France revokes Legion of Honor from former President Sarkozy following corruption conviction

The decision was made via a decree released in the Journal Officiel that publishes the government's major legal information. It comes in line with the rules of the Legion of Honor read more
France's former President Nicolas Sarkozy has been stripped of his Legion of Honor medal after being convicted last year of corruption and influence peddling while he was the country's head of state, it was announced on Sunday.
The decision was made via a decree released in the Journal Officiel that publishes the government's major legal information. It comes in line with the rules of the Legion of Honor.
The conservative politician, who was president from 2007 to 2012, has been at the heart of a series of legal cases since leaving office.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
He was found guilty of corruption and influence peddling by both a Paris court in 2021 and an appeals court in 2023 for trying to bribe a magistrate in exchange for information about a legal case in which he was implicated.
He was sentenced to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet for one year, a verdict upheld by France's highest court, the Court of Cassation, in December.
Earlier this year, Sarkozy stood trial over allegations he received millions of dollars from Libya for his successful presidential campaign in 2007. He denies the claims. Prosecutors requested a seven-year prison sentence. The verdict is expected in September.
Sarkozy becomes the second former head of state to be stripped of the Legion of Honor — France's highest distinction — after Nazi collaborator Philippe Petain, who was convicted in 1945 for treason and conspiring with the enemy for his actions as leader of Vichy France from 1940-1944.
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was stripped of his Legion of Honor award in the wake of widespread sexual misconduct allegations against him in 2017. Disgraced cyclist and former Tour de France star Lance Armstrong also had his French Legion of Honor award revoked.
Sarkozy retired from public life in 2017 though still plays an influential role in French conservative politics.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

2 days ago

• Time of India

Putin Says He Is Ready To End War If Ukraine Remains Non-nuclear & Doesn't Join NATO

Russian President Vladimir Putin has revealed when the Ukraine war will end in an interview with Sky News Arabia. Putin said that Ukraine's neutrality must be declared—meaning it should not join any foreign alliances or be armed with nuclear weapons. He emphasized his belief that the majority of Ukrainians are interested in friendship with Russia and pointed out that any settlement in Ukraine must ensure the rights of the Russian language and pro-Russian residents, as well as eliminate Nazi elements in Ukrainian leadership. Watch. Read More

NDTV

3 days ago

• NDTV

How Israel Is Targetting Key Iranian Nuclear Scientists

Atlanta: At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel's Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities. Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran's knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran's Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel. As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call "scientist targeting" from 1944 through 2025. The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel's recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations. But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country's desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality. A policy with a long history Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler's ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the US and Soviet nuclear programs. In our data set, we classified "targeting" as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs. The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks. Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries' nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli's home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project. Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development. By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria's Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities. With its proxy "axis of resistance" defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward. And in the months leading up to Israel's recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump's first term, the president withdrew the US from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement - and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site. Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks' purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical. Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi - who was killed in the most recent attacks - survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory. Israel's logic in going after scientists Why target nuclear scientists? In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force. Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state's efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation. Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary's nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as "a significant blow to the regime's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction." Despite Israel's focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists. Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs. Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development. Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age - and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond. (Author: Jenna Jordan, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology and Rachel Whitlark, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology) (Disclaimer Statement: Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Jenna Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.)

The Wire

3 days ago

• The Wire

Nationalism Is a Dishonourable Social Construct

Two thought-provoking pieces by Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar made for a fascinating debate on the texture and trajectory of Indian nationalism. Yadav argues that the rich legacy of Indian nationalism from our freedom movement which was about 'belonging without othering' and unity sans uniformity, has been overwhelmed in the last decade by a Nazi version that upholds national interest over individual freedom and identifies the government with the nation. But he also blames the liberal, secular elite for the regression in the pristine nationalist spirit, charging them with a 'deracinated cosmopolitism' that ignored the cultural and spiritual undertone, because of which they lost touch with the common man. Palshikar is emphatic that nothing can mitigate the virtual dismantling of nationalism by the current regime through practice and ideology which, he believes, is not backsliding 'but a resolute replacement of Indian nationalism'. He contends that excoriating the secular-liberal elite as abettors for the crisis in Indian nationalism, as Yadav has done, is to attach significance to a marginal force. Of much greater import were the deep fissures that were evolving in the late 19th and early 20th century between an inclusive Indian nationalism and its phoney alternative that was 'rooted in othering and instrumental unity without genuine belonging.' To add my twopenny bit, notwithstanding the toxic faith-based majoritarian nationalism germinating on the side, our nationalism was not in a bad place until the 1980s. Yogendra Yadav may turn up his nose at my lived experience of an that was pluralistic, inclusive and grounded in democratic values where we didn't need to prove our Indianness or be judged by the clothes we wore or the size of our eyes; nor did we feel the need to tamper with historical facts or denigrate our freedom fighters in order to craft an alternative Hindutva nationalist vision. I remember an unselfconscious nationalism, respectful of religion but not obsessed with it, a milieu where our patriotic instincts were fired up by the histrionics of 'Mr Bharat' Manoj Kumar and the dulcet tones of Mohammad Rafi and Lata Mangeshkar. There was no deliberate fostering of deep cultural and spiritual traditions but that 'shallow modernity and deracinated cosmopolitanism' worked very well for us. If only we could get back that nationalist spirit. In debating Indian nationalism – good and bad – these two public intellectuals have broached a subject of the greatest significance. It has turned the world upside-down, particularly in the last decade. The nationalism that we witness today is the depraved patriotism of the mob. In truth, nationalism has been commandeered to legitimise all forms of bigotry. In the crazy world that we live in, the insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, are released and hailed as nationalists whereas the protestors in Los Angeles fighting for justice against the authoritarian Trump regime are hounded as anti-nationals. It is necessary to draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism in terms of the emotive quality of loyalty to the nation. Nationalism invokes blind support for everything the country does –a syndrome that incites aggressive assertion and a lust for power, whereas patriotism is tolerant, humane and critical of actions that are destructive of the values that the country cherishes. Is it any wonder then that the world's great minds were not enamoured of nationalism? H.G. Wells condemned nationalism as 'a monstrous can't that has darkened all human affairs.' He believed that our true nationality was mankind. Rabindranath Tagore was no devotee of the constrictive tendencies associated with attachment to the nation which he viewed as 'holding up gigantic selfishness as the one universal religion.' Dr B.R. Ambedkar was wary of a nationalism 'that is at once a feeling of fellowship for one's own kith and kin and an anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one's own kith and kin.' He warned that loyalty to the nation was endangered by competitive loyalty to religion, to culture and to language. The iconic revolutionary Bhagat Singh represented a nationalism that was the very antithesis of what's being practised today. His nationalism was anchored in his atheism and signified much more than driving out the British. It meant ridding our society of the evils of casteism, untouchability and communalism. Sadly, today he is glorified but his revolutionary nationalism that was centred on the oppressed and the poor has been overwhelmed by one that is cruelly majoritarian and focussed entirely on the needs of the privileged. 'Where guns boom' Today's nationalism bears an eerie correspondence with the German experiment of the 1930s that played on the fears and prejudice of the majority. The most obvious similarity is between the Nazi doctrine of nationhood based on an exclusive ethnic German-Aryan homogeneity and rabid antisemitism vis-a-vis our indigenous fascist mobilisation constructed on a deviant interpretation of religion and morbid hatred of the Muslim. And just as Hitler expanded his enemy list of Jews to include communists, Catholics and liberals, the current regime has gone way beyond targeting Muslims and Christians as the archetypal 'Other', to branding all dissenters as the 'ant-national, tukde - tukde gang'. Prime minister Narendra Modi has been given the credit for bestowing the name 'Operation Sindoor' to the military operation post Pahalgam, so clearly his camp followers think it's a great appellation. But how blasphemous to bestow an offensive military campaign with the moniker of 'sindoor' which is so sacred to the institution of the Hindu marriage, especially for the woman. It is as inappropriate a name as the one given by the USA to its largest non-nuclear explosive weighing 9,800 kgs, labelled 'the mother of all bombs'. That great humanist, the late Pope Francis was outraged: 'A mother gives life and this one gives death…What's going on?' The fig leaf of national interest and security have been used by this Government as a pretext for the furtive secrecy surrounding the Pahalgam horror and the aftermath. The nation is still in the dark about the murderers, the intelligence failure, the number of our planes shot down and fate of the pilots, Jaishankar's self-defeating forewarning to Pakistan, Trump's alleged intervention, our suicidal foreign policy that has all our neighbours gunning for us and a lot more. The bizarre decision to keep Operation Sindoor alive is clearly intended to avoid owning up to failure on multiple fronts. Arthur Miller had observed that 'when the guns boom, the arts die', but with Operation Sindoor it is not the arts but truth that has got buried. The nationalist fervour gripping the country has confused and equated loyalty to the nation with fealty to the government, though crafty ones like Shashi Tharoor have used it for their own self-serving purposes. Nationalism is the subterfuge for officially sponsored propaganda, downright falsehoods, jingoism, moral grandstanding and for treating dissent as anti-national. Modi's flurry of ' goli khaao' speeches following the ceasefire, are testimony to this ugly manipulation of nationalism. Look at what nationalism has spawned across the world. The likes of Zionist nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu and MAGA white racist Donald Trump – post-modern versions of the Fuhrer and Duce – flaunt the badge of nationalism to wreak death and suffering. Let's all agree that Howard Zinn was spot on when he observed: 'Nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – is one of the great evils of our time along with racism and religious hatred.' Mathew John is a former civil servant. Views are personal. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.