Terror onslaughts

Terrorists crashed two hijacked American airliners into the Word Trade Centre (WTC) and one airliner into the Pentagon building the other day. The twin towers collapsed within an hour after the attack, crippling business activity in the US and beyond. This is the most audacious terrorist attack ever carried out against US government and business establishments and it has happened on American soil. The attacks are presumed to have killed thousands of people, and triggering a security alert across America and American interests across the globe. Such horrendous acts of terrorism should be condemned from all sides and whoever carried them out should be brought to justice however long it takes. We owe it to human civilisation that such infamy does not escape punishment. But the US alone may not be able to bring the terrorists to book without global cooperation. Such cooperation is also imperative to fight and contain terrorism in future.

An American Airliner was hijacked and deliberately crashed into one of the twin towers of the WTC. Twenty minutes later, another hijacked airliner was crashed into the second tower. An hour later, terrorists crashed a third aircraft into the Pentagon in Washington. Part of this deadly calamity was seen on television across the world. The sheer terror of it all was almost palpable to TV viewers even here. And the underlying horror is that terrorism on such a scale could most likely not have been perpetrated without backing from some state or government somewhere, either directly, or indirectly through connivance. Whoever or whatever was behind the attack, it must have taken a long time to plan and prepare it. They have succeeded only too well, and in doing so they have cost the US economy dear, and many people, possibly from many different countries, their lives. They have also put across the message worldwide that terrorism will continue to remain a harsh reality of our day and age. When individuals with axes to grind are prepared to die to wreck terrorist havoc nothing really can in the end prevent them. The only ultimate defence is a world that is more just and is perceived to be more just. There many who, while sympathising with America in its hour of trauma, would argue that the world’s only superpower has not always worked for the promotion of such a world. For America, American national interest has always come first, and in the pursuit of that interest it has sometimes not hesitated to ride roughshod over the interests of others on this planet of ours. America must learn to be more than just itself. It has to learn to promote global equity while playing global policeman. That is no easy task, but it is the best defence against terrorism.

It is unfortunate that Nepal took almost a day to condemn the attack. It should not have taken so long. One cannot deny that such acts of terrorism will not be carried out against other nations. In fact, the tentacles of terrorist activity have spread worldwide, and the US and other developed countries alone may not be able to contain them unless they seek the cooperation of developing countries as well. Nepal cannot feel safe from terrorist activity either. It must remain prepared and cooperate with other countries to contain and eliminate this modern scourge, whatever it takes.

Globalization and developing country’s perspective

By Animesh Upadhayay

In the run up to the next WTO ministerial conference scheduled to begin on November 9, 2001, at Doha, the capital of Qatar, the developed countries seem to want to declare the Uruguay round a success and start with a "Millennium Round". Developing countries which account for more than three quarters of the WTO’s 142 members, strongly believe they still have not benefited from the 1994 Uruguay Round trade pact conference. When the Uruguay Round of negotiations concluded it was said that as a result of these negotiations world trade would increase by an additional annual amount $ 700 billion and developing countries would also see substantial benefit. This has remained a mirage. The opportunities and costs of the globalization are not being fairly distributed. Many implementation concerns of the developing countries are yet to be addressed. This has made them suspicious about the promised gains of a new round.

A pertinent question at this stage would be what developing countries can expect from this round? What will the new round deliver for the majority of WTO members? How will the interests of Least Developing Countries (LDCs) be considered? Their total share in world trade is only 0.03 percent despite the fact that many of them adopted relatively liberalised open economic policies. Many LDCs freed their exchange rates and interest rates. Some have actually gone further than developing countries in dismantling trade barriers. In financial openness too, LDCs have made great leaps forward but in term of achievement they are far behind expectations. Ironically, some of them have fared even worse than before liberalization. How seriously these issues will be considered and the LDCs supported in promoting their economies is a matter of great concern for all LDCs.

The ministerial meeting held in Seattle in December 1999 ended in disaster due to the adamant stand taken by the developed countries in favour of inclusion of non-trade issues like labour and environmental standards in the working agenda. This had been vehemently opposed by the developing countries. They were against the inclusion of these non-trade issues because these could be misused by developing countries as a non tariff barrier.

In this new round the US, the EU, the developing countries and a number of ad hoc groupings all have their own particular goals to advance. WTOs members are far from agreement on what a new trade round should be about. The developed countries, especially the European Union (EU) have already started canvassing for another round of comprehensive trade negotiations covering diverse issues from environment, competition policy and investment to labour standards. On the other hand the "Like Minded Group" led by India is
against the inclusion of non-trade issues on the WTO agenda till the existing inequalities are addressed and wants
the discussion to be confined to implementation of the Uruguay Round, mandated negotiations on agriculture and services, mandated reviews of TRIPS and TRIMS and operationalisation of special and differential treatment.

The US is keen to discuss industrial tariffs, trade facilitation, transparency in government procurement and trade in e-commerce. Many developing countries are oppose to the view that government procurement should be brought under the ambit of the WTO. If governments in certain cases fail to follow certain transparency norms the matter will have to be referred to the dispute settlement body of the WTO. How Practical will that be?

The US and the EU feel that a developing country like India canvassing for a new round would make a strong political impact on other developing countries. This probably could be one reason for them to support developing countries in addressing concerns about the issues of labour, environment and investment. Non-trade issues like environment and labour should not be linked to trade and developed countries should not attempt to impose these standards on developing countries. So far as the issue of investment is concerned developed countries have been constantly trying to widen the scope of the WTO regime on investment beyond the provisions of the TRIMS agreement. The initiative taken by developed countries to establish a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is based on the principles of national treatment and MFN. Which means host countries cannot accord more favourable treatment to local enterprises over foreign ones. This prevents host governments from using performance requirements and screening mechanisms to improve the quality of FDI. This will also restrict the scope for pursuing selective FDI policies. It is clear, therefore, that bringing investment agreements on to the WTO agenda would not serve developing countries’ interests. Hence, they should resist, the attempts of developed countries to widen the scope of investments under the WTO regime beyond TRIMS.

Apart from the issues of labour, environment and investment, developing countries are determined to ask for a review of WTO agreements and for implementation of several steps agreed at the Uruguay Round that will allow greater market access to developing countries. Special and preferential market access provisions have already been agreed to in principle by all developed countries but have generally not been followed in practice. Market access issues should be given the highest priority by both developed and developing countries and should be discussed with an open mind in terms of a universal free market even if implementation and other issues will remain pending.

The Uruguay Round did not bring about liberalization of trade in agriculture to the desired extent. The high domestic support to agriculture in many developed countries is a cause of serious concern to developing countries in terms of increasing their exports. Rich countries spend $300 billion a year supporting their farmers, leading to low levels of international prices. This has adversely affected the export potential of developing countries. Hence, the Agreement on Agricultural (AOA) should be reviewed in this context?

There is a need to review the TRIPS Agreement in the context of protecting public health. How to increase poor people’s access to costly life saving drugs either through home grown sources or with cheaper foreign imports is one of the most sensitive battles. Many South Africans are dying of AIDS. Out of a population of 43 m at least 4 m are HIV infected. When patients come to hospital for treatment they are told by doctors to go home and die. Botswana has the highest rate of HIV infection in the world: 350,000 of its 1.7m people have the virus that causes AIDS. Every hour, says the government, a baby is infected. Even in this situation they are not getting sufficient free anti-AIDS drugs to cover all AIDS victims. Attempts made by South Africa for access to medicine at a price that can be afford by its people were challenged by multinational companies claiming that any such attempt was in contravention of the TRIPS Agreement. Brazil’s attempt to include a provision for "Local Working" in its Patent Act to fight against AIDS as part of its public health policy programme was immediately challenged by the US which moved the dispute settlement body of the WTO against Brazil. But very recently the US withdrew the case, may be because of all the noise about public health. The idea accepted at the Paris Convention in the form of "Compulsory Licensing" against monopolization has been diluted gradually in the race for maximizing profits by the developed world, eventually killing millions of innocent people all over the world, and making mockery of universal human rights.

However, in view of the growing interdependence of countries worldwide, globalization must continue, but at the same time we should not accept the unfairness injustice, and inequality that have come in the name of globalization.

Wizard-hunt

By Pragya Karki

Nearly a month ago, an incident that happened in the terai region of our country hit the headlines of almost all the newspapers. It even rocked the parliament. A humble lady was declared a witch and even accused of spelling black magic on a guy, an epilepsy patient. To make the matter worse, thirteen other women, accused of practising witchcraft in that particular village, were manhandled. Mind you, the person who slandered all those women by labelling them as witches, was a ‘man’ who identified himself as a promising witch-hunter. The lady, singled out for practising witchcraft, was humiliated and beaten up mercilessly by an angry mob. As a result, she was seriously injured and admitted in hospital.

Even in this age such horrendous Middle Age atrocity continues in remote parts of Nepal. Actually, this is not a new phenomenon in our society. Though there are numerous cases of such inhumane treatment against women, most go unreported. We live in a patriarchal society where women are looked upon as second-class citizens. Concerns over women’s rights exist only in seminars organized in posh hotels by so-called women activists and feminists. In our diurnal life, such rights are almost nonexistent.

Let’s take a simple example, when a male member of the house comes home late he is welcomed with a warm smile. He is late because of his heavy work loads and tight schedules. This is how he is defended. On the other hand, if a woman comes home even a single minute late, she too will be allowed to get inside the house, but she is followed by curious eyes and a barrage of questions.

Next comes the freedom over choosing a bride or bridegroom. His going-to-be wife should be beautiful with perfect this and that. Cascading black hair, highly educated, smart, bla, bla, bla. The list goes on. But when it comes to a woman, she hardly gets a chance to open up her mouth, let alone charting out her criteria for her would-be husband.

Many parents treat their sons as an asset and their daughters a liability. The sooner you clear it, the better will be your balance-sheet. In fact, gender equality should start from the house itself. Then only its influence will spill all over the society.

The incident that happened in one of the villages is no doubt a heinous social crime, a bitter slap in the face of all Nepalis and a social injustice against females. More important, it is the poignant outcome of male chauvinism prevalent in our society. Let’s not forget that the one who claimed himself as a "witch hunter" was a male, and the one who pointed out his finger and accused an innocent woman of practising black magic, was an elected government official.

I have never heard of anything called "wizard-hunt". I guess, none of you, either. Talking about wizard, the males who abuse the freedom and strength to harass and humiliate woman kind are the wizards in the true sense. As a matter of fact, I am not the first female to feel this way and obviously not the last one either.

Women against alcohol and violence

By Prativa Subedi

Violence against women occurs throughout Nepal in varying degrees and in various forms. Child marriage, polygamy, wife beating, rape, overwork, witch hunting, child trafficking, incest, sexual harassment and alcohol related abuse are all forms of violence. In essence, violence can be defined as any kind of oppression, coercion or cruelty against another being. The purpose of this article is to urge the government and the Revolutionary Women’s Group to
rethink their current rash demands for alcohol control.

Alcohol lead to violence against women. Women are often subjected to physical violence by drunken people. Violence caused by alcohol also occurs when money is spent on alcohol, instead of the basic needs of the family.

Drunk drivers also cause violence, both directly and indirectly. The unnecessary and often brutal death of women and men in traffic accidents affects not only the people involved but their families, who now have to survive without them. This is a grave problem.

Activism by women against alcohol started 15 years ago. Although many women activists and female politicians have called for tighter regulations on alcohol, the government has not listened to their demands. Many women in villages suffered physical and mental abuse at the hands of their families and communities for trying to regulate alcohol.

Recently, the Revolutionary Women’s Group of the Maoist took an extreme and rather contradictory stance against alcohol. They demand that the government both regulate and eliminate alcohol, and the demand coincided with their setting fire to an alcohol distillery. Their act of violence prompted the government to agree to all their demands.

We don’t necessarily disagree with all their demands but we believe that it is essential for any government to seriously ponder any law that they choose to introduce, and have a clear and thoughtful vision as to how this country should deal with drink. The government was wrong in just giving into the revolutionary women’s Group.

Implementing the revolutionary women’s demands will have no effect. One might think the banning of alcohol will lead to a drop in the level of abuse inflicted by people under the influence, but this has not been the case in many of the areas that are now supposedly ‘dry.’ Women in many districts are still victims of abuse by drunken men.

It is impossible to eliminate alcohol on a long term basis. Attempts to do so in other countries, such as America during the 1920s and early 1930s, failed dismally. People continued to make their own alcohol and secretly imported alcohol from other countries. A total ban on alcohol in Nepal will create a black market as it is inevitable that the contraband will be imported illegally from India. There is too much money associated with alcohol for it to disappear.

It is also ridiculous to think that Nepal’s alcohol companies will be able to implement the women group’s demand to convert their distilleries to produce other products. It is likewise very thoughtless not to think of ways to help the people, who currently earn their livings producing alcohol, find alternative employment. Many women’s groups firmly believe that alcohol should be regulated, but in such a way that the ills of drink are reduced whilst its economic benefits to Nepal are retained.

Currently, alcohol generates 5,000 million rupees a year for Nepal. Alcohol is also an essential ingredient for the continued success of Nepal’s tourism industry, which makes up four percent of the GDP. With tourists consuming forty percent of all the alcohol in Nepal, it is obvious that a strong tourism industry is associated with access to alcohol.

The government might also wish to consider the possibility of generating foreign revenue from alcohol. Currently, Nepal imports more alcohol than it exports. The government could reverse this trade imbalance if it chooses to further develop the local alcohol industry.

Instead of banning new alcohol licences, the government could work towards creating a regulated and profitable industry. For example, it should set up quality controls so that all home brewed alcohol is fit for consumption. We know that some home brewed alcohol contains unhealthy substances, such as fertilizer, and there have been occasions where people who consumed home brew died.

All women’s groups believe that alcohol should not be available to the underaged people. Alcohol sale should be limited to certain shops and places such as nightclubs and tourist areas, but not grocery stores. These suggestions are far more practical and beneficial than the demands of the revolutionary women’s group that the government has agreed to implement. Radical steps will not solve the problem of alcoholism.

If we want to reduce the negative social effects of alcohol, we need to combine reasonable regulations and punishments with education and female empowerment. Without improving the condition and position of women, violence against them will never be reduced. For true progress we need to start taking action towards reducing poverty, generating employment, reducing child trafficking, bringing about gender equality and educating people.

We need to adopt an integrated development programme if we want to reduce the level of violence against women. That means we need to use a development model that acknowledges that all of Nepal’s problems are interrelated and that you can’t solve one without solving them all. For instance, alcohol abuse leads to poverty, and generates health problems. Alcohol abuse is manageable through education in schools and strict regulations. If the Revolutionary Women’s Group wants to really help women they should be practical. They should introduce a development model that involves hands and minds, but not guns.