DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Assessment of Nepal Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Assessment of Nepal Final Report DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT OF NEPAL FINAL REPORT OCTOBER 2012 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Tetra Tech ARD. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report presents the findings of a Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Assessment of Nepal. The field research and interviews were conducted from July 9 through July 27, 2012. The assessment team consisted of Guilain Denoeux (Team Leader), Harry Blair, Ameet Dhakal, Christopher Hobbs, and Mike Calavan. Dr. Denoeux is the report’s primary author. The team would like to express its gratitude to Maria Barrón, Director of USAID/Nepal’s Democracy and Governance Office, which offered unparalleled logistical support. During their many decades of combined field experience, the three expatriate members of the team have been privileged to benefit from significant support from USAID missions abroad. None of them, however, ever had received logistical assistance that, in its scope and quality, matched that which USAID/Nepal offered during this particular exercise. Deputy Mission Director Sheila Lutjens, Maria Barrón, and Christopher Hobbs (Crisis, Stabilization & Governance Officer at the Mission) deserve particular credit for having made that situation possible. Chris Hobbs’ full-time participation in the assessment, and his many contributions to the analysis contained in the report, made him an invaluable member of the team. The team’s gratitude extends to all those at USAID/Nepal and the US Embassy in Kathmandu who took time to share their insights and expertise. The team is particularly grateful for the interest that Deputy Chief of Mission Patricia Mahoney showed in the assessment and for her many insights into Nepal’s politics. The courtesy that she, Sheila Lutjens, and Maria Barrón extended to the team made the latter’s task both much easier and more pleasant. The team is also pleased to acknowledge Ganga Maharjan in the DRG office for her assistance in coordinating interviews and travel arrangements, often on short notice. Last but not least, the team is grateful for the support that members of the Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DCHA/DRG) and others at USAID/Washington have extended to it, and for the sustained interest they have shown in its findings. We extend particular thanks to Meghan Nalbo and Ashley Quarcoo, who have played a leading role in coordinating the exercise on behalf of USAID’s Washington, DC staff. This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development by Tetra Tech ARD, through Task Order 002 under the Analytical Services III Indefinite Quantity Contract. Team: • Guilain Denoeux, Assessment Team Leader and Principal Author, Consultant to Tetra Tech ARD and Professor of Political Science at Colby College • Harry Blair, Country Expert, Consultant to Tetra Tech ARD, and Senior Research Scholar of Political Science at Yale University • Michael Calavan, Crosscutting Program Development Specialist, Consultant to Tetra Tech ARD • Ameet Dhakal, Nepal Political Analyst, Consultant to Tetra Tech ARD • Christopher Hobbs, Senior Democracy and Governance Field Advisor, USAID/Nepal This report was prepared by: Tetra Tech ARD 159 Bank Street, Suite 300 Burlington, Vermont 05401 USA Telephone: (802) 658-3890 Fax: (802) 658-4247 Tetra Tech ARD Contact: Maria Echevarria, Project Manager Tel: (802) 658-3890 ext. 2319 Email: [email protected] DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT OF NEPAL FINAL REPORT OCTOBER 2012 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 KEY CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE IN NEPAL ....................................................................................... 3 2.1 THE KEY DRIVER BEHIND NEPAL’S CURRENT CRISIS ............................................... 4 2.2 THE CORE DRG PROBLEM ................................................................................................... 5 2.3 BRINGING SECOND-ORDER VARIABLES INTO THE ANALYSIS ........................... 5 2.3.1 SOV 1: Political Parties ................................................................................................. 6 2.3.2 SOV 2: Nature and Scope of Societal and Political Demands ............................ 8 2.3.3 SOV 3: Systemic, Institutionalized Corruption ...................................................... 9 2.4 ACCOUNTING FOR RULE OF LAW AND COMPETITION DEFICITS…AND FOR THESE DEFICITS’ CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CORE DRG PROBLEM ........ 9 2.4.1 ROL Deficits ................................................................................................................... 9 2.4.2 Competition Deficits .................................................................................................. 10 2.5 ADDITIONAL STEP-ONE BACKGROUND ANALYSIS ................................................. 11 2.5.1 Consensus...................................................................................................................... 11 2.5.2 Inclusion ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.5.3 Competition and Political Accountability .............................................................. 13 2.5.4 Rule of Law .................................................................................................................... 15 2.5.5 Government Effectiveness and Administrative Accountability ........................ 17 3.0 STEP TWO: KEY ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS ............................................ 19 3.1 KEY ACTORS ............................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 The Nepali Congress .................................................................................................. 20 3.1.2 The Communist Party of Nepal—United Marxist Leninists ............................. 22 3.1.3 The Maoist Parties ....................................................................................................... 23 3.1.4 Madhesi Parties ............................................................................................................. 29 3.1.5 The Janajati .................................................................................................................... 30 3.1.6 Dalits ............................................................................................................................... 31 3.1.7 Conservatives ............................................................................................................... 33 3.1.8 Concluding Comments on Key Actors .................................................................. 35 3.2 INSTITUTIONS AND ARENAS .............................................................................................. 36 3.2.1 The Executive ............................................................................................................... 36 3.2.2 Security Agencies ......................................................................................................... 37 3.2.3 The Legislature ............................................................................................................. 38 3.2.4 The Judiciary and Legal Professionals ..................................................................... 38 3.2.5 Local Government ....................................................................................................... 39 3.2.6 Political Parties and Electoral Institutions ............................................................. 40 3.2.7 Civil Society ................................................................................................................... 41 3.2.8 The Media ...................................................................................................................... 43 3.2.9 Private-Sector Business Interests ............................................................................ 43 3.2.10 Non-State Actors ........................................................................................................ 45 3.2.11 Regional Actors ............................................................................................................ 46 4.0 OPERATIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENT ............................ 49 5.0 DRG STRATEGIC AND PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 56 5.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................... 58 5.2 PRIORITY PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................. 58 DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT OF NEPAL i BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEX 1. CROSS-SECTORAL SYNERGIES.................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2018 DG Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity
    CI-18/COUNCIL-31/6/REV 2 2018 DG Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity INTRODUCTION This report is submitted to the Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) in line with the Decision on the Safety of Journalists and the issue of Impunity adopted by the Council at its 26th session on 27 March 2008, and renewed at subsequent sessions in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. In its latest Decision, adopted in November 2016, the IPDC Council urged Member States to “continue to inform the Director-General of UNESCO, on a voluntary basis, on the status of the judicial inquiries conducted on each of the killings condemned by the Director-General”. The present report provides an analysis of the cases of killings of journalists and associated media personnel that were condemned by the Director-General in 2016 and 2017. It also takes stock of the status of judicial enquiries conducted on each of the killings recorded by UNESCO between 2006 and 2017, based on information provided by Member States. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 2 2. Background and Context 2 3. Journalists’ killings in 2016 and 2017: key findings 7 3.1 Most dangerous regions 8 3.2 Rise in number of women journalists among fatalities 9 3.3 Highest number of killings among TV journalists 11 3.4 Majority of victims are local journalists 11 3.5 Freelance and staff journalists 12 3.6 More killings occurring in countries with no armed conflict 12 4. Member States’ responses: status of the judicial enquiries on cases of journalists killed from 2006 to end 2017 13 4.1 Decrease in Member State response rate to Director-General’s request 18 4.2 Slight reduction in impunity rate, but 89% of cases remain unresolved 19 4.3 Member States reporting on measures to promote safety of journalists and to combat impunity 22 5.
    [Show full text]
  • MAHARASHTRA Not Mention PN-34
    SL Name of Company/Person Address Telephone No City/Tow Ratnagiri 1 SHRI MOHAMMED AYUB KADWAI SANGAMESHWAR SANGAM A MULLA SHWAR 2 SHRI PRAFULLA H 2232, NR SAI MANDIR RATNAGI NACHANKAR PARTAVANE RATNAGIRI RI 3 SHRI ALI ISMAIL SOLKAR 124, ISMAIL MANZIL KARLA BARAGHAR KARLA RATNAGI 4 SHRI DILIP S JADHAV VERVALI BDK LANJA LANJA 5 SHRI RAVINDRA S MALGUND RATNAGIRI MALGUN CHITALE D 6 SHRI SAMEER S NARKAR SATVALI LANJA LANJA 7 SHRI. S V DESHMUKH BAZARPETH LANJA LANJA 8 SHRI RAJESH T NAIK HATKHAMBA RATNAGIRI HATKHA MBA 9 SHRI MANESH N KONDAYE RAJAPUR RAJAPUR 10 SHRI BHARAT S JADHAV DHAULAVALI RAJAPUR RAJAPUR 11 SHRI RAJESH M ADAKE PHANSOP RATNAGIRI RATNAGI 12 SAU FARIDA R KAZI 2050, RAJAPURKAR COLONY RATNAGI UDYAMNAGAR RATNAGIRI RI 13 SHRI S D PENDASE & SHRI DHAMANI SANGAM M M SANGAM SANGAMESHWAR EHSWAR 14 SHRI ABDULLA Y 418, RAJIWADA RATNAGIRI RATNAGI TANDEL RI 15 SHRI PRAKASH D SANGAMESHWAR SANGAM KOLWANKAR RATNAGIRI EHSWAR 16 SHRI SAGAR A PATIL DEVALE RATNAGIRI SANGAM ESHWAR 17 SHRI VIKAS V NARKAR AGARWADI LANJA LANJA 18 SHRI KISHOR S PAWAR NANAR RAJAPUR RAJAPUR 19 SHRI ANANT T MAVALANGE PAWAS PAWAS 20 SHRI DILWAR P GODAD 4110, PATHANWADI KILLA RATNAGI RATNAGIRI RI 21 SHRI JAYENDRA M DEVRUKH RATNAGIRI DEVRUK MANGALE H 22 SHRI MANSOOR A KAZI HALIMA MANZIL RAJAPUR MADILWADA RAJAPUR RATNAGI 23 SHRI SIKANDAR Y BEG KONDIVARE SANGAM SANGAMESHWAR ESHWAR 24 SHRI NIZAM MOHD KARLA RATNAGIRI RATNAGI 25 SMT KOMAL K CHAVAN BHAMBED LANJA LANJA 26 SHRI AKBAR K KALAMBASTE KASBA SANGAM DASURKAR ESHWAR 27 SHRI ILYAS MOHD FAKIR GUMBAD SAITVADA RATNAGI 28 SHRI
    [Show full text]
  • Nepal: Peace and Justice
    NEPAL: PEACE AND JUSTICE Asia Report N°184 – 14 January 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. CAN THERE BE PEACE AND JUSTICE?................................................................... 2 A. BETTER TO FORGIVE AND FORGET? .............................................................................................2 B. PUSHING THE PEACE PROCESS .....................................................................................................3 C. DANGEROUS CYCLES...................................................................................................................4 III. CULTURES OF IMPUNITY ........................................................................................... 5 A. A DECADE OF DIRTY WAR ..........................................................................................................6 1. The state.......................................................................................................................................6 2. The Maoists..................................................................................................................................8 B. WHY DID SYSTEMATIC STATE VIOLATIONS TAKE PLACE? ..........................................................9 C. THE MAOISTS: PLAYING BY REVOLUTIONARY RULES................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Jana Andolan II in Nepal
    Occasional Paper: Peace Building Series No.1 FutureGenerations Applied Community Graduate School Change and Conservation PeoPle’s ParticiPation in conflict transformation: a case study of Jana andolan II in nePal Bandita Sijapati Social Science Baha February 2009 Occasional Papers of the Future Generations Graduate School explore community-based approaches to social development, health, nature conservation, peace building, and governance. Faculty, alumni, and partner organizations present their field studies and applied research. www.future.edu People’s Participation in Conflict Transformation: A Case Study of Jana Andolan II in Nepal Rise from every village, rise from every settlement To change the face of this country, rise Those who have a pen in hand, bring your pen and rise Those who can play an instrument, bring your instrument and rise Those who have a tool in hand, bring your tool and rise Those who have nothing at all, bring your voice and rise.1 I. INTRODUCTION In April 2006, there was a country-wide people’s movement in Nepal, popularly known as the Jana Andolan II,2 against King Gyanendra’s direct rule3 following a 12-point understanding reached between the Seven Party Alliance4 and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which was leading a communist insurgency against the state. The 19-day-long Jana Andolan II5 (People’s Movement II) ended direct rule by Gyanendra, forced him to return power to the reinstated parliament, and created a conducive environment for the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the government and the rebel Maoists in November 2006. The success of Jana Andolan II in thus ending the decade-long conflict that had affected all parts of the country has thus been hailed by many as being exemplary of the ways in which engaged citizenry and communities at the local level can have an impact on the resolution and transformation of violent conflict at the national level.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Censorship
    Bhattarai & Mainali “Sometimes the ink in the pen is removed, sometimes the nib is broken. Sometimes the cover of the pen does not open, sometimes the pen writes something it cannot write everything.” Prateek Pradhan Nagarik, 23 March 2014 KILLING JOURNALISM, SOFTLY Binod Bhattarai Raghu Mainali KILLING JOURNALISM SOFTLY KILLING JOURNALISM SOFTLY Binod Bhattarai Raghu Mainali Copyright © 2014, The Writing Workshop P. Ltd. Alliance for Social Dialogue ISBN: 978-9937-2-8480-6 First published, August 2014 Cover design: Rajesh KC Book design: Chiran Ghimire Alliance for Social Dialogue (ASD) Secretariat Social Science Baha 345 Ramchandra Marg, Battisputali, Kathmandu – 9 GPO Box 25334, Kathmandu, Nepal Tel: +977-1-4472807, 4480091 • Fax: 4475215 Email: [email protected] • www.asd.org.np The Writing Workshop Bakundole, Lalitpur, Nepal Tel: +977-1-5534768 Email: [email protected] www.thewritingworkshop.com.np Printed in Nepal Rs. 300/- Contents Publisher’s note vii Foreword ix Acknowledgements xiii PART-1: Self-censorship in the Nepali media 1 • Censorship and self-censorship 6 • Censorship and self-censorship in Nepal 17 • 1950-1961: Political transition from Rana rule 20 • 1961-1990: Direct rule by the king 20 • 1990: Democracy, confl ict and self-censorship 23 PART 2: The how and why of self-censorship 33 • Commercial pressures 35 • Political pressures (infl uence) 39 • Editor-reporter relations/trust defi cit 40 • Management arrangements 41 • Lack of professionalism 42 • Safety and security 44 PaRT-3: The self-censorship report 47
    [Show full text]
  • Rashtriya Prajatantra Party – Recruitment of Children
    Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: NPL31734 Country: Nepal Date: 14 May 2007 Keywords: Nepal – Chitwan – Maoist insurgency – Peace process – Rashtriya Prajatantra Party – Recruitment of children This response was prepared by the Country Research Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. Questions 1. Was Bharatput Chitwan an area affected by the Maoist insurgency, particularly in 2003 and 2004? 2. Has the security situation improved since the peace agreement signed between the government and the Maoists in November 2006 and former Maoist rebels were included in the parliament? 3. Please provide some background information about the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party - its policies, platform, structure, activities, key figures - particularly in the Bharatpur/Chitwan district. 4. Please provide information on the recruitment of children. RESPONSE 1. Was Bharatput Chitwan an area affected by the Maoist insurgency, particularly in 2003 and 2004? The available sources indicate that the municipality of Bharatpur and the surrounding district of Chitwan have been affected by the Maoist insurgency. There have reports of violent incidents in Bharatpur itself, which is the main centre of Chitwan district, but it has reportedly not been as affected as some of the outlying villages of Chitwan. A map of Nepal is attached for the Member’s information which has Bharatpur marked (‘Bharatpur, Nepal’ 1999, Microsoft Encarta – Attachment 1). A 2005 Research Response examined the presence of Maoist insurgents in Chitwan, but does not mention Maoists in Bharatpur.
    [Show full text]
  • Nepal's Faltering Peace Process
    NEPAL’S FALTERING PEACE PROCESS Asia Report Nº163 – 19 February 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................i I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 II. CONSENSUS OR CONFLICT? ......................................................................................2 A. WHAT’S LEFT OF THE PEACE PROCESS?.......................................................................................2 B. THE MAOIST-LED GOVERNMENT: IN OFFICE BUT NOT IN POWER? ..............................................3 C. OLD NEPAL: ALIVE AND WELL....................................................................................................5 D. THE RISKS OF FAILURE................................................................................................................6 III. PEACE PARTNERS AT ODDS.......................................................................................8 A. THE MAOISTS: BRINGING ON THE REVOLUTION?.........................................................................8 B. UNCERTAIN COALITION PARTNERS..............................................................................................9 C. THE OPPOSITION: REINVIGORATED, BUT FOR WHAT? ................................................................11 1. The Nepali Congress................................................................................................................. 11 2. The smaller parties ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions of Public Security and Crime in the Kathmandu Valley February 2012
    BRIEFING Working to prevent violent conflict Perceptions of public security and crime in the Kathmandu Valley February 2012 1 1. Introduction Following on from the decade-long violent conflict between the state and the Maoist Peoples Liberation Army which ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006, the post-conflict era in Nepal has been witness to a period of unabated political instability, slow progress in the implementation of the peace agreement and a noticeable shift in the nature of violence and insecurity. In particular, previous research2 and recent media reports suggest a growing trend of criminal violence, especially in urban areas in the Terai and the Kathmandu Valley (comprising Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur districts) the largest urban area in Nepal. This is illustrated through the patchwork of criminal gangs that have formed in and around these particular geographic areas in the post-conflict era. Although the actions of these criminal gangs are sometimes connected with political aims, unlike during the conflict era where violence was predominantly politically motivated, their actions equally appear to be detached from political objectives and thus motivated by other non-political factors which often include economic inequalities, boredom as a result of unemployment, greed, and/or that crime offers a quicker and easier way to access money than through employment. Although some research has been undertaken over recent years to better understand criminal group activity and violence in the Terai3, little has been undertaken which seeks to explicitly understand crime, violence and insecurity in the Kathmandu Valley. Understanding these patterns in the Kathmandu Valley is critical for understanding the broader security situation in Nepal, as some forms of crime carried out in the Kathmandu Valley may connect with criminal activity taking place elsewhere in the country particularly organised crime and criminal gang activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Nepal: Political Developments and Bilateral Relations with the United States
    Nepal: Political Developments and Bilateral Relations with the United States Bruce Vaughn Specialist in Asian Affairs April 7, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34731 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Nepal: Political Developments and Bilateral Relations with the United States Summary Nepal has undergone a radical political transformation since 2006, when a 10-year armed struggle by Maoist insurgents, which claimed at least 13,000 lives, officially came to an end. The country’s king stepped down in 2006, and two years later Nepal declared itself a republic, electing a Constituent Assembly in 2008 to write a new constitution, which is currently being drafted. Though the process of democratization has had setbacks and been marked by violence at times, Nepal has conducted reasonably peaceful elections, brought former insurgents into the political system, and in a broad sense, taken several large steps towards entrenching a functioning democracy. This still-unfolding democratization process makes Nepal of interest to Congress and to U.S. foreign policymakers. A Congressional Nepal caucus has been newly formed, which should help further strengthen relations between the two countries, which have traditionally been friendly. U.S. policy objectives toward Nepal include supporting democratic institutions and economic liberalization, promoting peace and stability in South Asia, supporting Nepalese territorial integrity, and alleviating poverty and promoting development. Nepal’s status as a small, landlocked state situated between India and China also makes it important to foreign policymakers. Nepal’s reliance on these two giant neighbors leads it to seek amicable relations with both, though ties with India have historically been closer.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict Prevention in Nepal
    United Nations University Centre for Policy Research Conflict Prevention Series: No. 1 April 2017 Conflict Prevention in Nepal Background Paper for the United Nations - World Bank Flagship Study on the Prevention of Violent Conflict1 Sebastian von Einsiedel United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan Cale Salih United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan About this Paper The new UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has made prevention his top priority. Conflict prevention is now understood not only in terms of averting the outbreak, but also the continuation, escalation and recurrence, of conflict.2 The Secretary-General has recognised that in order for the UN to shift from its current, largely reactive, posture to a prevention-oriented approach, it will need to better integrate its peace and security, development and human rights pillars of work.3 Sustaining peace and sustainable development will need to work hand in glove, rather than along two separate tracks as has often been the case in the past. In an effort to help shift the system toward this new approach, the UN and the World Bank are undertaking a joint flagship study on the prevention of violent conflict. UNU-CPR produced this case study on lessons learned from the experiences of the UN and other actors in conflict resolution in Nepal as a backgrounder for the UN-World Bank study. © 2017 United Nations University. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-92-808-9047-1 2 Conflict Prevention in Nepal Introduction enjoyed significant development gains, with the literacy rate growing from 2% to 43%, infant mortality decreasing After suffering ten years of civil war between a Maoist from 300 to 61 per 1,000 live births, and life expectancy insurgency and an increasingly autocratic government, increasing from 35 to 59.8 Surprisingly, over the past the Nepali people in April 2006 took to the streets and 40 years, Nepal has been among the top ten countries forced the country’s King to hand power back to the in the world in the rate of improvement in the Human political parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Inclusivity in the Post-War Army Integration Process in Nepal
    Assessing Inclusivity in the Post-War Army Integration Process in Nepal Subindra Bogati IPS Paper 11 Abstract One of the key features of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in 2006 by the Maoists and seven other major political parties, was the integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist combatants. After years of discussion on the written agreements and their interpretations, which were designed to facilitate the decision-making process regarding the fate of Maoist combatants, the situation of having two armies in one country finally came to an end in 2013. However, there is no clear mechanism to observe and monitor the ex-combatants after providing them with voluntary retirement packages. It is important to understand the extent to which their aspirations for a better society have been met, or to what extent they experienced changes in the social, political and economic order of Nepal, since the programme of integration and rehabilitation commenced. And with over 15,000 trained and ideologically influenced combatants opting to retire, there is fear of a growing number of new armed ethno-political and criminal groups, who may be eager to recruit militarily trained and politically aware Maoist cadres. © Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH – CINEP/PPP 2014. All rights reserved. About the Publication This paper is one of four case study reports on Nepal produced in the course of the collaborative research project ‘Avoiding Conflict Relapse through Inclusive Political Settlements and State-building after Intra-State War’, running from February 2013 to April 2015. This project aims to examine the conditions for inclusive political settlements following protracted armed conflicts, with a specific focus on former armed power contenders turned state actors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Week in Review
    THE WEEK IN REVIEW April 20-26, 4(4), 2009 EDITOR: S. SAMUEL C. RAJIV REVIEW ADVISOR: S. KALYANARAMAN CONTRIBUTORS PRANAMITA BARUAH – Southeast Asia JAGANNATH PANDA – China, Taiwan MEDHA BISHT – Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives AHTAB LAM IZVI M A R – Iran, Iraq KARTIK BOMMAKANTI – Space and Missiles AMARJEET SINGH – Internal Security Review ZAKIR HUSSAIN – Defence Issues PRIYANKA SINGH – Afghanistan, Pakistan NIHAR NAYAK – Nepal INSTITUTE FOR DEFENCE STUDIES AND ANALYSES, 1, DEVELOPMENT ENCLAVE, RAO TULA RAM MARG, NEW DELHI – 110010 IN THIS ISSUE I. COUNTRY PAGE REVIEWS A. SOUTH ASIA 3-7 B. EAST AND 7-10 SOUTHEAST ASIA C. WEST ASIA 10-12 II. MISSILES, SPACE, 12-14 AND DEFENCE REVIEW III. INTERNAL 14-15 SECURITY REVIEW - 2 - 1. COUNTRY REVIEW A. SOUTH ASIA AFGHANISTAN • Karzai and Zardari to meet with Obama in Washington in May; Spanta: Pakistan is a threat to global security; US war veterans: Purely military approach will not help in Afghanistan; Taliban reject government’s claim of ongoing negotiations Even as reports indicated that Mr. Karzai and Mr. Zardari will meet with President Obama in Washington in early May, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta reaffirmed US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s view that Pakistan continued to be a threat to global security. Spanta was speaking at Warsaw on April 23 after meeting Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.1 US war veterans meanwhile, speaking before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that troop surge was unlikely to have much benefits in dealing with the rapidly deteriorating
    [Show full text]