Peace process at the crossroads

Though the first and second rounds of peace talks ended relatively smoothly, it has very rough path ahead. In essence, the peace process is at the crossroads. The positive public reception of the peace talks is overshadowed by several undesirable events in the recent past. The security response of May 11 towards the political leaders and workers of parliamentary parties, recent threatening statements of the Ministry of Defence, unusual expression against the King in the protest rallies organised by the parliamentary parties and public expressions of politicians have implanted more suspicion and potential difficulties for the further rounds of peace talks. In my opinion, the current crisis in Nepal is the combined product of the lack of vision, lack of confidence and erosion of trust and lack of commitment and determination.

Lack of vision

Whatever politicians of this country reiterate that there seems to be a lack of a clear vision among themselves on how this country should be governed and how democracy could and should work to achieve peace and prosperity. Rather they are entangled in a narrow vested interests and personal gains. The creation, organisation and operationalisation of legitimate democracy are far from the vision of present politicians and leaders of Nepal. The fundamental problem lies here.

Confidence crisis

One of the basic foundations of democracy and political stability is mutual understanding and confidence. In the political history of Nepal, from the Rana regime to the present Chand regime, mutual respect, common understanding and political coexistence have been replaced by competition, mistrust and suspicion. Crisis of confidence exists between the Palace and the political parties, political parties and civil society, and within political parties, the business sector, and even among the individuals. No politicians want to realise the importance of trust in a functional democracy. Instead they focus too much on past mistakes just for the sake of blaming rival groups at the cost of future democracy. It is fundamentally wrong to be so obsessed with the past and to ignore future if we want to transform Nepalese society into a twenty-first century society. Everybody knows that the current peace talks cannot bring lasting peace if all political forces, the King and civil society do not work together, which requires trust rebuilding. Political parties do not trust the King’s repeatedly expressed commitment to multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. The King has lost trust with the parliamentary political parties for their extremely poor performance of past 13 years and the recent situation. Political parties and many people do not trust the present government, as it is not functioning according to the democratic ideals. The major political forces of this country have also questioned legitimacy of this government. The recent approach of the government to use ‘monarchy’ as a defence mechanism for its weaknesses as well as arrogance of parliamentary parties are not only creating the situation of confrontation but also weakening the ongoing peace process.

Lack of commitment

The expression of leaders of parliamentary parties and the CPN (Maoist), the Prime Minister and ministers and press communique of the Ministry of Defence gave a single message to general public that no one is genuinely committed to peace. I do not believe that politicians do not understand the detrimental effects of negative expression regarding the peace process. But from the conflict management perspective the expressions of Girija Prasad Koirala, Prakash Chandra Lohani, Rabindra Nath Sharma and Nepali Congress Central Committee members on the issue of confinement of army movement are not only irrelevant but also detrimental to the ongoing peace process. Rather, they should have endorsed arrangement and strongly asked the government and the rebel leaders to confine the Maoist rebel force in the same manner to minimise potential risks. In my understanding, the confinement of army movement to five-kilometre radius is only a provisional arrangement specific to facilitate peace process. It does not mean that the army movement is permanently constrained and not allowed to secure country form external threats. Their responses clearly indicate how committed and sincere they are towards restoring the lasting peace in Nepal. The Prime Minister, who was also one of the major players in the last 13 years politics, blames without hesitation, to others for the wrongdoing. He did not share part of that crime they have committed to the country. Instead he fuelled the conflict blaming to others.

Clash of interest

Whatever the political leaders say, their actions are completely guided by vested interests, to go to power, win elections, and capture state’s resources. People like myself have listen to their speeches for a decade but they completely failed to convince the general public. Their words and actions are inconstant, irrelevant and ineffective to address problems of this country. A ubiquitous interest of general public in Nepal is first to install lasting peace in the country and restore functional democracy. Everybody knows that democracy, political parties, constitutional monarchy, civil administration cannot properly function in violence. Peace is the precondition for all of them. But why politicians and the government are not fully committed to achieving peace in Nepal? Does any one believe that what they are saying and doing is contributing to peace building?

It seems that the parliamentary parties, especially UML, are in a hurry to go to power, which the Maoists and the present government do not want. The Maoists, for obvious reason of easiness to deal with the present government as they said is the representative of the King, want to deal with this government. So, unlike the parliamentary party, they are not eager to change the present government. The King, also for obvious reason, wants to continue this government. In this context, in the foreseeable future, it is less feasible for parliamentary parties to fulfil their dream of regaining power.

Conclusion

Current crisis cannot be solved through one force of this country. It requires sincere, honest and collective efforts from parliamentary parties, the King and the Maoists. Whatever the present government and parliamentary parties are doing cannot bring a lasting solution to the crisis in this country. When the Maoists are looking for safe landing in multi-party democracy, it is the responsibility of the parliamentary parties and the King to give them space. The present peace talks is the perfect opportunity for that. However, the approach of the current government indicates that its confrontational strategy with parliamentary parties, which is tragic to this country. Perhaps, the present confrontation between the King/government and parliamentary parties can be overcome by forming an interim government led by an ex-judge of the Supreme Court or any neutral personality and endorsed by the King, the Maoists, the parliamentary parties with a specific mandate to facilitate the on-going peace process until a negotiation is reached for a broad based consensual interim government to work on constitution and other social transformation process. Otherwise, the peace process will collapse, and the country may get back into civil war

(The writer holds a PhD degree in Conflict Management)

Different strokes of love

Although I am a young girl in late teens, I am relatively indifferent towards typical teen conduct. I am time and again surprised by the activities of my contemporaries. My friends narrate their stories of love affairs, but I am not interested in all these. Sometimes they show expensive gifts, cards given by their beloved. They also spend a lot of money especially on occasions such as Valentine’s Day, birthday and love anniversary.

What I think is all such activities are done with an intention of making others (like me) jealous. Of course, some of my other colleagues who are single feel jealous, but I take it as a matter of fun. This is just a way of passing time. I can easily pass my time by helping my mother, gardening, reading novels and stories, watching films. Other girls are usually surprised by my indifference towards such matters. When asked, I say to them that I’ve not got any proposal and also I have not found any suitable person so far. But they don’t believe me.

To be honest, I once had found a person who, I thought, was suitable for me. He was intelligent and polite, too. He used to help me with my studies. Just like me, I also found him indifferent towards love affairs. Once, I jokingly asked him what he thought about love. He replied that he gave more importance to his career. I was stunned by his reply. Our way of thinking was quite similar. Many teenage boys, I have come across, are not ideal like him. So I was so impressed by him. I was thinking of proposing him by my own side because he had all the qualities that I look in a boy. He used to respect all the girls. I never heard him raise his voice even in front of the girls. But I could not move ahead first. I feared that our friendship would break up if I proposed first. But it was too late. He went abroad for further studies. We are not in touch with each other. But whenever I imagine about an ideal person, he comes in my mind.

One day, I asked one of my friends, who is in "deep love" with a guy, how their affair began. She smiled and said, "He used to look at me all the time. He used to sit next to our flat. One day, I was going to a cyber- cafe. He followed me and proposed for friendship. I responded positively. Afterwards, we became good friends. On the day of my birthday, he proposed me. I could not reject. So our love began on that very day." Some friends tell that their love began by direct proposals during traveling, tour, visiting temples, taking part on wedding ceremonies. I am surprised by all sorts of love affairs, especially between those who don’t know each other. This, in fact, is not love. It is just an attraction or infatuation.

Truly, it is not my intention to hurt the teenagers who are in love. Love affairs should sometimes be compromised in case they take love affairs and career as two sides of a coin. Not only love affairs, many teenagers these days smoke, take drugs, tabs, go to pubs, discos, restaurants to show themselves of the so-called modern civilisation. Teenage is the most vulnerable as well as important period of a human being. So, teenagers need proper care and guidance. Since the teenagers are forgetting morality, they need moral education as well.

International tribunal for Iraq

Just as the showdown over Iraq strained trans-Atlantic relations, so efforts to mend those relations risk straining human rights principles.

Having refused to endorse the US-led invasion of Iraq, France, Germany and their allies now face retribution from the Bush administration. Several European capitals seem gripped by panic in their desire to make amends. This longing to kiss and make up at any price has jeopardized the emerging international system of justice for the worst human rights offenders.

The Bush administration loathes international justice, particularly the newly established International Criminal Court, for fear that it might restrain the unbridled latitude of the United States. Three aspects are at risk of being compromised.

First, the United Nations Security Council resolution on postwar administration of Iraq, which was expected to be approved Thursday, speaks in general terms about the importance of bringing Saddam Hussein’s henchmen to justice but is conspicuously silent on the means. That suits Washington fine, since it wants a justice process it can control, composed of hand-picked Iraqis, rather than an independent, internationally led tribunal.

What’s wrong with an "Iraqi-led" tribunal, as the United States calls it? We know that bringing to justice the architects of the slaughter of some quarter of a million people - the rough toll of Saddam Hussein’s government - can be extraordinarily complex. Judges and prosecutors who populated his brutal and arbitrary justice system can hardly be expected to have the necessary expertise, let alone a tradition of fairness and independence.

Even exiled Iraqi jurists, as well as Iraqis from communities historically repressed by the Ba’ath Party who remained in the country, will have a hard time demonstrating the right combination of skills and emotional distance from the former dictatorship. The problem is only compounded because the people Washington designates are likely to be perceived as puppets rather than independent dispensers of justice.

By contrast, an internationally led tribunal, whether fully international like the ones established for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia or mixed national-international, like Sierra Leone’s, is more likely to be seen as legitimate and better able to draw from a wide pool of experienced jurists. The UN Security Council thus should, at minimum, establish an international commission of inquiry to decide on the best type of tribunal for Iraq and to preserve evidence such as the mass graves that US troops are now allowing to be despoiled.

US opposition to an internationally led tribunal has nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. Its distrust of an independent international tribunal reflects its desire to avoid scrutiny of its own military effort and potentially embarrassing revelations about its current and past alliances. It also dislikes international tribunals’ rejection of the death penalty. And it opposes any step that might bolster the system of international justice and thus, even indirectly, legitimize the International Criminal Court, or ICC. None of these reasons merits European endorsement.

Second, the Bush administration is pressing governments worldwide to sign bilateral agreements that would immunize Americans from ICC scrutiny. So far, despite threatening to cut off military aid, Washington has arm-twisted only a collection of small and vulnerable states to accept this impunity regime. No European Union government has yet acquiesced, but Britain, Spain and Italy have blocked a common EU rejection.

The ICC treaty does permit transferring suspects to their home countries for investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution, but only on the condition that the ICC retain the power to scrutinize national justice efforts to ensure they are carried out in good faith. So long as Washington resists that oversight, even for crimes committed in countries that have ratified the ICC treaty, European governments should collectively refuse to shield Americans from transfer to The Hague.

Finally, Washington is about to renew its request to exempt all military operations authorized by the UN Security Council from ICC jurisdiction. A year ago, by threatening to veto further peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and risk renewed ethnic cleansing, the Bush administration gained a one-year blanket exemption for such operations. That violated the ICC requirement that any Security Council exemption be granted case by case.

The exemption speaks only in terms of troops from countries that haven’t ratified the ICC treaty, but it includes operations in countries that have. It comes up for renewal by July 1, but this time Washington’s hand is weaker, since one of the first peacekeeping operations up for extension will be in southern Lebanon.

Because America cannot credibly threaten to leave Israel’s northern border unguarded from Hezbollah, European governments on the Security Council should stand firm and reject any blanket exemption.

International Herald Tribune