Nuclear disarmament through non-proliferation

By HIRA BAHADUR THAPA

Promoting nuclear disarmament will certainly make positive contributions to the improvement of present conditions of international peace and security. Whereas the global community remains convinced of this contention, there seems to be divergent views with respect to the means of realizing the goals of nuclear disarmament. One must admit that the goals of nuclear disarmament as reflected in Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) have become disappointingly illusory. The essence of Article VI of the NPT is to seek the elimination of nuclear weapons to which all nuclear weapon states have committed to achieve under effective international verification system.  NPT has come into effect since 1970. Hence its history of three decades is a mixed bag of success and
failures.

Ever since the United Nations took up the issue of nuclear disarmament, a good number of multilateral and bilateral treaties have been concluded. These treaties include nuclear-weapon-free zones like Antarctica Treaty, Treaty of Tlatelolco, both of which ban possession and deployment of all kinds of nuclear weapons in the respective geographic regions. The Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which partially bans nuclear testing, also contributes to nuclear non-proliferation. The 1970 NPT prohibiting acquisition of nuclear weapons in order to encourage nuclear non-proliferation is one of the important accomplishments of the UN in the field of nuclear disarmament.

One of the two fundamental articles of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons requires that the five acknowledged nuclear weapon states viz China, France, Russia, UK and the USA should refrain from supplying nuclear technology and materials  to non-nuclear weapon states.   Furthermore, NPT article also stipulates that nuclear weapon states should seek the abolition of their nuclear arsenals. For non-nuclear weapon states the requirement under the provisions of the NPT article is that, they should renounce their willingness to acquire nuclear weapons. This renunciation of non-nuclear weapon states is to be rewarded by offering them nuclear technology by the developed countries for peaceful uses of nuclear
energy.

Whatever virtuous objectives the NPT might have contained in its text, ominously the world is getting over armed even with the emergence of a few nuclear capable states. The May 1998 South Asian nuclear explosions have exposed the limitations of the NPT. The fundamental objective of the NPT is to stem proliferation of nuclear weapons both vertically and horizontally. For the lack of progress in halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons nuclear weapon states are to be basically blamed. Unwillingness on their part to seriously engage in negotiations leading to elimination of their nuclear arsenals combined with the evolution of deterrent theory in respect of nuclear weapons have impeded desirable achievement in nuclear disarmament.

The premise of the deterrent theory is that nuclear weapons should be retained for discouraging one’s adversaries to launch nuclear attack for fear of credible retaliation. Unconvincingly though, the proponents of such theory even believe that possession of nuclear weapons by one state makes nuclear war less likely. They even tend to suggest that Kargil war of 1999 was halted because both rivals engaged in the confrontation claimed to have nuclear capability to cause irreparable damage to each other. However, the world community is skeptical about this contention. Many do not believe that nuclear weapons play positive roles in averting prospective wars.

The theory of nuclear deterrence provokes others to acquire and retain nuclear weapons by emboldening themselves with retaliatory capacity. The goal of nuclear disarmament, which is to abolish nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapon states, will not be realized through the policy of nuclear deterrence. There is enough empirical evidence to show that this policy has not stemmed the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is the only existing most universal global norm setter for nuclear non-proliferation. It seeks to strengthen the regime of non-proliferation by discouraging non nuclear weapon states to acquire nuclear weapons and by goading them to start serious negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. By stemming proliferation of nuclear weapons, through conclusion of both arms control and arms reduction agreements, we can advance the cause of nuclear disarmament. The recent achievements in the field of disarmament culminated in the conclusion of START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) I & II including US-Russia Bilateral Agreement of May 2002 to reduce their strategic arms can be building blocks to move closer to the goals of abolition of nuclear weapons.

The current world scenario in terms of peace and security is far from satisfactory. Some negative trends like increased military expenditure to the level of US $850 bn per annum can fuel the apprehension that disarmament causes to be in the priority list. To counter such apprehension the nuclear weapon states, which unequivocally undertook during 2000 NPT review conference to achieve nuclear disarmament, should engage themselves in serious negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear arsenals.

(The author is associated with Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Now and then

By KARISHMA AMATYA

About ten months ago when I bid my convent days goodbye , I though I was being reborn. I ‘d done my homework and here I was ready to conquer the world. I was leaving behind those navy blue pleated skirts, red cardigans, slogans that cried " we are ladies " and above all those lunch boxes that added an extra kilo to our already bulging backpacks. "Now " was the time to search for the "greener pastures."

Ten months later here, I am, jobless, peerless, nevertheless fearless and above all useless. The dark clouds of submissiveness loom large. Since I can’t get myself to open my eyes in the wee hours of the day, attending my morning classes in college is a distant dream. Though my attendance sheet still reads 98 percent of class presence, I probably won’t be able to figure out compulsory English lessons from majors English ones.

Back on my hey days, I’d skip every class possible, play up pranks on my friends, crake up jokes with my teachers and yet end up scoring top grades in my class. Now, the "examination" is knocking at my door. Hopefully, I’ll still manage to find a loophole. But I read it somewhere that Hope was Mr. Somebody’s middle name. He died of it.

My social climb-up started when I made it to the Editorial board of my college and made it a point to write for papers every week. My social climb-down started when I left my college and found no point in writing - who reads it anyways? Had there been a plastic surgeon to relocate the dislocated life, believe me, I’d be the first one to register for surgery. The switch from active to passive ain’t only limited to grammar books.

What can one do except think of the past when the present is a question mark, and there’s probably no future? When the nostalgia gets into your veins and past grows within the womb of present, I guess, I ‘m not complaining. This is just a confession of Ms Nobody who has popped out of nowhere.

What I have rambled is in a way an escape from suppression. Anyway, if you ask me why I’m bragging about my past and making a seemingly uninteresting comparison between today and yesterday, all I can say is that past cries out "home." A place where you can rest your soul if there’s any.

Is Maoism main issue of today ?

By DR SHREEDHAR GAUTAM

We all agree that the nation is lurching from one crisis to another. Similarly, we all wish the end of the present problem at the earliest. However, there are confusing and differing views regarding the nature of present crisis and ways of its solution. Many of us think that Maoism is the main issue of today. In the present context Maoism problem means the situation of insecurity, fear and violence due to the frequent clashes between the security forces and the Maoists as well as the double fear psyche created by the violent activities of the Maoists and the security forces, especially in rural areas. Certainly, this is a major problem of today and it should be solved as soon as possible through meaningful dialogue between the government and the Maoists. However, we should always be alert that any compromise between them should be in favour of nation’s long-term interest, and not in any way against the spirit of 1990 people’s movement.

History is a witness that many compromises and understandings have gone against the wishes of the people. It is in this light that while supporting any dialogue between the government and the Maoists, we should see that there is no betrayal to the people’s cause. Both aspects of the issue should be taken up seriously. Despite our support to such a development, we should realise that even if any compromise takes place between the two sides, the main crisis of today will not be over. But why? Many of us miss the point because we do not try to know the root cause for such a situation today. We cannot grasp the gravity of present situation arisen after the October 4 declaration, without going back to the 1990’s historical people’s movement, which ended inconclusively.

A few days ago Nepali Congress leader Shailaja Acharya opined that the 1990 movement was stopped prematurely without achieving the goal of genuine constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system. She even blamed her party for not going along with the left parties to conclude the movement in a decisive way. We do not know whether thee has been a qualitative change in Shailaja Acharya’s perception, but we can understand her feeling of remorse. Shailaja has tried to convey an impression that main problem of today is the danger to parliamentary democracy in the light of the October 4 declaration. She means that the root cause for the October 4 incident lies in the present constitution, which failed to make the people sovereign and supreme power of the land. She is of the view that 1990’s tripartite compromise failed to achieve the simple goal of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. She deserves credit for openly confessing that her party’s top leaders are responsible for sowing the seeds of present crisis.

As opined by Shailza, people could have been genuinely sovereign if the political parties involved in the movement then had gone for constituent assembly given the people’s support and enthusiasm. But, the major political parties of that time ignored such suggestion and hurriedly entered into an interim coalition government. They even accused the advocates of constituent assembly then and termed their voice as untimely and disruptive. Now Shailaja Acharya too thinks that whatever is written in the constitution about the people’s sovereignty, practically they are helpless. Those who support the October 4 declaration have consistently said that the present constitution has empowered the king for such an action. If we listen to their voice, it is also true that as long as military is under the king, the sovereignty cannot lie in the people. The October 4 declaration explicitly says that the king took the step using his inherent royal power. The development after the October 4 should not leave us in any doubt that Nepal’s monarchy is different from that of Japan and Britain.

Even if any dialogue takes place between the government and the Maoists, there is every possibility of emerging the situation of October 4 given the existing constitutional provisions. It is in this background we have another greater issue today than the Maoist insurgency. Some political pundits link the problem created by the Maoist upsurge with the question of constituent assembly. Even some Nepali Congress members, including former Minister, Narhari Acharya, have been voicing the need of constituent assembly to solve the present stalemate. These people never talked about the need of constituent assembly in 1990. They are advocating for constituent assembly to solve the Maoist problem, but not handing over sovereign power to the people. If any understanding develops between the government and the Maoists, people like Narhari Acharya will forget the importance of constituent assembly. If there is any need of constituent assembly, it is not to solve the mere Maoist rebellion but to make the people sovereign in real sense of the term. It is a mistake to treat the situation created after the October declaration and the Maoist upsurge in the same light. Both have different nature and background. Only after having regained the achievement of 1990, it is for the political parties to convince the people about the urgency of constituent assembly irrespective of the solution of Maoist created situation.

In the mean time, the focus of the political parties should be over restoration of the lost power without raising other divisive issues that could weaken the people’s resolve and solidarity in gaining back the fruits of 1990’s movement. Whether they will go for the constituent assembly or not depends, on their sincerity and the capacity of mass mobilization. It is true that even if constituent assembly’s election is held, not all our problems will be over. It will only commence the process of empowering the people and thus it can reduce the potential recurrence of October 4 incident. Therefore, we should not see any direct link between the Maoist question and the constituent assembly. We should realise the point that even if Maoist insurgency is solved, the need of constituent assembly will always be there as long as the people are not fully sovereign.

The future will show how far the responsible parties realise and take up this present issue seriously and sincerely. We can only say that moments of crisis are not always bad things, if we learn the hard lessons from them. It is for us to read what they signify if we care for our country and people. If we ponder, we can learn that mere ascent to power for short-term gain is not in the interest of people, if we fail to make them sovereign. Moreover, people can become sovereign based on sustained political mobilisation, not by rank opportunism as shown by our so-called mainstream parties. People’s morale is very low today because these political parties have betrayed and lost their touch with the grass root level. Now the parties have exposed themselves because of their inability to mobilise the masses, though the need of hour is political awareness among the people. Therefore, we should not leave things to only opportunist politicians, to change the present depressing scenario. Only people’s awareness and participation can bring about the desired change.

Need for strong role of civil society

ARJUN BHANDARI

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), trained as nurse, is remembered in American society for undaunted struggle for the rights of women over their body during the thirties. She shook the western world, saying that women, not men, have the rights to birth control. Although she was indicted for several times for circulating messages through mails, called The Woman Rebel, in which she attacked the Comstock Law. Passed in 1873, this federal legislation made it a crime to import or distribute any device, medicine, or information designed to prevent conception or induce abortion, or to mention in print the names of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, nurses and physicians were legally barred from providing this information to their patients. Finally, Sanger won support from community leaders and the case against her was dismissed in 1916. In the same year she established the first-ever American Birth Control Clinic in Brooklyn, New York. She also began publishing Birth Control Review, a monthly magazine until 1928.

She travelled wide parts of the USA, Europe and Asia, raising concern over the importance of birth control concept. Now, it has been a well-established fact that all the countries should have their national policies to birth control if they were to achieve economic growth. Her campaign for birth control not only help control over population in the globe, it also opened up wide horizon for the emerging genre of literature – feminism criticism and psychoanalysis.

Gradually, her campaign for woman’s sole right to birth control received widespread support in American society and the whole world accepted it as a matter of fact.

It was not that easy to launch a campaign for woman’s right in a patriarchal society that had barred from circulating materials concerning the birth control. Today, Sanger has been an icon for gender equality. Women of the world today need not debate whether women have any rights over their body. Contraceptives are easily available in any part of the world and a woman can undergo abortion if she thinks it inconvenient for her body. The kudos goes to the nurse, who dedicated her entire life for the sake of half a population of world.

To bring about social reforms, one has to be fully dedicated to his own conviction.

A member of civil society can help bring about drastic and conceptual changes in the given society if he/she acts according to his/her conviction.

But civil society in the Nepali context has not been that much effective as in the west. We inherited much of the fundamental and civil rights directly from the western world that fought for decades, if not for centuries, to achieve those civil liberties. Still, we have to raise voice for consensus, for a number of issues that have not been accepted by our society. It is civil society that educates the general people regarding their rights and responsibilities. A layman has a general understanding that a civil society, an often-quoted phrase after the 1990’s people movement, means academics, human rights activists, people engaged in non-governmental organisations, press and legislators.

In retrospect, civil society, by and large, has remained isolated from the rest of the society for which it is supposed to serve. Academics and donor-driven human rights activists and non-governmental organisations have been self-centred in spite of their benevolence. Maoist issue is a case in point. The long-drawn-out Maoist insurgency has claimed lives of more than 7,000 people, forced thousands of people out of their home in the rural areas and pushed the national economy on the verge of collapse. A telling effect of the insurgency is the exodus of people from the villages in the far-and mid-western regions. But the influential civil society in the capital is just paying lip service to their plight, despite the heart rendering media reports of the people migrating to India and urban centres of the country to escape from being caught in crossfire between the warring forces.

One of the anomalies on the part of civil society is its non-commitment to its own conviction and its unorganised approach to deal with the issues that have crippled the entire nation. The civil society has miserably failed to pressurise both the warring parties – the government and the rebel Maoists – for the resumption of dialogues that would help restore peace. On the other hand, it has not been able to muster adequate support from the people, directly affected by the insurgency, to achieve the long-cherished goal of peace. Role of the so-called civil society has largely confined to issuing a couple of press statements and organising mass meetings of a selected group of people in the capital in case of heavy losses of lives in confrontations in the remote parts of the country.

Recent media reports suggest that more than 60,000 people in the hill districts of the mid-and far-western regions have fled their homes, mainly because of impending force-recruitment by the Maoists and blockade of food supplies by the government security forces. No organised voice has so far been raised by civil society highlighting the burning issue. It can only be said that civil society is least bothered about the suffering of those who do not fall on its category.

Texts for a history course for 2003

Jim Hoagland

Throughout this past year, ominous headlines played tag with history. The looming hell fires of war, along with their antecedents and consequences, singed readers daily. And war was the stuff of a number of standout histories published in 2002, a year that was kinder to analysts of foreign affairs than to those of the stock market. The relationship between then and now is more mysterious than historians or journalists like to admit. Separating the useful from the misleading in precedent is the task in each trade. Misapply the past and you change the future in dangerous ways. Ignore the past and it changes you in ways you will not like.

The dangers created by leaving a wounded, humiliated but unvanquished foe still standing peek out in the current commentary about Iraq and in Margaret MacMillan’s masterful "Paris 1919." She casts new light on the oft told tale of how the failures of peacemaking after the "Great War" contributed to the rise of German militarism and of a homicidal dictator who built a powerful secret arsenal under the noses of his adversaries and then used it.

MacMillan shows that the conventional analysis of the allegedly overly harsh treatment of Germany in defeat is wide of the mark. The partly defeated aggressors were left aggrieved but still powerful enough to seek and obtain revenge and domination. That was the great mistake of 1919, and of 1991.

"Hitler did not wage war because of the Treaty of Versailles, although he found its existence a godsend for his propaganda," MacMillan writes. "Even if Germany had been left with its old borders, even if it had been allowed whatever military forces it wanted" and much else besides, Hitler "would have still wanted more," including the destruction of Poland, the Soviet Union and Jews everywhere. The war began "with a series of mistakes and it ended in confusion" because the United States was not expecting victory when it came. That’s MacMillan on Woodrow Wilson’s stumbles. But it could be a description of the strategic pratfall of the first President Bush and his national security team, who blew the truce talks at Safwan in 1991 and left Saddam Hussein to be dealt with by the second President Bush.

Nothing could be more contemporary for students of Iraq than Antony Beevor’s "The Fall of Berlin 1945." The crumbling Reich’s propaganda grew more shrill as citizens turned to gallows humor and the casting off of Nazi identification to survive. In Iraq today, Ba’ath Party officials have suddenly become polite to citizens they have been routinely abusing for decades. Some are opening contacts with opposition forces and turning in party cards, according to European diplomatic cables from Baghdad.

Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser and a student of German unification, has been seen reading Michael Beschloss’s incomparable account of Roosevelt, Truman and the destruction of Hitler’s Germany entitled "The Conquerors," as she oversees planning for a postwar Iraq. Beschloss documents the origins and importance of unconditional surrender as a strategy.

I would add "Pakistan," by Owen Bennett Jones, to Rice’s reading list and recommend it to anyone interested in understanding the nexus of terrorism and Pakistan’s nefarious role as "a determined proliferator" of nuclear technology. Another book entitled "Pakistan," by Mary Anne Weaver, usefully traces the social and economic roots of that country’s downward spiral into outlawry. The best analysis of Al Qaeda and transnational terrorism I encountered this year exists only in French. It is contained in two books on global Islam and Sept. 11 by Olivier Roy. Fortunately, this insightful scholar will be published in the United States in 2003. The most ambitious foreign affairs/history book to buckle my desk in the last 12 months was Philip Bobbitt’s panoramic "The Shield of Achilles," a meditation on global strategy through the ages. It heralds the replacement of the nation-state by the market-state.

The most contrarian was Charles Kupchan’s "The End of the American Era," which argues that imperial overstretch will cause the United States to lose global leadership (a strong possibility) to a revitalized European Union (now there’s a stretch!) rather than to global anarchy. .Best analysis of Germany’s soul disguised as fiction? Ward Just’s "The Weather in Berlin." A fun historical read? "Seven Ages of Paris" by Alistair Horne. And check out Strobe Talbott’s "The Russia Hand." His sketch of Vladimir Putin is incisive, and Talbott gives us an unblemished and therefore incomplete portrait of a Bill Clinton who would have made a heck of a president.

The Washington Post

International Herald Tribune

Looking back at 2002

SANJEEV POKHAREL

The second year of the ‘new’ millennium has already slid into our history books. When it began, we were too terrified to welcome it with the open heart. Now when it has ended we are too reluctant to calculate what we gained and what we lost during the entire year. A simple mathematics will, however, show to a zestful that the country, and of course, the whole world has become a worse place to live in. A series of macabre events and circumstances at home and all over the world were, perhaps, the only gifts the year 2002 could manage to give to the Nepalese people.

The six-year-long Maoist war continued to haunt us through the images of death, destruction and violence. We saw our cornfields turned into battlefields, forests into ‘shelters’ and ‘hideouts’ and infrastructure into piles of debris. Thousands died in the ‘war’; thousands and thousands rendered homeless; and a great many young men and women were physically impaired by the wounds of the war. It seemed as though it was a competition between two ‘forces’ and the prize were to be delivered to that force which was able to kill more (innocent) people. Never before did we experience so much violence. The year will probably go down in our history as the bloodiest episode of inhuman carnage.

During the year, our economy continued to climb downhill. Most of the ‘rich’ countries included Nepal into the list of ‘highly dangerous and risky’ zones making even the most incurable romantic too frightened to tread on our land. All forms of businesses continued to be sapped. More people became unemployed. When a bigger pie of our tiny development budget was directed towards ‘peace and security purposes’, we stopped expecting anything from the establishment. The only things which continued their exponential growth during the entire year were death tolls, poverty, and of course, the blatant misuse of country’s property.

During the entire year general people were denied their existence. While prophesizing the ‘importance’ of democracy and freedom, all ‘ruling-class’ gentlemen (including the ‘revolutionaries’) did not feel it their duty to inform the people about the whole state of affairs with clarity and precision. We were deliberately ‘de-politicised.’ Even the press lost its ‘free’ nature when the government emasculated it through censorship. In spite of naked hoaxes and self-fulfilling prophecies, civil society did not receive any information, which could be utilized to analyze our real situations. To be honest, most of us didn’t know what was actually going on inside our own country.

Situations around the world were not encouraging either. Huge bombing festivals in Afghanistan continued throughout the year. Though the allied forces did not achieve much success in catching the kingpins, they were successful, as we are told, in liberating Afghan women from their burquaas! The people of the war-ravaged country continued to face morbid problems of starvation and diseases because the Western nations could give off only one fifth of the total money they had promised to provide to the country before the ‘war on terrorism’ started in Afghanistan. Moreover, we saw extreme forms of militancy backed by acts of terrorism throughout the world during the entire year. Our earth, skies, and water became dangerous. But the questions like -what does terrorism actually mean, which acts are terrorist and which are not, and who are the terrorists- got pushed to the corner in the year 2002 too.

In the same year, our nuclear neighbors nearly used their muscles and weapons threatening also the lives of the Nepalese people. The dreadful enmity and verbal battle sparked by the so-called parliament gunfire and Godhra killing has calmed down for some time but the war-mood has not much changed between the leaders of the two countries. It is also feared that the landslide victory of Narendra Modi, a veteran Hindu who happens to be one of the most influential BJP leaders, in Gujrat will have serious consequences for the relationship between the two nations. The brutal killings of innocent people by religious extremists in Gujrat in the same year will remain as another gloomy episode of our ‘modern’ history.

Coming back to our own country, we stand today in a situation where prospects of peace, freedom and democracy have become seriously mutilated. King Gyanendra’s reluctance to trust the political leaders and the leaders’ inability to seek a comfortable passage through the national crises have put the country into a macabre deadlock. Confusions and crises have further increased after the King dismissed the democratically elected Prime Minister and formed a government in the last September to work under his executive (and divine) powers. It is being feared that the kleptocracy, which robbed people in many parts of the world in the past, will spread its roots in Nepalese soil also. The self-serving explanations and myths from both our ‘clean image’ ministers and ‘democratic’ leaders, which provide no solutions to the present crises but indicate more horrible days ahead, strengthen this fear.

Finally, seconds, minutes, days, months and years have no meanings of their own. In fact, our deeds explain the way they come to us and disappear. Cursing the past times is, therefore, simply meaningless. Nor is it practical to be complacent reducing ourselves to the petrified observers of the runaway world. What we need is improvement in our thoughts and deeds. Otherwise, humanity will continue to suffer. If the present scenario continues, some peoples or groups may win their ‘wars’ but most people will lose their peace.