Search Results

Cette crise est donc révélatrice de défis de taille, mais également de discordances profondes concernant la politique agricole : alors, comment concilier ces revendications, comment satisfaire à la fois les agriculteurs qui souhaitent augmenter leurs productions et leurs revenus, tout en prenant en compte les enjeux écologiques du siècle, mis en avant par les partisans d’une transition agroécologique ?  < Back « Ce n’est pas l’Europe que nous voulons » : entre protectionnisme, libéralisme et écologie, l’explication d’une crise agricole européenne By Maëlys Malaboeuf-Lasselle for European Society February 29, 2024 Ces dernières semaines ont été marquées par de violentes contestations des agriculteurs dans toute l’Europe : Allemagne, France, Italie, Belgique, Pologne, Lettonie… ont été le terrain de grandes manifestations et blocages de la part du monde agricole. Leurs revendications sont nombreuses : hausse des revenus, améliorations des conditions de travail et de vie, suppression de certaines normes contraignantes en matière d’environnement, et amélioration des politiques nationales. Mais ils témoignent surtout d’un mécontentement général autour de la PAC, la politique agricole commune, qui ne date pas d’hier. Revenons à la mise en place et l’évolution de ce marché agricole européen, source première de la crise. C’est en 1962 que naît la PAC, suite aux ravages causés par la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Première politique commune de l’Union européenne, ses objectifs sont clairs : accroître la productivité agricole, assurer un niveau de vie décent aux agriculteurs, garantir la sécurité des approvisionnements, stabiliser les marchés, et harmoniser les règles de concurrence. Un système économique de soutien des prix et du marché est donc instauré, afin de relever le défi de l’autosuffisance alimentaire à l’échelle du continent. Réunissant les six pays fondateurs, elle est aussi un moyen de placer l’Europe sous le signe de la paix et de l’unité. Les résultats sont bénéfiques : la productivité alimentaire et la disponibilité des denrées ont augmenté. Néanmoins, les revenus restent faibles. C’est alors qu’un certain Mansholt, alors commissaire européen à l’agriculture, propose un plan modernisateur pour résoudre le problème. Appliquée en 1970, cette réforme passe par l’optimisation des surfaces cultivées, et la fusion des exploitations pour agrandir les unités. L’évolution de la PAC se poursuit en 1984 avec l’instauration de quotas afin de ralentir la surproduction et gérer l’offre, alors supérieure à la demande européenne. La PAC opère un revirement six ans plus tard, lorsque le soutien du marché est abandonné au profit d’une aide directe aux agriculteurs. Toutefois, des premières déceptions se font ressentir : le marché européen s’ouvre aux marchés internationaux, la concurrence s’accroît, ainsi que les pressions économiques qui effraient les agriculteurs. Malgré une volonté d’élargir les domaines d’actions de la PAC, à la dynamisation des zones rurales ou à l’écologie, elle est le sujet de fortes tensions, exprimées lors des blocages de ces derniers jours. Des divisions émergent au sein du monde agricole. Certains dénoncent un abandon de la part de l’Union européenne, qui, en dépit de la pression croissante des industriels et de l’accroissement compétitivité mondiale, multiplie ses traités avec les pays producteurs à bas coût, comme le CETA avec le Canada ou le traité avec le Mercosur, vu comme un véritable couteau dans le dos pour les agriculteurs européens. Le 1 février 2024, des milliers de manifestants de plusieurs pays et 1200 tracteurs ont envahi les rues bruxelloises, faisant entendre « ce n’est pas l’Europe que nous voulons », « sortons l’alimentation du libre-échange », « moins de normes ». Les lourdes procédures administratives de la PAC sont aussi visées par le mécontentement. D’autres en revanche, partisans d’une agriculture biologique respectueuse de l’environnement et de la biodiversité, reprochent à la PAC son laxisme en matière d’écologie. C’est aussi le reproche fait à la France, déjà condamnée pour inaction climatique en 2021 et pour non-respect de ses engagements environnementaux en 2023. Suite aux violents blocages en France, Gabriel Attal a décidé de stopper le plan Ecophyto, dont l’objectif était de réduire les usages de produits phytopharmaceutiques de 50% et de sortir du glyphosate, ce qui réveille la colère des agriculteurs écologistes et des ONG environnementales : c’est un « cadeau empoisonné fait aux agriculteurs » selon Marie Toussaint, « à contre sens de l’urgence écologique » selon Agir pour l’environnement (via Le Monde). Des agriculteurs sensibles aux questions environnementales interrogés par Le Monde disent vouloir conserver la production biologique et les traditions agricoles, mais l’abandon progressif de l’Etat, qui a supprimé une aide pour les exploitations biologiques en 2017, complique les choses. Alors que l’agriculture est confrontée aux défis du dérèglement climatique, aucun moyen n’est mis en place par l’Etat pour repenser nos productions et évoluer vers une agriculture plus durable. Toutefois, l’écologie est un sujet qui divise les agriculteurs. La FNSEA, la Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d’Exploitants Agricoles, s’indigne quant aux normes environnementales comme le plan Ecophyto, qui limitent la production massive et donc favorisent les productions des pays à bas coûts, peu chers, facilement importables par les pays européens, et plus accessibles financièrement aux ménages dans les supermarchés. Elle alerte également sur la dureté du quotidien des agriculteurs, indispensables à notre alimentation, travaillant sans compter, et dont les revenus et les rendements restent pourtant faibles. Or, selon Guilhem Roux, agriculteur économiste, la question n’est pas d’accroître la production mais le profit. Incités par le marché international et la pression en amont des emprunts à rembourser et en aval des distributeurs, ils sont poussés à vouloir toujours produire plus. L’important reste la marge, et un changement de modèle est nécessaire à l’augmentation des revenus des exploitants agricoles. Mais encore faudrait-il un consensus au sein de la communauté agricole, ce qui est loin d’être le cas. La FNSEA ne semble pas faire l’unanimité : sa négligence des questions environnementales lui vaut des critiques, vue comme ayant « sacrifié le bio » (via Le Monde). Les blocages ont finalement été levés après l’appel du syndicat, mais les revendications n’ont pas toutes été entendues : des efforts de la part de l’Etat français sont attendus, sans quoi les manifestations pourraient reprendre de plus belle, risquant à terme une panne agricole sans précédent avec des répercussions à l’échelle européenne. Mais la France n’a pas été le premier pays à se mobiliser : effectivement, le mouvement allemand dure depuis janvier, avec le blocage des autoroutes menant vers les grands ports ou les aéroports Les causes sont semblables à la France : ils s’insurgent contre la décision du gouvernement de supprimer les avantages fiscaux sur le gazole agricole, en place depuis 1951, et de taxer les véhicules. Or, cette décision suscite la colère car les agriculteurs n’ont aucune autre solution électrique pouvant remplacer le gazole. Tout ça en subissant de plein fouet les conséquences du dérèglement climatique : sécheresses, gelées tardives, pluies diluviennes qui bouleversent les récoltes et n’arrangent donc en rien le souci des revenus des agriculteurs, à la différence des distributeurs qui en profitent pour s’enrichir. Les subventions, estimées à plus de 9 milliards d’euros par an, alimentent la dépendance des agriculteurs envers l’État. D’autant plus que celui-ci tend à favoriser les grandes exploitations au détriment des petites. Ces révoltes fragilisent directement le gouvernement, jugé déconnecté de la réalité et incapable de répondre aux demandes, alors qu’il mène simultanément un combat depuis quelques semaines contre la montée de l’extrême droite en Allemagne. Même chose dans les autres pays européens : l’Italie, troisième puissance agricole de l’Union européenne, a vu ses agriculteurs aux portes de la capitale, rejoint ensuite par les syndicats espagnols, puissance exportatrice de la plupart de nos fruits et légumes, et portugais qui bloquent contre la Politique Agricole Commune, la précarité et la sécheresse que le secteur connaît depuis maintenant 3 ans. Mais aussi Belgique et Pays-Bas où des feux ont été allumés ; Pologne, Bulgarie et Lettonie qui dénoncent une concurrence déloyale de l’Ukraine ; Grèce où les agriculteurs déplorent le retard des indemnisations suite aux feux de forêts et inondations qui ont ravagé le pays l’an dernier. Enfin, contre toute attente, les agriculteurs suisses rejoignent le mouvement le 3 février, avec une première journée de mobilisation contre le maintien des importations de céréales et de denrées alimentaires russes dans l’Union. Cette crise est donc révélatrice de défis de taille, mais également de discordances profondes concernant la politique agricole : alors, comment concilier ces revendications, comment satisfaire à la fois les agriculteurs qui souhaitent augmenter leurs productions et leurs revenus, tout en prenant en compte les enjeux écologiques du siècle, mis en avant par les partisans d’une transition agroécologique ?

The Soviets needed a new way into the United States and Israel’s passport system was a ticking time bomb. Ultimately, the Law of Return, which was supposed to attract Jewish people from all over the world, became a golden ticket. The leniency offered by the law welcomed opportunists from the Soviet Union as well. < Back The Secret Backdoor Isabella Suels for Sciences Defense February 28, 2025 Israel stands as one of the United States’ strongest allies. Since its creation in 1948, Israel and the United States have enjoyed a strong bilateral relationship where the United States provides exceptional amounts of financial support. In return, the small nation-state conducts joint military exercises and military research alongside the United States. However, the military alliance between these two countries, which dates back to the mid-twentieth century, also served as a backchannel for Soviet espionage during the Cold War. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were two of the most advanced intelligence centers in the world. The race for intelligence gathering during the Cold War became known as Cold War espionage. Although this act relied mostly on military and civilian agencies in their pursuit of information, the young state of Israel unknowingly became a tool for the Soviet Union. Upon the creation of Israel in 1948, Zionist leaders wanted to attract Jewish populations from around the world, and in order to encourage Jews from around the world to come to Israel, the state needed to make immigration as accessible as possible. This is why the Law of Return, which grants every Jew in the world the right to settle in Israel, has been regarded as an easy pathway to citizenship. To be eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, an applicant must meet the following requirements: (1) be a family member of someone recognized as Jewish who entered Israel before March 19, 1970 and received a permanent residence permit, (2) not be registered as "Jewish" in the Population Registry, (3) not have been granted Israeli citizenship through naturalization. In order to flee from the repressiveness of the Soviet Union, many Jewish immigrants migrated from the Soviet Union to Israel seeking protection. Israel was an accessible option because initially, when applying for citizenship, under the Law of Return, there was no explicit definition of Jewish identity. This was until the Knesset amended the law in 1970 by adding the definition that, “for the purpose of this law, a ‘Jew’ means a person born to a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion”. However, this definition falls short of addressing what kind of conversion is necessary to be considered Jewish. Unfortunately, the lack of specificity opened the door for abuse, as among the Jewish migrants seeking a better life, there were others who took advantage of the ease of gaining an Israeli passport and migrated to Israel under false pretenses, specifically on the Soviet front. Even before the Cold War, Russian migration into Israel had been fairly common, but following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the number of migrants pouring into Israel skyrocketed. However, there was a negative side to this immigration—the arrival of the Russian mafia. Benefiting from a prosperous economy, Israel attracted the attention of foreign investors, including illegal actors. Unfortunately, as a result, Israel became a prime target for Russian criminal elements because it easily bestowed citizenship on anyone who could show documents proving they were Jewish. Israel became a safe haven for organized crime as a result of a controversial law passed in the Knesset. This led to a negative stereotype of Russian immigrants in Israel, but the increased Russian immigration posed a threat to one of Israel’s closest allies, the United States. Alongside members of the Russian mafia migrating to Israel, members of Russian intelligence, or the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB), were also migrating to Israel in hopes of infiltrating the political system—giving them easier access to the United States. From 1954-1991, the KGB, also known as the Committee for State Security in English, was the main security agency of the Soviet Union. This agency was responsible for gathering information both domestically and internationally. While the KGB conducted most of its activities domestically on Soviet soil and targeting citizens, they would also operate internationally by posing as journalists or even businessmen. Specifically, Soviet records confirm the existence of an extensive Soviet spy ring in Israel that included Knesset members, senior IDF officials, engineers and members of the Israeli intelligence community. One of the prime goals of the Soviets was to penetrate the Israeli political system . To infiltrate the Israeli political system, the KGB had to get soviet nationals into Israel first— a task made easy due to the fluidity of the Law of Return. Once in the system, these spies could begin recruiting officials already entangled in the Israeli political system or even climbing the ranks themselves. Now that the spies were granted Israeli citizenship, the world truly was their oyster, and the path into the United States was no longer plagued with obstacles. Hiding behind Israeli passports, spies had a direct line to infiltrate the United States. While there is a shortage of direct evidence that Soviet spies used Israeli citizenship as a way to gain access to the United States, it is undeniable that arming loyal Soviet agents with Israeli passports allowed the KGB to disseminate spies worldwide with ease. While regular Soviet migrants were usually turned back, because Jewish people were one of the ethnic groups most prone to facing persecution under the Soviet Union, their path to the United States was easier. However, an Israeli passport provided an easy way to bypass American authorities and gain easy access to the country. The conflicting priorities during the Cold War culminated in the perfect opportunity for espionage. While the paranoia of the United States experienced during the Cold War led it to turn away Soviet Jews fleeing persecution, there was innovation on the Soviet front. The Soviets needed a new way into the United States and Israel’s passport system was a ticking time bomb. Ultimately, the Law of Return, which was supposed to attract Jewish people from all over the world, became a golden ticket. The leniency offered by the law welcomed opportunists from the Soviet Union as well. All in all, this law made Israel vulnerable to Soviet intelligence operations and in put the United States in the crossfire, as Soviet agents gained a new identity and a new passport to help fuel their missions back home. Photo credits: Swapnil1101, 2022

Throughout my first year, I had barely missed home, and now I was aching to walk along streets so familiar to my feet that I could not get lost if I tried, streets so full of memories that they blurred into one comforting blanket of belonging; I wanted to be wrapped up in that certainty again. < Back It Is Good To Go Home By Saoirse Aherne January 31, 2023 Sometime in mid October, I started to experience a feeling I cannot quite explain. It struck me first while I was walking home from a night out along a narrow and quiet cobblestone street in Menton. It was a full-body feeling, a longing to experience the same quiet and softness of night, but on a street right by the house in which I grew up. I pictured myself there, trudging through slush, watching snowflakes catch in the staggered beams of street lamps. I was not remembering any night in particular– I had walked this path more times than I could count– I was simply remembering being in that place. Throughout my first year, I had barely missed home, and now I was aching to walk along streets so familiar to my feet that I could not get lost if I tried, streets so full of memories that they blurred into one comforting blanket of belonging; I wanted to be wrapped up in that certainty again. By December I was desperately excited to return home. I am from a place that feels even smaller than it is. Gray and run down, it wilts in the glow of Menton’s beauty. But I love it for that. Peterborough, Ontario is unassuming and humble in such a way that I want to wrap my arms around it, either to protect it, or maybe in sympathy. Once I arrived home, I spent an embarrassing amount of time at the one local bar frequented by young people. On my first night there I met: six girls from my high school, two girls from my soccer team, a girl I know from community theater, two girls I went to daycare with, a girl who lives on my street and my ex-boyfriend's ex-girlfriend. Perhaps this is the case with every small town, but it is truly impossible to go anywhere in Peterborough without seeing someone you know. Some people hate it; when I lived there I certainly did. But now, I find it thrilling. I feel like my whole life is bottled up in “The Social” bar on a Friday night. I adore overly intense drunken reunions with people from the past, shouting over terrible music about school, jobs, growing up. Every time I go out, I meet a new set of friends that I forgot I missed. It reminds me of how many wonderful people I have had the pleasure to know, and it warms my heart to see them remember me as well. I feel like I fit right into a hole that was made for me, in this tapestry of hometown individuals. Peterborough used to trap me in a suffocating network of relationships, but now that I have left, settling back into this cradle is relieving and safe. I do not have to question whether these people like me or whether I will know them in 10 or 20 years. We don’t have to be close, but we will always be bound by the place in which we grew up. They are as inherent to me as Monaghan Road, Jackson’s Park, the London Street Bridge or Little Lake. When I walk around Peterborough, every setting sparks a flood of memories. It is so much deeper than concrete and bricks, a place more complex than anywhere in the world to me. I peel away layers and layers of life as I walk to and from my house; shockingly, so little has changed since I was a child. People and places — seeing how impermanent these things can be has made home so special. I do not regret leaving Peterborough for a second. I remember how desperately I wanted to get out, and in fact, almost all of my friends have left to study across the province. But I am glad I now see so much beauty in a town I used to resent. My friends and I have talked a lot about this in the past few weeks; leaving has made us all certain of our attachment to home. In Menton, life is in flux; we sentence ourselves to make wonderful friends only to disperse across the globe after two short years. I have spent my 2A feeling random. I loved that novel feeling in the first year, but it gets tiring. Now, rejuvenated by my time at home, feeling so perfectly known and so unwaveringly attached to my town and its people, I am ready to be untethered again.

Enfants de la débauche, amants de la culture, partisans de l'hédonisme, ce message vous est adressé. < Back Association Feature: Sciences Alcoolémique By Victor Wauters March 31, 2022 "Ô vous qui avez cru, les boissons enivrantes, les jeux d'argent, les stèles et les flèches divinatoires ne sont qu'une souillure, l’œuvre du diable. Écartez-vous de lui, afin que vous réussissiez." -Texte saint non défini "Boire du vin et étreindre la beauté vaut mieux que l'hypocrisie du dévot." -Omar Khayyam Enfants de la débauche, amants de la culture, partisans de l'hédonisme, ce message vous est adressé. Vous vous reconnaitrez car ces traits bousculent la conformité sociale qui règne et ne passent donc jamais inaperçus. Vous vous reconnaîtrez aussi car c’est le cœur qui parle et rien n’est plus fort que le lien entre deux âmes connectées. Nous ne sommes pas des alcoolistes radicaux, nous ne sommes pas non plus des fous inconscients, ni même des dangereux toxicomanes, mais plutôt des illuminés de la vie et de tout ce qu’il y a de plus beau, touchés par l’inspiration divine et éclairés par la lueur interne et éternelle de la folie carpe diemienne. L’alcool, pour reprendre les mots de Braudel, est “un voyageur clandestin infatigable”, qui parcourt un chemin accidenté, truffé de fanatisme, d’interdits, de morale hypocrite et accusatrice, qui abreuve les sillons qu’il trace de rêves et de comptes des milles et une nuits. Trop longtemps, ce mode de vie a été répudié, dénigré, traité de souillure par des pseudo-dévots aigris, mais safi , khalas , la reconquête titubante mais insoumise est en marche. Levez vous, bien droits, avec fierté! Ne vous cachez pas, nous savons qui vous êtes, cela serait de fuir le devoir qui vous appelle. Ne soyez pas des alcooliques anonymes mais plutôt des bon-vivants assumés! Vous savez aussi qui nous sommes, car les bruits courent et se répandent comme une traînée de poudre dans ce petit village perdu. Mais n’ayez pas peur, nous vous tendons la main, nous vous tendons un verre aussi, un verre de cette potion divine. La potion de tous les possibles. La grandeur et la décadence sont une science, alcoolémique, que nous explorerons ensemble et dont nous serons les pionniers. Que cet opium éthylique devienne la religion du peuple! Nous vous tendons la main, d’une main ferme et sûre d’elle, qui n’a de but que de lier les humains entre eux, de les faire se rejoindre pour former une communauté unie, un groupe d’illuminés heureux, pour danser entre nous, alcoolistes, la valse à trois temps des alcools de nos vies. Une équipe de 16 tarés, certains diront, ou de 16 personnes inspirées, passionnés, mais surtout 16 personnes unies par des liens indéchiffrables aux yeux de ces moralisateurs aigris et cyniques. Remontons à la source de cette fontaine de jouvence. Il fut un temps, à Menton, ou la conscience collective ne reconnaissait pas l’importance de ce Call of the Wild intrinsèque à l’humain, ou du moins, elle ne la reconnaissait pas à sa juste valeur. Voyez cela comme une Jahiliya de la sobriété. Il aura fallu que trois fous goûtent à ce liquide d’outre-monde, qu’ils s'imprègnent de ces effluves de rhum dans leurs voix qui chantent, qu’ils touchent à cette vision a mi-chemin entre le mirage alcoolisée et la rêverie mystique pour que le campus sème la voix de la raison en faveur du murmur de l’instinct. Il fallait transmettre ce message, impérativement, éclairer, émouvoir. D’abord avec les moyens du bord armés un petit appartement et un grand cœur, de petits groupes mais de grands verres, de petits moyens mais de grandes rencontres. A coups de pas de danses chaloupés, de discours biscornus et d’amour mutuel, ils ont entrepris ce projet. Un an plus tard, 13 personnes rejoignent le navire à la conquête de nouveaux horizons, des vignobles du sud de la France aux champs de citronniers de Campanie, en passant par la cuisine marocaine. Ces moussaillons des mers d’alcools sont là pour vous guider dans votre voyage sensoriel. L’idée n’est pas de libérer un déferlement de pulsions alcooliques, mais plutôt de vous faire découvrir l’amour de la vie, d’une autre manière. Les grands démagogues vous ont parlés de conquête de l’espace, inutile d’aller aussi loin, nous vous parlons de la conquête de vous mêmes, des sensations que votre corps vous procurera, des idées foudroyantes que votre esprit fera naître. Prenez le temps, ou plutôt trouvez le temps, de nous rejoindre, le temps d’un soir ou les temps de plusieurs verres, pour embrasser la vie et vous délecter de ce breuvage qui vous fera goûter au paradis. Ce liquide miraculeux de ceux qui vous donnent envie de vivre car oui, cette boisson c’est de l’eau de vie. Laissez nous vous guider sans crainte dans cet univers salvateur mais résolument pieux régi par une autre temporalité et une autre divinité, puisque le génie sort de la bouteille. Goûtez à une nouvelle réalité! Si nous ne pouvons pas arrêter la débauche, c’est qu’elle constitue un pilier fondamental de la nature humaine. C’est la victoire de l'éthanol sur l’obscurantisme car l’ivresse illumine! Vin sec et mat!

< Back Promising: New Covid Treatment Gives Hope By Saoirse Aherne October 31, 2021 New Treatment On September 28, Merck — A German multinational science and technology company — announced that it has created a pill to treat SARS-CoV-2 in partnership with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics. The drug in question is called molnupiravir, and while it was initially created to treat influenza, it has been in development as a broad-spectrum antiviral for about 10 years. Merck CEO Robert Davis stated that the company was “actively working with regulatory agencies around the world to submit applications for emergency use or marketing authorization in the coming months.” Who will be able to access the pill? This pill will be used to treat COVID-19-positive patients as soon as they begin showing symptoms. As is the case with most respiratory viruses, it is best to begin COVID-19 treatment early on. An initial lessening of the viral load reduces the risk of developing severe symptoms and lowers the likelihood of transmission. Merck’s phase three clinical trial enrolled unvaccinated, high risk individuals. Initially, molnupiravir may only be available to this demographic, however it will likely become more widely available over time. Merck intends to have this drug authorized in the US before the end of 2021. This appears to be a feasible objective considering that White House advisor on the health crisis, Anthony Fauci, called the data from the clinical trial “impressive.” Moreover, the U.S. government has preemptively ordered 1.7 million courses of treatment. Merck claims it will be able to produce enough pills for 10 million people by the end of this year. Efficacy and Appeal According to Merck, this drug reduces the risk of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 by 50 percent. In the third phase of molnupiravir’s trial, a group of volunteers suffering early symptoms of COVID-19 were studied. Half of the volunteers were treated with molnupiravir while the other half received a placebo pill. Of the volunteers that received molnupiravir, only seven percent were hospitalized. In contrast, the group that received placebo pills displayed a hospitalization rate of 14 percent. One limitation of this drug trial was the relatively small sample group that was studied, which included only 775 at-risk patients. Molnupiravir demonstrates lower efficacy than monoclonal antibodies; the intravenous cocktail that is currently used to treat high risk people with COVID-19. These antibodies can reduce hospitalizations and death by up to 85 percent. The appeal of the molnupiravir pill, however, is that it is far easier to administer and can reach a much larger population than the complex intravenous cocktail treatment. More importantly, the infusion treatment requires a hospital visit, thus demanding time and resources from medical professionals, and costs approximately 1,000 euros per injection. Naomi Cailes, a registered nurse at the Peterborough regional health center, agreed that “the fact that [molnupiravir] is an oral pill is a huge advantage over current antivirals or monoclonal antibody infusions'' as these treatments are “invasive and depend on lots of resources.” Cailes, who has firsthand experience dealing with COVID patients, described the emotional toll of being a health care worker during the pandemic, citing the fact that there was “no time to grieve” after a patient died as there was always another patient requiring medical attention. As such, she expressed hope at the prospect of a drug which could reduce hospitalizations. However, as much as Cailes recognized the promise of monlupiravir, she was adamant that “vaccination should continue to be our first-line defense against COVID-19.” Side Effects and Concerns Molnupiravir is a mutagenic drug, thus it reduces viral load by forcing the COVID-19 virus to make mistakes while copying RNA. A Clinical Trials Arena article observed that there are “persistent side-effect concerns with mutagenic molnupiravir.” In fact, Merck required male participants of their phase three trial to abstain from sex or use of contraception, and only included female participants who were not breastfeeding or pregnant, also requiring them to use a highly effective contraceptive or be abstinent during the study. Merck virologist Daria Hazuda ensured that “no evidence of the potential for mutagenicity” has been observed in molnupiravir. According to an article published in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, molnupiravir showed no serious adverse effects in its first-in-human phase one trial; fewer than half of the test subjects reported any effects, and of those that were reported, 93.3 percent were mild. It must also be noted that Molnupiravir is intended to be administered on a short term basis, which greatly reduces its risk of causing adverse effects. Other Promising Treatments The appeal of a simple, ingestible COVID-19 treatment is widely recognized in the pharmaceutical industry with both American Pfizer and Swiss Roche set to reveal the results of clinical trials for their own pills in the coming months. Conclusion Molnupiravir has the potential to greatly reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms, potentially preventing the need for hospitalization in many cases and thus opening up hospital beds for those who need them. From first hand sources, it is clear that high hospitalization rates are emotionally draining for patients and healthcare workers alike. This pill marks an important development in virus control and is likely also useful against influenza and ebola. It seems probable that this pill will soon be widely available, however it should not be treated as a replacement for vaccination, which remains the optimal defense against the spread of COVID-19.

Although, some may look at the involved parties in black and white as either heroes or traitors, it seems far more relevant to see politicians such as Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin as compromising realists.  < Back The Oslo Accords: 30 Years Later October 31, 2023 30 years ago, in 1993, the world was full of hope. A future was being drawn in which a resolution was envisionable in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Oslo I Accords were signed in September 1993, a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to a conflict which has lasted from the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 up to this day. In the current context of the Israel-Hamas war, it seems all the more important to reflect on this event. Although, some may look at the involved parties in black and white as either heroes or traitors, it seems far more relevant to see politicians such as Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin as compromising realists. It is impossible to claim that the built-up resentment on both sides from decades of tensions and murderous wars was suddenly eradicated by envisioning the possibility of peace. Quite on the contrary – each party, the Israeli government and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), arrived with personal backgrounds and differing interests. What is crucial to take away from this, and which is still a reason for hope to this day, is that despite resentment and experiences of war, a compromise was reached. It was not perfect in anyone’s perspective, but it gave hope that the Palestinian state could finally be accepted, and gave Israel hope for further security and acceptance. To this day, the Oslo Accords are the closest that Israel and Palestine ever came to peace. In the context we are living in, both sides tend to demonize each other as terrorists and tend to reject the vision of the context which led up to the suffering that we see now. Israel’s right wing extremist government and Hamas both use this suffering in à ‘PR war’ which can know no winner. The reminder of the vision that was held by Rabin and Arafat is all the more crucial in such a context as their message was that for the region to develop peace had to prevail. The Accords came out of a backdrop of instability in the Middle East and in the wake of the First Intifada of 1987 — a series of riots by Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel against the occupation of Palestinian territory. Most importantly, the Accords came from a notion that the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts were disastrous for the entire region’s ability to move forward into an era of progress. This conflict was seen by all sides as an ever present fear, hindering the notion of complete unity and stability in the region. Before the Gulf War, king Fahd of Saudi Arabia had referred to the conflict with Israel as a plaguing fear. At the dawn of the twenty first century, peace was no longer simply an option — it was the only way forward. A crucial outcome of this was the mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO, permitting further negotiation and opening up the doors to a future with two recognized states and an open peace process. 30 years later, the Oslo Accords are but a distant memory. In the circumstances we are living through, witnessing the violence and pain that is still a recurring vision in Israel and Palestine, it can be difficult to think that after 75 years of fighting and mutual rejection, there can be a solution. However, it is important to remember that peace processes and accords can still be found. There is more international support for peace now than ever before, and there is a real need on the ground as the current situation is creating unbearable chaos and bloodshed. The governments (from any side) may not be willing to make the steps towards peace now, but it is crucial to remember that this can change, there is nothing predestining this conflict to continue its ravages. On this note, it is important to remember that the most tragic aspect of attacks that target civilians is that those are often the same people who want peace the most and have nothing to do with policies run by Hamas or the Israeli government. As an example we can look at the concert goers and peace activists murdered and kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7 whose misfortune is being used as a reason for Israeli bombing when their families express specific rejection of this.

< Back The Pakistan Nuclear Threat Victoria Krumova October 31, 2024 On July 16, 1945—the Manhattan project—a collaboration between the USA and the UK—proved to be a success. The trinity test fireball exploded merely 16 milliseconds after ignition. This revolutionary experiment reset the course of warfare and put the stakes of having peace even higher as the threat of mass destruction became rather simple to envision. The realization of the dangers of this invention came to 20th century politicians more than 20 years after it did to the ordinary man. Following the massive shock from the catastrophic consequences of America’s two atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Japan, antinuclear movements were formed in the 1950s in the USA, with a dialectic advocating for the end of use of nuclear weapons. And though those movements lost momentum after people shifted their focus to the exploration of the potential benefits of nuclear energy, on July 1 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed in New York City. Despite sporadic hints and threats that have been made by governments of countries such as North Korea, the probability of them actually using their weapons remains slim. This is especially true, when they are fully aware that an engagement of arms on their side will trigger the same counteraction from other countries. Governments and governors, no matter how totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic, capitalist or communist, know the devastating consequences of such actions. They care about their people surviving and, if not about that, at least about their nations. The question is: do terrorists? The answer is most probably no. So, the following question arises: If they are not phased by the deterrence mechanism of the risk of their own country being reduced to rubble, what stops them from using nuclear weapons against their enemies if they get access to them? Pakistan is a country with a vast cultural and historical background. It is rich in its practices, it is known for the hospitality of its people, for its palatable range of languages and for its historical sites. But it is also known for its possession of nuclear weapons. In fact, it was the first Muslim country to be given the rights to own one. What it is also not known for is stability: neither territorial, nor political. To understand what prompted today’s reality into existence, we need to understand what factors gave way to the infiltration of terrorists in the country in the first place. To do that, we have to go back to the 20th century. Following the Afghan Mujahideen’s efforts to drive out the Soviets from Afghan territory, Pakistan's security services established groups by the same model to regain full control over Kashmir—an area of territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. The religious population was subjected to the tactics of Islamist groups that tried to radicalize it by citing the hadith—sayings of the Prophet Muhammad conveying values deemed proper for a Muslim to have. Given the significance of this for many Muslims, the Islamist groups expected that their rhetoric would act as a catalyst for turning the population against India and believed it would embolden Pakistan’s allies in Afghanistan. This idea, theoretically, should have worked because of sentiments of resentment against India after the violent outbursts between the two, regarding the displacements, following the partition of British India. On a second level of consideration, it should have worked because of the establishment of Pakistan as a separate state to India, with a principal difference between the two being religion. However, not only did this approach fail to achieve its goal of unifying the two populations under a common ideology, it also led to further divisions due to the distinct interpretations of the proposed radical ideologies. What this meant was that different fractions of Pakistan’s population found themselves on different parts of the spectrum with the following extremes: strong support for the Jihad groups and participation in the USA’s “War on terror. ” Pakistan’s geographical location also means it finds itself close to constantly evolving conflicts that fuel instability throughout the whole region. Besides the longstanding conflict with India that has been destabilizing Islamabad’s position on the international scene for decades now, the proximity to neighboring Afghanistan has meant further undermining of Pakistan’s political position. The Taliban at first gave false hope of alliance to the Pakistani government, as it thought it had found an ally in fighting against the liberal Afghan groups aligned with India, and then took that hope away by starting to act against Pakistan. In January 2023, a branch of the Taliban— Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan— operating on the premises of Pakistan’s territory claimed responsibility for a suicide mission killing 59 people in a mosque in the city of Peshawar. This same organization’s motives for acting against Pakistan lay in its disagreement to the country’s mutual effort with the US in the “war on terror.” Because the reasons for the installment of terrorism on Pakistan’s territory lay in ever-relevant factors—religion and geopolitics—new groups are bound to continue being established. The pluralism in religious aspirations in both spiritual and practical (territorial) aspects lead to the desire of different radical believers and opportunists to try and impose their interpretation of “what should be” on the state. Thus, organizations, such as the Islamic State Khorasan Province , that were formed as late as 2015, can be found operating simultaneously in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The latter, being a branch of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, aims to establish a caliphate in the Khorasan. To achieve that, it is now recruiting some of its leaders from Pakistan and simultaneously committing atrocities on the way —shooting pregnant women and nurses in hospitals and targeting girls’ schools. The question is: for organizations such as ISKP to have the power to inflict the horror they do, do they have the power to infiltrate Pakistan’s nuclear weapons system if they choose to do so? One also needs to be aware of the fact that radicals do have the incentive to use those nuclear weapons. It is a question of “how”, not “if”. As they interpret the hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad to entail a Holy War, they in all likelihood will aim to rush to it. This becomes clear from their efforts to use said sayings to accelerate people’s wish for war with India out of hatred and therefore give rise to the promised Holy War. In the past, Pakistan has launched initiatives to battle with terrorism. In response to an attack on a military school in Peshawar in December of 2014, it initiated Operation “Zarb-e-Azb” , focusing on the North Waziristan region, known to be used as a stronghold by groups such as al-Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Chechen Islamic Jihad Union, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and other branches of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. For this operation, Pakistan faced heavy criticism because of the mass displacement of civilians it caused . Figures like Rahmatullah Nabil, former head of Afghanistan’s national directorate of security, expressed concerns about Pakistan’s ability to control terrorist groups , thus challenging the idea that the country is capable of ensuring that no unauthorized use of its nuclear arsenal will occur. After the heated interactions between India and Pakistan, following the 2019 initial attack on Indian troops in Kashmir, and Delhi’s response in launching strikes against Pakistani militants, the world waited in anticipation for the next move of the international community. However, no organization or country holds the ultimate authority to take away Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and an act of disarmament can only be committed through mutual agreement upon having diplomatic discussions. This leads us to today, when Pakistan still has access to its nuclear arsenal. Looking at the lack of control it has over the terrorist groups acting on its territory, those groups might, sooner or later, gain access to the weapons too. That is if the government doesn't enact tangible policies to stop the continuous threat that the radicals impose with each and every next atrocity they commit. With all eyes on Gaza and Lebanon, does the next threat for an even greater number of casualties develop quietly away from the media's focus in Pakistan?

A cat from seemingly nowhere appeared on the Menton campus fresh into the second semester of the 2021-2022 academic year. Once the Mentonese had accepted the kitty as part of its community, it was time to give him a name. < Back Elections Held to Name Campus Cat By Ayşe Lara Selçuker March 31, 2022 A cat from seemingly nowhere appeared on the Menton campus fresh into the second semester of the 2021-2022 academic year. One of the campus guards, Marc, said that he had simply appeared one day, and Jose and the students had taken initiative to take care of it. Rumor has it that the cat once belonged to Jose a couple of years ago, returning almost 2 years later to its home. Once the Mentonese had accepted the kitty as part of its community, it was time to give him a name. On the ninth and 10th of March, a text into the school-wide group chat, “Risen 1As,” prompted a two-part election to suggest and elect a name for the Sciences Po kitty: “The cat in front of Sciences Po does not belong to anyone but the Mentonese Sciences Pistes. His/her name should thus be decided by no other than the people themselves…” As of 10:30 a.m. on March 9, all Sciences Pistes gained access to the first Google Form allowing them to suggest names. By the same time the following morning, the form had collected 15 different recommendations. The next day, later in the afternoon, each of these names was aggregated on a second and final form, upon which 61 students exercised their fundamental right to vote, ultimately providing a definitive name for the kitty. The election allowed individuals to vote for multiple names, taking an approval-rating approach to elections. Before revealing which name actually won, and in order to get a better understanding of the elections, we interviewed some of the nominators to get a better understanding of the story behind their proposed name. Hubert (6.6% approval) The first vote was cast at 10:31:23, in the thick of sociology class, by 1A Lilith Springer. Her suggestion, Hubert, gained four votes, approved by 6.6% of voters. When asked why she chose the name, she quipped, “because it’s an AWESOME name,” shortly adding that it also “reminds” her “of a friendly ghost that is always there but doesn’t really talk, exactly like the cat.” Right after proposing this suggestion, she thought of another one. Abu Bakr (27.9% approval) Receiving 17 votes, “Abu Bakr” was the runner-up to the winning name. “He [Abu Bakr] has the same birthday as me, and, in my view, cats are kind of malicious creatures who are still worshiped for some reason.” When the time came to vote, Springer cast her ballot in favor of her own two suggestions. Malthus (8.2% approval) The next submission came from 1A Saoirse Aherne, fighting for the representation of economic principles outside the classroom. The number of votes received for Malthus (five) was shocking for some, given how pertinent the subject was in the first semester 1A curriculum. Some suggested that a sort of post-economic stress disorder led to the strict rejection of the instinctively funny name suggestion. Venti (6.6% approval) Suggested by 1A Emilio Egger Prieto, also in Sociology class, this name earned four votes. Yet Egger Prieto had a keen agenda when he chose the name: “Ventimiglia is a very important part of the Menton experience. Menton without Ventimiglia is like Darkness without Light or Heat without Cold. They define each other and coexist naturally. This is why I advocated to have Venti permanently represented on our campus.” Balthazar (9.8% approval) For 1A Ferida Altun, this name, which earned six votes, was “the first name that crossed [her] mind as soon as she saw the cat’s face.” To justify her choice, she explained the history behind the name. “Balthazar is a name coming from royalty, meaning ‘God protects the king.’” The cat seemed rather dominant to her and “the fact that the cat carries (the domination) is a bit of an inversion of the traditional domination relationship (God protects the cat)” made her smile. Rayantoufiq (11.5% approval) This creative name was suggested by 2A Ilaï Beressi. Some suggest that it was selected in reference to his roommate and Menton 2A Rayan Toufiq. Although, when directly asked about his suggestion, Beressi explained little, simply saying, “Well… Isn’t it obvious?” and sending a picture of Toufiq smiling thereafter. “Look at him.” Ibn Khaldun (16.4% approval) “Ibn Khaldun” received 10 votes. Along with the following two names, this candidate was suggested by 1A Isabel Cronin, who established that she liked the idea of naming animals after historical figures. “Ibn Khaldun is one of the most influential figures of our degree focus so it felt like a good option. He comes up in many of our courses and is a name most of our campus is hopefully familiar with.” Machiavelli (13.1% approval) Earning 8 votes, this name was, in all likelihood, too familiar to the 1As who, at the time, were wrapping up their readings and presentations on Machiavelli’s “The Prince” for their political science seminars. Cronin said that the same reasoning for “Ibn Khaldun” applied to “Machiavelli.” She thought that this was “a sick name for a cat,” adding that then “we could nickname it ‘The Prince’ which would have been cute.” Tabbouleh (14.8% approval) This one of Cronin’s suggestions which dominated the candidate pool received 9 votes. Cronin reflected: “The second best names for animals are the food-based ones,” (Cronin’s cat back home is named Alfredo Linguini, “so I thought a popular Middle Eastern dish would suit the Middle East campus cat quite well.” Leviathan (4.9% approval) The unpopularity of this choice, accumulating only a measly 3 votes, could have been attributed to its placement in the selection pool as the penultimate option. One could also theorize that the wealth of other historical names stole Leviathan’s thunder. Surprisingly, 2A Stanislaw Naklicki was more outraged at the electoral process than the unenthused reception of his name suggestion “I was convinced the form was anonymous. I feel deceived,” he lamented. The nominations were not anonymous, and nowhere on the form was this indicated. Naklicki added: “I wanted to call him whale but I forgot how to say whale in English so Leviathan was the only thing that came to my mind as an alternative.” Perhaps “wave” would have earned more votes. No one will ever know. Yasmina (cat) as opposed to Yasmina (person) to do so we have to refer to the latter as Yasmina The Person (19.7% approval) The 1A who suggested this name preferred to remain anonymous, but they had clear reasons for their suggestion. “Right now, there are two Yasmina’s monopolizing powerful positions at Sciences Po Menton. We have… the director of our campus and the Yasmina in MDL (the boys’ dorm on campus). Both (are) arguably powerful and intimidating people. I was thinking if we named the cat ‘Yasmina,’ we would have to refer to the other Yasmina’s as ‘Yasmina the Person’ and take their power away a little bit because the cat would be called just ‘Yasmina.’ There would therefore be three powerful girls running Sciences Po Menton.” Sciences Pussy (19.7% approval) 1A Giulia Vigoriti chose this name but was disappointed by the 12 votes cast for it. When asked why she chose the name, she simply said, “It was funny! Pussy = Cat. But apparently I am too funny for the average SciencesPiste.” Vigoriti also warned the Feminist Union, telling them to “watch out,” because she might potentially recycle this name suggestion for a student initiative. قط Suggested by 1A Emilia Kohlmeyer, this name came with its own platform: “This is why you should pick this: It’s funny because qat. It can be translated to qt (cutie). It’s a great name. Good night.” Dog (11.5 % approval) Suggested by 1A Gayle Krest and earning seven votes, the name “Dog” was submitted “because it’s a Cat” and she thought that was funny. THE WINNING NAME: Muammar Cat-Dafi (59% votes) The modest 1A who suggested this winning name (which gained 36 votes) wanted to remain anonymous. They reflected: “I submitted Muammar Cat-Dafi because it was a pun, but I regret it because I think it’s mean to the cat and maybe disrespectful to the people of Libya.” It was particularly enlightening to ask each student who suggested a name for their reasoning behind their choice. Perhaps if each nominator had created a platform presenting reasons why the campus should choose their name, we would have seen different outcomes Without further ado, congratulations to Muammar Cat-Dafi, for officially joining the Sciences Po Menton community and having such an important role in Mentonese history. The certificate above recognizes that the Electoral Council has approved that the name has won with necessary requirements met. The cat has since been given a distinctive dictator hat, described by a Sciences Piste as a “generic military hat.” Perhaps the cat, once set to be called “Yasmina(cat) as opposed to Yasmina(person) to do so we have to refer to the latter as Yasmina The Person” is organizing a coup against its hypothetical opponent Yasmina… Menton will never know where this cat came from, what its goals are, or where he found Gaddafi’s hat.

Sciences Pistes Model United Nations (SPMUN) has come and gone — but that won’t stop us from reflecting upon the amazing experiences that were had by those 170 Sciences Pistes who partook in the first intercampus event of the 2022-23 academic year. < Back Reflecting on the 2022-2023 Sciences Pisted Model United Nations Conference By Georgia McKerracher December 31, 2022 Sciences Pistes Model United Nations (SPMUN) has come and gone — but that won’t stop us from reflecting upon the unique experiences that were had by those 170 Sciences Pistes who partook in the first intercampus event of the 2022-23 academic year. The conference focus on “Reconstruction and Redirection” proved to be a popular one — with three language committees, highlighting the true diversity of Menton as a site sandwiched between a variety of Mediterranean states and bringing together aspiring policymakers, diplomats, leaders and journalists from across the world. The opening ceremony kicked off with an address from the Permanent Observer of the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva and former Australian Ambassador to Nepal and Chile, Mr. Crispin Conroy. Not only did he manage to diplomatically ingratiate himself to the community through remarks about the beauty of our campus, but he also spoke about his experiences as a gender parity champion and reflected on the roots of the ICC, League of Nations and the Paris Climate Agreement. According to Conroy, the multilateralism of our increasingly globalized world is today threatened by the politics of fear we are witnessing engulf the world’s democracies; therefore, he positioned his audience to reflect on their duty to rethink the multilateral approaches they can employ to further the global common good. Secondly, Sciences Po Refugee Help’s representatives Cameron Sterling and Ferida Altun delivered a moving speech to the audience, condemning the militarization of the Italian-Franco border and the human rights abuses which occur right next to our campus daily. They informed the community of the systemic police brutality and migrant mistreatment that occurs daily, with Sterling extending this theme to her SPMUN position as Chair of the UNHCR English-speaking committee alongside second-year Sienna Bertamini. Crisis also had many intriguing happenings — from day one, when we saw a peasant revolt, followed by a bout of dancing to Cotton-Eyed Joe, to Melania Trump assassinating Marjorie Taylor Greene in the Bahamas. As usual, Crisis directors Riwa Hassan and David Ederberg did a marvelous job ensuring the committee’s activities were punctuated by random but stimulating ebbs and flows of chaos. At the ceremony’s closing, MEDMUN organizers, chairs and delegates all came together to reminisce on all that had taken place throughout the weekend. Second-years Sami Omaish and Vinciane Rosenzweig gave an opening address to the fatigued yet good-spirited crowds, followed by Pauline Da Cunha and Lucie Taïeb from the Paris MUN as well as Madeline Crepin Calarnou from the Poitiers MUN. Paraphrasing the resonant words of Menton Campus Director Yasmina Touaibia’s opening ceremony speech, for this weekend, we didn’t only see the well-known “Ummah Mentoniyya’ – but we had the good fortune to see the collectivity and unity of the wider ‘Ummah Sciences Po.”

Dans la publication précédente du Menton Times, nous avons revu un peu la manière dont le kirchnerisme utilise la mémoire de la dictature militaire (1976-1983) pour son propre bénéfice. Cependant, le kirchnerisme n'a pas été le seul mouvement politique à instrumentaliser la mémoire de la dernière dictature à des fins politiques. < Back Argentina 1985 - partie 2 By Amalia Heide February 29, 2024 Dans la publication précédente du Menton Times , nous avons revu un peu la manière dont le kirchnerisme utilise la mémoire de la dictature militaire (1976-1983) pour son propre bénéfice. Cependant, le kirchnerisme n'a pas été le seul mouvement politique à instrumentaliser la mémoire de la dernière dictature à des fins politiques. Le 24 mars 2017, jour férié pour commémorer le début de la dictature, des membres du parti de centre-droit "Juntos por el cambio" ont stratégiquement décidé de publier une image sur les médias sociaux avec une pancarte sur laquelle on pouvait lire : " Nunca más al negocio de los derechos humanos, Nunca más a la interrupción del orden democratico " (Plus jamais de business des droits humains, plus jamais d'interruption de l'ordre démocratique). Une fois de plus, le slogan "plus jamais ça" est utilisé pour délégitimer l'adversaire politique qui, dans ce cas, se situe au sein du mouvement kirchneriste. Accompagnant les photos, ils ont publié un communiqué dans lequel ils affirment que : "Les droits humains n'appartiennent pas à un gouvernement ou à un parti politique, et ne doivent pas être utilisés à des fins personnelles; ils sont universels et appartiennent à l'ensemble du peuple argentin. C'est pourquoi nous soutenons que les droits humains n'ont pas de propriétaire." La campagne condamne le kirchnerisme pour avoir exploité le rôle de gardien de la mémoire du terrorisme d'État de 1976 à 1983 à des fins personnelles. Cela suggère une contradiction entre la politique commémorative kirchneriste et l'adhésion pratique aux principes de respect des droits de l'homme. Indépendamment de l'exactitude de ce portrait, il lie directement le kirchnérisme à des éléments qui rappellent la dictature. Le choix délibéré du 24 mars pour lancer cette campagne politique contre le kirchnérisme n'est pas une coïncidence. Dans son tristement célèbre discours inaugural de la junte militaire argentine (24/03/1976), juste après le coup d'État, le dictateur Videla a déclaré : "Pour nous, le respect des droits de l'homme ne découle pas seulement du mandat de la loi ou des déclarations internationales, mais (...) de la dignité prééminente de l'homme en tant que valeur fondamentale, et c'est précisément pour garantir la protection des droits naturels de l'homme que nous exerçons toute notre autorité". Tout comme Videla justifiant la défense des droits humains pour mettre en œuvre un régime autoritaire et répressif, le kirchnerisme, selon ce mouvement politique de droite, viserait un régime illibéral et populiste en utilisant une rhétorique comparable. Cette campagne politique implique également un appel à l'État pour qu'il maintienne un engagement apolitique ou neutre vis-à-vis du passé. En discréditant les kirchneristes, le parti de centre-droit se positionne comme un acteur neutre et, par conséquent, revendique la légitimité de construire et de diffuser un récit alternatif au sein de la société civile argentine. Cela lui permettrait d'élargir sa base électorale. En effet, une partie de la population argentine souhaite être représentée par une mémoire officielle plus complète et inclusive reconnaissant les actions militaires et de guérilla comme des crimes et des victimes: une mémoire prenant en compte la théorie des deux démons. Cependant, l'instrumentalisation de la mémoire de la dictature par Juntos por el cambio n'a pas changé de manière significative. Elle suit le même modèle narratif que le kirchnerisme: l'ennemi principal reste l'armée, même si elle reconnaît d'autres violations des droits de l'homme commises par d'autres groupes tels que la gauche révolutionnaire. La seule différence est que le kirchnerisme le manipule contre la droite et que la droite le manipule contre le kirchnerisme. Ce n'est pas le cas de l'extrême droite. Le mouvement libertaire dirigé par Milei a fait preuve d'astuce dans l'utilisation de la mémoire de la dictature. Il a redéfini de manière significative la dynamique "nous" contre "eux". Contrairement au point de vue conventionnel depuis le rétablissement de la démocratie en 1983, la faction politique de Milei identifie les "terroristes de la guérilla" plutôt que les militaires comme étant l'ennemi. Ce changement narratif s'appuie sur le livre influent " Los Otros Muertos- Las víctimas civiles del terrorismo guerrillero de los 70 " (Les autres morts - les victimes civiles du terrorisme de la guérilla dans les années 70). Ce volume a été co-écrit par Victoria Villarruel et publié en 2016. Dans son travail, l'actuelle vice-présidente argentine procède à un examen historique des victimes des organisations terroristes de gauche telles que les Montoneros et l' ERP (Armée révolutionnaire du peuple). Ces groupes ont mené des attaques civiles et des enlèvements de la fin des années 60 à la fin des années 70, faisant face à une sévère répression sous la dictature. En s'appuyant sur ces faits historiques, Villarruel critique l'interprétation "mythique" et/ou "héroïque" du militantisme révolutionnaire de gauche faite par les kirchneristes, affirmant que présenter les guerrilleros comme des martyrs n'est pas conforme à la vérité historique. En outre, dans une interview accordée à Infobae en 2021, elle déclare : " Des centaines de terroristes ont été réintégrés dans le pays et font désormais partie des trois branches de l'État , adoptant des lois qui les protègent. Je me demande comment les terroristes peuvent accéder au pouvoir et décider de l'avenir des personnes qu'ils ont attaquées " De plus, dans une autre entretien avec La Nacion en 2021, Villarruel ajoute : "Je crois que l'un des grands succès du terrorisme a été de garantir son impunité en réécrivant le passé pour nous tous, en effaçant ses victimes de l'histoire. (La Nación, 2021). Dans ce récit simplifié à l'extrême, les victimes du terrorisme d'État entre 1976 et 1983 sont synonymes de "guérilla terroriste". En d'autres termes, si des personnes ont été torturées et tuées pendant la dictature, il y a de fortes chances qu'il s'agisse de terroristes. Dans cette logique, les militants des droits de l'homme qui ont émergé après la dictature pour plaider en faveur de la reconnaissance des victimes de la répression de l'État sont considérés comme des acteurs ou des complices de cette guérilla terroriste. Comme nous l'avons vu, le kirchnerisme a fait de la défense et de la représentation des victimes de la répression militaire un axe central de son identité politique. La faction politique de Milei l'exploite habilement contre le kirchnerisme, en présentant l'aile gauche comme faisant partie de l'élite et d'une "caste politique" immunisée qu'il faut éradiquer du pouvoir pour protéger les institutions démocratiquesÉtant donné que ces "terroristes" sont censés avoir infiltré les institutions de l'État par le biais du kirchnérisme, ce dernier et les institutions démocratiques de l'État sont considérés comme impurs, corrompus et partiaux. L'articulation de ce récit a été au cœur de la campagne présidentielle de Milei, jouant un rôle dans le discrédit et l'érosion de la légitimité du kirchnérisme. D'autre part, le 1er octobre 2023, lors du premier débat présidentiel, Milei a repris à son compte les déclarations de l'amiral Emilio Massera, membre éminent de la junte militaire, lors de son discours de défense dans les procès de 1985 : Milei : " Dans les années 1970, il y a eu une guerre, et dans cette guerre, les forces de l'État ont commis des excès ” Massera en 1985 : " Tout ce que je sais, c'est qu'il y a eu ici une guerre entre les forces légales, et que là où il y a eu des excès, il s'agissait de débordements exceptionnels. " En tant qu'outsider politique cherchant à attirer l'attention du public, Milei opte stratégiquement pour le terme "excès" au lieu de "terrorisme d'État" afin de créer un impact médiatique. Cette utilisation délibérée d'un langage moins critique à l'égard des actions des militaires vise à les réhabiliter. Rares sont les aspects de la mémoire de la dictature sur lesquels les Argentins s'accordent. L'un d'entre eux est la gravité et l'inexcusabilité d'actes tels que les disparitions forcées, les assassinats et les enlèvements d'enfants par les militaires.La déclaration de Milei représente un défi direct au consensus social établi en Argentine. Cette déviation du consensus social génère une commotion médiatique qui sert l'objectif de Milei de capter l'attention du grand public. Bien que l'utilisation d'un récit aussi provocateur puisse sembler contre-productive pour la campagne politique de Milei, ce dernier a démontré que ce changement dans le discours public a captivé l'intérêt de la population. En effet, sa capacité à présenter des perspectives totalement contraires au statu quo dans toutes les sphères de la société a joué un rôle essentiel dans son ascension à la présidence. À l'instar de Nestor Kirchner au début des années 2000, Milei vise à regagner la confiance de l'électorat en introduisant un nouveau modèle et en façonnant une mémoire différente du passé qui remet en question les récits officiels. Rien ne peut choquer et défier davantage les Kirchneristes que la réhabilitation du terrorisme d'État sous la dernière dictature.

“Iran is spoken here through a glorious culture (...) hidden under the heavy dust of politics.” To me, this quote exemplifies the importance of Iranian cinema: it is the brush that cleans the political dust off of Iran, giving a glimpse into the culture, the interactions of the people, the food, the scenery, the good and also the bad. < Back Diving Into Iranian Cinema By Sarina Soleymani February 28, 2023 At the 84th celebration of the Academy Awards in 2012, Asghar Farhadi — a renowned Iranian director — walked up on the stage to receive his award for best foreign film and give his acceptance speech. He expressed, “Iran is spoken here through a glorious culture (...) hidden under the heavy dust of politics.” To me, this quote exemplifies the importance of Iranian cinema: it is the brush that cleans the political dust off of Iran, giving a glimpse into the culture, the interactions of the people, the food, the scenery, the good and also the bad. Within these representations, we still find snippets of the real political context that Iranians live in. Yet this time, these depictions come from Iranian people, as opposed to Western or Islamic media, with ulterior motives behind the narratives they choose to display. Iran is truly exceptional when it comes to cinema, with numerous brilliantly creative figures that push their way into mainstream media. Let us take a quick dip into some of my cherished recommendations in this ocean-deep world of Iranian cinema. My favorite film of all time, and the first mention on this list, is Asghar Farhadi’s “A Separation.” Winning the previously mentioned Best Foreign Film Oscar in 2012 gave international recognition not only to Farhadi, who continued to win various awards for his subsequent motion pictures, but also to Iranian cinema as a whole. Farhadi’s work generally focuses on human complexities and the varying web of interactions between people that create delicate situations in which the characters are being challenged. He aims to show human vulnerability, underscoring that oftentimes there is not an obvious answer, a distinct good or bad. He carefully uses naturalist camera work to make the storyline more real, using simplistic techniques and camera angles to follow the characters. This characteristic sets him apart in the film industry. While all of his work, including “About Elly,” “The Salesman,” and “A Hero,” all deserve their spotlight, the one film that was genuinely above and beyond is, in my eyes, “A Separation.” With one of the most complex yet easy-to-follow storylines, “A Separation” commences with the divorce of two of the main characters: Nader and Simin. Simin wishes to leave the country with their daughter, while Nader needs to stay to care for his father, battling Alzheimer’s. Their situation complicates itself after Nader hires a caretaker for his father, a pregnant lady named Razieh, who comes from a religious and lower-class background. Following a misunderstanding, Razieh and Nader get into an explosive argument, causing Razieh to have a miscarriage resulting in a trial against Nader. Here, the two families become intertwined, and every sentence they say and every frame that precedes this moment gets examined to reveal the truth. We empathize with both sides of the story and become emotionally invested while appreciating the rationale behind their actions respectively. It uses a subtle technique to portray its message. It even gives an accurate glimpse into modern Tehran, the varying lifestyles and the socio-political and economic conditions of the people living there. It is truly a masterpiece in which every frame matters and is a remarkable stepping stone to entering the world of Iranian cinema. My next recommendation comes from an undoubtedly noteworthy Iranian director, Jafar Panahi. His films bravely express the voice of the Iranian people, their restrictions and the systems they are trapped in. His phenomenal work, dealing with much of the political will of the Iranian population, is often deemed a threat by the regime resulting in his six-year sentence in Evin prison and a ban from film-making. This ban, however, did not stop Panahi as he continued to publish works such as “This is Not a Film,” “Taxi,” or “No Bears,” which would move on to win international awards. Yet, the piece that I would like to shed light on is “Offside” (2006). Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a strict practice forbade women from entering sports stadiums. The storyline follows six girls who, for various reasons, sneak into a football match dressed up as men. They each get caught, and we watch them spend the rest of the game in a detention section of the stadium before getting sent off to the police station accompanied by the men who detained them. The latter are young boys doing their mandatory military service and are thus forced to detain these girls even if they do not necessarily want to. What is so beautiful about his film is the humanization of these characters, the destigmatization of the people in Iran and how Panahi highlights that the people are not their government. The characters all end up bonding throughout the film: the girls and the military men befriend one another and show signs of mutual trust and care. By first commenting on the underlying hypocrisies and paradoxes within this law, Panahi uses football to comment on the society and Islamic regime, the restrictions it puts on the people and the people’s response to it. Here, the girls rebel even if they know the consequences, and the men comply, even if they do not wish to because they know the ramifications of disobeying. The ban on women in stadiums is a dominant issue in Iran, highlighting the discrimination in this gender apartheid regime. In 2019, Sahar Khodayari, unfortunately, set herself on fire after her trial in which she was prosecuted for entering a stadium. This ineffable outrage is depicted in films such as “Offside,” where one begins to understand the complex feelings of the people in this system. The film also subtly referenced Iranian social movements, including the White Hijab movement, where Iranian women would either wear a white hijab or take off their hijabs, generally on Wednesdays, to protest against the mandatory veil rule. This entrancing ended with the intriguing directorial choice of playing the old Iranian national anthem before the 1979 revolution while depicting the people’s celebration of the Iranian team winning the march and qualifying for the world cup. This was a strong yet subtle political statement, embodying the population’s disapproval of the regime even if they wish to celebrate their country’s win. This heart-wrenching and captivating story provokes smiles, laughs and tears in minutes and is certainly not a film to miss! On a more mundane and philosophical level, there is “Taste of Cherry” by Abbas Kiarostami. As one of the most renowned directors, Kiarostami set an important precedent for the film industry in Iran with several movies, including “Where is The Friends House?” or “Close Up.” He often depicts the Iranian countryside and uses his spectacular camera movements to illustrate its beauty. In this film, Kiarostami uses an intriguing storytelling technique where he keeps the main character a mystery. We know almost nothing of him, his family or his economic background. The extent of our knowledge is limited to his name, Mr. Badii, and that he is suicidal. Throughout the film, Mr. Badii takes a car stroll in the hills of Iran, picking up passengers who he hopes will carry out a job for him in exchange for money. He hopes to find someone who will go to where he wishes to be buried early in the morning and call his name twice. If he responds, that person will save him, take the money as a reward, and go back home. If he does not, that person should bury his body and take the money for themselves and return to their life. As he picks up these characters, they engage in conversations where they discuss the morality of suicide: the passengers try to discourage him using varying philosophies. The atypical storytelling is particularly compelling as it focuses on the concept and the message — brilliantly revealed in a plot twist that is communicated through just one sentence — as opposed to the main character and his reasons for wanting to commit this act. This film teaches us to appreciate the simple joys of life and highlights this with humble anecdotes and candid yet breathtaking camera shots portraying the scenery of Iran. Finally, a classic recommendation is the animation adaptation of Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis.” These delightful sketches give a historical overview of the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, portraying a period of dramatic change in Iran through the eyes of the book’s author — Marji. It is astonishingly nostalgic, even relatable, despite being set in a different time frame. This authenticity is found through the transparency of Marji and her thoughts and feelings alongside the interactions she observes in her family and society at the larger level. Satrapi depicts how the revolution was transformed into something other than what it was intended and the uncertainties of the time. Persepolis is a digestible, genuine and open-minded account of Iranian history and culture, striving as an excellent starting point for those interested in grasping the Iranian perspective on these events. Artistic expression has always been central to preserving such a rich culture despite challenging conditions, and cinema does not fall short within this context. Indeed, these are just some of the many fascinating films in the kaleidoscope that is Iranian cinema that illustrates the reality of the Iranian experience.

< Back General Debate in the UN Assembly Kerem Demir Karahan October 23, 2025 The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly began on Sept. 9 in New York, United States of America. World leaders convened in Turtle Bay in order to address the General Assembly where the debate was largely shaped by the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Annalena Baerbock of Germany, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs until 2025, served as the President of the General Assembly and declared the theme of this year's debate as “Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights.” Baerbock began her remarks by highlighting the plight of children in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, and gang violence in Haiti. Moving on, she stated that cynics of the United Nations needed to realize that the “the [United Nations] Charter, our Charter, is only as strong as Member States’ willingness to uphold it,” encouraging the rest of the delegates to “act when action is needed.” The speeches of the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly were followed by the speeches by President Lula of Brazil and President Trump of the United States of America. Prior to Trump’s speech, the escalator he was riding malfunctioned, which Trump suggested could be sabotage (the United Nations denied the allegation, stating that it was rather a safety mechanism). This was one of the many criticisms Trump laid against the United Nations, stating that the organization “is supposed to stop invasions, not promote them.” Trump’s speech also largely focused on immigration, contrasting his policies with those of the previous Biden administration. Furthermore, Trump went on to state that “if you don’t get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail,” in line with his administration’s support for coal energy. On the war between Ukraine and Russia, Trump stated that the conflict ran for too long, and that he would be imposing harsh sanctions and tariffs against the Russian Federation. Following Trump’s statements, President Zelensky of Ukraine stated that he was “surprised” by Trump’s shift in position with respect to the war in Ukraine and believed that the relationship between him and Trump has gotten “better.” On the war in Gaza, Trump declared that “we have to negotiate peace, get the hostages back — all 20 back — and 38 dead bodies back.” Trump, referring to European states’ recognition of Palestine, stated that this unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state could amount to “a reward to Hamas for its horrible atrocities.” Under Trump’s directives, the State Department of the United States of America had previously denied Palestinian officials visas necessary for them to travel to the United Nations General Assembly, a move criticized by United Nations experts and many of the member states who believed that such an act is against the 1947 Headquarters of the United Nations Agreement. The State Department explained their reasoning by declaring that the Palestinian Authority has been failing to “consistently repudiate terrorism — including the October 7 massacre — and end incitement to terrorism in education.” Trump’s speech was followed by speeches from Presidents of Indonesia and Türkiye, Subianto and Erdoğan respectively—both of whom are presidents of large, Muslim-majority nations. Both presidents mentioned support for the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, with Subianto stating that “both Palestine and Israel must be free and independent, safe and secure from threats and terrorism.” Erdoğan further stated that the situation in Gaza has become indefensible, expressing that it amounted to a “barbarity” and “genocide.” In the afternoon, the General Assembly heard a speech from the Colombian President Gustavo Petro, in which Petro harshly criticized Trump for the latter’s military strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels off the coast of Colombia. Petro went on to condemn Trump and the inaction of the wider United Nations General Assembly with respect to the war in Gaza, stating that “this forum [the General Assembly] is a mute witness to a genocide.” Following his speech, Petro participated in a pro-Palestinian rally in New York in which he has called American soldiers to “Disobey Trump’s orders.” After the rally, the State Department declared that Petro’s visa would be revoked due to his “reckless and incendiary” comments. The following day, the General Assembly heard Ukrainian President Zelensky’s speech. Zelensky highlighted the failure of international law to protect Ukraine against Russian aggression, stating “because international institutions are too weak, this madness continues,” referring to Russia’s constant shelling of Ukrainian power plants. Zelensky further warned of democratic backsliding led by Russian policies in Eastern Europe, highlighting the situations in Georgia and Moldova. Zelensky finished his remarks by calling on world leaders not to “stay silent while Russia keeps dragging this war on” and “join us [Ukraine] in defending life and international law and order.” Two days later, on Sept. 26, the General Assembly heard from Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. As Netanyahu took the podium, dozens of diplomats and officials emptied the General Assembly hall in protest, leaving Netanyahu to address a largely empty hall. Leading news outlets such as the New York Times , commented on the symbolism of the moment, stating that the empty hall has become a testament to Israel’s growing isolation in the midst of its war in Gaza. Netanyahu, seemingly unbothered by the walkout, used his speech to criticize the member states which have begun to unilaterally recognize the Palestinian state, stating that European nations such as France and the United Kingdom were “reward[ing] the worst antisemites (referring to Hamas) on Earth.” Contrasting with his remarks on European leaders, Netanyahu took the time to express his appreciation for Trump’s support during the conduct of the war in Gaza, stating that the United States is “forcefully fighting the scourge of antisemitism.” Netanyahu also highlighted that Israel’s actions across the region, namely in Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen, helped bring down a web of Iranian proxies that waged war on Israel. Responding to growing claims of a genocide going on in Gaza from experts and member states around the world, Netanyahu stated that such claims were fueled by antisemitism. Baerbock closed the general debate of the 80th session of the General Assembly on Sept. 29. In her closing remarks, Baerbock stated that “Member States must do more to stem the tide of war and violence: to protect and feed starving civilians in Gaza, to return to peace to Ukraine, to protect women and girls in Sudan.” Referring to the New York Declaration on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, Baerbock stated that “what happens in the General Assembly Hall matters,” as the Declaration led many Western European states to recognize Palestine for the first time. Baerbock further called for “an immediate ceasefire, a surge in humanitarian aid for civilians and the immediate release of the remaining hostages.” Talking about women’s rights and climate action, Baerbock highlighted the importance of continued efforts to advocate for inclusionary politics. Baerbock finished her remarks by stating that nations of the world needed one another to tackle problems that “no country alone can solve.” Photo Source: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Flickr

Middle Eastern states’ hesitant and fearsome response in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine can be explained by the region’s vulnerability caused by extensive trade ties with both parties involved and Russia’s regional power in the area < Back MENA Neutrality in Response to Putin’s Invasion By Stanislaw Naklicki April 29, 2022 Two months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we gradually grasp a clearer view of the global impact of the war. Middle Eastern states’ hesitant and fearsome response to the invasion can be explained by the region’s vulnerability caused by extensive trade ties with both parties involved and Russia’s regional power in the area. Policy experts delineate a grim image of the possible impact of the war in Ukraine, which might partly explain an apparently cynical and pragmatic response from countries with a strong collective memory of the horrors of war. Middle East/North Africa (MENA) states have found themselves in a crunch. Russia is an important trade partner for most of them. Egypt, Maghreb, and Gulf countries depend heavily on Russian wheat exports. Ukraine is also a large exporter of wheat, but besides trade, involvement in the war presents political power imbalances. The UAE can allow itself to anger Ukraine. Russia, not so much. However, it is not Ukraine itself that puts the regional states in an awkward limbo of not supporting, but not condemning. The same states that depend on Russia for imports entertain strong relations with the United States. USA’s unconditional support for Ukraine is what makes MENA states want to appease both sides. Unsurprisingly, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, and Morocco either abstained or were absent from the UN vote on the condemnation of the Russian invasion. Earlier, on the 27th of February, perhaps thrown off-guard, UAE abstained from the condemnation vote within the Security Council. The primary danger for the governments and populations in the region is the disturbance of wheat imports. Russia and Ukraine are respectively the largest and fifth-largest exporters of wheat in the world. Egypt, the largest wheat buyer in the world, imports 80% of its wheat supply from Russia and Ukraine. The war caused unsubsidized bread price rise of around 50%. Subsidizing bread, which has been an untouchable constant in Egypt since immemorial times, is now going to become significantly more costly. As indicated by the Fondation Méditerranéenne d’Etudes Stratégiques and the Economist, this may lead to social unrest and riots. Rising bread prices have already been a trigger for upheaval in Egypt, like in 1977. Besides Egypt, countries that are particularly vulnerable are those that suffer from an unfortunate combination of lack of hydrocarbon resources and heavy dependence on Russia and Ukraine for agricultural products. Among them is Palestine, which, while sharing the economic hardships brought upon Israel by the war, will be the only entity responsible for its population’s food security. These countries are joined by states already suffering severe crises, like Lebanon, where the Beirut Explosion has destroyed the main grain silos, Syria and Yemen. Interestingly, Israel is similarly cautious with many Arab states in its diplomacy. States such as Egypt have been flirting with Russian protection for years now, hosting annual ministers’ meetings. However, Israel is the iron ally of the United States, and its unequivocal support has at times dictated American foreign policy. To America’s regret, Israel had been slow to accuse Russia of its crimes, rejected Ukraine’s appeal for equipment support, and offered to act as a mediator. Israel itself is in an uncomfortable position following the invasion. However, there are actors that aim to emerge as winners of the current situation. First of all, the OPEC member states. Oil prices have hit their 10-year high. The countries that are going to benefit from this the most are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq and the UAE. Algeria in particular is looking to move its alliance network in the direction of the West by delivering cheap gas in return for infrastructural investments by countries like Germany. Its pipelines to Italy and Spain will help in that. Furthermore, since the eyes of the international community are focused on Ukraine, regional powers might be looking to advance their interests. Up until now, Turkish President Erdogan has been getting closer with NATO, although still maintaining decent relations with Putin. Duality on this scale is unthought of in Europe, where one must, at least symbolically, pick a side. This limbo, however, might be actually a calming factor: by avoiding contradictory declarations with neighboring states, MENA states are preventing further rise of tension in an already heated region of the world.

It is inconceivable to imagine any Holocaust movie that is not controversial. Even The Zone of Interest in its minimal narrative storytelling has failed to escape the debates – is it fair to exclude the victims when discussing the Holocaust? Is the movie adding anything, really, to the construction of our knowledge of the events? The questions are not up for me to answer, and yet I find them crucial. < Back Zone of Conflict: Controversies and Dilemmas in Holocaust-Cinema By Pedro Meerbaum March 30, 2024 The Zone of Interest follows a historical family drama. The mother, played by Sandra Hüller, wants to raise her family in their current house — outside of the big city where she can grow her garden and spend Sundays by the lake with the children. Meanwhile, the father, played by Christian Friedel, is forced into a personal dilemma as he is promoted in his military career and must now move to Berlin. Except Friedel's character wasn't just any military personnel and the house wasn't in any city. They lived in Auschwitz, Poland, and the father, Herr Höss, is the commandant of the concentration camp that shares its walls with the family garden. Director Jonathan Glazer takes an unconventional approach to portraying the Holocaust: he expects his audience to be aware of what is happening in the backgrounds of his passive landscapes without explicitly showing the violence of the concentration camps. Unlike other movies on the same topic, including Schindler's List or The Boy in the Striped Pajamas , Glazer spends no time exploring or dramatizing the struggles of the victims, he rather focuses completely on the routine of this specific family. The movie's ability to discuss such a weighted historical event has been a heated topic as award season continues to highlight the mastery of Glazer, leading it to be considered "controversial" in online discussions. But what is clear is that it once again brings up an important question: how can one produce a movie about the Holocaust? The risk of trivializing, minimizing or even abusing real stories haunts filmmakers whenever they are tasked with producing art on one of history's biggest regrets. Austrian director Michael Haneke, famous for works like "Funny Games" and "Piano Teacher," posed a scathing critique of Spielberg's Schindler's List in an interview with the Hollywood Times : "The idea, the mere idea, of trying to draw and create suspense out of the question of whether out of the shower head, gas is going to come or water — that to me is unspeakable." He then proceeds to describe the 1994 Oscar-winning movie as a film with "24 lies per second at the service of truth, or the service of the attempt to find truth.” It is difficult to accuse Spielberg's movie of being exploitative of the Holocaust when its production surrounded a conversation with real victims and an attempt to rejuvenate the popular memory of the event. At the same time, it is not possible to distance Spielberg's production from the mere fact that it is a Hollywood production, a movie bonded by the economic and ideological needs of the culture industry and the necessity to keep the work entertaining to its audience. Thus, when Spielberg creates a Hollywoodian adaptation of Schindler's List, there is a legitimate concern about whether he has, like in his classic Jurassic Park, made the Holocaust into a theme park . It is true, however, that newer generations have been socialized through these works. As we distance ourselves, chronologically, from the 1940s, and as the memories of older generations begin to fade, the role of transmitting Holocaust-related stories lies within movies. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas has become a staple in Western education systems and a necessary addendum in history classes. Understanding, then, that Holocaust-related movies go beyond their statuses as films and transcend into a tool for public memory, another question is raised: What should be the aim of Holocaust cinema? The Zone of Interest engages with this dilemma and focuses instead on the other side of the wall. Sandra Hüller mentions to W magazine that during the filming process, the actors had to stay void – even as they played with kids in the garden they had to actively demonstrate little to no dramatization. A direct response to traditional Hollywoodian cinema, where the directors attempt to juice out drama out of all scenes and create entertainment above all. This is reflective of Glazer's attempt to produce a movie that showcases the ordinary aspects of a Nazi family. It is contradictory to decades of film-making where Nazis were portrayed as "cardboard villains," with no characteristics but their evilness – a portrayal that is both fair and counterproductive. The audience is led to believe that the evil present in the Holocaust was an exceptional case. The Nazis are presented to them as nothing more than villains, as individuals who are so distanced from the viewers that their lives become unfathomable in the 21st century. The Zone of Interest reminds viewers that this is not true. As Glazer puts it himself: "I wanted to dismantle the idea of them as anomalies, as almost supernatural. You know, the idea that they came from the skies and ran amok, but thank God that’s not us and it’s never going to happen again. I wanted to show that these were crimes committed by Mr. and Mrs. Smith at No. 26.” Glazer reminds the viewers of just how dangerous movies on the Holocaust can be. They are, ultimately, vessels for narratives on the event, shaping how we view this piece of history and how we understand the processes that lead to it. Once it becomes enthralled by the culture of entertainment, Holocaust cinema turns itself into a counteractive tool – it distances us from what happened even further. It makes us forget that Auschwitz is not only a museum. It is inconceivable to imagine any Holocaust movie that is not controversial. Even The Zone of Interest in its minimal narrative storytelling has failed to escape the debates – is it fair to exclude the victims when discussing the Holocaust? Is the movie adding anything, really, to the construction of our knowledge of the events? The questions are not up for me to answer, and yet I find them crucial. Holocaust cinema only works when it poses questions, rather than answers – when it leads the audience into the uncomfortable position of questioning: "What would I have done," or more importantly "What am I not doing now."

< Back Décryptage des Élections Présidentielles de 2022 By Morgane Abbas April 30, 2022 Décryptage des élections présidentielles de 2022 Nous sommes le dimanche 24 avril, il est 20:26, et cela fait maintenant approximativement une demi-heure que le peuple français a démocratiquement élu le Président de la République française, Emmanuel Macron, pour les cinq années à venir. Il s’agit de la douzième élection présidentielle à avoir lieu sous la cinquième République. C'est également le second et dernier quinquennat du président, tel que le dispose la Constitution depuis la réforme de 2008. Cette journée a été décisive pour l’avenir de la France et l’on concède facilement que c’est à l’image d’une période de campagne mouvementée qui a fait surgir de nombreux rebondissements. Son intensité offre une consistance certaine à la réflexion et à la rétrospective: retour sur les élections présidentielles françaises de 2022. Les résultats du premier tour: Le verdict est tombé aux alentours de 20 heures le 10 avril dernier: déception pour les uns, soulagement pour les autres ou encore indifférence pour certains, des allures familières de 2017 refont surface puisque se sont vus de nouveau affronter au second tour le président sortant Emmanuel Macron et la candidate d’extrême-droite Marine Le Pen. Avant cela, ce sont 12 candidats portant une vision bien spécifique de la France qui se sont livrés à un combat féroce pour convaincre le maximum de français de voter pour eux le jour du scrutin. Les scores respectifs obtenus sont les suivants: 27.85% des voix pour le candidat Emmanuel Macron de “La République en Marche”, 23.15 % pour la candidate Marine Le Pen du “Rassemblement National” , 21.95 % pour le candidat Mélenchon de “La France Insoumise”, 7.07 % pour le candidat Eric Zemmour de “Reconquête”, 4.78 pour la candidate Valérie Pécresse des “Républicains”, 4.63 % pour le candidat Yannick Jadot de “Europe Ecologie les Verts”, 3.13% pour le candidat Jean Lassalle de “Résistons”, 2.28 % pour le candidat Fabien Roussel du “Parti Communiste Français” , 2.06 % pour le candidat Nicolas Dupont-Aignan de “Debout la France”, 1.75 % pour la candidate Anne Hidalgo du “Parti socialiste”, 0.77 % pour le candidat Philippe Poutou du “Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste”et enfin 0.56% pour la candidate Nathalie Arthaud de la “Lutte ouvrière”. On le constate clairement , bien que le duel final se répète, on observe une reconfiguration de l’espace politique autour de trois principaux pôles: celui de l’extrême gauche, du centre et de l’extrême-droite. En effet, avec pourtant un candidat de plus qu’en 2017 dans la course (dont 7 communs entre les deux élections), les pourcentages de voix recueillis par Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen et Jean-Luc Mélenchon sont en hausse par rapport à ceux d’il y a cinq ans. Ils se situent tous au-dessus du cap des 20 % et clairement loin devant tous les autres candidats, le quatrième, Eric Zemmour, ne recueillant approximativement que 7 % des voix. Le président sortant récolte donc 3.84 % de voix de plus que par rapport aux dernières élections, cette hausse étant de 1.85 % pour la représentante du RN et de 2.37 % pour le candidat de LFI. Pourtant, en 2017, ce fut plutôt une répartition quadripartite des voix qui se dessina, avec la figure en plus du républicain François Fillon, qui se hissa à la troisième position du classement, juste devant Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Succès des extrêmes, déclin des partis traditionnels: choc ou prévision ? Ces constats démontrent bien que la France de 2022 n’est pas celle de 2017, que beaucoup de choses ont profondément changé l’allure du paysage politique. D’abord, et c’est bien là le plus frappant, cette élection semble sans aucun doute être celle de l’ascension fulgurante des extrêmes au détriment des partis traditionnels de gauche et de droite, qui doivent faire face à une déception amère. Notons que ce choix des français s’inscrit dans une importance particulière donnée à la thématique du pouvoir d’achat, qui arrive en tête des préoccupations des français selon une enquête menée par IPSOS. L’extrême droite (Le Pen, Zemmour et Dupont-Aignan) à elle seule récolte 32.28% des voix, soit presque un tiers des suffrages exprimés, ce qui est considérable, quand l’extrême gauche (Mélenchon, Roussel, Poutou, Arthaud) a quant à elle convaincue 25.56 % des électeurs. Au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle de 2017, ces chiffres n’étaient respectivement que de 26 % et de 21.31 %. Face à cette percée significative, les socialistes et les républicains ont bien triste mine à l’annonce des résultats. Ensemble, la maire de Paris, Anne Hidalgo, et la présidente du Conseil régional d’Île-de-France, Valérie Pécresse, ne dépassent pas 6.6 % des voix. Cela signifie qu’un candidat comme Eric Zemmour, se présentant pour la première fois à l’élection présidentielle et dont le parti “Reconquête” ne fut créé il n’y a approximativement qu’un an, a eu une capacité à mobiliser supérieure à celle des deux partis traditionnels de la Cinquième République. Cela témoigne donc de manière assez flagrante d’une reconfiguration et d’une remise en cause du clivage gauche-droite traditionnel, bien que ce dernier n’ait pas disparu. Ayant mentionné la défaite cuisante du PS et de LR au scrutin du 10 avril 2022, peut-on pour autant affirmer que la dynamique de déclin est la même chez les deux partis ? Pas exactement. La descente aux enfers du Parti Socialiste n’est pas récente et les résultats obtenus par le parti s’inscrivent dans la continuité d’un processus déjà engagé. En 2017, Benoît Hamon ne récoltait alors que 6.36 % des voix. Difficile de croire que ce parti accédait à la présidence il y a quelques années seulement, en 2012. Mais le quinquennat de François Hollande, notamment marqué par les divisions internes du parti entre les politiques mises en place par les chefs du gouvernement successifs (Ayrault, Cazeneuve, Valls) et la contestation des “frondeurs” met à mal la popularité et la crédibilité du chef de l’Etat, notamment vis-à-vis de ses électeurs. On se rappelle par exemple de la polémique autour du Pacte budgétaire européen ou du passage en force de la loi El Khomri via l’utilisation de l’article 49-3 de la Constitution. En somme, le PS n’a jamais fait pire comme score dans son histoire, et une rupture de confiance avec son électorat traditionnel semble bien avoir eu lieu. La campagne électorale d’Anne Hidalgo qui a eu énormément de mal à être lancée et l’échec de sa proposition pour une primaire de la gauche expliquent des intentions de vote déjà très faibles et créditées à moins de 2%. Du côté de Valérie Pécresse et de ses soutiens, l’ampleur de la déception et la surprise sont d’autant plus grandes, dans un premier tour où l’engouement autour de la candidate s'est fait ressentir à maintes reprises. L’enquête électorale 2022 réalisée par IPSOS révèle qu’en décembre 2021, celle-ci récoltait 17 % des intentions de vote au premier tour. Et bien que ce score n'a cessé de décroitre au fur et à mesure de la campagne, la neuvième vague de l’enquête (du 2 au 4 avril), soit une semaine en amont de la campagne, lui attribuait pourtant une intention de vote de 8.5 %, soit presque le double de son score avéré. L’écart est réellement considérable avec François Fillon, qui était arrivé en 2017 en troisième position, en récoltant 20.01% des suffrages. D’ailleurs, selon cette même enquête IPSOS, parmi les français qui ont voté pour François Fillon au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle de 2017, qui étaient certains d’aller voter au premier tour de l’élection présidentielle de 2022 et qui ont exprimé une intention de vote, seulement 32 % d’entre eux avaient l’intention de voter pour Pécresse, contre 34% pour Emmanuel Macron et au total 28 % pour l'extrême droite. Ce transfert massif des votes vers le centre et l’extrême-droite témoigne de la difficulté que rencontre la droite républicaine à mobiliser son électorat traditionnel. Les raisons pour une telle désaffection se trouvent tant du côté du fond que de la forme. Le flou idéologique et le manque de repères programmatiques clairs pendant la campagne, en tentant de s’attirer les faveurs d’un électorat diversifié, a fini par se retourner contre la candidate qui n'a pas su incarner une dynamique transcendante. Principalement entre Eric Zemmour et le président sortant, Valérie Pécresse est passée dans l’ombre, asphyxiée des deux côtés, et menant les Républicains au plus bas score qu’ils n’aient jamais obtenu lors d’une élection présidentielle. Du côté de la forme, on peut par exemple se rappeler de la difficulté qu’a expérimenté la candidate à galvaniser les foules lors de son meeting au Zénith, jugé “ raté” pour beaucoup, y compris elle-même. Notamment,le le ressenti d’un manque de naturel dans la prise de parole a joué en sa défaveur. N’ayant pas atteint, de même que Yannick Jadot, la barre des 5 % des voix pour le remboursement de sa campagne par l’Etat, la candidate, endettée personnellement à hauteur de 5 millions d’euros, s’en est remise à lancer un appel aux dons auprès des français. Les reproches du premier tour L’émergence de trois pôles, défiant la configuration traditionnelle de la vie politique française, s’explique grandement par la stratégie du vote utile. Ainsi, la candidate d’extrême droite Marine Le Pen a pu bénéficier du vote utile de l’extrême droite, récupérant notamment un nombre de voix des soutiens d’Eric Zemmour beaucoup plus important que ce que les sondages prédisaient. Emmanuel Macron a quant à lui, concentré en plus de son électorat initial une partie significative de celui de la droite républicaine classique, s’étant détourné de la candidature de Valérie Pécresse. Finalement, il est impossible d’évoquer le rôle du vote utile sans mentionner son influence sur le score remarquable réalisé par La France Insoumise. La candidature de Jean-Luc Mélenchon a en effet été au centre d'une stratégie de concentration des différentes sensibilités de la gauche, de mobilisation de masse, notamment encouragée par les réseaux sociaux auprès des jeunes. Malgré un score tout à fait éclatant, la stratégie du “vote utile” ne semble pas avoir permis au parti de se hisser au second tour. Au contraire, au vu de l’écart sensiblement petit qui séparait Jean-Luc Mélenchon de Marine Le Pen (un peu plus de 420 000 voix), la frustration provoquée a conduit à une profusion des critiques envers certains candidats de gauche, notamment Fabien Roussel. Rappelons alors que les voix récoltées par celui-ci sont plus importantes que l’écart entre le Rassemblement National et La France Insoumise. De plus, l’échec de la Primaire Populaire qui avait pourtant initié une dynamique inédite a néanmoins vu la gauche plus dispersée que jamais pour la ligne de départ du premier tour, avec pas moins de 6 candidats. Finalement, ces éléments auront joué en défaveur du peu de voix qu’ils restait à Jean Luc Mélenchon pour accéder au duel final. D’ailleurs, si ce dernier a catégoriquement refusé dès le début de reconnaître le score de la Primaire Populaire (étant inscrit “malgré lui”) pour divergences idéologiques importantes avec d’autres candidats qui empêcheraient selon lui le succès et le réalisme d’une union de la gauche, peut-être y a t-il alors plusieurs gauches. Cette dispersion dans le grand camp de la gauche n’est pas le seul facteur ayant attisé la colère d’une partie des électeurs pendant ce premier tour. Le refus d’Emmanuel Macron de débattre avec les autres candidats, une manière donc d’“esquiver” la période de campagne présidentielle, a fait beaucoup débat. Pour beaucoup, il s’agissait d’un moyen pour le président-sortant d’éviter de se confronter au bilan de son quinquennat écoulé, marqué par une fracture sociale importante et une série de crises inédites. Sauf que pour beaucoup également, cela empêche le débat démocratique et transparent nécessaire à la prise de décision des électeurs avant de se rendre aux urnes, et entacherait donc potentiellement la légitimité du résultat. Emmanuel Macron, lui, contre-argumente en rappelant la tradition historique des présidents qui l' ont précédé, qui eux aussi ont mené leur campagne électorale via d’autres moyens que celui du débat avec les autres candidats. En couplant cela a des éléments de contexte tels que l’émergence du conflit ukraino-russe ou la présidence française au sein du conseil de l’Union Européenne qui le favoriseraient, le président sortant à réussi à se hisser au second tour malgré un bilan quinquennal jugé désastreux pour un nombre important de français. Une redistribution des voix déterminante À l’annonce des résultats le dimanche 10 avril et à seulement deux semaines du deuxième tour, les candidats écartés de la course n’ont pas attendu longtemps pour donner des consignes de vote à leur électorat. Dans un contexte où l’extrême droite accède pour la troisième fois de son histoire au second tour de l’élection présidentielle, étant plus proche du pouvoir que jamais, certains candidats n’ont pas hésité à souligner la nécessité urgente d'empêcher le Rassemblement National de se hisser en tête du scrutin le 24 avril. Les deux seuls candidats éliminés au premier tour ayant appelé à se diriger vers Marine Le Pen sont sans grande surprise ceux d’extrême droite: Éric Zemmour et Nicolas Dupont-Aignan. En ce qui concerne les autres, cette volonté de lui faire barrage s’est exprimée par différentes stratégies. Pour certains, comme Valérie Pécresse, il s’agit de concentrer les voix vers le président-candidat, elle affirme alors: “ Je voterai en conscience Emmanuel Macron pour empêcher l’arrivée au pouvoir de Marine Le Pen et le chaos qui en résulterait ”, ce qu’ont également fait la socialiste Anne Hidalgo ou encore l’écologiste Yannick Jadot. D’autres ont appelé à stopper la percée de Marine Le Pen sans pour autant inciter les électeurs à mettre dans l’urne le nom d’Emmanuel Macron. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, dans une prise de parole brève et combative, a insisté plusieurs fois à la suite qu'” il ne faut pas donner une seule voix à Madame Le Pen ”. Quant à Philippe Poutou, il a déclaré dans la même dynamique que “ pas une voix ne doit aller à l’extrême-droite. ” Deux finalistes à l’image controversée Bien que réunissant les deux mêmes candidats qu’il y a cinq ans, les dynamiques de l’entre-deux tours sont loin d’être les mêmes. Ce qui les sépare ? Un quinquennat. Et si l’on vient de constater qu’une rhétorique anti-FN n’est plus pour autant synonyme d’un encouragement vis-à-vis du président sortant, c’est parce que ce dernier se trouve dans une situation beaucoup plus contestée qu’en 2017, avec un bilan quinquennal très débattu. Son mandat fut celui des crises et pour en citer quelques unes : gilets jaunes, gestion de celle du coronavirus, crise de l’hôpital, ou encore tout récemment: guerre en Ukraine. Bon nombre de français lui reprochent au cours de ces cinq années au pouvoir d’avoir cristallisé les tensions au sein de la société française, et ne se reconnaissent donc pas ou plus dans le projet politique, économique et social qu’il propose. Ayant en face de lui une candidate d’extrême-droite dont la radicalité des idées n’est plus à prouver, bien qu’atténuée par l'émergence d’Eric Zemmour dans le champ politico-médiatique et la stratégie de dédiabolisation: le choix du second tour n’en était donc pas réellement un. Dans la dixième vague de l’ Enquête électorale 2022 réalisée par IPSOS du 15 au 18 avril 2022, 35 % des personnes interrogées n'envisageant pas d’aller voter lors du second tour de l’élection présidentielle expliquent le faire car aucun des deux candidats encore en liste ne correspond à leur attente. De plus, 24 % d’entre eux affirment ne pas aller voter car ils refusent de choisir entre deux candidats qu’ils rejettent totalement. Lorsqu’au cours de cette même vague, l’enquête s’intéresse aux raisons poussant ceux qui votent blanc ou nul à le faire, 49 % d’entre eux, soit presque la moitié, affirment également qu’ils refusent de choisir entre deux candidats qu’ils rejettent totalement. En outre, lorsque IPSOS demande aux sondés de noter Emmanuel Macron et Marine Le Pen sur une échelle de 1 à 10, les deux candidats obtiennent respectivement une moyenne de 4,1 et de 3,8, ce qui démontre bien que la côte de popularité des deux finalistes chez les électeurs, via cet échantillon représentatif, n’est pas très haute. Une campagne de l’entre-deux-trous sous l’angle de l’adaptation Au vu de ces éléments, les sondages effectués prévoyaient un écart entre le président sortant et Marine Le Pen beaucoup plus resserré qu’en 2017. Cela, Emmanuel Macron ne pouvait pas l’ignorer, s’est donc opéré une changement de stratégie du candidat pendant l’entre-deux-tours. S’il est resté relativement discret pendant le premier tour, il a tenté pendant les deux semaines qui lui restait de convaincre au maximum l’électorat qui lui était défavorable, surtout celui de gauche, déçu des cinq années passées au tournant néo-libéral. En effet, des thèmes à l’instar du bilan écologique, de la répression policière, des violences faites aux femmes, de la loi sur le séparatisme, du passage de l’ISF à l’IFI, de la réforme des retraites ou encore de la réforme du Code du Travail ont réellement fracturé la relation de confiance avec le président. Pourtant, c’est notamment la redistribution des votes de l’électorat de Jean-Luc Mélenchon qui allait être déterminante dans le résultat du second tour. Dans la dixième vague, lorsque IPSOS demande aux électeurs de Jean-Luc Mélenchon au premier tour qui ils souhaitent voir gagner au second tour, plus de la moitié, 52 %, affirme ne pas vouloir voir gagner aucun des deux candidats. Seulement 32 % d’entre eux se prononcent en faveur d’Emmanuel Macron. Plus surprenant encore, un taux de 16 % se dit en faveur d’une victoire de Marine Le Pen, ce qui est considérable pour une candidate se situant à l’autre extrémité de l’échiquier politique. Ce taux est d’ailleurs en hausse par rapport à 2017. L'habileté du Rassemblement National à proposer une offre politique attrayante auprès des classes populaires (même chez des individus se situant initialement à gauche, ce qui démontre encore une fois l’évolution de ce clivage) a obligé le candidat de LREM a complété son programme pendant l’entre-deux-tours et à l’orienter vers des thématiques qui parlent plus à ce type d’électorat. Il a donc dû essayé de nuancer certaines mesures phares de son programme mais jugées plus à droite à l’instar de la réforme autour du Revenu de Solidarité Active (RSA) ou de la rigidité du projet sur la réforme à 65 ans. De plus, jugé assez isolé au sein du palais de l’Elysée pendant son mandat et distant pendant le premier tour, le président sortant avait une durée de temps réellement courte pour travailler sa proximité avec le peuple français, notamment dans les zones où sa côté de popularité était bien inférieure à celle de candidats comme Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Il a donc multiplié les déplacements et a tenu un seul et unique meeting à Marseille le 16 avril. Du côté de Marine Le Pen, ayant déjà effectué de nombreux déplacements au cours de la campagne, il s'agissait davantage de se ressourcer et se préparer minutieusement pour le grand débat d'entre-deux-tours, moment déterminant du deuxième tour depuis 1974. Le débat de l’entre-deux-tours Le face à face entre les deux finalistes de l’élection présidentielle est un véritable moment démocratique, qui laisse s’exprimer devant les électeurs différentes visions de la société. C’est un moment à ne pas manquer pour les candidats, bien évidemment sur le fond, mais également sur la forme. Dans le cadre d’une personnalisation toujours plus importante de la vie politique et du développement massif de la culture des médias, le débat de l’entre-deux-tours est le moment clé de la communication et du marketing politique. En effet, au-delà des programmes politiques exposés, au-delà de ce qui relève de l’identification par le rationnel, ce moment est également celui de la mobilisation de l’affect par excellence. Un ressenti plus volatile, plus instinctif. De fait, plus la balance entre la capacité de mobiliser le rationnel et l’affectif est équilibrée, plus le candidat a des chances d’être convaincant. Modéré par les journalistes Léa Salamé et Gilles Bouleau, le débat entre Emmanuel Macron et Marine Le Pen a mobilisé plus de 15 millions de spectateurs mercredi 20 avril, qui ont vu les candidats débattre sur les thématiques suivantes: le pouvoir d’achat, la place de la France à l'international, l’écologie, la guerre en Ukraine, la sécurité, les retraites ou encore les institutions de la Cinquième République. Qui a donc le mieux réussi à défendre son projet et à convaincre les français ? Dans les heures qui ont suivi le débat, l’opinion publique (au sens large) semblait converger vers un président-candidat en supériorité dans la connaissance des dossiers mais à l'attitude arrogante et à la posture inadaptée. Marine Le Pen, elle, a donné l’impression de se débrouiller bien mieux qu’en 2017 mais de s’être quand même faite dominée par son adversaire. Les résultats de l’enquête menée par IPSOS sont encore une fois intéressants à cet égard. Si en 2017, 56 % des personnes interrogées affirmaient que la prestation de la candidate pendant le débat les a inquiétés, ce taux passe à seulement 35 % en 2022. De la même manière, quand un taux de 13 % affirmait en 2017 que Marine Le Pen les avait rassurés pendant le débat, celui-ci passe aujourd’hui à 27 % contre 25 % pour Macron, ce qui témoigne de l’amélioration de son image et de sa capacité à convaincre depuis. Cependant, des instants-clés du débat ont semblé donner l'avantage à la République en Marche: faux départ, confusion de données économiques par Marine Le Pen, mise en avant des emprunts aux banques russes par le Rassemblement National dans un contexte international tendu… La candidate a dû continuer de se défendre comme elle le pouvait, cela a-t-il été suffisant ? Les résultats du second tour En obtenant 58.6 % des voix contre 41.4 %, Emmanuel Macron deviendra donc le premier président sous la Cinquième République à effectuer deux quinquennats à la suite. Le taux qui le sépare de Marine Le Pen n’est plus que de 17.2 %, alors qu’il était de 32.2 % en 2017, soit presque le double. Cet écart considérable témoigne encore une fois d’un profond changement du climat qui pèse dans la société, résultat à la fois du premier quinquennat de Macron et de la banalisation des courants d'extrême droite dans le champ politico-médiatique. Au second tour, le taux d’abstention très élevé, ayant touché plus de 28 % des électeurs (contre plus de 26% pour le premier tour), est un indicateur clair du sentiment de crise de la représentation politique en France. De même, l’ensemble des votes nuls et des votes blancs représentent plus de 6% des voix. En couplant celui-ci à ceux ayant voté pour Emmanuel Macron pour contrer Marine Le Pen (42% selon IPSOS), Adrien Quatennens, sur le plateau de BFMTV, a réitéré face à la journaliste Apolline de Malherbe qu’Emmanuel Macron est “ le président le plus mal élu depuis 1969 ”, étant le détenteur d’un “ projet d’une brutalité sociale sans nom .” C’est une position qu’avait déjà défendu Jean-Luc Mélenchon le soir même des résultats, en soulignant la “contrainte d’un choix biaisé ” qui accompagnera de nouveau une “monarchie présidentielle ” pendant les cinq années à venir, bien que soulagé que l’extrême droite ne soit pas parvenue à accéder au pouvoir. La prise de parole d’Emmanuel Macron, quelques instants après l’annonce de sa réélection a fait référence plusieurs fois à ces facteurs. Le président, acclamé par une foule lui scandant “Et un, et deux, et cinq ans de plus!” , et après avoir remercié les français, effectue quelques clarifications. Appelant à ne pas siffler les militants du Rassemblement National, il rappelle qu’il n’est plus “ le candidat d’un camp mais le président de toutes et tous. ” Parallèlement, il assure avoir conscience du taux révélateur d’abstention et du barrage qui a été fait à Marine Le Pen via un vote pour sa personne, il fait donc la promesse que “ cette ère nouvelle ne sera pas la continuité de ce quinquennat qui s'achève ". Assez convaincant pour l’opposition? Pas suffisant, pour elle, l’espoir est plus à mettre dans les prochaines élections législatives que dans un changement de politique du président réélu. Le défi des législatives Pour beaucoup de français déçus par l’issue du scrutin, les journées du 12 et du 19 juin s’annoncent décisives. Ce sont en effet les dates qui permettront d’élire les 577 députés de l’Assemblée Nationale, dont la majorité dégagée déterminera le Premier ministre ainsi qu’une partie importante des politiques mises en place pendant le quinquennat. Si la succession rapide des élections présidentielles et législatives rend la probabilité d’une cohabitation assez faible, cela n’est pas pour décourager les perdants de l’élection écoulée. En effet, bien que la victoire du prestigieux titre présidentiel échappe pour la troisième fois au Rassemblement National, cette fois-ci encore plus étroitement, Marine le Pen estime que le score obtenu par le parti est une “ victoire éclatante” . Elle ajoute peu après : “ nous lançons dès ce soir la grande bataille électorale des législatives. ” Pour Jean-Luc Mélenchon, c’est “ le troisième tour ” qui commenceait dès ce soir-là. Une lutte donc, presque plus importante que celle des élections présidentielles, menée entre les différentes sensibilités politiques, et qui aura pour issue le renforcement ou le contre-pied des politiques souhaitées par le président de la République. Une alliance entre La France Insoumise et Europe Écologie Les Verts a déjà été conclue, Eric Zemmour quant à lui a appelé à une union des droites. En effet, Jean-Luc Mélenchon et Marine Le Pen envisagent déjà avec beaucoup de sérieux le poste de Premier Ministre. Seul le temps sera en mesure de nous dire ce qu’il en conviendra.

< Back Can We Cope with COP? Maia Zasler January 31, 2025 My aunt handed me a rectangle wrapped in dreidel-adorned paper. I opened my Hanukkah gift: a teal notebook from the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan. She let out a laugh as I processed the gift in front of me. “Even the swag wasn’t sustainable!” Climate change is arguably the most substantial issue of our time. Transcending borders, unbothered by race and religion, the often catastrophic impacts of detrimental anthropogenic activities affect us all. We need no more reminders after this first month of 2025, from the destructive Palisades fires, tearing through 23,700 acres in California during the state’s historically wettest month to the news of Hong Kong breaking 35 temperature records—recording its hottest year since 1884. 2024 marked the “decade of deathly heat;” “once-in-a-generation” storms occur once a year, blizzards reach the southern points of the U.S., and other climate-related disasters destroy food supply chains. A global issue necessitates global solutions. Theoretically, COP provides a forum for some of the brightest diplomats, world leaders, climate negotiators, and activist groups to come together and formulate a way forward, making concessions to mitigate a devolving climate crisis and plan for future problems. The first COP was held in Berlin, Germany in 1995; under a framework of international cooperation, with various required reduction targets for “developed country Parties,” COP stands as the singular format for climate negotiations in the global space. But it’s not enough anymore—if it ever was in the first place. From 11 to 24 November, COP29-goers engaged in a series of lackluster strategy drafts, missing necessary benchmarks for CO2 reductions and commitments to climate finance. A London School of Economics study estimated that 6.5 trillion USD would be needed on average per year by 2030 to meet climate targets in advanced economies, China, and emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) other than China. The G77 bloc—developing countries plus China— demanded 1.3 trillion USD by 2035 from historic emitters such as the United States and European Union countries. Another clear and worrying misstep was a missing follow-up to COP28’s declaration of a determined “ transition away ” from fossil fuels. No concrete decisions were made in Baku, largely in part of Saudi Arabia’s refusal to “accept any text that targets any specific sectors, including fossil fuel.” Was COP29 doomed from the start? Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev told the UN climate conference that oil and gas are a “gift of God.” His father (and the former President of the Republic of Azerbaijan), Heydar Aliyev, phrased the country’s vision for its natural resources years ago: “Oil is the greatest wealth of Azerbaijan and belongs to the people, and not just to the current generation, but also the generations to come.” Azerbaijan was created in the wake of political and economic disarray, following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991; Azeris needed a long-term, national development plan to turn their resources into a means of profit. For Azerbaijan, these resources are oil and natural gas, and Azeri leadership continues to expand these sectors. The fact that the COP presidency was secured by a country confident in expanding its fossil fuel market speaks to just part of the problem. Of course, no Azeri official would admit to a potential conflict of interest. As reported by the BBC, President Aliyev said Azerbaijan had been subject to "slander and blackmail" ahead of COP29. According to Aliyev, a “Western fake news media” campaign had been waged in advance of conference proceedings. But the Baku leadership was tenuous at best. The chairman of the conference, Samir Nuriyev , was also the Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources and a former oil executive for Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas company, Socar. On the first day of the conference, Baku’s leadership did push forward and closed an issue that had previously been at a stalemate: operationalizing carbon markets. Parties could make the (hasty) choice of either accepting or rejecting a framework for country-to-country carbon trading and crediting mechanism—the opening of a carbon market , finalizing the last remaining component of the Paris Agreement, which was drafted a decade ago. Baku’s leadership was not as heavy-handed with mobilizing recovery funds for climate-related disasters. The UN Adaptation Fund, “a two-decade cornerstone of resilience-building against extreme weather and rising seas,” secured just 61 million USD against its 300 million USD annual target. And, as previously stated, the provisions of curbing future fossil fuel production went unaddressed. However, it would be foolish to divert all blame for conference shortcomings to one Party, even if that Party was the esteemed host. Azerbaijan contributes only 0.15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, the U.S., which has added the most CO2 into the atmosphere since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, and is often perceived (and portrays itself as) the “ world’s police ,” is likely to abandon future climate talks (follow-ups to the decisions pushed off at COP29) with the next Trump administration—one of Trump’s first actions this term was to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. China, whose production operations and general fossil fuel-centric activities account for 35% of the world’s carbon emissions, was expected to step-up at this last conference. Another global superpower, attention has shifted to China as the “natural successor” to spearheading climate adaptation and mitigation. Yet China was “ largely silent ” over the course of the two-week conference. There is much to do at COP30, to be held in Belém, Brazil in November this year. Aggressive climate action is required to turn back the already surpassed 1.5-degree Celsius warming limit. Each of the past 10 years (2015–2024) was one of the 10 warmest years on record, and 2024 was the first year to go beyond 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Dancing around the issue, pivoting focus to climate financing and “ambitious” goals for a green energy transition—although both important—cannot erase the fact that the continued burning and reliance on fossil fuels will bring about an infernal end. We can keep coping for now, putting off somewhat painful choices and making difficult concessions. We could wait to see how long nations—that should have learned from environmentally costly development—will avoid leading by a better example, using their resources to aid so-called “developing” countries reach their goals in a greener way. But I’ve never liked when things are done at the last minute. You never know when you just might run out of time to get a job done. Maybe I’ll jot that down in my new notebook. Photo credits: Wikimedia

< Back Democrats’ Worst Fear: Pro-Life Bill Attempts to Kill Roe By Madeline Wyatt October 31, 2021 When Texas’s Senate Bill 8 (SB8) took effect on September 1, known as the “Texas Heartbeat Act” under section one of the law, most people expected it to reach the Supreme Court for violating Roe v. Wade ’s precedent under which women are entitled to privacy when receiving abortions. It was the Democrats’ worst fears come true: Trump’s heirs on the Supreme Court could finally make good on his campaign promise to overturn the nation’s landmark ruling. A few days before the law was set to go into effect, it went to the Supreme Court in an emergency request to block the law until its constitutionality could be determined, but in a surprisingly convoluted and pedantic motion relying extensively upon the law’s more dubious provisions, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, declined to block its passage. Still, the Court did not rule on the law’s constitutionality— something John Roberts’s dissenting opinion made abundantly clear. The most odious provisions in SB8 were crafted with surgical precision meant to circumvent judicial review, which proved particularly ideal for judges who take an especially textualist approach to ignore the blatant unconstitutionality of SB8— this explains why a court imbued with Scalia apostles allowed the Texas law to proceed into effect. The majority opinion held that while the federal court is not endowed with the ability to block a law in question, it is allowed to block the enforcement of the law. SB8 is not technically enforced by state or local officials, rather it is enforced by deputizing all private citizens; in other words, private citizens are responsible for reporting and suing any persons who are thought to have had, given, or aided in abortions— meaning that patients, doctors, nurses, receptionists, and even Uber drivers can be sued under this law if an ordinary citizen believes an abortion took place. If the courts rule in favor of the private reporting citizen, the citizen is entitled to $10,000 by the state, creating a dystopian bounty-hunting system that insulates the Texas government from being held responsible for its law that it created like a game of legislative hot potato. The majority opinion, being the good and noble textualists they are, argued that because it is instead private citizens who are responsible for enforcing the law, the bill could not prohibit Texas from enforcing the law as it would not technically be Texas enforcing it. Such an argument is absurd, however: if the government shares the will of the people— a necessary reflection of its society— then the laws that are created by the government would be representative of the people, meaning the Supreme Court’s choice to enjoin a law by restricting government enforcement would also mean that it restricts its people; so, it does not matter who enforces the law, it’s only a matter that such an onerous law should exist— especially when the net result should be the same. After the Supreme Court declined to enjoin the law, Biden’s Department of Justice sued the State of Texas challenging the constitutionality of the law, arguing in two parts that it both violated Roe v. Wade ’s legal precedent and required proper judicial review of its dubious enforcement mechanisms. On October 6, Western Texas’s District Court enjoined the law as the judge ruled both that the law itself was unconstitutional and the enforcement mechanism was blatantly unconstitutional as it sought to avoid judicial review. No more than two days later, Texas’s appeal to the 5th Circuit Court was successful, reinstating SB8. The DOJ has not yet appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, but is expected to do so within a few weeks. The Supreme Court could choose to decline to hear the constitutionality of the case, but it would be incredibly unlikely as it challenges Roe v Wade as well as the lack of precedent for the enforcement mechanism. SB8 may be the bill to finally kill Roe v. Wade , but its future is far from final. TX SB8 flies under the guise of modern progress for the rights and liberation of the unborn— a frontier of the American left’s immoral and profane agenda. But for the women who will most feel the impacts of this bill, it’s a matter of temporal whiplash as the rugged individualism that the lone star state has promoted since 1836 failed to disclose that only men were given the courtesy of wearing the lone star moniker. Because somehow, nearly 200 years later, the lone star’s liberation is still the woman’s condemnation, leaving us wondering if we ever knew the meaning of progress in the first place.

< Back European E-Waste is Transforming Entire Cities in Africa into Wastelands By Mayra Kost January 31, 2022 With the rise of technological development and our global dependence on electronic devices, European discarded electronic waste, or “e-waste”, is transforming entire cities in Africa into wastelands. In the Agbogbloshie region near the Ghanaian capital, Accra, one of the largest electronic wastelands in the world, is expanding. The area currently holds over 50 million tons of e-waste, with predictions doubling the figure by 2050. Yet, the e-waste is not generated within the region, or even the continent. Instead, it is illegally imported from Europe and the United States to Africa. The wasteland in Agbogbloshie began forming in the 1990s as large shipments from European countries, such as France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands arrived at the port of Accra with immense containers labeled as “secondhand consumer products.” In theory, the content of these containers was meant to be recyclable, expanding the market for reused electronic goods and pushing the Ghanaian economy forward. Yet, in reality, about 75 percent of these allegedly secondhand electronics cannot be further processed and are directly transported to landfills in Agbogbloshie. While the waste is not imported directly from European incinerators, informal collectors in recycling centers or metal scrap dealers send the unusable e-waste either to African or Asian countries simply by changing their official label to “recyclable” or “secondhand” goods. The illicit trade of digital dumping proposes a more profitable option than properly recycling devices that contain toxic chemicals for most European manufacturers. Many among Ghanaian authorities blame the lack of surveillance in the ports, which allows about 150 thousand tons of foreign waste to enter the country annually. As regular inspections would result in a significant slowdown in the movement of multiple massive containers that the port passes daily, imported goods swiftly pass over from international waters into the country. It appears that making a slight bureaucratic change is sufficient to continue the exploitation of the country, as the West has managed to maintain its private wasteland despite multiple conventions, namely by the Basel Action Network, an NGO that combats toxic waste importation to developing countries, and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). In 1989, with the signing of the Basel Convention, the first attempts to control and monitor transboundary movements of waste from Europe to Africa were made. The treaty explicitly forbade developed nations from unauthorized dumping of e-waste in less developed nations, yet the Basel Convention’s scope of power appeared to be minimal, and led to absolutely no significant change in the area. Subsequently, in 2012, a forum meeting took place between the UNEP and the Basel Action Network to discuss the violations of the 1989 Basel Convention, yet, once again, no consequential action was taken. While several meetings dedicated to this matter were organized in past years, they all shared a pattern of acknowledging the problem, but justifying the influx of waste from the West as an opportunity to create green jobs and facilitate economic development in Africa. This idealistic thought behind “green jobs” harshly clashes with the reality of working in Agbogbloshie. Currently, the region holds about 10,000 workers who are engaged in an informal recycling process, scavenging for profitable metals by disassembling electronic devices and burning off plastic encasements on computer sites and refrigerator coils. Such fires release toxic gases into the air, amounting to abnormal levels of air pollution in the area, which puts these workers at serious risk of respiratory problems. Burns, back problems, and infected wounds as well as long-term issues like chronic nausea and lung problems are common ailments among the residents and workers in Agbogbloshie. Moreover, the pollution has a larger effect on the country, as the region is simultaneously one of the largest food markets near Accra. Local farmers are left with no choice other than continuing their production and grazing the livestock freely on the dump site. It is estimated that one egg hatched by a free range chicken in Agbogbloshie exceeds the European food safety authority limits on chlorinated dioxins, which can cause cancer and damage the immune system, by 220 times. According to a report by the Basel Action Network, the site contains some of the most toxic chemicals on earth, putting both local farmers and consumers at an immense health risk. While the Ghanaians suffer as an entire city is taken over by an ever-growing wasteland, the West continues its covert operation, hiding behind excuses such as “Opportunity” “Green Jobs!” and “Economic Development!” No amount of ‘opportunity’ is worth the harm that is being inflicted upon the inhabitants of Agbogloshie, who must grapple with the inhospitable conditions of their home city with every breath of polluted air they take. The situation in Agbogbloshie also reveals a much larger, global problem, centering around the West’s attitude towards African countries. Although colonialism is now considered to be an issue of the past, European nations are able to continue exploiting less developed countries, while the European Union maintains its public principles as “equality” and “promoting peace and stability.” The vast wasteland of Agbogloshie is living proof of this ongoing Western hypocrisy.

The media has created a culture around being “cool” and nonchalant about things: whether it’s birthdays, weddings or loss. Women are disproportionately affected by this because the pre-existing stereotype of women being overly emotional beings coincides with this trope. But how has this affected the way we view celebrations, especially those of our own?  < Back Cool Girls, Birthdays, and Egocentrism Melissa Çevikel March 31, 2025 Birthdays: A reminder that your days in the world are finite, or a celebration of life? However you view birthdays, they come around every year and there isn’t anything anyone can do about them. Whether they remind you of a loved one you miss, create an opportunity to come together with old friends or force you to reflect on what you have and haven’t done in the years that have already passed, birthdays—even if not your own—rarely go unnoticed. And while there are birthdays that tend to be forgotten and celebrated in texts that come too late, certain birthdays never just go by, and you’re constantly reminded of them. After all, there are people who post birthday countdowns on social media, repost every birthday celebration post dedicated to them and ask you for planning advice and to RSVP 6 months in advance. But what is so bad about that? Why would one’s desire to celebrate their existence and presence on earth be bothersome to anyone? The media has created a culture around being “cool” and nonchalant about things: whether it’s birthdays, weddings or loss. Women are disproportionately affected by this because the pre-existing stereotype of women being overly emotional beings coincides with this trope. But how has this affected the way we view celebrations, especially those of our own? Growing up, I always wanted to be cool and mysterious (as did many young girls who grew up in the generation of Bella Swan from Twilight and Jade from Victorious ). Being nonchalant about certain things was portrayed as a defining characteristic of a “cool girl.” The girls in the media who were portrayed as such tended to be straight to the point, brutally honest and even sometimes borderline rude. While for most of the viewers, those weren't the traits that were picked up, striving to be nonchalant and indifferent ended up sticking with many. The counter-stereotype, however, of girls who are emotionally attached to the most insignificant life events and who are very type A, unfortunately turned out to be exactly true for me—and someone I absolutely didn’t want to be. A defining moment for the nonchalant cool girl stereotype was the rediscovery of the “cool girl monologue” from Gone Girl by popular culture. In this monologue, Amy Dunne, the “cool girl” and presumably the villain of the story, says: “ Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl .” While this was arguably said as a critique of the male gaze and the women who try to fit into it, it led to many users on social media proudly sharing their experiences of trying to fit the “Cool Girl trope,” and others then deciding to embrace these characteristics. This revolutionized the idea of a cool and nonchalant female character, which many young women then tried to embody. Though not everyone went to these extremes, the simultaneous rise of outspoken misogyny due to the popularization of, for lack of a better word, figures like Andrew Tate made many women rethink their attitudes towards many things. As a result, many women stopped being openly excited about things, not to seem “cooler” or more “appealing” to men, but simply to spare themselves from the mocking young girls they are often faced with when they express joy and excitement. Turkish author Buket Uzuner coined the term “girl joy” (kız neşesi) in an interview she did with Medyascope Plus. The author stated: “ Girl joy is something that only girls can have. You shouldn’t let anyone—not your son, not your husband, not your father, not your partner, anyone—deprive you of it. Only girls possess this and it is what keeps up the fire, the energy and the light in the world. ” However, girl joy is oftentimes conflicted by the previously mentioned “cool” characters, who are more often than not written by men, portraying the “cool girl” as a much more desirable and toned-down version of women. We can see an example of how this idea of indifferent women manifests itself in how birthday celebrations are and how women who are excited about them are criticized. Celebrations, in general, have traditionally been associated with women. This is partially because of the belief, as suggested by Talcott Parsons, that women’s emotional nature makes them suitable for nurturing and caretaking. While this has created a narrative of a responsible woman who is organized and essentially a living planner responsible for reminding men of their responsibilities, other narratives have simultaneously emerged. 80s pop-hits like Girls Just Want to Have Fun by Cyndi Lauper created the image of what many interpreted as a careless woman who just wanted to party and have fun while ignoring her responsibilities. In reality, the song and the music video depicted women breaking free from the male gaze and living the life they wish to live, while not assuming the responsibilities and roles imposed on them by the men in their lives and the patriarchy. One of those responsibilities, as previously mentioned, has been planning—events in particular. In office parties like in Love Actually or Bridget Jones , weddings in 27 Dresses and Bridesmaids and simply house parties like in Clueless , women planning events have often been portrayed as obsessive and overly emotional. Inevitably, when combined with the trends in misogyny, this has made many women not want to immerse themselves in the world of such stereotypical obsessiveness and remain nonchalant, even if it’s about the celebration of their own being. Birthday parties—especially self-planned ones—tend to have negative connotations attached to them. Whenever a celebrity throws a birthday party, we can see the comment section flooded with people discussing how insensitive the celebration is, considering there are many pressing world issues that need to be addressed. The ostentatious celebration of one’s birth seems quite selfish in the backdrop of these realities, especially if initiated by oneself. But when we think about it, most of the time, only women’s birthdays are treated this way. Male celebrities can be caught in clubs and be interviewed, slipping in and out of consciousness while exploiting the women around them and get a headline that simply reads “X’s Birthday Celebration!” On the other hand, women and girls, whether in the public eye or not, often get criticized for “obsessing over themselves” enough to take the time to organize and throw birthday parties for themselves. Of course, there is a nihilistic view on birthdays that we can’t ignore, and some of us even subscribe to it. Getting older by a year may not be something worth celebrating, and it will come around every year, so there really isn’t much need to go all out on festivities when it does come around. But there’s also the undeniable reality that we aren’t ever promised another birthday in the unpredictability of life, so there isn’t much harm in celebrating one's existence in a world where it’s gradually becoming harder to find things to celebrate. While at first this urge to be indifferent about birthday parties started off as an act, I soon realized that as years passed, I really was getting less and less excited about my birthday coming up and getting to celebrate it with my loved ones. I now admire the people who are seen as egocentric for planning out their birthday parties six months in advance with appreciation and even longing. And while this is a very niche example, we can all think about things that were deemed to be manifestations of egocentrism and narcissism, but in reality were simply things girls and women enjoyed investing their time in. We should be more critical of how we approach and internalize the narratives presented to us by the media and public figures and question how they affect our attitudes towards day-to-day life. Photo source: Lawrence Schiller, 1962 on flickr

A woman choosing to live alone, escape abuse, and build a life for herself should never be seen as a desecration of family honor, and forcing women to live in fear of their husbands and male family members has no place in the “social fabric” of any nation. < Back Mourning Tiba Ali: A Reflection on Iraqi Honor Killings By Peyton Dashiell February 28, 2023 On Jan. 31, Tiba Ali, a 22-year-old Iraqi woman, was strangled to death by her father in Iraq’s southern Diwaniya province after a reported domestic dispute. In the days preceding her murder, Iraqi police reportedly attempted to mediate an argument between Ali and her father regarding her living arrangements. After being sexually assaulted by her brother in 2017, Ali moved to Turkey and wished to stay there permanently. She attended university, was engaged to a Syrian man, and gained over 20,000 followers documenting her day-to-day life on Youtube. Sadly, Ali’s killing is not an isolated incident; honor killings are prevalent in Iraq, and they are best documented in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Hospitals in Iraqi Kurdistan report over 500 honor killings each year, but true numbers are likely much higher — many deaths claimed as suicides are believed to be honor killings concealed by responsible parties. Ali’s murder immediately sparked condemnation and protests from Iraqi women’s rights activists and feminist groups, who highlighted increasing violence against women in Iraq and underscored the need for better legislative protections. On Feb. 5, 2023, hundreds of women mobilized before the Supreme Judicial Council in Baghdad to decry Ali’s murder and advocate for stricter laws against gender-based violence. Politician Ala Talabani, head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Bloc in the Iraqi Parliament, stated that “women in our societies are hostage to backward customs due to the absence of legal deterrents and government measures — which currently are not commensurate with the size of domestic violence crimes.” Amnesty International joined a long list of human rights non-governmental organizations condemning the murder. Aya Majzoub, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa division, echoed Talabani’s sentiment: “Until the Iraqi authorities adopt robust legislation to protect women and girls… we will inevitably continue to witness horrific murders.” The United Nations in Iraq called on the government to improve gender-based violence protections in accordance with international human rights standards and enhance aid services for survivors. The international community was previously drawn to the topic of honor killings in Iraq after Dua Khalil Aswad was killed in Mosul in 2007. Aswad, a non-Muslim Yazidi woman from the village of Bahzan, was stoned to death in front of over 2000 men for the purported “honor crime” of being in a relationship with a Muslim man. Four men, including Aswad’s cousin, were arrested and charged with her murder, but this is outside of the norm — Iraqi law is usually lenient toward domestic crimes and alleged honor killings. Article 409 of the Iraqi Penal Code specifically mitigates punishments for murders of female family members suspected of honor crimes. Article 41 allows husbands to physically “discipline” their wives and face no penalty. Draft legislation outlawing domestic violence was proposed in the Iraqi Parliament in 2014 but stalled after the opposition accused it of aiming to erode Iraq’s “social fabric.” Human Rights Watch defines honor killings as “acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family.” Today, honor killings are most common in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, but they have been strongly influenced by the legacy of European colonialism. Article 324 of the French Penal Code of 1810 reduced punishment for murders in which a husband killed his wife after suspected adultery. This law inspired similar provisions in countries with French colonial influence, including Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia. While it is crucial that the Iraqi government removes this harmful provision and enshrines protection from gender-based violence into law, more work must be done to address the underlying issues. A woman choosing to live alone, escape abuse and build a life for herself should never be seen as a desecration of family honor and forcing women to live in fear of their husbands and male family members has no place in the “social fabric” of any nation.