Root causes of Nepali Conflict are social and economic

Dr. Henning Karcher, Resident Representative UNDP, Nepal

For quite sometime I have been an admirer of Professor Galtung’s writings on the subject of conflict. In particular, I find his theories about direct, structural and cultural violence very convincing and would agree that Nepal’s society is characterized by structural violence in many forms. While the conflict in Nepal has no doubt a political, ideological and even geo-political dimension its main root causes are social and economic, related to frustrated expectation that came with advent of democracy, related to abject poverty that persists for a large percentage of the population related to poor and inefficient delivery of social services in areas such as education and health and related to inequality, exclusion and discrimination. A large percentage of the population of Nepal, in particular Dalits and members of ethnic groups feel that they are politically and economically excluded, unable to contribute to decisions that affect their lives and unable to benefit from the economic advancement of the nation. The 10th Five-Year Plan says it more clearly and better than I could ever formulate it.

In the current peace process one of the greatest challenges lies therefore in addressing the structural elements of violence, the nine-tenth of the iceberg which are not as clearly visible as that over 8000 people who have lost their lives through direct violence. Unless and until all stakeholders make an honest effort to jointly analyze and jointly address the very root cause of conflict which lie as I mentioned in inequality, exclusion, discrimination, poverty, unemployment and inadequate governance, the deep and festering wound of the conflict will continue to be there and make itself felt again and again.

It is now generally accepted that peace and development are two sides of the same coin. Without peace there is no development and without development no peace. Similarly I would say that without respect for human rights there can be no peace and without peace there can be no observation of human rights.

Let me now move to some specific issues related to conflict and human rights as they present themselves currently in Nepal.

My main message to you today is that as the peace process advances, human rights should not be seen as an optional extra. We in the UN system have seen time and time again that the respect for human rights is central to ensuring stability. In the case of Nepal today, we are convinced that the promotion and protection of human rights are the key to strengthening the broader peace process. Without this, the prospects would be bleak indeed. As Dr. Harka Gurung recently reminded us, Nelson Mandela famously said that the neglect of human rights is a sure recipe for disaster.

Earlier this month, His Majesty’s Government and the CPN-Maoists both agreed to work towards the signing of a Human Rights Accord as part of the peace process. I see this as a very positive step and congratulate both sides on this important statement of principle.

Why is Human Rights Accord a crucial step? In March we all welcomed the signing of the Code of Conduct and particularly the fact that it contained no less than 10 clauses related to human rights including a general declaration that there would be no hindrance to the people’s enjoyment of their fundamental rights. But it is now over the 2 months since the signing of the accord. There is a pressing need to put in place a credible, independent and efficient mechanism for monitoring the respect of the code. A clear Human Rights accord should provide a series of priorities in the field of human rights with the clarity, which is needed, if monitoring is to be feasible.

A Human Rights Accord would further provide a series of great opportunities. It will allow the two parties to sit down together in a space facilitated by the NHRC, to talk frankly about their concerns. It will provide them with the opportunity to agree confidence-building measures, through the increased respect of human rights. As the Parties build mutual confidence through measures to protect human rights, this will calm the tension which Nepal currently is suffering and make it easier for them to address boldly the issues which are obstacles to peace. This may sound ambitious but with the destiny of the country at stake, kit is the duty of us all to think and act boldly on behalf of the future generations.

There are precedents for this. After a decade long war in EL Salvador, which left over 70,000 dead in a small country of only some 5 million people the government and the opposition signed a human rights accord in 1990 which was implemented more than a year before the final peace agreement. All those involved in the process agree that the well respected monitoring of the human rights accord helped to neutralise those who wanted to see the peace process fail. It also helped avoid the spiral of mutual accusations over violations of the ceasefire. In short, it helped stabilize the broader peace process. A similar model was followed in Guatemala to end the 30-yaer conflict, which had left over 200,000 dead. Again, a human rights accord was instrumental in the achievement of a lasting peace.

Those engaged in the peace process here should look carefully at the continual reports in the press of accusations of violations of the ceasefire and code of conduct. Now is the time to reach some practical agreements on human rights and the mechanism for monitoring them. Any human rights agreement is only as strong as the mechanism in place to monitor it. Whatever mechanism is decided upon. It will have to be credible, speedy and impartial. This 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. It will 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 judgements and make useful recommendations. But even the best monitoring body requires a clear mandate. Our experience shows us that it is essential to make sure that any human rights accord is at least 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. The agreement would be an opportunity for both Parties to clarity their understanding of human rights in practice. It will be an opportunity to inform the Nepalese public of the stance of the Parties in regard to human rights. It will also be 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 negotiations to spell this out clearly and specifically to those under their orders. I also want to stress 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.

The Human Rights Accord will not solve all the problem but it is a key and feasible first step. There are many big issues o be resolved; before a definitive peace is signed, for example, it will be necessary to address the issue of past human rights violations and what mechanism would best deal with them. The challenges are many; I sincerely wish the peace negotiators well as they embark on this historic enterprise of leading Nepal into a new era of peace and development. (Remarks made by the author on 19th May 2003 at a program jointly organised by NHRC and NCWA.

Healing the differences

Hari Bansha Dulal, U.S.A

No society is governed without arousing opposition and Nepal is no exception to the rule. The only difference is that opposition may at times be unexpressed and unorganized, but it is always present and always something with which rulers and would-be rulers must contend. In Nepal we have extreme rightists who want to make a come back, so called social democrats and communist who after being familiar with flavor of power have buried their internal squabbling for time being and been busy passing derogatory remarks hinted towards the palace to make their presence felt in the society, and the revolutionary Maoist who have realized that if they do not respond to the people’s desire for peace and prosperity there is a high risk of getting degenerated into a killing machine with no political future. The existing political deadlock has resulted into a crisis which needs to be solved amicably as soon as possible in order to save Nepal from becoming a failed state. Political parties that are ready to indulge in mud slinging must understand that disputes can be time consuming and expensive with uncertain outcomes. Goodwill can be easily lost and relationships can be damaged, sometimes irreparably. Nobody shall gain by indulging into the confrontation- world history is evident of this fact. Using derogatory remarks shall damage the fences rather than mending them. The only way to get out of this deadlock is by indul ging into some kind of meaningful dialogue. Dialogue is the only fastest and reliable method for resolving any conflict, whatever the value of the dispute and the area is. The only rule of the game is that you must enter into a dialogue well prepared with the right mindset and the right expectations. Sticking to the unreasonable demand will neither help the political parties nor the palace. The thorniest issue in the mediation could be the role of Royal Nepal Army in the post peace negotiated society. The political parties may argue that their must be a sincere approach to accomplish an objective subordination; that is, to change the constitution in order to reduce military prerogatives and strengthen the government’s prerogatives over the armed forces. I would argue that there is a need of sincere effort from the political leaders to gain Royal Nepal Army’s confidence and maintaining their image. The government in power should stop viewing army being loyal only to the palace. If politicians can not gain the confidence of army it does not make any sense just having a constitution where by army is answerable to the government. We can take an example of armed forces in Pakistan which high jacked its own government and the army general who over threw the prime minister that had unreasonably favored him. Thus, a mere existence of a law is not a guarantee of the armed forces’ subordination. The establishment of constitutional laws that reinforce the government’s control over the military is only a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the subordination of military institutions.

The monarch too should understand the gravity of situation and direct the current government to accomplish the duty that it was assigned for and pave the path for democratically elected government. It is loud and clear from the history of the world that any nation can be better ruled by parliament, than an arbitrary will of a single individual. The best guarantee of a just, equitable and pluralist society lies in a system of representative democracy where all power is vested in, and derived from, the common people. It is imperative that government is not only composed of representatives of the people but that it is accountable to them at all times. Failing to do so may degrade public’s faith on the institution itself.

It is a high time that we bury our differences and get ourselves engaged in nation building. The national, regional and other political parties should raise unequivocal and united voice against anti-national forces that are indulged in violence and derailing of the much awaited peace process irrespective of ideological and political differences. The opportunity to do so is knocking loudly on our door right now. If we don’t, or won’t, get up from our easy chairs and answer the call we will have missed a significant opportunity to vastly improve the quality of life for ourselves and for the generations that follow us.

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past