National 7 (Spotlight Weekly)

Transformation of Conflict in Nepal: A Human Right Approach

Bipin Adhikari

There is a clear-cut difference between conflict and violence. Conflict is natural, normal, and ubiquitous. Violence is not. Conflict exists in every country, every community, every family, and in the life of each individual. Violence may not exist in every society. It is an opportunity missed, a failure of creativity or of adequately/appropriately dealing with the conflict, and a promise for more violence in the future. The theme became an issue of lively debate recently when the National Human Rights Commission organized series of interactions entitled Transformation of Conflict in Nepal: A Human Right Approach to facilitate the ongoing peace process in Nepal with particular reference to the protection of human rights of the common people.

Professor Johan Galtung, Director of TRANSCEND- a Peace and Development Network for Conflict Transformation by peaceful means ñ was hired by the project to lead all these interaction programs. Between these programs, Professor Galtung had series of smaller roundtables, and often close-door meetings, with several senior leaders of the leading political parties, facilitators of the ongoing peace process, and key stakeholders including Maoists, Secretaries of His Majesty's Government, senior representatives of security and police forces, and some members of the peace negotiation teams.

Professor Galtung clearly emphasized during these interaction programs that the occurrence of conflict is a common phenomenon, which occurs in all societies that have fault-lines along gender, class, and territorial and other aspects. Such existing contradictions however, can be resolved amicably if they are viewed with a positive perspective, and with a clear-cut plan for the future. He pointed out that conflict is an outcome of incompatible goals between groups in society and the resolution of conflicts requires positive efforts from all groups of society to maintain peace and stability in the whole country. It is therefore the responsibility of every Nepali citizen to be a part of the peace process, which indeed provides a unique opportunity to resolve all outstanding issues that may be directly or indirectly related to the conflict. He further added that it is imperative to make all important institutions of the society, including the major political parties to be a part of the process and contribute to the cause of peace. For if Nepalese themselves refrain from participating in such an important cause, the resultant vacuum could at some point lead to intervention in the process by parties outside our system which will be most detrimental to Nepalese interests.

Meanwhile, Dr Henning Karcher, also pointed out that those engaged in the peace process to look carefully at the continual reports in the press concerning accusations of violations of the ceasefire and code of conduct and that it was time to reach some practical agreements on human rights and the mechanism for monitoring them. Any human rights agreement is only as strong as long as the mechanism is in place to monitor it, Dr. Karcher said. He further said that whatever mechanism is decided upon, it will have to be credible, speedy and impartial and that will require monitors with training to ensure quality work and a uniform methodology. It will require mobility and good communications so accusations can be assessed and reported on to the parties as expeditiously as possible and demand a capacity at the national level to assess and analyze the information received from the different regions so the monitoring body can reach well-founded judgments and make useful recommendations, he said.

Dr. Karcher further emphasized that even the best monitoring body requires a clear mandate. He stated that it is essential to make sure that any human rights accord to be signed between parties to the conflict must be as clear as the existing commitments of the Parties and must be based on established international standards. The human rights agreement should go beyond just a statement of good intentions; it should be a document that enables practical monitoring and that the agreement would be an opportunity for both Parties to clarify their understanding of human rights in practice, Dr. Karcher said. It will be an opportunity to inform the Nepalese public of the stance of the Parties in regard to human rights and also an opportunity for the leaders of the Parties to make it clear to their forces that they must abide by the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which sets out the duties of combatants in a non-international conflict to protect civilians. A human rights accord would be the ideal way for the leaders and negotiators to spell this out clearly and specifically to those under their orders. He also stressed that whatever mechanism is finally agreed on by the Parties to monitor such an agreement it will need to have the resources, both financial and technical, to carry out the job assigned to it with credibility. n