---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ACHR REVIEW <achr_review@achrweb.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Subject: OHCHR: No half measures, please
To: achr_review@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: 22 October 2010
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Asian Centre for Human Rights has the pleasure to share an exclusive
article titled, "OHCHR: No half measures, please" written by its Director
in today's The Kathmandu Post.
It is available at:
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/10/21/oped/no-half-measures-please/213995/
The 'Summary of Concerns' issued by the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-N) on 23 September 2010 examining 57
killings by Nepal's security forces in the Tarai between January 2008 and
June 2010 point to a persistent pattern of extrajudicial killings. Yet,
under the new agreement, the OHCHR had abdicated its responsibility to
incapable NHRC of Nepal. This is despite that in its 2009 annual report to
the UN, the OHCHR stated that 'the Commission has not initiated
investigations into nearly 75 per cent of cases referred by the OHCHR-N,
including cases of alleged extra-judicial executions and torture'.
Leadership is clearly part of any solution, yet the OHCHR-N has had no
representative for months and there is no prospect of any new leadership
in sight. The acting head has reportedly gone off on a study tour and
won't return until 2011. Stunningly, the leader of the OHCHR, High
Commissioner herself, appears comfortable with its largest field office
without a representative or Acting Head. If that is the response of the
OHCHR leadership, it is indeed pertinent to ask whether the time has come
for the OHCHR to close its Nepal Mission and be upfront about it.
We thought you would find the article of interest.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Rajesh Rawat
Trustee, ACHR
No half measures, please,
By - Suhas Chakma
The Kathmandu Post, 21 October 2010
[
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/10/21/oped/no-half-measures-please/213995/
]
On Sept. 23, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal
(OHCHR-N) issued a 'Summary of Concerns' examining 57 killings by Nepal's
security forces in the Tarai between January 2008 and June 2010. The
report points to a persistent pattern of extrajudicial killings, and the
government's failure to fully investigate or prosecute those responsible.
The report makes clear that the human rights situation is deteriorating
and has been for some time since the improvement brought on by the end of
the conflict.
These findings raise troubling questions as to why the OHCHR-N agreed to a
significant weakening of its mandate (signed with the government on July
10), most notably to close the field offices outside Kathmandu. There are
also questions as to why the OHCHR-N agreed to continue to work within the
February 2009 cooperation agreement signed with the National Human Rights
Commission of Nepal (NHRC).
As part of the agreement, the OHCHR-N agreed to refer new cases to the
NHRC and follow up the same with active cooperation and support of the
latter. Handing responsibility over to the NHRC would require two
conditions: firstly, the human rights situation had improved significantly
(sufficient so that national institutions could function effectively); and
secondly, the NHRC was capable of carrying out the task.
It is difficult to find evidence that either condition is fulfilled. In
its 2009 annual report to the UN, the OHCHR-N expressed concerns over the
NHRC's ability to 'undertake its caseload properly' including a specific
concern that 'the Commission has not initiated investigations into nearly
75 per cent of cases referred by the OHCHR-N, including cases of alleged
extra-judicial executions and torture'. The factual reporting about the
lack of capacity in the NHRC is telling.
The failure of the NHRC is an open secret. The Kathmandu Post listed
corruption, cronyism, and incompetence as just a sample of its failings
("NHRC at war within" Aug. 20). More recently the media reported fresh
allegations of 'misbehaviour' against female staff and more corruption at
the executive level.
Even without these scandals, the idea of meaningful cooperation between
the OHCHR-N and the NHRC is a fantasy. The NHRC has been the most vocal
and antagonistic proponent of ending the OHCHR-N's presence in Nepal. The
OHCHR-N and the NHRC do not enjoy a cooperative relationship in any sense
of the word.
Yet the OHCHR-N was not only content with talk of cooperation, but also
agreed to limit its own role and close regional offices. A new US $2
million capacity-development project was agreed in July 2009 to be
implemented jointly by OHCHR-N and UNDP.
The OHCHR-N's role in agreeing the new mandate needs to be examined. In
April 2005, the OHCHR was granted a strong mandate to set up a
considerable presence in the country—its largest field operation to date.
While its recent performance has been lacklustre, the OHCHR-N has had an
enormous positive influence on human rights in Nepal. Its action led to a
reduction in human rights violations during the latter part of the
conflict. The OHCHR-N assisted in creating the democratic space for the
Jana Andolan.
Moreover, the OHCHR-N enjoys a formal position in monitoring the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The CPA is not an agreement that can
be changed unilaterally by the government. The CPA is 'owned' by two
parties—the UCPN (Maoist) and the 22 parties. In changing the OHCHR-N
mandate without consulting the UCPN (Maoist), the government expressly
violated the CPA. The OHCHR-N made no public expression of concern.
It appears that the OHCHR leadership was content to accept whatever they
were given and were looking for a way out of Nepal. This is despite the
fact that the OHCHR had more than enough credibility to maintain its
mandate, not least the ability to threaten a withdrawal should the mandate
be so weak as to threaten human rights in the country.
With regard to the cases being handled by the NHRC, the regional rights
bodies have noted with deep concern the OHCHR's silence over mismanagement
of the current exhumation in Dhanusha by the NHRC.
With regard to the training and capacity building, the OHCHR-N's much
trumpeted awareness training of the Nepal Police and Armed Police Force
must be held against the results noted in the OHCHR-N's September report.
The report explicitly confirms what the OHCHR-N already knew: human rights
violations perpetrated as part of police operations in Nepal are a complex
institutional reform and sectoral issue. And in the absence of reform,
awareness training doesn't change an organisational culture.
OHCHR-N has of late lacked a clear strategy, capacity to prioritise,
political analysis and external advocacy skills. The exceptional work that
individuals and teams have put in at OHCHR-N has been dissipated by the
absence of coordinated advocacy and political vision to follow through
recommendations. Without this vision, the institution has drifted,
spreading itself across an ever wider range of issues, often lacking a
strategic logic and reducing resources for core tasks.
Rather than coordinating a strategy to secure human rights in Nepal, the
OHCHR-N has managed to alienate natural constituencies in the
international community and national NGOs. In place of a strategy that
corresponds to the political reality of Nepal, the OHCHR-N appears to have
fallen back into fulfilling the arcane log-framed requirements of the
OHCHR HQ.
The OHCHR-N's new mandate gives the government and security forces an easy
answer to critics of Nepal's human rights record. They can point to the
substantial international human rights presence and that Nepal security
forces are being trained by the OHCHR-N. The capacity of the security
forces is being built and the problem is being addressed. In the
meanwhile, the violations will either not be reported or under-reported by
the NHRC. The government can claim an improvement. Since donors and
diplomats new to Nepal report to their capitals that the government is
working with the UN to address human rights, all the donors can plough
money into the NHRC irrespective of however bad its functioning.
The response of the OHCHR Headquarters to all its weaknesses has been to
engage in obsessive internal restructuring. Leadership is clearly part of
any solution, yet the OHCHR-N has had no representative for months and
there is no prospect of any new leadership in sight. The acting head has
reportedly gone off on a study tour and won't return until 2011.
Stunningly, the leader of the OHCHR, High Commissioner herself, appears
comfortable with its largest field office without a representative or
Acting Head. If that is the response of the OHCHR leadership, it is indeed
pertinent to ask whether the time has come for the OHCHR to close its
Nepal Mission and be upfront about it.
(The author is director, Asian Centre for Human Rights, New Delhi)
Posted on: 2010-10-22 08:27
From: ACHR REVIEW <achr_review@achrweb.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Subject: OHCHR: No half measures, please
To: achr_review@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: 22 October 2010
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Asian Centre for Human Rights has the pleasure to share an exclusive
article titled, "OHCHR: No half measures, please" written by its Director
in today's The Kathmandu Post.
It is available at:
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/10/21/oped/no-half-measures-please/213995/
The 'Summary of Concerns' issued by the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-N) on 23 September 2010 examining 57
killings by Nepal's security forces in the Tarai between January 2008 and
June 2010 point to a persistent pattern of extrajudicial killings. Yet,
under the new agreement, the OHCHR had abdicated its responsibility to
incapable NHRC of Nepal. This is despite that in its 2009 annual report to
the UN, the OHCHR stated that 'the Commission has not initiated
investigations into nearly 75 per cent of cases referred by the OHCHR-N,
including cases of alleged extra-judicial executions and torture'.
Leadership is clearly part of any solution, yet the OHCHR-N has had no
representative for months and there is no prospect of any new leadership
in sight. The acting head has reportedly gone off on a study tour and
won't return until 2011. Stunningly, the leader of the OHCHR, High
Commissioner herself, appears comfortable with its largest field office
without a representative or Acting Head. If that is the response of the
OHCHR leadership, it is indeed pertinent to ask whether the time has come
for the OHCHR to close its Nepal Mission and be upfront about it.
We thought you would find the article of interest.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Rajesh Rawat
Trustee, ACHR
No half measures, please,
By - Suhas Chakma
The Kathmandu Post, 21 October 2010
[
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/10/21/oped/no-half-measures-please/213995/
]
On Sept. 23, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal
(OHCHR-N) issued a 'Summary of Concerns' examining 57 killings by Nepal's
security forces in the Tarai between January 2008 and June 2010. The
report points to a persistent pattern of extrajudicial killings, and the
government's failure to fully investigate or prosecute those responsible.
The report makes clear that the human rights situation is deteriorating
and has been for some time since the improvement brought on by the end of
the conflict.
These findings raise troubling questions as to why the OHCHR-N agreed to a
significant weakening of its mandate (signed with the government on July
10), most notably to close the field offices outside Kathmandu. There are
also questions as to why the OHCHR-N agreed to continue to work within the
February 2009 cooperation agreement signed with the National Human Rights
Commission of Nepal (NHRC).
As part of the agreement, the OHCHR-N agreed to refer new cases to the
NHRC and follow up the same with active cooperation and support of the
latter. Handing responsibility over to the NHRC would require two
conditions: firstly, the human rights situation had improved significantly
(sufficient so that national institutions could function effectively); and
secondly, the NHRC was capable of carrying out the task.
It is difficult to find evidence that either condition is fulfilled. In
its 2009 annual report to the UN, the OHCHR-N expressed concerns over the
NHRC's ability to 'undertake its caseload properly' including a specific
concern that 'the Commission has not initiated investigations into nearly
75 per cent of cases referred by the OHCHR-N, including cases of alleged
extra-judicial executions and torture'. The factual reporting about the
lack of capacity in the NHRC is telling.
The failure of the NHRC is an open secret. The Kathmandu Post listed
corruption, cronyism, and incompetence as just a sample of its failings
("NHRC at war within" Aug. 20). More recently the media reported fresh
allegations of 'misbehaviour' against female staff and more corruption at
the executive level.
Even without these scandals, the idea of meaningful cooperation between
the OHCHR-N and the NHRC is a fantasy. The NHRC has been the most vocal
and antagonistic proponent of ending the OHCHR-N's presence in Nepal. The
OHCHR-N and the NHRC do not enjoy a cooperative relationship in any sense
of the word.
Yet the OHCHR-N was not only content with talk of cooperation, but also
agreed to limit its own role and close regional offices. A new US $2
million capacity-development project was agreed in July 2009 to be
implemented jointly by OHCHR-N and UNDP.
The OHCHR-N's role in agreeing the new mandate needs to be examined. In
April 2005, the OHCHR was granted a strong mandate to set up a
considerable presence in the country—its largest field operation to date.
While its recent performance has been lacklustre, the OHCHR-N has had an
enormous positive influence on human rights in Nepal. Its action led to a
reduction in human rights violations during the latter part of the
conflict. The OHCHR-N assisted in creating the democratic space for the
Jana Andolan.
Moreover, the OHCHR-N enjoys a formal position in monitoring the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The CPA is not an agreement that can
be changed unilaterally by the government. The CPA is 'owned' by two
parties—the UCPN (Maoist) and the 22 parties. In changing the OHCHR-N
mandate without consulting the UCPN (Maoist), the government expressly
violated the CPA. The OHCHR-N made no public expression of concern.
It appears that the OHCHR leadership was content to accept whatever they
were given and were looking for a way out of Nepal. This is despite the
fact that the OHCHR had more than enough credibility to maintain its
mandate, not least the ability to threaten a withdrawal should the mandate
be so weak as to threaten human rights in the country.
With regard to the cases being handled by the NHRC, the regional rights
bodies have noted with deep concern the OHCHR's silence over mismanagement
of the current exhumation in Dhanusha by the NHRC.
With regard to the training and capacity building, the OHCHR-N's much
trumpeted awareness training of the Nepal Police and Armed Police Force
must be held against the results noted in the OHCHR-N's September report.
The report explicitly confirms what the OHCHR-N already knew: human rights
violations perpetrated as part of police operations in Nepal are a complex
institutional reform and sectoral issue. And in the absence of reform,
awareness training doesn't change an organisational culture.
OHCHR-N has of late lacked a clear strategy, capacity to prioritise,
political analysis and external advocacy skills. The exceptional work that
individuals and teams have put in at OHCHR-N has been dissipated by the
absence of coordinated advocacy and political vision to follow through
recommendations. Without this vision, the institution has drifted,
spreading itself across an ever wider range of issues, often lacking a
strategic logic and reducing resources for core tasks.
Rather than coordinating a strategy to secure human rights in Nepal, the
OHCHR-N has managed to alienate natural constituencies in the
international community and national NGOs. In place of a strategy that
corresponds to the political reality of Nepal, the OHCHR-N appears to have
fallen back into fulfilling the arcane log-framed requirements of the
OHCHR HQ.
The OHCHR-N's new mandate gives the government and security forces an easy
answer to critics of Nepal's human rights record. They can point to the
substantial international human rights presence and that Nepal security
forces are being trained by the OHCHR-N. The capacity of the security
forces is being built and the problem is being addressed. In the
meanwhile, the violations will either not be reported or under-reported by
the NHRC. The government can claim an improvement. Since donors and
diplomats new to Nepal report to their capitals that the government is
working with the UN to address human rights, all the donors can plough
money into the NHRC irrespective of however bad its functioning.
The response of the OHCHR Headquarters to all its weaknesses has been to
engage in obsessive internal restructuring. Leadership is clearly part of
any solution, yet the OHCHR-N has had no representative for months and
there is no prospect of any new leadership in sight. The acting head has
reportedly gone off on a study tour and won't return until 2011.
Stunningly, the leader of the OHCHR, High Commissioner herself, appears
comfortable with its largest field office without a representative or
Acting Head. If that is the response of the OHCHR leadership, it is indeed
pertinent to ask whether the time has come for the OHCHR to close its
Nepal Mission and be upfront about it.
(The author is director, Asian Centre for Human Rights, New Delhi)
Posted on: 2010-10-22 08:27
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment