Rapport Europese Commissie (jan. 2002) heel duidelijk over Nepal

Vergeten we niet dat de Europese Commissie bij uitstek een instrument is van de grootste Europese bedrijven.Dit kleurt uiteraard zijn appreciatie van de gewapende bevrijdingsstrijd in Nepal (en andere Derde Wereld landen). Onthouden we vooral hoe streng dit rapport is voor het "corrupte regime" van Nepal, de afwezigheid van enige democratie en andere kwalen en dat het rapport onderkent dat de maoïstische guerilla (enkel) gestalte geeft aan een zeer wijd verspreide revolte. Louis Michel heeft dat rapport gelezen. Zijn keuze voor het reactionaire, feodale, anti-democratisch regime en tegen het Nepalese volk, is wel degelijk een zeer bewuste keuze. Hij weet perfect dat de wapenleveringen niet de democratie zullen dienen, maar de feodaliteit en de onderdrukking van overgrote meerderheid van de bevolking.
Nota bene: horen onze groene Agalevers -goed present in het Europese parlement en, naar eigen zeggen, begaan met de Derde Wereld - zo'n rapport ook niet te kennen ? Zeker, zij ook kennen het ! Zitjes in deze en volgende regeringen veilig stellen doet heel wat vergeten....
Hier de inleiding op het rapport, dat enkel in het Engels bestaat.

Executive Summary
The root cause of the Nepal conflict is a complex web of interacting factors. These include uneven development within the country; endemic corruption; the politics of the Palace, both internally and externally, and their relationship with the army; ethnic and caste inequalities; intense politicisation; human rights abuse; social exclusion and deprivation, and inadequate infrastructure development. Successful conflict reduction initiatives must take into account and address these underlying factors as well as poverty alleviation, economic development and political mediation. The "People's War" declared by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), has now spiralled into the beginning of a protracted internal war which will hamper development and democratic progress. The Maoists appear to be involved in systematic human rights abuse and the security services response has also been extremely abusive. Following the breakdown of negotiations last year, successful talks are unlikely to begin again in the near future. Both sides have stated they are willing to talk, subject to conditions, but it is not clear whether these statements are rhetorical. Since a State of Emergency has been declared, the impression is that both sides have, at least for the present, adopted military strategies. Positions in the two camps get more and more polarised. Considering such a stiffened antagonism, no meaningful, direct EC action, at this stage, can be contemplated at the highest decision-making level. Moreover, it would be quite misleading to suggest that the absence of dialogue between the government and the Maoists, is the only or main reason for conflict, to be addressed. The failed negotiations obviously led to the State of Emergency but nothing indicates that a viable strategy had effectively been worked out by any of the interlocutors. The talks were confusing and largely conducted through the media between actual meetings. Caste and class discrimination, ethnic tension and corruption are built into the fabric of Nepali society, so underlying conflict is endemic . The Maoist insurrection is the violent eruption of a general, deep, popular dissatisfaction. Countless other latent conflicts could also escalate into armed conflict, particularly those fuelled by ethnic divisions and rivalry. The civil war, into which Nepal is sinking, aggravates all of these factors and even tends to normalise abuses. Against such a background, the EC mission proposes actions, which for the time being, are directed towards conflict containment and actions which could lay the groundwork for progressive resolution of the conflict.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)