British ambassador to Nepal, Keith Bloomfield, spoke to Nepali Times this week on the conduct of the counter-insurgency operations and the role of the international community in getting the palace and the parties to patch up.

Nepali Times: We detect a certain frostiness in relations between Britain and the Nepal government, especially the army, vis-?-vis your position on the conduct of the counter-insurgency operation.
Keith Bloomfield: There has been certain amount of misunderstanding of our position, particularly in relation to development activities and human rights. We have had a policy for some years of not supplying lethal weaponry and we are continuing with that policy. We are very attached to the observation of human rights, partly because we believe that is the way to win the battle against the Maoists for the hearts and minds of the Nepali people. We genuinely believe that human rights must be respected.

The military's take on this is that this is a very messy war in difficult terrain and things like this will happen.
Things like that will happen. We accept that. What we are saying is when they do happen then there must be steps to make sure that they don't happen again. The people concerned, if they are found guilty, should be punished. I think as for understanding how wars of this nature can be successfully won, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we do have a lot of experience around the world which we would like to share.

Your government till recently backed an aggressive military stance against the Maoists. Now, the stress seems to be on restoration of democracy and negotiations. Has there been a policy shift?
I think the fundamental objective here is a democratic and stable country that is prosperous, development-friendly, human-rights respecting. But, in order to ensure that, our priority number one is that the Maoists must not be allowed to win through violence. And therefore, we believe that the state has a duty to defend itself against the threat to the constitution and that's the number one objective. Of course, democracy and human rights are essential part of a longterm stable future for Nepal. So, there is no contradiction there.

On the government side, there is a feeling that the Maoists bought time during the last two negotiations, and it seems uncomfortable with pressure from outside to go for talks again.
What I was hearing in this country back in February almost unanimously was that the Maoists were forced to negotiations because they believed that they would not win militarily, and by August this had all changed. I continue to believe that there is no victory for either side through military means alone. The cost of trying to achieve a military victory or even forcing the Maoists back to the negotiating table and rejecting overtures meanwhile is too high for this country to pay in terms of human lives and the economy.

Is this feeling shared by other donors? And if there are differences, are they just nuances or is it fundamental?
All my diplomatic colleagues are very keen to see a peace process restored as soon as possible. I think there are slight nuances about whether and how far the Maoists need to be weakened before one goes back into the peace process but, as far as we are concerned, humanitarian arguments for an early as possible ceasefire are overwhelming.

What is your assessment of the strategy of the security forces to bring the Maoists back to the negotiating table through force?
The Royal Nepali Army has improved its defensive capabilities during the ceasefire in the same way as the Maoists have strengthened their political position in certain parts of the country. As I said, I don't think a military solution is possible. It follows, I think, that we do not accept that the Maoists can be forced to the negotiating table through military means. Although it may be possible to weaken them somewhat, we don't think that should be the end. We should not wait for the weakening before going into a new ceasefire.

The international community also seems to be divided over whether there should be a coordinated effort from their side to restore peace, while others stress it should be left to the Nepalis to decide.
Any friend of Nepal would not be a very good friend if they wanted this conflict to continue. We all want peace as early as possible. We share an interest in a stable and peaceful Nepal.

So, you are OK with international mediation?
We believe there are lots of lessons that can be learnt. We believe there is a role for the international community in this process. What type of role depends on the willingness of both sides of the conflict to accept advice and assistance.

Before Dasai, Kathmandu-based envoys, including you, were quite active in getting the palace and the parties to unite. Where is that process now?
We believe that a united body politic is essential to provide and find a long-lasting solution to the conflict. Such a body politic can tackle the underlying causes and negotiate in a constructive and comprehensive way forward with the Maoists. For that reason we have been urging the king and the parties for many months now to find a way to overcome their differences.

With what degree of success would you say?
I think there is a will on both sides to form a multiparty government. The differences are about how and on what conditions this can be achieved. We have had some success on the basic principle but very little success, as is apparent, in terms how this should be achieved.

There was sharp criticism about foreign intereference from across the political spectrum after your reconciliation efforts.
You have to draw distinctions between basic principles. We can say as friends to you in Nepal, we believe that the political constitutional forces need to be reconciled. What we cannot, and should not do, is who should be the prime minister or how the difficulties should be overcome. I don't regard that as a sinister example of a foreign hand. It's more of a question of friends wanting the best for Nepal, and giving its people the benefit of their own experience and advice.

Did the diplomats take the initiative to give advice or did the parties seek them?
We as ambassadors meet regularly with the political leaders. Sometimes it is our initiatives and sometimes it is theirs. Sometimes we just bump into each other at a cocktail party. I don't think that you should read any significance at all in to who asked for the meeting.

Information Minister Kamal Thapa publicly said that diplomats should follow diplomatic norms.
The information minister told me that he welcomed our efforts. So, I don't think you should read too much into those sorts of statements.

Will there be any immediate British aid to the Royal Nepali Army?
It's an ongoing process. As I said, the UK does not supply lethal weaponry. We do have a program of ongoing assistance, mostly in the field of training, which will continue because we believe the state has the right to protect itself against a violent threat of the type posed by the Maoists.