A
delegation of the European Union (EU) Troika is scheduled
to visit Nepal from 4 to 6 October 2005. The
EU Troika had last visited Nepal in mid-December 2004 and had met the proxy government headed by
Sher Bahadur Deuba who is presently in jail.
The
delegation of the EU-Troika undertakes the visit at an “interesting
time”, following the visit of a delegation of an all-party
political parties from India.
Despite
the intervention of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights at its 61st session and subsequent establishment
of the Office of the United Nation High Commissioner for
Human Rights, there have been reports of systematic human
rights violations. It is no longer limited to
the use of disproportionate force against the protestors
but extreme sexual violence including biting of women protestors
and poking batons at the sensitive organs, sexual molestation
and other violations during arrest as well as while under
police detention.
The
limited sanctions on sale of arms to Nepal have so far failed
to break the political stalemate. Dr Tulsi Giri, Vice Chairman
of the Council of Minister has made clear the intention
of the King Gyanendra to cling on to power.
The
EU Troika must not restrict its visit to the assessment
of the prevailing situation in Nepal.
Rather
than talking to the wall, King Gyanendra, the EU Troika
must assess effectiveness of the current measures taken
against King Gyanendra and recommend what further measures
be taken if King Gyanendra refuses to restore democracy
and find a solution with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists).
If the ongoing talks between the Maoists and the political
parties result in the Maoists accepting solution within
the framework of democracy, human rights and good governance,
the EU and other like minded countries need to take pre-emptive
measures.
At
the moment, interventions have been hamstrung by lack of
a coherent policy amongst the key actors.
The
United States has no clear-cut policy for engaging with
the Maoists. The United States welcomed the cease-fire declared
by the Maoists on 22 September 2005, 19 days after the Maoists
had made the declaration.
India’s
policy on Nepal remains critical but it has not been decisive
enough. India remains opposed to the involvement of the
United Nations or any credible third party for mediation.
This is despite the fact that monitoring of cease-fire by
international monitors in Sri Lanka had visible positive
effects. The recommendations by the all party team from
India are unlikely to make substantive difference on this
issue.
Political
parties in Nepal have failed to muster adequate support
in the street – both because of the lack of support as well
as overwhelming security presence in Kathmandu valley. The
Political parties have failed to dispel the fear that if
the parliament is restored, it will open the floodgate for
cosying upto the King. The political parties have also failed
to spell out their vision and mainly remained reactive to
the initiatives taken by the King and the Maoists.
The
Maoists declared unilateral cease-fire on 3 September 2005.
There are attempt by the Royal Nepal Army to provoke the
Maoists. However, unless the Maoists declare their commitment
to respect for a Code of Conduct on human rights, make a
declaration and take corresponding measures for resolution of the armed conflict in Nepal within
the framework of human rights, democracy and good governance,
the cease-fire alone cannot provide the legitimacy it seeks
to gain.
The
justice system has been mutilated in Nepal. While the Nepalese
government officials do accept human rights violations,
they have failed to take any effective measures to improve
the situation.
The
use of extreme violence against the protestors is a sign
of nervousness of King Gyanendra who remains concerned about
any possible rapprochement between the Maoists and the overground
political parties. The use of force of violence by the RNA
is likely to increase if the political parties and the Maoists
reach an agreement to have formal dialogue. If King
Gyanendra still refuses to give up, a full-scale civil war
or further gross violations of human rights cannot be ruled
out.
The
EU Troika therefore must take decisive actions. Asian Centre
for Human Rights recommends the following to the EU Troika:
On
Government of Nepal
The
EU-Troika should:
-
Recommend a Common EU Position
and a Regulation to impose sanctions against the King Gyanendra
and his administration including a visa ban and a freeze
on assets of the members of the Royal family, government
ministers, senior members of the Royal Nepal Army, state-owned
economic enterprises, and on beneficiaries of the government’s
economic policy and members of their families. The sanctions
should also include a ban on technical assistance, on financing
and financial assistance related to military activities,
and on the export of equipment that might be used for repression
on-pro democracy activists;
-
Recommend that no fund for developmental activities
from EU or multilateral agencies be routed through the government
of Nepal and such projects be implemented directly or through
the NGOs;
-
Urge the government of Nepal to respond positively
to the cease-fire declared by the Maoists and the OHCHR
be invited to monitor the cease-fire agreement and that
a fresh Memorandum of Understanding be signed accordingly;
-
Urge the government of Nepal to ensure that RNA signs
and ensure respect for the Code of Conduct on human rights
and humanitarian laws to be monitored by OHCHR and
-
Take measures to uphold the supremacy of the judiciary
and ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
including the right to freedom of association and assembly
and the right to freedom of expression.
On
the United States
The
EU-Troika should call upon the United States to:
-
Support the measures including a Common
EU Position and Regulation to be taken by the European
Union;
-
Review its policy on engagement with the Communist Party of
Nepal (Maoists) with a view to ensure restoration of full
democracy and peace in Nepal; and
-
Consider imposing further sanctions and extension of the restrictive
measures against His Majesty Government of Nepal;
On
India
The
EU-Troika should call upon India to:
-
Support the measures including a Common
EU Position and Regulation to be taken by the European
Union;
-
Use its good offices to urge the government of Nepal
to respond to the unilateral cease-fire declared by the
Maoists;
-
Support monitoring of cease-fire by international
observers such as the OHCHR to ensure its respect;
On
the political parties in Nepal
The
EU-Troika should call upon the political parties to:
- Take initiatives to hold dialogue with the
Maoists for resolution of the conflict in Nepal within the
framework of human rights, democracy and good governance;
On
the Maoists:
The
EU-Troika should,
- Welcome
the unilateral cease-fire by the Maoists:
- Urge the Maoists to sign the Code of Conduct
on human rights to be monitored by OHCHR; and
-
Join the democratic forces for resolution of the conflict
in Nepal within the framework of human rights, democracy
and good governance.
King
Gyanendra has not given given any indication for restoration
of democracy or resolving the Maoists conflict – the official
raisen detre – for Royal takeover on 1 February 2005.
Instead, he has spurned the unilateral cease –fire declared
by the Maoists on 3 September 2005. The Royal Nepal Army
(RNA) on many occasions sought to provoke the Maoists. The
Civil Society’s Ceasefire Monitoring Committee stated on
2 October 2005 that six Maoists and a civilian were not
killed during crossfire on September 24 in Bahadurpur area
of Palpa district but in unprovoked firing by the RNA.
King Gyanendra has been trying
to re-invent himself as a popular ruler of Nepal. He wears
camouflaged army dress to show solidarity with the Royal
Nepal Army. He also orchestrates interactions with the public
to fool the international community. It is another matter
that on 22 September 2005 eight students were injured in
a clash with the police in front of Ratna Rajya Multiple
Campus while they were protesting against the “forcible”
deployment of students to welcome King Gyanendra on his
visit to Lalitpur district.
Vice-Chairman of the Council
of Minister, Dr Tulsi Giri’s penchant for public speaking
leaves little doubt about the intention of King Gyanendra
to cling on to power. His statement on 19 September 2005
that the Constitution of Nepal is a major obstacle in achieving
the king’s objectives expressed in his February 1 royal
proclamation and that the government is not obliged to abide
by the Constitution - sent the rumour mills working overtime. Foreign Minister Ram Nath Pandey sought two
years time to hold the general elections. Two years is quite
a long time considering that then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur
Deuba was given the deadline of 1 April 2005 to hold elections.
On Nepal, the United States
continues to suffer from the“policy of generalization” which
equates the Maoists with Al-Qaeda. Unless, the US policies
are adapted to address specificities of Nepal, they will
only endure autocracy and violations of human rights.
While
the unilateral cease-fire by the Maoists was welcomed across
the spectrum, the United States failed to react until 22
September 2005. Its belated but cautious welcome can be
construed as a statement of recognition of the respect for
cease-fire by the Maoists.
The
United States needs to change its policy. The views expressed
by its key ally could be useful.
Ambassador
of the United Kingdom, His Excellency Keith Bloomfield,
a well-known counter terrorism expert, articulated the engagement
with the Maoists. Ambassador Bloomfield, in his article, Terrorism – No Double
Standards, in The Rising Nepal on 28 July 2005 elucidated
the position of the British government. Ambassador Bloomfield
wrote that he was often “challenged to explain alleged British
double standards on terrorism in relation to the Maoist
insurgency in Nepal. How come we condemn the London terror
attacks so strongly yet do not label the Maoists terrorists?
How come we are even urging the Nepalese government to negotiate
with terrorists?”
As
Ambassador Bloomfield wrote “There
is a world of difference between (a) an armed insurrection
involving thousands of a country’s own citizens in a classic
guerrilla warfare environment, with political and socio-economic
demands, many of which are shared by the mainstream political
parties, and (b) Al Qaeda, which is a worldwide extremist
network and involves only a tiny minority of a minority
religious group in the UK, with no coherent negotiable demands
or formal structure”.
Unless
the United States is able to change its tunnel vision to
address specificities of Nepal, its policies will only contribute
to the abyss of Nepal.
It
is essential that the United States equates the King and
the Maoists, rather than the Maoists and the Al-Qaeda.
India’s
reported objection to the role of the United Nations or
any other third party for mediation in Nepal needs to be
addressed. It is clear that New Delhi’s mandarin still suffer
from cold-war phobia.
The
European Union needs to find a common ground with India.
Mediation is a different issue from cease-fire monitoring.
Given India’s reservation on mediation by the UN or any
other third party, EU should explore the possibility of
monitoring of cease-fire agreements if the government of
Nepal responds. The monitoring of cease-fire between the
Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam had perceptible effects on the ground. New Delhi,
EU and the United States must realize that
monitoring of cease-fire by international observers
will only strengthen the democratic forces of Nepal who
have been virtually squeezed by the RNA and the Maoists.