In the name of supporting the peace process, US ambassador James F Moriarty recently took a ride in a Nepal Army helicopter and visited the midwest and far west regions. Following his visits to the army barracks, he criticised the Maoists heavily in front of the media. Now both the Maoists and the seven parties have countered by attacking him for acting against diplomatic norms. His face-saving defensive stance is that he has not done so. No matter how powerful one's country is, undermining one's own diplomatic decorum looks like an attempt to intimidate another country. Moriarty's remarks will not go un-criticised, especially when the political powers are working hard to resolve the country's internal problems. This is not the first time that Nepal has experienced active foreign interest in domestic issues. Besides the USA, other countries have also interfered actively, especially against parties that were very popular among the Nepali people.

The US has generally maintained its position against communist parties. Former ambassador Julia Chang acted exactly like Moriarty. The UML protested heavily against Chang following her anti-UML stance after the 1990 People's Movement.

Friendly nations need to support a sovereign country to be free and resolve its own problems. Trying to make decisions for another country is interfering in its internal affairs. Moriarty is trying to present himself as a member of a political party. Yes, Nepal's problem can be solved by national consensus through elections, and not Maoist bullets. But this is for Nepalis to resolve themselves, with the UN as witness, not for Moriarty to address in a speech. He can discuss issues diplomatically to related authorities, but not publicly through a press conference. It's possible that the Nepali people will hand over responsibility for the country to the Maoists. So, before attacking the Maoists unnecessarily, Moriarty has to be discreet and adhere to the diplomatic code.