Nepal's Challenging Road to Peace: Navigating Choppy Waters (6/6)

Despite all the political maneuvering in the background, there is much to look forward to in Nepal. The UN’s cautious optimism is easily overwhelmed by the uncontrollable optimism emanating from Nepal’s politically savvy elites (at home and abroad). Such uncontrolled optimism is likely rooted in the resurrection of the old Parliament but probably has some of its origins in the restitution of kinsmen in key positions, also.

However, more noteworthy are the genuine rays of hope for sustained peace and tranquility, that ordinary Nepalese have begun to express. For the hopes and aspirations of non-politically motivated individuals (arguably the most impacted by the conflict) to be met, there are several guiding principles that must be upheld.

A unique window of opportunity has presented itself – an occasion when Nepal’s current leadership team must look beyond partisanship, beyond the immediate future of competitive politics and adopt a holistic view that benefits the nation-at-large. The SPA, the Maoists and all other major power brokers have to seize the present opportunity to convince their respective constituents that a return to hostilities is not a credible option.

For their part, the Maoists need to start taking more responsibility for the documented discrepancies between their actions and words. Pushpa Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai and the rest of the Maoist leadership needs to impart a realistic interpretation of the post-April fallout within their organization’s rank and file. They must be upfront with their cadre about the ramifications of a continued refusal to disarm – both the unnecessary loss of human life and the accompanied loss in political capital that an irreconcilable position will invariably yield.

The Maoist leadership should also consider refraining from blurting out inflammatory remarks directed towards either specific entities (e.g. Mr. Dahal’s degrading comments about Nepal’s security forces) or towards the peace process-at-large (e.g. Baburam Bhattarai’s emotional charge against PM Girja P. Koirala followed by Dina Nath Sharma’s convulsions suggesting that Maoist military assets were deployed at the directive of the SPA). These trends are clearly counterproductive.

The Maoists must understand that although their “sell” to the cadre-base has been that peace talks are happening at their behest, this time, there is no credible “invisible” force to point a finger at, should the talks collapse. Whether they like it or not, the Maoists will be held equally accountable for actions / speech that jeopardize the peace initiative at hand. The potential of having to perform the way the state’s military did (when it was fighting on both the political and military fronts, against domestic and international actors) should be cause for anxiety; even for the “fearless one.”

From members of the SPA (and more specifically their representatives in the current government), an overt recognition that their role is an historical one, but also an interim one, has to emerge. The insinuation here is that standing members of this interim government need to proceed in a manner that is largely detached from on-going obligations to their respective partisan platforms. Any hint of partisan behavior will likely be a major risk to the overall peace process.

With significant guidance from international friends, the SPA has managed to keep the ball rolling, generally in the right direction. Engaging the services of the UN in the current environment is a positive step. However, the SPA and Maoists need to work more closely and negotiate more earnestly over the issue of arms decommissioning. The joint letter sent to the UN is a start in this direction but falls short of actionable targets toward which to drive.

The level of generality on the mode of arms management (as outlined in the joint letter to the UN) is perhaps warranted to uphold the perception that talks are progressing. However, it is apparent that the proposed UN involvement in Nepal extends only to civilian observers who will execute on a jointly agreed-upon mandate between the respective parties and the Maoists. The UN team under consideration is definitely not a multinational force with a Chapter-7 mandate, empowered to strictly enforce terms that desist the resumption of hostilities.

Rather it appears that the sought-after UN team will function in the capacity of a “project management office” that implements and tracks progress towards mutually agreed-upon milestones. “The modalities to be worked out” (according to the revised letter sent to the UN), are exactly what these milestones represent.

In terms of substance then, the most recent letter to the UN amounts to a technical modification – removal of the term “decommissioning” of Maoist arms. Again, a compromised beginning but far short of the type of concrete targets that UN monitors will require, in order to function as effective observers.

In the true fashion of institutional risk management, it is highly unlikely that an impartial UN observer team will ever recommend compromised milestones for the disputing groups to uphold. They may facilitate the process of dialogue that culminates in mutually agreeable objectives, but the onus of formulating the objectives themselves, falls squarely on the government and the Maoists.

The resurrected Parliament has done well to introduce reforms in some of the key areas of tension that underlie the social fiber of the Nepali state. The challenge now is to institutionalize these changes through forward looking legal interpretations that create a conducive political landscape in the period approaching, but also beyond constituent assembly elections. Space that accommodates Nepal’s entire population along ethnic, social, caste, class and gender lines has to be engineered so that everyone has something to look forward to during the constituent assembly elections.

This process will undoubtedly involve sacrifice at multiple levels but nonetheless, such forfeitures are the only sustainable avenue that will yield security, stability, territorial integrity and national cohesion. Understandably, this process is also a monumental undertaking that in order to be executed with minimal flaws, requires time, patience, persistence and most important of all, compromise.