By M K Bhadrakumar
A pall of gloom and uncertainty descended on Kathmandu with the United Nations Security Council decision to wind up the UNMIN (United Nations Mission in Nepal) last Friday. And there is a sense of triumphalism in Delhi that Indian diplomacy booted out the UNMIN from the region. The contrast in mood cannot be sharper.
India, which robustly pitches for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, rubbished the UNMIN as a hindrance to the peace process in Nepal. But the paradox can be explained. Delhi was never comfortable with the idea of the UN poking its nose into Nepal.
Delhi tried to block a UN presence but finally gave in to Nepalese
wish when it became apparent there was no other way to carry forward the impulses of the peace process following the overthrow of the monarchy in 2006 in a popular uprising. The Nepalese needed the UN to hold the hand of the armed revolutionaries, the so-called Maoists, and to arrange their disarming and rehabilitation - in short, facilitate their passage to a democratic way of life.
Who's afraid of the UN?
True, other "non-Maoist" political parties and the Nepalese army also began finding UNMIN's presence irksome for tactical reasons. But at the end of the day, it was India's staunch opposition to the watchdog's continued presence that sealed its fate. The "international community" could have explored how to make the UN mechanism more effective and relevant. Instead, it acquiesced with the Indian demand.
The expanding United States-India strategic condominium made the denouement possible. Washington chose to pragmatically give India a "free hand" in its backyard. Significantly, however, a joint statement issued in Kathmandu by the diplomatic missions of the US, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Japan and the European Union since reiterated, "We welcome the ongoing engagement of the United Nations as the international community continues to support the people of Nepal."
The UNMIN, which came into being in 2006 as an integral component of Nepal's peace agreements, had a specific mandate: a) monitoring the arms and personnel of Nepalese army and the so-called Maoists; b) assisting in the implementation of the 2006 agreement on the management of arms and personnel; and c) assisting in the conduct of the constituent assembly elections of April 2008.
During the four-year period since 2006, UNMIN served as a deterrent against resumption of violence. Indeed, there is a high degree of risk that in its absence, flashpoints could spiral out of control. However, Delhi's grouse is precisely that UNMIN exceeded its mandate and got itself involved in issues of Nepal's political economy - social exclusion and marginalization of underprivileged sections of Nepali population, armed groups of dubious background that operated in regions bordering India and the peace process itself.
Delhi and the traditional political parties in Nepal, which it supports, resented that UNMIN treated Maoists as "stakeholders" in national life. They estimated that the post-UNMIN phase would isolate Maoists and compel them to "reform" and "disarm". A prominent commentator Prashant Jha wrote in The Hindu:
Pushing UNMIN out is in line with India's broader Nepal policy, the key tenet of which is to isolate the Maoists and exclude them from the formal power structure as the only way of democratizing them ... To this end, India has invested enormous political capital in galvanizing the anti-Maoist forces together ... There is a section in both New Delhi and Kathmandu, which believes that like UNMIN, the Constituent Assembly [CA] where the Maoists command 40% of the seats is another ‘safety blanket' for the former rebels ... They are now hoping for its [CA's] dissolution.
The China factor
In short, Delhi's interference in Nepalese politics is set to enter a new phase. Its strongest allies are the Nepalese army and the army's political backers in Kathmandu. Delhi succeeded brilliantly in manipulating the exclusion of Maoists from power and didn't seem to be perturbed that it was abandoning the commitment to the principle of democratic control of political power, which has been the bedrock of the Indian state itself since independence in 1947.
The Indian establishment's excessively suspicious attitude towards the Maoists has so far colored its Nepal policy. One principal reason for the hostility lies in the Maoists' perceived closeness to China. But Beijing appears disinterested in a zero-sum game.
According to Indian security analysts, Beijing has even been advising the Maoist leadership to seek a cordial relationship with Delhi. A top Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai visited Delhi recently and sought to assure the Indian leaders about his party's sensitivity to Indian interests in Nepal.
Beijing's priorities are in terms of Nepal's overall stability, seeking Kathmandu's cooperation in checking the illegal movement of Tibetan activists to and from India, preventing Nepalese soil from being used by foreign intelligence agencies for subversive activities inside Tibet and the overall development of bilateral ties (especially economic and communication) so that whichever party is in power in Kathmandu remains sensitive to China's interests.
Quite obviously, Beijing factors in that the capacity of any foreign power to play the "Tibet card" can be effectively countered only by having a friendly government in Kathmandu. Towards this end, China casts its net wide among virtually all sections of the Nepalese society and politics and the state apparatus. Significantly, China didn't bother to challenge the Indian move in the Security Council to finish off the UNMIN.
Bhattarai urged the Indian establishment to play a constructive role in Nepal. But the big question is whether Delhi will rethink its hardline policy and reconcile with the shocking victory of the Maoists in the 2008 election where they won 40% of seats. The security agencies dictate India's policies and they also develop vested interests. They might see advantages in an unstable Nepal beholden to Indian largesse, although Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world.
Without doubt, it needs an assertive and intellectually resourceful foreign policy establishment (and a determined political leadership) to genuinely break from the past and charter a new course for India's Nepal policy.
Dreading the march of history
But the high probability is that "spooky" conspiracies may continue to be hatched so that the lifespan of the Constituent Assembly in Kathmandu lapses without fulfilling the task of drafting a new constitution. The temptation will always be there to bring Nepal under president's rule with the backing of the army.
The heart of the matter is that only Maoists among the major political players are genuine proponents of a new constitution while the other two mainstream parties with which Indian establishment works closely - Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal - apprehend in varying degrees that a new constitution may undermine the established, traditional patronage networks. The Nepalese army shares their apprehensions.
Truly, India finds itself allied with retrogressive forces who dread the march of history. This polarization is of a fundamental nature. The Maoists and several splinter groups that are identity-based espouse progressive change. They stand for radical redistribution of power and resources in the country, whereas traditional parties abhor the prospect of a re-definition of the state and the role of elites in it.
The traditional parties backed by Delhi would have liked to co-opt Maoists into "bourgeois" democratic practices with their networks of patronage and privileges. For them, a new constitution - and a peace process leading to a new constitution, especially one that promises federalism and far-reaching political, economic and social inclusion - is not a priority at the present juncture, as it may erode their political base.
Delhi is betting that Maoists are averse to returning to the path of violence although getting squashed for political space and would gamble that the shine may have gone off the Maoists in the popular perceptions. The Maoists, on the other hand, have to decide whether it is worthwhile to make political concessions so as to sustain the push for a new constitution and at the same time widen their influence among constituencies such as the middle classes, apart from building bridges with Delhi so that they can face the next general election on a stronger footing.
However, their dilemma is acute: even if they make concessions, the traditional parties and the army (and Delhi) may still prefer the present transitional period to somehow end so that "normal" politics resumes in Kathmandu, which is all about sharing power and the loaves of office. (Transparency International ranks Nepal as the most corrupt country in South Asia.) Indeed, as Jha pointed out, "The reluctance of the non-Maoist parties to share power, the Maoist dogma, and India's hardline approach - all feed on one another and have contributed to mutual insecurities and belligerence on all sides, limiting the space for compromise."
The triumphalism in Delhi over the ouster of the UNMN is a telltale sign. The Indian establishment's agenda will be to somehow manipulate things to return to "bourgeois democracy", which means status quo ante before the unseemly Maoist dragon appeared as the collective voice of Nepali democratic opinion. They count on the Maoist leadership's extraordinary capacity for making political compromises at the last minute.
The recurrent fear of the Indian establishment and political elites is that the ascendance of Maoists in neighboring Nepal might inspire the left-wing armed cadres who dominate one third of India's districts to press ahead with their struggle to capture political power. Delhi seeks to snuff out the revolutionary fervor in Nepal so that it doesn't aggravate the serious political and socio-economic contradictions in the "red belt" within the Indian hinterland. Washington seems to empathize.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Weigh civilian liberty while state restructuring
Added At: 2010-12-29 2:13 PM
Last Updated At: 2010-12-29 2:13 PM
RSS
CHITWAN: Nepali and Indian experts have concluded that state restructuring should be carried out keeping civilian liberty in mind.
Such an opinion came during the conclusion of the two-day seminar organised to share experience of Indian constitution drafting process in Chitwan today.
The programme concluded that language, caste, cultural identity and natural resources should be made the basis of state restructuring, said Mahesh Neupane, Secretary of Human Rights Protection Forum Chitwan (HRPFC).
It also reasoned out that people's views should be discerned since 601 Constituent Assembly members cannot be decisive.
On the occasion, Indian legal expert Satish Chandra Jha said that India is still suffering as state were restructured by lawmakers without knowing public views.
Nepali and Indian constitutional experts, political experts, human rights activists, legal experts, civil society leaders, CA members and former lawmakers attended the function organised by Adarsha Samaj Nepal, BP Koirala Nepal-India Foundation and HRPFC.
Monday, December 13, 2010
MONDAY INTERVIEW | Interview | Oped | ekantipur.com
MONDAY INTERVIEW | Interview | Oped | ekantipur.com
US national interest determines Nepal policy
The US ambassador, Scott DeLisi, has completed eight months in Nepal. He gave his first full-length interview to Akhilesh Upadhyay and Sudheer Sharma last week where he talked about the top US priorities in Nepal—the peace process and constitution writing. He also said that the US doesn’t view Nepal through an Indian prism but determines policies towards Nepal keeping its own national interest at heart.
Would you like to expand on the US government focus here in Nepal?
Every initiative is important. But the US government truly believes that there is nothing more important than moving the peace process ahead. Constitution writing is another important area, an area we are supporting with a lot of technical assistance. The development sector is also critical. The health sector has also been important. As has the urgent issue of food security. Other important issues are economic prosperity, democracy, governance and climate change.
What I don’t want to see is a setback in Nepal’s development timeline. We have seen this in Haiti and Pakistan. Security sector reform is another important issue that is getting a lot of attention. Another thing that is of interest to me is building the economy.
Where is the American focus in regards to the peace process and constitution drafting?
On the issue of the peace process our focus is the same as everyone else’s—on bringing the peace process to a conclusion. There has been progress, but it has been incremental and frustrating at times. But I believe this will ultimately move forward. And though it would have been ideal, all of the issues are not likely to be resolved before UNMIN leaves. But people need to remember that even then, it is not the end of the world, and certainly not the end of the peace process. I am worried that some people are going to believe that this is a crisis. But the parties are working on it. And even with UNMIN leaving, it does not mean that the international community is not going to support the rest of the process.
We will help with the process of integration, but there is very little that the international community can do in this. What we can do is assist in the rehabilitation of former combatants. We can help the special (committee) secretariat. But it is up to the parties to tell us what kind of assistance they want. It is important that the issue of integration and rehabilitation of combatants takes place because other parties are not going to accept the Maoists with an army in a multi-party democracy. On the issue of the constitution, there has been progress. The thematic committees have done a good job. The special task force has reached agreements on a number of issues ranging from judiciary to economy. But some issues remain. People ask us what kind of constitution it should be, but that is not for us to tell. Every country has to determine what constitutional structure works best for them. But what I would say is that in any successful democracy, there are some basic principles.
Do you have a bottom line as to what would be the desirable scenario before UNMIN departs?
The desirable scenario is that the integration and rehabilitation be completed. But there are questions whether we will get there or not. The minimum that the parties could do is assess what UNMIN is doing and figure out what functions they would like to retain and how they plan to do it. The reason why I say this is because the issues that are not at the heart and soul of the peace process should not distract from the real issues, which are integration, rehabilitation and the modalities to move the process forward. Even if these issues are not addressed by Jan. 15, they can still find a way.
You and a US Under-Secretary recently visited a cantonment in Chitwan.
What was your impression about the cantoned combatants given that one of the major issues is whether the majority of them would opt for rehabilitation
or integration?
During my first visit to the cantonment, I was curious how the combatants felt about the issues of integration and rehabilitation. I was struck that the majority of them said that they would like to be integrated. And this is important because they identify as soldiers and feel that they can contribute. I was also struck by their answer in what they aspired for. They said they wanted a democratic Nepal and they wanted to make a contribution to their country. But part of the problem is that the combatants have not been presented with a rehabilitation package. And when they may be presented with the package, some of them may decide rehabilitation is not such a bad idea. I was struck as well when I asked them if they had any concerns about integration—things like might you find that the soldiers in the Army view you as enemies. And they said they are not worried about it. They said they saw soldiers as their brothers even during the conflict. They felt no resentment or animosity and said that this would be a smooth process. What I told them was realistically speaking, not everyone hoping to be integrated will be. It is up to the parties to determine that number. I told them that if some of them were not integrated, there are other many ways of making contributions to the country.
You have talked about the US government’s willingness to provide rehabilitation package. Are there any plans regarding this?
No, there is nothing like a concrete plan because, until the parties decide on this, it is hard for us to come with any plan. We have told them illustratively of the help that we could offer. We could help the special secretariat become more effective. We could help in setting up field offices and providing logistics. In terms of rehabilitation, many of our development programmes could serve as a model. In October, when I was in Washington, I told my colleagues of the problem and they all realised the importance of helping in the process. We can bring resources to table, but parties need to be clear as to how they would like to move forward.
How do you view the ongoing political impasse and where do you think the parties could be more accommodative?
The political transition that Nepal has gone through in last 20 years is something that countries undergo in 200 years. So this compression of history has had its impact. Parties need to learn to work in the new structure where there is no monarchy. They have to better understand each other. But it seems the parties are having problems comprehending this, even established parties. As I told you earlier, I was in Washington in October and the tenth round of elections (for the post of prime minister) had just finished. When my colleagues questioned me about the political crisis in Nepal, I told them that it is more important to get a government through a process rather than have one that will last for only few months. And this is something that will take time. I understand why everyone is frustrated with the political process, including the donor community. We would like to see the formation of a new government so that we could work with a government with a clear mandate. But the process continues. The budget was passed, though it was not done in a pretty way.
Let us talk about the larger foreign policy priorities of the US in South Asia.
We would like to see Nepal as a democratic state that respects rights of its citizens, and whose leadership functions as per the rules and laws. This is what we would like to see for the other countries in the region as well. We would like to see the countries in South Asia cooperate among themselves so that tensions are reduced. We understand that there are problems in the region. There are problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the fear is when governments are not effective, it presents opportunities to those who want to create problems in the world. So we would like to see the economy grow in the region along with trade relations. I know Nepal needs to move on with the constitution writing process if before much more progress in the economy and other areas can be expected. Everybody, including India and China I believe, would like to see a stable Nepal. This is something all of us share.
As the priorities of the US shift in the region, the US policy on Nepal is often said to be viewed through an Indian prism, as India seems to be the strategic partner of the US in the region?
I have heard this ever since I came here. We have a strategic dialogue with India. India is an important partner for us. And it is a growing relationship. Let me assure you the United States has neither lost interest in Nepal nor do we view our policy on Nepal through India’s prism. We determine our policy towards Nepal keeping our own national interest in mind.
India, China and the US are often perceived as competing powers in Nepal.
I don’t think they are competing powers in Nepal. We have our own engagement here. We would like to see Nepal as a stable and peaceful country. And as of Jan. 1, all of us will be sitting in the Security Council and monitoring the progress in Nepal.
Wikileaks is said to have found messages sent from the US mission in Kathmandu to Washington. Do you think this will have an impact on bilateral relations?
I think no matter what Wikileaks may reveal, the messages we send our government every day are important. And they are concerned with the peace process, constitution writing and development. And those commitments on the parts of US will remain. I talked to the foreign minister, Sujata Koirala, about this and she agreed.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
SAARC celebrates silver jubilee today
* Indo-Pak tension remained the major cause of SAARC ineffectiveness during 25 years
* Gilani, Manmohan vow to support SAARC Charter
By Shabbir Sarwar
LAHORE: Facing the challenges of poverty, terrorism and lack of political will for any European Union like grand agreement among member states, the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is celebrating its silver jubilee today (Wednesday).
Established 25 years ago on December 8, 1985, SAARC now comprises eight countries - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The SAARC nations are home to nearly 1.5 billion people or about 22 percent of the world population.
The heads of the states these countries had created SAARC, keeping in view the welfare of the people, peace, stability and progress of South Asian region by fostering mutual understanding, meaningful cooperation and good neighbourly relations among members states.
On this historic day (on December 8, 1985), the heads of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka had gathered in Dhaka and signed a documents, expressing their desire to promote peace, stability, amity and progress in the region through strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter and Non-Alignment, particularly respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of force and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and peaceful settlement of all disputes, to foster mutual understanding, good neighbourly relations and meaningful cooperation among the member states which are bound by ties of history and culture.
The then Bangladesh President Hussain Muhammad Ershad, king of Bhutan Jigme Singye Wangchuk, Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, Maldives president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, king of Nepal Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, Pakistani president Ziaul Haq and Sri Lankan president Junius Richard Jayewardene had signed the document.
The member states perhaps were unaware of the fact that an article of the charter that: “Bilateral and contentious issues shall be excluded from the deliberations” would be a major hurdle in the smooth functioning of this South Asian forum. India and Pakistan are the key players of this association due to ever-present tension between these two nations. The political unrest and lack of political will in the leaders of these two states is blamed for the ineffectiveness of the association.
Resultantly, several forums and agreements of the association are inactive and the member states failed to exploit the potential that exists in the region. Unfortunately, SAARC countries are doing only $682 million trade through SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Agreement) while volume of the total trade through bilateral agreements among SAARC members sates made at their own is $12 billion, which is less than 5 percent of the total trade of SARRC countries with the rest of the world.
President SAARC Chambers of Commerce and Industry Iftikhar Ali Malik told Daily Times that SAARC had witnessed five percent mutual trade growth this year. He said this was far less than the actual potential and main reason was Indo-Pak tension. He said misunderstanding and disputes between both countries had affected the performance of this important body.
SAARC Chamber Secretary General Iqbal Tabish said that the dream of a common currency for SAARC countries – Sarrconomy or Rupee – could not be realised even in next 20 years keeping in view the ground realities of the regions. He said for adoption of a common currency in the South Asian region, establishment of a common custom union on the basis of a uniform policy, common stock exchange, monetary union, common monetary policies, common fiscal policies, redressal of transportation and communication issues were the prerequisites.
On the eve of silver jubilee celebrations, SAARC Secretary General Dr Sheel Kant Sharma said, “Through its diverse activities over decades, SAARC has sought to engender a distinct South Asian identity and a culture of peace, cooperation and partnership for the collective benefit of our peoples, brought up potential of regional cooperation, embarked into a free trade area, and enhance sharing of experiences at the level of professionals, intellectuals, artists, litterateurs and business communities.”
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on Tuesday said, “SAARC should actively promote regional cooperation in all important fields. One of the underlying objectives of SAARC is to help in contributing to mutual trust and understanding. The need of the hour is to continue our endeavors to build upon this objective to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia in economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields. Pakistan is committed to the principles of SAARC Charter. We shall continue to play our role in furthering the objectives of SAARC for the benefit of the peoples of South Asia.”
Indian President Manmohan Singh on Tuesday said, “On this silver jubilee anniversary, we take pride in the achievements while acknowledging challenges that continues to confront us.” He said it was heartening to see the progress in the implementation of flagship regional cooperation projects like South Asian University and SAARC Development Fund. “I reaffirm India’s unstinting support and commitment to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of South Asians through their premier vehicle of regional economic cooperation,” Manmohan said.
Nepal PM Madhav Kumar said, “During its 25 year journey, SAARC has made significant stride to achieve those noble objectives and to foster mutual understanding and cooperation in the region. The emerging challenges of climate change and environmental degradation in the region are critical issues that are gaining prominence in SAARC forums. “By joining hands together, we can address the myriad challenges that we are facing in the region,” he said.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Maoists fail to turn Nepal into military state | With India on UNSC, Nepal Maoists rethink strategy
TNN, Dec 1, 2010, 06.22pm IST
KATHMANDU: Nepal's former Maoist guerrillas have lost their battle to turn the republic into a military state where all citizens above 18 would have to receive compulsory military training with the major ruling parties shooting down the demand on Wednesday. The opposition party's push to include such a provision in the new constitution – scheduled to be promulgated in May 2011 – was rejected by the ruling Nepali Congress (NC) and communists, who said it was an outdated demand that had now become superfluous.
Maoist lawmaker Dev Gurung, who represented his party at the talks on the new constitution to iron out differences, said military training was needed for Nepal to defend itself against military intervention by other countries. Though he did not spell it out, the Maoists have been, time and again, raising the spectre of military intervention by India. At the party plenum last week, Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda branded India as Nepal's principal foe and spoke about the need to wage a war on the neighbouring country.
However, besides Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal's Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist, its main ally, the NC, has also rejected the demand. NC leader Ramesh Lekhak said the idea of compulsory training was mooted at a time in the past when there were dangers of foreign attacks. But today, most countries had scrapped the system. "We support the need for citizens to be patriotic," the former minister said. "But today Nepal doesn't need military training. It needs economic development."
Though the dispute will be taken up once again Thursday, constitutional provisions indicate that the Maoists are not going to prevail. In case of continued dispute, the issue will be put to vote and the two ruling parties together can defeat the former rebels.
The Maoists are pushing for military training at a time they have a parallel army of their own, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) with nearly 20,000 acknowledged fighters. They have refused to demobilise the fighters despite agreeing to do so while signing a peace agreement in 2006 and the refusal has cast a dark shadow over the new constitution, that has to be unveiled by May 2011. In October, when a concerned UN sent its undersecretary-general for political affairs, B Lynn Pascoe, to Nepal to assess the progress of the discharge process, the Maoists had agreed to withdraw their control over the PLA and put the fighters under the command of a special committee headed by the prime minister.
However, last week, defying the PM, and despite objections by the UN, nearly 1500 PLA commanders attended the Maoist plenum. Karin Landgren, chief of the UN Mission in Nepal that has been monitoring the PLA, said on Wednesday that the PLA participation in the plenum was a violation of the peace accord.
Maoist lawmaker Dev Gurung, who represented his party at the talks on the new constitution to iron out differences, said military training was needed for Nepal to defend itself against military intervention by other countries. Though he did not spell it out, the Maoists have been, time and again, raising the spectre of military intervention by India. At the party plenum last week, Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda branded India as Nepal's principal foe and spoke about the need to wage a war on the neighbouring country.
However, besides Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal's Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist, its main ally, the NC, has also rejected the demand. NC leader Ramesh Lekhak said the idea of compulsory training was mooted at a time in the past when there were dangers of foreign attacks. But today, most countries had scrapped the system. "We support the need for citizens to be patriotic," the former minister said. "But today Nepal doesn't need military training. It needs economic development."
Though the dispute will be taken up once again Thursday, constitutional provisions indicate that the Maoists are not going to prevail. In case of continued dispute, the issue will be put to vote and the two ruling parties together can defeat the former rebels.
The Maoists are pushing for military training at a time they have a parallel army of their own, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) with nearly 20,000 acknowledged fighters. They have refused to demobilise the fighters despite agreeing to do so while signing a peace agreement in 2006 and the refusal has cast a dark shadow over the new constitution, that has to be unveiled by May 2011. In October, when a concerned UN sent its undersecretary-general for political affairs, B Lynn Pascoe, to Nepal to assess the progress of the discharge process, the Maoists had agreed to withdraw their control over the PLA and put the fighters under the command of a special committee headed by the prime minister.
However, last week, defying the PM, and despite objections by the UN, nearly 1500 PLA commanders attended the Maoist plenum. Karin Landgren, chief of the UN Mission in Nepal that has been monitoring the PLA, said on Wednesday that the PLA participation in the plenum was a violation of the peace accord.
Read more: Maoists fail to turn Nepal into military state - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Maoists-fail-to-turn-Nepal-into-military-state/articleshow/7023497.cms#ixzz16y8Vea2R
With India on UNSC, Nepal Maoists rethink strategy
Indo-Asian News Service
Kathmandu, December 01, 2010
Kathmandu, December 01, 2010
First Published: 16:43 IST(1/12/2010)
Last Updated: 16:45 IST(1/12/2010)
Last Updated: 16:45 IST(1/12/2010)
With India assuming a seat on the UN Security Council after 19 years, Nepal's opposition Maoist party will have to do some quick rethink of its old strategy of projecting the southern neighbour as its arch enemy. As the former guerrillas ready for a fresh round of deliberations at their central
committee meeting starting Thursday, the voice of reason is urging the party leadership to go back on the threat Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda made at the recently concluded plenum, calling for a war on India.
The former rebels have been banking heavily on the UN for legitimacy as a political party after staging an armed insurrection for 10 years from 1996. While signing a peace agreement with the major political parties in 2006, the Maoists insisted on the UN being part of the peace process, and from 2007 the UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) began to monitor their People's Liberation Army (PLA).
After the parties and the Maoists failed to work together to disband the PLA and rehabilitate its nearly 20,000 guerrillas within six months of signing the peace agreement, the UNMIN was given several extensions by the UN Security Council.
However, in September this year, the Security Council announced it would give one last extension to the UNMIN, after which it would begin to pull out from Nepal from Jan 15, 2011.
Though only 45 days remain for the pullout, neither Nepal's caretaker government nor the Maoists have made any move to discharge the PLA.
Now with India joining the UN Security Council drom Jan 1 as a non-permanent member, it will be a difficult, if not impossible, task for the Maoists to seek another extension if it continues to attack the Indian government.
New Delhi says it feels the Maoists are not serious about the peace process. While signing the peace accord they agreed to multi-party democracy and a peace process climaxing in a new constitution. Disbanding the Maoist army is pivotal to the peace process but even four years later, there has been no ground action.
When UN Undersecretary-general for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe arrives in Kathmandu Friday to assess the progress made to rehabilitate the PLA, India will convey its serious concerns to him.
The Maoist leadership has also belatedly begun to understand the implication of India returning to the UNSC.
Soon after the plenum, both Prachanda and his deputy Narayan Kaji Shrestha have begun to try to gloss over the attack on India, saying the Maoists do not regard India as the prime enemy.
They are also trying to underplay the call to arms against India by saying the resistance will be made only if India tries to intervene in Nepal's internal matters.
But New Delhi is not buying the explanation.
Senior Indian diplomats say Prachanda proved to be a master of doublespeak.
The best example of that, they say, is the Maoists' repeated attacks on the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty between India and Nepal.
The Maoists dubbed it unequal and demanded it be scrapped, right from 1996 when they went to war.
However, during Prachanda's own tenure as prime minister, he did nothing to get the issue rolling. Instead, every time the Indian foreign secretary visited Nepal and the Prachanda government was asked to sit down and begin talks on the issue, it kept on shelving the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)