Pages

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

King's Peace Overture To Maoists: Fake Or Real?


Nepal king appoints team for talks with Maoists Times of India, India Headed by the king's deputy Kirti Nidhi Bista, vice chairman of the council of ministers, the team also includes two new ministers ..... Home Minister Kamal Thapa and Land Reforms and Management Minister Narayan Singh Pun ..... A day after his appointment, Pun said in his maiden press conference that he would personally take an initiative to start peace parleys. .... Pun, a former colonel of the Royal Nepalese Army, had played an important role in 2003 when he single-handedly brought the insurgents to the table for talks. .... Gyanendra had been hoping to receive an invitation to visit New Delhi from Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran...... But after Saran did not convey any such message from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the king formed the talks team as a second line of strategy..... the new talks team was formed not so much to bring peace to violence-torn Nepal but to create misunderstanding between the Maoists and the opposition parties..... With the Maoists having vowed to disrupt the polls and the opposition parties having begun a campaign asking people to abstain from voting, the king could be looking at new strategies.
Nepal king appoints team for talks with Maoists
Hindustan Times, India

These two news items in the Indian media caught my attention. Curiously this has not been covered in the Nepali media. How come? If this is valid news, as I have reason to believe it is, I do take it positively, though with reservations.

If the king is serious about peace, he needs to do two things immediately.
  1. He needs to reciprocate the Maoist ceasefire immediately.
  2. He needs to accept the concept of a constituent assembly.
Just like the Maoists can not pull a Lenin in Nepal, it is not possible for the king to break the newfound Democrat-Maoist alliance. And if he is trying, he is starting with the wrong partner of the alliance. The Maoists are much less likely to respond to any royal overture than the seven parties.

I doubt the Maoists will respond unless the conditions like in Pun's 2003 are recreated. That would be the first step. If the peace talks offers be unconditional, I am sure the Maoists will respond. Why? Because it is their idea to hold a roundtable conference of all three forces. So if they can start with two of them, they will have the option to expand it and invite the third force, the seven party coalition.

I am cautiously optimistic. I commend the king for this move.

Only a day or two before Kamal Thapa made news by suggesting a major happening is in the works. This might be it.

Pun has some credibility on this count. Within the parameters available to him, he did some important work in 2003, though ultimately fruitless. It is possible Pun might have been in touch with the Maoists even before he joined the cabinet a few days ago. His abduction into the cabinet might have been with the express intent to open up a channel with the Maoists.

The two things I have suggested the king do, why would he do that? One, he has no choice. Two, it really is in his best interests. Three, there are no other outlets for the country.

You can not have peace talks if you are still officially at war.

As for constituent assembly, it is a vague, elaborate term, it can have many shapes. Just look at some of the options.
  1. A constituent assembly that guarantees a ceremonial monarchy, the guarantee resting with the Supreme Court even before elections to that assembly are held. The army would be detached from the monarchy.
  2. A constituent assembly where the monarchy is an open question.
  3. A constituent assembly that takes shape only after the monarchy has been abolished. So the assembly does not even debate the issue. The assembly functions within a republican framework.
Those are only three of the options. There are more. And all of them would qualify for a constituent assembly. If I were the king, I would come around to the idea of a constituent assembly, and push for the first option. He might not get it, that is another thing. It would be for the political parties and the Maoists to come around to it. But then, they just might.

The king's second best option would be to shoot for an all party government that also includes all the royalist parties, and then go for an assembly. He might win the vote.

It is my analysis though that the parties and the Maoists will be okay with the first option if they can have the rest.

And there is no clash. The king has time and again said he is not for an absolute monarchy, that this is the 21st century, and so the monarchy has to be for democracy. If he is honest on that, the first option is precisely what he would seek, I would think. He does not lose with the first option. He gets what he wants. And the other two forces also get what they want. Peace is back. Democracy is back. The Maoists disarm. Everyone ends up happy.

That is why the roundtable conference is so important.

On 2/1 he asked for three years maximum, as in if he can return the country to normalcy in less than three years, he would do so. This is his opportunity to take less than three years.

If, on the other hand, he keeps moving towards the February 8 polls like a rhino, I see the possibility of the Maoists perhaps breaking away from the seven parties in trying to violently disrupt the polls. That would be tragic. A whole new scenario would emerge.

A party like the Maoists are can not afford to take too many U turns. They already have taken a major U turn. They should not be asked to take a second one.

Kamal Thapa, by the way, looks like Suresh Oberoi, have you noticed?

Personally I have a lot of faith in Narayan Singh Pun to pull this off. If he failed in 2003, it was because the talks back then were not unconditional. The parameters he was functioning in were flawed. It was not lack of skills on his part that brought the talks down. The king should provide the parameters this time, and Pun should get down to work.

In The News

No truce from govt, says govt spokesperson Kantipur
INSEC urges China, India, US not to supply arms
SC to decide RCCC's fate on Jan 5
Moriarty back; meets Koirala, Nepal
Alliance ready for Naya Baneshwor mass meet
Media ordinance legal cover for unlawful practices: ICJ
Govt returns Radio Sagarmatha equipment
'Political breakthrough a must for lasting peace'
AIN calls for long-term ceasefire
No change in Indian stance: Saran
SC says no to petition against polls

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The King In Dhaka, Tunis


Dhaka

It is a stark reality that our region has been mired in terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking and environmental catastrophes as well as unbridled spread of pestilent diseases like HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. As these problems are transcendental in nature, we have the daunting challenge to address them mutually by enhancing coordination among us.

Poverty remains the most daunting challenge to our collective wisdom. Our past efforts have certainly helped reduce its intensity. Yet, we have to traverse a long way before this social evil is completely eliminated.

Success is a matter not so much of talent or opportunity as of concentration and perseverance, where commitments are matched by actions.

Programmes and activities of regional cooperation must contain poverty reduction elements.

As trade has direct consequences for poverty reduction efforts, we must take adequate measures to ensure that poverty reduction becomes the outcome of a free trade regime.

If he is so concerned about poverty, he should have at least some sympathy for Maoists who are willing to die for their dream of classlessness. He should be able to see at least some common ground. Instead he blatantly dismisses them as "terrorists." I have always been critical of their violence, but I have also made room for them to change for the better. The king has not. His priority has been power for himself, not poverty reduction.

SAFTA should serve as a forerunner of a more ambitious and deeper economic integration to eventually realize the goal of a South Asian Economic Union. We believe that the signing of the four agreements on Promotion and Protection of Investments, Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters, SAARC International Commercial Arbitration Centre and Avoidance of Double Taxation will further strengthen the SAFTA regime with a positive bearing on the growth of intra-regional trade and investment.

It has become imperative that we introduce and carry out parallel processes of economic integration and infrastructure development. Infrastructure development will obviously require huge investments.

Our offer that Nepal serve as a transit point between India and China, the two largest emerging markets in the world, has been born out of our deep conviction that, in an era characterized by heightened competition to capture world markets and capital, increased trade and economic interaction between the two up-and-coming economic zones, facilitated by transportation and communication links, would provide a level playing field for both our neighbours to reap benefits of a promising global economic order.

We are convinced that with our collective efforts and coordinated positions, the process of globalization can be turned into a force of growth and development in South Asia. Globalization in itself is not right or wrong; the impacts it creates on our way of life should be carefully analyzed. We do not want globalization to upset our harmonious social balance and crumble our rich traditions and cultures.

An inclusive global information society must be our goal and we must firmly and collectively reject digital domination that seeks to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

I like these segments of his speech where he talks of matters economic.

Terrorism has emerged as a serious threat to international peace, security, stability and democracy. The growing menace of terrorism, both at home and abroad, concerns us all. Terrorism has metamorphosed our world. My country has been the victim of senseless terrorism for nearly a decade now. The agents of terror are bent on overthrowing a constitutional order and replacing it with a rejected ideology of a one-party communist dictatorship.

This is misleading of him to say this. For one, monarchy as a political ideology is even more archaic than Maoism. On the other hand he knowingly refuses to acknowledge the ideological leap of the Maoists to move from the goal of a communist republic to a democratic republic. These Maoists in Nepal are willing to shift to a multi-party framework. It is the king who is not accepting of that framework.

We would like to emphasize that, as terrorism knows no geographical boundary, terrorism in Nepal is certain to affect the whole of South Asia. Nepal condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, whatsoever and for whatever reasons. We expect a similar attitude on the part of the international community. South Asia must send a clear message that violence cannot be an instrument to further political objectives.

The February First step in Nepal was necessitated by ground realities, mainly the failure of successive governments to contain ever-emboldening terrorists and maintain law and order. It has not come at the cost of democracy, as some tend to project it. We remind the international community of the pre-February First situation in Nepal. Our friends and well-wishers were warning us of the danger of Nepal turning into a failed state.

Some guy by the name of George W. invented the term War On Terror. But the king is teaching Marxism to none other than Karl Marx himself, although knowing what I do know about George W. I would not equate W. with Marx or any thinker in any ideological camp. My point being your experiment has been one in dictatorship, not one in any War On Terror.

The terrorism card will not work. You have been watching too much television. The corruption card will work, but it will work against the palace and the army.

There is no place today in the Kingdom where security personnel cannot go at will.

Is that why Nepal is number one in terms of human rights abuses in the world?

We believe that there cannot be a meaningful exercise in democracy without elections. We have also asked those who have been misguided to renounce violence and to take part in a competitive democratic political process.

That is why we are for elections to a constituent assembly. Musharrafism has no place in Nepal. For that matter, it has no place in Pakistan either.

It is ironical to note that the global war on terrorism is not matched by global action against it. The global war on terrorism has failed to reach every nook and corner of the world, especially in weak and vulnerable countries, as if they do not deserve justice and protection from terrorism. It is this double standard and selective approach that is assuming a dangerous character rather than terrorism itself. We cannot make a distinction between good and bad terrorism; terrorism is terrorism. In our region, the Declaration of the 11th SAARC Summit held in Kathmandu categorically stated that “terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, is a challenge to all states and to all of humanity, and cannot be justified on ideological, political, religious or any other ground”. We agreed that “terrorism violates the fundamental values of the United Nations and the SAARC Charter and constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the Twenty-first century”. Nepal has ratified the SAARC Convention on Suppression of Terrorism and its Additional Protocol with the belief that these instruments provide an effective tool to counter terrorism in the region. We call upon the SAARC member states to forge a strong partnership to eliminate terrorism from the region as well as spearhead a coordinated and earnest action against it.

I consider myself a minor authority on racism. I really like your bringing this up. If the US and Europe speaking for democracy is racism, where does that put India? Are Indians also racists? Where does that put the Nepali diaspora? Is that crowd also racist? I admire your guts to take on the big powers, but your claims are highly misplaced. The struggle for democracy in Nepal is not about those foreign powers. It is about the 27 million people in Nepal.

In order to promote people-to-people contacts on a larger scale, we must think of a visa-free regime in South Asia along with a free trade regime.

Free and frank exchange of views among the leaders in an environment characterized by a greater degree of informality will help further promote trust and understanding.

I wish he had the same attitude about the leaders of the seven party coalition. He does not even recognize their existence.

This Dhaka speech is a little more revealing than the Tunis speech for its political content. And there are parts of the speech that are praiseworthy, greatly so, most of them to do with the regional economy. That might suggest King Gyanendra is a smart individual. But that might as well be a strong case for a republican setup rather than a monarchical one. In a republican electoral fray, smart individuals like him and Baburam Bhattarai get to compete, and let the people decide as to who is more capable to lead.

My Proposed Constitution can also be read as a proposal to reinvent the monarchy itself. On the other hand, if the king continue his intransigence, the document has a clear republican framework. We are not willing to wait forever.

Tunis

Nepal is committed to the Geneva Declarations of Principles. We believe that the Internet, which has become omnipresent in our lives, can be truly beneficial to humankind if a multi-stakeholder participation, which is inclusive and transparent, can be developed. The international community needs to give special attention to the needs of the developing, land-locked and mountainous countries which face problems of promoting the use of ICTs due to high infrastructure costs.

The State's efforts have been further augmented with the establishment of an autonomous High Level Commission for Information Technology to enhance internal and external private investment and to stimulate new economic sectors like e-commerce. It is a matter of satisfaction that this has resulted in an ever-growing mutually beneficial partnership between the government and the private sector in the field of information technology.


The king did not say anything significant in Tunis. He merely offered a bunch of platitudes. There is no overarching policy intiative or technological breakthrough to be discerned here. It is not informative either to the political developments in Nepal, it not being a political speech.

He talks of infrastructure. He needs to understand 12 years of half-baked democracy did more for infrastructure in Nepal than more than 230 years of monarchy. That is not a statement on particular actors within that democracy, but on the ideal of democracy itself. That applies also to information technology.

When the king took over on 2/1, his first instinct was to cut off access to the internet from the country. That person is not a friend of information technology.

The internet is about opening boudaries and minds and societies. It is about interactive exposure. The king shut it off.

On the other hand, I could not imagine this democratic revolution without the internet. It is because of the internet that you can do almost everything except show up in the streets in Kathamandu when you are far away in New York City.

The king with his outdated politics is not helping the spread of the internet in Nepal. He is in the way.

It is only through the internet that a country like Nepal can hope to bridge the gap between itself and the richest countries. The internet is that fundamental.

When Nepal finally comes around to adopting my Proposed Constitution, it will have adopted the first constitution in the world that has the word internet in it. It will be the first information age constitution for any country.

Podcast

December 13, 2005 (15 minutes) My participation at the Nepal Democracy Forum online has made me much more understanding of and patient with the leaders of the seven party coalition in Kathmandu. The group made an important leap from the idea of moral support only to the idea of moral as well as logistical support. Then five specific projects were identified. There are people working on each. But the speed is so slow. Taking two weeks to compose a one page letter is not revolutionary work. Ego, ethnic prejudice, jealousy and primitive group dynamics come into play and slow down efforts.