Nepal's king vows a return to democracy as protests fill streets (Bush Admin accomplishment!)

CBC ^ | Apr 21, 2006 | BINAJ GURUBACHARYA

[Alter Kaker]

KATHMANDU, Nepal (AP) - Nepal's king vowed Friday to return multi-party democracy to his Himalayan country after weeks of bloody protests and increasing international pressure.

But King Gyanandra fell short of a key opposition demand - the creation of a special assembly to write a new constitution - and one of the main opposition parties rejected the pledge as "incomplete."

The king's announcement, broadcast nationwide, came hours after more than 100,000 pro-democracy protesters defied a government curfew to rally on the outskirts of Kathmandu.

Smaller demonstrations broke out in the capital shortly after the speech, with some marchers chanting "Hail democracy! Gyanendra leave the country!" But the announcement was made in the evening and the true test of whether it would succeed in quelling the unrest was expected to come Saturday.

Maoist rebels, whose reaction would also be key as they have allied themselves with the opposition, had no immediate comment.

The king said in his speech that his dynasty had an "unflinching commitment toward constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy" and called on the seven political parties to quickly name a prime minister.

"Executive power . . . shall, from this day, be returned to the people," he said.

Gyanendra - who has never been a dynamic public speaker - looked particularly uncomfortable during the speech, sitting stiffly in front of a cloth backdrop and staring directly into the camera, apparently reading from a TelePrompTer.

Opposition leaders indicated the statement would not resolve the crisis, which began when the king seized power in February 2005, saying he needed to crush the Maoist insurgency that has killed nearly 13,000 people in a decade.

Most of the opposition want a constitution that would reduce the king to a ceremonial figurehead, or eliminate the monarchy entirely.

"This is incomplete," Minendra Risal of Nepali Congress Democratic party, one of the seven main opposition parties that have joined with Maoist insurgents to protest the king's power grab. "The constitutional assembly is the aspiration of the people."

Most demonstrators said they were somewhat encouraged with the king's announcement but unsure if he had promised enough or could be trusted.

The death toll from two weeks of demonstrations rose to 14 on Friday after a protester shot by police on Thursday succumbed in hospital.

Nepal's crisis has escalated steadily since a general strike began on April 6, and protesters have filled the streets daily, leaving the Himalayan country paralyzed.

Earlier Friday, three separate groups of marchers converged on an area on the western edge of Kathmandu called Kalanki, where police shot three demonstrators dead Thursday and wounded dozens more.

Protesters faced security forces that have ringed the capital with shoot-on-sight orders against anyone who tried to enter the curfew zone.

As the tension grew, so did international pressure on Gyanendra.

U.S. Ambassador James Moriarty bluntly warned that the king could be forced from power within days unless he made major concessions.

"His time is running out," Moriarty told reporters hours before the king's speech. "Ultimately the king will have to leave if he doesn't compromise. And by 'ultimately,' I mean sooner rather than later."

But despite the talk of compromise, the crackdown continued. Two senior opposition leaders were arrested Friday as they tried to return to Kathmandu, said Amrit Bohara of the Communist Party of Nepal.

The two men, Jhala Nath Khanal and Bamdev Gautam, both leaders of the party, have been important conduits in negotiations between the opposition parties and the Maoist insurgents who control much of the countryside.

The Maoists remain the most important unknown in the crisis. Though they have recently allied themselves with the political parties, their history of violence worries even their allies.

One group of protesters Friday destroyed a police checkpoint - a tin shack covered with barbed wire - tossing the furniture into the street. They then vandalized a government office, throwing out portraits of Gyanendra before setting the building on fire.

Gyanendra claimed direct control over the government last year, arguing he had to bring order to a corrupt political scene and end the communist insurgency.

While many people initially welcomed the king's moves, hoping he'd bring stability, his popularity waned badly as the insurgency worsened and the economy faltered.

At Model Hospital, where many of the wounded were taken Thursday, doctors wore black bands to protest the shootings.

Among the 66 wounded people brought there were a 10-year-old boy with a gunshot wound and a five-year-old beaten by police, said Dr. Sarita Pandey.

[Alter Kaker]

The King agrees to bring democracy to one more country, following pressure from the Bush Administration. So far new friendly anti-terror democracies in: Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, Georgia, (what am I missing?)

[ConservativeMan55]

"Nepal's king vows a return to democracy as protests fill streets (Bush Admin accomplishment!)"

Its sad that when the accomplishments are so few and far between..that..when one actually happens..we point it out like a baby's first time to walk. Look Look!

[thoughtomator]

The Bush admin can't claim this. This is almost entirely due to Indian efforts.

[ConservativeMan55]

The Bush admin isn't even mentioned in the entire article. Claiming this as an accomplishment is ridiculous.

[Alter Kaker]

The Maoists will most likely be the ones to seize power in Nepal.

No, on the contrary, the 7 party alliance will take power, and the Maoists will be shut out and discredited, their only issue taken away from them.

[Alter Kaker]

The Bush admin isn't even mentioned in the entire article. Claiming this as an accomplishment is ridiculous.

Obviously the Bush Administration let India take most of the lead on this, but the US contribution was not negligeable, and they did put enormous pressure on the King to restore democracy. As for a mention in the article,

"U.S. Ambassador James Moriarty bluntly warned that the king could be forced from power within days unless he made major concessions. "His time is running out," Moriarty told reporters hours before the king's speech. "Ultimately the king will have to leave if he doesn't compromise. And by 'ultimately,' I mean sooner rather than later."

[EGPWS]

The Bush admin can't claim this.

The Administration wouldn't claim this.

If they were to be bestowed with media coverage showing even an iota of corroboration in something positive would still my heart...

[JerseyHighlander]

You are proving yourself too easily goggle-eyed once again Alter Kaker. The US had almost no role in the Nepal situation.

[NRA2BFree]

This is NOT a credit to the Bush administration! Those people have been in a bloody war and thousands have been killed. Now that they all joined together, the king knew he would be physically thrown out of power and probably killed. Then, and only then, did he concede to give the people what they wanted!!

Our leaders should pay close attention to what has happened there. People will only put up with so much crap before they fight back, and that bunch of traitors in DC better understand that in a big hurry.

[NRA2BFree]

Obviously the Bush Administration let India take most of the lead on this, but the US contribution was not negligeable, and they did put enormous pressure on the King to restore democracy.

Bush "let India?" Bush can't tell India what to do. They are a very large country with a lot of very intelligent people. I'm sure they can handle things without Bush telling them what to do.

[Alter Kaker]

Bush "let India?" Bush can't tell India what to do.

I'm aware of that. The Bush Administration could have engaged in separate diplomatic efforts, instead, they backed up India's diplomacy, which in retrospect, was a very smart thing to do.

[NRA2BFree]

I'm aware of that. The Bush Administration could have engaged in separate diplomatic efforts, instead, they backed up India's diplomacy, which in retrospect, was a very smart thing to do.

What exactly did the Bush administration do?

[ConservativeMan55]

They attempted to claim credit for something they didn't do...thats....what they did.

[NRA2BFree]

They attempted to claim credit for something they didn't do...thats....what they did.

Thank you! That is the truth. I'm not so sure that the author of this thread understands that, though. Perhaps, if enough people explain it he/she will understand. :o)

[Tailgunner Joe]

anti-terror democracies

Except in this case the "democrats" are on the side of the terrorists.

[Tailgunner Joe]

"If you saw Mr. Prachanda’s interview with the BBC, you saw him repeatedly say that ‘yes, we recognize that we can not win solely by military means’. The interviewer gave him several chances to say that he did not plan to use military means to come to Kathmandu . Mr. Prachanda continued to say, ‘we will use military means also to come to Kathmandu .’ So, I just don’t see why anybody would conclude that the Maoists have decided at this point of time to abandon violence. Baburam Bhattarai gave five interviews where he kept saying there is no way you can separate armed and unarmed struggle. ...Ten years ago, the Maoists took up their arms against the struggling democracy. Ten years later, they have made huge strides. The system, I keep on repeating, is very close to a collapse. If the parties and the palace continue to pull apart, the whole thing could just collapse. So, why under those conditions would the Maoists decide that they need to abandon their goals?" - U.S. Ambassador James Moriarty

[Tailgunner Joe]

Don't break out the champagne just yet. This move by the king is a challenge to the alleged "democrats" who say they want peace and democracy. This is a shot across their bow! Now we will see if the so-called "democratic protesters" really want peace and democracy at all. In fact this olive branch will break apart the 7 party alliance because the more radical and pro-communist parties will surely reject it!

Narayan Man Bijukchhe, chairman of Nepal Workers and Peasants' Party, said: "We did not conduct this movement to recommend the name of the prime minister to the king." - LINK

"The seven parties agenda has not been addressed by the King, and there is nothing new in the King's statement," Vice President of the Nepali Congress Sushil Koirala told the BBC Nepali service. "The movement will end only after abolishing the autocratic monarchy," he said. - LINK

"He has betrayed the people's aspirations. This is not for the King to ask the (seven-party) alliance to form the government. It is not the mandate. Our mandate was to reinstate Parliament, have dialogue with Maoists and form a constituent assembly," Nepali Congress leader Shekhar Koirala said.

"We are not interested in elections at this time. We are asking for formation of a constituent assembly. Elections will come later after talks with Maoists," he said when asked whether his party supported the King's proposals to form government and name a Prime Minister. - LINK

Here, all Nepalese must realize who is the real roadblock for a true reconciliation, peace and stability. After all, who are the political leaders? They were elected seven years ago and that parliament was dissolved by none other than the elected Prime Minister himself. Don't they have to renew their membership of the parliament? Can democracy be restored without elections? What is wrong in at least accepting the call for a dialogue with the head of state when the party leaders themselves see before their eyes the looming Maoist threat at their doorstep? Why don't they form an all-party government and in the first cabinet meeting recommend the reinstatement of the House? The King has no authority to re-instate a dissolved house. Why don't they hold a dialogue with the monarch, form an all-party government and then seek ways from the Supreme Court on whether the old house can be resurrected? - LINK

[joanie-f]

Thanks for the stealth ping, Steve. As you know, our daughter is a research/documentation specialist working under contract with the Army.

She will be leaving on assignment to Thailand on the 29th, and was scheduled to spend four days working in Kathmandu before heading on to Bangkok.

Ever since I first heard about the escalating violence (about two weeks ago), and the shoot-on-sight order in the curfew zone, I have spent a few sleepless nights … but was relieved when Mandy called on Wednesday to tell us that the State Department has issued an advisory that Americans postpone any travel to Nepal, and Kathmandu in particular, and has also advised that all non-essential personnel leave the country. So her Nepal stopover is cancelled (whew).

This area is apparently a longstanding powder keg, having become even more flammable over the past two weeks. But most Americans are hardly aware of the potential for increasing Maoist-funded violence and geopolitical upheaval in the region -- no thanks to the media, who are understandably (*cough*) otherwise occupied covering the Duke Lacrosse rape case and the 8,453rd ‘latest breakthrough’ in the Natalee Holloway disappearance.

~ joanie ....

[Alter Kaker]

Except in this case the "democrats" are on the side of the terrorists.

The king is a terrorist.