Posté par BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE le 3 décembre 2015





Since soon two years, the debate over net neutrality has emerged and continues to occupy the front of the sessions in the different platforms at national level, for some countries, regional and international meetings (IGF, conferences, symposiums etc .. .).
As a corollary to this debate, another aspect of the problem it is hung, including the zero rate.

To help us understand this issue, we will briefly husked these two concepts and finally make an assessment.


Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all online content, sites, and platforms equally. For example, they should not intentionally block or slow certain web sites or services.

Net neutrality allows freedom of expression and equal opportunities by giving people the opportunity to seek, to receive, to exchange information and to interact as equals. For that neutrality to be real, it is necessary that the Internet remain an open platform where ISPs treat content, applications and services equally, without discrimination. It is important for net neutrality that everyone can innovate without obtaining permission to do so.

A definition of network neutrality stipulates that it provides for all applications and all services be treated equally and without discrimination, especially in the more populated regions of the world, which will connect the next three billion Internet users.

The issue of specialized services

The European Union calls for an “open” Internet, and its draft regulation provides that specialty services, such as the establishment of different levels of priority given by their clients, be offered to end users, as well as companies willing to pay more to receive a priority service.

However, this project allows that services related to priority levels may not be available if the daily limit bandwidth or Internet surfing speed has been reached.

Specific cases will be given priority in traffic online: preventing terrorist attacks, sensitive data relating to health, remote surgery or driverless cars.

Some suggestions were to assess various data and information on the practices and effects of networking and existing policies on net neutrality; to work on the basic principles – namely, the significant transparency of data management practices by suppliers, no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination traffic information; to further examine upstream impacts of new aspects such as zero rated or specialized services on the economy, user experience, and human rights.

Net neutrality is the principle that all online traffic should be treated equally. Would we have this neutrality in zero rating, with some free Internet access services, especially from certain mobile operators?


Zero rating is a business practice of some ISPs, particularly some mobile operators, which means not measuring the amount of data of certain applications or services in the calculation of the use of their customers. In other words, these websites or services are provided free to clients.
The European Parliament intends to allow national regulators, who will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the draft regulation, to decide whether zero rating can be applied in their country or not.

However Internet.org develops another option:

Internet.org was launched on August 20, 2013 by the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. In a ten-page press release, he explained how this project addresses a major challenge for humanity by stating in particular that « Connectivity is a human right. »

Zero rating by ISPs provides customers a clear set services or applications for free, without a data plan or without considering some services or applications in the calculation of the data used.

This practice is discriminatory, and that is why it has been banned or restricted in some countries like Canada, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Chile.
This practice is currently the basis of the Internet.org model. Facebook has established partnerships with ISPs around the world to offer free access to certain Internet applications to users. These agreements and partnerships undermine freedom of expression and equal opportunities, giving ISPs the power to favor certain Internet services compared others, to hinder the free flow of information, and to restrict the rights of people when dealing with networks.

It should be stressed that the position of « Internet.org » also raises the following concerns:

• Internet.org sells the idea that their zero rated Internet account offers full Internet access, when in reality, users receive only very limited Internet access.

• Internet.org presents additional risks for freedom of expression. The ability to censor Internet gateways is well established. Some governments require ISPs to block access to certain sites
or services. Zero rating seems to open Facebook to allowing governments to put pressure on it to block some content or similarly, when users need to connect to access a site, to block access to certain users. In countries which practice this kind of restrictions, Facebook would play the role of arbiter in decisions about surveillance and censorship against politically active users.

• Our concern is also about the consequences Internet.org may cause to the protection of privacy. Facebook’s policy in this respect does not give sufficient protection for new users of the Internet, who may not have a clear idea of ​​the use that may be given to their data, or who are not able to adequately provide their consent to certain practices. In the absence of statements affirming otherwise, we can assume Internet.org collects data on users through its applications and services. The use that Internet.org and its partners in telecommunications will make of this data is not clearly explained. It would be much easier for governments and actors to monitor users on the Internet.

• The current modalities of implementation of Internet.org threaten the safety of users. The version of May 4 prohibits the use of the protocol TLS, secure exchange of SSL or HTTPS encryption services by participants. This increases the risk to users by making them more vulnerable to malicious attacks and government surveillance.

If net neutrality is the principle that all online traffic should be treated in the same way, would we be able to maintain net neutrality if we have zero rating, where there are some free Internet access services, especially from certain mobile operators?

Panoramic presentation of Internet.org

Internet.org is a global partnership among several companies, including: Facebook, Samsung, Ericsson, MediaTek, Nokia, and Qualcomm Opera Software. The purpose of this partnership is to promote Internet access for all, especially for victims of the digital divide in developing countries.
This strategy in parallel, allows an increase in the number of Facebook users:

-Ghana, Kenya and Zambia through the operator Airtel
-Colombia, Tanzania, Guatemala and the Democratic of Republic of Congo with Tigo
-India with Reliance Communications
-Philippines with Smart Communications

Internet.org began a partnership with Reliance Communications, an Indian operator, on 10 February 2015. This partnership allows provision of Internet access to those who do not have the financial resources, in six Indian states.

Connecting the world is a challenge that a company or organization cannot meet alone. Various technologies exist in the field of communication, and they are not applicable in the same way depending on the geographic location involved.

The Internet.org project aims to develop different platforms for different population groups: in the most densely populated areas (typically areas of high urban density), a mesh network is a solution to multiply Internet access points for a large number of people gathered, at a reasonable cost; in medium population density areas, Internet access could be provided by the connected UAV, powered by solar energy. In the less densely populated areas, satellite connections may be considered, but for now they remain expensive.

To overcome these limitations, an Innovation Lab was designed under the leadership of a collaboration between Ericsson and Facebook. This laboratory, located at the headquarters of Facebook, allows developers to build applications that can work across the world, by testing under different network conditions.

Mobile Application Internet.org
This application facilitates access to the Internet by providing free basic services. These services provide information in the areas of health, employment and other local information. Some features of the application: AccuWeather, Airtel, Facebook, Google Search, Go Zambia Jobs, eZeLibrary, MaMa (Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action Alliance), Messenger, Wikipedia.

The application is operational today in Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, India, the Philippines, Colombia, Tanzania and DR Congo. Since 26 March 2015, the application is used in Guatemala.

What about the situation in Africa?
Some experts say that net neutrality is not a problem in Africa despite the fact that for the first time local telecom players offering « free » access to the web services. Services offered free access to certain web page in hearing of paid access to the other.

In Africa, it is still difficult to understand that free does not exist. The word « free » is a marketing tool like any other network used to develop usage patterns that are then billed « hard » in the near future.
With well-studied plan mercantile Facebook and others offer internet access services « free » at all … This is the case of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Kenya.

For Facebook is expanding its Facebook Zero program, through which the company deals with telcos from emerging markets to offer the social network for free. Twitter and Google do the same thing, Wikipedia, and even if it is purely altruistic in.
By providing free access to some popular site (Google, Facebook …) has customers through telecommunications companies, Internet service provider show while he was in control of the sites and access So could have all the time to charge their users access a competing web services, websites deem it appropriate or inappropriate for their business, stifle access to competing advertising, « block » access to content criticize about them … etc.

These dress initiatives « Free » and « charities » informative in Africa in complicity with telecommunication groups might be trying to install the web control of bases on the continent.

The African Television Internet
If the issue related to the ‘net neutrality’ is not discussed, the 240 million African users may be surprised by channeling their access to information, which can even lead to unbearable costs for schools and African universities have to « pay » for their student’s access to information freely available on the web.

There as a desire to « make money » by operating a force passage on an African land or oppositions are easy to corrupt and users not well informed of the issues of internet access « fee ». This forced passage is often decked out as « free » and « magnanimous » insolent.

What experts say
For many experts, is the problem serious enough to impede the free access to web services in Africa?
For certain, the problem arises only if the cost has access remains high and that with regard to access to optical fiber (high speed internet) and access to Wireless Spectrum.

The Association of Internet Service Providers (ISPA) in South Africa estimates that net neutrality is not a « problem » for their country; when the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) said that South Africa must avoid legislating on the issue of net neutrality.

For ISPA / South Africa, this is a problem unique to the US, because the « cable operators » who converted their cables with broadband links dominate the market for access to the Internet as a whole and have a monopoly at best duopoly. This debate is useless in Africa faces from fair competition that must be resolved.

ISPA believes that more effort should be made to prevent Internet service providers to prioritize their own network over other operators.

According to David Meyer, a journalist for the site Gigaom, based in Europe, net neutrality is a complex African problem. The principle of « net neutrality » is composed of serious advantages, but also long-term risks that should not be minimized.

David Meyer, in an article highlighting the « advantages » and « disadvantages » of the initiative « Internet.org » offered by Facebook App Zambia highlights:
1.The advantages: He explains that these initiatives can help to provide internet access to those who had none; give the opportunity to the Internet and Internet provider to present these opportunities; sell web services and applications
2.The drawbacks: Users must pay fees to get out of the free access service, which does not encourage competition because no one wants to have to « pay » for this removed a service to discover competitive offerings. The powerful telecommunications monopolies can be strengthened and potentially slow down innovation.
If your web experience is slandered by a monolithic gate, this can undermine privacy because any « navigation » is channeled through a door that profiling can provide your personal information to advertisers but also to all of espionage or other services and this is a dangerous drawback.
This disadvantage can be risky for freedom of expression in countries where state censorship would be happy at the thought of all internet traffic and pass a single portal.

Chili and Europe do not want
Chile has banned these practices, and the new net neutrality law passed soon in Europe will do the same. This tells us that we must remain vigilant because the issue of net neutrality is not only a problem for emerging markets
Despite the positive aspects of free web initiative, net neutrality in Africa is a problem that needs to be analyzed, the deeper reasons of group investments like Facebook, Google and other should be studied and « stripped » of their disguise and charitable allowed to bring their service if and only if the intellectual development of Africa also benefits.

Free access to selected web services on the continent is here to stay, but our « knowledge industry » must be protected from infantilization in exchange for economic income that do us « buy » and « import » « knowledge »

What challenges for the growth of the digital economy in Africa?

The exponential development of new technologies in Africa has led to the emergence of a strong digital economy, supported by a multitude of startups and web companies. The industry media and entertainment sector is probably the fastest growth, and underpin this development in Africa must create local content; it is more necessary than ever with the transition to Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT).

The revolutionary principle of freedom of the internet just allows any user to become an actor of creation / distribution of content and enrich the web. Prioritization of Internet traffic based on trade agreements would be simply to exclude the visibility of Africa, most content providers do not measure up to American and European giants of the Web we know today.
Apart from South Africa, Africa has until now virtually given no opinion in this battle on net neutrality; African telecom operators probably consider it a « rich problem » …

Indeed the problem raised by this subject is that of the quality of the Internet and therefore presupposes access to the Internet; gold in the light of the situation right now in most African countries (especially those of francophone Africa), it is obvious that the debate would quickly refocused: The Internet today can be akin to a royal banquet hosted by the United States as guest of honor with Europe, while Africa is investing huge sums in submarine cables to be able see the progress of the party since the trees that surround the palace .

Suffice to say that for Africans the Internet has never really been neutral, and this is not likely to happen as the democratization of the fiber optic will not be effective. While it is true that over the last ten years the number of submarine cable carrying Internet to Africa has increased significantly, they are in most African countries controlled by an incumbent that charges a heavy price to ISPs for access to these international hoses.

Obviously these ISPs are in turn pay a high price to end consumers with Internet access rates as high as each other, so it is in this that lies the main concern now regarding Africa Internet.
Clearly, before you can participate in a debate such as that of net neutrality, Africa has other challenges it will face first, for example increasing the number of Internet Exchange Points across the continent, promote national and regional peering, developing infrastructure networks, establishing clear rules on the status of ISPs and content providers, liberalize the market for the provision of Internet access, etc …

Africa is today the least connected continent Internet users with a rate estimated at 9.8% according to the latest statistics (June 2014) of the internet world stats. In the race to reduce this digital divide, we are seeing more and more trade agreements between local operators and web American giants to provide free internet services to some African, hence their qualification Zero -rated services.

A strict application of net neutrality would mean the complete disappearance of this kind of services, designed for people with very low incomes and unable to enjoy the global Internet. It is also necessary that the real reasons behind these initiatives are really those advanced by their promoters: if one assumes that innovation often arises from a lack or need, nationals of emerging countries most likely to be tomorrow’s major players of innovation; but if for them the access to information has resulted in a sponsored Internet where they see only what the promoter wants to show them behind, preventing them from thinking freely and depriving them of any spirit of creativity, we easily arrive at the conclusion that the next Facebook or Google will definitely not African! But of course it is no where assumptions that could cause a whole different debate …

Africa would she have to gain or lose if the Internet were to be regulated?

It would be difficult to stand on one side or the other of the fence, so to answer this question. The advantages to keep a neutral Internet are certainly more to show, but do not forget that in Africa almost all telecom operators are also content providers, and thus are often tempted to favor their own content to the detriment of their competitors; strict enforcement of net neutrality would therefore be utopian in this context.
Furthermore, given the stage where Africa is currently at level infrastructure, technology and legislation, telecom operators gain can be shaped to multiply the internet offers, or offers tailored Internet (Streaming, instant messaging, peer-traffic to-peer, etc ..) to improve the quality of service, although ironically this type of offers is a breach of the fundamental principle of net neutrality.

Net neutrality involves a debate on the treatment of preferred online content (zero rating), a practice used by some Internet companies to promote content, applications or services by not charging consumers for their use.

The notion of network neutrality takes into consideration the extent to which Internet traffic management practices (TMP) may be admissible, without being considered as discriminatory or putting in jeopardy end-users’ full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Network neutrality is grounded on openness, universal access and transparency, and stems from the end-to-end argument whereby the Internet is a general-purpose network whose intelligence resides at the edges. According to such reasoning, “certain required end-to-end functions can only be performed correctly by the end-systems themselves” and the best way to cope with failures of transmission is to “give responsibility for the integrity of communication to the end systems”.

Accordingly, end-users should not be victims of opaque TMP, but rather enjoy an open and neutral network which allows them to control the applications they use; to benefit from the maximum access to online content, application and services; and to easily circulate their innovations.
The majority of network operators frequently put in place TMP consisting of blocking, filtering and throttling specific data flows, in order to prioritise or impede access to certain applications, services or content.

The widespread adoption of such TMP leads to the conclusion that the mere self-regulation may be insufficient to maintain the open and neutral character of the Internet.

Although no evidence of market failure has been associated with non-neutral TMP, it is right and proper to query to what extent such management techniques may interfere with the end-users’ freedom of expression and communication. Indeed, non-neutral traffic management may lead to the establishment of so-called “walled gardens”, thus fostering network balkanisation and limiting end-users’ possibility to circulate innovations, as well as their fundamental right to freely impart and receive information and ideas through the Internet.

Furthermore, concerns have been growing around network operators’ utilisation of intrusive techniques, such as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), in order to identify the content and applications which they intend to block and prioritise. Indeed, the exploitation of these techniques hold promise to provoke nefarious consequences on end-users’ privacy.

Recurring issues include the fear that the zero rating could restrict competition or market access for new operators. Others argue that zero rating can generate investments in networks, as well as economic and social benefits.

With zero rating, companies providing Internet access, particularly mobile operators, may enable consumers to access certain parts of Internet content, services or applications without charging them for that specific data use.

Zero rating can be applied by not charging for data traffic arising from specific applications or by offering situations where users can access the service, even if they do not have a data plan.




Posté par BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE le 25 mars 2010

NOM : Continent

PRENOM : Africain

AGE : Berceau de l’humanité.

SITUATION MATRIMONIALE : Célibataire avec plus d’un milliard d’enfants.

CONTACT : Au sud de l’Europe, à l’est de l’Amérique.

Objectif : Mettre mes enfants et mes ressources à la disposition des autres pour contribuer à leurs développements.

Coups d’Etats, guerres, génocides.

-Hautes études à l’ESOCE (École Supérieure Occidentale de Commerce d’Esclaves).
-Hautes études à l’AFRIQUE (L’Africaine de Formation pour la Réélection des Incompétents, Querelleurs, Usurpateurs et Egoïstes).

-Le MRTS (Médaille de Reconnaissance du Tirailleur Sénégalais).
-Le GPRTT (Génocide le Plus Rapide de Tous les Temps).
-Le CPRMPP (Continent le Plus Riche Mais le Plus Pauvre).
-Le CPTS (Continent le Plus Touché par le SIDA).
-Le CPDPP (Continent ou les Présidents Durent le Plus au Pouvoir).
-Le PMDDP (Premier en Matière de Détournement de Deniers Publics).
-Le CPE (Continent le plus endetté).
-Le CN (Continent  »Noir »)

-Participation aux deux guerres mondiales.
-Mes coups d’Etats:
•1952 : Égypte, Mohammed Naguib renverse Farouk Ier
•1958 : Soudan, Ibrahim Abboud renverse Abdullah Khalil
•1963 : Congo, David Moussaka et Félix Mouzabakani renversent Fulbert Youlou
•1963 : Togo, Emmanuel Bodjollé renverse Sylvanus Olympio
•1965 : Algérie, Houari Boumédiène renverse Ahmed Ben Bella
•1965 : Zaïre, Mobutu Sese Seko renverse Joseph Kasa-Vubu
•1966 : Burkina Faso, Sangoulé Lamizana renverse Maurice Yaméogo
•1966 : Burundi, Michel Micombero renverse Ntare V
•1966 : Centrafrique, Jean Bédel Bokassa renverse David Dacko
•1966 : Nigeria, Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi renverse Nnamdi Azikiwe

•1966 : Ouganda, Milton Obote renverse Edward Mutesa
•1968 : Mali, Moussa Traoré renverse Modibo Keïta
•1969 : Libye, Mouammar Kadhafi renverse Idris Ier
•1969 : Soudan, Gaafar Nimeiry renverse Ismail al-Azhari
•1971 : Ouganda, Idi Amin Dada renverse Milton Obote
•1973 : Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana renverse Grégoire Kayibanda
•1974 : Éthiopie, Aman Andom renverse Hailé Sélassié Ier
•1974 : Éthiopie, Mengistu Haile Mariam renverse Aman Andom
•1974 : Niger, Seyni Kountché renverse Hamani Diori
•1975 : République fédérale islamique des Comores, Saïd Mohamed Jaffar renverse Ahmed Abdallah
•1975 : Nigeria, Yakubu Gowon renverse Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi
•1975 : Tchad, Noël Milarew Odingar renverse François Tombalbaye
•1976 : Burundi, Jean-Baptiste Bagaza renverse Michel Micombero
•1976 : République fédérale islamique des Comores, Ali Soilih renverse Saïd Mohamed Jaffar
•1977 : Congo, Joachim Yhombi-Opango renverse Marien Ngouabi
•1977 : Éthiopie, Mengistu Haile Mariam renverse Tafari Benti
•1978 : République fédérale islamique des Comores, Said Atthoumani renverse Ali Soilih
•1978 : Mauritanie, Mustafa Ould Salek renverse Moktar Ould Daddah
•1979 : Centrafrique, David Dacko renverse Bokassa Ier
•1979 : Guinée équatoriale, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo renverse Francisco Macías Nguema
•1979 : Tchad, Goukouni Oueddei renverse Félix Malloum
•1979 : Ouganda, Yusufu Lule renverse Idi Amin Dada
•1980 : Burkina Faso, Saye Zerbo renverse Sangoulé Lamizana
•1980 : Guinée-Bissau, João Bernardo Vieira renverse Luis de Almeida Cabral
•1980 : Au Libéria, Samuel Doe renverse William Richard Tolbert
•1981 : Centrafrique, André Kolingba renverse David Dacko
•1982 : Burkina Faso, Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo renverse Saye Zerbo
•1982 : Tchad, Hissène Habré renverse Goukouni Oueddei
•1983 : Burkina Faso, Thomas Sankara renverse Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo
•1983 : Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari renverse Shehu Shagari
•1984 : Guinée, Lansana Conté renverse Louis Lansana Beavogui
•1984 : Mauritanie, Maaouiya Ould Taya renverse Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla
•1985 : Ouganda, Basilio Olara Okello renverse Milton Obote
•1985 : Soudan, Swar al-Dahab renverse Gaafar Nimeiry
•1986 : Soudan, Ahmed al-Mirghani renverse Swar al-Dahab
•1987 : Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaoré renverse Thomas Sankara
•1987 : Burundi, Pierre Buyoya renverse Jean-Baptiste Bagaza
•1987 : Tunisie, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali renverse Habib Bourguiba
•1989 : Soudan, Omar el-Béchir renverse Ahmad al-Mirghani.
•1990 : Libéria, Prince Johnson renverse Samuel Doe
•1991 : Mali, Amadou Toumani Touré renverse Moussa Traoré
•1992 : Algérie, le Haut conseil de securité renverse Chadli Bendjedid
•1995 : République fédérale islamique des Comores, Ayouba Combo renverse Said Mohamed Djohar
•1996 : Burundi, Pierre Buyoya renverse Sylvestre Ntibantunganya
•1996 : Niger, Ibrahim Baré Maïnassara renverse Mahamane Ousmane
•1997 : Zaïre/République démocratique du Congo, Laurent Désiré Kabila renverse Mobutu Sese Seko
•1999 : Union des Comores, Azali Assoumani renverse Tadjidine Ben Said Massounde
•1999 : Côte d’Ivoire, Robert Guéï renverse Henri Konan Bédié
•1999 : Guinée-Bissau, Ansumane Mané renverse João Bernardo Vieira
•1999 : Niger, Daouda Malam Wanké renverse Ibrahim Baré Maïnassara
•2003 : Centrafrique, François Bozizé renverse Ange-Félix Patassé
•2003 : Guinée-Bissau, Verissimo Correia Seabra renverse Kumba Yala
•2005 : Mauritanie, Ely Ould Mohamed Vall renverse Maaouiya Ould Taya
•2008 : Mauritanie, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz renverse Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdallahi
•2008 : Guinée, Moussa Dadis Camara s’accapare du pouvoir à la mort de Lansana Conté
•2009 : Madagascar, Andry Rajoelina dénonce et renverse à une vitesse impressionnante le régime de Marc Ravalomanana

-2010 : Niger,  Djibrilla Hamidou renverse Tandja Mamadou


Analphabétisme, déscolarisation, chômage et appauvrissement.


Troubles, faire beaucoup d’enfants et famine.

Publié dans ANALYSE, INFORMATION | Pas de Commentaire »

Les Coûts de la Corruption

Posté par BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE le 1 août 2009


La corruption, c’est le fait d’être corrompu, c’est-à-dire transformé en mal. Il s’agit donc d’une perversion, d’une altération d’un phénomène, d’un individu, d’une personne ou d’un acte.

Au-delà d’être un fait, la corruption est aussi un acte. Celui de corrompre quelqu’un en s’assurant son concours à prix d’argent pour qu’il agisse contre son devoir.

Il s’agit dans ce cas, d’un pourrissement de l’acte, de sa dépravation,

donc d’une action de décadence. Dans cette acception, la corruption relève de la morale individuelle, même si elle peut conduire à des coûts macroéconomiques non intentionnels.

Le devoir est l’obligation à quelque chose, qu’une personne peut avoir envers une autre par la loi, la morale ou les convenances.

Donc soudoyer quelqu’un, le corrompre pour qu’il agisse contre son devoir, c’est violer et provoquer la violation de règles de conduite en usage dans une société.


Le corrupteur, comme le corrompu, refuse de se conformer aux règles en vigueur et qui sont considérées comme honnêtes et justes. La corruption est donc un vice individuel qui débouche sur une décadence collective. Donc, aussi bien à l’échelle micro-, méso- que macroéconomique, elle a des coûts directs et indirects.



Pour plus d’information, téléchargez le document suivant:

Les Coûts de la Corruption     dans ANALYSE doc lacorruption.doc



Le roi dollar en danger

Posté par BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE le 10 juin 2008

Béatrice Mathieu -  09/06/2008 13:08  - L’Expansion.com 


Le billet vert est attaqué : il se déprécie de façon accélérée par rapport à l’euro et sa part dans les réserves mondiales de change ne cesse de décliner. Peut-il être supplanté


Ben Bernanke, le patron de la banque centrale américaine vient de briser un tabou : parler de la valeur du dollar. Traditionnellement, le patron de la réserve fédérale n’est pas autorisé à commenter les yo-yo de la devise américaine. Un luxe réservé au secrétaire au Trésor, l’équivalent du ministre de l’économie. Reste que le successeur d’Alan Greenspan s’est récemment ému de la vitesse de dépréciation du billet vert.

Ben Bernanke aurait pu noter également que la toute puissance du dollar, en tant que monnaie internationale, commence également à s’émousser. Si l’on en croit les dernières données du Fonds Monétaire International, la part du dollar dans les réserves mondiales de change des banques centrales a encore reculé l’an passé pour tomber à 63,9% à la fin 2007 contre un sommet de 72,6% au deuxième trimestre 2001. Cette baisse ne reflète pas seulement la dépréciation de la devise. Si tel était le cas, la part du dollar dans les coffres des banques centrales atteindrait encore 66%. Ce mouvement traduit donc une modification dans la politique de change des banques centrales de la planète.

Evidemment, le grand gagnant de cette nouvelle donne est l’euro dont la part dans les réserves atteint quasiment 26,5% (contre 17% en 2000). Revers de la médaille : l’appétit des banquiers centraux pour la devise européenne explique en partie son appréciation au cours des dernières années. Reste à savoir si le billet vert peut réellement être supplanté par une autre devise, en particulier l’euro. Il est sans doute trop tôt. Si l’euro peut servir effectivement de monnaie de transaction, le rôle de la devise européenne dans le fonctionnement des marchés financiers mondiaux est encore beaucoup trop faible. La capitalisation boursière européenne ne représente que 15% des échanges mondiaux, soit deux fois mois que celle des Etats-Unis. Le roi dollar n’est pas encore mort.

Publié dans ANALYSE | Pas de Commentaire »


Bienvenue chez moi ! |
Unblog.fr | Créer un blog | Annuaire | Signaler un abus | consensus
| presseecrite
| lesjournalistes