US national interest determines Nepal policy
The US ambassador, Scott DeLisi, has completed eight months in Nepal. He gave his first full-length interview to Akhilesh Upadhyay and Sudheer Sharma last week where he talked about the top US priorities in Nepal—the peace process and constitution writing. He also said that the US doesn’t view Nepal through an Indian prism but determines policies towards Nepal keeping its own national interest at heart.
Would you like to expand on the US government focus here in Nepal?
Every initiative is important. But the US government truly believes that there is nothing more important than moving the peace process ahead. Constitution writing is another important area, an area we are supporting with a lot of technical assistance. The development sector is also critical. The health sector has also been important. As has the urgent issue of food security. Other important issues are economic prosperity, democracy, governance and climate change.
What I don’t want to see is a setback in Nepal’s development timeline. We have seen this in Haiti and Pakistan. Security sector reform is another important issue that is getting a lot of attention. Another thing that is of interest to me is building the economy.
Where is the American focus in regards to the peace process and constitution drafting?
On the issue of the peace process our focus is the same as everyone else’s—on bringing the peace process to a conclusion. There has been progress, but it has been incremental and frustrating at times. But I believe this will ultimately move forward. And though it would have been ideal, all of the issues are not likely to be resolved before UNMIN leaves. But people need to remember that even then, it is not the end of the world, and certainly not the end of the peace process. I am worried that some people are going to believe that this is a crisis. But the parties are working on it. And even with UNMIN leaving, it does not mean that the international community is not going to support the rest of the process.
We will help with the process of integration, but there is very little that the international community can do in this. What we can do is assist in the rehabilitation of former combatants. We can help the special (committee) secretariat. But it is up to the parties to tell us what kind of assistance they want. It is important that the issue of integration and rehabilitation of combatants takes place because other parties are not going to accept the Maoists with an army in a multi-party democracy. On the issue of the constitution, there has been progress. The thematic committees have done a good job. The special task force has reached agreements on a number of issues ranging from judiciary to economy. But some issues remain. People ask us what kind of constitution it should be, but that is not for us to tell. Every country has to determine what constitutional structure works best for them. But what I would say is that in any successful democracy, there are some basic principles.
Do you have a bottom line as to what would be the desirable scenario before UNMIN departs?
The desirable scenario is that the integration and rehabilitation be completed. But there are questions whether we will get there or not. The minimum that the parties could do is assess what UNMIN is doing and figure out what functions they would like to retain and how they plan to do it. The reason why I say this is because the issues that are not at the heart and soul of the peace process should not distract from the real issues, which are integration, rehabilitation and the modalities to move the process forward. Even if these issues are not addressed by Jan. 15, they can still find a way.
You and a US Under-Secretary recently visited a cantonment in Chitwan.
What was your impression about the cantoned combatants given that one of the major issues is whether the majority of them would opt for rehabilitation
or integration?
During my first visit to the cantonment, I was curious how the combatants felt about the issues of integration and rehabilitation. I was struck that the majority of them said that they would like to be integrated. And this is important because they identify as soldiers and feel that they can contribute. I was also struck by their answer in what they aspired for. They said they wanted a democratic Nepal and they wanted to make a contribution to their country. But part of the problem is that the combatants have not been presented with a rehabilitation package. And when they may be presented with the package, some of them may decide rehabilitation is not such a bad idea. I was struck as well when I asked them if they had any concerns about integration—things like might you find that the soldiers in the Army view you as enemies. And they said they are not worried about it. They said they saw soldiers as their brothers even during the conflict. They felt no resentment or animosity and said that this would be a smooth process. What I told them was realistically speaking, not everyone hoping to be integrated will be. It is up to the parties to determine that number. I told them that if some of them were not integrated, there are other many ways of making contributions to the country.
You have talked about the US government’s willingness to provide rehabilitation package. Are there any plans regarding this?
No, there is nothing like a concrete plan because, until the parties decide on this, it is hard for us to come with any plan. We have told them illustratively of the help that we could offer. We could help the special secretariat become more effective. We could help in setting up field offices and providing logistics. In terms of rehabilitation, many of our development programmes could serve as a model. In October, when I was in Washington, I told my colleagues of the problem and they all realised the importance of helping in the process. We can bring resources to table, but parties need to be clear as to how they would like to move forward.
How do you view the ongoing political impasse and where do you think the parties could be more accommodative?
The political transition that Nepal has gone through in last 20 years is something that countries undergo in 200 years. So this compression of history has had its impact. Parties need to learn to work in the new structure where there is no monarchy. They have to better understand each other. But it seems the parties are having problems comprehending this, even established parties. As I told you earlier, I was in Washington in October and the tenth round of elections (for the post of prime minister) had just finished. When my colleagues questioned me about the political crisis in Nepal, I told them that it is more important to get a government through a process rather than have one that will last for only few months. And this is something that will take time. I understand why everyone is frustrated with the political process, including the donor community. We would like to see the formation of a new government so that we could work with a government with a clear mandate. But the process continues. The budget was passed, though it was not done in a pretty way.
Let us talk about the larger foreign policy priorities of the US in South Asia.
We would like to see Nepal as a democratic state that respects rights of its citizens, and whose leadership functions as per the rules and laws. This is what we would like to see for the other countries in the region as well. We would like to see the countries in South Asia cooperate among themselves so that tensions are reduced. We understand that there are problems in the region. There are problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the fear is when governments are not effective, it presents opportunities to those who want to create problems in the world. So we would like to see the economy grow in the region along with trade relations. I know Nepal needs to move on with the constitution writing process if before much more progress in the economy and other areas can be expected. Everybody, including India and China I believe, would like to see a stable Nepal. This is something all of us share.
As the priorities of the US shift in the region, the US policy on Nepal is often said to be viewed through an Indian prism, as India seems to be the strategic partner of the US in the region?
I have heard this ever since I came here. We have a strategic dialogue with India. India is an important partner for us. And it is a growing relationship. Let me assure you the United States has neither lost interest in Nepal nor do we view our policy on Nepal through India’s prism. We determine our policy towards Nepal keeping our own national interest in mind.
India, China and the US are often perceived as competing powers in Nepal.
I don’t think they are competing powers in Nepal. We have our own engagement here. We would like to see Nepal as a stable and peaceful country. And as of Jan. 1, all of us will be sitting in the Security Council and monitoring the progress in Nepal.
Wikileaks is said to have found messages sent from the US mission in Kathmandu to Washington. Do you think this will have an impact on bilateral relations?
I think no matter what Wikileaks may reveal, the messages we send our government every day are important. And they are concerned with the peace process, constitution writing and development. And those commitments on the parts of US will remain. I talked to the foreign minister, Sujata Koirala, about this and she agreed.
China moved as early as the 1960s to clear border disputes with Nepal, often to Nepal’s advantage. The goodwill this earned is clear from the fact that in 2008 Nepal sought Chinese help in settling its disputes with India