Agrégateur de flux

Une vingtaine de véhicules transportant des marchandises et des passagers, qui étaient bloqués depuis une semaine à Nturo et à Kitshanga dans le groupement des Bashali Mokoto dans le territoire de Masisi, ont été libérés et ont poursuivi leur voyage jusqu’à lundi 9 octobre vers la ville de Goma.

L'audience du charbon fin du lundi 9 octobre 2023, a consisté dans un premier temps, à présenter physiquement les « corps solides » qui n'ont pas fait l'objet d'expertise. Il a aussi été question de savoir s'il fallait, oui ou non, continuer l'expertise de ces « corps solides ». L'Etat a aussi demandé au tribunal la saisie, à titre conservatoire, des avoirs et des substances précieuses produites par la société IAMGOLD Essakane SA. Cette mesure ne joue-t-elle pas sur la présomption d'innocence ? Me Farama donne son avis.

Au cours de l'audience dans le cadre du procès « Charbon fin », l'avocat représentant l'Etat dans les débats, a demandé au tribunal, la saisie, à titre conservatoire, des avoirs et des substances précieuses produites par la société IAMGOLD Essakane SA.

Cette requête, pour les avocats de la défense, est une entrave à la présomption d'innocence. Pour Me Farama de la partie civile, ce n'est pas le cas. En droit, malgré notre statut de présumé innocent, on peut prendre des mesures conservatoires pour qu'au cas où on est condamné à la fin de la procédure, que l'État ou une partie civile puisse entrer dans ses droits.

« Pour moi, la saisie conservatoire n'intervient pas après une condamnation. Mais bien avant. Par essence, la saisie conservatoire entend préserver les intérêts. Pour moi, ça ne joue pas sur la présomption d'innocence. Mais le tribunal appréciera », a expliqué le spécialiste du droit.

L'autre problématique de ce procès : est-ce oui ou non, il faut continuer l'expertise de ces « corps solides » avant de continuer l'audience ou continuer l'audience sans aller au bout de l'expertise ? La tendance générale à l'issue de l'audience est pour la suspension de l'audience pour terminer l'expertise.

L'avocat de la partie civile a fait savoir que cette démarche est nécessaire. Parce que, a-t-il soutenu, pour une bonne administration de la justice, il faut permettre que ces « corps solides » soient expertisés.

« Qu'on nous dise sur ces 138 kg restants sur les 440 tonnes expertisées, quelle est la teneur exacte d'or ? Ce qui est ressorti du rapport d'expertise, c'est que la teneur en or dans sa partie expertisée était anormalement élevée par rapport aux normes. Les experts ont estimé que c'est même 13 fois au-dessus de ce qui est admissible dans les normes en termes de charbon fin. Maintenant, ce qui reste, c'est de savoir si dans les corps solides il y a d'autres matières en plus de l'or », a déclaré Me Farama.

Obissa Juste Mien
Lefaso.net

En novembre 2021, puis en janvier 2022, les Burkinabè ont eu recours aux solutions VPN (Réseau privé virtuel) pour contourner les coupures de l'internet mobile. Certains l'utilisent encore au quotidien pour contourner les blocages géographiques de certains sites. Est-ce légal d'utiliser ces solutions ? Comment fonctionnent-elles ? Sont-elles vraiment sûres ? Pour le savoir, nous avons contacté, ce lundi 9 octobre 2023, l'expert en cyber sécurité et en investigation numérique, Younoussa Sanfo.

Lefaso.net : Comment expliquez-vous le concept d'un VPN à une personne en français facile ?

Younoussa Sanfo : Imaginez qu'à partir de votre maison, vous creusez un tunnel jusqu'à la maison de votre voisin. Pour communiquer secrètement votre voisin et vous, au lieu de passer par la rue pour vous rendre visite, vous choisissez d'utiliser ce tunnel sous-terrain ou personne ne vous voit. C'est ça un VPN.

Quels sont les différents types de VPN ?

Les types de VPN les plus courants sont :

• Le VPN d'accès à distance, pour les entreprises et les particuliers
• Le VPN site à site ; pour interconnecter les grandes entreprises
• Le VPN personnel, pour les particuliers
• Le VPN professionnel pour les entreprises

Certaines entreprises possèdent un serveur VPN, installé sur un serveur physique, parfois sur un Firewall. Le personnel distant de l'entreprise se connecte à travers des clients VPN qui sont des logiciels VPN légers installés sur l'ordinateur ou le téléphone et permettent de se connecter au serveur VPN centralisé.

Comment fonctionnent-ils ?

Le VPN, en plus de chiffrer les données échangées, cache votre adresse IP pour vous éviter d'être repéré. Ainsi, lorsque vous utilisez un VPN, il est impossible pour des malfaiteurs de « voir » les informations que vous échangez avec vos interlocuteurs.

Le VPN vous permet de cacher certaines transactions que vous faites sur les réseaux de communications. Vous pouvez donc sécuriser vos communications en utilisant un VPN car ce dernier chiffre systématiquement toutes les communications entre vous et le serveur avec lequel vous communiquez et dans certains cas entre vous et votre correspondant si lui aussi utilise un VPN.

Note: ">Lire aussi : Piratage de pages Facebook d'institutions : L'expert Younoussa Sanfo conseille une réaction rapide pour minimiser les dommages et sécuriser le compte

Parfois, même les services spécialisés de l'Etat seront incapables de retracer les données échangées. Mais, il faut retenir que lorsque l'Etat s'en donne les moyens, il est difficile pour un citoyen d'échapper aux contrôles, sauf s'il choisit de ne plus utiliser les technologies de communication.

Les VPN sont-ils sûrs ?

Oui, le bon VPN est sûr car il chiffre les communications. A ce jour, le moyen le plus sûr de protéger une information est de la chiffrer et de garder les clés de chiffrement secrètes. C'est ce que fait le VPN.

Est-ce légal d'utiliser un VPN ?

L'utilisation de logiciel est légale. C'est l'utilisation de logiciels malveillants pour commettre des infractions qui est punie par la loi. Le VPN n'étant pas un logiciel malveillant, je peux dire sans risque de me tromper que l'utilisation d'un VPN pour se protéger n'est pas illégale.

L'utilisation des VPN ne ralentit-elle pas la connexion Internet ?

Evidemment, toutes les couches ajoutées à une transaction la ralentissent. Mais le ralentissement dû à l'utilisation d'un VPN n'est pas significatif. La lenteur ne me semble pas être un motif sérieux pour ne pas se protéger.

Doit-on garder le VPN activé tout le temps ?

Oui, il est préférable, si vous utilisez un VPN, de le garder toujours actif, car en le désactivant de temps en temps, vous prenez le risque de ne pas l'utiliser quand il le faut.

Doit-on se méfier des VPN gratuits ?

Nous devons éviter les VPN gratuits car, tous les VPN gratuits sont suspects. Mais attention, la majorité des éditeurs de VPN proposent une version gratuite appelé version d'essai. C'est une version qui en général ne possède pas toutes les fonctionnalités proposées par l'éditeur, mais ces versions gratuites proposées par les éditeurs vous protègent efficacement.

Par exemple, la version payante peut proposer des fonctionnalités qui vous permettent de ne pas oublier d'activer votre VPN quand il le faut. Certaines fonctionnalités vous permettent d'éviter certains pays et de favoriser d'autres pendant vos transactions. Les versions gratuites appelées version d'essai ne comportent pas ces fonctionnalités.

Sur la base de quels critères doit-on choisir son VPN ?

Le critère numéro 1 est la réputation de l'éditeur. En effectuant une recherche sur Internet, vous verrez facilement quels sont les VPN plébiscités par les professionnels de la sécurité et les utilisateurs. Le deuxième critère est la facilité d'utilisation, le troisième critère, c'est le budget.

Je vous suggère d'utiliser un VPN car le VPN chiffre vos transactions sur les réseaux. Je vous recommande d'éviter les logiciels gratuits (en dehors des logiciels Open Source) car la plupart des logiciels gratuits comportent des portes dérobées pour permettre à un cybercriminel d'accéder à votre ordinateur ou votre téléphone.

Entretien réalisé par Fredo Bassolé
Lefaso.net

Nommé par décret présidentiel le 4 octobre 2023, le lieutenant-colonel Kouagri Natama a pris le commandement des mains de son prédécesseur, le lieutenant-colonel Évrard Somda. Le cérémonial de passation est intervenu ce mardi 10 octobre 2023 à l'état-major de la gendarmerie nationale de Ouagadougou, en présence du chef d'état-major général des armées (CEMGA), le colonel-major Célestin Simporé.

Six jours après sa nomination, le lieutenant-colonel Kouagri Natama devient officiellement le Chef d'état-major de la gendarmerie nationale (CEMGN). Il prend le commandement « dans un contexte sécuritaire difficile sur fond de crispations pour certains personnels », a-t-il indiqué.

Dans son premier discours, Kouagri Natama a dévoilé les quatre défis que son commandement va chercher à relever. Dans un premier temps, le nouveau CEMGN veut préserver le moral des hommes par « une circulation fluide de l'information vraie ».

Le second défi est l'image de la gendarmerie nationale. « Il va s'agir pour chaque gendarme, quelle que soit sa position, de garder à l'esprit la préservation de l'image de marque d'une gendarmerie républicaine dotée de fortes traditions », a insisté Kouagri Natama.

« Ne nous laissons pas distraire et dérouter de nos missions », a exhorté le lieutenant-colonel Kouagri Natama

Le troisième défi est la reconquête du territoire national. « Nous renforcerons notre engagement dans la lutte auprès de nos frères d'armes, des VDP et des laborieuses populations sur l'ensemble du territoire », a promis le lieutenant-colonel Natama.
Quant au dernier défi, c'est celui de la poursuite des réformes internes nécessaires en cohérence avec les orientations et priorités nationales. Mais au-delà de la relecture des textes, le nouveau patron de la gendarmerie nationale veut que les hommes soient au cœur des actions.

Le CEMGA, colonel-major Célestin Simporé et le CEMGN sortant, lieutenant-colonel Evrard Somda (tenue bleue) après la revue de la troupe

Selon le lieutenant-colonel Kouagri Natama, il prend le commandement dans un contexte où les réseaux sociaux tentent de faire croire que la gendarmerie nationale sera dissoute. « Du haut de cette tribune, je voudrais vous rassurer, officiers, sous-officiers, gendarmes auxiliaires qu'il n'en est absolument rien ! », a-t-il déclaré. L'officier supérieur a invité les gendarmes « à croire en la bonne foi des plus hautes autorités » et en leurs chefs hiérarchiques.

Le nouveau CEMGN a tenu à rendre « un hommage appuyé » à son prédécesseur, le lieutenant-colonel Évrard Somda. Il a promis de préserver et consolider les acquis.

Cryspin Laoundiki
Lefaso.net

Les membres de l'Association congolaise de commissionnaires agréés en douane (ACCAD) sont en grève ce mardi 10 octobre à Uvira et Fizi (Sud-Kivu). Ils dénoncent le « désordre » entretenu par plusieurs services non apparents à la douane et qui opèrent illégalement aux frontières.

Ces services exigent des frais supplémentaires et sans document justificatif, selon les grévistes.

Le procès qui oppose la Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Burkina Faso (CCI-BF) à Martin Sawadogo ne connaît toujours pas de dénouement. Ce mardi 10 octobre 2023 au Tribunal de grande instance Ouaga 1, les juges devaient rendre leur verdict, mais une fois de plus, la date du délibéré a été prorogée et le jour où les parties devraient connaître enfin leur sort reste encore à être déterminé.

Mis en délibéré pour le 26 septembre à la date du 12 septembre 2023, le verdict de ce procès n'avait pu être prononcé et chaque partie devait attendre la date du 10 octobre, pour être situé sur la question. Mais en ce jour, le verdict à une fois de plus été renvoyé, mais cette fois, aux calendes grecques. « Ce que nous savons c'est que la date du délibéré devrait être prorogée, mais les juges qui ont siégé ne nous ont pas communiqué la date du renvoi », a donné comme explication le président du tribunal de ce jour. Conclusion, les parties devraient prendre leur mal en patience et attendre qu'une date leur soit communiquée.

Note: ">LIRE AUSSI : Affaire CCI-BF vs Martin Sawadogo : "Les français défendent leurs intérêts et moi j'ai le devoir de défendre les intérêts des entreprises burkinabè" le prevenu

En rappel, Martin Sawadogo est poursuivi pour des faits de diffamation et d'injures publiques contre les dirigeants de l'institution étatique qu'est la CCI-BF. A l'audience du mardi 12 septembre 2023, les parties avaient été entendues par le tribunal et l'accusé soutenait entre autres que la CCI-BF était « un monstre au service des intérêts français ». Des propos que l'institution assistée par Me Yves Somda a déplorés, rejetant en bloc les preuves avancées par Martin Sawadogo et soulignant qu'elles étaient non-fondées.

Note: ">LIRE AUSSI : Procès CCI-BF vs Martin Sawadogo : Le verdict renvoyé au 10 octobre

Notons par ailleurs qu'à cette date, l'audience avait débuté dans l'après-midi pour prendre fin carrément dans la soirée, un peu après 18h. Il fallait coûte que coûte épuiser le dossier le même jour car le tribunal était tenu par la prescription et passé cette date, l'affaire serait définitivement rangée dans les tiroirs. Soulignons aussi que toujours avant cette date (c'est à dire le 12 septembre), l'affaire avait connu trois renvois. Et le délibéré lui, est à son deuxième renvoi.

Erwan Compaoré
Lefaso.net

Au cours du mois de septembre 2023, la Police nationale a mené diverses actions de sécurisation du territoire.

On note que les Groupements des unités mobiles d'intervention (GUMI) sont intervenus dans les régions du Centre-nord, du Centre-est, de l'Est, de la Boucle du Mouhoun.

En outre, en collaboration avec les autres forces combattantes, la police a mené plus de 300 patrouilles, 18 missions de reconnaissance offensive, onze missions d'escorte et de ravitaillement dans les zones sous emprise des terroristes et une vingtaine de missions de ratissage.

Ci-dessous l'intégralité du point.

Dernière ligne droite en Pologne avant les élections parlementaires dimanche. Des élections qui pourraient voir le parti ultranationaliste et conservateur au pouvoir, le PiS, remporter un troisième mandat consécutif historique. Mais l'opposition dite démocratique n'a pas pour autant baissé les armes et poursuit sa campagne derrière son leader Donald Tusk, de la plateforme civique.

Although after the profligate fiscal policies of the Trump administration, it is difficult to take seriously that substantial spending cuts were the reason that Trump and the MAGA Republicans were so eager to make the United States default on its debt and trigger a government shutdown by attempting to block legislation to avoid these bad outcomes. After all, Trump was famous for boasting that “there’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money,” and then did it by presiding over a $7.8 trillion dollar rise in the national debt. During Trump’s four years in office, the MAGA crowd regularly raised the debt ceiling and kept the deficit-ridden federal government open. Yet, suddenly, when a Democrat won the 2020 election and became president, MAGA Republicans became deficit and debt hawks.

Yet, MAGA Republicans’ hypocritical rhetoric aside, the federal budget does need to be significantly cut to help reduce the nation’s colossal budget deficits and debt. Of course, such reductions are politically difficult because both parties have powerful vested interests that would squawk loudly if that were proposed. Another problem is that given the giant entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, most Veterans’ administration programs, unemployment compensation, and agricultural price supports—about two-thirds of federal spending is on autopilot, paying benefits to anyone who qualifies for them. About eight percent of the budget is the growing interest payments on the gargantuan and rising $33 trillion in national debt. About half of the remaining quarter of the budget—called “discretionary spending” that Congress appropriates yearly—is ever-ballooning defense spending. The other approximate half of that quarter is domestic discretionary spending—think of federal education, transportation, and infrastructure programs, etc.

When bank robber Willy Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said, “that’s where the money is.” In the federal government, the entitlement programs are where the pot of gold is. Thus, no serious budget-cutting plan should leave out entitlement reform, but only former Vice President Mike Pence has trumpeted it so far in the Republican primaries. In fact, former President Donald Trump, the overwhelming Republican frontrunner, has always promised he wouldn’t cut Social Security and Medicare. Because of powerful interest group support, politicians of both parties have learned over time that pledging to cut entitlements is a political loser. Pence, riding low in the polls, has only done so in a desperate attempt to distinguish himself from the large pack of candidates trying to challenge Trump for the nomination. 

Powerful interest groups also vociferously denounce cuts in other programs. For example, the federal security bureaucracies, defense industries, and media—supported by politicians of both parties—usually play the “patriotism” card to defend, spending almost $900 billion per year to police the informal U.S. global empire. Yet equating support for an offensively oriented military designed to project power around the world would not comport well with the nations’ founders’ conception of patriotism. The founders’ generation, and all American generations up until the post-Korean War Cold War period, were highly suspicious of large standing armies in peacetime and getting unnecessarily involved in faraway overseas quarrels. The founders correctly realized that both led to threats to liberty at home through the creation of overweening government power at home.

So, public support in America for keeping such large forces on hand permanently and using them to police the world is a fairly recent phenomenon. Currently, the American military budget is bigger than the next ten highest defense spending countries combined, including China, Russia, and many rich and robust U.S. allies. Despite the Cold War having ended long ago, the United States still has 800 military bases in seventy countries, many designed to fulfill formal and informal U.S. commitments to defend a plethora of allies and friendly nations. 

Frederick the Great, one of the best military minds in history, coined a phrase that best sums up a fundamental military principle: “To defend everything is to defend nothing.” Thus, adding countries under the U.S. defense umbrella (for example, adding Finland and maybe Sweden to NATO) or enhancing existing alliances (for example, President Joe Biden’s verbal pledge to defend Taiwan if attacked) merely adds to the already grossly overextended and therefore dangerous, U.S. security posture. Instead, given the excellent geographical security that the United States possesses, the U.S. government should choose more carefully what it critically needs to help defend, leaving the security of the rest to its many wealthy allies and friends worldwide. This more restrained American security posture would allow U.S. forces, bases, and defense budget to be cut, thus reducing the economy-dragging budget deficits and burgeoning debt. A healthy economy undergirds all forms of security through hard and soft power.  

Ivan R. Eland is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty. He is the author of War and the Rogue Presidency. He tweets at @Ivan_Eland.

The sudden and unexpected aggression from terrorist group Hamas has thrown the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) into a conundrum. Historically a bastion of rapid adaptability and mobilization, this recent incident has exposed potential fault lines in the IDF’s operational culture and reservist system, demanding scrutiny.

The Reservist System: An Economic Necessity or a Strategic Vulnerability?

Inspired by a visit to Switzerland after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, General Yigael Yadin implemented the 'nation in arms' principle. The Israeli military was structured as a people's army, with a streamlined professional core during peacetime that could be bolstered by reserves during conflicts. This approach was economical, as maintaining a large standing army was not feasible. Since Israel's geographic position made it prone to sudden attacks, it couldn't adopt the prolonged mobilization of the Soviets. Yet, the sustainability of this reservist model has increasingly come under pressure.

As Israel's societal fabric transformed, moving away from its immigrant roots, and transitioning towards a more stabilized socio-economic structure, the spirit of collective defense began to wane. Individual ambitions, often accompanied by a lower tolerance for casualties, began to eclipse national defense priorities. This schism was most palpably felt in the reservist ranks, where compensation disparities with regular forces emerged as a source of contention. In stark contrast to NATO nations, Israeli reservists were financially disadvantaged, fostering a lack of motivation to serve.

Furthermore, the decision to deploy reservists, often in significant numbers, for duty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was a significant oversight. These zones, marked by intricate socio-political dynamics, arguably demanded the expertise of the regular forces and the need for deeper operational continuity, unit cohesion, and an enhanced capacity to nurture local rapport.

Operational Culture: A Double-Edged Sword?

The 1990s marked a paradigm shift for the IDF, with a clear tilt towards technocentric warfare, mirroring the U.S. Army's trajectory. Buoyed by substantial investments in guided weaponry, information technologies, and advanced command systems, the IDF aimed for surgical precision in its operations. The guiding philosophy was to achieve swift resolutions with minimal collateral, both civilian and military. However, this tech-driven strategy showed its limitations, most notably in the 2006 Lebanon War. The IDF's engagements with lesser equipped Palestinian and Lebanese factions exposed an uncomfortable truth: while technology can enhance capabilities, over-reliance can erode foundational military competencies.

Within the IDF's strategic corridors, voices from General Elyezer Schkedy and others, highlighted glaring operational disconnects, especially the rift between air and ground units. This lack of cohesive synergy can be traced back to significant events, such as Israel's strategic withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, which resulted from siloed operations. In response, General Yohanan Locker and Gabi Shachon spearheaded collaborative dialogues and integrated training sessions. By 2007, the IDF had launched its inaugural joint chief of staff course, and concurrently, the IAF earmarked specialized aerial resources for terrestrial missions. This revitalized partnership bore fruit during 2008's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, reflecting an enhanced air-ground alignment.

However, the most profound challenge lies embedded in the very fabric of the IDF's culture. The "'bitzu’ist'" ethos, which venerates intuition over analysis and lived experiences over theoretical rigor, is an offshoot of Israel's broader societal narrative. This perspective, celebrating on-the-ground problem-solving, has fermented anti-intellectualism in the military and has nurtured an environment where immediate tactical solutions often overshadow long-term strategic vision. Indeed, General Gershon HaCohen once articulated that active-duty soldiers couldn't afford the luxury of delving deep into military theory. With Israel's societal shifts leading many academically-inclined individuals towards civilian avenues, the IDF has found its strategic reservoir somewhat diminished. Even innovations, like the IDF's shift in urban warfare tactics, moving from street clashes to indoor house-breaching maneuvers because of enemy actions, indicates a reactive rather than a proactive strategic approach.

Though the IDF has borrowed from global armies, there's a marked reluctance to wholly adopt foreign doctrines. This originates from the same cultural underemphasis on formal military education and the pragmatic approach towards skills useful post-military service. Ironically, while General Shimon Naveh's effort to incorporate postmodern jargon into military tactics was valuable, it was frequently cited as a reason for the IDF's challenges during the 2006 Lebanon war. The IDF had also become overly dependent on high-quality intelligence from various intelligence agencies to reduce operational uncertainties. This often revealed the IDF's preference for practical goals over deeper strategic insights.

Towards a More Nuanced Future

In the aftermath of the recent Hamas-initiated hostilities, the IDF stands at a critical juncture. The timeless spirit of Israel's early pioneers, with their egalitarian values, must now dovetail with modern strategic imperatives. As the regional geopolitical chessboard evolves, so must the IDF's operational and strategic frameworks. A comprehensive reevaluation, encompassing both the reservist structure and the operational culture, is not just advisable—it's imperative for Israel's future security landscape.

Carlo J.V. Caro is a political and military analyst. He has a graduate degree from Columbia University.

This article was first published by RealClearDefense.

Image: ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

Hamas, the Gaza-based Palestinian militant group that mounted a deadly surprise attack on Israel that has killed – at last count – at least 1,200 Israelis, has captured what are estimated to be 150 hostages. Brought back to Gaza, those hostages include children, members of the military and the elderly. Most are civilians captured from the towns bordering Gaza. President Joe Biden revealed on Oct. 10, 2023, that some are Americans. Hamas has said that every time Israel strikes a Gaza home “without warning,” a hostage will be killed, and that execution would be recorded and the recording played for the public.

The Conversation asked James Forest, a University of Massachusetts Lowell expert on international security, to help readers understand the dynamics of this hostage crisis.

The taking of hostages looks like a planned part of this Hamas operation – why would Hamas do this?

Terrorist groups have historically taken hostages to gain leverage in negotiating for policy concessions, financial ransoms or the release of imprisoned comrades, and generally to influence the decisions and behavior of the targeted government.

In this instance, Hamas has stated that its goal is about forcing Israel to release imprisoned Palestinians. Its threat to kill hostages in retaliation for unannounced attacks against Gaza is another example of attempted coercion of Israeli leaders.

Hamas also has a vulnerability that many other terrorist groups have not had – namely, a physical territory of its own that can be targeted.

Holding hostages in unknown locations throughout this territory is an attempt to prevent Israel from launching military strikes that could inadvertently kill Israeli citizens. And taking hostages could also be intended to generate morale among Hamas supporters domestically and internationally by showcasing the group’s abilities to frighten and harm a more powerful adversary.

Similar to the hostage-taking at the 1972 Munich Olympics by the Palestinian group Black September, another likely objective here is to draw international attention to the desperation of people living in blockaded, impoverished Gaza.

However, attention doesn’t necessarily lead to sympathy. Taking innocents hostage, especially children and the elderly, is condemned worldwide, and it will be hard to find sympathy for the perpetrators of such crimes even when they’re claiming to free their land from occupation. Further, when citizens of other countries – such as the U.S. – are among the hostages, Hamas will likely find this to have been a counterproductive decision because it could invite retaliation from multiple countries.

Two other strategic considerations behind this act would be provocation and spoiling. Hamas is likely drawing on classic strategy in which the terrorists try to provoke the targeted government into an overly heavy-handed response. Hamas likely wants to enrage Israel to the point that Israel begins lashing out against Palestinians with escalating brutality. This, in turn, would support the so-called spoiler strategy, by disrupting current efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Arab nations.

What choices do the Israelis have for responding?

Democratic governments face many challenges in responding to terrorist groups taking their citizens hostage. Israel cannot be seen to underreact, yet neither should it overreact.

Among the different counterterrorism strategies they could pursue, repression – including collective punishment, an approach frequently used by Israel in the past – would seek to deter Hamas from conducting further terrorist attacks, and also to raise the level of hardship among Palestinians in Gaza to a point that they rise up against Hamas. Examples of repression in response to terrorism include prohibiting free speech or public gatherings, arresting political activists without probable cause, arbitrary searches and destruction of homes, and deportations.

A July 2020 United Nations report noted: “While Israel’s justification for imposing the closure on Gaza was to contain Hamas and ensure Israel’s security, the actual impact of the closure has been the destruction of Gaza’s economy, causing immeasurable suffering to its two million inhabitants.” To date, repression has not produced the results sought by Israel.

Another strategy, referred to by scholars as “decapitation,” involves the capturing or killing of a terrorist group’s leaders.

Three important challenges come with this approach, the most important of which is locating the group’s leaders when they are being sheltered within a territory with so many tunnels – as Gaza has – and among Hamas supporters.

Second, if Israel is able to capture Hamas’ leaders, there may not be much political will on either side of this conflict to negotiate a prisoner-hostage swap, at least not while the daily carnage fuels their desire for vengeance. Third, if top commanders of Hamas are killed, there is always a chance they could be replaced with new leaders who are more brutal than the previous ones.

Finally, another option available to Israel is negotiation. In years past, government leaders have arranged for the release of Israeli hostages, including soldiers, in return for the release of imprisoned Palestinians.

However, negotiation almost never takes place in the midst of an active military confrontation. Instead, the historical pattern suggests any potential negotiations would wait until some time after the guns and rockets have gone quiet.

Hamas leaders believe a fundamental source of their perceived legitimacy is based on their ability and willingness to violently confront Israel. So the underlying challenge is that there is no hope of negotiating a lasting peace with a group that does not see peaceful coexistence as being in its best interest.

How would a hostage in this situation be treated? Do we know based on previous hostage-taking?

It’s hard to say for sure. I think it will vary according to a mix of contextual factors, like who the hostage is and who is holding them hostage.

It is likely that Hamas leaders have given orders to their units that hostages are not to be harmed, and they are to be moved around and held in various locations in hopes of deterring Israeli military strikes.

However, disciplined adherence to such commands is not always the case among terrorist groups – especially in the midst of an active military confrontation. That said, most violent groups recognize that if their hostages are killed, they will lose whatever bargaining chips they had hoped to gain.

Is there a role for intermediaries? If so, who might they be?

Finding an intermediary who is trusted by all parties will be exceedingly difficult, as trust is hard to come by in this region. And whether it’s a country with influence – like the U.S. – or an international organization, it’s likely that an opportunity for intermediaries to help arrange the return of hostages will only emerge after the active shooting, rocket attacks and air strikes have subsided.

How might the taking of these hostages affect the conduct of the war, on both sides?

Israeli forces are surely being told to try to avoid actions that could harm the hostages. Throughout this conflict, assistance from U.S. and other intelligence agencies will likely help Israel locate targets to attack and hostages to rescue. Some hostages could be found and reunited with their families.

Hamas will likely use the hostage drama to generate lasting media attention. The group’s leaders may feel that a building destroyed by a bomb will generate some photos and headlines for perhaps a few days, but posting online photos and videos each week of Israelis being held captive would garner the spotlight for Hamas much longer. In the end, both sides must tread carefully.

James Forest is Professor and Director of Security Studies in the School of Criminology and Justice Studies at UMass Lowell.

This article was first published by The Conversation.

Image: Anas-Mohammed / Shutterstock.com

The backstory to this article is a well-known one for Green Berets and Rangers. Green Berets and Rangers are all aware of the coveted award that was the Combat Diver “bubble” as the badge was affectionately titled due to its appearance that is awarded upon graduating from the Combat Diver Qualification Course.

“Earning” the revered scuba diver badge meant a hike in the base pay of the recipient by $175 monthly. (That was of course a slew of years ago and I don’t know what the monthly dive pay is now – if there is still one.)

Yet, the Combat Diver Qualification Course had a hideously high attrition rate. (I had to take it twice, having washed out on my first try.) So, the command’s answer to the high attrition rate was to give the men a “pre-scuba” training course that featured the first full of extremely difficult exercises that caused the majority of failures in the actual course.

Typically the responsibility for organizing and executing the pre-scuba course was assigned to one of the battalion dive teams, which would train the other men of the unit who wanted to attend the actual dive course in Key West, Florida.

This is where me and my Combat Dive team of 12 men come into the picture. We were chosen by the command to organize and execute a pre-scuba course for the battalion’s “wannabee” combat divers. I loved the idea of teaching the course and looked forward to the day that it began.

I would be the lead instructor for the swimming pool training. I sat in the lifeguard’s chair and blew the signal whistle indicating the start of various difficult training events. What a skate job, right? The men grew to hate the sound of that blaring whistle.

The entire pre-scuba training course lasted one week. Oh, and there was an end-of-course tradition that was as revered and as holy as the Ark of the Covenant. According to the tradition, at the end of the week, the students rally, apprehend by force, and toss the screaming instructor into the pool to ingest a little bit of his own medicine.

I knew it was coming for me too, but I had a plan: On the last day of training, I excused myself from the class saying that I needed to change clothes in order to attend a meeting involving the civilian gentleman who was the “owner” of the swimming pool training facility. With that, I retired to the swimming pool shower room.

Little did the men know (except a good friend of mine from my dive team), that I had gone to the Salvation Army the night before and bought a business formal suit for about $17.00 American skizzies.

“Here he comes!!” A student whisper-shouted when I came out of the shower room, and the men all poised themselves for the onslaught…

But out I stepped wearing my $17.00 suit. The class stopped still and was stunned with indecision.

“Get him and throw him in the pool!”

“No man! We can’t throw him in the pool ruining his suit and his meeting!”

“He’s wearing white socks… that’s not what a man in a business suit wears!”

As they stood frozen I began to taunt them:

“You men are all chickenshit, and don’t have the balls to keep tradition and throw me in the pool – I’m disappointed and ashamed of you all.”

“Every swinging Richard hit the pool deck and knock out 75 pushups for your cowardice and lack of temerity!” I continued. That ticked off and emboldened the warriors who finally made a consolidated and defiant move.

Three men stepped up and pinned me with my back to the pool. With one guy making the first move, the gang quickly sent me cartwheeling into the drink! *sniff*

Dang, but I was proud of them all for having the gall to uphold a sacred tradition… plus they didn’t want to do 75 pushups. I bobbed alone in the water and yelled at the men to still get down on the ground and do the aforementioned pushups. They all just laughed at me and the whole episode was over.

There was nothing left to do but vault my waterlogged body out of the water and pout. The whole bout went very well and the powers that be were quite pleased. I enjoyed every minute of it and slept well that night.

By Almighty God and With Honor,

geo sends

George Hand is a Master Sergeant US Army (ret) from the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, The Delta Force. In service, he maintained a high level of proficiency in 6 foreign languages. Post-military, George worked as a subcontractor for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the nuclear test site north of Las Vegas Nevada for 16 years. Currently, George works as an Intelligence Analyst and street operative in the fight against human trafficking. A master cabinet-grade woodworker and master photographer, George is a man of diverse interests and broad talents.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Image: Shutterstock.

At a time when the world is struggling to cope with high inflation, the rising cost of living, and the impacts of the Ukraine war and now the Israel–Hamas conflict, a 30–40% jump in the price of Brent crude per barrel since July entails serious economic, social and political consequences. The price per barrel is edging towards US$100. While that’s less than the US$130 a barrel reached in April 2022, it could still derail or prolong the global economic recovery. What has caused the price hike and who can moderate it?

Two oil-producing states from opposite ends of the political spectrum hold the keys to affecting the price of oil: Saudi Arabia and Russia. The former is supposed to be a US ally and the latter is a bitter US adversary. Yet the two countries have acted in concert in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries—Plus (OPEC+) to reduce their oil production in the name of stabilizing the market. The Saudis have cut back their output by nearly two million barrels a day from a height of 11 million and Russia has dropped its production by some half a million barrels per day in the past several months, causing a shortage of supply in the global market.

Undoubtedly, both actors are driven by a desire for more revenue, but their actions also underline an alliance of grievances against the United States. The de facto and power-ambitious Saudi ruler Mohammad bin Salman (widely known as MBS) has acted for domestic and foreign policy reasons. The prince, who wants more revenue to accelerate his vision of socially modernizing his kingdom and turning it into an economic powerhouse, has been offside with the US since the advent of President Joe Biden’s administration.

MBS has, most importantly, resented the president’s early criticisms of him for human rights violations and the release of US intelligence findings that implicated him in the gruesome killing of Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in October 2018. He has ignored Biden’s request for Saudi restraint in any action that could increase oil prices and his overtures to return Saudi–US relations to their traditional status of close friendship.

The prince has subtly engaged in a process of diversifying Saudi foreign policy, not to completely debase the kingdom’s special bonds with the US as its main security provider, but to be in a position to deflect Washington’s pressure when required. He has opted for a mutual strengthening of relations with Russia and China. He has cooperated with President Vladimir Putin within the framework of OPEC+ and refrained from openly condemning Russia’s Ukraine aggression. He had very friendly interactions with the Russian leader at the G20 summits prior to the International Criminal Court’s issuing of a warrant for Putin’s arrest for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Meanwhile, he has offered to mediate between Moscow and Kyiv. This must be disconcerting for Washington, which has sought to limit Russia’s revenue and isolate and punish Putin for his Ukraine adventure.

Under MBS, Saudi Arabia has strengthened its trade and economic ties with China—the largest importer of Saudi oil. Riyadh has been invited to join the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and has even indicated a willingness to join the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as a dialogue member. It has also restored ties with its regional rival, Iran, after China brokered peace talks between the two. And it has been looking to normalize relations with Israel—a US strategic partner and bitter foe of Iran—though that the Israel–Hamas war will likely confound that project.

Putin has been doing whatever possible to drive a wedge between the US and its allies. He needs more friends and money to fund the war in Ukraine and to deflect Western sanctions, while appreciating the cooperation of Saudi Arabia as the largest and therefore most influential producer in OPEC+. As long as the Saudi–Russian alignment of interests exists, the price of oil is unlikely to drop anytime soon, unless there’s a marked reduction in global consumption, which at this stage doesn’t seem to be on the horizon, despite China’s economic slowdown. Hard times for oil consumers lie ahead.

Amin Saikal is professor emeritus of Middle Eastern studies at the Australian National University and adjunct professor of social sciences at the University of Western Australia. He is the author of the forthcoming book How to lose a war: the story of America’s intervention in Afghanistan.

This article was first published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Image: Shutterstock.

Imagine you are the dictator of a small, impoverished country. You are, by nature, paranoid about potential threats to your survival and control of your country. Indeed, your number one objective is regime survival and control. So you devise a story about one of your neighbors and the United States being your vicious enemies, intent on devastating your country. This becomes the base fabrication of a series of manufactured claims, including how wonderful your country is and how outside powers are inferior and hostile. You brutally suppress any internal opposition to this view and shut out as much external information as possible that might contest your assertions.

You also spend a large fraction of your meager gross domestic product to sustain your military and provide it with whatever advanced weapons you can. You explain that these forces are necessary to deter and defeat your enemies. You pursue the ultimate weapon system, nuclear weapons, to make yourself appear, both inside your country and beyond, a powerful and necessary leader. You plan to also use nuclear weapons for coercive purposes against the neighboring country you want to dominate. You then claim that your country is a powerful nuclear weapon state, one of only nine in the world, and thus a truly remarkable country, made great by your leadership.

This perspective helps us understand why Kim Jong-un feels he really cannot give up his nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are critical to the worldview Kim has created for his people to justify his brutal reign and provide a means to achieve his objective of dominating South Korea. Eliminate the nuclear weapons, and Kim is little more than a poor leader of a weak state, ripe for overthrow, much like the Kim family’s friend Nicolae Ceaușescu, who was overthrown as the dictator of Romania in 1989. 

That is not to say that Kim cannot be overthrown, but such an outcome is much less likely as long as he possesses a meaningful number of nuclear weapons. Indeed, Kim has announced that he will exponentially increase his nuclear weapons, apparently intent on building a relatively significant force of perhaps 300 to 500 nuclear weapons or more. 

In short, Kim has created conditions that make it inconceivable that he could denuclearize. And yet, his possession of nuclear weapons does not guarantee his regime’s survival. It is true that the United States and South Korea have much more to lose than gain from an invasion of the North. But if they perceive that Kim could well launch a nuclear attack, they may decide that they have little choice but to act first. The same is true of how China feels about North Korea. China has even threatened to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons if the regime pursues war or collapses.

The United States needs to make North Korean denuclearization a long-term objective but focus in the immediate future on limiting the size and danger of the North Korean nuclear weapon force by achieving a complete or major freeze of North Korean nuclear weapon production. Kim would view such a freeze as countering his objectives and thus a jeopardy to his regime. Therefore, to succeed, a ROK-U.S. effort to achieve a freeze must also challenge his administration through information operations. Such joint action could lead to North Korean escalation, but It appears inevitable as part of the North’s anticipated coercion once its nuclear weapon force grows. Are not South Korea and the United States better off facing escalation now rather than waiting for Kim to possess hundreds of nuclear weapons, which may well tempt him into more severe provocations and coercion? As Kim’s actions become more threatening, the risks of a catastrophic accidental nuclear war become more likely. This is one time when “kicking the can down the road” is not a wise choice.

Bruce W. Bennett is a senior international/defense researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. He works primarily on research topics such as strategy, force planning, and counterproliferation within the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center.

Image Credit: U.S. Government. 

Israel is reeling after an unprecedented attack that killed over 1200 and forced tens of thousands of Israelis to flee their homes. Hamas’ goal, outlined in its founding document, is ethnic cleansing and the elimination of the Jewish state. Even after the guns of Israel’s response go silent, Israeli diplomats will seek Western pressure, if not sanctions, on those providing Hamas with the weaponry it needed to launch its brutal surprise attack.

Israelis have not been the only people under fire this past month, however. Azerbaijani dictator Ilham Aliyev continues to celebrate his conquest of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azerbaijani advance and threat of genocide forced that mountainous region’s indigenous Armenian population to flee en masse into Armenia proper. For the first time since St. Gregory the Illuminator converted Armenia to Christianity in 301 AD, Nagorno-Karabakh will be devoid of a Christian community, except perhaps for a few whom the Azerbaijani government treats as living museum exhibits for visiting dignitaries on the stage-managed visits. The Aliyev regime, meanwhile, now openly talks about continuing its advance, perhaps even to the Armenian capital of Yerevan.

Aliyev’s decision to address disputes with Armenia by war rather than diplomacy rests largely on the qualitative edge Azerbaijan gained when Israeli companies agreed to sell him top-shelf military technology against which Armenia had no defense. Thousands of deaths over the past three years were, therefore, unnecessary. 

Prior to the Israeli weapons sales, Minsk Group diplomats from the United States, France, and even Russia, alongside their Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts, had already outlined a far more comprehensive and just agreement. Armenian and Azerbaijani negotiators had largely agreed to an Armenian return of occupied Azerbaijani districts, swaps of unsustainable enclaves, and a right of return to Nagorno-Karabakh for Azeris who fled in the early 1990s. The agreement would have also enshrined the basic democratic freedoms that Nagorno-Karabakh enjoyed. Discussions had advanced to discuss timelines and identify potential external peacekeeping forces, perhaps from the Scandinavian countries. What changed Aliyev’s calculation was, in part, the advanced weapons systems Israel was willing to provide. Between 2016 and 2020, Israel accounted for almost 70 percent of Azerbaijan’s “major arms” imports. 

Israel might justify its weapons trade with Azerbaijan in arms-for-energy calculations or Azerbaijan’s willingness to assist Israeli infiltration of Iran. Such excuses fall flat. The Abraham Accords meant that Israel had energy options beyond Azerbaijan. Journalists might criticize the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) human rights record and foreign policy, but its political rights and civil liberty scores are double those of Azerbaijan, according to the latest Freedom House rankings. Most importantly, the UAE does not incite genocide against its rivals, nor does it harbor irredentist ambitions as Aliyev does.

Nor is the threat Iran poses to Israel a reason to back an increasingly erratic dictator. Not only does Azerbaijan have its own reasons to counter Iran regardless of any Israeli incentives, but Israel also has other options in Iraqi Kurdistan, a region they have thoroughly penetrated. In hindsight, the weaponry Israel exported to Azerbaijan would have been better utilized to defend Israel’s own borders with Gaza and Lebanon.

Nor should anyone in Washington accept Jerusalem’s arguments that their arms dealing with Azerbaijan was strategic only. Money matters. For years, Israeli officials downplayed American concerns about Israel’s technology trade with the Chinese Communist Party. When push came to shove, Israeli businesses hoped to profit off the trade. When the diplomatic dispute came to a head, Israel’s initial refusal and arrogant dismissal of American concerns escalated the crisis unnecessarily. 

Just as the Biden administration rallies to prevent the escalation of attacks on Israel, it is also imperative the United States act to constrain Aliyev before he commits even more gross violations of human rights. Azerbaijani forces wearing arms patches celebrating the first Armenian Genocide raise concern about his ultimate intent. So does the arrest of both billionaire and former State Minister Reuben Vardanyan (a former colleague of Samantha Power at the Aurora Foundation) and Foreign Minister David Babayan. Every Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Turkey sees the parallels between their detention and the 1915 arrests of Armenian intellectuals that kicked off the first Armenian Genocide. When it comes to genocidal intent, the only difference between the Azerbaijani army and Hamas is the targets of their ambition.

Just as congressmen demand Washington reconsider its relationship with Qatar, a state that effectively serves as Hamas’ banker, so too do representatives and senators demand the Biden administration cut off military aid to Azerbaijan. Frankly, both steps are long overdue, but if the goal is to prevent further Azerbaijani aggression and to compel the withdrawal of Azerbaijani forces from dozens of square miles they occupy in Armenia proper, it is also necessary to sanction the Israeli enablers of Azerbaijani aggression and ethnic cleansing. While defending Israel in its existential struggle is right, such support should not mean sacrificing the world’s oldest Christian state. Standing up to racist aggression should not be an either-or prospect; we can do both. 

This is why it is necessary to target Israeli individuals complicit in Azerbaijan’s genocide with Magnitsky Act sanctions.

In 2017, Israel’s Aeronautics Defense Systems Ltd. reportedly demonstrated the use of a suicide drone against an Armenian position in order to win an Azerbaijani contract. Israel’s state attorney’s office summoned Amos Matan, the company’s chief executive officer; his deputy Meir Rizmovitch; development director Haim Hivashar; and marketing director David Goldin. In 2020, Matan stepped down against the backdrop of the criminal investigation and appointed Moshe Elazer, the naval systems director at Israeli defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, to be his replacement.

In 2019, the Israeli Defense Ministry reinstated the Aeronautics Defense Systems’ export license so that the company might resume arms sales to Azerbaijan. Subsequently, dozens of cargo flights departed Israel for Azerbaijan, allegedly loaded with arms. Such weapons transfers undermined multilateral diplomacy and convinced Aliyev he had a license to kill and made Israel complicit in Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic cleansing. 

If Aeronautics Defense System’s peacetime attack on Armenian positions was a shot heard around the South Caucasus, perhaps designating past and current officers of the company under the Global Magnitsky Act could be a shot heard from Jerusalem to Ankara and Baku to Moscow. Israel has every right to act in defense of its own security, given the existential threat it faces from Iran and the terrorist challenges it faces from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Still, Israeli government officials and business people should have no right to undermine democracies or grease the wheels of ethnic cleansing. Being both a US ally and a terror victim themselves should not provide immunity for Israeli defense executives to profit from similar abuses. 

Israelis are right that they are a sovereign country, not an American satrapy. They can make their own decisions. By the same logic, however, they should not expect U.S. support for the commercial decisions their defense executives make; quite the contrary. When Israel acts as egregiously as it has in the South Caucasus, those most involved in drone exports should expect consequences. If they do not wish to face those, then it is time they find a better client than Azerbaijan.

Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Shutterstock. 

LÉRAK!

Zord

The U.S. is considering deploying USS Eisenhower along USS Ford in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, in what would be a massive show of force. Following the Hamas attack on Israel, the U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd [...]

The post Second U.S. Aircraft Carrier Might Join USS Gerald Ford Off Israel appeared first on The Aviationist.

 

Le chef de la Police de la MONUSCO, général Mody Berethe, a réitéré, lundi 9 octobre à Beni(Nord-Kivu) le soutien de la mission onusienne à la Police nationale congolaise( PNC).

L’officier onusien a réaffirmé cet engagement lors d’une visite de travail de 48 heures à Beni.

La 5e édition du Salon des activités minières d'Afrique de l'Ouest (SAMAO) a refermé ses portes le 30 septembre dernier. Pendant 3 jours, à Ouaga 2000, des centaines d'acteurs du secteur minier venus d'Afrique et d'ailleurs ont rivalisé dans l'exposition de leur savoir-faire dans le domaine. De multiples prix ont été décernés par les organisateurs qui ont travaillé sous la supervision du ministère burkinabè de l'Energie des Mines et Carrières.

Parmi les grands lauréats, figure Jody Prema Company BF SARL. Elle a remporté le premier prix dans la catégorie fournisseur de biens et services miniers. Focus sur cette jeune société dont le professionnalisme lui a valu cette grande distinction :
Jody Prema Company BF est une SARL de droit burkinabè créé en 2020 et enregistrée sous le RCCM BF OUA 2020B9973. Les domaines d'activité de la société portent essentiellement sur :
La fourniture des produits chimiques pour le traitement des minerais ;
Des réactifs pour les laboratoires ;
Le traitement des eaux (usées & potables) ;
L'installation et le service après-vente d'unités de production d'oxygène industrielle et médicale ;
La signalétique à Energie renouvelable ;
L'éclairage public et industrielle ;
La fourniture de pièces de rechange et d'équipements miniers ;
La vente d'absorbants de matières grasses et de produits chimiques ;
L'offre de services de transport et logistique.

La société est aujourd'hui implantée au Burkina et au Ghana avec des distributeurs au Mali, Niger, Côte d'Ivoire, Sénégal et en RDC. Elle emploie plus d'une dizaine de travailleurs permanents et de non permanents pour des tâches occasionnelles.
Jody Prema Company BF est une entreprise citoyenne et responsable qui promeut de jeunes talents issus des centres de formation et sans expérience avec pour leitmotiv la lutte contre le chômage des jeunes, tout le contraire de plusieurs entreprises qui recrutent sur la base de grandes expériences.

Parmi les nombreux partenaires de Jody Prema on compte des groupes de renommée internationale comme ChemQuest, Rikair, Brentwood Engineering, ACT ICT, Trubrand et Malollan International. La direction générale avec à sa tête, le Manager Principal, Poda DABIRE, travaille au développement des portefeuilles clients et partenaires et la 5e édition du SAMAO était une belle opportunité.

Ainsi, pour une première participation à ce salon, ce fut une grande réussite. En effet, le stand de Jody Prema a reçu beaucoup de visiteurs à cette occasion. De nouvelles relations ont ainsi été tissées, des adresses échangées et des rendez-vous pris pour l'avenir.

Le prix de meilleur stand couronne les efforts de visibilité de cette jeune société. Il est aussi un indicateur de performance sur le plan du développement progressif de Jody Prema Company BF en respectant ses responsabilités sociales et environnentales. Dans un domaine d'activités à fort impact sur la nature comme les mines, c'est un label de sérieux. Ce premier prix est également un avantage concurrentiel sur les autres entreprises de biens et services dans les secteurs miniers et médicaux que nous côtoyons dans les pays où la société est présente. Bref, cette distinction sera, par la grâce de Dieu, un plus pour le rayonnement de Jody Prema Company BF.
Contact Jody Prema Company BF :
Tel : 25 41 50 30 /31 - Courriel : info@jodypremaltd.com

W. Harold Alex Kaboré

"Cutting water, cutting electricity, cutting food to a mass of civilian people is against international law," said EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in Muscat.