National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

“Flawed Elections Are Worse Than No Elections At All”

— Sir Jeffrey James

SIR JEFFREY JAMES, United Kingdom’s Special Envoy for Nepal, completed his five day visit last week when he met various political leaders including King Gyanendra. Sir James spoke to press before leaving for his country. Follows excerpts of his press statement delivered at the press meet on March 26 and his replies to various queries compiled by KESHAB POUDEL.

Armed conflict as we have seen it, continues with greater ferocity and obviously the security situation is not sufficiently improved over the period. The constitutional deadlock remains unresolved. There was no progress in the past three and four months. In this situation, obviously our concern is for democracy, development and human rights.

I think it is, by now, clear to you that it is my practice not to comment on any of the meetings that I have with individuals or, indeed, with groups without their prior permission. I don’t ask for that permission. So, I cannot comment on the content of discussion with individuals.

On Parliamentary Elections

During my visit, I have been informed about the possibility of parliamentary elections. In principle, elections would be welcome, not only to restore parliament, but also to resolve the current conflict. At the same time, elections require the participation of all democratic parties and a climate free of fear, intimidation and violence, Otherwise, the outcome is unlikely to be credible, and acceptable to the Nepalese people. This underlines the need for a multi-party government, and a successful peace process.

Obviously, elections, in principle, are good things. Nobody can, in principle, be against the elections. Elections at the right circumstances obviously restore the democratic process, restore parliament and restore parliamentary multi-party government. Free and fair elections should be envisaged at the outcome of the negotiated settlement of the conflict. However, two things are important here. Firstly, the democratic parties should be prepared and willing to participate in the elections. Secondly, the environment of the elections, I suppose this is perhaps more important. The environment of elections should be free of fear, intimidation and violence. This environment does not only mean on the polling day. The ability of political parties to operate freely in the constituencies and to conduct the election campaigns freely and fairly is important. When the elections are over can political activities resume and can elected representatives resume their normal political activities? I think, it seems in the current circumstances, it would be very difficult to create the conditions necessary for election to take place in right kind of atmosphere for them to be as I said credible and acceptable to the vast majority of Nepalese people. Flawed elections are worse than no elections at all because to hold an election in wrong circumstances can create new tensions and conflicts.

On His Coordinative Role

My role means that I have to be principally based in London to help for the coordination of our policies there and also to help the consultations and coordination with our international partners with regards to Nepal. The overall policy that we adopt towards Nepal across the board whether it is in the military, human rights, economic, political and development fields need to be coordinated. I do believe that we do have a clear idea of the interest in Nepal and how best we can promote those interests. I think that we have series of activities and interventions here as we like to help Nepal get through the current conflict and get into the situation of peace and stability where real actions and inroads can be made into alleviation of poverty.

On His Talks

What I would emphasize is that it is going to take time to help and sort out problems of Nepal. This is not something that can be resolved in five minutes. I do believe that there is an urgent necessity to restore the peace process and resume negotiations. We hope it leads to acceptable negotiated outcome without further violence. However, we recognize that is no easy task as there are a lot of differences between the two sides - between the Maoists and non-Maoists. There have to be a lot of compromises made along the way. There have to be disarmament, demobilization and reconstruction after the conflict. None of these are going to be easy as it will take time. I don’t expect to see breakthrough as such.

On Broad Based Government

For more than a year no, we have 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 times goes by, the absence of representative institutions, at national and local level, will continue to erode the principles and practices 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. It is essential to ensure that the rule of law is upheld, and that political parties, the media and civil society continue to enjoy democratic freedoms.

I start from the premise that Nepal is already, to a large extent, operating outside the constitution. There have been many coalition governments in the past in Nepal and in other countries. (It is) considered to be normal and acceptable way of forming a government. In present circumstances, we would accept that the elected representatives in the previous parliament are representatives of partly broadly based section of society. Obviously, elections will be necessary eventually to restore the representatives. But at the moment, we are looking at the current representatives of the parties.

On UN’s Role

We do see the role of the United Nations in monitoring and providing technical assistance to the National Human Rights Commission. Now that is something we would very much welcome. That is something separate from what you called the UN mediation or involvement in resolving the problems. Our position remains unchanged. It is not for us and anyone else to force mediation or any other kind of external involvement on the parties of conflict. They themselves have to decide among themselves whether they wish to have any external support in the process and what kind of support they should get. We see many possibilities in this respect ranging from full-scale mediation, which has been mentioned, to another method of giving support and assistance to the negotiations in case the peace process is resumed. There are many organizations that could help in this respect. The UN is one and there are other organizations, too. There are international non-governmental organizations, which could provide expertise and assistance to the parties in the conflict. As I said, it is not for us to prescribe who and what kind of assistance you should have. However, we do think that it would be useful for parties of conflict to seriously consider the benefit of using such expertise. It was evident in the last two negotiations that many lessons could have been learnt from experiences elsewhere.

Role of Political Parties

We have emphasized in the past that if there has to be an acceptable settlement, the political parties need to be involved in the process as a part of settlement. We support the formation of multi-party government as soon as possible. As I mentioned in the past, what we cannot do is to advocate or support any one particular solution for this. We urge all sides to come to compromise to establish multi-party government. It is not for us how exactly it should be done. I am not here to persuade people to take part in the elections. I was here to listen to various points of views and to discuss the circumstances in which the elections might be held. Obviously, there is a question whenever the elections in the countries like Nepal are considered, what is the attitude of the international communities? Will they be able to provide monitors for the elections? Will they provide other assistances? I believe, in the past the international community has been involved in that prospect. Discussing the election process is natural for the international community. But I don’t think it is our business to persuade the people to take part in the elections.

Discussions In New Delhi, London and Washington

The international community, overall, has relatively little influence to move things in any particular direction unless Nepalese players, themselves, want to move in that direction. It is important as far as possible for Nepal’s major international partners whether it is America, U.K or India or UN system, to cooperate closely to make sure that what we are doing here whether in terms of development assistance or otherwise, we are coordinating with each other and not duplicating them. It is important to share analysis, discuss objectives and long-term vision for Nepal. I do think that international community, collectively, do have a very common set of use and analysis about Nepal. I don’t think that there are any differences of opinion about the situation here and what would be the best way to try to resolve it.

Visit to Nepal

It is now just over a year since my first visit to Nepal. At that time my role had been to help co-ordinate, at the London end, British government support for peace, stability and development in Nepal, and to help strengthen consultation and co-ordination with Nepal’s other international partners. As on previous visits, I have met His Majesty the King, the Prime Minister and a wide range of representatives from the government, the political parties, civil society, and the international community. Today I make no apology for reiterating points made on my earlier visits. The armed conflict continues with greater ferocity, the constitutional deadlock remains unresolved. Our concerns for democracy, development and human rights in Nepal are as acute as ever.

Solution Through Negotiations

It remains our view that there can be no acceptable military solution to the conflict. The longer it continues, the greater the suffering and hardship for the Nepalese people, the impact on the Nepalese economy, and harder it will be to negotiate a solution. Lasting peace can only be achieved through negotiations conducted with good faith, goodwill and willingness to succeed. We still look to an overall agreement embracing multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy under which all sides renounce the means and use of violence for political ends, and all parties are free to participate in national elections and to form or join a government if successful. The Maoist concept of a one-party dictatorship imposed through military force has no place in such a vision.

On Violence

On my last visit, I expressed our deep concern at the impact of violence on the security and human rights of the Nepalese people. This has not changed, nor has our condemnation of human rights violations from whatever quarters. We note the recent statement from Prachanda about Maoist adherence to the standards of Geneva Conventions. However, we also note that the last few months have seen an intensification of the Maoist campaign, involving widespread and severe violations of human rights, including murder, bombings, extortion, forced migration, and intimidation. Bandhs enforced by violence, and the threat of violence, have no place in a democratic society, and bring most hardship to the poor and vulnerable. Violation of the rights of the children, evident in the Maoist abuse of schools, indoctrination and abduction of young people, and their induction into military forces, are particularly abhorrent.

On Rights of Government

As before, we uphold the right and responsibility of the government to counter such violence, and to protect people and property. However, this has to be exercised in full compliance with domestic and international law. We acknowledge and welcome efforts by the leadership of the security forces to bring about respect and observance of human rights, including moves to investigate some reported violations and to take appropriate actions against those found guilty. At the same time, we remain concerned at the continuing evidence of violations by the security forces, including for example reports of extra-judicial killings and disappearances. We note the role of the National Human Rights Commission in monitoring and investigating allegations of violations. We look forward to Government action to strengthen the Commission’s role and its capacity to monitor abuse, with UN assistance, and to implement their domestic and international obligations on human rights.

Restoration of Peace

Recent developments have served to underline the urgent need to restore the ceasefire and to resume the peace process, putting all the issues on the table without preconditions. We note the recent statement by the UN Secretary General calling for the resumption of negotiations. We call upon both the sides to work to create the confidence necessary to initiate and sustain political negotiations to reach a democratic peace.

On Continued Support

The British government continues to provide significant development assistance to Nepal as well as support for communities in conflict-hit areas. Along with other donors, we call upon both sides to respect such development activities. We support the Nepalese Government’s decision to convene the Nepal Development Forum in May. This will be an opportunity to discuss the implementation of development programs across the country as well as Government’s reform plans. We hope to see increased international support for effective measures to tackle poverty and discrimination. We continue to support the IMF and World Bank programs. At the same time, it is important to maintain progress in implementing the programs, particularly over financial sector reform. Otherwise, the future of the programs, and the financial assistance to support them, could be jeopardized. Overall, Britain remains committed to encourage and support pursuit of a peaceful outcome to the conflict, and to development and reform, working with the government; civil society and other institutions.