- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,988
UN prepares to withdraw from unstable Nepal
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - The peace process Nepal entered five years ago, ending a decade-long Maoist insurgency, is heading towards a crucial phase. But power-wrangling among politicians risks losing gains made in the intervening period. And as the United Nations' post-conflict mission prepares to withdraw, a sense of crisis is rising among the public.
Sensing popular resentment growing against the government, a visiting senior United Nations official issued a terse statement last weekend censuring politicians for their indifference to commitments they themselves made at the start of the peace process. The mandate of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is scheduled to end on January 15, 2011.
"I think it is evident to all of us that the peace process in Nepal is moving into a critical period," B Lynn Pascoe, UN under secretary general for political affairs, said on December 4. He urged Nepali leaders to move "very quickly" to resolve the issues of integration and rehabilitation of former Maoist combatants, power-sharing and the drafting of a new constitution.
The world body is obviously keen to be seen withdrawing in an orderly manner. Or else the mission could be blamed for leaving behind an intact fighting force of Maoists that could be used for leverage by their political wing, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). The Maoists have the largest party in the assembly, with about 240 seats in the house of 601 members.
During its four years of assignment, beginning January 2007, UNMIN often faced criticism of being too lenient towards the Maoists, whose Young Communist League has been frequently accused of terrorizing neighborhoods.
UNMIN is looking for a competent government agency to take charge of some 19,000 Maoist combatants, now sheltered in various camps across the country. While the government has formed a special committee, headed by a retired Nepal army general, it has yet to receive the all-party mandate it needs to start work on reintegrating the former militants.
The UN is also withdrawing in the midst of a political impasse. In June, former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned, but he was asked by President Ram Baran Yadav to remain in office as a caretaker. Yadav also instructed parliament to elect a new prime minister to head a government of national unity that would at least last until the new constitution - for a republic - is drafted by the end of May 2011.
However, after 16 attempts, parliament has not been able to choose a successor. Each of the three main parties has consistently refused to vote for other candidates, and votes from smaller parties were not decisive.
Jhalanath Khanal, president of the Unified Marxist Leninist party (UML), a moderate communist party, withdrew his candidacy when he saw that he could not secure the two-thirds majority needed to adopt the new constitution. Maoist leader and former premier Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, left the field when he realized that he could not collect votes to make up even a simple majority of 301. A third candidate, Ram Chandra Paudel, from the largest democratic party, Nepali Congress, ran 16 consecutive times, but could not garner enough votes.
Observers say Subhas Nembang, the House speaker, could have declared Paudel elected and directed him to seek a vote of confidence. But he instead chose to play safe, indirectly helping Nepal, a fellow party leader, to remain in power as caretaker.
A US$4.5 billion national budget was finally passed through presidential ordinance in late November, following a four-month delay when most government staff went without salaries. Maoist members of the assembly physically assaulted Finance Minister Surendra Pandey on November 19 as he presented a hurriedly prepared provisional budget to the assembly. This provided the caretaker prime minister with an excuse to request the president to end the session and allow the issuance of the national budget through an ordinance.
The next important deadline is May 28, for the promulgation of a new constitution for the "Federal Republic of Nepal". There are few historic reasons for confidence that the job will be completed on time. The constituent assembly, which was elected for a two-year term in April 2008, failed in its principal task. Instead, the assembly, with 601 members in a country of 30 million, extended its life on its own by another year. Questions pertaining to the legitimacy of this step continue to trouble Nepal's intelligentsia.
How and whether party leaders will be able to sort out scores of thorny issues ranging from federalism - based on ethnicity/language - to secularism is uncertain. In addition to these, a radical group within the Maoist party is determined to place Nepal under one-party rule.
Kathmandu-based diplomats representing Western countries and donor agencies have been visibly surprised over the lack of seriousness among the parties in power, as well as in the opposition, over the looming chaos and disorder. Eyebrows have also been raised over the premier's priorities. Ignoring even the president's advice, he has embarked on a foreign tour taking him to Russia, Cambodia and Belgium, attending international jamborees.
"The entire peace process may collapse soon," said Prakash Chandra Lohani, a member of the assembly. "The constituent assembly is rapidly losing its relevance and legitimacy."
"What are we going to do with an assembly which can neither elect a prime minister nor is showing any credible sign of providing the country with a new constitution on time?" asked Lohani, a former foreign minister, in an interview with Asia Times Online. A country overwhelmed by chaos and anarchy could unwittingly invite external intervention, he added.
While the Nepali people helplessly watch their leaders push the country towards the precipice, countries in the immediate neighborhood, India and China, too appear wary of consequences of an unstable Nepal.
"A political vacuum in Nepal is not in India's interests," said Indian writer Ashok K Mehta in a recent article published in The Pioneer newspaper. On the other hand, China's concern is particularly directed to "Free Tibet" activists. About 25,000 Tibetan exiles live in Nepal.
Mehta's suggestion for filling the interim vacuum is a mechanism made up of civil society members and retired Indian army Gorkhas (Gurkhas). Whether such a military-oriented instrument would be a viable means to achieve the goal remains unclear. And could Nepal's northern neighbor be comfortable with such an arrangement ? In view of China's assertive posture in recent times, this appears doubtful.
India also appears to be contemplating a review of its policy on Nepal. An indication to this effect surfaced on Thursday in the form of media reports saying New Delhi was sending a new ambassador to Nepal, replacing Rakesh Sood, whose brash style has not helped anti-India sentiments in the past couple of years.
On January 1, 2011, India will become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. China is already a permanent member. It will be useful to watch their attitudes and approaches when Nepal's case comes up for discussion - and decision. As UN official Pascoe hinted in Kathmandu, Nepal could soon be topping its agenda.
Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist. -Asia Times
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - The peace process Nepal entered five years ago, ending a decade-long Maoist insurgency, is heading towards a crucial phase. But power-wrangling among politicians risks losing gains made in the intervening period. And as the United Nations' post-conflict mission prepares to withdraw, a sense of crisis is rising among the public.
Sensing popular resentment growing against the government, a visiting senior United Nations official issued a terse statement last weekend censuring politicians for their indifference to commitments they themselves made at the start of the peace process. The mandate of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is scheduled to end on January 15, 2011.
"I think it is evident to all of us that the peace process in Nepal is moving into a critical period," B Lynn Pascoe, UN under secretary general for political affairs, said on December 4. He urged Nepali leaders to move "very quickly" to resolve the issues of integration and rehabilitation of former Maoist combatants, power-sharing and the drafting of a new constitution.
The world body is obviously keen to be seen withdrawing in an orderly manner. Or else the mission could be blamed for leaving behind an intact fighting force of Maoists that could be used for leverage by their political wing, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). The Maoists have the largest party in the assembly, with about 240 seats in the house of 601 members.
During its four years of assignment, beginning January 2007, UNMIN often faced criticism of being too lenient towards the Maoists, whose Young Communist League has been frequently accused of terrorizing neighborhoods.
UNMIN is looking for a competent government agency to take charge of some 19,000 Maoist combatants, now sheltered in various camps across the country. While the government has formed a special committee, headed by a retired Nepal army general, it has yet to receive the all-party mandate it needs to start work on reintegrating the former militants.
The UN is also withdrawing in the midst of a political impasse. In June, former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned, but he was asked by President Ram Baran Yadav to remain in office as a caretaker. Yadav also instructed parliament to elect a new prime minister to head a government of national unity that would at least last until the new constitution - for a republic - is drafted by the end of May 2011.
However, after 16 attempts, parliament has not been able to choose a successor. Each of the three main parties has consistently refused to vote for other candidates, and votes from smaller parties were not decisive.
Jhalanath Khanal, president of the Unified Marxist Leninist party (UML), a moderate communist party, withdrew his candidacy when he saw that he could not secure the two-thirds majority needed to adopt the new constitution. Maoist leader and former premier Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, left the field when he realized that he could not collect votes to make up even a simple majority of 301. A third candidate, Ram Chandra Paudel, from the largest democratic party, Nepali Congress, ran 16 consecutive times, but could not garner enough votes.
Observers say Subhas Nembang, the House speaker, could have declared Paudel elected and directed him to seek a vote of confidence. But he instead chose to play safe, indirectly helping Nepal, a fellow party leader, to remain in power as caretaker.
A US$4.5 billion national budget was finally passed through presidential ordinance in late November, following a four-month delay when most government staff went without salaries. Maoist members of the assembly physically assaulted Finance Minister Surendra Pandey on November 19 as he presented a hurriedly prepared provisional budget to the assembly. This provided the caretaker prime minister with an excuse to request the president to end the session and allow the issuance of the national budget through an ordinance.
The next important deadline is May 28, for the promulgation of a new constitution for the "Federal Republic of Nepal". There are few historic reasons for confidence that the job will be completed on time. The constituent assembly, which was elected for a two-year term in April 2008, failed in its principal task. Instead, the assembly, with 601 members in a country of 30 million, extended its life on its own by another year. Questions pertaining to the legitimacy of this step continue to trouble Nepal's intelligentsia.
How and whether party leaders will be able to sort out scores of thorny issues ranging from federalism - based on ethnicity/language - to secularism is uncertain. In addition to these, a radical group within the Maoist party is determined to place Nepal under one-party rule.
Kathmandu-based diplomats representing Western countries and donor agencies have been visibly surprised over the lack of seriousness among the parties in power, as well as in the opposition, over the looming chaos and disorder. Eyebrows have also been raised over the premier's priorities. Ignoring even the president's advice, he has embarked on a foreign tour taking him to Russia, Cambodia and Belgium, attending international jamborees.
"The entire peace process may collapse soon," said Prakash Chandra Lohani, a member of the assembly. "The constituent assembly is rapidly losing its relevance and legitimacy."
"What are we going to do with an assembly which can neither elect a prime minister nor is showing any credible sign of providing the country with a new constitution on time?" asked Lohani, a former foreign minister, in an interview with Asia Times Online. A country overwhelmed by chaos and anarchy could unwittingly invite external intervention, he added.
While the Nepali people helplessly watch their leaders push the country towards the precipice, countries in the immediate neighborhood, India and China, too appear wary of consequences of an unstable Nepal.
"A political vacuum in Nepal is not in India's interests," said Indian writer Ashok K Mehta in a recent article published in The Pioneer newspaper. On the other hand, China's concern is particularly directed to "Free Tibet" activists. About 25,000 Tibetan exiles live in Nepal.
Mehta's suggestion for filling the interim vacuum is a mechanism made up of civil society members and retired Indian army Gorkhas (Gurkhas). Whether such a military-oriented instrument would be a viable means to achieve the goal remains unclear. And could Nepal's northern neighbor be comfortable with such an arrangement ? In view of China's assertive posture in recent times, this appears doubtful.
India also appears to be contemplating a review of its policy on Nepal. An indication to this effect surfaced on Thursday in the form of media reports saying New Delhi was sending a new ambassador to Nepal, replacing Rakesh Sood, whose brash style has not helped anti-India sentiments in the past couple of years.
On January 1, 2011, India will become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. China is already a permanent member. It will be useful to watch their attitudes and approaches when Nepal's case comes up for discussion - and decision. As UN official Pascoe hinted in Kathmandu, Nepal could soon be topping its agenda.
Dhruba Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist. -Asia Times
