By Anand Gurung

The Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal-led coalition government is not only grappling with the threat the nation-wide agitation waged by the UCPN (Maoist) pose to its longevity, but now it seems to be in a direct collision course with none other than the United Nations (UN), and particularly, the world body's mission in Nepal - UNMIN - whose mandate is to monitor the now increasingly difficult peace process after supporting Nepal carry out the Constituent Assembly elections.

The hidden tension between the two reached a peak point on Friday Nov. 6 last week when Nepal officially objected to UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon's report to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on the progress in Nepal's peace process.

Conveying Nepal government's reservation on references in the UNSG's report "implying parity between the regular National Army and the former rebel combatants living in the UN-monitored cantonments" and Ban's earlier call for a 'national unity government',  Nepal's permanent envoy to the United Nations Madhu Raman Acharya expressed his government's lamentation on UN not appreciating its 'sincere' efforts to resolve the current political impasse.

On UNSG's call for a national unity government, Acharya simply said, "The ruling parties hold the view that it is up to the parties and Nepal's sovereign legislature to decide on the type of government . They are always open on inclusion of all the parties in the government and have specifically asked the UCPN (Maoist) to join the coalition."

With great diplomatic dexterity, Acharya was only trying to tone-down the irritation of Nepal's ruling parties over Ban's expression, which they had described as an act of 'blatant intervention' in Nepal's internal affairs in a meeting a day before.

Stating that they have been trying to bring in other parties to the government, including the UCPN (Maoists), the parties asked why the UN had not called for a national unity government when the Maoists were in power.

"Forming a government is our task and not the UN, UNMIN or any international community," said Ram Chandra Poudel, the parliamentary party leader of main coalition partner Nepali Congress after the meeting.

The very next day, UN clarified UNSG's 'suggestion' as not an intervention in Nepal's internal politics.

Talking to reporters in New York Friday, UN spokesperson Michele Montas said it was intended "to encourage Nepal's political parties to achieve what they themselves have expressed about the desirability of a unity Government and does not in any way represent a form of interference."

However, UNMIN chief Karen Landgren was more critical.

Briefing the UNSC on Nepal's peace process the same day, Landgren accused Nepal's political parties of not being consistent with the commitments expressed in the peace agreements.

She told the UNSC that the peace process in Nepal "faced a protracted deadlock, with added risk of confrontation" due to this.

Landgren said that despite continuing efforts, the level of trust among the major parties continues to dwindle. She was particularly concerned about the Maoist protest programmes which she said "carry a significant risk of confrontation and violence" and stressed that there is urgent need to 'de-escalate' the tensions.

However, political observers believe that the dissatisfaction expressed by UNSG's top envoy in Nepal less than three months before UNMIN's term ends has only raised questions on UNMIN's future.

But while admitting that UNMIN's mandate cannot go on indefinitely, Landgren told the UNSC that it is difficult "to plot a structured exit for the UNMIN until the parties establish a clearer framework for cooperation , and find ways of moving forward on major elements of the peace process".

In a counter, Nepal's envoy to UN Acharya made it clear that Nepal intends to conclude the tasks of UNMIN by Jan. 30, 2010 till when the UN Mission is mandated to remain in Nepal.

"For that, the government of Nepal is committed to doing everything including reaching necessary political agreements required for the logical conclusion of the peace process," he said.

It could only be a coincidence but UNMIN's former boss Ian Martin was giving a lengthy - and to some extent revealing - talk at another venue in New York (excerpts of which was carried by Sunday's edition of the Kathmandu Post) the same day in which he basically asked whether the peace process in Nepal is failing; and if so, what needs to be done to save it.

Claiming that he no longer speaks for the UN on Nepal and was speaking "solely as a friend of Nepal", Martin claimed that the peace process [in Nepal] will not fail if certain fundamentals are addressed by the government as well as the UCPN (Maoist) and those were -- (A) Commitment to power-sharing and consensus; (B) Commitment of the Maoists to conform to democratic multi-party norms; (C) Commitment to transformation in the security sector; (D) Commitment to political, economic and social transformation; and "the fifth and last"  (E) Commitment to address the needs of victims of the conflict.

Meanwhile, back in Nepal, Landgren's assessment that Maoists' protests carry a significant risk of escalation of violence in the country is coming true.

Accusing the Maoists of violating the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) by starting their nationwide agitation, government ministers, particularly Defense Minister Bidya Devi Bhandari, who perhaps sowed the seed of renewed political confrontation with the Maoists by calling for the revision of the CPA to allow the Nepal Army to restart recruitment drive and buy ammunitions, has openly warned of army deployment to quell Maoist agitation if it turns violent and poses danger to civilian life.

And few days after the youth wings of ruling CPN-UML and main opposition UCPN (Maoist) clashed in some eastern Nepal districts district as the latter was organizing its nationwide protest programmes to uphold what they call 'civilian supremacy', Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal on Saturday warned that his party might not only declare autonomous states but also a parallel government if it has to wage third round of protests.

At another program the same day, NC PP leader Poudel again accused United Nations and its mission in Nepal of 'preaching' and meddling in Nepal's internal affairs coming under the influence of the UCPN (Maoist).

"UNMIN's duty is to follow its mandate and it should work towards it. It should stop preaching being carried away by the Maoist and improve itself first," Poudel said, and accused UNMIN of failing to properly verify and monitor the cantoned Maoist combatants.

In this outburst of Poudel there was inherent gripe of the democratic parties towards UNMIN's perceived soft-spot for the UCPN (Maoist).

This perception was supported to some extent by the remarks made by Maoist leader Lilamani Pokhrel in a separate programme on that day where he accused the ruling parties for criticizing UNSG's statement to promote the interest of India.

"India is hatching conspiracies to sideline the Maoist party from the peace process and prevent if from leading the national unity government," he said, "India doesn't want Nepal's peace process to succeed. They want to have a monopoly influence in Nepal by sidelining the UN."

The remark by the Maoist leader has only laid bare the already known but yet-to-be acknowledged dimension to the ongoing verbal to-and-fro between the 22-party coalition government and UNMIN - India's unhappiness with the continued presence of the UN in its 'diplomatic backyard' i.e. Nepal.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Write comment

Name: Email:   Title:   Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

View Comments	Search
As postings are shown online immediately, please be warned of offensive comments

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."