Time to act

First published in Republica Daily

Regulating NGOs
In June 2013, leaders of Nepal’s political parties—except UCPN (Maoist)—jointly issued a press release against the then government’s decision to upgrade the capacity of Upper Trishuli III ‘A’ hydropower project from 60 to 90 megawatts. The press release was prepared in a Kathmandu based office of an INGO working in Nepal. Finance Minister Dr Ram Sharan Mahat was one of the senior leaders in the meeting and had signed that release.
The event was reported by all the major news media. Since upgrading the capacity of the project was not in the favor of country’s economy and power sector, the press release was seen as having good intentions and the move was, quite rightly, not questioned by anyone, including the media. But the question arises: Why did senior leaders of major political parties issue the press release from an INGO office?
What’s wrong in doing that in a country where more than 60 percent of the fiscal budget comes from donor agencies, you may argue. You are right in a way. But it raises some serious questions: Aren’t we an independent nation? Don’t we have to deal with our issues ourselves? What sort of development practice are we undertaking? What is the distinction between government agencies, political parties and I/NGOs? What is their role in country’s development? How should they be working and what kind of moral and ethical codes should the political parties follow when it comes to I/NGOs?

Dr Mahat, who engineered the development plan that yielded record high economic growth rate and created an environment for entrepreneurship post-1990, has recently assumed the office of Finance Minister for the sixth time. But we must not forget his inability to limit the level of corruption which partly caused the increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. This created a fertile ground for Maoist insurgency. Now is the right time to ask him about his policy toward I/NGOs as well as bilateral development agencies that are hesitant to funnel money through government mechanisms.
It is an understood fact that the Maoists exploited massive inequality in the country in order to further their movement. Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, the chief architect of Maoist insurgency, drafted his political-economic rationale based on inequality that could not be addressed in post-1990 development. The result of the recent election, where Nepali Congress and CPN-UML emerged as the two major parties, is not a mandate for them to hobnob with the elites and sideline the marginalized people. While democracy and capitalistic system are the most convincing systems in the modern development course of the world, it should not be an instrument to create a vacuum, again, for another kind of ‘unjust’ society.
Development institutions like World Bank and Asian Development Bank are trying to help Nepal build infrastructure that the country needs at this moment. There are other genuine bilateral development partners, who are our long-term friends, and who definitely want to see Nepal become a prosperous country. But we should think about I/NGOs that work without much of a rationale to their work. It might be hard to make a black and white judgment about their contribution in country’s development but political leaders should try to stay away from these sorts of I/NGOs.
There might be an argument that these I/NGOs are a part of civil society. But the question has already been raised about funded organizations being part of the civil society. It becomes more and more difficult to draw a line between a genuine development-oriented organization and a mere propaganda machine of some group when it comes to I/NGO movement. The question, again, is what kind of moral and ethical ground can be built to have a meeting to issue a press release against the government’s decision in an office of an INGO. Moral and ethical questions may sound vague, but we have the right to expect answers from our leaders. Who in today’s society can show a sense of morality and ethical behavior if the leaders cannot?
It is not justifiable to put all I/NGOs in the same basket but what is our standard to measure them and figure out which one is working in whose interest? Mahat is right in what he has written in his book In Defense of Democracy: Dynamics and Fault Lines of Nepal’s Political Economy about the loss of Arun III because of INGOs against the project. What about his attitude towards I/NGOs now? Are politician Mahat and author of the book two different people?
The incumbent government, particularly Finance Minister Mahat, has shown an unprecedented interest and enthusiasm in hydropower sector since the formation of the government. It’s appreciable. It is also true to a large extent that the economic decision that made by this government will be an outcome of what Mahat believes in and does. For that matter, it is important to ask him some fundamental moral questions at this time. Any small mistake that we make now will have a long-lasting impact in country’s economic course.
This one case in the hydropower sector demonstrates how we largely fail to comprehend the dynamics of development. Development and prosperity are more accessible to a large section of people in a free and democratic society. But the execution of programs and policies should be done carefully.
In this backdrop, we also have to be considerate about the difficult coalition government and its limitation. But that does not give the leaders an excuse to be too accessible to I/NGOs in the country. The present government has to be bold enough to ask all the bilateral development partners including India to spend development aid through the Red Book of the Finance Ministry. This will not only help us be more transparent but also develop a system that will be institutionalized in the long run.
Lastly, we have to learn from African country Lesotho. It is still a poor country despite the fact that it has been receiving development assistance from more than 30 developed countries and is a hub of I/NGOs in the name of development. According to the anthropologist James Ferguson, the people of Lesotho have been subject to experiment and the joy-ride of development money. Let’s hope Mahat will not let the Nepalis be subject to similar experiment for ‘development anchors’.

Starting anew

First published in Republica Daily 

THIRD BIMSTEC SUMMIT

In July 2000 the then foreign minister Chakra Prasad Bastola wrote a letter expressing an interest on full membership of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). After four years, Nepal formally joined BIMSTEC in February 2004 and attended its first summit in Bangkok in a delegation led by the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. After a decade, Prime Minister Sushil Koirala is leading the Nepali delegation to third BIMSTEC summit being held in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar from March 1 to 4.
In last decade, many of the country’s social, political and economic realities have changed, including the major shift from monarchy to republic. The then rebel force has joined mainstream politics. Many smaller changes have also been witnessed in different areas. But unfortunately, we have not been able to make significant changes in international trade, or bilateral relationships with our trade partners and regional stakeholders.
Sushil Koirala is the second prime minister post-1990 who is making his first foreign visit to a South East Asian country, as opposed to the past precedent of making the first visit as PM to India. This may not bother other stakeholders in the region or in international community, except India. As an aside to the summit, Koirala will have a sideline meeting with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh. A man of principles and simplicity, Koirala should be utilizing this forum to give a message that Nepal is ready to move forward with multilateral and bilateral trade and investment pacts with any country in the region.
In December 2006, Ministry of Industry Commerce and Supplies and South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment (SAWTEE) jointly organized a roundtable on BIMSTEC and South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA). The opinions expressed in that roundtable are interesting, not because officials and experts underlined the importance of India for Nepal’s international trade, but because they outlined the country’s membership in different regional agreements as strategies to avoid overreliance on India (and disastrous consequences like the 1989 economic blockage). BIMSTEC is not always efficient in executing its action plans, but it is nonetheless a crucial forum for a country like Nepal to establish closer ties with the likes of Myanmar, Thailand, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Just like Nepal, all these countries are going through painful political transitions and witnessing interventions from different powers.
Most BIMSTEC countries are going through several problems. Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar are low income countries whereas Sri Lanka, Bhutan and India are lower-middle income countries. Thailand is the only one upper-middle income country as per World Bank classification. However, the similarities among these countries are vast and can be exploited for cooperation. At the same time, these countries are also competitors in terms of attracting foreign investors for development.
The political leadership has to keep in mind that such forums are not just meant to sign agreements. International investors and strategic decision makers are closely watching the upcoming summit. China is not a member of BIMSTEC but it has been showing an increasing interest in BIMSTEC since India is not only engaging itself more and more in South Asia but also coming to Myanmar, which China may not like. Nepal’s trade, no matter what, is going to be concentrated on India, but it can open up a way for sharing investment and flow of people with other countries. For instance, a delegation of Nepali businesspeople went to Myanmar in 2013 to explore the possibility of attracting religious tourists to Nepal. There are many Buddhists in Myanmar who would like to visit Lumbini, the birthplace of Gautam Buddha, as a pilgrimage.
Koirala’s visit is an opportunity to show that Nepal is moving towards political stability and economic prosperity. A country’s confidence does not come just from having a big GDP; it is also about leadership in such forums. Koirala should not make the mistake former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal made in 2008 while attending the second BIMSTEC summit in Delhi. He was acting more like an Indian guest at the forum without putting much effort in building relationship with other stakeholders at the forum. In comparison to Dahal, Koirala has been more evenhanded in dealing with India in the past.
BIMSTEC has a total of 14 priority sectors which are led by different member countries. Among them Nepal leads the area of Poverty Alleviation. Given this, Nepal has to show strong leadership by bringing together all member countries in the topic it heads. The ‘poverty plan of action (PPA)’ endorsed by the second Ministerial Meeting of BIMSTEC in Kathmandu in 2012 should be taken seriously as large populations in each country are still under extreme poverty.
Chakra Prasad Bastola, who put such an effort on gaining Nepal full BIMSTEC membership, is now in a coma. His leader Koirala has become the prime minister in a difficult situation and is aiming to complete a constitution through the second Constitution Assembly (CA). The leadership definitely has to accomplish the targeted task but at the same time should be responsible in building positive image of the country in international forums. A good trade and investment relationship with all member countries of BIMSTEC should be considered seriously.
It is as yet unknown how efficient this forum can be in advancing free trade in the region. Nepal’s trade with member countries except India is minimal, which is not surprising. The trade zone can be a forum mainly for investment and tourism promotion, in case of Nepal.
Myanmar, where the summit is taking place, is itself looking for foreign investment, and China and the US both are equally interested in investing there. Not only that, the US keenness in Myanmar has become a reason for China’s fear. Similarly, Nepal is a country where China and India are both interested to invest but neither is in a mood to take any step that can cause suspicion for the other. Nepal and Myanmar can likewise share their experience about dealing with economic powerhouses.
Lastly, Koirala’s visit is going to be a test of his leadership within the country as well. He has no room to fail. Domestic politics and regional dimension should both be handled with care to show he is not only a man of principles but also a statesman. His long political journey will be rewarded if he can send the message that he is not just pretending to lead, but stands on strong ground of morality, principles and people’s faith. Koirala has to step up and make this visit a landmark for the country’s future. Let’s hope it will not be a repetition of Deuba’s Bangkok flight.