Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
02KATHMANDU2295
2002-12-03 12:12:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kathmandu
Cable title:  

NEPALI CONGRESS STILL HOLDING HARD LINE AGAINST

Tags:  PGOV PTER NP GON 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KATHMANDU 002295 

SIPDIS

STATE FOR SA/INS
LONDON FOR POL - RIEDEL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/28/2012
TAGS: PGOV PTER NP GON
SUBJECT: NEPALI CONGRESS STILL HOLDING HARD LINE AGAINST
INTERIM GOVERNMENT

REF: A. (A) KATHMANDU 2189


B. (B) KATHMANDU 2091

C. (C) KATHMANDU 2060

Classified By: AMB. MICHAEL E. MALINOWSKI. REASON: 1.5 (B,D).

-------
SUMMARY
--------

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KATHMANDU 002295

SIPDIS

STATE FOR SA/INS
LONDON FOR POL - RIEDEL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/28/2012
TAGS: PGOV PTER NP GON
SUBJECT: NEPALI CONGRESS STILL HOLDING HARD LINE AGAINST
INTERIM GOVERNMENT

REF: A. (A) KATHMANDU 2189


B. (B) KATHMANDU 2091

C. (C) KATHMANDU 2060

Classified By: AMB. MICHAEL E. MALINOWSKI. REASON: 1.5 (B,D).

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) The polarization between the Palace-appointed
interim government and mainstream political parties
continues. Nepali Congress President and former Prime
Minister G.P. Koirala, who maintains that the previous
Parliament should be reinstated, led a rally November 26
against the King's October 4 dismissal of the previous
government. More such demonstrations may be likely.
Hardliners within the Nepali Congress are urging against
compromise with the Palace, according to a high-ranking party
source, who expressed concern that Koirala's continued
intransigence--and thus a protracted stalemate between the
parties and the Palace--could play right into the plans of
the Maoists. End summary.

--------------
PARTIES STILL SITTING OUT ON THE SIDELINES
--------------


2. (SBU) Despite the November 18 Cabinet expansion (Ref A),
no one from any of the seven Parliamentary parties--with the
exception of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
themselves--has accepted a position in the interim government
appointed by the King October 11. (Note: Ref A incorrectly
reported that Land Reform Minister Badri Narayan Basnet is a
member of the National Democratic Party. In fact, Basnet is
a former member of the Nepali Congress. End note.) Party
activists on either side of the aisle lament that the King is
trying to prove he can go it alone without the parties,
claiming the monarch is heeding too attentively the views of
recitivist Palace insiders who paint all politicians as
corrupt, ineffectual, self-interested hacks. Interim
government efforts to accomplish what successive democratic
governments could not--i.e., dealing with the Maoists and
cleaning up corruption--thus garner suspicion, rather than
support, from party leaders who feel themselves increasingly
sidelined and rendered superfluous by the King. Many are
particularly alarmed by the anti-corruption crusade (Ref C),
interpreting it as another Palace ploy to discredit the

democratic parties' legacy. (Note: For some politicians,
their personal levels of culpability in assorted scandals
likely also figure prominently in these feelings of disquiet.
End note.)


3. (C) At the same time, some party leaders appear jealous
of the new government's efforts to reopen talks with the
Maoists and may, according to some sources, be actively
attempting to thwart such overtures. One
politician-cum-human rights activist alleged recently that NC
leader G.P. Koirala actually is urging the Maoists,
apparently through his own human rights channel, not to open
talks with the "illegitimate" interim government appointed by
the King.


4. (C) But despite their displeasure with the King's move,
the parties still appear clearly perplexed about how best to
respond. The positions of the National Democratic Party and
the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (the third- and fourth-largest
parties respectively) are particularly sensitive, since the
current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister hail from
their respective upper ranks. One Nepal Sadbhavana Central
Committee member told us his party was acutely displeased
when Badri Mandal, their acting President, accepted the post
of Deputy PM--a step taken, according to the source, with no
prior clearance from the party leadership. The National
Democratic Party, or Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP),
although traditionally allied with the Palace, has still
avoided nominating anyone (with the exception of PM Lokendra
Bahadur Chand) to the Cabinet. Communist Party of Nepal -
United Marxist Leninist (UML) leader Madhav Nepal seems to be
quietly sitting on the fence, neither directly confronting or
criticizing the King nor explicitly endorsing his action.
The UML has so far shown a reluctance to engage in street
demonstrations, although a mass meeting is planned to be held
in Kathmandu Dec. 13. UML leader Nepal has intimated that
his party would like the King to replace the current
technocrat Cabinet and Prime Minister with an all-party
government (and a PM yet to be named),and may have deferred
public displays thus far in the hope of pursuing "quiet
diplomacy" with the King. So far, however, the Palace has
given no indication that it is entertaining any suggested
revisions to the Cabinet.

--------------
KOIRALA OUT IN FRONT AGAIN
--------------


5. (SBU) But if the UML, the RPP, and the Nepal Sadbhavana
are downplaying, at least for now, their displeasure with the
current set-up, the Nepali Congress Party, under the quixotic
leadership of five-time PM G.P. Koirala, shows no such
reticence. The 79-year-old Koirala has kept up a steady
chorus of dissent, charging the King's dismissal of the
previous government was "unconstitutional," and warning
darkly of unspecified dangers to democracy posed by the
interim government. On November 26, the Nepali Congress held
concurrent mass rallies in eight different cities across the
country; another rally was held in a ninth location just a
few days later. With the exception of the rally in Pokhara,
each of the rallies was fairly well-attended, according to NC
spokesman Arjun Narasingh K.C., with the Kathmandu meeting,
addressed by none other than G.P. himself, drawing thousands
of participants. Some of the attendees carried banners and
signs criticizing the King's October 4 dismissal of the
previous government. Koirala was somewhat more circumspect
in his public remarks, avoiding direct criticism of the
monarch, suggesting instead that the King "take corrective
measures" by reinstating the Parliament dissolved last May.
(Note: November 29 editions of Nepali dailies quoted Koirala
as warning that his party might support withdraw its support
of the constitutional monarchy in favor of a republic absent
ameliorative measures taken by the King. The NC Party
spokesman told poloff the former PM once again had--as is
apparently so often the case--been misquoted. End note.)

--------------
MAOISTS INTO THE MIX?
--------------


6. (C) Koirala's strong words against the monarch have won
him admiration and kudos from an unlikely quarter--the
Maoists--who have praised him as the one true democrat brave
enough to stand up to the King. (Needless to say, a complete
reversal of their view of him during his tenures as Prime
Minister.) NC spokesman Narasingh K.C. told us he fears that
Koirala may be increasingly distancing himself from the
political mainstream with his harsh rhetoric, boxing himself
more and more into a corner that will leave him little room
for maneuvering. Self-interested opportunists within his own
party are counseling against moderation and compromise,
urging him to insist on the reinstatement of the previous
Parliament--a proposal which enjoys the dubious distinction
of having been rejected by all other parties and the King--as
his bottom line (a line which has no resonance among the
people, either). The Maoists, who thrive on contention and
discord among domestic political forces to further their own
aims, are also encouraging a hard line, spokesman K.C. said.


7. (C) Narasingh K.C. said he had attended an all-party
meeting November 28 called by a far-left coalition (some with
covert links to the Maoists) that had gained no seats in the
previous Parliament. The left-wing parties tried to convince
the Nepali Congress and UML representatives (the only
mainstream parties in attendance) to participate in mass,
all-party demonstrations and protests against the King's
action. Neither the UML representative nor he agreed to the
proposal, Narasingh K.C. said. If they did, he observed, the
agenda could be easily hijacked by the Maoists. We are
getting "dragged to the Maoists' side" by the political
impasse, he complained, since there seems to be little
latitude left for compromise and understanding between the
Palace and the NC.


8. (C) In a December 3 meeting with UML Central Committee
member and former Deputy Prime Minister Bamdev Gautam, the
Ambassador encouraged the political parties to work together
with the Palace to present a united front against the
Maoists, adopting as a basic principle that the insurgents
cease their violent activities. The Ambassador also warned
that security forces are fearful the Maoists might try to
infiltrate street demonstrations and mass rallies planned by
the parties, in a bid either to discredit the mainstream
political parties or to provoke an over-reaction from the
Government. Gautam said he recognized this danger. He
reiterated the UML position calling for an all-party
government, perhaps formed under the auspices of Clause 128
of the Constitution, but noted that there had been no further
discussion between the Palace and his party for the past two
weeks. (Note: Clause 128 authorized the formation of the
first interim Cabinet "consisting of representatives from the
main political parties," before national elections could be
held, under democracy. UML logic holds that since elections
cannot be held because of security conditions, Clause 128
offers a constitutional precedent for forming an all-party
interim government until the situation improves and national
elections can be held. End note.)

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


9. (C) It is a little disheartening to reflect that the
Nepali Congress can mobilize its party machinery to rally
thousands of people in Kathmandu and elsewhere to protest the
King's action but seems unable to organize a program of
similar magnitude denouncing Maoist attacks against their own
party workers in the field, or against the frequent
Maoist-called general strikes that are so debilitating to the
economy and society. The current impasse is absorbing most,
if not all, of the interim government's attention. Asserting
its legitimacy is distracting this government from addressing
more urgent matters--like the insurgency--in much the same
way fending off the constant threats of no-confidence votes
and party splits had preoccupied previous governments. So
far, however, creative resolutions to the stalemate have not
been forthcoming. Reinstating the previous Parliament
appears to have the support of no one save G.P. Koirala, does
not appear to have any constitutional basis, and would likely
face a Supreme Court challenge. (Note: The Supreme Court
has already ruled the dissolution of Parliament in May to be
legal. End note.) Given the perennial contentiousness of
Nepali party politics, the all-party government proposed by
the UML would seem to have too many moving parts to prove
workable. That said, an interim government in a multi-party
democracy--even one formed with the best intentions--should
be able to demonstrate some support from some of those
parties as a minimum requirement. If that government is
facing a violent insurgency that claims to have broad-based
popularity, that support becomes even more crucial. Without
it, this government will remain severely restricted in what,
if anything, it can accomplish toward a long-lasting solution
to the conflict. We, along with the British, have quietly
been advising both the Palace and the political leaders to
compromise on their public postures, which are becoming
increasingly inflexible, to achieve a government that more
accurately represents the multi-party democracy it seeks to
preserve. Unfortunately, however, dialogue between the
parties on the Palace on a more feasible ruling formula,
e.g., a reshuffled Cabinet, which combines qualified
technocrats with representatives from all the Parliamentary
parties, seems for the moment to be at a standstill. End
comment.

MALINOWSKI