|
Ian
Martin on the present situation
|
 |
Kathmandu
6 November 2007 (UNMIN)
My
main purpose in inviting you to this press briefing is to answer any questions
you may have about the future of UNMIN's mandate, about which there have
been many media reports and comments during my trip to New York.
But
first I want to refer to the negotiations of recent weeks which culminated
in the votes in the Interim Legislature - Parliament on Sunday. The future
of the monarchy is obviously not a matter on which the United Nations has
taken or should take a position; nor is the electoral system, except for
the desirability of respecting international good practice which is compatible
with different electoral systems. These are matters for Nepalis to decide.
Although these two issues have not been fully resolved, there have been
positive aspects of recent discussions among the parties: the seriousness
of the efforts to reach compromise within the Seven-Party Alliance; the
repeatedly-expressed commitments to sustaining the Alliance and the peace
process; and the respectful spirit in which the final parliamentary proceedings
were conducted, despite continuing substantive disagreements.
I
am dismayed however to have returned to an increased number of reports
of unresolved abductions and killings, whether attributed to armed Madhesi
groups, Maoist cadres, or local disputes. Nepal has lived for too long
with violence and intimidation, and I appeal again at this season for a
commitment to tolerance and non-violence, but also for an end to impunity.
It is the responsibility of all to support efforts to bring murderers to
justice, as the CPN(M) has committed to do in the tragic case of Birendra
Sah, and as I have repeatedly said should be the case with the killers
of Maoist cadres in the Terai. The rule of law across all of Nepal is fundamental
to a conducive atmosphere for free and fair elections as well as to broader
public confidence in the peace process as a whole.
When
I briefed the Security Council in New York, I said that the crisis facing
the peace process was not just the consequence of new demands regarding
the issues of monarchy and the electoral system, but that it also stemmed
from growing distrust amongst the parties to the peace agreement, with
accusations in both directions that commitments had not been implemented.
I believe that the parties need to take stock of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement and other agreements reached, and their implementation. This
should include the implementation of commitments made to Janajati, Madhesi
and other groups. I was encouraged to be told in my meeting with the Prime
Minister just before leaving Kathmandu that he intended that there should
indeed be a review of the implementation of agreements, and to find on
my return a wide appreciation of this need.
I
also said to the Security Council that the parties need to collectively
reaffirm to the public their commitment to a successful Constituent Assembly
election, in order to reassure the people of Nepal that the process remains
on track. The Constituent Assembly election is an integral element of the
peace process: a credible election cannot take place unless the peace process
is on a solid footing, and a credible election is critical to the success
of the peace process. This requires not just the setting of a date, but
agreement on a road-map which will ensure that there is not yet another
failure to hold the election on whatever new date is agreed. Despite the
best efforts of the Election Commission, with which UNMIN has worked closely,
two dates set for the election have come and gone. It is now time for a
frank analysis by Nepali politicians and BICC Complex, New Baneshwor, GPO
Box 15211, Kathmandu, Nepal, Tel: + 977-1-501-0036/37/38, Fax:
+977-1-501-0040 civil society of why this has been the case, and
what are the requirements for a successful electoral process to go forward.
I
also informed the Security Council that the Prime Minister had told me
of his intention to consult other parties with a view to requesting an
extension of the mandate of UNMIN. The mood of the Security Council appeared
to be unanimously sympathetic to such a request. As well as extending the
time period of the mandate of UNMIN, there has also been discussion regarding
the scope of our support to the peace process.
Let
me first put to rest the suggestion that UNMIN has already exceeded its
mandate. This is not the case. I want in particular to put on record that
UNMIN has not met or sought to meet with the leadership of armed Madhesi
groups. This misunderstanding appears to have arisen because there was
one meeting in India between United Nations humanitarian officials and
the leadership of one armed group. Their purpose was to try to ensure that
emergency food relief and other assistance could be delivered in the wake
of flooding in the Terai earlier this year without attacks by armed groups
against humanitarian workers. These UN officials involved were not under
the authority of UNMIN, and their discussion was confined to humanitarian,
not political issues. Of course UNMIN has met and will continue to meet
with a wide range of representatives of traditionally marginalized groups.
I
was frank with the Security Council, as was the Secretary-General in his
report, that expectations among Nepalis are high as to what UNMIN can do.
Our focused mandate is not well understood. To expect UNMIN to safeguard
or advance the peace process in ways that it has not been mandated or requested
to assist is not realistic. I have always emphasized that this is a Nepalese
process, whose success depends on Nepalis: the international community
can only assist in the manner in which its support is requested.
There
are a number of areas where it has been suggested that more active United
Nations support to the peace process would be of value, if desired by the
government and the parties. I mention three. First, support to the implementation
of the peace process and agreements reached, which as I have already said
Nepali political leaders and civil society are increasingly acknowledging
needs to be addressed. Second, assisting a discussion on the future of
the country's security sector, including a managed transition from the
current temporary Maoist army cantonments and restriction to barracks of
the Nepal Army to long-term solutions: without this, there is no exit strategy
from UNMIN's arms monitoring. And third, greater advisory support to promoting
public security - the greatest concern of so many Nepalis and a critical
requirement for a credible Constituent Assembly election. These would not
mean a bigger UNMIN presence: we are already reducing our electoral staff,
although we will be ready to increase our district presence again if requested
ahead of a firm election date. But it could mean providing the broader
support to the success of the peace process that many Nepalis expect of
the United Nations.
It
is for Nepalis to decide what is asked of the United Nations: you have
the assurance of the Secretary-General and, I believe, the openness of
the Security Council to extend the assistance requested.
Source:
UNMIN 2007, United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI)
top
|
