TRANSCRIPT OF DON CAMP’S PRESS MEET, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005

Ambassador James F. Moriarty: Namaste. Swagat huncha [welcome in Nepali]. For those of you who might have forgotten, my name is Jim Moriarty. I am the ambassador here. I try to give my friends in the press plenty to do even while away on vacation. It’s a pleasure to be back here in Nepal. It’s even a greater pleasure to be able to work with Don Camp, an old friend of Nepal. I think you’ve all seen him and met with him before. He’s had a couple of days of talks here. I think he has a statement to make and I hope that statement will be available to you. Afterwards, I think he would be willing to take a few questions and with those simple words I would like to turn it over to my good personal friend in addition to good colleague, Don Camp.

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Donald Camp: Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming today. It’s good to be here in Kathmandu.  My purpose of the last two days has been to consult with the Embassy and to discuss bilateral issues with government officials, media, and civil society.  My meetings have been productive and insightful.  As I prepare to leave Kathmandu this evening, I have a few thoughts to share before I take questions.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice clearly outlined in her speech at the American University in Cairo on June 20 and as President George Bush so clearly articulated in his January inaugural address: the United States stands for freedom and democracy around the world.

This certainly includes Nepal as well.

As we have made clear on many occasions, we consider the King’s actions of February 1 to have been a big step backward for democracy.  Despite the state of emergency being lifted at the end of April and the subsequent release of most detainees, we continue to see curbs on political freedom and other civil liberties.  In today’s world, leaders who stand in the way of democracy do no service for their people.  It is critically important for all the political leaders of Nepal to work together for their country’s future.  The world and the United States would find unacceptable a return to pre-1990 Nepal. 

The United States has called on all the legitimate political forces to unite to bring Nepal back into a multiparty democratic framework and to address the Maoist insurgency, as well as Nepal’s serious challenges in economic development.   Political party leaders recently have taken steps toward unity, and we believe the King should respond to their initiative and reach out to them.  Political parties can be the engine of democracy, but to truly serve the Nepali people leaders must subordinate their own interests to the needs of the public.

In that context, we cannot forget at any time that the Maoists are the most serious, immediate threat to a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Nepal.  The ruthless violence and terrorism they sow offers nothing to Nepal but destruction and sorrow. The Maoists must realize that they will not win an armed struggle.  Their systematic targeting of the Nepali people—including school children and civilians—is universally condemned.  We call on them to cease these atrocities, declare a ceasefire, lay down their arms, and come to peaceful negotiations.

The United States also recognizes the difficulties the Royal Nepalese Army faces in countering the insurgents’ campaign of violence.  U.S. military assistance aims to help professionalize the RNA and has included training in such areas as the rules of engagement, investigating alleged human rights abuses, and battlefield medical skills.  As for lethal equipment, the United States has delayed a shipment of M-16 rifles while we encourage restoration of civil liberties and multiparty democracy.  In the meantime, our engagement with the RNA continues.  A professional, well-trained army is a key part of ending the insurgency.  Such an army also would be much less likely to commit human rights abuses.  Already we have seen some progress by the RNA on this important issue; however, more needs to be done. In that context, we welcome and fully support the establishment of the United Nation’s new office of the High Commission for Human Rights in Nepal.

In sum, the United States believes the political forces should come together both for democracy and security’s sake.  As Secretary Rice said last week, “Giving security priority over democracy gives us neither…. Democracy is the only idea powerful enough to overcome division, hatred, and violence.” We certainly believe that is true in Nepal.

I’d be glad to take any questions you have at this point.

Ambassador: And before, excuse-me. Before we take the questions, may I ask the questioners to walk to one of the microphones up front and then identify their affiliations and then ask their questions, please.

Question: … (inaudible) long walk, it will take more time …

Ambassador: Exercise is good for everybody though. I think we all run the risk in this modern age of not getting enough. I realize it’s not easy to get out, but unfortunately the microphones are not portable and the acoustics are not very good.

Q: I am Sirish Pradhan, I represent PTI here. As you have said that both the political parties and king should come but who should take the initiative? The king or the political parties?

Camp: Sorry… (inaudible)

Q. As you have said that both the political parties and king should come but who should take the initiative? Either the political parties or the king? What do you think?

Camp: Oh, I think the responsibility lies in both places. I think there really needs to be attempt by both sides to find common ground. That should not be impossible in this society. It is necessary that the both sides reach out to the other, I would say.

Q. But the government has warned the political parties that they may be treated like terrorists, so in this situation how can they come together?

Camp: I don’t think that we have a recipe for how this happens. I think that it has to be something that the parties and the king together are creative enough to find ways to do so.

Q. My name is Akhilesh, I work for Kantipur Online [www.kantipuronline.com] My question is: Washington has consistently said that the political forces, the monarchy and the parties should come together to resolve the political stalemate, from what I we’ve seen over the months especially since February 1, the distance has, if anything, gotten even wider. Does U.S. go for a policy review at what point? And what do you see the situation on the ground? Thanks.

Camp: I am not sure I would…. I probably wouldn’t disagree with your characterization of the situation since February 1, but I would add the one thing that has happened recently--and it seems to be positive development--is the unity of the political parties. That should be a step forward to a common program to work together and basically establish a relationship with the palace. Ah, I’m not sure that our policy is what is in need of review. I think it is a change in attitudes here in Kathmandu that is the basic issue at hand.

Q. So you are saying that there would be no policy review in the foreseeable future?

Camp: We’re always reviewing policy. I don’t think we need to have a formal policy review to decide how we’re going to handle Nepal. We don’t see a problem with our approach to Nepal. We have been fairly consistent since February 1 in making clear that the move on February 1 was a bad move by the King and there needs to be a way to move back to full civil liberties and restoration of democracy.

Q: My name is Kumar Lamichhane… (incomprehensible) … in the last meeting with our foreign minister, from him we come to know that the U.S. government has welcomed or taken in the positive light the election, municipal election declared by the King. In this perspective do you see the possibility of municipal election without the participation of the political parties or without the reconcilement with the King? Adding to this view, do you see any sorts of possibility of reconcilement with the King of those political parties? Thank you.

Camp: On municipal elections, let me just say that free and fair elections are important component of a democracy; from that standpoint they are to be welcomed. However, if … into the larger context of elections and of course, parliamentary elections in Nepal, there’s really a question not for us but for the Nepali people. On reconciliation, I would simply say that this is, we see this as the only way forward, and people of goodwill can find a way to come together for the greater good of Nepal and for Nepal’s future.

Q: I am Rabindra Nath Mishra from All India Radio. My question is: Will you ask the palace for the formation of the all-party government as a first step towards reconciliation between parties and the palace?

Camp: I’m sorry. Who do we ask?

Q: The king for the formation of an all-party government as a first step towards reconciliation between the two constitutional bodies.

Camp: Again, I would say that it is not for us to make that kind of decision; it is really an issue for the Nepali people. We’re not the party to get in the middle of this. We can, we can ah…. As a friend of Nepal, we will offer our encouragement for reconciliation but I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to get into details of how Nepal organizes its own political system.

Q: … (inaudible)

Ambassador: We can’t hear you.

Q: I am Bhola Rana from the News of Nepal [www.newsofnepal.com] But Ambassador Moriarty is on record as having told the Jana Aastha, he pleaded for an all-party government.

Camp: First, we support…

Q: I have further question. You said that you have delayed the delivery of M-16 rifles and here again Ambassador Moriarty is pushing for the supplies of the non-lethal weapons. Is that correct? What is stopping the deli… (inaudible) please.

Camp: First of all let me just say that I have stated M-16 rifles have been delayed.  We are not shipping M-16 rifles while we wait for improvements in the civil liberties and democracy scene here in Nepal, and I know that ambassador Moriarty is fully in agreement with that. He is our ambassador here in Kathmandu, so I think there’s no question. I think we are all in agreement on this.

(inaudible)

Ambassador: Basically I think if you look at the interview closely, my reasoning was that this could be an acceptable step forward. And again I think Don Camp is absolutely right. I mean there are obviously other ways forward but if there were an all-party government here and an agreement between the palace and the parties to form an all-party government, of course the U.S. government will welcome it.

… (inaudible)

Ambassador: Excuse me?

… (inaudible)

Ambassador: No, no it’s just the…. The basic message here is there needs to be reconciliation that the palace, the government, the political parties have to agree on a way forward, a way forward that eventually leads Nepal back to a functioning democracy. And if the creation of an all-party government is a step that the sides can agree to, we would welcome it, of course. On the question of M-16 I don’t think I have ever been on record as saying well we need to move forward with M-16s right now. Yeah there has to be progress here. There are twin issues here, the twin issues of dealing with the insurgency and the issue of trying to figure out a way back to a functioning democracy.

Camp: If I could say one more thing about the suggestion that there’s been a change in policy on governance. Rather than a change in any policy there’s been a change on the ground in Kathmandu, and that is that we now have the existence of a seven party alliance, ah, which is a step forward in our view and that is a positive sign, again for eventual reconciliation.

Q: Sudeshna. Indo Asian News Service. I have two questions for Mr. Camp. One is yesterday the Nepali foreign minister Mr. Ramesh Nath Pandey was heard on television saying that in future there would be more dignitaries from the U.S. visiting Nepal. Would you care to tell us who is in line next please?

Camp: We always hope that we have more American visitors to Nepal to better understand the situation here. I don’t have any announcement to make at this time about any future American visitors.

Q. I have another question that is the Washington Post recently had said that it is a matter of concern to the U.S. officials that the opposition parties in Nepal could be having talks with the Maoists in India. So, is Washington going to take it up with New Delhi?

Camp: In fact, we have a frequent dialogue with India on many subjects, [and] that certainly includes Nepal. We have been clear that we believe that the Maoists need to end their atrocities, end the violence, lay down their arms and agree to a ceasefire before they can have any claim at all to be a part of the system. That is our view.

Q. That didn’t answer my question. Mr. Camp, have you made any official contact with the Indian government regarding this?

Camp: We have frequent contact with the Indian government on all aspects of our policy, and we in fact have a dialogue on many countries of South Asia. I’d just like to leave it at that.

Q: If I may add one more question please. The American Ambassador was recently quoted as saying that, I have forgotten the exact figures please do forgive me for that, that is it better to spend 2 million on assistance to Nepal or later spend 50 or 500 million in the refugee camps in India. So I am a little confused about that, does the India [sic: US] support any kind of provide any sort of aid to India or refugee camps in India? How does this thing come?

Camp: I think that was a theoretical, I mean a hypothetical question. Am I correct there? It seems reasonable that we need to invest now to prevent serious, serious problems down the road.

Q: But if there is a spillover, a major spillover in India, so would you be considering extending your aid to Indian refugee camps?

Camp: We haven’t even thought about that.

Q: Thanks.

Q: Harihar Upadhyay from Image Channel television. This morning you met with the Nepali Congress leader GP Koirala, and do you try to make him agree to participate in the local election? And I have heard that the talk with Koirala was not so good. Would you try to elaborate it? Thank you.

Camp: I would certainly disagree with your characterization. The conversation with Mr. Koirala was quite pleasant and a good conversation. I wouldn’t say that there was any significant disagreement. We would not, I certainly would not … (inaudible) to tell Mr Koirala what he should do in terms of participation in Nepali political system. No I did not urge him to participate in municipal election. We did not discuss municipal elections.

Q: Can I ask another question? The Nepal government has banned FM radios from broadcasting news and also proposed many, I mean, restrictive press laws. How does U.S. government react to this?

Camp: Well, we have called for restoration of all civil liberties and that certainly includes freedom of the press, freedom of the media to broadcast the news.

Q: Hello. My name is Keshav Poudel. I work for Spotlight newsmagazine. You met government officials and political party, leaders of political parties also and you have been constantly about reconciliation between them. What impression did you get this time.

Camp: I would say that my main impression is the considerable gulf that still exists between the political parties and the representatives in the government and that’s very regrettable from our point of view because we continue to believe that that gulf needs to be narrowed and it does not appear to be narrowed in the slightest.

Q: To comment on the contact between the Maoist leaders and the political leaders in India.

Camp: I’m sorry.

Q: Will you like to comment on reported contacts between the Maoist leaders and the political leaders in India?

Camp: I think I have already stated our view of the Maoists as terrorists as people who have not yet given up violence. I’ll simply leave it at that.

Q: Regarding the security situation of Nepal, what is your evaluation of that security situation after royal takeover of the February 1. Have Maoists been weakened by the Royal Nepalese Army or they have been more and more stronger than the situation before the February 1?

Camp: I personally don’t have enough knowledge of the situation outside the Kathmandu valley to make an evaluation of that. I would say that the Maoists continue, in our view, to be a threat in much of Nepal. Let’s leave it at that. I don’t have enough evidence to make a comparison between the first of February and now.

Q: So can I ask one more question? So, we’ve heard that you are going to meet the king also this evening, so what the matters will be talked with him? Would you deliberate some ideas on that?

Camp: If I were to meet the king--and I would never assume that--I think I would discuss what I discussed with you: our concern about the direction in which Nepal is going.

APAO Laura Lucas: Maybe one or two last questions.

Q: Mr. Camp you said that there has been some … the RNA has made some progress on important issues. Could you please tell us what these issues are?

Camp: Well for instance I think on the human rights front. The fact that the human rights cell is being elevated within the army to a higher level led by a flag officer or general is a good sign that the attention is being paid to the important issue of human rights. I think there’s, there are other evidences as well that the Royal Nepal Army is making attempts to address the problems that have been brought to its attention.

Q: Recently we had a statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross saying that they were not able to visit detainees. So doesn’t it seem like a contradiction that they are having these human rights cells but on the other hand when it comes to actual progress, there’s very little.

Camp: It’s my understanding that the ICRC is engaged in talks with the Royal Nepal Army on a modus operandi, a way forward on providing access. And obviously we hope very much that those will succeed and those negotiations would succeed.

Laura: One last question.

Q: I am Rekha Shrestha. The Himalayan Times. Sir you said that a professional, well-trained army is a key part of ending the insurgency. And I heard that recently a team of U.S. Army, I mean the coordinating team, was here to resume the combat training for Special Forces of the RNA. Is that true? And if it is like that, then when the next, are there more trainings in the pipeline?

Camp: Let me answer the first more general, excuse me, the second more general question. Maybe I can turn to my colleagues to the specific question about what’s going on with the existing groups. First of all, in our view training is a good thing. We would like to continue assistance to the Royal Nepal Army in the area of training because we think it sends, it makes the Royal Nepal Army a better and more disciplined military unit. First half of the question I wasn’t sure.

Ambassador: Well, there have actually been two visits recently, if I am not wrong, Elisabeth [Millard, Deputy Chief of Mission]. The one was to talk about future training programs and other was actually an exercise we did concentrating on human rights. We had our lawyers and military lawyers and human rights experts from the U.S. Army out here helping to train a number of Nepalese military on human rights concepts and human rights practices within the army. So there we two recent groups out here that first one was indeed out here talking about future training exercises and there probably will be some in the coming months although we don’t have everything lined up yet.

Camp: Thank you all very much.