Feed aggregator

Parfaite, la « Daagbo » de l’église de Banamè est une nouvelle fois intervenue. Attaquée de toute part, notamment par la première personnalité de l’Etat béninois, le président Boni Yayi, qui l’accuse d’avoir pactisé avec Patrice Talon pour écraser les autres religions, une fois ce dernier au pouvoir, la déesse a réagi.

Read more ...

By Marc-André Franche
Mar 17 2016 (Dawn, Pakistan)

The year 2015 will be remembered for two landmark global agreements. In September, UN member states endorsed the 2030 Development Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. Later, 196 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the Paris Agreement at the conclusion of UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in France.

The year will also be remembered as the warmest on record with temperature rises breaking the one degree Celsius milestone above pre-industrial era average. A heatwave swept the globe including Sindh where 2,000 perished reminding us of the increased intensity and frequency of climatic events and its growing impact on development, particularly the poor and vulnerable.

It has been established that climate change is the consequence of Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) and is caused by human activities.

T he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report of 2014 pointed to an increase in global temperature of 4°C contrary to the initial estimates of about 3.5°C till 2100.

Developing countries are more vulnerable because of their dependence on agriculture and socioeconomic dynamics including their weak capacities to cope with climate change.

In 2008, more than 100 million people fell below the poverty line largely due to food price hikes and low agriculture yields.

At the COP21 participating countries adopted the first-ever universal, legally binding climate deal that promises a global action plan to save the world from the effects of climate change by limiting global warming to 1.5 °C.

The COP21 agreement is indeed a diplomatic success. However, the intentions in the Paris Agreement and actual commitments in the form of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) by governments don`t connect. Estimates suggest that the combined impact of all INDCs, if fully implemented, will account for 86pc of the GHG emissions and will still result in global average temperature hikes above the 2°C threshold. Similarly, the intention of developed countries to mobilise $100 billion per year until 2025 is not only insufficient but also uncertain to be realised.

Pakistan is the eighth most vulnerable country to climate change though it produces less than 0.5pc of global emissions. Events like the 2010 floods which resulted in 2,000 human lives and economic losses equivalent to 7pc of GDP reconfirm that climate change is the most immediate development threat faced by this country. There is a clear and visible shift in summer monsoons trend from northeast to northwest by a range of 80-100 kilometres, threatening the agriculture sector. Frequency of other extreme weather events like cyclones, droughts and glacial lake outburst floods showthat Pakistan is becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate change.

Pakistan is conscious to the threats. The National Climate Change Policy (NCCP) of 2012 outlines mitigation and adaptation actions. Pakistan is one of the few countries to have undertaken a Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR) and has established public expenditure and institutional benchmarks. Post 18th Amendment, climate change has largely become a provincial subject and provinces must now take the lead. It is encouraging to note that some of the provinces have already started initiatives such as the `Billion Tree Plantation` initiative.

The deficit of vision and action remains widespread however. The INDCs put forward by Pakistan for the COP21 were considered limited and devoid of quantitative commitments and investment requirements for adaptation and mitigation. Using the CPEIR, Pakistan could have spelled out in detail its vulnerability to climate change. This would have afforded an opportunity to plead climate change-related needs in front of lobbyists,donors and negotiators across the globe. Pakistan can still revise its INDCs.

It needs strong institutions to implement its NCCP. A `whole of government` approach including parliament, finance, planning and sectoral departments is needed.The medium-term budgetary frameworks of ministries should talce into account climate change`s effects. The finance and planning institutions at the federal and provincial level should track related expenditure and progress. Provinces must integrate climate change issues in their growth strategies given its impact on poverty and social development.

Pakistan incurred $6bn climate changerelated losses in 2012. It needs to invest 5.5pc of GDP annually for mitigation and 1.5-3pc for adaptation to address its effects. For a 15pc reduction in GHG, an annual investment of around $8bn is needed. Given the global shortfall in financing, Pakistan requires an overarching climate change financing framework which can help streamline budget allocations and ensure holistic response to the challenge.

So far the evidence affirms that no one will remain untouched by the consequences of climate change. Developing countries will be most affected. It is time to act together. As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, `there is no plan B, because there is no planet B`.

The writer is country director of UNDP in Pakistan

This story was originally published by Dawn, Pakistan

Der so genannte Islamische Staat wendet nicht nur Gewalt an, um seine Ziele zu erreichen. Die...

Head of the Committee Against Torture NGO Igor Kalyapin could have avoided an attack in the Chechen capital of Grozny if he had come to the Russian republic with good intentions.

General : Talks with Turkey on dealing with the refugee crisis should not be linked to the country’s efforts to join the EU, warned Martin Schulz. The EP President addressed European heads of state and government at the start of the EU summit on 17-18 March dedicated to the migration crisis and economic priorities. “Turkey won’t get any discounts on media freedom and minority protection, the separation of powers or the rule of law,” he said, calling them “non-negotiable issues”.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : Talks with Turkey on dealing with the refugee crisis should not be linked to the country’s efforts to join the EU, warned Martin Schulz. The EP President addressed European heads of state and government at the start of the EU summit on 17-18 March dedicated to the migration crisis and economic priorities. “Turkey won’t get any discounts on media freedom and minority protection, the separation of powers or the rule of law,” he said, calling them “non-negotiable issues”.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The conflict in Syria, which started five years ago this month, has led to the world's largest humanitarian disaster since World War II. Last month two groups of MEPs visited Turkey to see for themselves the living conditions of some of the 2.5 million Syrian refugees there. They were led by EP Vice-President Sylvie Guillaume and budgets committee chair Jean Arthuis. In a chat with EP's Facebook followers this week the two MEPs spoke of the importance of solidarity in tackling the influx.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The conflict in Syria, which started five years ago this month, has led to the world's largest humanitarian disaster since World War II. Last month two groups of MEPs visited Turkey to see for themselves the living conditions of some of the 2.5 million Syrian refugees there. They were led by EP Vice-President Sylvie Guillaume and budgets committee chair Jean Arthuis. In a chat with EP's Facebook followers this week the two MEPs spoke of the importance of solidarity in tackling the influx.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Entre relatif enthousiasme et profond rejet, Donald Trump ne laisse pas indifférent la classe politique française et notamment la droite et l'extrême droite, particulièrement divisées à son sujet.

Die Staats- und Regierungschefs der 28 EU-Mitgliedsländer ringen um ein Flüchtlingsabkommen mit der Türkei. An diesem Donnerstag beraten in Brüssel…

Le Conseil de sécurité se réunit jeudi pour tenter de dissiper le "malentendu" entre le Maroc et Ban Ki-moon, accusé d'avoir dérapé sur le dossier du Sahara occidental. Rabat exige que l'ONU évacue certains de ses membres de la région.

Laureen Kouassi-Olsson devient la directrice pour l'Afrique de l'Ouest capital-investisseur Amethis Finance, basé à Paris. Elle sera chargée du sous-véhicule Amethis West Africa, dont elle pilotera les futures levées de fonds.

Cet article Amethis renforce sa base ivoirienne est apparu en premier sur JeuneAfrique.com.

Peut-on considérer que cette élection présidentielle américaine est exceptionnelle ? Que nous apprend la popularité des candidats anti-système sur le climat social et l’importance du mécontentement politique aux Etats-Unis ?
Nous ne sommes pas encore entrés dans la phase des élections réelles car les primaires sont avant tout des scrutins intra-partis. Ces primaires ont manifesté le mécontentement des Américains, huit ans après la crise financière et trente ans après le début du consensus de Washington qui a stoppé le progrès des classes moyennes aux Etats-Unis. Le pouvoir d’achat du foyer américain moyen n’a pas avancé depuis les années soixante-dix. Bien que les Américains soient peu prompts à se mettre en colère et à remettre en cause leur propre système, de nombreuses frustrations se manifestent actuellement à l’occasion des primaires.

L’establishment américain, des SUPERPACS au parti républicain, semble se mobiliser contre l’éventualité d’une victoire de Donald Trump. Est-ce une réelle inquiétude ou bien seulement une posture ?
Il est clair que Donald Trump a su mobiliser une certaine frange de la population américaine que les Européens méconnaissent en grande majorité. Ce sont des gens éloignés des élites, trahis par les dérives du système politique et financier. Trump exprime la colère des classes moyennes qui ne se sentent pas ou peu représentées. L’establishment, qui prêche depuis au moins trente ans son idéologie sans considérer la vie réelle de la population, n’a pas anticipé la popularité fulgurante de Donald Trump.
La panique de l’establishment est réelle. C’est la fin du Parti républicain, qui propose depuis Ronald Reagan des politiques destructrices, visant notamment à minimiser le rôle de l’Etat. Les Républicains n’ont plus rien à offrir. Ils s’inquiètent davantage de ne plus rien représenter et de leur survie dans l’ombre de Donald Trump, que des réponses qu’ils pourraient apporter à l’exaspération des citoyens. Or, les électeurs impliqués dans les primaires sont généralement les plus politisés, les plus militants et ressentent donc ce vide politique au sein du parti.

Si Trump divise sur la scène intérieure américaine, il est clair que sa stratégie marketing a reçu un écho mondial. N’est-il pas malgré tout en train de remettre le Parti républicain, jusqu’alors en retrait, sur le devant de la scène internationale et de rendre inaudible la campagne d’Hillary Clinton ?
Donald Trump ne met pas le Parti républicain sur le devant de la scène mais bien un certain type d’Amérique et d’Américains, avec lesquels les Européens sont profondément mal à l’aise. Si les Européens ne se reconnaissent pas dans l’électorat de Donald Trump, il n’en est pas moins composé d’authentiques Américains. Trump est réel, 100 % américain et représentatif de l’Amérique jacksonienne, isolationniste, combative, agressive, égoïste, etc. Il prône une politique d’ « America First », qui répond à des attentes effectives au sein de la population américaine. Une partie des mesures controversées de Trump – comme le mur élevé entre le Mexique et les Etats-Unis – devra passer par le Congrès. Mais certaines initiatives de politique étrangère et sécuritaire, comme le rapatriement des troupes de l’OTAN, sont davantage possibles car inclues dans les prérogatives du Président des Etats-Unis.
L’Amérique représentée par Trump, à la fois symboliquement et politiquement, est tout à fait authentique. Il faut considérer sérieusement la capacité de Donald Trump à devenir président des Etats-Unis. Les Européens auraient alors à faire à un autre type d’Américains qui n’ont pas accédé au pouvoir depuis les années 1920.
Quant à Hillary Clinton, le combat entre les représentants des deux principaux partis, qui marquera le début de la véritable campagne présidentielle en septembre, s’annonce sanglant.

There have been angry exchanges in South Africa's parliament over President Jacob Zuma's alleged links with a wealthy family.

Bertrand Badie, expert en relations internationales, est Professeur des universités à Sciences-Po Paris. Il répond à mes questions à l’occasion de la parution de son ouvrage « Nous ne sommes plus seuls au monde : un autre regard sur l’”ordre international” », aux Éditions La Découverte.

Pensez-vous que l’analyse des relations internationales est encore aujourd’hui trop centrée sur les États et la puissance ?

Évidemment oui, puisqu’elle fait rarement l’effort de regarder non seulement en direction des « acteurs globaux » (firmes multinationales, ONG…), mais aussi des sociétés et des acteurs sociaux. Regardez les conflits contemporains : dans leur grande majorité, ils dérivent de la décomposition des États, des Nations et, pire encore, des sociétés. Les relations internationales – qui se limitaient jadis à une compétition de puissances – se ramènent aujourd’hui à une compétition de faiblesses, face à laquelle les instruments militaires ne peuvent pas grand-chose et, en tout cas, n’emportent pas la décision.

Qu’est-ce qui vous fait écrire que le soft power n’a jamais réussi à être un substitut du hard power ?

Le soft power a été conçu et pensé, notamment aux États-Unis après la défaite essuyée au Vietnam, afin de rattraper, par le jeu de la domination douce, les échecs d’un hard power qui commençait à atteindre les limites de ses capacités. Le succès était bien apparent : la consommation mondiale subissait l’attraction visible du modèle américain. Mais politiquement le phénomène ne produisait pas les effets attendus : boire du coca-cola, parler anglais, fréquenter les universités de la côte Est ou être « cinéphage » des superproductions américaines, ne vous convertissait pas en soutien de la diplomatie américaine ! Deux exemples ne trompent pas : celui de l’Amérique latine et celui du Moyen-Orient, tous deux très sensibles au modèle américain et qui ont développé, dès les années 1980, un anti-américanisme parfois virulent.

Vous dénoncez un tournant néoconservateur de la France après 2003. Mais peut-on mettre toutes les interventions militaires dans le même sac ? Le Mali n’est-il pas l’opposé de la Libye ?

Différent oui, mais certainement pas opposé. A la base du néo-conservatisme, on trouve une vision hiérarchique et civilisationnelle des cultures, teintée de messianisme et de la conviction que cette attitude proactive atteint son maximum d’efficacité en faisant usage de la force, non plus face à des « ennemis », familiers des théories réalistes, mais face à des « criminels » avec qui on ne négocie pas. En épousant la thématique de la « famille occidentale », en rappelant la supériorité de nos valeurs, en brandissant l’argument d’une « responsabilité particulière de la France », en décidant à la place de l’autre de manière « intraitable », on s’installe dans un néo-conservatisme « soft », atténué seulement par le fait que la France ne dispose ni des moyens des États-Unis, ni de l’intensité de leur messianisme.

By Tharanga Yakupitiyage
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 17 2016 (IPS)

“When it comes to peace talks, women have a special stake,” said Gloria Steinem while discussing current peace talks in the Middle East.

Steinem, a prominent activist, joined the 60th annual session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) as part of Donor Direct Action, an NGO connecting women’s rights activists to donors.

Partnering with Karama, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) focused on violence against women in the Arab region, the two organisations highlighted the need to include women not only in politics, but also in peace processes in conflict nations.

“Women should not be in the corridor, but actually at the table,” Karama founder Hibaaq Osman told delegates.

According to the International Peace Institute (IPI), between 1992 and 2011, just 2 percent of chief mediators and 9 percent of negotiators in peace processes were women.

However, in conflict, women continue to bear the brunt of causalities, gender-based violence and livelihood insecurity.

Despite the unanimous UN adoption of Resolution 1325 calling for the increase in women’s representation in conflict management and resolution, little has been done to enforce and implement it.

No woman has ever been the chief or lead mediator in an UN-led peace negotiation.

In an effort to include more women, UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura established a Women’s Advisory Board, the first of its kind.

Though it is a monumental step towards women’s participation in peace talks, Mouna Ghanem, the founder of the Syrian Women’s Forum and member of the Women’s Advisory Board, stated that this is only the first step.

“This is not what we are aspiring for. What we are aspiring for is not only participation,” Ghanem told reporters.

“We are aspiring to be the decision makers, and we have a long way to go,” she continued.

The ongoing Syrian negotiations, which are on their fifth day in Geneva, have invited two parties to the table: Assad’s government and the main opposition bloc High Negotiations Committee (HNC). Though the Women’s Advisory Board will express their concerns and provide recommendations to the delegations, it is unclear how much influence they will have.

While criticising the lack of female decision-makers, Ghanem asked: “Why are [men] making the future of Syria? Why aren’t women also making the future of Syria? Are we going to let those who destroyed Syria and committed huge human rights violations to women and children…are we going to let them decide the future of Syria?

She added that the two-party negotiating system will not bring the best interests of Syrians, especially women.

Sahar Ghanem, the head of Civil Society Organisations Affairs Unit in the Yemeni Prime Minister’s Office, painted an almost identical picture, noting that the Yemeni peace talks also did not include women. She disclosed that women were “sacrificed” from the talks in order to bring the two reluctant parties together to negotiate.

Instead, in October 2015, a coalition of Yemeni women met with the UN Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to consult on the political situation.

Director of the Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace Zahra’ Langhi noted that mediation must go beyond just the representation of women, adding that the UN-led mission failed to do this.

“They can bring some women in a segregated track and tick the box and say ‘we have women’, but women were not respectively engaged in the process,” she told IPS.

“The peace [the UN peace envoy] aim to achieve is fragile peace…it is a peace that does not engage local communities that women are the heart of,” she continued.

Langhi also asserted that in order to have sustainable peace, a ceasefire is insufficient, and they must tackle with the root causes of the conflict.

Among the causes are militarisation and the arms trade which, in Libya, has contributed to the systematic violence against civil society representatives, especially women.

Since the country’s revolution in 2011, there has been a wave of seemingly politically-motivated assassinations. In June 2014, prominent human rights lawyer and politician Salwa Bugaighis was shot to death in her home.

A month later, Fariha al-Barkawy was gunned down in broad daylight. In February 2015, civil society activist Intisar al-Hassairy was found dead in the trunk of her car.

“Because of the militarization and the assassination of these women, other women…decided not to be part of civil society anymore,” Langhi told IPS.

Echoing similar sentiments was Syrian Women’s Advisory Board representative Ghanem who said that the international community is simply giving Syrian refugees a “painkiller” without addressing why they are refugees in the first place.

“We should ask what the disease is and the disease is distributing arms to all these groups who are fighting in Syria,” she stated.

The three women highlighted though it is important to have a 30 percent quota for women in politics, the inclusion of more women in peace talks must involve investing in local communities. This will lead to long-lasting “sustainable” peace, they remarked.

Research from the Philippines and Colombia has shown that including women and men in peace processes significantly increases the likelihood of reaching and sustaining an agreement.

Citing the case of Liberia, where a group of women began a nonviolent campaign for peace which effectively ended the Second Liberian Civil War in 2003, Steinem pointed to the power of women in matters of peace and security, stating: “Now if they could make such a difference outside the room and away from the peace table, imagine what women could do in the room and at the table if we were half of every group.”

Though a new administration has been established after more than a year of UN peace talks, violence persists in the country and the peace deal remains weak.

Similarly, the peace deal between the Yemeni government and Houthi rebels is on the verge of collapse as negotiations continue to stall.

Syrian peace talks also teeter following disputes with the HNC and the Kurdish party who plan to announce a federal system in the Northern Kurd-dominated region of the country.

End

Két évvel telt azóta, hogy az Orosz Föderáció jogellenesen annektálta a Krími Autonóm Köztársaságot és Szevasztopol városát. Az Európai Unió továbbra is ugyanolyan szilárdan elkötelezett Ukrajna szuverenitása és területi integritása mellett, mint két évvel ezelőtt. 

Az Európai Unió megismétli, hogy nem ismeri el és elítéli az orosz fél lépését, amely sérti a nemzetközi jogot. A félsziget annektálása továbbra is közvetlen veszélyt jelent a nemzetközi biztonságra, és súlyos következményekkel jár az államok egységét és szuverenitását védő nemzetközi jogrendre nézve is. 

Az Európai Unió továbbra is elkötelezett amellett, hogy az annektálás el nem ismerését a gyakorlatban is maradéktalanul érvényesítse, többek között korlátozó intézkedésekkel is. Az EU ismételten felszólítja az ENSZ tagállamait, hogy mérlegeljék az el nem ismerésnek érvényt szerző hasonló intézkedések foganatosítását, összhangban az ENSZ Közgyűlésének 68/262. sz. határozatával. 

Az EU ismételten megerősíti, hogy mélységesen aggasztja a Krím félszigeten tapasztalható fokozott katonai jelenlét és az emberi jogi helyzet romlása, így többek között a véleménynyilvánítás szabadságának, a békés gyülekezés szabadságának, a vallás és a meggyőződés szabadságának megtagadása, valamint a kisebbségekhez tartozó személyek, különösen a krími tatárok üldöztetése. Különösen aggasztó fejlemény, hogy be akarják tiltani a krími tatárok önkormányzati szervének, a medzslisznek a tevékenységét, arra hivatkozva, hogy az szélsőséges szervezet. Az EU felszólít a nemzetközi emberi jogi normák maradéktalan betartására és a nemzetközi jog szerinti más kötelezettségek teljesítésére. Alaposan ki kell vizsgálni minden olyan folyamatban lévő esetet, amelyben többek között erőszakos eltüntetések, kínzások és gyilkosságok révén emberi jogok sérültek.

Haladéktalanul szabadon kell bocsátani Oleh Szencov és Olekszandr Kolcsenko ukrán állampolgárokat, akiket a nemzetközi jogot megsértve ítéltek el és tartanak fogva, és garantálni kell Ukrajnába való biztonságos visszatérésüket. Továbbra is felszólítjuk a feleket arra, hogy a nemzetközi emberi jogi szereplőknek engedélyezzenek teljes körű, szabad és korlátozásmentes belépést és mozgást Ukrajna egész területén, a Krím félszigetet és Szevasztopolt is beleértve.

Les parlements des pays européens doivent améliorer leur coopération et s’exercer à accélérer leur prise de décision concernant le déploiement de moyens militaires.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn+var sbFBAPPID = '457641991045477';

Spending in Presidential races is breaking one record after another, but money alone does not buy power.

Since July 2010, when a US federal court decision allowed for the creation of “independent” expenditure committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, spending in US politics has been spiraling out of control. In 2016 alone, according to a lobbying industry monitor, nearly $260 million have been spent. That is a third of what was spent in 2012 for the Presidential campaign as a whole.

Of course, those so called Super-PACs cannot donate money directly to a political candidate and cannot coordinate their spending with campaign manager, but they can spend to support the candidates of their liking independently. However, money alone does not seem to buy public “love.”

The proof is that the most successful in money raising was Jeb Bush, who nonetheless was forced to drop out of the race in February, failing to win even a single primary. One Super Pac standing behind him named “Right to Rise USA” had amassed $118,685,876 for a candidate that did not make it even to the top three of the race. His campaign raised $157,6 million, but only had the time to spend $30,7.

Up to now, donors have spent $200 million on candidates dropping out of the race, with money buying little more than this air, unless seen of course as a long term investment.

Through polarizing, violent, and politically incorrect language, Donald Trump has secured thousands of hours’ worth of media coverage completely free. That was also better quality coverage, since political advertising is thrown into audience with “saturated” attention spans, who may be trained to bounce off political messaging during dense campaigns with a multitude of candidates. As a self-pronounced “anti-establishment” choice, Trump renounced seper PACS and is paying a lot out of his own pocket.

Still, money does talk.

Hillary Clinton’s primary super PAC has raised $51 million, which may not be needed in the primaries. In addition, her campaign has raised $188 million, has spent $97,5 and she has $32 million cash in hand.

That is approximately double the money Bernie Sanders has raised. His campaign boasts 5 million unique contributors, and has raised $96,3 million, but has spent already $81,6. And he has no Super PAC money.

No one can enter a race without serious money. Money is in-itself part of the campaign and is counted as much as endorsements. It is power. But, votes are not a commodity and there are many ways to getting media attention.

(Yahoo Finance, New York Times)

The post US Primaries: money alone can’t buy love appeared first on New Europe.

Quatre islamistes présumés ont arrêtés mercredi en région parisienne pour "projet d'actions violentes". L'un d'eux avait déjà été condamné à de la prison pour avoir voulu aller faire le jihad en Syrie. France 24 avait suivi son procès.