What After UNMIN Departs?
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The public opinion is divided over the role and function of the United Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) ever since it started operation in Nepal. This debate has been more intense and powerful at present. The UNMIN, too, is in dilemma whether the United Nations is to continue or abandon its mission leaving Nepal's peace process in totter.
The UNMIN did not come to Nepal on its own. The United Nations established its good office to facilitate Nepal's peace process upon request from the Nepal Government and the UCPN-Maoist. After the ten years of armed insurgency, the Maoists and seven parliamentary parties entered into an agreement on peace, political transformation and democracy. Accordingly the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the seven-party alliance and the CPN-Maoist which is the basis for the entire political and peace process in Nepal. Both the signatories of the CPA jointly requested the United Nations to monitor and coordinate the works concerning the management of the Maoist combatants and subsequently facilitating the peace process.
After the written request of Nepal government and the Maoist party, the United Nation signed a tripartite agreement with Nepal government and the Maoist party. The tripartite agreement has clearly specified the mandate for UNMIN to work in Nepal. Since the UNMIN's office was established with the tripartite accord, consultation and agreement among the three signatories are a must to take any kind of decision pertaining to the UNMIN.
However, the decision relating to UNMIN's term in Nepal was taken by the government unilaterally—that too by the caretaker government, which does not have authority to take decision on major issues that may have far-reaching impact. Prior consultation with the United Nations and approval of the Maoists are necessary to take decision on the UNMIN. Here lies the fundamental flaw in the decision of the government. The government is just one party and its unilateral decision cannot be binding for the UNMIN. If the decision is to be made binding, approval of at least two of the three signatories is needed.
Moreover, the job for which the UNMIN was brought to Nepal has not been accomplished. The tripartite agreement on the monitoring of management of arms and armies has clearly stated the role and responsibility of the UNMIN. But the work concerning the management of the Maoist army and their arms, as specified by the tripartite agreement, has not been completed. The UNMIN has, so far, been able to verify the eligible combatants and unqualified combatants including the minors have been discharged from the camps. The verified combatants are living in the seven different camps n different parts of the country which are being supervised by the UNMIN. Similarly, the weapons of the combatants are kept in the containers which are also being monitored by the UNMIN. It has not yet been decided as to what should be done for the verified combatants and their weapons. Unless this issue is finalized, the role of UNMIN would not be complete and the UN mission needs to stay here in Nepal.
The delay in finding an amicable solution to the Maoist combatants and their arms is not due to the UNMIN. The inability of the political parties to arrive at a conclusion, the issue of combatants and their weapons has remained pending. The crux of the problem lies on the modality of the management of the combatants. The political parties have different and diversified views on this issue. The Maoists are consistent enough in their stance that all the verified combatants are eligible soldiers and they should be integrated into the national security agencies mainly the Nepal Army. However, other parties specially the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are opposed to this view and said that the fighters of a particular party should not be integrated into the national armed force. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are of the view that the combatants are to be rehabilitated back to the society, which is not acceptable to the UCPN-Maoist.
Some parties hold the UNMIN responsible for the delay in management of the Maoist fighters, which is totally unfounded. The role of UNMIN is not questionable. However, the activities of UNMIN in the past have definitely been subject of criticism. In the beginning, UNMIN acted as though it was here to impose its decisions on Nepali government and political parties. The then UNMIN chief Ian Martin was mainly responsible for this and his speeches and activities were not found totally neutral and professional. However, the UNMIN's posture after Martin's departure has definitely improved, thanks to cautious and low key posture maintained by current UNMIN chief Karen Landgren.
The debate whether UNMIN should remain in Nepal until the peace process comes to conclusion is more raging at present. The government of Nepal has already asked the United Nations Security Council that the extension of UNMIN is the final and the UN mission has to pack up upon expiry of its extended time, which is going to be over within less than a month. The United Nations might not have been happy with the decision of Nepal government. Closing its office before its objectives are achieved would definitely be embarrassing to the United Nations which would provide more ground to the critics of the United Nations over its ability and competence.
The political parties are aware that there cannot be more neutral and competent body than the United Nations to oversee Nepal's peace process and the management of the Maoist combatants. Although some political parties have claimed that they would create an effective mechanism to take over UNMIN's job, their ability is questionable. Since the political parties have not been able to form a new government even in five months, how people and the international community should believe that the same parties and politicians would handle such a complicated and delicate job of management of the combatants and weapons.
The parties know that they are not competent enough to do this job. Despite knowing this fact, the parties are demanding the departure of UNMIN. This shows that the parties are not doing it on their own but under pressure or advice from others—possibly the external forces as they are not happy with the UNMIN's presence in Nepal. Once UNMIN departs, certain external forces that have vested interest in Nepal would start poking their nose in Nepal's peace process and army management.
Now the Maoists are pushing for another extension of UNMIN's tenure at least until May 28. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal is against extension of the UNMIN while the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML want reduced mandate of the UNMIN if its tenure is to be extended. This shows that the parties still want UNMIN's need in Nepal.
Moreover, this is the question related to Nepal's relations with the United Nations. Sending UNMIN without achieving the objective for which the UN mission was established would not only embarrass the United Nations but also raise question of Nepal's credibility in the UN forum. The United Nation is the world body which has been active in peace building in different troubled spots in the world. If there are any apprehensions about UNMIN's role and activities in Nepal, it can be raised with the United Nations Security Council through a proper channel and get them settled through mutual dialogue and negotiation. But the decision on UNMIN taken by the government is influenced more by the partisan interests and internal political disputes than Nepal's overall national interests and necessity.
Against this background, the parties are, thus, expected to consult one another and reach a certain conclusion on UNMIN so that there is a united voice of Nepal in the UN. In a democracy, partisan differences are natural but such differences should not influence the relationship with other countries and the international organizations like the United Nations. Now the parties need to tell the people frankly how they would exactly resolve the issue of the Maoist combatants and give a specific time table and plan on the basis of consensus among the major parties. But the parties are not in a position to trust one another and arrive at a mutually agreed conclusion on this issue. This scenario is a testimony that the role of the United Nation is still necessary in Nepal and UNMIN should stay until the peace process takes a concrete shape.
The public opinion is divided over the role and function of the United Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) ever since it started operation in Nepal. This debate has been more intense and powerful at present. The UNMIN, too, is in dilemma whether the United Nations is to continue or abandon its mission leaving Nepal's peace process in totter.
The UNMIN did not come to Nepal on its own. The United Nations established its good office to facilitate Nepal's peace process upon request from the Nepal Government and the UCPN-Maoist. After the ten years of armed insurgency, the Maoists and seven parliamentary parties entered into an agreement on peace, political transformation and democracy. Accordingly the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the seven-party alliance and the CPN-Maoist which is the basis for the entire political and peace process in Nepal. Both the signatories of the CPA jointly requested the United Nations to monitor and coordinate the works concerning the management of the Maoist combatants and subsequently facilitating the peace process.
After the written request of Nepal government and the Maoist party, the United Nation signed a tripartite agreement with Nepal government and the Maoist party. The tripartite agreement has clearly specified the mandate for UNMIN to work in Nepal. Since the UNMIN's office was established with the tripartite accord, consultation and agreement among the three signatories are a must to take any kind of decision pertaining to the UNMIN.
However, the decision relating to UNMIN's term in Nepal was taken by the government unilaterally—that too by the caretaker government, which does not have authority to take decision on major issues that may have far-reaching impact. Prior consultation with the United Nations and approval of the Maoists are necessary to take decision on the UNMIN. Here lies the fundamental flaw in the decision of the government. The government is just one party and its unilateral decision cannot be binding for the UNMIN. If the decision is to be made binding, approval of at least two of the three signatories is needed.
Moreover, the job for which the UNMIN was brought to Nepal has not been accomplished. The tripartite agreement on the monitoring of management of arms and armies has clearly stated the role and responsibility of the UNMIN. But the work concerning the management of the Maoist army and their arms, as specified by the tripartite agreement, has not been completed. The UNMIN has, so far, been able to verify the eligible combatants and unqualified combatants including the minors have been discharged from the camps. The verified combatants are living in the seven different camps n different parts of the country which are being supervised by the UNMIN. Similarly, the weapons of the combatants are kept in the containers which are also being monitored by the UNMIN. It has not yet been decided as to what should be done for the verified combatants and their weapons. Unless this issue is finalized, the role of UNMIN would not be complete and the UN mission needs to stay here in Nepal.
The delay in finding an amicable solution to the Maoist combatants and their arms is not due to the UNMIN. The inability of the political parties to arrive at a conclusion, the issue of combatants and their weapons has remained pending. The crux of the problem lies on the modality of the management of the combatants. The political parties have different and diversified views on this issue. The Maoists are consistent enough in their stance that all the verified combatants are eligible soldiers and they should be integrated into the national security agencies mainly the Nepal Army. However, other parties specially the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are opposed to this view and said that the fighters of a particular party should not be integrated into the national armed force. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are of the view that the combatants are to be rehabilitated back to the society, which is not acceptable to the UCPN-Maoist.
Some parties hold the UNMIN responsible for the delay in management of the Maoist fighters, which is totally unfounded. The role of UNMIN is not questionable. However, the activities of UNMIN in the past have definitely been subject of criticism. In the beginning, UNMIN acted as though it was here to impose its decisions on Nepali government and political parties. The then UNMIN chief Ian Martin was mainly responsible for this and his speeches and activities were not found totally neutral and professional. However, the UNMIN's posture after Martin's departure has definitely improved, thanks to cautious and low key posture maintained by current UNMIN chief Karen Landgren.
The debate whether UNMIN should remain in Nepal until the peace process comes to conclusion is more raging at present. The government of Nepal has already asked the United Nations Security Council that the extension of UNMIN is the final and the UN mission has to pack up upon expiry of its extended time, which is going to be over within less than a month. The United Nations might not have been happy with the decision of Nepal government. Closing its office before its objectives are achieved would definitely be embarrassing to the United Nations which would provide more ground to the critics of the United Nations over its ability and competence.
The political parties are aware that there cannot be more neutral and competent body than the United Nations to oversee Nepal's peace process and the management of the Maoist combatants. Although some political parties have claimed that they would create an effective mechanism to take over UNMIN's job, their ability is questionable. Since the political parties have not been able to form a new government even in five months, how people and the international community should believe that the same parties and politicians would handle such a complicated and delicate job of management of the combatants and weapons.
The parties know that they are not competent enough to do this job. Despite knowing this fact, the parties are demanding the departure of UNMIN. This shows that the parties are not doing it on their own but under pressure or advice from others—possibly the external forces as they are not happy with the UNMIN's presence in Nepal. Once UNMIN departs, certain external forces that have vested interest in Nepal would start poking their nose in Nepal's peace process and army management.
Now the Maoists are pushing for another extension of UNMIN's tenure at least until May 28. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal is against extension of the UNMIN while the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML want reduced mandate of the UNMIN if its tenure is to be extended. This shows that the parties still want UNMIN's need in Nepal.
Moreover, this is the question related to Nepal's relations with the United Nations. Sending UNMIN without achieving the objective for which the UN mission was established would not only embarrass the United Nations but also raise question of Nepal's credibility in the UN forum. The United Nation is the world body which has been active in peace building in different troubled spots in the world. If there are any apprehensions about UNMIN's role and activities in Nepal, it can be raised with the United Nations Security Council through a proper channel and get them settled through mutual dialogue and negotiation. But the decision on UNMIN taken by the government is influenced more by the partisan interests and internal political disputes than Nepal's overall national interests and necessity.
Against this background, the parties are, thus, expected to consult one another and reach a certain conclusion on UNMIN so that there is a united voice of Nepal in the UN. In a democracy, partisan differences are natural but such differences should not influence the relationship with other countries and the international organizations like the United Nations. Now the parties need to tell the people frankly how they would exactly resolve the issue of the Maoist combatants and give a specific time table and plan on the basis of consensus among the major parties. But the parties are not in a position to trust one another and arrive at a mutually agreed conclusion on this issue. This scenario is a testimony that the role of the United Nation is still necessary in Nepal and UNMIN should stay until the peace process takes a concrete shape.
Comments
Post a Comment