Democracy For Nepal: Revise The 12 Point Agreement In Delhi

Monday, March 06, 2006

Revise The 12 Point Agreement In Delhi

Maoist leader’s confirmation

Sindhupalchowk: Maoist leader Agni Sapkota confirmed on Monday that the top leaders of the seven parties and Maoists will hold talks in New Delhi to revise the 12-point pact and that they would come up with a joint statement soon. Earlier, a report from New Delhi said NC and CPN-UML leaders have arrived in New Delhi to hold talks with the Maoists to revise the pact. Bam Dev Gautam and Jhala Nath Khanal arrived in Delhi on Sunday, while NC’s Mahantha Thakur arrived on Monday. NC spokesperson Krishna Sitaula is already in Delhi. They are said to be in touch with Prachanda and KB Mahara. — HNS

I believe this is a great move. Here is my wish list.

(1) The major powers India, Europe and the US need to stop beating around the bush, and openly participate in these talks. If it is between a failed state and direct talks with two forces that are not in power and perhaps not legitimate representatives of the Nepali people, heck, neither is the king, the king even less so. For the political parties the difference between the Maoists and the king is the Maoists are actually willing to engage in respectful dialogue. Between the three forces, the seven party alliance is the one force that comes close to being a legitimate force working on behalf of the Nepali people. If that alliance wishes to hold talks with the Maoists, the foreign powers need to do all they can to help the talks. I don't think the alliance is exactly looking for help. This is between the seven party alliance and the Maoists, and so be it. Stay out of the way. Let them talk to their fill.

(2) The 12 point agreement was a major milestone. There is no denying that. But it was always meant to be a first step, a framework to build trust and understanding between the seven parties and the Maoists. Now it is time for a second look, to take into account all the feedback that has been received, including the ones from Moriarty who, by the way, has come out openly for a constituent assembly. I did not hear any member of the seven party alliance speak positively about that specific point. Moriarty says, 10 down, 2 more to go. He likes 10 of the points, but he seeks clarification on two points. But this is not about Moriarty. This is about the country and its people. Moriarty's thoughts have to be judged on merit. If he makes sense, he makes sense. If he does not make sense, he does not. I agree with him academically, intellectually. Heck, he echoed my own sentiments as I expressed them immediately after the 12 point agreement came out. On the other hand, I don't think he has realized the political import of his political office, or maybe he has. If you are the ambassador of the sole superpower in one of the 10 poorest countries on the planet, when you criticize two of the 12 points, you get heard as having criticized the entire list of 12 points. That is the tragedy of being a US ambassador in Nepal.

(3) The Maoists are committed to a constituent assembly. That is a ballot box thing. They are by now ideologically committed to the idea of a democratic republic. That is not a power flows through the barrel of a gun kind of statecraft being suggested. They have said they are willing to disarm as long as they can get a constituent assembly. My point being the Maoists have already renounced violence as a political tool for steps 2,3 and 4. But they are still stuck to it on step 1. They think you can not bring this regime down unless you use violence. The truth is only a massive nonviolent movement will topple this regime. The Maoist violence slows things down. The next agreement has to reflect this ground reality. The Maoists do not have to disarm right away, I know they can't. But they sure can hasten the toppling of this autocratic regime by giving total political space to a massive, decisive, final non violent movement. They should also participate in the same.

(4) The country may have only one army before it goes through a constituent assembly. One army safely put away in the barracks. If you can't get there, you don't get a constituent assembly, plain and simple. As to how to get to that one army, there are several options. My personal favorite is to dismantle both the armies. Madhesis are half the country, but are totally absent in the army. Nepal is a poor country that can not really afford an army. I say dismantle both the armies. That would be one way, the least problematic way. Another would be to have the interim prime minister become Commander In Chief through an interim constitution, and to integrate the two armies. So if there are 60,000 RNA folks and 10,000 PLA folks, you end up with an army that is 70,000 strong. A third option would be to partially integrate the two armies such that you end up with a final size of a 30,000 strong army, 25,000 RNA, 5,000 PLA. You seek foreign aid during the peace process to integrate the rest into the private sector of the economy. This part has to happen before the country goes through a constituent assembly. This is an absolute must.

(5) The Maoists are the most radical of the non royalist forces, and they want a democratic republic, but even they don't want to get there through an armed revolution or anything like that. They want to get there through a constituent assembly. So the rest of us should not talk more radical than the Maoists, even the republicans among us. We should leave an opening for the king to come around to the idea of a constituent assembly. The political parties should leave themselves the option to hold talks with the king like they have been holding talks with the Maoists. This is to ensure there is the smoothest possible transfer of the command of the army from the king to the people's representatives. The revolutionary option is always there, and if the king keeps acting unreasonable that is how things will go, but we should leave ourselves some leeway. If we can have the constituent assembly the easy way, why prefer to get it the hard way?

(6) Personally I am willing to go as far as a conditional constituent assembly for the sake of a smooth transition. Say even if you go for an unconditional constituent assembly, unless the two Congress factions want a republic, there just is not going to be the numbers to the turn the country into a republic. And if the two Congress factions do want a republic, then a 75% vote margin is not too high. So why not give the king this? The next constitution may shape everything, but it may not abolish the monarchy. If it wants to abolish the monarchy, it will first have to hold elections to a new parliament under a new constitution, and then that parliament will need a 75% vote to abolish the monarchy. If you think about it, this 75% thing is practically no different from having an unconditional constituent assembly, but it makes the transition smoother. But I defer to the seven party alliance on this issue, as on all other issues. They are my leader. But I keep thinking, the king is going to blow this as well. Then we don't even have to worry about this little detail. For the king pride gets in the way. He is not capable of a democratic dialogue. And he is not even willing to use mediators. Tells me his heart is not yet in the peace process, and the clock be ticking. But then we don't worry about things we can't control, like the royal mood. We focus on things that are in our domain. The only way the king can express his willingness for talks is by unconditionally releasing all political prisoners. If not, what's the point in talking?

Whatever document of understanding comes forth next has to be a dynamic document. More than one scenario has to be imagined for each phase. And there should be room for further revisions down the line, not on principle, but on tactics.

Undeclared Ceasefire, Decisive Movement
The King's Clowns And The Baathists Of Iraq
Moriarty In The Soup
Up The Ante: Smart Sanctions
Baburam Moriarty Debate
India, Europe, US For A Constituent Assembly
Congress Not Yet For A Republic
5 Point Agreement
The King Is Nowhere Close To Seeing The Light
Moriarty Deserves Your Ears
Organization: Hamro Nepal
Narayan Singh Pun, I Want Your Number
Bravo Supreme Court
We Want To Stop Bloodshed: Prachanda
Lohani Baburam Debate
Possible Framework For A Negotiated Resolution
Nepal: One Year Of Royal Anarchy
Leahy, Lion
A Democratic Roadmap That Does Not Rely On The King
My Address To The King
Conspiring Against Democracy Is Treason And Can Be Legally Punished
ICG: Electing Chaos
France Or South Africa
Those In Nepal Should Take The Lead On Logistical Help From Diaspora
Hridayesh Tripathi Arrested
Curfew? What Curfew? Royal Tamasha
Bamdev Gautam: January 20 On Schedule
Baburam Bhattarai May Not Preach Violence To The Seven Party Alliance
Tea, Coffee Or Soda?
Janakpur Rally, Biggest In Nepal Since 1990

On The Web

Fundamentals for peace-building in Sudan | csmonitor.com
Peacemaking
NGOs and Peacemaking-Global policy Forum-NGOs
Conflict and Peacemaking
Peacemaking
Nagler: Peacemaking through Nonviolence
Peacemaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ten Principles of Peacemaking
Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace building (from United Nations ...

Visitors

Busiest day so far	6 March 2006
	Page views	277

6 March