I n d e p t h    A n a l y s i s

Nepal as host has little stance at SAARC!

Kathmandu: Several aspects of SAARC jamboree here needs pointing out. The first is the fact that Kathmandu came to positive international limelight after over a decade of low key foreign policy. The second is the fact that Nepal's King Gyanendra, inhibited from traveling abroad in the year-ling period of mourning, could meet all regional Heads of State and Governments at his Palace. The third of course, is the much-focused Indo-Pakistan contacts that underscored continuing SAARC utility even in the bilateral front.

The fourth perhaps matters. It is the fact that India-Pakistan considerations could show such overwhelming predominance in Kathmandu in presence of the back-seat diplomacy Nepal has been made to take over the years. As host, many of Nepal's foreign policy priorities could very well have also been reflected at SAARC. In so many ways it is Pakistan's General Pervez Musarraf who "used" the forum well. Given the numerous foreign policy problems of host Nepal, one saw a definite reluctance for such problems, particularly those relating to the region being voiced.

Indeed, sabotage in Nepal's foreign policy timed to coincide with the eleventh SAARC Summit may very well be read from the reported incident of a Pakistani diplomat nabbed and after released for undiplomatic activities. If SAARC XI had any failing in the Nepali context, it is here.

Nevertheless, much can be made of the reported private dinner on arrival at the Palace of the Indian Prime Minister only reported in Indian media (……..).From point of view of elevating Nepal-India understanding and affecting the future course of Nepali politics significance of SAARC XI must also be placed here.

At another level, that this SAARC Summit too, would go the perfunctory way of its predecessors under Nepal's decade old multiparty system would only be understandable given that foreign policy is only the reflection of national politics. National politics is weak and so must the Nepalese standpoints at SAARC. Comments that the new SAARC Chairman, Sher Bahadur Deuba's inaugural , acceptance and concluding speeches appeared bereft of much content and experience is only understandable.

Among other things Deuba can hardly show the Kathmandu Charter/Declaration as achievement to capitalize domestically. He must prepare now for the offensive his opponents within and outside the parties are expected to conduct.

Indo-Pak conflict dominates SAARC XI proceedings!

Kathmandu: Is it possible that a personality who wore military uniforms till the other day exhibits his total and unequivocal sincerity for easing the tension with its neighbor in a most democratic way and conversely a political personage who spent practically all his life for peace and amity and also remains committed for the prevalence of democratic order here and there could exhibit his displeasure mixed with anger for a "peace proposal" coming as it did from the former camp?

In fact this happened in the presence of millions and millions of the South Asian people who had been watching their respective television sets in their respective countries of the region. More so, expectedly half of the world population could have graced the opening ceremony of the eleventh SAARC Summit held last week in Kathmandu where the above mentioned absurd became a truth.

Undoubtedly, the entire proceedings of the eleventh SAARC Summit revolved around the two SAARC participants namely, President Pervez Musarraf and Prime Minister Atal Behari Bajpayee of Pakistan and India.

Analysing the proceedings of the eleventh SAARC Summit that just concluded in Kathmandu, what could be now guaranteed that India and Pakistan could determine the fate of the entire process what is called SAARC. By the same token it could also be said that if the two become "friendly" to each other, the SAARC will have meaning and conversely if the two continue to remain each other's rival, the fate of the SAARC is doomed.

It is up to India and Pakistan now to decide whether they wish to see SAARC dying an unnatural death or would prefer to give it a new lease of life?

The fact is that both the leaders of Pakistan and India in their speeches have assured the other members of the regional body that the process would and should continue come what may.

Going a bit more further, President Musarraf even told that the summit must continue at any cost even some of its members exhibit their reluctance in attending the summit.

In saying so perhaps the military-turned politician wished to remind the other smaller nations of the SAARC that it was Indian reluctance that caused the abrupt suspension of the SAARC Summits in the recent past.

What the eleventh SAARC Summit achieved in concrete this round in Kathmandu is being interpreted differently by different brains in Kathmandu in particular and in the region in general.

However, our own analysis has been that the Kathmandu summit could bring the two leaders of Pakistan and India and encouraged (and facilitated even) them to engage in a constructive dialogue (even if it were in informal sessions) in order to defuse the mounting tensions that exist at their borders.

In effect, it was the wish of the members of the SAARC that India and Pakistan came together in Kathmandu and initiated a dialogue that eased the war-like situation in South Asia.

Partly, the wishes of the SAARC members have been fulfilled.

How much the world leaders are concerned about the present India-Pakistan standoff gets reflected from the fact that the British Prime Minister just visited India and Pakistan and more specially the US Secretary of State Colin Powel is learnt to have talked to President Musarraf and Prime Minister Bajpayee over telephone when both the leaders were in Kathmandu sojourn.

Deliberate or otherwise, the Pakistani President hinted the entire world that he means business with India and that he really wished the cessation of the current hostilities with the other side through the use of the dialogues.

Unimaginable as it was, the Pak President upon completion of his written speech suddenly proceeded towards Atal Behari Bajpayee and extended his hands for a handshake with the latter. A completely unaware Indian Prime Minister had to reciprocate. Clapping in the hall continued for couple of minutes which should have hinted the two leaders of India and Pakistan that people of the region wish a real peace in between the two warring neighbors, India and Pakistan.

Whether President Musarraf did so to bag accolades from the attending participants and from those who had been watching the events live or was just a calculated plan to embarrass his Indian counterpart is a matter we leave for our readers to debate.

However, the manner President Musarraf time and again demonstrated his strong desire for a meaningful talk with India should be taken into proper account. If it were a sincere proposal (and there is no reason to challenge President Musarraf's motive) then India should have reciprocated with the same lightening speed and could have assured the world that they too were serious for talks with the other side.

However, thespian Bajpayee suspected the Pakistani proposal and wished to dismiss those outrightly.

It is here that the apostle of peace and a strong follower of Mahatma Gandhi failed. The people of the region had in effect expected a big yes from the Indian leader but then the Indian desire was somewhat different.

This does not mean that the personalities attending the SAARC were not aware of the fresh Indian concerns, however, they hoped that Bajpayee, as a most respected veteran leader of the region would contribute to the early resumption of talks with Pakistan. However, this did not happen.

President Musarraf had diplomatic victories, albeit by default, in Kathmandu to say the least.

Firstly, the Pakistani President had come to Kathmandu to attend the Summit using the Chinese airspace. In doing so the President indicated the world that he was not allowed the Indian airspace to come to Kathmandu and hence he had to detour his trip to Kathmandu.

Secondly, he utilized his trip to Beijing en route to Kathmandu. Apparently this fresh tête-à-tête with the Chinese leaders should have benefited both Pakistan and its President.

Thirdly, he made the SAARC summit to postpone by one full day. The first ever postponement of this sort. In doing so, he apparently wished to convey the SAARC members that Pakistan too could postpone the Summit should she desire so.

Fourthly, his sudden decision to shake hands with Bajpayee and his call for talks with India gave the South Asians an impression that Pakistan wishes to enter into dialogues with the other camp.

Fifthly, President Musarraf demonstrated that a man in military uniforms till the other day could become a "seasoned politician"' should efforts aimed at this be made earnestly.

Though the Indian leadership denied of meetings with Pakistani leaders in Kathmandu, the fact is that Bajpayee has talked with Musarraf and likewise Brajesh Mishra was seen handing over a note to Pakistani foreign minister Sattar.

Finally, the Nepalese intellectuals admired the utmost simplicity and the modesty exhibited by the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Bajpayee.

Bajpayee would have stolen the SAARC show had he promptly reciprocated the Pakistani President's suddenly made proposal for peace and the initiation of the dialogue in between the two countries.

Be that as it may, the Indian foreign minister was seen very active in defending his country's stance on further talks with the Pakistani side.

That Jaswant Singh respected the Pakistani president very much got reflected when a Nepali journalist referred to President Musarraf as only Musarraf. A visibly annoyed Indian foreign minister not only told the journalist to correct his language but also suggested him to address Pak President as President Musarraf.

A rare gesture indeed.

President Koirala revives his BDA proposal!

Kathmandu: Pre

sident of the Nepali Congress, Girija Prasad Koirala, has reasons to be unhappy with the ongoing scheme of political things in the country more so after he was told to step down and the imposition of state of emergency in the country.

His reasons are a valid ones. No one wishes to step down from the chair one loves most. More over, a sitting prime minister would wish that the military force followed his instructions.

However, both did not happen.

Firstly, Prime Minister Koirala had to step down when the entire nation, more specially the main opposition the UML and a section of his own party men created havoc for nearly five months causing even one full winter session to go to the dogs. It was this Himalayan pressure that finally facilitated Koirala's going out of power. In essence, it was the Lauda air deal wherein indirectly the CIAA accused Koirala and warned that henceforth the Prime Ministerial chair must not get involved in petty state matters.

However, the fact is that Koirala albeit quit the chair, but then the further investigation on matters pertaining to the Lauda air deal remains shelved perhaps for good.

Secondly, during Kouirala's Premiership he wished the mobilization of the army to the Maoists affected areas. However, the military said no and demanded an all party consensus for the mobilization and sought also the imposition of emergency in the country. Koirala neither could muster support from other political parties nor could declare the state of emergency in the country.

President Koirala has further reasons to be annoyed with the present scheme of things. Contrary to his expectations, the incumbent Prime Minister not only bagged success in securing all party consensus but also convinced King Gyanendra for the imposition of emergency to contain the threats of the Maoists.

Deuba's success naturally would have annoyed Koirala for he might think that how the military which rejected his orders could get itself mobilized during Deuba Premiership.

A pretty annoyed Koirala then managed his relatives to suspect the very motives of the nation's military force to the extent that Ms. Shailaja Acharya collected the courage to utter: " even the military needed Deuba as the Prime Minister of the country for its mobilization".

The military chief, Monsieur Prazzwal Rana talking to NTV did retort to such allegations by saying that all that they needed for the mobilization was all party consensus which was lacking during Koirala's tenure as nation's PM.

A frustrated Koirala apparently did not lose his patience. He then brings a funny idea of forging a "broader democratic alliance"' in and among all democratic forces of the country in order to save the country from an unknown danger which only he knows from where it emanated.

When most of the political parties with whom Koirala discussed about his BDA plan saw in it a ploy calculatedly designed to bring about a collapse of the Deuba regime gave a big no to his proposal.

The UML only yesterday said that we have not been given the details of the BDA and hence preferred not to comment on that further.

The RPP, similarly recently said that if the BDA is for a broader consensus and is aimed at the betterment of the country and its people then they can extend their support to that Koirala proposal. However, the RPP said that they wished not a share in the government but in essence wished a joint mechanism to be developed in order to redress the ailments of the country. Implied is the message that the RPP too thinks the BDA to be a ploy to destabilize Deuba regime and nothing more than that.

However, an energetic President of the NC, now wishes to make even broader his "Broader Democratic Alliance" and prefers to include the "constitutional monarch" as well in the list of the parties he intends to house in his mysterious BDA.

Nevertheless, Koirala when asked whether he has already conveyed his wish to His Majesty King Gyanendra says that he was yet to talk about his BDA plan with King Gyanendra.

How King Gyanendra takes Koirala's BDA will have to be watched.

Be that as it may, Koirala loyalists say that the BDA plan that took a back seat due to the SAARC events now, we are told, will be forcefully revived. How the Deuba camp takes this Koirala initiative will have to be watched.

B'desh ready to offer greater concessions to Nepal

Kathmandu: What should be the SAARC spirit and how a comparatively bigger nation could be of greater support to its smaller friends was best demonstrated by the Bangladesh Foreign Minister Mr. M. Morshed Khan last week.

The B'desh foreign minister surprised many a brains when on January 2, 2002, he disclosed that his country was ready to offer greater concessions to Nepal even if his country suffered a trade imbalance with Nepal.

"We in Bangladesh understand that Nepal is a land locked country and hence we are ready to offer greater facilities and concessions to Nepal if she wishes to expand her trade with my country"'', added the foreign minister of Bangladesh.

The minister made these ear-pleasing statements at the inaugural ceremony of the single country trade exhibition organized in Kathmandu by the embassy of B'desh in cooperation with the export promotion bureau of B'desh.

The foreign ministers' assurances came two days ahead of the convening of the eleventh SAARC Summit in Kathmandu. However, in saying so, the Bangladesh foreign minister apparently hinted that his country too expected such similar sentimental support from other bigger nations in the region in their bilateral trade transactions.

Whether Bangladesh could enjoy such unconditional sympathies from her bigger neighbors can't be predicted here, however, what is by now clear is that should Nepal wish to expand her trade relations with B'desh, the latter would be more than willing to extend greater facilities and concessions.

The minister in the same vein also disclosed that his government was "ready to build all kinds of infrastructures in its land border to facilitate Nepalese trade provided the trade volumes from Nepal were substantial"'.

In saying so the minister amply indicated that the Nepalese side had yet to utilize the existing potential of the Fulwari route for its trade activities. This means that B'desh is not at all satisfied with the practically nil movement of the Nepalese goods to Bangladesh and through it to other third countries.

At the inaugural session, B'desh charge de' affaires, Humayun Kabir stressed the need to use "economic diplomacy" in the conduct of bilateral relations which could be best achieved through building mutually beneficial trade and economic relations between two countries.

Nepal's minister Purna Khadka wished the exhibition a grand success.

The FNCCI President Rabi Bhakta Shrestha also spoke ion the occasion.

The single country trade exhibition of Bangladesh concluded 6 January evening.

Unified UML will be a formidable force

Kathmandu: Once again the talks of the reunification of the UML with the ML is hitting the media headlines.

Sources say that the ongoing party meeting of the UML will apparently decide the mode of the reunification with the ML.

Sources in the ML, however, say that their party will pleasingly join the UML provided the UML accorded them their due place in the party hierarchy and that their numerical strength too should be comfortably enough in the reunified party.

While on the one hand Bam Dev Gautam, the present GS of the ML is all excited to join the mainstream UML, on the other, C.P.Mainali-yet another political theorists of the ML, perhaps is thinking on not joining the UML for reasons unknown to his own close colleagues.

Equally interesting is the fact that while the UML General Secretary Madhav Nepal is happy over the reunification scheme, the other strong man of the party, K.P.Woli is exhibiting his displeasure over the supposed reunification.

Analysts predict that the moment Bam Dev Gautan is in in the UML, Madhav Nepal will have gained in numerical strength in his own party wherein reports say that he is being dominated by Woli.

The fact is that Woli, we are told, is pretty annoyed with the party's idea of the reunification for he feels threatened after the come back of Bam Dev Gautam.

It has not yet been told as to how the unification process will begin and what would be the number of seats being given to the ML members upon joining the UML.

Similarly it is yet to be decided in and among the UML central committee members as to what criteria should be adopted while welcoming the good-old days friends who had split some four years ago over their differences over the Mahakali Treaty and the likes.

Analysts wish to know whether the differences due to which the party split will be forgotten once and for all or will emerge once again after the unification process ends.

On what terms and conditions the two parties were uniting is still uncertain. However, what is for sure is that the two political parties are uniting at a time when the country is in a critical period for obvious reasons and that the ruling Nepali Congress remains badly divided.

If the unification scheme materializes, the new UML will definitely emerge as a formidable force in the country.

National | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past