Showing posts with label Government of Andorra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government of Andorra. Show all posts

Sunday, December 24, 2017

EU Militarizes Africa To Halt Migration

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,


Fighting terrorism is now morphing into clamping down on human migration, as far as the European Union is concerned.


France’s President Emmanuel Macron is leading the charge, claiming at a conference in Paris last week that terrorism and human trafficking are part of the same problem, requiring the deployment of a military force spread across Africa.



The melding of the two concepts provokes serious legal and moral questions.


But so desperate, it seems, is the EU to halt illegal migration into the bloc that it is moving to militarize the problem in Africa – under the guise of “fighting terrorism”.


This is tantamount to European Neo-imperialism. That is, attempting to sort out deep-seated socio-economic problems down the barrel of a gun. Not only that, but using futile heavy-handed methods to deal with problems that European powers themselves are responsible for creating.


Such an approach will only worsen humanitarian problems for millions of displaced war-torn and impoverished people. In typical arrogant imperialist fashion, the EU is not addressing root causes of the problem – its own role in shattering African societies from illegal wars and predatory economics.


The panicky reaction this week in Brussels to the formation of the new Austrian government led by populist Chancellor Sebastian Kurz shows that the other European powers are still rattled by the rise of nationalistic politics across Europe and the underlying long-term problem of migration into the EU.


Kurz’s People’s Party has formed a coalition government with the Freedom Party. Both share anti-immigration policies and are deeply critical of the EU. The new Austrian administration has been described with trepidation in the news media as the first “far-right” government in the European Union. That epithet appears to be aimed at demonizing the new Austrian authorities with the taint of “fascism”.


However, what seems to be the real concern among the pro-EU governments of Germany and France is that Austria rekindles wider fears in regard to large uncontrolled flows of refugees entering into Europe and the knock-on effect of rising anti-EU populist politics that those fears tend to fan.


Another sign of the EU’s concern over the flow of migrants into the bloc is the attempt by France, Germany and Italy to morph the issue of refugees into one of “fighting terrorism”. This is an audacious, not to say reprehensible, step of treating a humanitarian crisis with military force. But because the emotive “anti-terror” card is invoked, the intention is to mask the controversial, unethical move with a veneer of humanitarianism.


Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron hosted a summit in Paris which was billed as countering terrorism in the Sahel – the vast Northwest desert region of Africa. Macron has taken the lead earlier this year in forming what is known as the Group of Five (G5) countries straddling the Sahel region, comprising Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mauritania.


The leaders of the G5 were hosted by Macron at a chateau near Paris on December 13. Also in attendance were German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italy’s premier Paolo Gentiloni. Significant too was the attendance at the summit by the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.


In a brazen appeal for financial funding, Macron asked the Saudis and Emiratis to stump up money for the G5 military force. Both the oil-rich states responded with pledges of $100 million and $30 million, respectively. Other donors to the G5 “anti-terror operations” were the EU and the United States, each pledging $60 million. In other words, the Saudis and Emiratis are bankrolling the G5 “anti-terror” military coalition to the tune of nearly half its total budget.


The G5 comprises some 4,000 troops from the five mentioned African countries – all of them former French colonies. The French forces in the region are believed to number around the same. There are also American special forces operating, as was shown by the dramatic deadly shootout in Niger in October when four US troops were killed in an ambush.


What Macron is claiming to do is to replace the French forces with local troops from the G5. That move will save Paris millions of euro it is currently shelling out on the presence of its military in the Sahel. Knowing that these poor African countries would never be able to finance the operations, the French president is deftly involving the Saudis and Emiratis in the funding.


Macron’s proposal beggars belief. Given the record of the Gulf Arab hardline Sunni regimes in sponsoring terrorism across the Middle East, it is absurd to propose that these same regimes could support “anti-terror” operations in the Sahel.


The contradiction raises the real issue and purpose. France, Germany and Italy, on behalf of the EU, are actually using the moral and political cover of “fighting terrorism” in Africa to further their agenda of stemming the flow of migrants from the continent to Europe. And getting the Gulf Arabs to pay for it. The latter get PR value in return.


It is reckoned that the total African population will double in the next three decades to some 2.5 billion people. That presents European leaders with a formidable headache of worsening migration flows. Already in the last two years, there is estimated to have been 1.5 million refugees entering the EU, many of them from Africa. That phenomenon has, in turn, fueled anti-immigrant political parties across Europe who blame the EU political establishment for the problem. The populist backlash poses a threat to the cohesiveness of the EU. It was one of the issues that drove the British electorate to vote last year for leaving the bloc.


Rather than sniffing at “populist” politics in Austria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands and Germany – and denigrating it as “fascist” – European leaders need to question their own responsibility. It is understandable that European communities can feel unnerved by the sudden influx of foreigners into their country. Given the relentless socio-economic austerity imposed on communities by Neo-Liberal capitalist governments, the anxieties over scarce public resources are accentuated, and understandable.


Moreover, the European members of the US-led NATO military alliance bear direct responsibility for opening the migration floodgates when they destroyed the state of Libya in an illegal war for regime change in 2011. France, Italy, Britain and Germany, among others, were complicit in that criminal war.


France too went on an illegal military expedition in Mali in 2013 to “defeat terrorism” – and its forces remain in that country today.


The real reason for that French intervention may likely have been securing uranium ore mines in Mali and Niger.


All those illegal military interventions by the Europeans in Northwest Africa unleashed militants, migration and human trafficking on a massive scale.


report last week by Amnesty International also openly condemned European governments for colluding with human traffickers in Libya by forcibly sending would-be migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean back into the clutches of the traffickers on land.


Europe is so desperate to stem the flow of migrants because it is destabilizing the internal politics of the EU. So desperate is Europe that it is willing to force refugees back into the human trafficking networks to a fate of slavery in order to impede the flow into Europe.


Macron’s military “solution” for the Sahel is part of the same futile problem-solving. The French president, with the support of Germany, Italy and the rest of the EU, is using military force to combat “terrorism and human trafficking” which he equates as the same.


Furthermore, Macron and the EU are trying to do it on the cheap, by getting the Saudis and Emiratis to pay a large part of the budget.


This militarist policy is nothing short of a Neo-imperialist agenda in Europe, which can only make matters much, much worse.


European powers, as with the Americans, must stop interfering militarily in the affairs of Africa.


What is needed is a radical new economic and political model of massive public investment in Africa and Europe. The money is there, from the trillions of dollars that European corporations have stashed away in global tax havens. In short, what is required is a repudiation of neoliberal capitalism and the militarism that goes with it.


But there can be no solution under the current political leadership in Europe, as epitomized by French President Emmanuel Macron. Under the cynical guise of being a “liberal progressive”, he is offering the same old destructive policies that end up digging ever deeper holes for societies and the wider world.


So much for his recent corny slogan copying Trump, “Make the Planet Great Again”.


The false solution of dealing with European migration as a military problem of “terrorism” and “human traffickers” only lets the real perpetrators of the problems off the hook. France and the other European NATO powers have created their own problems from illegal wars and predatory economic policies. Now they want to “solve” those problems by adding more of the same problems. Make the Planet Groan Again.









Thursday, December 21, 2017

French PM Defends Spending 350,000 Euros On Chartered Flight

Apparently, the chartered flights scandal that enmeshed four Trump cabinet secretaries - eventually leading to the resignation of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price - has spread to Paris.


As France 24 reports, French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has become entangled in a controversy over his use of a chartered flight to travel from Tokyo to Paris earlier this month. Philippe chartered a private aircraft at a cost of 350,000 euros ($415,000) to bring him and a delegation back from Tokyo earlier this month when a French military transport was flying essentially the same route at roughly the same time.


Philippe on Wednesday defended his decision to charter the Airbus A340 with first-class seats, explaining that he needed to be back in Paris urgently because President Emmanuel Macron was leaving the country, and that the air force plane would’ve been “too uncomfortable” for a nighttime trip.


"It"s complicated to move the prime minister around and it"s expensive," Philippe told RTL radio on Wednesday. "I understand both the surprise and the questions that French people are asking themselves."



Asked by a reporter if his trip had been a mistake, Philippe angrily responded: "I take responsibility for this decision completely, I take responsibility to such an extent that I want to explain it."



Edouard Philippe


Philippe was returning from the far-flung French Pacific territory of New Caledonia on December 5 along with a 60-strong delegation of officials and ministers. For the first leg of the journey from Noumea to Tokyo, they used the air force plane. But instead of continuing on to Paris, Philippe’s office hired the private A340 to complete their journey and arrived home two hours before the army plane which landed in Paris almost empty.


"We knew that there wasn"t a commercial flight at that time and that we needed to get back. We knew we needed to get back for something vital which is that the president was leaving on the Wednesday morning of our return," Philippe added.



The prime minister explained that the requirements of his job made travel expensive, but that he has done everything possible to keep a lid on costs - within reason. As Philippe explained, his travel requirements as prime minister are much more intense compared with those of a private citizen.


"If you had invited Edouard Philippe, I would have come in the metro which would have cost me 1.90 or 2 euros. But... I arrived with four vehicles, motorbikes, 15 people, and a doctor and a transmitter, who stay with me because these are the resources given to a prime minister to enable him to work at all times," he added.


Philippe’s office also pointed out that the trip cost 30% less than the similar trip taken by Prime Minister Manuel Valls in 2016.


Unfortunately for Philippe, his explanation did little to quiet the criticisms. Ex-minister of agriculture Stéphane Le Foll - a member of the Socialist Party - tweeted that "nothing can explain spending 350,000 euros... The Republic"s planes are very good. There"s no need to take private planes just so that you can sleep better."


 



 


During his campaign, President Emmanuel Macron committed to running a frugal administration should he win the office. The president inadvertently created a spending-related controversy of his own last weekend by celebrating his 40th birthday at an opulent chateau in France"s Loire Valley.


While the Elysee Palace confirmed that the affair was paid for with private funds, Macron’s critics said the over-the-top party was yet another sign of how France’s youngest president is “cut off from the people.”









Monday, August 28, 2017

Macron Approval Rating Crashes Twice As Fast As Trump's

It appears that Trump is no longer the president with the fastest plunge in his approval rating: that honor has now fallen to France"s Emanuel Macron, who since his dramatic victory in the May 7 presidential election, has seen his popularity plummet, and according to a a new poll conducted by Ifop for Le Journal du Dimanche, most French voters are now dissatisfied with Emmanuel Macron’s performance, a dramatic decline for the president who basked in a landslide election victory less than four months ago.


The poll showed Macron’s “dissatisfaction rating” soaring to 57%, from 43% in July. At the same time, those satisfied with Macron tumbled from 54% in July (and 62% at election) to just 40% in August, a stunning 22% drop over three months...  which is twice as fast as Donald Trump"s fall from grace. According to Gallup, on Inauguration Day, 45% of Americans said they approved of Trump and since then, the number has declined by 11% to 34%, which again is only half as bad as Macron popularity plunge. The Ifop poll also showed the cumulative drop in Macron’s popularity ratings since May was far bigger than that of previous Socialist president Francois Hollande over the same period, who is best known for achieving the lowest approval record of any recent French president on record. As such, one wonders how Macron"s approval rating in a few short years can even be positive.



Quoted by Reuters, French government spokesman Christophe Castaner said the ruling party was going through a "tricky time", but added that displeasing some people was a price worth paying if the government wanted to push through reforms. The only problem is the government will most likely not be able to push through reforms, even as Macron"s approval continues its sharp descent. Cartaner also told BFM TV that “yes, we are encountering difficulties, but you cannot just spend your time only looking at polls when you’re in government. We are there to transform the country. Our country needs us to take risks, and we are taking risks." Spoken like a true megalomaniac.


As for Macron -  who is currently midway through a schedule of official visits to various European capitals and who most recently got into a violent feud with Poland when he criticized the Warsaw government for its "non-European ideals" to which Polish PM Beata Syzdlo slammed "arrogant" Macron saying "you won"t rule Europe" - has suffered a number of setbacks since being elected, including tough debates in parliament over labor reform, a standoff with the military and cuts to housing assistance. Then, just last week, Macron became the target of social media scorn and humor, while political opponents criticized the president when it emerged he spent €26,000 ($31,000) on makeup during his first 100 days in office and his office also backed down on plans to give his wife a formal, paid role after a public backlash.


In any case, the latest polling is terrible news for the young new president who was expected to inspire his country with hope and confidence yet appears to be doing just the opposite: Bernard Sananes, head of French polling company Elabe, said the latest survey could encourage Macron’s political opponents, after his party won a commanding majority in parliament.


“It could mean, for the government, that the opposition mobilizes itself again,” Sananes told BFM TV.


It wasn"t just Macron: the poll also showed a steep drop in approval for Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, with 47% expressing satisfaction with him - down 9% from last month.


As Reuters adds, Macron - France"s youngest leader since Napoleon - faces a big test next month when the far-left CGT trade union leads a rally to protest against plans to deregulate the jobs market. "Now is the key time, with the labor executive orders to be presented," said Francois Savary, chief investment officer at Geneva-based investment firm Prime Partners, who has an "underweight" position on French equities.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Macron Spent $30,000 On Makeup In Three Months

One year ago, when he was still president, Francois Hollande scandalized the establishment when it emerged that amid record unemployment, painful labor reforms, a sliding economy and the most serious social unrest in decades, the French president"s personal hairdressed was getting paid a gross salary by the state of ~$11,000 per month (more than a European parliament member). As the media reported at the time, "the hairdresser, who the leaked contract names only as Oliver B, is set to earn half a million pounds over the course of Hollande’s current premiership, in exchange for being available at every waking moment and signing a contract promising not to speak about his position."


The fact that this was probably not the best way to spend French taxpayers" money was confirmed this past summer, when Hollande"s approval rating was so low, the socialist president did not even run for re-election: a first in French history. Sadly, this was lost on Hollande"s former Minister of Economy - and current president - Emmanuel Macron who failed to learn from the mistakes of his former boss.


According to French magazine Le Point, French President Emmanuel Macron spent €26,000 - over $30,000 - on makeup in his first three months as leader of the country.


As Politico adds, "Macron’s personal makeup artist put in two claims for payment, one for €10,000 and another for €16,000, for doing his makeup during his travels and ahead of press conferences."


When asked about this abuse of taxpayer funds, The Elysee Palace said in response: “We called in a contractor as a matter of urgency.” Still, aides said that spending on makeup would be “significantly reduced” in future, Le Point reported.


It gets better: according to the report, the amount spent was less than under Macron’s predecessors. Francois Hollande, for example, was said to spend €30,000 per quarter on makeup, including the salary of a makeup artist.  Which means that in addition to his hairdresser who ran just under €10,000, the former French president spent over quarter million dollars in taxpayer funds every year to look good. One almost wonders why he left the French political scene with an approval rating in the single digits. As for Hollande"s arguably even more vain predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy spent slightly less on his makeup then Macron: €8,000 a month.


The news comes as Macron’s popularity is plunging according to a new Harris Poll. Only 37% of voters approve of the job Macron is doing, down from a high of 57% after his election in May. Today"s incident will not help his popularity.


Macron"s popularity collapse means that his fall from grace was even faster than that of Trump, although oddly enough, one will not read much, if anything, about that particular collapse in the objective and unbiased western press. It could be a problem for France, however, during the next election when that one third of eligible voters who did not vote for either Macron or le Pen, finally decide to vote against the establishment cadidate.


Monday, August 21, 2017

How The Elites Are Divorcing From Reality: The Economist's "What If"

Via GEFIRA,


The Western globalist elites have not digested Trump’s victory or Brexit yet. They are having a hard time dealing with their ideological failures, and when the reality dares not to comply with their day dreaming, they go online and create a parallel world, where their “expert” predictions always turn right and their failures cannot be questioned.  


The Economist‘s portal named “what if”, a neo-liberal, wishful thinking echo chamber, is the point in case.


Its latest piece attributes magical powers to the new hero of the elites, Emmanuel Macron, who soundly defeated “evil” Marine Le Pen in May. For The Economist, Macron is nothing short of Jesus as he was correspondingly depicted on the monthly’s cover walking on water:


The hypothetical scenario of Macron’s success is based on magical reforms that will somehow create enormous numbers of jobs after an initial friction and fix the out-of-control state budget. The text provides no answer how exactly all this is going to be done. The happy predictions do not stop there. Macron’s miracle, would turn France into another Silicon Valley, a paradise for start-ups. Does it not make us think back to the internet bubble of the 90s? After “making France great again” and defeating Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, Marine’s niece (who for the record has already retired from politics, but don’t tell The Economist, it’d break their narrative, they need an evil antagonist), Macron’s magic would next make Europe great again. Academic papers on the “French Renaissance” are beginning to appear, says the article’s author, an intellectual liberal himself and Macron’s flunky. He speaks of “EU-funded military operations in the Sahel”, because clearly that’s what Europe needs most. Why, destabilizing surrounding countries has worked very well so far, hasn’t it? Islamic terrorism isn’t even touched in the article, so we gather it will magically disappear as will the problems of the banlieu which do not deserve much mention either. Here, too, no solution is offered, just pure magic.


Another article,”If borders were open“, tackles immigration.According to the article, the world would suddenly become richer by 78$ trillion because “Mexicans in the US could make 150% more, Nigerians 1000% more”. Never mind the fact that basic economic logic says the infinite increase in labour supply sends wages crashing down to zero. It also claims that “a Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram” because, clearly, mass migration to the West so far has not resulted in events related to Islamic terrorism nor separated communities. All our concerns about low wages and terrorism are are dismissed as “little besides conjecture and [have] anecdotal evidence to support it”. Reality is anecdotal evidence. The entire article is a massive exercise in intellectual dishonesty, ignoring or downplaying contrary evidence while highlighting potential and rather illusory benefits. Although it covers briefly the possibility that an ethnic group of a radically different culture could numerically overwhelm that of the host country and abolish democracy, no conclusion is drawn. And yet a “what if” scenario is important because a failure in creating a brave new world might result in an ethnic conflict the likes of which we are seeing in Syria now. But that’s not a politically correct answer and thus must be ignored. What matters is the alleged 78$ trillion, which for the record would never happen if ethnic conflicts and societal collapses erupted. The first line of the article says: “the potential gains are so vast that objectors could be bribed to let it happen” and that answers the pertinent question, who would get those 78$ trillion? The elites, and next they will bribe academics and intellectuals to post articles like that one. Indeed The Economist is owned by the world’s most elitist family, the Rothschilds. Very much like their puppet, Macron, who by the way worked for a Rothschild bank. Is this love a coincidence?


We surveyed The Economist‘s past articles. None of them actually predicted today’s world even remotely accurately. For 2015 there was a Russia break-up potential scenario a fantasy that resembles those spun by the late ideologist Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Then there’s “The first 100 days” of President Hillary Clinton.


The prediction of Trump’s victory is the only accurate thing in the article. The conclusions drawn are all false. The subtitle hints that Trump’s inexperience would cause “real-world crises”. Once again, clearly, Hillary Clinton’s “we came, we saw, he died” about Libya did not cause a civil war, a collapsed society and an immigration crisis in the Central Mediterranean, very much like Obama and Hollande’s “Assad must go” approach towards Syria did. To say something like this would be dismissed as “anecdotal evidence”. There’s a claim that his first international visit would be to Russia; it turned out it was to Poland.


Hillary was supposedly toppled by “Russian hackers”, which only confirms that the fantasy was always present in the minds of her supporters. Too bad. The narrative has now shifted to “Russian collusion”. Russia would also be “shooting Estonian helicopters” because Russians are evil. The Russophobic narrative is The Economist‘s recurring leitmotif.


The other claims include Mexico, which would be now a “humanitarian” superpower because it won’t deport “unaccompanied minors”, also known as illegal immigrants to Central American countries, thus teaching Trump a lesson in morality. Oh no, wait, Mexico is actually considering building a wall along the border with Guatemala. What else did they predict?


Trump won’t pass his “Muslim ban”; the travel ban has actually been passed. There will be a trade war with China; there is none as yet. Deportations of illegal immigrants won’t happen; arrests are actually up 40%.


In short, none of The Economist‘s predictions have come true. It must be Russia’s fault or anecdotal evidence.


Liberal intellectuals are too busy living in a parallel world to notice their miscalculations. Are they then worth listening to?

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Which Is Worse? America Or France?

Authored by Bonner & Partners" Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man"s Pater Tenebrarum,


French Fraud


Which is worse? America or France?” The question must be put in context. We were invited to dinner with local farmers last night. Jean-Yves and Arlette live in a modest house in the nearby town – an efficient and cozy place built about 25 years ago. They’ve added a solarium to the back, where we had dinner.




FAF – French-American Friendship. These days it’s a “which is worse” competition… [PT]



Arlette operates a dairy farm left to her by her parents. Jean-Yves runs a cattle and cereal farm that was in his family. A son and his wife moved into the farmhouse in Jean-Yves’ place. Anticipating retirement, he and his wife moved into town.





You have Trump. But we have Macron,” Jean-Yves said. On balance, France probably comes out ahead on that score. Macron is young, smart, and good-looking.



Yes, but he is a fraud,” Jean-Yves continued. “He claims he will change things. But he is mainstream. Besides, I don’t think he can change things even if he wanted to.



Over the years, we’ve commented on many public figures here at the Diary. We can’t remember one we didn’t consider a fraud in some way. And so far, we don’t think we were wrong about any of them.


French President Emmanuel Macron is hardly an outsider or a rebel. He is a graduate of France’s elite École Nationale d’Administration. And he was finance minister under the previous president. So entrenched and unyielding is the French bureaucracy – France’s Deep State – that it would take a real firecracker to change it. Mr. Macron is not that kind of a guy.




The French Macronite. G.W. Bush said it first by the way: “We know that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully.” Thanks to Macron we now know why: they’re practically brothers and sisters. And don’t forget the trees, with their deep roots. Just don’t cross the French bureaucracy or try to actually do something useful, like working. They’re going to punish you, whether you’re a brother, a sister, or a fish with aspirations to the universal. Your best option is probably to try and become part of that which escapes them… unless you like nightmares of course. [PT]



I wanted to get someone to work on the gardens, Elizabeth explained.


So I called a guy who has a lawn maintenance company. He said he would cut the grass. But he won’t cut down the trees because that would have to be subcontracted, and that would put his revenues over the allowable level.


You mean he’s not allowed to make more money?


That’s right. If he makes more than a certain amount, he’s required to reorganize his business… and apparently, that’s a nightmare. There must be people in Paris who are spending their time thinking of ways to make it difficult for people to do business.


Nightmare?” Jean-Yves interjected.


Farming is a nightmare in France. We work seven days a week… because we can’t get anyone to help. Or more specifically, we don’t dare get anyone to help. Because if we hire someone, it’s almost impossible to fire him.


It’s worse than that,” Arlette added.


Farming is so hard… with so many directives from the government – from bureaucrats who’ve never actually seen a cow – that young people don’t want to do it. I don’t blame them. I know what’s going to happen.




Typical sleep period of a French farmer’s wife, captured by John Henry Fuseli back in 1781. Plus ça change…  According to a Wikipedia entry, scientific research helpfully suggests that “nightmares may have many causes”. The French bureaucracy is apparently one of them. [PT]



This Too Shall Pass


In France, half the people work hard; the other half try to stop them. But the typical French family is more prudent than its American counterpart. It’s seen governments come and go.


The Third Republic fell in 1940. The Fourth Republic fell in 1958. The Fifth Republic will probably fall in the coming financial crisis. French currencies come and go, too.


When we first visited, many years ago, it had only recently replaced the old franc with the new franc – worth 100 old francs. “That loaf of bread will be 500 francs,” a baker might tell you. Then, in 2000, the French ditched the franc for the euro.




There is one thing French governments have been really good at ever since the French Revolution: utterly destroying the value of the currency in the shortest time possible. They may be complete bunglers otherwise, but they are definitely world class experts  with respect to this particular task. There were occasional attempts to become responsible by anchoring the franc to gold, but these periods obviously didn’t last very long. Nowadays investors can no longer make small fortunes out of big ones by investing in the French franc, but Mario Draghi’s ECB is eagerly trying to recreate this excellent opportunity by running its printing presses with the utmost alacrity. [PT] – click to enlarge.



The French know something Americans don’t: This too shall pass. It has made them cautious. Consumption, especially the conspicuous kind, is not as appreciated here as in the United States. There are fewer malls. Fewer ways to spend money. And less credit.


The government is about as insolvent in France as in the U.S. But the average family carries less debt. France also has another big advantage. It may have a large and costly welfare state, but it has only a small warfare state. The French military still meddles overseas, but on a small scale.




French government debt as a percentage of GDP is actually slightly below the US public debt-to-GDP ratio. It is light years from the 60% ratio stipulated by the Maastricht treaty though and its magnitude is probably already beyond the point of no return by now, as long term economic growth typically collapses once the debtberg becomes this large. Besides, the French economy has been regulated and taxed to death anyway. [PT] – click to enlarge.



The scale of America’s meddling, on the other hand, is colossal. The annual cost of its wars, military spending, foreign aid, and various security agencies and initiatives is almost $1 trillion… and rising.


Here’s President Trump explaining recently to evangelical media mogul Pat Robertson why Vladimir Putin was more likely to favor Hillary Clinton over him in the 2016 election:





“It’s something that you don’t like talking about, but again we are the most powerful country in the world, and we are getting more and more powerful because I’m a big military person.”



 



Big Military Person, Field Marshal Donald Trump and the US debtberg side by side. This is not a combination that inspires much confidence (mind, we are still glad that war harpy Hillary was deflected by the deplorable voter horde). [PT] – click to enlarge.



Win-Lose Spending


Any military spending you don’t need to defend the country is wasted… at best. Since the U.S. faces no serious enemies, most of its empire budget contributes nothing to either prosperity or security.


It is win-lose spending – from the pockets of the plain people to the pockets of the rich and powerful. Perhaps the Deep State insiders are grateful; perhaps not. It is a shame the president doesn’t read history. At least then he’d put an ironic fillip on the “big military person” phrase.


He would know that every “big military person” in the past – from Bonaparte to Tojo – was either an embarrassment to his country or a disaster… and often both. Excess military spending almost always leads to adventurism, war, and catastrophe.


France… the U.S. Which is worse? It is hard to say.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Putin, Trump, And "My Guy" Macron

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,


France"s president is lauded in the media for talking tough with his Russian counterpart, but behind the hype may be signs of a new alignment...


The three-hour face-off between Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron in Versailles offered some fascinating geopolitical shadow play.


Macron went so far as to say that, “No major problem in the world can be solved without Russia.” On Syria’s war, which topped their agenda, he said it needs “an inclusive political solution.” While on terrorism, his guest offered: “It is impossible to fight a terrorist threat by dismantling the statehood of those countries that already suffer from some internal problems and conflicts.”


That’s hardly straight from the standard establishment playbook. More like a slight variation on 300 years of Franco-Russian diplomacy.


Putin and Macron got together to inaugurate an exhibition at the Grand Trianon in Versailles, in partnership with the Hermitage in St Petersburg, celebrating the 300th anniversary of Peter the Great’s visit to France – which proved one of the founding stones of a complex cultural-political cross-fertilization.


Peter not only drew on the royal palace of Versailles as part of the inspiration for his new capital, St Petersburg, he also modernized the entire empire using many of the Enlightenment ideals that first took root in France. It was under Peter’s rule that Russians were indelibly imprinted with a European identity.


Connections with current geopolitical juncture enhance the Versailles face-off’s appeal.


The St Petersburg Economic Forum – where quite a few CEOs from large European companies will be discussing business in Russia – starts later this week.


Late last week, a Nato summit in Brussels and a G7 summit in Taormina busted open deep divisions in the Western front, essentially pitting the EU against Donald Trump.


To say that the vast EU bureaucracy has been horrified is an understatement. In places like the Egmont – the Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels – the consensus might best be summarized as: Europeans would only matter if they put in a US$100 billion order for US defense equipment (each, of course), and stopped whining about the climate.


As this is not happening, the letter of the law is that every Nato member must spend 2% of GDP on defense, and “bad, bad” Germany should stop selling cars to the US.


No wonder then that a common European viewpoint is begging to emerge after some serious discussions inside the EU, which is that the only way out is for Europe to get its act together – politically, economically and militarily.


And it’s up to the Franco-German power couple to show the path to the region’s real strategic autonomy.


That’s the gist of the extraordinary statement by Chancellor Angela Merkel: “The times in which we can entirely depend on others are gone. This, I have experienced in the last few days. We Europeans must take our destiny in our own hands.”


This would suggest that not only are there a few icebergs blocking the Atlanticist channels, there must also be a serious reappraisal under way of Europe’s relationship with Russia. (There are no significant German or French business interests that want sanctions against Russia to persist.)


Merkel could not have gone out on this limb unless she was fully supported domestically, and prepared to position the economic might of Berlin at the vanguard of this “Reformation.”


And that’s really the big story following the show of irrelevance at the G7 in Taormina.


Which is where Emmanuel Macron comes in.


All hail the Philosopher King


The supine French media – largely controlled by a handful of banking, financial and telecom interests – has gone ga ga over Macron’s handling of what is a de facto “presidential monarchy.”


Only the terminally naïve would deny that Macron was the candidate of globalized Atlanticist elites in thrall to the diktats of the financial system. As a bonus, he also dutifully follows the standard Russophobia – as in his charges against Moscow of pursuing a “hybrid strategy, combining military intimidation and an information war.”


Macron was skillfully sold as an “outsider” – yet he is backed by the ultimate French insider A-list. Its members include the Rothschilds; the Montaigne Institute; the Saint-Simon Foundation; the Terra Nova think tank; insurance giant AXA; Jacques Attali; Alain Minc; LVMH boss Bernard Arnault (also a media tycoon); and telecom and media billionaire Patrick Drahi.


He is, according to an elite insider cited by Le Monde, a fantasy come true for members of Le Siècle – the premier elite club in Paris: “A left-winger implementing a pro-business policy.”


Nuances make “project Macron” even more attractive. Because he studied philosophy and was an assistant to the revered Paul Ricoeur, Macron has been extolled as a Philosopher King in the Platonic tradition. And that was even before his show-stopping initial performance on the global stage – yes, the Alpha Male Handshake Battle with Trump.


It gets quirkier. Ecstatic intellectual Macronites even attest he combines the burning ambition of Alcibiades – a precociously talented Athenian general with a penchant for political maneuvering – with the wisdom of Socrates. Well, at least Macron seems to prefer reading to tweeting and being fed one-line bullet points by his minions.


It’s always enlightening to remember that the Philosopher King, as Plato conceived it, was not exactly a democrat. After all, Plato considered “the people” as something like a “huge beast,” filled with irrational passions, and unworthy of comparison with the demonstrative knowledge espoused by a lover of ideas.


Macron’s unbridled – Platonic? – ambition should not be underestimated. Putin, a master of cunning, did detect it in Versailles. Trump tried to charm him, calling Macron “my guy” in the presidential race. Macron, described by his circle as supremely confident, is sure he may be able to charm/bend Merkel – arguably a decaying quantity – into a “Leader of the West” Philosopher King role.


No wonder Macron is an EU superstar. He is seen as a savior because he embodies their ultimate wishful thinking that one day, inside the EU, inside the UN, in the G7, and even in Nato, globalized Europeans will be undivided on defense, trade, foreign policy – and their own interests.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

France Confirms No Traces Of Russian Hackers In Macron Campaign Cyber-Attack

In a blow to the anti-Russia narrative being spewed by any and everyone in the western establishment (most recently Hillary again), the head of the French National Agency of Information Systems Security (ANSSI) told AP that France has found no traces of Russian hackers in a cyberattack on President Emmanuel Macron"s campaign (we wonder if the result would have been the same if he, like Hillary, had lost).



Right after the event, it was claimed (by officials and the media lapdogs) that Russian hacking group called APT28 was responsible for the cyberattack on Macron"s presidential campaign.



However, according to ANSSI (the French cybersecurity agency has been investigating the attack) chief Guillaume Poupard,





the hacker attack on Macron"s campaign "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone."



He told AP that it "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country."



Of course, given Putin"s meeting with Macron this week, we are sure the narrative remains alive and well and Putin must have strong-armed Macron to deny this.



As a reminder, the leak of Macron campaign data contained 9 gigabytes of emails, images and attachments dating back several months. At the time, the French authorities called on the national media not to report the contents of the leak, saying that doing so would violate election rules to stop campaigning a day ahead of an election. The candidate also barred RT and the Russian news agency Sputnik from his campaign HQ, accusing them of spreading false information about him. His team failed to provide any examples of such misreporting.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

"It Wasn't Innocent": Macron Says Famous Trump Handshake "Was About Getting Respect"

Of all the sights during Trump"s first trip abroad, his handshake with France"s youngest ever president, Emanual Macron, was the most memorable as well as symbolic. At their first meeting ahead of a NATO summit in Brussels on Thursday, the two men locked hands for so long and hard, their knuckles turned white. When Trump tried to let go first, the French leader held the shake for a few seconds more. Both men’s jaws seemed to clench.



With the handshake prompting a flurry of interpretative media reports, and on Sunday Macron told France"s Le Journal du Dimanche, that his now famous white-knuckle handshake showdown with U.S. counterpart Donald Trump was "a moment of truth", designed to show that he"s no pushover. Macron also said that "my handshake with him, it wasn"t innocent" according to the AP.



Macron said that he wanted to "show he would not make small concessions, not even symbolic ones, but also not overdo things".


Macron also told the French newspaper that his approach to the encounter had been about getting respect.


"Donald Trump, the Turkish president or the Russian president see things in terms of power relationships, which doesn"t bother me. I don"t believe in diplomacy through public criticism but in my bilateral dialogues I don"t let anything pass. That is how you get respect."


Trump"s hand contact with foreign leaders has been closely scrutinized since he took power. Memorable episodes include nearly tearing out Japan PM Shinzo Abe"s arm during their first meeting in the White House which started with a bizarre 19 second handshake, refusing to shake Angela Merkel"s hand in March, and a "clever neutralization" by Justin Trudeau during their first handshake encounter.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Totally Out Of Touch: Nicolas Sarkozy Seeks "Marshall Plan" For Africa

Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,


It’s easy to get an op-ed in the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, or the New York Times.


Well sort of. All you need is a high profile stature. No matter how inane the post by Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, or in this case former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a major media outlet will publish it, without rebuttal, and without any serious comments.


With that bit of a rant out of the way,  please consider Remake the Union to Heal Europe’s Rifts by Nicolas Sarkozy.





On June 23, the British people decided to leave the EU. I am sorry they did because I believe the UK belongs in Europe. But I respect their choice. I can think of nothing worse than suggesting their decision might be disregarded.



The approaching political talks will be tough and the associated technicalities complex. Article 50, the mechanism for departing the EU, provides a two-year timeframe to reach an agreement, and failure to do so will result in automatic exit. The question is whether the UK and its 27 partner nations will have enough time to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement enshrining most of the bond they already share, or be forced into a much harsher break-up. Nobody knows the answer yet.



The Europe of the euro needs to deepen its integration, under sound economic governance, once and for all. The foundation for this was built during the crisis in 2010-11, when the European Stability Mechanism was created and eurozone summits began. This Europe needs to take a few steps further, providing more permanent leadership for its eurozone summits, setting up a central secretariat to serve as Europe’s treasury, and turning the ESM into a fully fledged European monetary fund.



This enlarged Europe also needs to review the commission’s prerogatives, to prevent it from bypassing European and national lawmakers, and unilaterally stifling our entrepreneurs and our citizens with the technical constraints it inflicts on them.



Lastly, Europe needs a new immigration policy. It needs a new Schengen, shared immigration and asylum policies, and consistent employment laws regarding foreigners to end social dumping. Foreigners should not receive non-contributory benefits until they have completed five years’ residence. We need to protect Europe’s borders effectively. We need to join forces to send those who have entered illegally back to their country of origin. We need to rank co-operation aimed at stemming illegal immigration among our foreign policy priorities.



Countries that re­fuse to co-operate should be denied EU aid. This must be combined with a European “Marshall plan” for Africa.



In the meantime, I believe we should put accessions on hold, even in the case of countries that have grounds for joining, such as the Balkan states. And, as I have said before, I categorically oppose Turkey’s accession.



Once Europe emerges from its overhaul, it will be up to British leaders to decide whether to ask their people about joining the union again. The choice will be the British people’s to make, and theirs alone. Europe must not reform because it hopes to bring the UK back to the fold: it must embrace reform because its future and its survival depend on it; because reform is as urgent as it is vital.



Sarkozy’s Fantasyland Proposal


out-of-touch


As is sometimes the case in these high-profile op-eds, the writer gets something correct while missing the big picture.


Sarkozy has one valid idea: immigration reform. But he totally blows it with a European “Marshall plan” for Africa idea.


Good grief. Does the average unemployed youth in Greece, Italy, or Spain give a rat’s ass about a Marshall plan for Africa?


Hell no! They want a Marshall Plan for Greece, for Italy, and Spain.


Sarkozy’s Marshall Plan for Africa idea shows how much out of touch these politically correct buffoons are.


Beppe Grillo in Italy, Marine le Pen in France, and AfD in Germany feed off nonsense such as Sarkozy proposed.


Mob Rule Irony


That is not the only point Sarkozy missed in his nannycrat rant for more Europe.


Sarkozy says “The question is whether the UK and its 27 partner nations will have enough time to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement enshrining most of the bond they already share, or be forced into a much harsher break-up. Nobody knows the answer yet.”


Got that? It takes 27 nations to agree on when and how a nation can leave the gang. That’s not quite mafia material, but it’s close.


Quite literally, 27 nations have to agree to do damn near anything in the EU.


One nation can handcuff the others, as does France with its inane agricultural tariff policy. A majority of nations are fed up with France but nothing can be done. France has a veto. In fact, every country has a veto.


As for his “Marshall Plan” idea, all 27 nations have to agree. Sanctions on Russia? In this case (and thankfully), all it takes is for one nation to say no, and the sanctions are off.


Pleading for more Europe, Eurobonds, or treaty changes requires unanimous approval.


If Sarkozy had an ounce of sense he would be calling for a complete overhaul of EU rules and Eurozone rules as well.


A couple of people are doing just that: Marine le Pen and Beppe Grillo. Inane ideas such as a Marshall Plan for the Africa further their cause.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Impeachment Process Starts On French President Hollande For Disclosing Classified Information To Journalists

Submitted by Michael Shedlock vioa MishTalk.com,


French president François Hollande whose approval rating is a scant 4% now faces impeachment for disclosing classified information to journalists.



Given national elections take place in 2017 and given socialists would be unlikely to convict him, one has to wonder “why bother?”, yet here we go: French Right Calls for François Hollande’s Impeachment.


 





Republican MP Pierre Lellouche on Monday started a process to activate Article 68 of the French constitution, allowing parliament to impeach the president. The move comes three days after Eric Ciotti, another Republican MP who is managing former president Nicolas Sarkozy’s campaign for the rightwing presidential nomination, formally requested that prosecutors investigate a potential breach of security.



While the impeachment request would have to get over several obstacles and remains a long shot, the initiatives add to Mr Hollande’s woes following the publication of a 622-page book in which the president, among other things, criticised Socialist colleagues and hoped for his party’s “hara-kiri”.



The book, A President Should Not Say That, caused outcry within Mr Hollande’s camp, pushing his approval ratings down to a record low of 4 per cent and prompting calls on the left and right for him to rule out a second presidential bid.



In the book, Mr Hollande also admits that he ordered assassinations for security reasons and disclosed details of plans to destroy targets held by the regime of Bashar al-Assad after allegations that the Syrian leader bombed civilians with chemical weapons.



The impeachment of a president would be unprecedented in the history of the Fifth Republic. It would need backing from another 58 members of parliament before it could be assessed by the National Assembly’s law committee and possibly brought before all MPs.



But less than six months before presidential elections, the moves highlight Mr Hollande’s acute political weakness.



The president has been keeping his camp guessing over whether he intends to stand for a further term in office and has said he would give his decision in December.



It’s rather amazing how Obama, Bush, and now Hollande routinely order assassinations and undertake military actions for political purposes, without declarations of war, making themselves judge, jury, prosecutor, and hangman.