WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN as PRIME MINISTER

Will there be power struggle in Russia?

Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal in New Delhi

After successfully leading Russia for over 8 years to all-round development and image building and having found his successor in Dmitry Medvedev, Russian leader Vladimir Putin quit presidency and resumed his job as Russia's new Premier in Beliy Dom (White House) overlooking the grand Moscow River flowing very close to the Kremlin the other side. Though Putin had to quit presidency to respect the Constitution stipulating two consecutive terms, Russians know he has not taken over a small position in exchange for of Presidency. Immensely popular and at the height of his powers, Putin wants Russians to see him as still in charge and to anticipate his return to the presidency in 2012, which he has not ruled out. Western critics now expect Russia, after a clearly smooth transfer of power, to lead to a power struggle, at a later stage, between Putin and Medvedev, if and when the latter would prove himself to be independent of Putin. The driving force behind this forecast is Medvedev's assertion during inauguration for establishing society of people with economic progress and Human Rights record.
   To make the agenda, of making Russia a really great super power, fairly transparent, Dmitry Medvedev has pledged to continue the policies pursued by Putin and to bolster the country's economic development and civil rights, in what may signal a departure from his predecessor's "heavy-handed" tactics, criticized in the West. The question of who will wield the real power in the Kremlin continues to fascinate, puzzle and perplex the world. More than that, whether or not Putin would strive to make Beliy Dom more powerful and strategically important than the Presidential Kremlin by making the office of premier more powerful than the presidency by suitably amending the Constitution in due course. That would take Russia to among the so-called parliamentary democracies.
   An aura of authority always hangs over whoever is king of the Kremlin. World leaders wonder how much power President Medvedev, who gratefully looks at Putin, looks humble and also talks simple, will actually wield and whether Putin would try to undermine him. Pledged before the entire nation and world his resolve to carry forward reforms undertaken by Putin and provide for greater freedoms to citizens, Medvedev would embark upon a greater canvas than Putin might allow for his domestic operations.
   At the outset, with Vladimir Putin deciding to enhance his prime-ministerial power from Beliy Dom, it looks there might occur a conflict situation sooner than later in the Russian power game, leading to a fight for the Kremlin. However, there seems to be smooth working relations between them on either side of the Moskva River. Assumption being, Putin and Medvedev have worked together since the early 1990s and have stressed their solid friendship and full agreement on Russia's future course. Given their long time association, the future relations will also expected to be harmonious too. Also, the fact remains that Putin has transferred power to Dmitry Medvedev, one of the Deputy Premiers, on a perfect understanding that Putin as premier would continue to wield substantial power, even more than Medvedev. It is clear Putin still remains in charge as he enjoys the support of a large majority in parliament.
   
   Conflict and complex
   True, Putin stepped down as president and assumed Russian premiership, constitutionally a subordinate position to presidency. Medvedev, proposed by Putin, has become president precisely because the 55-year-old Putin was barred by the constitution from running for a third consecutive presidential term in the March elections. Russia would have re-elected him for a third term as well, if Putin had sought the same after suitably amending the Constitution, but he refrained from doing so, nor did he extend his present term by few more years, though he has been arguing for a 7-year term for Russia president.
   A strong person, Putin in "White House", therefore, will not be just an ex-president, but he will also lead Russia as before and carry the can for rising inflation and all the other grumbles that come in the way of a Russian prime minister. "The president is the guarantor of the constitution and sets the main domestic and foreign policy guidelines," Putin declared in February. "But the highest executive power in the land lies with the government" whose task, he said, is not just to oversee the economy and social policy, but "to create conditions to ensure defence and security".
   At one point it appeared, Putin intended to hand the full powers of the presidency to his chosen successor and step aside. But the powerful contingent of "Siloviki", the veterans of the secret services armed with powers who dominated the government under Putin, guide the formulations of Russian policies. These powerful figures are key players in Kremlin politics and have been given leading roles in major businesses, including oil companies and aircraft and automobile manufacturers under state control and would have made the new incumbent's existence miserable.
   Having campaigned as Putin's protégé and tied himself to his mentor's policies as soon as his victory became known, it is no surprise that Putin will continue to support Medvedev and play a central role. With Putin in control, the new president is confident that there is no risk of political instability. Medvedev is confident that they could jointly face any crises both on domestic and foreign fronts. Yet there appears to be still plenty of scope for redefining roles between who are going to share power functioning from offices both sides of Moskva River.
   But whether or not there would a conflict scenario in Moscow, Putin is sure to be in the driver's seat for some time now and continue to guide the destiny of Russia on domestic as well as foreign fronts, while president Medvedev would coordinate his actions with those of his former boss. All indicators point to Putin retaining power so long as Russians prefer him to any body else and his popularity ratings continue to be above 80 per cent as they are now. Many of his former staff members are back in his White House adding importance to the building.
   
   Kremlin and White House
   The custodian of Moscow White House, Premier Putin, who earlier headed the FSB, was chosen as his successor by late President Boris Yeltsin and approved by intelligence services networks to be the second president, cannot be expected to be less important than president Medvedev who now controls all-powerful Kremlin. His ever-growing polarity ratings show that Vladimir would direct the course of onward march of Russia to make it a real super power again. Putin legitimately boasted that under his leadership Russia "had not just changed but become a different country". As a chosen leader of Russia, Putin has been the image builder of new Russia since 2000 and has brought the Kremlin back to its original glory.
   When first Russian president Boris Yeltsin left the Kremlin eight years ago, he had given Vladimir Putin, as a gesture symbolizing the transfer of power to Russia's new president, the pen he had used to sign important documents and decrees. But when Putin left the Kremlin in May, he took the pen with him. That means Premier Putin has clearly signaled that he intends to remain Russia's principal leader even while staying outside the Kremlin. Putin would strengthen the office of Prime Minister. He wants to redefine the relationship between president and prime minister.
   As Prime Minister, Putin will now control the budget and oversee gigantic state corporations, including Gazprom, the world's largest natural gas producer. These corporations, staffed with Putin loyalists, have allowed Russia to reassert its global might. Putin's predominance in Russian politics and governance will help him remain Russia's most popular politician for the foreseeable future, giving him huge influence over the man he mentored as his successor. Since his United Russia bloc dominates the house, Putin is sure to continue to wield huge influence in the country.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Zardari attempts to rob the superior courts of their power

Babar Sattar

More shocking than the indemnity being granted to General Pervez Musharraf is PPP's proposed model of judicial independence. The draft bill proposes new procedures to appoint and remove judges. The proposed Articles 177A and 193A provide for the creation of a commission comprising members of the judiciary and also including the law minister to make judicial nominations. The prime minister would be provided two names for each vacant position and he would elect one nominee and forward his/her name to a joint parliamentary committee, comprising members of the treasury and the opposition, for confirmation. This process vests in a parliamentary committee the right to debate and confirm judicial appointments and is an improvement over the previous opaque system despite the fact that it wrests away the judiciary's sway over judicial appointments.
   The mechanism for recruiting judges, while important in terms of electing the right people to serve the system of justice, only has a small part to play in determining the independence of a judge once appointed. It is the security of tenure and protections against arbitrary removal that fortify judicial independence and empower a judge to act without considerations of fear or favour. And it is this crucial security that the draft bill threatens to take away from the judicial branch. The new Article 209 proposes to disband the Supreme Judicial Council (comprising the chief justice of Pakistan, two senior most judges of the Supreme Court and the two chief justices of high courts) that is authorized to investigate charges of judicial misconduct and remove judges accordingly. This council is to be replaced by a judicial commission that will consist of a "non-politicised" retired chief justice in the chair, and two "non-politicised" retired judges of the Supreme Court and one "non-politicised" retired judge from each high court.
   The members of the commission will be appointed by the government on such terms and conditions as determined in its discretion. Thus, a body of retired judges, serving at the pleasure (read whims) of the executive with no constitutional tenure and security of service shall sit in judgment over which judge is fit to serve. This provision will constitutionally empower the ruling party to stuff this judicial (witch-hunt) commission with loyalist retirees and once they initiate an investigation into the conduct of a judge, such judge will be sent on forced leave during the period of such investigation. Thus, the sword of Damocles will continue to hang over all judges at all times who would be well advised to remain invisible and compliant to avoid the ire of the government. Even if the witch-hunt commission does not eventually remove a judge who dares to act independently, the threshold for initiating an investigation against a judge is so low that the government would be able to manipulate the outcomes of matters he/she is ceased of by initiating an inquiry and sending him/her on forced leave.
   From a historical perspective, the malice of Pakistan's judiciary has not been its 'activism' but the willing surrender of its duty to defend the constitution and protect fundamental rights of citizens against transgressions of the executive-more so in times when executive authority is annexed by a dictator.
   Sixty years after independence, under immense pressure from the bar and the public, the judiciary finally dared to question the whims of the general who monopolized the state's executive authority. It was the possibility of creating a judiciary free from the shackles of the executive that fuelled the rule of law movement of the lawyers and civil society. And what lessons did the PPP draw from the movement? That the constitution needs to be amended and institutionalised restraints built-in so that the judiciary and individual activist (read miscreant) judges can be disciplined before their dissenting voices can stream-roll into a popular movement.
   What would have happened to the rule of law movement had the PPP's proposed amendments been a part of the Constitution in 2007? There would be no movement.
   The president would not need to unconstitutionally sack the Chief Justice on March 9, 2007, because he would have the constitutional authority to do so under Article 209. The government would not need to coerce and entice members of the Supreme Judicial Council to seal the fate of an 'errant' Chief Justice, because it would have the authority to compose a witch-hunt commission that is predisposed to toeing the official line. In such a neutered system of justice, the courts would be packed by judges groomed in the Dogar mould and the rulers of the day would never need to declare a coup against the judiciary as witnessed on Nov 3. If approved, the amended Article 209 alone will transform the basic structure of our Constitution that envisages the judicature as an equal and independent pillar of the state, by making it an appendage to the executive.
   The last few years have seen such extensive debate on the issue of appointment and removal of judges as never witnessed before. Such debates preceded the execution of the charter of democracy between the PPP and the PML-N, and consequently the appointment process streamlined in the charter, and now with some variation in the draft bill, endeavours to institute a transparent consultative process to appoint judges that includes the judiciary, the executive and parliament. Is it a sheer oversight then that the PPP opted for a removal process that leaves judges of superior courts at the mercy and whims of the executive? Who would determine whether the members of the proposed witch-hunt commission are 'depoliticised'? What does the word even mean and is it capable of being translated into a judicially enforceable concept? And why leave parliament out of a removal process that supposedly aims to strengthen judicial accountability? If judges are appointed after extensive bipartisan scrutiny, why not allow parliament to impeach them with a two-third majority as happens in many other jurisdictions, including the United States?
   We have heard Asif Zardari repeat ad nauseam that the PPP is committed to strengthening the institution of judiciary and that focus on individuals in the context of restoration is misplaced. While the proposed removal process is indicative of the PPP's approach to institutional independence of the judiciary, equally malicious is the duplicity in the words and deeds of the party when it comes to emphasis on individuals. While the PPP emphasizes de-linking the movement for judicial independence from the restoration of Chief Justice Chaudhry, what it wants in reality is a shift of focus from the person of Chaudhry in a manner that serves the person of Justice Dogar. That is why the draft bill includes three articles that have been drafted solely to return Justice Dogar to the office of the chief justice even in the aftermath of restoration. Under Article 179(2) the tenure of the chief justice will be capped at three years (or maybe five if the pressure from the PML-N and the lawyers doesn't subside) to hastily show Chaudhry the door after restoration.
   Given that Justice Dogar reaches the age of superannuation on March 21, 2009, the retirement age of the judges of Supreme Court is being enhanced to 68 through Article 179(1), to give him a few more years as chief justice. But then there is the problem of Justice Javed Iqbal who was the second senior most judge on Nov 3 after Justice Chaudhry. While Justice Javed Iqbal was not invited to be a PCO judge he was offered a ceremonial position by the Musharraf regime that he took citing personal financial need. Now if all judges are restored, the CJ's tenure is capped and the retirement age enhanced, Justice Dogar still won't become CJ as Justice Javed Iqbal is not only senior but would also retire after Justice Dogar. Thus a proviso has been added to Article 270CC, stating that all judges would be restored, except a judge who has taken up another position with the government. Justice Javed Iqbal is the only such judge and so instead of including a long-winded fable in the proviso, Mr Naek could simply have stated that all judges except Justice Javed Iqbal will be restored.
   The PPP's draft bill has been a disappointment of enormous proportions. One the one hand it documents the double-speak of the PPP that enjoys taking jibes at the general as a populist measure while seeking to indemnify his felonies by amending the Constitution, and utters platitudes in favour of a strong judiciary while devouring its independence through law. On the other hand, the content of the draft bill suggests that the PPP has no intention of resolving the judicial gridlock. As an embodiment of the PPP's policy on the issue of restoration of judges and judicial independence, this bill makes evident that the incumbent PPP leadership simply does not subscribe to the principles that have been driving the rule of law movement and the choice of constitutional amendment as a mode to restore judges is simply a smokescreen to defer the issue indefinitely.
   To the extent that PPP's policy on restoration is being defined by its desire to have a pliant 'jiala' court serve its government uninhibited by law and principles, it cannot afford to restore the deposed judges without amending Article 209 of the Constitution. Because the moment the Nov 3 judiciary is restored, the Supreme Judicial Council under the existing Article 209 could be constituted to investigate the misconduct of the PCO judges, and consequently the leverage Zardari house enjoys in this regard might vanish in a moment along with its dreams of retaining a Dogar Court to look out for Mr Zardari's legal interests (including the longevity of the NRO). And then the constitutional amendment route has its advantages too. After all the PPP has never explicitly stated that it is opposed to restoring the judges and yet in theory it has now thrown the ball in the court of its coalition partners by handing them the malevolent draft bill.
   The coalition partners, the lawyers, civil society and the media can now continue to debate the draft bill clause-by-clause, and once it is introduced in parliament, the debate and disagreement can continue till the cows come home. Meanwhile, the deposed judges can hang in a limbo, the Dogar Court can stay in place, and Zardari House can continue to hold the reigns of the country. During this period of foot-dragging in the name of consultation, the lawyers' movement might die its own death due to fatigue. If that doesn't happen and the long march does shake up the echelons of power, the immediate casualty will be General Musharraf. And such outcome might in itself take the wind out of the sails of the lawyers' movement by providing an exhaust to this nation's pent-up anger and emotion. And then PPP can take charge of the presidency as well while continuing its antics in parliament over the restoration issue.
   Asif Zardari has written an intelligent script. But as a student of history and politics he should heed the lessons from General Musharraf's recent experience and realize that in real life fairytales do not always end as desired. During the first half of 2007 there were ample opportunities for the general to read the writing on the wall and change course. Being the commando that he is, he sought to become infallible and consequently trapped himself in a corner where he now remains at the mercy of Mr Zardari and their US patrons. There is always a time for redemption, followed closely by unforgiving accountability.
   The pursuit of his self-scripted fairytale might appear to be the best option for Asif Zardari for the time being. But appearances can be deceptive. The safer option would be to reassess his options with a finger on a national pulse and make amends before time runs out.
   The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He is a Rhodes scholar and has an LL.M from Harvard Law School Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Multinational companies becoming threats to food security

Bharat Dogra

The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food Jean Ziegler recently indicted multinational companies for badly aggravating the food crisis and raising food prices. Speaking in Geneva, Switzerland, Ziegler told journalists, "Until early March, prices of many food articles followed the demand and supply forces. But since then there has been an explosion in prices which is largely due to the role of big corporations and hedge funds."
   These big agri-corporations have huge stocks and, aided by hedge funds, they indulged in speculative activities so that food access decreased for poor people while the profits of these companies were inflated. Jean Ziegler therefore called for more effective international supervisory mechanism for transnational companies which increasingly control our food and water systems - in fact a very big share of the food trade is already controlled by five or six corporations.
   It is now increasingly realised that the growing dominance of food and agriculture sector by a handful of giant agribusiness corporations is posing a serious threat to food security and well-being of farmers. This dominance starts right from the beginning of agricultural work, i.e. from seeds.
   It was noticed about two decades back that the nature of the seed industry was changing in several countries, particularly the rich western countries (although similar changes were soon noticed also in several developing countries). The seed industry had earlier been based on small firms. These firms were now being gobbled up by big companies, especially companies which already had big stakes in agri-chemical industry - within a single decade, chemical corporations spent over US$10 billion in buying up seeds companies. In fact the American Seed Trade Association even organized a special symposium on "How to sell your seed company."
   According to data compiled by the World Bank, multinational agro-enterprises increasingly dominate the agribusiness sector along the value chain. In year 2004 the market share for the four largest agrochemical and seed companies (the concentration ratio of the four largest companies, the concentration ratio of top four, or CR4) reached 60 per cent for agrichemicals and 33 per cent for seeds, (compared to 47 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively in 1997). The CR4 in biotechnology patents was 38 per cent in 2004. According to the World Development Report, when an industry's CR4 exceeds 40 per cent it is widely believed that market competitiveness begins to decline, leading to higher spreads between what consumers pay and what producers receive for their produce. Coffee has 500 million consumers, and involves 25 million farmers/farm workers, but international traders have a CR4 of 40 per cent and coffee roasters have a CR4 of 45 per cent. The share of the retail price retained by coffee producing countries declined from about 33 per cent in the early 1990s to 10 per cent in 2002. In the tea value chain just three companies control more than 80 per cent of the world market.
   This dominance of farming by giant agribusiness companies has proved socially disruptive, ecologically destructive and ruinous for family farmers, particularly in the US where the dominance of these companies has spread the most rapidly.
   Commenting on the illusory surpluses provided by ecologically and socially disruptive practices in the US, Wendell Berry has written, "The supermarkets are at present crammed with food, and the productivity of American agriculture is at present enormous. But this is a productivity based on the ruin both of the producers and of the sources of production. City people are not worried about this, apparently, only because they do not know anything about farming. People who know about farming, who know what the farmland requires to remain productive, are worried."
   Threat to food-security has increased further due to the rapid spread of genetically modified (GM) crops or GMOs in some countries, particularly food exporting countries like the US, despite the serious threats GMOs pose to the safety of food and farming system. In May 2000 several scientists signed an open letter to express their serious concern about the hazards GMOs pose to environment, food security, human and animal health. This statement of world's scientists was presented to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Nairobi in 2000.
   In 2003 the Independent Science Panel, which consists of expert independent scientists from 11 countries covering a wide range of relevant disciplines reviewed the evidence on the hazards of GMOs. This review concluded that many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful. For example, the Bt proteins that kill pests include potent immunigens and allergens. Food crops are increasingly being engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, drugs and vaccines in the open environment, exposing people to the danger of inappropriate medication and their harmful side effects. Herbicides tolerant crops - accounting for a majority of all GM crops worldwide - are tied to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium. These have been linked to spontaneous abortions, birth defects and other serious health problems for human beings, animals and soil-organisms. GM varieties are unstable, with the potential to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.
   The spread of GM crops has intensified the already serious threat of genetic erosion in farming systems all over the world. Genetic erosion of their plant wealth has proved very expensive for farmers, particularly those based in developing countries. Due to the combined impact of destruction of natural forests, and the introduction of green-revolution type agriculture, which replaced local varieties over large areas by new monocultures, genetic erosion has been taking place on a massive scale even in the countries which have been the original source of much of the plant diversity. Soon thousands of varieties of plants were lost to these countries.
   However, already several of these had been stored carefully in the labs and gene banks of the developed countries whose scientists had been engaged in these collections for several years. Suddenly, in the time span of a few decades, the natural advantage which some parts of the world had enjoyed for millions of years appeared to have been reversed.
   Today several experts agree that more than two-thirds of collected genetic diversity is stored in gene banks in Europe and North America. In a handful of high-security institutions, the world's most valuable raw material is stored, and it is unlikely that the countries of origin from where most of this material came will have free access to it. However many giant agribusinesses have obtained access to these invaluable genetic material thereby greatly increasing their control of the food system.
   Today, highly influential international forum like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is also being used to strengthen the MNC grip on the food system. It is thus extremely important for developing countries in particular to take united action and to co-operate with each other in reducing the growing dominance of a few giant agribusiness companies in the most critical area of food and agriculture.
   -Third World Network Features

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Nava Thakuria

As King Gyanendra leaves the Narayanhiti Royal Palace in Kathmandu, ending a 239-year-old dynasty and paving the way for the emergence of a republic, Nepal's political parties are locked in a power struggle. Days of debate and discussions among the parties, including the rebellious communists, has resulted in little more than confusion about the formation of a stable government.
   The Maoists, who emerged as the biggest political party in the assembly but lack a majority, want both the posts of prime minister and president. Political parties have agreed to have a symbolic president and a powerful prime minister in the new republican system. But the centrist Nepali Congress, the second biggest group in the assembly, say the Maoists are demanding too much. But political parties, including the Maoist former rebels who won a surprise victory in April's elections for a constituent assembly, are yet to agree on how to form a new government or elect a president.
   The Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, more popularly known as Prachanda, made it clear that the communists would take the top posts until a rebellion by the other parties in the 601-member Nepal Constituent Assembly drove them into retreat and spared the post of president. The Maoists now want the presidency reduced to a non-political entity.
   Nepal, sandwiched between India and Tibet, regarded romantically in the west as an exotic Asian kingdom and the focus for generations of hippie backpackers, has been the focus of a vicious civil war that started in 1996 when the communists set out to establish a People's Republic of Nepal. The resulting conflict put a stop to any attempts at rural development by a largely corrupt government. An estimated 4,500 people were killed by the Maosts and 8,200 by the government, with as many as 100,000 to 150,000 internally displaced as a result of the conflict.
   In the middle of that, Gyanendra gained the throne after a bloody massacre in the royal palace in June 2001 when Crown Prince Dipendra murdered the former king, Birendra Vikram Shah, and his close relatives, then shot himself in the head and lived just long enough to raise the spectre that if he survived, he would become king. But Gyanendra was never accepted by most Nepalis, partly because many suspected him of being behind the killing of the popular Birendra. Many of Gyanendra's decisions made him more unpopular, including his dismissal of the government to take absolute control in 2002, calling it corrupt and ineffective, which it was, but he was unable to do any better. He was forced to reinstate parliament amid demonstrations by tens of thousands of people as well as protests and strikes that crippled the economy.
   As many as 17.5 million of the 26 million Nepalis went to the polls on April 10, after two postponements. The new constituent assembly, to serve for two years, is to draft a new constitution. Despite the fact that Maoism as practised in China has been discarded as unworkable, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) finished first, with 220 of the 575 elected seats, followed by the Nepali Congress with 110 and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) with 103.
   Although his party now holds fewer than 40 per cent of the seats, Prachanda, in a May 30 interview, told local media that "Our party deserves both the posts of President and Prime Minister. Losers in the Constituent Assembly polls cannot get these posts." But the other political parties were not in the mood to buy the theory. The Nepali Congress leaders argued that as the largest political party, the Maoists have the legitimate claim to form the next government, but that it should share one top post with the coalition.
   The Maoists picked as possible candidates for president the veteran Communist leader. Sahana Pradhan, the first foreign minister in the new government; Ram Raja Prasad Singh, a veteran pro-republic leader;
   Lately, putting Nepal into a fresh political crisis, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) ministers in the ruling interim multi-party government resigned on June 12. It was understood as a pressure tactic to convince Koirala to quit and allow the Maoists to form the government according to their wishes. All the CPN-Maoist ministers submitted their resignation letters to their party chief Prachanda. The Maoist chairman was supposed to hand over those to the interim government head Koirala, but for the time bring he has decided 'not to forward the resignations', reports local media in Kathmandu.
   Speaking to this writer, a Maoist sympathiser argued that Prachanda has 'every right to demand the lion's share of power' as his party had emerged as the largest. He also added, "The Nepali Congress, more particularly the interim government head Girija Prasad Koirala should vacate power immediately to the Maoists. After all, Koirala enjoyed the power of prime minister five times, and now he should not cling on to the seat."
   Meanwhile, there were rumours that the current prime minister, GP Koirala had been proposed as the first president. That was immediately shot down by Prachanda himself, who said he wouldn't accept Koirala, whom he called a grand National figure, because of his 'age and fragile health.'
   The Marxist-Leninist communists meanwhile argued that while a "non-member (of the Constituent Assembly) could become the President," the first one should be elected and able to "acknowledge the essence behind national unity, freedom and sovereignty, according to the Marxist-Leninist General Secretary Jhalanath Khanal.
   "It was perhaps easier for Prachanda to dethrone the king, but running a government will be a more challenging task for the man, who has emerged as a new epicenter of power in Nepal," a Kathmandu based political analyst said in an interview.
   The analyst, who requested anonymity, added, "Making Nepal a country of prosperity, where one-third of the populace lives in acute poverty without access to education and health care, will be his immediate challenge."
   Amid the confusion, The Rising Nepal, a prominent Kathmandu-based newspaper, commented that 'with the formal goodbye to the monarchy, people now have high hopes that the government of a republican Nepal will bring about positive changes and improvement in their daily lives. The monarchy was the patron of an exploitative feudal system, which only protected and served the interests of the feudal, elite and upper class people. It was futile to expect any change in the lives of the people during the old dispensation. This was one of the reasons why the people overwhelmingly supported the struggle and fight against the monarchy'.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

WB continues to pin hope on Sri Lankan gov. Jehan Perera in Colombo

The World Bank (WB) has endorsed a lending package of US$900 million under the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for Sri Lanka for the period July 2008 to June 2011. This decision would come as a morale booster for the government. Sri Lanka's inability to retain its seat in the UN Human Rights Council despite intense lobbying by the government has been generally seen as a vote of no confidence on account of the deteriorating human rights situation in the country. However, the WB's willingness to commit itself to a significant level of developmental support to Sri Lanka for a three-year period suggests that the international community is reluctant to penalise the country, and the masses of its poor people, on account of the human rights situation.
   Economists have pointed out that Sri Lanka's exports to the EU, particularly from the apparel industry, are crucially dependent on the favourable import duty reductions that the GSP+ facility makes possible. Due to the fact that over 100,000 jobs are believed to be at stake, even the main opposition party has pledged to support the government's efforts to enact and implement the necessary requirements to retain the facility.
   Obtaining the GSP+ facility is likely to prove harder than obtaining economic assistance from the WB. The WB is first and foremost a bank, and its decision making processes are primarily driven by economic motivations. From an economic point of view Sri Lanka is an attractive investment option, in comparison to many other third world countries. It has an educated population, a comprehensive social welfare system and a dense network of governmental institutions that operate in the remotest villages. Further, responsible fiscal management by successive governments has ensured that Sri Lanka has never defaulted on its international financial commitments.
   On the other hand, the GSP+ facility is only partly an economic contract. Countries that are entitled to receive its benefits need to demonstrate their commitment to international law and to practices of good governance that are consistent with upholding the rule of law. Accordingly, countries that seek to obtain the GSP+ facility need to show their adherence to 27 international agreements, which include protection of human rights and labour rights. Reports submitted by UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and the International Labour Office, influence EU decisions in this regard. Unfortunately the escalating war that the country is presently experiencing has made the fulfillment of these criteria problemmatic for the government.
   
   Centre stage
   Any country that is fighting a war will sooner or later find that the war has taken centre stage in the affairs of the country. The nature of violence, like that of fire, is to expand and spread. This means it is difficult to fight a limited war in which human rights are protected and the rule of law prevails. This is true of Sri Lanka's war as well as international wars. Even the US, which seeks to ensure human rights compliance worldwide stands accused on this count. There has been a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States permitting those incarcerated in US prisons in the war against terror to file habeas corpus applications in the regular civilian courts of law rather than be restricted to military tribunals.
   In a similar way, the war against terrorism that the Sri Lankan government is fighting against the LTTE has led to serious human rights violations. The worst manifestation of these is the targeted killing of civilians by bombs placed on buses and trains and remote-controlled claymore mines in different parts of the country. There has also been a long list of political assassinations, abductions and intimidations that have targeted a range of actors, including the media. Addressing the inaugural convention of the breakaway faction of the ruling SLFP, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga is reported to have said, "It is not right for a government which is fighting against terrorism to act like terrorists. It will not be successful. There should be alternatives to end terrorism. The only solution to terrorism and terror is freedom and democracy."
   The present government needs to be more mindful of the need for it to balance the competing interests of liberty and security. This is precisely the position taken by the US Supreme Court in ruling that the US government could not deprive any person, even those arrested in the course of its war against terror, from knowing the charges against them. The US Supreme Court said, "Liberty and Security can be reconciled; and in our legal system they are reconciled within the framework of the law." The majority in the Supreme Court took this decision despite a minority of judges opposing it on the grounds that the US was at war with radical Islamists, and one judge saying the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Strict adherence to the rule of law, even in a time of war, is what makes a country democratic and not fascist.
   It is no cause for surprise that attacks in Sri Lanka against media personnel in particular would become well known internationally, as the international media would rally together to protect its own. The treatment of senior journalist and editor, J S Tissainayagam would be a case in point. He was arrested over three months ago, on allegations that he was supporting the LTTE. But so far no charges have been levelled against him in open court. His case has been taken up by the international media, and media organizations, including the International Federation of Journalists. These send negative messages to the international community.
   
   Unbalanced approach
   Underlying the government's seeming insensitivity to international opinion, appears to be an attitude that there is no greater national purpose than to remain in power and defeat the LTTE. The government's decision to dissolve the provincial councils for the North Central Province and Sabaragamuwa Province are pointers in this regard. The government's attention ought to be devoted to safeguarding civilian life, the spiraling cost of living and securing the EU's GSP+ facility. Instead the government appears to be focusing its energies, and the attention of the country, onto elections that are not essential at this time.
   The government has sought to justify its decision to dissolve the two provincial councils on the grounds that they have become ungovernable. The ruling party has the largest number of seats in the two provincial councils, but it does not have an absolute majority. Until the government suddenly dissolved the two provincial councils it was not evident that there was indeed a problem of ungovernability. The opposition has taken the issue of the premature dissolution of the two provincial councils to the judiciary arguing that this action was taken without consulting them.
   It appears that the government's intention is to consolidate its power by obtaining a fresh term of office in the provincial councils, which would further demoralize and weaken the opposition. But the loss to the country can be as high as the gain to the government. This is on account of the neglect of the principles of good governance that are crucial to obtaining the GSP+ facility. In addition, the arbitrary dissolution of the provincial councils by Presidential fiat will undermine confidence in the strength and viability of the provincial council system which the government has been promoting as the solution to the ethnic conflict.
   Despite the problems with these government actions, the underlying strength of international support to Sri Lanka, which is one of the third world's oldest democracies, remains intact. French Ambassador Michel Lummaux who speaks on behalf of the EU on account of Slovenia currently holding the presidency of the EU, has reconfirmed the EU's commitment to Sri Lanka's unity and democracy and opposition to a separate state. He also stated that the grievances of minority communities should be addressed within this contextual framework. This political support of the EU, combined with the World Bank's support for economic development, demonstrates the goodwill of the international community in facing the LTTE's challenge. But to maximise this support, the government needs to adopt a more balanced approach to conflict resolution.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE