There is however, no such expectation from UNMIN. It is still present in the country, although much reduced in size and strength. But it now faces questions about its impartiality and credibility while performing its assigned job. Israel’s foreign ministry issued an unwelcoming statement on Ian Martin, the person who headed UNMIN until he was given an exalted position in the Gaza strip four months ago, questioning his credentials in contributing to peace there. In fact, what caused extensive damage to Martin and UNMIN’s reputation is Prachanda’s much-circulated videotape (an address to Maoist combatants in January 2008) in which he boasts how he got UNMIN to certify that the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) was three times as large as the actual seven thousand. UNMIN has come with an unconvincing explanation that it did its job with utmost sincerity and impartiality. Israel’s foreign ministry’s question circulated officially is simple: how can someone who was “fooled by Maoists in Nepal,” be effective in Gaza?

While Martin may have to respond to that, UNMIN, under his successor Karen Landgren is in a soup in Nepal, for a different reason. The Nepali Congress, the second largest party in the legislature, which had demanded re-verification of the Maoist combatants in the wake of the Prachanda videotape revelation, has now lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations Secretary General that it has been misquoted on its position on the controversy surrounding the “sacking and reinstatement” of army chief R. Katawal. Landgren was called into the party office by the Nepali Congress working president and told that the misreporting of the official stance of the Nepali Congress was not acceptable.

... contd.