There is a lot of debate about involving the United Nations to mediate in resolving the Maoist insurgency. Although it is widely supported, UN-mediation has inherent limitations.

It is important, first, to abandon the practice of political stigmatisation based on one's analysis. Current comment on this subject tends to brand skeptics of the UN's proposed role as 'pro-monarchist', and the fallacy of this claim is apparent in its hypocritical posture.

To start with, there is ambiguity over the exact nature of the UN's proposed role in Nepal. Clearly, the time for 'confliction prevention' is over. The remaining alternatives (using the UN's own terminology), are 'peacemaking' and 'peace-building'.

Peacemaking, as distinct from 'peace enforcement', entails the use of 'diplomatic means to persuade parties in conflict to cease hostilities and negotiate a peaceful settlement'. This definition is expanded further to include a principal qualification that the 'United Nations can often play a role if the parties to the dispute agree that it should do so'. In Nepal's case, the required agreement is absent.

There is less disagreement on the UN's participation in peace-building which according to the UN 'refers to all external efforts to assist countries and regions in their transitions from war to peace'. Nevertheless, peace-building is necessarily preceded by peacemaking, which renders immediate deliberation on the specifics of peace-building, premature.

It is logical to ask why the Deuba government is hesitant to accept the UN's offer for mediation. There could be several reasons:

. Negotiating under the auspices of the UN would grant recognition to the Maoists as a legitimate state actor. This bears the markings of an irreversible precedent that encourages rogue behavior as opposed to democratic process
. The Maoist demand for a UN-mediated settlement is a contradiction that leaves ample room for hearsay. On the one hand, the Maoists openly recruit and arm child soldiers and engage in 'political cleansing'. On the other, they demand mediation from the ultimate enforcer of international norms and regulations. This deliberate inconsistency is a travesty of the UN system itself.
. Despite popular belief, Nepal's conflict with the Maoists is no longer a two-way dispute. The arrest of Maoist leaders operating from Indian territory has highlighted the fact that Nepal's internal problems are not devoid of ramifications for India. Without India's direct participation in negotiations, a sustainable resolution to Nepal's problem is improbable. In the absence of forthcoming Indian acquiescence on UN involvement (overtly or covertly), debate on the issue is largely redundant.
. The consistent Maoist demand for UN mediation is suspicious. Every peace-building initiative undertaken by the UN needs a mandate from the Security Council for the deployment of UN troops. The Maoists could be sticking to this demand knowing fully well that Nepali troops serve on UN peacekeeping missions elsewhere. Undermining the state's military apparatus is an overriding Maoist goal, the call for UN mediation is the most painless means of accomplishing it.

The suggestion that a role for the UN may not be appropriate for Nepal at this time is not an attempt to degrade the genuine goodwill of Nepal's well-wishers. It is simply to elicit essential awareness of the necessity to appoint a universally perceived, neutral third party in the absence of which the resumption of meaningful dialogue is impossible. Principally, this entails the delegation of an entity whose mandate does not inadvertently favour either side.

It is no secret that successful negotiations are almost always conducted through 'Track-II' channels. The very art of negotiating demands the provision of a clandestine environment which mitigates the risk of public denigration. Unfortunately, the promotion of such an environment has been severely inhibited by irresponsible politicians operating under self-proclaimed mandates.

The biggest shortfall since the advent of democracy in Nepal has been the inability of our leaders to manage public perceptions. In a genuine effort to prevent the further deterioration of public trust, the state should make every effort to carefully evaluate each alternative candidate of mediator.

Staged negotiations in the name of power politics should cease immediately. Simultaneously, the deplorable practice of executing political machinations (using the good name of UN), should also be halted. The only process that should be moving ahead is the process of implementing confidence-building measures in anticipation of candid, meaningful negotiations.