Commentary
by MR JosseLike virtually everything under the ‘loktantrik’ sun, the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), too, has become highly controversial or largely unsuccessful.
Indeed, whether it has to do with writing and adopting a new people-written constitution within the committed time; the inability to move unitedly ahead on a whole range of populist but unrealistic socio-political goals announced with much fanfare and bravado; tackling the mundane, but most essential, business of effective garbage management or control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; to say nothing of eradicating the foul miasma of corruption, the messiahs of the bold new world of an undefined ‘naya’ Nepal, seem quite flummoxed.
HOT POTATO
The current focus on the contentious issue of whether or not to kiss UNMIN goodbye when its current term – its incredible sixth – expires on 15 September has naturally rendered it a timely topic for this column’s attention.
Coming down to brass tacks, recall the frenetic rounds recently made by UMMIN chief, the petite and soft-spoken Ms Karin Langdren, to prod the concerned political bigwigs or the high and mighty into reaching an agreement – I’m, on purpose, avoiding the over-used term ‘consensus’ – on whether UNMIN’s current mandate ought to be extended, or not.
Her opinion, repeatedly articulated, is that it should, as the famously viscous or sluggish peace process is yet a long ways from, as the tired ol’ cliché goes, coming to “a logical conclusion”.
Since one is instructed that the relevant meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – which was the authority that set it up in the first place, way back in the halcyon days of early 2007 – is to take place shortly in New York, neither the timing nor the urgency of her burst of activity in that regard can hardly be faulted.
What, however, has become something of a hot political potato is the essence of her current endeavour: to push for the extension of UNMIN’s current mandate for the seventh time.
As matters currently stand, the UCPM (M) has not merely made its position clear that it favours a six-month extension of UNMIN’s current mandate, with not a line or comma of the original altered, but has also come down heavily on those, mainly non-Maoist parties, which either want to say sayonara to UNMIN, or to lop off much of its designated workload.
To strengthen their stand, Maoist commissars on 27 August met with the envoys of the P-5 countries on the UNSC urging them, as made out in a news item in the Himalayan Times, “to take the initiative to extend UNMIN’s term to help Nepal take the peace process to a logical conclusion.”
Whether the permanent members of the UNSC can, or will, “take the initiative” in that regard is moot: after all, normally that principal UN organ acts only upon pertinent reports and recommendations made on the subject from the UN Secretary-General who, in turn, is largely guided by his representative on the ground – in this case, Landgren.
It is expected that, first, Langdren will report back to the UNS-G who will then formally report back to the UNSC where, of course, there are ten other (if less important) members, apart from representatives of the P-5. It is for that reason that she’s jetting off for the Big Apple one of these days.
Hardly surprising, in the circumstances, is that even before Maoist big guns met with P-5 Ambassadors Friday, caretaker Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal too jawboned with them and conveyed the government’s point of view, particularly its stress on doing away with UNMIN’s continuing monitoring of the national army.
That aside, on 29 August, parties in the current caretaker coalition headed by Nepal, following a meeting at Baluwatar, instructed the government to extend UNMIN’s mandate “for the last time” – on condition that it’s new mandate should exclude supervision of the Nepal Army.
As per the Himalayan Times, at the Baluwatar meeting parties lashed out against UNMIN’s alleged failure to supervise the Maoists’ PLA personnel, even to the extent of turning a Nelson’s eye to the former Maoist combatants leaving and returning at will to supposedly UNMIN-monitored cantonments, many of them allegedly to participate in criminal activity.
No less edifying is the disclosure, therein, that Home Minister Bhim Rawal declared, “Twenty-two parties were of the unanimous opinion that the national army should not be kept under UNMIN’s supervision.”
UNPREDICTABLE
Given the stand-off between Maoist and non-Maoists parties in general and in particular on the afore-discussed $ 64,000 question, it is only reasonable to ask: what now? The answer to that is tantalizingly unclear.
One basic reason for such turbidity is that one does not know for sure how the UNSC will react when it meets on the question in the near future, as the joint formal request to the UN to set up such a mission was signed by Prachanda and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, since deceased.
UNMIN’s spokesman (vide THT) has claimed that the UNSC will decide “on its own” in case Nepal fails to propose UNMIN’s extension. On the other hand, it has been argued by a former Army general who served as Force Commander in a UN mission in Sudan, as per the Kathmandu Post, that “the UN would give greater recognition to the government’s position if no consensus could be forged” on the subject. However, this commentator is not sanguine that either position really holds water.
While the UNMIN spokesman’s stance seems, to me, to reflect wishful thinking more than anything else, I’m doubtful if a caretaker government can carry the day when one of the original parties to the formal request to the UN that set up UNMIN is opposed to any tinkering with UNMIN’s current mandate, and wishes that it be accorded a six-month extension without any changes.
It is precisely because of such a difficulty that, I believe, it is hard to predict which way the UNSC cat will, ultimately, jump. Though the retired Nepali general referred to above has spoken of the world body’s legitimacy, as per the UN Charter, to even impose a solution that would, of course, depend on, first, it formally determining that the situation in Nepal is tantamount to a threat to international peace and security.
But that, my lords and ladies, is more easily said than done! If, after all, the UNSC did not make such a determination anytime during the 10-year-long Maoist-imposed “People’s War”, how will it be possible that all P-5 members will come to that common conclusion, at this juncture?
All are, of course, aware that, first, there must be an urgent request from some concerned country – in this case, by Nepal or by India and China, Nepal’s immediate neighbours – calling for an urgent meeting of the UNSC to discuss an issue that threatens to pose a threat to international peace and security.
Would, for the sake of argument, in the circumstances of today, the world body respond as it did the first time around, if the Nepal government – now hamstrung by its caretaker character or status – were to call such a meeting where such a determination might in theory formally be recorded?
Would India or China do so – when they didn’t, even at the height of the 10-year “People’s War”?
As matters stand at the time this column is being drafted, what is plain is that the situation is unclear. Indeed, as much is implicit in media reports that the government has instructed Nepal’s UN Ambassador, in Kathmandu for consultations, to hurry back to New York, meet with P-5 representatives on the UNSC and others concerned and report back on what the UNSC’s response to the government’s current stance – extension for six-months, but with a reduced mandate – might be.
Here, too, one get a strong whiff of failure, which is hardly mind-boggling considering the character of the government and the abject failure of the political leadership as far as successfully managing foreign policy is concerned.
GEOPOLITICS
In my view, the fundamental if unstated reason why such difficulties have cropped up today is that UNMIN has been undermined by the passage of time and the sea changes, in geostrategic and political terms, that have taken place since the heady days of CA elections of 2008, the setting up of UNMIN in 2007, regime change of 2006, and the breakdown of the ‘New Delhi consensus’ of 2005.
Then, New Delhi encouraged and exploited the Maoists’ strength to topple the monarchy. However, now that regime change has been affected, and the Maoists transformed into an implacable adversary, threatening, in her eyes, India itself, there is a quite different ball game in operation in this once tranquil and proud land of ours.
UNMIN’s heyday was then. This is now, when foreign intervention, government by remote control, and clashing geo-strategic aims are the unfortunate order of the day.
UNMIN has morphed from an excellent idea to a highly controversial entity now hanging around Nepal’s neck like an albatross.
(The writer can be reached at: Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
Indeed, whether it has to do with writing and adopting a new people-written constitution within the committed time; the inability to move unitedly ahead on a whole range of populist but unrealistic socio-political goals announced with much fanfare and bravado; tackling the mundane, but most essential, business of effective garbage management or control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; to say nothing of eradicating the foul miasma of corruption, the messiahs of the bold new world of an undefined ‘naya’ Nepal, seem quite flummoxed.
HOT POTATO
The current focus on the contentious issue of whether or not to kiss UNMIN goodbye when its current term – its incredible sixth – expires on 15 September has naturally rendered it a timely topic for this column’s attention.
Coming down to brass tacks, recall the frenetic rounds recently made by UMMIN chief, the petite and soft-spoken Ms Karin Langdren, to prod the concerned political bigwigs or the high and mighty into reaching an agreement – I’m, on purpose, avoiding the over-used term ‘consensus’ – on whether UNMIN’s current mandate ought to be extended, or not.
Her opinion, repeatedly articulated, is that it should, as the famously viscous or sluggish peace process is yet a long ways from, as the tired ol’ cliché goes, coming to “a logical conclusion”.
Since one is instructed that the relevant meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – which was the authority that set it up in the first place, way back in the halcyon days of early 2007 – is to take place shortly in New York, neither the timing nor the urgency of her burst of activity in that regard can hardly be faulted.
What, however, has become something of a hot political potato is the essence of her current endeavour: to push for the extension of UNMIN’s current mandate for the seventh time.
As matters currently stand, the UCPM (M) has not merely made its position clear that it favours a six-month extension of UNMIN’s current mandate, with not a line or comma of the original altered, but has also come down heavily on those, mainly non-Maoist parties, which either want to say sayonara to UNMIN, or to lop off much of its designated workload.
To strengthen their stand, Maoist commissars on 27 August met with the envoys of the P-5 countries on the UNSC urging them, as made out in a news item in the Himalayan Times, “to take the initiative to extend UNMIN’s term to help Nepal take the peace process to a logical conclusion.”
Whether the permanent members of the UNSC can, or will, “take the initiative” in that regard is moot: after all, normally that principal UN organ acts only upon pertinent reports and recommendations made on the subject from the UN Secretary-General who, in turn, is largely guided by his representative on the ground – in this case, Landgren.
It is expected that, first, Langdren will report back to the UNS-G who will then formally report back to the UNSC where, of course, there are ten other (if less important) members, apart from representatives of the P-5. It is for that reason that she’s jetting off for the Big Apple one of these days.
Hardly surprising, in the circumstances, is that even before Maoist big guns met with P-5 Ambassadors Friday, caretaker Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal too jawboned with them and conveyed the government’s point of view, particularly its stress on doing away with UNMIN’s continuing monitoring of the national army.
That aside, on 29 August, parties in the current caretaker coalition headed by Nepal, following a meeting at Baluwatar, instructed the government to extend UNMIN’s mandate “for the last time” – on condition that it’s new mandate should exclude supervision of the Nepal Army.
As per the Himalayan Times, at the Baluwatar meeting parties lashed out against UNMIN’s alleged failure to supervise the Maoists’ PLA personnel, even to the extent of turning a Nelson’s eye to the former Maoist combatants leaving and returning at will to supposedly UNMIN-monitored cantonments, many of them allegedly to participate in criminal activity.
No less edifying is the disclosure, therein, that Home Minister Bhim Rawal declared, “Twenty-two parties were of the unanimous opinion that the national army should not be kept under UNMIN’s supervision.”
UNPREDICTABLE
Given the stand-off between Maoist and non-Maoists parties in general and in particular on the afore-discussed $ 64,000 question, it is only reasonable to ask: what now? The answer to that is tantalizingly unclear.
One basic reason for such turbidity is that one does not know for sure how the UNSC will react when it meets on the question in the near future, as the joint formal request to the UN to set up such a mission was signed by Prachanda and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, since deceased.
UNMIN’s spokesman (vide THT) has claimed that the UNSC will decide “on its own” in case Nepal fails to propose UNMIN’s extension. On the other hand, it has been argued by a former Army general who served as Force Commander in a UN mission in Sudan, as per the Kathmandu Post, that “the UN would give greater recognition to the government’s position if no consensus could be forged” on the subject. However, this commentator is not sanguine that either position really holds water.
While the UNMIN spokesman’s stance seems, to me, to reflect wishful thinking more than anything else, I’m doubtful if a caretaker government can carry the day when one of the original parties to the formal request to the UN that set up UNMIN is opposed to any tinkering with UNMIN’s current mandate, and wishes that it be accorded a six-month extension without any changes.
It is precisely because of such a difficulty that, I believe, it is hard to predict which way the UNSC cat will, ultimately, jump. Though the retired Nepali general referred to above has spoken of the world body’s legitimacy, as per the UN Charter, to even impose a solution that would, of course, depend on, first, it formally determining that the situation in Nepal is tantamount to a threat to international peace and security.
But that, my lords and ladies, is more easily said than done! If, after all, the UNSC did not make such a determination anytime during the 10-year-long Maoist-imposed “People’s War”, how will it be possible that all P-5 members will come to that common conclusion, at this juncture?
All are, of course, aware that, first, there must be an urgent request from some concerned country – in this case, by Nepal or by India and China, Nepal’s immediate neighbours – calling for an urgent meeting of the UNSC to discuss an issue that threatens to pose a threat to international peace and security.
Would, for the sake of argument, in the circumstances of today, the world body respond as it did the first time around, if the Nepal government – now hamstrung by its caretaker character or status – were to call such a meeting where such a determination might in theory formally be recorded?
Would India or China do so – when they didn’t, even at the height of the 10-year “People’s War”?
As matters stand at the time this column is being drafted, what is plain is that the situation is unclear. Indeed, as much is implicit in media reports that the government has instructed Nepal’s UN Ambassador, in Kathmandu for consultations, to hurry back to New York, meet with P-5 representatives on the UNSC and others concerned and report back on what the UNSC’s response to the government’s current stance – extension for six-months, but with a reduced mandate – might be.
Here, too, one get a strong whiff of failure, which is hardly mind-boggling considering the character of the government and the abject failure of the political leadership as far as successfully managing foreign policy is concerned.
GEOPOLITICS
In my view, the fundamental if unstated reason why such difficulties have cropped up today is that UNMIN has been undermined by the passage of time and the sea changes, in geostrategic and political terms, that have taken place since the heady days of CA elections of 2008, the setting up of UNMIN in 2007, regime change of 2006, and the breakdown of the ‘New Delhi consensus’ of 2005.
Then, New Delhi encouraged and exploited the Maoists’ strength to topple the monarchy. However, now that regime change has been affected, and the Maoists transformed into an implacable adversary, threatening, in her eyes, India itself, there is a quite different ball game in operation in this once tranquil and proud land of ours.
UNMIN’s heyday was then. This is now, when foreign intervention, government by remote control, and clashing geo-strategic aims are the unfortunate order of the day.
UNMIN has morphed from an excellent idea to a highly controversial entity now hanging around Nepal’s neck like an albatross.
(The writer can be reached at: Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it )
To no one’s surprise the fifth round of the prime ministerial electoral contest between Maoist chairman Prachanda and NC vice president Ram Chandra Poudel on 23 August too came a cropper – just as the four previous exercises in ‘loktantric’ democ...
