क्रान्तीकारी नेपाल

27 August 2007. A World to Win News Service. The US-headquartered retailing giant Wal-Mart signed an unprecedented agreement with an Indian partner to begin operations in that country 6 August. The move heralds big changes in agricultural and industrial production as well as distribution. It will accelerate the economic and social changes sweeping India as imperialist monopoly capital and domestic monopoly capital enter into new alliances and configurations. The UK supermarket chain Tesco, France’s Carrefour and Auchan, and Germany’s Metro are all eyeing India. The Wall-Mart Bharti chain, the first of its kind in India, is expected to open next year (more…)

मोती चाम्लीङ्ग प्रवासवाट
प्रवासमा स्थापित नेपाली कुटनिति नियोगको कार्यकुशलतालाई साउदी अरवमा नियाल्दै आएको सातौं वर्षरु बितिसकेका छन् । नेपालको राजनितिमा कायापलट आउनु अघि र पछि दुवै समयपरिवेशभित्र रियाद दूतावास भू.पू. राजालाई स्तुति स्तोत्र फलांक्ने राजावादीहरुको केन्द्रको रुपमा स्थापित हुन पुगेको छ । यस्तो किन र कसरी भइरहेको छ भन्ने प्रश्नको जवाफ भित्र अनेक ज्वलन्त प्रमाणहरु धारावाहिक रुपमा पेश गर्न सकिन्छ । नचाहदा नचाहदै पनि यी हकिकत ओकल्नु पर्ने अवस्था श्रृजना हुन पुगेको छ । एक चोटले ज्ञानी हुन्छ धेरै चोटले वानी होला भन्ने त्रासले पनि नेपाली दूतावास रियादको आवरणलाई छापामा धमिल्याउन अनुचित लाग्दथ्यो तर एक चोट पार्नै पर्ने वाध्यता दूतावास आफैले श्रृजना गरिदिएको छ । (more…)

REPORT FROM CHINA
Some members of WPRM-Britain recently travelled to China and were able to observe various aspects of the lives of the Chinese people. This is their report of their experiences although limited in time. WPRM-Britain hopes that comrades and friends can also write reports on their travels abroad in order to deepen our understanding of the lives of the people in different countries around the world. (more…)

A pocos meses de las elecciones para formar una Asamblea Constituyente en Nepal, el país es testigo de crecientes protestas que denuncian la falta de libertad de prensa, como la del director de una emisora de radio que se ha declarado en huelga de hambre. (more…)

गत १ मे २००७ का दिन हङकङमा रहेका नेपाली समाजका सचेत तथा वौद्धिक व्यक्तित्वहरुको सहभागितामा सम्पन्न अन्तर्त्रिmया कार्यक्रम पछि भएको सहमति अनुसार नेपालको प्रजातान्त्रिक आन्दोलनलाई सहयोग पुर्‍याउनका निम्ति हङकङमा पनि लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्र मोर्चा गठनको आवश्यकता रहेको र्सवसम्मत सहमत को आधारमा यही मिति १३ मे २००७ आइतवारका दिन हङकङमा रहनु भएका संपर्ूण्ा प्रगतिशील, प्रजातान्त्रिक देशभक्त एवं लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रवादी नेपालीहरुको उपस्थिती र सहभागितामा लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्र मोर्चा हङकङको गठन गरिएको छ । (more…)

Kathmandu, 22.08.07 El máximo responsable de asuntos internacionales del PCN (m) camarada Chandra Gajurel declaro que los maoístas no nombraran embajadores si no es en el marco de un paquete de medidas.
El nombramiento realizado de forma unilateral de embajadores de Nepal por el premier Prashad Koirala es motivo de un serio enfrentamiento con los maoístas. (more…)

Abridged from an article published in Le Drapeau Rouge newspaper, No. 63, April 2007.

Developments over the last year in Nepal, after more than 10 years of armed struggle that shook the foundations of the old regime and won admiration from millions of exploited people and proletarians around the world, did not go without generating debates within the international communist movement—and within forces supporting revolution in that country. Many wonder about the decisions made by the leadership of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN[M)]) and the future of their revolution. Important Maoist parties like the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and Communist Party of the Philippines publicly expressed their dissent with the Nepali comrades. [1]
Other parties or organizations, whose actual existence is slight of outside the Internet, [2] profited from hardships occurring in the normal course of a revolutionary process, like the one going on in Nepal, to launch a wild campaign against the leadership of the CPN(M), and even against other parties and organizations (notably the Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) who would not follow their appeal to publicly condemn what they call “Prachanda revisionism” (from the name of the main leader of the Nepali party).
We have clearly set ourselves apart from this childish position, a position which shows a total misunderstanding of the complexity of a revolutionary struggle which is taking place outside of some webmaster’s cozy apartment. In many places there are individuals and collectives of all kinds who have no revolutionary experience, or even the slightest idea of its strategic requirements, but who nonetheless aspire to confused revolutionary ideals. Such groups or individuals will sometimes be attracted to a certain revolutionary symbol. Some will, however, never go beyond this stage.
Many romanticized the revolution in Nepal, seeing images of armed fighters and acts of open rebellion, and praised the CPN(M). But the recent tactics applied by the Maoist party and the appearance of new images, such as Prachanda no longer a charismatic mysterious revolutionary leader but shaking hands with Prime Minister Koirala, have disappointed them. Their narrow militaristic and romanticized vision of revolution prevents them from understanding that both kinds of activity are part of the same process, and that this process in and of itself always remains essentially political.
That being said, developments from the last year are raising serious issues, some of which are actually linked to important principles.
At this point, as a Maoist organization that has supported the revolutionary process in Nepal since its beginning, and acting as a detachment of the international communist movement, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) submits the following considerations:
1. The revolution in Nepal constitutes the most advanced revolutionary experience of the last 10 years for the international proletariat. The application of Marxism-Leninism- Maoism to the conditions of Nepal by the CPN(M) allowed the country’s revolutionary masses to rapidly progress and win one victory after another. The revolutionary process in Nepal also brought forward the whole international communist movement. It confirmed the accuracy of Marxism-Leninism- Maoism and of the strategic path of protracted People’s War. Revolution in Nepal demonstrates the Maoist thesis, according to which the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history; it once again proves the necessity of a solid revolutionary leadership embodied by a Marxist-Leninist- Maoist vanguard party linked to the international communist movement.
2. Tactical decisions made by the CPN(M) over the last 18 months are in continuity with the orientation developed by this party, which allowed the revolution to progress up until now. Our first impression is that these decisions are not surprising; the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is following the plan it adopted when it first declared the People’s War. From the outset, the CPN(M) clearly indicated that, within the class composition of Nepal, the main enemy of the Nepali people was made up of feudal landowners and of comprador bourgeoisie and their imperialist allies in the US and India; and that to ensure their domination, these reactionary classes relied, politically, on a monarchist type of state which supports the entire structure of oppressive relations in Nepali society. On the basis of concentrating all revolutionary forces to attack one enemy at a time, the CPN(M) decided to target feudal monarchy, and demanded the formation of a constituent assembly that would create a democratic republic. It fought to initiate a united front with the forces opposed to monarchy—including some hesitant forces that it carefully brought into the camp of revolution (even if only temporarily) .
3. These tactical decisions and this step in the revolutionary process has, however, raised a number of questions that should be mainly answered by the CPN(M). One of them is about the important military issue which will determine what force will become dominant at the end of this political process. The peace accord of November 2006 did not force the People’s Liberation Army to give up their arms, as some claim, but simply put them in warehouse. During a conference in New Delhi on February 3rd, 2007, Comrade Gaurav, finally freed after more than three years in prison, and now assuming leadership of international relations for the CPN(M), explained that the People’s Liberation Army would need only an hour to fully mobilize itself (eKanpitur.com, 2007/02/03). The question of how the national army will be disbanded if the Maoists win the elections in the constituent assembly still remains open. Party leader Baburam Bhattarai recently raised the idea that the national army could be “substantially reduced” and replaced by a people’s militia (eKantipur.com, 2007/02/09).
However, until elections are held and the Maoists can proceed with building a new country, the conditions of the peace accord, even if they have not neutralized the armed capacity of the People’s Liberation Army, have still placed the forces of the enemy in an advantageous position, since only part of their troops, weapons and supplies, equivalent to that of the PLA, were set down in the same way. The national army currently possesses enough surplus strength, in strict military terms, to intervene in the electoral process and perhaps even stage a coup d’état. If they did so, however, it would go against the spirit and word of the peace accord, and the legitimacy of the revolutionary forces would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; then, the PLA would be in a far better position to pick up arms to defend the integrity of the free democratic process.
More generally, the transitional process, which the CPN(M) hopes will abolish the monarchist state once and for all and lead to a democratic republic as a step towards New Democracy and socialism, remains scattered with obstacles. The path towards revolution in any given country never follows a straight and predictable line. It can not be claimed that each step must follow another with a kind of historic determinism. The key is for the revolutionary proletariat, embodied in its vanguard party, to lead the process, to accumulate its strength and at each step act according with the reality of the situation, forging and breaking class alliances, advancing and withdrawing, and realizing the tasks necessary for the next step. It is the greatest hardship any revolutionary party will confront.
As a supporter of the CPN(M) told us not too long ago, the closer the party gets towards seizing power, the more it progresses in transforming society through revolution, and the more its margins of error narrows. When the People’s War was initiated in 1996, the party could afford to make mistakes (relatively, of course). A single defeat, or a single failure, could not lead to the consequences that it can now, as millions of people have put their hopes in the revolution.
4. Nothing is settled; everything is still possible. We are of the opinion that nothing is final, nothing has been set in stone, for the revolution in Nepal. We clearly reject the point of view of those pretending that a bourgeois line has triumphed within the party and that the revolution has been defeated. The revolutionary movement in Nepal is more alive than ever! The masses are involved by the millions, in one way or another, in the revolutionary process. They benefit from the contribution of a trained and combat-proven vanguard party which has proven its mastery at military and political tactics; each compromise made during the course of the People’s War, and each cease-fire, allowed it to accumulate its forces, isolate the enemy and put the revolutionary camp in a better position. This, however, does not give any guarantee about the future. The party (as well as elsewhere), as the leading center of the revolution, is obviously where the bourgeois line is going to redevelop.
In 1957, eight years after the triumph of Chinese Revolution, three years of New Democracy and four years of socialist construction, Mao Zedong wrote: “Class struggle is by no means over. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the various political forces, and the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the ideological field will still be protracted and torturous and at times even very sharp. The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is not really settled yet.” (On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People) We believe that in Nepal, the matter of knowing who will win is not yet resolved.
5. The challenges for revolution in Nepal are shedding light on a certain number of difficulties and weaknesses within the revolutionary forces and the world proletariat. From the beginning, the CPN(M) was always very aware of the dialectical link which unites revolution in Nepal and world revolution. It also grasped the importance of relating the revolution in Nepal with the world revolution, even if it involves mainly internal factors specific to Nepal. This relation begins with revolution in South Asia, particularly in India, which constitutes the most immediate and dominant foreign influence in Nepal. The CPN(M) has spent a lot of effort unifying Maoist revolutionary forces in the region. It put forward the strategic idea of a Federation of Soviet Republics of South Asia as a means of establishing and consolidating socialism in each of the region’s countries. At the international level, the CPN(M) participates with the efforts of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (the RIM) to develop the world revolution and people’s resistance, and build Marxist-Leninist- Maoist vanguard parties and organizations everywhere in the world, as well as a global revolutionary leading center.
In the short run, because of the current international context characterized by imperialist war and the USA’s hegemonic imperialist offensive (since the fall of Soviet social-imperialism, and in particular since the September 11, 2001 attacks), proclaiming, establishing and maintaining a Communist-led revolutionary regime represents a gigantic challenge that can never be overcome alone by Communists in a single country. This challenge belongs to Marxist-Leninist- Maoists, to revolutionary and anti-imperialist forces all over the globe.
6.In this context, solidarity with revolution in Nepal is more necessary than ever. We must continue to support Nepal’s revolutionary masses; in fact, our solidarity with them must strengthen. This does not exclude debate and discussion on the orientations of the CPN(M). Not in the least bit. Comrades from Nepal openly participate within the international communist movement, so that the worldwide revolution can be strengthened by their experience, and vice-versa—not in a literal way, but in a very real and concrete manner. And if there is a single concrete revolutionary movement in the world, it is in Nepal. This revolution belongs to us all: it is the revolution of the world’s oppressed people.
The Maoist conception of revolution excludes any unconditional submission to some “father party.” Thanks to the revisionists, this deviation, which has always plagued the international communist movement, has brought disastrous results in the past. It has been vigorously fought against by Mao and the Chinese Communists, and today is rejected by the CPN(M) and genuine Marxist-Leninist- Maoist forces. What revolutionaries in Nepal need, what they are righteously asking from us, is that we take the revolution’s issues at heart; that we defeat our fears and our monotonous inaction and lack of resolve, which has become the characterization of far too wide a portion of the international communist movement. They ask that we openly debate with them, in the spirit proletarian internationalism. They ask that we go forward, decisively, on the road to revolution.
We must not underestimate the impact these advances will have on revolution in Nepal, including on the possibility for revolutionaries there to proceed to the next step towards socialism. Let’s be clear that for our part, our commitment is firm and our solidarity remains indestructible for our comrades in Nepal.

——————————————————————————–
1) The Communist Party of India (Maoist) published an elaborate critical text, in the form of an interview made with one of its main leaders, comrade Azad. This interview was published in the June-July 2006 edition of the People’s March magazine, available at peoplesmarch. googlepages. com.
2) We refer here to a small group called “Parti communiste marxiste-léniniste- maoïste” of France.

Close to the center of Kathmandu there is the Thamel tourist zone, an
oasis, set aside from the rest of the city. Here, affluent westerners
exist in a world of expensive restaurants, internet cafes and countless
shops selling Nepal t-shirts, kukris and other souvenirs of the country.
More prevalent however, are the ¡®Free Tibet¡¯ paraphernalia of which
there is a vast array, from Tibetan flags and other religious curios, the
Dalai Lama grinning out from fridge magnets, mouse pads and from his
impressive multitude of fortune cookie philosophy books. Even here (more…)

CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERSECUTION OF PROF. JOSE MARIA SISON

BY THE PHILIPPINE, US AND DUTCH GOVERNMENTS

Issued by the International DEFEND Committee

18 August 2007

Since his release from military detention and the nullification of subversion and rebellion charges against him in 1986 after the fall of the Marcos fascist dictatorship, Prof. Jose Maria Sison has been subjected to a series of false and politically motivated charges in 1988, 1991, 2003 and 2006. One after the other, these charges have been dismissed and nullified by Philippine courts in 1992, 1994 and 2007. Thus, they have been proven as malicious and pure fabrications of the Philippine military, police and intelligence authorities.

But the Philippine, US and Dutch governments have used the false charges to persecute Prof. Sison. The trumped-up charges of subversion in 1988 and multiple murder in 1991 and the charges of subversion and rebellion nullified in 1986 have been used by the Dutch government to prevent the legal admission as refugee and residence of Prof. Sison in The Netherlands. Even the most unfounded propaganda attacks from the time of Marcos to 2006, which never materialized into formal complaints, have been used by the Philippine, US and Dutch governments to malign him as a “terrorist.” These governments do so even as Philippine prosecutors and courts dismiss and nullify the formal complaints and charges.

Under the Marcos fascist dictatorship, the Philippine government subjected Prof. Jose Maria Sison to arbitrary detention from 1977 to 1986 and to various forms of physical and mental torture, including water cure, punching, more than five years of solitary confinement, prolonged deprivation of basic necessities as well as medical and dental care and repeated death threats. He was arrested and detained without judicial warrant and was charged before two military commissions for subversion and rebellion. He was thus put in jeopardy of being punished twice for the same alleged offense of seeking to overthrow the Philippine government.

After the fall of the Marcos dictatorship, the Aquino regime released Prof. Sison from military detention on March 5, 1986. The two charges of subversion and rebellion against him were nullified through the dissolution of the military commissions as organs of repression. He joined the faculty of the Asian Studies Center of the state institution, the University of the Philippines in April 1986. From September 1986 onwards, he went on a tour for a series of university lectures and solidarity speeches in Oceania, Asia and Europe on the situation and prospects of the Philippines. The Philippine military authorities publicly attacked his lectures and pressured the Aquino regime to cancel his Philippine passport. They trumped up a new charge of subversion against him in September 1988. This became the basis for the cancellation of his Philippine passport.

After the arbitrary cancellation of his passport, Prof. Sison applied for political asylum in The Netherlands in October 1988. The Dutch Ministry of Justice used the false charge of subversion and related false claims against him from the Philippine government as the basis for issuing a negative decision on his asylum application in July 1990. The US State Department admitted publicly that the Philippine government intervened in the asylum case in order to oppose it. But the highest administrative court, the Judicial Department of the Council of State (Raad van State), made a judgment in 1992 annulling the unfavorable decision of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. It recognized Prof. Sison as a political refugee and criticized the ministry for using secret intelligence dossiers against him in contravention of the principle of fair administration and for delaying for more than four years the approval of his asylum application.

Despite the 1992 judgment of the Council of State, the Dutch Ministry of Justice refused to grant asylum to Prof. Sison. It also ignored the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law by the Philippine government in 1992 and the consequent dismissal of the charge of subversion against Prof. Sison by the Pasig city court and the related nullification of the specifications against him. It likewise disregarded the resolution of the Manila city prosecutors in April 1994 dismissing as something based on pure speculation the 1991 complaint of multiple murder arising from the Plaza Miranda bombing in 1971. It continued to use the false charges against Prof. Sison and argue that to grant him asylum would run counter to the commitment and credibility of the Dutch state to its allies. Further, it cited raw intelligence dossiers to fabricate the claim that he is in contact with “terrorist” organizations. It was thus already using the “terrorist” label against him as early as in the years from 1990 to 1994.

In response to the new appeal of Prof. Sison in 1993, the Council of State, as the highest administrative court, issued in 1995 the judgment reaffirming its previous ruling that he is a political refugee under Article 1 A of the Refugee Convention and that he is under the protection of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It ruled that Article 1 F of the Refugee Convention did not apply on him because there was no sufficient evidence against him for crimes that would exclude him from consideration as a refugee. It directed the Dutch Ministry of Justice to grant him legal admission as refugee and residence permit if there was no other country to which he could transfer without violating the Refugee Convention and without putting him at risk of ill treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the Dutch Ministry of Justice ignored the judgment of the Council of State and continued to refuse him legal admission as refugee and the permit to reside in The Netherlands.

Prof. Sison appealed to the newly-created Aliens Court in 1996 against the refusal of the Dutch justice ministry to grant him asylum. The court ordered the Dutch government to make a new decision. The Dutch government ultimately took the position before the Law Unification Chamber (REK, Rechtseenheidkamer) that it had the freedom of policy or discretion to refuse to Prof. Sison legal admission as a refugee and not to give him residence permit but to cease and desist from expelling him from The Netherlands in order to avoid the violation of the principle of nonrefoulement in Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Being dependent on justice ministry personnel, funds and facilities, the REK upheld the position of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and dignified the brazen lie that Prof. Sison was liable for the false accusations of the Philippine government and for “contacts with terrorist organizations” on the basis of intelligence dossiers already examined and evaluated by the Raad van State in 1992 and 1995. It ran counter to the 1992 and 1995 judgments of the Raad van State, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case, the dismissal of all charges against Prof. Sison in the Philippines from 1992 to 1994 and the total absence of any criminal charge against him abroad.

In April 1998 the justice secretary of the Philippine government issued an official certification declaring that there was no pending criminal charge against Prof. Sison and referred to the 1992 nullification and 1993 dismissal of the 1988 charge of subversion as well as the 1994 dismissal of the 1991 charge of multiple murder related to the Plaza Miranda bombing. From 1994 to 2003, the Philippine government, including the military and police authorities, took a rest from filing any formal criminal complaint against Prof. Sison. The Philippine military authorities merely hurled propaganda attacks against him, despite the fact that the Philippine government had already requested the US government in November 2001 to designate Prof. Sison as a “terrorist”. It was only in 2003 that they submitted to the Department of Justice a complaint against him for the June 2001 killing of the intelligence officer Col. Rodolfo Aquinaldo. The Filipino lawyers of Prof. Sison succeeded in having the complaint archived because of its patent falsity and political motivation and because of the lack of Philippine jurisdiction over him in the light of Philippine and international law.

The US government designated Prof. Sison as a “terrorist” on August 12, 2002 and the Dutch government followed suit within 24 hours on August 13, 2002 despite the completely clean legal status of Prof. Sison, despite the absence of any specific act of terrorism that can be ascribed to him, despite the absence of any kind of criminal charge or investigation involving him and despite the Hernandez doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence concerning political offenses and the absence then of any anti-terrorism law in the Philippines. The “terrorist” blacklisting of Prof. Sison by the US and other governments has placed him in a position worse than that of a convicted murderer. He is prohibited from gainful employment. He is deprived of his social benefits, including living allowance, housing, medical insurance, civil liability insurance and old age pension. His bank account is frozen. He is prevented from receiving royalty payments for the publication of his books. He is preempted from receiving compensation for damages due to him for winning his human rights case against the Marcos regime. His fundamental rights have been violated, including the right to the essential means of human existence, the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to defense, the right to be informed of reasons for the sanctions, the right to judicial protection, the right to private and family life, the right of free movement, the right against slander and defamation and the right to be secure against threats to life and reputation.

Out to please the US and Philippine governments politically, the Dutch government, with the open lobbying of Philippine authorities, pushed the Council of the European Union to blacklist Prof. Sison on October 28, 2002. Two days after the blacklist decision of the Council, the Dutch government repealed its blacklisting of Prof. Sison but persisted in violating his fundamental rights and causing material and moral damage to him by invoking the Council decision. The Dutch and British governments are the main interveners in support of the Council of the European Union in the case filed by Prof. Sison against the Council before the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg since February 2003. The Dutch government is the main source of the lies given to the court that (a) Prof. Sison is liable for “terrorism” (and not for rebellion under the Hernandez political offense doctrine of Philippine jurisprudence) for being allegedly the Chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines and head of the New People’s Army and (b) the 1992 and 1995 judgments of the Dutch Council of State and the 1997 judgment of the REK on his asylum case held Prof. Sison liable for “terrorism” (contrary to the fact that these courts recognized him as a political refugee under Article 1 A of the Refugee Convention and as someone protected by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

In 2005 Arroyo and her henchmen in the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal Security and the Anti-Terrorism Task Force started to escalate false accusations against Prof. Sison in the mass media and pushed military officers to file baseless charges of common crimes (like murder, robbery, kidnapping and the like) against him in connection with incidents ascribed to the New People’s Army in various parts of the Philippines. The campaign of slander was obviously intended to reinforce the “terrorist” blacklisting of Prof. Sison by various foreign governments and to justify the intensified extrajudicial killing, abduction and torture of progressive legal activists. It was also intended to link Prof. Sison to a broad united front of legal political forces striving to lead the people to oust the Arroyo regime for having cheated in the presidential elections of 2004. The filing of criminal charges against Prof. Sison culminated in an omnibus charge of rebellion in April 21, 2006 against him and 50 other people, including underground revolutionary leaders, progressive congressmen and anti-Arroyo military officers. The purported facts of the charge of rebellion covered the entire period, from the founding of the Communist Party of the Philippines on December 26, 1968 to the filing of the charge on April 21, 2006 and disregarded the nullification of charges and the amnesty proclamations from 1986 to 1995.

On April 23, 2007 the Council of the European Union sent to Prof. Sison a letter with a one-page statement that repeats the two lies provided by the Dutch government, as mentioned in No. 9 above. On May 22, 2007 he sent a letter of reply and told the Council that the statement of lies had already been presented by the Council to the European Court of First Instance, has been debunked in court and does not amount to a statement of reasons as required of the Council by the court in cases of “terrorist” blacklisting. Then the Council made a new decision on June 28, 2007 blacklisting Prof. Sison on the basis of the aforesaid lies it had made before. This new decision of the Council is obviously intended to serially perpetuate Prof. Sison in the ‘terrorist” blacklist, continually violate his fundamental rights, cause material and moral damage to him and undermine or render useless any favorable judgment of the European Court of First Instance on his case against the Council of the European Union.

The European Court of First Instance issued its judgment on the Sison case on July 11, 2007 annulling the decision of the Council placing him on the “terrorist” list and freezing his financial assets. The annulment is grounded on the Council’s infringement of Prof. Sison’s right to defense, its failure to give a statement of reasons from the second time that it blacklisted him and the violation of his right to judicial protection. The court does not require the Council to pay for the material and moral damages suffered by Prof. Sison due to its decision and fails to mention that the Dutch government has invoked the decision of the Council in order to inflict material and moral damages on him. However, the court requires the Council to pay for the costs of the litigation to the lawyers of Prof. Sison as plaintiff and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines as intervener. Insofar as it can be established that the Dutch government has directly inflicted material and moral damages on Prof. Sison, he can take legal action to seek compensation for such damages. But it can be expected that the Dutch government will resort to every legal trickery to evade accountability.

In the meantime, Prof. Sison has won a resounding legal victory in the Philippines. The Philippine Supreme Court issued on July 2, 2007 a judgment nullifying the omnibus charge of rebellion and all the supposed evidence from 1968 to 2006 against Prof. Sison and his 50 other co-accused. In effect, the supposed evidence cannot be used again against all or any of them in any new charge. The solicitor general has publicly admitted that the value of the state’s stock of purported evidence has been wiped out. This is the latest instance when Prof. Sison is cleared of a criminal charge. It previously happened in 1986, 1992, 1994 and 1998. At this moment, the Philippine and foreign governments persecuting Prof. Sison should be at a loss in holding him liable for any criminal offense or any semblance of this. The Philippine government can fabricate a charge of rebellion against Prof. Sison only from the date after April 21, 2006 and a charge of “terrorism” from July 15, 2007 which is the date the Human Security Act of 2007 became effective. However, the Human Security Act of 2007 is now under fire by a broad range of democratic forces, human rights organizations and legal experts in the Philippines and abroad for being patently unconstitutional.

Prof. Sison has won a significant legal victory with the July 11, 2007 judgment of the European Court of First Instance. But he still needs to complete his legal victory by contending with the preemptive June 28, 2008 decision of the Council retaining him in the “terrorist” blacklist and by filing a new application for annulment of said decision insofar as he is concerned. He still has to defend his fundamental rights and demand compensation for the material and moral damages inflicted on him.

We expect that the Philippine, US and Dutch governments will continue to persecute Prof. Jose Maria Sison by using against him their political power and the existing fascist “anti-terrorism” laws and decisions that they have devised in order to justify state terrorism and wars of aggression. We need to continue and intensify both the political and legal struggles of democratic forces and the people of the world in order defend the fundamental rights of Prof. Sison and other victims of the global trend of fascisation and aggressive wars generated by the imperialist powers and their reactionary puppets.

We must struggle to stop immediately the persecution of progressive leaders like Prof. Jose Maria Sison and the suppression of anti-imperialist and democratic forces and peoples fighting for national liberation, greater freedom, social justice, development and world peace!!!

Fore reference:

Ruth de Leon

International Coordinator

International DEFEND Committee

Email: defenddemrights@ yahoo.com

Telephone: 00-31-30-8895306

Website: www.defendsison. be

An Associated Press team recently made a rare visit into a region in central India where Mao is alive and Marx is revered, and where an army of leftist guerilllas known as the Naxalites control a shadow state amid dense forests and shattering poverty. AP’s team was guided for two days through the forests by a series of intermediaries until reaching a guerrilla camp

Watch the Audio-Visual presentation by clicking on the link below

http://hosted. ap.org/specials/ interactives/ _international/ india_maoists/ index.html

13 de agosto de 2007. Servicio Noticioso Un Mundo Que Ganar. Los sucesos en Nepal han suscitado mucho interés entre nuestros lectores. A continuación presentamos un informe levemente revisado y abreviado sobre la situación de Nepal pronunciado en junio ante el Comité de Coordinación de Partidos y Organizaciones Maoístas del Sur de Asia (CCPOMSA) por el Partido Comunista de Nepal (Maoísta) [PCN (M)]. Salió en el número 17 (julio de 2007) del Boletín Informativo Maoísta publicado por el Departamento Internacional del Comité Central del PCR (M). La versión en inglés se halla en krishnasenonline. org/Boletí n.
(more…)

English and Arabic
A call for the Conference of Calcutta India
A call to the nation, to the country and to the Arabs and globe world
Under the auspices of the All India Anti- Imperialist Forum
The Arab and all Worlds and the whole humanity are suffering under hatred, under catastrophes, under bloody massacres and under occupation and oppression since the installation of the first Zionist settlements of occupation over the ground of Palestine since the end of the 19-th century (more…)

Los antiguos rebeldes maoístas de Nepal, ahora parte de la coalición de Gobierno, buscarán la proclamación de la República antes de las elecciones de noviembre de las que deberá salir una Asamblea Constituyente, anunció a Efe un líder de la formación. (more…)

Kathamandu, 13.08.07 Los maximos dirigentes del PCN (m) han estado pesentes en una rueda de prensa para informar oficialmente de las conclusiones del V Plenario ampliado del Comité Central del Partido.
El presidente Prachanda rodeado de un gran numero de miembros del Partido y bajo las fotos de los 5 grandes del marxismo, dio cuenta de los debates y de las tres condiciones para proseguir en el gobeirno provisional. “La rebelión popular, pacifica y de masas es el nuevo instrumento del proletariado en esta fase de la revolucion democratica en Nepal” afirmo el maximo dirigente maoísta, cuyo informe al V Plenario fue ampliamente debatido por los miembros del C.C. pudiendose ver diversas posiciones sobre la situación politica y la política partidaria.

Ka Aris Francisco
Alejandro Lanaja Command
Front 3 Operations Command
New Peoples Army-Southern Mindanao
August 11, 2007

Red fighters from the Alejandro Lanaja Command-New People’s Army ambushed elements of the 72nd Infantry Battalion-Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and paramilitary Cafgu, on Friday, August 10, in Sitio Kidapang, Brgy. San Isidro, Monkayo, Compostela Province around 7:30 in the morning. (more…)

01 May 2007

Signatories updated on 10 August 2007

We, the undersigned Marxist-Leninist, Mao Zedong Thought and
Marxist-Leninist- Maoist parties and organizations, hereby issue this
declaration to reaffirm the significance and relevance of the struggle
against modern revisionism starting in 1956 in opposition to the
revisionist content of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union (CPSU) in February 1956 leading to the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 and continuing after the
bourgeoisie seized power in China in 1976. We do so after one year of
activities celebrating the 50th anniversary of the anti-revisionist
struggle and renewing our commitment to pursue this struggle. (more…)

Kathmandu, 02.08.07 Hoy se ha conocido que el Presidente Prachanda ha presentado en el plenario del Comité Central, que actualmente se desarrolla en la capital, un documento en el que se instruye al partido para la revuelta popular, aunque se descarta el uso de las fuerzas armadas (EPL) con lo cual no se cuestiona la tregua vigente desde hace un año.
Para el PCN (m) el unico marco legitimo de la Asamblea Constituyente es la Republica, que considera debe ser proclamada por el actual parlamento y la adopción de un sistema electoral proporcional
Esta reunion del C.C. maoísta ha generado todo tipo de rumores en la prensa algunos de ellos como la salida del gobierno han sido desmentidas por fuentes del PCN (m) “esto solo se contemplaria si se pretendiese retrasar las elecciones” dijeron textualmente fuentes del partido.
Tambien se ha reafirmado el PCN (m) en su linea revolucionaria y en sus compromisos internacionales con el MRI y la CCOMPOSA.
La reunion del C.C. terminara el viernes, con una sesion plenaria con la participación de mas de 2600 delegados, en la zona industrial de BAJALU en la capital.

August 3, 2007

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) through its spokesperson Gregorio “Ka Roger” Rosal today issued the following statement in reaction to the pronouncement by European Union officials that the CPP, the New People’s Army and Prof. Jose Ma. Sison will remain in its list of “foreign terrorist organizations” unless the CPP-NPA “changes the nature of its organization” and drops its revolutionary armed struggle. (more…)