The 22 ruling parties termed the SG’s statement as ‘blatant intervention’ in Nepal’s internal affairs. The parties felt that it was not the business of UN to give such uncalled for advice. They added that it was the primary responsibility of the national parties and Nepal’s sovereign legislature to decide on the type of government to be formed in the country. As if this was not enough, the government on Nov 6 officially objected to Ban’s report to the UNSC through its UN envoy, Madhu Raman Acharya.
Commenting on some of the above developments, UN’s spokesperson Michele Montas said that Ban’s remarks were merely aimed at encouraging Nepal’s political parties to achieve what they themselves had expressed: The need for a unity government. As such, Ban was in no way interfering in the country’s internal affairs.
UN has done a good service to Nepal. Could we have restored peace in Nepal even to the extent that it prevails now without UNMIN’s presence? Could Nepal have conducted the historic CA elections without its support?
What was it that made the government react so strongly against the SG’s statement? On the surface, it looks like that there is nothing wrong with the statement, except for the parity that has been drawn between the national army and the Maoist combatants. In his statement, Ban did not spell out if the national unity government that he talked should be formed under the leadership of Madhav Kumar Nepal-led government or under someone from the largest political party in Nepal. And the formation of a national unity government cannot altogether be ruled out as even the government has been requesting UCPN (Maoists) and other parties to join the government.
But then, why was it that senior Nepali Congress leader Ram Chandra Poudel went on to say that UNMIN’s duty in Nepal was just to follow its mandate and not to dance to the tune of a certain political party? On the other hand, certain leftist leaders even clubbed one of Nepal’s neighbors with those who questioned the rational of Ban’s statement. Political parties appear to be widely divided and so are many of the intellectuals on Ban’s remarks in regard to the formation of a national unity government and the issue of parity between the two armies.
It would be wrong if the government’s stand on Ban’s remarks is totally discarded. The government finds that the peace process has largely been sidelined despite the presence of UNMIN. The UN body was established in Nepal on Jan 23, 2007, through UNSC Resolution 1740, at the request of the Nepali government. Initially, UNMIN was mandated to work in Nepal for a year but its term was extended for the fourth time and is now mandated to stay in the country till Jan 23, 2010.
Possibly, this might not prove true for UNMIN but it often happens that international bodies in conflict-prone countries have a tendency to overstay as vested interests develop over a certain period of time. In Nepal’s case, many INGOs have entered into the country with the mission of establishing peace. But, what has been their performance? Is there any government apparatus to monitor as to what these so-called peace missions have contributed to the country?
In the case of Sri Lanka, peace remained a distant dream to the people until the government relied on foreign agencies and INGOs for their support. At times, the government and the people in Sri Lanka put a lot of faith on the Norwegian mission anticipating that a breakthrough would be made in restoring peace in the country. But, ultimately, their hopes were crushed. It is possible then that the government of Nepal and the political parties in power are suspicious of the role of foreign agencies in the peace process of the country?
What is needed for Nepal at this juncture is to evaluate the role of the peace missions operating in the country. Those organizations that haven’t delivered should be given a farewell. But organizations that have played a supportive role in the process should be welcomed.
So far as UN’s role in Nepal is concerned, it has done a good service to the country. Could we have restored peace in Nepal even to the extent that it prevails now without UNMIN’s presence? Could Nepal have conducted the historic Constituent Assembly elections without its support? Would it have been possible to throw the 240-year-old monarchial system in the absence of this body? And more than this, would it have been possible to monitor and manage arms and armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Maoist combatants without UNMIN?
UNMIN and other UN agencies have played a remarkable role and supported the people’s cause in achieving some of these landmark results. UNDP is also scheduled to launch a gigantic project in the Tarai for generating massive employment opportunities through its recovery program. The idea is to contain local conflict.
Under the existing situation, it would be unjustified if UN’s role in Nepal’s peace process, development activities and humanitarian support is undermined. It would have been better if the government and the political parties could have utilized the UN agencies in Nepal’s favor by extending a helping hand to this body in the execution of mandated work. Opposing this body just for the sake of it would not serve any purpose. We cannot question it until we really find some serious faults in its working style.
Since maintaining peace in Nepal is an internal affair of the people of the country, it would be fallacious to put the responsibility on any particular country or foreign mission such as UNMIN if we fail. We ourselves will be responsible for the success or failure of the peace process in the country.
(Writer is Professor of Economics and Executive Director of Centre for Economic and Technical Studies in Nepal.)
Related story
India labels UN report on rights violations in Kashmir ‘fallac...
