Ensure women’s rights

Violence against women has increased by almost cent percent in the last one year. This is no doubt a matter of grave concern but little has been done to address this problem. The main reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs are: firstly, the government has introduced no separate laws to contain violence against women and secondly, NGOs have also failed to make any progress despite their years of involvement in matters related to women’s welfare and benefits. Had these NGOs executed their actual task devotedly, such as regular campaigns against domestic violence, women would have suffered less. Now, the ultimate aim of reducing physical abuse of women has been far from satisfactory, due mainly to lack of proper policing social system.

A report from the Department of Crime Investigation, police headquarters, states that it registered more than 677 cases of violence against women in 1999-2000 across the country. Compared to the previous year, violence has increased by 62.74 percent from the previous year which registered 374 cases only. It is indeed remarkable that this month alone, there have been 27 cases of anti-women violence. The registered cases of violence against women include all forms of abuse - mental, physical, trafficking and caste based discrimination.

The facts on crime against women provide enough evidence to indicate the absence or effective laws geared towards protection of women’s rights. It is sad to say that the government has not yet realized the need for such laws and disassociated itself from the responsibility of ensuring gender equality. As a result, the social status of women has been low and gender discrimination high, thus leaving a wide gap between men and women. The traditional patriarchy prevalent in Nepalese society has also reinforced oppression and abuse against women.

The government has not only rectified the Beijing declaration for the protection of women’s rights but has also pledged to implement it effectively. The Beijing declaration specifically states that the signatory state has to introduce a separate law related to women. However, this has not happened in the country. Besides, the Constitution of 1990 also guarantees women full democratic rights at par with men. There are over hundred NGOs engaged in protecting the rights of women in the country. Yet, their efforts are yet to bear fruit. Women continue to suffer gross abuse and discrimination.

The government can no longer afford to ignore the increasing violence against women. It has to introduce new legislation, that is, formulate new laws and strengthen the impartiality of the courts that normally tend to show a bias towards men. Such legislation is bound to lessen the plight of Nepalese women provided the implementation of the laws is strict.

US foreign policy : Then and now

By Pritam S Rana

The end of World War II saw the United States of America (USA) firmly established as a superpower. For the next three decades, the US was engaged in a Cold War with the then Soviet Union. The dissolution of the Soviet Union saw the US as the only superpower. Now, in the post Cold War world, US foreign policy is supposedly based on the idea of promoting world peace and cooperation.

The US was forced to break its isolationist foreign policy during World War II, when Japan, a German ally attacked it on Dec 7, 1941. This provocation paved the way for the US entry into the Allied side to which Mr Churchill, the British PM, reacted by saying that "the war had been won" in favour of the Allies. Such was Churchill’s understanding of the industrial might of the US, that from being the weakest Western military power, it became a leading Allied power. The US engaged both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan simultaneously and defeated both. The victory in Europe was a joint effort with other major Allied powers, Britain and the Soviet Union. There, the US contribution in the defeat of Nazi Germany was crucial as much of the Allied air power, which demolished the German military-industrial complex, belonged to the United States. The bulk of troops in the Western Front of the European Theatre were also from the US. In the Pacific Theatre, the US almost single handedly defeated the Imperial Japanese forces.

The Allied victory left only the US as the possessor of nuclear weapons and thus the ultimate superpower. However, peace was far from come. The then Soviet Union continued to occupy eastern Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and many other central European states. The Soviet Union installed obscure communist parties in power in all the states it had liberated and its occupation forces presented a potential threat to Western Europe.

The Soviet Union and its allies also refused the Marshall Aid, a US offered economic assistance programme for post-war recovery of European States. Thus, the subsequent chill led to the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a collective security arrangement including USA, to prevent potential Soviet aggression. The Soviet Union responded with a similar setup involving countries in its sphere. By this time, the US had positioned itself as the champion of the free world, the leader of democracies; it also had come up with a doctrine to support and uphold all its friends and allies as it perceived the threat of communist aggression around the world.

The first bitter test of US resolve to defend the free world came, not in Europe, but in obscure Korea. The US rushed forces to defend the southern Korean peninsula from the ambitions of Kim Il Sung, the northern communist Korean leader who sought to forcibly unify Korea in 1950. This conflict dragged on as communist China came in aid of the hapless North Koreans. The three-year conflict saw the death of more than 50,000 US soldiers but it proved that US would never let the communist advance go unchecked. Further example of US commitment to defend its allies was seen in Vietnam. In the 1960s, the US sent troops to defend South Vietnam from aggressive designs of communist led North Vietnam. However, this effort failed to bear fruit due to lack of a clear strategic aim of the US administration of the time. The result was the US defeat; South Vietnam fell despite the courage and tactical success of US troops. In the Middle East, US pursued the policy of strategic partnership with Israel, which cost Washington the favour of Arab states, who control much of oil imported by the US and its Western allies. Nevertheless, Washington had a big role to play in the peace established between Israel and its strongest Arab adversary, Egypt. As the price for peace, US leaders urged Israel to give up the Sinai peninsula, occupied by Israel since 1967. A similar formula involving the return of Golan Heights to Syria would possibly resolve differences between Israel and Syria.

The US also has been committed to the solution of the Palestinian problem since quite some time. Several rounds of peace talks in the 1990s between the two sides culminated in the establishment of Palestinian authority in the West Bank and Gaza, but sadly, this progress has now been marred by clashes between the two sides. Only the US, with its weight of credibility and leverage has the power to convince the two sides to reconcile.

In August 1990, the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, a small oil-rich neighbour. The then US President Bush stood firm in his opposition to this aggression and in his commitment to defend other neighbouring Arab states from further Iraqi aggression. A coalition of US led nations deployed forces in Saudi Arabia, first to defend it and then forcibly recover Kuwait. Such a decision to commit US forces was a matter of great risk to US policymakers given their failure in Vietnam. But, the world held its breath as the US succeeded. It was indeed a welcome decision given the case of small nation’s rights being upheld. However, the entire episode was not free from criticism from those who charged that it was only the oil, which brought US interest to bear on liberating Kuwait.

However, this charge was refuted when President Bush again sent US troops into Somalia simply for the sake of orderly distribution of food and other aid to starving Somali people. The charge that US takes little interest in places where its vital interests are not at stake was evident in the civil war in former Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of people were thrown into the cauldron of death and destruction yet nothing happened from the side of NATO. NATO’s airstrikes and its ground troops come for too late to prevent the catastrophic mass killings and ethnic cleansing.

Current US foreign policy is geared towards fighting terrorism, curbing nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation, checking drug trafficking and globalization. But, besides curbing the drug trade, all other objectives of US foreign policy, critics argue, appear to be selfishly oriented towards its self-interest. It fears Third World buildup of nuclear arsenals because of its direct threat to the US and the subsequent political leverage of such a capability. But, how about the US’s own nuclear arsenal and ballistic missile defence system. The threat from terrorism will continue to exist as long as the US involves itself in Middle East politics. However, the method the US applies, like the cruise missile strikes against suspected Osamah bin Laden bases in Afghanistan, is bound to fail. High tech weaponry does not work against an underground guerilla leader like bin Laden. Instead, it is the terrorists who succeed as demonstrated in the recent attack against USS Cole, a US Navy warship, which was damaged at little cost but a few enthusiastic suicide bombers. The US effort to counter narcotics trade has so far had only token success. Tens of millions of dollars is poured into the coffers of Latin American states to combat this problem. But efforts have diluted in the face of persistent corruption, thanks to the billions of dollars the drug traders pay officials, and the pressing problem of narcotics farming in territories controlled by insurgents.

The US needs a new approach in its foreign policy. There is little the US has done for the interest of poorer nations. Instead, important and large nations grab US attention due to priority of trade and security. But, doesn't the US owe something to those at the lower strata of the developing world? It has come to the aid of poorer nations but more is needed, especially economic and technology transfer assistance. The modern global trend of free-trade, global village, and increasing cooperation does need the increasing leadership of the US as a guarantor as well as promoter of world peace and security.

Should you slap your children ?

By Arun Gupto

You can see people slapping people in Nepali and Indian feature films and TV soap operas. In real life too, you can see that parents slapping and even beating their children is a common accepted punishment. This is done on grown ups too. You can see lovers, sisters, brothers slapped as frequently as there are quarrels among people. Such physical assaults are very common in our daily lives, especially on our children. It is hard to convince people that such punishments are extremely offensive and considered uncultured in many societies. Even a mild physical assault on children by parents is punishable by law.

It is a very outdated mode of punishment. It is embarrassing even to see people being slapped. There are obviously unavoidable causes that make one take such steps, but I am not talking about severe situations, I am talking about petty causes and swinging hands just because you are irritated and want to teach the youngster a lesson .

Many educators, parents and elders would not approve of my idea because they consider slapping, particularly children, as a punishment meted out with care and love. I do not think that slapping and beating is a sophisticated way of showing love. Either you have not prepared some circumstances proper for your children to convince or teach them verbally or you are prone to bodily arguments. Some practices do not look good even if they are intended for a good cause.

Look at you face when you slap your son or daughter. Just before you slap, your jaw tightens, eyes redden, teeth and lips take a strange shape and there is an ugly tightening of your wrist muscles and there goes your strong hand on the victim. The victim generally does not even get time to prepare him or herself to shrink back because your palm lands on the soft cheeks like a hawk on its prey. If it is repeated, the victim has a pathetic defensive posture, some sob and some stand still, rock solid because you are an elder. Nothing looks good, neither the actor nor the one acted upon.

But many of you would not approve my suggestions because this ugly looking encounter, you believe,
is to make children behave well. I do not know whether beating and slapping are necessary modes of education, but what I know is that
the habit of beating up children is bizarre.

I hope children do not read this article, one of my friends said. I said children do not read Post platforms and even if they read it I have nothing to hide

My intention is not to make fun of the issue, rather to think over some questions: Why are many modern educators and parents extremely against this practice of beating? On the other hand, try answering why orthodoxy still tries to justify such modes of treatment as a part and parcel of daily behaviour?

Who knows Princess Anne better ?

By Dr Durga Pokhrel

Iwill be shaking hands with Princess Anne twice today by virtue of having my five-year-old son Tapasya, a first grader in the British School. I am qualified to stand in line to shake the Princess Royal’s hand, which is like saying "Darshan" to a Nepali princess. If Nepali royalty would allow their hands to be shaken by the Nepali public, perhaps the people would feel more compassionate towards their royal highnesses. More to the point, if the King would allow himself to be touched, Nepali people might bow their foreheads to his bare feet.

However, cultural distance does not allow this close physical contact within Nepali society. Nonetheless, all Nepali royalty do shake foreigners’ hands and even exchange hugs. I am not worried about this. The point is that I may be shaking Princess Anne’s hand again in the evening at the British Embassy. This is by virtue of my marriage with a humble subject of the British Queen.

I have been hearing about Princess Anne’s contributions to social service for a long time since I married a Britisher, Anthony Willett in 1985. Especially in 1989, I overheard an intense discussion of the Princess’s virtuous deeds and charming personality from one of her most loyal and admiring devotees in one of the organisations of which she is the Patron, Save the Children, UK. At the time, I was stranded on a small, former slave island on the East African coast. There was no end to his admiration, indeed love, for the Princess. He knew and followed the minute details of her life. He was eloquent, even poetic, in his solidarity with her. His not-to-be put-down Irish wife, Vivian, was a little more sceptical.

One of those sultry, hot tropical evenings, we were dining together under the stairs and the coconut palm on our terrace overlooking the straits towards Dar E Salaam. Alex was waxing eloquent again, hypnotized by his images of the Princess’s beauty and magic. I caught Vivian rolling her eyes and winked at her, understanding her boredom. Alex was going on about the exchange of remarks he and the Princess had during some visit to an SCF project. As if something woke him up, my husband suddenly remarked to Alex, sort-of casually, "Oh, I also met Princess Anne when she was visiting SCF in Nepal. Come to think of it, I have met her more than once" Alex’s mouth dropped open aghast as he looked with astonishment, horror and jealousy. Anthony continued, "And I dropped in on her and conversed with her while she was having breakfast in the dining room." Even Vivian’s eyes sparkled as she remarked, "Ah, so there’s someone else who knows the Princess closely!"

Anthony went on in a low key, "She was visiting Dhankuta around 1981-82. The Embassy sent all their protocol and security people ahead of time and, after looking round Dhankuta, they decided the house where I was living was the most fitting for the Princess. So I was evicted for a couple of nights, and she slept in my bed. I even left her my favourite cassettes to play. I had to return to my bedroom to get my sleeping bag. As they knew it was my house, the security guards just let me walk in. I went up to the bedroom, and found the lady-in -waiting’s stuff lying all over the place. Like a thief, very carefully, I picked up the items one by one with my two fingers, and laid them on the floor exactly as the Princess had left them on the linen box. I pulled out my sleeping bag. Closed the lid. Then, gently rearranged her toiletries, etc, back. Phew! My heart was pounding. I took a last look around my room where the Princess was staying, then, with a calm demeanour, left my house."

Eyes starry and watering slightly, Alex’s attention had been glued to this riveting tale. But with her Irish humour, and perhaps delighted that someone had outdone her husband, it was Vivian who spoke first. "So, what were in her toiletries? Anthony couldn’t remember or didn’t notice.

My mother-in-law was also in Zanzibar with us. Anthony announced that we were all invited by the British Ambassador for an evening reception. Anthony and his mother could not agree on the dress code. In protest that he would not wear a suit and tie, she refused to accompany us and suffer such an embarrassment.