John Narayan Parajuli


We regret rehab option attracted few combatants

In Interview on December 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Dec. 13–Germany has been very supportive of Nepal’s peace process. It has generously contributed to the Nepal Peace Trust Fund besides running education and skills training programme in both the cantonments and civilian areas. John Narayan Parajuli spoke to German Ambassador Verena Graefin von Roedern last week about her country’s perspective on Nepal’s peace process and the assistance it can offer.

 

How do you see the recent breakthrough in the peace process?

 

Germany, along with the donor community, and other important players, has welcomed the seven-point agreement. This agreement prepared the ground for the recently completed regrouping process of the former Maoist combatants and refocused attention on the crucial issue of state restructuring. It also indicates

that the peace process can move ahead to what is frequently referred to as logical conclusion by Nepalis. I hope that the differences between the political parties do not create a deadlock again—and there are still disputed issues. Among them is, of course, the expiry of the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and another is the allowances paid to Maoist combatants exceeding the categorised number by about 2,500.

 

 Very few combatants have opted for rehabilitation compared to retirement or integration options. How can Germany help?

 

We regret that the Special Committee’s rehabilitation option did not attract many combatants, but we understand that the combatants wanted quick solutions while opting for integration and retirement. Probably they did not have full trust in the rehab package of the institutions, which would be implementing it. But if you ask whether Germany will support the retirement cash payment option, we along with our European Union (EU) colleagues, have always been unambiguous that we will not support cash payment option. But we can continue running programmes for the combatants in areas they mainly hail from. GIZ has already been running a similar programme in Far West. To extend it now, the Nepal government must make a specific request. However, the combatants who chose retirement with cash payments can’t be receiving the free training given by the donor community because it will elevate them far above the victims of the conflict, who have received much less.

Did you mean that you would be supporting integration of the discharged combatants into the society?

 

It means we have a programme where we give all kinds of help in areas most affected by the armed conflict. We have such programme in the Far West and we had such programmes in Rolpa and Rukum districts where we built roads, helped people grow vegetables, fruits and also aided in schooling. So, we could take such programmes into consideration for areas needing such help.

 

GIZ has been running various programmes for combatants. Will they continue?

 

We are a major donor partner with the Nepal Peace Trust Fund. We have recently given grant assistance worth two million Euros through our German Development Bank, which takes our total contribution to over three millions. On your question about the GIZ’s programme, we do not know what would happen to the cantonments because it has not been decided yet.

 

Do you have a precondition to your support to Nepal Peace Trust Fund? 

 

There is a board, which decides. Our Swiss colleague is on the board.

 

Could the donors provide additional budgetary support to the government

on, let’s say health or education, so that the government can save money meant for these sectors to pay the combatants?

 

There have been critical arguments about it. However, when we provide money for one programme, we would like it to be spent on the same. If we are supporting health programmes, the combatants can benefit from them. But to use the money to support cash payments, I fear, would be against our position.

 

My question was: could you support the government in areas where it is already spending money so that it can save its own money for financing the cash payments to the combatants?

 

We can support the programmes we find necessary; however, the government can finance the payment deals with its own resources although we are critical of it.

 

A year ago all donors were very critical of the paralysis in the development sector. Has that changed now?

 

We are still worried about misappropriation of development funds at the local level. There are concerns about growing corruption. There is a recent agreement between the parties to hold local election in 2012. An accountable government is what we have always wanted to see. But we need to see the promises translated into action. There is a general consent that Nepal needs rapid development to utilise the potentials that nature has accorded to this beautiful country. Of course, corruption needs to be eliminated. The prime minister also sees it as a priority

Comment »


The world is bigger than India and China

In Interview on December 13, 2011 at 11:51 am

US Ambassador Scott H. DeLisi has been in Nepal for nearly two years. He came at a time of extreme political polarisation, but in the last three months, there has been a breakthrough in the peace and constitution-making process. He credits all the parties, not least the Maoists for playing a critical role. In over an hour-long interview with Akhilesh Upadhyay and John Narayan Parajuli last week, the US envoy offered the US position on the peace process, the Tibetan and Bhutanese refugee issue and the investment climate in Nepal. On the Monsanto controversy, he urged for a broader debate on food security instead. Not for the first time, he reiterated that US doesn’t view Nepal through India, and urged Nepali leaders to look beyond India and China in articulating foreign policy. Excerpts:

The peace process is making some progress finally. What are your expectations?

 

I think the expectations of the US are same as the expectations of the Nepali people—that there will be conclusion of the peace process that will allow the constitution drafting, and ultimately these fundamental issues of whether of integration and rehabilitation and others will be addressed, and the nation can move to this next step.

 

How happy is the US with political actors, particularly the Maoists and their level of cooperation in the peace process, or the way they have projected themselves lately?

 

I have always hesitated to talk about how happy or unhappy we are with the parties. But I would say I think that the US government is very appreciative of the role that all the parties are playing to move this process forward constructively. Certainly, the role of the UCPN (Maoist)—both as the party currently leading the government and as the largest party in the CA, as well as the party that had the combatants who were central to this process—was critical. I think that we have seen great responsibility by all the actors. I think that you cannot make a compromise alone.

If you remember a year ago, we were all debating whether UNMIN should stay here. We were debating who should monitor the army, or others were debating. Now, what we have at hand is a huge change compared to what we had 12 months ago, and we welcome this progress. I think that we feel very optimistic that Nepal will continue to walk ahead and ultimately complete this process.

 

In your interview earlier, you said the US would be particularly interested in putting its money in certain components of integration and rehabilitation. Could you specify the areas that you are still interested in?

 

We are still interested in that today. The challenge for us, of course, is that the rehabilitation part of the process is not what anyone would have necessarily envisioned when we last spoke. Instead, what we are seeing is the voluntary retirement, and as you know, we have made it clear all way along that one thing we won’t be able to do would be to fund the golden handshake. There has not been a rehabilitation process yet. Instead, what we have is essentially the voluntary retirement process. While talking to some in the government, I think there is a belief and an understanding that even if you are to say, a voluntary retirement, most former combatants will need some training. As we move forward, they will begin to identify the need for some job training, some business management skills. Our message to the government remains very consistent. If you can tell us what areas of assistance you need, we will explore our resources in place. Our goal is to help. But until we know what they are looking for, it’s very hard for us to say we can commit.

The integration process is little bit different in terms of where we can find funds and sources. They really need support to create that directorate, especially in training, skills and equipment. Those are areas that I think we may be able to help. I cannot say precisely I have got x dollars here and that I will help you here and there. I am in conversation with Washington about the possibilities. We will review these possibilities and then we can see what we can do to support this process because we do believe in the process. We believe that we will move forward and we would like to demonstrate our support for that process.

 

But there are discussions that maybe, donors, like your country could provide budgetary support to government in certain areas like health or education, which frees up money to be used to finance the retirement package.

 

We don’t have unlimited money in terms of our development assistance. And most of the support for the rehabilitation would come from development assistance programmes or those sorts of budgetary fund. We don’t just say to ex-combatants—here is a whole bunch of money, go knock yourselves out—because in a sense you don’t know how they would spend it, or how it is going to be good for your society. We have scenarios in which it just doesn’t work in other countries.

That doesn’t mean it cannot work here, but I am saying that it is not in the approach of any donor organisations are comfortable with.

In terms of budgetary support, I do not think that you would see us say-let’s increase our assistance to the government of Nepal so that it would free up budget for financing their golden handshake.

US Congressman Frank Wolf has been on record recently saying that it could cost Nepal American aid if Nepal continues to block safe passage for Tibetan refugees. Can you clarify what the official US position is on this issue?

I don’t want to speak for Congressman Frank Wolf. All the members of the Congress look into these issues closely and with a wide range

of views. Personally, I believe that Nepal has actually done a very good job of addressing a difficult problem. But fundamentally for us, again the issue is quite simply a matter of how do you deal with the needs and protect the rights of one of the most vulnerable populations. This is not an issue that has been articulated by the administration. In fact we have been very clear in our appreciation for the constructive role that Nepal has played in respecting refugee rights in general.

There are often reports, including in our local media that the Gentleman’s Agreement on the passage for Tibet refugees hasn’t been quite followed in letter and spirit.

Everyone will bring their own perspective to this. I believe again that the government of Nepal, in terms of those refugees who have come across the border, into your country and once they are here, they have to be addressed as refugees. Nepal government has consistently done a good job. They turn them over to the UNHCR. And they give the UN the opportunity to determine, ‘do these refugees meet the criteria for the refugee status?’ And if they do, then they assist their onward journey. Basically all of them are going to Dharmasala.  In regard to those populations who come crossing the border, I haven’t seen issues. You will always have individual cases or challenges. It’s a sensitive sort of concern. But in terms of how Nepal government has managed this, I have not had any cases where I had to go and say this is wrong.

Like Nepal government my government has a One-China policy, and this is not about China but about refugees and their rights. I hope we can work effectively and by we, I mean the international community, in partnership with the government of Nepal. Just as we have worked effectively to address the issues of Bhutanese refugees, who have spent 20 years in the camps.

Your country has been accepting a large number of Bhutanese refugees as part of a durable solution, but a particular problem of non-refugee spouses have emerged. Does the US have a policy of barring non-refugee spouses of refugees who are being resettled?

There is no policy barring non-refugee spouses in Bhutanese cases from being resettled in the US. However, all follow-to-join visa cases are carefully reviewed to make sure it is a legitimate relationship and not a fraudulent relationship for immigration purposes.

Do you think the investment climate in Nepal has generally improved? What are areas of US interests in Nepal?

I am not sure that I would say that the investment climate has improved significantly. But the counterpoint to that is that I don’t think the investment climate is necessarily as terrible as some people would say that it is. There are challenges, challenges in terms of infrastructure and power shortages. But Labour has gotten better. The power shortage has gotten somewhat better. The previous government of Jhalanath Khanal, in terms of when they were talking about the energy policy, for example, they did make some significant changes. But all along, despite the challenges, there are many business houses, who have looked and said, “Yes, we have these challenges. It’s not easy but with a good business motive, there is money to be made here, we will make money,” and they are doing so. We highlight certain things: it’s certainly tourism, civil aviation. We are very interested in the IT sector as well. We have got companies here who are doing very well. Software development and IT support for various US-based companies; it’s incredible to see the potential.

Where does Nepal fit in of terms of larger US policy in South Asia, especially given the recent shift in US focus towards the Asia Pacific?

It is not so much where we think Nepal should fit in. But the question is where Nepal thinks it should fit in. For the past decade or more, this country has been very introspective. But, as Nepal is now moving forward in the peace and the constitution-making process, at some point Nepal is going to emerge from this transition and then Nepal will have to ask itself ‘where do we fit in the world?’ You have two large neighbours, India China and they have been an important part of the foreign policy. The

world is bigger than India and China too. And your foreign policy has to be bigger than India and China too. I think in today’s world the nations are being challenged to think much more carefully. It’s not just bloc voting. Historically, your geography, economy, culture, history do bring Nepal looking towards South Asia broadly.  If I am having a foreign policy conversation with your foreign minister I will say, absolutely from the US standpoint, we would welcome seeing Nepal as a part of this resurgent robust South Asia.

The embassy and USAID have been in controversy over Monsanto. Could you explain what happened?

Some people think that there is a huge controversy and I don’t see any point in that. Our goal and fundamental commitment is to work with your country in development and build a prosperous society. And food security is critically important. There was an opportunity to build a link between the public and the private sector. We saw models in India that have worked very well. And the Indian government and the Indian states were interested in sharing their experiences with Ministry of Agriculture and everybody was really excited about it. All the things they saw and all the potential they saw. And we had an American company Monsanto. They are not the only company involved in this sort of endeavour.  Monsanto said, ‘yes we can help you in this and we are interested and we are

working in India extensively’. And they were prepared to offer extensive services and training for farmers and all the rest with that. And they saw it largely as corporate social responsibility.

Your country has been exploring the use of hybrid seeds since 1987 and you’ve been using hybrid seeds for decades; 75 percent of the vegetable grown are from hybrid seeds. You are close to 30 million, and your arable land and the amount of land available for cultivation doesn’t increase. It’s a static amount. How do you feed the growing population?

In that respect, do you find the debate that has started in the local media helpful?

I think that a good debate would be very helpful and is very important for Nepal. I would hope that the debate can focus though on the substantive issue about the agriculture policy and what makes sense for Nepal. And I honestly believe that focus on one company is misplaced. I don’t think there is much to be gained from focusing on one company.

Are you implying that the whole Monsanto debate is guided by a very broad narrative in Nepal and you would like to see more specifics there?

Again I don’t think there should be a Monsanto debate but a debate about Nepal’s agricultural development. Before you worry about whose hybrid seeds you are going to use, figure out whether hybrids are right. The debate has suggested to me that there has been a lot of inaccurate and misinformation out there.

Comment »


Maoists fear OHCHR-N could become ‘assertive’

In Politics on December 13, 2011 at 11:45 am
  • Party desires ‘more’ amnesty
  • Despises UN body’s ‘activism’ on emblematic cases

John Narayan Parajuli & Kamal Dev Bhattarai

KATHMANDU, DEC 09 -
With the term of the OHCHR-Nepal expiring on midnight Thursday, there is still a lot of confusion about whether the UN body remains functional for the next six months—an automatic ‘grace period’ that was stipulated in an agreement that led to its extension in June last year.

There is also a degree of uncertainty as to why the Maoist-led government is reluctant to extend the term despite a seeming convergence among non-Maoist parties to go for a final extension.

According to one theory, there is some fear in the Maoist party that the OHCHR-N could become assertive in its final stages of Nepal stay, particularly in finalising the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) bill which is currently pending in parliament.

The TRC deals with past crimes, an issue that could potentially drag many senior Maoist leaders.

Though the parties have agreed in principle to strike a balance between penalty and forgiveness in dealing with past crimes, the Maoists are still pushing for ‘more’ amnesty than penalty.

“Our position on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is very clear: The focus has to be on reconciliation except on crimes of serious nature,” said Maoist lawmaker and advocate Ek Raj Bhandari.

Lawmakers in the legislative sub-committee in the parliament assigned to strike compromise on the TRC bill are yet to resolve the issue of providing amnesty for torture, abduction and hostage-taking. They have agreed that no amnesty will be granted for murder of a person in captivity, murder of an unarmed person, rape and enforced disappearance. However, some human rights defenders fear that the Maoists could push for its revision once OHCHR leaves.

“If the OHCHR stays, it will continue to raise a voice against human rights violations and it will reverberate globally,” said Birendra Thapaliya, the chairman of FORHID Nepal, a human rights organisation.

“Maoists want the OHCHR out and they are in favour of the TRC that only focuses on amnesty.” Thapaliya believes that the position taken by the UN body on the Agni Sapkota and Bal Krishna Dhungel cases also played a role in the Maoist opposition to the UN body’s continuation. Even some in the diplomatic community share concerns of human rights defenders that the Maoists may try to insist on a ‘blanket amnesty’ to past crimes. “We are not

saying punish every single crime, but there has to be a fair degree of justice and offering blanket amnesty will not be acceptable,” said a Western ambassador. “This will also

be in breach of Nepal’s international treaty obligations.”

In a joint statement on Friday afternoon, on the eve of the International Human Rights Day, a section of the international community attempted to send their message across more collectively.

“We urge the Legislature-Parliament to agree quickly on the transitional justice mechanisms foreseen in the Comprehensive Peace Accord,” said the statement issued by the EU, Norway, Switzerland, USA, Canada, Japan and Australia. “The draft Bills establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Commission of Inquiry on Disappearances should adequately address impunity—which Nepal’s politicians have committed to tackle—and be in line with Nepal’s international legal and Treaty obligations. We also urge that the Bill on the National Human Rights Commission secures a sound legal base that guarantees its independence.”

Meanwhile, the confusion over the status of the OHCHR-N continues. A letter sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday had asked the UN body to pull down its signboard and cease all its programmes. However, OHCHR-N officials say the agreement signed during the last extension in June clearly authorises them to remain functional even during the grace period.

In response to a query as to whether the office remains functional, OHCHR officials referred to Article 20 (3) of an agreement with the government that says that the global rights body will remain in Nepal for six months after the termination notice.

“In light of such support, the High Commissioner has been disappointed at the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that reiterates the decision of the previous Govt extending OHCHR mandate until 8 Dec 2011 and does not inform of any changes to this,” a statement said.

“OHCHR has played an important role in support of the peace process, and many national partners—including the NHRC—had expressed their wish for this to continue. We will now be discussing with the Govt how to complete remaining works and how to continue our support to Nepal in the future.”

As the Post went to press on Friday evening, NHRC officials and leaders of the opposition parties were discussing the prospects of an extension following an agreement between the parties. Even Western diplomats said that they have been assured of an extension after a consensus government.

“No one knows how long that will take,” said an ambassador. “I don’t know whether it will still be practical to have the extension once OHCHR has disposed of its assets and done the packing.”

Comment »