| October 20, 2003 | Monday | Sha'aban 23, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Nepal’s brewing crisis
Frivolous litigation
MERCIFULLY, the voice of sanity is beginning to make itself heard in the United States. The 44 scholars and foreign policy analysts who launched the “Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy” are now spearheading the opposition to what they call the Bush administration’s move in a “dangerous direction towards empire”. The new trend began with the induction of George W. Bush as president in January 2001. The events of September 11 created the climate of fear and insecurity that facilitated the Republican government’s, especially its neo-con hardline members’, shift towards an imperialistic role. Although many academics from the left and peace activists have challenged the government’s unilateralist approach to foreign policy, the emergence of the Coalition is quite unprecedented. Its strength lies in its diversity and the fact that it is mainly drawn from the right. The Coalition plans holding conferences and using the media to mobilize public opinion against this imperialist trend in American foreign policy.
It is evident that the American invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have proved to be the proverbial last straw. It is now dawning on a section of thinking Americans that a policy based on the principle of ‘might is right’ can work only to a limited extent. The backlash that it has drawn was inevitable. In fact, it is strange that it has taken so long for the Americans to wake up to the follies of the current foreign policy, which seeks to maintain Washington’s preponderance in the world through mindless strategies such as preemptive strikes, wars for regime change and a unilateralist use of force. The immediate provocation has of course been Iraq where American soldiers are falling victim daily to the guerrilla attacks and suicide bombers. What is worse, Iraq is turning into a quagmire from which the United States may not be able to pull out without the loss of many more American lives and, what is less important, loss of face. This appears to be the US administration’s worst fear and it is trying to soften domestic reaction by having fake letters from soldiers printed in the press painting a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq.
While the growing awareness of the blunders of the neo-conservative foreign policy has sent Mr Bush’s popularity ratings nose-diving to their lowest level, the long-term implications of the post-9/11 American policy are becoming increasingly clear. The unipolar international system which emerged after the end of the cold war in 1989 can no longer be sustained. The Bush administration’s arrogance of power has won it far too many enemies, and lost it the unconditional support of its erstwhile friends in Europe. At present it has managed to avoid an ignominious fate with the powerful arsenal it possesses. But this cannot last long. In an attempt to sustain its military power, the US is dangerously weakening its economic strength which is already on the downswing. Today the United States’ industrial production is less than that of Europe and its trade deficit has been multiplying while it depends on the injection of foreign capital to achieve a balance. Analysts believe that the American economy faces a bleak prospect. The Coalition members realize all this and rightly feel that the only way to save their country is by making the government change its policies.
NEPAL has seen little stability since the tragic royal palace massacre of June 2001 when its entire royal family was wiped out by a drunken crown prince who, in the end, also killed himself. The pro-republic Maoist rebels have since then wreaked havoc by mounting attacks targeting government buildings and functionaries and disrupting tourism, the Himalayan kingdom’s economic lifeline. The situation has deteriorated so much that the fledgling democracy left behind by the late King Birendra as a legacy of his largely peaceful rule has now come under threat. King Gyanendra, the reigning monarch, dissolved parliament last October because the government and opposition were at loggerheads over power sharing, leaving the country at the mercy of the rebels who struck ever more daringly at places of their own choosing, including in the capital Kathmandu. The army action ordered by King Gyanendra has brought some relief in the form of reducing the frequency of the bloody rebel attacks. But the king’s dismissal of parliament and his refusal to give a date for fresh elections has created political turmoil that does not augur well for the future of the constitutional monarchy that the people of Nepal had fought for and won back in 1990.
Given the composition of the dissolved parliament, its virtual paralysis in the face of the ruling coalition government’s thin majority and its failure to rein in the Maoist rebels, King Gyanendra’s supporters believe that his decision to send it packing was right. But there is little wisdom in assuming and exercising unbridled power indefinitely by a king who is after all only a constitutional monarch under Nepal’s democratic constitution. The Maoist rebels have long pursued an open anti-monarchy agenda but the country’s mainstream political parties do not share their vision. However, after the king’s refusal to announce fresh elections, even some of the mainstream parties have begun to question the monarchy’s legitimacy. If the popular mood in Kathmandu is an indicator to go by, the king should know that delaying polls indefinitely will only make the monarchy more controversial and deepen Nepal’s political crisis in the days to come.
IS there anything that can be done to protect people from what can only be described as frivolous litigation? Some malicious citizen with access to a lawyer decides to pillory a sportsman or a film star, and all be has to do is file a case in a civil court. The legal machinery then grinds on. Take the case, for instance, of fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar, chief executive of the Pakistan Cricket Board Ramiz Raja and chief selector Aamir Sohail. They have been summoned by a civil court on the grounds that they went to attend a charity fashion show on Shab-i-Barat. A civil judge in Lahore has asked the three men to appear in court to explain why they did so. The petitioner has sought an apology from the three and damages worth Rs 25,000.
This is not the first time that charges of this nature have been brought in our lower courts. Many well-known actresses are routinely summoned, especially in Lahore, to answer the most absurd of allegations, the most common being to explain why they took part in a musical show where Indian artistes were also performing or why they went to India. Courts perhaps have to take note of whatever petition may be filed. But can’t civil judges muster enough gumption to dismiss petitions where the purpose patently is to seek publicity in the tabloids and do down a prominent personality out of envy or jealousy? By entertaining such frivolous complaints the courts can send out the wrong message that despite being overloaded with thousands of pending cases, they still have time to conduct hearings over non-issues. Hopefully, members of the superior judiciary will impress on their lower court colleagues to exercise greater discretion while entertaining motivated petitions that call in question people’s patriotism or the strength of their religious convictions.