NEPAL: PARTY LEADERS, KING HOLD FIRST MEETING;

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000954

SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2014
TAGS: PGOV NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: PARTY LEADERS, KING HOLD FIRST MEETING;
MORE MAY FOLLOW

REF: KATHMANDU 947

Classified By: CDA JANET BOGUE. REASON: 1.5 (B,D).


1. (U) On May 19 King Gyanendra and the leaders of five
protesting political parties held their first meeting since
the May 7 resignation of Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa
and the beginning of the parties' "decisive" anti-Palace
campaign on April 1. Press reports on the meeting, based on
the party leaders' accounts, were generally neutral in tone,
characterizing the initial discussion as inconclusive but
indicating cautious hope for an eventually favorable outcome.
All reports indicate there was no discussion of individual
names to be included in a potential new Cabinet.


2. (C) Prabhakar Rana, King Gyanendra's business partner
and confidant, called Charge the morning of May 20, upon
instruction from the monarch, to provide a readout of the
meeting. Rana described the atmosphere at this initial
exchange as "reasonably good," noting that all participants
kept to the agenda and did not use the meeting as an
opportunity to trade accusations or complain about the past.
According to Rana, the King told the party leaders that
formation of a new government is "completely possible," but
must take place within the framework of the Constitution.
(Note: Given the dubious constitutionality of the previous
two governments appointed by the King, it is not at all clear
what this means. The party leaders apparently did not press
the King for clarification. End note.) The King also
stipulated that the other three parliamentary parties not in
the five-party alliance (the Nepali Congress (Democratic),
the National Democratic Party, and the NEPAL Sadbhavana
(Mandal)) be consulted on the formation of a possible new
government. None of the political leaders present objected
to this requirement, Rana reported.


3. (C) With this first meeting with all five leaders now
over, the way is open for separate dialogue between the King
and individual party leaders, Rana said. Such meetings might
start as early as May 21 but are not likely before May 23, he
suggested. He added that he had spoken with Nepali Congress
President G.P. Koirala and Communist Party of NEPAL - United
Marxist Leninst (UML) General Secretary Madhav NEPAL after
the meeting as well to urge their cooperation and follow-up.
The party leaders need not abide by protocol and await a
summons from the King to resume dialogue, Rana said, but
should feel free to contact the Palace whenever they would
like to meet. (Comment: Given what we know of Palace
protocol and the leaders' traditional circumspection with
regard to initiating communication with the King, we find the
informal scenario suggested by Rana highly improbable.) He
also recommended that Koirala and Nepal, as a show of good
faith, tone down their daily demonstrations against the King.
(Note: Fortunately, heavy rains throughout the day May 20
precluded mass rallies and demonstrations anyway. It will be
interesting to see if the demonstrations resume with their
usual anti-Palace vitriol with better weather.) Rana asked
Charge to weigh in with the party leaders as well,
particularly the curmudgeonly Koirala. Charge undertook to
do so.


4. (SBU) Embassy discussions with party spokesmen produced
more guarded assessments of the initial discussion. Nepali
Congress Spokesman Arjun Narasingh K.C. said the meeting
marked a beginning point for dialogue; as such, "we don't
take it negatively." UML Central Committee member Bharat
Mohan Adhikary was even more noncommittal, reporting that the
King just listened to the participants' comments and
suggestions without revealing his own thoughts. "We can't
say if (the meeting) was positive or negative," he concluded.
NEPAL Sadbhavana member Hriyadesh Tripathi was yet more
critical, charging that the inconclusiveness of this initial
discussion--and the King's suggestion that he might call
others for separate, subsequent talks--implied a lack of
seriousness and sense of urgency on the monarch's part.


5. (C) Comment: Despite the unenthusiastic read-outs
provided by their representatives, the party leaders' own
restrained, muted public responses after the meeting offer
the best indication that the politicians are hoping this new
dialogue with their inscrutable monarch will prove fruitful
and are trying, at least for now, not to poison the
atmosphere. We will quietly continue to urge both sides to
pursue this long-awaited opportunity to resume dialogue.

BOGUE