Posted by: cardinal December 21, 2014
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
meraj bro - thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think the conflict of interest you mention is the reason why many people have a conflict regarding granting passport renewal to asylees. Lets probe that a bit if you don't mind.
Lets think from the individual's perspective. If the asylee has lost faith in the government's ability to provide security, does that necessarily mean that s/he has lost all faith in govt? I do not think so. Here is an example. If someone is genuinely concerned that his life is at risk in Nepal because he was a political activist whose views are strongly opposed by the govt. S/he might still have faith in the judiciary. He might however be concerned that the govt would not even allow him to have a fair trial, and he might be killed in 'encounter'. The point I am making is that it is not always true that the asylee has lost all faith in every aspect of the government, only that he sees serious risks to his security. So if there is a situation if he is traveling with Nepali passport and that Nepali govt makes any effort to rescue him, he does have a choice to comply with the offer for help or decline it. As an individual he should be empowered to make that decision. So I do not see a serious conflict of interest here.
Now lets think about it from State's perspective. The conflict of interest might arise if the state needs to rescue someone who has clearly stated that he is not confident in the state's ability to ensure his safety. Should the state still bother to rescue him? Before I answer this, let me pose you some scenarios: When Parwej Mussaraf took over military rule in Pakistan, Nawaj Sharif and Benajir bhutto took asylum in UK and UAE ( I think). After 9-11 Benajir Bhutto even came to the US and gave public speeches about the menace of Taliban that was threatening Afganisthan and Pakistan. If she had been in an accident during her travel, the Army govt. at that time might not have been too keen to rescue her. But do you think the ordinary citizens of Pakistan would have wanted her to be rescued? The point I am trying to make here is that it is not always what the State wants, but what do the citizens of that country want the State to do on their behalf that is important. If Nepal Govt raises this issue in the parliament and the members of parliament vote to discontinue granting support to asylees then I have nothing to say. But the scenario we have is that the govt. of Nepal has made a unilateral decision without any discussion with stakeholders or with the public.
Lets think from the individual's perspective. If the asylee has lost faith in the government's ability to provide security, does that necessarily mean that s/he has lost all faith in govt? I do not think so. Here is an example. If someone is genuinely concerned that his life is at risk in Nepal because he was a political activist whose views are strongly opposed by the govt. S/he might still have faith in the judiciary. He might however be concerned that the govt would not even allow him to have a fair trial, and he might be killed in 'encounter'. The point I am making is that it is not always true that the asylee has lost all faith in every aspect of the government, only that he sees serious risks to his security. So if there is a situation if he is traveling with Nepali passport and that Nepali govt makes any effort to rescue him, he does have a choice to comply with the offer for help or decline it. As an individual he should be empowered to make that decision. So I do not see a serious conflict of interest here.
Now lets think about it from State's perspective. The conflict of interest might arise if the state needs to rescue someone who has clearly stated that he is not confident in the state's ability to ensure his safety. Should the state still bother to rescue him? Before I answer this, let me pose you some scenarios: When Parwej Mussaraf took over military rule in Pakistan, Nawaj Sharif and Benajir bhutto took asylum in UK and UAE ( I think). After 9-11 Benajir Bhutto even came to the US and gave public speeches about the menace of Taliban that was threatening Afganisthan and Pakistan. If she had been in an accident during her travel, the Army govt. at that time might not have been too keen to rescue her. But do you think the ordinary citizens of Pakistan would have wanted her to be rescued? The point I am trying to make here is that it is not always what the State wants, but what do the citizens of that country want the State to do on their behalf that is important. If Nepal Govt raises this issue in the parliament and the members of parliament vote to discontinue granting support to asylees then I have nothing to say. But the scenario we have is that the govt. of Nepal has made a unilateral decision without any discussion with stakeholders or with the public.