– By Sunit Bagree
This article is a critique of Preeti Koirala’s ‘The Curfew: Pros and Cons’, which was published by Nepalnews.com on 22 January 2006. In my opinion, Koirala’s piece reflects a breathtaking level of ignorance about Nepali politics and international affairs, as well as concepts such as democracy and human rights.
In her opening paragraph, Koirala’s claims that there has been ‘… much debate on whether the curfew clamped by the government on Jan 20th was actually needed’. Apart from the fact that the royal government imposed a curfew on Kathmandu and several other parts of the country on 16 January 2006, it must be pointed out that, by severely restricting human rights such as freedom of expression, information, association, movement and assembly since the royal coup of 1 February 2005, the royal government has clearly demonstrated its unwillingness to honestly engage in fair and open debate.
Koirala disingenuously uses the example of the riots of 1 September 2004 to defend the curfew, writing: ‘Within a few hours the angry mob of sympathizers of Nepalese being killed in Iraq had metamorphosed itself into a gang of looters, muggers and hooligans’. It is necessary to be clear that the minority who instigated violence on 1 September 2004 (which in turn snowballed into greater violence due to the ensuing chaos) were a mixture of religious extremists, criminals and disaffected youth. In retrospect it is easy to say that a curfew should have been imposed as these violent elements managed to seize the initiative. There are certainly many important questions here regarding the state’s preparation for and response to this incident, none of which Koirala considers.
Instead Koirala terms the demonstration planned by the seven-party alliance for 20 January 2006 as ‘supposedly peaceful’. Her use of the word ‘supposedly’ is extremely odd given that the seven-party alliance has never utilized violence since its inception. Indeed, as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Nepal has said, the demonstrations’ organizers had all frequently spoken out against the use of violence, and there was absolutely no justification for their arrest. Koirala’s bias is evident when she describes the seven parties as constituting a ‘frenzied mob’, and (later) ‘hooligans’. When has this ever been the case?
Moreover, it is very difficult to trust the royal government’s suspicions that the Maoists were planning violent activities, as it is solely the state who has demonstrated no interest in conflict resolution in Nepal (unlike the seven parties and Maoists, who commendably arrived at a 12-point ‘understanding’ in November 2005, not to mention the efforts of civil society). It is also worth noting that it would have been ridiculous for the Maoists to resort to violence during the demonstrations, considering the 12-point ‘understanding’, and how much of an effort this shift towards the political mainstream entailed.
The state’s real intentions can be understood by the way it detained activists and leaders from the seven parties and civil society organizations in conditions that are contrary to international law. There is also no justification for the state shutting down Nepal’s mobile phone network, censoring the media (both foreign and national) or dealing with whatever demonstrations took place in such a brutal way. Even the recently feeble National Human Rights Commission stated that the security forces used ‘excessive force’.
A free and fair election in Nepal can only occur if all political parties participate and international monitors are present. And for this to be possible, a certain degree of political stability and widespread perception of a level playing field is essential. Such an election would create true representatives of the citizens of Nepal – representatives who have a monopoly on violence and are accountable to the people.
In contrast the municipal elections were nothing more than a ploy of the royal government to retain power, only now with a veneer of democracy. Thankfully this is widely understood, as is the fact that the security situation in the country, particularly for the most vulnerable, remains dire. In yet again demonstrating its disdain for human rights (and human security), the royal government further isolated itself both nationally and internationally with only a bad joke of a municipal election – average turnout 20% – to show for itself.
The second part of Koirala’s piece focuses on criticizing the response of ‘… one section of the international community…’ for its reaction to the curfew and arrests. She is blind to the fact that virtually the entire world condemned the royal government over these events, including Japan and China. Using the example of police brutality during a workers’ protest in Harayana, she poses the question: ‘Did the Nepal Government issue a statement saying that it ‘was greatly disturbed and concerned by the incident?’’ In a similar vein, Koirala turns to the US abuses in Iraq, asking: ‘Did Nepal ever condemn the atrocities committed by American soldiers in… Iraq?’ The simple answer is that Nepal should have raised its concerns because human rights are universal. It is the duty of every state to promote human rights in other states. A culture of silence will definitely not facilitate a human rights culture. From this basis, it is unsurprising that Koirala goes on to make a number of irrational arguments.
Firstly, Koirala compares the situation in Iraq to the one in Nepal, conveniently ignoring that the former is experiencing an inter-state conflict with multiple indigenous armed actors, and is a country that has a vastly different social, political and economic history to any in South Asia. She is mistaken to say that Sunnis make up the majority population in Iraq (it is Shiites), and to suggest that all Sunnis boycotted the 15 December 2005 election (the main Sunni Arab bloc won 44 out of the 275 seats). Koirala labels Nepal’s seven-party alliance as ‘… a group of Sunni like 7 parties’. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites won 95% of the vote in the recent Iraqi election, which is approximately how many of the seats the seven parties in Nepal held in the last parliament. And let us be clear: the seven parties in Nepal are not against elections per se, only ones which are meaningless in terms of promoting democracy.
Secondly, Koirala compares al-Qaeda with the Maoists, and in doing so demonstrates a staggering lack of understanding about either entity. The aims, structure, armed strategies and capacities of the Maoists on the one hand, and al-Qaeda on the other, are vastly different. Koirala is also wrong to suggest that al-Qaeda has not been curtailed; despite a lack of consistently strong intelligence, inadequate levels of special forces and the unnecessary distraction that is the Iraq debacle, the original al-Qaeda network has been severely damaged, illustrated by the arrest of key leaders, the destruction of training camps and the offer of a truce by Osama bin Laden. She also fails to recognize that if the international community were to pay far more attention to ethically tackling the factors that have allowed al-Qaeda to grow, such as poverty, weak governance and conflict (instead of doing too little or even exacerbating these factors) then al-Qaeda could be marginalized to the extent of becoming an irrelevance. Unfortunately, this is far from happening (which actually allows al-Qaeda to endure as a movement in the post-9/11 world), yet the option still exists.
Thirdly, Koirala’s uses the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the Maoists. Whilst both state and non-state groups may employ terrorist tactics when no armed conflict is ongoing, defining an entity as ‘terrorist’ has to be done with the utmost care, as it confers a notion of absolutism. The Maoists do have clear political goals. And their abuses of international humanitarian law are actually war crimes. In addition, Koirala does not acknowledge the fact that the Maoist’s respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights standards, whilst still far from perfect, has significantly improved since September 2005, according to Nepali human rights groups and the OHCHR. At this time, the state poses a greater threat to human security and human rights than the Maoists.
Fourthly, Koirala criticizes those who argue that there is no military solution to the conflict in Nepal. There are two points here. One, no independent defence analyst in the world would claim that a final military victory for either side in Nepal is possible. Whilst the security forces or the Maoists may emerge on top in specific battles, there is nothing in the military sphere that will break the longstanding stalemate and give either side a clear strategic advantage at the macro level. Two, a final military victory in itself never offers any long-term answers, and is highly unlikely to offer any prospects of a real solution to the root causes of violence. Genuine conflict transformation can only occur if there is a just, secure and sustainable peace settlement.
Koirala blames Nepal’s democratically elected Prime Minister for derailing democracy when the royal coup was the greatest attack on democracy Nepal has seen in its recent history. In slavishly following the royal government’s propaganda, Koirala advocates a Nepal that is strikingly Orwellian in nature. Her final folly is to utilize a shockingly Orientalist quote from Laura Bush: “Nobody likes war but democracy is too important especially in that part of the world.” That part of the world? Democracy is equally important in every part of the world.
Whilst elections in themselves never guarantee just and democratic governance, a prerequisite for such a system of governance are elections that are in adherence to international law and international standards. The seven party alliance (supported by the vast majority of civil society in Nepal) were right to boycott the municipal polls. By doing so the seven parties lost nothing and ensured that they did not fall into the trap of legitimizing the royal government.
It is hoped that this article will make Koirala reconsider her present role as an apologist for authoritarian rule.
Sunit Bagree works in the field of international development specializing in conflict and governance. Pleas send your comments to [email protected]. We, hereby, would like to announce that we will not be able to publish more comments on the said article by Preeti Koirala.—Ed.
(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])