| |||||||
Friday, January 28, 2011
Report: Japan Forced 30,000 Koreans to Work on Sakhalin
Thursday, January 27, 2011
NEPAL: Nepal urged to accept and implement UPR recommendations and end impunity
On Tuesday, Nepal's human rights record was reviewed for the first time under the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR process was established by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 through resolution 60/251 to "review the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments." The procedure assessed Nepal's compliance with its international obligations to protect and promote human rights.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ALRC-STM-002-2011
January 27, 2011
January 27, 2011
A Statement by the Asian Legal Resource Centre
NEPAL: Nepal urged to accept and implement UPR recommendations and end impunity
(Hong Kong, January 27, 2011)
On Tuesday, Nepal's human rights record was reviewed for the first time under the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR process was established by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 through resolution 60/251 to "review the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments." The procedure assessed Nepal's compliance with its international obligations to protect and promote human rights.
The UPR review, which represents an important opportunity to scrutinize the challenges Nepal faces in upholding human rights and strengthening its rule of law framework, was conducted on the basis of three reports: a report by the government of Nepal; a report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) comprising information and recommendations by United Nations mechanisms and experts; and a report compiled by the OHCHR summarising the input by other stakeholders, including civil society organisation and the National Human Rights Commission.
The ALRC welcomes the dialogue held, notably the many questions raised by States concerning key issues such as torture, forced disappearances, gender- and caste-based discrimination, human rights defenders, freedom of expression, weakness of national institutions and legislation, and the overarching problem of impunity. The Government of Nepal now has the primary responsibility to implement the recommendations made as part of the review. As part of the UPR process, the government will now decide which recommendations it accepts and those it only “notes.” The ALRC strongly urges the government to accept and implement the recommendations made concerning these key issues, if its approach to human rights is to have any credibility.
During the review, the government of Nepal declared its full commitment to "establishing constitutional supremacy, ensuring the rule of law, good governance and human rights and guaranteeing the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution of Nepal.” It added that, “Addressing impunity entails two aspects: addressing the past and maintaining the rule of law at present. The government is fully committed to work on both fronts." The ALRC welcomes the government of Nepal's commitment to tackle impunity and expects that this commitment will be followed by concrete steps in line with the recommendations made during the course of the review and international human rights laws and standards. The ALRC cautions that similar commitments have been made in the past by the Government of Nepal, but have remained unfulfilled to date. It must be noted that the ALRC is seriously concerned by the Nepalese delegation’s apparent reluctance to acknowledge some human rights violations during the UPR review, as will be seen below.
The ALRC and Nepalese NGO Advocacy Forum submitted a joint report to the UPR on 5 July 2010, which can be found here, along with a background document found here. The report focused on the impunity which persists for conflict-related and ongoing abuses, which have not been effectively investigated or prosecuted, as well as on the failure of the institutions of the rule of law to protect Nepal’s citizens. The report recommended that addressing the problem of impunity should be the prime focus of the UPR and action by the government of Nepal. It pointed to the institutional weaknesses of the judicial system, the lack of criminalization of certain human rights abuses such as torture, enforced disappearances and caste-based discrimination, as well as the absence of the right to effective remedy, which, together, greatly hamper the realization of the fundamental rights enshrined in the 2007 Interim Constitution. The report urged the Working Group on the UPR to consider as a priority under the UPR, issues such as the breakdown of the rule of law and the increased insecurity in the Terai region, forced disappearances, endemic torture, extra-judicial killings by security forces, persisting caste-based discrimination, gender-based violence, the vulnerable situation of human rights defenders, and the inability of the State to respond to such abuses.
During the review, questions and recommendations raised by a number of governments during the three-hour long UPR session reflected many of these concerns. The ALRC welcomes this and urges the Government of Nepal to accept the urgent need for it to address these serious issues and take appropriate action as a result.
Concerns about persisting impunity for past and ongoing abuses was repeatedly raised by delegations, including those from Japan, Czech Republic, Sweden, South Korea, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark and Switzerland. In questions submitted in advance to the government of Nepal, France had, for instance, said that it was "deeply preoccupied by the persistence of impunity enjoyed by the alleged perpetrators of numerous grave human rights violations committed during and since the conflict," and recommended during the session that, "the decisions of the judiciary taken in this respect should be fully respected by all institutional actors especially the army and the police forces". Norway recalled that addressing impunity is fundamental to foster peace, democracy and stability. In questions in advance, the Czech Republic stated that "failure to act on human rights abuses undermines respect for the rule of law" and Canada underlined that "addressing abuses committed by all sides during the decade long conflict and post conflict period in Nepal is an important element of transitional justice".
Several States, such as France, Spain, the UK and the United States, inquired about progress in establishing the transitional justice mechanisms included in the Comprehensive Peace Accord, namely the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on Inquiry into Disappearances, and called for the criminalization of enforced disappearances. Norway inquired about measures to protect the police and justice system from political interference and to ensure that suspects accused of serious human rights abuses during the conflict are handed over to the police for proper investigation.
The need to strengthen the National Human Rights Commission as an independent and autonomous human rights body and to implement its recommendations was noted by several delegations, including Canada, the United States, France, India and Norway.
Allegations of misconduct by law enforcement authorities, qualified as "disturbing" by Japan, have also been a serious concern. The issue of the systematic use of torture was raised and the government was asked by several countries about its intention to introduce legislation to criminalize torture in line with international standards. Several delegations called for the effective investigations into all allegations of torture. Furthermore, several States expressed their concerns about allegations of extrajudicial killings in the Tarai and asked what measures were being taken to investigate them and to implement the recommendations of the OHCHR to establish an external oversight mechanism to investigate allegations of human rights abuses by security forces. In questions submitted in advance, the Danish delegation underlined the fact that "credible investigation of alleged human rights violations of security forces is an important part of strengthening the rule of law". The Czech Republic also urged the authorities to "support and protect witnesses as well as victims and their family members" in the investigation of allegations of human rights violations.
The persistence of gender- and caste-based violence and discrimination at all levels of Nepali society were also raised several times and the government was requested to explain what actions it is taking to address these problems, including with regard to: the levels of implementation of the Caste-based Discrimination and Untouchability Crime Elimination and Punishment Act and the National Dalit Rights Commission Bill; the investigation of allegations of caste-based discrimination; and the strengthening of the National Women's Commission and National Dalit Commission.
Obstacles to the freedom to speech, the vulnerability of journalists to threats, attacks and harassment, as well as the precarious situation of human rights defenders, were also repeatedly raised during the review. The Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Norway, France and the United States asked for improved protection of human rights defenders and journalists through the launching of proper and impartial investigations of all allegations of threats and harassment against them.
These issues have been at the centre of the concerns of the civil society in Nepal for a long time. They all deeply impact the democratisation and peace process in the country. Now that they have been raised in the international arena as part of the UPR, it is the Government of Nepal's responsibility toward its citizens and the international community to respond by properly addressing these issues.
Of grave concern has been the government of Nepal’s denial of the reality of human rights abuses during the review. For example, one of the government delegates asserted that there is no systematic torture in Nepal and that "there are sufficient constitutional and legal safeguards for the prevention of torture in Nepal.” Independent international and national experts and observers have documented that the opposite is true: torture is still used as a common tool by the police as part of interrogation procedures, while the lack of legislation enabling the criminal prosecution of alleged perpetrators of torture has engendered systemic impunity concerning this grave violation of rights. Similarly, the ALRC is seriously concerned by the government's reluctance to acknowledge the existence of human rights violations committed by the security agencies, including the Nepal Army, which it claimed during the review was a "source of Nepali democracy". The delegation to the UPR stated that that there was already a "zero tolerance" policy toward "isolated" human rights violations committed by the security agencies. This is a complete denial of the reality on the ground, where not a single perpetrator of serious human rights violations committed during and since the conflict has faced prosecution. The government delegation also kept silent over other crucial issues, such as the need to protect the work of human rights defenders and the freedom of expression of journalists.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre therefore urges the Government of Nepal to acknowledge the reality of these persistent abuses and recognize its responsibility in addressing them. The Government is urged to accept the recommendations made concerning the issues highlighted above and commit to take measures to implement them in good faith and in a prompt, transparent and verifiable way.
On Tuesday, Nepal's human rights record was reviewed for the first time under the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR process was established by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 through resolution 60/251 to "review the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments." The procedure assessed Nepal's compliance with its international obligations to protect and promote human rights.
The UPR review, which represents an important opportunity to scrutinize the challenges Nepal faces in upholding human rights and strengthening its rule of law framework, was conducted on the basis of three reports: a report by the government of Nepal; a report by the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) comprising information and recommendations by United Nations mechanisms and experts; and a report compiled by the OHCHR summarising the input by other stakeholders, including civil society organisation and the National Human Rights Commission.
The ALRC welcomes the dialogue held, notably the many questions raised by States concerning key issues such as torture, forced disappearances, gender- and caste-based discrimination, human rights defenders, freedom of expression, weakness of national institutions and legislation, and the overarching problem of impunity. The Government of Nepal now has the primary responsibility to implement the recommendations made as part of the review. As part of the UPR process, the government will now decide which recommendations it accepts and those it only “notes.” The ALRC strongly urges the government to accept and implement the recommendations made concerning these key issues, if its approach to human rights is to have any credibility.
During the review, the government of Nepal declared its full commitment to "establishing constitutional supremacy, ensuring the rule of law, good governance and human rights and guaranteeing the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution of Nepal.” It added that, “Addressing impunity entails two aspects: addressing the past and maintaining the rule of law at present. The government is fully committed to work on both fronts." The ALRC welcomes the government of Nepal's commitment to tackle impunity and expects that this commitment will be followed by concrete steps in line with the recommendations made during the course of the review and international human rights laws and standards. The ALRC cautions that similar commitments have been made in the past by the Government of Nepal, but have remained unfulfilled to date. It must be noted that the ALRC is seriously concerned by the Nepalese delegation’s apparent reluctance to acknowledge some human rights violations during the UPR review, as will be seen below.
The ALRC and Nepalese NGO Advocacy Forum submitted a joint report to the UPR on 5 July 2010, which can be found here, along with a background document found here. The report focused on the impunity which persists for conflict-related and ongoing abuses, which have not been effectively investigated or prosecuted, as well as on the failure of the institutions of the rule of law to protect Nepal’s citizens. The report recommended that addressing the problem of impunity should be the prime focus of the UPR and action by the government of Nepal. It pointed to the institutional weaknesses of the judicial system, the lack of criminalization of certain human rights abuses such as torture, enforced disappearances and caste-based discrimination, as well as the absence of the right to effective remedy, which, together, greatly hamper the realization of the fundamental rights enshrined in the 2007 Interim Constitution. The report urged the Working Group on the UPR to consider as a priority under the UPR, issues such as the breakdown of the rule of law and the increased insecurity in the Terai region, forced disappearances, endemic torture, extra-judicial killings by security forces, persisting caste-based discrimination, gender-based violence, the vulnerable situation of human rights defenders, and the inability of the State to respond to such abuses.
During the review, questions and recommendations raised by a number of governments during the three-hour long UPR session reflected many of these concerns. The ALRC welcomes this and urges the Government of Nepal to accept the urgent need for it to address these serious issues and take appropriate action as a result.
Concerns about persisting impunity for past and ongoing abuses was repeatedly raised by delegations, including those from Japan, Czech Republic, Sweden, South Korea, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark and Switzerland. In questions submitted in advance to the government of Nepal, France had, for instance, said that it was "deeply preoccupied by the persistence of impunity enjoyed by the alleged perpetrators of numerous grave human rights violations committed during and since the conflict," and recommended during the session that, "the decisions of the judiciary taken in this respect should be fully respected by all institutional actors especially the army and the police forces". Norway recalled that addressing impunity is fundamental to foster peace, democracy and stability. In questions in advance, the Czech Republic stated that "failure to act on human rights abuses undermines respect for the rule of law" and Canada underlined that "addressing abuses committed by all sides during the decade long conflict and post conflict period in Nepal is an important element of transitional justice".
Several States, such as France, Spain, the UK and the United States, inquired about progress in establishing the transitional justice mechanisms included in the Comprehensive Peace Accord, namely the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on Inquiry into Disappearances, and called for the criminalization of enforced disappearances. Norway inquired about measures to protect the police and justice system from political interference and to ensure that suspects accused of serious human rights abuses during the conflict are handed over to the police for proper investigation.
The need to strengthen the National Human Rights Commission as an independent and autonomous human rights body and to implement its recommendations was noted by several delegations, including Canada, the United States, France, India and Norway.
Allegations of misconduct by law enforcement authorities, qualified as "disturbing" by Japan, have also been a serious concern. The issue of the systematic use of torture was raised and the government was asked by several countries about its intention to introduce legislation to criminalize torture in line with international standards. Several delegations called for the effective investigations into all allegations of torture. Furthermore, several States expressed their concerns about allegations of extrajudicial killings in the Tarai and asked what measures were being taken to investigate them and to implement the recommendations of the OHCHR to establish an external oversight mechanism to investigate allegations of human rights abuses by security forces. In questions submitted in advance, the Danish delegation underlined the fact that "credible investigation of alleged human rights violations of security forces is an important part of strengthening the rule of law". The Czech Republic also urged the authorities to "support and protect witnesses as well as victims and their family members" in the investigation of allegations of human rights violations.
The persistence of gender- and caste-based violence and discrimination at all levels of Nepali society were also raised several times and the government was requested to explain what actions it is taking to address these problems, including with regard to: the levels of implementation of the Caste-based Discrimination and Untouchability Crime Elimination and Punishment Act and the National Dalit Rights Commission Bill; the investigation of allegations of caste-based discrimination; and the strengthening of the National Women's Commission and National Dalit Commission.
Obstacles to the freedom to speech, the vulnerability of journalists to threats, attacks and harassment, as well as the precarious situation of human rights defenders, were also repeatedly raised during the review. The Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Norway, France and the United States asked for improved protection of human rights defenders and journalists through the launching of proper and impartial investigations of all allegations of threats and harassment against them.
These issues have been at the centre of the concerns of the civil society in Nepal for a long time. They all deeply impact the democratisation and peace process in the country. Now that they have been raised in the international arena as part of the UPR, it is the Government of Nepal's responsibility toward its citizens and the international community to respond by properly addressing these issues.
Of grave concern has been the government of Nepal’s denial of the reality of human rights abuses during the review. For example, one of the government delegates asserted that there is no systematic torture in Nepal and that "there are sufficient constitutional and legal safeguards for the prevention of torture in Nepal.” Independent international and national experts and observers have documented that the opposite is true: torture is still used as a common tool by the police as part of interrogation procedures, while the lack of legislation enabling the criminal prosecution of alleged perpetrators of torture has engendered systemic impunity concerning this grave violation of rights. Similarly, the ALRC is seriously concerned by the government's reluctance to acknowledge the existence of human rights violations committed by the security agencies, including the Nepal Army, which it claimed during the review was a "source of Nepali democracy". The delegation to the UPR stated that that there was already a "zero tolerance" policy toward "isolated" human rights violations committed by the security agencies. This is a complete denial of the reality on the ground, where not a single perpetrator of serious human rights violations committed during and since the conflict has faced prosecution. The government delegation also kept silent over other crucial issues, such as the need to protect the work of human rights defenders and the freedom of expression of journalists.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre therefore urges the Government of Nepal to acknowledge the reality of these persistent abuses and recognize its responsibility in addressing them. The Government is urged to accept the recommendations made concerning the issues highlighted above and commit to take measures to implement them in good faith and in a prompt, transparent and verifiable way.
# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Nepal grilled on human rights issues in Geneva
Delegates from nearly 50 countries from around the world grilled Nepali officials in Geneva on Tuesday and expressed their concerns regarding what they said the overall situation of impunity in the country.
 |
| A glimpse of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session of Nepal. |
The delegations of the Czech Republic, Canada, France and US each recommended the government of Nepal specifically safeguard the security of journalists and implement adequate measures for the protection and investigation of crimes against journalists and human rights defenders.
The Czech Republic called for the proper investigation and prosecution in the precedent creating case of the killing of female reporter Uma Singh in 2009. Norway also recommended the government investigate attacks against women journalists and prosecute the perpetrators.
France urged the government address the difficulties in enforcing the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and information, in line with the recommendations made by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) stakeholders report, to which ARTICLE 19 contributed.
The issue of impunity was also raised by the delegations from Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland and the UK.
The UK and Denmark recommended that the government of Nepal tackle impunity by creating an independent police commission responsible for all transfers and promotions, in order to end political interference in police duties through the threat of demotion or quick transfer. Delegations from Cambodia, the Maldives, Italy and Chile urged the government to invite all Special Mandates to Nepal on a regular basis.
In response, the government of Nepal pledged to tackle impunity and address the human rights concerns of delegates. The government was unwilling to accept the role of the Nepali Army in the continuation of widespread impunity, such as their protection of army personnel indicted by Nepali courts, arguing that the Nepali Army are fully supportive of human rights and any issues are not supported by policy.
The Nepal delegation is being led by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala. nepalnews.com
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2011/jan/jan26/news01.php
Monday, January 24, 2011
"Emergency Measure No. 1 Is Unconstitutional"
[경향신문] 2010년 12월 17일(금) 오후 01:57
가
| Unanimous Supreme Court verdict: "violation of the essence of democracy"
'Yusin government' invoked it groundlessly ... All previous rulings based on Emergency Measure's constitutionality rejected
The Supreme Court of South Korea has ruled that emergency measures issued by former president Park Chung-hee have been in violation of the constitution.
The presidential Emergency Measures number nine in total and these were based on Article 53 of former president Park's Yusin Constitution of 1972. The Yusin government of the late President Park used the Emergency Measures, which were legally enforceable, to suspend the freedom and rights of the people and reinforce his military dictatorship.
On December 16, the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Cha Han-sung, unanimously delivered "a not guilty verdict" at the retrial of O Jong-sang, who was convicted in 1975 of violating the Anticommunist Law and an Emergency Measure by the Supreme Court. Proclaiming Mr. O not guilty of violating the Emergency Measure, the Supreme Court stated as its reason the fact that Emergency Measure No. 1 was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court gave two reasons to explain why the Emergency Measure violated the constitution. Firstly, it judged that although the measure was based on Article 53 of the Yusin Constitution, it violated the essence of democracy and was therefore unconstitutional. The court stated that "Emergency Measure No. 1 seriously restricted freedom of expression and personal liberty, which are essential elements of democracy, thereby violating basic rights that were guaranteed even by the Yusin Constitution."
It also judged that the measure did not satisfy the grounds for issuance specified in Article 53 of the Yusin Constitution, saying that "The Emergency Measure was (groundlessly) invoked, despite the fact that the state was not facing a serious crisis or under a direct security threat at the time."
The Supreme Court's verdict of unconstitutionality means that all existing judicial precedents have lost their legal validity. The court stated that it repealed all its verdicts passed since 1975 which were based on Emergency Measure No. 1 being constitutional.
Starting in 1975, the Supreme Court delivered guilty and not guilty verdicts with the view that Emergency Measure No. 1 was constitutional. Then, from the beginning of the 2000s, applications were made for retrial of cases of forced indictments and were accepted by courts.
Retrials began in lower courts, but cases were dismissed because the Emergency Measure no longer existed. Case dismissals, rather than not guilty verdicts, made it hard to receive criminal indemnity and impossible to receive damages from the state.
The Supreme Court stated, "This is highly significant in terms of judicial history, as it repeals the Supreme Court's judgment that Emergency Measure No. 1 was constitutional under the Yusin Constitution." Commenting on the verdict, the group MINBYUN Lawyers for a Democratic Society said, "This judgment corrects past mistakes where courts made rulings incompatible with the constitution and with justice."
In 1974, Mr. O was sentenced to three years in prison and three years' suspension of qualification after saying on a bus, "the government encourages people to eat flour-based foods, but high officials and rich people eat wheat-based food that consists mostly of eggs and meat, with just a few noodles. How can the people adapt to the government's policy?"
In 2007, however, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended that Mr. O's case be retried, saying that he must be given an opportunity to restore his honor. A court also decided that his case must be retried. Seoul High Court last year declared Mr. O not guilty of violating the Anticommunist Law, but dismissed the part of his case related to the Emergency Measure.
Q: Emergency Measures?
A: A series of nine Emergency Measures passed by President Park Chung-hee in accordance with Article 53 of the Yusin Constitution of 1972. Emergency Measure No. 1, passed on January 8, 1974, banned denial of, opposition to, distortion of and maligning of the constitution, as well as the suggestion or instigation of such acts or telling others about them. It was criticized as a violent measure to suppress criticism of the Yusin system, and did in fact produce many innocent victims. (General news. Dec 17, 2010)
- ⓒ 경향신문 & 경향닷컴(www.khan.co.kr), 무단전재 및 재배포 금지〈경향닷컴은 한국온라인신문협회(www.kona.or.kr)의 디지털뉴스이용규칙에 따른 저작권을 행사합니다.〉
'Yusin government' invoked it groundlessly ... All previous rulings based on Emergency Measure's constitutionality rejected
The Supreme Court of South Korea has ruled that emergency measures issued by former president Park Chung-hee have been in violation of the constitution.
The presidential Emergency Measures number nine in total and these were based on Article 53 of former president Park's Yusin Constitution of 1972. The Yusin government of the late President Park used the Emergency Measures, which were legally enforceable, to suspend the freedom and rights of the people and reinforce his military dictatorship.
On December 16, the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Cha Han-sung, unanimously delivered "a not guilty verdict" at the retrial of O Jong-sang, who was convicted in 1975 of violating the Anticommunist Law and an Emergency Measure by the Supreme Court. Proclaiming Mr. O not guilty of violating the Emergency Measure, the Supreme Court stated as its reason the fact that Emergency Measure No. 1 was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court gave two reasons to explain why the Emergency Measure violated the constitution. Firstly, it judged that although the measure was based on Article 53 of the Yusin Constitution, it violated the essence of democracy and was therefore unconstitutional. The court stated that "Emergency Measure No. 1 seriously restricted freedom of expression and personal liberty, which are essential elements of democracy, thereby violating basic rights that were guaranteed even by the Yusin Constitution."
It also judged that the measure did not satisfy the grounds for issuance specified in Article 53 of the Yusin Constitution, saying that "The Emergency Measure was (groundlessly) invoked, despite the fact that the state was not facing a serious crisis or under a direct security threat at the time."
The Supreme Court's verdict of unconstitutionality means that all existing judicial precedents have lost their legal validity. The court stated that it repealed all its verdicts passed since 1975 which were based on Emergency Measure No. 1 being constitutional.
Starting in 1975, the Supreme Court delivered guilty and not guilty verdicts with the view that Emergency Measure No. 1 was constitutional. Then, from the beginning of the 2000s, applications were made for retrial of cases of forced indictments and were accepted by courts.
Retrials began in lower courts, but cases were dismissed because the Emergency Measure no longer existed. Case dismissals, rather than not guilty verdicts, made it hard to receive criminal indemnity and impossible to receive damages from the state.
The Supreme Court stated, "This is highly significant in terms of judicial history, as it repeals the Supreme Court's judgment that Emergency Measure No. 1 was constitutional under the Yusin Constitution." Commenting on the verdict, the group MINBYUN Lawyers for a Democratic Society said, "This judgment corrects past mistakes where courts made rulings incompatible with the constitution and with justice."
In 1974, Mr. O was sentenced to three years in prison and three years' suspension of qualification after saying on a bus, "the government encourages people to eat flour-based foods, but high officials and rich people eat wheat-based food that consists mostly of eggs and meat, with just a few noodles. How can the people adapt to the government's policy?"
In 2007, however, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended that Mr. O's case be retried, saying that he must be given an opportunity to restore his honor. A court also decided that his case must be retried. Seoul High Court last year declared Mr. O not guilty of violating the Anticommunist Law, but dismissed the part of his case related to the Emergency Measure.
Q: Emergency Measures?
A: A series of nine Emergency Measures passed by President Park Chung-hee in accordance with Article 53 of the Yusin Constitution of 1972. Emergency Measure No. 1, passed on January 8, 1974, banned denial of, opposition to, distortion of and maligning of the constitution, as well as the suggestion or instigation of such acts or telling others about them. It was criticized as a violent measure to suppress criticism of the Yusin system, and did in fact produce many innocent victims. (General news. Dec 17, 2010)
- ⓒ 경향신문 & 경향닷컴(www.khan.co.kr), 무단전재 및 재배포 금지〈경향닷컴은 한국온라인신문협회(www.kona.or.kr)의 디지털뉴스이용규칙에 따른 저작권을 행사합니다.〉
Politician acquitted decades after execution
By North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy
Posted
A South Korean court has acquitted a former presidential candidate of subversion, half a century after he was executed.
Cho Bong-am was hanged 52 years ago on charges of trying to overthrow South Korea's government in collusion with the communist North.
The leader of the left-leaning Progressive Party remarked that if he had committed a wrong, it was entering politics in the first place.
Mr Cho's case was reopened by South Korea's truth and reconciliation commission and the supreme court has now unanimously cleared him, calling his execution a violation of the principles of a free democracy.
His family says it can now engrave his tombstone which has been kept blank all these years while they waited for his acquittal.
January 21, 2011 | ||||||||||||
In its ruling, the Court said Cho played a crucial role in shaping Korea’s progressive politics. “The Jinbo [Progress] Party [founded by Cho] cannot be viewed as a denial of free democracy or a violation of the basic order of democracy,” the Supreme Court ruled yesterday afternoon. “It also cannot be seen as a political party established to overthrow the nation.” The Truth and Reconciliation Commission reviewed Cho’s case at the request of his 83-year-old daughter Cho Ho-jeong, and called for a retrial in 2007 to clear his name. Cho, born to a peasant family in Ganghwa Island of Incheon in 1898, had a tumultuous life, living through Japanese colonization, the Korean War and finally challenging Korea’s first president, the autocratic Syngman Rhee. Cho served his first prison term on charges of participating in the March 1, 1919, Independence Movement, and he was active in the independence movement against Japanese rule. After entering politics as a lawmaker in 1948, he served as Korea’s first agriculture minister and was appointed vice speaker of the National Assembly in 1950. Cho ran for the presidency against Rhee in 1952 and 1956. In the second election he received 30 percent of the vote, which worried Rhee. In November 1956, he formed the Jinbo (Progress) Party, which led to his arrest in January 1958 on allegations of being a communist sympathizer, violating the National Security Law. Cho was investigated by Korean special military forces for two months. The military additionally charged him with espionage based on testimony from a military official surnamed Yang who worked in the government’s military espionage bureau, claiming he had information that Cho started the Jinbo Party on orders from and with funding from North Korea. Cho was sentenced to five years in jail at his first trial but was sentenced to death in two subsequent trials. He appealed for a retrial, but his request was rejected and Cho was hung 18 hours later. Before being executed, Cho said, “The only sin I have committed is that I have initiated a political movement that campaigned for a society in which a lot of people equally live well. I hope my death doesn’t come in vain and will serve as development of this country’s democracy.” In yesterday’s ruling, the Supreme Court overruled Cho’s espionage conviction as well. “Military special forces don’t have the right to investigate an individual, but Cho was taken to the force for questioning without a warrant,” the Court said. “It’s also hard to credit the testimony [of Yang] because it can’t be seen as a verified testimony.” In regard to charges that he possessed ammunition and a gun, the Supreme Court suspended the charges saying Cho was “an independence activist and Korea’s first agriculture minister, who built a foundation for Korea’s economy.” Cho’s daughter hailed the Court’s ruling, though she said it took her family over five decades to restore her father’s reputation. “I lived a hard life over 50 years [after my father’s death], and I’m relieved I can see my father after I die,” Cho Ho-jeong said in a press briefing. “I should engrave an inscription on my father’s tomb. I haven’t engraved an inscription yet because I wanted to do it after he was vindicated. Killing a political opponent in this way should be noted so it won’t be repeated.” An official at the Supreme Court said the ruling was significant in that it will spark a revaluation of liberal politicians and activists of the Jinbo Party, who were tortured and branded as pro-North Korean activists. “Cho’s case is regarded as Korea’s first judicial murder, but to a large extent, he was a victim of the Cold War,” the official said. By Kim Mi-ju [mijukim@joongang.co.kr] http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2931306
|
UN to turn spotlight on Nepal's human rights
Added At: 2011-01-24 6:31 PM
Last Updated At: 2011-01-24 6:31 PM
AGENCIES
The last time Nepal created a splash for its human rights situation was in 2005, soon after King Gyanendra seized absolute power through a military-backed coup, declared a state of emergency and began to wage war on the political parties and the media.
KATHMANDU: The human rights situation of Nepal is going to come under international arc-light this week with the UN Human Rights Council to review it in Geneva at the three-day Universal Periodic Review (UPR) starting from Tuesday, according to a report on The Times Of India website.
While the report tabled by the caretaker government will highlight achievements and play down abuse allegations, it is however going to be stiffly challenged by the counter reports forwarded by human rights organisations, which paint a dismal picture.
A 10-page parallel report submitted by the National Human Rights Commission in collaboration with the Women's Commission and National Dalit Commission says the situation is not encouraging even two years after Nepal became a republic. A more scathing attack on the prevailing culture of impunity and lawlessness comes from a coalition of nearly 250 rights groups.
According to Subodh Raj Pyakurel, focal person for the Nepal NGO Coalition for the UPR, though the republic is a party to many important international treaty bodies, implementing them remains a big challenge.
"The review has to challenge the non-implementing tendency of the government of Nepal," Pyakurel said. "Human rights can't be attained until and unless impunity is addressed through the rule of law. Redressing past crimes through the penal system and addressing caste, gender and descent-based discriminations by formulating necessary rules and regulations should also come under the rule of law. Correcting social discriminations and implementing social justice through progressive efforts in law and practice is urgent now."
The last time Nepal created a splash for its human rights situation was in 2005, soon after King Gyanendra seized absolute power through a military-backed coup, declared a state of emergency and began to wage war on the political parties and the media. The royal regime avoided sanctions and censure by agreeing to allow the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up office in Nepal.
Today, almost five years after the ouster of the royal government, end of a decade of Maoist insurgency and restoration of democracy, a succession of governments has still failed to punish the state and Maoist workers responsible for gross human rights abuses. They also failed to form a commission to punish war crimes and a second to unearth the fate of over 1,000 people missing since the "People's War". Gender and caste-based violence are on the rise and last year, which caretaker Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal officially pledged to result in the end of violence against women, saw the highest number of rapes, dowry murders and battering of wives to death.
While the report tabled by the caretaker government will highlight achievements and play down abuse allegations, it is however going to be stiffly challenged by the counter reports forwarded by human rights organisations, which paint a dismal picture.
A 10-page parallel report submitted by the National Human Rights Commission in collaboration with the Women's Commission and National Dalit Commission says the situation is not encouraging even two years after Nepal became a republic. A more scathing attack on the prevailing culture of impunity and lawlessness comes from a coalition of nearly 250 rights groups.
According to Subodh Raj Pyakurel, focal person for the Nepal NGO Coalition for the UPR, though the republic is a party to many important international treaty bodies, implementing them remains a big challenge.
"The review has to challenge the non-implementing tendency of the government of Nepal," Pyakurel said. "Human rights can't be attained until and unless impunity is addressed through the rule of law. Redressing past crimes through the penal system and addressing caste, gender and descent-based discriminations by formulating necessary rules and regulations should also come under the rule of law. Correcting social discriminations and implementing social justice through progressive efforts in law and practice is urgent now."
The last time Nepal created a splash for its human rights situation was in 2005, soon after King Gyanendra seized absolute power through a military-backed coup, declared a state of emergency and began to wage war on the political parties and the media. The royal regime avoided sanctions and censure by agreeing to allow the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up office in Nepal.
Today, almost five years after the ouster of the royal government, end of a decade of Maoist insurgency and restoration of democracy, a succession of governments has still failed to punish the state and Maoist workers responsible for gross human rights abuses. They also failed to form a commission to punish war crimes and a second to unearth the fate of over 1,000 people missing since the "People's War". Gender and caste-based violence are on the rise and last year, which caretaker Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal officially pledged to result in the end of violence against women, saw the highest number of rapes, dowry murders and battering of wives to death.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Regrettable Dismissal of a Damage Claim by Fired Dong-A Ilbo Journalists
[경향신문] 2011년 01월 19일(수) 오후 03:40|
공유하기
Facebook
Twitter
가 가| 이메일| 프린트
Seoul Central District Court last week ruled in favor of the defendant in a damages suit brought against the state, on grounds of unfair dismissal, by 133 members of a committee of former Dong-A Ilbo journalists that struggles to protect press freedom.
The court said, "The government at the time has a duty to pay compensation for the emotional pain suffered by the plaintiffs, because it committed illegal acts such as advertising crackdowns in order to get Dong-A Ilbo journalists fired, who resisted the media controls brought by the Revitalizing Reforms system. It also, however, dismissed the damages claim, saying, "The plaintiffs did not file a claim within the five-year damage claims period that began when the civilian government came to power in 1993, despite having been able to do so."
The committee stated its intention to appeal, saying, "We were not able to file a suit, because of insufficient evidence, until 2008, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission conducted an investigation and revealed the truth."
Recently, cases such as that of the committee for press freedom in East Asia, where courts acknowledge negative prescription regarding institutional illegal acts committed by governments, have occurred frequently. There have been cases where primary rulings of expired claim periods have been overturned at secondary hearings, not to mention conflicting rulings on separate but similar cases.
Normally, in cases where a debtor makes the exercising of rights or the interruption of prescription by a creditor impossible or noticeably difficult before the completion of prescription, or cases where for some reason a creditor cannot, objectively, exercise his or her rights, the completion of negative prescription is not permitted.
Despite this, courts are applying excessively strict criteria when it comes to the suspension of negative prescription. One example regards deaths under suspicious circumstances in the military, where courts are only ceasing negative prescription in cases where the state actively fabricated the cause of death, for example by faking suicide in cases of murder. There have been cases of people being denied compensation despite unfair deaths, because of sub-standard investigations by military investigative organs.
This stems from the fact that courts equate crimes by the state with disputes among individuals. The Supreme Court does not regard refusing compensation on grounds of completion of negative prescription, even when the state has committed crimes that violate human rights, as an abuse of its rights.
It is utterly undesirable that victims are unable to receive damages even when illegal acts by the state are exposed. How is our government qualified to bang on about Korea being an advanced nation when it tries to wriggle out of its responsibility to provide compensation, even after it has abandoned its duty to protect its own people, on the grounds that its illegal acts were revealed too late?
The Supreme Court now needs to make active interpretations of cessation of negative prescription concerning state crimes, and sort out past conflicting rulings by lower courts.
At a time when public opinion is calling for suspension of statutes of limitations on inhumane crimes such as sexual assault against children, the excessively mean application of prescription when it comes to victims of state crimes cannot be anything other than judicial retrogression. (Ed. Jan 19, 2011)
http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/news/shellview.htm?articleid=2011011915403518340&linkid=4&newssetid=1352
공유하기
가 가| 이메일| 프린트
Seoul Central District Court last week ruled in favor of the defendant in a damages suit brought against the state, on grounds of unfair dismissal, by 133 members of a committee of former Dong-A Ilbo journalists that struggles to protect press freedom.
The court said, "The government at the time has a duty to pay compensation for the emotional pain suffered by the plaintiffs, because it committed illegal acts such as advertising crackdowns in order to get Dong-A Ilbo journalists fired, who resisted the media controls brought by the Revitalizing Reforms system. It also, however, dismissed the damages claim, saying, "The plaintiffs did not file a claim within the five-year damage claims period that began when the civilian government came to power in 1993, despite having been able to do so."
The committee stated its intention to appeal, saying, "We were not able to file a suit, because of insufficient evidence, until 2008, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission conducted an investigation and revealed the truth."
Recently, cases such as that of the committee for press freedom in East Asia, where courts acknowledge negative prescription regarding institutional illegal acts committed by governments, have occurred frequently. There have been cases where primary rulings of expired claim periods have been overturned at secondary hearings, not to mention conflicting rulings on separate but similar cases.
Normally, in cases where a debtor makes the exercising of rights or the interruption of prescription by a creditor impossible or noticeably difficult before the completion of prescription, or cases where for some reason a creditor cannot, objectively, exercise his or her rights, the completion of negative prescription is not permitted.
Despite this, courts are applying excessively strict criteria when it comes to the suspension of negative prescription. One example regards deaths under suspicious circumstances in the military, where courts are only ceasing negative prescription in cases where the state actively fabricated the cause of death, for example by faking suicide in cases of murder. There have been cases of people being denied compensation despite unfair deaths, because of sub-standard investigations by military investigative organs.
This stems from the fact that courts equate crimes by the state with disputes among individuals. The Supreme Court does not regard refusing compensation on grounds of completion of negative prescription, even when the state has committed crimes that violate human rights, as an abuse of its rights.
It is utterly undesirable that victims are unable to receive damages even when illegal acts by the state are exposed. How is our government qualified to bang on about Korea being an advanced nation when it tries to wriggle out of its responsibility to provide compensation, even after it has abandoned its duty to protect its own people, on the grounds that its illegal acts were revealed too late?
The Supreme Court now needs to make active interpretations of cessation of negative prescription concerning state crimes, and sort out past conflicting rulings by lower courts.
At a time when public opinion is calling for suspension of statutes of limitations on inhumane crimes such as sexual assault against children, the excessively mean application of prescription when it comes to victims of state crimes cannot be anything other than judicial retrogression. (Ed. Jan 19, 2011)
http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/news/shellview.htm?articleid=2011011915403518340&linkid=4&newssetid=1352
Seoul clears executed politician 51 years later
Foreign
2011-01-20 16:46
SEOUL, Thursday 20 January 2011 (AFP) - South Korea's Supreme Court on Thursday acquitted a left-leaning party leader of subversion and espionage -- 51 years after he was executed by dictator Syngman Rhee.
Cho Bong-Am was executed on July 31, 1959 on charges of seeking to overturn the South's government in collusion with communist North Korea and of spying for the North.
His family and human rights activists say he fell victim to a conspiracy to eliminate Rhee's political opponents.
"We've been suffering for more than five decades but now I won't be ashamed when I see my father in heaven," said Cho's 83-year-old daughter, Cho Ho-Jung.
"I will put engravings on the blank tombstone I have been keeping for my father, waiting for a day like today."
The case was reopened after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission -- tasked with investigating past human rights abuses -- concluded in 2007 that it was based on flimsy evidence and flawed testimony.
Cho ran on a Progressive Party ticket in the 1956 presidential election and garnered 30 percent of the vote against Rhee's 70 percent after the-then opposition's main candidate Shin Ik-Hee died suddenly.
He was arrested in 1958 and executed the following year.
"It cannot be seen that the Progressive Party rejected free democracy or violated the free democratic order. Nor was it aimed at instigating subversion," the Supreme Court said in a statement.
"A false trial resulted in his execution," the court said.
MySinchew 2011.01.20
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/51807
2011-01-20 16:46
SEOUL, Thursday 20 January 2011 (AFP) - South Korea's Supreme Court on Thursday acquitted a left-leaning party leader of subversion and espionage -- 51 years after he was executed by dictator Syngman Rhee.
Cho Bong-Am was executed on July 31, 1959 on charges of seeking to overturn the South's government in collusion with communist North Korea and of spying for the North.
His family and human rights activists say he fell victim to a conspiracy to eliminate Rhee's political opponents.
"We've been suffering for more than five decades but now I won't be ashamed when I see my father in heaven," said Cho's 83-year-old daughter, Cho Ho-Jung.
"I will put engravings on the blank tombstone I have been keeping for my father, waiting for a day like today."
The case was reopened after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission -- tasked with investigating past human rights abuses -- concluded in 2007 that it was based on flimsy evidence and flawed testimony.
Cho ran on a Progressive Party ticket in the 1956 presidential election and garnered 30 percent of the vote against Rhee's 70 percent after the-then opposition's main candidate Shin Ik-Hee died suddenly.
He was arrested in 1958 and executed the following year.
"It cannot be seen that the Progressive Party rejected free democracy or violated the free democratic order. Nor was it aimed at instigating subversion," the Supreme Court said in a statement.
"A false trial resulted in his execution," the court said.
MySinchew 2011.01.20
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/51807
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
A fraught moment in Nepal
By M K Bhadrakumar
A pall of gloom and uncertainty descended on Kathmandu with the United Nations Security Council decision to wind up the UNMIN (United Nations Mission in Nepal) last Friday. And there is a sense of triumphalism in Delhi that Indian diplomacy booted out the UNMIN from the region. The contrast in mood cannot be sharper.
India, which robustly pitches for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, rubbished the UNMIN as a hindrance to the peace process in Nepal. But the paradox can be explained. Delhi was never comfortable with the idea of the UN poking its nose into Nepal.
Delhi tried to block a UN presence but finally gave in to Nepalese
wish when it became apparent there was no other way to carry forward the impulses of the peace process following the overthrow of the monarchy in 2006 in a popular uprising. The Nepalese needed the UN to hold the hand of the armed revolutionaries, the so-called Maoists, and to arrange their disarming and rehabilitation - in short, facilitate their passage to a democratic way of life.
Who's afraid of the UN?
True, other "non-Maoist" political parties and the Nepalese army also began finding UNMIN's presence irksome for tactical reasons. But at the end of the day, it was India's staunch opposition to the watchdog's continued presence that sealed its fate. The "international community" could have explored how to make the UN mechanism more effective and relevant. Instead, it acquiesced with the Indian demand.
The expanding United States-India strategic condominium made the denouement possible. Washington chose to pragmatically give India a "free hand" in its backyard. Significantly, however, a joint statement issued in Kathmandu by the diplomatic missions of the US, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Japan and the European Union since reiterated, "We welcome the ongoing engagement of the United Nations as the international community continues to support the people of Nepal."
The UNMIN, which came into being in 2006 as an integral component of Nepal's peace agreements, had a specific mandate: a) monitoring the arms and personnel of Nepalese army and the so-called Maoists; b) assisting in the implementation of the 2006 agreement on the management of arms and personnel; and c) assisting in the conduct of the constituent assembly elections of April 2008.
During the four-year period since 2006, UNMIN served as a deterrent against resumption of violence. Indeed, there is a high degree of risk that in its absence, flashpoints could spiral out of control. However, Delhi's grouse is precisely that UNMIN exceeded its mandate and got itself involved in issues of Nepal's political economy - social exclusion and marginalization of underprivileged sections of Nepali population, armed groups of dubious background that operated in regions bordering India and the peace process itself.
Delhi and the traditional political parties in Nepal, which it supports, resented that UNMIN treated Maoists as "stakeholders" in national life. They estimated that the post-UNMIN phase would isolate Maoists and compel them to "reform" and "disarm". A prominent commentator Prashant Jha wrote in The Hindu:
Pushing UNMIN out is in line with India's broader Nepal policy, the key tenet of which is to isolate the Maoists and exclude them from the formal power structure as the only way of democratizing them ... To this end, India has invested enormous political capital in galvanizing the anti-Maoist forces together ... There is a section in both New Delhi and Kathmandu, which believes that like UNMIN, the Constituent Assembly [CA] where the Maoists command 40% of the seats is another ‘safety blanket' for the former rebels ... They are now hoping for its [CA's] dissolution.
The China factor
In short, Delhi's interference in Nepalese politics is set to enter a new phase. Its strongest allies are the Nepalese army and the army's political backers in Kathmandu. Delhi succeeded brilliantly in manipulating the exclusion of Maoists from power and didn't seem to be perturbed that it was abandoning the commitment to the principle of democratic control of political power, which has been the bedrock of the Indian state itself since independence in 1947.
The Indian establishment's excessively suspicious attitude towards the Maoists has so far colored its Nepal policy. One principal reason for the hostility lies in the Maoists' perceived closeness to China. But Beijing appears disinterested in a zero-sum game.
According to Indian security analysts, Beijing has even been advising the Maoist leadership to seek a cordial relationship with Delhi. A top Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai visited Delhi recently and sought to assure the Indian leaders about his party's sensitivity to Indian interests in Nepal.
Beijing's priorities are in terms of Nepal's overall stability, seeking Kathmandu's cooperation in checking the illegal movement of Tibetan activists to and from India, preventing Nepalese soil from being used by foreign intelligence agencies for subversive activities inside Tibet and the overall development of bilateral ties (especially economic and communication) so that whichever party is in power in Kathmandu remains sensitive to China's interests.
Quite obviously, Beijing factors in that the capacity of any foreign power to play the "Tibet card" can be effectively countered only by having a friendly government in Kathmandu. Towards this end, China casts its net wide among virtually all sections of the Nepalese society and politics and the state apparatus. Significantly, China didn't bother to challenge the Indian move in the Security Council to finish off the UNMIN.
Bhattarai urged the Indian establishment to play a constructive role in Nepal. But the big question is whether Delhi will rethink its hardline policy and reconcile with the shocking victory of the Maoists in the 2008 election where they won 40% of seats. The security agencies dictate India's policies and they also develop vested interests. They might see advantages in an unstable Nepal beholden to Indian largesse, although Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world.
Without doubt, it needs an assertive and intellectually resourceful foreign policy establishment (and a determined political leadership) to genuinely break from the past and charter a new course for India's Nepal policy.
Dreading the march of history
But the high probability is that "spooky" conspiracies may continue to be hatched so that the lifespan of the Constituent Assembly in Kathmandu lapses without fulfilling the task of drafting a new constitution. The temptation will always be there to bring Nepal under president's rule with the backing of the army.
The heart of the matter is that only Maoists among the major political players are genuine proponents of a new constitution while the other two mainstream parties with which Indian establishment works closely - Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal - apprehend in varying degrees that a new constitution may undermine the established, traditional patronage networks. The Nepalese army shares their apprehensions.
Truly, India finds itself allied with retrogressive forces who dread the march of history. This polarization is of a fundamental nature. The Maoists and several splinter groups that are identity-based espouse progressive change. They stand for radical redistribution of power and resources in the country, whereas traditional parties abhor the prospect of a re-definition of the state and the role of elites in it.
The traditional parties backed by Delhi would have liked to co-opt Maoists into "bourgeois" democratic practices with their networks of patronage and privileges. For them, a new constitution - and a peace process leading to a new constitution, especially one that promises federalism and far-reaching political, economic and social inclusion - is not a priority at the present juncture, as it may erode their political base.
Delhi is betting that Maoists are averse to returning to the path of violence although getting squashed for political space and would gamble that the shine may have gone off the Maoists in the popular perceptions. The Maoists, on the other hand, have to decide whether it is worthwhile to make political concessions so as to sustain the push for a new constitution and at the same time widen their influence among constituencies such as the middle classes, apart from building bridges with Delhi so that they can face the next general election on a stronger footing.
However, their dilemma is acute: even if they make concessions, the traditional parties and the army (and Delhi) may still prefer the present transitional period to somehow end so that "normal" politics resumes in Kathmandu, which is all about sharing power and the loaves of office. (Transparency International ranks Nepal as the most corrupt country in South Asia.) Indeed, as Jha pointed out, "The reluctance of the non-Maoist parties to share power, the Maoist dogma, and India's hardline approach - all feed on one another and have contributed to mutual insecurities and belligerence on all sides, limiting the space for compromise."
The triumphalism in Delhi over the ouster of the UNMN is a telltale sign. The Indian establishment's agenda will be to somehow manipulate things to return to "bourgeois democracy", which means status quo ante before the unseemly Maoist dragon appeared as the collective voice of Nepali democratic opinion. They count on the Maoist leadership's extraordinary capacity for making political compromises at the last minute.
The recurrent fear of the Indian establishment and political elites is that the ascendance of Maoists in neighboring Nepal might inspire the left-wing armed cadres who dominate one third of India's districts to press ahead with their struggle to capture political power. Delhi seeks to snuff out the revolutionary fervor in Nepal so that it doesn't aggravate the serious political and socio-economic contradictions in the "red belt" within the Indian hinterland. Washington seems to empathize.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
A pall of gloom and uncertainty descended on Kathmandu with the United Nations Security Council decision to wind up the UNMIN (United Nations Mission in Nepal) last Friday. And there is a sense of triumphalism in Delhi that Indian diplomacy booted out the UNMIN from the region. The contrast in mood cannot be sharper.
India, which robustly pitches for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, rubbished the UNMIN as a hindrance to the peace process in Nepal. But the paradox can be explained. Delhi was never comfortable with the idea of the UN poking its nose into Nepal.
Delhi tried to block a UN presence but finally gave in to Nepalese
wish when it became apparent there was no other way to carry forward the impulses of the peace process following the overthrow of the monarchy in 2006 in a popular uprising. The Nepalese needed the UN to hold the hand of the armed revolutionaries, the so-called Maoists, and to arrange their disarming and rehabilitation - in short, facilitate their passage to a democratic way of life.
Who's afraid of the UN?
True, other "non-Maoist" political parties and the Nepalese army also began finding UNMIN's presence irksome for tactical reasons. But at the end of the day, it was India's staunch opposition to the watchdog's continued presence that sealed its fate. The "international community" could have explored how to make the UN mechanism more effective and relevant. Instead, it acquiesced with the Indian demand.
The expanding United States-India strategic condominium made the denouement possible. Washington chose to pragmatically give India a "free hand" in its backyard. Significantly, however, a joint statement issued in Kathmandu by the diplomatic missions of the US, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Japan and the European Union since reiterated, "We welcome the ongoing engagement of the United Nations as the international community continues to support the people of Nepal."
The UNMIN, which came into being in 2006 as an integral component of Nepal's peace agreements, had a specific mandate: a) monitoring the arms and personnel of Nepalese army and the so-called Maoists; b) assisting in the implementation of the 2006 agreement on the management of arms and personnel; and c) assisting in the conduct of the constituent assembly elections of April 2008.
During the four-year period since 2006, UNMIN served as a deterrent against resumption of violence. Indeed, there is a high degree of risk that in its absence, flashpoints could spiral out of control. However, Delhi's grouse is precisely that UNMIN exceeded its mandate and got itself involved in issues of Nepal's political economy - social exclusion and marginalization of underprivileged sections of Nepali population, armed groups of dubious background that operated in regions bordering India and the peace process itself.
Delhi and the traditional political parties in Nepal, which it supports, resented that UNMIN treated Maoists as "stakeholders" in national life. They estimated that the post-UNMIN phase would isolate Maoists and compel them to "reform" and "disarm". A prominent commentator Prashant Jha wrote in The Hindu:
Pushing UNMIN out is in line with India's broader Nepal policy, the key tenet of which is to isolate the Maoists and exclude them from the formal power structure as the only way of democratizing them ... To this end, India has invested enormous political capital in galvanizing the anti-Maoist forces together ... There is a section in both New Delhi and Kathmandu, which believes that like UNMIN, the Constituent Assembly [CA] where the Maoists command 40% of the seats is another ‘safety blanket' for the former rebels ... They are now hoping for its [CA's] dissolution.
The China factor
In short, Delhi's interference in Nepalese politics is set to enter a new phase. Its strongest allies are the Nepalese army and the army's political backers in Kathmandu. Delhi succeeded brilliantly in manipulating the exclusion of Maoists from power and didn't seem to be perturbed that it was abandoning the commitment to the principle of democratic control of political power, which has been the bedrock of the Indian state itself since independence in 1947.
The Indian establishment's excessively suspicious attitude towards the Maoists has so far colored its Nepal policy. One principal reason for the hostility lies in the Maoists' perceived closeness to China. But Beijing appears disinterested in a zero-sum game.
According to Indian security analysts, Beijing has even been advising the Maoist leadership to seek a cordial relationship with Delhi. A top Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai visited Delhi recently and sought to assure the Indian leaders about his party's sensitivity to Indian interests in Nepal.
Beijing's priorities are in terms of Nepal's overall stability, seeking Kathmandu's cooperation in checking the illegal movement of Tibetan activists to and from India, preventing Nepalese soil from being used by foreign intelligence agencies for subversive activities inside Tibet and the overall development of bilateral ties (especially economic and communication) so that whichever party is in power in Kathmandu remains sensitive to China's interests.
Quite obviously, Beijing factors in that the capacity of any foreign power to play the "Tibet card" can be effectively countered only by having a friendly government in Kathmandu. Towards this end, China casts its net wide among virtually all sections of the Nepalese society and politics and the state apparatus. Significantly, China didn't bother to challenge the Indian move in the Security Council to finish off the UNMIN.
Bhattarai urged the Indian establishment to play a constructive role in Nepal. But the big question is whether Delhi will rethink its hardline policy and reconcile with the shocking victory of the Maoists in the 2008 election where they won 40% of seats. The security agencies dictate India's policies and they also develop vested interests. They might see advantages in an unstable Nepal beholden to Indian largesse, although Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world.
Without doubt, it needs an assertive and intellectually resourceful foreign policy establishment (and a determined political leadership) to genuinely break from the past and charter a new course for India's Nepal policy.
Dreading the march of history
But the high probability is that "spooky" conspiracies may continue to be hatched so that the lifespan of the Constituent Assembly in Kathmandu lapses without fulfilling the task of drafting a new constitution. The temptation will always be there to bring Nepal under president's rule with the backing of the army.
The heart of the matter is that only Maoists among the major political players are genuine proponents of a new constitution while the other two mainstream parties with which Indian establishment works closely - Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal - apprehend in varying degrees that a new constitution may undermine the established, traditional patronage networks. The Nepalese army shares their apprehensions.
Truly, India finds itself allied with retrogressive forces who dread the march of history. This polarization is of a fundamental nature. The Maoists and several splinter groups that are identity-based espouse progressive change. They stand for radical redistribution of power and resources in the country, whereas traditional parties abhor the prospect of a re-definition of the state and the role of elites in it.
The traditional parties backed by Delhi would have liked to co-opt Maoists into "bourgeois" democratic practices with their networks of patronage and privileges. For them, a new constitution - and a peace process leading to a new constitution, especially one that promises federalism and far-reaching political, economic and social inclusion - is not a priority at the present juncture, as it may erode their political base.
Delhi is betting that Maoists are averse to returning to the path of violence although getting squashed for political space and would gamble that the shine may have gone off the Maoists in the popular perceptions. The Maoists, on the other hand, have to decide whether it is worthwhile to make political concessions so as to sustain the push for a new constitution and at the same time widen their influence among constituencies such as the middle classes, apart from building bridges with Delhi so that they can face the next general election on a stronger footing.
However, their dilemma is acute: even if they make concessions, the traditional parties and the army (and Delhi) may still prefer the present transitional period to somehow end so that "normal" politics resumes in Kathmandu, which is all about sharing power and the loaves of office. (Transparency International ranks Nepal as the most corrupt country in South Asia.) Indeed, as Jha pointed out, "The reluctance of the non-Maoist parties to share power, the Maoist dogma, and India's hardline approach - all feed on one another and have contributed to mutual insecurities and belligerence on all sides, limiting the space for compromise."
The triumphalism in Delhi over the ouster of the UNMN is a telltale sign. The Indian establishment's agenda will be to somehow manipulate things to return to "bourgeois democracy", which means status quo ante before the unseemly Maoist dragon appeared as the collective voice of Nepali democratic opinion. They count on the Maoist leadership's extraordinary capacity for making political compromises at the last minute.
The recurrent fear of the Indian establishment and political elites is that the ascendance of Maoists in neighboring Nepal might inspire the left-wing armed cadres who dominate one third of India's districts to press ahead with their struggle to capture political power. Delhi seeks to snuff out the revolutionary fervor in Nepal so that it doesn't aggravate the serious political and socio-economic contradictions in the "red belt" within the Indian hinterland. Washington seems to empathize.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Monday, January 17, 2011
Nepal at political crossroads
| Nepal at political crossroads |
Leaders in talks over a peace accord, interim parliament and new constitution. Last Modified: 27 May 2010 03:06 GMT |
Nepal's government could collapse if an agreement is not reached to extend a Friday deadline on a new constitution. Efforts to rescue the country's peace plan are already under way, but if the parties fail to reach a consensus, the interim parliament as well as all laws and the functions of state, will simply cease to exist. Al Jazeera's Hamish Macdonald reports from Kathmandu. |
Source: Al Jazeera |
| Inside Story |
| Nepal's new constitution |
What triggered the latest crisis in Nepal, and what are the implications? Last Modified: 30 May 2010 06:25 GMT |
| See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_OhdWDcqj8 Nepal's political leaders have been locked in a series of marathon meetings, attempting to avert a crisis that could throw the country into political and civil chaos. When the country's parliament or constitutional assembly was elected in 2008 it was tasked with drawing up a new constitution within two years. That period expires Friday - and there is no new constitution in sight. The government wants to extend the term of the interim constitution, but the opposition says it will only agree to do so if a new government is formed. Without the support of the other to get a necessary two-thirds majority in parliament - neither opposition nor government can get its way. But what has triggered the latest crisis? And what are the implications? Inside Story, with presenter Mike Hanna, discusses with Karna Shahi, the chairman of the Progressive Nepalese Society in the UK, Lawrence Saez, an associate professor of politics at School of Oriental and African Studies, Santosh Shah, the editor of Youth Asia Magazine, who also hosts the Nepali TV programme Power Talks. This episode of Inside Story aired from Thursday, May 27, 2010. |
Source: Al Jazeera |
| 101 East |
| Nepal: A new beginning |
Can the country avert a political crisis that has remifications for all of Asia? Last Modified: 24 Jun 2010 10:24 GMT |
Four years after ending a decade long civil war with Maoist rebels, Nepal's peace process remains fragile. Major political parties accuse the Maoist party of not honouring vital peace accord commitments. Central to the political tensions is the issue of what to do with around 20,000 former Maoist combatants who have been languishing in primitive camps for over three years, waiting to be reintegrated into society. Meanwhile, many Nepalese continue to struggle - unemployment is rising and nearly 40 per cent of the population live below the official poverty line enduring inflation, lack of security and power cuts. Many rural areas have no access to electricity, clean water, basic healthcare and education. On this edition of 101 East we ask if Nepal's Maoist party can transform from a paramilitary group to a civilian political party and if the country can avert a political crisis that has ramifications for all of Asia. This 101 East episode aired from Thursday, June 17, 2010. |
Source: Al Jazeera |
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/101east/2010/06/201061774221199343.html
Armed outfits target Capital
Added At: 2011-01-17 11:08 PM
Last Updated At: 2011-01-17 11:08 PM
HIMALAYAN NEWS SERVICE
KATHMANDU: The government today claimed that small armed groups and organised crime were fading away in the Tarai with pro-active policing, but conceded they were posing a threat to the Capital city.
According to police statistics, 33 small armed groups remained inactive from December 2009 through the same period in 2010 in the eastern, central, western and mid-western regions. DIG Nawa Raj Dhakal, NP spokesperson, said these groups were dismantled or weakened after their leaders were either killed, arrested or surrendered during encounters with security forces.
But the bad news is Kathmandu is becoming a soft target for dispersed armed groups. Nine outfits, including Naag Raja, International Tigers, Virus Killer, Rastriya Army Nepal, Akhil Tarai Mukti Morcha (Pratap) and Nepal Defence Army were found to be involved in detonating bombs and issuing extortion threats.
“Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha (Rajan), Janatantrik Mukti Morcha and Liberation Tarai Tigers were rendered inactive in Dhanusha following negotiations with the government,” he informed.
“In Rautahat, district secretary of Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha (Goit) Baiju Patel surrendered to police while district leader of Tarai International Tigers Lal Babu Sah and his counterpart in the Tarai Tufan Yuwa Samuha Ashok Raya Yadav were arrested, and central chairman of Madhes Tarai Force Raghuveer was gunned down”.
In Bara, nine armed outfits faded away during the period. Police claimed the Special Security Plan had worked with 239 leaders and cadres of small armed groups being arrested elsewhere in the country, and 182 firearms, 523 rounds of bullets and 46 bombs being seized by police.
According to statistics, 14 armed groups in the eastern, 16 in the central, seven in the western, eight in the mid-western and one in the far-western region still exist. The districts affected by armed outfits are Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Jhapa, Udayapur, Khotang, Parsa, Sarlahi, Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Banke, Bardiya and Dang.
A total of 107 armed outfits, especially ethnic-based, are operating in Nepal at present.
According to police statistics, 33 small armed groups remained inactive from December 2009 through the same period in 2010 in the eastern, central, western and mid-western regions. DIG Nawa Raj Dhakal, NP spokesperson, said these groups were dismantled or weakened after their leaders were either killed, arrested or surrendered during encounters with security forces.
But the bad news is Kathmandu is becoming a soft target for dispersed armed groups. Nine outfits, including Naag Raja, International Tigers, Virus Killer, Rastriya Army Nepal, Akhil Tarai Mukti Morcha (Pratap) and Nepal Defence Army were found to be involved in detonating bombs and issuing extortion threats.
“Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha (Rajan), Janatantrik Mukti Morcha and Liberation Tarai Tigers were rendered inactive in Dhanusha following negotiations with the government,” he informed.
“In Rautahat, district secretary of Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha (Goit) Baiju Patel surrendered to police while district leader of Tarai International Tigers Lal Babu Sah and his counterpart in the Tarai Tufan Yuwa Samuha Ashok Raya Yadav were arrested, and central chairman of Madhes Tarai Force Raghuveer was gunned down”.
In Bara, nine armed outfits faded away during the period. Police claimed the Special Security Plan had worked with 239 leaders and cadres of small armed groups being arrested elsewhere in the country, and 182 firearms, 523 rounds of bullets and 46 bombs being seized by police.
According to statistics, 14 armed groups in the eastern, 16 in the central, seven in the western, eight in the mid-western and one in the far-western region still exist. The districts affected by armed outfits are Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Jhapa, Udayapur, Khotang, Parsa, Sarlahi, Kapilvastu, Rupandehi, Banke, Bardiya and Dang.
A total of 107 armed outfits, especially ethnic-based, are operating in Nepal at present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)