Nepal, bloodied and reeling by a 10-year civil war that left 13,000 dead is moving (some might say stumbling) toward a lasting peace. The new constitution drafted by the interim coalition government that now includes former Maoist rebels is a flawed document, but it is not written in stone. There is still time and hopefully the political will for all parties in Katmandu to address the concerns of the Madhesi people. They make up approaching half the population, and protest the document does not protect their rights and accord them equality.
The violent demonstrations that have broken out in an around the town of Lahan in this long, narrow strip of territory that borders India, should cause politicians in the capital to rethink and recalibrate the constitution. It would be a disaster to end one civil conflict only to see another flare up in its place.
However, another danger appeared Wednesday when UN human rights chief Lousie Arbour visited the country. She has called for the prosecution of both members of the Nepali security forces and the Maoist rebels for grave human rights abuses. Her argument is understandable. As in Bosnia and Rwanda, there should be no hiding place for those who commit terrible crimes during civil conflicts. One day such trials, whether locally or before a UN tribunal, may be an accepted consequence of such behavior. But today, however morally desirable, prosecuting those alleged of committing crimes against humanity is not always possible.
Nepal would seem to be one such country. It does not really matter that there are accused on both the Maoist and the former government sides. However even-handed the justice system, the newfound cooperation between the two sides would be exposed to dangerous strains. It is extremely unlikely that a Nepalese court could sit successfully in judgment on war criminals. Everything from its constitution to its procedures could prove destructive to the newfound cooperation and political stability.
Nor is the idea of an international tribunal hearing the case against these people much more promising. Unless accused individuals surrendered voluntarily, it is hard to see how the Nepalese authorities could arrest and extradite them. There are so many potential flash points in either process that they have to be unthinkable. It is indeed remarkable that the UN Human Rights chief should have made the demand in the first place. Long and costly trials would reopen, not heal, past wounds.
In principle, the former rivals have agreed to what seems to be the only sensible way of leaching the anger and suspicions that embitter many Nepalese: truth reconciliation. In return for immunity from any future prosecution, those who committed brutal crimes will confess them and do their best to apologize. It is not an ideal solution, but in South Africa where the process was pioneered, it did serve to defuse tensions and anger and give the new political order a unique chance to begin the process of rebuilding. That is what Nepal needs too.
