Home » Articles » International
Category:

International

European freedom forum
EuropeInternationalPFE-Conference

Security, Innovation, Purchasing Power: The Key Issues at the European Freedom Forum

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • Europe

Security, Innovation, Purchasing Power: The Key Issues at the European Freedom Forum

Ce widget doit être utilisé sur une page d'article.

Security, innovation, purchasing power: key topics at the European Freedom Forum, June 24 in Brussels. A conference by the Patriots for Europe Foundation to defend sovereignty, liberty, and democracy.

On June 24 in Brussels, conservative, liberal, and patriotic voices from across Europe will gather for a full day of debate focused on one essential goal: restoring freedom at the heart of the European project.

Organized by the Patriots for Europe Foundation, the European Freedom Forum will welcome speakers from Austria, Hungary, France, Italy, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Portugal. Their common objective: defend national sovereignty, reinvigorate Europe’s economy, rethink security policy, and challenge Brussels’ growing technocratic power.

The day will be structured around four major panels:

  • Freedom & Security: borders, terrorism, strategic sovereignty

  • Competitiveness & Overregulation: taxes, bureaucracy, innovation

  • Cost of Living & Freedom: energy crisis, inflation, practical responses

  • Freedom & Sovereignty: the role of nations, the future of democracy in the EU

Over a hundred participants are expected at the House of Hungary for this major event in the European sovereignist movement.

Facebook Twitter Instagram

Partager l'article

Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
conf israel
EuropeInternationalPFE-Conference

October 7 Terrorist Attacks: Rebuilding After Chaos

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • Europe

October 7 Terrorist Attacks: Rebuilding After Chaos

Ce widget doit être utilisé sur une page d'article.

On 17 June 2025, the Patriots for Europe Foundation will host an exceptional conference at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, entitled:
“October 7 Terror Attacks: Rebuilding After Chaos”

Two powerful voices will share their personal perspectives on one of the darkest days in recent history:
– Sabine Taasa, a French-Israeli survivor of the Hamas attacks, who lost her husband and 16-year-old son on October 7.
– Yoseph Haddad, an Arab-Israeli journalist and director of Together – Vouch for Each Other, an association committed to fostering coexistence between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

A time to listen, understand, and rebuild

October 7 marked a turning point for Israel and for all democracies. In the face of unspeakable violence and growing disinformation, this conference offers a space for truth, memory, and reconstruction.

Sabine Taasa will share her deeply personal testimony — a call to remember the victims and to stand against moral confusion. Yoseph Haddad will speak of dialogue and responsibility, and the possibility of rebuilding peace even after chaos.

A message to Europe

By bringing these two unique perspectives together, the Patriots for Europe Foundation aims to reaffirm that truth and peace are not incompatible, and that rebuilding begins with the courage to speak clearly.

At a time when European societies are challenged by hatred, division, and denial, this event is a call to stand firm in defence of human dignity and democratic values.

Facebook Twitter Instagram

Partager l'article

Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
voyage en inde
CultureEconomyEuropeInternational

Inde : comment renforcer la coopération avec les pays européens?

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • International
  • Délégation
  • Patriots for Europe foundation

Inde : comment renforcer la coopération avec les pays européens?

Le voyage organisé par la Patriots for Europe Foundation en février 2025 a permis de découvrir comment l’Inde, à travers ses stratégies économiques, énergétiques et sociales, peut servir de modèle inspirant pour l’Europe, en offrant des solutions concrètes pour renforcer la souveraineté nationale, l’autonomie énergétique, la réindustrialisation et la protection des intérêts nationaux.

La Patriots for Europe Foundation est arrivée à New Delhi sur invitation de la Indian Foundation. Dès son arrivée, la délégation a eu l’opportunité d’engager une discussion clé avec Rama Divedi, président de Kutniti Foundation. La fondation est impatiente d’explorer de futures collaborations et de renforcer ses liens politiques avec l’Inde.

Les échanges se sont poursuivis avec la Fédération des entreprises européennes en Inde (FEBI), la chambre de commerce officielle de l’UE en Inde. Ces discussions sur les liens commerciaux et d’investissement entre l’UE et l’Inde ont mis en lumière l’importance du patriotisme industriel. Il est temps de revenir à la réindustrialisation, à l’autonomie stratégique et aux partenariats avec des nations partageant les mêmes valeurs, comme l’Inde.

La Patriots for Europe Foundation est fière de collaborer avec Indian Foundation, qui défend la souveraineté nationale et la continuité culturelle. Ensemble, elles continueront à promouvoir des valeurs communes et à renforcer les liens entre l’UE et l’Inde, en particulier autour des enjeux de souveraineté et d’identité nationale.

Les échanges précieux avec Ram Madhav, président de la Indian Foundation, ont été particulièrement instructifs. Ses perspectives sur le renforcement des relations UE-Inde et la promotion des valeurs communes de souveraineté et d’identité nationale sont essentielles pour la future collaboration.

L’énergie a été au cœur des discussions avec Rohit Bansal, Responsable Communication Corporate chez Reliance Industries. Reliance, l’un des plus grands producteurs de pétrole et de gaz naturel en Inde, joue un rôle clé dans l’approvisionnement énergétique du pays. La stratégie énergétique de Reliance, axée sur les pétrochimies, le gaz naturel et le pétrole, pourrait inspirer la souveraineté énergétique en Europe.

La délégation a également rencontré Anil Jain, ancien secrétaire général national du  Bharatiya Janata Party, le parti patriote hindou. Ce fut l’occasion d’échanger sur des perspectives politiques et économiques clés tirées de son leadership au sein du principal parti politique de droite en Inde.

invitation de la Indian Foundation. Premier rendez-vous : une discussion clé avec Rama Divedi ,
1000116766
voyage en inde, invitation de l'india foundation
1000116660

Lors du Festival de littérature de Delhi (DLF), la délégation a exploré comment les partis patriotes en Italie, en France et en Europe de l’Est peuvent redessiner l’avenir de l’Europe. Ce fut un moment passionnant où la souveraineté a été mise en avant plutôt que le centralisme de l’UE.

Enfin, la délégation a rencontré Sanjeev Sanyal, conseiller économique du Premier ministre Narendra Modi. Les discussions ont été extrêmement fructueuses, abordant les stratégies économiques et énergétiques de l’Inde, offrant ainsi à l’Europe des leçons précieuses pour un avenir prospère et souverain.

1000116774
voyage en inde
1000116764

Article en lien

Partager cette vidéo

Facebook Twitter

D'AUTRES VIDÉOS

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
InternationalViewpoint

Risk of conflagration in Bosnia and Kosovo

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • Europe
  • International
  • Point of view

Risk of conflagration in Bosnia and Kosovo

Every Monday morning, you can listen the director of the Identity and Democracy Foundation on Ligne Droite, Radio Courtoisie’s morning show, followed by his column on our website. This week, we take a look at the tensions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo-and-Metohija, following the ID Foundation’s study trip to the Balkans.

 

Watch the video:

The ID Foundation has just returned from a study trip to the Balkans. Can you tell us why you chose this destination?

First of all, the Balkans are regularly mentioned as a possible enlargement site for the European Union. Secondly, the dangers affecting this region have consequences for the rest of Europe. First and foremost, there’s the mafia risk. Albanian and Bosnian mafias are expanding their activities throughout the European Union. Added to this is the Islamist problem. Bosnia and Kosovo are becoming Islamist hotbeds in Europe. In the case of Bosnia, the Muslim Brotherhood has a long history, and the Bosnian war saw thousands of foreign jihadist fighters come to fight alongside Bosnian nationalists, jihadists who then remained in the country. In the case of Kosovo, the rise of Islamism is more recent, but just as worrying. Many Albanians and Bosnians have joined the ranks of the Islamic State. Finally, this region is a kind of laboratory for the Europe of tomorrow. If we do nothing, what happened in the Balkans is likely to be repeated in the rest of Europe as inter-community tensions rise. In the years to come, the Balkans are likely to become a central issue for the rest of Europe.

And which Balkan countries did you visit?

We visited Bosnia-Herzegovina, and more specifically the Serbian Republic, as well as the Serbian region of Kosovo-and-Metochia. These two regions are the ones where tensions persist the most, with clashes between Islam and Christianity. In Kosovo, Albanian nationalists declared independence in 2008, but this is not recognized by the international community. The UN and most other countries continue to consider the region part of Serbia. What’s more, Serbs represent 5% of the population. They are a majority in the north of the country, refuse independence and remain loyal to Serbia, which does not recognize Kosovo’s independence. Tensions are therefore very high. In Bosnia, the situation is a little different: since the end of the war, the Dayton Accords have divided the country into two entities, on one side the predominantly Serbian and Christian Serbian Republic, and on the other the predominantly Muslim Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Officially, these two entities are on an equal footing, and Bosnia is a federal state. But the international High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina, who is normally responsible for ensuring good relations between the communities, regularly favors the Muslim Bosniaks. This has led to a rise in tensions and a growing temptation on the part of Bosnian Serbs to demand independence for their republic. In the powder keg that is the Balkans, these two countries could well be the matches leading to a general conflagration.

What explains the explosive situation in these two countries?

These two countries were born of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic state born after the First World War. From the 1980s onwards, nationalists from the various peoples that made up Yugoslavia began to challenge the central state. This led to the dissolution of the country in the 1990s and to a war between two camps: on the one hand, the Serbs, who constituted the largest and most powerful community in Yugoslavia and sought to build a Greater Serbia by bringing together all the territories where they were present, and on the other, the nationalists of the other communities – Croats, Slovenes, Albanians, Bosnians and Macedonians – who sought independence for their country. The Serbs were defeated as a result of Western intervention, and in particular American intervention, which created the new states we know today. Nevertheless, the defeat of the Serbs did not solve all the problems in the region, as many Serbs found themselves in the minority outside the Republic of Serbia, such as the Serbs of Kosovo and Bosnia.

And what is the situation of these Serbs?

The situation is quite different. In Bosnia, it’s quite good, as they benefit from an autonomous republic. However, this situation is rather precarious, as the United States and the European Union favor the Bosnian side and are seeking to reduce the Serbian republic’s room for maneuver. One example is the fact that, according to the constitution, for a law to be validated, a vote must be taken by both the federal Bosnian parliament and the two federated parliaments. However, the international High Representative regularly grants himself the right to override the Serbian veto. In the end, the Serbs are the only ones to truly defend the Dayton Accords, which were imposed on them following their defeat, whereas many Bosniaks would like to call into question Serb autonomy and the federal nature of the country, which would enable them to impose their will on the Serbs and Croats. In Kosovo, the situation is much tougher. In the north of the country, where Serbs are in the majority, their situation is already complicated, but it’s even worse in the enclaves in Muslim Albanian territory, where Serbs are regularly attacked. We passed through several of these enclaves, and it’s not unusual to see memorials commemorating Serbian civilians murdered with impunity by Albanians. The Albanians are visibly intent on driving out the Serbs, ethnically cleansing the region to create an ethnically homogenous state. We visited the Visoki Dečani monastery, a UNESCO World Heritage site that is regularly attacked by Albanians, from tags glorifying Daesh or the UCK, the terrorist organization that provoked the Kosovo war, to mortar fire. The monastery is protected by the army. There is a real threat to the very existence of this Christian Serb minority in Kosovo, and the Bosnian Serbs fear they could find themselves in the same situation as the Serbs in Kosovo.

And how is the West positioning itself in this conflict?

The United States and the European Union continue to support the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo. In fact, there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of the West, which supports the Albanian separatists in Kosovo, but condemns the Bosnian Serbs when the latter threaten to declare independence if their rights are not respected. This support continues despite the growth of Islamism in both regions and the growing influence of Turkey, which is seeking to establish itself in the Balkans. By aligning itself entirely with American interests and agenda, the European Union is abandoning a European and Christian nation to the Islamist threat.

On socials

Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
InternationalPFE-ConferencePolitical

CPAC 2025 : Crise migratoire et immigration illégale

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • Conférence
  • CPAC 2025
  • PFE

CPAC 2025 :
Crise migratoire et immigration illégale

Ce widget doit être utilisé sur une page d'article.

La Patriots for Europe Foundation est invitée à prendre la parole lors de la conférence CPAC 2025 à Washington DC, le vendredi 21 février à 9h30.

La Patriots for Europe Foundation est invitée à prendre la parole lors de la conférence CPAC 2025 à Washington DC, le vendredi 21 février à 9h30.

Au programme : un débat essentiel sur la crise migratoire et les solutions à mettre en œuvre pour lutter contre l’immigration illégale.
Parmi les intervenants, nous aurons l’opportunité d’écouter :

• Chad F. Wolf, Directeur exécutif du Center for Homeland Security & Immigration, America First Policy Institute
• Fabrice Leggeri, membre du Parlement européen, ancien directeur de l’Agence européenne pour la gestion de la coopération opérationnelle aux frontières extérieures (Frontex)
• Susanna Ceccardi, membre du Parlement européen, députée italienne du groupe Patriots for Europe
• Mark Krikorian, Directeur exécutif du Center for Immigration Studies.

Ce rendez-vous annuel des conservateurs offre l’occasion d’échanger sur les bonnes pratiques à mettre en place pour répondre aux défis actuels que fait peser l’immigration de masse sur la souveraineté des Etats.

PROGRAMME ET INTERVENTIONS EN DIRECT
Facebook Twitter Instagram

Partager l'article

Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
InternationalPolitical

Indian elections: new victory for the nationalists

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • International
  • Politique

Indian elections: new victory for the nationalists

Every Monday morning, you can listen the director of the Identity and Democracy Foundation on Ligne Droite, Radio Courtoisie’s morning show, followed by his column on our website. This week, we focus on the elections in India.

Parliamentary elections against a backdrop of communal tensions

On June 1, India’s parliamentary elections came to an end, to re-elect the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian parliament, and appoint the Prime Minister. Since 2014, the People’s Party of India (BJP) has ruled the country with Narendra Modi as Prime Minister. The BJP is a right-wing party, neoliberal in economics, conservative and above all highly nationalistic. Its official ideology, Hindutva, is based on the idea that Hinduism, which is the religion of 80% of the Indian population, should serve as the basis for all Indian society. The BJP is therefore a Hindu religious nationalist party that relies on the Hindu majority, but is regularly accused of representing a danger to the country’s religious minorities, particularly the Muslim minority. Indeed, India is a religiously diverse country, with 15% of its population Muslim. With 70 million Muslims, India is the third largest Muslim country in the world. For several decades now, tensions have been running high between Hindus and Muslims, often degenerating into outbreaks of violence. The arrival in power of the BJP, which supports Hindu nationalists, is part of this context of religious and community tensions, and the BJP does not hesitate to use the law to support the cause of Hinduism. Thus, the anti-conversion law passed by the BJP, officially to prevent forced conversions of Hindus, is often used by regional governments to persecute Muslims, and sometimes Christians too, who represent 2% of the country’s population.

The construction of the Ayodhya Hindu temple, a symbol of discord between Hindus and Muslims

The recent construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a former mosque has made the situation particularly explosive and reflects the conflicts that are shaking Indian society. Ayodhya is a sacred city for Hinduism. It is said to have been founded by Manu, the first man, the Hindu equivalent of Adam, and to be the birthplace of Rama, seventh avatar of the god Vishnu, one of the most important Hindu deities. In the 16th century, after the Muslim conquest of India, a mosque was built in the city to replace a temple dedicated to Rama. This mosque became the symbol of the struggle between Muslims and Hindus in the country, the latter demanding the destruction of the mosque and the reconstruction of the temple of Rama. In 1992, a mob of Hindu nationalists destroyed the mosque, sparking a nationwide outbreak of communal violence that resulted in over 2,000 deaths, mainly among Muslims. Since then, Hindus had been demanding the construction of the Rama temple, while Muslims demanded the reconstruction of the mosque. The BJP had made the promise to build the temple a central element of its communication and a symbol of its determination to see the cause of Hinduism triumph. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hindus and a new temple was built. Inaugurated with great fanfare by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Ram Mandir is one of the largest Hindu temples in the country and is destined to turn the city of Ayodhya into a Hindu Jerusalem. For the BJP, this political as well as religious victory signals the dawn of a new era, marking India’s rebirth and liberation. The inauguration heightened tensions between Muslims and Hindus.

The political forces at play in these elections

India is a vast country, a mosaic of ethnic groups and religions. The large number of political parties in the country reflects this diversity. Nevertheless, in national elections, these parties come together in vast coalitions, which may comprise forty or fifty regional political parties united around a large national party. In the 2024 elections, there were two major coalitions. On the one hand, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), bringing together parties from the center-right to the radical right united behind Narendra Modi’s nationalist project, sought to secure a third term for Modi. Opposing it was the Indian Nation’s Inclusive Alliance for Development (INDIA), led by the Indian National Congress (INC). Founded in 1885, the INC is the country’s oldest party. The party of Gandhi, it won independence and then ruled the country for several decades until the BJP ended its domination of Indian politics. Since then, it has been the leading opposition party. Center-left, social-democratic, secular, Western and progressive, the INC defends a civic nationalism that contrasts with the religious nationalism of the BJP. It relies on the Westernized middle classes in the country’s major cities, as well as on the country’s ethnic and religious minorities, whose interests it claims to defend against Hindu nationalists. He criticizes what he sees as the BJP’s illiberal excesses, as well as its economic and social record.

A mixed victory for the BJP

As expected, the BJP won the Indian elections. With 42.5% of the vote and 293 seats out of 543, including 36.5% of the vote and 240 seats for the BJP, the NDA retained its majority in the Assembly. However, it failed to achieve the two-thirds majority that the BJP had been aiming for during its campaign. Such a majority would have enabled it to change India’s constitution, notably to reverse its secular character by recognizing Hinduism as the official religion. Conversely, INDIA’s strong showing, with 40.5% of the vote including 21% for Congress, marks the rebirth of the Indian National Congress after a decade of electoral difficulties. However, it remains to be seen whether the vast opposition coalition will survive this defeat.

The stakes of these elections for Europe

India is an emerging power, both demographically (it will soon be the leading nation in terms of population) and economically (India is enjoying very strong GDP growth). The developments affecting the country are therefore important to take into account. Moreover, India is one of the founding powers of the BRICS, the coalition of countries seeking to offer an alternative to Western hegemony. At the same time, India is wary of China, with which it has territorial disputes in Ladakh, Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. What’s more, the BJP government’s hostility to Islamism means that India shows solidarity with Western countries that have fallen victim to terrorism. Many Indians expressed their solidarity at the time of the attacks in France. This desire to embody a form of non-alignment equidistant from the United States and China, and its open hostility to the development of Islamism, make India an ally for European patriots.

On social networks

Facebook Twitter Instagram
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
InternationalPolitical

Elections in South Africa: towards civil war?

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • International
  • Political
  • Social

Elections in South Africa: towards civil war?

Every Monday morning, you can listen the director of the Identity and Democracy Foundation on Ligne Droite, Radio Courtoisie’s morning show, followed by his column on our website. This week, we focus on the electionin South Africa.

On May 29, South Africa’s parliamentary elections took place against a particularly explosive backdrop of community tensions. For the first time since the end of Appartheid, the African National Congress (ANC), founded by Nelson Mandela, lost its majority in Parliament. South Africa is now in a period of negotiation to form a coalition government, while the spectre of civil war still threatens the country.

A country marked by communal tensions

South Africa has long been a settlement colony, with European settlers mainly from the Netherlands (Afrikaners) and, to a lesser extent, England. Today, the country’s population is around 80% black, 7% white and 8% coloured, a term used to describe people of mixed race. In addition, there is great diversity within the country’s indigenous black Bantu populations. The Zulus in the south-east of the country cultivate a nationalism based on the memory of the Zulu Empire’s domination of the region until the arrival of the Europeans.

 

With the end of apartheid in the 1990s, Nelson Mandela’s ANC seized political power and a black bourgeoisie with strong ties to the party emerged. At the same time, however, economic power remained in the hands of the white bourgeoisie, and the majority of the black population continued to face extreme poverty. The gradual abandonment of the ANC’s promises of social justice and the corruption of the government have led to widespread violence that is undermining the country. In particular, anti-white violence has developed dramatically. Isolated white farmers are regularly targeted in attacks by blacks, accompanied by acts of pillage, rape and murder, sometimes involving entire families. In addition to this interpersonal violence, the ANC’s expropriation of land and, above all, its discriminatory hiring practices against the white population have led to extreme poverty among the white working classes. South African society is one of the most violent and unequal in the world. Deep inequalities persist between ethnic groups, with whites on average far richer than blacks, and within communities. Among blacks, elites mainly from the ANC have grown richer, while the working classes remain massively poor. On the white side, the elites have retained economic power, while the working classes are the victims of extreme racist violence and are reduced to poverty by ANC laws.

The political fracturing of the country

For a long time, the political divide in South Africa was fairly straightforward: on one side, a Marxist-inspired black left, dominated by the ANC and tending to favor Russia and China, and on the other, a liberal white right, favoring the West and represented by the Democratic Alliance (DA). However, as social and community tensions have risen, the political spectrum has fractured. On the black left, faced with the ANC’s inability to resolve economic problems, insecurity and corruption, new, more radical political forces developed, starting with the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), an organization combining a Marxist-Leninist discourse with black nationalism that was openly racist towards whites. Not hesitating to call for the driving out and even the killing of whites, the EFF takes its inspiration from Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, who drove all whites out of the country when he came to power, plunging Zimbabwe into misery and famine. On the white right, the inability of the moderate Democratic Alliance to propose a response to the violence affecting farmers and the working classes has led to the emergence of more conservative political forces. Anger, present in all communities, at immigration from neighboring African countries has also strengthened these new national-conservative forces.

 

At the same time, separatist movements have emerged. The western part of the country, around the Cape of Good Hope, is predominantly white and Afrikaner-speaking. Among these populations, new political forces are emerging to call for the creation of a new state bringing together whites and coloureds. Finally, Zulu nationalism was gaining strength and increasingly taking on the air of separatism. For a long time, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) was the sole representative of this nationalism, but it has recently been joined by a new political formation, the Spear of the Nation (Umkhonto we Sizwe – MK), led by the former Zulu president of the ANC and South Africa, Jacob Zuma. This new party is seeking to take over the Zulu territories from the ANC.

General election results

There were a number of important points to note: firstly, the ANC lost its majority with 40% of the vote. This is the first time since the end of apartheid that the ANC has not had a majority in the South African parliament. The Democratic Alliance and EFF remain stable, while the separatists are on the rise. On the Zulu side, Umkhonto we Sizwe succeeded in taking over Zulu territories from the ANC, while in Cape Town, white and colouredseparatists made progress.

Deprived of a majority, the ANC had to create a coalition government. Two political possibilities exist. The first would be a grand coalition of national unity with the Democratic Alliance (and perhaps other parties such as the Zulu Inkatha) to try to ease tensions in the country. A coalition between the ANC and the various black nationalist parties (EFF or Umkhonto we Sizwe) would also be possible, but such a government would obviously heighten tensions between the different communities, especially if the EFF, which regularly calls for the killing of whites, were to enter government. The first option seems the most likely, but it is unlikely that such a government would be able to address the concerns of South African society. In any case, the country remains on borrowed time, and the opposition is unable to offer a real alternative. It seems more and more likely that the only solution to avoid a conflagration and civil war would be a peaceful partition of the country, with the creation of a white, “coloured” country around the Cape of Good Hope, and the maintenance of an almost exclusively black-African state in South Africa, with perhaps some autonomy for the Zulus. South Africa, long held up as a model of reconciliation and coexistence between communities, may not survive long after Nelson Mandela’s death.

On social networks

Facebook Twitter Instagram
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Elections en Afrique du Sud : vers la guerre civile ?
InternationalPolitical

Elections en Afrique du Sud : vers la guerre civile ?

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • International
  • Politique
  • Société

Elections en Afrique du Sud : vers la guerre civile ?

Tous les lundis matin, vous pouvez retrouver Raphaël Audouard, le directeur de la Fondation Identité et Démocratie, dans Ligne Droite, la matinale de Radio Courtoisie puis sa chronique sur notre site internet. Cette semaine, nous nous intéressons aux élections en Afrique du Sud.

Regardez la vidéo :

Le 29 mai, se déroulaient les élections législatives en Afrique du Sud dans un contexte particulièrement explosif de tensions communautaires. Ces élections ont vu pour la première fois depuis la fin de l’Appartheid le Congrès national africain (African National Congress – ANC) fondé par Nelson Mandela perdre sa majorité au Parlement. L’Afrique du Sud rencontre désormais dans une période de négociation en vue de la formation d’une coalition gouvernementale alors que le spectre de la guerre civile menace toujours le pays.

Un pays marqué par les tensions communautaires

L’Afrique du Sud a pendant longtemps été une colonie de peuplement qui a vu des colons européens, venus principalement des Pays-Bas (Afrikaners) et dans une moindre mesure d’Angleterre, s’installer dans le pays. Aujourd’hui, le pays compte environ 80% de noirs, 7% de blancs et 8% de « coloured », terme désignant les populations issues du métissage. À cela, s’ajoute une grande diversité au sein même des populations noires bantoues autochtones du pays. Ainsi, les Zoulous présents dans le sud-est du pays cultivent un nationalisme s’appuyant sur le souvenir de la domination de l’Empire zoulou sur la région jusqu’à l’arrivée des Européens.

À la fin de l’apartheid dans les années 1990, l’ANC de Nelson Mandela s’empare du pouvoir politique et une bourgeoise noire, très liée au parti, émerge. Mais dans le même temps, le pouvoir économique reste entre les mains de la bourgeoisie blanche et la majorité de la population noire reste confrontée à une très grande pauvreté. L’abandon progressif des promesses de justice sociale de l’ANC et la corruption du gouvernement ont entraîné une très grande violence qui mine le pays. En particulier, une violence anti-blanche s’est développée de façon dramatique. Les fermiers blancs, isolés, sont régulièrement pris pour cible dans des attaques commises par les noirs qui s’accompagnent d’actes de pillage, de viols et de meurtres parfois de familles entières. À cette violence interpersonnelle, s’ajoute une violence étatique du fait des expropriations de terre votées par l’ANC et surtout des mesures de discrimination à l’embauche prises contre les populations blanches et qui plongent les classes populaires blanches dans des situations de très grande misère. La société sud-africaine est à la fois l’une des plus violentes et des plus inégalitaires qui soient. De profondes inégalités subsistent entre ethnies, les blancs restant en moyenne bien plus riches que les noirs et au sein des communautés. Chez les noirs, des élites principalement issues de l’ANC se sont enrichies tandis que les classes populaires restent massivement pauvres. Du côté des blancs, les élites ont gardé le pouvoir économique tandis que les classes populaires sont victimes d’une très grande violence raciste et sont réduites à la misère par les lois de l’ANC.

La fracturation politique du pays

Pendant longtemps, le clivage politique était assez simple en Afrique du Sud : d’un côté, une gauche noire d’inspiration marxiste dominée par l’ANC et plutôt favorable à la Russie et à la Chine et de l’autre, une droite libérale blanche favorable à l’Occident et représentée par l’Alliance démocratique (Democratic Alliance – DA). Néanmoins, avec la montée des tensions sociales et communautaire, l’échiquier politique s’est fracturé. Du côté de la gauche noire, face à l’incapacité de l’ANC de régler les problèmes économiques, d’insécurité et de corruption, de nouvelles forces politiques plus radicales se sont développées à commencer par les comme les Combattants de la liberté économique (Economic Freedom Fighters – EFF), une organisation combinant un discours marxiste-léniniste à un nationalisme noir ouvertement raciste envers les blancs. N’hésitant pas à appeler à chasser, voir à tuer les blancs, les EFF s’inspirent du dictateur zimbabwéen Robert Mugabe qui avait chassé tous les blancs du pays à son arrivée au pouvoir, plongeant le Zimbabwe dans la misère et la famine. Du côté de la droite blanche, l’incapacité des modérés de l’Alliance démocratique de proposer une réponse à la violence qui touche les fermiers et les classes populaires, des forces politiques plus conservatrices ont émergé. La colère, présente dans toutes les communautés, vis à vis de l’immigration venue des pays africains voisins a aussi renforcé ces nouvelles forces national-conservatrices.

Dans le même temps, des mouvements séparatistes ont vu le jour. L’Ouest du pays, autour du Cap de Bonne-Espérance, est peuplé majoritairement de blancs et de coloured de langue afrikaner. Parmi ces populations, de nouvelles forces politiques émergent pour demander la création d’un nouvel état regroupant blancs et coloured. Enfin, le nationalisme zoulou se renforce et prend de plus en plus des allures de séparatisme. Pendant longtemps, le Parti Inkatha de la liberté (Inkatha Freedom Party – IFP) était le seul représentant de ce nationalisme mais il a récemment été rejoint par une nouvelle formation politique, la Lance de la Nation (Umkhonto we Sizwe – MK), dirigée par l’ancien président zoulou de l’ANC et de l’Afrique du Sud, Jacob Zuma. Ce nouveau parti cherche à ravir à l’ANC les territoires zoulous.

Les résultats de ces élections législatives

Quelques éléments importants sont à noter : d’abord, l’ANC avec 40% des voix perd sa majorité. C’est la première fois depuis la fin de l’apartheid que l’ANC n’a pas de majorité au parlement sud-africain. L’Alliance démocratique et les EFF restent stables tandis que les séparatistes progressent. Du côté zoulou, l’Umkhonto we Sizwe réussit son pari de ravir les territoires zoulous à l’ANC et au Cap, les séparatistes blancs et « coloured » progressent.


Privé de majorité, l’ANC va devoir créer un gouvernement de coalition. Deux possibilités politiques existent. La première serait une grande coalition d’union nationale avec l’Alliance démocratique (et peut être d’autres partis comme l’Inkatha zoulou) pour tenter d’atténuer les tensions dans le pays. Une coalition entre l’ANC et les différents partis nationalistes noirs (EFF ou Umkhonto we Sizwe) serait aussi possible mais un tel gouvernement renforcerait évidemment les tensions entre les différentes communautés, surtout en cas d’entrer au gouvernement des EFF qui appellent régulièrement à tuer les blancs. La première option semble la plus probable mais il est peu probable qu’un tel gouvernement serait en mesure de répondre aux soucis rencontrés par la société sud-africaine. Dans tous les cas, le pays reste en sursis et l’opposition est en incapacité de proposer une vraie alternative. Il semble de plus en plus que la seule solution pour éviter un embrasement et une guerre civile serait une partition pacifique du pays avec la création d’un pays blanc et « coloured » autour du Cap de Bonne-Espérance et le maintien d’un État quasi exclusivement noir-africain en Afrique du Sud avec peut-être une autonomie pour les Zoulous. L’Afrique du Sud, longtemps présenté comme un modèle de réconciliation et de coexistence entre les communautés, risque de ne pas survivre longtemps après la mort de Nelson Mandela.

Sur les réseaux

Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Vive le Québec libre : la renaissance de la gauche patriote au Quebec
InternationalPolitical

Vive le Québec libre : la renaissance de la gauche patriote au Quebec

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • International
  • Politique

Vive le Québec libre : la renaissance de la gauche patriote au Quebec

Tous les lundis matin, vous pouvez retrouver Raphaël Audouard, le directeur de la Fondation Identité et Démocratie, dans Ligne Droite, la matinale de Radio Courtoisie puis sa chronique sur notre site internet. Cette semaine, nous nous penchons sur la renaissance des indépendantistes québécois.

Regardez la vidéo :

Le Québec connaît actuellement des évolutions politiques majeures. Est-ce que vous pouvez nous expliquer le contexte politique au Québec ?

Pendant longtemps, la vie politique québécoise a été divisée entre deux grands partis : d’un côté, la droite conservatrice représentée par l’Union nationale et de l’autre la gauche libérale représentée par le Parti libéral. Néanmoins, dans les années 60, la Révolution tranquille, sorte de mai-68 québécois, a mis fin à la société conservatrice québécoise. L’Union nationale qui avait dirigé le pays pendant 20 ans s’effondre en même temps l’Église catholique qui avait soutenu les conservateurs. Le Québec, qui était pourtant un territoire très religieux, voit ainsi le catholicisme s’effondrer et quasiment disparaître. Cette période de domination des conservateurs est aujourd’hui appelée la Grande Noirceur par les Québécois, signe que le Québec a profondément rejeté cette période conservatrice et religieuse. Politiquement, l’aile sociale-démocrate et indépendantiste du Parti libéral scissionne alors pour fonder le Parti québécois et à partir des années 70, la vie politique québécoise est dominée par la gauche : d’un côté le Parti libéral qui incarne une gauche libérale et pro-canadienne et de l’autre le Parti québécois, social-démocrate et indépendantiste.

Pourtant, ces dernières années ont vu la réémergence d’une droite au Québec ?

Les années 90 voient la réapparition d’un parti de centre-droit issu d’une scission de l’aile droite du Parti libéral. C’est l’Action démocratique du Québec qui sera plus tard absorbée par la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ). Progressivement, ce centre-droit va émerger et disputer le leadership des libéraux et des indépendantistes. Finalement, François Legault, le leader de la CAQ, va remporter les élections de 2018. Certes, le programme de François Legault est très modéré, mais c’est sa défense de la laïcité, de la francophonie et sa critique de l’immigration qui lui ont permis de remporter les élections. Ainsi, la CAQ est un parti autonomiste prônant un certain nationalisme québécois qui tranche avec la vision d’un Canada multiculturel prônée par Justin Trudeau.

Et quelles sont les évolutions récentes ?

Lors des élections legislatives de 2023, la CAQ a remporté 41% des suffrages et deux-tiers des sièges. À ce moment-là, rien ne semblait pouvoir s’opposer à la domination de François Legault, d’autant plus que l’opposition était très divisée. Néanmoins, ces derniers mois, on peut voir dans les sondages des évolutions majeures avec un effondrement de la CAQ et une émergence du Parti québécois, le parti de gauche indépendantiste et social-démocrate étant en passe de devenir le premier parti du Québec. Si les élections se déroulaient aujourd’hui, il est probable que la CAQ perdrait le pouvoir et que nous verrions un retour au des indépendantistes. Or, le parti québécois est un parti ambigu. Certes, c’est un parti de gauche social-démocrate, mais c’est aussi un parti dont le but premier est l’indépendance du Québec qui a toujours revendiqué un nationalisme québécois. De ce fait, électoralement, il regroupe à la fois un électorat urbain, plutôt de centre-gauche et qui correspond plus ou moins à l’électorat de la gauche en France, mais aussi tout un électorat dans le Québec périphérique et dans les campagnes qui est beaucoup plus conservateur. Le Parti québécois, au nom de la lutte pour l’identité et l’indépendance du Québec a toujours tenu un discours laïc et de défense de la francophonie. Et depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir au sein du Parti québécois de Paul Saint-Pierre Plamondon, le PQ a renforcé ce discours et y a ajouté un discours très ferme sur l’immigration qui fait, qu’aujourd’hui, le Parti québécois est le parti le plus ferme sur les questions d’immigration au Québec. Et c’est une des raisons de son renforcement puisque la CAQ avait été élue sur un programme de lutte contre l’immigration, mais que le gouvernement de François Legault ne fait pas grand-chose. Avec son discours social-démocrate, laïque, nationaliste et anti-immigration, le Parti québécois est en train d’incarner une alternative non seulement à la CAQ au Québec, mais aussi au gouvernement canadien très libéral et multiculturel.

Si les choses continuent ainsi, quelles pourraient être les conséquences pour le Canada ?

On voit de plus en plus une opposition culturelle et politique entre d’un côté un Canada très libéral, progressiste, et multiculturel et de l’autre, un Québec beaucoup plus étatiste, social-démocrate, laïc et critique de l’immigration et du multiculturalisme. Ce qui fait d’ailleurs que le Québec est très régulièrement critiqué par les Canadiens. On voit dans le discours général canadien, que ce soit le discours des journalistes, des politiques, des médias ou encore des personnalités publiques et culturelles canadiennes un très fort discours de critique contre le Québec accusé d’être réactionnaire, car opposé au multiculturalisme. De plus, d’après les sondages, les conservateurs pourraient arriver au pouvoir au Canada lors des prochaines élections et renverser le Parti libéral de Justin Trudeau. Le Parti conservateur du Canada est un parti tout aussi libéral, progressiste, multiculturel et pro-immigration que le Parti libéral, mais là où le Parti libéral est régulièrement dirigé par les francophones (Justin Trudeau et son père sont francophones), le Parti conservateur du Canada est lui un parti qui incarne la défense des anglophones. Cette arrivée au pouvoir des conservateurs canadiens pourrait renforcer le sentiment de rejet des Québécois vis-à-vis de l’état fédéral canadien et renforcer le Parti québécois qui est un parti indépendantiste. En 1995, le Québec avait échoué de peu à obtenir l’indépendance et le Parti québécois est déterminé à retenter sa chance pour essayer de créer une République du Québec indépendante du Canada.

Et en quoi ces débats concernent l’Europe ?

Il y a deux choses : tout d’abord, l’émergence d’une gauche patriote au Québec fait écho à un phénomène qu’on retrouve en Europe et que j’avais déjà évoqué. Si un parti social-démocrate patriote arrivait au pouvoir au Québec, cela pourrait donner des idées à un certain nombre de partis de gauche en Europe. Ensuite, si le Québec arrivait à l’indépendance, et c’est une hypothèse dont il faut tenir compte avec cette émergence des indépendantistes, le Québec serait un allié pour les patriotes européens et surtout pour les patriotes français du fait de la volonté commune des patriotes québécois et des patriotes européens d’être indépendant vis-à-vis du bloc anglo-saxon et notamment vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis. Donc une victoire du Parti québécois dans les années qui viennent serait donc doublement une bonne nouvelle pour les patriotes en Europe et notamment en France.

Sur les réseaux

Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
InternationalViewpoint

Taiwan: Nationalists challenge Chinese Communists

by PFE Foundation
written by PFE Foundation
  • International
  • Point of view

Taiwan: Nationalists challenge Chinese Communists

Every Monday morning, you can listen the director of the Identity and Democracy Foundation on Ligne Droite, Radio Courtoisie’s morning show, followed by his column on our website. This week, we take a look at the Taiwanese nationalists’ victory in the January elections.

Watch the video:

Last January’s elections in Taiwan marked a new stage in tensions in the Pacific. Can you explain the context?

With the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, we tend to forget that the Pacific is also an extremely important area of tension. This is because Taiwan is claimed by China. Indeed, a civil war ravaged China between 1927 and 1949, pitting the Republic of China led by the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) against the rebels of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The latter eventually triumphed and established the People’s Republic of China, the regime that governs present-day China. The nationalists then fled mainland China for the island of Taiwan, then part of China. There, they have maintained a Republic of China, which they consider to be the only legitimate government of the whole China. For its part, the People’s Republic of China considers Taiwan to be part of its territory. So, we have one country (China) and two governments (the People’s Republic of China, which controls mainland China, and the Republic of China, which controls Taiwan). Internationally, these two entities are regarded as a single country, and the Communist government in Beijing is recognized by both the UN and the vast majority of the world’s countries, including the West. We are therefore faced with a paradoxical situation in which the West supports Taiwan… while recognizing Beijing’s sovereignty over the island. Taiwan therefore lives under the constant threat of annexation by Communist mainland China.

And recent years have seen these tensions increase, haven’t they?

Exactly. The war in Ukraine has led to a rise in tensions between China, which supports Russia, and Western countries, which support Ukraine and Taiwan. On the Western side, there is a fear that China is trying to do with Taiwan what Russia did with Ukraine. On May 23, 2022, Joe Biden stated that the United States was ready to defend Taiwan militarily in the event of a Chinese attack. Similarly, on August 2, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, visited Taiwan to express her support for the island. In response, China carried out massive military exercises around Taiwan and imposed economic and diplomatic sanctions. The Taiwan question is an important one for Europe, because in the event of a Chinese invasion of the island and Western support, Europeans would find themselves embroiled in the conflict as they were in the Ukrainian one. In such a case, the European Union would probably support the Taiwanese army financially and impose sanctions against China, which would have dramatic consequences for the European economy. Furthermore, Taiwan is the world’s leading producer of semi-conductors. The January 2024 elections therefore took place during this particularly tense backdrop.

And what are the political forces at work in Taiwan?

The political situation in Taiwan is dominated by the question of the relationship with China and, by extension, Taiwanese identity. On the one hand, the right-wing Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang), which fled mainland China several decades ago and continues to advocate a Chinese nationalism that sees Taiwan as the only legitimate government in all of China. On the other is the left-wing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which advocates a break with this vision and defends a Taiwanese nationalism that sees Taiwan as a country distinct from China. It wants to proclaim a “Republic of Taiwan” and seek international recognition for the island. Both parties are pro-Western, although the Kuomintang’s Chinese nationalism makes it less hostile to China. Taiwanese political life is therefore dominated by the question: is Taiwan the real government of China, or a country in its own right? The 2024 elections once again saw these two visions of Taiwan clash.

And who won?

Lai Ching-te, candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party, won the presidential elections. This victory was doubly surprising. Firstly, because his party has already been in power for eight years, and most commentators expected the wear and tear of power to harm the Taiwanese nationalists. Secondly, because Lai Ching-te embodies the radical wing of the Democratic Progressive Party. Unlike the moderates led by former president Tsai Ing-wen, who are content with the current status quo, which they see as a form of de facto independence, Lai Ching-te and his supporters have not abandoned their dream of an internationally-recognized “Republic of Taiwan”. The Kuomintang, for its part, faced stiff competition from the Taiwanese People’s Party, a centrist party seeking to embody a third way between Chinese and Taiwanese nationalists, and from a populist candidate, the billionaire Terry Gou. Despite the latter’s withdrawal, the Kuomintang finally lost with 33.5% of the vote against 40% for the Democratic Progressive Party and 26.5% for the People’s Party. The Taiwanese nationalists, on the other hand, lost their majority in Parliament and will have to negotiate with the moderate Chinese nationalists of the People’s Party to govern.

And what are the consequences of this victory?

Above all, this victory is a challenge to China. While the Chinese Communists are multiplying declarations to the effect that Taiwan belongs to them and should be annexed (potentially for the People’s Republic of China’s centenary in 2049), the people of Taiwan have elected uncompromising Taiwanese nationalists who refuse to compromise with Beijing. Nevertheless, this new government faces a triple problem. Firstly, it depends on Western protection. In view of the debates surrounding aid to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, it is questionable whether the people of the West, and in particular the people of Europe, will agree to support Taiwan if it requires them to make an even greater sacrifice. And if the will is there, the question arises of capacity. The United States is already carrying Ukraine and Israel at arm’s length. The multiplication of confrontation zones could put an end to American military capabilities. Secondly, the debates surrounding Taiwan’s identity and its relationship with China mask the structural problems facing Taiwan. Taiwanese political life neglects subjects that are just as important. The demographic question is particularly worrying. With 0.8 children per woman, Taiwan has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, which threatens the country’s very existence in the long term. As the population ages, the Communists could end up annexing Taiwan without having to start a war. Finally, Taiwanese nationalism is very empty. Left-wing, civic-minded and very progressive, it struggles to really propose a strong national identity as an alternative to the Chinese nationalism of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Their vision for Taiwan seems uniquely negative, in reaction to Beijing, and all the more so as Taiwan is de facto vassalized by the United States. As a nation undergoing a major demographic crisis, struggling to define its identity and caught between two great empires, the USA and China, Taiwan’s problems are ultimately quite similar to those of Europe.

On socials

Facebook Twitter Instagram Linkedin
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail