
RDC: Banque Centrale du Congo – “Concerne: Mesure temporaire de suivi du taux de change en Republique Democratique du Congo” (17.08.2017)









“I fired White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. I got tired of hearing that there is someone mentally unstable in the White House. #Bannon” – Donald J. Trump (18.08.2017).
It took him 210 in office before the White House Strategist Stephen Bannon got fired, the former Campaign Manager of Trump and the know Republican President Donald J. Trump. Clearly, the White House is still in shambles and in major troubles. A general has already reshuffled with a new close Trump aide this week with Hope Hicks as White House Communications Director, which is the third one just in that position. Therefore, you can wonder if Jared Kushner will become the Strategist too, since Trump has now so few to trust.
NBC reports today:
“Statement from the Press Secretary
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day. We are grateful for his service and we wish him the best” (White House/NBC 18.08.2017).
This is just a shocking, but not surprising at this point, anyone hired by Trump will most likely be fired by him. Not because it just their fault, but anyone else than Trump has to jump on their sword. The suicide and doubling down might come naturally to Trump, but he will blame his aides and his people. Not take the blame himself. That Trump is a racist is now sure and he tries defend himself with another sacking. Not that it makes him brighter or wiser. It doesn’t, just look like more chaos in the White House.
Just like the New York Magazine reporter Olivia Nuzzia reports: “ Source close to WH on Trump: “this whole idea that he plays three dimensional chess & we play checkers is bullshit” Adds he rarely has plan. Source close to WH adds “what the hell does it matter at this point?” who’s running the show, since “they’re not getting anything done.”Source close to WH says they’re “worried” about the survival of Stephen Miller and Kellyanne Conway.“I don’t see any senior decision makers around the president besides the Vice President who are real conservatives.” – source close to WH” (Olivia Nuzzia, 18.08.2017).
This sort of reporting is believable, as it seems, since the White House have fired and hired without any plan or any consideration of plans or strategy. Therefore, the second Chief of Staff has been allowed to fire White House Communication Director Anthony Scaramucci, but Scaramucci was also the reason for the fall of Sean Spicer and Reince Preibus. Therefore, the random sackings and the failing administration shows it’s perspective.
Certainly, John Kelly might want the White Supremacists, White Nationalist and the Neo-Nazis away from the White House, but than the Chief of Staff has to evict his master, President Trump. President Trump are clearly supporting Confederate ideas and “Unite the Right” initiatives, as he never has spoken or denounced the support of Grand Wizard David Duke, neither Jason Kessler or Richard Spencer for that matter. There have been enough grand standing racists he likes to be affiliated with, therefore, shuffling out Bannon will not clear the house of white trash. There will still be some left behind.
There is still Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka, they are not sound minds as well. Both of them has views and perspective not far from Bannon. If not in the same league as Bannon. So, it is not like the shop has none disturbing forces there. The most disturbing one is the President. A President who has sentiments in favor of the Alt-Right, the Neo-Nazis, White Supremacist and White Nationalist, a false-romantic favors for the Confederate heroes.
This is the American Experience right now… but let’s hope Robert Mueller team can do something about this White House, have enough indictments and criminal conspiracy, to charge and collect close-knitted personnel and high-ranking officials to impeach Trump. Because the American people should hope for someone who is not a racist-in-charge, but a man who stand behind certain values and moral standing with their people. Peace.


On 15th August 2017, the United Kingdom or the Her Majesties Government laid out there paper on the Costums Union with the European Union. You would imagine that this one would be a paper drawing the lines in the sand and putting things in order. They are apparently not so, not surprising that people have called the Brexit Minister David Davis lazy, the reasons for doing. Is by looking at the paperwork and the white papers who are initially spelling out the policies for the break-up. These are supposed standards of acts and of understanding from one part to the other. Therefore, the quotes and the basic framework says a lot. That is why it is intriguing how little dep’t there are in the “Future customs arrangements – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER”, it is insane how little it says at this point.
Let’s be brief about the quotes worth mentioning from this “paper”:
“As a first step, we will seek continuity in our existing trade and investment relationships, including those covered by EU Free Trade Agreements or other EU preferential arrangements. Our exit from the EU will provide considerable additional opportunities for UK business through ambitious new trade arrangements and comprehensive trade deals that play to the strengths of the UK economy of today and the future, including in areas such as services and digital trade, as well as trade in goods. As a services-based economy, services account for around 80 per cent of UK GDP6 and the UK is the second largest exporter of services worldwide.7 Services exports accounted for £246 billion in 2016.8 The share of services in total UK exports has increased from around 27 per cent in 1990 to 45 per cent in 20169 – the largest share of any of the G7 economies.10 To capitalise fully on those opportunities, the UK will need an independent trade policy, with the freedom to set for ourselves the terms of our trade with the world” (HM Government, P: 4, 15.08.2017).
So again, the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party Government comes with statements that underline the possible positives about the break-up without considering the real implications of the act. They are playing safe and promising excellent opportunities, without underlining the doubts of trade and border issues, granted the exit. It is like the doors open and they are coming directly into Narnia and not upon a new unknown quest.
Therefore the next statements saying this: “In assessing the options for the UK’s future outside the EU Customs Union, the Government will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK, and by three strategic objectives:
It is like the UK Government and their negotiation team is dreaming that the EU will grant them all of their wishes and make the world a peaceful and lovable space, where anyone living wants to have a house in Nothing Hill or in Yorkshire. But, alas that is not case. That the UK-EU trade will not be frictionless, if it was so, the massive amount trade-agreements would be settled, also the businesses would start to move to European cities for security of future transactions, like to Dublin or Frankfurt. Therefore, the Tories frictionless is near impossible and will implode on them at one point!
The border question on Ireland is another subject, which will be hustled and bustled, where nothing is certain. What that it will be, is an advantage standpoint for Unionists, but not for the Irish or the European Union, which would like similar rules for all their Member States. The last one is something the UK has to work upon and find-out as the directives and the legislation for trade from Brussels will cease, but that also makes it hard to be very independent if the EU are their major trading-partner.
“One potential approach the UK intends to explore further with the EU would involve the UK acting in partnership with the EU to operate a regime for imports that aligns precisely with the EU’s external customs border, for goods that will be consumed in the EU market, even if they are part of a supply chain in the UK first. The UK would need to apply the same tariffs as the EU, and provide the same treatment for rules of origin for those goods arriving in the UK and destined for the EU” (…) “By mirroring the EU’s customs approach at its external border, we could ensure that all goods entering the EU via the UK have paid the correct EU duties. This would remove the need for the UK and the EU to introduce customs processes between us, so that goods moving between the UK and the EU would be treated as they are now for customs purposes. The UK would also be able to apply its own tariffs and trade policy to UK exports and imports from other countries destined for the UK market, in line with our aspiration for an independent trade policy. We would need to explore with the EU how such an approach would fit with the other elements of our deep and special partnership” (HM Government, P: 10, 15.08.2017).
This here proves that UK Government thinks the EU will accept free-trade and movement of goods, without taking one of their pillars, the movement of people. Like the borders was made for cows, Iphone’s and automobiles, but not made for securing people trespassing from one garden to the next. The fences and guidelines of crossings, will be within concern of the status of the UK deal with the EU, as a non-EU State. Meaning, the Third Party state, has to reissue boundaries and extended efforts on trade, to justify itself concerning the ones that are Member States already. This should be obvious to the UK Government and the Tories, but their paper is disregarding this mere facts.
It is amazing how this is the sort of framework and due diligence, the government operates within. That they are not thinking in the prospects of not their dream-world, but the reality of the ones they are negotiating with. It is as if they think only on their own behalf, and not of the reactions from the Union, they are leaving. Instead of being concern with by-laws and regulations that are already on “third-nations” and “non-Member-States”, the United Kingdom government should operate like that and not as it is today. The dreams has to stop and the shattered glass has to appear. The broken screens and the trouble of scrolling has to happen. Peace.

We know that the loyalty based between former Members of Parliament, former NRM historical’s is not based on merit or on ideology anymore. It is on the possible paycheck and envelopes given by the state and the favors it gets the President. Everything else is and should be seen as a lie. Therefore, when the Observer quotes a letter from 1st August 2017 sent to his loyal cronies, saying they have to make sure the other loyal cronies get more perks. It fits the paradigm of his growing entitlement and his regime. The President do know the only way of keeping them within reach and loyal to him, is to pay them. That is the only way he can sway them and make sure they got his back. This is the reason for the sudden; we need to give MP allowances and benefits to the ones ousted and who has left office in disgrace. They need a new form of payday, since I still need their loyalty. Just look!
“In an August 1 letter, President Museveni directs the minister of Public Service, Muruli Mukasa, to give the former ministers who were appointed ambassadors the same remuneration they used to get while they still served in cabinet. “As you are aware, I have appointed some former ministers as ambassadors. I, therefore, direct, if it is not against any law, their remuneration, personal to holder, like when they were ministers, minus of course elements like constituency allowance because they no longer have constituencies,” Museveni’s letter reads. The letter is copied to Vice President Edward Ssekandi, Prime Minister Ruhakana Rugunda, Foreign Affairs Minister Sam Kutesa, head of Public Service and secretary to cabinet John Mitala and the permanent secretary of the ministry of Foreign Affairs, Patrick Mugoya. Museveni’s letter suggests that the former ministers could alternatively be paid an equivalent of the monthly pay of Shs 15m for permanent secretaries, although this could come with additional benefits. “Sort it out in a rational manner on the basis of maintaining some of the benefits the individuals were getting previously minus the elements that are no longer applicable,” Museveni further wrote” (Kaaya, 2017).
It is amazing that former Cabinet Members will get perks when they have left office, that can only be keeps his cronies at bay. Not because it is benefits the state or is fiscal responsible. Since the Ministers and Members of Parliament get very high salaries and their reunification, that the ordinary worker in Kampala could “die” for.
Certainly, the President knows this and wants to make sure the former loyal cronies get their paycheck, which they will smile and grin. That they will continue to support him and speak well of him. If that weren’t the case, then this wouldn’t be necessary for him to propose. This isn’t for the love of the country and to take someone. These are the former well-paid politicians and loyalists, who are now sure they get another payday, without any work or office! It should be insulting, but is more of the same, seriously, since many former cabinet members becomes ambassadors, presidential advisors or any sort of title to pay for their loyalty. Not for their advice or political savviness. We all know better.
This certainly will bill up more funds and put more strains on the debt-ridden economy. But why doesn’t President Museveni, he will be dead when the interests and the debt has to be repaid to the creditors. Peace.
Reference:
Kaaya, Sadab Kitatta – ‘Museveni wants ex-ministers to draw cabinet-level pay as envoys’ (18.08.2017) link: http://observer.ug/news/headlines/54467-museveni-wants-ex-ministers-to-draw-cabinet-level-pay-as-envoys.html

Over the past 12 months, an average of 1,800 South Sudanese have been arriving in Uganda every day.
GENEVA, Switzerland, August 18, 2017 – UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, is today reiterating its call to the international community for urgent additional support for the South Sudan refugee situation and Uganda in particular, where the number of refugees from South Sudan has now reached 1 million.
Over the past 12 months, an average of 1,800 South Sudanese have been arriving in Uganda every day. In addition to the million there, a million or even more South Sudanese refugees are being hosted by Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic.
In Uganda, more than 85 per cent of the refugees who have arrived there are women and children (below 18 years in age). Recent arrivals continue to speak of barbaric violence, with armed groups reportedly burning down houses with civilians inside, people being killed in front of family members, sexual assaults of women and girls, and kidnapping of boys for forced conscription.
With refugees still arriving in their thousands, the amount of aid we are able to deliver is increasingly falling short. For Uganda, US$674 million is needed for South Sudanese refugees this year, but so far only a fifth of this amount (21 per cent) has been received. Elsewhere in the region, the picture is only marginally better – in all US$883.5 million is needed for the South Sudan situation, but only US$250 million has been received.
The funding shortfall in Uganda is now significantly impacting the abilities to deliver life-saving aid and key basic services. In June, the World Food Programme was forced to cut food rations for refugees. Across settlements in northern Uganda, health clinics are being forced to provide vital medical care with too few doctors, healthcare workers and medicines. Schooling, meanwhile is also being impacted. Class sizes often exceed 200 pupils, with some lessons held in the open air. Many refugee children are dropping out of education as the nearest schools are too far away for them to easily access.
Since December 2013, when South Sudan’s crisis erupted in Juba, more than two million South Sudanese have fled to neighbouring countries, while another two million people are estimated to be internally displaced.

Dagens politikere må frykte politiker forakten, den vokser og dette fordi deres holdninger og arroganse kommer frem under valgkampen, dette kommer på tv-debatter og andre innslag. Der en viser enten et fantastisk speilbilde av realiteten eller et så stort valgløfte, at hele verden vet at partiet ikke kan innfri dette.
Det er denne arrogansen og selvtilfredsheten. Der man kan ture frem med ordelag og skillelinjer som ikke tilhører denne verden. Dette blir gjort for å sikre sine velgere og samtidig skaper dette polarisering mellom velgerne. De som står ved ens side og de som er meningsmotstandere. Dette skaper ikke en positiv dynamikk, men mer usikkerhet. Der en lurer på hva vil være det skytsmålet mot opponenten.
Dette er slik det føles, dette er slik det kan tenkes, fordi de blir bare mer og mer av det. Dette med reklamer på offentlige steder, inne i aviser og slagord midt under dagsrevyen. Ikke bare i debatter og blant stemmesankerne på stands. Dette er overalt og ingen pauser. Det hele er brød og sirkus. Der løfter og lovnader kastes i vilden sky og håper at den treffer god jord, slik at det blir en blomst eller en fullvokst hvetekorn.
Denne følelsen av usikkerhet og av maktbalanse også setter sperrer. Der en lurer på om sin stemme blir den som bikker det mot sosialistisk eller borgerlig. Dette gjør at man kan enten på partiet man har mest likehetstrekk ved eller stemme strategisk å håpe støttepartiet får nok sympati til å kunne nå flertall eller størst konstellasjon av partier til å bli regjering. Dette er ikke lett.
Det er i et slikt bilde forakten er farlig, der de harde argument og de krenkelser av hverandre skaper ubehag og usikkerhet. Der forakten for politiker gjør at folk for avmakt for de og tilslutt føler avsky. Der løftene og valgkamp programmene blir smøre-lister for å oppnå gunst, men ikke nødvendigvis levere disse. Når det skjer igjen og igjen, når partier selger sin gunst for makt, istedenfor å levere sine løfter. Da begynner man å miste tiltro.
Det er dette som gjør det hele så skjørt, den dynamikken, de ord og handlinger som ikke samsvarer. Der konkrete fundamentale ideer blir til side satt og stilnet fordi dette egnet seg best for å få makt, ikke for å vise velgerne at de sto for disse verdiene. Det var mer kjøpslåing for å sementere makt, enn å faktisk oppnå løftene.
Dette er det som er farlig, når nok personer får denne følelsen. Der valgkampen blir mer et spill for galleriet, der løftene og reklame-plakatene er mer for å sanke stemmer, enn å faktisk innfri disse. Når det føles slik og kan tolkes dit hend. Da må man spørre seg om partiene må kikke i seg selv og ransake sine valgkamp-apparat ettersom tvilen til de blir sterkere. Peace.