Against two off days a week

The government needs to seriously rethink whether to continue the 5-day working week for its employees because it would certainly be in favour of public interest if it reverted to the previous 6-day working week. Government officials claim that the 5-day working week has enabled it to save millions of rupees in electricity, telephone and fuel bills. This achievement notwithstanding, the public perception of the 5-day working week system has been negative. There are very good reasons for this.

Introducing the 5-day system may have saved the government money, but that has not lessened wasteful spending. In fact it has created more money for this purpose. More importantly, the government needs to understand that giving two days off in a week has not at all been productive. It has not brought about any change in the way government offices function. Government employees still arrive late to work and leave early, work is still as slow paced as ever, and the level of efficiency is as low as it was when we had six working days. Obviously, there is no point in further encouraging laziness among civil servants by pampering them and at the same time inconveniencing the public. It is also difficult to understand why the 5-day week system was not applied to areas other than Kathmandu.

There is no disputing that the number of working days is less important than the work culture of a country because the latter should determine the former. In Nepal, after one year, the 5-day working week system has proved itself as mere blind aping of the West. The work culture among Nepali civil servants cannot support this system in the long term. The government must recognise this and focus on improving the delivery mechanism. The first step in this direction will, of course, be to revert to the six-day week. The corrupt, lazy, and those who lack accountability, must be punished. At the same time, performance must be evaluated and those scoring must be rewarded. It is also important for the governments of the day to refrain from politicizing the bureaucracy and spoiling the work environment. It is in these areas that the government must concentrate if it wants to enhance efficiency among government employees. Only when the performance level of government employees goes up should they get the much deserved two off days a week. It is therefore to be hoped that the government will take the sensible course and revert to the old system of one off day a week for government employees.

Vision setting at UN summit

By Mohan Lohani

The UN Millennium Summit is scheduled   to open in New York on September 6 for three days in the presence of more than one hundred Heads of State or Government representing different geographical regions or, nay, all continents. First UN Summit took place in 1960 fifteen years after the establishment of the world organization designed to prevent war, to maintain international peace and security and to promote development, particularly in Third World countries through international cooperation. The Nepalese delegation in 1960 was led by the late Prime Minister BP Koirala. It is a happy coincidence that PM GP Koirala, younger brother of the late prime minister, is likely to lead the country’s delegation to the UN Millennium Summit beginning early next month.

The UN has witnessed dramatic and momentous changes and developments in international relations including global power equation. The world we live in today is no longer the same as it was half a century ago when it was divided, in the aftermath of the second world war, into two powerful military blocs led by the two superpowers- NATO under USA’s leadership and the Warsaw Pact under the control of the former Soviet Union. Superpower rivalry not only dominated debate and deliberations in the UN but also allowed Cold War psychosis to adversely affect interstate relations and international peace and security for more than four decades. During the Cold War era, the Security Council, although all five permanent members enjoyed the right of veto, played in practice into the hands of the superpowers which approved or vetoed the Council’s resolutions or decisions, depending on whether or not their vested interests were at stake on a particular issue under discussion.

With the end of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved followed by the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. All the former republics of USSR which became independent and other newly independent countries were admitted to the UN, thus raising the world body’s membership to 187, more than three times the size of its original membership. The UN, to quote HM King Birendra, is today the only world forum with the widest representation for discussing issues of global concern with the objective of bringing about solutions to them. Each member state, at the time of admission, pledges its allegiance to the UN Charter. Despite the commitment of member states, the Charter has been violated several times in the past and continues to be done so, resulting in regional conflicts and tensions with threats to international peace and security. What is heartening is that the peacekeeping mechanism devised by the UN has enabled it to discharge its Charter responsibilities. In other words, peacekeeping operations initiated and launched by the UN have gone a long way in keeping the peace in several trouble spots of the world and prevented regional conflicts from escalating into a wider conflagration of global proportions. In recent years, the growing number of intra-state conflicts fuelled by ethnic, religious and tribal strife and disputes has challenged and threatened the credibility, sanctity and effectiveness of the UN, in particular its peacekeeping operations. Peace enforcement rather than peacekeeping or peace making has become a major headache for the world body. Not long ago, about 500 UN peacekeepers were abducted and held hostage by rebels in Sierra Leone. Such instances are likely to recur in the absence of strong and effective measures.

Troops contributors like Nepal are worried when reimbursement of dues is delayed. The UN scale of assessments has categorized countries on the basis of each country’s capacity to pay. It is quite ironic that the richest in the UN family are the greatest defaulters. Under the rules of procedure, a member state loses its voting right if it has continuously defaulted in payment of its annual contribution to the regular budget of the United Nations. There is no provision for penalizing defaulters for not meeting the expenses of peacekeeping operations. The Secretary General appeals to such defaulters to clear their dues and help the UN reimburse the outstanding arrears that it owes to troops contributions. There is no comparison between the costs of UN peacekeeping and the costs of the alternative, which is war. Global defence expenditures are estimated to exceed 1 trillion dollars per year with far-reaching implications for global peace and stability. Considering the present magnitude of peacekeeping and the volume of its operations, a Peacekeeping Reserve Fund of $150 million established in 1992 as a cash-flow mechanism under the Secretary General’s authority appears to be an insignificant or negligible amount.

With the dawn of the new century less than a year ago the world has also entered the third millennium with its challenges and opportunities. The United Nations, representing as it does, the hopes and aspirations of mankind, is expected to move with the times and prove its resilience in time of crisis. Nonetheless, its effectiveness, credibility and capacity to cope with challenge and manage crisis situations depend on the extent to which member states agree and decide to further strengthen the organization in terms of increased manpower, resources and well defined authority. While military alliances of the Cold War era no longer exist, the world continues to be divided and torn between haves and have nots, between extremes of affluence and deprivation. While the arms race, despite NPT and CTBT, continues unabated, a vast majority of people in the developing world still remain illiterate, malnourished and do not enjoy minimum facilities for basic health care. It is indeed good to see representatives from the poorest of the poor and the richest member states mingling with one another, sharing the same podium and addressing issues of global concern under the same roof of the United Nations. After intensive deliberations, commitments are made and agreements reached by consensus to reduce income disparities through equitable distribution of the world’s wealth, to combat terrorism and other social crimes, to keep the environment clean and safe, to check the growth rate of population, to promote human rights and to create opportunities for the maximum development of individual personality. All these noble ideals and objectives have also been incorporated in declarations and programmes of action adopted and endorsed by international conferences on wide-ranging issues of human concern, organized from time to time under UN auspices, during the last 50 years. Most of the agreed plans of action have yet to be implemented. There is a credibility gap between commitment and achievement, intention and performance.

It is a widely accepted view that the UN needs restructuring or reform to cope with new challenges and adapt itself to changes taking place fast. For over a decade the agenda for reform in the UN system has been under discussion. No member state has questioned the need for restructuring and expanding the Security Council. Progress on reform has, however, been woefully slow. Opinions are still divided on the number of permanent seats and the geographical distribution of these seats under the proposed expansion of the Council. The right of veto that continues to be exercised by 5 permanent members is also an area of controversy. Many wonder whether the veto system is compatible with the proposal to democratize the UN system. Some justify it for effective and efficient functioning of the organization. Member states must accept the principle of ‘give and take’ to solve the clash of interests and accommodate each other while expediting the process of UN reform.

The goals and objectives of the UN enshrined in its Charter such as the determination of founding members to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to establish conditions for maintaining justice and respect for international law and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom are as valid and relevant today as they were when the Charter was signed in the city of San Francisco in 1945. Much remains to be done to realise these objectives. Since the UN has not met the tragic fate or demise of its predecessor the League of Nations, it can look back on its past record with a sense of pride and satisfaction.

Human civilization is, however, an evolving process; as such, the UN must look forward to a better future for mankind based on respect for the principle of equal rights, social justice and equal opportunities for the highest development of each individual. It will be pertinent to conclude with an observation of former Secretary General Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali: The UN cannot achieve its goals by itself nor can governments accomplish them acting individually or in small groups. What is essential is an informed citizenry. In brief, governments, NGOs, civil society organizations and private citizens must work together to translate into reality the vision of world leaders charting a new role for the United Nations in the decades ahead in the new century.

Foreign policy readings

Recently, this student of foreign policy was provided a photocopy of a page of former Indian foreign secretary J N Dixit’s latest book, Across Borders : 50 Years of India’s Foreign Policy. Reading it set him ruminating over a mixed foreign policy bag.

Sugauli treaty: The portion dealing with Nepal was small but significant (pp 24-241).

"As far as Nepal is concerned, there are still reservations about the Mahakali project. More importantly, during bilateral talks in New Delhi in 1997, Nepalese Foreign Secretary Gwayali stuck to his country’s claim to the Kalapani area, stating that the 1815 Treaty of Sugauli, between British India and Nepal (by which this territory was ceded to India) should be cancelled.

If India concedes to this claim, it would lose Kalapani and its jurisdiction over the Lipulekh pass, the strategically important route to Tibet and Kailash Mansarovar."

In the context of a "review" of the Nepal-India Treaty of 1950 — a much hyped outcome of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s recent India visit — one must ask if HMG’s reported position on cancellation of the Sugauli Treaty still stands.

Article II of the Anglo-Nepal Treaty of 1923 reads: "All previous Treaties, Agreements and Engagements since and including the Treaty of Segowlie of 1815, are hereby confirmed, except so far as they may be altered by the present Treaty."

As famously pointed out in 1995 by Darjeeling’s Subash Ghishing, Gorkha National Liberation Front supremo, Article VIII of the Nepal-India Treaty of 1950 states: "So far as matters dealt with herein are concerned, this Treaty cancels all previous Treaties, agreements and engagements entered into on behalf of India by the British Government and the Government of Nepal."

As per the Sugauli Treaty, "the Rajah of Nepal cedes to the Honourable East India Company in perpetuity...all the territories with the hills eastwards of the River Mitchee" (Article III) and, as per Article VII, he "renounces for himself, his heirs, and successors, all claim to or connexion with the countries lying to the west of the River Kali".

Two foreign policy questions arise: one, whether Nepal’s claim to Kalapani is premised solely on formal cancellation of the Sugauli Treaty, as seemingly suggested by Dixit’s revelation; and two, if abrogation is still HMG’s position, what, then, will the status of Darjeeling be as far as Kathmandu is concerned?

Leaving aside those delicious conundrums for the time being, let’s move on to another savoury disclosure by Dixit — to wit, that the sub-regional cooperation initiative linking Nepal, India, Bangladesh, and Bhutan was, in fact, I K Gujral’s idea — not Nepal’s or Bangladesh’s, as has been persistently claimed.

Whose baby? Dixit refers to the SAARC summit in Male in April 1997 and has this to say: "The second point of multilateral interest was the reactions of three out of seven members to the fledgling project of subregional cooperation among India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal mooted by Gujral."

Indeed, as disclosed to this observer that very year by a former Shital Niwas mandarin handling the India Desk, long before the subregional cooperation initiative was formally and publicly mooted in New Delhi on April 8, 1997, it had been raised by Gujral at a Rajya Sabha committee meeting when he was an MP.

To further buttress the theory that it was none other than Gujral himself who inspired the aforementioned subregional cooperation scheme, one may also refer to his own claim in that regard in an interview to the Frontline weekly, in its April 4, 1997 issue.

Gujral, then India’s foreign minister, has been quoted as stating, inter alia: "Sub-regional cooperation in this region is being coordinated by Nepal. I requested Nepal to do it and Nepal is calling a meeting in the first week of April." For the sake of the record, it may be noted that the said meeting — of foreign secretaries — took place in Kathmandu on April 2, 1997.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori’s impending half-day visit has sent Shital Niwas into a tizzy not least since Japan is Nepal’s Numero Uno donor of official development assistance.

More engrossing is whether HMG will commit herself to supporting Japan’s well-advertised candidature for permanent UN Security Council membership, especially as Mori’s fleeting visit is timed not long after Koirala’s passage to India where — most certainly — Nepal’s support for India’s candidature for the same status must have been vigorously sought (even though it is not mentioned in the press statement issued at the end of the Koirala visit.)

Foreign Minister Chakra Prasad Bastola’s ongoing visit to China, in the context of the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Nepal and the People’s Republic of China, is also notable — and not merely because it comes soon after his earlier excursion to India.

No one should imagine the timing means that Nepal has reverted to the policy of political equidistance between her two giant neighbours. Else, why would Koirala, speaking to the press in New Delhi, refer to Nepal and India going "hand-in-hand"?

Which brings us to the current status of Sino-Indian relations.

Though none can deny that some normalisation has occurred since India’s nuclear blasts, it may be educative to recall that China’s support for India’s bid for permanent membership to the UN Security Council did not, as expected, come during the Indian president’s official visit to China in May-June, 2000.

Security concern: In fact, India’s adamant stance on Kalapani, pointing out, among other things, its strategic value to India, hardly suggests a dramatic mellowing of Sino-Indian ties.

As such, one needs not be imbued with powers of clairvoyance to predict that Bastola will be told of China’s continuing security concerns in Nepal, specially vis-a-vis Tibet. After all, the ground-breaking visit of a PLA chief to Nepal came shortly after the 17th Karmapa’s flight to Dharmasala, India — via Nepal.

As India is not the only neighbour to entertain security concerns in Nepal, it would be wise not to forget that ground reality.

- By M R Josse