UNclear Role

"We have long been stressing," said Nepal's Vice Chairman of theCabinet, Kirti Nidhi Bista, on July 13, 2005, "that there is no need for UN[United Nations] mediation in Nepal. And we still stand firmly with this."The remarks were made immediately after Bista held a meeting with UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan's special adviser, former Algerian foreign minister LakhdarBrahimi, who visited Nepal on July 10-15. Two days later, during a pressconference, it was Brahimi's turn to reflect on his meeting with Bista. "Hedid not say that during our meeting," the UN official quipped when askedabout Bista's comments.

Clearly, all is not well when it comes to UN involvement in Nepal's troubles.Despite the recent growing involvement of the world body, the Royal regime andpowerful international actors continue to see the UN as a spoiler in theconflict. They fear that a UN mediating role in Nepal's conflict would not onlyreduce their own functions and influence, but would also give the rebel Maoists,whose insurgency has brought the country to the brink of disaster, an equalityand legitimacy they have long craved. This view is in sharp contrast withNepal's mainstream political parties, civil society, and a majority of thepopulation who seek a strong UN intervention.

Whether or not the UN succeeds in getting a bigger role, particularly inconflict mediation, is an open question. But its involvement has already beenincreasing since February 1, when King Gyanendra's coup turned this HimalayanKingdom's politics upside down. 

For instance, in April, the Royal Government signed afar-reaching memorandum of understanding with the Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, paving the way for the openingof an OHCHR office in Kathmandu to monitor the deteriorating rights situation.That was followed by two high profile visits - first by the Walter Kaelinmission on April 13 which came here to assess the rights situation of InternallyDisplaced Persons, and then the Brahimi mission. Another is planned forSeptember when a Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights isslated to visit Kathmandu.

These high-level visits and occasional remarks by SecretaryGeneral Annan himself have given Nepal a high profile within the UN system, aprofile which indicates growing international concerns over developments in thecountry. But assessments regarding whether that profile and attention arehelping or harming efforts, depend on who one listens to. Nepal's mainstreampolitical parties, civil society and most common people clearly want astrengthened UN role. 

It is to be noted here that some of the political parties,particularly the two Nepali Congresses, have only now come around to acceptingUN mediation. Their record while in government was to expressly oppose any UNmediation role. Nevertheless, the political parties, except for the royalistRastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), are now united in seeking UN mediation.Whether this unity will last if one or all of them were to go back into governmentis, however, an open question. 

Nevertheless, their latest position reflects the current moodin the country. "As an uninterested and neutral body highly respected byall sides, the UN is the only body that can successfully mediate between allsides in the conflict," says Narayan Wagle, editor of the influential Kantipurnewspaper. "What Nepal needs is peace and stability, and all sides haveshown themselves incapable of reaching an understanding on their own. The UNcould bring in expertise and resources as well play the role of an honestbroker."

But there are arguments to the contrary. A growing UN role, this argument goes,will only heighten suspicions in India and China, Nepal's two powerfulneighbours. "The Indians will be concerned that such a precedent in SouthAsia will open the way for UN meddling in many of its own internal conflicts,particularly in the north-east. The Chinese, aware that Nepal is the easiestroute to Tibet, will be equally suspicious of any UN role. Most of thesecountries view the UN as an extension of US foreign policy, which may not be thecase, but is certainly the perception," says an analyst who declined to benamed. 

On a related note, Nishchal Nath Pandey, a royalist supporterand executive director of the Kathmandu-based semi-government Institute ofForeign Affairs, says, "If the UN wants to be involved, it must show thatit can win the trust of all sides. That is not the case at the moment."

Brahimi is said to have received an earful from all sides along these very linesduring his visit to Kathmandu. In the end though, the UN's own reading is that,the toughest opposition to an expanding UN role comes from the Palace and India.Ironically, these are the two sides which have rarely seen eye to eye onanything after the coup. Brahimi left with the impression that the conflict inNepal was not as bad as he had feared, and that there still existed room forresolution at this point, before the situation worsened. But for that to occur,the UN would need to expand its role, particularly in mediation, to which thereare powerful obstacles.

Several sources close to the UN said that the Palace may raise the bogey ofIndia and China but is "instinctively aware that the UN playing an activerole means a diminishing of its own role. It will be treated as just anotherparty in the conflict, and not the final arbiter it wants to be." The otherreason, of course, is that UN mediation could give the rebel Maoists thelegitimacy they have craved for so long. This perception is reinforced by theMaoists' frequent courting of the UN. For instance, Maoist 'chairman' Prachandaissued a statement to coincide with the Brahimi visit in which he said,"our party is prepared to discuss with anyone in the world, including theUnited Nations Organization, in favour of the Nepalese people's aspirations fordemocracy, peace and progress."

The other obstacle comes from India, and to some extent from the United States."The Indians are in two minds," says a senior official who hasinteracted with them closely. "They see the benefits of a UN involvementbut they worry that the peace process may not go the way they want it to if theUN gets involved." The reading is that India wants to control the processfrom start to finish, much as it did in 1950 when it mediated between the Ranaregime, the Palace and the revolutionary Nepali Congress. 

But an open Indian role is out of the question because theMaoists and the Palace, not to speak of majority of Nepal's citizens, do not seeIndia as an uninterested and neutral party. Given those perceptions, many inNepal hope that, in view of India's express desire to be a permanent member ofthe UN Security Council, "it should be magnanimous in allowing UN mediatingefforts in its neighbourhood." But convincing India's left parties, whoview the UN as an extension of the US foreign policy, will remain a challenge.

The United States has not spelt out its opposition to a UN role as clearly asIndia has, but its officials, particularly from its Embassy in Kathmandu, haverepeatedly said that it believes "Nepalis are capable of settling the issueon their own" - diplomatic language aimed at discouraging UN mediation.

Still another obstacle is one of perception. There are those, both in Nepal andIndia, who believe that the UN has not succeeded in any of the conflicts it hastried to resolve. One royalist Nepali commentator pointed to East Timor and theformer Yugoslavia as disasters created by the UN. "In both cases they endedup breaking the country," he said. To be fair though, in both those cases,there were groups asking for independence. No such clamour exists in the Nepalconflict. Even the Maoists, despite their zeal in carving out the country intoethnic autonomous zones, are dead set against Balkanization of Nepal into littlestates.

Given such complexities, the march towards UN mediation in Nepal is not going tobe an easy one. Perhaps it is for this reason that the Brahimi mission hasscaled down its own goals. In the words of one senior UN official, the goal atthe moment is to get all the relevant international actors together and to arguea common approach through a single interlocutor. "Throughout this visit andin our discussions, what has come out clearly is the need for the internationalcommunity to work together with one interlocutor acting on their behalf,"he says.

The UN, and many Nepalis, hope that interlocutor will be the UN itself. But allof them realize, the key to that is in Delhi. "The international communityis largely on the same page on what the solution should be in Nepal…but therehas not been an effort to bring the common elements in one direction. Theinternational community should now move towards a focused, catalytic, role withrecognition of regional complexities," says a senior UN official.

Suman Pradhan is a Kathmandu-based journalist and independentanalyst. Courtesy, the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South AsiaTerrorism Portal