. Secondly, Indians have increasingly understood the real threat that was going on here with respect to insurgency presented in India itself. I am encouraged by what I have seen in New Delhi.

US Policy Vis-a-vis Maoists

Actually, the US position is determined by the actions of the specific organizations. If the Maoists were to lay down their arms, forsake violence and terrorism, in over a period of time when we see they are sincere in abandoning violence and terrorism that will determine whether we will take them off the terrorist list. If those organizations continue to engage in terrorist act, we cannot withdraw it. It will be driven by the actions of the organization and in this case the Maoists. Given the circumstances of extortion, murder, torture and bombing by the Maoists, it will be very difficult to take off the tag. Maoists use brutal tactics to terrorize people. Maoists have to prove to the people of Nepal that they will not murder or torture.

On EU Policy

There is a question why only a few governments have called the Maoists as terrorists. The USA, India and Nepal have declared them terrorists. The British governments has had close conversation with us in this issue. The British point out that they want to have a unified European Union stand on this issue. They want to work with the EU. Until and unless, British and their EU partners do not declare the Maoists as terrorists under British law they will have a tough time blocking the kinds of rallies (that news reports have indicated). There is a separate issue here in which the Maoist leaders have been specifically singled out in effect as international criminals. We would expect not only those states that have declared the Maoists to be terrorists, but all other law-abiding states also to stop the travel of individuals who have committed crime here in Nepal.

On US Interest And Emphasis

Frankly speaking, we do have a goal here. We have been trying to achieve these goals through security assistance, economic assistance and diplomacy. Do we have to step up the security assistance? Do we have to increase the diplomacy? If so, with whom? I have already mentioned one specific issue which is should the EU consider terming Maoists as terrorist movement. That is some place where we can help. In terms of diplomacy, we can help encourage unity among the legitimate political forces. There has been a big step forward here and the creation of a five party coalition bringing the unity between the parties and the monarchy to put pressure on the Maoists. Can we help encourage those legitimate parties outside to work with the coalition to bring the Maoists to the table? Obviously, what we have done up to now is either not enough or may be prescribing wrong area but I am completely convinced about the future of Nepal that we want to see.

On China Factor

My reading of the Chinese government - having spent a lot of time in China and Taiwan - is that they are very nervous about what is happening here in Nepal. Anarchy, chaos here would be a serious set back for Beijing and would put complications on Chinese government. Again, my perspective in Washington over the past couple of years is that Chinese have tried to play helpful role. They have told the Maoists pretty clearly that they are not going to endorse their movement. I think up to now they are watching; they are making it clear to the Maoists that they are not going to get any outside assistance; and they are trying to avoid making things more complicated down here.

On Bhutanese Refugees

The question about the Bhutanese refugees is a very important one. We, too, are hearing reports of Maoist infiltration in the camps but we don’t have any way to judge how accurate these reports are. But these reports undermine the necessities for resolving the issue. People are not meant to live their life in refugee camps. In this case, the refugees need to be repatriated. This involves a lot of negotiations, as there have already been 15 round of negotiations between the government of Nepal and Bhutan, who have to work this out. India undeniably plays an important role given the geography, if nothing else. We give 25 percent of the total assistance provided to the Bhutanese refugee camps. We have economic stake to settle the problems and close down the camps. India has security stake in settling the problem.

On Human Rights Violations

In terms of human rights violations, we absolutely agree that all human rights violations should be condemned. Just as importantly, those who commit violence should be brought to justice in transparent fashion. My government is trying to implement that. We have criticized violations by both sides. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been transparency on the part of the Maoists with respect to who they kill or torture and certainly there is no way of seeking redress of people whose money was extorted by the Maoists. If the Maoist leadership encourage their people to engage in bombing, torture, extortion and murder, they should be held to account. They should be asked why their people are murdering a beggar woman with a bomb?

On US And India

We see India as an important rising power on world stage and India is a natural friend of the United States given the democratic tradition. We don’t want to see such a power have its future complicated by the Maoist insurgency. We think that anarchy in Nepal could bring that factor forward. We also think that the Maoist rule in Nepal would bring horrible things to the Nepalese people. In terms of effect on the US strategic interest, a destabilized India; perhaps increased competition between China and India; and perhaps the support for international terrorism; if the Maoists come to power, they will spread their power. So because of all these factors we have very serious concern in addition to our concern about the Nepali people.

On Open Border

I don’t usually comment on hypothetical questions. In many ways, the free flow of goods and people benefit both sides of the border. I am speaking hypothetically here. Life gets complicated when one side is much larger than the other and I would like to point out that we in North America have a very successful history and experience in dealing with the United States having open border with much smaller neighbors in either side. These are the specific issues that the people of Nepal and people of India have to work out.

On US Holding Talks With The Maoists

First of all, for a way forward, the Maoists need to talk to Nepalese government and people. The Maoists have to explain what they have been doing and they have to explain their intention. If they want to talk with the United States, what role do we have to play? Most importantly I would like to remind you that we have branded them as terrorist organization for specific reasons including the murder of two of our Nepali employees at the embassy here. Frankly, there is no clear-cut US policy on this. But I can tell you there is a pre-condition for any meaningful dialogue with the Nepalese Maoists; they have to turn over to us the people who killed our two security guards. That's the common sense; they murdered our people and we hold them accountable.