(Courtesy: Zizimous)
UNMIN’s letter to News Front (located at http://www.newsfront.com.np/) is a reflection of that organization’s performance – incomplete and inadequate. Spokesman Kieren Dwyer’s letter is a carefully crafted but counterproductive rebuttal. By focusing exclusively on tactical (alleged) discrepancies, Dwyer’s letter accentuates the very deficiencies that render his mission a “lame duck.”
Mr. Dwyer’s letter to News Front suggests that UNMIN’s effectiveness should be measured based on the frequency of its statements and reports. Clearly, such a proposal is ludicrous. Results are what the Nepali people, UNMIN’s critics and UNMIN’s benefactors use to measure the mission’s effectiveness; not words.
For if statements and reports alone yielded results, the International Crisis Group and Amnesty International would have solved Nepal’s problems years ago. Further, UNMIN would have been the best peace-keeping mission in the history of the United Nations, based simply on numerous articles (“reports”) published on the NepaliPerspectives web log.
The reality is, the ICG and AI have done a great job at recording facts and UNMIN has done a great job of holding a mandate that effectively contains the potential good the mission could do. Neither of these organizations have had any discernable, positive impact on Nepal aside from checking the hubris of a King who is arguably, on his way back up the value chain.
On the topic of unharnessed potential, Kieran Dwyer’s letter to News Front could have potentially carried much more weight had the letter included examples of positive impact from UNMIN’s activities. Unfortunately, such examples are difficult to come by and even harder to articulate.
Using the very examples that Mr. Dwyer cites, UNMIN’s ineffectiveness becomes clear: Did the “14-page” report on UNMIN’s website curb the YCL’s affinity for violent politics? Have any of Ian Martin’s numerous statements resulted in changed attitudes? Did constituent assembly elections take place after a high level UN delegation visited Nepal and sang the electoral commission’s praise?
Room for further confusion comes from Mr. Dwyer’s comments on armed Madhesi elements. It is very possible that UNMIN officials may not have met with armed Madhesis. But can Mr. Dwyer extend his assertion to the larger organization that he represents? Can Mr. Dwyer unambiguously clarify for this readership that no United Nations employee has ever interacted with armed Madhesi elements, in India or Nepal?
Should Mr. Dwyer care to respond to this “yes / no” question, it is strongly recommended that he carefully evaluate the accuracy and completeness of UNMIN’s intelligence lest Ian Martin end up in the unenviable position of US President George W. Bush.
How are the Nepali people and the international community to reconcile Kieran Dwyer’s statement against Matthew Kahane’s request to Indian authorities, against the armed Mahesi factions’ request for UN mediation (and Girija Koirala’s insistence that there is no role for UNMIN in the Madhes)? Viewed in light of these contradictions, Kieran Dwyer’s letter to News Front raises more questions than it answers.
In spite of the uncertainties that Kieran raises, he is right about one thing – “professional journalists do have a responsibility to report accurately, especially in the politically-charged atmosphere of a peace process.” A corollary of this statement is that professionals in general also have a responsibility to execute their functions by preserving their third-party independence, their professional integrity and by acknowledging (and acting upon) constructive criticisms. Can UNMIN’s leadership, in good conscience, release an unqualified statement that they have fulfilled their own professional obligations?
It is unfortunate that a year and half had to pass for UNMIN to finally acknowledge the intricate workings of the Nepali media. Having unraveled this mystery, Kieran may benefit from revisiting media reports (before and immediately after “Jana Aandolan-II”), upon which UNMIN’s operational assumptions are based. Doing so may help Kieran rescue his organization from the pitfalls of vested interest that UNMIN has regrettably fallen into.
Also regrettable is Kieran Dwyer’s heightened concern that appears motivated more from News Front being an English weekly, than from the substance of News Front’s articles. Could there be some relationship between Kieran’s concerns and the ease of accessibility that News Front’s website provides UNMIN’s benefactors? It is peculiar that the need to publish equally vociferous rebuttals in Nepali publications is not a priority for UNMIN, even though the criticism of UNMIN’s activities are much more scathing in Nepali language publications.
As for Dwyer’s comments regarding UNMIN’s hiring practices, his statement is an outright lie. There are ample examples of highly qualified Nepalis who have not been considered for jobs with UNMIN because of their caste and class affiliations. Off the record, UNMIN employees are able to recite surnames that are ineligible for employment with UNMIN. If this isn’t discrimination, what is?
It is very unfortunate for Nepal that more than a year after its inception, UNMIN’s leadership remains preoccupied justifying the mission’s existence instead of executing its responsibilities. UNMIN’s repeated failure to negotiate a meaningful mandate, its unwillingness to accept accountability, it’s non-transparent handling of the arms management process, and Ian Martin’s lack of independence have been repeatedly documented and brought to UNMIN’s attention. No discernable action has resulted. Naturally, the result is diminished confidence in UNMMIN's capacity to deliver.
A quote from a regular critic of UNMIN is something Kieren Dwyer and his leadership may like to recite two times a day: “It is important to revisit the fact that UNMIN is in Nepal at the behest of the SPA and the Maoists, but is accountable to the Nepali people. UNMIN is in Nepal to do what the Nepali people deem is right for their own country, not what UNMIN (or other external powers) deem, is right for Nepal.”
To further the point above, it is recommended that UNMIN’s leadership not make the mistake of treating Nepal as a playground for “Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures.” Relying on “fine print” and the connections that UNMIN has inculcated through its Nepali staff (and their well connected relatives) is not a good option for Kieran or UNMIN.
The only option at this point is for UNMIN to come clean with the Nepali people by disclosing all weaknesses in Nepal’s peace process and explaining why the process continues to falter. Following a public apology, Ian Martin and UNMIN’s current leadership should resign on moral grounds and should be replaced. The Nepali people deserve so much more than what the current UNMIN leadership has shown itslef capable of delivering.
-----------------
Although not nearly as fancy as UNMIN’s website, a comprehensive chronicle of UNMIN’s inadequacies complete with recommendations are documented below:
Constructive Feedback for Ian Martin - Time for a change in UNMIN's Leadership
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/12/constructive-feedback-for-ian-martin.html
This article is a past exchange between NepaliPerspectives and UNMIN Spokesperson, Kieran Dwyer:
UNMIN's "Consulting" Mentality Not Conducive to Nepal's "Stakeholder" Needs
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/unmins-consulting-mentality-not.html
-------------
February 25, 2007
Summary of Declared (by State) vs. Inventoried (by UNMIN), Weapon Counts
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/symmary-of-declared-by-state-vs.html
February 25, 2007
Discrepancies in Maoist Weapons Inventoried by UNMIN – Do the Math
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/discrepancies-in-maoist-weapons.html
March 01, 2007
The UN and Maoist Arms Controversy: Overkill or Negligence?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/02/un-and-maoist-arms-controversy-overkill.html
March 01, 2007
UN Fast Losing Credibility in Nepal
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/03/un-fast-losing-credibility-in-nepal.html
June 18, 2007
UNMIN Clarifies its Role but Just in Time to be Humiliated by the Maoists
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/06/unmin-clarifies-its-role-but-just-in.html
July 04, 2007
UNMIN's Arms Verification Process in Nepal - More Timely Information and Transparency Needed
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/unmin-in-over-its-head-in-nepal-arms.html
July 15, 2007
The UN's (UNMIN) Involvement in Nepal's Peace Process: A turning point or another fiasco in the making?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/uns-unmin-involvement-in-nepals-peace.html
July 17, 2007
UNMIN's July 16 Press Release and Subsequent Q&A Disaster
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/unmins-july-16-press-release-and.html
July 19, 2007
UNMIN's "Consulting" Mentality Not Conducive to Nepal's "Stakeholder" Needs
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/07/unmins-consulting-mentality-not.html
September 21, 2007
What has UNMIN Accomplished in Nepal?
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-has-unmin-accomplished-in-nepal.html
November 01, 2007
What UNMIN Should Do to Manage Nepal's Peace Process
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/courtesy-krishna-hari-pushkar-un-is.html
November 26, 2007
UNMIN in Need of Immediate Reform
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/unmin-in-need-of-immediate-reform.html
February 04, 2008
Deficient UNMIN
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/deficient-unmin.html
February 07, 2008
UNMIN's (Matthew Kahane's) Observations Completely Legitimate; India's Guilt-Ridden Reaction, Nonsense
http://nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/unmins-matthew-kahanes-observations.html
14 comments:
Anti-India axis in Nepal
By Sandhya Jain
Feb. 18, 2008
(The Pioneer)
Nepal Prime Minister GP Koirala must be ruing the day he allowed his Seven-Party Alliance to be conned into negotiating with Maoist leader Prachanda. Mr Koirala has given respectability to a bunch of armed thugs, agreeing to bring them into an interim regime and allowing them to dictate an interim Constitution along with the timetable for the election of a new Constituent Assembly to decide the monarchy's future. Unease over the implications of such fundamental changes in the Nepalese civilisational template are now spreading, as evidenced in the rise of pro-monarchy sentiment.
The suspicions are not misplaced. The December 18 wildcat strike in which Maoists unleashed six hours of terrible violence in Kathmandu to protest against the appointment of envoys to 14 countries, indicates that Prachanda intends to dominate the Himalayan kingdom through the barrel of the gun. Any doubts on this score were settled three days later when 5,000 armed rebels walked out of their camps in Ilam and Morang districts in a show of strength that rattled the aged SPA leaders, who have realised that the forces that instigated them to unseat King Gyanendra have used them like a railway service to reach another station.
Those forces want the political dominance of Prachanda through the 'good offices' of an obliging United Nations, which helped the US break up Indonesia and create Christian East Timor. Their success is likely because of Ms Sonia Gandhi's total commitment to the intrinsically anti-Hindu Western agenda. Thus, a civilisationally Hindu India has abandoned a civilisationally Hindu Nepal, because a White Christian dominates an effete Indian Government and wants to help a covert Christian illicitly ascend the throne of Nepal.
Like India today, Nepal tomorrow will have a ruler who does not share the dharma of the people and does not respect their traditions and culture. Unlike Ms Gandhi, Prachanda is an ethnic Nepalese, but his ascension puts Nepalese civilisation in peril. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which has finally got its national agenda together under the promising leadership of Mr Rajnath Singh, would do well not to neglect developments in our neighbourhood. Prachanda is pressurising Mr Koirala to implement the interim Constitution in just 10 days, dissolve the SPA and form an interim Government with Maoist participation, failing which he will unleash mayhem in the Himalayan nation.
Under the November 21 peace accord, Maoists agreed to confine their cadres to 28 camps and lock up their arms under UN supervision. But the sudden violence of the past few days prevented a UN-Maoist joint monitoring team from beginning inspections, and now reports of extortion and intimidation are pouring in from all over the country. The most bizarre aspect of the truce is the SPA's agreeing to let UN monitor the arms of both the Maoists and the Nepal Army, putting the nation's legitimate security force on equal footing with a gangster mob. There is no justice in the demand to confine the Nepal Army to barracks, and obviously a dubious foreign hand is behind this mischief, which will deny Nepalese village folk the sense of security needed to vote freely in the elections.
Elimination of the Nepal Army from the national scene will give the Western-dominated UN a free hand to do as it pleases in the polls, a situation New Delhi must resist. India's Election Commission will not be able to ensure free and fair elections there unless the Nepal Army or the Indian Army keeps Maoist arms and cadre under lock and key; by current estimates Maoists can win just about 10 out of 205 seats in a fair election. The UN must either be kept out or its mission manned exclusively by adherents of non-monotheistic faiths. As the main Opposition party, the BJP must speak up for the civilisational integrity of Nepal and resist Ms Gandhi's subversion of our traditional foreign policy.
Given the steep rise in conversion activity in India since Ms Gandhi's ascent, the BJP would do well to scrutinise missionary activism among the capital's Nepalese population as well. According to reliable sources, Maoists in New Delhi have close links with Christian groups. In Baljit Nagar, Moti Bagh and Mehrauli areas, secret churches have been established in houses occupied by Maoists. One church, with a banner proclaiming 'World Unification Movement', was visited by an unidentified White man who spoke about the political situation in Nepal.
Sources suggest the gentleman could be from the US-based Republication International Movement (RIM), which is active in Asia. This seems likely because a Meerut school, Thomas Child Academy, which is caring for the orphan children of Nepalese Maoist cadre, is known to display the RIM flag on occasions. Nearly 100 Nepalis have been provided employment in Indian churches and are luring fellow Nepalis to the congregations every Sunday, where the Maoist newspapers, Dishabodh and Dishanidesh, are distributed free.
A Nepali attending a meeting was shocked to see the pujari of the Nepali mandir in Baljit Nagar, Mr Puran Sharma, who is close to the Maoists, leading Christian prayers in Moti Nagar! This kind of subterfuge permeates the movement. While second-in-command Baburam Bhattarai and his family are openly Christian, Prachanda does not proclaim his religious affiliations but his wife's entire family is Christian. His guru, Chandra Pradesh Gajurel, was a Christian preacher. Sources estimate that the 42,000-strong Maoist army would be 30 per cent Christian, but the cadre are kept in the dark that the top leadership is predominantly Christian.
Nepal's temporary Constitution recognises all religions, but Hindus are apprehensive about the changes desired by the rebels. A US-based organisation, Global Recordings, has intensified its conversion activities and is propagating the Gospel in all tribal dialects. Nepalis ask that if the Maoists are not Christian, why would they attack and close down all Sanskrit pathshalas (only a couple survive) and stop compulsory Sanskrit education in school? There is harassment at Hindu festivals and Brahmins have been forced to eat beef; who would kill the cow in a Hindu kingdom? Then there was the attempt to make the rhinoceros the state animal, instead of the holy cow. Unnerved, religious groups want Nepal to be declared a Hindu state again, and to retain the Hindu King, a demand India should heartily support in its own interests.
I wish I knew Zizimous' identity to congratulate him/her for such a well-written and persuasively argued piece. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call for a public apology and resignation by the UNMIN senior staff. Ian Martin reports to the Department of Political Affairs at UN HQ in NY. The Under-Secretary General of that Department, in turn, reports to the UN Secretary General - who reports to the UN Security Council. In this complex labyrinth, Martin is but a 'field commander' while the Generals and the political organ controlling the generals, i.e. the Security Council, are looking on from distant New York. If Martin has overstepped his authority and taken personal liberties with the peace process in Nepal, he must be censured. But until this is proven explicitly, let not the failures of UNMIN rest only on his shoulders.
It was very interesting reading Mr. Dwyer's letter along side the editorial rebuttal and Mr. Siddharth Thapa's resonse in today's News Front.
Horatio,
Here is something for you to ponder.... when organizations fail, what happens to the leadership? If a business unit produces a faulty product line, shoud the CEO retire or the Vice President of proudct and sales pack his/her bags?
I assume you would respond that it would depend on the level of the loss.
Where Nepal is concerned, the country is like one product in the UN system's large portfolio. Losses in Nepal won't impact the heads of the security council or the SG. Accountability in Nepal's case rests with Ian Martin and UNMIN's leadership. That is where the buck stops.
You may like Ian Martin as an individual - I have met him and I certainly feel that he is a gem of a person. But should Martin's personal qualities cloud our judgement on his professional abilities? Is there anything that Martin or the UNMIN can point to (without saying it is outside their mandate), that their work has helped better in Nepal? Any article in the CPA that has not been violated?
I think not.
When was the last time UNMIN shunned the praise that is heaped upon it by reporters who are relatives of its Nepali staff?
Has UNMIN ever disclosed its internal weaknesses to the Nepali public and vowed to improve its performance?
UNMIN regularly relies on its mandate as the source of its ineffectiveness and ironically, readily accepts extensions based on the exact same mandate. Isn't there something worng with this?
I don't agree with everything the writer says but damn, there are some very strong points in the arguments.
Also, the list of other articles gives a lot of history on the weaknesses of the UN in Nepal. It would be a good idea to trace some of these weakensses and figure out where things went wrong.
Frustrations in UNMIN seem to be running high. But the sufferes will be Nepalis.
I remember a picture of Ian Martin and Baburam Bhattarai conversing over beer in Edihoven.
This image is forever etched in my mind and I understand exactly what the writer means when he is talking about the lack of independence.
Having fought the Maoists during our civil war, I will never forget the double standards that the work of Ian Martin created and I will never forget the men who were murdered behind a shield that OHCHR created.
Soliders are not born killers... it is the circumstances and frustrations that harnesses the killer instinct. The source of the frustrations has always been the double standards that agencies like the OHCHR and INGOs the King and the politicians of Nepal have used.
The problem of UNMIN is, it came to Nepal too early. Our country was not tham much worst as Somalia, Afghanistan etc when they came.
Anurag,
I do not agree with your contention that UNMIN's weaknesses in Nepal will not impact the Security Council or the UN Secretary-General. It all boils down to the issue of accountability, which the UN has lacked and is only recently trying to improve at the prodding of some western governments. It is the SC which approved UNMIN. The SG is accountable for all actions of the UN. So let us not ignore where the buck stops.
I have not met Ian Martin, and this is not an issue of personality. As an international civil servant, he is accountable to his supervisors...period.
Horatio,
Fundamentally, we are in agreement. But if Kofi Anan survived the oil-for-food scandal and the Security Council survived bosnia, kosovo, rwanda, without any change in leadership or reprecussion, I doubt Nepal will move the needle in any signficant way.
"The Best of Inetntions" - Dan Traub. The title of this book written about Kofi Anan's tenure, sums it all up.
Another very important point to note where UNMIN is concerned.
They have failed to advertise that Maoist combatants are all outside of the cantoments now. NC and other parties are sh*t scared of campaigning in the hills because they will be thrased by these miscreants. They cannot campaign in the South because there, the NC = Bahunists and any Bahunist is not welcome in the Madhes.
Finally. Feudalism is coming to an end and we are seeing the brith of a new Nepal. Maoists in the hills and a Madhesis in the South.
The cantonment process of settlement has been almost failed. It is still unknown that what is going to do those who are failed in the cantonment. They are not going to settle, as in other countries, by living as general people. But the recent political scenario shows that they are being used as YCL or in other sister organizations in the election by the maoist. It means semi-arms groups are going to be used by maoist in the coming CA election. And this stupid NC leaders think that CA election, if ever happened, will be free and fair.
Whitemen's burden- lets get off this charade. UNMIN is nothing but that and to boot its an aparatus of colonism, in one form or another.
It does not deserve the credit nor does it have any relevance but like an annoying fly- it just hovers around with smart podium talk and acts untouchable.
Enough of this charade. There is similarity with SPAM as well. Unmin is nothing more other than becoming what it claims to fight- just ask " the man who would never be a President'.
Diehard
When you cannot figure out elephant in the room- then may Lord Krishna help us all
Diehard,
You overlook the fact that UNMIN is an instrument of the United Nations, the only forum where countries large and small, powerful and weak, have a voice. It is NOT colonial by any stretch of the imagination. If you are implying that the Security Council really runs the UN, you are right. Note however that the SC is composed of 15 member countries, 5 of which are permanent members. Only 2 of those 5 (UK and France) have a colonial past. The other three are China, Russia and the US. We in the developing world like to use over-used terms like "white man's burden" to denigrate those that can help us. UN assistance is multilateral, not politically motivated like all bilateral assistance. There is a big difference.
I beg to differ Horatio. Same as East India company- came for trade but rule the nation. I remember league of nation and all the good intentions but basically its a power trip for nations that can bend the rule or nation of middle starta acting powerhouse by infringing on sovern right of people.
Its an outdated institution that is puely there to maintain its relevancy and perks at the mercy of rich and powerful. Nothing more. You have rightly said about SC, there I rest my case.
Diehard
Post a Comment