Think Forward.

Libération stratégique de Boualem Sansal: sauver la face d'Alger... 2197

Aziz Daouda, 4 mon.
- World Politics -
3.5 min read.
L’écrivain algérien Boualem Sansal, également français, âgé de 81 ans, avait été arrêté à l’aéroport d’Alger le 16 novembre 2024 suite à une interview dans laquelle il évoquait quelques vérités historiques qui, selon les autorités algériennes, constituent une menace à l'intégrité du pays. Saluant la décision du Président Macron de reconnaitre la marocanité du Sahara, il avait notamment parlé du fait que la France avait mutilé le Maroc, rattachant des territoires très importants à l'Algérie. C'est un sujet très irritant pour le pouvoir à Alger. En mars 2025, un tribunal avait donc condamné Sansal à cinq ans de prison pour «atteinte à l’unité nationale », accusation très lourde. À la surprise générale, ou presque, le 12 novembre, le président Abdelmadjid Tebboune a accordé son pardon à Sansal, suite à une demande expresse du président allemand Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Sansal est transféré en Allemagne où il a été immédiatement hospitalisé. L'homme atteint d'un cancer à vu sa santé beaucoup se détériorer durant l'incarcération. L'évolution rapide du dossier fait donc suite à la médiation allemande, alors que les appels répétés de la France pour la libération de Sansal étaient restés sans effet. Le pardon est officiellement présenté comme un "acte humanitaire, généreux". Cependant, cette libération ne peut être envisagée hors de tout enjeu géopolitique et constitue de toute évidence en filigrane, une manœuvre pour désamorcer la crise franco-algérienne, accentuée depuis quelques mois déjà. La médiation allemande s’inscrit, chacun le sait, dans un contexte tendu entre Alger et Paris. En octobre 2024, la France a reconnu la souveraineté du Maroc sur le Sahara Marocain, provoquant une colère rouge à Alger et un refroidissement immédiat et notable des relations bilatérales. L’arrestation de Sansal, figure algérienne contestataire, a été perçue comme un levier de pression sur la France dont il porte la nationalité. Rien n'y a fait : en janvier, le Parlement européen avait condamné cette arrestation et exigé la libération de l’auteur, mais l'Algérie était restée sourde. Qu’est-ce qui expliquerait ce rôle surprise de l’Allemagne, alors que d'autres pays auraient, paraît-il, essayé en vain de faire plier Alger ? L’Allemagne entretient en fait des relations plus neutres avec l’Algérie que la France et offre ainsi une issue diplomatique acceptable pour Alger, qui évite une perte majeure de prestige. Boualem Sansal était devenu une véritable patate chaude dont il fallait se débarrasser au plus vite. Il est même dit, ça et là à Alger, que son arrestation avait été une erreur. Le fait que le président Tebboune ait été soigné en Allemagne renforce ces liens avec l'Allemagne. Par ce canal, Alger améliore son image internationale sans céder directement à la France, ce qui atténue la perception d’une capitulation. Il faut aussi rappeler que Boualem Sansal est très apprécié et lu en Allemagne où il avait obtenu la plus prestigieuse des distinctions littéraires du pays. Cela couvre un peu cette médiation surprise. La libération semble s’inscrire dans une stratégie algérienne de gestion des pressions internationales sans compromis direct avec Paris, préservant ainsi la face du régime. L’Allemagne, en tant qu’intermédiaire, permet d’apaiser les tensions tout en maintenant la stabilité politique intérieure algérienne. Comme à leur habitude, les médias algériens, n'ont pas tardé à organiser des débats chantant l'humanisme et la grande sagesse du président Tebboune. Ils n'ont pas arrêté de chanter victoire. On ne sait pas sur qui, mais victoire quand même. Des débats où, comme à chaque fois, sont cités pêle-mêle : sionisme, makhzen, ennemi français, défense du pays, etc. Sansal est gracié mais reste le traitre exécrable de la nation. La vérité est que le contexte économique et stratégique que connaît l'Algérie ne lui permet plus de bomber le torse. Face à un isolement diplomatique grandissant, une dépendance aux hydrocarbures et un ralentissement économique avec dévaluation historique du dinar, le régime algérien utilise la libération de Sansal comme acte symbolique destiné à redorer son image car même ses partenaires historiques que sont les Russes et les Chinois, lui ont tourné le dos en faveur du Maroc. On peut également faire une autre lecture et convoquer l'hypothèse des intérêts croisés. L’Allemagne a vraisemblablement servi d’intermédiaire utile, répondant indirectement aux intérêts de la France et de l’Algérie. Pour Paris, transférer la médiation à Berlin préserve une posture humanitaire crédible sans confrontation directe avec Alger. Pour Alger, répondre à une demande allemande permet d’éviter un recul symbolique face à l’ancien colonisateur. Les perspectives et les implications sont alors plus claires. Le régime algérien conserve son cadre autoritaire ; la libération de Sansal ne constitue donc pas un signe de faiblesse. Les médias algériens cherchent même à montrer que l’affaire révèle la perte d’influence de la France, qui aurait cherché à isoler Alger. Avec cette libération, la diplomatie algérienne serait devenue désormais multipolaire. En réalité, le compromis était nécessaire pour limiter l’isolement diplomatique et économique de l'Algérie. Les défis structurels du pays restent importants et profonds. Les médias algériens cherchent désespérément à montrer que la libération de Sansal par l’intermédiaire allemand témoigne d’un changement profond dans l’équilibre diplomatique régional en sa faveur. La France aurait perdu son quasi-monopole historique sur les relations, confrontée à une Algérie souveraine et puissante qui a diversifié ses alliances européennes. Selon ces médias, cette évolution aurait affaibli symboliquement Paris et renforcé la diplomatie multipolaire de l'Algérie conquérante. Au-delà de tel ou tel propos parfois ridicules dont le seul but est de calmer le front interne algérien, cette libération aura un impact positif sur les relations franco-algériennes et, au-delà, sur la diplomatie allemande dans la région. Pour l’Allemagne, ce succès diplomatique consolide son rôle géopolitique en Méditerranée et en Afrique du Nord, lui offrant de nouvelles marges de manœuvre politiques, économiques et sécuritaires. Berlin améliore sa position auprès des autorités algériennes et des pays voisins, et renforce ses partenariats stratégiques dans une région clé pour ses intérêts. L'Allemagne, rappelons-le, s'était déjà prononcée positivement sur le projet marocain d'autodétermination au Sahara marocain. La libération de Boualem Sansal dépasse donc la simple dimension humanitaire pour devenir un point de convergence diplomatique, symbolique et économique. Le choix de l’Allemagne comme médiateur a permis à l’Algérie de répondre à la pression internationale en sauvegardant en apparence son image vis-à-vis de la France, tout au moins pour sa propre population. La France a atteint son objectif: libérer Boualam Sansal. Alger en avait pourtant fait une affaire de dignité nationale.
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 67

Tariq Daouda, 2 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 104

Satta Abraham, 5 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 164

Aziz Daouda, 10 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.

Paradoxical Ramadan: Piety, Irritability, Overconsumption and Slumping Productivity... 914

Aziz Daouda, 4 d.
Every year, Ramadan settles in Morocco as a form of collective breathing space. Daily rhythms change or are inverted, habits are reorganized or fall apart, nights come alive and days slow down. A sacred month par excellence, it is first and foremost a time of fasting, contemplation, piety and solidarity. But it is also, increasingly, a national paradox: intense spiritual fervor coexists with heightened social irritability, massive food waste and a noticeable drop in productivity. Ramadan, as it is prescribed and recommended, is a time of inner discipline. Fasting is not just abstaining from food; it is self‑control, restraint, patience. Religious scholars and schoolteachers insist on the moral dimension of fasting: refraining from anger, insults and injustice. In short, putting aside all forms of deceitfulness. Yet in contemporary Moroccan reality, the holy month sometimes seems to produce the opposite effect. It becomes the month of unjustified social tension. In large cities such as Casablanca, Rabat or Marrakech, if the mornings are relatively calm, late afternoon turns into a critical moment. Traffic is saturated, impatience is palpable, and road altercations become more frequent. Emergency services and police stations traditionally observe an increase in minor conflicts and aggressive behavior at the end of the day. There is also a rise in cases handled by gastro‑enterology and other specialties… People eat too much, and poorly. Fasting, combined with lack of sleep due to long evenings after iftar and waking up for suhoor, among other things, affects physiological balance. Irritability, reduced concentration and chronic fatigue become commonplace. In a country where emotional regulation is already under strain in everyday life, Ramadan acts as an amplifier. This nervousness is by no means a religious inevitability; it is a sociological consequence of how the month is organized, in a way that has gradually drifted away from its original spirit of moderation, self‑mastery and day‑and‑night contemplation. The immediate consequence is a slump in productivity. On the economic front, the impact is tangible. Administrative working hours are reduced, offices empty out in the afternoon without valid reasons, and construction sites run in slow motion. In some sectors, the drop in activity is accepted; in others, it causes structural delays. Ramadan excuses and explains everything. People shift the burden of their disengagement onto the community without the slightest embarrassment. Morocco aspires to accelerate its growth, attract investment and improve its competitiveness. Yet for nearly one month every year, the economy runs in degraded mode. The private sector adapts, but at what cost? The drop in productivity is not only quantitative; it is also qualitative: decisions are postponed, meetings cut short, projects delayed. The public administration and its staff amplify all this. It would be caricatural to place the blame on religion. The problem is not Ramadan; it is the absence of a culture of performance that is compatible with spiritual requirements. Output and accountability ought to be part of the values of the holy month. Another major contradiction is the paradox of food waste. While fasting is supposed to remind us of the hunger of the poorest, iftar tables are overloaded. Multiple soups, an abundance of pastries, redundant dishes. Markets are booming, food spending rises sharply, and a significant part of what is bought ends up in the trash. Wallets empty out and suffer. This phenomenon reveals a cultural transformation that may be surprising: Ramadan has partly become a social and consumerist event. Large retailers post their best figures, advertising intensifies, and TV channels compete with special programming to capture a deliberately captive nocturnal audience. At the start of the month, national channels record more than 70% of total viewership, a share they are far from reaching under normal circumstances, as Moroccans are very fond of foreign channels. The month of frugality paradoxically turns into a month of overconsumption. One can then ask: is this authentic spirituality, or a social ritualization? It would be unfair to reduce Moroccan Ramadan to its excesses. Thousands of solidarity initiatives emerge. Associations, mosques and volunteers distribute meals and aid to the most vulnerable. Families come together, intergenerational ties are strengthened. The mosque regains a vibrant centrality. The issue, therefore, is not to criticize Ramadan, but to question its contemporary practice. Are we faithful to its spirit, or prisoners of cultural habits that distort its meaning? If the holy month becomes synonymous with chronic fatigue, road rage, weakened productivity and waste, then there is a gap between the spiritual principle and its social translation. It is certainly time to advocate for a Ramadan of responsibility. A calm national debate is needed: how can we reconcile spiritual requirements with collective performance? How can we preserve the sacredness of the month while maintaining the efficiency of institutions? How can we turn fasting into a lever for self‑discipline rather than a pretext for slackness? Ramadan could be a laboratory for positive transformation: learning self‑control, optimizing time, rationalizing consumption, structuring solidarity. It could become a month of moral and professional excellence. Morocco, a country of deep religious tradition and clear economic ambition, has every interest in taking up this challenge. Because beyond productivity statistics or scenes of urban irritation, the real question is this: are we turning Ramadan into a simple collective ritual, or into a genuine exercise in inner and social reform? The answer, each year, is played out in the streets, offices and homes, and above all in each person’s conscience. We have a little less than two weeks left to think about it… seriously.