Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Nepal

Nepal: Press conference by the Representative of the Secretary-General, Karin Landgren, 14 May 2010

Good afternoon, and welcome to UNMIN, for a few remarks about the recent United Nations Security Council resolution and current developments in the peace process.

The Security Council met on May 5th to consider the Report of the UN Secretary-General on Nepal's peace process and the work of UNMIN, and to hear my briefing. One week later, on May 12th, the Council unanimously adopted a resolution deciding, in line with the request of the Government of Nepal and the recommendation of the Secretary-General, to renew the mandate of UNMIN for four months, until 15 September 2010.

The Security Council met, in an atmosphere of grave concern, about the peace process. At that point, Nepal had experienced four days of the general strike imposed by the UCPN-M. I commended the Government and the Maoists for the overall level of control and restraint they showed, but some clashes had already occurred, economic losses were mounting, and tensions were high.

I noted to the Council that UNMIN has long warned of a dangerous slide in the peace process, with the delay in promulgating the constitution, and on integrating and rehabilitating the Maoist army personnel, in a polarized and mistrustful political climate.

In its Resolution, the Security Council expressed concern at the recent tensions, and called on all sides to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiation.

The calling-off of the general strike has been a constructive step, and one which should have created a conducive environment for rapid progress in the negotiations. It is not yet evident that the parties have capitalized on this. Consensus is still urgently needed on several core issues of the peace process.

Meanwhile, the tenure of the Constituent Assembly expires in two weeks. The Security Council expressed concern at the lack of consensus over its extension.

On a positive note, the Security Council welcomed the completion of the discharge process for the disqualified Maoist army personnel.

My briefing, and the report of the Secretary-General, described the extensive structured consultations that took place, between UNMIN and senior political leaders, to review options that would allow for the Mission's withdrawal. The Security Council reiterated that UNMIN, working with the parties, should begin to make arrangements for this.

The Security Council called on the Government of Nepal and the UCPN-M to agree, and to implement a timetabled action plan, with clear benchmarks, for the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel, with the support of the Special Committee and its Technical Committee. The Council called on the parties to take full advantage of UNMIN's expertise and readiness, within its mandate, to support the peace process to facilitate the completion of our mandated tasks.

That is where we stand. The Secretary-General is expected to report back to the SC before 1 September, that is, in approximately 15 weeks. Time is very short for tangible progress to be made, and UNMIN joins the Security Council in calling on the political parties to work together in the spirit of consensus and compromise, and to do so quickly. Thank You.

Transcript of Questions and Answers

Joanna Jolly (BBC): You said it's (the extension) only for four months. Whose idea was that? Is that the government request? Do you think it's likely that UNMIN will leave in a few months?

RSG: I can't speculate what will happen beyond the 15th of September, but it was the request of the government to renew the mandate as it stood for further four months.

Prerana Marasini (The Hindu): I have a question regarding the latest statements made by Prachanda. How convincing have you found the statements made by him regarding the disbanding of YCL and integration and rehabilitation of PLA within 4-5 months of time?

RSG: I met Prachanda this morning, as when I return from New York, I call on the political leaders and the Prime Minister too, to brief them and hear their views on how the situation is evolving. He referred to the fact that discussions are continuing. He believed that consensus would be possible in the coming days. So, I took some encouragement from that discussion.

Kiran Chapagain (Republica): How hopeful are you about the completion of integration and rehabilitation of combatants within the renewed mandate of your office?

RSG: I'm concerned that progress has not been greater at this point. We are aware that action plans have been drawn up, but they lack the full consensus of the Special Committee, and the Special Committee is also not meeting with its complete cohort of members. Whether it is possible for an agreement to be reached around a plan for integration and rehabilitation in this broader political climate of mistrust and lack of agreement on the bigger picture, I am quite doubtful. What I've said elsewhere, though, is that once political agreement is reached, I'm convinced, based on the experience of the discharge of the disqualified, that implementation itself can take place quite speedily. But, the key will be the political agreement, which is not there.

Lokmani Rai (Kantipur): UNMIN has limited rights, so how do you plan to work for the four months?

RSG: We are very encouraged by the consultations we had with the parties between mid-March and late April on their expectations of UNMIN. We made clear that understanding the expectations of the parties, and dispelling any misconceptions about UNMIN's role, UNMIN's responses and UNMIN's impartial nature here in Nepal is important to our way forward. This element of understanding the expectations of the parties is what we will base our work on. But the mandate remains the same as it has been in the past. We will continue the work we have been doing.

Utpal Parashar (Hindustan Times): We have been witnessing the rounds of talks that have been taking place in the past 10-12 days, they have not resulted in any concrete steps towards arriving at a consensus. In the meantime, some countries have offered to mediate between the parties to arrive to a conclusion. What would be UN's role, or what be its opinion on such a mediation? Would you want the parties to reach consensus within themselves, without any third-party intervention?

RSG: The parties have said they are capable of reaching agreement by themselves, and UNMIN has no view on whether mediation is necessary or not, but we would encourage any steps that the parties can take to bring them closer to consensus in the very short time that remains before the expiry of the Constituent Assembly. I want to mention one more aspect of my conversation with Prachanda this morning, which was that he assured me that from the side of the UCPN-M there would be no return to conflict. This was also a comment that I was encouraged by because fear is at the root of much of the unease permeated in the last few weeks, that through some confrontation, the country would backslide.

HH Upadhyaya (Kantipur Television): As the Security Council Resolution states, what is your plan for the withdrawal of UNMIN? As you say handover of remaining part of your work, whom are you going to handover? The Government or whom?

RSG: The options for UNMIN withdrawal given that our current mandate is monitoring the arms and armies: one, that either there is a resolution of the continued existence in the country of two armies, a resolution to the cantonments, or that there would be someone to whom we can hand over these responsibilities, as the Security Council recommendation mentions. Now, what we had discussed with the parties in the last few months was precisely this question of to whom UNMIN could hand over. And frankly, there was no clear answer to that. It is up to the agreement of the parties, this question of handing over monitoring responsibilities. All our monitoring activities derive from the agreement from 2006, the Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies. Whatever solution would be acceptable to the parties, in terms of handover, is one that we would then strive to help implement. It would certainly be more satisfactory if a resolution could be found altogether to the cantonments, a resolution in the form of integration and rehabilitation, which would make this aspect of the monitoring role unnecessary, rather than attempting to handover to another actor.

Manesh Shrestha (CNN): Just to follow up on that question. Given the level of mistrust between the parties at the moment, did you say that whatever is acceptable to the parties would be acceptable to UNMIN? Wouldn't it be more preferable for you that there's something much more concrete on that for the handover of the arms as well as the future of armies?

RSG: Whatever is acceptable to the parties in terms of who monitors, yes, because the original agreement is between the parties and they can come to a new agreement assigning those responsibilities elsewhere. So that's the context. What we had outlined to the parties were options that were not exhaustive, that whether they consider other national actors to undertake monitoring, other international actors, military actors, civilian actors. There is a limited range of possibilities there. The parties' response at that time was to say that this was not the moment in the peace process for UNMIN to withdraw, that our presence here was still needed. But as you have seen, the Security Council has come back and said please begin to make these arrangements immediately. We will need to go back to the parties and really press as hard as we can for monitoring alternatives, or for resolution of the problem itself. As I have made clear, our preference is to see the integration and rehabilitation issue resolved, which would enable the orderly exit of UNMIN.

Joanna Jolly (BBC): You like to see the issue resolved, but in these four months as things don't happen quickly in Nepal? Are we all dreaming that something's going to be resolved in four months because this situation has continued for a very long time?

RSG: Once political agreement is reached, I am confident that the implementation can take place. The operational aspects can take place. There is no reason for UNMIN to need to stay on in Nepal until the ultimate end of implementation. Once things have gotten underway, then the peace process moves to a new stage. But as to your question on how quickly the political agreement can be reached, unfortunately, I can't answer that. We do see it as being extremely urgent, and the Council also shares that view and that concern.

Kiran Chapagain (Republica): This is a follow up question to the earlier one. Given the situation that the political deadlock is not resolved quickly and given the situation that the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants do not complete in the next four months, will the Security Council consider the government's another request to renew the mandate for next time?

RSG: As you indicated in your question, what is critical is what the government wishes to request. The Council has again underlined its support for the peace process and I'm confident that they will be ready to consider any request that comes from the government. What has been the case with these requests from the outset is that they should represent consensus between the government and the opposition. As far as I am aware, the government and the opposition have always consulted over the request that goes to the Secretary General. When you read the Security Council resolution, you will see reflected some impatience there that the process has not moved along faster, real concern is there about the tensions and breakdown in consensus, but strong support is also there for Nepal's peace process, because whatever has happened so far, as I also underlined in talking to the Council, this process remains in many ways a model peace process: in the way the conflict drew to a close, and in the relatively high level of respect the parties have shown for the arms monitoring agreement, and we very much hope that it will stay that way in the months to come and at a time when it may be subject to further stresses.

Gopal Sharma (Reuters): How long will this continue? The government request for extension and SC extends. How long will this chain continue?

RSG: The Council is clearly not happy about this, and several questions were raised in the informal consultations that followed the open Council session about why four months. In January, when four months were requested, it was with the rationale of the CA deadline. Now we understand that the current four months was also related to an expectation of a possible CA extension of six months. But this is just an understanding, it was not made explicit. The Council is guided by the request of the government and the Secretary-General had already recommended in his report that the Council, if requested to extend, should accede to that request.

Kiran Chapagain (Republica): Even this time, our ambassador to the United Nations had to work extensively to convince the UNSC members to pass the resolution in line with the government request. Then if the government sends yet another request next time, will it not to be very difficult for Nepal side to convince the Security Council?

RSG: The Council expects to see some progress. They expect to see positive developments in the peace process as a whole, and specifically on the integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel. UNMIN has that expectation as well, and that is something we will be working to encourage in the coming days, weeks and months.

Thank you.