UNMIN, Its Role And Irritants
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
Amidst appre hensions and reservations about its role, the caretaker government has extended the tenure of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) for another six months, while calling for a sharp reduction in its size. Although it has not been clearly stated how big it should be, it is a message to the UN mission that its role and activities are not wholeheartedly welcome in Nepal.
Objectionable role
The UN mission was established not on its own but at the request of the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist. Its mandate, as stated in the tripartite agreement among the Government of Nepal, CPN-Maoist and the United Nations, is to monitor the peace process, which includes aiding in the Constituent Assembly election and managing the arms and army of the Maoist.
One important chapter of the peace process has been complete with the successful conduct of the Constituent Assembly election. Nepal now is in the process of writing a new constitution, which is an even more important aspect of the peace process. But with the completion of the election, the role of UNMIN is almost over except for overseeing and helping in the integration and management of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and its arms, which are now confined to different cantonments.
Since the work of UNMIN has been drastically reduced from monitoring the peace process and holding of the Constituent Assembly election to facilitation of the management of the arms and armies of the Maoists, the number of its staff and size must be reduced. Although UNMIN was invited in good faith, its role has been objectionable to some of the political forces. The CPN-Maoist was at the forefront of inviting the UN mission to supervise the peace process in Nepal. But after UNMIN established its mission, some of its activities have not been appreciated by some.
Maoist leaders have been most critical of UNMIN’s role. Senior leader of the CPN-Maoist Ram Bahadur Thapa "Badal" openly expressed his displeasure with UNMIN’s role at a public function. According to Badal, UNMIN has been behaving more like an activist rather than carrying out its monitoring role. The Maoists are unhappy with UNMIN because of its activism and unnecessary interference in Nepal’s affairs. The Maoists are of the view that the peace process got delayed partially because of UNMIN. It could be a coincidence or pre-planned, but the voice of some Western powers and UNMIN tend to match vis a vis the Maoists in Nepal.
Even Nepal’s neighbours are suspicious about the role and activities of UNMIN. Both China and India are unhappy with the UN body’s presence and its activities. Both these countries hold a common view on UNMIN and want its early exit from Nepal. India’s displeasure with UNMIN is understandable as India’s perception is that UNMIN came to Nepal with an agenda of the Western countries, in general, and the USA, in particular. American presence in South Asia has always been unwelcome for India as New Delhi does not want any foreign powers meddling in its backyard.
US presence is already heavy and huge in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although US and Indian interests match in Afghanistan, New Delhi is wary of the American presence in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives and Bhutan. This is so for a number of reasons, including New Delhi’s desire to play the role of regional leader in South Asia.
Sri Lanka is an example of how the tussle between foreign powers has ruined the island nation. The conflict in Sri Lanka escalated over the years largely due to external factors. In the 1980s, Sri Lanka was a leading country in South Asia in terms of economic growth, education and other development indicators, and Colombo was looking for support and a partnership with the West to further speed up its economic growth and development.
The Tamils in northern Sri Lanka had started their movement for an autonomous state, but the movement was weak and feeble. Colombo mooted for a military and strategic partnership with the West and Israel in the early ‘80s to strengthen the capability of its armed forces to curb the simmering Tamil insurgency.
India was suddenly awakened by this move of the Sri Lankan government and saw the military and strategic partnership between Sri Lanka and Israel as a serious threat to India’s security as well as its desire to be a regional power in South Asia. India, thus, used the Tamils as an instrument to prevent the Western powers and Israel from coming to Sri Lanka. Similarly, the strong strategic, military and economic partnership between the US and Pakistan has always irked New Delhi. South Block is of the perception, wrongly or rightly, that Islamabad, with the backing of America, poses a security threat to India.
Thus, the strong presence and activities of UNMIN are unwelcome for India. Moreover, some Nepalese as well as our neighbours have dubbed UNMIN’s role more like a US mission than a UN one.
China’s ire against UNMIN can also be understood. The Chinese view on UNMIN is similar to that of India. China has been particularly vulnerable by the growing anti-China activities in the name of the ‘Free Tibet’ campaign. Beijing’s perceived view is that anti-China activities in Nepal have suddenly intensified in terms of volume and frequency after UNMIN came to Nepal.
Some of the remarks and activities of UNMIN’s chief, Ian Martin, have often come under criticism from different political parties. Moreover, UNMIN has not been able to live up to its promises and mandate. The election to the Constituent Assembly was held successfully not because of UNMIN but due to the will and commitment of Nepal’s political forces. So UNMIN has little to claim success in Nepal, especially in relation to the election and peace process.
UNMIN should be concentrating on managing the Maoist combatants and weapons. However, on this front, very little progress has been made. The living conditions of the Maoist PLA members are very poor. UNMIN has not been able to suggest any concrete ways to manage the PLA members, without which the peace process will not be complete and sustainable.
Deadline for UNMINAgainst this backdrop, the government has asked UNMIN to reduce its size. The UN mission cannot and should not stay for an indefinite time and must be given a specific timeframe to accomplish its job. UNMIN’s presence is an irritant for our neighbours, which ultimately may have some negative ramification on our relations with them, which Nepal can ill afford. Thus, the UN mission now needs to accomplish its job as early as possible and pack up.
Amidst appre hensions and reservations about its role, the caretaker government has extended the tenure of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) for another six months, while calling for a sharp reduction in its size. Although it has not been clearly stated how big it should be, it is a message to the UN mission that its role and activities are not wholeheartedly welcome in Nepal.
Objectionable role
The UN mission was established not on its own but at the request of the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist. Its mandate, as stated in the tripartite agreement among the Government of Nepal, CPN-Maoist and the United Nations, is to monitor the peace process, which includes aiding in the Constituent Assembly election and managing the arms and army of the Maoist.
One important chapter of the peace process has been complete with the successful conduct of the Constituent Assembly election. Nepal now is in the process of writing a new constitution, which is an even more important aspect of the peace process. But with the completion of the election, the role of UNMIN is almost over except for overseeing and helping in the integration and management of the Maoist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and its arms, which are now confined to different cantonments.
Since the work of UNMIN has been drastically reduced from monitoring the peace process and holding of the Constituent Assembly election to facilitation of the management of the arms and armies of the Maoists, the number of its staff and size must be reduced. Although UNMIN was invited in good faith, its role has been objectionable to some of the political forces. The CPN-Maoist was at the forefront of inviting the UN mission to supervise the peace process in Nepal. But after UNMIN established its mission, some of its activities have not been appreciated by some.
Maoist leaders have been most critical of UNMIN’s role. Senior leader of the CPN-Maoist Ram Bahadur Thapa "Badal" openly expressed his displeasure with UNMIN’s role at a public function. According to Badal, UNMIN has been behaving more like an activist rather than carrying out its monitoring role. The Maoists are unhappy with UNMIN because of its activism and unnecessary interference in Nepal’s affairs. The Maoists are of the view that the peace process got delayed partially because of UNMIN. It could be a coincidence or pre-planned, but the voice of some Western powers and UNMIN tend to match vis a vis the Maoists in Nepal.
Even Nepal’s neighbours are suspicious about the role and activities of UNMIN. Both China and India are unhappy with the UN body’s presence and its activities. Both these countries hold a common view on UNMIN and want its early exit from Nepal. India’s displeasure with UNMIN is understandable as India’s perception is that UNMIN came to Nepal with an agenda of the Western countries, in general, and the USA, in particular. American presence in South Asia has always been unwelcome for India as New Delhi does not want any foreign powers meddling in its backyard.
US presence is already heavy and huge in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although US and Indian interests match in Afghanistan, New Delhi is wary of the American presence in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives and Bhutan. This is so for a number of reasons, including New Delhi’s desire to play the role of regional leader in South Asia.
Sri Lanka is an example of how the tussle between foreign powers has ruined the island nation. The conflict in Sri Lanka escalated over the years largely due to external factors. In the 1980s, Sri Lanka was a leading country in South Asia in terms of economic growth, education and other development indicators, and Colombo was looking for support and a partnership with the West to further speed up its economic growth and development.
The Tamils in northern Sri Lanka had started their movement for an autonomous state, but the movement was weak and feeble. Colombo mooted for a military and strategic partnership with the West and Israel in the early ‘80s to strengthen the capability of its armed forces to curb the simmering Tamil insurgency.
India was suddenly awakened by this move of the Sri Lankan government and saw the military and strategic partnership between Sri Lanka and Israel as a serious threat to India’s security as well as its desire to be a regional power in South Asia. India, thus, used the Tamils as an instrument to prevent the Western powers and Israel from coming to Sri Lanka. Similarly, the strong strategic, military and economic partnership between the US and Pakistan has always irked New Delhi. South Block is of the perception, wrongly or rightly, that Islamabad, with the backing of America, poses a security threat to India.
Thus, the strong presence and activities of UNMIN are unwelcome for India. Moreover, some Nepalese as well as our neighbours have dubbed UNMIN’s role more like a US mission than a UN one.
China’s ire against UNMIN can also be understood. The Chinese view on UNMIN is similar to that of India. China has been particularly vulnerable by the growing anti-China activities in the name of the ‘Free Tibet’ campaign. Beijing’s perceived view is that anti-China activities in Nepal have suddenly intensified in terms of volume and frequency after UNMIN came to Nepal.
Some of the remarks and activities of UNMIN’s chief, Ian Martin, have often come under criticism from different political parties. Moreover, UNMIN has not been able to live up to its promises and mandate. The election to the Constituent Assembly was held successfully not because of UNMIN but due to the will and commitment of Nepal’s political forces. So UNMIN has little to claim success in Nepal, especially in relation to the election and peace process.
UNMIN should be concentrating on managing the Maoist combatants and weapons. However, on this front, very little progress has been made. The living conditions of the Maoist PLA members are very poor. UNMIN has not been able to suggest any concrete ways to manage the PLA members, without which the peace process will not be complete and sustainable.
Deadline for UNMINAgainst this backdrop, the government has asked UNMIN to reduce its size. The UN mission cannot and should not stay for an indefinite time and must be given a specific timeframe to accomplish its job. UNMIN’s presence is an irritant for our neighbours, which ultimately may have some negative ramification on our relations with them, which Nepal can ill afford. Thus, the UN mission now needs to accomplish its job as early as possible and pack up.
Comments
Post a Comment