tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10855878707761758822024-02-02T12:01:09.566-08:00My BlogINTELLIGENT DEVELOPMENTjohnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-30585726890687304902015-12-19T17:22:00.000-08:002015-12-19T17:22:01.652-08:00Creating Nepal’s own Quartet <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="content-wrapper" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.6em;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.6;">By John Narayan Parajuli</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.6;">The current conflict between the state and Madhes, the polarisation of the society between Madhesi and Pahadi communities has put a spotlight on the absence of a national conflict resolution mechanism. </span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
Civil society institutions and leaders could have played the role of a healer. But unfortunately, they are divided along the regional lines. On both sides, civil society leaders have become cheerleaders. Both sides have engaged in cherry-picking anecdotes as evidence of the other sides’ lack of humanity—demonising the other, rather than finding common grounds for a compromise. </div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Echo chambers </span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />In this age of social media, everyone has a microphone and that has truly empowered the people (those who have access to social media)—giving them their own platform to voice their opinions. Gone are the days when journalists alone were gatekeepers of what was disseminated. While technology has democratised the public sphere, it has also created echo chambers that reinforce one’s own beliefs and prejudices. The anonymity that social media allows encourages knee-jerk and highly insensitive conversations that often add fuel to the fire. Civil society leaders have not remained immune to this phenomenon. They have been split along partisan and regional lines—doing more to fuel the conflict and less to bridge the divide.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />It is important that we take actions towards creating a credible national mechanism to help facilitate dialogue for this and other subsequent conflicts.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Investments</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Significant investments have been made by national and international non-governmental organisations in the areas of early warning, conflict mitigation, and resolution. But a large portion of these investments has supported smaller organisations to organise grassroots level dialogue. Except for a few ad hoc Chatham House style sessions, very little systematic dialogue facilitation has been organised at the national level. <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Non-state actors, who often have international funding, are reluctant to boldly push towards the creation of a national level entity to fear of a backlash. So they self-censor themselves from doing what is needed, to doing what would be less risky. There is also a tendency of doing the easiest things or picking the low hanging fruit, as they put it.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Now, I am not suggesting supporting grass roots organisation is bad investment. Local dynamics are important too. But discord at the national level has the potential to do so much more damage than a localised conflict. Once you can facilitate dialogue at the national level, the leaders at the centre can influence the sentiment on the ground. The question here is of priority, not the degree of importance. If civil society leaders take initiative, some of the resources from the conflict resolution projects can be easily diverted to this national task.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Tunisian Quartet</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Before it was awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize, the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet was virtually unknown outside Tunisia. In its citations, the Nobel Committee praised the Quartet for providing an alternative political process to avert a civil war. In the words of some of the members of the Committee, the Quartet convened peace conferences that Alfred Nobel mentioned in his will.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />The Quartet, which comprises of the country’s labour union, confederation of industries, human rights league and association of lawyers—hence the Quartet—was formed in the summer of 2013 in response to the political assassinations of two key politicians and the outbreak of violent clashes between the Islamists and secular parties. While Tunisia is still a long way from institutionalising democracy, civil society organisations, nevertheless, were able to come together to bring opposing sides to the table to provide a semblance of peace.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />What the Quartet achieved was immensely dramatic. They were able to force the resignation of the entire Cabinet and to usher in a non-partisan government. They prepared a roadmap to transition Tunisia into a stable democracy and persuaded all the major political forces to agree to it. <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Given the legitimacy of the organisations involved, the Quartet was able to force its decisions on the political parties. Though it may not be possible to replicate what they did in Tunisia, it certainly should inspire civil society organisations everywhere to think outside box in using their leverage to steer the country towards a corrective path.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Nepal</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />There has been some attempt in Nepal to facilitate dialogue by civil society organisations. Professional’s Alliance for Peace and Democracy (PAPAD), an umbrella organisation of civil society organisations, including the Federation of Journalists and the Bar Association, has from time to time taken initiative, but it has never been a sustained effort that bore any significant results.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />PAPAD has the potential to become Nepal’s own Quartet. But given that its leaders primarily come from the one side of the current divide, it will not be seen as neutral force, at least in the current conflict. It can then join hands with Madhesi civil society leaders to improve its credibility. Given the sporadic nature of current negotiations, an improved PAPAD can force both sides to hold all-nighter negotiations, night after night, until a solution is found. If the parties fail to find a solution, it can draw up a roadmap and formulas for compromise after consultations with moderates on both sides. <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />There is a strong possibility that another conflict will eventually emerge even after the current one is resolved. This would require civil society initiatives that would stand above the partisan and regional leanings and facilitate dialogue and compromise.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
First Published in The Kathmandu Post</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 18px; margin-left: 15px;">
<i style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 6px;">
</div>
<br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;" /></div>
johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-20389418874008250342015-12-19T16:54:00.001-08:002015-12-19T19:43:39.514-08:00After Paris climate deal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">Dec 19, 2015- Understanding what happened in Paris on December 11, 2015 isn’t easy. While it is being hailed as a historic climate deal, the reality is that the agreement is largely non-binding and relies heavily on voluntary actions of member states—postponing any serious action, both on mitigation and adaption, until 2020. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbLAiJMZVsDug34e7bIZab69FHKVTZGBSY3DOu5VFEbbmjQytWB9lZY506eKSeGnlxRhG2Aa4RWfuqbVzom6BRynhNZwpatmXvsvH_vde9P6rPS621Zs0WG69N7cOEbrL1h4tevL8Y1k4w/s1600/cop21-unfccc-paris-agreement-1550x804-655x339.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbLAiJMZVsDug34e7bIZab69FHKVTZGBSY3DOu5VFEbbmjQytWB9lZY506eKSeGnlxRhG2Aa4RWfuqbVzom6BRynhNZwpatmXvsvH_vde9P6rPS621Zs0WG69N7cOEbrL1h4tevL8Y1k4w/s320/cop21-unfccc-paris-agreement-1550x804-655x339.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">The success of the agreement rests on several assumptions coming true. First, it assumes that all member states will act in good faith. Second, it assumes that rapid technological development will make clean and renewable energy more economically viable. Third, it takes for granted the science behind, or the lack thereof, the human ability to limit with precision the temperature rise to under 2C. The emphasis of the agreement seems to be on the biggest polluters and developed countries investing in renewable technology as a way to drastically cut their reliance on fossil fuel and subsequently cutting emissions level. So in essence the mitigation part is contingent upon rapid advances in technology. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">Well I don’t doubt that renewable technology can rapidly make that leap and become economically sustainable. The question is of political sustainability, especially in countries like the United States and India. This proposition naively assumes that the fossil fuel industry will cooperate and will not lobby hard to protect its billions of dollars worth of investments. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7oTOkGTElXGkU1QNiw0u-mCVdRceag-sVV8VbHq05R3KTiOxxkKZ84i1a0ihcDVza_c4L_W-b438O9WoEQdSasdA3_pEULTTTIBNOIz8lZwhFp75yDz05RJg1prW3TprOOXWIgVDTK54D/s1600/DSC_0526+copy.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7oTOkGTElXGkU1QNiw0u-mCVdRceag-sVV8VbHq05R3KTiOxxkKZ84i1a0ihcDVza_c4L_W-b438O9WoEQdSasdA3_pEULTTTIBNOIz8lZwhFp75yDz05RJg1prW3TprOOXWIgVDTK54D/s320/DSC_0526+copy.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">Big power politics aside, where does Nepal come into the picture? Nepal’s vuln</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">erability to climate change has been widely documented. There are already visible impacts of climate change in Nepal: the glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate; there is increased risks of floods caused by glacial lake outbursts and other natural hazards in the mountains; the agriculture sector is already under strain due to erratic rainfall and longer dry spells; and there is an increased frequency and intensity of disasters including floods, droughts and landslides occurring in the country. Various research works have also shown the shift in tree-line vegetation in mountainous parts of the Manaslu region. Even if the countries were able to limit the temperature rise to under 2C by drastically cutting carbon emissions—thanks to the Paris climate agreement—it won’t necessarily be a safe limit for Nepal and other low-lying and mountainous countries. The damage will already have been done. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><b>Leveraging the adaptation fund</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"> So the best hope for countries like Nepal is to leverage the deal and the existing commitment of developed countries to provide US$100 billion annually for adaptation by 2020, for jump-starting technological development and getting the needed investment to expedite clean and renewable energy and infrastructure projects. The Paris agreement clearly stresses on the need for accelerating and enabling innovation as an effective, long-term response to climate change. “Such effort shall be, as appropriate, supported, including by the Technology Mechanism and, through financial means, by the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, for collaborative approaches to research and development, and facilitating access to technology, in particular for early stages of the technology cycle, to developing country Parties,” the agreement states. It also calls on the Green Climate Fund to expedite support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and developing countries—both in formulating and implementing national adaptation plans.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><b> National contributions</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">Before the Paris convention, parties had been asked to submit their national plan of action or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). INDCs are voluntary actions that each country proposes to undertake, both as mitigation and an adaptive measure. Especially for LDCs, INDCs could become a national strategy and action plan to not just to adapt but also to develop low carbon-based economies. While Nepal failed to submit its INDC in time, a draft proposal that was circulated has set ambitious goals, including fulfilling 100 percent of national electricity demand through hydropower and renewable sources by 2030 and developing a fully carbon neutral economy by 2050. A low carbon or carbon neutral economy proposition would entail a whole range of development actions—ranging from electric mass transit, solar street lighting, and biogas plants for cooking, among other things. Nepal is well-positioned to take advantage of the funds available for low carbon development—given the potential for hydro power and other renewable energy-based development. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has a starting capital of US$10 billion and much of the annual $100 billion promised by developed countries is expected to flow through GCF. The fund has already started investing in projects. In November it approved a $168 million climate resilience project for Zambia and countries like Nepal can benefit from both the GCF and Least Developed Countries Fund to access funding for their plans to usher in a low carbon economy. And lobbying for these accessing adaptation funds should be done both on a bilateral and multilateral levels. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , "times" , serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;">Nepal is already part of Vulnerable Twenty Group (V20), a group of 20 most vulnerable countries from climate change, formed earlier this year. This and other forums need to be used effectively. With a right pitch accompanied by sustained and effective climate diplomacy, Nepal can turn its vulnerability into an opportunity to access increased finance for its development needs. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;" />
First published in the Kathmandu Post<br />
<br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 11.5px; line-height: 20.7px;" /></div>
johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-91857566179650663612011-11-03T05:25:00.000-07:002011-11-03T05:25:22.536-07:00Towards a finale<b>Parties took a critical leap forward on Tuesday, but they will have to be realistic about anticipating the problems in its implementation.</b><br />
<br />
After dithering for over three years, the major parties finally gave what they had promised—a breakthrough in the peace process and a genuine effort to restore the consensus mechanism on statute drafting and power-sharing. This is a landmark agreement and second only to 2005-06 peace framework.<br />
<br />
Statistically, it is rare that civil wars result into permanent peace. Out of 140 civil wars around the world since 1945, just over 18 percent have ended in a peaceful settlement. The risk of backsliding into conflict even after initial settlement is high. But Tuesday’s agreement is another assurance that Nepal’s peace process is in different league altogether and has developed a level of resilience that is difficult to undo.<br />
<br />
It has also shown that Nepali political actors understand risk of another conflict and are capable acting rationally when it matters.<br />
<br />
Integrating and rehabilitating Maoist combatants is a critical component of Nepal’s negotiated settlement, but examples from elsewhere shows that implementing a Military Integration (MI) agreement isn’t always easy. According to dataset put together by Doyle and Sambanis between 1945 and 1999, 27 wars ended in negotiated settlement and MI took place in 34 cases. Out of 34, only 23 were actually implemented.<br />
<br />
Many integration agreements fail to take off or fail midway because of irreconcilable differences aided by calculations among warring sides that returning to conflict is less costly than permanent peace. But in Nepal, thankfully, the settlement process has come to a point where the cost of returning to conflict far outweighs the cost of peace.<br />
<br />
The deal has now opened doors for tangible progress on peace, statute-writing and power-sharing, and its implementation will complete the Nepal’s five-years-old arduous peace journey.<br />
<br />
The deal appears to be win-win situation for both the Maoists and non-Maoist parties. On ranks and modality, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML managed to get what they wanted. On numbers and rehabilitation package, the Maoists managed to strike a rather sweet deal. The agreement is bit ambiguous on rank and leadership issue of the new directorate but it is possible that the parties have a gentlemen’s agreement behind the actual agreement, and that the ambiguity on ranks and leadership were deliberate.<br />
<br />
Both sides in the negotiation pro-cess have constituency to keep, and the deal has enough to keep even the extr-eme elements on both sides engaged.<br />
<br />
Maoists hardliners have been insisting all along that the leadership of the directorate be given to PLA combatants. On number and financial package, the hardliners do not have much to complain about. Although Mohan Baidya and company were publicly calling for 8,000 combatants to be integrated, they had more or less accepted that it won’t exceed 7,000 — the number proposed officially by the party establishment. By agreeing on a generous rehabilitation package, NC and UML have deliberately given Dahal room for some face-saving with the hardliners. In return the Maoists have agreed to return seized properties and provide compensation to the owners. Though the tab will be picked by the taxpayers, the price for peace is far less than the cost of continued stalemate.<br />
<br />
The give-and-take also indicates the growing rapport between parties and how far both sides have gone to accommodate each other’s concern. This should all work out well for Dahal<br />
<br />
in undermining the hardliners’ case. Reports from Maoists cantonments<br />
<br />
suggest that Dahal may have pulled<br />
<br />
this one off very well .<br />
<br />
Integration is a big issue for rebels anywhere after a negotiated settlement for two primary reasons: security guarantee by being part of state’s coercive apparatus and financial incentives. In Nepal the political landscape is such that the former rebels have no need for the security guarantees that comes with integration. The Maoists are part<br />
<br />
of the state establishment as an unintended consequence of the political expediency at the time. Nepali actors didn’t follow the typical sequencing of a peaceful settlement: demobilisation, disarmament and elections. Election before the management of arms catapulted the rebels as the largest political party in the CA—dramatically altering the political equations. This has also eliminated the possibility of state reneging on its integration promise or giving a raw deal to the rebels, although the thought must have crossed minds of non-Maoists politicians.<br />
<br />
The morphing of former rebels into state actors before the integration started leaves little need for security guarantees. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise people if generous financial package end up attracting more ex-PLA men than the Maoists had intended.<br />
<br />
Overall, Nepal Army deserves credit for thinking outside the box and floating the original proposal that became the basis for Tuesday’s agreement. But there are still many unanswered questions. The deal only provides a broad outline of an integration process and seems to make false assumption that process will be smooth. For it to work the agreement will have to be properly structured. The fixing of the top ceiling for integration, though a political necessity, contradicts the principle of voluntary integration and retirement. What if, hypothetically, more people than expected express wish for integration and also pass the norms of the NA? The current deal assumes that the Maoists will be able to persuade them to change their minds. The Maoists have already finished their version of ‘expression of interest’ survey and the number on the deal is comfortably within the rang. Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa, however, suggests otherwise. Too many simplistic assumptions about a process as complex as integration leads to a poorly worked out integration process that risks failure. Although in Nepal, the transformation of Maoists into a mainstream political force is a guarantor against that risk.<br />
<br />
Integration can be a messy process, and working out tight time-bound calendar, though a political necessity, appears unrealistic. <br />
<br />
Another significant issue which the parties need to pay attention to is the dispute resolution mechanism. At some point there is bound to be grievances, especially from the former rebels, about real or imagined discrimination. The ex-PLA could find the disciplinary regime of a national army unfair and may feel that they are being discriminated against. Parties and the Special Committee, therefore, should look into forming a separate tribunal to address these issues. Absence of such a tribunal could tempt the Maoists to meddle in favour of their comrades, especially if they are in a position of power.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-5840487519472115892011-10-31T22:35:00.000-07:002011-10-31T22:35:54.519-07:00NC shifts strategy to counter ‘misperception’KATHMANDU, NOV 01 - A series of positive statements on the peace process in the past one month reflects a tactical shift in negotiation and public relations (PR) strategy adopted by the Nepali Congress, which, the party leaders hope will counter the party's 'obstructionist image.'<br />
<br />
The new approach stems largely from conviction among the NC leaders that a generally positive approach in public presentation on matters related to the peace and statute drafting processes will help claw back the party's 'unfavourable' image.<br />
<br />
NC leaders say they have now realised that the Maoists have all along handled themselves extremely well before the media, when in fact they were pushing for tough bargain in the actual negotiations. This has led to the grand old party, which prides itself in leading the charge in 'numerous democratic struggle', being presented in negative light.<br />
<br />
"We will be extremely amenable to fulfil the public aspirations for peace and constitution," said NC President Sushil Koirala, speaking briefly at the Maoist tea reception in Kathmandu on Monday--hours after attending negotiations among the three major parties.<br />
<br />
The remarks are part of NC's careful strategy to get the public messaging right in a bid to avoid being seen as a 'status-quoist,' according to NC leaders.<br />
<br />
"We are very serious about completing the peace process," said NC leader and a member of the Special Committee, Minendra Rijal. "But we haven't done enough to present ourselves favourably in the press. So we thought this is the right time to be proactive."<br />
<br />
The new efforts come amid a growing perception that the Maoists were doing more to complete the peace process despite strong opposition from hardliners among them. This has earned the former rebels some accolades among the international community--especially after the Maoists handed over the keys to arms containers on September 1.<br />
<br />
"In our meetings we have been telling NC leaders to be more amenable," said a Western diplomat last month.<br />
<br />
A February 2009 US embassy cable dispatched from Kathmandu on the eve of US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher's visit to Kathmandu also sheds some light on how the NC was perceived even among countries that had been critical of the Maoists in the past.<br />
<br />
"The GON (Government of Nepal) has made little progress on the wider peace process, and bickering within and among the political parties has not helped matters. The opposition NC party complains about the Maoists' lack of implementation of previous agreements, especially returning seized land and reigning in the YCL, and other parties even within the ruling coalition share the complaints. Nevertheless, the NC tends to appear as obstructionist more often than not."<br />
<br />
NC leaders say that they are aware of these perceptions and that they are now doing more to counter it.<br />
<br />
"Our public presentation of the peace process has been flawed for quite sometime," admitted NC leader Gagan Thapa, who along with others, has advised the party leadership to do away with "too much negativity" in public remarks. "It has done quite a lot of damage to our public standing."<br />
<br />
NC President Sushil Koirala is said to be convinced that adopting a 'non-obstructionist' approach on the peace process coupled with an increase in engagement with the Maoists will ultimately help the NC's image. A semblance of progress in the peace process also provides a useful diversion from NC's internal problem for Koirala who is under strong pressure from the Deuba camp for unilaterally dissolving the party's sister wings.<br />
<br />
However, NC leaders make clear that the positive vibes in the media, in part, come as a reciprocation of the Maoist gesture rather than a 'unilateral action.'<br />
<br />
The party president's point-man on the peace process, Krishna Sitaula, argues that it is the 'change of heart,' among the Maoists, particularly Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai that drives his party's response.<br />
<br />
Even party President Sushil Koirala feels that Dahal and Bhattarai will have to be encouraged to take the peace process forward. Koirala has publicly prodded Dahal to act as a statesman and take risks to take the peace process forward. If the peace process is concluded, NC, too, gets the credit, and if polarisation within the Maoists leads to a split within them, the party benefits equally, goes the thinking, according to some NC leaders.<br />
<br />
"If you look at the negotiations, there hasn't been any substantive change in our positions," said NC leader Rijal. "Maoists say they are serious about completing the peace process. Even if it's their bluff, it is high time we call their bluff."johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-6104273155728817742011-10-26T00:24:00.000-07:002011-10-26T00:24:32.529-07:00The last legIn a nutshell, there is one fundamental disagreement on integration: whether or not the combatants should be allowed to retain a distinct identity. Nepali Congress fears that doing so, even after integration, will continue to ‘fan fire to smoulders’ of the conflict. The NC argument is that the Maoists could use their former fighters for ulterior motives if they are somehow allowed to cling on to old loyalties. NC leaders have recently cited examples of mutiny from Bangladesh in support of their argument. It is not yet clear if the Maoists leadership have given up their demand of retaining a separate identity for the combatants, but for sure, the hardliners want it more than anything. Some NC leaders however seem to think that the Maoist establishment is willing to let go of the demand. <br />
<br />
Nepal’s peace process has shown surprising resilience over the years. It has survived the breakdown of the consensus prevalent after the Constituent Assembly election of 2008; it survived the sharp polarisation between parties from May 2009 to early 2011 that threatened to derail the peace framework; and it also survived the abrupt departure of UNMIN. Over the course of the peace process, both sides have reneged on their word, partly due to intra-party complications and partly for political expediency. But as the stalemate protracted, both sides have made a surprising turnaround to find common ground by starting where they left off in 2008. In many ways, smooth progress until the CA election and turbulence thereafter was natural. In the initial days of the peace process, the parties had to deal with the broader contours of the process and had a common enemy in the form of the monarchy. But as the enemy was eliminated and time progressed, agreement on specificities could no longer be deferred. Both <br />
<br />
sides then took to differing interpretations of what those contours meant to appease their own constituencies.<br />
<br />
Once again, parties have reached a broad understanding to expedite the integration process and neither side is deliberately using contentious issues to defer an agreement. The Maoists have shown greater flexibility on some of their demands. Equally, the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML are determined to see this through and have hence have shown flexibility of their own. The biggest catalyst has been the clarity shown by the Maoists on how far they are willing to go to resolve the issues, despite opposition from hardliners within them. In turn, NC leaders have increasingly begun to articulate, in clearer and amenable terms, where their core objections lie and where they are willing to cede ground. This has reduced the trust deficit among both sides. But a more instrumental role in nudging all parties has been played quietly by India. There is a growing sense that India, once again, is taking some ownership of the peace process that it originally facilitated. <br />
<br />
India will have to be given a formal public role and Prime Minister Bhattarai rightly reiterated his official request in New Delhi, as he did in New York. So many other international actors with little contributions in facilitating the initial peace framework are actively contributing in various aspects of the process. It is only appropriate that New Delhi, whose behind the scene role has been instrumental from the get-go, be given a public role. But spreading the ownership of the peace process among other domestic constituents is equally critical in guaranteeing success as Nepal’s key actors embark on the last leg of this long and arduous peace journey. <br />
<br />
Potential spoilers<br />
<br />
There is a constituency in all three major parties that opposes further compromises. In the Maoists, it is quite obvious—the hardliners are more organised and influential than ever before as they vigorously pursue the formation of parallel structures. That gives them an enormous ability to undercut the support for a deal with the Maoists rank and file. Prachanda will have to work overtime on his persuasion skills, but more importantly, giving them an ownership in the decision-making process will go a long way. Only Dev Gurung has been continuously involved in the peace process from this camp. Despite his posturing, Gurung is the only one who understands the complications and the nuances of the peace process. Others have been largely shut out from engagement with other parties. Most of them were in jails in India when the process started, but later <br />
<br />
the party headquarters deliberately gave them no role. That needs to change if Dahal wants to avoid an all out assault from the Baidya camp.<br />
<br />
In the Nepali Congress, there is also a segment that is opposed to giving up on the party’s long-held stance. In fact, some leaders close to the party establishment are in favour of inking a deal and joining the current government. The opposition within Nepali Congress is partly opportunistic—jockeying for the party’s internal power-sharing—and partly fanned by the conservative element within it that has never accepted the 2005/06 peace framework. Sushil Koirala, like Prachanda, will have to reach out to his opponents. <br />
<br />
Support or opposition to further compromises that could lead to a final resolution also depends on how far and <br />
<br />
wide the ownership of the peae process is spread and on calculations of who stands to gain or lose in next elections. The three parties will have to keep up the tempo of current engagement, while addressing each other’s sensitivities.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-72643034273868612722011-10-25T03:48:00.000-07:002011-10-25T05:59:29.811-07:00The lone wolfAPR 02 - The peace process enters a crucial phase, with the extended Constituent Assembly’s term nearing an end. The role of the UCPN (Maoist)—especially the hard line faction—will be instrumental in deciding which way the process will go. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2011/gallery_04_02/mohan-bd_20110402102807.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="450" width="600" src="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2011/gallery_04_02/mohan-bd_20110402102807.jpg" /></a></div><br />
The hard line faction is led by none other than 64-year-old Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran’, mentor to many revolutionaries including party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal himself. It is Kiran who holds the key to whether Maoists will demonstrate further flexibility in the days to come. Vaidya—who is also the party’s Senior Vice Chairman and chief ideologue—takes pride in the “consistency” of his beliefs. Though—in typical Marxist-speak—he admits that too much of anything is dangerous, he has no doubt about his correct diagnosis of Nepal’s problems.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
“I have never been in the minority,” says Vaidya, referring to the two-line struggle that is integral to any communist party.<br />
<br />
“Many have come and gone over the last 50 years of my political career, but my line has always prevailed.”<br />
<br />
Vaidya’s relationship with Dahal is key to understanding the Maoists’ fortunes. The two have had a complex love-hate relationship. Vaidya, cognizant of his limitations, sees Dahal as a vehicle for implementation of his ideologies. Dahal, meanwhile, finds him a useful ally in the battle for leadership against Baburam Bhattarai. At times the two have worked together, and at other instances, they have worked against each other. Though Vaidya has considerable influence within the party rank and file, the chairman and his men control the party and its frontal organisations. Vaidya admits that he doesn’t quite trust the Chairman, yet he says he doesn’t entirely distrust him. “Marxism calls for a healthy dose of scepticism in everything,” he says as if to justify the mistrust between the two as natural.<br />
<br />
Vaidya maintains that his faith in the chairman never deterred even during the insurgency. “I have never had a problem working with or under a younger leader. In fact, I spotted Dahal’s talent very early on and paved the way for his eventual elevation as the party leader,” he says, referring to his 1986 resignation that made room for Dahal as CPN (Mashal)’s general secretary.<br />
<br />
In the past, Vaidya had been full of praise for Dahal. In one interview, he said that no communist leader has been able to reach Dahal’s height because the chairman has unique abilities to “analyse the prevailing situation and accommodate disparate views.” But in recent years, he hasn’t concealed his disillusionment with Dahal’s tactics. If the party leadership goes against the aspirations of the people, Vaidya says, “that will be the end of it.”<br />
<br />
A student of Nepali literature and philosophy, he may not exude much gravitas in public appearances, but in private meetings, he is known to be argumentative and persuasive. Besides other communist heavyweights, Mao’s successes in China and even failures have had a deep impact on him. He sees himself as the party’s conscience, and says that he is the one who is standing between the party’s revisionist ideals and fizzling out of its revolutionary dreams. He has a ready historical reference to back up his argument. “A Constituent Assembly isn’t something new. It was first raised by the Nepali Congress in the 1950s. The Congress leadership went soft, the king took advantage, and that subsequently led to miscarriage of the revolution,” he says, arguing that various previous uprisings such as those in the 1950s, 80s, and the 1990 movements all eventually amounted to nothing as leaders couldn’t stand firm at the height of the movement. “I don’t want people to go through repeated revolutions that shed considerable amount of blood for nothing,” he says. He appears determined to take the current ‘revolution’ to its climax—on the path of socialism.<br />
<br />
Life’s travails have shaped and hardened Vaidya’s ideology over the decades. Born in a poor Brahmin family in Pyuthan, he saw both the pretence of the upper caste and poverty’s hardships firsthand. He had an inherent dislike of the discrimination the caste system meted out those on the ‘lower order.’ While studying in Janata Secondary school in Pyuthan, he became an active member of the Nepal Communist Party in 1964. As the then-royal regime began cracking down on communists, he fled to Dang, where he began teaching Nepali. He began leading the district committee of the party, and his association with communist leaders Mohan Bikram Singh, Nirmal Lama, and Manmohan Adhikari led to the formation of the party’s Central Committee (CC) in 1971. While on a trip to Pokhara as in-charge of the Western region, Vaidya was arrested and sent to Salyan in 1972. After spending nearly 18 months in prison, he was finally released in 1974. While he was still in prison, the party’s Fourth Convention took place and he was elected a CC member.<br />
<br />
But Vaidya broke away in 1984 after differences with Singh became irreconcilable over what he calls Singh’s authoritarian style—one must note the irony as this is the charge Vaidya levels at Dahal today. He formed a new party, Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal). Vaidya became the general secretary of the new party at the Fifth Congress held in Gorakhpur, India. Among the CC members who were elected at the congress were current Maoist leaders like Dahal, Dev Gurung, and C.P. Gajurel.<br />
<br />
In 1986, Mashal reformulated its ideology to include Maoism, and opposed the then-Panchayat elections. To subvert the electoral process, the party launched limited attacks on police posts in Kathmandu and vandalised a statue of king Tribhuvan, which became known as the Sector Incident. Vaidya says he didn’t have any prior information to the acts, and resigned from party leadership taking responsibility for the misadventures. Dahal was named general secretary the same year. As the uprising against the Panchayat regime peaked in 1990, CPN (Mashal) and Masal unified, and in 1991, they merged with the CPN (Fourth Convention) to form the Unity Centre, which would eventually launch the ‘People’s War’. Vaidya was arrested and put in jail in Siliguri during the insurgency while undergoing an eye surgery in 2003. “Our autocratic Panchayati jails were much better than jails in so-called democratic India,” he recounts, perhaps hinting at the reasons behind his hard-line stance against India.<br />
<br />
At the Palungtar plenum last year, both Dahal and Vaidya declared India and its domestic ‘reactionary allies’ as principal contradictions of the “Nepali revolution”. They argued that India was hell-bent on preventing the Maoists from coming to power. In fact, Vaidya went a step further and proposed that the party should immediately start preparing for a revolt against India.<br />
<br />
Of late, Vaidya and Bhattarai seem to have realised the source of Dahal’s power: control over frontal organisations, especially, trade unions which contribute most to the party coffers. This has resulted in a three-way split in some fronts, including the All Nepal Trade Union Federation. The internal schism manifested into clashes between the leaders of all three factions of ANTUF. The party was forced to disband the union, and though the rumours about the party’s imminent split have become vociferous, Vaidya scoffs at the suggestion that he would be the one to endanger it. A leader close to Dahal said a few months ago that Vaidya would split the party if he can secure the support of 5,000-7,000 Maoist combatants, and that Bhattarai would do the same if he can garner the support of 100 Maoist lawmakers. Vaidya dismisses such claims. “I have always been for the unity of the party,” he says, but not before adding that he can’t speak for others.<br />
<br />
An ageing Vaidya sees himself and the party he has nurtured as the vanguard Nepal’s communist movement. As Maoists leaders get versed in the trappings of open politics, he maintains a lonely vigil against the “UML-isation” of the Maoists. Whether Vaidya can find a way to work with his chairman to conclude the peace process amid his fears and prejudices remains to be seen.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-78662582516615979042011-10-25T03:46:00.000-07:002011-10-25T03:46:20.940-07:00In the eye of many stormsIn the eye of many storms<br />
In Politics on November 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm<br />
<br />
NOV 13 – Fifty-five-year-old Gopal Kiraty’s simple appearance belies his fiery character. His health may be frail—his involvement in the Maoist insurgency has taken quite a toll (veins disorder)—but his fighting spirit remains. He lives in a modest rented apartment in Anamnagar with his wife. This is luxury compared to what a lot of his colleagues in villages have, and he is mindful of the gap it has created. “For the sake of the office I occupy, this is a necessary evil,” he says referring to the apartment and little luxury he can indulge in. Kiraty likes to shake things up. “I am not a media savvy person, but if the things I do drag me to the limelight, that is probably a good thing,” he says. All his modesty and Spartan existence stands in contradiction to his headline-grabbing acts. He has been a controversial figure from his ministerial debut. As the first Minister for Federal and Cultural Affairs of a federal republic Nepal, he tried to launch a ‘nationalistic purge’ in one of the holiest sites of the Hindus, the Pashupatinath temple. He drew up a plan to simplify the administrative units of Nepal by proposing to create 800 districts and seven large metropolises. In the latest instalment of his iconoclastic act, he led the team that hurled shoes at the Indian ambassador to Nepal, Rakesh Sood, triggering a diplomatic crisis. He wasn’t always the firebrand ‘nationalist’ that he is today. In 1983, he nearly became a “mercenary” by joining the British Gurkhas. He says his brother-in-law, Hari Narayan Rai, a local school headmaster in Solukhumbu—who was active in local communist circles—inspired him to change his mind by handing him Seema, a drama about the Gurkhas to read. Kiraty eventually gave up the idea of joining the ranks of the Gurkhas and instead gravitated towards left-leaning politics that led him to join the Maoists. He quickly rose through the ranks to become a politburo member, a Constituent Assembly member and then a minister. His colleagues describe him as passionate, someone who is willing to defy the party leadership. “Only the Chairman can reason with him,” says Hari Bhakta Kandel, a UCPN (Maoist) politburo member who has known him since 2000. Party insiders are quick to claim that none of Kiraty’s actions were in line with party policies. He has little formal education, but doesn’t elaborate on why that was so. Party colleagues in typical communist-lingo say he has no “bourgeoisie degree.” But even without a formal education, Kiraty displays a brand of politics he likes to call nationalistic. For example, he sought the removal of Indian Bhattas (priests) from the Pashupati temple as soon as he became a minister. “The presence of Indian priests epitomized our cultural dependence, in order to change that it was necessary to appoint Nepali priest instead,” he says The opportunity seemed to fall in his lap when the five Bhattas submitted their resignation once the new government was formed. Traditionally, Pashupati priests always tender their resignation in a similar fashion, and by tradition, the government of the day turns it down. Kiraty, instead, accepted the resignation. It was, after all, a Eureka moment for him. “As far as I was concerned, I felt quite relieved that the opportunity had presented itself,” he says. Instead, the acceptance of the resignation snowballed into a much bigger issue. It was immediately brought before the Supreme Court. “Contrary to our expectations, the SC didn’t issue a show cause notice; rather, it issued an interim order. If they would have issued a show cause notice, we would have a strong case in our hands,” Kiraty says. The regulations of Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT) requires that the Mul Bhatta (Chief priest) to be a member of PADT management committee. But that contravenes with Nepal’s constitutional provision that requires any individual to be a Nepali citizen to qualify for political appointments, and this fit with Kiraty’s logic that the chief priest has to be a Nepali citizen to fulfil both the provisions of the constitution and PADT. For seven days until the SC order was received, Nepali priests were in charge. “I think that was quite an achievement. The incident has done much to raise national cultural awareness,” he says, reflecting on the issue now. But Kiraty isn’t just known for the Pashupati controversy. His plans for state restructuring were equally eye-raising when one morning he proposed the country be divided into 800 districts and seven large metropolises. Many saw that as a trial balloon by the Maoists to abandon federalism. But Kiraty refutes the allegations. “There is a narrow understanding of federalism in Nepal. All we want to do is further devolve the power of local bodies in a manner that makes state services easily accessible to all citizens alike no matter where they live,” he says. Kiraty explains his idea further. A trip to access state’s services shouldn’t be more than a day’s work, but that’s hardly the case in many remote districts. A return trip to district headquarter of Sankhuwashaba from Kimathanka is at least 14 days, he says. He feels his proposal is the right pill for ensuring good governance at the local level. “The idea is to make administrative units geographically smaller and closer to where people live,” he says. Kiraty is a political leader who has thrived on controversies, yet he believes the issues he has raised have helped his party mainstream many of its agendas. Though he says the attack on the Indian Ambassador wasn’t premeditated and that the locals got carried away, he doesn’t go quite as far as regretting it. “There are voices, including from within our own party, calling for action against those who threw shoes. It will be wrong to take action against the people and I will not lie low if that happens.” Kiraty argues that unless the Indian state treats Nepal as a “respectable sovereign state”, such protests will continue to happen. “No other ambassador to Nepal has been seen as interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs.” His actions seem to be governed by his reading of Marxist dialectic that encourages controversy and rational discussion to resolve disagreements, rather than practical considerations. That makes him unpredictable and a loose canon at times. But with his recent act, Kiraty is back to what he does best: raise his voice on an issue in a way that makes everybody else as uncomfortable as they can get, including his own party.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-57926887429522159662011-10-25T03:43:00.001-07:002011-10-25T03:43:24.381-07:00Through a (narrow) looking glassIndia’s security-centric policies makes even the simplest of bilateral problems intractable.<br />
<br />
On June 29 Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh told 25 print editors that 25 per cent of the Bangladeshi population was anti-Indian—inadvertently triggering a diplomatic crisis in the aftermath. Singh’s comment was meant to be off-the-record, but the whole transcript of the interaction with the editors made it in the public domain after it was published in the PMO website-which was later removed.<br />
<br />
“At least 25 per cent of the population of Bangladesh swear by the Jamiat-ul-Islami [sic] and they are very anti-Indian, and they were in the clutches, many times, of the ISI,” Singh said according to reports.<br />
<br />
If that is the method by which New Delhi makes its calculation about its friends and enemies, most of the South Asian countries surrounding India would qualify as anti-Indians. By that standard more than a third of Nepali population would be anti-India given that they voted for the Maoists.<br />
<br />
The comment from Dr Singh, who is soft-spoken and mild-mannered, came at a time when he is preparing to visit Dhaka. Fortunately Delhi and Dhaka have managed to improve ties considerably since the Awami Leauge government came to power in 2008. But the fact that it was meant to be off-the-record, indicates that the prime minister was aware of the sensitivity and gravity of the “information” he was passing off. Such a comment reflects poorly not only on Indian political leadership’s judgement, but also how its agencies process information strictly in black and white categories.<br />
<br />
The problem lies therein. India’s neighbourhood policy is obsessively security-centric and that regularly makes even the simplest of bilateral problems intractable, taking decades to resolve. Of course, not everything India does in its neighbourhood is purely out of security concern and security is not the entire sum of its bilateral relationships. To be fair, it has supported the growth of democratic and pluralistic society in the region. It spends majority of its foreign assistance in the region-often amounting to millions of dollars. Nepal receives billions of rupees every year in bilateral assistance. But the high-handed approach of India’s bureaucrats makes its neighbours uncomfortable and suspicious about the New Delhi’s larger game plan. Some of these issues are a product of unfavourable perception partly shaped by historical and cultural baggage, but certainly India hasn’t done itself a favour by allowing the perception to perpetuate. It is also extra-sensitive to presence of extra-regional powers, especially China and to some extent US and EU countries in what it considers its sphere of influence Why is New Delhi not assured even when Dhaka has a very India-friendly government at the moment? There are many reasons, but primary among them is that its neighbours do not share New Delhi’s security concerns-making them uncooperative. This leads the security agencies to conclude that a country X or party Y is destructive to their interests—an ‘either you are with us or against us’ argument of sorts.<br />
<br />
Over the years, India has also failed to develop a security doctrine that is shared by even its neighbours-allowing genuine Indian concerns to be perceived unfavourably as meddling.<br />
<br />
Every time the Indians forward a proposal or make demands relating to security, its neighbours get suspicious about its intent. Often, the suspicion manifests itself into strong security dilemma forcing them even to reach out to “extra-regional powers” like China or the US to balance Indian overtures. There cannot be a purely unilateral security approach without the regional ownership of its partners. And no security doctrine is going to succeed on its own. It needs to be integrated in a larger development and economic vision for the region.<br />
<br />
New Delhi will have to revamp its public diplomacy in the region-projecting its values and vision for the region, not its fears and insecurities-and coordinating the works of its different agencies-giving it a degree of coherence.<br />
<br />
Public resentment is not permanent, and it can be changed with proper set of policies. Take for example, the opinion about America in the Muslim world during the Bush era. After President Barrack Obama assumed the leadership of America, he consciously reached out to the Muslims. In two short years, the public across Arab countries are calling for American help in democratising their country. What George Bush failed with American military might and money, Obama succeed with his quiet diplomacy and sustained public engagement. New Delhi’s public statement on the importance it attaches to its neighbours has not been matched by its action. No Indian prime minister has visited Kathmandu since 1996 on an official visit.<br />
<br />
“It appears that there is neither an interest in the neighbourhood nor time for the political class in India to deal with its neighbours, except when it comes to Pakistan,” wrote Smruti S. Pattanaik in his journal article, “India’s Neighbourhood Policy: Perceptions from Bangladesh,” published earlier this year.<br />
<br />
To many, its policies on Nepali or Bangladeshi imports, for example, give away the paradox that India is-a mismatch between its global-power ambition and small-power mindset.<br />
<br />
“A resourceful and capable India, therefore, has appeared to the smaller neighbours as a petty trader of economic goods and advantages. India has not been able to earn political goodwill through its economic diplomacy despite the fact that it is the most important economic partner of some of its neighbours and has provided huge assistance and support to them,” SD Muni, an eminent Nepal expert in India, wrote in an article published in 2009.<br />
<br />
Lack of coherent and integrated security and development policy makes waste of India’s leverage in the neighbourhood and the resources it pours. Without bringing more coherence to its bilateral dealings, India will forever struggle to make sense of its neighbourhood-making paranoid pronouncements. In turn its neighbours will be left to wonder about New Delhi’s words and deeds-leaving the door ajar for more “extra-regional” players-not less.<br />
India’s security-centric policies makes even the simplest of bilateral problems intractable, taking decades to resolve<br />
<br />
Of course, the onus also lies on its neighbours to understand New Delhi better, but as the regional power house with global ambition, India’s responsibilities are greater.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-65574978862417755032011-10-25T03:42:00.000-07:002011-10-25T03:42:28.721-07:00Silent revolutionGreat things are happening in rural Nepal unknown to the media fixated on politics.<br />
<br />
A cursory look across many towns and villages across eastern Nepal offers a promise of social and economic transformation. Sleepy bazaars have become bustling towns, villages on the periphery are fast becoming a sort of suburbs—thanks to improved road connectivity, expanding internal markets, rising commodity and land prices, and above all, a rise in the purchasing power of average Nepalis with increased flow of remittance. Of course, the trend isn’t limited to eastern Nepal; but given the presence of better infrastructure and basic services, the region is better poised to make a leap.<br />
<br />
A recent report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), The Rise of Asia’s Middle Class, has quantified the size of Nepal’s middle class at 23 percent of the population (or 6.1 million people). Middle class is defined as having a daily earning of between US$ 2-20. Though the income categorisation appears somewhat faulty, there is no denying that Nepal’s middle class is rising. The rise has been contributed by more than one member contributing to the family income. Even for farmers, traditionally the poorest segment of the population, farming is not the only source of income generation anymore. Remittance has played a key part in slashing the poverty rate. Its contribution to the GDP is over 23 percent.<br />
<br />
With a steady cash flow from many income sources, today an average village cooperative boasts over Rs 1 million in deposits—an amount that can easily be used for cooperative businesses. A high unemployment rate is also sowing the seeds of entrepreneurism<br />
<br />
among youth. Gulf returnees are bringing skills, and most importantly, the work ethic and discipline to toughen it out, which is required for entrepreneurial success. There needs to be a proper empirical study to ascertain the depth of this silent transformation taking place. But the general discourse is still dictated by Kathmandu-centric politics and the media’s urban-centric coverage.<br />
<br />
Even at the local level, everyone complains about the political situation and the impact of a protracted transition on employment generation and business opportunities. Desperate talk about wanting to go abroad for employment and settlement is not uncommon, yet what is also becoming common is educated youth taking up self-employment or start-ups.<br />
<br />
An acquaintance was a teacher at a higher secondary school in Kavre. He gave up his job and returned to his native Jhapa to take up cattle rearing and supplying milk to local dairies. He says it is harder work, but more money as well. Another individual I know went through various jobs without much success before starting a successful poultry farmer’s cooperative. Today, the farmers themselves run<br />
<br />
some of the meat stalls—removing the middle man who exploited them. Though he still complains about lack of a supporting environment, he isn’t thinking about quitting. In fact, he is thinking of expansion.<br />
<br />
For every success story, there are many busted ideas; yet this process is making Nepalis more adaptive to the changing situation. Reinventing yourself to fit a different career mould is not an easy task. But as career counsellors will tell you, those who do it have a higher chance of staying afloat even during the rough and tumble. Employment in the Gulf countries is also providing much needed international exposure to Nepalis from even the most remote part of the country. Many return home with some cash after a few years inspired to set up their own start-ups.<br />
<br />
Though high migration from villages to urban centres and even abroad is still the norm, reverse migration is also taking place as road connectivity has pushed up land prices even in the hinterlands. Subsequently, many entrepreneurs who had left their villages are suddenly seeing more business opportunities in small towns and villages than big cities. There is tremendous room for growth for both small businesses and services even in the current environment. Of course, not all is well.<br />
<br />
Prospects for large-scale industrial revolution remain hobbled by rising costs of production and transportation, trigger-happy unions and acute power shortages, among many other problems. Even by a regional comparison, we are not doing as well as we should be. Bangladesh on average is doing better than us despite the many problems it faces. But that doesn’t take away the fact that even during the insurgency period, the Nepali economy achieved a steady growth and continues to do so. Much of the social and economic changes are taking place despite the government.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Kathmandu-centric politics continues to hijack public discourse even though the pace of social and economic change in the towns and villages provides a real basis to underpin a true revolution. But with a new-found focus on infrastructure development in Kathmandu, the tone for economic development is being set right, though belatedly. New highways are in the pipeline, connecting remote parts of the country.<br />
<br />
The budgetary allocation for infrastructure development this year stands at Rs 37.19 billion for roads, drinking water projects and housing programmes. Of this amount, Rs 27 billion, including Rs 2.51 billion for maintenance, was allocated for roads and bridges; while Rs 4.83 billion went to drinking water and Rs 3.2 billion for housing programmes.<br />
<br />
Of these, the Mid-Hill Lokmarga connecting Chiyabhanjyang in Panchthar district<br />
<br />
in the Eastern Region with Jhulaghat in Baitadi in the Western Region is close to completion. The 1,770 km long highway links at least 23 hilly districts across 12 zones. The road passes through Panchthar, Dhankuta, Bhojpur, Khotang, Okhaldhunga, Udaypur, Sindhuli, Kavre, Bhaktapur, Kathmandu, Dhading, Chitwan, Tanahu, Kaski, Parbat, Baglung, Rukum, Surkhet, Jajarkot, Dailekh, Achham, Doti, Dadheldhura and Baitadi districts. The proposed 7.5-m wide road will connect the eastern part of the country with the west, thus stimulating growth and providing market access to agro products.<br />
<br />
The degree of change may vary from region to region and district to district, but the form of change is similar across Nepal’s 4,000 villages and adjacent small and big towns. If the preoccupation in Kathmandu can be diverted from self-defeating politics, the situation is ripe in Nepal for a major transformation.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-27040481813239909262010-11-08T06:45:00.001-08:002010-11-08T06:46:49.001-08:00Beating around the bush<p>John Narayan Parajuli</p> <p><a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/11/04/oped/beating-around-the-bush/324602/" target="_blank">Last Monday</a>, CPN-UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal hurled a broadside at Nepali Congress’ prime ministerial contender Ram Chandra Poudel—that should have resonance across the political spectrum. “Repeated defeat in the PM polls reduces his [Poudel’s] qualification [for the top job],” Khanal told reporters emerging from the CA hall after the failed 15th round of election. Few minutes later Poudel ventured with a ready retort: “How much has his qualification increased?” </p> <p>In last three years no politicians have been able to burnish their credibility, except perhaps late Girija Prasad Koirala and Baburam Bhattarai. Khanal certainly can’t claim the moral high ground now. His spirit for consensus may be admirable, but he has done very little to translate his idea into reality. Khanal is as guilty as Poudel and Dahal for the erosion in the public faith from the political system. </p> <p>The hair-splitting over whether Poudel’s withdrawal or an overarching agreement should come first is equivalent to the chicken-and-egg conundrum. There is probably no right way of deciding it. But in any case, Dahal and Khanal, if they are serious about consensus, should be able to assure that they (especially Dahal) mean what they say.</p> <p>The Maoist leaders have a serious credibility issue, as far as Nepali Congress is concerned.</p> <p>They feel that the former rebels have reneged on many written and unwritten agreements. While both sides are calling for a new set of agreement, their understanding of why is it necessary varies. Congress and others want a new agreement to implement the past agreements. The Maoists feel that at least some of the past agreements have outlived their utility. They also argue that the solution to the political stalemate lies in Delhi. There is fundamental difference in the perception among them as to where the crux of the problem lies: Delhi or the Maoist dubiousness. Though each agrees that if the other side is flexible, solution isn’t far away. </p> <p>For Congressites, and those who share their worldview, the problem lies in the undependable nature of the Maoists. They find it hard to take Maoist commitment at face value. They complain that Pushpa Kamal Dahal tells them what they want to hear, but never goes as far as implementing them. In short, Dahal doesn’t make his word count. There is a fatalistic acceptance among the Congressites that India’s ‘influence’ is inescapable, and they find Dahal’s effort to neutralise it via Beijing unrealistic, and even dangerous.</p> <p>To a certain extent they are right. But it doesn’t at all help the image of Nepali Congress, as a party that espouses liberal democracy to adopt a ‘take it or leave it’ absolutist approach. As the largest party and one half of the peace process, the Maoists should do their fair share. But there has to be a middle ground, where both the Congress and the Maoists feel comfortable. Dogged insistence on past agreements without the flexibility or imagination to achieve the same ends will only stall the process further. Onus also lies on the new NC leadership to take a proactive approach in addressing Maoist concerns. There is no right formula for integration, and it is right that there has to be solution to issue of armed combatants before the Constitution is promulgated. But parties should also be willing to come up with a framework where the Maoists can detach themselves from the combatants (without a total surrender) before a constitution is drafted. That is where an honest broker can play a role.</p> <p>The Maoists also have to get better at voicing their concerns and reservations more clearly. By simply committing to complete the integration and rehabilitation within four months (of which only two and a half remain) either to regain power, or under UN pressure, or both, without actually intending to do it, will only raise more questions about their words and deeds. The Maoists clearly do not want to give up their combatants before they can be assured of their ‘desired’ type of constitution. One way of ensuring a win-win formula is to have a neutral third-party oversee the combatants until the day of constitution promulgation, more or less in UNMIN’s mould, but with a clear enforcement mandate to hand them over to government control on day of constitution promulgation. </p> <p>With less than seven months to go for the extended deadline of the CA, no politician wants to think about the prospect of another extension. They rightly fear that they would overreach any claims of legitimacy—inviting unintended consequences should they go for second round of extension. </p> <p>A renewed sense of urgency in resolving the outstanding disputes in the constitution drafting is palpable, perhaps triggered by the hanging Damocles sword. But that by itself may not sufficiently built momentum for integration. There are legitimate concerns on both sides that are preventing a progress on the issue. They can only be resolved through clear and sustained communication among parties. Rather than beating around bush through the media, or taking detours through foreign capitals, they should sit down and talk—and talk really long and hard.</p> johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-52855855435898805022010-04-30T17:13:00.000-07:002010-04-30T17:18:10.536-07:00Change in the air<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2010/gallery_04_30/change_20100430083724.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 450px;" src="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2010/gallery_04_30/change_20100430083724.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Introdcution of television debate has ended the dreariness of the British elections </span><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">John Narayan Parajuli</span><br />Following the first television debate on April 15 between the leaders of the top three parties in British politics, the campaigning for elections to be held on May 6 have certainly come to life. The appearance of Nick Clegg, the leader of the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats, is creating new excitement in electioneering. Overnight, Clegg became media’s darling. Many have begun to draw parallels with Obama’s campaign. Previously shunned by the media as a straggler, Clegg’s party has shown a meteoric rise in the polls following the two debates — now standing in the second position ahead of Labour.<br /><br />Prime Minister Gordon Brown had tried to woo him during the first debate with copious amount of “I agree with Nick” or “Nick agrees with me” refrain — which had backfired — rather personally for Brown. Clegg has now suggested Brown’s head as a precondition for a Lib-Lab pact in the event of a hung parliament with Labour in the lead.<br /><br />Lib Dems are emboldened by the prospect of a kingmakers’ role. Most polls have shown the possibility of a hung parliament. On three previous occasions Britain had a hung parliament, the last one in 1974, there was a mid-term election within a year. Though the big parties are dreading the prospect, the Lib Dems are relishing it.<br /><br />Defining moment<br /><br />This is a defining moment in the British politics — against the backdrop of financial crisis that threatens to unravel the welfare state, burgeoning public deficit that has put UK in the ranks of Greece, Spain and Ireland, and MPs expenses scandal that tarnished the image of every politician. The gap between what the British government raises in taxes and its spending stood at £163.4 billion for the last financial year. The Conservatives favour a radical reduction in public expenses to reduce the deficit, but they have refused to support Labour’s proposal to raise the national insurance contribution calling it a “tax on jobs.” Then there is the issue of politicians’ own finances. A number of MPs from all parties have wrongfully claimed expenses for a whole host of items.<br /><br />The MPs expense scandal has brought the parliament into disrepute. Many fear a lower turnout this year given the high level of cynicism among the British public. All these have made the job of politicians harder. David Cameroon, the leader of the Conservative party, has failed to exploit the anti-incumbency factor so far. Though polls have shown that the Tories would emerge as the largest party, but the ground could very well shift by May 6 as number of swing voters continue to swell.<br /><br />Brown faces even tougher challenge. He has seen already three ‘coup’ attempts to dethrone him from the top job from within his party — since he took over from Blair in 2007. Outside his party, he is blamed largely for letting the financial sector run wild during his stint as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And now with the introduction of American-style television debates, Brown’s fate looks even more precarious. Even Labour strategists admit Brown is not cut out for a television debate. He looks old (and he is), worn out and out of fresh ideas. Sensing his disadvantage, Brown expressed his frustration in no uncertain terms during opening for the second debate. “If it is all about style and PR, count me out. If it is about the big decisions, if it is about delivering a better future for this country — I am your man.”<br /><br />The debate<br /><br />Immigration and economy are the two most debated issues in this election. On economy, Labour and Lib Dems appear to be leading in the polls, but the Conservatives seem to be carrying the public on the immigration. The conservatives have proposed a cap system that will limit the number of immigrants in each category. The Lib Dems, though they oppose a cap system, have equally drastic proposal to check the rising immigration. They want to limit the mobility of the immigrants by tying them down to a particular area. They want to introduce a regional clause to the point-based system. Under the proposal immigrants with a particular region stamped on their visas won’t be able to move to another region of UK and take jobs. The Labour concedes that the immigration system needs to be tightened, but it remains iffy about bringing more drastic measures like two other parties.<br /><br />On the issue of economy, the Lib Dems favour a tax on banks and breaking up of the financial sector to prevent them from taking excessive risk and stopping the recurrence of the ‘too big to fail’ government bailouts. They also want to repeal taxes on low and middle earners, in addition to getting rid of the Trident, the submarine-based nuclear deterrence system. On the other hand, the Conservatives are pushing for a restructuring of the ‘broken’ British society and change the ways public services are delivered. They want to give more ‘power’ to the people in running schools, hospitals and police stations. And there is the issue of electoral reform including changes to the House of Lords. Labour, because of its policies or lack thereof, appears to favour the status quo on most issues.<br /><br />British parliamentary elections are a dull affair by most measures, but advent of television debates have given a crucial opening to Clegg and his party to punch above their weight and present a viable alternative to two major parties. As Jeremy Paxman, the irreverent host of BBC’s flagship current affairs programme Newsnight challenged Nick Clegg during an interview recently, there is little prospect of Lib Dems leading a new government: “Let’s first of all establish which planet you are on, you are not going to sit there, are you, and claim that you could be the next prime minister?,” Paxman told Clegg.<br /><br />The debate is more than just a personality contest. There is a yearning for change in Britain. But the issues are muddled in rhetoric, party labels and political mathematics for public finances that do not add up.<br /><br />There is an echo of Obama’s campaign of hope and change in all three parties’ electioneering, however only Clegg appears to have his leg up at the moment as a relative outsider. Labour can’t be seen as an agent of change after being in power for 13 years, the Conservatives appear rather oxymoronic when ‘change’ is put next to the party name — plus the privileged background of some of its leaders isn’t helping the way they are perceived. That leaves Clegg. But even for him, the prospect of matching Obama’s success or chances of becoming the next prime minister is pretty slim. And unlike Obama, as one commentator put it, ‘Clegg is not the messiah; he’s just a pretty boy.’<br /><br />(Parajuli is doing his Masters in War and Conflict Reporting in Swansea University, Wales)johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-69009166612559993072010-04-09T06:35:00.000-07:002010-04-09T06:38:53.443-07:00UN bodies should stay<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2010/gallery_04_08/UN-bodies_20100408081606.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 450px;" src="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2010/gallery_04_08/UN-bodies_20100408081606.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">UN bodies' untimely exit will make the peace process more susceptible to manipulation and will increase China and India's opaque influence</span><br /> <br />At a time when the crisis of confidence between the parties in the peace process has taken a serious blow, not least due to the demise of Girija Prasad Koirala and by the intentional ratcheting up the conflict on many fronts, the term of two UN bodies is coming to an end. The mandates of the UN’s political mission, UNMIN, and the UN’s human rights agency, OHCHR, expire on May 15 and June 9 respectively. Whatever the argument against them may be, the argument for their continuing presence is compelling for one simple reason: if nothing else, they provide a framework for a veneer of trust and confidence for both sides (the Maoists and the state) to operate. Despite the Maoists’ rhetoric and even threats to return to violence, they know that they cannot do so without massive provocation. Even on the side of the state, the army is equally beholden to its commitment, however reluctant it may seem to fulfil its end of the bargain. The presence of UNMIN, symbolic as it may be, is a guarantee against incidents like the Doromba massacre from ever recurring. At least, that is the idea.<br /><br />Both sides have plenty to dislike about UNMIN and OHCHR, primarily because they perform a thankless job and are not doing either party’s bidding. So when UNMIN stuck to the letter and spirit of the Agreement on Monitoring and Management of Arms and Armies (AMMAA) and refused to divulge details about combatants (something that was in the Maoists’ favour by default), the government and its media operatives began a smear campaign. Now the government is even trying to terminate their mandate that is up for renewal<br /><br /> Nitpicky neighbours<br /><br />There is more to the government’s reluctance than just the disenchantment of the ruling coalition. Nepal’s two giant neighbours are railing against it. China fears both UN bodies will make a foray into its underbelly, the Tibetan issue. India also has qualms about UNMIN limiting its role, and fears that the intention of OHCHR Nepal office to ‘oversee’ South Asia will bring in unnecessary meddling into its own rights issues — causing embarrassment on the international stage — especially its right record will be up for Universal Periodic Review in 2012. Both neighbours who claim to look out for Nepal’s best interest seem willing to push Nepal up against the wall when their own perceived interests are at stake. If India wants to play a role commensurate with its influence in Nepal’s peace process, why is it then shying away from declaring it formally? Why hasn’t New Delhi even appointed a special envoy? Why has it been left to unaccountable intelligence operatives and bureaucrats?<br /><br /> New Delhi needs to come clean on what it wants. It is unbecoming for a big democratic power like India to continue to conduct its affairs in stealth and secrecy in the neighbourhood. What makes Nepalis suspicious of India is the clandestine nature with which it exercises its influence in Nepal. This is not to disparage the importance of India to Nepal: It has been an ardent supporter of our democratic aspirations and millions of Nepalis eke out a living from jobs throughout India. But its good deeds are overshadowed by its reliance on shadowy intelligence figures and clumsy and piecemeal handling of crisis in Nepal. That’s where they differ from the Chinese.<br /><br />If India wants to play a role in Nepal in proportion to its influence and new found global position, it needs to shed the colonial hangover of its bureaucracy and exercise its influence at the level of its political leadership. It should also have the courage to wield its influence formally and transparently. That’s a decision India has to make.<br /><br />But Nepal government’s reluctance to extend the stay of UNMIN and OHCHR is self-defeating and myopic. If the government can’t resist neighbourly pressure now on issues that are important for the country, it will have to forever cave into that kind of hounding. It will set a precedent that future governments will find hard to overcome. It is vital that both UNMIN and OHCHR stay until the peace process is completed and a semblance of normalcy returns. The idea that UNMIN should pack its bags the day the issue of army integration is resolved is rash and inconsiderate of the contingencies that are a normal part of any peace process. The idea that the peace process would somehow lend itself to a speedy conclusion is too optimistic to be true. The progress so far is indicative that assumptions about quick resolutions are unrealistic. As for the fate of OHCHR, lobbying from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has partly played out against its extension. Office bearers in the NHRC are getting unnecessarily territorial. All the efforts the NHRC has made so far suggests that it is a work-in-progress, at best.<br /><br />Smear campaign?<br /><br />A section of UML-leaning intelligentsia has been trying to mitigate blame of the government by misdirecting it on UN bodies (the shortcomings of the UN agencies is topic for another discussion). First the diarrheal epidemic in Jajarkot was blamed on bad rice delivered by the WFP; the NHRC and INSEC’s grudge against OHCHR has been building up for quite some time; and now the gun has been trained on UNMIN for its ‘pro-Maoist bias.’ It hardly seems to be a coincidence that these allegations are coming mostly from those affiliated to UML in some way. It also seems rather convenient that it all started with the formation of the Madhav Nepal-led government.<br /><br />Like Afghan President Hamid Karzai blaming the UN and the European Commission for orchestrating the electoral fraud in last August’s presidential elections in Afghanistan, these allegations in Nepal also have a familiar ring to them — they are survival tricks of a desperate government propped up by the self-serving political elite. One can only hope that the situation won’t deteriorate further. The only deterrene that stands between the current situation and full scale escalation of conflict is the presence UN bodies and the international community. It is also the only deterrence that stands in the way of more opaque and hence unaccountable involvement of the neighbours. Those who point to the UN’s failure elsewhere as an argument for UNMIN’s early exit would do well to remember that it is ultimately up to the political leadership in Nepal and that the UN’s presence in itself is no guarantee of success. The least it does is assure that the trust gap between the parties would not lead to renewal of large scale violence.<br /><br />But it is also the responsibility of the international community not to be discouraged by partisan quarreling or sucked into it — and to make sure that the UN’s political presence continues uninterrupted in Nepal as long as the peace process isn’t complete.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-19830025392202366052010-03-07T03:26:00.000-08:002010-03-07T03:33:10.747-08:00Building blocks of civilisation<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/tkp/news/2010/gallery_03_05/stonehenge_20100306081158.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px; height: 450px;" src="http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/tkp/news/2010/gallery_03_05/stonehenge_20100306081158.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/03/05/Features/Building-blocks-of-civilisation/5854/">The Kathmandu Post on Saturday<a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/03/05/Features/Building-blocks-of-civilisation/5854/"></a></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.kushbudha.com/">Photo: Buddha</a> K.</span><br />MAR 05 -<br />As a world heritage site and a major cultural jewel of the U.K., Stonehenge is place of extraordinary importance for historical, mystical and aesthetic reasons. It is a thing of beauty and a thread that ties us with the past, however distant it may seem. At least 800,000 visitors come to see the site every year. Located near the intersection of the two highways in the grassy fields of Wiltshire County in the Salisbury plains of England, it consists of a circular ditch surrounding an inner circle of stones. There are plans to reroute the intruding highway to restore the ambience surrounding the monument in the run-up to the preparations for the 2012 London Olympics.<br /><br />Along with the Stonehenge in nearby Averbury and a series of burial mounds, the region appears to be a part of a prehistoric time capsule with secrets waiting to be unlocked. Although the site in Averbury have been pillaged for stone chips for construction, visitors can still enter the circles to share a similar experience with people entering these hallowed ground millenniums ago.<br /><br />UNESCO, the United Nations body responsible for preserving heritage globally (in conjunction with national authorities), describes Stonehenge as “one of the most impressive prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on account of the sheer size of its megaliths, the sophistication of its concentric plan and architectural design...”<br /><br />My first reaction on seeing the site was that of disappointment and even guilt—of having spent a fortune to see a pile of stones. The site isn’t as impressive in reality, as it appears in the pictures. Hyper-reality is perhaps always more mystical and conveys a degree of profoundness than reality does. But what appears to be a betrayal of expectations at first glance soon turns into an overwhelming sense of belonging and continuity. These are not just stones or any stones. The mortals who built them did so without the impressive heavy-lifting technology of the modern era, and whose purpose remains a mystery.<br /><br />There are many theories about the origin and the purpose of the Stonehenge, some of which seem ludicrous. Many offshoots of new age movements have sprung up with supernatural explanations to boot. Though no known religion of that time exists, later religious groups like druids believe that it is a sacred site for both healing and worship.<br /><br />This is where I let my thoughts to wander off in a direction that science and modernity would not easily permit. I wonder if these mere mortals—barely a notch up from the ‘barbarism’ of the Stone Age—were really capable of what stands proud even today, affirming some eternal idea. Could there be more to these relics that remains hidden from our understanding? I wonder if our faith in linear evolution of human civilisation militates against our ability to comprehend what these sites have to tell us about our past.<br /><br /> A colossal irony of our modern times is that we think we know everything there is to know. We are confident of our civilisation, but at the same time increasing insecurity and uncertainty seem to be hallmarks of our age. At least, the ages before us believed in certain truths and had a certain moral compass. What we believe today is clear, and perhaps easier to articulate things the other way round: the list of things we don’t believe in.<br /><br />We think that we are the best that there has ever been in terms of human civilisation—a linear civilisation understanding. Any civilisation before ours was at best primitive who by fluke achieved monuments like pyramids or Tiahuanacu (also called Tiwanaku in Bolivia believed to be about 1,700 years old), so the mainstream thinking goes. There are many other anomalies of the past which mainstream history and archaeology brushes aside as mere flukes. Hence any suggestion of alternative thesis to history as we have been told raises eyebrows.<br /><br />But coming back to Stonehenge, there are five theories that have been proposed. Many archaeologists have concluded that the site is a burial ground and have unearthed evidence in support of their claim, but not everyone agrees that it had only one purpose. Given the enormity of the site and the work that has gone into building it, it is likely that the site served multiple functions. New age groups see the site as a place of healing, while others insist that it was an astronomical observatory. Others see it as a place of worship.<br /><br />The stones are aligned almost precisely with the sunrise on the summer solstice, and many gather for prayer during solstices. But some have gone a step further and have linked the site to extra-terrestrials. There have been many ‘reported cases of UFO sightings.’ As the theory goes, aliens helped build the site. Such theories are bound to arise when the nearest source of the bluestones that the henge consists of is in the Prescelly Mountains in Wales, about 300 km away; and when the largest stone weighs as much as 26 tonnes.<br /><br />Stonehenge has kept a vigil over the earth for over 5,000 years and despite efforts to understand them, their true purpose eludes us. Nonetheless, it continues to inspire different ideas among different people—some of which are as equally fantastic and far-fetched as the monuments themselves.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-37443886721129979502010-02-27T00:54:00.000-08:002010-02-27T00:55:42.809-08:00A pacifist legacy<a href="http://www.kantipuronline.com/2010/02/27/related-news/a-pacifist-legacy/309201/">The Kathmandu Post On Saturday</a><br />Feb 27 - Howard Zinn, a radical historian best known for his book A People’s History of the United States, in which he celebrated the contribution of feminists, workers and coloured people, died on Jan. 28. He was 87. An incorrigible peace-monger and often referred to as a “people’s historian”, he inspired a generation of activists and authors to oppose wars and other military interventions. In his July 2009 column for the Progressive, he wrote, “…We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities.”<br /><br />His opposition to wars was shaped by his personal experience as a bombardier during the Second World War. When the war ended, he put his medals in an envelope, and wrote ‘never again’ on it. Referring to the Second World War, he said in a recent interview with The New York Times: “I would not deny that war had a certain moral core, but that made it easier for Americans to treat all subsequent wars with a kind of glow. Every enemy becomes Hitler.”<br /><br />After the war, he worked odd jobs, and entered New York University on GI Bill and received his bachelor’s from there. GI Bill was a government scheme that provided education and training to returning World War II veterans. Later he received his Master’s degree from Columbia University.<br /><br />He was a polarising figure in a country where chauvinism, the idea of American exceptionalism, and songs of benign hegemony continues to be sung to this day. He chose to shine light on the atrocities of the past, and tried to unravel the tidying up of history books. Even in the left-liberal circle, despite admiring his candidness, some took a skeptical view of his version of history.<br /><br />I had corresponded with him over email in September 2004 while reviewing one of his books for the Nation Weekly, a short-lived newsweekly. In a typical journalistic illusion of being a resourceful individual, I shot an email to him after I found his address through Google; I was rather surprised by how accessible he turned out to be. I had not expected to hear back from him; I just wanted to feel better that I at least tried. He was against elitism and practised what he preached.<br /><br />I asked him what was the message he was trying to get across in his book On War (it is published in South Asia as Rule by Force)? In response, Zinn said that his “book is intended to show by historical example, personal experience and logical argument that war is not morally acceptable or practically effective as a solution for whatever problems we face in the world.”<br /><br />The title of his lucid, engaging autobiography—You Can’t Stay Neutral on a Moving Train—sums up the position he took. Zinn’s views are always powerfully expressed and often sharply at odds with conventional wisdom. He once said that his own experience crystallised his opposition to all wars. “After my own experience in that war, I moved away from my own rather orthodox view that there are just and unjust wars, to a universal rejection of war as a solution to any human problem.”<br /><br />Equally unorthodox is his rejection of the common view of the historian as an impartial observer. He once remarked, “Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable.” His writings are powerful partly because they are partisan. He contends that American history is an account of how an air of nobility was accorded to “ugly realities” by sympathetic chroniclers. He gives many examples of how even profound believers in democratic ideals have trampled on others’ rights in the name of “nationalism and expansionism” since the period immediately after the American independence.<br /><br />Noam Chomsky said of his old friend Zinn: “Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.”<br /><br />Writing on U.S. foreign policy, Zinn said: “In the United States today, the Declaration of Independence hangs on schoolroom walls, but foreign policy follows Machiavelli.” He further claimed that a nation’s relative liberalism at home often serves to distract domestic attention away from the ruthlessness abroad.<br /><br />His criticism of the American government may strike many as hyperbolic. In his essay On Libya, he argued that if the Libyan leader Khadafi was one face of terrorism, the other was President Ronald Reagan during his presidency. “Does a Western democracy have a better right to kill innocent people than a Middle Eastern dictatorship?” In one of his essays Of Fish and Fishermen, Zinn offers a powerful metaphor about the need to reverse the perspective to see the horror of war: He refers to an eerie movie clip in which the fisherman gets hooked instead of the fish and makes a desperate bid for escape. For the first time the fisherman gets to see himself from the standpoint of the fish. The image of the fisherman is used to explain why there was a Japanese pacifist movement following the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<br /><br />He was involved in the civil rights movement, but Vietnam soon became the focus of his opposition. In his essay, A Speech for LBJ (President Lyndon Johnson) he suggested that the then-president tell the nation: “No one in the world needs to be told how powerful we are. We can stay in Vietnam as long as we like. We can reduce the whole country to ashes. We are powerful enough to do this. But we are not cruel enough to do this. I as your president am not willing to engage in a war without end that would destroy the youth of this nation and the people of Vietnam.”<br /><br />Zinn would find the equivalence between Vietnam and Iraq obvious. “All wars,” he said, “present agonizing moral questions,” and every war has two faces. If one face of the war in Iraq is promoting democracy and emancipating Iraqis from the ruthless chains of Saddam’s tyranny, the other face is unending violence and mounting human casualties.<br /><br />Writing for the Nation, the American newspaper, right before he died, he said he was struggling to find a “highlight” of Obama’s presidency. Speaking at a Boston University lecture series named after him, where he was a professor emeritus of political science, he criticised Obama for not delivering on his rhetoric. “I believe he is dominated by the same forces that have determined American foreign policy since World War II—the military-industrial complex,” Zinn said. “He showed his subservience to the militarists as soon as he appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and Robert Gates as secretary of defense. By surrounding himself with hawks, he has made it inevitable that he would pursue an aggressive military posture,” he told his audience.<br /><br />Zinn’s insistence that there is no such thing as a “just or righteous war” is a challenge to the world to confront issues of justice, not without a struggle, but without war. And perhaps that anti-violence, anti-war conscience is his legacy.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-37924108862310429742010-02-27T00:52:00.000-08:002010-02-27T00:54:18.033-08:00All those years ago<a href="http://www.kantipuronline.com/2010/02/24/related-news/all-those-years-ago/309010/">The Kathmandu Post</a><br />Feb 24 - In January 2008, I was in Narsingh VDC in Sunsari district, a predominantly Madhesi area, on a reporting assignment. I was forced into an argument with a group of locals about the mistreatment of Madhesis by the state. As the discussion progressed, a teacher raised a point about my job that forced me to think. She said that the fact that a Pahade had come to report from Madhes was evidence in itself of the continuing domination of Madhesis by others. Was I guilty?<br /><br />That encounter shook me up a bit; but the incident also revealed the level of animosity between the two communities and its misdirection. I managed to convince them that I as an individual could not account for their suffering though I condemn any mistreatment, and that only the state could answer their charges; and that as a journalist, I was doing something to get their views across. Though legitimate, their grievances and anger were clearly misaimed.<br /><br />Does the fact that the ruling elite had been dominated by Pahades/Chhetris/ Brahmins — which nevertheless also included the elite from other communities including Madhesis — in the last 30 years justify painting all Pahades with the same brush? Of course, any sensible person will disapprove of it. But like any other society passing through a phase of half-boiled revolution and transformation, a sense of historical right and wrong is among the preoccupations of certain sections in Nepal. And in times of crisis, expediency, not factualness, drives these considerations. Like all re-readings of history, one can’t escape from the inherent flaws associated with the process for it takes place entirely to justify or condemn the larger political process.<br /><br />Prithvi Narayan Shah and his conquests have been a subject of much debate in the last few years. Many have condemned him and his acts, while others still see him as one of the few visionaries modern Nepal ever had. It is not surprising that Shah’s inadequacies are glossed over in the history books. All history is embellished or distorted, and no historical figure can withstand critical scrutiny for that matter.<br /><br />Friedrich Nietzsche, writing in his essay “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life”, said that an excess of history was harmful, and that it prevents a man, nation or culture from acting “unhistorically” — meaning without the past in the mind. Such an acute sense of history shackles a nation and does not make it free. He identifies three types of history: monumental, antiquarian and critical.<br /><br />The monumental approach is preferred by the powerful and men of actions who see no peers in contemporary society and instead look back to the past for comfort and guidance. Even the past suffers at the hands of monumental historians. Sections of the past are wilfully forgotten or ignored, whereas a few selective facts and individuals “rise out like islands”. The antiquarian approach reveres and strives to preserve the past; it looks more at the past and its glory than towards the future. The critical approach judges and condemns the injustice and the cruelty of the past, but also upholds what is right. It is not a sweeping condemnation.<br /><br />Nietzsche argued that each of these approaches may be appropriate depending on the “soil and climate”. But he cautioned that excess indulgence or lack of clarity of purpose was always dangerous, “A critic without the need for the criticism, the antiquarian without the piety for the past, or the man who recognises the greatness of the past but himself cannot accomplish any greatness.”<br /><br />It is easy to make sweeping statements (good or bad) about the past; it is still easier to condemn and crucify historical figures, but that doesn’t undo the past, nor does it make it right. We cannot force our modern sensibilities on the past. It is one thing to use history for a context and completely another to attempt to rewrite it. I think it is tempting to disown the past entirely and rewrite it according to the mood of the time. But how does that make us any different from the historians of the past who wrote the history to suit the winners of the time? A critical reading of history is desirable as long as it is not motivated by vengeance. A wholesale rejection of our “monumental” history suffers from the same folly as wholesale acceptance.<br /><br />People who indulge too much in the past without the need are merely trying to find an excuse for their present failures. These are not ordinary people who have to slog day in and day out for mere sustenance, but rather demagogues, moral and ethnic entrepreneurs who lack solutions and instead create problems. Many of our “revolutionaries” who tried to strip the country of its past in a zeal of corrective vengeance by demolishing many statues around the country should hear this piece of admonishment from the original republicans and revolutionaries in the modern sense.<br /><br />During the French Revolution, a tide of popular iconoclasm had swept the country that led to the destruction of works of art that were associated with the monarchy. In his address to the revolution’s foot soldiers and vandals, Abbe Gregoire, a prominent member of the revolution’s Committee of Public Instruction, made his case clear in a rhetorical question: “Because the pyramids of Egypt had been built by tyranny and for tyranny, ought these monuments of antiquity be demolished?”<br /><br />Should we let the tyranny of Nepal’s past make its present equally tyrannical? Or should we learn from the past’s tyranny to not repeat it? Whether we choose to use history in the right vein or abuse it for short-term political expediency will determine how the present is judged by the future, and more importantly whether we remain shackled to the past or move forward into the future. Prof. Mahendra Lawoti, in his article (“It ain’t so,” Feb. 19, Page 6) suggested that an apology would begin the “healing process”. But I wonder who it should come from.<br /><br />john.parajuli@gmail.comjohnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-14212381052715156112010-02-15T01:06:00.000-08:002010-02-15T01:08:50.278-08:00Himalayan howlerThe climate debate has exposed the entangled link between press, politics and science<br /><a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/02/14/Oped/Himalayan-howler/308340/">The Kathmandu Post</a><br />John Narayan Parajuli<br />FEB 14 -<br />The Nepali cabinet meeting at Everest base camp in December last year may have helped to highlight the effects of climate change in the Himalaya in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, but the revelation of a serious omission in the projection by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has set in motion a debate that is likely to undermine the very basis of climate claim in the region. Facts on the ground notwithstanding, such high profile “crying wolf” about the intensity of the process is likely to weaken even realistic claims about the region. Add to that Indian Environment Minister Jayaram Ramesh’s hard line against melting glaciers in the Himalaya or cutting carbon emissions by India.<br /><br />It is understandable that India, like China, does not want to commit itself to a target that would jeopardise its own growth, but it is myopia of Himalayan proportions not to take into account a cost-benefit analysis of the long-term environmental impact. There is clearly a divide even among the developing countries. Those that are rapidly developing and industrialising do not want to give up their “right” to burn more fossil fuels on their path to prosperity. Those who are downright poor and have no greater prospects for an industrial revolution and are at the worst receiving end of climate change are clamouring for action. But who is listening besides, of course, the lip service and unbinding commitments?<br /><br />A glance at the geopolitics of negotiating international environmental negotiations on climate change at the Copenhagen Summit draws attention to the tricky issues of international political economy — different North-South priorities and responsibilities, as well as different levels of susceptibility to climate change. Poorer countries are much more vulnerable than richer countries; logically they want prosperous countries to cushion the effects for them. But the overriding assumption at the Copenhagen Summit was that science as an international enterprise is a neutral process aloof from political and social underpinnings of the environment it operates within. But the work of Golinski and others indicate that even the very “hardest” strain of science is not free from social relations.<br /><br />Prof. David Demeritt of King’s College London, in a journal article in 2001 entitled “The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science”, said. “[T]o insist, therefore, that science is also political, in the broadest sense of that word, is not to say that science is only political and thereby collapse entirely the distinction between the two. It is to recognise how problematic this distinction is. The social relations that science involves necessarily influence both the character of scientific understandings upstream and the particular political outcomes that may result from them downstream in legislation or administrative law rulings.”<br /><br />The extent of ideological closure on issues on both sides of the climate change divide (anthropogenic/natural or happening/hoax) in the global North, and between the countries in the North and the South, is now becoming more apparent. The IPCC’s cavalier sourcing of WWF’s erroneously published report on Himalayan glaciers combined with the e-mail scandal from the University of East Anglia has emboldened the critics so much so that the British minister responsible for climate was forced to declare war against the climate change sceptics. It almost sounds like some politicians need climate change to be happening to grind their own axe.<br /><br />Is this unravelling simply a human error or is it more human than researchers would like to admit? What does this tell us about the gung-ho climate change believers (including East Anglia scientists who have shied away from being transparent about the process by which they drew their conclusions) or the gung-ho sceptics? Can we say for sure that their work is entirely apolitical, and that they are not driven by some ideological considerations? For example, the belief that the climate is changing, hence it must be proven by any means. Or it is a left-liberal conspiracy, and that all the facts are cooked. And how does the media fare, where a contest for the hearts and minds of the public is raging?<br /><br />The answer to these questions is not easily forthcoming. But the debate on climate change has highlighted how entangled the relationship is between the press, politics and science; and how different perceptions are formed from the same facts. Different interpretations of scientific facts have either belittled or exaggerated the science behind environmental degradation; both extremes are risky because it foments either complacency or panic among the public and the policy makers. Politicians and interest groups have hijacked the scientific agenda. For better or worse, the scientific claims have now become part of the international political and corporate agenda, and public attention is not necessarily drawn by new scientific findings and urgency based on facts, but rather shaped by political action, industry lobbying or extreme weather patterns.<br /><br />In Germany, where the green industry is booming, the media stands accused of exaggerating the climate change claim. In the U.S., the challenge to scientific claims of global warming due to human activity benefits certain industries. The fossil fuel industry provides substantial financial assistance to its “political allies” and a small number of dissenting scientists to dispute the claims of the larger scientific community. The reliance of politicians and political parties on the financial contributions of the fossil fuel industry in large part (because of their good earnings) to win re-election makes even well-meaning politicians susceptible to the pressure and lure.<br /><br />Politicians provide a powerful voice to those whose profits depend on continued emission of carbon or green subsidies and funding for alternative energy. It becomes a media event when a politician remarks on a “controversial” topic. In addition, dissident scientists in league with the fossil fuel industry, or NGOs and lobbyists spreading the climate change message and their respective public relations machinery provide a drama that a media bound by journalistic norms gives equal space to the two sides and sensationalises it.<br /><br />At a certain level, it seems fair to give equal weight to both parties in a dispute. But the problem is that this competition is not about mundane things like groceries, and presenting science as a purely ideological contest is neither fair nor balanced. But even the alternative of supporting one claim or the other is equally fraught with problems. After all, there seems to be a bit of politics built into all aspects of climate change.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-58925239734508166412010-02-15T01:02:00.000-08:002010-02-15T01:05:07.426-08:00युरोपेली संघका चुनौतीजोननारायण पराजुली<a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/kantipur/news/news-detail.php?news_id=11046"></a><br /><a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/kantipur/news/news-detail.php?news_id=11046"><br />कान्तिपुर</a><br />फाल्गुन १ -<br />गत साल लन्डनको हिथ्रो विमानस्थलको अध्यागमनमा एक अधिकारीले मलाई केही प्रश्न सोध्ने क्रममा मेरो बेलायत बसाइमा लाग्ने खर्चका बारेमा पनि सोधे । यसको जवाफमा मैले यति खर्च लाग्छ भन्दा 'पाउण्ड' मा नभनी 'युरो' मा भन्न<br /><br />पुगेछु । सायद यात्राको थकान वा केही महिनाअघिमात्र नेदरल्यान्ड बसेकाले मेरो जिब्रो चिप्लेको हुनसक्छ । तर ती अधिकारीले त्यसलाई गम्भीरतापूर्वक<br /><br />लिए । उनले भने, 'हामी यहाँ बेलायती पाउन्ड स्टर्लिङ चलाउँछौं र यसमा गर्व पनि गर्छौं ।' मजस्ता तेस्रो देशबाट युरोप प्रवेश गर्ने आगन्तुकले युरोपेली संघ -ईयू) का सदस्य राष्ट्रभरि नै समान नीतिको अपेक्षा गर्नु स्वभाविकै हो । अझ खासगरी नेदरल्यान्ड, जर्मनीजस्ता 'युरोपको मुट' भनिने मुलुकमा केही समय बिताएपछि संघका अन्य राष्ट्रमा पनि त्यस्तै व्यवहारको अपेक्षा हुँदोरहेछ ।<br /><br />भूतपूर्व अमेरिकी विदेशमन्त्री हेनरी किसिन्जरले विभाजित युरोपप्रति व्यङ्ग्य गर्दै युरोपमा रहँदा मैले कोसँग छलफल गर्नु भन्दै प्रश्न उठाएका थिए । किसिन्जरको प्रश्नलाई उक्त संघका विरोधी एवं समर्थक दुवैथरीले आज पनि युरोपको सवालमा प्रयोग गर्ने<br /><br />गर्छन् । गत मंसिर १६ गतेदेखि कार्यान्वयनमा आएको लिस्बन सन्धिले दुईवटा पदको सिर्जना गरेर किसिन्जरले उक्त सवाल उठाएको ३६ वर्षपछि जवाफ दिएको छ । यसैबीच संघको प्रथम राष्ट्रपति र विदेश मन्त्रीको निर्वाचन पनि सम्पन्न भइसकेको छ । तर आलंकारिक कार्यकारी पदको सिर्जना गर्दैमा संघको भावी कार्यदिशाप्रतिको विवाद र संरचनागत कमजोरीको पूर्णरूपमा समाधान हुन्छ भन्ने ग्यारेन्टी छैन ।<br /><br />बेलायतले अहिलेसम्म पनि 'ओप्ट आउट' -कुनै नीतिबाट बाहिरिने व्यवस्था) मार्फत युरो साझा मौदि्रक नीतिजस्ता संघका साझा नीतिबाट आफूलाई टाढा राख्दै आएको छ । त्यसो त डेनमार्क चारवटा 'ओप्ट आउट' मार्फत टाढा बसेको छ । संघका २७ सदस्य राष्ट्रमध्ये त्यस्तै नीति अख्तियार गर्ने सदस्यको सङ्ख्या ६ पुगेको छ । बेलायत तथा अन्य सदस्य राष्ट्रभित्रै पनि 'एकता र समायोजनको हद' र 'सीमा' बारेमा विवाद उठ्दै आएको छ । मूलतः राष्ट्रिय सार्वभौमिकतालाई युरोपेली समायोजनको लागि कुन हदसम्म समर्पण गर्ने भन्ने विवाद हो । तथापि राजनीतिज्ञहरू यस विषयलाई टाढै राख्न चाहन्छन् ।<br /><br />बेलायतका लेबर र कन्जर्भेटिभ दुवै पार्टीले युरोपेली संविधानको बारेमा जनमतसंग्रह गर्ने वाचा गरेका थिए । तर हाल आएर दुवै पार्टीले आफ्नो अडान परिवर्तन गरेका छन् ।<br /><br />युरोपेली संघमा भित्री मनदेखि सहभागी नभएको भन्ने आरोप बेलायतले खेप्दै आएको छ । बेलायत आफूलाई अमेरिका तथा अङ्ग्रेजीभाषी राष्ट्रको समूहबाट टाढा राखेको देख्न चाहँदैन । बेलायती दैनिक 'द गार्जियन' का अनुसार केही महिनाअघि युरोपका लागि पेन्च मन्त्री पियरे लेल्युचेले कन्जर्भेटिभ पार्टीलाई 'युरोपमा बेलायतको स्थानलाई अवमूल्यन गरेको' भन्ने कडा टिप्पणी गरेका थिए । 'कसैले पनि संघसँग खेलबाड नगरोस्, अब इमानदार भएर संघमा बस्ने कि बाहिरिने भन्ने निर्णय गर्नुपर्ने समय आएको छ,' मन्त्री लेल्युचेले भनेका थिए । आगामी मे महिनामा बेलायतमा हुने आमनिर्वाचनपछि कन्जर्भेटिभ पार्टी सत्तामा आउने अनुमान गरिएको छ । उक्त पार्टीले आपनो अनुदार युरोप नीतिका कारण आलोचना खेप्दै आएको छ ।<br /><br />युरोपका थुप्रै समस्याहरू छन्, बढ्दो आप्रवासीको समस्या, उत्पादकत्वमा ह्रास आइरहेको अवस्थामा विद्यमान सामाजिक सुरक्षाको व्यवस्थालाई कायम राख्नु, 'आधुनिकीकरणको जन्मभूमि' को रूपमा आपनो साखलाई बचाइराख्नु आदि । त्यति मात्र होइन, युरोप अब कतातिर जान चाहन्छ भन्ने प्रश्न युरोपको लागि सबैभन्दा ठूलो टाउको दुखाइको विषय बनेको छ । युरोप एउटा विभाजित तथा कमजोर शक्तिको रूपमा रहिरहन चाहन्छ वा एउटा बलियो संघ हुनका लागि युरोपेली समायोजनलाई अझ मजबुत बनाउन चाहन्छ ?<br /><br />जनमत सर्वेक्षणमा तुहिएको संघको संविधान र भर्खरैको लिस्बन सन्धिले केही संकेत दिएको छ । लिस्बन सन्धिभन्दा अघि प्रस्तावित संघको संविधानलाई डच, पेन्च र आइरिस मतदाताले जनमत सर्वेक्षणमा अस्वीकार गरेका थिए । यसरी संघलाई सञ्चालन गर्ने दस्तावेजलाई संविधानको नाम दिँदा जनताको राय लिनुपर्ने धेरै सदस्य राष्ट्रको बाध्यताले र अनुमोदन नहुने जोखिमले गर्दा सन्धिको रूपमा उक्त संविधानलाई ब्युँताइयो । सन्धिका लागि<br /><br />भने सदस्य राष्ट्रले संसदीय अनुमोदन मात्र गरे हुन्छ ।<br /><br />उता युरोपेली संघको एक मुख्य खेलाडी जर्मनी पनि अन्य प्रमुख राष्ट्रजस्तै अन्तरद्वन्द्वमा फसेको छ । जर्मन राजनीतिक सम्भ्रान्त वर्ग बृहत्तर समायोजनको पक्षमा देखिन्छ भने जनमत उक्त विषयमा विभाजित छ । लिस्बन सन्धि अस्वीकृत संविधानकै नयाँ स्वरूप हो र यसले आमजनताको मतको खिल्ली उडाएको छ भन्नेहरूको संख्या बढ्दो छ ।<br /><br />ईयूको सबभन्दा ठूलो आलोचना 'डेमोक्रेटिक डेफिसिट' -प्रजातान्त्रिक घाटा) हो जसको फलस्वरूप ईयूले गर्ने निर्णयमा जनमत प्रतिविम्बित हुँदैन । युरोपेली संघको कार्यपालिका युरोपेली आयोग प्रत्यक्ष निर्वाचित अंग होइन, जसले गर्दा पदमा बसेकाहरू जनताप्रति सोझै उत्तरदायी हुँदैनन् । लिस्बन सन्धिअनुसार युरोपेली संसद् यति बढी शक्तिशाली हुनेछ कि ईयू जस्तो विशाल अन्तरदेशीय संगठनभित्र जति नै टालटुल गरे पनि 'प्रजातान्त्रिक घाटा' कम गर्न असम्भव नै हुनेछ ।<br /><br />राजनीतिक र आर्थिक समायोजनको एउटा उदाहरणीय र अद्वितीय नमुना भए पनि युरोपेली संघ अझै पूर्ण र सर्वगुण सम्पन्न छैन । युरोप महादेशभित्र पनि शंका-उपशंका व्याप्त छन् । सदस्य राष्ट्रको सार्वभौमिकता समाप्त पार्दै एउटा महाशक्ति 'सुपरस्टेट' को उदय हुने कुराप्रति संघमा विश्वास गर्नेहरू पनि सचेत देखिन्छन् ।<br /><br />गत जुनमा कार्लस्रुहेस्थित जर्मनीको संवैधानिक अदालतले लिस्बन सन्धिले गर्दा ब्रसेल्समा बुझाइएको थुप्रै क्षेत्राधिकार अझै जर्मनीमै रहनेछ भनेर फैसला सुनाएको थियो । सो निर्णयमा संलग्न आठ न्यायाधीशले लिस्बन सन्धि अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सहयोगको लागि गरिएको एउटा संयन्त्र मात्र भएको तर्क गरेका थिए । सो अदालतले जर्मन सरकारलाई सो सन्धि यदि संविधानको रूपमा नै स्वीकार गर्ने हो भने जनमतसंग्रहमार्फत् जनताको राय लिनुपर्ने सुझाव पनि दिएको थियो । तर जनमतसंग्रहमा नजानकै लागि लिस्बन सन्धि बनाइएको थियो, किनकि चेक गणराज्य, डेनमार्क, आयरल्यान्ड, पोल्यान्ड, पोर्चुगल, बेलायत तथा अरू राष्ट्रमा सार्वभौमिकताको विषयमा कुनै पनि निर्णय गर्नुअघि जनमतसंग्रहको प्रावधान छ ।<br /><br />बाहिरबाट हेर्दा युरोपेली संघ क्षेत्रीय एकता र समायोजनको एउटा राम्रो उदाहरण देखिए पनि सदस्यहरूको विचलन र संघको भावी कार्यदिशाप्रति बढ्दो असन्तुष्टिले उक्त अन्तरदेशीय संरचनाको स्थिरतामाथि प्रश्न उठ्न थालेको छ । युरोपेली संसद्का लागि भएको गत सालको चुनावमा थुप्रै त्यस्ता सांसद पनि निर्वाचित भए जसले पहिले ईयूको खारेजीको पक्षमा नारा उठाएका थिए । राजनीतिज्ञहरूको नाराकै आधारमा ब्रसेल्सको शक्ति घट्दै जाने कल्पना गर्न सकिन्न । तथापि ती सांसदको जितले युरोपेली जनताको ब्रसेल्सप्रतिको असन्तुष्टि र नैराश्यता भने स्पष्ट रूपमा उजागर गरेको छ ।<br /><br />युरोपेली संघका हर्ताकर्ताले संघका उपलब्धिलाई जनसमक्ष पुर्याउन नसक्नु एउटा ठूलो कमजोरीको रूपमा देखिन्छ । संघको अन्तरदेशीय संरचनाले गर्दा संघलाई ४१ करोड आमजनतासम्म -जो २७ राष्ट्रमा फैलिएका छन्) पुग्न कठिन पार्छ । त्यसमाथि 'प्रजातान्त्रिक घाटा' दुईधारे तरबार हो । राजनीतिज्ञलाई यसले जति फाइदा पुर्याउँछ, त्यति नै घाटा<br /><br />पनि । विश्वव्यापी आर्थिक संकटले ब्रसेल्समाथि समस्या थपेको छ र ईयूका विरोधीलाई थप मौका दिएको छ । केही सदस्य राष्ट्र जस्तै ग्रीस टाट पल्टिने अवस्थामा छन्, जसले गर्दा युरो प्रचलनमा रहेको युरोजोनको विघटनको अड्कलबाजी पनि चलिरहेको छ । ग्रीसलाई उद्धार गरे, आयरल्यान्ड र स्पेनलाई पनि गर्नुपर्ने हुन सक्छ । फलस्वरूप सबै आर्थिक भार जर्मनीको काँधमा आउने देखिन्छ । ईयूसमक्ष अब सङ्घर्ष गरिरहेका सदस्यसँग ऐक्यबद्धता व्यक्त गर्ने वा आर्थिक अनुशासनहीनताको लागि दण्डित गर्ने, दुई मात्र विकल्प छन् । तर जुन विकल्प रोजे पनि ईयूको लागि चुनौती भने कम छैन ।johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-57054013068910777972010-02-14T02:20:00.000-08:002010-02-14T02:27:11.464-08:00Book Review<a href="http://epaper.ekantipur.com/ktpost/showtext.aspx?boxid=13021687&parentid=4874&issuedate=1322010">The Kathmandu Post on Saturday</a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://epaper.ekantipur.com/ktpost/1322010/epaperimages/1322010/1322010-md-hr-7/13021687.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 700px; height: 1924px;" src="http://epaper.ekantipur.com/ktpost/1322010/epaperimages/1322010/1322010-md-hr-7/13021687.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-39836252430237365902010-02-06T01:40:00.000-08:002010-02-06T01:47:11.077-08:00The Voice of the Nation<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ekantipur.com/image.php?image=http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2010/gallery_02_06/Copy-of-media-merger_20100206093828.jpg&height=275&width=350"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 350px; height: 263px;" src="http://www.ekantipur.com/image.php?image=http://www.ekantipur.com/uploads/ekantipur/news/2010/gallery_02_06/Copy-of-media-merger_20100206093828.jpg&height=275&width=350" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/2010/02/06/Features/The-voice-of-the-nation/307838/">The Kathmandu Post on Saturday</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">A combination of private and public media will nurture democracy and ensure pluralistic vibrancy</span><br />FEB 06 -<br />The Nepali state has been besieged by voices demanding transformation from all directions, but little has been said about the need to transform the archaic state-owned broadcasters and the press to make them more socially-responsible. Politicians have paid lip service to the idea from time to time, but they have never seriously considered it when they have had the power to implement change.<br /><br />Interestingly, on Jan. 13, the UCPN (Maoists)’s publicity and publication department reportedly decided to establish ‘pro-public daily newspapers and television channels.’ The tendency among the Maoists to characterise anything they fancy as ‘pro-public’ is nothing new. The fact that they have a coherent and well-coordinated media strategy and they seem to regularly review its effectiveness is even less surprising. But if Maoists are such shrewd media operators (which we think they are), why do they fail to understand that editors and journalists do not sit down and conspire to write in favour of or against a group? Journalists simply respond to issues and developments as they come using tools of the trade they know best. However, the Maoists do have a legitimate claim when they allege the media of not being socially inclusive, or representative.<br /><br />But the answer to their gripe does not lie in launching another Maoist mouthpiece, or another party-funded television channel. The answer lies in a publicly-funded national broadcaster and press. Converting Radio Nepal, Nepal Television, and Gorkhapatra Corporation into an independent institution with a claim to credibility will not only ensure public engagement in the political process, but will also provide an inclusive counter-media narrative to the current media discourse. If the Maoist leadership stops thinking like electioneering politicians for a moment, they have an opportunity here to take an initiative on something whose results will be beneficial to both the state as well as the public—by levelling the playing field.<br /><br />The media plays and will play a crucial role in how the debate on state restructuring will proceed, which issues are conferred a degree of legitimacy, and which are sidelined and ignored. Only an independent national public service broadcaster may be able to be representative enough in a country with so much diversity. Despite good intentions, private or community-run radio broadcasters may not have the inclination or the wherewithal for a thoroughly-inclusive coverage.<br /><br />As a country emerging from serious conflict, Nepal is lucky to have a vibrant private media that has played an important role in nurturing a degree of accountability. But private media has its own limitations. It is mainly urban-centric, and often gets constrained by its own political economy. A public service press and broadcaster can bridge that gap. There is no alternative to a professional market-oriented free press, but trends in Europe and the U.S. have shown that it is not without its weaknesses. The media conglomerates failed to critically report on financial institutions and their shenanigans, and to adequately inform the public of what was to come. Similar conduct in the run up to the Iraq war has brought media performance under scrutiny.<br /><br />As the processes of globalisation intensify, media is also increasingly being driven by the same expansionist logic of capitalism. It is only a matter of time when this tide of expansion strikes our shore. Given the vagaries of global information economy and in the absence of a credible publicly-funded independent national broadcaster, private media alone may not be able to nurture democracy to the fullest.<br /><br />Social responsibility<br /><br />The idea of social responsibility in relation to the media was first introduced by the Hutchins Commission (1947) in the U.S. and has subsequently been used by Siebert and others. They have argued that a responsible press should ‘provide a full, truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning, serving as a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, and be a ‘common carrier of public expression, giving a representative picture of the constituent groups in society,’ while ‘presenting and clarifying the goals and values of the society.’<br /><br />Only a combination of a successful public sector along with private media can set the stage for professional journalism with a socially-responsible component. An important sector such as the media cannot entirely be left to the whims and fancies of the market or the incompetence of the state. In the Netherlands, public broadcasting (PBS) is thriving alongside a competitive commercial broadcasting. It has led to the development of a professional free market-oriented press, with a socially-responsible public system, competing and complementing each other for the greater good.<br /><br />The conversion of state-owned press and broadcasters into an autonomous public system to ensure more dissemination of public interest information in areas where private press or broadcasters have failed is long overdue. Even journalists and editors admit that Nepali private media is urban-centric and ‘parochial’. Many media critics see the proliferation of private media outlets without a commensurate demand from the public as lack of their social responsiveness, which is more the reason for the continuation of state broadcasting as an independent body governed by an independent board that produces content that reflects the demography and geography of the country.<br /><br />Private media has often been criticised for its excessive coverage of politics with little content diversity. Especially, given the diversity of Nepal, only an independent PBS can cater to needs of both the privileged and the marginalised. For example, Netherlands has a proper public broadcasting system that has been fully able to compete with private commercial media and is still able to retain a big market share.� The result of the competition is often surprising, with private media producing content that normally would be a PBS forte, and vice versa.<br /><br />The Dutch PBS is financed through a mixture of license fee, contributions from members, and a small amount from advertisement revenues, whereas the BBC runs on license fees. Perhaps a combination of the Dutch and the British system may work well for Nepal. The state broadcasters already have a strong market presence here, and the government will need to do very little to make it work. As C.K. Lal’s informative article published in the Nepali Times pointed out, the state broadcaster dominates the market in non-news programming. That edge can be turned around into a credible strength with editorial independence.<br /><br />At the end of the day, only a healthy combination of a free market-oriented media and a public system will ensure both the vibrancy of the free market and create instruments of social responsibility and accountability. Clearly, the creation of a public broadcasting service should be central to any vision of an inclusive Nepal.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-44664658520519589682010-01-21T04:18:00.000-08:002010-01-21T04:21:27.174-08:00White LiesOur leaders are at each other’s throats, but peace work is progressing behind the theatrics<br /><br />John Narayan Parajuli, <a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/20/Oped/White-lies/4255/">The Kathmandu Post</a><br /><br />JAN 21 -Girija Prasad Koirala told European ambassadors last week that he did not share the dire assessment of the United Nations about Nepal’s peace prospects. What makes Koirala optimistic and not others? Perhaps the political developments in Nepal in relation to the peace process should not be taken at face value. There is more to them than meets the eye. Despite the bitter feud among the major parties and the propaganda war between the Maoists and those in the centre-right, there is a positive aspect that has been overshadowed by the public displays of acrimony. For example, we seem to have forgotten to attach enough significance to the release of disqualified Maoist combatants that has taken place at a time when relations between the Maoists and other parties are at their lowest ebb. If the strain on the peace process was so grave that it was teetering on the verge of collapse, why is there ongoing cooperation between the two sides? Moreover, parliament has surprisingly resumed without any public agreements being made.<br /><br />Perhaps the answer lies in the approaches adopted by successful peace processes elsewhere. The Good Friday agreement that cemented the road to lasting peace in Northern Ireland should be of particular interest to the situation in Nepal. The peace process is far from complete, and it has been occasionally beset by dissident militants. More recently, even personal tragedies at the helm of affairs in Belfast have deferred the process. Early this month, Peter Robinson, the First Minister of the Northern Ireland executive, had to step aside for several weeks after revelations that his wife, a member of parliament and the local assembly, took monetary gifts inappropriately to help her lover. There are telltale signs that the First Minister knew about it and failed to report it. On Jan. 8, a car bomb believed to have been planted by dissident members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) critically injured a police officer — a reminder that even 12 years after the historic agreement in 1998, remnants of the conflict linger on.<br /><br />But the details of how peace was secured through a complex negotiation process for almost a century-old problem in Belfast makes a fascinating read. There are some salient points that could be of use in Nepal. Of particular value is the approach taken to manage the expectations of the different constituencies that both the republicans and the unionists represented. The British and the Irish governments played an important role both publicly and privately in nudging the parties forward. Progress was made amid rows and public displays of mistrust among the parties in the peace process. The peace process in reality is much longer than the formal agreements. Subsequent agreements took place even after the 1998 agreement as the process moved forward.<br /><br />Paul Dixon, lecturer in politics at the University of Ulster, has identified nine political skills among the individuals and parties involved in Northern Ireland that he believes gave the peace process momentum even during difficult times. Out of the nine, seven seem relevant in understanding the nuances and dynamics of the peace process in Nepal.<br /><br />First, choreography and play-acting: Dixon points out that both the British government and Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, coordinated events such as the ceasefire through a back channel, yet they maintained room for deniability to manage unintended consequences or fallout. Apparently, the British government even advised the Sinn Fein leader how “best to manage public opinion and criticise the British government”. It is hard to tell if there is any ongoing choreography of the road to peace in Nepal, but the umpteen private meetings that have been held between the top leaders, despite the war of words in public, indicate that a certain level of coordination to manage expectations exists.<br /><br />Second, smokescreen: Using “hostile rhetoric to disguise a marginally more accommodating stance”. The top leaders on both sides of the ideological divide tried to co-opt and appease “their hardliners by justifying a moderate move as an act of aggression”, whereas a compromise would be rationalised as “a gambit” to gain moral high ground that the opponent cannot match. Excessive rhetoric was utilised as a distraction to push the agreement forward. In Nepal too, the lack of consistency in public deliberations of both the first and second tier leaderships of all the three major parties and constant revisions of their positions suggest different “front stage and back stage realities”.<br /><br />Third, salami slicing: Dixon argues that the momentum provided by the distraction of a smokescreen would then be used for articulating a more “accommodative line”. This will ensure that hardliners would not interpret it as selling out on ideology. We have seen this tactic being adopted more often by the Maoists. But even within the two non-Maoist parties, the conservative bloc has long accused its top leadership of “surrendering to the Maoists”. Since the fall of the Dahal government, this group has savoured a semblance of victory over the Maoists — securing influential positions in government and the ruling coalition. Recently, in the guise of escalating their agitation, the Maoists without much warning allowed parliament to resume.<br /><br />Fourth, hard cop/soft cop: Politicians from the same party presented “different faces to different audiences” in a bid to win them over. The leaders of all the three parties make use of this theatrics. The label of hardliner or moderate is distinctly clear among the Maoists. But even within the NC and the UML, there are those who prefer reconciliation with the Maoists and others who favour a tougher approach, at least publicly.<br /><br />Fifth, kite flying: This approach allows politicians to test the waters before deciding to take a new course of action or moderate their stance. Leaders would write an op-ed piece or ensure a deliberate leak to the press to gauge the reaction of either the party’s constituency or the wider public. Again, the Maoists appear to be leading in the use of this tactic.<br /><br />Sixth, constructive ambiguity: The key agreements in the peace process were deliberately left vague so that the parties involved could interpret them in their own ways to claim a victory for them. Nepal’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement can be described as being constructively ambiguous — especially the clause dealing with rehabilitation and integration of Maoist combatants.<br /><br />Seventh, necessary fiction: From time to time, outright lies have been told or given sufficient spin to amount to fiction. The purpose of doing this in Northern Ireland was to win over sceptics on both sides. Only time will tell how much fiction we have fallen for in Nepal. Have the politicians deliberately engineered a crisis from time to time to give momentum to the peace process?<br /><br />It is hard to tell. There are many similarities between the process in Northern Ireland and Nepal. It is possible that the political skills employed for securing peace in Belfast has some resonance in Kathmandu. Of course, Northern Ireland had the relative advantage of concerted international support and mediators like Bill Clinton, John Major and Tony Blair. But without the character and commitment of local actors like Gerry Adams, David Trimble, John Hume and others, the process could have failed.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-22472312291235180692009-11-30T02:00:00.000-08:002009-11-30T02:02:33.190-08:00Are we prepared?<a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/2009/11/26/Oped/Are-we-prepared/303444/">The Kathmandu Post</a><br />John Narayan Parajuli<br /> NOV 26 - In less than two weeks, the United Nations Climate Change conference kicks off in Copenhagen, and the signs are already ominous about any breakthrough. A binding treaty with 40 percent reduction in carbon emission (on 1990 levels) by the developed nations and a fund to help the poorest countries mitigate and go green may not be ready in time for the summit. Developing countries like China, India and Brazil are doing more, but the developed countries have got cold feet about financing the poorest countries. And you can’t blame them in these tough economic times when their own coffers are running dry.<br /><br />But as disagreement persists at the global forum, the problems for Nepal are local. The shrinking snow cover on the Himalaya places Nepal on one of the many frontiers of any battle against climate change. As scientists are playing catch-up with the gravity of the problem, anything they say or their models say should be taken as the least worst scenario. Just last week, scientists with the British Antarctic Survey revised the average global rise in temperature forecast to 6 degrees Celsius from previous the 4. “Oops! We were wrong in our estimates” is a common refrain among the scientific community these days, and we will have to expect more of that. Because climate science isn’t an exact one. But we would do well to err more on the side of caution.<br /><br />So how is Nepal, as one of least developed countries, prepared to face the brunt? Is there a serious national policy to tackle and mitigate the effects of climate change? Are the government and non-government agencies working on a coherent plan?<br /><br />Unfortunately, the discourse in most developing countries (including Nepal) on climate change has been focused more on blaming the developed nations, and less on taking initiatives. As a heavily donor-dependent nation, the problems of preparedness are a big issue for Nepal. Associating ourselves with the group of 11 most vulnerable countries (V11) will help to pitch a stronger case for assistance with urgency; but if we don’t help ourselves, there is very little others can do for us. The discussion on climate change is warming up as evidenced by a spike in national media coverage, but our national attitude still is cold towards our own responsibility, even though we want others to do something about it.<br /><br />On Nov. 15, an international scientific team conducted an assessment tour of the 11 potentially dangerous glacial lakes in the Makalu-Barun National Park area. They also visited the rapidly melting Imja glacier and lake (which feeds some of the big rivers in China, Nepal and India); and though there are no details yet on their conclusion, one can only infer that the rate of melting glaciers and glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF) is rapidly increasing. As scientists have forecast a more rapid increase in global temperatures, the number of potentially dangerous glacial lakes will subsequently go up. The Himalayan region has witnessed an average increase of temperature by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius since 1975.<br /><br />In 1995, the danger of Tsho Rolpa Lake bursting downstream was averted with some timely help from the Dutch in painstakingly siphoning out the water. But we weren’t so lucky in the 1980s: Most notable among them was the 1985 Dig Tsho burst that wreaked havoc downstream destroying “houses, farms, bridges and even the Thame micro hydropower plant”. But we still haven’t learnt our lessons.<br /><br />The government needs to invest in its own capacity building to avert GLOF and mitigate other effects, including the ability to rapidly relocate people from harm’s way of some these dangerous glacial lakes in the event of a disaster. Some experts have already predicted a likelihood of glaciers completely disappearing from the Himalaya by as early as 2035. Planning and preparation needs to take into account the worst case scenario in the future. There is no way of accurately predicting the actual implications; but if what is happening now is any indication, climate change will fundamentally alter the way we live.<br /><br />Climate change has been increasingly blamed as a trigger for a lot of natural disasters, and perhaps there is some truth in it. But what is also happening as this process moves forward is that there is very little inclination within our national government to take a proactive role in mitigating the effects on its own. In fact, we look with expectant eyes at the West. The developed countries are expected to fix our problem. Sure, there is a degree of culpability that falls on the rich nations, and they have to carry the bigger share of the burden in slowing the effects of this impending disaster. But Nepali officials would do well to remind themselves that though the problem is of a global nature, the worst effects will fall on us.<br /><br />Poorer countries have to be effective partners on the global stage, and perhaps banding together in V11 will be useful in putting forward a stronger voice; but locally, they have to take their own home-grown initiatives to understand the implications. Presenting a rock from the Himalaya to the president of the United States, or the proposed Himalayan cabinet meeting, or the underwater cabinet meeting in Male may work well as a publicity stunt to get donor and Western attention; but it is a very superficial act, and does not contribute to any local undertaking in dealing with the effects of a warming world. We need to stop collecting evidence for others, while we ourselves seem to live in a state of denial.<br /><br />I hope that we are not just sending a delegation to Copenhagen for the sake of it; and I hope, as a country increasingly under threat from melting snow on the third pole, our delegation has a concrete plan of action to share with the rest of the world. While it is true that we are in this together, it doesn’t mean the developing countries can afford to hold their breath for the developed countries to walk the talk for them. Once the worst nightmares of climate change begin to unfold, each country will be left to fend for itself. Therefore, any country that prepares and invests in local capacity will be better placed to mitigate the challenges. In the crudest terms, only the fittest will survive.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-91342176840398494792009-11-09T09:51:00.000-08:002009-11-09T09:52:51.140-08:00United States of Europe?JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI<br /><a href="http://www.ekantipur.com/news/news-detail.php?news_id=302641">The Kathmandu Post</a><br /><br />NOV 09 - Upon our arrival at the Heathrow Airport recently, an immigration officer asked me some routine questions. He wanted to know how much my stay would cost me; I replied in Euros rather than Pounds. Perhaps fatigue and having lived in Netherlands recently were to be blamed for the slip. The officer frowned and said: Over here, Pound Sterling is the currency, and we are proud that way.<br /><br />Britain has maintained a relative distance from some of the European Union’s (EU) common policy, through opt-outs. But there is a growing debate within UK and other member countries on the extent of integration, although mainstream politicians want to clearly avoid it. The Lisbon treaty which will come into force from Dec. 1, following the ratification by Ireland and Czech Republic has triggered fresh discussions. Both Labour and the Conservative Parties in Britain had promised a referendum on the EU constitution. Labour reneged on their promise sometime ago. But the Conservatives who have been jumpy on the issue in the past were buying time to quietly break the news of their change of heart, until they were forced last week after the Czech president signed off on the Treaty.<br /><br />Now that all ratifications are in on the treaty, Eurocrats may have succeeded in creating a slight distraction, as all eyes are now fixed on the newly created the post of EU President and foreign minister. Tony Blair’s ambitions of becoming the first president of Europe may have been sabotaged. The Conservative Party, which is likely to win the elections, next year, has already opposed Blair’s candidacy.<br /><br />There is more: Britain’s half-hearted presence within the EU has been frustrating for other EU leaders. It seems British leaders can’t imagine themselves away from the Anglo-Saxon bloc, where they are happy to play second fiddle to the Americans. According to the Guardian, last week the French Minister for Europe, Pierre Lellouche came down heavily on the British Conservative party leaders, and described their policy as ‘autistic’ and blamed them for ‘castrating Britain’s position within Europe.’ “Nobody is going to play with the institutions again. It is going to be, take it or leave it and they should be honest and say that.”<br /><br />Conflicting impulses<br /><br />Europe’s problems are manifold: Controlling immigration, maintaining social security amid falling productivity, salvaging some lost glory as the continent where the entire ‘modernisation’ project began. But that’s not all, the core problem that haunts Europe is what it wants to become? Does it want to remain a loose union or push for more integration to become a strong union with federal features? Surely the failed EU Constitution and the current Lisbon Treaty have provided a blueprint, but do the people agree with what the Eurocrats have in mind?<br /><br />Germany, a key driving force for a stronger Union, like other Euro-heartland countries, remains beset by its own conflicting impulses. The political establishment clearly wants more integration, and was instrumental in drafting the Lisbon Treaty after the Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters. Critics allege that the Treaty is a mere repackaging of the rejected Constitution, and they insist that it makes a mockery of the public opinion. The biggest criticism is of the EU is exactly that: the democratic deficit. The European Commission, the executive branch, is not an elected body and its office bearers are not accountable directly to the people. The Lisbon Treaty aims to grant more power to the European Parliament to counter some of the criticism. Critics aren’t happy though. They argue that no amount of patch-work can bridge the fundamental democratic gap within a transnational superstructure like EU.<br /><br />European Union (EU) is surely a model for political and economic integration, although not a perfect one yet, nevertheless, it is one of a kind. But within the continent the ranks of skeptics are swelling, and even some ‘Euro-believers’ fear the rise of a super-state that would swallow sovereignty of the member states and would eventually march on the path of federalism. While in Nepal, the debate is on devolution of power, here in Europe, the debates are evolving around the extent of integration within a supranational instrument.<br /><br />In June, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe ruled that many of the competence handed over to the Brussels under the Lisbon Treaty will remain a sovereign German competence. The 8 judges involved also argued that the Lisbon Treaty is merely an international treaty of cooperation. The ruling effectively asked the government to consult the people through a referendum if it were to accept the treaty as a constitutional document. The very thing the treaty was designed to do: to avoid promised national referendum in Czech Republic, Ireland, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and Britain, and other countries where the national constitution stipulates such a provision before the transfer of sovereignty.<br /><br />The elections for European parliament last year saw in the rise of number of right-wing Member of European Parliament (MEPs), some of whom ran on the platform of working towards abolishing the Union. Of course, it is silly to take a politician’s rhetoric at the face value and seriously believe that Brussels would be powered down; nevertheless their electoral victory is a measure of public’s frustration and resentment with Brussels performance. Right-wing stance may seem ludicrous but it is symptomatic of Europe’s burgeoning problem that could undermine the vision of united Europe.<br /><br />The failure of Eurocrats to communicate the achievements of their project is equally frustrating. The transnational nature of the set-up allows very little direct contact with people. The democratic deficit is clearly a two-edged sword. Lack of it is equally problematic as its presence may be to the politicians. During a visit to Brussels in April this year, a spokesman for the EU Competition Commissioner, and some journalists who had gone native (by virtue of having spent too many years in Brussels), bitterly complained about how the national press treats Brussels: When everything goes fine, it is out of the press radar, but when something goes wrong national politicians rub it on Brussels, and EU gets hammered badly by the press.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-87268428149392136462009-11-01T05:48:00.000-08:002009-11-01T05:50:57.130-08:00ROLLER COASTER RIDEJOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI Sunday November 7, 2004<br />Source: <a href="http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/nation/pdf/Nation_026.pdf">NATION WEEKLY</a> (See page 26, also 36)<br />Bhim Prasad Tamang was not exactly thrilled by the high profile visit of U.S. official Arthur E. Gene Dewey last month to his dilapidated hut in the Beldangi II refugee camp. He's been through it before. In the last 14 years, a number of foreign dignitaries have come to the camp and raised his hopes for early repatriation, and that was that.<br />The story never had a happy ending. <br /><br />"Do you want to go to Bhutan?" Tamang quotes Dewey, the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, as having asked him. "Of course I want to go home," he says. "But what are the conditions?" <br /><br />Like Tamang, more than 100,000 refugees in seven camps in eastern Nepal now feel that their desire to go home may not come to fruition. That they are doomed to a life of a refugee. Over the years, many high-profile comings and goings have raised expectations, but have amounted to nothing. In 2000, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees<br />Sadako Ogata told them, "Bhutan is ready to welcome you back. You all will be going home soon." But her assurance turned out to be hollow, say refugees. After cycles of hope and bitter disappointment their expectations are now tempered with realism.<br /><br />"We are optimistic," says Prem Khanal, a refugee teacher. "But we are also keenly aware of how optimistic we should be about these visits." As Dewey took stock of the miserable conditions in the camps, he told the refugees that he was visiting them to learn what they think is the best solution for them. This is the first high-profile visit since Bhutan's disengagement from the bilateral process on December 22, 2003. The process of repatriating refugees verified by the Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team at the Khudunabari camp was to begin from February 15 this year, but following a scuffle between the refugees and Bhutanese officials, Bhutan pulled out of the process, citing poor security as the reason. After almost a year, the United States seems to be keen to revive the stalled process.<br /><br />"I didn't come just to visit this part of the world," said Dewey to a group of refugees, "but with a serious purpose: to bring a solution." The urgency in U.S. efforts to find a solution comes in part from reports that the Maoists are operating in the refugee camps. The United States wants to resolve the refugee impasse quickly to deny the Maoists another fertile breeding ground. Dewey warned New Delhi and Thimphu that "time is running out." During his discussions in New Delhi he also sought Indian help in "getting Bhutan to agree on steps for repatriating at least some refugees." Dewey is learned to have<br />explicitly conveyed Washington's concern about the growing Maoist influence in the refugee camps and the dangers this could pose for India and Bhutan, just as well as to Nepal.<br /><br />Apart from underscoring the urgency for an immediate solution, his visit has also triggered discussion on other options apart from repatriation; local integration or third-country resettlement are high on the list. "We have to look into all options," Dewey told reporters in Kathmandu. "Sometimes there is not just one solution." There are<br />indications that the United States has given up hope that a complete repatriation will ever take place. "Our hope is that Bhutan at least accepts this segment," Dewey said in Delhi, referring to the 2.5 percent of the refugees in the Khudunabari refugee camp who were<br />classified as "bona fide Bhutanese." Although Nepal is keen on the repatriation process, the refugee community is, at best, divided over the remaining two alternatives—local integration and third-country resettlement. Some fear that agreeing to either of the options, even in principle, could diminish their cause for a dignified repatriation. "It could end our existence as Bhutanese refugees," says a young refugee Dadiram<br />Neupane, "and hence our right to return to Bhutan."<br /><br />But others insist that any solution is better than none at all. "It's fine if they want to give us citizenship here or take us to a different country," says Bhim Prasad Tamang. Refugees like Tamang feel that the two options are, if not adequate, at least a dignified escape from the confinement of camp life. And there are others who want to work towards all three options simultaneously. They say no single option will be practical for all refugees: Not all will be repatriated, if ever Bhutan decides to do so; not all can be locally integrated given their sheer numbers; and not all will be deemed fit by the host country for a third-country resettlement. Most refugees are encouraged that the American representative at least seemed open to all solutions.<br /><br />Dewey's visit to the camps and the three capitals has renewed hopes, as refugee leaders believe that American pressure was instrumental in pushing forward the bilateral process in 2000, when Julia Taft and Karl Inderfurth, both senior State Department officials, convinced both Nepal and Bhutan to agree on a verification process. U.S. President Bill Clinton's letter to the Nepali and Bhutanese prime ministers in late 2000 was credited with getting the process started.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-21885924566085225212009-11-01T05:45:00.000-08:002009-11-01T05:47:31.582-08:00FORGOTTEN SOULSJOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI Sunday October, 17 2004<br />Source: <a href="http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/nation/pdf/Nation_026.pdf">NATION WEEKLY</a><br />Last week brought another reminder to the more than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees, languishing in seven camps in eastern Nepal, that they might not be able to continue to enjoy the UNHCR's humanitarian aid for much longer. United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees Rudd Lubbers reiterated the essence of his message last year to Bhutanese refugees during the 55th annual UNHCR executive committee meeting in Geneva on October 5: By the end of 2005, we will withdraw. The UNHCR maintains<br />that the withdrawal doesn't mean the withdrawal of its protection mandate. "Less encouraging is the situation of the Bhutanese people in camps in Nepal. At ExCom last year I said that we cannot accept that they remain there indefinitely," Lubbers said.<br /><br />Lubbers last year had unveiled the Convention Plus initiative, intended, according to the UNHCR, to find equitable ways of sharing the burden of caring for the refugees. The UNHCR's hands are understandably full. With more than 20 million refugees worldwide and more continuing to pour in from escalating conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, the UNHCR has initiated the plan to minimize its own role to a legal protection level only. Lubbers' plan could bring some relief to overstretched U.N. refugee agency, but it will surely take the relief away from the refugees.<br /><br />The U.N. refugee agency is hoping that bilateral and multilateral donor agencies will chip in to substitute for the UNHCR. So far none of the bilateral donors seems to have committed to work in the Bhutanese refugee camps. Even UNHCR officials in Kathmandu haven't briefed the bigger donors about their plans.<br /><br />Lubbers' reiteration of the message is likely to cause panic among refugees, as most of them were led to believe that UNHCR was just trying to pressure the Nepali and the Bhutanese governments to find a solution quickly. Now there is reason to believe that the UNHCR is serious. "The UNHCR's phase-out program could hinder repatriation,"<br />Ratan Gazmere, a Bhutanese leader accompanying Tek Nath Rijal to Geneva, told reporters before leaving to attend the UNHCR's executive committee meeting from September 28 to October 8. <br /><br />Refugees are worried about what would happen to them after the proposed withdrawal, says a journalist from Damak, Jhapa. "The UNHCR is like our parent. Who would look after us after the withdrawal?" asks Moti Bishwa, an inhabitant of Beldangi Camp II. Refugees are already feeling a sense of insecurity. UNHCR officials have been trying hard to explain that phase-out or withdrawal doesn't mean complete pullout; they are also trying to explain that they won't leave unless a substitute comes in. <br /><br />"The phase down strategy will not have any impact on UNHCR's presence and protection role in Nepal," said Abraham Abraham, the resident representative of UNHCR in Nepal. The idea behind the UNHCR's phase-out plan is to make the refugees self-reliant through development projects and programs. The plan is ambitious and may be too good to be true. Many think that it simply won't work. Refugees aren't willing to believe that any other agency can substitute the UNHCR in terms of expertise. "Is the UNHCR trying to substitute its mandate?" asked SB Subba, former chairman of Bhutanese Refugee RepatriationRepresentative Committee.<br /><br />Any change of hands, some say, will be a failure. Even as the appointed time for completion of the phase down strategy draws closer, the UNHCR has made no visible preparations; there is no word on who's going to step in. Initially it was expected GTZ, JICA and USAID would chip in, but American diplomats in Kathmandu have already rubbished the idea of USAID's direct involvement. Even UNHCR officials in the<br />field don't believe that the 2005 deadline can be met, given the pace of progress. And the Nepali government has criticized the UN refugee agency. <br /><br />In October last year Foreign Minister Bhek Bahadur Thapa even raised the issue with U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan. "I understand that the UNHCR is having a resource crunch," says Thapa.<br />"But to paralyze the refugee committee when two countries are negotiating cannot be appreciated." There are other refugee camps in the world with longer standing than the Bhutanese camps in eastern Nepal, he says. "I see the need to be fairer to the refugee community in Nepal."<br /><br />Despite calls for fairness and continuing support by the government and the refugee community, the Convention Plus initiative is likely to continue. The three-pronged approach—repatriation, local integration and third-country resettlement—if adopted by the UNHCR will cause a huge uproar among the refugee community in Nepal. The UNHCR has said that it won't encourage repatriation to Bhutan unless Bhutan allows it<br />to monitor the process. Bhutan is unlikely to concede to the demand.<br /><br />"The UNHCR's signals are easy enough to understand," says Rakesh Chettri, a Bhutanese refugee leader: "There won't be any repatriation." Without repatriation, the plan to phase down the UNHCR's role to protection level will increase the sense of insecurity caused by fourteen years of stalemate. "The international community has ignored us," says Chettri. That feeling resonates throughout all seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1085587870776175882.post-76188218642287786072009-11-01T04:51:00.000-08:002009-11-01T04:53:47.792-08:00PARITY AT LAST?JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI Saturday January, 29 2005<br />Source: <a href="http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/nation/pdf/Nation_041.pdf">NATION Weekly</a><br /><br />A popular joke out of the Falklands War that was fought in 1982 goes like this: How did the Argentine soldiers know that the Gurkhas had come to fight? Answer: In the morning when they woke up, their heads fell off.<br /><br />Valor on the battlefield is the Gurkha's hallmark, but their perseverance off the battlefield is remarkable. For 14 years, retired Gurkhas have protested unequal pay and pension rules that make them second-class soldiers in the British Army. Their struggle may finally have paid off. The British government has put aside a longstanding<br />policy of revising minor aspects of its policy regarding the Gurkhas; something that retired soldiers, now activists, say was a cynical attempt to avoid major revisions. On Jan. 12, British secretary of state for defence, Geoffrey Hoon, made an announcement in the House of Commons: Britain will conduct a wide-ranging review of the Gurkhas' grievances. <br /><br />Prem Bahadur Bega joined the British Army in 1984 and was given compulsory retirement in 1999 after 15 years of service. A British colleague who was recruited in the same year as Bega was allowed to serve for seven more years before his retirement. The Briton earned several thousand pounds more in a year than Bega and receives far more<br />in pension—625 pounds a month compared to Bega's 91 pounds. Bega's wife and children were allowed to accompany him for only 18 months out of his 15 years of service: The family of his British counterpart accompanied him throughout his service. "This is gross injustice," says Bega. Many other Gurkha veterans agree.<br /><br />The Gurkhas want parity with their British colleagues in pay and pension, and also on the prickly issue of promotion. There seems to be a glass ceiling on Nepalis rising to higher ranks. Only three have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, and only one has<br />commanded a Gurkha battalion. Beyond this, the Gurkhas argue, the terms of service should be equal. Only 25 percent of Gurkhas are entitled to married housing, and the length of time that Gurkha families can stay with soldiers and noncommissioned officers is limited. The grievances of pay, pension, promotion and terms of service form the bulk of the Gurkhas' discrimination case against the British government. For years the British refused hear their pleas. "The British government even didn't bother to respond to our<br />petitions," says Gopal Siwakoti, popularly known as Chintan, a lawyer who acts on behalf of the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organization, the GAESO.<br /><br />But after the Royal Courts of Justice in London cleared the way in May 2002 for the Gurkhas to sue the British Ministry of Defence, the British government found itself on the legal and moral low road. It has now for the first time conceded that fact. On Jan. 12, Defence Secretary Hoon announced that the government would conduct a "wide-ranging review" of the Gurkhas' pay and pensions. Hoon said that he wants to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is beyond reproach both legally and morally. Hoon's concession raises a few obvious questions: Why did the ministry decide to conduct the review now, and will the proposed review end the unequal treatment regime to the satisfaction of all?<br /><br />"An ultimatum from us," says Krishna Rai, vice president of GAESO, "prompted the MoD to make the new announcement." GAESO, which is fighting court-battles against the ministry over its unequal treatment, sent the ministry a legal notice on Nov. 19 asking it to address all their grievances within a month or face court action. The Gurkhas see Hoon's announcement as a major victory. GAESO's legal advisers say that their case was strong and that they had collected new evidence that would have brought them a victory in court. The ministry must have found the new evidence damaging, say observers, <br />because it responded by asking GAESO to wait until January for a major announcement regarding Gurkha pay and pensions.<br /><br />In a written ministerial statement to the House of Commons Hoon said, "As the House will be aware, our policy is to keep the Brigade of Gurkhas' terms and conditions of service under review, to ensure that they are fair and that any difference from the wider Army are reasonable and justifiable."<br /><br />As happy as Gurkha activists are with the British action, they are also taking the new announcement with a pinch of salt. They have demanded that the British government make all aspects of the announcement public. In reply Lieutenant Colonel G.R. Harnby, chief of staff of British Gurkhas Nepal, says: "It will be a comprehensive review. It will look into all aspects [and be] sensitive to the Nepali dimension."<br /><br />A British Embassy statement says that the examination of the terms and conditions of service will be all-embracing and look into the present terms of service for Gurkhas. The review is likely to include their career profiles; length of structures within the Brigade of Gurkhas; pay and pensions; allowances; personal support for soldiers and their families, including pastoral care, education for children, medical provisions and leave arrangements. The Nepali government has already been informed of the review. Hoon told British MPs the review would look at whether differences between the Gurkhas' conditions and those of British soldiers were "absolutely justifiable." But the Gurkhas<br />have warned the Ministry of Defence not to try to justify any disparity. "We want complete equality," says Chintan. "There can be no justification for any kind of discrimination."<br /><br />Is British policy racial discrimination? Britain says it's not, but an increasing number of Britons including the wife of current Prime Minister Tony Blair, Cherie Booth Blair, argue that it is a clear case of racial discrimination and a human rights violation.<br /><br />The argument has merit. Nepalis are treated differently than other foreign nationals serving in the British military. Fijians whom the Ministry of Defence recruits enjoy the same conditions as British troops.<br /><br />Even the British government's Commission for Racial Equality has supported individual cases filed by some Gurkhas. In the case of Hari Thapa, a retired lance corporal, the commission said that the ministry's responsibilities under the Race Relations Act of 1976<br />outweigh the terms of the tripartite agreement (refer to Box Story).<br />Thapa, who lives in Wales, filed a racial discrimination case against the Ministry of Defence in an industrial tribunal after he was given an early discharge from the Army five years ago. During his 15 years in military service, he was paid 43,000 pounds less than his British counterparts.<br /><br />Growing support among British political parties parallels the court support for the Gurkhas. Opposition Liberal Democrat defense spokesman, Paul Keetch, said that the ministry must recognize that it cannot "treat 21st-century soldiers like 19th-century conscripts." Even the British public seems to care about the Gurkhas. A demonstration of more than 400 retired Gurkhas in Liverpool caught the eye of the press, and the Daily Express ran a campaign supporting the Gurkhas. In a poll of 16,000 people conducted by the newspaper, 99 percent supported the Gurkhas' demand. In October, British Prime<br />Minister Tony Blair agreed to grant conditional citizenship to Gurkhas.<br /><br />Gurkhas aren't going to be satisfied with conditions any more. They have called for complete equality with the British soldiers. There is another outstanding issue: more than 10,000 veterans and widows who are without any pension or compensation. In one example, in 1969 some 10,000 Gurkhas were made redundant under a retrenchment scheme. Their British counterparts who were also laid off under the scheme were handsomely compensated; Gurkhas were paid 150 pounds and sent home. In 1986, 111 Gurkhas soldiers on training in Hawaii were disciplined and dismissed en masse for mutinous behavior. Gurkhas said they were sent home without compensation or the right to appeal. When asked if the review would include these two issues, a British official in Nepal says that the review will be forward looking, although he quickly adds that he hopes the reviewers will look into the past and the future before reaching any conclusions.<br /><br />Some Gurkhas are optimistic that the review will get them equal treatment. "Let's hope the Ministry of Defence will end the discrimination," says retired Lance Corporal D B Bomjon, who receives 71 pounds a month, about Rs.9,000, as pension while his British<br />counterparts receive 475 pounds.<br /><br />The money is a big issue, and it is perhaps the reason the British have tried to avoid a full review. Full parity could cost the British government more than 2 billon pounds in total. It may finally be worth the cost to shake-off one of the last bits of the colonial hangover.<br />And if complete parity isn't forthcoming, the Gurkhas say they are ready to prove their mettle in the courtroom, just as they have in the battlefields.johnparajulihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11773300384777660217noreply@blogger.com0