 |
| |
VOL. 27, NO. 38, June 06 , 2008 (Jestha 24 2065 B.S.)
|
|
Any future UN role should begin with the request from Nepal
IAN MARTIN, Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Nepal, attended press conference at Kathmandu after his visit to New York. Excerpt of his press meet:
You said that Nepal still has a lot of challenges ahead. Do you think that UNMIN is needed here beyond the third week of July?
As I have said, that is a question for the Nepali political actors to ask themselves and decide. Certainly, I think there needs to be consideration, particularly, of what follows on from UNMIN’s arms monitoring role. That has been the central task apart from our electoral work which obviously has now concluded. And one of the subjects of negotiation now amongst the political parties is how they intend to deal with the issues described in the Comprehensive Peace Accord as integration of the Maoist combatants and democratisation of the Nepal Army, and in that context they have to decide whether there is a need for continuing a UN role.
You said that UNMIN or the UN can continue support beyond the normal activities of the world body. Can you specify in which format that UN can continue the support?
No, because that has to start with what support the Nepal Government, the Nepali political actors want. If they tell the United Nations what continuing support they want, then it becomes up to the United Nations to configure, to design what kind of presence - undoubtedly very much smaller than UNMIN - might be useful in response to any such request. But it has to start with their request, their specification of any roles for which the United Nations is still required.
Did someone explicitly tell you we do not need UNMIN anymore or something like that?
As I have said, I still think it is clear that there is an urgent need to the answer the question as to what is the transition from arms monitoring. Now, that depends upon what decisions are made as to how the issues of integration of the Maoist army are going to be addressed by a new government, and it is when the political actors reach some agreement on that I think they need to say whether it requires a continuing United Nations role or not. But there is still a little time for that.
Have you discussed with political leaders on this matter?
Very little. Because I think the discussion with political leaders has to begin with what are the functions that they believe are necessary. Then it is more for the United Nations side to say, well these are the ways that the United Nations would normally organise itself to provide the kind of assistance you are requesting.
Our most powerful southern neighbour; it has time and again, through its emissaries also, had some reservations of the extension of UNMIN. What would you say about that?
First, both China and India were very supportive of the creation of UNMIN. Indeed there was a discussion as to how long the initial mandate should be but that had much less to do with UNMIN and the circumstances of Nepal than it did to do with the general doctrine of the Security Council and their desire to ensure that they regularly review mandates and don't necessarily extend it for a long periods of time.
What about Nepal’s northern neighbour China, which is the prominent member of the Security Council?
China is of course a member of the Security Council, and in the discussions in New York, it expressed - as it has consistently - the view that any future UN role should begin with the request from Nepal, and its willingness to be supportive of such a request. India is not a member of the Council but both the outgoing Indian Ambassador, Ambassador Mukherjee, and the new Indian Ambassador, have said that the question of any continued role is a matter for Nepal, and therefore I have assumed that both governments would indeed be swayed by what the Nepali political decision-makers decide.
The Indian Sitaram Yechuri, [inaudible] categorically, in this forum also, said that UNMIN should not be continued after July 22?
I am going to confine myself to what official spokespersons from the Government of India say, and say to United Nations.
If the parties involved here say they are going to monitor the management of arms and armies ourselves without any neutral body, would it be credible for the international community?
It is not really a question of what the international community’s view would be, it is rather: would it be sufficient to maintain the necessary level of confidence in Nepal. UNMIN is only here, not because the international community imposed it, but because Nepal requested it - because it was believed that a neutral third party would enhance the level of confidence in the process. That judgement again has to be made in Nepal.
