Editorial»
Rules are rules
AUG 29 -
It is true, as the Nepali Congress and UML argue, that much has changed in Nepali politics and the nature of the peace process since the peace agreements were signed four years ago. In particular, a great deal has changed regarding the Maoists relationship to the broader political community and its participation therein. This does not mean, however, as the NC and UML argue, that there are no longer two sides to the peace process and that UNMIN is no longer relevant. For starters, there are still two standing armies in the country, one that is still loyal to the former rebel group. In addition, Nepali politics is still broadly functioning according to the process outlined in the peace agreements, and will continue to do so until the constitution is drafted and the Maoist army integrated and rehabilitated. The possibility of a return to conflict may seem currently unlikely, but without a resolution of these two issues, it is quite possible. There is thus still a necessity for the presence of a neutral third party in Nepal’s political process and since UNMIN is the only such body that can play this role, to speak of not renewing its mandate is premature.
That the Nepal Army should chafe under the restrictions of the peace agreements four years after the peace process began is natural. It may even be true that it has not been able to function properly due to the restrictions placed on recruitment and it’s monitoring by UNMIN. To unilaterally recruit or engage in other activities which violate the peace agreements, however, is a dangerous move that can only contribute to inflaming political passions and lead to greater polarisation. If the Army genuinely feels that the peace agreements are hampering its ability to undertake tasks of national importance, it should quietly inform political leaders of the precise ways in which it feels constrained. The political parties, then, consulting with each other, can decide to make specific changes to the peace agreements. There is a provision in the Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of the Arms and Armies (AMMAA) that enables amendments to it according to any agreements reached by the two sides. If the political parties decide that it no longer makes sense to place the Army under UNMIN supervision, they can modify this clause in the AMMAA.
In the meantime, the Army would do well to fully abide by the peace agreements. There are worrying signs that it is preparing to directly and unilaterally violate the restrictions that have been placed upon it. For example, it has been boycotting meetings of the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee (JMCC), the body which has been formed to negotiate differences between the Army and the Maoist army. Such actions make it difficult for the two sides to resolve differences, polarise parties in the broader political sphere and make it difficult for them to reach decisions regarding the peace process. While it is natural that all sides discuss their disagreements with the peace agreements, until they are amended, all sides would do well to adhere to them in practice.
Posted on: 2010-08-30 07:58
Headlines
Advertisements
