NEPAL: Interview with UN Resident Representative, Matthew Kahane
KATHMANDU, 12 June (IRIN): King Gyanendra yielded to the inevitable and gave up power in April 2006 after nationwide protests for him to reinstate parliament and get out of politics. Since then a ceasefire has raised hopes for a peaceful resolution to the decade-long conflict.
Both the Maoists and the interim government have called for the UN to help guide the Himalayan kingdom down the road to peace. Matthew Kahane is the United Nations Resident Representative and Humanitarian Coordinator in Nepal and spoke to IRIN about the UNs role as mediator in the peace process.
QUESTION: Both sides have called for the UN to take a lead in these early stages of Nepals peace process, is the UN committed to this process?
ANSWER: The UN is and has always been committed to a peace process in Nepal. As we have repeatedly said, we believe there is no armed solution to the conflict and the only way Nepalese will benefit from development and progress is through a lasting peace.
Last week I travelled to Nuwakot to inaugurate a tourism project supported by UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and I was again amazed by the eagerness and enthusiasm of every single person I met about the prospect of peace. Everyone I spoke to was clear in what they believed would make a real difference in their lives: first peace, and then of course employment and economic progress.
There have been many discussions about a possible UN role in the peace process, a number of areas of expertise have been identified where our contribution could be most helpful but to date no formal request of support to the process has been made to the UN.
Q: What practical assistance has the UN rendered to the peace talks to date?
A: First of all, it is important to point out that the UN system with all its technical agencies has been present in Nepal for over 40 years. During the 10 years of insurgency we have fully maintained our engagement and have never had to give up our vital assistance.
This is not to say that we have never encountered problems in carrying out our work in the field, because we have, but at all times we have managed to bring some sense of normalcy to the lives of the people trapped between the two sides of the fight.
Since 2003 Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself has been following very closely the political developments and has voiced his support to the people of Nepal at the prospect of a peace process.
A senior political affairs officer has visited Nepal many times since 2003 to meet with all the actors, understand their views and concerns and ensure them of the UNs willingness to support a peace process in whatever way would be of practical help.
We continue to have regular meetings and discussions with the various parties as it is a process of which we need to be fully aware, to subsequently offer our best technical and political support, should it be needed.
But again I would like to stress that this is Nepals peace process, and – as the UN Secretary General has emphasised on a number of occasions – it is entirely up to the Nepalis themselves to decide what sort of peace process they want to have, how they wish to proceed with it and whether they would like to have assistance from any quarter.
Q: There have also been requests for the UN to monitor the bilateral ceasefire currently in place. Is this possible and practical?
A: Indeed, supporting ceasefire monitoring has been part of the discussions. As you know, this is something the UN does in many countries around the world with successful results. So it is an important task that the UN would be willing to take up and that is the message we have conveyed to both the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoists.
The government and the Maoists have already agreed on and adopted a Ceasefire Code of Conduct, which limits the behaviour of the military forces on both sides. Among other things, the Code of Conduct guarantees peoples freedom of movement, their right to access basic services, rebuild their communities and enjoy a normal life again, free of fear.
Further details for this agreement need to be worked out ideally with the support of the UN in order to establish a strong foundation for a possible subsequent effective monitoring.
There are many areas involved in ceasefire monitoring including the military aspects which would require assistance from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations [DPKO].
The human rights dimension which of course would be in the best of hands with the OHCHR [UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights]. As you know, Nepal hosts the largest human rights mission in the world with an extensive network of offices across the country and 50 human rights monitors that could certainly play a crucial role in support of national monitoring teams.
Other UN agencies who have been delivering basic services in Nepal for years – in the form of health, education, livelihoods, water and sanitation – have well established teams of monitors and frontline workers throughout the country, and could also play an important role in ensuring that the related provisions of the Ceasefire Code of Conduct are adhered to.
Q: How would you like the peace process to develop in Nepal and what would be the best outcome of this process?
A: Again, the question is not how we in the UN would like to the peace process to develop, or what outcomes we would like to see, but how the people of Nepal would like it to happen and what they want from the peace process.
There are important questions to be addressed about how to include ordinary people in the peace process, making sure that they are informed and aware of what is being discussed and decided, and what that means for their future.
The UN can also play an important role here, supporting efforts to raise awareness and promote public discussion and debate about the outcomes of the process, increasing access to information and broadening participation in the debate.
Again, we need to look at what systems and structures exist to involve people, especially those living outside the main urban centres where information is inaccessible.
Q: There have been many false dawns in Nepal, what are the main factors militating against the ceasefire leading to peace and disarmament and what can the UN do to mitigate (formilde/lindre) them?
A: We believe poverty, exclusion and discrimination, which are many of the underlying causes of the conflict, need to be addressed urgently if the parties are to maintain the momentum towards peace, and avoid a resumption of violent conflict.
Today Nepal is a country where people from certain groups, such as Dalits (lower caste “untouchables”), women, or rural parts of the country have less access to education, health, and decision-making than others.
If we take education, for example, only 6 percent of students come from the poorest 50 percent of households. The representation of girls from this poorest group is virtually nil. Rural-urban gaps abound. Settlements in mountainous and remote hill regions do not have adequate access to education.
Women face systemic discrimination, particularly in mountainous and rural areas, where religious and cultural tradition, lack of education and ignorance of the law remain harsh barriers to their exercise of basic rights.
The constitution stipulates non-discrimination and equality are fundamental rights. However, Nepals state laws and social and religious norms confer an inferior status on women in practice.
With the restoration of democracy and the possibility of peace, Nepal today has the opportunity – like no other time in its history – to empower its citizens.
As we have seen during the “Peoples Movement”, Nepalis today are more politically aware than at any time in the past, and this translates into much greater expectations. If these expectations are not met, frustration will follow, and this could generate tension, leading to agitation and ultimately a resumption of violence.
If people have employment but little or no choice about the decisions that affect their lives, discontent is inevitable. The biggest challenge facing the new government will be to empower the citizens of Nepal economically, socially and politically.
If Nepal is able to hold a constituent assembly process that is genuinely inclusive – with appropriate representation for women, Dalits, ethnic and other disadvantaged groups – the country can begin the structural transformation that will be needed to reverse the historical inequalities at the heart of the conflict. Other countries have successfully achieved this.
Q: What would be the most valuable outcomes of a successful peace process in Nepal with regard to the work of the UN?
A: The most valuable outcome will be to see Nepalese freed from fear and the daily struggle of trying to survive in a context of conflict. For the UN it would mean a wide open door for stepping up its development assistance to reach as many people as possible.
And this is of course our end goal.
Kilde: FN-bureauet IRINnews
