Kedar Neupane
On 4 November 2015, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Nepal addressed the 23rd session of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Previously it was announced that due to the prevailing situation in Nepal the Law Minister would lead Nepal’s delegation. The high level delegation was to impress the member states of the United Nations Nepal’s growing humanitarian tragedy and garner international support, perhaps, hoping to exert moral and political pressure on India. The Deputy PM’s Geneva visit had taken place at the backdrop of his failed mission to New-Delhi in resolving the crisis. The undeclared objective of the high level delegation, as rumored, was to set off campaign tarnishing India’s image at a time when India was lobbying for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Purportedly, members of civil society from Nepal also were around for protest demonstration against India in front of the United Nations Office. Several representatives of member states spoke at the UPR on human rights but rarely on blockade by India. Surely, there was plenty of room to be desired for. This diplomatic offensive was a success or failure is not obvious right now. Only time will tell if this contributed positively in resolving the crisis.
The UPR is an international review process of the human rights records of 193 UN Member States and Nepal is one of them. Each State review is done by a group of three States, known as “Troika” and the troika (Latvia, Qatar and Morocco in Nepal’s case) was selected through drawing lots soon after elections for the Council membership in the General Assembly. Big or small, the most powerful or weak among the community of nations, seventy-three member states of the UN took the floor and made 196 recommendations covering a range topics associated with human rights record of Nepal. Expression of concerns ranged from abolition of all forms of discrimination to universal rights of children and women and disquiet over assistance to victims of earthquakes, etc. Many states emphasized discrimination of women’s rights which were not equal to men in constitution.
The member states, however disparate they are, made dispassionate and interesting comments depicting the state of Nepal’s human rights record. If these were any measure of expressions for support to Nepal’s diplomatic offensive against Indian hegemony it was not hard to gauge that Nepal’s diplomacy needed more homework.  Viewing from the comments and themes shared by number of countries we have a long way into this campaign. Media in Europe and Nepal may have missed it; perhaps, partly due to reason the countries who spoke at the UPR were of no particular importance in their context or in Nepal’s diplomatic screen.
The Netherlands, the only country from Western EU states, commented on the ongoing Nepal/India situation and called upon Nepal Delegation to continue dialogue with India with a view to fully restore cross border traffic. No other country made any direct reference to the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Nepal on Nepal/India situation.  On the contrary, countries expressed varied comments on human rights record of Nepal. For example; Spain was concerned about nationality of children through either parent. Sweden commented on discrimination against Hindu minority population, and Madhesis’ claim of not being adequately represented in the constitution and resulting loss of life in parts of Nepal.  Cyprus advocated freedom of assemblies and protection of peaceful protests. Switzerland, important friendly country, expressed concerns over the excessive use of force for managing demonstrations and reminded the principles of proportionality in every use of force and firearms. France was concerned over impunity of law enforcement authorities. Portugal, USA, UK called upon Nepal to accede to the international convention and protocol on refugees and asylum-seekers.From Eastern Europe, Czech Republic requested to end all forms of discrimination against women and Dalits while Ukraine wanted the delegation to ensure an inclusive dialogue with all minorities. Hungary requested progress on the amendment to citizenship law, accepted by Nepal at the 2011 UPR, on millions of people who are without official status. Montenegro requested a policy on zero-tolerance over torture and culture of impunity while Estonia commented on reprisals against journalist.New-Zealand requested persecution of those who committed human rights violations during the civil war and emphasized rights of women to acquire, retain and transfer citizenship to their children on an equal basis with men. Australia urged Nepal to collaborate with regional and global institutions in protecting the rights of migrant workers as there are millions of Nepalese working abroad.From African nations, Botswana was concerned over the persecution of human rights defenders while Sierra Leone was concerned over the unequal rights of women and their children’s right to citizenship. From South America, Mexico commented on the protection of rights of indigenous people while Costa Rica talked about Tibetan refugees and minorities. From the Middle-East and North-Africa, Algeria requested Nepal to ratify ILO Convention on workers’ rights and Egypt requested the same.
The expression of concerns aired by Nepal’s Deputy PM and Foreign Minister may not even be reflected in the final adoption of the UPR document despite Nepal drawing world’s attention on its cross-border stand-off with India. It also equally mirrors our failures in resolving domestic issues and maintaining harmony and cordial relationships without resorting to hasty escalation at the international level. Wide spread difficulties, faced by Nepalese, should have been, no- doubt, the top most priority of the government. Given the fact that Nepal had previously endured two blockades by India and that India had apparently, just prior to the adoption of new constitution, shared its serious reservations and displeasure with Nepali Congress-led government to which the UML was the major partner. The new government should have anticipated some fallout. Looming seriousness and difficulties arising out of Indian maneuverings should have been expected under the prevailing situation. The new government should have prepared measures to mitigate nation’s vulnerability. But, it tragically failed to strategize and prepare contingency emergency plan, particularly at times of upcoming Dashain and Tihar. The government must now take steps diversifying economic relations with China while, at the same time, maintaining balancing trade relations with India. The geographical reality dictates us to have close economic relationships with both neighbours. It will be only a pipe-dream if we are to believe that Nepal will be economically prosperous at any given time without support and massive capital injections from China and India. Make no mistake there are not many takers of this.  One wonders why Nepal could not conclude separate bilateral economic integration agreement with China and India in decades of central level national economic planning for development. Economic security is no less important than political freedom. Both countries are emerging economic and political power houses and Nepal’s geographical reality The leaders of India and China are cooperating at strategic level while freezing past disputes and have demonstrated their political maturity realizing possible economic gains for their citizens. Aren’t there any lessons to learn?It was remarkable to hear the Deputy PM and Foreign Minister of Nepal who declared, during the UPR session in Geneva, that Nepal will be graduating to middle-level-income economy by the end of next decade from the current state of catastrophes. Media reports, on the other hand, indicate factories and industries are closing across Nepal due to economic standoff with India. It sounds preposterous that economic graduation is achievable under the continued political quagmire and misplaced economic and political direction without recognition of significance of closer partnerships or economic integration with the neighbouring countries while taking full advantage of comparative advantage. Is miracle to occur in Nepal in coming months and years if we are to believe the Deputy PM?The focus seems to be shifting away from Nepal’s difficulties with India’s hegemony to campaigning to foiling India’s bid for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. It sounds like Cuba and/or Venezuela mounting international campaign for ouster of USA from the UN Security Council. People wonder where our leadership is taking this nation and why. How are self-centric leaders going to pull citizens out of perennial poverty and build a country devastated by two major earthquakes and political blunders? When can we expect government’s due diligence in good governance with accountability, pragmatic economic management, and getting rid of self-perpetuating grandiose and rampant corruption? If we again misplace our policies and actions in this new republic no one could be blamed for our misfortune and repeat missteps.
We should focus our efforts in building this country in economic terms. Or, does it have to be confined to redundant political dogmatism? Can’t we learn from others’ experience? Last week-end the world saw two Presidents of archrival nations, China and Taiwan, in Singapore, who shook hands with warmth for over a minute, and broke the ice after 66 years of animosity and distrust between them. Visionary leaders lead nations, not party, and do things for citizen’s interest, rising above party functionary. Earlier this month on 1 November, three leaders from South Korea, China and Japan held a three-way summit in Seoul dumping the historical animosity for reducing tensions and disputes for peace, stability and economic gains. Where are Nepal’s leaders at this moment of economic hardship when the entire population is enduring untold sufferings? What steps the government have taken so far, for long-term relief, to resolve the crisis? If leaders cannot manage situation it should not shy away from seeking friendly nation/person help defuse stand-off and manage the situation. Nation should not be run by individual’s personal ego. Elected government should lead country but not political party from within the government.
(Mr Neupane is president of We for Nepal Association in Geneva. He is a retired senior United Nations official and currently lives in Switzerland. His e-mail is Neupanek1950@gmail.com.)