-US Ambassador, Michael E. Malinowski

Kathmandu: The outgoing American Ambassador to the Nepali court, Michael E. Malinowski, has shielded his case by saying that he was not being “recalled” by his home-government instead of what is being given to understand by a section of the Nepali media.

Ambassador Malinowski said this while talking to a choosen group of Nepali media men Monday evening at the residence of Ms. Constance Colding Jones, the Public Affairs Officer at the US embassy.

Responding to a query of a media man, the US Ambassador said that as and when he have had talks with King Gyanendra, he was assured by the King that he were devoted to constitutional monarchy and multi-party system in the country.

The US representative inferred that the Nepali monarch remained within the confines of what had been predetermined for him in the 1990 constitution.

To yet another query on the holding of the elections in the country, the US envoy though subtly favoured holding of the elections, he also in a reluctant mood maintained that “let the elections be held when the security situation” improved.

“Let the people of Nepal decide their representatives through elections”, is what Ambassador Malinowski said of the elections.

He however, admitted that Nepali democracy is facing manifold challenges and the country’s politics had been drifting from the shores.

In saying so the US diplomat wished to hint that the foremost political actors, including the monarch, had maintained a distance in between them, which should not have been the case.

“The US has a single interest in Nepal and that being supporting its democracy that is apparently in trouble. This is our interest here and nothing more than that”, Malinowski stressed.

In the same vein, the US diplomat bluntly told the gathering that he couldn’t imagine even the return of an authoritarian regime in this country.

This puts to rest to the misgiving of a section of the intellectuals and leaders here who of late had been ventilating that the US by taking the side of the monarch had been prompting the King to transform himself into an active monarch.

“All the legitimate forces must act together and bring the Maoists to the table and then go to the root causes of the uprising”, added the Ambassador.

He opined that negotiations must go with the Maoists but also suggested to remain alert.

To a query of this paper as to how he found Nepali leaders? Ambassador Malinowski said (sic): “It’s reflective of peculiar Nepali environment. You have chosen them”.

Implied perhaps in his reaction was a hidden message that when “you the Nepalese have yourselves chosen a leader for yourselves, good or bad, bear with them”.

Ambassador Malinowski summarily rejected the tittle-tattle that India was not happy with Nepal because of the US growing influence here in the recent years.

” It’s all rubbish. We continue to have an intimate relation with India. If it were so, I would have been indicated on the issue”, Malinowski added.

According to the US envoy, the Maoists insurgency was a homegrown issue, which have got to be handled by Nepal.

But then yet, the Ambassador wished the Indian engagement in the Maoists issue in one way or the other. He in effect said “India must be a part of the solution to Nepali issues”.

On the probable role of the UN as demanded by the Maoists, the US diplomat said that “it should be best decided by Nepal herself”.

Asked on his reported variation with his European colleagues on some Nepali issues, he categorically said that there had been not any such particular issue on which they differed.

Unsubstantiated reports say that the US and the European countries differed on the issue of putting money on training the armed and the police forces. While the US provided money to arm the security men and concurrently warned that the forces must minimise the growing HR abuses. The other camp neither pumped money but reserved the rights to take to task the security forces for their alleged HR abuses.

“They can do their part as well”, is what Malinowski said of the European countries. This perhaps subtly explains that the US diplomat and the European diplomats, including those from the Nordic countries, did differ on matters related to Nepal’s security forces.