Challenges facing Nepal’s Leadership to Usher Peace and Development

Mr. Kul C. Gautam, UN

Nepal actually has a pretty good track of being one of the first countries to prepare its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper that is very MDG-oriented.

It was also one of the first countries in the world to prepare this Progress Report on MDGs.

As a least developed, Landlocked country Nepal faces formidable challenges in meeting the very ambitious Millenium goals. The horrendous political conflict further compounds its prospects.

One needs to actually ask how relevant are the MDGs in the present context of Nepal?

Some would say that the MDGs are highly relevant because they address some of the presumed root causes of the conflict- namely, poverty and inequality, illiteracy and ill health.

But how about peace and democracy? Human Rights and social exclusion? And conflict resolution?

These issue too are covered in the broader Millenium Declaration, of which MDGs are only one part. I would actually suggest it in pursuing the MDGs in this broader context.

The charter of the United Nations asks it to promote peace, development and human rights. These are really 3 indivisible components for national development, for international solidarity and for human progress.

So which UNICEF and other partners here in Nepal advocate for "Children a sone of peace", for example, that concept embodies the 3 precious ideals of the United Nations- the sanctity of schools or any institution where innocent children congregate as a haven for peace; investment in education, health and other basic services for children as the foundation for human development; and protection of child rights and nurturing respect for human rights among children as the corner-stone for a hust, democratic society locally, nationally and globally.

I would hope that as we pursue the Millenium Development Goals and the Millenium Declaration, we could always look for approaches that promote this trilogy of peace, development, democracy and human rights.

Peace is obviously the most urgent need of Nepal today, as development, democracy and human rights cannot flourish in the absence of peace. One can hear and feel the yearning for peace among Nepalese everywhere.

But what would it take to being peace in Nepal?

Compared to many other complex political crises in the world, the resolution of Nepal’s political conflict ought to be not so difficult. Fortunately, Nepal’s conflict has no historically deep-rooted racial, ethnic or religious connotations. It does not involve war over drugs, oil, diamonds or other mineral riches. Although, people often advance various conspiracy theories, there are really no colonial, superpower or other external forces trying to fuel or profit from Nepal’s conflict.

Nepal’s conflict is a classic struggle for political power, though as in all such conflicts other soci-economic factors are invokes and exploited in support of the protagonists’ cause.

Each of Nepal’s 3 political protagonists, the King, the Maoists and the parliamentary political parties has something good to offer the people of Nepal.

As in some progressive European democracies, a truly constitutional monarchy could offer the country a symbol of national unity and stability. Some aspects of the Maoist agenda for social justic and egalitarian economic order would help Nepal overcome the long term of unjust feudalism.

And a modern multi-party democracy characterized by good governance would help usher Nepal to join the mainstream of progressive, 21st century democracies in the world.

But at present none of the 3 protagonists are behaving in a manner that would harness the best of what they have to offer the people of Nepal.

Some of the actions of both the monarchists and the Maoists seem clearly not in keeping with the world of the 21st century. The manner in which the major political parliamentary parties are being sidelined and undermined betrays a lack of genuine faith in democracy (which as Sir Winston Churchill said, is the worst form of government, except for all the rest).

The Maoists seen wedded to a globally discredited and failed ideology. While some of their pronouncements are progressive and modernist, their actions betray an undemocratic streak in which any means is justified for their political ends.

In recent years, violence, intimidation and extortion seem to have become standard operating procedures of the Maoists, in contrast to the populist policies and actions that resonated well with the poor and oppressed people in the early years of the movement.

And the parliamentary political parties, still smarting over popular disenchantment with their poor governance in the past decade, have not yet been able to come up with their own redeeming vision that could rally people behind a viable democratic middle ground.

The lack of internal democracy and transparency seems to have sapped the vitality of political parties. And the political vacuum at the local level because of the absence of all elected local bodies has weakened the parties at the grass roots level – vacuum often filled by un-elected Maoists.

All 3 groups of political protagonists in Nepal need to eschew their craving for power and put the interest of the suffering populace at the forefront. Among them, the two groups commanding the power of the gun, have a special responsibility as their actions are a source of untold suffering for the people, creating an atmosphere of violence, fear, insecurity and violation of human rights.

Today the leaders of Nepal have an extraordinary opportunity to make the right decisions that will leave a lasting mark in the history of the country.

Having come to the throne in the most tragic circumstances in the life of his dynasty, as well as at a turning point in the history of his nation, His Majesty the King has the historic opportunity to transform the medieval institution he represents into an institution for the 21st century.

There are plenty of examples of monarchies that have collapsed or that survive only because the tide of history has not reached their shoes. But there are also a few examples of constitutional monarchies that remain and thrive even in the most advanced and progressive nations. To survive and thrive, the monarchy of the 21st century has no choice but to cast its lot with the forces of democracy. The people of this country, and its friends in the world, count on His Majesty to make the right choice.

The leaders of the Maoist movement also face challenge and opportunity to make the right choices at this juncture. They can transform their success in the battlefield into becoming a progressive political party that champions the cause of the poor and the downtrodden.

The Maoists participated in the parliamentary elections of 1991 and did reasonably very well. More recently they have shown that they can appeal to segment of the population that felt disenfranchised and marginalised. They can try to parley this into broader-based popular support in the electoral politics and emerge as a constructive political force. However, the Maoists should not make the mistake of miscalculating the people’s acquiescence out of fear and intimidation as popular support for them. The Maoists should realize that if somehow they manage to come to power through a violent revolution, they would turn Nepal into a pariah state, shunned by the international community.

As we have seen in many other countries, violent revolutionary movements can gain power but cannot retain it for long. I trust that Nepal’s Maoists will have the wisdom to learn from history and make the right choices at this critical time. As those that are likely to be the indispensable force for the future, the parliamentary political parties have a historic opportunity to secure a second chance to redeem themselves and offer the nation a healthy middle ground.

In the past leaders of many parties, when in power, were too keen to enjoy the spoils of office and compromised on ethical norms of good governance. When out of power, the same leaders were too eager to bring down those in power rather than acting as a mature, constructive loyal opposition.

Learning from the past mistakes, it would be highly desirable for the parties, individually and collectively to come out with some voluntary codes of conduct to temper their behavior in the future. This would include instituting more transparent internal democracy in the functioning of the parties, so that they bring to the fore their inner strength that emanates from the grassroots of their party organizations and local leadership.

When peace talks resume, if mediators or facilitators are involved, it would be worthwhile for them to try to come up with such codes of conduct for each of Nepal’s key political protagonists- the monarchy, the Maoists and the political parties.

I know there are various groups in Nepal trying to prepare such codes of conduct. I would encourage these to be thoughtfully formulated, and widely debated and disseminated. Such codes of conduct could be appended to the final political settlement, with a commitment by all parties to be held accountable, Nepal’s international development partners, and national civil society could serve as witness and possibly as monitors and guarantors of such commitment. One more group to the list of leaders who are called upon to make decisions for the sake of the nation at this historic juncture. The armed forces of Nepal have a proud history as the defenders of the nation, and as peacemakers in the world. As a Nepali and a UN official, I feel proud of Nepali troops in UN pace keeping missions in all kinds of trouble spots in the world. It is therefore, most disappointing that the Royal Nepalese Army’s conduct in our internal conflict has been tarnished with accounts of human rights violations. The accounts of excesses committed by RNA personnel with impunity come from so many sources on so may occasions that explanations and excuses do further dishonor to this vital organ of our body politic. At a time when the RNA is getting increased budget, personnel and equipment, it simply needs to recommit itself to becoming the most disciplined force worthy of the name and fame of the Gurkhas all over the world. I have strayed a bit far from muu assigned topic of the MDGs and the Millenium Declaration, because I believe that the resolution of the political crisis must be a part, if not a precondition for the successful pursuit of the Millenium Goals.

But as part of the pursuit a durable peace, I believe it would be important for us to already begin to outline a massive program of post-conflict reconstruction and development. It would be wonderful if planning for such a program could be a multi-party, national undertaking.

For the resolution of the political conflict, it is often suggested that some kind of a round table conference should be held involving all political parties, including the Maoists. It may take some time before such a conference can be held on the difficult core political issues. But why could not we start such a conference on issues of reconstruction and development?

I could imagine an all-party conference initially devoted to issues of reconstruction and development as a confidence building measure in the context of the impending political negations. It would show that Nepali people and our international development partners that our leaders are not just obsessed with political power but care about the people’s well-being.

I would urge the government and political parties, to nominate some of their most senior and seasoned leaders and professionals to work on issues of reconstruction and development. The Maoists too could join such a process when they come above ground. The United Nations could be helpful in facilitating and supporting such a round table conference.

(Excerpts of the lecture by the author at a program organized by SID-Nepal chapter, last week).

Which comes first, domestic or global inequity?

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Developing countries have to battle on two fronts simultaneously-domestic and global. The common man is suffering hence there is need to remove domestic inequity. At the same time 20 percent of the people living in the industrial countries are consuming 80 percent of the world's resources. This inequity too has to be removed. Which of these should be tackled first? Should the people of the developing countries first cooperate with their leaders, howsoever iniquitous, and redress global inequity; or, they should first seek domestic equity and improve the conditions of their people within the available resources?

Mainstream economists give higher priority to domestic inequity. Professor Amartya Sen has raised this issue in a novel way. He is a strong advocate of global redistribution from the rich to poor countries in order to establish fairness in distribution in the world. But he says that the donor countries should peer into the recipient developing countries and examine the equity of the recipient country's domestic governance. But this can have opposite effect too. For example, if aid is given to developing countries having elitist governance then it strengthens the elite versus the common man. Aid then becomes a tool in the hands of repressive regimes. In other words, according to Professor Sen, the correction of domestic governance takes precedence over global redistribution. The developing countries have to put their domestic governance in order to qualify to receive aid. Global equity is put on the backburner till domestic equity is ensured.

Professor John Connor of Purdue University says that the developing countries should not be encouraged to make OPEC-like cartels to raise the prices of their commodity exports because the incomes form these cartels can be misused to strengthen domestic elites at the expense of the people. The case of OPEC is in point. The incomes received by the oil exporting countries have strengthened their ability to either 'buy out' the allegiance of local leaders or to repress them. The final beneficiary of the cartel has been the ruling elites rather than the common man. Professor Connor says that free market would have deprived these rulers of this wealth and forced them to reform their domestic governance. They would not have had the money to buy out petty leaders and stifle the demand for better governance from the people. Without monopoly profits, the oil companies would have to withdraw from playing a powerful role in national politics and allow the people's voice to determine national policies.

Many NGOs in developing countries are taking money from foreign governments to prevent the violations of Human Rights by their government. They believe that the transfer of their resources to foreign countries-through profit repatriations and royalty payments by MNCs, technology rents extracted through patent laws, increasing quantity of exports at declining prices and remittances to the developed countries for holding foreign exchange reserves-are less important than the violation of Human Rights by their government. They are willing to take money from the foreign governments-who are beneficiary of this transfer of resources from their countries-to secure domestic good governance. The NGOs believe that the problem of transfer of resources can wait. The redressal of Human Rights violations of the common people by the government is to be dealt with first even by making an alliance with the foreign governments who may be, in part, ultimately responsible for their poverty.

These examples show that there is a strong undercurrent among mainstream thinkers that correction of domestic inequity is more pressing than the redressal of global inequity.

In this context the great reformist and freedom fighter of India, Gandhi thought clearly, and differently. He had a long and interesting exchange with Nobel Laureate and poet Rabindranath Tagore, who had opposed Gandhi's stress on independence from the British rather than reform of the domestic leadership. In 1921 Tagore had written: "Alien government in India is a veritable chameleon. Today it comes in the guise of the Englishman; tomorrow perhaps as some other foreigner; the next day, without abating a jot of its own virulence, it may take the shape of our own countrymen… The boycott of Manchester had raised the profits of the Bombay mill-owners to a super-foreign degree. And I had then to say: 'This will not do, either; for it is also of the outside...'" In doing so Tagore had placed domestic good governance before the stoppage of transfer of India's resources to England by the British. Independence could wait till India was able to ensure that the Indian government that takes over would be just.

Gandhi had replied, "Our Non-cooperation is neither with the English nor with the West. Our Non-cooperation is with the system that the Englishman has established...Europe has adopted exploitation of non-European races as a religion." Gandhi had built a grand alliance including Indian businessmen and princes to throw the British out of India. He ignored the iniquitous behaviour of these allies in order to first expel the British from Indian soil. Gandhi said that we have to settle the global issue first. He did not first settle scores with Indian businessmen and princes.

Perhaps Gandhi wanted to make an alliance with the smaller enemy to get rid of the bigger one. If the elder brother in the family is tyrannous and thieves enter the house, will the younger brother join hands with the thieves? No, for then nothing will be left to fight with the elder brother. Hence he should first join hands with the tyrannous elder brother and throw out the thieves and then settle the domestic matter. Similarly, Gandhi thought that if the transfer of India's resources to England continues unabated then there would remain little wealth in the country which could be redistributed. For this reason Gandhi took up the question of global equity first while being ever alert about the domestic issues. But he did not put redressal of domestic equity in the forefront.

The NGO may say that they will join hands with foreign governments to straighten out domestic governance in their country first, and will settle the extraction of resources to foreign countries later. But this is not possible because it is more difficult to face the bigger enemy later. It may have been possible to redress domestic inequity in India after the British have been expelled. But it would be very difficult to expel the British after domestic businesses had been weakened. Thus the path shown by Gandhi appears to be the correct one and that being shown by mainstream thinkers not so. People of the developing countries should beware of any attempt to give precedence to domestic good governance over redressal of global inequity.

Author's address: bharatj@nda.vsnl.net.in

People are drinking slow poison in terai Nepal

Dipak Shrestha, Environmentalist

Arsenic is a toxic metal. Consumption of arsenic for a long period of time can cause serious health effects such as hyper pigmentation, depigmentation, keratosis, cardiovascular diseases, neurological diseases and skin cancer. Beside chronic effects, intake of excess amount of arsenic can also cause immediate health effects such as high blood pressure, muscular cramp, diarrhea etc.

Trace amount of arsenic is found naturally in soil and groundwater. In some soil and groundwater the metal is found at higher level depending upon the amount of arsenic in parent rock. Anthropogenic (human) activities also add the metal in soil and groundwater. The major anthropogenic sources that add arsenic in soil and groundwater are industrial effluents, mining wastes and pesticides used for agriculture.

In recent years, studies conducted by different government as well as non-government organizations in Nepal have revealed higher than World Health Organization (WHO) standard, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) standard and even Bangladesh standard level of arsenic in groundwater of the terai regions of Nepal. According to WHO and USEPA, amount of arsenic should not exceed 10 microgram in 1 liter of drinking water. Whereas, standard set by Bangladesh is 50 microgram per liter of drinking water (USGS, 2004; Edie Weekly, 2000; WHO, 2000). The concerned organizations in Nepal were alarmed only after the severe arsenic contamination found in groundwater of Bangladesh and India in last decade. It has been believed that the source of arsenic in groundwater in those countries is erosion of rocks containing higher concentration of arsenic in the Himalayas, and deposition of the metal in gangetic plains which subsequently moved into the groundwater through sub soil in thousands years. Since Nepal exists in the same geographical region, and we do not have heavy industrial activities in the terai region, the same natural process believed for groundwater contamination in Bangladesh and India is believed to be true for Nepal. Natural ways by which groundwater is contaminated is a slow process. That means arsenic contamination in our groundwater did not occur overnight. The notorious metal was in our groundwater since time immemorial. Let’s not talk about why Nepal is always behind other countries in everything. Otherwise we should have identified the arsenic problem in our country before the problem was identified in Bangladesh or in India.

Some solutions have already been put forward in arsenic affected countries to avoid arsenic poisoning. For example, scientists in Bangladesh have invented an arsenic filter. They have claimed that the filter will be very effective and cheaper. We can hope to see that filter in our market in near future. Another possible alternative, according to experts working in this field is to drink water from aquifer below 300 meter from the surface. It has been suggested that water from that depth not often contains unhealthy level of arsenic. Since most of the existing wells in the affected areas do not supply water from that suggested depth, we should think about how we can redesign and reinstall wells to get water from that depth. Another alternative we can practice to avoid arsenic poisoning is to drink water supplied from surface water sources such as rivers, springs, lakes etc. Currently majority of people in terai are drinking water from groundwater sources. In this context, question arises, whether the government of Nepal can immediately supply drinkable surface water to the affected population? There are also other expensive technologies available in developed countries to reduce toxic metals from groundwater. For example, soil contaminated by toxic metal can be treated chemically to keep the metal in soil from leaching into the groundwater. Metal can also be removed from groundwater that is pumped up from contaminated aquifer. Once the metal is removed, the water is released back to the aquifer through soil. These technologies are considered expensive even by developed countries such as the United States. Economically poor country like Nepal should keep these expensive options in mind but look for other economically feasible technologies. Let’s think one step forward. How about using trees to remove arsenic from soil and groundwater? Probably, this unique alternative has rarely been discussed or considered in arsenic affected countries, especially in Nepal. Plants naturally possess the ability to accumulate small amount of metals from soil and groundwater. But in nature there are some plants that accumulate significantly higher amount of metals in comparison to ordinary plants. Such extra-ordinary trees and shrubs are known as 'hyper-accumulators'. Recently, a new technology known as 'phytoremediation' has emerged in which such extra-ordinary trees and shrubs are utilized to extract toxic metals from soil and groundwater. Phytoremediation can not remove arsenic from groundwater instantly. It is a slow and steady process which in long term removes toxic metals from groundwater amazingly. Phytoremediation which is comparatively a cheaper technology is getting popularity in developed countries also because it is an environment friendly method. We can also practice this method in Nepal using our own indigenous trees, and exotic trees brought from other countries. However, we need to be clever when introducing new species because exotic species can sometimes cause adverse effect to our existing natural systems.

Groundwater is a major source of drinking water in the terai region. People know there is slow poison in their drinking water. Perhaps, they yet have no option other than drinking the slow poison knowingly. Testing arsenic level in tube wells of the affected areas, and writing a red notice ‘Do Not Drink Water from This Well’ will not alone solve the problem. Aren’t we getting late to discuss about the possible technologies and alternatives that we should introduce to save the public health? We all know the affected communities or the government or non-governmental organizations alone can not solve this severe environmental problem. What we need is a ‘Combined Effort’. Hopefully, we won’t be far behind other arsenic affected countries this time in solving the problem.

( The Author can be reached at: dipakarticles@yahoo.com dipakarticles@yahoo.com)

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | National |  5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | International | Past