There's a deal to canton the Maoists and the Nepal Army. Why can't the UN start monitoring arms and personnel right away?
There has been an agreement in very general terms. That general agreement has to be turned into much more specific commitments and an understanding as to how we can verify these commitments.
What kind of specific commitments?
There are many more aspects of arms and armies' management that have to be defined before the UN can plan its actual monitoring mission. We have to be clear on how many locations will be involved with how many troops in each. Only than can we, with the parties, plan the kind of monitoring that is needed.
So when do you think you can start the monitoring?
I can't answer that yet because that doesn't just depend upon the UN, but upon the parties as well. I will be continuing discussions from the moment of my return to Kathmandu next week. But when actual monitoring will begin is a question I can't answer immediately.
How would UN civil staff be able to monitor thousands of armed military personnel?
The letters from the prime minister and the Maoist leadership specifically asks for the deployment of qualified civilian personnel. There are other cases where civilian personnel, in some cases former military themselves, have been involved in monitoring arms and armies in the context of peace processes. We have to see how that can be tailored to fit Nepal.
Why did UN assessment team leader Staffan de Mistura meet Indian officials in New Delhi before and after his visit to Nepal?
Obviously India is a major stakeholder and the UN regularly consults other governments that have a major interest in a particular situation. So, indeed the UN has remained in close communication with India and I shall do the same.