organization:sénat

  • « Désolé », #Mark_Zuckerberg peine à convaincre devant le Sénat américain
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/110418/desole-mark-zuckerberg-peine-convaincre-devant-le-senat-americain

    Mark Zuckerberg devant le Sénat américain, le 10 avril. © Mediapart « C’était ma faute, et je suis désolé. J’ai lancé #Facebook, je le dirige, et je suis responsable de ce qui s’y passe », a déclaré mardi Mark Zuckerberg. Lors d’une audition devant le Sénat américain consacrée au scandale #Cambridge_Analytica, le fondateur du réseau social a multiplié les mea culpa et les actes de contrition.

    #International #Cnil

  • Environnement : le bras armé de Trump, Scott Pruitt, sur la sellette

    http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2018/04/10/environnement-le-bras-arme-de-trump-scott-pruitt-conteste-mais-pas-coule_528

    Les dépenses du patron de l’EPA font scandale, mais il reste soutenu par le président. Et continue à détricoter méthodiquement les réglementations de l’ère Obama


    A Washington, le 6 avril, une affiche fait référence à l’affaire de location de l’appartement dans laquelle est impliqué Scott Pruitt, le directeur de l’Agence américaine pour l’environnement.

    Cela aurait dû être un couronnement pour Scott Pruitt, l’administrateur de l’Agence de protection de l’environnement américaine (EPA). Mais les affaires ont tout gâché : le bras armé du président Donald Trump en matière d’environnement a dû faire ses annonces en catimini en raison des scandales qui le poursuivent pour avoir dépensé plus de 100 000 dollars (80 000 euros) en avion en première classe aux frais du contribuable américain, et loué son appartement de Washington à une amie mariée à un lobbyiste pétrolier au prix dérisoire de 50 dollars la nuit.

    Il n’empêche, Scott Pruitt poursuit son travail de détricotage des régulations adoptées par Barack Obama. Mardi 3 avril, il a annoncé son intention de lever l’obligation pour les constructeurs automobiles américains de mettre sur le marché, d’ici à 2025, des automobiles consommant en moyenne 4,35 litres aux 100 kilomètres.

    Avec des cours du pétrole bas et des routes souvent en mauvais état, l’heure n’est pas aux moteurs électriques (2 % du marché) et aux petites cylindrées, mais aux voitures de sport et autres pick-up, qui engloutissent du pétrole, surtout dans les terres républicaines du Midwest. « L’objectif des dernières années a été de faire faire aux constructeurs des voitures que les gens ne veulent pas acheter. Notre objectif devrait être de rendre plus efficientes les voitures que les gens achètent », a déclaré M. Pruitt.

    Selon l’EPA, seuls 5 % des véhicules auraient respecté les futures normes en 2025, tandis que les pick-up devraient représenter à cette date 45 % du marché américain, bien plus que les 33 % prévus en 2012 lorsque fut instaurée la régulation. Pour les modèles 2016, onze des dix-sept constructeurs présents aux Etats-Unis ont vu l’empreinte carbone de leur véhicule se dégrader, les cancres étant General Motors et Ford. « C’était la bonne décision, et nous soutenons le gouvernement », a logiquement déclaré l’Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, organisation qui regroupe douze constructeurs internationaux qui opèrent aux Etats-Unis. Tandis que Volkswagen, encore sous le choc de ses tricheries sur le diesel, a salué « un meilleur alignement des régulations sur les conditions de marché ».

    John Bozzella, président de l’Association of Global Automakers, qui représente les constructeurs japonais, coréens et quelques européens comme Ferrari, a été beaucoup plus mitigé : « Le marché mondial évolue vers un transport économe en carbone, et les Etats-Unis ont besoin de rester compétitifs », a-t-il déclaré dans un communiqué.

    « Mythe des retours en arrière »

    La décision est en contradiction avec le discours global de Donald Trump, qui se plaint que les Européens n’achètent pas de voitures américaines : l’affaire sera encore plus délicate si les règles sont assouplies excessivement et s’éloignent de la norme mondiale. Elle se heurte à la Californie, qui a le droit de fixer ses propres normes de pollution de l’air. Un privilège que M. Pruitt entend remettre en cause mais auquel l’Etat ne compte pas renoncer. Enfin, la décision de M. Pruitt n’est que le début d’un long processus réglementaire, qui risque d’être contesté en justice, d’autant que le rapport justifiant la décision de M. Pruitt a été expédié : 38 pages contre 1 217 pour celle prise sous l’administration Obama.

    C’est là qu’on trouve la limite de la méthode Pruitt. Alors que ce républicain est sur le fil du rasoir – d’autres ministres de l’équipe Trump ont été limogés pour moins que cela, et le chef de cabinet de la Maison Blanche, John Kelly, a demandé sa tête à Donald Trump, sans succès pour l’instant –, Washington débat sur son bilan réel. Le New York Times, à la ligne éditoriale anti-Trump, voit en lui celui qui rêve de passer à la postérité comme « le plus grand éradicateur de régulation sur l’industrie américaine » tandis que Politico dénonce « le mythe des retours en arrière de l’Agence de protection de l’environnement américaine sous Scott Pruitt ».

    En fait, les deux ont raison. Politiquement, l’impact de M. Pruitt est majeur. C’est lui qui a convaincu Donald Trump de sortir de l’accord de Paris sur le climat, même si cette mesure ne sera effective qu’en 2020. Cet ancien procureur de l’Oklahoma, climatosceptique lié aux lobbys pétrochimiques, est haï par la gauche, les organisations non gouvernementales et les fonctionnaires de son administration, dont il se défie : bureau insonorisé, service de sécurité draconien, intimidations professionnelles.

    Chaque jour, M. Pruitt défraie la chronique, plus trumpien que Donald Trump. Il a lancé une remise en cause de la régulation de la pollution de l’eau, nommé des proches de l’industrie dans les comités scientifiques, cherche à assouplir toutes les contraintes. Bref, une immense dérégulation, qui aurait épargné un milliard de dollars au contribuable, selon son mentor, le sénateur républicain de l’Oklahoma James Inhofe.

    Bon soldat

    Mais bien souvent, comme le note Politico, M. Pruitt se contente de bloquer des mesures annoncées par Obama mais non mises en œuvre, tandis que l’application de ses mesures de déréglementation est lente. Faute de majorité solide au Sénat, M. Pruitt passe par voie réglementaire, ce qui l’expose à des contestations en justice : « Vous ne pouvez pas gouverner uniquement par communiqué de presse. Vous devez aussi faire le dur labeur qui consiste à développer une règle qui peut résister à la contestation en justice, même si cela n’est pas sexy », a déclaré à Politico David Hayes, un ancien des administrations Clinton et Obama.

    Un moratoire sur les émissions de méthane des puits de pétrole a été suspendu par la justice fédérale, car la décision était jugée « non raisonnable » et « non autorisée ». Il a été condamné pour ne pas avoir publié des données sur l’ozone en temps voulu. Visiblement, M. Pruitt ne sait pas jusqu’où aller. Le Congrès n’a pas accepté de sabrer dans le budget de l’EPA, ce qui eût conduit à son quasi-démantèlement. A l’automne 2017, il a tenté d’organiser des débats publics sur le réchauffement climatique dans l’idée de décrédibiliser le consensus scientifique, avant d’être stoppé net par John Kelly, chef de cabinet de Donald Trump.

    Le président apprécie l’engagement de Scott Pruitt, auquel on prête l’ambition de devenir sénateur ou gouverneur de l’Oklahoma, voire ministre de la justice ou encore président des Etats-Unis en 2024. Si M. Trump le garde, c’est aussi parce que, à l’approche des élections de mi-mandat, le locataire de la Maison Blanche aura le plus grand mal à faire valider par le Sénat, où la majorité n’est actuellement que d’une voix, un aussi bon soldat pour le remplacer. Le vent tournera-t-il ? M. Pruitt était lundi à la Maison Blanche pour la réunion de cabinet. Mais le bureau de l’éthique gouvernementale est saisi du dossier.

  • L’humiliation de Mark Zuckerberg, convoqué devant le Congrès

    http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/04/10/l-humiliation-de-mark-zuckerberg-convoque-devant-le-congres_5283156_3232.htm

    L’heure des comptes a sonné pour le PDG de Facebook, attendu mardi 10 avril au Sénat et le lendemain à la Chambre des représentants, analyse la correspondante du « Monde » à San Francisco Corine Lesnes.

    La série culte Silicon Valley, qui a repris fin mars sur HBO, n’a pas manqué de se moquer. Au générique, elle montre maintenant le logo de Facebook… en cyrillique. Même malin plaisir du côté du rival Snapchat. Pour le 1er avril, l’application préférée des ados a proposé un filtre imitant la mise en page de la plateforme de Mark Zuckerberg. Les photos y sont aimées par « votre maman » et « un bot » russe, l’un des 50 000 faux comptes déployés par la Russie pour influencer l’élection présidentielle de 2016 aux Etats-Unis…

    Dans la Silicon Valley, les malheurs de Facebook ont été parfois durement commentés. « C’est une crise de confiance », a jugé Marc Benioff, le PDG du géant du logiciel Salesforce, qui, comme Elon Musk, de Tesla, s’est désinscrit du réseau social. Tim Cook a tancé son alter ego. Apple aussi aurait pu « faire des tonnes d’argent si elle avait transformé son client en produit, a-t-il pointé. Nous avons choisi de ne pas le faire ». « Zuck » a reconnu que Facebook monétise les données de ses usagers auprès des publicitaires. Mais à l’en croire, c’est par pur esprit humanitaire : pour offrir un service « qui ne soit pas accessible qu’aux riches ».

    Rares sont ceux, aujourd’hui aux Etats-Unis, qui défendent le réseau social aux 2 milliards d’inscrits, emblème, il y a peu encore, de la réussite planétaire des géants des technologies. Depuis la découverte des interférences russes dans l’élection de Donald Trump, Facebook est devenu le symbole de l’irresponsabilité globale des milliardaires du numérique – et la preuve des effets pervers du modèle économique de gratuité des réseaux sociaux.

    Le scandale Cambridge Analytica – du nom de la firme britannique de marketing politique liée à M. Trump qui a aspiré les données de 87 millions de comptes de Facebook en 2015 – a été la débâcle de trop. La Federal Trade Commission a ouvert une enquête qui pourrait valoir à Facebook une amende record. L’action a perdu 15 % en trois semaines (mais son cours avait doublé en trois ans).

    Depuis, chaque jour apporte un nouvel aveu. Oui, Facebook scanne les messages de tous les particuliers sur son application Messenger. Oui, Facebook suit les internautes, même quand ils n’ont pas téléchargé l’application (grâce au « mouchard » qui figure sur les sites qu’ils visitent). Selon une note interne de 2016 qui vient de fuiter, montrant à quel point l’affaire commence à éroder la culture d’une entreprise réputée pour sa cohésion, la croissance du nombre d’abonnés était devenue une obsession. Connecter toute la planète, l’ambition suprême. Et cela, « même si quelqu’un meurt dans une attaque terroriste coordonnée grâce à nos outils », précise cette note.

    Un genou à terre

    Zuckerberg-le-surdoué a un genou à terre. Selon un sondage publié le 2 avril par le site Axios, le taux de popularité de Facebook a chuté de 28 points entre octobre et mars (–12 pour Google et –13 pour Amazon). Le « nerd » asocial multiplie les interviews à un rythme effréné, alors qu’il n’en donnait jamais. Zuckerberg, qui se retranchait derrière son adjointe, Sheryl Sandberg, pour faire des politesses à Washington ou Bruxelles, a été obligé d’accepter de se présenter lui-même devant le Congrès : mardi 10 avril au Sénat, le lendemain à la Chambre.

    Deux jours d’audition. Ce sera une première pour un jeune milliardaire qui était revenu un jour de Washington en expliquant à ses employés, médusés, qu’il avait manifesté la « quantité de respect qui convenait » aux élus de la Nation : à savoir sa tenue habituelle, jean et tee-shirt. Aujourd’hui, l’indulgence risque d’être inversement proportionnelle à l’arrogance d’hier, même si Zuckerberg portera la cravate. Selon le New York Times, il a été « coaché » par une firme juridique, qui lui a enseigné à être « humble et agréable » dans ses réponses.

    La commission sénatoriale du commerce entend interroger le fondateur de Facebook sur son plan pour « regagner la confiance perdue », « sauvegarder la confidentialité des données des usagers » et « mettre fin à une série de réponses tardives à des problèmes importants ». « Zuck » aura du mal à restaurer sa crédibilité. Le magazine Wired s’est amusé à faire la liste de ses « excuses » : des dizaines depuis la création en 2003 à Harvard d’un site rassemblant les photos d’étudiantes piratées dans l’intranet de l’université. Quinze ans plus tard, il n’est pas à même de garantir que les données des 2 milliards d’inscrits n’ont pas été consultées à leur insu par des tiers.

    Mark Zuckerberg est-il de taille à affronter la crise ? Plusieurs actionnaires se sont interrogés publiquement sur son aptitude à diriger une compagnie devenue aussi tentaculaire. Le chef du fonds de pension de la ville de New York, Scott Stringer, l’a appelé à démissionner pour permettre à Facebook d’entamer « un deuxième chapitre, celui de l’amélioration de sa réputation ». Même analyse de la part du responsable du service économique du San Francisco Chronicle, Owen Thomas : « Le consensus qui se développe à Washington, dans la Silicon Valley et dans le reste du monde est que Facebook a besoin d’un changement radical, au-delà de l’avalanche d’annonces et de mises à jour des règles sur la vie privée. »

    Zuckerberg, septième fortune du monde (l’affaire Cambridge Analytica lui a coûté deux places), n’est certainement pas du style à s’effacer. « J’ai lancé cet endroit. Je le dirige », a-t-il signifié. Il a pris soin de conserver le contrôle du conseil d’administration et de 60 % des droits de vote des actionnaires. Nul ne peut l’écarter. A 33 ans, il préside une compagnie qui se retrouve en position d’arbitre du processus démocratique mondial. Cela, sans avoir de comptes à rendre à personne, à moins que le Congrès ne décide qu’il est temps de s’en mêler.

  • Politique : où sont les femmes ?

    Cécile Duflot, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem   : plusieurs femmes politiques, qui avaient réussi à compter, ont jeté l’éponge. A l’heure des campagnes #MeToo, comment ne pas y voir un signal d’alerte  ?

    Notre pays exprime chaque jour un peu plus ses colères. Du monde étudiant à celui des cheminots, de Carrefour à Mobipel, le peuple mobilisé a des visages de femmes et d’hommes, reflets de toutes les diversités. Notre époque #MeToo nous rappelle combien les figures populaires ne sont pas que masculines, combien les femmes au XXIe siècle ne sauraient être marginalisées et maltraitées. Dans l’espace politique, qui se doit de donner écho à la réalité populaire, nous constatons que la place des femmes reste subalterne. Leurs combats à travers l’histoire, de la Révolution française à Mai 1968, sont oubliés, comme effacés. Ce décalage constitue une faille démocratique majeure.

    La loi sur la parité a permis l’accès massif de femmes à la vie politique. Et pourtant, nous sommes encore loin, très loin de l’égalité. Un plafond de verre persiste pour les femmes dans cet univers traditionnellement masculin.

    Plusieurs jeunes femmes en politique qui avaient réussi à être visibles, à compter, dans un monde qui ne leur rend pas la tâche facile ont récemment jeté l’éponge. Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem et Cécile Duflot ont choisi de quitter la politique institutionnelle. Comment ne pas voir un symptôme, un signal d’alerte   ? Chacune a évidemment ses propres raisons et, à l’heure où le non-cumul des mandats dans le temps s’impose comme une idée juste, de nature à vitaliser la politique, les mandats d’élus et de direction de partis qui se suivent et durent une vie entière ne sont sans doute plus d’époque. Mais, devant ces départs féminins en chaîne, de Sandrine Rousseau à Fleur Pellerin, comment ne pas voir la difficulté, la fatigue, la dureté d’être une femme dans un univers façonné par et pour les hommes   ?

    Au XXe siècle, les femmes ont conquis le droit de vote, la possibilité de siéger dans les assemblées et de s’exprimer dans l’espace public. Des suffragettes au mouvement #MeToo, des vagues successives portent l’exigence d’égalité, en politique comme dans l’ensemble de la société. Mais voilà   : on ne se débarrasse pas comme ça de mécanismes sexistes si profondément ancrés. Les résistances sont tenaces. Le monde politique a ses codes, ses formes, ses rythmes, ses habitudes qui empêchent, en ce début de XXIe siècle, un exercice à égalité des responsabilités politiques. Notre société s’accorde aujourd’hui autour de l’idée qu’il faudrait une mixité réelle dans la vie publique. C’est un progrès, une conquête. Mais l’idée se heurte au mur du réel, celui des freins matériels et symboliques à l’ascension des femmes en politique comme à leur épanouissement dans ce cadre. Le Président, le Premier ministre, les chefs des grands partis (songeons qu’aucune femme n’a pu être candidate au poste de secrétaire national du PS et de l’UMP  !), le président de l’Assemblée nationale, celui du Sénat, celui de l’association des maires de France… Bref, foin de parité, le masculin s’impose partout, surtout au sommet, là où se jouent les grandes décisions. Les hommes politiques occupent la place, y compris médiatiquement. Il n’y a qu’à regarder les invités de la semaine dans le journal le dimanche pour voir que dans les grandes émissions politiques, les femmes sont l’exception qui confirme la règle masculine.

    Les entraves viennent de loin. Commençons par la temporalité. Le rythme de la vie poli­tique, très chronophage, s’est installé loin de toute prise en compte de la part dite privée de nos vies. Et pour cause  : le modèle fut longtemps simple (et il continue en partie de fonctionner). Les hommes politiques délaissaient aux femmes le soin de s’occuper mentalement et concrètement de tout ce qui relève de la vie domestique et parentale pour s’adonner à toutes les joies et contraintes de la vie politique. Dès lors que les femmes entrent en scène publique – politique mais plus globalement professionnelle – la répartition aurait dû s’en trouver repensée mais la société n’a pas anticipé les réponses à ce nouveau défi. Le rythme politique semble être resté immuable, dans ses horaires, comme dans ses codes. Le présentéisme est toujours une clé déterminante pour gravir les échelons, et les femmes sont socialement lésées dans cet exercice qui n’est pas toujours d’impérieuse nécessité mais qui reste décisif pour être reconnue et progresser. La réduction du temps de travail et le partage des tâches de la maison ne se sont pas imposés comme des objectifs décisifs pour parvenir à l’égalité. D’ailleurs, ce n’est même pas un sujet poli­tique de premier plan.

    Les entraves pour les femmes en politique ­relèvent également des représentations. Masculin et féminin, voici deux catégories aux histoires et attributs distincts et hiérarchisés. Les femmes peinent à être reconnues et à se sentir légitimes dans un univers qui leur a été si longtemps interdit. Elles doutent, travaillent deux fois plus, hésitent à s’exposer. L’ambition leur est souvent reprochée quand elle paraît naturelle pour les hommes. Les commentaires sur leur tenue, leur posture sont souvent sexistes, blessants, usants. Se pose inlassablement la question de leur style. Faut-il épouser les normes masculines ou rester féminine dans un monde qui valorise le masculin  ? Comment inventer un nouveau genre  ? Pas simple. Les problèmes de gestuelle ou de voix sont récurrents pour les femmes. La façon d’exprimer la politique s’est façonnée à partir de corps d’hommes, de postures viriles, de micros calés sur des voix masculines. La parole légitime en politique a un ton et un visage quasi exclusivement masculin.

    Autre réalité, dans les réunions et dans le ­débat public, les femmes prennent infiniment moins la parole que les hommes. Parce qu’elles y sont minoritaires mais aussi parce qu’elles sont moins écoutées et que leur éducation leur a enseigné que leur avis comptait moins. Le fond sonore monte bien souvent dès lors qu’une femme prend la parole dans une réunion, une assemblée. Dans les cadres informels où se joue aussi la vie politique, les hommes ont pris l’habitude d’être des interlocuteurs mutuels. La stratégie, même entre deux portes ou autour d’un café, reste principalement une affaire d’hommes. Quand une femme participe, elle lutte pour faire valoir sa légitimité, peinant parfois à trouver un regard et une attention au point d’avoir l’impression d’être invisible. Comme si les hommes ne savaient pas quoi faire de ces femmes qui pénètrent leur espace. La force de l’habitude, celle d’un entre-soi cultivé pendant tant de siècles. Les hommes s’appellent, les femmes apparaissent souvent contingentes. Sauf au moment de la photo où de nouveaux réflexes ­imposent de se dire – et encore, pas toujours – qu’il faut des femmes.

    Nous caricaturons  ? Même pas. De nombreuses femmes craquent, même si souvent elles se plaignent à bas bruit. Car il est de bon ton de ne pas râler. Pour tenir. En silence, estiment la majorité des femmes en politique, car il est bien vu de savoir mettre ses éventuelles remarques de nature féministe sous le boisseau, tant elles agacent. Certaines se disent qu’il vaut mieux minauder ou faire preuve de patience, c’est plus payant. Le caractère viril de la politique a aussi ses formes violentes dans lesquelles les femmes ne se sentent pas toujours à l’aise pour évoluer dans l’arène. ­Elles espèrent qu’en prenant de biais, ça ira. Le résultat est pour l’instant peu probant… En rabattre sans cesse abîme l’estime de soi et suppose beaucoup d’énergie. Combien, ­au-delà des figures visibles, décident finalement d’abandonner ?

    Notre conviction est que pour tenir et gagner notre juste place collective, nous devons parler, nous parler. La sororité est, ici comme ailleurs, un ressort pour que l’égalité progresse. Ensemble, et avec les hommes qui y sont prêts – et il y en a ! – il nous faut inventer des façons nouvelles de faire de la politique. Il n’est par ailleurs plus possible pour des hommes qui se disent féministes d’accepter de perpétuer cette situation. La vie publique, minée par l’entre-soi masculin, a besoin de ce nouveau souffle pour se régénérer. C’est urgent.

    Par Clémentine Autain Députée, groupe La France insoumise (LFI) Emmanuelle Becker Conseillère de Paris, groupe communiste Elsa Faucillon Députée, groupe Gauche démocrate et républicaine (GDR) Sarah Legrain Secrétaire nationale du Parti de gauche (PG) aux relations unitaires Myriam Martin Conseillère régionale, Ensemble Insoumis Corinne Morel-Darleux Conseillère régionale, LFI Mathilde Panot Députée groupe LFI Barbara Romagnan Génération.s Sandra Regol Porte-parole et secrétaire nationale adjointe Europe Ecologie-les Verts (EE-LV) Danielle Simonnet Conseillère de Paris, LFI Laura Slimani Conseillère municipale à Rouen, Génération.s et Marie Toussaint Déléguée à l’Europe, EE-LV.

  • Gregory Klimov. The Terror Machine. Chapter 07
    http://g-klimov.info/klimov-pp-e/ETM07.htm

    In The Control Commission

    One afternoon General Shabalin sent for me. When I reported he handed me an invitation from American headquarters, asking him and his coworkers to take part in a conference at Frankfurt-on-Main to discuss the liquidation of the I.G. Farben Industry. “Take my car,” he said, “and drive to Zehlendorf. Hand in the list of our delegation, and find out when the plane leaves. If there isn’t a plane, obtain passes for us to use our cars for the journey.”

    It was five-fifteen when I arrived outside the American headquarters. ’Well, now I shall have to wait an hour for an interview,’ I pondered. ’And I’ve got to see Eisenhower’s economic adviser, but I haven’t any letter of introduction, only my personal documents.’

    I stopped the car at the gate and took out my documents. The American guard, in white helmet, white canvas belt, and white gaiters, raised his white-gloved hand in salute and seemed to be completely uninterested in my documents. To give some excuse for stopping the car, I asked him some meaningless question. Without speaking, he pointed to a board with an arrow and the one word: ’Information’. I drove past the Information Bureau slowly, and glanced back casually to see whether anybody was watching me. ’I’ll find what I want, myself; it’s a good opportunity to have a look round without trouble. I’ll see what sort of fellows these Americans are. They may not pull me up at once. And if necessary I’ll simply say I took the wrong way.’

    I strictly ordered Misha to remain in the car and not stir a step. Who knows whether he might be kidnapped, and then I’d lose my head!

    I went along a corridor. All the doors were wide open, the rooms were empty. Here and there German women cleaners were sweeping the floors. On each door was an ordinary tablet: ’Major So-and-so’ or ’Colonel So-and-so’, and the name of the department. What on earth did it all means? Not a sign of security precautions. We Soviet authorities did not hang out name-boards on the doors to inform our internal and external enemies who was inside.

    I felt a little uncomfortable, almost queer, with anxiety. As though I had got into a secret department by accident and was afraid of being caught. In search of the right room I looked at one nameplate after another and felt as though I was a spy going through the card index of an enemy General Staff. And I was in full Soviet uniform, too!

    One of our officers had once told me there was no point in visiting an American office after five p. m. “After that they’re all out with German girls,” he explained, and I couldn’t be sure whether his words expressed contempt or simply envy of American methods. “They think anyone who sits in an office after office-hours doesn’t know how to work or arrange his time.”

    ’He was right,’ I thought now. ’The Americans obviously don’t intend to work themselves to death. General Shabalin’s working day really begins at seven in the evening. I suppose I must apply to “Information” after all.’

    In the Information Bureau I found two negroes extended in easy chairs, their feet on the desk. They were chewing gum. I had some difficulty in getting them to understand that I wanted to speak to General Clay. Without stopping his chewing one of them called something incomprehensible through a small window into the next room. Even if I had been President Truman, Marshal Stalin, or a horned devil, I doubt whether he would have removed his feet from the desk or shifted the gum from his right to his left cheek. And yet ’Information’ functioned perfectly: a sergeant behind the window said something into a telephone, and a few minutes later an American lieutenant arrived and courteously asked me to follow him.

    In General Clay’s outer office a woman secretary was turning over the pages of a glossy magazine. ’She’ll probably put her feet on the typewriter too,’ I thought, and prudently sat down at a safe distance. While I was wondering whether to remain silent or enter into conversation with the ’Allies’, a long-nosed little soldier burst through the door leading to the general’s room. He tore through the outer office and snatched his cap down from a nail, saying a few hurried words to the secretary.

    ’The general must be a bit of a martinet, if his men rush about like that,’ I thought.

    At that moment the soldier held out his hand to me and let loose a flood of words which overwhelmed my weak knowledge of English. “General Clay,” the secretary said in an explanatory tone behind my back. Before I could recover my wits the general had vanished again. He wasn’t a general; he was an atom bomb! All I had under-stood was ’Okay’; and that the necessary order had already been issued. And in addition, that here it wasn’t at all easy to tell the difference between a general and a GI The privates stretched themselves out with their feet on the desk while the generals tore around like messenger boys.

    Another officer appeared at the same door, and invited me into his room. This time I prudently glanced at his tabs. Another general! Without offering me a chair, but not sitting down himself, the general listened to me with cool efficiency. Then he nodded and went out.

    I looked round the room. A modest writing desk. Modest inkstands. A thick wad of newspapers. A number of pencils. Nothing unnecessary. A room to work in, not to catch flies in. When a writing desk adequate for General Shabalin’s rank was required, all Karlshorst and all the booty warehouses were turned upside down. The inkstands were obtained specially from Dresden for him.

    A little later the American general returned and told me, apparently on the basis of a telephone conversation, when the aeroplane would be ready. I had plenty of opportunities to see later on that where we Soviet authorities would demand a ’document’ signed by three generals and duly stamped, the Americans found a telephone conversation sufficient.

    I did not have to present the list of the Soviet delegation at all. Here everything was done without resort to a liaison service and without any counter-check by the Ministry of Internal Affairs! The general handed me a packet of materials on the I.G. Farben Industry, so that we could familiarize ourselves with the tasks of the conference.

    Next morning the Soviet delegation, consisting of General Shabalin, Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov, Major Kuznetsov, two interpreters, and myself went to the Tempelhof landing ground. There the sergeant on duty explained that he had been fully informed concerning us, and spent a little time in phoning to various offices. Then he asked us to wait, as our plane would be starting rather later than arranged. I had the feeling that the Americans were holding up our departure for some reason. Machines rolled slowly on to the tarmac in the distance, but not one of them showed the least intention of taking us with it. The general swore, and, as he did not know whom to vent his anger upon, he turned to me. “What did they really say to you yesterday? Why didn’t you get it in writing?”

    “I was quite clearly informed,” I answered; “this morning at ten, the Tempelhof airground. A special machine would be waiting for us, and the airport commandant was notified.”

    The general clasped his hands behind his back, drew his head down between his shoulders, and marched up and down the concrete road outside the building without deigning to give us another glance.

    To pass the time. Major Kuznetsov and I began to make a closer inspection of the landing ground. Not far away an American soldier in overalls was hanging about, giving us inquisitively friendly glances, and obviously seeking an excuse to speak to us. Now a blunt-nosed Douglas rolled up to the start. During the war these transport machines had reached the Soviet Union in wholesale quantities as part of the lend-lease deliveries; every Russian knew them. The American soldier smiled, pointed to the machine, and said:"S-47."

    I looked to where he was pointing, and corrected him: “Douglas.” He shook his head and said: “No... no. S-47. Sikorsky... Russian constructor....”

    ’Was it really one of Igor Sikorsky’s designs?’ I wondered. Sikorsky had been the pioneer of Russian aviation in the first world war, and the constructor of the first multi-engine machine, Ilya Mourometz. I knew that, like Boris Seversky, he was working in the field of American aviation, but I had not known that the Douglas was his job. It was interesting that Pravda hadn’t taken the opportunity to make a big song of it.

    The soldier pointed his finger first at the clock, then into the sky. With his hand he imitated a plane landing, and explained as he pointed to the ground: “General Eisenhower.”

    ’Well, if General Eisenhower’s arriving,’ I thought, ’that probably explains why we couldn’t start.’

    While we were talking to the soldier a machine grounded just behind us, and a group of cheerful old gentlemen poured out of it. Like a horde of children just out of school they surrounded General Shabalin and began to shake his hand so heartily that you would have thought it was the one thing they had flown from America for. The general was carried away by their exuberance and shook their hands in turn. Later it transpired that they had mistaken Shabalin for General Zhukov. Meanwhile, Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov had found out somewhere that these gay old boys were American senators, who were on their way to Moscow. He whispered this news into the general’s ear, but it was too late. Shabalin had already exchanged cordial handshakes with these sworn enemies of the communist order.

    All around them, camera shutters were clicking. The senators seemed to get a great kick out of posing with General Shabalin, holding his hands. The general had little wish to be photographed in such compromising company, but he had to put a good face on it. He was quite convinced that all these photos would find their way into the archives of some foreign secret service, and thence into the archives of the Narcomvnudel. And then the fat would be in the fire.

    Major Kuznetsov asked Lieutenant-Colonel Orlov incredulously: “But are they really senators?”

    “Yes, and the very worst of them all, the Senate Political Commission,” Orlov replied.

    “But they don’t look at all like capitalists.” Kuznetsov still felt dubious.

    “Yes, they look quite harmless; but they’ve got millions in their pockets. They’re cold-blooded sharks,” Orlov retorted. Evidently he regarded it as a mortal sin to have money in one’s pocket. But then, he was a dyed-in-the-wool party man.

    “So they’re the lords of America, and they behave like that. Now if one of our ministers....” Kuznetsov’s reflections were interrupted by the arrival of a column of closed cars, which drove straight on to the landing ground. A group of Soviet officers stepped out. The gold braid on their caps and the red piping on their coats showed that they were generals.

    “Now we’re in for a parade!” Kuznetsov muttered. “That’s Marshal Zhukov and all his staff. We’d better take cover in the bushes.”

    General Shabalin seemed to be of the same opinion. He had not been invited to this meeting, and to be an uninvited guest of Marshal Zhukov was rather a ticklish matter. But his general’s uniform made it impossible for him to hide behind others’ backs.

    In this hour of need the lively old gentlemen from America came to the rescue. With unreserved ’Hellos’, friendly handshakes and back-slayings, an unstained, friendly atmosphere was created. “I like these senators!” Kuznetsov enthused. “They slap hands together like a lot of horse-dealers at a market. Great old boys!” He licked his lips as though he had just drunk to brotherhood with the American senators.

    Marshal Zhukov, a medium-sized, thickset man with a prominent chin, always dressed and behaved with unusual simplicity. He took hardly any notice of the bustle all around him, but seemed to be waiting for the moment when they would come at last to business. Unlike many other generals who owed their career to the war, by all his bearing he clearly showed that he was only a soldier. It was characteristic of the man that, without any encouragement from official Kremlin propaganda, he had become known all over Russia as the second Kutuzov, as the savior of the fatherland in the second great patriotic war.

    The airground grew more and more animated. Forces of military police in parade uniforms marched on. The servicing personnel hurried to and from. A guard of honor took up its position not far from us.

    A four-engine machine landed quietly. The swarm of autograph hunters suffered disillusionment: double rows of guards swiftly and thoroughly cut them off from the landing spot.

    Major Kuznetzov looked at the guards and remarked: “Clean work! Look at those cutthroats. They must have been taken into the army straight from gangsterdom.”

    The first line of military police was certainly an impressive lot. They looked pretty sinister, even though they were clean-shaven. The second line might well have been pugilists and cowboys, mounted not on horses but on motorcycles that made more noise than aeroplanes.

    Meanwhile the guard of honor had begun to perform some extraordinary exercise. The men raised their arms shoulder-high and spread out as though about to do Swedish gymnastics. Decidedly inept and un-military by our standards. “It reminds me of operetta,” Kuznetsov said to the lieutenant-general. “What are they doing that for?”

    Orlov waved his hand contemptuously. “Like senators, like soldiers! They’re chocolate soldiers. Give them black bread to eat and they’d be ill.”

    “Are you so fond of black bread then?” Kuznetsov sneered. “Or are you simply concerned for well-being of your fellowmen, as usual?”

    Orlov ignored the questions. He was attached to our delegation as a legal expert. Also, he was public prosecutor to the military court, and knew well enough what might be the consequences of talking too frankly.

    General Eisenhower stepped out of the plane, wearing a soldier’s greatcoat, the usual broad grin on his face. He greeted Marshal Zhukov. Then he signed a few autographs, asked where they could have breakfast, and took Zhukov off with him.

    Hardly had the distinguished guests departed when the dispatcher announced that our plane was ready to start. Now we knew why we had had to wait so long.

    A man in the uniform of an American brigadier-general addressed General Shabalin in the purest of Russian. Apparently he had learnt that we were flying to Frankfurt, and now he offered us his services. He spoke better Russian than we did, if I may put it so. He had left Russia thirty or more years before, and spoke the kind of Russian common in the old aristocratic circles. Our speech had been modified by the new conditions, it was contaminated with jargon and included a mess of new words.

    I had no idea why Eisenhower and Zhukov were flying to Russia. The Soviet papers carried no official communiqué on the subject. A week later, as I was making my usual report to General Shabalin, he asked me: “Do you know why Eisenhower flew to Moscow?”

    “Probably to be a guest of honor at the recent parade,” I answered.

    “We know how to be hospitable,” the general said. “They entertained him with such excellent vodka that he sang songs all night. Arm in arm with Budionny. They always bring out Budionny as an ornament on such occasions.” Apparently that was all the general knew about Eisenhower’s visit to Moscow; but he put his finger to his lips, then wagged it admonitorily.

    Such small incidents clearly revealed the true position of the man who was deputy head of the S. M. A. He was really nothing but an errand-boy, and only by accident knew what was happening ’above’.

    An American officer stepped into Major Kuznetsov’s room. He thrust his cap in the hip pocket of his trousers, then swung his hand up to his uncovered head in salute. After which he introduced himself in the purest of Russian: “John Yablokov, captain of the American Army.”

    Kuznetsov was a very intelligent man, but he was also a humorist and a bit of a wag. He replied to the American with: “Greetings, Ivan Ivanovich! How do you do!”

    The American Ivan Ivanovich seemed to be no greenhorn, and he did not allow the major’s sneering smile to put him out. In fact, it transpired later that John Yablokov was one of those men who are the life and soul of the party. Either to please us or to show that, although American, he was a progressive; he rejoiced our ears with a flood of Russian oaths that would have brought down the Empire State Building. But that was later. At the moment Captain Yablokov had arrived on an official visit to invite General Shabalin to the first organizational conference of the Control Commission Economic Directorate. The general twisted the invitation and the agenda paper (both were in English) between his fingers. Trying not to reveal that English was all Greek to him, he asked: “Well, what’s the news your way?”

    A second American officer who had accompanied Captain Yablokov answered also in Russian: “Our chief, General Draper, has the honor to invite you to a...” He did not seem very well acquainted with the terminology of Red conferences, and was forced to fall back on the wording of the invitation: “... to a meeting, General.”

    Now the general was seated comfortably in the saddle. He did not know English, but he knew the Stalinist terminology thoroughly. He gave the American the sort of look he had given subordinate Party officials in his capacity as secretary of the Sverdlovsk District Party Committee, and explained in a hortatory tone: “We have to work, not attend meetings.”

    That was a standing Stalinist phrase, which all party officials used as a lash. But at this juncture it sounded rather rude. However, the general held to the principle that too much butter can’t spoil any bread, and that Stalin’s words can never be repeated enough.

    I sat in a corner and enjoyed myself immensely. The general would be starting to give the Americans a lecture on party training next. As was his habit in intercourse with foreigners, he observed the unwritten law never to trust one interpreter and always to apply the method of cross-examination, especially when the interpreter belonged to the other camp. While the Americans did their best to explain what they meant by a ’meeting’, I, too, attempted to help. The general never liked being prompted, but he always snorted afterwards: “Why didn’t you say so before?” So I tactfully observed: “It’s not really important, Comrade General. Let them hold their meeting and we’ll work.”

    After we had settled a number of minor questions the Americans went back to their Chevrolet and drove home. Major Kuznetsov remarked: “But they could talk excellent Russian. The one with the little mustache looked like Douglas Fairbanks.” The general pulled him up: “You can see at once what sort of birds they are. That fellow strikes me as Chinese. They’re spies.”

    The general appeared to fathom the true nature of his future colleagues extraordinarily well! A few days later, during a talk, Captain Yablokov informed me quite frankly that he had formerly worked in the American secret service in China. He did not appear to think he was in any way betraying service secrets. If a Soviet officer had mentioned such a fact he would have been committing a serious breach of his duty.

    Some days later we drove to the first meeting of the Control Commission; we went with the firm intention of working and not holding meetings. The Allied Control Commission had taken over the former Palace of Justice in Elshoizstrasse. The conference hall was almost empty; the delegations were only just beginning to assemble. I felt genuinely afraid that I would be exposed to ridicule: we had no interpreter with us, and I didn’t know English too well. When I mentioned this to the general he told me curtly: “You should know!” Another Party slogan, but it didn’t make things any easier for me. Until the meeting was officially opened we relied on German, for all the Allies without exception could speak German more or less well.

    When the general noticed that I was talking to French and English colleagues he barked at me as he passed: “You wait, Major, I’ll cure you of your mock modesty! You and your ’don’t know English’! Now you’re talking away, even to the French, nineteen to the dozen, but you never told me you knew French.” It was hopeless to think of explaining. And the general would probably stick me in a comer to exercise control over the French interpreters too, as he had done with the Americans.

    That, too, was due to the general’s Party experience. It is a common thing in the Soviet Union for specialists and experts to dodge responsible posts. Gifted engineers, or former directors of large trusts and combines, get appointments as ’technical managers’ to some small factory or a cooperative of war-wounded, which employs only five or six workmen. In such positions they are less exposed to the risk of being flung behind the bars as ’saboteurs’, and so they keep quiet about their abilities and their diplomas. The Party officials are aware of this trick, and do their utmost to round up the ’pretenders’. And so even if you try to escape responsibility you’re in the wrong: you’re a ’passive saboteur’.

    I breathed a sigh of relief when I discovered that the American and British delegations had first-class Russian interpreters.

    Another difficult problem for me was my uniform. I looked as though I had covered the entire journey from Stalingrad to Berlin crawling on my belly. My uniform had been washed in all the rivers of Russia and Eastern Europe, the color had faded from it completely; in addition, I was wearing ordinary military boots. Before we drove to the conference General Shabalin gave me a critical look up and down and snarled: “Haven’t you got any shabbier-clothes you can wear?” He knew quite well that I had left my good uniforms in Moscow as an iron reserve.

    Many of us took the view that, after all, the army wasn’t a puppet-show, and in any case children were running about naked at home. One man had a little sister, another a young nephew. Warm clothes or breeches could be made for them out of a uniform, and the kids would be hugely delighted: “Uncle Gregory has fought in this uniform,” the child would say, pointing proudly to the holes left by the pins of orders. I, too, had left several complete outfits in Moscow. In any case I would be getting the so-called ’Foreign Equipment’ when I reached Berlin. Only I had overlooked the possibility that I would have to take part in meetings of the Control Commission before the new equipment arrived.

    As our Administration for Economy developed its organization and activities, more and more men arrived from Moscow to work with us. Usually, deputies of the People’s Commissars for the corresponding Moscow commissariats were appointed heads of the S. M. A. departments, which in practice were functioning as the ministries of the Soviet zone. One and all, these men were old Party officials, specialists in the running of Soviet economic affairs. When they took over their new posts one could hardly avoid laughing: they were pure crusaders of communism.

    In due course we were rejoiced at the sight of the newly appointed head of the Industrial Department, Alexandrov, and his deputy, Smirnov. They both wore squeaking, highlegged boots of Stalin pattern, which its creator had himself long since discarded. Above the boots they had riding breeches of heavy overcoating material, and to crown this rigout they had dark blue military tunics dating from the period of revolutionary communism. At one time such attire was very fashionable among Party officials, from the local chairmen of Machinery-Tractor Stations right up to People’s Commissars, for it was symbolical not only of outward, but of inward devotion to the leader. For a long time now the People’s Commissars had been wearing ordinary European clothes, and one came across antiquated garb chiefly in remote collective farms. I can imagine what sort of impression these scarecrows made on the Germans; they were exact copies of the Hitlerite caricatures of bolsheviks.

    It was not long before these over-zealous Party crusaders them-selves felt that their historical costumes were hardly suited to the changed conditions, and gradually began to adapt themselves to their surroundings. Later still, all the civilian personnel of the S. M. A. were dressed in accordance with the latest European fashions, and even with a touch of elegance. All the leading officials, especially those occupied in the Control Commission, received coupons en-titling them to ’foreign equipment’ corresponding with their position.

    I stood at a window, talking to the head of the French delegation, General Sergent. Our conversation was on quite unimportant subjects, and I prudently tried to keep it concentrated on the weather. Prudence was always advisable; this Frenchman might be a communist at heart, or in all innocence he might repeat our conversation to someone, and in the end it would find its way... I knew too well from my own experience how thoroughly our secret service was informed of all that went on among the Allies.

    When we Soviet officers working in the Control Commission discussed our impressions some time later I realized why we were all cautioned against talking with foreigners. A captain remarked: “All these stories about spies are only in order to make us keep our mouths shut. It’s to prevent our giving away other secrets.” He said no more; we didn’t talk about those secrets even to each other.

    The Control Commission session began punctually at ten o’clock. After settling the details of the agenda relating to the work of the Economic Directorate, the times of meeting, and the rotation of chairmanship, we turned to drawing up the agenda for the next meeting. The head of the American delegation, which was chairman at this first meeting, proposed that the first item on the agenda should be: ’Working out of basic policy for the economic demilitarization of Germany.’

    The Potsdam Conference had ended the previous week; at the conference it had been decided to demilitarize Germany economically, so that restoration of German military power would be impossible, and to draw up a peacetime economic potential for the country. The decision was remitted to the Allied Control Commission to be put into effect.

    The interpreters now translated the chairman’s phrase into Russian as: ’Working out the policy of economic demobilization.’ Another of those borderline cases in linguistics! The English formula had used the word ’policy’. The interpreters translated this literally into the Russian word ’politik1, although the English word had a much wider meaning, and the Russian phrase for ’guiding principles’ would have been a more satisfactory translation.

    At the word ’politick’ General Shabalin sprang up as though stung. “What ’politick’? All the political questions were settled at the Potsdam Conference!”

    The American chairman. General Draper, agreed: “Quite correct, they were. Our task is simply to translate the decision into action, and so we have to lay down the guiding policy...”

    The interpreters, both American and English, again translated with one accord: “... ’Politick’.”

    General Shabalin stuck to his guns: “There must be nothing about politics. That’s all settled. Please don’t try to exert pressure on me.”

    “But it’s got nothing to do with politics,” the interpreters tried to reassure him. “The word is ’policy’.”

    “I see no difference,” the general objected. “I have no intention of revising the Potsdam Conference. We’re here to work, not to hold meetings.”

    That was the beginning of the first hour-long battle round the oval table. Solely and simply over the awkward word ’policy’, which General Shabalin was not prepared to see in the agenda or in the minutes of the meeting.

    It was often said in the economic spheres of the S. M. A. headquarters that the Kremlin regarded the decisions of the Potsdam Conference as a great victory for Soviet diplomacy. The Moscow instructions emphasized this aspect at every opportunity. At the Potsdam Conference the Soviet diplomats won concessions from the Western Allies to an extent that the diplomats themselves had not expected. Perhaps this was due to the intoxication of victory and an honorable desire to recompense Russia for her heroic exertions and incredible sacrifices. And perhaps it was due to the circumstance that two new Allied representatives took part in the conference, and that President Truman and Mr. Attlee had not yet got to the bottom of the methods of Soviet diplomacy.

    The Potsdam Agreement practically gave the Soviet Union the right of disposal of Germany. Its terms were expressed in very subtle language, and they were open to various constructions later on, whenever it seemed desirable. The task of the S. M. A. now was to extract full value from the advantages won by Soviet diplomacy. “Nothing of politick!” General Shabalin defended himself like a bear threatened with a javelin. And in all probability he was thinking: ’Do you want to send me to Siberia?’ Once more the old reaction of even the highest of Soviet officials, not to do anything on their own responsibility and risk. One reason why all decisions is made from above.

    Subsequently I myself saw that the American or the British delegation could change its decisions in the actual course of negotiations. But the Soviet delegation always came and went with previously formulated decisions, or else with red questionmarks on the appropriate document, which the general kept in a red document-case always under his hand. At the Control Council he acted more like a messenger than an active partner. A question that arose in the course of discussion was never decided the same day, it was only discussed.

    Then the general would return to his office and make direct telephonic contact that night with Moscow. Usually Mikoyan, a member of the Politburo and plenipotentiary extraordinary for Germany under the Ministerial Council of the U. S. S. R., was at the Moscow end of the line. He was in effect the Kremlin’s viceroy for Germany. And during those telephone conversations the decisions were taken, or rather the orders were issued, on which the Allied delegations later broke their teeth.

    Even at that first meeting with the Allies one could not help noticing a great difference between them and us. They welcomed us as joint victors and sincere allies in war and peace. Each of their delegations approached questions from the national aspect. And they considered that there could be no conflict of national interests or antagonisms among us victor powers, neither then nor in the immediate future. They assumed that this was a simple fact that must be as clear to us as it was to them.

    We, on the other hand, regarded the ’Allies’ as the opposing party, as enemies with whom we had to sit at the one table only for tactical reasons. We decided questions from the ideological aspect. The Allies believed that Marx and Lenin were dead. But now the shades of these two men stood behind us in the Control Commission conference hall. The Allies could not understand that? So much the worse for them!

    Generally speaking, the members of the delegations not only represented their state interests, but were also unusually typical representatives of their respective nations. Of course this doesn’t mean that Dimitry Shabalin smoked the coarse Russian Mahorka tobacco or that William Draper chewed gum. Not, at any rate, during the sessions.

    The American delegation was headed by the American director in the Economic Directorate, General William Draper: a thin, athletic figure, with angular, swarthy features-a lively and energetic man. When he laughed, he revealed the spotless white of strong, wolfish teeth beneath his black mustache. Better not put your finger between those teeth! He set the tone at the sessions, even when he was not in the chair. He had an abundance of the healthy energy peculiar to young, self-confident nations. I don’t know how many millions General Draper really had in his pocket, I know only that General Shabalin remarked more than once: “Ah! A millionaire! A shark!” It would have been interesting to know what he based his remark on: his communist beliefs or the reports of our secret service.

    The head of the British delegation and the British director of the Economic Directorate were Sir Percy Mills. A typical Briton. He gave off the smell of fog and Trafalgar Square. He wore a military uniform of thick cloth, with no insignia of rank. From the way everybody deferred to his opinion it was obvious that he was a recognized authority in the economic field. According to General Shabalin he was a director of the large British firm of Metro-Vickers. He was painfully clean-shaven; if he ever thought it necessary to smile, only the folds around his mouth came into action, while his eyes remained fixed on his documents and his ears listened closely to his numerous advisers.

    In the person of Sir Percy Mills, Great Britain worked hard, but always paid attention to the voice of its young ally and victorious rival, America.

    At the conference table of the Control Commission the historical changes that had occurred in the world influence of the various great powers were very perceptible. Great Britain had played out her role, and now, with a pride born of self-confidence, was surrendering her place to the younger and stronger. As befitted a gentleman!

    France was the reflection of all the greatness to be found in European culture. But only the reflection. Her representatives were the successors to Bonaparte and Voltaire, the contemporaries of Pierre Petain and Jean-Paul Sartre. Existentialism. How to keep one’s head above water. The French director of the Economic Directorate, General Sergent, had nothing better to do than to maneuver as tactfully as possible, and not agree too completely with the West, nor be too much in opposition to the East.

    The great Eastern Ally was represented by General Shabalin, a man who had a mortal terror of the word ’politick’, and by Major Klimov, who simultaneously performed the duties of secretary, interpreter, and general adviser. The Soviet side could have been represented just as successfully by one man to act as a postman. However, in those days I still naively believed that something was really being decided in those meetings. And, although we were armed to the teeth with communist theory, I felt really uncomfortable when I noted the large size of the other delegations and the sort of men who composed them.

    ’Nothing new in the West.’ The Allies, as one man, clung to the word ’policy’, while for three hours General Shabalin repeated: “Nothing of politick... At the Potsdam Conference....” In confirmation of his views he took a newspaper from his document-case and pointed to a passage underlined in red. Then his fellow-members in the commission also brought out newspapers and began to compare the texts. Truly, it was very interesting to take part in one session of the Control Commission; it was more interesting than the operetta. But to take part in them week after week was dangerous: one might easily have a nervous breakdown. Half a day spent in fighting over one word in the agenda for the next meeting!

    The members of the other delegations looked more and more frequently at their watches. The Western European stomach is used to punctuality. At last even General Shabalin lost his patience and he officially demanded: “What is it you really want to do to me: violate me? Yes?” The interpreters wondered whether they had heard aright, and asked irresolutely, not knowing whether to regard his remark as a joke: “Are we to translate that literally?”

    “Of course, literally,” the general obstinately replied.

    Sir Percy Mills tried to indicate that he found it highly amusing, and twisted his lips into a smile. The chairman for the session, General Draper, rose and said: “I propose that we adjourn the meeting. Let’s go and have some eats.” It was difficult to tell whether he really was hungry or whether he was fed up with Soviet diplomacy. Everybody breathed more easily, and the sitting ended.

    We departed as victors. We had won a whole week. The same night General Shabalin would be able to ask Comrade Mikoyan whether the word ’politick’ could be included on the agenda or not.

    While we were holding our meeting, the Special Committee for Dismantling, and the Reparations Department, with General Zorin at its head, was hard at work. The Allies would be faced with an accomplished fact. Okay! In the last resort each defends his own interests.

    The Control Commission gave me my first opportunity to get to know our Western Allies personally. During the war I had come across, or rather seen, many Americans and British in Gorky, and later in Moscow. But I had then had no official excuse for personal contact with them, and without the special permission of the Commissariat for Internal Affairs even the most harmless acquaintance, even a conversation with a foreigner, is sheer lunacy in the Soviet True, there is no open interdiction, but every Soviet citizen knows exactly what unfortunate consequences are entailed by such thoughtless behavior. Give a foreigner a light for his cigarette in the street and you are hauled immediately before the Ministry for Internal Affairs and subjected to strict interrogation. That, at the best. At the worst, one disappears into a Minvnudel camp, for ’spying’, and thus one helps to fill out the labor reserve.

    To stop all contact between Soviet people and foreigners, the Kremlin spreads the story that all foreigners are spies. So anybody who has any contact with a foreigner is also a spy. It’s as simple as that.

    One of the Soviet government’s greatest achievements has been to raise lawlessness to a law, with all the paralyzing fear of ’authority’ that follows from it. Every individual lives in a state of anxiety. The Kremlin exploits this mood as a highly effective means of training and guiding the masses. Not even the members of the Politburo are free from it.

    Once, after one of the usual fruitless debates in the Control Commission, Sir Percy Mills proposed that we adjourn, and then invited the members of the other delegations to lunch with him.

    General Shabalin went and rode with his British colleague. I had received no instructions whatever so I got into the general’s seat in our car and ordered Misha to drive immediately behind the one in which our chief was traveling. I entered Sir Percy’s house with decidedly mixed feelings. All the guests left their hats and document-cases on a small table or on the hallstand. The maid-servant took my cap from me, and held out her hand to take my document-case. I was at a loss to know what to do; it was the general’s red case that I was carrying. It had nothing of importance in it: just the minutes of the last sitting, which on this occasion had been sent to us by the British. I couldn’t leave the case in the car, but to leave it on the hall table with the others would have been a crime against the State. Yet to take it with me looked rather silly.

    General Shabalin himself rescued me from my awkward situation. He came across to me and said quietly:

    “What are you doing here. Major? Go and wait for me in the car.”

    I felt relieved, went out, got into our car, and lit a cigarette. A few minutes later a British captain, Sir Percy Mills’ adjutant, came to the door and invited me in again. I tried to get out of it by saying I wasn’t hungry, but he stared at me in such bewilderment that there was nothing to be done but follow him. As I entered the hall where the guests were waiting the general gave me a sidelong look, but said nothing. Later it transpired that our host had asked his permission to send the adjutant for me. The British are justly famous as the most tactful people in the world.

    I gave the document-case to the general. Of all the idiotic possibilities that seemed the most harmless. Let him feel a fool!

    I stood at a great Venetian window looking out on to the garden, and talked to Brigadier Bader. The brigadier was a real colonial wolf. Sandy, sunbleached hair and eyebrows, gray, lively eyes behind bleached eyelashes, a complexion dry with the tropical sun. According to General Shabalin’s amiable description he was nothing less than one of the cleverest of international spies. And now I had the honor of chatting with this distinguished person. We talked in a mixture of English and German.

    “How do you like being in Germany?” he asked.

    “Oh, not bad!” I answered.

    “Everything’s kaput,” he went on.

    “Oh yes, ganz kaput,” I agreed.

    After disposing of German problems we turned to others. The summer of 1945 was unusually hot, and I asked:

    “After the English climate, don’t you find it very hot here?”

    “Oh no, I’m used to the heat,” he smiled. “I’ve spent many years in the colonies, in Africa and India.”

    I carefully avoided addressing my companion directly. What form of address was I to use? ’Herr’? That was rather awkward. To our ears ’mister’ sounds contemptuous. ’Comrade’? No, for the time being I kept off that word.

    Just then I noticed General Shabalin’s eyes fixed on me. In all probability my chief was afraid the brigadier was already enrolling me as his agent. At that very moment a maid came up to us with a tray. Bader took one of the small glasses of colorless fluid, raised it to eye-level, and invited me to help myself. I put the glass to my lips, then set it down on the windowsill. While the brigadier had his eyes turned away for a second I threw the whisky out of the window. Stupid, I know, but it was the only thing to be done. And the worst of it was that the general would never believe I had performed such a patriotic act. Whether flung down my throat or out of the window, that whisky would be put to the debit side of my personal account.

    An air of open cordiality and hospitality reigned in the room where we were waiting for Sir Percy Mills to take us to lunch. This inter-national assembly felt no constraint in face of that variety of uniforms and babel of tongues. Only the Soviet delegate Kurmashev, head of the S. M. A. Fuel and Power Department, sat alone in his easy chair, one leg crossed over the other, and apparently suffering torments. He felt more uncomfortable than a missionary among cannibals; he wiped the sweat from his forehead and looked again and again at the clock. When we were invited to the dining room he clearly heaved a sigh of relief. I am sure he would have been only too glad to talk to his neighbor, even if he had had to resort to sign language; he would have been delighted to laugh and toss off a couple of whiskies. But he was not a man like other men. He was the representative, and the slave, of communist philosophy.

    At table General Shabalin sat on the right hand of his host, who conversed with him through an interpreter. His uniform gave him confidence and certainly more sureness than was possessed by Kurmashev, who was a civilian. But in his civilian clothes Kurmashev tried to show that he was completely indifferent to all that went on around him, and tackled his food with the utmost ferocity. It was no easy task to fill your mouth so full that you couldn’t talk with your neighbors.

    My chief smiled formally and forced out a laugh at Sir Percy’s jokes. But for his part he made no attempt to keep the conversation going. No wonder the British think it difficult to talk to Russians not only at the conference, but even at the dining table. At one time we contemptuously called the English narrow-minded; now the boot is on the other foot.

    I was sitting at the far end of the table, between Brigadier Bader and the British adjutant. As I chanced to look up from my plate I met General Shabalin’s eyes gazing at me keenly. The longer the lunch continued the more the general eased his bolshevik armor plate, and finally he went so far as to propose a toast to our host. But meanwhile he gave me frequent interrogative glances.

    Of course I knew the general was in duty bound to keep an eye on me. But I noticed that he was not so much watching me as attempting to decide whether I was watching him. He was firmly convinced that I had been set to watch over him. Kurmashev was afraid of the general, the general was on his guard against me, and I distrusted myself. The higher one climbs in the Soviet hierarchy, the more one is gripped by this constant fear and distrust.

    And the one who suffers most of all from this remarkable system is its creator. When one observed how Soviet higher officials suffered from fear and distrusts one lost all desire to make a Soviet career. General Shabalin had been unquestionably a much happier man when he was minding sheep or tilling the soil.

    After lunch we all gathered again in the hall. Brigadier Bader offered me a thick cigar with a gold band, and wrapped in cellophane. I turned it over curiously in my fingers. A real Havana! Hitherto I had known them only from caricatures, in which millionaires always had them stuck between their teeth. With the air of an experienced cigar-smoker I tried to bite off the tip, but that damned cigar was tough. I got a mouthful of bitter leaf, and to make matters worse I couldn’t spit it out.

    “How did you like the food?” the brigadier asked genially.

    “Oh, very good!” I answered as genially, carefully blowing the bluish smoke through my nose.

    At that moment General Shabalin beckoned to me. I asked the brigadier’s pardon, prudently stuck the cigar in a flowerpot, and followed my chief. We went out into the garden, as though we wanted a breath of fresh air.

    “What have you been talking about with that...?” the general muttered, avoiding mention of any name.

    “About the weather, Comrade General.”

    “Hm... hm....” Shabalin rubbed his nose with the knuckle of his forefinger, a trick of his during conversations of a semi-official nature. Then he unexpectedly changed his tone:

    “I think there’s nothing more for you to do here. Take a day off. Have my car and go for a drive through Berlin. Take a look at the girls....”

    He made a very frivolous remark, and smiled forcibly. I listened closely as I walked with him about the garden. What did all this condescension and thought for me mean?

    “Call up Kuznetsov this evening and tell him I shall go straight home,” was the general’s final word as he went up the verandah steps.

    So he had no intention of returning to the office today. There all the ordinary routine was waiting for him, to keep him as a rule till three in the morning. That was not compulsory, it was his duty as a bolshevik. He must be around in case the ’master’ called him up in the middle of the night. But now, after a very good lunch and a few glasses of wine, he felt the need to be a man like other men for a few hours at least. The comfort of the villa and the open cordiality of the company had had its effect even on the old Party wolf. Just for once he felt impelled to throw off the mask of an iron bolshevik, to laugh aloud and smack his colleagues on the shoulders, to be a man, not a Party ticket. And he thought of me as the eye and ear of the Party. So he was dismissing me on the pretext of being kind to me.

    I returned to the house, picked up my cap as unobtrusively as possible, and went out. Misha was dozing at the wheel.

    “Ah, Comrade Major!” He gave a deep sigh as I opened the door. “After a lunch like that, what man wouldn’t like to stretch himself out on the grass and sleep for an hour or two!”

    “Why, have you had some lunch too?” I asked in surprise.

    “What do you think! I’ve eaten like a prince.”

    “Where?”

    “Why, here. A special table was laid for us. Like in the fairy story. And do you know what, Comrade Major?” He looked sidelong at me, with all the air of a conspirator. “Even our general doesn’t have such good grub as I’ve had today.”

    After seeing Sir Percy Mills’ house, I could not help comparing it with General Shabalin’s flat. In the Control Commission the habit developed for the directors to take turns in inviting their colleagues home. The first time it was Shabalin’s turn to issue the invitations he ignored the habit, as though he had forgotten it. The real reason was that he had no place to which he could invite the foreigners.

    Of course he could have requisitioned and furnished a house in conformity with his rank. But he could not bring himself to do this on his own responsibility, while the head of the Administrative Department, General Devidov, simply would not do it for him, since under the army regulations such luxury was incompatible with the position of Soviet generals. The authorities had got to the point of providing special ’foreign equipment’, but nobody had yet thought of suitable residences. Shabalin had exchanged his small house for a five-roomed apartment in the house where most of the workers in the Administration for Economy were accommodated. Nikolai, his orderly, and Misha, the chauffeur, had collected furniture and all sorts of lumber from all over the district for the apartment, but it looked more like a thieves’ kitchen than a general’s home. It was impossible to receive foreign guests there: even Shabalin was conscious of that.

    Once more, the contradiction between bolshevik theory and bolshevik practice. The Kremlin aristocracy had long since discarded the proletarian morals they still preached, and lived in a luxury that not every capitalist could afford. They could do so without embarrassment because their personal lives were secured from the people’s eyes by several walls. The smaller leaders tended to follow the same course. The Party aristocracy, men like Shabalin, lived a double life; in words they were ideal bolsheviks, but in reality they trampled on the ideals they themselves preached. It was not easy to reconcile these two things. It all had to be done secretly, prudently, one had continually to be on guard. Here in Germany there was no Kremlin and no area forbidden to the public, here everything was comparatively open. And supposing the lords of the Kremlin started to shout!

    At first General Shabalin had taken his meals in the canteen of the Soviet Military Council-in other words, in the generals’ casino. But now Dusia, his illegal maidservant, was taking the car to the canteen three times a day and bringing the food home. Yet even in such circumstances the general could not invite any guests to his apartment, and visitors, especially foreigners, were not allowed in the canteen.

    Even here, in occupied Germany, where we were not restricted by problems of living space or rationing, and where we could literally pick up everything we liked, even here we kept to our Soviet way of life.

    A little later the S. M. A. staff accommodated itself to circumstances and solved the problem in the old Potiomkin fashion. (Prince Gregory Potiomkin, favorite of Empress Catharine, who organized show-places and even ’model villages’ to impress the Empress. - Tr.). A special club was set up, in which the leading officials of the S. M. A. could hold receptions for their western colleagues. In each separate case an exact list of the proposed guests had to be sent in advance to the S. M. A. liaison service, to be carefully checked by the Narcomvnudel, and to be countersigned by the S. M. A. chief of staff". Of course such a simple form of invitation as that of Sir Percy Mills-"come and have lunch with me, gentlemen", and including even the chauffeurs-was quite impossible in such circumstances.

    During those early meetings with the Western Allies I was seriously afraid that I would be asked too many questions that I could not, or rather that I dared not, answer. But the longer I worked in the Control Commission the less was I able to understand their behavior. The representatives of the democratic world not only made no attempt to ask us political questions, as I had thought was simply bound to happen when representatives of completely opposed state systems came together, but they displayed a perfectly in-comprehensible indifference to the subject.

    At first I thought this was out of tactfulness. But then I felt sure it must be due to something else. The average western man was far less interested in politics and all that goes with it than the average Soviet man. The men of the West were much more interested in the number of bottles of champagne that had been drunk at a diplomatic reception in the Kremlin, and in the evening gown Madame Molotov had worn on the occasion. This was in the best case, but usually they confined their interests to sport and the beautiful girls on the covers of magazines. To any man living in normal conditions this seemed perfectly natural. If the Soviet men could have chosen they would have done the same.

    At that stage the West had no idea of the extraordinary dichotomy of Soviet existence. In thirty years we have changed fundamentally, to a certain extent we are Sovietized. But while becoming Sovietized we have simultaneously become immunized against communism. The West has no suspicion of this. It is with good reason that the Politburo has begun to underpin the Soviet edifice with the old national foundations, which proved themselves so well during the war. After the war the process of giving the rotting state organism a blood transfusion was continued. The method will doubtless meet with success for a time; it will confuse some and arouse illusory hopes in others. But the Kremlin’s plans will not be modified to any extent.

    A small but characteristic example: in occupied Germany all the Russian soldiers and officers suddenly began to use the word ’Rossiia’-’Russia’. The movement was quite spontaneous. Some-times out of habit one would let ’U. S. S. R.’ slip out; but it was corrected to ’Rossiia’ at once. We ourselves were surprised at this fact, but it was so. Yet for twenty-five years anyone who used the word ’Rossiia’ was liable to be accused of chauvinism, and quite possibly to be charged under the corresponding article of the Narcomvnudel code. One could not help noticing this seemingly small detail when one found the word ’Rossiia’ coming to every soldier’s lips.

    Unconsciously he was emphasizing the difference between the concepts ’Soviet’ and ’Russian’. As though in spite, the foreign press confused these concepts. What we ourselves couldn’t stand they called ’Russian’; all that was dear and precious to us they described as ’Soviet’. The Soviet people neither wish to nor do they need to teach foreigners their political ABC. Why risk one’s head simply to satisfy a stranger’s idle curiosity?

    How constrained Soviet people feel in intercourse with ’foreigners’ is shown by the following incident.

    One day, during an interval in the sittings of the Control Commission, several members of various delegations were discussing what they would like to do on the following Sunday. Kozlov, the chairman of the Soviet delegation in the Industrial Committee, let slip the unwise admission that he was going hunting with a group of colleagues. Kozlov’s foreign colleagues were enthusiastic at the idea of spending a Sunday all together, and said they would gladly join the party. Kozlov had to behave as though he were delighted beyond measure.

    On the Sunday the hunters set out in several cars. During the journey the Soviet members of the party racked their brains over the problem of how to give their Allies the slip. But the need to show some courtesy, plus the excellence of the western cars, gave Kozlov no chance of getting away from his unwanted friends. At the rendezvous the Allies got out and lay about on the grass, with the idea of having a little snack and a little chat. To avoid this, Kozlov and the other Russians slipped off through the bushes, and wandered about the forest all day, cursing Fate for pushing such politically unreliable companions on to them.

    In order to secure himself against the possibility of being reprimanded, Kozlov spent all the following week cursing and swearing to other members of the Administration for Economy about his bad luck, and carefully emphasizing his own ’vigilant* conduct. We could not enter freely into intercourse with the West. But what was the West doing to obtain information on Soviet problems?

    I had several opportunities of observing how the West obtained knowledge of Soviet Russia from ’reliable and competent’ sources. Those sources were usually journalists. The American and British journalists went to great trouble to get together with their Soviet colleagues, for they were convinced that these colleagues could and would answer their questions exhaustively and truthfully. Naive fellows! One can no more expect truth from a Soviet journalist than chastity from a prostitute.

    The American journalists in Berlin tried hard to get together with their Soviet brothers, free of constraint. But the Soviet journalists did their best to avoid any such meeting. Finally it had to be arranged: they had to invite the foreigners to their Press Club. It was at least a step forward that the Americans took the opportunity to ask questions which even the very adroit Soviet journalists could not easily answer. All they could do was keep their mouths shut. It was also very good that the Americans gradually realized the true meaning of ’Narcomvnudel’; they thought their Soviet colleagues were victims of the Narcomvnudel and were ringed about with spies, and that a dictaphone was built into every desk. Of course it would have been even more sound to assume that their hosts were themselves Narcomvnudel agents. My experiences in the college had taught me that all the Soviet Union’s foreign correspondents were coworkers of that organization.

    The Americans took their Soviet colleagues’ silent reserve as indicating their anxiety. This was pretty near, but not quite, the truth. Once the Americans even raised the subject of the ’Soul of the Soviet Man’, but they made the mistake of discussing the soul as such. The Soviet soul is a function of the Soviet reality; it cannot be analyzed in isolation from its milieu.

    Our work in the Control Commission was very instructive. From the very first sittings I realized that the widely held view that a diplomat’s life is easy and carefree was false. In reality it is a devilishly hard, or rather a tedious, occupation. One needs to have the hide of a hippopotamus, the sensitiveness of an antelope, nerves of manila rope and the endurance of a hunter. An English saying has it that it is the highest achievement of good manners to be bored to death without showing it. Now General Shabalin gave his colleagues extensive opportunities to demonstrate the truth of this remark. It was astonishing to see how earnestly earnest people could struggle for hours and days on end with an insoluble problem before they would admit that it was insoluble!

    In selecting their diplomats the British act on the principle that the least suitable of all candidates is one who is energetic and stupid; one who is energetic and clever is not very suitable, and the most suitable of all is a man who is clever and passive. The British prefer to be slow in drawing the right conclusion, and they fear nothing more than precipitate unsound decisions.

    This same rule applies to Soviet diplomats, only in reverse. The ideal Soviet diplomat must be exceptionally energetic and exception-ally stupid. He needs no intelligence, as he may not take any independent decisions in any case. On the other hand, energy is a quality needed by every commercial traveler, whether it is razor blades he is trying to sell, or his master’s policy. General Shabalin was an out-standing example of this type of Soviet diplomat. For that matter, all Soviet diplomats are distinguished by their enormous activity. The Kremlin can be charged with anything rather than passivity.

    Our first encounters in the Control Commission were quite educative. Despite my skeptical attitude to the policy of the western powers, I could not help reaching the conviction that they were genuinely anxious to work together with us for the solution of post-war problems. The creation of the United Nations Organization testified to the western democracies’ desire to secure peace to the world.

    Outwardly, we, too, gave out that we were interested in the same thing and wanted to take the same road. But the very first practical measures proposed indicated that the opposite was the truth. Our readiness for collaboration on the problem of world peace was nothing but a tactical maneuver with the object of maintaining the democratic mask, winning time for the reorganization of our forces, and exploiting the democratic platforms in order to sabotage world public opinion. The very first sittings of the Control Commission opened my eyes to all this.

    I recalled Anna Petrovna’s remark, which had so astounded me, when I was in Moscow. From her words I could only deduce that the Kremlin was thinking of active operations for the Soviet fighting forces in the post-war period. Yet it seemed absurd to think of any kind of war plans when we had only just ended terrible battles, and all the world wished for nothing more urgently and passionately than peace. Now, after those first sittings of the Control Commission it was clear, to me at least, who was neither diplomat nor politician, which the Kremlin had not the slightest desire to collaborate with the democratic West.

    The representatives of the western democracies racked their brains to find an explanation for their eastern ally’s extraordinary conduct. They sought persistently for a modus vivendi with the Kremlin. They sought a key to the enigma of the soul of the East, they turned over the pages of the historical tomes; but it never occurred to them to study the million-copy editions of Lenin’s and Stalin’s works. They attached too much importance to the dissolution of the Comintern. They are not acquainted with the winged words by which the Soviet leaders justify their every deviation from the Party general line: “A temporary deviation is completely justified if it is necessary for reorganization and the accumulation of new strength for the next advance.” The inflexible general line can wind like an adder.

    Sommaire https://seenthis.net/messages/683905
    #anticommunisme #histoire #Berlin #occupation #guerre_froide

  • Loi données personnelles, dernière étape : le Parlement doit défendre ses avancées
    https://www.laquadrature.net/fr/cmp_pjl_rgpd

    5 avril 2018 - Demain se tiendra la commission mixte paritaire (réunissant une poignée de députés et de sénateurs) destinée à trancher les différentes version de la loi « données personnelles » adoptée par chacune des deux chambres ces deux derniers mois. Bien qu’échouant chacune à encadrer les services de renseignement, l’Assemblée nationale et le Sénat ont, chacun de leur côté, prévu certaines avancées pour nos libertés. Le rôle de la commission sera de trancher point par point laquelle des versions des deux chambres doit être définitivement adoptée. L’Observatoire des Libertés et du Numérique (OLN) leur écrit pour leur indiquer les choix exigés par la défense de nos libertés. Lettre ouverte aux membres de la commission mixte paritaire

    Madame, Monsieur, Vous débattrez demain du projet de loi (...)

    #Vie_privée_-_Données_personnelles

  • Saudi Bombing Is Said to Kill Yemeni Civilians Seeking Relief From the Heat - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/world/middleeast/saudi-yemen-bombings.html

    Last month, as Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was visiting the United States on a friendship tour, the Senate defeated a bipartisan effort to end the assistance in a 55-to-44 vote, but only after extensive lobbying by top Pentagon officials.

  • A l’encontre » #Etats-Unis. Les opulents imprésarios du #cirque électoral
    http://alencontre.org/ameriques/americnord/usa/etats-unis-les-opulents-impresarios-du-cirque-electoral.html

    (2014)

    ...le nombre de #petits_donateurs – ceux qui payent moins de 250 dollars – est censé démontrer qu’un candidat est soutenu par le peuple et non par des #ploutocrates.

    Cette idée a été vigoureusement proclamée lors de la campagne d’Obama en 2008. A cette occasion, l’accent a été mis sur développement d’un réseau de base de petits contributeurs. [...]

    Une analyse de la machine à sous d’Obama effectuée après l’élection a montré que seuls 26% de ses fonds provenaient de personnes qui avaient versé 200 dollars ou moins, soit un pourcentage équivalant à celui des petits donateurs ayant contribué à la campagne de George W. Bush en 2004.
    [...]
    Pourtant, à chaque cycle d’élections, les campagnes politiques essaient au contraire de nous persuader que dans la politique états-unienne l’opinion et le vote de chaque personne ont le même poids.

    Avant d’examiner les chiffres, il est utile de faire un rappel de la réalité. [...]

    Pour une famille états-unienne médiane, 250 dollars correspondent à environ 0.5% du revenu médian familial – l’équivalent d’environ un mois de dépenses pour les charges courantes (électricité, chauffage, eau). Si l’on pense au nombre de personnes aux Etats-Unis qui disent vivre d’une paie à l’autre, cela donne déjà une idée du fait que même les « petits donateurs » si convoités appartiennent plus probablement à la classe moyenne au-dessus de la ligne médiane.

    Le Center for Responsive Politics estime que lors du cycle d’élections de 2013-2014, seuls 723’000 états-uniens sur les 311 millions de citoyens ont donné plus de 200 dollars aux candidats politiques fédéraux, soit environ 0.23% de la population. Sur ces donateurs, 127’000 ont donné plus de 2600 dollars, ce qui fait 1,2 milliard, soit trois fois le nombre de 596’000 donateurs qui ont donné entre 200 et 2600 dollars pour un total de 433 millions de dollars.

    En fait, dans le détail, les contributions versées lors les élections de mi-mandat [pour l’ensemble de la Chambre des représentants et un tiers du Sénat] de 2014 étaient encore plus concentrées, avec un peu moins de 32’000 donateurs qui ont versé environ 1,2 milliard. Trois personnes – Tom Steyer, milliardaire démocrate, Michael Bloomberg, ex-maire de New York, et Paul Singer, gestionnaire de hedge funds – ont versé plus de 10 millions chacun. Même si le gros de l’argent est allé aux républicains, les démocrates ont eu leur part. Il faut noter que Steyer seul a dépensé plus d’argent pour les élections de mi-mandat de 2014 que la National Education Association (Association nationale de l’éducation), le Service Employees International Union (Union internationale des employés de service) et l’American Federation of Teachers (Fédération américaine des enseignants) combinés [pour les démocrates].

    #élections #démocratie

  • Country Report : Italy

    The updated AIDA Country Report on Italy documents developments in the asylum procedure, reception conditions, detention of asylum seekers and content of international protection throughout 2017.
    The year 2017 has been chatacterised by media, political and judicial crackdown on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) saving lives at sea, and by the implementation of cooperation agreements with African countries such as Libya, while barriers to access to the territory have also been witnessed at the northern borders of the country, against the backdrop of increasing arrivals from Austria.
    Severe obstacles continue to be reported with regard to access to the asylum procedure in Italy. Several Police Headquarters (Questure) in cities such as Naples, Rome, Bari and Foggia have set specific days for seeking asylum and limited the number of people allowed to seek asylum on a given day, while others have imposed barriers on specific nationalities. In Rome and Bari, nationals of certain countries without a valid passport were prevented from applying for asylum. In other cases, Questure in areas such as Milan, Rome, Naples, Pordenone or Ventimiglia have denied access to asylum to persons without a registered domicile, contrary to the law. Obstacles have also been reported with regard to the lodging of applications, with several Questure such as Milan or Potenza unlawfully refusing to complete the lodging of applications for applicants which they deem not to be in need of protection.
    Since December 2017, Italy has established a specific Dublin procedure in Questure in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region bordering Austria and Slovenia, with support from EASO. According to that procedure, as soon as a Eurodac ‘hit’ is recorded, Questure move the lodging appointment to a later date and notify a Dublin transfer decision to the persons concerned prior to that date. Applicants are therefore subject to a Dublin transfer before having lodged their application, received information on the procedure or had an interview.
    Despite a continuing increase in the capacity of the SPRAR system, which currently counts over 35,000 funded places, the vast majority of asylum seekers are accommodated in temporary reception centres (CAS). CAS hosted around 80% of the population at the end of 2017. In Milan, for example, the ratio of SPRAR to CAS is 1:10.
    Destitution remains a risk of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. At least 10,000 persons are excluded from the reception system. Informal settlements with limited or no access to essential services are spread across the entire national territory.
    Throughout 2017, both due to the problems related to age assessment and to the unavailability of places in dedicated shelters, there have been cases of unaccompanied children accommodated in adults’ reception centres, or not accommodated at all. Several appeals have been lodged to the European Court of Human Rights against inappropriate accommodation conditions for unaccompanied children.
    Five pre-removal centres (CPR) are currently operational, while a new hotspot has been opened in Messina. However, substandard conditions continue to be reported by different authorities visiting detention facilities, namely the hotspots of Lampedusa and Taranto and the CPR of Caltanissetta and Ponte Galeria.
    The hotspots of Lampedusa and Taranto have been temporarily been closed as of March 2018.

    http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/report-download/aida_it_2017update.pdf
    #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #procédure_d'asile #hotspots #Dublin #frontières #procédure_accélérée #vulnérabilité #pays_sûr #relocalisation #hébergement #logement #éducation #travail #santé #rétention #détention_administrative #naturalisation #liberté_de_mouvement #rapport #refoulement #push-back

    Intéressant, lien avec la #frontière_sud-alpine (#Côme #Milan #Vintimille) :

    Particularly as regards Taranto , as reported by the Senate , among the 14,576 people transiting through the hotspot from March to October 2016 , only 5,048 came from disembarkations while the majority (9,528 ) were traced on Italian territory, mainly at border places in Ventimiglia , Como and Milan , and forcibly taken to Taranto to be identified. Some o f them were asylum seekers accommodated in reception centre in the place they were apprehended and who, after being again identified, were just released out of the hotspot without any ticket or money to go back to their reception centres.

    v. aussi la carte de #Gwendoline_Bauquis, produite dans le cadre de son mémoire de master : « Géopolitique d’une crise de la frontière – Entre #Côme et #Chiasso, le système européen d’asile mis à l’épreuve » (2017)


    #cartographie #visualisation

  • The U.S. Government Is Finally Scrambling to Regulate Facebook
    https://theintercept.com/2018/03/29/the-u-s-government-is-finally-scrambling-to-regulate-facebook

    Washington and Big Tech are scrambling to keep up after revelations that the voter profiling firm Cambridge Analytica harvested data from 50 million Facebook users. The scandal has accelerated regulatory and oversight efforts and left top Democrats reconsidering the party’s traditional closeness to Silicon Valley. Perhaps the biggest change in Washington has been to the Senate timeline for confirming members of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency with jurisdiction over data privacy and (...)

    #Facebook #algorithme #domination #données #BigData #publicité #marketing #profiling (...)

    ##publicité ##FTC

  • Racisme, harcèlement sexuel : les rumeurs qui entachent l’image des Beaux-Arts - Le Figaro Etudiant
    http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/racisme-harcelement-sexuel-les-rumeurs-qui-entachent-l-image-des-b

    ENQUÊTE - L’école est secouée depuis quelques mois par des étudiants, qui dénoncent des dérives xénophobes et sexistes. La plupart des élèves peinent à prendre position et la direction dénonce des « rumeurs ».

    Sous un ciel de printemps ce lundi, les étudiants confinés dans leurs ateliers peinaient à trier le vrai du faux dans les deux affaires qui éclaboussent l’institution parisienne.

    ■La première, concerne une série de sept plaintes déposées depuis septembre contre une responsable du nettoyage de la société Organet pour harcèlement moral à caractère raciste sur ses employés.
    ■La seconde, une pétition lancée en octobre par cinq étudiants pour libérer la parole sur le harcèlement sexuel, pétition qui a ressurgi dans une enquête du Monde parue hier. Dans les deux cas, les étudiants et certains professeurs des syndicats SNAC-FSU et Sud-Culture reprochent à la direction de l’école sa passivité. Celle-ci se défend en jugeant que ces sujets, lourds, ne peuvent pas être jugés sur des bruits de couloirs.
    Le membre de la sécurité est parti en congé maladie

    Rapportés par Streetpress après un signalement d’étudiants de l’école, les propos à caractère raciste concernent une salariée d’Organet, société de nettoyage privée et externe à l’école. Celle-ci insultait et traitait très violemment son personnel majoritairement immigré et a été écartée par Organet depuis la parution de l’article. Mais les étudiants et certains professeurs soupçonnent un membre de la sécurité de l’école -sans preuve tangible jusqu’à aujourd’hui-d’avoir fait perdurer un climat de tension xénophobe au sein de cette entreprise de nettoyage. D’après nos informations, un groupe de cinq élèves a rencontré directement la ministre de la Culture Françoise Nyssen vendredi dans son bureau pour évoquer ce sujet et demander la démission de ce salarié. Ce même jour, des étudiants ont distribué 7000 tracts d’une rare violence à l’encontre de cet employé. Interrogé par le Figaro, Jean-Marc Bustamante, directeur de l’école, a confié que ce salarié a quitté l’école pour deux mois de congé maladie.

    « Un ancien militaire ultraprovocateur qui s’habille en parka de l’armée » Djabril et Camille, étudiants

    Djabril Boukhanayssi et Camille Correas font partie de ce groupe d’élèves qui s’est constitué contre les dérives racistes dans les locaux. Installés dans un atelier entre des jambes de papier mâché et des tiges de bois clair, ils dépeignent le caractère du salarié qu’ils incriminent : « Un ancien militaire ultraprovocateur qui s’habille en parka de l’armée et s’affiche régulièrement avec des fleurs de lys ».

    Les étudiants ont distribué 7000 tracts vendredi.

    « Certes, admet volontiers Jean-Marc Bustamante, mais c’est un censeur. Cet homme est ici pour interdire entre autres de fumer ou boire dans les locaux. Forcément, il est difficile de faire respecter l’ordre dans un lieu symbolique des revendications libertaires, mais il n’y a aucun cas avéré de geste inapproprié de sa part ». Et Françoise Nyssen l’a rappelé aux étudiants vendredi, aucun de ces éléments ne constitue de faute grave.

    Jean-Marc Bustamante raconte qu’il existe toutefois un cas avéré. Un jour, ce même individu a traité de « sale pute » un professeur, devant ses élèves, « lors d’un excès de colère typique de cet individu ». Cette femme avait immédiatement exigé des excuses publiques devant le corps enseignant et les élèves.

    « Il est très compliqué de faire la différence entre des cas avérés de harcèlement et les excès des étudiants en arts prompts à hurler pour à peu sur tout ».Romane, étudiante

    L’autre sujet qui bruisse dans l’école, c’est celui de cette pétition contre le harcèlement sexuel mise en ligne il y a quatre mois et exhumée par Le Monde hier matin. Devant l’iconique palais des études, la plupart des étudiants avouent pourtant ne jamais avoir constaté de remarques ou d’actes déplacés dans leurs « ateliers », ces petites salles où se réunissent une vingtaine d’élèves et leur enseignant. En 2013, un rapport du Sénat évoquait pourtant « la banalisation des comportements sexistes dans les écoles d’art » liée notamment à des rendez-vous récurrents en tête à tête avec le « chef d’atelier ».
    « Nous sommes toujours suffisamment nombreux dans les salles, estime aujourd’hui Laure*, étudiante en troisième année. Il est très rare d’être seul avec un enseignant ». Romane*, elle aussi étudiante en troisième année n’a « jamais entendu parler d’actes de harcèlement autour d’[elle] », même si « certains profs font plus facilement passer des filles au tableau ». Selon la jeune fille, comme pour une dizaine d’autres interrogées ce jour, « il est très compliqué de faire la différence entre des cas avérés de harcèlement et les excès des étudiants en arts prompts à hurler pour à peu sur tout ».

    Personne ne veut d’une réforme des ateliers parfois évoquée pour limiter la proximité entre élèves et professeur.

    Anne Rochette, sculptrice, professeur et membre du syndicat Sud-Culture affirme pourtant que certains ateliers fonctionnaient encore il y a peu « comme des harems », où les jeunes femmes sont « dans un rapport de séduction avec leur chef d’atelier ». « En 25 ans, j’ai eu connaissance d’une douzaine de cas de jeunes filles qui ont changé d’enseignant pour des problèmes liés au harcèlement », explique-t-elle. La plupart des témoignages convergent vers le même professeur, qui d’après nos informations a déjà été mis à pied pour six mois il y a une quinzaine d’années pour des cas similaires. À l’époque, une main courante avait été déposée.
    20 témoignages anonymes sont déjà arrivés sur la plateforme

    Jean-Marc Bustamante, a pris la tête des beaux-arts il y a trois ans, se dit « sans voix » face à ces accusations. Selon lui, « il n’y a rien d’autre que des rumeurs dans cette affaire de harcèlement ». Cinq mois après la pétition, il n’y a toujours aucune plainte, mais « des rumeurs sur 4 ou 5 professeurs », précise-t-il. De son côté, Lila*, l’une des signataires de la pétition, assure que 20 témoignages anonymes sont déjà arrivés sur la plate-forme mise en ligne à cet effet. La jeune fille dit avoir été victime elle-même de mains sur la cuisse ou de caresses sur les hanches de la part d’un professeur.
    Une charte de l’égalité hommes femmes sera remise à la ministre de la Culture

    Au sein de l’école, personne ne veut d’une réforme structurelle des ateliers parfois évoquée pour limiter la proximité entre élèves et professeurs. Selon son directeur, « c’est un système formidable car l’art ne s’enseigne pas mais se transmet ». Selon Anne Rochette, « l’école est une institution fragile, justement parce qu’elle fonctionne différemment des autres. C’est un lieu magnifique avec ce système d’atelier qui n’existe plus ailleurs : un mélange de liberté totale et d’enseignement plus traditionnel ».

    Depuis le mois de juillet, l’école assure avoir mis en place un système d’écoute anonyme pour lutter contre le harcèlement avec l’association Clasches. Une réunion d’informations le 16 mars avec cette association avait été proposée à tous les élèves, et « seuls 25 ont répondu présents », précise le directeur. L’établissement a également rédigé une charte de l’égalité hommes femmes qui sera remise mercredi 28 mars en mains propres à la ministre de la Culture Françoise Nyssen par Jean-Marc Bustamante.

    On retrouve #AF avec le misogyne raciste qui se balade avec ses fleurs de lys pour traiter une prof de sale pute, ce qui n’est pas un problème pour Bustamante. Bustamante qui a été promu directeur de cette école après avoir tenu des propos misogynes dans son catalogue d’artiste. Dans mon passage éclaire dans cette école, j’ai souvenir qu’il était proche et ami des pires prof de l’école ; celui qui se ventait de choisir ses étudiantes sur les seuls critères physiques, et celui qui interdisait son cours « aux connasses du MLF et ceux qui parlent une langue de métèque ».

    voire aussi ; https://seenthis.net/messages/586025

    • Le sexisme et le harcèlement aux Beaux-Arts de Paris mis en lumière par Le Monde

      Sexisme, misogynie, harcèlement sexuel... la société commence à prendre conscience de ce que vivent les femmes. Le Monde enquête sur un mouvement de lutte à l’École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts de Paris.

      http://www.madmoizelle.com/beaux-arts-paris-sexisme-902959

      –----

      10 avril 2018
      Brèves Harcèlement aux Beaux-Arts de Paris

      Après une pétition lancée par cinq de ses élèves (trois filles et deux garçons), qui a recueilli plus de 800 signatures en quelques jours, l’École des Beaux Arts de Paris s’est enfin attaquée à la banalisation du harcèlement sexuel. Le texte réclamait des avertissements, une sensibilisation et une structure d’écoute.

      Gestes déplacés, insultes sexistes, humiliations, six professeurs ont été régulièrement cités pour leur attitude envers les élèves. Une session d’information sur le harcèlement a donc réuni les étudiant.e.s, professeur.e.s et personnels de la prestigieuse école et un document en ligne permet désormais aux élèves de témoigner anonymement.

      https://www.50-50magazine.fr/2018/04/10/harcelement-aux-beaux-arts-de-paris

  • #Sandro_Gozi : la place du #Parti_démocrate italien est « dans l’opposition »
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/230318/sandro-gozi-la-place-du-parti-democrate-italien-est-dans-l-opposition

    Le nouveau parlement italien se réunit pour la première fois le 23 mars. En jeu : la présidence de la Chambre des députés et du Sénat, que la droite et le Mouvement Cinq Étoiles cherchent à se répartir. L’inconnue reste la formation du prochain gouvernement.

    #International #élections_européennes #élections_législatives #Emmanuel_Macron #Italie #M5S #Parlement_européen

  • StratCom confirme Poutine
    http://www.dedefensa.org/article/stratcom-confirme-poutine

    StratCom confirme Poutine

    22 mars 2018 – Le général qui commande les forces stratégiques des USA, Strategic Command ou StratCom, est venu devant le Sénat lugubrement rassurer les parlementaires de la commission des forces armées : tout ce qu’a dit Poutine dans son discours du 1er mars n’est pas que FakeNewsisme, loin de là. Le président russe ayant parlé des capacités russes en matière de missiles hypersoniques, le Général John Hyten a effectivement confirmé que, dans ce domaine, les USA se trouvaient sans capacités de riposte au même niveau, – c’est-à-dire qu’une riposte, s’il devait y avoir riposte, serait nécessairement nucléaire même si l’attaque hypersonique se fait à l’aide de munitions conventionnelles... Autrement dit et malgré les susdites quelques paroles lugubrement rassurantes du général, la (...)

    • C’est un moment incroyablement important qui semble ne pas vraiment passionner le monde passionnant de la communication. Le chef de la dissuasion nucléaire des USA nous dit que la dissuasion ne marche plus dans sa principale fonction... La dissuasion étant faite pour dissuader réciproquement de l’emploi du nucléaire, nous en sommes à l’aveu où, contre certains types d’armements qui peuvent n’être qu’à charges conventionnelles et dont certains semblent déjà opérationnels du côté russe, la seule riposte possible des USA serait de monter au nucléaire.

    • « Le premier message le plus important que je veux transmettre aujourd’hui est que les forces sous mon commandement sont tout à fait prêtes à dissuader nos adversaires et à réagir de manière décisive, si jamais la dissuasion échouait. Nous sommes prêts pour toutes les menaces. Personne ne devrait en douter. »

      Air Force Gen. John Hyten, Stratcom, déclaration au Senate Armed Services Committee, le 20/03/2018

      « - Sommes-nous prêts ?
        »- Jusqu’au dernier bouton de guêtre, et nous avons huit jours d’avance sur la Prusse. "

      Maréchal Edmond Le Bœuf, ministre de la Guerre, réponse à la commission ad hoc du Corps Législatif, 14/07/1870

      La veille, il avait dit au conseil des ministres :

      «  Nous sommes prêts, nous ne l’avons jamais été davantage. D’ailleurs, nous serons infailliblement vainqueurs le premier jour et nous n’avons pas à nous préoccuper du second.  »

      https://books.google.fr/books?id=3HQuDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT457&ots=Pk9FOt8A1Y&dq=%22nous%20sommes%20pr

  • Lea Tsemel, Paris 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgFKz4hWZYE

    Colloque organisé par l’AFPS, le 12 février 2018 au Sénat, Paris, table ronde avec Lea Tsemel, Rebecca Vilkomerson, Hugh Lanning, et Marie France Chatin.

    Lea Tsemel aborde ici surtout les stratégies légales mises en place par l’Etat israélien pour empêcher la contestation de sa politique, qu’elle émane des Palestinien.ne.s, des Israélien.ne.s progressistes, des initiatives israélo-palestiniennes, ou même maintenant de nombreuses ONG internationales, en particulier au nom de la lutte contre la campagne internationale non-violente de Boycott, Désinvestissement et Sanctions (BDS) contre l’Etat israélien. Elle évoque en particulier, l’interdiction pour les activistes étrangers d’entrer en israel, mais aussi la surveillance sur facebook et les autres réseaux sociaux, les entraves au discours qui conteste les symboles sionistes officiels, l’attaque de toutes les campagnes de défense des droits des Palestiniens, ou même des droits des migrants africains. Elle réclame une réciprocité de traitement des touristes israéliens lorsqu’ils passent les frontières des pays dans lesquels ils se rendent. Elle évoque enfin les lois scandaleusement discriminatoires qui s’attaquent aux couples mixtes entre Palestinien.ne.s et étranger.e.s.

    A Montréal en 2017 :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/676993

    #Palestine #Lea_Tsemel #Avocate #Justice #Injustice

  • Linky : le Sénat étudie la possibilité de refuser l’installation des nouveaux compteurs
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/14643-linky-le-senat-etudie-la-possibilite-de-refuser-l-installation-des-

    Allez même si rien n’est gagné, une possible bonne nouvelle pour continuer, rassurez vous si vous voulez votre dose de « pessimism porn » la Revue de presse (qui est plus détaillée) vous tend les bras ; )))

    En décembre dernier, plus de 7 millions compteurs avaient déjà été installés dans 4200 communes. - Crédits

    photo : DAMIEN MEYER/AFP

    Une sénatrice propose de modifier la loi pour permettre aux usagers le souhaitant de refuser l’installation d’un compteur Linky. Plusieurs communes continuent de s’opposer au déploiement des appareils sur leur territoire.

    Nouvel épisode dans le feuilleton Linky. Ces derniers mois, plusieurs communes de la région Nouvelle-Aquitaine, parmi lesquelles Marmande, Bayonne ou encore Saint-Macaire ont demandé que les habitants refusant l’installation (...)

  • La loi sur le secret des affaires est un danger pour nos libertés fondamentales
    https://www.bastamag.net/La-loi-sur-le-secret-des-affaires-est-un-danger-pour-nos-libertes-fondamen

    Deux ans après son adoption, la directive européenne sur le secret des affaires va être transposée dans le droit français en catimini et dans le cadre d’une procédure accélérée. Lanceurs d’alerte, syndicalistes, militants associatifs, journalistes et chercheurs sonnent l’alarme sur les dangers de cette loi pour le droit à l’information et la liberté d’expression. Les journalistes de Basta ! s’associent à cet appel. L’Assemblée nationale et le Sénat s’apprêtent à remettre en cause nos libertés fondamentales (...)

    #Débattre

    / Démocratie !

    #Démocratie_ !

  • Dr Vaira Vike-Freiberga est en conférence en France au Sénat ce 19 mars 2018

    [Lettonie-Francija]
    https://www.lettonie-francija.fr/Lettonie-presidente-Vaira-Vike-Freiberga-europe-130?lang=fr

    Dr Vaira Vike-Freiberga lors de plusieurs conférences en France, à Riga, en Europe
    "Mesdames, du courage, de la conviction et de l’énergie !"

    Dr Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, ancienne Présidente de Lettonie, Présidente actuelle du Club de Madrid, s’exprime lors de différents interviews. De 1999 à 2007 Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga a occupé le poste de Présidente de la Lettonie, période durant laquelle elle a travaillé activement à la démocratisation du pays et au renforcement de sa base juridique. Elle a mis en œuvre avec succès les intérêts de la politique étrangère de la Lettonie et a agrandi la reconnaissance de la nation dans le monde. Elle évoque les missions du groupe chargé de réfléchir à l’avenir de l’Union européenne à l’horizon 2020-2030 et autres sujets scientifiques, internationaux, ainsi que sa passion pour les musiques et folklores

    "Je voudrais souligner notre plus grand défi - celui de construire des sociétés ouvertes et démocratiques tout en respectant l’héritage ethnique, culturel et linguistique de chaque nation européenne. Pour la première fois dans notre histoire collective, nous avons entrepris de construire ensemble l’Europe de demain non par la force, mais par la libre volonté.
    Sans un regard critique sur nos hontes autant que nos gloires, sans cultiver un esprit de communauté et de fraternité, notre grand projet commun risque de rester inachevé. Libérés des entraves du passé, par contre, nous avons tout pour en faire un succès."

    https://youtu.be/0miIjjt2MOU

    .../...

    Écoutez et regardez les diverses interventions de Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga sur [Lettonie-Francija]
    https://www.lettonie-francija.fr/Lettonie-presidente-Vaira-Vike-Freiberga-europe-130?lang=fr

    #Vaira_Vīķe-Freiberga, #colloque, #Sénat, #Présidente_Lettonie, #Club-de-Madrid, #lettonie, #pays_baltes

    • Le plafond était jusqu’à maintenant fixé à 18.000 euros maximum, il est désormais de 2.350 euros.

      Cette allocation est attribuée en cas de décès du député, de son époux ou de son épouse, ou de ses enfants. Les députés en bénéficient toute leur vie, même après avoir quitté leur siège. En 2017, ce système a coûté 573.000 euros.

      On aurait du les peindre depuis longtemps.
      #privilèges_inconnus_du_grand_public

    • Privilèges des députés : ceux qui ont été abolis et ceux qui existent encore.
      http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/privileges-des-deputes-ceux-qui-ont-ete-abolis-et-ceux-qui-existent-encor

      ça, par exemple : L’allocation-chômage. Autre privilège abrogé début 2018, les #allocations-chômage. En cas de défaite électorale, les actuels habitués du Palais Bourbon ont désormais droit à 57 % du salaire journalier pendant 24 à 36 mois, comme les salariés de droit commun. Avant, un ancien député percevait l’équivalent de l’indemnité parlementaire de base pendant six mois (5 600 euros), puis une indemnité dégressive pendant trois mois.

      3 136 € comme les salarié·e·s de droit commun ??
      avec ce tarif, même les perdant·e·s sont assuré d’une allocation dorée !
      source : https://twitter.com/anticor_org
      #privilège_de_classe #politique #Privilèges_des_députés

    • Enterrement low cost
      Ah, les petits coquins... Près de deux siècles qu’ils se faisaient enterrer aux frais du contribuable. La République est généreuse avec ses élus : 18 255 € max par député, mais avec possibilité de faire « profiter » conjoint et enfants de cette petite enveloppe.
      Anecdotique ? pas vraiment, puisque les obsèques d’anciens députés et de leur proches ont coûté 573 000 € à l’assemblée l’année dernière. Désormais, le cadeau ne dépassera pas les 2 350 €, et il faudra produire une facture. Le vent d’austérité n’a pas soufflé jusqu’au Sénat, qui a décidé de conserver pour chaque sénateur une enveloppe de 20 000 €.
      Le Sénat mérite bien sa réputation de maison de retraite la plus cosy de Paris, le suivi est assuré jusqu’au bout.

      "Le Canard enchaîné" 21/3/2018

      Et après ça on nous dit que les caisses sont vides ??
      Un coup à profaner la tombe du prochain sénateur, à 20 000 boules l’enterrement, il doit rester quelques billets dans leurs poches.

    • A savoir que pour les services fiscaux l’enterrement de n’importe quel quidam est de 1500€. Cette somme peut être prélevée par les services funéraires sur les comptes bancaires du défunt, si les comptes sont vides ou que les frais dépassent ce sont alors les proches qui payent.
      Or, le prix moyen en France estimé par UFC que choisir est de 3350€ hors caveau …
      et les crémations maintenant à la mode sont devenues plus chères.
      #logement_ad_aeternam

      #injustice_sociale
      #inégalités
      #sénat

      Et comme disait ma chère tante « Les cimetières sont pleins de gens qui se croyaient indispensables. »

  • Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia: Top three stunning admissions from the top U.S. general in the Middle East

    Assad has won, Iran deal should stand and Saudis use American weapons without accountability in Yemen: head of U.S. military’s Central Command’s stunning Congressional testimony

    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/top-three-stunning-admissions-from-the-top-u-s-general-in-the-region-1.5910

    Haaretz and Reuters Mar 16, 2018

    The top U.S. general in the Middle East testified before Congress on Tuesday and dropped several bombshells: from signaled support for the Iran nuclear deal, admitting the U.S. does not know what Saudi Arabia does with its bombs in Yemen and that Assad has won the Syrian Civil War.
    U.S. Army General Joseph Votel said the Iran agreement, which President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw from, has played an important role in addressing Iran’s nuclear program.
    “The JCPOA addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran, so if the JCPOA goes away, then we will have to have another way to deal with their nuclear weapons program,” said U.S. Army General Joseph Votel. JCPOA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is the formal name of the accord reached with Iran in July 2015 in Vienna.
    Trump has threatened to withdraw the United States from the accord between Tehran and six world powers unless Congress and European allies help “fix” it with a follow-up pact. Trump does not like the deal’s limited duration, among other things.
    Votel is head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, which is responsible for the Middle East and Central Asia, including Iran. He was speaking to a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the same day that Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after a series of public rifts over policy, including Iran.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    Tillerson had joined Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in pressing a skeptical Trump to stick with the agreement with Iran.
    “There would be some concern (in the region), I think, about how we intended to address that particular threat if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA. ... Right now, I think it is in our interest” to stay in the deal, Votel said.

    When a lawmaker asked whether he agreed with Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford’s position on the deal,Votel said: “Yes, I share their position.”
    Mattis said late last year that the United States should consider staying in the Iran nuclear deal unless it was proven Tehran was not complying or that the agreement was not in the U.S. national interest.
    A collapse of the Iran nuclear deal would be a “great loss,” the United Nations atomic watchdog’s chief warned Trump recently, giving a wide-ranging defense of the accord.
    Iran has stayed within the deal’s restrictions since Trump took office but has fired diplomatic warning shots at Washington in recent weeks. It said on Monday that it could rapidly enrich uranium to a higher degree of purity if the deal collapsed.
    Syria
    Votel also discussed the situation in Syria at the hearing.
    During the Syrian army’s offensive in eastern Ghouta, more than 1,100 civilians have died. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, backed by Russia and Iran, say they are targeting “terrorist” groups shelling the capital.
    U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned on Monday that Washington “remains prepared to act if we must,” if the U.N. Security Council failed to act on Syria.
    Votel said the best way to deter Russia, which backs Assad, was through political and diplomatic channels.
    “Certainly if there are other things that are considered, you know, we will do what we are told. ... (But) I don’t recommend that at this particular point,” Votel said, in an apparent to reference to military options.
    Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked whether it was too strong to say that with Russia and Iran’s help, Assad had “won” the civil war in Syria.
    “I do not think that is too strong of a statement,” Votel said.
    Graham also asked if the United States’ policy on Syria was still to seek the removal of Assad from power.
    “I don’t know that that’s our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus remains on the defeat of ISIS,” Votel said, using an acronym for Islamic State. 
    Saudi Arabia
    In a stunning exchange with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, Votel admitted that Centcom doesn’t know when U.S. fuel and munitions are used in Yemen. 
    “General Votel, does CENTCOM track the purpose of the missions it is refueling? In other words, where a U.S.-refueled aircraft is going, what targets it strikes, and the result of the mission?” Warren asked.
    “Senator, we do not,” Votel replied.
    The Senator followed up, citing reports that U.S. munitions have been used against civilians in Yemen, she asked, “General Votel, when you receive reports like this from credible media organizations or outside observers, is CENTCOM able to tell if U.S. fuel or U.S. munitions were used in that strike?”
    “No, senator, I don’t believe we are,” he replied.
    Showing surprise at the general’s response, Warren concluded, “We need to be clear about this: Saudi Arabia’s the one receiving American weapons and American support. And that means we bear some responsibility here. And that means we need to hold our partners and our allies accountable for how those resources are used,” she said.

  • Le Sénat américain relance la #déréglementation bancaire
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/160318/le-senat-americain-relance-la-dereglementation-bancaire

    Dix ans après le début de la crise financière de 2008, un texte a été adopté qui remet en cause une grande partie de la #réglementation bancaire. « Il y a un sérieux risque de recréer les conditions qui ont conduit à la dernière crise financière », s’alarme l’ancien responsable du Trésor américain.

    #International #Economie #banques #Donald_Trump #Finances #loi_Dodd-Frank #regulation #Wall_Street

  • Liberties | Fermeture “temporaire” du hotspot de Lampedusa suite à l’intervention d’ONG
    https://asile.ch/2018/03/16/liberties-fermeture-temporaire-hotspot-de-lampedusa-suite-a-lintervention-dong

    A la suite de mouvements de protestation au sein du centre d’accueil de Lampedusa, une délégation de trois organisations de droits humains a dénoncé des violations systématiques des droits de l’homme au sein du hotspot. Mardi 13 mars 2018, le ministère de l’Intérieur italien a annoncé la fermeture temporaire du hotspot de Lampedusa pour rénovations. […]

    • In un dossier la vita impossibile nell’hotspot di Lampedusa

      Ai primi di aprile, dopo il salvataggio di quasi 300 persone in mare, 72 tunisini hanno dovuto trascorrere la notte in quello che fino a poco tempo fa era l’hotspot di Lampedusa. Eppure, dell’hospot era stata annunciata da poco la chiusura temporanea - per una “ristrutturazione” con cui il Ministero dell’Interno aveva dovuto rispondere a pesanti denunce. Ora, con testimonianze, interviste e fotografie raccolte durante alcuni sopralluoghi, il dossier presentato a Roma il 10 aprile da Asgi, Cild e Indie Watch dimostra le innumerevoli ragioni di preoccupazione sul trattamento disumano riservato a chi arriva nella struttura di Lampedusa.

      http://openmigration.org/analisi/in-un-dossier-la-vita-impossibile-nellhotspot-di-lampedusa

    • Rapporto: «Scenari di frontiera: il caso Lampedusa. L’approccio hotspot e le sue possibili evoluzioni alla luce del Decreto legge n. 113/2018»

      Trattenimenti informali e limitazione della libertà personale, condizioni materiali problematiche, scarsa informazione su status legale e accesso alla procedura di protezione internazionale, differenziazione arbitraria tra richiedenti asilo e cosiddetti migranti economici, applicazione parziale delle garanzie a tutela dei minori.

      È quanto emerge dal monitoraggio dell’hotspot di Lampedusa realizzato nell’ambito del progetto pilota In Limine, nato nel marzo 2018 da una collaborazione che portiamo avanti con Asgi, Cild e Indiewatch, presentato nel report “Scenari di frontiera: l’approccio hotspot e le sue possibili evoluzioni alla luce del caso Lampedusa”.

      Un quadro che desta ancora più preoccupazione dopo l’approvazione del Decreto 113/2018 cosiddetto “Sicurezza e immigrazione”, che disciplina per legge alcune delle prassi illegittime riscontrate, con il rischio di compromettere, in modo ancor più generalizzato, l’esercizio del diritto di asilo.

      Nel corso del progetto sono state registrate - attraverso circa 60 interviste con i migranti, colloqui con associazioni, organizzazioni internazionali e istituzioni attive sull’isola e attraverso l’osservazione diretta - significative violazioni della normativa vigente.

      Dal rapporto emergono poi violazioni molto rilevanti in tema di limitazione delle libertà personali e risulta che i cittadini stranieri non vengono correttamente informati sulla propria posizione, sul proprio status legale e sulla possibilità di richiedere protezione, diversamente da quanto previsto dalla legge.

      Per quanto riguarda la classificazione dei migranti, il rapporto evidenzia che in molti casi lo status giuridico di richiedente asilo o di persona destinataria di provvedimento di respingimento sembra essere definito, contrariamente a quanto previsto nella normativa italiana e comunitaria, unicamente in ragione del paese di origine.

      Infine, il monitoraggio ha messo in luce come all’interno degli hotspot non verrebbero applicate o verrebbero applicate solo parzialmente le garanzie previste dalla normativa per la tutela dei minori anche per ciò che riguarda, ad esempio, il diritto all’unità familiare e al ricongiungimento, la nomina di un tutore che svolga un ruolo effettivo, il diritto ad essere collocati in una struttura idonea ad accogliere e tutelare i minori.

      In Limine ha messo a punto e utilizzato diversi strumenti per raggiungere obiettivi differenti: contrastare le prassi illegittime e produrre un cambiamento strutturale nell’accesso dei migranti ai diritti in frontiera. Con questo obiettivo sono stati presentati ricorsi, esposti, segnalazioni e si è data diffusione immediata alle informazioni raccolte sulle gravi violazioni rilevate. Inoltre, il progetto ha voluto esercitare una pressione costante sulle autorità attraverso il monitoraggio e la presa in carico dei migranti al fine di vigilare sull’attuazione di prassi corrette e per garantire un intervento immediato ove si fossero rilevate violazioni.

      Tutto questo appare più preoccupante dopo l’approvazione del Decreto Sicurezza (Dl 113/2018), che in sostanza disciplina diverse prassi illegittime osservate a Lampedusa e negli altri hotspot.

      Alcune norme sembrano infatti destinate a ridefinire il funzionamento degli hotspot e tre profili in particolare – trattenimento fino a 30 giorni per la determinazione e verifica dell’identità e della cittadinanza per i richiedenti asilo (a cui si sommano altri 180 giorni in un CPR in caso di mancata identificazione), applicazione accelerata e in frontiera delle procedure di valutazione della domanda di asilo, trattenimento in luoghi cosiddetti impropri dei cittadini stranieri destinatari dei provvedimenti di espulsione – suggeriscono un possibile sviluppo su larga scala della limitazione all’esercizio del diritto di asilo.

      Il recente Decreto dunque, se non sarà oggetto di modifica parlamentare, rende ancora più urgente la necessità che le procedure che si svolgono all’interno degli hotspot siano rese visibili e trasparenti, con l’obiettivo di ridurre abusi e violazioni dei diritti delle persone.

      Per questo, insieme alle altre organizzazioni che insieme a noi hanno dato vita al progetto In Limine, intensificheremo il nostro impegno, aumentando anche il raggio di azione per monitorare gli effetti delle nuove norme.

      https://www.actionaid.it/informati/notizie/decreto-sicurezza-effetti-su-hotspot
      #decreto_salvini

  • Loi données personnelles : Le Sénat refuse (lui aussi) d’encadrer les services de renseignement
    https://www.laquadrature.net/fr/pjl_rgpd_senat_com

    14 mars 2017 - Ce matin, la commission du Sénat en charge d’examiner le projet de loi données personnelles a rendu sa version du texte. Comme à l’Assemblée nationale (voir notre article), la commission des lois a refusé de déposer le moindre amendement visant à encadrer les activités du renseignement français, tel que le droit européen l’exige pourtant. Le texte sera examiné par l’ensemble des sénateurs le 20 mars prochain : ils devront déposer et soutenir tout amendement visant à nous protéger des abus des services de renseignement.

    Lire nos amendements (PDF, 8 pages)

    Le projet de loi données personnelles a deux buts : préparer le droit français à l’entrée en application du règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD) le 25 mai prochain et — nos parlementaires (...)

    #Loi_surveillance #Surveillance #Vie_privée_-_Données_personnelles

  • En #Colombie, la droite anti-accord de paix l’emporte
    http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2018/03/12/en-colombie-la-droite-anti-accord-de-paix-l-emporte_5269368_3222.html

    La droite opposée à l’accord de paix avec l’ex-guérilla des Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie (FARC) est arrivée en tête des législatives, dimanche 11 mars, en Colombie, à l’issue d’un scrutin historique auquel participaient pour la première fois d’anciens rebelles qui ont fait leur entrée au Parlement.

    La victoire de la droite, bien que celle-ci n’ait pas réussi à emporter la majorité, suscite l’incertitude quant à la suite de la mise en œuvre de l’accord signé en 2016 avec ce qui était alors la rébellion la plus ancienne et la plus puissante d’Amérique latine.

    Pour la première fois en plus d’un demi-siècle de conflit armé, les Colombiens ont pu cependant voter sans la menace des guérillas. Le président de la République de Colombie, Juan Manuel Santos, a salué « les élections les plus sûres, les plus transparentes (...) de l’histoire récente du pays ».

    En tête de la coalition de droite, c’est le Centre démocratique du sénateur et ex-président Alvaro #Uribe, farouche adversaire de l’accord avec les FARC, qui a recueilli le plus de voix, obtenant dix-neuf sièges au Sénat et trente-trois à la Chambre des députés. L’accord avec l’ex-guérilla devenue la Force alternative révolutionnaire commune garantit dix des deux cent quatre-vingts sièges du nouveau Parlement à l’ancienne guérilla marxiste.
    […]
    Ce dimanche avaient aussi lieu les primaires pour désigner les candidats à la présidence des deux principales tendances.
    A droite, c’est le sénateur Ivan Duque (CD) qui l’a emporté ; à gauche, #Gustavo_Petro, ancien maire de Bogota et ex-guérillero du M-19 (Movimiento 19 de Abril, gauche, dissous). Avec le centriste Sergio Fajardo, ancien maire de Medellin, deuxième ville du pays, ils sont en tête des sondages.

    Si Ivan Duque remporte la présidence, les pourparlers avec l’ELN pourraient aussi être retardés. Ils ont été gelés en février par le gouvernement à la suite d’attentats meurtriers de cette guérilla d’environ quinze cents combattants.

  • La restriction du droit d’amendement crispe jusque dans la majorité
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/090318/la-restriction-du-droit-d-amendement-crispe-jusque-dans-la-majorite

    Le premier ministre a commencé à présenter aux forces politiques son projet de réforme des institutions. Parmi les mesures proposées : la limitation du droit d’amendement. Certains membres de la majorité s’insurgent, tout comme l’opposition. Beaucoup l’envisagent comme une « monnaie d’échange » avec le président du Sénat. « Ça ne tiendra pas », prédit un ministre.

    #France #droit_d'amendement #Edouard_Philippe #Emmanuel_Macron #réforme_institutionnelle

  • Le veto d’Emmanuel Macron à l’amélioration des retraites agricoles | L’Humanité
    https://humanite.fr/le-veto-demmanuel-macron-lamelioration-des-retraites-agricoles-651716

    Alors que les pensions de retraite perçues par les paysans sont souvent comprises entre 700 et 850€ après une vie de travail très physique, celles des femmes sont encore inférieures car beaucoup d’entre-elles n’ont accédé au statut d’exploitante ou de co-exploitante que sur le tard.

    Cette injustice aurait pu être corrigée le 7 mars 2018, veille de la journée internationale de la femme. En effet, les députés avaient voté le 2 février, à l’unanimité, une proposition de loi du député communiste du Puy-de-Dôme André Chassaigne visant à porter la retraite minimum de 75 à 85% du SMIC, soit entre 871 et 987€ par mois. A leur tour, les sénateurs s’apprêtaient à voter hier le texte défendu par le sénateur communiste du Pas-de-Calais Dominique Watrin. La commission des affaires sociales du Sénat avait adopté la proposition de loi sans modification, se prononçant ainsi « en faveur de mesures concrètes pour les retraités agricoles … ».

    Et c’est là qu’est intervenu le gouvernement pour demander un « vote bloqué ». Cette procédure, nous dit l’article 4 alinéa 3 de la Constitution, fait de sorte que « si le gouvernement le demande, l’Assemblée saisie se prononce par un seul vote sur tout ou partie du texte en discussion en ne retenant que les amendement proposés ou acceptés par le gouvernement ».
    Une procédure pour vider le texte de son contenu

    Pour dire les choses clairement, le gouvernement a recouru à cette procédure afin de vider le texte de son contenu pour ne pas permettre une augmentation des petites retraites perçues par une majorité de paysans et surtout de paysannes. Il est vrai que le texte visait à taxer légèrement le capitaux qui spéculent en Bourse au lieu de s’investir dans la production afin de financer cette augmentation des retraites paysannes sans augmenter les cotisation dans une profession où près d’un tiers des exploitants n’ont dégagé qu’un revenu mensuel moyen de 350€ en n2016 du fait de la chute du prix du lait, de la viande et des céréales.

    On peut donc penser que c’est avant tout l’idée de taxer les capitaux spéculatifs qui a déplu au président Macron, lui qui par ailleurs a tenu à ce que les retraités paient à la place des salariés la cotisation chômage et la cotisation maladie. Tout cela pour que les smicards aient 10€ de plus à la fin du mois sans que cela ne coûte un centime à leur patron, même quand ce dernier se nomme Bernard Arnault, quatrième fortune mondiale, Serge Dassault ou François Pinault. Ajoutons que cette misérable augmentation du salaire net a été reprise dès le mois de janvier via l’augmentation du prix des carburants et du gaz !

    Présidente du groupe Communiste, Républicain, Citoyen et Ecologiste (CRCE), Eliane Assassi, sénatrice de Seine-Saint-Denis a rappelé dans un rappel au règlement que « cette proposition de loi a été adoptée à l’unanimité en commission » estimant à partir de là que son adoption étant conforme, cette loi pouvait être « définitivement acquise » dans la journée du 7 mars. « C’était sans compter avec l’obstination antisociale du gouvernement qui, ce matin et seulement ce matin, a déposé un amendement annonçant un vote bloqué sur ce texte (…) Or cet amendement c’est l’enterrement du texte puisqu’il reporte sine die son application voire son existence même puisque le gouvernement entend vérifier la compatibilité de la proposition avec la future réforme des retraites », a dénoncé Eliane Assassi qualifiant cette procédure de « coup de force ».

    Du coup, le groupe CRCE a décidé de retirer de l’ordre du jour cette proposition de loi en indiquant qu’il demandait la suite de sa discussion dans son prochain espace réservé, du 16 mai prochain.
    Un « coup de force inadmissible » dénonce la Confédération paysanne

    Dans un communiqué publié hier, la Confédération paysanne évoque ce « coup de force inadmissible du gouvernement » et note que ce dernier « refuse donc de faire un geste d’urgence en direction des retraité-e-s qui auraient bénéficié de cette revalorisation dès l’adoption de cette loi. Pour rappel, beaucoup vivent avec un revenu en dessous du seuil de pauvreté et en Outre-mer certaines pensions atteignent à peine 100€ par mois. Comble du cynisme, le gouvernement, pour se justifier, invoque le « principe d’équité entre les assurés sociaux », dénonce la Confédération paysanne.

    Ajoutons que ce gouvernement n’agit jamais sans l’accord du président de la République. Moins de deux semaines après avoir inauguré avoir inauguré le Salon de l’agriculture Emmanuel Macron joue un bien mauvais tour aux retraités et futurs retraités de l’agriculture. S’est-il vengé suite aux échanges parfois rugueux qu’il eut avec la profession le 24 février ? N’a-t-il pas voulu voir que, d’une manière certaine, ces Français de la campagne sont aussi des « premiers de cordée », dans la mesure où leur travail permet à tous les autres de se nourrir au quotidien ?