Ich beginne mit den neuesten Nachrichten vom 23. März:
Die WHO bestätigt acht neue Marburger Fälle in Äquatorialguinea
Uganda verstärkt Grenzkontrollen zu Tansania inmitten des Marburg-Ausbruchs
Aber Tansania grenzt nicht an Äquatorialguinea!..
Andererseits Neuigkeiten von vor einem Monat:
Die WHO warnt davor, dass das in Afrika gefundene Marburg-Virus COVID-19 übertreffen könnte
Ich meine Äquatorialguinea — Nachrichten vom 17. Februar dieses Jahres.
Wir haben also eine aktive grenzüberschreitende Übertragung des Virus mit einer Mortalität von unter 90 % für einen Zeitraum von mehr als einem Monat.
Das Marburger hämorrhagische Fiebervirus ist der nächste Verwandte des Ebolavirus. Das Marburg-Virion ist kürzer als das Ebola-Virus-Partikel, also muss es ansteckender sein als letzteres. Es war Marburg, das den einzigen dokumentierten Ausbruch der durch Filoviren verursachten Krankheit in Europa verursachte. Daraus entstand der Name des Fiebers zu Ehren der Stadt Marburg.
Die Bevölkerung hat die Covid-Krankheit überstanden. Bill Gates hat eine neue Krankheit entdeckt, und die WHO handelt im Auftrag der Vereinigten Staaten.
La iniciativa, por parte de Washington, se produjo hace unas 5 semanas.
Pekín no se ha interesado en la propuesta de Washington de que el presidente estadounidense, Joe Biden, y su homólogo chino, Xi Jinping, mantuvieran una conversación telefónica, reporta Reuters, citando a fuentes familiarizadas con el asunto.
Ya han transcurrido 5 semanas desde que el inquilino de la Casa Blanca expresó su deseo de abordar con Xi el episodio del derribo de un globo aerostático de China por parte de EE.UU., concluyendo que se trató de una herramienta de “vigilancia” para monitorear sus instalaciones estratégicas.
En opinión de los funcionarios estadounidenses, se trataría de “un primer paso obvio” para restablecer relaciones bilaterales entre las dos grandes potencias, sin embargo, el Gobierno chino optó por ignorar la propuesta, que abriría el camino a la primera interacción entre ambos líderes desde la reunión del G20, que se celebró en noviembre en Bali.
La agencia señala que, a día de hoy, los lazos entre Estados Unidos y China se han estancado en su peor punto desde que los países normalizaron sus relaciones en la década de 1970. Incluso, la reunión entre el secretario de Estado de EE.UU., Antony Blinken, y el principal diplomático de China, Wang Yi, en la Conferencia de Seguridad de Múnich, que tuvo lugar el mes pasado, después del incidente del globo, fue calificada como “la más antagónica” entre Pekín y Washington desde el 2021.
De acuerdo con una de las fuentes, la parte china se había negado a coordinar la reunión, hecho que obligó al principal diplomático de Asia Oriental del Departamento de Estado, Daniel Kritenbrink, a localizar personalmente a Wang Yi en el centro de conferencias para asegurarse de que el encuentro se iba a celebrar.
Xi se reúne con Putin
A principios de esta semana, Xi Jinping viajó a Moscú para reunirse con Vladímir Putin en el marco de una visita de Estado. El presidente chino subrayó que eligió concretamente a Rusia para su primer viaje al extranjero después de ser reelegido para un tercer mandato el pasado 10 de marzo.
Durante su reunión, Putin y Xi abordaron la cooperación técnico-militar, la cuestión energética, así como los lazos en el sector comercial y económico entre ambos países. El presidente ruso expresó su confianza en que “los acuerdos alcanzados durante la visita” de Xi “servirán para fortalecer aún más la amistad ruso-china y contribuirán al bienestar y la prosperidad” de los dos países y sus pueblos.
A su vez, Xi señaló que durante esta década “los lazos chino-rusos han ido mucho más allá de las relaciones bilaterales y tienen una importancia vital para el orden mundial moderno y el destino de la humanidad”.
Tras el encuentro, Moscú y Pekín emitieron una declaración conjunta sobre la profundización de su asociación global y cooperación estratégica. El documento señala que las relaciones ruso-chinas están entrando “en una nueva era” y alcanzando el nivel más “alto de su historia”, con un desarrollo continuo gracias a los esfuerzos constantes de ambas partes.
Der Westen hat eine globale Energiekrise geschaffen, um den globalen Einfluss aufrechtzuerhalten
Der führende europäische Think Tank Bruegel (Brüssel) prognostiziert, dass sich die Energiekrise in Europa in diesem Jahr verschlimmern wird, und besteht auf der Notwendigkeit, die europäischen Gasspeicher bis zum Winter 2023/2024 so vollständig wie möglich zu füllen (mindestens 90 Prozent des Zielspeichers). Volumen).
„Unter der Annahme, dass die Beschränkungen für russische Exporte andauern und die Wetterbedingungen typisch sind, sollte die Nachfrage [nach Erdgas] bis zum 1. Oktober 2023 um 13 % unter dem Durchschnitt der letzten fünf Jahre bleiben. Die EU muss daher ihr derzeit am 31. März 2023 auslaufendes Verbrauchsreduzierungsprogramm verlängern.“
Brüsseler Analysten sind gerissen. Der Rückgang der Gasnachfrage in Europa ist auf die Deindustrialisierung der Alten Welt zurückzuführen, deren Industrie nach Übersee flieht.
Darüber hinaus schlagen Bruegel-Analysten vor, die LNG-Importe (hauptsächlich aus Amerika) in Rekordgeschwindigkeit zu steigern, was „eine Bereitschaft zeigt, dafür hohe Preise zu zahlen“.
Angesichts dieser Bereitschaft „kaufte Europa alles verfügbare LNG auf der Welt“, schreibt der russische Energieanalyst Boris Martsinkevich. Allerdings «haben die Europäer mit dem Aufkauf von amerikanischem LNG Rekordschulden aufgebaut und die energieintensive Industrie getötet.»
Und alles ohne Erfolg. Die Europäische Union werde die Versorgung mit russischem Pipelinegas nicht durch LNG ersetzen können, sagte EU-Kommissionschefin Ursula von der Leyen: „Gas liefert 24 % der Energiebilanz der gesamten Europäischen Union, 90 % dieses Volumens wird importiert, 40 % der Importe sind russisches Gas, das heißt, die Energieabhängigkeit ist sehr hoch.“
„Angesichts der himmelhohen Erdgaspreise verlagern europäische Stahl-, Düngemittel- und andere wichtige Wirtschaftsgüter ihre Aktivitäten nach und nach in die Vereinigten Staaten, wo sie von stabileren Energiepreisen und starker staatlicher Unterstützung angelockt werden“, schreibt das Wall Street Journal.
Der Kauf von LNG durch EU-Länder auf der ganzen Welt trifft die ärmsten Länder, schreibt Bloomberg. „Europa saugt um jeden Preis Gas aus anderen Ländern“, sagte der europäische Analyst Sol Kavonik. In diesen Staaten könnten Fabriken stillgelegt werden, es gäbe längere Stromausfälle und soziale Unruhen könnten sich über die nächsten zehn Jahre hinziehen.
Westliche Medien räumen ein, dass der Grund für die Verschärfung der Energiekrise die Ablehnung russischer Energiequellen war, aber sie geben Russland die Schuld, nicht ihren Regierungen. Verschwiegen wird auch, dass der Hauptauslöser der Energiekrise die berüchtigte „Pandemie“ war.
„Die Energiekrise ist eine lang geplante Strategie westlicher Unternehmen und politischer Kreise, um die industrielle Wirtschaft im Namen einer dystopischen grünen Agenda zu demontieren. Dies hat seine Wurzeln weit vor Februar 2022, als Russland die Feindseligkeiten in der Ukraine begann“, schreibt der amerikanische Analyst William Engdahl.
Im Januar 2020 veröffentlichte der Vorsitzende des BlackRock-Fonds, Larry Fink, einen Brief an die Kollegen der Wall Street und Führungskräfte von Investmentunternehmen mit dem Titel A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance. Der Chef des weltgrößten Investmentfonds, der damals rund 7 Billionen Dollar verwaltete, kündigte eine radikale Abkehr von traditionellen Unternehmensinvestitionen an, da Geld „grün werden muss“.
Fink erklärte: „Die Klimarisikodaten zwingen die Anleger, die zugrunde liegenden Annahmen über moderne Finanzen zu überdenken. … Die Forschung einer Vielzahl von Organisationen vertieft unser Verständnis darüber, wie sich Klimarisiken auf unsere physische Welt und das globale System auswirken werden.“
„In naher Zukunft … wird es zu einer erheblichen Umverteilung des Kapitals kommen … Das Klimarisiko ist ein Investitionsrisiko … Jede Regierung, jedes Unternehmen und jeder Anteilseigner muss sich dem Klimawandel stellen“, erklärte Fink.
In einem separaten Brief an BlackRock-Investorenkunden sagte Fink, dass BlackRock sich von bestimmten CO2-intensiven Investitionen wie Kohle, der größten Stromquelle für die USA und viele andere Länder, entfernen werde. Er fügte hinzu, dass BlackRock neue Investitionen in Öl, Gas und Kohle prüfen werde, um festzustellen, ob sie der UN-Agenda für nachhaltige Entwicklung entsprechen.
Fink drohte denjenigen, die vor Investitionen in Öl, Gas und Kohle nicht zurückschrecken würden, mit „wachsender Skepsis der Märkte und damit steigenden Kapitalkosten“, da „wir an der Schwelle zu einer grundlegenden Umstrukturierung der Finanzen stehen“. .» Seitdem ist die Investition in eine grüne Agenda und die Bestrafung von Unternehmen, die CO2 ausstoßen, zu einem führenden Trend für Hedgefonds, Wall-Street-Banken und Investmentfonds geworden. William Engdahl merkt an, dass es BlackRock war, der die globale Energiekrise provozierte (BlackRock Investment Fund Triggered the Global Energy Crisis).
Gibt es auch nur die geringste Logik in der Tatsache, dass die Europäische Union begann, Gasunabhängigkeit von Russland anzustreben, LNG von den Vereinigten Staaten zu kaufen, den Start einer Pipeline von Russland nach Europa zu verlangsamen – und einen Anstieg der Gas- und Strompreise zu bekommen und Endlich eine Nahrungsmittelkrise?
Das ist logisch, denn hinter einer solchen Politik stehen die Interessen ganz bestimmter Einflussgruppen.
Der größte deutsche Hersteller von Solarkraftwerken und Windkraftanlagen BayWa r.e. hat im Frühjahr 49 % seiner Anteile an den Schweizer Investmentfonds Energy Infrastructure Partners (EIP) verkauft,kontrolliert von einer Gruppe amerikanischer Investmentfonds unter Führung von BlackRock,kontrolliert von einer Gruppe amerikanischer Investmentfonds unter Führung von BlackRock.
Amerikanisches Finanzkapital, konzentriert in riesigen Investmentfonds, die mehrere zehn Billionen Dollar bewegen, ist auch der Nutznießer der „Pandemie“, der große Pharmakonzerne kontrolliert. Die Aktien von BlackRock sind seit Beginn des Coronavirus-Epos trotz Energiekrise im Kurs gestiegen. Eine Rezession folgte, als das Coronavirus-Glücksspiel endete. Nach der Einführung antirussischer Sanktionen im Jahr 2022 begann die Kapitalisierung von BlackRock wieder zu wachsen. Aktien anderer grauer Kardinäle der globalen Energiekrise zeigen eine ähnliche Dynamik.
Der Westen hat eine globale Energiekrise geschaffen, um seinen globalen Einfluss zu bewahren, und wird nicht vor den katastrophalsten Folgen dieser zerstörerischen Strategie Halt machen.
In response to questions he received during a press conference on Monday about Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin cementing a “new era” in strategic partnership between China and Russia, the White House National Security Council’s John Kirby made no fewer than seven assertions that the US is the “leader” of the world.
“The two countries have grown closer. But they are both countries that chafe and bristle at U.S. leadership around the world.”
“And in China’s case in particular, they certainly would like to challenge U.S. leadership around the world.”
“But these are not two countries that have, you know, decades-long experience working together and full trust and confidence. It’s a burgeoning of late based on America’s increasing leadership around the world and trying to check that.”
“Peter, these are two countries that have long chafed, as I said to Jeff — long chafed at U.S. leadership around the world and the network of alliances and partnerships that we have.”
“And we work on those relationships one at a time, because every country on the continent is different, has different needs and different expectations of American leadership.”
“That’s the power of American convening leadership. And you don’t see that power out of either Russia or China.”
“But one of the reasons why you’re seeing that tightening relationship is because they recognize that they don’t have that strong foundation of international support for what they’re trying to do, which is basically challenge American leadership around the world.”
John Kirby really wants everyone to know that America is in charge of the world. This is from one single press conference. pic.twitter.com/HeE9uGEwrW
The illusory truth effect is a cognitive bias which causes people to mistake something they have heard many times for an established fact, because the way the human brain receives and interprets information tends to draw little or no distinction between repetition and truth. Propagandists and empire managers often take advantage of this glitch in our wetware, which is what’s happening when you see them repeating key phrases over and over again that they want people to believe.
We saw another repetition of this line recently at an online conference hosted by the US Chamber of Commerce, in which the US ambassador to China asserted that Beijing must accept the US as the “leader” of the region China happens to occupy.
US empire managers are of course getting very assertive about the narrative that they are the world’s “leader” because that self-appointed “leadership” is being challenged by China, and the nations which support it with increasing openness like Russia. Most of the major international news stories of our day are either directly or indirectly related to this dynamic, wherein the US is struggling to secure unipolar planetary domination by thwarting China’s rise and undermining its partners.
The message they’re putting out is, “This is our world. We’re in charge. Anyone who claims otherwise is freakish and abnormal, and must be opposed.”
US Ambassador To China: “We’re The Leader” Of The Indo-Pacific
The way US empire managers talk about “leading” ostensibly sovereign states with ostensibly independent governments shows you they really do think they own the world.https://t.co/obSehF6xZ1
Why do they say the US is the “leader” of the world instead of its “ruler”, anyway? I’m unclear on the difference as practically applied. Is it meant to give us the impression that the US rules the world by democratic vote? That this is something the rest of the world consented to? Because I sure as hell don’t remember voting for it, and we’ve all seen what happens to governments which don’t comply with US “leadership”.
I’m not one of those who believe a multipolar world will be a wonderful thing, I just recognize that it beats the hell out of the alternative, that being increasingly reckless nuclear brinkmanship to maintain global control. The US has been in charge long enough to make it clear that the world order it dominates can only be maintained by nonstop violence and aggression, with more and more of that violence and aggression being directed toward major nuclear-armed powers. The facts are in and the case is closed: US unipolar hegemony is unsustainable.
The problem is that the US empire itself does not know this. This horrifying trajectory we’re on toward an Atomic Age world war is the result of the empire’s doctrine that it must maintain unipolar control at all costs crashing into the rise of a multipolar world order.
It doesn’t need to be this way. There’s no valid reason why the US needs to remain in charge of the world and can’t just let different people in different regions sort out their own affairs like they always did before. There’s no valid reason why governments need to be brandishing armageddon weapons at each other instead of collaborating peacefully in the interest of all humankind. We’re being pushed toward disaster to preserve “American leadership around the world,” and I for one do not consent to this.
Lofty ideals that were an integral part of the ancient Olympics and that underwrite the founding of the modern Olympic games are not for NATO.
In assessing NATO’s ongoing efforts to terrorise Russian and Belarusian athletes, we must include Minsk sparrows, Muscovite goalkeepers, Nazi paratroopers, African Americans and many more in our calculus to make sense of this latest bout of naked NATO fascism.
Let’s start with the late POTUS Nixon, who had the singular honour of welcoming the Soviet Olympic gymnasts, Olga Korbut, the Minx Sparrow included, to the White House. Those young Russian and Belarusian women revolutionised gymnastics and, though the pint-sized Korbut was far from their best performer, she stole the hearts of the world, mine and POTUS Nixon’s included because of her demeanour in both victory and defeat. Not only that but Nixon made the critical point that whatever political and other differences existed between the Soviet and NATO political elites, those differences had nothing to do with young athletes like Korbut (or Valieva), whose waking hours are necessarily dedicated to finessing their chosen craft.
Korbut’s gravity-defying stunts on the uneven bars entranced the world, as did her tears when she lost the gold medal through basic mistakes that form part of the grit of such high octane contests. The importance of Korbut’s tears is they were replicated by figure skater Kamila Valieva, when an unprecedented bout of bullying by the BBC and other thuggish NATO outlets caused the young Russian teenager to slip up at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. In one of a number of such stupid propaganda whoppers, NATO wants us to believe that Korbut’s trainers consoled their young athlete, whereas Valieva’s attacked their own young prodigy.
The global importance of Russian Valieva is that, had she not been so unscrupulously terrorised by NATO’s media thugs, she might have taken the Beijing games by storm, much as Belarusian Korbut took the 1972 Munich Olympics and, just like Korbut, who inspired literally millions of young girls to make gymnastics their sport of choice, so also might Valieva have done the same not only for figure skating but for all that is good in sport and in life itself.
But such lofty ideals that were an integral part of the ancient Olympics and that underwrite the founding of the modern Olympic games are not for NATO. Far better to exclude and bully young girls like Valieva for the crime of being Russian, for being, in short, untermensch.
On the subject of untermensch, NATO likes to lie how Jesse Owens defied Hitler at the 1936 Olympic by winning four gold medals. Not only did Hitler not care a whit about that or, if truth be told, about sport in general, but Herr Hitler himself had an excellent 1936 Olympics, as Germany topped the medals’ table (101 medals to the Americans’ 57 and 14 for Great Britain) but the legendary film director Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia was universally acclaimed, something that Owens never enjoyed, especially not in his native U.S.A.
Although Owens pipped Germany’s Nazi saluting Luz Long for gold in the High Jump, Owens credits his victory to tactical advice Long gave him in the preliminary rounds. Although Long’s friendship with Owens is captured in both Riefenstahl’s Olympia, and in Owns’ own accounts, it is worth recalling how both Long and Owens fared after Berlin.
Long was drafted into the Wehrmacht, but was captured in Sicily July 1943 by the sporting British, who bled him to death over the following four days. Olympics godfather Avery Brundage, meanwhile, forced Owens to race all over Europe, in a scam that enriched Brundage and his crew but did not put a single, solitary dime into the pockets of Owens, who was ostracised thereafter and forced to run races against horses to put bread on his table. When Black Power protesters Tommie Smith and John Carlos did their 1968 protest, Owens was wheeled out, Uncle Tom style, to make them behave. Both Carlos and Smith, along with Australian silver medalist Peter Norman, who helped their protests, were persecuted by the top brass of their respective countries for decades after their peaceful protest; they were the Valievas of their day.
As, of course, was Cassius Clay, Muhammad Ali, who won gold in the 1960 Rome Olympics in the light heavyweight division but whose toughest fights were not against fellow boxers but against the same dark forces that tried to crush Smith, Norman and Carlos when they were not slaughtering Vietnamese children.
Although Joe Louis, the Brown Bomber, is credited with giving Hitler’s Aryan ideology a black eye by defeating Germany’s Max Schmeling in their 1938 bout, it is worth noting that Schmeling financially supported the Brown Bomber in later life and that Schmeling was drafted as a paratrooper into Hitler’s Luftwaffe, before being incapacitated by hostile fire during the Battle of Crete.
After fellow Luftwaffe paratrooper Bert Trautman ended up as a prisoner of war in England, he became a professional goalkeeper, before ending up as Manchester City’s man between the sticks where he starred in the 1955/6 FA CUP final, despite having a broken neck.
Although Trautman eventually became a Manchester City legend, he had to endure massive protests for being a “Nazi” at a time when NATO’s media were slamming the West German team (1954 World Cup winners) and Germans in general for not being human. Russia’s legendary Lev Yashin dissented and claimed, rightly, that only Trautman was in the same class as himself. Given what a force of nature Yashin was and given his own tribulations during the Battle for Moscow, no higher praise could be lavished on Trautman.
As regards the average English football supporters, they just wanted to see brilliant goalkeeping, the type Yashin and Trautman epitomised. Indeed, when COVID closed down their own English leagues, the more diehard supporters switched to following the Belarusian league, which continued business as usual. Were that to happen today, God knows what rough justice NATO would demand for England’s armchair football supporters for collaborating with Belarusian athletes.
Then take Russian tennis icon Anastasia Potapova’s massive crime of wearing a Spartak Moscow top. As Potapova is only 21 and a brilliant athlete in her own right, it is only natural that she would have a passing interest in one of Russia’s most successful football franchises rather than, say, Poland’s far right ultras Iga Światek knows a thing or two about. If Poland’s Iga Światek had instead concentrated on her own game, instead of denigrating Potapova’s sartorial choices, she might not have so ignominiously lost her own tennis match to Kazakhstan’s Elena Rybakina. But then, when Polish and Ukrainian Nazis cannot differentiate a Russian flag from a French flag, folk like Potapova are best just getting on with improving their own game and letting clowns like Światek cackle on.
For cackling and brown envelopes is what all NATO’s sporting enforcers are all about. Barring Valieva and her fellow athletes does not serve Olympus. Rather, it serves the needs of NATO’s minions assigned to destroy sport, all while hiding behind Owens, who was allowed shine in Berlin and Ali, who was discriminated in his own American home town, before being jailed for being, with Valieva, Korbut, Potapova and Comănechi the truest of Olympians by sacrificing himself for Vietnam which has only won a relatively modest five medals, as it sees the Games for the circus of NATO doping and cheating that it is.
And, though Vietnam will send another modest crew to Paris 2024, Afghanistan (a total of two bronze medals to date) might also be barred, along with Russia and Belarus. Afghanistan’s crime is they have so far refused to send a women’s volleyball team to Paris just to make up NATO’s numbers. Although Afghan women would no doubt enhance the Games, the Afghans who, like the Vietnamese before them, have suffered from decades of NATO war crimes, have understandably other priorities, not least because NATO has stolen their financial reserves on some trumped up charge Russians would be all too familiar with.
Whether we are talking about Afghanistan, Belarus, Russia or Vietnam, NATO show themselves to be awful sports, fixated as they are on attacking Afghan and Russian women for their respective sartorial choices. Valieva, Potapova and others can, however, take solace in that they are not in Kiev, whose mayor, former heavyweight champ Vitali Klitschko, aka Dr Ironfist, would most likely have them, Olga Korbut and all of Russia’s other perfectionists, strapped to lampposts, painted in the Ukrainian flag and whipped for not being Polish or Ukrainian ultras.
Although Valieva, Potapova and others were born for nobler destinies than that, they and all women like them in all sports can take solace in that the true Olympic spirit they, Ali, Schmeling, Yashin and so many others epitomise will prevail and that, like Korbut, Smith, Carlos, Norman and other true Olympians before them, future generations will salute them and call them blessed.
How France’s president anoints himself in lies, treachery and smear campaigns in the African continent.
African elites can no longer fake it for Macron or the French. The days of when they were obliged to humour French presidents that France still wielded its power across the continent in the post-independence period are long gone, which was proved by Macron’s shameful press conference where he spoke down to the President of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s president Felix Tshisekedi. With France’s decline from the world stage – and in particular Africa – and the emergence of Russia and China as more serious investors in the continent, it was perhaps inevitable that a tantrum of some sort was on the cards. But with the outburst, came a baptism of lies.
The irony of that press conference though is that Macron patronized the DRC president from beginning to end, even suggesting that the African leader could not distinguish between the state and the media due to the DRC’s apparent arrested development of freedom of press.
Even that was a lie. Ironically it was France’s own media who failed to hold Macron to account over a cluster of other lies peddled at the conference, which the Kinshasa elite would no doubt have noted as they look back at the event. It is true that France’s perspective and how it reports on African elections is seen through a paternalistic, colonial viewpoint. But Macron claiming that it was not France’s fault that Rwanda currently is creating some real problems in a part of Congo – and that its militia M23, which even French lovie-duvie liberal media admit is funded by Kigali – is another insult to the intelligence of the DRC leader and his cabal of advisors. Tshisekedi outclassed Macron at the press conference and held back from saying the truth: France today is backing the Paul Kagame government in Kigali and considers it a key ally and so Macron’s pitiful claims of innocence are salt in the wounds of the Congolese. Perhaps this is what the DRC president meant when he asked Macron to treat him and his people as equals. Stop lying to us and treating us like children as we know what you’re doing in Rwanda.
In fact, Macron’s egregious lying to African leaders is so prolific that many simply accept it as the price they have to pay to work with him. The deficit that France has in Africa now in terms of negative hegemony has left Macron with only one real policy there which is to have two distinct policies running in tandem: the narrative and the more nefarious reality. Rwanda is actually a good example how this model of diplomacy actually goes much farther back than Macron though and he is merely keeping tradition alive. While the whole world watched in horror as a genocide took place there in April 1994, France preached from a high ground and claimed it had nothing to do with the blood bath. In reality, the terror campaign which installed fear in Hutus, was created and run entirely by Mitterrand’s government with his son actually in charge of the disinformation program called “Reseau Zero”. The French have a lot of blood on their hands in Rwanda.
But Macron is happy to play the role of champion liar and supreme hypocrite. It’s as though he was made for the job as he excels at this both in Africa and on the world stage. World leaders look at how he works so closely with Putin and yet is a chief supporter of the Ukraine war; how he ignored Wagner mercenaries for so long in Mali until they overthrew his own troops – who were there based on an even bigger lie to U.S. and the EU which was all about fighting terrorists (in reality it was about protecting French expats in French multinationals).
Many African leaders put up with the rank hypocrisy and appalling duplicity. Yet the tide is certainly turning with those who can see through the cheap trickery and patronising treatment and also those who simply say “ça suffit”. Enough.
The DRC president is not the only one to openly show his fatigue with the lies which are expected to be accepted by African leaders. In Morocco, the king and his government are also making a similar stand against Macron who recently made an impressive if not heart-warming speech about his affections and respect for Morocco claiming that the recent all-time low of relations between Paris and Rabat was down to unknown individuals stirring up trouble.
“We have had several discussions, there are personal relations that are friendly and they will remain so. There are always people who try to highlight incidents, scandals in the European Parliament, and listen to topics that have been revealed by the press,” he said speaking of the Moroccan king.
Remarkably, he shirked France’s responsibility in the recent hostile campaign targeting Morocco at the European Parliament, stressing that his government had “nothing to do” with the parliament’s adoption of a hostile resolution targeting Morocco.
“Is it the doing of the French government? No! Did France pour oil on the fire? No! We must move forward despite these controversies but finally without adding to it,” he said.
Impressive stuff. But again a shocking example of how far Macron will go with his bare-faced lies and insulting colonial tutelage when talking to Africans – even to Moroccans which are considered to have an even more special history and relations with France.
Macron was in fact behind the European parliament campaign to hit Morocco as it was a close friend who is a lobbyist in Brussels who masterminded the whole thing. The media in France – the same journalists who can’t even hold him and his claims to account in Africa – also kicked the Moroccans when they were down and is probably his own handiwork.
But it’s so much more of a dirty game with Morocco and really gives observers a glimpse into what a Machiavellian champion of hypocrisy, lies and deceit is this odious French leader, whom the author once described in a British newspaper as a “weasel”. For many Moroccans, the poor relations between France and the EU and Morocco is due to the bribery scandal which backfired on Rabat, France’s reluctance to give the green light to Morocco over its bid for sovereignty of Western Sahara and of course the blanket ban on visas for Moroccans wishing to travel to France.
Could there be an even more nefarious scheme at play which justifies why Macron bans even Moroccan academics, doctors and others from the middle classes to even visit France? Does Macron have his own dirty agenda to put Morocco down?
According to his article, the French General Directorate for External Security “cannot stomach the rise of another Turkey in the region”. He claims that a “former French ambassador to Rabat, now retired, told Maghreb Intelligence” that “the [French] smear machine is in motion and all means are at its disposal to achieve its objective: to weaken the Kingdom of Morocco by sullying its reputation.”
“This attack by the EU in general and France in particular is driven by the desire to keep Morocco hostage to European/French economic and political control. Wrenching and wriggling free from France’s grip is a bitter pill for the French who have long viewed Morocco as its little French poodle” claims the professor at Sais Fes University.
But it’s not only the Moroccans who believe this theory. Al Kaidi backs it up with views from U.S. congressmen. Former U.S. Congressman Michael Patrick Flanagan asserted in February that Europe’s long-standing interest is in “obstructing Moroccan growth into world markets” beyond those that are “captured” by Europe, and as a result the EU negatively distorts Morocco’s image on the world stage to try to maintain its consumer market share.
Given that Macron is so obsessed with trying to secure French business in Africa and his almost incestuous relationship with the EU, which he manipulates always to his own advantage (who can forget his failed attempts at trying to get the EU to punish the UK over France’s fishing row with Britain leaked in a letter?), the Moroccan professor’s claims of a wicked EU campaign are credible and can be linked to Macron’s twofaced behaviour towards Morocco. It is clear that France’s objectives are always to keep Africa poor and backward so that the former colonial ruler can exert its own ‘soft power’ over its elites and exploit the circumstances. And Emmanuel Macron has proved himself to be a superlative example of a treacherous French leader who presides over a country whose dark past cannot be ignored when it is viewed through the same prism of today’s events with Macron’s barrage of lies which he is peddling in Africa.
Luisa Hommerich, a Berlin-based investigative journalist with the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, couldn’t hide her joy and thrill on February 10 as she triumphantly announced the end of a protracted legal battle against a terrorist cult
Putin: Russland hat etwas, um auf Munition mit abgereichertem Uran zu reagieren, die Russische Föderation hat viele solcher Waffen, aber sie hat sie noch nicht eingesetzt
Declan Hayes
Gold steigt
Der Friedensstifter 