Something still rotten

Corruption, nepotism and impunity threaten the peace process

IN SEPTEMBER last year a warrant was issued for the arrest of Sitaram Prasain, who was accused of stealing $4.3m from his own bank. This plunged the partly state-owned outfit, set up to lend to small businesses, into insolvency. Yet somehow the police could not find him. He seemed invisible, even when many of the country's top politicians attended his son's lavish wedding. For many Nepalis, this was all too typical of a system where the rich and privileged are above the law.

When the Young Communist League, a squad of thugs run by Nepal's Maoists, kidnapped Mr Prasain this month and paraded him in front of the press before handing him to the police, there was an almighty row. Girija Koirala, the irate prime minister, called them the “Young Criminal League”. The Maoist leader, known as Prachanda, retorted that it was Mr Koirala who consorted with criminals. Ashish Thapa, of Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog, points out that Mr Prasain had given generously to various political parties.

The Maoists, whose ten-year insurgency ended in a messy truce last year, are now partners in an interim government, while the chaotic country pursues a permanent peace. Yet the Prasain affair suggests that peace needs at least some integrity in public life. Aside from short-lived, politically motivated episodes, no one can recall anybody important in Nepal ever being punished for anything.
The Supreme Court itself is bound up in the culture of impunity. Earlier this year an unsuccessful litigant released recordings of his efforts to win a property dispute through bribery. No action has been taken. Yet the judiciary has a vital role in the peace process, both in hearing important constitutional cases and in a planned “truth and reconciliation” process over the many human-rights abuses committed by both sides to the conflict.

The Maoists, while posing as the party of justice, also look shady. There are many reports of their involvement in illegal logging. (A Maoist, as it happens, holds the cabinet portfolio covering forestry, traditionally seen as a lucrative sinecure.) And there has never been a proper accounting for millions of dollars in finance-ministry cheques payable to Krishna Mahara, a Maoist leader. The money was intended to pay for disarming and demobilising the Maoists' fighters. Transparency's Mr Thapa thinks the Maoists in fact have more ways—legal and otherwise—to raise revenue than any other party, and have amassed large sums of money.
The police, too, have a big role to play in establishing law and order before and during elections due this autumn. Yet listening to a group of mid-ranking officers discussing their hopes for juicy job postings does not inspire confidence. The luckiest among them might end up with a casino on their beat, with attendant opportunities for kickbacks. Since Mr Koirala, from the Congress Party, became prime minister last year many officers with Congress links have been promoted.
“It goes to the feudal character of our society,” says Devendra Panday, a former finance minister who is now a campaigner for peace and democracy. “In the patron-client system there is no incentive to clamp down on corruption.” Nepotism and party bias in appointments undermine institutions. “The country is full of incompetent people as well as corrupt ones.”

Cynicism about the way things work is all-pervasive—and extends to foreign aid. International donors are big providers of good jobs for the local elite. Many able young people in Kathmandu, who lack the connections, have concluded that only the upper classes need apply. In the unhappy villages, where most people live and development is yet to come, peasants are quick to assume, rightly or wrongly, that money intended for them has been stolen higher up the system. Others contend that it is simply wasted by people too rich to understand their problems. Such resentments fuelled the Maoists' “people's war”. Yet the system that breeds them shows no sign of changing.

Source: The Economist, June 14, 2007

Transitional Maoist Diplomacy

Having come to the conclusion that they are unlikely to succeed to attain power solely through the "barrel of the gun" given the geo-strategic, economic and political realities of contemporary Nepal and the world, they now want to have relations with the regional and global powers whose policies and power-play they have all along termed objectionable to their radical ideology or interests.

Dr. Som P Pudasaini

The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M), led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal "Prachanda" and supported by his second in command Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and their foreign policy czar C.P. Gajural, has been attempting to streamline its foreign policy and diplomatic relations with two key objectives of largely contradictory nature. Understandably, they are in a difficult transition by both the design and default given their internal party dynamics and external ground realities.
First, as a "revolutionary" insurgent outfit that followed a bloody trail with a high pitched outcry of nationalism and radical transformation they want to continue to appear standing firmly against the so called "expansionist" and "neo-colonialist" regional and global bullies as has been done by many insurgents across the continents in the last five decades to sustain general public's attention.

Secondly, having come to the conclusion that they are unlikely to succeed to attain power solely through the "barrel of the gun" given the geo-strategic, economic and political realities of contemporary Nepal and the world, they now want to have relations with the regional and global powers whose policies and power-play they have all along termed objectionable to their radical ideology or interests.

The compulsion resulting from the second objective probably explains why comrade Prachanda played to the gallery during his visit to New Delhi several months ago with his lavishly India-friendly pronouncements and was showered with frenzied media coverage and a wide approval from a broad range of intellectuals and businessmen. The CPN-M and Indian relations appears to be cooling in recent months given the Indian realities of having to deal with their own fast expanding Maoist threat, its democratic polity, politico-economic interests and narrow margin of cozying up with the Nepalese Maoists under its present state of troubled transition.

As an alternative as well as a covert threat to the Maoists to toe the earlier line, India seems to be manipulating Madhav Nepal and UML's aspirations and ego and advised the latter to cozy up with the NC as was obvious from the red carpet treatment afforded to Madhav Nepal and his two colleagues in New Delhi recently. This is nothing unusual in international politics and diplomacy. But the wisdom of our leaders, particularly the Eight Party Alliance (EPA) ones, will lie on the choices they make in the sustained national interests that will benefit them as well as the nation in both the short and long runs.

In the aftermath of the Indian diplomatic pilgrimage, the Maoists are continuing their charm offensive towards the powers that matter. It was evident in Prachanda's and Dr. Bhattarai's exceptional courting of visiting former US President Jimmy Carter during and after their meeting to help the Maoists establish communication with the US government "at any level" and lobby to drop the "terrorist tag". Carter's statements indicated that the Maoists will have to wait to be treated as a normal political outfit by the sole global superpower and will depend much on further behavioral change on the part of the Maoists; including its reigning on the YCL.
A person of a former president's status coming from a country with an institutionalized democracy like the US would probably not publicly recognize relevance of communication between the Maoists and the US even at a personal capacity without some perceived receptivity on the part of his government. However, he was honest in expressing his limitations by saying he had no authority to pressurize and would pass his report to the US President. George Bush being a conservative hardliner may take any advice on being soft on those perceived to be less than fully reformed "terrorists" with a pinch of salt as his policies elsewhere indicate.

The Maoists may be wise not to misunderstand the American or the global diplomatic code of conduct and may have been poor in their judgment if Carter was advised not to trust Ambassador James Moriarty but to talk to others for shaping US opinion about the Maoists as first reported and then denied in the local media. It is important to remember that the first person Carter met in Kathmandu was Moriarty. Carter's conditional recognition of the need to open communication with the Maoists that did not figure the word "terrorist" is probably not more than marginally superior to the expressed desire of the Ambassador to shake hand with Prachanda the day the Maoists behavior fully met the norms of a mainstream democratic party. Let us remember other countries neither appoint nor treat Ambassadors as trash as Nepali politicians seem to do most of the time.

Maoists' policy of "equidistance between India and China" is also flawed on two grounds. First, it attempts to court India eagerly at times and wants to move closer to China when that does not work. Secondly, mutual interest between nations, including economic and strategic, constitute the core basis for diplomatic relations in the contemporary world not any concept of a distance. For China, support for "one China doctrine" and some trade with a stable Nepal not inclined to irritate it too much by excessively pro-India or pro-West cacophony may be important. Nepal and India has a lot more areas of mutual benefits and conflicts to sort out.

It needs the West and Japan to enhance development and reclaim its past image of stability, tranquility and panoramic beauty. It hardly presents as a viable option to attempt to play one against the other or unduly please one or two at the cost of the others in the open and globalizing world. Nepali politicians and diplomats, including the Maoists, will have to read the international pulse better and play it effectively in the national interest without being bogged down by jargons. Since the major focus of contemporary world is on economic diplomacy, conflict resolution and anti-terrorism, and democratization, the Maoists' fuzzy economic policy is a big bottleneck. However, its move towards mainstreaming and peace building represents a good opening for improved international relations.

In short, the Maoists’ foreign policy at the moment appears to be in both a confused and pragmatic transition dictated by their past "revolutionary" rhetoric and a new desire to brace the contemporary domestic, regional and global politico-economic and strategic realities. They may have to better shape up their foreign affairs, economic agenda and eliminate their "violent" and non-law-abiding image sooner. The Maoists may benefit by enhancing their contacts and communications with independent and experienced Nepali experts who understand as well as command the respect of international community, including the UN and donors, to further rationalize its foreign policy and firm up its shift to a peaceful competitive politics to build better bridges with the rest of the world. Clearly, they deserve support from all the concerned to cement their commitment to pragmatic diplomacy, sound economy and inclusive democracy.

Source: Nepalnews.com, June 2007

NEPAL: ENTER CHINA, EXIT INDIA?

N.P.Upadhyaya

Kathmandu: Gone are the days of Indian hegemony in Nepal, it appears. The self-proclaimed “big-brother”-India-now will have yet another “real big brother” in Kathmandu to counter the Indian hegemony.
If one were to believe what the freshly appointed Chinese Ambassador to Nepal, Zhen Xianglin, has said to a vernacular fortnightly the other day, what appears to be for sure is that China will henceforth not tolerate any Indian hegemony and dictates imposed on this India-locked country.
Ambassador Xianglin appears to have understood the inner problems and the issues plaguing this country in details though his stay in Kathmandu has not even exceeded two months time.

However, the manner he has understood the political events currently unfolding in this country and the way he has expressed his country’s views in a firm and determined style does hint that now onwards China too would be a “player” in Nepali politics which is what Comrade Prachanda too prefers.
This means that China as a “traditional and trustworthy neighbor of Nepal” will have its own axis in Nepal that will comprise of a single country-China itself.
Judging at what the Chinese Ambassador has told to the vernacular fortnightly, what becomes abundantly clear is that China will be more interested now onwards to safeguard her own political interests in this country that are aplenty, to say the least.
The Chinese envoy assuring Nepal in a subtle manner authoritatively says that China has not yet deflected from what Marshal Chen Yi as back as in 1961 October 2 had told of Nepal.

To recall, Marshal Chen Yi during a visit to Kathmandu had said, in his own words, “China will not tolerate if there is any aggression against Nepal by any country”.
The Chinese envoy’s emphasis and reassurance to the Nepalese people that China still valued what Marshal Chen Yi said long time back must force some countries in Nepal’s neighborhood to pull their hairs.
The countries near and far dictating Nepal to do this or to do that must not have taken these fresh Chinese sentimental attachments towards Nepal in good taste.
Now what is more than clear is that China will show its presence in this country which so far remained in what has been called as a “low profile” status.
Beijing, better late than never, appears to have realized that any political disturbances in Nepal and its adjoining areas might have a profound impact upon its own under belly-Tibet autonomous region. It is perhaps these factors which prompts the Chinese envoy to suggest the Nepali establishment to sort out the political issues plaguing the Terai/Madhesh at the earliest fearing probably its impact might reach up to the bordering town of China.

However, China says, no external interference should be there while sorting out the Terai issues. This is significant in more ways than one. The message should be loud and clear to those who have been poking their nose in Nepal’s what the Ambassador says, “Internal affairs”.
The Chinese Ambassador appears more than happy with the Nepalese authorities who have assured him and his country that any anti-China activities will not be allowed to occur in the Nepali soil.
In effect, this is what China wants from Nepal and in lieu China is more than willing to contribute to the development of this country by what ever means it can. Chinese grand assurance comes once again in the form of a million dollar assurance wherein its commits itself that China will come into action the moment she concludes that Nepal’s territorial integrity and national independence were in jeopardy.
However, what is bewildering some analysts is that such similar statement both in content and nature had emanated in Kathmandu early last year when a Chinese State councilor Tang Jiaxuan-a comparatively higher authority in the Chinese state hierarchy-too had assured the then ruling regime but when it came to the crunch, the expected Chinese support was “missing”.

Look what Mr. Tang had said then, “We consistently support Nepal in its effort to safeguard sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Nepal is a sovereign country, and its internal affairs shall not be interfered with in any way by any outside forces. We believe that the Nepalese government and people have the political wisdom and capabilities to solve their own problems.
How and which factors/forces converged together and managed the ouster of the Royal regime is any body’s guess. The naked Indian interference that was visible then is not a thing that any one could presume that the Chinese authorities did not know or understand.
The Royal regime definitely had counted on Chinese support more so after the Tang’s speech made right here in Kathmandu. The Chinese silence acquired then is yet shrouded in a mystery

Should this mean that China will even now allow Indian South Block mandarins to impose their heinous dictates in an uninterrupted manner and would only come into full action or play when India infringed upon Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty? At least this much becomes visible from the Chinese Ambassador’s interview. However, surprising though it may appear to some, more so to the chagrin of the Americans, the Chinese envoy sees a friend in the Maoists. He says since they have been already a part of the interim government that enjoys people’s mandate and legitimacy so nothing could be said of the Maoists. He further says that “looking the Maoists might differ from one country to the other hinting that China does not bother what the Americans see the Maoists. Hmmm….
In a subtle manner, the Chinese envoy possesses some soft corner for the Maoists for reasons unknown to analysts here. But some intelligent brains here conclude that China would keep the Maoists close to them in order to distance the India’s all pervasive political interference in this country.

To put it in another words, China would want the Maoists to act like a deterrent against the Indian hegemony in Nepal which others have failed so far.
No wonder, some top Maoists leaders have already traveled to China in order to build conducive political atmosphere in their favor.
Reports have it that Comrade Prachanda together his son-Prakash-will be visiting Beijing some where around October-November.
This is no less disturbing news for Indian authorities.
Added reports say that one Chinese professor Wang Hoi mediated the China-Maoists friendship. Prof. Wang is considered to be a brain on South Asian affairs.
Be that as it may, with China’s forceful assertion that it would have its presence felt in this country bodes well for this India-locked country for a variety of seen and unseen reasons.

No less important is the Chinese envoy’s admission that his country was ready to supply petro-products to Nepal if properly requested.
Analysts presume the Chinese political influence, in that eventuality will be, mathematically speaking, inversely proportional to that of the self-proclaimed big-brothers’ influence in Nepal.
Not a bad news. It’s time that the South Block mandarins begin pulling their hairs! However, Indians are not that fools. They have several cards under their sleeve and countless stooges working day in day out funded by the notorious RAW-Research Analysis Wing. Which card they will use to counter the fresh Chinese enthusiastic political overtures will have to be watched and how in such an eventuality, the Chinese retort back will be no less entertaining-speaking on political terms.

Source: The Telegraph Nepal, June 14, 2007

Common ground

E conomists have expressed concern about the Nepali economy and one big source of it is the lack of clarity in the economic policy of the major political parties. They fear an economic drift. Political and business leaders occasionally call for a national consensus on economic development. At an interaction on ‘Industrialisation’ held in the capital on Tuesday, representatives of several political parties stressed the need for: a common vision for development, a common code of conduct for the sister organisations of the parties concerning industry, including bandhs and strikes, keeping the industry away from politics, a common minimum economic agenda of the parties, etc.

The existence of various political parties implies various policies on the economy and other sectors. But this should not form a barrier to the evolution of a broad common area of agreement on vital sectors, such as the economy, the use of principal natural resources (in Nepal’s context, water resources), foreign policy, and national security, how to maximise benefits from the country’s location between the fast developing giant neighbours and from other international economic ties. But, before the parties can develop such a consensual policy covering these areas, each needs to have a clear vision and a clear set of goals and objectives as to how it would steer the country with respect to those areas by itself if it came to power. Here, the parties have still to make their minds clear and let the people understand what they really want.One wonders how the Nepali Congress’s socialistic pattern of society meshes well with the policy of liberalisation and privatisation that are sweeping much of the world within the framework of globalisation. And how may one explain the gap between theparty’s policy and practice? The CPN-UML seems to be confused about its economic policy, as it struggles to balance between its communist brand and the present-day economic realities. The Maoists, who have yet to achieve full integration into the capitalistic pattern of economic management, have provided only a sketchy picture of the economic direction they will take, not a definite total picture of what they call a ‘mixed economy’. The confusion persists also as to whose policy the upcoming national budget will reflect. The Congress’s because the finance minister belongs to that party? Or, will it form a consensual document of the eight parties represented in the government? What about the three-year development plan being prepared by the National Planning Commission (NPC) for the interim period, whose length is still uncertain? Besides, as the NPC represents a hangover of the days of a regulated economy, is it not time its very role, and its very raison d’etre, were reconsidered in the new globalised context?

Nobody discounts the overriding importance of the political process of peace and polls. But it does not have to exclude important work on other areas vital to the nation. And what better time than this interim period the political parties will have for building such a consensus.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 14, 2007

Nepal vis-a-vis Asia-Pacific security

Bhaskar Koirala

The conclusion in Singapore of the annual International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Asia Security Summit (or Shangri-La Dialogue) on June 3, which witnessed the largest ever gathering of defence and foreign ministers, plus chiefs of defence staff and others, affords an opportunity for Nepal to examine its role and prospects in the broader scheme of Asiansecurity and defence dynamics.It is a matter of regret that Nepal has diverted its attention from larger events in international politics by focusing on petty internal rivalries. The peace process is truly simple if the principle actors bear in mind that Nepal very realistically has the potential to be a fairly high-profile Asian state with the capability of exerting a modestly benign influence on the maintenance of overall peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

As a first step, Nepal must participate in the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore next year in order to take stock of the critical issues and to assimilate these into its foreign policy.From Asia-Pacific perspective, the most profound weakness in Nepal’s strategy has been a narrow vision focused too closely on India. What is not understood is that an absence of a more diverse Nepali foreign policy is not only detrimental to Nepal, but equally to India as well. Geography or geographic constraints do not necessarily define freedom of action for any state. Nepal must play its cards astutely and devise an appropriate policy that places Nepal within the context of Asia more broadly.In his address to the Security Summit, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong laid out the over-arching strategic environment in Asia focusing on the state of relations between major powers and over-riding regional concerns.

One important observation made by him was that the US, China, Japan, and India “set the parameters for long-term cooperation and competition among the regional countries” in the Asia Pacific.In Nepal’s context, it is not yet clear how these four major powers’ intentions and activities are converging or diverging with respect to their particular interests. Is it undeniable that a Nepal which has spun out of control is strategically not suitable for any of the powers concerned. A mountainous terrain amenable to guerrilla warfare and a fairly substantial Muslim population are among the factors that must militate against any serious outsideintentions to destabilise this Himalayan state. Moreover, as Nepal shares long and porous borders with both India and China, the economic and political repercussions of a deeply unstable political milieu in Nepal will no doubt be widespread and even detrimental to the region.

In terms of China-Nepal relations and the latter serving as a possible conduit for China in South Asia, it is important to highlight PM Loong’s remarks that “what the Chinese are saying to their own people gives some insight into their thinking.” It appears that Nepal’s strategic interests and imperatives in more expansive relations with China will pose unnecessary challenges to Indian interests.Nepal within the context of Asia-Pacific security thus essentially means that Nepal’s foreign policy must be sufficiently ‘entangled’ with the greatest number of other states toensure equidistance, neutrality and stable security environment.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 14, 2007