NEPAL: GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SIGN HUMAN RIGHTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000371

SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/27/2014
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PTER PREL NP UN
SUBJECT: NEPAL: GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SIGN HUMAN RIGHTS
ACCORD

REF: A. KATHMANDU 0326


B. KATHMANDU 0323 (NOTAL)

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

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


1. (C) In a February 27 meeting, de facto Foreign Minister
Bekh Bahadur Thapa told the Ambassador that the Government of
Nepal (GON) will not sign the proposed human rights accord
because the accord implicitly puts the Maoists on the same
level as the Government. The GON would, moreover, object to
any resolution introduced into the UN criticizing its human
rights record. The GON would, however, accept technical
assistance to strengthen the National Human Rights
Commission, Thapa indicated, adding that the Prime Minister
plans to issue a public statement reaffirming the GON's
commitment to human rights. Thapa said he had informed a
group of European ambassadors of the GON position. The
Embassy does not support pressuring the GON to sign the
accord, but believes we should urge the GON to implement the
international human rights agreements and conventions it has
already signed. In addition, we support providing technical
assistance to the National Human Rights Commission to assist
in the implementation of these agreements. End Summary.

--------------
GON WILL NOT SIGN HUMAN RIGHTS ACCORD
--------------


2. (U) The Ambassador met with de facto Foreign Minister
Ambassador Bekh Bahadur Thapa on February 27 to discuss
Government of Nepal (GON) views on whether to sign a draft
human rights accord supported by the UN Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and some European
donors (Ref A). The Ambassador used the opportunity to pass
Amb. Thapa a copy of the just released annual Human Rights
Report on Nepal.


3. (SBU) Ambassador Thapa said that he had met with several
European ambassadors and the visiting head of the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation on Feburary 26. Thapa
said he discussed with the delegation King Gyanendra's trips
out to the western part of the country (Ref B),the Unified
Command, and the Village Defense Forces. He said he
described the Village Defense Forces as "just an idea" that
the Royal Nepal Army has subsequently "backed away from."


4. (C) Thapa said he told the delegation that the GON will
not accept "any imposition of a UN resolution or of censure"
on its human rights record. The GON, moreover, will not sign
any document that accords equal status to the GON--a
legitimate, sovereign government--and the Maoist insurgents,
which, in the GON view, the draft accord appears to do. He
noted that the GON, USG and the Indian Government all
consider the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) as a terrorist
organization. The GON will continue to respect and promote
human rights as described in the Constitution and in the
numerous international treaties and conventions it has
already signed, he emphasized. Thapa reported that he
advised the European envoys that Prime Minister Surya Bahadur
Thapa soon will issue a statement outlining the steps the GON
is taking to fulfill those commitments. In that statement,
the PM will ask international donors to help strengthen GON
institutions, including the National Human Righs Commission
(NHRC),Thapa said. Such assistance could include "outside
advisors." (Note: It is unclear whether "advisors" means
"monitors," as proposed by OHCHR. End note.)


5. (C) Thapa said that he had the impression that all of
the envoys were satisfied with his answer and were not
planning to pursue a CHR resolution or continue to urge
signing of the accord. According to Thapa, UK Ambassador
Keith Bloomfield added that, with the GON's commitment to
implement its human rights obligations under previously
signed international treaties, the UK would try to get the
Maoists to sign the draft accord.

--------------
AN ACCORD BY ANY OTHER NAME?
--------------


6. (C) Ambassador Malinowski responded that he understood
GON concerns about the accord as written. He suggested the
possibility of the GON signing a different
statement--possibly entitled "GON Commitment to Human Rights"
or "GON Action Plan for Implementing International
Conventions on Human Rights"--that detailed concrete steps
the GON plans to take on the international human rights
instruments it has already signed. Thapa indicated that the
PM's upcoming statement would more or less do just that.

--------------
EMBASSY RECOMMENDATION
--------------


7. (C) Since the USG has designated the Maoists as
terrorists under E.O. 13224, it would be difficult for us to
insist that the GON sign any agreement that seems to put this
friendly government and an organization we regard as
terrorist on the same level. That said, yet another public
statement from the GON reiterating its commitment to human
rights that is not accompanied by detailed steps it pledges
to take to fulfill that commitment is unlikely to improve the
worsening climate of impunity and non-transparency.
Stand-alone technical assistance to the NHRC, without a
concrete commitment from the GON that it will improve
implementation of NHRC recommendations, would be similarly
insufficient. We therefore recommend the following:

--Support for OHCHR's proposal to provide technical
assistance to the NHRC, as long as such assistance is not
linked to the GON's signing of the human rights accord. (Per
Ref A, an OHCHR representative suggested the two could be
delinked.)

--Continued dialogue between the Embassy and the GON to urge
the possibility of human rights monitors.

--Continued emphasis on the importance of human rights in our
engagement, including training for the security forces, with
the GON.

--We should not pressure the GON to sign the human rights
accord. The problem with the accord is not its actual text.
Many of the items listed are actions that the GON, according
to its own law and its commitments under previously signed
international conventions, should be doing anyway. The
problem lies in the ham-fisted manner of its presentation to
the GON--as something it would sign, along with the Maoists,
as two equal parties to the conflict (Ref A). We should
respect the GON's legitimate objections on this score and not
insist it sign. On the other hand, we should urge the GON to
consider committing to a concrete, detailed action plan to
implement its obligations under a human rights agreement it
has already signed as a sovereign government, e.g., the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

MALINOWSKI