Amid the deadlock over the issue of arms management, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and chairman Prachanda of the CPN-Maoist met for two hours on Wednesday, discussing this most contentious issue and constituent assembly (CA) polls. They are reported to have agreed to send a joint letter, within days, to the UN to monitor these processes. This is indeed an improvement over the controversial letter the Prime Minister sent to the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. But, the UN mission returned yesterday without the government and the Maoists presenting a unified position on how the UN could help. However, the head of the mission, Staffan de Mistura, identified four areas of possible UN assistance — management of arms and the armies, electoral process, monitoring of the ceasefire and code of conduct, and expansion of human rights. He said the mission found ‘lack of trust in some cases’ and ‘lack of knowledge and confidence-building’ among the parties, and offered help in both.

Prachanda made it clear to Koirala, according to Maoist leader Dev Gurung, that the idea of separating the weapons from the Maoist combatants alone, leaving the Nepali army untouched, would not be acceptable to his party. If the government dropped this idea, such a joint letter could be written immediately, according to Prachanda. Koirala, on the other hand, told the Maoist chief that they should write such a letter by ignoring petty differences and move on to the CA polls. More than one option on the arms issue has been floated, for instance, the CPN-UML has proposed one — keep a record of weapons on both sides, confine the Maoist combatants to camps, disarm them and integrate them into the national army.

The CPN-UML proposal does not seem to offer a considerably new approach, as it includes the decommissioning of the Maoist combatants alone. However, there is the need to find a formula which could guarantee a smooth transition to the CA polls and beyond, and minimise the risks of betrayal from either side. In this, international guarantee could be critical. So countries with huge clout in Nepal, such as the US, India, the European Union and Japan, would be doing a great service to the restoration of permanent peace and democracy in Nepal through constituent assembly by making their active cooperation conditional on these things rather than by saying who should be taken into the interim government, when or on what conditions. Their current approach is more likely to make the situation more complicated. They should not be seen to be siding with any domestic political power, either. The Koirala-Prachanda understanding provides a hopeful sign. Both sides have now to focus on hammering out a common ground to ensure UN help and reach a political settlement. This requires each to take the other into confidence and build trust by addressing mutual concerns. The public impression of any domestic power coming under excessive influence of any foreign power in dealing with national issues could prove harmful.