US embassy cable - 04KATHMANDU371

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000371 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS AND DRL 
NSC FOR MILLARD 
LONDON FOR POL - GURNEY 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/27/2014 
TAGS: PHUM, PGOV, PTER, PREL, NP, UN, Human Rights 
SUBJECT: NEPAL:  GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SIGN HUMAN RIGHTS 
ACCORD 
 
REF: A. KATHMANDU 0326 
 
     B. KATHMANDU 0323 (NOTAL) 
 
Classified By: AMB. MICHAEL E. MALINOWSKI.  REASON:  1.5 (B,D) 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
 
1.  (C) In a February 27 meeting, de facto Foreign Minister 
Bekh Bahadur Thapa told the Ambassador that the Government of 
Nepal (GON) will not sign the proposed human rights accord 
because the accord implicitly puts the Maoists on the same 
level as the Government.  The GON would, moreover, object to 
any resolution introduced into the UN criticizing its human 
rights record.  The GON would, however, accept technical 
assistance to strengthen the National Human Rights 
Commission, Thapa indicated, adding that the Prime Minister 
plans to issue a public statement reaffirming the GON's 
commitment to human rights.  Thapa said he had informed a 
group of European ambassadors of the GON position.  The 
Embassy does not support pressuring the GON to sign the 
accord, but believes we should urge the GON to implement the 
international human rights agreements and conventions it has 
already signed.  In addition, we support providing technical 
assistance to the National Human Rights Commission to assist 
in the implementation of these agreements.  End Summary. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
GON WILL NOT SIGN HUMAN RIGHTS ACCORD 
-------------------------------------- 
 
2.  (U)  The Ambassador met with de facto Foreign Minister 
Ambassador Bekh Bahadur Thapa on February 27 to discuss 
Government of Nepal (GON) views on whether to sign a draft 
human rights accord supported by the UN Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and some European 
donors (Ref A).  The Ambassador used the opportunity to pass 
Amb. Thapa a copy of the just released annual Human Rights 
Report on Nepal. 
 
3.  (SBU)  Ambassador Thapa said that he had met with several 
European ambassadors and the visiting head of the Swiss 
Agency for Development and Cooperation on Feburary 26.  Thapa 
said he discussed with the delegation King Gyanendra's trips 
out to the western part of the country (Ref B), the Unified 
Command, and the Village Defense Forces.  He said he 
described the Village Defense Forces as "just an idea" that 
the Royal Nepal Army has subsequently "backed away from." 
 
4.  (C) Thapa said he told the delegation that the GON will 
not accept "any imposition of a UN resolution or of censure" 
on its human rights record.  The GON, moreover, will not sign 
any document that  accords equal status to the GON--a 
legitimate, sovereign government--and the Maoist insurgents, 
which, in the GON view, the draft accord appears to do.  He 
noted that the GON, USG and the Indian Government all 
consider the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) as a terrorist 
organization.  The GON will continue to respect and promote 
human rights as described in the Constitution and in the 
numerous international treaties and conventions it has 
already signed, he emphasized.  Thapa reported that he 
advised the European envoys that Prime Minister Surya Bahadur 
Thapa soon will issue a statement outlining the steps the GON 
is taking to fulfill those commitments.  In that statement, 
the PM will ask international donors to help strengthen GON 
institutions, including the National Human Righs Commission 
(NHRC), Thapa said.  Such assistance could include "outside 
advisors."  (Note:  It is unclear whether "advisors" means 
"monitors," as proposed by OHCHR.  End note.) 
 
5.  (C)  Thapa said that he had the impression that all of 
the envoys were satisfied with his answer and were not 
planning to pursue a CHR resolution or continue to urge 
signing of the accord.   According to Thapa, UK Ambassador 
Keith Bloomfield added that, with the GON's commitment to 
implement its human rights obligations under previously 
signed international treaties, the UK would try to get the 
Maoists to sign the draft accord. 
 
----------------------------- 
AN ACCORD BY ANY OTHER NAME? 
----------------------------- 
 
6.  (C)  Ambassador Malinowski responded that he understood 
GON concerns about the accord as written.  He suggested the 
possibility of the GON signing a different 
statement--possibly entitled "GON Commitment to Human Rights" 
or "GON Action Plan for Implementing International 
Conventions on Human Rights"--that detailed concrete steps 
the GON plans to take on the international human rights 
instruments it has already signed.  Thapa indicated that the 
PM's upcoming statement would more or less do just that. 
 
----------------------- 
EMBASSY RECOMMENDATION 
----------------------- 
 
7.  (C)  Since the USG has designated the Maoists as 
terrorists under E.O. 13224, it would be difficult for us to 
insist that the GON sign any agreement that seems to put this 
friendly government and an organization we regard as 
terrorist on the same level.  That said, yet another public 
statement from the GON reiterating its commitment to human 
rights that is not accompanied by detailed steps it pledges 
to take to fulfill that commitment is unlikely to improve the 
worsening climate of impunity and non-transparency. 
Stand-alone technical assistance to the NHRC, without a 
concrete commitment from the GON that it will improve 
implementation of NHRC recommendations, would be similarly 
insufficient.  We therefore recommend the following: 
 
--Support for OHCHR's proposal to provide technical 
assistance to the NHRC, as long as such assistance is not 
linked to the GON's signing of the human rights accord.  (Per 
Ref A, an OHCHR representative suggested the two could be 
delinked.) 
 
--Continued dialogue between the Embassy and the GON to urge 
the possibility of human rights monitors. 
 
--Continued emphasis on the importance of human rights in our 
engagement, including training for the security forces, with 
the GON. 
 
--We should not pressure the GON to sign the human rights 
accord.  The problem with the accord is not its actual text. 
Many of the items listed are actions that the GON, according 
to its own law and its commitments under previously signed 
international conventions, should be doing anyway.  The 
problem lies in the ham-fisted manner of its presentation to 
the GON--as something it would sign, along with the Maoists, 
as two equal parties to the conflict (Ref A).  We should 
respect the GON's legitimate objections on this score and not 
insist it sign.  On the other hand, we should urge the GON to 
consider committing to a concrete, detailed action plan to 
implement its obligations under a human rights agreement it 
has already signed as a sovereign government, e.g., the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 
 
MALINOWSKI