home / subscribe / donate / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
|
|
How a Tiny Alaskan Indian Tribe Got Billions in Pentagon Contracts by Jeffrey St. Clair; Dems and Dives by Alexander Cockburn; Spooky Grants: More on the CIA's Recruitment of Campus Professors by David Price. Remember these stories are available exclusively in the print edition of CounterPunch. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 |
|
Other Lands Have Dreams: From Baghdad to Pekin Prison by KATHY KELLY  Today's Stories April 8, 2005 Neve Gordon
April 7, 2005 Joshua Frank Yitzhak Laor Alan Maass Steven Sherman Dave Lindorff Gerry Adams John Chuckman Michael Dickinson John Ross Website of the Day
April 6, 2005 Peter Camejo Kevin Wehr Matt Vidal Robert Creeley
/ Bruce Jackson Nikolas Kozloff Sea Shepherd Crew Brenda Child Terry Eagleton David Swanson Cindy Ellen
Hill Website of
the Day
April 5, 2005 Jim Connolly Paul Craig
Roberts Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff Ron Jacobs Dan Smith Mark Engler Richard Oxman Greg Moses Website of the Day
April 4, 2005 Kevin Zeese Paul Craig Roberts Larry Birns
/ Sarah Schaffer Karyn Strickler Joshua Frank Michael Dickinson Surendra R.
Devkota Derrick O'Keefe Uri Avnery Website of the Day
April 2 / 3, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Stan Goff John Ross Saul Landau Robert Creeley Mike Roselle Joshua Frank Fred Gardner Greg Moses Fran Quigley Kurt Nimmo Nicole Colson Chris Genovali Alan Farago Lawrence Reichard Ben Tripp Avantika Regmi Lee Sustar Ron Jacobs Dave Lindorff Poets' Basement Website of
the Day
April 1, 2005 Tom Barry Rahul Mahajan Charlie Cray
/ Jim Vallette Dave Lindorff Zeynep Toufe Suzan Mazur Michael Dickinson Stan Cox Ra Ravishankar Daniel Wolff
March 31, 2005 Sharon Smith Ron Jacobs Tariq Ali Michael Dickinson Kanak Mani
Dixit Mitchell Zimmerman Xuan-Trang
Ho Dave Zirin Joe Bageant Jeff Halper Website of
the Day
March 30, 2005 Gary Leupp Ralph Nader
/ Kevin Zeese Chase Madar Toni Solo Jackie Corr Ahmad Faruqui Mike Roselle Jude Wanniski Francis A.
Boyle Jeffrey St.
Clair Website of
the Day
March 29, 2005 Ralph Nader Gary Leupp Sonia Cardenas Stew Albert Mark Weisbrot Dave Lindorff Carl G. Estabrook
March 28, 2005 Jeremy Scahill Sonali Kolhatkar Sasha Kramer Kevin Zeese Tom Stephens Dr. Teresa Whitehurst Newton Garver Paul Craig
Roberts Website of the Day
March 26 / 27, 2005 Gary Leupp Peter Linebaugh Marc Robert Laura Carlsen Saul Landau
/ Puja Patel Dave Foreman Fred Gardner Jennifer Matsui Dave Lindorff Dharma Adhikari Joshua Frank Patrick Barr Christopher
Brauchli Ramzy Baroud Jackie Corr Ben Tripp Dr. Susan Block Mickey Z. Justin Taylor Richard Joseph Poets' Basement
March 25, 2005 Scott Richard
Lyons Yoshie Furuhashi Pat Williams Mark Engler Rahul Mahajan Lance Selfa Ralph Nader John R. Llewellyn Jo Guldi
March 24, 2005 Joshua Frank Talli Nauman Martin Espada Dave Lindorff Elaine Cassel Jack McCarthy Jack Random Barbara Ferguson Suzan Mazur Dorreen Yellow Bird Andrew Wimmer
and Mark Chmiel
Patrick Bond Mike Whitney Becky White Michael Donnelly Niranjan Ramakrishnan Ashley Smith David Swanson Derrick O'Keefe Paul A. Moore Dalton Walker Patrick Cockburn
March 22, 2005 William Blum Jim Vallette Greg Moses John Farley Ron Jacobs M. Junaid Alam Rep. Cynthia
McKinney Dave Lindorff James Petras
March 21, 2005 John Walsh Werther Mike Stark David Swanson James T. Phillips Mike Ferner Robert Jensen Paul Craig
Roberts Stew Albert Website of
the Day
March 19, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Tom Reeves Saul Landau Alan Maass Ron Jacobs David Green John Blair Steve Greenfield Ben Tripp Mike Roselle Joshua Frank Mark Weisbrot Dave Lindorff Sarah Schaffer Warren Hastings Poets' Basement
March 18, 2005 Dave Zirin Richard Thieme John Walsh David Swanson Ben Terrall David Boyle Dorreen Yellow Bird Mokhiber /
Weissman Greg Moses Website of
the Day
March 17, 2005 Christopher
Brauchli Bill Quigley Brian Cloughley Gary Bass / Adam Hughes Dave Lindorff Jude Wanniski Alexander Billet John Ross Website of the Day
March 16, 2005 Ralph Nader William Cook Kevin Zeese Jackie Corr Alan Maass David R. Kolker Cindy Ellen
Hill Paul Craig
Roberts
March 15, 2005 Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff Greg Moses Hadas Their
/ Katrina Yeaw Alison Weir Matt Koehler Evelyn Pringle Harry Browne
March 14, 2005 Ralph Nader David Miller Stan Cox Mike Roselle David Swanson Simona Sharoni Dave Lindorff Dorreen Yellow Bird Tom Barry Website of the Day
March 12 / 13, 2005 David H. Price Noam Chomsky Laura Carlsen Stan Goff Valentina Nicoli Michael Leonardi Saul Landau
/ Sarah Anderson Joe Bageant Manuel García,
Jr. Greg Moses James J. Brittain Ben Tripp Joshua Frank Fred Gardner Walter Brasch Ramzy Baroud Christopher
Brauchli Michael Donnelly Ron Jacobs Richard Oxman Poets' Basement
March 11, 2005 Jerry Fresia Ron Jacobs Dave Lindorff William James
Martin Muqtedar Khan Kathryn Ledebur Mike Whitney Dave Zirin Website of the Day
March 10, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts John Marc Leas, Colleen McLaughlin
and Ashley Smith Larry Birns Michael Donnelly Luis Gomez Jackie Corr Uri Avnery Website of the Day
March 9, 2005 Jeffrey St.
Clair Ward Churchill Robert Fisk Bernice Powell Jackson Mickey Z. Dave Zirin Michael Donnelly James Reiss Vijay Prashad
March 8, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts Robert Fisk Kurt Nimmo Suzan Mazur Evelyn Pringle Giuliana Sgrena Elaine Cassel
March 7, 2005 Dave Zirin Brian Cloughley John Chuckman Mike Whitney Mark Weisbrot Fred Gardner Richard Neville Uri Avnery
March 5 / 6, 2005 Alexander Cockburn Gary Leupp Ron Jacobs Tom Reeves Jenna Orkin Tom Barry Joshua Frank Moshe Adler Jane Stillwater Omar Barghouti / Jacqueline
Sfeir Christopher
Brauchli John Pilger Raúl
Zibechi David Krieger Three Takes on Nepal Surendra R. Devkota Bhishma Karki Joseph Pietri Ben Tripp Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 4, 2005 Frederick Hudson
March 3, 2005 Pat Williams Brian Cloughley Dave Lindorff Amira Hass Greg Moses Lynne Landes Nelson P. Valdés John Ross
March 2, 2005 Saul Landau
/ Farrah Hassen Mike Roselle M. Junaid Alam Suzan Mazur Jackson Thoreau Michael Donnelly Jeffrey St.
Clair Website of the Day
March 1, 2005 Scott Richard
Lyons David Lindorff Patrick Cockburn
/ David Enders Ron Jacobs Tanya Garcia Joseph Pietri Kona Lowell Paul Craig
Roberts Website of
the Day
Hot Stories Alexander Cockburn Subcomandante
Marcos Norman Finkelstein Steve Niva Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams Steve
J.B. Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber Wendell
Berry CounterPunch
Wire Cindy
Corrie Gore Vidal Francis Boyle
Subscribe Online
|
April 8, 2005 Elephant in the ParlorWhat King Gyanendra is Teaching the World About Nepal's ConstitutionBy
HOM RAJ ACHARYA Washington, DC There's an elephant in the parlor. Perhaps it's time to notice. Ever since Feb. 1, when King Gyanendra imposed a state of emergency in the Himalayan kingdom, much of the country's intellectual leadership has charged the king with hijacking democracy and returning to the pre-1990 days of party-less rule. They have called on him to release the jailed political leaders, restore democratic rights, and engage in dialogue with parties and the Maoists. All of that is well and good. But to simply call for a reinstatement of multiparty democracy and a lifting of the state of emergency is to miss the point. King Gyanendra, it seems, is a strict constructionist of the Constitution. Nothing the king has done so far, whatever his ultimate intentions, appear to violate the broad powers given him by the laws of Nepal. If his actions violate our own sense of morality and convictions about democratic norms and values, then the last weeks have raised troubling questions about a Constitution that gives one man the power to enact such draconian measures. But either the Constitution is flawed and the king is within his legal if not perhaps his moral rights, or the Constitution is not flawed and the king is simply right. There are several ways to react to this situation. But perhaps the most popular tact has been to avert our eyes from the awkward sight of Nepal's Constitution in actionthe elephant in the parlor--and keep on talking about other things, like international mediation and how to bring the Maoists to the table. It is, of course, the brutal Maoist insurgency that has brought Nepal to this miserable state, and discussion about how to end the violence is crucial. But the Maoists have made it more than clear that their central grievance is the role of the monarchy. Whatever their hidden and not-so-hidden agendas, engaging them on this subject will be key to any effective peace negotiation. To fail to address that elephant-sized issue is to practice willful blindness. Unless Nepal is extraordinarily lucky and the power of Vishnuwhose avatar the monarch is supposed to be--delivers the Maoists into the hands of the army, then their grievances against the current Constitution will continue. And even if the rebels do come to the table, perhaps as their way to buy time before yet another round of violence, a wistful plea for peace and the best interlocutor in the world can do nothing unless questions about the Constitution are squarely addressed. Only this gives the Maoists the prerequisite for successful negotiations: a face-saving way out of their current impasse. Certainly it is more comfortable to present the case to the international community in terms of a monarch overextending his legal limits. If the king continues the emergency for up to three years, as he has expressed himself willing to do, his takeover would indeed become unconstitutional. But at the moment, those who decry the state of emergency are like the American abolitionists who deplored the 1857 decision of the US Supreme Court that the slave Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was only three-fifths of a person. That was indeed the case under the US Constitution, and the weight of any argument against it was moral, not legal. Even if the king is violating international laws, he appears to be doing so legally under the law of Nepal. And that argues the case not for a return to the status quo, but for a discussion about constitutional change. If it achieves nothing else, the king's move on Feb. 1 has put into focus the extraordinary powers that Nepal's Constitution always granted the monarchy. It includes an interesting and rather unusual section called "Article 115: Emergency Power." Under this article, the king can impose a state of emergency "if a grave crisis arises in regard to the sovereignty or integrity of the Kingdom of Nepal or the security of any part thereof whether by war, external aggression, armed rebellion or extreme economic disarray." In theory, the king could impose a state of emergency because Nepal is very, very poor. Even without a Maoist crisis, he could take the reins of power because of rampant corruption, which surely helps to put Nepal in "extreme economic disarray." He can then legally suspend the freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble peaceably, the freedom from preventive detention without cause, and even, theoretically, the freedom to exercise a profession such as journalism or human rights activism. Not until three months after such a proclamation would it need to be laid before the House of Representatives or, in its absence, the National Assembly. That deadline has not yet expired, and when it does, he can extend it for another period of detentions and crackdowns. To lobby the king to relax the state of emergency and release detainees may be something that we as individuals concerned with human rights feel compelled to do. But it also comes down to a matter of trying to convince the elephant to get off our feet. The discomfort and pressure may be gone, but it can always return at the will of the elephant. Perhaps the advantages of keeping an elephant outweigh the disadvantages, but that is something that does need to be discussed openly. The fact that the Maoists have been calling for a constituent assembly for years should not frighten people of good will from making the call as well. There is no question that the Maoist's path of bloodshed has been a horribly wrong direction for Nepal, and one from which the nation will not easily recover. But if one's enemy says the sky is blue, does it make sense to argue that it must, then, be green? The notion of a constituent assembly did not originate with the Maoists. Have the Maoists now conquered that piece of intellectual and political territory so thoroughly that others are afraid to step on it for fear of being tarred as Maoists? There is no reason to imagine that the first effort at creating a democratic constitution should be a permanent and inviolable one. Even the United States had a false start, and its initial constitution, the Articles of Confederation, were ditched when they didn't work and a constitutional convention was held to draft a more workable constitution. Under the Nepali version of this sort of constitutional convention, a constituent assembly, the parties would go to the people with a clear-cut agenda on what they want from a constitution. Their particular provisions could be incorporated depending largely on the percentage of votes they receive. The king's supporters could make their case. Even the Maoists could make their case if they chose to honor their own words and participate. Supporters of the king's move have argued that it is not a coup that derails democracy, but a daring initiative that is, in effect, Nepal's last chance. Giving the monarch a strong role in the 1990 constitution has proven to be a wise move, this argument goes, because it has enabled Gyanendra to do precisely what he is doing today. Very well. If that is the case, then there would be no shortage of Nepalis happy to support the continuation of a monarchy along roughly the same lines that it holds today. If the king's move has been as desperately needed, as welcomed, and as effective as its supporters contend, then it is hard to imagine that a strong monarchy would not be permanently enshrined in the constitution of a nation as proud of its traditions and, frankly, as resistant to change as Nepal. "Give him a chance," many argue. Well, why not? On Feb. 1, King Gyanendra put the future of monarchy in Nepal on the line, and while even those who do not agree with his actions must applaud his courage. If he's successful in promoting peace through his methods, then the people of Nepal will surely support the king. And at any rate, nothing being said at this point about a constituent assembly or any other option that raises questions about his future powers could keep him from exercising his present powers, over the next few months, and pursuing his version of a solution. The king's actions can be taken as tantamount to a campaign for the benefits of precisely the type of monarchy that Nepal has today. It's crucial that a constituent assembly, if it ever happens, include an opportunity for balanced representation of royalist views. Under the moral framework of democracy, every hue and color must be allowed a platform. Exclusion plants the seed of destruction that grows in the margins. Nepal has a large conservative population with longstanding affection for the monarchy, and this is surely as true in Rolpa and Rukum as anywhere else. It would be deeply undemocratic to ignore and marginalize any viewpoint, including the royalist one. Of course, there are also many with a different image of a future. Some do not believe that a republican Nepal would be worse in the end than a republican India, or that the corruption and imperfections of the political parties are beyond the reach of civil society. Others support a more restrained monarchy on a European model. But whatever one's viewpoint, Feb. 1 has meant that the relationship between Nepal's king and its Constitution is a matter that needs to be approached squarely and honestly. The king is either of three things: a white elephant too expensive and archaic to maintain (the answer of republicans), a work elephant with extraordinarily useful power (the royalist answer), or a cherished creature of mainly symbolic value who bests functions as a unifier (probably the answer of choice for many in the pro-democracy camp). It is clearly the royalist answer that best suits the current Constitution. Those who find the state of emergency a deplorable attack on human rights and at odds with democratic norms and values are making a moral, not a legal, argument. A call to legally and peacefully revisit the Constitution could be the best way to address not only the international community's concern about human rights in Nepal, but also to bring the Maoists to the negotiating table. If they can save face and escape their current impasse, in which they are unlikely to triumph and unlikely to be defeated, all of Nepal will benefit. Of course, any proposed remedy such as a constituent assembly or a referendum could produce great change, or very little change. But it would at least produce a majority verdict. In a true democracy, it's possible for everyone to become a winner in the long run precisely because we accept the possibility of being gracious losers in the short run. In a democratic decision about the Constitution, many would find ourselves in the minority camp. But at the end of the day, we would know that we have fought the good fight--not in the jungles with weapons that destroy our brothers and sisters, and not on the streets in yet another round of aimless protest, but at the ballot box where ideas peacefully and honestly contend. Or we can keep ignoring the elephant in the parlor, and our house will be uncomfortable for a long time to come. Hom Raj Acharya is a poet, writer, and literacy activist from rural Nepal who founded the grassroots nonprofit Books in Every Home, and promotes literacy in Washington DC as an education policy analyst with the D.C. government. Sally Acharya is an American journalist who has
worked in Kathmandu . A version of this article originally ran
at FreeNepal.org, They
can be reached at acharya@american.edu
|
