UNMIN's departure was In India's interest
Yuba Nath Lamsal
After a stiff debate and controversy, the political mission of the United Nations in Nepal or the UNMIN has finally packed up and departed. The UNMIN closed up its mission in Nepal not on its own volition but forced to do so simply because the Nepal government asked the UN body to pack up. The abortion of Nepal mission of the United Nations has raised a number of questions which neither the United Nations nor the Nepal government have been able to answer to the satisfaction of the Nepalese people and observers abroad. On its way out, the UN mission felt a big humiliation on the part of the Government of Nepal, as the Prime Minister of Nepal even refused to be a guest of honour during its flag downing ceremony held last Friday (January 14). Since the UNMIN worked in Nepal to facilitate the peace process, the Prime Minister should have shown minimum diplomatic courtesy by being present in the flag downing ceremony, which demonstrates diplomatic poverty of the present caretaker government. This shows that there was a virtual diplomatic war between the Nepal Government and the UN body.
The UNMIN did not establish its office in Nepal on its own but on written request by the two warring sides of Nepal—the Nepal Government and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or UCPN-Maoist. Accordingly, a tripartite agreement was signed among the three parties—the United Nations, Nepal Government and the UCPN-Maoist— in 2007, which specified the mandate, jurisdiction and working procedures of the UN mission. Despite some shortcomings, the UNMIN, on the whole, did its job in accordance with the mandate provided by the agreement. The monitoring of the Constituent Assembly election, peace process and management of the arms and armies were its mandate which it did successfully to a large extent. The most critical mandates given to the UNMIN was to oversee the disarmament of 19,000-plus Maoist combatants, as agreed upon in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) reached in 2006 between the Nepal Government and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists). The verification of the Maoist combatants was done under UNMIN's aegis that too can be taken as one of the key responsibilities the UNMIN discharged in Nepal. Accordingly the Maoists combatants have been kept in camps located at seven different parts of Nepal and their weapons locked in the containers monitored by the UN.
The job of managing the Maoist combatants has been the key issue at present which needs to be resolved if the peace process is to be completed successfully. The management of Maoist combatants was delayed not because of UNMIN but because of the wrangling of the political parties. The UNMIN is not the determining factor on Nepal's peace process. Nepal's political parties are the main players in determining how should the issues related to the peace process including the management of the two armies be addressed. Given the sea of mistrust that the parties possess against one another, the faltering peace process and other issues related to it may develop further complication in the absence of a neutral party to oversee and monitor as well as coordinate among the key actors in a more professional manner. The UN political mission, therefore, should have been here until the management of the Maoist arms and armies was complete and peace process concluded.
The circumstances that led to UNMIN's premature exit from Nepal has link to external factors more than the internal or domestic politics. It is widely believed in Nepal that India's hand was behind UNMIN's early departure. When UNMIN's finally closed down its office and prepared to depart from Nepal, Indian media hailed this move as a major diplomatic victory of New Delhi in the United Nations. India, right from the beginning, was against the involvement of the United Nations in Nepal's peace process. New Delhi claims that the peace process in Nepal started with India's midwifery role simply because the 12-point agreement between the seven parliamentary parties and the UCPN-Maoist was signed in New Delhi. By virtue of this, India wanted to meddle more in Nepal's political and peace process. By any means, India's effort was to send UNMIN back from Nepal.
In the beginning, all five permanent members of the Security Council were in favour of UN involvement in Nepal's peace process. The issue concerning the departure of UNMIN had been raised in the past as well. But the five permanent members of the Security Council were unanimous on the presence of the UN in Nepal, which resulted in the continuity of the UNMIN. However, the position of the United States and the United Kingdom changed for the last two months and they stood against the UNMIN's continuity. The changes of position of the United States can be attributed to Washington's South Asia policy shift. As a part of containing and encircling rising China, the United States has entered into a strategic partnership with India. Since then the United States had started looking at the South Asian affairs specially Nepal's affairs through New Delhi's eyes. In Nepal, Indian and American interests have converged that is to check the Maoist growth. This convergence of Washington's and New Delhi's interests worked in sending UNMIN back. While India toed US line in relation with China, Washington, in exchange, may have given up its independent policy on Nepal and supported India's policy. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, London does not go against the US policy.
Nepal's peace process is at the cross road. Given this situation, sending UNMIN back prematurely is not, at all, in the interest of Nepal. The government of Nepal and the ruling parties have taken this decision not on their own but being guided by the external forces specially India. This is a testimony to the fact that our parties totally lack their decision making power but act obedeintly in accordance with the instruction and advice of their external masters and mentors. The ruling parties have served the interest of India more than Nepal's national interest with regard to decision on UNMIN's departure.
The premature exit of UNMIN has raised a number issues. Firstly, it has raised the question of UN's independent decision-making capability. Despite support of three permanent members—France, Russia and China— and also other European countries for the continuity of the UNMIN, the US decision ultimately prevailed. The other three permanent members had also to give in to US pressure, which can be taken as a diplomatic failure of China, Russia and France. It shows where the decision-making power of the UN Security Council is. Secondly, the departure of UNMIN without accomplishing its mandated tasks has raised the question of capability of the United Nations in building peace. The decision of the Nepal Government to send UNMIN packing has failed the world body in peace building efforts in Nepal. By virtue of this, the UN has been proved to be an incompetent body.
By aborting UN mission in Nepal without achieving its goals, Nepal has, now, lost legitimate ground to participate in the UN peace keeping mission as it has proved the United Nation incompetent and unsuccessful in Nepal. It would be immoral to work under an incompetent organization. This would have negative impact on Nepal's role in UN peace-keeping mission, too. Nepal also has to rethink its foreign policy priorities and bases. Nepal's foreign policy is partly guided by the ideals of the United Nations Charter. The ideals of an incompetent and failed organization cannot be the bases of our foreign policy. Similarly, this decision of the Nepal Government to send UNMIN back without completing its tasks has definitely irked the world body. This would also have impact on Nepal's relationship with the United Nations. The United Nations has providing assistance to Nepal's social and economic development. The United Nation Development Programme (UNDP) is a major donor of Nepal. Since UN's ability and credibility in peace building was questioned, the global body may not be as supportive to Nepal as it was in the past. Moreover, there is no certainty that peace process would be concluded in time. If peace process fails and conflict escalates again, Nepal would again be forced to seek UN assistance for peace building. In such an eventuality, Nepal would lose ground to seek UN help and the world body would also think many times before it takes any decision to get involved in Nepal in future.
After a stiff debate and controversy, the political mission of the United Nations in Nepal or the UNMIN has finally packed up and departed. The UNMIN closed up its mission in Nepal not on its own volition but forced to do so simply because the Nepal government asked the UN body to pack up. The abortion of Nepal mission of the United Nations has raised a number of questions which neither the United Nations nor the Nepal government have been able to answer to the satisfaction of the Nepalese people and observers abroad. On its way out, the UN mission felt a big humiliation on the part of the Government of Nepal, as the Prime Minister of Nepal even refused to be a guest of honour during its flag downing ceremony held last Friday (January 14). Since the UNMIN worked in Nepal to facilitate the peace process, the Prime Minister should have shown minimum diplomatic courtesy by being present in the flag downing ceremony, which demonstrates diplomatic poverty of the present caretaker government. This shows that there was a virtual diplomatic war between the Nepal Government and the UN body.
The UNMIN did not establish its office in Nepal on its own but on written request by the two warring sides of Nepal—the Nepal Government and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or UCPN-Maoist. Accordingly, a tripartite agreement was signed among the three parties—the United Nations, Nepal Government and the UCPN-Maoist— in 2007, which specified the mandate, jurisdiction and working procedures of the UN mission. Despite some shortcomings, the UNMIN, on the whole, did its job in accordance with the mandate provided by the agreement. The monitoring of the Constituent Assembly election, peace process and management of the arms and armies were its mandate which it did successfully to a large extent. The most critical mandates given to the UNMIN was to oversee the disarmament of 19,000-plus Maoist combatants, as agreed upon in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) reached in 2006 between the Nepal Government and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists). The verification of the Maoist combatants was done under UNMIN's aegis that too can be taken as one of the key responsibilities the UNMIN discharged in Nepal. Accordingly the Maoists combatants have been kept in camps located at seven different parts of Nepal and their weapons locked in the containers monitored by the UN.
The job of managing the Maoist combatants has been the key issue at present which needs to be resolved if the peace process is to be completed successfully. The management of Maoist combatants was delayed not because of UNMIN but because of the wrangling of the political parties. The UNMIN is not the determining factor on Nepal's peace process. Nepal's political parties are the main players in determining how should the issues related to the peace process including the management of the two armies be addressed. Given the sea of mistrust that the parties possess against one another, the faltering peace process and other issues related to it may develop further complication in the absence of a neutral party to oversee and monitor as well as coordinate among the key actors in a more professional manner. The UN political mission, therefore, should have been here until the management of the Maoist arms and armies was complete and peace process concluded.
The circumstances that led to UNMIN's premature exit from Nepal has link to external factors more than the internal or domestic politics. It is widely believed in Nepal that India's hand was behind UNMIN's early departure. When UNMIN's finally closed down its office and prepared to depart from Nepal, Indian media hailed this move as a major diplomatic victory of New Delhi in the United Nations. India, right from the beginning, was against the involvement of the United Nations in Nepal's peace process. New Delhi claims that the peace process in Nepal started with India's midwifery role simply because the 12-point agreement between the seven parliamentary parties and the UCPN-Maoist was signed in New Delhi. By virtue of this, India wanted to meddle more in Nepal's political and peace process. By any means, India's effort was to send UNMIN back from Nepal.
In the beginning, all five permanent members of the Security Council were in favour of UN involvement in Nepal's peace process. The issue concerning the departure of UNMIN had been raised in the past as well. But the five permanent members of the Security Council were unanimous on the presence of the UN in Nepal, which resulted in the continuity of the UNMIN. However, the position of the United States and the United Kingdom changed for the last two months and they stood against the UNMIN's continuity. The changes of position of the United States can be attributed to Washington's South Asia policy shift. As a part of containing and encircling rising China, the United States has entered into a strategic partnership with India. Since then the United States had started looking at the South Asian affairs specially Nepal's affairs through New Delhi's eyes. In Nepal, Indian and American interests have converged that is to check the Maoist growth. This convergence of Washington's and New Delhi's interests worked in sending UNMIN back. While India toed US line in relation with China, Washington, in exchange, may have given up its independent policy on Nepal and supported India's policy. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, London does not go against the US policy.
Nepal's peace process is at the cross road. Given this situation, sending UNMIN back prematurely is not, at all, in the interest of Nepal. The government of Nepal and the ruling parties have taken this decision not on their own but being guided by the external forces specially India. This is a testimony to the fact that our parties totally lack their decision making power but act obedeintly in accordance with the instruction and advice of their external masters and mentors. The ruling parties have served the interest of India more than Nepal's national interest with regard to decision on UNMIN's departure.
The premature exit of UNMIN has raised a number issues. Firstly, it has raised the question of UN's independent decision-making capability. Despite support of three permanent members—France, Russia and China— and also other European countries for the continuity of the UNMIN, the US decision ultimately prevailed. The other three permanent members had also to give in to US pressure, which can be taken as a diplomatic failure of China, Russia and France. It shows where the decision-making power of the UN Security Council is. Secondly, the departure of UNMIN without accomplishing its mandated tasks has raised the question of capability of the United Nations in building peace. The decision of the Nepal Government to send UNMIN packing has failed the world body in peace building efforts in Nepal. By virtue of this, the UN has been proved to be an incompetent body.
By aborting UN mission in Nepal without achieving its goals, Nepal has, now, lost legitimate ground to participate in the UN peace keeping mission as it has proved the United Nation incompetent and unsuccessful in Nepal. It would be immoral to work under an incompetent organization. This would have negative impact on Nepal's role in UN peace-keeping mission, too. Nepal also has to rethink its foreign policy priorities and bases. Nepal's foreign policy is partly guided by the ideals of the United Nations Charter. The ideals of an incompetent and failed organization cannot be the bases of our foreign policy. Similarly, this decision of the Nepal Government to send UNMIN back without completing its tasks has definitely irked the world body. This would also have impact on Nepal's relationship with the United Nations. The United Nations has providing assistance to Nepal's social and economic development. The United Nation Development Programme (UNDP) is a major donor of Nepal. Since UN's ability and credibility in peace building was questioned, the global body may not be as supportive to Nepal as it was in the past. Moreover, there is no certainty that peace process would be concluded in time. If peace process fails and conflict escalates again, Nepal would again be forced to seek UN assistance for peace building. In such an eventuality, Nepal would lose ground to seek UN help and the world body would also think many times before it takes any decision to get involved in Nepal in future.
Comments
Post a Comment