DETAILS OF NC, UML REJECTION OF SINGLE IDENTITY PROVINCES Kathmandu, 22 May: The efforts of three major political partiesand United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) to arrive at a consensus on number and names of provinces in new state restructuring failed to make any headway as parties continue to remain sharply divided over "single ethnic identity" based provinces in the new state restructuring, Kosh Raj Koirala reports in Republica. . A day long meeting held on Monday to settle the issue ended inconclusively after Nepali Congress and CPN-UML rejected a joint proposal of the Maoist and UDMF for 10 provinces with single ethnic identity. Both NC and UML are opposed to the idea of provinces with ´single ethnic identity´. The Maoists and the UDMF have threatened to go for voting in the Constituent Assembly starting Tuesday if there was no agreement on the issue of federalism in view of the fast approaching constitutional deadline of May 27 to promulgate a new statute. "There is no alternative but to go for voting from tomorrow [Tuesday]. But we will continue negotiations to arrive at consensus on the contentious issue”," said Maoist Vice Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha after the meeting. Three major parties and the UDMF are scheduled to sit again for talks Tuesday before the parliament begins at 3 pm. During the meeting, both NC and the UML leaders accused the Maoists of backtracking from the previous agreement on 11-province federal model and inciting ethnic groups to take to the streets to bring a constitution of their ´interests´. "The Maoists have attempted to put pressure on the parties by inciting lawmakers to breach the party whip. We are worried that the Maoists are conspiring to bring a constitution that is against the interests of majority of people," said UML Vice Chairman Bam Dev Gautam. Gautam accused the Maoists of repeatedly changing its stance on federalism over the past two weeks. Though there was agreement among parties to go for 11-province federal model with a provision to give provincial assembly the authority to choose their names, the Maoist later said that it was not acceptable to them," he said. As the differences continued to persist among parties on number and names of provinces, NC and UML had proposed to bring a draft constitution within May 27 with a provision to settle the issue of federalism by the transformed parliament on the recommendation of federal commission. "We proposed to go ahead with the promulgation of new constitution with a provision to settle the issues of boundary and names by transformed parliament after May 27. But the Maoists did not accept to the proposal," said NC Vice President Ram Chandra Paudel. The Maoist and UDMF, however, alleged the NC and UML´s proposal was aimed at bringing new constitution without federalism. "Arguing there wasn´t adequate time to settle issues, both the NC and UML have been conspiring to bring a new constitution without federalism," alleged Madheshi People´s Rights Forum-Republican Acting Chairman Raj Kishor Yadav. Yadav said the proposal was not acceptable to the UDMF and Maoists. "We will go for voting starting Tuesday. The CA members from other parties will vote in favor of the people by breaching their party whips to bring the new constitution," he said. Paudel said that they won´t be able to bring the new constitution if they chose to vote on contentious issues in the CA as they are just left with six days. "If we choose to go for voting process the CA is likely to be dissolved. Neither there will be federalism, nor democracy and republican set up once the CA term expires without promulgating a new constitution. This has put us in a difficult situation," he said. Nnnn ________________________________________ GOVT. TO ESCORT ESSENTIAL GOODS Kathmandu, 22 May: The government has decided to provide armed security escorts to vehicles carrying food and other essential items to prevent their shortage in all 75 districts of the Country, Republica reports. A high-level Supply Management Committee (SMC), coordinated by commerce and supplies Secretary and having secretaries from ministries like home, finance, agriculture and cooperatives among others, took the decision after Chief Secretary Madhav Prasad Ghimire instructed it to act promptly to quell the shortage of essential commodities. Likewise, the government on Monday also activated Regional and District Security Councils, which are headed by regional administrators and chief district officers across the country. “We have asked them to coordinate with the local business community and supplies officials so that essential goods are not scarce,” said a source at Prime Minister´s Office. The government followed back to back banda started affecting availability of basic commodities in different parts of the country. Strikes in Tarai districts have resulted in shortage of daily necessities, including foods, in the eastern as well as western hilly districts. According to our correspondent Dil Bahadur Chhatyal, trucks carrying food meant for hilly districts like Doti, Achham and Bajura in the far-west have been stranded in the Tarai districts. Hospitals in the far west are facing severe shortages of oxygen cylinders, saline and other life-saving drugs. Some hospitals in Kathmandu too complained on Monday that their stocks of oxygen and medicines were fast running out. Sales of vegetables, fruits and milk have been badly affected in most cities. Import of petroleum products too have come to a halt since Sunday. “SMC meeting in the evening decided to provide security escorts to the vehicles ferrying petroleum products, vegetables, fruits, milk, oxygen cylinders and medicines, among others,” said Dipak Subedi, spokesperson of Ministry of Commerce and Supplies. It also instructed the Home Ministry and security agencies to make arrangements for security escorts, whenever asked for by the hospitals, traders and transporters for the delivery of all essential goods. “Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has been assigned to coordinate for the transportation of milk, vegetables and milk,” Subedi told Republica. Likewise, the committee has instructed Nepal Food Corporation (NFC) to immediately transfer its food stocks from various depots in the far-western region to districts like Humla. During the meeting, Nepal Oil Corporation informed the SMC that it has enough fuel to maintain supply for two weeks and Salt Trading Corporation said it had stock of salt enough for six months. Likewise, National Trading Limited, NFC and private traders informed they had adequate stock of rice, pulses, edible oil and other edible items. “The meeting identified petroleum products, vegetables, fruits and milk as four major commodities on which SMC needs to focus on in the Kathmandu Valley,” said Subedi. As for the districts outside the Valley, the committee has asked the local authority to identify sensitive items, and take prompt steps in coordination with the security agencies to maintain their supplies. Nnnn ________________________________________ INTERVIEW OUTGOING US ENVOY SAYS WASHINGTON WILL JUDGE MAOISTS ON ACTIONS NOT WORDS US Ambassador Scott H DeLisi is leaving Nepal in the first week of June after spending two years in Nepal. Kiran Chapagain of Republica caught up with him last Tuesday at his office to share his experiences while in Nepal, his observations on the Maoist party and Facebook diplomacy, among other things. EXCERPTS How was your recent trip to Mustang? I thought it was a fantastic trip. The rugged beauty of the country is really striking and so different from many things we have seen elsewhere in Nepal. It was a reminder of the tremendous ethnic and cultural diversity. I expected to find another unique cultural experience. What surprised me a little bit is the richness of the artistic culture in Mustang. Your predecessor, Ambassador Nancy J. Powell, had also visited Mustang just before she left Nepal. How should we take this? You should assume that it means you have had two ambassadors in a row who had a spirit of adventure, who loved Nepal and who wanted to see your country. Ambassador Powell had gone up to Mustang to see the start of our efforts to do cultural preservation. She only saw the beginning of the process in addition to some of the works the American Himalayan Foundation and others are doing there. I went up there so that I could see the conclusion of the work. It is important for us that when we do these sorts of project we actually go and see how they come out—was the work done right? Is this having an impact in the communities? That is why I was there. And a desire to see more of your country. When we go to that higher altitude you get different birds. I am a bird watcher. How are you going to remember Nepal? What are things, you think, you are going to miss? I will remember Nepal mostly in terms of the people of this nation. That is exactly what I am going to miss. I have spoken of the beauty of the country and how much we have enjoyed all the wonderful things we have seen and done. But underlying all of that are the people of this country. I have found over the years that the people of Nepal are some of the most gracious, resilient, open, generous people that I have met anywhere in the world in my 30-year career. This is the theme that I hear again and again from visitors to this country and from all the friends of Nepal around the world. People come because of the natural beauty. They stay or they come back because of the people. That is what I will remember the most. Any plan to visit Nepal in the future? Absolutely, not necessarily in an official capacity. But my wife and I have talked about this and I would have to say that, for us, we certainly do not feel we are through with Nepal and I hope Nepal is not through us. This is a country that will stay in our hearts. As a tourist, as a visitor, I will come back to find the spiny babbler. Before coming to Nepal you had told a senate hearing committee that “we got the Maoists a mixed bag”. How do you see the Maoist party after two years of your engagement with them? Are they still a mixed bag? The relationship with the Maoists has gone undergone tremendous change over the past two years. I think the change was already underway when I arrived here and we have been able to continue. We have continued to have a very constructive dialogue with the Maoist party and in the process of that dialogue we have come to understand each other better and also to witness changes are taking place. For me, the fundamental point when I’ve engaged with the Maoists has been to say to them that I would judge them not by what they said but by what they did. And I will tell you that I see there has been tremendous progress. I see the steps they have taken, not they alone, in conjunction with other political parties, to bring us to the point where we are today, where the peace process is essentially completed, where the cantonments are virtually empty, and where remaining Maoists will be integrated into the military. Two years ago, that dialogue was not happening, the issues in the constitution were many and were not being discussed and the mistrust that existed between the parties was so strong, that having a dialogue was very difficult. So I see tremendous progress and I think a part of that can be attributed to the Maoists and the actions they have taken. I give them credit for the movement they have made. I feel that our relationship is a more constructive one. I think that across the board our message has been the same, though, to the Maoists, to the Congress, to the UML, to the Madhesis, to any of the parties—our commitment and our interest is not parties per se, our interest is Nepal and Nepal’s future, and to seeing a stable, prosperous and democratic country that respects human rights. Despite the “tremendous changes”, the Maoists continue to feature in the specifically designated terrorist organization list of the State Department. How much is the pressure from the Maoists to take them off the list? Will the recent takeover of the cantonments and Maoist army by the government help expedite the process? We have made it clear to the party that we are engaged in a process of reviewing their status and they understand that. I think that our colleagues in the Maoist party also know that it is a sincere review on part of the United States government. We’ve explained, though, at the same time that this is a complex process within our government and involves many agencies of the United States government. It is not just the Department of State, it involves the entire intelligence community, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, many different agencies. We know it will take some time and I think the party leadership is very much aware of that. But they also know that we are making very, very careful and considerable review, given the tremendous progress they have made. The continued movement by the Maoist party in the right direction, their efforts to finally conclude the peace process, to conclude the constitution drafting process, to be part of a democratic government, certainly that is something we look at very closely when we make these decisions. We look very much at what they are doing. I think it has been a very constructive movement on the part of the party. I know that my colleagues in Washington are taking all that into account. I hope the review will be completed as soon as possible. They know it is underway and they know the result will be forthcoming and they know we will give it a fair and objective hearing. One of the agendas of your term here was to “vigorously work with Nepal’s political leaders to end the culture of impunity”. How far, do you think, you achieved that goal? This remains very much a part of the dialogue with the government. That is not to say there has not been progress—there has been progress. We have seen the CIAA taking on a greater role at times. We have seen former police chiefs who have been convicted. We have also seen ministers, including a sitting minister, convicted and sent to jail. We have seen continued dialogue among the parties on the issues of truth and reconciliation and disappearances. We know this is an ongoing process. I think it is incredibly important for Nepal’s future as a democratic society and also to attract investment. We will continue to stand for basic human rights on every level. Besides other things, the US sees Nepal as a strategic country to engage both China and India on some key issues of regional importance. What is your experience in this regard? Nepal is strategically located and sits between two very large, two very important countries. But our focus on Nepal is not because Nepal sits between India and China; our focus on Nepal is because we have a partnership with Nepal. We care about this nation and we want to engage with Nepal on the merits of our relationship; not because of what we think Nepal might or might not be able to do, what role you may play vis-à-vis your neighbors. I think the important thing for Nepal, when we talk about your strategic location, is to realize what great opportunities it does present for the nation in terms of the economy in particular and partnerships in terms of trade and development. We want to engage with Nepal on merits of our relationship; not on the basis of what role you play vis-à-vis your neighbors. The US has shifted its policy to the Asia and Pacific region. What does this policy change mean for a country like Nepal? I do not know if it means that much for Nepal. We have been engaged here and we have had a good partnership. It has been a growing partnership for many years. I do not think that is going to change. We are going to continue to be a good partner for Nepal, no matter what. Our interest in the Asia Pacific region makes great sense. But for Nepal, I think we are going to continue to do business as a good friend, as a good partner. Was there any progress in implementing the US’s policy on the Tibetan refugee resettlement program during your term? Our focus has not been on resettlement during my term here. Our focus is very basic and fundamental: protection of basic human rights of refugees, whether they are Bhutanese or Tibetans or urban refugees. We know that these populations are among the most vulnerable and refugees’ human rights must be protected. Their interests have to be protected and there has to be that effort to ensure that refugees are given opportunity to live lives of dignity, lives of achievement and lives where they can be fulfilled. This has been my focus. Last summer an American business delegation had visited Nepal. What are the areas of interest for American businesses in Nepal? First, the delegation was very successful. We’ve seen a tremendous outpouring of interest that has not yet translated into full scale investment. But I’m heartened by how much interest there is in Nepal and some of the companies that did visit are doing much more here in terms of sales and they’re looking at the potential for the future. We also see people looking toward civil aviation, medical sector, energy sector and also the information technology sector. Your decision to keep organizers of banda on the embassy’s visa watch list was both lauded and criticized from various quarters. What prompted you to take such a decision? How do you take those criticisms? People are entitled to their views. You will never please everyone. Those who wish to be critical are free to be critical. I will be honest, it does not bother me in the least. These two issues have become conflated. They are in some ways two different issues. On the one hand, I absolutely do believe that bandas are an unhelpful tool and they are not part of political discourse, they are part of political violence and political intimidation and I don’t believe they have a place in a democratic society. There are other ways to express political views in a non-violent fashion. I will remain opposed to bandas. That is my view and my government’s as well. We make no apology for that. The issue of visas, the simple fact is that we have our criteria for visa. This existed before there were bandas in Nepal and before we spoke about the bandas. Fundamentally, those who engage in political violence can be found ineligible for visas. Their actions to engage in political violence, to engage in this sort of political intimidation could have consequences under our law. It was not about taking a decision, our visa laws and regulations existed for long time, we were merely telling them that your conduct puts you at risk of falling afoul of those visa laws. But I am not afraid to say that. Let us talk about Facebook diplomacy. With almost 14,000 friends on the Facebook page, what is your experience of using Facebook for diplomacy? It has been a fascinating experience for me. This is a new undertaking for us and for diplomats around the world. But the fact of the matter is this tool is there, it is not going to go away. If we want to understand what the young people are thinking, if we want to share our perspectives and hear theirs’, we have to find different tools to do business. The days when ambassadors could successfully do their jobs by just talking to the government, to the ministers and to the political leaders and maybe the business elite, I do not think that is possible anymore. We have to broaden our engagement and we have to hear from more elements within society. Facebook has been a tremendous tool for us to do exactly that. I have learned so much about your country in talking to the young people on my Facebook page. I have also learned not just from my conversations, but when I post something, I can observe and listen to the debate that people have on the page among themselves. I learn a bit about your country, what people are concerned about, what they aspire to, where they want their nation to go. It has been very instrumental. I know it has been rewarding for me. It is a different role for diplomats. This is a different type of diplomacy. Some people say “oh, what are you doing?” and I am still trying to figure that out sometimes. But overall I have not a single regret. I am delighted to use it. I think it has made a difference on how people perceive our embassy. I think they hear directly from us and recognize the US government is interested and that we care. Any final word? Just a heartfelt appreciation to the people of Nepal, to all the friends we have made and colleagues for their support, friendship. It has been a tremendously good experience. I have a sense of satisfaction that the relationship between the United States and Nepal continues to be strong. I think it has moved forward more effectively and I’m pleased with that. nnnn ________________________________________