UNMIN’s Role In Nepal
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, in his report to the Security Council on UNMIN, recently expressed his displeasure over the delay in Nepal’s political and peace process. According to him, the comprehensive peace agreement did not fully negotiate the future of the armies, but confined itself to defining the processes, which are yet to commence, with regard to both the special committees and the parallel commitment to an action plan for democratisation of the Nepal Army.
The Secretary General’s report states 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 just as responsible for this situation.
Heaping criticisms
Ever since UNMIN came to Nepal at the request of the Nepal government and the Maoists, the UN body has never been free from criticism. In the beginning, the Maoists were very critical of UNMIN’s role in Nepal, and some of the Maoists leaders dubbed the UN body’s role as being biased and against the mandate given it. At that time, the other major parties defended UNMIN and sought for its extended and active role in Nepal’s peace process.
When UNMIN came to Nepal, the peace process had just started. As per the tripartite agreement between the United Nations, the seven-party government headed by Girija Prasad Koirala and the CPN-Maoist, the role and responsibility of UNMIN were to monitor the management of the arms and armies. Later UNMIN acted with more enthusiasm and vigour, which gave new hopes to the people.
The enthusiasm with which UNMIN acted in the beginning sometimes went beyond its mandate. However, no political forces, except the Maoists, raised any concern about the role of UNMIN. The silence of the other parties could be understood because UNMIN’s activities were critical and opposed to the Maoists. During that time, a top Maoist leader, who is now in the cabinet, accused UNMIN of playing the role of an activist and opposition party rather than as an independent peace monitor. Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘ Badal’ even went to the extent of saying the relevance of UNMIN was over.
As the situation changed, so did the role of UNMIN. After the Constituent Assembly election was held and the Maoists came to power, differences were seen in the attitude and activities of UNMIN. Once critical of the Maoists, UNMIN’s position changed once the Maoists led the government. This change of role and position of UNMIN brought criticism from the other forces in Nepal.
The Maoists had always been critical of UNMIN. But in recent times, other parties, in particular the Nepali Congress, have also joined the bandwagon against the UN body. Its acting president, Sushil Koirala, is among the Congress leaders that has fired salvo after salvo at UNMIN. The Nepali Congress leaders if of the view that UNMIN has not acted fairly in Nepal. Referring to the woes of the people who were displaced by the Maoists during the insurgency, Sushil Koirala said that they have not been able to go home as the Maoists have refused to return their property, and due compensation has not been paid to them by the state.
It has been clearly stated in the peace accord signed between the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist in the presence of all the political forces, civil society and the international community that the seized property of the people would be returned to their legitimate owners, and the displaced would be allowed to return home and live a normal life. However, many displaced people are still living miserable lives in the district headquarters and in the capital.
Similarly, the recent remarks of UNMIN over the recruitment issue of the Nepal Army have also come under fire. Leaders of the other parties claim UNMIN kept quiet when the Maoists were recruiting people in its PLA whereas the same UN body has been critical towards the regular recruitment process of the Nepal Army.
So far as the recruitment issue is concerned, no side, Nepal Army and Maoists’ PLA, is allowed to recruit people in their armies. However, recruitment for the vacant posts does not violate the peace accord. The Maoists are now not in no mood of accepting the fact that the recent recruitment in the Nepal Army was compatible with the comprehensive peace accord.
However, Maoist leaders, including Prime Minister Prachanda, have time and again expressed the commitment to return all seized property to the owners. But, according to the victims, the Maoist cadres at the local level have not complied with the peace accords as well as the pledges made by their own leaders. It is not only the Nepali Congress but all the political parties, civil society and the international community that share a common view that the peace accord must be followed in both letter and spirit, and all seized property must be returned immediately.
Whatever the accusations or counter accusations, it is certain that the role of UNMIN has not been satisfactory. The peace process has been delayed not only because of the political parties but UNMIN as well. UNMIN has come under fire because it has failed in its responsibility that was clearly stipulated in the tripartite agreement. People are now raising questions as to how long UNMIN should stay in Nepal. The UN body, thus, has to make its timetable clear and specific. That would also give the political parties and the government of Nepal a clear message that the United Nations would take its hands off should the UN not act in time.
UNMIN’s relevance
The tenure of the UNMIN is being extended every six months, and for the first time questions have been raised about the sincerity and capability of UNMIN. The criticisms from all sectors are a testimony that UNMIN’s functioning in Nepal has some serious flaws and weaknesses. Since UNMIN has already lost its credibility and support of all the political stakeholders, the significance and relevance of UNMIN to remain any longer in Nepal is, perhaps, over. The crucial part is the management of the Maoist combatants. In this process, no development has been made. Even the political parties have yet to agree on a modality to manage the PLA fighters. Since UNMIN has little to do with the management of the PLA combatants except to monitor the peace process, there is little need for keeping a big mission in Nepal.
The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, in his report to the Security Council on UNMIN, recently expressed his displeasure over the delay in Nepal’s political and peace process. According to him, the comprehensive peace agreement did not fully negotiate the future of the armies, but confined itself to defining the processes, which are yet to commence, with regard to both the special committees and the parallel commitment to an action plan for democratisation of the Nepal Army.
The Secretary General’s report states 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 just as responsible for this situation.
Heaping criticisms
Ever since UNMIN came to Nepal at the request of the Nepal government and the Maoists, the UN body has never been free from criticism. In the beginning, the Maoists were very critical of UNMIN’s role in Nepal, and some of the Maoists leaders dubbed the UN body’s role as being biased and against the mandate given it. At that time, the other major parties defended UNMIN and sought for its extended and active role in Nepal’s peace process.
When UNMIN came to Nepal, the peace process had just started. As per the tripartite agreement between the United Nations, the seven-party government headed by Girija Prasad Koirala and the CPN-Maoist, the role and responsibility of UNMIN were to monitor the management of the arms and armies. Later UNMIN acted with more enthusiasm and vigour, which gave new hopes to the people.
The enthusiasm with which UNMIN acted in the beginning sometimes went beyond its mandate. However, no political forces, except the Maoists, raised any concern about the role of UNMIN. The silence of the other parties could be understood because UNMIN’s activities were critical and opposed to the Maoists. During that time, a top Maoist leader, who is now in the cabinet, accused UNMIN of playing the role of an activist and opposition party rather than as an independent peace monitor. Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘ Badal’ even went to the extent of saying the relevance of UNMIN was over.
As the situation changed, so did the role of UNMIN. After the Constituent Assembly election was held and the Maoists came to power, differences were seen in the attitude and activities of UNMIN. Once critical of the Maoists, UNMIN’s position changed once the Maoists led the government. This change of role and position of UNMIN brought criticism from the other forces in Nepal.
The Maoists had always been critical of UNMIN. But in recent times, other parties, in particular the Nepali Congress, have also joined the bandwagon against the UN body. Its acting president, Sushil Koirala, is among the Congress leaders that has fired salvo after salvo at UNMIN. The Nepali Congress leaders if of the view that UNMIN has not acted fairly in Nepal. Referring to the woes of the people who were displaced by the Maoists during the insurgency, Sushil Koirala said that they have not been able to go home as the Maoists have refused to return their property, and due compensation has not been paid to them by the state.
It has been clearly stated in the peace accord signed between the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist in the presence of all the political forces, civil society and the international community that the seized property of the people would be returned to their legitimate owners, and the displaced would be allowed to return home and live a normal life. However, many displaced people are still living miserable lives in the district headquarters and in the capital.
Similarly, the recent remarks of UNMIN over the recruitment issue of the Nepal Army have also come under fire. Leaders of the other parties claim UNMIN kept quiet when the Maoists were recruiting people in its PLA whereas the same UN body has been critical towards the regular recruitment process of the Nepal Army.
So far as the recruitment issue is concerned, no side, Nepal Army and Maoists’ PLA, is allowed to recruit people in their armies. However, recruitment for the vacant posts does not violate the peace accord. The Maoists are now not in no mood of accepting the fact that the recent recruitment in the Nepal Army was compatible with the comprehensive peace accord.
However, Maoist leaders, including Prime Minister Prachanda, have time and again expressed the commitment to return all seized property to the owners. But, according to the victims, the Maoist cadres at the local level have not complied with the peace accords as well as the pledges made by their own leaders. It is not only the Nepali Congress but all the political parties, civil society and the international community that share a common view that the peace accord must be followed in both letter and spirit, and all seized property must be returned immediately.
Whatever the accusations or counter accusations, it is certain that the role of UNMIN has not been satisfactory. The peace process has been delayed not only because of the political parties but UNMIN as well. UNMIN has come under fire because it has failed in its responsibility that was clearly stipulated in the tripartite agreement. People are now raising questions as to how long UNMIN should stay in Nepal. The UN body, thus, has to make its timetable clear and specific. That would also give the political parties and the government of Nepal a clear message that the United Nations would take its hands off should the UN not act in time.
UNMIN’s relevance
The tenure of the UNMIN is being extended every six months, and for the first time questions have been raised about the sincerity and capability of UNMIN. The criticisms from all sectors are a testimony that UNMIN’s functioning in Nepal has some serious flaws and weaknesses. Since UNMIN has already lost its credibility and support of all the political stakeholders, the significance and relevance of UNMIN to remain any longer in Nepal is, perhaps, over. The crucial part is the management of the Maoist combatants. In this process, no development has been made. Even the political parties have yet to agree on a modality to manage the PLA fighters. Since UNMIN has little to do with the management of the PLA combatants except to monitor the peace process, there is little need for keeping a big mission in Nepal.
Comments
Post a Comment