Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Obstacles before Nancy Powell, the new US ambassador to Nepal

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 8/15/2007

New US ambassador to Nepal, Nancy J Powell, arrived in Kathmandu Monday afternoon by a Thai Airways plane, and immediately one of my colleague joked in a tea shop, near the pipal bot, in old Baneswore (where we often meet, discuss the latest political gossips, and sip tea together) that American Policy came to Nepal riding on a Thai Airways through the skies of India.

Powell replaced her predecessor James F Moriarty, who completed his three year tenure in mid July, and her arrival was enough to create political ripples in Nepal given the legacy left behind by James F Moriarty, who was a stern critic of the Maoists.

On her arrival at the Tribhuvan International Airport, Powell told reporters “Namaste. It’s very nice to be back. I look forward to working with the government and the people of Nepal as we move forward in this time of democracy. Dhanyabaad,” according to the media reports.

Nonetheless, what is worth noting here are following points? She stressed the term government, people of Nepal and Democracy. But my queries to her are as follows:

a) “Maoists are also in the government, and does this mean that she is looking forward to work with the Maoists too, who are still labeled by America as the terrorists.” b) Maoists are also the people of Nepal, and does this mean America is now all set to accept the Maoists in Nepal, and c) Since Maoists have already joined the Parliament (the haven of democracy), has they been deemed by the United States as the democratic forces of Nepal?

Her brief but to the point statement upon her arrival to Nepal, made me dubious of the America’s intention in Nepal. Has the American stance against the Maoists changed? It is yet to be seen. But some signals are worth jotting here.

For example, after his meeting with the Maoist leaders during his Nepal visit in June, former US President Jimmy Carter had said the US should establish communication with the Maoists.

“The Maoists have complied with the United Nations requirements and disarmed to some degree. They have adopted the principle of multiparty democracy. The US should establish communication with the Maoists," Carter told a news conference wrapping up his four-day Nepal visit on June 16," according to the report published by Ekantipur.com.

Furthermore, it has been repored that The Maoists have hoped that their relations with US ambassador to Nepal Nancy Powell will not be as bitter as with her predecessor James F. Moriarty.

“Since Nancy Powell is appointed by the Bush administration there will be no change in basic US policy (regarding the Maoists). But, we certainly don’t think she will present herself in the style Moriarty had presented himself in,” CP Gajurel, the head of the Maoists’ international command was quoted as saying by Ekantipur.com.

Furthermore, earlier today( 12th Aug), while addressing a press conference in Kathmandu, Maoist chairman Prachanda informed that his party wanted to establish communication with the United States, according to the media reports.

Nonethless, there has been no official announcement that America’s Nepal policy has changed, no clear indication that it has decided to make more concessions to the anti- American Maoists who have been holding Nepal hostage under the cob-web of their complex politics. And the the US government has not tried to establish dialogue with the Maoists either.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that the new US ambassador presented her credentials to Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala on Thursday and on Friday morning she held a meeting with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. “After the meeting with the PM at his official quarters in Baluwatar, Powell told reporters that she talked about bilateral relations and US support for the peace process. Furthermore, officials said Powell has assured to support printing of ballot papers for the elections scheduled for November 22,” according to the Nepalese media reports.

This meeting between the Prime Minister and the new US ambassador is being observed with caution from the Maoists supreme leaders as they are aware of the growing consensus between the Prime Minister and the United States of America.

Finally Nepal got a new US ambassador, and we hope that America’s new Ambassador to Nepal, Nancy Powell, will do more that take over a nation, trodden by the Maoists uncertainties. In the next few years, she will be the driver of an America stagecoach that is in mid-bolt throughout South Asia. As the important peace broker of Nepal, America must decide how much political union it is willing to accept along in the new Nepal.

As one of the few counties anywhere to have direct interference in Nepal in recent years, America will be central to future Nepalese foreign and security policy. And as the democratic nation most closely linked to Nepal, it must take the lead in coping with one of the two most destabilizing forces battering at its door: unemployment and political violence.

Nancy Powell would find plenty to occupy her in Nepal. Her predecessor James Moriarty knows that Nepal is not a predictable country. It has been derailed by the political violence in the past and the violence is back in the business- a potential which should not be forgotten at a time when it has the highest rate of unemployment.

That perhaps, may be momentous, and holds in its hands the future of peace in Nepal. But Seven Political Parties and the Maoists, only doesn’t thereby hold the Nepal’s future, at least not for the time being. That privilege remains in another hand: India. For it is their policy towards Nepal that could bring SPA- Maoist’s nexus tumbling down. And that event could- perhaps have all the modalities of happing sooner than anyone believes.

Meanwhile, what is now at question is not India’s interest. The question is also not about Nancy Powell’s view of Nepal or her judgment of what best suits Nepal, but her commitment to her nation’s interest. Washington must have already provided a sensible outline of what the objectives of America’s Nepal policy should be.

To being with, all now that remains for Nancy Powell to do in Nepal is to get into the action as quietly and decently as she can. Consider the timing, over the next few months, she shall be tested by these four major factors, a) Growing Seven Parties political fissure and Maoists deteriorating conduct, b) Terai’s burning revolt and the emergence of violent groups in Terai, c) Ethnic disintegration, and d) Constituent Assembly Election.

Maoists conduct is deteriorating, Terai revolt is soaring, the growth of violence among ethnic groups has already raised the curtain of chaos and even disintegration in parts of Nepal, and analysts are skeptical of the Constituent Assembly election happening in time.

All these and many other issues of Nepal may make Powell’s tenure in Nepal more challenging than her previous tenure in Pakistan.

“We set this nation to make men free, and we did not confine out conception and purpose to America,” proclaimed President Woodrow Wilson in 1919. At the dawn of the new century, the Wilsonian idea that it is America’s mission to promote freedom abroad retains a powerful grip in his country. But, it is yet to be seen whether American latest envoy to Nepal will be able to solve the current political crisis enveloping Nepal walking on the Wilsonian line.

Powell won’t find it easy to walk in the Wilsonian line in Nepal because Maoists in the past has accused America of derailing the Nepalese political consensus and some pro- democratic supports too have accused America of being too nosy in Nepal’s domestic matters. But, that is a foreseeable consequence given that human rights and democracy are only one of the many American top notch foreign policy concerns. Keeping the peace and encouraging bilateral trade are also its other major important goals. The point is that Nepal should both accept and proclaim that promoting democracy is an important aspect of America foreign policy.

How that objective should be pursued by Nancy Powell will depend on circumstances. America must hold Nepalese to their commitment against terrorism, and dissuade Maoists from the provocation that makes terrorism predictable. In addition, what about a word in Mr. Prachanda’s ear about the desirability of the Nepalese people. Yes, Mr. Prachanda, Nepalese are born with a right to freedom like their right to their mother’s milk. To challenge right would be a political suicide.

Advising Nancy Powell, who most recently served as the National Intelligence Officer for South Asia at the National Intelligence Council from 2006 to 2007 and who has also served as ambassador to Pakistan, Ghana and Uganda, is not the intention of this writer. But there is not any harm in briefing her about the Maoists politics and their true intention. To understand Maoist politics, one must understand its background and history. Saying one thing and doing the complete opposite has been one characteristic of the Maoists over the years. Let this be understood by Powell.

Though they claim to have joined peaceful politics following the decade-long ultra-leftist instigation, their activities suggest that it is not happening. They still suffer from thinking they are the sole most powerful forces of Nepal. This has gone to prove that their policy is inconsistent. Furthermore, the activities of the Young Communist League (YCL) are complicating the peace process.

Recently, the YCL showed the true color of the Maoists and their intention by thrashing the Chief District Officer (CDO) of Dolakha in presence of dozens of policemen. Isn’t this the heights of hooliganism against the state’s chief representatives in the district? Are the Maoists trying to prove that they are omnipotent, and the state should let them do whatever they want to do or else they will walk off from the peace- process? The state must come out with a back up strategy at the earliest possible or else Maoists monopoly would crumble this nation into bits and pieces.

This reflects the real scene of Nepal. It is completely trodden by Maoists atrocities. If the CDO, the main security provider of a district is not safe then who in Nepal are safe? This question begs for an answer before the Constituent Assembly election. Herein you can imagine the situation of the Nepalese living in the remote areas. They are not at all safe. Forget the remote villages, no one in Kathmandu are safe either.

However, even after joining the government, Maoists are acting like Maoists of the past. They have not changed. The Dolakha episode is just another brick on the wall of their brutalities. These activities nonetheless, stir up our consensus and force us to ask: Are Maoists really serious about the new Nepal they claim to be building, and do they really want the CA elections to be held on November 22?

Most importantly, The Maoists top brass has failed to realize that their support is shrinking with each atrocity of theirs. Their national and international sympathizers who had hopefully decided to give the Maoists the benefit of the doubt is fading fast. And this is not good news for a party that is still being labeled as a terrorist by the United States of America.

Why have the Maoists accelerated their acts of hooliganism and brutalities riding on the back of the YCL? Analysts state that the Maoists are carrying out their activities in the interest of survival today better to be able to fight tomorrow. But that is a delusion: it is more like stealing from tomorrow in order to spend today. It will make their survival as a political party harder, not easier in the future. And, in the end, it should force pro- Democratic parties to stand up and fight. Then, the Maoist’s fall would be nigh. So be it: the alternative would be worse.

However, too many questions about the apartheid years remain unanswered. Probing for the answers might create a vengefulness that Nepal has so far, by and large, avoided. But if the country does not now put on public record the brutalities of its past, it might store up for the future a racial resentment that might unravel the political settlement furthermore in the future too.

Finally, coming back to Powell, American policy should not attempt to exploit Nepali politics for their own self-interests as India often does to us. Let Nancy Powell keep this in her mind and move ahead. Nonetheless, America’s hand is indeed needed, but as a rescue service too and not only as a mediator. Apply it Madam Ambassador. All the best.