National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

"Nepal Can Achieve A Lasting, Democratic And Prosperous Peace"

SIR JEFFREY JAMES, the British Special Envoy to Nepal, recently visited Kathmandu. During his stay, Sir James met with King Gyanendra, prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa and other political leaders. Sir James addressed a press conference at the British Embassy on December 5. Excerpts of his statement and his answers to media queries compiled by KESHAB POUDEL:

This is yet another in the series of regular visits to Nepal since my appointment last February. I should recall that my role is to help co-ordinate British Government support for peace, stability and development in Nepal, and to help strengthen consultation and coordination with Nepal’s other international partners.

As on my previous visits, I have met the Prime Minister and a wide range of representatives from the government, the political parties, and the international community. I will be having an audience with His Majesty the King later this evening.

It is a profound disappointment that armed conflict continues unabated, bringing needless suffering and hardship across the country. Prolonged conflict will cause even more severe damage to the economy and to the well being of people of Nepal. We remain convinced that there can be no acceptable military solution to the conflict in Nepal. Lasting peace can only be achieved through negotiations conducted with good faith, goodwill and willingness to succeed.

We are increasingly concerned at the impact of violence on the security and human rights of the Nepalese people. We condemn human rights violations from whatever quarter. The continuing murders, bombings, abductions and extortion by the Maoists constitute the most severe violation of human rights. Attacks on economic infrastructure and forced migration undermine the human security of many Nepalese and are totally unacceptable. We uphold the right and responsibility of the government to counter such violence, and to protect people and property, but this has to be exercised in full compliance with domestic law and international standards. There is growing concern at the volume of credible reports and evidence of violations by the security forces. In this context, we will welcome the recent statement by the chief of the Army Staff that each and every security action should abide by the principles of human rights and the governing laws, and that the RNA will take immediate action to penalize wrong doers.

This underlines the need to ensure that reports of human rights violations are properly investigated and appropriate action taken against those found guilty. We commend the indepenendent role of the National Human Rights Commission in monitoring and investigating allegations of violations. And we would also urge both sides to adopt the Human Rights Accord, which was prepared during the ceasefire.

Given the devastating consequences of indefinite conflict, we call upon both sides to work to restore the ceasefire and to resume the peace process as soon as possible, putting all the issues on the table without preconditions. Even at this stage, it is worth considering the elements of a successful outcome to the peace process. The aim is presumably to achieve a democratic, stable Nepal, which is friendly to development and respect human rights. This points to the need for an overall agreement embracing constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy, under which all sides renounce the use and means of violence for political ends, and all parties are free to participate in national elections and to form or join a government if successful. These seem to be the essentials of any agreement likely to be acceptable to the majority of the Nepalese people and true to the principles of parliamentary democracy. The concept of a one-party dictatorship imposed through military forces has no place in such a vision. We have no illusions about the differences in achieving this goal, but such a democratic peace would enjoy the full support of the international community and open the way to assistance for post-conflict reconstruction.

Over the past year, we have regularly expressed our hope to see the formation of a broadly based multi-party government, enjoying widespread support and exercising full executive powers. It seems more necessary than ever to find a solution to the current differences. A negotiated settlement to the conflict will require the involvement of all interested parties. And as time goes by, the absence of representative institutions, at national and local level, will continue to erode the principles and practice of parliamentary democracy. This risk is all the greater if security considerations take priority over the protection and promotion of human rights and democratic norms.

On a more positive note, I would like to welcome the recent adoption of the IMF and the World Bank programs for Nepal. These will provide significant resources in support of government economic and social reform programs, designed to reduce poverty. Despite the difficult political and security situation, the British government has given consistent backing to these programs, as well as significantly increasing its own development assistance to Nepal. Along with other development agencies, we are also providing support for communities in conflict areas. In this context, we condemn the recent murder of a Nepali aid worker in Dailekh. We call upon both sides to respect the neutrality and independence of such development activities.

I am still optimistic that Nepal can achieve a lasting, democratic and prosperous peace. Britain remains committed to encourage and support the pursuit of peaceful outcome to the conflict, and to development and reform, working with the Government, other institutions and civil society, to help achieve real inroads into poverty.

On His Meetings

It is my practice in all visits not to disclose the content of individual meetings, which I have had with my interlocutors in Nepal. I don’t intend to change that practice, at least not without their permission. I note that some of the party leaders did comment on our discussions and attributed views and statement to myself. I cannot stop them from doing that. But it is not my practice to comment on such meetings. Purpose of my meeting with party leaders was not to interfere or try to broker any kind of agreement. It was like all of my earlier meetings really; to hear their points of view, to understand their concern so that, we, the British government, can understand the situation here and play the role more effectively. We do attach great importance to the restoration of the multi-party government, which can take forward the agenda and the resolution of the conflict and the government’s own program of social and economic reforms.

We recognize entirely that the conflict and political differences in Nepal is primarily a matter for Nepalese people. Our role, essentially, is a limited one and we have no illusion of trying to play a role greater than possible. But we do believe that through our interactions with all relevant sections of the political and other players in Nepal, if we can, we will perhaps persuade them through training programs or through our diplomacy. Disseminating ideas, encouraging contacts, encouraging appropriate approaches - we do believe that in this respect we can play helpful role. We can help to bring into the situation perhaps some of the international experience we might have had and may be from other parts of the world. Of course, we have the objective (to share with any country) of promoting democratization, upholding parliamentary principles and promoting and protecting human rights. Our commitment is to help Nepal and Nepalese people in tackling problems like poverty and unemployment - all the issues that help to raise the conflict.

On Terrorism

We are very careful about the use of the word terrorist and terrorism because that has a particular legal connotation in our system. However, the action by the Maoists deliberately creating the atmosphere of fear and intimidation through the use of murder, extortion and violence, these methods, in our views, are quite unacceptable and constitutes the severe violations of human rights and we have absolutely no hesitation in condemning such violence.

On Development Assistance

As far as the development assistance is concerned, I don’t see any risk at all. The donor communities work very closely together in formulating and coordinating their programs. Each donor perhaps has its own priorities that they wish to support in education and health, this and that. There is very good coordination mechanism with the government to ensure that these programs complement each other. You will be seen in the wake of the recent agreements with the World Bank and IMF program. The donor agencies associated with it did issue statement in which they stressed the need to restore democracy and the human rights. Those issues are real. It is quite possible that if the situation in the country does not improve it will become more and more difficult to implement economic and social reform programs.

On State’s Role

We do believe that the state through the Royal Nepalese Army and police do have a right and responsibility to defend the people of Nepal against the violence. For that reason, we are prepared to give certain types of assistance to the Royal Nepalese Army to help them combat more effectively while emphasizing that it does not imply or include lethal weaponry. We continue to supply some non-lethal equipment plus training in areas, which are perhaps directly relevant to combating the threat of violence. Take for instance the training on how to deal with explosive devices and how to handle the bombing and particular threats. At the same time, we do recognize the need to ensure security actions to be carried out in compliance with human rights norms and international law in accordance with domestic laws as well. We are committed to enhance understanding of police and army about their obligations and responsibilities.

We have made clear that the resolution of the conflict will require the active participation and appropriate role for all of the players amongst the democratic forces in Nepal. The peace process would have to take into account the interest and involvement of all players.

On Opinion of Washington and New Delhi

I don’t see any real difference in terms of the analysis of the problems during the development of the past year or two. Nor do I see any difference in thought, which I have said in my statement, that the outcome will be the re-affirmations of multi-party democracy and renunciation of violence, which will be followed by the participation of all parties in normal democratic process. There is also a great deal of common ground in terms of sharing views that the restoration of, for example the multi-party government, should be a top priority. So there is a great unanimity of views between the three partners of Nepal - India, the United States and the United Kingdom. I won’t deny that once they sit down and discuss, there are different angles and different new answers, which we can discuss in quite civilized fashions. So I don’t think it undermines our joint commitments to help Nepal come to a kind of resolution of a conflict I have just outlined.

On Further Negotiations

I think it is wise to keep our mind open about the prospects of negotiations. The objective to open the negotiations should be kept in mind. We are very conscious that while the conflict continues, the situation of the vast majority of the Nepalese people deteriorates in a number of ways in terms of their security, ability to carry on with their lives and economic dimension of the country. There are strong arguments to prevent further deterioration of situation by looking for a resumption of negotiations. It is up to two sides to resume the negotiations. I don’t expect that just one side declaring cease-fire and other side will go along. We would like to see the early resumption of negotiations.

On Third Party Mediation

This is entirely for the parties themselves to decide whether they want third party. Let me be clear that the British government has no interest in assuming the role of facilitator or mediator. We continue to believe that if parties in conflict wish, there is a great deal of expertise available outside Nepal like the United Nations, international non-governmental organizations and individuals. Our policy is not to meet the Maoist representatives in head of the mission level. It is not our policy to meet Maoist in London or anywhere else for that matter. We have no intention of changing that policy which is shared by the EU partners in particular. We have no intention of changing that policy until such time as we have confident that the Maoist side will renounce the use and means of violence and will be prepared to accept the democratic outcome. While the Maoist continue to engage in criminal activities and continue to use violence for political end, it is difficult for anyone to give them recognition and legitimacy.

On Lucknow Meeting

The circumstances surrounding the meeting, to me at least, is still unclear. I don’t think it is for me to comment. We played no particular roles in these contact in terms of the motives of the parties concerned. I think you need to ask the parties concerned who presented their views in public.