THE International Crisis Group’s latest report on Nepal states that the country is going through a severe humanitarian crisis. Describing the appalling situation following the royal coup of February 1, 2005, it reports: “the Maoists continue to operate outside the law while state security forces act with impunity and without civilian control.

“Using extortion and coercion, the Maoists are imposing an authoritarian regime on steadily increasing swathes of rural Nepal. [Whereas] state forces are engaged in well documented, systematic violations from extra-judicial executions to illegal detentions, ‘disappearances’ and torture.” The report further suggests that “the 61st Commission on Human Rights — now underway — gives Nepal’s friends their best opportunity to establish a strong UN human rights monitoring mission that could form the core of action towards peace.”

For its friends and neighbours it is a catch-22 situation. The international community finds its sentiments divided as it has mostly supported the royal government. But with chaos ruling supreme after the coup, the paramount fear is of a no-party rule which will destroy the democratic system. And that will endanger freedom of all kinds for its citizens.

Nepal’s political history has been turbulent to say the least. Nestling in the Himalayas between India and China, Nepal is the world’s only Hindu monarchy. The kingdom has seen numerous constitutional changes and has transformed back and forth a number of times from a state of absolute monarchy to democracy. In the beginning of the 20th century, the king of Nepal had little real power. It was in the early 1950s that partial democracy was first established when King Tribhuvan Bir Bikram, wanting to end the rule of the Ranas, became a constitutional monarch, and took control of the government.

Subsequently, his son and successor, King Mahendra — a more ambitious man — eventually became an absolute monarch. In 1990 Mahendra’s son King Birendra, finally succumbing to pressure from his subjects, proclaimed a new constitution which gave the kingdom some democratic governance, after suffering thirty years of the partyless panchayat system preceded by centuries of autocratic rule.

April is the month when Nepalese celebrate this democracy granted them by King Birendra and they call it the Janaandolan Diwas — people’s movement day. The celebration, which marks the success of the Nepalese people in choosing a ruler of their choice, stands for their right of self-determination won 15 years ago.

This year it would be a bitter celebration as once again the little kingdom with a population of 23 million, is facing one of its worst national crises after King Gayanendra’s ‘royal takeover’ on February 1. It has been less than a year when the government was reinstated following the last takeover by the present king who had previously dismissed democracy in October of 2002 after dismissing the prime minister and taking over executive power himself.

The present King’s rule has also been specially marked as inauspicious as it followed the bloody massacre at the Narayanhiti Palace in June 2001, when king Birendra was assassinated by his own son, Crown Prince Dipendra. He had killed eight other members of the royal family as well before taking his own life. The bloody episode still remains rife with intrigues and conspiracy theories surrounding it as King Gyanendra and his family were miraculously the only ones to have survived the carnage at the palace.

In Nepal the king is considered a deity and treated with the same reverence as Lord Vishnu, whose incarnation is believed to take place in the Narayanhiti Palace (Narayan being another name of Vishnu). The king is regarded as the human incarnation of Vishnu and years ago people would hope to get a darshan of the king in the hope that their sins for the day would be washed away.

But that was a different age. Today, the anti-monarchy and pro-democracy rallies rock Nepal and there are enough reasons now for the people of Nepal to reject monarchy altogether or turn it into constitutional monarchy as in Britain.

The presence of the international community in Nepal is strong as the kingdom is highly dependent on foreign aid which forms 60 per cent of its national budget. The international community had remained supportive of the king, thus giving the royal government enough impetus to dispense with democratic rule. But in the present anarchic situation the international community needs to seriously review its stance as civilian casualties are mounting in the face of the political deadlock. Conflict between the security forces and Maoist guerillas is continually endangering civilians, even leaving them cut off from aid supplies and medical help.

Brutalities of the Maoists are plenty. Countless children orphaned after parents were killed in encounters roam homeless and are exposed to further brutalities. They are often taken up by Maoists to be indoctrinated into their rebellious ways. Children as young as 10 years old are seen holding arms. Women continue to die in childbirth because they are unable to obtain medical help.

Communications of all kinds are strictly controlled by the state. The press is severely muzzled, most telephone lines are still cut or monitored and no correspondence is carried out without the scrutiny by official watchdogs. Journalists from South Asia recently on a survey of Kathmandu have reported that the media practitioners and media houses are being terrorized and victimized in the line of duty. To ensure censorship, intimidation is carried out by detaining journalists for interrogation and by pressure on newspaper owners, like withdrawal of official advertisements and subsidies.

With resistance still coming from the citizens of Nepal, it is evident that the Nepali people want peace, and they want a political system that allows for a plurality of beliefs and lifestyles which comes from democracy. And instead of supporting what the people want, the international community has so far continued to help the king retain absolute power.

Ironically, with no oil to make Nepal an attractive country for the US to extend much-needed support to the Nepalese, only perfunctory lip service has been offered so far by Mr Bush, who has made it known that Washington’s ‘ultimate goal’ is to end tyranny in the world.

Pakistan’s position on the issue (being a fellow SAARC member) is dicey as well. Strong Indian interests in Nepal have primarily kept the country’s situation destabilized. Any move by Pakistan could be viewed as an anti-Indian stance which will strain relations with that country, especially at a time when Pakistan-India normalization process is making headway.

Ultimately, of course, it will be up to the Nepalese people to establish the kind of system of government that they want and work for peace and stability in their trouble-torn country. Theirs has to be the final voice that urges all political parties to unite and move forward in quest of a democratic solution. As a movement to restore democracy continues gathering momentum, the people of Nepal have perforce to bear the rigours of the process with patience and fortitude.

The only assistance that the international community can give is through UN peacekeepers to ensure that movement of supplies and vehicles intended to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population are not restricted by Maoist blockades. The urgent need is for the international media to put pressure on the ruling forces in Nepal not to stifle the freedom of expression. With this kind of help and support coming in from the international community, the Nepalese would at least gain some strength and courage to fight for their goal of democracy, peace and stability.

THE official visit of Premier Wen Jiabao to Pakistan from April 5 to 7 has raised the all-weather Sino-Pakistan friendship to new heights, and made it more relevant to their individual and joint concerns. High level visits have been one of the major contributing factors in promoting trust and all round cooperation between the two neighbouring countries.

Though the foundation of the close relationship was laid through the signing of the Boundary Agreement in 1963, a broad identity of views on global issues was achieved much earlier, notably at the Afro-Asian conference at Bandung in 1955. Premier Zhou Enlai emerged as a world class statesman, and paid a visit to Pakistan in 1956, a visit that was reciprocated through the visit of Prime Minister H.S. Suhrawardy to China the same year.

With the passage of nearly half a century of close relations, the scope of their cooperation has expanded year after year, and mutual trust and confidence has been reinforced despite changes of leadership, because this is a friendship rooted in shared principles and interests. There is complete unanimity among all parties, and all sections of the population in both countries on the vital importance of maintaining and consolidating this friendship.

The latest visit, which was the first by a top Chinese leader since the events of 9/11, assumed greater significance, as it took place in the context of the Asian Cooperation Dialogue, attended by high representatives of 26 Asian countries. The last visit by a Chinese Premier took place in May 2001, when the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations was marked by a year long programme of political, economic and cultural exchanges.

Then Premier Zhu Rongji had underlined the current priorities by stressing economic cooperation, and by committing Chinese financial and technical support to several large projects, including the construction of the Gwadar port, the exploitation of Thar coal, and the upgrading of the Pakistan Railways.

Though the shift of emphasis to economic cooperation was timely, the global scenario underwent a transformation following the terrorist attack on the US in September 2001. This led the sole superpower to declare war on terrorism, and to demand unstinted cooperation in this campaign. Over the past four years, the Pakistan-China relationship has responded to the new challenges, and apart from the constant expansion of bilateral cooperation, the two countries have worked together in the multilateral sphere, to promote a more just world economic order. Both China and Pakistan have urged that the role of the UN and of international law needs to be strengthened in order to safeguard peace and to address the real problems of poverty and backwardness afflicting the majority of mankind.

The Pakistan-China relationship, which has always been strong politically and strategically, has yet to see a level of cooperation in the economic sphere that is commensurate with the political relations. There has been economic cooperation at the government to government level since the 1960s, and Chinese assistance was exceptionally valuable, despite its modest size, because it fostered self-reliance.

The visit of Premier Wen Jiabao has been marked by the signing of 22 agreements for specific cooperation in sectors ranging from agriculture, information technology, and education to energy and investment. Chinese direct investment in Pakistan had been modest, and did not exceed $20 million, though large state credits are involved in state-managed mega-projects, such as the Gwadar port, or Thar coal. As a result of agreements now concluded, an investment of $350 million would take place, and arrangements have been made to facilitate further investments by Chinese companies which have large funds at their disposal for agreed projects.

The joint economic commission set up at the government level also met in Islamabad, and assisted by the large entourage of the Chinese Premier, other delegations and representatives of Chinese companies helped to greatly expand the scope of economic cooperation through these agreements. The areas of greatest interest for Pakistan for future cooperation are special economic zones, infrastructure, notably water and power, agricultural technology and management.

Though the amount of bilateral trade has been expanding, and has reached a total of $ 3 billion, the balance has been in favour of China. This problem has been given due attention, and the result of discussions has been to achieve both expansion of trade, and greater balance between the two sides. The Chinese business representatives showed interest in importing additional items from Pakistan, notably agricultural items, such as fruit and rice. China, with its large population and growing prosperity, provides one of the largest markets for the future, and the need is for Pakistan to respond to the opportunities that arise.

The Chinese premier was the keynote speaker at the meeting of ministerial representatives of 26 members who are members of the Asian Development Dialogue, (ACD) in Islamabad on April 6. This organization, designed to promote cooperation between different regional groupings in Asia, was established at the initiative of Thailand four years ago and has already attracted all the major Asian countries, with more likely to join soon. The ACD has drawn inspiration from European integration, and as the centre of global economy shifts towards Asia, which contains 60 per cent of mankind, this body has the potential to raise the living standards of the masses in this vast continent.

In his keynote address, the Chinese premier called for joint endeavours by the developing countries in order to overcome poverty and backwardness. He also declared that China’s growing economic strength did not constitute a threat to any country and region. Rather, China believed in sharing its experience and know-how with other developing countries. China’s conduct, in its developing interaction with Asian countries, has removed any concerns over quest for hegemony, and indeed, an enduring principle of China’s foreign policy has been opposition to hegemony, regional or global.

In the bilateral context, the latest visit broke new ground, Historically, ever since the signing of the Boundary Agreement in 1963, and the development of comprehensive relations, China has backed the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Pakistan. Senior Chinese leaders, since the time of Premier Zhou Enlai, have provided reassurance to Pakistan, which has faced hegemonic threats from its eastern neighbour. Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit has been marked by the signing of a treaty of friendship and cooperation, in which such support has been put in an institutional framework.

While the visit laid stress on strengthening economic cooperation, the long established links in the fields of security and defence also figured prominently. The programme of manufacturing the advanced jet fighter, JF 17-Thunder that is being developed jointly with China was launched just ahead of the visit, and an agreement to purchase four naval frigates signed. Agreement was also reached on full cooperation in the fight against terror, and to coordinate intelligence and operations in this field as required.

Taking note of the range of areas in which cooperation is to be developed and promoted, the scope of Pakistan-China cooperation is in full accord with what has been called a time-tested, all-weather, and comprehensive relationship. In more recent statements, Chinese leaders have called Pakistan their “best friend” and “most reliable partner”, sentiments fully shared by all segments of people in Pakistan.

The visit of Premier Wen Jiabao, who received a spontaneously warm reception wherever he went, constitutes yet another milestone on the high road of friendship and cooperation between the two countries having different social systems. This friendship has become a cornerstone of our foreign policy, and serves the interests not only of the two countries but also of our entire region, and indeed the world. It is a friendship, which is not directed against any country, but contributes to stability and peace in Asia and the world.

The writer is a former ambassador.

THE forthcoming seventh review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which entered into force 35 years ago in 1970, is due to commence within a few weeks in New York.

The treaty makes a vital contribution to international security by acting as a barrier to nuclear proliferation and by pursuing the objective of total elimination of nuclear weapons. The treaty, whose signatories now number 190, provided for two basic obligations. The non-nuclear states renounce the option of acquiring nuclear weapons in return for assurance of unimpeded access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. On their part, the nuclear weapons states (the US, Russia, China, UK and France) pledged progress towards elimination of nuclear weapons.

Thirtyfive years down the line, two problems inherent in the treaty have raised their heads. On the one hand, the commitment on nuclear disarmament on the part of nuclear weapons signatories is nowhere near fulfillment or even serious consideration in spite of cuts in nuclear arsenals by the US and Russia.

On the other hand, unimpeded access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy for non-nuclear states is in selected cases (including Iran) complicated by the dual use nature of nuclear materials and technology. If a state has self-sufficient capability to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes, it has the potential to explode a nuclear device for military purposes. This necessitates steps to plug any loopholes in the treaty to preclude such an eventuality.

It is because of the above that the IAEA was accepted by the treaty’s signatories as the policing authority to ensure compliance with its elaborate safeguard systems meant to guard against the diversion of nuclear materials and technology for military purposes.

The ‘indefinite’ extension of the treaty in 1995 proved to be an illusory dawn, since the consensus on which the indefinite extension was achieved was based in part on an assurance regarding progress towards nuclear disarmament. The sixth review conference of the treaty in 2000 held out for the first time a total and ‘unequivocal’ commitment to total elimination of nuclear weapons. However, the 13-point action plan, containing this pledge, was disavowed in practice by the Bush administration. At the same time, the CTBT was rejected by the US senate, while negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty were stalled mainly over differences with China. The Canberra commission set up by the Australian government to examine the challenging task of nuclear disarmament made the telling observation that “the proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used (accidentally or by design) defies credibility”. The commission also stated that the “only reliable defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they will never be produced again”. The substance of these declarations has been included in resolutions of the UN general assembly.

Recent international initiatives on the subject include the Tokyo international forum, setup by the Japanese prime minister, the eight-nation new agenda coalition and the state of the world forum whose declaration was signed by a hundred prominent political figures, including 52 past presidents and prime ministers from 48 countries. Stressing the overriding importance of nuclear disarmament, Rober McNamara concluded that “human fallibility means that a nuclear war, which could destroy the present civilization, was ultimately inevitable” (unless the goal of universal nuclear disarmament was pursued to its logical end).

The treaty provides under article IV for parties to the NNPT to pursue peaceful nuclear activities, while complying with the treaty’s non-proliferation obligations. The US itself pursues peaceful nuclear cooperation with up to 100 nuclear entities bilaterally, multilaterally and through the IAEA.

The US has so far concluded 22 agreements which permit export of nuclear fuel to 40 NPT signatories. However, the loopholes which may allow a member state to develop a weapons programme under a civilian facade have to be eliminated as evident from the priorities set by a large number of member states for the forthcoming review conference. The IAEA’s additional protocol, accepted by a large number of signatories including Iran, is a step in this direction.

On the eve of the coming seventh review conference, the non-nuclear signatories have largely come to see the five yearly review process not as the intended vehicle for meaningful progress towards universal global disarmament but as a means of stalling this goal, interalia, through exclusive focus on the other vital object of the treaty i.e. non-proliferation of nuclear weapons capability.

Having achieved the ‘indefinite’ extension of the treaty, there is little incentive for the nuclear weapons states to assuage the world community’s demands on nuclear disarmament. However noble the original intentions of the treaty’s protagonists may have been, the NNPT now is seen as a useful tool of US / Nato foreign policy. This perception has been heightened by the Proliferation security initiative, embodying a commitment on the part of nine Nato member states, as well as Japan and Australia, to interdict the transfer and transportation of weapons of mass destruction.

The rise of the radical right in the US and the assertion of US’ sole super-power capability has been highlighted by the National Security Strategy (promulgated in September 2002), stating interalia, that “As a matter of common sense”, the US will act against emerging threats and WMD before they are formed. The US is no longer content, it may be inferred, to maintain a ‘preponderance of power’ deemed sufficient in 1950, but to maintain overwhelming military superiority.

At the review conference of 1995, support of Arab states for the treaty’s indefinite extension was secured through a resolution on the Middle East which interalia visualized “the achievement of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons”. This was in response to the Arab demand that the review conference take note of Israel’s anomalous status as a de facto nuclear weapon state which had not signed the NNPT and was not subject to IAEA safeguards. While the special representative of the US president on non-proliferation has recently stressed Washington’s continued adherence to the resolution, nothing has been done in practice to challenge Israel’s anomalous status and the subsequent threat to the region.

For the first time, however, Israel has been bracketed with Pakistan and India in a US statement maintaining that “India, Israel and Pakistan may join the NNPT only as non-nuclear weapon states. There states would have to foreswear nuclear weapons and accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities to join the treaty” (ambassador Wolcott Sanders, US special representative on NNPT). However any Arab hope of increased pressure on Israel is dispelled by the US representative’s statement that “The US recognizes that progress towards universal adherence is not likely in the foreseeable future”.

In the case of Iran, it may be recalled that the US had raised no objection to the Shah’s ambitious nuclear programme. It is estimated by experts that the Shah’s programme would have yielded, despite NNPT constraints, a capability equivalent to that now enjoyed by Japan, which is regarded as a ‘virtual’ nuclear weapon state i.e. able to acquire nuclear weapon capability within three to six months.

In the context of the current pressure on revolutionary Iran and the suspicions surrounding its nuclear energy programme Iranian spokesmen have pointed out that the US and Russia, with respectively larger reserves of oil and gas have 104 and 30 nuclear operating plants, respectively.

The widespread conviction that the West tends to judge itself on the strength of its professions and others by their alleged deeds is a sad reflection on the contemporary scene. Any suspicions of double standards have to be eliminated if the NNPT is to achieve its vital goals of non-proliferation and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons.

In the light of compelling considerations outlined earlier in this article, vital interests to call for the following:-

— plugging any loopholes in the existing nuclear non-proliferation treaty to block any avenues of further proliferation.

— achieving a large consensus on implementation of the pledge by the 2000 review conference to pursue the goal of total elimination of nuclear weapons and for existing nuclear weapons states to refrain from introducing new weapons system.

Taking on the challenging task of working out a framework which would accommodate all categories, the ‘threshold’ states ‘virtual’ (Japan), ‘declared’, (India and Pakistan) de facto (Israel) as well as the five nuclear weapon states accepted formally by the treaty.

The writer is a former ambassador.