Nepal is in the throes of a democratic revolution. "We call upon people from all walks of life to take to the streets and bring everything in the capital and all across the country to a complete halt."
Where is President Bush and his pro-democracy agenda? President George W. Bush and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put aside their differences in a show of Republican solidarity on Friday after Bush approved federal help to shore up the state's fragile levee system. "He is a really interesting man," Bush said of his fellow Republican. "He didn't have to run for office, but chose to do so and I admire that in you, I admire somebody who doesn't always take the comfortable way in life."
What a silly comment. Who has to run for the governorship? (Apparently, the elder Bush forced W to run in Texas, and perhaps Jeb to run in Florida.) Maybe the comment isn't so silly after all ... Why doesn't CNN tell you about Bush's position on Nepal? In a blunt message to Nepal’s King Gyanendra, the Bush administration has said he should return power to the parties and adopt a more ceremonial role in the political process. "It is time for the King to return political power to the parties so they can appoint a prime minister and take over governance. It is time for the King to adopt a more ceremonial role and let the political process go forward," the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, Mr Richard Boucher told reporters at a roundtable at the state department.
At the State web site: The United States salutes the people of Nepal's courage and resilience in their struggle for democracy. We are pleased that King Gyanendra's message today made clear that sovereignty resides with the people. We expect the King to live up to his words, and allow the parties to form a government. We urge the parties to respond quickly by choosing a prime minister and a cabinet. The people of Nepal deserve a democratic government that can return stability and peace to their country. We urge all sides to refrain from violence to allow the restoration of democracy to take place swiftly and peacefully.
It's interesting that these statements are occurring only now, when protestors are in the streets. What did they have to say when it happened? Now they're saying: "King Gyanendra's decision 14 months ago to impose direct palace rule in Nepal has failed in every regard."
As though the overthrow of democracy would have been OK if only he had been a more effective dictator. In February 2005, when the King seized power, Bush made no mention of it in his State of the Union speech. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote: Nepal: Washington has been shoveling millions to this impoverished Himalayan kingdom facing Maoist insurgency. The place is so remote and the government so weak — especially following a 2001 massacre of virtually the entire royal family apparently perpetrated by the crown prince, who then killed himself — that U.S. counterterrorism officials worry it could tempt more than the small band of militants and terrorists who now transit the region. And a sensitive region it is, lying between India and China. That's why US reaction was distinctly muted this week after King Gyanendra, who took power after his brother’s family was wiped out, instigated a one-man putsch by disbanding the nation’s elected government. He put the prime minister under house arrest before shutting down all Internet communications, the airport and phones, suppressing local newspaper coverage and naming his own puppet Cabinet. Under most definitions of the term, Nepal is no longer a parliamentary democracy.
In the State of the Union speech, Bush did say: We've declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
Around the same time, CSM reported: The situation in Nepal points out the limits of outside influence. The US and Britain have quietly given millions of dollars of military aid and training to combat an eight-year Maoist insurgency. Maoists now control much of the countryside and are active in all of Nepal's 75 districts. "We've come out very strong against the steps taken by the king," says a State Department official in Washington. "But at the same time we have to recognize that the Maoists are a complete anathema to democracy." The official knows of no initiatives yet to change the security assistance to Nepal. But he recognizes that balancing support against criticism of antidemocratic moves is delicate and is not unique. "Our ultimate goal is strong democracies everywhere. We don't want to disregard this goal by any interim steps. But at the same time we can't take actions that make the ultimate goal more difficult to reach. It is a conundrum."
A snippet in the Seattle Times said: US threatens cutoff for Nepal crackdown The US could cut off aid to Nepal if King Gyanendra -- who declared emergency rule, sacked the government and jailed civil-society leaders more than two weeks ago -- does not quickly restore basic rights and move toward democracy, the US ambassador to Katmandu said yesterday. Roughly $40 million in US economic aid flows into Nepal each year, said James Moriarty, a former National Security Council official who was posted to the Himalayan kingdom by President Bush about seven months ago. The current crisis began Feb. 1 when Gyanendra dismissed the government before cutting off his country from the outside world. Soldiers were sent into the streets, and phone lines and Internet connections were severed, although communications have since been restored.
So when the king seized power, the US response was to threaten them economically. Embattled King of Nepal Offers Gesture to Protesters | 
