Opinion Meddling and muddling in Nepal
As Nepal struggles hard to find a way out of the constitutional conundrum confronting it,foreign friends have stepped up in a big way to extend their not-so-invisible hands to ease the situation. But more than what they have prescribed for the country in the likely event of its missing the May 28 deadline for delivering […]
As Nepal struggles hard to find a way out of the constitutional conundrum confronting it,foreign friends have stepped up in a big way to extend their not-so-invisible hands to ease the situation. But more than what they have prescribed for the country in the likely event of its missing the May 28 deadline for delivering the constitution,it is their brazen manner that has offended not only the government,but also citizens. Nepals media and academics now say that their actions are clear interference in the countrys internal matters.
Nepal,given its history of welcoming the international community into the domestic arena in the past few years,has not officially expressed its displeasure,except through some statements by politicians (including ministers) criticising certain UN agencies. But it is not only UN agencies that have taken inordinate liberties,with impunity.
Frances ambassador to Nepal recently told Prime Minister Madhav Nepal in plain language that it was time for him to quit his post in order to pave the way for political consensus. This happened when a delegation from the European Union went to meet the prime minister a couple of days after the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (UCPN-M) called off its indefinite strike on its sixth day,following massive resistance from the people,and appeals from the international community.
The French ambassador had reason to believe that the Maoist gesture was in response to their appeal,although UCPN-M Chief Prachanda later said the withdrawal was based on his initiative as it went against the common people. The prime ministers office said the suggestion from the French ambassador was an unsolicited one,but given Nepals ever-increasing dependence on external assistance,especially for post-conflict development and construction,and given the EUs centrality to such aid,official displeasure on such conduct is out of the question.
The French ambassadors statement is not exceptional,or an aberration in diplomatic conduct. The Norwegian ambassador hosted a dinner at his official residence with the clear agenda of getting the two Left parties,UCPN-M,and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) which now heads the government,to come to an understanding. The way the message was conveyed to the two sides may not have been as crude,but the degree of interest that Norway has shown in Nepals domestic politics is enormous,comparable to its interest in Sri Lanka. Nor is Denmark far behind,with an ambassador as open and vocal as his diplomatic peers.
The only time that a diplomat was somewhat censured,in the recent past,was when Army Chief Chhatraman Singh Gurung expressed his displeasure after the Chief of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner (OHCHR),Richard Bennett,unilaterally leaked the contents of their courtesy meeting to the media,way back in September. Ever since,General Gurung has refused to see Bennett,always directing him to the Army Headquarters Human Rights Department for any official business. The only exception Gurung made was when Lynn Pascoe,deputy secretary general and head of political affairs at the UN,wanted Bennett in his team,during a meeting with the army chief in March.
The government has apparently taken note of the growing hostility towards UN agencies accused of inappropriate dabbling in internal politics,and that could be the reason behind its ongoing preparation to close down four regional offices in the country. The OHCHR is however,likely to get an extension for a year beyond June 9 on the condition that it submits an exit plan. The EU has been lobbying hard for an unconditional extension of the OHCHRs stay in Nepal,although even the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has expressed resentment about the OHCHR style of functioning. The United Nations Mission to Nepal (UNMIN),which came to assist certain aspects of the peace process in June 2006,has managed to get four extensions,the latest being for four months beginning May 23. That too,has not been above criticism of late. A person no less than G.P. Koirala,who was instrumental in getting UNMIN to Nepal,had complained to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,in the latter half of 2008,that the UNMINs then-head Ian Martin,was biased in favour of the Maoists. Martin has since been replaced by Karen Landgren,but that has not erased suspicions about the UNMINs fairness and efficiency.
Amidst all this,the government is facing major pressure from certain EU members as well as the UN,who are lobbying for insertion of a clause in the new constitution to legitimise religious conversion. As things stand,Nepals declaration that it was a secular state (as opposed to its earlier status of a Hindu kingdom) soon after the success of the peoples movement,is now being challenged by some political parties,a large number of moderate Hindus,as well as hardliners. The external pressure for the right to conversion is likely to create a bitter tussle,with larger implications on social and communal amity.
As Nepals political actors are being criticised at home for their failure to deliver the constitution,the international community (including immediate neighbours as well as the UN system) also faces the peoples ire. Some claim a nexus between the Maoist campaign to demolish the old regime and the EUs support for the right to conversion. With the initial euphoria over the EU and other countries support for the democracy movement having evaporated,even the government now seems to resent the meddling.
And if whispers in the corridors of power in Singhadurbar (secretariat) are any indication,the government may take a cue from the people and tell the world that enough is enough.
yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com
Share
