US extends support for Nepali peace
Surya B. Prasai
October 21, 2010
Recently, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake told AFP that he was quite confident Nepal will form a new government and get to work on broader issues, despite months of failed attempts to settle on a Prime Minister. Blake was optimistic that differences would narrow down and some progress made on the Nepali peace process. Blakeīs statement must be taken as a strong pillar of support for Nepal and the peaceful aspirations of the Nepali people. The US maintains a strong relationship with Nepal with no strings attached. The US has also stood to promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law and development in Nepal for more than sixty years, and at this crucial juncture of time, with less than 100 days left for UNMIN to complete its works in Nepal, the US is once again being looked upon by Nepali civil society leaders, politicians, the media and the citizenry to provide valuable support to keep Nepalīs democratic progress consolidated and help forge a common understanding on Nepali peace.
Some optimistic signs of change are already there on the Nepal horizon. More than 70 peace committees have been formed in Nepal which include 597 previously conflict affected villages which will involve the local leadership structures and local people in peace and reconstruction efforts. The concept of a unicameral legislature for the federally restructured states is also proposed to lessen decision making time and get development moving aggressively.
However, some obstacles remain: Nepalīs 601 Constituent Assembly has failed to elect a Prime Minister after voting 12 times, with only Ram Chandra Poudel from the Nepali Congress left in the fray, posing as the sole contender, that too with a receding number of party votes. Inter-party relations is at its highest point of political brinkmanship, even after the UNīs political chief B. Lynn Pascoe held intensive discussions in Kathmandu in the first week of October to bridge an earlier four point understanding with the original 12 point consensus to achieve Nepali peace and promote Nepali democracy. It now appears each leader is claiming his own partyīs road to Singha Darbar.
For Nepali political parties in general, the peace process has also been a vehicle to buttress oneīs individual political strength among the Western powers and Nepalīs two powerful neighbors, India and China, in exchange of party support favoring both short and long term goals. On the restructuring of the Nepali state, there is no particular formula agreed in re-carving Nepal into an administratively workable Federal Democratic Republic.
Most importantly, an all party consensus is missing on drafting a new constitution, which seems to be hinged on one ambiguous issue: the end-integration of the remaining ex-Maoist combatants into the Nepali army or some state based disciplinary force, if not civil society. These issues must be resolved before UNMINīs departure on January 15, 2011, and the US is serious in helping Nepal on all counts, based on past statements from the US State Department and the visits of various US dignitaries to Nepal, interspersed with those from other friendly countries, including Nepalīs two immediate neighbors, India and China.
At this point of time, one realizes, it has become ever more difficult for Nepalīs Foreign Ministry to explain to diplomats in Kathmandu, or for Nepali ambassadors abroad to elaborate precisely on what motivates Nepali peace policy or end decisions. Many have even joked to Nepali audiences and foreign think tank institutions that they rely more on the mainstream media to speak on their behalf!
The US has been helping Nepal meet its peace and development aspirations much earlier than the current peace process started in 2006. The emphasis has been on forging a common link between development, democracy, human rights protection, and the rule of law based on equitable justice for all Nepalis. The US has also been an active partner in protecting Nepalīs democratic growth, and was crucial in helping achieve a major breakthrough in the integration of the Maoists into state politics based on competitive democratic viability vis-ā-vis peaceful accommodation of all political forces based on a healthy political parley. One should note, the US despite many unforeseen political developments, complicated by the difficult geo-political tussle that accompanies Nepali peace, has nonetheless been a patient partner helping fulfill every major wish of the Nepali people particularly in the development field. The US has also lent its humanitarian voice in resettling thousands of Nepali origin Bhutanese refugees throughout the fifty states in their inability to go back home. At various times, the US has also expressed its concerns that Nepali development seems to have been sacrificed in the lurch of political competition given varying opinions on what precisely forms a logical conclusion to Nepalīs peace process.
The writing of a new constitution is a big challenge in this regard. It can be considered the icing to the Nepali peace cake to which the US has also emphasized its overall support. It is quite true, when Assistant Secretary of State Blake expressed hope that Nepal's politicians would be able to move on to more concrete issues such as drafting a new constitution and integrating ex-Maoist combatants, he was speaking for many silent and good voices in the Nepali donor community, including the UN. Nepalīs two immediate neighbors, India and China, have expressed similar viewpoints in recent past. However, Blake also emphasized, "We'd like to see a new government formed so that they can begin to focus on the most important issues."
While Nepal missed the May 28 deadline to form a new Constitution, there is still very little activity in support. The international motivators to Nepalīs peace process, namely the G-8 led by the US have unanimously sought to reach a permanent solution that assures Nepalīs Maoists a viable multiparty democracy path, including their future role in helping formulate a new constitution of Nepal that represents the true democratic aspirations of the Nepali people. Some in the Nepali media have been critical of this fact, namely bringing the Maoists into mainstream politics which also inadvertently converted the worldīs only Hindu Kingdom into a Federal Democratic Republic.
To provide a recent update on Nepal, recent meetings between the three large parties and President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav have indicated the willingness of the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the CPN-M to solve the political leadership crisis facing the Nepal Government in the post-Dashain period, which includes passing of a full budget, electing a new PM and kicking the Constituent Assembly into high gear over nearly 200 unresolved agenda issues.
A task force was set up recently on solving these hitherto unattended agenda facing the CA and a new constitution under CPN-M Chairman Pushpa Kumar Dahal. Foreign diplomats in Kathmandu, including the United States as a prime motivator of the Nepali peace process and supporter of Nepali democracy since the 1990 Constitution of Nepal, are persuasively pushing various Nepali political leaders including the CPN-M, to forge a democratic meeting point whereby they can resolve the PM voting process for once. Similarly NC parliamentary party leader Ram Chandra Poudel, UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal and CA Chairman Subash Nembang have been requested to speed up the spadework for constitution drafting, besides coming to a definite conclusion on Nepali peace given UNMINīs limited operating timeline.
The UN Security Council which recently met on Nepal had sent United Nations Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, between October 6 to 8, 2010 to Kathmandu to hold consensus based talks with the main political actors. Pascoe had cautioned swift action to overcome the political impasse in Nepal and to meet the mid-January 2011 deadline to wrap up the stalled peace process.
Will the Nepali peace process achieve a permanent and logical conclusion in the limited time frame then? The fact is, as the US and other friendly countries have notably suggested for the benefit of all Nepalis, time and again, it is imperative that Nepali politicians understand the urgency of bringing a successful conclusion to the above mentioned issues including integration of the ex-Maoist combatants either in the disciplined forces or else civil society to afford such a peace deal. Nepali democracy can only work when the countryīs politicians claim the peace process as their own and start genuinely serving the aspirations of the Nepali people.
Some optimistic signs of change are already there on the Nepal horizon. More than 70 peace committees have been formed in Nepal which include 597 previously conflict affected villages which will involve the local leadership structures and local people in peace and reconstruction efforts. The concept of a unicameral legislature for the federally restructured states is also proposed to lessen decision making time and get development moving aggressively.
However, some obstacles remain: Nepalīs 601 Constituent Assembly has failed to elect a Prime Minister after voting 12 times, with only Ram Chandra Poudel from the Nepali Congress left in the fray, posing as the sole contender, that too with a receding number of party votes. Inter-party relations is at its highest point of political brinkmanship, even after the UNīs political chief B. Lynn Pascoe held intensive discussions in Kathmandu in the first week of October to bridge an earlier four point understanding with the original 12 point consensus to achieve Nepali peace and promote Nepali democracy. It now appears each leader is claiming his own partyīs road to Singha Darbar.
For Nepali political parties in general, the peace process has also been a vehicle to buttress oneīs individual political strength among the Western powers and Nepalīs two powerful neighbors, India and China, in exchange of party support favoring both short and long term goals. On the restructuring of the Nepali state, there is no particular formula agreed in re-carving Nepal into an administratively workable Federal Democratic Republic.
Most importantly, an all party consensus is missing on drafting a new constitution, which seems to be hinged on one ambiguous issue: the end-integration of the remaining ex-Maoist combatants into the Nepali army or some state based disciplinary force, if not civil society. These issues must be resolved before UNMINīs departure on January 15, 2011, and the US is serious in helping Nepal on all counts, based on past statements from the US State Department and the visits of various US dignitaries to Nepal, interspersed with those from other friendly countries, including Nepalīs two immediate neighbors, India and China.
At this point of time, one realizes, it has become ever more difficult for Nepalīs Foreign Ministry to explain to diplomats in Kathmandu, or for Nepali ambassadors abroad to elaborate precisely on what motivates Nepali peace policy or end decisions. Many have even joked to Nepali audiences and foreign think tank institutions that they rely more on the mainstream media to speak on their behalf!
The US has been helping Nepal meet its peace and development aspirations much earlier than the current peace process started in 2006. The emphasis has been on forging a common link between development, democracy, human rights protection, and the rule of law based on equitable justice for all Nepalis. The US has also been an active partner in protecting Nepalīs democratic growth, and was crucial in helping achieve a major breakthrough in the integration of the Maoists into state politics based on competitive democratic viability vis-ā-vis peaceful accommodation of all political forces based on a healthy political parley. One should note, the US despite many unforeseen political developments, complicated by the difficult geo-political tussle that accompanies Nepali peace, has nonetheless been a patient partner helping fulfill every major wish of the Nepali people particularly in the development field. The US has also lent its humanitarian voice in resettling thousands of Nepali origin Bhutanese refugees throughout the fifty states in their inability to go back home. At various times, the US has also expressed its concerns that Nepali development seems to have been sacrificed in the lurch of political competition given varying opinions on what precisely forms a logical conclusion to Nepalīs peace process.
The writing of a new constitution is a big challenge in this regard. It can be considered the icing to the Nepali peace cake to which the US has also emphasized its overall support. It is quite true, when Assistant Secretary of State Blake expressed hope that Nepal's politicians would be able to move on to more concrete issues such as drafting a new constitution and integrating ex-Maoist combatants, he was speaking for many silent and good voices in the Nepali donor community, including the UN. Nepalīs two immediate neighbors, India and China, have expressed similar viewpoints in recent past. However, Blake also emphasized, "We'd like to see a new government formed so that they can begin to focus on the most important issues."
While Nepal missed the May 28 deadline to form a new Constitution, there is still very little activity in support. The international motivators to Nepalīs peace process, namely the G-8 led by the US have unanimously sought to reach a permanent solution that assures Nepalīs Maoists a viable multiparty democracy path, including their future role in helping formulate a new constitution of Nepal that represents the true democratic aspirations of the Nepali people. Some in the Nepali media have been critical of this fact, namely bringing the Maoists into mainstream politics which also inadvertently converted the worldīs only Hindu Kingdom into a Federal Democratic Republic.
To provide a recent update on Nepal, recent meetings between the three large parties and President Dr. Ram Baran Yadav have indicated the willingness of the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the CPN-M to solve the political leadership crisis facing the Nepal Government in the post-Dashain period, which includes passing of a full budget, electing a new PM and kicking the Constituent Assembly into high gear over nearly 200 unresolved agenda issues.
A task force was set up recently on solving these hitherto unattended agenda facing the CA and a new constitution under CPN-M Chairman Pushpa Kumar Dahal. Foreign diplomats in Kathmandu, including the United States as a prime motivator of the Nepali peace process and supporter of Nepali democracy since the 1990 Constitution of Nepal, are persuasively pushing various Nepali political leaders including the CPN-M, to forge a democratic meeting point whereby they can resolve the PM voting process for once. Similarly NC parliamentary party leader Ram Chandra Poudel, UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal and CA Chairman Subash Nembang have been requested to speed up the spadework for constitution drafting, besides coming to a definite conclusion on Nepali peace given UNMINīs limited operating timeline.
The UN Security Council which recently met on Nepal had sent United Nations Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, between October 6 to 8, 2010 to Kathmandu to hold consensus based talks with the main political actors. Pascoe had cautioned swift action to overcome the political impasse in Nepal and to meet the mid-January 2011 deadline to wrap up the stalled peace process.
Will the Nepali peace process achieve a permanent and logical conclusion in the limited time frame then? The fact is, as the US and other friendly countries have notably suggested for the benefit of all Nepalis, time and again, it is imperative that Nepali politicians understand the urgency of bringing a successful conclusion to the above mentioned issues including integration of the ex-Maoist combatants either in the disciplined forces or else civil society to afford such a peace deal. Nepali democracy can only work when the countryīs politicians claim the peace process as their own and start genuinely serving the aspirations of the Nepali people.
Print
Email
