Search Results

Considering the war between Israel and Hamas, we have often heard about antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Their definitions, and extent to which they overlap, are often subject to debate and ambiguity. < Back Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: The Crucial Nuances We Are Losing Considering the war between Israel and Hamas, we have often heard about antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Their definitions, and extent to which they overlap, are often subject to debate and ambiguity. However, blurry distinctions and the inability to see the difference between the two only makes communication more difficult and divisive. In order to examine these differences, we can use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of Anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The definition of anti-Zionism is much less agreed upon, but it is largely seen as an opposition to the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East, roughly corresponding to the historical land of Israel, and this support for this modern state. The first clear point that comes out of these definitions is that within the definition of antisemitism, nothing indicates anti-Zionism as one of its forms. This is crucial because, in my view, this indicates that you can criticize the existence of the state of Israel without being antisemitic. However, the nuance needed here is the basis for this criticism. Indeed, if the reasoning for why Israel is not legitimate uses the argument of religion, it can become antisemitism. Moreover, a factor that is largely understated is the fact that word choice matters and certain phrases have become symbolic of surface Anti-Zionism turning into antisemitism. This notably includes referring to Israel and Israelis as “the Jews'' and “the Zionists.” This is an important point to make as it is not necessarily intuitive in regards to the term “Zionist.” The reason for this is not that the term is in and of itself problematic but rather that it has often been used interchangeably with the term “Jew,” which has lost much of its original meaning. A further distinction to be made is that not all Jewish people support Israel blindly, and not all Jewish people are even Zionists. Support for the existence of Israel does not inherently mean that people support the current government or actions of Israel. Holding all Jewish people responsible for the actions of Israel is antisemitic because it essentializes Jewish people rather than acknowledging individual experiences and perspectives. This is important as a rise of antisemitism has been a clear result of the war in Israel, with over 1,059 antisemitic acts having been reported since October 7 in France alone. Importantly, there are also Jewish people who identify as anti-Zionist. In this regard, we can note that organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace have been denouncing Israel for years. Depth should also be applied in regards to the Israeli population which does not have a singular vision. In fact, a majority of the population currently wants Netanyahu to resign, clearly indicating that the manner in which the war is being conducted is not universally accepted amongst Israelis themselves. Moreover, peace movements such as Women Wage Peace have been audible critiques of Israeli policies, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian women around a common critique of the cyclically violent nature of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. In the context we are living in, it is important that many realize that though somebody may not be antisemitic, they may relay messages with underlying antisemitic messages. The fact that Pro-Palestinian protests have been often linked to the idea of antisemitism is not a fatality. Each of us can make an effort to promote sensitive messages in order to make peace protests, which should be a universal cause, a welcoming environment for all. Making peace protests unwelcoming is just another way of creating an unnecessary division and an ‘us’ against ‘them’ environment which pushes each side to extreme narratives and lack of communication. The angle of protesting is therefore extremely important to the cause of peace. It also leads to the wider question of the importance of word choice and paying attention to the messages we spread. Though this is not targeted to the Sciences Po student body, the message is still valuable to our community, especially on this campus, where many deeply care about the matter, and just a bit more tact and nuance can allow for far more productive conversations.

Is the Poland-EU dispute just a bump along the road, a crisis that every marriage must endure? Or is it truly the end of a great love story, one that ends with heartbreak? Only time will tell. < Back Poland and the EU: A Whirlwind Romance That May End In Divorce By Barbara Kuza December 30, 2021 Years of yearning to join the European Union seem to have been long forgotten with the recent developments in Polish-EU relations, as well as judicial reforms in the country. When the United Kingdom left the European Union (EU), setting a dangerous precedent, no one thought that any country would realistically follow suit. Brexit was supposed to be the exception, an anomaly, not the beginning of some new rule. But recently the question of a “Polexit” has surfaced. While Poland has played the role of the EU’s black sheep for a few years now, most dismissed it simply as bickering — like every married couple does. However, Polexit entered Polish and European public discourse over the summer, when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Poland’s Disciplinary Chamber (transl. Izba Dyscyplinarna) — a judicial organ that reprimands judges when they break the rule of professional ethics — should be liquidated. While the idea behind the disciplinary chamber is not necessarily a bad one in theory, it has been abused by the ruling party to open investigations into, and eventually suspend, judges who are vocal critics of the government. The promising meet-cute Like every tale of romance, this one starts years back. Poland entered the EU on May 1, 2004, after 77.45% of those voting in the referendum answered yes to the question “Do you allow the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union?” Television reports from the day of the referendum shows Poles cheering, whooping, jumping up and down with smiles on their faces. Joining the EU was a dream come true for the Polish nation after living under communist rule and Soviet influence for 44 years. A united Europe symbolized to many Poles a guarantee of no more wars — the Second World War and the Cold War still haunted collective memory. Opening up the market and having access to goods which used to be rarities brought by lucky cousins from abroad was another dream come true. Furthermore, free movement between countries meant some could see places that they had only heard about in stories or saw in newspapers and movies. Puppy love, the honeymoon phase, call it what you will — it seemed like life as a European nation could not get any better than becoming a part of the Union. However, things started rapidly changing when the Law and Justice party (PiS) came to power in 2015. The outgoing Sejm (lower chamber of the legislative body), led by the Civic Platform, appointed three judges for the Constitutional Tribunal before the end of its term. It was up to newly elected President Andrzej Duda to swear them in, which he ultimately decided against. When the new PiS government was formed, they unlawfully appointed three new judges who conveniently corresponded to PiS’ placement on the political spectrum. This provided the groundwork for the Sejm to pass several unconstitutional laws and, with a complicit President and Constitutional Tribunal, it was more than easy. In 2017, the Disciplinary Chamber was created and in April of 2020, the so-called “muzzle” act was passed, which envisioned disciplining judges for applying EU law in court cases, and sending inquiries to the EU Court of Justice. The issue of restricted abortion, which was precisely made possible by the judiciary reforms, further developed in March of this year. The Constitutional Tribunal ruled then, that abortion in case of fetal defects was unconstitutional after an inquiry to the Tribunal was made by far-right parliament members. A love turned sour? This summer, when the ECJ ruled that the Chamber must be liquidated, Law and Justice politicians rushed to send an inquiry to the Constitutional Tribunal about whether or not Poland should comply with the ruling. And unsurprisingly, the Tribunal ruled that Polish law is superior to EU law. At this point Poland asked itself whether it was in a toxic relationship with the EU. Am I losing my independence and sense of self? But it really was not. It was just realizing that it was not in love with its partner as it used to be. The ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal sparked a series of protests in support of the EU. Nevertheless, the state-controlled media, TVP Info, made a special effort to further polarize the conflict, headlining the dissent as “protests against the Polish constitution,” indirectly suggesting that those who do support the EU are not in fact patriots. On the 19 of October, a hearing was held in the European Parliament on the topic of violations of rule of law in Poland. Patryk Jaki, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the Law and Justice party, pompously quoted Jean Jacques Rousseau and whined about how the EU was against the Polish government. The Prime Minister Morawiecki, on the other hand, could not resist mentioning the name that always stirs up a myriad of controversies: Donald Tusk. Donald Tusk, in the case of the Polish-European marriage, is like that shared friend whose expected position after the divorce is unclear. Or at least that is how the government views it. He served as the Polish Prime Minister in the years 2007 to 2014 from the Civic Platform (the largest opposition party), after which he became the President of the European Council. PiS partly built its election campaigns on demonizing him — at one point the national news portrayed him having a reddish tint. So is Donald a friend? A foe? Depends who you ask. Therefore, instead of addressing the issue at hand, the rule of law (or in Poland’s case, a lack thereof), Morawiecki decided to redirect the attention onto Tusk. He pushed back against the accusations of judicial ruling being politically motivated by saying “Please show me one ruling like that. One.” Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, Poland was officially gaslighting the EU. Moreover, he pointed out that during Tusk’s rule — contrary to now — politically motivated court rulings were made. But the only reaction he was met with for this statement was scarce applause and a Polish MEP shouting “don’t lie” in the background. “But will they really get divorced?” As in most dysfunctional marriages, when things go south, one of the partners has to say “I can’t live without you, please stay” to put past quarrels aside and make amends. In this case, it seems it is the EU that wants to hold onto Poland, whereas the Polish government unfortunately does not reciprocate the feeling. But interestingly enough, the dynamic is reversed — it is more so Poland that needs the EU than the other way around. The country is heavily dependent on EU funds and is now also dealing with the Belarusian migrant crisis on the border, which it cannot face alone. “On the eastern border we are dealing not only with violence, but with a staged spectacle aimed at violating borders, bringing chaos to the European Union” Prime Minister Morawiecki said on the situation at the border in November. Maybe Poland still loves the EU after all? Or perhaps it is just scared of getting lonely… Another worrying indication is how reckless the Law and Justice politicians have become when talking about a potential Polexit. A member of parliament, Janusz Kowalski, even mentioned 2027 as the year for a Polexit referendum. Nevertheless, as of October, 88% of an Ipsos poll’s respondents (made for Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO. Press) supported Poland’s continued membership in the EU.On the other hand, the Polish nation is becoming increasingly polarized, and the government-controlled media outlets are becoming progressively more ruthless by the day. As if that was not enough, on the 18 of December 2021, the Sejm passed a law commonly dubbed Lex TVN. The law is targeted against Poland’s largest independent news broadcaster, TVN, which is owned by American company Discovery. The new bill prohibits companies from outside the European Economic Zone to have complete ownership of a Polish radio or TV station. Is the Poland-EU dispute just a bump along the road, a crisis that every marriage must endure? Or is it truly the end of a great love story, one that ends with heartbreak? Only time will tell.

Australia's treatment of children, particularly Indigenous and asylum-seeking children, violates global human rights standards and raises several critical questions: Why are these vulnerable children subjected to such mistreatment, and why does Australia continue to incarcerate and detain them unlawfully? What purpose are these punitive measures serving for Australia as an ongoing colonial project, and why are Australian people allowing such blatant violations of both national and global human rights to be carried out in their name? < Back Australia’s Colonial Logic of Child Imprisonment: How Indigenous Incarceration and Asylum Seeker Detention Violate Human Rights Finn Leary for Amnesty Menton October 31, 2024 Australia is a nation predicated on a fair go for all; a country that prides itself on its multiculturalism. Yet, these mythologies fail to stack up when applied to the First Nations People, who are victims of discrimination and marginalization. The same can be said when one looks at Australia’s vilification and demonization of refugees and asylum seekers. Australia’s carceral and immigration systems—systems designed to uphold and perpetuate a white, Anglo-centric Australia—continue to violate human rights, especially those of children. Indigenous youth are disproportionately affected by hyper-incarceration, facing imprisonment rates that far exceed those of non-Indigenous youth and global averages for youth incarceration. Although only about 5.7% of people aged 10–17 in Australia are First Nations, 63% of the children in detention on an average day in 2023 were First Nations. This means they are 29 times as likely as a non-Indigenous child to be in detention. For children aged 10-13, this figure rises to 46 times. The incarceration and brutal treatment of Indigenous youth in detention is a direct extension of the colonial logic that saw children removed, excluded and missionized in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is the Stolen Generations all over again—a period where Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families—simply in a new form. It seems inevitable that, like Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's 2008 apology , there will be many apologies to come for these concurrent violations of humanity. Despite a promise to eliminate the detention of all children by the end of 2019, asylum-seeking children remain in detention and alternative arrangements. The treatment of these children has been described as highly damaging, cruel, degrading and unlawful. Australia's treatment of children, particularly Indigenous and asylum-seeking children, violates global human rights standards and raises several critical questions: Why are these vulnerable children subjected to such mistreatment, and why does Australia continue to incarcerate and detain them unlawfully? What purpose are these punitive measures serving for Australia as an ongoing colonial project, and why are Australian people allowing such blatant violations of both national and global human rights to be carried out in their name? These questions demand serious reflection on Australia's commitment to justice, equality and human rights, especially as a nation predicated on a “fair go.” The answers shed light on the lasting impacts of colonialism and the twisted ways in which the colonial project continues to be upheld. The following stories are those of children who have been victims of Australia’s disgraceful carceral system and immigration system. These stories should unsettle, disturb and enrage. In February this year, the Queensland government released a report on the deaths of two boys who had spent extensive time in solitary confinement while in youth detention. Both were First Nations children with disabilities. Despite this, they were kept in solitary confinement for prolonged periods, a practice that the United Nations Expert on Torture has consistently urged to be abolished. The first spent 128 nights in detention, with 78% of that time isolated in his cell; the second spent 55 days locked in his cell alone for over 22 hours each day. Both had been repeatedly detained from the ages of 11 and 13. Both boys committed suicide following incarceration. This report arrived at the same time as the Queensland and Northern Territory governments are pushing to reduce the age of criminal responsibility back to 10 years. Queensland has had to suspend its Human Rights Act to rush through legislation to make this possible. The newly elected Northern Territory government is set to pass similar legislation in its first parliamentary session. These practices—of locking up young and vulnerable Indigenous youth—are fundamental to the youth carceral system in Australia. Incarcerating Indigenous youth sustains the prison-industrial complex, notably in remote and rural areas, by employing law enforcement, corrections officers, social workers, legal professionals and support staff. It costs approximately $1.03 million per annum to lock up one child, money that could be diverted into consistent and long-term community care and support services. Incarceration is the bedrock of coloniality in the modern era. It is the tool with which Indigenous sovereignty is denied. It is a continuation of the exclusions, interventions and social controls faced by Indigenous children over the past two centuries, cloaked in the legitimacy of pursuing ‘community safety’. As Matthews & Holden assert, “Whether on a mission or in a cell, Aboriginal movement is contained to prevent the transfer of language, knowledge, ceremony and culture to their descendants.” Asylum-seeking children continue to face a similar fate in Australia, driven by the same underlying logic of exclusion, control and dehumanization. Mandatory offshore detention has deeply damaged many lives over the past two decades, compounding the adversity, trauma and loss of family that many asylum seekers have experienced. Children forced to flee, often unaccompanied, from war, persecution, violence, sexual abuse and forced recruitment have found themselves detained, imprisoned, and isolated in Australian territory rather than receiving the protection and care they desperately needed. The National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention found that some children had spent over five years in detention before their applications were processed—for no reason other than to serve as examples of Australia’s ‘firm stance’ on ‘illegal’ immigration. The impact on the mental and physical health of these children has been severe, with over half of those detained experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, self-harming behaviors and heightened anxiety or depression. A young child on Nauru, the site of one of the offshore detention centers, when asked about her experiences, said , “Of all the bad things that have already happened now, I feel I wish I died at sea instead of dying slowly here.” Another unaccompanied child said , “I don’t care about a visa anymore. I want to finish everything. My life is very difficult. I don’t understand why I am here. I am beginning to feel crazy; my situation is very bad and getting worse. I am alone, no family, nobody here. I’ve been here 15 months; I need to do something.” While no Australian government has officially abandoned mandatory indefinite detention, its application is in significant decline . However, this decline has led to a greater reliance on other punitive measures, such as the Temporary Bridging Visa Scheme. The story of Mano Yogalingam speaks to the failings of this scheme, particularly for asylum-seeking children. On Wednesday, the 28th of August, Tamil asylum seeker Mano Yogalingam self-immolated, setting himself on fire in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. He was a key organizer of protests calling for an end to the temporary visa scheme . Mano had arrived in Australia as a 12-year-old fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka. After spending over a year in detention, Mano was placed on a bridging visa. Ten years later, he remained on that bridging visa—his imprisonment had simply taken on a new form. This temporary bridging visa scheme has been designed to make asylum seekers deportable or re-detainable. By keeping people on this visa indefinitely it destabilizes and undermines their place in the Australian community. Many on the visa scheme are denied education, healthcare, and the right to work—leaving them trapped in poverty and positions of social exclusion, unable to access basic services or opportunities for self-sufficiency. This scheme—underpinned by a harsh regime of surveillance, control, and punishment—lies at the heart of the government's relentless strategy to punish and deter asylum seekers. So, where does the real connection lie between these two issues? Both Indigenous youth and children seeking asylum in Australia have been “othered” to serve as scapegoats, “othered” through being framed discursively as threats to security and community safety. Australia’s systems are rooted in settler-colonial norms and values upheld by racist institutions and political ideology. These systems are inherently designed to prioritize certain groups and "standards" over others while excluding those deemed incompatible with settler-societies norms. In Orientalism (1995), Edward Said asserted that modern colonialism relies entirely on having a knowledge system that separates the colonizer from the colonized. Said infers that those blatant forms of colonial violence—genocide, enslavement and segregation—have gradually been replaced by less visible expressions of coloniality, such as immigration laws, sterilization practices, child welfare apprehensions and an over-reliance on carceral systems. Institutionalized settler colonial norms and ideologies of whiteness have become so normalized that these racial hierarchies are rendered invisible. Australia as a country has been founded upon dangerous myths—myths that today express themselves in the eradication and silencing of certain minorities. These issues will not change without a strong commitment to meaningful truth-telling processes at both the community and national level. The more that history reveals its truths, contradicting the accepted “facts,” the more cracks appear in mythologised colonial narratives. This is the idea Naomi Klein describes in Doppelganger , referencing the discovered mass graves of First Nations children at Canadian missionary schools. In an age of resurging ultra-nationalism and far-right authoritarian governments, it seems these issues will continue to be complex battlegrounds. Given the widespread collapse of the rules-based international order and the erosion of international humanitarian and human rights laws , it is more important than ever that pressure is placed on our governments domestically to uphold commitments to human rights. This must begin with stronger commitments to our children, particularly the most vulnerable among them .

In a democratic society we willingly submit power to governing institutions to be wielded toward the greater good, and when that isn’t the case, and other measures fail to address injustices, Fo’s tale suggests that civil disobedience may be the only route left to take. < Back Navigating Corrupt Realities: The Timelessness of Dario Fo’s ‘Accidental Death of an Anarchist’ By Maria Eirini Liodi December 31, 2023 In a world torn by conflict, poverty, and displacement; where every event is live broadcasted to us 24/7, reality seems to be a nightmarish loop. Especially with the wartime atrocities we have observed this past year, notions of fairness and justice have been prevalent topics of discussion, as has been the issue of civil disobedience in light of injustice. Is deviating from the norm and going to extreme measures to make one’s voice heard justifiable? What civil disobedience is justified in the name of fairness? While this article will not delve into these political topics directly, they do provide a basis of my discussion of theatre and the role of political plays today, with the spotlight on a recent favourite of mine, Dario Fo’s play, ‘The Accidental Death of an Anarchist.’ Recently while in Athens, I was able to see this incredible play brought to life. An amalgamation of movement, song and wit, the interpretation brought by the Greek actors, namely the protagonist Panos Vlahos, is a must watch for anyone in the area. A woeful tale woven in webs of lies, injustice and violence, the protagonist, a mad trickster, unveils the distorted reality one finds when dealing with powerful and corrupted state bodies. This lively satire unfolds a tale based on the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing and death of anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli. In a period where Italy was struck by intense waves of social unrest, radical calls from the left for societal reform and anarchist groups mobilising to destabilise the status quo, the government was cornered in a challenging position. Pinelli was arrested for an alleged anarchist bombing, however like everything in the play, Fo sheds light on the ambiguity of the events, from the arrest, to the unfortunate, ‘accidental’ death. Pinelli’s death was labelled a suicide, an ‘accident,’ but many members of the public weren’t convinced. As all Gossip Girl fans and perhaps governments will know, even the best hidden secrets come out eventually. Well this one didn’t exactly ‘come out.’ It was just whispers of the corrupt core of the police, alleged brutal methods of interrogation and even rumours of the police planting intelligence members disguised as leftists to plant bombs to destroy their credibility and political standing. Fo illustrates this confusion through an absurd reality of a protagonist with a fast-talking, skillful eloquence and underlying revolutionary zeal. Assuming the semblance of a psychiatrist and later an investigating judge, the protagonist infiltrates the police department, seamlessly unraveling the inconsistencies of the anarchist’s case and revealing through the impeccable “appearance-versus-reality" trope the deceptive, corrupt actions of the police force. As audiences immerse themselves in the narrative, the play subtly urges contemplation on the challenging of authority and resisting oppressive systems. Amidst the protagonist's journey through the absurdity of corrupt institutions, the narrative quietly champions the notion that civil disobedience, rooted in anarchist values, can wield significant influence in the battle against societal injustice. If we were to look practically anywhere in our modern day society, we could see these ideas entrenched around us. Modern media yields growing power in dominating the narratives upon which not only our interpretations of the world are based, but society itself is based. Done in parallel with the growing tools of misinformation and misrepresentation of information, as tools of social division and exclusion of justice, Fo’s political drama serves as a cautionary tale. We ought to be critical about what we read–where was it published? When? By whom? Is there proof? If so, then what is it? And when it comes to institutions of power, be it universities, companies or governments–we ought to be critical of them too. In a democratic society we willingly submit power to governing institutions to be wielded toward the greater good, and when that isn’t the case, and other measures fail to address injustices, Fo’s tale suggests that civil disobedience may be the only route left to take. Disclaimer: This is by no means an article written to promote anarchy, just critical thinking.

Promoting finance to tackle climate change in developing countries is one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement. Yet the investment world, which seemingly has a never-ending stream of scandals and mis-selling driven by greed and lack of ethics, is yet again undermining the existentially important issue of climate change. < Back Regulating ESG Investments Becomes More Pressing Amidst Greenwashing Trends By Noor Ahmad November 30, 2022 The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP27, is convening in the Egyptian coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh between the 6th and 18th of November 2022. The conference seeks to tackle global climate emergency issues: how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the effects of climate change and finance climate action in developing countries. The conference seeks to build on the Paris Agreement in 2015, which set out goals to guide nations on how to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius. The agreement is a legally binding international treaty with 194 signatory Parties. The issue of climate change and financing the fight against it are nothing new. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has been rising for the last decade. ESG incorporates a broad set of principles that socially responsible investments should follow and are sometimes commingled with “green” investments, which focus primarily on environmental impact. While there is no clear taxonomy for ESG, it broadly aims to curtail the effects of climate change, carbon emissions, environmental pollution, deforestation and water scarcity. The non-environmental categories of ESG encompass a wider scope, including community impact, human rights, diversity in company boards, bribery, and corruption. A report by the consulting firm Deloitte published earlier this year estimated $39 trillion of assets in 2020 were ESG-focused versus $19 trillion in 2014. This represents 36 percent of total global investments in 2020. The magnitude and proportion of ESG investments are expected to rise dramatically in the coming years, reaching $96 trillion by 2025 and representing 58 percent of worldwide investments. Other measures put the projected amount invested in ESG funds at a few trillion dollars. What is indisputable is that this sector is proliferating. As interest in the environment and sustainability has increased, so has regulatory focus. In 2021, the European Union introduced its Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, which requires asset managers to provide information regarding their adherence to ESG investment standards. Three categories were introduced in classifying investment funds: article six funds, which do not take sustainability into account; article eight funds, which promote ESG practices; and article nine funds, which is the highest ESG category, with sustainability at the heart of its investment policies. Moreover, since August 2022, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II, a regulation seeking to protect investors and standardize practices across the European Union, now requires financial advisors to evaluate not only the client’s risk tolerance but also their preferences for environmentally sustainable investments. The regulatory changes by the union are timely and possibly the beginning of a worldwide regulatory convergence in how to classify environmentally responsible investments. The changes have come against a background of mis-selling and misrepresentation by some of the world’s largest asset managers. DWS, Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm, recently saw its CEO step down after evidence emerged that the firm failed to classify investments labelled ESG against the necessary criteria correctly. The term “greenwashing,” which aptly describes DWS’s behavior, is one where a company tries to portray itself as more socially responsible and environmentally friendly than it is. The company may not meet the necessary standards and continue investing in environmentally harmful businesses. A German consumer group recently filed a lawsuit against DWS alleging that its ESG Climate Tech fund was marketed as having zero percent investments in polluting sectors such as coal. Yet, the fund’s investment policy allowed for investments in companies where up to 15 percent of their revenues could be generated from these harmful industries. The problems faced by DWS are not a one-off event, and the prevalence of misrepresentation of what investment funds are doing versus what they are advertising is an issue concerning regulators beyond the European Union, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority reviewing both conduct and current regulation. Promoting finance to tackle climate change in developing countries is one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement. Yet the investment world, which seemingly has a never-ending stream of scandals and mis-selling driven by greed and a lack of ethics, is yet again undermining an existentially important focus. As the awareness of climate change has begun to alter the behavior of both individual and institutional investors and centered them on environmentally positive goals, the investment world must step up and learn to police itself. Regulators will eventually catch up and create guidelines, but the intermediaries have a significant role as time passes and environmental catastrophe descends on humanity. Let us hope that the outcome of COP27 is a clear message to the investment industry that it needs to address these shortcomings and take substantial steps to finance positive change.

< Back Daring More Progress: Freedom, Justice, and Sustainability are Germany's new Leitmotifs. Florian Heydecker December 31, 2021 On November 24, the Social Democratic Pary (SPD), the Greens, and the Liberal Party (FDP) presented the coalition agreement for the next four years of government. The paper is the result of almost two months of negotiations that aimed at forming the first three-party coalition and the first government after sixteen years of Angela Merkel. Two weeks later, Olaf Scholz, SPD candidate and Minister of Finance in the previous government, was elected Bundeskanzler (Chancellor) and took office on December 8. Now Germany has a new leader, a new government, and a new agenda. The parties called their coalition ‘traffic light’ referring to their colors: red for SPD, yellow for the FDP, and the Greens. Briefly, the traffic-light coalition will increase the minimum wage, respect the balanced budget amendment, implement the coal phase-out, and legalize cannabis. Post-Merkel Germany will revolve around these new axes. Voting rights & Cannabis The new government is committed to lowering the active voting age for elections to the Bundestag and the European Parliament to 16. The traffic light coalition also wants to revise the electoral law “within the first year” to prevent the Bundestag from growing. Furthermore, the government wants to introduce the controlled distribution of cannabis to adults “for consumption purposes” in licensed stores. This reform would supervise quality, prevent the distribution of contaminated substances and ensure the protection of minors. The regulations for marketing and sponsorship of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis will become more restrictive. Minimum wage & Housing The statutory minimum wage should increase to 12 euros per hour in a one-off adjustment, hence overcoming the current wage of 9.60 euros per hour. The minimum wage commission is then to decide on further increases and adapt it to the national and international circumstances. In addition, the coalition agreement outlines the goal of building 400,000 new homes per year, including 100,000 publicly subsidized homes. An “affordable housing alliance” will be established, and a new non-profit housing scheme with tax incentives and investment subsidies is to be launched immediately. The rent brake will be extended and tightened. In areas with a tight housing market, rents will be allowed to rise only up to 11 percent within three years instead of up to 15 percent as before. Climate The traffic light coalition wants to bring forward the coal phase-out. “Ideally, this will already succeed by 2030,” the agreement said. This eight-year process will revolve around the expansion of wind and solar power. By 2030, 80% of electricity consumption is to come from renewable energies. This will require more gas-fired power plants. The partners want to more than the triple solar capacity to 200 gigawatts (GW), by making photovoltaics mandatory on commercial roofs, among other things. They also want to accelerate the expansion of offshore wind energy, which is to climb to 30 GW in 2030 (previously 20 GW). Two percent of Germany's surface area is to be reserved for onshore wind energy. The phase-out of coal is also to be accelerated via European trading in CO2 pollution rights. The coalition, therefore, intends to lobby the European Union (EU) for a minimum price for these certificates, which power plants require. If this is unsuccessful, it will be fixed nationally such that the price does not fall below 60 euros per ton. In the future, climate protection will be more strongly integrated into the decisions of the German government than in the past. Each ministry is to review its draft laws for climate impact and compatibility with national climate protection targets and provide an appropriate justification — the so-called climate check. The Federal Climate Protection Act will be further developed “consistently” before the end of 2022, and an emergency climate protection program will be introduced. Nuclear weapons The new federal government wants to abandon Germany's fundamental rejection of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and thus deviate from the previous. Germany will participate in the Conference of the Parties as an observer. The controversial treaty banning nuclear weapons was adopted by 122 of the 193 countries of the United Nations in 2017 and entered into force at the beginning of this year. It prohibits the possession, acquisition, development, and deployment of nuclear weapons. All nuclear powers, as well as all NATO countries, and thus also Germany, have so far rejected it because they considered the previous treaties to be a better basis for nuclear disarmament. Transport Starting next year, the regional funds for local transportation will be increased. Quality criteria and standards for services and accessibility for urban and rural areas will be defined by both the federal states and local authorities together. Deutsche Bahn AG will be retained as an integrated group, including the group's internal labor market, under public ownership. Internal structures will be made more efficient and transparent. The infrastructure units (DB Netz, DB Station und Service) of Deutsche Bahn AG will be merged into a “new infrastructure division oriented toward the common good.” Cross-border traffic will be strengthened and night train services developed with the EU and the member states. By 2030, 75 percent of the rail network is to be electrified. Germany aims to become the lead market for electromobility, with at least 15 million electric cars in 2030. The SPD, Greens, and FDP also want a reform of the truck toll. In 2023, a “CO2 differentiation” of the truck toll is to be implemented. Commercial road haulage of three and a half tons or more will be included in this toll, and a CO2 surcharge will also be introduced — on condition that a double burden from the CO2 price is ruled out. Migration and right to stay Visa issuance is to be accelerated and increasingly digitized. Residence permits should not expire during temporary stays abroad. The “complicated system of toleration” is to be reorganized. “Well-integrated young people,” up to the age of 27, will be allowed to stay after three years of residence in Germany. People who have lived in Germany for five years by January 1, 2022, have not committed any criminal offenses, and are committed to the free democratic basic order will be able to obtain a one-year probationary residence permit. For faster asylum procedures, the new coalition wants to relieve the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. “We want faster decisions in asylum proceedings, as well as a standardization of jurisdiction and will quickly present a bill to this end,” the three parties announced. Financing The Balanced Budget Amendment enshrined in the Basic Law is to be complied with again starting in 2023. In the coming year, however, new loans will have to be taken out again due to the ongoing consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. Municipalities with high levels of old debt are to be relieved. “In 2022, there will also be continuing pandemic consequences to deal with, which will continue to constitute an exceptional emergency in the sense of the debt rule,” the agreement said. “Beginning in 2023, we will then limit debt to the constitutional margin provided by the debt brake and comply with the debt brake requirements.” Foreign Policy The signal of continuity in German foreign policy could not have been clearer. At the G20 summit in Rome, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and her vice-chancellor and successor Olaf Scholz (SPD) took part in a virtual duet and completed all the important talks together. The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden continues to rely on a strong Germany that assumes responsibility within the EU, NATO, and the international community. The U.S. will pay particular attention to how the new German government positions itself vis-à-vis China and Russia. Washington D.C. is pushing for a more confrontational approach to its strategic rival, whereas Merkel's government has tended to focus on dialogue and good trade relations. As for China, Merkel is already sorely missed in Beijing because she spoke her mind honestly, but also always showed understanding for China and pursued a more business-oriented China policy. Beijing hopes that Scholz is also aware of how dependent Germany is on economic cooperation with China. Yet, the Greens and the FDP not only want to do more for human rights, including the persecution of Uyghurs and Tibetans and the situation in Hong Kong but also advocate free trade and fair market access. This last aspect resonates well with the increasing tensions between Beijing and the U.S. Further developments will become more visible in the future. Back to Europe, Russia does not expect a fundamental improvement in its relationship with Germany given the severe tensions of recent years. Moscow-based Germany expert Vladislav Belov, however, expects the chancellor to continue to set the foreign policy lines. He does not see a new confrontational course under Scholz. “The coalitionists are not starting from ‘red lines’ but a constructive approach,” said the head of the Germany Center at the European Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. On the other hand, Turkey will likely face a tougher course from the new German government concerning human rights issues and the EU-Turkey refugee deal. Both SPD and the Greens are committed to emphasizing the respect of human rights and the right to asylum. Concerning Israel, a policy of continuity can be expected from the traffic light government as a whole. The new government is also committed to a two-state solution in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Palestinians are expected to make “progress on democracy, the rule of law and human rights.” Israel is expected to halt settlement expansion in the Palestinian territories and, hence, promote a future peace settlement. Finally, the EU expects a solid continuation of Merkel’s European commitment. With the SPD, the Greens, and the FDP as pro-European parties, Paris expects a certain continuity of previous German policies. Scholz, as an already well-known and experienced politician, gives Paris a certain degree of security and is seen as a desirable partner. Some concerns might arise due to different views between the Greens and the FDP. France also observes the way Germany will combine climate investments and strict debt policy. The strengthening of the collaboration with Italy has also become a further point of the EU balance. Thus, the new German government entails both continuity and rupture with the Merkel era. Although Olaf Scholz should preserve, if not even strengthen, Germany’s transatlantic and European commitment, the coalition will adopt a more liberal line for national politics and a harder approach with regards to human rights and the rule of law abroad. Post-Merkel Germany has taken its first steps, the race has just begun.

< Back Boeing Grapples With The 737-MAX By Yasmin Abbasoy February 29, 2024 In its newly-published 2023 end-of-year results, Boeing has for the first time foregone its traditional section on “financial and operational objectives” in order to emphasize its newfound commitment to safety. The leading aerospace company has been witness to more scrutiny than it could have ever conceived, primarily due to its flagship 737 MAX 9 carrier which has recently resulted in various catastrophes. These recent events have brought to light the company’s various errors regarding its work culture and practices. When a door plug, a mechanism that replaces an extra built-in emergency door in the middle of the MAX-9, detached from the Alaska Airlines flight 1282 merely 6 minutes into the flight, it would come to be seen as nothing more than the natural consequence of decisions taken at the company. The plane, scheduled for a domestic flight on Jan. 5, was in the world of commercial flight, brand new. It had been in service for approximately 2 months, having under its wing close to 500 flight hours. A malfunction stemming from age was unlikely on such an aircraft, and the plane had had no problems during routine maintenance.Thankfully, there was no loss of life–oxygen masks descended as the vacant space left by the plug uncontrollably depressurized the airplane. By a stroke of luck, the seat next to the plug was empty. The spontaneous suction did, however, pull a shirt off a teenage boy and scatter personal belongings across the flight path–including an Iphone which was found functioning and still in flight mode two days later. The MAX-9 fleet which comprised 65 planes was immediately subjected to an Emergency Airworthiness Directive by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The regulatory body issued this directive to confirm the recognition of improper conditions that required immediate action on the part of the manufacturer. An ongoing investigation was launched as Boeing developed a new inspection process to be approved by the FAA, after which the planes were cleared for flight at the end of January. The Alaska Airlines debacle is not the first worrying complication seen in a Boeing-manufactured aircraft. It was not even the first complication for its own series–the MAX-8, predecessor to the MAX-9, had in March of 2019 been grounded for 20 months after two deadly crashes which killed 349 people in total. There had been some adjustments to the positioning of the engine on this model, one which would cause divergences in the behavior of the plane that had to be accounted for. Boeing installed a new software, which was found in the ensuing investigation to be inaccurate and difficult to use or override. Industry insiders found the two accidents “eerily similar,” and worried about a brand-new plane failing twice in the space of a year. The grounding of the MAX-8 was a dramatic measure–the firm is vitally important to the U.S. economy, being a leading exporter with a global network of over 20.000 suppliers. Boeing is estimated to have lost at least $20 billion in direct costs as a result. A mishandling of the aftermath saw CEO Dennis Muilenburg sacked for his over-optimistic forecasts of the process of getting the grounded planes back in the air and his blundering of congressional hearings. Congressional investigators found that the company culture was to blame, with employees encouraged to push the airplane out into the market ahead of rival, Airbus, at the expense of quality control. Messages exchanged among employees provided for the investigation revealed a startling lack of confidence in the product–the development process of the MAX-8 was commented on with wry detachment, with the core development team being referred to as “clowns.” The culture problem at Boeing is, as of 2020, congressionally acknowledged, and Boeing’s latest news update on its website shows a clear plan for increased scrutiny and reprioritized safety, with the expected corporate public relations tint. The problem itself, however, may have been decades in the making. Industry experts tie the shift in culture to a 1997 merger between Boeing and the defense contractor McDonnell Douglas. Well-known for their military planes, the company was acquired for about $14 billion. While it was the Boeing name that stayed on, a dramatic shift was gradually occurring internally. Journalist Peter Robison posits that a pre-merger Boeing was a company of engineers, focused solely on quality production and client satisfaction. McDonnell Douglas, on the other hand, put more value on delivering products and pleasing shareholders, as efficiently as possible. Illustratively, after the merger, Boeing headquarters was moved from Seattle, the heart of production for the firm, to Chicago. The emphasis on quantity over quality has led to a reliance on subcontracting: the 737-MAX supply chain has over 600 suppliers, which too have felt the pressure. Ed Pierson, a former manager at one of Boeing’s 737 factories, describes a “pressure to push planes out of the door” and a culture of retaliation against employees who call attention to the lack of quality standards. Upon investigation precipitated by the Alaska Airline incident, Delta and United Airlines found that the bolts designed to secure the door plug on their MAX-9 aircraft were not properly tightened. This ring of the production chain is handled by Spirit Aerosystem, a subcontractor, in their Malaysia factory. The preliminary report released from the investigative committee found that the four bolts on Alaska Airlines flight 1282 were completely missing. That is, the plane had flown 500 hours without them. The increased attention on its manufacturing process has not boded well for Boeing. Though CEO Dave Calhoun, brought in after Muilenburg, has acknowledged a “quality escape,” and the media is all too willing to pounce on any instance of a faulty Boeing product. One such instance was when U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken’s 737 plane had to be switched on the way back from the World Economic Forum in Davos due to a “critical failure.” An employee has also recently shared images with the media of a Boeing facility in which hangs the sign–and presumably, the company motto–”Just Ship It.” Understandably, the newest topic in the news cycle has been the continued discovery of misdrilled holes in the fuselage of Boeing 737 planes. As the systemic nature of the Boeing Problem is pushed further and further into the spotlight, it is Boeing that must adjust and recalibrate, or come crashing down.

< Back President Macron Visits Israel and the West Bank in Diplomatic Balancing Act By Peyton Dashiell November 30, 2023 On Oct. 24, French President Emmanuel Macron embarked on a visit to Israel after over two weeks of war in Gaza spurred by the deadly Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. While derided by some critics as belated and insufficient, his trip included an ambitious range of diplomatic objectives. He began the visit by meeting with the families of French victims and hostages of the Oct. 7 attacks in southern Israel, during which over 1,200 people were killed and around 240 taken hostage by Hamas. At least 30 French nationals were killed and nine are currently missing or being held in captivity in Gaza. 21-year-old Mia Schem, who appeared in a hostage video released by Hamas on Oct. 17, holds dual French-Israeli citizenship. Macron then engaged in a series of meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, minister without portfolio Benny Gantz, and opposition leader Yair Lapid. Above all, he expressed solidarity with Israel's fight against Hamas: "I want you to be sure that you are not left alone in this war against terrorism." He evoked France’s recent history of terrorist attacks in the 2010s, declaring terrorism as the common enemy between both Israel and France and stating that the fight against Hamas must be “without mercy” but not “without rules.” He also reportedly suggested that the international coalition used to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria could be redeployed to fight against Hamas in Gaza. Finally, both leaders expressed the urgency of a complete and unconditional release of hostages. On Oct. 25, Macron traveled to Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas – the first meeting between Abbas and a European leader since the beginning of the war. Protesters filled the streets of Ramallah, burning photos of Macron and accusing him of unqualified support for the Israeli government. During the meeting, Abbas characterized the war between Israel and Hamas as an Israeli military aggression and voiced the need for an immediate political solution. Macron expressed that there is no justification for the suffering of civilians in Gaza and pushed for the restoration of electricity to Gaza, particularly to hospitals and medical facilities, and several other humanitarian commitments. In the weeks following his visit, he has reiterated these sentiments, calling for a humanitarian pause and eventual ceasefire on Nov. 10 for the protection of Gazan civilians – a demand most Western leaders are yet to voice. In his meeting with Netanyahu, Macron declared the two-state solution as an integral part of resolving the current war between Israel and Hamas, stating that lasting peace will not be feasible “without a decisive relaunch of the political process with the Palestinians.” While France is far from alone in advocating for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the French government has expressed particular historical willingness to take initiative on matters of negotiation and diplomacy. The French government spearheaded the Venice Declaration in 1980, an agreement of the European Economic Community that affirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination and advocated for the inclusion of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in peace talks, even when it was designated by the United States and other powers as a terrorist organization. However, some question if France retains this commitment to Palestinians today, after increasing ties with Israel over time and criminalizing initiatives like the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement domestically. While the United States has played the role of the largest foreign power broker in the Middle East for several decades, the Biden administration placed minimal emphasis on Israel and Palestine compared to other policy priorities prior to the Oct. 7 attacks – he appointed no special envoy for Middle East peace, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has had relatively little engagement with Israel and Palestine compared to other regions, and campaign commitments like reopening the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem for Palestinians faced years of stagnancy. Most recent U.S. attention was placed upon the potential accession of Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords, but negotiations were halted after the Oct. 7 attacks. Coupled with continued US military support for Israel creating distrust among Palestinians and Mahmoud Abbas’s prior unequivocal rejection of any U.S.-brokered peace plan, it’s possible France could play a mediatory role as the war continues. While Macron has been measured in his meetings with all parties, we must look to his future actions to see where his true policy priorities lie.

Tunisian President Kais Saeid released a new constitution. How is it different from the 2014 Constitution and what are the political consequences? < Back The Tunisian Constitution, or Kais Saeid’s Constitution? By Luca Utterwulghe October 31, 2022 Tunisia’s 2014 constitution has been hailed as one of the Middle East and North Africa region’s most progressive. A product of the multi-stakeholder process led by the Quartet du Dialogue National during the post-uprising period, the Constitution exhibits, aside from its praised commitments to “liberal” values, a strong system of checks on power between the three branches of government. However, recent political developments are challenging the foundational principles — compromise, pluralism and multi-polarity — of this (literally) revolutionary document. Tunisian President Kais Saied’s momentous consolidation of power, beginning with his move to terminate Parliament on July 26, 2021, and subsequent decision to fire Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi, was situated in the broader context of Tunisian political dysfunctionality and economic crisis. Kousai Ghrimil, a Tunisian 1A student, expresses his support for this measure: “One of the things it does… is weakening Ennahda , which is the leading Islamist party … that party has caused a lot of destruction and a lot of issues in the country ever since the revolution.” As a manifestation of his endeavor to restructure Tunisia’s political system, Saied released a draft constitution — crafted by a small group of ‘handpicked’ architects — in late June 2021. The Saeid administration released an online consultation survey which, in theory, offered citizens a platform to share their thoughts on the document’s fundamental elements, although only 10 percent of citizens were eligible to respond. Ghrimil suggests that the constitutional formation process was legitimate because President Kais Saeid “does have the right to call for a new constitution.” A referendum on the proposed constitution was held on July 25, 2022; the state’s Independent High Authority for Elections reported that 95 percent of voters ( only 30.5 percent of the eligible population) voted “yes” for Saied’s proposed document. These numbers bring into question the extent to which the new Tunisian Constitution of 2022 was formed through a legitimate, genuine “constituent power” or whether the nation is transitioning into a “façade democracy.” How is the 2022 Constitution different from the post-revolution 2014 one? Article 101 of the 2022 Constitution gives the President the power to appoint the “Chef du Gouvernement” (Prime Minister) and “les autres membres du gouvernement” (cabinet ministers); the 2014 Constitution reserved this power for the Parliament. Moreover, Article 102 authorizes the President to dissolve the Parliament at his wish, further demonstrating the constitutional shift to a more powerful executive. In a direct effort to undermine parliamentary primacy in lawmaking, Article 68 of the 2022 Constitution grants the President the ability to propose statutes to Parliament which are granted “la priorité” (priority) over Parliamentary proposals. Additionally, Article 110 explicitly states that the President “bénéficie de l’immunité durant son mandat présidentiel” (benefits from immunity during his presidential mandate), fundamentally limiting criticism and formal checks on the executive’s power. Ghrimil has mixed sentiments on the 2022 Constitution: he supports adjustments that will place more importance on the national popular vote. Still, he struggles with the Constitution’s commitment to advance Islamic principles, for Tunisia is “a secular country and this takes us a step backward.” On the contrary, he “wish[es] that the constitution would have mentioned the Jewish minority, the Christian minority,” as this is a symbol of Tunisia’s diversity. Evidently, President Kais Saeid is spearheading a significant constitutional and political restructuring of the Tunisian system. In light of an economic crisis and growing disillusionment towards the political system, how will these changes shift the relations between the Tunisian people and the government? It will be essential to keep a close eye on the parliamentary elections in December of 2022 as they may reflect the developing political sentiment in the country.

< Back Climate Headaches: Dispatches from Wales By Gruffudd ab Owain March 30, 2024 Prior to the election of Vaughan Gething as new First Minister in March, the first black leader of any country in Europe, the political sphere in Wales has been hit by a turbulent period, with two major issues regarding climate change. The first was the fierce opposition to the Welsh government’s Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS). Its parliament, the Senedd in Cardiff Bay, saw the biggest turnout to a protest on its steps since its inauguration in 1999 on Feb. 28, 2024. The devolved parliament holds powers over a select number of policies, including agriculture, while the UK Government in London reserves responsibility over policy areas such as justice, policing, and defense. The Labour Party has been in government for the entirety of the Welsh parliament’s 25-year existence. The Senedd didn’t garner law-making powers until 2011, owing to a referendum in which 63.49% voted in favor, yet only reached the height of public awareness following its Covid lockdown policies, which differed significantly from those of the Johnson administration in London. In another referendum, the Brexit referendum, Wales voted with England to leave, in contrast to Scotland and Northern Ireland, by a margin of 52% to 48%. Oxford University research attests that this swing towards leaving was due to retired people who moved over the border from England. ‘Genuinely Welsh’ areas, as described by the researcher Daniel Dorling, voted firmly to remain; areas where agriculture is prominent, albeit not exclusively. It is worth noting that Wales benefitted hugely from the EU’s Rural Development Funding, and the SFS is partly a replacement for that scheme and partly a response to the fact that agriculture accounts for 12-14% of overall emissions in Wales. It requires farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land, a policy which the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) claims will cost 5,000 jobs nationally. The thousands present were also voicing concerns regarding the spread of bovine TB in cattle, and policies pertaining to preventing river pollution. The situation has prompted a rare and unexpected, if modest, boost to the Conservative Party’s fortunes in the country, a party who hasn't been at the top of the political tree there since the 19 th century. They have been accused of hypocrisy, however, in claiming to be the voice of farmers after leading Wales out of the EU and its funding scheme. Their young Welsh-speaking MS Samuel Kurtz led the party’s presence in what he described as ‘the proudest moment of my life’ , later quoting from the patriotic song ‘Safwn yn y Bwlch’ and its lyrics “together we will stand” on his X account. The Tories’ leader in Wales, Andrew R.T. Davies, who doesn’t speak Welsh, proudly shared a video of himself shaking hands with protesters while ‘Yma o Hyd’ was playing in the background, a song which, ironically, has explicitly anti-Tory lyrics. A recent poll projected that the Tories would only hold on to two border constituencies at the next General Election, after winning an historic 14 Welsh seats at the 2019 General Election. It must be said that changes to constituency boundaries will see Wales lose 8 of its 40 MPs at Westminster; nevertheless, this collapse in support is certainly reflective of a broader UK-wide mood. After months taking up the mantle of criticizing the Welsh government’s 20mph rollout, they have finally been handed a different policy to attack. They have been more vocal on the issue than the third biggest party, the left-leaning nationalist Plaid Cymru, who find themselves in a somewhat awkward position, rather clumsily described by previous leader Adam Price as ‘co-opposition’, of cooperating with the government on a select number of policy areas, nonetheless excluding the SFS. This will come as a partial relief for the Tory Party, amid turmoil in the rest of the UK in an election year, not least due to a series of historic by-election defeats. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak finds himself grappling with challenge after challenge, attempting to appease the right of the party to avoid losing votes to the resurgent Reform Party, without facing backlash from those to the center. He was forced to remove the whip of MP Lee Anderson in February, who said that “Islamists” have “control” over London and its mayor Sadiq Khan, calling his comments “wrong” but not Islamophobic nor racist. Sunak himself was seen posing with some farmers and Welsh farming personality Gareth Wyn Jones on a rare visit to the north, alongside protesters holding bright yellow ‘No Farmers No Food’ placards. These posters have appeared widely in the country, even in schools, with their simple message. Less well-known, however, is the NFNF campaign’s connections with anti-net zero stances, including extreme conspiracy theories. Wyn Jones compared the potential job losses to those of the miners under Margaret Thatcher exactly 40 years ago, comments that Plaid Cymru’s Llŷr Gruffudd later echoed at the protest. That said, some sympathize with farmers and are indeed disgruntled by climate change policies, with comments appearing on social media platforms along the lines of ‘Wales is too small a country, it cannot make a difference in tackling climate change’. One protestor told The Guardian that “a more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” The quality of political debate in Wales is often poor, succumbing to simplicity. Some farmers have even demanded to eradicate the Welsh parliament altogether, with graphics saying ‘we can live without politicians, we can’t live without farmers’ doing the rounds on Facebook. However, farmers risk losing broader public support in Wales for cozying up to unpopular anti-net zero and anti-Senedd stances, along with the equally unpopular Conservative Party. It seems all rationality has been too easily lost in the debate regarding the SFS. Anthony Slaughter, leader of the Wales Green Party, who have no representation in parliament, implied on the Sunday Supplement radio programme that the government’s demands were not unreasonable, given that trees already cover 6-7% of Welsh farmland. He sympathized with farmers, however, for the policy’s ‘top-down’ implementation and lack of consultation, echoing similar comments by fellow independence-supporting Plaid Cymru. Consultation was open up to March 7, 2024, with the government pledging to seek compromise. A consultative vote in the Senedd on scrapping the SFS saw 26 votes in favor by Labour MSs and 26 votes against by opposition parties. This triggered a rule forcing the deputy presiding officer to vote, and his vote with the government meant that the proposal didn’t pass. As this saga rolled on, so did the election for the leadership of the Welsh Labour Party, and thus of the next First Minister. Incumbent Mark Drakeford announced in December that he would step down after the election of a new leader in March. Only two candidates, Vaughan Gething (Minister for Economy, was Minister of Health during the pandemic) and Jeremy Miles (Minister for Education and the Welsh language), were up for election. The former, who succeeded with 51.7% of the vote, became the first First Minister from an ethnic minority, while the latter would have been the first openly gay First Minister. The election was criticized for lacking a female candidate, given that the Welsh parliament became the world’s first legislative body to achieve 50:50 gender parity in 2003 . Miles is the only Welsh speaker among the two, and his firm pro-devolution stance and willingness to “always fight Wales’ corner” [my translation] would have made him a headache for Plaid Cymru in opposition. Gething was seen as the candidate closest to UK party leader Keir Starmer. He also garnered support from prominent members skeptical of devolution, such as Neil Kinnock. The election, which balances members’ votes and trade union nominations, was hit by turmoil in this sense as an unknown rule change by the influential trade union Unite, deemed Miles ineligible for the union’s nomination. Furthermore, it became obvious that there was no mechanism within the party’s One Member One Vote system to prevent members from voting more than once. It then emanated that Gething’s campaign for election had received an unprecedented and eye-watering £200,000 donation by the Dauson Environmental Group; for context, Mark Drakeford only raised £25,000 for his successful campaign for election in 2018. It arose later that the group was awaiting Welsh government approval for a solar farm on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Likewise in 2018, Dauson Environmental Group’s director, David Neal, received a suspended prison sentence for illegally dumping waste on a conservation site. Wales is already significantly behind its climate targets, and with February bringing criticisms of Welsh Labour’s nevertheless flawed SFS and UK Labour reversing their £28bn green investment pledge if they were elected to Westminster, the obstacles to climate policy are surmounting. And for as long as the almost proverbial phrase that you could stick a red Labour rosette on a donkey in Wales and it would still win, it seems that the pace required for meaningful, lasting change is rapidly becoming unmatchable.

Every time someone calls criminal justice a vital institution to democracy, I remember the ghastly sight of someone being pulled aside and getting beaten up by the police in Ventimiglia. It reminds me of the widespread bias, racism, and xenophobia that still corrupt our society; the same discrimination that lies but a few few kilometers away from us. < Back On Being Racially Profiled in Ventimiglia By Ishan Naithani January 30, 2022 Racial profiling has been a long-standing issue, be it at an airport, train station, or police checkpoint. Despite seeping into the national dialogue, this topic remains very controversial. Understanding racial profiling requires the use of a working definition. For the purpose of this article, I define racial profiling as the law enforcement practice of using race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious appearance, among other factors, to determine which people are suspicious enough to warrant police stops, questions, frisks, searches, and other routine police practices. Racial profiling, a violation of fundamental civil liberties, is not only morally objectionable and ineffective, but also undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system and instills distrust in targeted populations. As an Indian person of color (POC), I have experienced some of these morally objectionable elements of biased policing at the Franco-Italian border. I have always had to carry my passport and my student card to leave and reenter France. The feeling of being singled out by the border police and getting interrogated is often quite humiliating. In one instance, my first week in France, I remember going from Menton to Ventimiglia when I had an unnerving experience with the border police. I was the only person standing on Platform B (the side opposing the train station), waiting for the train to arrive. Oddly enough, I saw a group of three French policemen running towards me, screaming from the other side “attends là.” When they came to the platform where I stood, they disrespectfully asked me to show my passport and to tell them where I was heading. They also asked me to open my bag for an inspection. As I opened my bag, one of the officers noticed my Sciences Po hoodie (what a clutch). At that moment, their demeanor changed completely. They not only told me that my passport and bag were not needed anymore, but also wished me “un bon voyage.” Biased inspections keep happening — I am singled out, asked to prove my identity, interrogated about the reasons for my border crossing, and treated without courtesy — despite belonging in a group of people from the same university. While my experience is certainly harrowing, it is also humbling. Unlike me, most other persons of color, who are disproportionately victims of racial profiling, rarely know to use their right to demand a reason for apprehension from a police officer. Unlike me, ethnic minorities may not have a Sciences Po hoodie to save them. Every time someone calls criminal justice a vital institution to democracy, I remember the ghastly sight of someone being pulled aside and getting beaten up by the police in Ventimiglia. It reminds me of the widespread bias, racism, and xenophobia that still corrupt our society; the same discrimination that lies but a few few kilometers away from us. Racial profiling points towards discriminatory attitudes within legal institutions like law enforcement, and it reveals a deeply entrenched norm of systemic racism in today’s societies. It is challenging to eradicate racism inherent to every major institution, which is why we must go beyond understanding individual acts of racism. Non-discriminatory law enforcement is also aided by the recruitment and retention of officers from varied backgrounds, who are more reflective of the community they serve. This enhanced representation can alter organizational culture and staff attitudes, which is predicted to result in less biased decision-making. The real problem posed by racial profiling is that law enforcement authorities often violate domestic and international legal principles, like non-discrimination and the right to equal legal treatment. Furthermore, data indicates that racial profiling is ineffective as a law enforcement technique and should be replaced. Racial profiling is not a new trend, but it definitely can not continue to be the status quo. Whether through discussions with civil society representatives and the media, or by creating large-scale shifts in socio-political attitudes, racial profiling can be reversed in Ventimiglia and beyond. And because it can, it must.

It is no secret that the OGC Nice vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv football match caused considerable controversy on our campus and in the region, but how did a solidarity protest lead to threats of halting the subsidized cafeteria project in Menton? < Back From Protesting a Match to Antisemitism Accusations: How Did a Student Initiative Cause Such Regional Controversy? By Ghazal Khalife September 30, 2022 Editor’s note: Objectivity is of paramount importance to The Menton Times. As such, the September 2022 issue of the publication features a variety of stances that students took amid the controversial Integration Week boycott. It is no secret that the OGC Nice vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv football match caused considerable controversy on our campus and in the region , but how did a solidarity protest lead to threats of halting the subsidized cafeteria project in Menton? This issue started when the Bureau des Élèves announced that OGC Nice would play against Maccabi Tel Aviv, the football match scheduled during Integration Week. The bureau clearly stated that the organization of this sporting event does not reflect a political stand, highlighting the student organization’s “apolitical” nature. The bureau endorsed “any (student) association wishing to express an opinion.” Sciences Palestine immediately responded with a call to boycott the match and began organizing a protest in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Sciences Palestine’s prompt call to action sparked a heated debate on the “Rising 1As” group chat. Many Sciences Pistes supported the protest, while others dismissed it as unjustified and inappropriate. However, the boycott was warranted. The match was a mere few weeks after the Israeli state bombed Gaza, killing 49 Palestinians and injuring 80, among them children and students. When asked why she wanted to organize the protest, the Co-president of Sciences Palestine, who asked to remain anonymous, responded: “Three weeks after Israeli bombardments ravaged Gaza once again, leaving its population on the brink of total despair, I just did not think it was right for people to attend a match where a team from the country that orchestrated the attacks was playing without knowing at all what was going on. Our plan was not to make attendees accountable or condemn the Israeli team... We did not want people to forget the atrocities that are being committed by the command of the state where the football team belonged. We wanted to take this opportunity to raise awareness and educate people about a situation that needs our urgent attention.” In light of our campus’s impressive diversity , it is no surprise that this protest elicited a wide range of reactions ranging from enthusiasm to harsh criticism. The dividing issue was whether a football match could be considered an apolitical event. Because Maccabi Tel Aviv was founded in 1906, before the establishment of the Israeli state, many argued that the football club has no formal ties to the nation. However, the aforementioned reason is insufficient to fully isolate the football team from Israel’s regime and depoliticize it, especially considering that it has strong historical and political links to the mainstream Zionist movement. Maccabi athletic organization was founded in Eastern Europe by Zionists before the first Jewish settlements were established in Palestine. However, in modern-day Israel, the Maccabi football team is still politicized because it has the power to evoke strong nationalist and regional sentiments. Regardless of whether one is critical of Israel’s actions, demonstrating the match may not have been an effective means of showing solidarity with Palestine. The protest could easily be misunderstood as condemning the attendees and the players on both teams or associating them with a preconceived political stance. This misconception became widespread when Nice’s mayor, Christian Estrosi, accused the organizers of the protest of antisemitism. Mr. Estrosi called for the prohibition of this protest claiming in a tweet that “anti-zionism often hides antisemitism.” Contrary to what Mr. Estrosi believes, anti-Zionism does not have to coincide with antisemitism; protesting a Zionist state’s actions does not mean protesting against the Jewish people. Antisemitism is an issue of utmost significance, and the term should not be thrown around to slander someone. None of the comments made by the organizer implied antisemitic sentiment but rather a condemnation of the Israeli state’s aggressive policies towards a downtrodden people. Comments like this show how polarizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be and how quickly extreme claims can be made in the face of such a complex and sensitive topic. The co-president of Sciences Palestine responded to these accusations, saying: “I think they (accusations of antisemitism) are completely unfounded and strategically utilized to discredit any attempt by Palestinian solidarity organizations to expose the truth… I think it is quite clear that the target we are criticizing is a State and, most importantly, a specific and ongoing colonial project.” The backlash against the protest escalated into threats to shut down the project to open a cafeteria on our campus, which is not only an excessive reaction but also a reflection of the limits to freedom of expression and assembly. The protest was, in effect, abandoned, yet the controversy remained, and the hypocrisy behind the mayor’s logic was exposed. How could an apolitical project such as building a cafeteria be used to pressure students to stop a protest? Fortunately, many influential voices in the region still persist in their Palestinian activism. Another protest was declared in partnership with the Association France Palestine Solidrité Saturday, Sept. 3rd, after a relatively recent Amnesty International report (March 2022) explored the various elements of apartheid and human rights violations committed by Israel. This protest emphasized the sincere Palestinian spirit: a spirit of pride, unity and infinite resistance. The football match-protest controversy proved to be expository of regional representatives’ divisive and antagonizing tone. On a more positive note, it also highlighted the robust spirit of debate in our SciencesPo campus and the vibrant engagement in social and political affairs in the French Riviera.

Cela serait-il la quête d'une époque où la musique semblait davantage vivre à travers l'âme de l'artiste, plutôt que d'être le produit d'une industrie froide et formatée? Si les jeunes préfèrent parfois la musique « vintage, » c’est peut-être parce qu’ils y trouvent un souffle d’humanité, de passion et d’authenticité, fréquemment absent dans la pop trop lissée et sur-produite d’aujourd’hui. < Back Quand la musique ancienne résonne de nouveau Christy Ghosn November 30, 2024 Selon les données de MRC Data , la musique ancienne, définie comme celle enregistrée il y a plus de dix-huit mois, a représenté en 2022 70 % du marché musical américain, et ce chiffre ne cesse de croître. Les décennies 60 à 90, véritables tournants dans la musique populaire, connaissent aujourd'hui un retour triomphal auprès des jeunes générations. Les ventes de vinyles, par exemple, ont atteint leur plus haut niveau en 20 ans en 2021, malgré des retards de production et des difficultés de fabrication. Mais comment s’explique cette fascination pour les sons d’autrefois? Qu’est-ce qui pousse les jeunes à rechercher des mélodies empreintes de sens, à une époque où la signification des chansons semble s’effacer? La musique comme voix de résistance Dans un contexte sociopolitique marqué par la guerre du Vietnam, les luttes pour les droits civiques ou encore la montée des inégalités sociales, la musique s'est imposée comme un moyen de contestation puissant. De Pink Floyd à Bob Marley, ou encore John Lennon, la musique a été un miroir de l’époque et une voix de résistance. Pink Floyd, avec The Dark Side of the Moon, est connu pour offrir une critique acerbe de la société de consommation. Dans « Money, » David Gilmour critiquait ouvertement l’obsession pour l’argent et l’avidité qui mènent à la corruption et à l’injustice sociale. Il chantait: “ Money, it's a crime Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie Money, so it's said It's the root of all evil today But if you ask for a rise It's no surprise that they're giving none away.” Bob Marley, quant à lui, s’est fait le chantre de la liberté avec des titres comme « Redemption Song. » Inspirée par le discours de Marcus Garvey, la chanson encourage les opprimés à « s’émanciper de l’esclavage mental. » Les paroles de Marley dénoncent l’oppression historique et coloniale tout en transmettant un message universel d’espoir et de résilience. Par ailleurs, au-delà des artistes, des genres musicaux entiers incarnaient la rébellion. Dans les années 80, le punk prend par exemple racine dans les quartiers populaires des États-Unis et du Royaume-Uni, exprimant la colère d’une jeunesse révoltée contre l’injustice. Il était une arme contre le système, une explosion de rage brute. Le mouvement Riot Grrrl , influencé par le punk rock et avec des groupes comme Bikini Kill, a fait entendre la voix des femmes face au sexisme, au racisme et aux abus de pouvoir. Ces artistes révoltées, souvent marginalisées, ont amplifié leur message dans une société dominée par les hommes. De plus, la musique ne se limite pas à refléter une époque ou une lutte, elle devient souvent un refuge émotionnel et un point de ralliement collectif dans les moments de crise. L’ascension récente de Fayrouz sur les réseaux sociaux par exemple, en plein contexte de conflit entre le Hezbollah et Israël, en est une parfaite illustration. À l'instar de la musique des décennies passées, utilisée pour mobiliser et inspirer, Fayrouz rappelle que les artistes peuvent eux aussi jouer un rôle fondamental dans la préservation de l’espoir collectif. L’impact de TikTok : La reprise des classiques Une tendance alimentée par la montée de plateformes comme TikTok, permet aux utilisateurs de partager de courts extraits de chansons, et d’offrir une nouvelle visibilité à ces classiques d’hier. Par conséquent, des chansons autrefois porteuses d’un message politique ou social fort, sont aujourd'hui souvent utilisées dans des vidéos légères et divertissantes, loin du contexte originel. L’utilisation de ces morceaux sous forme de courts extraits sur TikTok entraîne une transformation de leur signification . En isolant une phrase ou un refrain, l’essence même de la chanson se perd. Ce qui était autrefois un cri de révolte devient une simple toile de fond, transformant la mémoire culturelle collective et vidant ces œuvres de leur portée critique. Si vous utilisez fréquemment les réseaux sociaux, vous avez forcément entendu "Fortunate Son" de Creedence Clearwater Revival sortie en 1969. Cette chanson écrite dans le contexte de la guerre du Vietnam visait à dénoncer l'injustice sociale et l’hypocrisie des classes privilégiées face à la guerre du Vietnam. En effet, Creedence Clearwater Revival y critiquait le fait que les jeunes hommes des classes populaires étaient envoyés au front, tandis que les fils de familles influentes en étaient exemptés. Cependant, « Fortunate Son » est fréquemment utilisé comme fond sonore pour des vidéos mettant en scène des voitures de luxe, des scènes de vie glamour ou encore des défis humoristiques. Les phrases « It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son » perdent leur connotation de protestation contre l’élite et deviennent simplement un accompagnement musical accrocheur. De plus, en mettant en avant des valeurs opposées à sa critique originelle, « Fortunate Son » est dépouillée de sa portée protestataire. Au lieu d’être un hymne contre l’élite, elle est parfois utilisée pour accompagner des modes de vie qu'elle dénonçait initialement. Toutefois, il est important de noter et reconnaître que certaines chansons trouvent encore une place dans les débats contemporains. Par exemple, de nombreuses chansons qui revendiquent l'égalité et les droits civiques étaient reprises lors du mouvement Black Lives Matter telles que “ A Change Is Gonna Come ” de Sam Cooke sortie en 1964, révélant l'intemporalité de certaines chansons qui transcendent leur époque en ralliant les générations actuelles autour des luttes sociales. L’exposition des individus à ces chansons politiques et leur diffusion peuvent alors être des outils puissants pour raviver des thèmes, idées et discours du passé qui regagnent aujourd’hui en pertinence. Ainsi, il apparaît que de plus en plus de jeunes se tournent vers la musique des décennies passées. Certains avancent que cette tendance traduit une quête de style ou une volonté d’adopter une esthétique « rétro ». Cependant, cette fascination va au-delà du simple effet de mode: aujourd’hui, il semblerait que la musique moderne devienne progressivement dépourvue de son humanité, lisse et parfaite à cause des logiciels qui corrigent tout, des rythmes aux voix... Dans les chansons plus anciennes, l’authenticité derrière ces imperfections qui laissent transparaître l'émotion humaine est palpable, et elle était essentielle pour créer une connexion avec le public. De plus, en matière d’originalité, les années 60, 70 et même 90 étaient marquées par une volonté constante de repousser les frontières et d’innover. À l’époque, les artistes ne cherchaient pas à reproduire des succès préexistants, mais du neuf, de l’époustouflant. Cela serait-il la quête d'une époque où la musique semblait davantage vivre à travers l'âme de l'artiste, plutôt que d'être le produit d'une industrie froide et formatée? Si les jeunes préfèrent parfois la musique « vintage, » c’est peut-être parce qu’ils y trouvent un souffle d’humanité, de passion et d’authenticité, fréquemment absent dans la pop trop lissée et sur-produite d’aujourd’hui.

< Back Populism Is Shaping the Italian Upcoming Elections By Maeva Sole Alagna September 27, 2022 If you were to walk down any main Italian lane this September, you would feel overwhelmed by the high-impact street advertising and billboard displays. It is not the upcoming Milan fashion week that has induced this promotional frenzy –– it is the general political snap election of Sept. 25, 2022. Following the resignation of Prime Minister Mario Draghi in July, which plunged the country into a severe political crisis, Italians are called to vote for a new parliament and are now undergoing a ferocious electoral campaign. The right-wing coalition, starring Giorgia Meloni’s post-fascist Brothers of Italy party, Matteo Salvini’s anti-immigrant League and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, is predicted to attain 46% of the vote. The left, led by the Democratic Party (PD), is forecasted to win 28.5% of the vote, while the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) — which seems to reject any coalition — could reach up to 13%. Pollsters foresee Meloni’s triumph, representing a turning point in Italian history: the first post-war far-right government and its first female prime minister. But how have we come to this point? Since the breakdown of the former party system in the early 1990s, electoral support for populist parties has constantly been increasing. These movements now transcend any distinction between right and left extremes of the political spectrum and agree on the idea that its leaders alone represent “the people” in their struggle against the “elite establishment.” The aggregate votes for populists increased from 30% in the general election of 1994 to almost 70% in 2018. No other major Western European democracy has witnessed such rising support for populists. Party leaders have built their campaigns by responding to people’s collective sentiments of anti-institutionalism, anti-factionalism and distrust towards politics and society. Moreover, populist candidates continue to benefit from massive online electoral advertising — pricey but profitable. By gathering data for individual parties over the last month, the magnitude of the phenomenon can be quantified. Matteo Salvini’s party spent 51 thousand euros in thirty days between Instagram and Facebook; Meloni followed with a social media expenditure of 40 thousand euros. Silvio Berlusconi — 86 years old, face frozen by cosmetic surgery, more than 2,500 court appearances in 106 trials, including tax fraud, abuse of office, bribery, corruption of police officers, judges and politicians, collusion, defamation, extortion, false accounting, mafia, money laundering, underage prostitution influence and embezzlement — has made his newest appearance on TikTok, wooing young voters. Freeing a campaign spot for the senator of Forza Italia, a candidate for the upcoming elections, promising an income and pension for Italian housewives, further degenerates Italian politics. Forza Italia’s electoral video — which looks more like a two-and-a-half-minute teleshopping of household devices — shows the nominee next to two women, one pretending to vacuum, the other ironing as she hides a soccer ball under her vest to look pregnant. Italy prepares to welcome the Brothers of Italy as the winning party, which has gained consent by using the motto “God, homeland and family,” a slogan that the fascists employed in the 1930s. This motto logically excludes whoever does not identify as Christian, whoever was not born on Italian soil and whoever does not recognize the traditional value of family. This raises the question: when does populism become a threat to democracy? It does when it targets a particular social group. To serve “the people,” populist parties must first define everything that does not fall under this category, thus excluding vulnerable and marginalized populations, such as religious or ethnic minorities and immigrants. What can be done to counter the effects of populism? Vote! Vote for politicians and parties who make credible promises, do not simply want to shut down criticism or view their opponents as their enemies, and are committed to the democratic rules of the game.

< Back Mentonese Students Buckle Their Seatbelts for Integration Week 2022 By Lise Thorsen September 29, 2022 The first week of university is one of the most memorable and significant events in a student’s academic evolution. This year, Integration Week turned the page to a new chapter for 180 students of the Mentonese Sciences Po campus. In the “Ville de Citrons,” located on the shores of the French Riviera, Integration Week promised exhilarating events planned by our very own Bureau des Étudiants Integration Week Committee. Upon one’s first-ever moments in the sun-kissed “Pearl of France,” feelings of budding excitement bubble to the surface. This year’s incoming 1As proved high-spirited in the daunting face of friendship-building, and many confessed their eagerness to embark on their journey into the Mentonese mode de vie. On Aug. 22, 2022, the beating of drums and Mentonese chants echoed throughout Rue Longue. This commotion originated from the “hype session,” in which our beloved campus mascot, Loulou , hyped us for the Bureau des Étudiants’ opening ceremony. The Menton campus was also welcomed back by Monsieur le Maire, Yves Juhel , and Madame la Directrice, Yasmina Touaibia, who greeted students warmly with her contagious smile. Once gathered in the grand amphitheater for the official opening ceremony, the student body was awestruck by the Menton cheerleading team’s smashing performance. Shortly after, our two Integration Week hosts, 2As Riwa Hassan and Louai Allani, welcomed the Ummah to the Menaverse. This clever wordplay, combining “MENA” and “metaverse,” signaled to the audience that Menton would enter a stage of metamorphosis this academic year. Through what Allani expressed as adding a “pinch of digitalization to the Mediterranean,” the audience was thrilled to be introduced to the “revolutionary invention” of the “Pass Ummah,” designed with meticulous care by the Committee. The “Pass Ummah” was the personalized QR code that allowed students who bought Integration Week packages to access the planned events. It served as the high-tech alternative to the wristbands that former Integration Week committees opted for. Hassan and Allani soon began reminiscing about the wonders of Menton and dedicated a special shoutout to José’s cat, baptized ‘ Cat-Dafi ’ by the student body the previous year. The Bureau President, Samy Bennouna, and Bureau Vice President, Lenora Dsouza, soon took the floor and offered insight into the tireless behind-the-scenes work carried out by the Committee’s executive team during the preceding summer. After a well-deserved round of applause for the Committee team, the Bureau des Arts blessed our ears with soothing live tunes from the music club. Committee member, Viola Luraschi, reflected on the most rewarding aspects of her experience in integration week. She cheerfully explained that the 1As had fully embraced the Menton spirit with open arms and that she could not be more proud of how well all the events had panned out. However, she did affirm that there is a stark contrast between living the full-fledged experience of Integration Week and organizing the events. Another Committee member, Isabel Cronin, elaborated further by explaining that logistical issues cropped up but were tackled with solidarity and resilience. She was impressed by “how quickly the team could adapt and continue.” Clearly, the Committee’s strenuous efforts to churn out a successful week were not in vain. It was evident that both the first and second-years dearly appreciated the time the Bureau put into crafting the orientation events. Highlights from Integration Week include the Kebab lunch, which managed to feed our ravenous Sciences Pistes, the Consent Talks held diligently by the Feminist Union on an annual basis, and the UEFA Conference League Nice match , which pleased our football enthusiasts. The drinking apparathon served the purpose of filling rooms with laughter, and the ‘ice’ was, without a doubt, broken among peers. However, the success of this event did not infringe upon the following “Le Festival Plage” party, which was deemed one of the “best Bureau des Étudiants parties ever” by a fellow 2A. Even the city-wide scavenger hunt united students in their mutual exploration of their new home. On the final day of integration week, Environnementon led a hike on Nietzsche’s Path in Èze-sur-Mer; the subsequent beach day in Cap d’Ail was a fitting post-hike activity. The Nice bar hopping night similarly reflected our potential to bring Menton outside of Menton. The jam session was a massive hit as the Bureau des Arts musicians displayed their talent on stage during a Sablettes sunset. Building up to the final party, “à la mentonnaise,” Integration Week would not be complete without a sweaty Soundproof party. In collaboration with the Babel association, the Committee pooled their creative juices to host a soirée themed upon the “six deadly sins” — 21st-century edition. Soundproof quickly devolved into a fiery sauna. As such, a Sablettes after-party was in order. Later that night, an anonymous source noted that hookup culture had decreased significantly compared to last year, and rumor has it that the student body has become interested in forming more profound and meaningful connections. Nonetheless, by the end of a very tiresome week for us all, many students claimed to have come down with “Freshers Flu,” and some complained that their social battery was utterly drained. Understandably, following stressful days of accommodating new routines, symptoms of homesickness invariably started to kick in. Fortunately, the I-Homes night provided an ideal supportive outlet for 1As seeking expert 2A guidance. It seems fair to suggest that after a fruitful integration week, we all wear our Menaverse shirts with pride. To borrow the Directrice’s words, “notre communauté est riche et continue à s’enrichir.” Indeed, every year, Menton witnesses new 1As blossom while 2As continue to flourish. We can only hope that after having welcomed the new academic year with open arms, we have succeeded in setting the standards high for next year’s Integration Week.

< Back Menton Enters Business With Company Involved in Flint Michigan’s Water Crisis By Saoirse Aherne December 31, 2022 As reported by Press Agence, on Nov. 14, the Mayor of Menton and president of the French Riviera Community (CARF), Yves Juhel, along with several senior executives at the Veolia company, signed a three-year memorandum called the “Experimental Territory on Climate Change.” This protocol designates CARF as an experimental territory and is the first agreement of this nature to be signed between a local authority and the Veolia group. The agreement identifies three areas of concern— water, energy and waste — and pledges to mobilize 120,000 euros over the next three years to develop sustainable solutions to these issues. Mayor Juhel noted that the initiative is consistent with the city’s commitment to “fight against climate change.” Juhel was elected to mayor’s office on a campaign promise to implement 24 of the 32 measures proposed in the “Pact for Transition,” a national agreement signed last January by Menton mayoral candidates. In doing so, each candidate pledged to pursue sustainable solutions to issues of resource scarcity, affordable energy and environmental preservation in the region. Nice-Matin reported at the beginning of November that a group of concerned citizens had requested an appointment with the mayor to assess the extent to which his campaign promises for sustainable transition had been implemented. Menton has indeed been making some efforts to implement changes for the ecological transition, such as installing chickadee boxes and bat lodges between February and May of this year. The city also began work on a bike path in August. However, Juhel’s campaign promised much more radical action, like installing anti-macro waste nets at the exit of valleys, planting more than 3,000 trees by 2026 and creating a municipal service dedicated to the environment. Thus, the agreement with Veolia could be a more concrete step by Mayor Juhel to fulfill the “Pact for Transition” objectives and uphold his environmental platform. Unfortunately, the exact terms of the “experimental territory” designation remain unclear. There is no public information on specific projects that will emerge from this agreement, nor is there a clear explanation of where the 120,000 pledged euros will come from. What is Veolia? Veolia is a significant actor in this agreement, especially considering the company’s recent engagement in a number of sustainable initiatives across the Côte d’Azur. Veolia is a private, for-profit French enterprise involved in water management, waste management and energy services. It aims to be “the benchmark company for ecological transformation” by providing sustainable access to scarce resources. Currently, the company operates across five continents, with 5,000 wastewater treatment and drinking water plants in France alone. On Nov. 26, Var Martin reported that the company had announced a new project at its Almanarre treatment plant to transform wastewater into hydrogen. Hydrogen can be used as an energy source and is particularly well suited to electric transportation. According to the Var-Provence Mediterranee Territory director, this innovation is “a world first.” The technology at the plant can produce up to 10 kilograms of hydrogen per day; for context, one kilogram of hydrogen alone could power a small vehicle for 100 kilometers. If this project were to be applied at an industrial scale, it could produce several hundred kilograms of hydrogen per day. However, making this transformation on an industrial scale would cost a hefty sum of three million euros. Only days before this announcement, on Nov. 22, Nice Matin reported the launch of Veolia’s Arianeo project in Nice, which it claims will serve the energy needs of 25,000 inhabitants by 2026. Similarly, in September of this year, Veolia unveiled a project in the Arenas district of Nice to create a renewable energy network using wastewater. Representatives of the company expressed the need to lift the “regulatory lock,” allowing them to “go beyond experiments, as (they) were able to do in Sainte-Maxime.” Veolia is involved with wastewater reclamation solutions to water green spaces in Sainte-Maxime. Notably, Veolia is also one of eight companies competing to receive a five-month support program to develop and test a solution to the City of Marseille’s “Smart Port Challenge.” Veolia’s interest in developing sustainable infrastructure along the Côte d’Azur reflects the increasingly evident impact of climate change in the region, especially in the Alpes Maritimes, which was hard hit by drought this summer. In this context, Veolia’s interest in this region is no surprise: the Cote d’Azur needs innovative solutions to face the growing threat of climate change, especially regarding water management. Yet, the impact of this private company’s rapid involvement in a number of communities across this region deserves careful attention, especially in light of Veolia’s controversial past. A History of Scandal Veolia has long been involved in traditionally publicly managed services such as water, energy and waste management; however, their focus on sustainable transition is a recent development in the company’s evolution. In fact, a couple of years back, the Veolia group attracted attention over quite a different matter: In 2016, Michigan brought Veolia before the American justice system over the Flint drinking water scandal. Flint and Veolia entered a contract in February of 2015, the terms of which entailed Veolia checking the water quality over claims made by residents that it was polluted. Veolia assured the city twice that the water “met federal criteria.” In 2019, the Guardian reported that Veolia executives knew that the residents of Flint, Michigan were at risk of being poisoned by lead in their tap water “months before the city publicly admitted the problem.” Email exchanges in February of 2015 show that senior employees at Veolia were aware of the potential for lead from city pipes to leach into the drinking water. Yet, the company never made a public recommendation or declaration to this effect. Notably, Veolia was exploring “lucrative contracts with the city” at this time. Veolia remains adamant that the government alone is to blame for the events in Flint. To see the “facts” of the, pay a visit to the website they made specifically to address this matter. What to make of CARF-Veolia deal Though Veolia’s involvement in the Flint crisis has rightly been subject to heavy criticism, it is not a case of mismanagement on the part of the company, but rather the prioritization of private interest to the detriment of public wellbeing — an expected risk when for-profit companies are involved in the management of public services. Veolia’s regional projects indeed appear to offer some truly innovative solutions to issues of resource management, especially their work converting waste into hydrogen power. However, private companies should remain under scrutiny to ensure they do not act against popular interests. Nonetheless, considering the increasing severity of climate change in the region, perhaps any projects concerning sustainable solutions are welcome developments. Though the terms and implications of this recent deal between CARF and Veolia remain disappointingly vague, the promise to mobilize substantial funds toward sustainable action is hopeful. With sustained pressure from citizens — as has already been witnessed — the Experimental Territory on Climate Change agreement has the potential to contribute to tangible change in Menton and the surrounding municipalities.

At the end of the day, the issue of migration should not be one of big theories and political instrumentalization, but one about the migrants themselves, and how and why there is immigration in Europe. We must recentralize the discourse of migration on the personal stories of migrants. < Back Ella Waja Bou Ntoute, Tey Deguelou Bou Barey By Elian Jorand “ Let us think about it: the Mediterranean has become Europe’s largest cemetery.” With these bleak few words, Pope Francis in Marseille succinctly summarized the current state of migration in the Mediterranean Sea. According to the United Nations, since the beginning of 2023, there have been 186,951 sea arrivals on the continent and 2,517 deaths. On average, in 2023, 11 children die per week attempting to reach the northern shore of the Mediterranean. This summer alone, nearly 1000 people died. Amidst such tragedy, European opinion has been sharply divided. The instrumentalization of migration to achieve political aims has created a national ‘macro-debate’, an obsession for the public about migration and the big consequences such a process carries. The far right and neo-fascist parties form a spurious front against an ‘invasion’, threatening the tradition and customs of old Europe. Opposing the far right,those who call for uncompromising humanity and solidarity with those in need, welcoming migrants and helping them on their trek across Europe. Both sides generate substantial public debate, with far-fetched theories such the “ Grand Remplacement ” popularized by Eric Zemmour, or the left parties pushing forward with humanitarian and anti-racist policies. Today, 75 percent of French people are in favor of a public referendum to decide on a national migration policy. However, with the current political atmosphere, we must be able to rise above the noise and tribulations and pay attention to what is important. At the end of the day, the issue of migration should not be one of big theories and political instrumentalization, but one about the migrants themselves, and how and why there is immigration in Europe. We must recentralize the discourse of migration on the personal stories of migrants. During my travels in West Africa, stories of migration came to be of regular occurrences — the youth trying to escape the lack of opportunity in Africa for Europe, in the hope of a ‘better life.’ I remember a distinct conversation with a friend and her family in an old West African style “ dibiterie ” in Saint-Louis. While eating a yassa, Leila talked about her hopes of leaving Senegal to pursue her education in a business school in Nancy, France. She spoke fondly about how this opportunity would allow her to get her dream job and lead the life she had always aspired to have. Yet, this was now only a dream, since her visa application to enter France had been rejected. Leila is only one among thousands of people immigrating out of Africa with the hope of a better life in Europe, whether their expectations are true or false. When they are denied the opportunity, people are often forced to go about it in an unofficial and dangerous way. The case of Senegal clearly demonstrates this. Hailed as a bastion of democracy and stability in a continent riddled with political insecurity, Senegal is nonetheless one of the countries which generates the most migrants from West Africa, with 25,000 people emigrating outside of the country, compared to only 12,000 people from neighboring war-torn Mali. Poverty, amongst other factors, is a primary driver for migration. Looking at the different factors and theories, whether important or completely absurd, helps us understand the process in relation to the different actors. However, such a political approach dehumanizes a very human process. Migration is a fundamental process for humanity. Our story, that of the human species, started precisely with a worldwide migration. We must bring back this humanity to the process of migration. Stories like Leila’s are true for many thousand other humans, each one with their own specifications, making their story of migration unique. If we are to find a solution to migration, one of balance between migrants and host-nations, we must change our current approach which has only led to hate and death for the many actors. We must move away from big characterization and systematic categorization, and instead take a more humane approach, however hard that may be. Only when we take the steps towards understanding the stories behind migration, the reasons, the causes and the motivations, will we be able to tackle the issue. Now that the talking has taken place, and in the hope of finding a solution, we must listen to these stories.

< Back Frontex : The EU Agency That Has Been Accused of Covering up Illegal Migrant Pushbacks By Viola Luraschi December 31, 2022 What is Frontex? The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, also known as Frontex, was established in 2004 under the European Union to help members and Schengen-associated countries manage their external frontiers. European borders have witnessed an unprecedented rise in asylum-seeking migrants and refugees in recent years. Thus, Warsaw-based Frontex, tasked with coordinating maritime operations and external land borders, has served as a prominent presence at several international union-country airports. The accusations against Frontex On April 29, 2022, the resignation of Fabrice Leggeri, former Director General of Frontex, was approved. The resignation followed an in-depth investigation by OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, whose European Union-designated role is to combat illegal activities. The inquiry found the agency guilty of “harassment” and “misconduct.” Frontex was accused of playing a role in violating the fundamental rights of refugees in Greece by forcing the return of migrants. The Frontex reporting system has concealed numerous pushbacks in the Aegean sea, and in the words of Giorgios Christides, “between March 2020 and September 2021 (the agency) was involved in 222 incidents in the Aegean, resulting in the summary expulsion of at least 957 and potentially 8,355 asylum seekers.” The OLAF reports include 20 witnesses and over 120 pages of research conducted over 16 months. A pushback case that underlines the illegal actions of Frontex dates back to August 2020. On the morning of Aug. 5, the Greek Coast Guard dragged an inflatable raft with around 30 migrants back toward Turkey instead of taking them to Greek shores where they were headed. In one of many similar cases, an aircraft operated by Frontex was streaming the pushback live. A handwritten note on Nov. 16, 2020, by Frontex employees states that they had “withdrawn [their] FSA (Frontex Surveillance Aircraft) some time ago so as not to witness” the human rights violations. This statement clearly shows that the European Union agency was aware of the violations but instead decided to ignore the situation that it was established to prevent. Furthermore, the report included evidence that taxpayer money was used to fund the pushbacks. The Aug. 5 incident was led by the vessel “CPB 137,” which was co-owned by the agency. Leggeri was also accused of obstructing previous investigations regarding his agency’s illegal activity. Furthermore, his private messages revealed his conservative beliefs about the refugee crisis. Samuel Abraham: a personal account On Apr. 10, 2021, Samuel Abraham and 62 other people left the Libyan shore in a small rubber boat. Out of the 63 people who set off on the journey, only 51 were alive by the end. Abraham recounted, “the plane circled over our heads again and again, but no one helped us.” This plane was operated by Frontex, who witnessed the perilous situation below but refused to act. Moreover, he said that during their five days at sea, a cargo ship appeared; however, no help was offered, and the three people who jumped from the boat in attempts to reach the vessel failed and drowned. The secrecy behind the content of OLAF’s report Regulation 1049 of 2001 outlines the fundamental right of both residents and citizens of the European Union to access documents of and held by its institutions. While this regulation aims at promoting transparency and ensuring accessibility to all citizens, Article 4 (of Regulation 1049) identifies exceptions that can deny total or partial access to documents. It is under this article that Frontex continues to keep the OLAF report classified. However, some investigative journalists (Der Spiegel and Lighthouse Reports) have been able to leak parts of its contents. Resentment in response to the agency’s secrecy is widespread, especially considering the report’s allegations of misuse of union funds and international law breaches. The inaccessibility of the documents has meant that the agency’s victims have been unable to exercise their right to an effective remedy. Therefore, their right to a fair trial has been obstructed. However, it must also be noted that hindering investigations is not inherently illegal and, depending on circumstances, may even be deemed appropriate. Yet, when considering the far-reaching implications of the report, it is only normal to question the inconsistency between the findings of the report and the actions that will be taken against Frontex. The aftermath of the OLAF report Only one resignation has occurred as a consequence of the OLAF report: that of Fabrice Leggeri. The European Parliament has continuously refused the approval of the agency’s budget. In September, Frontex announced “recent changes within the agency,” among which the suspension of operations in the Aegean sea was unmentioned. Article 46 of the Frontex Regulation states that the Executive Director should “suspend or terminate activity by the agency, in whole or in part, if he or she considers that there are violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations related to the activity concerned that are of a serious nature or are likely to persist.” However, there is still a lack of Serious Incident Reporting on the island of Samos in Greece, where it was flagged that authorities were using intimidation tactics that discouraged incident reporting. The European Commission has continued to be reluctant to take a stance on the matter.

< Back La COP 28: pourquoi Dubaï? By Calista Cellerier January 31, 2024 La COP28 s’est déroulée aux Emirats Arabes Unis (EAU) en novembre dernier. Elle promettait une approche globale et détaillée des futures actions pour le climat, réunissant les pays du monde entier dans le combat contre le réchauffement climatique. Pourtant, une fois de plus depuis la Coupe du Monde au Qatar, il semblerait que les pays du Moyen Orient soient au cœur des débats critiques environnementaux, politiques et sociaux. Alors, qu’est-ce que la COP28 aux EAU, et pourquoi tant de scandales? Pour commencer, qu’est-ce qu’une COP? COP pour Conference of the Parties , il s’agit d’un rassemblement annuel à l'échelle gouvernementale, réunissant de nombreux pays dans l’objectif de répondre à la crise climatique et de trouver des solutions et plans d’action contre le réchauffement climatique. La COP28 a pour but, comme les autres, d'adresser la crise climatique. Elle se déroulait entre le 30 novembre et le 13 décembre 2023 sur l’ancien site de l’Expo 2020 à Dubaï. Parmi de nombreux consensus, les pays se mettent d’accord qu’il nous faut transitionner au-delà des énergies fossiles, de manière équitable et organisée. Il est attendu des pays les plus développés de transitionner vers l'énergie verte plus vite que les pays en développement. Cette COP se concentrait aussi sur le financement climatique et l'inclusivité de tous les pays dans les accords et actions. En revanche, pas d’obligation d’agir ni de plan chronologique proposé. Selon les Nations Unies, la COP28 était une COP très importante, car non seulement elle devait mettre les pays d’accord sur le plan d’action, mais aussi, pour la première fois, comment le mettre en œuvre. C'était un premier bilan mondial, décidant de ce qu’il nous reste à faire et guidant les pays dans les méthodes et technologies nécessaires pour accélérer les choses. Pourtant, les critiques fusent. Défenseurs de l'environnement, journaux et médias reconnus, tous s’accordent à dire que la décision des Nations Unis de placer la COP28 aux des Emirats est une erreur compte tenu de l’empreinte écologique monstrueuse du pays. Mais le problème ne s'arrête pas là, car il semble que le choix du président de la COP28, fait par le gouvernement Émirati, ne fasse pas l'unanimité internationale. En effet, la nomination du Dr. Sultan Al Jaber a la présidence de cette conférence rencontre de l’opposition car il est aussi l'exécutif en chef de la 12eme plus grande compagnie de pétrole au monde, la Abu Dhabi National Oil Company , ou Adnoc. De plus, des documents secrets publiés sur de nombreux médias comme la CNN affirment que Al Jaber prévoit de nouveaux contrats avec d’autres acteurs politiques pour augmenter et distribuer plus de pétrole. Quel paradoxe donc, que le président de Adnoc soit aussi celui de la COP28. Ainsi les théories du complots émergent quant aux véritables intentions de Al Jaber. Bien qu’il nie ces allégations, le Guardian affirme avoir découvert des échanges par email affirmant ces dernières, soulignant le manque de responsabilité et de jugement de la part des Nations Unis et du gouvernement Émirati. La COP28 est qualifiée de “scandale” par Manon Aubry, politicienne française, ou encore de “ridicule” par Greta Thunberg, jeune activiste suédoise déjà très reconnue mondialement. Il n’est un secret pour personne qu’une partie du business des Emirats est basée sur le commerce du pétrole. Les EAU se classent 8eme dans le monde en termes de production et 24eme en termes de consommation. La production et consommation de pétrole ne cesse de grandir année après année, faisant des Emirats l’un des pays les plus polluants du monde. En effet, selon le site Our World in Data , ils réunissaient 0,66% des émissions globales de CO2 en 2022, un record dans l’histoire des Emirats. Selon les dernières statistiques de la Banque mondiale, les expositions à la pollution sont 8 fois plus élevées dans le pays que ce qui est considéré comme sain pour la santé par l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS). Les EAU font face à de nombreuses critiques quant au recyclage de l’eau, au gaspillage de nourriture et aux effets néfastes de l'activité humaine sur l'environnement, comme la construction d'îles artificielles. Les conséquences sont importantes : augmentation de la salinité de l’eau, destruction des habitats naturels et immense contribution du pays au réchauffement climatique. Mais les Emirats sont-ils vraiment une cause perdue en matière de changement vers une société plus eco-friendly ? S’il est vrai que les Emirats sont l’un des pays les plus pollueurs au monde, il ne faut pas ignorer les récents efforts mis en place pour améliorer cette image. Les EAU sont le premier pays du Golfe à avoir annoncé vouloir atteindre la neutralité carbone d’ici 2050. Le défi s’annonce de taille, mais l'idée est là, ainsi que les actions. En 2023, les EAU se plaçaient seconds dans la consommation mondiale d'énergie solaire, derrière l’Australie. A Dubaï, le parc solaire de Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum est déjà en opération et continue de se développer, dans l’espoir d’atteindre une capacite totale de 5 giga watts, pouvant ainsi réduire la consommation de CO2 de 6,5 millions de tonne par an. Une autre initiative, illustrant cette volonté de tourner au vert, se trouve être le développement de Masdar City, un quartier 100% eco-friendly à Abu Dhabi. Développé en partie par l’entreprise Masdar , dont le président n’est nul autre que Sultan Al Jaber, Masdar City offre une architecture désignée spécialement pour économiser l’eau et l'énergie, comme un surélèvement des quartiers pour éviter que l’air chaud du désert ne réchauffe la cité. Recyclage de l’eau, climatisation naturelle et utilisation d'énergies renouvelables. Seul problème, Masdar City n’est pas très peuplée, suscitant des questions quant à l'efficacité de l'émergence soudaine de nouvelles villes, ce qui pousse les villes déjà construites et connues, comme Dubaï, à se développer de la même manière. Le gouvernement Émirati annonce continuer de travailler avec ses entreprises d'énergie, dont Adnoc, pour continuer sur cette lancée et transformer sa consommation d'énergie. Alors, la COP28 pourrait bien être un moyen de se débarrasser de cette étiquette. Aujourd'hui, le cheikh des Emirats Arabes Unis, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, s’engage pour un futur plus vert, et déjà l'Émirat de Dubaï ne repose plus son économie sur le pétrole, mais bien sur le tourisme et les investissements dans les secteurs du luxe, de la finance et de l’immobilier. La même affirmation est vraie pour les autres émirats des EAU, car le pétrole et les énergies fossiles ne sont plus la base principale de l'économie du pays. La décision de confier la COP28 à Dubaï n’est donc pas anodine. S’il est évident que le pays ne renoncera pas aux productions et exportations de pétrole d’ici peu, Al Jaber semblait être le parfait candidat pour la COP28. Habitué des discussions sur le climat, il est surtout le visage du développement vers les énergies renouvelables des EAU, avec des projets tels que Masdar City. Al Jaber affirme qu’il souhaite entreprendre une transition graduelle mais efficace sur le long terme, avec une approche balancée entre répondre à la demande mondiale en énergie et transitionner de manière adaptée à tous les pays. Lors d’une conférence pétrolière annuelle en 2021, il déclare: "Oui, les énergies renouvelables se développent rapidement. Mais le gaz et le pétrole restent les plus grandes énergies du mix énergétique et le seront pendant des décennies. Le futur arrive, mais il n’est pas encore là. On ne peut pas tout simplement débrancher le système d’aujourd’hui". Si Al Jaber affirme pouvoir faire de la COP28 une COP historique, réunissant tous les pays du monde, les populations indigènes et les industries d'énergies fossiles et renouvelables dans le combat contre le réchauffement climatique, reste à voir s’il y arrivera, et dans le temps limite que nous avons pour sauver notre planète.

< Back Turning Red or Blue? The Impact of the Presidential Debate on Undecided Voters Viktorie Voriskova September 30, 2024 Two candidates. Red and Blue. Ninety minutes that could have decided the direction the whole world will be heading in for the next four years… What were the consequences? On Sept. 10, at 9 p.m. EDT, the presidential debate between the Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris took place on ABC News . As the debate approached, high anxiety and nervous anticipation flooded America. It was the first time presidential candidates met in a debate setting after the debacle that the world witnessed on June 24—the debate between the previous Democratic candidate, current American President Joe Biden, who withdrew from the race on July 2, and Donald Trump. Ever since the fiasco of the June debate, which was one of the main reasons that President Joe Biden decided to drop out of the race for the next presidential term, all eyes have been on Kamala Harris, the current vice president of the United States. Before the debate, Harris had appeared publicly during her numerous rallies and solo interviews, which she has given over the last few weeks. However, the general electorate still felt they needed to get to know the Democratic nominee more. A New York Times/Siena College poll stated that 28% of likely voters and 31% of registered voters expressed this sentiment. These numbers were glaringly high compared to how the electorate felt about the Republican candidate—only nine percent of the people questioned claimed that they needed to get to know Trump better. This statistic was of special importance, especially in regards to the so-called “swing states” —states in the United States of America that don't always “turn Red” or “turn Blue.” Among these “swing states” almost all sources listed the following: Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada , possibly also Florida, which has been won two times by each party in the most recent four elections, always by a margin no bigger than two percent . It is very often the case, as can be seen from both the 2016 and the 2020 Presidential elections, that these few states may impact the final result of the presidential race. It was Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that all “turned blue,” which gave Biden the necessary electoral college votes to win the election. This gains even more significance with how tight the election currently seems to be: in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre during the days before the debate, about an equal percentage (49% of registered voters) claimed they would vote for Trump while an identical share would vote for Harris. Both candidates had a chance to present themselves, as well as their prospective policies, and show to the not-yet-decided voters that they were the right choice for them. Did they manage that? Right after the debate, Harris gained a five percent point lead among registered voters, just above the four-point advantage she had over Trump in an Aug. 21-28 Reuters/Ipsos poll . Another announcement, made within the first day after the debate, claimed that Vice-President Harris' campaign had raised $47 million in the 24 hours . Furthermore, there is clear evidence that confidence in Trump's victory is faltering within the stock market.hares of Trump’s company that owns the social media platform “Truth Social” slumped by 14% as betting odds of a win for Harris grew after the debate. Additionally, Trump Media & Technology (of which Trump owns more than 50%) slumped by 60% ever since mid-July, when Kamala Harris replaced Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate. Another slump was in TMTG's market value—it had jumped as much as $9.2 billion as expectations of a Trump victory rose early in the presidential race, mostly after he crossed the delegate threshold necessary to win the nomination, which is 1,215 votes . However, after Sept. 10, the stock has slumped 76% compared to its peak in March. Therefore, after the debate, there has been a clear shift of support towards Harris and, as shown by the major stock slums, a loss of trust in a possible Trump victory. However, how does all of this affect swing states and the electorate? In other words, did this debate have any real impact on the not-yet-decided voters? Before delving into analyses, a couple of facts about the electorate need to be established for the real power of the “swing-states” to be made clear. It is important to acknowledge that Trump's base of support is solid and has a strong core in Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, and other states that “turn Red” in (almost) every election. This all means that Trump has a solid base of electoral college votes that he is almost certainly going to get from Texas. This will likely be the consequential 40, which is the overall biggest number of votess. However, Democrats also have their strongholds, especially on both the West and the East Coast, with New York, New Jersey, California, Oregon and Washington almost always voting Democratic at least in the last 4 elections and bringing in a significant number of electoral college votes on their own. Therefore, both candidates are confident about a large amount of electoral votes and are now fighting over the not-even-third of the electoral votes that are left. Now, onto the analysis of the debate. Harris balanced several more liberal stances with more conservative ones, which is a staple of her strategy: attempting to present herself as a candidate that represents the values of a wide range of people. Harris continued to reinforce the argument, which she has been repeating for the last four weeks of the campaign, that Donald Trump is not a person that can be trusted on any major issue, be it abortion, the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war or any other polarizing problem. She also made a strong statement about arms ownership, saying that she “is a gun owner ”, which is controversial for many Americans. However, it goes to show that she has certain conservative values that could help her lure in undecided voters who are more on the right side of the political spectrum. Furthermore, right after the debate, Harris flew over to North Carolina, a state that has voted Republican in three out of the last four elections, where she amassed over 10,000 Democratic supporters . This is a part of the Democratic strategy of entertaining rallies “on a wide map, ” which, as her administration team admits, is costly. Nevertheless, it allows Harris to try and lure electoral votes even from counties that have predominantly voted “Red” in the last four years, as North Carolina did. On the other hand, Trump has mainly stuck to the narrative of connecting Harris with the Biden administration, talking about inflation and blaming it, as well as the slow job-opportunity growth, on the Democrats and her. Furthermore, he also took a strong stance on international politics—reinforcing the refusal to be a part of NATO if other member states don't spend the demanded two percent of their GDP on defense. Additionally, Trump’s advisers see one of the most efficient electoral paths to the White House in holding onto North Carolina while winning back Pennsylvania and Georgia, battleground states won by President Biden in 2020. This shows that the Republican strategy is much more focused compared to the Democratic one. This allows Trump to take a more specific stance towards his potential voters, which is exactly what he did during the presidential debate—demonizing Democrats, spreading lies about their policies and convincing the audience that the only path to economic growth and stability is voting red. So, how big can the impact of the debate on the undecided voters be? Charu Chanana, global market strategist at the investment platform Saxo, claims that "The U.S. Presidential debate achieved its goal by providing a decisive edge to one of the candidates in what has been an exceptionally close race.” On the other hand, Michelle Goldberg, a columnist in the New York Times stated, “I fundamentally don’t believe that people whose minds aren’t made up in this election are waiting to hear a certain policy position. If you’re making up your mind between voting for Kamala Harris and voting for Donald Trump, you are somebody who probably doesn’t care a lot about politics or pay a lot of attention to politics.” In short, we can say the debate was successful in drawing support for Harris and a speed bump for the Trump campaign. However, these statistics still say very little about the real number of people that this event has convinced to vote one way or another. Trump and Harris have very contrasting opinions and stances on controversial issues, making it clear for many people who of the two to vote for, or rather who to definitely not vote for. Therefore, it is difficult to say if a single debate was enough to convince the undecided voters if they have not decided yet, after several long months of campaigns. However, its overall impact is difficult to tell and we will have to wait until Nov. 5 to see if the debate, campaigning and interactivity have been fruitful for either candidate.