---

Nepal

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on securing this timely debate on the situation in Nepal, a country which, as he says, deserves more attention than the House has given it in the past. It will probably receive more attention as a result of the noble Earl having raised the matter this afternoon, which will improve prospects for making progress, with the help of the international community, towards an enduring peace and democracy. The UK has close ties with Nepal that go back 200 years to before our first enlistment of Gurkha soldiers under the British flag in 1817. It must be remembered that they fought heroically in the two world wars and that the Nepalese people came to our aid morally and materially when our backs were to the wall at Dunkirk. It is therefore with deep concern that the people of this country have witnessed the agony of Nepal in recent years, but with some hope that the worst is over and that our Government will repay the debt that we owe the Nepalese people and help them towards their goal of peace and democracy. The ceasefire agreed between the Government and the Maoists on 24 April, a large share of the credit for which must go to Mr Ian Martin, the representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was not only a positive step, as the secretary-general said at the time, but the start of a process that has acquired momentum, leading to the internationally supervised elections some time in 2007, when the voters will decide, as the noble Earl said, what sort of government they want. Yes, there have been violations of the ceasefire on both sides, but they have not been serious enough to derail the political process and the political will for a genuine and robust democracy. Now, the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists have jointly agreed to invite the UN to monitor both the ceasefire and the code of conduct, which was agreed last month. This initiative has the blessing of neighbouring India. Will the Minister tell us when the Security Council is likely to consider this, and whether it will be part of the wider role envisaged by Mr Matthew Kahane, the UN resident representative and humanitarian co-ordinator in Nepal? He was quoted yesterday as referring to a multi-agency UN programme that might involve: UNICEF, in rehabilitating child soldiers; the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which of course already has a presence there; the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, to provide technical help on the ceasefire; and agencies concerned with the destruction of surplus weapons and advising on methodologies for the elections next year. That sounds like a very substantial programme, although Mr Kahane added that it would not need a large number of resident UN personnel. He suggested for comparison that it would probably need fewer than the UN had in Tajikistan, where there were never more than 90 personnel. Britain has played an active role in human rights in Nepal, as summarised in last year’s FCO report, and I hope that we will be prepared to continue to make a contribution where we have the necessary expertise, as the noble Earl has already said. One of the most difficult aspects of the peace will be the cantonment of troops and the destruction of weapons. There, again, we might be able to offer some expertise, based on our experience in Northern Ireland, but there are other models in Asia that might offer closer parallels. In the southern Philippines, there is a ceasefire, monitored by Christian Aid and Initiatives for International Dialogue, with no UN involvement; and in Aceh, northern Sumatra, a successful deal was concluded last August between the Government and the Aceh Freedom Movement, which has been monitored by the European Union. So there are people within the region who could offer technical advice and assistance on how armed oppositions can make the transition to conventional political parties. There are also NGOs with experience of other peace-building situations and of Nepal. The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Geneva, for instance, has been working in Nepal since 2000. It is now active in the Philippines and has made a significant contribution towards peace in Aceh, although the baton was finally taken over by the former Finnish President, Marti Ahtisaari. There is a wealth of talent on which the UN could call to help to draft the mechanisms for implementing the process of disarmament, demobilisation and rehabilitation (DDR) and ensuring that it is elaborated with the full participation of both sides. But, first, the parties have to agree on precisely what they will ask the UN to do. The wording of the invitation as regards weapons management is apparently a particularly sensitive issue, according to Deputy Prime Minister Amik Sherchan. At this stage, it might be helpful if the UN could provide the players with a paper describing the various models, including those which I have mentioned, and setting out a checklist of services that the UN might be able to offer. Since the Home Minister has said that the interim government will be formed only after a deal is concluded on arms management, this is a matter of some urgency. It is estimated that there are 100,000 to 200,000 internally displaced people as a result of the conflict, including 40,000 children, with at least 27,000 in the capital. So far, not many people have gone back to the villages because they are not certain that the peace will hold. A British NGO, Ockenden International, has been helping to build low-cost temporary housing for IDPs in Nepalgunj. The UNHCR has said that it will be ready to assist the Government of Nepal by providing relief assistance to IDPs if requested. I wonder whether the UK would make a commitment towards funding the additional help by the UNHCR so that resettlement of displaced villagers could be accelerated. Now is the time also to make a new effort on behalf of the 107,000 Bhutanese in refugee camps in the east of the country with no rights to work or to own land. It is welcome that the EU has just allocated €5 million to Nepal, of which €2 million is earmarked for the Bhutanese. But now that Bhutan has said that it is interested in resuming talks, could the EU also offer to help with that project? The elections are another key issue. Last Friday, the parties set themselves an ambitious timetable. They said that they would have an interim constitution within 15 days, that a new interim government would then be formed with Maoist participation, and that the date of elections for a constituent assembly would be agreed. If there is to be an electoral register, Nepal will need technical help and adequate funding. Is it within the terms of reference of the UN resident to explore with the parties the need for a preliminary feasibility study to identify what resources are needed and to prepare a bar chart setting out the activities that need to be undertaken, with a tentative timetable? Perhaps, again, we could offer technical help on that. Finally, is the role of the King still a matter of controversy? The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said that it is a sticking point for the Maoists. But the House of Representatives proclamation of 18 May deprived him of nearly all his executive powers, including his position as commander-in-chief, and many of the senior appointments made by the King have been revoked. The heads of the police and the national investigation department have been suspended. Twelve ambassadors have been recalled, including the ambassador to the UK, who is said to have refused the order. I wonder whether we have been notified of the withdrawal of his credentials and whether the Nepalese have appointed a replacement ambassador to the Court of St James. These actions have been taken following recommendations by a committee appointed to investigate human rights violations committed against activists during the period of intense repression since King Gyanendra came to power in tragic circumstances five years ago. Not all the committee’s suggestions have been accepted. For instance, the head of the army remains in post. But the speed of the reforms is nevertheless impressive. Although there are differences of opinion about whether the King should remain in a purely ceremonial capacity, some Maoist leaders have gone as far as to say that they would like to put him on trial for atrocities that were committed under his direct authority. Although, strictly speaking, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that this is a matter for the constituent assembly, the wisest course of action that might be taken by the King is to go into exile while he still has the chance, which would remove at least one item of major controversy between the parties. That would put an end to arguments about the future of the monarchy and would allow the parties to concentrate on the real issues in front of them.