Think Forward.

Le Congrès américain s’apprête à qualifier le Front Polisario d’organisation terroriste 2529

Aziz Daouda, 9 mon.
- World Politics - Politics -
2.6 min read.
Chose promise, chose due. Comme il l’avait déjà annoncé il y a quelques semaines, Joe Wilson, sénateur républicain représentant la Caroline du Sud, vient de déposer une proposition de loi bipartisane à la Chambre des représentants des États-Unis visant à qualifier le Front Polisario d’organisation terroriste étrangère. Cette proposition est bipartisane car elle est également signée et proposée par le sénateur démocrate californien Jimmy Panetta. Ce projet, intitulé « Polisario Front Terrorist Designation Act », vise à inscrire le Polisario sur la liste américaine des organisations terroristes. L’inscription sur cette liste noire entraîne automatiquement des sanctions sévères, telles que l’interdiction de tout soutien matériel ou financier, le gel des avoirs sous juridiction américaine, ainsi que l’interdiction d’entrée aux États-Unis pour les membres de l’organisation. Par ricochet, le vote de ce projet aura également un impact direct et significatif sur le pays hôte du Polisario et sur ses soutiens éventuels. Le contenu du projet de loi est simple et clair. Le Polisario y est décrit comme une milice marxiste soutenue par l’Iran, le Hezbollah et la Russie. Il est affirmé que cette milice déstabilise la région du Sahara occidental et menace la sécurité du Royaume du Maroc, allié historique indéfectible des États-Unis. Le projet met également en avant des liens présumés entre le Polisario et des groupes extrémistes dans le Sahel, tout en mentionnant des accusations graves de violations des droits humains commises par la milice. Les sénateurs auraient pu enrichir le texte en rappelant la genèse du mouvement, notamment le soutien de Cuba et la générosité de Kadhafi à son égard pendant des décennies. Cela sera probablement évoqué lors des débats. Dans le contexte géopolitique actuel, le Polisario est perçu comme un proxy iranien hostile à la stabilité régionale, notamment par son implication dans des réseaux de contrebande et d’activités terroristes dans la région, des faits parfaitement documentés. Le texte cherche donc à reconnaître officiellement le Polisario comme une entité terroriste, ce qui permettrait, outre les sanctions internationales, de renforcer la coopération sécuritaire contre ce mouvement séparatiste. L’initiative a de très fortes chances d’aboutir après avoir bien évidemment satisfait à toutes les étapes et procédures nécessaires. Le projet de loi a été déposé le 24 juin 2025 et est actuellement en cours d’examen par les comités des Affaires étrangères et de la Justice de la Chambre des représentants. Le processus législatif américain comporte plusieurs étapes : examen et approbation en commission, vote à la Chambre des représentants, passage au Sénat, puis signature par le président des États-Unis. La durée exacte du processus est variable, mais on attend généralement que l’examen en commission prenne plusieurs semaines, voire quelques mois, suivi des votes en session plénière. Le texte semble toutefois bénéficier d’un fort soutien, puisqu’il porte la signature d’un démocrate et d’un républicain, ce qui élimine tout clivage partisan à ce niveau. Il pourrait être adopté dans les mois à venir, même si rien ne garantit une évolution rapide ou certaine, car des débats politiques et géopolitiques pourraient influencer le calendrier. L’adoption de cette loi marquerait une inflexion historique dans la politique américaine sur le Sahara occidental, avec des implications diplomatiques et sécuritaires importantes. Les États-Unis, ayant déjà officiellement reconnu la marocanité des provinces concernées, renforceraient ainsi leur position et entraîneraient dans leur sillage un soutien accru au Maroc. La résolution du conflit artificiel, qui dure depuis un demi-siècle, autour des provinces du sud du Royaume n’a jamais été aussi proche. La majorité républicaine contrôle à la fois la Chambre des représentants et le Sénat, avec 218 sièges sur 435 à la Chambre et 53 sur 100 au Sénat, ce qui faciliterait le passage de la loi. D’autant plus que les républicains sont très disciplinés et soutiennent fortement cette initiative, notamment en raison de leur loyauté envers Donald Trump et du soutien affiché du secrétaire d’État Marco Rubio, proche des positions marocaines. La proposition de loi déposée par les sénateurs Joe Wilson et Jimmy Panetta a donc de fortes chances d’aboutir rapidement. Le texte bénéficie d’un soutien bipartisan, ce qui augmente ses chances d’adoption sans obstacle majeur. Le contexte géopolitique, renforcé par les rapports récents des Think Tanks américains Heritage Foundation et Hudson Institute démontrant le caractère terroriste du Polisario et ses liens avec l’Iran et d’autres acteurs hostiles, légitime politiquement cette proposition. Le projet de loi bipartisan visant à qualifier le Polisario d’organisation terroriste trouve ainsi toute sa raison d’être au vu des liens avérés avec des acteurs hostiles aux intérêts américains et marocains, ainsi que de ses activités déstabilisatrices dans la région. Une fois la loi adoptée par les deux chambres, le président dispose de dix jours pour la signer, ce qui peut accélérer sa promulgation si l’exécutif y est favorable, ce qui ne semble pas faire de doute.
Aziz Daouda Aziz Daouda

Aziz Daouda

Directeur Technique et du Développement de la Confédération Africaine d'Athlétisme. Passionné du Maroc, passionné d'Afrique. Concerné par ce qui se passe, formulant mon point de vue quand j'en ai un. Humaniste, j'essaye de l'être, humain je veux l'être. Mon histoire est intimement liée à l'athlétisme marocain et mondial. J'ai eu le privilège de participer à la gloire de mon pays .


8900

33.0

AI development has reached a limit and it is not hardware 89

Tariq Daouda, 3 h.
There is a shortage of GPUs, there is a shortage of RAM, there is a shortage of electricity. Still, none of the above is the real limiting factor: it's a skill and research issue. For more than a decade now, the AI world has been dominated by an open-source arms race whose effect has been a near total focus on engineering to the detriment of research and meaningful developments. The result has been over engineered proof-of-concepts, chief amongst them being Transformers. The original paper mostly demonstrated that if you put attention over everything, and several of them, you can beat LSTMs. Is it a surprising result, not so much. This is somewhat morally similar to Res-nets, that showed that the more you connect layers the better the results. That's also not very surprising. Both significantly increased the size of models. These are mostly engineering innovations. Although they did open interesting theoretical questions, they did not come from strong theoretical foundations. They come from trial and errors copy-pasting existing technologies and connecting them in new ways. And then, these technologies got themselves copy-pasted and reconnected. Fast forward today we have massive behemoths that are draining the computational ressources of the world. Even AI curricula followed this trend. Today, most only very quickly skim over the mathematical and theoretical foundations. Focusing more and more on building pieces of increasing complexity while dodging explanations of their inner workings. This has culminated in today's "AI builders" trend, where fully trained LLM assembly lines are stringed together. Here is the true limitation of AI. This mindset has been pushed so far that we have reached a physical limit. Now we can either build a much bigger Nvidia, produce a 100X more RAM, lower the price of KW/h to unseen levels. Or, go back to the theory and design models that are more optimal. Optimal not because they are distilled, not because they use lower precision, but because they don't rely on Transformers, nor diffusion, or any of the very costly paradigms currently use, in the shape and form are currently used. Just like physical computers have been shrinked to sit in the palm of your hand. Immaterial AI models can also be made smaller.

Vice Of The Pacifist; Virtue of The Martial 119

Satta Abraham, 6 h.
- History - Philosophy -
3.5 min read.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take or the length of our survival. Life is measured by integrity, by the courage to uphold principle even when the world threatens to extinguish us. Who you are is inseparable from what you stand for. To compromise principle for comfort, safety, or the approval of others is not merely cowardice; it is existential death. The body may endure, but the self, the moral and existential self, ceases to exist. Atoms and cells continue to function, yet the human being has already perished. As Jean-Paul Sartre argued, “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself,” and to abandon principle is to negate the self one has the responsibility to define. Integrity is costly. Courage is its currency. Only those willing to risk everything, including their life, reputation, and comfort, can truly exist. Those unwilling to pay this cost are the pacifists, the appeasers, and the virtue-signaling opportunists. They prioritize convenience and safety over principle. They negotiate with evil, bow to tyrants, and perform morality without risk. History offers many such examples: the collaborators who betrayed Omar Mukhtar to the Italians, the political allies who handed Patrice Lumumba to colonial powers, and the appeasers who enabled Hitler’s advance. These individuals survive physically, yet morally and existentially, they are already dead. Friedrich Nietzsche observed, “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” To those without a why defined by principle, survival is hollow. Martial virtue is fundamentally different from mere courage. Courage without the exertion of force, without the aggression necessary to impose principle, is insufficient to preserve integrity. To be martial is to act decisively, to shape reality, to confront danger proactively, and to preserve principle against overwhelming odds. Martial virtue exists on battlefields, in courts, in laboratories, and in the halls of governance. It is the combination of courage, principle, strategic intelligence, and decisive action. As Aristotle noted, virtue is an activity of the soul in accordance with reason, and the highest virtues manifest precisely when reason guides decisive action under risk. Omar Mukhtar, the Lion of the Desert, confronted Italian colonization of Libya. He did not merely resist; he organized, strategized, and struck decisively against an enemy that vastly outnumbered him. For twenty years he led guerilla campaigns, forcing the Italians to respect his operations. Every attack and maneuver carried mortal risk. He accepted this risk because surrender or compromise would have meant the death of principle, the erasure of Libya’s sovereignty, and his own existential annihilation. William Wallace faced England’s conquest of Scotland. Survival alone was impossible without aggressive action. Wallace led assaults to reclaim territory, inspired revolt, and refused offers of mercy that would have preserved his life at the cost of principle. He was captured and executed, yet he exists eternally in history because he acted decisively to defend what defined him. The Scottish nobles who swore fealty to England preserved their land and life, but their essence, the part of them that could stand, act, and uphold principle, was gone. Martial virtue is not limited to armies or battlefields. It manifests wherever principle must be imposed through courage, strategic intelligence, and force. Socrates challenged the authorities of Athens, exposing hypocrisy and questioning the foundations of civic belief. He could have compromised or moderated his questions, but to do so would have been death to the self that defined him. By speaking truth boldly and confronting power with reason, Socrates acted decisively. He imposed intellectual force upon his society, and by accepting the consequences, he lived fully even as his body was executed. Bennet Omalu confronted the National Football League and a culture determined to ignore the dangers of repeated head trauma. He could have preserved his career by silence, yet he persisted. He published his research, confronted institutional power, and forced the truth into public consciousness. He took these risks because moral and existential survival demanded it. Without such action, his courage would have been meaningless, and the self defined by principle would have died. Nikola Tesla defied societal and corporate pressures to pursue revolutionary inventions. He could have sought compromise, easy gains, or social approval, but he did not. He exerted intellectual and inventive force, shaping reality despite ridicule and financial hardship. The self defined by principle and vision persisted because he risked everything for its preservation. Not all who risk life fully exercise martial virtue. Patrice Lumumba, the first Prime Minister of Congo, faced Belgian and Western exploitation with courage and principle. Yet he lacked the strategic and martial capacity to exert force decisively. He was betrayed, outmaneuvered, and executed. Courage alone preserved moral integrity partially, but without martial action, principle could not survive. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. acted courageously, risking life and liberty, yet they operated within quasi-democratic structures where outcomes could be achieved without aggressive force. They could leverage social systems and public opinion to preserve principle. Their courage was admirable, but it did not require the full exertion of martial power. These figures are morally admirable but occupy the silver lining of pacifist mentality: courageous, principled, but not fully martial. The true vice lies with those who never risk principle. Pacifists, appeasers, and virtue-signaling opportunists compromise principle to preserve comfort, safety, or social standing. They enable tyranny, betray allies, and perform morality without cost. Life without principle is death disguised as survival. Immanuel Kant reminds us that morality demands duty independent of self-interest. To act otherwise is to forfeit existence in the truest sense. Existence is inseparable from courage, principle, and the exertion of force to defend or impose truth. To compromise, avoid risk, or surrender for comfort is to die before the body ceases. To act decisively, aggressively, and strategically in defense of what defines you is to live fully. The martial may fall physically, yet they exist fully in history, morality, and existential reality. The pacifist survives physically, yet has already died in every meaningful sense. Courage is the currency. Principle is the inheritance. Strategic action and the exertion of force are the tools. Only those willing to wield them truly live. Who you are is inseparable from what you stand for. Compromise it, and you do not exist. Survival without principle is not life. To risk everything to uphold it is to truly live.
bluwr.com/

Christopher Ross or Diplomacy Against the Current 178

Aziz Daouda, 11 h.
It sometimes happens that diplomats, once their mission is complete, opt for the discretion demanded by their former status. Others prefer to continue intervening in debates they themselves helped complicate. Christopher Ross clearly belongs to this second category. In a recent article, the former envoy for the Moroccan Sahara has once again taken a stance on this sensitive issue. With the benefit of hindsight, his analysis has gained neither nuance nor critical distance. Reading his text suggests quite the opposite: the same interpretive framework, the same assumptions, and above all, the same indulgence toward Algiers. This persistence raises a fundamental question: what is Ross seeking today by intervening again in a dossier where he was one of the most contested mediators? Appointed in 2009 by Ban Ki-moon, he succeeded a series of envoys who had faced the same difficulty: breaking out of a diplomatic impasse inherited from the Cold War. This conflict indeed traces its roots to the geopolitical upheavals of the 1970s. Morocco consolidated its historical sovereignty over the region in 1975, prompting Spain's withdrawal, while the Polisario, backed politically, financially, and militarily by Algeria and Libya, claimed the creation of an independent state. The dossier took on an international dimension with the creation, in 1991, of the MINURSO, tasked with supervising a referendum; an idea proposed by the late Hassan II in a speech delivered in Nairobi at an OAU summit. Very quickly, the obstacles created by the Polisario, particularly regarding voter identification, made this project nearly impossible, and the process stalled. It was then that Morocco proposed, in 2007, a major political initiative: a plan for broad autonomy for the southern provinces under Moroccan sovereignty. The project was presented to the Security Council as a realistic and pragmatic solution and garnered growing international support, described as "serious and credible" in several resolutions. It marked a true turning point in diplomatic realism. Since then, the diplomatic landscape around the Sahara has profoundly evolved. Numerous states now view Morocco's autonomy plan as the most credible basis for a lasting political solution. In 2020, the Trump administration officially announced recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over the Sahara, a major turning point in the dossier's diplomatic balance. In its wake, several Western powers reaffirmed their support for the autonomy plan, while Arab, European, and African countries opened consulates in Laâyoune or Dakhla, de facto recognizing Moroccan administration of the territory. Within the UN, the terminology used in Security Council resolutions has also evolved: the notion of a "realistic, pragmatic, and durable political solution" has become the guiding principle of the process. This shift toward a pragmatic approach reflects a simple reality: the referendum envisioned in the 1990s is no longer seen as a viable option. It is precisely this diplomatic turning point that Ross, still prisoner to an outdated vision, seems to refuse to integrate. In his recent statements, he continues to defend an interpretation of the conflict harking back to a bygone era, clinging to diplomatic frameworks long surpassed by geopolitical realities. This stance even calls into question the man's integrity. During his tenure, the Kingdom had already expressed serious reservations about his impartiality and officially demanded his replacement in 2012, as trust had been gravely undermined. A mediator, by definition, must maintain equitable distance between the parties. When that distance vanishes, mediation loses its credibility. In fact, Ross never truly dispelled suspicions of closeness to the Algerian position. Algeria's role in this conflict is central. One of the most controversial points in his discourse concerns precisely Algiers' place in the dossier. For fifty years, Algeria has officially claimed to be merely an "observing country" in this conflict. The diplomatic and strategic reality is entirely different. Algiers hosts, arms, and finances the Polisario, and shelters thousands of refugees in Tindouf, a significant portion of whom are not even from the territory in question. There is little doubt that the conflict is primarily a dispute pitting Algeria against Morocco, an analysis now widely shared by the main international actors. No lasting solution can emerge without Algiers' direct involvement in the negotiations. In this context, Ross's repeated positions appear anachronistic and undermine his credibility. By continuing, in effect, to align with Algeria and the Polisario, he gives the impression of prolonging a political fight rather than illuminating the debate. The responsibility of former international mediators is thus in question. When a former UN representative speaks out so trenchantly in public, he indirectly engages the image of the institution he served. Yet the credibility of international diplomacy rests precisely on the neutrality of its intermediaries. The diplomatic history of the Sahara is dotted with mediation attempts, successive plans, and failed initiatives. Before Ross, other envoys had tried to unblock the situation, notably James Baker, who proposed a transition plan in the early 2000s that was ultimately rejected. Each attempt has recalled a fundamental truth: without regional political will, no framework can succeed. This is precisely why current international diplomacy favors a realistic solution based on autonomy and regional cooperation, rather than maximalist constructs inherited from the Cold War. In essence, the question is not whether Ross has the right to express an opinion. Like any former diplomat, he can, of course, participate in the debate. But when he persists in defending a vision that ignores major geopolitical shifts, his discourse takes on the appearance of a rearguard battle. The world has changed, as have regional balances. The Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty is no longer merely a decolonization issue: it now lies at the heart of a strategic reconfiguration of the Atlantic and North Africa. Faced with these transformations, international diplomacy seems to have chosen pragmatism. Christopher Ross, by contrast, appears to have chosen nostalgia for a bygone paradigm. In international affairs, history shows that those who cling to past paradigms almost always end up swimming against the current of present realities.