<![CDATA[Who is the ‘international community’ in Nepal?]]>As a sovereign country of Southasia, if we have to listen to international opinion, does not Nepal also need to heed the views/feelings of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar, or should we continue to go by the amorphous and selective use of ‘international community’?
Kanak Mani Dixit
Amidst the current jousting between Government of Nepal/ruling parties and certain members/combines of the ‘international community’, I would like to know who do we refer to when we say/accept the usage of ‘international community’. Are we talking of the entire community or selected members/combines? Are we talking of the European Union, in which case do the statements/activism that have been emanating therefrom include, say, Germany? Where does South Korea stand? What about the embassies unrepresented in KTM but with interest in Nepal? Do we mean ‘West’ when we say ‘international community’? When we do say ‘West’, is the focus mainly on a US-EU combine, or do we include Australia and Japan and Canada? Is there absolutely unanimity among the ‘international community’ and the “West’, or is it he who makes the noise that gets heard? When the UN Resident Coordinator puts out a note in the name of the ‘international community’, who is included – the multilateral agencies, the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, WB, IFC), and which all embassies, and should we not have a listing at the bottom of all statements to clarify rather than add to the murk?
The broadest use of ‘international community’ in Kathmandu seems to include India and China. As a sovereign country of Southasia, if we have to listen to international opinion, does not Nepal also need to heed the views/feelings of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar, or should we continue to go by the amorphous and selective use of ‘international community’? Let us have some clarity!!
(Note: I believe that the ‘international community’ has a right and duty to speak for the protection of democracy and human rights of any country, including Nepal. (In that sense, my own use of ‘international community’ includes every country from Bangladesh to Belgium.) However, the members of the diplomatic corps, from countries near and far, must keep off the terrain of constitution-writing so the Nepali people and political forces are left to themselves on this matter.)
(This article was originally posted as facebook status by Mr Kanak Mani Dixit. We have reproduced here with his permission.)
]]>
Amidst the current jousting between Government of Nepal/ruling parties and certain members/combines of the ‘international community’, I would like to know who do we refer to when we say/accept the usage of ‘international community’. Are we talking of the entire community or selected members/combines? Are we talking of the European Union, in which case do the statements/activism that have been emanating therefrom include, say, Germany? Where does South Korea stand? What about the embassies unrepresented in KTM but with interest in Nepal? Do we mean ‘West’ when we say ‘international community’? When we do say ‘West’, is the focus mainly on a US-EU combine, or do we include Australia and Japan and Canada? Is there absolutely unanimity among the ‘international community’ and the “West’, or is it he who makes the noise that gets heard? When the UN Resident Coordinator puts out a note in the name of the ‘international community’, who is included – the multilateral agencies, the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, WB, IFC), and which all embassies, and should we not have a listing at the bottom of all statements to clarify rather than add to the murk?