‘Priority’ trip

Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, indifferent to the stalled parliament and seemingly untouched by the Lauda Air deal controversy, went on an ill-advised four-day long official visit to France the other day. The visit, at the invitation of French prime minister Lonel Jospin, marks yet another foreign visit of the Prime Minister in less than a year. Last August, the Prime Minister visited India on, what was described, as a "confidence building trip." This time, the once in 150 years visit has been undertaken to "place Nepal on the priority list of donor countries". However, the manner in which the now-off now-on visit took place indicates that Koirala was more interested in diverting the attention of opposition parties and rebels within his party than in undertaking a genuine working visit, as is now being claimed. The relations between Nepal and France had remained warm and cordial even before the establishment of diplomatic ties in 1949. In fact, the economic cooperation between the two countries dates back to the time of Prime Minister Bhimsen Thapa.

Last April, former Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai planned to visit France. But thanks to Girija Prasad Koirala, an internal party coup ousted Bhattarai from the prime ministership. Reasons cited by the Koirala-led rebel camp for his downfall were corruption, insecurity and poor law and order. But the present situation is by no means any better. Rather it has worsened since Koirala took over the office. He has now created a dubious history by becoming the second Nepalese prime minister to visit France. Koirala has been rightly criticised by the opposition for going on a visit at a time when the country is in turmoil. Whoever advised the Prime Minister to leave the country, plagued by so many ills, and when the Parliament is in limbo, has done this country a great dis-service. As far as the Prime Minister’s trip to get Nepal included on the French priority list of French official assistance is concerned, it needs no expert to point out that France, unlike other western countries, has demonstrated a more flexible attitude towards Nepal. And therefore, it does not need a prime ministerial visit to make it to the "priority list" of France. Nor should Koirala count this as his achievement when the list materialises. But we would like to emphasize that since so much of tax payers’ money is being spent on a seemingly ill- advised trip, we could only hope that Koirala and his entourage will be able to bring more benefits to this country than what would have come normally.

Ball is in the Supreme Court

By Jal Singh

In a recent news report in a national daily quoted: "The Home Ministry nullified 100 citizenship certificates on the ground that they had been obtained illegally." It further stated that an Indian national, who had allegedly obtained the Nepali citizenship illegally and who had been working as an electrical engineer in the municipality of Birgunj, that borders India, and had also set up a business, was reported to have left the country after he came to know that he was under investigation.

The fate of the controversial bill to amend the Citizenship Act 1963 has now passed on to the Supreme Court (SC) as His Majesty the King on February 20, 2001 sought the court’s opinion on "whether the bill is in accordance with the present Constitution." Since the matter is mired into controversy, the King has called on the leaders of different political parties for discussions.

Just to recapitulate, the bill was endorsed by the House of Representatives on July 26 last year, and was forwarded for the royal assent last month. The ruling Nepali Congress (NC) party has bulldozed the controversial sixth amendment bill to the Nepalese Citizenship Act of 1963 through Parliament , despite public demonstrations and opposition from other political parties. In the last eighteenth session of the Parliament, the voting that took place in the 205-member Lower House, the amendment was endorsed due to 108 "yes" votes. The main opposition party, the Communist Party of Nepal (UML), other smaller communist groups and the National Democratic Party boycotted the proceedings. However, Nepal’s drive against illegal citizens suffered a setback.

The rejection of the Citizenship Law (6th Amendment) Bill by the Upper House followed a walkout by a member, alleging that the Bill is unfair and biased against Nepali citizens of Indian origin. A cursory look at the history of Nepal shows that, however, most political parties use the citizenship issue as a campaign slogan during elections, but little has been done to address the problem. "The tendency to sell citizenship certificates to Tibetan refugees and Indian nationals is on the rise and some are of the view that politicians are giving protection to such activities and the administration seems to be helpless. It is against this backdrop, it has been found necessary to come up with a new citizenship bill.

Under the new provision, a person born in Nepal will have the right to citizenship; children with one of their parents born in Nepal, as well as all dependents of a naturalized citizen are also entitled to the Nepali citizenship. A parliamentarian in the treasury bench says that the enactment of the Nepal Citizenship Bill brought by the government with a commitment to resolving the citizenship problem will help hundreds of thousands of people in the hills and the Terai to obtain citizenship in a simple manner.

A preliminary estimate shows that the government will be in a position to grant citizenship to almost 4 million people in Nepal’s southern Terai belt, bordering India. Most of them are said to be of Indian origin or Indians and many of them live on both sides of the open border. In this context, it was quite noticeable that the Citizenship Bill was originally passed unopposed by the Lower House. However, that event has badly exposed the immaturity of parliamentarians, putting party interests over national interests. Even if the bill is passed with the ruling party’s majority, there will be difficulty for the government to enforce it amidst public outcry.

Critics say the amendment will open the floodgate to foreigners, seeking Nepalese citizenship. However, unlike in the House of Representatives, the ruling party does not enjoy majority in the Upper House, the bill drew criticism as it intends to provide citizenship to anyone, even a foreigner, if he or she can prove Nepali ancestry.

There is also no need that the applicant’s father should be holding a Nepali citizenship. Contrary to the existing laws regarding citizenship,an applicant must present the father’s citizenship certificate to claim hereditary citizenship. Some people outside Nepal feel and ask questions: Isn’t it true that till now persons could apply for the Nepali citizenship even if their mothers were not Nepali citizens? How can the Nepalese face the threat of becoming a minority in their own rightful land, if the children of Nepali women can apply for the citizenship of their mothers?

Isn’t Nepal the rightful land of Nepali women, too? Why has it been a legal practice since long that the children of Nepali men could get Nepali citizenship irrespective of their mother’s citizenship? A Nepalese advocate has said that almost everyone who discussed this bill has forgotten to raise a mother’s inability to ensure citizenship for her children.

It has been observed that NC and the opposition parties remained divided over the role of the monarch concerning the bill. Now, as the King has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court, legal experts also say the move is in accordance with the Constitution. It has been learnt that the matter will be presented before a special bench on March 14, 2001. This is the fourth time that His Majesty the King has sought the opinion of the SC before giving his assent to the bill and to other parliament- approved matters.

Summing up, the step taken by the King is in the right direction and according to the spirit of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal. Every Nepali should be proud of this democratic move.

Between love and jealousy

By Khagendra Bikram

While reading a newspaper, it is not uncommon to come across a news story such as: "A man killed his wife and her illicit partner both when they were having some illicit relations. He said he was very suspicious over her fedility from the beginning, and warned her not going any further, but all in vain. Later, when police arrested and interrogated him, he said, without any repentance and remorse that though he loved his wife, he could not help killing her. He could not simply endure the other fellow having an affair with her, and decided to get rid of them". What is your perception to this kind of incident? Do you think this is love that the man said he had for his wife? No, absolutely not. How can you say that you love somebody if you can hurt or even kill that person?

This cannot be love in any way rather it is a sheer jealousy. The man was burning with jealousy with the man whom his woman loved. She did give cold shoulder to him that added fuel to the flames.

Most people are not any different from him. A reason behind this is the hyper possesive feeling. A man likes to cage a woman (and so does the latter to the former) so that he can become her only owner since he has a fear that she may abandon him any time. This fear desolates our love, and sows the seeds of jealousy. And when we see her going dating with someone else, we think our suspicion has been proven. But, to tell the truth, it was our jealousy that unleashes such a reaction.

There are two things to ponder - first, don’t calculate what may happen tomorrow, and just give your warm feelings to your wife or girlfriend to the fullest so that you will forget the chasm, if any, between the two. This will wipe out all your suspicions towards her. Second, even if she leaves you for someone she loves (and she has every freedom to do so), you should be very happy to see her enjoying someone’s company. After this, if you have any semblence of love left in you, you cannot dare hurt or kill her. No doubt the task is not an easy one. Sacrifice is something that calls for immense courage and profound love. It will be unfair if you say that your partner should stick to you because of your so-called immense love towards her.

And what do you think about your present love affair? Is he or she seeing some special friends ? Forget it, the world is too big and too beautiful for such petty and nasty thoughts. Drink the wine of love till it allows you to do so.

Flaws in US foreign policy

By Dr Shreedhar Gautam

After the US and British warplanes raided the Iraqi defence centre, the US secretary of state Colin Powell visited the Arab capitals last week with a hysterical message about the threat to peace posed by Saddam Hussein. But Washington is nowhere closer to winning international support for the use of force against Iraq. Apart from Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, no country in the region has shown any support or enthusiasm for the US line. In fact, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are also under the US pressure to support the US line whether they like it or not. Elsewhere in the world, only Britain has followed blindly its Big Brother. Russia, France, China and other countries have stated their categorical opposition to the use of force.

Though the new Bush administration blames Baghdad, the present crisis is due to Washington’s refusal to see any logic. Despite 10 years of intrusive operations, the US and Britain insist that Iraq possesses hidden weapons of mass destruction. The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), masterminded by the US and Britain, has not found any evidence of prohibited weapons, but the Anglo-American alliance is using the same old logic repeatedly to fool the world community.

In the past, several countries and individuals highlighted the over- representation of Anglo American experts in the UNSCOM. As feared, the experts intentionally prolonged the inspection process in order to ensure that tough sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait be never lifted so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Former UNSCOM chief Richard Butler was more than happy to oblige the Anglo-American alliance as he got the sensitive job because of US’s blessing and lobbying. When he was an Australian ambassador to the UN, he had acted several times in favour of the US, especially in the case of CTBT negotiations. He gave a negative report against Iraq in 1998 with a view to justifying US-British air strike over Iraqi capital, and also to give an opportunity for Bill Clinton to divert US people’s attention from the impending impeachment case of Monika affair. He did everything to fabricate evidence against Iraq in order to justify Anglo-American military action.

Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair has been quoted as saying that the Iraqi president is the most dangerous leader anywhere in the world at the present time. Why is Saddam the most dangerous person? He is dangerous not because Iraq has the potential to bomb any British or American city. Iraq cannot be a military threat either to the US or to any country in near future. But Tony Blair brands him as the most terrible person because unlike other countries, Iraqi leadership has
stood to the might of Anglo-American arrogance by persistently refusing to bow down before the Anglo-US hegemonic design.

Even in this uni-polar world, the US feels unsafe and insecure. It is determined to go ahead with the national missile defence system despite strong opposition from its European allies. America is scared of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Colonel Gaddhafi, and North Korean leader Kim Jong II. Why does America seem so weak? It is frightened because it is spiritually poor and suffering form a guilty conscience. American arrogance came to the fore for the first time during the Second World War, when it bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with full knowledge that Japan was about to surrender. Since then, there have been countless instances of crime against humanity, including the injustices inflicted upon the Iraqis during the Gulf War and on the Yugoslavians during the American- led NATO bombing.

If we observe superficially, the US is the strongest country in the world, as no other country can match its vast nuclear arsenal and technological know-how. It is the only super power, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has been turned more or less into an American age. But if we analyse in depth, there is no other country as weak as America. It is the most frightened and scared country in the world. American leaders have become heartless and arrogant. Former president George Bush, while attending the 10th anniversary of Kuwait’s liberation from Iraq, said that he was plagued at the moment by a picture of a mother and a baby in her arms in northern Iraq, gassed by Saddam Hussein’s people. But his heart does not melt when he sees millions of Iraqi children and innocent people, dying of malnutrition and other disease due to the crippling sanctions imposed upon Iraq.

It is now more than clear that the US and the UK are determined to defy every principle of international law to punish Iraq. The UN charter sanctions, the use of force only in self-defence or if the Security Council decides there is a threat to world peace. Except the US and Britain, no country believes that there is any threat to world peace by Iraq. No Security Council resolution passed thus far gives an open-ended invitation for Britain and America to attack Iraq whenever they want.

It is high time for the world community to stand firm in its opposition to the US and the UK, or else another world war could spark off. The international community should not be fooled by the US's or the UK's attempt to justify the latest air strikes against Baghdad. US President George Bush has presented himself as a leader without creative diplomacy by opting for inhuman military tactics. He seems bent upon completing the unfinished anti-Saddam agenda of his father. With the authorization of the last week’s air strike, he is resorting to a diplomacy of revenge and disdain. No sane person can buy the agreement that the air strikes were determined by the compulsions to safeguard its warplanes engaged in the ongoing enforcement of so -called, unauthorized ‘"no fly zone", in the south of Baghdad.

The air raid is such a serious issue that only condemnation and disapproval of this blatantly criminal act is insufficient. America is threatening Russia by citing it as a new nuclear proliferator. It has charged China with the violation of the UN rules for allegedly helping the Iraqi air defence system. Ridiculously, former UNSCOM chief Richard Butler has said that the Security Council could be seriously undetermined if it is proven that China had provided fibre optics to enhance Iraqi air defences. He has argued that as a permanent member of the Security Council, China would be undermining the Council’s own decisions, and bringing it further disrepute, if it were found that the Chinese workers had actually helped the Iraqi technicians. With what moral authority is he asking China to abide by the Security Council's resolution? Can the world forget that soon how Butler misused his post to placate the UK and the US? Why cannot Butler give same advice to these countries, who are making fun of the UN charter to fulfil their arrogance? Have the US and the UK taken any specific permission of the Security Council before bombing Iraqi cities several times over the last 10 years? Why this double standard? Why this mockery of UN’s charter? Are they exempted from abiding by the UN rules?

America has destroyed Iraq and Yugoslavia in a cowardly way as the war was so unequal that it could be compared to a fight between an elephant and an ant. Boasting of victory in such a war is indeed a sign of sheer insanity. America has defamed and disfigured the image of its great leaders like Jefferson, Lincoln, and great enlightened scholars like Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman by resorting to criminal violence to satisfy its ego.