1 Oct, New York
A reputed outside group of researchers focused on the affairs of Security Council has revealed the adversarial policy of Nepali Congress to the United Nations appears to be one of the major reasons behind growing acceptance about UNMIN’s exit. The latest report provided to me by the group ‘Security Council Report’, has assimilated the general vibe of member countries about UNMIN’s exit and Nepal’s peace process.
“Many members are frustrated with yet another last-minute request by Nepal,” the report reads,” There appears to be a growing acceptance that it is time for UNMIN to leave Nepal, particularly given the increasingly adversarial policy to the UN being employed by the Nepali Congress party.” This group, deemed as very reliable group, prepares the report with the support of the Governments of Canada, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Norway and Singapore, The Rockefeller Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and operates in affiliation with the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University in New York.
However the report has not made clear why the policy of Nepali Congress is regarded as one of the reasons behind such type of growing acceptance. Though the oldest and largest democratic party in Nepal, NC has not yet institutionally thrown harsh criticisms against UN, most of the senior leaders have continued to express their dissatisfaction towards UNMIN and demanded UNMIN to leave.
The report mentions the US and France in particular appeared to want to make it clear that this would be the last extension for UNMIN. However, some others seem more concerned that if UNMIN left prematurely without alternative monitoring arrangements already in place, this could undermine peace and security in Nepal, according to the report.
The report has also highlighted the possible action Security Council can take after the briefing from Under Secretary General B Lynn Pascoe after his Nepal visit. Pascoe is scheduled to visit Nepal primarily for high level talks regarding the implementation of 4-point agreement between the caretaker government and UCPN Maoist on 13 September. According to the report, the most likely option is to listen to the briefing but take no action. It is said that another possible option is a statement or remarks to the press from the President reflecting the Council’s reactions to the Secretariat’s progress report on the implementation of the final tasks of the peace process.
Also an option is to schedule another meeting on Nepal in November to monitor developments ahead of the mandate expiry in mid-January, the report says.
The report has also identified a few key issues undertaken by the Security Council. First, the key issue for the Council is whether the two sides will be able to keep their commitment to complete the remaining tasks of the peace process by the end of UNMIN’s mandate on 14 January 2011. A related issue is what action the Council should take if the Secretary-General’s report indicates that there has been little progress made since the Nepalese government and the Maoists signed their agreement on 13 September.
Also an issue is what needs to be done to ensure an orderly drawdown and withdrawal of UNMIN by 15 January 2011. Another issue is what type of arrangements will be put in place for the monitoring of arms if UNMIN is to leave by mid-January 2011.
Another issue is whether it would be wise to have UNMIN withdraw from Nepal if the security situation deteriorates, according to the report.
A 15-member Council has the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia and France as its permanent members and Austria, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey and Uganda are the non-permanent elected members.