NEPAL: MAOISTS SEE "IMPERIALIST DESIGN" IN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001586

SIPDIS

STATE FOR SA/INS
LONDON FOR POL - GURNEY
NSC FOR MILLARD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/20/2013
TAGS: PTER PGOV NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: MAOISTS SEE "IMPERIALIST DESIGN" IN
NEGOTIATION PROCESS

REF: A. KATHMANDU 1577


B. KATHMANDU 1565

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

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


1. (C) The Government of Nepal's (GON) lead negotiator, Dr.
Prakash Chandra Lohani, told the Ambassador that Maoist
negotiators were unwilling to discuss any of the GON's
political reform proposals during the third round of talks
held August 17-18. Instead, Maoist negotiator Dr. Baburam
Bhattarai denounced GON efforts to engage in
confidence-building measures as an "imperialist design"
instigated by foreign powers. Despite the "tremendous gap"
between GON and Maoist positions, both sides agreed to touch
base with one another after seven days. Lohani said the GON
was "taken aback" by the Maoists' categorical refusal to
discuss anything short of the GON's complete capitulation on
the issue of the constituent assembly. Whether the Maoists
decide to stay in the talks will depend, Lohani said, on
pressure from civil society for negotiations to continue.
End summary.

--------------
MAOISTS' "ONE-POINT PERSPECTIVE"
--------------


2. (C) On August 21 Finance Minister and lead Government of
Nepal (GON) negotiator, Dr. Prakash Chandra Lohani, called
the Ambassador to offer a quick readout of the August 17-18
negotiating sessions with the Maoists (Reftels). (The
Ambassador will have a longer meeting with time for more
thorough discussions with Lohani's fellow negotiator,
Information Minister Kamal Thapa, on August 25.) Lohani
reported that the Maoists refused to discuss any of the GON's
political reform proposals during either of the two sessions,
reiterating repeatedly that they were prepared to talk only
about the constituent assembly. "They expected us to
surrender completely" on that point, Lohani said, adding that
he told them, "The Government did not come here to
surrender." Rather than tackling controversial issues like
the constituent assembly first, the normal negotiating
process is for the two sides to examine the GON's proposed
agenda for reform and identify areas of common concern where
they could work together, he told his Maoist interlocutors.



3. (C) Chief Maoist negotiator Dr. Baburam Bhattarai
retorted that the "normal negotiating process" Lohani
described is an "imperialist design" forwarded by foreign
forces. He demanded that the two sides discuss "political
issues" before any other topic. Lohani replied that the
GON's proposals for constitutional reform fall under the
category of "political issues," and again invited the Maoist
negotiators to identify topics within GON parameters (that do
not compromise the constitutional monarchy, multi-party
democracy, sovereignty of the people and national unity) that
could be addressed through constitutional amendment.
Bhattarai again refused to engage in any discussion. The
Maoists have a "one-point perspective," Bhattarai stated,
with a single focus on the need for a constituent assembly
"to decide the big concept of the future structure of our
state." Unless the GON submits to that viewpoint, there is
no further scope for discussion, he concluded. When Lohani
then asked Bhattarai to offer more details on how the Maoists
envision the constituent assembly, Bhattarai refused to
discuss that either. The Maoists will discuss the details of
the assembly only after the GON agrees to accept it,
Bhattarai said.


4. (C) Lohani said he concluded the session by
acknowledging the "tremendous gap" between the positions of
the two sides. Both sides agreed to consult with their
respective leadership and make contact again in a week.

--------------
MAOIST POSITION: FACADE OR REAL DEAL?
--------------


5. (C) Lohani told the Ambassador that the GON was "taken
aback" by the Maoists' categorical rejection of its
proposals. He said he cannot determine whether their
reaction is a facade or represents their actual "negotiating"
position. The insurgents may be bluffing, he said, or they
may have overestimated their own strength and expect to be
able to intimidate the GON into conceding this crucial point.
Whether or not the Maoists come back to the negotiating
table will depend to a large degree, he said, on pressure
from civil society. He expressed disappointment over the
lack of support from mainstream political parties (Ref A).
He believes that the political leadership actually agrees
with many of the GON's proposals but is unwilling to support
the GON publicly.

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


6. (C) Lohani's description of the Maoists' behavior during
this most recent "negotiation" borders on the farcical. The
Maoist understanding of negotiations--that the other side
capitulate immediately and unquestioningly and work out the
details of what it agreed to later--seems to offer little
prospect for a political settlement to this costly, bloody
conflict. We plan to increase our efforts to encourage civil
society--which has remained largely silent--and the leaders
of the mainstream political parties to adopt a more helpful
public posture at this crucial juncture.


MALINOWSKI