Agrégateur de flux

Le ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l'Innovation, Pr Adjima Thiombiano, a procédé, ce lundi 27 avril 2026, au lancement des activités littéraires de la 22e édition de la Semaine nationale de la culture (SNC) sur le campus de l'Université Nazi Boni, à Bobo-Dioulasso. L'événement marque une nouvelle étape dans le rapprochement entre le monde universitaire et le secteur culturel, à travers un partenariat que les autorités souhaitent élargir à l'ensemble des institutions d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche du Burkina Faso.

Pour la première fois, l'exposition des livres, traditionnellement tenue à la direction régionale de la Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Guiriko, est délocalisée au sein du campus de l'Université Nazi Boni, située au secteur 22 de Bobo-Dioulasso. Cette initiative traduit, selon le Pr Adjima Thiombiano, la volonté de transformer l'université en un véritable pôle de diffusion culturelle, et il a émis le souhait d'étendre cette organisation des activités littéraires à l'ensemble des institutions d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche du pays.

La culture comme socle de la résilience et du développement

Le président de l'Université Nazi Boni, Pr Hassan Bismarck Nacro, a souligné lors de son allocution que la culture représente à la fois une mémoire, une transmission et une projection vers l'avenir. Il a insisté sur le rôle fondamental de la littérature dans la construction des consciences et du débat intellectuel. Dans un contexte national difficile, il a présenté la culture comme un levier indispensable de cohésion sociale, de résilience et d'affirmation identitaire. Il a par ailleurs encouragé les étudiants à s'approprier pleinement ces activités en privilégiant les rencontres et les échanges avec les auteurs.

Quant au Pr Salaka Sanou, président de la commission Littérature, il a rappelé la pertinence du thème de cette édition de la SNC qui est « Culture, jeunesse et transmission des valeurs sociales ». Selon lui, ce choix met en lumière la place stratégique de la jeunesse dans le développement endogène. Pour enrichir cette édition, un programme diversifié est proposé, incluant des panels thématiques, des cafés littéraires et l'initiative « la SNC au lycée ».

Le Pr Sanou a fait quelques suggestions pour une meilleure organisation de la SNC. Il s'agit notamment de faciliter la participation des étudiants et enseignants chercheurs aux activités de la Semaine nationale de la culture, en intégrant leur participation dans le programme d'activité des universités. Il a également plaidé pour l'élargissement des participants à d'autres départements et filières, au-delà des disciplines directement liées à la culture. Enfin, il a plaidé pour des mesures d'accompagnement pour les étudiants, notamment en matière d'hébergement et de restauration.

Vers une démocratisation des œuvres nationales

Le ministre Adjima Thiombiano a, pour sa part, exhorté les étudiants à faire de la lecture un outil quotidien de réussite, rappelant que la maîtrise de l'expression écrite est une compétence transversale, essentielle aux filières scientifiques comme littéraires.

En marge de la visite des stands d'exposition, le ministre a salué la qualité de la production littéraire nationale. Il a annoncé avoir donné des instructions fermes à l'ensemble des présidents d'universités pour assurer la disponibilité des ouvrages burkinabè dans toutes les bibliothèques universitaires.

Enfin, le ministre a appelé à pérenniser ce partenariat entre l'université et la SNC, en suggérant une organisation tournante entre les différentes institutions d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche.

Fredo Bassolé
Lefaso.net

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

MEP Daniel Freund will hold a press conference on Wednesday at 10.00, on Parliament’s assessment of the European Commission’s management of the EU budget in 2024.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

MEP Daniel Freund will hold a press conference on Wednesday at 10.00, on Parliament’s assessment of the European Commission’s management of the EU budget in 2024.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

MEP Daniel Freund will hold a press conference on Wednesday at 10.00, on Parliament’s assessment of the European Commission’s management of the EU budget in 2024.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

MEP Daniel Freund will hold a press conference on Wednesday at 10.00, on Parliament’s assessment of the European Commission’s management of the EU budget in 2024.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

MEP Daniel Freund will hold a press conference on Wednesday at 10.00, on Parliament’s assessment of the European Commission’s management of the EU budget in 2024.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Vendredi dernier, Donald Trump a annoncé une prolongation de trois semaines du cessez-le-feu entre Israël et le Liban. Un accord encore imparfaitement respecté, mais qui accorde aux populations libanaises un peu de répit après des semaines de bombardements.

Ce cessez-le-feu apparait comme imposé par Washington au Premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahou, fragilisé par une contestation croissante au sein de l’opinion israélienne. Parallèlement, ces discussions marquent un tournant : il s’agit des premières négociations directes entre Israël et le Liban depuis plus de 40 ans, alors même que les deux États ne se reconnaissent pas officiellement.

Ces échanges pourraient-ils ouvrir la voie à une reconnaissance d’Israël par le Liban, comme le souhaitent les États-Unis ? La question reste entière, alors que près de 6 % du territoire libanais demeure occupé par l’armée israélienne. Autre élément marquant : la France, pourtant alliée historique du Liban, a été écartée des négociations sans réelle réaction. Que révèle cette mise à l’écart sur l’état réel du partenariat entre Paris et Beyrouth ?

En réalité, l’issue du conflit dépasse largement le cadre bilatéral. Elle dépendra en grande partie des discussions entre les États-Unis et l’Iran, notamment autour du détroit d’Ormuz, toujours sous tension.

Dans ce contexte, quelles perspectives pourraient se dessiner pour le Liban, alors que ce dernier est confronté à une crise politique profonde, à l’affaiblissement de ses institutions et à des déplacements massifs de population ?

Mon analyse dans cette vidéo.

L’article Liban : une situation très volatile est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Ils sont en colère les Allemands et ils le disent haut et fort, lors de manifestations organisées en fin de semaine, dans plusieurs grandes villes. La grogne ne porte pas sur le prix de l’essence, qui va bénéficier d’une aide de l’État dès le 1er mai, mais sur la transition écologique, grande oubliée, alors que la tension sur le marché de l’énergie fait craindre une récession économique.

Des relations de plus en plus tendues entre Pretoria et Accra. Une nouvelle poussée d'actes xénophobes en Afrique du Sud soulève l'indignation du Ghana, qui exige la protection de ses ressortissants. De plus en plus régulièrement, des étrangers sont pris pour cible par des militants d'un groupe opposé à l'immigration illégale. La vidéo d'un jeune homme attaqué est devenu virale. La correspondance au Cap de Caroline Dumay.

L’intelligence artificielle change de statut. Elle ne relève plus d’une expérimentation marginale ni d’un sujet prospectif : elle s’impose désormais comme une technologie d’usage au cœur des industries culturelles et créatives. C’est le constat au cœur d’un nouveau Briefing Choiseul, avec le soutien de Google, qui analyse la manière dont ces technologies transforment déjà les […]

Has Russia’s war become an extension of the migrant labor economy for Central Asians? 

Selon une nouvelle étude, la bière apporte des quantités substantielles de vitamine B6 dans l'alimentation.

An interview with Frank Aum, a non-resident fellow at the Stimson Center and an international security expert.

La future stratégie de l'UE portera également sur le « déploiement à grande échelle d'aéronefs sans pilote » et les questions de sécurité

The post La Commission cherche à protéger les compagnies aériennes et les constructeurs contre la « concurrence déloyale » appeared first on Euractiv FR.

The Indian government should take a leaf out of the Mahakumbh playbook, ensuring adequate budget allocation for the establishment of waste treatment and waste-to-energy generation facilities in all Indian metros.

La crise actuelle est d'autant plus grave que la réaction du gouvernement est timide. Que se passe-t-il ?

The post L’Europe s’essouffle appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Frontispiece of Tom Paine’s Common Sense

By Peter Costantini
SEATTLE. USA, Apr 27 2026 (IPS)

This is the third part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 1: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 1 of 3,   Part 2 of 3

Whose head?

In foreign relations, as in immigration, King Don the Con appears to be channeling King John the Bad and often surpassing him.

However, our wannabe monarch should consider one more exemplar, this one fictitious: Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen could be another spiritual ancestor of the Golden Emperor. After all, his Bling Dynasty has been a creature of fiction more than fact.

Carroll wrote in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

“Let the jury consider their verdict.” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
“I won’t!” said Alice.
“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

As we’ve seen, King Don has demonstrated a similar disdain for legal niceties. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards” could be the motto of much of his foreign policy as well as immigration enforcement. He often skips indictment, trial, and verdict, and jumps straight from accusation to carrying out the sentence.

There is one striking difference between the two monarchies, though: the Red Queen’s courtiers understood that she was not playing with a full deck, and so they ignored her ranting. The Golden Emperor’s toadies are too cowardly to tell him that he’s acting increasingly unhinged, and have become immune to shame about their North Korea-like sycophancy. A possible exception is “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth, who may be even more deranged than his boss. His speeches sound like they’re written by a B-grade action-movie screenwriter torqued on crank. Economist Paul Krugman said in an interview that some people in the Pentagon are calling him the Secretary of War Crimes.

In the summer and fall of 2025, Trump marshalled a massive armada of ships, air power and troops in the southern Caribbean. The official name was Operation Southern Spear, and they were clearly positioned to threaten Venezuela. But while they were waiting to carry out the eventual abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro Moros, Trump reportedly ordered them to unleash military strikes against small boats that he said were smuggling drugs.

Instead of ignoring the President, as the Red Queen’s courtiers did, Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio obediently began extrajudicial executions of civilians in small boats. The victims reportedly included sailors, fishermen, bus drivers, laborers, and possibly some small-time smugglers.

The Defense Department reportedly confirmed to Congress that as of March 17 the U.S. military had killed at least 157 people in military strikes on 47 alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. More strikes have allegedly occurred since, raising the death toll to at least 163 people.

As an Elizabethan connoisseur of royal mayhem might have put it: “As flies to wanton boys are we to King Don. He kills us for his sport.”

If Trump had wanted to make a serious case to the world that he was actually combatting drug smuggling, he could have ordered normal policing operations: intercept and impound the boat, display the packets of drugs and weapons captured, perp walk the smugglers and publicize their indictments and convictions. However, the his government has not publicly presented evidence that drugs were being smuggled or that the crews were connected with drug cartels or terrorists.

U.S. forces did not give the boats or crews a chance to surrender. They simply blew them (and any evidence of their alleged crimes) to smithereens. In one case, they reportedly slaughtered two survivors of an initial strike who were still clinging to the wreckage. Some boats were apparently carrying more people than would be needed for a crew, so perhaps some were just passengers. In another strike in which two survivors were rescued, they were not arrested by the U.S., but instead returned to their respective countries, Colombia and Ecuador. This was an improbable outcome if they were in fact smugglers or terrorists.

Here’s the lowdown: regardless of whether the crews or passengers were smuggling anything, they were civilians. Even if a war had been in progress, it would have been illegal under international and U.S. military law to kill non-combatants. But this was not a war with a foreign government, nor an attack on the U.S. by terrorists. Given that many of the strikes killed four or more people, the customary threshold for mass homicide, the operation should be investigated as serial mass murders.

Even before the strikes began, the senior Judge Advocate General (JAG, a military lawyer) at the U.S. Southern Command in Miami questioned the legality of the strikes and voiced concerns that they could amount to extrajudicial killings, NBC News reported. This JAG’s opinion was reportedly overruled by more senior officials.

Many other military lawyers and other officials also voiced concerns about the strikes’ legality up their chains of command. The “Former JAGs Working Group”, formed by victims of Hegseth’s earlier mass firings of JAGs, issued a statement that it “unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both.”

Questions about the operation’s legality also apparently troubled the head of the U.S. Southern Command. Admiral Alvin Holsey abruptly announced that he would step down from his post in December, without offering any explanation for his decision. But the New York Times reported that Holsey, too, had expressed concern about the legality of the killings. This brought him into conflict with Hegseth and the White House. Ultimately, Hegseth pushed out the Admiral.

Six Democratic members of Congress who are veterans made a video that simply told serving military members: “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.” This is advice commonly given to soldiers. Trump responded hysterically on Truth Social: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”, and reposted another user: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” [Buchanan 11/20/2025]

Trump reserved his nastiest blast of vitriol for the only U.S. senator in the group, Mark Kelly of Arizona, a retired Navy combat pilot and astronaut. Defense Secretary Hegseth moved to demote and censure Kelly and reduce his retirement pay. In February, a federal judge temporarily blocked the demotion and criticized Hegseth for trying to punish a veteran and member of Congress for First Amendment-protected speech. Ironically, the attacks on Kelly seem to have supercharged his political fund-raising and helped establish him as a credible Democratic presidential candidate for 2028.

The rationales for killing civilians on small boats followed an opportunistic trajectory: first frame the strikes as tools to intimidate Maduro, then claim to be interdicting drug smuggling to save American lives. Next up the ante to fighting narco-terrorists. Finally, admit that the main goal of the whole operation was to take back oil from Venezuela that somehow belonged to the U.S.

After the abduction of Maduro, the usefulness of boat strikes to intimidate the now deposed president, if it ever existed, should have expired. But since then, Trump has continued to claim he is protecting U.S. citizens from “narco-terrorists” by destroying small boats.

The U.S. Southern Command claims with each strike that it is targeting boats along “known smuggling routes” that U.S. intelligence has identified. But it has yet to provide evidence that these boats were actually carrying drugs – perhaps because it is hard to collect it when the boat is blown to bits remotely from the air. And whether or not smuggling goes on along those routes, people living on the coasts of Latin America use small boats for public transportation, carrying legal goods, fishing, and many other purposes. Unsurprisingly, some may follow the same routes that smugglers use (as I have witnessed traveling in a small passenger panga on the Caribbean).

As the case of the Venezuelan deportees established, Venezuela is not a major drug producer; it serves primarily as a conduit for illicit substances produced elsewhere in South America and bound for European markets, not the U.S. Furthermore, in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, the main drug being moved is cocaine, which is rarely fatal for users. The fentanyl that Trump flagged as responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. is produced almost exclusively in Mexico and smuggled into the U.S. from there.

As a congressional interrogator at a hearing on the strikes asserted, any amounts of drugs the strikes may have destroyed were insignificant, and are having no impact on the volume or price of drugs entering the U.S.

Furthermore, small boats are only one of numerous modes of drug transport from South to North America and Europe. Drug enforcement has been playing Whac-A-Mole for a half-century with submersibles, commercial shipping, air freight, small planes, drones, tunnels, parcel post, package express, U.S. citizen travelers, and the list goes on. Despite high-profile drug seizures, arrests of drug lords, and spasms of violence, drug markets keep calm and carry on. Meanwhile, fatal overdoses, almost exclusively from fentanyl, spiral upward.

And narco-terrorism? Sorry, but in the non-fiction world, organized crime and terrorism are fundamentally different beasts.

Big drug cartels resemble legal transnational corporations in many ways. Their main purpose is to make money – and then they have to launder it, which also requires business acumen. They have vast decentralized networks that include voluntary and involuntary sub-contractors and investors. They spin off subsidiaries in different countries. They can be very violent when competing over plazas, treating migrants as a profit center, or responding to attacks by governments, but usually they want to run their businesses without visibility or drama. The most successful organized crime executives have been the cagey facilitators and deal-makers.

Occasionally, when the gangs have become stronger than the police forces, governments have had to use the military to confront them. But only patient use of law enforcement tools like the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and socio-economic programs to offer foot soldiers ways to get out of the life can ultimately disentangle their roots from society.

On the other hand, organizations that practice terrorism use violence or the threat of it for political, social, or ideological purposes. They want to visibly menace and destroy their enemies, and they are not primarily concerned with making money.

Many political movements from the American Revolution onward have practiced terrorism – in that case against Tory sympathizers with the British crown. And as in most wars, the British army also practiced terrorism against civilian colonists. Whether a given armed group is classified as terrorists or freedom-fighters generally depends on which side of the conflict the observer stands.

Organized crime may sometimes pursue socio-political objectives, and terrorists may sometimes use illicit activities to fund themselves. But defending against each phenomenon requires very different approaches. The Global War on Terror and the War on Drugs have both been long-running failures because neither terrorism nor organized crime can be eliminated militarily.

When King Don calls an organization “narco-terrorists”, he is simply slapping a label on it that gives him legal cover for using military force to blow things up and kill innocent bystanders. (“Oopsie!”, as his buddy Bukele might say with a smirk.) And as a bonus, the violence may distract his followers from his rich stew of corruption, juicy emoluments and tender pardons garnished with a soupçon of Epstein.

Despite the smoke screens, international efforts to hold Trump responsible for serious human rights violations have begun in a few venues.

A panel of experts convened by the United Nations Human Rights office in September 2025 concluded that the boat strikes violated the right to life under international law and the law of the sea. Their statement asserted: “International law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers. Criminal activities should be disrupted, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.”

The U.S. had accused the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua of mounting “an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ of the U.S., at the behest of the Venezuelan Government.” But the experts found that “There is no evidence that this group is committing an armed attack against the U.S. that would allow the U.S. to use military force against it in national self-defence.”

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an organ of the Organization of American States, also held a hearing on the boat strikes in March. It heard testimony from several human rights organizations and the U.S. government. “We are doing everything in our power to hold the Trump administration responsible for its egregious violations of both U.S. and international law”, Jamil Dakwar of the ACLU testified. “These extrajudicial killings,” said Angelo Guisado of the Center for Constitutional Rights, “were poorly veiled cover to justify the illegal overthrow of the Venezuelan government, as admitted by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.” A State Department spokesman responded: “The IACHR lacks the competence to review the matters at issue.” He also accused the Commission of interfering in domestic litigation.

The Trump administration has not released the names of the slain. But a few families have come forward to identify their loved ones. Human rights groups are representing two of them seeking redress from the government.

Although we have focused on the boat strikes as Trump’s most literal implementation of “Off with their heads!”, the operation that they were supposedly a warm-up for – the ousting of Venezuela’s president – also resulted in pointless and illegal bloodshed.

On January 3, 2026, Trump cried “Havoc!” and let slip the dawgs of Delta Force. The U.S. invaded Venezuela, abducted its president, Nicolás Maduro, and charged him in a U.S. court with heading a drug-smuggling cartel and illegally possessing firearms. During the operation, U.S. officials estimated that at least 75 people were killed by U.S. forces. The Venezuelan defense minister later said that 83 were killed and more than 112 injured by U.S. forces. He confirmed that the operation killed 47 of its personnel, and the Cuban government said that 32 of the dead were Cuban citizens. Some reports have suggested that additional civilians may have been killed.

As mentioned previously, an investigation by U.S. intelligence services had already found that the Venezuelan government did not direct or cooperate with Tren de Aragua, and was instead generally hostile towards the gang. So whatever his other faults, Maduro was evidently not a drug lord.

These charges also beg the question of how a president who is the commander-in-chief of an army and under protection of a presidential guard can be guilty of illegally possessing firearms. Stay tuned to Maduro’s trial in federal court in New York City for more details.

In any case, just for the record, it is generally illegal under international law for one country to invade another, kill its citizens, and capture or assassinate its leaders.

To understand Operation Southern Spear, it may help to compare the capture and abduction of Maduro with Trump’s pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who was convicted in a U.S. court of large-scale drug trafficking and imprisoned. His brother Tony had already suffered the same fate.

Trump’s pardoning of JOH at the same time he was detaining Maduro on similar charges was widely seen as contradictory. But on the contrary, the message was eloquent: the law means nothing, and King Don the Con doesn’t care if friends break it. All that matters, even if you’re a convicted narco, is that you shamelessly genuflect to him and declare undying fealty.

Despite U.S. criticism of the Maduro government, the abduction of the Venezuelan president left his vice-president in charge as the temporary president, and did not remove any other high officials from the existing Venezuelan government. So much for régime change.

In an outburst of candor, Trump confirmed afterwards that his main motivation was to force Venezuela to give back “our oil” to the United States. This was apparently done under what he calls the “Donroe Doctrine”. The reality was that since long before Maduro, Venezuela had expropriated the assets of some foreign oil corporations, as many developing countries have done. But Trump conveniently omits the backstory that foreign oil companies had originally expropriated Venezuela’s oil from Venezuela. This was fueled by concessions from dictators in the first half of the 20th Century. [Wolfe 1/9/2026]

Treachery, lechery, mendacity and cruelty? Sorry, King John the Bad: in immigration, foreign policy and many other domains, King Don the Con has elevated those qualities far above your crude medieval badassery.

Kings and laws

When the New York Times asked Trump if there were any limits on his global powers, he replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. … I don’t need international law.”

It is true that Trump has a finely calibrated moral compass. The problem is that it always points to himself.

Conservative jurist J. Michael Luttig laid out the challenge starkly: “Once more, we must ask, as Lincoln did, whether a nation so ‘conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,’ can long endure. …We have been given the high charge of our forebears to ‘keep’ the republic they founded a quarter of a millennium ago. If we do not keep it now, we will surely lose it.”

The millions of partisans of No Kings and other resistance initiatives are working overtime to organize the massive and diversified political insurgency necessary to throw King Don the Con into the toxic waste dump of history and to re-establish something resembling the rule of law. Some of the political opposition seems to be slowly awakening from its torpor and showing signs of life. However, if the MAGA fever has not broken by 2028, I fear that our democracy and human rights will be languishing in hospice.

The last word goes to Tom Paine, the sharp-tongued English pamphleteer who lit a fire under colonial revolutionaries in 1776 with Common Sense: “[A]s in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

 

This is the third part of a three-part commentary. Read Part 1: No Kings? Meet King Don and King John – Part 1 of 3, Part 2 of 3

About the author

 

Les revendications du parti d'extrême droite Vox en font un partenaire de coalition délicat pour le Parti populaire (centre-droit)

The post La clause de « priorité nationale » agite la droite espagnole appeared first on Euractiv FR.