The US State Department has posted new information on international adoption from Nepal in the country section of their international adoption site.

Framed in a Question and Answer format, it addresses the current status of adoptions in Nepal, the US Embassy's role now for parents who are in the process, the present suspension of adoption imposed by the Government of Nepal, and what is expected to happen when adoptions resume.

Also of great interest, this article from the Nepali Times on internatinal adoption of Nepali children, calling the process 'messy and unfair', and taking a look at the 400-some families who have been caught up in the suspension -- paperwork complete, but with no way to bring their children home.

Reporting that the suspension has had the positive consequence of seeing 'commercial orphanages' returning children to their parents, "now that there is no ‘market’ for them", the article mentions that the ministry in charge is putting down new terms and conditions that 'involve the best interests of the child" and are in accordance with the Hague.

And for a general look at Nepal, this "freewheeling interview" with the outgoing French Ambassador is revealing.

When asked if and how Nepal has changed during his tenure, he took the picture even further back, to the pre-1950 period, saying the problems are largely the same.

With Nepal being a " patchwork of different ethnicities and caste and interests" the likelihood of a cohesiveness strong enough to build a modern nation will be hard to come by, according to this diplomat.

Even the major players, like the Maoists, can't get much going in the way of programs or agendas.

The parties too are not modern—they do not have programs or agendas. How can you tell the difference between them? Even the Maoists—they say we are a Marxist-Leninist party for the 21st century—what does that mean concretely? You can change a few words here and there in speeches and all the parties sound the same. As for the Maoist revolution, it was anachronistic as early as 1996 because the international revolutionary movement was already dead.

A parade of finance ministers during the Ambassador's tour of duty, widespread bribery with tacit approval of leaders, and no involvement of younger Nepalis all serve to give the interview a less than positive spin on the future.

Addressing the issue of adoptions, the Ambassador reports that 50 of the 400 or so families caught in the suspension are French, and suggests the need for a centralized national adoption authority.

With the little faith he has in the Nepalese government, I'm wondering how he figures that's going to help.