Nepal celebrated the CPA Day on Friday amidst widespread concerns over the future of the peace process. The protracted and extreme political deadlock resulting from the Maoist act of disruption of the parliamentary proceedings and failure of the political parties to forge consensus to address Maoists’ demand for restoration of civilian supremacy have thickened the cloud of uncertainty over future course of the peace process.
Many commitments expressed in the CPA have remained unfulfilled. The uphill task of reintegration and rehabilitation of the ex-Maoist combatants has been very slow. The ongoing process of discharge and rehabilitation of disqualified Maoist ex-combatants has hit a deadlock as a result of differences over rehabilitation packages.
Amidst this situation, the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), a special UN political mission, has been working in Nepal since January 2007 to support the peace process. Myrepublica.com talked to UNMIN Chief Karin Landgren on the future of the peace process and other issues related to UNMIN.
Excerpts:
Myrepublica.com: Where does the peace process stand at present?
Karin Landgren: As we speak on this day i.e. Nov 19, Nepal’s peace process and Nepal’s democratic transition is in quite a critical phase. The budget needs to be passed as a matter of urgency. I hope on the 21st of November, on the third anniversary of the signing of the CPA, we will be able to look back with relief and say that this issue was resolved in a democratic way in the interest of Nepal. Today, however, I am very concerned of the continuing divisions among the parties and all my encouragement is with the leaders who are meeting to resolve the question of allowing the legislature-parliament to open and pass the budget.
Myrepublica.com: Would you please be more specific on what you mean when you say the peace process and democratic transition is in a critical phase?
Landgren: Several core peace process issues remain to be resolved, including the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel. Instead, there is deadlock: Even the national budget cannot be passed. There are serious ongoing efforts to find a solution but it seems symptomatic of a wider difficulty in the peace process. Day-to-day politics, including internal party politics, have consumed so much energy that it has left major issues on the back burner.
.jpg)
Myrepublica.com: There are also growing concerns that the peace process might fail. What is your assessment?
Landgren: The peace process will not fail if the top leaders take certain steps. That includes dedicating major time to resolving specific issues, especially those issues on which the parties have fundamental differences. Despite being “comprehensive”, the CPA left many matters unresolved. So, right now, there are critical constitutional issues, especially relating to the federal structure of the country and the system of governance; there is a question of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel; there is the right-sizing and democratization of the Nepal Army. It is time to look again at the commitments that were made in the CPA and assess what progress there has been, in an impartial manner, not in a way that sets off a fresh round of accusations. As UNMIN has pointed out in the past, one element in the stalemate and deteriorating relationships is the failure systematically to review implementation of past promises. The CPA foresaw monitoring mechanisms but apart from the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee chaired by UNMIN for monitoring and management of arms and armies, no monitoring bodies have been set up. It may sound bureaucratic but the lack of reliable and systematic monitoring has created a big gap in the peace process.
"It may sound too bureaucratic but the lack of reliable and systematic monitoring has created a big gap in the peace process."
Myrepublica.com: Many commitments mentioned in the CPA have not been implemented. What is your take in this regard?
Landgren: That is correct. Many of the commitments outlined in the CPA remain unfulfilled. There have been additional agreements reached since the signing of the CPA, including for example agreement with various armed groups. Many agreements are signed and then put in storage. This creates fresh grievances. This is also why we strongly urge a review of what has been implemented and what has not to prompt some action on the unfulfilled commitments.
Myrepublica.com: In recent times, there have been calls for a revision of the CPA. Is this the right thing to do?
Landgren: The CPA can be revised if all parties agree to it and I have asked the leaders of the main parties about it but they all say that they do not want revision at this time. This seems wise. All efforts now need to be towards implementing it rather than towards changing it.
Myrepublica.com: Despite your repeated call for expediting the works of the Special Committee, there has not been much progress in that direction. Do you think it will impact the extension of UNMIN’s next mandate?
Landgren: The work of the Special Committee on Supervising, Integrating and Rehabilitating Maoist army personnel is central to resolving one of the main elements in the peace process. As can you see from my briefing to the Security Council, we are disappointed at the slow pace of work of the Special Committee. This issue has direct bearing on the completion of UNMIN’s tasks. The prime minister (PM) told me this morning that he gives topmost priority to this. He has some ideas himself on how this could be moved forward and says he is ready to meet with other party leaders to come to a decision on integration and rehabilitation. These are complex issues, needing political decisions. I told the Security Council that it is very difficult for us to plot a structured exit for UNMIN in the absence of some of these political decisions. The matter of UNMIN’s mandate is for the government and parties to consider.
Myrepublica.com: Your reports to the Security Council have been criticized time and again for failing to accurately represent Nepal’s situation. What is your defense in this regard?
Landgren: The PM told me this morning that everyone listens very carefully to the words of the UN and that is something we value and what makes it possible for the UN to assist Nepal’s peace process. The main comment I would make is: Please read the reports and form your own conclusions on whether or not you think they give an accurate picture of the situation in Nepal. What the Security Council expects from the Secretary General’s reports, and from our quarterly briefings, is an honest assessment of the situation.
Myrepublica.com: In your opinion, what led to some factual errors slip in the reports to the Security Council in May and in October?
Landgren: Well, I do not believe that our reports are factually inaccurate. I believe our reports are accurate. Is there anything specific that you want to point out?
Myrepublica.com: In your recent report to the Security Council, for instance, you said that “The Constitutional Committee has the responsibility within the Constituent Assembly of ensuring that a new constitution is promulgated by 28 May, 2010. The committee revised the schedule for the sixth time…” The committee’s chairman has already criticized your office for this error. Similar inaccurate facts were also pointed out by different political parties in your May report.
Landgren: In the report I read, the chairman quoted something that differed from the actual language of the report. The responsibility is with the CA for promulgating the constitution within the deadline. Within the various committees, the constitutional committee has the major responsibility. I would be very disappointed if anyone thought UNMIN did not understand the mechanics of the constitution-drafting process in Nepal. I am always open to hearing any comments the parties have about how we portray the situation in Nepal. And what I would also underline is that many members of the Security Council are represented here in Kathmandu and it is clear to me that what the UN conveys to the Security Council is consistent with what they are reporting back to their representatives in New York.
Myrepublica.com: How is the UNMIN’s relationship with the parties in the ruling coalition after they publicly criticized the UN Secretary General’s call for a unity government in Nepal? Have you done anything to reach out to those parties?
Landgren: UNMIN always has had a close dialogue with all the parties and that is an important aspect of how we work here. The relationship with the parties is positive and it’s consistent. I met many of the party leaders since I returned from New York. The Secretary General responded through his spokesperson on the matter of his observation in the latest report.
Myrepublica.com: The PM also stressed on the need for the impartiality of your office during his meeting with you this [Thursday] morning.
Landgren: We agree on that. We had a warm and cordial meeting and talked about ways of taking the peace process forward. I reminded him that UNMIN is now nine weeks away from the end of its mandate. We will, of course, encourage and support the process in any way we can. I can only underline to all the parties that our role is an impartial one.
Myrepublica.com: There are also growing voices for vetting of the Maoist combatants on human rights grounds before they are integrated into national security forces. Does UNMIN have any stance on this issue?
Landgren: The accountability question is an important part of trying to heal the wounds of war. People who have been through a war have every right to demand accountability from those who violated human rights and committed acts of violence. Both OHCHR and UNMIN have drawn attention to the problem of impunity. We have continued to call on both the Maoist leadership and the Nepal Army to address the unresolved cases in their past, especially some of the most prominent cases, for example the killings of Ram Hari Shrestha and of Maina Sunawar. We have also raised other cases. This is not a matter of finger-pointing but of resolving the wrongs of the past. Vetting should be routine, with an independent and impartial service to review any allegations of human rights abuses by military actors. It is particularly important in the context of Nepal’s significant contribution to United Nations’ peacekeeping operations.
Myrepublica.com: The Maoists have been pressing for cash incentives for their disqualified combatants. What is UNMIN’s stance on this?
Landgren: The UN’s stance on cash assistance is based on lessons learned all over the world through many years. The lesson is clear: For former combatants to have a successful future life and successful social reintegration, cash is not the answer. Because experiences with cash handouts have been bad worldwide, we do not want to support a repeat here. Also, for the former child soldiers, discharge arrangements should be in line with international standards and good practices, including international monitoring. An internationally-accepted discharge process is vital to getting the UCPN (Maoist) removed from the Secretary General’s list of parties to conflict that use children.
Myrepublica.com: Finally, what should be done to save the peace process and ensure the smooth progress in the process?
Landgren: The primary need now is to deescalate the tensions and find a framework for moving forward by consensus. The Security Council has supported certain recommendations and one of them is the high-level political mechanism, an idea that came from some of the parties. Leaders can lead the process only by sitting together regularly. This is not as simple as it sounds but progress can come if the senior leaders meet routinely to address the key peace process issues, not the tactical issues, not more superficial issues but core constitutional questions, the functioning of the parliament, federalism, et al. These issues need a serious investment of time among the top leaders and our recommendation is that this take place in a regular, structured way. The PM mentioned to me that the informal taskforce has been meeting intensively in the last few days. Why not turn this into a structured and organized mechanism?
kiran@myrepublica.com
Related story
Is Critical Thinking Really Critical?
