Poor treatment

It surprised many when Rupa Thapa (Shrestha) of Tanahu gave birth to quadruplets the other day. This was a rare case of a woman giving birth to so many at one time in a Nepalese hospital. More than that the births have showed up the way the regional hospital in Pokhara serves the public. Perhaps, the reality of how this hospital runs and how it takes years to have an incubator repaired would not have come to public notice, had Rupa not given birth to three of her quadruplets there. The government run hospitals — be they regional or national – do not have minimum equipment to treat patients, leave aside the primary health care centres and district hospitals which bear witness to how poor our health sector is. This is the main reason why infant and maternal mortality rates are so high in Nepal compared to other countries in the subcontinent. This apart, hundreds of people die every year of preventable disease as a result of poor treatment.

Rupa had already given birth to a son at her house before she was admitted to Pokhara’s regional hospital. She was weak, pale and in an unconscious state when brought to this regional hospital. Even though she was in a serious condition, the doctors refused to perform the required surgical operation until Rupa’s family managed to get hold of a pint of blood, which took them more than four hours. Doctors should not have taken so long to perform an operation when a patient was in a critical condition. Yet the hospital does not have any neonatal intensive care unit for underweight children. The worn out incubator had been out of order for the last ten years. The doctors who should have taken care of the newly born quadruplets then refused to allow them to be taken away from the hospital until 7 pm that day.

The quadruplets are now at a private hospital, while the mother remains hospitalized at Pokhara’s regional hospital. The newly born babies have been in intensive care since they were born underweight. The way the doctors of Pokhara’s regional hospital treated Rupa shows that successive governments have never taken the health sector seriously. If the birth of quadruplets can strain the resources of a regional hospital, one well imagine what the situation will be when a real public health emergency overtakes it. The poor health sector of this country has always been a matter of serious concern. The state-run hospitals neither have medical personnel nor do these hospitals have adequate equipment to treat the patients. As a result, hundreds of people have had to lose their lives every year. However, the government cannot ignore the country’s health sector, nor can it allow the poor to die of preventable diseases. It has no option but to look after the health of the poor.

No excuse for terror

By Avraham Nir

More and more voices recently, while condemning the terror attacks in the US, are trying to put the blame for them on US support for Israel and its so called misbehaviour towards the Palestinians. It should be clear that terror is terror! There could be no excuse for killing of innocent peoples whatsoever. Those that show understanding for such inhumane crimes are encouraging and giving green light for future terror attacks.

There is no bad terror and good terror. Who would dare to face to the mother that lost her baby and husband on flight 77 and tell her that their death was a result of a good terror? And who is really responsible for the outbreak of the violence in the Middle East?

The recent wave of terrorism and violence is the result of a deliberate Palestinian decision to prefer force over negotiations.

In July 2000, a Middle East Peace Summit was held at Camp David, attended by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak, and hosted by then US President Bill Clinton. At the Summit, it became clear to all that a negotiated settlement could only be achieved through a willingness of both sides to show flexibility. While Israel presented proposals demonstrating its willingness to make historic compromises for peace, the Palestinian leadership balked at the prospect and left the talks without offering any historic compromises of its own. Following the Summit, the Palestinian leadership decided to attempt to achieve through violence what they could not achieve through negotiations - a solution without compromise. This is the source of the wave of Palestinian violence and terrorism which began in September 2000 and became known as the Terror Intifada.

The violent events recently witnessed in our region are the result of a clear Palestinian decision to pursue violence as a political tool. Israel seeks to resolve its differences with the Palestinians at the negotiating table, while Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have chosen the path of ongoing confrontation.

This deliberate choice by the Palestinian leadership to pursue violence rather than negotiation was clearly explained in the Palestinian media. On December 6, 2000, the semi-official Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam reported as follows:

"Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of Communications, Imad Al-Falouji, confirmed that the Palestinian Authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself. Mr Falouji went on to state that Arafat launched this intifada as a culminating stage to the immutable Palestinian stance in the negotiations, and was not meant merely as a protest of Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount."

Similar statements have been made by other Palestinian officials, in the Palestinian and Arab press and media. The current confrontation was deliberately initiated, and continues to be nurtured by the Palestinian leadership as a strategic choice on their part. This was true from the earliest days of the crisis, and it remains true today. To that end, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have:

Used official Palestinian media to incite the Palestinian society to violence against Israel and Israelis.

Authorized the Tanzim militia (an organ of Yasser Arafat’s ‘FATAH’ PLO faction) to fire upon Israeli civilians and soldiers, with weapons supplied by the Palestinian Authority.

Released dozens of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists from Palestinian prisons, signalling to these organizations that they have a green light to launch attacks against innocent Israeli citizens.

These policies of the Palestinian leadership have led to a series of bloody terrorist attacks, including car bomb explosions in Israeli cities, drive-by shootings, and roadside ambushes targeting commercial vehicles, family cars and even school buses.

It is no coincidence that the violence began at a time when Israel was expressing its willingness to make unprecedented, far-reaching compromises in order to reach a workable, enduring agreement. Arafat was given a real opportunity to achieve a resolution through negotiations and compromise, and to bring tangible, considerable benefits to the Palestinian people. However, Israel’s olive branch was met with a hail of gunfire, rocks and firebombs. Rather than risk being labelled as weak by Palestinian extremists opposed to any form of compromise or conciliation with Israel, Arafat preferred to cast himself as a relentless revolutionary. Consequently, he opted to use violence rather than accept compromise.

And let me just remind you.

The Israeli-PLO talks began in September 1993 on the basis of Arafat’s clear pledge to abandon terrorism and commit to a negotiated solution. In the negotiations since then, Israel has gone far in addressing Palestinian aspirations in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel negotiated the establishment of an elected Palestinian Authority, which has gradually expanded its jurisdiction and authorities, and now administers a significant portion of territory and 97% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza.

But Israel did not stop there. The Israeli government made known to the Palestinians, at the Camp David Summit and now publicly, its willingness to move forward in the peace negotiations, and to make far-reaching political, historic and strategic compromises in order to achieve peace.

However, despite these compromises, when it became clear to the Palestinian leadership that Israel could not fulfil every Palestinian demand, and that Israel also has aspirations and interests which need to be addressed through reciprocal compromise, the PA chose to break off the negotiations and to re-embark upon the path of violence, which they had pledged to abandon.

So is it really Israel that should be blamed for the unfortunate conditions of the Palestinians or is it their leaders that, as Aba Eban once said, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and instead of showing leadership and pursue peace restore again or choose again the path of violence that only brings only more misery to the region.

And if Israel’s policies are really to be blamed for the Bin Laden’s activities so why is his finger prints can be found in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya?

Why is he active against secular Arab regimes?

Why did the training of the terrorists that carried out the September 1 attacks started more than two years ago when Israel, according to its the Foreign Minister, was willing to give the Palestinians 99 percent of their territorial demands, divide Jerusalem and share sovereignty in the holiest place for the Jewish people - the Temple Mount?

Or may be the only reason for his crimes is that he is sharing the same impatience of his hosts, the Taliban, to anything and any one that does not follow their path. Because who knows may be next week someone will explain that the only reason for Lord Buddha Statue’s destruction and the order for Hindus to wear yellow badge is because of the good relations that Buddhist and Hindu countries share with Israel. There is no end to the propaganda that can be spread but there must be an end to evil and no one, no one at all should justify it.

(The author is ambassador of Israel to Nepal)

Interpreting democracy

By Saileza Khatiwada

The fight for democracy by the Nepalese people and their authoritative leaders has borne fruits for all of us. It’s been more than ten years since we have had democracy. Have things been different from what we had previously, under the partyless Panchayat system? Acknowledging that we have been successful to some extent, we are still lagging behind in finding out and realizing the real cause of our fight. There is neither vision nor mission. The result of our struggle has not been up to expectation. We have been unable to get what we should have been getting in this decade-old democracy.

Seeing the present political scenario, one can say that democratic ideology has been sidelined. Democracy, which should have been the supreme interest of the people, has benefitted a few people. Frankly, I feel as though there is no law in this country and anyone can do anything. Everyone talks of poverty eradication, socio-economic reforms, education and building infrastructure. However, no one has done anything to improve matters, including the country's economic condition. The education system is deteriorating, poverty is widening and the economy is worsening. Political norms and social ethics have lost their grounds.

Meetings have become mere talk. To me, implementing plans without reading them appears to be one of the major causes for the failure of any system in this country. Moreover, rampant corruption and political instability are adding fuel to the fire. The hunger for power and greed for money have created disunity among the political leaders, besides party break-ups as well as frequent changes in leadership. Dissatisfaction and disagreement among those who rule this country are other factors that hamper smooth functioning. Change in leadership has made things difficult.

Development, removal of poverty, better education and better living standard, which have been the ultimate desire for every Nepalese, remain a mere dream. But the strength of any system lies in the eradication of all these evils. Those who are responsible have yet to realize what this country actually needs. There seems to be none who is sacrificing for the country. Rather, we are doing what is undemocratic, immoral and illogical. People are aware of their duties but unaware of their misdeeds. One should work for the better realization of people’s liberty and freedom, giving them security of life. People should keep their eyes and ears open for the poor, for better education and sincerity. As it is said: "Better late than never". Time has come to realize what has led us to such illiteracy. Unless and until we retrospect what we did and correct ourselves, the country will remain a land for the poor.

Democracy and good governance

By Shanker M Singh

The structures are in place: attention is increasingly being focused on civil society, good governance, transparency and corruption. These words suggest the establishment of democratic structures alone do not signify that democracy has been achieved.

The past history of Nepal shows that Nepal’s governance experience has had relatively unsuccessful outcomes. The lessons learned are that broad based political commitment needs to be fostered if politicians, especially ministers, are to re-engage themselves in the process of deciding on reform priorities and solutions. Second, resistance from bureaucrats and civil service trade unions must be overcome by ensuring greater consultation. Third, the government needs to consult more widely with external stakeholders within Nepal- particularly civil society, the private sector and academics.

Are common people reacting enough to corruption and fraudulent schemes wrought upon the national exchequer that would otherwise have been utilized for the country’s development? Simply not. People are not conscious enough to react to the situations prevailing in the country.
Even if they are aware that corruption, misappropriation and inefficiency have been rampant, and caused obstruction in development, they are not organized to offer resistance to malgovernance and misadministration. In fact, those who have managed to acquire to accumulate illicit wealth or fortunes are able to influence the common people and command loyalty and respect in society. Honesty, integrity and probity in public life are not rewarded sufficiently as a result of which those who uphold integrity and decency are at the lowest rung of the social ladder. The major concern of the day should, therefore, be restoring credibility, decency and probity in public life so that those who cultivate these norms and ideals inspire and become worthy of emulation.

In order that integrity, morality and uprightness in public life are fully normed and institutionalized, action at the citizens' level should be mounted to counteract the nefarious designs of corrupt and dishonest people. Whatever rhetoric and ‘ornate’ speeches are uttered against corruption and malgovernance at the central level or at the level of elites, no effective results can be produced unless people are convinced and empowered to punish those who bank on avarice and unscrupulous tendencies to further their political and bureaucratic career. Undoubtedly, there is a need to create a strong legal and integrity framework to ward off the evils of corruption. The most important means of achieving this end is through strengthening the popular capability to fight the corrupt and nefarious practices.

A living democratic system essentially demands high moral standard and integrity in public life. The degeneration in high political places has not only lowered the status and prestige of institutions but also caused an erosion of the faith of people in them. A weak ethics regime can be considered one of the major factors leading to a virtual collapse of integrity. The time has come for solidifying and carefully nurturing the foundation of integrity in public life. It is a difficult task but not impossible if a national debate is held in time with a strong commitment towards the same.

For this approach to work out well, the central government needs to make significant improvements in its capacity to manage resource flows efficiently and monitor their use effectively. At present the central government interferes too much in some areas (teacher hiring for example), and too little in others (for example ensuring that health workers, agricultural extension agents and veterinarians are actually in the field). At the more general policy level, too, the central government has often made local/private sector involvement more difficult, with excessive control by parastatals over areas such as sugar production and forest product marketing.

The World Bank is working with other donor agencies to link our collective lending much more closely to improved governance within each sector. The government has requested the World Bank for assistance in tackling the problem of corruption in donor assisted projects, which they see as resulting, inter alia, in implementation delays and short comings in the quality of project execution. This request received considerable publicity in Nepal . The World Bank is now working with the government to define the measures which should be taken and the ways they can assist in their implementation in order to initiate action for remedy.

Nepal is a significant development partner of the United Kingdom, as Nepal remains one of the poorest countries in the World, where the per capita income is $ 1 per day. And half the population lives in absolute poverty. The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to Nepal.

Improving governance and empowering civil society is the aim of the Enabling State Programme (ESP). The ESP aims to identify a range of groups and stakeholders and encourage them to be more pro-active and involved in a demand led approach to development assistance and ultimately assume full ownership of donor-supported interventions. The project began in 1997 with the current phase of commitment until March 2008. The change model is based on two key ideas: ‘pro -poor’ governance will not be possible until key decision-makers in government and elsewhere themselves want real change for better governance. For key decision-makers to have a desire for change they must first be persuaded that change is in their own interests.

The DFID funded ESP is a major initiative in pro-poor governance in Nepal. Under the programme, DFID will provide 19.5 million pounds sterling to Nepal in support of the programme for the next eight years. The programme aims at advocacy for government policy reforms and implementation from rural areas and from advocacy classes. The programme aims at pro-poor governance in the country through an active participation of the Nepalese both in the advocacy for government reforms and the design and implementation of governance reform activities.