Rapport Commission Européenne très clair concernant le Népal

N'oublions pas que la Commission Européenne est par excellence l'instrument des multinationales européennes. Bien sûr que cela pèse sur son appréciation de la lutte de libération populaire au Népal (comme ailleurs dans le Tiers Monde). Retenons surtout combien sévère est le rapport envers le "régime corrompu", l'absence de démocratie et d'autres maux et que le rapport voit dans la guerilla maoiste l'expression d'une révolte fort généralisée. Louis Michel a lu ce rapport. Son choix pour le régime réactionnaire, féodal et anti-démocratique et contre le peuple népallais est un choix fort conscient. Il sait parfaitement que les livraisons d'armes ne servirons, non pas la démocratie (inexistante), mais la féodalité et l'oppression de l'immense majorité du peuple népalais.
Nota bene: nos Ecolos, bien représentés aux Parlement Européen et, d'après leur dire, soucieux du Tiers Monde- ne devraient-ils pas non plus bien connaître ce rapport ? Bien sûr qu'ils le connaissant. Mais quelques sièges dans les gouvernements actuels et futurs font oublier bien des choses...

Voici l'introduction au rapport, qui n'existe apparemment qu'en anglais.

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)