Nepal entangled with the United Nations

FROM ASIA TIMES

BY DHRUBA ADHIKARY

KATHMANDU: The wrangling in Nepal over forming an interim coalition to replace the government that quit on June 30 has projected some of the country’s politicians as small-minded, and seemingly unwilling to take the country out of its tension-fraught transition.

To make matters worse, some politicians have picked a quarrel with the United Nations, accusing its field mission of taking sides with former Maoist insurgents on the question of integration into the Nepal army.

The United Nations Mission In Nepal (UNMIN) was set up in early 2007 at the request of political parties, including the Maoists, to facilitate the implementation of a peace process that entered into a decisive phase at the end of king Gyanendra’s direct rule in April 2006.

The mission helped with elections in April 2008; its remaining job is to provide assistance that might be required in work associated with monitoring the country’s arms and armies, that is, the regular army and former Maoist guerrillas.

The UNMIN’s present mandate, which was initially renewed every six months, expires in mid-September. While the latest United Nations Security Council resolution to this effect was adopted in May, some political leaders and media outlets perceive that the UNMIN is looking for a pretext to prolong its stay indefinitely. Leading the vocal group is none other than caretaker Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who resigned as premier in June.

The group cites UNMIN’s publication of a 60-week work plan on the integration and rehabilitation of former combatants as glaring evidence of the UN’s real intentions. Two newspapers owned by one leading publisher printed the controversial work plan on July 9.

Sushil Koirala, head of the Nepali Congress, a party in the outgoing coalition, has publicly criticized the UN’s seeming “interference” in the peace process. He also used harsh words about the UN mission remaining tight-lipped over the “unabated violent activities” of the Maoists, even after their signing of a series of agreements aimed at ushering in an era of peaceful, competitive politics.

True, there have been a couple of incidents in which former rebels sneaked out of their holding camps and carried out violent attacks on civilians. While the UNMIN issued statements condemning such activities, officials at the mission have argued that they do not have the mandate or the logistical support to handle problems of this nature. Theirs is a political mission, not a full-fledged peacekeeping operation, they claim.

Meanwhile, Peace and Reconstruction Minister Rakam Chemjong directed a senior official to send an urgent missive to Karin Landgren, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon’s representative in Nepal, telling her how “deeply concerned” the government was over the work plan for former combatants, who number 19,600.

Landgren swiftly sent her response, with a clarification that her mission did not push through any action plan or roadmap for integration and rehabilitation; whatever was handed over to the leaders of three major parties was a “non-paper” that could be construed as reference material aimed at helping the parties make a decision.

A “non-paper”, according to a dictionary definition, is an authoritative but unofficial document that is often used to test the reaction of concerned parties. The term is frequently used by such bodies as the UN and the European Union. The timeline mentioned in the document indicated that it was “hypothetical”.

Subsequently, the dispute reached UN headquarters in New York, where associate spokesperson Farhan Haq told a media briefing on Monday that prior consultations with the main parties of Nepal about the non-paper with a timeline in it “had taken place with the full knowledge of the government of Nepal”.

The completion of the UNMIN’s arms-monitoring mandate, the spokesperson added, in large part was contingent on the parties agreeing on a plan to address the future of Maoist army personnel.

Back in Kathmandu, officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs appeared reluctant to talk about the issue as their ministry was not taken into the confidence of the political leaders.

Independent observers unhesitatingly ridicule the government for its ineptitude, but they also do not have kind words for the UNMIN.

Wittingly or otherwise, the UNMIN circulated a non-paper with a timeline of 60 weeks just eight or nine weeks before its own current term expired. Such an initiative was bound to create an impression that the UNMIN was keen to delay its departure. It could also be interpreted as a move to be sympathetic to the Maoists, whose desire is to have most, if not all, of their ex-combatants integrated into the Nepal Army – a proposition fiercely resisted by the army thus far.

The UNMIN is also aware that the extended tenure of the Constituent Assembly requires it to issue a new constitution by May 28, 2011. The new statute cannot leave any space for a provision that would allow two armies in one country. At this point, the UNMIN would certainly have outlived its purpose.

Some political parties perceived as pro-Indian believe the UN mission has already lost its relevance in Nepal. However, others want the UNMIN to maintain its presence until the ongoing peace process reaches its logical conclusion, believing it prevents interference by India.

“By displaying intolerance and arrogance towards the UNMIN, the incumbent government as well as non-Maoist political parties are proving their diplomatic immaturity,” said Kesharbahadur Bhandari, a retired army officer, in a comment printed in Kantipur newspaper on Thursday. It is an irony, he added, that these leaders tolerated the clear interference of diplomats from India but sought to humiliate UNMIN personnel.

Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist.