NEPAL: MAOIST RESPONSE TO U.S. TERRORISM

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 002165 SIPDIS STATE FOR EB/ESC/TFS (GLASS),S/CT FOR NAVRATIL, SA FOR DON CAMP, SA/INS FOR DGOOD AND GBAYER, INL FOR JWHITAKER LONDON FOR PGUERNEY TREASURY FOR OFAC (NEWCOMB) AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR TERRORIST FINANCING AND FINANCIAL CRIMES NSC FOR EMILLARD E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/03/2013 TAGS: PTER EFIN KVPR NP SUBJECT: NEPAL: MAOIST RESPONSE TO U.S. TERRORISM DESIGNATION REF: A. A) STATE 305118 ¶B. B) KATHMANDU 2048 ¶C. C) KATHMANDU 2096 ¶D. D) KATHMANDU 2163 Classified By: CHARGE D'AFFAIRES, A.I. ROBERT K. BOGGS BASED UPON REASO NS 1.5 (B) AND (D) ¶1. (U) Nepal's Maoists, in response to the U.S. designation of them as terrorists on the assets freeze list (ref A),have posted a statement on the Nepali version of their website blasting the designation as an example of U.S. interference in the internal affairs of Nepal and its neighbors. The Maoists' 2 November statement advances a range of explanations for the U.S. designation, including the contention that the U.S. wants to establish a military base in Nepal. In addition, the statement claims that the U.S. action comes at a time when European donors, the United Nations and the Maoists are actively working for a peaceful solution. In a separate internet interview, Maoist supremo Prachanda claimed that the Maoists are in "constant contact" with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan regarding possible UN mediation in the peace process. ¶2. (U) The Maoist statement further describes the U.S. designation as "ridiculous," especially in light of the Maoist announcement on 21 October of a shift toward a less aggressive policy (ref B). The statement claims that the U.S. made the designation only after the Maoist Politburo decision to reduce terrorist activities. ¶3. (U) Excerpts from the 2 November statement include: -- "...the Maoists have time and again repeated that at the moment it does not have a policy to go against any foreign power including America." --"...now when the Maoists have decided to stop such activities, which they (the U.S.) term as terrorist, it (the U.S.) has enlisted them as terrorists." --"...it has become clear. . . that the U.S. administration is trying to fulfill its evil designs by creating chaos in Nepal. At a time when different countries of the world including the United Nations and the European Union are active in establishing peace in Nepal..." --"The decision taken by the U.S. administration, interfering with the internal politics of Nepal, is being seen as a plot not only against Nepal, but also against the neighboring countries." --"Political analysts believe that America has the ill intention of keeping a watch on India and surrounding China by establishing a military base in Nepal..." ¶3. (C) COMMENT. In this initial reaction to the recent U.S. announcement of terrorist sanctions against them, the Maoists are clearly attempting to generate concern in Beijing and in New Delhi about America's growing influence in Nepal. In addition, the Maoist statement makes an effort to drive a wedge between the "evil" U.S. actions in Nepal and the "peaceful" actions of European donors and the UN. The explicit denial that the Maoists are planning to "go against" America suggests that the terrorist designation has served, so far at least, more as a warning against attacking U.S. interests than as a provocation. Over the past few weeks, there appears to be in some of the Maoist leadership's rhetoric a gradual "walking back" from public threats against the U.S. ¶4. (C) COMMENT CONTINUED. Despite the Maoists' commitments in their 21 October and 2 November statements, we have yet to see any solid, concrete movement away from violence. Instead, their campaign of violence continues unabated. By depicting the terrorist designation as a U.S. attempt to derail putative efforts by the UN to restore peace, the Maoists are trying to deflect public and international attention from the real cause of instability in Nepal--their continued reign of terror in the countryside. END COMMENT. BOGGS