This is a significant improvement, a total of 13 points, compared to the rank of 119 last year.

Previous ranks and scores for Nepal: 2010 (Rank: 119, Score: 36,38), 2009 (Rank: 118, Score: 35,63), 2008 (Rank: 118, Score: 35,63), 2007 (Rank: 137, Score: 53,75), 2006 (Rank: 159, Score: 73,50), 2005 (Rank: 60, Score: 86,75), 2004 (Rank: 160, Score: 84,00), 2003 (Rank: 150, Score: 51,50), and 2002 (Rank: 127, Score: 6300)

The report on Asia is as follows:

Violence and censorship on the rise in Asia

Violence and impunity persist in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Philippines, more repression in Sri Lanka, Vietnam and China

In Afghanistan (150th) and Pakistan (151st), violence remained the main concern for journalists, who were under constant threat from the Taliban, religious extremists, separatist movements and political groups. With 10 deaths in 2011, Pakistan was the world's deadliest country for journalists for the second year in a row.

In the Philippines (140th), which rose again in the index after falling in 2010 as a result of the massacre of 32 journalists in Ampatuan in November 2009, paramilitary groups and private militias continued to attack media workers. The judicial investigation into the Ampatuan massacre made it clear that the response of the authorities was seriously inadequate.

Journalists continued to be exposed to violence in Bangladesh (129th) and Nepal (106th), although less than in the past. In Nepal, journalists were regularly subjected to threats from rival political groups and their supporters. In Bangladesh, opposition groups and the ruling Awami League took turns to attack and obstruct the press. Despite genuine media pluralism, the law allows the government to maintain excessive control over the media and the Internet.

In Nepal, a decline in attacks by Maoist groups in the south and greater efficiency on the part of the justice system account for the modest improvement in the country's ranking. However, press freedom was marred by threats and attacks by politicians and armed groups throughout the year.

Authoritarianism and ambivalence at the bottom of the index
Freedom of information worsened considerably in two Asian countries under authoritarian rule.

China, which has more journalists, bloggers and cyber-dissidents in prison than any other country, stepped up its censorship and propaganda in 2011 and tightened its control of the Internet, particularly the blogosphere. The first protest movements in Arab countries and the ensuing calls for democracy in China's main cities set off a wave of arrests with no end yet in sight.

In the autonomous regions of Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, protests by minorities regularly gave rise to a harsh crackdown by the authorities. In Beijing and Shanghai, international correspondents were particular targets of the security forces and had to work under the continual threat of expulsion or having their visas withdrawn. Journalists were prevented from covering most of the events that threatened China's stability or might have given it a negative image.

Vietnam (172nd) appeared to follow China's repressive lead and fell seven places. Politically committed journalists and pro-democracy bloggers were harassed by the authorities while the courts continued to invoke state security to hand out prison sentences ranging from two to seven years. The blogger Pham Minh Hoang, for example, was sentenced to three years in prison and three years under house arrest on 10 August on a charge of trying to overthrow the government.

In Sri Lanka (163rd), the stranglehold of the Rajapakse clan forced the last few opposition journalists to flee the country. Any that stayed behind were regularly subjected to harassment and threats. Attacks were less common but impunity and official censorship of independent news sites put an end to pluralism and contributed more than ever to self-censorship by almost all media outlets.

Burma (169th) showed signs of beginning to carry out reforms including partial amnesties and a reduction in prior censorship, but it remained largely under the control of an authoritarian government run by former members of the military junta reinvented as civilian politicians. Less than 10 of its journalists remain in prison at the start of 2012.

In North Korea (178th), although news and information was able to move across its borders to a greater extent, no one knows whether this will continue under Kim Jong-un, the son and heir of Kim Jong-il. The dynastic succession, the dominance of the military machine and the government's desire for power give no grounds for optimism.

At the top, the good boys turn bad
Those who are traditionally good performers did not shine in 2011. With New Zealand's fall to 13th position, no country in the Asia-Pacific region figured among the top 10 in the index. Hong Kong (54th) saw a sharp deterioration in press freedom in 2011 and its ranking fell sharply. Arrests, assaults and harassment worsened working conditions for journalists to an extent not seen previously, a sign of a worrying change in government policy.

In Australia (30th), the media were subjected to investigations and criticism by the authorities, and were denied access to information, while in Japan (22nd) coverage of the tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear accident gave rise to excessive restrictions and exposed the limits of the pluralism of the country's press.

Causes for concern
In India (131st), journalists were exposed to violence stemming from the persistent conflicts in the states of Chhattisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir. The threat from mafia groups operating in the main cities of the coutnry also contributed to self-censorship. However, the authorities were no better. In May, they unveiled the "Information Technology Rules 2011," which have dangerous implications for online freedom of expression. Foreign reporters saw their visa requests turned down or were pressured to provide positive coverage.

In Indonesia, an army crackdown in West Papua province, where at least two journalists were killed, five kidnapped and 18 assaulted in 2011, was the main reason for the country's fall to 146th position in the index. A corrupt judiciary that is too easily influenced by politicians and pressure groups and government attempts to control the media and Internet have prevented the development of a freer press.

Illegal detention and intimidation in Mongolia (100th) and the Maldives (73rd) showed up the weakness of press freedom there. A climate of religious intolerance prevailed in the Maldives, where media organizations were subjected to threats by the authorities and had to deal with an Islamic affairs ministry bent on imposing the Sharia to the detriment of free expression.

Full report is here.

###

The report, Daily Lives and Corruption, Public Opinion in South Asia, surveyed 7, 500 people between 2010 and 2011 in Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The results help explain why the region is perceived to have some of the world's highest levels of corruption, with none of the surveyed countries in the top half of Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, in which they all score less than 3.5 out of 10.

The report says that South Asians regularly have to pay bribes when dealing with their public institutions, be it to speed up paperwork, avoid problems with authorities such as the police, or simply access basic services.

The report further says that political parties and the police are the most corrupt institutions in all six countries according to the survey, followed closely by the parliament and public officials. Officials entrusted to oversee deals related to buying, selling, inheriting and renting land were the next likely to demand a bribe.

"With bribery such a big a part of life for South Asians, you can see why so many people are angry at their governments for not tackling corruption. People are sick of paying bribes just to get on with their daily lives, and they are sick of the sleaze and undue influence of public servants," said Rukshana Nanayakkara, Senior Programme Coordinator for South Asia at Transparency International.

People prepared to fight corruption
While people across the region say the problem is getting worse, they are also likely to do something about it. 62 per cent of those interviewed believe corruption has become worse in the past three years. People from India and

Pakistan are most pessimistic about worsening corruption.

83 per cent of people declared themselves ready to get involved in fighting corruption. In India tens of thousands demonstrated for strong anti-corruption laws in August (see annex for more examples of people fighting corruption).

Less than a quarter of Indians surveyed thought their government's efforts to fight corruption were effective.

"Governments beware. People think corruption is on the rise and are willing to take action against it. In 2011 popular protests have sent a strong message to governments. They must respect the voice of their people and encourage citizen engagement," said Nanayakkara.

According to the survey, the country most plagued by bribery is Bangladesh where 66 per cent report paying bribes to public institutions, mostly just to gain access to services that people should already be entitled to.
Another common reason people cited for paying bribes was to avoid problems with authorities. Two-thirds of Indians,

Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who dealt with the police ended up paying a bribe.

In Nepal, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka, bribes were mostly paid to speed things up, highlighting how corruption can also be a barrier to business expansion. In Sri Lanka significantly more people paid bribes to tax authorities than other services, while in Nepal and the Maldives, customs services reportedly receive the most bribes.

Key Findings
39% of people report paying a bribe in the past 12 months. The result was startlingly high in Bangladesh at 66 per cent, followed by India and Pakistan, with 54 per cent and 49 per cent respectively reporting having paid a bribe to one of nine service providers in the past 12 months.

62% of people feel that corruption in their country has increased in the past three years. This was felt most strongly in India and Pakistan, where three out of four people felt that corruption had increased over the past three years.
Government leaders were named as the most trusted to fight corruption by 38% of people.

Government leaders were named as the most trusted to fight corruption in Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka. The media was the most trusted institution in India and Nepal (see page 16 of the report). In Pakistan the highest proportion of people reported that they trust 'nobody' to fight corruption.

81% of people agree that ordinary people can make a difference in the fight against corruption. People are especially positive in the Maldives and Pakistan, where 90 per cent and 89 per cent respectively agree that ordinary people can make a difference.

Some hope (a case from Nepal)
TI also noted that amid these poor indicators, there is hope. It has compiled some stories of successful fights against corruption from across the region. The following is a case from Nepal:

The regulation of political funding is a fairly new phenomenon in Nepal and the relevant rules were introduced only recently. Transparency International Nepal carried out research to evaluate them.

The research focused on examining transparency and accountability in the financing of the eight major parliamentary parties in the country. Compared with Bangladesh and Indonesia, Nepal had the lowest average score out of the three countries - with particular vulnerabilities existing in state oversight, reporting and the engagement of civil society.

Drawing attention to the findings, Transparency International Nepal has written to leaders of major political parties to initiate reforms on political finance. Our chapter recommended to the Speaker of the Assembly that the country's new constitution address legal loopholes and include state funding of political parties.

###

NEW YORK, Dec 20, 2011-- Pakistan remained the deadliest country for the press for a second year, while across the world coverage of political unrest proved unusually dangerous in 2011, the Committee to Protect Journalists found in its year-end survey of journalist fatalities. CPJ's analysis found notable shifts from historical data: Targeted murders declined while deaths during dangerous assignments such as the coverage of street protests reached their highest level on record. Photographers and camera operators, often the most vulnerable during violent unrest, died at rates more than twice the historical average.

At least 43 journalists were killed around the world in direct relation to their work in 2011, with the seven deaths in Pakistan marking the heaviest losses in a single nation. Libya and Iraq, each with five fatalities, and Mexico, with three deaths, also ranked high worldwide for journalism-related fatalities. The global tally is consistent with the toll recorded in 2010, when 44 journalists died in connection with their work. CPJ is investigating another 35 deaths in 2011 to determine whether they were work-related.

CPJ's survey identified significant changes in the nature of journalist fatalities. Sixteen journalists died while on dangerous assignments, many of them while covering the chaotic and violent confrontations between authorities and protesters during the uprisings that swept the Arab world. The victims included Hassan al-Wadhaf, a Yemeni cameraman shot by a sniper while covering antigovernment protests in Sana'a, and Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud, an Egyptian reporter gunned down while filming a protest in Cairo. "Journalists working in this environment are in no less danger than war correspondents covering an armed conflict," said Ahmed Tarek, a reporter for the Middle East News Agency who was assaulted by police while covering protests in Alexandria, Egypt. "The greatest danger journalists are facing today in post-revolution Arab countries is the targeting of journalists by political forces hostile to anyone who exposes them."

The 19 murders recorded in 2011 were the lowest total since 2002. Targeted murders--which historically account for nearly three-quarters of journalist deaths--constituted less than half of the 2011 toll. But murders were reported in both Russia and the Philippines, two countries long plagued by deadly, anti-press violence. In the southern Russian republc of Dagestan, an assassin waited outside the offices of the critical independent newspaper Chernovik and gunned down its founder, Gadzhimurad Kamalov. In the Philippines, CPJ documented the work-related murders of two radio commentators. One of them, Romeo Olea, was shot in the back while riding his motorcycle to work. CPJ is waging a Global Campaign Against Impunity that focuses particularly on these two countries.

Eight journalists died in combat situations in 2011, most of them during the Libyan revolution. The victims included the internationally acclaimed photojournalists Chris Hondros and Tim Hetherington, who were killed by a mortar round in the western city of Misurata, and Ali Hassan al-Jaber, a cameraman for Al-Jazeera who was shot outside Benghazi by forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi. The Libyan conflict was "one of the truly televised revolutions," said James Foley, an American video journalist for Global Post who was detained there in April. "Everyone was using a camera--and a camera is much more recognizable."

Photojournalists suffered particularly heavy losses in 2011. Photographers and camera operators constituted about 40 percent of the overall death toll, about double the proportion CPJ has documented since it began keeping detailed fatality records in 1992. Among those killed was Lucas Mebrouk Dolega, a photographer for European Pressphoto Agency who was struck by a tear gas canister fired by security forces trying to quell a massive January protest that led to the ouster of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

Eight online journalists were killed for their work during the year. Among the victims was Mexican reporter Maria Elizabeth Macías Castro, whose decapitated body was found near the city of Nuevo Laredo, along with a note saying she had been killed for reporting news on social media websites. Her murder was the first documented by CPJ worldwide that came in direct relation to journalism published on social media. The online death toll also includes Mohammed al-Nabbous, founder of the website Libya Al-Hurra TV, who was killed while covering a battle in Benghazi. Al-Nabbous had been streaming live audio from the scene of the battle when his feed was suddenly interrupted by gunfire.

Internet journalists rarely appeared on CPJ's death toll before 2008. But since that time, as online journalists constitute an ever-greater proportion of the front-line reporting corps, the number of victims who worked online has increased steadily.

CPJ's analysis also found a high proportion of freelancers among the 2011 victims. Nearly one-third of the toll was composed of freelance journalists, more than twice the proportion that freelancers have constituted over time. Azerbaijani freelance reporter Rafiq Tagi died in November after being stabbed on a Baku street. He had been threatened over his critical coverage of both Islamist politics and government policies.

Anti-press violence continued at high levels in Pakistan, where 29 journalists have died in direct relation to their work in the past five years. The 2011 victims included Saleem Shahzad, a reporter for Asia Times Online, who was murdered after exposing links between Al-Qaeda and Pakistan's navy. Five of the seven fatalities in Pakistan were targeted murders, and all are unsolved. Long-term CPJ research shows Pakistan to be among the worst countries in the world in bringing the killers of journalists to justice. "The solution is simple and very difficult at the same time," said Pakistani reporter Umar Cheema, who was himself abducted and brutally assaulted in 2010. "The government should be taking it seriously and realize it is their duty to protect journalists. If a journalist is threatened, the culprit should be brought to justice. Even if in one case the culprits were brought to justice, that would be a clear message that the crime will not go unpunished."

The death toll in Libya, while high, was unsurprising given the armed revolt and overall level of violence. That Iraq, with five deaths, matched Libya's fatality rate illustrates the entrenched level of violence in that country. After record death tolls in the middle part of the last decade, fatalities in Iraq began dropping in 2008. But deaths have levelled out in recent years as journalists continue to die in both targeted murders and insurgent attacks such as the March assault on a provincial government building in Tikrit that took the lives of reporters Sabah al-Bazi and Muammar Khadir Abdelwahad.
In Mexico, CPJ documented three deaths in direct relation to journalism and is investigating the killings of four other journalists. Mexican authorities appear paralyzed in their efforts to combat pervasive anti-press violence; Congress continued to debate legislation in late year that would federalize crimes against free expression, taking the cases out of the hands of local officials who have been corrupted and cowed by criminal gangs. Mexican journalists continue to face a dark choice: Censor their own work or be at risk. Noel López Olguín, whose newspaper column "With a Lead Pen" took on drug trafficking and official corruption, was found in a clandestine grave in Veracruz state in May, two months after gunmen had abducted him.

Afghanistan and Somalia, two conflict-ridden countries with persistent levels of anti-press violence, each recorded fatalities in 2011. CPJ documented the deaths of one journalist and one media worker in Somalia, along with the killings of two journalists in Afghanistan.

The deaths, though a continent apart, bore similarities that illustrate the extreme danger of covering conflict. In Somalia, African Union troops fired on a humanitarian aid convoy, killing Malaysian cameraman Noramfaizul Mohd. The AU called the shooting accidental but released no details. In Afghanistan, a U.S. soldier shot Ahmad Omaid Khpalwak, a correspondent for Pajhwok Afghan News and the BBC, during an insurgent attack in Tarin Kot. The International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan concluded that the soldier mistook Khpalwak's press card for a bomb trigger.

Two journalists died in Bahraini government custody. Karim Fakhrawi, a founder of the independent newspaper Al-Wasat, and Zakariya Rashid Hassan al-Ashiri, editor of a local news website in the village of Al-Dair, died within a week of each other in April. Although the government claimed the two died of natural causes, there are widespread allegations that abusive treatment led to their deaths. Al-Wasat co-founder Mansoor al-Jamri said the death of Fakhrawi was a message from the government to its critics: "This could happen to you, and no one will protect you, and no one can do anything for you."

Here are other trends and details that emerged in CPJ's analysis:
• The heaviest losses occurred in nations across the Middle East and North Africa, where CPJ documented 18 work-related fatalities in all. Thirteen work-related deaths were documented in Asia, seven in the Americas, three in Africa, and two in Europe and Central Asia.
• In two countries, Tunisia and Syria, CPJ recorded the first work-related deaths since it began compiling detailed data two decades ago. In Syria, freelance cameraman Ferzat Jarban was tortured and slain in Homs province after he had covered antigovernment demonstrations. "The work of a reporter in Syria before and after the protests is much like working in a minefield," said Karim al-Afnan, a freelance journalist who was forced into exile in 2011. "The state views a journalist as a rival and their battle with journalists is one for survival."
• Five media support workers were killed worldwide. They include the Ivorian Marcel Legré, a printing press employee who was killed by supporters of Alassane Ouattara who at the time was locked in a presidential election dispute with incumbent Laurent Gbagbo. Legré's newspaper was seen as pro-Gbagbo.
• At least two journalists were reported missing during the year, both in Mexico. At least 11 journalists have been reported missing in Mexico over the past decade, by far the highest number worldwide. All are feared dead.
• Among murder victims, more than 70 percent had reported receiving threats in the weeks before they died. Long-term CPJ research shows that physical attacks are often preceded by phone or electronic threats.
• Other places with confirmed, work-related fatalities were Brazil, Nigeria, Thailand, Peru, Dominican Republic, and Vietnam.
• Of the 35 deaths in which CPJ has yet to confirm a work-related motive, a large number, 20, are in the Americas. In much of the Americas, the web of crime and official corruption, combined with a lack of effective law enforcement, makes the determination of a motive exceedingly difficult.

CPJ began compiling detailed records on all journalist deaths in 1992. CPJ staff members independently investigate and verify the circumstances behind each death. CPJ considers a case work-related only when its staff is reasonably certain that a journalist was killed in direct reprisal for his or her work; in crossfire; or while carrying out a dangerous assignment.

If the motives in a killing are unclear, but it is possible that a journalist died in relation to his or her work, CPJ classifies the case as "unconfirmed" and continues to investigate. CPJ's list does not include journalists who died from illness or were killed in accidents--such as car or plane crashes--unless the crash was caused by hostile action. Other press organizations using different criteria cite higher numbers of deaths than CPJ.

CPJ's database of journalists killed for their work in 2011 includes capsule reports on each victim and a statistical analysis. CPJ also maintains a database of all journalists killed since 1992. A final list of journalists killed in 2011 will be released in early January.

This report was compiled by CPJ staff with additional reporting by Kristin Jones and Dahlia El-Zein.

The report is available here.

-------------
>> The year-end report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has the following statistics for 2011 : 171 journalists imprisoned, 66 killed, 2 media assistants killed, 9 media assistants imprisoned, and 130 netizens imprisoned

###

Nepal's peace process has moved into a phase of definitive progress. More than five years after the ceasefire, the parties have reached a deal on the Maoist fighters, who will leave the cantonments and enter the army or civilian life. An unofficial deal sets out power-sharing arrangements until the next election. The parties are focusing on the critical task of writing a new constitution, which promises a deep restructuring of the state to become more representative and decentralised. Challenges remain, including from continuously evolving coalition dynamics and divisions within parties. There will also have to be further discussions on the combatants. As the parties discuss federalism, which of all peace process issues goes most to the heart of ordinary Nepalis' expectations and anxieties, groups within and outside the Constituent Assembly will see their options narrow, which could strain the process. Yet, this is still the best chance the parties have had to reach formal closure on the war and to institute some of the fundamental changes they promised, provided they have the courage to make far-sighted compromises.

The breakthrough on 1 November was the result of a series of realignments between many political leaders and factions of parties, which strengthened the futures of certain individuals and acknowledged their political lines. The major players also had few unused tools left in the negotiating process, and gratuitous inflexibility and stalling had run their course as bargaining tactics. Major power centres in all three parties, including a dogmatic faction of the Maoists, resent having been left out of the talks. But while they can obstruct and slow the process, they cannot derail it. A consensus government will have to be formed sooner or later, though it is unclear whether the present government will need to resign or whether the opposition will join in.

Power-sharing remains the most tangible dividend coming out of the peace process to date, though there was no mention of it in the November 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The formation of a Maoist-led government in August 2011 was the first factor that made progress possible. Without that, the party would have been reluctant to give up its army. Following that was the Maoists' willingness to unofficially accept the main opposition party, the Nepali Congress (NC), as leader of the post-constitution government to oversee the next election, which should take place some months after the new constitution is adopted. The Maoists' main coalition partner, the Samyukta Loktantrik Madhesi Morcha (Morcha), an alliance of five Madhes-based parties, has often been seen as fractious and anti-Maoist, but the strength of the front and the new government challenges that perception. Finally, there has been a gradual shift in India's policy line in 2011, reversing an often hostile approach to the Maoists in favour of accommodation and cooperation.

After the 1 November agreement, the Maoist combatants were surveyed and chose either integration into the national army or voluntary retirement with a cash package. More fighters chose integration into the Nepal Army (NA) than the 6,500 allowed by the deal. This opens up another negotiation on the final number. Combatants likewise showed themselves to be unhappy about decisions made on individual qualifications for entry into the NA. Ranks have not been decided yet either. The special concerns of fighters with disabilities will also have to be addressed. Discussions could be protracted, but are not likely to derail the constitution writing process.

The term of the Constituent Assembly (CA) was renewed for six months, from 1 December, and the state restructuring commission, controversial but mandated by the interim constitution, was formed. The commission should build on proposals already prepared in the CA and also provide recommendations to that body. Its composition, however, suggests that critical decisions will be taken elsewhere, at the highest political level. Indeed, senior leaders are on track to negotiate compromises on the proposed federal states and system. They will have to balance acknowledging historical identities and discrimination and the rights of Nepal's many ethnic, caste and linguistic groups.

The manner in which negotiations take place matters as much as the outcome. Historically marginalised communities, their representatives in mainstream parties and other ethnic formations have to be engaged, rather than simply be informed of decisions. Centralised, top-down decisions on federalism cannot be sold easily outside Kathmandu, where identity-based groups and sceptics of federalism have been mobilising. There is supposed to be public consultation on proposed constitutional provisions. Rather than treat this as a formality, the parties should see it as a way to increase the buy-in of various groups.

As the future landscape becomes clearer, resistance could well come from traditionally powerful constituencies that are outside the CA and see the proposed changes as a zero-sum game, including a mix of anti-federalists, Hindu groups that oppose secularism and some royalists. The parties in the CA and their factions will also look to extract the most from the process, and parliamentary parties on the right are regrouping. For many, the temptation could be to not negotiate, but instead to sharpen social polarisation along the divisions the peace process seeks to narrow: ethnic, religious, cultural, regional and class.

The peace process has informally come to mean only the question of the Maoist fighters, rather than the whole of the CPA. Politicians do regard the constitution as a matter of urgency, but they are also exhausted and want to see the process quickly concluded, so Nepal can go back to business as usual. The commitment to democratise the Nepal Army has already been dropped. The commission on land reform is a dead-end. The issue of justice for war-era abuses continues to be defined by the lack of incentive for all actors to deal with it. These issues and the complexities of federalism will not lose relevance simply because the mainstream parties decide to ignore them. Whether or not they prove to be drivers of mass mobilisation or violence in the coming months, they will be critical ahead of the next general election. Nepal's political class needs to make some difficult decisions rather quickly, so as to ensure its own relevance.

Full text of the report is here

###

NEW YORK, December 8, 2011--
The number of journalists imprisoned worldwide shot up more than 20 percent to its highest level since the mid-1990s, an increase driven largely by widespread jailings across the Middle East and North Africa, the Committee to Protect Journalists has found. In its annual census of imprisoned journalists, CPJ identified 179 writers, editors, and photojournalists behind bars on December 1, an increase of 34 over its 2010 tally.

Iran was the world's worst jailer, with 42 journalists behind bars, as authorities kept up a campaign of anti-press intimidation that began after the country's disputed presidential election more than two years ago. Eritrea, China, Burma, Vietnam, Syria, and Turkey also ranked among the world's worst. (Read detailed accounts of each imprisoned journalist.)

CPJ's census found stark differences among regions. For the first time since CPJ began compiling annual prison surveys in 1990, not a single journalist in the Americas was in jail for work-related reasons on December 1. Imprisonments also continued a gradual decline in Europe and Central Asia, where only eight journalists were jailed, the lowest regional tally in six years. But those improvements were swamped by large-scale jailings across the Middle East and North Africa, where governments were holding 77 journalists behind bars, a figure that accounted for nearly 45 percent of the worldwide total. Asian and African nations also accounted for dozens of imprisonments.

While Iran's 2009 post-election crackdown marked the beginning of widespread press imprisonments there, authorities have maintained a revolving cell door since that time, freeing some detainees on furloughs even as they make new arrests. Journalists freed on furloughs often post six-figure bonds and endure severe political pressure to keep silent or turn on their colleagues. "The volume of arrests, interrogations, and people out on bail is enormous," said Omid Memarian, an exiled Iranian journalist. "The effect is that many journalists know they should not touch critical subjects. It really affects the way they cover the news because they are under constant fear and intimidation." Among the 2011 detainees is Iranian editor Mohammad Davari, a CPJ International Press Freedom Award winner whose website exposed the abuse and rape of inmates at the now-closed Kahrizak Detention Center. More than half of the Iranian detainees are being held on antistate charges similar to those lodged against Davari.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government is the most repressive: 42 journalists are behind bars. (AP)
Antistate charges such as treason, subversion, or acting against national interests are the most common allegations brought against journalists worldwide. At least 79 journalists were being held on such charges, CPJ's survey found.
But the 2011 census also found an alarming rise in the number of journalists held without charge or due process. Sixty-five journalists, accounting for more than a third of those in prison worldwide, were being held without any publicly disclosed charge, many of them in secret prisons without access to lawyers or family members. In some instances, governments such as those in Eritrea, Syria, and Gambia have denied the very existence of these jailed journalists. Reports of mistreatment and torture are common in these cases in which authorities operate without accountability and in contravention of international norms. Unconfirmed reports have identified at least six of these journalists as having died of mistreatment in custody. CPJ continues to list these detainees as it investigates the cases.

Imprisoning journalists without charge is practiced most commonly by the government of Eritrea, the world's second worst jailer of the press with 28 behind bars. Although many have been jailed for a decade, not a single Eritrean detainee has ever been publicly charged with a crime. Those jailed include the Swedish-Eritrean editor Dawit Isaac, who has been held since the government shuttered the country's independent press in 2001. Despite rising pressure from the European Parliament, Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki has made only vague assertions that Isaac made "a big mistake."

In a number of countries, authorities have targeted journalists covering marginalized ethnic groups. Nowhere is this more evident than in China, where the government has ruthlessly cracked down on editors and writers who sought to give voice to the nation's Tibetan and Uighur minority groups. Seventeen of the 27 journalists jailed in China covered oppressed ethnic groups. (Most of the others were online writers expressing dissident political views.) The detainees include Dokru Tsultrim, a monk whose news journal covered Tibetan affairs and who wrote critically about government policies toward Tibetans. Others may languish in China's prison without coming to the notice of news organizations or advocacy groups. "We know so few of the names of people who have been detained or imprisoned for political crimes," said John Kamm, chairman of the Dui Hua Foundation, a group that advocates for Chinese political prisoners.

In Bangkok, a protester calls on Burma to free Hla Hla Win and three other imprisoned video reporters for the Democratic Voice of Burma. (Reuters)

Despite being widely credited for its reform plans, Burma's new civilian government leaders have done little to change the severely repressive practices of their military predecessors. Authorities were jailing at least 12 journalists by December 1, a figure consistent with tallies over the past decade and one that is exceedingly high given the country's size. The world's fourth worst jailer of the press, the Burmese government is holding people such as Hla Hla Win, an undercover reporter for the exile-run Democratic Voice of Burma. She was arrested in 2009 while trying to report a piece marking the second anniversary of the Saffron Revolution, a series of monk-led demonstrations that was violently put down by government troops. "After politicians, journalists are the second main target," said Zin Linn, an exiled Burmese journalist and vice president of the Thailand-based Burma Media Association. That hasn't changed with the new government, he added. "I'm not expecting them to be released very quickly."

An ongoing crackdown against online reporting and commentary made Vietnam the world's fifth worst jailer. All nine of the Vietnamese journalists behind bars on December 1 were bloggers who covered politically sensitive topics or the affairs of religious minorities. Among the detainees was Pham Minh Hoang, a blogger who wrote about official corruption, environmental degradation, and perceived government foreign policy failures.

Worldwide, 86 journalists whose work appeared primarily online were in jail on December 1, constituting nearly half of the census. The proportion is consistent with those seen in CPJ's previous two surveys, which had followed several years of significant increases in the numbers of imprisoned online journalists. Print journalists constituted the second largest professional group, with 51 jailed worldwide. The other detainees were from radio, television, and documentary filmmaking.

Behind a wall of police, Turkish writer Ahmet Şik arrives at a courthouse in Istanbul to face antistate charges. (Reuters)

The number of journalists jailed in the Middle East and North Africa jumped by about 50 percent over last year. The increase came not only in nations such as Syria, where a repressive regime was jailing eight journalists in a desperate bid to retain power by suppressing independent reporting. Imprisonments were also reported in the stable democracy of Turkey, which was holding eight journalists when CPJ conducted its survey. While stepping up their past practice of imprisoning Kurdish editors and writers, authorities have also begun targeting mainstream journalists engaged in investigative reporting. The detainees in Turkey include Ahmet Şık and Nedim Şener, both prominent authors and newspaper journalists who critically probed government shortcomings. "After the imprisonment of these two journalists, it's more threatening for all journalists," said Erkan Saka, a political blogger and lecturer at Istanbul Bilgi University. "There is more self-censorship."

Although the vast majority of detainees were local journalists being held by their own governments, eight international journalists were among those included on CPJ's 2011 census. They include two Swedes, Johan Persson and Martin Schibbye, who were detained in Ethiopia while covering the activities of a separatist group. Seven journalists in all were being held in Ethiopia, five of them on vague and unsubstantiated terror charges. Despite international criticism, Ethiopia has aggressively expanded the use of its anti-terror law to criminalize news coverage of opposition groups. "It shows the government has no fear," said Kassahun Yilma, an Ethiopian journalist who fled the country in 2009 when confronted with the prospect of imprisonment. Any critical Ethiopian reporter ends up facing the same dilemma, he said. "Should we stay at home and go to jail for nothing, or flee?"

CPJ confirmed the deaths of two journalists in Bahraini government custody. Karim Fakhrawi, a founder of the country's leading independent newspaper Al-Wasat, and Zakariya Rashid Hassan al-Ashiri, editor of a local news website in his village of Al-Dair, died in Bahraini prisons within a week of each other in April. The government claimed the two died of natural causes, despite widespread allegations that abusive treatment led to their deaths.
Here are other trends and details that emerged in CPJ's analysis:

• The worldwide total is at its highest point since 1996, when CPJ recorded 185 journalists behind bars, a figure driven by Turkey's suppression of ethnic Kurdish journalists. The increase over the 2010 tally was the biggest single-year jump in a decade.
• At least 78 freelance journalists were in prison worldwide, constituting about 45 percent of the census, a proportion consistent with those seen in the previous two surveys. Freelance journalists can be vulnerable to imprisonment because they often do not have the legal and monetary support that news organizations can provide to staffers.
• Antistate charges were the most common charge used to jail journalists. Violations of censorship rules, the second most common charge, were applied in 14 cases.
• In 11 cases, governments used a variety of charges unrelated to journalism to retaliate against critical writers, editors, and photojournalists. Such charges range from drug possession to tax evasion. In the cases included in this census, CPJ has determined that the charges were most likely lodged in reprisal for the journalist's work.
• Charges of criminal defamation, reporting "false" news, and engaging in ethnic or religious "insult" constitute the other charges filed against journalists in the census.
• For the first time in more than a decade, China did not lead or jointly lead the list of countries jailing journalists. That it was supplanted in 2011 was a reflection of the high numbers in Iran rather than a significant drop in China. The total of 27 journalists jailed in China on December 1 was consistent with figures documented over the past several years.
• For the first time since 1996, no Cuban journalists appeared on CPJ's census. The Cuban government was holding as many as 29 journalists in 2003, following a massive crackdown on dissent. The last of those detainees was freed in April 2011. Although no Cuban journalist was jailed on December 1, CPJ research shows that authorities continue to detain reporters and editors on a short-term basis as a form of harassment.
• In the past year, CPJ advocacy led to the early release of at least 65 imprisoned journalists worldwide. Among those freed were two CPJ International Press Freedom Award winners: Cuban writer Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez and Azerbaijani editor Eynulla Fatullayev.
• Two other CPJ awardees, Shi Tao in China and Davari in Iran, remained in jail on December 1. Shi was serving a 10-year prison term in China for divulging a propaganda department order that was retroactively declared a state secret.
CPJ believes that journalists should not be imprisoned for doing their jobs. The organization has sent letters expressing its serious concerns to each country that has imprisoned a journalist.

CPJ's list is a snapshot of those incarcerated at midnight on December 1, 2011. It does not include the many journalists imprisoned and released throughout the year; accounts of those cases can be found at www.cpj.org. Journalists remain on CPJ's list until the organization determines with reasonable certainty that they have been released or have died in custody.

Journalists who either disappear or are abducted by nonstate entities such as criminal gangs or militant groups are not included on the prison census. Their cases are classified as "missing" or "abducted."

This report was compiled by CPJ staff with additional reporting by Kristin Jones.

You can read this report here

###.

Nepal is second most corrupt country in South Asia after Afghanistan, with Bhutan being the least corrupt in the region. The index measures countries from highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean) based on perceived levels of public sector corruption.

In South Asia, Bhutan has scored 5.7 followed by Sri Lanka 3.3, India 3.1, Bangladesh 2.7, Maldives 2.5, Pakistan 2.5, Nepal 2.2 and Afghanistan 1.5.

A press release issued by TI says that corruption continues to plague too many countries around the world in 2011. Corruption Perceptions Index released today. It shows some governments failing to protect citizens from corruption, be it abuse of public resources, bribery or secretive decision-making.

Transparency International warned that protests around the world, often fuelled by corruption and economic instability, clearly show citizens feel their leaders and public institutions are neither transparent nor accountable enough.

"This year we have seen corruption on protestors' banners be they rich or poor. Whether in a Europe hit by debt crisis or an Arab world starting a new political era, leaders must heed the demands for better government," said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International.

CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2011: THE RESULTS
The index scores 183 countries and territories from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean) based on perceived levels of public sector corruption. It uses data from 17 surveys that look at factors such as enforcement of anti-corruption laws, access to information and conflicts of interest.

Two thirds of ranked countries score less than 5.

New Zealand ranks first, followed by Finland and Denmark. Somalia and North Korea (included in the index for the first time), are last.

"2011 saw the movement for greater transparency take on irresistible momentum, as citizens around the world demand accountability from their governments. High-scoring countries show that over time efforts to improve transparency can, if sustained, be successful and benefit their people," said Transparency International Managing Director, Cobus de Swardt.

Most Arab Spring countries rank in the lower half of the index, scoring below 4. Before the Arab Spring, a Transparency International report on the region warned that nepotism, bribery and patronage were so deeply engrained in daily life that even existing anti-corruption laws had little impact.

Eurozone countries suffering debt crises, partly because of public authorities' failure to tackle the bribery and tax evasion that are key drivers of debt crisis, are among the lowest-scoring EU countries.

Here is the full text of the report for 2011.

###

What follows is the complete text of his address:

Text of Statement by PM Baburam Bhattarai at the 17th Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Addu City, Maldives, November 10, 2011

Mr. Chairman
Excellencies
Distinguished Delegates and Observers
Ladies and Gentlemen

At the outset, may I express my warm congratulations to Your Excellency, President Mohamed Nasheed, on your assumption of the Chair of the SAARC. I am fully confident that with your vision, wisdom and leadership, SAARC will be led to a newer height of dynamism and success during your tenure.

2. I would like to express our gratitude to Your Excellency and through you to the Government and the people of Maldives for the warm reception and generous hospitality extended to us ever since our arrival in these pristine islands and for the excellent arrangements made for the Summit. I congratulate Your Excellency, President Nasheed, for putting an extra and gratifying effort to expand the outreach of the Summit to the southern hemisphere.

3. I also take this opportunity to express our appreciation to His Excellency Lyonchhen Jigme Y. Thinley, the outgoing Chairman of our Association, for the sterling leadership provided to SAARC since the 16th Summit.

Mr. Chairman,

4. I have brought with me greetings from the 27 million toiling but proud people of Nepal, who have recently liberated themselves from the age-old feudal monarchy and autocracy. I have the distinct pleasure to share amongst our friends that the course of the peace process that we charted after years of struggle is bearing fruit through dialogue, understanding and consensus among major political actors in the country. Early this month, we made a significant breakthrough in the crucial issues of integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist army combatants and remaining issues of the framing of the new constitution through the first ever elected Constituent Assembly in the Nepalese history. This has brought the peace and the democratic process closer to its conclusion. We believe that the process of political and economic transformation should go parallel and we are resolute to deploy all our efforts to fulfill the aspirations of our people for a peaceful, stable, equal, just and prosperous future.

5. In its 26 years of existence, time has come for SAARC to take stock of achievements, identify challenges and chart out a course for future action. Despite being a cradle of major world civilizations, rich in history, culture and natural as well as unparalleled human resource endowment, our peoples' aspiration for progress and prosperity remains unfulfilled. In the midst of pockets of growth and prosperity, the region is marred by widespread poverty, inequality and unemployment. The adverse impact of environmental degradation and climate change is taking its toll on the most vulnerable for no fault of their own. Terrorism, trafficking in women, children and drugs and other transnational crimes pose serious threat to peace and stability in the region. Our intra-regional trade and investment flows remain one of the lowest in the world mainly due to constraints like poor physical connectivity, energy shortage and trust deficit. Flow of goods, people and ideas remains constrained and potentials under-realized. Implementation of SAFTA is hindered by tariff, non-tariff and para-tariff barriers and suffers from slow progress in reducing the number of items in the sensitive lists and constraints of trade facilitation.

6. Challenges abound. However, the region possesses enormous resilience and capacity to transform the challenges into opportunity. We have been able to set norms, build institutions and establish linkages among ourselves in social, economic, trade and environmental sectors. SAARC Development Fund, South Asian University, SAARC Food Bank, commencement of SAFTA, SAARC Social Charter and conclusion of a host of other regional instruments constitute important milestones. They all provide a basis for cooperation. But achievements so far have not been up to our expectations. Unleashing of the region's full potentials is what our people have been eagerly awaiting from us. This can be achieved through building on the strength of our rich endowments, including shared cultural heritage and vast network of social capital. This is where comes in the importance of the very thoughtfully conceived theme of the present Summit- Building Bridges.

7. Smooth physical connectivity is critical for building bridges in terms of mobility of goods, services, people, ideas and innovation in the region. Present state of physical connectivity poses a major constraint in realizing the long-cherished vision of the South Asian integration. The region still lacks world class network of highways, railroads, seaports and air connection. If we have any lesson to draw from other regions, connectivity perhaps comes as the most important element that we cannot further delay in emulating. It is our conviction that development of SAARC multi-modal transport system by upgrading existing infrastructure and building new ones as well as by providing smooth transit facilities to land-locked member states would greatly facilitate deeper integration of the region. The proposed draft Regional Railway Agreement and draft Agreement on Motor Vehicles should be accorded due priority for their early conclusion. Our endeavor to build bridges should touch all dimensions of South Asian lives, be it social, cultural, physical, or in terms of transportation and communications. Regional energy connectivity and energy trade also become important elements in this regard.

8. Yes, we must build physical bridges among ourselves, but more important would be to build the bridges of minds and hearts. We believe regional integration in its real sense can be advanced only when there is an intermingling of people and ideas. We note with satisfaction that the South Asian University has entered into the second year of its intake. It is an important achievement that should be complemented by similar other efforts to encourage people-to-people contact, including through collective promotion of culture, music, sports, entertainment and intra-regional tourism. It is gratifying to note that the idea of creating South Asia Forum as a mechanism for public-private partnership has been realized. The unique nature of this Forum may be preserved with an expanded base of participation in the future.

Mr. Chairman,

9. Trade constitutes the lifeblood of economic prosperity and it should be treated as such. Favorable trade and investment environment kindles economic growth, helps improve the living standards and facilitates greater interaction among the people. Elsewhere, we have seen examples of prosperity bringing about peace and stability which in turn helps consolidate democracy and mutuality of interests. There is no reason why such an experience cannot be emulated in our region with full implementation of SAFTA in its letter and spirit.

10. Effectiveness of SAFTA is contingent upon crucial factors, such as, removal of trade barriers, reduction of items in the sensitive lists, substantive and workable trade facilitation measures, and smooth transit facilities. Overcoming the hardships and capacity constraints that the LDCs in the SAARC family suffer becomes important for them to be able to augment their share of trade in the region.

11. Environmental degradation and climate change have posed serious challenges to the wellbeing of our people in the region. All our countries are prone to the devastating effects of global warming in the form of fast retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas and the dangers posed by the outburst of glacial lakes, sea level rise and erratic weather patterns and climatic disasters. The trend is likely to exacerbate. While building robust regional institutions and norms to collectively address this common challenge is essential, at the international level, they should be complemented by transfer of resources, technology, and capacity building for adaptation and mitigation.

Mr. Chairman,

12. The increasing gap between the rich and poor has given way to enormous stress on social harmony, peace and security in the region. It is a big blot on all of us that the largest number of poor in the world live in our region. This challenge demands that poverty eradication strategies be comprehensive and socio-economic and political development processes more people-centered, inclusive and equality and justice-based. Some of the internationally acclaimed poverty eradication strategies, such as, rural micro-credit scheme, have their origins in South Asia. They need further development and expansion with focus on women and disadvantaged sections of the society. Despite some quantitative changes, the fundamental politico-economic characteristics of our societies on basic class relations cannot be assumed to have undergone any qualitative change as long as we continue to lack on objective and holistic approach to development and fail to locate the solution in the need to bring about structural change in the existing archaic and retrograde relations of production, especially in the vast countryside. In the context of feminization and ruralization of poverty, our efforts to eradicate it should focus on structural changes in traditional production and social relations, promotion and industrialization of agriculture, indigenous skills and small scale industries and empowerment of women and marginalized communities. The existing regional normative standards in the social sector and the SAARC decisions and commitments need to be internalized in national policies and programs. Active and forthcoming involvement of the civil society and the private sector in the region may add value to this process.

13. The Success of the SAARC process as a whole will be judged by what we deliver to our people, and not by what ritual pronouncements we make. Commencement of the SAARC Development Fund's social window is a welcome beginning in realizing our efforts to eradicate poverty from the region. Its activities can be made more effective if they are harmonized with the priority areas enunciated in the SAARC Social Charter and the SAARC Development Goals. Early opening up of the Fund's infrastructure and economic windows is important for it to be able to bring tangible results with wider impact on the lives of the masses in the region.

Mr. Chairman,

14. Peace and security are some of the most important pre-requisites for a harmonious society. The scourge of terrorism and other transnational organized crimes perpetrated by abusing modern technology calls for cooperation, information sharing and better understanding among the law enforcement agencies of our region. While we have defined norms and mechanisms to deal with such a menace, enhancing efficacy of those mechanisms and continuous strengthening of the legal framework in tune with the changing complexities would be a useful strategy to pursue. We are committed to work closely with fellow SAARC member States in our fight against such crimes.

Mr. Chairman,

15. While we get thrilled with the international perception that the 21st century belongs to Asia, South Asia should by all means prepare itself to act and reap its fair share in the process. We the leaders should rise up to the challenge as our enterprising people rightly expect from us to create enabling environment and provide ways and means for them to fully unleash their potentials. This will surely help change the face of our region. The best we can do in the long run would be to synergize all our efforts based on the complementarities of South Asia and to realize the objectives of greater integration of the region leading to the South Asian Economic Union as envisioned by the 11th SAARC Summit in Kathmandu. For this, we need to think and act beyond the box of 'business as usual' attitude and collectively remove barriers and impediments and redeploy our combined efforts to reinforce the bonds of South Asian unity. As a founder and committed member of SAARC, Nepal stands ready to play her due role in the family of South Asian Nations. Let us turn South Asia into a power-house of growth and development and a beacon of human civilization in the 21st century. Let us collectively think big and act big.

I thank you.

###

Friendship upgrade
A "special" relationship rarely entails standoffs. Yet that's precisely what's characterised the India-Nepal relationship for much of the time since Nepal's transition to a republic, especially during Maoist chief Prachanda's premiership. It is, therefore, as much in the fitness of things as in mutual interest that India is engaging Nepal again. Nepal Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai's visit sought to realign the two countries along old and new paths of cooperation, observing their historic neighbourly ties while recasting them in the current context. India's concern with the Maoists -- Nepal's largest parliamentary bloc -- had been their attitude to the still unresolved peace process. Bhattarai has signalled a positive change in the UCPN-M's commitment to it. Delhi and Kathmandu agreed to move ahead, although the internal dynamic of the peace process will determine the speed and smoothness of Nepal's transition to a healthy democracy.

Economic development and bilateral trade lead Bhattarai's Indian agenda. While he has assured steps to promote "an investor-friendly and enabling business environment" for Indian investments in Nepal, Nepal's growing trade deficit with India will be looked into among other trade and transit issues. Nevertheless, Delhi could be more pro-active in cutting that trade imbalance; and Kathmandu can only benefit from depoliticising its economic ties with India. Bhattarai also addressed a key Indian concern of security, saying Nepal's territory would not be allowed to be used for anti-India activities. There remain several outstanding issues to be sorted out, and operationalising the current agreements will be a challenge. However, Bhattarai's pragmatism should get its share of credit.

An important aspect of the relationship that needs to be revised is the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Bhattarai may have mitigated the essential Maoist hostility for this treaty, but in order to modernise India-Nepal relations, this relic of another era must be updated. The Eminent Persons Group proposed to look holistically into ties and the proposal to revitalise bilateral mechanisms are actually centred around this task. For its part, India has shown it is prepared to work with a Maoist-led government. Now it remains to be seen if Bhattarai, battling rebellion within his party, is able to convince his Maoist colleagues.

The Indian Express, October 25, 2011

■■■

An opening with Nepal
The most significant outcome of Nepali Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai's visit to India is the growing trust between the two countries, and between the Indian establishment and his own party, the Unified Communist Part of Nepal (Maoist). The stagnation that marked the bilateral relationship is now broken. New Delhi's policy of trying to keep the Maoists -- the legitimately elected biggest party in parliament -- out of the power structure over the past two years was counter-productive. It only prolonged the stalemate over constitutional issues, deepened the instability, and generated resentment against India. But there has been a policy course-correction in the last few months. India did well not to try and block the election of Mr. Bhattarai as Prime Minister by using its leverage with the Madhesi parties. The immediate invitation extended to the new leader, the low-key efforts by the new Indian Ambassador in Kathmandu encouraging all sides to be flexible, the new support for the integration of a certain number of Maoist combatants into the Nepal Army, and the atmospherics of the prime ministerial visit show a renewed Indian commitment to playing a constructive role. With a section of the Indian establishment remaining uncomfortable with the emerging rapprochement, Nepal's opposition parties seem to have lobbied with senior members of the Indian cabinet to slow down the engagement with Maoists. Fortunately, this didn't work.

Nepal appears to be on the verge of achieving a breakthrough in its peace and constitutional process. Its political parties are close to an agreement on the issue of the integration of Maoist fighters, which is at the core of the peace process. There is also a power-sharing proposal on the table, with the Maoists saying the Nepali Congress president, Sushil Koirala, can be the next Prime Minister who will lead the country into elections after promulgation of the new constitution. India must play a supportive role, as it did in 2005 when the 12-point agreement was forged. It should continue supporting the present government in its quest to wrap up the political transition, use its leverage with the Nepali Congress to get it to cooperate on the peace process, and nudge the Maoists to implement past commitments. Prime Minister Bhattarai and the Maoists took a political risk in signing the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement -- his rivals back home have dubbed it an 'anti-national' deal -- because they want to tell India that they can deliver on contentious issues, including the security of Indian investment. It is vital that India recognises these changing political realities in Nepal, and plays the role of a constructive facilitator once again.

The Hindu, October 25, 2011

■■■

India must more than reciprocate Nepal Prime Minister Bhattarai's overtures
New Delhi has often been seen as being involved in machinations against the Nepali Maoists, and as displaying a big brotherly attitude towards Kathmandu.

The ongoing visit of Nepalese Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai can go a long way in correcting that by connecting with the largest political party in Nepal, even as the hardline factions within the party remain somewhat wary and hostile towards India. The political deadlock in Nepal was broken by the appointment of Bhattarai as Prime Minister, and the political class now needs to get on with the crucial task of writing the Constitution through the Constituent Assembly.

Helping Nepal achieve that goal, without being seen to be partisan vis a vis Nepal's complex internal dynamics should be New Delhi's guiding principle.

Mr Bhattarai, who arrived on a four-day visit to India on Thursday, comes with quite a reputation. Not only is he seen to have been one of the key architects of the Maoist insurgency, but also of the remarkable transition to democratic politics of his party, which radically altered Nepal's political landscape. Having been sworn in as PM after a long period of squabbling between political parties, he is also seen as a statesman best suited to guide Nepal out of instability.
His welcome remarks on reducing the trust deficit with India, the stress on seeking to expand mutual trade, while underlining that his country has the closest economic ties with India, are in keeping with his reputation as a pragmatist and a moderate in his party who has often argued that bringing on board all political parties and Nepal's neighbours is the way forward for Nepal. New Delhi should go the extra mile in reciprocation.

As the much larger country and trading partner, India needs to be generous while framing economic agreements. One major area of cooperation, as Mr Bhattarai pointed out, is in power. With its huge hydropower potential, Nepal can be a big exporter to India, but is yet power-deficient. This, and other issues of infrastructure-building, may yet take time to finalise, but it is clear that this visit can be a transformative one on rebuilding mutual trust and the spirit of regional cooperation.

The Economic Times, October 22, 2011

■■■

Bhattarai's visit
Nepal Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai is a Maoist like Prachanda but he leans more towards moderation. He is on a visit to India which is his first foreign visit. He has thus made amends for the departure from traditional practice when Prachanda first went to China in 2008. Prachanda however explained it away saying that he had gone to see the Beijing Olympics. Bhattarai's visit is primarily aimed at seeking Indian support for the political transition in his country. His government is still fragile. New Delhi regards his views with some suspicion but is prepared to strengthen its ties with the Maoist Prime Minister. Bhattarai will have talks with Manmohan Singh whom he has met before and other Indian dignitaries.

Nepal and India share a special relationship. It is hoped that Nepal would be sensitive to various concerns of India. Admittedly, the ruling Maoists in Nepal have asked their Prime Minister to avoid such potential irritants as the signing of an extradition pact and review of the 1950 Friendship Treaty. The first priority goes to security related issues. No major pacts are in sight but both sides are expected to step up cooperation especially in the power sector. Nepal can derive immense economic benefits from ties with India. It is unfortunate that some Indian joint venture companies in Nepal have been under attack. Such attacks keep away entrepreneurs and impair business relations. New Delhi is keen to sign a Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement. Bhattarai should welcome these moves as an understanding with India will help him set his house in order. What he needs is completion of the peace process in Nepal hampered mainly by the inability to rehabilitate 19,000 former Maoist guerrillas.

The Shillong Times, October 20th, 2011

■■■

Attend thy neighbour
Baburam Bhattarai's maiden visit to India as Nepal's prime minister presents a historic opportunity for both countries. Nepal is in the throes of political transition and only recently achieved a semblance of stability following Bhattarai's election. Before that a succession of prime ministers had given the impression of musical chairs. Nepal needs India to boost development and put its economy on a high growth trajectory. On the other hand, India is presented with an opportunity to renew ties with a key regional player. It is beyond doubt that the Maoists constitute a significant force in Nepal's political landscape. Bhattarai may, therefore, be able to lead Nepal out of its unstable phase. Both New Delhi and Kathmandu need to accept the benefits inherent in enhanced bilateral relations.

Despite close historical and cultural links, recent times have brought much turbulence in the India-Nepal relationship. On the ground, Indian companies in Nepal have come under attack. Given that two-thirds of Nepal's economic activities are with India, this is hardly constructive. Bhattarai has promised a strong economic and development partnership and vowed to protect Indian investment. For the two sides to follow through on this objective, it is imperative that the Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement is inked at the earliest. Similarly, the other two agreements on the anvil - the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and the $250 million line of credit to Kathmandu - should boost economic relations.

Just as care needs to be taken to ensure India-Nepal ties move forward on the basis of mutual trust and respect, India's relationship with Bangladesh deserves due attention as well. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's recent visit to Teen Bigha was a public relations disaster with no senior Indian government minister, other than the lightweight Ghulam Nabi Azad, present to receive Bangladesh's head of state. Not even a meeting between Sheikh Hasina and Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee could be organised. Coming after the Teesta water agreement fiasco, such a lacklustre attitude hasn't gone down well with Dhaka.

If India is to reap the benefits of friendly relations with its neighbours, it must start taking its neighbourhood seriously. And this doesn't mean an exclusive focus on Pakistan or China. Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives cannot and should not be taken for granted. They deserve as much of our foreign policy attention as the US or Europe. Only sustained ties based on equality can strengthen India's profile in the region and aid its rise at the international arena.

The Times of India, October 20, 2011

■■■

###

2. The Prime Minister of Nepal called on the President and the Vice-President of India. Shri S.M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Minister of Finance, Shri P. Chidambaram, Minister of Home Affairs, Shri A. K. Antony, Minister of Defence, Smt. Sushma Swaraj, Leader of Opposition and other Indian dignitaries called on the Prime Minister of Nepal.

3. The Prime Minister of Nepal had a meeting with the Prime Minister of India followed by delegation-level talks. During the talks, the two Prime Ministers reviewed the state of bilateral relations and exchanged views on ways and means to further expand and consolidate the close, multi-faceted relations between the two countries. The talks were held in an atmosphere of utmost cordiality and warmth. The Prime Minister of India and Smt. Gursharan Kaur hosted a dinner in honour of the Prime Minister of Nepal and Mrs. Hisila Yami.

4. The Prime Minister of Nepal elucidated on the peace process and constitution drafting. He appreciated and expressed thanks to the Government and the people of India for their support and expressed hope to receive India's goodwill and understanding for Nepal's peace process and continued cooperation for its socio-economic development. The Prime Minister of Nepal also highlighted his ongoing efforts for consensus building on the peace process of Nepal. The Prime Minister of India expressed full support for efforts to build consensus on the peace process and constitution drafting to pave way for Nepal's transition to an inclusive, multiparty democracy in Nepal.

5. The two Prime Ministers directed that all the bilateral institutional mechanisms be revitalized and convened regularly. They directed early meetings of the Joint Ministerial Commission on Water Resources and Home Secretaries.

6. The Nepalese side assured that the Government of Nepal would take further measures for creating and promoting an investor-friendly and enabling business environment to encourage Indian public and private sector investments in Nepal. The two Prime Ministers directed the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC) of Commerce Secretaries to convene at the earliest with a view to identifying ways and means of further strengthening mutually beneficial trade and investment ties between the two countries and look into all trade and transit related issues, including trade imbalance, remaining issues of Trade Treaty, Nepal's request for waiver of 4% additional customs duty, issue of fixation of additional one-time lock by Indian customs between Kolkata/Haldia Port and Nepal and operationalisation of Vishakhapatnam port for Nepal's trade. With regard to the issue of Duty Refund Procedure (DRP) under the new Treaty of Trade, the Indian side assured that the necessary notification in this regard is expected to be issued shortly.

7. The two sides directed the relevant officials to hold comprehensive review of the Rail Services Agreement at the earliest to enhance cooperation in the field of railways and explore movement of additional stream of wagons to/from Birgunj ICD in Nepal. The two sides agreed to expeditiously complete procedural requirements for operationalisation of rail transit facility through Rohanpur-Singhabad and transit between Vishakhapatnam and Nepal.

8. In response to Nepal's request for increase in the quantum of electricity export to 200 MW to cope with the power deficit during the dry season, the Indian side conveyed readiness to supply maximum electricity possible on existing transmission lines and suggested that technical experts of the two countries should meet to explore the options available for enhancing electricity trade between India and Nepal. With reference to the draft MOU on cross-border interconnection for electric power trade, the Indian side conveyed that it would expeditiously examine the draft.

9. The two sides reiterated that the open border between Nepal and India has greatly facilitated exchanges among the peoples of both countries, and that it is equally important to manage the border effectively and efficiently to control cross-border criminal activities. The two sides discussed security concerns related to the open border between the two countries. The Nepalese side assured that it would not allow its territory to be used for any activity against India and the Indian side also gave the same assurance to the Nepalese side.

10. The two Prime Ministers committed to extend all necessary support to facilitate expeditious completion of construction of roads, rail links and the Integrated Check Posts in the India-Nepal border areas.

11. The Nepalese side requested the Government of India to allow three additional inbound air routes from Janakpur, Bhairahawa and Nepalgunj in view of increased air traffic to and from Nepal and for facilitating international air service from the regional airports of Nepal in cost effective manner. The Indian side proposed a meeting of the civil aviation authorities of Nepal and India to discuss and address various issues in this sector.

12. The Prime Minister of Nepal requested the Prime Minister of India for India's assistance in implementing priority development projects in Nepal. The Indian side indicated willingness to favorably consider priority development projects in various sectors as requested by Nepal and suggested that these may be reviewed and considered in detail at a meeting of the Joint Commission at the earliest.

13. The Prime Minister of India offered to increase the ITEC slots for Nepal to 200 every year.

14. In presence of the two Prime Ministers, the Agreement on Promotion and Protection of Investments, Agreement for dollar credit line of US$ 250 million between Government of Nepal and Export-Import Bank of India and Memorandum of Understanding regarding Indian grant assistance of ` 1.875 crore for the goitre control programme in Nepal were signed.

15. The two Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction that the two sides have considered and reached agreement on the text of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and committed to sign the DTAA at the earliest possible on completion of the respective legal procedures.

16. The two sides expressed concern at the human suffering and loss of lives and property caused by floods and inundation at the border areas during the monsoon and agreed to strengthen coordination and consultation to deal with the problem. They agreed that the Joint Ministerial Commission and Joint Commission on Water Resources should convene at the earliest and discuss the current pressing issues and identify the measures for immediate correction.

17. The two sides agreed to further promote exchange of Parliamentarians.

18. The two sides proposed establishment of an Eminent Persons Group to look into the totality of India-Nepal relations and suggest measures to further expand and consolidate the close, multi-faceted relations between the two countries. The modalities of the proposed Group would be worked out through mutual consultation at the earliest.

19. Both sides noted that the multi faceted and deep rooted relationships between the two countries needed further consolidation and expansion in a forward looking manner to better reflect the current realities.

It was in this broader context that the two Prime Ministers agreed to review, adjust and update the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship and other agreements,

while giving due recognition to the special features of the bilateral relationship. A High-Level Committee at the level of Foreign Secretaries will be set up for this purpose.

20. The Prime Minister of Nepal addressed a business luncheon meeting jointly organised by ASSOCHAM, CII and FICCI and attended a programme at the Jawaharlal Nehru University.

21. The Prime Minister of Nepal also visited Dehradun and visited the State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarkhand in Haridwar. The Hon'ble Governor of Uttarkhand hosted a lunch in honour of the Prime Minister.

22. The Prime Minister of Nepal renewed the invitation to the Prime Minister of India to pay an official visit to Nepal at an early date. The Prime Minister of India accepted it with pleasure. The dates of the visit will be decided through diplomatic channels.

New Delhi
October 23, 2011

###

by His Excellency Dr. Man Mohan Singh, Prime Minister of India,

(New Delhi, 21 October 2011)

Your Excellency Dr. Man Mohan Singh,

Prime Minister of the Republic of India

Madam Gursharan Kaur,

Excellencies,

Distinguished Delegates,

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to express my profound thanks to Your Excellency for the cordial words of friendship and warm sentiments expressed to me and to the people of Nepal. I take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks for inviting me to pay an official visit to India and for the excellent arrangements made for the visit. I also avail myself of this opportunity to express deep gratitude for the warmth of welcome with which we have been received and gracious hospitality extended to us ever since our arrival in this beautiful city of New Delhi.

We consider Your Excellency a true friend and well wisher of Nepal and a veteran politician and legendary statesman of India. You have always stood steadfast in the support to the promotion of peace and stability and consolidation of democracy in Nepal. I have brought with me warm greetings and best wishes from the people and Government of Nepal to Your Excellency and, through you, to the friendly people and Government of India.

We feel happy that sovereign equality, independence, territorial integrity, mutual respect, and pursuit of the principles of panchasheela have been the bedrock of our relations. They are nurtured by mutual understanding, trust, goodwill and neighbourliness underpinned by the deep-rooted people-to-people contacts for centuries. In addition to these time tested traits, free movement of the people reflect our close relationship. I am pleased to mention that exchange of high level visits and interactions have further cemented the friendship and co-operation between us.

Excellency,
We do believe that the friendly and fruitful discussions that we had today on matters of mutual interests will be a pointer to better understanding and increased cooperation between our two countries. We took stock of the progress made in realizing the decisions taken at the high level visits; assessed the status of the implementation in the field; and directed that concerned authorities of both the countries should redouble their endeavors to reinvigorate the bilateral mechanisms so that people at the grassroots could reap the benefits accrued from the implementation of the decisions taken.

We are confident that our visit will give a fresh impetus to further reinforce close bonds of ties and set in motion the pace of economic cooperation between our two countries.

Excellency,
You are fully aware that Nepal is in the throes of a crucial socio-political transformation. We have before us sterling tasks of concluding the country's ongoing peace process and drafting of a new democratic constitution reflecting the expectations of our people. We have simultaneously deployed efforts to both the fronts of highest importance at this juncture and are confident that with dialogue, consensus, unity and coordination among the political parties we will surmount the challenges and deliver to the long cherished aspiration of our people. We count on the continued goodwill, understanding and support of the Government and people of India as we move on to this end.

We, in Nepal, have been keenly observing India's sustained and spectacular economic development in the midst of global economic stagnation. You have demonstrated by example that the leadership and determination backed with conducive policy environment stimulates economic development and prosperity which others too can emulate. On the other side of our border, the People's Republic of China has equally made great strides in economic development. We are conscious of increased economic and trade interactions taking place between our closest two neighbors, India and China. We believe the dividends of prosperity across our borders should benefit our own people and business as well. From this perspective, we see great economic value and opportunities in developing Nepal as a vibrant bridge between our two neighbors on the way to shared prosperity.

We sincerely appreciate the Government and people of India for the continued cooperation in our development endeavors as a major development partner of Nepal. We see enormous scope in building on the complementarities existing between the two countries that have potentials to lead our peoples towards prosperity as dividend of collaboration. We invite India to enhance and expand partnership both in terms of public and private investment in our priority areas of building infrastructure, harnessing water resources, promoting tourism, developing industrial zones and human resources. We believe that such investments will result into mutuality of benefits and greatly contribute in expanding prosperity in our region.

With growing international stature, economic strength and political distinction backed by enormous reservoir of talented human resources, India deserves dignified place at the high plank of global stage. Nepal appreciates India's role for the cause of developing as well as the least developed countries and would like to see India play her due role in international community commensurate to her strength, size and political clouts.

Excellency,
We attach great importance to our relations with India and hope that our visit would add an important brick in the edifice of our multi-dimensional relations.

With these words, may I invite, Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, to join me in proposing a toast:
- to the health and happiness of Your Excellency Dr. Man Mohan Singh, Prime Minister of India,

- to the continued peace, progress and prosperity of the friendly people of India , and

- to the everlasting friendship and cooperation between Nepal and India.

I thank you.

Banquet Speech by Indian PM Dr. Manmohan Singh during visit of PM of Nepal
October 21, 2011

Your Excellency Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai,
Madam Hisila Yami,
Distinguished members of the Nepalese delegation,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Government and people of India, and on my own behalf, I extend a warm welcome to you on your first visit to India as the Prime Minister of Nepal.

We feel honoured to receive you soon after you have assumed your new responsibilities.

Excellency, your association with India goes back to your student days at the College of Architecture in Chandigarh, the School of Planning and Architecture and then the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Your life has been one of struggle and sacrifice. You have fought against the status quo, and today you have joined the mainstream of Nepal's political life.

We are very happy to see you guide the destiny of Nepal, a close friend and neighbour, at this important juncture.

India and Nepal share bonds of kinship and cooperation that are defined by geography and enriched by history. Our peoples have travelled across open borders for decades. Generations of Indians and Nepalese have grown up taking this freedom of movement for granted.

We owe it to our people to build upon this foundation for the development, progress and prosperity of both our countries. The peoples of our countries are extremely talented, enterprising and have a remarkable ability to cope with adversity. Our region therefore has great potential and the time has come for us to realise this potential through cooperative effort.

India has long considered it a privilege to join Nepal in its plans for economic and social development. We both face the same challenge of development. It is in our enlightened self interest that we work in harmony and conduct our affairs with complete transparency. We must understand that by helping each other we only help ourselves. Our prosperity, security and welfare are interlinked.

Nepal is passing through a crucial phase in its quest for peace, stability and multi-party democracy. There should be no foreign interference in this process. The people of Nepal must take their decisions themselves. They have done so in the past and on every occasion have emerged even stronger.

We have full confidence in the wisdom and resilience of the people of Nepal to forge consensus through dialogue and understanding. We are with the people of Nepal in this journey and are ready to provide whatever assistance possible as per the wishes of the people of Nepal.

Distinguished guests, I request you to join me in a toast to:

- The good health and personal well-being of the Prime Minister of Nepal Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and Madam Hishila Yami,

- the continued progress and prosperity of the friendly people of Nepal;

- and everlasting friendship between India and Nepal.

##

(i) Memorandum of Understanding between Government of The Republic of India and Government of Nepal regarding Indian grant assistance for the Goitre Control Programme in Nepal
A Memorandum of Understanding between Government of The Republic of India and Government of Nepal regarding Indian grant assistance for the Goitre Control Programme in Nepal was signed today (October 21, 2011). Foreign Secretary Shri Ranjan Mathai signed the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of Government of India and Mr. Mr. Purushottam Ojha, Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Supply, Government of Nepal signed the agreement on behalf of Government of Nepal.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding, Government of India will provide ` 1.875 Crores (Nepali Rs.3 Crores) to Government of Nepal for the control of Goitre and other Iodine Deficiency Diseases in Nepal under the heads of Re-iodisation Subsidy, Packing Subsidy, Transportation Subsidy and Advocacy Subsidy. The Government of Nepal shall procure iodised granular salt from India for distribution in various parts of Nepal focusing on 22 districts categorized by Nepal as remote and inaccessible. The implementation of the Programme will be monitored by a Programme Monitoring Team of four members, consisting of two representatives of Government of India and two representatives of Government of Nepal. During the period 1973-2010, Government of India has provided grant assistance of ` 41 Crores to Government of Nepal for the control of Goitre and other iodine deficiency disorders in Nepal. Iodine Deficiency Diseases are a major health problem and it is hoped that this assistance will help reduce incidence of Goitre and other Iodine Deficiency Diseases in Nepal.

(ii) Dollar Credit Line Agreement between Government of Nepal and Export-Import Bank of India
A US$ 250 million Dollar Credit Line Agreement between Government of Nepal and Export-Import Bank of India was signed today (October 21, 2011). Chairman and Managing Director of Export-Import Bank of India, Shri T.C.A. Ranganathan and signed the Agreement on behalf of Export-Import Bank of India and Shri Lal Shankar Ghimire, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance signed the Agreement on behalf of Government of Nepal.

The credit line will be used to finance infrastructure projects such as highways, airports, bridges, irrigation, roads, railways and hydropower projects and carry a concessional rate of interest of 1.75% p.a., with repayment period of 20 years, inclusive of 5 years moratorium.

It may be recalled that during the visit of the President of Nepal, H.E. Dr. Ram Baran Yadav in February 2010, Government of India has agreed to extend the line of credit of US$ 250 million from EXIM Bank of India to the Government of Nepal on similar terms and conditions as the earlier Line of Credit of US $ 100 Million extended to Nepal.

(iii) Agreement between the Government of Nepal and the Government of India for the Promotion and Protection of Investments
A Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nepal was signed today. Hon'ble Finance Minister has signed the agreement on behalf of India and Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Minister for Industry on behalf of Government of Nepal.

The Agreement seeks to promote and protect investments from either country in the territory of the other country with the ultimate objective of increasing bilateral investment flow. The agreement requires each country to encourage and create favourable conditions for investors of the other country to make investments it its territory and to admit investments in accordance with its laws.

The term investment includes every kind of asset including intellectual property rights in accordance with laws and regulations of the country in which the investment is made. Principles of Most Favoured Nation Treatment and National Treatment (NT) have been asserted in the agreement. Investments from either country in the territory of the other country are to be accorded NT and MFN treatment which means that the investment shall be provided treatment which shall not be less favourable than that provided by the country to investments of its own investors or investors from any other country. Besides, investors are to be provided MFN treatment in respect of returns on the investment.

Provisions have also been made in the agreement for grant of compensation to the investors whose investments suffer losses owing to war, armed conflict, a state of national emergency, etc. and such investors shall be accorded treatment by the host country, no less than the treatment accorded to its owns investors or investors of any third state.

The Agreement provides that nationalisation or expropriation of investments shall not be resorted to except in public interest and in accordance with law on a non-discriminatory basis and against fair and equitable compensation. The agreement also provides for free repatriation of funds of an investor of either country.

The agreement provides elaborate dispute resolution mechanism to guide settlement of disputes between and investor and a host Government as well as between the two Governments. Dispute resolution mechanism includes resource to negotiations, conciliation and international arbitration.

The Agreement shall remain in force for a period of ten years. Thereafter, it shall be deemed to have been automatically extended unless either Contracting Party gives to the other Contracting Party a written notice. With respect to investments made prior to the date of termination of the Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement shall continue to be effective for a further period of ten years from the date of its termination.

It is hoped that the Agreement would serve as a catalyst in boosting investment flows between the two countries.

New Delhi
October 21, 2011

> Agreement between the two Governments for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed by H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha Minister for Industry, Nepal & Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Minister of Finance, India

> MOU between the two Governments regarding Indian Grant Assistance for Goitre Control Programme in Nepal Mr. Purushottam Ojha, Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Supply, Nepal & Shri Ranjan Mathai, Foreign Sceretary, India.

> Dollar Credit Line Agreement between Govt. of Nepal and Export-Import Bank of India Mr. Lal Shanker Ghimire
Joint Sceretary, Ministry of Finance, Nepal & Shri TCA Rangathan, Executive Director EXIM Bank, India

A version of this text is available here.

###

This is according to a Gallup survey of public opinion (Insights South Asia- Nepal Survey- 2011) conducted in mid-July and early August for the South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF) and released in Brussels on 21 September 2011.

The report, first among South Asian countries, presents the latest results from Nepal, the first country surveyed in South Asia. The fieldwork was carried out in Nepal between 16 July and 7 August 2011. 1,000 randomly selected citizens aged 15 and older were interviewed. The interviews were conducted face-to-face.

The survey results offer insights into Nepali public opinion regarding many crucial topics, including vital issues, South Asian connections, opinion about other countries, perceptions regarding SAARC, economy, living standards, migration, conflict, corruption, etc.

Main findings

Connections with other South Asian countries
A third (33%) of Nepalese surveyed had friends or relatives living in another South Asian country (i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan). Almost all of these re-spondents with friends or relatives in another country answered that these friends or relatives lived in India (95%). Nearly half (48%) of Nepalese surveyed had at least once visited another South Asian country; virtually all of these respondents said they had visited India (97%).

Opinions about other countries
India was clearly the most popular country among the South Asian countries. More than 8 in 10 (84%) respondents said they had a rather positive opinion about their big neighbour. About 4 in 10 respondents held a positive view about Bangladesh (44%), Sri Lanka (43%), Bhutan (40%) and the Maldives (39%). Pakistan and Afghanistan had the least positive ratings among South Asian countries, 33% and 26%, respectively. When asked to voice their opinion about countries from other parts of the world, almost three-quarters held a favourable attitude towards China and the US (74% and 73%, respectively). Japan was the third most popular country among the foreign powers listed in the survey (65% viewed it positively). The results for the three European countries - Germany, France or the UK - showed that 44%-46% had a positive opinion about them. Large shares of respondents did not know enough about the various countries listed in the survey to formulate an opinion.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
Following a short description of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), a majority of 57% confirmed having heard about the association. Strikingly, almost all (98%) respondents who were aware of SAARC thought that Nepal's membership of the association was a good thing.

Perceived obstacles to establishing closer regional ties
In the eyes of Nepalese, the two biggest obstacles to establishing a more intensive regional coopera-tion among the countries in South Asia were the arms race between India and Pakistan (60% saw this as an obstacle) and historic animosities (58%).

Importance of potential benefits of closer regional cooperation
Respondents appeared to accept all benefits of regional cooperation (as listed in the survey) as being important: the proportion of "important" responses ranged from 75% for "better transport connections to neighbouring countries" and "more respect for ethnic and cultural diversity when visiting neigh-bouring countries" to 86% for "more job opportunities in this country".by at least three-quarters of respondents to 82% "cheaper imports" and 86% for "more job opportunities in this country".

Threats to the security of the South Asian region
Terrorism was seen as the greatest threat to security in the South Asian region - 4 in 10 (40%) re-spondents ranked it number one from a list of six potential threats. Crime was the second most fre-quently mentioned security threat (20%). When asked which South Asian country posed the greatest danger to security in the region, Pakistan ranked number one (selected by 28%).

Economy
The largest proportion of respondents (41%) rated economic conditions in their country as poor, and a further 30% as only fair. Just a handful of respondents said that economic conditions were excellent (3%) and roughly a fifth (19%) considered them as good. A lack of political leadership and corruption were by far the most frequently mentioned factors preventing economic growth in Nepal.

Nepalese were more optimistic when answering the question about future economic developments; 45% of respondents felt that the economy in their country was getting better, compared to 35% who said it was getting worse. India was perceived as having the biggest impact on the Nepalese economy.

Living standards
About three-quarters (77%) of Nepalese had seen an improvement in their standard of living in the past five years. About 1 in 10 (9%) reported that their family's standard of living had deteriorated and 14% felt it had stayed the same in the time frame. Furthermore, about 8 in 10 (79%) Nepalese said that their family's standard of living was getting better at the time of the survey, compared to 11% who said that it was getting worse.

Migration
More than two-thirds (69%) of Nepalese wanted to continue living in their country, while 31% would like to move temporarily or permanently to another country. The United States was the most preferred destination (11% of all respondents), followed by India (6% of all respondents).

Preferred role of religion in the political system
If Nepalese would be given a choice between a secular democracy or a Hindu democracy, the majority (63%) would prefer the latter, while a third (34%) would favour the former.

Acceptance of violence as a means to resolving conflicts
A vast majority (81%) of Nepalese disagreed that the use of violence was an accepted means of re-solving conflicts in their country nowadays, compared to 10% of respondents who held an opposite view - i.e. that the use of violence was still accepted - and 9% who did not answer.

Fight against corruption
A slim majority (54%) of Nepalese thought that their government was not doing enough to fight cor-ruption, while 30% were satisfied with their government's efforts in this regard. A share of
16% did not answer this question.

See full report here (in PDF).

According to preliminary result of the National Population Census 2011 released by CBS among the higher government official s, development partners and media, the population of Nepal reached 26,620,809 in the year 2011 which shows an increase of population at the rate of 1.4 percent per annum. According to the National Population Census 2001, the population growth rate of Nepal was 2.25 percent per annum. Likewise, the result shows that there are 5,659,984 households living in 4,767,196 dwellings/houses throughout the country which shows the ratio of houses to households 1:1.19.

Furthermore, the result also revealed that the size of the household in Nepal has decreased from 5.44 in 2001 to 4.7 in 2011. Kathmandu district has the lowest household size of 3.71 whereas in some Terai districts such as Rautahat, Bara, Kapilbastu, the household size remains still more than 6.

The preliminary result shows that the absentee population in Nepal increased to 1,917,903 which is more than double the absentee population in 2001. Apparently, the population of male absentee dominates in the total absentee population. The male absentee population comprises about 87 percent. The percentage of male and female absentee population in the year 2001 was 89 and 11 percent respectively. The highest proportion of absentee population is from Kathmandu followed by Jhapa, Marang, Rupandehi and Kailali.

The preliminary result reveals that the population of male and female in Nepal is 12,927,431 and 13,693,378 respectively. Accordingly, the result shows that the sex ratio of Nepal has decreased from 99.8 in 2001 to 94.41 in 2011 which supports the scenario revealed in the proportion of absentee population (more male are leaving the country than female).

According to the preliminary result, the Terai belt constitutes highest proportion of the population followed by Hill and Mountain belt. More than half of the total population of the country(50.2%) lives in Terai belt followed by Hill and Mountain belt that constitutes about 43 percent and 7 percent of the total population respectively. Also, the result reveals the massive increase in the urban population. The urban population of Nepal constitutes about 17 percent of the total population in 2011 compared to 14 percent urban population in 2001. Likewise the rural population of Nepal decreased from 86 percent in 2001 to 83 percent in 2011. The sex ratio in the rural areas, as in the census 2001 is higher (104) than in the urban areas (92). Among the urban areas, the Kathmandu Metropolitan City constitutes the largest population of 1,006,656 followed by Pokhara, Lalitpur and Biratnagar Municipality. Dhulikhel Municipality has the lowest population, 16,406, among the urban areas followed by Dasharathchand, Bhadrapur and Ilam Municipalities.

The result also reveals that Kathmandu district has the largest population of 1,740,977 followed by Morang, Rupandehi, Jhapa and Kailali which has the population of 964,709; 886,706; 810,636 and 770,279 respectively. Manang constitutes the lowest population of 6527 followed by Mustang, Dolpa, Rasuwa and Humla that has population of 13,799; 36701; 43798 and 51008 respectively.

Major Highlights of the Preliminary Results
􀂾 Population of Nepal as of census day, June 22, 2011 stands at 26.6 millions. Total addition in the population of Nepal during last 10 years is recorded as 3.45 millions with an annual average growth of 1.40 percent.

􀂾 Population density of Nepal is estimated 181 per sq.kms. Kathmandu district has the highest density (4408) and Manang (3) has the least.

􀂾 Kathmandu has recorded the highest decadal population growth (60.93 %) compared to all Nepal (14.99 %) and lowest in Manang (-31.92 %).

􀂾 Tarai constitutes 50.15 percent of Population while hill constitutes 43.1 percent and mountain 6.75 percent.

􀂾 Central Development Region records highest population (36.5 %) and Far Western Development Region records the lowest (9.6 %).

􀂾 Sex ratio is estimated to be 94.41 (male per hundred female) in the current census as compared to 99.80 in the previous census 2001.

􀂾 National average household size has decreased from 5.44 in 2001 to 4.70 in 2011. The household size is recorded to be highest in Rautahat (6.33) and lowest (3.7 1) in Kathmandu.

􀂾 Absent population of Nepal is recorded as 1.92 millions against 0.762 million in 2001.

􀂾 As per the census results, out of total Population, 17 percent (4.5 millions) reside in urban areas.

For more details of the preliminary report, click here (in PDF).

###

As we passed through the narrow winding road at Pharping, realism struck when one of the co-passengers received a SMS that read something like this: Budddha Air crashes in Lalitpur, all feared dead, one survives.

I could not help visualize the grotesque images of victims, their mangled body parts, wreckage of the crash strewn all over. That is the familiar pattern of disaster coverage in our media, more particularly on television, our modern window into the world of current affairs. Fact is stranger than fiction, and oftentimes these days our media are the first in line to shape them for our absorption

However, it's strange among us that even the self-proclaimed realists cannot confront every reality of life. We make exceptions and rules to suit our purpose, our morals, our culture, our deeply-held values. Mid-way to Hetauda, at about lunchtime, our driver put on a mask to disguise himself as a stranger, because, as he said, he did not want to be recognized by every road-side hotelier. Many of them had come to know him personally since he started driving along this 68-km Dakchhinkali-Hetauda highway some seven years ago. He did not want to disappoint every one of those businesses by not dropping off his passengers at their outlets for lunch. He could only choose one of them.

There are things worth hiding in life not because you want to conceal reality but because you don't like to hurt the feelings and sentiments of people, not because you want to become arrogant, but because you want to be thoughtful, considerate. Of course, sometimes one could be self-referential at the same time. This driver said he was also embarrassed to have to choose one outlet over the others.

Of course, TV channels are not Sumo drivers. Neither are their passengers their TV-like audience. Yet, journalism and the driving profession seem to share some commonalities. In our case, I kind of felt our driver was a talking head from a current affairs show. You are entirely at the mercy of your driver to reach your destination just as you are of a trusted TV channel to confirm a fact, a given truth.

Our driver's conscious decision to hide his face from his wayside patrons reminds one of a professional dilemma of journalism regarding selective communication of truth. Just because something is a fact or a truth does not mean it has to be showcased prominently, even in the news. Some truths are better to be underemphasized than highlighted, merely described than shown, or altogether excluded.

Recent news coverage of natural disasters and human tragedies has brought the issue of news selection into sharp focus. Take, for example the case of UK embassy wall collapse in the September 18 earthquake. Television channels appeared unconcerned with possible audience repulsion or disappointment in broadcasting the mangled and blood-drenched face of a girl who died with her father in that incident. Only a week following that grotesque image, TV channels delivered wide angle shots of body pieces of over a dozen dead individuals. One policeman was shown hurling a piece of leg, dismembered below the knee, down on a plastic wrap sheet. Then on Monday, some channels decided to show the wounded and blood-drenched chest of Faizan Ahamad Ansari, the general secretary of Islami Sangh Nepal. He was gunned down near Ghantaghar.

Yes, we have to agree that these are nothing new for our media and their audience. This happened regularly during the decade-long conflict. The grotesque images were everywhere. In fact, some would say, those were the images that actually helped to build moral pressure and hastened political compromise among warring sides for a new democratic order. And there are other disasters that provide a steady supply of such gruesome images. We are fed with them during floods. Don't forget similar and routine mediated images from road and bus accidents.

Others may argue, culturally, too, we celebrate the dead with mass display of their bodies, placed on pyres, set in the open, on river banks. Bodies or faces of even those who die a natural death (private individuals or public figures) have long been a mainstay of our news. This is also true of dead animals. They are butchered publicly and their carcasses are left for everyone to see.

The irony is there is a big gap between our take on what something "is" and what it "should" be. Yes, television is gory. However, we hardly find anyone, including many television journalists, who will justify broadcasting such graphic images of the dead and their private, mangled bodies. For long, journalists, in principle have agreed to abide by the norms of decency and public taste. Their professional code of ethics -- the Code of Journalistic Ethics 2003 (Amended 2008) -- prohibits broadcasting images that may penalize the victims. For example, clause 6 reads: "Not publish, broadcast or produce-distribute any news or opinion with the use of language, sound, picture, figure, scene or the like in such a way as to make the victim suffer further pain." Although there is no reference in the code in particular to "public taste", clause 9 prohibits "publication or broadcast of horrific scene or picture".

And yet, media outlets continue to deliver horrific scenes into our living rooms. And they do this without warning or disclaimers, entirely overlooking the fact that their audiences include the immediate family members of victims, as well as children or under aged population.

So why this continued inconsistency between ethics and practice? Are we a sadistic society in which we make media spectacles out of people's lives, disrespect their privacy, ignore their individuality? The fact that there is no visible public outcry over such practice lends credence to this assumption. There is another theory. Experts of media coverage of human tragedies in disaster-prone countries have observed that overexposure to images of suffering and trauma has caused "compassion fatigue" in the public. People show widespread indifference and cynicism in such societies. Are we already into such a fatigue?

It is time we started asking such questions, and examining our professional values critically.

In Hetauda, where I moderated a session on shared learning on journalism among media professionals and people interested in media issues, participants did not fail to appreciate the expansion of our media landscape and expanding bounds of freedom. However, some noted that private investments had forced competition, leading to over-commercialization of their products and services.

Indeed, "quality" of media services and content is the next big issue that Nepali journalists and their employers will have to grapple with. When we tend to agree that we now have one of the freest press systems, we no longer have the excuse that our state constrains us. Of course, another issue companioning quality is the threat from non-state actors but that, we can hope, is a transitory one.

Freedom without responsibility, without accountability is a bird insisting on flying only with one wing. Since the government in a democracy has very limited role in controlling and guiding the press, self-regulation is the only way to ensure quality.

Just as our physical environments are in want of sanitation, our media products are in need of sanitization. The gatekeepers of images and information could learn from the Japanese media. During the earthquake and tsunami there earlier this year, viewers and audience were not shown a single dead body out of respect for the victims and their families. This incident was noted in China and other developed countries in the West and was applauded as exemplary in media decency and public taste.

Yes, there are images the media should decide to exclude, if not hide. As the prime drivers of information and images in this age, they must be mindful that the public and the consumers are their ultimate patrons and judges, not their competitors or ratings.

Originally published in Republica, Sept 28, 2011

Mr. President,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Distinguished Delegates,

Let me begin by congratulating you, Mr. President, on your election to the President of the Sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly.

I also take this opportunity to sincerely thank the outgoing President, His Excellency Mr. Joseph Deiss, for having successfully steered the Sixty-fifth session.

Let me also express our sincere appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations for strong commitment and dedication with which he has been serving the United Nations. We wish him further success in his second term.

Nepal warmly welcomes the Republic of South Sudan as a newest member of the United Nations.

Mr. President,

It is a distinct honor and privilege for me to bring to this august Assembly the voice of the voiceless of the world. I have brought with me greetings from the nearly 30 million toiling but proud people of Nepal, who have recently liberated themselves from age-old feudal monarchy and autocracy. Nepal is an enchanting land of Mt. Everest, the top of the world. It is the birthplace of Gautam Buddha, the apostle of peace. And it possesses an unbelievable variety of natural beauty and diversity.

In recent years, a momentous transformation is taking place in Nepal. After a long and persistent struggle, a feudalistic and autocratic monarchy has been abolished. We have entered into a new historic era with the creation of a new federal democratic republic of Nepal. Today, the new state apparatus is striving to take into account the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-cultural diversity of the country. Abolition of all discriminations and oppression based on class, gender, nationality, region and caste and creating an inclusive democratic system and a just society is at the heart of all our struggles for decades. Thanks to the ultimate sacrifice of the thousands of martyrs of the historic People's War of 1996 to 2006, People's Movement of 2006, Madhesh Movement and many other oppressed people's movements that we have come this far to lay the foundation of a new Nepal. We have to consolidate these historic gains and institutionalize them in order to establish sustainable peace, justice and prosperity to all. My government is fully committed to doing that with the conclusion of the peace process and the writing of a new constitution through the Constituent Assembly at the earliest. The constitution will not only guarantee the fundamental democratic norms and values. But it will also ensure that our multi-party democracy is inclusive, participatory and life-changing for all, especially the oppressed laboring masses and the marginalized ones. As it is rightly said: 'The highest measure of democracy is neither the extent of freedom, nor the extent of equality, rather the highest measure of participation', we want to institutionalize a really participatory democracy for all, particularly the downtrodden ones.

In this context, I would like to remind this august Assembly of the poignant words expressed from this podium in 2008 by the Chairman of my party, Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the then Prime Minister, Com. Prachanda, about the landless peasants, downtrodden women, the so-called untouchable dalits and millions of exploited masses of Nepal who are aspiring for liberation from all forms of oppression and exploitation.

Nepal's home-driven peace process and historic transformation are unique and could be a good example for drawing lessons. We believe that transformation has to be holistic to have its long lasting impact at the grassroots. Transformation in political, social and economic fields has to be brought about holistically. It is attainable with dedication, dialogue and consensus building among stakeholders. Like in any other countries, transitional pains and delays are there. But we are united in our vision and we intend to complete the transition process with consensus and cooperation of all the political parties and stakeholders. We are confident that with international goodwill and cooperation, we will achieve it at the earliest.

Nepal's foreign policy is based on fundamental principles of the UN Charter, non-alignment and Panchsheel principles and promotion of regional cooperation through SAARC. We would like to be a vibrant bridge between our two neighbours and beyond. At a time when humanity is so much in need of peace, and we all are striving for it, we particularly appeal for the development of Lumbini, the birthplace of the Buddha, as the fountain of world peace through effective international support and cooperation. The International Committee for Development of Lumbini needs to be reactivated at the earliest.

I extend sincere thanks to the United Nations, especially UNMIN for providing invaluable support and assistance throughout our peace process. We are hopeful that we would continue to receive goodwill and support from the international community in our efforts to institutionalize lasting peace, equity and prosperity in the country.

The United Nations holds a noble vision of peace and security, development and justice and human rights for all. But if we look around the world, we have a long way to go to achieve this. We still face conflicts, deprivation and demeaning poverty all around us. How can we have sustainable peace in the world when there is so much of inequity, deprivation and marginalization around us? We have to deal with their root causes. How can one justify the spending of 1.5 trillion US dollars on war weapons every year while more than two billion people across the globe lack basic necessities of food, medicine, etc?

It is in that context, I appeal to the United Nations to come forward with a far reaching and comprehensive development package. We need a "new Marshall plan" for rebuilding and reconstruction of the post-conflict countries. Lip-services and symbolic supports are not enough. It is time for a bold visionary step to deal with the complex problems of today. This would be a most cost effective approach to deal with the global problems and ensure sustainable peace.

Mr. President,

The principles and purposes of the United Nations as enshrined in the Charter represent the high ideals of the global community. Yet we live in an age of paradox. The gap between the poor and the rich is ever widening. Today the level of inequity between the states is the highest than at any time in the past. The Least Developed Countries, or I would rather prefer calling them Underdeveloped Countries, are facing the full force of negative side of globalization with their deep structural constraints. Jobless growth is a major challenge for all of us. In this integrated world, grinding poverty of the masses in billions is a recipe for disaster. The islands of prosperity amidst the sea of poverty are not sustainable. It is morally indefensible and economically undesirable. In a globalized and interconnected world, our destiny is inextricably intertwined. When my house is on fire, your house cannot be safe, and vice versa.

The recurrence of economic and financial crises, fuel and food crises and the deeper structural crises have vindicated the need to seriously review the current economic paradigm. I believe that this is the right time for deeper soul-searching and the creation of a new, just and scientific economic order. The new global economic order needs to deal with the current global volatility and the growing marginalization of the poor and the weaker economies. The financial capital-driven 'globalization' process is increasingly exposing its inherent structural deficiency and incompatibility. Unless the interest of labour, the basic source of human wealth, is duly integrated in this process, we may soon have to face the 'globalization' of unrest and upheavals. The United Nations should be the principal forum to look at it in a coherent, inclusive and holistic manner.

Mr. President,

The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) face severe structural constraints in their development efforts. Their vulnerabilities have been further aggravated with multiple crises. Despite some good progress in achieving individual goals, LDCs as a group are most off-track in meeting the internationally agreed upon development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration. Rights based approach to development is a must.

It is quite disheartening that even today about 75 percent of the population in LDCs lives in abject poverty and hunger. This situation is unacceptable and must come to an end sooner than later. Business as usual is not a solution to the deep-rooted problems. The historically structured process of 'development of underdevelopment' needs to be structurally addressed.

The Istanbul Declaration and the Program of Action must be implemented in its entirety and in an effective and timely manner. In particular, financing for development should be ensured as per the commitment. Duty-free, quota-free market access and supply-side capacity must be ensured to LDCs. Investment, technology transfer and private sector development should be promoted in LDCs. They are essential to translate the legitimate aspirations of the LDCs. A renewed and strengthened global partnership is critical to its implementation. We do not want to see another missed opportunity for the LDCs.

Nepal, in its capacity as chair of LDCs, will make every effort, in cooperation with fellow LDCs to ensure that the issues and concerns of the LDCs remain high on the priority list of the UN development agenda.

Similarly, the special difficulties of the Land-Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) should be recognized and the freedom of transit should be ensured to them as a matter of right. Together with this, support for trade facilitation and infrastructure development in these countries should be scaled up.

Labour migration is a global phenomenon. We must protect the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families to ensure that 'globalization' is fair to all. As Nepal's economy is increasingly dependent on remittance, this issue is very crucial for us.

Mr. President,

Climate change has clearly emerged as one of the greatest challenges of the twenty-first century. Global warming has precipitated melting of snow in the Nepal Himalayas, a source of fresh water for over a billion people living in South Asia. Therefore, we have taken the initiative of promoting sustainable mountain agenda in order to highlight their special vulnerabilities and fragilities. The industrialized countries should bear greater responsibilities for this.

There is an urgent need to make progress in climate negotiations and to ensure enhanced and predictable financing. The Rio+20 Summit scheduled for next year are critical to define a more sustainable development path and eradicate poverty for the LDCs. Sustainable development agenda should encompass all ecological considerations, including the crucial issue of sustainable mountain development.

Mr. President,

Nepal reiterates its call for general and complete disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction in a time bound manner.

Nepal strongly believes that regional mechanisms complement efforts to promote the global disarmament agenda. The Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament for Asia and the Pacific (RCPD) located in Kathmandu would be instrumental in revitalizing the "Kathmandu Process" to facilitate dialogues and deliberations for confidence building in the region.

Nepal unequivocally condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and calls for an expeditious conclusion of the negotiations on a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. We should differentiate between terrorism and struggles for freedom.

Nepal's commitment to human rights is deep and unflinching. We are fully aware that the protection and promotion of all human rights including the right to development and fundamental freedoms strengthens the sustainability of peace and progress. We have established an independent constitutional body - the National Human Rights Commission as a watchdog institution. We are committed to build and strengthen this specialized national institution as a true custodian of human rights.

Mr. President,

The General Assembly, which is the only representative body at the global level, needs to be given commensurate power and authority to truly work as a 'world parliament'. It should not remain toothless. Similarly, Nepal supports the expansion in the membership of the Security Council in both the categories. Reform must address all the interrelated issues such as representation as well as transparency and accountability in the working methods of the Security Council. The role and contribution of smaller states in the maintenance of international peace and security must be duly acknowledged.

We underline the crucial role of the United Nations in promoting international cooperation for development. Its role in shaping policy debate on and establishing global norms in economic and financial matters must be strengthened. Nepal welcomes all efforts aimed at promoting system-wide coherence, including the operationalization of UN-Women.

Mr. President,

Nepal's participation in UN peacekeeping is long-standing and consistent. We remain steadfast in our commitment to international peace and security. Nepal has already provided over 80,000 peacekeepers, out of which 62 of our soldiers have laid down their lives in the line of duty. Hence, we would like to call for equitable representation at the leadership level.

In recent times, we have witnessed the outpouring of the popular sentiments for change and freedom around the world. We believe that this is a sign of a new beginning, where people are asserting themselves to be the master of their own destiny. We applaud these changes. We should support them based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations. However, no one should hijack the agenda of democracy for its partisan ends.

The long-drawn-out peace process in the Middle-East is a matter of serious concern for us all. We must find a comprehensive and just solution to these problems. It is our principled position that we support a fully independent and sovereign Palestine State based on the UN resolutions. We look forward to its materialization at the earliest.

Mr. President,

Finally, let me reiterate, the UN principles be holistic, and all be pursued in a balanced manner.

The United Nations should not only be the custodian of its noble principles, it must deliver on its promises. Let it not be a mere umbrella of big powers.

In a globalized world of today, the UN has more responsibility than ever before to create an inclusive and just global order. Let it not falter on its historic duties.

Let the UN serve the larger interests of the poor and the weakest segment of the international community.

Let economic transformation of LDCs with a rights-based approach be on top of the UN Agenda.

Let the UN not fail the aspirations of the millions of people for freedom, equality and prosperity. Let its vision be translated into a visible change in the lives of the oppressed people.

And, last but not least, let us keep in mind, either we all reach the goal of global peace and prosperity together, or nobody will.

Thank you.

###