Submit your Article

Reflecting upon the intricate challenge of harmonizing theoretical principles with the practical facets agreed upon by political parties and commissions in previous political discussions, the ongoing discourse on transitional justice is deeply engaging. Almost 17 years have elapsed since the signing of the peace agreement, yet transitional justice persists as a sensitive and complex matter. There exists a unanimous consensus that for the peace agreement to be truly meaningful, the process of creating and implementing laws, along with the effective functioning of commissions, is imperative.

Transitional justice is not merely a concern for specific political entities but also a national priority. The key lies in fostering unity and responsibility among political parties, extending beyond legal technicalities. Moreover, strict adherence to the Supreme Court's interpretation and orders throughout the transitional justice process is a crucial aspect of moving forward.

It is important to recognize the prevalence of misleading narratives surrounding transitional justice and advocate for careful discussions to dispel such misconceptions. A special committee comprising experts and members having diverse political backgrounds must be formed and this committee should play a pivotal role in providing recommendations on the bill related to transitional justice. It is necessary to address ambiguities in the bill concerning the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity through simplified definitions.

Key recommendations are the significance of inclusivity when establishing a commission for truth-seeking, reconciliation and the identification of victims of transitional justice. Emphasis should be on the inclusion of individuals with national recognition and subject-specific expertise. Furthermore, tasks related to transitional justice, encompassing truth-seeking, prosecution, reparations and institutional reforms, need prioritizing.

Underscoring the importance of embracing restorative and transformative justice concepts involves active involvement of victims in the dialogue process to gain their trust and effectively address their grievances. The report puts forward a comprehensive approach that includes truth-seeking, prosecutions for crimes committed, reparations for the victims and institutional reforms to prevent future injustices.

There should be no fight against the victims of the war. Urging introspection among all stakeholders, emphasizing the need to expedite the transitional justice process and putting an end to injustice—these must be our priorities. The event, which served as a platform for prominent figures to share their perspectives and suggestions, stands as a crucial step toward forging a path forward in the transitional justice process in Nepal.

In conclusion, the recommendations presented here are grounded in the belief that careful, inclusive and comprehensive approaches are essential for effective progression of transitional justice in Nepal. By prioritizing national unity, dispelling misleading narratives and actively engaging victims in the process, all stakeholders should work collectively toward a society that values accountability, reconciliation and lasting peace. The journey ahead is challenging, but with concerted efforts from political parties, experts and the broader community, the goals of transitional justice can be achieved.

The author is executive director at Nepal Center for Security Governance

All G7 member-states are members of G20, while China is at the center of G77. Of the BRICS nations, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil was the only head of the state and the government present at the Havana G77 summit whereas South Africa sent a cabinet minister for the summit. More than 100 countries, including 30 heads of state and government and those aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement, were present at the summit of the grouping that has 18 of the 25-member Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, observer states or dialogue partners as members in addition to seven of G20 member-states. 

The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres participated in the recent summits of BRICS, G20, G77 and the 78th UN convention. Guterres’ emphasis was on a new global order with increased participation from the Global South in the global governance system.

Guterres has asked G20 to assume leadership on two fronts: Emission reduction and climate justice. Eighty percent of emissions is from G20 countries, he pointed out, stressing the need for the latter to reduce emissions and build resilience in communities suffering the impacts of climate change. 

“This multiplicity of summits reflects the growing multipolarity of our world,” Guterres observed ahead of the Havana meeting and warned, “Multipolarity could be a factor in escalating geostrategic tensions, with tragic consequences.” 

At the G77 summit in Havana, pointing to climate and foreign debt, he articulated that the Global South was “trapped in a tangible global crisis.” The world is failing developing nations, he said, describing the grouping as “a champion of multilateralism”. Guterres stressed that G77 should “champion a system rooted in equality that is ready to reverse the injustice and neglect of centuries and deliver for all humanity and not only for the privileged”. 

China stated that it “will always make South-South cooperation a priority” in its dealing with the outside world.  Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel, the chair, said, “After all this time that the North has organized the world according to its interests, it is now up to the South to change the rules of the game.” 

In the realm of international relations and global governance, the roles of India and the US in the G20 and China in the G77 have significant implications. Fostered by G77, the ‘South bloc’ challenges traditional great power dominance and undertakes collective action to shape global politics. As India, the US and China navigate these blocs, their actions influence geopolitics and contribute to the ongoing dynamics of great power rivalry. Understanding these dynamics is critical for policymakers and scholars seeking to comprehend the changing landscape of international relations.

The US holds significant political influence within the G20 by virtue of its long-established global leadership and diplomatic reach. India has emerged as a voice representing developing nations and brings its unique political perspective to the forum. The US and India bring their distinct foreign policy priorities with connectivity and North-South cooperation. The US focuses on maintaining its global dominance and shaping the international order, while India emphasizes multilateralism, inclusivity and regional stability.

China pursues a distinct political strategy within the G77. Its active role, along with economic support, allows it to garner political influence, further reinforcing its position within the bloc. China seeks to promote its vision of development, connectivity and cooperation among developing nations through G77. Chinese foreign policy objectives concentrate on strengthening ties with these nations, including shaping economic relationships and securing access to resources

There is a saying that in an autocracy, one person has his way; in an aristocracy, a few people have their way; in a democracy, no one has his way. Now, the question is, would you prefer a self-intuitive leader or an unprejudiced one, who welcomes multiple thoughts in decision-making?

I recently came across an interview with a well-known municipality representative of Nepal. He proudly said being a leader with precise visions, he does not need to take advice from others. This reality-based short story depicts and sums up our political condition in which leaders/power-holders generalize their interests as a group or community’s interest guided by their self-intuitive knowledge. I wonder why our political parties and leaders are evolving into cult leaders. Why are they so reluctant to listen to others to identify the real policy problems by diving into some basic questions like what is the context, who are the key actors and other stakeholders, what is the policy problem, what are the relevant variables and outcome criteria?

Policy problems have multiple realities. It is a universal truth that reality is multifaceted, and actors entertain different ways to understand the issues and employ several criteria to work out solutions. In the political arena, there are many situations that we cannot measure, classify, and understand thoroughly. A positivistic interpretation cannot unveil many dimensions of policy problems as people reflect their limited knowledge, time, and memory. It is crystal clear that this sort of practice to analyze a problem will ultimately lead to a conflict in society. Thus, policymakers should adopt a dynamic approach to deal with a web of underlying realities of problems.

The next most fundamental thing is that policy issues are value-laden. Social values and policy problems co-exist in parallel. Values include justice, freedom, respect, community, and responsibility. Something can be two or more different things at once when problems appear along with social issues. To say it precisely, diverse groups may not hold the same thoughts on the same political phenomena as they judge it based on their principles, beliefs, status and many other elements. The Gurung community might hold different views from the Newar community on the same subject matter. Thus, policy-makers should be ultra-conscious about not destroying social harmony and contracts.

In the policy universe, problems intertwine with each other. It means a problem may have more than one variable. Policy problems arise from sociological, psychological and economic systems. For instance, multiple causes may be behind youth unemployment. To find diverse causes of the problem, public officials have to go through research and analysis before making decisions. Understanding the dynamics of the issues helps design effective policies and prevent unintended consequences This is one of the fundamental ways to ensure the rationality of decisions with adequate evidence.

Decision-makers should accept that their knowledge is limited. In his decision theory called Bounded Rationality, Herbert Simon talks about how our knowledge is partially rational. Human beings attempt to satisfy their personal interests, rather than optimize solutions. We often tend to analyze each subject in terms of our individual interests. He further believes humans cultivate logic and reason based on prior knowledge and experience, which ultimately leads to a false sense of rationality because we do not have all the information available. Deborah Stone, a renowned scholar, identifies that poor decisions of those in political power are the main reason for unfairness and unrest rather than culture, geography, climate, or any other factor. Hence, policymakers should be open to suggestions and criticisms for a healthy democratic practice.

The involvement of diverse groups/peoples helps to strengthen democratic practices in decision-making. James Buchanan, a Nobel laureate, assumes that individual political actors are guided by their self-interest in choosing the course of action to their best advantage. Circumvention of this practice is essential in developing nations to foster good governance. There is an old Sanskrit proverb that it is only through the articulation of diverse opinions that truth will finally emerge. It shows how important communication is among diverse groups to keep petty interests of power holders in check. Frank Fisher has introduced the ‘Argumentative Turn’ technique to exchange ideas among decision-makers. This technique allows ample opportunities for constructive debate, discourse, and conversation promoting communication among diverse thoughts in policy analysis. The main idea is that reason/logic does not evolve in individualism but in collectivism. This methodology being humanistic, subjective, and non-deterministic would help promote healthy discourse on political controversies.  

Policymakers have to formulate policies in various situations. They should comply with the democratic spirit to ensure good governance in underdeveloped nations. There are a few things that policymakers should be aware of before making policies. The most fundamental thing is that policy problems have multiple realities with values. They should know the dynamic nature of problems. To overcome such political dilemmas, they must be mindful of their limited knowledge and allow adequate room for people in policymaking.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a Chinese project introduced in 2013, has generated interest and concerns around the world. Through a network of highways, railroads, ports and other infrastructure, it seeks to link Asia, Africa, and Europe. One of the 149 nations that have ratified BRI is Nepal. Between China and India, Nepal has experienced its fair share of BRI-related advancements. This article investigates the contention that Nepal will fall into a debt trap as a result of BRI and analyzes the economic, geopolitical and developmental ramifications.

Understanding BRI: The BRI is a massive international infrastructure initiative that aims to link nations through a network of ports, highways, trains and other crucial infrastructure. It aspires to improve connectivity, trade and investment between participating countries. However, worries have been mounting in recipient nations over a possible debt burden resulting from these initiatives. In the case of Nepal, BRI’s effects are wide-ranging and intricate. Before signing any agreement related to BRI, Nepal must thoroughly weigh its advantages and hazards. 

The debt debate: According to critics, BRI projects, most of which come with Chinese loans attached, could result in a debt trap where recipient nations struggle to pay off their debts, which reduces their ability to make strategic decisions. Nepal may encounter this problem, given its constrained fiscal capability. Also, proponents highlight the possibilities for infrastructure development, economic growth and job creation that BRI projects may offer to Nepal.

There is a chance that Nepal may gain a lot from BRI. It might help in enhancing the nation's connectedness, boosting its economy and generating jobs. However, there are worries that Nepal could fall into a debt trap because of BRI as China is presumably ‘giving unfavorable loans to developing nations to seize their assets’. This claim has been made in relation to BRI and other Chinese investment initiatives in underdeveloped nations. The debt trap argument is supported by some evidence. For instance, several nations, which borrowed money from China, have had difficulty paying back their loans and have been compelled to cede control of critical resources like ports. To be clear, not all Chinese loans are predatory, and the debt trap argument is frequently exaggerated.

BRI engagements: Nepal has expressed interest in BRI and sees it as a chance to address its lack of infrastructure. The BRI’s proposed cross-border road, hydropower, and railway projects have the potential to improve Nepal’s connectivity and energy security. The financial viability, environmental effect, and transparency of these initiatives continue to be a source of concern.

Risk factors

Debt sustainability: China’s loans account for a sizable amount of Nepal’s external debt, raising concerns about the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio. Implementing projects successfully and achieving strong economic growth are essential for repaying these debts on time and avoiding a debt catastrophe. 

Geopolitical implications: Given its ties to both China and India, Nepal’s participation in BRI has geopolitical implications. Maintaining a balance between these two powerful neighbors is essential for the stability of Nepal. 

Project viability: The long-term profitability, potential for revenue generation and adherence to environmental and social criteria all play a role in how economically viable BRI projects are in Nepal.

Mitigation techniques: Nepal might use a number of techniques to avoid falling into a debt trap and profit from the BRI. 

Transparent project evaluation: Thorough cost-benefit evaluations and open tendering procedures can be used to find projects that are both fiscally and developmentally feasible for Nepal. 

Diversified partnerships: Including a variety of parties like global financial institutions helps lessen reliance on a single lender and advance monetary stability. Put an emphasis on local benefits: Projects that promote local employment, technology transfer and skill development should be given first priority to maximize the beneficial effects on Nepal’s economy.

There are opportunities and hazards involved in the complex discussion of whether BRI will trap Nepal in a cycle of debt. To maximize the advantages and reduce potential risks of BRI, Nepal’s rigorous evaluation of project viability, transparency decision-making, and proactive interaction with different partners will be essential. Nepal’s response to BRI projects will influence its economic and geopolitical trajectory for years to come as the initiative develops.