Wednesday, August 3, 2005

In-depth analysis:
Delivery system poised

Kathmandu: The delayed appointments of some fifty district development committee Chairmen and Vice Chairmen is adding to the growing confusion amidst grassroots workers who have by and large wholeheartedly welcomed the King's February 1 move. Attempting to cash in on this confusion are the political parties who have been opposing the King ever since His majesty's use of article 127 on October 4 2002. ( Here is a flash: The government on Monday declared the names of the Chairman and vice chairman of forty seven district development committee-ed).

The opposing parties lack popular support largely because its active grassroots is in touch with a people who have been made more than aware that their public stand points are far from public expectations and that their naked thirst for political power has made the grass root workers extremely vulnerable.

The widespread disenchantment at recent ministerial appointments and the government's nominations to twenty five of seventy five district chairmen and vice chairmen posts have been gleefully orchestrated by the party machinery. Nevertheless, the message has not been lost on the party leadership. Cooperation from them not forthcoming, their grassroots will be swept by the election machinery. The people will vote, who they will vote for, need not be those representing the political parties that oppose the King's move.

As it is, in much of the countryside they have been thoroughly displaced by the Maoists and the municipal areas targeted for the first phase of the elections are where the security actions have brought immediate peace which the local people actually feel.

Government hesitation in the appointment delays arises actually from conflicting priorities. Competing political parties that welcome the move must all be accommodated. Members of the political parties that risk party wrath by supporting the King must be recognized. Supporters of the King inactive due to persecution by the ruling parties must also be aroused. Monarchists who have been active in the past decade risking persecution must also be condoned. Newly organized workers who welcome the King's move must also be rewarded. With such conflicting priorities it is clear that positions are limited. The barrage of criticisms after each appointment is likely to mount.

It is in this sense that the seven party coalition against the King anticipates a disenchanted volume to cash in upon. Nevertheless, by two months from now, the King will have filled in local district posts that, housed in now safe district head quarters, can launch the delivery system to the affected countryside.

Clearly, the race is on.

Koirala prefers reconciliation with King prior to NC convention

Kathmandu: As the Nepali Congress' general convention is approaching, its incumbent president, Shri Girija Prasad Koirala is silent for a variety of political reasons.

Albeit, his daughter Sujata is active apparently on behalf of Koirala.

The fact is that Koirala is not in the news. The last news he made was his speech wherein he said that his fight for a total democracy meant one step prior to republicanism.

After this bombshell, Koirala is not in the news. But since he is the newsmaker, thanks the kind courtesy of Nepali media men, newsmen have tried to analyze as to why he is not in the news. After all how come a regular newsmaker suddenly disappears from the news?

President Koirala disappeared from the media headlines since he met Indian minister Rao Inderjeet Singh at his private residence in Kathmandu.

The minister apparently told him what he did not like to listen. But had to listen carefully because the advice had come from an Indian whom he respects more than his own fellow compatriots. But yet Koirala finds it pretty difficult to digest what he was told by his Indian friend who had come to seek a vote for his country's bid for UNSC seat.

Though the minister returned empty handed but yet prior to his leaving Kathmandu he did convince Koirala not to suspect King Gyanendra's democratic credentials.

The Indian minister might have said so presumably, in diplomacy this does happen more often than not, to please the King and thus secure a vote for his country. But then what could have been the reason of minister Inderjeet seducing King Gyanendra is mysterious, however, what he suggested Koirala is remarkable in the sense that such eulogy has come in favor of the King from such a country that has ever tried to minimize the role of the King in Nepal for a variety of clandestine dangerous reasons and concurrently encouraged the opposition parties, read those opposing the King, to pounce on the King. And Nepali leaders under the instigation and influence of their mentors in Delhi have at best tried to deride at their own Nepali King who should have been pretty closer to them as both Nepali nationals. But the hard reality is that Nepali politicians believe and trust more others than their own leader, be it the King or for that matter others.

Firstly, Koirala's silence these days could have been due to minister Inderjeet's million dollar advice which neither can be outright rejected nor totally gulped. Nevertheless, Koirala is perhaps thinking twice over what he was told in private by Inderjeet prior to leaving for Delhi last week.

Secondly, the reason could be that his eagerness in having talks with the Maoists albeit got positive response but then what Koirala needed and demanded from them was a sort of total commitment for the multi-party set up which they have not spoken of till today.

Thirdly, Koirala could have thought that his ambition and resolve to bring in the Maoists to the democratic mainstream could not be that much easy than expected. Koirala is yet to get response from the other camp on matters of lying down of the arms and under what conditions and under whose mediation. A section of his coalition partners though have said that talks with the Maoists could be held having arms in their possession.

Analysts say that for having preliminary talks with the Maoists need no conditions. Talks could be initiated even in the status quo. If the talks progressed in a positive direction then separate talks on how, when and where the weapons be deposited could be thought of.

Fourthly, Koirala could have in mind that his proximity with the Maoists might further irritate the King whose consequences or fall out would mean that chances of reconciliation with the King have gone far.

It is not that Koirala doesn't need reconciliation with the King. The fact is that he is in search of such a personality who could patch up the matter prior to the NC general convention.

In effect, Koirala honors the king to the extent that he in his inner heart possesses high regards for the institution of the monarchy but for political reasons and for public consumption he at times speaks words that are not good for the King.

In effect, Koirala wants this patch work, or say reconciliation with the King, much ahead of the NC convention for he fears that cadres and some party leaders might initiate a sort of dialogue in the party regarding the viability and the necessity of the institution of the monarchy.

This debate Koirala wants to avoid. Analysts wish to suggest the King to listen to Koirala's reasoning.

Finally, Koirala too fears from the international comments that might crop up if he exhibits his extra interest in talking with the rebels without pushing workable and viable agenda for their perusal.

Above all, Koirala's silence appears to be guided more by the concerns of the impending general convention plus his exclusively private concerns that were associated with how to elevate the present ranks of his kith and kins in the party. He knows well that this third presidency could be his last one and hence his anxiety on how to take care of his blood relations appears more than natural and obvious.

Rebels exhibit flexibility
Dr. Bhattarai favors a "negotiated settlement"

Kathmandu: The rebel leader, Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai, after his recent reinstatement in the party has begun to disseminate his party's fresh thinking on the possibility of talks on conditions.

Analysts presume that Dr. Bhattarai's expressions were not of his own but those of the party's. That what Dr. Bhattarai has been ventilating of late on behalf of the party does hint that the rebel leader has been granted full freedom or has been empowered to disseminate the party's considerations, which would be binding, and final on the party.

It is in this presumption perhaps that Dr. Bhattarai is in the news media here and there which concurrently have allowed Dr. Bhattarai to wash off allegations that were of late hurled upon him by a sizeable chunk of Nepali media that he was comfortably closer to the Indian establishment.

Dr. Bhattarai has rejected those charges saying that attempts to align him to Nepal's southern neighbor were all malicious and baseless allegations.

In effect, events of the last month in New Delhi and that too disseminated by the Indian media did allow the Nepali media to suspect Dr. Bhattarai's nationalist credentials but when he rejects, analysts say, there were plausible reasons to believe his claims that he was a nationalist and second to none.

The fact that he is a true nationalist becomes clear from the fact that he admits that the first four out of forty point Maoists demands that Dr. Bhattarai submitted to Sher Bahadur Deuba for his study prior to entering into the jungles were drafted by him.

To recall, the first four point Maoists demands handed over to the then Prime Minister for his perusal are all pro-Nepal which have been dubbed by the Indian establishment as anti-Indian.

In essence, when the entire Maoists leadership kept a total silence over the present status of those special four points for years and years and when impressions began to float in Katmandu's media circles that the Indian establishment in the mean time must have seduced the Maoists leadership which is why the rebel leaders took a rather flexible stance vis-à-vis those four points which in general speaks of the Nepali psyche.

Now that Dr. Bhattarai says that he sticks to what he drafted or what are contained in the forty point demands, analysts remain assured of his version and find no reason to further embarrass him on this particular count. Analysts honor his nationalist feelings.

At yet another front, Dr. Bhattarai is hitting the international media headlines.

Only recently he has talked to the Washington Times wherein he has spoken some thing that needs deep analysis.

During the course of the interview, Dr. Bhattarai, better late than never, admits the strategic location of his own country and rightly says that given this vulnerable "position" his party have had no other option left other than to go in for a what he calls "negotiated settlement".

This is good news at least for the time being because this statement in itself amounts to the rebels' coming half way to democratic system. Analysts see in Dr. Bhattarai's statement a seed of love and respect for his own country and that he also admits that under the given scheme of things a sort of negotiated settlement would be the best bargain for the party. Is it that in saying so Dr. Bhattarai sees some arm-twisting by India and hints that it would be better to initiate talks with his own Nepali friends instead of allowing foreign forces to play in exclusive nepali affairs? Keep on guessing.

Dr. Bhattarai in the course of his interview also appears to have found a million dollar truth and appears to have got the point to which he and his party had been denying for a couple of years.

The new findings of the highly qualified Architectural Engineer tuned politician of the highest order, let's call him that, has to do with the people's support being extended to their revolution.

Dr. Bhattarai doesn't hide that what they had been hoping were all illusion and nothing more than that. In effect, the rebels had been counting much on the moral support being extended to their revolution by the people residing in the urban and the remote areas which it is not, as per Dr. Bhattarai himself.

Dr. Bhattarai candidly agrees that the party now preferred a negotiated settlement simply because of "the indifference of large sections of the urban and the rural middle class to a revolutionary change"- (in the country implied).

His own assertion indicates that the urban and the rural population remained averse to their ideas for a sudden change in the governing pattern of the country which is why he and his party have opted to go in for a negotiated settlement.

This means that his party now has no illusions that the people of the country summarily eulogized their revolution. The people in the cities and in the villages still were not prepared to embrace a sudden change to what they considered inevitable. Thanks that this illusion has vanished. This is also a good news for this would force the rebels to seek settlement of a "negotiated" pattern. This again means that they are ready for negotiation and what negotiation means they know better. It is a sort of bargain. It is a process where give and take process comes into play.

Dr. Bhattarai demands a democratic republic. What is this all about? Is it equivalent to Girija's total

Democracy? Or is it King's reiteration wherein he says that a vibrant and meaningful democracy equaled to the Maoists People's democracy?

Be that as it may, Dr. Bhattarai's fresh interview does speak that the rebels now prefer talks. Albeit the talks with the political parties currently in the agitation. Even if they reject talks with the men in the government, it would not damage the prospects of the talks with the political parties.

After all talking to parliamentary forces tantamount to their coming half way to the mainstream of the prevalent system.

A fresh debate is expected to begin among the Nepali intellectuals wherein it is expected that they will discuss the meaning underneath Dr. Bhattarai's fresh declarations for a negotiated settlement. Though the engineer has ruled out the possibility of talks with the King's men.

Politics never goes straight, opine analysts. They see a silver lining in the Nepali sky.

It is high time that the men in government exploit these fresh political overtures seen in the rebel camp.

Contradictory statements from two distinguished Americans

Kathmandu: Two distinguished American nationals have expressed their concerns on Nepal recently.

Analysts' value both of those concerns coming as it does from two different American brains. However, they concurrently reject exaggeration of the Nepal events by one American national who holds respect not only in his own country but abroad as well.

Two sets of interpretations on Nepal events have emanated in the media of late that puts forth its own sort of two different prescriptions for the country that they presume would do away with the current Nepal crisis.

The first set of elucidation has come from Senator Patrick Leahy who while making a speech in the US Senate July 28 has tried his best to present Nepal as already a failed state which it is not by all international standards.

Patrick Leahy's portrayal of Nepal events is, sorry to say, similar to Nepali leaders' day-to-day statements that they make in Kathmandu and interested media men pick it up for a variety of reasons.

The second set of ideas that have emanated right in Nepal from the incumbent American Ambassador James F. Moriarty is not only appreciable but does hint that this particular American authority understands Nepal better and knows well how Nepali authorities should proceed in order to tackle the twin issues: of the political crisis and the subsequent derailment of the democratic order and also of the Maoists insurgency. This seasoned diplomat sees reason in his consideration that Nepal was really in a deep crisis and hence offers certain prescriptions for the perusal of the King and the political parties to be mulled over if Nepal were to come out of the crisis that has plagued the country of late.

The first American is blunt in his observations and opines that the King is the source of all the problems facing Nepal in these days.

The other American wisely evaluates the Nepal situation and urges both the conflicting parties, the King and the political parties, to come together and jointly fight with the growing threats of the Maoists insurgency.

The American in Washington provides an impression that he is amply briefed by his friends in the "opposition"-those who are hell bent on killing the prestige and the popularity of the King. He also hints that he has not been properly briefed by Nepali diplomats stationed in Washington. Had it not been the case, let's presume for the moment, Senator Leahy's paper would have been bit different. A glaring case of Nepal's diplomatic failure indeed.

The other American very aptly encourages Nepali people to participate in the elections which ultimately will allow democracy to usher in as a matter of fact. He says, "Democracy therefore requires having elections eventually".

This diplomat indicates that there has got to be a sort of reconciliation in between the King and the political parties so that the derailed political process or for that matter the democratic system comes to its original leak if the agitating political parties say yes to the municipal elections.

Ambassador Moriarty's drive is visibly for the elections and he would be more than happy if the political animals participated in the elections.

This is positive.

However, the American in Washington prefers, by implication, the political parties' confrontational posture against the King to prolong. This is visible in his July 28 speech.

Whereas the American Ambassador in Kathmandu sees the urgency of the Palace for what he says "reaching out to the parties now to begin the dialogue on how to achieve democracy in Nepal".

By implication, Ambassador Moriarty pointedly intimates that it was now the "King's turn to act". Not a bad idea indeed. Analysts see no harm if the King initiated the process of dialogue with the political parties.

He however, in the same breath advises political parties to respond if such gesture came from the palace.

This means that Ambassador Moriarty wants an early settlement to the Nepal crisis and hold the view that to end the crisis the King and the parties must sit together at the earliest.

The Senator in effect gives the impression that he knows each and every nitty-gritty of Nepal crisis. However, he is wrong because he is speaking half-cooked voice.

Prior to making a fiery speech at the Senate on July 28, Senator Leahy should have contacted his own envoy in Kathmandu in order to depict the Nepali state of affairs in an exact manner. Undoubtedly, Ambassador Moriarty knows better the Nepali situation than Senator Leahy.

Senator Leahy appears to have some sort of allergy with the word, reconciliation, which is why he does not speak of the need of the King and the parties coming together for a fruitful discussion. Whereas, Ambassador Moriarty sees the urgency of "reconciliation" for in his own words, "democracy can't wait".

Examining the two sets of American interpretations, analysts come to the conclusion that Nepali diplomats in Washington are in a deep slumber and that not a single effort has been done to present Nepal in its as it is position-good or bad both.

What also comes to the fore is that international personalities who wield prestige and honor too at times commit blunder of Himalayan dimension and present views that appear far from truth.

What a contradiction in between the contemplation of the two distinguished Americans on Nepal events. If one preferred confrontation and quarrel to continue, the other advocated reconciliation.

ENBREF:

WB agrees for $35 million grant

Kathmandu: Two grants totaling US $35 million was signed between the Nepalese government and the World Bank for the development of rural road infrastructure and economic reform.

Under the terms of the agreement that was signed on Monday, a 32 million USD will be financed to rehabilitate and upgrade over 4,500 km of rural roads, trails and tracks in 20 districts, as well in the construction of some 350 suspension trail bridges, which are often the only means of access to market areas and services.

The grant would also include the maintenance of those bridges and trails destroyed by the Maoist rebels, a Bank statement said. The statement also said that the remaining amount of nearly $3 million will be financed on the country's comprehensive reform agenda, which includes strengthening home-grown reform efforts in areas of public sector capacity, social inclusion and governance among others.

Nepal values friendship with China-HM King Gyanendra

Kathmandu: On the occasion of the establishment of 50 years of diplomatic relations between Nepal and China His Majesty the King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev while sending a message to the Chinese President Hu Jintao, has expressed that the mutual belief understanding and cooperation between the two countries will scale new heights in the years ahead charting a more collaborative relationship to suit the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

"We in Nepal greatly value our friendship with China which has remained a true friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people," HM said further according to the Radio Nepal.

"We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to China for cooperation in various sectors, which has significantly contributed to Nepal's development endeavors," the king added.

CPI-M asks Indian government to reconsider arms supply

Kathmandu: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) last week asked the government to reconsider its decision to resume arms supply to Nepal and said it should also take a "firm stand" on restoration of democracy in the Himalayan Kingdom.

The party General Secretary Prakash Karat while talking to the reporters said that there was a growing realization among the people of Nepal that monarchy is incompatible with a democratic set up and that the King and democracy cannot go together.