Thursday, September 13, 2018

Osaka's US Open Win Re-Opens Identity Discussion in Japan

Naomi Osaka has been announced as the "brand ambassador" for a major Japanese car

By The Associated Press
YOKOHAMA, Japan — Naomi Osaka's victory in the U.S. Open has added her to a growing list of athletes, Nobel Prize winners, and beauty pageant contestants who have raised the issue of what it means to be Japanese.
The daughter of a Japanese mother and a Haitian father, Osaka was born in Japan but raised in the United States. But she is being lauded in Japan as the first from the country to win a Grand Slam singles tennis title, which has upstaged most questions about her mixed background.
Some children from mixed race families in Japan often get bullied and demeaned, called "hafu" — from the English word "half" — and are chided that they aren't fully Japanese.
Japan has embraced the 20-year-old Osaka, and she — despite barely speaking Japanese — talks fondly of her affection for her adopted country. But her victory also challenges public attitudes about identity in a homogeneous culture that is being pushed to change.
"It is hard to say for sure if the extremely narrow conception, unconsciously or consciously, held by many Japanese of being Japanese, is being loosened," Naoko Hashimoto, who researches national identify at the University of Sussex in England, wrote in an email to Associated Press.
"In my opinion, it still appears that Japanese are generally defined as those who are born from a Japanese father and a Japanese mother, who speak perfect Japanese and 'act like Japanese'."
Athletes and celebrities seem to fall into a different category. Osaka has lots of company in this realm with an increasing number of sports stars claiming mixed backgrounds.
Résultats de recherche d'images pour « US open winner osaka signs deal with Japanese car maker »
U.S. Open tennis champion Naomi Osaka hits a ball to Nissan Motor's 
Senior Vice President Asako                                                                       
For instance:
— Yu Darvish, the Chicago Cubs pitcher: son on a Japanese mother and Iranian father. Born in Osaka.
— Mashu Baker, an Olympic gold-medal winner in judo: son of a Japanese mother and American father. Born in Tokyo.
— Asuka Cambridge, Olympic silver-medal winner in the 4x100 track relay: born in Jamaica to a Japanese mother and Jamaican father, but grew up in Japan.

— Abdul Hakim Sani Brown, track and field sprinter: son of a Japanese mother and Ghanaian father. Born in Tokyo.
— Koji Murofushi, Olympic gold- and silver-medal winner in the hammer throw: son of a Romanian mother and Japanese father. Born and raised in Japan.
Résultats de recherche d'images pour « US open winner osaka signs deal with Japanese car maker »
U.S. Open women's singles champion Naomi Osaka arrives for a press 
conference in Yokohama, on Sept. 13, 2018.   (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)  
Murofushi said he's always felt Japanese.
"I know that I have a mixed heritage," he told AP. "But I always feel Japanese." He added it's "not something that really concerned me or anything."
The visibility of mixed-race athletes in Japan is sure to increase as the 2020 Tokyo Olympics approach and the country hunts for competitors in sports where it has little history.
The reverse happened two years ago in the Rio de Janeiro Games, where Brazil found athletes with Japanese roots — more than 2 million Brazilians claim Japanese ancestry — to compete in non-Brazilian specialties.
One thing is clear, Osaka is cashing in.
The U.S. Open victory was worth $3.8 million in prize money. And on Thursday, Osaka was introduced in Japan as a "brand ambassador" for the Japanese car maker Nissan. It's a three-year deal, though financial terms were not disclosed.
Osaka defeated Williams in Saturday's chaotic final . Forbes magazine reports that Williams is the highest earning female athlete with income of $18.1 million, almost all from endorsements and sponsorship deals. She's topped the list for several years.
But Osaka's mixed-race profile, her appeal in the huge Asian market, and her links to Japan's world-wide brands should drive her long-term earning potential.
Osaka was asked if she's a "new type of Japanese" — mixed race and representing three cultures.
"For me, it's just who I am," she said. "When someone asks me a question like that, it really throws me off because then I really have to think about it. I don't know. I don't really think that I'm three separate — like mixes of whatever. I just think that I'm me."
Osaka said people tell her that she acts "kind of Japanese." But she added: "I think my tennis is not very Japanese."
Jonathan Jensen, who researches sports marketing at the University of North Carolina, told AP by email that the size of the Nissan contact would depend on how much of her time the company uses. And how many tournaments — and what tournaments — she wins.
"She seems very shy and it's not for everyone," Jensen wrote. "But the potential is there if that's the route she wants to take, particularly with brands based in Asia, like Nissan. Tech firms and consumer electronics would also be a natural fit."
Osaka has charmed Japanese audiences with her grace and gentleness off the court, and her ferocity on it. She's talked about her fondness for Japanese food — curried rice topped with a pork cutlet is a favorite.
She's also been a spokeswoman for two years for the Japanese cup noodle brand Nissin, which is launching a new noodle cup to commemorate her victory.
Kazuyoshi Minowa, a spokesman for Windsor Corp, which operates tennis shops in Tokyo, said customers are asking to buy the same racket that Osaka uses. He said he met her two years ago when she visited a store.
"My impression was that she was very quiet, unlike her powerful image playing the game," he told Japanese broadcaster NHK.
Questions about race also surfaced in 2016 when Priyanka Yoshikawa was crowned Miss World Japan. Her mother is Japanese and her father in Indian and she was born in Tokyo.
This came a year after Ariana Miyamoto won the Miss Universe Japan title. She was born in Japan to a Japanese mother and African-American father.
Hashimoto, the researcher at the University of Sussex, pointed out that under Japanese law, Osaka will have to decide on her nationality before she turns 22. She's 20 now and cannot legally hold two passports.
Hashimoto referenced three Nobel Prize winners born in Japan who eventually took other nationalities. The writer Kazuo Ishiguro holds a British passport, and scientists Yoichiro Nanbu and Shuji Nakamura both now hold American passports.
She said the strict one-passport rule "could risk leading to brain drain of great talents out of Japan."

"While Naomi Osaka's victory should be celebrated on its own," Hashimoto said. "Her case provides those Japanese with a narrow conception of Japanese-ness with an excellent opportunity to rethink what it means to be Japanese."

Saturday, September 8, 2018

Barack Obama : Donald Trump is "a symptom, not the cause"

The full transcript
Barack Obama at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on Friday, September 7, 2018
Former President Barack Obama gave a speech at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on Friday, September 7, 2018, urging Americans to vote this November because American democracy "depends on it." Obama also said President Trump is "a symptom, not the cause" of division in America today, and emphasized that only voters can change the present. 
"We have been through much darker times than these, and somehow each generation of Americans carried us through to the other side," he said. "Not by sitting around and waiting for something to happen, not by leaving it to others to do something, but by leading that movement for change themselves. And if you do that, if you get involved, and you get engaged, and you knock on some doors, and you talk with your friends, and you argue with your family members, and you change some minds, and you vote, something powerful happens."
Here are his full remarks: 
OBAMA: Hey! Hello, Illinois! I-L-L!

AUDIENCE: I-L-L!

OBAMA: I-L-L!

AUDIENCE: I-L-L!

OBAMA:I-L-L!

AUDIENCE: I-L-L!

OBAMA: Okay, okay. Just checking to see if you're awake. Please have a seat, everybody. It is good to be home. It's good to see corn.

OBAMA: Beans. I was trying to explain to somebody as we were flying in, that's corn. That's beans. And they were very impressed at my agricultural knowledge. Please give it up for Amaury once again for that outstanding introduction. I have a bunch of good friends here today, including somebody who I served with, who is one of the finest senators in the country, and we're lucky to have him, your Senator, Dick Durbin is here. I also noticed, by the way, former Governor Edgar here, who I haven't seen in a long time, and somehow he has not aged and I have. And it's great to see you, Governor. I want to thank President Killeen and everybody at the U of I System for making it possible for me to be here today. And I am deeply honored at the Paul Douglas Award that is being given to me. He is somebody who set the path for so much outstanding public service here in Illinois.

Now, I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room. I know people are still wondering why I didn't speak at the commencement.

The student body president sent a very thoughtful invitation. The students made a spiffy video. And when I declined, I hear there was speculation that I was boycotting campus until Antonio's Pizza reopened.

So I want to be clear. I did not take sides in that late-night food debate. The truth is, after eight years in the White House, I needed to spend some time one-on-one with Michelle if I wanted to stay married.

And she says hello, by the way. I also wanted to spend some quality time with my daughters, who were suddenly young women on their way out the door. And I should add, by the way, now that I have a daughter in college, I can tell all the students here, your parents suffer.

They cry privately. It is brutal. So please call.

Send a text.

We need to hear from you, just a little something. And truth was, I was also intent on following a wise American tradition. Of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage, making room for new voices and new ideas. And we have our first president, George Washington, to thank for setting that example. After he led the colonies to victory as General Washington, there were no constraints on him really, he was practically a god to those who had followed him into battle.

There was no Constitution, there were no democratic norms that guided what he should or could do. And he could have made himself all-powerful, he could have made himself potentially President for life. And instead he resigned a sCommander-in-Chief and moved back to his country estate. Six years later, he was elected President. But after two terms, he resigned again, and rode off into the sunset. The point Washington made, the point that is essential to American democracy, is that in a government of and by and for the people, there should be no permanent ruling class. There are only citizens, who through their elected and temporary representatives, determine our course and determine our character.

I'm here today because this is one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for. And as a fellow citizen, not as an ex-president, but as a fellow citizen, I am here to deliver a simple message, and that is that you need to vote because our democracy depends on it.

Now, some of you may think I'm exaggerating when I say this November's elections are more important than any I can remember in my lifetime. I know politicians say that all the time. I have been guilty of saying it a few times, particularly when I was on the ballot.

But just a glance at recent headlines should tell you that this moment really is different.The stakes really are higher. The consequences of any of us sitting on the sidelines are more dire. And it's not as if we haven't had big elections before or big choices to make in our history. The fact is, democracy has never been easy, and our founding fathers argued about everything. We waged a civil war. We overcame depression. We've lurched from eras of great progressive change to periods of retrenchment. Still, most Americans alive today, certainly the students who are here, have operated under some common assumptions about who we are and what we stand for.


Out of the turmoil of the industrial revolution and the Great Depression, America adapted a new economy, a 20th century economy - guiding our free market with regulations to protect health and safety and fair competition, empowering workers with union movements; investing in science and infrastructure and educational institutions like U of I; strengthening our system of primary and secondary education, and stitching together asocial safety net. And all of this led to unrivaled prosperity and the rise of a broad and deep middle class in the sense that if you worked hard, you could climb the ladder of success.

And not everyone was included in this prosperity. There was a lot more work to do. And so in response to the stain of slavery and segregation and the reality of racial discrimination, the civil rights movement not only opened new doors for African-Americans, it also opened up the floodgates of opportunity for women and Americans with disabilities and LGBT Americans and others to make their own claims to full and equal citizenship. And although discrimination remained a pernicious force in our society and continues to this day, and although there are controversies about how to best ensure genuine equality of opportunity, there's been at least rough agreement among the overwhelming majority of Americans that our country is strongest when everybody's treated fairly, when people are judged on the merits and the content of their character, and not the color of their skin or the way in which they worship God or their last names. And that consensus then extended beyond our borders. And from the wreckage of World War II, we built a postwar web, architecture, system of alliances and institutions to underwrite freedom and oppose Soviet totalitarianism and to help poorer countries develop.

This American leadership across the globe wasn't perfect. We made mistakes. At times we lost sight of our ideals. We had fierce arguments about Vietnam, and we had fierce arguments about Iraq. But thanks to our leadership, a bipartisan leadership, and the efforts of diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers, and most of all thanks to the constant sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, we not only reduced the prospects of war between the world's great powers, we not only won the Cold War, we helped spread a commitment to certain values and principles, like the rule of law and human rights and democracy and the notion of the inherent dignity and worth of every individual. And even those countries that didn't abide by those principles were still subject to shame and still had to at least give lip service for the idea. And that provided a lever to continually improve the prospects for people around the world.

That's the story of America, a story of progress. Fitful progress, incomplete progress, but progress. And that progress wasn't achieved by just a handful of famous leaders making speeches. It was won because of countless quiet acts of heroism and dedication by citizens, by ordinary people, many of them not much older than you. It was won because rather than be bystanders to history, ordinary people fought and marched and mobilized and built and, yes, voted to make history.

Of course, there's always been another darker aspect to America's story. Progress doesn't just move in a straight line. There's a reason why progress hasn't been easy and why throughout our history every two steps forward seems to sometimes produce one step back. Each time we painstakingly pull ourselves closer to our founding ideals, that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; the ideals that say every child should have opportunity and every man and woman in this country who's willing to work hard should be able to find a job and support a family and pursue their small piece of the American Dream; our ideals that say we have a collective responsibility to care for the sick and the infirm, and we have a responsibility to conserve the amazing bounty, the natural resources of this country and of this planet for future generations, each time we've gotten closer to those ideals, somebody somewhere has pushed back. The status quo pushes back. Sometimes the backlash comes from people who are genuinely, if wrongly, fearful of change. More often it's manufactured by the powerful and the privileged who want to keep us divided and keep us angry and keep us cynical because that helps them maintain the status quo and keep their power and keep their privilege. And you happen to be coming of age during one of those moments. It did not start with Donald Trump. He is a symptom, not the cause.

He's just capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years. A fear and anger that's rooted in our past, but it's also born out of the enormous upheavals that have taken place in your brief lifetimes.

And, by the way, it is brief. When I heard Amaury was eleven when I got elected, and now Amaury's starting a company, that was yesterday. But think about it. You've come of age in a smaller, more connected world, where demographic shifts and the winds of change have scrambled not only traditional economic arrangements, but our social arrangements and our religious commitments and our civic institutions. Most of you don't remember a time before 9/11, when you didn't have to take off your shoes at an airport. Most of you don't remember a time when America wasn't at war, or when money and images and information could travel instantly around the globe, or when the climate wasn't changing faster than our efforts to address it. This change has happened fast, faster than any time in human history. And it created a new economy that has unleashed incredible prosperity.

But it's also upended people's lives in profound ways. For those with unique skills or access to technology and capital, a global market has meant unprecedented wealth. For those not so lucky, for the factory worker, for the office worker, or even middle managers, those same forces may have wiped out your job, or at least put you in no position to ask for a raise. As wages slowed and inequality accelerated, those at the top of the economic pyramid have been able to influence government to skew things even more in their direction: cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans, unwinding regulations and weakening worker protections, shrinking the safety net. So you have come of age during a time of growing inequality, of fracturing of economic opportunity. And that growing economic divide compounded other divisions in our country: regional, racial, religious, cultural. It made it harder to build consensus on issues. It made politicians less willing to compromise, which increased gridlock, which made people even more cynical about politics.

And then the reckless behavior of financial elites triggered a massive financial crisis, ten years ago this week, a crisis that resulted in the worst recession in any of our lifetimes and caused years of hardship for the American people, for many of your parents, for many of your families. Most of you weren't old enough to fully focus on what was going on at the time, but when I came into office in 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. 800,000. Millions of people were losing their homes. Many were worried we were entering into a second Great Depression. So we worked hard to end that crisis, but also to break some of these longer term trends. And the actions we took during that crisis returned the economy to healthy growth and initiated the longest streak of job creation on record. And we covered another 20 million Americans with health insurance and we cut our deficits by more than half, partly by making sure that people like me, who have been given such amazing opportunities by this country, pay our fair share of taxes to help folks coming up behind me.

And by the time I left office, household income was near its all-time high and the uninsured rate had hit an all-time low and wages were rising and poverty rates were falling. I mention all this just so when you hear how great the economy's doing right now, let's just remember when this recovery started.

I mean, I'm glad it's continued, but when you hear about this economic miracle that's been going on, when the job numbers come out, monthly job numbers, suddenly Republicans are saying it's a miracle. I have to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015 and 2016.

Anyway, I digress. So we made progress, but -- and this is the truth -- my administration couldn't reverse forty-year trends in only eight years, especially once Republicans took over the House of Representatives in and decided to block everything we did, even things they used to support.

So we pulled the economy out of crisis, but to this day, too many people who once felt solidly middle-class still feel very real and very personal economic insecurity. Even though we took out bin Laden and wound down the wars in Iraq and our combat role in Afghanistan, and got Iran to halt its nuclear program, the world's still full of threats and disorder. That comes streaming through people's televisions every single day. And these challenges get people worried. And it frays our civic trust. And it makes a lot of people feel like the fix is in and the game is rigged, and nobody's looking out for them. Especially those communities outside our big urban centers.

And even though your generation is the most diverse in history, with a greater acceptance and celebration of our differences than ever before, those are the kinds of conditions that are ripe for exploitation by politicians who have no compunction and no shame about tapping into America's dark history of racial and ethnic and religious division

Appealing to tribe, appealing to fear, pitting one group against another, telling people that order and security will be restored if it weren't for those who don't look like us or don't sound like us or don't pray like we do, that's an old playbook. It's as old as time. And in a healthy democracy it doesn't work. Our antibodies kick in, and people of goodwill from across the political spectrum callout the bigots and the fearmongers, and work to compromise and get things done and promote the better angels of our nature. But when there's a vacuum in our democracy, when we don't vote, when we take our basic rights and freedoms for granted, when we turn away and stop paying attention and stop engaging and stop believing and look for the newest diversion, the electronic versions of bread and circuses, then other voices fill the void. A politics of fear and resentment and retrenchment takes hold. And demagogues promise simple fixes to complex problems. They promise to fight for the little guy even as they cater to the wealthiest and the most powerful. They promise to clean up corruption and then plunder away. They start undermining norms that ensure accountability, try to change the rules to entrench their power further. And they appeal to racial nationalism that's barely veiled, if veiled at all.

Sound familiar? Now, understand, this is not just a matter of Democrats versus Republicans or liberals versus conservatives. At various times in our history, this kind of politics has infected both parties. Southern Democrats were the bigger defenders of slavery. It took a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, to end it. Dixiecrats filibustered anti-lynching legislation, opposed the idea of expanding civil rights, and although it was a Democratic President and a majority Democratic Congress, spurred on by young marchers and protestors, that got the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act over the finish line, those historic laws also got passed because of the leadership of Republicans like Illinois' own Everett Dirksen.

So neither party has had a monopoly on wisdom, neither party has been exclusively responsible for us going backwards instead of forwards. But I have to say this because sometimes we hear, oh, a plague on both your houses. Over the past few decades, it wasn't true when Jim Edgar was governor here in Illinois or Jim Thompson was governor. I've got a lot of good Republican friends here in Illinois. But over the past few decades, the politics of division, of resentment and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party.

This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign finance laws to give billionaires outsized influence over our politics; systemically attacked voting rights to make it harder for the young people, the minorities, and the poor to vote.

Handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits. Slashed the safety net wherever it could. Cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from ordinary Americans. Embraced wild conspiracy theories, like those surrounding Benghazi, or my birth certificate.

Rejected science, rejected facts on things like climate change. Embraced a rising absolutism from a willingness to default on America's debt by not paying our bills, to a refusal to even meet, much less consider, a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court because he happened to be nominated by a Democratic President. None of this is conservative. I don't mean to pretend I'm channeling Abraham Lincoln now, but that's not what he had in mind, I think, when he helped form the Republican Party.

It's not conservative. It sure isn't normal. It's radical. It's a vision that says the protection of our power and those who back us is all that matters, even when it hurts the country. It's a vision that says the few who can afford a high-priced lobbyist and unlimited campaign contributions set the agenda. And over the past two years, this vision is now nearing its logical conclusion.

So that with Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, without any checks or balances whatsoever, they've provided another $. trillion in tax cuts to people like me who, I promise, don't need it, and don't even pretend to pay for them. It's supposed to be the party, supposedly, of fiscal conservatism. Suddenly deficits do not matter, even though, just two years ago, when the deficit was lower, they said, I couldn't afford to help working families or seniors on Medicare because the deficit was an existential crisis. What changed? What changed? They're subsidizing corporate polluters with taxpayer dollars, allowing dishonest lenders to take advantage of veterans and students and consumers again. They've made it so that the only nation on earth to pull out of the global climate agreement, it's not North Korea, it's not Syria, it's not Russia or Saudi Arabia. It's us. The only country.There are a lot of countries in the world.

We're the only ones.

They're undermining our alliances, cozying up to Russia. What happened to the Republican Party? Its central organizing principle in foreign policy was the fight against Communism, and now they're cozying up to the former head of the KGB, actively blocking legislation that would defend our elections from Russian attack. What happened? Their sabotage of the Affordable Care Act has already cost more than three million Americans their health insurance. And if they're still in power next fall, you'd better believe they're coming at it again. They've said so. In a healthy democracy, there's some checks and balances on this kind of behavior, this kind of inconsistency, but right now there's none. Republicans who know better in Congress -- and they're there, they're quoted saying, Yeah, we know this is kind of crazy --are still bending over backwards to shield this behavior from scrutiny or accountability or consequence. Seem utterly unwilling to find the backbone to safeguard the institutions that make our democracy work.

And, by the way, the claim that everything will turn out okay because there are people inside the White House who secretly aren't following the President's orders, that is not a check -- I'm being serious here -- that's not how our democracy is supposed to work.

These people aren't elected. They're not accountable. They're not doing us a service by actively promoting 90 percent of the crazy stuff that's coming out of this White House and then saying, Don't worry, we're preventing the other 10 percent. That's not how things are supposed to work. This is not normal.

These are extraordinary times. And they're dangerous times. But here's the good news. In two months we have the chance, not the certainty but the chance, to restore some semblance of sanity to our politics.

Because there is actually only on real check on bad policy and abuses of power, and that's you. You and your vote. Look, Americans will always have disagreements on policy. This is a big country, it is a raucous country. People have different points of view. I happen to be a Democrat. I support Democratic candidates. I believe our policies are better and that we have a bigger, bolder vision of opportunity and equality and justice and inclusive democracy. We know there are a lot of jobs young people aren't getting a chance to occupy or aren't getting paid enough or aren't getting benefits like insurance. It's harder for young people to save for a rainy day, let alone retirement. So Democrats aren't just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they're running on good new ideas like Medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate debt-free.

We know that people are tired of toxic corruption, and that democracy depends on transparency and accountability. So Democrats aren't just running on good old ideas like requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns, and barring lobbyists from making campaign contributions, but on good new ideas like barring lobbyists from getting paid by foreign governments. We know that climate change isn't just coming. It is here. So Democrats aren't just running on good old ideas like increasing gas mileage in our cars -- which I did and which Republicans are trying to reverse -- but on good new ideas like putting a price on carbon pollution. We know that in a smaller, more connected world, we can't just put technology back in a box, we can't just put walls up all around America. Walls don't keep out threats like terrorism or disease -- and that's why we propose leading our alliances and helping other countries develop, and pushing back against tyrants. And Democrats talk about reforming our immigration so, yes, it is orderly and it is fair and it is legal, but it continues to welcome strivers and dreamers from all around the world. That's why I'm a Democrat, that's the set of ideas that I believe in. Oh, I am here to tell you that even if you don't agree with me or Democrats on policy, even if you believe in more Libertarian economic theories, even if you are an evangelical and our position on certain social issues is a bridge too far, even if you think my assessment of immigration is mistaken and that Democrats aren't serious enough about immigration enforcement, I'm here to tell you that you should still be concerned with our current course and should still want to see a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government.

It should not be Democratic or Republican, it should not be a partisan issue to say that we do not pressure the Attorney General or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents.

Or to explicitly call on the Attorney General to protect members of our own party from prosecution because an election happens to be coming up. I'm not making that up. That's not hypothetical. It shouldn't be Democratic or Republican to say that we don't threaten the freedom of the press because –- they say things or publish stories we don't like.

I complained plenty about Fox News -- but you never heard me threaten to shut them down, or call them enemies of the people. It shouldn't be Democratic or Republican to say we don't target certain groups of people based on what they look like or how they pray. We are Americans. We're supposed to standup to bullies.

Not follow them.

We're supposed to stand up to discrimination. And we're sure as heck supposed to stand up, clearly and unequivocally, to Nazi sympathizers.

How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad. I'll be honest, sometimes I get into arguments with progressive friends about what the current political movement requires. There are well-meaning folks passionate about social justice, who think things have gotten so bad, the lines have been so starkly drawn, that we have to fight fire with fire, we have to do the same things to the Republicans that they do to us, adopt their tactics, say whatever works, make up stuff about the other side. I don't agree with that. It's not because I'm soft. It's not because I'm interested in promoting an empty bipartisanship. I don't agree with it because eroding our civic institutions and our civic trust and making people angrier and yelling at each other and making people cynical about government, that always works better for those who don't believe in the power of collective action.

You don't need an effective government or a robust press or reasoned debate to work when all you're concerned about is maintaining power. In fact, the more cynical people are about government and the angrier and more dispirited they are about the prospects for change, the more likely the powerful are able to maintain their power. But we believe that in order to move this country forward, to actually solve problems and make people's lives better, we need a well-functioning government, we need our civic institutions to work. We need cooperation among people of different political persuasions. And to make that work, we have to restore our faith in democracy. We have to bring people together, not tear them apart. We need majorities in Congress and state legislatures who are serious about governing and want to bring about real change and improvements in people's lives.

And we won't win people over by calling them names, or dismissing entire chunks of the country as racist, or sexist, or homophobic. When I say bring people together, I mean all of our people. You know, this whole notion that has sprung up recently about Democrats need to choose between trying to appeal to the white working class voters, or voters of color, and women and LGBT Americans, that's nonsense. I don't buy that. I got votes from every demographic. We won by reaching out to everybody and competing everywhere and by fighting for every vote.

And that's what we've got to do in this election and every election after that.

And we can't do that if we immediately disregard what others have to say from the start because they're not like us, because they're not -- because they're white or they're black or they're men or women, or they're gay or they're straight; if we think that somehow there's no way they can understand how I'm feeling, and therefore don't have any standing to speak on certain matters because we're only defined by certain characteristics.

That doesn't work if you want a healthy democracy. We can't do that if we traffic in absolutes when it comes to policy. You know, to make democracy work we have to be able to get inside the reality of people who are different, have different experiences, come from different backgrounds. We have to engage them even when it is frustrating; we have to listen to them even when we don't like what they have to say; we have to hope that we can change their minds and we have to remain open to them changing ours.

And that doesn't mean, by the way, abandoning our principles or caving to bad policy in the interests of maintaining some phony version of  "civility." That seems to be, by the way, the definition of civility offered by too many Republicans: We will be polite as long as we get a hundred percent of what we want and you don't callus out on the various ways that we're sticking it to people. And we'll click our tongues and issue vague statements of disappointment when the President does something outrageous, but we won't actually do anything about it. That's not civility. That's abdicating your responsibilities.

But again I digress. Making democracy work means holding on to our principles, having clarity about our principles, and then having the confidence to get in the arena and have a serious debate. And it also means appreciating that progress does not happen all at once, but when you put your shoulder to the wheel, if you're willing to fight for it, things do get better. And let me tell you something, particularly young people here. Better is good. I used to have to tell my young staff this all the time in the White House. Better is good. That's the history of progress in this country. Not perfect. Better. The Civil Rights Act didn't end racism, but it made things better. Social Security didn't eliminate all poverty for seniors, but it made things better for millions of people.

Do not let people tell you the fight's not worth it because you won't get everything that you want. The idea that, well, you know there's racism in America so I'm not going to bother voting. No point. That makes no sense. You can make it better. Better's always worth fighting for. That's how our founders expected this system of self-government to work; that through the testing of ideas and the application of reason and evidence and proof, we could sort through our difference sand nobody would get exactly what they wanted, but it would be possible to find a basis for common ground.

And that common ground exists. Maybe it's not fashionable to say that right now. It's hard to see it with all the nonsense in Washington, it's hard to hear it with all the noise. But common ground exists. I have seen it.I have lived it. I know there are white people who care deeply about black people being treated unfairly. I have talked to them and loved them. And I know there are black people who care deeply about the struggles of white rural America. I'm one of them and I have a track record to prove it

I know there are evangelicals who are deeply committed to doing something about climate change. I've seen them do the work. I know there are conservatives who think there's nothing compassionate about separating immigrant children from their mothers. I know there are Republicans who believe government should only perform a few minimal functions but that one of those functions should be making sure nearly 3,000 Americans don't die in a hurricane and its aftermath.

Common ground's out there. I see it every day. Just how people interact, how people treat each other. You see it on the ball field. You see it at work. You see it in places of worship. But to say that a common ground exists doesn't mean it will inevitably win out. History shows the power of fear. And the closer that we get to Election Day, the more those invested in the politics of fear and division will work, will do anything to hang on to their recent gains.

Fortunately I am hopeful because out of this political darkness I am seeing a great awakening of citizenship all across the country. I cannot tell you how encouraged I've been by watching so many people get involved for the first time, or the first time in a long time. They're marching and they're organizing and they're registering people to vote, and they're running for office themselves. Look at this crop of Democratic candidates running for Congress and running for governor, running for the state legislature, running for district attorney, running for school board. It is a movement of citizens who happen to be younger and more diverse and more female than ever before, and that's really useful.

We need more women in charge. But we've got first-time candidates, we've got veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, record numbers of women -- Americans who previously maybe didn't have an interest in politics as a career, but laced up their shoes and rolled up their sleeves and grabbed a clipboard because they too believe, this time's different; this moment's too important to sit out. And if you listen to what these candidates are talking about, in individual races across the country, you'll find they're not just running against something, they are running for something. They're running to expand opportunity and they're running to restore the honor and compassion that should be the essence of public service.

And speaking as a Democrat, that's when the Democratic Party has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people, when we led with conviction and principle and bold new ideas. The antidote to a government controlled by a powerful fear, a government that divides, is a government by the organized, energized, inclusive many. That's what this moment's about. That has to be the answer. You cannot sit back and wait for a savior. You can't opt out because you don't feel sufficiently inspired by this or that particular candidate. This is not a rock concert, this is not Coachella. You don't need a messiah. All we need are decent, honest, hardworking people who are accountable - and who have America's best interests at heart.

And they'll step up and they'll join our government and they will make things better if they have support. One election will not fix everything that needs to be fixed, but it will be a start. And you have to start it. What's going to fix our democracy is you.

People ask me, what are you going to do for the election? No, the question is: What are you going to do? You're the antidote. Your participation and your spirit and your determination, not just in this election but in every subsequent election, and in the days between elections.

Because in the end, the threat to our democracy doesn't just come from Donald Trump or the current batch of Republicans in Congress or the Koch Brothers and their lobbyists, or too much compromise from Democrats, or Russian hacking. The biggest threat to our democracy is indifference. The biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism - a cynicism that's led too many people to turn away from politics and stay home on Election Day. To all the young people who are here today, there are now more eligible voters in your generation than in any other, which means your generation now has more power than anybody to change things. If you want it, you can make sure America gets out of its current funk. If you actually care about it, you have the power to make sure we seize a brighter future. But to exercise that clout, to exercise that power, you have to show up.

In the last midterms election, in, fewer than one in five young people voted. One in five. Not two in five, or three in five. One in five. Is it any wonder this Congress doesn't reflect your values and your priorities? Are you surprised by that?

This whole project of self- government only works if everybody's doing their part. Don't tell me your vote doesn't matter. I've won states in the presidential election because of five, ten, twenty votes per precinct. And if you thought elections don't matter, I hope these last two years have corrected that impression.

So if you don't like what's going on right now -- and you shouldn't -- do not complain. Don't hashtag. Don't get anxious. Don't retreat. Don't binge on whatever it is you're bingeing on. Don't lose yourself in ironic detachment. Don't put your head in the sand. Don't boo. Vote.

Vote. If you are really concerned about how the criminal justice system treats African-Americans, the best way to protest is to vote -- not just for Senators and Representatives, but for mayors and sheriffs and state legislators. Do what they just did in Philadelphia and Boston, and elect state's attorneys and district attorneys who are looking at issues in a new light, who realize that the vast majority of law enforcement do the right thing in a really hard job, and we just need to make sure that all of them do. If you're tired of politicians who offer nothing but "thoughts and prayers" after amass shooting, you've got to do what the Parkland kids are doing. Some of them aren't even eligible to vote, yet they're out there working to change minds and registering people, and they're not giving up until we have a Congress that sees your lives as more important than a campaign check from the NRA.

You've got to vote.If you support the MeToo movement, you're outraged by stories of sexual harassment and assault inspired by the women who shared them, you've got to do more than retweet a hashtag. You've got to vote.

Part of the reason women are more vulnerable in the workplace is because not enough women are bosses in the workplace – which is why we need to strengthen and enforce laws that protect women in the workplace not just from harassment but from discrimination in hiring and promotion, and not getting paid the same amount for doing the same work. That requires laws. Laws get passed by legislators.

You've got to vote. When you vote, you've got the power to make it easier to afford college, and harder to shoot up a school. When you vote, you've got the power to make sure a family keeps its health insurance; you could save somebody's life. When you vote, you've got the power to make sure white nationalists don't feel emboldened to march with their hoods off or their hoods on in Charlottesville in the middle of the day.

Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes of your time. Is democracy worth that? We have been through much darker times than these, and somehow each generation of Americans carried us through to the other side. Not by sitting around and waiting for something to happen, not by leaving it to others to do something, but by leading that movement for change themselves. And if you do that, if you get involved, and you get engaged, and you knock on some doors, and you talk with your friends, and you argue with your family members, and you change some minds, and you vote, something powerful happens.

Change happens. Hope happens. Not perfection. Not every bit of cruelty and sadness and poverty and disease suddenly stricken from the earth. There will still be problems. But with each new candidate that surprises you with a victory that you supported, a spark of hope happens. With each new law that helps a kid read or helps a homeless family find shelter or helps a veteran get the support he or she has earned, each time that happens, hope happens. With each new step we take in the direction of fairness and justice and equality and opportunity, hope spreads.

And that can be the legacy of your generation. You can be the generation that at a critical moment stood up and reminded us just how precious this experiment in democracy really is, just how powerful it can be when we fight for it, when we believe in it. I believe in you. I believe you will help lead us in the right direction. And I will be right there with you every step of the way. Thank you, Illinois. God bless. God bless this country we love. Thank you.

Monday, April 2, 2018

Winnie Mandela, ex-épouse de Nelson, est morte

Egérie populaire mais controversée de la lutte anti-apartheid, elle fut la deuxième épouse du premier président noir d’Afrique du Sud, Nelson Mandela.

Winnie Mandela, l’ex-épouse de l’ancien président sud-africain Nelson Mandela, est morte à l’âge de 81 ans des suites « d’une longue maladie », lundi 2 avril à l’hôpital Milpark de Johannesburg, a annoncé son porte-parole. 

« Elle est décédée des suites d’une longue maladie, pour laquelle elle a été hospitalisée à plusieurs reprises depuis le début de l’année. Elle est partie en paix en tout début d’après-midi lundi, entourée de sa famille », a déclaré Victor Dlamini dans un communiqué

Winnie Madikizela Mandela, qui « était l’une des plus grandes icônes de la lutte contre l’apartheid », a « sacrifié sa vie pour la liberté de l’Afrique du Sud », a-t-il souligné.

L’archevêque anglican sud-africain et Prix Nobel de la paix Desmond Tutu a salué la disparition d’« un symbole majeur » de la lutte contre le régime de l’apartheid.

« Elle a refusé de céder face à l’incarcération de son mari, le harcèlement perpétuel de sa famille par les forces de sécurité, les détentions, les interdictions et son bannissement. Son attitude de défi m’a profondément inspiré, ainsi que des générations de militants. »

« Nous avons perdu une mère, une grand-mère, une amie, une camarade, une meneuse et une icône », a, pour sa part, déclaré le président sud-africain, Cyril Ramaphosa, dans une brève allocution télévisée. Le Congrès national africain (ANC, au pouvoir) avait rendu hommage peu avant, par la voix de l’un de ses responsables, Mbalula Fikile, à une femme qui « symbolisait la force, la résistance et une âme éternelle de la liberté » : « Elle s’est battue sans relâche pour que nous ayons une société juste et égalitaire. Elle a consacré sa vie au service du peuple africain. »

Figure controversée

Née le 26 septembre 1936 dans la province du Cap oriental (sud), dont est également originaire Nelson Mandela, elle décroche un diplôme universitaire de travailleur social, une exception pour une femme noire à l’époque.

Son mariage en juin 1958 avec Nelson Mandela – elle a alors 21 ans, et lui, divorcé et père de famille, presque 40 – est vite contrarié par l’engagement politique de son mari. Pendant son séjour en prison, elle devient l’une des figures de proue du Congrès national africain, fer de lance de la lutte anti-apartheid.

Cependant, la radicalité de son engagement fait d’elle une figure controversée. En 1976, elle appelle les lycéens de Soweto révoltés à « se battre jusqu’au bout ». Dans un discours critiqué, elle déclare que les Sud-Africains doivent se libérer avec des « boîtes d’allumettes » alors que les traîtres présumés à la cause anti-apartheid sont brûlés vifs, avec un pneu passé autour du cou. Des propos considérés comme un véritable appel au meurtre.

Winnie s’entoure d’un groupe de jeunes hommes formant sa garde rapprochée, le Mandela United Football Club (MUFC), aux méthodes particulièrement brutales.

En 1991, elle est reconnue coupable de complicité dans l’enlèvement d’un jeune militant, Stompie Seipei. Elle est condamnée à six ans de prison, une peine ultérieurement commuée en simple amende.

Divorce en 1996
« Elle était une formidable égérie de la lutte, une icône de la libération », a dit d’elle Desmond Tutu, président de la Commission vérité et réconciliation (TRC) et ami de Nelson Mandela. « Et puis, quelque chose a terriblement mal tourné. »

Nommée vice-ministre de la culture après les premières élections multiraciales de 1994, Winnie est renvoyée pour insubordination par le gouvernement de son époux, un an plus tard.

En 1998, la Commission vérité et réconciliation, chargée de juger les crimes politiques de l’apartheid, déclare Winnie « coupable politiquement et moralement des énormes violations des droits de l’homme » commises par le MUFC. « Grotesque », réplique celle que l’on surnomme la « Mère de la nation », même si des témoins l’accusent de torture.

Mise au ban de la direction de l’ANC, condamnée une nouvelle fois en 2003 pour fraude, Winnie fait tout de même son retour en politique quatre ans plus tard en intégrant le comité exécutif du parti, l’instance dirigeante de l’ANC.

SUR LE MÊME SUJETTV – Les vérités de Winnie Mandela

L’image du couple Mandela, marchant main dans la main à la libération du héros anti-apartheid en 1990, a fait le tour du monde. Mais les époux ne se sont jamais retrouvés. Ils ont fini par divorcer en 1996, deux ans après l’accession à la fonction suprême de Nelson Mandela, le premier président noir de l’Afrique du Sud.

Les grandes dates de la vie de Winnie Mandela

26 septembre 1936 : naissance de Nomzamo Winifred Zanyiwe Madikizela, dite Winnie, dans la province du Cap oriental (sud).

1955 : elle devient la première assistante sociale noire du pays dans un hôpital de Soweto, le township noir de Johannesburg.

1958 : Winnie épouse Nelson Mandela.

1962 : elle reste seule avec ses fillettes après l’arrestation de son mari. Malgré les intimidations et des séjours en prison, elle devient l’une des figures du Congrès national africain (ANC).

1969 - 1970 : elle est arrêtée en tant qu’activiste anti-apartheid et détenue à l’isolement à Pretoria.

1986 : dans son discours le plus controversé, elle appelle à libérer le pays avec des allumettes, référence au supplice du « collier » (pneu enflammé autour du cou).

1990 : libération de Nelson Mandela après vingt-sept ans de prison.

1991 : elle est reconnue coupable de complicité dans l’enlèvement de quatre jeunes, dont un est mort, par sa garde rapprochée, le Mandela United Football Club (MUFC).

1992 : accusée de corruption et mauvaise gestion, elle est démise de ses fonctions dirigeantes à l’ANC.

1994 : elle devient vice-ministre de la culture dans le premier gouvernement post-apartheid. Renvoyée l’année suivante pour insubordination, elle reste députée et présidente de la Ligue des femmes.

1996 : après quatre ans de séparation, elle divorce de Nelson Mandela.

1998 : la Commission vérité et réconciliation (TRC) la déclare « coupable politiquement et moralement des énormes violations des droits de l’homme » commises par le MUFC.

2003 : elle est condamnée pour fraude.

2 avril 2018 : elle meurt à 81 ans à Johannesburg « des suites d’une longue maladie ».

Source : Le Monde

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Actualités Politiques: Grandes lignes

Le haut état-major des nouvelles Forces armées d’Haïti


Par Robert Benodin

Point n’est besoin de se rappeler qu’après 60 ans de déliquescence institutionnelle totale. Que toutes ces institutions n’existent que de nom et ne fonctionnent pas selon les normes et critères mondialement reconnus, particulièrement sous un régime de Démocratie représentative, que l’on prétend avoir en Haïti. Qu’il faille une réflexion profonde sur la refondation de l’Etat, pour redéfinir spécifiquement les institutions, l’indépendance des 3 pouvoirs, leurs fonctions et les limites de leur sphère de responsabilité, est une évidence. On a vécu pendant trop longtemps sous la domination de ces 3 régimes populistes dictatoriaux dont les pratiques avec le temps se sont instituées, comme normes, us et coutumes. Ce n’est pas par l’effet du hasard qu’après60 ans où tout a été permis et toléré. Que l’on veille faire croire, qu’Haïti ne soit pas un pays comme les autres. Et qu’elle échappe même aux rigueurs de la science et des vérités scientifiques. Pour justifier n’importe quoi, on n’hésite pas à rappeler ce dicton « qu’Haïti soit une terre glissée ».

On est en train de constater que pour combler rapidement un vide institutionnel causé par le démantèlement de l’armée et de la police urbaine et rurale, en 1995. Que le 2e et dernier gouvernement du régime PHTK, ait créé, après 23 ans, une milice, qu’il dénomme « Armée d’Haïti », pas ex nihilo. Mais avec des promotions d’officiers de l’armée qui a été précédemment démantelée en1995, une armée essentiellement duvaliériste. Point n’est besoin de se rappeler toutes les atrocités commises par cette armée amalgamée à tous les actes de violence bestiale de la milice duvaliériste, les VSN, pendant les30 ans des Duvalier et au-delà. Certains pour justifier cette antinomie, veulent remonter à la guerre de l’indépendance pour associer cette nouvelle milice à l’armée indigène. Alors que la genèse de cette armée démantelée, ne remonte qu’à la fin de l’occupation américaine, le 2 août 1934. Cette armée a été créée par l’occupant pour maintenir un contrôle néocolonial de la politique et du territoire d’Haïti après son départ.
C’est le rôle que cette armée a toujours joué. Servir des intérêts autres que ceux de la nation, avant, pendant et après la guerre froide. Sous Duvalier, elle a été domestiquée et « duvaliérisée », pour spécifiquement ne servir que les intérêts de ce régime et exécuter ses basses œuvres. Il est extrêmement important de se rappeler que ceux soient dans les camps militaires tel que, les Casernes Dessalines, le bureau de police, le Fort Dimanche, le Fort National, le palais national etc. que se trouvait les lieux de torture, les plus exécrables. Cela va de soi que toutes les promotions d’officiers formées sous ce régime, charrient en elles, toutes les tares que ce régime leurs avait inculqué. Pour entrer à l’académie militaire, il fallait avoir un parrainage duvaliériste des plus impeccables. Voilà ce qui était requis indistinctement de chacun de ces cadres qui sont en train de gérer cette nouvelle milice. Ce n’est pas étonnant non-plus que la création de cette nouvelle milice, ait eu lieu en vase clos. Puisqu’il est évident que ce soit par instinct de conservation que cette milice ait été créée, par le 2e gouvernement du régime PHTK, après le départ de la Minustah. La question maintenant est de savoir. A l’instar de la milice et de l’armée duvaliériste, quel parrainage exigera-t-on aujourd’hui, pour se faire recruter ?


Il y a, à partir des faits historiques et par définition, entre une armée régulière et une milice, une différence énorme. Du Moyen Ageau XVIIIe siècle, la milice n’était que des troupes levées dans les villes et dans les campagnes pour renforcer l’armée régulière. Elle n’était de fait qu’un groupe armé privé qui seconde l’armée régulière. Dans les temps modernes, elle a évolué pour devenir une organisation paramilitaire constituant l’élément de base de certains partis totalitaires ou de certaines dictatures. C’est cette expérience qu’Haïti a endurée du28 juillet 1958 au 7 février 1986. Dont elle charrie les cicatrices jusqu’à présent, la domination d’un leadership sauvage, la déliquescence institutionnelle totale, l’omniprésence et l’omnipotence de la corruption, l’impunité, la vassalisation du pouvoir judiciaire par l’exécutif, l’utilisation de la violence étatique, l’exploitation de l’internalisation de la peur pour le maintien de la stabilité, ainsi que la paix des tombeaux, etc. Il n’y a rien de positif que l’on puisse évoquer de ces 28 ans de domination dictatoriale et de violence bestiale qui peut faire honneur au passage de cette milice.

Tandis que l’armée régulière, responsable de la protection, de la défense de l’intégrité du territoire national, de ses frontières terrestres, maritimes, aériennes et des services techniques, se distingue par le nombre imposant du contingent et de ses cadres, par la quantité, la modernité, la sophistication et la diversité de son équipement. Politiquement neutre,l’article 265 de la constitution précise ce point : Les Forces Armées d’Haïti sont apolitiques. Leurs membres ne peuvent faire partie d'un groupement ou d'un parti politique et doivent observer la plus stricte neutralité. Et l’article 265.1 se lit comme suit : Les Membres des Forces Armées exercent leur droit de vote conformément à la Constitution. Une autre caractéristique de l’armée régulière est, qu’elle soit budgétivore.

Le vide qu’a créé le départ de la Minustah, a précipité ce gouvernement inquiété, à vouloir le combler immédiatement. Youri Latortue avant le départ de la Minustah,était allé solliciter de son haut état-major, qu’il fasse don de ses équipements à la nouvelle armée. Cette demande a été rejetée, d’une part. Et d’autre part, les puissances hégémoniques, ont toutes opiné contre la formation immédiated’une nouvelle armée en Haïti. Sans aide étrangère, ayant de surcroit une caisse publique vide et une dette publique croissante, ne pouvant même pas payer ses arriérés. Ce gouvernement, malgré tout, s’est précipité pour organiser un petit groupe armé, sans équipement. Ce petit groupe armé est évidemment dans l’incapacité d’assumer lesénormes et multiplesresponsabilités d’une armée régulière, la protection et la défense de l’intégrité territoriale et de ses frontières terrestres, maritimes et aériennes. S’il en est ainsi. Quelle est pour la nation, l’utilité d’un tel groupe armé ? Envers qui est-il loyal ? Qui va-t-il défendre contre quoi ? Les intérêts de qui sera-t-il en train de servir et de défendre ? Il est absolument évident, que pour la survie de ce petit groupe armé, il ne peut pas se permettre d’être neutre. Alors que la neutralité soit un prérequis incontournable pour la stabilité de l’armée régulière. De plus, comment ne pas être scandalisé et inquiet, quand on apprend et qu’on sait maintenant, que le colonelJean Robert Gabriel, un des membres du haut état-major récemment nommé par Jovenel Moïse, ait été condamné par contumace le 16 novembre 2000dans le cadre du procès sur lemassacre de Raboteau. Et que le Bureau des Avocats Internationaux rappelle que ledit jugement a été publié dans le journal officiel, Le Moniteur, du jeudi 23 novembre de la même année ? Voilà ce que ce gouvernement, ne veut pas seulement offrir, mais imposer, comme armée régulière, une antinomie !

On est obligé de se rendre à l’évidence, que cette frange de l’oligarchie, « the most repugnant elite », qui aujourd’hui exerce le pouvoir, ayant eu des liens étroits avec le régime des Duvalier. Aveu fait publiquement par Rony Gillot à une émission de la Radio Vision 2000, « Invité du Jour » avec Valéry Numa. Ceux qui forment ce gouvernement, membres de cette caste, gérant ces 3 pouvoirs. Grand nombre d’entre eux, jouissent de ces mêmes liens. Ce n’est, ni étonnant, ni par l’effet du hasard, qu’ils aient ce réflexe rotulien, de choisir et de former une nouvelle milice. Et qu’ils se soient précipités pour le faire. On est en face d’une manœuvre de rétrogression, vers un passé révolu, il y a 32 ans. On est passé du déclin précipité, au pire, la rétrogression. Ceux sont là des signes irréfutables que l’ancien ordre se meure, incapable d’innover, pour survivre. Quand est-ce que le nouvel ordre cessera d’hésiter pour enfin naître ?

Mis en examen, Nicolas Sarkozy dénonce « mensonges » et « calomnie »


Après deux jours de garde à vue, l’ancien chef de l’Etat français a été mis en examen et placé sous contrôle judiciaire mercredi soir dans le cadre de l’enquête sur le présumé financement libyen  de sa campagne présidentielle de 2007.
Nicolas Sarkozy, le 21 mars à Paris.
Nouveau séisme judiciaire pour Nicolas Sarkozy. Après deux jours de garde à vue, l’ex-président de la République a été mis en examen mercredi soir et placé sous contrôle judiciaire pour «corruption passive», «financement illégal de campagne électorale» et «recel de fonds publics libyens». Déjà renvoyé en correctionnelle pour «financement illégal de campagne» dans l’affaire Bygmalion et mis en examen pour «corruption», «trafic d’influence» et «recel de violation du secret professionnel» dans le dossier «Bismuth», voilà donc Nicolas Sarkozy officiellement empêtré dans un nouveau dossier.
L’affaire s’est nouée en avril 2012, lorsque Mediapart a révélé l’existence d’une note secrète signée par le chef des services secrets extérieurs libyens, actant le déblocage de 50 millions d’euros pour la campagne de Sarkozy. L’ex-président dénonce alors un «faux grossier». Mais six ans plus tard, les juges disposent de nombreux éléments accréditant les soupçons d’un financement occulte libyen. L’homme par qui le scandale arrive, l’intermédiaire franco-libanais Ziad Takieddine, a affirmé avoir transporté lui-même 5 millions d’euros en liquide de Tripoli à Paris entre fin 2006 et début 2007, avant de les remettre en mains propres à Claude Guéant, puis directement à Nicolas Sarkozy, alors ministre de l’Intérieur. Des propos étayés par les déclarations d’Abdallah Senoussi, ex-directeur du renseignement militaire libyen, et le carnet de l’ancien ministre libyen du Pétrole Choukri Ghanem.
Plusieurs opérations suspectes
Nicolas Sarkozy a toujours nié d'avoir bénéficié pour
sa campagne victorieuse de 2007, d'argent du régime
lybien Mouamar Kadhafi.                                                
Reste cette question: en échange de quelles contreparties auraient eu lieu ces versements du clan Kadhafi ? Plusieurs épisodes démontrent le réchauffement des relations franco-libyennes après la victoire de Nicolas Sarkozy, en 2007. Il y a dabord la libération des infirmières bulgares, élément essentiel à la normalisation entre les deux pays. Puis, quelques mois plus tard, la réception en grande pompe du «Guide» à Paris. Les investigations ont depuis mis en lumière plusieurs opérations suspectes, dont ce virement de 500 000 euros sur le compte de Guéant en mars 2008. L’ex-secrétaire général de l’Elysée a été mis en examen depuis pour «blanchiment de fraude fiscale en bande organisée». D’autres personnages clés du dossier, comme l’intermédiaire Alexandre Djouhri, pourraient bientôt être entendus par les juges.

Autre front ouvert en marge du volet corruption : le financement illégal de campagne. Dans un rapport de septembre 2017, les enquêteurs estimaient avoir découvert de nouvelles «qualifications pénales». En l’espèce: un système de caisse noire mise en place au sein de lassociation de financement de la campagne de Nicolas Sarkozy afin de payer certaines petites mains en liquide.