 |
| |
|
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
|
|
Addressing emerging issues in a post conflict society is not easy
Sushil Koirala, Vice Chairman, Nepali Congress Party , Nepal
As we all know, the Socialist International is a worldwide organization of social democratic, labor, and democratic socialist political parties. Committed to its core values and principles adopted by its XVIII Congress in Stockholm in 1989, the Socialist International has always remained a strong advocate of ‘peace, democracy, human rights and social justice all over the world since its inception. We Nepalese are proud to say that our prominent leader Late B.P. Koirala, who was the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Nepal, had in fact championed the cause of democratic socialism in the Asia-Pacific region.
The continuous support of SI to the democratic struggle of Nepal , as reflected in the SI Secretary General’s Report of January 2006 and the ‘Declaration of Ulaanbaator’, adopted by the last SI Asia Pacific Committee meeting in May 2005, has always been a source of inspiration for the political parties here to fight against authoritarianism and autocratic rule.
Our sincere appreciation and thanks, therefore, go to all the SI members. Without your moral support to the cause of peace and democracy in the region, the Nepali Congress Party would never have achieved success in spearheading the people’s movements one after another since early 1950s against the autocratic regimes of the past for the establishment of democracy in Nepal .
The history of Nepali Congress is in fact the history of the socialist democratic movements in Nepal . The Nepali Congress and its leaders had orchestrated democratic movements successively in 1950/51; 1957/58, 1990 and 2006 against the then autocratic regimes. The people’s movement of 1990, however, was launched by Nepali Congress jointly with other political parties. And it was done solely for establishing a multi—party parliamentary democratic system.
Within less than ten years, however, taking advantage of the armed insurrection of the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) that plunged the country into eleven years of armed conflict and took more than 1 3,000 lives, the King with the help of army took over state powers in his hand and imposed authoritarian rule in the country again.
In view of the emerging political situation, the Nepali Congress Party took initiatives to forge a new alliance with seven political parties. The seven party alliance (SPA) decided to launch a political movement against the autocratic royal rule and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) also joined hands for making the movement a success.
The nineteen day long historic peaceful movement of the Nepalese people was a culmination of the four years of political parties’ struggle against the royal take over. The success of which led to the restoration of the dissolved parliament and paved the path for signing a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006, followed by an agreement for managing arms and armies under the supervision of the UN led monitors.
Many analysts agree that Nepal has set a unique example in the world by demonstrating that an armed conflict, despite its complexities, can be resolved by the national actors through peaceful means. Basically, it was done by creating an environment for properly assessing the situation through intense consultation, dialogue and negotiation.
Nepal has practically demonstrated that once the political forces start realizing the consequences of the conflict and reach a stage to find that ‘there is no end of war’, far reaching achievements can be made in a short span of time, including: — the initiation of dialogue for negotiations among ideologically diverse political groups; — the change of regime, - signing of the comprehensive peace agreement, — the promulgation of an interim constitution , and — formation of a new legislature to mainstream all warring political factions.
All these achievements could happen within one year period. And people’s power demonstrated through peaceful movement proved much stronger than the guns and explosives of the warring factions.
As you know, currently, Nepal is preparing for elections of the Constituent Assembly. The elected delegates at the Constituent Assembly, as representatives of the sovereign people, will draft and promulgate a new Constitution for a new democratic Nepal . The people will set out a legal framework for a new form of pluralistic democratic governance system which would he inclusive, federal and accountable to the people.
With appreciation to the contributions made by all political actors, civil society groups and individuals, and the international community and well-wishers, let me take this opportunity to make a personal note about the Prime Minister GP Koirala.
It was the dynamic leadership of the Prime Minister GP Koirala that could cement and sustain the bond of seven party alliances that led the whole negotiation process with the rebelling Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) to a logical conclusion. It was him whose maturity and acceptability was responsible to mobilize international goodwill and support to the process. It was him whose immense trust on the honesty and integrity of the political leaders, especially the rebel group, was responsible for diffusing serious crises at times. It was his democratic commitment, patience, untiring efforts, and political wisdom and acumen that made the peace process possible to move so fast. As a member of the Socialist International, the Nepali Congress Party is proud of its leader who has the charismatic skill to translate the spirit of SI into a reality.
However, the challenges we face are many. Aspirations of the people are very high but resources are meager. Addressing all emerging political, social, cultural, geographical and ethnic issues in a post conflict society is not easy. We have to learn lessons from the regional and global experiences also. The responsible role of the political party leaders and other stakeholders in resolving crises is very important. Any deviation of the political leaders of all parties from their commitments and actions may derail the whole process.
Unfortunately, Nepal is not the only country that has had to go through the trauma of armed conflict and political instability in the region. Lives of millions in Asia Pacific region alone continue to be miserable due to violence and perpetual armed conflicts. Peoples of some countries in the region are even suffering from the threats of both undemocratic regimes and potential abuse of nuclear power.
The Nepal meeting of the SI, I hope, will add new impetus and give new direction in its strategic efforts to make SI interventions in future more effective and meaningful, as have been done in the past. Perhaps, a review of the Declarations of Ulaanbaatar and Santiago, adopted by SI respectively in May 2005 and November 2006, may help us assess the progress made by SI to establish and strengthen the peace and democracy in the region and all over the world.
At the end, on behalf of the organizers, let me request you to kindly allow us by all means to make your stay in Nepal pleasant, homely and purposeful.
Text of the author’s speech made at SI meeting in Kathmandu held this Saturday-ed.
NC’s progressive ideas, values and credentials have been co-opted by rival parties
- Ram Chandra Poudel, NC leader
The country is now preparing to draft its first “people’s constitution” through an elected assembly that will overhaul the Nepali state.
How should the Nepali Congress prepare for the next few years of fluid transition?
What social democratic values and measures should we seek to stamp on the map of New Nepal?
We believe that the following points provide a broad direction and Vision for New Nepal with new agenda:
First, we have to ensure absolute inclusiveness in our system of governance.
We will pledge that the new constitution will leave no man, woman or child behind. It will stand for the agenda of absolute inclusiveness that eradicates discrimination based not only on class, but also caste, race, ethnicity, gender and geographical region. This agenda includes the creation of federal administrative units that are not only fiscally viable but also ethno-geographically just.
Second, we will craft a strategic role for the state & provide good governance We have fifty years of worldwide development evidence to shift and to learn when the state is most effective. The dramatic rise of East Asia in a single generation was possible because of a unique manner in which the state interacted with entrepreneurs to build a strong private sector. The state acted as a partner, catalyst, facilitator and regulator in the economy fine-tuning incentives and providing public goods. However, social democrats will contest blanket prescriptions imposed from outside and we will challenge “one size fits all” kind of policies that disregard country-specific characteristics. The most callous of these prescriptions includes asking even poor countries to retreat from important development activities through privatization, and eliminate subsidies and fiscal incentives just to balance the budget. We will argue for a strong state role where it has been unduly curtailed.
Third, we will create national wealth and share it equitably
The Nepali social democrats now need to adopt an economic agenda that is hot only “Basic-Needs-Plus,” but also identify the long-term sources of economic growth in the country.
The Congress will ask some hard questions:
If landlocked Nepal’s progress through industrialization is not viable, what type of service sectors do we need to develop in a manner that creates jobs on a sustainable basis?
What would it take to generate 20,000 megawatt of hydro-electricity by 2020? How do we modernize and commercialize agriculture and what model of land reform should we implement?
What incentives would help our private sector become more entrepreneurial and less rent-seeking?
What kind of air, road and communication networks should we be building, and how do we finance them?
How can we achieve annual growth rates of at least seven percent in order to double income every ten years?
Fourth, we have to democratize ourselves more
There is a crisis of credibility among Nepal’s political parties. A fundamental challenge is to take immediate measures that re-instill faith of the people in the political parties.
An “early harvest” of measures includes making the functioning of parties and their sources of finance more transparent, instituting internal democratic norms of elections and accountability.
There were sound legal and institutional achievements in the anti-corruption agenda in the 1990s, but social democrats will need to ensure that the anti-corruption agenda is broadened. Social Democrats should dare to dream a revitalized, more inclusive civil service. A democratic culture that places rule of law and human rights at the cornerstone of national public life must be fostered.
Fifth, we will execute a smart foreign policy based on values and national interest
Small countries like Nepal have little power in influencing solutions to global crisis such as terrorism, climate change, and nuclear propagation. But we can pursue our ideals through groups. Social Democrats in Nepal and their friends abroad through solidarity networks such as the Socialist International ought to take advantage of the global media and technology to do more to make a case for international politics that is based on principles and values. Nepal will aim to take leadership in strategic fora such as mountain, landlocked or least developed country bloc. We will also deepen our ties with our closest neighbors, China and India, not least to ride their waves of dramatic economic fortunes.
In Nepal today, one of the reasons the Nepali Congress and all social democrats find themselves in a defensive position is that our progressive ideas, values and credentials as a historically pro-people force have been co-opted by rival parties. The Congress must reclaim its ground and find its voice again by connecting with the Nepali people in a language they speak and understand.
Excerpts from Poudel’s address made at the SI conference held in Kathmandu this Saturday-ed.
Poverty in South Asia
By Imtiaz Alam, Editor current affairs, The News, Pakistan
South Asia still has nearly 400 million poor people in a population of 1.42 billion. Although, on the criteria of purchasing power parity (PPP) of US$ 1 a day, the scale of poverty has come down from 51.3 per cent to 31.3 per cent in 2001, the challenges to overcome poverty are so enormous that the efforts being made to alleviate poverty are far from being equal to the task. Poverty is not just endemic, but it is increasingly concentrated in the lagging regions. In absolute numbers the people living under the poverty line are, on $2 per day criterion, more than 80 per cent of the population in India , Bangladesh and Nepal , 73.6 per cent in Pakistan and 41.6 per cent in Sri Lanka . Such a large scale of poverty still persists despite a higher growth rate in recent years and large remittances ($22 billion in 2004-5) from non-resident nationals that mitigated balance of payment crisis and current account deficit.
Employment has remained stagnant while wages have fallen, despite higher growth rates. For instance, despite high growth rates in India during the 1990s, the rate of employment growth remained as low as one per cent, the gap in income distribution widened and reduction in poverty was far less than the growth rate. The fiscal stabilisation policies and macroeconomic structural reforms undertaken by the countries of the region have in fact not helped substantial reduction in poverty in the medium term. Neglect of social sectors for too long and ignoring poor, especially women, in economic development have resulted in higher rates of illiteracy and dismal health conditions in the countries of South Asia , except for Sri Lanka and Maldives .
South Asia is the only region in the world that spends less than $30 per person on healthcare -- which is two-thirds of what sub-Saharan Africa spends and 11 per cent of what Latin America and Caribbean spent on health in the same year. About half the children under the age of five are malnourished in South Asia as compared to 28 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and only seven per cent in Latin America and the Caribbean . South Asia 's share of undernourished people of the world is 40 per cent (300 million). Except for Sri Lanka and Maldives , all other SAARC countries are among the bottom quartile in Human Development Index, or marginally above it. In the human poverty index (HPI), except for Sri Lanka and Maldives , other countries of the region have higher level of human deprivations.
Similarly, in education the situation remains as worse as in healthcare. The youth literacy rate in South Asia was 72 per cent in 2003, which is close to sub-Saharan Africa . It was 50 per cent in Bangladesh , 53 per cent in Bhutan , 76 per cent in India , 99 per cent in Maldives , 73 per cent in Nepal , 64 per cent in Pakistan and 95 per cent in Sri Lanka . As on HDI and health indicators, women are discriminated against on all counts and parameters, including education and job opportunities. According to the UNDP Human Development Report 2005, the gender-related development index (GDI) value was 0.75 for Sri Lanka , 0.59 for India and 0.51 for Bangladesh , Nepal and Pakistan .
The most glaring aspect of poverty is that it is increasingly concentrated in the regions that have been left behind in the course of an unequal development and growth. The phrase 'two India(s) ' exemplifies this difference in regional development outcomes. In 2002-2003, all-India per capita GDP was $480; the poorest seven states (accounting for 55 per cent of the population) had a per-capita national income that was two-thirds the national average, while in the richest seven states (33 per cent of the population) per-capita GDP was nearly double that of the poorest seven states. In the two largest and poorest northern states ( Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, 25 per cent of total population) per-capita GDP was less than half the national average and only a third of the richest seven states. The four southern states, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu (21 per cent of the total population), at an average, enjoyed more than twice the GDP per capita of the quarter of the population concentrated in the two poorest northern states.
With an average GDP growth rate of five per cent, the southern states are galloping ahead of the poorest but populous northern states with the growth rate of only two per cent. Consequently, the poverty gap between the poorest northern states and the better off southern states has doubled: there are 35 per cent poor in the north and 18 per cent in the south. The same is true about Pakistan , Sri Lanka and Nepal , where regional disparities have not been mitigated. This growing inequality is often reflective of the domination of one ethnic/caste group or the other who then perpetuates the system of its dominance by various discriminatory means. Many of India 's lagging states, such as Bihar and UP, Balochistan and NWFP in Pakistan , northern and northeastern regions of Sri Lanka explain this unequal development.
Not only that the funds allocation for primary healthcare, education and poverty eradication are too scarce, as compared to the huge sums being spent on non-productive expenditure, they are also wasted through inefficient and corrupt practices. While South Asia spends one of the highest percentages of its revenues and GDP on defence, administration and security, it spends the least in the world on social sectors. Human security, food security, right to work, education, health and decent living are far from being addressed appropriately. The poor are seen as a liability, not as an active part of the solution. They are, at best, placed at the mercy of the providence of the rich or some handouts by the government.
The development paradigm being pursued by the countries of the region is premised on a massive differentiation of income and accumulation of capital, power, resources, credit, development projects, means of production and markets in a few hands. The destiny of the poor is left to the trickle-down effect of the accumulation and concentration of the capital in the hands of the most privileged. Increasing automation, mechanisation, computerisation and modernisation are biased against labour-intensive technologies resulting in higher rates of unemployment or lower rates of labour absorption in terms of capital investment. The structures of GDP growth, erosion of traditional means of living, mechanisation of agriculture on which the bulk of population lived, over-crowding of cities, neglect of human resource development, illiteracy, lack of health services, discrimination against women and marginalized communities, unequal development, regional disparities, over-centralisation, bad governance and corruption all have contributed to the vast incidence of poverty.
Although South Asia has experienced an impressive economic growth during the last decade projects a latest World Bank Report on South Asia . However, the assumption that higher growth rate will automatically result in reduction of poverty has not been validated by the ground realities. Not every pattern of development and growth model, as currently prevalent in the region, has helped alleviate the sufferings of the largest mass of poor in our part of the world. The poverty in both relative and absolute terms has perpetuated. According to the WB report, South Asia could bring down poverty to less than ten per cent in the next 10 years, if it succeeded in accelerating its annual growth rate to 10 per cent. The economists differ that higher growth rates do not necessarily translate into poverty reduction and macro-economic reforms have in fact increased the gulf between the rich and the poor in all countries of the region.
In the past decade, economic growth has resulted in a growing gap between the rich and the poor, which will put a break on the prospects of growth as well. As inter and intra state conflicts, corruption and high fiscal deficits are likely to adversely affect growth, without increasing investment, productivity, efficiency, improved human resources, good governance, much improved human and physical infrastructures, greater priority to empowering and enabling poor though their own organisations and giving top preference to backward regions and women, neither will high growth sustain, nor will poverty go down. The issues related to poverty are all-sided and can't be tackled in isolation. A who-list strategy has to be evolved to empower have-nots, especially the women, by directly providing them with the means of income, education, healthcare, skills and resources and, above all, by breaking the anti-poor power nexus at all levels.
Dr Ponna Wignaraja and Dr Akmal Hussain rightly argue in 'Poverty and South Asia', one of the 14 volumes of South Asian Studies published by South Asian Policy Analysis (SAPANA) Network, for an alternative paradigm of sustainable development and a who-list approach to empower the poor and break with the local power nexus of the elite and bureaucracy that continues to marginalize the poor. In fact governance, devolution and sustainable development of the poor are closely interlinked. A pro-poor growth strategy not only warrants higher investment, reduced incremental capital output ratios, increased employment elasticity, but also increased efficiency, transparency and devolution that break the nexus of the powerful and create the countervailing power of the poor through their autonomous collective organizations at the grassroots level. This strategy must focus on the structural factors behind poverty and ensure better access of the poor to resources, credit, markets, skills, information, labor, land, means of livelihood, agricultural inputs and outputs and pro-active participation in the development process as the major stakeholders and masters of their destiny. mail: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com
Hyper use of force in international relations is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts
President Valdamir Putin, The Russian Federation
It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilizations.
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
These words remain topical today.
Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.
Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
And with which results?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States , has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.
Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States . And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil , Russia , India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.
However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!
But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?
Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012 . Russia intends to strictly fulfill the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.
Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.
In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.
Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea , the Republic of Korea , India , Iran , Pakistan and Israel . Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.
It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.
Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia , it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.
We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.
This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran . We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.
In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.
We are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all. [Speech by the President at the Munich Conference on Security Policy ,
GERMANY , Excerpts: Courtesy: http://www.kremlin.ru]
