Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Headlines, Human Rights

RIGHTS-NEPAL: Doubts Over Leaders Cloud Sustainable Peace

Marty Logan

KATHMANDU, Oct 31 2006 (IPS) - “We believe that a nation that has suffered many horrors – murders, rapes and other crimes – is able to progress only if those experiences are told.”

Indonesian academic and human rights activist Karlina Supeli was one of several speakers to deliver that advice to a conference in Nepal’s capital Monday and Tuesday, but local members of civil society doubt that political leaders will play their role in delivering transitional justice after a decade-long insurgency.

The international meeting was launched as peace talks between the government and former Maoist rebels were again postponed to a date “in the near future”. The month-long round of discussions has stalled over two issues: whether to give the tainted monarchy a second chance and how and when to lock up the guns of the rebel soldiers.

Kantipur daily newspaper reported Tuesday that the two sides had agreed that the Maoist arms will be locked up, the keys given to rebel leaders, surveillance cameras installed at the site, with UN experts having the right to inspect the site at any time. The report has not been confirmed.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) regained its legitimacy in the state’s eyes after joining an alliance of mainstream political parties to lead street protests that swelled to what one political leader called a “human tsunami” on the streets of Kathmandu in April. Faced with a likely confrontation between passionate protesters and soldiers at the royal palace gate, King Gyanendra chose to give up power and recall parliament.

Days after, government and Maoist leaders declared a ceasefire in the 10-year uprising that has killed as many as 14,000 people, most of them innocent villagers caught in the crossfire, in one of South Asia’s poorest nations. Since then the two sides have entered into protracted peace talks that often appear to move one step forward, then one step back.

“The focus on all sides has been on weapons, monarchy and positions in the interim government, without guarantees for ensuring a culture of human rights, an end to impunity and justice to the victims of past violations,” Sushil Pyakurel, former commissioner of the Nepal Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said Tuesday.

“This is the time that Nepal’s human rights defenders must stand against efforts by any side to hide or urge others to forget the truth and violate rights and principles in the process,” he added at the conference, hosted by local human rights group Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) and development agency FK Norway.

Lawyer and women’s rights activist Sapana Pradhan Malla accused political leaders of sidelining the NHRC by not naming replacements for the commissioners who resigned after April’s change of government. Without those officials, the NHRC is powerless to hire staff it urgently needs to tackle a towering backlog of files or to forward recommendations to the government.

“The human rights commission should have played a very critical role (since April’s people’s movement). I say (the delay) is intentional and it’s political will that is lacking to create a functional system in this country,” said Malla.

Besides those killed, tens of thousands of Nepalis were forced to flee their homes during the 10 years of fighting, after attacks or threats from the Maoists or state security forces. They are slowly beginning to return to their villages but hundreds of people ‘disappeared’ by both sides remain missing and their fate is a point of argument.

Pradhan Malla’s accusation followed a presentation by Appellate Court Judge Anand Bhattarai, who argued – raising eyebrows in the hall – that Nepal’s judiciary is both independent and professional enough to deliver transitional justice, but that the nation’s legal framework is wanting, including laws to protect victims.

The biggest bar of all, added Bhattarai, is the culture of impunity. “It is the positive duty of the state to prosecute, investigate and eventually sanction” those who committed crimes but “the withdrawal of court cases for political reasons has created….a very high level of impunity in this country”.

In South Africa, the post-apartheid government accepted its responsibility to lead the transitional justice process, said Clem Van Wyk, director of programmes at that country’s Desmond Tutu Peace Centre. “It is always incumbent on the present government to build relationships…to bring people together.Peace requires that a government address all issues of discrimination and exclusion.”

“The government had to say, ‘in order to move forward you have to move back’. South Africa did not want in 20 years time to be haunted by its past,” added Van Wyk.

While in South Africa amnesty was granted to those who fully disclosed their abuses against the nation’s black population if the crimes were politically motivated, Nepal’s government has already given amnesty to many Maoist leaders, some of whom committed terrible crimes, according to Bhattarai.

He agreed with Pyakurel that civil society is “caught between not wanting to disrupt the ongoing peace efforts while guarding basic rights”.

However, Nepal will fulfil its obligation to victims, stressed Deputy Prime Minister KP Oli. “Any peace accord which does not redress the sufferings of the victims and provide for truth and reconciliation initiatives is liable to unravel.”

One young activist raised loud doubts about that pledge. “The culture of impunity has been running in our blood for centuries…in the present government are sitting people who were responsible for human rights violations in the past,” said the unnamed participant. “I don’t think that the truth commission model of South Africa can be applicable here.”