Credibility of UN role in crisis
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
The credibility of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is in crisis. This is because of its own role, reports and remarks. The question that has been raised about the competence and neutrality of the UN agency would have far-reaching impact on the future UN mission not only in Nepal but also in the world as a whole.
Report on Nepal
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon recently submitted his report to the UN Security Council on Nepal’s peace process and the role of the UNMIN. The remarks that Secretary General made in New York have sparked furor in Nepal. The government and the ruling parties have come down heavily on the world body accusing the United Nations of interfering in Nepal’s internal politics. The government of Nepal through its mission in New York has already lodged a complaint in the UN headquarters begging to differ in what the UN secretary general has to say about Nepal’s political situation and his prescription.
A minister has even said in public that the government would seek clarification from the UNMIN chief Karin Landgren once she returns to Kathmandu. However, there is no unanimity in this view. Political parties and civil society are divided on this very issue. While the government is furious over the world body’s opinion, the main opposition party—the UCPN-Maoist— has defended the UN chief’s remarks and dubbed the government and the coalition partners as being instigated by a foreign power against the United Nations and its role. Whatever the opinions for or against, Secretary General’s remarks, which have come at a time when the tenure of the UNMIN is going to expire in a few months, has definitely raised the question of UN role in Nepal and its neutrality.
Secretary General’s report on Nepal was based on the briefing of UNMIN chief Karin Landgren, who flew to New York recently. This is not the first time that the world body has expressed its displeasure over the delay in Nepal’s political and peace process. Even in the past, the UN Secretary General had said that the comprehensive peace agreement was not fully respected and parties did not do enough homework to settle some of the vexing issues closely linked with the peace process. The timely writing of the constitution and completing the peace process requires these issues to be resolved earlier on the basis of consensus. What the UN Secretary General’s report has stated is the fact that Nepal needs a national government with representation of all political parties in the Constituent Assembly. There is nothing wrong in his saying.
Everyone both at home and abroad are talking of the national consensus and a national government. There is no denying the fact that the constitution writing and peace process cannot be accomplished successfully by marginalizing the largest political party in Nepal. Even the present Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and other leaders of the ruling parties have accepted this fact. But the question is about who should lead the government. Although the inherent meaning and intent of the UN chief’s report may not be bad, the timing when the remarks came was definitely not appropriate. The UN chief’s opinion came at a time when the Maoists are on war path with the objective of unseating the present government. The government of Nepal and ruling parties found ground to suspect UNMIN’s covert plan to poke nose in Nepal’s internal political affairs and indirectly back Maoists’ design.
The Secretary General’s report has stated that the delay was due to the behaviour and attitude of the political stakeholders of Nepal especially the political parties. However, he failed to mention that the role of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) was also partly responsible for the present mess Nepal is facing.
The UNMIN came to Nepal upon the request of the government and the political parties including the Maoists. As a neutral body, its role was defined to facilitate the peace process and monitoring the management of the Maoist arms and armies. However, it, too often, crossed its limitation and mandate and passed comments on several controversial issues ostensibly taking a side of one of the two parties involved in the conflict. This is a repeated mistake that UNMIN has made right from the beginning.
This is not the first time that UNMIN has come under criticism. Ever since the UNMIN came to Nepal, it has never been a neutral body but has taken this or that side which has been a subject of criticism. The present ruling parties had also severely criticized UNMIN’s role. A year ago, Sushil Koirla, in a public function, had accused the UNMIN of not being neutral. The Maoists, too, were very critical and even harsh towards the role UNMIN played and dubbed UNMIN’s role as biased and against its mandate. The Maoist general secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal had once publicly criticized the UNMIN for its role ‘as an activist rather than a facilitator’. Even our neighbours are not very happy with what UNMIN was doing in Nepal.
One interesting thing we have noticed right from the beginning is the fact that when one party criticizes the UNMIN the other comes to its rescue. When the Maoists were critical of the UNMIN, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML defended UNMIN’s role. Now the Congress and the UML are venting their ire against the UN, the Maoists have come forward to defend the world body.
When Ian Martin was the UNMIN head, he acted like a political leader and often made political statements. His role had been most controversial and his departure from Nepal had been a sigh of relief for many. It was expected the new UNMIN head would avoid the mistakes her predecessors had done. Although Landgren, by nature, prefers to remain in a little low profile, she followed the footprints of her predecessors. The current situation is its outcome.
As the role of UNMIN has not been satisfactory, its relevance now is under question. After the Constituent Assembly election, the role of UNMIN has been drastically reduced. The monitoring of the management of the Maoist arms and armies has been the main job UNMIN has been entrusted with at present. But this process has been too slow and no significance achievement has been made in managing the Maoist arms and armies. Looking at the progress and speed with which the process of management of arms and armies is moving forward, it looks that this issue is less likely to be solved soon. In certain cases, UNMIN itself has created some complications. Thus, the relevance of UNMIN is slowly getting over.
Now all the parties involved in the conflict are disenchanted with the UNMIN’s role, it would be wise if the mandate of the world body and its performance are seriously and thoroughly reviewed. As the UNMIN’s tenure is renewed and extended in every six months, the review of its mandate and role should be done before the tenure of UNMIN is extended again. If UNMIN is so controversial and its role not effective, it would not be wise to extend its tenure again.
The UN was and is involved in many conflict prone countries in the world. But the results are mixed. To be more specific, there are more failures of the UN involvements than success stories. The intents of the world body may not be bad. But the competence and intention of the individuals have played a big role in the success and failure of the UN missions. In some cases, UN involvement has made things even worse and more complicated than ever before. It is because the individuals in charge of such mission carried agenda of certain countries rather than the agenda of the United Nations. In Nepal too, the role and activities of some UNMIN officials especially during the Constituent Assembly had not been very welcome. The World body, therefore, must review its own activities rather than putting blames on Nepal’s political players.
The credibility of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is in crisis. This is because of its own role, reports and remarks. The question that has been raised about the competence and neutrality of the UN agency would have far-reaching impact on the future UN mission not only in Nepal but also in the world as a whole.
Report on Nepal
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon recently submitted his report to the UN Security Council on Nepal’s peace process and the role of the UNMIN. The remarks that Secretary General made in New York have sparked furor in Nepal. The government and the ruling parties have come down heavily on the world body accusing the United Nations of interfering in Nepal’s internal politics. The government of Nepal through its mission in New York has already lodged a complaint in the UN headquarters begging to differ in what the UN secretary general has to say about Nepal’s political situation and his prescription.
A minister has even said in public that the government would seek clarification from the UNMIN chief Karin Landgren once she returns to Kathmandu. However, there is no unanimity in this view. Political parties and civil society are divided on this very issue. While the government is furious over the world body’s opinion, the main opposition party—the UCPN-Maoist— has defended the UN chief’s remarks and dubbed the government and the coalition partners as being instigated by a foreign power against the United Nations and its role. Whatever the opinions for or against, Secretary General’s remarks, which have come at a time when the tenure of the UNMIN is going to expire in a few months, has definitely raised the question of UN role in Nepal and its neutrality.
Secretary General’s report on Nepal was based on the briefing of UNMIN chief Karin Landgren, who flew to New York recently. This is not the first time that the world body has expressed its displeasure over the delay in Nepal’s political and peace process. Even in the past, the UN Secretary General had said that the comprehensive peace agreement was not fully respected and parties did not do enough homework to settle some of the vexing issues closely linked with the peace process. The timely writing of the constitution and completing the peace process requires these issues to be resolved earlier on the basis of consensus. What the UN Secretary General’s report has stated is the fact that Nepal needs a national government with representation of all political parties in the Constituent Assembly. There is nothing wrong in his saying.
Everyone both at home and abroad are talking of the national consensus and a national government. There is no denying the fact that the constitution writing and peace process cannot be accomplished successfully by marginalizing the largest political party in Nepal. Even the present Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and other leaders of the ruling parties have accepted this fact. But the question is about who should lead the government. Although the inherent meaning and intent of the UN chief’s report may not be bad, the timing when the remarks came was definitely not appropriate. The UN chief’s opinion came at a time when the Maoists are on war path with the objective of unseating the present government. The government of Nepal and ruling parties found ground to suspect UNMIN’s covert plan to poke nose in Nepal’s internal political affairs and indirectly back Maoists’ design.
The Secretary General’s report has stated that the delay was due to the behaviour and attitude of the political stakeholders of Nepal especially the political parties. However, he failed to mention that the role of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) was also partly responsible for the present mess Nepal is facing.
The UNMIN came to Nepal upon the request of the government and the political parties including the Maoists. As a neutral body, its role was defined to facilitate the peace process and monitoring the management of the Maoist arms and armies. However, it, too often, crossed its limitation and mandate and passed comments on several controversial issues ostensibly taking a side of one of the two parties involved in the conflict. This is a repeated mistake that UNMIN has made right from the beginning.
This is not the first time that UNMIN has come under criticism. Ever since the UNMIN came to Nepal, it has never been a neutral body but has taken this or that side which has been a subject of criticism. The present ruling parties had also severely criticized UNMIN’s role. A year ago, Sushil Koirla, in a public function, had accused the UNMIN of not being neutral. The Maoists, too, were very critical and even harsh towards the role UNMIN played and dubbed UNMIN’s role as biased and against its mandate. The Maoist general secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal had once publicly criticized the UNMIN for its role ‘as an activist rather than a facilitator’. Even our neighbours are not very happy with what UNMIN was doing in Nepal.
One interesting thing we have noticed right from the beginning is the fact that when one party criticizes the UNMIN the other comes to its rescue. When the Maoists were critical of the UNMIN, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML defended UNMIN’s role. Now the Congress and the UML are venting their ire against the UN, the Maoists have come forward to defend the world body.
When Ian Martin was the UNMIN head, he acted like a political leader and often made political statements. His role had been most controversial and his departure from Nepal had been a sigh of relief for many. It was expected the new UNMIN head would avoid the mistakes her predecessors had done. Although Landgren, by nature, prefers to remain in a little low profile, she followed the footprints of her predecessors. The current situation is its outcome.
As the role of UNMIN has not been satisfactory, its relevance now is under question. After the Constituent Assembly election, the role of UNMIN has been drastically reduced. The monitoring of the management of the Maoist arms and armies has been the main job UNMIN has been entrusted with at present. But this process has been too slow and no significance achievement has been made in managing the Maoist arms and armies. Looking at the progress and speed with which the process of management of arms and armies is moving forward, it looks that this issue is less likely to be solved soon. In certain cases, UNMIN itself has created some complications. Thus, the relevance of UNMIN is slowly getting over.
Now all the parties involved in the conflict are disenchanted with the UNMIN’s role, it would be wise if the mandate of the world body and its performance are seriously and thoroughly reviewed. As the UNMIN’s tenure is renewed and extended in every six months, the review of its mandate and role should be done before the tenure of UNMIN is extended again. If UNMIN is so controversial and its role not effective, it would not be wise to extend its tenure again.
The UN was and is involved in many conflict prone countries in the world. But the results are mixed. To be more specific, there are more failures of the UN involvements than success stories. The intents of the world body may not be bad. But the competence and intention of the individuals have played a big role in the success and failure of the UN missions. In some cases, UN involvement has made things even worse and more complicated than ever before. It is because the individuals in charge of such mission carried agenda of certain countries rather than the agenda of the United Nations. In Nepal too, the role and activities of some UNMIN officials especially during the Constituent Assembly had not been very welcome. The World body, therefore, must review its own activities rather than putting blames on Nepal’s political players.
Comments
Post a Comment