Long time no sea
Useful Links
» A new way to read online, exact replica of your daily and magazine
» For all you tweety fans out there!
» Allows you to find only those news from any date you choose!
» Search any news/ articles by author/ category/ date/ keyword
Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai left the country in the cold in immediately after the earthquake and jetted, along with his delegation, to New York to participate in the ongoing UN General Assembly session. He and his delegation were hoping to make a significant impact on the world body, particularly on those leaders who choose to make the annual ritual of addressing the UN General Assembly.
Prime Minister Bhattarai announced in New York that Nepal would be backing the Palestinians for full membership in the UN. It is always prudent to swim with the current, and a majority of the UN members are surely with the Palestinians. But that hardly ensures membership in the UN without first bringing about necessary reforms there. It is strange that the Western countries who
claim to be democratic do not even consider the present structure of the UN, particularly the Security Council (SC), to be undemocratic with the
five veto power members deciding for the rest of the world what’s good and bad for them.
For most leaders of the Third World, the UN conclave is nothing more than an appropriate site to go around with a begging bowl. It is time that Nepal awoke from its slumber and began properly prioritising the issues it needs to place before the UN. The annual pilgrimage to the UN in New York by our prime ministers at state expense should bear fruit for us or should benefit the world at large. If there is nothing new to offer and if the country does not benefit from such forays, there is no need for the country’s top executive to visit the UN year after year. Such visits by the foreign minister would do just as well. But there are issues such as belated reforms in the UN to ensure that the majority voice of the UN General Assembly is heard and fully respected. The SC, which is empowered unnecessarily and in a very disproportionate manner, should be made to reflect the democratic aspirations of the majority of the world.
Nepal has just passed through a major conflict that claimed over 15,000 lives, and one of the major outcomes of the conflict was what many of our leaders call inclusiveness — inclusiveness in the legislature, civil service, army and police, education, agriculture and in anything you can name. And yet, how really inclusive is the UN when just five SC members with a combined population of about 1.92 billion people are authorised under outdated rules to determine the fate of 6.97 billion people. The Palestinian UN membership bid may be adopted and approved by the General Assembly. But what does
its approval matter if even one of the five veto power members of the SC rejects it? Just goes to show how very democratic the present UN structure is and how urgent the need is for reforms that meet the aspirations of all countries.
The 10-year conflict in Nepal has shown us that our country is composed of different ethnic groups following varied cultures and traditions. They have all risen up to claim their place in the formulation of laws and in the governance of the country. The ethnic groups have formed unions and alliances in order to better vent their demands and exert more pressure. Their demands cannot be set aside while drawing up a new constitution for the country.
Similarly, the UN today has 193 supposedly sovereign and independent countries as members. They fall into different economic and geographical categories. With a prime minister like Dr Bhattarai, shouldn’t Nepal have taken the initiative to rally other countries in support of the just rights of the most neglected countries and peoples? The composition of the SC must be able to reflect the diversity of the peoples and countries. The long overdue overhaul of the formation and representation of the SC must be advocated by countries like Nepal. We may fail, and probably will, the first time; but attempts need to be continued.
There is talk of restructuring the SC, and there are a number of countries seeking Nepal’s support for their membership. Nepal has indicated in the past that it will support a particular country. But on what basis? What should be the basis for new permanent members of the reformed and restructured SC? Should it be population? Or economic prosperity? Or military prowess? Who will take care of the interests of the landlocked countries? Should Nepal be satisfied that its unrestricted access to the sea will not be hampered in any way because its two immediate neighbours, China and India, gave it heaps of assurances? Assurances are not legally binding; and in any case, it is not merely the question of one single landlocked country like Nepal but all the landlocked countries whose total population makes up over 7 percent of the world population.
If the UN and the SC are to be inclusive, the landlocked countries as a group need permanent representation in the UN, may be without a veto. And indeed, is there a place in the present democratic world for veto power in the SC? Nepal clearly needs to stop being a camp follower and take the lead in creating a niche for landlocked countries in the UN. If the present Maoist-led government is able to do so despite very heavy odds, it will deserve the salutation of all.
Post Your Comment