Page 1 of
2 UN's welcome mat in Nepal
frays by Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Eyebrows are being raised in
Nepal's immediate neighborhood about the
implications of a protracted United Nations
presence in the country.
Concerns from
both New Delhi and Beijing have became pronounced
in recent weeks as Kathmandu prepares to submit on
Friday a formal request to the UN Security Council
for a six-month extension of the United Nations
Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) . Its
initial 12-month stint
expires on January 22, 2008.
"They want to
treat Nepal as a UN protectorate, they are going
to mess it up," the Nepali Times newspaper quoted
an unnamed senior Indian official in New Delhi as
saying. The jitters are ostensibly based on
intelligence reports that the UNMIN's contacts
with Nepal's political class have gone down to the
grassroots level, including in districts bordering
India.
China, too, is uncomfortable seeing
hordes of foreigners, even if under the UN
umbrella, becoming longtime residents in Nepal, a
country sharing a border with Tibet. But unlike
New Delhi, Beijing's expression of anxiety comes
in a more discreet manner. A senior official of
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), for instance,
told his Nepali hosts last week his country would
not interfere in Nepal's affairs, and that Nepal
could resolve its problems through its own
efforts.
However, last week the visitor,
Wang Jiarui, head of the CCP's international
department, also conveyed his country's readiness
to offer needed assistance to interim Prime
Minister Girija Prasad. Such expressions, whenever
they are made, are perceived as a message that
China is alert about whatever India - and the
United States - are trying to do regarding Nepal.
In the early 1970s, Khampa exiles from Tibet were
found carrying out attacks on their own homeland
from bases inside Nepal with guns they received
from the US Central Intelligence Agency.
Both New Delhi and Beijing know that the
UNMIN was set up in the wake of a peace pact
concluded between former Maoist rebels and a
coalition of seven political parties who earlier
had put up a joint political movement, ending King
Gyanendra's rule, in April 2006. Request for the
UN mission was jointly made to acquire assistance
in handling the unfolding events and challenges.
The Security Council resolution (Number
1740) authorizing the establishment of the mission
took note of the request for UN assistance in
implementing key aspects of the peace agreement
"in particular monitoring of arrangements relating
to the management of arms and armed personnel of
both sides and election monitoring". The election
for a constituent assembly, scheduled for November
22, has been postponed indefinitely and
initiatives to resolve the issue of arms and
armies have yet to produce any amicable solution.
This has required the UNMIN to prolong its
presence.
According to Ian Martin, special
representative of the UN secretary general, India
and China were "very supportive" of the original
arrangement for the UNMIN. Martin told the media
last month that he has held periodic discussions
with the Indian and Chinese ambassadors with "no
major complaints" being reported. While China is a
permanent Security Council member, India is a
country to which members of the Security Council
pay attention.
That means China can
directly express its views when Nepal's case comes
up at the Security Council for a possible
extension of tenure, while India's concerns are
likely to be communicated through the United
States, with which India has a strategic
partnership. Also to be considered is the United
Kingdom, which was given the lead role to draft
the original mandate for the UNMIN. The European
Union indicated, through a statement this month,
that the EU would support the Nepali request for
an extension of the UNMIN's mandate.
But
observers doubt that a six-month extension will be
enough time for the UNMIN to complete its mission
and the criticisms it faces are varied and
stinging and have come from from all conceivable
quarters - the political parties, security forces,
the intelligentsia, the bureaucracy and the
public. While the consensus developed by the
leaders of the main political parties for UNMIN's
extension is generally positive, their critical
remarks reflect a more general public opinion that
progress has been neither swift nor satisfactory.
The public frustration becomes more
pronounced at the sight of a large fleet of
UN-marked vehicles, including some aircraft, with
no noticeable improvement in the situation. Peace
and order are as elusive as ever. The economy,
which is mainly kept afloat by remittances from
Nepali laborers send from the Gulf countries, has
ceased to be based either on agriculture or on
manufacturing industries.
UNMIN officials
have often been censured for not doing the jobs
they are expected to do and for entering areas
where they are not supposed to intervene. Maoist
combatants living in cantonments, for example,
cannot leave their areas, as is stipulated in the
peace agreements. But UNMIN monitors have not
bothered to prevent their unauthorized exits.
Another particular case surfaced last month when
UNMIN's senior military adviser, Jan Erik
Wilhelmsen, was seen attending a parade the
Maoists had organized to mark the seventh
anniversary of the Maoist's army.
The
event, boycotted by government leaders and
officials, attracted a good amount of controversy.
UNMIN officials defended
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
