On appelle cela les OPEX, pour “opérations extérieures”, une projection sur un terrain étranger de l’armée française. La plus importante est en cours, il s’agit de Barkhane aux confins du Mali et du Niger. 4000 soldats engagés et des centaines de véhicules. Des hommes et du matériel qu’il faut “projeter” selon l’expression militaire. Et cela se fait désormais par avion. Des avions privés russes ou ukrainiens. C’est là où le bât blesse.La flotte aérienne militaire de transport est insuffisante. Le constat est accablant. Le matériel est vieillissant, dépassant parfois les 50 ans d’âge, comme les ravitailleurs C135. Leur capacité opérationnelle n’est plus à la hauteur. La France compte beaucoup sur le projet européen de l’Airbus A400 M. Un transport de troupes moderne, mais dont le programme a pris du retard et dont les livraisons ont à peine commencé. De toutes manières, sa capacité de transport est insuffisante, cinq fois inférieure à celle de l’Antonov.Equipages russes ou ukrainiensIl faut donc externaliser le transport aérien stratégique faute de moyens en propre. Ainsi, la France passe par le cadre de l’OTAN, qui lui donne accès à de gros porteurs type Antonov. Pour se prémunir d’une quelconque défaillance, la France a doublonné ce contrat avec une société privée : International Chartering Systems (ICS). C’est la société mandataire d’un groupement de cotraitants biélorusse, russe et ukrainien. Un attelage pour le moins curieux pour un pays membre de l’OTAN !

“Sur ce secteur crucial se côtoient des filiales de grandes sociétés et des très petites entreprises, des démarches professionnelles et des initiatives opportunistes. L’ensemble est particulièrement hétéroclite et génère des comportements commerciaux peu conformes à l’idée que l’on peut se faire d’un marché crucial pour la Défense”, écrit le député.Milieu délétèreD’évidence, le milieu est pour le moins vicié. Selon le député, la réputation de certaines sociétés laisse à désirer. Leur profil est flou, les équipages employés ne sont pas forcément salariés de l’entreprise dans un milieu de casse-cous au passé parfois sulfureux.En conclusion, le rapport de la Cour des Comptes est cependant moins alarmiste qu’il n’y paraît. Et comme le député Cornut-Gentille, la Cour note un effort pour corriger ce qu’elle appelait des “anomalies”. “Depuis 2017, la force Barkhane a trouvé un point d’équilibre en matière de prix, de disponibilité et de relative fiabilité des services affrétés. Les opérations militaires n’ont pas été compromises par la défaillance de prestataires ; les accidents aériens pour des causes mécaniques ou humaines ont été jusqu’ici limités en nombre et en gravité. Ce constat ne garantit pas que le niveau de risque pour nos forces soit optimisé ; les efforts déjà réalisés pour le diminuer doivent être poursuivis.”

Le pouvoir tente tout pour brider l’opposant dans sa campagne qui vise à chasser Nicolas Maduro de la présidence. La justice vénézuélienne a ouvert une enquête contre Juan Guaido pour “haute trahison”, car il aurait voulu “livrer” à des multinationales un territoire du Guyana revendiqué par Caracas. “Nous ouvrons une enquête” contre Juan Guaido pour des faits qui constituent “un crime, celui de haute trahison”, a déclaré le procureur général Tarek William Saab, réputé proche du pouvoir chaviste, dans une allocution télévisée.
La justice soupçonne Juan Guaido, qu’une cinquantaine de pays reconnaissent comme président par intérim, d’avoir voulu “livrer” à des entreprises multinationales l’Esequibo, un territoire riche en minerais et bordé d’une zone maritime possédant des ressources pétrolifères.Une “parodie”, selon Juan GuaidoL’opposant a immédiatement réagi en qualifiant de “parodie” l’intervention du procureur général. Dans un discours prononcé à Puerto La Cruz, il a jugé qu’elle visait à “distraire l’attention de ce qui est réellement important”, c’est-à-dire la présence au Venezuela de groupes armés colombiens, comme l’ELN et des dissidents des Farc qui ont annoncé la semaine dernière leur retour aux armes.Click Here: new zealand rugby team jerseys

Dernier projeté parmi les concurrents à la Palme d’or, le film de Jeff Nichols bousculera-t-il les pronostics ?

Les Inrocks : « Il aura fallu attendre le dernier jour pour que la pléthorique délégation américaine (cinq films, six en comptant Sur la route) ne se décide à offrir autre chose que fades succédanés, ne livre enfin la clé de voûte de son fragile édifice esthétique : le film s’appelle Mud, Jeff Nichols en est le signataire, et il va sans dire qu’il était attendu comme le messie – trop peut-être, pour pleinement convaincre a l’issue d’une seule projection. » [Jacky Goldberg]

Studio Ciné Live :  « […]si Mud apparaît moins saisissant que Take Shelter , ce projet né dans la tête d’un Nichols alors lycéen lui permet de réussir son entrée dans un cinéma plus mainstream, sans perdre ce qui fait le sel de sa réalisation. De quoi décrocher une récompense dimanche ? » [Thierry Chèze]

Télérama : « Le jeune réalisateur (33 ans) était particulièrement attendu, un an après la révélation de Take Shelter, époustouflant film d’apocalypse mentale. Il faut bien avouer que cet honorable troisième long métrage (Jeff Nichols a aussi signé Shotgun Stories en 2007) n’est pas entièrement à la hauteur de nos espoirs. » [Louis Guichard]

The Guardian : « L’itinéraire romantique d’Ellis se résoud un peu trop facilement et l’acmé du film reste très mélodramatique, mais Mud est un film charmant et beau, porté par les brillantes performances de Tye Sheridan et Jacob Lofland. » [Peter Bradshaw]

Variety : « Un tiers La Nuit du chasseur deux tiers Huckleberry Finn, Mud est peut-être né de cette même sensibilité rustique qui a essaimé d’Andrew Wyeth à Terrence Malick, mais Nichols exprime cette manière de penser de façon vraiment personnelle. » [Peter Debruge]

Click Here: United Kingdom Rugby Jerseys

Tout sur le film

Le président brésilien Jair Bolsonaro ne veut plus de la Folha de S.Paulo, l’un des principaux journaux du pays. “Aujourd’hui j’ai décidé d’annuler l’abonnement à la Folha ici au sein du pouvoir exécutif. Qui veut lire la Folha n’a qu’à passer à la gare routière de Brasilia et l’acheter”, a dit le chef de l’Etat dans son direct hebdomadaire sur Facebook, jeudi 31 octobre.“Nous n’allons plus dépenser d’argent dans un journal comme celui-là. Et ceux qui achètent de la pub dans la Folha, qu’ils fassent attention”, a-t-il ajouté, menaçant les annonceurs du journal.Une “attitude ouvertement discriminatoire”La mesure ressemble à celle prise par la Maison Blanche la semaine dernière à l’égard des quotidiens New York Times et Washington Post, que Donald Trump considère comme des vecteurs de désinformation. Jair Bolsonaro maintient depuis sa campagne électorale qui l’a mené à remporter la présidentielle d’octobre 2018 une confrontation ouverte avec les plus grands médias du Brésil, comme la télévision TV Globo ou la revue Veja.La Folha a dénoncé dans un communiqué “l’attitude ouvertement discriminatoire” du président et s’est engagée à continuer de faire “un journalisme critique et impartial” vis-à-vis de son gouvernement.Dans la nuit de mardi à mercredi, depuis l’Arabie saoudite où il se trouvait en déplacement, le président d’extrême droite avait publié une vidéo où il se livrait à une violente charge contre Globo, insultes à l’appui. Il reprochait à l’empire médiatique d’avoir lié son nom à l’assassinat de la militante Marielle Franco, survenu en mars 2018. Le parquet de Rio de Janeiro a par la suite dénoncé comme mensonger le témoignage cité par TV Globo qui faisait le lien entre le complexe résidentiel carioca où vivait Jair Bolsonaro et le meurtre de cette conseillère municipale noire et lesbienne, dont les commanditaires n’ont à ce jour pas été identifiés.

At just the moment that the leaders of Germany and France, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, were concluding their agreement as to what to tell all the other 15 national governments in the eurozone to do, the Belgian political establishment concluded its 18 months of squabbling and formed a federal government.

The final push came from the bond markets, which had threatened to regard Belgian government debt with the same suspicion that they had previously applied to that of Greece, Portugal and Italy. A credit-rating downgrade injected new life into the stalled negotiations: politicians of various hues rushed to put a government in place – so that it could receive orders from the Merkel-Sarkozy duo.

I feel a pang of regret for the passing of the caretaker government of Yves Leterme, who has now been liberated from his prime ministerial duties to take up a post as deputy secretary-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). For many months now Leterme has been a hanger-on at meetings of the European Council – the cocktail-party guest whom everyone thinks departed long ago, but who is found loitering in an antechamber, making his excuses and asking if his taxi has arrived. Well, it has now.

But it is not simply the restless, ill-at-ease demeanour of Leterme that I will miss. Familiarity does not always breed contempt: I had grown almost fond of this caretaker government, which was reconciled to its impotence. Across Europe, there are national governments that still feel obliged to maintain a pretence that they are in control of events (the most extreme example is Sarkozy, whose chutzpah fits him well for a game of bluff and counter-bluff). But the Belgian caretaker government has been able to dispense with such deceit, admitting to its limitations, several of which were, after all, laid down in the constitution.

In a way, Leterme’s caretaker government was a forerunner of the governments of technocrats that have been installed in Greece and Italy. Although, the politicians remained in place, and the prime minister was a political leader rather than a central banker or professor, the effect was very similar because the politicians had to concentrate on the essential business of keeping the functions of the state in motion.

Sadly, this experiment in post-modern governance has been brought to an end by the impatience of the bond markets. Now Belgium returns to politics-as-usual, which is to say, an unwieldy coalition government attempting to govern a divided country in which the two main linguistic groups appear to have less and less in common.

Appearances can, however be deceptive. Countries can divide (and unite) over things other than language. Figures published by the OECD on Monday (5 December) showed that Belgium was one of the few developed countries in which disparities in income had not widened between 1985 and 2008 (France and Hungary were others – and the gap had narrowed in Turkey and Greece). Cynics may doubt the accuracy of figures on Belgian income in a country with such a well-developed black economy, but others will recognise that in some of Belgium’s neighbours the disparities in wealth are widening to levels that are alarming, dangerous and, by the standards of the 20th century, immoral. Belgium is arguably better placed to cope with the consequences of austerity than, for example, the UK or Italy.

The greater disparities of income in the UK are no great surprise. Economic liberalism took hold in the UK, first under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and became the orthodoxy even under their New Labour successors, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In Belgium, the centre-right did not embrace economic liberalism with the same enthusiasm. (British distaste for Jean-Luc Dehaene, the then Belgian prime minister, was strong enough to prevent his becoming president of the European Commission in 1995.) This brand of liberalism came late to Belgium, with Guy Verhofstadt’s premierships (1999-2008), and only after he had toned down his rhetoric. Even then, he was further moderated by a coalition that initially included Christian Democrats, socialists and greens.

But the drawn-out negotiations over a new Belgian government suggest that Flemish liberalism is a spent force. The political generation led by Verhofstadt has moved on. He now lives out a political after-life as leader of the liberal MEPs in the European Parliament and his old party rival Karel De Gucht has become a European commissioner, but what they left behind is a mess. Alex De Croo, Verhofstadt’s successor as party leader, pulled his party out of the Leterme II government and precipitated the (inconclusive) 2010 elections. Then, last month, it was he who, by holding out against the formation of a new government, incited the wrath of the bond markets.

On the small stage of Belgian politics, such issues of personal temperament and judgement matter. Belgium’s European counterparts will take heart that the distribution of ministerial posts in the new government favours those positions that matter most to Europe: Steve Vanackere as finance minister, Olivier Chastel as budget minister, and Didier Reynders as foreign minister have experience and judgment. Those receiving instructions from Merkel and Sarkozy will know what they must do.

When, last December, David Cameron played the UK’s veto against the EU’s fiscal-reform package, one of his major domestic critics was Britain’s most formidable politician, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), Alex Salmond. In itself this was unsurprising; after all, it is second nature for Salmond to attack the policies of the UK’s Conservative Party. He paints the Conservatives – correctly enough – as an English party that has limited support outside its heartlands in the south and midlands of England, and certainly no mandate in Scotland, where it has a only one member of the UK parliament. 

Yet there was nonetheless something oddly jarring in Salmond’s critique of Cameron. Salmond has made his career as an anti-Unionist, a critic of the Union of 1707, which combined the kingdoms of England and Scotland under a single monarchy and parliament. He depicts that as a shady deal that was carried out against the wishes of Scottish public opinion and that stifled the will and flattened the culture of the Scots. Why was this arch-critic of the British Union criticising Cameron for threatening British participation in the European Union? Are unions not supposed to be bad for the health of nations? Or does this hold good for only some unions?

Cameron returned fire this month. The SNP won an overall majority at last year’s general election to the devolved Scottish parliament, and has a mandate, it argues, to bring in a referendum during its term to consult the people of Scotland about options for future constitutional change. Salmond proposes two alternatives to the status quo: full independence for Scotland from the British state, or full fiscal autonomy for Scotland under the umbrella of the British state’s diplomatic and military protection, what is colloquially known as ‘devo-max’.

As part of an early January offensive against the SNP, Cameron made clear that the referendum was beyond the Scottish parliament’s powers according to the terms of the Scotland Act passed in 1998 by the UK parliament, which set up the devolved legislature; however, the UK government would graciously allow the Scots to have a two-option referendum (minus devo-max) and that referendum would have to take place in 2013, not 2014 (the latter, Salmond’s preferred date, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 when the Scots regained their independence from England).

Salmond insisted that he would press on with a three-option referendum in 2014, arguing that the popular sovereignty of the Scottish people trumped the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament.

Preserving the Union

Throughout the furore, Cameron, whose party’s full name is the Conservative and Unionist Party, made clear that he wanted to preserve the British Union, for unions allow friendly nations, such as the Scots and English, to punch above their weight in international affairs – except, of course, the European Union, which, unlike the British Union, thwarts the desires of the British nation. Salmond and Cameron are either hypocrites – a character trait not uncommon in the profession of politics – or they each possess acute, but very differently wired, antennae for assessing the effects of political unions on constituent nations.

It seems likely that the European Union will continue to feature prominently in the debate over the ‘Scottish question’ in the run-up to the referendum of 2013 or 2014, whether held on Cameron’s terms or Salmond’s.

The SNP was a highly marginal political party for most of its life. It was formed in 1934 and until the energy crisis of 1973-74, which brought economic and political turmoil to the UK, had won only one seat at a UK general election, with a couple more at local by-elections. Its breakthrough as a political force occurred at the two UK general elections of 1974, when the SNP won seven and then 11 seats in the UK parliament. The UK had only recently joined the European Economic Community and the SNP stood as an anti-European party. What was the point of exchanging Westminster sovereignty for the diktats of Brussels? However, in the late 1980s, after a period of stagnation in the SNP’s fortunes, the party discovered the vote-winning policy of ‘independence in Europe’. Scots no longer needed to fear going it alone after independence from England. The EU provided a comfort blanket for timid nationalists who had the insurance that their country might thrive as a member state of the European Union.

But would an independent Scotland automatically gain entry into the European Union? This is a question that has much vexed politicians and commentators, and will play an important role in the current debate.

The Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Treaties states, in Article 34, that: “When a part or parts of a territory of a state separate to form one or more states, whether or not the predecessor state continues to exist: (a) any treaty in force at the date of the succession of states in respect of the entire territory of the precedent state continues in force in respect of each successor state so formed.” That would seem to support the argument of the SNP that an independent Scotland would automatically remain a member of the EU, as would the remainder of the UK.

However, matters are not so straightforward. When, for instance, is a treaty not a treaty? When, for example, as under the Treaty of Rome, it establishes a new legal order.

Membership of the EU would, most likely, depend on negotiation. Certainly, that was the view of Romano Prodi and the European Commission when in 2004 a written question in the European Parliament asked whether a newly independent region within a member state would have to leave the EU and re-apply for admission. Prodi’s reply was unequivocal: “When a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state, eg, because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union.”

A significant consequence of having to reapply for EU membership is that new members do not receive an opt-out from the euro. This presents Salmond – a former economist – with a further headache, for he has more enthusiasm for the grand vision of European Union than he does for the practicalities of monetary union. Indeed, he has suggested that an independent Scotland might adopt the pound sterling. What Salmond really wants is continued membership of the EU and the valuable bequest of the UK opt-out from the single currency.

Ironically, in the unlikely but far from impossible scenario of a referendum victory for full independence, the Scottish Nationalists might well obtain what some of the most outspoken British nationalists in Cameron’s Conservative Party most desire: uncomfortable withdrawal from the European Union.

Currently, however, opinion polls show that a higher proportion of English – than Scots – voters support Scottish independence from England. How convenient it would be for all concerned – for the Scots, for the English and for the EU – if the English seceded from the Scots. Then the Scots could remain in the EU as the successor state of the UK, the English could enjoy life outside the trammels of Brussels, and the European Union would be free at last of the English incubus against which Charles de Gaulle so presciently warned in the 1960s.

Colin Kidd is professor of intellectual history and the history of political thought at Queen’s University Belfast and author of “Union and Unionisms: political thought in Scotland, 1500-2000”.

Switzerland faces many of the same challenges as Norway in its relations with the European Union, and – like Norway – it is rethinking its approach. 

Unlike Norway, Switzerland is not a member of the European Economic Area (EEA); its voters rejected membership in a divisive referendum in 1992. Since then, any suggestion that the country might be better off if its relations with the EU were put on a solid institutional footing has been political poison. Instead, Switzerland has negotiated a number of bilateral agreements that, taken together, give it practically unhindered access to the EU’s internal market.

But in recent years, the EU has become increasingly vocal about the need for precisely the sort of institutional framework that the Swiss have traditionally rejected. The EU wants independent, supranational institutions to scrutinise the interpretation and implementation of the bilateral agreements. “No foreign judges” is one of the most emotive political slogans in Switzerland – but that is precisely what the EU is in effect demanding.

Click Here: cheap INTERNATIONAL jersey

Another burning issue is the adaptation of bilateral agreements to new EU legislation. The EU wants automatic implementation, while Switzerland insists on something it

calls “autonomous” implementation, which gives the government the right to reject new laws – in theory.

The EU’s increasing insistence on these demands has forced the Swiss government to reassess its options. It has commissioned independent assessments of legal and political scenarios, and one option that has emerged is to

use the existing institutions created for the EEA and for the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), of which Switzerland is a member.

Another option is the launch of some kind of special judicial body on the Swiss side. But both have the drawback of requiring legal acts, which might have to be put to a referendum. In the current climate, the outcome would be in doubt.

It is now up to Didier Burkhalter, Switzerland’s foreign minister since last month, to find a way through the political minefield. A bilateral agreement on energy could serve as a model, in the Swiss analysis. It is one of the areas in which Switzerland appears willing to accept the automatic implementation of new EU law and might agree to the creation of a judicial mechanism. Whether the EU will agree to the piecemeal creation of such mechanisms is unclear.

France and the United Kingdom are blocking a deal on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, disrupting plans to fast-track the EU’s application for membership of the Council of Europe.

Diplomats and officials from the European Commission and the Council of Europe admit that talks have stalled over approval by EU member states of a provisional deal that the Commission negotiated with the Council of Europe last June.

“Some would say it is a blocking or postponement,” said Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary-general of the Council of Europe. “They want to have clarification on some issues.”

Goals were set for negotiations and ratification to be completed by the end of this year when talks on EU membership started two years ago. The EU is obliged under the Lisbon treaty to join the Council of Europe and sign up to its human-rights convention, to bolster citizens’ rights.

By signing up to the convention, all EU laws, rules and regulations will be subject to the scrutiny of the Strasbourg court.

Limited progress

Diplomats from Denmark, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU’s Council of Ministers, said progress had been made in a special working group on Thursday (19 January), but not enough to break the deadlock.

France and the UK are concerned about the effect that signing up to the human-rights convention will have on EU law.

France opposes subjecting the EU’s common foreign and security policy to the convention and wants more clarity over interaction between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

For the UK, the problems are more political. Diplomats said the UK is holding up an accord until it gets members of the Council of Europe to agree to reforms that are supposed to reduce the workload of the ECHR. The UK, which currently holds the six-month presidency of the Council of Europe, is pushing for the Strasbourg court to bring in a screening procedure to filter out repeat cases that could be dealt with at national level.

David Cameron, the UK prime minister, has made the reform a priority in the wake of widespread domestic opposition to several EHCR rulings against a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners.

#AlertePollutionRivières ou sols contaminés, déchets industriels abandonnés… Vous vivez à proximité d’un site pollué ?
Cliquez ici pour nous alerter !Baisser la vitesse des pétroliers, des cargos, des porte-conteneurs sur les mers, doit permettre de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. C’est l’une des propositions faites dimanche 25 août lors du sommet du G7 à Biarritz. En avril dernier, la France avait déjà proposé cette mesure à l’Organisation maritime internationale (OMI).La réduction de la vitesse des navires “a un effet” sur les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, mais “n’est pas spectaculaire” et “ce n’est pas une solution pérenne”, a expliqué lundi 26 août sur franceinfo Caroline Britz, journaliste à meretmarine.com, un site spécialisé dans l’actualité maritime. Selon elle, il faut “une unité au sein des armateurs” de la planète “pour faire des règlements qui s’appliquent à l’ensemble du monde maritime”.franceinfo : Que changerait la réduction de la vitesse de ces super cargos ?Caroline Britz : Pour l’instant, pour pouvoir mettre en place cette réglementation, il faut un accord de l’ensemble des pays membres de l’OMI. C’est très long. Cela voudrait dire que des bateaux qui fonctionnent actuellement à une vitesse de 15, 16 nœuds, principalement des bateaux qui transportent du vrac, pourraient baisser leur vitesse de un ou deux nœuds. Ça rajouterait entre cinq et dix jours à un voyage au long cours. Ça pourrait donc se faire progressivement. Cela a déjà été mis en place par les armateurs eux-mêmes, quand le pétrole est devenu brutalement très cher il y a quelques années. On a mis en place ce qu’on appelle le “slow steaming”, c’est-à-dire la réduction de la vitesse pour moins consommer. Ça a rajouté quelques jours sur le transport, ce qui n’était pas forcément très critique.Est-ce que baisser la vitesse de un ou deux nœuds a déjà un effet sensible sur les émissions de gaz à effet de serre ?Cela a un effet. Ce n’est pas spectaculaire mais ça permet de rentrer dans le calendrier progressif de l’OMI qui a mis en place des objectifs de baisse du CO2. Cette solution permet progressivement de les atteindre mais ce n’est pas une solution pérenne. C’est plutôt une solution de transition qui va permettre d’atteindre une nouvelle technologie dans quelques années ou une nouvelle façon de voir le transport.Qu’est-ce qui bloque très concrètement ? Est-ce que ce sont des pays qui utilisent énormément le trafic maritime et qui ne veulent pas perdre ces quelques jours précieux ?Ce qui bloque, c’est qu’il n’y a pas une unité au sein des armateurs eux-mêmes. Les Français, qui ont été un peu précurseurs, ont mis beaucoup de temps à essayer de convaincre les autres grandes nations maritimes. Ils ont réussi à en convaincre quelques-unes, la Grèce ou le Japon, qui sont des grandes nations.Le milieu maritime est très atomisé. Il y a énormément de pavillons, des petits pays qui ont des pavillons qu’on appelle parfois de complaisance. Ces gens-là ne veulent pas risquer de se mettre à dos un certain nombre de compagnies maritimes qui ne sont pas prêtes à faire cet effort. Ce qui risque de ralentir ce processus, c’est la recherche de l’unanimité qui est nécessaire à l’OMI mais qui est en cours.Rodolphe Saadé, PDG de l’armateur français CMA CGM, assure qu’il renonce à faire passer ces bateaux par l’Arctique. Il a appelé sur franceinfo ses concurrents à en faire de même pour relier la Chine à l’Europe. Peut-on avoir une sorte d’Internationale de la protection de la planète ?C’est un signal positif qui vient de CMA CGM. C’est vrai qu’on voit une prise de conscience. Les images assez spectaculaires, qu’on voit actuellement sur le réchauffement climatique, ont un impact sur l’opinion publique. Cela a aussi forcément un impact sur les acteurs du monde maritime. Maintenant, encore une fois, le vœu de certains acteurs même majeurs du transport maritime peut parfois se heurter à cette nécessité d’unanimité pour faire des règlements qui s’appliquent à l’ensemble du monde maritime.

Le militant prodémocratie Joshua Wong, visage du Mouvement des parapluies en 2014, a été brièvement arrêté vendredi 30 août à Hong Kong, a annoncé son parti à la veille d’une nouvelle manifestation prévue dans l’ex-colonie britannique mais interdite par la police. “Notre secrétaire général vient d’être arrêté ce matin vers 7h30, a écrit le parti Demosisto sur Twitter. Il a été poussé de force dans un monospace privé, dans la rue, en plein jour. Nos avocats suivent désormais le dossier.”

BREAKING: Our secretary-general @joshuawongcf was just arrested this morning at roughly 7:30, when he was walking to the South Horizons MTR station. He was forcefully pushed into a private minivan on the street in broad daylight. Our lawyers following the case now. — Demosistō 香港眾志 (@demosisto) August 30, 2019

Une autre figure du Mouvement des parapluies, Agnès Chow, âgée de 22 ans également, a été arrêtée vendredi à l’aube. Les deux militants, accusés notamment “d’incitation à participer à un rassemblement non autorisé”, ont été inculpés dans l’après-midi et libérés sous caution.Hong Kong est secoué depuis près de trois mois par une mobilisation populaire sans précédent depuis sa rétrocession à la Chine en 1997. Ce mouvement a été notamment marqué des manifestations monstres, dont certaines ont dégénéré en affrontements violents entre radicaux et forces de l’ordre. Plus de 850 personnes ont été arrêtées en lien avec ces rassemblements. Click Here: Italy Rugby Shop