Feed aggregator

An albino hunted for her body parts tells the BBC she lives in fear after surviving a kidnap attempt in Malawi.

Americas

• US President Donald Trump took the opportunity to suggest a further F/A-18 Super Hornet order while attending a ceremony for Boeing’s inaugural 787-10 Dreamliner in South Carolina. While Trump has made no clear indication or commitment to the numbers that would be ordered, he said “we are looking seriously at a big order. The problem is that [Boeing CEO] Dennis [Muilenberg] is a very tough negotiator, but I think we may get there.” Trump also had kind words for the aging, Boeing-made, Air Force One. “That plane, as beautiful as it looks is 30 years old. What can look so beautiful at 30? An aeroplane,” he said.

Africa

• The Paramount Group is to begin production of the Mwari reconnaissance and strike aircraft this April. Based on the firm’s Advanced, High Performance, Reconnaissance, Light Aircraft (AHRLAC), up to 24 base aircraft will be made per year at their new facility at Wonderboom Airport, with the Mwari military aircraft and customized mission systems being integrated in a separate facility. The Mwari has been developed as part of a partnership with Boeing, which is developing their own integrated mission system that supports intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and light strike capabilities. Mwari will also be showcased at this week’s IDEX defence exhibition in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Middle East & North Africa

• The Israeli Air Force is to change their procedures related to asymmetric flight toward landing, following the crash of an F-16I fighter last October. One pilot was killed and the second crew member injured following a crash during landing after a mission against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip. The new procedure will require pilots to drop unused weapons into the sea in order to stabilize their aircraft before landing.

• A Houthi rebel boat which attacked a Saudi Arabian frigate off the coast of Yemen in January was unmanned. Initially believed to have been a suicide mission, a US Navy official has revealed that the attack was instead carried out by an unmanned, remote-controlled craft filled with explosives. Vice Adm. Kevin Donegan, commander of the Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet and head of US Naval Forces Central Command said that the boat was likely to have been either supplied by Iran, or at least have had Iranian production help. In the last year, US and coalition partners have intercepted four weapons shipments destined for the Houthis.

Europe

• Representatives from Rheinmetall and Raytheon have signed an agreement to cooperate on future defense projects. The memorandum of understanding signed outlines that the pact will facilitate deepened ties on missile defense systems and rocket-based solutions and the firms will also work closely on combat vehicles, weapons, ammunition, cyber defense and simulations. Popular products made by the German firm include several types of armored vehicles, various caliber gun systems, and air-defense gun systems.

• Northrop Grumman and the British RAF have successfully demonstrated communication system interoperability between an F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon jets. The test was carried out during an MoD-funded two week trial, called Babel Fish III, and saw a Lockheed Martin F-35B communicate with a Typhoon fighter by translating its Multifunction Advanced Data Link messages into a Link 16 format. It was the first time a non-U.S. 5th- and 4th-generation aircraft shared MADL-delivered data. Northrop claimed that the test integrated its Freedom 550 technology into the F-35’s Airborne Gateway, which translates information from various sources to enhance situational awareness and interoperability.

Asia Pacific

• The state-owned manufacturer Russian Helicopters has said that they will commence deliveries of the KA-226T helicopter to the Indian military next year. 60 units will be delivered in Russia while a further 140 will be manufactured and assembled in India under an agreement signed last October. Russia expects sales of the advanced medium multirole Mi-171A2 to increase by at least 15% in 2017 with interest received from China, as well as from the Iranian oil and gas sector.

• Sri Lankan media reports that Pakistan has offered an F-7 fighter for free in return for each JF-17 that Sri Lanka purchases from Islamabad. The report claims that in its efforts to push a deal for the fighter, Pakistan has hired a Singapore-based consultancy group to assist with the lobbying, and that attempts have been made to pay kickbacks to Sri Lankan defense ministry officials as well as high-ranking military personnel.

Today’s Video

• More on the upcoming production of the Ahrlac/Mwari:

South Korean K1A Compact Assault Rifle

Vor der Unterzeichnung der Römischen Verträge besuchte Konrad Adenauer 1957 Alcide De Gasperis Grab. Heute würdigte Hans-Gert Pöttering den EU-Wegbereiter.

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP

Salman ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Al Sa’ud, King of Saudi Arabia since 2015.

Intelligence Squared U.S., or IQ2US, organizes a regular series of debates on issues of public concern and broadcasts them via livestreaming, NPR, YouTube, and podcasts. The organization’s purpose, proudly proclaimed, is “to restore civility, reasoned analysis, and constructive public discourse to today’s often biased media landscape.” (Since it sounds a lot like me, I tend to like it.) The most recent debate, which I had the honor to attend, posed the provocative proposition “The Special U.S.-Saudi Relationship Has Outlived Its Usefulness.”

The debaters arguing for the proposition were Madawi Al Rasheed,* a Visiting Professor at the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics and a research fellow at the Open Society Foundation, and Mark P. Lagon, Centennial Fellow and Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and former Ambassador-at-Large in charge of the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

Arguing against the proposition were F. Gregory Gause III, the John H. Lindsey ’44 Professor of International Affairs and head of the International Affairs Department at Texas A&M University, and James Jeffrey, a Visiting Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and formerly Deputy National Security Advisor and Ambassador to Albania, Turkey, and Iraq.

Life, of course, is not really as binary as a debate proposition, and in reality neither was the debate. No one said that the United States should abandon its relationship with Saudi Arabia altogether, and no one claimed that there were no problems. While that might strike debate professionals as a bit sloppy on the edges, it does mesh well with the world as we know it.

Those arguing for the proposition focused primarily on negative aspects of the Saudi regime and domestic Saudi policies. They argued that support for the regime undermines U.S. policy there and elsewhere in the Middle East. They believed that the support had been “unconditional” and that the U.S.-Saudi relationship was strong enough that the United States could insist on certain domestic reforms in exchange for that support. Thus they did not call for ending the U.S.-Saudi relationship but for modifying it in a way that would be beneficial to the Saudi population and to U.S. foreign policy interests.

Those arguing against the proposition basically agreed about the negative aspects of the Saudi regime and that, while the situation has improved somewhat over the years, the regimes efforts at reform tend to be rather superficial. They disagreed, however, on the question of whether it was appropriate for the United States to insist that another country modify its domestic political and social system to our liking and whether the United States had the capacity to achieve such changes in any event. The proper and presumably more successful approach, in their view, was to focus on the strategic situation, bolstering Saudi Arabia as a bastion of stability in a region steeped in turmoil.

Personally, I am of a realist bent and my natural tendency is against the proposition. When I hear the argument that our support should be conditioned on their reforming their political and social structures to suit our cultural norms, I find myself being grateful that the Saudis don’t say, “Sure, we’ll sell you oil, the day you stop making your women walk around in public like hussies with their hair showing.”

Yet I do not dismiss the other side out of hand. Their strongest case, I thought, concerns what happens to U.S. policy and U.S. strategic interests if Saudi Arabia’s domestic structures prove so intolerable that its own people overthrow it and then reject the United States for having supported the old regime. This argument was made by Professor Al Rasheed. While she described Saudi Arabia as a “pressure cooker,” the other three, including her debate partner, were more willing to accept the fundamental stability of the regime. One pointed out that Saudi Arabia has been described as a pressure cooker for decades and has yet to stumble. They may well be correct, yet, as Professor Al Rasheed pointed out, people said exactly the same thing about Iran right up to the moment that the Shah was chased out of the country. The complications are that you cannot work with the country at all if you do not cooperate with the regime in power, and the possibility that your own efforts to force reform might trigger the very revolution you seek to avoid.

Although leaning toward the realist perspective, I did not necessarily agree with every point made by that side. In particular, Ambassador Jeffrey made a statement that struck me as very curious. When asked by someone in the audience why the United States should care whether Saudi Arabia or Iran becomes predominant in the Middle East, the ambassador described Iran as a revisionist or revolutionary power not unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, he saw as a force for stability.

I am sure this is the common understanding in this country and probably the basis for policy, but think about it for a moment. Iran, while a revolutionary regime, is operating in Iraq and Syria because it was invited there by their respective governments. In Iraq at the moment, it is a de facto ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS. In Syria the situation is harder to describe: Iran backs the government against various insurgent groups. The United States—officially—is not fighting the government but is supporting one group of insurgents (who would rather be fighting the government) against another group of insurgents, who are the same enemy that the United States and Iran are fighting in Iraq. (Unofficially, of course, the United States is also backing insurgents against the government, but that’s a secret.)

Saudi Arabia, is the one that has established madrassas throughout the region that have inspired Salafi-jihadi insurgents, and Saudi Arabia has encouraged freelance Islamists to join the jihad against the Syrian regime. Individual Saudi donors have contributed to insurgents in both countries and elsewhere in the region as well. It is easy to say the Saudi Arabia and the United States are forces for stability, while Iran is the disruptor, but is it really true?**

Finally, one question that struck me was not raised, a question to those arguing against the proposition. If we are relying on Saudi Arabia for strategic reasons, is it important that Saudi Arabia may not view the world the same way we do? All four panelists agreed, for instance, that world politics is not a zero-sum game and that we can maintain relations with Saudi Arabia and try to improve relations with Iran at the same time if we want to.

I believe that as well, yet I ask myself: Does Saudi Arabia believe it?

The United States and five other countries negotiated an agreement with Iran designed to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons that could have been used, for instance, against Saudi Arabia), and Saudi Arabia seemed to treat it as if it were an act of treason. If the United States and Saudi Arabia come to diverge in their understanding of what constitutes strategic interests, then that could be a problem even if we do not try to interfere in their domestic arrangements.

*The “Al” in the name Al Rasheed is not the Arabic article “al-” (which is, indeed, a common element in Arab names), but rather an Arabic word meaning family, clan, or dynasty. The House of Rasheed (Al Rasheed, or Al Rashid) was a rival to the House of Saud (Al Sa’ud) in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the two fought many battles for control of the Arabian Peninsula’s Najd region. Allied with the Ottomans, the Al Rasheed forces were defeated after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. When this past rivalry was pointed out at the beginning of the debate, Professor Al Rasheed quipped that she had not taken part in any of those battles.

**Note that we are talking about stability here, a separate question from whether Assad deserves to be overthrown. Remember, too, that outside intervention, regardless of whether it is Russia or the United States that is intervening, tends to lengthen civil wars and ultimately to increase the overall number of deaths.

The post Has the U.S.-Saudi Relationship Outlived Its Usefulness? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

NAFTA has been made out to be one of the villains of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. While some aspects of NAFTA surely have contributed to changing employment trends, other policy issues may cause as much tension as a renegotiation of NAFTA itself.

Relations between the U.S. and Mexico seem to be openly sour, but both NAFTA partners may suffer some severe consequences with a change in other non-NAFTA related policy developments.

Mexico seems to be in a more dire situation than Canada with regard to possible new trends in U.S. foreign policy. While American jobs are perceived by some to be lost to Mexico, the restrictions the new U.S. administration might place on Chinese manufacturing may raise the cost of Chinese goods coming into the United States and make Mexican goods more competitive.

The boom in Chinese exports to global markets came at a time when Mexico was reaching its peak in manufacturing processes and technology which made the country a good location to produce higher value goods. The rise in wages in Mexico since the beginning of NAFTA made low-wage labor in places like China more attractive to international companies. The growth in Chinese manufacturing affected Mexico greatly, and an attempt by the United States to hinder Chinese imports may have a residual positive effect on Mexican exports.

U.S. policy seems to concentrate on the trade deficit between nations, and with other factors contributing to funds leaving the U.S. and going to Mexico, the U.S. may take a long-term policy approach on the factors that create the greatest job losses over punishing Mexico over a small trade deficit.

Mexico’s greatest exports over the last 20 to 30 years have been their oil and gas industry, run mostly through state-run PEMEX, and Mexicans themselves. What is often not accounted for is that people sending funds back to their relatives from abroad is a massive economic engine for Mexico. While this trend has varied over time, the size of remittances of  Mexicans working abroad as a share of the national economy of Mexico is often so large that at times it brings in more money into the country than oil and gas exports.

With millions of individuals residing abroad, the Mexican state often does not have to provide local services for those individuals. In addition, many Mexicans send money back to their relatives to add another source of funding for locals who would otherwise rely on state social safety nets. Families and communities often grow with funds earned and sent from abroad, and while individual Mexicans and their funds are not linked directly to NAFTA, the effect on hindering these funds coming from abroad may create a larger loss for Mexico than any renegotiation of NAFTA itself.

A clear goal for the current Mexican administration will be to not let the U.S. hinder the remittances from abroad, but also to maintain a balanced approach to immigration so as not to push the U.S. add excessive taxes on funds coming into Mexico from citizens or dual citizens in other countries.

Canada has always been in a good position since the late 1960s when the Auto Pact was signed, giving Southern Ontario linked access to U.S. car manufacturing in Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York State. Now that most of the manufacturing plants have disappeared across the border, the Canadian automobile sector has no logistical partner in the United States.

While the Canadian government has been nervously seeking assurances from the new U.S. administration on NAFTA and trade, the reality is that many American companies are in Canada because of the favorable exchange rate, better healthcare coverage and lower corporate tax rates.

A NAFTA renegotiation has been assured to not affect Canada, but with a competitive U.S. tax rate coming into effect, no auto partners over the border and the Canadian and Ontario government pushing debt financing and high taxes, zero tariffs will not make a difference if there is nothing being produced in Canada to sell.

Added to that, a carbon tax will add costs to producing in Canada at the precise time costs will shrink in the United States. While NAFTA may not change, severe debt and ever increasing taxes and energy costs will surely push the main source of jobs in Southern Ontario out of Canada completely.

To survive a nationalistic U.S. policy approach, Mexico needs to choose its fights wisely and Canada needs to make policy decisions for the benefit of its citizens, their future employment and for the sake of economic reality. Beyond the issue of NAFTA, Mexico and Canada could benefit greatly from a boom in the U.S. economy if it is accompanied by wise domestic policy decisions placing jobs and economic growth above political credit.

The post Beyond NAFTA: Issues in North American Free Trade appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Après une centaine d’auditions des professionnels de la santé en janvier et février, François Fillon présente, mardi, une nouvelle version de son projet de réforme de la santé, qui met notamment l’accent sur de meilleurs remboursements.

Lors d’une interview réalisée par la radio publique allemande Deutschlandfunk diffusée le 12 février dernier, Jean-Claude Juncker a confirmé qu’il ne se présenterait pas pour un second mandat à la présidence de la Commission européenne. Cette surprenante décision peut s’expliquer en partie par des critiques qu’il a lui-même qualifiées d’« excessives et surtout de contre-productives », d’autant que les hommes politiques d’envergure européenne se font rares. Plus simplement, il semble que Jean-Claude Juncker ait voulu lancer une sorte d’appel.

Le Président de la Commission a tenu à détailler les raisons qui l’ont poussé à ne pas se représenter : la capacité des Européens à rester unis d’une part, mais surtout « la lâcheté institutionnelle de nombreux dirigeants et de nombreux ministres qui décident à Bruxelles puis rentrent à la maison en critiquant ce qu’ils ont eux-mêmes et conjointement décidé (…) » d’autre part. Il insiste d’ailleurs sur une nécessité : « Ce spectacle doit cesser ».

Il a assuré avoir tenté de redonner espoir en l’Europe aux citoyens, tout en reconnaissant être désormais trop occupé avec le Brexit, qu’il qualifie de « tragédie pour le continent ». Il craint que la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’Union ne mène les 27 États membres restants à agir les uns contre les autres « sans trop d’efforts » : « Les 27 autres États membres n’en sont pas encore conscients, mais les Britanniques savent d’ores et déjà très bien comment ils géreront cette situation. On promet une chose à un pays A, une autre à un pays B et une autre encore à un pays C. En fin de compte, il n’y a plus de front européen », assure-t-il. Il rappelle également qu’ « [il] avai[t] imaginé au début de mon mandat que je pouvais travailler de manière constructive, afin que les gens reprennent confiance en l’Europe , une confiance qu’ils avaient perdue. Et à présent [le] voilà occupé, plusieurs heures par jour, à planifier la sortie d’un État membre, ce n’est pas un travail d’avenir ».

Sur ce plan, Federica Mogherini s’est montrée bien moins pessimiste : elle estime que l’unité des Européens s’est renforcée au cours de ces derniers mois (cf. l’article « de Malte à Washington »).

L’unité de l’Europe a constitué un thème récurrent tout le long de son intervention. Il se montre en effet relativement pessimiste : concernant Trump et le Bexit, il indique qu’une majorité pense qu’il s’agit d’« une grande chance pour l’Europe, l’heure est venue de serrer les rangs et de marcher d’un même pas. Je souhaite que ce soit le cas, mais est-ce que c’est ce qui va se passer ? J’ai des doutes parce que les Britanniques peuvent diviser sans trop d’efforts les vingt-sept autres États membres », et de poursuivre : « L’Union évolue dans des directions différentes selon les pays, des directions difficilement compatibles entre elles ».

Les États membres de l’Union deviennent de plus en plus partagés sur des opinions « pas nécessairement compatibles », a-t-il ajouté en faisant référence à la Hongrie et à la Pologne.

« Les Hongrois ou les Polonais veulent-ils la même chose que les Allemands ou les Français? J’en doute fortement. Il est fondamental de remettre tout le monde d’accord. C’est la mission qui nous incombe dans les deux ou trois prochaines années. À l’heure des négociations avec les Britanniques, nous devons trouver un consensus sur la direction à donner à l’Union si nous voulons éviter toute tendance apocalyptique », a-t-il conclu.

Il a également précisé que la politique commerciale protectionniste du Président américain, Donald Trump, pourrait offrir « d’excellentes opportunités » à l’Union de conclure de nouveaux accords commerciaux avec d’autres pays.

« Nous ne devrions pas laisser les Britanniques agir comme s’ils pouvaient dès à présent signer leurs propres accords commerciaux avec d’autres pays, étant donné qu’ils n’y sont pas autorisés pour l’instant. En effet, tant que le Royaume-Uni sera membre de l’Union européenne, sa politique commerciale extérieure restera de la compétence de l’Union, et donc de la Commission », a-t-il souligné. Lors de son récent voyage à Washington Federica Mogherini l’a également très fermement rappelé (cf. l’article « De Malte à Washington »).

Concernant la montée des extrémismes, Jean-Claude Juncker se dit déçu par la réaction des dirigeants : « c’est un réflexe très anti démocratique que de céder aux pressions populistes, à l’approche des élections. Il ne faut pas courir après les populistes ni accuser les électeurs. Il faut parler aux gens et on peut mieux le faire quand on peut les regarder dans les yeux ». Jean-Claude Juncker a terminé son entretien en évoquant à nouveau l’unité de l’Europe : « Confrontée à Vladimir Poutine, l’Union européenne pourrait aussi se diviser quant aux sanctions frappant Moscou pour avoir annexé la Crimée ». L’unité de l’UE restera, à juste titre, l’obsession ultime du président de la Commission européenne.

Cette prise de position de Jean-Claude Juncker intervient en plein débat au Parlement européen sur l’avenir des Institutions et a confirmé que, malgré la poussée eurosceptique que connaît actuellement l’Union, le Parlement européen restait attaché au processus d’intégration européenne : « Une Union sans cesse plus étroite entre les peuples d’Europe » plutôt qu’une politique de la « différenciation » entre États et qu’une Europe à plusieurs vitesses. Les discussions parlementaires ont révélé une opposition marquée et profonde entre les partisans et les opposants d’une réforme des traités. Seul Guy Verhofstadt s’est positionné en faveur d’une réforme d’inspiration fédéraliste des textes fondateurs de l’Union. Ses opposants, eux, avancent que ce type de politique « réformiste » dissimule en réalité une volonté de conserver un statu quo confortable en cela qu’il rassure. Les comportements qu’a dénoncés Jean-Claude Juncker ne peuvent être modifiés par un simple changement des traités. Une minorité importante des États ne le veut pas et en la matière tout se décide à l’unanimité. Nous dirigeons nous vers une Europe malade de ses États ? Comment sortir de ce piège ? Peut-être le prochain la commémoration prochaine de la signature du Traité de Rome et la publication annoncée du Livre blanc de la Commission nous conduiront-ils vers un nouvel élan, un nouveau départ.

Pour en savoir plus :

-. Ouest France : Jean-Claude Juncker dresse un tableau bien sombre :

http://www.ouest-france.fr/europe/jean-claude-juncker-dresse-un-tableau-bien-sombre-de-l-union-europeenne-4797590

– . Halte au feu :

http://www.eu-logos.org/eu-logos_nea-say.php?idr=4&idnl=4005&nea=178&lang=fra&arch=0&term=0

Classé dans:BREVES, Citoyenneté européenne Tagged: Commission européenne, Jean-Claude Juncker, Union Européenne, unité

Ils n'ont pas encore leurs 500 signatures, mais ils se présentent à l'élection présidentielle française de 2017. Méconnus, surprenants, parfois même improbables, voici 5 "petits" candidats qui se rêvent président.

Les pistolets-mitrailleurs UMP de la Douane sont en cours de déploiement, après une phase
Plus d'infos »

Nagyjából az év eleje, január ötödike óta hivatalos le van zárva Csád és Líbia megközelíteleg 1000 kilométeres közös határszakasza, a hivatalos álláspont szerint a terrorista elemek beszivárgásának megakadályozása érdekében. Emellett a határmenti területeket katonai műveleti területeknek minősítették – mindez nem sokkal azután került bejelentésre, hogy az Afrikai Unió egy olyan jelentést tett közzé, amelyben arra figyelmeztette a Líbiával szomszédos országokat, hogy az Egyesült Államok légitámadásai következtében menekülni kényszerülő, Iszlám Államhoz köthető elemek a szomszédoknál keresnek menedéket. A határlezárás és a katonai műveletek bejelentése után nem sokkal a hadsereg egységei meg is indultak a határ felé, hogy ott őrjáratokat végezzenek és biztosítsák a területek biztonságát és stabilitását.

Ezzel pedig Csád most már két irányban küzd a szélsőségesek ellen, egyrészt déli határain (Nigéria illetve Kamerun vonatkozásában) az Iszlám Államnak felesküdött Boko Haram ellen, másrészt most harcot indított a becslések szerint pár száz, Észak-Csádban tartózkodó szélsőséges ellen. Szóval teljesen jogos és érthető a csádi vezetés lépése, de egyes publicisták és magukat szakértőnek tartó újságírók szerint a döntés hátterében a régióban ismét egyre erősödő kormányellenes lázadó mozgalmakkal szembeni fellépés is állhat – erre pedig vannak bizonyítékok, csak decemberben több, lázadók elleni akciót hajtott végre a csádi hadsereg az északi határ mentén (az északi határ mentén, amely hosszú ideig háborús konfliktust kiváltó, vitatott pont volt Líbia és Csád kapcsolatában és a mai napig több ezer akna rejtőzik errefelé a földben).

A rendkívül szigorú intézkedések ellen a napokban hangot emeltek a legészakibb, hatalmas Tibesti régió lakosainak képviselői is (pedig nincsenek túl sokan, alig 30 ezren laknak itt), akik szerint a rengeteg ellenőrzőpont és katona jelentősenn megnehezíti a mindennapi életet, ráadásul a határ lezárása miatt mindennek döbbenetes módon megdrágult az ára – tekintve, hogy itt az üzemanyagtól kezdve a cukron át a ruhákig mindent Líbiából szereztek be eddig. A régióban egészen 2003-ig elég komoly lázadást folytató Mozgalom a Demokráciáért és Igazságért (MDJT) egykori helyettes vezetője, Hassan Soukaya Youssouf is arra figyelmeztetett, hogy az “emberek szörnyen szenvednek a jelenlegi helyzettől”, ami növelheti eddig sem alacsony frusztrációjukat.

A fentebb már röviden taglalt aggályok mellett eléggé valószínűsíthető az is, hogy az Egyesült Államok terrorizmus elleni harcában fontos afrikai szövetségesnek számító Csád ezzel a lépésével is szerezte volna jelezni az új amerikai elnöknek, hogy N’Djamena továbbra is fontos partner szeretne lenni – és ennek értelemszerűen azt az oldalát is élvezni, hogy bizonyos mértékig a világhatalmak szemet hunynak ilyen-olyan kormányzati lépések felett. De akármilyen okok is vannak a háttérben, az biztos, hogy jelenleg a határ határozatlan ideig le van zárva.

twitter.com/napiafrika

2 ember kedveli ezt a posztot.Tetszett az írás.Tetszett az írás.

Közös nevezőre jutott a görög kormány a hitelezőket képviselő intézményekkel, így azonnal visszatérhetnek a szakértők Athénba, hogy befejezzék a görög program második felülvizsgálatát és megtervezzék a további reformokat. Az Eurócsoport elnöke szerint mostantól a megszorításokról a hangsúly áttevődik a szerkezeti reformokra.

Le roi du Maroc est en Zambie dans le cadre de sa tournée en Afrique australe. Sans surprise, au menu : coopération économique et rapprochement politique.

Cet article Maroc-Zambie : une pluie d’accords bilatéraux tombe pendant la visite de Mohammed VI à Lusaka est apparu en premier sur JeuneAfrique.com.

Les engagements à répétition de l'armée française fournissent une matière incroyable pour le petit et
Plus d'infos »