Beyond the Orthodoxy

Defending UN Secretary General

2009-11-06T08:39:00.001-08:00

On November 5, 2009, the 22 ruling political parties in Nepal held a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office, Singhadurbar. One of the decisions they made appertains to one of the statements in the UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon’s mid-term report to the UN Security Council on UN’s assistance to Nepal’s peace process. The report made public last week states, “A Government of national unity remains desirable for timely promulgation of the country's new constitution and for the successful integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel. In the meeting, the ruling 22 political parties including Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) came to the conclusion that this statement of Ban ki Moon is an interference in the internal affairs of Nepal. They decided to draw the attention of Moon to this statement and request not to issue such a statement.

What the ruling parties understood about the statement in question of UN Secretary General are no more than an illusion. Their accusation that Moon interfered in the internal affairs of Nepal by emphasizing the need for a national unity government implicitly implies that they were guided by many false assumptions.

First, they assume that what Moon said is a directive. What they do not fathom is that it is an advice but not a directive. United Nations Mission in Nepal was established in 2006 to assist in Nepalese peace process following the request of Nepal government. It has a right to give advice to the political parties about how to ensure that Nepalese peace process will be successful. UNMIN is involved in Nepalese process not because it wanted but because Nepal government wanted. Therefore, the statement of UN Secretary General should not be regarded as that of, say, ambassador of a particular country, or a Minister/ Prime Minister of a particular country. It does not mean that it can give foolish advice that would deteriorate the peace process. A person with normal logical ability can easily understand that Moon’s advice is a product of wise thinking.

Second, they assume that Moon could not distinguish between the erstwhile Maoists-led coalition government and the current coalition government. They argue that the erstwhile Maoists-led coalition government was not a national unity government. But, they describe the present coalition government as a national unity one. One of the reasons they are not happy with Moon is that he did not point out the need for a national unity government in his past report. The fact is that though almost all of the political parties are in the current coalition government, it is less national than its last predecessor. At superficial level, it seems to be more national than its last predecessor because of the participation of many political parties in the government. Likewise, the Maoist-led government seems to be less national than the current one because many political parties were not in the government unlike in the current one. A person who sees things beyond the superficial level cannot agree with this false idea.

What makes a government a national unity one is not necessarily the participation of all of the political parties in the government. Even when only some of all the political parties that meet criteria for being part of the government run the government, there will be a national unity government. The participation of all of such political parties in the government is less important than their acceptance of the government. The national unity government exists even in the absence of some or many of the political parties in the government if all of the political parities accept its existence. For a government to be a national unity one, all of the political parties do not need to participate in the government. The only thing they need is acceptance of the government. This is not to say that things beyond the acceptance of the government-support of and participation in the government-make the government lose its national character. There can be no doubt that they make it possible for what may be called “ideal national unity government”. But, it is very rare that ideal national unity government exists. Given this fact, it is not wise to pursue the goal of ideal national unity government to the detriment of the country.

The erstwhile government led by Maoists was, in fact, a national unity government. Though all of the political parties were not in the government, they had accepted the existence of the government. There were opposition parties. When political parties become ready to be on the opposition side of the government, it means that they accept the existence of the government. They may not agree with some of the decisions of the government. They may pressurize upon the government to withdraw its decisions by organizing various protest programs. But, they do not question the existence of the government. All of the political parties during the Maoist-led government were united by their acceptance of the Maoist-led government and therefore it was an example of “usually possible”-if not ideal-national unity government. Briefing the reporters about the decisions of the meeting of the 22 ruling political parties, the PM’s political advisor Raghujit Pant said that though the erstwhile Maoist-led government was a majority government but not a national unity government, UN Secretary General did not point out the need for a national unity government in his report. His reaction to the statement in question displays his lack of what makes a government a national unity one.

Consider the current coalition government. The support and participation of 22(out of 24) political parties in the government are likely to fool us into thinking that it is an ideal national unity government. Neutrally speaking, it is close to an ideal national unity government. But, Unified CPN (Maoist) -the largest political party in the country- has not accepted its existence. It has labeled it as “unconstitutional government”. Therefore, for the current coalition government to be a government of national unity, all of the political parties including Unified CPN(Maoist) should be united by the collective acceptance of the government. Until and unless Unified CPN (Maoist) accepts the existence of the present coalition government, it continues to be non-national unity government despite the fact that it is close to an ideal national unity government. That it is not a national unity government is also evidenced by the fact that they have been courting Maoists to join the CPN(UML)-led coalition government.

Though UN Secretary General in his report has not defined what he calls “a government of national unity”, he might have been guided by the above conceptualization of “national unity government”. I think critical understanding of the concept of national unity government is essential to be able to understand that the statement of Ban Ki Moon is not an interference in the internal affairs of the country.

Third, they assume that Moon’s statement is a directive to form a national unity government under the leadership of Maoists. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s political advisor Raghujit Pant briefed the journalists about the decisions of the meeting. He said that it is Nepali people and political parties who decide what kind of government to form, how to form it and under whose leadership to form it. His statement shows that Moon pointed out the need for a national unity government under the leadership of Unified CPN (Maoist). Moon has not spoken about under whose leadership a national unity government should be formed. What he said is a national unity government is desirable. It is clear from this that his reaction is based on emotion rather than reason.

The 22 ruling political parties wrongly understood from the Moon’s statement that he is in favor of the formation of a new government without excluding Maoists from it. This is the main reason why the 22 ruling political parties criticized Ban Ki Moon for his emphasis on the formation of a national unity government. If they had understood from the statement that he is in favor of the maintenance of the current coalition government and giving it a national character by persuading the Maoists to join the government, they might have praised him for his statement. In his report, Moon has not talked about how to form a national unity government. This shows Moon’s intellectual maturity. But, the meeting of the 22 ruling political parties slammed him as if he talked about the method of the formation of a national unity government.

There is not even a scintilla of truth in the accusation of the 22 ruling political parties that what Moon said is an interference in the international affairs of Nepal. The accusation is no more than a product of emotional thinking. They have not set forth even a single logical reason to support their accusation. Their accusation is based on a set of misinterpretations of the Ban Ki Moon’s statement. His statement is strong evidence that he is really serious about the deteriorating Nepalese peace process. The essence of his statement is that all of the political parties including Unified CPN (Maoist) should accept the existence of the coalition government to allow the peace process to move ahead smoothly

Chinese Economy: Achievements and Challenges

2009-11-05T08:33:00.000-08:00

It is sixty years since a communist regime was established in China. It was officially declared as “the People’s Republic of China following the establishment of a communist regime.

China made progress in many areas over sixty years. China is about to overtake Japan as the world’s No. 2 economy and Germany as the No. 1 exporter.

China is on tract for 8% growth this year despite the global economic recession. Western countries are still beset by the ramifications of the global economic crisis, known as “credit crunch”.

China’s entry into World Trade Organization helped its economy be stronger than before. It would not be an exaggeration to say that its entry into WTO partly accounts for the current level of economic progress it has achieved.

China now produces commercial jets and high speed trains. Experts say that they were produced using western technology. Though they are not a completely Chinese innovation, their production cannot be underestimated.

Though some experts argue that the Chinese government’s unwillingness to open its economy completely would be an obstacle to the realization of its dream to be economic superpower, China is trying to the best of its ability to turn that dream into a reality.

Beijing, Shanghai and dozens of other cities are building vast subway networks to complement highways already in place. The Chinese government is courting the companies to make investment in new industries such as biotechnology. China is aggressively promoting wind power and high speed trains. Millions of small private companies have sprouted in China.

In 2008, 8,000 cars were exported to Russia and developing countries from Africa to Latin America.Domestic car makers such as BYD, Auto, Geely, and Chery have thrived by developing subcompacts (small cars) that sell as little as $4,400. Science and Technology Ministry in China has set a goal of producing 500, 000 vehicles by 2011.

BYD vows to be China’s largest carmaker by 2015. It also vows to overtake Toyota as the world’s leading brand by 2025 by producing 10 million vehicles a year, half of which are intended for export.

Chinese government is persuading its citizens to spend more and save less. Cities and provinces are boosting research spending and retraining workers. China is the pool of the world’s biggest science and engineering graduates. China exports high-tech goods. Last year, it exported $416 billon worth of high-tech goods.

Despite many good signs of economic progress, there are of course some challenges ahead.
Some critics reprove China for reneging on the promise it made to open its economy fully before joining WTO. In June 2009, National Development and Reform Commission ordered that wherever possible goods produced by Chinese owned companies be used in any project funded by Chinese government.

According to Standard Chartered Bank, a huge proportion of the new loans go to the government-controlled enterprises and only less than 20% go to small and midsize enterprises which are private. Experts argue that it makes it impossible for creative and innovative private enterprises to have enough capital. The failure of innovative enterprise does not lead to innovation.

China is accused of shifting from accelerating market reforms toward a more state-controlled economy. China does not want to allow foreign companies to play a pivotal role in strategic industries such as wind turbines and nuclear power generator. It is trying to whittle down the role of foreign companies in such industries. It is likely to worsen the economic relation of China with other capitalist countries, which might have adverse effect on Chinese economy.

Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (Comac), which is state-owned, produces 90-seat commuter jet called “ARJ21”. It unveiled a middle range commercial jet dubbed “C919” in September, 2009. China wants to be self –sufficient producing everything itself. But, some experts maintain that it still lacks technological capabilities to produce these jets without relying on western technology. According to them, the avionics (electronic devices), engines and other key systems on the ARJ21 come from western suppliers such as Honeywell, General Electric, and Rockwell Collins.

The technologies used in wafer factories are two generations behind those of Taiwan, the US, Japan, and South Korea. Most companies in China do not have technology and money to invest in research and development.

Despite the fact that China has endeavored to promote car industry, cars produced by Chinese industries are still dominated by the foreign brands such as Volkswagen, Toyota, and Buick etc).
China’s economic reforms are now three decades in the making. Japan and South Korea took 30 years to reach the economy driven by innovation, consumer spending, and services.

Rethinking a National Political Consensus in Nepal

2009-06-01T07:32:00.000-07:00

The current political situation in Nepal is in crisis. There are many clear signs that the peace process is not going to come to a logical end without difficulties. Unified CPN (Maoist), the largest political party that won 238 seats in the election to the 601 member Constituent Assembly held in April 2008 is now out of the government. The third largest political party that has won only 110 seats in the election to the Constituent Assembly is leading the coalition government supported by 21 political parties. Though all of the political parties that have extended their support to the current government want Unified CPN (Maoist) to be part of it, there is no any possibility of it joining the government until the president withdraws his move to reinstate the Nepal Army Chief by nullifying the erstwhile government’s decision to sack him. The Parliamentary Business Advisory Committee has decided not to allow Unified CPN (Maoist) to table the resolution motion against the president’s move at the legislature-parliament that had been registered in the parliamentary secretariat on 20 May 2009. Only three out of the 24 political parties that have representation in the Constituent Assembly are in favor of this resolution motion. The Secretariat meeting of Unified CPN (Maoist) has decided to disrupt all the proceedings of the legislature-parliament until the resolution motion is taken to the legislature-parliament for discussion.

The decision of the former government to sack the Nepal Army Chief was not supported by a majority of the political parties that have been represented in the Constituent Assembly. This led to the collapse of the coalition government led by Unified CPN (Maoist). Two different partisan explanations for the collapse of the Maoist-led government have been set forth. Unified CPN (Maoist) says that the collapse in question is related to the question of civilian supremacy. Its position is that it was necessary for the erstwhile Maoist –led government to supplant the military supremacy with the civilian supremacy. But, other political parties accused Maoists of trying to establish a dictatorship in the name of the civilian supremacy. They did not demonstrate a willingness to debate on whether the Nepal Army Chief did not really abide by the order of the Defense Ministry and whether he is legally allowed to turn a blind eye to the Defense Ministry. Another ostensible reason that they were strongly opposed to the erstwhile government’s action against the Nepal Army Chief is related to what is called “a national consensus”. This reason is contradictory in itself. On the one hand, they say that there is a need for a national consensus. On the other hand, they do not agree with the idea proposed. The majority of political parties having representations in the legislature –parliament did not accept the Maoist-led government’s proposal to sack the Nepal Army Chief. The Prime Minister of the Maoist-led government Mr. Prachand had tried to the best of his ability to forge a national consensus on the sacking of the Nepal Army Chief. The cabinet had decided to sack him only after he failed to make them accept that. But, they criticize the erstwhile government’s decision to sack the Nepal Army Chief on the grounds that it was made without a national consensus.

The Parliamentary Business Advisory Committee decided not to take the resolution motion against the president’s move at the legislature-parliament by saying that no national consensus was forged among the political parties on it. The reluctance of 21 political parties out of 24 to discuss the president’s move at the Legislature-Parliament has made the Parliamentary Business Advisory Committee decide not to table the resolution in question at the Legislature-Parliament for discussion.

When it comes to making any decision that is a matter of concern for people, the most important thing to be kept in mind is not a national consensus. But, this is not to say that it is unimportant. What is the most important is the decision itself. It is necessary to forge a national consensus on the decision that is to be made. However, a question arises: What will be the right action to be taken if the decision that is obviously good to the people is not accepted by the majority of political parties due to their own interests? Is it good to retract from such a decision that people benefit from in any possible way simply because the majority of foolish political parties do not accept it for a partisan reason? The answer is not to move backwards from the decision.

A national consensus seems to be good when we do not think deeply. It is likely fool us into thinking that whatever decision is made through a national consensus is good and the opposite bad. It is likely to make us lose our ability to look at things rationally. The possible loss of our rational thinking power will make us reject the good thing that one of the concerned actors among which there is a need for a national consensus wants to get done through a national consensus. Another disadvantage of “a national political consensus” is that the concerned political actors pretend to have lost their ability to think in a rational way; they act deliberately as though they were not wise enough to fathom palpable things; they use the phrase “national consensus” as a tool for fulfilling their party interests rather than people’s interests.

When the Moist –led government asked the Nepal Army Chief to furnish clarifications on three issues, all of the political parties except those which were in the coalition government strongly condemned it. Nepali Congress warned of nation-wide agitation if the government took action against the Army Chief by ousting him from his position. Nepali Congress was the only political party that had carried out street protest program against the government’s decision to sack the Nepal Army Chief. The twenty two political parties collectively raised their voice against the government’s decision to oust the Nepal Army Chief from his position. What made them be united against the government’s decision is their similar way of explaining the government’s decision. They believed, or pretended to believe that the government’s justification of its decision (safeguarding civilian supremacy) was only a pretext. They thought the only motive behind the government’s decision was to establish totalitarianism.

Is it really true that Unified CPN (Maoist) wanted to establish a dictatorship through the ouster of the Nepal Army Chief from his position? Is the explanation of the 22 political parties for the government’s decision to sack the Nepal Army Chief true? The answer to the first question is difficult to answer at the moment. Some questions cannot be answered before the future comes. Their answer or a hint that help us answer them is in the womb of the future. At the time when the 22 political parties put forward their explanation of the government’s decision to sack the Nepal Army Chief, it was too early to answer the second question. We are sometimes obliged to accept things not because we are sure that they are right but because we do not have other option other than accepting it until the future shows whether they are right or wrong. When the 22 political parties set forth the view that the Maoist-led government decided to sack the Army Chief as an attempt to establish a dictatorship in the name of civilian supremacy, non-partisan and conscious people were not in a position to say with certitude that this view was right or wrong. But, if they had been asked to choose between two contradictory statements-(i) this view is right, and (ii) this view is wrong, they would have chosen the second one. Sometimes, a situation that we find ourselves in makes us choose between two contradictory statements because we may have to deal with certain problems. The rational people takes into account the possible repercussion of the unexpected situation that has developed.

Global Economic Crisis and Nepalese Economy

2009-05-20T11:27:00.000-07:00

The world economy now suffers from great crisis. A large number of US and European financial institutions have failed. The first expression of this crisis was seen in the failure of US financial institutions in September 2008, which soon evolved into a global crisis affecting the European countries to a great measure. This has led to a serious unemployment problem, inter alia. Though Nepal has not experienced the impact of this global crisis yet, it will not remain unaffected by it. Economists say that though Nepal is unlikely to suffer from this crisis in the immediate future, if it continues to exist, it will definitely have an adverse effect on the Nepalese economy.The influx of remittances into Nepal from different parts of the world and its contribution to Nepalese economy gives rises to one of the linkages between the global economy and Nepalese economy. A large number of Nepali people are currently working in different parts of the world. Most of them are working in the Gulf countries. Their number is around one million. Though in Nepal, the amount of remittances has not surpassed the amount of foreign aid like in most of the developing countries, their amount is big enough to contribute to Nepalese economy to some measure.The global economic crisis is more likely to affect the Nepalese economy by bringing down the amount of remittances. The remittance occupies great importance in developing the economy. Economists observe that every dollar remitted will generate economic activities worth 3$ in the receiving country. Around 90 percent of those Nepalese who are employed in different countries are working in construction sector in the Gulf countries where the effect of the global economic recession has already been seen. This has taken the form of the reduction of the workforce, among others. It is obvious that as this kind of effect deepens even further, there will be a heavy downsizing of the workforce. It is very hard to believe that Nepali workers will remain unaffected by this heavy downsizing. This means the decrease in the amount of remittances Nepal receives now. This, in turn, will have a serious repercussion on the Nepalese economy.
Posted by Beyond the Orthodoxy at 2:48 AM

My intellectual goal

2009-05-20T10:53:00.000-07:00

Though I am very much interested in sociology, I have never got an opportunity to study it as a specialization. After I completed my undergraduate degree, I got an opportunity to formally study it only as a part of the Masters Program in Rural Development. During my Master’s degree in Rural Development, which was made up of various disciplinary components including sociology, a strong desire developed in me to formally study sociology as a specialization. I still retain that desire.
The specialization in my undergraduate degree was English Education, which was all about how to teach English in the best possible way. I underwent a sudden change in my intellectual interest after I completed my undergraduate degree. I started taking a profound interest in development/underdevelopment issues. Therefore, I decided to pursue a Master’s Degree in Rural Development, which is multi-disciplinary in nature. One of the courses it was made up of was “The Sociology of Rural Development”. It was while studying this course that I first came to be introduced to the discipline of sociology. I found sociology intellectually very interesting particularly because I came to know for the first time that one of the sub-fields within it deals with my two interconnected intellectual interests-development and underdevelopment.
My intellectual interest also relates to social change, which sociology deals with, among others. I joined the MA program in Rural Development due to its close relation with social change. Its multidisciplinary nature prevented me from studying as deeply as possible its disciplinary components including the sociology of social change because it required me to study social change from an eclectic mixture of perspectives derived from such disciplines as political science, geography, anthropology, environmental science, economics, political economy, etc, to maintain the disciplinary balance. Therefore, I have still much to learn about the sociology of social change.
My intellectual goal beyond the Master level is to pursue a serious sociological inquiry relating to social change that leads to a doctoral degree. The MA program in Sociology your department offers matches my intellectual interest and its theoretical components. On completion of this program, I believe I will be intellectually mature enough to successfully undertake an advanced sociological study of social change in the form of a doctoral degree.
My country is one of the least developed countries in the world. So, the issue of social change is still of paramount importance in my country. I think there is an urgent need for looking at the issue of social change in Nepalese context from the sociological perspective. The sociological debate on social change in Nepalese context has still a long way to go; it has yet to reach the stage of its development where the wise combination of ideas the debate gives rises to becomes instrumental in bringing about positive social change in Nepal. This means there is still an opportunity for sociologists to contribute to the debate on social change in Nepalese context. I have a profound desire to be one of the future sociologists who will contribute to the knowledge base of the sociology of social change in Nepalese context.
I am currently working on the book entitled “Theorizing Underdevelopment in Nepal”. This book is expected to be essentially informed by sociological insights. There is a big knowledge gap in the sociological field in Nepal, particularly in the field of the sociology of development/underdevelopment. Almost all of the sociological studies carried put to date only produced a set of descriptions. They have contributed nothing to the analytical and synthetic aspect of the sociology of Nepalese development/underdevelopment. This signals a huge knowledge gap on the analytic and synthetic fronts of the sociology of Nepalese development and underdevelopment. I have a profound interest in filling this gap.
The sociological insights that I can gain from the formal study of sociology would be of immense aid to delve even further into the understanding of my two interconnected issues, viz. development and underdevelopment. I have been trying to systematically understand them from non-sociological perspectives. I think it is only the combined set of perspectives, which are both sociological and non-sociological in nature, which can make it possible for me to understand them in their entirety.
I regard myself as an educational raw material, so to speak, which can potentially be turned into an educational product in the form of a sociologist who comes up with arguments of his own in the field of sociology. I am looking for an educational factory, which can turn me into such a sociologist. I regard the State University of West Georgia as such an educational factory because I strongly believe that the Master’s program in Sociology it offers will be of great help for my current systematic research on Nepalese development and underdevelopment as well as for my ultimate intellectual goal of contributing to the knowledge base of the discipline of sociology.

The Election to the Constituent Assembly: Challenges ahead

2009-05-03T05:12:00.000-07:00

Nepal is now undergoing a transitional phase. The 1990 constitution is absolutely dysfunctional now. The country now finds itself in a confused and chaotic state. There is a pressing need for a new constitution that is positively different from its predecessors because it is impossible to govern the country without a constitution. The way a constitution is framed dictates in one way or the other the kind and quality of the constitution. The 1990 constitution, for example, lacked many things that Nepali people want because it was presented to the Nepali people as a fait accompli by the then three political forces viz. the king, the left-wing political forces and the Nepali Congress. To ensure that the constitution addresses the problems of all segments of the society, it is imperative that all the people indirectly play a pivotal role in the formation of the constitution by participating in the election to the CA.

Election to Constituent Assembly was postponed two times. The first time it was postponed would make us less hopeless than we can be when it was postponed second time. This means the second time it was adjourned would make us more hopeless than we can be when it was postponed first time. There is a discrepancy between the way it was postponed first time and the way it was postponed second time. When it was postponed first time, those who decided to postpone it spoke about when the election would take place next time. To many, the postponement seemed bad. But, at the same time, despite the sadness they felt as the result of the postponement, they were also happy in a certain sense to hear that the election would be held after about six months. The happiness they felt resulted not from their comparison between the postponement of the election and the determination of the new date for the election but from their juxtaposition between fixing and not fixing a new date for the election. Their comparison between the postponement of the election and the determination of a new date for the election definitely leads them to be worried. The determination of the new date cannot make up for the loss incurred by the postponement. Some thing is better than nothing. Fixing a new date for the election is better than not fixing it. Taking this into account by excluding the postponement from the mind will cause us to be happy. The determination of the new date for the election made them get rid of the confusion over when election will take place. When it was postponed second time, no new date was fixed.

As I have already argued above, fixing the new date for the election is better than not determining it. That the election was postponed second time without determining the new date for it is really sad in this sense. But, there is one sense in which the postponement of the election without the determination of the new date for it cannot be deemed to be sad. What is really needed is not to postpone the election. If it is not possible, that is, if the postponement is bound to occur, or it occurs for any reason, what is needed is not only to determine the new date but also to ensure that the election is held within the date fixed. As is obvious from our experience with the second postponement of the election, it is not the determination of the new date that ensures the holding of the election within the specified period of time. The problems that affect the electoral process adversely must be resolved prior to the determination of the new date. We should not fix the new date for the election without being sure whether it is possible to hold it within the fixed date. There is no sense in saying that the new date should be determined as soon as possible if we lack an understanding of how long it takes to hold the election. Our option is not to choose between fixing and not fixing the new date for the election. In a situation in which it is uncertain that the election will take place in the immediate future, on the contrary, we should choose not between fixing and not fixing the new date but between fixing the new date and solving the problems that may not allow the election to take place in the immediate future. One may say here that we should do simultaneously- fixing the new date and solving the problems, rather than choosing between them. I wish doing both at the same time were the best possible option. But, the fact is that though it is the best option, it is not the best “possible” option. This means it is the best but impossible option. Fixing the new date is not difficult because it takes place inside the mind. But solving the problems is not a mental process unlike fixing the date. It takes place not inside the mind but outside the mind. It requires us to struggle with reality.

What is the Election to the Constituent Assembly for? The answer we give to this question in interest-specific. It is this characteristic feature of the answer that accounts for the current political impasse in the country. Many political forces (for example, Nepali Congress, Rastriya Prajatantra Party, etc.) just want that the CA election should be held as soon as possible without paying heed to what kind of constitution the Constituent Assembly is likely to formulate. They also wanted to hold this in Mangsir 3 though it was certain that this was not good enough to lead to the constitution that addresses the appropriate demands being raised by the marginalized groups in the country. There are two reasons behind this. First, they are not wise enough to fathom that the kind of electoral system adopted will dictate whether the constitution the Constituent Assembly makes addresses these problems. The only thing they know or they want or purport to know is that the CA election should be held as soon as possible, no matter whatever constitution it gives rise to.

Army Management in the past

2009-05-01T20:12:00.000-07:00

The People’s Liberation Army of Nepali Congress[1] that had fought against Rana regime[2] had been adjusted into Police upon the establishment of democracy. Mr. Shyam Kumar Tamang , one of the members of the PLA of Nepali Congress, who became Superintendent of Police later, deals with the PLA of Nepali Congress from its establishment to its integration into Police in a detailed manner in his book entitled “ People’s Liberation Army: An Unwritten History”. An excerpt from this book reads like this:

“In 1951, two NC leaders Matrika Prasad Koirala and BP Koirala[3] held a meeting with commanders Parunsingh Thakur and Gyan Bahadur Subba (also known as JB Yakthumba) to discuss the future of PLA. At the meeting, Commanders argued for the dissolution of the national army followed by the organization of the PLA in its place. But BP Koirala argued against their idea referring to the fact that even the liberation army that had fought against the British colonialism in India had not been integrated into the Indian national army. As their response to their leader’s argument, these commanders cited examples of China and Russia to consolidate their argument where after the success of revolution red armies had taken the form of the army organization of the country. At the end, they agreed to turn People’s Liberation Army into “the security force” of the democratic country instead of their integration into the national army. Later, the then coalition government of Rana and Nepali Congress formally declared the conversion of 10000 PLAs spread across the country into the security force. Though a demand was strongly raised by the PLAs for leading the security force by one of the PLA commanders, an army officer from the national army, who was a relative of one Nepali Congress leader, was given the responsibility to lead the security force made up by PLAs. Because most PLA commanders and combatants were from the ex-British and India army, they were more qualified than those from the national army. Some PLAs were dissatisfied because the security force was not led by the commander from the PLA and also because Nepali Congress ignored their desires. Later on, when Matrika Prasad Koirala was a Prime Minister, a decision was made to reorganize the security force. By that time, some members of the security force, who were previously PLA, had left for their home, believing that they finished carrying out their responsibility towards the country and the people. Police Service Act was implemented to convert the security force into Nepal Police. Of the PLAs who formed the Security Force and Nepal Police respectively, JB Yakthumba and Dil Bahadur Lama became Head of Nepal Police later on.”

[Note: This is a translated version of a part of the long report on the adjustment of the two armies published in Nepal, a Nepali Weekly widely circulated in Nepal on 30th June, 2008. I have created the foot notes as an attempt to provide you with a context that would help you understand the text. They are also intended to give you extra information that I think would be interesting. ]
[1] Nepali Congress, the second largest political party, had waged a war to overthrow the Rana regime.
[2] Rana regime existed in Nepal for 104 years. In 1951, this regime ended and democracy was established for the first time in Nepal.
[3] Matrika Prasad Koirala and BP koirala are elder brothers of GP Koirala, who was a PM until recently. Matrika Prasad Koirala is the first PM of Nepal. BP Koirala also became a PM. But he was ousted from his government by the late King Mahendra (father of Gyanendra) and the King established what is called “Panchayat regime” that lasted for 30 years.

Suicide Tourism

2009-05-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

Switzerland has a lot of things that foreigners associate it with. For example, it is known for its generosity for the mega-rich foreigners to allow them to keep their money in banks fronting their accounts. But, only few people know about its generosity to permit the terminally ill and permanently disabled foreigners to hasten their death in Switzerland. Every year, more than 100 terminally ill and the permanently and unacceptably disabled from France, Germany, USA, United Kingdom, and others come to Switzerland to commit a suicide. On average, a foreigner comes to Switzerland to die twice a week. They kill themselves by drinking a glass of water mixed with sodium pentobarbital. They choose to do so in order to avoid suffering from the disease that inevitably leads to their death. They fall asleep five minutes after they drink it, and die half an hour after.In 1942, a law was introduced in Switzerland to allow the terminally sick and the permanently disabled to kill themselves. Switzerland is the only country in the world to allow foreigners to kill themselves. There are very few countries that have a law to allow the terminally sick to kill themselves. They include Netherlands, Belgium, and two states in USA (Oregon and Washington). The promulgation of such a law in these countries is very recent.The question of whether such a law is good is controversial. Some argue against it. They argue that those who are neither incurably ill nor permanently disabled are likely to take an advantage from it by killing themselves to avoid facing the depression. It is said that the organizations working for the terminally ill to enable them to kill themselves are not transparent. Those who are opposed to such a law or at least those who are opposed to the possible disadvantage of such a law prefer to call the entry of the terminally ill foreigners into Switzerland “suicide tourism”.ReferenceAP, SCHWERIENBACHDec 14

Potential success of peace talk in Nepal: Beyond the influence of self-centric or unbalanced logic

2009-04-28T10:30:00.000-07:00

For an analytical purpose, the present political crisis that my country, Nepal, is beset by may be split down into two parts. At one level of analysis, it may be said that first part has stemmed from the significant armed attempt by the CPN (Maoist) to establish a People's Republic accompanied by the significant armed resistance by the state to that attempt. The second part has resulted from the strong opposition of the move of the king by major political parties, or “regression’’ to use the term frequently used by major political parties. This article confines itself to the former.The history of the former dates back to 2052 B.S. (1996 A.D). In the early years of the history of the former, the armed attempt to establish a People’s Republic by the CPN (Maoist) was not significant enough to make the then governments take it as seriously as it is taken at the moment. The then governments were either unaware of or overlooked the fact that it was potentially significant enough to take it as seriously as it is taken now. The governments reacted to that attempt as if it were possible to neutralize it by means of the armed resistance. The way they reacted to that attempt produced the opposite, unexpected and devastating result. It is only after the emergence of this devastating result that the governments formed thereafter recognized that the problem that the armed struggle between Maoist armed rebels and Royal Nepali Armies has caused cannot be resolved by the use of the military force.The way the present government is reacting to the attempt to establish a People’s Republic by the CPN (Maoist) seems to be a radical shift from the way the governments in the past (governments formed prior to the realization on the part of the government that peace talk is the only best possible way to settle this stand-off) reacted to that attempt. The success of peace talk hinges upon the being ready of both sides involved in the conflict to give up some of their demands. The second round of the talk between the state and the CPN (Maoist) failed because although the CPN (Maoist) gave up its demand for People’s Republic which contradicts every demand that the government has, the government did not become ready to give up any of its demands that contradict the demands of the CPN (Maoist). The whole of the demands that the CPN (Maoist) is waging what it calls 'people’s war’ for, and that of the demands that the agent of parliamentary multiparty democratic forces i.e. government has been mobilizing armies for can be broken down into two parts for an analytical purpose. The first parts of the whole of their demands revolve around socioeconomic transformation of the country. They do not contradict each other at least at the present level of discussion on the kind of socio-economic transformation they advocate. The second parts of the whole of their demands are fundamentally opposed. The second part of the whole of the demands of CPN(Maoist) is made up by the demand to establish a People's Republic whereas that of the whole of the demands of the government is made up by the demand to make the existing parliamentary multiparty system continue to exist. The second parts of the whole of the demands are mutually exclusive. The existence of one means a lack of the existence of another. One exists because another does not exist. The success of the peace talk would become possible only when both the government and the CPN (Maoist) become ready to give up some of the second part of their demands to allow some of the second part of the demands of the other to exist. That the government and CPN (Maoist) should become ready to give up some of the second part of their demands to allow some of the second part of the demands of the other to exist is another way of saying that the government and CPN (Moist) should become ready to accept some of the second part of the demands of the other. The fact that the second round of peace talk ended without concrete progress can be rightly explained by this assumption. The then government acted either knowingly or unknowingly in the second round of the talk as if there were standoff over the first parts of the whole of its demands and the demands of the CPN (Maoist). They insisted that because the standoff over the second parts of these demands is not important, CPN (Maoist) should forget it. The CPN (Maoist) insisted that at the time of the second round of the talk that a constituent assembly is the demand it can not overlook like other demands that are inconsistent with what is usually called philosophy of democracy. This means that it then became ready to give up some of its demands making up the second part of the whole of its demands (e.g. People’s Republic). It became ready to give up some of its demands making up the second part of the whole of its demands is another way of saying that it became ready to accept some of the demands of the government making up the 'second part' of the whole of the government's demands. The real attempt to ensure the success of the peace talk involves being ready of both the government and the CPN (Maoist) to give up some of the second part of their demands to allow some of the second part of the demands of the other to exist. In the second round of the peace talk, only part of this real attempt was made by the CPN (Maoist). It is the government who should have made another remaining part of the attempt. The government did not become ready to give up any of its demands contained in the second part of its whole demands. It means it did not make the remaining part of the real attempt to ensure the success of the peace talk, despite the fact that the CPN (Maoist) made one part of that attempt. In the second round of the peace talk the then government should have given up its demand not to create a new constitution by a constituent assembly (the demand forming part of the second part of its whole demands) to give the demand of the CPN (Maoist) to create a new constitution by a constituent assembly (the demand forming part of the second part of its whole demands) a chance to be fulfilled. But it did not do so, and the result was that the peace talk failed. In the end, I would like to say as the crux of this article that it is usually true to say that the end of armed conflict is subject to the agreement by both sides involved in the conflict on a set of things consisting of two sub-sets, the first including things one side has been being opposed to, and the second including things that another side has been being opposed to. The fact that the end of armed conflict through peace talk hinges upon such an agreement between both sides involved in the conflict forms the logic that the peace talk usually or even inevitably operates on. If peace talk is not allowed to operate on its own inherent logic, the peace talk can never end with concrete progress. It is more likely that both the government and the CPN (Maoist) endeavor to the best of their ability to replace this usually inherent logic with the kind of logic that is incompatible with this inherent logic and that is self-centric and therefore would benefit one side only. Therefore, it should not be forgotten that the peace talk between the state and the CPN (Maoist) should be allowed to operate on its inherent balanced logic but not on an intentionally created unbalanced logic.(This article was originally published in TakingITGlobal Online Publication on 13 Oct 2004)

Democracy in Nepal

2009-04-28T10:28:00.000-07:00

When we find that some political entities describe themselves as being democratic, our idea about what democracy is becomes diffuse. Because the basic nature of a language is such as allows any word to be defined arbitrarily, it is logically impossible to claim that the original and usual definition of democracy is the only definition of democracy. Therefore it is logically impossible to say with certainty those describing themselves democratic are not democratic. Both the original and usual definition and the definition that some political entities use as a basis for describing themselves democratic stand on an arbitrarily created basis of definition.When some political entities call themselves democratic entities in such a way as to be inconsistent with what is usually understood as democracy, I see nothing to be surprised at and to be angry with. Nothing to be surprised at because it is not inconsistent with the inherent nature of a language and nothing to be worried about because the motive behind their use of the term 'democratic' is not to indicate that they meet all requirements that must be met by any political entity for being democratic in accordance with the usual and original definition of democracy. The motive is to indicate that they have certain characteristics that seem undemocratic to those believing in the original definition but democratic to them. There is nothing to be worried about because their notion of democracy is not the same as that of democracy based on original definition. One might think that there is something to be angry with on the ground that the term 'democracy' can not be defined in a way different from the way in which it was originally defined and is usually defined. This is no more than an irrational thinking in that it is inconsistent with what a language inherently suggests about the definition of a word.This essay deals with how democracy can be developed and strengthened in Nepal with the usual and original definition in mind as what democracy is and with the definition inconsistent with the usual one in mind as what democracy in the usual sense is not (but not as what democracy is not). This essay does not deal with this question with the definition inconsistent with the usual one in mind as what democracy is not because, as has been stated above, saying that this definition is not what democracy is cannot be made stand on a logical basis. The first thing that the attempt to develop and strengthen democracy should probably begin with would be to identify problems facing various demographic groups whom democracy in its original sense is meant for. In Nepal, these groups include ethnic groups, Dalits, people of Terrai origin, and people belonging to so-called higher caste (Chhetri and Brahaman). All of these groups except group of people belonging to Chhetri and Brahman have lagged far behind in almost all areas of national life as compared to Chhetris and Brahamans. This has basically two reasons First, Brahamans and Chhetris who were and fare always involved in the mainstream of the nation lacked (probably still lack) a feeling of incorporating them into the mainstream of the nation. Second, they have not organized themselves against this tendency strongly as to bring about the system that requires them to involve in the mainstream of the nation. These two reasons constitute the hint for how to ensue that they become an important part of the national life. More directly, the analysis of these reasons would suggest that those who have been taking advantage from the whole mechanism of the state for a long time must not be allowed to make the inequitable state machinery exist to suit their interest. This is a fact. But, it is not easy to translate this fact into action. It requires different sectors of the nation to work together. I/NGOs can become an important part of the joint attempt to realize this fact. In Nepal, a vast majority of people are beset by poverty. It tends to serve as an obstacle to the strengthening of democracy. Democracy in its usual sense is really a favourite thing for at least a vast majority of people in any community. But when poverty exists in its severe form presence of democratic structure might be wrongly though of as an obstacle to development. When democracy is thought as an obstacle to development, poverty is more likely to act as an impediment to democracy because poverty alleviation wrongly is thought to be a product of end of democracy. When democracy is thought of as a hindrance to development, the way to bring about development or to alleviate poverty becomes to avoid democracy. Therefore, poverty alleviation should be the central focus of democracy. In fact, this is what is happening in Nepal. The armed effort to end democracy in its original and usual sense being carried out by CPN (Maoists) in Nepal can be described to be attributable to the fact that extreme poverty fooled most Maoists at any level of party into thinking that wiping out democracy (in its usual sense) is the only best possible way to do away with extreme poverty. The above analysis of the causal association between extreme poverty and democracy also applies to other social evils. For example, lack of involvement in decision making process at any governing level of the nation also correlates to development and strengthening of democracy. When this usually undesirable situation exists, it works as a stumbling block to the strengthening of democracy in two ways. Firstly, it results in the emergence of new groups of people seeing end of democracy as the solution to this problem. Second, it results in the emergence of groups seeing violence as the way to strengthen democracy. When these analyses are linked to the question of strengthening and developing democracy, it can be said that the concerted effort must be made to end all of forms of social political and economic problems. Lastly, as a concluding remark that contains the crux of this essay, it can be said in broad generalities that the first thing that the attempt to develop and strengthen democracy should probably begin with is to identify various social, political and economic problems facing different demographic groups of the country and that the second thing that the attempt should probably end with is to solve them and to

The "Inclusive" Revolution

2009-04-28T10:27:00.000-07:00

The term "inclusive" has now acquired wide currency in our country. It is used to refer to the need for the incorporation of many backward ethnic groups into the mainstream of the country. But, I have used it in this article to refer to the need for something other than "the inclusion of backward ethnic groups". More specifically, my indirect reference is to the need for the incorporation of many other revolutions in addition to the two revolutions-a political revolution and an economic revolution- into the purview of our leaders' understanding of a set of revolutions that is a sine qua non for turning the old Nepal into a New Nepal.

Though the need of our time is to struggle relentlessly to bring about a set of revolutions in many other realms besides the politics and the economics, the set of revolutions that our leaders talk about consists of the two above-mentioned revolutions only. Therefore, the kind of the revolution they advocate is not inclusive. Nowadays, most of us frequently say that Nepali society should be inclusive; there should be inclusive democracy. There is nothing to be worried about it. However, confining ourselves to the inclusive democracy by turning a blind eye to the need for what I call "inclusive" revolution is definitely something to be worried about. Establishing a New Nepal is impossible if we gloss over the inclusive revolution. It is therefore important that we advocate both the inclusive democracy and the inclusive revolution.

A need arises for a revolution in a certain area of a society when people do not benefit from the system under which it functions in many important ways. The system under which the political realm of Nepali society worked before Nepal was declared as a "Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal" was abhorred by a vast majority of people because it did not benefit them in many important ways for many reasons-both known and yet to be known. The demonstrated" (probably not necessarily inevitable) lack of the link of this system with their overall welfare accounts for their active participation in the April 2006 People's Uprising that culminated in the end of the kingdom that had been in existence for about 250 years in different forms. In our country, there are still many other areas beyond the two realms- politics and economics- that a majority of people are not benefiting from. It is obvious from this that there is a need for many revolutions in many areas of our society. Materializing our common goal of establishing a New Nepal requires our leaders to broaden the parochial purview of their understanding of the complete set of revolutions needed at the present stage of the history of our country.Given the critical situation that our country now finds itself in, a detailed delineation of a complete set of revolutions in all of the important areas of Nepali society(e.g. education, health, communication, bureaucracy etc) that are a sine qua non for transforming the present Nepal into a New Nepal is a very important responsibility of intellectuals in our country. I think it is time for "real" intellectuals specialized in their respective fields of learning to analyze the various "ailing" areas of our society in order to conceptualize what I call "a complete set of revolutions" required to ensure the transformation of Nepal into a variously prosperous country.

The present critical situation of Nepal is an opportunity to test themselves practically as a genuine intellectual. To them, this opportunity is very important because there are some people who doubt their identity as a real scholar. The government is responsible for creating a condition in which real scholars collaborate on the conceptualization of the complete set of revolutions in question.In this article, I will endeavour to set forth a general outline of the revolution needed in one of the areas of the broad field of education-higher education. Higher education is one of the "ailing" areas that need to be rationalized in many important ways. One of the problems facing the sector of higher education in Nepal is the tendency for the intellectuals themselves- who are very important aspects of higher education-to act irresponsibly for their personal aggrandizement. I prefer to call it "intellectual corruption". More specifically, I define intellectual corruption as a set of irresponsible behaviours shown by intellectuals as well as those who wield the official power to influence the educational sector, which make it impossible for what may be called "intellectual progress" to take place. For an analytical purpose, I define "intellectual progress" as a condition in which the intellectual community goes beyond the acquisition of knowledge already produced to produce new knowledge that would be a contribution to the existing cumulative whole of knowledge.Some of the aspects of the intellectual corruption appertain to the way university teachers are appointed, the way they teach, and the way carry out their duty other than teaching.

Let me first discuss the intellectual corruption related to the way universities teachers are appointed. If we are to think without going beyond the fact that university teachers in Nepal are appointed through a competition, we may think that there is nothing wrong with the process involved in their appointment. To understand that there is something wrong with that process, we must go beyond this rather misleading fact, and take into account the question of what lies behind this competition. The kind of competition through which they are appointed is not the competition proper. This may perhaps be rightly described as "the so-called competition" because it is not intended to select the best of all the applicants aspiring to an academic career; it is no more than a seemingly appropriate tool to make an explicitly inappropriate decision to bring arbitrarily into the faculty those who use special influence to get employed as a university teacher without taking into account a set of comprehensive scientific criteria for assessing the suitability of an individual as an ideal university teacher. Nepotism, favouritism, and cronyism are the characteristic but hidden features of its selection process.The other aspect of intellectual corruption relates to the way university teachers carry out their responsibility as a university teacher. A university teacher has a responsibility not only to teach knowledge already produced but also to produce new knowledge. Those university teachers who are not capable of producing new knowledge have no a moral right to occupy the intellectually most challenging position of a university teacher. Most university teachers in Nepal have not proved to the intellectually conscious people that they have contributed to the knowledge base of the academic discipline they belong to. Generally, it is true to say that they do not get involved in the process involved in the production of genuine future scholars. They neither think themselves nor cause the students to think. Here I have not used the term "think" in its widest sense in which everyone thinks. I have used it in the strictest sense in which logicians use it. According to them, thinking consists in pondering over a given set of facts so as to elicit their connexions.

Even when we judge them against another criterion, i.e. quality of teaching, most of them are blameworthy. Most of them do no more than teach a very insignificant portion of the course they are required to teach. By the "inadequate teaching", I mean the kind of teaching in which they teach less than is practically possible within the period of time fixed in the course of study.They explain their inadequate teaching by saying that it is the responsibility of an ideal student to learn independently what is left after they finish teaching. Their argument for the inadequacy in their teaching is built on a logic ostensibly created, which implicitly implies that it is not necessary for them to teach in a way that is "practically adequate". "The deliberate inadequacy" in their teaching essentially results from two things-the arbitrary selection of university teachers that results in many disqualified people being employed as a university teacher and perception of a teaching profession as something like business guided by profit. The unfair selection of university teachers makes it impossible for most highly intellectually qualified people to pursue an academic career. It is not the disqualified teachers employed through arbitrary selection but the highly qualified teachers abstracted from a large pool of prospective university teachers who are capable of teaching the course in a way that is as complete as practically possible. The perception of a teaching profession as something like business guided by profit makes most of the university teachers only pay heed to what they can get in return in economic terms from their teaching, as opposed to what the students can get in intellectual terms from their teaching. Given the paltry amount of time they spend on their teaching profession, we feel as if they were a full-time employer in another place and a part-time employer at a university.

The above account gives an incomprehensive and broad panorama of the intellectual corruption that exists in the sector of higher education in Nepal. That my only intention here is to stir up an academic debate on what I call "the inclusive revolution" and its specifics accounts for the incomprehensive and broad nature of this article. There is a strong need for the end of the intellectual corruption, which is necessary but not sufficient condition for bringing about a revolution in the field of higher education. Making the higher education free from the intellectual corruption is a very important part of the broad attempt to bring about the broad educational revolution needed to ensure the educational progress, which is the engine of social progress because it is the head of the whole educational sector, so to speak.

Potential success of peace talk in Nepal: Beyond the influence of self-centric or unbalanced logic

2009-04-28T10:15:00.000-07:00

Foreign Aid: Rich Countries’s Promises and Actions

2009-04-28T10:13:00.000-07:00

There is no denying the fact that pure foreign aid – as opposed to the so-called foreign aid provided with some kind of vested interest by the rich countries – help the poorest countries accelerate the pace of their economic development. Jeffrey D Sachs, in his treatise “The End of Poverty,” argues that only if all of the rich countries follow through on their promise to help the poorest countries by providing aid equal to at least 0.7% of their GNP, extreme poverty characterizing the poorest countries can be ended by 2025. Although it may be logically impossible or at least difficult to say with a high degree of certainty that if all of them keep their promise, extreme poverty can be ended by 2025, it is true that it can certainly be at least alleviated to a certain measure after a certain period of time, which can only be specified arbitrarily. But, the poignant fact is that not all of them have followed through on their commitment yet. The United States has been the laggard of them all. Now, official development assistance is roughly 0.25 of donor GNP.In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the objective that the level of official development assistance should increase appreciably “so as to reach as soon as possible approximately 1% of the combined national incomes of the economically advanced countries.” At that time, foreign assistance was about 0.5 % of rich country income. Despite this, foreign aid continued to decline. At various summits, say, the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the Copenhagen Summit on Social Development in 1995, the rich countries promised to reach 0.7% of their GNP. World leaders, including the US president George Bush, adopted once again the target of 0.7% of GNP, with the US being a signatory as part of what was termed as “the Monterrey Consensus” when they met in Monterrey, Mexico. It appears that the promises and actions of many rich countries contrast sharply. This is evidenced by the fact that by the early 1990s, official development assistance was still around 0.33% of donor GNP, and by the early 2000s, it had declined to around 0.2% of GNP. Now it is roughly 0.25% of GNP. It is also evidenced by the fact that the US government often declares these days that it is not bound by any arbitrary numerical target such as 0.7% of GNP. What is more surprising than this is that top US officials even declare that the US never signed on to such a goal, despite the fact that it and other rich countries did sign the Monterrey Consensus. Alas, the US has shown absolutely no concrete efforts towards keeping this commitment. US official development assistance amounts to just 0.15% of America’s GNP, which is less than one forth the global target whereas it spends 4% of GNP on its military, which is roughly $500 billion this year. Thus, the US spends around 30 times more on the military than it does on peaceful development aid for the poorest countries.But, unlike the US, some rich countries have followed through on their promise, and some other rich countries have determined the year by which they shall have reached the global target of 0.7% of GNP. The countries that have reached this target include Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. Six European countries have, of late, set a time table to reach 0.7% of GNP by the year 2015. They include Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Note that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his report in advance of the UN Summit of World leaders in September, has called on all donor countries to reach at least 0.5% of GNP by 2009, and 0.7% by 2015.(This article was originally published in TakingITGlobal Online Publication on 22 June 2005)

Suicide Tourism

2009-04-28T10:12:00.000-07:00

World Capitalism

2009-04-28T10:11:00.000-07:00

The 31st G-8 summit is scheduled to be held from July 6-8, 2005 at Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland. It is a summit where the heads of the state from eight industrial countries, which represent, to borrow the phrase of Mick Brooks, "the heartlands of the giant multinationals that dominate world trade and production," meet and discuss certain political and economic issues of mutual or global concern. As he has put it, "The G-8 summit meeting due to take place at Gleneagles in July is a real summit meeting of world capitalism". About the G-8The group of Eight (G-8) is "the coalition of eight of the world's leading industrialized nations," to borrow the phrase from the Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. Its member states are France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Russia. It is not an institution. It has no constitution or charter. It has no permanent secretariat or headquarters. The membership of the G-8 has evolved over time to include the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Canada and the president of the European Union. Although the summit is more likely to influence the policies its member states adopt, it is not held as part or the whole of the process involved in making policies they adopt. It is important to be clear that the G-8 summits are not a policy-making forum. They are a time for the leaders of these states to network and build relationships. They are a time to discuss complex international issues and crises, to allow for a more powerful collective response. The presidency of the G-8 and the location of the summit rotate annually among its member states in the following order: France, United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, and Russia. The heads of the G-8 member states, including the European Union will be attending this summit. Its member states assume presidency of the G-8 on January 1. The tradition of the G-8 summit is that the country holding the presidency hosts a series of ministerial level meetings before the summit begins. The traditional meeting of G-8 finance ministers is, in fact, the meeting of finance ministers of the G-8 minus Russia, as well as officials from the European Union. There is also a briefer "G-8+4" meeting for the finance ministers of the full G-8, as well as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. How Did the G-8 Evolve Over Time?The 1973 global oil crisis and the subsequent global economic recession made the then global economy find itself in deep crisis. It was against this backdrop that the G-8 originally came into being as a group of six countries as part of the broader attempt on the part of the then major industrialized countries to make the then world economy free from this deep crisis. In 1975, French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing arranged for the heads of state of six major industrialized democracies to meet in Rambouillet, France with a view to developing the best possible way out of both the economic crisis that was then prevalent, and the potential subsequent economic crisis, and proposed regular meetings. It was the first summit of the group of major industrialized nations. They agreed to an annual meeting, and to organize it under a rotating presidency. The group of these democracies was dubbed the group of six (G-6), which included France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Canada joined it at the behest of U.S. president Gerald Ford in the second summit held from June 27-28 in 1976 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States. After that, the G-6 became the G-7. The G-7 became G-8 when Russia joined the G-7 in the 24th summit, which was the first G-8 official summit, held in Birmingham, the UK from May 15-17 in 1998. However, Russia was not allowed to attend the meeting for financial minister as it wasn't a major economic power. Russia still lacks some of the preconditions required for being part of the G-8, which other member states want Russia to have. Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia states that "on February 18th , 2005, United States Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain called for Russia to be suspended from the G-8 until democratic and political freedoms are ensured by Russian president Vladimir Putin." It also states that "because the original G-7 are effectively the leading industrial democracies and the Russian economy (as well as democracy) is still struggling, there are still some G-7 sessions on economic affairs in which the Russians do not participate." The Gleneagles Summit: Capitalism as the Solution?The forthcoming Gleneagles summit is expected to discuss issues such as challenges of Africa, and climate change. Other announced items on the agenda are counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, and reform in the Middle East. Tony Blair, head of the hosting state of the Gleneagles summit, states in his "welcome message" on December 9, 2004, "I really want to focus on the challenges of Africa and climate change during our presidency. There are other issues that G-8 countries are working on together, such as countering the spread of material used in nuclear and chemical weapons, fighting terrorism, supporting social and economic reform in the Middle East, and joint activity to make international travels safer. I want the G-8 to push on with this work too, as well as other foreign policy priorities including, in particular, helping find a peaceful and sustainable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict." As Mick Brooks says, "Tony Blair wants to go down in the history books as something more than a squalid war criminal. He is anxious to present the summit as an opportunity to deal with the burning issues of world poverty, disease and climate change." On June 10 and 11, 2005, the traditional meeting of G-8 finance ministers, took place in London. On June 11, they agreed to write off one hundred percent of the $ 40 billion in debt owed by 18 highly indebted poor countries to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the African Development Fund. The meeting also agreed that twenty more countries with an additional $ 15 billion in debt would be eligible for debt relief if they fought corruption, and eliminated impediments to private investment. It had been hosted by British Chancellor Gordon Brown. For these agreements to take effect, they must be approved by the lending institutions. Given the past, it is not certain that these agreements reached on debt relief will take effect. "In 2003 at the Evian summit, the advanced capitalist countries decided to waive $ 100 million of the debt burden on a handful of highly indebted countries that had swallowed their nasty IMF medicine. It never happened," says Mick Brooks. As Oxfam complained, "the World Bank and its board continue to fail to deliver on its mandate and its vision, most visibly on debt relief." As Mick Brooks has put it, "This is like complaining about a tiger failing to deliver on its mandate to vegetarianism." Because the forthcoming Gleneagles summit meeting is what Mick Brooks calls "a real summit meeting of world capitalism," which serves only the interests of the advanced capitalist countries. As Mick Brooks puts it, "for the issues of debt, for trade, and for aid, the G-8 is not the solution. It is the problem." One of the main issues expected to be discussed in the forthcoming summit is third world debt relief. Third world debt may be thought of as part of the broader process involved in the development of world capitalism, which is lopsided, and therefore only benefits the richer countries. Mick Brooks argues that "debt is one of the main levers for keeping poor people poor." To substantiate this claim his argument involves, he says, "interest repayment represents a huge continuous transfer to rich nations and an unbearable burden on underdeveloped countries." Zambia spends more on debt servicing than on education. Malawi remits one third of its government budget to rich countries. This amount is twice what is spent on its own people's health. Sao Tome and Principe's debt is nine times their National Income (NI). Congo-Brazzavile groans under an incredible debt burden of nearly two times its NI. The advanced capitalist countries have been using such permanent institutions as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, which are essentially owned by them as a means of benefiting themselves at the expense of the poorer countries. As Mick Brooks has put it, "The IMF and the Bank are institutions designed to suck the lifeblood out of poor people living in poor nations." "Just like other capitalist firms, they aim to maximize shareholder value- and that means making sure the lenders get their money back with interest," says Mick Brooks. They operate under essentially "neo-liberal" principles in the belief that the market can solely, and by its own nature, bring property to nations that practice free market competition. The IMF imposes a standard blueprint called Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) on the poorer countries it gives loans to. There are many stories telling how SAPs impoverished many poor countries upon which the IMF imposed the SAPs. One example of where IMF Structural Adjustment Programmes aggravated the problem is in Kenya. Before IMF got involved in the country, the Kenya central bank oversaw all currency movement in and out of the country. Mick Brooks says, "SAPs have been a disaster for the countries they have been imposed on. Argentina experienced a catastrophic economic crisis in 2001, which had been caused by IMF-induced budget restrictions, which undercut the government's ability to sustain national infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security. Many other South American countries faced similar economic problems, which are attributable to the IMF's standard blueprint that we know as SAPs. The current – as of 2005-trend towards "moderate" left-wing governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional economic policy largely independent of big business pressures can be seen as a result, at least partially of this crisis.”Is debt relief lasting way out of the poverty trap the indebted poorer countries find themselves in? Since the beginning of the HIPC programme- HIPC stands for Highly Indebted Poor Countries- beneficiary countries have used some of the money saved on debt repayments for social programmes. For example, in Benin, 54 percent of the money saved through debt relief has been spent on health, including on rural primary health care and HIV programmes. In Tanzania, debt relief enabled the government to abolish primary school fees, leading to a 66 percent increase in attendance. These statements may fool us into thinking that this question can be rightly answered in the affirmative. These only suggest that debt relief may help the poorer countries reduce the severity of the poverty they are plagued with to some extent, at least for some days ahead. The answer is not difficult. One does not need to be extremely perceptive to answer this question. "So long as the terms of trade continue to move against the poor countries and as long as world trade is rigged against them, then debt relief will give no lasting way out of the poverty they find themselves in," says Mick Brooks.The terms of the trade continue to move against the poor countries. This results in Inter alia, the collapse in the prices of the things they sell to the advanced capitalist countries. Five grams of tea sell in the west for £ 2. This means a kilo costs £ 400. Nestle and the other big processors buy that bag for just £70. Just 0.2% of the price of a cup of coffee bought in London goes to the growers. The WTO is the third institution the advanced capitalist countries use as a means of impoverishing the third world. It imposes "free trade" on poor countries. It forces them to open up their markets. Haiti, for example, was forced to allow US grains to be imported into it. The grain that poured in from the USA was exported by agribusiness heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. The result was that thousands of peasant farmers in that country lost their livelihoods. Farming is subsidized in the west to the tune of $ 1 billion a day. $ 1 billion is shelled out to 25,000 cotton farmers – that's $ 160,000 each, which is more than their crop is worth. This has a negative impact on the competitive strength of the poorer farmers from the poorer countries. Moreover, Europe's common agricultural policy not only keeps out third world produce but also subsidizes European producers. The forthcoming Gleneagles summit is not expected to take into account these things, which have a lot to do with the attempt to ensure that the poorer countries become free from the problem of poverty. The forthcoming Gleneagles summit will discuss third world debt relief, among other things. According to Oxfam, if things continue to go on as they are now in Africa, by 2015, 45 million more children will die; 247 million more people will be living on $ 1 per day or less; 97 million more children will not be in school; 53 million people will be without proper sanitation. It is impossible to prevent such things from happening if the advanced capitalist countries force the poorer countries to swallow what Mick Brooks calls "nasty IMF medicine." Whether the forthcoming summit will help the African countries plagued with abject poverty get rid of it or not, depends upon to some extent, whether it will decide to not force them to swallow the nasty IMF medicine, which has essentially taken them to their present pitiable condition. But, unfortunately, the forthcoming 31st Gleneagles summit will be "essentially" no more than an opportunity to further develop and strengthen world capitalism, which serves only the interests of the advanced(This article was originally published in the TakingITGlobal Online Publication in 2005. This is a slightly revised verson of that article)