|
Interaction: A Teleconference Interview with the Hon'ble Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Prakash S. Mahat, Nepal Government
(Participants representing Nepali diasporas: Dr. Gaury Adhikary, Dr. Alok K Bohara, Girija Gautam, Dr. Shiva Gautam, Aditya Jha, and Dr. Anup Pahari)
Transcribed by Dr. Alok K. Bohara
Professor, University of New Mexico, Bohara@unm.edu
Date and time: September 29, 2004 (9:30PM - 11:15 PM, North American Eastern Time)
[We, the NRNs (Non-Resident Nepali), are concerned about the situation in Nepal, and always try to stay informed through various means such as, Nepal forums, seminars, petition drive, and e-discussions. Honorable Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr. Prakash Sharan Mahat's visit to the New York City as the leader of the Nepali delegation to the current session of UN General Assembly presented an opportunity to enhance such interactions. Girija Gautam invited Dr. Mahat and organized the teleconference to seek an update on Nepal and exchange ideas.
Even though many of our other colleagues would have participated and meaningfully contributed in the teleconference, for practical purposes, the participating team was kept small in number but such that it would represent true spirit of the community. Dr. Alok Bohara, Dr. Shiva Gautam and Dr. Anup Pahari were selected because of their continuous writings on Nepal, Dr. Gaury Adhikary, the president of the Nepalese American Council (NAC) represented the member Nepali organizations, and Mr. Aditya Jha represented the investment interest in Nepal. This was an experiment of its kind to connect the community with the authorities back home and to start a formal and two-way exchange. The teleconference was transcribed by Dr. Alok K. Bohara.]
G. Gautam: Welcome, and thank you for being at this teleconference. We would like to welcome Mr. Mahat, and we extend our gratitude to him for agreeing to do this interview.
Jha (announcement): There is a NRN (Non-Resident Nepali) convention in Doha (January 21st - 23rd) and we would like to invite you. It is an important convention, and the fact that it is held in the Middle East underscores the importance of the Nepali people engaged in various activities (job-related) in that part of the world. It is also only appropriate given the recent Iraq incident that cost 12 Nepali lives.
Mahat: Nepali people in the Middle East do make a strong contribution to Nepali economy, and such a conference in that area is a good idea. Thanks for the invitation.
G. Gautam: You as a minister and as a part of the current government, what can you tell us about the current situation - peace prospect, negotiation etc.?
Mahat: Thank you for this opportunity to exchange ideas. It is natural for everyone, including those abroad, to be worried about the current situation in Nepal. As you know, a coalition government has been formed (without Nepali Congress, NC, party), and we have set out a minimum program (as a common denominator). It is a representative government as legitimate as any parliamentary one, and its validity cannot be questioned. The people of Nepal have expectations, (and this government is ready to meet those expectations and challenges).
There are two elements in this common minimum program: Peace process and election (moving ahead with it). Our earlier experience with the negotiation process lacked preparation, and so we are taking our time to prepare and do our homework. The Maoists used earlier negotiations (two failed ones) to strategize and regroup. This time, we will not give them any excuses (by not falling for it).
It is our belief that the constitutional forces, including the King, have to agree on a set of minimum programs, and we have done that part. Unified constitutional forces will then be able to force the Maoists to come to the table. In addition to the domestic forces, help and cooperation from friendly nations such as India would be important. Still, the major initiative has to be from within the country. The open border with India necessitates them to take this Maoists problem seriously. Furthermore, other outside help from sources like the international communities (expatriates and friendly nations) is essential to put pressure on the Maoists.
If we all unite, the (hard-fought) democracy of 1990 will only be stronger. We need to move on the election process.
G. Gautam: The Maoists have put forward 5/6 questions (demanding clarifications) in front of the government. What's your view?
Mahat: This is not the first time that they have asked such questions. (What's important) is that we need to sit down for a talk, and not engage in a question-answer session. For example, they have asked the question like: "Is the army under the government"? This type of question is designed to undermine the current government's credibility and its ability to protect the people. We should not be engaged in a Q.A. type debate.
Logical solution is what we are looking at; we can't predict the outcome but if we get three things: civil society's support, international cooperation, and unity among the constitutional bodies, then we can put pressure on the Maoists.
G. Gautam: Is there a chance for NC (Nepali Congress, Girija) to cooperate and be a part of the government?
Mahat: Deuba (current PM, and the president of the Nepali Congress, NC (Deuba)) approached Girija (former PM and the president of NC (Girija)) twice before forming the government. But, Girija, for whatever reason, had his own problems and "issues". Anyway, Girija's move (continued agitation) has not been appreciated (by the people). This government is different from the earlier ones, and it has power like a regular government. That is, it has executive power just like an elected government. However, the government would be truly multi-party with his help (if he were to join us.) His cooperation will also help move the peace process forward. Actually, within Girija's own party there are many who favored joining the government. We hope they will join us, and we are still open about it. A constant opposition (by Girija) will weaken the state, and will (only) strengthen the Maoists' (hands).
We hope that the friends in Nepal and abroad alike will put pressure (on him to adopt a cooperative steps.)
Adhikary: Given the fact that the army is getting support from countries like India and the US and getting stronger every year, why would they be interested in giving (up) power?
Mahat: It is our mistake to think that making Nepal Army strong will somehow make the democratic forces weak. In fact, if that had been their intention, they would not need all that extra arms and strength to face off (subjugate) the democratic forces. The reality is that the Maoists are a strong force and a strong RNA is only necessary (is the answer). Furthermore, the King has no intention to be autocratic and he has spoken many times about his commitment to multi-party democracy.
We need to be able to give minimum security to people, so the RNA's role is important. As long as the Maoists are aggressively engaged in activities like the recruitment and kidnapping, the RNA must remain strong. The help provided by India and the US is reasonable, and there is no need to be alarmed regarding an assault against the democratic forces.
Jha: I have three questions. What specific plans do you have to take advantage of the help you are being offered by countries like India and others?
Mahat: We are receiving support from India and other (countries). The current government has support of Europe, India, Japan, and China.
Jha: What are you doing to disseminate information and coordinate a vast amount of information being generated through various means such as, seminar and talk programs.
Mahat: We are doing our best to communicate with the international agencies. We are communicating with the UN too.
Bohara: As a last resort (in case the peace effort in Nepal does not go anywhere), do you think a peace conference by a body like the NRN (in the U.S. e.g.,) would be of use. (How would it be viewed by those in Nepal?) Such a conference may involve agencies like the UN, EU, the Carter Center, NRNs (Non-Resident Nepali), and a good number of participants from Nepal (second tier leaders - moderate perhaps-- belonging to various factions including the Maoists). They would come together to prepare a middle-of-the-road peace plan. Such conferences have been organized at Notre Dame during the era of Pinochet of Chile.
Mahat: We need help and will be appreciative of such efforts. I don't know if the Maoists would be allowed to come to the US, and even if they come to such venues, they always change their tone once they get back to their "turf". I had gone to Sri Lanka with some Maoist leaders a couple years back, and that's what they did. They seemed very cooperative during the seminar, but changed their mind as soon as they returned to Nepal. A discreet approach may be better (at least from the government's point of view at this stage). The conference, as an idea, is not bad. We could use all the help we can get. The UN's involvement, on the other hand, may be tricky (and not be appropriate) at this point.
G. Gautam: (Given your response), India will have to be a party to it, and a meeting outside the country without its involvement may not have much relevance, (especially in the context of the UN-type involvement). How was the trip to India?
Mahat: It was a successful trip. This trip was necessary to quell rumors about the newly formed government. A high level trip was good in that regard. India is supportive. But, we did not talk about the venue of the (future) meeting, and any meeting program involving the Maoists.
S. Gautam: I have two suggestions rather than questions. We have these little problems with India from time to time. So, doing simple things like having exchange programs even tea parties between young junior Nepali diplomats with the young Indian counterparts may be beneficial in the future (through building PR relations.). So in the future when these two sides meet they are not only representing their countries they will be representing friendship and warmth developed through years. The second suggestion is, if we had a ceasefire, then in addition to the negotiations at the top leadership level only, if we could encourage contacts, interactions and negotiations at every level and between different groups of people (e.g. women to women, teachers to teachers, lawyers to lawyers) especially among the democratic forces and the Maoists, I think it will have increased chances of success.
Mahat: The confidence building measure at the local level has merits. But the Maoists are trying to take advantage of the terrain and the rural landscape; they are trying to rule through fear and intimidation. Under this atmosphere, it is hard to promote such initiatives.
We don't want to do unilateral ceasefire. They have betrayed us twice, and they used that ceasefire time in the past to regroup and enhance their strength. They openly acknowledged this.
Furthermore, ceasefire raises (false) expectations. So, we will not enter into it, and instead we will conduct discreet talks. (We don't need ceasefire per se), and if we converge on the political issues then getting into other technical aspects (arms, ceasefire, surrender) would not be that hard. (We don't necessarily need a ceasefire to start a dialogue.)
Pahari: At a conference in Vancouver, (a conflict scholar) Mark strongly opined that the Maoists have no intention of taking a middle ground. This position would be similar to that of the Naxalites in West Bengal (India). So, Basu (the Chief Minister of WB) used the stick and carrot approach. His party CPI (M) implemented a (massive) land reform program and deprived the Naxalites of a (social) cause. Does the Nepal state have any such (people oriented) reform package?
Mahat: The Maoists have spelled out their strategy as: defensive, stalemate, and offensive. They intend to take over the state by force, and they say it openly. The government takes the issue of reforms very seriously and will start to implement far-reaching reforms as soon as elections can take place. Government will go for elections if the peace process cannot be made to work. It is quite ironic that such perception does indeed exist in Nepal: "If we give them everything (something), we will get peace." I don't believe this, and we should not fall for it. Pressure is important. That does not mean we should not try it (implement reforms). We are actually concerned about it (lack of progress).
Pahari: Why can't the state acknowledge their mistake about the human rights related abuses? I ask this because of the culture of impunity that exists within the RNA and the Police apparatus.
Mahat: Yes, we need to be proactive and think of reforms (to win the hearts and minds). But, in the short-run, we need to try the peace process. However, we cannot wait forever for the peace process to unravel. At some point, we need to start thinking about starting the democratic process through election; we can do reforms afterwards.
And, I also agree that there is that perception about our security forces. But we are doing our best in terms of directing (through face to face contacts and meetings) them (the security forces) to be more than cautious about such things. They are getting training, and things are improving.
Bohara: If there is such an urgency to start the democratic process, why not then take a less costly route and "revive" the House?
Mahat: That's in the past-the revival issue, that is. Even the SC (Supreme Court) has put on a closure on that issue. We should go for election and get a fresh mandate. Punjab had only 10% turnout and still an election was held. Later the participation increased. Similarly, we should be ready to do it in phases. Constitutional monarchy is needed in the country, (and the multi-party system). So, election is the way to put the democratic process on track.
Bohara: Following upon this, I have had this speculation for a while that the Maoists have no incentive to come to the negotiation table. Why would they? The King and the Army have their issues, and the government is somewhere (on its own agenda). The grand old party like the NC(G) is on the street? Some political leaders have essentially conceded the constituent assembly to the Maoists. With such a fractured "front", the Maoists have no incentive to come forward. So, if the revival of the House can unite the constitutional and democratic forces, so what's wrong in doing it, especially if it is not that costly as compared to holding election? (I mean from the potential violence point of view.)
Mahat: There is no guarantee that the constitutional forces like NC (Girija), NC (Deuba), and the UML (and others) will remain united even if the House is revived. The new alliance may emerge (for election). So, peace negotiation is a better route, and election is the only way out.
G. Gautam: What's wrong in giving Constituent Assembly in return for peace?
Mahat: They should bring such issues to the table. We are also going with an open mind. But we need to know exactly what they have in mind. Perhaps, we can take care of many of their issues through amendments. A fresh election and a new mandate can, in conjunction with the 2/3rd rule currently in place, can implement changes in the existing constitution.
Jha: There is so much focus on the peace process. But we also need to focus on development. It should be visible to the outside world that we do care about development. You recall about my meeting with PM Deuba about the IIT Nepal project (opening Information Technical Institute in Nepal using private money). It has been nearly three years since I have tried in getting this Institute going in Nepal, and yet I still don't understand what's stopping it from getting approved.
Mahat: Unstable governments could be one reason. As you know we have been going through unstable period. People like you, who are interested in investing in Nepal, should be encouraged. In general though, violence hurts development efforts. I will do my best to make sure that people like you get support.
Jha: Twenty ministers are engaged in the peace mission. A few should pay attentions to other matters too.
Mahat: We are equally serious about other issues, including various development initiatives.
Pahari: We Nepalis here have a general sense that the government in Nepal is not very efficient. The Iraq incident is an example, especially in regard to the handling of the riots (following the slaying of the Nepali hostages by the militants in Iraq.).
Mahat: We are taking action against those (including police) who failed to take security measures during the riots. We are also investigating the perpetrators of violence. We have a commission investigating it.
Pahari: We get discouraged because of the constant bickering and fighting among the party leaders. It is amazing that we still can't unite even under such a grave condition (full-fledged insurgency).
Mahat: I agree that we did show disunity. Let's forget about the past. Despite all that, people are still firmly behind the core value that the constitutional forces represent. We will prevail. Constitutional forces will prevail.
Pahari: (Human rights) violation by the state is serious and such actions cannot be defended outside.
Mahat: The current government takes the human rights matter very seriously.
Pahari: Why can't you come up with a public statement against the human rights abuse?
Mahat: We have signed MOUs with the human rights organizations. Our security forces take seminars and trainings. And these activities are not private and done openly.
Jha: (I have suggestions rather that questions.) Focus on working on media and also work on ways to improve the PR (methods) with India. People will rally around strong messages and ideas (democratic values).
Mahat: We agree. We have shortage of managerial capacity and we can't fully engage in disseminating information. But we are trying. We need to work on our PR and media aspects, and will need help from people like you.
Adhikary (wrapping it up as a president of the Nepalese Americas Council, NAC):
We had supported United Nations Assistant General Secretary and Deputy Director of the UNICEF Kul C. Gautam, (a native of Nepal) and a petition drive was launched around his message. But in Nepal, I don't think he got much support, especially when it came to the idea of involving the UN (in relation to the peace and reconstruction initiative). Why is the UN not supported in Nepal?
Mahat: I talked to Kul GautamJi and the other officials of the UN. It is not true that we don't like UN; we have nothing against the UN. In fact, we have appreciation for what they are doing. We do recognize the UN is important, but the timing has to be right.
Finally, I would like to urge all of you to voice your opposition against the kidnapping of the school children in Nepal by the Maoists. These children are being deprived of their basic rights to educate themselves.
|
