Workspace and repository of materials for PfL’s special projects
Mission for Peace in Nepal
Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal: Second Session on the Philippines
INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MISSION FOR PEACE IN NEPAL
2006 MAY 26 - JUNE 2 | KATMANDU and NEW DELHI
Concept Paper
This project is jointly organised by Peace for Life (PfL), National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), Ecumenical Coalition on Tourism (ECOT), and Inter-Religious Peace Committee in Nepal (IRPC)
I. Background on the Nepal crisis
Nepal’s history since the adoption of its first multiparty constitution in 1959 is riddled with far too many episodes of the monarch suspending parliament and seizing full control of the country. In the last 11 years alone, Nepal has had 11 governments. In 1990, a pro-democracy movement forced the king to relinquish absolute power and institute a “constitutional monarchy”. But inept leadership, corruption, factionalism and political rivalries, and the government’s failure to improve the lives of its impoverished population—about half live below the poverty line—have continually challenged the parliamentary system. Today, Nepal—the world’s 12th poorest nation and only Hindu state—is reeling under intense political turmoil.
Tyranny and upsurge of resistance
Three recent events led to the present crisis. In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) gave up on parliamentarism and launched the “Nepalese People’s War” from the countryside to establish a people’s republic in place of the royal regime. In 2001, after the infamous palace massacre, king Gyanendra assumed the throne and took off on a crusade to reclaim the monarchy’s supremacy and launched a military campaign to crush the Maoists.
In October 2002, king Gyanendra dissolved the parliament, seized total control of the country and started his direct rule through hand picked Prime Ministers and Ministers under the stated pretext of curbing corruption in government and quelling the Maoist insurgency. He suspended rights to freedom of speech and assembly, imposed press censorship, authorised preventive detention, enforced curfews, controlled telecommunications, and banned all forms of dissent. Street demonstrations have been tear-gassed, doused with water cannons, beaten with batons and, recently, shot at with live ammunition. Opposition party leaders were arrested; NGOs advocating change were labelled criminals.
In February 2005, king Gyanendra went one step forward and removed his appointed PM and formed a cabinet under his own Chairmanship. With king Gyanendra’s unbridled use of extreme measures to hold on to power, demonstrations that started out with demands for the king to restore democracy rapidly developed into a movement against the monarchy. Rival political parties abandoned their commitment to constitutional monarchy and closed ranks to form the Seven-Party Alliance which aimed to turn Nepal into a democratic state. The CPN-M responded with a unilateral ceasefire and engaged in peace talks with the SPA, resulting in a 12-point accord that, among others, called for a popularly elected constituent assembly that will chart a fresh political course for Nepal. King Gyanendra rejected the proposal, prompting the Maoists to end the truce and join the SPA in calling for a nationwide general strike and civil disobedience in April 2006.
Civil war
In the countryside, the armed conflict has to date claimed more than 13,000 lives, rendered thousands homeless and disrupted livelihoods, education, tourism and almost all aspects of life. Children are gravely affected: 434 have been killed, more than 8,000 left orphaned, and over 40,000 have been displaced.
Of the total people who lost their lives in the conflict, those killed by the police and Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) account for almost two-thirds of total lives lost in the war. There are about 19,000 insurgent forces, of which only 4,000 are core soldiers and the rest are considered supporters. On the other hand, Nepal’s military and police forces combined number over 138,000 and have been beefed up by an outpouring of modern weaponry and military training from India, the US and Britain. The US alone has allocated US$38 million a year in grants for US military hardware, services and training.
Despite their sheer advantage, the king’s defence forces have failed to defeat the insurgents as the war is rooted in the social and economic poverty of the nation. Nepal’s annual per capita income of US$241 speaks for the appalling condition of its people. Eighty percent of Nepal’s rural population support the insurgency, which allow the Maoists to control nearly three-fourths of the countryside, as they see their needs and aspirations for a better life being addressed by the Maoists’ programme to effect societal changes, including through land reform.
Popular support for the war however remains bated due to the violent acts committed by the insurgents. On the other hand, torture, arrests, abductions and summary executions by the security forces are rampant. They also are responsible for the largest number of reported forced disappearances in the world in the last two years. The recent influx of arms and counterinsurgency training by India and the US has escalated the violence, adding to the already long list of the dead, wounded and disappeared.
Foreign powers edgy over Maoist threat
New Delhi blocked aid to Kathmandu immediately after the royal coup in February 2005, but resumed arms shipments not long afterwards for fear China or Pakistan would step in and provide weapons in its place. India’s policy towards Nepal is based upon a two-pillar theory: that its stability rests equally on constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. But the crisis has subjected this policy to an intra-governmental power struggle between those that back the parliamentary parties and those placing their bets on the king for fear that the Maoist insurgency would spread into India.
The US, which placed the CPN-M on the State Department’s “watch list” of terrorist organisations, criticised the parties for striking a deal with the insurgents and warned that the continued standoff is only benefiting the Maoists. Attempting to drive a wedge between the CPN-M and the parties, Washington has urged the latter to engage in conciliatory talks with the monarchy, warning a Maoist takeover would be a disaster for Nepal. Unlike India, the US waited nine months before it stopped ‘lethal’ military aid to the country. Recently, there have been news that the US might resume military aid to Nepal.
China, which until recently viewed the crisis as Nepal’s internal affair, took advantage of the opportunity opened up by India’s ambivalence and signed a million dollar token military assistance to the RNA. Worried about the prospect of instability in South Asia, China has refused to recognise Nepal’s rebels as Maoists and is likewise pressing for reconciliation between the king and the opposition parties.
In the wake of recent crackdown by the police and army on the peaceful demonstrations by the seven agitating political parties and civil society and professional organisations, the US, India, Japan and EU have strongly condemned the king’s restriction of civil liberties. (See Postscript on p. 6.)
II. Rationale for the mission
The people of Nepal, like those of Iraq and Palestine, are subjected to the violence of arms and weapons that can ultimately be rooted from the unjust rule of an unwanted power. In all three, foreign powers play decisive roles in the continuing violence. But unlike Iraq and Palestine, the crisis in Nepal is classified “local” by the international community, an internal power struggle for political control whose winner is a matter of conjecture. But thanks to the rapidly deteriorating situation, Nepal is now getting proper media attention, though largely from the perspective of the ruling elites, the monarchy and its supporters.
Nepal a pawn in US power play
To the US and the foreign powers surrounding Nepal, the only acceptable scenario in the resolution of the conflict is a restoration of democracy within the framework of constitutional monarchy. Their reaction to the crisis suggests that, if push comes to shove, they would rather support tyranny than allow the people to determine their own path to peace.
Nepal, a strategically valuable, weak state on the brink of implosion, has fallen prey to superpower competition for sphere of influence in South and Central Asia. The US’s continuing military support of the king’s war against the Maoists (its arms embargo excludes “non-lethal” military aid) is escalating the violence and is designed to give the US an opportunity to entrench itself in Nepal. Its involvement in Nepal is part of its security strategy to encircle China with a belt of client regimes and military bases. (Countries bordering China all have some kind of military alliance with the US.) But, as the US State Department claims, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) threatens the stability of “a government friendly to the US” and poses a threat to US national security and foreign policy interests.
The US warning that the political parties’ alliance with the Maoists is pushing Nepal to the verge of becoming a ‘failed state’ shows how foreign powers attempt to shape policy and public opinion on the Nepal crisis in its own terms: the success or failure of Nepal is to be measured against the degree to which the resolution of the conflict serves their hegemonic interests in the region. The US, UK, China and India are intervening in Nepal’s civil war not because they care about the Nepalese. Their intervention is dictated by their own internal affairs, foreign policy, security strategies and political ideologies. For the US in particular, Nepal is a ‘domino’ in its international war on terrorism.
Peace for Life came into existence as a response to the US war on terrorism. Its mission is to mobilise faith-driven resistance to this war and the destructive forces of corporate globalisation. It views the “war on terror” as part of the US’s agenda to establish global domination. The obvious motives of US interference in the Nepal crisis shows only too clearly that US interests, and not the Nepali people’s, will take primacy in the power game now playing out in this part of the South Asia region. Peace for Life is compelled to join other progressive forces to expose this deception and draw the public’s attention to the root of the crisis—the people of Nepal are shackled, voiceless and desperately poor.
People as subjects in the search for peace
Mainstream media’s emphasis on the stalemate between the king on one hand and the political parties and Maoists on the other has effectively sidelined the real causes of the conflict and the people’s desire to have a say in their governance. The Maoist threat looms large in the minds of people in the outside world, obscuring all else. The protagonists in the current conflict and even the very struggle itself are viewed through the prism of cynicism and of experiences of other revolutions turned sour. But overshadowed by the power game for control of Nepal is the fact that a significant number of Nepali people—treated no more than mere subjects of the king—have come to achieve a level of political and social awareness and involvement unseen in any other time in its history.
That the kind of international action required is one that will bring peace in Nepal is self-evident. But just what sort of peace it is and for whom is not as obvious. The international community is implored to support the peace process in Nepal and, most importantly, to project the Nepali people’s aspiration for peace and democracy and lift up, support and celebrate their struggle to achieve this goal. The challenge it seems is to understand what is happening in Nepal in its own time, in its own place, in its own period in history.
Peace for Life is engaged in reclaiming the essential meaning of peace—in that it should be in the service of the majority of the people and in the preservation of the integrity of creation. For Peace for Life, undertaking activities to raise global awareness of conflict areas and take action to promote peace processes in these areas is imperative in realising ‘peace for life’ beyond the abstract.
Solidarity tourism
To the world at large, that is, outside the more informed circles of activists, journalists and scholars, images of Nepal often do not go beyond the exotic and the esoteric. A land of conflating cultures and unusually diverse landscapes, Nepal has become a popular destination for tourists, making the economy of this landlocked hill country highly dependent on tourism. But travel guide books featuring breathtaking Himalayan vistas and Kathmandu shops selling Tibetan handwoven carpets conceal the fiery struggle against unjust rule that has gripped the people of Nepal for years.
Today, the restrictions to the movement of people imposed by the king, threats to life brought on by the spread of violence in the countryside, and the general atmosphere of instability resulting from political repression and the armed conflict have gravely affected Nepal’s tourism sector, leading to mass displacement of communities from their sources of livelihood and, thus, even greater poverty.
ECOT finds it imperative to reorient its intervention in Nepal’s foundering tourism sector to one that will not only boost increased travelling to Nepal through community-based tourism or CBT but also generate greater awareness of what is happening in the country, promote solidarity with its people, and encourage the tourism public to work for change and advocate for peace in Nepal. For ECOT, Nepal is not just a holiday destination but a place where people live and, today, suffer all the brutal consequences of war. CBT is an alternative paradigm that challenges the conventional notion of tourism as travel for pleasure and encourages tourists to turn the table around and serve those who once offered them hospitality.
Advocacy for meaningful international response
The Nepal crisis affects India most severely given Nepal’s economic dependence and cultural affinities with and geostrategic advantages for India. But the US’s junior partner for control of the Indian Ocean may yet end its ambivalence over Nepal and follow the position of its western ally. Whether or not India in the long run will support the regressive forces or favour the democratic movement with a forward-looking political solution is a grey area that provides an opportunity for progressive voices to influence foreign policy in favour of the Nepali people.
India, as the neighbouring country mainly responsible for propping up Nepal’s autocratic royal regime, is an opportune staging ground to launch an international advocacy campaign for peace and democracy in Nepal. The NCCI has been engaged in precisely this kind of advocacy. In the wake of king Gyanendra’s seizure of power, a meeting of India’s church leaders called by the NCCI together with Church of North India (CNI) office expressed their concern on the deteriorating situation in Nepal and formulated an action plan that would help hasten the peace process in the country. For NCCI, it is critical that the wider Indian public, especially policy- and opinion-makers, are also informed of what is really going on in Nepal and to generate a response that would pressure New Delhi to abandon its political and military support to the king Gyanendra and his government.
The multidimensionality of the kind of international action needed to help bring peace in Nepal explains the coming together for this mission of Peace for Life, ECOT and NCCI.
III. Objectives of the mission
- To express the solidarity of the international faith community with the people of Nepal and help empower them as they pursue their own path to peace;
- To understand the situation in Nepal and gain an understanding of the Nepali people’s perspective on peace and democracy through first hand encounters with members of people’s organisations and civil society groups, social thinkers, media persons, religious leaders, and service agencies including the tourism sector;
- To draw international public attention to the worsening crisis in Nepal, the Nepali people’s struggle to claim their rights and freedom, the international power dynamics influencing and aggravating the situation in Nepal, and the means by which peace and genuine democracy can be restored in the country;
- To encourage India’s civil society and religious communities to launch and engage in an advocacy campaign that would pressure the Indian government to isolate and withdraw political and military support to the autocratic royal regime of king Gyanendra;
- To encourage travelling to Nepal and promote an appreciation of Nepal, its people and their aspiration for peace and democracy through Community Based Tourism and in the form of solidarity tours; and
- To map a direction and identify strategies for global action with emphasis on articulating the role of faith communities in the resolution of conflicts and in accompanying the people at the frontlines of struggle for freedom, peace and justice; and on developing a global campaign of solidarity with the people of Nepal based on cooperation with the IRPC and other groups working for peace in Nepal.
IV. Process and proposed programme
Preparatory process:
Background materials on the Nepal crisis will be prepared by ECOT in the form of an “e-dossier” and will be made available to the mission team. Each sponsoring organisation will identify and invite their own delegation for the mission, conduct preparatory work (including introductory discussions on the Nepal situation), and undertake fundraising. Funds raised and other resources mobilised for the mission will be shared amongst the participating groups based on a commonly agreed upon budget and list of requirements. NCCI will host the programme in New Delhi, while Peace for Life will be responsible for overall coordination.
Proposed programme:
TEAM VISIT TO NEPAL (May 26 to 30)
| May 26 (Friday) |
|
May 27 (Saturday) |
|
May 28 (Sunday) |
|
May 29 (Monday) |
|
May 30 (Tuesday) |
|
CONSULTATION AND STRATEGY MEETING (May 31 to June 1; New Delhi)
May 31 (Wednesday) |
|
June 1 (Thursday) |
|
June 2 (Friday) |
|
V. Expected outcomes
- Increased awareness of the soci0-economic conditions and international power dynamics obtaining in the Nepal crisis, and deeper understanding of the struggle of the Nepali people for peace and democracy
- A coordinated advocacy campaign that is global in character as well as specific to the role India must play in the resolution of the conflict in Nepal, with the identified strategies integrated in the respective programmes of the organisations participating in the mission
- Greater involvement of the international faith community and strengthened solidarity linkages with the faith groups in Nepal
- Increased travelling to Nepal and an appreciation of ‘solidarity tourism’ as a meaningful form of intervention in conflict areas
- Immediate output: Preparation and wide dissemination of report on the Nepal peace mission to be jointly undertaken by Peace for Life, ECOT and NCCI
† Based on inputs and planning amongst representatives of NCCI, ECOT, Peace for Life and IRPC.
‡ More information on CEPJAR, IRPC, NCCN and the Nepal crisis may be found in two articles posted in Christian Today (India Edition) in August 2005: http://in.christiantoday.com/news/soc_191.htm
; and http://in.christiantoday.com/news/soc_189.htm.
POSTSCRIPT:
The following news headlines appeared in the www.nepalnews.com web site on 5 and 6 April 2006
International communities express concern over government crackdown
International communities have expressed concern over the government’s crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators and accused the government of violating fundamental civil rights.
Over 400 pro-democracy protesters and journalists were arrested while dozens others were injured on the first day of the four-day nationwide general strike called by the seven-party alliance (SPA) on Thursday.
Issuing a press statement on Thursday, the first day of the four day long general strike called by the SPA, the European Union (EU) condemned the ban and the arrest of leaders and members of professional and civil society organisations.
“The EU Heads of Mission in Kathmandu condemn the ban on peaceful protests... and the arrests of many democratic party leaders, members of professional and other civil society organisations prior to the demonstrations planned for April 6-9,” a statement issued by the embassy of Finland on behalf of EU said.
“These actions go against the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression stipulated in international conventions, to which Nepal is signatory,” the statement further said, adding, “The EU Heads of Mission believe that the Government´s actions further aggravate the atmosphere of confrontation in the country and are not conducive to constructive national dialogue for peace.”
Issuing a press statement on Thursday, the government of Japan also expressed regret over the arrest of members of political parties and civil society activists and urged the government to restore the freedom guaranteed by the constitution.
“As these measures by the Government of Nepal suppress the free political expression of the people, Japan requests that no more arrests be made and those arrested be released as promptly as possible. Japan believes that political claims should be made peacefully and it is her hope that the forthcoming political protest rallies will be conducted in peace,” the statement added.
Japan also urged both the Government and the political parties to reach out to one another and to build mutual confidence and resume dialogue.
Likewise, India on Thursday emphasised the need for cooperation among constitutional forces in Nepal not confrontation.
“These actions by the government in Nepal are counterproductive. There needs to be cooperation among constitutional forces in Nepal, not confrontation,” report quoted official spokesman at the External Affairs Ministry as saying.
He also conveyed India’s concerns over continuing arrest and detention of several political leaders, professionals and students, adding, “We strongly deplore such incidents.”
In response to the Maoist violence, he said, “We condemn acts of violence by Maoists, including last night’s attack at Malangawa in Sarlahi district. We are awaiting full details.”
Earlier issuing a press statement, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, voiced concern over what he called a confrontation developing in Nepal following the government imposed ban on protests and arrest of opposition activists. nepalnews.com pb Apr 06 06
U.S. condemns Nepal arrests
The United States has condemned the detention of opposition political party and civil society activists in advance of political demonstrations scheduled for April 6-9 in Kathmandu on Wednesday. “ The arrests and harassment of pro-democracy activists violate their fundamental civil rights,” said a statement issued by the US embassy in Kathmandu this evening.
“The United States calls on the Government of Nepal to release these and other detained activists who have been held for voicing their opposition to autocratic rule in Nepal,” said the statement. “ Dialogue between Nepal’s legitimate political forces—the King and opposition political parties—is the only effective way to return Nepal to democracy and address its Maoist insurgency. Such a dialogue, however, is not possible in a climate in which the freedoms of speech and assembly are suppressed,” the statement added.
“We also urge the political parties and civil society to take steps to ensure their planned demonstrations in the coming days remain peaceful,” the US government said.
The US is the first foreign government to condemn Wednesday’s arrest of opposition leaders and professionals in the country. nepalnews.com by Apr 05 06
Download printable version: PDF
More on the International Solidarity Mission for Peace in Nepal:
- The visit of the international peace mission led by Peace for Life – report by Dr. K.B. Rokaya, 12 June 2006
- Communiqué – issued on 31 May 2006 by the international delegation
- The Nepal Tragedy – background materials for the visiting team
- Album – photos of the field visits and encounters in Katmandu, 26-31 May 2006
HOME
SITEMAP
TOP