Hungry for Truth, Peace and Justice

Rwanda-Ukraine: so far apart geographically but so close geopolitically!

By Emmanuel Neretse
Brussels, Belgium
March 09, 2022

The news at the beginning of 2022 is dominated and even saturated by the military operation that the Russian Army is conducting in Ukraine. But for those who lived the war of conquest of Rwanda by the Tutsi elements of the Ugandan Army from 1990 to 1994, they can be struck by the similarity in the diplomatic management, and in their interpretation according to the International Law and especially in the treatment of the information concerning these two conflicts. It is this parallelism that we will attempt to establish.

The geopolitical context of the current conflict

This conflict is in line with the post-World War II Cold War, which resulted in the existence of two military alliances that looked at each other like earthenware dogs.

NATO and Warsaw Pact military alliances

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the political-military organization established by the signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty to fulfill their collective security and defense obligations. It is most often referred to by its acronym NATO. The text of this treaty was signed on April 4, 1949.

The Alliance was created in the general context of the beginning of the Cold War and more specifically during the Soviet blockade of Berlin. Its initial vocation was to ensure the security of Western Europe by establishing a strong coupling with the United States, the only way in the eyes of Europeans after the Second World War to protect themselves against any expansionist attempt by the USSR.

Between 1955 and 1991, NATO's designated adversary was the Warsaw Pact formed by the Soviets following the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to the Atlantic Alliance and its rearmament.

Since the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the Cold War in 1991, NATO has endured despite the disappearance of its original main purpose. It has even expanded to include former Eastern Bloc countries and former republics of the Soviet Union.

The Warsaw Pact is a former military alliance grouping the countries of Eastern Europe with the USSR in a vast economic, political, and military bloc. It was concluded on May 14, 1955, between most of the communist countries of the Soviet bloc by a treaty of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance. Nikita Kroutchev, who was the architect of the Warsaw Pact, had conceived it within the framework of the cold war as a counterweight to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which had been created in April 1949, thus 6 years before.

The Warsaw Pact alliance was dissolved in July 1991.

The collapse of the USSR

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the USSR collapsed and the republics that made it up became independent states in their own right, to the great satisfaction of the Western camp dominated by the United States of America, which had thus won the "cold war" without having fired a single shot. Russia weakened and humiliated, turned inward, and accepted its status as a Third World country, executing the political will to the letter and swallowing Washington's vision of the world without question. But this submission was to start being questioned by some Russians after the accession to power of a certain Vladimir Putin in 2000.

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia will gradually begin to emancipate itself from the world order imposed by the West, despite the fact that it had thrown itself into it with its eyes closed with globalization. It is this awareness of its power (Russia, even weakened, remains the 2nd nuclear power in the world), coupled with the arrogance and control of the West (USA) over the world through the trap of globalization, that has led to the current crisis.

The situation of Ukraine in relation to Russia

Ukraine was one of the Soviet republics that made up the USSR. It became an autonomous state after the collapse of the USSR. But Ukraine, unlike other former Soviet republics, is coupled with Russia in its eastern part. Moreover, it is inhabited by a large community of Russian-speaking people who feel first of all as Russians and not as Ukrainians, a nation that does not exist because it was created from scratch. In addition, some regions of Russia (like Crimea) had been administratively attached to Ukraine during the USSR for administrative convenience.

But the Ukrainian regime that took power after the collapse of the USSR, to please the new masters of the world (the West-USA), annexed these regions and relegated the Russian speakers to second-class citizens, and persecuted them to the point that some analysts dare to speak of "genocide" against the Russian-speaking people of Ukraine.

And as if this persecution of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine was not enough, a comedian and clown who became president of this country, hastened to ask that his country be admitted into the European Union, but especially, into NATO.

This last request, which was to be granted (as a member of NATO), would mean that American nuclear missiles would be installed in Ukraine, thus on the border with Russia, towards which they would be pointed. When one remembers that in 1961 when the USSR wanted to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, which was located hundreds of kilometers from the US nearest state, Florida, the same USA declared this act a "casus belli" and that everyone understood this and the sites were withdrawn, one can understand the emotion of Russia, which sees the same United States coming to install nuclear warheads on its doorstep. It is for any Russian an existential threat and the red line had been crossed.

The conflict in Ukraine is a good illustration of the consequences of economic and media globalization since February 2022

To illustrate the situation in the light of the globalization that has ruled the world for three decades, we will be brief at the risk of appearing caricatural since a long development would require entire books.

-On the media front

The Western media say nothing about the reasons for the war as put forward by both sides. And it seems that the Russian version is systematically censored and that even the media that could relay it are banned in the West: TV channel RT.

As for the balance of losses, while claiming that the Russian Army is superior in numbers and equipment, the Western media only announce Russian losses, minimizing those of the Ukrainian Army.

The government of Ukraine is distributing weapons to the civilian population and its army is training ordinary citizens to handle devices normally used by terrorists such as Molotov cocktails. The Western press is ecstatic, shouting about the "heroism and patriotism" of the Ukrainians.

This campaign is called "self-defense measures of the population" and is highly publicized as a campaign to support.

Even more, when these fighters die in combat with weapons in hand, for the same Western media, they become again "civilians, women and children..." executed by the Russian Army!

Non-Ukrainian foreigners (French, Swedes, and other Europeans...) enlist in Ukraine supposedly as fighters of the "International Brigades" who went there to defend Ukraine. The Western press presents them as "heroes and freedom fighters" while legally they are only mercenaries to be denounced as they do for the Russian group Wagner.

-On the economic level

The economic world under the domination of the USA through globalization has imposed heavy sanctions on Russia, but their justification is not obvious for those who follow the situation. But with regards to the banking system, since all the means of payment have been centralized in the hands of the Super-Power through globalization, into which the countries have thrown themselves with closed eyes after 1989, this Super-Power brandishes and uses this weapon at will.

-On the diplomatic front

All diplomatic levers were activated to condemn Russia. Given the fact that at the UN Security Council no resolution condemning Russia can pass because Russia has the right of veto, the Western powers resorted to the UN General Assembly (over 180 states) to vote to condemn Russia. Even if the resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding, the Western powers wanted to show the world opinion that Russia was isolated and had become a pariah in the world, while some states (banana republics in Africa, Asia, or Latin America) voted for the resolution unwillingly, not even daring to abstain.

For anyone who has lived through the situation in Rwanda since 1990, the similarity with what is happening between Ukraine and Russia is striking and even disturbing.

-On the media front

On October 1, 1990, when the Tutsi elements of the regular army of Uganda under the command of the Deputy Minister of Defense of that country, General Fred Rwigyema, invaded Rwanda, the world press, relaying the theses of the powers that incited this aggression, vied with one another to justify this aggression. The word of the Gospel to be proclaimed was that they were refugees returning to their country of origin. Even the UNHCR was instructed to admit that a member of a country's government or an officer in its army still enjoyed the status of "refugee" in relation to the country of origin of his parents. Moreover, the same UNHCR admitted that in the case of Rwanda a Tutsi element of the Ugandan Army remained a "refugee" and that he could return to the country of origin of his parents or great-grandparents, by force, while remaining under the protection of the same UNHCR according to the 1951 Convention!

When in 1992-93 the command of the FAR, seeing the infiltrations of the RPF through the zones not held by the military units, suggested distributing weapons to some inhabitants to launch alerts in case of enemy infiltration, the world press, and later the accusers before the ICTR presented this fact as a proof of "planning and execution of the genocide plan"! The same measures applied today in Ukraine are qualified by the same press and the same justice as "just and heroic" while in Rwanda the same measures of civil self-defense were and still are qualified as "genocidal".

-On the diplomatic front

Since the first day of the war in Ukraine, these same powers have been taking action almost daily in international bodies to have Russia condemned. Some initiatives succeeded (UN General Assembly) while others failed (Security Council). On the other hand, in Rwanda, which was attacked in October 1990, enormous pressure was exerted by these same powers on the legitimate government of Rwanda to dissuade it from lodging a complaint against the invader, namely Uganda, whose Tutsi elements of its Army were invading the sovereign and neighboring country of Rwanda. This pressure was to intensify until the Arusha Agreements, which granted the invaders almost all the political and military power in the country.

Currently, all the Western powers are competing to provide Ukraine with weapons and other military materials. When we remember that from the first day of the invasion of Rwanda by the Tutsi elements of the regular army of Uganda on October 01, 1990, these same powers have not only hastened to impose an embargo on the arms to the attacked Rwanda but also refused to deliver the equipment that was already ordered and paid.  We can only be surprised by the duplicity of these powers.

Conclusion

-This conflict in Ukraine marks, without a doubt, the end of an era and the beginning of a new era that puts an end to the order established in 1989.

-This new era holds for Africa in general, and Rwanda in particular, an uncertain future for those who were and still are the fruit of this old order that is coming to an end, including the RPF of Kagame in Rwanda.

-The era that is beginning will be marked mainly by the questioning of the globalization that was established after the end of the Cold War. The powers that threw themselves into it with their eyes closed are beginning to see its effects, particularly that they are at the mercy of the Super-Power that can asphyxiate them economically and financially without any further effort but simply by signing a decree imposing its sanctions, sitting in the Oval Office.

From the same series:

Ukraine, everything was written in the Rand Corporation's plan

Donbass by Anne-Laure Bonnel (2015): "What the media won't show you."

posted by Mamadou Kouyate @ 10:41 PM 0 Comments

Rwanda-Ukraine: si éloignés géographiquement mais si proches géopolitiquement !

Par Emmanuel Neretse
Bruxelles, Belgique
Le 09 Mars 2022

L'actualité de ce début de l'année 2022 est dominée et même saturée par l'opération militaire que mène l'Armée russe en Ukraine. Mais pour ceux qui ont vécu la guerre de conquête du Rwanda par les éléments tutsi de l'Armée de l'Ouganda de 1990 à 1994, ils peuvent être frappés par la similitude dans la gestion diplomatique, et dans leur interprétation selon le Droit International et surtout dans le traitement de l'information  concernant ces deux conflits. C'est ce parallélisme que nous tenterons d'établir.

Contexte géopolitique de l'actuel conflit

Ce conflit se situe dans la lignée de la guerre froide de l'après-Seconde Guerre mondiale qui se traduisait par l'existence de deux alliances militaires qui se regardaient en chiens de faience.

Les alliances militaires OTAN et Pacte de Varsovie

L’Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord (en anglais: North Atlantic Treaty Organization) est l'organisation politico-militaire mise en place par les pays signataires du traité de l'Atlantique Nord afin de pouvoir remplir leurs obligations de sécurité et de  défense collectives. Elle est le plus souvent désignée par son acronyme OTAN (en anglais: NATO). Le texte de ce traité, fut signé le 4 avril 1949.

L'Alliance voit le jour dans le contexte général des débuts de la guerre froide et plus spécifiquement pendant le blocus de Berlin exercé par les Sovietiques. Elle a pour vocation initiale d'assurer la sécurité de l'Europe occidentale en instaurant un couplage  fort avec les Etats Unis, seul moyen aux yeux des Europeens après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, de se prémunir contre toute tentative expansionniste de l' URSS.

Entre 1955 et 1991, l'adversaire désigné de l'OTAN est le pacte de Varsovie formé par les Soviétiques à la suite de l'adhésion de la République Fédérale d'Allemagne (RFA) à l'Alliance atlantique et à son réarmement.

Depuis la dissolution de l'URSS et la fin de la guerre froide en 1991, l' OTAN a perduré malgré la disparition de sa principale raison d'être initiale. Elle a même procédé à son élargissement à d'anciens pays du bloc de l'Est et d'anciennes républiques de l'Union soviétique.

Le pacte de Varsovie est une ancienne alliance militaire groupant les pays d' Europe de l'Est avec l'URSS dans un vaste ensemble économique, politique et militaire. Il est conclu le 14 mai 1955 entre la plupart des pays communistes du bloc sovietique par un traité d’amitié, de coopération et d’assistance mutuelle. Nikita Kroutchev, qui en fut l'artisan, l'avait conçu dans le cadre de la guerre froide comme un contrepoids à l'Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN) qui avait vu le jour en avril 1949, donc 6 ans avant.

L'alliance issue du pacte de Varsovie a été dissoute en juillet 1991.

Effondrement de l'URSS

Avec la chute du Mûr de Berlin en 1989, l'URSS allait s'effondrer et les républiques qui  la composaient sont redevenues des états indépendants à part entière à la grande satisfacion du camp occidental dominé par les Etats Unis d'Amérique qui venaient ainsi de gagner la “guerre froide” sans avoir tiré un seul coup de feu. La Russie affaiblie et humiliée se replia sur elle-même et accepta son statut de pays du Tiers Monde exécutant  à la lettre la volonté politique et gobant sans se poser de questions la vision du monde selon Washington. Mais cette soumission allait commencer à être mise en cause par certains russes après l'accession au pouvoir d'un certain Vladimir Poutin en 2000.

Sous Vladimir Poutin, la Russie commencera petit à petit à s'emanciper de l'ordre mondial imposé par l'Occident malgré qu'elle s'y était jetée yeux fermés avec la mondialisation. C'est cette prise de conscience de sa puissance (la Russie même affaiblie reste quand-même la 2è puissance nucléaire du Monde) doublée de l'arrogance et la main-mise de l'Occident (USA) sur le monde par le truchement du piège de la mondialisation qui a conduit à la crise actuelle.

Situation de l'Ukraine par rapport à la Russie

L'Ukraine était une des républiques soviétiques qui constituaient l'URSS. Elle est donc devenue un état autonome après l'effondrement de l'URSS. Mais l'Ukraine contrairement  à d'autres ex-républiques soviétiques est accolée à la Russie dans sa partie Est. En plus elle est habitée par une grande communauté de russophones qui se sentent d'abord comme Russes et pas comme Ukrainiens, une nation qui n'existe pas car créée de toutes pièces. En plus, certaines régions de la Russie (comme la Crimée) avaient été accolées administrativement à l'Ukraine du temps de l'URSS pour des facilités administratives.

Mais le régime de l'Ukraine qui a pris le pouvoir après l'effondrement de l'URSS pour faire plaisir aux nouveaux maîtres du monde (l'Occident-USA) a annexé ces régions et a  relégué les russophones en citoyens de seconde zone et les a persécutés au point que certains analystes osent parler de “génocide” contre les russophones d'Ukraine.

Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/Photos Getty Images

Et comme si cette persécution des russophones d'Ukraine ne suffisait pas, un comédien et clown devenu président de ce pays, s'est empressé de demander que son pays soit admis dans l'Union Européenne mais surtout à l'OTAN.

Cette dernière demande et qui allait être exhaussée (membre de l'OTAN) signifierait que des missiles nucléaires américains seraient installés en Ukraine donc à la frontière de la Russie vers laquelle ils seraient pointés. Quand on se souvient qu’en 1961 quand l'URSS a voulu installer des missiles nucléaires à Cuba, pourtant situé à des centaines de kilomètres du prémier Etat le plus proche, la Floride, les mêmes Etats Unis avaient déclaré cet acte un “casus belli” et que tout le monde l'a compris et les sites furent retirés, l'on comprendra l'émotion de la Russie qui voit les mêmes Etats Unis venir installer des ogives nucléaires devant sa porte. C'est pour tout russe une menace existencielle et que la ligne rouge venait d'être franchie.

Le conflit en Ukraine une belle illustration des conséquences de la Mondialisation économique et médiatique depuis février 2022

Pour illustrer la situation à la lumière de la mondialisation qui régente le monde depuis trois décennies, nous allons être bref au rique de paraître caricatural, car un long développement nécessiterait des livres entiers.

-Sur le plan médiatique

Les médias occidentaux ne disent rien sur les motifs de la guerre telles qu'avancés par les deux parties. Et il semble que la version de la Russie est systématiquement censurée et que même les médias qui pouvaient la relayer sont interdits en Occident: Chaîne de télevision RT.

En ce qui concerne le bilan des pertes, tout en affirmant que l'Armée russe est supérieure en effectifs et en matériels, les médias occidentaux annoncent seulement des pertes russes en minimisant celles de l'armée ukrainienne.

Le gouvernement de l'Ukraine distribue des armes à la population civile et son armée initie des citoyens ordinaires à la manipulation des engins normalement utilisés par les terroristes comme des Coktails Molotov. La presse occidentale s'extasie en criant au “héroisme et au patriotisme” des ukrainiens.

Cette campagne est qualifiée de “Mesures d'auto-défense de la population” et est très médiatisée comme une campagne à soutenir.

Bien plus quand ces combattants meurent au combat les armes à la main, pour les mêmes médias occidentaux, ils redeviennent des “civils, femmes et enfants...” exécutés par l'Armée russe!

Des étrangers non ukrainiens (français, suédois, et autres européens…) s'engagent en Ukraine soi-disant comme des combattants des “Brigades internationales” venus pour défendre l'Ukraine. La presse occidentale les présente comme des “héros et combattants de la liberté” alors que légalement ils ne sont que des mercenaires à dénoncer comme ils le font pour le groupe russe Wagner.

-Sur le plan économique

Le monde économique sous la domination des USA par la mondialistion a infligé  de lourdes sanctions à la Russie mais leur justification n'est pas évidente pour qui suit la situation. Mais concernant le système bancaire, étant donné que tous les moyens de paiement   été centralisés aux mains de la Super-Puissance par le biais de la mondialisation dans laquelle les pays se sont jetés les yeux fermés après 1989, cette Super- Puissance brandit et se sert de cette arme à volonté.

-Sur le plan diplomatique

Tous les leviers diplomatiques ont été activés pour condamner la Russie. Comme au Conseil de Sécurité de l'ONU aucune résolution condamnant la Russie ne peut passer parce que la Russie dispose du droit de véto, les puissances occidentales eurent recours à l'Assemblee Générale de l'ONU (plus de 180 états) de voter en condamnant la Russie. Même si les résolutions de l'Assemblée Générale ne sont pas contraignantes, les puissances occidentales entendaient montrer à l'opinion mondiale que la Russie était isolée et est devenue paria au monde. Alors que certains états (des républiques bananières d'Afrique, d'Asie ou d'Amérique latine)  ont voté la résolution à leur corps défendant, n'osant même pas s'abstenir.

-Sur le plan médiatique

Le 01 octobre 1990 quand les éléments tutsi de l'Armée régulière de l'Ouganda sous le commandement du Vice-ministre de la Défense de ce pays, le Général Fred  Rwigyema, ont envahi le Rwanda, la presse mondiale relayant les thèses des puissances incitatrices de cette agression rivalisait de thèses pour justifier cette agression. La parole d'Evangile à proclamer était que c'étaient des réfugiés qui rentraient dans leur pays d'origine. Même au HCR a été intimé l'ordre d'admettre qu'un membre d'un gouvernement d'un pays ou officier dans son armée jouissait encore du statut de “réfugié” par rapport au pays dont étaient originaires ses parents. Bien plus, le même HCR a admis que dans le cas du Rwanda un élément tutsi de l'Armée de l'Ouganda restait “un réfugié” et qu'il pouvait rentrer dans le pays d'origine de ses parents ou arrière grands-parents, par les armes tout en restant sous la protection du même HCR selon la Convention de 1951!

Lorsqu'en 1992-93 le commandement des FAR, vue les infiltrations du FPR à travers les zones non tenues par les unités militaires, a suggéré de distribuer des armes à quelques habitants pour lancer des alertes en cas d'infiltratuion ennemie, la presse mondiale et plus tard les accusateurs devant le TPIR ont présenté ce fait comme une preuve de “planification et de mise en exécution du plan de génocide”! Les mêmes mesures aujourd'hui appliquées en Ukraine sont qualifiées par la même presse et la même justice comme “justes et héroiques” alors qu'au Rwanda les mêmes mesures d'auto-défense civile furent et sont toujours qualifiées de “génocidaires”.

-Sur le plan diplomatique

Dès le premier jour de la guerre en Ukraine, ces mêmes puissances saisissent presque journellement les instances internationales pour que la Russie soit condamnée. Certaines initiatives reussissent (Assemblée Générale de l'ONU) d'autres échouent (Conseil de Sécurité). Par contre, au Rwanda agressé en octobre 1990, des pressions énormes furent exercées par ces mêmes puissances sur le gouvernement légitime du Rwanda pour le dissuader de porter plainte contre l'envahisseur, à savoir l'Ouganda, dont les éléments tutsi de son Armée envahissaient le pays souverain et voisin, qu'était le Rwanda. Ces pressions allaient s'intensifier jusqu'aux Accords léonins d'Arusha qui accordaient aux envahisseurs presque la totalité du pouvoir politique et militaire du pays.

Actuellement, toutes les puissances occidentales rivalisent d'efforts pour fournir à l'Ukraine des armes et autres matériels militaires. Quand on se rappelle que dès le premier jour de l'invasion du Rwanda par les éléments tutsi de l'armée régulière de l'Ouganda le 01 octobre 1990, ces mêmes puissances se sont, non seulement empressées de faire imposer un embargo sur les armes au Rwanda agressé, mais même pour refuser de livrer le matériel déjà commandé et payé, on ne peut que s'etonner de la duplicité de ces puissances.

Conclusion

-Ce conflit en Ukraine marque, à ne pas douter, la fin d'une époque et le début d'une nouvelle ère qui met fin à l'ordre établi en 1989.

-Cette nouvelle ère réserve à l'Afrique en general, et au Rwanda en particulier, des lendemains incertains pour ceux qui furent et sont encore le fruit de cet ordre ancien qui prend fin, dont le FPR de Kagame du Rwanda.

-L'ère qui commence sera principalement marquée par la mise en cause de la mondialisation instaurée après la fin de la guerre froide. Les puissances qui s'y sont jetées les yeux fermés commencent à constater ses effets notamment qu'elles sont à la merci de la Super-Puissance qui peut les asphyxier économiquement et financièrement sans autre effort mais simplement en signant un décret infligeant  ses sanctions, assise au Bureau oval.

De la même série:

Ukraine, tout était écrit dans le plan de la Rand Corporation

Donbass par Anne-Laure Bonnel (2015): « Ce que les médias ne vous montrerons pas. »

posted by Mamadou Kouyate @ 11:11 PM 1 Comments

La guerre en Ukraine, un répit et une aubaine pour les dictateurs africains et au premier rang Paul Kagame du Rwanda

Par Emmanuel Neretse
Le 3/03/2022
Bruxelles, Belgique

President E. Macron & P. Kagame | Paris May 17, 2021

Introduction

Depuis sa création, l'organisation “terroriste” qu'est le Front Patriotique Rwandais ( FPR)  dont le noyau était constitué par les éléments tutsi de l'Armée régulière de l'Ouganda, a toujours bénéficié des conseils de la part des ses créateurs anglo-saxons dans le choix du moment propice pour commettre ses forfaits.

C'est ainsi qu'après l'effondrement de l'Union Soviétique (URSS) en 1989, avec pour conséquence l'apparition des Etats Unis comme étant la seule Super-Puissance qui régente le Monde, ses créateurs firent signe au groupe “terroriste” le FPR” que c'était le bon moment pour envahir et entamer la conquête militaire du Rwanda. Ceux-ci estimaient en effet que la voix du petit et pacifique Rwanda pour protester ne porterait pas loin et ne serait même pas entendue surtout à l' ONU où la Russie membre permanent du Conseil de Sécurité et disposant du droit de véto mais qui venait de redevenir un simple pays du Tiers monde comme la centaine d'autres, n'oserait pas contrarier le tout puissant américain et surtout pas pour l'invasion d'un petit pays d'Afrique centrale sans aucun intérêt pour elle. Il ne restait qu'attendre que le monde soit distrait par un autre événement de portée mondiale pour que le groupe terroriste tutsi du FPR entame sa conquête de l'inoffensif et pacifique République Rwandaise. La Première Guerre du Golfe offrit cette occasion. Et c'est ainsi que le groupe terroriste constitué des éléments tutsi de l'Armée régulière de l'Ouganda entama sa conquête militaire du Rwanda en octobre 1990.

Situation actuelle

Le dictateur Paul Kagame qui règne sur le Rwanda depuis 1994 après sa conquête militaire à la tête des éléments tutsi de l'Armée régulière de l'Ouganda connaît des problèmes de gouvernance car, il use et abuse de l'immunité et de l'impunité que lui ont assuré ses créateurs Occidentaux. Ses violations des Droits de l'Homme et ses crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'Humanité sont trop flagrants et visibles qu'ils gênent ces créateurs devenus ses lobbies dans les puissances occidentales.

Ces deux dernières années, il semble avoir franchi la ligne rouge car même ses inconditionnels comme les Etats Unis, la Grande Bretagne ou l'Union Européenne ont enfin osé s'indigner face à ses violations des Droits de l'homme et ses crimes d'Etat.

Les intimidations envers des personnalités politiques connues ainsi que la privation de leurs droits les plus élémentaires, indignent ses sponsors et lobbies tellement les victimes sont des citoyens respectables et responsables. C'est le cas de Madame Victoire Ingabire, Maître Bernard Ntaganda ou Mlle Diane Rwigara.

Les emprisonnements arbitraires et la torture morale qu'il inflige aux autres personnalités politiques scandalisent même ses plus grands admirateurs. Désormais le calvaire des personnalités politiques qui croupissent dans les geôles de Kagame comme  Déo Mushayidi, Dr Théoneste Niyitegeka, Paul Rusesabagina, Sylvain Sibomana et ses camarades, Dr. Christophe Kayumba... est connu à travers le monde.

Les assassinats, emprisonnements ou disparitions forcées par ses services secrets, des activistes et défenseurs des droits de l'Homme ou de simples artistes épris de paix qui dénoncent dans leurs oeuvres, la dérive du régime dictatoriale du FPR de Paul Kagame, font scandale.

Depuis 2020, les noms de Kizito Mihigo, Yvonne Idamange, Niyonsenga Dieudonné alias Cyuma Hassan ou Innocent Bahati...font le tour du monde.

Conséquences: aussi incroyable que cela puisse paraître, les Parlementaires au Congrès Américain ont adressé des demandes à leur gouvernement de taper sur les doigts de leur enfant gâté le dictateur Paul Kagame. Il en est de même au Parlement Européen ou plus des ¾ des députés ont demandé à la Commission de prendre des mesures contre le dictateur tutsi venu d'Ouganda qui continue de faire souffrir les rwandais et les peuples avoisinants.

C'est alors que ses conseillers ou inspirateurs de toujours lui ont soufflé de guetter toute occasion pour détourner l'attention de l'opinion mondiale loin de ses crimes.

La première occasion lui fut offerte par Emmanuel Macron le président français, qui pour amadouer une partie de son opinion publique et surtout pour être en phase avec les puissances anglo-saxonnes qui ont créé Kagame et qui le maintiennent au pouvoir, est prêt à toute compromission pour s'allier à Kagame.

Après les épisodes du cadeau qu'est l'OIF offerte au francophobe Kagame qui a banni la langue française au Rwanda, et son “voyage à Canossa” (Kigali) pour une pénitence au nom de ma France pour les péchés jamais commis, Emmanuel Macron et Kagame auront d'autres prétextes pour se jeter dans les bras l'un et l'autre. Voyant que la présence militaire de la France en Centrafrique est rejetée en faveur de celle de la Russie, Macron a obtenu de Kagame qu'il l'y remplace non seulement pour noyauter le président Touadera jusque dans son lit (car se sont les Inkotanyi qui assurent sa sécurité rapprochée) mais aussi avoir un oeil sur les éléments russes du groupe Wagner et faire rapport à Paris et à Washington.

Bien mieux: Macron obtiendra que Kagame envoie sa soldatesque au Mozambique pour garder les installations du géant énergetique français “Total” et cela contre payement par tête de soldat. Une transaction réellement de mercenariat comme on en a connu dans les années 60-70 avec Bob Denard, un français!

Avec le sentiment anti-français qui grandit en Afrique occidentale et au Sahel, Macron compte conclure le même marché avec le dictateur Kagame. Celui-ci enverrait ses mercenaires au Niger choisi comme nouvelle base de la présence militaire de la France  dans la région.

C'est sous cet angle qu'il faut voir et comprendre le revirement du Niger après avoir signé un accord avec l'ONU d'acceuillir 8 rwandais acquittés ou libérés par le TPIR, est revenu sur sa parole sept jours après. Un coup de fil de Macron à son oblige gouvernement du Niger, a suffi pour intimer l'ordre d'expulser ces rwandais honnis par Kagame ou alors de les lui livrer, en tout cas de ne pas les garder sur son territoire.

Enfin, dans la perspectives des élections présidentielles en France en avril 2022, Macron compte vanter son bilan en politique étrangère en brandissant le cas du Rwanda du dictateur tutsi Paul Kagame qui naguère abhorrait la France mais qui maintenant ne jure que par elle. Il compte ainsi s'assurer des soutiens des puissants lobbies qui ont créé Kagame et qui dominent le monde médiatique et financier de l'Occident (très actifs et influents en France) pour un nouveau bail des cinq ans à l'Elysée.

Resultats:

– Les médias sont actuellement braqués sur l'Ukraine et la Russie: Kagame peut tout faire sans que ça n'attire l'attention de personne dans le monde.

– Ses cibles du moment seraient, de se debarrasser de Madame Victoire Ingabire une fois pour toutes, traquer des opposants en exil en y envoyer ses Escadrons de la mort car les services de ces pays sont occupés par autre chose autrement plus plus sérieuse: la guerre en Ukraine.

– Manipuler et berner Felix Tshisekedi en RDC pour qu'il le laisse piller l'Est de ce pays.

– Endormir le Burundi, en feignant la bonne volonté de nouer les relations cordiales par de petits gestes symboliques, mais en attendant le bon moment pour réinstaller dans ce pays un régime hima-tutsi sur le modèle de celui du FPR de Kagame au Rwanda.

– Semer la zizanie dans la diplomatie de l'Ouganda afin de le ridiculiser en utilisant le fils du président Museveni, son héritier présomptif, mais que Paul Kagame considère comme un enfant gâté et nigaud facilement manipulable, même affublé du grade de “Général”.

En conclusion, faisons noter que ce n'est pas Kagame lui-même qui prend l'initiative. Mais ce sont ses conseillers ou le Gouvernement-bis à savoir le fameux Presidential Advisory Council (PAC) dont ont fait partie Clinton et Tonny Blair entre autres... et qui gouverne dans les faits le Rwanda. Donc la responsabilité des crimes de Kagame devant l'Histoire sera partagée avec ces Conseillers impérialistes.

A bon entendeur Salut!

De la même série:

RCA: l’affaire d’infidélitédu président Touadera crée des scandales familiaux

All You Need To Know AboutPAC, President Kagame’s Advisory Council

International criminal justice bares its colonial fangs

posted by Mamadou Kouyate @ 10:45 PM 0 Comments

There is No Press Freedom in Rwanda

By Reporters Without Borders
Press Freedom Index 2009

Obama effect in US, while Europe continues to recedeIsrael in free fall, Iran at gates of infernal trio

“Press freedom must be defended everywhere in the world with the same energy and the same insistence,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said today as his organisation issued its eighth annual world press freedom index.

“It is disturbing to see European democracies such as France, Italy and Slovakia fall steadily in the rankings year after year,” Julliard said. “Europe should be setting an example as regards civil liberties. How can you condemn human rights violations abroad if you do not behave irreproachably at home? The Obama effect, which has enabled the United States to recover 16 places in the index, is not enough to reassure us.”

Reporters Without Borders compiles the index every year on the basis of questionnaires that are completed by hundreds of journalists and media experts around the world.

This year’s index reflects press freedom violations that took place between 1 September 2008 and 31 August 2009.
==============================

Africa
Journalists prey to violence, political crises and instability. Madagascar and Gabon fall, Horn sinks deeper, Zimbabwe improves.

The Horn was again the African region with the most press freedom violations. Eritrea (175th), where no independent media is tolerated and 30 journalists are in prison (as many as in China or Iran but with a much smaller population), was ranked last in the world for the third year running. Somalia (164th), which is steadily being emptied of its journalists, was the world’s deadliest country for the media, with six journalists killed between 1 January and 4 July.

This year confirmed that, in some African countries, democracy rests on solid foundations and respect for freedoms is guaranteed. But in other countries, political crises and instability dealt harsh blows to the work of journalists and news media.

In Madagascar (134th), which plummeted 40 places, the media were caught in a confrontation between ousted president Marc Ravalomanana and the president of the High Transition Authority, Andry Rajoelina. Censorship, violent attacks on media premises, disinformation and a young journalist’s death while covering a demonstration were the reasons for the island’s sharp fall in the index. In Gabon (129th), the media’s work was undermined by the news blackout about President Omar Bongo’s health which the authorities imposed in the run-up to his death and the poisonous climate during the presidential election in August.

Congo (116th) fell 24 places in the index, mainly because of the mystery surrounding opposition journalist Bruno Jacquet Ossébi’s death and the harassment of several foreign reporters during the 12 July presidential election. The situation seemed relatively calm this year in Guinea (100th), but the 28 September bloodshed in Conakry and the open threats against journalists currently being voiced by the military are a source of deep concern.

Some transitions were less damaging for press freedom. Gen. Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz’s election as president in Mauritania (100th) went ahead without any significant problem for the press even if a website editor’s imprisonment hurt the country’s image. In Guinea-Bissau (92nd), the assassinations in quick succession of the armed forces chief of staff and President Joao Bernardo Vieira caused the temporary suspension of some media and prompted some worried journalists to flee the country, but the lasting impact was limited.

The countries with rampant violence continue to languish in the bottom third of the rankings. In Nigeria (135th) and Democratic Republic of Congo (146th), the practice of journalism is punctuated by physical attacks and arbitrary arrests. Two radio journalists were murdered in Bukavu, the capital of DRC’s eastern province of Sud-Kivu.

Rwanda (157th) continued to fall as the authorities reinforced news control in the run-up to the 2010 elections, temporarily suspending local and international news media and sentencing journalists to jail terms. It is now almost on a par with the “African Kuwait,” Equatorial Guinea (158th), where the foreign media’s only local correspondent spent four months in jail as a result of a defamation action.

Niger’s President Mamadou Tandja was in a close-run race with his Gambian counterpart, Yahya Jammeh, for West Africa’s worst ranking. It was taken in the end by Niger (139th), which fell nine places, two below Gambia (137th), which was again the victim of its president’s intolerance towards the media. This year, Jammeh sent six of the country’s most respected journalists to prison and then made insulting and provocative comments about them in public
In Zimbabwe (136th), the press seems to be in the process of freeing itself from the regime’s vice-like grip. The situation was marred by former journalist Jestina Mukoko’s abduction and then imprisonment for many weeks. But hopes have been buoyed by the new government of national unity’s announcement in the summer that the BBC and CNN would be allowed to return and that the independent Daily News would be able to resume publishing.

The same group of countries lead the pack as in 2008. Ghana (27th), Mali (30th), South Africa (33rd), Namibia (35th) and Cape Verde (44th) are all among the world’s top 50. Boosted by yet another democratic election in January 2009, in which opposition candidate John Atta-Mills defeated the ruling party’s would-be successor to President John Kufuor, Ghana took Africa’s top position from Namibia, where a South African journalist spend a night in police custody before being freed on payment of two lots of bail.

Americas
Southern Cone joins North America while Central America sinks

The process of adopting a Shield Law protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources at the federal level is far from over in the United States (20th) but the judicial authorities are no longer jailing journalists and violating civil liberties in the name of national security as they were in the Bush era. So the US is back in the press freedom top 20, as is appropriate for a country where the press has traditionally played its role as independent watchdog well.

The other most striking development is the fall of Honduras (128th), which already had a poor ranking and where the 28 June coup d’état took a heavy toll on press freedom. The new de facto government preys on media that do not support it and has managed to impose a news blackout at the international media’s expense.

Elsewhere in Central America, the problem of violent crime is undermining countries such as El Salvador, where gangs known as “maras” were already targeting the press before they murdered documentary filmmaker Christian Poveda (after the period covered by this index). The problem has also taken a disturbing turn for the worse in Guatemala (106th). Tension between the press and President Daniel Ortega’s administration explain Nicaragua’s fall to 76th position.

The other major decline has been in Venezuela (124th), where a journalist was murdered against a backdrop of rampant criminal violence and President Hugo Chávez’s administration kept changing the rules that govern broadcasting with the aim of steadily silencing its critics. The sudden withdrawal of the licences of 34 regional radio and TV stations in August was part of the strategy.

Already badly placed in the 2008 index, Venezuela is now among the region’s worst press freedom offenders, close to Colombia (126th) and Mexico (tied 137th). In both these countries, the security forces are partly, and in no small measure, to blame for the prevailing violence that leads to self-censorship and subjects being placed off-limits. In a state of virtual civil war since the launch of a major federal offensive against drug trafficking in 2006, Mexico has maintained its tragic status as the hemisphere’s most dangerous country for journalists, with 55 killed since 2000 (and nine since January of this year).

Only Cuba (170th), the region’s unchanging dictatorship, where press freedom is non-existent, is ranked lower in the index. The meagre hopes raised by Raúl Castro’s accession to the presidency in February 2008 quickly evaporated. Two more imprisonments, bringing the number of detained journalists to 25, the frequent blocking of websites and arrests of bloggers are all evidence of the lack of any evolution in the situation of human rights and freedoms.

One of Cuba’s Caribbean neighbours, the Dominican Republic (98th), slipped a few more places because of a high level of violence and an increase in abusive lawsuits against news media. An increase in physical attacks on journalists, combined with lawsuits, administrative censorship and a journalist’s imprisonment, were the reasons for Ecuador’s fall to 84th position.

Bolivia (95th) moved in the opposition direction after plummeting last year. The “media war” is not yet completely over but the government gradually resumed a dialogue with a sector of the press that was partly to blame for the previous year’s political crisis, especially in provinces controlled by opposition parties that want autonomy. Long the holder of the record for physical attacks on journalists, Peru (85th) rose in the index despite the government’s recent closure of a radio station.

Traditionally marred by violence and a lack of any kind of security for journalists, Paraguay (54th) and Haiti (tied 57th) have both climbed the rankings. Violence towards the media has receded in both countries and journalists are daring to tackle sensitive subjects with greater frequency. Guyana (tied 39th) has soared, overtaking Surinam (42nd), thanks to less legalistic quibbling on the part of the authorities and an end to a government policy of withholding state advertising from certain media. The government still has a radio monopoly, however.

A tradition of media diversity, an increase in media democracy and in some cases a decrease in abuse of authority and other censorship attempts are the reasons for the very good rankings obtained by Argentina (47th) and Uruguay (29th), which are on a par with many European countries. Uruguay has even overtaken Costa Rica (30th) as the Latin American country with the highest ranking, staying ahead of Chile (tied 39th) and now close behind Jamaica (23rd) and Trinidad and Tobago (28th), where the press continues to be a respected institution.

Brazil (71st), the regional power, finally rid itself in May of a press law it inherited from the military dictatorship, and has benefitted from the government’s efforts to improve access to information. Despite these positive changes, the government has yet to put an end to the persistent violence against the media in the big cities and in the north and northeast. Preventive censorship continues in certain states where the authorities monopolise the local media.
One of the countries where prosecutions led to exorbitant damages awards, Canada (19th) fell a few places but still holds the hemisphere’s highest position.

Asia
Authoritarianism prevents press freedom progress in much of Asia. Fiji falls furthest, but big advance by Maldives

Political power grabs dealt press freedom a great disservice again this year. A military coup caused Fiji (152nd) to fall 73 places. Soldiers moved into Fijian news rooms for several weeks and censored articles before they were published, while foreign journalists were deported. In Thailand, the endless clashes between “yellow shirts” and “red shirts” had a very negative impact on the press’s ability to work. As a result, the kingdom is now 130th.

The authoritarianism of existing governments, for example in Sri Lanka (162nd) and Malaysia (131st), prevented journalists from properly covering sensitive subjects such as corruption or human rights abuses. The Sri Lankan government had a journalist sentenced to 20 years in prison and forced dozens of others to flee the country. In Malaysia, the interior ministry imposed censorship or self-censorship by threatening media with the withdrawal of their licence or threatening journalists with a spell in prison.

War and terrorism wrought havoc and exposed journalists to great danger. Afghanistan (149th) is sapped not only by Taliban violence and death threats, but also by unjustified arrests by the security forces. Despite having dynamic news media, Pakistan (159th) is crippled by murders of journalists and the aggressiveness of both the Taliban and sectors of the military. It shared (with Somalia) the world record for journalists killed during the period under review.

The Asian countries that least respected press freedom were, predictably, North Korea, one of the “infernal trio” at the bottom of the rankings, Burma, which still suffers from prior censorship and imprisonment, and Laos, an unchanging dictatorship where no privately-owned media are permitted.

The media in China (168th) are evolving rapidly along with the rest of the country but it continues to have a very poor ranking because of the frequency of imprisonment, especially in Tibet, Internet censorship and the nepotism of the central and provincial authorities. Similarly in Vietnam (166th), the ruling Communist Party targets journalists, bloggers and press freedom activists over what they write about its concessions to China.

In the good news section, Maldives (51st) climbed 53 places thanks to a successful democratic transition while Bhutan (70th) rose another four places thanks to further efforts in favour of media diversity.

Asia’s few democracies are well placed in the rankings. New Zealand (13th), Australia (16th) and Japan (17th) are all in the top 20. Respect for press freedom and the lack of targeted violence against journalists enable these three countries to be regional leaders.

South Korea (69th) and Taiwan (59th) fell far this year. South Korea plummeted 22 places because of the arrests of several journalists and bloggers and the conservative government’s attempts to control critical media. The new ruling party in Taiwan tried to interfere in state and privately-owned media while violence by certain activists further undermined press freedom.
Two Asian countries were included in the index for the first time: Papua New Guinea (56th), which obtained a very respectable ranking for a developing country, and the Sultanate of Brunei (155th), which came in the bottom third because of the absence of an independent press.

Europe & ex-USSR
Europe no longer so exemplary, Russian tragedy deepens

For the first time since 2002, the press freedom index’s top 20 is not quite so European. Only 15 of the 20 leading countries are from the Old Continent, compared with 18 in 2008. Eleven of these 15 countries are European Union members. They include the top three, Denmark, Finland and Ireland. Another EU member, Bulgaria, has been falling steadily since it joined in 2007 and is now 68th (against 59th in 2008). This is the lowest ranking of any member of the union.

The biggest one-year fall of any EU member was Slovakia’s. It sank 37 places to be 44th. This was mainly the result of government meddling in media activities and the adoption in 2008 of a law imposing an automatic right of response in the press. Two candidates for EU membership also experienced suffered dramatic falls. They were Croatia (78th), which fell 33 places, and Turkey (122nd), which fell 20 places.

The impact of organised crime and the targeting of journalists account for the falls suffered by both Bulgaria and Italy (49th), which got the worst ranking of the EU’s six original founders. Il Cavaliere’s harassment of the media, increased meddling, mafia violence against journalists who expose its activity and a bill that that would drastically curb the media’s ability to publish official phone tap transcripts explain why Italy fell for the second year running.

France (43rd) did not fare much better, falling eight points because of judicial investigations and arrests of journalists and raids on news media, and also because of meddling in the media by politicians, including President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The region’s most repressive countries, Uzbekistan (160th) and Turkmenistan (173rd), have not evolved significantly and their journalists are still subject to censorship, arbitrary treatment and violence. The dialogues they have begun with the European Union and other partners do not seem to have borne fruit in terms of human rights and there is every reason to fear that the international community will sacrifice free expression in the race for energy security. Both Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are rich in natural resources including hydrocarbons.

Russia (153rd) tumbled 12 places, below Belarus for the first time. The reasons for this fall, three years after Anna Politkovskaya’s murder, include continuing murders of journalists and human rights activists who help to inform the population, and physical attacks on local media representatives. They also include the return with increasing force of censorship and reporting taboos and the complete failure to punish those responsible for the murders.

Indicators point to a deterioration in the press freedom situation in almost all of the former Soviet Republics except Georgia (81st) and, to a lesser extent, Belarus (151st), whose government has initiated a cautious and so far limited improvement in its relations with the press as part of a renewed dialogue with the EU. It is hard at this stage to predict whether this ripple on the surface will swell or fade away.

Georgia was able to leap 39 positions because it did not fight a war during the period covered even if political tension continued to have an impact on the news media. Its South Caucasian neighbour, Armenia (111th), fell sharply because of several cases of physical violence against journalists and political tension that continued to affect the media and society.

There was no change in neighbouring Azerbaijan, where the situation continued to be really worrying. This was clear from the Reporters Without Borders monitoring of press coverage during the presidential election campaign in November 2008 and from the National Television and Radio Council’s decision to ban foreign radio stations (BBC, Radio Free Europe and Voice of America) from broadcasting on local frequencies.

The decline in press freedom continued in Central Asia, especially in Kyrgyzstan (125th) and its enormous, gas-rich neighbour Kazakhstan (142nd), which both fell more than 15 places.

Kazakhstan distinguished itself by the number of libel suits brought against independent and opposition newspapers and its recourse to the time-honoured practice of awarding such colossal sums in damages that the publication is forced to close.

Kazakhstan’s worst-ever ranking since the index began in 2002 was also due to intimidation and violence against journalists and the prolongation of a law that subjects websites to the same restrictions as the traditional media. In Kyrgyzstan, concerns were fuelled by an increase in physical attacks and intimidation of journalists that led some to flee the country, one-sided coverage of an election campaign, and pressure on foreign radio stations, which need a prior accord with the authorities to be able to broadcast locally.

Turkey’s big fall was due to a surge in cases of censorship, especially censorship of media that represent minorities (above all the Kurds), and efforts by members of government bodies, the armed forces and judicial system to maintain their control over coverage of matters of general interest.

In Croatia, which hopes to join the EU very soon, certain aspects of Serbo-Croatian relations are a source of tension and are off-limits for the media. Journalists who violate the taboo are often the targets of violence. Organised crime groups have also been responsible for physical attacks on journalists.

Middle East & North Africa
Region performs poorly, Israel nose-dives

Israel cast down by Operation Cast LeadThis is the first time that Israel (internal) is not at the head of the Middle Eastern countries in the press freedom index. By falling 47 places to 93rd position, it is now behind Kuwait (60th), United Arab Emirates (86th) and Lebanon (61st). Arrests of journalists (and not only foreign ones), their conviction and in some cases their deportation are the reasons for Israel’s nose-dive. Israel’s media are outspoken and investigate sensitive subjects thoroughly, but military censorship is still in force.

Like the United States, Israel has a separate ranking for activities outside its own territory. Israel (extraterritorial) also fell, to 150th position, as a result of its offensive against the Gaza Strip, Operation Cast Lead, in which the Israeli military bombarded buildings housing Palestinian news media. Foreign and Israeli media were denied access to the Gaza Strip throughout the offensive.

Iran at gates of infernal trio
Journalists have suffered more than ever this year in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran. The president’s disputed reelection plunged the country into a major crisis and fostered regime paranoia about journalists and bloggers.

Automatic prior censorship, state surveillance of journalists, mistreatment, journalists forced to flee the country, illegal arrests and imprisonment – such is the state of press freedom this year in Iran.

Already at the lower end of the rankings in previous years, Iran has now reached the gates of the infernal trio at the very bottom – Turkmenistan (173rd), North Korea (174th) and Eritrea (175th) – where the media are so suppressed they are non-existent.

Obama effect brings US back into top 20
The United States has climbed 16 places in the rankings, from 36th to 20th, in just one year. Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this.

But this sharp rise concerns only the state of press freedom within the United States. President Obama may have been awarded the Nobel peace prize, but his country is still fighting two wars. Despite a slight improvement, the attitude of the United States towards the media in Iraq and Afghanistan is worrying. Several journalists were injured or arrested by the US military. One, Ibrahim Jassam, is still being held in Iraq.

THE RANKING

Rank
Country
Mark
1
Denmark
0,00
-
Finland
0,00
-
Irland
0,00
-
Norway
0,00
-
Sweden
0,00
6
Estonia
0,50
7
Netherlands
1,00
-
Switzerland
1,00
9
Iceland
2,00
10
Lituania
2,25
11
Belgium
2,50
-
Malta
2,50
13
Austria
3,00
-
Latvia
3,00
-
New Zealand
3,00
16
Australia
3,13
17
Japan
3,25
18
Germany
3,50
19
Canada
3,70
20
Luxembourg
4,00
-
United Kingdom
4,00
-
United States of America
4,00
23
Jamaica
4,75
24
Czech Republic
5,00
25
Cyprus
5,50
-
Hungary
5,50
27
Ghana
6,00
28
Trinidad and Tobago
7,00
29
Uruguay
7,63
30
Costa Rica
8,00
-
Mali
8,00
-
Portugal
8,00
33
South Africa
8,50
34
Macedonia
8,75
35
Greece
9,00
-
Namibia
9,00
37
Poland
9,50
-
Slovenia
9,50
39
Bosnia and Herzegovina
10,50
-
Chile
10,50

-
Guyana
10,50
42
Surinam
10,60

43
France
10,67
44
Cape Verde
11,00
-
Slovakia
11,00

-
Spain
11,00
47
Argentina
11,33
48
Hong-Kong
11,75
49
Italy
12,14

50
Romania
12,50

51
Cyprus (North)
14,00
-
Maldives
14,00
-
Mauritius
14,00

54
Paraguay
14,33
55
Panama
14,50

56
Papua New Guinea
14,70
57
Burkina Faso
15,00
-
Haiti
15,00
59
Taiwan
15,08
60
Kuwait
15,25
61
Lebanon
15,42
62
Botswana
15,50
-
Liberia
15,50
-
Malawi
15,50
-
Serbia
15,50
-
Tanzania
15,50
-
Togo
15,50

68
Bulgaria
15,61
69
South Korea
15,67
70
Bhutan
15,75

71
Brazil
15,88
72
Benin
16,00
-
Seychelles
16,00
-
Timor-Leste
16,00

75
Kosovo
16,58
76
Nicaragua
16,75
77
Montenegro
17,00
78
Croatia
17,17
79
El Salvador
17,25
80
Central African Republic
17,75
81
Georgia
18,83
82
Comoros
19,00
-
Mozambique
19,00
84
Ecuador
20,00
85
Peru
20,88
86
Uganda
21,50
-
United Arab Emirates
21,50
88
Albania
21,75
89
Senegal
22,00
-
Ukraine
22,00
91
Mongolia
23,33
92
Guinea-Bissau
23,50
93
Israel (Israeli territory)
23,75
94
Qatar
24,00
95
Bolivia
24,17

96
Kenya
25,00
97
Zambia
26,75
98
Dominican Republic
26,83
99
Lesotho
27,50
100
Guinea
28,50
-
Indonesia
28,50

-
Mauritania
28,50
103
Burundi
29,00
-
Côte d’Ivoire
29,00

105
India
29,33

106
Guatemala
29,50
-
Oman
29,50
108
United States of America (extra-territorial)
30,00
109
Cameroon
30,50

110
Djibouti
31,00
111
Armenia
31,13

112
Jordan
31,88
113
Tajikistan
32,00
114
Moldova
33,75
115
Sierra Leone
34,00
116
Congo
34,25
117
Cambodia
35,17
118
Nepal
35,63

119
Angola
36,50
-
Bahrein
36,50
121
Bangladesh
37,33

122
Philippines
38,25
-
Turkey
38,25

124
Venezuela
39,50
125
Kyrgyzstan
40,00
126
Colombia
40,13
127
Morocco
41,00
128
Honduras
42,00
129
Gabon
43,50
130
Thailand
44,00

131
Malaysia
44,25
132
Chad
44,50
133
Singapore
45,00

134
Madagascar
45,83

135
Nigeria
46,00
136
Zimbabwe
46,50
137
Gambia
48,25

-
Mexico
48,25

139
Niger
48,50
140
Ethiopia
49,00
141
Algeria
49,56
142
Kazakhstan
49,67

143
Egypt
51,38
144
Swaziland
52,50
145
Iraq
53,30
146
Azerbaijan
53,50

-
Democratic Republic of Congo
53,50

148
Sudan
54,00

149
Afghanistan
54,25
150
Israel (extra-territorial)
55,50

151
Belarus
59,50
152
Fiji
60,00
153
Russia
60,88

154
Tunisia
61,50
155
Brunei
63,50
156
Libya
64,50
157
Rwanda
64,67
158
Equatorial Guinea
65,50

159
Pakistan
65,67

160
Uzbekistan
67,67
161
Palestinian Territories
69,83
162
Sri Lanka
75,00
163
Saudi Arabia
76,50
164
Somalia
77,50
165
Syria
78,00
166
Vietnam
81,67
167
Yemen
83,38
168
China
84,50
169
Laos
92,00
170
Cuba
94,00
171
Burma
102,67
172
Iran
104,14
173
Turkmenistan
107,00
174
North Korea
112,50
175
Eritrea
115,50

posted by Mamadou Kouyate @ 10:26 PM 0 Comments