Unite and be professional

It is indeed good news that two prominent associations of Nepalese teachers have finally realised the need to fight together against the anomalies in the country’s education system. Education no doubt suffers many problems today. These problems range from issues relating to teachers’ professional welfare to a host of management and academic aspects. Clearly, teachers are the pillars of the education sector. As such, any problem facing this sector will naturally call for their humble initiative to solve them. The resolution of Nepal Teachers Association (NTA) and Nepal National Teachers Association (NNTA) to ‘fight together’ against anomalies in this sector therefore, deserves praise.

Of course, teachers cannot establish their professional rights through isolated groups. They must fight jointly. But what is intriguingly obvious now is that teachers are less serious about academic issues than they are about their ‘rights’. Plainly speaking, the education sector today is mired in massive politicization. The fact that these associations are affiliated to the two major political outfits — the ruling Nepali Congress and the opposition Communist forces, respectively — indicate that teachers’ bodies are more concerned about the education sector’s political growth than academic progress. If teachers are really serious about the quality of education and the need for concerted efforts, they must first realise that the very existence of two or more organisations is a hindrance to this cause. This only shows that teachers lack faith in each other, and are divided ideologically.

If anything, the resolution of NTA and NNTA makes clear the need for unity among teachers. NNTA vice-president’s statement that political alignment of associations "has not actually been able to render us with the kind of facilities that a teacher should enjoy" also brings out this reality most poignantly. It is high time teachers stood united in their cause and fought for their professional rights and dignity. Nonetheless, for the moment, the two associations’ decision to form a joint committee to "explore the problems and find ways for their solution" is laudable. Even more laudable is their plan to frame and introduce a Teachers’ Code of Conduct which can be expected to improve teachers’ professionalism.

While the need for unity has been perceived well by both associations, what seems to be stirring their mind is whether to go for a merger or flock together under a federation. If teachers really think that they have a professional cause to pursue, then they must not allow their political ideology to reflect on their professional career.

For, only a purely academic approach can solve the academic and professional problems of teachers, and teachers must work towards this end.

Foreign policy and national interest

By C D Bhatta

Diplomacy is one of the oldest professions of statecraft and so is the concept of foreign ministry. The traditional role of the foreign ministry (was) is to keep intact the national image in the international sphere. The changing diplomatic environment and conduct of international relations has become increasingly fragmented and diffused.

Firstly, there are arguments which suggest that fundamental changes in the nature of international and domestic environments with which governments conduct their foreign policies have undermined the significance of issues among bureaucrats. A second and closely related reason is to be found in the impact of globalization and regionalization on the government machinery. Against this backdrop, most countries in the world revitalised their foreign ministries to reinvigorate their foreign policies in 1980s and 1990s.

In the event of this changing scenario, a task force was set up under the auspices of a former diplomat in order to add extra teeth to the ailing ministry to reinvigorate the traditional way of functioning of Shital Niwas denizens. But nothing tangible has been implemented. In other words, there is neither anything to zero in on in these types of plethora of reports nor will Nepalese bureaucracy deffer from the traditional way of functioning. Nepalese missions abroad are in a big mess and the persons working under them really need proper guidelines. They even lack cocktail diplomacy and communication skills - which are vital ingredients for any diplomat.

In terms of conducting of the foreign policy, during the last decade, there has been prime ministerial dominance in the foreign policy because foreign ministry was mostly headed by the prime minister. It is true that personalities are key factors in the case of foreign policy as foreign ministry suggests political relationship, style of leadership and world view. However, the threat from this is that they tend to run their own foreign policy outside the formal diplomatic network. Prime ministerial domination has not resulted on any breakthrough on the icy issues of the country.

The impact of enhanced economic interdependence and state societal interactions together with the erosion of boundaries delimiting policy issues and areas have been viewed as ‘internationalizing’ the domestic bureaucracy whilst changing the role of the foreign ministry as the primary point of interface between domestic and international environment.

One of the central issues which the foreign ministry has to and (will be) confront(ing) is whether the communication function of which it is a part is necessary.

The core concern of any foreign ministry is to safeguard by acts of diplomacy the sovereignty, integrity and territory of the political entity to which it belongs-in short, the national interest-in an asymmetrical and predatory world of nation-states. This statement may well be challenged by those who identify changes in the international system arising out of trends in regionalism, multilateralism and globalism. In addition, rapid advances in communication and information technology (IT) have resulted in a contracted world or a ‘border less world’ thereby suggesting reduced role of foreign ministries and their functionaries. However, these theories cannot be wholly applied in the Nepalese context at present because there are some residual traditional issues that need to be dealt with.

Viewed against these parameters, it can be said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has declined in its role. It is also asked whether it can shoulder more onerous responsibilities of responding to the challenges of rapid change characterised succinctly by former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros Ghali as ‘the acceleration of history’. Regarding the recent effort to project Nepal as a centre of peacekeeping, can Nepalese Foreign Ministry and its diplomats assert themselves in South Asia through high profile diplomacy and develop a global role.

To be sure, a dynamic foreign ministry has not been oblivious either to changes in the international system or the imperatives of its political masters and the domestic political context. But in doing so, it should keep close to its custodial role as upholder of the national interest in the regional and international context.

With such a variety of issues and actors requiring many different levels of expertise, and interacting both internally and externally with so many different elements in human societies, the outstanding function of diplomacy and foreign ministry at this stage of development is co-ordination between the parts of individual governments, between the government itself, between government and international bodies of every kind and between officials and unofficials particularly, academic and commercial experts.

Freed from the responsibilities of being the sole manager of foreign policy and from the exclusivity and occasional paranoia that went with it, foreign ministry which is already playing such a role to some degree, in a world where the ease of communication has made a very public management of external affairs available to political leaders the role of foreign ministry is to explore ways to co-ordinate in the automatic cessation of its traditional role.

Paradoxically, all foreign policy experts and academicians say Nepalese foreign ministry seems to lack exploration of these changing demands. Overall what is the national interest and what are these changing demands ? A simple answer, which, even a layman can understand, is to build up the national image in the international arena and fulfil the minimum expectations of her nationals.

Bravo Acharya !

By Ritesh Shrestha

The three principles of democracy, ie -by the people, for the people and of the people, as history tells us was propounded in ancient Greece. Westerners were quick to follow this ideology. Many Third world countries were involved in this movement. However, it was only Nepal where democratic transition looked somewhat peaceful while other countries suffered severe civil war/ethnic cleansing. People even had to pay bribe for easy death in countries like Rwanda.

However, nothing has been done for development following the restoration of democracy though political leaders had promised a lot of things; they were sure we were deaf. But nowadays, we witness a different problem; the so called casino politics. Everybody's ultimate quest is to get into politics, whatever one’s profession.

It may also be that Dr Baburam Bhattarai (architect by profession) is busy being architect of the civil war using Mao for personal benefit. Well then what about our former finance minister? Surely his boldness deserves an authentic appreciation. But the question is, can he also be praised on moral grounds like Kirti Nidhi Bista and Keshar Bahadur Bista who also resigned? From my point of view, the answer is no.

After all, he is a typical Nepali politician who knows how to play the cards very well. But why didn’t any minister resign during the hijacking incident. Oh, I forgot that the PM had easily agreed that there was lapse of security at TIA.

Acharya's case is different. That is why he showed so much boldness. He is lucky, a successful man, the blue-eyed boy of the World Bank. He is lucky because he became minister immediately after his education; without having to know what it’s like inside a chiso chhidhi (cell). He is not at all a political sufferer devoid of any formal political background.

But where does his promise to uplift the economic standard of the country now lie ? That would be interesting to know after all, all politicians have countless answers for their unproductiveness.

It’s a shame that a minister did step down despite the fact that the welfare of the whole nation was stake at a crucial time when Nepal had finally emerged from political instability. Instead he has become an international hero as Nepal’s credibility in the international arena is jeopardized as the world bank had forecast. Thanks to his wife as a weekly paper had correctly stated mantri pad bhanda swasni piyari (wife being more dear than the post of minister).

The stubborn minister may have been right about his choice of the governor of RBB talking about the adeptness of the two controversial figures but can his stubbornness be credible when the issue even came to the point of affronting the sovereignty of a democratically elected government. He has surely got enough guts to challenge the supremacy of PM, all by himself?

But after all Kishunji is the boss. His decision should be final. Though wrong, we can’t blame him because he also has to put his afno maanchhe. And why should he fear just because Mahesh has Girija as godfather. Well whatever be the case, NC leaders should sink their differences unlike RPP and communists and refrain from nursing their ego to convincingly contradict charges that it
is a party more of leaders than workers.

I am still hopeful that Melamchi flooding the Kathmandu (the battle cry of Bhattarai’s last year's general election) will not last long in limbo. Not if these swindlers stick to their evergreen slogan -"Self before nation!"

Clinton in South Asia

Since the announcement that US President Bill Clinton is to visit India beginning March 20, followed by a one-day sojourn in neighbouring Bangladesh on March 25, South Asian foreign office officials, intellectuals and the media have been debating and/or speculating whether he would also visit General Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistan, if only briefly.

Background: Although there has admittedly been some media comment here on a possible Clinton visit to this country as well such a prospect has never been more than just of academic interest.

For, apart from the hard reality that Nepal doesn’t figure in the US scheme of things either globally or regionally, there is also the unpalatable but undeniable fact that over the past decade or so Nepal’s international standing has been steadily degraded.

Else, why is it that even a fleeting visit of any top-level US State Department official has never taken place? Truth be told, the abysmally low-priority for Nepal is abundantly underlined in the dramatic scaling down of American involvement that has been visible here, particularly since the end of the Cold War.

Returning, however, to Clinton’s forthcoming South Asian excursion, a number of points stand out, including that his trip to India is to be for "approximately five days" — an inordinately long period by the norms of the American presidency.

That gimmick is meant as an emollient for India’s craving for international status — without the US conceding on her strategic foreign/security policy goals and priorities in South Asia!

First, let me refer to Clinton’s soothing statement that he is visiting India "because it is the biggest democracy in the world and I think we haven’t been working with them enough."

Let us also take note of US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s blunt and more elaborate statement while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently:

"I believe that the US has made quite clear that having a relationship with the world’s largest democracy is important. But, obviously, we continue to have very serious concerns about issues of non-proliferation and about the dealings on Kashmir, and hope very much that the Indian government understands and continues and will continue to deal with these issues, because they are essential."

Cold water: Albright’s comments were not only described by the Times of India (February 10, 2000) as "pouring a bucketful of cold water over the modest expectations from President Clinton’s visit to India" but, revealingly, an official of the Prime Minister’s Office in New Delhi was quoted as saying that while there was nothing unexpected about Albright raising the Indian nuclear bogey, "we are surprised by her lumping the nuclear issue with that of Kashmir."

If it is meaningful that much of the initial euphoria on the Clinton visit to India has faded, the extent to which the shine has gone off seems directly related to the increasing perception in the region that the American president will, after all, be stopping over in Pakistan, be it for a much shorter period than his conspicuously extended Indian journey.

Shoring up that perception are some tell-tale clues. First, there is the fact that Washington has still not stated categorically that Pakistan is not on the president’s South Asian travel plans.

Then, there is the interesting disclosure quoting Pakistan’s US Ambassador Meleeha Lodhi as saying Washington and Islamabad were engaged in a dialogue on mutual concerns about terrorism, sanctions and Pakistan’s road map for economic revival and democratization. (TKP, February 3, 2000).

Also, one is informed that at a meeting between Clinton and former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in Washington the former told the latter he would "probably" go to Pakistan.

There is then a Dawn report that Kashmiri militant Maulana Masood Azhar, released by New Delhi last December in the context of the Indian Airlines hijack drama, has been taken into protective custody after he launched a new Kashmiri militant group.

Also noteworthy is a story in The Washington Post reporting that Clinton "backed by the State Department’s South Asian bureau, is eager to find a formula that would allow him to touch down in Islamabad, if only for a few hours" for talks with Musharraf.

It also disclosed that in a letter to a US senator he said that his government will wage an "unequivocal fight" against terrorism and hold local elections by the end of the year. Moreover, the chief executive of Pakistan reportedly promised to cooperate with US efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

Brief visit: While the above pointers clearly suggest the possibility of a Clinton visit, or stop-over, in Pakistan, as much is also indicated if one considers the high price that America would conceivably have to pay if the American president were to avoid Pakistan like the plague.

Clearly, America’s strategic priorities — Kashmir, nuclear non-proliferation, international terrorism, even Osama bin Laden — cannot be fulfilled merely by US-India efforts. On the other hand, deliberate American isolation and humiliation of Pakistan, an ally of long standing, could lead not only to a massive wave of anti-Americanism but also fan Islamic fundamentalism in the region even while throwing back the prospects for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, possibly by decades.

Moreover, as The News of Pakistan has correctly warned, "India might get carried away...and toughen its stand on Kashmir, raising the present level of pugnacity."

The first American presidential visit to Bangladesh is a morale-booster for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina — who has struck a personal rapport with Clinton’s influential wife, Hillary — though it has been opposed by some political groupings.

One way or another, it should therefore be hugely interesting as well as nominally educative to witness how the much ballyhooed South Asian odyssey of President Clinton actually pans out.