INTERVIEWS WITH SUSHIL KOIRALA,, NORWEGIAN CROWN PRINCE

INTERVIEWS





________________________________________
NC AT STANDSTILL WITHOUT CONSENSUS COMPLAINS SUSHIL KOIRALA


The row between the party establishment and the Sher Bahadur Deuba faction in the Nepali Congress over the dissolution of four sister organizations has further widened as the dissenting group led by former Prime Minister Deuba has been boycotting the meeting of the central working committee. In this context, Republica’s Kiran Chapagain and Bimal Gautam of Republica caught up with Nepali Congress
President Sushil Koirala at his residence in
Maharajgunj Saturday evening to elicit his views on contemporary political issues, including formation of a national consensus government and the dispute in the party. Excerpts:

How have you taken the Supreme Court verdict on extension of the Constituent Assembly term?

All should abide by the verdict of the Supreme Court because the rule of law is fundamental to democracy. No one should disagree with the ruling of the court.

If so, will the new constitution be promulgated in the next six months?

Drafting the constitution does not require that much time. But the Maoists have delayed the process. Though it is positive that categorization of the Maoist combatants is progressing, its pace has been very slow. The agreements on returning the seized properties and disbanding the paramilitary structure of the YCL have not been implemented.

What would happen if the weapons were handed over to the government led by their own leader?

Prachanda (Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal), our General Secretary Krishna Sitaula, [CPN-UML leader] Bam Dev Gautam recently visited Bardiya to return the seized properties. Yesterday, we heard that land owned by Binaya Dhwaj Chand of our party was returned but today (Saturday) we heard that the Maoists announced capture of the same land by erecting 30 flags. Prachanda should take the responsibility for stopping it. Such incidents push the progress back.

Incidents like this will raise doubts. The party takes one decision while another faction of the same party obstructs implementation of the decision. The Maoist leadership should control this.



Your party decided that the CA term should be short. What does it mean?

We will discuss it with other parties. But our party held the view that the term should be extended by three more months only before the Supreme Court verdict. Now the term should be extended in view of the development in the implementation of the seven-point agreement.

Will the present government be given continuity after the completion of the categorization of the Maoist combatants or will the party look for an alternative?

There should be speedy progress in the peace process. The seven-point agreement should be implemented. Again, the claim that NC should be given a chance to lead a consensus government is not unjustified either since both the Maoists and the CPN-UML have already led the government twice [after the election of the Constituent Assembly]. But there has not been much progress despite their government in place. Therefore, a government under the leadership of the Nepali Congress should be accepted.

When will the government of consensus be formed?

This issue is being discussed.

Will the present government be turned into a consensual one or will there be another government?

A new government based on political consensus will be formed and the NC will lead such a government. But the present government is claiming that it will conclude the peace process and constitution writing. The prime minister must implement the seven-point agreement.

It is said that you and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal have reached a gentlemen’s agreement on forming an NC-led government to hold general elections after promulgating the new constitution. How far is it true?

There has been no such agreement.

Isn’t your party demanding that it be given a chance to lead a government to be formed to hold elections?

It is our claim that NC should be given a chance to lead the next government as the Maoists and the CPN-UML have already led two governments.

How far is it true that you will lead a national consensus government to be formed under the leadership of the Nepali Congress?
There has been no such understanding. The only thing is NC should lead the government.

CPN-UML has already asked the prime minister to pave the way for the formation of a consensual government. How has the NC taken the CPN-UML’s decision?

Discussions are under way in this regard.

How far is it true that lawmaker Achyut Pandey is resigning so that you can be a lawmaker in his place?

Who said so?

How have you taken the boycott of central committee meeting by senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba and his supporters?

I am saddened by their move. There is no such big problem in the party. They should not make the problem a big issue. The meeting was called to discuss the peace process and constitution making; it was not called to discuss internal issues of the party. I waited for 15 months in the name of consensus in the party. I tried my best to forge consensus in the party. The departments of the party are yet to be filled up. The work performance committee is yet to be formed. The party is at a standstill in the name of consensus. I have not tried to run the party in an impartial way.

I have told him that the boycott does not send positive message. It would not be good even for him. He even does not respond to my phone calls. I ask him to resolve the issue through discussion but he keeps on sticking to his guns.

What will be the solution to the problem?

The solution should be reasonable.

Can we conclude that Deuba did not cooperate with you in running the party?

I did not get as much cooperation as I had expected.

Will you fill the vacant positions in the party departments even if the Deuba faction continues to boycott central committee meeting?

I will request him to attend the meeting. If he does not respond to my request positively, the central working committee will form the departments by including all friends.

You did not accept a suggestion prepared by a taskforce you formed to resolve the row in the party.

That is not true. There is no way that the decision [on dissolving the sister organizations] can be revoked. It is a decision of an institution.

Will you accept it if all parties ask you to be the prime minister?

(Laughs) It is a hypothetical question.

In a separate context, how do you evaluate the present situation of good governance?

A jumbo cabinet has been formed. We have heard of massive corruption under the rule of the present government.

What is the basis to support your claim of massive corruption?

We have been hearing of corruption reported in the media.
Nnnn



________________________________________


CONFLCT IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE THING SAYS NORWEGIAN
CROWN PRINCE HAKOON IN INTERVIEW WITH THE
KATHMANDU POST
•

•
•
•
•
2


Norwegian Crown Prince Haakon was in Nepal this past week on a four-day visit as UNDP’s Goodwill Ambassador with UNDP Administrator Helen Clark. With a degree in development studies, the heir to the Norwegian throne is involved in promoting Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). During his stay in Nepal, he interacted with sexual minorities, addressed the Indigenous People’s Caucus, visited a maternity clinic in Kamdhi, Banke, and met former Maoist combatants, besides holding discussions with the President. He says he finds “face-to-face meeting rewarding,” in his own words, they challenge one’s morals and help shape ethics. Those who met him said they were pleasantly surprised by his demeanour and his thorough understanding of development issues. He praised Nepal for making remarkable progress in MDGs and singled out female health volunteers repeatedly for their contribution. Crown Prince Haakon spoke with John Narayan Parajuli on Thursday afternoon at the conclusion of his visit. Excerpts:
How was your visit to Nepal?
It’s been a good opportunity for me to come to Nepal and it has really been an amazing experience. We have seen quite a lot of things in the past three days and covered a variety of issues. And we have also been able to go outside Kathmandu to Nepalgunj, which too was rewarding. I found the face-to-face meeting very rewarding. When you meet face-to-face, your morals are challenged and ethics are formed.
This is a country that has seen a major conflict. So what were some of your assumptions before you came and what did you exactly find?
I was well briefed before I came, but I had some questions. One of my questions was how have you been able to move so quickly on maternal health, education, child mortality, among others. At the same time the country went through conflict since 1996 to 2006. I must say that it is quite impressive to see how that has been done and I think the best example of it may be is when we met the local health volunteers in Kamdhi [Banke] where we went to the
maternity centre there. When I met them I could clearly see that they were proud of what they were doing and they thought their job was important. And more than 50,000 such volunteers across the country have been doing the job. Facilities are important. But it is also really important to organise in the right way. And I think the secret to success is that there is local ownership. The reduction in maternal mortality that Nepal has done in the past 20 years took Norway 40 years. That just gives an idea how quick it has been. But obviously there are challenges ahead. Nepal is at a critical juncture right now. I am very optimistic when it comes to the future of Nepal. But it is important that these positive developments are also inclusive—with all the various social groups, the dalits, the indigenous population, young people, ex-combatants and all other groups to be part of the positive development. And I think that is a great investment for sustainable peace and building a stable society.
Your country has been very supportive of Nepal’s peace process from the very start. Your Minister Erik Solheim was actively involved in encouraging the Maoists to join the mainstream.
Nepal and Norway has had a very long standing positive relationship which we are very happy about. Norway has three focal points in cooperation with Nepal—first is education, second is energy and climate change and under which, there is the hydro energy, and the third is peace and reconciliation. I know Norway is very happy to work here with Nepal in all these issues. When it comes to United Nations, I’ve experienced that the cooperation between Nepal and the UN is excellent. We have a great UN team on the ground here. But it’s Nepal that has to make the decisions and have ownership to the processes. The UN would like to be the partner in that process.
In your lecture at the Kathmandu University on Wednesday, you compared Norway of 1937 to today’s Nepal. What can Nepal do to emulate the success story that your country has been?
I think getting the ground work right is vital and that’s the process Nepal is in the middle of right now. Once you get that going, that’s when all the opportunity opens up and you can speed up. The process works also on economic growth because Nepal, after all, is situated between two big markets: China and India.
You have been to other post-conflict countries as UNDP’s Goodwill Ambassador. How do you compare Nepal’s development in relation to these countries?
Well, there are some similarities. First of all, a conflict is
the most expensive thing you can ever do. And of course people come out with traumas, so there are some
similarities. But every country is unique and every situation is unique. It’s also important to look at Nepal on its own. For instance, the young ex-combatants learning skills and being able to start up their own companies. I talked to a girl who is running her own beauty parlour now used to be a member of the Maoist army. And a young man who was repairing the bicycle too used to be part of the Maoist army. I think that’s a positive development.
As UNDP’s Goodwill Ambassador your major focus is on MDGs. Though noble, don’t you think these goals are quite ambitious? Many countries are sure to miss the target by 2015.
They are ambitious. I agree in a sense. For instance when it comes to education, we want a 100 percent
coverage of primary education. And the target of 100 percent is difficult and when we get to the high 90 percent, it obviously slows down. These are high goals, but the
positive side is that in aggregate, worldwide there’s been progress in every single loop. Even on official development aid where last year, the year 2010, was the year when most money has been transferred from the rich countries to developing countries in development aid. So all these things are moving in the right direction; some of them quickly enough to actually meet the targets but some of them are falling even behind. And we need to accelerate the speed. Then again it’s unevenly distributed. I think the MDGs have been very efficient in giving us some targets that are concrete, that we can measure more or less and giving us a common goal that we have been able to
work together.
Now a lot of success in the MDG hinges on contribution in development aid by rich countries. The UN’s assessment states that an additional 48 to 74 billion dollars annually will be needed to meet these goals by 2015. Given the financial crisis of the western world do you think that the money can be generated?
I think we can generate more, but still it is a big challenge. The current financial crisis is affecting the world’s
economy. And also we have other issues such as climate change which might hamper development further. Sometimes, I think, we used to stand on the shoulders of giants to come as far as we are now. But now we are more and more standing on the shoulders of our kids because we are borrowing from the future in the financial crisis.
You have described development as “fighting poverty and expanding people’s choice,” but closing the gap between the rich and the poor looks increasingly difficult, not just in developing countries but also in developed countries.
I think inequality also needs to be addressed. We have to make sure that the worst off groups are part of the positive changes that are happening—because that is the best way for creating stability. And it is good for the poor obviously. But it is also good for the people with resources in rich countries because it will be a more stable world, and if you do it in a country it is more stable country. So this is something of a win-win situation and good for everyone in the long term.
nnnn





















________________________________________