Category: France

  • A few years ago, no one would have imagined that one of the biggest democracies in the world would cancel research programs under the pretext that the word ‘diversity’ was in this program.

    — French President Emmanuel Macron, Choose Europe for Science Event/Paris, May 5, 2025

    America’s shores are experiencing a huge sucking sound as one of the biggest brain drains of modern history hits the country’s best, smartest, heading for Europe on grants, as smiles abound across the pond. European leaders are pinching themselves, unable to believe such good fortune falling into their laps, thanks to the Trump administration “freezing” government funding linked to “diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.”

    The EU has officially launched a drive to attract scientists and researchers that America is discarding by the bucketful, see:  “Europe Launches a Drive to Attract Scientists and Researchers After Trump Freezes US Funding,” AP News, May 5, 2025.

    This is an extraordinary shrinking of America’s IQ in so many ways that a full understanding is nearly impossible, but it is only too obvious that deliberate destruction of science is the product of a bruised/intimidated mentality that’s seeking payback. There is no other logical explanation.

    The EU is licking its chops over this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. According to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, while on stage at Sorbonne University, the EU Executive Branch has already decided to set up a “super grant” program, aimed at “longer-term perspective to the very best in the field.”

    Essentially, the EU is cherry-picking some of America’s best brain power. To accomplish this phenomenal opportunity, the Commission is authorizing additional funding of $566 million in 2025-2027, making Europe “a magnet for researchers.” This funding is in addition to the European Research Council’s budget of $18 billion for 2021-2027. Moreover, the EU will “enshrine freedom of scientific research into law” via a new enactment. Europe will not compromise on its long-standing principles of academic freedom.

    Above and beyond the EU, according to President Macron, France has also beefed-up commitments to science and research to capitalize on America’s ‘fired’ scientists. France has launched a platform for reception of international researchers: Choose France for Science. President Macron officially christened the platform: “Here in France, research is a priority, innovation a culture, science a limitless horizon. Men and women researchers from all over the world, choose France, choose Europe.”

    So far, the US has cut 380 grant projects and thousands of university researchers have been notified that their National Science Foundation funding is canceled, but they know where to turn. Backlash has resulted as doctors, scientists, and researchers hit the streets in “Stand Up for Science” rallies across the country. Astronomy Professor Phil Platt, addressing a crowd, said: “We’re looking at the most aggressively anti-science government the United States has ever had.” UPenn climate scientists Michael Mann: “Science is under siege.” Bill Nye the Science Guy hit the bull’s eye, rhetorically challenging the forces of government: “What are you afraid of?” which may become the rallying cry of opposition throughout the land.

    Professionals agree that science has been in the midst of enormous achievements to make lives better than ever, but according to senior staff members of the National Institutes of Health, funding cuts will seriously damage or eliminate major progress on key, very significant, programs for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer, as examples. Unfortunately, this will negatively impact tens of millions of Americans for years to come.

    Since World War II, the US has been recognized as a world leader in science and technology. Now, that enviable position is swirling around the drain. According to several key federal workers who spoke at a recent MIT Technology Review, America’s world leadership is literally being dismantled before our eyes. These are research programs that backstop American life. “The US took nearly a century to craft its rich scientific ecosystem; if the unraveling that has taken place over the past month continues, Americans will feel the effects for decades to come.” (“The Foundations of America’s Prosperity Are Being Dismantled,” MIT Technology Review, Feb. 21, 2025)

    According to a recent article in The Hill, March 2, 2025: “The administration has issued a multi-pronged, anti-science attack on the health sciences. Possibly the most destructive is the recent slashing of research funding for both NIH and the National Science Foundation.” Here’s what’s at stake: “In 2024, NIH provided more than $37 billion in funding across every state, creating more than 400,000 jobs and generating $92 billion in economic activity. This funding is used for laboratory research, research centers and, most importantly, the education of trainees, the next generation of scientists. Trainees greatly contribute to the research and discoveries even while they are in training.”

    If $37 billion in funding produces $92 billion “in economic activity” and “supports 400.000 jobs,” what’s up with destroying a greater than 2-for-1 return on investment? What’s missing from this equation, or is it simply a matter of looney-tunes, not knowing which way is up? Study after study after study, and more studies, prove that governmental funding of science generates returns in-excess of what private enterprise achieves. For example, governmental science funding played the crucial leading role in creation of the internet. What’s that worth?

    It should be widely recognized and brought to the public’s attention that so much is wrong, so much at stake with anti-science rhetoric, recklessly cutting science budgets, elimination of entire programs, and loud-mouthed threats, demoralizing the public about science. It’s difficult to know how to respond, and of course, this is the intention behind the rapidity of a well-orchestrated blind-siding all parties, unable to collect ones’ thoughts type of assault on major, hugely productive governmental programs that protect life. This type of assault is comparable to a Panzer Division Blitzkrieg. Nobody has enough time to react.

    What’s the impact of Blitzkriegs demolishing science? According to an article in Science, May 2, 2025: “Trump’s Proposed Budget Would Mean ‘Disastrous’ Cuts to Science.” For those interested, this article delineates agencies subject to cuts. Meanwhile, the brain drain is in full throttle motion. Of interest, an article in the prestigious science journal Nature, March 25, 2025: A poll found that 75% of 1,600 respondents, including 1,200 US scientists said: “Yes, they are looking for jobs in Europe and Canada.” And there’s considerable anecdotal evidence that current post-graduates are looking overseas.

    And there’s this: “Trump Proposed Unprecedented Budget Cuts to US Science,” Nature, May 2, 2025: “Huge reductions, if enacted, could have ‘catastrophic’ effects on US competitiveness and scientific pipeline… The message that this sends to young scientists is that this country is not a place for you,’ says Michael Lubell, a physicist who tracks science policy at the City University of New York in New York City. ‘If I were starting my career, I would be out of here in a heartbeat.”

    The word is out. Scientists will find opportunities galore. Science has never been more sought after in Europe and Canada and Australia, which ranks 5th in the world for trust in science. After all, the world is experiencing the most exciting era of scientific achievement of all time, and the EU intends to take over leadership, stripping the US of its 75-year crown. It’s been laid in their lap.

    Moreover, according to the National Science Foundation, China has already overtaken America in several key scientific metrics. Going forward, the EU has America to thank for reinvigorating its science and technology effort more so than ever before, as they challenge China with much more enthusiasm for top billing. The U.S. lit their fuse, making EU science and technology great again!

    The post America’s Great Brain Drain first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Killing civilians wholesale, starving them to convince those unaffected to change course, and shepherding whole populations like livestock into conditions of further misery would all qualify as heinous crimes in international law.  When it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, this approach is seen as necessary politics, unalloyed by the restraints of humanitarianism.  When confronted with these harsh realities on the ground, unequivocal denials follow: This is not happening in Gaza; no one is starving. And if that were the case, blame those misguided savages in Hamas.

    As the conflict chugs along in pools of blood and bountiful gore, the confused shape of Israel’s intentions continues in all its glorious nebulousness.  Pretend moderation clouds murderous desire.  There is no sense that those unfortunate Israeli hostages captured by Hamas in its assault on October 7, 2023, matter anymore, being merely decorative for the imminent slaughter.  There is even less sense that Hamas will be cleansed and removed from the strip, however attractive this idea continues to be.

    Such evident limits have not discouraged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet, who have decided that more force, that old province of the unimaginative, is the answer.  According to the PM, the cabinet had agreed on a “forceful operation” to eliminate Hamas and salvage what is left of the hostage situation.

    A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, Brigadier-General Effie Defrin, has explained on Israeli radio that the offensive will apparently ensure the return of the hostages.  What follows will be “the collapse of the Hamas regime, its defeat, its submission”.  Anywhere up to two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza will be herded into the ruins of the south.  Humanitarian aid will be arranged by the Israeli forces to be possibly distributed through approved contractors.

    The IDF chief of staff, Lt. General Eyal Zamir, confirmed that the approved plan will involve “the capture of the Strip and holding the territories, moving the Gazan population south for its defence, denying Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian supplies, and powerful attacks against Hamas.”

    Within the Israeli cabinet, ethnocentric and religious fires burn with bright fanaticism.  The Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich remains a figure who ignores floral subtlety in favour of the blood-stained sledgehammer.  He remains that coherent link between cruel lawmaking and baffling violence.  “Within a few months,” he boasts, “we will be able to declare that we have won.  Gaza will be totally destroyed.”  With pompous certitude, he also claimed that the next six months would see Hamas cease to exist.

    Such opinions, expressed at the “Settlements Conference” organised by the Makor Rishon newspaper in Ofra, a West Bank settlement, give a sense of the flavour.  Palestinians are to be “concentrated” on land located between the Egyptian border and the arbitrarily designated Morag Corridor.  As with any potential abuser keen to violate his vulnerable charges while justifying it, Smotrich tried to impress with the idea that this was a “humanitarian” zone that would be free of “Hamas and terrorism”.

    The program here is clear in its chilling crudeness.  Expulsion, relocation, transfer.  These are the words famously used to move on populations of a sizeable number in history, often at enormous cost.  That this should involve lawmakers of the Jewish state adds a stunning, if perverse, poignancy to this.  They, the moved on in history, the expelled and the condemned wanderers, shall expel others and condemn them in turn.  Smotrich also points the finger at desperation and hopelessness, the biting incentives that propel migration.  The Palestinians will feel blessed in their banishment.  “They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places.”

    Impossible to ignore in Smotrich’s steaming bile against the Palestinians is the broader view that no Palestinian state can arise, necessitating urgent, preventative poisoning.  In addition to the eventual depopulation of Gaza, plans to reconstitute the contours of the West Bank, ensuring that Israeli and Palestinian traffic are separated to enable building and construction for settlements as a prelude to annexation, are to be implemented.

    The issue of twisting and mangling humanitarian aid in favour of Israel’s territorial lust has raised some tart commentary.  A statement from the Humanitarian Country Team of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, a forum led by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), does not shy away from the realities on the ground.  All supplies, including those vital to survival, have been blocked for nine weeks.  Bakeries and community kitchens have closed, while warehouses are empty.  Hunger, notably among children, is rampant.  Israel’s plan, as presented, “will mean that large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies.”

    The UN Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator have confirmed that they will not cooperate in the scheme, as it “does not adhere to the global humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality.”

    The foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have made the same point.  Despite all being solid allies of Israel, they have warned that violations of international law are taking place.  “Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool and a Palestinian territory must not be reduced nor subjected to any demographic change”.

    To date, a promise lingers that the offensive will only commence once US President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar takes place.  But no ongoing savaging of Gaza with some crude effort at occupation will solve the historical vortex that continues to drag the Jewish state to risk and oblivion.

    The post Expulsion and Occupation: Israel’s Proposed Gaza Plan first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On a stormy August night in 1791, Dutty Boukman (1767–1791) and Cécile Fatiman (1771–1883) conducted a Vodou ceremony at Bois Caïman in northern Saint-Domingue, in the French-owned part of Hispaniola. Boukman was captured in Senegambia (now Senegal and The Gambia), and Fatiman was the daughter of a woman from the Congo (as Aimé Césaire wrote) and a man from Corsica. Their ceremony amidst over two hundred enslaved Africans was the catalyst for a mass uprising across the French plantations. Boukman, in Kreyòl, spoke words that were passed down through memory for generations and eventually entered the history books.

    The post 200 Hundred Years Ago, France Strangled Haitian Revolution With Inhumane Debt appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • April 17, 2025 marked two centuries since one of the most unjust episodes in modern history: the forced collection of an illegitimate debt that France imposed on Haiti as a condition for recognizing its independence. On April 17, 1825, King Charles X signed an ordinance forcing the nascent republic to pay 150 million gold francs – equivalent to about USD 21 billion today – plunging the country into a cycle of poverty, dependence, and violence that continues to this day.

    Amid an unprecedented humanitarian and political crisis, social organizations, political parties, and human rights defenders from Latin America and the Caribbean have submitted letters to French embassies demanding historical reparations.

    The post France Must Compensate Haiti appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Secretary of Marco Rubio said today (Friday) that “If it’s not possible to end the war in Ukraine , we need to move on.” Rubio told reporters that the Trump could decide this “in a matter of days…” (NYTimes, 4/18/2025)

    The context: Russia has made its conditions very clear. (1) Ukraine must not join NATO. (2) Ukraine must give up the four oblasts and Crimea. 3) Ukraine must be demilitarized and not pose a military threat to Russia.

    Although to this point Trump been unwilling or unable to do so, he must accept these nonnegotiable conditions and do it against the opposition of European leaders. Or conceivably, he could simply walk away.

    British political analyst Alexander Mercouris reports that European leaders are meeting in Paris to, in their words, achieve a “fair and lasting peace in Ukraine” and for them, this means a “Ukrainian victory.” Even as they voice this objective, reliable reports indicate that Russian recruitment is running at 1,000 per day, which is more than enough to replace lost soldiers. Ukrainian forces are steadily getting smaller and for the first time, external military analysts can foresee the fall of Kiev as a real possibility. Russian forces are making significant gains and Ukrainians are retreating in several areas. Finally, there is no question that Europe lacks the resources to achieve anything in Ukraine.

    Presumably, the US will explain to the Europeans that they’re engaged in a dangerous fantasy and that peace will occur only by accepting the Russian demands (see above). However, the British, French and Danish are considering sending troops to Ukraine via Romania. This will be absolutely unacceptable to Russians but will come as no surprise to them. The few thousand (probably French) soldiers entering Odessa will be annihilated. Here one wonders how long French citizens would tolerate the war if coffins began returning home. (Note: Some of you may recall my earlier post about European and US intervention in the Russian Civil War and how they were expelled. Russian citizens will be reminded once again of Western intentions).

    Given the above, one is forced to wonder why European leaders are doing everything possible to undermine and sabotage any meaningful peace talks? Why are they pursing a doomed policy that’s bankrupting their economies? Why alienate the US and Trump? I don’t have a definitive answer but I suspect that Mercouris is close to one when he speculates that European leaders hate Russia and have come to loathe Donald Trump. They cannot accept that they’ve lost the war and Trump was actually correct. I’ll leave for another day to speculate about what this means for the Democrats and unprincipled “progressives” (think AOC and Bernie Sanders) who gave left cover to US imperialism in its proxy was in Ukraine. In my opinion, they have much to answer for.

    The post Have We Reached a Milestone in Ukraine? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Apparently, he is addicted to it. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, adores using perfume. The variety: Dior Eau Sauvage. Dior states that the perfume is characterised by notes of Calabrian bergamot and Papua New Guinean vanilla extract. The company is also keen to glorify elements of power and nobility in the scent.

    Apparently, the use of that particular fragrance by the France’s head of state happens to be “industrial” in application, “at all hours of the day”, intended to impress “less-accustomed visitors” with “the floral and musky scent, as refined as it is powerful.” A former aide is quoted as claiming that the President’s use is far from subtle, a way of “marking his territory”. Former minister Stanislas Guerini is also found stating that “everyone holds their breath for a few moments before [his] arrival.” That’s if we believe the findings of Le Parisien journalist Olivier Beaumont in The Tragedy of the Élysée (La Tragédie de L’Élysée).

    The field of scent and odours teems with what might be loosely called analysis of the self-evident and palpably obvious. Scent is worn for calculated reasons: for impression, the pursuit of sex, an expression of power. An article in Women’s Wear Daily from June 1990 is pungent with examples, much of it featuring garden gnome psychology. “Those who select a different fragrance for every occasion use scents as a means of shaping their social image,” Mark Snyder, a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota is quoted as saying. “All odors trigger an emotional response,” one Susan Schiffman, medical psychologist at Duke University blandly states.

    According to the book, Macron’s choice of fragrant dousing is driven by power – and ensuring that everyone else working with him knows about it. “Just as Louis XIV made his perfumes an attribute of power when he paraded through the galleries of Versailles, Emmanuel Macron uses his as an element of his authority at the Élysée.”

    These revelations about Macron’s excessive use have caused something of a ripple. “It is one thing at a school dance or nightclub when you are a horny teen,” writes Zoe Strimpel in The Spectator. “Outside of these contexts, it can be a nauseating, terrible thing.” The Daily Telegraph dives into the shallow currents of social media to use the term “blusher blindness”, meant to signify “an inability to objectively gauge how much blusher one is applying – often resulting in overly roughed cheeks.”

    Tips are offered for Macron with unasked, hollow generosity, many amounting to a shoddy excuse to plump for preferred products. (The “Mr President Could Do Far Better” discipline.) Fragrance journalist (they do exist), Alice du Parcq is more than up to the task. “Scent can be truly very potent, so if you’re spending time in close proximity to a lot of other people you should be a little more gentle with your approach,” she chides. Avoid, she advocates, spraying on wrists. Why not the top of each forearm? “This makes the scent last longer as it’s less likely to come off every time you wash your hands.” The fragrance lingers, as “the skin is more textured and it also clings to an arm hair, which is porous.”

    The advertising note emerges from the opinions of Thomas Dunckley, who markets himself as “fragrance expert, writer, trainer, event host and speaker”. He suggests that products less concentrated in fragrance oils might be appropriate when seeking a balance. “An eau de cologne is a good way for a man to wear a pleasant fragrance without making a statement or overpowering.” He throws in the recommended products: Eau de Guerlain and Acqua di Parma.

    The disciplinarian view is most evident in the commentary that accuses the French leader of revealing a character fault. As with one of his predecessors, Nicolas Sarkozy, size and stature are matters of comment regarding Macron, implying that a manufactured defect requires remedies of exaggeration. Small men demand large substitutes, broad covers, gargantuan distractions. The spare frame will not do.

    If one has to use perfume, suggests Strimpel, why not do so differently? “A French leader might, one would think, go for something more openly, proudly elite, since he is not hamstrung by the modern British obsession with appearing to be one of the people,” she squawks. A fault is swiftly detected: immaturity. Perhaps Macron confused his abode of power with the school where he met his wife, Brigitte, “planting the seed (or perhaps it was the scent?) that would eventually lead her to return his passion.”

    The fragrance analysts and perfumeries will be delighted to know that a head of state is so enamoured with a specific product. Those wishing to make a fuss about workplace attitudes and dispositions will also add, and have added, their worthless observations. Ultimately, the use, or otherwise, of French power would not come down to a fragrance but a decision marked by other considerations. The fragrance cabal and tabloid titterers may have you think otherwise.

    The post Perfume, Power, and Emmanuel Macron first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • After years of political struggle, French parliamentarians made significant progress in tackling the country’s problem of medical deserts by backing a motion to regulate where physicians can establish their practices. Led by Socialist MP Guillaume Garot, the proposal received cross-party support – from right-wing Republicans to the left France Unbowed (La France Insoumise, LFI) – and was opposed only by part of the Macronist camp and the far-right National Rally.

    The motion proposes that regional health agencies be granted the authority to approve physicians – both general practitioners and specialists – wishing to set up practice in a given area.

    The post French Parliament Moves To Tackle Medical Deserts appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The far-right French politician Marine Le Pen was convicted on embezzlement charges by a national court on Monday, sentenced to four years in prison and barred from seeking elected office for at least five years — a development that progressives warn could backfire if too many people see the ruling as an attempt to preemptively subvert democracy. Le Pen’s “electoral ineligibility is effective…

    Source

  • Hundreds of thousands of people swept through the streets of over 200 locations across France on Saturday, March 22, in a massive national demonstration against racism and the far right. The mobilization, launched by nearly 600 organizations – including trade unions, associations, informal collectives, and left political parties – was a collective response to racism, Islamophobia, and other forms of systemic discrimination and the escalation of hate-driven rhetoric promoted by the right.

    The demonstrations were taken up by participants as a show of unity, standing in stark contrast to what many speakers at the demonstrations described as attempts by the government and far-right forces to divide the public.

    The post France Takes Action Against Racism And Far-Right Hate appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.


  • It is cruelly fitting that one of the acknowledged cradles of civilization is now a showroom for the cruelties, irrationalities, and injustices of the modern capitalist world.

    At various times, Syria was part of the lands that were widely admired for their enlightened governance, tolerance, and economic development.

    Today, Syria is a wasteland, divided into parcels, and occupied by alien forces that show no regard for the country’s legacy or the unity and well-being of its people.

    After four hundred years of reasonably stable, tolerant, and peaceable existence under Ottoman rule, the people of the country now known as Syria experienced the heavy hand of European imperialism. With the Sykes-Picot agreement, Syria became the “responsibility” of France after World War I, existing essentially as a French colony with its artificial boundaries established by European powers.

    Understandably, the colonial subjects resisted. As it always does, the anti-colonial struggle provided the impetus for consolidating a nation in a space where a country never existed. As with the seminal anti-colonial victory in what is now the US, the fight against the French was an essential condition to the forging of the Syrian nation-state. Nation-building emerges from and advances from the struggle against domination, for independence.

    But it was not a sufficient condition. After World War II, when France proved unable to maintain its colonies, the new Syria had to fulfill other difficult conditions of nation-building. Decolonization left the scars of oppression– social, political, and economic backwardness.

    Without independent political organizations and well-established institutions, the military– made up of anti-colonial fighters, tribal militias, even former French collaborators– served as a unifying force. Politics was conducted through the often-violent clash of military factions. Countering this chaos was the impact of Arab nationalist and Arab socialist secular trends emerging throughout the Middle East. Ba’athism and Nasserism were two progressive influences tempering Islamic fundamentalism, tribalism, and the complacency of feudal and primitive capitalist economies.

    Concurrent with aid from the Soviet Union and the guarantee of Syrian sovereignty against imperialist aggression, the alliance of the military, the Ba’ath Party, and the Communist Party consolidated and took a leftward turn, strengthening their hand against the backward elements. This progressive development in the energy-rich Middle East did not go unnoticed by the United States and its then-designated local police agents: Israel and Iran.

    In the ensuing years, Syria continued to struggle for national unity, agrarian reform, and modernization under the 30-year presidency of Hafez Al-Assad. Assad brought a measure of stability and peace, while imperialism encouraged and materially supported the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalists to undermine these secular developments.

    Typically, European and US ideologues railed against the fragile state, condemning its failure to embrace modern capitalist institutions while these same ideologues were encouraging feudal jihadists to rebel against secularism.

    With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the death of the elder Assad, the tenuous progress of Syria, its independence, and its unity were weakened. Under the leadership of the younger, less visionary Bashir al-Assad, without any powerful allies, and with active and determined plotters in Washington, the future of Syria was in doubt. Assad’s flirtation with market economics and privatization brought his regime no respite from imperialist machinations.

    In 2011, protests against Assad’s rule were co-opted by foreign security services. Through the auspices of the CIA, through its vast network of ready and willing jihadists, and armed with weapons shipped from the overthrown government of Libya, a brutal proxy war was launched. Neo-Ottoman Turkey threw its own jihadists into the fight. And the US armed and unleashed Kurdish nationalists to further pressure the Assad government and serve US interests.

    What the mainstream media called “a Revolution and the Syrian Civil War” was, in fact, a conflict of proxies and of foreign intervention. In response to Turkish and US meddling and to the arrival of hordes of foreign jihadists, Hezbollah militias and Iranian and Russian forces came to the assistance of the weak Assad government forestalling the chaos that follows forcible regime change.

    As the war reached somewhat of a stalemate, Assad stood in Damascus, ruling the little that was left of the country’s infrastructure, housing, economy, and territorial integrity. US Marines occupied a portion of Syria with its oil resources. Kurds ruled in another part of the country under US protection. The US’s NATO ally, Turkey– hostile to the Kurds– ruled in another part of Syria, supporting their favored brand of head-chopping jihadists. Israel took advantage of weakened foes and occupied a large slice of Syria nearer to Damascus, while destroying all Syrian military assets in Southern Syria.

    If this reverse of nation-building, this nation-degrading process seems familiar, it should. It resembles all too well the willful, post-Cold War, systematic destruction of fragile states constructed around multiple ethnicities and enjoying a measure of national independence. Without the international leverage of a socialist bloc, led by the powerful Soviet Union, the imperialist bloc disposed of contrarian states like Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, usually by fomenting ethnic strife or supporting elite demands. Failing states throughout Africa and Asia bear similar scars, inflicted by great powers bent on strengthening their spheres of interest, as France attempts in sub-Saharan Africa.

    In late 2024, Turkey unleashed its own stable of radical, fundamentalist head-choppers, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, against the Assad regime from its lair in Idlib province. The demoralized, spent forces of Assad’s military were swiftly overwhelmed. Despite designation as a “terrorist group” by the UN (and the US), HTS was heralded by most of the US and European mainstream media as victorious freedom fighters. Reporters flocked to Damascus– after staying far away for years, while reporting from Beirut and the US embassy– to “prove” the evil of the Assad regime. Easily duped by local opportunists, much of the reportage collapsed as facts and evidence came forward.

    Ahmed al-Sharaa, the head of HTS anointed himself the new Syrian head of state, adopted a proper Western suit, shaved his beard, and pronounced a new era of peace and harmony, while outlawing political parties, postponing a new constitution, and cancelling elections until far off in the future. Such is the new Syrian Democracy.

    But public relations cannot restrain the blood lust of the fundamentalist head-choppers. In 2025, HTS elements began a vengeance campaign against Baa’ath cadre, former military leaders, and religious “infidels,” killing and attacking civilians in Alawite and Christian villages.

    Understandably, a new resistance is emerging. Bizarrely, EU authorities blame the massacres on those resisting HTS.

    No doubt at the urging of its foreign sponsors (especially the US), HTS and the Kurds were herded into a cooperative agreement in March that includes the merging of its “military institutions” — a move that hopes to strengthen their hand against future Syrian resistance and present an image of unity to the rest of the world. The Kurds give the US greater influence at the expense of the Turks.

    The last pages of the Syrian tragedy are yet to be written.

    There are lessons to be learned.

    The post-Soviet era has emboldened a ruthless, cruel imperialism. Without the threat of Soviet power to present a counterforce, the US, NATO, and other powers are free to impose their will on other states, including taking their own rivalries to the brink of World War. Few remember that the then-real threat of Soviet intervention, stopped the Israelis from passing beyond the Golan Heights and marching to Damascus during the Six Day War– a principled act of international solidarity.

    As a corollary, it is impossible to fail to note that there are no similar counterbalancing forces today. There have been no political, economic, or military powers demonstrably committed to a principled defense of weaker states threatened by imperialist aggression since the Cuban and Soviet defense of Angola and the defeat of South African apartheid aggression in the 1980s.

    That reality is not only a tribute to the socialist internationalism of the past, but a sobering message to those on the left who interpret the realignment of great powers– the so-called tendency to multipolarity– as a new kind of anti-imperialism. The experience of Syria– left on its own to defend its integrity and sovereignty against the agents of backwardness and great-power interests– speaks to the impotence of the so-called BRICS block. Issuing protests, resolutions, and condemnations is no substitute for action or material aid. Russian support, once so vital to Assad’s defense, failed to rise against HTS and is now offered shamelessly to its former foe.

    Capitalist alliances around spheres of influence or temporary common interests are far removed from principled anti-imperialism, a stance only possible apart from the logic of capitalist competition. Anti-imperialism is a principle, not a self-interested calculation.

    The post The Tragedy of Syria first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Read a version of this story in Uyghur

    Two Uyghur activists in France have re-filed a complaint to a Paris court alleging that China engaged in transnational repression against them, the France-based European Uyghur Institute said.

    Dilnur Reyhan, the director of the institute, and one of the filers of the case, made the announcement at a press conference last week.

    She and Gulbahar Jelilova, a Uyghur re-education camp survivor, claim that during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to France in May 2024, Chinese citizens organized by the Chinese Embassy attacked a protest led by the institute, and later, surveilled Jelilova’s home and tried to take her hostage.

    Shortly after these incidents, Jelilova and Reyhan filed a complaint with the Paris court, but it has not yet ruled on their complaint. So they filed another complaint on March 10.

    “China’s actions are not only threats against Uyghurs in France but also against all Uyghurs in exile,” Dilnur Reyhan said in a telephone interview with RFA Uyghur.

    She explained that their previous filing was a “simple complaint.” They are now filing an “individual complaint” because the first filing received no response.

    “The reason behind the Chinese Embassy’s actions is to intimidate the entire Uyghur diaspora,” she said. “Even if you live in France, the message they’re trying to send is that they can do whatever they want. We refuse to let them go unpunished.”

    A simple complaint in French law alerts authorities that a crime may have occurred and triggers an investigation, according to a French government website.

    An individual complaint, meanwhile, is a mechanism by which claimants can request “enforcement of rights guaranteed under international law,” according to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.

    Dr. Dilnur Reyhan, Director of the European Uyghur Institute takes part in the French TV show 'Daily Life', Oct. 1, 2020.
    Dr. Dilnur Reyhan, Director of the European Uyghur Institute takes part in the French TV show ‘Daily Life’, Oct. 1, 2020.
    (Dilnur Reyhan teminligen/RFA)

    “What we’re really addressing in our complaint is not China’s transnational repression but the continuation of China’s genocide against the Uyghurs,” said Reyhan. “Our complaint focuses on China’s attempt to extend the Uyghur genocide by causing psychological harm to Uyghurs in the diaspora.”

    The other complainant, Gulbahar Jelilova, was not available for comment because she has been hospitalized for ailments related to torture she experienced while being detained in what some describe as concentration camps.

    US labels crackdown a ‘genocide’

    Since 2017 the Chinese government began a crackdown, herding an estimated 1.8 million Uyghurs and other Turkic minorities into re-education camps and prisons.

    China claims that these camps are vocational training centers where people learn job skills, but the United States in 2021 classified the crackdown as a “genocide.”

    Regarding the first complaint, it may be because of potential damage to Sino-Franco relations that the court has not opened a case, Jérôme Carsenti, a lawyer for the European Uyghur Institute said.

    He was not able to answer whether the French government has conducted any investigation into the complaint.

    But Dilnur Reyhan said that one of the people who threatened Gulbahar Jelilova outside her home was an employee of the Chinese Embassy in France, who was later deported.

    “This is not just repression directed only at Uyghurs, but an incident that occurred in France, which is considered the cradle of democracy,” she said. “It is also an attack on France’s democratic values and credibility.”

    She also explained that during the protest that coincided with Xi’s visit, she and 10 others protested in front of the Chinese embassy, and sprayed red paint on what she described as Chinese “propaganda boards.”

    “And they sued me over it,” she said. “Although their complaint was dismissed in March 2023, they reopened the case in June 2024.”

    The court case over the red paint incident commenced on March 12, and has received extensive coverage in French media.

    Although Dilnur Reyhan and others arrived at court that day, the hearing did not take place because representatives from the Chinese Embassy, who filed the complaint, did not show up to the hearing.

    French newspaper Le Monde described this case by stating: “China’s goal is to force people like Dilnur and Gulbahar Jelilova into silence and prevent their activities. China is attempting transnational repression by creating judicial harassment against people in exile.”

    “The judge suggested that the Chinese embassy might not be aware of this court date, so we can’t dismiss the case yet and need to give the embassy a chance to respond. The court has been rescheduled for October 13th,” said Reyhan.

    Additionally, Le Monde published an article about an open letter signed by more than 100 scholars, in support of Dilnur Reyhan, calling on the French authorities to address the issue of transnational repression and the attack on the freedom of speech of a researcher.

    Translated by Alim Seytoff. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Uyghur.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Two Cambodian generals accused of planning a deadly grenade attack on a demonstration in 1997 are scheduled to go on trial in Paris next week –- the first time a judicial body has sought to determine accountability for the notorious incident.

    A French judge will interview witnesses in the case against Hing Bun Hieng and Huy Piseth from March 19-21, exiled opposition leader Sam Rainsy said on Facebook on March 8.

    Blasts from four grenades that went off in a park on March 30, 1997, where protesters had gathered killed 16 people and injured 150 others, blowing off the limbs of some. Sam Rainsy, the leader of the rally, is thought to have been the target of the attack but was uninjured.

    Hing Bun Hieng was the commander of then-Prime Minister Hun Sen’s bodyguard unit, while Huy Piseth was the commander of the army’s Brigade 70, which is responsible for capturing or killing high-value targets.

    An FBI report indicated that Cambodian authorities possessed prior knowledge of the attack and that there was a possibility the attackers colluded with the bodyguard unit.

    Sam Rainsy is carried to safety after a grenade attack on a group of demonstrators outside the National Assembly building in Phnom Penh, March 30, 1997.
    Sam Rainsy is carried to safety after a grenade attack on a group of demonstrators outside the National Assembly building in Phnom Penh, March 30, 1997.
    (AFP)

    Former opposition party lawmaker Men Sothavarin told Radio Free Asia on Monday that the French judge has summoned victims and witnesses, as well as Hing Bunhieng and Huy Piseth, to appear before the court.

    “If they do not come, the court will try them in absentia,” he said of the two commanders.

    No one was arrested

    On the day of the attack, protesters had gathered in a Phnom Penh park across the street from Cambodia’s National Assembly to denounce the judiciary’s corruption and lack of independence.

    According to eyewitness accounts, the people who threw the grenades ran toward Hun Sen’s riot gear-clad bodyguards, who allowed them to escape.

    Because American citizen Ron Abney was among those seriously injured, the FBI sent investigators to Cambodia in the weeks after the attack. The bureau’s report was declassified in 2009.

    But no one has ever been arrested for the attack, despite the large toll of death and dismemberment.

    However, warrants for the arrests of Huy Piseth and Hing Bun Hieng were issued in 2021 by Judge Sabine Khéris, the deputy chief of investigation at the Paris Court of Justice.

    The warrants were issued following a complaint by Sam Rainsy and his wife, Tioulong Saumura, who live in exile in France.

    The court at first also summoned then-Prime Minister Hun Sen, but the French government later blocked the warrant, citing French law that gives immunity to heads of government.

    ‘Bodies all over the place’

    Brad Adams, a former U.N. human rights worker, told RFA that he will give testimony at the court next week. In an interview, he recalled arriving at the park about 10 minutes after the blasts.

    “There were bodies all over the place,” he said. “It is one of the worst things I have seen in my entire life.”

    He described a scene in which soldiers actively interfered with efforts to help the wounded. When the police arrived a short time later, they just stood around.

    “The only assistance came from civilians,” he said.

    Hing Bun Hieng is now deputy commander of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces and also serves as the commander of Hun Sen’s family bodyguard unit.

    Huy Piseth is currently a secretary of state at the Ministry of National Defense and deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Hun Manet, Hun Sen’s son.

    Hing Bun Hieng told RFA on Monday that he will not appear before the court or send a lawyer in his place. The case only arose because of Sam Rainsy’s emotional and unsubstantiated accusations, he said.

    “He has accused me for more than 30 years, but there has never been any proper evidence,” he said. “Are there any photos showing me ordering the tossing of the grenades?”

    He also denied any role in the attack during a 2022 interview with RFA in which he dared anyone to present evidence to the contrary.

    “I already clarified this [with the FBI]. I wasn’t involved,” he said. “I don’t know anything.”

    Hing Bun Heang was sanctioned by the U.S. government in June 2018 over his unit’s alleged role in the attack, as well as several other assaults on unarmed Cambodians.

    Huy Piseth didn’t immediately respond to RFA’s attempt for comment this week. He has previously acknowledged to the FBI that he ordered the deployment of the 70th Brigade to the park on the day of the attack.

    Translated by Sum Sok Ry. Edited by Matt Reed and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Khmer.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Woman at rally supporting peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Berlin, Germany.  (Photo: Reuters)

    When European Union leaders met in Brussels on February 6 to discuss the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron called this time “a turning point in history.” Western leaders agree that this is an historic moment when decisive action is needed, but what kind of action depends on their interpretation of the nature of this moment.

    Is this the beginning of a new Cold War between the U.S., NATO and Russia or the end of one? Will Russia and the West remain implacable enemies for the foreseeable future, with a new iron curtain between them through what was once the heart of Ukraine? Or can the United States and Russia resolve the disputes and hostility that led to this war in the first place, so as to leave Ukraine with a stable and lasting peace?

    Some European leaders see this moment as the beginning of a long struggle with Russia, akin to the beginning of the Cold War in 1946, when Winston Churchill warned that “an iron curtain has descended” across Europe.

    On March 2, echoing Churchill, European Council President Ursula von der Leyen declared that Europe must turn Ukraine into a “steel porcupine.” President Zelenskyy has said he wants up to 200,000 European troops on the eventual ceasefire line between Russia and Ukraine to “guarantee” any peace agreement, and insists that the United States must provide a “backstop,” meaning a commitment to send U.S. forces to fight in Ukraine if war breaks out again.

    Russia has repeatedly said it won’t agree to NATO forces being based in Ukraine under any guise. “We explained today that the appearance of armed forces from the same NATO countries, but under a false flag, under the flag of the European Union or under national flags, does not change anything in this regard,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on February 18. “Of course this is unacceptable to us.”

    But the U.K. is persisting in a campaign to recruit a “coalition of the willing,” the same term the U.S. and U.K. coined for the list of countries they persuaded to support the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. In that case, only Australia, Denmark and Poland took small parts in the invasion, Costa Rica publicly insisted on being removed from the list, and the term was widely lampooned as the “coalition of the billing” because the U.S. recruited so many countries to join it by promising them lucrative foreign aid deals.

    Far from the start of a new Cold War, President Trump and other leaders see this moment as more akin to the end of the original Cold War, when U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met in Reykjavik in Iceland in 1986 and began to bridge the divisions caused by 40 years of Cold War hostility.

    Like Trump and Putin today, Reagan and Gorbachev were unlikely peacemakers. Gorbachev had risen through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party to become its General Secretary and Soviet Premier in March 1985, in the midst of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and he didn’t begin to withdraw Soviet forces from Afghanistan until 1988. Reagan oversaw an unprecedented Cold War arms build-up, a U.S.-backed genocide in Guatemala and covert and proxy wars throughout Central America. And yet Gorbachev and Reagan are now widely remembered as peacemakers.

    While Democrats deride Trump as a Putin stooge, in his first term in office Trump was actually responsible for escalating the Cold War with Russia. After the Pentagon had milked its absurd, self-fulfilling “War on Terror” for trillions of dollars, it was Trump and his psychopathic Defense Secretary, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, who declared the shift back to strategic competition with Russia and China as the Pentagon’s new gravy train in their 2018 National Defense Strategy. It was also Trump who lifted President Obama’s restrictions on sending offensive weapons to Ukraine.

    Trump’s head-spinning about-turn in U.S. policy has left its European allies with whiplash and reversed the roles they each have played for generations. France and Germany have traditionally been the diplomats and peacemakers in the Western alliance, while the U.S. and U.K. have been infected with a chronic case of war fever that has proven resistant to a long string of military defeats and catastrophic impacts on every country that has fallen prey to their warmongering.

    In 2003, France’s Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin led the opposition to the invasion of Iraq in the UN Security Council. France, Germany and Russia issued a joint statement to say that they would “not let a proposed resolution pass that would authorize the use of force. Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume all their responsibilities on this point.”

    At a press conference in Paris with German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, French President Jacques Chirac said, “Everything must be done to avoid war… As far as we’re concerned, war always means failure.”

    As recently as 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, it was once again the U.S. and U.K. that rejected and blocked peace negotiations in favor of a long war, while FranceGermany and Italy continued to call for new negotiations, even as they gradually fell in line with the U.S. long war policy.

    Former German Chancellor Schröder took part in the peace negotiations in Turkey in March and April 2022, and flew to Moscow at Ukraine’s request to meet with Putin. In an interview with Berliner Zeitung in 2023, Schröder confirmed that the peace talks only failed “because everything was decided in Washington.”

    With Biden still blocking new negotiations in 2023, one of the interviewers asked Schröder “Do you think you can resume your peace plan?”

    Schröder replied, “Yes, and the only ones who can initiate this are France and Germany… Macron and Scholz are the only ones who can talk to Putin. Chirac and I did the same in the Iraq war. Why can’t support for Ukraine be combined with an offer of talks to Russia? The arms deliveries are not a solution for eternity. But no one wants to talk. Everyone sits in trenches. How many more people have to die?”

    Since 2022, President Macron and a Thatcherite team of iron ladies – European Council President von der Leyen; former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock; and Estonia’s former prime minister Kaja Kallas, now the EU’s foreign policy chief – have promoted a new militarization of Europe, egged on from behind the scenes by European and U.S. arms manufacturers.

    Has the passage of time, the passing of the World War II generation and the distortion of history washed away the historical memory of two world wars from a continent that was destroyed by war only 80 years ago? Where is the next generation of French and German diplomats in the tradition of de Villepin and Schröder today? How can sending German tanks to fight in Ukraine, and now in Russia itself, fail to remind Russians of previous German invasions and solidify support for the war? And won’t the call for Europe to confront Russia by moving from a “welfare state to a warfare state” only feed the rise of the European hard right?

    So are the new European militarists reading the historical moment correctly? Or are they jumping on the bandwagon of a disastrous Cold War that could, as Biden and Trump have warned, lead to World War III?

    When Trump’s foreign policy team met with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia on February 18, ending the war in Ukraine was the second part of the three-part plan they agreed on. The first was to restore full diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia, and the third was to work on a series of other problems in U.S.-Russian relations.

    The order of these three stages is interesting, because, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, it means that the negotiations over Ukraine will be the first test of restored relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    If the negotiations for peace in Ukraine are successful, they can lead to further negotiations over restoring arms control treaties, nuclear disarmament and cooperation on other global problems that have been impossible to resolve in a world stuck in a zombie-like Cold War that powerful interests would not allow to die.

    It was a welcome change to hear Secretary Rubio say that the post-Cold War unipolar world was an anomaly and that now we have to adjust to the reality of a multipolar world. But if Trump and his hawkish advisers are just trying to restore U.S. relations with Russia as part of a “reverse Kissinger” scheme to isolate China, as some analysts have suggested, that would perpetuate America’s debilitating geopolitical crisis instead of solving it.

    The United States and our friends in Europe have a new chance to make a clean break from the three-way geopolitical power struggle between the United States, Russia and China that has hamstrung the world since the 1970s, and to find new roles and priorities for our countries in the emerging multipolar world of the 21st Century.

    We hope that Trump and European leaders can recognize the crossroads at which they are standing, and the chance history is giving them to choose the path of peace. France and Germany in particular should remember the wisdom of Dominique de Villepin, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in the face of U.S. and British plans for aggression against Iraq in 2003.

    This could be the beginning of the end of the permanent state of war and Cold War that has held the world in its grip for more than a century. Ending it would allow us to finally prioritize the progress and cooperation we so desperately need to solve the other critical problems the whole world is facing in the 21st Century. As General Milley said back in November 2022 when he called for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, we must “seize the moment.”

    The post Is This the Beginning or the End of a New Cold War? first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A popular French TV show recently aired an undercover investigation by two young French journalists, Justine Jankowski and Marine Zambrano, who snuck into multiple clothing factories in China with one aim: to find evidence of forced labor.

    And if you watched their program, part of France 2’s “Cash Investigation” series, you might be convinced that they found astonishing and scandalous evidence.

    The fact of the matter, though, is that the show’s creators used blatant lies to come to that conclusion, and I have all the evidence on today’s show.

    What is even more delicious is that the show also featured seasoned anti-China “academic” Adrian Zenz, who has ended up being exposed by this show at the same time. Two birds with one stone!

    Grab a cuppa and come with me as I explain all of the tricks the two female reporters used, and highlight clearly why they are lies.

    This is Reports on China, I’m Andy Boreham in Shanghai. Let’s get reporting!

    The post Two Anti-China French “Reporters” Were Caught Lying first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Report on China.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Emmanuel Macron[/caption]The singular antics of US President Donald Trump, notably towards supposed allies, has stirred the pot regarding national security in various capitals. From Canberra to Brussels, there is concern that such assumed, if unverifiable notions as extended nuclear deterrence from Washington are valid anymore. America First interests certainly bring that into question, as well it should. If the imperium is in self-introspective retreat, this is to the good. But the internationalists beg to differ, wishing to see the United States as imperial guarantor.

    In Europe, the fear at the retreat of Washington’s nuclear umbrella, and the inflation of the Russian threat, has caused flutters of panic. On February 20, 2025, Friedrich Merz, chairman of the Christian Democratic Union and the incoming German chancellor, floated the idea that other states consider shouldering Europe’s security burden. “We need to have discussions with both the British and the French – the two European nuclear powers – about whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the UK and France, would apply to us.”

    Merz has also explicitly urged European states to accept the proposition that “Donald Trump will no longer unconditionally honour NATO’s mutual defence commitment”, making it incumbent on them to “make every effort to at least be able to defend the European continent on its own.”

    On March 1, French President Emmanuel Macron showed signs of interest. In an interview with Portuguese TV RTP, he expressed willingness to “to open this discussion … if it allows to build a European force.” There had “always been a European dimension to France’s vital interests within its nuclear doctrine.”

    On March 5, in an address to the nation, Macron openly identified Russia as a “threat to France and Europe”. Accordingly, he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our (nuclear) deterrent.” The future of Europe did not “have to be decided in Washington or Moscow.”

    The matter of France’s European dimension has certainly been confirmed by remarks made by previous presidents, including Charles de Gaulle, who, in 1964, stated that an attack on a country such as Germany by the then Soviet Union would be seen as a threat to France.

    Domestically, Macron’s offer did not go down well in certain quarters. It certainly did not impress Marie Le Pen of the far-right National Rally. “The French nuclear deterrent must remain a French nuclear deterrent,” she declared in comments made on a visit to the Farm Show in Paris. “It must not be shared, let alone delegated.” This was a misunderstanding, came the response from Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu. The deterrent “is French and will remain French – from its conception to its production to its operation, under a decision of the president.”

    A number of countries meeting at the European Union emergency security summit in Brussels showed interest in Macron’s offer, with some caution. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk suggested that “we must seriously consider this proposal.” Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda thought the idea “very interesting” as “a nuclear umbrella would serve as really very serious deterrence towards Russia.” Latvian Prime Minister Evika Siliņa was not inclined to commit to a stationing of French nuclear weapons on Latvian territory: it was “too soon” to raise the issue.

    Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala, on the other hand, found the debate “premature”, as “our security is guaranteed by close cooperation with the United States”. He certainly has a point, given that the United States still, at present, maintains an extensive nuclear arsenal on European soil.

    The trouble with deterrence chatter is that it remains hostage to delusion. Strategists talk in extravagant terms about the genuine prospect that nuclear weapons can make any one state safer, leading to some calculus of tolerable use. Thus we find the following comment from Benoît Grémare of the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3: “[T]he fact remains that without US support, the balance of power appears largely unfavourable to France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads compared to at least 1,600 deployed warheads and nearly 2,800 stockpiled warheads on the Russian side.”

    While Grémare acknowledges that France’s thermonuclear arsenal, along with the M51 strategic sea-to-land ballistic missile, would be able to eliminate major Russian cities, Russia would only need a mere “200 seconds too atomise Paris” if its Satan II thermonuclear weapons were used. “This potential for reciprocity must be kept in mind amid the mutual bet of nuclear deterrence.”

    Logic here gives way to the presumption that such weapons, rather than suggesting impotence, promise formidable utility. This theoretical, and absurd proposition, renders the unthinkable possible: that Russia just might use nuclear weapons against European countries. Any such contention must fail for the fundamental point that nuclear weapons should, quite simply, never be used. Instead, they should be disbanded and banned altogether, in line with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Unfortunately, the French offer of replacing the US nuclear umbrella in Europe perpetrates similar deadly sins about deterrence.

    The post France and the Delusions of Nuclear Deterrence first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • French trade unions and antifascist organizations have launched a wave of mobilizations following a violent assault by far-right groups on young activists on Sunday, February 16. The attack, carried out by around 20 fascist thugs, targeted attendees of a film screening organized by Young Struggle and the Turkish Migrant Workers Cultural Association (ACTIT) in Paris. The assailants beat several audience members and stabbed one of them, a member of the General Confederation of Labor (CGT).

    While some attempted to frame the attackers as members of the Turkish neo-fascist Grey Wolves organization, activists on the ground identified markings linked to French far-right groups.

    The post French Trade Unions Respond To Fascist Attacks In Paris appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A $179 billion AI investment has put France “back in the game”, French President Emmanuel Macron has told a global summit in Paris while pitching lighter touch regulation, more chip manufacturing and cheap green energy to power datacentres. The French push, to be backed up by a new European AI strategy on Wednesday, comes in…

    The post French ‘revolution’: Macron goes all in on AI appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    President Donald Trump has frozen billions of dollars around the world in aid projects, including more than $268 million allocated by Congress to support independent media and the free flow of information.

    Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has denounced this decision, which has plunged NGOs, media outlets, and journalists doing vital work into chaotic uncertainty — including in the Pacific.

    In a statement published on its website, RSF has called for international public and private support to commit to the “sustainability of independent media”.

    Since the new American president announced the freeze of US foreign aid on January 20, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has been in turmoil — its website is inaccessible, its X account has been suspended, the agency’s headquarters was closed and employees told to stay home.

    South African-born American billionaire Elon Musk, an unelected official, whom Trump chose to lead the quasi-official Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has called USAID a “criminal organisation” and declared: “We’re shutting [it] down.”

    Later that day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he was named acting director of the agency, suggesting its operations were being moved to the State Department.

    Almost immediately after the freeze went into effect, journalistic organisations around the world — including media groups in the Pacific — that receive American aid funding started reaching out to RSF expressing confusion, chaos, and uncertainty.

    Large and smaller media NGOs affected
    The affected organisations include large international NGOs that support independent media like the International Fund for Public Interest Media and smaller, individual media outlets serving audiences living under repressive conditions in countries like Iran and Russia.

    “The American aid funding freeze is sowing chaos around the world, including in journalism. The programmes that have been frozen provide vital support to projects that strengthen media, transparency, and democracy,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF USA.

    President Donald Trump
    President Donald Trump . . . “The American aid funding freeze is sowing chaos around the world, including in journalism,” says RSF. Image: RSF

    “President Trump justified this order by charging — without evidence — that a so-called ‘foreign aid industry’ is not aligned with US interests.

    “The tragic irony is that this measure will create a vacuum that plays into the hands of propagandists and authoritarian states. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is appealing to the international public and private funders to commit to the sustainability of independent media.”

    USAID programmes support independent media in more than 30 countries, but it is difficult to assess the full extent of the harm done to the global media.

    Many organisations are hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks.

    According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023 the agency funded training and support for 6200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media.

    The USAID website today
    The USAID website today . . . All USAID “direct hire” staff were reportedly put “on leave” on 7 February 2025. Image: USAID website screenshot APR

    Activities halted overnight
    The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information”.

    All over the world, media outlets and organisations have had to halt some of their activities overnight.

    “We have articles scheduled until the end of January, but after that, if we haven’t found solutions, we won’t be able to publish anymore,” explains a journalist from a Belarusian exiled media outlet who wished to remain anonymous.

    In Cameroon, the funding freeze forced DataCameroon, a public interest media outlet based in the economic capital Douala, to put several projects on hold, including one focused on journalist safety and another covering the upcoming presidential election.

    An exiled Iranian media outlet that preferred to remain anonymous was forced to suspend collaboration with its staff for three months and slash salaries to a bare minimum to survive.

    An exiled Iranian journalist interviewed by RSF warns that the impact of the funding freeze could silence some of the last remaining free voices, creating a vacuum that Iranian state propaganda would inevitably fill.

    “Shutting us off will mean that they’ll have more power,” she says.

    USAID: the main donor for Ukrainian media
    In Ukraine, where 9 out of 10 outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, several local media have already announced the suspension of their activities and are searching for alternative solutions.

    “At Slidstvo.Info, 80 percent of our budget is affected,” said Anna Babinets, CEO and co-founder of this independent investigative media outlet based in Kyiv.

    The risk of this suspension is that it could open the door to other sources of funding that may seek to alter the editorial line and independence of these media.

    “Some media might be shut down or bought by businessmen or oligarchs. I think Russian money will enter the market. And government propaganda will, of course, intensify,” Babinets said.

    RSF has already witnessed the direct effects of such propaganda — a fabricated video, falsely branded with the organisation’s logo, claimed that RSF welcomed the suspension of USAID funding for Ukrainian media — a stance RSF has never endorsed.

    This is not the first instance of such disinformation.

    Finding alternatives quickly
    This situation highlights the financial fragility of the sector.

    According to Oleh Dereniuha, editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian local media outlet NikVesti, based in Mykolaiv, a city in southeast Ukraine, “The suspension of US funding is just the tip of the iceberg — a key case that illustrates the severity of the situation.”

    Since 2024, independent Ukrainian media outlets have found securing financial sustainability nearly impossible due to the decline in donors.

    As a result, even minor budget cuts could put these media outlets in a precarious position.

    A recent RSF report stressed the need to focus on the economic recovery of the independent Ukrainian media landscape, weakened by the large-scale Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, which RSF’s study estimated to be at least $96 million over three years.

    Moreover, beyond the decline in donor support in Ukraine, media outlets are also facing growing threats to their funding and economic models in other countries.

    Georgia’s Transparency of Foreign Influence Law — modelled after Russia’s legislation — has put numerous media organisations at risk. The Georgian Prime Minister welcomed the US president’s decision with approval.

    This suspension is officially expected to last only 90 days, according to the US government.

    However, some, like Katerina Abramova, communications director for leading exiled Russian media outlet Meduza, fear that the reviews of funding contracts could take much longer.

    Abramova is anticipating the risk that these funds may be permanently cut off.

    “Exiled media are even in a more fragile position than others, as we can’t monetise our audience and the crowdfunding has its limits — especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” Abramova stressed.

    By abruptly suspending American aid, the United States has made many media outlets and journalists vulnerable, dealing a significant blow to press freedom.

    For all the media outlets interviewed by RSF, the priority is to recover and urgently find alternative funding.

    How Fijivillage News reported the USAID crackdown
    How Fijivillage News reported the USAID crackdown by the Trump administration. Image: Fijivillage News screenshot APR

    Fiji, Pacific media, aid groups reel shocked by cuts
    In Suva, Fiji, as Pacific media groups have been reeling from the shock of the aid cuts, Fijivillage News reports that hundreds of local jobs and assistance to marginalised communities are being impacted because Fiji is an AUSAID hub.

    According to an USAID staff member speaking on the condition of anonymity, Trump’s decision has affected hundreds of Fijian jobs due to USAID believing in building local capacity.

    The staff member said millions of dollars in grants for strengthening climate resilience, the healthcare system, economic growth, and digital connectivity in rural communities were now on hold.

    The staff member also said civil society organisations, especially grantees in rural areas that rely on their aid, were at risk.

    Pacific Media Watch and Asia Pacific Report collaborate with Reporters Without Borders.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • State and market solutions to the ecological crisis have only increased the wealth and power of those on top, while greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Nearly all the experts and professionals are invested, literally, in a framework that is only making things worse. With so much power concentrated in the very institutions that suppress any realistic assessment of the situation, things seem incredibly bleak. But what if we told you that there’s another way? That there are already people all around the world implementing immediate, effective responses that can be integrated into long-term strategies to survive these overlapping, cascading crises?

    We spoke with three revolutionaries on the front lines resisting capitalist, colonial projects. Sleydo’ from the Gidimt’en clan of the Wet’suwet’en nation, in so-called British Columbia, Isa from the ZAD in the west of France, and Neto, a militant with the Landless Workers’ Movement based in the northeast of so-called Brazil. They share their experiences gained from years of building collective power, defeating repression, and defending the Earth for all its inhabitants and for the generations still to come.

    They share stories of solidarity spreading across a continent, of people abandoned to poverty and marginalization reclaiming land, restoring devastated forests, and feeding themselves communally, stories of strangers coming together for their shared survival and a better future, going head to head with militarized police forces and winning. And in these stories we can hear things that are lacking almost everywhere else we look: optimism alongside realism, intelligent strategies for how we can survive, love and empathy for the world around us and for the future generations, together with the belief that we can do something meaningful, something that makes a difference. The joy of revolutionary transformation.

    We learn about solutions. Real world solutions. Solutions outside of the control of capitalism and the state.

    The Revolution is Already Here.

    Next up: how do we make it our own?

    Revolution or Death is a three-part collaboration between Peter Gelderloos and subMedia. Part 1, ‘Short Term Investments,’ examined the official response to the climate crisis and how it’s failing. In Part 2, ‘Heads Up, the Revolution is Already Here’ we talk with movements around the globe that provide inspiring examples of what realistic, effective responses look like. Part 3 ‘Reclaiming the World Wherever We Stand’ will focus on how we can all apply these lessons at home.

    The post Heads Up, the Revolution is Already Here first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • They are trying to elevate France recognizing Josephine Baker as a hero, yet, Amy Goodman has the ability — and whatever else is going on with the Black journalist she interviews, French journalist Rokhaya Diallo — to sidestep the tribal and religious and historical and intellectual identity of this French monster, Éric Zemmour (above image).

    When Josephine Baker Sprinkled Her Stardust on the Tour de France - Podium Cafe

    He’s Jewish and he openly uses his Jewishness as a cuddle to get where he is today — published writer and candidate for office? Where is the money trail, that is the question. I ask this as I did get a reader’s comments (from the Dissident Voice newsletter where I am published) who is from California but has lived in New Zealand for 25 years. He’s a businessman, in hospitality, and he writes me from time to time. He is concerned with employees from South America, in his New Zealand restaurant, still skeptical of the Pfizer and how the NZ government makes it illegal to work without a series of jabs — booster madness is what 2022 will be. Just a little research on NZ —

    New Zealand Terrorist Attack: The Israel Connection

    “The corporate press is correct that Tarrant and Breivik follow the practices of the anti-Islam xenophobic movement on the rise in Europe, North America and now Oceania, but the key element they deliberately avoid mentioning is their strong collective affinity for the state of Israel.”

    New Zealand Terrorist Attack: The Israel Connection

    You know, the Christian Identity politics in the world, well, of course they are tied to Identity, and that is Christianity. The Jewish Identity politics (an entire country, Israel, Jewish, and like In God We Trust USA Christian nation) tie into of course, Jewish-ness. Zionism Identity, well, of course, Zionism is the identifier. Why would Jewish Amy Goodman not mention this person’s — Zemmour’s — Jewish identity? He’s anti-Muslim, and he’s a proponent of murder and mayhem. He’s misogynistic as HELL.

    Oh, Josephine Baker —

    ‘Baker wrote about the injustices she had witnessed for a French paper, France-Soir. From Montevideo to Copenhagen, she gave talks about the evils of US segregation, and on 28 August 1963, she was the only official female speaker to speak alongside Martin Luther King at the March on Washington. In her French military uniform, Baker spoke about her own struggle for justice to a quarter of a million people. Looking out at the mix of races in the crowd, she declared: “Salt and pepper — just what it should be.”

    Yet these actions did not go down well with the FBI, who had a file open against her since 1951 because of her “anti-United States statements and her fight for racial equality”. For 15 years, until Baker’s 60th birthday, they recorded her actions and called her a Communist Party apologist, not least because she occasionally partied with the Castro brothers in Cuba.’

    Being the first black woman to become a global celebrity and to star in a major feature film – 1934’s Zouzou  undoubtedly made Josephine Baker an influential cabaret siren and fashion icon. Yet she was also so much more. A Second World War spy for the French Resistance, a civil rights activist, a suspected communist sympathiser, and a single mother to twelve adopted children from all over the globe, Baker refused to dance to anyone’s drum but her own.

    Her words still resonate today: “Surely the day will come when colour means nothing more than the skin tone, when religion is seen uniquely as a way to speak one’s soul, when birth places have the weight of a throw of the dice and all men are born free.”

    (Ailsa Ross is a journalist living in the Canadian Rockies. She’s the author of The Woman Who Rode a Shark: And 50 More Wild Female Adventurers [AA Publishing, 2019])

    Josephine Baker lounges on a tiger skin around the time she starred in La Revue Nègre

    So, how do we frame all of this through the lens and looking glass of racism and bigotry, a real foundation of Zionism, which is the founding force of the state of Israel? This by, Yoav Litvin, an Israeli-American doctor of psychology/neuroscience, a writer and photographer. His work can be found at yoavlitvin.com.

    Early Zionists syncretised many aspects of European fascism, white supremacy, colonialism and messianic Evangelism and had a long and sordid history of cooperating with anti-Semites, imperialists and fascists in order to promote exclusivist and expansionist agendas.

    In fact, throughout the past century, anti-Semites and Zionists have worked towards the mutual interest of concentrating Jews in Israel; the former as a means of scapegoating and expelling an unwanted population, and the latter to combat the “demographic threat” posed by native Palestinians. Further, both anti-Semites and Zionists construct Jews as a biological race, which needs to be segregated as part of a utopia of global apartheid.

    Zionism is a racist and settler colonialist movement, which opportunistically coopts aspects of Judaism in an attempt to justify its criminal practices of apartheid and genocide of indigenous Palestinians. White supremacy is dominant within Israeli society, which privileges white-skinned Ashkenazi Jews at the expense of dark-skinned African Jews, Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews as well as African refugees. African/black Jewish communities are often denied recognition by Israeli authorities with some members even deported.

    Zionism is based on a distinctly secular outlook, which embraces aggression and expansion as an acceptable response to trauma and denounces the traditional Jewish pacifist approach of viewing hardship as divine punishment for sins. The Israeli regime capitalises on a dynamic of violence and inequality reinforced by fear-mongering and the rewards of resource acquisition to promote a privileged ruling class at the expense of colonised Palestinian people. Zionist strategists manipulate the past traumas Jews have endured to galvanise support for aggressive policies that disenfranchise Palestinians.

    Zionism racism protest Reuters File

    They call it double punishment, or at least that’s what Yonathan Arfi, vice president of the Representative Council of French Jews, describes it. False narratives from Jews, and then coming from people who are Jewish. Stephen Miller, anyone? Remember his prominence in Trump-Alt-Hatred politics? So, Zemmour is Jewish, espouses supremacist views of whites (Jews over Goyim, but he doesn’t yammer too much on that), and he thinks all women are baby breeders and do not have the capacity for politics and can’t be geniuses. So, the legitimacy he claims as a Jew with his Nazi patina, well, that is the double take, double tap, double punishment.

    So many will question how much Zemmour truly engages with his Jewish identity – but, as philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy argues, that has become irrelevant. Despite rigorous criticism from the Jewish community, “what Mr. Zemmour does, whether he likes it or not, [is] in the Jewish name”. (source)

    The heads of Trump administration officials attached to parachutes.

    They all do land with parachutes, pariahs and war criminals, one and all.

    Israeli military hegemony is indeed no long-term guarantee of US interests in the region, but the scale of the US-Israel military relationship and the close synchronization of US and Israeli strategy down to the present are determined by a strategic calculus, not by sentiment. Kissinger’s comments do reflect an important shift in US policy at this time, towards greater reliance on compliant Arab regimes to preserve the status quo. But Israel’s function as a “strategic asset” is no mere rhetorical flourish of Ronald Reagan’s campaign. US policy, in 1975 as now, aimed to enhance Israel’s strategic capacity in the region, consolidate friendly Arab regimes, and to isolate and debilitate the Palestinian movement.
    — “Kissinger Memorandum: ‘To Isolate the Palestinians,’” Middle East Report, 96 (May/June 1981).

    In a recent interview with the New York Times, Pulitzer-prize winner Alice Walker caused much controversy by recommending David Icke’s book And the Truth Shall Set You Free, claiming it was “a curious person’s dream come true”.

    Many reacted sharply to Walker’s endorsement of what is widely considered to be an anti-Semitic book, accusing her of embracing Icke’s racist conspiracy theories; others, like Palestinian-American writer Susan Abulhawa, defended Walker, claiming her ideas are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic. In her article, In defence of Alice Walker, Abulhawa claimed Palestinians are “killed, humiliated and destroyed in visible and invisible ways by Israel’s notions of Jewish supremacy”.
    — Yoav Litvin, “The Zionist fallacy of ‘Jewish supremacy,’Al Jazeera

    Alice Walker
    This, Alice Walker, or …
    Trump talks North Korea with Henry Kissinger - Axios
    Kissinger and the Tribe . . .
    Hillary Clinton Emails: How Henry Kissinger Could Help | Time

    On December 2, Democracy Now— Read the transcript and see more of Diallo’s words.

    We go now to France where we are joined by French journalist and filmmaker Rokhaya Diallo. Her latest op-ed for the Washington Post is headlined Josephine Baker enters the Panthéon. Don’t let it distract from this larger story. Thank you so much for joining us, Rokhaya. Why don’t you start off by telling us that larger story and then go into the significance of Josephine Baker being recognized?

    Rokhaya Diallo: Thank you so much for inviting me. I am very happy—to me, it’s very good news to finally have a woman of color in the Panthéon, which is, as you said, one of the most prestigious places to welcome the most revered French figures. It is something that is very meaningful, because as well as being an entertainer, she was also a hero of resisting during the Second World War but also took part to the March on Washington. As you said, she was the only woman.

    But there are two things that left me with mixed feelings. First, the fact that France tends to use the fact that it has been very welcoming to African Americans throughout the 20th century to picture itself as a very open and welcoming country. But the thing that we tend to forget is that while Josephine Baker was celebrated and dancing on Parisian stages, France was a very violent colonial power, so it was also colonizing Africa and Asia and also the Caribbean, and perpetrating very much violence to people who were colonized and also displaying them in what was called at that time the Colonial Exhibitions, which were basically human zoos where you could see people coming from the colony to be seen by visitors from Paris and from other regions of France.

    So there was a double standard with African Americans being welcomed because they were American and didn’t have any historical agreement to settle with France. At the same time, other people of color were actually submitted to the French state.

    I go back to New Zealand, because it is very easy to believe New Zealand is this great, well-run, law abiding, great place!

    US bombing base
    Survival Bunker Feature photo

    Sources:

    1. New Zealand’s Hidden Role at the Biggest US Bombing Base in the Middle East
      A recent issue of Air Force News revealed that a senior NZDF officer served a six-month posting at the Qatar base, placing New Zealanders at the heart of the main targeting and bombing center in that region
    2. World’s Super Rich Buying Pandemic Escape Mansions in New Zealand
      A number of the planet’s richest people, including billionaire co-founder of Paypal Peter Thiel, are escaping to New Zealand to shelter in luxury bunkers amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

    3. The post Zionism is Far-Right Bigotry, Hate of “the Other,” and Supremacy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

      This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • European court of human rights sides with French woman whose husband obtained divorce on grounds she was only person at fault

    Europe live – latest updates

    A woman who refuses to have sex with her husband should not be considered “at fault” by courts in the event of divorce, Europe’s highest human rights court has said, condemning France.

    The European court of human rights (ECHR) sided on Thursday with a 69-year-old French woman whose husband had obtained a divorce on the grounds that she was the only person at fault because she had stopped having sexual relations with him.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.


  • This content originally appeared on Vincent Moon / Petites Planètes and was authored by Vincent Moon / Petites Planètes.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Greenland’s prime minister has called for unity and calm after Donald Trump reheated his global row with Nato allies on Tuesday, when the US president-elect said he was prepared to use tariffs or military force to seize control of Greenland.

    The comments led the Greenlandic prime minister, Múte Egede, to say: “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” The UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, said on Thursday that the US seizure of Greenland is “not going to happen”, while Germany and France have warned Trump over annexation.

    The post What Greenlanders Make Of Donald Trump’s Advances appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In his New Year’s address, Alassane Ouattara, president of Ivory Coast since 2010 when he took power with the aid of a French military intervention, announced “we have decided on the coordinated and organized withdrawal of French forces” from the country.

    However, his address made no mention of terminating the 1961 military agreements with France. These “agreements are at the root of the problem. As long as these agreements exist, France will be able to use them to carry out military maneuvers or intervene at the request of its servants in power in Ivory Coast,” General Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Ivory Coast (PCRCI), Achy Ekissi, told Peoples Dispatch.

    The post A New Military Strategy Of French Neo-Colonialism In Africa appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • “Homeland or death, we will win.” This sign stands in the Place de la Patrie, one of the cradles of the popular struggle against France in Niamey, the capital of Niger. Today, it serves as a meeting point where people gather, chat, and watch the movement on Boulevard Zarmaganda, home to the headquarters of the first popular committee supporting the Nigerien army.

    “It used to be called Place de la Francophonie. Today, it’s Place de la Patrie because this is the birthplace of the patriotic struggle for complete national sovereignty. A week after the coup d’état, we moved here.

    The post What’s Happening In Niger? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Exclusive: Guardian investigation finds an underpaid, underfed workforce, some of whom are forced to sleep on the streets, exploited by a system of labour providers

    • Photographs by Valentina Camu/Divergence for the Guardian

    A Guardian investigation has found workers in France’s champagne industry are being underpaid and forced to sleep on the streets and steal food to stave off hunger.

    Workers from west Africa and eastern Europe in the town of Épernay, home to the headquarters of some of the world’s most expensive champagne brands, including Moët & Chandon and Mercier, claim that they are either not being paid for their work or illegally underpaid by vineyards near the town.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • A lot of us are familiar with these lines from Yeats’s thoroughly anthologized and often-quoted The Second Coming. How can they not come to mind as the French government of Emmanuel Macron, the centrist par excellence, falls in a heap of high-handed hubris? 

    Everyone in Paris is blaming everyone since the Macron government’s energized opposition in the National Assembly forced Premier Michel Barnier from office with a vote of no confidence last week. The truth is that Barnier is a casualty of his own political camp — an arrogant “center” that is not, in fact, the center of anything.

    The post The Centrists Cannot Hold appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Dakar, December 13, 2024 – Nigerien authorities have suspended the U.K. government-funded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for three months and announced the Nigerien government would bring a complaint of “incitement to genocide and inter-community massacre” against the French government-owned Radio France Internationale (RFI).

    “The Nigerien authorities should reverse their suspension of the BBC and their intentions to take legal action against RFI,” said Angela Quintal, head of CPJ’s Africa program, in New York. “The Nigerien government should recognize that press freedom is an essential ingredient for development and peace, and cease its efforts to control information related to the region’s security situation.”

    On Thursday, December 12, 2024, Niger’s Minister of Communication Raliou Sidi Mohamed imposed the BBC suspension. BBC reported that its programs, which are broadcast across Niger via local radio partners, had been suspended, but its “website is not blocked and the radio can still be accessed on shortwave.”

    The suspension followed Nigerien authorities’ refutation of BBC’s coverage of jihadist attacks on Tuesday, December 10, which reportedly killed dozens of soldiers and civilians. BBC said that Niger’s military government, which took power in a July 2023 coup, called accounts of the attacks “baseless assertions” and a “campaign of intoxication orchestrated by adversaries of the Nigerien people aimed at undermining the morale of our troops and sowing division.”

    BBC Afrique denied the accusations and said, “We stand by our journalism.”

    Separately, also on December 12, Niger’s government announced its intention to file a complaint against RFI following its reporting on the same attacks. The announcement said that “a vast disinformation campaign was orchestrated by Radio France Internationale in a crude and shameful montage with genocidal overtones” but did not specify when or where the complaint would be filed.

    RFI Afrique described the complaint as “extravagant and defamatory, and not based on any evidence.”

    In 2023, Nigerien authorities suspended RFI and France 24, which are both subsidiaries of the French government-owned France Médias Monde, and earlier this year tightened legal control over the press by reinstating prison sentences for defamation and insult. 

    CPJ’s phone calls to Minister of Communication Mohamed went unanswered.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The rapid fall of Michel Barnier’s government will test the unity of the French left.

    This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.

  • France’s National Assembly approved a no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Michel Barnier on Wednesday — just three months after he was appointed by the highly unpopular President Emmanuel Macron. The rapid collapse of Barnier’s government reinforces the long-held view among political experts that a parliamentary multiparty system has more checks and balances and responds more readily to the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.