For the past two days we have walked the streets of Kathmandu as foreigners and delegates as we attempt to unravel the layers of Nepal. On our first day on the field we met with various groups working for justice in Nepal in different forms and with different objectives. At out pen-ultimate meeting of the day we met with Lawyers’ Forum for Human Rights and Victims Society where a Member of Parliament came to speak with us. At our make shift conference table we sat with five men who through schooling or having been direct victims of war were sharing their views on the prospects for enduring peace in Nepal. At the table were two men who fell on opposite sides of the conflict yet sat side-by-side discussing the injustices of war. Shocked by this we asked questions, listened, watched conversations among the men grow tense and here we were the third party trying to genuinely understand the heart of these men and how they put aside their grievances to engage in a discussion with us. It was clear that we were the third party trying to grasp this conflict right in front of us.

If the Cold War taught us anything it was that third party involvement when negotiating peace between incumbents and insurgents often times causes greater grievances and destruction to emerging nation-states. I do not mean to suggest that we (our trip) is causing further grievances or destruction, but rather it was clear in that meeting that the injustices caused by war cannot be truly understood by the third party. Yet, we continue to promote third party involvement during peace building. Throughout our day I tried to place where third party involvement works and when it fails. Peace Building Brigades’ mission suggests that third party presence provides safety and encourages accountability among perpetrators. Nonetheless, they recognized the reality that their presence often exacerbates conflict in communities once they leave. Similar problem in Iraq—in fact, our excuse for not leaving. Therefore, what is the role of the third party and how can we use it effectively?

I asked the Member of Parliament what implementation framework exists for the peace agreement. His response directly aligns with this dilemma of the third party. He simply responded, as if obvious, that the government and all the parties within it are in charge of implementation. He continued by saying that the Nepali people must be in charge of their own constitution and path towards democracy. While this response should be empowering for someone like myself who despises the role of Cold War actors in emerging democracies, I could not help but completely disagree. While I have a lot more to learn about what Nepal needs in order to achieve enduring peace, it seems that when implementation is not guaranteed then do written agreements even matter? Implementation is in the hands of actors who have little interest in fully honoring the peace agreement. I am excited about all these questions and I hope to further explore what is right for Nepal. While a third party can hinder progress, it seems that the government actors cannot be the only ones overseeing implementation.