CPA amendment proposal

TKP 27/10/2009

Bidhya Bhandari’s proposal to amend the CPA must be rejected absolutely

There appear to be three constituencies behind Defence Minister Bidhya Bhandari’s demand to have the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) amended so that recruitment is once again allowed for the Nepal Army, military aid from friendly countries resumed and the capabilities of the Army strengthened. First, a military lobby that has chafed under the restrictions the CPA has placed upon the Army that desires the resumption of the facilities and privileges it enjoyed before the peace process began. Second, a staunchly anti-Maoist group who wish to use the time when the Nepali Congress and UML are in power to alter the balance of forces between these parties and the Maoists by strengthening the Army and weakening the PLA (Bhandari has stated that the Maoist army should be disbanded and its combatants sent home). And third, a section that is more committed to the peace process, but feels that raising the threat of a CPA amendment geared towards strengthening the Army will help ensure that the Maoists become meek and compliant in their negotiations with the mainstream parliamentary parties.

The third group recognizes that an amendment of the CPA could be the beginning of a slippery slope towards conflict -- which this time would likely be much more intense than the one the nation recently emerged from. So it has, at least so far, little intention of actually having the peace agreements revised. The purpose of the current rhetoric is seen simply to be deterring the Maoists from remaining stubborn in their demands and unleashing a movement that has the potential to turn violent. This third group -- consisting both of powerful national and international actors -- is confident in its ability to ensure that those who actually want the CPA amended and are even itching for resumed conflict do not get their way. Hardliners such as Bidhya Bhandari and her patron in the UML are thus being tacitly encouraged to make public statements that will rattle the Maoists.

Of course, threats from the right against the peace process are nothing new. Every time agreement has broken down between the Maoists and the older parliamentary parties over the past four years, there are dark whisperings of the imposition of a soft-authoritarian government to restore order and teach the Maoists a lesson. This happened during the period between the Maoists’ attempt to sack Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rookmangud Katawal and the collapse of the Maoist-led government. This even happened, during the period in late 2007 when the Maoists had pulled out of government demanding an immediate declaration of a republic and adoption of fully proportional electoral system. Strange as it may seem to remember now due to the shift in political allegiances that have taken place since then, at that time Sujata Koirala was spoken about as the potential leader of a right-wing takeover.

On none of those previous occasions, however, did such a takeover occur. The peace process continued, though of course with difficulty. It is perhaps experience from the past that explains why those who are encouraging Bhandari but do not want an amendment of the CPA or a resumption of conflict, are sanguine that the political conditions prevailing will not allow for the defence minister’s proposals to be translated into action. After all, it is perhaps thought, there is no alternative to the various political parties working together and the political and social conditions of Nepal, unlike those of Pakistan or Bangladesh, does not allow for the imposition of a military-backed regime.

But this is to underestimate the threat. Political conditions now prevailing are substantially different from those prevailing before the Maoists won 220 seats in the Constituent Assembly and went on to form a government under their control. Awareness regarding the Maoists electoral and organizational strength has caused the other parties to focus on power games geared towards own survival and peace process related issues have been relegated to the background.

As part of this process, the number of individuals committed to the process in the mainstream parliamentary parties has diminished and the few that do remain have been pushed to the sidelines. There is major opposition within the Nepali Congress to G.P. Koirala’s attempts to engage with the Maoists and possibly bring them back into government. Those in the Congress such as Shekhar Koirala and Krishna Prasad Sitaula who played important roles in negotiating with the Maoists early in the process seem to have been sidelined. Jhalanath Khanal does not currently appear to have much of a say in the affairs of the UML. Upendra Yadav has more or less disappeared from the map since the Maoist-led government collapsed and his party split. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, in theory committed to the process, did ensure that General Katawal’s term as Army chief wasn’t resumed and the Army did not become politically powerful. But he lacks the firmness and stature required to keep those bent upon weakening the Maoists at bay; nor does he seem to have the capacity to negotiate an outcome satisfactory to the Maoists that would help keep the middle ground intact.

The erosion of the constituency committed to the peace agreements means that any slide towards the direction of a semi-authoritarian takeover and a resumption of conflict will be more difficult to avoid in the past. The threat should thus not be underestimated. Actions such as those proposed by Defence Minister Bidhya Bhandari may on the surface appear innocuous. She has argued that an amendment of the CPA to allow the Army to resume its privileges will not mean a disruption of the peace process, as the institution is no longer considers the Maoists as its enemy. But this argument is disingenuous, for the strengthening of the Army will embolden anti-Maoist constituencies and talk of the desirability and feasibility of military confrontation will only get stronger. There should thus be an immediate and absolute rejection of Bhandari’s proposals from all political leaders who do not wish to see more conflict and from civil society.