Editorial»
Wait and watch
APR 07 -
The term of the United Nations human rights body, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Nepal, is scheduled to expire on June 9. The fate of OHCHR-Nepal, which has been involved in the country following the April 10, 2005 agreement between the UN High Commission for Human Rights and then-government, hangs in balance amid differences between the current government and the international community regarding its exit strategy from Nepal.
Still unsure whether it wants OHCHR to stay on, the government is likely, if at all, to suggest a reduced mandate, including restrictions on the movements of OHCHR-Nepal personnel, for the next six months. The international community is learned to be in favour of up to two years of extension with the continuation of the current mandate. The international community’s argument: The peace process is anything but complete and to make the UN rights body leave now would not be in the interest of Nepal.
We endorse this position wholeheartedly. OHCHR was invited to Nepal at a difficult juncture in the country’s history as the nation was being torn apart by the insurgency; cases of rights abuses by both the sides to the conflict were mammoth and mounting. OHCHR played a crucial role in bringing these cases to light and, in the process, played a hugely helpful role to bring down the rights abuses. Arguably, by preventing crackdowns on prodemcracy demonstrators, it contributed to a successful Jana Anadolan II. Nonetheless, over the years, especially after the CA elections, OHCHR-Nepal (and UNMIN) has been a favourite whipping boy for a section of political parties (and rights activists); the rights activists are irked at what they perceive as an intrusion into their own jurisdiction; for their part, party leaders feel that OHCHR has a pro-Maoist bias. OHCHR’s continued call for punishment of rights abusers has also riled some, not least the Nepal Army.
Whatever its limitations, real or perceived, what is hard to deny is that OHCHR’s presence had a strong deterrent effect on the trigger-happy royal regime in the 2006 mass movement, just as it had on the rights abusers at the fag-end of the civil conflict. Four years on, the credible international rights watchdog has not outlived its utility. Indeed, at a time when the Maoist and non-Maoist forces are again seemingly preparing for another round of bloody conflict, OHCHR’s presence will hopefully prevent the country from descending into chaos. Presence of international actors is more likely to prevent a catastrophe, rather than to encourage it. Already, with growing distrust between political parties, serious questions are being raised about the fate of the peace process and the dire consequences thereafter.
In recent times, it has almost become fashionable for political leaders to blame international organisations for their own failings. That is taking a short sighted view on history and ignoring the evidences on the ground. It is a fact that OHCHR’s presence would not have been as crucial if the country’s own rights watchdogs were robust and the rights movement free from partisan inclinations — which is far from the case as the recent fallout of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) commissioners over management issues aptly illustrates.
Showing OHCHR the door now, at a time when Nepal enters another phase of heightened political instability, would be a monumental blunder. That needs to be avoided.
Posted on: 2010-04-08 07:49
Headlines
Advertisements
