Decade of the CPA
Speaking to Republica recently, Paul Jackson, a British conflict-resolution expert who has closely studied post-conflict societies around the world, including Nepal, pointed out how Nepal’s peace process was a rare success story. “I cannot imagine an insurgent group spending such a long time in cantonments in any country I have involved with in Africa without there being widespread bloodshed,” said the Professor of African Politics at Birmingham University. As we mark ten years of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on November 21st, 2006, it is worth pointing out the unique achievements of our peace process, which has in many ways become a model to follow for other war-torn countries. Laudably, it was a process driven by Nepalis, albeit with some help from the United Nations and Nepal’s other foreign friends. Our major political actors can also take credit for preventing the relapse of the society into conflict.
International experience suggests that the chances of such a relapse are high in the first five years after the start of the peace process. Nepal has now gone a decade without a major armed conflict.
Even as the established mainstream parties had big differences with the then Maoist party that had just entered mainstream politics—particularly concerning the fate of the 19,600 combatants holed up in the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN)-monitored cantonments—at no point did the two sides stop talking, always striving to find political solutions to outstanding issues. The state of ‘one country two armies’ officially ended in 2012 when the government of Baburam Bhattarai sent Nepal Army to take over the seven UNMIN cantonments. Since then, the majority of cantoned Maoist combatants have been successfully rehabilitated into the society, and a small section, around 1,500, has been integrated into Nepal Army. There has also been some progress on transitional justice, the last remaining bit of the peace process proper, as the two commissions stipulated in the CPA have been established and they have already started investigating conflict-era cases. But this is where things could get a little tricky.
The TOR and mandates of the two commissions have been criticized by national and international human rights organizations alike. They accuse the TRC Bill, which created the two bodies, of providing ‘blanket amnesty’ even in cases of grave human rights violations from conflict period. Nepal will have to somehow find a way to gain international legitimacy for its transitional justice process, while at the same time ensuring that the Maoist leaders and former fighters don’t feel cornered on war crimes. It will also be hard for Nepal to claim to have successfully completed the peace process unless the outstanding constitutional issues are also not settled; for the peace and constitution processes have been inextricably linked right from the start. The journey that started on that momentous day in 2006 will end only when the remaining constitutional disputes are settled and the country goes into the three sets of elections stipulated in the new constitution; and only when conflict victims get justice, or at least some sense of closure.
Nepalis can hold their heads high for their achievements in the peace process thus far.
Now if the last bit of it can also be successfully dealt with, that really would be something to crow about.
Panel to study pros and cons of implementing ration cards
