Look and Gaze

Nepalese in Japan promote Visit Lumbini 2012 through marathon

2012-01-31T11:55:00.000+05:45

January 31, 2012

Nepalese Forum in Ehime (NeFE) appeals for Visit Lumbini Year 2012 through Marathon in Japan

Nepalese Forum in Ehime (NeFE) is going to appeal to the Japanese people through marathon run that this year has been designated in Nepal as Visit Lumbini Year with an aim to attract a large number of international tourists to Lumbini, the birth place of Lord Buddha. This marathon event is going to take place on 5 February 2012 in Matsuyama city of Ehime Prefecture in Japan, which has a history of nearly 50 years, and is going to be participated this year by more than 7,000 Japanese and foreign nationals. Especially because of scenic beauty and nearly flat marathon course, the popularity of Ehime Marathon has been ever increasing, which is exhibited by its current popularity rank of 4 and 10,000 expected participants next year.

NeFE has picked up its senior-most member Dr. Netra Prakash Bhandary (42), an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at Ehime University to run the full course of marathon. It is the first time that Dr. Bhandary has taken attempting to run the full course of marathon. Dr. Bhandary will be also accompanied by two of his Japanese colleagues in Matsuyama so as to appeal Visit Lumbini Year 2012 with printed T-shirt and Nepalese cap along with a Nepalese flag. NeFE members hope that this little activity will definitely contribute to publicizing Buddha and Lumbini in Ehime and Japan.

Motivated by the fact that most Japanese people do not even know about Lumbini and still have a strong feeling that Lord Buddha was born somewhere in India, the NeFE members have planned to use this marathon event to appeal to the Japanese community that Lord Buddha, as a prince was born in Lumbini of Nepal, which should be developed as a world center of Buddhism. The NeFE members also hope that the Nepalese community residing all over Japan will participate in different events and appeal to the Japanese people that the birth place of Lord Buddha is Lumbini and it is situated in Nepal.

- [Nepalese Forum in Ehime (NeFE), Japan]

Fault lines in the 21st century global order: Asia rising, Europe declining and the future of 'the West'

2012-01-26T15:29:00.000+05:45

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs

Fault lines in the 21st century global order: Asia rising, Europe declining and the future of 'the West'

Speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House London

24 January 2012

Speeches, E&OE, proof only

The title of my address today is designed to be provocative. Not with a view to being discourteous. But definitely with a view to provoking fresh debate, fresh ideas and perhaps even fresh approaches to the future of a global order that has governed us now for two thirds of a century.

Major changes are now underway that are challenging many long-standing

assumptions about the current order. Humans, being creatures of habit, often need shorthand ways of understanding the world in which we live, providing comfortable, and sometimes even comforting, assumptions about the way the world really is.

We become so accustomed to the current international order that we often assume it is permanent. History, of course, teaches us otherwise. The disturbing thing about deep changes in the global order is they are almost imperceptible at first, then gather pace,

then change itself can take place quite suddenly.

The cracks, when they first appear, often seem part of the original design, or at least part of a natural weathering process of an otherwise sound structure, rather than threatening the structure itself.

But then the cracks widen, just as the broad outline of an alternative design begins to emerge. Then, suddenly, having reached a tipping point, a new structure begins to become apparent, whether the political community or public opinion are ready for it or not.

What began as mere straws in the wind, becoming, over time, an irresistible force. Take for example the British Empire, the greatest power on the earth a hundred years ago, and for the hundred years prior to that, but dissipated within the space of only a few decades. Though its proudest day might not seem to be upon us at the moment, take also the rise of an integrated, peaceful and prosperous Europe in the last fifty years, after five centuries of near-constant conflict, war and devastation.

Take also the unravelling of the Soviet Union, the inclusion of its satellite states into NATO, the European Union or both, bringing the Cold War to a rapid end in a bloodless redrawing of the entire political map of Europe.

Change therefore, may be inevitable, and in many ways we shouldn't fear it – as long

as we are fully mindful of it, shape it, adapt to it, and leave the failed experiments of

history behind.

Effective foreign policy should therefore be mindful of history, not imprisoned by it,

even less captured by some sort of determinism, or disempowered by a notion that we

are helpless to change what is happening around us.

We should be mindful of history, but equally creative, optimistic and, above all,

resolute about the future. Mindsets, left unexamined, can become self-fulfilling. None

of us are passive agents in all of this, unless we choose to be. No, we are active agents,

if we choose to be. It is the decisions of men and women that craft the future.

These I believe are the intellectual, analytical and policy disciplines we need to bring

to bear today, given the seismic shifts that are now unfolding before us – for Asia, for

Europe and the United States, and more broadly for what we call "the West".

A decade ago, we could see Asia's rise approaching, but with the global financial

crisis, then the global recession of 2008/09, what seemed a distant prospect became a

more immediate reality.

China now looms large in the global imagination, and legitimately so, as the world

struggles to comprehend the dimensions of the numbers themselves which describe the

formidable power of the modern Chinese economy.

Moreover, as Asia is rising, driven in large part by China, many in the commentariat

have concluded that Europe, almost by definition, is falling; the doomsayers seeing the

current European financial and economic crisis as evidence that the European project

itself is now unsustainable, and, as a result, the idea of an emerging, active,

international political personality for Europe is under threat.

To add further to the picture, the fatalists then claim that the United States is now so

fundamentally weakened -through the last decade of declining economic performance;

irresolvable political gridlock between the legislative and the executive branches; and,

as a result, a weakened Presidency – that the American Century is coming to a sad and

sputtering end.

And finally, and on a broader historical scale the civilisational historians themselves

then point to the inevitable decline and fall of the 'idea' of 'the West' itself, although to

be replaced by what, the same civilisational historians are, unhappily, unable to guide

us.

Today, I want to challenge each of these propositions, in a way that I hope might open

up new possibilities and new approaches to the real challenges that lie before us.

At the beginning of the 21st century, it is intellectually fashionable to be pessimistic,

almost fatalistic, about where the future is taking us.

As a middle power with global and regional interests, and a middle power animated by

values that we unapologetically embrace from the tradition we call "the West",

Australians refuse to accept this premise.

This is not because an Australian summer simply turns us into sunny optimists midst

the gloom of a European winter.

It's because we see another possible path for the future order, a middle path, which

yields to neither appeasement and capitulation at one extreme, or an apocalyptic clash

of civilisations at the other.

So, what should we make of the rise of Asia, and the rise of China that is so

fundamental within it?

I recently addressed these themes in speeches to the Asia Society in New York and the

North Atlantic Council in Brussels, specifically focussing on the projected changes in

power relativities between China and the United States.

Let me restate the broad arguments for our purposes here today in London. All of our

lives, the United States has been the strongest force in the global economy. In fact, the

US has held that position for more than a century – 130 years. On current projections,

that long-lived structural reality of the current international system will cease to be the

case within this decade.

Earlier this month, The Economist, almost matter-of-factly, reported that China will

have a larger economy than America's in purchasing power parity terms within five

years. And measured by market exchange rates, the relativities between the US and

China are likely to change within seven.

The economic pre-eminence of the US, and its accompanying strategic strength, has

been a settled feature of the global landscape for generations. To give a sense of the

historical proportion of this change, let's put it in Chinese terms. The US has been the

biggest economy in the world since well before the collapse of China's Qing dynasty.

Or in European terms, the US has been the defining feature of the global economic

landscape since just after the Franco-Prussian War.

US global power has been a constant factor throughout the defining events of the 20th

century. In most cases, a decisive factor. History teaches us that all power is ultimately

grounded in economic power.

The expectation that Chinese GDP will, before too long, exceed that of the US is by

definition an historic event. But the rising power of China is not reflected only in

changes in relative GDP. The Economist again provides some striking data:

.. China's net foreign assets surpassed the United States in 2003 (China's net

foreign assets of $2 trillion today versus US net foreign debt of $2.5 trillion);

.. Chinese exports surpassed the US in 2007;

.. Chinese fixed capital investment took the lead in 2009;

.. Manufacturing output in 2010;

.. Energy consumption also in 2010;

Looking forward, it is projected that other key markers will soon be passed:

.. The total value of Chinese imports will be greater than the US by 2014;

.. Chinese retail sales will outpace the United States by 2014;

.. Chinese firms in the Global Fortune 500, now half those of the US, will pass

the US by 2016;

.. And Chinese stock market capitalisation will be greater than America's by

2020, leaving Wall Street in its wake.

If all this data were not sufficiently compelling, The Economist also projects – perhaps

controversially – that Chinese defence expenditure will surpass that of the United

States in absolute terms by 2025.

Just to put that in context, Chinese defence spending is currently about a fifth that of

the US.

We are truly therefore living through a watershed in global history.

It's fashionable, of course, at present, to talk of Europe's decline as if one follows the

other as a result of some sort of inevitable axiom. Certainly, Europe has its share of

challenges at present. But a clear-eyed analysis of Europe's place in the world requires

a proper treatment of this continent's underlying strengths.

Consider the following:

.. The European Union remains the world's largest economy. Its GDP, in

purchasing power parity terms, was estimated at US$14.8 trillion in 2010,

with the US economy ranked second at US$14.7 trillion and China third at

US$10 trillion.

.. Of the world's top 15 nations for offshore investment, seven are European.

In 2009, the FDI outflows of France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden,

Ireland and the UK totalled a collective US$357.5 billion, only a shade less

than the FDI outflows of the US, Japan and China combined.

.. The Euro area produced and shipped 26.1% of the world's exports in 2010,

and was the world's biggest exporter of goods and services in 2009;

.. With that, Europe remains the world's largest exporter of manufactured

goods and services, and is itself the biggest export market for more than

one hundred countries;

.. More than one-third of the world's largest corporations are headquartered in

Europe (177 of the Global 500);

.. More than one-third of the companies in Interbrand Top 100 Global Brand

Index are European (half are from the US and the rest are mostly Japanese);

.. In 2009, the EU produced 33.4% of the world's total scientific publications,

making it the largest scientific centre in the world;

.. One half of all Nobel Laureates have been European;

.. In 2008, Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain were all among the top

10 biggest spenders on R&D on the planet.

.. 30 of the world's top 100 universities are European;

.. In 2009, the EU and EU Member States (through their bilateral programs)

provided more than 56 per cent of total world development assistance (€49

billion);

.. Finally, although military expenditure in Europe in 2010 shrank 2.8% from

the previous year, while rising elsewhere in the world, Europe still

comprises 43% of total non-US military expenditure globally.

Therefore, before anyone reaches too many dramatic conclusions about the

'inevitability' of the decline and fall of Europe, it's worthwhile reflecting on these

statistical realities as well.

These achievements also rest on the shoulders of robust democracies that have again

weathered decades and sometimes centuries of political change – providing, in the

main, political and social resilience to respond to change without fundamentally

undermining stability. This is a critical advantage over non-democracies. They reflect

the cumulative investment in knowledge, innovation and, critically, institutions over

decades and in many cases centuries.

It is within the framework of these robust fundamentals that Europe should not talk

itself into an early economic grave. I do not in any way underestimate the dimensions

of the current financial and economic challenges facing Europe, and, if left

unaddressed, the'll impact not only on Europe but global financial and economic

stability as well.

The challenges in various EU member states are now familiar.

Excessive deficits.

Unsustainable debt.

Spiralling yields.

Overexposed banks.

Poor competitiveness.

Faltering growth.

Rising unemployment.

Even threats to social stability, fuelled by ever-widening inequity.

National parliaments, and the taxpayers who vote for them, are restive across the

Eurozone.

A more fundamental difficulty is that the apparent solution to financial crisis creates

problems of its own in the real economy, growth and employment.

Governments must tackle debt by pursuing fiscal austerity, and they must increase

competitiveness through structural reform of labour markets, education and training,

business regulation and tax.

Meanwhile, banks cut back lending to repair their balance sheets, driven also by new

capital adequacy requirements, with the resulting danger of a credit crisis for firms,

both their cash flow and then investment capital.

In other words, the impact of these various measures to deal with the financial crisis

can put at risk the economic growth these countries also need, if they are to succeed in

reducing deficits, reducing unemployment and reforming their economies.

Some have described this as a perfect storm of pro-cyclical policies which may

achieve neither the financial nor economic ends that policy makers seek. And on top of

all of this, there are some who now question the medium to long term viability of the

European project itself – including the future of European unity.

This is placed into sharp relief through ongoing negotiations in Athens over the future

of the Greek bailout facility and the consequences that may flow from it.

Once again, however, while recognising the dimensions of the challenge, it is crucial

not to be sucked into a self-fulfilling vortex of despair and an irrational mindset setting

in that there's no way through the current crisis.

The truth is there is, if the right options are taken. Because the equal truth is Europe is

now grappling with the full dimensions of the crisis they face, including the future of

European unity.

From my own discussions with leaders in Brussels, Paris and London over the past

week, in Europe there is now a serious, concerted and sophisticated effort to address

the challenges that lie before it. I'm also convinced that there is a way through this

crisis for Europe.

Through what often appears to outsiders as the torturous political processes of Europe,

the truth is that the contours of a comprehensive European policy response are

emerging.

.. A liquidity facility offered by the ECB for European banks (which has already

been drawn on by nearly 500 banks, totalling nearly half a trillion Euro to help

keep credit available);

.. A European "firewall" for the ultimate defence of European sovereigns,

through the EFSF, the ESM and perhaps ultimately (depending on other policy

conditions being met) the ECB itself;

.. An enhanced capacity for the IMF to provide a further backstop to the

European "firewall";

.. A legally binding European fiscal compact to bring budgets back to structural

surplus;

.. A program of competition policy reforms and pension reforms, the first wave

of which have already been announced in Italy.

The one missing element so far in the emerging policy response is a parallel strategy

for growth, given that for Europe, fiscal stimulus is no longer possible at scale.

But the debate is on in earnest about the prospect for: greater consumption and external

investment by surplus economies; productivity-driven growth through labour market

reform; as well as the easiest but hardest of all, real trade policy reform by concluding

Doha.

My overall point is this: given Europe's fundamental strengths and given the shape of

the emerging policy response to the immediate crisis, there is a rational basis for

optimism that Europe can come through this crisis – although the political, economic

and social costs will be high.

If Europe embraces a comprehensive program of reform, and I fully recognise that this

is equally a question of political economy as much as economic policy alone, then

Europe will remain a major global player.

So too with the United States where policy reform and the formidable American

capacity for economic re-invention and renewal should never be underestimated.

But a central point I wish to make today is that both these renewal projects, drawing on

the deep, fundamental strengths of both continents, are also crucial to a broader project

important to us all – and that is the future of the idea of 'the West' itself.

It's easy today to think that we're witnessing the inexorable decline and fall of what we

call 'the West' as Asia, or 'the East', develops more economic, political, military and

therefore strategic power.

Of course, such thinking intensifies as the 'the West' begins to lose confidence in itself

and the future of its own project that has evolved over many centuries.

'The West' is a phrase often understood to represent a particular geographic construct –

a collection of countries, centred somewhere on one side of the Atlantic, or the other,

or both.

By contrast, I would argue that the concept of 'the West' in the 21st Century represents

a powerful idea rather than a particular piece of real estate. Put simply, the idea of 'the

West' is one of freedom: open societies, open economies, open politics, the freedom of

academic inquiry, the compatibility of faith and reason, the secular pluralist state.

Furthermore, for 'the West' these freedoms are held to be universal, rather than

particular to any individual culture, or people or period of economic development.

These values are reflected in parliamentary democracies: in a deep belief in codified

human rights for all, empowering all individuals to make decisions about their own

lives; tempered also by parallel traditions of fairness, equality and justice; and all

protected by a legal system independent of party politics.

These values are also reflected in the economy – in the free flow of ideas, of capital, of

commerce, in open markets, both at home and abroad.

This idea of 'the West' evolved over several hundred years, first in Europe, then shaped

afresh in the various societies of the so-called 'New World', then adapted again in the

political cultures across much of the entire world.

They are the product of centuries of evolution growing from the Christian tradition, the

reformation, the enlightenment, the scientific and industrial revolution, and political

emancipation. They are freedoms that have been hard-fought over many centuries.

They are freedoms of which we should be collectively proud, because it is a tradition

that has humanity at its centre, rather than the state. They reflect therefore an idea that

should never be surrendered.

In many respects, these ideas are 'the West's' patrimony to the rest of the world. British

parliaments, French ideals of liberty and equality, Australian ideas on universal male

and female suffrage before others believed these to be politically or socially

acceptable.

These are common values to which all peoples, from all around the world, from all

cultures, can relate and, indeed, aspire. In truth, these ideas are no longer the specific

inheritance of a particular group of countries, or a particular tradition or any particular

civilisation. They have now become universal ideas and ideals that belong to our

common humanity and are reflected now in various international covenants.

They've been applied in countries around the world, countries at different stages of

development, countries from vastly different cultural, religious and even philosophical

systems – although the ideas themselves may not be formally ascribed to 'the West',

and may in fact be called by different names.

In fact, these ideas have been found to be adaptable to all cultures, incorporating local

differences into fundamental freedoms that are on offer to all cultural traditions.

The attraction of the idea of 'the West' did not lie in military might, or raw political

power, but in the freedom it offered, in the promise that it held that poverty could be

rolled back through economic growth, through open markets at home and abroad, and

that these economic projects could be achieved without compromise to personal and

political freedom.

And the challenge which now confronts us all is to remain confident in these values

when different, economically successful development models are now on offer around

the world.

In particular, when non-democratic development models produce the largest

economies in the world, that may openly challenge the values and assumptions that

have long underpinned the post-war global order.

So what is the way forward?

First, and most fundamentally, we must be confident in the values for which we stand.

Second, Europe given its fundamental strengths – which remain formidable – should

not talk itself into an early grave politically, economically, strategically or in terms of

the core values for which this continent has stood for generations.

Third, nor should the United States, given its formidable capacity for renewal.

Fourth, it is equally critical that Europe in particular (but also the United States)

embrace far-reaching financial and economic reform to provide the platform for

renewed growth, rather than economic decline.

Fifth, we should engage China and other emerging economies within the existing and

emerging framework of the global and regional rules based order, so that future

Chinese leaders embrace the need for such an order to continue, although with political

and economic power appropriately shared within it.

In other words, the sharing of power in the emerging order should sit alongside Bob

Zoellick's doctrine of emerging powers as responsible global stakeholders.

And finally, we should take all of this forward with a clear intention to maintain, and

certainly not cede, the core values that have animated 'the West'.

ENDS

Media enquiries

.. Minister's office: (02) 6277 7500

.. DFAT Media Liaison: (02) 6261 1555

[Source: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House London]

Health Care For All, Except Women With Breast Implants

2012-01-09T14:37:00.001+05:45

A breast implant by the now defunct French company Poly Implant Prothese.
Photo by ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP/Getty Images

By Libby Copeland

Posted Friday, Jan. 6, 2012, at 4:17 PM ET on Slate.com

The European scandal over faulty breast implants continues. Last month the French government said it would pay for 30,000 women to remove breast implants made by the now defunct French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP). About 40,000 women have the implants in the United Kingdom, and hundreds of thousands across the world (though not in the United States). After an inquiry into the safety of the implants, which were made with a substandard industrial-grade silicone of the sort used in cookware, the British government today came out against mandatory implant removal but said the National Health Service – and, it hopes, private cosmetic surgeries companies – will pay for women who want to remove theirs.

BBC radio recently hosted a discussion over whether this was an appropriate use of the British government’s funds. As with comments I’ve seen on news stories about this scandal, the radio conversation immediately morphed into a character attack on breast implant recipients, with a columnist for the London’s Telegraph blaming the recipients for what happened to them. “These are vanity operations and they knew that they carried a risk,” Cristina Odone said, labeling the implant recipients failed “beauty queens.” In a similar vein, a columnist for the Daily Mail recently commented of the women who got implants: “How they must be kicking themselves for their narcissism, their vain and hollow lust for a bigger bust. How silly they must feel.”

Wow. Let’s leave aside for a moment the fact that the women who received breast implants could not have known that they were receiving substandard implants which appear to have high rupture rates, which cause inflammation when they rupture, and which may or may not be associated with cancer. They couldn’t have known that because the company, PIP, covered it up. As the Guardian newspaper reported today:

The head of the breast implant company at the centre of an international health scare admitted using cheap silicone gel in his products to cut costs but told police he had "nothing to say" to those affected, according to French reports.

Questioned by fraud squad officers in November, Jean-Claude Mas, 72, founder of Poly Implant Prothèses, admitted using a silicone that was not authorised and said company staff were instructed to hide this from inspectors…

Asked about the women who claimed to have suffered health problems after being fitted with the sub-standard implants he replied: "The victims are only suing to get money … I have nothing to say to them."

Let’s also for the moment leave aside the fact that some women who received breast implants did so after having mastectomies that left them without any breasts at all. Let’s only consider those women who got breast implants in their quest to be more like “beauty queens.” Why is their health less important, again?

“The NHS treats people for example who play rugby,” Charlotte Vere, the founder of a think tank named Woman On, pointed out on the BBC program. “They chose to treat people who have sexually transmitted diseases. Are we going to make moral judgments?”

Oh yes, we most certainly are. This taps into our disgust for what's seen as a fundamentally female character flaw. Vanity, thy name is woman. So, the argument goes: vain women deserve everything that happens as result of their vanity, even if the results include consequences that couldn’t possibly have been foreseen. There is no such similar scorn in discussing, say, a hockey enforcer whose brain was turned to poutine because of the violent job he excelled at and chose to pursue. Rather, there is sadness and pity and calls for reform of the sport.

When people participate in seemingly nonsensical behaviors en masse, you can look at them on an individual level and think, as is tempting in this case, What vain fools! Or you can look at the sheer number of individuals committing the same seemingly nonsensical act and consider whether theirs might actually be a rational response to irrational circumstances. What’s the culture telling women that makes plastic surgery seem like a good option, even an only option? Naomi Wolf wrote 20 years ago that women “undergo surgery not as a consequence of selfish vanity, but in reasonable reaction to physical discrimination.”

More than vanity, women are responding to a sense of inadequacy, to a potent mixture of shame and fear about not being the right kind of women. There’s the fear of getting old (which is to say becoming invisible), and the fear of being ugly (same). There’s the fear of being a too-big woman and of being an under-endowed and less-than-whole woman. There’s the way we are told in all sorts of big and small ways that we aren't just people with bodies, that our bodies are us. There’s the fear of the clothes, which tell us what we should look like rather than our bodies telling the clothes. There’s a pervasive sense that merely being a woman isn’t enough, that being oneself is not enough, that one is required to nip in here and swell there, to exhibit nothing jiggly or lumpy, to conform to an outline one had nothing to do with drawing. If that lust to be beautiful is “hollow,” it does not belong to these "vain" women alone. It is an expectation for women that we all share. (Slate.com)

Prachanda and I should take moral responsibility for conflict-era wrongdoings: Deuba

2012-01-09T10:43:00.002+05:45

There are no better alternatives to reconciliation and amnesty to ensure Nepal’s smooth transition to peace.

Kamal Raj Sigdel

KATHMANDU, JAN 07 -

Nepali Congress (NC) leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, who was prime minister when the Maoist insurgency started (1996) and when it was at its peak, on Friday said there are no better alternatives to reconciliation and amnesty to ensure Nepal’s smooth transition to peace.

Top leaders of the NC and the Maoist party had on December 15 agreed to grant blanket amnesty to all cases of crimes perpetrated by both the state and the Maoists during the 10-year armed conflict.

For the first time since the two-party agreement, Deuba spoke on the amnesty issue, which has now become a topic of heated debate among the political parties, civil society and human rights defenders.

Deuba also maintained that while it was not wise to drag one another into prosecution for whatever wrong happened in the past, the leaders should take moral responsibility for the past crimes.

“Prachanda and I should take moral responsibility for the wrong doings during the conflict,” Deuba told the Post as he attempted to justify the parties’ roadmap to peace. “In fact, we all should take moral responsibility.”

Drawing upon the South African model of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Deuba said that for a post-conflict society like Nepal, the best way to ensure lasting peace is to reconcile and not to prosecute.

Touching upon the ongoing row in the party, Deuba said he was hopeful that the party leadership would keep its end of the promise, including to make him the Parliamentary Party (PP) leader.

He claimed that party president Sushil Koirala had agreed to make him the PP leader in exchange for his support for the office bearers’ nomination and that Prakash Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Shasank Koirala were witness to that agreement. He said he is still the party’s official candidate for the post of prime minister for a consensus government.

Claiming that he has a majority vote to claim the PP leader’s post, Deuba said he will not remain silent if the party establishment went on “breaching its own agreements.” He claimed that the “signature campaign” launched ahead of the last PM elections had received support of NC lawmakers enough to unseat Poudel from the PP post and that it was withdrawn when the party agreed to field him as the PM candidate for a consensus government.

“My colleagues had rightly warned me not to support the nomination of Ram Chandra Poudel and Krishna Prasad Sitaula. Now, it looks like I misled my friends,” said a visibly upset Deuba. He said he had serious objection to the “unilateral” dissolution of the four sister wings of the party. “I have objection over his (Sushil’s) undemocratic working style,” he said. “You cannot dissolve any organisation without warning.”

Deuba resigned as the party’s central member following differences with the establishment faction on the dissolution of the sister wings some three months ago. The party has failed to call the Central Working Committee meeting with the Deuba faction boycotting it. The faction has been demanding Koirala address the causes that led to Deuba’s resignation.

(Originally published in The Kathmandu Post, Jan 7, 2012: http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/01/07/editors-pick/reconciliation-amnesty-must/346800.html)