REVIEW | Inconvenient truths (In a nutshell, only the Dixit company knows Nepal like no one else does...my a**)

Provocative new book is for pluralism and against populism 

KUL CHANDRA GAUTAM

FROM ISSUE #550 (22 APRIL 2011 - 28 APRIL 2011) | TABLE OF CONTENTS

---

 SUBSCRIBE NT  PRINT  REFER  WRITE TO EDITOR  SHARE

Peace Politics in Nepal: An Opinion from Within by Kanak Mani Dixit|Himal Books|300 pages|Rs 480

In his new book Peace Politics in Nepal, Kanak Mani Dixit captures much of what his earlier Nepali book, Dekheko Muluk, contains, but adds some new chapters and updates developments of the past year for the benefit of English speaking readers, particularly for our friends from the international community who take much interest in Nepal.
Dixit is not a diplomat. His language is blunt and straight-forward. He dares, and even relishes, to speak truth to power and
populism. For some of us--scholars, intellectuals and diplomats included--who are trained to be politically correct, sit on the fence and play it safe, his new book, Peace Politics of Nepal, makes uncomfortable reading. This book may as well have been titled Inconvenient Truths of Current Nepali Politics.
Dixit is often portrayed as a part of the Kathmandu elite, an upper-class, upper-caste Bahun, strongly anti-Maoist, perhaps a little right-wing and a status quoist. What you see often depends on where you stand. That caricature of Dixit may be accurate if you see Nepal in simple, black and white terms: as being sharply divided between feudal, conservative, counter-revolutionary stooges of imperialist, capitalist, foreign-agents dominated by the upper-class Bahun-Chhetris who purposely and deliberately dominate, oppress and conspire to perpetuate a deeply unjust, unfair, discriminatory and oppressive system against the poor, the marginalised, the deprived and you feel that you can only change it through revolutionary violence and radical restructuring of the state.
A logical corollary therefore would be, as King Mahendra said in justifying the Panchayat regime, that Western-style liberal democracy is unsuitable to solve Nepal's problems. Dixit, however, argues that it was precisely the open society, political freedoms, respect for pluralism of views that multi-party democracy of the 1990s allowed and encouraged that enabled us to bring to prominence the issues of the deeply entrenched disparities and discrimination, inequalities and injustices. It even allowed the freedom for a radical Maoist movement to rise in Nepal, at a time when Communism was collapsing all over the world. Democracy takes time to evolve and correct its own shortcomings. Dixit argues that the infant and imperfect democracy of the 1990s was not given enough time.

The populist thesis in vogue in Nepal right now, and one that seems to be subscribed even by some diplomats and donors of Western democracies, is that the 1990s Nepal experience in democracy was an utter failure. Dixit asks us to look at some of the successes of the 1990s before the Maoist insurgency derailed them.
Knowing Dixit has a reputation for being a little partisan, I read the manuscript carefully to detect how his partisanship manifests itself. And yes, I can confirm to you that indeed Dixit is very partisan. He is unapologetic and biased in favour of non-violence, liberal democracy and pluralism, which many of us would not find as big sins. He has a gripe against many members of the international community who do not have a deep enough understanding of Nepal's complex history and subscribe too easily to the populist characterisation of Nepal as so deeply divided by entrenched caste, class and ethnic divisions that to solve such problems, Nepalis should be prepared to accept, at least temporarily, some radical, less than fully non-violent and undemocratic solutions which they would not accept in their own countries.
He sees diplomats, donors and consultants of many Western countries, even some UN officials as having a rather romantic view of the Maoist agenda for social change. He faults the analysis contained in reports of organisations like the International Crisis Group (ICG) as showing a subtle bias that castigates the NC and UML as status quoist, and the Maoists as the true agents of progressive change.
I must say, when I was myself at the UN, I used to rely heavily on reports of ICG, the Carter Center and the UN to better understand what was happening in Nepal. These are all institutions that I respect deeply. On the whole, I continue to find their analysis solid and serious. So let me suggest this â€" for those who rely heavily on their reports, it would be beneficial to have Peace Politics of Nepal handy to consult as a counter-check and to provide some context. Every chapter of this book is interesting and insightful, and easy to read. I recommend that you read it with an open mind.
I want to say a few words on three chapters: one that made me really sad, one that I found very courageous and revealing, and one on which no matter where we stand on the ideological spectrum, we would all agree if we think of ourselves as just human beings with human empathy.
The chapter that made me really sad was the one dealing with the UN Mission to Nepal (UNMIN), which Dixit rather unkindly titles "Uncivil Mission". As someone with a long association with the UN, my natural instinct was to disagree with Dixit's harsh judgment of UNMIN. But, it must be said, UNMIN was not as conducive to pressuring the Maoists to give up violence and intimidation, to convince the other parties that it could be counted on to firmly stand on the side of democracy, and that its reporting would provide the most objective basis for the Secretary-General and Security Council to understand Nepal.
Kanak makes some sweeping remarks about UNMIN's bias, but does not quite document it. I would commend to you a Note Verbale that the Permanent Representative of Nepal circulated to members of the Security Council last year documenting point by point how the report of the SG and the statement introducing it by the SRSG was biased and inaccurate. Coming from a very seasoned professional diplomat, it was an unusually blunt and bad indictment of the SRSG's analysis. Dixit also alleges that the UN's Department of Political Affairs was very dismissive of all views that were critical of it and of UNMIN. I saw this in a very curt letter that was written on behalf of the Secretary-General in response to a joint letter by four former Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Nepal. Knowing the Secretary-General personally, as I do, I can tell you the S-G would have shown greater respect for those Foreign Ministers if he were asked to personally clear such a letter on his behalf. So sadly, even if I like to disagree with Dixit, and I do so in some of the choice of his words, I do agree with the substance of his critique of UNMIN.
In the chapter on federalism Dixit dares to address an issue which most sophisticated Bahun-Chhetri intellectuals consider taboo for fear that it will draw the wrath of the advocates of ethnicity-based federalism. As we know, of all the subjects on the drafting of the new Constitution, none is more emotionally charged than the issue of federalism. While fully supportive of economically viable federal structure that ensures greater inclusiveness and better representation of marginalised groups, Dixit questions the rationale for ethnic Bantustans.
There is a lot of hypocrisy on the discourse on federalism in Nepal. Many leaders â€" including some Maoists, and not just Bahun-Chhetris but many thoughtful Madheshis and Janajatis, privately tell you that they do not consider ethnic federations or Ek-Madhesh-Ek Pradesh as a sensible idea, but they keep mum in public. Dixit is to be thanked for opening up this subject for a thoughtful, dispassionate debate which is what we need, on all subjects, in drafting a national constitution.
The book argues that Nepal's peace process cannot be considered complete so long as the thousands of victims of conflict do not get justice. There is a real fear, Dixit argues, that both the Maoists and the Nepal Army would rather that we "forgive and forget" the terrible atrocities committed during the conflict.
This is an issue we must look at from the victims' perspective, not that of their victimisers who will find many reasons to justify their actions. Instead of "forgive and forget", Dixit argues, "forgive perhaps, but investigate, prosecute, and never forget" should be our message to both Maoists and our national security services. Beyond "Truth and Reconciliation" , we must go on to genuine help for the rehabilitation of the victims of violence, and a massive post-conflict reconstruction and development that will help Nepal recover from 15 years of economic stagnation. That has been the real curse of the "People's War" and response to it, of which all of us Nepalis have been victims.
In the last chapters of the book Dixit concludes on an optimistic note that in the end the Nepalese genius for finding sensible solutions will prevail, and we will have a progressive, democratic constitution. But he worries about some continuing, undemocratic revolutionary romanticism. And he insists that the new constitution must be an advance from the 1990 constitution, and not a further regression. He worries about some continuing, undemocratic revolutionary romanticism. He insists that the new constitution must be an advance from the 1990 Constitution, and not a further regression.
When reading that, I said, "Come on, Kanak, is there a real fear that we could have a less democratic Constitution than that of 1990, after the great people's movement and revolution we have gone through? You must be kidding!" Then I re-read the 1990 Constitution, juxtaposing it with this draft "Constitution of Peoples Federal Republic of Nepal â€" 2067" that was presented by the UCPN (Maoist) as containing the most progressive ideas for a 21st century "Peoples" constitution. And yes, I can see that, God forbid, it is possible for us to go backwards even as we recite progressive slogans.
Then, just for comparisons sake, I went on the internet and read the 1998 Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which I found very revealing. Let me quote a couple of articles from that Constitution:
- Article 66 says: "All citizens who have reached the age of 17 have the right to elect and to be elected irrespective of sex, race, occupation, length of residence, property status, party affiliation, political views or religion".
Wow, although I have been to North Korea many times, somehow I had missed that it allowed different party affiliations and political views ….
- And I quote article 67 that says, "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations".
Please note, North Korea too apparently allows multi-party system, provided they are "democratic", as determined by the ruling vanguard Party, of course. This is the danger I see in a multi-party system suggested in the UCPN(M) draft, without the acceptance of pluralism. We cannot really address issues of social justice, equity, inclusion and all the other advances we seek in our new Constitution, in a sustainable manner, if we do not accept pluralism.
I hope this book will inspire us to strive for and insist on, a model of New Nepal that seeks both socio-economic justice and political freedoms, in a non-North Korean style and substance.

Kul Chandra Gautam is a former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and this review is adapted from his presentation at the launch of the book, Peace Politics in Nepal, on 19 April.

http://nepalitimes.com/issue/2011/04/26/Review/18125

04-05-2010 20:31     Forbidden Book Haunts Truth Commission

The cover of the banned book. By Lee Tae-hoon Staff Reporter The president of Korea's truth commission is facing a lawsuit due to his controversial decision to stop the distribution of an English-language book that summarizes a dark chapter in the country's modern history. Translators and Mike Hurt, the final copyeditor of the book, told The Korea Times that they will file the suit on April 25 against Lee Young-jo, head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), for defamation with the help of a lawmaker who used to work for the TRC. Lee stopped the distribution of "Truth and Reconciliation: Activities of the Past Three Years" due to alleged translation errors, but the people who worked on the book disagree, saying their honor has been violated by an apparent act of political censorship. Upon his inauguration as the commission's new president last December, Lee ordered the halt of production of the "poorly translated" report published under the former chief commissioner, Ahn Byung-ook, who is perceived as a liberal. Lee flatly denies the growing allegations that this was politically motivated or due to ideological reasons, but questions linger as his explanations appear to be self-contradictory. Observers say the upcoming legal case will exemplify the challenges that the nation faces not only in acknowledging the truth, but also in reconciliation between those who have different views. Uncomfortable Truth  Lee claims that the book was put together in a hurry ahead of the former TRC president's visit to Latin America in 2008, and its poor English translation has always been an issue from the date of publication. However, commission officials told the paper that this was untrue as the book was published in March 2009 when Lee was serving as a standing committee member of the commission. They claimed that Lee not only called for a postponement of the book, but attempted to prevent its publication on ideological grounds. "When Lee was a commissioner, he signed the official document to approve publication of this book. He did make verbal complaints about the English, and so I asked him to give me specific instructions regarding any corrections," a translator said. "However, he never pointed out any specific examples of incorrect English, though he had three months to do so." He suspects the translators and editors have become the victims of an ideological conflict, saying Lee told him in October 2008 that he disagreed with the view of the then-TRC's head, Ahn. "I replied that it was fair enough to have a different view, but that, as I was just a translator, he should make his objections to Ahn directly," he said. "However, Lee never said anything about this to him. Then, as soon as Lee became head of the commission, he banned the book." Michael Breen, a former correspondent for the Washington Times and chairman of Insight Communications, also concurs with the translator, saying, "If Lee has a problem with the English only, he could have had it re-edited by now." Erroneous Denials  Lee denies the claim that the ban was an attempt to conceal the former liberal government's efforts to uncover disturbing facts. The latest newsletter of the TRC also states that the ban is not because of a problem with factual errors or ideological conflicts, but due to its substandard English, which "affects the reputation and credibility of the state-run body." "Throughout the book, very basic grammatical mistakes, such as subject-verb and tense disagreements, singular/plural errors, and wrong article use, as well as syntax errors have been found along with awkward expressions and constructions," the March-April issue read. It also points out that the Sydney Morning Herald's article, "Truth in Danger in South Korea," was misleading, saying the TRC's 215-page publication was a booklet, not a report. When asked on what grounds the commission concluded that the book should be withdrawn from circulation, Lee Ok-nam, director of public relations at the TRC, answered that it was on the basis of an evaluation done early this year by a native English speaker copyeditor. However, Benjamin Applegate, deputy editor at the JoongAng Daily, who took the job, told the paper that he did not make such an assessment for the commission, though he made a summary of the errors he found in the book. "My work was intended to be used to help correct those errors, and that is the only purpose I had in writing it," Applegate said. "I was not asked to evaluate whether I believed the book was good enough to be published or not." Unfair Scrutiny Hurt, an editor of the book, worries that if the quality of the English in the publication is considered unacceptable, the government will use this excuse to hinder freedom of speech and screen out unpleasant information. He also believes that, should the "sudden dedication" to the quality of English be applied to the rest of government documents and Web sites, some 80 percent of them would have to be pulled immediately. One may say most of the documents that Lee, the Harvard-educated president of the TRC, has produced for the commission in English should also be banned, if such a high standard is to be applied. When the paper analyzed a document, "Democratization and Transitional Justice in South Korea," that he had produced for a lecture in London in March last year, it appeared that he had difficulty in differentiating uncountable nouns with countable ones as seen from "criticisms," or "voted truths." When asked what measures he would take to improve the quality of the commission's English-language reports, Lee said he would consider outsourcing the work abroad for cheaper but better quality translations. In contrast, TRC officials acknowledge that the quality of the translation of the disputed book is considerably higher than other government publications, given that it was proofread numerous times by three native English speakers, including Hurt. Their pay was also nearly three times higher than the standard rates set for government document translation to ensure its quality. "I'm not involved in the politics, nor do I want to be, but I will say that the documents I helped proofread was one of the best translations I've ever gotten," Hurt said. "As a professional proofreader and sometimes translator for the Korean National Commission for UNESCO for five years, this was one of the best written and fluidly expressed documents I have ever come across in English." He said that there were very few major mistakes to correct, and that the amount of corrections required was no higher than that of proofreading academic work written by a native speaker of English. "I can't comment too much on the translation aspect of this job, however, claiming that the English was incorrect, or poorly written, is simply not true. The final document that I saw was a professional piece of well-written and academic English." Another proof reader of the book, who also has more than five years of experience in editing and proofreading, is on the same page with Hurt. "As a proofreader, I think the English proofreading and editing is accurate. I reread each article or piece three-four times," he said. "In total, this book was probably proofread nearly 10 to 12 times before it was finally released." Failed Reconciliation Some suspect that the translators and editors have become scapegoats for the political aims of Lee. He has told the paper that he gained the "passport" to become the minister-level commissioner for being mistaken as a member of the conservative New Right Group. Lee, who claims to be a middle-of-the-road scholar, said that there will be no reconciliation with the ones who have accused him of censorship. However, the TRC head said he may consider distributing the remaining 800 copies of the book by the commission, or posting it online with an additional statement that offers an apology for the incorrect English. Meanwhile, Breen, author of the book "The Koreans," points out that while the English could be polished, the problem with the book is the content not the style. He had no doubt that the new president wants to rewrite the book because of its leftist and nationalist bias. "Any document which is making very serious allegations needs to strip out emotion, avoid labeling people, and maintain a strict adherence to verifiable facts," Breen said. He said the authors of the report are very aware of this accusation but don't seem to have made much effort to avoid it, as can be seen from the first chapter. "When it says '... revisiting and clarifying historical events surrounding colonialism, Fascism, and massacres, which constituted the darker side of 20th century history,' my first thought was, he missed out communism," Breen said. He also pointed out the problem with nationalism, saying it places greater importance on independence than on democracy and the rule of law, while ignoring the reality that it makes no difference to the oppressed if your oppressor is native or foreign. "It says, 'Throughout the 20th century, Korea's history was marked by oppressive governments and hardships beginning with Japan's invasion and subsequent colonization of the country in 1910,' suggesting that Korea was fine before the Japanese arrived, when it wasn't." Andrew Salmon, a correspondent for The Times, pointed out that 21st century Korea is still an ideological battle ground, saying, "The question facing the commission is whether it can staff itself with professionals whose personal ideologies do not affect their work." Nevertheless, Salmon underlined that the publication ban should be lifted. "Personally I believe the work of the truth commission should continue. Uncomfortable as it may be, the truth should be out." An Excerpt From the Banned Report (Chapter 1, Unedited) I. Historical Background of Korea's Past Settlement  The issue of revisiting and clarifying historical events surrounding colonialism, Fascism, and massacres, which constituted the darker side of 20th century history, is being controversially discussed around the world. With such international attention focused on the ongoing settlement of the past, Korea's own efforts extend beyond one nation and emphasize to the world the importance of settlement. The experiences of Germany, South Africa, Spain, Argentina, and other countries provide guidance for Korea's past settlement activities. In turn, Korea will also provide lessons to other nations confronting similar issues. The country's history of suffering under war, imperialism, a series of dictatorships, and finally its successful democratization can be particularly notable in the progression of world history. Throughout the 20th century, Korea's history was marked by oppressive governments and hadships beginning with Japan's invasion and subsequent colonization of the country in 1910. After its liberation in 1945, the Global Cold War created ideological confrontations that divided the Korean peninsula into the Sovietsupported North and the U.S.supported South. This eventually led to the Korean War and transformed the center of the peninsula into one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world. While an armistice exists, tensions continue to this day. During the escalation, ideological confrontations prompted conflicts which resulted in executions to serve the political causes of each side. In South Korea, a civilian upheaval toppled Syngman Rhee's government in 1960. The following year, Park Chung-Hee, a military general, staged a coup. Park's hard-line authoritarian rule was marked by notorious human rights abuses which lasted until an aide assassinated him in 1979. In May 1980, another group of politically-motivated military generals seized power by massacring civilians in Gwangju. In 1987, a civilian rebellion ushered in the democratization process by overturning the military government. Considering the events that have occurred in Korea's modern history, an accumulation of abuses and tragedies has left number of tarnished legacies. Without ever being fully dealt with, those who collaborated with the Japanese colonialists and with the subsequent dictatorial regimes, and acted as executioners for colonialism and dictatorships, as well as the systems and methods they operated under, remained impediments to Korea's democracy. Thus, in order to prevent these past wrong-doings from adversely affecting current Korean society, "the settlement of past incidents" attempts to examine and correct past misconduct. The issues of past settlement are separated into three categories: Bringing to justice pro-Japanese supporters during the colonial era, revealing the truth behind massacres during the Korean War (including before and after the conflict) in order to restore honor to the victims, and verifying the facts of massacres and human rights abuses during Korea's democratization period so as to bring historical justice and truth. While these are three separate classifications, they share the common thread of dealing with repressive structures that ruled Korean society.

leeth@koreatimes.co.kr

04-05-2010 20:31     Forbidden Book Haunts Truth Commission

The cover of the banned book. By Lee Tae-hoon Staff Reporter The president of Korea's truth commission is facing a lawsuit due to his controversial decision to stop the distribution of an English-language book that summarizes a dark chapter in the country's modern history. Translators and Mike Hurt, the final copyeditor of the book, told The Korea Times that they will file the suit on April 25 against Lee Young-jo, head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), for defamation with the help of a lawmaker who used to work for the TRC. Lee stopped the distribution of "Truth and Reconciliation: Activities of the Past Three Years" due to alleged translation errors, but the people who worked on the book disagree, saying their honor has been violated by an apparent act of political censorship. Upon his inauguration as the commission's new president last December, Lee ordered the halt of production of the "poorly translated" report published under the former chief commissioner, Ahn Byung-ook, who is perceived as a liberal. Lee flatly denies the growing allegations that this was politically motivated or due to ideological reasons, but questions linger as his explanations appear to be self-contradictory. Observers say the upcoming legal case will exemplify the challenges that the nation faces not only in acknowledging the truth, but also in reconciliation between those who have different views. Uncomfortable Truth  Lee claims that the book was put together in a hurry ahead of the former TRC president's visit to Latin America in 2008, and its poor English translation has always been an issue from the date of publication. However, commission officials told the paper that this was untrue as the book was published in March 2009 when Lee was serving as a standing committee member of the commission. They claimed that Lee not only called for a postponement of the book, but attempted to prevent its publication on ideological grounds. "When Lee was a commissioner, he signed the official document to approve publication of this book. He did make verbal complaints about the English, and so I asked him to give me specific instructions regarding any corrections," a translator said. "However, he never pointed out any specific examples of incorrect English, though he had three months to do so." He suspects the translators and editors have become the victims of an ideological conflict, saying Lee told him in October 2008 that he disagreed with the view of the then-TRC's head, Ahn. "I replied that it was fair enough to have a different view, but that, as I was just a translator, he should make his objections to Ahn directly," he said. "However, Lee never said anything about this to him. Then, as soon as Lee became head of the commission, he banned the book." Michael Breen, a former correspondent for the Washington Times and chairman of Insight Communications, also concurs with the translator, saying, "If Lee has a problem with the English only, he could have had it re-edited by now." Erroneous Denials  Lee denies the claim that the ban was an attempt to conceal the former liberal government's efforts to uncover disturbing facts. The latest newsletter of the TRC also states that the ban is not because of a problem with factual errors or ideological conflicts, but due to its substandard English, which "affects the reputation and credibility of the state-run body." "Throughout the book, very basic grammatical mistakes, such as subject-verb and tense disagreements, singular/plural errors, and wrong article use, as well as syntax errors have been found along with awkward expressions and constructions," the March-April issue read. It also points out that the Sydney Morning Herald's article, "Truth in Danger in South Korea," was misleading, saying the TRC's 215-page publication was a booklet, not a report. When asked on what grounds the commission concluded that the book should be withdrawn from circulation, Lee Ok-nam, director of public relations at the TRC, answered that it was on the basis of an evaluation done early this year by a native English speaker copyeditor. However, Benjamin Applegate, deputy editor at the JoongAng Daily, who took the job, told the paper that he did not make such an assessment for the commission, though he made a summary of the errors he found in the book. "My work was intended to be used to help correct those errors, and that is the only purpose I had in writing it," Applegate said. "I was not asked to evaluate whether I believed the book was good enough to be published or not." Unfair Scrutiny Hurt, an editor of the book, worries that if the quality of the English in the publication is considered unacceptable, the government will use this excuse to hinder freedom of speech and screen out unpleasant information. He also believes that, should the "sudden dedication" to the quality of English be applied to the rest of government documents and Web sites, some 80 percent of them would have to be pulled immediately. One may say most of the documents that Lee, the Harvard-educated president of the TRC, has produced for the commission in English should also be banned, if such a high standard is to be applied. When the paper analyzed a document, "Democratization and Transitional Justice in South Korea," that he had produced for a lecture in London in March last year, it appeared that he had difficulty in differentiating uncountable nouns with countable ones as seen from "criticisms," or "voted truths." When asked what measures he would take to improve the quality of the commission's English-language reports, Lee said he would consider outsourcing the work abroad for cheaper but better quality translations. In contrast, TRC officials acknowledge that the quality of the translation of the disputed book is considerably higher than other government publications, given that it was proofread numerous times by three native English speakers, including Hurt. Their pay was also nearly three times higher than the standard rates set for government document translation to ensure its quality. "I'm not involved in the politics, nor do I want to be, but I will say that the documents I helped proofread was one of the best translations I've ever gotten," Hurt said. "As a professional proofreader and sometimes translator for the Korean National Commission for UNESCO for five years, this was one of the best written and fluidly expressed documents I have ever come across in English." He said that there were very few major mistakes to correct, and that the amount of corrections required was no higher than that of proofreading academic work written by a native speaker of English. "I can't comment too much on the translation aspect of this job, however, claiming that the English was incorrect, or poorly written, is simply not true. The final document that I saw was a professional piece of well-written and academic English." Another proof reader of the book, who also has more than five years of experience in editing and proofreading, is on the same page with Hurt. "As a proofreader, I think the English proofreading and editing is accurate. I reread each article or piece three-four times," he said. "In total, this book was probably proofread nearly 10 to 12 times before it was finally released." Failed Reconciliation Some suspect that the translators and editors have become scapegoats for the political aims of Lee. He has told the paper that he gained the "passport" to become the minister-level commissioner for being mistaken as a member of the conservative New Right Group. Lee, who claims to be a middle-of-the-road scholar, said that there will be no reconciliation with the ones who have accused him of censorship. However, the TRC head said he may consider distributing the remaining 800 copies of the book by the commission, or posting it online with an additional statement that offers an apology for the incorrect English. Meanwhile, Breen, author of the book "The Koreans," points out that while the English could be polished, the problem with the book is the content not the style. He had no doubt that the new president wants to rewrite the book because of its leftist and nationalist bias. "Any document which is making very serious allegations needs to strip out emotion, avoid labeling people, and maintain a strict adherence to verifiable facts," Breen said. He said the authors of the report are very aware of this accusation but don't seem to have made much effort to avoid it, as can be seen from the first chapter. "When it says '... revisiting and clarifying historical events surrounding colonialism, Fascism, and massacres, which constituted the darker side of 20th century history,' my first thought was, he missed out communism," Breen said. He also pointed out the problem with nationalism, saying it places greater importance on independence than on democracy and the rule of law, while ignoring the reality that it makes no difference to the oppressed if your oppressor is native or foreign. "It says, 'Throughout the 20th century, Korea's history was marked by oppressive governments and hardships beginning with Japan's invasion and subsequent colonization of the country in 1910,' suggesting that Korea was fine before the Japanese arrived, when it wasn't." Andrew Salmon, a correspondent for The Times, pointed out that 21st century Korea is still an ideological battle ground, saying, "The question facing the commission is whether it can staff itself with professionals whose personal ideologies do not affect their work." Nevertheless, Salmon underlined that the publication ban should be lifted. "Personally I believe the work of the truth commission should continue. Uncomfortable as it may be, the truth should be out." An Excerpt From the Banned Report (Chapter 1, Unedited) I. Historical Background of Korea's Past Settlement  The issue of revisiting and clarifying historical events surrounding colonialism, Fascism, and massacres, which constituted the darker side of 20th century history, is being controversially discussed around the world. With such international attention focused on the ongoing settlement of the past, Korea's own efforts extend beyond one nation and emphasize to the world the importance of settlement. The experiences of Germany, South Africa, Spain, Argentina, and other countries provide guidance for Korea's past settlement activities. In turn, Korea will also provide lessons to other nations confronting similar issues. The country's history of suffering under war, imperialism, a series of dictatorships, and finally its successful democratization can be particularly notable in the progression of world history. Throughout the 20th century, Korea's history was marked by oppressive governments and hadships beginning with Japan's invasion and subsequent colonization of the country in 1910. After its liberation in 1945, the Global Cold War created ideological confrontations that divided the Korean peninsula into the Sovietsupported North and the U.S.supported South. This eventually led to the Korean War and transformed the center of the peninsula into one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world. While an armistice exists, tensions continue to this day. During the escalation, ideological confrontations prompted conflicts which resulted in executions to serve the political causes of each side. In South Korea, a civilian upheaval toppled Syngman Rhee's government in 1960. The following year, Park Chung-Hee, a military general, staged a coup. Park's hard-line authoritarian rule was marked by notorious human rights abuses which lasted until an aide assassinated him in 1979. In May 1980, another group of politically-motivated military generals seized power by massacring civilians in Gwangju. In 1987, a civilian rebellion ushered in the democratization process by overturning the military government. Considering the events that have occurred in Korea's modern history, an accumulation of abuses and tragedies has left number of tarnished legacies. Without ever being fully dealt with, those who collaborated with the Japanese colonialists and with the subsequent dictatorial regimes, and acted as executioners for colonialism and dictatorships, as well as the systems and methods they operated under, remained impediments to Korea's democracy. Thus, in order to prevent these past wrong-doings from adversely affecting current Korean society, "the settlement of past incidents" attempts to examine and correct past misconduct. The issues of past settlement are separated into three categories: Bringing to justice pro-Japanese supporters during the colonial era, revealing the truth behind massacres during the Korean War (including before and after the conflict) in order to restore honor to the victims, and verifying the facts of massacres and human rights abuses during Korea's democratization period so as to bring historical justice and truth. While these are three separate classifications, they share the common thread of dealing with repressive structures that ruled Korean society.

leeth@koreatimes.co.kr

04-05-2010 20:31     Forbidden Book Haunts Truth Commission

The cover of the banned book. By Lee Tae-hoon Staff Reporter The president of Korea's truth commission is facing a lawsuit due to his controversial decision to stop the distribution of an English-language book that summarizes a dark chapter in the country's modern history. Translators and Mike Hurt, the final copyeditor of the book, told The Korea Times that they will file the suit on April 25 against Lee Young-jo, head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), for defamation with the help of a lawmaker who used to work for the TRC. Lee stopped the distribution of "Truth and Reconciliation: Activities of the Past Three Years" due to alleged translation errors, but the people who worked on the book disagree, saying their honor has been violated by an apparent act of political censorship. Upon his inauguration as the commission's new president last December, Lee ordered the halt of production of the "poorly translated" report published under the former chief commissioner, Ahn Byung-ook, who is perceived as a liberal. Lee flatly denies the growing allegations that this was politically motivated or due to ideological reasons, but questions linger as his explanations appear to be self-contradictory. Observers say the upcoming legal case will exemplify the challenges that the nation faces not only in acknowledging the truth, but also in reconciliation between those who have different views. Uncomfortable Truth  Lee claims that the book was put together in a hurry ahead of the former TRC president's visit to Latin America in 2008, and its poor English translation has always been an issue from the date of publication. However, commission officials told the paper that this was untrue as the book was published in March 2009 when Lee was serving as a standing committee member of the commission. They claimed that Lee not only called for a postponement of the book, but attempted to prevent its publication on ideological grounds. "When Lee was a commissioner, he signed the official document to approve publication of this book. He did make verbal complaints about the English, and so I asked him to give me specific instructions regarding any corrections," a translator said. "However, he never pointed out any specific examples of incorrect English, though he had three months to do so." He suspects the translators and editors have become the victims of an ideological conflict, saying Lee told him in October 2008 that he disagreed with the view of the then-TRC's head, Ahn. "I replied that it was fair enough to have a different view, but that, as I was just a translator, he should make his objections to Ahn directly," he said. "However, Lee never said anything about this to him. Then, as soon as Lee became head of the commission, he banned the book." Michael Breen, a former correspondent for the Washington Times and chairman of Insight Communications, also concurs with the translator, saying, "If Lee has a problem with the English only, he could have had it re-edited by now." Erroneous Denials  Lee denies the claim that the ban was an attempt to conceal the former liberal government's efforts to uncover disturbing facts. The latest newsletter of the TRC also states that the ban is not because of a problem with factual errors or ideological conflicts, but due to its substandard English, which "affects the reputation and credibility of the state-run body." "Throughout the book, very basic grammatical mistakes, such as subject-verb and tense disagreements, singular/plural errors, and wrong article use, as well as syntax errors have been found along with awkward expressions and constructions," the March-April issue read. It also points out that the Sydney Morning Herald's article, "Truth in Danger in South Korea," was misleading, saying the TRC's 215-page publication was a booklet, not a report. When asked on what grounds the commission concluded that the book should be withdrawn from circulation, Lee Ok-nam, director of public relations at the TRC, answered that it was on the basis of an evaluation done early this year by a native English speaker copyeditor. However, Benjamin Applegate, deputy editor at the JoongAng Daily, who took the job, told the paper that he did not make such an assessment for the commission, though he made a summary of the errors he found in the book. "My work was intended to be used to help correct those errors, and that is the only purpose I had in writing it," Applegate said. "I was not asked to evaluate whether I believed the book was good enough to be published or not." Unfair Scrutiny Hurt, an editor of the book, worries that if the quality of the English in the publication is considered unacceptable, the government will use this excuse to hinder freedom of speech and screen out unpleasant information. He also believes that, should the "sudden dedication" to the quality of English be applied to the rest of government documents and Web sites, some 80 percent of them would have to be pulled immediately. One may say most of the documents that Lee, the Harvard-educated president of the TRC, has produced for the commission in English should also be banned, if such a high standard is to be applied. When the paper analyzed a document, "Democratization and Transitional Justice in South Korea," that he had produced for a lecture in London in March last year, it appeared that he had difficulty in differentiating uncountable nouns with countable ones as seen from "criticisms," or "voted truths." When asked what measures he would take to improve the quality of the commission's English-language reports, Lee said he would consider outsourcing the work abroad for cheaper but better quality translations. In contrast, TRC officials acknowledge that the quality of the translation of the disputed book is considerably higher than other government publications, given that it was proofread numerous times by three native English speakers, including Hurt. Their pay was also nearly three times higher than the standard rates set for government document translation to ensure its quality. "I'm not involved in the politics, nor do I want to be, but I will say that the documents I helped proofread was one of the best translations I've ever gotten," Hurt said. "As a professional proofreader and sometimes translator for the Korean National Commission for UNESCO for five years, this was one of the best written and fluidly expressed documents I have ever come across in English." He said that there were very few major mistakes to correct, and that the amount of corrections required was no higher than that of proofreading academic work written by a native speaker of English. "I can't comment too much on the translation aspect of this job, however, claiming that the English was incorrect, or poorly written, is simply not true. The final document that I saw was a professional piece of well-written and academic English." Another proof reader of the book, who also has more than five years of experience in editing and proofreading, is on the same page with Hurt. "As a proofreader, I think the English proofreading and editing is accurate. I reread each article or piece three-four times," he said. "In total, this book was probably proofread nearly 10 to 12 times before it was finally released." Failed Reconciliation Some suspect that the translators and editors have become scapegoats for the political aims of Lee. He has told the paper that he gained the "passport" to become the minister-level commissioner for being mistaken as a member of the conservative New Right Group. Lee, who claims to be a middle-of-the-road scholar, said that there will be no reconciliation with the ones who have accused him of censorship. However, the TRC head said he may consider distributing the remaining 800 copies of the book by the commission, or posting it online with an additional statement that offers an apology for the incorrect English. Meanwhile, Breen, author of the book "The Koreans," points out that while the English could be polished, the problem with the book is the content not the style. He had no doubt that the new president wants to rewrite the book because of its leftist and nationalist bias. "Any document which is making very serious allegations needs to strip out emotion, avoid labeling people, and maintain a strict adherence to verifiable facts," Breen said. He said the authors of the report are very aware of this accusation but don't seem to have made much effort to avoid it, as can be seen from the first chapter. "When it says '... revisiting and clarifying historical events surrounding colonialism, Fascism, and massacres, which constituted the darker side of 20th century history,' my first thought was, he missed out communism," Breen said. He also pointed out the problem with nationalism, saying it places greater importance on independence than on democracy and the rule of law, while ignoring the reality that it makes no difference to the oppressed if your oppressor is native or foreign. "It says, 'Throughout the 20th century, Korea's history was marked by oppressive governments and hardships beginning with Japan's invasion and subsequent colonization of the country in 1910,' suggesting that Korea was fine before the Japanese arrived, when it wasn't." Andrew Salmon, a correspondent for The Times, pointed out that 21st century Korea is still an ideological battle ground, saying, "The question facing the commission is whether it can staff itself with professionals whose personal ideologies do not affect their work." Nevertheless, Salmon underlined that the publication ban should be lifted. "Personally I believe the work of the truth commission should continue. Uncomfortable as it may be, the truth should be out." An Excerpt From the Banned Report (Chapter 1, Unedited) I. Historical Background of Korea's Past Settlement  The issue of revisiting and clarifying historical events surrounding colonialism, Fascism, and massacres, which constituted the darker side of 20th century history, is being controversially discussed around the world. With such international attention focused on the ongoing settlement of the past, Korea's own efforts extend beyond one nation and emphasize to the world the importance of settlement. The experiences of Germany, South Africa, Spain, Argentina, and other countries provide guidance for Korea's past settlement activities. In turn, Korea will also provide lessons to other nations confronting similar issues. The country's history of suffering under war, imperialism, a series of dictatorships, and finally its successful democratization can be particularly notable in the progression of world history. Throughout the 20th century, Korea's history was marked by oppressive governments and hadships beginning with Japan's invasion and subsequent colonization of the country in 1910. After its liberation in 1945, the Global Cold War created ideological confrontations that divided the Korean peninsula into the Sovietsupported North and the U.S.supported South. This eventually led to the Korean War and transformed the center of the peninsula into one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world. While an armistice exists, tensions continue to this day. During the escalation, ideological confrontations prompted conflicts which resulted in executions to serve the political causes of each side. In South Korea, a civilian upheaval toppled Syngman Rhee's government in 1960. The following year, Park Chung-Hee, a military general, staged a coup. Park's hard-line authoritarian rule was marked by notorious human rights abuses which lasted until an aide assassinated him in 1979. In May 1980, another group of politically-motivated military generals seized power by massacring civilians in Gwangju. In 1987, a civilian rebellion ushered in the democratization process by overturning the military government. Considering the events that have occurred in Korea's modern history, an accumulation of abuses and tragedies has left number of tarnished legacies. Without ever being fully dealt with, those who collaborated with the Japanese colonialists and with the subsequent dictatorial regimes, and acted as executioners for colonialism and dictatorships, as well as the systems and methods they operated under, remained impediments to Korea's democracy. Thus, in order to prevent these past wrong-doings from adversely affecting current Korean society, "the settlement of past incidents" attempts to examine and correct past misconduct. The issues of past settlement are separated into three categories: Bringing to justice pro-Japanese supporters during the colonial era, revealing the truth behind massacres during the Korean War (including before and after the conflict) in order to restore honor to the victims, and verifying the facts of massacres and human rights abuses during Korea's democratization period so as to bring historical justice and truth. While these are three separate classifications, they share the common thread of dealing with repressive structures that ruled Korean society.

leeth@koreatimes.co.kr

Congress unveils six-lane path to peace

Added At:  2011-04-16 12:12 AM  

Last Updated At: 2011-04-16 12:12 AM

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

PRAKASH ACHARYA

KATHMANDU: Stating that there is no possibility of promulgating the new constitution without completing the integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants, main opposition Nepali Congress today brought a six-point action plan for the peace process.

A panel led by senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba today presented the five-page document, which dealt with NC’s bottom-line for completing the peace process, at the party’s Central Working Committee meeting at the party headquarters in Sanepa. Following the discussion on the document, the party will approve it making it the party’s authentic version tomorrow, according to party sources.

The document, however, does not mention the time limit to complete the peace process. Without specifying the number, it has suggested to fix the number of combatants as per the past agreement made at the leadership level. However, the combatants will have to fulfil the basic requirements of the concerned security bodies for integration and they will remain under the command and control of the bodies. All UNMIN verified weapons will be brought under government control.

It adds that those who want voluntary retirement should be allowed to leave the camps and for those who want to be rehabilitated package should be prepared to provide them with seed money.

The government will provide security to the camps to be integrated and to rehabilitated combatants, states the document.

NC has been claiming that late NC leader Girija Prasad Koirala and Unified CPN-Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal had made a verbal agreement to integrate 3,000-5,000 combatants in different security bodies, before signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2006. The UCPN-M, however, says that although the number was discussed, it was not agreed upon.

The plan seeks to ensure justice for the conflict victims by declaring the people killed by Maoists as martyrs and providing relief and compensation to their families and the families of those who sustained disability during the conflict, providing their children free education, giving priority to their children for employment and arranging treatment for injured people.

It adds that all property seized during the conflict should be returned to the rightful owners and all interest and principal up to Rs 1 million of bank loan be waived of for victims.

The displaced people should be rehabilitated by providing them relief and keeping

their proper record, adds

the document.

Meanwhile, another panel led by Parliamentary Party leader Ram Chandra Paudel is holding consultation with experts about the issues of state restructuring. Paudel told today’s CWC meeting that he would submit his report in a week.

Action plan

• Ensure justice for conflict victims

• Pass a Bill to form a commission on disappeared people

• Pass a Bill to form a Commission on Truth and Reconciliation Commission — probe the violent incidents during the conflict and make arrangements for reconciliation of conflicting parties

• Activate all-party peace committees at central (Peace and Reconstruction Ministry) and local levels

• Manage combatants

• Put an end to dual security for Maoist leaders — from government and combatants — and scrap paramilitary forces of the party. In addition, the government should impound all illegal vehicles used by Maoists and take legal action

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/rssReference.php?headline=Congress+unveils+six-lane+path+to+peace&NewsID=284188

Sri Lanka: despite progress more must be done for those displaced by war – UN

Catherine Bragg briefs press on her humanitarian mission to Sri Lanka

26 January 2011 – The Sri Lankan Government has made significant progress in resettling the hundreds of thousands of people displaced by the decades-long war with Tamil separatists but a lot more work still needs to be done, a top United Nations humanitarian official said today.

“It is clear that there are still immediate humanitarian needs that we must address now,” the Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Catherine Bragg, told a news briefing in New York on her recent three-day visit to the Indian Ocean island, where the Government crushed the separatist revolt in the north in May 2009.

She noted that only 20,000 of the 300,000 persons displaced at the height of the crisis still remain in Government-run camps. “However, due to the difficulties in clearing land mines and the lack of basic services in the home areas, those remaining in the camps are expected to stay there until at least the middle of 2011 and will continue to require humanitarian assistance,” she said.

Moreover, there are many thousands of people who have left the formal camps but are either in transitional settlements where they still need aid or have returned to areas that lack the basic services and infrastructure needed to allow them to fully restart their livelihoods.

“The Government has committed significant resources to infrastructure in the return areas but there’s so much more that still needs to be done and most of the returnees have limited access to basic services such as shelter, water and sanitation, health care,” Ms. Bragg said.

“These communities remain extremely vulnerable. The future of the north is about investing in people. They need skills, livelihoods and social development to help them move on with their lives.”

During her visit she also visited flood victims in the east, where there has been “overwhelming” damage to livelihoods, social services and infrastructure among a vulnerable population that has already been severely affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 and the separatist conflict.

While in Sri Lank Ms. Bragg launched a $51 million appeal for the flood victims. The UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) allocated $6 million to jumpstart key life-saving projects.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37389&Cr=sri+lanka&Cr1=

Nepal NGO Coalition Urges the Government to Take Proactive Leadership in Fulfilling Its Human Rights

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

(25 January 2011, Geneva/Kathmandu) Today Nepal underwent its first Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN member States once every four years under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council. During the three-hour session, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sujata Koirala, took the lead in presenting the national report and responding to the questions and concerns raised by other States. The Nepal NGO Coalition for the UPR (NNC-UPR), a coalition representing 235 human rights and civil society organisations in Nepal, notes with appreciation that the government of Nepal at least acknowledged existing and ongoing human rights challenges in the country. However, the NNC-UPR expresses its disappointment at the rhetorical statement by the government delegation and their failure to provide any concrete commitments and timelines for the implementation of Nepal’s human rights obligations. Particularly, the NNC-UPR is troubled by the response of the government delegation who claimed today that “there is no systematic torture in Nepal”, in spite of well documented and credible reports of systematic practices of torture at the hands of State security forces. The NNC-UPR is encouraged by the fact that its issues and concerns were adequately reflected in the interventions of various UN member States, particularly with regards to Nepal’s failure to address the culture of impunity including the investigations into the past and ongoing human rights violations committed by both State security forces and non-State actors. During today’s Review, a number of States made urgent calls to establish transitional justice mechanisms as stipulated in the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Inquiry on Disappearances, in accordance with international standards. The wide range of discriminatory policies and practices, specifically discrimination against women, children, Dalits, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, refugees as well as religious, sexual and ethnic minorities were often raised as areas of serious concern. Attention was concentrated to situations of the rights to food, health, housing and education faced by marginalized and vulnerable groups such as Dalits, Madhesis, indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities, especially the women and girls within these communities. Many States also shed light on the lack of appropriate action taken by the government of Nepal in responding to gender-based violence committed during and after the armed conflict. Meanwhile, the NNC-UPR regrets that the government delegation avoided answering a number of key questions, particularly with regards to lack of implementation of decisions and recommendations by the courts and the national human rights institutions as well as regarding the steps to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, the Convention on Enforced Disappearances, the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court. The Nepal NGO Coalition on the UPR urges the government of Nepal to recognize that the UPR is not a one-time event. Recommendations put forward by today’s Review must be followed up through proactive leadership of the government in ensuring practical and time-bound action plans for actual implementation, upon the genuine consultations with all relevant stakeholders in the country. (ENDS) http://www.forum-asia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2657&Itemid=42