UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is sending (July 10-15) the highest level delegation so far to assess the political and security situation in Nepal. The three-member team headed by Lakhdar Brahimi, the special advisor to the secretary-general, is scheduled to meet, among others, the two vice chairmen in the Cabinet, the foreign minister, top leaders of all mainstream political parties, the army chief, and the heads of major diplomatic missions. The UN chief has offered all possible UN help, including its mediation, in peace talks. Samuel Tamrat, a senior official at the UN department of political affairs, who is also a member of this team, has been to Nepal several times, including last month, on errands from the UN chief. The Maoists have set UN mediation or that of any credible international agency as a condition for talks. Many in Nepal appear to favour UN mediation, but the establishment, along with the US and India, is opposed to it. These countries continue to urge cooperation between the palace and the political parties, stresssing that the Nepalis are capable of resolving their own problems. Their doubts about the UN may have come from perceptions, such as that it would give the Maoists international recognition, and the UN the credit for conflict resolution.

But these do not appear to be strong reasons. None of these powers would oppose UN mediation, if it served their strategic or other important interests. Certainly, a central UN role is likely to restrict their room for manoeuvre in Nepal vis-à-vis conflict resolution and political settlement. To end the conflict, the UN might have to push for a fully democratic set-up, which may explain this government’s apathy towards it. The use of the UN’s good offices for a noble goal cannot be construed as foreign interference in Nepal, itself not a big but a faithful

UN member. Both Nepal and India have sent their security personnel on UN peace-keeping missions in other countries, and the latter is seeking a Security Council berth, too; the US invokes or ignores the UN depending on how it suits its interests. If they can back the use of military means to suppress the insurgency with increasing death and destruction, it looks strange why they cannot support a UN role in restoring peace.