---

Nepal

rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the prospects for peace and parliamentary democracy in Nepal. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about Nepal at a critical time in its history. It is encouraging to see in his place the Minister who has to look in many other directions; I take this as a sign that Her Majesty’s Government are now giving Nepal more prominence that it usually gets on Mercator’s projection. This is not a faraway mountain kingdom overlooking India, famous for its warriors and attracting our trekkers and tourists. It is a proud, diverse nation of about 28 million people that deserves much more from us in the way of assistance, diplomacy, and media and parliamentary time. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and I were there for five days in March with an all-party group led by Sir John Stanley, just before the popular uprising which, to everyone’s relief, ended King Gyanendra’s direct rule. I look forward to her analysis, and to the expert advice of my other noble friends. We all recognise that the people suffered a form of tyranny under King Gyanendra from which they were right to break free. Yet we cannot dismiss the king’s seizure of power purely as an act of folly or personal aggrandisement. Nepal had seen a succession of prime ministers and governments incapable of containing the Maoists, who continue to enjoy a stranglehold over most of the country. It is easy to criticise a king who arrived in a crisis and was not born to rule. He failed to gain the respect earned by his brother not just because of his inexperience and incapacity but because of the enormous odds against his success. As our own embassy well knows, his direct rule has been a useful distraction from the more fundamental corruption inside government and the political parties, which are all still dominated by their leaders and central committees, and which urgently need internal reform. The focus must now be on the ability of the Seven Party Alliance under Mr Koirala to reclaim democracy and anticipate the intentions of the Maoists. The parties must maintain their unity in the absence of parliament and during the critical period leading up to the elections for a new constituent assembly. The SPA has taken a number of commendably bold steps forward, starting with the revised memorandum of understanding with the Maoists, the April uprising itself, and culminating in a series of talks bringing the Maoists into the centre and eventually into government. The Prime Minister’s visit to India caused a stir, but he has shown considerable leadership given his state of health and uncertain mandate. His Friday summit with Chairman Prachanda has raised hopes of a peaceful transition, although intellectually there is a lot of ground to cover between the old parties and the new—the Maoists who seem to have hogged the limelight. On the ground, there is a lot of confusion. The Maoist threat remains in the provinces, with abductions and extortion still being reported by INSEC, the respected human rights agency. Rallies inside and outside the valley, not surprisingly after years of guerrilla war, show resentment at the continuing power of the establishment. The retention of the monarchy, even in a ceremonial form, will be a sticking point for the Maoists, for whom a republic is not just rhetoric. The decision of the CPN-UML, led by Mr M K Nepal and antis, such as Mr Bam Dev Gautum, will be critical. Yet it should not be at the top of the agenda while there is a more urgent need for a durable ceasefire, new elections, reform of the army and civil service, and a peaceful transition to a government which genuinely meets the people’s needs and secures international assistance. We know from experience that decommissioning dependent on the degree of power-sharing can take many years, even with international supervision. The best hope for national unity, and for an administration which will soon include the Maoists, is a campaign for a more equal society in which poverty reduction becomes the most urgent priority. Nearly 30 per cent of the population live below the poverty line and primary healthcare and education, especially for girls, are desperately needed in rural areas. There are still around 1.5 million child labourers, and bonded labour is a huge problem. As in India, most of the poor are from the lowest castes, who represent about 22 per cent of the total population. Parliament made a start on 4 June with a historic declaration tabled by the CPN-UML outlawing discrimination against Dalits and promising more educational opportunities. This progressive move towards equality and assistance to the poorest must not get lost in the scramble for power and the rise of a new bureaucracy. As Matthew Kahane, the UN resident representative, recently put it:"““If Nepal is able to hold a constituent assembly process that is genuinely inclusive—with appropriate representation for women, Dalits, ethnic and other disadvantaged groups—the country can begin the structural transformation that will be needed to reverse the historical inequalities at the heart of the conflict””." I recognise that that is a tall order against a background of extreme poverty and official neglect, but international agencies have brought a lot of experience. Our own DfID has built up a strong £32 million programme, part of which we visited at Biratnaga. I hope that the Minister will confirm that all those development projects can now proceed, depending on improved security. I know that the British Gurkha programme remains intact, but its welfare service has been severely cut. The UK also has relevant human rights experience through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, as the Minister said last week. That will presumably be of use during the current negotiations and I expect that the Minister will have more detail. There were unspeakable crimes on both sides during the civil war and the people are already demanding justice for the victims of atrocities by both the Maoists and the army. The army is tentatively conducting its own investigations, such as that into the disappearance of 49 the detainees in the Bhairavnath battalion case. The UN and Nepali human rights agencies have been active throughout the crisis. The High Commission for Human Rights, under Ian Martin, once formally invited—there is some doubt even now about that—will play a valuable part in the peace process. With UK and EU encouragement, it could very soon back up the process of army reform and Maoist demobilisation, with the latter apparently willing to place their weapons under international supervision. Can the Minister tell us whether the US embassy has now softened its position and confirm that the Indian Government, which has always been uneasy about UN involvement, is now more receptive to international intervention? I want the UK to take a more active role, but I congratulate our embassy, led by Keith Bloomfield, on its calming influence and positive background noise throughout the recent troubles. I look forward to meeting his successor, Andrew Hall, next week. With the king playing a purely formal role, the monarchy as an institution must surely become once again a force for stability. His Majesty the late King Birendra, whom I knew and greatly admired, accepted a new constitutional status in 1990 and is still remembered with affection even by some of the younger radical leaders. I see no reason why the present king should not come to accept a similar role. However, it is not for outsiders to influence that; it will all be in the hands of the new constituent assembly and the popular will. The Nepalese people have shown a remarkable characteristic tolerance and restraint throughout the recent violence and it is to be hoped that those great qualities will bring through the coming period. There is an urgent need for peace and economic recovery. However, none of us should under estimate the difficulties that lie ahead. In summary, I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will give even more priority to Nepal now that there is a real chance of multi-party democracy working towards better governance. Disillusionment can set in so easily and the worst outcome would be for the international community to point the finger at the earliest sign of failure. There will be mistakes and there will be suspicion. Our long friendship and mutual interests should enable our Government to take a more prominent role in assisting the process of reconciliation and the formation of a genuinely representative new Government.