Speaking in a special press conference at the Headquarters, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today regretted over the attack on the UN mission and the losses caused. He condemned the attack as a “shocking and shameless act”. It is natural for the UN Secretary-General to remain worried about such international issues.
While speaking in the press conference, the Secretary-General also referred to a bomb attack in Iraq in which hundreds were killed and wounded earlier this week. On Iraq, he said, “As elsewhere, these acts of violence target the innocent and aim to disrupt the country’s fragile democracy.”
Ban did not fail to refer to Afghanistan again. He stated, “I urge Mr. Abdullah and Mr. Karzai to uphold the law and the Constitution; to encourage participation of the Afghan people; and, after the vote, to work to unify the country around an agenda for progress.” He added, "The United Nations is committed to doing all it can to support the Afghan people as they once again cast their ballots and shape the destiny of their country."
Statements used by the Secretary-General deserves some analysis for understanding the international perception of democracy and conflict management methods.
Ban Ki-moon’s phrase “fragile democracy” referring to Iraq shows that the democracy implanted by the US and NATO forces there is the one he refers to. While most of the Iraqis are against the foreign occupation escorting US-trained Iraqi representatives, there can be no question of democracy—fragile or strong. When the very human right to life itself is being snatched every day due to the repercussions caused by the military occupation by other countries, how possible is it for the Iraqis to defend what the aggressors impose? No one can guarantee if the Iraqis opposing the foreign occupation and its Iraqi representatives ever defend the “fragile democracy” established with the help of military aggression.
A similar reference can be made to the case of Afghanistan. Ban Ki-moon stressed on Afghan people’s participation in voting. From a democratic perspective, he is right to seek people’s maximum participation in elections. But the ground realities signify differently. When everything in Afghanistan is decided by military aggressors and when staged Afghan messiahs of democracy themselves are the do-or-die activists most loyal to the foreign military aggressors, there is little possibility of the practice of democratic norms and values.
By principle, Ban Ki-moon is not wrong at all to state all those stereotyped principles and ideals. His job specifications are clear: he cannot go beyond the stereotyped role as the usual secretary-general. If he ever proposes transformative agenda for the mankind, powerful fund contributors will immediately organize a farewell program. For this particular reason, it is his natural role. But what is most surprising in this context is that all nations—the most powerful to the weakest—maintain total silence over the ‘democracy’ being defined by aggressors and military leaders.
A similar context can be found in Nepal, where a peace process-monitoring UN mission is working. When the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) tries to encourage the major component of the peace process—former Maoist rebels—to adopt peaceful and pluralist politics, other parties such as the Nepali Congress (NC) and the United Marxist-Leninist (UML) are very frightened with the presence of Maoists in peaceful politics. One evidence of this can be found in the immediate polarization of 22 parties against the Integrated Communist Party of Nepal Maoist (ICPNM) that emerged as the largest political force of Nepal after the peaceful Constituent Assembly elections held on 10
April 2008.
Maoists’ participation in the elections aiming at drafting a new federal republican constitution and its emergence as the largest political party unfortunately became the causes for the downfall of the NC and the UML (that often refer to themselves as top-rate democrats). Seeing whether former Maoist rebels can transform themselves in a truly democratic sense requires some time. But the NC and the UML, in the main, are threatening the very peace process—satisfactorily going ahead from 2006—through undemocratic and unconstitutional methods.
When the Whitehouse and New Delhi concluded that former Maoist rebels must in no way be accepted as the protagonists in Nepal’s political scenario, they favored the NC and the UML in the vanguard. Especially Indian rulers, who are very obedient to the Whitehouse, see Nepal’s government formation from their colonialist perspectives.
Current Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal was defeated from both of his constituencies. Many other prominent ministers were also defeated candidates. However, the NC and UML have on purpose committed historical blunders by forcefully appointing all those defeated candidates as cabinet ministers. What message does it give to the Nepalis aspiring for vast changes and peace?
Nepal’s 22 parties have proposed the total annihilation of former Maoist rebels and their supporters—who have emerged as the largest party through peaceful elections. They used the country’s ceremonial president and the then army chief as an effort to reverse the peace process being monitored by the UN since 2006. Has the international community been able to perceive that Nepal’s peace process is being endangered by the deep-rooted change-resisting rightist forces?
Thus, ground realities suggest that mere elections do not guarantee peace. Stakeholders’ mindset is the fundamental determinant. For example, if the international community cannot change its attitude towards the adoption of peaceful and democratic politics by rebels in any country, the concerned people will continue suffering from exacerbated violence because anti-peace process forces (profitting from violence and wars) will make maximum use of the ideological prejudices and intolerance available in the international political market.
Similarly, if military aggressors in Iraq and Afghanistan become the chief decision-makers in the name of democracy, the cycle of violence and massacres are likely to continue. It is the mindset of political stakeholders that can determine the level of peace and political stability. And when the international community maintains its ideological prejudices as to judging the peace process in other countries, it cannot be a constructive help. This applies not only to Iraq, Afghanistan and other war-torn nations but also to Nepal that went through a decade-long armed Maoist insurgency in which about 15,000 people died.
Leave Your Comments