Poverty alleviation and donors

The government proposed Poverty Alleviation Steering Committee (PASC) has sparked differences among donor countries, agencies and the government. This is due to the fact that the government has included more than one-third of the committee members from among civil servants. By doing so, the government has given rise to apprehensions that the move will not only breed corruption but also lead to misappropriation of funds. This is a valid objection and if it is not taken seriously, it could jeopardize the government's long term plan to spend 28 billion rupees for poverty alleviation programmes in the next fifteen years. In the past too, the government could not implement its poverty alleviation plans and programmes effectively due to lack of clear-cut policies and appropriate institutions for delivery.

The proposed PASC prepared

by National Planning Commission (NPC) to govern fund activities comprises 16 members - 11 civil servants and five from non-governmental organisations. This no doubt appears to contradict what the donor community expected from the government. This apart, the project based approach lacks comprehensive policy. It does not address the pressing problems of our society. However, what surprises many is that the donor community has also failed to come up with alternatives to fund poverty alleviation plans and programmes. Had donor countries and agencies come up with such options and pressed their demand for supporting long term plans or programmes,

such differences would have been minimized. Unfortunately, this did not happen. What has happened is that the donor community has objected to the proposed PASC without good enough reasons or alternatives.

The country's overriding concern has been its reeling poverty. A recent survey estimates that more than 52 percent of the total population live below the poverty line. Successive governments which introduced a number of poverty eradication programmes, have no doubt failed to reduce the rate of poverty as a result of mismanagement, corruption and inefficiency during implementation. This apart, the government has not only interfered in the management of poverty fund activities but also appointed political cadres and jeopardized the entire gamut of poverty alleviation programmes.

The plan to spend over 28 billion rupees for poverty alleviation in a span of 15 years may go down the drain if the donor community backs off from the NPC prepared approach. Here, the government must rethink about including more people from the non-governmental sector in the committee. However, the donor community must also not pressurize the government without providing alternative plans. What the donor community has failed to recognise are the differences within the community. Such differences should not cost the fund for   poverty alleviation and to this end, the government must take care.

Deescalating nuclear arms race

By Mohan Lohani

While American President Bill Clintonwas recently addressing a gathering of students at Georgetown University in Washington, he announced that his administration would delay deployment of a National Missile Defence (NMD) system and leave the decision to his successor who is expected to assume office in January next year. The announcement has been hailed as rational by the international community including the nuclear rivals to USA like China and Russia. In all  probability, the US might have proceeded with NMD deployment were it not for the fact that two of the three tests had failed forcing project specialists, planners and implementors to review the effectiveness of the technology involved. President Clinton's university address confirms this. There is a reasonable chance that all these challenges can be met in time but I simply cannot conclude, with the information I have today, that we have enough confidence in the technology and the operative effectiveness of the entire

NMD system to move forward to deployment.

China and  Russia figure prominently on the list of countries that are vehemently opposed to the NMD scheme which, judging from their reactions, is a provocative act designed to escalate the arms race and jeopardise global peace, stability and security. Engaged as they are in the pursuit of economic modernisation, both China and Russia would resent being dragged at this stage into the new arms race involving the expansion of their nuclear arsenals. Military budgets, no matter which country is involved, consume the bulk of the national revenue that could otherwise have been utilized for development purposes. Despite clarification from the US that NMD and the Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) systems proposed for US allies in Asia are not directed against China, but against the so called rogue states like Iraq and North  Korea with alleged clandestine nuclear programmes, China fears that the proposed two systems might disturb and upset the balance of power in the region. China has already warned against any external military interference in Taiwan as it claims Taiwan is an inalienable part of mainland China. While  Taiwan is a sensitive  issue for China, the latter, as stated earlier, is however, not prepared for any military confrontation, be it with the US or other powers. China has categorically stated its position that maintaining strategic stability and security in the world is in the interest of all countries.

China, which has opposed  the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missiles is not the only Asian nuclear power. As we are  aware, South Asia witnessed the emergence of two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, after they conducted a series of nuclear tests in May 1998. Experts are of the view that these tests have far reaching implications for the prospects of international security in the twenty first century. They further opine that while post Cold War reconciliation in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall was a morale booster for the proponents of a  New World order, the onset of rivalry between India and China, the two  Asian giants, is a  new reality that has to be reckoned with.  Director of Asian Planning at the Atomic Energy Commission in Paris made the following perceptive observation in Survival (vol 40 no 4 Winter 1998-99): With so many forecasts for a multipolar world, it should have been clear the India would have a significant place in it. But little analytical work has been done on the emerging   poles  and even less on the potential relations among them. From a strategic standpoint, however, this is a crucial issue. If the fall of the Berlin Wall   signalled the end of an era, the Indian tests could be an early warning of the new times at hand. The twenty first century has begun."

Nuclear tests of May 1998 in South  Asia evoked sharp critical reaction from  nuclear powers like the US and highly industrialized countries like Japan which imposed economic sanctions, and continue to do so, on both India and Pakistan .President Clinton during his visits to India and Pakistan last March and Prime Minister Mori  of Japan during his recent South  Asian visits urged India and Pakistan to sign the CTBT and prevent nuclear proliferation in  South Asia. Neither of the  two emerging nuclear weapons states responded positively to the appeal. Prime Minister Vajpayee of India is paying next week a return visit to Washington at the invitation of President Clinton. Asked whether the signing of the CTBT was on the agenda for discussions between the United States and India during Mr Vajpayee's state visit, India's nuclear security advisor Mr   Brajesh Mishra is reported to have denied any such agenda or plans to sign the CTBT in the immediate foreseeable future. It has been India's consistent contention that signing the CTBT should be linked to a time frame for global disarmament.  Besides, India has been able to put off discussions on the  CTBT issue by stating that a national consensus has yet to evolve on the issue.

Non nuclear states like Nepal, which is a signatory to NPT and CTBT find themselves in a vulnerable situation in  South Asia which is fast getting neutralised. Nepal, which has maintained the best of relations with its immediate neighbours, has expressed the hope that nuclear powers in the region will exercise utmost restraint and become sensitive to the legitimate fears and concerns of neighbouring non nuclear countries. South Asia has once again proved to be a volatile region following confrontation last year between India and Pakistan in the Kargil sector of Kashmir and subsequent political developments in Pakistan. The SAARC process has been an unfortunate victim of this conflict. The eleventh SAARC summit which was to have been hosted by Nepal last November has been indefinitely postponed causing concern to SAARC member states and their supporters and sympathisers elsewhere in other regions of the world.

Hopes that Mr Vajpayee and General Parvez Musharraf of Pakistan will meet in New York during the UN millennium summit are not likely to materialize as Mr Brajesh Mishra is reported to have ruled out the possibility of Mr Vajpayee meeting General Musharaff at the New York summit.  Independent observers have held the view the two leaders of India and Pakistan must take part in a face to face dialogue before any breakthrough in sorting out bilateral differences can be achieved. Although the  SAARC Charter prevents the SAARC summit from discussing contentious bilateral disputes a school of thought in South Asia strongly believes that SAARC has sufficiently mellowed over the years to discuss and find a solution to all outstanding issues including those of a bilateral nature. 

As a matter of fact, all issues, whether they are related to poverty eradication environmental preservation, cooperation in core economic sectors or nuclear proliferation in the region can and should be boldly and squarely discussed, debated and resolved within the SAARC framework. At a time when South Asia is fast moving ahead to transform itself into a free trade area (SAFTA), a continuing  stalemate over the rescheduling of the SAARC summit will not be conducive to concerted efforts towards peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Since all   South Asian leaders have reaffirmed on several occasions their unflinching commitment to regional cooperation, the SAARC forum can play a crucial role in deescalating and halting the arms race including nuclear proliferation in South Asia.

The hero of the 20th century

By Keshab Raj Acharya

Do you know about Mr Know All? He loved Marxism but he was not a Marxist he composed a number of poems but he was not a poet in the true sense. He delivered many lectures but he did never seem to be a lecturer. His interest was in Kant, Nietzsche, Derrida, Sartre but he was not on the way of being a philosopher. He did this and that to give a good shape to his fluctuating life. The inspiration and perennial encouragement bestowed on him by his respected gurus to mould him into a good shape were really noteworthy.

Pedagogic field was his subject of special discourse. Painting, art and poetry recitation concerned him much. He was really a man of the world. Your tongue would stuck if his gigantic physique stood before you. He didn't receive any importance when his career began with novel hopes and wishes. His sincere devotion to his seniors must have been unexpectedly laudable and prodigiously commendable. I'm here to switch over his present state of affairs.

No sooner do I endeavour to highlight on his current state of affairs than I feel reticent. He is the most widely respected fellow in his sphere. He is very busy now. People know with his assiduous presence in every sort of programmes from book release to inaugural ceremony, from seminar to workshop programmes, from meeting to tea party, who chairs the programmes. This deceptive smile kills the raw pleasure of others' existence. It is really high time he switched on the light of a falling star. He had never had the taste of life before as he had not crossed so many bridges.

His recent visits to India, Japan, France, England hint at his ambitious virtuosity and self opinionated diversity. Japanese, Indian and sometimes American embassies are the places he frequents. Big parties and occasional ceremonies are the spots of his presence. His company are not from the common walks of life now. His gurus don't master him at this moment, whose inducements are a real source of pleasure for him. If you want to be very near and dear to him, you have to be in his favour politically. Before your incessant visits to his abode add much fuel to the fire. His punctuality in his job can't be questioned since he is an iron gate for others.  Recently, he has been proclaimed as Mr Know All. You can't touch him now as he has been ignited with the flame of virile carnal desires of the millennium.

The eulogy to him is more than what humans offer to God. The demonic, reconciliation of power and truth meet in him. His are the nicest examples for all to sense the kinetic exhilaration of moving life. Self importance is very  perceivable

in him.

In a way, it seems that he is like a man who looks elegant for an untiring journey from Richmond to London. He is now the hero with a thousand faces. But what is equally noteworthy in him is that he ceases to remember the journey of his life with indeterminate aims as soon as he encounters a tantalizing female. Most probably he will be declared this year as the hero of the 20th. Who knows the wheel of fate and future?

Small is important

By Sanjaya Serchan

The rapid improvements in transportation and communication are said to have unleashed the forces of globalization,  making fuzzy the boundaries of communities, localities and countries. Yet, the processes of globalization may also have augmented, in keeping with the contraries of human existence, the search for belonging, for roots. Thus, we have the phenomenon of "class" divisions along entirely new lines: on the one hand, the jet-setting intellectuals, bureaucrats and diplomats who feel at home in seminars,   conferences, cocktail parties, from Geneva to New York, and on the other, the locals rooted in their customs, practices and somewhat befuddled by and having little stake in the processes of globalization. The conflict between these two plays out in what is perhaps the greatest contradiction of our times, that of local/ism vs globalism. Analyzing this conflict in the Nepalese context, we see one class, among which can be included the fashionable NGO and civil society agents, engrossed in international publications, foreign junkets and often getting paid in US dollars.

The other class consists of the masses of people, rooted in what is primarily an agrarian society, eking out their livelihood one way or the other. The former has the 'intellectual' strength, derived from its education, economic standing, while the latter, like the downtrodden all over the world, scores in sheer physical numbers. On whose side does morality lie remains debatable and is far more difficult to discern. Caught between the two classes, the state with all its paraphernalia-the political parties and their leaders, administration, police-may appear at times to muddle, shove and force its way through.

The people at the grassroots, termed undeveloped, underdeveloped by the 'other', have to bear the bulldozing of their life-worlds in the name of development. Modernization for them can mean  displacement from their homes and livelihood, civil servants who treat them as commodities if not worse, patronizing  teachers and development activists, and verbally and physically abusing policemen. Caught in the electoral jigsaw of suave politicians who promise everything without delivering, the locals may fall back on the one thing they have, namely their numerical and physical superiority. This assertiveness finds manifestation in such activities as the blocking of roads in protests at Kaligandaki and the manhandling of the Deputy Prime Minister in Kathmandu.

Politicians, confronted with the rumblings, the discontent, may compare the assertiveness at the local level to a volcano. Those dreaming of a global village, with supposedly themselves at the helm, might see it as narrow parochialism. Yet, the people at the grassroots are only protecting what they see as their interests, just as the politicians would do if their political careers were threatened and the globalists would do if their tenures at universities,

jobs in multinational companies, their consultancies and NGO businesses were threatened. The people are only asserting their concerns vis-a-vis a distant government and an alien civil society, not to mention an 'airy' globalization.

The people at the grassroots are not only agents of protest. On the contrary, it is the denial of control and responsibility over their lives and their everyday concerns and the perception of others of them as the recipients of, and objects of development that provoke protests. When assigned with responsibility, they have been judicious enough in its use, in consonance with people anytime anywhere. The countless local initiatives surviving from the past and the initiatives that have sprouted following the advent of democracy are evidences of this.

A small example from Basantapur, a world heritage site in Kathmandu, might suffice in this regard. A local club, Sinha Swan Khala, has for the last few years taken upon itself the responsibility of cleaning the Basantapur Durbar Square. The square, parts of which in the past had served as public toilets, is now well-maintained. A portion of the square that does not fall under the 'jurisdiction' of the club, however, continues as before, despite a military guard standing nearby.

The myth-making nation-state and high-sounding globalization have often become tools for the suppression of local identities. On the other hand, knowledge, which itself is a form of abstraction, has reified the flesh-and-blood lives of people into neat definitional compartments. All this has meant the overlooking of the "small" concerns of the "small" peoples in their "small" spaces. Yet it is within these relatively small spaces that people find the joy to live and the quiet dignity and courage to face life in all its complexities.

Kenichi Ohmae who conceived of a world without borders nonetheless had to write: "If I had my way, I'd pay a third of all my taxes to an international fund dedicated to solving world problems... a third to my community, where my children are educated and my family lives. And then a last third to my country, which each year does less and less for me in terms of security or well-being and instead subsidizes special interests." The intricate networks of camaraderie and solidarity created by our community where our children are educated and our family live can hardly be replicated at the level of the nation-state or the global village.

The restoration of democracy has been followed by increased expectations among people. It is not surprising that people, given the long tradition of centralization by the state, looked to the centre for the amelioration of their condition. The post-1990 Constitution, Acts, rules and regulations all betray this bias towards the centre, thus continuing the marginalization of the people at the periphery. Devolution, despite the rhetoric, remains top down, and is seen by those at the centre as a favour rather than as an inalienable right of

the people to have a say in issues concerning their lives. The people, however, do not possess unbounded patience, and will, with growing assertiveness, attempt to protect their respective spaces against an overbearing nation-state and globalization.