Much has happened in Nepalese politics recently. While some were advocating a reinstatement of the Constituent Assembly others were agreeing to go for a fresh election. The most striking event, though, has dealt a shattering blow to human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country.
The United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)-led government promoted Colonel Raju Basnet despite his being accused of torture and forced disappearances, and it withdrew criminal charges against many Maoist leaders.
Colonel Basnet was
primarily accused of
involvement in the disappearance and killing of 49
people detained at Bhairabnath Battalion during
the conflict era. Questions are now being asked
about whether the promotion, and the withdrawal of
criminal charges against perpetrators of what
could amount to crimes against humanity, indicate
that power has now trumped justice? The Government of Nepal decided not only to promote Colonel Basnet but also to withdraw charges against UCPN (Maoist) leader Agni Shapkota despite the Supreme Court's demand for an investigation progress report on his case every 15 days. The government withdrew murder charges against UCPN (Maoist) Surya Man Dong, who was the state minister for energy in the Baburam Bhattarai-led government last year. These were not all: many non-conflict related charges (purely criminal) have also been withdrawn including some against Maoist supremo Puspa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai himself.
Does this series of decisions not amount to evil intent on the part of the government? Moreover, does it not undermine respect for human rights in that country and contradict Nepal's assurances to the international community that it would hold to account those implicated in wartime crimes?
Do these decisions of the government, in fact, not indicate that total denial of justice and accountability has essentially been turned into government policy? Is that not a crime against the country?s still nascent peace process? Does the action of the government not amount to a crime against the state itself, against the aspirations of the people for a meaningful peace, and against the many victims of the civil conflict?
Both national and international human rights activists, including United Nations human rights bodies, have expressed serious concerns over the government's decisions. They have demanded an independent investigation and a judicial mechanism that can deliver justice to the many victims. They have opposed, too, the withdrawal of charges of gross human rights violations, but the government has completely ignored their demands. Government critics have argued that, after years of promises, both the Maoists and the Nepal army have become united in showing contempt for their own criminal accountability and for the rights of the victims who seek justice, truth and reparation.
Any believer in human rights must regard the actions of the present Government as a huge slap in the face for the victims of the protracted civil war, for their right to justice, for the expectations of the international community, and for the success of the country's on-going peace process.
Some violations of international human rights law are regarded as constituting international crimes: these include crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, trafficking, torture and enforced disappearance. States are under an obligation to investigate all allegations of serious violations within their territory, especially when they amount to international crimes.
Where appropriate, suspected perpetrators must be prosecuted and their victims compensated. International law further specifies that the perpetrators of such crimes cannot be excused by amnesty or pardon. Whenever there is reasonable suspicion that a serious violation of international law has occurred, the case merits prompt and independent investigation by a full judicial process.
In Nepal, there is clear evidence that unlawful killings occurred in many contexts throughout the conflict (1996-2006). Taken together, the many allegations of unlawful killings and the discernible patterns of such killings by both security forces and Maoists prompt a question as to whether they were not all part of the policies that drove the conflict. International law also unambiguously prohibits torture, and Nepal is party to many treaties that expressly state this. Evidence again suggests that torture, mutilation, and other sorts of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment were perpetrated extensively during the conflict - once again by both the security forces and the Maoists. Should, therefore, those responsible for such serious rights violations during the conflict not be brought to justice regardless of who they are?
If the government of Nepal claims to be democratic or believes in democratic norms, it cannot overlook allegations of serious rights abuses in the past. The pardoning of those accused of grave human rights violations is never acceptable, and no official accused of a human rights violation should be promoted until the case has been investigated by an independent legal mechanism. The recent decisions to withdraw criminal cases and to promote wartime criminals show enormous disrespect for the victims, the rule of law, and the peace process itself. The question must be asked: is the Government not turning itself into a neo-dictatorship?
Any defender of human rights must adopt the view that the government, in showing such gross disrespect for human rights in Nepal, is committing an unforgivable crime against peace, justice and the nation as a whole. It will certainly wreck the already fragile peace process and end all progress towards re-building the nation and writing a new constitution. The aspirations of the people for peace have been cheated. The victims of the conflict have been cheated. Even Maoist families whose loved ones disappeared at the hands of the security forces have been cheated. Equally the expectations of the international community, the donor bodies and the well-wishers of our country have been cheated. It is a gross misuse of governmental authority, and we must all condemn it.
Government members clearly wish to escape liability for their own wrongdoings in the conflict era. They have no desire to establish a proper justice system or to address the violence that happened during the war. They do not want the peace process to be completed at all. It appears that no one in power is taking seriously the establishment of a transitional justice mechanism to address the conflict era abuses because all have some involvement directly or indirectly in what occurred.
Human rights are no longer an internal matter: they are now a matter of universal concern. The international community must show total support for the upholding of human rights in Nepal. The actions of the present Government to withdraw criminal charges that potentially amount to crimes against humanity and to reward those who did wrong during the conflict must not be recognized. The legitimacy of the actions must be questioned and those actions properly nullified and properly defied. Recognition of this Government by the international community must be withdrawn as part of a protest against its gross actions. Moreover, international donors and diplomatic bodies must demand greater respect for human rights and fundamental values before providing any more aid to their country.
Now is the time for them to grant a high priority to transitional justice by employing a truth commission or a competent judicial authority to clarify the fate and whereabouts of victims of the disappearances and to hold the perpetrators accountable. Now is the time for the national and international communities to pressurize the government of Nepal into taking seriously these issues. Their fundamental freedoms must be defended at any cost. The choice is theirs - whether to live as dictated by illiberal evil forces or to endeavor to create a society that is based on the values of liberalism and human rights.(atimes.com|)
Comments