Hard-hitting hike

Whether one buys the argument that the adjustment of petro-prices in India to international prices necessitated a consequent hike in prices in Nepal or not, the recent hike in prices of petrol, diesel, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas by 17.50, 20, 100 and 19 percent respectively isunprecedented. The consequences are obviously going to be far reaching.

The immediate reaction of experts after the hike was understandably one of alarm. Even a layman can tell that this is going to set off an inflationary chain reaction which will in turn slow down economic growth and hit consumers hard. Particularly, it must be mentioned that the price of kerosene has become forbidding. Accompanying this is a provision of ration cards that will fetch all households three litres of kerosene a month at a subsidized price. The government could have done without this stunt even if the hike was absolutely necessary. There is also much in the allegation that the ration card system will encourage corruption. Some have also opined that the fuel price hikes will serve to cushion the losses of Nepal Oil Corporation (NOC), incurred as a result of government subsidy on kerosene and LPG.

This may be some consolation to NOC, but what about the general consumer? Another question that has to be asked at this point is: if fuel prices go up in Nepal when international prices go up, then why don’t prices come down in Nepal when international prices fall? One answer could be, our oil prices are tied up to oil prices in India more than the international prices. It is not surprising then that whenever India has increased fuel prices, Nepal has always followed suit. The justification for this is that subsequent hikes eliminate cross-border smuggling resulting from the price difference. This is at best a mere excuse. It is in reality, the result of our own weakness. We are helpless about the open border and conveniently put the blame on it. If the border was well regulated, the price hikes in India would not necessarily have led to subsequent hikes in Nepal, and more, many other problems would not have been there. However, we are helpless about i and this resigned attitude is the main problem. The border must be regulated effectively first.

Even if the hike was absolutely necessary, the government must be able to assure the people that the prices can come down when international prices also come down and live up to its words. This is the least the government can do by way of relief.

Crisis in the Middle East

By Mohan Lohani

Prospects for peace in the Middle East have suffered a setback following more than two weeks of violent clashes between the Palestinian people and the Israeli army in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip resulting in heavy casualties, nearly 90 of them on the Palestinian side. The UN Security Council, by an overwhelming majority with the lone abstention of the US, condemned Israel fore excessive use of force in putting down the violent protests of the Palestinians. It may be noted that the latest violence was triggered by the visit of Ariel Sharon, a right wing Likud politician of Israel, to a Jerusalem holy site sacred to Jews and Muslims alike, more than two weeks ago. The fury of the Palestinian mob appeared to be so irresistible that the international community viewed with concern the escalation of latest violence in the Middle East.

Alarmed by the possibility of a new conflagration in the region, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan visited the troubled area on a peacemaking mission and reacted to the dangerously escalating situation with extreme caution. He was hopeful that the situation could be brought under control, but hastened to add that this cannot be done by the leaders alone. On the Secretary General’s initiative, a trilateral security committee composed of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the US has been set up and entrusted with the responsibility of bringing peace to the region. It is too early to say whether the committee can function effectively and produce results leading to peace.

Despite hectic diplomatic initiatives and efforts from the UN Secretary General, the foreign ministers of UK and Russia and the EU foreign policy and security chief Javier Solana, violence in the Palestinian territories, at the time of writing these lines, had not been brought under control. While Israel has intensified its reprisal attacks marking a serious turn of events, the Arab side representing both hardliners and moderate elements has, with a remarkable show of solidarity, stood firmly by the Palestinian people and called upon countries having diplomatic and consular relations with Israel to sever such ties. Renewed Arab hostility against Israel is being interpreted by political observers being PLO’s tactical manoeuvre and an expression of its impatience and indignation against indefinite postponement of the unilateral declaration, originally scheduled for September 13, for an independent state of Palestine.

There is no doubt that extremists on both sides, Israel and PLO, are no longer enthusiastic about the US-sponsored peace process and are increasingly inclined towards confrontation rather than compromise. If Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak is under pressure to assume a hawkish posture, as he has already invited Ariel Sharon to join an emergency government; Arab extremists have not only condemned the killings of the Palestinian people as savage Israeli butchery, but have also insisted on military operations against Israel as being the only option available to the Arab world to get back the legitimate rights of the Palestinians and safeguard their interests. Hatred against the Jewish state has brought together all segments of the Arab population including governments, NGOs and private citizens ready to attack and destroy Israel with more money, men and military equipment. Quite obviously, there is no dearth of funds in the Arab world to support any kind of Palestinian reprisal against the Jewish population. The entire Arabian peninsula is resounding with cries of the valiant ‘intifada’. Strangely enough, Saudi Arabia, a close US ally in the 1991 Gulf war against Iraq, appears to be Israel’s bitterest critic in the current crisis, outbidding other Arab neighbours hostile to Israel.

The Arab summit on the Middle East Crisis, scheduled to take place in Cairo in the third week (October 21-22) of this month, will once again hear from its leaders most vociferous condemnations of Israel, its brutal killings of the Palestinians and its latest attacks on key Palestinian targets in retaliation for the lynching of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah. The summit will most probably adopt a strongly worded resolution calling for comprehensive sanctions against Israel and its isolation in the community of nations. Supporters of the peace process have every reason to express their concern over the imminent collapse of the process owing to recent provocations followed by acts of violence and its fallout on the ever explosive and volatile situation in the Middle East.

The first and foremost challenge to all peace makers is to put an end to the spiral of violence in the Middle East. Diplomatic efforts will have to be intensified and redoubled to ensure that the Washington Peace Agreement of 1994, a historic document that made possible mutual recognition and accommodation of the erstwhile enemies, Israel and the PLO, and that set in motion the process of establishing a durable peace in the Middle East, is not paralysed and dismissed as a scrap of paper. Likewise, Kofi Annan’s current shuttle diplomacy for peace in the Middle East should not fail. If it does, credibility of the UN will be at stake. Both Israel and the PLO are aware of the fact that conflict and sporadic armed clashes lasting for more than four decades have resulted in more bloodshed further hardening belligerent postures on both sides. How Arab countries such as Egypt and Syria lost their territories to Israel during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war is still fresh in public memory. Sinai was returned to Egypt only when late President Anwar Sadat and late Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin entered into a peace treaty known as the Camp David accord in 1978. The same year the outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon brought its southern part under Israeli occupation. Israel withdrew its army last May from South Lebanon after 22 years when conditions for peaceful coexistence looked better and were likely to improve. While the Lebanese Hezbollah movement has refused to release the three Israeli soldiers captured by its guerillas in recent armed clashes, Lebanon has been advised to ensure order on its troubled frontier with Israel lest the latter may be forced to station its army once again across its northern border. Meanwhile, Israel has held Syria and Lebanon responsible for igniting violence in the border area.

The greatest obstacle to the peace process is continued intransigence of the parties concerned. Both sides accuse each other of instigating violence leading to senseless killings. While PM Barak has demanded that the Palestinian leader Arafat must take the initiative to stop the violence or face the end of the peace process, chairman Arafat has refused to attend any peace talks unless Israel agrees to the formation of an international commission of inquiry into the deadly violence that left nearly 100 Palestinians dead. As there is utter lack of restraint on both sides, each regards the other as no longer a partner for peace. Given this reality, diplomacy must be given a chance to succeed or the Middle East may plunge once again into a prolonged armed conflict.

And thus spoke the wall

By Hitesh Karki

It was in class ten that we were shifted from a dorm to a cubicle. That was the greatest privilege of being in the tenth standard. Not because the dorms were "impeccable", it was the privacy that mattered the most. Finally, you could hang a clip notice- ‘please knock before entering’ (a softer version). The harsher ones were like "Trespassers will be executed" and "Enter at your own risk".

A bunk bed, two lockers , two sets of tables and chairs and the table-lamp were some accessories. However, one major "thing" that you could virtually own and decorate as you liked was the white WALL. For us, the wall wasn’t merely a layer of bricks painted in white, but like an artist’s canvas. The wall was where you could express yourself, just like a painter. We were, definitely not allowed to write anything on the wall. Nevertheless, the right to express was there. We were, obviously, the artists, but paints and brushes were none other than the posters.

Each of the ten cubicles had its own interior decoration. Some had the likes of Samantha Fox, Madonna, semi- nudes, it went as far as school rules would allow. And there were rooms of sports maniacs with Pele, Zico, Maradona, Agassi, displaying their talent on the wall. However, the hot favourites were always Metallica, AC/DC, Guns N Roses. They were the ones you would virtually spot in almost 60% of the rooms.

There was one room, however, which is still fresh in my memory. I am not talking about my own cubicle. Budget (the pocket money ) permitting, I would buy a variety of posters and splash them all over the wall, from Phoebe Cates to ......, If I am not mistaken, her presence was almost compulsory for us. My room didn’t make any "individual" statement as such.

They just told everyone, who visited it, that I was just following trends and fads.

Talking about rooms, we would always laugh and make mockery of one guy’s unique room. Except for three posters, the wall was completely white, unlike ours- completely jam-packed. Sometimes, as expected, he would get a certificate obviously for his most well maintained room. Cubicle no 3. Our House Master wanted the rest of the rooms to be similar to No 3, if not exactly the same.

Of the three posters, one was of a person, he (of the exemplary room) was very fond of, and used to talk about his literary works (but for our age, it was far beyond comprehension, since the novels we read were Sidney Sheldon stuff ). His favourite was none other than Leo Tolstoy. Next to the famed Tolstoy, was Einstein. No wonder, even in the early nineties he knew that the latter would be the man of the millennium. But, surprisingly, in between lay a poster of Mao.

I can’t quote to you my sources here, but I just came to know today that he has become the District Commander of one of the A-Zones (Maoist-affected).

‘Hoodlums’, Globalisation and Sinha

By Kuldip Nayar

Indian Finance Minister Yaswant Sinha is a man for all seasons. He was a bureaucrat, a member of the Janata when it swept the polls and a spokesman of the Janata Dal at the time of V P Singh’s rule. Sinha was a socialist before he joined the hardcore of the BJP. Since then he has been treading so carefully that he has remained unscathed in the cross-firie between Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Home Minister L K Advani.

As is his deportment in political affairs, so is his posture in the economic field--cautious and low-profile. He is reticent. Despite being a proponent of liberalisation, he sees to it that he does not annoy the pro-Swadeshi elements, who are primarily hardliners. If one were to probe, one would find that he owes his position to the RSS. Vajpayee’s choice for finance was Jaswant Singh. But when the latter was defeated at the polls, Sinha got the position. Even when Jaswant Singh returned to Parliament through the Rajya Sabha, he could not get the portfolio because the RSS preferred a loyal Sinha to a liberal Jaswant Singh.

Sinha has expressed a desire to meet even the Gandhiites to ‘assure’ them that he is not in any way demolishing the philosophy of self reliance. He wants to please all and touch as many as possible at the same time. His forte is that he does not rub people on the wrong side. Even while speaking, he selects such expressions as would not hurt anyone.

The remark Sinha has made following the demonstration at Prague against the World Bank and IMF is so much unlike him. He has said: "Whether the IMF and the World Bank exist or do not exist is a matter which will be decided by the will of the 182 countries who are represented here, not by a handful of hoodlums in the streets of Prague." If he really believed that the protestors made no difference, he gave them unnecessary importance by mentioning them. They must have rattled some important people. Otherwise, why did the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank end a day early? It was more or less the same story at Washington where the two organisations held the meeting a few months earlier. The governors and others entered the venue of meeting surreptitiously.

The people whom Sinha described as hoodlums are the young intelligentsia from the developed world. They are sensitive enough to feel the sufferings of the poor. They honestly believe that the most important challenge before the countries is third world poverty. It is unfortunate that a Finance Minister from the third world should run down the conscientious protestors. But toadies are always there. I am reminded of the days colonialism when freedom fighters were dubbed ‘goondas’ for breaking the law. Foreign rule was rolled back by the same goondas.

The tide of globalisation, if it does not solve the problems of the poor, will be turned back by those very people, whom Sinha called hoodlums. Globalisation has to find an answer to the questions that the economic and moral degradation of the Third World have posed. Why is the poor going down the scale while the rich go up? If this is because of liberalisation, it is bound to meet its end.

What globalisation has meant so far is the unfettered flow of capital across national borders to the detriment of developing and underdeveloped countries. The IMF, which should assist them, has imposed so many harsh conditions that the third world is frantically looking for a way out. The IMF has forced poor nations to divert their scarce resources from health, education and the environment to non-priority items, encouraging consumerism and disparities.

Unequal foreign competition--and the law of patents--has crowded out thousands of indigenous units. Unemployment has increased and more and more people have been marginalised. And like a Shylock, the IMF and the World Bank insist on realising the debt which the borrowing countries have largely paid in the shape of interest. The debt is not written off, there is only debt-relief.

Both the IMF and the World Bank have come to represent a new type of imperialism, more dangerous than colonialism where the rulers at times felt some responsibility towards the ruled. World Bank chairman Wolfensohn has said: "Our challenge is to make globalisation an instrument of opportunity and inclusion--not of fear and insecurity." Opportunity for whom? At present the affluent countries have the cake and eat it too. Words cannot change harsh realities. Any survey will tell you that people in Third World countries are today more insecure economically, politically, socially and morally than they were before the advent of globalisation.

Living conditions are deteriorating so rapidly that the law and order machinery is breaking down in many countries. People are becoming desperate and resorting to desperate remedies. It looks as if democratic nations which run the engine of globalisation, may themselves be responsible for undemocratic regimes in the Third World. The governments will introduce draconian measures to restrict personal freedom to face protest and agitation. It has happened in several countries where the demagogue promised roti, kapda and makan (bread, cloth and house) but did little to give relief to the poor.

But then Sinha may have a vested interest in the IMF and the World Bank. He has been made chairman of the Development Committee of the two institutions. It is but natural that the affluent should use a third world person to heap more burdens on the poor in the name of second or third stages of reforms. Sinha is already proving more loyal than the king. Otherwise, he would not have called the protestors hoodlums. He should, however, realise that the ‘hoodlums’ are gaining support day by day and country by country. The problem is with persons like Sinha and organizations like the IMF and the World Bank who believe that international economic integration is a ‘must’ even if the majority of people in the world have to be sacrificed.