UN secretary general Kofi Annan has renewed the offer of his good offices in the search of a solution to the conflict in Nepal. His offer came in the fresh context of the three-month-long unilateral ceasefire declared by the Maoists from Sept. 3, which he welcomed, stressing the initiation of an ‘inclusive national dialogue’ with a view to resolving the underlying causes of conflict. Close on the heels of India and the UN, the European Union has also hailed the ceasefire, underscoring the need for all political forces now to ‘“work strenuously for a democratically based peace process leading to a durable negotiated solution, involving a national consensus and reintegration of the CPN-M into a multi-party democracy”. Urging the Maoists to implement their latest pledge “in good faith”, the EU has also called upon the government to respond “positively and concretely” to build the necessary confidence. This will require, according to the EU, the “assistance of an independent and credible external partner and the active support of the international community”, and it has expressed its readiness to provide whatever assistance the Nepali political forces may ask for. More than a dozen other countries, including Norway, have also aligned themselves with the EU declaration.

As the Maoists declared the ceasefire, it therefore becomes morally more obligatory on them to honour it scrupulously. These three months will be a crucial period for them to establish their bona fides. The government, for its part, needs to rethink its not-so-enthusiastic response. It needs to prove its bona fides too — for democracy as well as for peace. Its slogan ‘peace versus terrorism’ is unlikely to win national and international support, as all indications so far show. In any way, the position that the Maoists should first lay down arms — also reiterated in Biratnagar on Tuesday by assistant minister Neekshya SJB Rana — is certainly unfortunate as the prolongation of the unwinnable war is bound to lead to more tragic consequences for all Nepalis, including those in power. The argument, too, that the Nepalis are capable of resolving the conflict themselves is no longer relevant, as the EU declaration suggests. This argues for an active role for a credible and independent international agency to help forward the entire peace pro-cess, including the issue of arms surrender by the rebels. And who but the UN can fill that role better?