RAM CHANDRA PAUDEL REFUSES TO WITHDRAW CANDIDACY AFRER 15th ROUND DEFEAT

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: NC Vice-president Ram Chandra Paudel, sole candidate in the race for prime minister to succeed caretaker Madhav Kumar Nepal, refused to withdraw his candidacy Monday and said he’ll contest the 16th round parliamentary voting.
Paudel got only 96 notes in his favour, two lawmakers abstained while 31 parliamentarians opposed him.
Paudel didn’t get support even from all his party lawmakers.
The party didn’t issue a whip to members to be present to vote during the festive season..
UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal asked Paudel and NC to ‘consider coolly’ withdrawal of the Paudel candidacy for a national unity government.
The 16th round parliamentary vote will be held 4 November before tihar.
A faction led by three-time Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala have asked Paudel to withdraw from the prolonged and inconclusive contest.
The Deuba faction pressed the central committee last week to select another candidate from the party for prime minister to replace Nepal who has been a caretaker for more that four months.
Nnnn

PRESIDENT BACK HOME FROM CHINA

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: President Dr Ram Baran Yadav returned home Monday night from China after a week-long China visit—his second foreign our after he assumed office.
He attended the closing ceremony of the Shanghai Expo—the main purpose of his China trip.
The president is scheduled to visit India for the second time after concluding his China visit.
nnnn


CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL MEET INCONCLUSIVE WITHOUT PRACHANDA’S PRESENCE

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: A meeting of the constitutional council chaired by Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal was conclusive Monday without the presence of main opposition leader and Maoist Chairman Prachanda at the Prime Minster’s Office in Singha Durbar.
The council couldn’t decide on appointments to vacant positions of chiefs of constitutional bodies and members without Prachanda who met Nepal at the latter’s office before the meeting.
Prachanda refused to accept invitation letters for council meetings.
The supreme court earlier overturned appoints to constitutional bodies by Nepal on the council’s recommendation such as chiefs of the election commission and CIAA without the presence of Prachanda in council meetings.
Maoists have been obstructing normal government function, including budget presentation, in various ways.
The nation is heading towards a financial crisis without the presentation of the annual budget even three months after the beginning of the fiscal year 2010/11.
Maoist aim is to obstruct government functioning and get into Singha Durbar for what they call concluding the peace process and constitution drafting.
But neither of the continuation of the Nepal government in office or its replacement by a national unity government with Maoists will guarantee both processes.
Constitution drafting is a non-issue for the Big Three.
Nnnn

SWISS SPEAKER FROM NEUTRAL COUNTRY IN NEPALI POLITICS

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: Switzerland is a rich but neutral country in Europe which isn’t a member of the UN or the EU.
But it has entered into new political terrain in Nepal where it did commendable work in development activities particularly in the hilly region.
Speaker of the Swiss national council Pascale Bruderer Wyss Monday held separate political discussions with UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal, NC President Sushil Koirala, Speaker Subash Nemwang, Maoist Vice-chairman Dr Baburam Bhattarai and Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala.
She expressed interest and concern with the delayed constitution drafting and conclusion of the peace process, party sources said.
Neutral Switzerland, along with three Scandinavian countries, except Sweden and Great Britain are funding the upkeep of 19,000 Maoists incamps under UNMIN watch.
These countries are indirectly funding Maoist party which takes a cut from their fighters for political activists, according to parties opposed
to the main opposition.
The EU and Germany are also contributing to a Peace Fund managed by the government to finance the Maoists who, according to government and independent analysts, are impeding the end to the prolonged transition.
The Swiss visitor arrived Sunday and returns home Thursday.
nnnn


KP OLI RETURNS

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: KP Sharma Oli, firm critic of the establishment in the UML led by Chairman Jhalanath Khanal, returned home Monday after a month-long visit of USA, Europe and Latin America.
NC will benefit from his return home as he’s a strong anti-Maoist and supporter of NC.
Oli, along with Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, has been pushing UML to change its boycott of parliament voting and support the candidature of Ram Chandra Paudel for prime minister.
Nnnn

GOVT., PETROLEUM TRANSPORT ENTREPRENERS MEET INCONCLUSIVE

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: A meeting of representatives and petroleum transport entrepreneurs was inconclusive Monday.
Talks were held Monday after entrepreneurs refused to lift POL products from the Indo-Nepal and distribute then to points inside Nepal.
Entrepreneurs are pressing 11 demands.
Nnnn

MORE GOLD, SILVER BEING AUCTIONED

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: More gold and silver is being auctioned by Nepal Rashtra Bank (NRB), the central bank, Tuesday.
NRB, through a notification, said 175 kg gold and 2,000 kg silver will be auctioned Tuesday morning.
Gold an silver prices recorded a new high in the Nepali bullion market Monday as prices of the precious metals rose in the market along with increased demand across the open border in India during the festive season.
nnnn.

TWO INJURD IN BOMB BLAST

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: Two children were injured in a bomb blast at their home in a village in Gulmi Sunday.
The children picked up an abandoned bomb along a river and
transported it home when it exploded in their courtyard.
nnnn

AGREEMENT PRESIDENT SHOULD APPOINT, SACK ARMY CHIEF (HAS MORE DETAILS ON TASK FORCEE MEET )

Kathmandu, 1 Nov.: A meeting of the Prachanda-led task force Monday to recommend ways to speed up delayed constitution process agreed the president should appoint and sack an army chief on the recommendation of the council of ministers.
The present political controversy snowballed on Maoist charge President Dr Ram Baran Yadav retained sacked Army Chief Gen. Rukmangud Katawal unilaterally when sacked by the Prachanda government.
The president was only informed of the dismissal by the Prachanda government.
NC Vice-president Ram Chandra Paudel wasn’t preset at Monday’s meeting of the high-powered task force.
nnnn



FURTHER DETAILLS OF PRACHANDA INTERVIEW WITH THE KATHMANDU POST

OCT 31 -
UCPN (Maoist) has had a difficult relationship with India and other political parties in Nepal after the fall of Maoist-led government in May 2009. The party’s several attempts to regain power have been scuttled by its widening trust gap with various political forces. As a consequence the peace process has been stalled and Nepal has been without a functioning government for over four months. Against this backdrop, Pushpa Kamal Dahal recently visited China where he proposed to the Chinese leadership a tripartite agreement between Nepal, China, and India. Dahal spoke to Akhilesh Upadhyay and Sudheer Sharma on Saturday morning about his visit, his party’s upcoming plenum, its relationship with India, the peace process and his fall from grace.



You and your party men have been to China frequently. Some read it as tilting towards China.



It is not as it appears in the media. At an ideological level, we are naturally interested in studying developments in China. But my visits have been circumstantial. The first time, I went for the Olympics. The second time I was there to study Chinese development. This time I was there to attend the Shanghai Expo. Which is not just about China for the expo is, in a sense, a world expo.

It is true that while in China I had meetings with Chinese leaders. But upon my return I divulged the content of those meetings. Chinese officials have always underlined the need to ensure peace and development (in Nepal). As the largest party, they have advised us to improve ties with India. There is no truth in the rumours about our party’s preference of China over India.



What were China’s concerns?



It is not that difficult to understand China’s concern. If there is peace and stability in Nepal, their security concerns related to Tibet will be addressed. They also reiterate the issue of non-interference.



You have spoken about a tripartite strategic alliance between China, India and Nepal. Can you elaborate?



It’s not an abstract concept. Both China and India have been on the path of rapid economic development. Both are large countries. Nepal should ideally benefit from them. If Nepal lags behind in development, it may affect both countries’ interests negatively. For that reason, there needs to be a common understanding about development. If that can happen it will set an example for the world. There is a global trend of regional partnerships like the EU and ASEAN and we can certainly emulate them.



Are you trying to redefine the traditional power balance in the region?



We have tried to clarify this issue repeatedly. We have spoken out in favour of adding new dynamics to the relationships in the region. Traditional relationships have not represented the interest of the people of the region. It hasn’t represented the wave of regional changes. It only represents the interests of a small circle. In view of the needs of the 21st century, the changed global context, the change in the power balance, and the shift in consciousness of the people, we have said that there is a need to redefine the traditional relationships.

Regarding our policy, we are in favour of good relations with China, India and the rest of the world. But there is no denying that we have issues with India. Some are about treaties and agreements. During the Rana regime, the ruling elite made decisions that only served them. We have disputes about borders, trade and the transit facilities that we are entitled to as a landlocked country. In all these issues, we need a redefinition of our relationship, not to weaken the bilateral relations but to further strengthen them.



.

How are you going to improve ties with India?



We are clear that we need to engage with Indian leaders, the government, intellectuals and the media to clarify ourselves. And we have been making efforts. On the sidelines of the Nepali Congress General Convention, I had discussions with different leaders representing Congress (I), BJP, Janata Dal and other parties. I think the environment is improving for me to go to Delhi. I have had the desire to do so. We have to clear the confusions about our party. When we say we have problems with India, we also want to make it clear that we want to positively and constructively engage with India to address those problems. We want to turn over a new leaf in our relationship and strengthen it. It’s not that we are only talking with China, we are also talking with India.

The Chinese advice for us to improve our ties with India has its own background. The Chinese have publicly been saying that they too want to improve ties with India. Their bilateral trade has been growing and has exceeded over US $60 billion; trade also affects their bilateral relationship. But the Chinese advice is not an instruction, and that is the way other bilateral relations should be as well.



You have raised three points about the tripartite agreement: Development, Peace and Stability. There can be no dispute on the first one, but on the latter two points, do you think that they will invite more external interference?



That is not the case. In fact it is the reverse. Historically, all three (countries) have respective security concerns. If only one country opts out from a common agreement, none of the countries’ security concerns will be properly addressed. The thinking I am putting forward aims to address concerns of all the three at once, and strategically would allow all three to focus on development peacefully, while at the same time assisting each other. How does that invite more interference? In fact it will end the security dilemma of China and India, and result in activities to preserve their interests.



China may agree to your proposal, but what about India?



I have been forwarding my idea to India as well for last five or six months. We should focus our attention on creating an understanding among three countries in the coming days.

Our party has emerged as an agent of change. People have entrusted us with some responsibilities as the biggest party, which obligates us to reach an understanding with our neighbours that is in the interest of all three countries. India has not publicly reacted to our proposal. There is no reason for India to oppose it. And it is my understanding that India will take it as a positive idea.



When are you going Delhi, before or after the plenum?



I don’t think it will be possible before the plenum. Perhaps after the plenum. I had talked with some people about the visit (to India) and they believed that around Nov. 15 would be the right time. Given the time constraints around the plenum, I have told them that it would best if an arrangement can be made after the plenum. I won’t go now for two reasons. One, the time constraints won’t allow it. Two, regardless of whatever policy decisions we make during

the plenum, it will be seen as caving

in to New Delhi.



When you launched a movement of national independence, there were bitter feelings between India and your party. How has that changed?



Our concerns on the issue of national independence are still there. Until now we have been taking our concerns before the people. But we would like to sort them out at the political level. If the problems are still not solved, we might go to the people in a different way. We haven’t let go of the issues related to national sovereignty or the other issues related to India. Nor are we taking them lightly. It’s just that sometimes we try to settle the issue through the streets and sometimes at the table. Right now, we want to solve the issue at the table. We will continue to raise these issues until the needs and interests of the people of two countries are solved according to the needs of the 21st century. This is not an issue we can easily let go of. As this issue relates directly with our sovereignty, peace, stability and development, we hold it dear.



Nepal’s relationship with India seems to have gone on a bureaucratic plane of late. Don’t you believe solutions to outstanding problems are unlikely unless you engage with Indian political actors at the political level?



You have raised a valid point.

One of the reasons why things haven’t moved with the pace and direction we wanted is perhaps because these issues are being taken up at the bureaucratic level or through agencies. That is why I referred to my intention to visit Delhi and of my engagements with intellectuals in India. Now the process is upside down. During my visit I want to try to correct the approach by taking them to a political level.

Let’s turn to the question of budget now. The Maoists have been saying that they won’t allow the budget to pass in its current form.



We are clear on this issue. Nowhere in the world does a caretaker government bring a full budget. This is against democratic norms. If this government brings a full budget, it will cast the whole country as a laughing stock.





But don’t we need a budget even if there can be no new government in the near future?




We believe it is important to form new government at the earliest. There is no reason we cannot come up with one within a couple of days if there is political consensus to do so. But that is not happening. Therefore we have been emphasising the need for immediate government formation to bring a complete budget. If that is not possible, we can amend the constitution to avail the money for the government’s general expenditure. If we go for a constitutional amendment to avail the money needed for government expenditures, it would give the message that parties are serious about the issue and it will also inspire the political parties to form a government at the earliest.

We are not for bringing the whole government machinery to a grinding halt. If the political parties can sit together to bring a new budget, that will set the right precedence of decisions being reached through a proper political process.



What about the formation of a new government?



It is unfortunate. It seems parties are ready for a consensus approach on some issues. We are still engaged in talks. I hope such a situation (of no legitimate government) will end soon.

I think politics will head in the directions of consensus and a majority government can be avoided. For consensus, it would be natural to form a government under Maoist leadership. However, we are not dead-set that the government should be formed under our leadership. We are open to alternatives.



It seems that the issue of former Maoist combatants is a major stumbling block. Other parties seem to believe that unless this issue is settled, a Maoist-led government is not possible. Why is there no progress on the issue?



This issue is a sensitive issue. Nepali Congress and a section of the CPN-UML feel that unless the cantonments are vacated, there would be no Maoist-led government. This attitude, I think, is the biggest stumbling block for the peace process. When people made us the largest party, they did not want us to proceed by surrendering our army. Also, when the parties agreed to contest the CA elections, they seemed to have no problem with our army. Even when the coalition government was formed under my leadership, the issue of integration never came up as a condition. Then why is it being presented as a condition today? We are ready for integration. And I have also presented a timeframe for the same. But if NC and some UML leaders present this as a condition for government formation under our leadership, that is unacceptable to us.

NC questions whether the Ma-oists are a civilian party. But who are they to ask this question? As the people have voted to make us the largest party in the CA, I think the question of a civilian party does not arise. So, I doubt if this is not an attempt to derail the peace process. I have been saying it time and again that other parties seem to feel that if the peace process is completed on time along with the writing of the constitution, then the Maoists would be popular and in the next election they would secure a two-thirds majority.



Do you believe that the number of combatants to be integrated and rehabilitated have to be fixed beforehand?



Not necessarily. Which of the documents—the Comprehensive Peace Accord, the Interim Constitution—talks of fixing the numbers first? The combatants can be asked about their will. Why is the issue of fixing the number so important? It seems that the parties want to portray us as the major hurdle in the process.



What then is the way out?



We are ready for integration. We plan to bring the combatants under the Special Committee and then regroup them. By January an environment for the integration and rehabilitation should be created. If this does not happen, it is the Maoists who stand to lose as the party’s credibility will be questioned. But when we are asked to fix the numbers in advance, we suspect that the parties do not want to proceed with the integration as per the past understanding. Therefore I have told NC and UML leaders that if they place new conditions on integration, we will not be able to

proceed. But I would like to make it clear that our party is committed to completing the process of integration and rehabilitation with tangible output by Jan. 15.



How do you see the situation evolving if the process is not completed by the time UNMIN leaves on Jan. 15?



I am hopeful that the parties will arrive at consensus and the process will be completed by the time UNMIN leaves. But if that is not the case then as far as our party is concerned, we will not walk out of the peace process. We will continue to fight for peace and the constitution. However, if the process is not completed on time, we fear that the other side would take the country towards confrontation by trying to impose president’s rule. That would be unfortunate.



We have been hearing from different quarters including your party and New Delhi that on the need for a new agreement like the 12 point accord of 2005. What is your position on this?



We are positive on this. In fact I have been stressing the need for a new agreement among all political forces. The 12 point agreement has outlived its purpose. Now we need new agreements to address the present situation.



What could be the framework of such an agreement?



First of all, the new framework should be based on the results of the CA elections. Leaders of NC have been making their arguments on the basis of pre-CA elections arrangement. Also the issue of federalism, secularism, and republic are ill-defined. We need to have a clear definition of these issues. In other words, we have to be clear on the path that we would like to embark on for social and economic transformation.



What is the purpose of your plenum?



Given the current political situation, we communists believe that the

crisis seen in society is reflected in the party too. So, it is important to hold discussions to sort them out. Hence this plenum.



But it seems there are different schools of thought even within the Maoists. As a result there appears to be some kind of a dispute among

leaders.



This is not the case. We had our differences even during the period of war. When then-king Gyanendra took direct control, there was difference of opinion in the party on whether we should initiate peace talks. And we had made those differences public. But we all came together during the Chungbang meet. So we have a healthy process of dialogue. Although it is natural for the debate to be heated at times. But as the Chairman of the party, I ensure that the debates occur in a dignified manner. Some

of us in the party have been working together for the last two decades,

so we understand each other very well. And we will come together. The reactionary forces have always dreamt of splitting our party. But they will not be successful.



In the last year or so, particularly after you stepped down as the prime minister, your personality seems to have taken a hit. You seem to have lost the middle ground.



I agree that my leadership has taken a hit as people had lot of expectations from my leadership—and it has not been possible to meet them all. But no leader in the world can be at the peak forever. The charm is bound to climb down. A leader in his life sees lots of ups and downs. I am committed to our cause. As long as the leader is committed to his cause, he can always bounce back. As far as loosing the charm among the middle class is concerned, it can go up as abruptly as it has come down.
nnnn