In the backrooms of the Palais des Nations in Geneva a draft human rights resolution sponsored by Switzerland has raised a storm in a tea cup. The resolution would extend technical cooperation to the government of Nepal under Agenda Item 19 of the ongoing 60th session of the Commission on Human Rights. The European Union, which is using the draft as a stick to prod Kathmandu to resume negotiations with the Maoists, has not yet taken a decision on whether to cosponsor the resolution which, if tabled, will come to the vote on 21 April.

Situations similar to the one prevailing in Nepal are best suited for a resolution under Agenda Item 9 on country situations. Usually, resolutions under Agenda Item 19 are tabled as a compromise after a country has been censured over a considerable period of time under Agenda Item 9.

As expected, Kathmandu sought New Delhi's protection. India has been opposed to any third party involvement in South Asia although it did go along when Colombo decided to invite Norway to facilitate the peace process with the LTTE. Foreign Minister Bhekh Bahadur Thapa met his Indian counterpart Yashwant Sinha on his way to Geneva last month and then went on to Brussels to convince the EU.

On 26 March Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa announced a 25-point commitment paper on human rights.
The question now is who could be credible and effective mediators to the conflict in Nepal. The government has ruled out UN mediation. Domestic interlocutors have no leverage over the parties in conflict except serving as post boxes. While Kathmandu might have extracted temporary respite from New Delhi's protection, it will have to pay a heavy price.

India's Foreign Secretary Shashank reportedly assured his Nepali counterpart Madhu Raman Acharya on 23 February to take up the Bhutani refugee issue. However, during his meeting with King Jigme S Wangchuk of Bhutan on 26 March 2004, Shashank has reportedly denied any such assurance being given to Nepal.

Colombia, which has been fighting the communist FARC guerrillas, welcomed United Nations monitoring and its sovereignty has not been dented by the UN presence. Nepal, like Sri Lanka, must make an independent decision whether to invite the UN Secretary General to step in. If Nepal, following New Delhi's footsteps, considers the Maoist issue as an internal one and the Bhutani refugee issue as a bilateral one with Bhutan, victory in Geneva would indeed be a defeat.

A failed state has its own negative dynamics and it is in New Delhi's interest to facilitate solutions to both the Maoists crisis and Bhutani refugee issue. Capturing a few Maoists leaders in India is unlikely to resolve the Maoist crisis. The EU, which provides substantial funding for Nepal and Bhutani refugees, must take a firm decision to cosponsor the Swiss resolution if Nepal fails to invite the UN Secretary General before 21 April.

Suhas Chakma is the director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights, New Delhi.