Powell’s peace mission

By BISHNU HARI NEPAL

After the Dec 13, 2001 cowardly attack on the Indian Parliament building, the SAARC region has again become the playground of global diplomacy. In this crucial game of the nuclear powers of the world, India, as usual, stands at the epicentre. For, the December thirteen barbaric attack not only took thirteen lives, but also symbolised a strong blow by terrorism at the heart of the largest democracy of the world. The incident took place at a time when the wounds from the Twin Towers and Pentagon assaults on September eleven had not even healed properly. Side by side, at a time, when the US was not able to smoke out Osama bin Laden and Omar Mullah and when the Afghan war against terrorism was on the verge of a Zero-Sum-Game.

Any political scientist knows that after the dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the unimaginable collapse of the then USSR together with its East European Satellites and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, the US led the end of bi-polarism and the emergence of the uni-polarism vs multi-polarism trend. The sole Super Power has proved its military and technical supremacy worldwide, particularly, during Operation Desert Storm and in Kosovo-Herzegovina in the recent past and in Afghanistan today.

The US also demonstrated that she is much superior to the total European strategic and technical capability, and has a valedictory say in the UN and its agencies. Under such circumstances, ex-General of the US army Colin Powell, in the capacity of the US Secretary of State, led a peace mission recently from Afghanistan to Japan.

Political developments in South Asia have always remained volatile. Inhabited by one-fifth of the world population, this part of the globe possesses special strategic value. The post-colonial era in this region has been most crucial and full of unrest. Three major wars between India and Pakistan have been fought in 1948,1965 and 1971. The Indo-China war of 1962, the merge of Sikkim with India in 1975 and the operation of the Indian army in Sri Lanka to crush the LTTE under the Rajiv-Jayawardane Pact of July 27,1987 are some bitter examples of great regional danger. Today, the stand to position of more than one million troops along the Indo-Pak border is danger to peace and security in the region.

In the 1990s, George Fernandes as the Defence Minister of India had publicly announced that the security fear for India was China rather than Pakistan. Perhaps the Indian viewpoint was that China had gone nuclear in 1964, and the border disputes is a fresh wound still. In 1971, this country with the largest population in the world became a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. It was obviously an awkward position for India due to bilateral and regional factors. As a result of the new scenario and victory over Pakistan in 1971, India was looking for a defence partner for the regional balance of power system. Therefore, she had signed a Security Pact with the then USSR, and joined the nuclear club on Buddha Poornima in May 1974. Mrs Gandhi proudly declared the Indian capability in the words: Buddha Might Be Smiling Today.

For many political scientists, the Gujral Doctrine was a ray of hope in the region for a peaceful settlement of disputes, particularly so long after the 1972 Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan. The Gujral Doctrine also brought up two important developments with reference to India: the Farakka issue between India and Bangladesh and the Mahakali Treaty between Nepal and India.

But what is the nexus between Powell’s peace mission starting from Afghanistan and covering Pakistan, India, Nepal and Japan and the Gujral Doctrine? This is perhaps a relevant question. The answer is that the Fernandes approach to the China factor was changed by the May 1998 Pakistani Nuclear Tests as an immediate response to the Second Pokharan Nuclear Test by India. The Kargil War named Operation Vijaya by the Indian side reversed the Fernandes approach.

If we observe the frequency and rank of exchange of visits by world leaders since last December 13, the misfortune of war between the two SAARC Nuclear Powers seems next door. Why draw attention to the danger? The answer comes from the sentiments expressed by the respective leaders. For instance, Indian PM Vajpayee said on Dec 13: waar paar ki ladaain hogi - will be the final war against terrorism.

It was the voice of the second largest population of the world, which is nuclear. Diplomatic channels between the two nuclear neighbours were closed within days. Not only did Gen Musharraf visit Beijing two times in three weeks but also Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji in the name of economic and IT developments and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a peace messenger paid visits to India. Jaswant Singh’s and George Fernandes’ visits to the US simultaneously during this period are also amply indicative of a grave situation. Similarly, Vajpayee’s Tokyo visit cannot be minimised either. Pakistan’s reaction during the Sharif regime cannot be forgotten: if necessary, Pakistan would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.

Colin Powell is fully aware that India does not want any third party mediation in Kashmir. Perhaps, for the US creating a conducive environment for making peace is important. To support this statement, we can analyse the adjectives used by Powell in Islamabad, where Pakistan was described as ‘true friend’, and in New Delhi where he spoke of the problem between ‘two friends’. In Nepal’s case, Powell used the phrase ‘Nepal is a good friend.’

For the US, Osama, dead or alive, now, is only a ‘cause’ not the ‘effect’. Because, the evil is already a defeated enemy. Therefore, in the case of Afghanistan, the mission was more of a reconstructive nature. Take the Afghan demand for 45 billion US dollars. The Tokyo initiative received a response of some 4 billion. This is still very important for Afghanistan. We can again recall Japan under the Allied Powers during Post-World War II era, 1945-1951 and the role of Gen MacArther as the supreme commander in the reconstruction of Japan. Afghanistan must take this opportunity and the lesson of world history very sincerely. Thus, in the eyes of a peace activist, the Powell Peace Mission can be categorised in three ways: peacekeeping in Afghanistan, peacemaking in India and Pakistan and peace-building in Nepal, where the internal war is in full swing.

The historic visit became possible due to the Maoist crisis in Nepal and her diplomatic posture as the current SAARC President. But it is quite remarkable that the US, time and again, is openly asking the government to mitigate corruption in Nepal. Suggesting to the government good-governance, not prolonging the emergency and respect for human rights, Powell also hinted that the cause of extremism among youths is unemployment.

Even though details of the talks between the army chief and Secretary of State Powell were not brought out, one can speculate that the Army briefed him on the current status and put forth a demand list for strengthening the Royal Nepal Army both in human and technical terms. Financial aid packages are naturally significant provided the government can select the priority projects and utilise and properly. Since combating terrorism is the priority agenda of the American Senate, a country like Nepal could draft a huge economic reconstruction plan as a part of the security package. But frankly, it needs to conform to the traditional thinking pattern of Nepalese planners. Similarly, on the political level, the overwhelming support for constitutional monarchy, after the tragic Narayanhity massacre, helped the palace in its confidence building.

To conclude, neither India nor Pakistan can negate the Powell proposal on peaceful settlement of disputes. As we can see, this was clearly demonstrated by Pakistan by allowing the use of its soil and sky by US forces to destroy the Taliban government, although Pakistan was the only nuclear power to offer recognition to the Taliban government. Pakistan was one of only three countries of the world to do so. Gen Musharraf, in his national address, even told the Pakistanis that it was the most crucial phase in Pakistani history after 1971. As a matter of fact, this support to the US was to protect her own national interest, avoiding war against itself and further strengthening the military rule of Gen Musharraf.

Similarly, Powell has clearly understood that China was the first Permanent Member of the Security Council to give recognition to the Musharraf government, saying that Pakistan is ‘an old friend’. This country was supplying military aircraft to Pakistan even very recently. Therefore, there is less probability of a ‘big war’ immediately between India and Pakistan. This is because, China and India do not really want a confrontation involving the west.

The same conclusion can also be drawn from the Pakistani initiative in banning extremist groups and arresting hundreds of terrorist suspects. Musharraf personally does not seem to be in a mood for war at the moment. He also demonstrated this by offering an ‘official handshake of friendship’ to Vajpayee during the SAARC Summit in Kathmandu. It remains to be seen whether he will be ready to hand over a list of people demanded by the Indian government. And can he accept the LOC as the border line as proposed by Dr Farooq Abdullah? Political scientists can only wait for the evolution of events. Finally, India and Pakistan, if they really go into a ‘final war’, should not forget that the victor would also be a great loser.

Buy aanp on the Net

By RIPOO SHARMA

Hurray!.. ‘Join for WW (worldwide) Excellence..’, ‘Guarantee placement in ......’, ‘Golden chance to go to the USA, the UK......’, ‘Free fee (education, catering, entertainment)..’, ‘Fee return if unsuccessful..’ Hey! Don’t go elsewhere, admission open, come here. It is harvesting season for educationalist- (mala mal hune bela). The Nepali dailies are full of attractive ads in English offering various incentives and winning schemes to newcomers. There is a platinum opportunity of commerce for higher schools, colleges, universities, IT institutes and of course MAN..GO..sellers.

One Kalimati vendor (Mr Mango, as I don’t know his name) approached me and requested creating of a website for selling his mangos. He said when cinema tickets can be purchased through e-shopping why can’t he sell mango on the Net. I was overwhelmed and at the same time excited by his vision of using IT for selling his product. I apprehend his creativeness. He is skilled in judging the quality of mango and in the art of salesmanship.

That evening he went on to speak about many aspects of IT and e-commerce. It was pleasant learning for me. He learnt all this from his buyers- doctors, IT experts, engineers, entrepreneurs, bankers and so on. But his notion of IT compelled me to brainstorm and ask the question- should we IT professionals, MBA’s, scholars, intellectuals etc be engaged in managing Nepal’s present as well as future knowledge-based economy in this direction? We all know the answer. We are more critical towards what has not been made available to us rather than being pro-active about using the current skills and technology for better living.

The pace of development in the field of technology is pretty fast in developed nations like Japan, the USA, the UK etc. Such information is immediately communicated by Internet, whereas the transfer of IT knowledge takes quite some time. The deployment of technology, its economic and successful utilisation depends on the socio-economic environment of the nation. Nepal is a least developed country. Its infrastructure is inadequate for quick transfer of technology and its utilisation. Every day, we come across more and more information. But, are we honest with the amount and diversity of information coming before us? Are we not overburdened with unwanted information? Mr Mango asked me Saheb- doesn’t this process of knowing more and being unable to cultivate and convert the knowledge into economic success lead towards frustration and personal depression? I don’t have a reply. I believe, readers can understand the reality better. "Nepal is indexed as the costliest Internet user as per the Human Development Index published by UNDP", remarked Mr Mango.

His words encouraged me to look into Nepal’s cyberspace. I started reading the ads in the dailies, surfing the Net and scanning the websites to gather more information and try to build a website for selling mangos through e-commerce. But to my surprise the big advertisers and reputed institutions neither have their own websites nor are they using the available technology for the sake of convenience and prompt service. I appreciate the effort made by cinema halls to help viewers - one can buy tickets and pay at the ticket counter upon arrival. Why can’t such services be made available to the public by the reputed universities, the SLC board, plus two schools, graduate colleges, IT institutions and so on? Do they lack the resources or are they waiting for donors? Then I recalled Mr Mango saying "Saheb, here big people (educated) are talking big at hotel dinning tables (bhatta pachaune gaff), before the mike (at public gatherings) as well as at my shop. But they are not honest in their work place". I decided to design the best website for my client and allow customers to place an on-line order for their choice of mango.

What actually constitutes e-commerce? It is as simple as ordinary trading. But, we have never tried to analyse the components in trade. There are a seller, a buyer, a deliverer, a banker, technology, infrastructure and regulations. For the successful operation of e-commerce within Nepal (Kathmandu), all components are readily available. Still the story with each of them is different.

The seller of services or products is very much engaged in using IT for internal accounting and management. Most of them say they do not have skill and infrastructure, while others opine that there is high business risk (heavy investment and fast technology obsolescence). Some are skeptical about ISP’s, some feel that they will lose business secrets and a few even doubt employee sincerity. Some sellers focus on the psychology of the buyer- (s)he is very choosy, unless (s)he sees the product from all angles or tastes it (s)he will not be satisfied; and we do not want to lose our valued customer. But overall, those having IT knowledge, infrastructure, usable funds, honest supervisors and confidence are involved in fabricating and improving e-commerce activity within the country. We must salute them including Mr. Mango for their support in shaping a conducive IT environment.

The buyers are aggressive and have invested their savings in the required PC, modem, connection etc at office or/and residence. These tools are required for professional use and to meet children’s educational need to e-mail and net-phone abroad. They are members of one of the ISPs. They surf websites of their choice every day. Though some of the ISP rates for e-mail and internet services are reasonable, yet the time to connect, system efficiency, speed, and support services are not encouraging. Some of the users do not use the net for a long time except for sending and receiving e-mail, because the telephone and electricity bills become excessive. One professional told me that he does not dare (Srimati restriction) to use net for more than 3 minutes or 6 minutes depending upon working day or holiday. Once you connect to the net your telephone meter goes into jet speed until it is disconnected.

On top of that, NTC adds a service charge and VAT on the bills. Mr Mango told me ‘Saheb, Honourable Minister for Information, Science and Technology and others including entrepreneurs say that IT is the only way for poverty alleviation and Nepal is capable to place itself on the IT map of the world. But the fact is (wearer knows where the shoe pinches) before the users - more usage of IT will increase poverty. "Nepal achieved 3rd (from last) position out of 72 countries in the Technological Achievement Index published by UNDP under the Human Development Report 2001." The short-sightedness on the part of the government, NTC, NEA and ISP has created an irrational environment for IT users.

Like trade, a delivery system is a must for the smooth operation of e-commerce. The order placed through the net needs to be delivered to the customer’s home within a reasonable time and cost. Transportation is not a problem for e-shopping transactions like ticket booking for the cinema, submission of admission forms, etc where the buyers have to reach the seller’s location. The case is different for orders which have to be delivered at the customer’s home and the money collected there. Reader will agree with me that the poorest part is the delivery system within the country. Either the transporter will charge an excessive price or never deliver at a reasonable time. The transporter argues that unless he gets a full load it will not be profitable for him to deliver goods at home. He is ready to deliver quickly as required provided he is paid fully. He is fully confident of the ‘Time Value of Money’. Mr Mango is confident that home delivery of his product can be made at a very reasonable price and an efficient delivery system can be established within country.

Everything moves around money. It is the one and only driving force for all business activities. During the last one decade, Nepal experienced a flood of banking and financial institutions. Their activities are centred mainly on traditional banking transactions, deposit, loan etc. To enhance e-commerce the banking and financial institutions should play an intermediary role between buyer and seller by developing the mechanism of collection and remittance. This will develop reliance on electronic transaction and banking as well. The bankers have their own reservations. They feel more confident and safer doing transactions globally rather than domestically. The Computer Association of Nepal through CAN IT shows and conferences has been contributing towards educating the potential users.

Considering various factors my client Mr Mango is hopeful and quite optimistic about the development of IT and related business activities in the country. But he suggests that regulations, procedures, technological advancement and infrastructures have to be developed within the country for the smooth development and operation of e-commerce. The government is trying to develop an IT Park soon and it may create favourable infrastructure for IT growth. Finally, he is ready to invite the prospective buyers to visit the website mango nepaldotcom for various kinds of mangoes- Dashahari, Bombai, Malda, Bijju, Kalkatiya and others once the environment for e-commerce is established.

Frank PM

By UTPAL RAJ MISRA

The Article 36 clause 3 of our Constitution grants the Prime Minister the exclusive right to form his own cabinet. It states that: "His Majesty shall, upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, appoint from amongst the members of Parliament, a Deputy Prime Minister, if required and such other Ministers as may be required." However, our political reality has shown that Prime Ministers in our current democracy are in no position to form the cabinet on their own.

In fact, even at the expense of the taxpayer, Prime Minister Deuba had to from a jumbo cabinet because of a variety of pressures on him. He cannot antagonise all and yet remain in the position of Prime Minister. We have had eleven Prime Ministers in eleven years of our second democracy. And most of the times such changes in Prime Minister have occurred due to the activities of Nepali Congress Party members. So the greatest threat to Deuba is from his own party members. If he starts pursuing principles rather than distributing power, pelf and prestige he will surely be in trouble.

If Deuba does not play his cards right, we may well have a twelfth Prime Ministers in the twelve years of our democracy. The financial burden on the country of maintaining a jumbo cabinet is of no consequence compared to the expediency of remaining in power. And instability created by frequent change of Prime Ministers has been shown not to be the concern of the Nepali Congress. If one becomes so idealistic as to be concerned about such economic burdens on an improvised nation then one may not be in the Nepali politics at all. These twelve years of Nepali democracy have shown that concern for one’s partymen is more important and rewarding than concern for either the nation or the people.

Though such a state of affairs has existed, no one until now had the guts to be as frank as Prime Minister Deuba. His frankness, one may hope will contribute to making Nepali intellectuals capable of realising the reality of our democratic dispensation and to making them able to distinguish between the reality of Nepali democracy and the unrealistic notion of democracy which they had learnt from textbooks. To those Nepali intellectuals who are mostly not in tune with Nepali realities,
and who usually fall for words and cannot seem to comprehend what does in fact transpire in reality, Deuba’s frankness may be enlightening.

At the assembly convened by the Kaski Congress at Pokhara on 20th January the Prime Minister was reported as saying that he was unable to reduce the size of his 41-member cabinet. To reduce the size of the cabinet, he said, he required the assent of Girija Prasad Koirala and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai. And he signified in no uncertain terms that his position as Prime Minister would be in jeopardy if he were to reduce the Cabinet size on his own. This statement of the Prime Minister was said to be in response to a demand to reduce the size of the Cabinet to enhance the image of the Nepali Congress Party during the emergency. The demand was made by the chairperson of the Kaski Congress, Shukra Raj Sharma.

Shukra Raj Sharma, also a Member of Parliament, either did not know the reality of our democratic dispensation or was just pretending to be idealistic. Anyway, the statement of the Prime Minister may have enlightened the naive. The statement also proves that though Deuba may be constitutionally Prime Minister, it is the two Brahmins, Girija and Krishna Prasad, who actually call the shots in Nepal.

Of course the Constitution (Article 36, Clause 1) states that "His Majesty shall appoint the leader of the party which commands a majority in the House of Representatives as the Prime Minister and shall constitute the Council of Ministers under his chairmanship." Neither Girija nor Bhattarai are constitutionally leaders of the parliamentary party. Yet in reality they control the Nepali Congress Parliamentarians to such an extent that this provision of the Constitution can be rendered ludicrous.

Constitutionally, the Nepali Congress Members in Parliament may choose a leader in accordance with Article 36, Clause 1. Yet they follow the dictates of the other leaders. In fact, many in Nepal believe that Nepali Congress members of Parliament are absolutely incapable of choosing their own leader. They only vote for anyone they are told to vote for by the their party bosses. The Nepali Congress members’ choice of parliamentary leader is only a deceptive formality. The Prime Minister of democratic Nepal is merely a puppet in the hands of the Party leaders. In fact, the manner in which the Prime Minister was elected right after the 1991 election had shown that persons (Ganesh Man Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai) not elected by the people could in fact appoint a Prime Minister in Nepal. The Constitution does not make any provision for non-elected persons to choose the Prime Minister. Yet the reality of our democracy is that it does not have to conform to Constitutional provisions.

When the Prime Minister in our democracy cannot even alter the size of his own cabinet, when he has to include in the cabinet members desired by the party bosses or faction chiefs within his party, then the question of ministerial responsibility towards the Prime Minister does not exist. Neither does the responsibility of the ministers towards Parliament exist in reality. People are responsible only to those who actually appoint them. In our case, such people who actually appoint them to the cabinet are the party leaders or factional bosses. Hence in reality, ministerial responsibility and accountability towards parliament or the Prime Minister does not exist in Nepali Democracy. It does not matter what is written in the Constitution. Article 36 clause 4 states: "The Prime Minister and other Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of Representatives, and the Ministers shall be individually responsible for the work of their respective Ministries to the Prime Minister and the House of Representatives." This Constitutional provision stands as a comical if not hypocritical statement as it is not in consonance with our political reality. Gossip doing the around is that "In Sher Bahadur Deuba’s cabinet all the ministers are Prime Ministers except Deuba!" This joke indicates that the real PM is in no position to control, guide or coordinate the ministers in his
own cabinet.

Though some leaders of the Nepali Congress think that our democracy is a Prime Ministerial system, as in the Rana period, and some think that it is a Parliamentarian system, as in Great Britain, it seems that both our Prime Minister and our Parliament are in reality powerless. Constitutionally, our democracy is neither a Prime Ministerial system nor a Parliamentarian one. Part 1, Article 3 of our Constitution states: "the Sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution." Note that this article says "in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution". So at face value, our democracy should be, according to this constitutional provision, a constitutional system. But as we have seen, the reality of our democracy does not even follow the words let alone the sprit of our constitution, as even our Prime Minister cannot act according to the provisions of this constitution .

The Constitution says that the sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people, but the hapless people are beset with scarcity, insecurity, violent deaths, unemployment, acute poverty and, consequently, all around frustration. The people have become victims of bad governance, corruption and lack of law and order, and are totally helpless and have suffered as never before in the 233 year history of this country. So what does sovereignty actually mean? Does anyone vested with sovereign authority become so helpless and suffer as never before in the entire history of a country? Is this indicative of people with sovereign rights? If one is not fooled by words then one will easily see that this constitution has not, in reality, been able to provide power either to the people or to the elected Prime Minister.

The helpless statement made by Deuba in Pokhara indicates that our Prime Minister is in a dilemma. He is helpless even in reducing the size of his own cabinet. He has appealed for unity within his party to solve the problems faced by the country. Such a dilemma could perhaps be eliminated if we just look at the reality of our democracy. Let us accept reality and be frank and just say that our democracy is what Girija Prasad Koirala and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai say it is. That is, our democracy is a political system run according to the whims of the two semi-senile oldies, contemporaries of Winston Churchill of bygone days of the British Empire.