Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
03KATHMANDU999
2003-05-31 04:55:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kathmandu
Cable title:  

NEPALI KING ASKS PARTY LEADERS FOR CONSENSUS

Tags:  PGOV NP 
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 02 KATHMANDU 000999 

SIPDIS

STATE FOR SA/INS
LONDON FOR POL - GURNEY

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/30/2013
TAGS: PGOV NP
SUBJECT: NEPALI KING ASKS PARTY LEADERS FOR CONSENSUS
CANDIDATE TO HEAD NEW GOVERNMENT

REF: A. KATHMANDU 0991

B. KATHMANDU 0961

Classified By: CDA ROBERT K. BOGGS. REASON: 1.5 (B,D).

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

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000999

SIPDIS

STATE FOR SA/INS
LONDON FOR POL - GURNEY

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/30/2013
TAGS: PGOV NP
SUBJECT: NEPALI KING ASKS PARTY LEADERS FOR CONSENSUS
CANDIDATE TO HEAD NEW GOVERNMENT

REF: A. KATHMANDU 0991

B. KATHMANDU 0961

Classified By: CDA ROBERT K. BOGGS. REASON: 1.5 (B,D).

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


1. (C) Breaking with past practice, Nepal's King Gyanendra
convoked on May 30 leaders of the seven parties that had held
seats in the last Parliament to offer them an opportunity to
constitute a new, more broadly-based government (Ref A). The
King assured the leaders that a new Prime Minister would be
vested with full executive authority. According to a
well-placed Palace source, the meeting failed to produce a
consensus candidate to head a new government. The King has
given the parties 72 hours in which to provide him the name
of a consensus candidate (or, failing that, names of several
candidates from which he could choose) that they would accept
as the new Prime Minister. He ruled out the possibility of
restoring the Parliament that was dissolved one year ago.
The King's actions, as reported, appear to reflect a
good-faith effort to form the all-party government with full
executive powers that the Parliamentary parties have been
demanding. It remains to be seen whether the contentious
parties can overcome their typical preoccuptation with
personal and partisan self-interest to agree on a candidate.
End summary.

--------------
CONSENSUS ELUDES PARTY HEADS
--------------


2. (C) Early on the morning of May 31, Prabhakar Rana, King
Gyanendra's confidant, called the Charge to offer a read-out
"from the horse's mouth" on the King's May 30 meeting with
party leaders (Ref A). The meeting, which lasted
two-and-a-half hours, was attended by leaders of the seven
Parliamentary parties, including leaders of two factions that
have splintered from their main party leadership since the
dissolution of Parliament last May. The King reportedly
opened the meeting, called to help form a new all-party
government, by requesting that the leaders focus on the
"process" of chooosing a leader rather than on the particular
"personality" that might be chosen. He also emphasized that
he would confer on the new government full executive powers.


3. (C) According to Rana's account, the party leaders, the
King's plea not withstanding, immediately zeroed in on

"personalities," with the leaders of the two largest parties
objecting strenuously to the presence of the leaders of the
splinter factions of the Nepal Sadbhavana Party and the
Nepali Congress (Democratic). Nepali Congress President G.P.
Koirala and Communist Party of Nepal - United Marxist Leninst
(UML) General Secretary Madhav Nepal claimed that since their
parties, along with the People's Front Nepal and the Peasants
and Workers Party, represent three-fourths of the seats in
Parliament, formation of the new government should be left to
them. The King responded that since the parties had been
pressing for an all-party government, all of the parties
represented in the last Parliament should be involved.


4. (C) Nepali Congress leader Koirala proposed that the King
reinstate Parliament, with the head of the UML (which would
now hold the majority in Parliament) as the new Prime
Minister. The proposal reportedly brought a clamor of
counter-demands for consideration of their own candidacy from
other leaders present. Nepali Congress (Democratic) leader
Sher Bahadur Deuba said that as PM during the last
Parliament, he should be reappointed Prime Minister if
Parliament were to be reinstated. National Democratic Party
President Pashupati SJB Rana argued that since his party
alone has observed the Constitution and not agitated against
the King, he should be appointed Prime Minister. Nepal
Sadbhavana leader and current Deputy Prime Minister Badri
Prasad Mandal contended that all of the other Parliamentary
parties had violated the Constitution by calling for the
postponement of elections. He then put forward his own name
as the most suitable candidate. (Note: Mandal is on
somewhat shaky ground here. The Nepal Sadbhavana did not
oppose the postponement of elections in October. Since then,
however, the party has splintered, and Mandal is apparently
trying to represent his splinter as not agreeing to the
postponement. End note.)
--------------
72-HOUR DEADLINE FOR CONSENSUS
--------------


5. (C) According to Rana, the King categorically ruled out
any possibility of reconvening Parliament as
"unconstituional." (Note: The Supreme Court has ruled that
the dissolution was constitutional. End note.) He then gave
the parties a 72-hour deadline in which to present him with
the name of a consensus candidate for Prime Minister. Should
the seven parties be unable to settle on a single name, he
gave them the alternative of proposing a slate of several
names from which he might choose. He cautioned them,
however, not to ask him to take any "unconstitutional" steps
(which we interpret as a warning that he will not accept
requests to reconvene Parliament).

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


6. (C) The King's actions, as reported, appear to reflect a
good-faith effort to form the all-party government with full
executive authority that the parties have been demanding and
that we (and other embassies) have been pressing. His move
has clearly shifted the burden for positive movement toward
more representative government squarely onto the parties.
Given the parties' abysmal track record for collaboration and
cooperation--and the debilitating animosity between several
of the more prominent personalities--it remains to be seen
whether they can achieve the consensus necessary within the
time given. We will continue to engage with party members to
urge them to take advantage of the King's initiative.


BOGGS