Home About Services Campaigns Advocates Fellows Blogs Resources Take Action

A Voice For the Voiceless

The Advocacy Project helps marginalized communities to tell their story, claim their rights and produce social change.

We are currently recruiting graduate students to volunteer as Peace Fellows with partners.

The Impact of Service "I look at myself as having the potential to be as strong and caring as the amazing women I met in Kenya." Kate Cummings (Tufts University) volunteered in 2009 as a Peace Fellow for Vital Voices in Africa. For more 2009 feedback click here.

Translate this page:

Resources > Global Issues > Nepal – Democra... > The Struggle for ... > Bulletins > Bulletin #17: Con...

Bulletin #17: Congressional Hearing Examines Unrest in Nepal

On March 2, 2005, a hearing was held by the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on the crisis in Nepal. The following are the statements of the Jim Leach (R-IA), Chairman of the Subcommittee, and one of the witnesses, Donald Camp, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

United States Urges Nepal’s King To Open Democratic Dialogue

Democratic engagement between Nepal’s King Gyanendra and the country’s legitimate political actors is the key to avoiding further erosion of Nepal’s security situation at the hands of Maoist insurgents, according to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Donald Camp. King Gyanendra declared a state of emergency in Nepal and dissolved the government February 1. At the same time, he detained several political leaders.

“This serious setback for Nepalese democracy risks eroding even further the Nepalese Government’s ability to resist the insurgency,” Camp told a congressional subcommittee investigating the recent unrest in Nepal March 2.

He said Gyanendra should release the detainees, re-establish basic civil liberties, and open a dialogue with the country’s political parties.

Subcommittee Chairman James Leach agreed that the United States should “urge in no uncertain terms that the King move quickly to restore constitutional rule and multiparty democracy.”

Camp said the Maoists have preyed upon the despair of the Nepalese people over the paralysis of their political institutions, and he urged the king and the country’s political leaders to work together “in a multi-party, democratic framework in order to confront the Maoists and address the country’s serious developmental problems.”

Camp said that Nepal is plagued by poverty, illiteracy, infant and maternal mortality, trafficking in persons, corruption, torture and disappearances. He said economic development is the key to addressing these problems.

He told the subcommittee that the majority of U.S. financial assistance to Nepal is devoted to health, family planning and strengthening democratic institutions.

The United States also provides about $2 million in military aid to Nepal each year. This aid has come into question given the recent anti-democratic developments and reports that the Nepalese security forces have been involved in human-rights abuses.

Camp defended the administration’s decision to continue providing U.S. military assistance to Nepal on the grounds that the support is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the security forces against the insurgency.

He added that U.S. military training in the country has been careful to underscore the importance of respecting human rights.

Camp told the subcommittee, “Our ultimate goal for Nepal can be put quite simply: We want Nepal to be a peaceful, prosperous and democratic country where civil liberties and human rights are protected.”

Following are the prepared remarks of Congressman Leach and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Camp:

(begin text)

Statement by Representative James A. Leach
Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
Hearing on: “The Crisis in Nepal”
March 2, 2005

On behalf of the Subcommittee, I would like to welcome our distinguished witness to our hearing this afternoon. I would note that we were originally scheduled to have Assistant Secretary Rocca appear before us today. However, she is under the weather and so our able substitute will be Donald Camp, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the South Asia Bureau of the Department of State. Don, we appreciate your many years of public service and look forward to your testimony.

As my colleagues know, sandwiched between China and India and home to the soaring Himalayan Mountains, Nepal has long been known as one of the world’s most beautiful countries on the planet. A constitutional monarchy since 1990, Nepal has long enjoyed good relations with the United States at the governmental level; while people-to-people ties have also been robust, nurtured in part by the many dedicated Peace Corps volunteers who have so ably served in the world’s only Hindu kingdom.

Tragically, however, each year since the onset of a Maoist rebellion in 1996 has seen this country of 24 million ever more starkly challenged, not only by ruthless insurgents, but by a panoply of developmental, governance, and human rights problems that have converged to potentially jeopardize the viability of the state itself.

In the most recent and serious manifestation of Nepal’s distress, King Gyanendra sacked the government on February 1, declaring a state of emergency that sharply curtailed civil liberties and took over the reins of government. His dismissal of the government was the third since parliament was dissolved in 2002, when the King first appointed pro-royalist figures to run the government under his direction.

Meanwhile, the King attempted to justify the current crackdown on the tenuous assertion that the former government had failed to move forward toward national elections and dialogue with the rebels, as well as, even more doubtfully, the need to “defend multiparty democracy.”

As the country has lurched from crisis to crisis, the concern of outside parties has grown commensurately, particularly in Delhi, London and Washington. As we have learned all too painfully over the last half-century of international relations, the United States cannot afford to remain indifferent when geographically remote areas, whether in Afghanistan or Cambodia, come to be dominated by extremist elements with a brutal and hostile agenda.

In this context, from a Congressional perspective the U.S. and other concerned members of the international community have no credible alternative other than to register our deep concern at the latest turn of events and urge in no uncertain terms that the King move quickly to restore constitutional rule and multiparty democracy.

It is self-evident that the countries and organizations with the most extensive ties to Nepal – India, the U.S., the UK, EU and UN – must work together to forge a commonsense agenda designed to bring the King back from an authoritarian precipice which could too easily accelerate a violent Maoist takeover of the government. The question, however, is whether it is too late and, if not, how best to avert worst-case outcomes.

In this regard, the Subcommittee has a number of questions for our Administration witness, including:

– What is the status of detained political leaders and human right activists? How many are under arrest and has the U.S. sought and received access to these people?

– What levers can and should the international community bring to bear in order to influence the decision-making of the royal government? For example, should donors contemplate targeted economic and diplomatic measures designed to exert pressure on the King, the Council of Ministers, and the Royal Nepal Army?

– India and the United Kingdom have frozen military assistance; yet the United States has not. Why is Washington not moving in coordination with its friends and allies on the issue of military aid?

– Have the King’s actions made Nepal more or less able to combat the Maoist threat with a credible counterinsurgency strategy? If Nepal is less secure because of the Royal takeover, what are the prospects for a collapse of central authority and a takeover by the Maoists?

– According to groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, human rights conditions in Nepal appear to be deteriorating. How can concerned outside parties help convince the authorities in Kathmandu to restore fundamental freedoms and meaningfully address enforced disappearances and other manifestations of Nepal’s human rights crisis?

– Over years Congress has uniquely identified with the Tibetan people and the preservation of their unique cultural heritage. In this regard, I understand that on January 21 several Tibetan welfare offices that tend to the needs of a substantial refugee community in Nepal were closed by the authorities in Kathmandu. Can you shed any light on this situation? Are these offices now able to function normally or is their fate still in limbo?

– Finally, have we aired the issues of Nepal with our Chinese interlocutors? It has been contended that the Chinese authorities may be as offended by the Maoist insurgents as Indian authorities are. Is this the case?

We look forward to your testimony and a dialogue on these and other issues of concern.

Statement of Deputy Assistant Secretary Donald Camp
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
International Relations
March 2, 2005

United States Interests and Goals in Nepal

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss recent disturbing developments in Nepal. The United States has a strong interest in helping the people of that country overcome the serious political problems they face, and the developmental problems from which much of their current political crisis derives.

Our ultimate goal for Nepal can be put quite simply: we want Nepal to be a peaceful, prosperous and democratic country where civil liberties and human rights are protected.

However, Nepal confronts the real possibility that a brutal Maoist insurgency might seize power. Unity among Nepal’s legitimate political forces is key to preventing that possibility. For this reason we are deeply troubled by King Gyanendra’s February 1 dismissal of the government, declaration of a state of emergency, suspension of fundamental rights, and detention of politicians, journalists and human rights activists.

This serious setback for Nepalese democracy risks eroding even further the Nepalese Government’s ability to resist the insurgency. It must be reversed. King Gyanendra needs to move quickly to reinstate and protect civil and human rights, release those detained under the state of emergency and begin a dialogue with the political parties intended to restore multi-party democratic institutions under a constitutional monarchy.

In recent years, the Maoist presence has spread dramatically throughout Nepal. The Maoists have made clear their intention to impose a one-party “people’s republic,” collectivize agriculture, “reeducate” class enemies, and export their revolution to neighboring states. The humanitarian ramifications of such a regime would be immense, reminiscent of the nightmare brought upon Cambodia by Pol Pot.

Such a regime would almost certainly threaten stability in the region. Much if not all the progress that the United States and others have helped Nepal accomplish in terms of both development and democratization would be negated.

The longstanding political impasse between the King and the political parties, and infighting between and within the parties themselves, has seriously hampered resistance to the Maoists, in spite of the army’s growing capability to militarily confront the insurgents. This squabbling and inability to come to an agreement on how to move forward with democratic governance has understandably frustrated the Nepalese caught between government inaction on their grievances and human rights abuses by the security forces on one hand and Maoist violence and brutality on the other.

The United States shares with other friends of Nepal – particularly India and the United Kingdom – the firm belief that the Maoist insurgency must be resisted and addressed. The Maoists have risen to prominence through a combination of propaganda, terror, and the real despair that so many Nepalese feel over the paralysis and failure of their political institutions.

However, Nepalese increasingly reject the Maoists’ goal of a one-party republic and no longer tolerate their methods of torture, extortion, and harsh retributions. The Maoists must be convinced that they have to rejoin the political mainstream instead of trying to sweep it away. At the same time, the Nepalese people must be convinced that their government can offer them a better future.

The key to accomplishing this is for the legitimate political parties and Nepal’s King to unite in a multi-party, democratic framework in order to confront the Maoists and address the country’s serious developmental problems. Over the past several years we have pressed political party leaders and the King to follow this course.

We will continue to stress this message to the King as we also urge him to lift the state of emergency and provide clear roadmaps of how he intends to restore democratic institutions and address the Maoist insurgency. Likewise, we will encourage the political leaders as they are released to ensure their parties rejoin the political process in a constructive manner in order to chart the way ahead.

King Gyanendra has said that his recent actions were intended to strengthen Nepal’s multi-party democracy and to bring the Maoist insurgency to an end. The King needs to quickly demonstrate through actions that he is serious in this desire. Initial reaction from many Nepalese to his February 1 actions was positive, reflecting their widespread frustration and despair over the years of political impasse as the Maoists gained strength.

The Nepalese people now expect progress, and they expect it soon. The government needs to release the detainees and lift the suspension of fundamental rights. The King and the political party leaders must sit down and work together to resolve this crisis. To apply Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom to their situation, they must hang together, or assuredly, they shall hang separately. We stand ready to help them find ways to cooperate to overcome the challenges to the future of their country.

Given this stark situation, U.S. resources and programs are more important than ever in helping Nepal defeat the insurgency and build a peaceful and prosperous future. We are encouraged that over the past year the international community has become increasingly united in trying to persuade the Maoists to negotiate a just peace.

Even if peace were to return, however, the country would need to address daunting problems before it could develop into a prosperous, stable democracy: poverty, illiteracy, infant and maternal mortality, trafficking in persons, corruption, torture, and disappearances. Key to progress in all these area is economic development throughout the country.

The United States has worked hard with Nepal’s leaders to encourage them to adopt a common stance vis-à-vis the insurgents, and prior to February 1 we saw some limited success in this regard. The King’s actions at the beginning of this month have only reinforced our conviction that ending the insurgency requires unity between the King and the politicians.

As we seek to deal with the repercussions of February 1, we intend to continue to support, as appropriate, the Government of Nepal’s ability to effectively conduct peace talks and prepare for peace. Nepal’s security forces continue to have a critical role in denying the Maoists a military victory. Donor assistance has been an important factor in their ability to mount more effective security operations, creating an environment for increased delivery of much-needed services for Nepalese civilians – taking back areas hitherto controlled by the Maoists.

This brings me to the dilemma that we now face in making decisions about security assistance for Nepal, Mr. Chairman. U.S. security assistance for Nepal this fiscal year is about $2 million. Strong arguments have been made to use such assistance as a lever with Nepal’s Government to encourage a rollback of the recent political restrictions. At the same time, nobody wants to see Maoist gains at the expense of a less effective Nepali military.

In considering this issue we are very aware of the trade-off between the military risk resulting from cutting aid with the political risk should there be no resolution of the current crisis between the King and the parties. Following on the King’s actions, India and the United Kingdom announced they were suspending assistance to Nepal’s armed forces. We have the same step under consideration.

We have made it clear to the Government that in the current political situation our security assistance is at risk. In our security assistance so far, we have supported Nepal’s military through professional training, modern rifles and non-lethal equipment. A central part of our program has been to reinforce the critical need for the security forces, some of whom have engaged in serious human rights abuses, to improve their record in this respect.

We are concerned about abuses and atrocities by Maoists and human rights abuses by government security forces including extra-judicial killings and “disappearances”. An important focus of our training of, and engagement with, the Government and its security services will remain the critical need for increased respect for human rights.

We continue to vet units receiving U.S. assistance to ensure that none is implicated in human rights violations. An amendment to the FY 2005 Senate Appropriations bill stipulated that Foreign Military Financing could be made available to Nepal if the Secretary of State determined that Nepal was taking a number of steps to improve the human rights practices of the security forces.

We have made it clear to the Government of Nepal that we expect to see appropriate, timely and transparent investigations of any credible allegations of abuse and that failure to do so could jeopardize our ability to continue assistance. We will continue to convey our strong concern about human rights violations by the security forces to the highest levels of the Nepal government and urge swift investigation and punishment.

We have allocated resources to the National Human Rights Commission to assist with recording and storing human rights investigations. As appropriate, we plan to provide additional assistance to the Commission to expand its monitoring and reporting capabilities. It is also critical for us and for the international community to highlight and criticize atrocities and abuses committed – systematically, and as a matter of strategy – by the Maoists.

We will also continue to stress the protection of the rights of marginalized and victimized groups (e.g., trafficked persons, forced and child laborers, including child soldiers). We are seeking a durable solution for the more than 100,000 refugees of Bhutanese origin in Nepal and continue to work closely with UNHCR and NGOs to assure the welfare of the many resident and transiting Tibetans in Nepal.

The recent Government order to close of the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office and the Dalai Lama’s office are also concerns. While we have not seen any change in the flow of Tibetan refugees through Nepal or in the treatment of Tibetan refugees resident in Nepal, we are working with the Government to register the Office as a fully functioning NGO.

The overwhelming preponderance of the assistance the United States is providing to Nepal – 20 times the amount of our security aid – is devoted to the social, political and economic development the country so desperately needs. One of our key priorities in Nepal is to strengthen democratic institutions and processes, thereby increasing the ability of all Nepalese to have their voice heard.

This in turn will undermine the Maoist insurgency whose early progress reflected to some degree the legitimate grievances of Nepal’s marginalized citizens. Our work will continue to focus on the restoration of democratic institutions and seek to increase citizen participation and representational diversity in key institutions and processes. We will provide assistance with respect to the planning and conduct of parliamentary elections, if and when they are held. We will also focus on strengthening key rule of law and anti-corruption institutions.

Nepal has some of the world’s lowest social indicators, and more than half our development assistance has been earmarked for health and family planning. This key assistance to the marginalized part of this country’s population is bearing fruit: the vast majority of Nepal’s under-five children receive critical Vitamin-A supplements, thereby significantly increasing their ability to fight off otherwise deadly diseases such as pneumonia.

The fertility rate is going down and we continue to work to help prevent and contain HIV/AIDS. Through the coordinated efforts by USAID and the Kathmandu-based Regional Environmental Office, we seek to improve access by the poor to non-contaminated drinking water.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you and the Committee that the Administration is deeply engaged in helping to resolve the current crisis in Nepal. President Bush’s declaration of the United States’ support for freedom around the world very much extends to Nepal.

This Administration firmly believes in the expansion of liberty and freedom as the foundation for lasting stability. In the coming weeks and months, we will be following through on this commitment, using our diplomatic leverage and assistance resources, working closely with Nepal’s friends and, most importantly, encouraging the Nepalese themselves to come together to meet these very serious challenges. I appreciate the support and interest of you and the Committee and look forward to working with you toward this goal.

Thank you. I would be happy to take questions.

INSN is the International Nepal Solidarity Network, which has activists in over a dozen countries around the world who are working to bring democracy to Nepal. Visit their website for regular updates related to the Nepal crisis.

Back