Naika Eliane replies to the stand taken by the ambassador of France

Sir, your last statement concerning President Ravalomanana ‘s come back onto home soil compels us to respond as follows: First, let it be made clear that such a stand violates the fundamental law governing the Malagasy transition. Then, such words stated on Malagasy soil are, diplomatically speaking, unsuitable, for they are interfering with an independent country’s business and pledge no respect  to  the African countries involved into the settlement of the Malagasy crisis.

Point 1.Violation of the Basic Law.
 May I recall to you that a Roadmap was previously signed by a large majority of Malagasy political groups, accepted by the Transitional Parliament, and then inserted into the Malagasy legal system and by so doing, widely considered as the Madagascan State’s fundamental law. According to this Roadmap’s Article 20: « The High Authority of Transition will unconditionally allow each and every Malagasy citizen so far kept out in exile on political account to return to Madagascar, including Mr. Marc Ravalomanana. The HAT will provide security to each and every Malagasy exiled figured longing for repatriation.  » May we emphasize that you took a stand on quite a sensible subject and, through your words, you violated the Malagasy State’s basic law which imposes President Ravalomanana’s unconditional return.

Point 2. The lack of diplomatic ethics in your statement.
Instead of pushing for appeasement, your lightly stated stand actually stirs up hatred and division in a country already deeply affected by four years of crisis. Besides, it appears to be tainted with partiality in favor of one party, as well as support for its unilateral reluctance to comply with the Roadmap the way it is legally compelled to. We emphatically require President Marc Ravalomanana to be back on home soil before the elections, because we believe it to be unfair that Andry Rajoelina could physically be present in Madagascar during the elections while President Marc Ravalomanana would be kept abroad. President Marc Ravalomanana may not be deprived of his role as party leader. He must be physically present in Madagascar in order to direct his party’s involvement into the upcoming elections.

Point 3: Your statement’s failure to show respect the subsidiarity principle agreed with the ICG (International Contact Group) concerning Madagascar.
You are normally supposed to know that the implementation of Roadmap’s Article 20 will be discussed during the next meeting of the SADC with the ICGM (International Contact Group about Madagascar). Issuing a stand in this way concerning President Marc Ravalomanana’s recovery of home soil actually happens to come up to interfering with these regional institutions’ prerogatives, and showing disrespect towards the African mediators involved into the settlement of the Malagasy crisis. Had you wished to issue any official position chosen by your country, you should have not failed to resort to diplomatic courtesy. Unless it were your personal point, bluntly delivering an official stand in public without any assessment of such an action’s consequences over French-Malagasy relations, comes up to a serious diplomatic failure, bearing in mind that one of these likely consequences happens to be the likely rise of Madagascan contempt against France. Your new accession might excuse your lack of comprehension of the country’s realities, but still, you lightly took a stand which is likely to complicate the search for a peaceful settlement of the crisis, as a matter of fact.

Senator Eliane Naika, President of the CST’s Parliamentary Group in favor of political exiled and jailed Figures