BY Seth Ferris

What does this have to do with the Pacific, and in particular the French possession of New Caledonia, we may ask? The recent revolt by the people of New Caledonia against their French colonial exploiters provides crucial insight into how colonialism actually operates and its consequences.

But what is the nexus?

 It should come as no surprise that France has been stirring the pot, causing anger in Azerbaijan with its close to unconditional support for the Armenians, particularly in relation to the Azeri success in restoring its territorial integrity. In 2020, the French called for independence for what the Armenians called Artsakh, but for the Azeris it was, would be and remains Nagorno-Karabakh.  France’s strong support for Armenians has angered Azerbaijan, especially after Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity,

In late August 2023, French interference in the region started with sending French representatives to take part in “aid convoys” to support the separatist government, which cause an immediate and angry reaction from Baku. France was also extremely vocalin condemning the final military operation launched by Baku on September 19th and 20th, which resulted in its full reintegration into Azerbaijan based on international law.

France’s foreign minister on Tuesday blasted the military operation launched by Azerbaijan in the ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh as “illegal, unjustifiable, unacceptable.”

Adding, “I would like to emphasize that we hold Azerbaijan responsible for the fate of Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh,” Catherine Colonna, told journalists on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

This is not particularly surprising, given the size of the Armenian lobby in France. And French interference continues in 2024, with the French decision to “rebuild Armenian defences” by the supply of air defense systems and radars (I wonder how Zelensky feels about this largesse?) and French training of Armenian soldiers.

Also included but not limited to … Mistral SAM systems, and radars, night vision equipment, and training and modernization of the Armenian military are all an attempt to “rebalance” the military equation, with Yerevan expecting to spend billions on new equipment.

Needless to say, this has not gone down well in Baku, with Azeri experts noting:

“The half-baked move by France to insert itself into the region will likely provoke significant reactions from Russia and Iran, and Azerbaijan is concerned that this will lead to regional instability, obstructing efforts towards normalization,” said Ayaz Rzayev, a research fellow at Baku’s influential Topchubashov Center think tank.

“Even if weapons are labeled as defensive, they inherently possess some offensive potential. Consequently, Azerbaijan feels compelled to respond to these arms deliveries with countermeasures,” he added. “All of this creates a vicious cycle of actions and counteractions that could spiral into an arms race, potentially leading to conflict.”

What does this have to do with the Pacific, and in particular the French possession of New Caledonia, we may ask?

Let’s delve into the background of the “piece of France” in the Pacific Ocean. New Caledonia was first populated by Melanesians around 3000 BC and remained isolated until Captain Cook’s visit in 1774. The French claimed the islands in 1853, ignoring the native population’s wishes, leading to bloody rebellions until 1917.

Today, local politics is divided between pro and anti-independence parties. The pro-independence Party of Kanak Liberation currently provides the President due to a coalition majority. Under the 1998 Noumea Accords, a referendum on independence was held in 2021, with a slim majority voting to remain part of France.

With the situation stable, the French government made a significant error. The Noumea Accords limited voting rights to those living in New Caledonia before 1998 and their descendants, excluding many who might support pro-French parties. President Macron proposed a bill to extend voting rights to all residents, but he did so without consulting local authorities, including the New Caledonian President. The law was passed by the French parliament on May 15, 2024.

The reaction was, to say the least, violent.

Protests immediately sprang to life in the capital, Noumea, and rapidly degenerated into riots as French police reacted with their usual thuggery (it should be noted that the French have been particularly vocal in denouncing Georgian police for “violence” which is typical of French hypocrisy), resulting in at least 3 dead and hundreds wounded, including over one hundred French Gendarmes.

A state of emergency has been declared and the situation is so bad that Australia has offered to send troops to assist the French, who are still trying to reopen the road to the international airport.

Stunning Claim

In the midst of all this violence, the French have made a rather stunning claim that Azerbaijan was supporting the separatists, based on the appearance of Azeri flags amongst those waved by those protesting against the new law that would dilute the strength of the home-grown pro-independence movement.

Azerbaijan opposes French colonialism in the Pacific. In July 2023, it invited leaders from Martinique, French Guiana, New Caledonia, and French Polynesia to a conference titled “Towards the Complete Elimination of Colonialism,” leading to the formation of the Baku Group which aims to “support the just struggle of the peoples suffering from the colonial policy of France”

The group issued a statement this week expressing solidarity with the Indigenous Kanak people against the new French reforms. “We stand in solidarity with our Kanak friends and support their fair struggle,” it said. The French response, which also blames Russia and China, was made by French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin, who told the TV channel, France 2, that Azerbaijan, alongside China and Russia, was “interfering” in New Caledonia.

“I regret that some of the Caledonian pro-independence leaders have made a deal with Azerbaijan,” he alleged.

He added:

“Even if there are attempts at interference … France is sovereign on its own territory, and so much the better.”

Meanwhile, the Azeri government is not taking these accusations laying down, responding

“The stance of France demonstrates that it refuses to learn from the current situation in the colonial regions that it faces today and continues its previous behavior and policy in this regard”

Azerbaijan likely sees an opportunity to trouble France in response to French interference in Nagorno-Karabakh, exposing French hypocrisy. It must be especially frustrating for the pro-independence native population to watch the French government support ethnic independence in Nagorno-Karabakh while suppressing them with the Gendarmerie and French military.

An excellent example of blowback, where French interference in the Caucasus causes them trouble elsewhere.

The loss of the islands of New Caledonia would be a further disaster for France in general, and for Macron in particular, as they have been unceremoniously booted out of the colonial possessions in the Sahel region of Africa. Losing the islands would not only damage French prestige, but, as with Niger, would have a significant economic impact as well, as New Caledonia is France’s main source of nickel, a metal vital to the production of modern technology, particularly in military applications.

The military bases and airport there are crucial for France to project power in the Pacific and support potential US-led conflicts against China or Russia. In their efforts to retain control, the French and their allies have often resorted to violence.

I fear the islands will become another Algeria, where French forces will disproportionately kill and torture in a futile attempt to maintain control over a territory they should have relinquished long ago. France should learn from its recent failures in Africa.

The loss of colonies, such as in Vietnam, should serve as a hard learned lesson, but French arrogance prevents them from admitting they are no longer an empire, similar to the stance of the British and Americans.

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

https://journal-neo.su/2024/06/01/new-caledonia-france-and-azerbaijan-blowback-in-a-pacific-island-paradise/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

BY Jimmy DALLEEDOO

As I write these words, real carnage is being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.

We are witnessing an atrocity of unimaginable cruelty. I had to step back from this horror, which caused deep unease within me. This pamphlet is my way of overcoming this discomfort by sharing it with my readers. Unfortunately, the genocide in Palestine is not an isolated case in history. All these tragedies find their origin in the same source: the quest for domination by capitalist forces. Washington and Tel Aviv join forces, forming one cartel among many others, with the aim of maintaining their hold on a constantly changing world.

Understanding the situation in Palestine therefore requires understanding the issues at international level. To understand the situation in Palestine, it is essential to understand imperialism, which represents the ultimate stage of domination by capitalist forces. Indeed, imperialist forces threaten people with the specter of genocide, like a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and ready to fall at certain crucial moments in history.

There have been many genocides and massacres throughout history, all with a common cause. The very essence of capitalism is marked by violence, barbarity and massacres. It is crucial to emphasize that the ruling class is universal: the bourgeoisie is a striking example. The analysis of these events must be done taking into account the class struggle. Here are some examples illustrating this reality. This text is a pamphlet for you…

1- Algeria

Algeria is currently experiencing a phase of notable economic growth. Its GDP increased by 3% in 2022 and by more than 4% in 2024. Although it was not selected as a candidate to join the BRICS, it managed to anchor its economic development in the dynamics of the new multipolar world. dominated by the dollar. The new trade agreements will further stimulate the Algerian economy, which has found its place in this new world order.

In March 2024, Algeria was the main driver of the Gas Exporting Countries (GECF) Summit, where the Algiers Declaration was unanimously approved. This country has overcome three major obstacles:

1. It has developed an economy that fits harmoniously into the new multipolar world order.
2. He got rid of religious extremism and terrorism.
3. He fought against neocolonialism, notably supporting the Palestinian resistance.

Indeed, Algeria's current success is the result of a long struggle. However, this struggle is far from over, as imperialism remains a virulent force. Understanding Algeria's current position therefore requires looking back at its history, marked by struggles and challenges, which have forged its identity and influenced its political and economic choices.

What happened ?

On May 13, 1958 in Algiers, a major event occurred when Pierre Lagaillarde, a reserve lieutenant in the French colonial army, led an insurrection. Its goal was to overthrow the French Fourth Republic. According to him, the French government should not negotiate with the National Liberation Front (FLN) and the National Liberation Army (ALN), the main Algerian nationalist movements fighting for Algerian independence. The strategy consisted of storming the general government building, then the command center of the French administration in Algeria. It was around 6 p.m. The insurrection brought together a socially heterogeneous group: students, high school students, farmers, fundamentalist Catholics, as well as Poujadist merchants, represented by Joseph Ortiz. The clashes began: tear gas grenades, stone throwing, shouting, batons and projectiles were thrown.

General Trinquier arrives by truck at the head of the Colonial Parachute Regiment (RPC), whose soldiers are recognizable by their camouflage canvas caps, a legacy of General Marcel Bigeard. However, a problem arises: in fact “the painted men” of General Trinquier are not hostile to the insurrection led by Lieutenant Lagaillarde. Therefore, they refuse to intervene, thus favoring disobedience.

Lagaillarde appears in front of the crowd from the balcony of the third floor of the building. It’s 7:30 p.m. At the same time, General Jacques Massu, commander of the military region of Algiers, took the head of a committee of public safety.

None of the putschists claim to be General De Gaulle at this stage. General Massu appears on the balcony accompanied by seven members of the committee of public safety. It’s 8:45 p.m. General Massu, former member of the Second Armored Division, aims to break General De Gaulle from his silence, at his home in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises. Passion plays a crucial role in these historical events, as it acts as a driving force capable of shaping the course of the history of human society.

The French Fifth Republic began on the evening of January 20, 1946, when General De Gaulle made the decision to leave the government. At the time, the parliament was made up of the communists, the SFIO (French Section of the Workers' International) and the MRP (Popular Republican Movement). De Gaulle then chose the political strategy of the "empty chair", thinking that he was indispensable and convinced that he would be recalled. However, this turned out to be a serious political error. Instead, the parties stabilized by forming a PCF-SFIO-MRP government.

Indeed, De Gaulle reacted by founding the Rassemblement du Peuple Français (RPF) on April 7, 1947. However, the Algerians were not particularly favorable to the emblem of the cross of Lorraine, a symbol associated with De Gaulle. Faced with this situation, the French government asked itself a crucial question: how to bring the general back to political affairs? General Jean Ganeval, René Coty's military leader, met two friends of De Gaulle on May 5, 1958: Colonel Gaston de Bonneval and Olivier Guichard. René Coty then proposed to De Gaulle to take the head of the government in a legal manner.

Indeed, De Gaulle had called for a vote for René Coty in December 1953, and he was therefore indebted to him. At that time, direct universal suffrage did not yet exist in France, and political alliances were essential, exerting a major influence on French political life. Of course, there were people opposed to De Gaulle's rise to power, but he strongly represented the interests of French imperialism in Africa. De Gaulle benefited from the strong support of several influential political figures such as Léon Delbecque, Roger Frey, Jacques Soustelle, Michel Debré, Olivier Guichard, and others.

Indeed, they all agreed to use the events of May 13, 1958 in Algiers as political leverage. The concept of the committee of public safety was an idea of ​​Michel Debré! These representatives of French imperialism thus exploited the legitimate anger of the Algerians to serve their own political interests. Jacques Foccart, a central figure of colonialism in Africa, dispatched André Petit, a Gaullist, to ask Salan to put two regiments of paratroopers on alert in the event of an intervention in Paris. Thus, the events of May 13, 1958 in Algiers saw Lagaillarde take over, thus favoring Gaullist political perspectives.

The government of Pierre Pflimlin, invested urgently on May 14 at 2 a.m., did not want to give in. Although the Algerian army was on alert, many police, military and General Intelligence agents chose to support the Gaullist coup.

Torture in French Algeria

Algeria was colonized by French imperialism in the 1870s, with the creation of three departments. The oppressed and colonized peoples did not benefit from any development in their living conditions. Although a few individuals from the colonies can sometimes escape this reality, they remain a minority. Meanwhile, the colonizers get richer, while the oppressed people suffer. The Algerians demanded from their warlike colonizers not only dignity, but also respect for their identity. However, this is difficult to achieve within the framework of imperialism, which is mainly based on the exploitation of human labor power.

The Algerians naturally rejected the poverty in which they were plunged. The French army has never been accepted by the Algerian population, but building a political organization capable of fighting against the colonizers can take time. Indeed, the hope of a better future, impossible in a colony, must give way to hatred towards the exploiters, which requires several years of tangible suffering. This suffering breeds hatred, which must be channeled within an anti-colonialist organization.

The influence of the Algerian People's Party (PPA), led by Messali Hadj, increased considerably under these conditions during 1945. Despite a good start, its armed faction, the Special Organization (OS), was dismantled in the 1950s, which led to a split within the party. Some PPA activists then founded the National Liberation Front (FLN) on November 1, 1954. It was this organization that set the pace in the heroic struggle of the Algerians against the French colonizer. The line of the FLN-ALN was clear: armed struggle, direct action and anti-imperialism! However, the split did not mean the end of the differences. Significant conflicts remained between two partisan factions: the Messalists on one side and members of the FLN on the other.

French imperialism has deeply divided the Algerian population. Colonialism became an intra-Algerian problem, as some Algerians wore French uniforms and collaborated with their oppressors. Thus, Algerian lives were lost in the maquis, killed by other Algerians.
The French colonizer granted broad autonomy to the army, police and Pieds-noirs militias to resolve problems “themselves”. Why did some Algerians sell their souls to the imperialist devils? Some are willing to sacrifice their integrity to climb the social ladder. They thus hope to access a higher class, and imperialism offers the financial means to help them do so.

Violence reached its peak during the 1956-1957 Battle of Algeria, when France was led by "socialist" Guy Mollet and French military service lasted 27 months. Torture in Algeria intensified, and the Palestro ambush made headlines in France, with the death of around twenty Porpoises from the colonial infantry. It is likely that French public opinion did not fully condemn these massacres, thus creating a tacit consensus in favor of torture. Indeed, some of the soldiers killed in Algeria were young people carrying out their military service. The imperialist state apparatus was well aware of the desire for revenge emanating from the families of these young people. Can we really expect a parent to excuse the death of their child? The answer is obviously no.

The FLN-ALN gained ground in the hearts of the Algerians, who remained silent, proud, and refused to collaborate with the French imperialist forces. The French intelligence services, the police and the military encountered a wall of silence. Faced with this resistance, imperialist forces resorted to extreme methods of torture, including "gegene". This technique consisted of using an electric generator connected to the genitals of the person interviewed, whether a man, a woman or a child. Faced with these atrocities, barbarities, murders, rapes and torture, the FLN-ALN reacted by intensifying direct actions and propaganda through deeds.

Indeed, an event organized at the UN demonstrated the state of mind of the Algerians at the time. On January 28, 1957, the UN held a meeting on the "Algerian question". That same day, the FLN-ALN launched a general strike, paralyzing production. In response, the French government entrusted the maintenance of order to General Massu, who commanded the tenth parachute division. More than 4,600 men were deployed in Algiers with the mission of breaking the strike by crushing the FLN-ALN.

Torture has become an institutionalized practice, with its roundups, its searches day and night, its executions, its arbitrary arrests, and its disturbing disappearances. It is regrettable to note that Guy Mollet never condemned these atrocities, despite his label as "socialist". Indeed, the events in Algeria were officially presented as a simple law enforcement operation...

The “Red Hand”: a killing machine of the French secret services

On May 9, 1958, an important trial took place in Switzerland. Max Ulrich, a police inspector, is sentenced to two years in prison for "political intelligence service and violations of official secrecy". He was a member of the "Red Hand", a French secret service agency specializing in assassinations, particularly active in Algeria. Ulrich had been recruited by the head of the SDECE (External Documentation and Counter-Espionage Service) in Bern. He had been a resistance fighter and deported to Dachau before joining the SDECE in 1952. He revealed assassination operations, called "homo operations", targeting supporters of the Algerian cause in Europe.
It was once again Guy Mollet who gave the green light to the assassinations of the Red Hand in Algeria. He also authorized the overthrow of Nasser, a supporter of the anti-imperialist struggle. The Red Hand terror began on September 28, 1956, when the offices of Mr. Otto Schlüter, arms supplier to the FLN-ALN, were targeted by a bomb. In June 1957, Otto Schlüter's mother was killed in her car, trapped by the French secret services.

The SDECE's "Arma operations" consisted of intercepting and sabotaging ships carrying weapons, particularly from Tangier. Indeed, the SDECE had impressive resources, including mine hunters, combat swimmers, GAM-56 type aircraft and small submarines. Thanks to these resources, the SDECE managed to destroy fourteen yachts, cargo ships and coasters, thus sinking more than 2000 tons of weapons. Acts of assassination were also carried out, such as the stabbing of Georges Geiser, a detonator manufacturer in Geneva, and the assassination of Marcel Leopold in the same city by Günter Guillaume, an SDECE killer, using a poison dart propelled by a blowgun. These events, although surprising, are true.

The SDECE also sent its agency “La Main Rouge” to the Federal Republic of Germany. The German government collaborated with the French government to get rid of Algerians deemed troublesome, such as members of the FLN, communist sympathizers, in exchange for favors. For example, Mr. Mohammed Ait-Achène was injured in his Peugeot 203 in the center of Bonn, and it was the German authorities who provided the necessary information to the French SDECE.

The Algerians were the victims not only of French imperialism's excessive thirst for super-profit, but also of its violence, its greed and its lies. It is crucial to remember that, for the forces of capital, human labor power is nothing more than a commodity producing profit for others, and their nationality matters little.

The massacre of October 17, 1961

The Algerians had endured seven years of horrible war. Suffering knows no boundaries; it resonates and mobilizes souls all over the world. Algerian separatists now aspired to negotiate peace. De Gaulle was willing to begin these talks, while being careful not to lose the influence of French imperialism in Algeria. However, for some French politicians, the very idea of ​​negotiating with these "natives" was unthinkable. Should France really discuss with these colonial “subjects”? For them, this was simply unacceptable.
Faced with the prospect of peace negotiations, some chose the path of terrorism to obstruct: the OAS (Organization of the Secret Army) was rampant in Algeria. Meanwhile, the French branch of the FLN organized a demonstration in Paris, with the main demand for negotiations with the GPRA. More than 30,000 people were expected to be mobilized for this event in the streets of the capital. Among the demonstrators, more than 8% were FMA (French Muslims from Algeria) living in precarious conditions in the slums of Nanterre.

The FMA were subject to a merciless curfew imposed by the prefect of police Maurice Papon. The DST had obtained instructions from the FLN, ordering: "1- to cease all attacks against the police and, in the event of self-defense and the death of a police officer, to provide a detailed report; 2- from us inform with a detailed report on how you liquidate the harkis It would be more judicious to organize them within the barracks to carry out a spectacular action, either a mass desertion or by provoking a mutiny. means more effective than individual physical elimination. If we could "reclaim" the harkis and take spectacular political action, it would be far more fruitful than revenge against poor lost souls."

The FLN therefore organized a peaceful demonstration, advocating appeasement, but the imperialist militia that is the national police was eager for confrontation. Despite the pouring rain that fell on Paris, Algerians gathered to march, thus marking the day of October 17, 1961. The procession wound through the streets of the city, from l'Etoile to Bonne-Nouvelle, from La Concorde at the Opera. Unfortunately, around 200 demonstrators found themselves isolated, lost in the night. The clock was ticking: it was 8 p.m., the time when the Algerians had to return to their homes. However, more than 30,000 of them continued to march, carried by their courage, their ideals, their demands. It was then that the police went on the attack.

Some Algerians found themselves isolated in small groups, while others were crowded into stadiums: the repression that followed was unprecedentedly brutal. Clubbed, beaten, tortured, shot at point blank range, thrown into the Seine to meet an atrocious death, it was a real massacre. In the days that followed, gunshot bodies continued to be discovered. And the Parisians in all this? They didn't see anything, of course! The radio silence of the media only confirmed their class allegiance: simple propaganda instruments serving the interests of capital!

Gaullist Barbouzes

The "Barbouzes" were thus designated, named in reference to general intelligence agents deployed abroad, hiding behind false beards and identities. France was gripped by the terror of attacks perpetrated by the OAS, which reached peaks of violence in 1961. The OAS would stop at nothing to eliminate all forms of opposition. The mayor of Evian was killed in an attack on March 31, 1961, while on June 18, the derailment of the Paris-Strasbourg train caused the death of 23 people. Even General De Gaulle narrowly escaped an assassination attempt on September 8 in Pont-Sur-Seine. An alarming report from police commissioner Jean-Paul Guépratte of the RG reported this. Roger Frey, Minister of the Interior, then decided to reorganize the anti-OAS system, thus giving birth to the Barbouzes.

The leaders of the pro-OAS Delta commandos had infiltrated sources everywhere: in the police, the DST, the army and even in the SDECE. Their declaration was clear: “We declare war on the Barbouze!” France then became a veritable Wild West, with its car bombs, its machine guns and its armed men. It was a dark and brutal reality, where men like Charles Pasqua were involved. On the night of December 31 to January 1, 1962, Mr. Degueldre, one of the leaders of the Delta commandos, organized a rocket launcher and machine gun attack against one of the Barbouzes headquarters.

This attack left one person injured. The next day, a Vietnamese expert in martial arts killed one of the attackers from the day before with his own hands: incredible, but true! The moral of the story ? We must not confuse conflicts between social classes and conflicts within a social class! Bombs exploded here and there, testifying to the violence of these struggles. Another example was on January 29, when printing equipment was booby-trapped by the men of the Delta commando with the help of the SDECE, reducing a Barbouzes villa to ashes: 19 dead! This war was also that of the representatives of French imperialism among themselves! The struggle for the liberation of Algeria was therefore both an Algerian-Algerian and Franco-French struggle. It was a struggle within the oppressed, dominated, colonized class, but also a struggle within the dominant, colonizing class.

François Mitterrand and his bad company

In this class war, François Mitterrand was already thinking of exploiting these different contradictions with a view to possible accession to the Élysée. He succeeded, but did you know that he almost never crossed the threshold of the Élysée Palace? Indeed, François Mitterrand was friends with the nationalist and anti-communist Robert Pesquet. However, in politics, we can never truly count on friendship. Finally...

Robert Pesquet was on the verge of compromising the political career of the future President of the French Republic. At the age of 90 in 2006, he crowned his political career as departmental secretary of Manche for Bruno Mégret's MNR (National Republican Movement). The meeting between Robert Pesquet and Mitterrand dates back 44 years earlier, when the latter was a UDSR senator (Democratic and Socialist Union of the Resistance). Pesquet, elected Gaullist deputy in 1956, subsequently had affiliations with the Poujadists. His plea for a French Algeria was clear: he advocated the use of weapons to keep Algeria under the influence of French imperialism.

François Mitterrand nevertheless agreed to meet Robert Pesquet on October 7, 1959 on the banks of the Seine. There, Pesquet informed Mitterrand that he had been instructed by the Poujadists to kill him. Mitterrand was stunned: the Poujadists wanted to kill him? It was inconceivable! Pesquet then proposed a “plan B” to Mitterrand. He suggested simulating an attack against Mitterrand. This false attack would have two effects: first, Pesquet could claim to have accomplished his mission; second, Mitterrand would be protected by the police, which would make him look like a hero. Senator Mitterrand already had some experience in political maneuvering!

Indeed, Mitterrand had signed several execution orders for FLN activists, including the Algerian communist Fernand Iveton, when he was Minister of the Interior! After this first meeting, the two men met twice: once in a bar on Avenue des Champs-Élysées and a second time at the famous Senate bar. During this second meeting, Pesquet informed Mitterrand that the operation was planned for the same day. It was to take place in front of the Square de l’Observatoire, near rue Guynemer. Mitterrand had to abandon his car and hide behind shrubs in the public garden, while Pesquet opened fire. Evening has arrived. François Mitterrand dines with a friend at Brasserie Lipp on Boulevard Saint-Germain.

François Mitterrand heads alone towards his home at the wheel of his 403: it is half past midnight. Arriving at the meeting point, he gets out of his vehicle, leaves the door open, throws himself on the ground and waits. Robert Pesquet arrives at the wheel of his Dauphine car, armed with a machine gun. A problem arises: two lovers kiss in front of the car! On the second pass, a taxi drops off its customers. Mitterrand, still hidden in the bushes, is getting impatient. On the third pass, a burst of seven 9 mm bullets was fired at the 403. The next day, François Mitterrand was comforted by his loved ones, declaring: “I will not say anything that could add to the disorder of minds, but it is logical to think that the climate of political passion created by extremist groups explains this attack.”

It’s a diatribe that we know well, but in the Mitterrand style of the time. François Mitterrand will meet his “assassin” at Crystal, a few days later, in a bar located on Avenue de la Grande Armée. Robert Pesquet betrayed Mitterrand on October 22 by explaining the plot to politicians and asserting that it was Mitterrand who had set up the operation. Justice will prosecute Robert Pesquet for possession of weapons and will request the lifting of the parliamentary immunity which protected Senator Mitterrand. The latter defended himself by asserting that the instigator had been Prime Minister Michel Debré. François Mitterrand was then announced as politically dead, but we know what he would become in 1981. Clearly, the ways of capital are impenetrable!

Jean-Marie Le Pen: expert on torture in Algeria

It is interesting to note that in September 2005, the Court of Cassation put an end to a controversy sparked by the newspaper Le Monde. This revealed the involvement of Jean-Marie Le Pen in acts of torture in Algeria. Despite a defamation complaint filed by Le Pen, it was unsuccessful. A sign of truth perhaps? Jean-Marie Le Pen was then the youngest member of the National Assembly in 1956, at only 28 years old, and he belonged to Pierre Poujade's group. He had naturally supported the intervention of the army in Algeria.

It is interesting to note that Le Pen decided to commit to Algeria for a period of six months. He thus joined the Foreign Legion of the 1st REP. When he arrived in Algeria, the Battle of Algiers was raging. The decision to entrust public order in Algeria to paratroopers, taken by Guy Mollet, was disturbing for a socialist! The practice of torture was widespread in this Algeria martyred by imperialism, and Jean-Marie Le Pen was in charge of intelligence. On March 2, 1957, at 10 p.m., Jean-Marie Le Pen, accompanied by around twenty people, entered 7 rue des Abencérages, a small alley located in the Casbah.

Their intention was to capture Ahmed Moulay, a 42-year-old man, FLN activist and father. Le Pen and his group entered the house while the Chérif Moulay family was asleep. Ahmed Moulay was violently attacked by the group of paratroopers led by Mr. Le Pen. He was thrown down the stairs, dragged across the patio, his clothes torn off, and he was tied naked between two pillars. He was then beaten and tortured. Ahmed Moulay succumbed to his suffering in front of his wife and children. It is an unthinkable act of violence and barbarity.

These poignant revelations were made 45 years after the events by Mohamed Chérif Moulay, the eldest son of Ahmed Moulay, who was ten years old at the time of his father's assassination. He describes the horror his father endured: "They continued to beat him. Especially in the testicles. Then they made him drink water. A phenomenal amount. His stomach became enormous. A para Jumping on him with both feet, my father kept moaning and screaming. It was horrible. At one point, he lost consciousness. From time to time, Le Pen shouted: “Give us a name. have my word as a soldier that you will be spared”. It is a heartbreaking story which reveals the cruelty and inhumanity of these acts of torture.

Ahmed Moulay never spoke. Le Pen then decided to resort to gegene, hoping to break Moulay's heroic silence. Le Pen and his men also took away another prisoner, Rachid Bahriz, one of the brothers of Ahmed Moulay's wife. He too was subjected to prolonged torture. Witnessing the death of his brother-in-law Ahmed, he declared: "They resumed the torture session, this time with electricity. At a certain point, there was a short circuit. All of a sudden, I heard a scream, then nothing more. One of the soldiers shouted: 'My lieutenant, he is dead!'" It is an unspeakable tragedy, where the horror of torture is exacerbated by brutal death. and the loss of all humanity.

The official version claims that Ahmed Moulay was killed while trying to escape. However, the discovery of a khaki belt with a dagger hung by Mohamed Chérif Moulay, Ahmed's son, the next morning, tells a completely different story. Mohamed Chérif hid it for years. Despite two returns by the paratroopers to search the house, the belt was never found. This loss sent Le Pen into an indescribable rage. Years later, the belt was given to journalists. It was a hardened steel dagger, measuring 25 centimeters long by 2.5 centimeters wide, bearing the engraved inscription: "JM Le Pen - 1er REP". A macabre symbol of Le Pen’s direct involvement in these atrocities.

2- Cameroon

Currently, Cameroon is facing not only attacks from the terrorist group Boko Haram, but also separatist movements. It is also adapting to new global dynamics. In this emerging multipolar world, the country must find its place. It faces a crucial choice, just like many other African countries. One of these choices is to continue to be a supplier of raw materials and labor to the imperialist countries.

From this perspective, it is also necessary to consider that his government could be perceived as a puppet serving imperialist interests. The other option is to opt for independence. In this case, it would be essential to promote the anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist struggle, opposing the repression exercised by the African government which acts like a puppet. Cameroon is trying to insert itself into this new multipolar global landscape, which is breaking away from the domination of the dollar. Unlike Algeria, which has truly achieved a certain autonomy in its choices, Cameroon has not yet taken this step.

What happened ?

Thus, our two friends, De Gaulle and Foccart, positioned themselves as the main representatives of French imperialism in Africa, even as central political figures during the events of the 1960s. Indeed, the African peoples refused to be colonized or dominated. They rose up to demand their independence. Mr. Foccart then exclaimed: “We must help the African people to get a good start in their independence.” A good start? Sweet words after having subjected them to torture, violence, humiliation, mistreatment, exploitation! After stealing their natural resources! What hypocrisy!

Let’s look at Africa during this period. The peoples and ethnic groups of sub-Saharan Africa were grouped into two large federations in 1958: on the one hand, French West Africa (AOF), comprising Ivory Coast, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea, Sudan (Mali), Niger and Dahomey (Benin); on the other side, French Equatorial Africa (AEF), bringing together Congo, Gabon, Oubangui-Chari (Central Africa) and Chad. De Gaulle had a clear vision: "We are moving towards a vast and free community. In 1958, we must erect new institutions, establish bonds of union on a federal model, and organize a large political, economic and cultural entity which responds to the needs of life and progress.

In other words, De Gaulle saw Africa as inseparable from France. In the 1960s, international geostrategy was a complex balance. The world was divided into two blocs: capitalism in the West and socialism in the East. Western powers sought to exploit African resources, while socialist countries advocated sharing of wealth. Although there were tensions, notably with Mao's China questioning the supremacy of the Soviet Union, they shared a common goal: supporting anti-colonial movements. Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai even declared: “Africa is ripe for revolution.” In reality, the French government had already established the foundations of neo-colonialism, with a sort of French-style Commonwealth, relying on African elites trained in major French schools. Although coming from the African people, these elites often betray their own populations to serve the interests of imperialist countries.

In other words, these African elites would act as intermediaries between African people and the colonizers, thus facilitating the exploitation of natural resources. The year 1960 was of crucial importance. Guinea led its rebellion and its people proclaimed their independence on October 2, 1958. Cameroon followed on January 1, 1960. Then, it was the turn of Togo (April 27), Benin (August 1), Burkina Faso (August 5), Niger (August 5), Ivory Coast (August 7), Chad (August 11), Central African Republic (August 13), Middle Congo (August 15), Gabon (August 17), Senegal (August 20), Mali (September 22), Mauritania (November 28), and Madagascar (December 14). Neo-colonialism was officially established on September 28, 1958 with the adoption, by referendum, of the constitution of the French Fifth Republic. These proclamations of independence were actually window dressing, as the French government largely retained control. These pseudo-independences failed to put an end to the violence of the colonizers. That’s enough, it’s time to take concrete examples.

In Cameroon, the rebellion began in 1955 in the south of the country, where the Bamilékés claimed their independence. The French government tried to negotiate with Ruben Um Nyobé, the leader of the UPC (Union of Populations of Cameroon). However, the negotiations failed as the French government refused to recognize the Cameroonian people's right to self-determination, and the rebellion spread. In 1958, French commandos were sent to destroy the UPC headquarters, with the help of Maurice Delaunay, Gabonese ambassador and close friend of Jacques Foccart, on site. The tragedy occurred on September 13, 1958, when the French government financed Chadian riflemen to hunt down and kill Ruben Nyobé. This event marked a point of no return. The French government had assassinated Nyobé to install at the head of the Cameroonian government a certain Ahmadou Ahidjo, a Muslim from the north, not very popular but very manipulable: a puppet.

The rebellion led by the UPC in the South of Cameroon does not weaken, with Dr Félix-Roland succeeding Ruben Nyobé. The country is divided between the North and the South, and Ahidjo does not have control over Southern Cameroon. However, he signed agreements with the imperialist powers to expand their influence in the region. The first months of 1960 were a nightmare for the people of Southern Cameroon. The French government sent five battalions of General Max Briand, known for his brutality in Indochina and Algeria, to burn and devastate the villages. Despite this, the UPC refuses to give in and has even formed an armed wing, the ALNK. Foccart gave the green light to the SDECE action department for “Homo” operations (meaning homicide, therefore assassination): the Red Hand takes action.

Félix-Roland Moumié was to be eliminated discreetly. The SDECE called on William Bechtel, a reservist close to Foccart. On October 15, 1960, Bechtel introduced himself to the leader of the UPC, Mr. Moumié, posing as a journalist. During a lunch at the Le Plat d'Argent restaurant in Geneva, Bechtel poured Thallium, a powerful poison, into Moumié's glass. The poison acted quickly, killing Moumié on the spot. Although Moumié was assassinated, the UPC, bearer of his independence ideas, did not disappear. The war in Cameroon has intensified. A poignant testimony from Max Bardet, a helicopter pilot present in Cameroon from 1962 to 1964, reveals the horror of the situation: "In two years, the regular army conquered the Bamiléké country from south to north and completely ravaged. They massacred between 300,000 and 400,000 people. A real genocide. They almost wiped out the population. Armed with simple spears against automatic weapons, the Bamilékés had no chance.

At the end of the war, I carried out a month-long prospecting mission with a general administrator named Coudret. He was deeply shocked by what he saw. All these deserted villages, where had the inhabitants gone? The villages had been completely destroyed, as if by Attila's troops. Few French people intervened directly. I personally knew three or four; however, these events were not publicized. We sought to spare President Ahidjo, because he was crucial for maintaining ties between Cameroon and France. In addition, the dictator Ahidjo was supported by a secret police, the SDESEC (Cameroonian Security Documentation and Studies Service), which was entirely organized by the French secret services.

3- Guinea

Currently, Cameroon is part of a movement bringing together three other countries: Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso. These three nations have adopted a political orientation inspired by the ideas of Thomas Sankara, in opposition to the policy of certain other African countries which choose to remain vassals of imperialism, like Côte d'Ivoire under the direction of Mr. Ouattara. Guinea, in particular, promotes political principles inherited from the leadership of Sékou Touré.

What happened ?

I would have loved to discuss the many wonders of the African continent with you, but I am obliged to share the horrors of colonization. Unfortunately, Guinea has not been spared from this barbarity. The French secret services waged a war against Guinean leader Sékou Touré from 1958 to 1973. De Gaulle, once again, toured Africa at the end of August 1958 to propose his "association policy" in the framework of the “French Community”. De Gaulle's advisors recommended that he begin his tour in Conakry, the capital of Guinea, knowing that the reception there would be more tense than in Dakar. Sékou Touré was not a revolutionary by birth; he had followed an ordinary path. He participated in the Bamako congress in October 1946, during the creation of the African Democratic Rally (RDA). He became secretary general of the Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG) in 1952. In addition, he was simultaneously a deputy in the French National Assembly and mayor of Conakry in 1956. In 1957, he was a member of the Council of the AOF in Dakar and intended to receive De Gaulle on an equal footing. This is how De Gaulle landed in Guinea on August 27.

At this time, Sékou Touré responded in an emblematic manner to the policy of association proposed by De Gaulle: “We prefer freedom in poverty to wealth in slavery”. The next day, as De Gaulle arrived in Dakar, placards from the Parti du Regroupement Africain (PRA) also demanded independence. It was clear he was no longer welcome. In addition, the people of Guinea voted "no" in the September 28 referendum on the constitution of the Fifth Republic concerning the association. Thus, Sékou Touré became the main target of the French secret services. Guinea proclaimed its independence on October 2, 1958 and was immediately recognized by China and the USSR. The socialist bloc provided concrete support to the people fighting against their oppressors. Foccart gave the green light to destroy Guinea, without distinguishing between the government and the people. The dark operations of the SDECE were underway. The French SDECE had set up an extensive network on the ground: it was omnipresent.

The French government orchestrated a cruel operation: the destruction of the Guinean economy by flooding it with counterfeit currency, thus contributing to famines and increased insecurity. Service 7 of the SDECE therefore had fake currencies manufactured in denominations of 5, 10, 100 and 500 Sylis. The timing of the operation was not chosen at random, because the Central Bank of Guinea had launched the issue of its own notes. De Gaulle had prepared the disastrous ground by ordering three million CFA francs which were stored in Guinea to be made unusable. Thus, money from Guinea could no longer be used in Senegal or Mali, for example. While Sékou Touré had banknotes printed in Prague, the French secret services flooded the Guinean market with counterfeit banknotes. It is important to emphasize that this destruction of the Guinean economy by the French government added to already appalling living conditions for the Guinean people. The “icy waters of selfish calculation” poured over the souls of Guinea.

4- The Biafran War

Nigeria is currently experiencing a period of instability, with a predominant presence of jihadist groups in the country. Boko Haram is also very present there. These jihadist groups take control of towns and villages, sowing terror and destruction. It is possible that these groups are financially supported and organized by certain imperialist powers, which hinders the stability necessary for the country's self-determination.

What happened ?

Two million dead. Skeletal children with enormous bellies: the images were horrifying (and still are today). Behind this bloody war, there were arms deliveries organized by the Élysée Palace. The Biafran War, lasting from May 1967 to January 1970, shook consciences with its violence. Nigeria's Eastern Province, the richest in the country, was predominantly populated by around 13 million people belonging to the Christian Ibo ethnic group. This prosperous and dynamic region occupied the main positions in the administration and the army, to the detriment of the Muslims of the North.

On January 15, 1966, Igbo officers staged a coup. General Aguyi Ironsi took power in Lagos. However, he failed to ease tensions between the country's 250 different ethnic groups. A rebellion broke out in the North, causing a massive exodus towards the East of the country. The massacres caused more than 30,000 deaths in a few weeks. General Ironsi was assassinated on July 29, 1966 and was succeeded by General Gowon.

Gowon undertook to reform the country's institutions, but he failed to free Nigeria from the grip of the multinationals Shell and British Petroleum (BP), which relentlessly exploited Nigerian oil. The conflicts so divided the population that, on May 30, 1967, the Eastern Province of Nigeria seceded, giving birth to the region of Biafra. Colonel Ojukwu then took charge of this new region.

The conflicts worsened, because the central power wanted to reconquer the “dissident province”. Both camps requested help from France, wishing to obtain weapons. De Gaulle officially declared an embargo on arms sales to both camps, but in reality he armed them both. Humanitarian aid from Paris was mainly used to deliver weapons. France observed Nigeria with calculated perfidy, following its development very closely. French imperialism had spread its tentacles across the entire African continent, hoping to stay there for a long time.

Nigeria, populated by more than 40 million people in the 1960s, represented an immense reserve of cheap labor. Moreover, De Gaulle had confided to his faithful collaborator, Mr. Foccart: “I want the fragmentation of Nigeria.” Nigerians suffered a tragic fate, similar to that of their African brothers scattered across the continent.

Indeed, for French imperialism, Nigeria represented a robust and developing country, rich in raw materials. Worse still, it found itself under the influence of British imperialism, a competitor to France. The massacre of Africans was the result of inter-imperialist contradictions. Furthermore, the world was then divided into two blocs: the socialist East and the imperialist West. General Gowon did not hide his rapprochement with the Eastern bloc, which was unacceptable to the French government. The Kremlin supplied arms to Nigeria's anti-imperialist resistance.

The international context became even more complex after December 27, 1960, when France carried out its third nuclear test (Red Gerboise) in Reggane, in the Sahara. Two countries naturally protested: Morocco and Nigeria.

A few days after this villainous shooting, Lagos expelled the French ambassador, Raymond Offroy, as a sign of protest. The Minister of the Armed Forces, Pierre Messmer, took the liberty of asserting, speaking of the Biafrans: “I will not forgive Nigeria for its attitude after our nuclear attacks in Reggane. This allowed them to pay! They had been both provocative and ridiculous. Provocative in trying to rouse African governments against French nuclear attacks, and ridiculous in saying: "We, Nigeria, will have the atomic bomb." They are grotesques. I haven't forgiven them. » Africans must shut up and suffer! Well then !

In 1963, the SDECE (again) placed a new head of post in Abidjan: Lieutenant-Colonel Raymond Bichelot, a former OAS activist. He became a key element in the aid system for Biafra. However, in 1969, De Gaulle decided to cut off military aid to Nigeria to force Odumegwu Emeka Ojukwu to accept negotiations for a possible end to the conflict. In short, in 1967, it took several months for France to arm Biafra. Officially, France provided humanitarian aid to Biafra, without recognizing the Ojukwu government.

At the same time, De Gaulle affirmed on July 31, 1968 the right to self-determination of the Biafran province. It was the famous strategy of two irons in the fire, very often used by imperialism whatever it may be. French military aid began on November 8, 1967 when a DC-6 landed in Libreville, Gabon, with 8 tons of weapons and ammunition on board, including German-made Mauser rifles. This military aid was intensified in the summer of 1968. Officially, these weapons were delivered to Gabon and Ivory Coast, but in reality, they were heading to Biafra.

On December 11, 1968, Charles de Gaulle asked his “Mr. Africa” the question:

• Have the weapons arrived?
• General, I remind you that you did not give weapons to Biafra, you replenished Houphouët's stocks.
• Yes yes ! But finally, did this happen?

All the dark elements characterizing imperialism were brought together: lies, trafficking, assassinations, dominations. The colonial forces presented their interventions under the pretext of "exporting peace and democracy", but in reality, they were exporting war and colonial dictatorship. Unfortunately, the weapons were distributed to the different warring camps, causing a massacre. The Nigerian air force committed massacres on the roads full of refugees. The Biafran air force, organized by Carl Gustav von Rosen and recruited by Caritas, a humanitarian organization dependent on the Vatican, was also active. Certain Christian movements indeed considered the Biafran war as a war of religion. Omar Bongo secured the support of Pope Paul VI in November 1968. Russian MiGs were piloted by Egyptians, while Lagos was supported by British intelligence. Them again !

The balance of power shifted in favor of Ojukwu, but the cities of Enugu and Calabar fell into the hands of General Gowon. During this time, public opinion in Paris was alerted. French artists tried to raise public awareness of this new African drama. The people of France were affected by these massacres, because the ORTF increased the reporting. The media had long understood that emotion sold. Mr. Foccart organized aid to transport journalists to the conflict zones of Biafra. He said: "Journalists have discovered the great misery of the Biafrans; it is a good subject. Opinion is moved and the public is demanding more. We are of course facilitating the transport of reporters and television teams by planes military to Libreville and, from there, via the networks serving Biafra."

The organization of deliveries to make ever more money by speculating on these massacres worked properly, but strangely, it did not work for food parcels. On January 11, 1970, Colonel Ojukwu fled for a long exile with his friend Félix Houphouët-Boigny. On January 14, the capitulation was signed.

Example of the comprador bourgeoisie

What is the comprador bourgeoisie? It embodies hypocrisy, lies, betrayal. The bourgeoisie has created a world in its image, a world in which its class prospers by exploiting the working classes. It is a dominant, exploitative, and cosmopolitan class, owner of the means of production. The imperialist forces have positioned their pawns almost everywhere in their neo-colonies. The governments of these countries are not led by real politicians, but by political puppets leading puppet governments. These neo-colonies thus become suppliers of raw materials and malleable labor, but also easy import zones for imperialist capital. This economic-social-political reality does not only affect the African continent, obviously. There are many African leaders who, in reality, exploit their own people in the service of the interests of imperialism. Let's take a few examples.

In Cameroon, Ahmadou Ahidjo, supported by France, brutally repressed independence movements to maintain imperialist interests. In Ivory Coast, Félix Houphouët-Boigny has often been criticized for his alignment with colonial powers and his role in perpetuating economic exploitation. In Congo, Mobutu Sese Seko plundered the country's resources while serving the interests of Western powers.

These leaders, while claiming to represent their nations, have actually collaborated with imperialist forces to maintain their own power and wealth, often to the detriment of their own people. They are living examples of the comprador bourgeoisie, a class that thrives by betraying the aspirations for freedom and development of their own populations.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa

"Dad ! Thank you for hosting me !
• Let's see, Bokassa, call me 'my general', like everyone else!
• Okay dad!”, replied Jean-Bedel Bokassa to De Gaulle.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa, a former corporal in the Free French Forces (FFL), led a coup in the Central African Republic in 1966 under orders from the French government, overthrowing his own cousin, David Dacko, who had been in power since the 1960s. Gaulle loved “this brave fellow Bokassa” as he affectionately called him. The Central African Republic (formerly Oubangui-Chari), part of the AEF (French Equatorial Africa), had transitioned to neo-colonialism in the 1960s. With this false independence came increased exploitation of the riches of its soil: cotton, wood, coffee, but above all its famous diamonds.

However, the “brave fellow of Bokassa” disobeys his master. In 1969, Bokassa moved closer to the Eastern Socialist bloc. Georges Pompidou was furious! Bokassa was welcomed with open arms in Moscow and Bucharest by Nicolae Ceausescu. Moreover, Ceausescu had offered Bokassa a beautiful fiancée, Gabriela Drimba, a blonde like Bokassa liked (and a spy for the secret services). At the same time, Bokassa maintained relations with the United States, exploiting diamond and uranium deposits in the Central African Republic.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa's egocentrism had no limits: he proclaimed himself Emperor Bokassa I. Naturally, the people of the Central African Republic revolted with demonstrations in 1979. Bokassa made a serious error by savagely repressing these demonstrations, in particular by the massacre of children with mortars. As a result, President Giscard d'Estaing decided to abandon it. This triggered Operation Barracuda on September 20, 1979, intended to put David Dacko back in power, orchestrated by the SDECE.

Jean-Bedel Bokassa is a typical example of these politicians embodying the comprador bourgeoisie, representing the interests of French imperialism in Africa. They all had similar trajectories in the 1960s and 1970s, moving from colonialism to neo-colonialism under the cover of false independence: former soldiers of the French army who became dictators, supervised by the Foccart system and the SDECE. They were used as political pawns to prevent African countries from falling to the side of the socialist Eastern bloc. Jean-Bedel Bokassa died in 1996 after exile and conviction in absentia in his country. The charges against him included murder, cannibalism and embezzlement of public funds to the tune of $170 million, all with the security backing of the anti-socialist Paris government.

Omar Bongo

We could give him a nickname: the Man Perfumed with Oil. Omar Bongo was one of the largest suppliers of raw materials to imperialism, exporting oil, uranium, sugar cane, Okoumé wood, among others. The Republic of Gabon gained its independence on August 17, 1960, but French imperialism maintained immense interests in the country, notably through ELF-ERAP, under the supervision of Jacques Foccart, Pierre Guillaumat and Colonel Maurice Robert of the SDECE.

The history of Gabon took a decisive turning point at the beginning of 1964 when President Léon M'Ba was overthrown by a “revolutionary committee”, a coup d'état organized by English and North American imperialism. M’Ba was reinstated by local SDECE leaders, but he died on December 2, 1967, and Omar Bongo succeeded him. Bongo, remotely controlled by the “Gabonese clan” led by ambassador Maurice Delauney, a key element of the Foccart network, then consolidated his power.

Maurice Delauney, formerly of the French Interior Forces (FFI), had already shown what he was capable of during the massacre of the Bamilékés in Cameroon. Imperialism, by placing its pawns, favored this comprador bourgeoisie which owed it everything: banning opposition parties and newspapers, creation of a single party (the Gabonese Democratic Party, CEO) and establishment of a network sprawling network of political policing and espionage. The CEDOC (Centre de Documentation Extérieure), a Gabonese version of the SDECE, was headed by André Casimir, a former member of the DST, while the airline Transgabon was headed by Jean-Claude Brouillet, a member of the SDECE, and the Elf company had among its ranks Jean Tropel, an “ace” of service 7 of the SDECE. All these actors were funders of the Bongo system, accounting agents organized in Libreville.

In 1983, Pierre Péan published the book African Affairs, denouncing collusions between imperialism and the comprador bourgeoisie, represented in Gabon by Omar Bongo. The book was a success in bookstores, exposing these obscure relationships. Bongo's moral legitimacy, already fragile, was severely compromised. To maintain their influence, imperialism did not hesitate to organize military operations, such as that of Kolwezi, in Zaire, in June 1978, with the help of Bongo and his friend the King of Morocco, Hassan II.

Hassan ll, King of Morocco

Indeed, this king has not been a very good friend of France since he organized the kidnapping of Mr. Mehdi Ben Barka in the middle of Paris in 1965. This kidnapping, carried out by Mohamed Oufkir, his minister of Interior, had been instigated by the king himself. General Oufkir committed suicide on August 16, 1972 after a failed coup d'état. Some time earlier, he had caused a real drama by taking himself prisoner in Paris on October 19, 1966, seeking to “clear his honor”.

France, under Minister Louis Joxe, a Gaullist who had played an important role during the Evian Accords, then decided on a rapprochement with Rabat. Alexandre de Marenches, the head of the SDECE since the 1970s, whose wife had lived in Morocco, organized an anti-communist alliance of secret services in Africa. In exchange, under the presidency of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, France helped the Moroccans in the repression of the Sahrawi separatists organized by the Polisario Front, armed by neighboring Algeria. In the years that followed, Morocco became a major tourist destination with attractive prices, magical landscapes and Mediterranean clubs. Almost all of the representatives of capital will go and relax at the Mamounia Palace in Marrakech, participating in magical festivals inspired by the Arabian Nights. The cannabis market became very lucrative, estimated at $1.5 billion.

King Hassan II was also adept as an intermediary in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Claiming to be protector of all believers, including Moroccan Jews, he appointed André Azoulay, a Jew, first advisor to the king for economic affairs. King Hassan II died on July 23, 1999.

François Tombalbaye

He was president of Chad from 1960 to 1975. Chad obtained its "independence" in 1961, but like all African countries, it quickly fell into neo-colonialism, tightly controlled by the Foccart networks. In the 1960s, François Tombalbaye founded the Chadian Progressive Party (PPT) and established a dictatorship in the service of the interests of imperialism in his own country, like all the representatives of the African comprador bourgeoisie "chosen" by their colonizers.

Since the creation of the PPT, it has banned the formation of opposition political parties and independent newspapers. Despite this, a political rebellion, organized by Outel Bono and students, notably Abba Siddick, emerged. In March 1963, French police officers arrested Bono, head doctor at the Fort-Lamy hospital (now N'Djamena), on the pretext of having organized a plot. Although sentenced to death, thanks to the intervention of the PCF and the ambassador to Chad, his sentence was commuted to life in prison.

In 1966, the Tombalbaye regime designated the FROLINAT (National Liberation Front of Chad), created by Abba Siddick, as its main enemy. Faced with this opposition, Tombalbaye tried to ease tensions by offering Bono a position at the Ministry of Health, but under surveillance.

In 1968, a new French ambassador was appointed to Chad, Fernand Wibaux. Tombalbaye, faced with the total disorganization of his country, urgently met Jacques Foccart in 1969 to request his help. Imperialism then launched Operation Tacaud 1, sending two battalions of the 2nd REP to fight the FROLINAT.

In 1970, the French government learned of the visit to Paris of Abba Siddick, leader of FROLINAT, and tried to kidnap him, without success. Two months later, Tombalbaye's secret services managed to eliminate Bono in Paris.

In 1975, Tombalbaye was overthrown in a coup d'état led by General Félix Malloum. His death marks the beginning of a military dictatorship, a frequent pattern in these countries. In Chad, the comprador bourgeoisie had to be closely supervised by imperialism, especially with the growing aggressiveness of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in neighboring Libya.

We have highlighted emblematic figures of this comprador bourgeoisie, individuals from their own peoples but who have allied themselves with the interests of various imperialisms. They transformed themselves into traitors, into organic liaison agents, into intercessors between the exploiters, the colonizers and their own fellow citizens. Their betrayal led them to become suppliers of raw materials and cheap labor to the imperialist forces. The longevity of certain African presidents, for example, does not result from their legitimacy or their moral strength, but rather from their ability to repress, to plunder, to lie to their people, in short, to oppress them. Sometimes these events descend into tragedy, as was the case during the genocide in Rwanda, where the murderous madness reached terrifying proportions.

The Rwandan genocide

Rwanda, under the leadership of Paul Kagame, has become the scene of a complex situation. Multinationals have established their headquarters there, attracted by the opportunity to acquire various raw materials. To facilitate their operations, they finance particularly violent armed groups operating in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, with the support of Kagame's forces. These groups sow terror, massacre Congolese populations and plunder natural resources, then resell them in Rwanda to multinationals eager to acquire them. This pattern of violence and exploitation resulted in one of the most serious genocides in recent decades in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this dark picture, some African governments are even complicit in these atrocities. The case of Rwanda tragically illustrates the transition from a formerly oppressed country to an oppressive actor in its turn.

What happened ?

The indictment was relentless during the 1990s. Operation Turquoise, orchestrated by President François Mitterrand and Prime Minister Édouard Balladur, would have at least facilitated, if not enabled, one of the last genocides of the 21st century. This genocide cost the lives of nearly a million people, the majority of whom were Tutsis, representing more than 15% of the population. It was allegedly perpetrated by the radical branch of the Hutus. The trigger would have been the 1994 attack against President Juvénal Habyarimana, a Hutu. Subsequently, supported by the survivors of the genocide and certain members of the government, it was Paul Kagame who took the reins of Rwanda. Ironically, Kagame was considered the "good soldier" of imperialism, as evidenced by the support he received from several European human rights associations. The evidence implicating the French government in this genocide is disturbing. An investigation was opened, which would have established this involvement, but it remained unanswered for years, without the French army or the government intervening to contest these accusations. This silence alone seems eloquent.

An additional question arises regarding the support of the French government for the policy of the Habyarimana regime, a key element in understanding this terrible genocidal tragedy. French justice chose to hear certain accusers on December 23, 2005. It was Jacques Baillet, prosecutor at the Paris army tribunal, who opened an investigation for "complicity in genocide and/or complicity in crimes against humanity" . This procedure was initiated following the trip to Rwanda of the investigating judge at the Paris army tribunal, Brigitte Raynaud. On site, Me Raynaud collected the testimony of six survivors of the genocide. These six witnesses implicated French soldiers from Operation Turquoise, accusing them of having committed rapes and assassinations while giving free rein to the atrocious acts of the Hutus. On July 3, 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed this decision, while the investigation continued under the direction of the Paris court.

On April 6, 1994, the plane carrying President Juvénal Habyarimana was destroyed in mid-flight. President Habyarimana was returning from a regional summit in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where discussions on the Arusha agreement had just been finalized. This agreement aimed to share power in Rwanda with the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) led by political opponent Paul Kagamé. As the clock read 8:30 p.m., the Falcon 50 was shot down by a man-portable surface-to-air missile as it approached Kigali airport. On board were three former French soldiers, as well as the captain Jean-Pierre Minaberry, assisted by Jacky Héraud and Jean-Marie Perrine, the flight engineer. No survivors have been found. Habyarimana died alongside his Burundian counterpart Cyprien Ntaryamira and six members of their entourage.
The massacres began just hours after the attack, first targeting opponents of the Habyarimana regime. This attack served as a catalyst, but the foundations of barbarism were laid long before. Indeed, Rwanda, this small country in East Africa, was home to two main ethnic groups: the Tutsis and the Hutus. Tutsis made up 14% of the population, while Hutus made up 85%. It is crucial to emphasize that some Hutus who supported the Tutsis were also killed. Rwanda was colonized by both German imperialism and Belgian colonizers. The latter orchestrated the division of the population, favoring the Tutsis at the expense of the Hutus. Through a series of historical manipulations, the colonizers fueled hatred between the two ethnic groups to maintain their hold on the country. When the Belgians arrived in Rwanda in 1916, they introduced identity cards based on ethnicity. These identity cards proved very useful to the militias during the genocide, because they made it possible to target those who were to be exterminated: the Tutsis.

A legitimate question arises: who would have shot down the plane? Some authors point the finger at the French. For example, Colette Braeckman revealed, on June 16, 1994, on the front page of the Brussels daily Le Soir, that two black-skinned French soldiers had been sent to Rwanda by France. These accusations have never been denied. What is proven is that the device which struck the plane was a Russian-made SAM-16 missile, coming from the reserves of the Ugandan army, the main support of Paul Kagame's RPF.

A crucial testimony emerges: that of Jean Heinrich, a former military intelligence general (DRM) heavily involved on the ground in Rwanda. Before the French parliamentary commission of inquiry on June 25, 1998, Heinrich declared that the SAM-16s would have been acquired by the FPR, which would have held a stock of them. In 2002, Russia admitted to having legally sold these missiles to Uganda. Jean-Louis Bruguière, anti-terrorist investigating judge, investigating the attack (at the request of the daughter of one of the French pilots), affirms that Habyarimana's Falcon 50 would have been targeted by Paul Kagame's RPF as early as September 1993.

According to Judge Bruguière, Paul Kagamé would have entrusted the execution of the attack to his bodyguards, who would have been trained in the handling of missiles in Uganda, within a structure called "the network commando", led by a certain James Kabarebe, who later became Minister of Defense of Rwanda. The French judge collected the testimony of a former member of this commando network, Captain Abdul Ruzibiza. This testimony, made public by Le Monde on March 10, 2004, describes how the RPF allegedly introduced missiles into Kigali while going unnoticed by the UN forces (UNAMIR) present there at the time. According to officer Ruzibiza, two shooters, Eric Hakizimana and Franck Nziza, shot down the Falcon 50. Paul Kagame naturally denied these accusations, telling Mr. Bruguière that he should look for the perpetrators of the attack in Paris.

Was there a blood pact in Rwanda?

When the attack occurred, Rwanda was therefore a cauldron of hatred prepared by the various colonizers. In October 1990, a Tutsi rebellion, organized from Uganda by Rwandan emigrants, attempted to invade Rwanda. This rebellion was led by Fred Rwigyema (killed during the fighting) and Paul Kagame, both "banyarwanda" or Rwandan refugees in Uganda. They were important figures within the Ugandan army, the NRA (National Resistance Army), and former comrades-in-arms of Yoweri Museveni, the Ugandan president, whom they had helped to come to power. Even more disturbing, the American journalist Wayne Madsen declared before Judge Bruguière that the executives of the Ugandan army had been trained in subversive warfare in a specialized center at Fort Benning in the United States. Paul Kagame himself was trained in one of the best centers: Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. It was after the attempted invasion of October 1990 that France decided to send several hundred soldiers as part of Operation Noroît. It also provided President Habyarimana with several tons of weapons to strengthen his regime. These are the weapons that were used to massacre the Tutsis.

The 1994 genocide has its roots in a series of complex alliances and power plays, notably involving France, which armed the brutal and racist regime of Juvénal Habyarimana. The French government, under the presidency of Mitterrand, demonstrated tacit complicity, motivated by the imperialist rivalries at stake. British imperialism was not to be outdone, eager to get its hands on the Great Lakes region, rich in natural resources. France, for its part, was reacting to echoes of the past, notably the Fashoda complex, which had revived its colonial appetites. This French complicity was manifested in a disturbing way through the behavior of the 314 soldiers of Operation Noroît. Deployed in October 1990, they were not content with training the Rwandan army and supplying it with weapons, but were directly involved in supporting the regime in place. When the advance of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was stopped, France reinforced its military presence on the ground, under the command of Colonel Chollet. In January 1992, Chollet became advisor to the Rwandan general staff, and in March 1993, Operation Chimère, led by Colonel Didier Tauzin, was deployed to train the Rwandan army.

The contribution of the French army to the Rwandan drama goes far beyond simple logistical support. A parliamentary inquiry highlighted that, although France did not take part in the fighting, it was closely involved alongside the Rwandan armed forces. She influenced battle strategies, provided tactical advice, and even trained Rwandan soldiers in the use of sophisticated weapons. This close, even intimate, involvement raises troubling questions about France's role in the tragic events that followed. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The launch of Operation Chimera in 1993 was marred by alarming warnings from several human rights NGOs, already announcing “the beginnings of a genocide”. The dark premonitions of human rights advocates turned out to be prophetic warnings. A press release, dating from January 1993, from these associations, poignantly sounded the alarm: "Returning from a two-week fact-finding mission on site, the international commission of inquiry into violations of human rights crimes committed in Rwanda since October 1, 1990 underlines the climate of terror and insecurity currently reigning in this country. The commission's first conclusions already make it possible to establish the perpetration of acts of genocide. and war crimes, as well as the paralysis of the judicial system. The commission noted several cases of genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in the communes of Kibilira, Kinigi, Mukingo, Mutura and Kanzenze." These words, full of urgency and despair, testify to the imminent nature of the tragedy that would engulf Rwanda.

The ravages of the genocide, orchestrated with the complicity of state authorities and the military, targeted the Tutsi ethnic group. On a daily basis, Rwanda is plunged into a climate of terror, brutality and intimidation, where assassinations are commonplace. This terrorism emanates from the militias of certain political parties and certain local figures. During the clashes, civilians are victims of war crimes, within the meaning of the Geneva conventions and additional protocols, including summary executions, rape and pillaging. These atrocities are attributable to both the regular Rwandan army and the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Despite the ceasefire established in August 1992, this violence continues, and it has been proven that rapes are committed by soldiers of the Rwandan army.

FIDH is today launching an urgent appeal to the international community to pay particular attention to the tragic events shaking Rwanda. However, this international community, in the service of global financial capital, has chosen to turn a blind eye, or worse, by arming the militias, as we have seen previously. How much value does human life place when it comes to gold, diamonds, cobalt, manganese, copper, and many other resources? It is undeniable that the French military were involved with the Habyarimana regime from the beginning of the 1990s. The journalist from Le Figaro, Patrick de Saint-Exupéry, spoke in 2004 of a "mafia reflex" and a "blood pact" between France and the genocidal regime of Rwanda. He even goes so far as to claim that Rwandan refugees in the Goma region of Congo were intentionally victims of a cholera epidemic perpetrated by the imperialist forces there.

Another journalist, Pascal Krop, advances in his book The Franco-African Genocide: Should we judge the Mitterrands? that François Mitterrand would have deployed French troops in Rwanda to protect cannabis plantations belonging to Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, son of the president, in the Great Lakes region. A disturbing coincidence, isn't it? Indeed, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand maintained friendly ties with the son of Juvénal Habyarimana, Jean-Pierre Habyarimana. According to Patrick de Saint-Exupéry, the French soldiers who intervened in Rwanda were part of the Special Operations Command (COS), a unit created after the Gulf War to fill the gaps in the French army in terms of clandestine operations. For him, the COS symbolized “the armed arm of our desire for empire, of our aspiration to sovereign power. A legion under the orders of the Elysée Palace”.

In other words, this theory suggests the existence of a sort of militia at the service of capital, acting on the fringes of institutions and parliament. This raises an important question: if this structure operated outside of institutional frameworks, why did it intervene in parallel with the official Operation Turquoise? A question that raises many questions. Clashes took place in July 1994 between the COS and the RPF in the Butare region, during the establishment of a Safe Humanitarian Zone (ZHS). In 1991, after the Gulf War, France reorganized its military intelligence system, giving birth to the COS and the DRM (Directorate of Military Intelligence).

Initially, the COS was under the command of Jean Heinrich, a general who headed the Action Service of the DGSE. The distinction between the DRM and the DGSE lies in the mode of operation: the DGSE operates in a very discreet manner, collecting intelligence incidentally, while the DRM focuses on political-strategic and economic information. In the 1990s, the DGSE was active in Uganda but less present in Rwanda. During Operation Turquoise in 1994, a team from the Action Service led by Jacques Costedoat was in direct contact with Paul Kagamé's FPR, facilitating liaison between the French authorities and the FPR. The DGSE had exchanges of information with allied countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, through its collaboration with Ugandan statesman Yoweri Museveni.

When the situation in Rwanda deteriorated in October 1990, the DGSE opposed any military intervention. This disagreement was revealed in 1998 during a hearing before a French parliamentary committee by Claude Silberzahn, director of the DGSE from March 1989 to June 1993. This hearing, which took place behind closed doors on the instructions of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and which was never made public, revealed that the DGSE had carried out its activities in Rwanda in collaboration with other friendly services present there. In the absence of permanent structures on the ground, the DGSE carried out one-off missions by sending agents to Rwanda and Uganda, using specific means and previously established channels.

The DGSE's missions led to a well-established conviction, yet ignored by the French government: as early as 1991, it had clearly analyzed the political situation. She expressed regret about France's growing military involvement in Rwanda, advocating both in writing and verbally a military disengagement in 1992 and anticipating the triumphant return of Ugandan émigrés that same year. Although its warnings were issued, the DGSE was not really listened to. Although she did not anticipate the massacres of 1994, her responsibility in the management of the Rwandan crisis perhaps lies in her lack of combativeness to make her point of view prevail. According to Claude Silberzahn, France had adopted a harmful attitude, described as “interference blunder”.

Resolution 929

Resolution 929 marks a dark and crucial chapter in the story of the Rwandan genocide. The attack against President Habyarimana, far from being the only trigger, served as a torch for flames of violence already insidiously present. The first machete shots rang out shortly after the explosion, accompanied by incendiary screams from the “Milles Collines” radio station, orchestrating a symphony of terror and death. For three long months, an ocean of suffering and despair engulfed nearly a million souls, victims of a collective madness fueled by hatred. The executioners, a motley army of civilians, soldiers and militiamen, more than fifty thousand souls animated by the evil waves of propaganda, took on the role of Reapers of lives. Even those who had not made a pact with extremism were caught in the whirlwind of destruction, mowed down by a blade of blind hatred. Men, women, children, intellectuals, peasants, all met their end in the macabre ballet of machetes. Shortly after the start of the massacre, France launched Operation Amaryllis, under the command of General Henri Poncet, to save its nationals from the deadly blaze.

On May 17, 1994, in a late but vital move, Security Council Resolution 918 breathed new life into UNAMIR, allowing the deployment of 5,500 peacekeepers (UNAMIR 2) in a desperate attempt to stem the tide of violence. The mission took position on August 10. It was almost at the same time that the term "genocide" was used for the first time in resolution 925 of June 8, 1994. It is crucial to highlight the role of François Mitterrand, who effectively exacerbated the genocide situation. As horror was unleashed in Rwanda, he declared: "Our soldiers are not destined to wage war everywhere. We do not have the means to do so and our soldiers cannot be the international arbiters of the passions which today 'today are upsetting and tearing apart so many countries.' In short, he washed his hands of it!

Behind the scenes of power, General Christian Quesnot first engaged in a verbal joust with the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Alain Juppé, in order to convince him of the urgency of military intervention. Faced with this pressure, François Mitterrand agreed to listen to his general, while the Prime Minister, Edouard Balladur, gave his approval without hesitation, insisting on the exclusively humanitarian nature of the operation, "intended to save human lives, whatever the ethnic origin of those at risk. Thus, the green light is given for the launch of Operation Turquoise, which obtains validation from the UN Security Council in its resolution 929, on June 22.

Supporters of Operation Turquoise included African countries such as Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Chad, Mauritania, Egypt, Niger and Congo. The United States, for their part, naturally refused to support the operation, refusing to provide C-5 Galaxy aircraft. In this context, France benefited from the help of Russia, which sent Antonovs to assist the operation. Positioned within the framework of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes the use of force, Operation Turquoise remains framed as a purely humanitarian, and not military, mission.

In the shadow of the mountains, France established its main base on the border with Zaire, erecting its headquarters in the town of Kikavu. Years after the bloody outcome of this genocide, controversies continue. Responsibilities appear to have been mainly attributed to Hutus, leaving the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) unscathed. In the fall of 1994, François-Xavier Verschave published a report, in book form, unequivocally titled: Complicity in genocide? French policy in Rwanda. The author, with unparalleled lucidity, declared four years later: "The question mark is a caution on the part of the publisher. I for my part consider it superfluous." The facts are undeniable!

In another edifying report, published in 1999 by Human Rights Watch, in collaboration with the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the role of Paul Kagame's RPF was minimized. He was reduced to an actor who had simply led a “military victory and put an end to the genocide”. However, the story could be much more complex than that.

On July 17, 1994, Paul Kagame seized power, although his implications in the assassination of the two heads of state on April 6, 1994 have not yet been clearly established. Gérard Prunier, consultant for the Ministry of Defense in Paris during Operation Turquoise, also wrote a book on the Rwandan genocide. According to him, more than 800,000 Tutsis were massacred in three months, with between 10,000 and 30,000 Hutus also killed: a tragedy that probably represents one of the highest rates of unnatural mortality ever recorded in the world. In 2005, in Pierre Péan's book Black furors, white liars: Rwanda, 1990-1994, it is claimed that the surge of violence was simultaneously orchestrated by Paul Kagame's forces against the Hutus.

Pierre Péan paints Paul Kagame not as a liberator, but as a bloodthirsty persecutor, a modern conquistador, adept at presenting himself as a generous intellectual while committing evil criminal acts. For years, French soldiers deployed on the ground during Operation Turquoise remained silent, fearing being dragged into public trials. However, these men decided to break the silence and speak out to public opinion. In July 2006, General Jean-Claude Lafourcade, former commander of Operation Turquoise, announced the creation of the France-Turquoise association. Its objective: to bring together all those who aspire to defend and promote the honor of the French army and the soldiers who served in Rwanda.

François Mitterrand chose to support the criminal regime of Juvénal Habyarimana from the early 1990s, even as the genocide was brewing. His political responsibility in these events is undeniable. On April 7, 1994, as the genocide began, France recognized and supported the Rwandan government responsible for these atrocities. On April 27, 1994, in the midst of the genocide, while innocent people were atrociously mutilated, Jérôme Bicamumpaka, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Rwanda, and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, leader of the coalition for the defense of the Republic made up of Hutu extremists, were on a diplomatic visit to Paris. They were received at the Élysée, at Matignon and at the Ministry of Cooperation. Meanwhile, the French government organized the evacuation of Agathe Habyarimana, the president's widow, known for representing the hard-line faction of the regime and financially supporting the "thousand hills" radio station.

Palestine

The Israel-Palestine conflict does not begin on October 7, 2023. Its roots lie in the carving up of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th century, a maneuver orchestrated by French and British imperialism. Indeed, Palestine, along with Israel, was part of Greater Syria, a territory encompassing Palestine, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and parts of present-day Turkey. Palestine was then a province of the Ottoman Empire.

The world suffered through the First World War between 1914 and 1918. British imperialism and France shared a common goal: the fall of the Ottoman Empire. How to carve up an empire without provoking a rebellion among its population? By allying with part of it, naturally. The British and French therefore sought support from the Arabs of Palestine. Negotiations were undertaken between Arab leaders and the British government, developed in 1917 by T. E. Lawrence, a British representative known as Lawrence of Arabia. The Arabs, falling into the trap, agreed to revolt under the banner of Anglo-French imperialism. However, they set one condition: the creation of an independent Arab-Muslim state. The first negotiations took place in 1915, led by Henry MacMahon, a Briton, and Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca. MacMahon promised Hussein the creation of an independent and sovereign Arab-Muslim state.

As the icing on the poisoned cake, the British made a declaration whose central axis was the support of Jews from different countries of the world: the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The trap closed on the Arabs. Indeed, the declaration affirmed the need for a “Jewish national home” to be established in Palestine. The city of Damascus was then retaken by the British troops of General Allenby between 1917 and 1918. This annexation was carried out without a battle, because the probable opposition had been neutralized by the negotiations. Worse still, it was supported by certain Arab armed forces.
The year of the Sykes-Picot agreements and the Paris conference.

However, in 1916, secret agreements were signed between the British and French governments, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and naturally supported by the Zionists. Imperialism often uses the "two irons in the fire" tactic, consisting of keeping several exit doors. This is an opportunist position, because imperialism is not concerned with moral trivialities. Thus, while the British and the French made great promises to the Arab peoples, they simultaneously organized the colonization of the future Palestine with the Zionists.

The World Zionist Organization (WSO) was then represented by Chaïm Weizmann, who played a key role in directing the policies of Anglo-French imperialism. The French government was already considering establishing a mandate over Syria and Lebanon before 1948. The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 also marked the birth of imperial-Zionism. Then, the Paris conference saw the victorious countries of the First World War finalize their plans to colonize Palestine. King Faisal I claimed the legitimate territories of Greater Syria, including Palestine. However, during this conference, an agreement was reached between Weizmann and Faisal. In a turnaround, Faisal recognized the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

What were the consequences?
The consequences were multiple, with a rise in different nationalisms. In April 1920, the San Remo Conference took place, preceded by violent riots in Jerusalem which caused more than ten deaths and several dozen injured. These unrest were orchestrated by the British government. After this conference, Palestine was officially placed under British mandate. King Faisal I was expelled from Palestine and Herbert Samuel, a fervent Zionist, was appointed High Commissioner for Palestine. This mandate marked the beginning of incessant struggles, fueling legitimate anti-colonialist desires rather than appeasing them.

Despite several riots in 1921, the high representative of imperial-Zionism, Winston Churchill, presented a White Paper in 1922. In this document, the British government reaffirmed the obligation to create a Jewish national home in Palestine, while allocating the territories east of the Jordan River to the Arabs. In reality, this White Paper served as a colonialist road map. Emir Abdullah, one of Hussein's sons, was appointed ruler of the Arab territory to the east, while the Zionist territory was located to the west of the Jordan. Chaïm Weizmann then claimed the right to establish a Jewish home throughout the territory, including east of the Jordan. Faced with this advance, the Arab people heroically resisted the colonizers. In response to this resistance, the Jewish Agency was created in 1929, becoming a true proto-state that promoted massive Jewish immigration to Palestine.

The independent Arab state having still not been proclaimed, the Arab revolt of 1936-1939 naturally broke out. This insurrection was severely repressed, leaving more than 5,000 dead on the Arab side. In 1939, the colonizers presented a third White Paper. Once again, the creation of an independent and sovereign Arab state was promised, but this time within a maximum period of ten years. Zionist colonizers largely resorted to direct action. Finally, after countless violence against Palestinian resistance, the State of Israel was created in 1948.

October 7, 2023
This counter-offensive by the Palestinian resistance will forever mark history. The subject is hot. The action of October 7, 2023 was tainted by manipulation, lies, as well as terror and ideological repression orchestrated by the colonizers and their allies.

105 years of colonialism: a genocide...

The Palestinian resistance recalled that the fight against occupation and colonialism did not begin on October 7, but that it began 105 years ago, including 30 years of British colonialism and 75 years of Zionist occupation. She highlighted the tragic number of Palestinians killed over the past 23 years, denouncing the lack of initiative by the United States and its allies to investigate the events of October 7, 2023. Hamas criticized the support given to the version Israeli, accusing these countries of wrongly condemning an alleged targeting of Israeli civilians. Then, Hamas explained the reasons for its military attack, designated as "black Saturday" in Israel and described as a "terrorist operation" by Western governments.
Hamas explains the reasons for its military attack, described as “terrorist” by Western governments and “Black Saturday” in Israel:

After 75 years of occupation and constant suffering, following the failure of all liberation and return initiatives for our people, as well as the disastrous results of the so-called peace process, the world was waiting for a response from the Palestinian people in front of :

• Israeli plans to Judaize the Al-Aqsa Mosque, attempts at temporal and spatial division, and intensifying Israeli settler incursions into the holy mosque.
• The far-right Israeli government's practices aimed at annexing the entire West Bank and Jerusalem region under so-called "Israeli sovereignty", as well as threats to expel Palestinians from their homes and neighborhoods.
• The detention of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, deprived of their fundamental rights, subjected to pressure and attacks under the direct supervision of Israeli Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
• The unjust blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip for 17 years, including air, sea and land restrictions.
• After exposing these points, Hamas also emphasizes:
• The unprecedented expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, accompanied by daily settler violence against Palestinians and their property.
• The plight of seven million Palestinians living in extreme conditions in refugee camps and elsewhere, wanting to return to their lands, from which they were expelled 75 years ago.
• Faced with this situation, what was the expectation for the Palestinian people? That he continues to wait and count on the impotence of the UN? Or that he takes the initiative to defend his lands, knowing that the right to self-defense is anchored in laws, standards and international conventions.
• In this context, the October 7 “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation was seen as a necessary step and a legitimate response to all Israeli conspiracies against the Palestinian people and their cause. It was a defensive act aimed at ending the Israeli occupation, restoring Palestinian rights and moving toward liberation and independence.

Israel’s fake news crushed

In this part of their story, Hamas spokespersons debunk a series of false information propagated by Israel and relayed in the West, thus joining independent journalistic investigations which have called into question the "anti-terrorist" justification of operations in Gaza. They highlight a tragic human toll, with more than 25,295 Palestinians killed, 63,000 injured and nearly 2 million displaced.

Hamas categorically rejects Israeli allegations that the Al-Qassam Brigades targeted Israeli civilians on October 7, calling them lies and fabrications intended to demonize the Palestinian resistance. They point out that these allegations are based on the official Israeli narrative, without any independent evidence to support them. They also criticize the tendency of official Israeli discourse to demonize the Palestinian resistance while justifying its actions in Gaza.

Hamas then lists some elements troubling Israel and its allies, saying these facts call into question the official narratives and justifications for the Israeli occupation:

• Video recordings from October 7, as well as subsequent Israeli testimonies, demonstrated that Al-Qassam Brigades fighters did not target civilians. On the contrary, many Israelis came under fire from the Israeli army and police, resulting from the confusion on the ground.
• The lie that Palestinian fighters beheaded 40 babies has been firmly refuted, even by Israeli sources. Despite this, many Western news agencies have unfortunately relayed this allegation indiscriminately.

• The notion that Palestinian fighters committed rape on Israeli women has been completely refuted, including by Hamas itself. For example, a report from the Mondoweiss news site dated December 1, 2023 stated that no evidence of "mass rapes" committed by Hamas members on October 7 was found, and that Israel used this allegation to justify his actions in Gaza.
• Two reports from the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth (dated October 10) and the newspaper Haaretz (dated November 18) revealed that numerous Israeli civilians were killed by an Israeli military helicopter, including at a music festival near Gaza. These reports indicate that Hamas fighters arrived in the festival area without prior knowledge. The Israeli helicopter opened fire on Hamas fighters as well as festival participants, killing 364 Israeli civilians. Yedioth Ahronoth also reported that the Israeli army targeted more than 300 sites in the surrounding areas of the Gaza Strip.
• Other Israeli testimony corroborated that Israeli army raids and soldiers' operations resulted in the deaths of numerous Israeli captives as well as their captors. The Israeli army bombed houses in Israeli settlements where there were both Palestinian fighters and Israelis. This action appears to be a direct application of the Israeli army's famous "Hannibal Directive", which clearly states that it is better for a civilian hostage or soldier to be killed rather than captured alive, in order to avoid being found involved in a prisoner exchange with the Palestinian resistance.
• Furthermore, the occupation authorities lowered the number of their soldiers and civilians killed, from 1,400 to 1,200, after realizing that 200 of the burned corpses were in fact Palestinian fighters who had been killed and mixed with Israeli corpses. This suggests that those who killed the fighters are also responsible for the Israeli deaths. It should be noted that only the Israeli army has military aircraft that were able to carry out strikes, burn and destroy Israeli areas on October 7.

The bone for the media to gnaw upon

Unsurprisingly, the only part of the document that the “embedded Israeli” media flocked to is the one where Hamas admits, half-heartedly, that “while there have been cases of targeting of [Israeli] civilians, on October 7], this happened accidentally and during the confrontation with the occupying forces. ".

However, Palestinian authors refute Israel's central narrative, accusing them of having premeditated and carried out massacres of Israeli civilians. “It is possible that errors occurred during the implementation of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system and the chaos caused along the border areas with Gaza,” tempers the Hamas document.

“As many people have attested, the Hamas movement behaved positively and kindly towards all civilians who were detained in Gaza, and sought, from the first days of the aggression, to free them; This is what happened during the week-long humanitarian truce, during which civilians were released in exchange for the release of Palestinian women and children held in Israeli prisons. »

Before deducing that “the allegations of the Israeli occupation according to which the Al-Qassam Brigades, on October 7, targeted Israeli civilians are nothing other than lies and fabrications. The source of these allegations is the official Israeli narrative and no independent source has proven these allegations. It is well known that official Israeli discourse has always sought to demonize Palestinian resistance while legalizing its brutal aggression on Gaza. »

Call for an international investigation

In the third part, Hamas believes that “The Palestinian people and people around the world realize the extent of the lies and deception that governments that support the Israeli narrative practice in an attempt to justify their action. ".

Then, he castigates “the governments which support the Israeli discourse [...], know the root causes of the conflict, namely the occupation and the denial of the right of the Palestinian people to live with dignity on their lands. These countries are not interested in the continuation of the unjust blockade imposed on millions of Palestinians in Gaza, nor are they interested in the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons in conditions where their basic rights are most often denied. flouted. »

With a certain sense of balance, the Islamic Movement then salutes "the free peoples of the whole world, of all religions, ethnicities and origins, who are gathering in all the capitals and cities of the world to express their rejection of Israeli crimes and massacres , and to show their support for the rights of the Palestinian people and their just cause. »

Before calling for an international investigation into the deadly events of October 7: “We are convinced that any fair and independent investigation will prove the truth of our story and the extent of the lies and misleading information on the part of the Israeli. This also includes Israeli allegations regarding Gaza hospitals that the resistance was using them as command centers; an allegation that has not been proven and has been refuted by reports from numerous Western newspapers and news agencies. »

Rejection of anti-Semitism

For once, the Islamic National Liberation Movement contests the anti-Semitism that many institutions, mainstream media and Western lobbies attribute to it. Hamas “claims that its conflict is with the Zionist project and not with Jews because of their religion. Hamas is not waging a fight against Jews because they are Jews but is fighting against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. »

And the authors of the narrative drive the point home: “On the basis of our religious and moral values, we have clearly expressed our rejection of what the Jews were exposed to by Nazi Germany [...] The current conflict is caused by the aggressive behavior of Zionism and its alliance with Western colonial powers. We reject the exploitation of the suffering of Jews in Europe to justify oppression against our people in Palestine. »

Leaders such as Biden, Sunak, von der Leyen, Macron and De Croo are unlikely to give any credibility to these anti-racist statements from Hamas. Despite Hamas' claims, these democratic leaders appear to have chosen to support Israel, despite accusations of anti-Palestinian racism and actions that could be qualified as genocide, perpetrated by this colonial and apartheid state in the Middle East.

Whatever happens, for Hamas “the superpowers, in particular the United States, the United Kingdom and France, must stop offering the Zionist entity a cover that allows it to evade its responsibilities and must stop dealing with it as a country above the law. This unjust behavior on the part of these countries allowed the Israeli occupation, for 75 years, to commit the worst crimes ever committed against the people, land and sacred values ​​of the Palestinians. We urge countries around the world to live up to their responsibilities under international law and relevant UN resolutions that call for an end to the occupation. »

In conclusion, the Armed Resistance Movement also calls on "free peoples around the world, particularly those nations that have been colonized and who realize the suffering of the Palestinian people [...] to launch a global movement of solidarity with the Palestinian people, to emphasize the values ​​of justice and equality and the right of peoples to live in freedom and dignity. »

Conclusion

Jean Jaurès expressed that capitalism, like a storm-carrying cloud, inevitably generates war. These conflicts arise when the already shared world leaves only a limited share to share, or when some, out of greed, want even more shares of the pie. Periods of capitalist prosperity are marked by a balance between social classes, where the popular class receives sufficient crumbs to maintain social peace. However, during periods of decline of capitalism, the popular class barely struggles for survival. If it is politically organized it can defend itself, but without this organization it becomes easy prey for the destructive desires of its exploiting class, often represented by politically organized elites. This lack of organization of the working class is glaringly exposed in capitalist reporting. Under these conditions, the popular class becomes easy prey for the warrior capitalist class, acting like a wolf facing an isolated sheep, ready to be devoured by the appetite for profit. When capitalism is starving, it can even descend into genocide, intentionally devouring multiple “sheep” for its own survival.

Is there a legal framework defining what genocide is?
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948, provides a precise legal definition of genocide. According to this convention:

A) Genocide involves the intentional killing of members of a particular group because of their membership in that group.
B) It also includes acts constituting serious harm to the physical or mental integrity of members of the group, such as acts of torture, mutilation or psychological trauma.
C) Genocide can also be manifested by the intentional establishment of living conditions aimed at bringing about the total or partial physical destruction of the group, such as food deprivation, inhumane working conditions or forced expulsions from territories inhabited by the group. band.
D) It also encompasses measures aimed at hindering births within the group, such as forced sterilizations, forced abortions, or coercive birth control policies.
E) Finally, genocide can include the forced transfer of children from one group to another group, with the aim of depriving them of their cultural, ethnic or religious identity.
These acts must be committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and thus constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law. The convention commits signatory states to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

Palestine is a striking example illustrating the concept of genocide, where the intention behind the actions is clearly identifiable. Deliberate bombings carried out by the Israeli government have resulted in the deaths of thousands of children and horrific mutilations among the civilian population. These acts of violence have been strongly condemned by the international community, with judicial bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finding some Israeli government leaders guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Atrocities include the intentional use of starvation as a weapon of war, summary executions of children, torture, massacres of innocent civilians, rape, and other forms of systematic violence. These actions demonstrate inhumane brutality that goes against the fundamental principles of human dignity and human rights.

Despite these international condemnations and the overwhelming evidence of the crimes committed, the leaders of the Israeli government persist in their refusal to comply with the decisions of international judicial bodies. This attitude of blatant disobedience raises fundamental questions about the rule of law and accountability, particularly when dominant political and military powers seek to preserve their own power and maintain their grip on disputed territories.

This deliberate disobedience on the part of Washington and Tel Aviv highlights the realities of contemporary imperialism, where geopolitical and economic interests take precedence over moral and ethical principles. Ultimately, it is the innocent population who pay the heaviest price in this conflict, victims of devastating violence and persistent injustice.
What makes confirmation most difficult is certainly the notion of “intent”. Sometimes this intention is clearly identifiable, contrary to what one might think. Palestine is a striking example of genocide with clearly identified intent. Thousands of children have been killed and others horribly mutilated as a result of bombings orchestrated by the government of Israel. The atrocious acts committed by the Israeli army were condemned by two international bodies capable of precisely targeting these clearly identified intentions. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have convicted some Israeli government leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The government of Israel intentionally used starvation as a weapon of war, carried out executions of children, torture, massacres (Israeli soldiers were seen standing in front of corpses laughing and singing), torture senseless number of children suffering from starvation, theft, rape. The army once presented as the "most moral in the world" has demonstrated itself to be one of the most "barbaric", as evidenced by the condemnation of the ICJ and the ICC. It is also obvious that these leaders do not comply with the decisions of these international bodies.
To understand this posture of clear disobedience from Washington/Tel Aviv, it is necessary to return to the nature of imperialism.

Imperialism is inherently genocidal. It represents the most advanced stage of capitalism. The use of the term "supreme" does not suggest a final phase beyond which there would be no further development, but rather a higher level of power. Within the framework of the capitalist mode of production, this notion of power is also associated with that of parasitism. The economic, social and political powers that emerge at this supreme stage, that is, imperialism, have the primary effect of destroying our lives.

In the imperialist stage of capitalism, finance capital becomes predominant. This results from the merger between banking capital and industrial capital. In 2024, a significant part of this financial capital is dematerialized and operates on financial markets. This transformation accentuates speculation and market volatility, thus contributing to the precariousness of many populations around the world.

Financial capital represents one of the predominant characteristics of imperialism. It gave birth to what is known as the financial oligarchy, a parasitic political elite that dominates financial markets and speculates with the aim of generating ever more wealth. This concentration of economic power is so great that the financial oligarchy exercises control over the States themselves. Indeed, it is not the States which dictate the directives to the oligarchy, but quite the opposite: it is the financial oligarchy which dictates its orders to the States.

This oligarchy has shaped the world in its image, creating an environment where borders become less and less meaningful. As a result, some oligarchies in different countries form alliances and cartels that often come into conflict with other alliances, regardless of the political positions of the states. Nowadays, states are no longer the main actors in politics, but rather serve as conduits for the interests of the financial oligarchy. They act like enforcers dressed in suits, implementing decisions dictated by financial interests rather than the needs of their populations or democratic values.

The equation is simple: imperialism is the final stage of capitalism, characterized by the emergence of financial capital and the financial oligarchy, which forms cartels, monopolies or alliances. This global political elite carries out orders dictated by these financial interests. Among the most powerful and dangerous cartels is probably that of Washington and Tel Aviv. Bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may seem neutral, but they are powerless in the face of these cartels. The systematic condemnation of Hamas, whatever the context, is a misleading simplification of history. It is a political-media directive aimed at hiding the reality that these cartels are exploiting the world and its people.

Furthermore, the question of whether Hamas is a terrorist organization can only be decided by the Palestinian people themselves, in accordance with the fundamental principle of the self-determination of peoples. Considering Hamas a terrorist organization cannot be established by the simple massacre of the Palestinian people. Recognition of the State of Palestine, as well as dignified living conditions for the Palestinian people, would allow them to determine the nature of Hamas for themselves. Additionally, although Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by around 30 countries, most of which are European, this does not represent unanimous global approval, given that there are 197 countries worldwide.

This cartel mainly aims to counter the emergence of a new global landscape. We are observing the advent of a multipolar world led by the alliance between China and Russia. The Washington/Tel Aviv axis seeks to counter this transition towards a dedollarized world, where more than 40% of the world's population is concentrated. To maintain its global domination and increase its profits, this cartel needs two essential elements: a workforce and the means of production. However, the majority of these elements are found in the Eastern bloc, led by China and Russia, rather than in the Western bloc dominated by the Washington/Tel Aviv cartel.

This economic and political perspective underlines the implacable character of imperialist actors, ready to resort to all means, including genocide, to preserve their hegemony. Imperialism or monopoly capitalism will stop at nothing to maintain its “earthly paradise” and is ready to sacrifice human lives to increase its profits. This ideology is deeply selfish, self-centered and violent. Imperialism and its cartels represent a threat to humanity, with imperial-Zionism being one of its most barbaric manifestations, but not the only one. The solution lies in the solidarity of oppressed peoples in the face of this common threat.

https://www.legrandsoir.info/genocidaire.html

THIS LONG ARTICLE EXPLAINS A LOT OF HISTORY THAT HAD BEEN HIDDEN FROM VIEW BY THE IMPERIALISTS...

I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SOURCE WHO JIMMY DALLEEDOO IS, BUT SHOULD YOU BE INTERESTED I HAVE POSTED SOME ITEMS ABOUT "LA MAIN ROUGE" [THE RED HAND] ON THIS SITE A FEW YEARS AGO, WITH SOME INFO ABOUT THE SDECE...

TRANSLATION BY JULES LETAMBOUR

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

French intelligence officials believe Russia is behind a stunt in which five coffins draped in a French flag and bearing the inscription “French soldiers of Ukraine” were deposited near the Eiffel Tower.

Three men were seen arriving in a van at about 09:00 (07:00 GMT) on Saturday. The coffins that they left were later found to contain sacks of plaster.

Police rapidly apprehended the driver, who claimed he had been paid €40 (£34) by the two others to transport the coffins. He himself had arrived in Paris only the day before from Bulgaria.

Later, police caught the two others at Bercy coach station in central Paris, where they were allegedly planning to board a bus to Berlin.

They told police they had been paid €400 to deposit the coffins, according to French media.

Police said the driver was Bulgarian and the two others were Ukrainian and German.

They were taken before a judge on Sunday, ahead of the expected opening of a judicial investigation for “violence with premeditation", the prosecutor’s office said.

Officials said that investigations were under way “to see if this was organised from abroad".

The circumstances recall two recent episodes in which French police believe Russian agents may have been involved. Both appear to have been attempts to manipulate public opinion.

In October – not long after Hamas carried out an unprecedented attack on Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking hundreds of hostages - Stars of David reminiscent of the Israeli flag were stencilled on several walls in Paris.

A Moldovan couple was arrested, who French officials believe were paid by Russian intelligence.

Last month, red hands were painted on a Holocaust memorial in Paris, and police believe the perpetrators fled abroad.

According to Le Monde newspaper, quoting a source in the investigation, one of the individuals held on Saturday had been in telephone contact with a Bulgarian suspect wanted for the red-hands affair. Le Monde named this suspect as 34 year-old Georgi F.

Moscow reacted angrily last month to President Emmanuel Macron’s repeated refusal to rule out sending soldiers to Ukraine.

Last week, Ukrainian officials confirmed that discussions had been held over the despatch of French military instructors.

This could provide the context for the coffins affair, investigators think, with Russian intelligence seeking to show that there is big opposition to deeper French involvement in the Ukraine war.

In both the Stars of David and red-hands affairs, the teams included a photographer whose pictures subsequently appeared on Internet sites linked to Russian propaganda.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd7n97dvro

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Moussa Ibrahim

EU elites are still treating Africans as savages that need ‘educating’

   The West regularly reveals its patronizing attitude towards Africa, and this is disturbing

In a recent interview, Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, made a series of remarks about Africa that starkly revealed an ongoing colonial mindset. He suggested that Africans need political guidance and education to avoid falling for Russian propaganda.

Speaking at the NATO public forum, Borrell stated: “In Africa, people support Putin. They say Putin saved Donbass. Now he will come to Africa and save us. What kind of intellectual process is behind this kind of attitude?” 

The EU’s top diplomat was regurgitating old colonialist attitudes and ways of thinking. This condescending viewpoint is not only a stark reminder of the colonial era but also a continuation of Western cultural hegemony over the Global South. It is crucial to understand why such statements are deeply problematic and how Africans can resist this patronizing attitude. 

The notion that Africans need external guidance implies an inherent inferiority and lack of agency. It undermines the intelligence and sovereignty of African individuals and societies, suggesting that without external intervention, Africans cannot navigate their own political landscapes or recognize propaganda. This view is dismissive and condescending, reflecting a belief that Africans are less capable of critical thinking and political discernment compared to people from other regions.

Historically, European powers justified their colonial exploitation by claiming they were bringing “civilization” and “education” to supposedly “backward” peoples. This paternalistic attitude framed Africans as incapable of self-governance and in need of European oversight. Borrell’s statement echoes this colonial rhetoric, implying that Africans still require guidance from their former colonizers. Such comments are not just patronizing; they perpetuate a legacy of Western cultural hegemony, where Western norms, values, and systems of governance are seen as superior and universally applicable.

By asserting that Africans need to be educated in a specific way to avoid Russian influence, Borrell assumes that Western perspectives and educational models are the only valid ones. This dismisses the rich diversity of African cultures, knowledge systems, and political traditions. It also disregards the significant strides African nations have made in establishing and maintaining their political systems since gaining independence. The idea that they need external guidance undermines their sovereignty and the progress they have achieved, ignoring the political maturity and complexity of African societies. 

Furthermore, the statement reflects double standards and hypocrisy. Western countries themselves are not immune to propaganda and misinformation, including from their own warmongering elites. Suggesting that Africans are uniquely susceptible to propaganda ignores the global nature of information warfare and the fact that all nations, including European ones, must contend with these challenges. This focus on “educating” Africans to avoid “propaganda”diverts attention from the root causes of why they might find Russia’s message appealing, such as economic inequality perpetuated by the West, historical grievances, and ongoing neocolonial practices. It suggests a superficial fix rather than addressing deeper systemic issues that affect African countries’ political landscapes.

Africans can resist and fight against this colonialist mindset through a multi-faceted approach that includes political, educational, cultural, and economic strategies. Promoting political sovereignty and unity is essential. Strengthening regional organizations like the African Union (AU) and regional economic communities (RECs) can ensure stronger political unity and collective bargaining power on the international stage. Advocating for African-led solutions to African problems reinforces the capacity and expertise within the continent to address its issues without external interference. Encouraging democratic governance and transparent, accountable governance structures that reflect the will of the people ensures that African leaders are representative and protective of their nations’ interests.

Enhancing education and critical thinking is another vital component. Developing and implementing education curricula that highlight African history, culture, and contributions to global civilization fosters a sense of pride and identity. Promoting educational systems that prioritize critical thinking, media literacy, and civic education empowers individuals to discern propaganda and misinformation. Increasing investments in universities and research institutions drives innovation and thought leadership from within Africa.

Cultivating cultural pride and awareness is crucial in reclaiming African identity. Celebrating and promoting African languages, arts, and traditions through media, literature, and public festivals strengthens cultural identity and pride. Supporting independent African media outlets that provide balanced and accurate reporting counters external narratives that diminish African agency.

Economic empowerment is another key strategy. Encouraging economic policies that promote self-sufficiency, such as supporting local industries, investing in agriculture, and reducing dependency on foreign aid, fosters economic independence. Strengthening intra-African trade through initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) builds robust and interdependent economies within the continent. Supporting startups and entrepreneurs through access to funding, training, and resources drives economic growth and creates jobs.

Building strategic alliances with countries in the Global South, such as Russia, China, India, and Latin America, can also help counteract Western dominance. Diversifying partnerships opens up diverse economic opportunities, such as trade, investment, and infrastructure development. By building relationships with multiple global powers, African nations can avoid over-reliance on any single partner, leading to more balanced and resilient economies. Diversifying diplomatic and economic partnerships helps African nations mitigate the influence of any single foreign power, preserving their political autonomy and sovereignty.

Shared experiences of colonialism and imperialism with countries in Asia and Latin America can foster mutual understanding and solidarity in addressing contemporary global challenges. Engaging with diverse cultures enriches African societies by exposing them to various perspectives and practices, enhancing cultural exchange and understanding. Countries like China, Russia, and India offer alternative development models that differ from Western paradigms, providing African nations with a broader array of strategies for economic growth and development. Collaborating with nations that have rapidly developed their technological and industrial sectors can provide valuable insights and opportunities for African countries to accelerate their own development.

Strengthening south-south cooperation focuses on collaboration among developing countries to achieve common goals such as poverty reduction, sustainable development, and capacity building. This cooperation can amplify African voices in global governance. Engaging with diverse global partners fosters global solidarity, creating a more inclusive and just international system that respects the rights and aspirations of all nations.

Central to Africa’s broader struggle for political and economic liberation is the fight for mental and cultural liberation from the vestiges of cultural colonialism imposed by the West. This involves reclaiming African cultural heritage, fostering critical thinking, and promoting a strong sense of identity. Mental liberation lays the foundation for political and economic independence by empowering Africans to challenge neocolonial influences and create development paths reflective of their own values and aspirations.

In conclusion, Africa’s pursuit of true liberation requires a holistic approach that integrates mental, cultural, political, and economic dimensions. By valuing their heritage and building diverse global partnerships, African nations can assert their sovereignty, achieve sustainable development, and shift global narratives towards a more equitable recognition of African contributions and perspectives. Borrell’s remarks serve as a stark reminder of the work still needed to dismantle the lingering colonial mindsets and to foster a world where African nations are respected as equal and autonomous agents of their destinies.

https://www.rt.com/africa/601220-eu-attitude-towards-africans/

READ FROM TOP....