Young Nepalese Lead Their Nation's Push for Democracy
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: April 14, 2006
KATMANDU, Nepal, April 13 — The Nepalese New Year dawns on Friday, with Nepal's young lashing furiously at the past.
Tomas van Houtryve for The New York Times
Protesters gathered on the outskirts of Katmandu, Nepal, to rally against King Gyanendra's absolute rule, which began in 2005.
Tomas van Houtryve for The New York Times
A vast majority of those demonstrating for democracy in cities all over Nepal are adults who came of age after 1990, when democratic rule was first introduced there.
"We will not ask the king to leave the throne — we will go and take the throne and put it on display," Gagan Thapa, 29, the political symbol of young Nepal, told a crowd of thousands on the outskirts of this capital on Thursday. The vast majority, dressed in baseball caps and jeans and looking well below the age of 30, roared in approval.
A brassy antimonarchy call-and-response echoed through the warren of terraced lanes.
"We will burn the crown," Mr. Thapa shouted.
"Burn the crown, burn the crown," the crowd hollered back.
The irrepressible protests that have gripped Nepal in the last several days, demanding the end of palace rule and the reinstatement of Parliament, are a function of demography and its discontent.
Young Nepal has been at the forefront of this week's rambunctious, often violent pro-democracy protests, which have left four people dead. Whether Nepal descends into further tumult or sees the dawning of a new political age in the Nepalese calendar year of 2063 will depend on whether the protesters can be appeased.
With his country's crisis mounting by the day, King Gyanendra seemed to make the slightest of nods in that direction. In a brief statement read on state-owned television shortly before midnight, he called for general elections "with the active participation of all political parties committed to peace and democracy."
But the king said nothing about when elections would be held or, more important, whether he would concede to elections to review the Constitution, something the country's coalition of political parties and the Maoist rebels insist on.
Whether the gesture restores peace in the Himalayan kingdom will depend on the reaction on Friday from the uncompromising throngs of young people who today represent his most formidable foe.
Nearly 60 percent of Nepal's 23 million citizens are under 24. They came of age after democracy came to Nepal in April 1990, and they have tasted the fruits and failures of electoral politics. They have seen a Maoist rebellion put much of the countryside through the wringer.
In February 2005, they saw their king suspend Parliament and install prime ministers of his own choosing in a bid, as he said, to defeat a bruising Maoist insurgency. For 14 months, they have lived under the king's direct rule.
Last week, he banned protests here in the capital and for six days imposed a daytime curfew.
That order has not stopped young people from defiantly pouring out into the streets. They have been taking the lion's share of police beatings. On just one day this week, of the 59 people admitted to Katmandu's main teaching hospital for treatment of their injuries, only 13 were over the age of 30.
Consider the verdict of Shashi Sigdel, a 22-year-old medical student on the shift in attitudes toward the king.
"My grandfather used to think he is a god," Mr. Sigdel said. "My parents used to think he stands between God and the devil. Me, I think he's the devil. That's the generation gap."
On Thursday, the government restored cellphone service, suspended for nearly a week, and lifted the curfew in the capital. The ban on protests in Katmandu and several other cities continued — as did the protests.
The Royal Nepalese Army has been dispatched to some of the demonstrations. But so far, it has largely refrained from open confrontation with the demonstrators. Of the four people killed in the demonstrations, at least two died by army fire.
A protest by the Nepal Bar Association on Thursday morning ended with the police beating of dozens of demonstrators; nearly 50 landed in the hospital, including two whose heads had been grazed by rubber bullets.
In a statement on Thursday, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights hinted that the use of excessive force by police officers could jeopardize Nepal's participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions, a good source of income for the country.
"One would expect them to be respectful of United Nations standards in their conduct at home," Ian Martin, the High Commissioner's representative in Nepal, said in an interview Thursday night.
1
Friday, April 14, 2006
The New York Times
Editorial
Democracy at the Top of the World
Published: April 14, 2006
The remote mountain kingdom of Nepal has become convulsed by violent confrontations between police and protesters. The crisis does not involve strategic resources or Islamic terrorists. But there are good reasons why the outside world should pay attention.First, there is a potential for friction between the two giants bordering on Nepal, India and China, if they feel the little country shifting one way or the other. Then there is the fact that the world does not need another failed state, especially one with a powerful Maoist militia and a terrain that would ideally suit warlords and terrorists. Finally, the Nepalese are fighting for democracy, and it would be good for developed democracies to show a willingness to help even if there is no immediate or tangible gain.In 1996, radical leftists began a brutal insurgency, in which more than 12,000 people were killed. In 2001, the heir to the throne went berserk and killed himself and most of his family. The crown passed to his uncle, Gyanendra, who used the Maoist insurgency as a pretext to assume absolute powers. Last month opposition parties called for a series of strikes in support of demands for a restoration of democracy, and they have swelled into a wave of public protests.The Maoist insurgency is clearly a serious blight. But King Gyanendra has brought this on himself. The United States and Europe should urge him to step back into a constitutional role, and promise to help a democratic Nepal emerge from the crushing poverty that sustains the insurgents.
Times of India National Daily
Published: April 14, 2006
Gyanendra, Nepal's monarch who imposed absolute rule on his country 14 months ago, is getting isolated both domestically and internationally, and his options are fast running out.
An opposition strike shut down Kathmandu for four days, and casualties from police firing on protestors are mounting. Gyanendra tried to reverse historical processes by rolling back the constitutional monarchy that came about after the success of the pro-democracy movement in 1990.
But people, having tasted democratic rights, don't give up on them so easily, and even Gyanendra had to dress his assumption of all powers in the garb of restoring democracy in three years.
The problem is he made no credible steps towards this, while repression of political parties and civil society groups mounted. Now businessmen, lawyers and professionals too have joined the movement against him.
By subverting the compact between crown and people Gyanendra may have endangered the monarchy itself. Gyanendra's fate has been sealed by the understanding arrived at between the seven-party alliance - which has inherited the mantle of the democracy movement - and the Maoists, and a Nepali republic looks conceivable now.
It is just as well, therefore, that New Delhi has dropped its "twin pillars" approach towards Nepal, whereby both the monarchy and political parties were thought to be necessary for Nepal's stability.
The rationale for supporting Gyanendra was that without his steadying hand Nepal might fall to the Maoists; but New Delhi is beginning to recognise that Gyanendra himself may be pushing people into the arms of Maoists, and therefore a factor for instability.
Another rationale may have been to prevent Beijing or Islamabad from filling the vacuum in Nepal if New Delhi pulled out. But Beijing recognises a loser when it sees one, and Islamabad, which has its own insurgencies to deal with, would merely embarrass itself if it stepped in to shore up Gyanendra.
New Delhi has done the right thing by condemning repressive measures resorted to by Nepal's government. It has acted in concert with Washington, which said Gyanendra's takeover "has failed in every regard".
Luckily, the Left too is aboard on this one. New Delhi could follow up its initiative, and gain credit for itself in the region, if it stood four-square behind the democratic movement in Nepal and peaceful negotiations regarding the country's future.
Maoists too should be welcome to participate in negotiations, as long as they play by the rules of the democratic game.
Editorial
Democracy at the Top of the World
Published: April 14, 2006
The remote mountain kingdom of Nepal has become convulsed by violent confrontations between police and protesters. The crisis does not involve strategic resources or Islamic terrorists. But there are good reasons why the outside world should pay attention.First, there is a potential for friction between the two giants bordering on Nepal, India and China, if they feel the little country shifting one way or the other. Then there is the fact that the world does not need another failed state, especially one with a powerful Maoist militia and a terrain that would ideally suit warlords and terrorists. Finally, the Nepalese are fighting for democracy, and it would be good for developed democracies to show a willingness to help even if there is no immediate or tangible gain.In 1996, radical leftists began a brutal insurgency, in which more than 12,000 people were killed. In 2001, the heir to the throne went berserk and killed himself and most of his family. The crown passed to his uncle, Gyanendra, who used the Maoist insurgency as a pretext to assume absolute powers. Last month opposition parties called for a series of strikes in support of demands for a restoration of democracy, and they have swelled into a wave of public protests.The Maoist insurgency is clearly a serious blight. But King Gyanendra has brought this on himself. The United States and Europe should urge him to step back into a constitutional role, and promise to help a democratic Nepal emerge from the crushing poverty that sustains the insurgents.
Times of India National Daily
Published: April 14, 2006
Gyanendra, Nepal's monarch who imposed absolute rule on his country 14 months ago, is getting isolated both domestically and internationally, and his options are fast running out.
An opposition strike shut down Kathmandu for four days, and casualties from police firing on protestors are mounting. Gyanendra tried to reverse historical processes by rolling back the constitutional monarchy that came about after the success of the pro-democracy movement in 1990.
But people, having tasted democratic rights, don't give up on them so easily, and even Gyanendra had to dress his assumption of all powers in the garb of restoring democracy in three years.
The problem is he made no credible steps towards this, while repression of political parties and civil society groups mounted. Now businessmen, lawyers and professionals too have joined the movement against him.
By subverting the compact between crown and people Gyanendra may have endangered the monarchy itself. Gyanendra's fate has been sealed by the understanding arrived at between the seven-party alliance - which has inherited the mantle of the democracy movement - and the Maoists, and a Nepali republic looks conceivable now.
It is just as well, therefore, that New Delhi has dropped its "twin pillars" approach towards Nepal, whereby both the monarchy and political parties were thought to be necessary for Nepal's stability.
The rationale for supporting Gyanendra was that without his steadying hand Nepal might fall to the Maoists; but New Delhi is beginning to recognise that Gyanendra himself may be pushing people into the arms of Maoists, and therefore a factor for instability.
Another rationale may have been to prevent Beijing or Islamabad from filling the vacuum in Nepal if New Delhi pulled out. But Beijing recognises a loser when it sees one, and Islamabad, which has its own insurgencies to deal with, would merely embarrass itself if it stepped in to shore up Gyanendra.
New Delhi has done the right thing by condemning repressive measures resorted to by Nepal's government. It has acted in concert with Washington, which said Gyanendra's takeover "has failed in every regard".
Luckily, the Left too is aboard on this one. New Delhi could follow up its initiative, and gain credit for itself in the region, if it stood four-square behind the democratic movement in Nepal and peaceful negotiations regarding the country's future.
Maoists too should be welcome to participate in negotiations, as long as they play by the rules of the democratic game.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Prachanda
Prachanda interview: Full transcript
Read the full transcript of Nepali Maoist leader Prachanda's exclusive interview with the BBC's Charles Haviland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Prachanda
- your war is 10 years old now. The economy is in ruins. Tourism is way down. Rural poor have fled their homes and live in terror. And 13,000 people are dead. It's been a disaster hasn't it?
We've certainly never said it was good.
When we started a people's revolution, we tried to advance the Nepali people's needs and the society's needs in a peaceful way.
This movement is to grant democratic rights to Nepalis: Prachanda
Everyone knows when we were in parliament, following its processes, we put forward 40 demands so that the problems of Nepalis would be solved in a peaceful way.
But, when the ruling classes and the feudalists were not ready to solve the problems of Nepalis peacefully, and instead started victimising our party workers and people who supported us in a brutal and illegitimate fashion, they compelled us and the Nepali people to take up arms.
That doesn't mean we are happy about 13,000 people being killed. For sure, we are saddened by it.
But the responsibility doesn't lie with us. It lies with a small clique of privileged class who want to keep Nepal as a medieval feudal state. That is our belief, and that, I think, is the truth.
Let's talk about the "feudals and aristocrats". You say that they are your biggest enemies. Fine, they are sitting safe, mainly in Kathmandu and the other cities. But people who suffered are the poor people in the rural areas. Isn't that true?
It is not true. In history, wherever there has been a revolutionary movement, when people's movement moves forward - in the process of revolution, a clique of feudal elements will be staying within the fortification of the army. They will stay in there until their end comes but in the end, revolution will, as seen by history, destroy the feudal elements and in the end, these elements will have to come to the people's court and be tried.
We believe that in the near future, these elements will be in the people's court and will be tried by the people. When the revolution begins, they will be staying within the army barracks and army protection and so they will not be the ones caught at the beginning.
History has always shown this.
One reason that people including the Americans are scared of you is that they have a nightmare vision - a Maoist takeover, conquering and entering Kathmandu with bloodshed.
Is that your aim - to conquer Kathmandu militarily?
What America is thinking, I think they are thinking wrong.
It is the Americans who have that level of bloodthirstiness. They have been killing and attacking innocent civilians. We are not like that. We certainly want to capture Kathmandu for Nepali people, for democracy and for peace, it is important that the Nepali people have to conquer and we want to go to Kathmandu. It is not like the American vision where there would be a river of blood. We want to conquer Kathmandu with the people's rebellion.
So you think you can conquer Kathmandu militarily?
We are not only talking about militarily. I believe we can, and we have to conquer Kathmandu both militarily and politically. That's why we have not thought about it in a purely military way.
As you know, we have made an agreement with the parliamentary political parties and we want to get to Kathmandu militarily too. This is certain. We are not thinking of this in a purely military fashion and that is why we are talking about democracy and peace, and for this we have made agreements with the political parties. This proves that we do not want to get to Kathmandu in a purely military way but also in a political and military way.
You say politically. Does that mean in fact you don't really expect to be able to conquer the capital militarily?
When we started the people's revolution and when we first attacked the feudal elements' Royal Army, we believed that we could conquer Kathmandu militarily.
But later, when countries like the US, the UK and India started supporting the Royal Army militarily - against our people's war and the revolt of Nepali people - that has posed some difficulties.
That is why we believe that in today's world it's not possible only to move forward militarily.
Today's reality is to move forward both politically and militarily, with a balance of the two.
Only with this balance can we gain something for the people and the people's democracy.
That's why we are organising on both fronts, political and military.
So you're saying that in today's world you don't think it would possible to take the capital city militarily?
It is possible.
But in today's situation it would cause a lot of harm to the Nepali people.
That's why we like the political solution better. And we are working towards it.
You signed an agreement in India last November with the mainstream political parties, the main opposition parties. That agreement talked about you, the Maoists, "moving along a peaceful political stream". Are you preparing for peace?
We are always ready for peace, and when we started the people's war, after a while we said that if the ruling classes would want to peacefully solve the problems of Nepali people, we were ready.
The vision that we see of the future Nepal is to be free of class exploitation
Now, in the agreement with the parties, we are still saying that if there is an environment where people can give their own verdict, through an election of a constituent assembly, where people have a voice on the kind of governance that they want, if that right is with the people, then we are ready to have a political competition with the parties. And this is the truth.
This in fact your main political demand - an elected assembly to draw up a new constitution. If that elected assembly drew up a constitution that kept Nepal as a kingdom, with a king, would you be happy?
We have said that there should be a democratic republic in Nepal. Our struggle is for a democratic republic.
But we have said that people should be harmed to the minimum extent possible. And if the problem is solved in a peaceful and democratic way, we are ready for it, and that's why we have called for a constituent assembly.
We believe that with the election of a constituent assembly, a democratic republic will be formed in Nepal. And this will solve the problems of Nepalis and lead the country into a more progressive path.
And since we have said that we'd go for a peaceful election of the constituent assembly, we're ready to follow whatever the verdict of the people is.
We have stated this over and over again. We'll accept the people's verdict. Whatever decision the people should give, we will be ready to accept this.
Does that mean you would theoretically be able to accept a people's verdict of keeping the monarchy?
Yes, theoretically it is like that. But we believe that people would not give that kind of verdict in the current situation. That is our faith and belief and whatever you can say, we are ready to follow the people's verdict.
That would mean that ideologically if the people want that, we will follow that.
But we believe that the people's version will be for a democratic republic.
Does that mean you could imagine yourself or someone from your party actually serving as prime minister under King Gyanendra?
If such a situation arises, if you ask me personally I am not ready. But personal choice is not the main thing.
The main thing is following what the people's verdict is.
Personally, we might not be ready in situations like this, because we have been fighting for a republic.
But since we have already said that we will agree with the verdict of a constituent assembly, we will surely agree to that.
Now we are talking all about the future. But violence is still escalating in Nepal. When is this peaceful future going to happen?
I believe that the total responsibility for the escalating violence falls on the King and the royal army - on Gyanendra and his royal army. To ensure that the minimum bloodshed is inflicted on Nepali people, we had a four-month-long cease-fire. We have also been saying that we would agree to whatever the verdict is of the constituent assembly. And we have committed to accept multi-party competition. That's why, the way violence is escalating in this country, the total responsibility falls on Gyanendra and his royal army.
The Nepali people understand this and the world has seen those who want peace and democracy clearly. In the near future, this situation is not going to remain. Nepali people are going to triumph and democracy is going to triumph. Gyanendra-ism and his feudalistic clique will certainly be destroyed. He is responsible. We also want to appeal to all everyone in the world who believes in peace and democracy to speak out and stand up against the one who has been shedding blood and killing people every day.
Now you declared a ceasefire for four months. If you were to repeat that but on a permanent basis, laying down your arms tomorrow, this war would stop. Why not do that?
We are fighting for the rights of Nepali people. As long as the royal army interferes with Nepali people's rights, as long as they keep killing Nepali people, I mean, the feudal privileged class, and that too an army loyal to a medieval royalty - are an obstacle to the Nepali people.
It is important that they be dismantled - not us. Nepali people are rebelling for their rights. In us saying that we are ready, we mean, the royal army, who have been oppressing Nepali people for 237 years, and are loyal to a small clique, who have no loyalty to respect for democratic ideology - that army has to be dismantled. Then only can the problem be solved. We are not the power that gave birth to this problem. It is the King, his clique and his royal army. For a peaceful solution of this problem, what we are saying is that both the armies should be monitored by the UN or a similar organization and go to the people; and that later they can be re-organized into a new Nepali army and that we are ready for. That is why we are not the problem.
We are not standing in the way of a peaceful solution. It is the King and his royal army. Even within the royal army, we do not believe that the lower cadres and officials of the army want the war to go on. It is a small clique of generals who belong to the feudalistic privileged class, the Rana and Shah clans of Nepal; they want this war to go on. If they want the war to go on, we do not want to surrender to them. If they say that we should surrender, if US imperialists say that we should surrender, we are not ready for it. We are ready to fight and die but we are not ready to surrender to this feudalistic clique. That is why we are clearing the path for peace.
For Nepal to rebuild itself in the future, it's going to need help. The most powerful nation in the world that might be able to help is the United States of America. Are you ready to work with America?
We believe that once the Nepali people's desire for a democracy is fulfilled, once there is peace and democracy in the country, we will be ready to develop diplomatic relations with all nations of the world - for the development of Nepali people, we are ready to receive their support and we will be ready. But what we feel till now, and what experience has shown us, is that America does not work for the improvement of people anywhere. It works only for itself. It works for the benefit of the ruling class, the capitalists within America. We don't believe that it will work to benefit the people from a poor country. Still, once there is democracy and peace in Nepal, we are ready to develop a diplomatic relationship with any country and work with any country around the world.
So you could work with America even though it has provided arms for the present government?
We are not talking within the context of the present government. If the so-called current government sitting in Kathmandu, the clique of feudal, privileged class - as long as they exist, there is no question of us working with America or any other country. After this clique is dismantled, once there is people's government - a democratic and progressive government - that government will be ready to work with any country around the world. That is what I was trying to say.
The agenda that the King is moving with, he is negating the possibility of compromise
I want to ask you about India. It has its own Maoists in rural areas called the Naxalites.Are you working with them, supporting them?
We do not have a working relationship with the Maoists [in India]. Since they are communists and we are communists, we have an ideological relationship.
But movement and revolution is not about export and import.
So what they want to do in India is their own business.
And what we are going to do in Nepal is our own business.
So we do not have a direct functional or working relationship [with them].
At an ideological level, we meet from time to time and we have our meetings debates and discussions.
So what they do in India is their business and what we do in Nepal is our business.
And we do not see it as something to be imported or exported.
Some people have felt that you are probably trying to export revolution throughout the subcontinent. Are you saying that you are not?
Ideologically we want to move the global revolution forward.
We want to take the lessons from the positive and the negative experiences of the 20th Century; from revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th Century.
Globally the suppressed classes should get their rights, and that's what we want.
But in practical terms we do not believe that one country's army should go to the other country and fight for it.
Ideologically we do want there to be a revolution in the USA and even in your UK, and that the working classes should rule.
That does not mean that once we conquer in Nepal we will go and spread revolution in other countries.
But we will give ideological support, for sure.
We are a part of a global revolution but we do not believe that revolution is something to be exported.
Fighting a war is very expensive. If your supporters are mainly in poor rural parts of Nepal, where are you getting your money from?
We are certainly fighting for the rights of poor people in Nepal. We are the children of Nepali citizens. The main source of our income is the same people we are fighting for. As a secondary source, we used to extract from our enemies; but now, our main source is the support from the people.
What about money from elsewhere in the South Asian region? Whether governments or individuals, maybe in your neighbouring countries?
It's been well established that no government anywhere has financially supported our revolution and nor have they supported us in material or military ways.
This revolution has been supported purely by Nepali people.
So we have not been supported by anyone in terms of military equipment or financially.
This is a pure self-reliant revolution of the Nepali people. This has been seen by the world and the world understands this. We are proud that we are not in the hands of any international group.
We are free to make decisions for the betterment of the Nepali people, because we have taken neither money nor arms from anyone.
I want to ask you about your vision of a future Nepali society.
You have declared war on alcohol and gambling. There have been reports of someone being shot for playing cards. You want to outlaw "vulgar Hindi films".
It sounds very puritanical.
We have experimented with different things. But the vision that we see of the future Nepal is to be free of class exploitation that exists in Nepal; that all classes should be free from feudal exploitation.
Nepal also has caste exploitation. Nepal should be free from the exploitation of the suppressed castes. The suppressed castes have been exploited by feudal castes. And we want them to be free of that.
We also have regional exploitation, like Karnali, a remote region - the ruling class of Kathmandu have never looked into the betterment of these people.
People from zones like Seti, Mahakali and Karnali [in Far West and Mid-West Nepal] should also get their rights. That's what we want.
Similarly the two- or three-fold exploitation of women - they are exploited by the feudal class and by the men. They should also be free of this exploitation. Women should have equal rights and equal participation on the social, political and economic fronts.
What we are saying is, our future is going to be free from caste, class, regional and gender exploitation.
Nepal should be a common platform for all groups. At the same time, the cultural, political and economic affairs of the country should be decided by the people.
The right to make decisions should be exercised by everyone. And it should be progressive. It should move towards a progressive culture.
That's what we believe. We certainly have said that dirty and vulgar materials and literature from America or cheap and dirty literature from India should be banned.
We believed that and we still believe that. We also definitely want to eliminate bad habits like alcohol and gambling from the villages. What we believe is that in the 10 years of "People's Revolution", the roots of feudalism have been cut off and there is a situation of freedom.
Because of the war, people have suffered.
But if you go and look into the hearts of people in the villages, they don't feel as exploited as they did yesterday. They feel self-respect.
A poor woman in a village with a gun, moving forward to build a new society, feels her life as a woman has been elevated.
In a village, there is respect even for the poor. And the suppressed feel that they have a new life as human beings. We are building new lives in these villages.
You won't find exploitation and injustice in villages, such as discrimination against dalits [the lowest castes]. And the practice of "untouchability" has ended.
There is a great feeling that all people are equal. In this way we have been bringing sweeping changes to the villages.
And once the war is over, we believe that we can move forward and develop economically or otherwise at a very fast pace.
If you had such great support, why would you need to use such violence? For example, you declared a strike last week, forcing people to shut their businesses, not drive their vehicles, etc.
Your people in Kathmandu shot dead a taxi driver for disobeying that order. What does it mean when people only obey out of fear, pure and simple?
The first thing is that we did not start the violence. When we were in the parliament, in the district where we had the maximum support, violence was used on the people by the royal army and the police. They made the people compelled to revolt against it.
When do we become violent? Only when the rulers use violence on the people. Certainly, because we have maximum support from people, we have been able to rebel against this. Because we have vision, we have been able to rebel against it. As long as the feudal autocrats do not stop killing the people, there will be a rebellion against it. That rebellion is the right of the people. What we are saying is that in the current situation of Nepal, the right to rebellion by the oppressed is a human right. There are no greater human rights than the people's right to fight for their rights.
As far as what you have said about the taxi driver, I do not know if it was done by our people or someone else. Right now, people are against the King and his so-called elections, and the rebellion could come from anyone. I do not know that it was us who killed the taxi driver. We are investigating this - we are looking for who killed him. There is no proof that we killed him.
In this conflict your side, the Maoists, have killed more children than the other side. Your bombs have killed and maimed children. You have recruited children under 12. Isn't this something to be ashamed of - the treatment of children?
In our party's central policy, we do not have a policy of recruiting children. We do not even train children below 16 years old as militia. Accidentally children have been killed, and we are saddened by that.
But the situation does not match the account that the ruling classes and the feudals have propagated. Children whose parents have been killed in the war - taking care of them is the responsibility of the party.
That's why we are compelled to take care of, educate and provide work for hundreds of children, even those who are 12 to 15 years old.
This is a compulsion born out of the war. This compulsion has been falsely portrayed by the feudal elements as forced recruitment of children.
As for children who have been accidentally killed, we are deeply sad about it.
We are trying our very best to ensure that such accidents do not happen.
We are doing our best, and this is the truth.
But it's well known - anyone who has seen the Maoist army knows that there are certainly children under 16 there. That's the case, isn't it?
In village militias it might be true but in the People's Liberation Army that's not the situation.
You are a married man. You have four children yourself, I imagine grown up by now. They had a schooling. Yet, the Maoists have closed schools - not only private ones but community ones as well. Would you have wanted your children to have been deprived of education in that kind of way?
Where have we closed down schools? Schools are running and even with our own efforts, we are trying to open schools and educate children. My children went to school when they were young and are now in the movement.
But I've been and visited people who are no longer being educated because their schools have been closed down.
A Since we are in a state of war, certainly things have not moved the way that they should have been. That is why we need to end the war and for this we need to defeat Gyanendra-ism, feudalism and the royal army.
When all people get together and triumph over the autocracy, then only education could be provided in an organized way. As long as the autocratic rule is committing atrocities on the people, till then war is going to escalate and it would be difficult to systematize the education. Yet, even in the situation of war, we are trying to ensure that schools are running and education is possible.
I've met families of people who have been killed by the Maoists for allegedly supporting the army. Yet you know very well that both sides force them to help them, to feed them. Isn't it wrong to kill them on the basis of that so-called "evidence"?
The statement that we have forced people to support us is not true. Because before we did not have an army and nor did we have any weapons. We came forth because of people's support and help. It is not possible therefore that we would use force on people.
As for our enemies, the feudal elements and the autocrats, after the rebellion started, there are numerous incidents where they have raped women, torched houses and villages; where the army has surrounded them and forced them to carry their luggage. All these have been carried out by the feudalistic autocratic elements, not our army.
You might have heard this being propagated but the reality is different. If you look at the villages, when there is a cessation of war, our People's Liberation Army works in the fields of people, they work as labourers to build roads for people - they have been doing all this work. That is why, to say that our army uses force on people is totally untrue.
In times of war, in difficult circumstances, things might not work as planned and at times, even though we might have wanted, we might not have managed to organize things the right way. But in general, from our side, there has been and there will be no force on people.
I'm not sure you understood my question. As I say, I've met families of people who have been killed by the Maoists for allegedly supporting the army. That's what I want to ask about - killing people on completely unjustified grounds.
We have not killed people or anyone when army surrounds the village and forces people to support and help them. The policy of our party is that informants of the army, the ones who work as spies, and have committed the crime of killing people, then there would be action against them. There is a policy to act against them. But there is no policy that we kill people generally on the basis that they have helped the royal army.
Unfortunately, if such an incident does happen, we have been admitting to this and publicly apologized for it. Whenever such a mistake is made and someone loses their life outside of our policy, we have asked for a pardon from the people.
You've said, for instance after an atrocity last June when Maoists bombed a bus, killing nearly 40 civilians and a few soldiers - you said you were "sad and hurt" about that.
Yet the UN office in Nepal says it never gets evidence that you have punished the perpetrators of such acts. Why can't you give such evidence?
I think you probably don't know this, but after that incident at Madi when there was an explosion on the bus, we were shocked beyond words.
Our party workers who were involved in it, they were expelled from the party and the army, and the report on how this expulsion was carried out was given to the UN.
We informed them about who was sentenced, who had committed what crime, the nature of the crime, and the kinds of punishment given to them.
All this information was given.
Sometimes you seem to say one thing and do another. For instance, you told the UN that you would not attack candidates from last week's municipal elections, but you did. Two of them got killed. How can people believe you?
When we talked about it. I mean, there is no difference is what we have been saying and what we have been doing. In the circumstance, when we were in ceasefire, we had said that and even later, we did not have a policy of physically harming any candidate.
But there has been only one incident - not two - according to the report that was given to our central [committee] - in Janakpur - where a local worker of the party took responsibility for the killing. We are investigating this.
If we had wanted, we could have killed many candidates. Because we did not have the policy of killing them, they were not killed. Our party did not have a policy of killing them because they are candidates. We are investigating on the incident of Janakpur and this has been informed to the United Nations Human Rights office. That is why there is no difference between what we say and what we do.
As for an informer of the royal army being a candidate, we might have a process of capturing them and trying them in the people's court. As a candidate and an informer of the royal army, if he has been responsible for killing people, the party policy is to take action against him. It is important to understand these two things correctly.
What kind of action?
Our policy is that if he is an informer, we'd capture him, stand him in front of the people's court, and take action as per the verdict of the court.
Considering the degree of the crime, he could be given a labour punishment for a certain time, or for a while kept under the custody of people, and if the crime is big, he could even be executed. The party policy is to follow this process.
Do you have a timetable to lay down your arms? Or a planned timetable?
We do not look at it in terms of a time line. We see it in terms of policy. As soon as the people are given the right to decide of their own fate and of their own future, we will be ready to lay down our arms. But if the people are not given their rights, we are committed to and are ready to fight till the end.
That's why we cannot give a timetable on when we can lay down our arms and when we would use them. As soon as people get their rights, as soon as there is a possibility for a democracy, as soon as people can make decisions on their own lives, then there is a possibility of laying down our arms.
More concretely, what needs to happen for you to give up your arms? What's the bottom line, the minimum, that you need to give up your arms struggle?
We have already clearly said in our 12-point agreement with the parliamentary political parties, as soon as there is a possibility of preparing a new constitution through a constituent assembly, and form a new army, we are ready to call off the war. For now, the bottom line is the agreement with the seven political parties.
Do you believe in the multi-party system or would you like your party to be the one party ruling Nepal at some point in the future?
I am going to address this question very seriously. Three years ago, at a Central Committee meeting of our party, analyzing the experiences from 20th century communist states, we put forward a proposal for the development of democracy.
In the 21st century we cannot have a state like those of the 20th century.
That's why our Central Committee unanimously passed this paper on the development of democracy in the 21st century.
The spirit of this paper is that there should be peaceful competition between all political parties against feudalism and foreign imperialist forces.
And that there should be multi-party competition. Since then we have said that within a certain constitutional provision multi-party competition [should exist] as long as it's against feudalism, against foreign imperialistic interference and all political parties can compete against each other.
And this document was unanimously passed three years ago in very clear terms.
In the agreement that we recently made with the political parties, we have clearly stated that we agree to multi-party competition.
What we have seen from the 20th century, and the lessons that we have learnt from the experiences of the 20th century, a very important question was - to understand the subject of democracy and dictatorship we need to develop a new consciousness for this.
And we have passed this.
Our opponents have understood us in a dogmatic way. We are not dogmatic but our opponents are. They are looking at us with 20th Century glasses. But we are already moving into the 21st Century.
[We are looking at] the kind of state that is possible in the 21st Century, how to give people the maximum possible rights; how to organize competition; and how to guarantee that this competition does not lead to oppression and suppression.
In short, democracy and dictatorship....How to make use of this conflict between them - we are developing on this.
And from this process of development, we have termed, development of democracy. People think that our commitment to the multi-party competition is purely a tactic and that we are trying to cheat someone.
But in reality we have taken the experience of an entire century, discussed it, analyzed it in our party, and we've come to a conclusion that the development of democracy is necessary in the 21st Century.
That's why we take multi-party competition very seriously.
We want to move forward. Even in our understanding with the parties, we have said that we don't want autocracy; that we have to crush the feudal autocracy that exists today.
It will never propagate multi-party competition.
Events have proved this.
Not only now - four years ago, when the royal massacre happened, we saw that the feudal autocracy was snatching away the rights that we gained in the 1990 democracy movement.
The parliamentary parties were also against the royal massacre.
That's why we appealed to the political parties to join us and build a platform, and [we said] we are ready to compete with you, and the feudal autocracy was a common enemy of ours and we should fight against it.
And we have been talking about multi-party competition since then.
I strongly believe we need to understand this clearly.
Do you want to be leader of this country? Head of state?
It depends on this political movement and how the events proceed.
Our movement is not for me to be the head of state.
This movement is to grant democratic rights to Nepali people and secure a better future for them. It's not for me to be a head of state.
If this movement goes on and if the situation arises, then if need be, and if necessary for the Nepali people, I am of course ready for it.
But I also want to clarify that - from the lessons of the 20th Century communist states - we want to move to a new plane in terms of leadership - where one person doesn't remain the party leader or the head of state.
This discussion is going on within our party, on the subject of leadership, how the leadership should develop; even after the state is captured, how to institutionalize the subject of leadership and how to prepare new leaders, how to prepare lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of successors to them.
What were the negative experiences of the 20th Century in which people who should have been more powerful and should have had more rights, could not get them?
We are studying this.
Why it could not happen during Stalin's time, how much of this happened in Mao's time - we are studying this and we are in the process of developing a new system of thought.
The question of being head of state is not a major question.
The major question is the development of ideology which would globally uplift and give rights to the working class - our focus is on developing that ideology.
That's why people might have a difficult time understanding us.
Those who see us with 20th Century eyes would not understand us because we are talking about democracy.
In the 20th Century, totalitarianism was widely propagated.
People might find it surprising.
The main difference in us is when we talk about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and their ideology, we believe that it has to be developed.
Just practising it is not enough.
To protect it, practice it and develop it is necessary.
The responsibility of developing it falls on every scientific thinking person.
After the 10 years of our struggle for people, we believe this responsibility falls on us, and we are thinking about it.
You've been living an underground existence for 25 years. What's it been like for you and for your family?
Underground - one needs to understand it clearly. I have not been underground from the people. I am only underground from the feudalistic elements and its royal army. In villages where people are free, I stay freely too. I meet my family, my children and my wife.
Where do you think Nepal will be in five years' time?
I think it will be a republican state. I believe that it will be a republic state in less than five years. I believe that in a short while, Nepal will be a democratic republic.
People's resistance exists. With the unity that has developed between the seven political parties, us and the civic society, and the way that the autocratic monarchy and the royal army have been cornered, with this very shortly Nepal will become a republic.
And even in the international community, the way that the feudal elements have been cornered and their dramas have been exposed - in such a situation we believe that the Nepali people will go for a republic and in a peaceful way the process of rebuilding Nepal will go forward.
In five years' time Nepal will move towards being a beautiful, peaceful and progressive nation.
In five years' time the millions of Nepalis will already be moving ahead with a mission to make a beautiful future, and Nepal will truly start becoming a heaven on earth.
Where will the king be?
He will be crushed. The king I think will either be executed by the people's court or he might be exiled. For the king, today's Nepal has no future.
We don't see a future for him and the Nepali people don't either. The king might be finished or he might flee.
To build a new future for this country you will have to compromise on some areas. What might those areas be?
If you are talking about compromise, compromise with whom?
If you are talking about compromise with the king, we don't see that happening.
The only point of compromise, as we have clearly said, is that all political powers in Nepal should be ready to follow the people's wishes, that there should be free and fair elections for the new constitution, and the compromise would happen when everyone is ready to follow the verdict of this election.
But time has moved forward.
The king doesn't have that space now.
The steps the king has taken, like the drama of the so-called municipal elections - the whole world saw it as the eighth wonder of the world.
And now the path the king has taken, there is no space for compromise with him.
There was a possibility for compromise before 1 February last year.
But after the steps he has taken between 1 February and now, we don't see any space for compromise, and the Nepali people do not see space for compromise either.
We can have an understanding with the political parties and the international community for the development of Nepali people, for peace, for progress - that we are ready for.
A few minutes ago you said theoretically it would be possible to keep the monarchy. Now you are saying a likely future for the king is exile or he might even be killed and there is no compromise.
If you talk in those absolute terms how are you going to reach any agreement with the powers that be in this country?
What I'm trying to say is that the king has taken steps that do not give any room for compromise.
It would be correct to say that the path that he has taken is the road to hell.
If he has chosen the path of no compromise, there is no way that we are going to see a compromise.
Theoretically as I said there was a possibility. But that has now turned into hypothesis. What I mean is: the agenda that the king is moving with, he is negating the possibility of compromise.
In the second stage, I was saying that the king himself has finished this possibility and has taken the path to hell.
He is not trying to give the rights to people or even the parliamentary parties.
And in such a situation there is no question of seeing a point of compromise with him. This is what I was trying to say.
Read the full transcript of Nepali Maoist leader Prachanda's exclusive interview with the BBC's Charles Haviland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Prachanda
- your war is 10 years old now. The economy is in ruins. Tourism is way down. Rural poor have fled their homes and live in terror. And 13,000 people are dead. It's been a disaster hasn't it?
We've certainly never said it was good.
When we started a people's revolution, we tried to advance the Nepali people's needs and the society's needs in a peaceful way.
This movement is to grant democratic rights to Nepalis: Prachanda
Everyone knows when we were in parliament, following its processes, we put forward 40 demands so that the problems of Nepalis would be solved in a peaceful way.
But, when the ruling classes and the feudalists were not ready to solve the problems of Nepalis peacefully, and instead started victimising our party workers and people who supported us in a brutal and illegitimate fashion, they compelled us and the Nepali people to take up arms.
That doesn't mean we are happy about 13,000 people being killed. For sure, we are saddened by it.
But the responsibility doesn't lie with us. It lies with a small clique of privileged class who want to keep Nepal as a medieval feudal state. That is our belief, and that, I think, is the truth.
Let's talk about the "feudals and aristocrats". You say that they are your biggest enemies. Fine, they are sitting safe, mainly in Kathmandu and the other cities. But people who suffered are the poor people in the rural areas. Isn't that true?
It is not true. In history, wherever there has been a revolutionary movement, when people's movement moves forward - in the process of revolution, a clique of feudal elements will be staying within the fortification of the army. They will stay in there until their end comes but in the end, revolution will, as seen by history, destroy the feudal elements and in the end, these elements will have to come to the people's court and be tried.
We believe that in the near future, these elements will be in the people's court and will be tried by the people. When the revolution begins, they will be staying within the army barracks and army protection and so they will not be the ones caught at the beginning.
History has always shown this.
One reason that people including the Americans are scared of you is that they have a nightmare vision - a Maoist takeover, conquering and entering Kathmandu with bloodshed.
Is that your aim - to conquer Kathmandu militarily?
What America is thinking, I think they are thinking wrong.
It is the Americans who have that level of bloodthirstiness. They have been killing and attacking innocent civilians. We are not like that. We certainly want to capture Kathmandu for Nepali people, for democracy and for peace, it is important that the Nepali people have to conquer and we want to go to Kathmandu. It is not like the American vision where there would be a river of blood. We want to conquer Kathmandu with the people's rebellion.
So you think you can conquer Kathmandu militarily?
We are not only talking about militarily. I believe we can, and we have to conquer Kathmandu both militarily and politically. That's why we have not thought about it in a purely military way.
As you know, we have made an agreement with the parliamentary political parties and we want to get to Kathmandu militarily too. This is certain. We are not thinking of this in a purely military fashion and that is why we are talking about democracy and peace, and for this we have made agreements with the political parties. This proves that we do not want to get to Kathmandu in a purely military way but also in a political and military way.
You say politically. Does that mean in fact you don't really expect to be able to conquer the capital militarily?
When we started the people's revolution and when we first attacked the feudal elements' Royal Army, we believed that we could conquer Kathmandu militarily.
But later, when countries like the US, the UK and India started supporting the Royal Army militarily - against our people's war and the revolt of Nepali people - that has posed some difficulties.
That is why we believe that in today's world it's not possible only to move forward militarily.
Today's reality is to move forward both politically and militarily, with a balance of the two.
Only with this balance can we gain something for the people and the people's democracy.
That's why we are organising on both fronts, political and military.
So you're saying that in today's world you don't think it would possible to take the capital city militarily?
It is possible.
But in today's situation it would cause a lot of harm to the Nepali people.
That's why we like the political solution better. And we are working towards it.
You signed an agreement in India last November with the mainstream political parties, the main opposition parties. That agreement talked about you, the Maoists, "moving along a peaceful political stream". Are you preparing for peace?
We are always ready for peace, and when we started the people's war, after a while we said that if the ruling classes would want to peacefully solve the problems of Nepali people, we were ready.
The vision that we see of the future Nepal is to be free of class exploitation
Now, in the agreement with the parties, we are still saying that if there is an environment where people can give their own verdict, through an election of a constituent assembly, where people have a voice on the kind of governance that they want, if that right is with the people, then we are ready to have a political competition with the parties. And this is the truth.
This in fact your main political demand - an elected assembly to draw up a new constitution. If that elected assembly drew up a constitution that kept Nepal as a kingdom, with a king, would you be happy?
We have said that there should be a democratic republic in Nepal. Our struggle is for a democratic republic.
But we have said that people should be harmed to the minimum extent possible. And if the problem is solved in a peaceful and democratic way, we are ready for it, and that's why we have called for a constituent assembly.
We believe that with the election of a constituent assembly, a democratic republic will be formed in Nepal. And this will solve the problems of Nepalis and lead the country into a more progressive path.
And since we have said that we'd go for a peaceful election of the constituent assembly, we're ready to follow whatever the verdict of the people is.
We have stated this over and over again. We'll accept the people's verdict. Whatever decision the people should give, we will be ready to accept this.
Does that mean you would theoretically be able to accept a people's verdict of keeping the monarchy?
Yes, theoretically it is like that. But we believe that people would not give that kind of verdict in the current situation. That is our faith and belief and whatever you can say, we are ready to follow the people's verdict.
That would mean that ideologically if the people want that, we will follow that.
But we believe that the people's version will be for a democratic republic.
Does that mean you could imagine yourself or someone from your party actually serving as prime minister under King Gyanendra?
If such a situation arises, if you ask me personally I am not ready. But personal choice is not the main thing.
The main thing is following what the people's verdict is.
Personally, we might not be ready in situations like this, because we have been fighting for a republic.
But since we have already said that we will agree with the verdict of a constituent assembly, we will surely agree to that.
Now we are talking all about the future. But violence is still escalating in Nepal. When is this peaceful future going to happen?
I believe that the total responsibility for the escalating violence falls on the King and the royal army - on Gyanendra and his royal army. To ensure that the minimum bloodshed is inflicted on Nepali people, we had a four-month-long cease-fire. We have also been saying that we would agree to whatever the verdict is of the constituent assembly. And we have committed to accept multi-party competition. That's why, the way violence is escalating in this country, the total responsibility falls on Gyanendra and his royal army.
The Nepali people understand this and the world has seen those who want peace and democracy clearly. In the near future, this situation is not going to remain. Nepali people are going to triumph and democracy is going to triumph. Gyanendra-ism and his feudalistic clique will certainly be destroyed. He is responsible. We also want to appeal to all everyone in the world who believes in peace and democracy to speak out and stand up against the one who has been shedding blood and killing people every day.
Now you declared a ceasefire for four months. If you were to repeat that but on a permanent basis, laying down your arms tomorrow, this war would stop. Why not do that?
We are fighting for the rights of Nepali people. As long as the royal army interferes with Nepali people's rights, as long as they keep killing Nepali people, I mean, the feudal privileged class, and that too an army loyal to a medieval royalty - are an obstacle to the Nepali people.
It is important that they be dismantled - not us. Nepali people are rebelling for their rights. In us saying that we are ready, we mean, the royal army, who have been oppressing Nepali people for 237 years, and are loyal to a small clique, who have no loyalty to respect for democratic ideology - that army has to be dismantled. Then only can the problem be solved. We are not the power that gave birth to this problem. It is the King, his clique and his royal army. For a peaceful solution of this problem, what we are saying is that both the armies should be monitored by the UN or a similar organization and go to the people; and that later they can be re-organized into a new Nepali army and that we are ready for. That is why we are not the problem.
We are not standing in the way of a peaceful solution. It is the King and his royal army. Even within the royal army, we do not believe that the lower cadres and officials of the army want the war to go on. It is a small clique of generals who belong to the feudalistic privileged class, the Rana and Shah clans of Nepal; they want this war to go on. If they want the war to go on, we do not want to surrender to them. If they say that we should surrender, if US imperialists say that we should surrender, we are not ready for it. We are ready to fight and die but we are not ready to surrender to this feudalistic clique. That is why we are clearing the path for peace.
For Nepal to rebuild itself in the future, it's going to need help. The most powerful nation in the world that might be able to help is the United States of America. Are you ready to work with America?
We believe that once the Nepali people's desire for a democracy is fulfilled, once there is peace and democracy in the country, we will be ready to develop diplomatic relations with all nations of the world - for the development of Nepali people, we are ready to receive their support and we will be ready. But what we feel till now, and what experience has shown us, is that America does not work for the improvement of people anywhere. It works only for itself. It works for the benefit of the ruling class, the capitalists within America. We don't believe that it will work to benefit the people from a poor country. Still, once there is democracy and peace in Nepal, we are ready to develop a diplomatic relationship with any country and work with any country around the world.
So you could work with America even though it has provided arms for the present government?
We are not talking within the context of the present government. If the so-called current government sitting in Kathmandu, the clique of feudal, privileged class - as long as they exist, there is no question of us working with America or any other country. After this clique is dismantled, once there is people's government - a democratic and progressive government - that government will be ready to work with any country around the world. That is what I was trying to say.
The agenda that the King is moving with, he is negating the possibility of compromise
I want to ask you about India. It has its own Maoists in rural areas called the Naxalites.Are you working with them, supporting them?
We do not have a working relationship with the Maoists [in India]. Since they are communists and we are communists, we have an ideological relationship.
But movement and revolution is not about export and import.
So what they want to do in India is their own business.
And what we are going to do in Nepal is our own business.
So we do not have a direct functional or working relationship [with them].
At an ideological level, we meet from time to time and we have our meetings debates and discussions.
So what they do in India is their business and what we do in Nepal is our business.
And we do not see it as something to be imported or exported.
Some people have felt that you are probably trying to export revolution throughout the subcontinent. Are you saying that you are not?
Ideologically we want to move the global revolution forward.
We want to take the lessons from the positive and the negative experiences of the 20th Century; from revolutions and counter-revolutions of the 20th Century.
Globally the suppressed classes should get their rights, and that's what we want.
But in practical terms we do not believe that one country's army should go to the other country and fight for it.
Ideologically we do want there to be a revolution in the USA and even in your UK, and that the working classes should rule.
That does not mean that once we conquer in Nepal we will go and spread revolution in other countries.
But we will give ideological support, for sure.
We are a part of a global revolution but we do not believe that revolution is something to be exported.
Fighting a war is very expensive. If your supporters are mainly in poor rural parts of Nepal, where are you getting your money from?
We are certainly fighting for the rights of poor people in Nepal. We are the children of Nepali citizens. The main source of our income is the same people we are fighting for. As a secondary source, we used to extract from our enemies; but now, our main source is the support from the people.
What about money from elsewhere in the South Asian region? Whether governments or individuals, maybe in your neighbouring countries?
It's been well established that no government anywhere has financially supported our revolution and nor have they supported us in material or military ways.
This revolution has been supported purely by Nepali people.
So we have not been supported by anyone in terms of military equipment or financially.
This is a pure self-reliant revolution of the Nepali people. This has been seen by the world and the world understands this. We are proud that we are not in the hands of any international group.
We are free to make decisions for the betterment of the Nepali people, because we have taken neither money nor arms from anyone.
I want to ask you about your vision of a future Nepali society.
You have declared war on alcohol and gambling. There have been reports of someone being shot for playing cards. You want to outlaw "vulgar Hindi films".
It sounds very puritanical.
We have experimented with different things. But the vision that we see of the future Nepal is to be free of class exploitation that exists in Nepal; that all classes should be free from feudal exploitation.
Nepal also has caste exploitation. Nepal should be free from the exploitation of the suppressed castes. The suppressed castes have been exploited by feudal castes. And we want them to be free of that.
We also have regional exploitation, like Karnali, a remote region - the ruling class of Kathmandu have never looked into the betterment of these people.
People from zones like Seti, Mahakali and Karnali [in Far West and Mid-West Nepal] should also get their rights. That's what we want.
Similarly the two- or three-fold exploitation of women - they are exploited by the feudal class and by the men. They should also be free of this exploitation. Women should have equal rights and equal participation on the social, political and economic fronts.
What we are saying is, our future is going to be free from caste, class, regional and gender exploitation.
Nepal should be a common platform for all groups. At the same time, the cultural, political and economic affairs of the country should be decided by the people.
The right to make decisions should be exercised by everyone. And it should be progressive. It should move towards a progressive culture.
That's what we believe. We certainly have said that dirty and vulgar materials and literature from America or cheap and dirty literature from India should be banned.
We believed that and we still believe that. We also definitely want to eliminate bad habits like alcohol and gambling from the villages. What we believe is that in the 10 years of "People's Revolution", the roots of feudalism have been cut off and there is a situation of freedom.
Because of the war, people have suffered.
But if you go and look into the hearts of people in the villages, they don't feel as exploited as they did yesterday. They feel self-respect.
A poor woman in a village with a gun, moving forward to build a new society, feels her life as a woman has been elevated.
In a village, there is respect even for the poor. And the suppressed feel that they have a new life as human beings. We are building new lives in these villages.
You won't find exploitation and injustice in villages, such as discrimination against dalits [the lowest castes]. And the practice of "untouchability" has ended.
There is a great feeling that all people are equal. In this way we have been bringing sweeping changes to the villages.
And once the war is over, we believe that we can move forward and develop economically or otherwise at a very fast pace.
If you had such great support, why would you need to use such violence? For example, you declared a strike last week, forcing people to shut their businesses, not drive their vehicles, etc.
Your people in Kathmandu shot dead a taxi driver for disobeying that order. What does it mean when people only obey out of fear, pure and simple?
The first thing is that we did not start the violence. When we were in the parliament, in the district where we had the maximum support, violence was used on the people by the royal army and the police. They made the people compelled to revolt against it.
When do we become violent? Only when the rulers use violence on the people. Certainly, because we have maximum support from people, we have been able to rebel against this. Because we have vision, we have been able to rebel against it. As long as the feudal autocrats do not stop killing the people, there will be a rebellion against it. That rebellion is the right of the people. What we are saying is that in the current situation of Nepal, the right to rebellion by the oppressed is a human right. There are no greater human rights than the people's right to fight for their rights.
As far as what you have said about the taxi driver, I do not know if it was done by our people or someone else. Right now, people are against the King and his so-called elections, and the rebellion could come from anyone. I do not know that it was us who killed the taxi driver. We are investigating this - we are looking for who killed him. There is no proof that we killed him.
In this conflict your side, the Maoists, have killed more children than the other side. Your bombs have killed and maimed children. You have recruited children under 12. Isn't this something to be ashamed of - the treatment of children?
In our party's central policy, we do not have a policy of recruiting children. We do not even train children below 16 years old as militia. Accidentally children have been killed, and we are saddened by that.
But the situation does not match the account that the ruling classes and the feudals have propagated. Children whose parents have been killed in the war - taking care of them is the responsibility of the party.
That's why we are compelled to take care of, educate and provide work for hundreds of children, even those who are 12 to 15 years old.
This is a compulsion born out of the war. This compulsion has been falsely portrayed by the feudal elements as forced recruitment of children.
As for children who have been accidentally killed, we are deeply sad about it.
We are trying our very best to ensure that such accidents do not happen.
We are doing our best, and this is the truth.
But it's well known - anyone who has seen the Maoist army knows that there are certainly children under 16 there. That's the case, isn't it?
In village militias it might be true but in the People's Liberation Army that's not the situation.
You are a married man. You have four children yourself, I imagine grown up by now. They had a schooling. Yet, the Maoists have closed schools - not only private ones but community ones as well. Would you have wanted your children to have been deprived of education in that kind of way?
Where have we closed down schools? Schools are running and even with our own efforts, we are trying to open schools and educate children. My children went to school when they were young and are now in the movement.
But I've been and visited people who are no longer being educated because their schools have been closed down.
A Since we are in a state of war, certainly things have not moved the way that they should have been. That is why we need to end the war and for this we need to defeat Gyanendra-ism, feudalism and the royal army.
When all people get together and triumph over the autocracy, then only education could be provided in an organized way. As long as the autocratic rule is committing atrocities on the people, till then war is going to escalate and it would be difficult to systematize the education. Yet, even in the situation of war, we are trying to ensure that schools are running and education is possible.
I've met families of people who have been killed by the Maoists for allegedly supporting the army. Yet you know very well that both sides force them to help them, to feed them. Isn't it wrong to kill them on the basis of that so-called "evidence"?
The statement that we have forced people to support us is not true. Because before we did not have an army and nor did we have any weapons. We came forth because of people's support and help. It is not possible therefore that we would use force on people.
As for our enemies, the feudal elements and the autocrats, after the rebellion started, there are numerous incidents where they have raped women, torched houses and villages; where the army has surrounded them and forced them to carry their luggage. All these have been carried out by the feudalistic autocratic elements, not our army.
You might have heard this being propagated but the reality is different. If you look at the villages, when there is a cessation of war, our People's Liberation Army works in the fields of people, they work as labourers to build roads for people - they have been doing all this work. That is why, to say that our army uses force on people is totally untrue.
In times of war, in difficult circumstances, things might not work as planned and at times, even though we might have wanted, we might not have managed to organize things the right way. But in general, from our side, there has been and there will be no force on people.
I'm not sure you understood my question. As I say, I've met families of people who have been killed by the Maoists for allegedly supporting the army. That's what I want to ask about - killing people on completely unjustified grounds.
We have not killed people or anyone when army surrounds the village and forces people to support and help them. The policy of our party is that informants of the army, the ones who work as spies, and have committed the crime of killing people, then there would be action against them. There is a policy to act against them. But there is no policy that we kill people generally on the basis that they have helped the royal army.
Unfortunately, if such an incident does happen, we have been admitting to this and publicly apologized for it. Whenever such a mistake is made and someone loses their life outside of our policy, we have asked for a pardon from the people.
You've said, for instance after an atrocity last June when Maoists bombed a bus, killing nearly 40 civilians and a few soldiers - you said you were "sad and hurt" about that.
Yet the UN office in Nepal says it never gets evidence that you have punished the perpetrators of such acts. Why can't you give such evidence?
I think you probably don't know this, but after that incident at Madi when there was an explosion on the bus, we were shocked beyond words.
Our party workers who were involved in it, they were expelled from the party and the army, and the report on how this expulsion was carried out was given to the UN.
We informed them about who was sentenced, who had committed what crime, the nature of the crime, and the kinds of punishment given to them.
All this information was given.
Sometimes you seem to say one thing and do another. For instance, you told the UN that you would not attack candidates from last week's municipal elections, but you did. Two of them got killed. How can people believe you?
When we talked about it. I mean, there is no difference is what we have been saying and what we have been doing. In the circumstance, when we were in ceasefire, we had said that and even later, we did not have a policy of physically harming any candidate.
But there has been only one incident - not two - according to the report that was given to our central [committee] - in Janakpur - where a local worker of the party took responsibility for the killing. We are investigating this.
If we had wanted, we could have killed many candidates. Because we did not have the policy of killing them, they were not killed. Our party did not have a policy of killing them because they are candidates. We are investigating on the incident of Janakpur and this has been informed to the United Nations Human Rights office. That is why there is no difference between what we say and what we do.
As for an informer of the royal army being a candidate, we might have a process of capturing them and trying them in the people's court. As a candidate and an informer of the royal army, if he has been responsible for killing people, the party policy is to take action against him. It is important to understand these two things correctly.
What kind of action?
Our policy is that if he is an informer, we'd capture him, stand him in front of the people's court, and take action as per the verdict of the court.
Considering the degree of the crime, he could be given a labour punishment for a certain time, or for a while kept under the custody of people, and if the crime is big, he could even be executed. The party policy is to follow this process.
Do you have a timetable to lay down your arms? Or a planned timetable?
We do not look at it in terms of a time line. We see it in terms of policy. As soon as the people are given the right to decide of their own fate and of their own future, we will be ready to lay down our arms. But if the people are not given their rights, we are committed to and are ready to fight till the end.
That's why we cannot give a timetable on when we can lay down our arms and when we would use them. As soon as people get their rights, as soon as there is a possibility for a democracy, as soon as people can make decisions on their own lives, then there is a possibility of laying down our arms.
More concretely, what needs to happen for you to give up your arms? What's the bottom line, the minimum, that you need to give up your arms struggle?
We have already clearly said in our 12-point agreement with the parliamentary political parties, as soon as there is a possibility of preparing a new constitution through a constituent assembly, and form a new army, we are ready to call off the war. For now, the bottom line is the agreement with the seven political parties.
Do you believe in the multi-party system or would you like your party to be the one party ruling Nepal at some point in the future?
I am going to address this question very seriously. Three years ago, at a Central Committee meeting of our party, analyzing the experiences from 20th century communist states, we put forward a proposal for the development of democracy.
In the 21st century we cannot have a state like those of the 20th century.
That's why our Central Committee unanimously passed this paper on the development of democracy in the 21st century.
The spirit of this paper is that there should be peaceful competition between all political parties against feudalism and foreign imperialist forces.
And that there should be multi-party competition. Since then we have said that within a certain constitutional provision multi-party competition [should exist] as long as it's against feudalism, against foreign imperialistic interference and all political parties can compete against each other.
And this document was unanimously passed three years ago in very clear terms.
In the agreement that we recently made with the political parties, we have clearly stated that we agree to multi-party competition.
What we have seen from the 20th century, and the lessons that we have learnt from the experiences of the 20th century, a very important question was - to understand the subject of democracy and dictatorship we need to develop a new consciousness for this.
And we have passed this.
Our opponents have understood us in a dogmatic way. We are not dogmatic but our opponents are. They are looking at us with 20th Century glasses. But we are already moving into the 21st Century.
[We are looking at] the kind of state that is possible in the 21st Century, how to give people the maximum possible rights; how to organize competition; and how to guarantee that this competition does not lead to oppression and suppression.
In short, democracy and dictatorship....How to make use of this conflict between them - we are developing on this.
And from this process of development, we have termed, development of democracy. People think that our commitment to the multi-party competition is purely a tactic and that we are trying to cheat someone.
But in reality we have taken the experience of an entire century, discussed it, analyzed it in our party, and we've come to a conclusion that the development of democracy is necessary in the 21st Century.
That's why we take multi-party competition very seriously.
We want to move forward. Even in our understanding with the parties, we have said that we don't want autocracy; that we have to crush the feudal autocracy that exists today.
It will never propagate multi-party competition.
Events have proved this.
Not only now - four years ago, when the royal massacre happened, we saw that the feudal autocracy was snatching away the rights that we gained in the 1990 democracy movement.
The parliamentary parties were also against the royal massacre.
That's why we appealed to the political parties to join us and build a platform, and [we said] we are ready to compete with you, and the feudal autocracy was a common enemy of ours and we should fight against it.
And we have been talking about multi-party competition since then.
I strongly believe we need to understand this clearly.
Do you want to be leader of this country? Head of state?
It depends on this political movement and how the events proceed.
Our movement is not for me to be the head of state.
This movement is to grant democratic rights to Nepali people and secure a better future for them. It's not for me to be a head of state.
If this movement goes on and if the situation arises, then if need be, and if necessary for the Nepali people, I am of course ready for it.
But I also want to clarify that - from the lessons of the 20th Century communist states - we want to move to a new plane in terms of leadership - where one person doesn't remain the party leader or the head of state.
This discussion is going on within our party, on the subject of leadership, how the leadership should develop; even after the state is captured, how to institutionalize the subject of leadership and how to prepare new leaders, how to prepare lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of successors to them.
What were the negative experiences of the 20th Century in which people who should have been more powerful and should have had more rights, could not get them?
We are studying this.
Why it could not happen during Stalin's time, how much of this happened in Mao's time - we are studying this and we are in the process of developing a new system of thought.
The question of being head of state is not a major question.
The major question is the development of ideology which would globally uplift and give rights to the working class - our focus is on developing that ideology.
That's why people might have a difficult time understanding us.
Those who see us with 20th Century eyes would not understand us because we are talking about democracy.
In the 20th Century, totalitarianism was widely propagated.
People might find it surprising.
The main difference in us is when we talk about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and their ideology, we believe that it has to be developed.
Just practising it is not enough.
To protect it, practice it and develop it is necessary.
The responsibility of developing it falls on every scientific thinking person.
After the 10 years of our struggle for people, we believe this responsibility falls on us, and we are thinking about it.
You've been living an underground existence for 25 years. What's it been like for you and for your family?
Underground - one needs to understand it clearly. I have not been underground from the people. I am only underground from the feudalistic elements and its royal army. In villages where people are free, I stay freely too. I meet my family, my children and my wife.
Where do you think Nepal will be in five years' time?
I think it will be a republican state. I believe that it will be a republic state in less than five years. I believe that in a short while, Nepal will be a democratic republic.
People's resistance exists. With the unity that has developed between the seven political parties, us and the civic society, and the way that the autocratic monarchy and the royal army have been cornered, with this very shortly Nepal will become a republic.
And even in the international community, the way that the feudal elements have been cornered and their dramas have been exposed - in such a situation we believe that the Nepali people will go for a republic and in a peaceful way the process of rebuilding Nepal will go forward.
In five years' time Nepal will move towards being a beautiful, peaceful and progressive nation.
In five years' time the millions of Nepalis will already be moving ahead with a mission to make a beautiful future, and Nepal will truly start becoming a heaven on earth.
Where will the king be?
He will be crushed. The king I think will either be executed by the people's court or he might be exiled. For the king, today's Nepal has no future.
We don't see a future for him and the Nepali people don't either. The king might be finished or he might flee.
To build a new future for this country you will have to compromise on some areas. What might those areas be?
If you are talking about compromise, compromise with whom?
If you are talking about compromise with the king, we don't see that happening.
The only point of compromise, as we have clearly said, is that all political powers in Nepal should be ready to follow the people's wishes, that there should be free and fair elections for the new constitution, and the compromise would happen when everyone is ready to follow the verdict of this election.
But time has moved forward.
The king doesn't have that space now.
The steps the king has taken, like the drama of the so-called municipal elections - the whole world saw it as the eighth wonder of the world.
And now the path the king has taken, there is no space for compromise with him.
There was a possibility for compromise before 1 February last year.
But after the steps he has taken between 1 February and now, we don't see any space for compromise, and the Nepali people do not see space for compromise either.
We can have an understanding with the political parties and the international community for the development of Nepali people, for peace, for progress - that we are ready for.
A few minutes ago you said theoretically it would be possible to keep the monarchy. Now you are saying a likely future for the king is exile or he might even be killed and there is no compromise.
If you talk in those absolute terms how are you going to reach any agreement with the powers that be in this country?
What I'm trying to say is that the king has taken steps that do not give any room for compromise.
It would be correct to say that the path that he has taken is the road to hell.
If he has chosen the path of no compromise, there is no way that we are going to see a compromise.
Theoretically as I said there was a possibility. But that has now turned into hypothesis. What I mean is: the agenda that the king is moving with, he is negating the possibility of compromise.
In the second stage, I was saying that the king himself has finished this possibility and has taken the path to hell.
He is not trying to give the rights to people or even the parliamentary parties.
And in such a situation there is no question of seeing a point of compromise with him. This is what I was trying to say.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
New Communication Act 2062 to check monopoly of media
RSSKATHMANDU, Oct. 10: The Ordinance Amending Some Nepal Acts Related to Communication-2062 that has been promulgated by His Majesty the King is oriented towards curtailing monopoly of the media while letting it to abide by democratic norms and values.According to the Ministry of Information and Communications, the ordinance also prohibits dissemination and broadcast of any information that is against the interest of the nation and national interest.The ministry also made it clear that the amendment made in the ordinance requires a broadcasting centre to broadcast information from one location only.Similarly, amendment has been made on the Radio Act, 2014, which do not require an individual or organisation license to keep radio instruments once they hold license to broadcast.Earlier, one requires both licenses to broadcast and to keep radio instrument under National Broadcasting Law.With a view to making things easier for the international news agencies to distribute and disseminate information within the Nepalese Kingdom with the permission of HMG which is imperative for the institutional development of Rastriya Smaachar Samiti, the only national news agency in Nepal, amendment has been made in the Rastriya Samachar Samiti Act, 2021.According to the Ministry of Information and Communications, the ordinance has banned dissemination of information that would promote terrorism and terrorist activities, which is detrimental to the creation of peaceful and creative society.The Ministry also made it clear that the ban on anti-social activities has been imposed by the ordinance.With this objective, laws relating to printing press and publication, 2048 have been amended.Likewise, the Press Council Law, 2049 has been amended with a view to giving due respect to the professional integrity of journalists by way of emphasising the code of conduct for them which is clearly aimed at discouraging ? yellow journalism?.Besides, some amendments have been made on defamation act, 2016 with a view to effectively protecting prestige and dignity of citizens of the country.Similarly, the ordinance has banned the import of print materials that are not in the interest of nation and national interest. Meanwhile, Ministry also elucidated that any act in contravention of Ordinance Amending Some Nepal Acts Related to Communication-2062 shall be punished as prescribed by existing laws. The amendment, made by the Ordinance in section 5 of National Broadcasting Act - 2049, has defined the informative program, intended to broadcast by person or body corporate by way of frequency modulation, to the extent of information regarding health, education, sport, population, environment, weather or activities of development and construction such as road and transportation, the press release stated.The Ministry has also called on person or body corporate broadcasting by way of FM to broadcast his or her program within the parameter prescribed by the law. The ordinance, adding section 11 (a) in National Broadcasting Act 2049, has made a provision to prohibit broadcasting body to broadcast the same program, that it is broadcasting from one station, from another station at the same time without prior approval of His Majesty?s Government. The Ministry has also called on the broadcasting bodies not to broadcast same program, that it has been broadcasting from one station, from another station by any means in contravention to the provision of the law. The Ministry has also called on the concerning parties not to subscribe international news from any other international news agency except from Rastriya Samachar Samiti (RSS) without prior approval of His Majesty?s Government.Sub section 2, Section 32 of Rastriya Samachar Samiti Act prescribes news agencies to disseminate their news within the kingdom of Nepal only after taking prior approval from His Majesty?s Government.
RSSKATHMANDU, Oct. 10: The Ordinance Amending Some Nepal Acts Related to Communication-2062 that has been promulgated by His Majesty the King is oriented towards curtailing monopoly of the media while letting it to abide by democratic norms and values.According to the Ministry of Information and Communications, the ordinance also prohibits dissemination and broadcast of any information that is against the interest of the nation and national interest.The ministry also made it clear that the amendment made in the ordinance requires a broadcasting centre to broadcast information from one location only.Similarly, amendment has been made on the Radio Act, 2014, which do not require an individual or organisation license to keep radio instruments once they hold license to broadcast.Earlier, one requires both licenses to broadcast and to keep radio instrument under National Broadcasting Law.With a view to making things easier for the international news agencies to distribute and disseminate information within the Nepalese Kingdom with the permission of HMG which is imperative for the institutional development of Rastriya Smaachar Samiti, the only national news agency in Nepal, amendment has been made in the Rastriya Samachar Samiti Act, 2021.According to the Ministry of Information and Communications, the ordinance has banned dissemination of information that would promote terrorism and terrorist activities, which is detrimental to the creation of peaceful and creative society.The Ministry also made it clear that the ban on anti-social activities has been imposed by the ordinance.With this objective, laws relating to printing press and publication, 2048 have been amended.Likewise, the Press Council Law, 2049 has been amended with a view to giving due respect to the professional integrity of journalists by way of emphasising the code of conduct for them which is clearly aimed at discouraging ? yellow journalism?.Besides, some amendments have been made on defamation act, 2016 with a view to effectively protecting prestige and dignity of citizens of the country.Similarly, the ordinance has banned the import of print materials that are not in the interest of nation and national interest. Meanwhile, Ministry also elucidated that any act in contravention of Ordinance Amending Some Nepal Acts Related to Communication-2062 shall be punished as prescribed by existing laws. The amendment, made by the Ordinance in section 5 of National Broadcasting Act - 2049, has defined the informative program, intended to broadcast by person or body corporate by way of frequency modulation, to the extent of information regarding health, education, sport, population, environment, weather or activities of development and construction such as road and transportation, the press release stated.The Ministry has also called on person or body corporate broadcasting by way of FM to broadcast his or her program within the parameter prescribed by the law. The ordinance, adding section 11 (a) in National Broadcasting Act 2049, has made a provision to prohibit broadcasting body to broadcast the same program, that it is broadcasting from one station, from another station at the same time without prior approval of His Majesty?s Government. The Ministry has also called on the broadcasting bodies not to broadcast same program, that it has been broadcasting from one station, from another station by any means in contravention to the provision of the law. The Ministry has also called on the concerning parties not to subscribe international news from any other international news agency except from Rastriya Samachar Samiti (RSS) without prior approval of His Majesty?s Government.Sub section 2, Section 32 of Rastriya Samachar Samiti Act prescribes news agencies to disseminate their news within the kingdom of Nepal only after taking prior approval from His Majesty?s Government.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
How successful was the HK Ministerial?
By Navin Dahal
Decisions in HK indicate that the present negotiations in this area are likely to result in tariff reductions in developing countries and duty-free and quota-free access to Nepalese exports in the developed countries.
The sixth Ministerial of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) recently concluded in Hong Kong in December 2005, drawing mixed reactions. Some admit that it was a success and some argue that it was a failure. The fifth WTO Ministerial held in Cancun in 2003 was dubbed a failure as WTO Members could not reach a consensus and the Ministerial ended without adopting a declaration. Many were apprehensive that Members would not be able to reach a consensus even in Hong Kong and the Ministerial would meet the fate of the Cancun Ministerial. On this account, the Hong Kong Ministerial can be dubbed a success as it adopted a declaration.
However, the success of a Ministerial cannot be and should not be judged solely on the basis of whether or not it was able to agree on a declaration. For a least developed country (LDC) like Nepal, a Ministerial can be termed successful only if the decisions help it to enhance trade opportunities. In the light of this fact, let’s examine whether or not the decisions of the Hong Kong Ministerial in different areas will help countries like Nepal to expand and enhance trade opportunities in the international market.
Agriculture
Agriculture has been the ‘make or break’ issue in WTO negotiations. Huge domestic and export subsidies in the developed countries have distorted international trade in agriculture. At the time of the establishment of the WTO, Members agreed to discipline the agriculture sector by reducing domestic and export subsidies. In the present round of trade negotiations, Members are negotiating on the new reduction commitments and time period. Of all the different areas requiring Members to make reduction commitments, they were able to agree only on the end date for the elimination of export subsidies in the HK Ministerial. Members have agreed to the parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures by the end of 2013. Some major decisions were also made in other areas. The modalities will be finalised in the next few months in Geneva.
The end of export subsidies is likely to increase the world prices of agriculture commodities. This could result in a higher food bill for a net food importing country like Nepal. However, increased prices may act as an incentive for farmers to grow more.
LDCs like Nepal are not required to make commitments to reduce domestic support and export subsidies in the present round. However, Nepal will have to be cautious that the modalities for tariff reduction ensure enhanced market access in the developing countries and elimination of tariff peaks and tariff escalation in the developed countries (in case these are not addressed by duty-free quota-free access).
Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA)
As Nepal has already bound 99.3 percent of its tariff lines and LDCs are not required to make further reduction commitments in this round, the outcome of this round is not going to alter Nepal’s import tariffs. Nepal’s interest in this area is thus market access for its manufactured goods including garments in developing and developed country markets. Decisions in HK indicate that the present negotiations in this area are likely to result in tariff reductions in developing countries and duty-free and quota-free access to Nepalese exports in the developed countries.
Services
The liberalisation of the services sector and particularly in ‘mode 4’, cross border movement of natural persons, can have a huge positive impact in the livelihood options for Nepal. Liberalisation in this mode in developed countries and particularly for ‘low skilled and unskilled’ categories is important for Nepal. This needs to be accompanied by the elimination of employment conditions, economic needs tests, quota restrictions in visa and recognition of qualifications.
The progress in this area is discouraging for Nepal. Annex C of the HK Ministerial declaration mentions that ‘new or improved commitments on the categories of Contractual Services Suppliers and Independent Professionals’. This is a major setback for Nepal and it will be a Herculean task to include low skilled and unskilled labour in this category. It is still not too late as the annex mentions that ‘methods for full and effective implementation of the LDC Modalities including according special priority to sectors and modes of supply of interest to LDCs’.
Intellectual Property Rights
Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) and Prior Informed Consent (PIC) are two important principles of equity recognised and legitimised in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992. However, the Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the WTO conflicts with CBD and violates the principles of ABS and PIC. It would have been to the advantage of the developing countries to see an explicit negotiating mandate included in the Ministerial Declaration, calling for an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement to require patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge along with evidence of PIC and benefit-sharing in their application. However, this did not happen and developing countries will have to work hard to achieve this in future negotiations.
Decisions in favour of LDCs
Duty-free quota-free Access
The most significant point of the Ministerial Declaration is the developed countries’ obligation to provide duty and quota-free access for LDC exports as of 2008.
There is, however, an important caveat with regard to product coverage: developed countries that face difficulties in providing full unrestricted access in 2008 will only be required to do so for 97 percent of tariff lines. This 3 percent of tariff lines may essentially deprive them of market access for all their products.
Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)
The HK Ministerial Declaration allows LDCs to maintain on a temporary basis (five years, renewable subject to review) measures that deviate from their obligations under the TRIMs Agreement. This means that Nepal now has the flexibility to implement provisions such as local content requirement on foreign investment. Though Nepal’s investment regime is liberalised and such provisions have been done away with, this provision allows policy space for future industrial policy changes.
Aid for Trade
The emphasis the HK Ministerial text has put on aid to build the trading capacities of LDCs can be termed as another major achievement for the LDCs. The acceptance that aid for trade needs to cover hardware such as infrastructure in addition to software is likely to help the LDCs to improve their infrastructure. Japan has already committed US $ 10 billion in the next three years and the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have promised to increase their support to Euro 2.7 billion and US $ 2 billion by 2010.
If the government is able to channel these funds to Nepal and improve trade related infrastructure, this is likely to result in an expansion of trade and creation of new employment opportunities.
Policy Space
The WTO is often criticised for putting the LDCs under pressure by imposing conditions that they have difficulty in fulfilling. The HK Ministerial made a breakthrough in this area as the declaration mentions that “LDCs will be required to undertake commitments and concessions to the extent consistent with their individual development, financial and trade needs, and their administrative and institutional capabilities. Should a LDC Member find that it is not in a position to comply with a specific obligation or commitment on these grounds, it shall bring the matter to the attention of the General Council for examination and appropriate action.” This will allow Nepal to forfeit the implementation of any obligation or commitment if it is financially and technically beyond its means.
The Hong Kong Ministerial can thus be termed moderately successful in addressing the issues of interest to Nepal. The litmus test of success however is whether Nepal will be able to address its supply-side constraints and enhance competitiveness to take advantage of the market access opportunities.
(Navin Dahal is the executive director of South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment, a Kathmandu based regional network of NGOs.)
By Navin Dahal
Decisions in HK indicate that the present negotiations in this area are likely to result in tariff reductions in developing countries and duty-free and quota-free access to Nepalese exports in the developed countries.
The sixth Ministerial of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) recently concluded in Hong Kong in December 2005, drawing mixed reactions. Some admit that it was a success and some argue that it was a failure. The fifth WTO Ministerial held in Cancun in 2003 was dubbed a failure as WTO Members could not reach a consensus and the Ministerial ended without adopting a declaration. Many were apprehensive that Members would not be able to reach a consensus even in Hong Kong and the Ministerial would meet the fate of the Cancun Ministerial. On this account, the Hong Kong Ministerial can be dubbed a success as it adopted a declaration.
However, the success of a Ministerial cannot be and should not be judged solely on the basis of whether or not it was able to agree on a declaration. For a least developed country (LDC) like Nepal, a Ministerial can be termed successful only if the decisions help it to enhance trade opportunities. In the light of this fact, let’s examine whether or not the decisions of the Hong Kong Ministerial in different areas will help countries like Nepal to expand and enhance trade opportunities in the international market.
Agriculture
Agriculture has been the ‘make or break’ issue in WTO negotiations. Huge domestic and export subsidies in the developed countries have distorted international trade in agriculture. At the time of the establishment of the WTO, Members agreed to discipline the agriculture sector by reducing domestic and export subsidies. In the present round of trade negotiations, Members are negotiating on the new reduction commitments and time period. Of all the different areas requiring Members to make reduction commitments, they were able to agree only on the end date for the elimination of export subsidies in the HK Ministerial. Members have agreed to the parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures by the end of 2013. Some major decisions were also made in other areas. The modalities will be finalised in the next few months in Geneva.
The end of export subsidies is likely to increase the world prices of agriculture commodities. This could result in a higher food bill for a net food importing country like Nepal. However, increased prices may act as an incentive for farmers to grow more.
LDCs like Nepal are not required to make commitments to reduce domestic support and export subsidies in the present round. However, Nepal will have to be cautious that the modalities for tariff reduction ensure enhanced market access in the developing countries and elimination of tariff peaks and tariff escalation in the developed countries (in case these are not addressed by duty-free quota-free access).
Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA)
As Nepal has already bound 99.3 percent of its tariff lines and LDCs are not required to make further reduction commitments in this round, the outcome of this round is not going to alter Nepal’s import tariffs. Nepal’s interest in this area is thus market access for its manufactured goods including garments in developing and developed country markets. Decisions in HK indicate that the present negotiations in this area are likely to result in tariff reductions in developing countries and duty-free and quota-free access to Nepalese exports in the developed countries.
Services
The liberalisation of the services sector and particularly in ‘mode 4’, cross border movement of natural persons, can have a huge positive impact in the livelihood options for Nepal. Liberalisation in this mode in developed countries and particularly for ‘low skilled and unskilled’ categories is important for Nepal. This needs to be accompanied by the elimination of employment conditions, economic needs tests, quota restrictions in visa and recognition of qualifications.
The progress in this area is discouraging for Nepal. Annex C of the HK Ministerial declaration mentions that ‘new or improved commitments on the categories of Contractual Services Suppliers and Independent Professionals’. This is a major setback for Nepal and it will be a Herculean task to include low skilled and unskilled labour in this category. It is still not too late as the annex mentions that ‘methods for full and effective implementation of the LDC Modalities including according special priority to sectors and modes of supply of interest to LDCs’.
Intellectual Property Rights
Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) and Prior Informed Consent (PIC) are two important principles of equity recognised and legitimised in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992. However, the Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the WTO conflicts with CBD and violates the principles of ABS and PIC. It would have been to the advantage of the developing countries to see an explicit negotiating mandate included in the Ministerial Declaration, calling for an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement to require patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge along with evidence of PIC and benefit-sharing in their application. However, this did not happen and developing countries will have to work hard to achieve this in future negotiations.
Decisions in favour of LDCs
Duty-free quota-free Access
The most significant point of the Ministerial Declaration is the developed countries’ obligation to provide duty and quota-free access for LDC exports as of 2008.
There is, however, an important caveat with regard to product coverage: developed countries that face difficulties in providing full unrestricted access in 2008 will only be required to do so for 97 percent of tariff lines. This 3 percent of tariff lines may essentially deprive them of market access for all their products.
Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)
The HK Ministerial Declaration allows LDCs to maintain on a temporary basis (five years, renewable subject to review) measures that deviate from their obligations under the TRIMs Agreement. This means that Nepal now has the flexibility to implement provisions such as local content requirement on foreign investment. Though Nepal’s investment regime is liberalised and such provisions have been done away with, this provision allows policy space for future industrial policy changes.
Aid for Trade
The emphasis the HK Ministerial text has put on aid to build the trading capacities of LDCs can be termed as another major achievement for the LDCs. The acceptance that aid for trade needs to cover hardware such as infrastructure in addition to software is likely to help the LDCs to improve their infrastructure. Japan has already committed US $ 10 billion in the next three years and the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have promised to increase their support to Euro 2.7 billion and US $ 2 billion by 2010.
If the government is able to channel these funds to Nepal and improve trade related infrastructure, this is likely to result in an expansion of trade and creation of new employment opportunities.
Policy Space
The WTO is often criticised for putting the LDCs under pressure by imposing conditions that they have difficulty in fulfilling. The HK Ministerial made a breakthrough in this area as the declaration mentions that “LDCs will be required to undertake commitments and concessions to the extent consistent with their individual development, financial and trade needs, and their administrative and institutional capabilities. Should a LDC Member find that it is not in a position to comply with a specific obligation or commitment on these grounds, it shall bring the matter to the attention of the General Council for examination and appropriate action.” This will allow Nepal to forfeit the implementation of any obligation or commitment if it is financially and technically beyond its means.
The Hong Kong Ministerial can thus be termed moderately successful in addressing the issues of interest to Nepal. The litmus test of success however is whether Nepal will be able to address its supply-side constraints and enhance competitiveness to take advantage of the market access opportunities.
(Navin Dahal is the executive director of South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment, a Kathmandu based regional network of NGOs.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)