NEPAL: Ugly Controversy over UNMIN Extension: Update No. 233

NEPAL: Ugly Controversy over UNMIN Extension: Update No. 233

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

With the term of the UNMIN invited by both the government of Nepal and the Maoist leadership, the extension with a restricted mandate now sought by the care taker Madhav Nepal Government has developed into an ugly and avoidable controversy.

With the peace process still incomplete and in the absence of even the first few steps being taken to close the PLA cantonments and with the arms of the Maoists still under PLA control, it stands to reason that the UN Mission should continue.

The Chief Representative of UNMIN in response to the request of Nepal Government to monitor only the arms of the Maoists, rightly came out and categorically too that it will be a violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Agreement on the monitoring and management of arms and armies. I tend agree with this position.

The letter to the UN sent rather too late, Prime Minister Madhav Nepal requested that the UN mission in Nepal may be extended for four months with an added request that the mission should focus on monitoring Maoist combatants and their arms. The letter was silent on the UNMIN’s responsibility to monitor the arms of the Nepal Army, but by implication it meant that the mission need not monitor arms or the Nepal Army.

In her report to the UN Security Council, Karen Landgren, the UN mission representative in Nepal made the following points.

The risks to the peace process and democratic governance in Nepal are real. The risks include unresolved leadership battle and no likelihood of delivering a consensus government for concluding the peace process.
Despite recent political tensions, Nepal’s peace process has not failed even though it has moved far more slowly and unevenly than anticipated by either of the parties or the mission.
The process can be brought back if the political leadership is ready to place this process at the front and centre of the political activity recognising that only through continued and persistent negotiation can it move forward.

The Secretary General in his report has said that he is not in favour of repeated extensions of UNMIN’s mandate in an atmosphere of persistent and unfounded criticism that complicates its ability to function.

He is reported to have recommended a ‘roll over’ to permit necessary discussion with a duly formed government in the context of the parties’ fulfillment of their commitments and in the phasing out of the mission.

His usage of the term of “duly formed government” has justifiably irked the present government of Madhav Nepal as it has questioned the “legitimacy of the present care taker government.” Other objections include treating on par the Maoist combatants with Nepal Army and the UCPN (Maoists) with that of the Government.

On the latter two objections, Madhav Nepal government should ask the previous Nepali Congress government led by G.P. Koirala as to why they agreed to treat the Maoists on par with the Nepal Army and why two similarly worded letters were sent to invite the UN. There is no precedence anywhere in the world where the army of the government was made to surrender for “monitoring” an equivalent quantity of arms given by the rebels. This gave a wrong impression that Nepal’s army was a “defeated one.”

It was no surprise that the Maoists have written a separate letter to the UN with a request to extend the life of the mission by another six months.

The seventh round of election to the post of Prime Minister went the same way as before with no result. The Maoist candidate Dahal obtained 240 votes in his favour against 119 received by his rival candidate from the Nepali Congress. The next round is scheduled to take place on 26^th of September though there is no hope of any consensus building up by that time!