Think Forward.

World Politics

The Smara Attack: A Reflection of Power Struggles in Algeria... 481

Aziz Daouda, 3 d.
The recent Polisario attack on Smara, in the Moroccan Sahara, takes place within a context of deep divisions within the Algerian military hierarchy, which directly influence the policy of the Algerian state. These internal tensions, marked by strategic rivalries, impact the Algiers-Polisario strategy vis-à-vis Morocco. This offensive, targeting notably a MINURSO base and the small airport of Smara, reflects the will of certain sectors of the Algerian army, supporting the Polisario, to challenge the international community and counter American diplomatic pressure, particularly the bill in Congress aiming to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization. This move also likely reflects a disagreement within the Algiers-Polisario alliance, exacerbated by the request of the Algerian Chief of Staff, Said Chengriha, to return the Iranian weapons supplied to the Polisario, signaling a probable change of course under international pressure. The Polisario, dependent on Algerian authorities for its actions, illustrates through this attack the fractures within the Algerian military hierarchy. Several currents oppose each other: some advocate rapprochement with France, others maintain the historic relationship with Russia, while others seek to appease the United States. These divergences are amplified by regional geopolitical stakes, notably the war in Ukraine, and by Morocco’s rapprochement with Sahel countries, which exasperates certain members of the general staff. Moreover, the concentration of military, political, economic, and diplomatic powers in the hands of General Chengriha fuels tensions with the civilian presidency. President Tebboune, although formally head of state, sees his authority challenged, as demonstrated by the private meeting with Emmanuel Macron held without prior consultation of the general staff, causing a cooling of relations at the top before the ‘president’ was reprimanded. These internal conflicts directly influence the management of the Sahara dossier. The Polisario attack appears as an expression of power struggles: some officers favor an aggressive posture to preserve their influence, while others prioritize caution in the face of risks of diplomatic isolation and sanctions. The increasing integration of the military into the civilian administration, reinforced by a recent presidential decree, illustrates the general staff’s desire to control all levers of power, accentuating the politicization of the army and internal tensions. Finally, the fact that the attack did not achieve its major objectives seems deliberate, constituting a kind of “signature” with Iranian rockets. This gesture can also be seen as a sign of despair from a diplomatically isolated movement and an indicator of divisions at the military top, with some seeking to show that a change of power could open other regional options. This operation, far from unanimous, weakens Algiers’ position and strengthens the arguments of figures like Joe Wilson and Jimmy Panetta. Highlighting that major national decisions occur within a context of internal rivalries within the military institution, a pillar of power in Algeria, no one can believe that the decision to launch rockets against Morocco was made in a unanimous conclave.

Mauritania’s Ambiguous Stance on the Western Sahara Conflict 951

Aziz Daouda, 5 d.
The Mauritanian Minister of Culture, Arts, Communication, and Relations with Parliament, Government Spokesperson El Houssein Ould Meddou, recently spoke on France 24 regarding Mauritania’s position on the so-called Western Sahara conflict. Clearly uncomfortable, to the point of appearing surprised by the journalist’s question, he seemed to stammer while affirming that Mauritania adopts a policy of neutrality, introducing a new concept: that of “positive and active neutrality” in this matter. Very clumsily, he reduced the issue to a matter between Morocco and what he called “the Sahara,” without specifying who exactly he meant. He got further bogged down when he claimed that his country does not limit itself to a passive stance but is sincerely committed to contributing to a fair political solution, serving regional stability and the interests of all parties involved. Again, no clarification was given on who these parties are, and whether his own country is included or not. This borders on contradiction with his earlier statements. According to the Minister, this neutrality is expressed notably by Mauritania’s willingness to play a central role in facilitating dialogue between the conflict’s actors, fostering a climate of trust and overcoming political deadlock. However, he seemed not to have carefully read the Security Council resolutions since 2007. The Minister showed more irritation when the journalist asked about the closure of Lebriga, the border post between Mauritania and Algeria. He appeared unaware of this closure, which is surprising given that the decision sparked major controversy and strong reactions from separatists against his own country and government. After some hesitation, he awkwardly stated that the recent Mauritanian decision to close the Lebriga crossing on the Algerian border was a measure taken for internal security reasons, aimed at controlling crossings and protecting national sovereignty. His attempt to recover only entrenched him further. For him, this decision has no political significance and targets no particular party but responds to a state approach to securing borders. Quite astonishing. The Mauritanian Minister thus explicitly reduced the so-called Western Sahara conflict to a simple matter between Morocco and what he called “the Sahara.” Did he realize at that moment the sensitive political repercussions he was causing? Indeed, this position was perceived as indirect support for the Algerian version of the conflict. Algeria quickly reacted by officially inviting the minister and bestowing many honors on him. This instant Algerian response can only be interpreted as a reward for the minister’s risky stance. He thus placed himself in a situation where he contradicted himself. The “positive neutrality” he mentioned becomes clear: it is actually alignment with the Algerian position. This situation embarrassed the Mauritanian government and presidency, which did not officially endorse the minister’s remarks. Several government members expressed discomfort with this statement, emphasizing that it does not reflect Mauritania’s official position. Moreover, within Mauritanian civil society, critical voices emerged, denouncing the apparent ignorance of the minister on sensitive issues, notably the border with Algeria. During the interview, the journalist noted that the minister seemed poorly informed on this subject, which heightened the discomfort around his statements. On the Moroccan side, the reaction to the Mauritanian government spokesperson’s remarks was very measured, even officially nonexistent. Morocco, as usual, chose not to publicly respond to this declaration, probably considering that the Mauritanian minister is only a marginal actor, not part of Mauritania’s true leadership circle. This silence can be interpreted as a strategy to avoid giving importance to these remarks, so as not to fuel unnecessary controversy or unduly embarrass Mauritania’s real leaders. It should be noted that this interview took place before recent Polisario strikes near Smara, close to MINURSO positions, which officially complained. The mercenaries operated by passing through Mauritanian territory, where they were neutralized by the Royal Armed Forces. The clumsy declaration of the so-called spokesperson created implicit diplomatic tension, revealing internal divisions in Mauritania and illustrating the regional complexities surrounding the so-called Western Sahara conflict, where every stance is scrutinized and can have significant diplomatic consequences, without hindering the inevitable and confirmed historical evolution: the progress and consolidation of the solution proposed by Morocco, reinforced by the recognition of the Moroccan sovereignty over the territories in question by nearly all key countries, among others. By his posture, the minister thus disregarded recent developments, notably the bipartisan introduction in the U.S. Congress of the “Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act,” which a political leader in his position could not have ignored. He simply sidelined his own country, which is directly impacted.

Bipartisan U.S. Bill Seeks to Designate Polisario Front as Foreign Terrorist Organization 1296

Aziz Daouda, 7 d.
A promis is a promise. As he had already announced a few weeks ago, Joe Wilson, a Republican senator representing South Carolina, has just introduced a bipartisan bill in the United States House of Representatives aimed at designating the Polisario Front as a foreign terrorist organization. This bill is bipartisan because it is also signed and proposed by California Democratic Senator Jimmy Panetta. The project, titled "Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act," aims to list the Polisario on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Being on this blacklist automatically triggers severe sanctions, such as the prohibition of any material or financial support, freezing of assets under U.S. jurisdiction, and entry bans to the United States for members of the organization. By extension, the vote on this bill will also have a direct and significant impact on the host country of the Polisario and its potential supporters. The content of the bill is simple and clear. The Polisario is described as a Marxist militia supported by Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. It is asserted that this militia destabilizes the Western Sahara region and threatens the security of the Kingdom of Morocco, a steadfast historical ally of the United States. The bill also highlights alleged links between the Polisario and extremist groups in the Sahel, while mentioning serious accusations of human rights violations committed by the militia. Senators could have enriched the text by recalling the origins of the movement, notably the support from Cuba and the generosity of Gaddafi towards it for decades. This will likely be discussed during debates. In the current geopolitical context, the Polisario is perceived as an Iranian proxy hostile to regional stability, particularly due to its involvement in smuggling networks and terrorist activities in the region, facts that are well documented. The text thus seeks to officially recognize the Polisario as a terrorist entity, which would allow, besides international sanctions, to strengthen security cooperation against this separatist movement. The initiative has a very strong chance of succeeding after, of course, satisfying all necessary steps and procedures. The bill was introduced on June 24, 2025, and is currently under review by the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives. The U.S. legislative process involves several steps: committee review and approval, House vote, Senate passage, and then the President's signature. The exact duration of the process varies, but committee review usually takes several weeks or months, followed by votes in plenary sessions. The bill seems to enjoy strong support, as it is sponsored by both a Democrat and a Republican, eliminating partisan division at this level. It could be adopted in the coming months, although nothing guarantees a rapid or certain progression, as political and geopolitical debates could influence the timeline. Adopting this law would mark a historic shift in U.S. policy on Western Sahara, with significant diplomatic and security implications. The United States, having already officially recognized the Moroccan sovereignty over the concerned provinces, would thus strengthen its position and lead to increased support for Morocco. The resolution of the artificial conflict, which has lasted half a century over the southern provinces of the Kingdom, has never been closer. The Republican majority controls both the House and the Senate, with 218 seats out of 435 in the House and 53 out of 100 in the Senate, which would facilitate the bill's passage. Moreover, Republicans are very disciplined and strongly support this initiative, notably due to their loyalty to Donald Trump and the expressed support of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who aligns with Moroccan positions. The bill introduced by Senators Joe Wilson and Jimmy Panetta therefore has a strong chance of quickly succeeding. The text benefits from bipartisan support, increasing its chances of adoption without major obstacles. The geopolitical context, reinforced by recent reports from American think tanks Heritage Foundation and Hudson Institute demonstrating the terrorist nature of the Polisario and its links with Iran and other hostile actors, politically legitimizes this proposal. The bipartisan bill aiming to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization thus finds its full justification given the proven links with actors hostile to American and Moroccan interests, as well as its destabilizing activities in the region. Once the law is adopted by both chambers, the President has ten days to sign it, which can accelerate its enactment if the executive is favorable, which seems very likely.

Human Rights Council: International Support for Morocco’s Sovereignty over Its Southern Provinces, a Setback for the Separatists... 1953

Aziz Daouda, 13 d.
At the opening of the 59th regular session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, held in Geneva at the Palais des Nations from June 16 to July 9, 2025, the Moroccan ambassador Omar Zniber delivered a solemn statement on behalf of about forty countries, reaffirming their full and complete support for Morocco’s sovereignty over its Southern provinces. The ambassador boldly emphasized that Morocco has maintained for years a “constructive, voluntary, and profound” cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), tirelessly working to promote and respect human rights throughout its entire territory, including, of course, in the said provinces. Zniber did not hesitate to underline, on behalf of the group, that the UN Security Council has consistently praised in its resolutions the key role of the national and regional human rights commissions in Dakhla and Laâyoune, as well as the Kingdom’s transparent and efficient collaboration with the OHCHR’s special mechanisms and procedures. Furthermore, the ambassador highlighted the recent opening of multiple consulates general in Laâyoune and Dakhla, describing this dynamic as an “essential lever” to stimulate economic cooperation, investment, and local development for the benefit of the populations, thereby contributing to regional and continental development. He did not mince words in recalling that the so-called Western Sahara issue falls exclusively under the Security Council’s remit, which unequivocally recognizes the relevance and credibility of the Moroccan autonomy plan presented in 2007; a plan that the Security Council acknowledges as a serious and pragmatic solution to the artificial dispute, a legacy of bygone times. On behalf of the same group, the ambassador expressed unconditional support for UN efforts aimed at reviving the political process within the framework of the Geneva roundtables and in accordance with Security Council resolutions, notably resolution 2756 of October 31, 2024. This resolution, it should be recalled, advocates a realistic, pragmatic, and durable political solution based on compromise. Finally, Ambassador Zniber stressed that resolving this dispute will “undeniably respond to the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of the region in terms of integration and development,” a vision that Morocco strives to realize through sincere and continuous efforts. This timely intervention comes as the World Human Rights Council and the United Nations Security Council have recently addressed the so-called Western Sahara issue in a context marked by the nervousness and incoherence of separatists and their sponsor. The Security Council had extended the mandate of MINURSO until October 31, 2025, emphasizing the importance of continuing negotiations under UN auspices. Resolution 2756 was adopted, it must be noted, by 12 votes in favor, 2 abstentions, and no votes against. The Security Council insists on a “realistic, pragmatic, durable, and mutually acceptable” political solution based on compromise. The text supports the action of the Secretary-General and his personal envoy to facilitate negotiations. It also encourages cooperation with the OHCHR to improve the human rights situation, while completely disregarding and rejecting the amendments proposed by Algeria aimed at expanding MINURSO’s mandate to “record human rights violations.” All recent Security Council resolutions and reports tend to recognize the Moroccan autonomy initiative as a serious and credible solution and strongly emphasize the necessity of including Algeria in the roundtables, highlighting and confirming its essential role in the dispute, which it strives to perpetuate by any means. This orientation is seen as favorable to Morocco, which enjoys growing international support, notably with the opening of numerous consulates in the two major cities of the concerned provinces and, of course, with the backing of three permanent Security Council members and more than 116 other countries. Paradoxically, so-called Sahrawi human rights defenders dared the perilous exercise of testifying before the UN Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24), alleging serious violations committed by Moroccan forces, violations of which they seem to be the only ones aware. They denounced abuses described as war crimes and crimes against humanity, nothing less. In ridiculous language excesses that the audience paid no attention to, they spoke of systemic repression, harassment, and marginalization of Sahrawi activists. Undoubtedly, they had in mind what happens in the Tindouf camps. Despite the audience’s indifference, which never took them seriously, these pseudo-defenders called for the urgent establishment of a UN mechanism to monitor and protect human rights in the region. Short of arguments and constructive proposals, Algeria makes them repeat talking points that only they seem to believe, and even then, barely. The Polisario Front, in its delirium, goes as far as to consider Morocco’s candidacy for the presidency of the UN Human Rights Council as an affront, speaking of illegality and Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. These tribulations will obviously remain without follow-up or effect, except to deceive the Algerian people into swallowing numerous bitter pills and enormous budgets wasted on a cause from which they do not benefit; colossal sums sunk into a lost cause since 1976. The Polisario and the so-called petitioners also aimed to soothe the wounded hearts of the Tindouf detainees, making them believe they live in a better world than on the other side of the border. The World Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council have actually adopted very clear texts that, while recognizing the need for a political solution, lean in favor of the Moroccan position, notably by recognizing its autonomy initiative and maintaining a negotiation framework including Algeria. These decisions and resolutions have all remained insensitive to the pleas of the separatists, ironically supported by Algeria, of course, and by countries all flagged by the World Human Rights Council for serious violations committed against their own nationals, which is not the case for the Kingdom, including, of course, in its Southern provinces, hence the ease with which Moroccan diplomats intervene before these bodies, it must be recalled.

Mauritania Facing Security, Diplomatic, and Geopolitical Recomposition Challenges in the Sahel.. 2724

Aziz Daouda, 19 d.
After four years of intervention, the Russian paramilitary group Wagner officially announced its withdrawal from Mali in June 2025. It had been active in the region since 2021. This departure occurs in a context marked by a resurgence of jihadist attacks weakening Malian and regional stability. Wagner’s departure does not signify a Russian disengagement, as its missions are being taken over by a new paramilitary organization, the Africa Corps, directly controlled by the Russian Ministry of Defense. This group, born after the failed coup attempt by former Wagner leaders in 2023, continues Russia’s strategy of influence in Africa, notably in what is declared to be the training of Malian forces to face the rising terrorist threats. This transition illustrates the complexity of the security context in the Sahel, where Wagner’s relative failure to stabilize Mali and contain Tuareg and jihadist armed groups forces Moscow to readjust its methods while maintaining its strategic influence. This new situation raises serious questions about the real capacity to contain terrorism in the region, especially at Mali’s border with Mauritania. Meanwhile, the Polisario Front, a separatist movement, is increasingly associated with terrorist activities. In Spain, a militant affiliated with the Polisario was arrested for preparing terrorist acts against Morocco, with evidence of incitement to jihadism and acquisition of explosive materials. This radicalization fits into a dynamic where the Polisario cooperates more closely with Islamist groups, notably benefiting from the support of Iran and its proxies including Hezbollah. Well-documented longstanding links exist between the Polisario and terrorist groups in the Sahel, such as the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, whose founders were former Polisario fighters. This collusion manifests through logistical support, arms transfers, and increased militarization, including the use of suicide drones supplied by Iran. These facts reinforce the perception of the Polisario not only as a separatist actor but also as a vector of instability and terrorism in the region. At the same time, Morocco has recorded numerous diplomatic breakthroughs and growing international pressure to formalize Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara provinces. In 2024, Morocco achieved several major victories in the international recognition of its sovereignty over its southern provinces. More than 116 countries, including powers like France, now support the Moroccan autonomy plan as the only viable solution to the conflict. This position was recently shared by the United Kingdom following the United States. Influential African countries such as Côte d'Ivoire and, more recently, Ghana have done the same. The fresh stance of Zuma’s party in South Africa further confirms this evolution. Morocco’s diplomatic progress relies on skilled international relations management and active engagement in regional security, notably in the Sahel. The Kingdom’s tact is evident as it avoids embarrassing its southern neighbor Mauritania, which has long recognized the so-called RASD puppet entity. It is also important to recall the U.S. intention to classify the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization, a measure supported by analyses documenting its links with Hezbollah, the PKK, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Cuba, Venezuela, and other states unfriendly to the U.S. This classification aims to reveal the true nature of the Polisario. In this context, Mauritania finds itself in turmoil. Things have moved too fast. The comfort it once enjoyed is gone. The conjunction of these developments forces the country’s authorities to rethink their political positioning. Faced with the recurring fragility caused by the Polisario, which hinders its development and threatens its stability, and observing Algeria’s inability to move beyond Boumediene’s legacy to ensure effective security, Mauritania is inevitably pushed toward rapprochement with Morocco. Morocco is perceived as the only actor capable of guaranteeing lasting security in the region, especially against rising terrorist threats and current geopolitical challenges. Some Mauritanian publications already address this question very directly. This shows that Mauritanian decision-makers are indeed embracing this paradigm shift. Recent movements by the Mauritanian army align with this trend, especially as some Polisario cadres no longer hesitate to threaten Mauritania, which they label as a traitor. This tension further complicates Mauritania’s capacity to secure its borders, a young country whose resources remain very limited given the vastness of its borders, notably with Mali and Algeria. In this environment, Algeria, a blind and staunch supporter of the Polisario, today appears more trapped in rhetoric without real capacity for action, which weakens its regional position. Mauritania seems to have understood this for some time, though perhaps not openly. Conversely, Morocco, strengthened by its diplomatic successes and proven commitment to counterterrorism, appears as an indispensable partner for Mauritania in its quest for stability and prosperity. It would therefore not be surprising to see Mauritania in the very near future withdraw its recognition of the so-called RASD puppet entity or at least move away from what it has so far called a positive neutrality. In fact, Mauritania has already distanced itself somewhat from the separatists, which does not please Algeria, which is losing influence. The withdrawal of Wagner from Mali, the radicalization of the Polisario which seems overwhelmed, Morocco’s diplomatic successes, and the likely imminent designation of the Polisario as a terrorist organization by the U.S. clearly redraw the geopolitical map of the Sahel and the Maghreb. Mauritania is probably preparing for this and even taking the lead. In this shifting context, it is pushed toward a natural strategic realignment with Morocco, the only actor capable of offering a credible security alternative against terrorist threats and development challenges. This repositioning marks a major step in the reshaping of regional alliances, with profound implications for the future stability of the Sahel and the reconfiguration of North Africa.

The Polisario Front Confronted with Increasing Accusations: Moving Towards Being Designated as a Terrorist Organization 3461

Aziz Daouda, 26 d.
For several years now, the Polisario Front, a separatist movement supported and armed, as everyone knows, by Algeria, which has provided it with an entire territory in the Tindouf area, has been at the center of a growing international controversy. In the United States, Japan, and Europe, voices are rising to have this group officially classified as a terrorist organization. This shift is based on tangible evidence of its links with actors qualified as terrorists, its involvement in violent actions, but also on a network of international alliances that go beyond the regional framework. While Algeria, Iran, and Hezbollah are often cited as the main supporters of the Polisario, as well as South Africa, Cuba has also played a historic and decisive role in the military and logistical training of separatist fighters. As early as 1977, under the impetus of Fidel Castro and at the request of Algeria, a tripartite military agreement was signed between Cuba, Algeria, and the Polisario, paving the way for intensive cooperation. This agreement allowed the sending of many separatist fighters to Cuba to receive specialized military training. Dedicated military schools were created on the island, where Polisario recruits were trained in guerrilla tactics, special operations, and military logistics. A Cuban delegation even went to Tindouf in 1988 to study Moroccan defenses and help develop strategies to breach the defense wall erected by the Kingdom. Cuba also provided naval logistical support, notably in the waters near the Canary Islands, where Cuban ships were involved in operations to facilitate Polisario infiltrations. Between 1975 and 1991, Cuba delivered to the Polisario a significant arsenal including assault rifles, mortars, rocket launchers, and ammunition, thus strengthening its military capabilities. Even after the 1991 ceasefire, Cuba maintained its support, continuing to train warriors especially in special operations. The last known class trained in Cuba dates back to 2003. More recently, six-month training courses have been given to groups of about forty separatists, focused on special forces tactics. Moreover, for a long period, damning testimonies report the kidnapping of children from the Tindouf camps, sometimes as young as 9 years old, to send them to Cuba on a "youth island" under high military surveillance. They undergo intensive military training mixed with strong political indoctrination. These children, isolated from their families, are trained to become soldiers in the service of the Polisario, under conditions denounced as inhumane by witnesses and former detainees. Some recent signals suggest a possible repositioning of Havana. Indeed, at the 2019 Non-Aligned Movement summit, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel omitted any reference to the Polisario, marking a break with the tradition of support displayed by Fidel and Raúl Castro. This evolution could reflect a diplomatic realignment, notably after the resumption of diplomatic relations between Morocco and Cuba in 2017, relations broken for nearly 37 years due to Cuban support for the Polisario. However, to date, the aforementioned tripartite agreement has not yet been repealed. Cuba's role is part of a larger network of Polisario alliances. Algeria, the main political and military supporter, continues to arm and shelter the movement. Iran, through Hezbollah, provides military and logistical support, notably also training fighters and delivering sophisticated weapons. This is well documented. There are also hundreds of Polisario mercenaries captured in Syria, where they operated alongside Assad's army, reinforcing the image of a group involved in international terrorist conflicts. On the ground, the Polisario is also accused of violence against civilians in southern Morocco. The missiles launched against the city of Smara bear witness to this, in addition to the blockage of the strategic Guerguerat passage. The sequestration of Sahrawi populations in the Tindouf camps, where it refuses, with Algerian support, any official census, is another proof of the true nature of the movement. Faced with these elements, several American, European, and Asian political leaders advocate for the Polisario Front to be quickly listed as a terrorist organization. American Congressman Joe Wilson has proposed a bill to this effect, denouncing the use of the Polisario by Algeria and its accomplices to destabilize the Kingdom of Morocco, a long-standing strategic ally of the United States in the region. This eminent designation would deal a major blow to Algeria, which seems tireless in supporting the Polisario for nearly 50 years, while it simply costs the country development. It would further strengthen Morocco's position on the international stage, notably after the American recognition in 2020 of Moroccan sovereignty over its southern provinces, that of Spain, France, the recent one of the United Kingdom, and many other African and Latin American countries. The historical, military, and educational support of Cuba, combined with the role played by Algeria, Iran, and Hezbollah, places the Polisario in a network of actors with manifest destabilizing and terrorist activities. The rise in calls for its classification as a terrorist organization fits into a logic of regional and international security, requiring a coordinated response to restore stability in North Africa, the Sahel, and beyond. This page must be quickly turned for the good of the populations of the entire region

A Major Geopolitical Transformation in the Middle East 3507

Aziz Daouda, 27 d.
The Middle East is undergoing a major geopolitical transformation, marked by a strategic realignment between Israel, the United States, and the Gulf powers. These latter, long marginalized from traditional alliances or subjected to them, are now asserting themselves as indispensable actors on the political, economic, and military stage, reshaping balances once considered historic and immutable. Since its creation in 1948, Israel has been the main Western ally in the Middle East, notably of the United States, which initially opposed its establishment, in a region marked by recurring conflicts. Its expansionist and influential policies, supported by Washington, have long crystallized tensions with several Arab countries and armed groups. However, this belligerent stance now seems contested, both by its neighbors and some of its traditional allies. In any case, it is widely disapproved of and even condemned by civil society everywhere. This cannot last. The most notable evolution in the region has come from the Gulf monarchies. After decades of hostility, they initiated a historic rapprochement with Israel, formalized by the Abraham Accords in 2020, under American impetus. These accords, signed notably by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, opened the way to strengthened cooperation, especially against Iranian influence, while fostering unprecedented economic and technological exchanges. The monarchies that did not sign these accords also have no qualms about dealing with Israel. Strong relations are also often mentioned between the Israeli state and Turkey, especially since it has been governed by Erdogan, a champion of Islamism. In this rapidly changing context, the United States has gradually reoriented its regional policy, focusing more on the Gulf monarchies, which offer political stability, financial power, and strategic positioning. The American military presence in the region, notably at the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, illustrates this new reality. During the 2025 American tour of the Middle East, nearly two trillion dollars in investments were announced, particularly in defense, technology, and artificial intelligence sectors. At the same time, Washington seems to adopt a more nuanced stance towards Israel, especially in the framework of negotiations with Iran, reflecting a diversification of regional alliances. Despite its military weight, Israel is gradually losing its exclusive influence, increasingly perceived as a source of tension. The current policies of Netanyahu’s cabinet, leading to a near-genocide in Gaza, do not help matters. Unlike previous decades, Arab countries, especially those in the Gulf, no longer systematically respond to Israeli provocations with force. Current leaders favor a pragmatic approach, now distinguishing the Palestinian cause from the actions of armed groups like Hamas. This evolution marks a turning point compared to the belligerent attitudes of past military regimes, which over time became de facto allies of the Zionist cause. Hassan II, a visionary, once said on this subject, "Hatred of Israel and the Jew is the most powerful aphrodisiac in the Arab-Muslim world." The Gulf monarchies, long proponents of a moderate discourse favorable to dialogue, are now imposing themselves as regional models of stability and cooperation with the West, as well as with Asian powers. Israel’s traditional role as the pivot of Western interests in the Middle East seems to be eroding in favor of a dynamic where Gulf monarchies take center stage. The multiplication of conflicts and the perception of an increasingly isolated Israel on the international stage—albeit mostly among populations—weakens its position. Europe, while hesitant, shows a hardening of tone towards Israeli actions, notably after recent incidents in the West Bank where diplomats were targeted by heavy fire from the Israeli army. This change in attitude can only strengthen the legitimacy of the Gulf monarchies as reliable partners for the West, as guarantors of regional stability and calm. The recent organization of a global conference on the Palestinian issue in Morocco, a signatory of the Abraham Accords and co-chaired by the Netherlands, illustrates this new dynamic. It is worth noting again that Morocco is a strategic ally of the Gulf monarchies, linked by multiple agreements, including defense. The words of Moroccan Foreign Minister Nacer Bourita are clear about the need to condemn all extremisms—implicitly Hamas extremism but also that of the current Israeli government. This discourse symbolizes hope for political renewal in the region, emphasizing respect for international law and the only possible solution: two states living side by side. This is also the position of France, whose president no longer hesitates to speak of recognizing the Palestinian state, making it a key element in his discussions during his many foreign visits. Addicted to blood and violence, Netanyahu no longer hesitates to accuse President Macron of crusading against the Jewish state. Excuse me? The Israeli leader is deeply wounded and has no plausible argument except to hide behind his own definition of antisemitism, which he throws around indiscriminately. It must be said that repeated American vetoes at the Security Council somewhat reinforce his delusion. Israel’s disproportionate reaction following the senseless Hamas attacks has become counterproductive for the Jewish state. As it seems to lose its role as the undisputed leader of Western interests in the region, the Gulf monarchies appear as the new stabilizers and promoters of peace in the Middle East. This geopolitical reshuffling could well redefine the balance of power in a region marked by incessant conflicts. The strong interconnection of the American economy with these countries, in light of the latest announced investments, will inscribe this emerging situation in a stable and likely lasting perspective. Israeli voters would do well to understand this quickly. At the next election, they should definitively rid themselves of these zealots who have only death on their lips and the extermination of a legitimate people as their goal.

John Bolton and His Controversial Op-Ed Against Morocco: Hostility with Troubled Roots... 4183

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
John Bolton, former U.S. National Security Advisor under Donald Trump, has just published an op-ed in the Washington Times, notably favorable to the Polisario thesis and thus to the Algerian position. The text recycles arguments Bolton has already put forward in the past. He notably defends the outdated idea of a self-determination referendum and accuses Morocco of obstructing the implementation of UN resolutions. It should be recalled once again that the referendum proposal, which Morocco had put forward in Nairobi, has been obsolete and abandoned by the Security Council since 2007; as for accusing Morocco of hindering the process, this is simply false in light of the UN resolutions over the past 20 years. Bolton lies, and he knows it. He is accustomed to it. How can one not think that this is clearly an attempt by this forgotten figure of history to regain relevance, a will to manipulate public opinion, but above all an intention to harm by pleasing the enemies of the Kingdom. This position strangely fits, without surprising, into the continuity of the official rhetoric of the Algerian military junta, the main supporter of the Polisario. It is a blatant alignment and rapprochement that raises questions about Bolton’s integrity. Let us just recall that Bolton was abruptly dismissed by Donald Trump in 2019, officially for strategic disagreements, but according to some observers, also due to questionable connections. Regarding the matter concerning the Kingdom, Bolton regularly frequents Algiers and collaborates with well-paid Algerian lobbyists such as David Keene, former NRA president, engaged in defending the Algerian cause in the United States. This closeness fuels suspicions of a relay role for Algerian interests, aiming to influence American policy. Nothing to be proud of for the jubilant military junta. It is used to contradiction and blunt communication turning the slightest detail into a victory. Bolton no longer counts and has no impact. In his rhetoric, Algiers pretends to ignore that the same Bolton supports the use of force against Iran, Algeria’s strategic ally. Iran, which the Algerian president will soon visit... It is also this same Bolton who pushed for the transfer of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem... A strange supporter of the Palestinians to take one of their enemies as a reference. Bolton’s article fits into a morbid continuity. He shamelessly and unashamedly tries to discredit Moroccan policy and its growing influence on the international stage while defending separatism. He ignores the terrorist nature of the Polisario, opposing an entire faction of Republicans with Joe Wilson as spokesperson. The latter is logically pushing for a vote very soon in the U.S. Congress on a law designating the Polisario as a terrorist organization. Paradoxically, Bolton’s desperate offensive comes at a time when Morocco is achieving major diplomatic successes. The Kingdom has recently further strengthened its ties with several African countries, Kenya being the latest example. Thanks to its autonomy plan for the Sahara, widely recognized and supported by the international community, Morocco is reaping success after success. The vote on the latest Security Council resolution on the issue shows that even countries that once voted out of ideological principle against anything favorable to Morocco no longer do so, quite the opposite. Moreover, the closure of the Polisario Front’s office in Damascus illustrates Morocco’s growing influence in the Middle East. Thus, unanimity is almost reached in favor of Morocco at the Arab League today, with the obvious exception of Algeria alone, perfectly isolated, even neutralized and weakened in everyone’s eyes. At heart, Bolton’s op-ed seems intended to soothe the wounds of Algiers and the separatists, who are losing ground to Morocco’s assertion. The autonomy plan proposed by Rabat is increasingly endorsed on the international stage, while the Polisario sees its influence diminish. It is becoming inaudible and has no other escape than to cling to a few fringe extremist demonstrations here and there. This stance therefore appears as a last gasp from a retreating camp. Lacking any real leverage to influence American or global policy, Algiers and the separatists quench their thirst by drinking the words of marginal figures without substance. To better understand this posture, it must be recalled that John Bolton is a controversial figure in American politics, known for his ultra-conservative positions and aggressive foreign policy approach, often described as neoconservative. His dismissal in 2019 was marked by major disagreements with the Trump administration, but also by suspicions of dubious connections with certain foreign circles. Bolton is suspected of involvement in several controversial international operations, including organizing coups d’état, reinforcing the image of a man with brutal methods and strongly marked convictions. In sum, John Bolton’s recent op-ed in the Washington Times illustrates a persistent hostility towards the Kingdom by a fading figure; a pontiff driven by an outdated political vision. The signatory’s stance is disconnected from current geopolitical developments. It once again shows that Algiers, through its parrot media, is ready to cling to any nonsense, provided it fits its outdated narrative. Above all, it highlights the irreversible decline of the Polisario and Morocco’s growing success on the international stage.

Kenya Inaugurates Its Embassy in Rabat: A Major Diplomatic Turning Point Favoring Morocco on Western Sahara 4188

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
The official inauguration of Kenya’s embassy in Rabat, conducted by Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita and Kenyan Foreign Minister Musalia Mudavadi, marks a historic milestone in bilateral relations between the two countries. This ceremony, coinciding with the 60th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Kenya in East Africa and Morocco in the far west of the continent, symbolizes a significant strengthening of political, economic, and cultural exchanges in pursuit of continental continuity. Most importantly, it signifies Kenya’s strategic repositioning on the sensitive issue of the Moroccan Sahara. For the first time, Kenya has opened an embassy in Morocco, demonstrating Nairobi’s firm commitment to consolidating its relations with Rabat. Even more crucially, Kenya has officially recognized Morocco’s Autonomy Plan as “the only sustainable approach” to resolving the Western Sahara dispute. This represents a radical shift in Kenyan policy, as until recently, Kenya maintained relations with the self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), supported by Algeria, which is increasingly losing ground internationally. Under President William Ruto’s leadership, this diplomatic shift began taking shape in March 2024 with the appointment of Jessica Muthoni Gakinya as Kenya’s first ambassador to Morocco. Since then, several memorandums of understanding have been signed covering key areas such as housing, urban development, youth, trade, and diplomatic training, significantly strengthening cooperation between the two nations. Kenya’s repositioning on the Sahara issue aligns with a broader global trend of growing support for Morocco’s stance, while the Polisario Front loses international recognition. Over fifty countries have withdrawn recognition of the SADR since the Cold War’s end, and no African country has recognized it since 2011. Recent developments include Syria’s official closure of the Polisario office in Damascus, signaling a strategic distancing from the Algerian-Iranian axis and a clear rejection of support for Sahrawi separatists. This is a major setback for Algeria on the Arab world stage. In Latin America, key countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Panama have also withdrawn recognition of the SADR, adopting neutral or pro-Moroccan sovereignty positions consistent with UN resolutions. This shift is notable given the region’s past role as a haven for separatist propaganda. In Europe, nearly all countries, including France, Spain, Germany, and many EU members, now explicitly support Morocco’s Autonomy Plan as a serious basis for a lasting political solution. Algeria, increasingly powerless, is losing influence and reputation worldwide due to its persistent backing of the Polisario. Despite this international momentum favoring Morocco, Algeria continues to support the Polisario, exemplified by President Abdelmadjid Tebboune’s recent reception of the “new Sahrawi ambassador” Khatri Adouh. While Bourita and Mudavadi forged strong friendship ties, the Algerian-hosted ambassador boasted of supposed “diplomatic victories” for the separatists, ignoring Polisario’s growing isolation. Algeria and its proxy even disregard UN Security Council Resolution 2756 adopted in October 2024, which explicitly recognizes Algeria as a party to the dispute and calls for respect of the ceasefire and a durable political solution, endorsing Morocco’s initiative led by King Mohammed VI. Morocco is capitalizing on this favorable context by multiplying bilateral agreements, notably with strategic African countries like Kenya. The signing of five memorandums of understanding during Mudavadi’s visit reflects a shared vision of enhanced cooperation based on historical, cultural, and economic ties. Africa is thus showing a new face marked by pragmatism and mutual interests. The opening of the Kenyan embassy in Rabat and Nairobi’s official support for Morocco’s territorial integrity represent a major diplomatic victory for the Kingdom. Algeria can no longer ignore this development without risking even greater isolation on the continent and globally. Adding to Algeria’s woes, Ivory Coast recently reiterated its position sidelining the separatist movement and its sponsor. Morocco is consolidating its diplomatic leadership and advancing toward a peaceful and lasting resolution of the artificial Western Sahara conflict. In contrast, the Polisario is increasingly isolated, supported only by a stubborn Algeria and perhaps, for now, South Africa, whose economy and business ties with Morocco are growing. The international community is converging toward greater recognition of Moroccan sovereignty and its Autonomy Plan, supported by two permanent UN Security Council members and many regional economic powers. This irreversible momentum heralds a new era in African diplomacy, with the African Union likely to expel the SADR in the near future, removing a burdensome member that meets no criteria for international organization membership except Algeria’s excessive sponsorship, itself in notable decline. Omar Hilal, Morocco’s representative to the UN, does not hesitate to remind his Algerian counterparts of this anachronistic and untenable situation at every opportunity, making the international community a witness to this increasingly ridiculous stalemate that cannot last.

Morocco–United States and Côte d’Ivoire: The New Strategic Framework to Strengthen the Counterterrorism Fight in the Sahel 4435

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
On April 24, 2025, in Abidjan, the Ivorian Minister of Defense, Téné Birahima Ouattara, received the United States Ambassador to Côte d’Ivoire, Jessica Davis Ba, accompanied by General Michael Langley, the renowned AFRICOM commander. This meeting clearly fits into a major geostrategic dynamic where Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco, the United States, and the G5 Sahel countries are strengthening their cooperation to combat the transnational terrorist threat that has long destabilized the Sahel and North Africa. It is worth recalling that the pact concluded in Algeria under Bouteflika with armed groups shifted the threat southward within the country, exacerbating instability in the Sahel after a war that caused more than 250,000 Algerian deaths. In this new security architecture, Côte d’Ivoire positions itself as a key player south of the unstable zones. Washington is intensifying its military presence there with a drone base in Bouaké and a donation of 12 armored vehicles to reinforce Ivorian defense, especially in areas exposed to terrorism. This partnership also includes training for Ivorian forces and the establishment of maintenance infrastructure, illustrating cooperation expected to endure over time. Joint exercises in Bingerville, still in Côte d’Ivoire, demonstrate the growing strength of Ivorian forces in synergy with the United States, consolidating an essential link in West African security. Côte d’Ivoire, historically allied with Morocco, thus becomes a central actor in this regional cohesion. This could not happen without Rabat being informed and possibly even playing a facilitating role beforehand. Morocco asserts itself as a key actor in the counterterrorism fight in North Africa and the Sahel, coordinating its actions with the G5 Sahel, the most effective platform against various jihadist groups—essentially mere gangsters. Its intense participation in military exercises such as African Lion 2025, notably in its southern provinces, strengthens coordination with American, African, and other forces. Training in handling the mobile HIMARS artillery system, for example, testifies to the strategic depth of the Morocco–United States partnership. This new regional cohesion makes the Kingdom a major stabilizer, promoting a multilateral approach to terrorism, illicit trafficking, and hybrid conflicts. The Sahelo-Saharan region, now aligned with Morocco, faces complex threats, including the porous links between separatist movements like the Polisario Front and terrorist networks. Southern Algeria has become a lawless zone conducive to trafficking and multifaceted jihadism, threatening regional stability. Mali increasingly denounces Algerian interference and its support for terrorist groups, while Mauritania recently closed its border with Algeria near Tindouf, the Polisario’s stronghold. Algeria, at worst, if not openly encouraging, tolerates its territory as a strategic fallback zone and a supplier—particularly of fuel—vital for the survival and activities of various groups. The G5 Sahel Joint Force, even after the French withdrawal from the region, remains limited by funding and equipment deficits, highlighting the urgent need for strengthened international support. The growing military power of Côte d’Ivoire, cooperation with Morocco, and American support thus fit into a comprehensive regional strategy to contain these threats. Algeria, despite itself, is a pressured partner, hosting the Polisario Front for over 50 years. Increasingly, this group is being labeled a terrorist organization and will soon be so in the USA by law. In May 2025, the American destroyer USS Forrest Sherman’s stopover in Algiers and joint naval exercises with the country reflect the US desire to maintain a strategic Mediterranean presence, thereby involving Algiers more in counterterrorism. The memorandum of understanding signed in January 2025 between Washington and Algiers underscores this increased responsibility regarding threats on Algeria’s southern borders. The region is thus heading toward a new security architecture. The Abidjan meeting and the scale of maneuvers south of Morocco illustrate a profound transformation of security cooperation in West and North Africa. Morocco’s rise as a central actor, combined with strengthened partnerships between Côte d’Ivoire, the United States, and the G5 Sahel, shapes this new, more coherent and effective geostrategic architecture. In the same vein, one can also mention recent visits by Emirati officials in the region and the very recent visit of Marshal Haftar’s son, General Saddam Haftar, to Niger, following previous visits to Burkina Faso and even Israel some time ago. The noose is tightening around terrorist groups, now cut off from their strategic refuges. Their last resort remains the north via Algeria and Libya, where internal conflicts complicate the fight. This multilateral regional approach appears as the best response to restore stability and security in a region rapidly evolving due to recent political changes. Morocco, the first to adapt to these developments, is reaping the benefits of its non-interference strategy by forging strong economic and strategic complementarity with its partners. From Rabat to Abidjan, no zone escapes this economic and security dynamic desired by His Majesty the King. Algeria’s now shaky stance and its belligerent rhetoric toward neighbors no longer impress. The death knell has sounded for desert extremist groups, notably the Polisario and its ambiguous role for over half a century.

It not tariffs it's a cost on trade deficit. 4402

Tariq Daouda, 1 mon.
Trump tariffs are not traditional tariffs, because they are indexed on the US trade deficit. Historical, tariffs have usually been either as a way to protect internal markets, get revenue for the government by indirectly taxing the population or both. They have also been used as punitive measures. A tariff is both a tax on outside goods, and a subsidy to the internal market. As such they are either seen as distorting the market, or a way to put a price on not been able to produce something internally. However, this new form of tariffs tell a different story, they are blanket tariffs based on the general trade deficit that the US has with different countries. Which means they go up and down with the trade deficit, that alone makes them function differently. How they will impact the global market remains to be seen. From a strictly optimization (the mathematical discipline) perspective, the most likely outcome, after a period of instability, is a general lowering of US trade deficit, mirrored by a lowering of reciprocal tariffs leading to an increase in trade and GDP. This of course does not take into account specific geopolitical sensitivities and the complexity of the potential readjusting in regulations, fiscal policies and otherwise that countries may have to do lower their trade deficit with us.

Between Deals and Geopolitics: Trump Snubs Israel and Bets on the Gulf Monarchies 4408

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
On May 13, 2025, Donald Trump began the first major international tour of his second term. Instead of stopping in Jerusalem, a symbol of the strong alliance between the United States and Israel, the president chose to visit only the three Gulf countries: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Israel, a neighboring and long-standing partner, was not included. This decision represents a significant change in American diplomacy and could reshape regional dynamics. It raises the question: is this simply an economic strategy or a deeper geopolitical shift? In Riyadh, the focus was clearly on business. Saudi Arabia announced an unprecedented investment of $600 billion in the American economy, with plans to increase it to $1 trillion over four years. The sectors involved include defense, energy, technology, infrastructure, and especially weaponry, which may cause discomfort for Israel. The U.S. military orders amount to $142 billion, reflecting the priority to secure America’s economic future through strong partnerships with the Gulf monarchies, which aim to be seen as more than just oil producers. Saudi Arabia is a major global economic player and even influenced the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Syria. In Doha, Qatar signed historic agreements worth nearly $1.2 trillion, including the sale of Boeing planes and GE Aerospace engines to Qatar Airways. Qatar also gifted Trump a plane valued at nearly half a billion dollars. The United Arab Emirates committed to investing $1.4 trillion over ten years in the American economy, focusing on artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure. At each stop, investment forums brought together leading figures from Silicon Valley and Wall Street, demonstrating the intention to strengthen economic ties with the Gulf. Trump presented tangible results, reinforcing his image as a dealmaker and promising long-term prosperity for the United States. He secured jobs and prosperity by renegotiating tariffs and ensuring that capital would first benefit the U.S. economy. But why was Israel excluded from this tour? The regional situation offers some explanation: the war in Gaza continues, the humanitarian crisis worsens, and talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel are stalled. A visit to Jerusalem could have been seen as provocative and might have endangered the important economic agreements. Additionally, Trump’s proposal to transform Gaza into a "Riviera of the Middle East" was not well received by Arab-Muslim countries. The focus remained on regional stability and economic cooperation, avoiding symbolic issues. Trump’s approach is cautious and pragmatic, consistent with his "America First" policy. This decision does not reflect a punishment of Netanyahu, despite tensions between the two leaders, but signals a shift in the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. Whereas Israel was a priority in Trump’s first term, the approach is now more nuanced and pragmatic. Israel is costly for the U.S., and Trump seeks financial support for a heavily indebted country. There are many strategic differences with Israel on issues such as Gaza, Iran’s nuclear program, and normalization with Riyadh. However, Trump still faces a firm Netanyahu, whose hardline stance complicates American goals. Supporting Israel without reservation risks losing economic opportunities with the Gulf monarchies. By focusing on these countries, Trump signals that American diplomacy now prioritizes economic interests and new regional balances, even if it means temporarily distancing from a historic ally. This message also reaches Israeli voters and the international community: automatic loyalties are replaced by realpolitik, where partnerships are judged by their concrete benefits. This change breaks with decades of American diplomacy, where Israel was always central during presidential visits. The White House now favors tangible outcomes and alliances that benefit the U.S. economy and the president’s international standing. The vice president also strengthens his position for the upcoming election. The Republican Party welcomes this. In summary, Israel’s absence from the Middle East tour can be explained by the priority given to economic matters, caution in a volatile context, and a desire to redefine strategic balances in favor of the U.S. This decision may redraw alliances in the Middle East, marking an era where American diplomacy is guided by economic returns and regional stability, even if it disrupts traditions and surprises allies. Israel remains an essential partner but cannot match the scale of opportunities offered by the Gulf. For Trump, the priority is clear: "America First," including in redefining Middle Eastern alliances. If this strategy succeeds economically, it could have lasting effects on regional dynamics and Israel’s role in American diplomacy. Israeli society must acknowledge this new reality, and opposition parties might use this moment to counter extremists dominating politics. Israel’s future depends on regional peace, which also requires the Palestinian people’s right to live in peace. This will be the next challenge. The Gulf monarchies invest to support the U.S. but also become more demanding on this issue. The Middle East, birthplace of religions and much of human civilization, long a stage for ideological rivalries, is becoming the ground for a new American realpolitik. Donald Trump, true to his style, favors deals and results, even if it means breaking conventions. Israel’s exclusion is not an oversight but a sign of strategic repositioning that could reshape the future of the region and the world.

Morocco’s Southern Provinces Witness Unprecedented Investment Boom 4268

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
For several years now, Morocco’s Southern Provinces have been experiencing an exceptional surge in investment activity. Numerous countries and major international corporations are drawn to the region’s vast potential, particularly in renewable energy, infrastructure, and industry. This momentum aligns with the Kingdom’s strategic vision to transform these territories into hubs of innovation and sustainable development, while strengthening their economic integration nationally and continentally. Notably, the Atlantic port of Dakhla is designed to open up the Sahel countries, fostering broader regional economic integration. Contrary to allegations from Algiers, these regions enjoy a climate of peace and security conducive to both living and investing. The exponential development observed stems from an ambitious strategy backed by massive state funding as a driving force, alongside contributions from international partners. Since the launch of the New Development Model for the Southern Provinces by His Majesty the King in 2015, over €8.3 billion has been invested across infrastructure, energy, agriculture, industry, tourism, and social services. The Southern Provinces have become a major center for renewable energy production, especially wind and solar power. By 2024, installed capacity reached 1.3 GW, representing a cumulative investment of around €2 billion and accounting for 21% of the nation’s clean energy output. Landmark projects such as Noor Laâyoune and Noor Boujdour, each with a 100 MW capacity, exemplify this focus. An additional €2 billion is planned to boost future capacity to 1.6 GW. Innovation is also evident in the emergence of green hydrogen, with pilot projects launched in 2024 across Guelmim-Oued Noun, Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra, and Dakhla-Oued Eddahab regions. The provinces boast significant mineral resources, especially phosphates. The Office Chérifien des Phosphates has invested 7.18 billion dirhams in a new fertilizer complex in Laâyoune and 5.26 billion dirhams in a phosphate port. The mining sector plays a crucial role in job creation and economic diversification. Fishing is another key economic driver, accounting for nearly 39% of local activity. Investment priorities include processing industries, aquaculture development, and seafood product valorization, supported by modern ports and highway networks that facilitate exports. High-value agriculture adapted to arid conditions benefits from investments in irrigation, desalination, and farm modernization. The sector has also expanded through the creation of industrial zones dedicated to processing and storage. Major infrastructure projects, such as the 1,055 km Tiznit-Dakhla expressway completed in record time and the nearly €1 billion Dakhla Atlantic port, strengthen the Southern Provinces’ integration into national and African markets. This positions the region as a logistical hub connecting sub-Saharan Africa and serving as a gateway to the Americas and Europe. Dakhla is poised to assume the commercial role once held by Essaouira, historically known as the “Port of Timbuktu.” His Majesty the King’s vision has been embraced pragmatically by Sahel countries following recent regime changes. Coastal, ecological, and niche tourism is growing exponentially, with investments in hotels, resorts, and eco-tourism circuits. Local crafts benefit from enhancement programs, adding to the region’s tourist appeal. Social sectors are also receiving significant investment. The Laâyoune University Hospital Center (CHU), for example, mobilized €110 million. Education and vocational training have expanded to support demographic and economic growth, with numerous faculties now serving local youth. Banking, insurance, and telecommunications services are evolving in tandem with other sectors. Local authorities, fully aligned with this vision, are multiplying public-private partnerships to accelerate project implementation and pool resources. These initiatives foster job creation, improve living standards, and empower local populations, while reinforcing regional stability and attractiveness. Illustrating this momentum, the French Development Agency (AFD) recently announced a €150 million investment to support structural projects and regional development, reflecting the strengthened Morocco-France partnership. This development and integration drive has provoked strong opposition from Algeria and the separatist group it sponsors. The Polisario Front, increasingly desperate, has escalated provocations, including blocking MINURSO logistical convoys and issuing terrorist threats against foreign investors in a bid to disrupt regional development and internationalize the conflict. Algeria, stuck in an outdated stance, harbors deep hostility toward Morocco’s advanced autonomy model, viewing it as a direct threat to its regional ambitions and support for the Polisario. Algiers condemns Moroccan projects in the Southern Provinces as colonial and illegitimate, attempting unsuccessfully to isolate Morocco diplomatically. In reality, Morocco’s only remaining support appears to be from parts of Africa-and even there, voices within the African National Congress (ANC) are urging a policy shift toward Morocco, now a major diplomatic player. Despite these maneuvers, Morocco remains steadfast in its sustainable and inclusive development strategy, consolidating sovereignty and regional leadership. Its partners include Europe, the USA, China, France, Spain, Russia, and many others. Through innovation, sustainability, and inclusion, Morocco is transforming its Southern Provinces into engines of growth benefiting both the nation and the entire African continent-a true model of integrated and resilient development.

The Africa Atlantic Gas Pipeline: A Strategic Project at the Heart of Regional Rivalriy. 4567

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
While Algerian media persist in disparaging the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline project, also known as the Atlantic Africa Gas Pipeline (AAGP), this large-scale transcontinental megaproject paradoxically generates growing interest and increasing international support. More than just a pipeline, the AAGP embodies an ambitious vision of South-South cooperation, regional integration, and sustainable development, crossing often landlocked and fragile countries, and offering a credible complement or alternative source of gas for Europe. The AAGP aims to transport up to 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year from Nigeria’s rich gas fields, passing through about fifteen West African countries, reaching Morocco, and then onward to Europe via the Strait of Gibraltar. This significant capacity will not only diversify Europe’s energy supply sources but, above all, meet the growing energy needs of West African countries. Unlike the Algerian Trans-Saharan gas pipeline project, which is about 1,500 km shorter but costly (nearly USD 20 billion) and passes through an unstable region, the AAGP stands out for its inclusive approach. It is not merely a transit conduit to Europe but a regional energy network that will supply bordering countries, allowing producers to inject their gas locally and others to fuel their industrial, agricultural, and urban development. The AAGP is based on a logic of South-South cooperation, founded on solidarity, sharing expertise, and economic complementarity. By crossing often landlocked countries, the pipeline will help reduce their energy isolation, strengthen their infrastructure, and stimulate their economic growth. The choice of a predominantly offshore route up to Dakhla, then onshore along Morocco’s Atlantic coast, illustrates the desire to fully integrate the Sahel-Saharan region into a modern energy corridor. Dakhla, which will become a major port, industrial, and logistics hub, is set to play a central role in this dynamic, promoting job creation, industrial growth, and economic diversification-key strengths and major assets of the Moroccan vision. Algeria, for its part, perceives it as a direct threat to its dominant position in the regional energy sector. Its shorter Trans-Saharan pipeline project is limited to a simple transit role for Nigerian gas to Europe, without real impact on the development of the territories it crosses. In contrast, the Moroccan AAGP proposes a more ambitious vision, integrating a regional network that will benefit all partners and their increasingly demanding populations. Algerian hostility manifests in an intense media campaign aimed at downplaying the feasibility of the Moroccan project. Beyond the media, Algeria is multiplying diplomatic efforts to strengthen ties with Nigeria and accelerate its own project. Official delegations follow one another, while on social networks, relentless, likely orchestrated smear campaigns seek to discredit the AAGP. This antagonism fits into a broader political logic, with Morocco as the "classic enemy" to weaken. Ideological stubbornness leads to ridiculous choices that paradoxically harm Algeria’s own economic and social interests. The artificial conflict over Western Sahara remains a backdrop; the survival of the Polisario Front has mobilized a large share of Algeria’s resources, efforts, and attention for 50 years. Contrary to Algerian claims, the AAGP enjoys solid support from financial institutions and major investors. The United Arab Emirates (25 billion USD), the Islamic Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, the OPEC Fund for International Development, as well as the USA, have expressed interest and commitment to the project. On the industrial front, the Chinese group Jingye Steel has already won the contract to supply the metal pipes, demonstrating the project’s international and industrial dimension. This involvement of global players strengthens the technical and financial credibility of the AAGP and consolidates adherence to the goal of making the region a development hub rather than a source of migration and forced population displacements. The Moroccan project is divided into several phases, with feasibility, basic engineering, and environmental studies already completed or underway. A call for tenders is planned to accelerate construction, with the commissioning of the first sections envisaged as early as 2029. Beyond energy issues, the AAGP is part of a broader strategy of sustainable development, reducing energy poverty and poverty in general, and strengthening regional stability. By promoting economic integration and complementarity among West African countries, the project will help create an environment conducive to investment, job creation, inclusive growth, and prosperity. This was recently reinforced in the PRAI declaration at the 5th meeting of the African Atlantic States Process (AASP). This approach strongly contrasts with Algeria’s strategy, which remains focused on political and ideological confrontation, to the detriment of economic and social opportunities for its own populations. Algeria even refuses to acknowledge the emergence of new gas producers, notably Senegal and Mauritania, who actively participate in the Moroccan project. These countries adopt a pragmatic logic, favoring economic development and regional cooperation over ideological rivalries. The first section of the AAGP precisely includes these states, illustrating a dynamic of openness and partnership that could reshape West Africa’s energy map. The Atlantic Africa Gas Pipeline is more than just an infrastructure project: it embodies an ambitious vision of cooperation, integration, and sustainable development for West Africa that the affected populations fully understand. Faced with this dynamic, Algeria seems trapped in its chronic confrontational stance, hindering its own development and, regrettably, that of the region. At a time when energy, economic, and geopolitical challenges are multiplying, the AAGP is a model for the future, based on complementarity, solidarity, and innovation. Its success could open the way to a new era of shared prosperity and stability for West Africa and its international partners, much to the dismay of those who oppose it, refuse to admit it, or simply fail to understand it.

The winning formula: Morocco as a Sahel country... 5043

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
Since Morocco’s 2007 proposal of autonomy for Western Sahara within the framework of Morocco’s territorial integrity, the Polisario Front has suffered significant setbacks both diplomatically and internally within its camps on Algerian territory. In recent weeks, the situation in the Tindouf camps has sharply deteriorated, exposing growing disorder and an increasing loss of control over the populations. The detainees are increasingly confronting the Algerian security forces surrounding the camps, whose mission is to limit movement for fear of a mass return to Morocco. Haven’t we seen videos where female protesters shout in metallic voices, “Let us return to Morocco”? Such demonstrations are not unprecedented in the camps, but this time, “Long live the King” is clearly and loudly chanted. The population is disillusioned and no longer afraid to confront Brahim Ghali and his associates. In this atmosphere on the brink of anarchy, violence and armed clashes in the camps are multiplying, with real power increasingly in the hands of rival gangs involved in drug and fuel trafficking, illegal gold mining, and the diversion of received aid. Just last weekend, heavy gunfire erupted in the so-called Laâyoune camp (not to be confused with the beautiful city of Laâyoune in Morocco) between rival factions. Powerless, the Polisario did not intervene. At the same time, three Polisario fighters deserted and joined the Moroccan Royal Armed Forces near Oum Dreyga; a defection that foreshadows others. The Polisario is increasingly unable to impose its authority and is also discredited from within its own structures. The internal crisis within the Polisario raises palpable concern in Algiers, which more than ever fears latent chaos in the camps, a genuine threat to public order and regional stability. Once an instrument of Algerian influence, the movement, which has always been a security burden, is now becoming a political liability. Several scenarios are even being discussed, ranging from disarmament to the dissolution of armed militias, but this will not be possible without major internal tensions in Algeria-a probable generals’ war. The accelerated instability is worsened by increased repression, notably by the Algerian army, which has opened fire on civilians in the camps during protests, causing deaths and injuries. This climate of violence and oppression fuels the anger of the detained populations, who watch in disbelief the inaction of those supposed to protect them. They openly denounce the Polisario’s complicit passivity in the face of these aggressions. They now understand that these so-called leaders are in fact powerless puppets. Combined with extremely difficult living conditions, including restricted access to water, education, and medical care, the situation is increasingly unbearable for those held under the yoke of criminals and traffickers of all kinds. In Morocco, particularly in the southern provinces, this dramatic situation is causing growing concern. On social networks and in the press, countless voices vehemently denounce the situation. They alert to the grave suffering of women and children in the camps. Numerous NGOs and international observers are calling for urgent intervention to restore security and protect civilians. The major security crisis and sustained, almost daily popular protests in the Tindouf camps occur at a difficult time for the host country. It is struggling with the reaction to its provocations from Sahel countries-a coordinated and forceful response that seems to have caught it off guard. The Algerian regime no longer knows where to turn amid internal problems supplying basic goods to the population and the unrest they provoke; the crisis in Tindouf; the exponential weakening of the Polisario; and its obvious isolation in the region. The Sahel countries have unanimously made their choice: they are strengthening their all-around rapprochement with Morocco. The Malian drone shot down in early April 2025 by the Algerian army will cost Algeria dearly in terms of geopolitical positioning. It shows how a “premeditated hostile action” without reflection can lead to serious consequences, even a lasting crisis. Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso collectively recalled their diplomats, triggering an unprecedented diplomatic escalation with Algeria, which responded by closing its airspace to flights and recalling its ambassadors. The escalation with Algiers, which seems to be settling in for the long term, has opened these countries’ eyes. They already had on the table the proposal to anchor themselves in a structuring Moroccan project, enabling their access to the Atlantic. On April 28, 2025, His Majesty King Mohammed VI received in Rabat the foreign ministers of the three countries simultaneously-a significant geostrategic turning point. The “Atlantic Africa” initiative was endorsed as a facilitation of ocean access, a solid foundation for the economic development and commercial integration of the countries involved. The economic dimension of the project is strong, and the political dimension powerful. Morocco is perceived as a serious, committed strategic partner, notably respectful of the principle of non-interference, which contrasts with the tensions and climate of hostility prevailing between Algeria and the new Sahelian regimes. The three countries reaffirmed their full adherence to the Moroccan vision; their respective top diplomats emphasized that this alliance is a lever for growth and stability in a region marked by security and diplomatic crises. The recent developments fit into the regional context where Morocco consolidates its position amid the weakening of the Polisario and the internal crisis in the Tindouf camps, while Algeria sees its influence recede in the face of the rising power of its Sahelian neighbors who turn to Rabat for economic and security solutions. This regional realignment is an additional factor weakening Algeria’s position both in the Sahara dossier and in managing the Polisario. The Algerian crisis with Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, combined with these countries’ strategic rapprochement with Morocco under the impetus of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, thus illustrates a major geopolitical shift in the Sahel. The new context strengthens Morocco’s territorial integrity dynamic while further isolating the Polisario and its sponsor: Algeria is very talented when it comes to improvising or manufacturing crises with its neighbors and beyond.

Trump, Morocco, and the End of the Polisario Myth 6537

Aziz Daouda, 2 mon.
In just a few short weeks, the Western Sahara issue has seen a series of rare and intense developments, marking a genuine acceleration in a case long frozen by diplomatic deadlock, strategic inertia, and hidden agendas. The Trump administration, leading an international current weary of this outdated conflict, has clearly demonstrated its desire to enter a new era, breaking away from decades of inaction fueled by the Cold War and its lingering ideological effects. For Washington, there is no longer any tolerance for the destabilization games of Algeria’s military regime, which has lost its bearings and uses this conflict to mask its own internal political, economic, and social failures. By doing so, it hinders regional development ambitions and healthy, complementary relations with a Moroccan neighbor it both envies for its successes and resents for its strong alliances with the West. Donald Trump's election reshuffled the deck. Gone are the cautious postures and fragile balancing acts between the parties. The time has come for action, transparent alliances, and the pursuit of concrete solutions. In this context, the Trump administration’s support for Morocco’s autonomy proposal is unequivocal. The Moroccan initiative is now described by the White House as the only "just and lasting" basis for resolving the conflict. During a highly symbolic meeting between Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita and Senator Marco Rubio, the latter reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to a solution based solely on Morocco’s offer. The signals are clear: for Washington, playtime is over. Morocco is strong and reliable. It is within its rights. It is the best friend and partner in the region. It was also the first country to recognize the United States and to protect its fleet during the country’s early, difficult years. This reaffirmed American realignment comes with bold proposals. Several influential members of Congress are now considering officially designating the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization. They have a solid basis for their case, including: attacks on civilians in Smara and near El Mahbes, the unilateral breach of the 1991 ceasefire, and alleged ties with hostile powers like Iran and Russia—not to mention the confirmed presence of Polisario fighters in Syria, who are still being held there. On April 11, it should be noted, Republican Representative Joe Wilson announced his intention to introduce a bill to this effect. According to him, the Polisario Front serves as a gateway for what he calls the “Axis of Aggression” in Africa, linking the separatist group to Iranian and Russian geopolitical ambitions on the continent, posing a threat to U.S. security. He now holds in his hands a well-documented Hudson Institute report that points to close ties between the Polisario and Hezbollah, and even the PKK. The Polisario is said to be involved in arms trafficking with terrorist groups in the Sahel, the embezzlement of humanitarian aid, and more. It would be a mistake to think this logic is limited to Americans. Just last week, for example, former UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox also described the Polisario as a terrorist organization. The idea is gaining serious ground. This dynamic puts Algeria face to face with its responsibilities: the Polisario is hosted, supported, and funded on its soil. Labeling the Polisario a terrorist group would effectively remove it from the equation. Its diplomatic marginalization would further isolate Algiers, now clearly seen as a direct party to the conflict, and no longer the neutral third actor it claims to be. The mask has definitively fallen. Another country facing turbulence: South Africa. A traditional supporter of the Polisario, Pretoria is beginning to feel the impact of this strategic shift. The local press is raising questions, and voices within the ANC are calling for a reassessment of the country’s foreign policy. Several NGOs are known to be raising funds for the Polisario, but think tanks such as the Hudson Institute argue that a terrorist designation would force them to stop these operations under threat of international sanctions. The consequences could be severe for South African institutions. Already under the scrutiny of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force), the country cannot afford to be suspected of complicity with a designated terrorist entity. Banks in particular fear tighter controls and may pressure the government to change course. Tensions between Washington and Pretoria, already strained since Trump took office, risk further deterioration. The U.S. administration makes no secret of its distrust of the South African government. A possible designation of the Polisario as a terrorist group could become a breaking point in an already fragile relationship, potentially leading to sanctions, economic pressure, and heightened diplomatic scrutiny. The Western Sahara dossier is entering a new phase. The status quo no longer holds against the backdrop of international realignments, and stalling tactics are losing effectiveness. The world no longer tolerates frozen conflicts, and global powers are looking for a stable, trustworthy Africa that is open to cooperation. In this evolving dynamic, Morocco appears to have won the battle of clarity. The question now is whether its adversaries will be able to read the new balance of power. This is likely what explains and fuels the optimism of Morocco’s UN representative, Omar Hilale. In barely veiled terms, he hinted that the issue might be declared resolved to coincide with the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Green March, on November 6…

"The Arc of History: Morocco Advances, Algeria Stalls" 5950

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
Diplomacy, regional geopolitics, and strategic interpretative dynamics in North Africa have evolved profoundly over time. The turning point came in 2007, when the UN Security Council welcomed Morocco’s autonomy initiative, paving the way for a definitive resolution of the Sahara issue within the framework of Moroccan sovereignty. This was a difficult choice for Morocco, but a deeply pragmatic one. The initiative was part of a long-term vision of regional integration, based on cooperation and complementarity. Seeing Algeria mired in its contradictions, Rabat believed it could offer a lifeline. But perhaps Morocco underestimated the instability of its neighbor's regime—either incapable or stubbornly unwilling to adjust course. Rather than seize the opportunity, Algiers chose escalation, multiplying hostile statements and provocative actions. The change in Algerian leadership had sparked some hope for a thaw in Moroccan circles. The King of Morocco went as far as issuing two solemn appeals for dialogue. The response: a categorical rejection. Instead of proposing an alternative, Algeria has persisted in a strategy of confrontation, ignoring new geopolitical dynamics. Belligerent rhetoric and unilateral decisions against Morocco have grown in number. Algiers is sinking deeper into denial, detached from contemporary geopolitical realities. One may well wonder if Algerian decision-makers live in the same world as everyone else. During the 2024 vote on the UN resolution renewing MINURSO’s mandate, Algeria—despite being a non-permanent Security Council member—found itself isolated and powerless. A moment as pathetic as it was revealing. The overwhelming support of Arab and African nations for Morocco’s territorial integrity, alongside the growing shift of many states toward Rabat’s vision, has done nothing to shake Algeria’s stubbornness. Spain’s decision to embrace Morocco’s autonomy plan sent Algiers into a symptomatic fit of hysteria. President Macron’s letter and his subsequent speeches further aggravated Algerian authorities, who eventually backed down—without gaining anything in return but humiliation. No constructive proposals have ever emerged from Algiers. Nothing concrete. Nothing useful. It’s as if insult, slander, and defamation have now become legitimate diplomatic tools. Their statements have grown increasingly virulent—sometimes downright vile—betraying a loss of emotional control. More recently, following a clear reaffirmation of U.S. support for Morocco’s autonomy plan, Algeria issued a statement riddled with ambiguity, approximations, and glaring editorial weaknesses—in both French and Arabic. It read like the incoherent mumbling of a groggy boxer, staggering after a technical knockout. This communiqué can be interpreted in multiple ways, all revealing the same disarray. It first appears to reflect a desire to dilute the importance of the U.S. message by drowning it in a muddle of distorted legal references, shaky historical reminders, and absurd ideological arguments—a clumsy attempt to minimize the impact of American support on domestic public opinion and the few remaining allies. It also reveals a form of misunderstanding—feigned or sincere—of current diplomatic realities. The Algerian decision-making circles cling to an obsolete reading of the issue. Do they really believe in a possible reversal? They imply that international positions remain ambiguous or negotiable—despite all evidence to the contrary. If they truly believe that, they’re alone in doing so. Above all, the statement reflects a stubborn refusal to accept facts. Algeria likely understood the American message: a clear and renewed endorsement of Morocco’s sovereignty over its Sahara. But for reasons of internal politics and regional posture, it chose to ignore it—an attempt to save face… but is that truly sustainable? With each passing day, Morocco’s position on the international stage grows stronger. Pragmatism, consistency, active diplomacy, and strategic intelligence are paying off. Morocco’s internal front remains solid, united, and unwavering—a major asset. The diplomatic momentum driven by Morocco is now shared and supported by the world’s major powers, in a geopolitical context where economic and security interests prevail over outdated slogans. Algeria, by contrast, remains stuck in a rigid and sterile posture—to the detriment, it must be said, of its own people, held hostage by an issue they were never genuinely consulted about. For nearly 50 years, they’ve endured the consequences of ideological stubbornness without the slightest tangible benefit. And things could get even more complicated. By now antagonizing Sahel countries—particularly Mali—Algeria is compromising even its traditional alliances. Russia is watching with concern as instability spreads across a region it views as strategic. One wonders what direction Algerian diplomacy is taking—and whether anyone lucid is still at the helm. The fact that Staffan de Mistura was questioned at the U.S. Department of State is telling—especially since he was received by a subordinate. Lisa Kenna, in charge of political affairs, conveyed a clear message: the U.S. wants a swift resolution, and there is now only one solution on the table. With no room for negotiation, his role is to urge the parties to align with that solution. Among those parties, Algeria stands front and center—whether it likes it or not. As if that weren’t enough, Congressman Joe Wilson announced plans to submit a bill designating the Polisario Front as a terrorist organization due to its ties with Iran. The initiative is highly likely to succeed. The noose will tighten even further around the Algerian regime, which will have lost all room for maneuver. It is time to put an end to this ideological charade—these puppets still waving outdated slogans in the corridors of the African Union, at the expense of the exhausted Algerian taxpayer waiting in endless lines for milk and cooking oil. The patience, wisdom, and perseverance of the Moroccan Kingdom are bearing fruit. Morocco always knew it was just a matter of time. Those who doubted it now understand: you don’t trifle with the interests of one of the world’s oldest nation-states. Algeria could have avoided this debacle—had it ever had the clarity to see what was obvious to everyone else: the course of history.

Bardella in Israel, the reciprocal disgrace of an unnatural rapprochement 6792

Aziz Daouda, 3 mon.
This article is by my friend Larbi Bargach. It is highly relevant and demonstrates a balanced historical and political analysis, supported by logical reasoning and objectivity. I present it here for your consideration. It was published on ODJ, and you can find the link below. The European far-right in general, and the French far-right in particular, has made a spectacular rapprochement with the far-right government currently in power in Israel. What seemed unthinkable only a few years ago is now a reality. This situation has made the National Rally the most loyal ally of the Israeli government. This alliance, seemingly unnatural at first glance, is not so when one considers their intertwined histories and current events. Indeed, the ideology of these two far-right movements is rooted in racism and exclusion. While the French far-right claims to have rid itself (which remains to be proven) of one aspect of its historical racism—anti-Semitism—its Israeli counterpart appears to be afflicted by a sort of "Stockholm syndrome" inherited from German Nazism. No Jew or Israeli worthy of the name can accept the horrors committed by the IDF in service of pseudo-Nazis who claim to be Israeli. Many Israelis and others, though currently a minority, are outraged by the ongoing massacres. Ironically, they are accused of anti-Semitism by others despite being Jewish—and some of them practicing Jews. Their numbers will grow if we refer to Jewish history, which has given humanity many righteous individuals. The two far-rights ultimately unite in their shared hatred of the Muslim world, caricatured and underestimated. No one can imagine this rapprochement is sincere: it stems from Netanyahu's political opportunism—who will stop at nothing to avoid prison—and Marine Le Pen's attempt to erase the dark parts of her personal history tied to her late father's anti-Semitic past. For this rapprochement to take shape, a context was required: the October 7 attacks—brutal assaults legally classified as "terrorist" due to their targeting civilians and involving hostage-taking. These attacks benefited Hamas, now more popular than ever in Gaza and the Arab-Muslim world but certainly not the Palestinian cause. Gaza remains under embargo, dependent on international aid, devastated, and without viable prospects. This is not Hamas's view; they rightly believe October 7 forced Israel to reveal its less appealing face: that of a colonial state illegally occupying lands attributed to Palestine by the UN; that of a violent state rooted in vengeance and lawlessness. Paradoxically, this violence from the Israeli army—largely supported by the United States—has proven ineffective. Today, apart from a few religious fanatics on both sides, no one believes in a military solution. Israel has been bombing Gaza for over a year and a half without tangible results; quite the opposite. Hostages could only be freed through negotiation, and Hamas has strengthened politically internally: it remains the sole entity capable of maintaining security in Gaza. Internationally, even the United States engages with its leaders. Israeli policy destroys internal cohesion with unprecedented mobilization of its population against its leaders. Many Israelis are leaving Israel; the figures are alarming. The country has become a pariah worldwide, with growing anti-Semitism every day. Voices of wisdom within Israel are silenced: Haaretz, Jerusalem University, and other peace advocacy groups are deprived of funding and threatened with extinction. This ostracism also affects French media close to French far-right ideas. Israeli journalist Charles Enderlin—a genuine humanist and former Antenne 2 (now France 2) correspondent in Israel—is no longer seen on French television. Nor are images of ongoing massacres in Gaza. It is true that Trump's arrival relegated Europe to a lower division. Europe finds itself in an unprecedented position since the Middle Ages—a time when Muslim civilization was dominant and illuminated by its philosophers and scientists. The opportunistic alliance between racist Israeli and European movements cannot obscure recent Holocaust history. That French far-right groups align with Israeli extremists attempting to deport Palestinians almost follows genetic logic; but it is an absolute disgrace for Jews—a people who suffered deportation atrocities. The Middle East issue is complex; it deserves more explanation. Two concepts clash when addressing such delicate topics: truth—principally plural—and supposed reality—presumably singular. Everyone has their truth, all deserving to be heard. Hamas’s perspective rests on several logics: - The failure of Oslo Accords sabotaged by today’s far-right government in power. Rabin—a sponsor of these accords and great Israeli general—viewed them as a belated ambition for peace; Netanyahu fiercely opposed them. - Frustration over being denied results from Palestinian elections won by Hamas against Mahmoud Abbas. This logic does not justify terrorist attacks but may explain them. Miami's Holocaust museum explains—without justifying—the Nazi horrors through humiliation suffered after Versailles Treaty (1919). Similarly, October 7 can be explained by Gaza's blockade or humiliations inflicted on Palestinians at checkpoints. The Palestinian cause is often instrumentalized by certain Arab regimes as a distraction from internal demands yet remains central to global geopolitics—more complicated than before 1993 and more urgent than ever. Contrary to Bardella or Netanyahu’s narrative attempts, Jews and Muslims have coexisted for long periods: expelled together from Spain (1492–1610), no Jew was deported from North Africa during WWII; pogroms belong more to European history than Arab-Muslim history. Could Homo sapiens—“wise man”—finally remember his name before it’s too late? Larbi Bargach
lodj.ma/Bardella-en-Israel-le-de...

Trump Tariffs & Retaliations: What could happen to Canada if it Lasts 7814

Tariq Daouda, 4 mon.
Even more inflation and a general depreciation of the Canadian market. If Canada increases tariffs on US imports, Canadian companies will have to borrow more to buy what they need to produce, therefore increasing the money supply and driving Canadian inflation higher. The vast majority of the borrowing will be directed to buying supplies not increasing salaries. Tariffs on Canadian products in the US will likely lower the demand for them. Which means Canada will have a surplus of products that they might not be able to sell. The US is after all the number one market for Canadian products and for some companies the only one. This in terms will lead to a lowering of production which coupled with increased borrowing will likely increase inflation even higher. So why not sell in Canada? Canada has a very high GDP / Capita but the size of it's market is not comparable to the US. Canada has also accumulated a high number of regulations that prevent economic growth and turn one of Canada's biggest advantage (its size) into one of it's biggest disadvantages. Canada is the second biggest country on earth, a fact that comes with a unique set of economic challenges, chief amongst them is the transport of goods. Canadian economy mostly relies on trucks to ship good from *A Mare Usque Ad Mare*. Canadian trucks are subjected to different laws in different Provinces. Some cannot event drive at night. In the second biggest country on earth it means a huge increase in shipping time and therefore cost needed to ship goods. Canadian energy costs are high, due to carbon taxes and various laws and regulations that prevent the growth of its oil industry. Canadian provinces also have specific taxation laws that effectively act as tariffs within the country, driving the competitiveness of the inner Canadian market lower. Canada taxes on employment and consumption are also general higher, driving cost of labor and therefore the cost of everything higher. All this means that until now, it was cheaper to sell to the US than within Canada. For some, it was even cheaper to drive to the border and send a package with USPS than to send from Canada using Post Canada. Why not Europe then? Europe is far, which means higher logistical and shipping costs. Europe is also extremely regulated, which means that Canadian companies would have to undergo massive restructurations to make their products fit the European market from a regulatory perspective. Canadian market is so intertwined with the US market that a lot of what it produces is in inches and feet. Not what Europeans are looking for. Europe is also suffering from a serious inflation meaning that their capacity to buy Canadian surplus is not that high. Europe is not an homogeneous market. Selling in Europe means dealing with many languages and tax regulations like VAT that are specific to each country. This drives the cost of compliance even higher. In short, If the tariffs war lasts, Canadian economy will produce surplus that it will not be able to sell, leading to a downsizing of the economy, and Canadian companies will have to increase their borrowing to maintain production. These will lead to higher inflation in Canada that will be accelerated by existing consumption taxes. This in turn will lead to an increase in salaries, therefore of borrowing and an acceleration of inflation due to existing labor taxes, which will lead to an increase of unemployment. This is the road to a Canadian recession that could lead to a massive defaulting on debt in Canada (especially in the housing market) and a general divestment from the Canadian economy. The only viable option for Canada to soften the blow is to increase the competitiveness of its inner market: lower taxes and lower government spending (to reduce inflation), remove regulations (starting with the ones hindering inter-provincial economy), lower energy costs. Edit: Canada just cut interest rates to 2.75% increasing money supply (link bellow).
financialpost.com/news/economy/b...

The US creates a Strategic Reserve of Digital Assets, and a Wake up Call for Morocco 7338

Tariq Daouda, 4 mon.
Finally, the world realizes that Bitcoin is not a currency but an asset. Those who understand the technology knew it from the beginning, isn't Bitcoin "digital gold", and isn't gold an asset. In 2017 Morocco decided to ban the use of digital assets, back then a Bitcoin was worth 8K dollars. This decision stemmed from a misunderstanding of the technology and a fear propagated that Bitcoin was only good for criminal activities. Interesting how things changed, and so quickly. To understand Bitcoin, you need some background in Economy and Energy, but you absolutely need a very strong understanding of Maths, and Computer Science. Without it you cannot understand what Bitcoin is, how it works, and why it is such a strong ledger of value. Bitcoin works Mathematically not on opinions or regulations. Arguably, the decision to ban digital assets cost Morocco billions of dollars. In the long run it will perhaps cost more than any other in the history of the country. The very hard anti digital stance (that was reinforced in 2022) dissuaded legitimate business from using the technology. Something that would have modernized the banking and financial system, facilitated payments and potentially captured billions worth of digital assets in Morocco. The country could have owned a significant amount of those assets that would have boosted its economy. Yes Bitcoin fluctuates, it does so because it is an asset. However, it is also a very liquid asset, it is so valuable that it is easy to exchange for Dollars or Euros. A reserve of digital assets would have guaranteed the country's access to other currencies, and would have paved the way towards the only viable long term monetary strategy for Morocco (if it wants to keep it's currency): a strong Dirham. It is of course not too late to change course, and for Morocco to become a digital assets friendly country. It was not the only country to adopt a timid approach to a misunderstood technology: this means that the market for digital assets friendly territories remains largely untapped. However, the solution to enjoy a digital assets boom, is not CBDCs (Central Banks Digital Currencies) and not Stable-coins (Digital currencies indexed on FIAT currencies). The solution is a freer digital assets market and currencies that may be, in due time indexed (in-part) on those assets.
telquel.ma/2017/11/21/loffice-ch...

Ukrainian war: Europe considers Volodymyr to be European but not Vladimir.... 7745

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
A few hours earlier, a Republican senator had ticked the box for the Ukrainian President, but he missed the boat. He was packed off like a dirty shirt and asked to clear the floor. Couldn't things have gone differently? Was Trump going to meet Zelensky, were it not for the insistence of Britain's Stramer and France's Macon? Were the two protagonists really ready to talk peacefully? Nothing is less certain. From the outset, things were not looking good. Showing up at the White House in jogging bottoms and trainers is a serious visual blunder. At a time when Trump is looking for partners for peace, Zelensky is in a thinly veiled warrior outfit. It's the same mistake Arafat also made, without realizing it. The Syrian Ahmed Achara, a true warrior, quickly understood by changing his attire, even if he is a little uncomfortable in his ill-fitting Western outfit. In addition to the ill-fitting outfit, Zelensky also had a teenage hairstyle. His temples bore fresh razor marks. That's a bit unusual for the Oval Office. A lot of tension in the air. Tense atmosphere. Knowing that Trump did not hold him in good esteem, he was told not to irritate him too much. Very uncomfortable in his broken English, he said the things that the American did not want to hear. Words that the American should not have dared to use, words that were insulting to Putin. Peace is always made with enemies that we refrain from insulting. Describing Putin as a murderer in the Oval Office and in public was unacceptable. If Trump had acquiesced without retaliating, he would have sent the wrong signal to the Russian with whom he had begun a genuine rapprochement. Trump stopped the Ukrainian dead in his tracks for his warmongering, taking the audience as witness: He has so much hatred in him that we can't have a peace agreement in this case,’ he said in substance. Lively altercation. Later, on Truth Social, he wrote: ‘I have determined that President Zelensky is only ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in the negotiations. I don't want an advantage, I want PEACE’. In other words, he said to Zelensky: you want to trick me. Didn't he say to Zelensky two times right then: ‘you're gambling with World War three’. In the bulging, tired eyes of the Ukrainian, thus brought back to the dimension that the new America wanted to give him, one could read dismay and despair. The Ukraine resisted above all with American arms and billions. Unlike his predecessor, whom he describes as ‘a guy who didn't think things through’, Trump does not want to prolong the charade. The world has changed. Things have changed without Zelensky being consulted. He doesn't yet understand the new state of affairs, intoxicated by embraces that exude hypocrisy. When sarcastic Vance joins in the dance, he is unbelievably virulent. He calls Volodymyr ungrateful, tells him to apologize accusing that he was not thankful enough. By dint of the pompous remarks of the Europeans, Zelensky was up to his neck in the character of a hero of the resistance and was surely beginning to believe it. Trump cynically reminded him that he had lost the war. It was a harsh observation. Zelensky's eyes glaze over. He exuded defeat and realized that he had to accept it. He resists, but the sobs are not far away. The hero of the European ‘supranationalists’ has collapsed, he who unconsciously may have been encouraged in his enterprise to serve the emergence and consolidation of a common European front, at the expense of age-old nationalities and identities. He tries in vain to recall a few recent historical facts, accusing Putin of not respecting his commitments. He further irritates his hosts and forgets to mention in passing that he too and his sponsors may not have honored theirs. He tried to say that diplomacy was not working with the Russian and asked what kind of diplomacy he was talking about. Vance retorted, pointing his index finger and threatening: ‘I'm talking about the diplomacy that will put an end to the destruction of your country’. In JD Vance's view, Zelensky is engaged in propaganda by taking European leaders on dubious tours. He indirectly accused him of manipulation and told him that it was disrespectful to do so in the Oval Office, in front of the press. The clash goes into high gear. The tone went up another notch when the Ukrainian, gasping for breath and short of inspiration, retorted to the Americans that they were mistaken in their approach and that they would soon feel the repercussions of Putin's alleged behavior. He offered himself up as a punching bag. The words fly. Peace is slipping away. The visit was falling apart. The president and his vice-president took turns. They hit out bluntly. Volodymyr Zelensky, European hero of the resistance, is knocked out. In the back office, he is asked to leave. He had learnt that playing in the big league is not easy, not to say perilous. He left empty-handed, while his host, as if nothing had happened, took off for his beloved Florida and his round of golf. During the night, one of the most informed and influential Republican senator Lindsey Graham said on Fox News: Zelensky must resign or find someone else to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine. Mike Waltz, the security adviser, will repeat this in no uncertain terms. The Americans are convinced that Zelensky is an evil man who has disrespected their idol. The diplomatic support given by the French President and the British Prime Minister collapsed in the space of one interview. During the night, the Frenchman became awkwardly agitated and lost his bearings. His remarks were belligerent and insulting towards the Russian president. But it was he who had to be dealt with to save the Zelensky soldier. The British Prime Minister expressed his solidarity and met Zelensky the next morning. He lent him 2.5 billion pounds. He would, of course, have to pay them back. Having him received by King Charles was a daring move. Georgia Meloni, perhaps more inspired than usual, is proposing a summit of America, Europe and their allies. Everyone goes according to their own position. Everyone felt that the situation was serious. Meeting at the European Security Summit, which considers Volodymyr to be European and not Vladimir, a summit in which a certain Trudeau has joined in, the Europeans are showing a feverishness that is no doubt exaggerated. What and who are they really afraid of? Do they really think that Russia is going to invade? In any case, Trump is watching and certainly does not appreciate the presence of his northern neighbor in this mess. He has just decided to suspend aid to Ukraine, and Zelensky was quick to reply: I want to negotiate…

Macron in the White House, the hidden humiliation... 7605

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
Without a doubt, the followed event this week was Macron's visit to the US. How he would be treated after the cold sweats endured with skill and patience by the King of Jordan and the Polish President, assigned to wait in the corridors for an hour and a half before being given 10 minutes of interview time, suffering a cruel humiliation at his expense. He will not be returning here any time soon. Unless... From the first images, it was clear that things were going to be different. Hugs, familiarity, debonair and mocking laughter followed in quick succession. Was this obvious duplicity or a posture of convenience? Who knows? Both were overacting. Trump is known to be a jokester, he showed a great sympathy for his guest, mentioning Notre-Dame and describing Mrs Macron as charming.Macron, on the other hand was more annoyed than genuinely happy.His joy appeared at times when his forehead relaxed for a few seconds. He must have wondered, and with him the press, a little larger than usual: had he been received here for his stature, out of consideration for his country or as the leader of Europe, which he wanted to play by beating the British PM to the White House? Poorly seated in the Voltaire armchair to the right of his host, with the backdrop of a fireplace that had not been lit for, Macron was about to be subjected to a veritable diatribe from Trump. At his Resolute Desk, in front of a lectern or in an armchair, Trump is the same: self-assured, determined and oblivious to what others may think. What matters is what he says. We're used to the US Presidents speaking on behalf of departments that meticulously prepared the remarks, the narrative and the story. Now it's Trump who sets the course, unashamedly in public; it's up to the administration to implement. Macron will therefore have to endure and, above all, learn things first-hand. Trump began by announcing that Zelensky would be flying to Washington ‘either this week or next week to sign’. So, he's telling Macron in public what he is normally supposed to do in private, away from the cameras. In fact, he is trumpeting the economic capitulation of Zelensky, whom he had stripped of legitimacy a few days before, calling him a dictator. In essence, he is saying that he wants to recover the American money unjustly spent by Biden on an idiotic war. He set the figure at 350 billion USD. To do this, he is going to get his hands on the rare earths in Ukraine. Concomitantly Putin says that he is ready to cooperate with the Americans to exploit these minerals. In fact, much of this wealth are in the areas annexed by Putin which he calls ‘the new territories’. When asked about Ukraine's recovery of the land it lost during the war, Trump replied ‘it's not easy’. These heralds the other phase of the capitulation. It's territorial, no doubts any more. By linking these remarks to those in which Trump informs that Ukraine will have to forget its desire to join NATO, is he not announcing the political capitulation and the end of the Zelensky who more than ever, must regret having played with fire. Respecting the Minsk agreements would perhaps have spared him what he is about to experience: losing rare earths, ceding 20% of the territory and probably giving up his presidency. Macron seemed to be sitting on a folding seat with no margin of comfort; so uncomfortable that you could see the pronounced wrinkles on his nervously contracted forehead and his furrowed brows. He was being tutored by Trump. Embarrassment on the one hand, ease, precision and assurance on the other. He made several attempts to speak, while his host looked the other way. When he finally conceded the courtesy of letting him speak, Macron was a little confused before finding a decent speaking rhythm and a presidential voice. He even apologized for speaking French. In such circumstances one often returns to mother tongue to regain a little ease. When he said that Europe would like a swift, fair and lasting agreement, implying that he was refusing a dictatorship, Trump did not flinch. He had said what he had to say and would not discuss it. The future of the region is not being decided in Europe but in Saudi Arabia, which is entitled of epithets, each more eulogistic than the last, with its Crown Prince, whom he calls King, incidentally. Macron seems to be addressing the Frenchs and Europeans. Trump is addressing Americans and the world. He repeats that if he had been president, this war would never have happened. He blames his predecessor, and at the same time the European warmongers. Indeed, come to think of it, with a bit of hindsight, without justifying Putin's warlike enterprise, who among the Europeans still talks about the Azov regiment, which came into being in 2014 in Mariupol, a neo-Nazi formation that sowed terror among Russian speakers, weighing heavily on the country's politics and largely contributing to the election of Zelensky? Every day, they marched in their provocative black outfits, yellow flags with a stylized swastika on their arms, pumped up on hormones, shouting ultra-nationalist chants of rare malice. At the time, this seemed to annoy the Europeans, who magically forgot all about Azov as soon as Putin began the invasion, which he justified as a fight against Nazism. Who is still talking about the Minsk agreements and the trick played by Merkel and Hollande to buy time for Ukraine? These agreements were signed to guarantee peace. Ukraine never respected them, with Europe's blessing. Trump does not mention any of this, but makes it clear that the European position of cutting off all relations with Putin was ill-advised. Macron tryed to justify himself but was not convincing anyone. This is borne out by the very few questions to him. He wanted to gain a foothold in the situation, proposing that Europe is prepared to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine. Is this naivety or much worse? Trump cast a furtive glance at his ‘counterpart’ and moved on. How could Putin accept a European army on his borders, from countries that financed a war against his armies. European troops there would be like installing NATO without the Americans. When Macron tried to position Europe on the question of the sums spent, saying that Europe had contributed 60% of the war effort, Trump smiled sarcastically, one arm stretched forward, waved his hand as if to say:‘I don't believe you, you little liar’. A cute gesture, highly indicative of Trump's perception of his European peers. It also means: the rare earth’s affairs is between Putin and me. Final signature to this skillfully orchestrated production, a journalist confirmed to Trump that he had the broad support of the Americans for everything he was doing. The powerful man nodded generously as he straightened his torso, as if to say to his host: ‘You see, I have the support of my people, not you’. In the Oval Office that afternoon, a guest was treated politely, but there was only one interlocutor, and that was Mr Trump.
panorapost.ma/post.php?id=49566

The Historic NIH Decision that will change the Landscape of Research 6781

Tariq Daouda, 5 mon.
The NIH is the single major granting institution for research in the world and it has decided to cap the administrative overhead to 15%. This decision might forever change the organisation of major universities. To understand how university funding works in the US, when a researcher gets a grant, a significant part of that money (think 50% to 100%) usually goes to the administration of the university and not directly to research. For example if the administrative overhead is 60% on a grant of 1M$, either the research gets 40% (400k$) of the money and the university administration 60% (600k$), or the organism has to pay 1.6M dollars. This is what the NIH has been doing so far, creating a huge competition of for NIH grants. The NIH was the only organism that gladly paid the administrative overhead, while other institutions would cap it or completely refuse to pay it. Now the NIH will no be so accommodating. The huge administrative overhead is explained by the fact that over the year, administrative personnel in major universities has grown to far outnumber faculty, researchers and clinicians. Administrations at universities tend to follow extremely rigid and complex processes for almost anything. Most decisions and actions are regulated through a slow, rigid and scrutinizing process, either through a deep chain of command or through commissions that are slow to gather and have to debate every decision. This has been ongoing for a while at major universities because of virtually no negative feedback loop. The university could always raise the administrative overhead to pay for any new administrative processes it decides to implement. Major universities also do other things than research, and teaching. They are gigantic institutions with gigantic ramifications. Now more than ever, universities cannot afford to lower the standards on research. Because if they do, their faculty will not be less eligible for grants, and they might even loose the 15% that the NIH has promised to pay. The most likely outcome is swift lay offs of administrative personnel and the termination of many programs that are not conducive to outstanding research. Then, they will start doing more fundraising towards private donors, some of which already refuse to pay administrative overheads, requiring their money to go directly towards research. Institutions will also get closer to the industry, and will try to promote more startups, and spin-offs. But that will require major changes in administrative processes, money allocation and a lot more flexibility on intellectual propriety.
x.com/NIH/status/188800475939695...

Gaza and AI are just a few words away... 6809

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
The second week of February saw Israeli hostages exchanged for Palestinians. The Hamsaouis were still armed to the teeth. The bombings did not do much. This happened against the backdrop of President Trump's confirmation that there would be a Gaza Rivera without the Palestinians. Bluffing is becoming a constant in the President's language. He said that he was 99% certain that Egypt and Jordan would agree to receive him, brandishing the fatal weapon of the dollar. When he received the King of Jordan in the Oval Office, it was a painful moment bordering on humiliation. It took all the class and dexterity of the Hashemite sovereign to finally get through it, his face taut and red with barely veiled anger and sadness. He had to stand his ground and he did. Trump seems to be ignoring history and geography, or at least not taking them into consideration. Let's wait for the Arab summit on 27 February in Cairo and the reactions of countries that have so far been silent or in a state of expectation. In the meantime, Hamas is begging the Arab countries for help, going so far as to acknowledge at last that 7 October was a mistake. Trump quickly moved on to other things. After 19 minutes and 55 seconds with the King of Jordan, he now had a long telephone conversation with Putin lasting almost an hour and a half. The two men seem to be on the same wavelength. They say they want peace in Ukraine as soon as possible. The future of the troublemaker Zelensky seems to be numbered. In principle, the Europeans say that peace cannot be achieved without them. They don't have the power, divided as they are. At the same time, the Palestinian Authority, or what is left of it, has thanked His Majesty King Mohammed VI for his intervention to release funds held back by Israel for its benefit. What is happening in Gaza has overshadowed the most important event of the month: the Paris summit on artificial intelligence. Almost every country in the world was there. Some were represented by their presidents, such as India and the Emirates. China and the USA were represented by their respective vice-presidents. The American president's remarks were in line with his own. This just goes to show how important this issue is for the future of humanity as a whole. Some want fairness, others balance, and still others transparency and ethics. This is difficult to achieve when the world's major players do not sign the final resolutions and make no commitment to restrict their domination and the technological development that serves them first. 61 countries have signed up to an open, inclusive and ethical AI, not including the USA and the United Kingdom. On the fringes of the summit, there was a very important meeting of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, which today brings together some fifty countries. This was necessary, as many countries, including Morocco, are knocking on the door to join. The young body took the opportunity to take stock of its strategy, which it is seeking to bring into line with the OECD's recommendations on AI. While many countries are campaigning to reduce the gap between nations as much as possible, it has to be said that this is not going down well with the purists and the naïve. The gap is already there, with the two behemoths, the USA and China, firmly in the lead. Others are hoping and doing their utmost to catch up, notably India and now France, which has announced its intention to invest $109 billion in AI. To achieve this, they are joining forces with the United Arab Emirates, which will contribute $50 billion, and Canada, which will inject $20 billion into the project. The most important thing is to have their own data centres. Data being the sinews of war at this level, alongside technology of course. The amount announced by France is still a far cry from the 500 billion American project. We're on a different planet here. But do we need so much money when we learn that DeepSeek, developed by the Chinese, only cost USD 6 million? What China isn't saying is that it started from where the Americans had arrived with heavy investment, even using INVIDIA cards, albeit from a slightly earlier generation. To get an idea of the differences, consider that in terms of data centres, there are 5,381 in the USA, compared with 521 in Germany, 449 in China, 315 in France and just 219 in Japan, for example. The USA has more than 50% of the world's data storage capacity, compared with 16% for China. Africa is counted in the rest of the world, a truly negligible quantity. Having data and computing centres is first and foremost a matter of will and funding, as well as the ability to produce energy and have access to large quantities of water. Yes, when you click to open a WhatsApp message or send one; when you do a search on Google, Brave or others; when you watch a video on YouTube or a film on Netflix, you consume energy to run the machinery that will respond to you but also water because it is water that cools it down. The technology consumes a lot of energy and water. Some even say that it is Silicon Valley's excessive water consumption that explains the recent huge fires in California. If Morocco is seeking to join the PMIA, it's because it feels the importance of not just being a simple consumer of AI. It wants to play its part and, above all, position itself so as not to be left behind. The country already has respectable-sized computer centres, enabling it to aspire to efficiency in scientific research and in meeting the needs of its citizens. But this is not enough. Today, AI is everywhere in our daily lives, and it will be even more so in the future. Morocco aims to continue its digital transformation and is looking for a small share in technological innovation. This means that we will need to produce more energy, and to do so we may have to take account of the limits of renewable energies and their cost, and give serious thought to nuclear power. This is what is planned in the American project. We mustn't be mere consumers of AI, otherwise we'll be importing other people's biases and then we'll simply be lost. To achieve this, we need to be careful not to over-legislate and over-regulate in a rapidly evolving field where no one can say how or what tomorrow will bring. One article, one comma in a law and the machine is irremediably blocked. We are in a field where milliseconds are important, and the freedom to think without limits, to venture beyond barriers and to undertake without conditions is vital.
open.luxeradio.ma/show/track/47f...

AI is a Big Geopolitical Issue 6836

Tariq Daouda, 5 mon.
500 Billion dollars to keep the USA the number one power in AI followed by Deepseek whose creators claim has been trained on lower grade hardware, and now the AI summit in Paris. Modern AI is a breakthrough perhaps of the same magnitude as the steam machine or electricity, perhaps even bigger. It touches everything and, most importantly, for the first time it allows for the mechanization of intellectual work. Previous industrial major breakthroughs were focused on automatizing physical labor, AI offers the potential of automatizing the mind. The implications are hard to comprehend, but what is sure is that no nation wants to be left behind. The world of AI is segmented on a few pillars: 1 - The theory and software: mostly public and open-source 2 - The talent that is rare: Becoming a top tier talent in AI takes time. Being able to use off-the-self AI designed by other people is not enough to drive breakthrough 3 - The infrastructure hardware: Most importantly GPUs that are virtually all controlled by one US company, NVIDIA 4 - Electrical Power: Modern AI requires datacenter that consume astonishing amounts of electricity It is on these fronts that the big battles over AI supremacy and autonomy will be fought. Laying these pillars also highlights the dominance of the US: it is the first on every single one. The US has the top universities and AI companies. This Naturally translates to more talent available. The US has the only company capable of making high-end GPUs, and the US has the most electricity available. Other nations should wisely pick their battles and focus where they can make most impact. France for example, with it's nuclear energy and engineering culture could make it's mark, and Germany is already a leader in semiconductors. There is potential in Europe, the major question is will regulations and fiscal regimes adapt fast enough to allow for rapid technological growth. Even low and middle income countries could make a dent and enjoy the AI boom. Morocco is positioning itself as an electricity producer, and all countries could work on education and skill levels. The time where people had to leave the country to offer their services abroad is long gone. The internet has no borders, which also mean the brain drain does not need to happen! It's not impossible for a country to become a top tier exporter of high quality AI services. Again for it to happen, cross country work regulations, and exchange rate controls must be heavily simplified or completely removed. Final words, If anything the Deepseek story is interesting because it potentially expands the market for NVIDIA. If the story is true, it means that the market is now bigger, not smaller because lower grade GPUs have suddenly become more useful, without questioning the supremacy of the last generations of NVIDIA's AI workhorses.

The Coltan War...Nobody talks about, or very little... 7033

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
There are capacitors in all our electronic devices and equipment, and screens are becoming an increasingly important part of our lives. Even our watches, for those who still wear them, now have screens. In aeronautics, alloys, i.e. the aircraft we borrow, are not only made of Cobalt and Nickel. The common ore here is Coltan. It is rare, but not everywhere. It is an essential composite in all these technologies. There's a lot of it north of Lake Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a marvellous inland sea of breathtaking beauty. I'll always remember the wonderful times I spent there. Nearly 80% of the world's reserves are there. The rest of the commercial quantity is shared between Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, China, Spain and Australia. Coltan, which is very important in modern industries, is strategic for all economic powers and is therefore an extremely important issue. And when you say ‘stake’, you mean the desire to secure the quantity needed to keep the machine running, and at the lowest possible cost. In Africa, particularly in this region to the north of Kivu, this has been possible since the 1960s. Mining is still done by hand. Young people toil all day long with hammers and chisels, scratching the ground in search of the right vein to fill sacks of tonnes of earth and extract the precious black or brown ore. That's where their work ends. Others on the surface are there to harvest the young people's labour and hand it over to the Chinese and others hiding in the shadows of unsanitary sheds, like predators on the lookout for prey. The precious sesame is traded for between US$30 and US$50 a kg... no more. The companies reap millions, the middlemen make a tidy sum, the children get a few crumbs, and the State just stands by and watches. The Kivu region is in turmoil and permanently unstable. It has never known peace since the country gained independence in the 1960s. The peacekeeping contingents are there, but how effective are they? Coltan is a curse for this Congo... Needless to say, hardly anyone cares about what's happening in the region, about the fate of the people and the despoiled country. The people there should be living more than decently, but they never have. Do they know what it means to live decently, properly from their wealth and hard work? Generations go by without anything changing, quite the contrary. In the last few days, the media world seems to have rediscovered that there is a high-intensity conflict going on and that thousands of poor people are being tortured, displaced, pillaged, raped and killed. In 2012, as was the fashion throughout Central Africa, a liberation movement was formed, which was called Mars 23 and later became M23, following the fashion of the dimunitives. It is made up of the heirs of the famous Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple (National Congress for the Defence of the People). Excuse the pun. The DRC government succeeded in signing a peace agreement with the CNDP, a faction of which will consider in 2022 that it has not honoured its commitments. It's an armed gang, the likes of which are easy to come by in Africa. Overnight, people in a given region are capable of raising an army that is better equipped and more powerful than the national army. Miraculously, they do this without manufacturing weapons, ammunition, vehicles or having factories to sew outfits, make shoes or produce fuel... This kind of movement is never found in poor areas, on the contrary... They are particularly fond of rich areas rather than poor ones. Once operational, in the name of a declared revolutionary ideal, they seize the wealth of the land and reduce populations to slavery if they are not driven out or deported. To see the extent of this, you only have to look at the reports on refugees or go to Rwanda to see the extent of the camps of these deportees abandoned in misery if not for the rationed and always inadequate aid from NGOs and certain governments, to ease their conscience. It is in this region of the DRC that the M23 operates. The Congolese government had done its best to weaken it, but once again it has magically risen from the ashes and has been growing stronger since 2021. A few weeks ago, it launched a spectacular offensive and seized the very region where the most Coltan is produced. The particularity of the situation this time is that the M23 is openly supported in its offensive by no fewer than 4,000 Rwandan soldiers. They have returned triumphantly to the town of Goma, the hub of the Coltan trade. No matter what the people or the government of the DRC think. The strongest is there and then. Kinshasa, the capital of the DRC, is a 48-hour drive from Goma, and what a drive it is. There too, as elsewhere in these times, international law is being flouted and the integrity of lands and peoples trampled underfoot. The M23 adventurers have no plans whatsoever, other than to corner the Coltan for their avowed sponsor Rwanda, which has thus become, as if by chance, the world's leading exporter of Coltan, without a single gram being extracted from its soil. The price has risen to over USD 70 per kg. As this conflict is taking place in Africa, it does not even interest Africans themselves. Nobody talks about it, or very little. Politicians, on the other hand, are busy with a summit of neighbouring countries this weekend in Dar Essalam, Tanzania. The stated aim is to find a solution to bring peace to the region. Many are aware that the initiative is doomed to failure. For ethnic reasons, Tanzanians, Kenyans and Ugandans are in solidarity with Rwanda. It is in this context that Morocco is taking action, sending its Minister of Foreign Affairs Nacer Bourita and its Director of Intelligence to the main player in the affair, Rwandan President Paul Kagamé. So why Morocco, so far away from the area? In fact, no one else has known the region so well for so long. Morocco has been leading and participating in the UN peacekeeping contingent since the early 1960s. Since then, the Cherifian Kingdom has accumulated data and knowledge of the population, geography and politics of the region. As usual, it is not acting as a hero giving lessons, but as a neutral mediator. He is not openly proposing a solution, but he will carry more weight thanks to his wisdom and the growing respect he enjoys on the continent. So, let's wait a few days before deciding on the fate of this mediation and on the intentions of all concerned. In the meantime, ‘innocent slaves’ will continue to scratch the earth and provide the world with screens and capacitors.

Trump this and Trump that: a thousand beat waltz 7097

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
The world is in an uproar as President Trump's releases come thick and fast. Trump here, Trump there. The United States seems increasingly narrow to him, so he wants to conquer Greenland and announces his intention to buy Gaza and turn it into an Eldorado, but he doesn't say for whom, just as he doesn't say from whom he wants to buy the little strip at the bottom of the Mediterranean. It wants to expel the citizens who are there and force others to take them in. He's not thinking about the imbalances he's going to cause in the region, or the human tragedy of depriving a people of their land. No problem, he's rich, he's got the biggest army in the world, even though it has lost every war it has fought, but he thinks he can afford everything. If he was widely elected, he forgets that it was only the Americans who voted for him and not the rest of the world. But isn't all this prevarication an admission of impotence rather than power? There's a distinction to be made between strength and power. They are not the same thing. You can be powerful even if you're not strong, just as you can be strong and not powerful. Power is first and foremost gained through the consideration that others will give you and show you. When Trump wants to tax products from abroad, he argues that he wants to protect his country's economy. Let's face it. But isn't that a clear statement about the powerlessness of this economy to stand up to the rising powers and those who can produce better, more and cheaper? This is not the first time that the USA has reached this point. It's not the first time that the US has reneged on its commitments, and it's not the first time that, powerless in the face of a rising economy, it has taxed and re-taxed. While Trump is talking about 10% or 25%, his grandfather Ronald Reagan taxed Japanese products by 100%. And yes, it's worth remembering that Japan was indeed an ally of the USA. After benefiting from the economic windfall of the Second World War, American industry failed to take the plunge into innovation and lagged behind in many areas. While the USA has outstripped the rest of the world head and shoulders in technology, the fruit of the work of university researchers from all over the world taking advantage of a system that is unique in the world, it has not managed to keep the automotive, textile and even aeronautics industries competitive. Today, for example, Boeing is losing money in sectors where Airbus, for example, is still making a lot. Who dresses Americans these days, if not the Chinese, and who transports them, if not the Japanese and increasingly the Chinese? The average American cannot afford to buy many home-made products. They are prohibitively expensive. In any case, the taxes imposed by Reagan did not have the desired effect and were quietly abandoned. The world is right to wonder about what lies ahead, and indeed what lies ahead for all of us. Trump's decisions and announcements are having a huge impact on us, both morally and financially. It's not for nothing that Wall Street is swaying and waltzing... Financiers are even more worried than they were less than a month ago, i.e. before 20 January. Today, what is the value of international law and the practices to which we are accustomed with the UN? Yes, the thing doesn't serve much purpose, but it is still the repository of a certain morality and certain values, and the states respect them all the same, except for one, which has never respected any of the Security Council's resolutions. It is this state that has today dropped the most bombs per square kilometre on a civilian population in history, with total impunity, apart from a few verbiage here and there. And who supplied these tonnes and tonnes of explosives, sophisticated detonators, munitions and technologies of death? No need to answer the question. Everyone knows. Attacking civilians is manifest impotence and cowardice, and to celebrate this at the White House is astonishing. Strange all the same for the President who promised peace and justice everywhere. In any case, the world is stunned and does not know where to turn. The Canadians and Mexicans have been given a month to respond to their threats to retaliate, and the Chinese have also announced their intention to tax. Will Trump backtrack definitively or will he find a solution? Some even believe that these announcements are merely trial balloons to position himself in future negotiations... Isn't the announcement concerning Gaza being made just to encourage the Qataris and Emiratis to finance reconstruction and Saudi Arabia to finance it too, but also to establish relations with Israel, the genocidal state? Saudi Arabia will have enough leverage to resist and obtain more, i.e. a Palestinian state. When will President Trump's thousand-beat waltz come to an end and we return to a normal rhythm of life?

Ils ont partagé le monde 6604

THEJEDI, 5 mon.
Not having any particular thoughts to share, I would like to share instead a piece of music that I have been enjoying very much very recently. It is sung in French, a great piece of art from Tiken Jah Fakoly that talks about how the world is "being shared" or "is shared". The purpose for sharing is the feeling it evokes when it comes on. This is specifically in relation to the version performed live which I have linked to below. I discovered this beauty just scrolling through Instagram. Music in French is not so foreign to me, but I would not have discovered this music if my phone's language was not set to Français. The discovery of this music evokes in me a feeling of sophistication which I am not actually. It is a good feeling anyways.
youtu.be/fFoThCFlD3c?si=mu4Oa6qK...

Trump wants it so badly... and he will get it 6212

Aouani Khalil, 5 mon.
Greenland was otherwise known to me as ‘No Data Available’, or that land appearing bigger than Africa while it is actually 14 times smaller. Now the game has changed - actually a few decades ago already - but this topic has been democratized today by Trump. The end of the 2nd World War has marked the end of an era, and in two centuries the post WW2 era will be taught in history books as an entirely new epoch; for example: Postmodern Era (1945 – today). The Soviets and the US, once allies became foes, and they were not alone in this matter. Although USSR and USA were the major military powers, other powers FOMOed and wanted a slice of the pie, most recently China. Denmark, since the Viking era also plays a significant role as the sovereign owner; Canada, and the other Arctic states (Iceland, Norway), although less involved are also part of the discussion. Historically, the British and the Germans also got involved in the region, a statement to its strategic importance. Geostrategic importance of Greenland In 2025 there are 4 major stakeholders in Greenland: USA, China, Russia, and Denmark. That is, the 2 biggest economies, 3 biggest military powers and the Sovereign owner. The strategic importance is clear. The North Pole is flooding with resources (Rare Earth Minerals, Oil & Gas, Precious Metals, Other Metals, Diamonds, etc.). Although this is huge for the Economies, it is not the main reason for the territorial feud, rather a goodwill or a bonus. The ice is melting fast, and we could have by 2100 a small but significant melting of the ice sheet. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)). This means that new trading routes will open and he who controls those routes will possess immense leverage. Another equally important aspect (maybe even more important in today's context) is the Military aspect. In simple terms, the USA wants their bases there but they do not wish for Russian or Chinese presence, and vice-versa. The routes might be complex/uncrossable for now, but governments do not have the same definition of Long-Term than you and me, and some more than others. In a negotiation with the British, Mao Zedong once said “We will see in the Long Term”; when asked “What is the Long Term?”, Mao answered “150 years”. What should happen & what will happen? “F*** Off Mr Trump” said Anders Vistisen, Dannish European Deputy. To which Mr Trump responded “They send two dog sleds and call it security, we are able to provide security for Greenland. This is not in the interest of the United States but in the interest of the free world. I am talking about protecting the free world.” In contrast, Habib Bourguiba’s position in 1966 with the Arab League was to ‘accept proposals’ and make concessions, that is because in wars you lose even if you win. Precisely when you are not the stronger power, not choosing military conflict is always the better option. If I had a say in Danish politics I would negotiate with Trump in an attempt to retain as much influence as I possibly can. Trump has been a major critic of NATO and has not ruled out using military force to achieve his goals in Greenland; that is against a NATO member. The best action plan for Denmark is to do the opposite of what is expected from the world and from Trump’s administration, and collaborate. They might lose sovereignty, but they might also enjoy a fine outcome if they negotiate right on friendly, win-win terms. If Denmark is kicked out of Greenland militarily, by an ally, and also lose sovereignty, that would be both a strategic loss and a credibility loss. The stakes One thing is clear, the faster we come to a consensus, the better it will be for the whole world because once the ice melts, new rules such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea UNCLOS will apply, making it a territorial waters dispute, and we all know how those go. PS: If you want a deeper understanding on the topic, I advise: - French: Arte - dessous des cartes (On Youtube) - English: Johnny Harris (Link below)
youtube.com/watch?v=sxRdKRORYoA&...

European Parliament: two idiotic votes.. 6674

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
The recent vote in favor of a European resolution calling for the release of the writer Boualem Sansal has finally revealed what a certain Left in France is all about. What it thinks, its doctrinaire tendencies, its ideological heritage, its philology and, above all, its idea of freedom of expression and humanism. Two French MEPs, representing the country of the Enlightenment and the Declaration of the human Rights, found nothing more intelligent to distinguish themselves in the eyes of Europeans than to go against the grain of what any sensible person might think: one abstained and the other voted against the resolution outright. This is the position of the political movement they represent and not a personal one. One is known for having little to show for it other than the fact that her inheritance makes her a political pensioner, while the other shines through her bizarre positions, waltzing to and fro between extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing ideas. It's enough to make you dizzy. All that matters is that she is getting coverage in the media every day. She hasn't been taught that value and enhancement come with scarcity, not profusion. For example, she is the only one who knows where the Mecca of freedoms and revolutionaries is on the world map. So for these two turbulent political figures, the 553 MEPs who voted for the resolution were probably wrong. By their votes, the two excitements have defended the arbitrary imprisonment of a 75-year-old man; an intellectual who in a television program simply recalled historical and geographical facts, without calling for anything, or pleading for anything. The true face of a certain French Left is thus revealed; still nostalgic for the totalitarian regimes of the Eastern bloc... Fundamentally nostalgic for the only truth that is that of the single party. But they don't tell the French that; they practice it. But aren't they themselves, as young as they are, the victims of leftist indoctrination from another time, which has numbed their minds and inhibited the neurons of discernment and lucidity? They have always lived in an environment where common sense is the daily target of outdated propaganda, the legacy of another time; a time that has run out of steam before our very eyes but to which they have simply remained faithful. Foolish ideology always ends up killing... So human beings don't count for them, and the law even less... Let's not forget that they and their acolytes are nothing more than a contemporary digression from Ceausescu, Tito or Brezhnev and their parties, not to mention Stalin and co... Their names are not mentioned in this text as a prelude to the fact that history is unlikely to remember them. They are the epitome of imbecility and nothing else. Their votes did not count.

President Trump's first decions Part 1 6338

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
On the very evening of his inauguration on 20 January 2025, President Donald Trump signed no fewer than 77 executive orders, as promised. Many of the decisions simply repealed those of his predecessor and the policies of the opposing camp. In this way, he is laying the foundations for his future policies as he had announced them. Here is a list of the ‘President acts’ he signed in a truly revanchist staging. Part 1: 1. Repeal of 78 decrees issued by the Biden administration: cancellation of measures to reduce the price of certain medicines, anti-discrimination programmes and sanctions against certain settlers in the West Bank. 2. Declaration of a national emergency on the Mexican border: Authorisation for the deployment of US troops to reinforce border security. 3. Withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement: marks a break with international environmental commitments. 4. Withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organisation (WHO): a halt to collaboration with the WHO. 5. Presidential pardon for more than 1,500 people involved in the riot of 6 January 2021: Pardons granted to supporters involved in the assault on the Capitol. 6. Suspension of telework for federal employees: Encouragement to return to face-to-face work. 7. Declaring a national energy emergency: Increasing oil and gas production, withdrawing subsidies for electric vehicles and abandoning the Paris Agreement. 8. Official recognition of two biological genders: Limiting diversity and inclusion policies, recognising only male and female genders. 9. Designation of drug cartels as terrorist organisations: Tougher measures against the cartels and increased sanctions. 10. Extension of deadline for TikTok: Temporary suspension of the ban on TikTok, allowing a further 75 days to comply with US regulations. 11. End of diversity, equity and inclusion programmes in government agencies: Elimination of initiatives aimed at promoting diversity within federal institutions. 12. Creation of the Foreign Revenue Service: Establishment of a new agency responsible for collecting tariffs and customs duties. 13. Renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America: Symbolic change of name to assert American sovereignty. 14. The name Mount McKinley was reinstated for Denali: the traditional name for the mountain in Alaska was restored. 15. Federal hiring freeze: Suspension of new federal government hiring, with the exception of national security positions. 16. Revocation of the electric vehicle mandate: Cancellation of the obligation to transition to electric vehicles. 17. Ending citizenship by birthright: Eliminating the automatic acquisition of citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. 18. Reinstatement of military personnel discharged for vaccine non-compliance: Reinstatement of members of the armed forces discharged for refusing vaccination, with retroactive payment. 19. Prohibiting government censorship: Implementing measures to protect free speech and prevent the suppression of political speech. 20. Creation of the Department of Government Efficiency: Appointment of Elon Musk to head a new department tasked with reducing waste and improving the efficiency of federal agencies. 21. Withdrawal of sanctions against Israeli settlers in the West Bank: Cancellation of punitive measures against Israeli settlements. 22. Reinstatement of Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism: Reinstatement of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, leading to economic sanctions. 23. Relocation of the headquarters of the United States Space Command to Alabama: Relocation of the Space Command headquarters to Huntsville, Alabama. 24. Implementation of Schedule F: Reduced job protections for thousands of federal employees, making it easier to lay them off. 25. Reassessment of foreign aid: Reduction or elimination of funding to countries deemed hostile to US interests or not supporting US initiatives in international organisations, with priority given to strategic allies. 26. Prohibition of critical race education programmes: Withdrawal of funding for schools promoting critical race theory. 27. Expansion of oil and gas drilling: Authorisation of new permits for extraction in protected areas. 28. Cancellation of subsidies for renewable energies: Abolition of tax incentives for wind and solar power. 29. Creation of a commission on electoral fraud: Launch of a national enquiry into electoral irregularities in 2020. 30. Suspension of visas for citizens of several Middle Eastern countries: Reintroduction of a modified ‘Muslim Ban’. 31. Reinstatement of the ‘stay in Mexico’ policy: asylum seekers must wait in Mexico while their case is processed. 32. Ending federal funding for sanctuary cities: Eliminating subsidies for jurisdictions that protect illegal immigrants. 33. Increased import taxes on Chinese products: Tariffs will be strengthened to protect US industries. 34. Protecting historic monuments: Prohibiting the destruction or removal of federal statues. 35. Encouraging Made in the USA: Strengthening local sourcing requirements for government agencies. 36. Reducing union rights for federal employees: Limiting collective bargaining in the civil service. 37. Removing limits on political donations: Easing restrictions on campaign financing. 38. Proclaiming Energy Freedom Day: A national celebration of America's oil and gas industries. 39. Creating a fund for victims of crime: Increasing resources for victims of crime, particularly those perpetrated by illegal immigrants. 40. Eliminate federal transgender bathroom standards: Reinstate laws defining bathrooms by biological sex.

President Trump's first decisions. Part 2 6275

Aziz Daouda, 5 mon.
On the very evening of his inauguration on 20 January 2025, President Donald Trump signed no fewer than 77 executive orders, as promised. Many of the decisions simply repealed those of his predecessor and the policies of the opposing camp. In this way, he is laying the foundations for his future policies as he had announced them. Here is the list of ‘President acts’ that he signed in a truly revanchist staging. Part 2: 41. Strengthening controls at the northern border: Expansion of security measures with Canada. 42. Evaluating social media practices: Launching a commission to examine censorship of conservative views. 43. Obamacare repeal: Another attempt to completely dismantle the Affordable Care Act. 44. Revoking public housing rules: Removing requirements for residential areas to accept subsidized housing. 45. Banning public-private partnerships with China: Blocking Chinese investment in US critical infrastructure. 46. Restoring federal executions: Reactivating executions for convicted federal criminals. 47. Cancellation of restrictions on firearms: Revocation of federal laws limiting the possession of semi-automatic weapons. 48. End subsidies to companies supporting progressive causes: Reducing tax credits for climate and inclusion initiatives. 49. Promoting the celebration of Christmas in schools: Requiring public schools to recognize and promote Christian traditions. 50. Relaxing pollution rules for large industries: Reducing emissions standards to boost industrial competitiveness. 51. Recognition of Christian institutions in federal funding: Priority to faith-based schools for educational grants. 52. Increased budget for law enforcement: Increased funding for the police and federal security departments. 53. Reopening Guantanamo: Reactivating the detention center for suspected foreign terrorists. 54. Strengthening sanctions against Iran: Returning to the strictest economic sanctions against Tehran. 55. Priority funding for rural infrastructure: Directing public funds towards rural communities rather than large cities. 56. Creating a technological wall with drones and cameras: Deploying advanced technology to monitor the southern border. 57. Revision of refugee quotas: Significant reduction in the annual number of refugees accepted. 58. End of UN funding for climate projects: Suspension of US contributions to international climate initiatives. 59. Promoting charter schools: Increasing funding for independent schools. 60. Implementing a national civic literacy program: Creating a program to teach American values and history in public schools. 61. Restoring religious rights in businesses: Allowing businesses to refuse certain services on the basis of religious beliefs. 62. Reducing restrictions imposed on banks by the Dodd-Frank Act. 63. Increasing the military budget: Increasing funding for equipment modernization and military cyber security. 64. Abolish work visas for foreigners in certain industries: Reduce legal immigration in favor of domestic employment. 65. Reinstatement of economic sanctions against North Korea: Stricter measures to limit the financial resources of the North Korean regime. 66. Funding infrastructure for the army: Prioritization of funds to improve military bases and military housing. 67. Suspension of funding for family planning: Abolition of subsidies for abortion-related services. 68. Promoting public-private partnerships in infrastructure: Encouraging private investment to modernize roads, bridges and airports. 69. Creation of a national database on migrants: Centralizing information on migrants to facilitate monitoring and national security. 70. Declaring a ‘National Patriotic Day’: Establishing a public holiday to celebrate American values. 71. Restricting the activities of international NGOs: Reducing funding for organizations promoting progressive ideals abroad. 72. End of scientific cooperation with China: Suspension of academic and technological exchanges with Chinese institutions. 73. Expansion of vocational training programs: Increased funding for apprenticeships and technical schools. 74. Supervision of Big Tech practices: Reinforcement of regulations on data collection and algorithmic transparency. 75. Reinstate Confederate monuments as National Historic Landmarks: Restore and preserve controversial monuments. 76. Repealing restrictions on oil companies in the Arctic: Reopening drilling in polar areas. 77. Promoting academic freedom: Prohibiting universities from penalizing students who do not meet their academic standards