In a briefing to the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, the U.N. Secretary-General's Representative in Nepal, Karin Landgren warned that “risks to the peace process, and to democratic governance in Nepal, are real”. Ms. Landgren told the Security Council, which met to discuss Nepal's request for U.N. assistance in its peace process, that the “gulf of mistrust between parties has paralysed the political process”.
The government had sent a letter to the Security Council requesting a four-month extension of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN). The letter asked that UNMIN's mandate “focuses itself on the monitoring of management of Maoist combatants and their arms”. It also mentioned that “being the national army, Nepal Army has been working under democratic control”, and there are specific “constitutional and legal provisions for control, mobilisation and management of the Nepal Army”.
But the letter did not explicitly demand a change in UNMIN's mandate to take Nepal Army (NA) off its monitoring, which has been a part of its role since January 2007. Neither did it mention that UNMIN should continue with the same mandate. This, U.N. sources say, is “unclear” and has created confusion.
The Nepal Army had been lobbying in recent weeks to be taken off monitoring in the “changed context”, where it argues there are no longer “two sides” to the conflict. Leaders of non-Maoist parties had supported the army's demand, while the Maoists had opposed any change in UNMIN's mandate and said taking the NA off monitoring would be a direct violation of past agreements.
The Maoists have now said they will write a separate letter to the Security Council. “The government did not consult us on the exact contents of the letter. While we are willing to discuss the NA's operational problems, we believe NA should remain under UNMIN monitoring. UNMIN's tenure should be extended for six months with the same mandate,” Maoist leader Barshaman Pun ‘Ananta' told The Hindu .
In her briefing, Ms. Landgren said: “Whether or not ‘two sides' still exist, there are manifestly still two armies...It is cause for concern that the Nepal Army now seeks unilaterally to withdraw from and to alter the scope of the Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies [AMMAA]…Any unilateral decision in this regard may have the effect of abrogating the treaty.” She also made it clear that without an agreement between all parties, UNMIN cannot continue to monitor one side at the request of the other.
Security Council members will consult among themselves, and possibly seek clarification from the Nepal government, before taking a decision on renewal of mandate. Within the Security Council, some permanent members are understood to be pushing for a “technical rollover” of the mandate till there is clarity and agreement between the parties. Others have asked for time to consult their capitals.
Ms. Landgren also pointed to the broader risks of an unresolved leadership crisis keeping critical decisions in limbo, the possibility that CA may expire without writing the Constitution by next May, deteriorating security, threats to journalistic independence, and a “contested end to monitoring of arms and armies, with unpredictable consequences”. The biggest risk, she said, may be that the “peace process and parliamentary process appear discredited”.
