Truth and reconciliation commission

 Truth and reconciliation commission

 Truth and reconciliation commission is a commission tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government, in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past. They are, under various names, occasionally set up by states emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil war, or dictatorship. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established by President Nelson Mandela after apartheid, is generally considered a model of Truth Commissions. (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like body assembled in South Africa after the abolishment of apartheid. Anyone who felt that he or she was a victim of its violence was invited to come forward and be heard. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from prosecution.)

NEPALESE CONTEXT

The government has, under the initiation of Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction, drafted the Bill to set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The draft Bill is said, inter alia to have expedient to constitute an independent and impartial commission to bring the actual facts to the public by investigating the truth on persons involved in gross violation of human rights end crimes against humanity committed by both the government and Maoists during the course of armed conflict between 13 February 1996 to 21 November 2007.

Concept

The TRC is not a new concept in human rights law. A number of countries in the world have experiences of TRC. For example, Bolivia (1982), Argentina (1983), Zimbabwe (1885), Philippines (1986), Chad (1990), Chile (1990), El Salvador (1992), Guatemala (1994), Haiti (1994), Sri Lanka (1994), Uganda (1ë94), South Africa (1995), Ecuador (1996), Nigeria (1999), Sierra Leone (1999), Peru (2000), Uruguay (2000); South Korea (2000), Panama (2001), East Timor (2001), Ghana (2001), Serbia and Montenegro (2002) etc. are few names which have experiences of TRC.The concept of Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a crucial provision of the Bill. It is composed of not more than seven members appointed on the recommendation of committee constituted with consensus of the political parties having representation in the parliament,

The Commission is empowered to make reconciliation between the victim and the perpetrator mutually if any individual is found guilty while carrying out inquiry and investigation under the Act. The Commission may, in relation to making reconciliation, ask the perpetrator to make an apology with the victim by regretting his/her past misdeeds . In other cases, the Commission can recommend to government for necessary action against such person found guilty.

In a major provision of the Bill, the Commission is, notwithstanding anything contained in other Sections, empowered to make recommendation for amnesty even to such person who is found to have committed “gross violation of human rights” or “crime against humanity” in course of abiding by his/her duties or with the objective of fulfilling political motives. In the meantime, the Bill denies for amnesty to a person invo1ved in acts: any kind of murder committed after taking under control or carried out in an inhumane manner; inhumane and cruel torture; and rape.

Major shortcomings

The Bill has come up with the compliance of broad mandate of the Interim Constitution, the Comprehensive Peace Accord, Common Minimum’ Program of the Interim Government and Government of Nepal (Allocation of Business) Rules to hold a culture of accountability by ending the culture of impunity. However, the draft Bill Seriously suffers from number of flaws, including the conceptual ones. Some major shortcomings include as follows:

First, the Bill mandates the Commission to carry out the investigation of crimes committed by both the government and Maoists during the armed conflict. This is good news. But in the meantime, it limits the crimes to as “gross violation of human rights” and “crimes against humanity”. The basic purview of TRC does not limit within “Crimes against humanity”. It should have a broad mandate in making of crimes against “human rights” and “humanitarian laws”. The “crime against humanity” of the Bill is just a set of crime under humanitarian laws. It does not include the whole crimes of humanitarian laws. The crimes against humanitarian laws at east include- “genocide”, “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”. The Bill also does not define what “gross” violations of human rights are and what none are.

Secondly, the provision of the Bill to appoint Commissioners on the recommendation of committee constituted “with consensus of the political parties” having representation in the parliament is not fair and principled. The terms “consensus of political parties” do not comply with the concept of rule of law, which always demands legal certainty (clear written provision) and procedural fairness. The appointment process is also linked with the structural and functional independence of the Commission. The Truth Commission is essentially a court-like body. Its aim is to expose what really happened in the armed conflict and grant relief to the victim by bringing the perpetrator into the justice. That is way the foremost condition of Commission is to be competent, independent and impartial. Constitute the Commission or appoint commissioners from those who are within the jurisdiction of Commission is to loss every effort to maintain the transitional justice. If the Commission is for to carry out investigation of crimes committed by both the government and Maoists during the course of armed conflict between 13 February 1996 to 21 November 2007, how can the Commission be constituted with consensus of the political parties having representation in the parliament. This is a serious question confronted with the appointment process of TRC.

Third and the most serious flaws of the Bill include the provision of amnesty even to such person who is found to have committed gross violation of human rights or crime against humanity. The Bill has made any culprit eligible for amnesty to “gross violation of human rights” or to “crime against humanity” if the Commission finds that he/she has committed such crime in course of abiding by his/her duties or fulfilling political objectives. This provision is blunder in the Bill. Its consequence in the first place is that, it has made politics and crimes complementarysynonymous to each other. Secondly, it has given license of committing any kind of gross violation of human rights including killings, murders, rape etc. and crimes against humanity to any person who performs public duties or involves with politics. By virtue of this provision, this is natural that all the Maoists and government authorities who are to be trailed under the Act, be given full amnesty on the grounds that both the parties were involved by abiding public duties and fulfilling political objectives respectively during the armed conflict. Not only is this but the Bill also designed to give amnesty to all the suspects of Rayamajhi Commission’ as the effect of Bill covers period from 13 February 196 to 21 November 2007.

In the meantime, the Bill denies for amnesty to a person involved in acts like: any kind of murder committed after taking under control or carried out in an ‘inhumane manner”; “inhumane” and “cruel” torture; and rape. This is another serious joke by the implication of which, the Commission while making investigation has to classify murder into two types, i.e. the murder committed in a “human manner” and committed in an “inhuman manner”. And, it will give amnesty to a person whose commission of murder is found as “human”. The same rule applies in the case of torture too.

The observation of very concept of TRC and experiences of other countries suggest that the “amnesty” is not a “rule” but just a “rare and exception” in TRC system. And, amnesty is strictly exempted in case of the serious human rights and humanitarian crimes, namely, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.. Truth commissions are sometimes criticised for allowing crimes to go unpunished, and creating impunity for serious human rights abusers. The practice of South Africa is one model of TRC which granted amnesty to the suspect. The TRC set up in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act after the end of Apartheid was mandated with bearing witness, recording and in “some cases” granting amnesty to the perpetrators. But, the amnesty was not a rule for Commission. This is a proof that out of 7112 petitioners only 849 were granted amnesty and 5392 were refused amnesty on ground of serious human rights violators.

Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM)

Shahab-3  medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM)

The Shahab-3 (Persian: شهاب-۳, meaning "Meteor-3") is a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) developed by Iran and based on the Nodong-1. An early variant could fly 1,300 kilometres (810 mi); they now can reach 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi). It was tested from 1998 to 2003 and added to the military arsenal on July 7, 2003, with an official unveiling by Ayatollah Khamenei on July 20.

The forerunners to this missile include the Shahab-1 and Shahab-2. The then-Iranian Defense Minister Admiral Shamkhani has denied that Iran plans to develop a Shahab-4.

Operating under the Sanam Industrial Group (Department 140), which is part of the Defense Industries Organization of Iran, the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG), with aid from at least three Russian military enterprises, led the development of the Shahab missile.

Shahab-3B

The Shahab-3B differs from the basic production variant. It has improvements to its guidance system and warhead, a few small changes on the missile body, and a new re-entry vehicle whose terminal guidance system and rocket-nozzle steering method are completely different from the Shahab-3A's spin-stabilized re-entry vehicle.

The new re-entry vehicle uses a triconic aeroshell geometry (or 'baby bottle' design) which improves the overall lift to drag ratio for the re-entry vehicle. This allows greater range maneuverability which can result in better precision. The triconic design also reduces the overall size of the warhead from an estimated 1 metric ton (2,200 lb) to 700 kg (1,500 lb).

The rocket-nozzle control system allows the missile to change its trajectory several times during re-entry and even terminal phase, effectively preventing pre-calculated intercept points of radar systems - which is a method nearly all ABM systems use these days. As a high-speed ballistic missile and pre-mission fueling capability, the Shahab-3 has an extremely short launch/impact time ratio. This means that the INS/gyroscope guidance would also remain relatively accurate until impact (important, given the fact that the gyroscopes tend to become inaccurate the longer the flight lasts). Some sources estimate the CEP at 1,000–4,000 metres (3,300–13,000 ft), while other sources suggest it can be as low as 250–800 metres (820–2,600 ft). In any case, the accuracy of the missile is largely speculative and cannot be confidently predicted for wartime situations.

These improvements would greatly increase the Shahab-3B's survivability against ABM systems such as Israel's Arrow-2 as well as being used for precision attacks against high value targets such as command, control and communications centres.

Shahab-3C & D

Little is known about Shahab-3C and Shahab-3D. From what can be gathered, the missiles have an improved precision, navigation system, and a longer range. The missiles were indigenously developed, and are being mass produced.

History and tests

The Shahab-3 was first seen in public on September 25, 1998, in Azadi Square, Tehran in a parade held to commemorate the Iranian Sacred Defence Week. The missile was decorated with signs that read "The U.S. can do nothing" and "Israel would be wiped from the map."

Iran has conducted at least six test flights of the Shahab 3. During the first one, in July 1998, the missile reportedly exploded in mid-air during the latter portion of its flight; U.S. officials wondered whether the test was a failure or the explosion was intentional. A second, successful test took place in July 2000. In September 2000, Iran conducted a third test, in which the missile reportedly exploded shortly after launch. In May 2002, Iran conducted another successful test, leading then-Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani to say the test improved the Shahab-3's "power and accuracy." Another successful test reportedly occurred in July 2002. On July 7, 2003, the foreign ministry spokesman said that Iran had completed a final test of the Shahab 3 "a few weeks ago" that was "the final test before delivering the missile to the armed forces," according to a New York Times report.

On November 9, 2004, Shamkhani said Iran could mass-produce the missile.

On November 2, 2006, Iran fired unarmed missiles to begin 10 days of military war games. Iranian state television reported "dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km (190 mi) to up to 2,000 km (1,200 mi)...Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs." These launches come after some United States-led military exercises in the Persian Gulf on October 30, 2006, meant to train for blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction.

On July 8 2008, Iran test fired an upgraded version of the Shahab-3 as one of 9 medium- and long-range missiles launched as part of the Great Prophet III exercise, within a few weeks of a recently concluded military exercise by Israel. Other missiles fired include the surface-to-surface Fateh-110 and Zelzal missiles. Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps air and naval units conducted these tests in a desert location.Air Force commander Hossein Salami advised that Iran was ready to retaliate to military threats, saying "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch."

Shahab-3
Type	Strategic MRBM
Service history
In service	2003–present
Used by	Iran
Production history
Manufacturer	Iran
Variants	A,B,C,D
Specifications
Diameter	1.2 m (3 ft 11 in)
Warhead	One (990 kg/2,200 lb) - five cluster warheads in new models (280 kg/620 lb) each warhead, each warhead can target different destinations.
Engine	Liquid & Solid (for models made after 2006)
Operational range	2,100 km (1,300 mi)
Speed	5,500 km/h (3,400 mph), 21 mach in final phase.

Nepal India Border Dispute

Nepal India Border Dispute

Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee declared in 2005 that the two countries shared a common border of 1,880km. Nepal covers a total area of 147,181 Sq km. But in reality, the territory of Nepal is gradually shrinking thanks to increasing encroachment by India that has put the sovereignty of Nepal at stake.The reports prepared by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha renowned border expert after thorough survey make it evident that India has encroached about 59,970 hectares of Nepali territory at 54 points in 21 districts adjoining India in the east, west and South. But if the areas affected by the unilateral activities of our southern neighbor such as construction of dams and irrigation projects are considered as encroachment, which according to researcher Phanindra Nepal, we should, the number increases to 85 points. Disagreements over the location of boundary pillars and claims of encroachment are rare along the 1,240km-long, 10-yard-wide strips of no man’s land. However, 640km of the border runs through meandering river beds that change course every few years. When old river courses dry out, and grabbers on both sides claim public land for private use.

Kalapani-Limpiyadhura

Among the encroached areas, the much disputed Kalapani-Limpiyadhura area with 372 sq km (37,800 hectares) is the largest chunk of Nepali territory encroached by India. The encroachment started right after the India-China border war of November 1962. After facing defeat, the Indian army set up a camp inside Nepal's territory of Kalapani to keep an eye on Chinese activities. But now, they claim the area belongs to India.

The Treaty of Sugauli (1816) has clearly mentioned that the River Mahakali is the borderline of Nepal-India. The crux of the issue in dispute is the determination of the origin of the river Mahakali. "The maps of 1850 and 1856 prepared by the Survey of India with the participation of Nepalese authority clearly states that the river originates from Limpiyadhura, 16 km northwest of Kalapani, which proves that Kalapani belongs to Nepal," says Shrestha.

But the Indian side refuses to accept those maps as proof. They say that the map prepared by them in 1875 should be considered as proof as it was scientifically prepared. But what is remarkable is that the map does not have Nepal's certification. According to the map, the river Mahakali's origin is Lepulek.

Tribeni-Susta

In recent times, the Tribeni-Susta situated on the east of Narayani River in the mid-southern part of Nawalparasi district is the most tense area owing to encroachment.

Just a few weeks ago, some Indians invaded Nepali territory in Susta and burnt down all the sugarcane.

About two months ago, over 1000 Indian villagers backed by Indian Border Police Force (Seema Sashastra Bal) SSB had forcibly entered Nepalese territory in Susta. They completely destroyed the sugarcane in about 10 hectares of land and also manhandled men and women.

According to locals of Susta, such incidents are rampant in the area. Sometimes, they send Bihari miscreants to chase away Nepalis from their homes while sometime the Indian police cross the border and manhandle Nepalis on the pretext that they are searching for Munna Khan, an Indian gangster, who was once used by the Indian side to create disorder in Susta, says Shrestha.

Nepali farmers initiated the "Save Susta Campaign" to safeguard Nepalese territory but how long can they stop the Indian side is the question. They say they appealed to Nepalese authorities several times to take necessary action but the authorities are turning a deaf ear to them.

Experts say the changing course of the Narayani River is the main reason behind the dispute. Over the decades, the Narayani River has been changing its course toward the Nepalese side in the west, and the Indians have been trying to capture Nepalese territory. India has so far grabbed about 13,500 hectares of Nepalese land because of this.

Mechi Border

The other most talked about point of dispute is Mechi. India's disapproval of Masonry Pillars popularly known as Junge Pillars as the main boundary pillars had sparked the Mechi Border dispute.

The map published in January 1818, right after the Sugauli Treaty, shows the Junge Pillars as the main boundary pillars. More importantly, history is evidence that British had erected those pillars as monuments of the Nepal-India border.

But the Nepal-India Joint Technical Border Committee adopted the Persian Map (Urdu script) of 1874 as the reference material, which was provided by the Indian side.

Because of the Nepali side's wrong decision accepting the Persian Map as the basis of demarcation, a total area of 1630 hectares of land has fallen on the Indian side.

Why does India encroach Nepal's land?

Experts are of the view there could be multiple reasons why India eyes Nepali land.

If Phanindra Nepal is to be believed, India wants Kalapani area primarily to keep an eye on the Chinese, Pyaratal for its biological diversity, and a large part of terai land for agriculture," says Nepal. He also says it cannot be ruled out that a power and water hungry India is eyeing Nepal's rivers.

Shrestha also believes that the main reason for encroachment is that India wants to meet the demand for settlement and agriculture for its ever growing population.

What needs to be done to stop encroachment and solve dispute?

According to Shrestha the issue can no longer be solved though bilateral meetings as India is not paying heed to Nepal's point of view. "The issue must be taken to the United Nations as India is not responding to Nepal's call for bilateral meeting," says Shrestha.

But Phanindra Nepal is of the view that lack of sincerity and patriotism are the main drawbacks of the Nepali side while negotiating with their Indian counterparts. He also says collective effort is needed to face the Indian side strongly. "Because of the news carried by the media, government deployed security personnel in Susta area on 28 October," he adds that media should carry border dispute news more frequently.

Besides, civic society must also pressurize the government to take necessary steps soon, he adds.

But we are virtually doing nothing to stop the encroachment and to resolve the existing dispute. Researchers like Shrestha and Nepal say there are so many such points where not even one security personnel has been deployed to guard our territory and citizens.

Altogether, 27 Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee meetings have been held in the last 25 years but they have not yielded any result yet.