Nepal poll delay may cause trouble

Indrani Bagchi

NEW DELHI: The delay in announcement of dates for constituent Assembly elections in Nepal may make it easier for the Maoists to go back to their wild ways. The Koirala government is hedging on declaring the elections, which is key to establishment of a more democratic Nepal. This has given Maoists the opening to turn the tables on the government. In this, the Maoists have help from the Left, but the seven-party alliance is still looking for ways to give the monarchy a toehold in any future arrangement. According to sources, this is rooted in the fact that many in the interim Nepalese government fear elections. While India is trying to push the government towards a decision, it's still willing to let the government look for ways to give the discredited monarchy some space.

It's not going down well with the Maoists, whose agitation on conditions of the militias' camps are a sign of deeper dissatisfaction. Meanwhile, the younger Maoists, many members of the Youth Communist League, have returned to looting and extortion in the provinces. In fact, as things are turning out, the onus of keeping the Maoists on the straight and narrow path belongs to the seven-party alliance (excluding the Maoists). The Maoists will be good only as long as the others are playing by the rules. This, said sources here observing developments in Nepal, is both good and bad. Good, because it keeps the democratic government on its toes and prevents it from doing the typical South Asian thing of promising governance and rarely delivering. But, bad, because it could, given the Maoists' past record, give them an inordinate handle on the government.

It's a concern shared by international conflict-resolution groups like the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG). In its report, ICG says that while Nepal's Maoists have accepted multi-party democracy and have lost their appetite for all-out war, they could still resort to physical confrontation if the peace process stagnates. A year after King Gyanendra was forced out, Maoists were in the government. The compromise from their military stance has brought them benefits and power of being in legitimate control. These advantages need to percolate down to cadres in the provinces, many of whom have given up their arms. This is where, say sources in India, the Maoist leaders bear the responsibility of managing expectations and explaining the democratic process to cadres more comfortable with the gun. "Making the political process work is up to other actors as much as the Maoists," says Rhoderick Chalmers of ICG. "If the mainstream parties are committed to the peace agreement and keep their side of the bargain, Maoist leaders will find it much easier to persuade their followers that compromise is the best way forward."

Source: The Times of India, May 21, 2007

Maoist-Nepal opposition to hold fresh talks in Delhi

Nepal's Maoist guerrillas and opposition parties are in the process of holding fresh talks in New Delhi, the kingdom's private media reported on Tuesday. A senior Maoist leader, Agni Sapkota, has confirmed that leaders of seven opposition parties and the outlawed Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) would hold fresh parleys in New Delhi to review the loose alliance between them, the Himalayan Times daily reported. Some senior leaders of two major opposition parties, the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist, are already in the Indian capital, the Kathmandu Post daily said.

If true, this would be the sequel to a reported secret meeting held between the two top leaders of the Maoists and leaders of the opposition front of seven parties in New Delhi late last year.
The secret meeting ended with both sides agreeing to a 12-point agreement that includes the Maoists pledging not to attack political workers and unarmed people and allowing people displaced by the 10-year insurgency to return home. The secret understanding, when it was made public, drew mixed reactions.

It was flayed by Nepal's government headed by King Gyanendra, which came down heavily on the opposition parties as well as the Indian government, saying they were abetting terrorist activities. While most of the international community as well as the United Nations welcomed the pact as a step towards bringing the rebels to the political mainstream, it was however also criticised by the US ambassador to Nepal, who calls it a ploy by the Maoists to exploit the parliamentary parties and capture power.

A fresh round of talks between the Maoists and opposition leaders on Indian soil would newly vex Nepal that accuses New Delhi of harbouring double standards on terrorism. Last year, the understanding between the rebels and the parties resulted in the former extending a unilateral truce called by them. With the outlaws having called a weeklong blockade of Kathmandu valley from March 14, to be followed by an indefinite nationwide shutdown from April 3, the parties have been urging a re-think.

Source: The Hindustan Times, March 7, 2007

Nepal's Government Agrees to Pay Maoist Fighters in Camps

Liam Cochrane

Nepal's government has agreed to begin making monthly payments to Maoist former rebels now living in U.N.-supervised camps. In return, the Maoists will allow the United Nations to resume efforts to verify the former fighters' identities, and check for child soldiers in the camps. Liam Cochrane reports from Kathmandu.

For seven months the former fighters of Nepal's Maoist party have stayed at 28 camps across the country, as part of a peace deal made last year.
Under the deal the Maoists agreed to abandon their armed rebellion and join an interim government and parliament.
The United Nations has registered more than 31,000 Maoist fighters, but has yet to verify that all troops are over 18 years old. It also wants to check to be sure new fighters were not recruited after the peace process began.
Last month, the Maoists blocked U.N. verification until conditions were improved in the camps and salaries were paid to their fighters.

Nepal's Cabinet decided Monday to give a monthly allowance, equal to $46, for each Maoist fighter in the camps, which are also known as cantonments.
"I think we have solved a major problem with cantonments," said Krishna Bahadur Mahara, the spokesman for the government and also a senior Maoist leader.
Mahara said the monthly payments would be given to all 31,000 Maoists currently in the camps, not just those verified by the U.N. to be legitimate soldiers.
The Cabinet decision on allowances could mean a breakthrough for the U.N. verification process - a key part of last November's peace deal.

"UNMIN has been ready to do this process now for the last couple of months, so this would be very good news and we would seek to meet with the Maoist leadership very soon so that we can iron out the details and commence that process," said Kieran Dwyer, the spokesman for the U.N. Mission in Nepal.
The United Nations says it can begin verification within days. Final arrangements must first be cleared by the Joint Monitoring Coordination Committee, a body made up of representatives from the U.N., Nepal government and Maoist army.

Source: Global Security.Org, May 21, 2007

Nepal: The Koiralas’ Crown Compulsions

For Prime Minister Koirala, seizing that middle ground between the monarchy and the Maoists became the first order of business. By playing off the palace and the Maoists against each other, Koirala succeeded in bringing the former rebels into government.

Sanjay Upadhya

Contrary to all outward appearances of ambivalence, the Nepali Congress appears to have cemented the centrality of the monarchy to its identity. Each new reiteration by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala of the inevitability of a republic has encouraged some of his closest associates in the party to articulate the crown’s continued relevance with greater clarity.
This affinity, to be sure, does not stem from an underlying affection. Shared class characteristics, as the Maoists like to point out, may be responsible to some degree. If anything, political pragmatism is the prime compulsion for the Nepali Congress.
The precise details of the April 24, 2006 compromise between the Seven-Party Alliance and King Gyanendra – if there was one in the first place – remain under wraps. For Prime Minister Koirala, seizing that middle ground between the monarchy and the Maoists became the first order of business. By playing off the palace and the Maoists against each other, Koirala succeeded in bringing the former rebels into government.

In formalizing the postponement of the constituent assembly elections after roping in the Maoists, Koirala exhibited, more than anything else, his vaunted party-building skills. Maoist chief Prachanda saw where things were headed. Sensing a trap, key associates began to feel they might be better off staying out power. In retrospect, the feverish bargaining over rank and portfolios right up to Koirala’s departure for the SAARC summit in New Delhi provided a convenient cover for all the protagonists.
Prachanda has been making obligatory allegations of betrayal to fortify his flank within. The Maoist chief understands how perilous the peace front of his “people’s war” can be. Despite all the other good things his Young Communist League is doing, the bad ones are hogging the headlines. For the country, it no longer matters how deep the internal split in the Maoists really runs. The nationalism and revolutionary planks in their platform have decayed the fastest.

In the legacy-building stage of his political career, Prime Minister Koirala may have grasped Nepal’s broader options. Vignettes from his previous stints in power must be swirling around him. Facing massive street protests against the Tanakpur accord in 1992-94, Koirala certainly did not relish those pleas by some normally sympathetic Indians for New Delhi to distance itself from the man. The escalation of the Maoist insurgency, the political instability preceding the Narayanhity Massacre and the wider convulsions it created must have encouraged deeper introspection.
After King Gyanendra took over full executive powers in October 2002, Koirala and the Nepali Congress, like much of the mainstream, were at the nadir of their popularity. While other leaders geared up for the looming collision with the palace, Koirala considered his own vulnerabilities. When the palace-appointed government purportedly agreed with Maoist negotiators to limit the army to a five kilometer radius of the barracks, Koirala became the first leader to criticize this infringement of state sovereignty.

That statement became part of a wider dynamic that ultimately shut the door on a palace-Maoist deal that would have bypassed the parties. The bonus Koirala sought – and may have succeeded in getting – lay in plugging that vulnerable hole Tanakpur exposed.
Last year, when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh welcomed him to New Delhi as a South Asian statesman, Koirala must have found it hard to suppress that chuckle inside. For someone who had a hard time scheduling meetings with then-premier Atal Behari Vajpayee during the early years of the anti-palace movement, this was quite a leap – and illusory.
Koirala was too close to his illustrious brother not to have experienced the exasperation B.P. Koirala felt in the late 1960s before abandoning efforts to renew relations with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. During the eight years B.P. was imprisoned at Sundarijal, time had not stood still.

B.P.’s subsequent years in exile must have occasioned ample review of his brief tenure as Nepal’s first elected premier. When Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declared in parliament in November 1959 that any external aggression on Nepal and Bhutan would be treated as an aggression on India, B.P. felt compelled to respond.
Speaking in the Nepali legislature, Koirala said he took Nehru’s statement as an expression of friendship, but added that Nepal, being a fully sovereign and independent nation, decided its external and home policies without ever referring to any external authority.
Over a week later, Nehru affirmed he agreed entirely with Koirala’s interpretation, but not without disclosing the secret letters that had been exchanged with the 1950 Treaty. Of course, B.P. did not have the benefit of hindsight to see how his battle with the palace would only set the stage for a larger phenomenon that would marginalize the Nepali Congress for three decades. If B.P. considered exile in Sarnath a lot like Sundarijal, who could have understood this better than his youngest brother.

In his current tenure, Prime Minister Koirala has become a changed man. He is an ardent champion of China’s entry into the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation as a full member. The prime minister appeared unconstrained in seeking the new Chinese ambassador’s help on ensuring smooth petroleum supplies as the Indian Oil Corporation began tinkering with the taps.
In the cryptic maneuverings that pass for Nepali politics, these moves may be devoid of real substance. Yet coming from Koirala, the symbolism becomes starker. It was not too long ago, after all, that he flew straight into New Delhi from talks in China, left alone to battle the diplomatic fallout. Unlike B.P. Koirala, age has made this prime minister less susceptible to external “penalties” for flaunting his independence. This allows him greater leeway to build his legacy.
The logical question here is whether Koirala can impose his views on a party that largely considers itself the principal victim of the palace. Koirala is the Nepali Congress. Those who broke away under Sher Bahadur Deuba in mid-2002 had an opportunity to prove otherwise. The country recognizes how far anti-Koirala-ism has worked. For most of the younger Koiralas competing for the family mantle, the monarchy remains a pivot. Party members who disagree are most welcome to find another tent.

This brings us to another area where the Koiralas have proved particularly adroit. By allowing the communist factions monopolize the so-called “progressive/left” banner, the Nepali Congress can blur the distinction between the Unified Marxist Leninists and the Maoists, especially in those crucial western eyes.
When the Maoists relentlessly blame international power centers for conspiring to retain the monarchy, the Nepali Congress can afford to nod in affirmation and sit back. Prachanda and Co., by their own logic, have a long way to go toward establishing the scope and structures of republicanism as a viable alternative. Prime Minister Koirala, meanwhile, can continue uttering those obligatory republican sentiments.

Source: Nepalnews, May 22, 2007

Road To Economic Progress

Amrit P. Shrestha

What the modern industry needs is better infrastructure. Traditionally, infrastructure services across the world were provided by governments in limited areas like airports, electricity and roads. Today infrastructure must improve in all parameters, which requires immense financing through external and internal channels. Without basic infrastructure development, no sector can achieve any sort of target. To keep the wheels of the economy running, countries must make enormous progress in attracting private investment in the infrastructure sector, as the government alone cannot invest huge amounts in it. In order to send the right signal to international investors, there is a burgeoning need to create sophisticated infrastructure in selected key cities and projects as seen in Beijing, Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur, which have emerged as the investor's choice in the last three decades.

Infrastructure needs three key inputs - large amounts of money, skilled manpower and selected projects. Governments must realise that the only way to become the nation's doorway to economic zoom is to give new thrust to infrastructure development. Thus, the Essential Facility Doctrine has been recognised by most of the developed and developing countries. Australia, Singapore, South Korea and India have been adopting the doctrine. Investment requires long-term funds with a long payback profit period. More importantly, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) is a signal to investors in general that the policy framework is sound and environment conducive for investment. Such models have to be initiated in key sectors like roads, airports, power and tourism. Nepal lacks the necessary physical infrastructure to qualify as an international investment centre. Investments must have easy access, and there should be well-developed infrastructure within acceptable parameters. At present, we must have suitable strategies to convert challenges into opportunities. Better infrastructure helps in alleviating poverty and expanding the industrial base because accessibility to services improves as a result of it.

Currently, GDP's contribution to infrastructure development is less than 4 per cent, which is less than the share of our neighbouring countries. Actions must be accelerated on the following track, to help build trunk infrastructures in the country. First, Modernisation or industrialisation require massive expansion of national highways, airports, electrification and telephones linking every village with the urban areas. Ground water exploration, minor irrigation, water supply and sanitation are other priorities. Highways form the economic backbone of the country. Likewise, rain water harvesting and human resources management must be developed, which is sorely lacking in the country. Given the size of the country, air travel has become the swiftest mode of transport. Hence, Nepal should take bold steps to expand and upgrade its airport infrastructure. Second, among the bottlenecks to achieving growth in the country is electricity supply. Power and its allied sector play a crucial role in economic development. Electricity is the lifeline of our lives as its use ranges from mundane applications to complex tasks and operations. Our productivity is affected because of this.

Third, the tourism industry could gather momentum if the government plans innovative promotions. Tourism should introduce new products such as monsoon tourism, helicopter tourism and the like. Such programmes will attract visitors, especially from India and Europe. With Nepal becoming a business hub especially for tourism, regional disparity can be minimised upto a certain extent. Likewise, growth of tourism will help enrich the lives of traditional workers and artistes. Unfortunately, lack of roads, accommodation, safety measures, well established communication systems and hospitality management centres are some of the hurdles in its promotion. Fourth, building IT Parks in important cities can offer a unique confluence of advantages - robust physical infrastructure, power and data connectivity and trained technical manpower. All this will effectively reduce the operational cost. Fifth, there is a need to hand over the entire infrastructure development to the private sector with no political interference. There should be no bureaucratic controls over enterprises. They should not be asked to get approval for minor decisions.

Sixth, an act to form an independent Infrastructure Authority, similar to the National Highways Authority in India, Afghanistan, Laos and the Philippines, has to be announced without delay. Meanwhile, a vision paper with priorities and national consensus must be flashed, emphasising on infrastructure development to attract investors and also to make the entire cycle of investment, productivity and wealth creation sustainable.Seventh, special packages of tax incentives must be introduced as a tool to encouraging private enterprises or an undertaking engaged in the development of infrastructure facilities. This is particularly important for infrastructure developing companies. Human developmentMost importantly, the overall environment needs to be free from prevailing corruption and petty-mindedness. For the common man, good economics is all that he cares. The government should accelerate the process of human development by delivering services in electricity, transport, water and sanitation that the poor need in order to live and participate in economic growth. A leader of outstanding merits, efficient bureaucrats and a graft-free culture are the invisible infrastructure to race with the modern world. Let us start from a good today to a better tomorrow.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 22, 2007