Unfortunately Nepal is run by a bunch of unscrupulous, uneducated and non-visionary leaders

-Mr. Yuba Raj Koirala, Kathmandu

Mr. Yuba Raj Koirala is a graduate in International Relations from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK. Mr. Koirala stayed in connection with his studies there for almost eight years. Only recently he has returned after attending a high level international seminar on Human Rights held under the aegis of the International Institute of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France. This seminar made him to visit Germany, Switzerland and France.

Koirala hails from the Terai plains where he studied up to his secondary school. He also holds a Bachelor Degree in Law from Nepal’s Tribhuban University.

Last week we approached this young intellectual for a tete-a-tete to which he readily agreed. Below the results: Chief editor.

TGQ1: Mr. Koirala, you have remained a strong critique of the American scholar Francis Fukuyama. In what sense and ways you wish to differ with his theory, “The End of History and the last Man?” which perhaps had jolted, if you recall, the whole world at time it came to the public. Your exclusive comments please.

Mr. Koirala: Well, firstly, I should like to clarify Fukuyama’s position in the “End of History and the Last Man?” theses briefly before I can put forward my criticism.

After observing the events that were unfolding in the Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the early Nineties Fukuyama was led to believe that the collapse of a particular political ideology, so to speak communism, could then be taken to mean the End of History.

He argued that the regimes which previously posed a threat to Western style liberal democracy were now falling apart and with it also emerged the Western way of life as the culmination of humanity’s historical evolution which may soon constitute what he calls “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of governance”.  The idea of progress is central to Fukuyama’s work.

My prime criticism to Fukuyama’s theses is that liberal democracy, though, it may become a universal ideology as he predicts that it would, it can never claim to represent the ideas of progress since it is fundamentally flawed and hence it does not constitute the End of History as such.   Fukuyama imagines a kind of universal society where every man may probably look like sumo wrestlers.  His over optimism towards a solitary, individualistic market oriented society can not be taken too seriously for it discredits some of the fundamental human tenants that are revered in the pre-historic society and any attempt to drag them into the post-historic world will have unpleasant consequence. 

TGQ2: Mr. Koirala, what you mean when you say that it would have in your own words, ”unpleasant consequences”? Would you clarify a bit more?

Mr. Koirala: Well, to put it simply; when pointing out the trend in the increase of world wide democracies (13 in 1940 and 61 in 1990) and the good things brought about by this Fukuyama does not tell us how inhuman we have become within the same period. On the one hand Fukuyama tells us that there are no major contradiction that can not be solved within the context of modern liberalism.  On the other hand, it was estimated that in the first two years of the 1980s more people died from hunger than were killed as a result of the First and Second World Wars. It is estimated that 24 Children die each minute from the poverty related illness.  More than 1 million children die of measles each year.   Tens of thousands of people are being tortured in at least 124 countries, 13 million people are refugee, a further 17 million people are displaced within their own countries.  In the course of a few terrible months in 1994, a million people were killed in Rwanda.  It was a slaughter on a scale that the world has rarely seen since the Holocaust. 

What are we to make of these appalling realities in the daily lives of much of the world’s population and what are we to make of Francis Fukuyama’s proposed end of history theses?  What progresses has been made in these years?  Scan the globe for example of genocide, repression, torture, war, rapes and,

starvation, environmental degradation and the answer might be hollow laugh.

In fact, by the time the Last man reaches the end of history he would have puffed off much of the trees and would have consumed half of the fish and fisheries.  His belly would be gutted with plenty of multinational jelly.  Unable to move and think anymore, I guess, he may then have to declare the end of history.  I would be too reluctant to call it “Progress”.

TGQ3: Now let me change the topic. Mr. Koirala, you have just returned from European jaunt and I suppose you attended a high level conference regarding Human Rights. Would you be kind enough to highlight the proceedings of the conference, its recommendations and its usefulness in the context of Nepal?

Mr. Koirala: Basically, I was awarded a scholarship to attend the 31st Study Session on World Commerce and the Protection of Human Rights at the International Institute of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France.  Its purpose was to provide advanced courses in international and comparative human rights law taught by specialists from around the globe.  The courses and the lectures of the study session were divided into two parts.  The first was the Thematic Courses, which focused on world commerce and the protection of Human Rights in Face of global economic changes.  And the second part was the Fundamental courses, which focused on the Human Rights protection system of the United Nations and of its specialized agency.

It was indeed a very interesting gathering and there were nearly 400 participants from more than 100 countries.  Most of them were Human Rights expertise whose views on what constituted Human Rights varied sharply depending where one was coming from and what values he belonged to.  Their varied views nearly defied the dictum that Human Rights are universal in Nature. The only time we seemed to be on agreement was only when we discussed Basic Rights such as food, shelter and individual security etc.  We came to the conclusion that the modern day Human Rights discourses were merely a political question.

The study session also focused on Globalization and the protection of Human Rights, the impact of globalization in the developing countries.  Many participants expressed their views that Globalization has had equivocal and contradictory consequences on Human Rights.   Many held the view that Human Rights are now considered within the framework of an economic globalization characterized by an unprecedented development of exchanges.   To quote Paris University professor Mireille Delmas-Marty, “that the world trade has something in common with the Universal declaration of Human Rights; it entails the internationalization of the law that is the extension of legal norms out side national frontiers, and even the globalization of the law, if we consider that this norms are not anymore confined to the international field (that of the relationships between states), but also concern private actors consisting of ‘transnational’ networks and that they are sometimes opposed to  states, having therefore ‘supranational’ particularities.

I then went to observe the 52nd. Sub-commission on the promotion and protection of Human Rights at the UN, Geneva. The Sub-commission approved series of resolutions and decisions relating to economic, social, cultural rights and implementation of Human Rights in different regions of the globe. It also, notably, approved various resolutions and decisions on the HR of women folks, slavery, the HR of indigenous peoples, prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities, administration of justice and freedom of movement. The Sub-commission condemned unequivocally the imposition and execution of the death-penalty on those aged under eighteen at the time of the commission of the offence, and called upon States that retain the death-penalty under such circumstances to abolish it by law as soon as possible. The Sub-commission requested the secretary-general to invite UN bodies and the Specialized agencies, including the World Bank and the IMF to provide information to the working groups on their activities related to minority protection; noted with appreciation the intention of the working group to encourage the convening of one-seminar in the Asia and Pacific region.

Mr. Robertson of the INHURED, Nepal presented his critical comments on Nepal’s country report on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination prepared for the Sub-commission to the UN committee on racial discrimination as part of consideration of Nepal’s 14th periodic report under ICERD.

In the context of Nepal, I’m happy to learn that a HR commission has been recently established here in view of promoting and protecting the HR violations. I am hopeful that the commission will be able to function efficiently without any political consideration coming in the way at time of administering justice and national distress caused by various socio-political factors.

So far as the Geneva conference is concerned and its impact on Nepal, I believe that this kind of proceedings will be noticed and complied by the Nepal government. We the Nepalese should also learn to be self-respectful; for respecting the self is the beginning of the respect for others.

TGQ4: Being a student of International Relations, how you Mr. Koirala observe the present world scenario? Do you think that the present trend is encouraging and conducive for such a poor and donor driven country like Nepal? Also tell us how you see the South Asian regional politics after India and Pakistan went nuclear?

Mr. Koirala: Let me bluntly tell you that Nepal must not be considered a poor country. There are different dimensions to poverty. Unfortunately this country is run by the bunch of unscrupulous, uneducated, non-visionary, power brokers that put their own interest first. It is our misfortune that this country has so far failed to produce a leader who could understand its geo-political sensitivities and strategic importance that could be exploited in enhancing the overall multi-faceted dimension of the country. The present day rulers do not possess the political acumen to understand the changes that have come in the regional and international politics over these years. They have not so far focused on the structural processes by which State interact with other States, with other political entities and with the International system as a whole. We must identify and analyze these transnational structures and processes by utilizing the concept and the strategies laid by our founding fathers such as for example, King Prithivi Narayan Shah. We must turn to them if we are to preserve our past glories.

Definitely the world has changed. The changes have been brought by globalization, communication technology to say the least and we should also bear in mind that newer ones that are more fatal have replaced the conventional methods of warfare yet the orthodox realists position which dominates international relations has remained intact. Any state, in my opinion, has a primary duty to safeguard its own interests in view of its own needs rather that serving alien interests and being dictated by foreign powers.

So far Nepal is concerned, it appears to me that the leaders here haven’t taken the changes seriously simply because they possess neither the vision nor the competence. Moreover, it is not necessary for Nepal to go global, it can remain localized yet can exploit the global opportunities not by implanting alien technology blatantly but borrowing them selectively as Japan did. What technology suits India, for example, not necessarily suit Nepal. South Asia has also changed dramatically as you have rightly said that our vicinity has gone nuclear. Considering this sudden dangerous development in the region, Nepal must become serious and act accordingly.  To be more specific, Nepal must devise fresh strategies that meet the changed regional as well as global context.

TGQ5: What is your future plan? Would you prefer to stay here and serve the nation or will opt for a trip to the European nations to continue your studies?

Mr. Koirala: I do and I will stay in Nepal and serve this fragmenting nation in whatever capacity I can.  It is possible that I may go abroad for further studies but yet my heart will be here.   It feels rather strange to me that the more I spend my time abroad the more Nepali I feel. This nation belongs to me as much as it belongs to thee and I feel duty-bound to serve it.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | Letter | International | Past |