Miscarriage Of UN Mission In Nepal
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The recent remarks made by UNMIN’s Chief Karin Landgren in her briefing to the UN Security Council have caused a furor in Nepal. The UNMIN chief hinted at three possibilities in Nepal’s political landscape after UNMIN departs. The three possibilities that the UNMIN Chief forsees are an army coup, presidential rule or power seizure by the Maoists. These remarks have irked all the political forces and institutions including the president, the government, ruling parties and also the Maoists.
Landgren did not specifically mention these options. She said that there is a fear in the mind of the Nepali people about these three possibilities. By saying this, she wanted to amplify the significance and importance of UNMIN in Nepal. She also hinted that the people would be terrorised after UNMIN’s departure, which implies that UNMIN’s stay in Nepal was necessary.
Peace process
Her conclusion may or may not turn out to be true. But one thing is certain that the peace process and other activities related to the peace process would definitely be affected in the absence of UNMIN. There can be no better or a more neutral force than the United Nations to oversee the activities related to the peace process.
UNMIN is not directly involved in Nepal’s peace process, but it has an indirect role in facilitating the peace process. Its role and mandate are to monitor the arms and armies of both the state and the Maoist party. The management of the armies and arms is a part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which must be resolved to complete and conclude the peace process. If the Maoist arms and armies can be managed in an amicable way, the peace process can be completed soon. The other issues are not that contentious and can be resolved in no time once the management of the Maoist army is taken care of.
The Maoist combatants live in seven different camps which are being monitored by UNMIN. Once UNMIN departs, the monitoring and supervision of the camps and combatants would have to be shouldered by some other body, which must be agreed upon by the parties. So far, the parties have not been able to agree on a body to monitor and supervise the Maoist combatants and weapons.
The departure of UNMIN is now certain, and the UN body would not be here from the beginning of next week. So the political parties must agree on a mechanism to oversee the Maoist combatants and their armies. If the mechanism to oversee the Maoist combatants is not agreed upon prior to the departure of UNMIN, the situation could be precarious, and the country may return to the old days of conflict.
The departure of UNMIN is being taken by different parties differently. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are not happy with the presence of UNMIN because it was not doing what the government and the ruling parties wanted. They had been objecting to the role and activities of UNMIN for the last two years and have been accusing the UN body of being a mouthpiece of the Maoists.
In the beginning, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML had openly defended UNMIN while the UCPN-Maoist had opposed it. Some Maoist leaders had even demanded an early departure of UNMIN in the past, accusing it of not being impartial. However, the situation and position of the parties changed after the change of leadership in UNMIN.
Ian Martin, who first headed UNMIN, had the habit of reacting quickly and immediately even on issues that were not under the jurisdiction of UNMIN. Martin was more critical of the Maoists, which was why he was criticised by them and praised by the other parties.
When Karin Landgren assumed the responsibility of UNMIN replacing Ian Martin, the situation took a new turn. Landgren maintained a relatively low profile in Nepal. Her style of functioning was not appreciated by the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. But the Maoists found her more favourable.
UNMIN, thus, fell into the trap of Nepal’s political imbroglio and became its victim. As a result, the UN mission is being aborted in Nepal before its objectives could be achieved. This has definitely hurt the image and credibility of UNMIN. The UN mission started its work in Nepal not on its own but upon the written request by the two conflicting parties - the government and the UCPN-Maoist.
Thus, the United Nations, Nepal Government and the UCPN-Maoist are the three parties which agreed to establish the UN mission in Nepal to monitor the management of the arms and armies. The UN mission thus acted within the jurisdiction provided by the tripartite agreement.
But the decision to curtail the UN mission was taken by the government unilaterally. The Maoists are still demanding the continuity of UNMIN until the issue concerning the management of the arms and armies is resolved and the peace process concluded.
This is, perhaps, the first time a UN mission has returned without achieving its goal. This decision will have a negative impact on Nepal’s peace process besides tarnishing the image of the United Nations. The pullout from its mission without accomplishing its mandated task would be taken as the UN’s failure. This incident would also impact Nepal’s relationship with the United Nations.
The United Nations has been involved in Nepal’s development activities for a long time and its contribution has definitely been positive and praiseworthy. The recent decision about UNMIN will certainly not affect the development activities being carried out by the United Nations. But the United Nations would definitely think many times should Nepal again request the UN to get involved in its peace and political process.
Mending relations
The government’s decision to send UNMIN back is definitely not a positive move. The way Nepal’s parties and the leaders were involved in slamming the United Nations has tarnished Nepal’s image and credibility in the international arena. Since the decision has already been taken for UNMIN’s departure, it cannot be withdrawn. But Nepal needs to work cautiously and vigorously to mend its relationship with the United Nation so that the world body will be willing to help Nepal in time of need in the future.
The recent remarks made by UNMIN’s Chief Karin Landgren in her briefing to the UN Security Council have caused a furor in Nepal. The UNMIN chief hinted at three possibilities in Nepal’s political landscape after UNMIN departs. The three possibilities that the UNMIN Chief forsees are an army coup, presidential rule or power seizure by the Maoists. These remarks have irked all the political forces and institutions including the president, the government, ruling parties and also the Maoists.
Landgren did not specifically mention these options. She said that there is a fear in the mind of the Nepali people about these three possibilities. By saying this, she wanted to amplify the significance and importance of UNMIN in Nepal. She also hinted that the people would be terrorised after UNMIN’s departure, which implies that UNMIN’s stay in Nepal was necessary.
Peace process
Her conclusion may or may not turn out to be true. But one thing is certain that the peace process and other activities related to the peace process would definitely be affected in the absence of UNMIN. There can be no better or a more neutral force than the United Nations to oversee the activities related to the peace process.
UNMIN is not directly involved in Nepal’s peace process, but it has an indirect role in facilitating the peace process. Its role and mandate are to monitor the arms and armies of both the state and the Maoist party. The management of the armies and arms is a part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which must be resolved to complete and conclude the peace process. If the Maoist arms and armies can be managed in an amicable way, the peace process can be completed soon. The other issues are not that contentious and can be resolved in no time once the management of the Maoist army is taken care of.
The Maoist combatants live in seven different camps which are being monitored by UNMIN. Once UNMIN departs, the monitoring and supervision of the camps and combatants would have to be shouldered by some other body, which must be agreed upon by the parties. So far, the parties have not been able to agree on a body to monitor and supervise the Maoist combatants and weapons.
The departure of UNMIN is now certain, and the UN body would not be here from the beginning of next week. So the political parties must agree on a mechanism to oversee the Maoist combatants and their armies. If the mechanism to oversee the Maoist combatants is not agreed upon prior to the departure of UNMIN, the situation could be precarious, and the country may return to the old days of conflict.
The departure of UNMIN is being taken by different parties differently. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are not happy with the presence of UNMIN because it was not doing what the government and the ruling parties wanted. They had been objecting to the role and activities of UNMIN for the last two years and have been accusing the UN body of being a mouthpiece of the Maoists.
In the beginning, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML had openly defended UNMIN while the UCPN-Maoist had opposed it. Some Maoist leaders had even demanded an early departure of UNMIN in the past, accusing it of not being impartial. However, the situation and position of the parties changed after the change of leadership in UNMIN.
Ian Martin, who first headed UNMIN, had the habit of reacting quickly and immediately even on issues that were not under the jurisdiction of UNMIN. Martin was more critical of the Maoists, which was why he was criticised by them and praised by the other parties.
When Karin Landgren assumed the responsibility of UNMIN replacing Ian Martin, the situation took a new turn. Landgren maintained a relatively low profile in Nepal. Her style of functioning was not appreciated by the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. But the Maoists found her more favourable.
UNMIN, thus, fell into the trap of Nepal’s political imbroglio and became its victim. As a result, the UN mission is being aborted in Nepal before its objectives could be achieved. This has definitely hurt the image and credibility of UNMIN. The UN mission started its work in Nepal not on its own but upon the written request by the two conflicting parties - the government and the UCPN-Maoist.
Thus, the United Nations, Nepal Government and the UCPN-Maoist are the three parties which agreed to establish the UN mission in Nepal to monitor the management of the arms and armies. The UN mission thus acted within the jurisdiction provided by the tripartite agreement.
But the decision to curtail the UN mission was taken by the government unilaterally. The Maoists are still demanding the continuity of UNMIN until the issue concerning the management of the arms and armies is resolved and the peace process concluded.
This is, perhaps, the first time a UN mission has returned without achieving its goal. This decision will have a negative impact on Nepal’s peace process besides tarnishing the image of the United Nations. The pullout from its mission without accomplishing its mandated task would be taken as the UN’s failure. This incident would also impact Nepal’s relationship with the United Nations.
The United Nations has been involved in Nepal’s development activities for a long time and its contribution has definitely been positive and praiseworthy. The recent decision about UNMIN will certainly not affect the development activities being carried out by the United Nations. But the United Nations would definitely think many times should Nepal again request the UN to get involved in its peace and political process.
Mending relations
The government’s decision to send UNMIN back is definitely not a positive move. The way Nepal’s parties and the leaders were involved in slamming the United Nations has tarnished Nepal’s image and credibility in the international arena. Since the decision has already been taken for UNMIN’s departure, it cannot be withdrawn. But Nepal needs to work cautiously and vigorously to mend its relationship with the United Nation so that the world body will be willing to help Nepal in time of need in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment