National 2 (Spotlight Weekly)

A Lost Opportunity?

As Nepal enters in the phase of complex political emergency, debate continues on the possible role of the international body

By A CORRESPONDENT

Deputy Executive Director at the UNICEF, Kula Chandra Gautam, visited Nepal—his home country—last month on a holiday but returned to his office in New York disappointed.

“Although I went there on home leave, I could not go to my home village as the security situation has deteriorated everywhere outside Kathmandu valley and a few major towns,” Gautam wrote upon his return.

As the Kathmandu streets repeat a scene of clashes between the pro-democracy demonstrators and police every day and Maoists run their writ large in the countryside, it is in everybody’s knowledge that the situation in this Himalayan kingdom is anything but normal. The spiralling violence and deepening rift between the constitutional forces (read: the King and political parties) have made the matters worse. As the advisors to the King seem busy planning for next felicitations for the monarch, country seems to be falling deep into crisis.

Street agitation : Deepening crisis

After the Maoists mounted a deadly attack at Beni, district headquarters of the western district of Myagdi, on the night of March 20, killing dozens of security personnel and abducting 37 officials and policemen, general secretary of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, expressed his deep concern and reiterated that he would like to make his good offices available to facilitate the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Nepal provided both the parties ( the government and rebels) accepted it.

While the rebels were quick to accept the offer, the royal-appointed government failed to come up with any concrete position. First senior government ministers said that there was no need of any third party involvement, later they said they would consider the UN proposal. Foreign Minister Dr. Bhekh Thapa, a seasoned diplomat, and Home Minister Kamal Thapa went on record saying that given the geo-political situation of the country, Nepal could not go all the way to the UN by ignoring her two giant neighbours—India and China.

A fine argument. But officials have not made so far clear if Nepal’s both neighbours or one of them is averse to the proposal (of UN mediation). While China usually refuses to comment on the Nepalese crisis citing it as an internal affair, there is no evidence as yet to prove that it is against any international mediation, including that of the UN, provided it helps resolve the long-running insurgency in Nepal.

That cannot be said explicitly on part of India, say analysts. India’s position has been that inviting third party mediation, including the UN, will provide legitimacy to the Maoist rebels. “How can an insurgent group that has taken up arms be treated at par with a legitimate government?” asked Indian envoy Shyam Sharan last year. “Moreover, we believe that Nepalese are capable of resolving their conflict on their own.”

Let alone the Maoist insurgency, India has refused to mediate to resolve the 14-year-old Bhutanese refugee problem saying that its two friendly neighbours (Nepal and Bhutan) are capable to resolve the issue between them. The result is that the refugee issue continues to linger, and critics say the Indian position has only helped strengthen Bhutan’s bargaining position vis a vis Nepal. As per the 1947 treaty, India looks after the foreign affairs of Bhutan.

India’s disenchantment towards any meaningful UN role to resolve the Kashmir dispute is well known. While Pakistan wants international mediation including that of the UN to resolve the long-drawn crisis, India boldly says it is her internal problem. Indian position may not have endeared the South Asian giant to the international community, but analysts say it has helped her avoid international pressure to a great extent on the controversial issue.

Those watching the Indian foreign policy over the last few decades say that India doesn't want international powers to meddle into its domestic policies (or, foreign policies, for that matter) as well as that of its small neighbours in its backyard. So much so that late Indian premier Indira Gandhi flatly refused access to the UN team that wanted to visit the areas bordering then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in the wake of the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict. The team wanted to assess the need for international assistance to as much as four million refugees who had fled the then East Pakistan across the border into India causing enormous financial and social burden on the Indian side.

In their brilliant book, "War and Secession: Pakistan, India and the creation of Bangladesh," authors Richard Sisson and Leo E. Rose quote sources as saying that " another factor in India's refusal to allow UN observers in the refugee camps in India was opportunity for surveillance of Indian military assistance to the Mukti Bahini operations in East Pakistan." As international powers remained more or less spectators in the conflict, Mukti Bahini-- a group of the Bangladeshi freedom fighters-- successfully led the creation of a new country in this sub-region with the help of the Indian military might.

So, does the Indian position continue to be the same even after decades? It is more or less widely accepted now that Indian intelligence agency, RAW, trained and armed Tamil separatists in the eighties against the then Sri Lankan government. India later sent her own military, Indian Peace Keeping Force, to the island and got muddled very badly into the crisis. After being despised by both the Sri Lankan government and the rebels, Indian forces later withdrew but in a sad incident, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed by suicide LTTE bombers in 1991. Norway, supported by the US, is successfully mediating in the conflict so far and recently, veteran politician and the newly appointed Sri Lankan premier, Mahinda Rajapakse, has invited India to help the process.

Indian deputy Prime Minister L K Advani recently said that his government would do everything to stop the alliance between the Nepalese Maoists and like-minded Indian outfits. Indian authorities took into custody two rebel leaders, Matrika Yadav and Suresh Ale Magar, and later handed them to Nepal early this year. Only last month, Police in West Bengal state of India arrested No. two in the Nepalese Maoist hierarchy, Mohan Vaidya, and have filed a case against him and one of his Indian-Nepali comrades at a local court. Another senior rebel leader, C P Gajurel, is already in the custody in Chennai on charges of forging his passport.

As India seems to be getting more concerned about the fallout of Maoist insurgency and political instability in Nepal, analysts say it is high-time for the government of Nepal to allay fears of her southern neighbour, if any, regarding seeking international mediation to resolve the insurgency.

In his recent article, Kul C Gautam (of the UNICEF) argues that, “precisely because Nepal is surrounded by two giant neighbours, it needs a neutral, impartial organization without any vested interest, like the United Nations, to facilitate the peace process. Since eventually the peace process will entail disarmament of combatants and monitoring of elections, the UN would be uniquely qualified and acceptable to all parties.”

While Gautam draws comparison between present day Nepal and that of Cambodia in 1974, he, however, goes on to declare that the Nepalese Maoists are “home grown radicals.” He seems to be ignoring the history of similar insurgencies in Nepal in the past over the last five decades—that were essentially originated or based in India—and the cross-border links of the Nepalese rebels.

“(The problem is) the trouble-maker in Nepal has been getting the benefit of anonymity. Other neighbours have always been prompt to expose the evil designs of any other power. But, Nepal is not fortunate to see even a media person of any origin to say the spade a spade,” said a leading analyst.

At the moment, the royal-appointed government fighting for its own survival and legitimacy, seems too preoccupied to look into the possibilities of harnessing international goodwill to resolve the conflict and opening a door of communication among the constitutional forces. Time, unfortunately, is running out.