Search Results

What was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to travel across the globe and encounter a culture and civilization parallel to their own quickly became 38 days in prison, thousands of kilometers away from their home country. < Back The Illegitimate Detention of Two Brazilians in Germany and the Current Approach to Security in Airports By Catarina Vita for Sciences Defense January 31, 2024 What was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to travel across the globe and encounter a culture and civilization parallel to their own quickly became 38 days in prison, thousands of kilometers away from their home country. Jeanne Paolini and Katyna Baia, both in their forties and married for twelve years, were flying from Goiania, Brazil to Frankfurt, Germany, to celebrate Paolini’s veterinary residency in one of the best universities in Brazil, the University of Brasilia. Upon arriving in Frankfurt, the two women were detained in the airport’s prison, accused of carrying forty kilos of cocaine in their baggage. The cocaine, however, was proven not to be theirs. One day later, they found themselves outside the airport, but in the city’s prison for women. It was found that the name tags in their baggage were displaced to luggage filled with drugs, by the Brazilian airport staff. Their case was a gateway to a massive scheme of drug trafficking from Brazil’s biggest airports to European metropoles. The Case The couple flew from the capital of their Brazilian state, Goiania, to Frankfurt, for a connecting flight to Berlin, but their bags were intercepted in one of Brazil’s biggest airports, the Guarulhos Airport in São Paulo. The couple would only revindicate their luggage in Berlin, their final destination. Upon disembarking from their flight to Frankfurt, they were detained and imprisoned on March 5, 2023. They stayed in custody for 38 days. The couple alleged mistreatment by the German police, and were denied access to the winter garments in their hand luggage despite -3 degree temperatures in Frankfurt. Preceding the interception of Paolini and Baia’s luggage, two employees at the Guarulhos Airport were caught on security footage examining each of the women’s suitcases and removing them from the rest of the luggage reaching Frankfurt. In sequence, two women with cocaine-filled luggage encountered the employees and helped with placing the couple’s name tags in the new drug-filled suitcases. Paolini and Baia’s luggage was still sent to Berlin, but without their name tags. It is important to note that airlines, not airports, are responsible for employees handling baggage. As the Brazilian Federal Police (PF) became aware of the case, allied to the Brazilian Public Ministry (MP), they compiled a total of 200 hours of security footage which enabled these bodies to identify the ones responsible for displacing the name tags. The couple’s lawyer highlighted that the trip was booked months before their departure date, and both women had health insurance, showing that they did not have a profile of a drug mule. These people, who have the role of smuggling drugs often through high security scenarios (especially in between international borders), are often not provided with health insurance or plane tickets bought in advance, since they will only be in the country of destination for a short amount of time and only to deliver drugs. On April 5, 2023, the women were heard in German court in face of the evidence provided by Brazilian authorities. They were found to be innocent, but the German authorities requested evidence incriminating the airport staff for having exchanged Paolini and Baia’s suitcases, as the Brazilian government alleged. When this was presented around eight days later, Paolini and Baia were released. The Operation Collateral Effect Paolini and Baia’s case introduced the Operation Collateral Effect by the Brazilian police. As stated previously, Paolini and Baia’s luggage were apprehended by employees at the Guarulhos Airport. The Brazilian Police Force noticed that similar cases occurred in 2022 and 2023 in the same airport to Portugal and France, respectively. The Operation culminated in “14 mandates of temporary prison, two mandates of preventive detention and 27 mandates for search and apprehension,” according to G1 Brazil . The Brazilian police commenced their operation by questioning the airport employees involved in Paolini and Baia’s case. Out of the six questioned, five of them denied their involvement in the crime and one of them confessed. All six of them were arrested with supporting evidence. The Brazilian Police Force was able to trace the cases of drugs being smuggled to Portugal and France to the same group of employees, but also identified other cases of cocaine smuggling also from the airport of Guarulhos with the same modus operandi as the smuggling to Germany, nonetheless without evidence that the group had responsibility. Upon increased investigation on how the group thought and acted to smuggle drugs from Brazil to Europe, the police authorities discovered that they divided themselves into working at the airport, to observe in whose name they would send drugs to. Another subgroup simulated a check-in, but in the domestic flight part of the airport, with the actual drug-filled suitcase, but the other members of the group that worked at the airport made sure the luggage did not pass the metal detector. Continuing, the drug luggage was smuggled into the international section and then the name tag displacement process initiated. What This Means for International Security Katyna Baia and Jeanne Paolini’s illegitimate detention showed Brazilian and international defense authorities the extent to which the drug trafficking business has adopted in the present, and how this can come at the expense of innocent tourists’ rights. It also showcased how the drug business is everywhere, even hidden inside airport staff. What was perceived to be one of the most secure places in Brazil, the country’s biggest airport in the largest city in Latin America, was responsible for at least three massive 20 kilogram smuggling operations of illicit drugs. Airport authorities are shown to be keen on security checks on passengers and even in migration control, but this case shows that there is corruption from within the system as well. While being interviewed by G1 Brazil , Brazilian PM Officer Felié Faé Lavareda said (contextualized translation from Portuguese): “The link in the Guarulhos Airport to Europe (in drug trafficking) was dismantled today.” In fact, the Guarulhos Airport implemented a few measures to attempt to keep the security in the restricted areas of the airport, in which the criminal group displaced name tags and smuggled drugs, such as prohibiting cell phone usage. Nonetheless, nothing indicates strict background checks on airport employees, or a further investigation on the drug smuggling cases the PF could not trace back to the criminal group. The Guarulhos Airport communicated to CNN Brazil that the airlines, not the airports, are responsible for luggage-dealing employees and are thus supposed to be held accountable for anything relating to luggage. However, especially when it concerns tourists from your own country leaving for Europe, a shared effort between airport authorities, airlines, and even government authorities is fitting — particularly because the criminal group acted under surveillance cameras and nothing was noticed. In light of this illegitimate detention and according to CNN Brazil, Brazilian authorities aim to implement a new regulation: photographing the dispatched bags with the passenger’s respective names. The efforts from the Brazilian authorities and police to investigate Katyna Baia and Jeanne Paolini’s case is a result of disciplined work ethic and intricate scrutiny in the gathered evidence. However, taking pictures of suitcases and the passenger it belongs to barely scratches the surface of the problem. Baia and Paolini’s case surrounds the lack of surveillance in airports and the omnipresence of drug smuggling in Brazil – their experience exemplifies that further scrutiny and security measures in airports must be implemented in conjunction with airlines and national authorities.

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.

Dans un communiqué de presse du 17 janvier 2025, Amnesty International appelle la communauté internationale à suivre de près ce procès, pour garantir le droit de Ruben Vardanyan à un procès équitable et à une bonne administration de la justice. Reste à voir si la communauté internationale va répondre à cet appel. < Back Le traitement des prisonniers après la guerre dans le Haut-Karabagh (2023) Maxime Gallant for Amnesty Sciences Po Menton February 28, 2025 Le 18 janvier 2024 s'est ouvert en Azerbaïdjan le procès des huit anciens dirigeants arméniens du Haut-Karabagh. Ils ont été capturés en septembre 2023, après l’offensive éclair de l’Azerbaïdjan qui a conduit à la dissolution de la République autoproclamée du Haut-Karabagh. Faisons d’abord un petit résumé historique. Pour comprendre le conflit qui a éclaté en 2023, il faut remonter plus de cent ans en arrière. A cette époque, plus précisément en 1920, la région du Haut-Karabagh, disputée entre l’Arménie et l’Azerbaïdjan, est annexée par l’URSS, tout comme les deux pays, qui deviennent des républiques socialistes soviétiques. Le Comité central du parti bolchévik, sous la direction de Joseph Staline, décide en 1921 de rattacher la région du Haut-Karabagh à la RSS d’Azerbaïdjan, tout en lui octroyant une large autonomie régionale. Cet oblast autonome du Haut-Karabagh est alors peuplé par 94% d’arméniens. La situation reste gelée jusqu’à la fin des années 1980. En 1988, avec la montée des nationalismes en URSS, les députés du Haut-Karabagh s’autoproclament République socialiste soviétique à part entière. Des violences éclatent alors en Arménie comme en Azerbaïdjan, se transformant bientôt en un conflit armé entre les deux républiques. La guerre connaît une nouvelle ampleur avec l’indépendance des anciennes république soviétiques à l’été 1991 et la proclamation d’indépendance de la République d’Artsakh, lenom arménien du Haut-Karabagh, le 2 septembre 1991, non reconnue par la communauté internationale. En 1993, le conflit a causé plus de 30 000 morts, avec des centaines de milliers de réfugiés de chaque côté. Après six ans de conflit, un cessez-le-feu est signé entre l’Arménie, l’Azerbaïdjan et la République d’Artsakh, qui contrôle alors l’ancien oblast autonome du Haut-Karabagh, mais aussi les sept districts azerbaïdjanais entourant l’enclave. Après le cessez-le-feu, 800 000 azéris sont chassés du Haut-Karabagh, et 400 000 arméniens expulsés d’Azerbaïdjan. Des violations du cessez-le-feu ont fréquemment lieu à la frontière, mais elles n’escaladent jamais en conflit majeur jusqu’en 2020. Le 27 septembre 2020, une nouvelle guerre éclate, durant laquelle l’Azerbaïdjan prend le contrôle de tous les territoires occupés et d’un tiers du Haut-Karabagh. Un cessez-le-feu est signé le 10 novembre 2020 entre l’Azerbaïdjan, l’Arménie et la Russie qui se place en médiateur du conflit, après 44 jours de combats et plus de 6 500 morts selon les autorités. En décembre 2022, les autorités azerbaïdjanaises procèdent à un blocus du corridor de Latchine, seule route reliant l’Arménie et le territoire de la République d’Artsakh, empêchant toute nourriture, carburant et aide humanitaire de la Croix-Rouge d’arriver au Haut-Karabakh, isolant les 120 000 habitants de la région. Ce blocus dure jusqu’au 19 septembre 2023, quand l’Azerbaïdjan lance une offensive éclair sur le Haut-Karabagh. Les forces de l’Artsakh capitulent au bout de 24h, entraînant la dissolution de la République et le rattachement de la région à l’Azerbaïdjan. Cet événement déclenche un exode massif de plus de 100 000 réfugiés arméniens du Haut-Karabagh vers l’Arménie, soit la quasi-totalité de la population de la région. Selon un rapport des Nations Unies publié le 2 octobres 2023, il y resterait entre 50 et 1000 arméniens ethniques. Pendant les guerres du Haut-Karabagh, de nombreux crimes de guerres, dénoncés par Amnesty International, ont été commis par l’Arménie comme par l’Azerbaïdjan, avec l’utilisation d’armes à sous-munitions, le bombardement de zones civiles, des exécutions extrajudiciaires ou encore le traitement inhumain des prisonniers de guerre. C’est sur cette question du traitement des prisonniers que nous allons nous pencher aujourd’hui. Dans un rapport de 131 pages intitulé « Why are there no Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh? », l’ONG Freedom House accuse les forces azerbaïdjanaises d’avoir procédé à des détentions arbitraires accompagnées de déni des droits fondamentaux comme la protection contre la torture ou le droit à un procès équitable. En avril 2024, l’Azerbaïdjan installe un point de contrôle au pont Hakari, en déclarant qu’il servirait à arrêter environ 400 arméniens recherchés. Mais la liste n’a pas été rendue publique, ce qui a contribué à l’instauration d’un environnement de peur, forçant les arméniens du Haut-Karabagh à fuir le territoire. Le rapport détaille plusieurs cas d’arméniens du Haut-Karabagh arrêté puis emprisonnés ou expulsés du territoire azerbaïdjanais après avoir été condamnés pour génocide, déportation ou déplacement forcé de populations, torture (pendant les évènements de la première guerre du Haut-Karabagh entre 1988 et 1994), ou encore pour violation du drapeau national ou de l’emblème d’Etat de la République d’Azerbaïdjan. Le rapport met également en avant les détentions de civils, déplacés de force hors de leur communauté, ayant tous été victimes ou témoins de violences physiques et/ou morales. Selon différents témoignages de détenus arméniens, les forces azerbaïdjanaises ont procédé à des actes de bastonnades et d’humiliations des détenus civils, arrêtés de manière arbitraire, violant le Droit international relatif aux Droit de l’Homme. L’ONG Freedom House s’inquiète aussi de possibles cas de disparition forcée. En effet, plus de 35 résidents arméniens du Haut-Karabagh étaient toujours portés disparus en mai 2024. Des témoignages indiquent que certains des disparus auraient pu être capturés par l’armée azerbaïdjanaise, mais les autorités affirment qu’ils ne les ont pas en garde à vue. Des recherches pour retrouver les disparus ont pu être menées, mais les forces armées de l’Azerbaïdjan ont interdit l’accès à certaines zones. Ce manque de transparence inquiète les familles des disparus, notamment à cause de la mort de certains détenus arméniens après la guerre de 2021 dans des circonstances similaires. Dans un rapport du Comité contre la torture des Nations Unies sur l’Azerbaïdjan publié le 5 juin 2024, le comité se dit « profondément préoccupé par […] des violations graves du droit international humanitaire […] commises par les forces militaires azerbaïdjanaises contre des prisonniers de guerre et d’autres personnes protégées d’origine ethnique ou nationale arménienne, notamment des exécutions extrajudiciaires, des actes de torture et d’autres mauvais traitements, ainsi que par l’enregistrement et la diffusion de vidéos montrant des actes horribles tels que des décapitations et la profanation et la mutilation de cadavres. » Il se déclare également « profondément préoccupé par les opérations dites antiterroristes menées par l’État partie, et notamment par le maintien en détention de 23 personnes que l’État partie accuse d’actes de terrorisme et d’infractions apparentées. » Le Comité pour la prévention de la torture du Conseil de l’Europe a lui dénoncé dans une déclaration datant du 3 juillet 2024 le refus inexpliqué des autorités azerbaïdjanaises de coopérer avec lui, d’avoir des entretiens avec les détenus et d’appliquer les recommandations de longue date du Comité, ce qu’il considère comme une violation fondamentale de la Convention européenne pour la prévention de la torture. Parmi les prisonniers arméniens détenus aujourd’hui en Azerbaïdjan se trouvent huit anciens dirigeants de l’enclave séparatiste. Capturés en septembre 2023, le procès de seize prisonniers arméniens, dont les huit anciens dirigeants de la République autoproclamée d’Artsakh, s’est ouvert ce vendredi 17 janvier à Bakou, capitale de l’Azerbaïdjan. Accusés notamment pour « terrorisme, » « séparatisme » et « crimes de guerre, » leur procès se déroule sans observateurs internationaux ni étrangers. Un des accusés, Ruben Vardanyan, banquier d’affaires milliardaire et ministre d’Etat en Artsakh de novembre 2022 à février 2023, a déclaré dans une lettre ouverte qui lui est attribuée avoir été victime de mauvais traitements en détention, et de la violation de son droit à un procès équitable. D’après cette lettre, il aurait passé plus de la moitié de sa détention en isolement, et n’aurait eu à disposition qu’un temps très court pour se familiariser avec ses avocats aux 422 pages du dossier pénal en azerbaïdjanais, une langue qu’il ne maîtrise pas. Son avocat, Jared Genser, à lui déclaré avoir constaté des « violations graves aux garanties d’un procès équitable. » Il n’a pu accéder au dossier de son client qu’une semaine avant le début du procès, dossier écrit en azerbaïdjanais et en russe, langues que l’avocat américain ne maîtrise pas non plus. Dans un communiqué de presse du 17 janvier 2025, Amnesty International appelle la communauté internationale à suivre de près ce procès, pour garantir le droit de Ruben Vardanyan à un procès équitable et à une bonne administration de la justice. Reste à voir si la communauté internationale va répondre à cet appel. Photo credits: Adam Jones on Wikimedia Commons

A whirlwind of whimsical musical comedy and delectable love triangles (quadrangles?), with a splash of poignant moments, “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is a god amongst television productions, an exceptional set of four seasons that supersedes the comparatively mundane Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu material.  < Back Crazy in Love? My (Unrequited) Romance with Rachel Bloom’s Comedy By Maia Zasler April 30, 2024 Have you ever been utterly desperate for a new show to watch? Have you ever yearned for a series that’s just long enough to hold your attention while you let the episodes run in the background of your daily life? After completing “Gossip Girl,” “Gilmore Girls,” “Big Mouth,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” “Human Resources,” “Community,” “Inside Job,” “Young Sheldon,” “The Office,” “Outlander,” “The Great,” “The Great British Baking Show,” “Bridgerton,” etc. (yes, I watch a lot of TV), I thought I exhausted my arsenal of quality shows. It’s only then that, by a stroke of pure destiny, I discovered the gem that is “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” A whirlwind of whimsical musical comedy and delectable love triangles (quadrangles?), with a splash of poignant moments, “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is a god amongst television productions, an exceptional set of four seasons that supersedes the comparatively mundane Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu material. Rachel Bloom stars as Rebecca Bunch, a quirky, high-strung New York lawyer who quits her job at a fancy firm in favor of moving out to West Covina, California. She makes this impulsive decision immediately after a brief run-in with her summer camp boyfriend from a decade prior, Josh Chan (but Josh just happens to live there!). Bunch is cunning and smart; the first season follows her and her bestie/enabler, Paula, as they hatch plots to wiggle into Josh’s life. Bunch will stop at nothing… unless her great love is actually with another guy, Greg, a bartender at the local sports joint with a smidge of an alcohol consumption problem. Or maybe it's with Nathaniel, the new, jaded boss at her firm in West Covina. To be determined. In each progressive episode, Bunch becomes a bit more deranged. At first, her “unraveling” is endearing; she’s just a tad overzealous, love’s #1 fan…but the audience learns that this passion, the immediateness that washes over her at seemingly random times, is part of a more pressing, pertinent mental health problem. Her struggles and missteps— occasionally crossing the line into illegal territory—are depicted realistically and respectfully. In any instance of intense love where one craves the attention and validation of another and is willing to drop everything for that person, there are often underlying issues e.g., anxiety and/or depression. The audience slowly uncovers more about Bunch’s past and how her behavior toward Josh Chan was not a one-off; she was hurt and traumatized by a previous relationship with a much older male professor during her time at undergrad. Bunch needs affirmation, someone, anyone, to tell her that she's “ okay .” She constantly pushes the limits to what the audience considers “crazy.” It’s what allows the show to masterfully balance cheekiness and an amusing self-awareness with a seriousness that accompanies a storyline of a woman who’s “falling off the side of a mountain and sort of grabbing at roots and trees and brambles,” plummeting (Bloom 2017). But Bunch is able to get the help she needs. She even gets “ a diagnosis ”! Throughout its final season, “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” contributes to the de-stigmatization dialogue that surrounds addressing mental health problems because “ anti-depressants are so not a big deal .” Bunch views her life as a musical. She makes sense of her thoughts, her feelings, and her relationships with others through melodies and performance. Her internal monologue is always on display, and so when she grows, the audience grows with her. While watching, I found myself rejoicing in her triumphs and mourning her losses. I cheered her on when she supported her friends and when she gathered the courage to follow her true calling. Perhaps most frequently, I laughed and cringed at the handful of exaggerated characters and clever, wacky songs. I can’t help but feel a sentimental compulsion to the show; maybe because I see myself in Bloom’s character, or maybe because I think that we can all relate to Rebecca Bunch; Bunch reacts to life’s trials and tribulations in an uninhibited way, reactions stripped of regulated temperament. Her intensity, palpable through a television screen, is a product of feeling intensely. We all face similar fears, anticipating rejection or feeling the sting of criticism, lacking validation. We stifle ourselves, denying ourselves the opportunity for change before we’re even told “no.” We place our happiness at some undefined point in the future, almost always with asterisks; if we’re able to complete this deadline, get a date with this person, and fit into those pants, then “ we’ll never have problems again .” Bunch and her path towards getting better is a testament to a journey we all, in some way or another, are on. On a different note, any musical or show-tune lover will be thrilled with the variety of themes and genres incorporated into “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend”’s incredible score. Some of my favorites included “Let’s Generalize About Men” (a colorful, catchy 80s inspired bop), “Remember That We Suffered” (a dizzying, addicting song set at a quintessential New York bar mitzvah celebration), “Santa Ana Winds pt. 1-5” (I can’t describe… you just have to watch), and “The Sexy Getting Ready Song” (a potential feminist commentary?). Despite receiving two Emmys (and my glowing endorsement), “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” maintained relatively low ratings throughout its run between 2015 and 2019. But it seems to be having a revival now on Netflix. And a revival is what it deserves, if not to have been lauded during its initial release. To watch “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” is to watch a labor of love. Bloom, as a lead writer and creator of the show—alongside the late Adam Schlesinger—puts so much of herself into each episode’s immersive dialogue, catchy theme songs, and bonus tunes. Giving audiences Rebecca Bunch simultaneously gives them something for which to strive: authenticity and, as corny as it may sound, self-love. Connecting with ourselves and that which makes us truly happy, rejecting (as difficult as it may be) that which we think should please ourselves or others, is the best service we can give ourselves. That and binge-watching “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.”

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.”

Music has a strange sort of power; it can outlive the moments it was originally made for. You’ll Never Walk Alone has transcended Liverpool. Celtic fans sing it in Scotland, as well as Dortmund fans in Germany. It’s been sung in times of crisis—after terrorist attacks, during the pandemic and other acts of remembrance. But it will forever belong to Hillsborough first. It is sacred in the way a national anthem can become sacred, or a funeral hymn. You’ll Never Walk Alone began as a ballad of hope and then a cry for justice.  < Back Singing through Grief – Collective Memory through Music Rebecca Canton April 30, 2025 “Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart / And you’ll never walk alone.” Such words, sung by thousands in harmony at Anfield, the home of Liverpool Football Club, and beyond, are more than just lyrics—they are a cultural memory, a form of resistance and a promise of togetherness. Football, especially concerning fans, can be described as tribal—rooted in geography, loyalty and collective passion. Alongside this, it is also inherently musical. From the cacophony of chants of a favorite player on the stands to the quiet suspense before a penalty, football culture is a sonic landscape. These sounds create a unified identity, binding thousands of strangers into one voice. In this way, football matches resemble a form of ritual: they are repetitive, emotionally charged and have deep symbols. When tragedy strikes, it is often such rituals that remain. Nowhere can these concepts be felt more than in the context of the Hillsborough disaster of 1989, a tragedy that undoubtedly changed football but also transformed grief into music and then identity. In the wake of loss, one of the world’s greatest football anthems— You’ll Never Walk Alone— became something altogether more potent. As a Liverpool fan, Hillsborough, or the Hillsborough Disaster of Apr. 15, 1989, is the darkest day in our club’s history. Forget the infamous Steven Gerrard ‘slip’ of 2014, or the 2022 Champions League Final, Hillsborough overshadows even the most notorious incidents. Four years after the Heysel Stadium disaster, where 39 fans died in a collapse following clashes between Liverpool and Juventus supporters, another tragedy struck. On Apr. 15, 1989, 97 people died in a crowd crush at Hillsborough Stadium during an FA Cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest—94 on the day, with the death toll later rising to 97 by 2021 due to related complications. These people died because of a lack of stadium control. 97 died because of police errors, not because of the fans. Yet what followed the disaster was not just heartbreak, but injustice. In the days following, fans and victims were smeared by the press. The infamous The Sun article — ‘ the Scum ’ or ‘he S*n’ if you’re from Merseyside—‘ The Truth’ accused the dead of looting, drunkenness and even urinating on police officers. Such allegations were not just lies, but acts of systemic violence, designed to discredit the grieving and shift the blame away from the authorities, who let down the very people they were meant to protect. Despite such a tragedy, Liverpool didn’t stay silent. Instead, it sang. You’ll Never Walk Alone didn’t originate from Hillsborough—it’s actually from a show tune from the 1945 musical Carousel by Rodgers and Hammerstein. It was later covered by the Liverpool band Gerry and the Pacemakers in the 1960s. Before Hillsborough, it had already been adopted by Liverpool fans, yet in the wake of such a profound loss, it became something else—an anthem not just of loyalty, but of mourning. Of protest, and of survival. Singing You’ll Never Walk Alone for Liverpool fans became much more than tradition. It became an act of resistance. In a society that refused to believe they were wronged, Liverpool fans created a sound that couldn’t be ignored. Singing became a way to grieve together, but also a refusal to forget the injustices imposed upon them. There’s a sort of rhythm to football, both on and off the pitch. Whether through home and away fixtures, the same 36 matches each year, or the Saturday rituals. The same pubs, scarves, the same voices raised in unison. Football is, in many ways, religious. Stadiums become cathedrals. Chants become prayers. And at Anfield, the home of Liverpool, You’ll Never Walk Alone transformed into something more than a hymn—it became sacred. It’s undeniable that when you bring 50,000 voices together, it’s euphoric, but what gives the song its power isn’t just its melody, but the words . “When you walk through a storm, hold your head up high…” In the aftermath of Hillsborough, these lyrics no longer were a metaphor, but an instruction and reminder to walk on, even through grief. The storm was the disrespect, the interviews, even by famous figures like Wayne Rooney, blaming Liverpool fans for the deaths of their own. Likewise, “though your dreams be tossed and blown” such words speak to what was lost—the lives, the futures, the hopes and dreams of the 97. “Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart” is a rousing call for togetherness and thousands promise that “you’ll never walk alone.” There’s a phrase often heard in Liverpool: Scouse, not English. To outsiders, it perhaps sounds exaggerated, or even cheeky. Yet it's more than regional pride—it’s defiance, a declaration of cultural independence. As someone who isn’t Scouse, I don’t think I’ll ever fully understand what it truly means to be Scouse— that is with a capital S. The phrase captures it better than anything else could: Scouse, not English. It reflects a deep-rooted identity in politics, pride and pain. Liverpool, as a city and as an identity, has long stood apart from the rest of England. With its Irish heritage and history as a working-class port city, alongside its long-term loyalty to the Labour party, the city has often been distant from Westminster, especially under Margaret Thatcher. During the 1980s, under Thatcher’s Conservative government, Liverpool was treated not only with neglect but also hostility. Deindustrialisation ravaged the city, reducing jobs and futures. Later disclosed cabinet documents showed government ministers even considered a policy of “managed decline”—effectively letting the city fall apart rather than supporting it. Any sort of neglect Liverpool suffered was not accidental, but a deliberate attempt to reduce Merseyside’s livelihood. In the face of this decline, rising unemployment, social unrest and the 1981 Toxteth riots, Thatcher’s response only increased policing and blame. Liverpool, already proud and politically stimulated, became vilified in the press as angry, dangerous and self-pitying. To be Scouse was to be othered—culturally, economically and politically. Thus, when Hillsborough occurred, and the government chose to ignore the victims, it wasn’t a shock but a confirmation. When Thatcher visited, she sided with the South Yorkshire police. When The Sun printed lies, the state stayed silent. Normally, in tragedy, people would be allowed to mourn their dead, yet Scousers were forced to defend their character instead. As such, Hillsborough is more than a tragedy for Liverpool. Instead, it's a culmination of years of being ignored and misunderstood. It’s why the song You’ll Never Walk Alone cannot be reduced to just a song of grief. It’s an anthem, a refusal to be erased, a declaration that Scousers will not be ignored. It took 23 years for an official apology. In 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel released a report confirming what had always been known. The police were to blame, the victims were innocent. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, issued a formal apology in Parliament. Yet apologies mean nothing and Liverpool does not forget, with the S*n being banned in all of Merseyside. This does not take back the suffering inflicted, and justice is never simple. Trials have dragged on with little to no resolution, and no senior police officers have been convicted. Despite this lack of accountability, Liverpool has stayed strong, and You’ll Never Walk Alone has continued to be sung. Every year on the anniversary, Anfield falls silent—and then erupts in one voice. The wails of this legendary song sound louder than ever, a reminder that justice does not end with headlines, but only when the truth is known. When the dead are honored as people and not just as statistics. Music has a strange sort of power; it can outlive the moments it was originally made for. You’ll Never Walk Alone has transcended Liverpool. Celtic fans sing it in Scotland, as well as Dortmund fans in Germany. It’s been sung in times of crisis—after terrorist attacks, during the pandemic and other acts of remembrance. But it will forever belong to Hillsborough first. It is sacred in the way a national anthem can become sacred, or a funeral hymn. To put it simply, it is more than music. It is a memory that cannot be erased, a resistance that cannot be silenced or reduced. You’ll Never Walk Alone began as a ballad of hope and then a cry for justice. It reminds us that grief can be public, that mourning can be political, and that justice can be demanded outside the courts. Yet above all, it shows that when people come together, they can never truly be alone. The importance of remembrance is clear. For the victims of the Heysel and the Hillsborough stadium disasters, we should not and will not forget. Victims of the Heysel Stadium Disaster, Mar. 29 1985 Rocco Acerra, 29 Bruno Balli, 50 Alfons Bos, 35 Giancarlo Bruschera, 21 Andrea Casula, 11 Giovanni Casula, 44 Nino Cerullo, 24 Willy Chielens, 41 Giuseppina Conti, 17 Dirk Daeninckx, 38 Dionisio Fabbro, 51 Jacques François, 45 Eugenio Gagliano, 35 Francesco Galli, 24 Giancarlo Gonnelli, 20 Alberto Guarini, 21 Giovacchino Landini, 50 Roberto Lorentini, 31 Barbara Lusci, 58 Franco Martelli, 22 Loris Messore, 28 Gianni Mastroiaco, 20 Sergio Bastino Mazzino, 38 Luciano Rocco Papaluca, 38 Luigi Pidone, 31 Benito Pistolato, 50 Patrick Radcliffe, 38 Domenico Ragazzi, 44 Antonio Ragnanese, 49 Claude Robert, 27 Mario Ronchi, 43 Domenico Russo, 28 Tarcisio Salvi, 49 Gianfranco Sarto, 47 Amedeo Giuseppe Spolarore, 55 Mario Spanu, 41 Tarcisio Venturin, 23 Jean Michel Walla, 32 Claudio Zavaroni, 28 Victims of the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, Apr. 15 1989 https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2024/apr/15/hillsborough-disaster-the-97-people-whose-lives-were-cut-short Jon-Paul Gilhooley, 10 Philip Hammond, 14 Thomas Anthony Howard, 14 Paul Brian Murray, 14 Lee Nicol, 14 Adam Edward Spearritt, 14 Peter Andrew Harrison, 15 Victoria Jane Hicks, 15 Philip John Steele, 15 Kevin Tyrrell, 15 Kevin Daniel Williams, 15 Kester Roger Marcus Ball, 16 Nicholas Michael Hewitt, 16 Martin Kevin Traynor, 16 Simon Bell, 17 Carl Darren Hewitt, 17 Kevin McGrath, 17 Stephen Francis O’Neill, 17 Steven Joseph Robinson, 17 Henry Charles Rogers, 17 Stuart Paul William Thompson, 17 Graham John Wright, 17 James Gary Aspinall, 18 Carl Brown, 18 Paul Clark, 18 Christopher Barry Devonside, 18 Gary Philip Jones, 18 Carl David Lewis, 18 John McBrien, 18 Jonathon Owens, 18 Colin Mark Ashcroft, 19 Paul William Carlile, 19 Gary Christopher Church, 19 James Philip Delaney, 19 Sarah Louise Hicks, 19 David William Mather, 19 Colin Wafer, 19 Ian David Whelan, 19 Stephen Paul Copoc, 20 Ian Thomas Glover, 20 Gordon Rodney Horn, 20 Paul David Brady, 21 Thomas Steven Fox, 21 Marian Hazel McCabe, 21 Joseph Daniel McCarthy, 21 Peter McDonnell, 21 Carl William Rimmer, 21 Peter Francis Tootle, 21 David John Benson, 22 David William Birtle, 22 Tony Bland, 22 Gary Collins, 22 Tracey Elizabeth Cox, 23 William Roy Pemberton, 23 Colin Andrew Hugh William Sefton, 23 David Leonard Thomas, 23 Peter Andrew Burkett, 24 Derrick George Godwin, 24 Graham John Roberts, 24 David Steven Brown, 25 Richard Jones, 25 Barry Sidney Bennett, 26 Andrew Mark Brookes, 26 Paul Anthony Hewitson, 26 Paula Ann Smith, 26 Christopher James Traynor, 26 Barry Glover, 27 Gary Harrison, 27 Christine Anne Jones, 27 Nicholas Peter Joynes, 27 Francis Joseph McAllister, 27 Alan McGlone, 28 Joseph Clark, 29 Christopher Edwards, 29 James Robert Hennessy, 29 Alan Johnston, 29 Anthony Peter Kelly, 29 Martin Kenneth Wild, 29 Peter Reuben Thompson, 30 Stephen Francis Harrison, 31 Eric Hankin, 33 Vincent Michael Fitzsimmons, 34 Roy Harry Hamilton, 34 Patrick John Thompson, 35 Michael David Kelly, 38 Brian Christopher Mathews, 38 David George Rimmer, 38 Inger Shah, 38 David Hawley, 39 Thomas Howard, 39 Arthur Horrocks, 41 Eric George Hughes, 42 Henry Thomas Burke, 47 Raymond Thomas Chapman, 50 John Alfred Anderson, 62 Gerard Bernard Patrick Baron, 67 Keith McGrath, 17 Photo source: Mark Lowen on Wikimedia

“Excuse me mate, were you there?” retorted the venerable director Ridley Scott after fielding a barrage of questions relating to the historical accuracy of Napoleon, a uniquely average film in an industry where only the extremely brilliant and the extremely harrowing are etched into history. < Back Why Napoleon isn’t Gladiator – On Judging Historical Fiction Films By Jawad Asaria for Cinementongraphe February 29, 2024 “Excuse me mate, were you there?” retorted the venerable director Ridley Scott after fielding a barrage of questions relating to the historical accuracy of Napoleon , a uniquely average film in an industry where only the extremely brilliant and the extremely harrowing are etched into history. Yet, Ridley Scott, though childishly defensive, was correct in drawing the line between the history of Napoleon, the figure, and the events of Napoleon , the film. Ridley Scott is not a historian, but an artist. Ridley Scott’s 2000 film Gladiator, then, is the well from which I have decided to draw contrasting comparisons, rather than Napoleon: A Life, the nine-hundred-and-seventy-six tome by Cambridge PhD historian Lord Roberts, often seen as the most authoritative source on Napoleon’s journey on these temporal lands. However, I’m sure the French will be happy to know, even by analyzing Napoleon not as a historical piece, but a historical fiction, it is still far from unshriven. The most essential aspect of historical fiction is credibility, not accuracy. Otherwise said, historical fiction can be enjoyed and lauded if the story exists far from realms of commonly accepted objectivity as long as it is also representative of what could plausibly have happened. Gladiator may have completely falsified the existence of Maximus, the titular gladiator that falls from general to slave, the presence of Christianity in the given time period, the weapons of war, the character of Lucila, and the very core of Roman democracy. If each historical inaccuracy rewarded the director with a dollar, dear old Ridley Scott may have had enough money to recoup his multi-million loss at Napoleon’s box office. But, knowing all of these errors, some as egregious as including Xulu war chants, why is Gladiator enjoyed? It is the credibility of Gladiator. Yes, Maximus was a figment of Scott’s imagination, but he is driven by honor and duty in a fight of man against state. It is something an average audience member will typically associate with Ancient Rome. Yes, the moral damnation cinematically prescribed to Commodus was harsh, but dictatorship, demagoguery, and the fight for political and personal representation are recurring themes in the history books related to Ancient Rome. For every British accent in Gladiator, there existed – verifiable, though morphed, representations of life in Ancient Rome, such as the character of Marcus Aurelius, and the Germanic Wars. Napoleon is similarly historically inaccurate. Napoleon did not shoot the nose of the sphinx. Napoleon was never at the frontlines. Napoleon never met Wellington. Napoleon never witnessed the execution of Marie Antoinette. Napoleon never forced his opponents through a frozen lake in the Battle of Austerlitz, nor was there even a frozen lake. Napoleon never came from nothing, nor did he conquer everything. So, why does the average viewer get the impression that Maximus, an entirely fictitious character, is more real than Napoleon, one of the most important people in history? I assert it is because, whilst both Gladiator and Napoleon are not historically accurate, the latter is not credible. In Napoleon, the eponymous figure’s main conflict is that of a man cuckolded and restrained by Josephine. Napoleon is a gloomy and petulant manchild who continuously makes errors in the battlefield, possesses a Simian repertoire of emotional responses, and seems to have done nothing good for France except for finally being exiled. He is, for all intents and purposes, presented as a buffoon. He sulks and Ridley Scott defiantly claims, through this film, the purported downfall of the ‘Great Man’ archetype , an idea popularized by historian Thomas Carlyle, that history is a carefully sculpted narrative shaped by a few extraordinary men and women. The problem with using Napoleon to dispute this is that he undeniably did shape history, perhaps more than any other single person in Europe. It is most closely equivalent to using Dante Aligheri, the brilliant poet who pined after Beatrice his whole life and featured her in his seminal book the Divine Comedy , to disprove the ‘Unrequited Love Last Forever’ trope. The audience will forgive historical inaccuracies, as we saw with the Gladiator, but they will not forgive historical incredibility. They will not forgive what is not credible. Historical films are not blank slates with which we can put our own characters, narratives, and storylines, only with fancier costumes and a sepia lens. Simply said, Napoleon’s film is dominated by modern social and cinematic themes and, if the audience wanted to see films that disprove the ‘Great Man’ narrative, featuring men as buffoons trapped by strong and independent women, and commit ineffectual acts to no beneficial end for their own social environment, they are hardly starved for choice. In conclusion, Napoleon should not be judged as a bad piece of history; that would be doing a disservice both to Napoleon and every history-adjacent film that came before and will come after. Rather the reason for its failure exists in its inability to be a good historical fiction. It is simply not credible. Perhaps, the next time Ridley Scott tries to take aim at the ‘Great Man’ narrative, he should turn the gun’s crosshairs on himself, for no single man can reprogram an audience's sensibility to discerning historical credibility in works of fiction with a one-hundred-and-fifty-eight minutes of drivel.

The gap between official and unofficial inflation rates is staggering; both domestic and foreign investment has plummeted, and there are instances of people waiting in lines to receive food supplies. It is uncertain how Erdoğan plans to regain his popularity. However, one thing is certain: when people can’t afford their food and shelter, their political views change. And if this continues to be the case for Turks, the end of the road for Erdoğan is near. < Back Collapsing Lira Signals the End of the Road for Turkey’s Erdoǧan By Ata Tezel November 30, 2021 “Whoever supports higher interest can not be on the same side with me!” were the words President Erdoğan used in his party’s annual meeting in November, reaffirming his commitment to lowering interest rates at any cost. His words portrayed not only his unconventional economic beliefs but also posed a direct threat to the administration of the central bank, which had been reluctant in following his interest policies. However, with the lira falling like a rock, it is unclear whether Erdoğan will keep standing by his beliefs or concede to making a political U-turn, something his administration has been associated with for years. Among all major currencies, the Turkish lira has been the worst-performing since 2018, losing up to 80% of its value in a three-year span. Turkey has also experienced one of the highest rates of inflation among leading developing economies, with its official annual inflation rate surpassing 20% this year. It is therefore confusing to many that Mr Erdoğan strongly advocates for lowering interest rates, an unconventional and practically counterintuitive policy to combat an economy in stagflation. Erdoğan’s economic priorities are different from those set by virtually every other nation in the world. Amidst the demand recovery from the health crisis this year, Turkey is the only nation that reduced policy rates, which says a lot about the recent shift in Erdoğan’s political agenda. In his own words, Erdoğan believes that “interest rates are the culprit, inflation is the result.” In an economy that is heavily dependent on foreign financialization and one that experiences high currency volatility and interest rates, it is unclear how Erdoğan, a self-claimed economist, reached this conclusion. Nonetheless, what is clear is that pursuing this belief has resulted in a massive economic downturn which, if not changed, will certainly lead to catastrophic consequences. What is interesting about the situation is that the consequences of the president’s interest policy were not unprecedented — many in the political and financial spheres of Turkey, as well as other global players, have repeatedly raised concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of Turkey’s unconventional growth mechanics. Moreover, the Turkish people have been the direct subject of his failures, and their unrest against the government amidst witnessing their savings and income shrink is heard loud and clear. In fact, Erdoğan currently has the lowest approval rate of his 20-year-long rule, and both the presidency and parliamentary polls for the 2023 election indicate, for the first time in his political career, that he and his party are on track to get ousted from power. Therefore, Erdoğan’s fixation with his economic policies indicates that, following his massive loss in the 2019 Mayoral Elections, he has been unclear about his political intentions and insecure about his future. In fact, for the first time, Erdoğan is resistant to calls for early elections by the opposition. For a populist figure that has legitimized all his actions based on ballot results, this is unprecedented. Moreover, it is clear that the power of political Islam in Turkey has been diminishing significantly as the economic turmoil gets more severe. Many of Erdoğan’s supporters could care less about the religious rightness of the concept of economic interest over their declining living standards. His attempts to deviate attention from the crisis have been unsuccessful, on the contrary, scandals from his past and present have been piling up. For the first time, these scandals are receiving the attention of the people, who now call for early elections. Consequently, it is unknown whether Erdoğan can survive the upcoming elections in 2023. More worryingly though, it is unclear if the economy and the people can endure the crisis for two more years. Solely in the first half of December 2021, the central bank of Turkey spent more than 10 billion US dollars of foreign reserves in an attempt to stabilize the plummeting currency, just for it to fall further once the interventions ended. The gap between official and unofficial inflation rates is staggering; both domestic and foreign investment has plummeted, and there are instances of people waiting in lines to receive food supplies. It is uncertain how Erdoğan plans to regain his popularity. However, one thing is certain: when people can’t afford their food and shelter, their political views change. And if this continues to be the case for Turks, the end of the road for Erdoğan is near.

Turkish prisons still do not allow open visitation for their inmates, despite the vaccination rate across prisons being higher than the general population. They are denied visits from their family and lawyers, with their phone time being increased by only 10 minutes since the beginning of the pandemic. < Back Turkey: Visitation Still Not Allowed in 82% Fully Vaccinated Prisons By Ayşe Lara Selçuker November 29, 2021 While this article was written before the government announced the return to “open visitation” on December 1, its analysis of pandemic prison policies are still valid; prisoners have been neglected across the globe. Turkish prison inmates have not been permitted “open visitation” for one year and eight months, despite the fact that the prison vaccination rate (82 percent) has surpassed that of the general population (78 percent), according to an article published by T24. For almost two years, according to DW Turkish, inmates have only had access to 20 minutes of phone calls per week, increased from 10 minutes pre-pandemic. Prisons have recently begun to allow “closed visitation,” but the Justice Department suggests that this will not change for a while, “due to pandemic reasons.” The Turkish prison system distinguishes between “open visitation” and “closed visitation” as contact visitation (where the inmate may sit in a room with their relatives or lawyer and sit at a table for a period of time) and non-contact glass-partition visitation (where the inmate and the lawyer/relative are separated by a glass partition and have to talk through a telephone.) Not only is “open visitation” banned for inmates, but also any cross-prison transfers are currently at a halt. Transferring from high security prisons (which often use solitary confinement) to lower security prisons for good behavior, once motivation for inmate reformi is no longer possible. This might even mean that some have been in solitary confinement or similarly psychologically abusive situations for as long as these pandemic rules have been instated. The contrast between the strict rules in prisons and travel for the general public is particularly striking. While Turkey has been in the process of returning to normal since about June, with lockdowns ending and restaurants, schools and hotels reopening, the fact that prisoners cannot even sit in a room with their relatives, and perhaps more importantly, their lawyers, is astonishing. A similar critique can even be made about pre-June Turkey, when its restrictions (or lack thereof) on tourists seemed incomparable to those on its citizens. While Turkey’s citizens faced a lockdown on Sundays, and earlier in the pandemic before vaccinations, for consecutive weeks, tourists were exempted from any lockdown restrictions. Prisoners have therefore been a victim of Turkey’s inconsistent COVID-19 response ever since the beginning. Many point to the fact that prisons are congregate housing facilities, with higher risks for COVID transmission at a much higher rate. Yet, the Anadolu Agency reports that Turkish nursing homes have had the right to allow visitations since around June, when the reopening period started. The Turkish government left this decision to the discretion of the nursing homes, many of which have decided to allow visitations with proof of visitors’ vaccinations and negative PCR test results. Further, there is really little reason to justify the continued isolation of inmates despite a developed vaccination scheme such as the one observed in Turkey at the moment. While Turkish citizens can now travel internationally (and foreigners can travel to Turkey) as they wish with vaccinations and test results, inmates suffer, despite prisons’ higher vaccination and lower case rates. Yet, is this a Turkey-specific issue as some would make it to be? How has the rest of the world dealt with congregate housing facilities and, particularly, prisons? The response varies, but it can be determined overall that many have unsurprisingly not prioritized prisoners in their pandemic response. With many which have had problems with prison visits, a shocking number of nations have little to no information available about their prison-visit protocols. According to Buzzfeed, prisons in California only opened their doors to in-person visits around July, following months of telephone and video visits through a platform that faced frequent and significant crashes. According to its official website, the United Kingdom government has set up a “National Framework for Prisons” by which prisons have been classified as open or closed to visits based on their current vaccination and case rights, allowing for there to be a dynamic, updated, and rational system for prisons to receive visitors. The EuroPris website, which has stated that it will be “updated every day,” posted its most recent “Prison Visits” update on its COVID-19 information page in May 2020. Concurrent with many questions surrounding the ethics of prisons in debate around the world, the pandemic has made it especially evident that prisoners are too often neglected by the government in times of crisis. The humanity of inmates are too often forgotten in policies about people who have been portrayed as criminals with no remorse. No person deserves no visits or no contact for a year and eight months, and governments across the world need to develop their schemes on including all of the nation’s public when specifying pandemic responses.

Feminism does not always require being vocal, an activist, or engaging in mass mobilization. Sometimes resisting is retreating—in the choice to withdraw from cultural pressures knowingly. Dissociative feminism expands the scope of what feminist action can entail. < Back With Prada and Ten Protagonists on to a new self-destruction feminism Lou Hildebrandt March 31, 2025 What do Prada, dissociative feminism and a fictional protagonist using drugs to hibernate for a year have in common? - Novelist Ottessa Moshfegh, who has created literary brilliance with her novels Eileen , My Year of Rest and Relaxation and Lapvona , as well as the short story collection Homesick for Another World . Now, as part of a collaboration with Prada on the brand’s spring-summer 2025 collection campaign, Moshfegh's Ten Protagonists , a collection of short stories, was published in February of the same year. In the short story collection, we see model Carey Mulligan wearing various Prada outfits, each embodying a brief story of one of Moshfegh's heroines. The women give us a glimpse into their professions: a physicist, an interior designer and a corporate translator. Not only their profession, but their lives, too, seem to be diverse, based on what is revealed. Nonetheless, they have something in common: they're all predominantly young, white cis-women who are somewhere on the unlikability spectrum—between counterintuitive and flat-out antiheroine—like Eileen and the narrator of My Year of Rest and Relaxation before them. The Epic of an Antiheroine and Dissociative Feminism The tale of an unlikeable white cis-woman seems to be Ottessa Moshfegh's signature. Her heroines never show any hesitation to disappoint the norms of female protagonists in fiction: they are unsympathetic, disagreeable, occasionally disgusting and driven by their own perverse desires. In Eileen , the main character lives with her drunkard father in a run-down house. Her brooding intellect and peculiar habits—like keeping a dead mouse in the glove compartment of her vehicle or stalking her crush, Randy—are not those of a stereotypical heroine, but rather an antiheroine. The ending is just as dissatisfying, since Rebecca, the one character Eileen looks up to for how organizes she appears to be, turns out to be as unreliable as Eileen. Instead of tackling the challenges of her life, the realization of Rebecca’s irresponsibility gives Eileen the motivation to leave her hometown for good to start all over in New York City. This type of protagonist is featured in My Year of Rest and Relaxation, too. The unnamed narrator attempts to cure her trauma following the death of her parents through radical withdrawal: she locks herself in her apartment in New York for a year, consumes huge amounts of sleeping pills and attempts to erase herself from the world. Her friend, who visits every now and then, is treated with mercilessness and ruthlessness. The protagonist shuts all avenues for empathy; she is completely dissociated. Psychologically, dissociation is the separation of perception and memory, a “ disconnection between a person's sensory experience, thoughts, sense of self, or personal history.” But when women cognitively and emotionally disconnect from their surroundings, it's a survival mechanism. The famous Buzzfeed article by Emmeline Clein, The Smartest Women I Know Are All Dissociating , describes that this gendered dissociation of “women using intellectual detachment to dull pain or avoid emotion isn’t at all a new phenomenon.” Therefore, discussion about feminism and dissociation requires acknowledgement of the specificity of women’s mental health issues. Hence, a construct such as dissociative feminism carries intrinsic solidarity—a mutual knowledge of women's gendered experience of mental health issues. It is an acknowledgment that, instead of meeting expectations pushed upon them, women create coping mechanisms of their own. Re-shaping one’s own suffering and re-narrating it as a feminist tragedy can be regarded as the claiming of agency by a person who lives under patriarchal oppression. The historical and oppressive tale of “female hysteria” is re-appropriated: rather than women being victims of whatever diagnosis, they appropriate dissociation as an act of resistance. They use it as protection against the difficulties of patriarchal life—to endure terrible sex, to filter out toxic men, to avoid the squeeze of productivity. Dissociative feminism also exceeds nihilism and is critical of capitalism. In Moshfegh's novel, My Year of Rest and Relaxation , when the protagonist locks herself up in her apartment for a year, she also evades capitalist exploitation logic. She takes medication to detox herself from work and social life. The book is thus the very definition of dissociative feminism, with a clear emphasis on dissociation. It is not a mere individual retreat but a feminist statement. A Defense of Dissociative Feminism Dissociation isn't apathy; it's a survival mechanism. Women are not dissociating because they ignore patriarchal violence, but because they have to disconnect from it. Active withdrawal is resistance—a safety mechanism against the constant demands of the expectations of society. Identifying dissociative feminism as neoliberal feminism, as many critics have done, disregards its significantly different stance. While neoliberal feminism would call women to adapt to the system, maybe even to embrace a “girl boss mentality” in the face of patriarchal and capitalist injustice, dissociative feminism rejects this entirely. Denial of being productive or emotionally available is a rejection of the capitalist requirement to constantly improve oneself, a resistant non-adherence to the patriarchal view of women as carers and nurturers. Feminism does not always require being vocal, an activist, or engaging in mass mobilization. Sometimes resisting is retreating—in the choice to withdraw from cultural pressures knowingly. Dissociative feminism expands the scope of what feminist action can entail. The same counts for the tale of anti-heroines. Women like Eileen, whose greatest joy is indulging in explosive diarrhea, reject traditional notions of femininity. The way her quirks are shown and how she acts, along with her dark fantasies, is a resistance or defiance of the restrictions that come along with gender-based oppression and the ideology of femininity. Her Ten Protagonists are Ten True Girl Bosses As previously mentioned, the ten protagonists in the eponymous short story collection are as detached from the outer world as in all of Moshfegh’s tales. Interior architect Betty, for instance, recounts how she does not like the collection of things; she says: “It’s important for me to be detached, my hands as clean as a surgeon’s.” Puppeteer Tabitha, who drops out of college after a great realization, which she gets from a fever, says that what makes us human is our inconsistencies. Scientist Tara’s greatest aim is to prove that basic laws of physics and biology are not true, with an eagerness that apparently results in her losing her funding from the university where she is employed. It is unclear whether Tara’s keenness stems from a concern for the planet or plain hatred for humanity itself. he describes her vision as “a world of microbial calm, where the cacophony of human progress is finally silenced.” Some stories entail the narration of dissociation to a greater extent than others. One of the most profound dissociations can be found in Victoria/Veronica —a short story that almost seems like a schizophrenic new interpretation of the classical doppelgänger-motif. This ambiguity is already emphasized with the title and, whilst those are technically two protagonists, we have nine other short stories with protagonists. Since the title of the short story collection tells us that there are only ten protagonists in the book, Moshfegh makes those seemingly two protagonists count only as one. Similarly, it seems to be an element unique to this story, as there have been other short stories where there was a very important secondary character, but without a similar reference in the title. An instance is Cecily , which deals with two actresses, Cecily and Amelia. Amelia is significant for this story, like Victoria is for Veronica’s, yet the story is not named “Cecily/Amelia” but only “Cecily.” This insinuation, that we might be dealing with one person instead of two, is further exemplified by the fact that not once is it mentioned whether the speaker is Victoria or Veronica. The impression that it might, in reality, be only one schizophrenic woman arises through the increasingly sickly appearance of “the sister,” especially in the moments where the narrator does unusual things like sleeping on the ground or in lines like: “Whereas it used to feel easy, now my breathing feels labored. Harder, as if I’m breathing for two sets of lungs.” Another striking line is: “It’s like there’s only one of us.”. “I’m the real me, and you’re the part that watches.” Given that all the protagonist ever does revolves around “the sister,” this makes us question: Could it be that she is hallucinating her into existence? There is not one single activity pursued by the speaker that suggests she has a life separate from her ‘sister.’ On to a New Self-Destruction Feminism So far in the short story collection, we have seen women who are detached, disagreeable and dealing with their mental health problems. However, stories like Rachel give us the impression that with Prada and Moshfegh, we leave dissociation behind and are moving to a new form of self-destruction feminism— the protagonist, Rachel, dissociates and is unreliable to the point of almost driving her lover and herself off a cliff. The story starts off with an “enchanted evening,” in which Rachel spends time with her partner Freddie for the first time. They are in a car and are driving through the most romantic and beautiful scenery imaginable. Then, the scene is interrupted by Rachel almost driving them off a cliff. This was not merely an accident, as is revealed by the lines: “Later it scared me because I thought I had done it on purpose. Because I’d had the thought: I’m happy. Because sometimes just the thought of that is enough to cut you loose.” However, throughout the story, it crystallizes that this was not an instantaneous thought or, even less so, suicidal ideation. To her core, Rachel believes that people should experience situations where they are not safe: “I believe that everyone should, at some point in their lives, get stranded. Or at least get lost. Go missing.” Self-destruction has been a long-standing trope for male geniuses, from literary figures such as Hemingway to musicians such as Kurt Cobain and artists such as van Gogh. Their own destruction is mythologized, keeping the notion of a tortured genius alive. For women, however, the story has been the contrary—writers such as Sylvia Plath have been either fetishized or pathologized just as much as they have been for their mental illness. It took a long time until her art was acknowledged in a similar manner and even today it is questionable whether she is seen predominantly as ‘a mentally ill woman’ or a professional writer. As Heather Clark, in her introduction to Sylvia Plath, explained , people cannot accept women as professional writers as they do for their male counterparts. A reclaiming of self-destruction can therefore be a kind of resistance. This is not to say that everybody should destroy themselves, but when life does, one should not hesitate to use that as a creative source. Rather than constantly urging women to “get through it,” a self-destruction feminism could encourage a form of radical solidarity—one that would understand failure, resignation and breakdown as common experience rather than individual failure. Instead of trying to pathologize or individualize self-destruction, it could acknowledge it as a legitimate response to an unbearable world and create a space where women do not have to be strong but can merely be. Photo source: Wikimedia

Plagued by famine, economic collapse, and natural disasters, the increasingly destabilized Yemen has everything to lose through involvement in the war in Gaza. Yet, Yemeni resistance groups have emerged as some of the strongest oppositions to Israel. < Back Houthi Attacks Unaffected By US-led Counterstrikes: Houthi Role In Gaza By Colette Yamashita Holcomb January 31, 2024 Plagued by famine, economic collapse, and natural disasters, the increasingly destabilized Yemen has everything to lose through involvement in the war in Gaza. Yet, Yemeni resistance groups have emerged as some of the strongest oppositions to Israel. In particular, Houthi fighters have attacked ships in the Red Sea, forcing some of the world’s most prominent shipping and oil companies to suspend transit through the crucial maritime trade routes. The United States and other allies, including Britain, have been the primary responders to the attacks, carrying out missile strikes on Houthi targets inside Yemen. So far, the U.S. and Britain have bombed more than 60 targets in 28 locations. This precarious situation raises several questions regarding the Houthi role in the Israel-Gaza war, the global response, and what it may mean for the future of Yemen. This article tells you the key answers to these questions. Who are the Houthis? The Houthis — who also refer to themselves as Ansarullah, or “Party of God” — are an Islamist political and military organization based in the Zaydi form of Shiism. They emerged from Yemen in 1990 and have expanded beyond their Zaydi roots to a broader movement against the central government, aiming to govern Yemen in its entirety. U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken stated on Jan 17. 2024, that, beginning in mid-February, the U.S. will consider the Houthis a “specially designated global terrorist” group if they fail to halt their attacks. This shift signifies that they will be blocking its access to the global financial system, among other penalties. In 2014, Houthi fighters swept into the capital of Sana'a to further pressure the already weakened government until Yemen’s president, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, resigned in January 2015. The Houthis declared themselves in control of the government and would seize power over much of north Yemen by 2016. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia after his resignation but maintained he was still in office. Upon the deposed president’s request, Saudi Arabia launched a war against the Houthis in March 2015. A ceasefire was finally signed in 2022, lapsing after only six months, but there has still not been a return to full-scale conflict. Since the ceasefire, the Houthis have consolidated their control over most of northern Yemen and even sought a deal with Saudi Arabia to end the war and cement their role as the country’s rulers. Notably, Hadi also transferred his powers to a newly formed Presidential Leadership Council led by Rashad al-Alimi. Sources in both Saudi and Yemeni governments alleged that Saudis forced this decision. Houthi Interests in Gaza Since the escalation of the Gaza war in October, Houthis have fired weapons on commercial ships heading to and from the Suez Canal. Initially threatening to attack any vessel departing to or returning from Israel, their targets have escalated to any vessel. According to Houthi officials, their attacks on commercial and military ships intend to pressure Israel and its allies to end the war in Gaza. Yahya Sarea, a spokesperson for the group, referenced this goal in a statement made on a military operation that targeted an American ship. The Houthis had acted “in defense of the Palestinian people in Gaza, who are being exposed, until this moment, to the most horrific type of massacres by the Zionist entity,” Sarea said. The U.S. and its allies issued a joint statement condemning the attacks, which included “attacks on vessels, including commercial vessels, using unmanned aerial vehicles, small boats, and missiles, including the first use of anti-ship ballistic missiles against such vessels.” In mid-November, the Houthis seized a cargo ship and its crew — the British-owned, Japanese-operated Galaxy Leader — and are still holding them. While damaging to the ships, the attacks have not sunk vessels or resulted in any casualties. As a result of these attacks, many shipping companies have stopped using the Red Sea-Suez route and opted to send ships around the southern tip of Africa, a voyage that adds ten days in each direction, slowing trade and raising prices globally. The Houthis say they will only relent when Israel allows the entry of food and medicine into Gaza. By targeting the global supply chain in its attacks, they could be aiming to economically pressure Israel’s allies to cease its bombardment of Gaza. Primarily backed by Iran, the Houthis have received weapons and technology from the nation as part of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” — the informal anti-Israeli and anti-Western political and military coalition led by the Iranian government. Iran’s involvement in the conflict has only furthered concerns that the Israel-Gaza war will escalate into a devastating broader regional conflict. Allied Response & Future of Yemen The U.S. is leading the counter-initiative, with partners including the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain. So far, strikes from U.S. and British attack planes and warships have killed five and wounded six Houthi fighters and attacked airfields, command hubs, and weapon storage facilities. Although airstrikes have not deterred the group’s attacks on Red Sea shipping, President Biden affirmed that the U.S. will continue to carry out strikes. “Are they stopping the Houthis? No,” Biden said. “Are they going to continue? Yes.” Critics of this response have stated that allied actions against Houthi fighters are disproportionate and will harm access to humanitarian aid — crucial given that over three-quarters of Yemen’s population was considered in need of critical aid last year as it faces one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Human rights organizations and other regional experts have warned that Biden’s redesignation of the Houthis as a specially designated global terrorist organization will complicate the work of humanitarian organizations working in Houthi-controlled Northern Yemen. This rationale prompted the Biden administration to remove the organization from Washington’s list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2021 to enable more humanitarian aid. Moreover, there is also criticism that the retaliatory strikes are too extreme and will do more harm to the people of Yemen while failing to curb further Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. Without humanitarian aid — even with restricted aid — the future of Yemen looks grim. As the country struggles with extreme starvation, displacement and economic crisis, any deviation of aid has a massive human cost. A Houthi spokesperson affirmed that the group’s redesignation will not affect group operations, especially in the Red Sea, pledging unequivocal support for the Palestinian people. Afrah Nasser, a researcher from the Arab Center Washington DC, stated that the U.S. designation could “contribute to radicalizing some parts of the population and strengthen the Houthi recruitment system,” which would mean further destabilization for the population. The U.S.’s reclassification could also subject Iran to more sanctions — adding to already heavy sanctions — as it opens the opportunity for sanctions for any countries or groups that support the Houthis. Still, it is unclear if further sanctions against Iran will be a U.S. strategy and if it would be an effective path to negotiating broader regional peace.

If we understand that proper wording can strongly impact policy and recognition of the suffering of persecuted peoples, then it becomes all the clearer why so many are arguing on whether the war in Gaza constitutes a genocide, and whether the treatment of Uyghurs is a crime against humanity. < Back Terminology and War Crime Denial Anna Halpern February 28, 2025 We have often heard of South Africa’s much-mediatized Genocide case against Israel in front of the ICJ , and many of us have also seen Amnesty International’s reports which call the mass deaths in Gaza a genocide . The controversy surrounding the appropriate term and the clear political game behind any position adopted on the matter really seem to have reopened the question of politics behind the terminology. While we may have heard this debate before, the end of how we name events so that they match the reality of the context of the war in Gaza is part of a far larger issue that has deep historical roots. Indeed, the use of terminology to manipulate public opinion and deny war crimes and genocides is a very powerful tool that has been employed throughout the 20th and even 21st century. Before entering the specifics of the cases that we will compare, it seems impossible not to define the terms that are so critically argued upon. Genocides, war crimes and crimes against humanity are all international crimes committed by individuals or governments that “ affect the core dignity of human beings.” In order to understand the conflict of namings and narratives, one must know the terms’ definitions and history. War crimes refer to “serious breaches of international humanitarian law committed against civilians or enemy combatants during an international or domestic armed conflict, for which the perpetrators may be held criminally liable on an individual basis.” This definition is derived from the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Convention of 1949 and its additional protocols and Article 8 of the 1998 Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The definition of a crime against humanity “ encompasses crimes such as murder, extermination, rape, persecution and all other inhumane acts of a similar character (wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health), committed ‘as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.’” It is codified in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Finally, the term genocide was originally coined by Raphael Lemkin and first appeared in his 1944 work “ Axis Rule in Occupied Europe .” It is defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. “It is the specific intention to destroy an identified group either ‘in whole or in part’ that distinguishes the crime of genocide from a crime against humanity.” These definitions also highlight the critical fact that the term Genocide, for example, simply did not exist during some of the events that now are argued to fit within this definition. Such questions add to the terminological dispute the question of the possibility of judging such an event through the lens of a crime that did not exist at the time. Keeping this background in mind, we can now consider how the application of these definitions has been used and disagreed upon. An extremely famous case of genocide denial and terminology debate is the case of the Armenian genocide of 1915 which Turkey, and much of the international community, still officially do not recognize despite vast scholarly support. However, the debate over naming and recognizing this event is not unique. While we cannot explore all cases that have sadly occurred, it appears relevant to look at a few more historical cases that have yet to be fully recognized. We will consider the Japanese massacres and war crimes during the invasion of China namely in Nanjing (December 1927 to February 1938) as well as the Bosnian genocide denial (1995). These cases can be linked to a far more recent lack of recognition by China of its persecution of the Uyghur minority. Through both historical examples and the current cases in Gaza and China the critical importance of terminology is underlined, and its broad political implications clearly seep through. The case of the Armenian genocide is a blatant example of the difficulty of earning official recognition of war crimes, especially genocide, and the tricky word game played by Ankara is critical in this terminological warfare. The Armenian genocide is well recognized by historians and institutions —the creator of the term himself thought to apply it to the context of Ottoman crimes against Armenians in WWI. However, the international scene is not always ruled by expert opinions—as we know all too well—but often is far more politically guided. Thus, the reality is that only 33 countries currently recognize the genocide, and this list notably does not include Turkey. Indeed, Turkey has always maintained a policy of denying “ a deliberate policy of genocide.” The official website of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs portrays the Armenian view as an “embellishe[d]” version that it “selects” in order to vilify Turkey. Moreover, the website follows the phrasing “The events of 1915,” commonly used in official Turkish statements on the matter. Thus, this decision not to call it a ‘genocide’ is intrinsically linked to the maintenance of a very different narrative regarding the events themselves and is a tool aiming to prevent the acknowledgment of the extent of the devastation recorded by most non-Turkish historians. But national narratives differing regarding war crimes is not something that is exclusively reserved to the rather well-known case of Armenia and Turkey. Indeed, Sino-Japanese relations are still strained to this day by very controversial Japanese positions concerning the “Nanjing Massacre” or the “Rape of Nanjing” which in Japan is sometimes referred to as the “ Nanjing incident .” This case is not quite as clear as the case of the Armenia-Turkey disagreements. Indeed, Japan has been largely criticized for its unclear position, with varying positions from an acknowledgment of the Tokyo Trials and remorse for the suffering caused during WWII to an outright denial of the “Nanjing Massacre.” This public debate and division is all the more relevant to Japan’s international relations, within which it has maintained an unclear discourse. While it has apologized in general terms for Imperial Japan’s policies and actions, “many Japanese apologies have looked like “one step forward, one step backward.” Moreover, the lack of a unified messaging has led to questionable word choices such as referring to the “so-called Nanjing massacre” and has even seen the denial of certain Japanese war crimes. Thus, the lack of clear terminology and strategic uncertainty of positioning has led to the possibility of denials and belittling of war crime s which have affected Sino-Japanese relations. In a more recent and still very open wound, we can also consider the case of the Bosnian genocide. This refers to the massacre of Srebrenica in July 1995 which was ruled by the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia a Genocide. It occurred during the Bosnian War, where Bosnian Serb forces committed grave human rights violations and war crimes. Despite such international recognition, Bosnian Serb Politicians have largely denied such crimes, and have recently adopted a report denying the genocidal nature of the massacre. This comes in a context of great disagreement with a UN resolution to commemorate the Srebrenica Genocide by Serbian and Bosnian Serbs. This only serves to highlight that terminology arguments are crucial tools in the hands of genocide deniers and ultimately still have massive repercussions on Bosnian society thirty years after the events. This case is a prime example of the critical importance such terms hold and the real impact they can have. While all of these historical cases are immensely important and still have repercussions to this day, they also serve as a warning sign of the dangers of unclear terminology or intentionally untrue naming of grave events. It seems only fitting to look from such events to current war crimes, human rights violations and potential crimes against humanity whose terms are still under discussion such as the case of Uyghurs in China and the war in Gaza. If we understand that proper wording can strongly impact policy and recognition of the suffering of persecuted peoples, then it becomes all the clearer why so many are arguing on whether the war in Gaza constitutes a genocide, and whether the treatment of Uyghurs is a crime against humanity. Though in these two cases the final rulings are not given, both the ICJ’s indications of measures to be taken to prevent a potential genocide and the UN’s report accusing China of potential crimes against humanity indicate a high chance of such crimes having been committed and have led to no acknowledgment on the part of Israel or China. Such lack of impact of international warnings and refusal to acknowledge the terms used by both parties highlights a consistency in patterns of denial of crimes and seems all the easier to read through given such historical context. As a post scriptum, I feel that I must explain the lack of inclusion of a very well-known denial, and that is Holocaust denial. This is indeed a critical issue that merits being addressed. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, I did not have extensive space to delve into all cases of denial, and I found it to be far more interesting to focus on less well-known issues that have less media attention and deserve to be recognized. This does not in any way take away from the importance of Holocaust denial and of course we should consider a far wider range of events than the selected cases of this article when considering the real impact of terminology disagreements and denial. Photo credits: Diane_Krauthamer on Flickr

< Back Sciences Po Director Mathias Vicherat Temporarily Resigns Following Domestic Violence Custody By Peyton Dashiell December 31, 2023 On Dec. 4, news broke that Sciences Po Paris Director Mathias Vicherat had been placed into police custody the previous evening for violence conjugale (domestic violence). According to AFP, Vicherat’s partner came to police the evening of Dec. 3 to file a complaint against Vicherat after he allegedly pushed her to the ground during a public argument. Additionally, she stated that Vicherat had broken her wrist six weeks ago, but no charges were pursued. Vicherat arrived at the police station shortly after his partner, accusing her of slapping him. Both were released the afternoon of Dec. 4, and no complaints were ultimately filed. Shortly after his release, Vicherat released a statement to students via email clarifying that no official complaints had been filed and expressing his desire to preserve the stability of his family, particularly for the sake of his young children. He affirmed his commitment to the “values of Sciences Po” and said that he will be meeting with student associations shortly to discuss the issue. The allegations promoted a strong reaction spanning across campuses, with several student associations, including Solidaire Etudiant.e.s., Sciences Po Paris En Lutte, and the Sciences Po Menton Feminist Union calling for Vicherat’s resignation. A “day of mobilization” was called for Dec. 5, and an independent petition was publicized calling for Vicherat to step down. The petition highlighted Vicherat’s previous promises to make VSS “his priority,” the fact that as director he holds the ultimate authority over campus VSS cases and sanctions applied, and concluded that “the trust between the student community and its director has been broken.” By Dec. 8, it had garnered over 1,300 signatures. In Menton, the Feminist Union and Solidaire Etudiant.e.s released a joint statement asserting that “as a matter of principle, Sciences Po cannot have a director accused of domestic violence.” This student condemnation of Vicherat was not solely confined to the digital sphere. On Dec. 5, Menton students gathered on the parvis to rally for Vicherat’s immediate resignation, hanging a large banner reading “Vicherat Demission.” Additionally, campus blockades occurred at the Paris, Reims, and Dijon campuses. Student reactions to these demonstrations were generally supportive albeit cautious. Anoushka Naik, an exchange student at Sciences Po Menton, expressed that “If it is found that Vicherat did engage in abusive conduct, calling on him to resign is absolutely the correct step. However, we as students have absolutely no idea what truly happened, and speaking as though we do is not how to properly support survivors of abuse.” Nearly a week after these efforts, the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques announced via email that Vicherat would be temporarily withdrawing from his role as director. After consultations with the Sciences Po board of directors, this withdrawal was unanimously approved to end on January 29, 2024. It is unclear if any additional steps will be taken to address the allegations against Vicherat following this withdrawal period. Vicherat was appointed Sciences Po director in November 2021 after the resignation of Frederic Mion in the wake of the Olivier Duhamel affair. Duhamel, a Sciences Po professor, former politician, and head of the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques , was accused by his daughter-in-law of sexually abusing her brother throughout their childhood in her January 2021 book La Familia grande . Mion initially feigned shock at the accusations, but later admitted that he had originally learned of them in 2018. Mion was one of at least seven people associated with Sciences Po who had knowledge of the allegations for many years. Duhamel admitted to the abuse in an April 2021 interview with the police minor protection brigade, but no charges could be brought due to the statute of limitations. In light of these events, as well as criticism of Sciences Po’s handling of sexual assault cases, Vicherat specifically outlined combatting VSS as one of his aims as director. In Feb. 2022, Sciences Po adopted an institutional action plan addressing VSS, which included mandatory awareness and training modules, a standardized reporting system, and a VSS guide distributed across all campuses. According to a 2023 progress update , 51 preliminary investigations were launched in 2022 for reported cases of VSS. Out of these 51, four were referred to the disciplinary committee and two resulted in sanctions against perpetrators.

< Back Rupture: Angela Merkel’s Exit and What it Means for Germany’s Future By Lionel Chambon October 31, 2021 Berlin. At 6 p.m. Central European Time, the German state television announced the first exit polls following the Federal Election. Jörg Schönenborn, the election night presenter, looked at his cards containing the results, looked up into the camera, took a breath, and said: “I can promise you numbers like we have never seen them before.” After 16 years under Angela Merkel, this would be the first time that the election outcome was actually impossible to predict. As I wrote for Le Zadig last semester: “The Greens have consistently polled at 20 percent or more, in striking distance of the CDU, while it has comfortably overtaken the SPD (…), possibly ending decades-long domination by the CDU and SPD.” While my prediction was not quite accurate, now that the results are in, we are certain that the Merkel era has ended — and there is no turning back. A Conservative Nightmare Let us deconstruct these results step by step, starting with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) which has been leading the country for 52 years since 1949. Scoring 24.7 percent, the party received a catastrophic result in comparison to its yields of 41.5 percent in 2013 and 32.9 percent in 2017. I have previously written that this decrease was partly due to Merkel’s lack of a clear, conservative profile. Her expansion of the welfare state and her management during the events of 2015 moved the CDU to the left, arguably creating a vacuum on the right. Nonetheless, this does not explain why the CDU slumped to 24 percent from over 30 percent in polls a few months back. This shocking result was entirely rooted in a disorganized campaign that exposed the party’s internal feuds. For starters, it took the party way too long to actually decide on a candidate for chancellor. The fight was between its chairman, Armin Laschet, and the governor of Bavaria, Markus Söder. Throughout the campaign, Söder made his disdain for his rival no secret, repeatedly challenging Laschet in public. The latter eventually asserted himself after weeks of uncertainty. Protocols surfaced of secret, backdoor meetings between party officials, angry phone calls from local politicians, illustrating a party in disarray. While others were concerned for the country, the CDU was concerned with itself. Things soon got worse when a severe flood struck parts of Western Germany. Laschet was caught laughing in the background while German Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier held a eulogy for the lives lost during the storms, a number which went into three-digit numbers. The photo of him smirking on such a dire occasion was a mishap from which he could not recover. His biggest obstacle, however, was the incessant calls from his opponents within the party notifying him that he was doing a bad job, exposing internal rivalries when he needed a unified base. Out of all the parties, The CDU was the last to present a program, and nobody really knew what a post-Merkel CDU stood for. Laschet did not either: asked on the road and on camera about his three favorite ideas from his own program, he could not provide an answer. His plan was to count on voters that had always voted CDU out of tradition, “as usual.” However, his judgement was ill-fated. A Social Democratic Miracle When I first wrote about this election last semester, things were not looking good for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and their candidate, Olaf Scholz. Polling at barely 15 percent, 2021 was set to be a disaster for him. The party was barely attracting attention in the media, and its successful left-wing policies implemented under Merkel were not rewarded in the polls. Yet, the SPD managed to win the election with a score of 25.7 percent, even gaining 5.2 percent from 2017. This remarkable turnaround came down to Olaf Scholz alone. When the CDU was busy arguing out its private battles, Scholz had been declared candidate months in advance. Scholz remained calm, composed, and campaigned successfully without any unfortunate incidents or mishaps. He had been Merkel’s vice chancellor and minister of finance, and the only candidate with experience in the highest positions of government. His efforts for a global minimum corporate tax, proposed by the G7, resonated well with the German public. In three televised debates between the three candidates for chancellor, surveys indicated Scholz to have won them all. However, the results also suggest that Scholz was heavily perceived as simply the better alternative to an unsophisticated Armin Laschet and a disorganized CDU. The SPD gained almost two million votes from those who supported the CDU in 2017, which is a highly unusual turnover rate. The SPD was also the first to formally present a program. This all suggests that this election was less about policies and ideas and more about which candidate was deemed fittest to run the country. After all, the SPD’s program proposed many ideas it could have enacted during its 12 years in government. Yet, unlike his opponents, Scholz never let his guard down and showcased statesmanship the other candidates lacked, reassuring many voters uneased by the challenging times Germany is experiencing. The Green’s Missed Opportunity and the Youthful Free Democrats For the first time ever, there were not two, but three candidates for chancellor. Usually, this privilege was reserved for the CDU and SPD, which used to be the only realistic contenders to win an election. However, as Germany's party landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented, the Greens sought to seize their opportunity. They had nominated Annalena Baerbock to head the campaign, and during the summer, the idea of finishing above 20 percent suddenly seemed within reach, maybe even finishing on top. Election night yielded a very strong, yet still disappointing finish of 14.8 percent. Hopes of leaving the SPD behind were not satisfied and most Greens certainly hoped for better. Mainly, this result was caused by Baerbock stumbling unnecessarily over amateur errors: her team made mistakes in her official CV, she forgot to declare bonus salaries from party bank accounts, and her autobiography, which was supposed to launch the candidate into the German public, was filled with plagiarism. The Greens faced fierce criticism over their trustworthiness, and possibly lost many potential voters to the much more experienced Scholz, who capitalized on Baerbock’s beginner mistakes. However, the Greens campaigned as a force for change, and this was ultimately rewarded at the ballot box. The centrist Free Democratic Party (FDP) managed to, for the first time in its history, score above 10 percent in two consecutive federal elections, with a strong finish of 11.5 percent, its second-best result ever. Together with the Greens, the FDP even scored first among first-time voters; its youthful appeal largely inspired by its chairman, Christian Lindner. Its advocacy for social mobility, including market solutions to climate change, equitable economic opportunity, and digitalization of the German bureaucracy resonated well. The Liberals’ strong finish among young voters suggests that they have managed to widen their electoral base considerably in the last eight years. What Next? If you by any chance read my previous piece on German politics, you will find that the increased fracturing of the German electorate is rather new. Arduous coalition bargaining could be a consequence: in 2017, it took almost six months to form a new government. In 2021, however, it is likely that politicians have learnt their lesson. At the time of publishing, SPD, Greens and FDP have officially entered negotiations for a "traffic light" coalition. This seemed an unlikely scenario before the election — after all, the FDP has very different opinions on state finances, taxation, and government expenditure than its red and green counterparts. However, the dismal state of the CDU forced the FDP and Greens to think carefully. They have tentatively agreed to form a government by the end of November, and Olaf Scholz is set to be voted in as new chancellor during the first week of December. It is likely that the FDP will be more assertive on economic and fiscal policy, whereas SPD and Greens will be able to execute their programs on issues related to climate change and social policy. It seems, however, that common ground unites them all: the need for change after 16 years of conservative government. The modernization of the state will be a top priority, as will be the ecological transformation of the country into the age of green industry. Party leaders Scholz, Baerbock, and Lindner have emphasized the need for urgent and long-term climate action. Emission trading schemes, infrastructure investment and increased research and development are on the agenda. Personally, I believe this coalition could bring Germany into a greener, prosperous, and more equitable future, and it is genuinely exciting to see what will follow. Of course, official negotiations have barely yet begun, and many details remain to be worked out. However, the opportunity is there, and I hope Germany seizes it.

< Back Armed Militias vs Aid: The Extremity of U.S. Disaster Response Pracheth Sanka November 30, 2024 In Rutherford County, surrounded by demolished towns, downed trees and upturned roads in the wake of late September’s Hurricane Helene, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials had a new concern : a gun-wielding group of Western North Carolinians out for their blood. It was not just the aid that concerned them now; it was also their lives. At the command of the National Guard and FEMA administration, they were forced to evacuate the county, halting progress in their distribution of necessary material in a post-Helene North Carolina. Ultimately, only one person was arrested in connection to the report and the threat was not as dire as it first seemed. It shows, however, the startling and worrying distrust and menace some Americans hold toward their government. Even during an emergency, which is supposed to be a time of peace, coordination, and unity, disaster relief can become the catalyst for radicalism and resentment. As this case shows, hurricane response is a hotbed for political games, aid mismanagement and misinformation in the United States. Hit by two major storms in the fall of 2024, the American South is still reeling from Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene. Both wrought extensive and costly damage, especially to Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. As of late October, FEMA has approved more than $2 billion for those affected by the storms. This money aids in house and personal property replacement, as well as in opening Disaster Centers that provide meals and housing to those in need. These are all ostensibly helpful programs, so why is there so much distrust coming from storm-affected Americans? Part of the reason lies in politics. Former President and now President-Elect Donald Trump and other high-profile Republicans have been very openly critical of the federal response, even at points lying about to whom and to where monetary aid went. Trump falsely stated that most of FEMA money was going to illegal immigrants, a continuation of his largely xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose state was directly impacted by Helene, made the ridiculous claim that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency tasked with weather forecasting and monitoring, had directed the storm toward conservative-leaning areas to disrupt the upcoming presidential election. Her claims were aided by the real data that showed Republican districts and Trump strongholds being disproportionately hit compared to liberal areas. Far-right and Trump-aligned internet conspiracy theorists also posited that FEMA would use storm response as a facade to bulldoze and replace rural towns, which they saw as an expansion of the central state. Instances of real political discrimination also stoke the fire of skepticism towards FEMA. In November, a FEMA worker from Florida was fired after directing employees to withhold aid from houses that displayed support for Trump. Their action was strongly condemned by Governor Ron DeSantis, who himself has distanced the state from federal assistance. DeSantis notably skipped a meeting with President Joe Biden, stating that a state-led response would move much more quickly than the Biden administration could. Trump also added fuel to the political fire by criticizing Democratic North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, falsely asserting that Cooper’s administration deliberately blocked aid to the western part of the state, an area that was left in ruin by Helene-related flooding and which has historically leaned Republican. The politicization of what should have been an apolitical response highlights how the growing partisan divide and spread of misinformation creates mistrust toward the federal government. Conservatives, who are typically wary of large central states, now see FEMA’s disaster response as another possible means for government overreach, or in the eyes of some conspiracy theorists, a real means of harm. Liberals thus see Republican outrage as a hindrance to disaster response, further separating the two groups. But this politicization is by no means a new phenomenon, nor is it restricted to just natural disasters. Take for instance the Covid-19 pandemic. Americans signaled a marked decrease in trust in the Centers for Disease Control, which is responsible for pandemic regulation and guidance. Confidence in the organization dropped amongst all groups, but the most notable drop occurred amongst conservatives and Trump voters. Government trust was not the only political shift that was noted. Leaders of Democratic states complained that under the Trump administration, typically Republican states were given more favorable aid due to their electoral support. Analysts also raised concerns that Trump would use pandemic-era subsidies to farmers in important swing states in an attempt to gain voters. Trump is not shy about using federal aid as a political tool. He famously threatened Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom by promising to withhold federal aid until he was told how many people in certain California counties voted for him. Trump also tried to leverage future wildfire disaster aid to get Newsom to sign a favorable freshwater drainage plan, though Newsom did not buckle. This has forced California to create its own disaster aid plans to “Trump-proof” the state, which is prone to severe wildfires, earthquakes, and floods. In a world of increasingly violent and frequent natural disasters, the nation is following a similar trajectory. Political storms and partisan divides mar the should-be peaceful process of relief and aid distribution. Two decades ago, the most extreme reaction to federal disaster response came when Kanye West, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, appeared on television to proclaim that then-President George W. Bush “doesn’t care about black people.” Now, with armed militias and conspiracy theories rampant, West’s statement would be a politically tame and almost neutral response. As divided as the United States is now, polarization and political threats as a response to tragedy and disaster are likely to become much more radical and extreme. Both with administrative actions, like that of Trump’s, and individual instigators, like Rutherfordton’s armed militia, tensions between political actors and government agencies can have lasting consequences and could cost people their lives. These ramifications have no immediate solution and require long-term easing of the country's struggle. For her sake, the citizens of the United States should hope they can unite once again, facing disasters as the threat they are, not as pawns in a political game.

Les algorithmes amplifient les contenus qui suscitent le choc et l'émotion, même si ceux-ci ne reflètent qu'une partie de la réalité. Ainsi, les zones de conflits moins spectaculaires ou celles qui ne répondent pas aux critères de viralité demeurent dans l’ombre. < Back Vivre la Guerre à Travers un Écran: la Bataille des Récits Christy Ghosn April 30, 2025 Aujourd’hui, la guerre ne se vit plus uniquement sur le terrain : elle se vit aussi, intensément, sur nos écrans. Hashtags, stories Instagram, vidéos TikTok : la bataille ne concerne plus seulement les armes, mais aussi les récits. Une photo d’enfant sous les décombres, un cri de mère en larmes, un drapeau brûlé: en temps de guerre, certaines images deviennent virales, iconiques. Qui choisit ce qu’on voit? Et à quelles émotions ces images nous condamnent-elles? En temps de guerre, les images fusent; les récits s'entrechoquent; l’émotion guide les opinions. Les projecteurs médiatiques sont puissants, mais leur lumière est loin d’être équitable. Derrière chaque récit médiatique se trouve un choix: montrer ou taire, choquer ou ignorer, mobiliser ou détourner. L'Image au Service de l'Émotion À l'ère du tout visuel, une guerre non filmée est une guerre presque inexistante. Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts ( RULAC ) identifie actuellement plus de 110 conflits armés impliquant au moins 55 États et plus de 70 acteurs armés non étatiques. Combien apparaissent dans notre fil d’actualité? Les réseaux sociaux ont transformé la manière dont nous percevons les conflits. Une image vaut mille mots, et dans le contexte de la guerre, elle vaut mille émotions. La puissance de l'émotion est un outil redoutable pour capter l'attention mondiale. Les images et les vidéos qui suscitent des émotions fortes sont plus susceptibles de devenir virales. Ce mécanisme entraîne une « guerre des récits » où l'image devient le support privilégié d'une instrumentalisation émotionnelle. Les algorithmes amplifient les contenus qui suscitent le choc et l'émotion, même si ceux-ci ne reflètent qu'une partie de la réalité. Ainsi, les zones de conflits moins spectaculaires ou celles qui ne répondent pas aux critères de viralité demeurent dans l’ombre. Construire son Récit : Qui Parle et Qui Est Entendu? La construction du récit est une arme aussi puissante que les armes conventionnelles. Chaque camp s'efforce de façonner une narration où il apparaît comme la victime ou le héros, tandis que l'adversaire est dépeint sous un jour sombre. Cette bataille des idées commence souvent par le choix des mots, car comme le dit Terry Jones , « la première victime de la guerre, c'est la grammaire. » Ainsi, les termes utilisés deviennent des outils de propagande. Les « dommages collatéraux » remplacent les pertes civiles, et la « libération de l'Irak » se substitue à l'invasion. Dans ce contexte, les médias occidentaux, notamment américains et britanniques, ont souvent adopté ce langage, tandis que des chaînes régionales comme Al Jazeera parlent plutôt de « guerre contre l’Irak » menée par des « forces d’invasion. »Cette guerre des mots a également engendré une dichotomie journalistique entre « nous » et « eux. » Aux États-Unis, cette vision manichéenne a imprégné les déclarations officielles et une partie de la presse. En temps de paix, la liberté de la presse est un ‘pilier des démocraties.’ Mais en temps de guerre, cette liberté est souvent restreinte. Le contrôle de l'information, par la censure ou la propagande, devient une priorité. Aujourd'hui, le contrôle de l'information est entre les mains de quelques géants de la tech. Lors de l'invasion russe en Ukraine par exemple, des plateformes comme Meta, Google, Twitter et TikTok ont bloqué les contenus de propagande russe, entraînant des représailles du Kremlin. Les internautes russes se retrouvent par conséquent piégés dans une bulle de désinformation. Les médias traditionnels ne sont pas en reste. Le 17 octobre, l'explosion de l'hôpital Ahli Arab de Gaza a été interprétée de manière radicalement différente selon les sources. Al Jazeera titrait « un raid israélien sur un hôpital fait 500 morts, » tandis que le Times of Israel parlait d'une « explosion due à une roquette mal tirée. » Aux États-Unis, les titres variaient également en fonction de l'orientation politique des journaux. Le Washington Post mettait en avant la version palestinienne, le New York Times restait neutre, et le Wall Street Journal introduisait la position israélienne. Fox News, quant à elle, ne mentionnait même pas la version palestinienne. Le Rôle du Spectateur Moderne Le spectateur moderne est bombardé d'images de conflits et de souffrances, partagées instantanément sur les réseaux sociaux. Ces images, souvent choquantes, sont consommées, partagées, puis rapidement oubliées. La surabondance d'informations visuelles crée une fatigue émotionnelle, une sorte de lassitude face à l'actualité. Selon un baromètre récent, 68 % des jeunes âgés de 15 à 30 ans et 70 % des personnes âgées de 31 ans et plus éprouvent cette lassitude. Ce sentiment est d'autant plus prégnant que la fréquence de consultation de l'actualité augmente avec l'âge, jusqu'à 30 ans. La répétition incessante d'images violentes conduit à une désensibilisation progressive. Les guerres sont « consommées » comme des produits médiatiques, puis reléguées aux oubliettes de notre mémoire collective. Cette surcharge informationnelle engendre un sentiment d'angoisse et d'impuissance, particulièrement chez les plus de 31 ans, dont près d'un tiers (30 %) mentionnent ce motif. Les jeunes, quant à eux, sont plus enclins à lier leur lassitude à une surabondance d'informations, 21 % des 15-30 ans se sentant dépassés par la quantité d'informations disponibles. Les réseaux sociaux ont instauré un nouveau paradigme où la notion de communauté est à la fois gratuite, collaborative et désorganisée. Dans cet espace dématérialisé, le temps et l'espace sont abolis: tout y est immédiat et à portée de clic. L'image, le visuel, dominent, et l'opinion publique est désintermédiée, chacun pouvant devenir un producteur de contenu. Retrouver une Parole Juste Il est dans ce contexte, temps de repenser non seulement la manière dont les conflits sont représentés, mais aussi notre réponse en tant que société, en faisant preuve d'une conscience renouvelée et d'un engagement critique. Les réseaux sociaux, ont transformé la manière dont nous consommons l'information. Ils nous offrent une fenêtre sur le monde, mais cette fenêtre est souvent teintée par des algorithmes qui privilégient le sensationnel au détriment du factuel. Retrouver une parole juste, signifie aussi écouter les voix marginalisées, celles qui ne correspondent pas forcément aux récits dominants. Loin du bruit et de la fureur des réseaux sociaux, nous devons créer des espaces de dialogue où la nuance et la complexité peuvent être explorées. C'est seulement en adoptant cette approche critique et engagée que nous pourrons véritablement comprendre les conflits qui façonnent notre monde et y répondre de manière éclairée et empathique. Photo source: Unsplash - Dole

< Back The Political Assassination of Marielle Franco By Pedro Meerbaum April 30, 2024 On March 14, 2018, after leaving a meeting in the center of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, city councilwoman Marielle Franco and her driver were brutally shot by 13 bullets. The following day, the head of Rio's civil police, Rivaldo Barbosa, visited the family of the victim. He promised them the investigation would be their priority and calmed the distressed family with hopes of justice. Six years later, Barbosa was arrested under the suspicion of being one of the three individuals behind Marielle's murder. Marielle Franco was a prominent name in the political scene of Rio. A left-wing politician raised in a favela (a specific type of Brazilian slums) and acting as one of the few black queer politicians; her image was antagonistic to the waves of conservatism that would elect Bolsonaro a few months after her assassination. She was an active advocate for human rights, with a particular focus on the work of militias in Rio and their violent administration over the city's periphery. Before her assassination, Marielle had been working towards stopping the illegal seizing of land in Rio's west side for speculation and para-governmental authority over the neighborhood. The investigations were carried out for years, hitting the Brazilian headlines often with small findings, questionable plea bargains, and occasionally essential advancements to the case. It was only in March 2019 that two former police officers were arrested and convicted of being the hitmen. It was still not clear, however, who had been behind this operation. For the years that followed, a question lingered that tainted Bolsonaro's administration: Who ordered the killing of Marielle? The question was present not only in official government discussions and protests but also in art and graffiti throughout all the main streets of Brazilian cities. The image of Marielle became a figure of opposition to Bolsonaro's government and an overt depiction of how militias in Rio had obtained a monopoly over crucial administrative features. In 2020, impeached governor Wilson Witzel admitted to having intervened in the investigation of Marielle's death. Moreover, the recent arrest of Rivaldo Barbosa, chief of Rio's civil police in 2018, rejects the idea once put forward by Brazilian media outlets that her assassination was a perfect crime – rather, it exposes to the public that it was an investigation pampered with corruption at all times. Alongside Barbosa, brothers Chiquinho and Domingos Brazão were also convicted of ordering the assassination of Marielle. The Brazão family is an established political family in Rio, receiving most of its support from voters in the highly-populated west side of the city. According to investigations, Barbosa, in a scheme with the brothers, would have promised immunity to the architects of the crime. The same investigations have also pointed to a robust relationship between the family and the illegal subdivision of land in the area. The Minister of Justice Ricardo Lewandowski recently stated, "She was opposed precisely to this group that, in the Rio City Council, wanted to regularize land to use it for commercial purposes, while the councilwoman's group wanted to use this land for social purposes, popular housing purposes." Albeit the confinement of the masterminds of the crime, justice seems far from being reached. Recently, Rio's mayor, Eduardo Paes, was present at a candidacy pre-launching event for a member of the Brazão family. Governors and politicians have praised and upheld the same militia political families that have long brought havoc to Rio's periphery. According to an investigation by Insight Crime , one of Rio's most prominent militias, Escritório do Crime, is composed mainly of former and serving police officers. So, it does not come as a surprise that this precise militia was involved in the murder of Marielle, nor that the bullet used in her assassination had been registered under federal property to the military police. Attempts to tackle the militia question in Rio have been beyond unsuccessful. Paramilitias are now long established in governmental institutions and have acted as a quasi-governmental force in Rio's periphery for decades. The political assassination of Marielle does not exist in a vacuum; it stands alongside numerous other victims of violence and repression. Past efforts to combat the issue have been just as tragic – Temer's militarization of Rio in 2018 cultivated an environment of violence that led to Marielle's assassination, and direct military operations in slums have caused an outrageous number of civil casualties (namely the Jacerizinho slaughter of 2021 ). While dealing with the issue of militias in Rio seems inconceivable, it is nonetheless necessary. Political voices like Marielle are crucial in confronting the presence of militia groups in governmental institutions and serving as representatives to those who have fallen victim to the mundane violence present in Rio's most impoverished neighborhoods. In the words of Marielle herself "How many more will have to die for this war against the poor to be over?" P hoto by Mídia Ninja/Flickr Creative Commons License.

Sports Recap – April 2022 < Back Sports Recap: April By Hugo Lagergren April 29, 2022 Football As the season reaches its climax, the battle between Liverpool and Manchester City for domestic and European glory is showing no sign of letting up. In their second meeting of the Premier League season, the two teams played out an exhilarating 2-2 draw, in what was described by many as the game of the season. One week later, however, Liverpool overcame Pep Guardiola’s side with a dominant first half display to reach their first FA Cup final under Jurgen Klopp. This keeps its hopes of completing a historic quadruple alive. The Champions League quarter-finals saw some serious upsets, as Villareal managed to eliminate favorite Bayern Munich with a late goal from Samuel Chukwueze, setting up a semi-final against Liverpool. Karim Benzema maintained his brilliant form by eliminating the defending champions, Chelsea, with a devastating hat-trick, sending Real Madrid through. Real Madrid will play Man City, as Pep tries to win the only trophy that has eluded him during his time at City. The Europa League, UEFA’s second tier competition, also produced a number of shock results. The biggest was Eintracht Frankfurt’s defeat of Barcelona at the Camp Nou. West Ham United and Red Bull Leipzig also won their respective quarter-finals. Possibly the biggest surprise of the competition was Glasgow’s Rangers reaching the semi-finals of a European tournament. This is the first time a Scottish side has reached the last four since 2008. In the inaugural season of the Europa Conference League, Europe’s tertiary club football competition, Olympique de Marseille, has managed to reach the semi-finals, where it will play Dutch side Feyenoord. Leicester City defeated PSV to set up a semi-final against Mourinho’s struggling AS Roma. With 29 out of the 32 teams having already qualified for the 2022 Qatar World Cup, FIFA completed the draw of the group stages, classifying the 32 possible contenders into 8 groups. This decides the paths each team must take if they are to reach the World Cup final. Following a poor display of form, OGC Nice dropped out of contention for the Champions League, despite reaching the final of the French Cup. This has undoubtedly dampened the mood on the Côte D’Azur, as Nice look likely to miss out on the top-tier of European football, once again. With six games left in the season, none of which are against teams currently in the top five, Nice are looking to reverse its poor form by taking the maximum number of points possible whilst also hoping that the teams above them drop points. With only four games remaining, and just one point separating Chelsea and Arsenal, the tension is rising in the Women’s Super League, as Arsenal attempts to steal the title off Chelsea. Defending champions Chelsea, who have held the title for two years running now, will be without star striker Fran Kirby for the rest of the season. Her absence, according to Chelsea manager Emma Hayes, can be attributed to a case of “fatigue.” In the Women’s FA Cup, Chelsea beat rivals Arsenal comfortably to reach the final, where they will play Man City at Wembley. On March 22, FC Barcelona announced a four-year partnership with UNHCR. Audiences will see the UN Refugee Agency’s logo appear on the back of the Barcelona kit. Moreover, the Barcelona Foundation pledged to supply UNHCR with an annual €400,000 cash contribution and an additional annual €100,000 worth of sports equipment and technical expertise. Barcelona has a history of philanthropic partnerships with the UN – collaborating with the intergovernmental organization for unconventional kit sponsorships. Many will remember the iconic Barcelona kits with the UNICEF logo displayed on the front, which the team used from 2006 to 2010. Formula 1 Ferrari continued its dominant form by clinching a double podium at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix behind Max Verstappen (Leclerc 2nd, Sainz 3rd). They earned their second win of the season at the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne, where Leclerc stormed to his fourth career win. Max Verstappen retired with engine issues in Melbourne for the second time this season, exacerbating worries surrounding Red Bull’s reliability. Red Bull’s team principal, Christian Horner, labelled the issue “desperately frustrating,” as Red Bull struggles to keep up with the pace of the Ferraris. However, Red Bull managed to reestablish themselves at Imola, where they achieved their first one two finish since Malaysia 2016, with Max Verstappen taking the victory. Tennis Stephan Tsitsipas beat Davidovich Fokina to win his second Monte Carlo title in a row. The Greek tennis player took victory in straight sets, 6-3, 7-6, despite looking slightly tense during the tie breaker of the second set. The world number five described himself “very proud” as he won his first trophy of the season, a feat he hopes will kickstart his 2022 campaign. Golf On April 10, American golfer, Scottie Scheffler won his first green jacket by championing the 86th PGA Masters tournament, holding off late pushes from Cameron Smith and Rory McIlroy. Last year, Scheffler finished 18th and his highest finish at any previous major was fourth place. However, much of the golfing world’s attention was on Tiger Woods. Woods made a surprising return following a serious car crash in February 2021, during which he sustained several serious leg injuries. American Sports The NBA playoffs are now underway, with the Phoenix Suns as the favorite to win this year. Last year’s champions, the Milwaukee Bucks will be looking to defend their title. However, the Suns have put up a dominant display during the regular season by setting a franchise record for the most wins in a single season. The NHL approaches the Stanley Cup playoffs with many teams filling playoff spots, including the New York Rangers who have qualified for a place in the playoffs for the first time in five years. Last year’s finalist, the Montreal Canadians, have struggled and are currently bottom of the Atlantic Division, with qualification for the playoffs far out of reach.

Today, there is mounting evidence to demonstrate that the U.S. is trying to break down the enemy they themselves spent so much time creating. < Back Unforeseen Consequences: The U.S. Role in Iran’s Military Rise Isabella Suels for Sciences Defense December 31, 2024 In a toast for his Imperial Majesty Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson once proclaimed, “the ornament of a house is the friend who frequents it”. Throughout his reign of 38 years, the Shah became a glimmering ornament in the White House, frequently meeting with U.S. presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Jimmy Carter. During the Shah’s reign, Iran was valued as one of the most dependable U.S. allies in the Middle Eastern region. This relationship became especially strong during the Johnson administration (1963-1969), during which Iran transitioned from a client state that was controlled and supported by the U.S. into an emerging partner. Prior to Johnson, the U.S. was widely concerned with Iranian political, social and economic reform. The U.S. believed that the key to long-term stability in Iran relied on economic prosperity and wanted to support them in those endeavors. Consequently, during the Cold War, Iran frequently supported U.S. policies in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. However, there was a significant roadblock in the U.S.-Iran relationship because the Shah had an insatiable appetite for military equipment that Washington could not tame . Therefore, in order to keep the Shah’s demands at bay, the Johnson administration adopted a policy of stalling. The U.S., believing they had Iran in their pocket, had no reason to imagine that Iran would turn towards other countries to increase their weapons arsenal. However, U.S. reluctance to provide Iran with the suitable amount of weapons requested, forced the Shah to turn towards U.S. adversaries to bolster his weapons stockpile. In particular, the Soviets had offered the Shah several squadrons of advanced MiG 21 aircrafts . This incident fractured the relationship between Washington and the Shah, which ended up being a necessary step that helped Iran acquire more weapons from the U.S. despite their hesitancy to provide them. In November of 1965, the Shah decreed that he was seeking $200 million in military purchases to meet Iran’s vital security needs. The U.S., knowing that Iran could obtain weapons from its adversaries, barred the transaction between Iran and the Soviets and gave Iran the military upgrades they had been asking for. This story would repeat itself throughout the years: the Shah would argue that “the continued military weakness of Iran may make it susceptible to the evils of aggression,” and then re-utter his threat of seeking arms elsewhere. Consequently, the U.S. would hand over a couple million dollars to expand Iran’s artillery. It was a fairly reasonable deal between the two: the U.S. would supply Iran with state of the art American-made weapons whilst also supplying it with an influx of American culture. In turn, the U.S. had easy access to Iranian oil. With this agreement, not only did Iran get richer in arms, but it also got richer in American culture as the Shah’s government became increasingly pro-Western while he sought to modernize the country. However, tensions were mounting among the population as the relationship between the U.S. and Iran flourished, and eventually they boiled over during the 1979 Iranian revolution. The revolution resulted with the ousting of the Shah and the end of the powerful alliance between Iran and the United States, which put to an end the influx of arms into Iran and the outflux of oil. Nevertheless, no more arms were needed as Iran’s armed forces lay equipped with state of the art equipment after years of trade. In the present day, tensions continue to rise between Iran and the United States. Ironically, the U.S. is fighting against an army of its own making. Although American influence was banished from Iran in 1979, the American artillery left behind was not. Fleets of naval destroyers, motor torpedo boats and squadrons of F-4C fighter jets were left in the hands of a new anti-Western government. This impressive array of weaponry has not gone to waste, rather Iran has decided to “share the wealth” by sending over ships loaded with weapons to the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Treaties such as the Iranian Nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions, have seeked to ease tensions between Iran and several world powers including the United States. The Nuclear deal was set to prevent a revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and thereby reduce the prospects for conflict. However, the deal has fallen into jeopardy since President Trump withdrew from it in 2018, giving rise to a more resentful and belligerent Iran. In tandem with the U.S. withdrawal from the Nuclear deal, throughout the years the U.S. has also conducted multiple rounds of seizures on Iran’s ammunition. These seizures are aimed to disrupt vessels en route to smuggle weapons to the Houthis and other Iranian backed groups. Lately, the US has transferred this seized Iranian military equipment to the Ukrainians. These efforts to weaken Iran’s military are a direct result of the long and complex history between these two countries. Today, there is mounting evidence to demonstrate that the U.S. is trying to break down the enemy they themselves spent so much time creating. Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Wikimedia Commons

في اليوم العالمي للمرأة، كشعيرة من شعائر "الإنسانية،" يجب علينا، نحن ماكثي العالم الغربي، أن ننعى بؤس المرأة العربية. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. < Back خاطرة في اليوم العالمي للمرأة Joud Mustafa March 31, 2025 في اليوم العالمي للمرأة، كشعيرة من شعائر "الإنسانية،" يجب علينا، نحن ماكثي العالم الغربي، أن ننعى بؤس المرأة العربية. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. فأن تولد عربيًا أمر في غاية العناد، ولكن أن تولدي امرأة عربية يعني أن يلين أمامك صلب العناد نفسه. فأنتِ لستِ فقط في صراعٍ وجوديّ مع عالمٍ ظالمٍ يستبيح دماء شعبكِ، ويودّ لو يجعل من بلادكِ ريفييرا يستجمّ فيها فوق أضرحة أطفالكِ، ولكنكِ أيضًا في صراعٍ مع نفسكِ ومجتمعكِ؛ فأنباء اضطهادكِ تتصدر عناوين الصحف في الغرب، ناعتةً الرجل العربي بالرجعية وغير ذلك من صفاتٍ قبيحة؛ كل كي يزعزع جنودُ "الإنسانية" وجدانَ الرجل الغربي المتحضر، لعلّ وعسى أن يلبّي نداء التحضّر ويجلب لكِ الحرية المحتومة. وأنتِ، أنتِ يا أيتها المرأة العربية، مركز كلّ ذلك. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. كانت جدّتي منذ صغر سنها مناضلةً، استطاعت أن تربي جيلًا كاملًا في بيتٍ صغيرٍ لا يكاد يتسع لنفسه، لكنّها جعلت منه صرحًا عظيمًا واسعًا رحبًا بإقامتها فيه . كانت أُميّة حُرمت من التعليم، ولكن، على الرغم من ذلك، كانت تفوقنا جميعًا علمًا. فيا للعجب! أما عمّاتي، فكنّ فلاحاتٍ في قريةٍ من قرى الأردن، ومثل جدّتي، كان مقطنهنّ متواضعَ الحال، لكنهنّ كنّ إمبراطوراتٍ في عالم الفلاحة، يحرثن الأرض، ويحلبن البقر، ويرعين الدجاج، ويأكلن من عمل أيديهنّ، بل إنّ القرية بأكملها كانت تأكل من عمل أيديهنّ. ولا سيما أمي كذلك، قيادية حازمة، فكل كلمة تصدر منها في البيت أو خارجه بمثابة أمر نهائي لا محال منه. فإذا نطقت أمي، سكت القانون. وعلى الرغم من أن هذه الصفات بدت سائدةً فينا بالوراثة، إلا أنني لا زلت امرأة في مطلع شبابي، أحاول بعسر أن أستمد ثوريتي من النساء اللواتي نشأت على أيديهن؛ فلا بد بالطبع أن يعكر صفو تلك المحاولات الكلام الفارغ الذي يُتطلب مني أن أصغي إليه يوميًا في محاضراتي الزنانة. ففعلًا، إن ما تنشره الصحف في ذم الرجل العربي ورثاء المرأة العربية له روّاد في الغرب يتابعونه ويطّلعون عليه، وها أنا، التي كنت أعتقد أنني مركز هذا الحوار، أجلس في خلفية الصف، نائيةً نأي الكواكب عن الشمس عن المركز. فإيميليا (أو أدخل اسم أي فتاة أعجمية) أصبحت أكثر درايةً بمصلحة المرأة العربية، وها هي ذا منفعلة، يحتدّ صوتها وهي تستنكر فعلة الرجل العربي الشنيعة في حق امرأته. يا للهول! إنها لا تستطيع أن ترتدي ما تشاء من ماركات، ولا أن تدارك موضات لباس إيميليا ورفيقاتها! ولن نبرح من المحاضرة حتى تقنعنا إيميليا أن هذا هو كل ما في الأمر يا سيدي، ولا يوجد أي بعد آخر للوطن العربي تراه سوى ذلك. وأنا في الخلف أخاف أن أئنّ أي أنين، حتى لا تهيج إيميليا وتدعو إلى التحرك العسكري الفضائي لإنقاذي من أيدي سجّاني! لكن أيا ليت صمتي لخطابها رادعًا، فهي لا يعنيها حقًا كل ما يمسني من سوء، فيشغلها السوء طالما يطولني من على يد الرجل العربي وليس الغربي، وذلك لأن مذهبها الفكري ليس سوى امتدادا لحيلة استعمارية قديمة؛ استنادًا لتحاليل الكاتبة المصرية ليلى أحمد، فإن فكرة اضطهاد الرجال في المجتمعات المستعمَرة للنساء لا تعني المستعمر إلا بغرض توظيفها أداة في الخطاب الاستعماري تُستخدم "لإضفاء شرعية أخلاقية على مشروع تقويض ثقافات الشعوب المستعمَرة أو القضاء عليها." فهل تدري إيميليا أن جدتي وعماتي كنّ كلهنّ ضحايا حرب الإملاق نتيجة سياسات العالم الغربي الرأسمالي المحتل، قبل أن يكنّ ضحايا الرجل العربي؟ هل ذكرت الصحف المستشرفة التي تتابعها أن الرّجل العربي نفسه ضحيّة للعالم الغربي الرّأسمالي المحتل؟ وذلك كما وضّحت عالمة الأنثروبولوجيا الفلسطينية ليلة أبو لغد في كتابها هل تحتاج المرأة المسلمة إلى الإنقاذ؟ إن "اختزال المرأة المسلمة في صورة نمطية يُبعدنا عن الإشكالية الأعمق، وهي أن سياساتنا وأفعالنا في الغرب تساهم في خلق الظروف القاسية التي يعيشها آخرون في أماكن بعيدة. في النهاية، إن خطاب "إنقاذ" النساء المسلمات يتيح لنا التهرب من التعقيدات المتشابكة التي نشارك جميعًا في تشكيلها، ويكرّس استقطابًا يضع النسوية في صف الغرب وحده." لا أخاطبكم اليوم إنكارًا لما تمرّ به المرأة العربية من ظروف خطيرة وتعيسة، ولكنّي ضقت ذرعًا بالدموع المصطنعة التي يذرفها الغرب ادعاءً منه الاهتمام بتلك الظروف، وهو أول من صنعها. فبعد فصل دراسي كامل لي في جامعة غربية، أحطتُ علمًا بأنني لستُ جوهر الحوار. أصبحت على علمٍ بأنني أنا وسائر النساء العربيات لسنا سوى مضافًا إليه في نثر الكلام، وجزءًا من مسرحية الغرب المتحضر. فصفّقوا، كلٌّ كان له دور وأدّاه! ودوري أنا: أن أُجلب للصف كالصنم الذي لا يفقه شيئًا، ليطمئن زملائي أنه بوجودي استطاعوا أن يحطّموا الجدار الثالث، فأقحموني بكل سخاءٍ في نقاشهم الذي من المفترض أنني أنا "مركزه." وها هي مسرحيتهم العبثية قد أُخرجت بمباركة وجودي بينهم، ورفعت الأقلام، وجفت الصحف، وانقضى حلّ كلّ مشاكل الشرق الأوسط لا يزيد ولا ينقص عن دروس جوفاء تُردَّد عن المساواة الجندرية، كأنَّ العدلَ يولدُ من صدى كلمات الغرب، لا من صرخات أهل الأرض . بدأت أشعر أن الحرية التي أطمح لها أنا، وتطمح لها زميلاتي، ليست الحرية ذاتها. فلم تعد الحرية في عيني أن أرتدي بنطالًا أو قميصًا أو أي قطعة قماش زائفة. أدركتُ أن الحرية هي أن ترميك طائرات الغرب الوحشية بقنابل من سجّيل، تنخر عليك واحدة تلو الأخرى من السماء، لتُوئدك بعد ذلك تحت الأنقاض، ثم تعودي أنتِ وبقوة، تتوعدين بإنجاب المزيد والمزيد لتجديد العهد عليهم، حتى يجنّ جنون العدو، الذي لا يزال يحاول -عبثًا- أن يطمسكِ أنتِ ونسلكِ عن الوجود. ويبقى السؤال: هل إذا كسونا أجسادنا بلباس الغرب سيعصمنا لباسهم من جحيم قنابلهم؟ ومن ثمّ بلغوني، هل بين حريتي وحريتكم أية صلة؟ أوجه رسالتي في يوم المرأة إلى الأم، أو الأخت، أو البنت، أو الإنسانة التي فقدت حياتها، أو حياة من تحب، في غزة، في حلب، في بغداد، في بيروت، والتي تكافح في سبيل العيش الكريم في الأردن أو أي مكانٍ آخر. أضع كفي بكفكِ وأقول: تحيّة لكِ، فأنتِ الحريّة، وأنت الإنسانيّة، وأنتِ العروبة، وأنتِ الثّورة والعناد—وذلك حقّ، ولا شيء يعلو على الحقّ. Photo source: Alisdare Hickson on Flickr