To be further clear: This is not because OHCHR has recently proved its worth. However, it needs to stay because there are no alternatives presently.[break]
This is the subtext of recent calls by leading Nepali human rights activists for OHCHR to remain in Nepal with its current mandate. At a recent meeting it was publicly declared that given the politically fragile environment and the fact that the peace process has yet to be concluded, OHCHR needed to stay. Tellingly, little reference in that meeting and in interviews concerning OHCHR’s mandate has been given to recent achievements of OHCHR. Much emphasis has instead been given to two issues: one is the strong possibility that the country will return to conflict and secondly, that the capacity and independence of the NHRC has yet to be built.
It has been clear that NHRC has been unable to perform to expectations. The OHCHR report to the Human Rights Council of February 2010 has noted that 75% of the cases referred to the NHRC by OHCHR (under new cooperation guidelines) have not been followed up on. There have been furthermore very public criticisms of the institution by NHRC commissioners themselves: Dr KB Rokaya has described the institution as “powerless” and “plagued with internal problems,” while Dr. Leela Pathak has alleged financial irregularity and gender discrimination.
External critiques from national human rights organizations in the past have noted the political party-based nature of the appointments, the commissioners’ overall lack of understanding of international human rights laws and the difficulties of working with NHRC. Alleged irregularities over hiring processes have only further hurt the institution’s credibility. Given all of this, to expect NHRC to be able to take-over the functions of OHCHR would be a grave mistake at this critical political juncture.
Arguments that OHCHR should remain but in a supporting role to NHRC appears logical at first. However, the issues remain the same. NHRC lacks the institutional capacity and the credibility to take such a lead. Who will monitor and investigate human rights abuses while NHRC’s capacity is being built at this crucial period? The 22 April, 2010 ACHR briefing paper on Nepal and the consequences of OHCHR’s withdrawal, notes that the lack of progress on the institutional capacity building of NHRC despite ten years of funding indicates larger problems of political will at the institutional and governmental level. These are unlikely to be solved by the $2 million capacity-strengthening project agreed to in July 2009 by international donors. ACHR calls for an independent assessment of past and current capacity-building projects and a review of the OHCHR and NHRC 2009 agreement which gives NHRC large monitoring duties.
There is a danger of seeing these projects as just development projects; but the costs of failure are clearly much higher here. The conflict - with its victims of extra-judicial killings, torture and disappearances - has showed us that much. This is precisely why these initiatives should be reviewed and why OHCHR should remain and retain its monitoring and protection roles, for which regional offices are essential.
This is not to take away from the fact that there has been widespread criticism of OHCHR from civil society. It includes the lack of attention and follow through on extra-judicial killings in the Madhes; the dearth of follow-up on past human rights violations; lack of consultation with national human rights organizations and overall little achievements to show for all its presence. Questions raised in the past concerning OHCHR’s strategy – including exit strategy - in Nepal have been met with a list of activities. Unsurprisingly, interviewed human rights activists have been hard pressed to defend OHCHR’s presence.
Key arguments for the extension of the OHCHR mandate in its current form by national human rights activists focus on the fragility of the peace process, weakening law and order situation, and worsening human rights scenario. While OHCHR’s recent past has little to show, it must be remembered that it played a critical role in the conflict. Its role in field based protection and monitoring was crucial and a return to these priorities is needed. As vital is the need to apply consistent pressure on the government to follow through on rights abuse cases in order to break the culture of impunity at the heart of the growing crisis in public security.
For all of this, a more politically attuned and responsive OHCHR is needed, one that is more active and more engaged strategically with Nepali human rights counterparts.
(Tamang is a political scientist associated with Martin Chautari)
Related story
This syndicated state
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
