Negotiating an end to internal war

By ANUP K PAHARI 

The latest cease-fire between the government and the Maoists, and renewed prospects for a negotiated settlement, have signaled a temporary halt in the slow death of the nation. For the second time in as many years, albeit in different political circumstances, the Maoists and the Nepali state are poised to pursue peace over war. That it has taken such devastation in human lives and institutions to arrive at this point of initial truce should not take away from the enormous courage and determination of the agents who initiated this venture.

This time around, those at the peace table will deliberate in an environment of unimaginably high expectations and a margin of error so slim it is almost non-existent. Theirs is not an enviable role by far. It is, however, a role that people who trade in the currency of power and public expectations have pre-approved and must face up to. To see this process to its desired end they will need to draw on untold reserves of patience and perseverance, with matching support from us all. But, that is not all they will need.

War perpetuates itself without conscious effort because revenge and recrimination wage themselves. Waging peace, on the other hand, demands deliberate, consensual and coordinated human effort. It is heartening that the billigerents in Nepal appear to have surveyed and acknowledged the mounting indications of the futility of imposing a unilateral "solution" to what are society and polity-wide disorders. There are now signs of consensus where it counts that it is no longer possible to "solve" the crisis by waiting it out, fighting it out, or by political maneuver, co-optation and classical Nepali divide and rule strategies. The Maoist insurgency is unlike any other social movement in Nepal’s history and is liable to resist solutions that have worked in the past. Indeed, the present crisis has no "solution" other than a negotiated resolution.

As negotiations proceed and hit the myriad turbulences that they inevitably will, it may seem at times more straightforward and in the interest of each side to seek the dubious remedy of continued war. It has happened once before in the history of our own tragic conflict, and has plagued peace efforts worldwide from Guatemala to Mozambique at various stages. While individual circumstances differed, the return to war resulted in each case from a misreading of the nature of the conflict and gross errors in judging renewed conflict as the better alternative to a negotiated peace.

There are no guarantees that the peace process in Nepal will be immune from such episodic crises. By attempting to provide a degree of clarity on the core issues, this article seeks to reinforce on the general public and on the parties entering into negotiations that even when viewed from the depths of the darkest and most hopelessly fruitless periods in the dialogues, a negotiated settlement will still remain more preferable, achievable and in the long-term interest of key parties compared to any unilateral "alternative" or "solution." This article is written with the purpose of making a reasoned and realistic case that dialogue and a negotiated settlement are the only alternatives for ending Nepal’s current crisis. The case as it is laid out argues from three interrelated yet distinct angles that a negotiated resolution stands out as the only way to bring peace and to democratically re-institutionalize the needs and interests of the three parties in conflict – monarchy, political parties and Maoists.

Negotiations and nature of the conflict: A negotiated end to hostilities is dictated by the nature of the conflict itself. Highlighted below are the major intrinsic dimensions of the political impasse in Nepal, which together make the crisis highly resistant to non-negotiated  "solutions."

1) Three-way conflict: Most known internal conflicts involve two parties – typically the state vs armed rebels. In Nepal’s case it is no longer a two-way (state vs Maoists) but a three-way contest – political parties vs. Maoists vs monarchy. If unilateral victories are hard to come by in protracted two-way contests, they are near impossibilities in three-way conflicts. There is no "solution" other than to seek a resolution.

2) Composition of Maoist movement: While we speak of the Maoist movement in singular monolithic terms, it is in fact a movement composed through the intertwining of class, race/ethnic, regional, and gender interests and identities formed in opposition to real and perceived "oppressors." Thus, the will and motivation of Maoist leaders and cadre draw on deep and multiple wells of domestic discord over fundamental issues expressed and cemented through the ideological doctrine of revolution. Only talks and negotiations can begin to untangle such deep-seated social and ideological antagonisms and reach the human communities that harbor them. Again, there is no "solution" other than to seek a resolution.

3) Constitutional crisis: The present Constitution is moribund. In the current climate it is not only the Maoists but also mainstream political parties and members of civil society that see a need to revisit fundamental constitutional issues. Thus, the current dilemma goes well beyond the Maoist insurgency and has converted into a full-blown constitutional crisis. Redesigning the nature of the Nepali polity must not be conducted in the battlefield; rather, it is a task best tackled through talks. Once again, there is no "solution" other than to seek a resolution.

4) Advanced stage of insurgency: Guerilla insurgencies are said to progress in four steps. The movement enters the third stage when it is able to replicate state-like structures and functions in the areas under its sway. The fourth and final stage of the guerilla insurgency is reached when entire regions come under the active control of rebels. By all accounts, Nepal’s Maoist insurgency has crossed the third stage and is entering the fourth stage, making it a politically "dug in" insurgency. The "people’s war" has also found ways to become economically "dug-in" through a countrywide network that systematically "mines" public and private assets yielding tens of millions of rupees each month in unaccounted and discretionary income to the managers of the "people’s war. As politically and economically "dug-in" as the Maoist insurgency is, it is most difficult to foresee any "solution" other than to seek a resolution.

5) External factor: Internal wars usually have external linkages. Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, and the United States were active in Central America and contributed in their own ways to the intractability of the domestic wars in the region. It is clear by now that although "Maoists" by name, Nepal’s rebels have deeper and more extensive ties with India than they have with the Beijing regime. What is not clear is exactly what role official India plays or does not play in either condoning or curtailing the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Complicating this further is the documented alliances that Nepali Maoists have forged with numerous communist movements in India, making official India’s involvement or lack thereof somewhat moot. In brief, the "India factor" throws in a number of imponderables into the mix that together heighten the need to generate a domestic consensus for a peaceful end to hostilities. Precisely because Nepalis do not and cannot fully know India’s position, there is no "solution" other than to seek an internal resolution.

(To be concluded)

(The author is a sociologist based in the US)

Political exposition

By DAMARU LAL BHANDARI

Cards surrounding protracted spell of insurgency are showing up. In fact, this happened in a dramatic turn of events. In what was a complicated issue once, the Maoist insurgency now appears to have boiled down considerably indeed. Predictably enough, there will be talks and possibly a happy ending to a conspiratorial epic filled up with mayhem and murder.

For the first time, it is appearing that the tangled issues raised by them could be talked up and resolved by us mortals! To this extent, Sher Bahadur Deuba has contributed a lot by dissolving the House of Representatives. Cease-fire and possibly talks would not have materialised had there been parliament still around. I wish people stopped flaying him at least for now.

To go by this yardstick, nation would do well to never return to popular elections. If I need to say this, any return to popular election could culminate in worst once again. Meanwhile, leaders of political parties on this side of the political divide would do a yeoman’s service to the nation if only they would keep their mouth shut.

Point is that not many are likely to buy what they have to peddle. But it is also true that whatever they may say could still be a catchphrase since events surrounding Maoist hydra are getting curiouser and curiouser. So much so that many on the intellectual plane have gone on the record saying whether Maoists had ever launched any genuine insurgency at all.

In fact members of the political establishment on this side of the political divide again could be likened to protagonists who acted in a farce all right but were somehow blissfully ignorant of the script. And fun is the farce was enacted for over a decade. To speak on the basis of hindsight, I am cocksure no incumbent of the Singha Durbar had any appreciable leeway in the affairs of the state.

Granted that things could have been negotiated in secrecy. It is also true again that ministers in the incumbent cabinet council have time and again said that they were not in favor of making a circus of it all.

To speak on the benefit of hindsight once again, while talks certainly were akin to circus when there was a popularly elected government in place, the latest cease-fire and imminent talks have all the elements of a farce enacted by a team of hand-picked boys.

We have a political party which considered itself as far removed from the rest in the field. It flayed everything else as bourgeoisie and sham until, of course, its latest somersault which leaves nothing to the imagination. In fact, it has come around to shake hand with people who were and still can be expected to pander to the whims and fancies of the landed gentry and status quo. Did any say Maoists were fighting against feudal forces?

And imagine all this change has come about soon after words like "patriotism" and "nationalism" started flying thick and fast in the country. The diehard rebels had a change of heart soon after they saw "patriotism" and "nationalism" flying high up in the air after the Deuba government was shown the way. In fact, October 4 will go down as landmark in recent history. If mere words can do wonders, why didn’t the press gave prime space to them earlier on?

However, there is another strand to the story. Believe it or not, one could not find reference to cease-fire in Nepal in Indian newspapers the other day. It may be recalled that they are known to carry news depicting gore and violence on this side of the border. In fact, reference to cease-fire in the Himalayan kingdom did not find place in airwaves too. But as it often happens, the failure to do the needful left nothing to imagination once again.

US arrogance comes home to roost

NICHOLAS D KRISTOF

Ah, for the halcyon days of a year ago, when we Americans fretted about why Arabs hate us. Now the question is: Why does everybody hate us?

The European edition of Time magazine has been conducting a poll on its Web site: "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With 318,000 votes cast so far, the responses are: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent.

O.K., it’s just an Internet poll and not worth the pixels it’s not printed on. Sure, the Poles and Portuguese may still dance with us. But if there were an extra spot on the axis of evil, the world would vote us in. Somehow, in a year’s time, we’ve become Iraq.

The novelist John le Carre put it this way this month in The Times of London: "America has entered one of its periods of historic madness, but this is the worst I can remember."

So what should Americans make of this? Does it matter that we’ve somehow morphed in public perception from the world’s only superpower to the world’s super-rogue state?

Of course it matters.

The macho notion that we’ll do what we choose and if the world doesn’t like it, it can go [insert expletive here] is both ludicrous and dangerous. We mustn’t become slaves to foreign opinion, but neither should we glibly dismiss it as we prepare to launch a war that will hugely aggravate this distemper - which will nurture more terrorism.

One example: In 1991 the United States leaned on Saudi Arabia to let us keep military bases there after the Gulf War. We ignored its concerns about public opinion because the bases would improve US security.

Wrong. In fact, the bases radicalized many young Saudis and persuaded Osama bin Laden to turn his sights on the United States. What seemed a shrewd move to improve our security ended up undermining our friends and strengthening our enemies.

Moreover, while the lack of allied support won’t prevent us from getting into a war with Iraq, it may prevent us from getting out. The United States sees its role as the globe’s SWAT team, but after we have ousted Saddam and whistled for the cleanup crew, it’s not clear that the allies will want to help. Nor will they pay the bill for this Iraq war as they did the last one. Each time Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insults Europe, it costs us another $20 billion.

It’s also possible that if all your friends say you’re making a mistake, they’re not mendacious back-stabbers but simply right.

In fairness, I also have to say that President George W. Bush is right that we must reserve the option of invading countries unilaterally. Think back to 1993, when we let European passivity, particularly by John Major and Francois Mitterrand, block military strikes in Yugoslavia until tens of thousands of people had been killed. In retrospect, we should have ignored the Europeans and unilaterally attacked Serbia to stop the genocide. Ditto in Rwanda. But in Iraq there is no such urgency.

Of course the anti-Americanism is unfair. It’s particularly irritating coming from the French, who pandered shamelessly to Baghdad during the 1990s to get oil-for-food contracts, thus undermining containment and contributing to today’s crisis.

But just because the French can be exasperating doesn’t mean they are always wrong. The French and Germans have a real argument against invading Iraq - that containment and deterrence are better than invasion. While it’s fair to disagree, it’s puerile to refuse to listen.

The most sensible suggestion for confronting anti-Americanism comes from one prominent American official: "It really depends on how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us."

That was George W. Bush in the second presidential debate. He was dead right - back then.

Crises clamouring for attention

DR NABIN CHHETRI

Every day the media explodes with yet another news of corruption with thousand queries strewn ubiquitous upon the sentiments of the people. The news teases their mind playing sadistic tantrums. Another bout of frustration burdens their mind. This time too the culprit is no one else but the leaders. Yesterday also it was the same. This clandestine act accomplished by the "Netas" has drastically changed the definition of politics in the minds of the multitudes.

Once the "CIAA" had shown itself as a neon sign in the obfuscating world of darkness but the same sadistic politics gobbled its spirit and once again the whereabouts of justice is in a quest for its existence. Now the Nepali almanac is accounting upon another epoch of dark days. Now it’s a high time for intellectuals stepped forward from their situational exile and saved the country from further turmoil.

Let’s use the syllogistic compass to see who our parliamentarians are. A college dropout, an illiterate, a hooligan who chanced his way out blackmailing the conscience of the populace. The numbers will sigh away to count more than ten as far as true parliamentarians are concerned. Do we ever hear about a teenager who would pursue politics when he grows up? Rarely do we find. The visage of politics has been malignantly distorted in the minds of the youths. A year back, we have witnessed the puerile display of one of our MPs during the aftermath of the royal massacre. Bhata  .....ta.....ta

What does that signify? That silly act was enough to refute his limited conscience, his desperate verbal effort in crossing every obstacle of English vocabulary just to get recognition from the foreign correspondent and media giants like BBC and CNN. He may have regretted those acts later and must have tried to justify it with another volley of hypocrisy? But will that moment ever excuse his justification. We have another sample who saw solution in the punch of his friend’s nose. Even patience isn’t a virtue for these people. A trifle misunderstanding amongst their
colleagues sponsors their ego to open yet another party with a slightly different outlook.

A small difference in their ego-balance gives rise to an enormous rift disturbing the entire history and geography of our country. The party workers can’t but emancipate themselves and have to perforcedly bias them in one of the tags out of necessity and recognition. There are other vulnerable traps of power and pelf that makes this drama more melodramatic. It’s not the ideological differences  but the views of the leaders that procreate demarcations.

A prefix or a suffix before the mother party does wrought their will like "Congress" and "Congress democratic". The former "UML" and the "ML". Democracy does not only mean the verbal catapulation of your tongue neither it means a doggy conflict between the leaders of same or different parties. The breach of faith in the congress latterly revealed how an ego in the wrong heads can obtrude an entire system.  Even the savants who run the educational institutions  have learnt much from these political pontiffs. The "PABSON" and the "NPABSON" is another live example. We have proffered enough space in our political lineage to let every leader  satiate their ego. During these twelve years Singhadurbar has served nothing more than a kindergarten school for the parvenu leaders to learn the A’s and B’s of politics. A simple oratory skill and some acts of curtsy doesn’t definitely lend one a license to run the country. How can you expect a dunderhead to understand all the nitty -gritties of state-de-affairs? All those hefty ideas and logic of planning and implementation just can’t comprehend his ken. Knowledge fears to be a part of his reason due to his flat profile. We have to pore demure about where has our moral code excused these vagabonds to sneak in and create commotion in the life and blood of our country. Certain constitutional filters have to be introduced to checkmate the wrong heads fiddle in our system.

The state must formulate stringent laws allowing only the graduates to burden their shoulders as a member of the parliament. Just floor this resolution in the parliament and just see honestly who ever dares to reject it? The one who does possibly are the ones this resolution is proposed for. Some old, illiterate and the ugly who acknowledge themselves as the next founders of modern Nepal are the significant nosy boils transmogrifying the entire course of state-de-arts.

The decision taken by His majesty is not an outburst of a momentous mood. It has taken many months for the monarch to hold the constitutional horses. The leaders were there at the beck and call facilitating the circumstances to deteriorate. Until penultimately, having no feasible solutions, the king had to  lay his hands on. We often hear that the portals of Narayanhiti had been frequented by these leaders’ time and again  just to manage themselves a safe nook in the forthcoming government. Rumours have it that some even opted for a clandestine rendezvous with foreign intermediaries. Shame! Shame! we have let these leaders juggle our emotions time and again. Despite frustration, despite rejection , by every possible and legal chicaneries , the intellectuals have to sneak into the constitutional frame and confer a better promise for the future of our country. The foreign soil may provide every bit of materialistic paraphernalia to occupy every bit of our sensual realm but what about our intuition and our soul? Its no better than an orphan. Our senses may be a subject of trade but not our soul.

Due to the ignorance of some pairs of acts of nepotism and flattery, intellectuals of our country have to live a life of self-imposed exile. Beware! The time has come for every astute brains to try and share the brain to save the country from further rapes and tortures. The tomorrow will not excuse us if not acted today. Every pulse of the future is going to question our existence of our "NOW". Please scoop your curiosity and concern out of your comfort zone be it domestic or international and help Nepal save herself from a historic suicide. Your brain may be satisfied in foreign land but what about your heart? Your every breath is attached to your motherland.

How long can you not see? When you are not blind, How long can you not hear?

When you are not dumb, How long can you not think? When you are sane? How long can you not feel? When you have a heart, How long can you not love? Your mother Nepal.

The rights-based approach

ANNE MARSOE & BISHNU SAPKOTA

The rights-based approach to development has been a buzzword in the last few years, especially in the so-called third world countries. There are, however, reasons for this word to be in vogue in underdeveloped countries because these countries suffer from both the problems of rights and development simultaneously compared to developed countries, speaking in relative terms. In the case of Nepal, although Nepal being a subject of extensive foreign development efforts for decades, the rights based approach is still new and there are differences of opinions on it both on the part of the donor agencies and national policy makers. However, the process of the approach is now in the offing. An example of this is the integration of the human rights component in the Tenth Five-Year Plan of the government.

Extracted from the framework of the values, standards and principles captured in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Nepal’s ratified and subsequent legally binding human rights conventions/treaties, constitution and laws, a human rights-based approach to development provides both a vision of what development in Nepal should strive to achieve and a nationally tailor-made set of tools. In general, a human rights-based approach is not only about expanding people’s choices and capabilities but above all, about the empowerment of people to decide what the process of development should look like. Therefore, adopting a human rights-based approach will not only change what to do and prioritise, but it will also raise questions about how to do things.

A rights-based approach not only defines the subjects of development, but also translates people’s needs into rights, recognising the human person as the active subject and claim-holder. In addition, it identifies the duties and obligations of those against whom a claim can be brought, and regards the process and outcome of development interventions as equally important. The most elementary process in pursuing human rights-based development strategies depends on the determination, acceptance and operationalisation of the interrelated aspects of duty-bearers and claim-holders within the system of accepted universal values, principles and standards. These are, after all, the key attributes for addressing the power relations in development.

Putting the ‘dignity and worth of the human person’ at the centre of the development process will mean the transformation of existing basic-needs, poverty strategies, which are based on a concept of benevolence, into human rights-based approaches, based on the universal human rights framework. A basic-needs strategy incorporates a certain element of compassion and generosity, whereas a human rights-based approach will focus on the capacity of duty-bearers to fulfil their obligations, and rights-holders to claim their rights. It thus introduces an important element of accountability, which in many current development strategies is far from adequately addressed.

The following human rights-principles are of particular relevance for a Human Rights based approach to development: Universality, Equality, Participation, and Accountability. Every woman, man and child is entitled to enjoy her or his human rights simply by virtue of being humans. All human rights-be they civil, cultural, economic, political or social-should be treated with the same priority. The government of a state has the primary responsibility to create an environment in which all citizens may enjoy all human rights, and have the obligation to ensure that the respect for human rights norms and principles is integrated into all levels of governance and policy-making.

In this sense, accountability needs to be viewed in light of justice. The principle of the Rule of Law includes resolution of competing claims, access to justice and redress for abuse of human rights and the just distribution of public resources and the benefits and burdens of particular policies. The government of Nepal has, by incorporating parts of the National Human Rights action Plan (NHRAP) in the Tenth Five-Year Plan, not only assured emphasis on accountability and human rights in genera, but also a rights-based approach to further development of the country. Human rights have become a filter for Nepal’s future development.

The rights-based approach addresses the development concerns by placing human dignity at the center rather than by simply taking people as the technical beneficiaries. The people are, of course, beneficiaries, but on top of all they are human beings so development efforts should not undermine the value that a human being carries by virtue of being a human being. This approach then would be not only extensively participatory but also based on the principles that development is for all, and all are entitled to development equally.

Undoubtedly, there are a number of issues not explicitly answered in the rights-based approach. However, the beauty of a rights-based approach is that it leaves to the stakeholders to participate in finding solutions to such future problems and issues. The process is as important as the output. Important issues can, for example, be those related to construction of big dams, multinational corporations, international investment and trade regimes, or free market and globalisation in general. In some cases, a large section of population can be rendered homeless, jobless, and so on. For instance, the concerns raised during the course of Save Narmada campaign in the southern neighbour has a formidable humanitarian dimension to it. Big dams may be necessary but construction should not destroy people and their culture and heritage.

The rights-based approach to development is not free from challenges. Moreover, it is dependent on oversight bodies to monitor the development, such as the national human rights commission, various human rights cells within different Ministries and agencies, accountability mechanisms like parliament, an independent judiciary and mass media. Only then can a rights-based approach be assured.

If there is any concern that this new approach would rely on, it is the humanitarian concern, whereby all the marginalised people and communities are brought in the mainstream of development. This approach will ensure that human rights are major concerns while carrying out development initiatives, with an aim to ensure that the distribution of development is just, even and equal among people. In the case of Nepal, this could also contribute to be a preventive matter as well as promote reduction of the present conflict. Therefore, the incorporation of the NHRAP in the Tenth Five-Year Plan as well as the factual implementation of the NHRAP is instrumental for Nepal’s future.

Let’s not break peace talks again

KUMAR BASNET

The government and the CPN (Maoist) have once again declared a ceasefire. This has surprised many. CPN-UML leader Madav Kumar Nepal, who is in Janakpur where the party is holding its seventh national convention, expressed his surprises because he found it something out of the blue. President of the Nepali Congress Girija Prasad Koirala said that he did not know if the talks were held with the King or the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the Nepalese people now know the ceasefire has been declared and the preparations for peace talks are underway. This could be good news for any Nepalese after living in an economic uncertainty and a political instability for a long time.

Looking at the last 12 years of democracy, it shows that the political parties rarely reached a common consensus on issues of national interest. Rather, frequent intra-party feud ruled the roost of political parties in order to gain power. And once again, it is not certain whether the major political parties would let the Chand government go ahead with the peace process or they would create obstacles. They might call the government or the peace process unconstitutional. However, for other Nepalese it does not matter who is the negotiator— be it be the King, the Chand government or any other force. What matters is they just want a peaceful settlement of the problem.

And on the other hand, it is still to be believed that the Maoists have come up with good intentions. Their walking out of the peace talks and attacking the army barrack in Dang is still fresh in our minds. Former Prime Minister Deuba says the Maoists used him in the name of peace talks. Would Prime Minister Chand be another Deuba or his colleague Narayan Singh Pun would really pave the way for peace? And it is also surprising that the Maoists have agreed to the "minimum agenda" such as round table talks, interim government and constituent assembly. They have not demanded for a release of their cadres as yet. However, they may do so once the talks really begin. It is still not known how the Maoists have taken the peace talks. Another most important question is about the weapons the Maoists hold. Are they going to give up their arms if the constituent assembly is agreed or will they return to gun-totting culture? Let’s hope that whatever happens, it will be in the interest of the country.

At a time when the leaders of all major political parties have stopped saying the King’s move as unconstitutional, former Prime Minister K P Bhattarai has fired a salvo. Bhattarai had been silent after the split of the Nepali Congress; every one was surprised to hear him demand for the reinstatement of parliament. Why has Bhattarai uttered such words after a year long silent? He has put many in suspicion. Was he advised by Girijababu to speak out or is he really worried about the country now?

The death tolls rose to over 7,000 from 3,200 after the peace talks broke off last year. Many Nepalese left Nepal due to the Maoist fear. The economy has been affected badly and thousands of people have been displaced owing to the Maoist war. Yet political leaders continue to fight for power and dilute Nepali politics. Girij Prasad Koirala and Madav Nepal have welcomed the truce cautiously.