 |
|
| Kathmandu, Friday February 14, 2003 Falgun 02, 2059. |
|
Fate
of ceasefire in absence of ground rules
< By DR BIPIN
ADHIKARI <
With every passing day,
the pool of people questioning the fate of ceasefire recently declared by the Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) and His Majesty’s illegitimate government is getting bigger.
Dialogue is said to be underway between parties unknown to the polity, without any initial
agreement on what they are going to talk, and under what sort of ground rules. No matter
how complex the conflict is, no matter how much harm has been done, as a positive note, we
can argue that peace can prevail only if those who are brokering it are sufficiently
honest and have tested ways to ensure the participation of all political forces in the
country. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case.
The approach of HMG so
far known to the general public is not adequate to ensure cessation of hostilities of this
magnitude. The first and foremost issue, something the whole nation has started to despair
about, is that the government is not a legitimate creation. It is not accountable to the
people in any sense. It does not have the right to take any oath on behalf of the people.
It can serve the peace process well if it resigns as soon as possible, requesting the King
to restore the legitimate government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. The Deuba
government alone can give continuity to the constitutional order that the King withheld
under his perceived royal authority.
Even if the legitimacy
criterion is overlooked in view of the nature of political crisis, and the need to solve
it, nobody can excuse the government for the lack of transparency. In terms of practical
details, a government which itself is illegitimate, and cannot ensure transparency of
procedures, cannot lay down the all accepted norms of ceasefire or details of operative
rules for military, police and militia forces, passage to freedom of movement, the
measures to restore normalcy, and the nature of ceasefire monitoring missions. Good faith
alone is not adequate to act on behalf of the people; one needs constitutional methods,
that the government desperately lacks. In this background, genuine reconciliation between
the two parties is a long way off. The behaviour of the parties to the conflict also shows
that both sides still someway intend to remain committed to violence.
A ceasefire is only the
point of departure. It must move ahead with a broad-based national consensus. Peace cannot
be negotiated on a durable basis if there is no involvement of all organised political
forces whose opinion counts in the political process. Conflicts are enacted and sustained
by organised forces. They can be ended by organised forces. Exclusion of any organised
force from the process means the negotiated settlement is not owned by everybody. A
consolidated negotiation is important for the Maoists as well because the post conflict
peace building requires good diagnosis of all the relevant social, political and practical
problems and a realistic programme of work if it is to prevent the recurrence of conflict.
If the issues remain intact, conflicts might also remain intact.
A hundred percent
effort is required to unite all political forces in their approach to ceasefire and
alternative political solutions. Nobody should forget that public attitudes in a case like
this are shaped by political leaders, and if they do not present an attitude with an
ability to attain success amidst the ordinary people, the prospect of any compromise will
be doomed. It takes courage and perseverance and very steady nerves to seek an end to the
violence in this situation. To say the least, there must be a genuine willingness to
listen to and understand the others’ point of view and enter into principled
compromise. As the government is without political back up, it is bound to suffer from the
lack of courage, perseverance and steady nerves.
The ongoing conflict
has international dimensions as well. In the absence of unity of all organised political
forces, and given the nature of the geopolitical situation of the country, it might well
be likely that whenever there is the slightest glimmer of progress, assassinations and
bombings would occur, with the direct and deliberate effect of attempts to prevent the
negotiations from continuing. There is no doubt that those who are left out in the process
will challenge the prospect of peace, if there is indeed any such possibility under the
present volatile situation. If either sides succumb to the temptation to retaliate, that
would give the enemies of this country what they want, escalating violence and obstruction
to the peace process. It is more than clear that HMG has become an instrument to undo the
democratic heights the political set up had achieved during the last twelve year,
notwithstanding the increase in corruption and abuse of authority.
Seeking a rapid
resolution to end violence may set the stage for intensified conflict in the future.
Similarly, adopting a longer term response that focuses on altering underlying societal
conditions, however, runs the risk of perceived failure and the prolonging of suffering or
loss of life as the conflict drags on. When focusing on immediate issues, people end up
paying less attention to underlying systemic causes of abuse and the long-term structural
remedies needed to correct them. Efforts can be made only through an integrated approach
of all political forces to help navigate these decisions in such a way that they are
mentally reinforcing.
Human rights norms and
actions were devised not to prevent armed conflicts but are of prime relevance due to
their inherent values. But this is an important theme, which can give a lot of inputs to
the peace process. Human rights standards provide a basis for separating legitimate
negotiating demands (for example, equality) from illegitimate ones (for example,
domination). Because they are universal and thus transcend the parties in conflict, human
rights standards provide an important touchstone for what is just. However, not all
conflict resolution initiatives use human rights as a basis for measuring justice.
Of course, the success
is not always guaranteed, especially in the short run. However, experience shows that
wherever a good human rights approach is pursued in a serious and well-thought-out manner,
human rights can make a meaningful contribution to the prevention of armed conflict.
It is important to
recognise that by itself the peace agreement, even if it is signed, will not have a
guaranteed footing or assist in political stability or reconciliation. It will endure only
if it is fair and balanced. It will succeed if it is based on democratic and peaceful
considerations, and if total disarmament of all rebels is pursued. The need for mutual
respect and tolerance between parties is exclusively necessary. It should explicitly
repudiate the use or threat of violence for any political purpose. It should be a
disciplined and tightly focused effort. An agreement makes peace possible, but it takes
many years of effort in good faith to realise things that have been agreed. There must
also be a recognition that implementation of such an agreement is even more important and
difficult than getting such an agreement.
There is a temptation
to celebrate an act of agreement and then shift attention elsewhere. This has often been
seen around the world. Implementing the agreement is a longer and a much more painstaking
step than having a mere agreement. And if a conflict is important enough for us to get
involved in trying to get an agreement, then we must remain involved until the agreement
is fully implemented. Unfortunately, despite the repeated calls of the National Human
Rights Commission and the remaining civil society, the government is trying to ignore even
the necessity of having a ceasefire agreement signed. Again, a government, which need not
go to the people to exist in power, cannot feel the cost of arrogance to the ailing
motherland.
(The author is a
lawyer)
Other Stories
|
