ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 17 January 2006

Despite Intense Pressure

IRAN’s Enigmatic Behaviour CONTINUES

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

Iran appears determined to pursue a civilian nuclear programme according to its own sweet will, but simultaneously disregarding the fears and apprehensions of most major powers in the world.

There is not a single country in the international community which feels comfortable to stand with Iran on its nuclear stance. The Muslim neighbours of Iran, all major Asian powers, five permanent members of the UN Security Council and all genuine members of formal and informal proliferation control regimes do not desire to see the emergence of a nuclear weapon power in the Persian Gulf region.

When Tehran expresses its desire to promote nuclear industry in the country for power generation, many raise eyebrows for the simple reason that Iran is an oil and gas rich nation. Nonetheless, none opposes the sovereign right of Iran, a member of the NPT, to develop civilian and peaceful uses of nuclear power.

The problem arises when the Iranian Government seeks to pursue this course on its own terms and conditions. Tehran wants to have a full civilian nuclear fuel cycle at home, which can bring it the perfect recipes for developing nuclear weapons. It vows by its peaceful intentions, but there are many who would not take the Iranian leadership’s statements on its face value.

Iran had been given clean chits many times in the past by the IAEA on its civilian nuclear activities, but the revelations of Iranian involvement in nuclear black market, including the one run until recently by Pakistani nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, have turned Iran into a suspect.

In the face of intense American pressure to punish Iran, three members of the European Union—France, Germany and Britain-- took the initiative to resolve the issue through diplomacy and dialogue. Iran cooperated for a while, but increasingly aired strong views against Israel, made disparaging remarks, issued statements that appeared unfavourable and unacceptable to the Europeans as well.

All these were regarded as Iran’s bargaining behaviour until it first threatened and then implemented its decision to resume uranium enrichment programme, suspended by the predecessor government under an understanding with the IAEA and the international community.

Russian President Vladimir Putin came up with a pragmatic solution to the entire issue by offering to process and enrich uranium on Russian territory and then pass on those to Iran for use in power reactors. For a change, even the hawks in the Bush Administration viewed this proposal as sensible, feasible and appropriate to resolve the issue without resorting to any arms twisting methods.

Iran chose instead to defy the international community and refused to entertain such a proposal. It considered it the sovereign right of the country to pursue a civilian nuclear programme at home. Had sovereignty remained the same as interpreted by Austin, reality would have been different. Sovereignty has assumed different meanings at different times. It needs considerable military might, economic independence and political will to assert sovereignty on ways that may threaten others.

As a matter of fact, the United States, the hyper-power of the globe, also appears caught in the web of global interdependence and cannot afford to dangle its sovereignty card on every issue under the sun. Why is then current leadership behaving like the emperors who claimed divine rights to perform whatever they desired?  Ahmednejad’s behaviour reminds one of Saddam Hussein’s rhetoric during the Kuwaiti crisis. Before the US-led military operations liberated Kuwait, he used to issue statements like “making Americans swim in their own blood”, if they dared attack Iraq and things of that sort.

The Iranian behaviour prompts one to suspect that the country may already have developed a nuclear weapon capability. Some would reject such a view outright. But then who knew that in the midst of international haggling, North Korea on a fine morning admitted and others believed that it had developed the weapon capability? Similar incidents are plenty in recent nuclear history of the world. The world need not be surprised that Iran, which clandestinely acquired certain nuclear equipment from the black market keeping the world in dark for years, could have developed modest capability to make at least one weapon.

The second factor for Iranian nuclear intransigence appears to be the rising energy prices in the world market. Starved of revenues until recently, the country’s treasury seems to have benefited a great deal from the recent oil price hikes. It is less concerned about its economic isolation now then it was earlier.

The third factor is Iran’s belief that it can use the oil weapon to destabilize the oil market further, if sanctions are imposed on the country on the ground of its nuclear policy. In the backdrop of rising energy prices and growing energy demands in the world, Iran’s capacity to contribute to stability in the oil market or cause chaos in it would seriously increase. 

The fourth factor is Tehran’s assessments of the ground situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Years after major military operations were declared to be over by the US and replacement of troublesome regimes in Baghdad and Kabul, the two countries are undergoing a situation where the US and its coalition partners are not comfortable to withdraw their troops. The American GIs, who seem to have got stuck in two sides of Iran—Afghanistan in the east and Iraq in the west—may not attempt to open another front in Iran—so goes the thinking in Iranian governing circles.

Finally, the Russians and the Chinese, annoyed as they may appear with Iranian intransigence, do not appear to have unanimous views with the US and NATO members on the best course to deal with the Iranians. The London meet may not be able to produce a quick fix. Troubling days are clearly ahead.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 10 January 2006

Nepal Towards a Crisis

Bracing For An Uncertain Future

Dr. Smruti S Pattanaik

Institute of Defence Studies & Analyses

The dawn of 2006 has brought with it a violent future for Nepal with the withdrawal by the Maoists of their four-month ceasefire on January 2.  This is the third round of ceasefire declared by them after they resumed their violent struggle to usher in the People’s Revolutionary Government. The withdrawal of ceasefire is a reaction to the Monarchy’s decision to go forth with its municipal election on February 8. With most of the political parties deciding not to participate in the election, Nepal is again heading for a political crisis.

The dissatisfaction of the political parties can be understood from the fact that the Nepali Congress (Democratic), led by Sher Bahadur Deuba, part of the seven-party alliance that is fighting for the restoration of democracy in the Himalayan kingdom, has removed Constitutional Monarchy from the party statute. The CPN (UML) and the Nepali Congress (NC) have already removed constitutional monarchy from their party statute. These  parties have held the King responsible for the current impasse and have taken a position that monarchy and democracy are incompatible.

Already, the RPP has seen a split and the Rastriya Janashakti Party (RJP) is formed, headed by the former Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa. The Rashtriya Prajatantra Party that has been supportive to the King’s February 1 take-over is facing a crisis due to the decision of a faction to boycott the elections. Assistant Minister for Education and Sports Bhuwan Pathak, has called for a National Convention in support of its party participating in the municipal elections

The seven-party alliance has concluded a twelve-point pact with the Maoists in order to jointly fight the Monarchy. Under the twelve point agreement, the Maoists have agreed that its armed wing along with the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) to be placed under the UN or any other trustworthy international supervision during the conduct of election to the Constituent Assembly. The Maoists have agreed to abide by the results of the election. They also have agreed to the political parties’ demand to revive the House of Representatives and have a national Government that can hold talks with the Maoists to go for the Constituent Assembly election.

It is important to mention here that both radical Left and the political parties were part of the nominated Constituent Assembly that was set up by the King in 1990 to draw the draft Constitution. Some of the Left leaders who are heading the Maoist movement now had at that time demanded an elected Constituent Assembly, because they had felt that the King still can exert influence in the Constituent Assembly through its nominees. However, they were marginalized, as the other political players were willing to compromise with the idea of a nominated Constituent Assembly.

The Government has been accusing that the understanding between the political parties’ alliance and the Maoists is reached at the behest of a foreign country to discredit the understanding. As reported by the media, the twelve-point agreement was reached in New Delhi where the leaders of various Nepali political parties met. Sources close to the Monarchy accuse India of playing a role in the understanding reached between the Maoists and the political parties.

However, it needs to be emphasized that due to the repressive measures adopted by the Monarchy, the political parties found Delhi a convenient place to meet, away from the glare of the media. It is true that some of these leaders met various Indian leaders during their sojourn in Delhi.

The interesting development is that the Maoists have emerged stronger than before. In fact some of the demands which have been put forward as joint demands of the political parties and the Maoists had originally figured in the latter’s demands. The political parties that were great supporter of constitutional monarchy have joined the Maoist rank by demanding a republican form of government. In 1990, the mainstream political parties were the vociferous supporters of a constitutional monarchy since the King is considered as the symbol of Nepalese unity. The political parties felt that it is safe to include the  King as a part of the multi-party democracy than to exclude him. Moreover, the King during his 30 years of rule through a Panchayat system was a strong force that could not be marginalized.

This is more so, because the King was a party to the negotiation for the establishment of a multi-party democracy. The Maoist view is that the state sovereignty is not yet settled since the coercive mechanism of the state through which it exercises power is still in the hands of the Monarchy. They also feel that constitutional monarchies that are functional in developed countries cannot be adapted in a semi-feudal and an underdeveloped country like Nepal. Therefore Maoist panacea for misgovernance is a republican form of the government.

After the withdrawal of the unilateral ceasefire, the political parties are finding themselves in a tight situation. They had earlier justified their understanding with the Maoist peace in the Himalayan kingdom. Few bomb blasts in the recent past clearly indicate the bloody war that is waiting in the wings for the Nepali state. However, Maoists insistence to adopt violent means for confrontation has put political parties in a quandary. The demand has mainly been that the King needs to announce elections to the Constituent Assembly. In fact, the present behavior of the King has convinced the political parties that without keeping the King out of future political arrangement it would be difficult to sustain democracy in Nepal.

The four-month ceasefire could be interpreted as missed opportunity. The King instead of initiating meaningful dialogue to resolve the problem went on strengthening its armoury for a confrontation. It is true that it would be difficult for the Monarchy to accept a secondary position in the Nepalese polity. In fact, its vociferous supporters, the political parties, have been alienated with the action of an intrusive Monarchy. As an institution as such, the Monarchy has lost much of its glory and legitimacy after the Palace killing of June 2001. Its political role after he took over power is not of a benign Monarchy but of an assertive monarch.

Therefore, he is not seen as a part of Nepal’s democratic future by the civil society groups. With the criticism of the international community mounting regarding human right abuses, the state is increasingly feeling the pressure both internally and externally. The King to establish his legitimacy has recently toured the Eastern region of the country. However, his real test for legitimacy would depend on how he approaches the crisis that Nepal is going through.

India has repeatedly emphasized political solution to the problem. However, at the same time it supplied arms and trained the Royal Nepalese Army. It is only after the King took over on February 1, 2005, India decided to suspend arms supply. India is one of the first countries to declare the Maoists as terrorists. However, it also realizes that without getting the Maoists to the negotiating table it would be difficult to end the political impasse. The King assuming power directly has created more uncertainty. Political leaders are being persecuted. Pressure needs to be built on the Monarch to abandon the path of armed action and restore Constitutional monarchy.

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD               

New Delhi, 3 January 2006

Challenge For Leadership

BHUTAN MOVES TOWARDS DEMOCRACY

By Ashok Sharma

School of International Studies, JNU

Bhutan, also known as the Land of the Thunder Dragon, is most likely going to be the newest democracy in South Asia in the near future..  King Jigme Singye Wangchuk has announced that he would abdicate the throne in favour of his 25-year-old Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk as the King in 2008. Soon after that, Bhutan will adopt a Constitution and conduct its first-ever polls to choose a Prime Minister under a parliamentary system of governance.

The transition began four years ago when the King handed over the absolute powers of daily governance to a Council of Ministers and empowered the national Assembly to force a royal abdication if the motion was backed by three-quarters of its membership. Bhutan earlier this year unveiled a 34-point constitution which is now being sent to some 530,000 citizens for their views and was expected to be ratified after a referendum. Once adopted, the Constitution will replace a royal decree of 1953 giving the monarch absolute power.

King Wangchuck is the fourth ruler in the Wangchuck dynasty that came to power in December 1907.Bhutan witnessed a remarkable progress in socio-economic development under him. Basic infrastructure like roads, hospitals and schools improved considerably. His move of decentralization and devolution of power has been the peak of his rule.

However, over one lakh Bhutanese refugees in United Nations-supervised camps in Nepal and another 25,000 Bhutanese refugees in Indian Territory are still languishing. It is alleged that these Nepali-speaking citizens of Bhutan, officially called Lhotshampas, were evicted from Bhutan under the so-called ethnic cleansing of minority ethnic and religious groups pursued by the Bhutanese Government.

Instead of becoming jubilant, the people were shocked at the King’s decision. They did not expect this transition would come so early. Most of the people of this tiny Himalayan Kingdom are happy with their traditional life style and they have full faith in the rule of the King. They have no grievances against the King. This gets reflected in the statement made by Kinley Dorji, Editor of the lone national newspaper 'Kuensel' in capital Thimphu that the entire nation was bewildered when the King made this surprise announcement and it came so early.

The traditional characteristics of a nation cannot be changed overnight as the current move for democracy wants an abrupt sweep across the continents for creating a safe and secure world for mankind. It has been also reported that people have been offering prayers for the well-being of the country. This kind of apprehension shows that people are not ready to accept the democratic conditions of their neighbouring countries like Nepal. It appears that they are accustomed to their traditional life style and where development is measured through the level of happiness. The present King has set the bar high and is leaving a secure foundation for his son and his people. Parliamentary system in Bhutan will not be easy to run as its population lacks the required rate of literacy and are poverty stricken. It would be a challenge for new Bhutanese leadership to deal with a population which is getting exposed to the outside world. Leadership will have to fulfil the growing aspirations and needs of the world in a new two party system.

New Delhi has welcomed the King’s decision and rendering it as a significant moment in the history of Bhutan, External affairs Ministry Spokesman Navtej Sarna said, “India, as always, wishes the people and the Government of Bhutan continued peace and stability, and the fulfilment of their aspirations as they embark towards the new Constitutional system,” Its significance on Indo-Bhutan relations is imperative as stability and prosperity of Bhutan has vital stakes for India.

India and Bhutan have traditionally enjoyed a warm and cordial relationship. Bhutan as the closest ally of India in South Asia, has always supported India in the SAARC forums and toed Indian line at the United Nations and International forums. A new “strategic partnership” has emerged out of the ashes of the “Operation All Clear”. Bhutan has not entertained India’s adversaries, be it China’s road construction activities on its immediate Northern borders in recent times or the issue of opening of Embassy of Pakistan in Bhutan. It has been cooperating with Indian military for combating separatist movements in north-eastern part of India.

King Wangchuk was the chief guest at the last Republic Day celebrations, an honour bestowed on leaders of countries with which India has especially strong ties. At present India and Bhutan are having co-operation in hydropower projects, border management and security-related issues. Both are cooperating by jointly upgrading border infrastructure and management through better roads and communication links as well as information sharing.

India is the single largest donor to Bhutan. It contributes substantially to its development budget with enormous economic aid. Bhutan receives over 20% of the annual budget of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). India recently provided an assistance package worth $450 mn to Bhutan for its ninth five-year plan ending 2007.

The new parliamentary system would help in strengthening the relations between the two countries. India can also offer its help in establishing democratic institutions in Bhutan, if Bhutan desires. But it is for the Bhutan to decide what kind of help they really want from India. But It is in India's interest to see democracy take roots in its neighbourhood.

Instead of dealing with a just one person under the Monarchical system India will have to deal with a more plural and diversified power structure under parliamentary system. The king is supposed to be a key figure in the new form of government. This would require change in diplomacy for dealing with a new Bhutan.

The King’s renunciation may have shocked the people in Bhutan but in the long run it has averted an opposition or may be a revolution in waiting for his ouster. The King’s renunciation of power shows that absolute power of monarchy is a paradox in the era of democracy.  The King’s action is a lesson for the country like Nepal, where King Gyanendra has not been able to deal with democrats and have been suppressing them by taking the Opposition head on, putting the country in chaos and trouble. In fact, King Wangchuk has taken a wise decision to abdicate power and not wait for any revolution. Bhutan is finally edging towards democracy.

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance

POLITICAL DIARY

NEW DELHI, 21 January 2006

CBI In The Dock

AUTONOMY? A BIG JOKE!

By Poonam I Kaushish

Question: name India’s premier investigating agency which is now-a-days a political tool of the powers-that-be to play favourites, give clean-chits or hit opponents?

A clue: the agency can also double up as a fool-proof surety for law enforcers to merrily become law breakers.

Answer: of course, the Central Bureau of Investigation. Today, derisively called the Congress Bureau of Investigation.

One has only to see the sordid flip-flops and somersaults  by the Government, its Law Minister and the CBI in la affaire  Quattrocchi to know what I mean. It all started about a fortnight back when an enterprising channel exposed how the Manmohan Singh Government’s law officers had bent every rule in the book and craned everyone’s imagination to favour the fugitive Italian businessman. Whose two claims to fame are his proximity to the Sonia Gandhi (or to the “Gandhi family”, as he puts it) and his involvement in the Bofors scandal. 

True, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has laboured very hard to dispel the impression that the CBI was acting under his Government’s pressure. In two written statements in a span of three days, he has vouched for the agency’s “autonomy” and asserted that no stone would be left unturned to probe Q’s complicity, if any, in the Bofors deal. Said he: “My Government has never interfered with the CBI …. The autonomy of the agency will be preserved.” Really, Mr. Prime Minister?

It is another matter that he broke his silence after the CBI took a U-turn to blame itself for Law Minister Bharadwaj and the Additional Solicitor General Dutta’s culpability, contrary to what it publicly asserted once the scandal broke. Recall, the CBI fielded its Joint Director and significantly not the Director at a hastily-convened Press Conference  to announce that what the Government’s law officer had communicated to the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), namely  to ‘defreeze’ the Italian businessman’s account was, in fact, the Agency’s own view. Furthermore, there was no hanky-panky by the Government in ‘exorcising’ Quattrocchi in the Bofors scam. Notwithstanding, the e-mail made public by the CPS of the advice it had received from none less than the Law Ministry itself on 23 December last.

This scandalous development, needless to say, has unwrapped for the umpteenth time India’s best known secret: the CBI is a convenient hand maiden of our polity. Worse, it has again raised serious doubts about its honesty, integrity and impartiality in weeding out corruption and criminality.  It is today seen as a toothless tiger which is used by its political mai-baaps to bale out their friends and settle scores with opponents. Making a mockery of autonomy, independence and impartiality.  

Two former CBI directors, Joginder Singh and Karthikehan, stare the view that there is no such thing as autonomy in the true sense of the term. It has a fallacy. For two reasons. One, the agency is under the administrative control of the Government and is at present  directly under the Prime Minister. Two, CBI officers are wholly dependent on their political bosses for their careers ---postings, transfers and seniority. If they please them they are liberally rewarded in various ways, including extensions, foreign postings and even berths in statutory bodies.   

Why has its credibility suffered – and suffered so greatly?  The answer lies in the CBI’s genesis. It was set up in 1941, during World War II.  But it acquired a legal basis for its present structure only after the enactment of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946.  This provides for direct recruitment for the CBI from a Constable to the Dy. Superintendent of Police.  Senior officers of the level of Superintendents of Police and above, however, joined the CBI on deputation from the State cadres of the Indian Police Service and were engrained in the doctrine of “establishment protection”, as envisaged in the Police Act of 1861, which continues to hold good even today.

Is the CBI more sinned against than sinning?  Are politicians the main culprits?  Is the pot calling the kettle black?  The truth is mid-way.  Both work in tandem in furthering their own interest.  Consequently, the system becomes self-perpetuating.  Over the years, the threatened political elite has given more and more powers to the CBI to have their way and say.  Thereby sullying the agency’s reputation replete with its inability and “failure” to back up charges with required evidence.  Witness the notorious hawala case where the redoubtable amicus curiae still talks of having been let down by the CBI.  Almost alleging between the lines the Bureau’s ready willingness to let off a whole bunch of politicians across the board, including those who had confessed to taking money from the Hawala kingpin Surendra Jain.

Worse, the CBI seems to have adopted a brazenly opportunistic policy of playing safe in a situation where governments have been changing fast, courtesy revolving-door politicians.  Thus, raising a big question mark over its honesty and integrity, as also on its willingness and commitment to serve the national cause by putting self before the country.

Sure, it has come a long way from a low-profile unit into India's premier sleuth-shop with more than 5,000 officers spread across the country. The black-marks against it are many: investigations are below average; it doesn’t recover much loot and its legal arm is nothing to write home about. Also, most cases are built on incomplete documents, unavailable witnesses and inability to pursue leads overseas, which slows the process. More often than not, it finds itself being reprimanded by the courts for not moving quickly enough. What to say of a sluggish judiciary and cumbersome court proceedings which has made our people lose faith in the CBI.

In an era where political image has come to be branded like detergents, quick-fix solutions are sought for chronic maladies.  Times out of number our netagan seem to be seeking only an image rectification through cosmetics, instead of a complete makeover as recommended by the National Police Commission of 1977, headed by the much-respected late Dharma Vira, formerly Cabinet Secretary and Governor of Punjab, West Bengal and Karnataka and including one of India’s top policemen, K.F. Rustamji.

The Commission observed: “The supremacy of the Rule of Law should be clearly spelt out and police should be guided by the Law of the Land only and they shall have the legal option to disregard all instructions running contrary to that.”  At the crux is the issue: Who should control the CBI?  The Government or an independent body? Needless to say, a Catch-22 question for our power-greedy polity to honestly answer and for us to stupidly expect.

Witness the sweet irony.  When Vajpayee was the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha in the late 1990’s he had demanded an independent CBI and even promised one if he came to power. But Vajpayee the Prime Minister not only conveniently forgot his promise but continued to retain the CBI under his charge, just as his predecessors had done. Originally, the Department of Personnel and the CBI was under the Home Ministry, initially presided over by Sardar Patel. But Indira Gandhi was eager to concentrate all instruments of effective power in her own hands brought it under the Prime Minister. Manmohan Singh is happily following the tradition. Over the last year and more he has talked ad nauseum of weeding out corruption, But he has done little to make the CBI truly autonomous and independent. An agency that inspires confidence.

Unfortunately, the CBI has always been kept out of bounds and treated with kidgloves.  In fact, even Parliament has not put it under its eager microscope, despite frequent ruckus in both Houses on several CBI-related matters.  The last time the agency was given a cursory glance was in 1994 by the Parliamentary Standing Committee of the Home Ministry and its report thereon.  How lackadaisical is the Government’s attitude can be gauged from the distressing fact that the report continues to gather dust.

Knowing our polity and its hypocritical culture, we will no doubt continue to hear hopeful noises or even be treated to some cosmetic measures.  But it is absurd nonsense to say that the CBI cannot deliver and be set right.  It surely can. However, this requires clear and firm political will.  First and foremost, appointment of the CBI Director should be truly above board and with a fixed tenure.  He should be selected on the basis of genuine expertise, integrity, competence and commitment.

The CBI Chief  should have no political affiliation even remotely, lest he is dubbed as the Prime Minister’s hatchet man. His impeccable record would go a long way in establishing the utility and credibility of the agency down to its rank and file.  This would ensure an impartial, just and unbiased assessment of all important cases.  And, bring in the much-needed accountability to inspire confidence among the disgusted public.

A basic question that needs to be answered is: Will the CBI be guided by the law of the land only or by the Government of the day.  The powers-that-be must desist from playing further havoc with the CBI and converting it into a “Central bureau of convenience, connivance and corruption.” The moot point is: Who will cast the first stone?  “Kiski laathi aur kiski bhains?" ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)