---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ACHR REVIEW <achr_review@achrweb.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Subject: The Withdrawal of OHCHR-NEPAL: Agreeing an Alibi for Violation?
To: suhaschakma@achrweb.org
Asian Centre for Human Rights
[ACHR has Special Consultative Status with the UN ECOSOC]
C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, India
Tel/Fax: +91-11- 45501889 25620583
Website: www.achrweb.org; Email: achr_review@achrweb.org
Embargoed for: 4 March 2010
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Asian Centre for Human Rights has the pleasure to share its latest
Briefing Paper, The Withdrawal of OHCHR-NEPAL: Agreeing an Alibi for
Violation?
The html version is available at:
http://www.achrweb.org/press/2010/NP01-2010.html
The pdf version is available at:
http://www.achrweb.org/briefingpapers/BPNepal-01-10.pdf
On 9th June 2010, the mandate of the UN Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights-Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal) expires. The Prime Minister MK Nepal
has said that a decision will be taken soon, but most observers and media
reports suggest that the government is considering three options: no
extension to the mandate, the OHCHR-NEPAL moving to a limited advisory
role to the NHRC, and thirdly, a three to six month extension with a
limited mandate.
The killing of two journalists, Arun Singhanyia on 1 March 2010 and Jamim
Shah on 7 February 2010 underlines that human rights situations have been
measurably deteriorating in Nepal, following the improvement brought about
by the end of the conflict. The failure to address impunity remains the
central cause.
Maoist violence remains a central problem. There are growing reports of
involvement of other political parties in violence. But of particular
concern is the mounting evidence of rising state extra-judicial killings
particularly in the Tarai. Nepal is entering another period of heightened
political instability.
Most worryingly, the drafting of the constitution by the May 2010 deadline
now appears unlikely. This instability will create an environment adding
momentum to the downward path of human rights. When human rights
violations with impunity are part of state responses to insecurity,
'Special' or otherwise, they tend to add momentum to violence.
A withdrawal or weakening of OHCHR's mandate would leave Nepal's
dysfunctional National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) with primary
responsibility to address the rapidly deteriorating human rights
situation. Even members of the NHRC of Nepal have stated that the
institution is incapable. Moreover there is compelling evidence that the
government intends to further weaken the NHRC.
The consequences of OHCHR-Nepal withdrawal are troubling. A strong field
presence of the OHCHR provides political protection for Nepal's human
rights defenders – including the NHRC. As dissent is increasingly silenced
human rights will inevitably deteriorate. There are heightened risks that
Nepal will see a repeat of political violence designed to end the peace
process. One of the most important examples of this occurred on 17th
August 2003 when the Royal Nepal Army massacred nineteen people in
Doramba.
But there is waning support for OHCHR. Civil society has justifiable
concerns over OHCHR. They repeatedly warned OHCHR that its move into
economic social activities was premature. They have equally expressed
concerns over the credibility of OHCHR-NEPAL awareness training programme
for the Nepal police and Armed Police when the problems required
structural, legal and institutional reforms. The emerging human rights
situation would appear to confirm both these concerns.
Donors and diplomats too need to reconsider their support to human rights
– not least the ambiguous position of the UK. International donor's
pressure to change OHCHR-NEPAL's strategic direction (most particularly
the agreement between OHCHR-NEPAL and NHRC in 2009) appears premature. The
recent announcement by UNDP and OHCHR of more support to the NHRC,
effectively proposes to continue the same modalities and strategies of
support that have been failing for years. These are all problems but point
to a ramping up of human rights as a national and international priority.
The absence of credible evidence for a withdrawal of OHCHR and the
deliberate weakening of the National Human Rights Commission suggests real
concern over government motives. The Prime Minister's threat of a 'Sri
Lankan solution' was not accidental. It articulates in public, a
discussion which had been ongoing in private particularly in royalist and
military circles. Clearly, a sine qua non would be weak domestic
protections and a marginalised international community as Sri Lanka has so
successfully done. This would include an end or weakening of OHCHR and
national mechanisms such as the NHRC.
The report makes recommendations to strengthen national human rights
mechanisms to provide an exit strategy for OHCHR as well as a strategic
review of OHCHR-Nepal.
We thought you would find the Briefing Paper of interest.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Suhas Chakma
Director
From: ACHR REVIEW <achr_review@achrweb.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Subject: The Withdrawal of OHCHR-NEPAL: Agreeing an Alibi for Violation?
To: suhaschakma@achrweb.org
Asian Centre for Human Rights
[ACHR has Special Consultative Status with the UN ECOSOC]
C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, India
Tel/Fax: +91-11- 45501889 25620583
Website: www.achrweb.org; Email: achr_review@achrweb.org
Embargoed for: 4 March 2010
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Asian Centre for Human Rights has the pleasure to share its latest
Briefing Paper, The Withdrawal of OHCHR-NEPAL: Agreeing an Alibi for
Violation?
The html version is available at:
http://www.achrweb.org/press/2010/NP01-2010.html
The pdf version is available at:
http://www.achrweb.org/briefingpapers/BPNepal-01-10.pdf
On 9th June 2010, the mandate of the UN Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights-Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal) expires. The Prime Minister MK Nepal
has said that a decision will be taken soon, but most observers and media
reports suggest that the government is considering three options: no
extension to the mandate, the OHCHR-NEPAL moving to a limited advisory
role to the NHRC, and thirdly, a three to six month extension with a
limited mandate.
The killing of two journalists, Arun Singhanyia on 1 March 2010 and Jamim
Shah on 7 February 2010 underlines that human rights situations have been
measurably deteriorating in Nepal, following the improvement brought about
by the end of the conflict. The failure to address impunity remains the
central cause.
Maoist violence remains a central problem. There are growing reports of
involvement of other political parties in violence. But of particular
concern is the mounting evidence of rising state extra-judicial killings
particularly in the Tarai. Nepal is entering another period of heightened
political instability.
Most worryingly, the drafting of the constitution by the May 2010 deadline
now appears unlikely. This instability will create an environment adding
momentum to the downward path of human rights. When human rights
violations with impunity are part of state responses to insecurity,
'Special' or otherwise, they tend to add momentum to violence.
A withdrawal or weakening of OHCHR's mandate would leave Nepal's
dysfunctional National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) with primary
responsibility to address the rapidly deteriorating human rights
situation. Even members of the NHRC of Nepal have stated that the
institution is incapable. Moreover there is compelling evidence that the
government intends to further weaken the NHRC.
The consequences of OHCHR-Nepal withdrawal are troubling. A strong field
presence of the OHCHR provides political protection for Nepal's human
rights defenders – including the NHRC. As dissent is increasingly silenced
human rights will inevitably deteriorate. There are heightened risks that
Nepal will see a repeat of political violence designed to end the peace
process. One of the most important examples of this occurred on 17th
August 2003 when the Royal Nepal Army massacred nineteen people in
Doramba.
But there is waning support for OHCHR. Civil society has justifiable
concerns over OHCHR. They repeatedly warned OHCHR that its move into
economic social activities was premature. They have equally expressed
concerns over the credibility of OHCHR-NEPAL awareness training programme
for the Nepal police and Armed Police when the problems required
structural, legal and institutional reforms. The emerging human rights
situation would appear to confirm both these concerns.
Donors and diplomats too need to reconsider their support to human rights
– not least the ambiguous position of the UK. International donor's
pressure to change OHCHR-NEPAL's strategic direction (most particularly
the agreement between OHCHR-NEPAL and NHRC in 2009) appears premature. The
recent announcement by UNDP and OHCHR of more support to the NHRC,
effectively proposes to continue the same modalities and strategies of
support that have been failing for years. These are all problems but point
to a ramping up of human rights as a national and international priority.
The absence of credible evidence for a withdrawal of OHCHR and the
deliberate weakening of the National Human Rights Commission suggests real
concern over government motives. The Prime Minister's threat of a 'Sri
Lankan solution' was not accidental. It articulates in public, a
discussion which had been ongoing in private particularly in royalist and
military circles. Clearly, a sine qua non would be weak domestic
protections and a marginalised international community as Sri Lanka has so
successfully done. This would include an end or weakening of OHCHR and
national mechanisms such as the NHRC.
The report makes recommendations to strengthen national human rights
mechanisms to provide an exit strategy for OHCHR as well as a strategic
review of OHCHR-Nepal.
We thought you would find the Briefing Paper of interest.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Suhas Chakma
Director
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment