The hidden links between a giant of investigative journalism and the US government

DrewDrew Sullivan is unknown to the broad public, but the 60-year-old American is one of the most influential journalists in the world. He co-founded and heads the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

The OCCRP was created in 2008 in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo, initially as a media network for carrying out investigations into organised crime and corruption in the Balkans region. Sixteen years later, the OCCRP has become, as Drew Sullivan himself describes it, “the largest investigative reporting organization on Earth”.

With an annual budget of 20 million euros, and a staff of 200 spread over every continent, the NGO has both initiated and contributed to the largest international projects of investigative journalism of recent years, often based on massive data leaks. These include The Panama Papers, Pandora Papers, Suisse Secrets, Narco Files, Pegasus Project, Cyprus Confidential, and the Laundromat series which revealed the money laundering schemes of ruling elites in Azerbaijan and Russia.

The speciality of the OCCRP is to organise the collaboration of media organisations around the globe. “Anybody who wants to do a global story can come to OCCRP and get 100 reporters,” says Drew Sullivan. Today based in Washington, Amsterdam and Sarajevo, the OCCRP groups 70 media members and 50 media partners from among the most prestigious worldwide, including The New York Times and The Washington Post in the US, The Guardian in Britain, Der Spiegel and Suddeutsche Zeitung in Germany, and Le Monde in France.

The OCCRP, which has won more than 100 journalism awards, is reputed for the quality and courage of its reporters. Some have been forced into exile while others have been imprisoned. According to Drew Sullivan, investigations by the OCCRP have allowed numerous countries to retrieve a total of more than 10 billion dollars in lost revenue, and have provoked the fall of heads of government in “five or six” countries.

But there is a flip side. While the OCCRP presents itself as being totally independent, its management have placed it in a position of structural dependence upon the US government, as revealed in this investigation by Mediapart, Drop Site News (US), Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italy), Reporters United (Greece) and German public broadcaster NDR – which decided to censor its own report at the last minute. That decision was taken even though the NDR had initiated the investigation and subsequently suspended its collaboration with the OCCRP following the findings of its journalists (see more here).

Our investigation reveals that the OCCRP was created thanks to the financial support of the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Still today, Washington provides around half of the budget of the OCCRP, and has the power to veto the nomination of “key personnel” in the NGO, including Drew Sullivan.

While the OCCRP does indicate on its website that it receives funding from the US Department of State, and notably from the US Agency for International Development, USAID, it conceals the extent of the funding and the strings attached to it from its media partners, journalists and the wider public. The US government financing is never mentioned in OCCRP-produced articles.

Our revelations are principally based on public documents and filmed interviews given to NDR by Drew Sullivan and several senior US civil servants.

“I'm very proud to say that I think OCCRP is one of the best achievements that USAID has made in the field of democracy and governance”, said Mike Henning, senior advisor with USAID’s Europe and Eurasia Office. His colleague Shannon Maguire, in charge of USAID’s dealings with the OCCRP, commented: “We’re proud that […] the US government is the first public donor to OCCRP. […] But we're also aware and mindful of how uncomfortable sometimes the relationship can be” for a journalistic organization.

In 2021, Samantha Power, Administrator (head) of USAID, described the OCCRP as a “partner” of the US government. Her agency has even funded a programme which weaponizes OCCRP investigations by attempting to prompt judicial probes or sanction procedures based on the revelations of OCCRP reporting.

The OCCRP has confirmed most of the information presented here in this investigation, but it refutes the importance of it, arguing that the US government has no influence on the choice or contents of the articles – the quality of which is not in question here. “From the beginning, we made sure that government grants had impenetrable guardrails that would protect the journalism produced by OCCRP,” wrote the members of the NGO’s board of directors in a reply to our questions. “[…] We are confident that no government or donor has exerted editorial control over the OCCRP reporting.”

Washington’s strategy is more subtle. The head of a South American media outlet which has collaborated with the OCCRP, said that “critics of OCCRP who parrot Putin's charge that the news organisation takes orders from the US are wrong” and “misunderstand the nature of soft power”. The OCCRP “is an army of "clean hands" investigating outside the US,” he added. “There is value in investigating alleged allies and enemies. It makes the US seem virtuous and allows them to set the agenda of what is defined as corruption.”

Not only is the US government largely untargeted by OCCRP reporting, but it also manages to orientate the NGO’s coverage by providing funds which the OCCRP has an obligation to use on reports that focus on designated countries. These include Russia and Venezuela, governed by autocrats who Washington regards as enemies.

In their written replies to questions submitted by this investigation (click on the annex button bottom of page), the OCCRP's board and Sullivan have threatened legal action against the media producing this report, while Sullivan has exercised pressure on some close to it before its publication. He also made defamatory accusations against several journalists who took part in this investigation (including one of those who signed this article – see Black Box at bottom of page) in order to discredit them.

The role of a US major

Drew Sullivan is an aerospace engineer by training. He joined the Space Systems arm of the giant US conglomerate Rockwell in 1987. There, he worked for six years on the US space shuttle programme, and the launching by the shuttle of spy satellites, for which he received a top secret security clearance. In response to questions about that, Sullivan said it was also the case of “tens of thousands of employees” who worked on the programme, adding that “this afforded me no special standing with the US government”.

It was at the beginning of the 1990s that he began a career in journalism, working for The Associated Press (AP) news agency and subsequently the daily newspaper The Tennessean, in Nashville, Tennessee. In the year 2000 he resigned to lead a brief activity as a stand-up comedian. In parallel to that, he left on his first visit to Sarajevo in Bosnia to train local journalists, in the framework of a programme funded by USAID.

In 2003, Sullivan approached Mike Henning, then a director of USAID’s office in Sarajevo, for the agency to fund the creation of a Bosnian journalistic NGO, in order to compensate for the lack of professionalism and independence of local media in Bosnia. USAID accepted to finance the project, on the basis that investigative journalism could contribute to improving governance and democracy in a country still reeling from a horrific three-year war, following the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, which ended in 1995.

The result was the opening in Sarajevo in 2004 of the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIN). Its funds were managed by a company called the Journalism Development Group (JDG), which was controlled by Drew Sullivan. Registered in the US county of Delaware, a tax haven, its address was a post box number in New York.

In 2006, Sullivan stood down from the CIN. He had become friends with Paul Radu, a co-founder of the Romanian Center for Investigative Journalism, and the two men wanted to create a network of journalists that would be able to mount transnational investigations into corruption and organised crime, bringing together media, freelance reporters, and journalistic NGOs from across several countries of the Balkans. It led to the creation of the OCCRP.

In April 2007, the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) provided the project with 346,000 dollars, but the sum was insufficient to fund the network’s operations.

This investigation can reveal that it was a US army officer and civil servant, David Hodgkinson, who made the creation of the OCCRP possible. A jurist by training, he was deployed by the US army in 25 countries, including Iraq and Panama. He later continued to serve as an army reservist while also occupying several senior posts at the Department of State and the White House, concerned with issues of foreign affairs, counter-terrorism and intelligence. He today has the rank of colonel (retired), and works for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) which coordinates the activity of different US secret services.

In the spring of 2007, Hodgkinson, then with the rank of major in the reserve force, was director for security and law enforcement programmes in the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. Drew Sullivan said that he was advised to contact Hodgkinson by USAID, because the agency could not fund OCCRP. Following a meeting between the two men, Hodgkinson agreed to organise the financing of the organization, via funds from the State department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), which is tasked with pushing foreign countries to fight drugs trafficking and organised crime.

Because the INL has no competence in media activities, it transferred the case of the OCCRP and its funding to the management of USAID. Consequently, it is, on paper, USAID which released Washington’s first financing of the ORCCP in May 2008, in the form of a payment of 1.7 million dollars – for the period up to November 2020 – made out to Drew Sullivan’s company JDG.

Asked why a law enforcement bureau would fund an investigative media, USAID’s Mike Henning answered: “Because the ability to uncover corrupt schemes, how the money's been laundered, is incredibly complicated. […] And the beauty of investigative reporters and truly independent journalists […] is that people will talk maybe more to a journalist than to a government official. […] So law enforcement is happy to have other external actors do that kind of work.”

Questioned, Drew Sullivan said: “INL is not a law enforcement bureau. It has no policing powers, cannot detain anyone. […] We do not consider INL funding as problematic as long as their grants meet our standards of not interfering with editorial practices.” The NGO’s board added that the “OCCRP is not seeking to hide INL’s involvement”.

However, the OCCRP has never publicly disclosed the role of the INL and David Hodgkinson in its financing. “I think Drew is just nervous about being linked to law enforcement, […] because sources may be [nervous], right?,” commented Mike Henning. “If people that are going to give you information, think, ‘Oh, you're just a cop’, maybe it's a problem, and [also for] other governments. Let’s say you're trying to get into a country and do something and the government says: ‘What are you, law enforcement or not?’ […] The independence, your reputation is incredibly important.”

The OCCRP has omitted from its official history the role played by the US government in its creation, only mentioning the funding by the UN. Sullivan responds to that by underlining that the UN Democracy Fund payment was indeed the first that the NGO received. Meanwhile, he recognised that the creation of the OCCRP would not have been possible without the funding from Washington.

Vast support from the US from the start

In 2011, USAID concluded a second financing agreement with the OCCRP, but this time from its own funds. These were paid into a new structure created by Sullivan, the non-profit Journalism Development Network (JDN), which continues to manage the OCCRP today.

To discover the extent of the funding the NGO receives from Washington, this investigation spent weeks studying the public financial audits that the OCCRP is obliged to provide to the US government, but which it does not publish on its website.

Since its creation, the OCCRP has received at least 47 million dollars from the US government. Added to that is 1.1 million dollars it has received from the European Union, and 14 million dollars received from six European countries: Britain (7 million dollars), Sweden (4 million dollars), with the remainder coming from Denmark, Switzerland, Slovakia and France (whose foreign affairs ministry last year donated 100,000 dollars).

According to this investigation’s calculations, all of those governments combined provided 70% of the OCCRP’s annual budget over the period 2014-2023, of which the US alone provided 52%. In 2023, Washington paid the NGO 11.7 million dollars, which represented 53% of its expenditure that year.

Sullivan refutes those figures, arguing that the US “subgrants” that the OCCRP redistributes to its partner organisations or for special projects should not be taken into account. According to that methodology, Sullivan says the true amount of the NGO’s spending that was financed by Washington over the period 2014-2023 is 46%. However, that remains a significant figure.

When he was interviewed on camera by German public broadcaster NDR, Sullivan at first claimed that the OCCRP had “a wide distributed group of donors” among which “no one donor dominates”, adding that “the US government […] is one of the biggest funders, but it's not a huge percentage”. It is when confronted with our findings during a second interview that he finally admitted the importance of Washington’s funding: “It’s the largest donor of OCCRP, yes, and has been for most of our history. […] I'm very grateful to the US government.” 

He also recognised that significant financing by governments posed a structural problem, because of the potential that such funds could be axed if an investigation coordinated by the OCCRP caused displeasure. “In the end, you don't want governments to necessarily fund investigative reporting. […] We have to reduce the number of government monies in our portfolio. And we made a concerted effort to try to do that,” Sullivan said. 

“We made the choice between taking government money or not existing,” he added in his written replies to this investigation.

“We understood at the beginning that taking government money was controversial but private institutional donors were not working in Central Asia, the Balkans and the Pacific.” Sullivan said that without the US financial support, the OCCRP would not have been able to finance its numerous investigations, and also its partner organizations, who are “often the only remaining independent media in many countries”. He also underlined that other journalistic organizations receive funding from Washington.

But the OCCRP appears uncomfortable about the scale of US funding, as the amounts are not published on the NGO’s website. Sullivan said that the OCCRP tries to “balance transparency with safety needs” of “reporters working under autocratic regimes”.

All beneficiaries of USAID funding are required to publicly acknowledge that support, and should do so in an established manner. But USAID confirmed to this investigation that the OCCRP was allowed a “partial branding waiver”, which means it is not required to follow the usually required process of acknowledgment and instead refer to the USAID support in a more discreet manner.

Since at least 2010, and for the following eight years, the bottom of the OCCRP website homepage carried the phrase that the “OCCRP is made possible by” followed by the logo of USAID and the NGO’s other major donors.  In 2018 the phrase was removed, as were the logos in 2019, after which USAID was mentioned as a donor like any other on a page that listed 23 of them.

The NGO’s board of directors said the removal of the mention of USAID from its homepage was because it was “intrusive and often misleading because OCCRP’s work is supported by many different grants”.  However, the US government provided 64% of the OCCRP budget in 2019.

The right to veto 'key personnel'

The problem is that the funding is not entirely unconditional. “There are strings attached,” said USAID’s Mike Henning. His USAID colleague Shannon Maguire said the agreement between the agency and the NGO is a “cooperative agreement” that has a “substantial involvement clause” which gives USAID the right to have its say on the “annual work plan” of the OCCRP, and a right to veto appointments of “key personnel” on every new funding contract.

“If the OCCRP needs to change key personnel, for example, the chief of party, which is Drew Sullivan, then they submit a request with a resume and we review it,” she explained. Henning detailed that the right of veto concerns the “top tier of people”, such as “who's the editor in chief or who's the CEO, the managing editor, etc.”.

Sullivan confirmed this in his on-camera interview with NDR: “Under cooperative agreements, which we don't like to take, they have a say on who the people are. […] They can veto somebody. If they veto somebody, then we can say we don't take the money. They've never vetoed anybody. And we've never had a problem with this.” But that tempts the question as to whether the OCCRP could really say no to such a large contribution to its budget.

In their written replies, the OCCRP’s board, as well as Sullivan, confirmed that USAID had the right of veto during a contract, but they consider it is not the case at the beginning. They said that when requests for funding are studied, the evaluation of “key personnel” is part of the final grade awarded by the US government, which decides if the funds are paid out or not.

This investigation has also discovered that the OCCRP does not have the right to investigate US matters with the money provided by Washington. “The policy that we have is that we don't report on a country with their own money,” Sullivan told NDR. “[…] I think the US government doesn't allow you to. But even in other countries that don't have those stipulations we don't do it because it puts you in kind of a conflict of interest, and you kind of want to stay away from those situations.”

At the end of the 2000s, two US companies, the tech conglomerate Microsoft and engineering and construction giant Bechtel, were named in alleged corruption scandals in several Balkan countries. But the stories were not covered by OCCRP reporting whereas they were situated in its local geographical region and were issues that corresponded with its editorial focus.

The question of coverage of those stories had, however, been raised. On July 31st 2009, Drew Sullivan sent an email out to OCCRP journalists to tell them he had been alerted to a story about “the highways and the American firm Bechtel” in Albania. “Does anybody know any Albanian reporters (or anyone for that matter) that might know a lot about this?” he asked. A Romanian journalist answered back that there was also in his country “a huge scandal concerning the ‘Bechtel highway’, if you need to know more, just let me know”. A Macedonian journalist, meanwhile, gave Sullivan some details and recommended a journalist in Albania.

This investigation found no follow-up to the email exchange, but what is established is that the OCCRP did not cover the story of the alleged corruption. Sullivan said he could not remember the story but insisted he would have covered it if he believed it was important.

In an email sent to OCCRP journalists in 2023, Sullivan admitted that it was “mostly true” that his NGO did not “do stories on US […] in the early years”, because all of its budget was paid for by Washington and the Open Society Foundations, founded by billionaire and philanthropist George Soros. “We couldn't use US government or Soros money for US stories,” wrote Sullivan.

Since then, the OCCRP has attracted wider sources of funding, and Sullivan and the board told this investigation that the restriction of not using US funds to investigate US issues is not a problem given that the NGO can use other, non-US funds it receives to do so.

They also detailed that the OCCRP employs a journalist tasked with developing stories that concern the US, and that the NGO has regularly published reports about issues in the country, for example about the businessmen who helped Donald Trump’s lawyer in an operation to damage Joe Biden, and on how the Pentagon spent massive amounts to deliver arms to rebel groups in Syria, and also about a contract between the US government and an airline whose owners are linked to organised crime in Russia. Nevertheless, those investigations represent a small part of the OCCRP’s total production.

The OCCRP is also required to respect the US Foreign Assistance Act, which concerns aid handed out abroad and which stipulates funding must be “aligned with and advance United States foreign policy and economic interests”.  

But for Sullivan, that has no detrimental effect on the independence of the OCCRP: “It does advance American foreign policy when you have good investigative reporters around the world. That's why they gave us the grant in the first place. […] There was never an attempt to influence anything that we were doing.”

In 2015, Lowell Bergman leaves the board

This investigation found that the OCCRP did not, as a matter of course, inform its own members or media partners of the extent of its funding by the US government, nor about the conditions that funding came with (see box 'Media working with the OCCRP were not informed', further below). For example, the NGO did not disclose the nature of its funding to The New York Times, a spokesperson for the US daily told us.

Le Monde, which publishes OCCRP investigations in France, refused to tell us if they had been informed of the extent of the US funding of the NGO. “Le Monde has always worked with the OCCRP in all independence. Nothing in this working experience, nor in the OCCRP’s explanations about its manner of functioning prompts us to place in question our relationship of confidence,” said a spokesperson for the French daily.

US journalist Scott Simon recalled that when he sat on the OCCRP’s board of directors he was told that the NGO received government funds but that “they came with no strings and that their funding base was large, and certainly not steered by any government or political policy whatsoever”. 

The award-winning US investigative journalist Lowell Bergmann (who was played by Al Pacino in Michael Mann’s 1999 film The Insider), said he resigned from the OCCRP board as of 2015, partly over concerns about the funding. “I was overwhelmed with my commitments elsewhere,” he explained. “It was also then that I became aware of the US government involvement. Because that was clearly a complicated issue, I expressed my concern to Drew Sullivan and others, and respectfully stepped off the board.”

We submitted our findings to Stephen Engelberg, another leading figure in the field of investigative journalism, and who is editor in chief of ProPublica, the Pulitzer Prize-winning online nonprofit organisation which is broadly comparable to the OCCRP. Engelberg said the US government conditions imposed upon the OCCRP would be unacceptable for him. He underlined that ProPublica does “not allow people to impose restrictions on our reporting”, insisting it would never accept that a government could have the power to veto senior members of its management and that it would refuse any governmental funding. “If the government is paying half of your payroll, it's going to be on your mind,” he said. “I would prefer not to have to think about that.”

Russia, Malta, Cyprus and Venezuela targeted by US

The OCCRP repeats at length that US government funding poses no problem because there is no influence exerted upon its reports. “All OCCRP grants acknowledge donors have no right to interfere with the editorial policies,” insisted the OCCRP board in their written reply. But the board refused to provide us with copies of such grant agreements.

USAID’s Shannon Maguire also insisted that it did not interfere with the OCCRP ‘s editorial decisions. “They're 100% independent,” she said. “We don't direct the stories that they work on.” Drew Sullivan, meanwhile, said the US government “has been professional and [they] don’t seek to influence media unlike such bad actors as Russia”. 

But his NGO has accepted several US government donations that it is obliged to spend on investigations into certain countries that Washington considers to be a priority matter. Between 2015 and 2019, the Department of State donated 2.2 million dollars to the OCCRP for a mission baptised “Balancing the Russian Media Sphere”. Between 2019 and 2023, the Department of State gave the OCCRP 1.7 million dollars for “Strengthening Investigative Journalism in Eurasia”, the geographical area that includes Russia, China and central Asia.

In 2021 and 2022, the OCCRP led an investigation by international media called Russian Asset Tracker, which created the world’s largest non-governmental database of assets held globally by Russian oligarchs and political figures.

The Department of State also gave 173,324 dollars to the OCCRP for a mission of “uncovering and combatting Venezuelan corruption” – Venezuela’s autocratic president Nicolás Maduro is a high-profile enemy of the US.

Sullivan’s NGO also accepted oriented funding from the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, the INL (which had secretly provided the first US funding of the NGO in 2008). In 2013, the INL gave the OCCRP 200,156 dollars in an operation dubbed “Project Mexico”, focussing on a country gangrened by drug cartels.

In 2022, the INL donated 1 million dollars to the OCCRP for a two-year project “to strengthen the capacity of journalists in Malta and Cyprus” to “expose crime and corruption and accelerate the impact of investigative journalism” in the two island-state tax havens which have notably attracted Russian oligarchs. The programme was renewed in September 2024, with a grant of another 1.3 million dollars paid to the OCCRP.

During that same period, the OCCRP participated in the vast international media investigation dubbed “Cyprus Confidential”, centring on the country’s financial services and opportunities for sanctions dodging, which was coordinated by the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). On November 14th 2023, immediately after publication of the findings, the president of Cyprus announced the launching of official investigations into alleged violations of international sanctions against Russia, as revealed in the reporting. Three weeks later, a team of more than 20 agents from the FBI and the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, landed in Nicosia to help the Cypriots with their investigations.

Drew Sullivan argues that these donations “do not influence our agenda” because the OCCRP only applies for funding for projects linked to countries that it is already interested in investigating, and on condition that no specific subjects are imposed upon it. “Every grant ultimately needs to meet the mission of the donor and the mission, standards and ethics of the journalism organization,” said Sullivan. “When those align, we bid on the grant.”

When the US weaponizes investigative journalism

The US government has weaponized the reports produced by the OCCRP, through a project called the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium (GACC). Created in 2016 after a tender was put out by the US Department of State, and which was won by a partnership of the OCCRP and the anti-corruption NGO Transparency International, the GACC is co-financed by three governments and private donors. Of these, the US government is the biggest donor. It has so far handed a total of 10.8 million dollars to the OCCRP for its activities with the GACC, out of which 3 million dollars were transferred to Transparency International.

The GACC has two missions. One of them is to prompt, on the basis of reports published by the OCCRP, and together with the actions of the local offices of Transparency International, present in 65 countries, the opening of judicial investigations into corruption, as well as sanctions procedures and the mobilisation of civil society.

The second is to lobby states to toughen their anti-corruption and anti-money laundering legislation. In May 2024, the OCCRP produced a report for the attention of governments about the best procedures for fighting intermediaries (such as straw men and lawyers) who facilitate the dodging of sanctions imposed against Russia. The report was produced in partnership with the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British think-tank, and funded by the United Kingdom's Foreign Office. The RUSI has close links with the defence and security professions. One of its Senior Vice Presidents is US general David Petraeus, a former director of the CIA.

For a journalistic organisation to lead such activities upon the initiative and with the funding of the US, even for a just cause, raises important ethical questions. “While some initially found this approach controversial, it has since been adopted now by other media,” said Drew Sullivan. “We believe that GACC has proved to be highly successful.”

The OCCRP and Transparency International insist their work in the GACC is carried out in all independence, and that Washington does not prohibit them from acting against its own interests.

But is that really the case? An evaluation report about the GACC was produced by the OCCRP, on the request of the US government, in 2021, but it was never published in public. According to a summary of it provided to us by Transparency International, the report identified “228 examples of real-world impact” out of which just 11 concern “the Americas”. The number of cases in the US was not detailed.

Transparency International provided us with only three examples of advocacy it performed against the US in the framework of the GACC. One of these was when it called on Washington to put an end to the secrecy that clouds its own tax havens (like the state of Delaware) following publication of the ICIJ-led “Pandora Papers” series of revelations, in which one article designated the US as one of the world’s largest offshore havens. But the OCCRP, which took part in the project, was not involved in that article, preferring instead to contribute reports on its favoured geographical zones of Russia, central Asia and Eastern Europe.

In 2017, the OCCRP recruited a senior US civil servant, Camille Eiss – who had a position of authority with regard to the GACC – as its chief of global partnerships and policy. Immediately preceding her appointment, she was an anti-corruption advisor with the Department of State. She returned to the Department in 2022, where she took up a post in the bureau dealing with sanctions procedures.

Eiss did not reply to the question we submitted to her on whether there had been a possible conflict of interest. Sullivan, meanwhile, commented: “We hired Ms Eiss because she is a talented thought leader in the anti-corruption space.”

Washington appears delighted with the work accomplished by the GACC. In a document published by the White House in December 2021, the consortium is presented as being one of the initiatives that allowed the US government to “enlist the private sector as a full-fledged partner” and for “unleashing private sector advocacy for anti-corruption reform”. At the same moment, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised to raise funding of the GACC, and called on other governments to supply an extra 10 million dollars for its financing.

-------------------------

• The original French version of this article can be found here.