UN role in Nepal dubious

Sandhya Jain

Throughout 1945 and 1946, Britain, the Netherlands and Australia, as occupational forces in Indonesia, sought to reverse Indonesian independence and revert it to Netherlands’ colonial control.

It is strange that all Indian discourse on Nepal avoids scrutiny of the role the West is playing through the auspices of the United Nations Political Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), established vide Security Council resolution 1740 (2007). Recent visitors to the country speak of the Terai disturbances, the growing extortion and lawlessness of Maoist cadres, the rising hills-plains divide, and the danger that elections scheduled for November 22 may be cancelled on some pretext. Some have taken note of the mushrooming growth of dance bars as the only means of income in a stagnant economy. Yet they seem unaware of the growing hatred of UN Mission staff as local citizens witness their flamboyant life styles, suffer their arrogance, and see no beneficial result of their presence in the country. The UNMIN was set up for one year at the request of the Nepalese Government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to help implement the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, monitor the ceasefire, and assist in the election of a new Constituent Assembly.

What most Indian analysts fail to realise, however, is that UNMIN is not an ordinary peace-keeping force, but a Political Mission. Only an absolute abdication of responsibility could have let the Sonia Gandhi-dominated UPA regime acquiesce in the arrival of the Mission to determine events in a country that lies in India’s natural sphere of influence. It is well known that India’s sad experience with UN officials in Kashmir compelled her to seek friendly ties with the Soviet Union so as to procure the Soviet veto against Western unilateralism in the Security Council. A more telling example of what the UN can do to non-Western nations can be seen in the case of Indonesia, one of its worst victims. The UN was set up in 1945 ostensibly to save the globe from future world wars; uphold fundamental human rights and the equal rights of nations regardless of size, among others. Yet its founding members, Britain, Australia and the Netherlands, were the principal wreckers of Indonesian independence. Throughout 1945 and 1946, Britain, the Netherlands and Australia, as occupational forces in Indonesia, sought to reverse Indonesian independence and revert it to Netherlands’ colonial control. The UN ignored this brazen violation of its Charter. In 1947, after two years of atrocities by the occupation forces against the Indonesian people, the Security Council merely called for a cease-fire on August 1, 1947. In an unpublished paper, public opinions activist Ms. Radha Rajan points out, the UN failed to declare the continuing presence of the Dutch in Indonesia or of the British in the Malay province (British Malaya) as illegal and violative of the Charter. The call for cease-fire suggested that Indonesia was a party to the hostilities, rather than an victim of continued western and colonial aggression. UN did not direct the Netherlands to withdraw from Indonesia, or UK to quit British Malaya. Instead, UN set up a “Good Offices Commission” in October 1947 to work out a ‘settlement’ in Indonesia. This naturally made the Netherlands a legitimate party in the negotiations, thereby legitimising colonialism and the refusal of European powers to withdraw unconditionally from their colonies.

In the context of Nepal, it bears mentioning that India can ignore the political activities of the UN Political Mission only at its own peril. The grim reality of Nepal today is that violence and lawlessness are increasing daily and Maoist cadres are flush with funds. Some of the funds can be explained in terms of government grants under the ceasefire, and extravagant extractions from businessmen and traders. It is my understanding, however, that these sources are being used as a ‘cover’ to shield the fact that the Maoists are being funded by external forces with a view to secure an anti-India and anti-China foothold in the region. Nothing else can explain the truth that under UNMIN auspices, Nepal is daily moving further away from the possibility of elections for a new Constituent Assembly. Instead, Maoists are trying to force the unelected coalition government to declare a Republic and dethrone the monarchy. Reports from hitherto reliable sources suggest certain Madhesi leaders of the Terai are being wooed and offered representation in the current makeshift Parliament. Should they agree, this would be unilaterally converted into a Constituent Assembly (again unelected), and this will proceed to declare a Republic, despite the growing public sentiment that the King represents the nation’s continuity with its Hindu civilisation and culture. Observers to the mountain country also say that the Maoists appear to have access to weaponry which has not been accounted for (there are districts that neither the government nor the UNMIN can enter). It is feared that if the scheduled elections are actually held, they may be violent and of doubtful fairness. UNMIN appears blissfully unaware of this reality, which is very suspicious.

New Delhi would do well to take a fresh shock of events in the Himalayan kingdom, rather than accept the prevailing rhetoric as truth. For instance, it is said that a ‘people’s movement’ brought about the brief period of ‘democratic’ rule in Nepal in April 1990. Yet with hindsight, this seems to have been an orchestrated preamble to a more violent movement by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which launched an insurgency in 1996 because the various political parties simply failed to unite and give the country stable governance. The Maoists launched a decade of armed conflict during which thousands of persons ‘disappeared’ and many more were displaced. King Gyanendra’s intervention in October 2002 must be placed in this context. Various prime ministers appointed by him up to February 2005 could not control the violence, failing which he assumed executive powers on February 1, 2005. It is now well-known that the April 2006 agitation that led to restoration of Parliament was based on rented crowds. As such funding is normally associated with the West, India would do well to wake up to developments in its neighbourhood.

Source: The Organiser, Issue, August 12, 2007