Opinion In Nepal,the UN’s mission is far from accomplished

The United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN),which stayed here for four long years,is all set to pack off. The UNMIN had been a great hope,its presence separately requested by the government headed by G.P. Koirala and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (CPN-M) in the second quarter of 2006,when pro-democracy forces and the rebels (branded “terrorists” by some) decided to come together and pursue peace and stability. But as the UNMIN prepares to leave the country at some point after January 15,its report card does not look any more impressive than that of Nepal’s domestic actors,and the key external actor — India — which decisively influenced international opinion on the trustworthiness of the Maoists after the 12-point agreement in November 2005. India’s relationship with Maoists appears to have soured irreversibly now.That agreement mediated by Delhi — the basis of the peace process — secured a pledge from the Maoists that they would abjure violence and cease the decade-long war they had waged against the state. The Nepali Congress that represented the democratic forces agreed to support a republic,leaving behind its history of holding up the consitutional monarchy.India also agreed to abandon its Nepal policy based on the twin-pillar theory,that monarchy and pro-democracy forces were the best guarantee for Nepal’s stability and development,and let go of its long resistance to a “credible international organisation,preferably a UN body coming to its neighbourhood as mediator in the peace process”.The UNMIN’s mandate was limited to the extent of observing the election to the constituent assembly — task accomplished in April 2008 — and monitoring the arms and armies of the Maoists and the state, both confined to the barracks. Nepal’s army was never happy about being treated at par with the Maoist combatants. It was also the Maoists’ biggest scoring point,not just over the Nepal army but also all other political parties. While the Maoist army — confined in 28 camps and monitored by the UNMIN — is intact,the Nepal army that lobbied for the departure of the UN body and blamed it for pro-Maoist bias,can now rest assured that the “unfair comparison” of the past stands rectified after the UNMIN’s departure. And that is what troubles the Maoists,in both psychological and political terms.Strangely enough,it was G.P. Koirala,the grand old man of the Nepali Congress,and CPN-M Chairman Prachanda who signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in November 2006,bringing the Nepal army on par with the Maoists. Those who are now arguing for the UNMIN’s exit,lock,stock and barrel,are his lieutenants from the party. As a concession,they are willing to give an eighth extension to the UNMIN without the right to monitor Nepal’s army.The high hopes pinned on the UNMIN’s arrival,and its departure as a declared failure,will have several implications for the future of the peace process. The major political parties,wracked by internal as well as inter-party conflicts,are nowhere near deciding what machinery could substitute for the UNMIN. And this comes at a time when the dominant faction of the Maoists appear to be seriously considering raising arms against the state again. The Maoists also feel that a fresh supply of arms — under suspension for the past five years — by India to the Nepal army after the visit of the Indian army chief,V.K. Singh,would be a clear indication that other political parties were preparing to “thrust a war on us”. The weakened and depleted state army has also given the psychological advantage to the Maoists. The UN seems to have weighed the options and concluded that given the none-too-glorious stint of the UNMIN and the indifference of India and China towards it,it would not be rewarding to continue. Unless a last minute “miracle” occurs,it is likely that the UN will monitor the Nepal situation from New York. But regulating political parties and pinning them to act towards the peace process seems almost impossible from such a great distance.Senior foreign ministry officials have warned the prime minister,who is dead set against an extension for the UNMIN,that it would not be in the interests of the country to provoke the United Nations too much. Given the cost,time and initiative that the UN has invested in Nepal,and the fact that the conflict-ridden country does not have a credible apparatus to replace it,the Security Council may appoint a special envoy as an extreme step,and the best way to avoid that situation would be to continue to involve the UN in a limited way. But this is not a suggestion that the government or the political parties seem to have heeded with the seriousness it deserves.Under the circumstances,the UNMIN might leave the country unsung and unwept. But it will leave a void ,and increase chances of the conflict being triggered once again,completely shattering the peace and the constitution-making process.