Per decenni, uno dei pilastri morali e finanziari della cooperazione internazionale è stato rappresentato da una formula consolidata: la foto di un bambino, un nome, un villaggio lontano e la promessa che, attraverso una quota mensile, si potesse “cambiare una vita”. Tuttavia, le immagini di minori africani utilizzate per mobilitare le donazioni — pratica nota da anni come poverty porn — non sono affatto neutrali. Producono immaginari, rafforzano gerarchie e raccontano l’Africa come un luogo di privazione, piuttosto che come uno spazio di organizzazione sociale. Il modello del sostegno a distanza, o “sponsor a child”, ha costruito l’identità di molte grandi Ong occidentali attive in Africa, Asia e America Latina. Per mezzo secolo, la figura dello sponsor del “povero bimbo” è stata considerata intoccabile: una formula semplice e rassicurante composta da un bambino, un donatore e una promessa. Questo meccanismo ha funzionato, raccogliendo fondi e costruendo consenso, ma ha anche cristallizzato un’immagine distorta del continente africano: una terra fragile, dipendente e in perenne attesa. Oggi ActionAid, una delle grandi organizzazioni che più a lungo ha incarnato questo modello sin dalla sua nascita nel 1972, dichiara che tale approccio non è più sufficiente. Lo fa con parole che hanno un peso specifico nel mondo della cooperazione: l’obiettivo è “decolonizzare” lo storico programma di sponsorizzazione dal paternalismo, retaggio di un’epoca passata. Non si tratta di accuse esterne, bensì di un’autocritica necessaria. È un passaggio complesso e scomodo, poiché tocca il cuore emotivo della cooperazione internazionale e mette in discussione un sistema che ha garantito entrate stabili per decenni. Per anni il sistema è rimasto immutato: i donatori scelgono un bambino in un Paese povero, ricevendo in cambio aggiornamenti, lettere e fotografie. È tuttavia evidente che permettere di selezionare un bambino tramite una foto generi una relazione asimmetrica. Si definisce un divario tra chi guarda e chi viene guardato, tra chi decide e chi riceve: un nodo che non è solo etico, ma profondamente simbolico. Non è solo una questione di metodo; è, a tutti gli effetti, una questione di potere. Il fulcro della revisione annunciata consiste nello spostare la narrazione degli aiuti dalla compassione alla reale solidarietà. L’obiettivo non è più limitarsi ad “aiutare qualcuno che soffre”, ma collaborare attivamente con movimenti locali, organizzazioni di base e comunità che già lottano per i diritti, l’istruzione e la salute. Questo approccio impone un superamento delle narrazioni individuali, dei ‘volti’ da salvare. In termini di coerenza, ciò dovrebbe tradursi in una drastica riduzione degli investimenti in campagne pubblicitarie e promozione, così come in un ridimensionamento di quegli apparati burocratici che alimentano stipendi privilegiati. Resta però un interrogativo aperto che ogni Ong deve affrontare: i donatori saranno pronti a seguire questo cambiamento? Saranno disposti ad accettare un’Africa meno “commovente”, meno filtrata dai post strategici e furbetti sui social e più marcatamente politica?. Un’Africa meno rassicurante e più complessa? Decolonizzare gli aiuti, infatti, non significa solo modificare i programmi. Significa rinunciare intimamente all’idea di essere al centro della Storia. Perché non lo siamo. L'articolo Basta con l’immagine del povero bimbo malato: ActionAid cambia rotta in Africa e smonta un rapporto di potere proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

French energy giant TotalEnergies announced Thursday that it is restarting its natural gas project in Mozambique, after a massacre at the site led to the company being accused of complicity in war crimes in November. “I am delighted to announce the full restart of the Mozambique LNG project … The force majeure is over,” TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné said at a relaunch ceremony attended by Mozambican President Daniel Chapo. The project, billed as Africa’s largest liquefied natural gas development, was suspended in 2021 in the wake of a deadly insurgent attack. A 2024 POLITICO investigation revealed that Mozambican soldiers based inside TotalEnergies’ concession just south of the Tanzanian border, subsequently brutalized, starved, suffocated, executed or disappeared around 200 men in its gatehouse from June to September 2021. In December 2025, the British and Dutch governments withdrew some $2.2 billion in support for the project, with the Dutch releasing a report that corroborated many elements of the POLITICO investigation.  TotalEnergies has denied the allegations, saying its own “extensive research” into the allegations has “not identified any information nor evidence that would corroborate the allegations of severe abuses and torture.” The Mozambican government has also rejected claims that its forces committed war crimes. The revelations nonetheless prompted scrutiny from French lawmakers and criticism of TotalEnergies’ security arrangements in conflict zones. The Mozambique site has been plagued by an Islamist insurgency. “Companies and their executives are not neutral actors when they operate in conflict zones,” said Clara Gonzales of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. “If they enable or fuel crimes, they might be complicit and should be held accountable.” Speaking Thursday in Mozambique, Pouyanné said activity would now accelerate. “You will see a massive ramp-up in activity in coming months … a first offshore vessel has already been mobilized,” he said. According to a statement by the company, construction has resumed both onshore and offshore at the site, with around 4,000 workers currently mobilized. The project is roughly 40 percent complete, with the first LNG production expected in 2029. TotalEnergies holds a 26.5 percent stake in the Mozambique LNG consortium. A relaunch clears the way for billions of dollars in gas exports.

Il 24 gennaio 2026 – Giornata Mondiale della Cultura Africana e Afro-discendente – si festeggiano esattamente vent’anni dall’adozione della Carta per la rinascita culturale africana, firmata il 24 gennaio 2006 a Khartoum. Una giornata che celebra la ricchezza, la diversità e la trasmissione delle culture africane e delle loro diaspore in tutto il mondo. Una celebrazione nobile sulla carta, ma – tra retorica e realtà – ci obbliga a chiederci: quanto conta davvero oggi la “cultura” dei diversi Paesi nel panorama geopolitico africano del 2026? La data del 24 gennaio ha una storia precisa: nel 2006 i capi di Stato e di governo dell’Unione africana adottarono a Khartoum, in Sudan, la Carta per la rinascita culturale africana. Tredici anni dopo, l’Unesco adottò il 24 gennaio come Giornata mondiale per la cultura africana e afrodiscendente durante la 40a sessione della Conferenza generale nel 2019, su proposta del Togo. Ma qui arriva il primo dato interessante: la Carta è entrata effettivamente in vigore solo nell’ottobre 2020, dopo aver ricevuto la 15a ratifica necessaria da parte della Commissione dell’Unione Africana. Quarantacinque anni dopo la sua adozione originale nel 1976 a Port Louis, Mauritius (sostituita dalla versione rinnovata di Khartoum), e quattordici anni dopo quest’ultima. Ecco il primo nodo critico: ad oggi solo 17 dei 54 Stati membri dell’Unione Africana hanno ratificato il documento. Meno di un terzo. La diplomazia culturale è diventata l’arma silenziosa con cui le potenze emergenti stanno riscrivendo le regole del gioco nel continente, sfidando decenni di egemonia eurocentrica con un approccio completamente diverso. Nel 2026, quando parliamo di influenza in Africa, non parliamo più solo di quanti miliardi investi o quante basi militari hai. Parliamo di quanto sei capace di riconoscere la dignità del tuo interlocutore, di quanto riesci a dialogare senza quella puzza sotto il naso che ha caratterizzato per troppo tempo i rapporti tra Occidente e Africa. E su questo terreno, potenze come Cina, Qatar, Russia e Turchia stanno facendo scuola. La Turchia ha scelto la via dell’affinità culturale e religiosa. Nei paesi a maggioranza musulmana dell’Africa, Ankara gioca la carta dell’islam moderato e pluralista, diverso dal salafismo del Golfo. Poi, ad esempio, c’è il Qatar, piccolo gigante del soft power. Con Al Jazeera ha fatto quello che nessun media occidentale è mai riuscito a fare davvero: dare spazio sistematico alle voci africane, raccontare i conflitti dal punto di vista locale, non da quello delle cancellerie europee o americane. E quando si tratta di mediare – che sia il Darfur, la disputa Eritrea-Gibuti o le tensioni tra Rwanda e Repubblica Democratica del Congo – Doha si propone come facilitatore neutrale, non come potenza che impone soluzioni. Il messaggio è sempre lo stesso: “Siamo qui per aiutarvi a trovare la vostra strada, non per dirvi quale strada prendere”. La Carta si concentra sulla promozione dell’identità africana, dei valori condivisi, dello spirito del panafricanismo e della rinascita africana, sullo sviluppo dell’economia creativa del continente, sulla protezione e conservazione dei siti patrimonio mondiale africano. Ma quale identità? Quella celebrata nei musei Europei? Quella che stanno riscrivendo le giunte del Sahel? Quella monetizzata dalle piattaforme di streaming occidentali? La Francia detiene almeno 90.000 oggetti africani, di cui oltre 70.000 al Musée du quai Branly di Parigi. Al Musée du quai Branly solo 1.000 oggetti sono visibili ai visitatori, meno dell’1,5% dei 70.000 totali. E c’è un caso emblematico: dopo che una mostra temporanea degli oggetti restituiti al Benin si è conclusa nel 2022, la costruzione del museo promesso si arenata e gli oggetti sono stati messi in deposito, inaccessibili al pubblico. E’ vero, la geopolitica funziona meglio come leva per partenariati concreti – restituzione di beni culturali, digitale, clima – ma manca ancora una narrazione sovrana africana capace di massimizzare l’influenza del continente. Nel 2026, tra elezioni e conflitti aperti, la cultura può incidere ma le priorità vere restano ancora progresso, economia e sicurezza. La cultura africana ha un potenziale enorme: 1,5 miliardi di persone nel 2024, la popolazione più giovane del mondo con un’età mediana di 19,7 anni, industrie creative in rapida crescita. Ma finché non risolveremo la dissonanza tra celebrazioni simboliche e realtà geopolitiche frammentate, questa giornata rimarrà forse un’occasione mancata. L'articolo Quanto conta davvero oggi la cultura africana? C’è un caso emblematico proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

“Galeotto, per così dire, è stato il Covid. Quando è scoppiato, infatti, la Fondazione Magis ha subito rafforzato il suo impegno in Ciad, terzultimo Paese al mondo rispetto all’indice di sviluppo umano. Sia perché in Ciad c’è Le Bon Samaritain, complesso universitario ospedaliero gestito dai gesuiti. E sia perché le previsioni dell’Oms erano catastrofiche sia per quel Paese che per l’Africa in generale. Così a settembre 2020 sono arrivata in Ciad e abbiamo iniziato con l’installazione di un laboratorio di biologia molecolare e ora sono qui da più di cinque anni”. Sabrina Atturo, cooperante internazionale, lavora da oltre quindici anni per la Fondazione Magis che, oltre a progetti sanitari, come quello in Ciad, gestisce progetti agricoli e formativi. Nel laboratorio di biologia molecolare, realizzato grazie al finanziamento da parte dell’Agenzia Italiana per la Cooperazione allo Sviluppo e al co-finanziamento dei donatori privati, la Fondazione ha organizzato i primi test Covid e ha realizzato uno studio di sieroprevalenza nazionale, unico in Ciad, che ha dimostrato come il virus sia circolato molto ma i cittadini ciadiani fossero più resistenti, “Questo ha evitato la catastrofe: le ragioni non sono chiarissime, gli studi continuano”, spiega la cooperante. Il progetto Covid ha permesso alla Fondazione di conoscere meglio le condizioni sanitarie. “È un paese fragile dal punto di vista sanitario, con una presenza medica ben sotto alla media dell’Oms. Uno dei nostri compiti è stato fin da subito quello di rafforzare la formazione professionale del personale sanitario degli ospedali e centri di salute. Centri di primo livello dove la popolazione può accedere subito se presenta sintomi come febbre, dissenteria, o altro. Ma in questi centri”, continua Sabrina Atturo, “abbiamo realizzato anche campagne di sensibilizzazione e prevenzione, come screening per il diabete, l’Hiv, l’epatite B per le donne incinte e, nei villaggi, la campagna contro la malnutrizione infantile”. Un altro obiettivo della Fondazione è stato quello di rafforzare gli ospedali, in particolare quelli della capitale Le Bon Samaritain e Notre Dame des Apotres, e quello di Goundi. “Negli ospedali”, continua, “abbiamo acquistato apparecchiature nuove e anche aperto la prima unità di lotta contro i cancri ginecologici in Ciad: abbiamo iniziato a fare screening alle donne sia per il cancro al seno che per quello al collo dell’utero, oltre che, come dicevo, una grande campagna per la prevenzione dell’epatite B, che qui ha una prevalenza molto più alta dell’Hiv (4% quest’ultimo, 10% la prima) e meno aiuti internazionali. In particolare, abbiamo bloccato la trasmissione verticale dell’epatite B da mamma a bambino per 500 nuovi nati”. Rispetto alle carenze nutrizionali, la Fondazione Magis si è mobilitata per fare sensibilizzazione. Così, con equipe di infermieri formati e nutrizionisti, sono andati nei villaggi, soprattutto per aiutare le donne a riconoscere i segni della malnutrizione infantile e capire quando andare subito in ospedale. Ma, anche, per scoraggiare pratiche senza alcune valore scientifico. “Un esempio? Quella di fare intagli sul ventre di bambini che piangono per il mal di pancia e mettere erbe all’interno di questi intagli, ottenendo purtroppo solo un peggioramento del bambino”, spiega Sabrina Atturo. “Spesso qui si pensa ancora che le malattie siano un destino, un volere divino, una punizione per essersi comportati male”. In Ciad, i fondi per la salute dipendono molto dall’aiuto esterno. Il taglio dei fondi statunitensi ha avuto un impatto forte, la guerra nel vicino Sudan ha fatto arrivare moltissimi rifugiati, su cui sono stati dirottati fondi, anche per evitare collassi sanitari nei centri profughi. In tutto ciò, oltre al contesto politico instabile e molta corruzione, si inserisce anche la questione del cambiamento climatico, che aggrava la malnutrizione. “Ci sono periodi sempre più lunghi di siccità, le stagioni delle piogge si sono accorciate e sono più irregolari con temporali violenti e brevi che creano enormi disagi, mentre l’acqua si disperde. Tutto questo ha ripercussioni sulla produzione agricola”, spiega la cooperante. Una realtà non facile dunque, anche per sanitari, cooperanti, volontari. Come si affronta, anche a livello emotivo? “Vivere in comunità internazionale aiuta, ci sentiamo una famiglia, ci supportiamo vicendevolmente”, racconta. “D’altronde abbiamo scelto di dedicare la nostra vita a loro, è il senso della nostra missione. Inoltre, vedere, ad esempio, che un bimbo malnutrito e in fin di vita viene ospedalizzato, ben alimentato e riprende a sorridere, vedere la mamma contenta di riportarlo in salute nel villaggio dà sempre una profonda gioia. Il sogno sarebbe salvare il mondo intero ma anche sapere che un bambino è stato strappato a un destino nefasto scaccia la sensazione di impotenza. È questo ci fa andare avanti ogni giorno”. L'articolo La Fondazione Magis e i bambini del Ciad, la cooperante Sabrina Atturo: “Salvarne anche solo uno scaccia il senso di impotenza” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Friedrich Merz reist heute zum World Economic Forum nach Davos und bereitet sich auf ein hoch brisantes Treffen mit Donald Trump vor. Während Trump weiter mit der Veröffentlichung privater Nachrichten provoziert und versichert, er werde die neuen Zölle wegen Grönland durchziehen, sucht Merz nach einer europäischen Antwort auf den US-Präsidenten. Gordon Repinski  analysiert den entscheidenden Mittwoch für die deutsche und europäische Handlungsfähigkeit. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview: Die Grünen-Sicherheitsexpertin Sara Nanni. Sie fordert „klare Kante“ gegen Washington und spricht darüber, warum Deutschland beim Thema Energie-Importe den Druck auf Trump erhöhen muss. Dazu mehr Insights aus Davos: Gordon berichtet direkt aus dem verschneiten Davos auch über die Stimmung in der informellen „zweiten Halbzeit“ der nächtlichen Empfänge. Während Merz in Davos die Hauptachsen besetzt, agiert sein Außenminister Johann Wadephul als „Springer“ in Afrika. Er ist in Kenia gelandet, um verlorene strategische Räume gegen China und Russland zurückzugewinnen. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

LONDON — As with many failing relationships, it’s been a story of arguments, unspoken tensions and trying to keep up appearances in public since Donald Trump re-entered the White House a year ago.  But for many European governments, including America’s longest-standing and most loyal allies, Trump’s threat of punitive tariffs against anyone who tries to stop him taking Greenland was the final straw. Divorce, they believe, is now inevitable.  In private, dismayed European officials describe Trump’s rush to annex the sovereign Danish territory as “crazy” and “mad,” asking if he is caught up in his “warrior mode” after his Venezuela adventure — and saying he deserves Europe’s toughest retaliation for what many see as a clear and unprovoked “attack” against allies on the other side of the Atlantic.  “I think it is perceived as one step too far,” said one European diplomat, who like others was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Europe has been criticized for being weak against Trump. There is some truth in that, but there are red lines.” Senior European officials increasingly believe it’s time to face the truth that Trump’s America is no longer a reliable trade partner, still less a dependable security ally, and urgently look to the future. “There is a shift in U.S. policy and in many ways it is permanent,” according to a senior official with a European government. “Waiting it out is not a solution. What needs to be done is an orderly and coordinated movement to a new reality.” That coordination has already begun, as has the big conversation about what comes next.  Barring a radical shift in the approach of the United States, this process seems likely to end in a radical reshaping of the West that would upend the global balance of power. The implications range from transatlantic economic damage as trade tensions rise, to security risks as Europe attempts to defend itself without American help before it is fully ready to do so.  There would likely be costs to the United States as well, such as in its ability to project hard power into Africa and the Middle East without access to the network of bases, airstrips and logistical support that Europe currently provides. A POST-U.S. FUTURE Alongside all the talk of retaliation by targeting U.S. trade, diplomats and government officials in national capitals are also considering what a long-term split from Washington might bring.  For most the prospect is a painful one, ending 80 years of peaceful cooperation, mutual support and profitable trade and dealing a death blow to NATO in its current form. Plenty of governments want to salvage what they can, while Italy’s hard right leader, Giorgia Meloni, is trying to rebuild relations. But for some government officials, a post-U.S. future for Western allies isn’t hard to imagine.  For starters, European states, including those not in the EU like Britain and Norway, have spent much of Trump’s second term working in an increasingly effective group that already operates without America: the so-called coalition of the willing to support Ukraine.  U.S. President Donald Trump leads Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House on Aug. 18, 2025. States like Britain and Norway, which are not in the EU, have been part of the Coalition of the Willing in support of Ukraine. | Aaron Schwartz/EPA National security advisers from 35 governments are in regular contact, meeting frequently online and in person, as well as interacting via less formal text messaging. They are accustomed to seeking multilateral solutions in a world where Trump is a big part of the problem.  Levels of trust in these circles are generally high, according to people familiar with the way the group operates. Nor is it just at the level of officials: National leaders are themselves rolling up their sleeves and working in intimate new groupings.  Leaders including the U.K.’s Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Friedrich Merz, as well as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Alexander Stubb of Finland and Meloni of Italy regularly text with each other — often in the same group chat.  TEXTING LEADERS Over the past year they have developed a well-drilled routine of exchanging messages whenever Trump does something wild and potentially damaging. “When things start moving quickly, it’s hard to do the coordination, and this group [chat] is really effective,” said one person familiar with the arrangement. “It tells you a lot about the personal relationships and how they matter.” The “informal but active” arrangement is known as the Washington Group, after the collection of European leaders who visited the White House with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last August.  Their approach for the past year has mostly been to keep calm and respond to his policy actions rather than taking the bait of his provocative words. That ethos has oiled the wheels of the Ukraine peace process, with the coalition of the willing closing in on a framework for a peace plan that the U.S. is signed up to — including American security guarantees for Ukraine. This marks a significant achievement given that Trump earlier ruled out the U.S. military playing a role.   But Trump’s hell-raising over Greenland has now tipped the balance.  Gone is the softly-softly approach to the American president’s threats. Even Starmer, normally the most circumspect of leaders, called out the president’s tariff threat as “wrong,” including, apparently, in a direct call with Trump on Sunday.  The Greenland crisis has focused minds on the question of how to move on without America by their side.  “The coalition of the willing started as being about Ukraine,” said another diplomat. “But it has created very close ties between some of the key people in the capitals. They have been building up trust and also aptitude to work together. They know each other by name and it’s easy to reach out and to send texts.”  WHO NEEDS NATO, ANYWAY? This format could potentially become the seedbed for a new security alliance in an era when the U.S. no longer supports NATO and European security. A new arrangement wouldn’t exclude cooperation with America, but nor would it take it for granted.  Also in the text chats with the Washington Group leaders is Zelenskyy himself, which brings another intriguing idea into the mix. Ukraine is by far the most militarized country among those represented, with a huge army, a highly sophisticated drone production industry, and more expertise in the realities of fighting a war than anyone.  A handout of Ukrainian servicemen conducting training in the Kharkhiv region in November last year. Ukraine is by far the most militarized country among those represented in the coalition. | 127th Separate Brigade of the Territorial Defence/EPA While Ukraine has long sought membership in NATO, that now seems less of a prize than it once did, as America’s promises to underpin any security guarantees grow less convincing by the day.  If Ukraine’s military might were to be included, when added to that of France, Germany, Poland and the U.K., among others, the potential armed power of the coalition of the willing would be vast, and would include both nuclear and non-nuclear states.  Although Europe’s need to defend itself with less American support is an old topic of conversation, recent days have seen a flurry of initiatives and headlines from Brussels. Officially, the EU has resolved to be able to defend itself by 2030. European Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius a week ago proposed a standing EU army of 100,000 personnel and revived the idea of a European Security Council of around 12 members, including the U.K. Von der Leyen touted a new European Security Strategy, though few details have yet been provided.  There is wide agreement that these conversations about a new European security architecture need to happen, and fast. EU leaders will meet in person for an emergency summit in the coming days to calibrate a response to Trump’s Greenland threats, though the discussion may range far wider than that.  With Trump due to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, there is also a possibility of face-to-face talks between the European and American sides. After speaking to Merz, Macron, Starmer and NATO chief Mark Rutte, von der Leyen said on Sunday that Europeans would “stand firm” in their commitment to protect Greenland. “We will face these challenges to our European solidarity with steadiness and resolve,” she said.  Given the current moment, some creative thinking will also be required.

While U.S. President Donald Trump brashly cited the Monroe Doctrine to explain the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, he didn’t leave it there. He also underscored a crude tenet guiding his foreign adventures: “It’s important to make me happy,” he told reporters. Maduro had failed in that task after shunning a surrender order by Trump — hence, he was plucked in the dead of night by Delta Force commandos from his Caracas compound, and unceremoniously deposited at New York’s Metropolitan Detention Center. Yet despite the U.S. president’s admonishment about needing to be kept happy — an exhortation accompanied by teasing hints of possible future raids on the likes of Cuba, Colombia and Mexico — one continent has stood out in its readiness to defy him. Maduro’s capture has been widely denounced by African governments and the continent’s regional organizations alike. South Africa has been among the most outspoken, with its envoy to the U.N. warning that such actions left unpunished risk “a regression into a world preceding the United Nations, a world that gave us two brutal world wars, and an international system prone to severe structural instability and lawlessness.” Both the African Union, a continent-wide body comprising 54 recognized nations, and the 15-member Economic Community of West African States have categorically condemned Trump’s gunboat diplomacy as well. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni even had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” — a reversal of his 2018 bromance with the U.S. president, when he said he “loves Trump” because of his frankness. Africa’s forthrightness and unity over Maduro greatly contrasts with the more fractured response from Latin America, as well as the largely hedged responses coming from Europe, which is more focused on Trump’s coveting of Greenland.   Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” | Badru Katumba/AFP via Getty Images Fearful of risking an open rift with Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer waited 16 hours after Maduro and his wife were seized before gingerly stepping on a diplomatic tightrope, careful to avoid falling one way or the other. While highlighting his preference for observing international law, he said: “We shed no tears about the end of his regime.” Others similarly avoided incurring Trump’s anger, with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis flatly saying now isn’t the right time to discuss Trump’s muscular methods — a position shared by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. So, why haven’t African leaders danced to the same circumspect European tune? Partly because they have less to lose. Europe still harbors hope it can influence Trump, soften him and avoid an irreparable breach in the transatlantic alliance, especially when it comes to Greenland, suggested Tighisti Amare of Britain’s Chatham House. “With dramatic cuts in U.S. development funds to Africa already implemented by Trump, Washington’s leverage is not as strong as it once was. And the U.S. doesn’t really give much importance to Africa, unless it’s the [Democratic Republic of the Congo], where there are clear U.S. interests on critical minerals,” Amare told POLITICO. “In terms of trade volume, the EU remains the most important region for Africa, followed by China, and with the Gulf States increasingly becoming more important,” she added. Certainly, Trump hasn’t gone out of his way to make friends in Africa. Quite the reverse — he’s used the continent as a punching bag, delivering controversial remarks stretching back to his first term, when he described African nations as “shithole countries.” And there have since been rifts galore over travel bans, steep tariffs and the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is credited with saving millions of African lives over decades. U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a printed article from “American Thinker” while accusing South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa of state-sanctioned violence against white farmers in South Africa. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images In May, Trump also lectured South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office over what he claimed amounted to genocide against white South Africans, at one point ordering the lights be dimmed to show clips of leaders from a South African minority party encouraging attacks on the country’s white population. Washington then boycotted the G20 summit hosted by South Africa in November, and disinvited the country from this year’s gathering, which will be hosted by the U.S. According to Amare, Africa’s denunciation of Maduro’s abduction doesn’t just display concern about Venezuela; in some part, it’s also fed by the memory of colonialism. “It’s not just about solidarity, but it’s also about safeguarding the rules that limit how powerful states can use force against more vulnerable states,” she said. African countries see Trump’s move against Maduro “as a genuine threat to international law and norms that protect the survival of the sovereignty of small states.” Indeed, African leaders might also be feeling their own collars tighten, and worrying about being in the firing line. “There’s an element of self-preservation kicking in here because some African leaders share similarities with the Maduro government,” said Oge Onubogu, director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “In some countries, people on the street and in even civil society have a different take, and actually see the removal of Maduro as a good thing.” The question is, will African leaders be wary of aligning with either Russian President Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping, now that Trump has exposed the impotence of friendship with either by deposing the Venezuelan strongman? According to Onubogu, even before Maduro’s ouster, African leaders understood the world order had changed dramatically, and that we’re back in the era of great power competition. “Individual leaders will make their own specific calculations based on what’s in their favor and their interests. I wouldn’t want to generalize and say some African countries might step back from engaging with China or Russia. They will play the game as they try to figure out how they can come out on top.”

Europe’s biggest ever trade deal finally got the nod Friday after 25 years of negotiating.  It took blood, sweat, tears and tortured discussions to get there, but EU countries at last backed the deal with the Mercosur bloc — paving the way to create a free trade area that covers more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America.  The agreement, which awaits approval from the European Parliament, will eliminate more than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports. European shoppers will be able to dine on grass-fed beef from the Argentinian pampas. Brazilian drivers will see import duties on German motors come down.  As for the accord’s economic impact, well, that pales in comparison with the epic battles over it: The European Commission estimates it will add €77.6 billion (or 0.05 percent) to the EU economy by 2040.  Like in any deal, there are winners and losers. POLITICO takes you through who is uncorking their Malbec, and who, on the other hand, is crying into the Bordeaux. WINNERS Giorgia Meloni Italy’s prime minister has done it again. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal.  The end result? In exchange for its support, Rome was able to secure farm market safeguards and promises of fresh agriculture funding from the European Commission — wins that the government can trumpet in front of voters back home. It also means that Meloni has picked the winning side once more, coming off as the team player despite the last-minute holdup. All in all, yet another laurel in Rome’s crown.  The German car industry  Das Auto hasn’t had much reason to cheer of late, but Mercosur finally gives reason to celebrate. Germany’s famed automotive sector will have easier access to consumers in LatAm. Lower tariffs mean, all things being equal, more sales and a boost to the bottom line for companies like Volkswagen and BMW. There are a few catches. Tariffs, now at 35 percent, aren’t coming down all at once. At the behest of Brazil, which hosts an auto industry of its own, the removal of trade barriers will be staggered. Electric vehicles will be given preferential treatment, an area that Europe’s been lagging behind on.  Ursula von der Leyen Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Since shaking hands on the deal with Mercosur leaders more than a year ago, her team has bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of the skeptics and build the all-important qualified majority that finally materialized Friday. Expect a victory lap next week, when the Berlaymont boss travels to Paraguay to sign the agreement. Giorgia Meloni saw which way the political winds were blowing and skillfully extracted last-minute concessions for Italian farmers after threatening to throw her weight behind French opposition to the deal. | Ettore Ferrari/EPA On the international stage, it also helps burnish Brussels’ standing at a time when the bloc looks like a lumbering dinosaur, consistently outmaneuvered by the U.S. and China. A large-scale trade deal shows that the rules-based international order that the EU so cherishes is still alive, even as the U.S. whisked away a South American leader in chains.  But the deal came at a very high cost. Von der Leyen had to promise EU farmers €45 billion in subsidies to win them over, backtracking on efforts to rein in agricultural support in the EU budget and invest more in innovation and growth.   Europe’s farmers  Speaking of farmers, going by the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that Mercosur is an unmitigated disaster. Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right?  The reality is a little bit more complicated. The deal comes with strict quotas for categories ranging from beef to poultry. In effect, Latin American farmers will be limited to exporting a couple of chicken breasts per European person per year. Meanwhile, the deal recognizes special protections for European producers for specialty products like Italian parmesan or French wine, who stand to benefit from the expanded market. So much for the agri-pocalpyse now.  Mercosur is a bittersweet triumph for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. | Olivier Matthys/EPA Then there’s the matter of the €45 billion of subsidies going into farmers’ pockets, and it’s hard not to conclude that — despite all the tractor protests and manure fights in downtown Brussels — the deal doesn’t smell too bad after all.  LOSERS Emmanuel Macron  There’s been no one high-ranking politician more steadfast in their opposition to the trade agreement than France’s President Emmanuel Macron who, under enormous domestic political pressure, has consistently opposed the deal. It’s no surprise then that France joined Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary to unsuccessfully vote against Mercosur.  The former investment banker might be a free-trading capitalist at heart, but he knows well that, domestically, the deal is seen as a knife in the back of long-suffering Gallic growers. Macron, who is burning through prime ministers at rates previously reserved for political basket cases like Italy, has had precious few wins recently. Torpedoing the free trade agreement, or at least delaying it further, would have been proof that the lame-duck French president still had some sway on the European stage.  Surely innumerable tons of South American produce sold at rock-bottom prices are about to drive the hard-working French or Polish plowman off his land, right? | Darek Delmanowicz/EPA Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. That’s all come to nought. After this latest defeat, expect more lambasting of the French president in the national media, as Macron continues his slow-motion tumble down from the Olympian heights of the Élysée Palace.  Donald Trump Coming within days of the U.S. mission to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial in New York, the Mercosur deal finally shows that Europe has no shortage of soft power to work constructively with like-minded partners — if it actually has the wit to make use of it smartly.  Any trade deal should be seen as a win-win proposition for both sides, and that is just not the way U.S. President Donald Trump and his art of the geopolitical shakedown works. It also has the incidental benefit of strengthening his adversaries — including Brazilian President and Mercosur head honcho Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — who showed extraordinary patience as he waited on the EU to get their act together (and nurtured a public bromance with Macron even as the trade talks were deadlocked). China  China has been expanding exports to Latin America, particularly Brazil, during the decades when the EU was negotiating the Mercosur trade deal. The EU-Mercosur deal is an opportunity for Europe to claw back some market share, especially in competitive sectors like automotive, machines and aviation. The deal also strengthens the EU’s hand on staying on top when it comes to direct investments, an area where European companies are still outshining their Chinese competitors. Emmanuel Macron made a valiant attempt to rally the troops for a last-minute counterattack, and at one point it looked like he had a good chance to throw a wrench in the works after wooing Italy’s Meloni. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EPA More politically, China has somewhat succeeded in drawing countries like Brazil away from Western points of view, for instance via the BRICS grouping, consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and other developing economies. Because the deal is not only about trade but also creates deeper political cooperation, Lula and his Mercosur counterparts become more closely linked to Europe. The Amazon rainforest  Unfortunately, for the world’s ecosystem, Mercosur means one thing: burn, baby, burn. The pastures that feed Brazil’s herds come at the expense of the nation’s once-sprawling, now-shrinking tropical rainforest. Put simply, more beef for Europe means less trees for the world. It’s not all bad news for the climate. The trade deal does include both mandatory safeguards against illegal deforestation, as well as a commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement for its signatories. 

With his lightning raid to snatch Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, U.S. President Donald Trump has shown that President Vladimir Putin’s self-proclaimed “multipolar” world of anti-Western dictatorial alliances from Caracas to Tehran is essentially toothless. Beyond the humiliation of the world seeing that Putin isn’t a dependable ally when the chips are down — something already witnessed in Nagorno-Karabakh, Syria and Iran — there’s now also the added insult that Trump appears more effective and bolder in pulling off the sort of maverick superpower interventions the Kremlin wishes it could achieve. In short, Putin has been upstaged at being a law unto himself. While the Russian leader would presumably have loved to remove Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a blitz attack, he’s instead been locked in a brutal war for four years, suffering over 1 million Russian dead and wounded. “Putin must be unbearably jealous [of Trump],” political analyst and former Kremlin speechwriter Abbas Gallyamov told POLITICO. “What Putin promised to do in Ukraine, Trump did in half an hour [in Venezuela].” The sense that Moscow has lost face was one of the few things independent analysts and Russia’s ultranationalists seemed to agree on.    Discussing the Caracas raid on his Telegram account, the nationalist spy-turned-soldier and war blogger Igor Girkin, now jailed in a penal colony, wrote: “We’ve suffered another blow to our image. Another country that was counting on Russia’s help hasn’t received it.” UNRELIABLE ALLY For years, Russia has sought to project itself as the main force resisting American-led Western hegemony, pioneering an alliance loosely united by the idea of a common enemy in Washington. Under Putin, Russia presented itself as the chief proponent of this “multipolar” world, which like the Soviet Union would help defend those in its camp.  Invading Ukraine in 2022, Moscow called upon its allies to rally to its side.  They largely heeded the call. Iran sold Russia drones. China and India bought its oil. The leaders of those countries in Latin America and Africa, with less to offer economically and militarily, gave symbolic support that lent credence to Moscow’s claim it wasn’t an international pariah and in fact had plenty of friends.  Recent events, however, have shown those to be a one-way friendships to the benefit of Moscow. Russia, it appears, won’t be riding to the rescue. The first to realise that cozying up to Russia had been a waste of time were the Armenians. Distracted by the Ukraine war, Moscow didn’t lift a finger to stop Azerbaijan from seizing the ethnic-Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh in a lightning war in 2023. Russian peacekeepers just stood by.   A year later, the Kremlin was similarly helpless as it watched the collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, which it had propped up for years. Russia even had to abandon Tartous, its vital port on the Mediterranean. Moscow didn’t lift a finger to stop Azerbaijan from seizing the ethnic-Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh in a lightning war in 2023. | Anthony Pizzoferrato/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images Further undermining its status in the Middle East, Russia was unable to help Iran when Israel and the U.S. last year bombed the Islamic Republic at will. Russia has long been an important strategic partner to Iran in nuclear technology, but it had no answer to the overwhelming display of military aviation used to strike Iran’s atomic facilities. Now, Venezuela, another of Putin’s longtime allies, has been humiliated, eliciting haughty condemnation (but no action) from Moscow. GREEN WITH ENVY Moscow’s energy and military ties to Caracas run deep. Since 1999 Russia has supplied more than $20 billion in military equipment — financed through loans and secured in part by control over Venezuela’s oil industry — investments that will now be of little avail to Moscow. Maduro’s capture is particularly galling for the Russians, as in the past they have managed to whisk their man to safety — securing a dacha after your escape being among the attractions of any dictator’s pact with Russia. But while ousted Ukrainian leader Viktor Yakunovych and Assad secured refuge in Russia, Maduro on Monday appeared in a New York court dressed in prison garb. Russian officials, predictably, have denounced the American attack. Russia’s foreign ministry described it as “an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of an independent state,” while senator Alexei Puskov said Trump’s actions heralded a return to the “wild imperialism of the 19th century.” Sovereignty violations and anachronistic imperialism, of course, are exactly what the Russians themselves are accused of in Ukraine.   There has also been the usual saber-rattling.  “All of Russia is asking itself why we don’t deal with our enemies in a similar way,” wrote Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent ultranationalist | Matt Cardy/Getty Images Alexei Zhuravlev, deputy chairman of Russia’s parliamentary defense committee, said Russia should consider providing Venezuela with a nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile.  And the military-themed channel ‘Two Majors,’ which has more than 1.2 million followers, posted on Telegram that “Washington’s actions have effectively given Moscow free rein to resolve its own issues by any means necessary.” (As if Moscow had not been doing so already.) The more optimistic quarters of the Russian camp argue that Trump’s actions in Caracas show international law has been jettisoned, allowing Moscow to justify its own behavior. Others suggest, despite evidence to the contrary in the Middle East, that Trump is adhering to the 19th century Monroe Doctrine and will be content to focus on dominance of the Americas, leaving Russia to its old European and Central Asian spheres of influence. In truth, however, Putin has followed the might-is-right model for years. What’s embarrassing is that he hasn’t proving as successful at it as Trump. Indeed, the dominant emotion among Russia’s nationalists appears to be envy, both veiled and undisguised.  “All of Russia is asking itself why we don’t deal with our enemies in a similar way,” wrote Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent ultranationalist. Russia, he continued, should take a leaf out of Trump’s playbook. “Do like Trump, do it better than Trump. And faster.” Pro-Kremlin mouthpiece Margarita Simonyan was even more explicit, saying there was reason to “be jealous.” Various pro-Kremlin commentators also noted tartly that, unlike Russia, the U.S. was unlikely to face repercussions in the form of international sanctions or being “cancelled.”  To many in Russia, Trump’s audacious move is likely to confirm, rather than upend their world view, said Gallyamov, the analyst. Russian officials and state media have long proclaimed that the world is ruled by strength rather than laws. The irony, though, is that Trump is showing himself to be more skillful at navigating the law of the jungle than Putin. “Putin himself created a world where the only thing that matters is success,” Gallyamov added. “And now the Americans have shown how it’s done, while Putin’s humiliation is obvious for everyone to see.” 

Radio Publique Africaine – radio del Burundi – ha fatto luce sulla morte di Igiraneza Aimé Gueric, deceduto lo scorso 20 dicembre durante la partita di seconda divisione in Burundi fra i Guepiers du Lac e l’Amassipiri. Il calciatore era svenuto in campo e poi deceduto durante il trasporto in ospedale, nonostante l’intervento dei soccorsi. Secondo i media locali e le testimonianze dei compagni, a causare la morte del giocatore sarebbe stata una moneta-talismano che aveva in bocca e che avrebbe ingerito per sbaglio, soffocando. L’amuleto era un gris-gris, una moneta che nella cultura vudù ha lo scopo di proteggere il possessore e attirare la buona sorte. Sempre secondo RPA, in Burundi queste pratiche sono molto diffuse nel mondo del calcio, anche fra allenatori e dirigenti, ma soprattutto tra i calciatori, più inclini a trascurare gli allenamenti perchè credono che certe pratiche siano sufficienti per vincere le partite. La Federazione calcistica del Burundi, intanto, ha pubblicato un comunicato di condoglianze alla famiglia e ai compagni del calciatore. Il gris-gris è un amuleto o talismano vudù diffuso in Africa Occidentale e Centrale, utilizzato per scopi magici o religiosi. Secondo la superstizione, l’oggetto viene ‘caricato’ di poteri protettivi. Affinché la moneta sia efficace, i giocatori pensano di doverla tenere a stretto contatto con il corpo durante lo sforzo fisico. Molti calciatori la nascondono nei calzettoni o sotto i parastinchi, ma in questo caso Aimé Gueric ha scelto di tenere la moneta in bocca, pensando che il contatto con la saliva o il respiro ne potesse aumentare ulteriormente l’effetto. Durante uno scontro di gioco o un respiro affannoso, la moneta è scivolata nelle vie respiratorie, causandone la morte. L'articolo Choc in Burundi: calciatore muore dopo aver ingoiato una moneta-talismano proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.