The scale of flooding Pakistan is enduring is greater than anything it has witnessed before. An estimated third of the country is now underwater; over 1,300 people have died, while 33 million people have been directly affected. < Back Climate Change, Pakistan, and the Case for Reparations By Noor Ahmad September 27, 2022 Pakistan has witnessed months of heavy monsoon rains and severe flooding. An estimated third of the country is now underwater; over 1,300 people have died, while 33 million people have been directly affected. The last time Pakistan experienced similar flooding was in 2010, when millions of acres of cropland were destroyed alongside the lives and livelihoods of over 20 million people. Back then, the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, said that the scale of flooding Pakistan had endured was greater than anything he had witnessed before, with 400,000 cusecs of water making their way down the Indus. This time, however, 700,000 cusecs of water are expected, highlighting the extent of the emergency. In their 2021 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that the environmental crisis intensifies the water cycle, resulting in more extreme rainfall and flooding. This explains the unprecedented downpour that enveloped Pakistan from mid-June to late August, with parts of the country receiving 500%-700% of their usual August monsoon rain. Although climate change is the likely cause of heavy rainfall, it is notable that Pakistan produces less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Despite that, due to its geography, Pakistan is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change; the Global Climate Risk Index ranks Pakistan as the eighth most affected country by climate change-related extreme weather events. In contrast, more developed countries in the northern hemisphere – who were the first to industrialize and therefore have produced the greater share of greenhouse gas emissions – have only been mildly affected by such extreme weather events. The global south has faced the more severe impacts of climate change, although it bears less responsibility. There is a case to be made that Pakistan and other developing countries facing climate change should receive reparations from abroad. Pakistan has to rehabilitate around 15% of its population and requires funds it does not have. And although countries such as Canada and the US have provided donations – $5 million and $30 million, respectively – this is not enough, especially because the total damage exceeds $10 billion, and because Pakistan is facing its most severe cost-of-living crisis. After he visited Pakistan on Saturday, Sept. 10, Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, urged members of the international community to provide massive financial support to Pakistan. Guterres suggested a debt restructuring, which would involve writing off a portion of Pakistan’s debt owed or lengthening its repayment period. This would allow Pakistan to have breathing room to rebuild its economy. However, the traditional “lender of last resort,” the International Monetary Fund, does not follow this logic. The fund released $1.1 billion as a part of a larger assistance package to Pakistan as of Aug. 29, 2022, but with the proviso that it undertakes a reduction in its budgetary outlays. Now is hardly the time to cut social assistance expenditure, just when it is needed the most. Beyond climate change, many internal failures within Pakistan have contributed to this catastrophe. Overpopulation and poor building regulations have led to riverside housing developments that lack adequate safeguards against flooding. Moreover, unsatisfactory disaster management and surveillance mechanisms are likely to have worsened this outcome. Pakistan’s government must now focus on preventative strategies such as building resilient infrastructure since these disasters are now reoccurring. Only $50 million of Pakistan’s budget this year has been allocated to its Climate Change Ministry, which is insufficient. This results from a significant portion of its budgetary expenditure being diverted to defense, given the country’s hybrid civil-military dyarchical system. Interestingly, Pakistan is one of the most water-stressed countries in the world, yet it cannot adequately harvest rainwater because of a lack of dams. Undoubtedly, better governance and allocation of funds could have mitigated the tragedy to some extent. Climate change is upon us: extreme heat, floods and melting glaciers, all seen in the space of this summer in Pakistan. Developed western nations are responsible for countering the consequences of global warming caused by their industrialization and ongoing polluting activities. There is a need to enact the climate change agenda, as espoused by the United Nations Climate Change Conferences, and accelerate the move to net zero emissions. At the same time, assistance must be given to southern countries facing the effects for which they bear less responsibility. Debt forgiveness, financial aid and expertise are now required. But of course, this does not absolve developing countries of their responsibility. There is a need for better governance and redirection of finances on social development and infrastructure rather than militarization.

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

Growing up, I constantly pondered over what a hero meant to me. I would have varying heroes ranging from fictional characters to influential figures. I always thought that they were out of reach, yet today, I can look back and realize that I was surrounded by them. < Back Women of Iran Named Time Magazine’s “Heroes of the Year.” By Anonymous December 31, 2022 Who and what makes a hero? Could it be a superpower that allows you to jump over buildings as if they're pebbles or shoot webs from your hands? Is it a quality that distinguishes you from the average person and makes you the "chosen" one, bringing peace to the whole population? Or is it an achievement, saving a life, helping those in need, and standing up against injustice? At some point in our lives, each of us has appointed someone as a hero, whether a parental figure, someone influential, or maybe a fictional character that embodies characteristics we admire. These different "heroes" change over time and embody varying features that we look up to, making the unifying factor of what constitutes a hero contestable. However, I define a hero as a community, or someone, who brings positive change to our society and personifies inspiring bravery. On Dec. 7, 2022, Time Magazine named Iranian women "Heroes of the Year." This accolade represents a significant step forward in how Western media and society depict Iranian women, and it has increasingly positive influences than one may imagine. To understand this choice, one must first recall the current women-led movement in Iran. Upon the brutal murder of Zhina Mahsa Amini by Iran's morality police, protests broke out around the country, demanding the abolishment of the mandatory hijab and corrupt morality police. As time passed, the repression of the protests increased. Anger built up amongst Iranians — recalling the injustice they have faced for the past 43 years under the Islamic Republic, the continuous human rights violations, the oppression of women and the lack of freedom –– the movement progressed into what some may call an "uprising" and others a "revolution." The underlying sentiment, however, is clear: the people want a change in the regime. Their wants? Women, Life, Freedom. Iranian women have been the face of bravery since the dawn of time. When one lives in a country that suppresses one's fundamental rights, tries to diminish one's happiness and extinguish one's light, that person quickly learns how to rebel and live the way one wishes, even if it does not adhere to the regime's rules. For instance, in the context of the intense dress code imposed by the Islamic Republic, Iranian women rebelled by wearing more make-up, changing fashion trends that "softened" the dress code and even protesting. From the first time Vida Movahed took off her hijab, placed it on the stick and expressed her disapproval of this misogynistic law to the movement of the "Girls of the Revolution Street" and to it taking a larger form in today's protests, allowing girls to start taking off their hijab in daily life while being fully aware of the risks and dangers, Iranian women showed they were never people to conform to injustice. In everyday life, they rebel by asserting themselves in society and proving their capability, intelligence, talents, and strength. They start controversial debates about the patriarchy, the effects and wrongdoings of traditions enforced by older generations towards women and the unfair marriage laws. Through their persistence, Iranian women changed modern Iranian society and its mindset. They allowed their male counterparts to understand their struggles, stand by them and even fight with them, as seen in this movement. Their efforts are inspirational, and they do not go unnoticed. It is not an easy job to change the mindset of a population, and Iranian women's work every single day for the past years has been crucial to allow this movement to take off and have the impact and momentum it has today. It is precisely their refusal to fit into a mold of what society told them they should be, whether it is the Islamic Republic dismissing them or the West orientalizing them, which is incredibly inspiring, notably for other young Iranian girls who face the same challenges. During these protests, we have witnessed incredible bravery — Iranian women sacrificing their lives and safety to fight for what they believe in and for freedom — not only for themselves but also for other Iranian women and the next generation. They refuse to admit regret even when the regime abuses them, and they refuse to stay silent despite repression. I believe that the bravery, inspiration and change-making latent in the current Iranian movement render the country's women deserving of the title "Heroes of The Year." Time Magazine's decision is highly significant. With propaganda determining the media image of Iranian women in the past, it is an astonishing relief that they are finally being seen as their true selves. It humanizes Iranian women in the eyes of those who were fed lies, giving them credibility and allowing a larger sympathy to the cause. International support is crucial to keep this movement alive, and this amazing act of Time Magazine sends a political message highlighting that they are on the side of the people and Iranian women. It terrifies the regime and empowers Iranians, making it all the more noteworthy. To support this movement, the international media must change the hegemonic narratives and align themselves with reality, as did Time Magazine. The international community must keep listening and spreading the words of the Iranian people and, most importantly, Iranian women. Growing up, I constantly pondered over what a hero meant to me. I would have varying heroes ranging from fictional characters to influential figures. I always thought that they were out of reach, yet today, I can look back and realize that I was surrounded by them. I feel immense pride for Iranian women, their efforts and how far they have come, and I believe they are such inspirational figures. Iranian women are more than deserving of this title.

Pendant qu’on s’attache à montrer qu’on suit les pas de la Raison, on oublie l’essentiel dans la politique au point que l’on puisse trouver cela trivial et naïf; on oublie la nécessité d’un débouché concret et utile à la méthode rationnelle, c’est-à-dire la recherche de la justice. < Back Déni de politique: les ‘experts’ au pouvoir Lubin Parisien January 31, 2025 Qui gouverne la France? Emmanuel Macron ou McKinsey? En 2022, un rapport sénatorial dressait le constat d’un État faisant appel de plus en plus aux cabinets de conseil pour l’aider à la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques. Le rapport dénonce des prestations à la qualité variable et teintées de partialité, le tout sur fond de perte de compétence des institutions de l’Etat, avec une aspiration des haut-fonctionnaires par le privé avec le pantouflage. Le chiffre choc, c’est celui d’un milliard, un milliard d’euros dépensé en conseil en 2021. La campagne de réélection d’Emmanuel Macron en 2022 fut empoisonnée par la mise en avant de ses liens avec le cabinet McKinsey. Ainsi, durant les campagnes présidentielles de 2017 et 2022, des prestations qui auraient vraisemblablement dû être déclarées furent escamotées, d’où une enquête du Parquet national financier (PNF). L' appétence du président pour des profils au « cerveau ultra-rapide » venant de grandes écoles comme Polytechnique et devenus consultants dans le privé, c’est-à-dire des profils en-dehors de la politique, est un fait bien connu et critiqué. Ces cabinets de conseil à l'efficacité contestable apportent une expertise, leurs recommandations modèlent concrètement les politiques publiques, notamment pour les aides personnalisées au logement ( APL) et leurs paramètres. Leurs consultants, engagés pour leurs compétences techniques supposées, ne sont élus par personne et ont pourtant un rôle non négligeable dans la politique. L’utilisation massive des cabinets de conseil est largement reprochée à Emmanuel Macron et à ses gouvernements, mais l’idée de donner le pouvoir à ceux qui seraient techniquement plus compétents pour l’exercer est un lieu commun qui remonte à plus longtemps que la ‘macronie’ ou l’externalisation induite par des politiques néolibérales: c’est la justification du pouvoir de toute élite. Les meilleurs pour nous guider Le biais élitiste de la pensée politique occidentale est structurant du temps de Platon déjà. Son grand traité de politique est La République , dont l’ambition était une recherche de la justice dans la cité et en fin de compte dans l’âme. Platon distinguait trois ‘classes’ dans la cité: celle des producteurs et des travailleurs, celle des auxiliaires qui seconde la troisième, c’est-à-dire la classe des gardiens de la cité. C’est eux qui disposent de l’autorité politique pour mettre en place les réformes nécessaires au retour de la justice—notamment la censure des poètes clamant des idées injustes et propres à confondre les esprits. C’est aux gardiens aussi de protéger la cité durant la guerre. Pour les sélectionner et faire naître de grands crûs, Platon a proposé dans le Livre V de La République un dispositif eugéniste ingénieux pour que seuls les plus droits et les plus forts dans cette élite puissent se reproduire. L’éducation des enfants est absolument collective et très stricte. Tout cela n’a pas manqué de nourrir des critiques sans doute justifiées contre Platon et contre son eugénisme fondamental, mais infondé. Le modèle que Platon a appelé de ses vœux pour la restauration de la justice dans la cité est l’aristocratie au sens premier du terme, c’est-à-dire le gouvernement des meilleurs, des philosophes-rois. La conception du mouvement politique vers le Bien que Platon a développée est celle d’un mouvement dirigé par le haut: des livres entiers de La République sont exclusivement consacrés à l’éducation des gardiens de la cité, les bas-fonds de la cité ne sont que de vaines diversions régies pour en confiner les fièvres. Platon, qui fut le conseiller du tyran de Syracuse Denys, avait une approche clairement élitiste où l’autorité politique revient aux meilleurs soigneusement choisis; la classe des producteurs n’est qu’un figurant dans le chemin que dessine le philosophe du IVème siècle avant notre ère. Mais vouloir qu’une minorité soit motrice dans la logique et la dialectique de la politique n’a pas forcément vocation à accaparer le pouvoir, mais parfois à émanciper l’ensemble de la société et des opprimés. C’est bien là tout le rôle du parti selon Karl Marx et Friedrich Engels dans Le Manifeste du Parti communiste de 1848. Le prolétariat doit s’affirmer dans la dialectique irréconciliable qui le lie à la bourgeoisie. Le projet est révolutionnaire, mais il semble bien lointain tant les prolétaires ne sont pas conscients de leur condition: c’est là que le parti peut renverser la situation. Marx et Engels écrivent ainsi que « pratiquement, les communistes sont donc la fraction la plus résolue des partis ouvriers de tous les pays, la fraction qui stimule toutes les autres; théoriquement, ils ont sur le reste du prolétariat l'avantage d'une intelligence claire des conditions, de la marche et des fins générales du mouvement prolétarien. » Le parti doit exposer les crimes du capitalisme et ses iniquités, il doit être l’organisation où le prolétariat puisera les armes et les ‘compétences’ nécessaires pour opérer le changement révolutionnaire souhaité. Le parti incarne le prolétariat, mais il doit avant tout lui donner toute sa carnation, il doit donner au prolétariat sa conscience de classe et des armes. C’est certes une élite, mais elle n’a aucune vocation à se substituer au prolétariat pour mener la révolution et encore moins pour diriger une société qui devrait pourtant être sans classes. Une tradition marxisante ultérieure et s’éloignant en vérité de Marx parle d’une ‘avant-garde’ du prolétariat. Selon Lénine, c’est à elle de prendre le pouvoir et d’instituer une dictature du prolétariat, vue comme une étape claire et cohérente vers d’autres étapes vers enfin le communisme. Là encore, on retrouve une vision élitiste, mais à la différence de Marx et d’Engels, l’avant-garde doit avant tout incarner le prolétariat et se saisir du pouvoir qui revient de droit au prolétariat. Le glissement est subtil, mais il est fondamental: c’est sans doute là le péché originel de l’URSS et de la révolution bolchevique. Le prolétariat est réduit à une abstraction qu’une élite de fait peut utiliser comme un paravent à sa constitution comme une classe distincte et aux intérêts concurrents. Quand on parle des experts en politique, il ne faut pas penser qu’aux techniciens, il y a aussi tous ces guides, ces gardiens et autres avant-gardes qui sont des élites exclusivement définies par leur rôle politique. Pourtant, d’autres ‘experts’ s’aventurant effectivement en politique s'attachent au contraire à montrer qu’ils sont au-dessus des partis, au-dessus de la politique. Des remèdes bien acres Dans les moments de crise, les procédures et les coutumes politiques des démocraties libérales semblent dépassées. C’est le constat dressé en Italie qui a amené à la formation de ‘gouvernements techniques’. Les plus récents sont ceux formés en 2011 par Mario Monti et en 2021 par Mario Draghi. Ce sont des techniciens et des experts en économie reconnus par beaucoup de partenaires politiques à l’étranger et par les marchés; l’action de Mario Draghi à la tête de la BCE après la crise financière de 2008 est ainsi souvent saluée . Au sujet de ces gouvernements, dans une note destinée à donner des idées aux Français en pleine crise politique en 2024, l’IFRAP déclare ceci: « l’exemple italien nous montre ainsi l’intérêt de nommer comme Premier Ministre, une personnalité non politique et, dans les deux cas cités plus hauts, expérimentés dans les affaires économiques. » Qu’est-ce l’IFRAP ? Il s’agit de la « Fondation pour la recherche sur les administrations et les politiques publiques, » un think-tank néo-libérale qui se targue d’avoir promu en France « l’ouverture des postes de directeurs d’hôpitaux publics au privé » ou « l'instauration d'un jour de carence dans la fonction publique » Pourquoi une telle organisation fait les louanges d’une solution gouvernementale analogue aux expériences italiennes? La réponse est simple: les gouvernements d’experts prennent des décisions qu’aucun parti politique ne veut pleinement endosser tellement elles sont attentatoires à l’Etat-providence. Ainsi, le gouvernement Monti a lancé une ‘cure’ d’austérité: « Mario Monti réduit drastiquement les dépenses publiques, réforme le régime des retraites avec un allongement de la durée des cotisations et un recul de l’âge de départ en retraite, qui pourrait atteindre 70 ans en 2015. » Le but est de rassurer les marchés financiers, notamment sur la question de la crédibilité de la dette italienne et les perspectives de croissance. Le but n’est pas une politique juste. Le but n’est sûrement pas l’égalité. Matériellement et concrètement, le gouvernement Monti a préservé les structures en berne de l’économie capitaliste italienne, vues comme une priorité face aux préoccupations des travailleurs ayant par exemple manifesté. Les experts au pouvoir, jouant de leur image d’expertise, se cachent derrière une apparente rationalité froide et apartisane pour mieux faire passer des politiques néolibérales. Le nécessaire débat politique sur ces mesures est phagocyté par une hiérarchisation fallacieuse entre des ‘experts’ néo-libéraux et des propositions pouvant défendre l’Etat-providence. On pourrait croire que ces gouvernements techniques furent une suspension des querelles partisanes et des voix discordantes ; en réalité, l’espace politique est saturé par un néolibéralisme délétère. Nier le politique pour nier la lutte Les libéraux sont les grands ennemis de Carl Schmitt. Grand juriste allemand et philosophe du droit du XXème, son influence est indéniable dans l’histoire des idées. Néanmoins, il convient de rappeler son parcours trouble: il a eu des responsabilités dans le parti nazi, il a tenu des discours antisémites d’une grande virulence et il a justifié les politiques nazis. La possibilité de discuter de son œuvre est débattue , la mauvaise foi se faisant l’avocate de Carl Schmitt en bien des aspects. Schmitt fut toutefois discuté voire repris—avec une nécessaire distance critique—par des auteurs comme Giorgio Agamben ou Hannah Arendt. C’est pour cela que l’on se permettra de s’appuyer sur La notion du politique de Carl Schmitt rédigé en 1932, avant l’engagement de Carl Schmitt au NSDAP. L’utilisation que nous allons faire de sa pensée ne concerne qu’une partie de celle-ci et des réserves vigoureuses méritent d’être affirmées quant au débouché politique concret que prônait Carl Schmitt. La « dépolitisation » à laquelle s’acharne le libéralisme selon Carl Schmitt s’articule autour de deux pôles: une certaine éthique qui établit des normes morales arbitrant l’espace politique et une certaine vision de l’économie, émancipée des considérations partisanes et mûe par des agents rationnels. Le juriste controversé écrit: « Ainsi, dans la pensée libérale, le concept politique de lutte se mue en concurrence du côté de l’économie, en débat du côté de l’esprit. » Dans le libéralisme, la Raison est érigé en principe cardinal de l’espace public et de l’espace économique. Or, selon Carl Schmitt, le critère distinctif du politique c’est la distinction de l’ami et de l’ennemi. La Raison n’est pas caractéristique, son usage comme motif de la politique plus que comme une méthode intellectuelle invite à la prudence. Décrire la politique comme l’auberge des experts est faux. Carl Schmitt a bien compris que c’est la lutte qui est au fondement de toute démarche politique. Il ne s’agit pas de discourir et de mesurer la force de ses arguments, la politique consiste en l’établissement d’une société juste: un tel projet n’admet évidemment pas de place à l’injustice et à l’iniquité. Les arguments se nuancent, l’objectif d’une idéologie politique demeure toujours identique, ce sont seulement ses modalités d’application qui sont soumises à une discussion permanente, pas autre chose. Sinon, la cohérence interne de l’idéologie est brisée et ainsi une nouvelle idéologie apparaît—ce qui aurait été salutaire pour Schmitt vu son parcours. Le discours libéral, aujourd’hui dominant dans une démocratie libérale gouvernée par le centre et la droite comme la France de 2025, est aussi un discours de justification de l’ordre économique existant. Les discours des experts aux fragrances Mario Monti ou Mario Draghi prennent place dans une volonté de reconsolidation de systèmes économiques à bout de souffle. Ce genre d’experts n’insuffle pas un nouveau souffle dans la politique car leur action consiste en la conservation des structures économiques et financières préexistantes. Il n’y a donc pas d'intérêt à ouvrir l’espace politique et à se placer dans sa pluralité. Au contraire, le discours technocratique occupe l’espace politique par un discours de justification se réclamant de la Raison, mais ignorant la multiplicité des autres mondes possibles. Le discours libérale, plus qu’une idéologie proprement politique, est un discours qui restreint voire qui nie le politique et son vecteur actuel, l’Etat. Carl Schmitt affirme ainsi qu’ « il n’y a pas de politique libérale sui generis , il n’y a qu’une critique libérale de la politique. » Chasser la politique ainsi revient aussitôt à nier l’existence d’intérêts irréconciliables et donc la pluralité des horizons possibles. Et de fait, les hommes et femmes d’Etat revendiquant aujourd'hui leur expertise ne sont pas les héritiers d’une avant-garde marxisante. L’usage de la raison est dévoyé précisément pour nier la politique, c’est-à-dire la lutte. Pendant qu’on s’attache à montrer qu’on suit les pas de la Raison, on oublie l’essentiel dans la politique au point que l’on puisse trouver cela trivial et naïf; on oublie la nécessité d’un débouché concret et utile à la méthode rationnelle, c’est-à-dire la recherche de la justice. Photo credits: Flickr

La neutralité qui s’exprime dans le débat public a quelque chose de dangereux dans le sens où elle légitime des projets politiques souvent répressifs et conservateurs, dans le sens où ils ne portent aucune volonté de changement des structures de la société et entendent au contraire faire taire le débat sur un tel changement. < Back L’imposture de la neutralité en politique Lubin Parisien November 30, 2024 Alors que la Russie entamait son invasion de l’Ukraine, les pays européens ont décidé d’adopter des sanctions contre le régime de Vladimir Poutine. Au milieu de l’Europe, la Suisse apparaît bien seule et encerclée par une Union européenne qu’elle refuse de rejoindre. Le pays a pour mantra sa sacro-sainte neutralité; pourtant, le pays a rapidement endossé les sanctions contre la Russie tout en expliquant qu’« elle ne favorise aucun belligérant sur le plan militaire . » Mais même les défenseurs les plus acharnés de la ‘neutralité’ suisse comme l’UDC – un parti d’extrême-droite – semblent moins neutres qu’ils veulent le faire croire et cultivent une proximité discrète avec le Kremlin et ses idées. En outre, les fonds des oligarques russes en Suisse ne sont pas gelés ou sinon à la marge . Les discours sur la neutralité suisse ne sont sûrement pas neutres et défendent des visions très particulières de la place du pays dans le monde. L’irénisme suisse apparaît comme une imposture pour mieux s’afficher comme les défenseurs de la paix et surtout promouvoir des intérêts particuliers moins nobles. La neutralité cache toujours une vision politique qui n’a ontologiquement rien de différent de celles qui ne se dissimulent pas derrière la neutralité. Des neutralistes très partisans La neutralité a plusieurs avatars: on s’abstient, on ne dit rien, on ne fait rien. Quelles positions politiques peut-on exprimer quand on ne s’exprime pas? Se dire neutre permet de se placer en-dehors d’un débat, en-dehors d’une guerre. Néanmoins, un acteur politique comme un Etat ne peut s’extraire de l’espace politique, dans lequel il est par définition. En se mettant en-dehors d’un débat ou d’un conflit, un acteur politique choisit de se mettre dans une position particulière qui n’a rien d'évident. Derrière chaque discours de neutralité, on peut déduire l’expression d’une certaine vision qu’un acteur politique a de lui-même et de la relation qu’il entretient avec l’objet ou la conflictualité au sujet duquel il prétend être à l’écart. La guerre en Ukraine a suscité la désapprobation d’une grande partie de la communauté internationale et c’est pourquoi en février 2023 une résolution est présentée à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU est adoptée par 141 pays. Cependant, des Etats prétendent être neutres, comme la Suisse, et parmi eux 32 Etats se sont abstenus et 13 étaient absents. Sont-ils vraiment neutres? Des grandes puissances comme l’Inde et la Chine n’en ont-elles rien à faire? Le Venezuela, proche de la Russie et exclu de l’ordre mondial promu par les Occidentaux et les démocraties latino-américaines, est-il le seul pays absent au vote du continent par pure indifférence? On peut en douter; de fait, les lignes de fractures relevées lors du vote ne sont pas le fruit du hasard, mais reprennent celles séparant la communauté internationale sur la conception d’un ordre mondial. Les observateurs ne s’y sont pas trompés, le journal Le Monde parlait au sujet de l’abstention de pays africains pour la résolution de 2022 d’une « abstention calculée » et motivée par diverses raisons, comme la progression de discours russophiles dans le continent ou la méfiance et la distance face à un ordre occidental décrié. Cet ordre est aussi contesté par la Chine ou par l’Inde, qui essaient de s’émanciper de façon différente de la seule tutelle occidentale sur le concert des nations. Bref, dans les relations internationales, le silence est bien révélateur, il indique ainsi la conception qu’on a de l’ordre mondial à défendre, par exemple avec la méconnaissance du primat du droit international dont font preuve les pays s'étant tus face à la guerre en Ukraine. La neutralité perd de son sens, elle n’a substantiellement rien de différent avec d’autres approches et rhétoriques défendant d’autres idées politiques par définition partisanes. C’est aussi le cas dans les universités concernant le conflit à Gaza et les mouvements contestataires qui s'ensuivent. Sciences Po Paris est un exemple parlant: le 4 octobre, le ministre de l’enseignement supérieur Patrick Hetzel a déclaré dans un communiqué citant Sciences Po Paris qu’il « condamne fermement ces actions [de contestation face aux évènements en cours à Gaza et au Liban], qui vont à l'encontre des principes de neutralité et de laïcité du service public de l’enseignement supérieur. » Cette neutralité s’oppose à des revendications politiques précises et en brident l’expression. La neutralité ainsi proclamée a en réalité de lourdes significations: premièrement, l’université est vue comme le lieu de débats aseptisés et non pas le lieu de contestations chocs que certains qualifient de violentes. C’est une vision que l’on peut tout à fait défendre, mais ce n’est pas neutre. Deuxièmement, le refus de condamner clairement la politique israélienne n’est pas une évidence ni une expression d’une vraie neutralité, mais plutôt un choix politique tranché et révélateur d'une certaine vision de cette politique, jugée suffisamment explicable et pas si clairement illégale au regard du droit international. Troisièmement, une telle neutralité révèle surtout un certain rapport entre l’université et le monde extérieur, l’institution n’étant pas censée interférer avec les enjeux extérieurs, mais simplement censée en rendre compte dans un format académique. Là encore, une telle vision politique est défendable et peut faire l’objet d’une argumentation sérieuse. Néanmoins, la neutralité est empiriquement une imposture cachant la réalité d’une posture tranchée qui s'oppose à d’autres paradigmes politiques. Là encore, la neutralité ne diffère pas en soi d’une position politique partisane. Pourtant, la neutralité a quelque chose de substantiellement différent – c’est une imposture à la coloration conservatrice. L’extrême-centre ou la défense d’un ordre établi La neutralité permet d’anesthésier le débat sur les choix pris par le pouvoir politique en place. Le même fait se vérifie avec les universités « neutres » vis-à-vis du conflit à Gaza: en refusant d’ouvrir clairement le débat sur les partenariats avec des universités israéliennes et avec le rejet de la création d’un groupe de travail spécial, Sciences Po Paris conforte une réalité dans le débat public français et notre politique étrangère. En effet, on constate une bienveillance injustifiée face à un Etat dont les politiques pourraient nous inviter à questionner la pertinence de la proximité actuelle entre nos deux pays. C’est là que réside le vice avec la neutralité en politique: il s’agit d’une rhétorique défendant l’ordre établi par le pouvoir politique sans s’afficher sincèrement. Cet ordre politique refuse qu’on le questionne et se dissimule derrière la Raison avec une majuscule et dans des retranchements qu’on ne peut pas attaquer sur le fond car la neutralité impliquerait l’absence de positions politiques à critiquer. C’est pour cela que les discours se réclamant de la neutralité et de ses avatars soi-disant apartisans doivent susciter notre méfiance: ils empêchent un débat sincère et explicite sur l’ordre établi et surtout sur les autres que nous pourrions établir. En outre, la neutralité en politique et son édification comme principe même de la politique a une histoire particulière liée à l’extrême-centre. L’historien Pierre Serna est l’initiateur de ce concept dont il fait remonter l’application à Napoléon Bonaparte et au Consulat. Il identifie trois éléments pour définir l’extrême-centre : « se placer au-dessus des clivages en adoptant une rhétorique de la modération, » « défendre un certain opportunisme en prenant les meilleures idées de chaque camp » et « la conquête et le maintien d’un pouvoir fort, » principe dont Pierre Sterna souligne la contradiction avec le supposé dépassement des idéologies. Le premier principe se vérifie avec la posture de l’Afrique du Sud qui justifie son abstention sur la résolution de 2023 condamnant l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la nécessaire contribution à une « conclusion constructive [de pourparlers] conduisant à la création d’une paix durable en Ukraine, » formule incluse dans un communiqué n'évoquant jamais la Russie et appelant à une position de surplomb de l’Assemblée générale. Le second principe est appliqué par des personnalités politiques voulant s’emparer du pouvoir avec une large assise, comme ce fut le cas d’Emmanuel Macron en 2017 lorsqu’il prônait le « en même temps. » Le caractère répressif d’une neutralité se parant des atours de la seule raison et de la seule responsabilité apparaît comme une évidence quand l’administrateur provisoire de Sciences Po Paris Jean Bassères prit la décision de faire appel aux forces de l’ordre pour déloger ceux qui occupaient le campus de Paris et quand il s’agissait de lancer des procédures disciplinaires contre des militants. La neutralité qui s’exprime dans le débat public a quelque chose de dangereux dans le sens où elle légitime des projets politiques souvent répressifs et conservateurs, dans le sens où ils ne portent aucune volonté de changement des structures de la société et entendent au contraire faire taire le débat sur un tel changement. La dangerosité réside aussi dans l’imposture déjà révélée précédemment. Le philosophe Alain Deneault relève ainsi que « l’extrémisme de l’extrême centre tient à son rejet de tout ce qui n’est pas lui » : la neutralité en politique est le paravent à une telle posture et est en tout cas une défense inavouée–peut-être inavouable–d’un certain ordre établi ou de certaines orientations programmatiques qui n’ont substantiellement rien d’apartisan.

War is war. No matter when it starts, where it is or who ends up carrying its weight. I’m usually the first to argue that suffering should never be compared, but in the cases of Sudan and Yemen, comparison becomes almost unavoidable. Not to decide who suffers more nor to rank tragedies, but to confront the world’s selective outrage and the chilling apathetic silence that allows some wars to disappear from collective memory. < Back The Invisible Wars: Yemen, Sudan, and the Selective Outrage of the World Amena Elkayal February 11, 2026 War is war. No matter when it starts, where it is or who ends up carrying its weight. I’m usually the first to argue that suffering should never be compared, but in the cases of Sudan and Yemen, comparison becomes almost unavoidable. Not to decide who suffers more nor to rank tragedies, but to confront the world’s selective outrage and the chilling apathetic silence that allows some wars to disappear from collective memory. Some conflicts dominate global headlines for months, shape foreign policy debates, saturate our screens and even household conversations. Others, equally brutal and equally tragic, barely surface. Yemen and Sudan stand among the world’s worst humanitarian disasters of our time, yet they remain trapped on the margins of global attention. Their absence reflects a deeper hierarchy of suffering, one where geopolitical interest, emotional convenience and media priorities determine whose suffering is worthier of visibility. When wars are not seen, they are unfelt. And when they are unfelt, they are abandoned. Since April 2023, Sudan has recorded more than 20,000 deaths and 4.9 million displaced people. That is besides 25 milions facing hunger and at least 36 women and girls raped only between April 2023 and October 2024. Yemen, meanwhile, has seen at least 1,742 civilians killed since late 2022, alongside 4.8 million internally displaced people and 17.1 million people living in acute food insecurity. Despite these figures you could count on one hand the number of times you’ve stumbled upon these crises in global headlines—especially when measured against the omnipresent coverage of Gaza or Ukraine. The inequality of attention becomes impossible to ignore. To readers around the world, Sudan and Yemen’s violence often feels distant, confusing, or inaccessible—and that is partly by design. These conflicts are frequently described as “invisible wars”, a label rooted in the chronic absence of sustained human-centered coverage. Yemen, for example, receives consistently low global media attention. This pattern is documented by outlets such as the BBC, who examined why the country’s humanitarian catastrophe fails to appear in headlines. Humanitarian agencies operating in both countries have long warned that donor fatigue, shrinking aid budgets and the near-impossibility of accessing active conflict zones make it difficult to draw global attention to unfolding crises. Doctors Without Borders note that in Sudan, warring factions regularly restrict the movement of aid workers and journalists Further, they frequently cut communications, diminishing visibility in international media. The result is that these wars become “uncoverable,” and therefore, unseen. By contrast, conflicts like in Ukraine and Palestine receive sustained attention, while Sudan and Yemen fall into a blind spot shaped by power dynamics rather than humanitarian urgency. This is not because the former conflicts are inherently “more tragic”, but because they benefit from clearer political narratives, stronger advocacy networks and direct Western involvement. Wars that intersect with Western foreign policy priorities are more likely to receive sustained attention and sympathy than those unfolding in regions perceived as geopolitically peripheral. Coverage follows power. Outrage follows proximity. And empathy follows the stories people are given the chance to see. Analyses of global news patterns repeatedly show how conflicts tied to Western interests remain amplified, while others quietly fade into the background, marked by a general feeling of less humanitarian urgency. The imbalance is staggering. Media monitoring platform Meltware found that between Jan. 1 and Sep. 30, 2022, Ukraine received five times more media coverage than all ten of the most dangerous conflict zones for children combined. Sudan— now considered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis—occupies only a narrow and fragile space in international news reporting. This isn’t just a media gap; it’s a moral one. Emotional engagement itself is greatly shaped by the narratives people encounter. An article by Prismreports.org points out how the public’s capacity to care is directly influenced by the stories they are offered: when journalists don’t cover these wars, audiences don’t feel them. And when audiences don’t feel them, governments don’t act. Silence becomes distance. Distance breeds apathy. The consequences are not abstract. They are fatal. In Sudan, most hospitals in active conflict zones have collapsed or shut down, leaving entire cities without medical care. In Yemen, famine, cholera outbreaks, and widespread infrastructure collapse continue unabated, as detailed by the U.N.’s humanitarian updates. Despite the severity of these crises, the flow of aid remains insufficient and inconsistent—an outcome that might result from their invisibility . The disparity becomes even more glaring through the legal and humanitarian lens presented by Opinio Juris . Their analysis shows that Sudan’s civil war, which resumed in April 2023, has resulted in more than 150,000 deaths, displaced over 12 million people and left nearly half of its population facing famine. Across the African continent, over 45 million people were displaced by conflict in 2024 alone—an astonishing 14% increase from the previous year—yet these crises rarely dominate international headlines. This selective attention creates a “hierarchy of suffering,” where victims of high-profile wars are perceived as more deserving of empathy than those trapped in the invisible conflicts of the global south . Data from the 2025 Global Peace Index confirms these patterns. Vision of Humanity report that civil conflicts—like those in Yemen and Sudan— receive dramatically less coverage than interstate wars. On average, interstate conflicts generate roughly 870 news articles per civilian death, while intrastate conflicts (which make up the majority of global wars) generate only 37. The least visible are internationalised intrastate conflicts, at just 18 articles per civilian death. Notably, even when comparing 2014 coverage, the Gaza war and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict received far more attention than the Central African Republic’s civil war, despite the latter experiencing higher mortality rates. This disparity does not arise in a vacuum. While the imbalance is stark, it is also shaped by the geographic and political orientation of major news organisations: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as a European war, directly implicates European security, economies, and populations—the primary audience these outlets serve. The pattern nonetheless endures: attention follows geopolitical proximity and interest more readily than human need. The report also highlights rising negativity in news consumption, audience fatigue from long-term crises, and a growing tendency to avoid emotionally draining topics—all of which contribute to the systematic erasure of certain wars from public consciousness. Addressing this erasure requires far more than fleeting sympathy. Humanitarian groups like CARE note that sustaining global attention demands innovative media strategies. For example, local partnerships, long-form reporting and storytelling rooted in lived experience rather than abstract geopolitics. Coverage that prioritizes people over politics can counter public fatigue, a point echoed across reports from NPR, showing how individual narratives can revive empathy. Similarly, analyses by the International Crisis Group call for increased foreign aid, renewed focus on forgotten conflicts, and diplomatic pressure tied to civilian protection. Media watchdogs such as the Committee to Protect Journalists urge deeper investigative work and collaboration with local reporters who can safely document realities on the ground. Advocacy organizations including Human Rights Watch add that supporting grassroots campaigns and independent digital platforms—especially those operating from within Sudan and Yemen—is essential to bypass censorship and ensure these wars are not erased simply because they fall outside geopolitical priorities. Because at its core, selective outrage isn’t just a failure of the press. It is a failure of our shared moral imagination. Yemen and Sudan are not invisible because their people are less worthy of empathy. They are invisible because the world has chosen to look elsewhere. If international law, governments, the media and global institutions are to retain integrity and maintain any moral consistency, they must dismantle the hierarchy of suffering that governs which lives are seen and which are allowed to simply fade into silence. Every war demands to be witnessed. Every victim deserves to be mourned. Until all human suffering is met with equal urgency, justice will remain uneven and peace will remain painfully out of reach. The world cannot claim ignorance. It can claim only silence. And silence, in these wars, kills . Photo Source: UNMISS, Flickr

From Khuzestan to Tehran, we hear the phrase “زن، زندگی، آزادی” being chanted in streets by hundreds of Iranians. From Tehran to Paris, we see it take the form “femme, vie, liberté”; in New York and London we hear “women, life, freedom.” This central phrase of the protests exemplifies the basic values Iranians are fighting for — but what are they really related to and where do they stem from? < Back “Women. Life. Freedom” — What are the Iran protests fighting for? By Anonymous October 31, 2022 From Khuzestan to Tehran, we hear the phrase “زن، زندگی، آزادی” being chanted in streets by hundreds of Iranians. From Tehran to Paris, we see it take the form “femme, vie, liberté”; in New York and London we hear “women, life, freedom.” This central phrase of the protests exemplifies the basic values Iranians are fighting for — but what are they really related to and where do they stem from? On Sept. 16, 2022, the news of the murder of Zhina Mahsa Amini — a 22-year-old Kurdish woman who was visiting Tehran — by Iran’s morality police broke out. They brutally attacked Amini for wearing an “improper hijab,” causing a traumatic brain injury that put her in a three-day coma prior to her death. In an attempt to dodge accountability, Iranian officials claimed her death was due to pre-existing heart conditions. However, her family denied these allegations, confirming that she had no serious health problems prior to this event. This shocking report instigated a wave of visceral reactions, predominantly nationally but also internationally. People were outraged at the human rights abuses taking place, the systemic oppression against women and the extent to which the regime devalues the lives of their population. What started as women cutting off their hair on social media snowballed into Iranian women courageously unveiling themselves and burning their hijab in public, and has now transformed into the population taking to the streets of Iran and demanding their rights. To better understand this social movement, let us try to dissect its central slogan and its implications. Women As the first word of our phrase and the catalyst of the protests, Iranian women are central to this cause. Women’s rights (or lack thereof) in Iran takes several dimensions; nonetheless, a detail that gives a glimpse into the injustices they have to submit to is the imposition of the hijab and the existence of the morality police. The latter is a branch of the security force that ensures that women are abiding by the Islamic Republic’s strict dress code which forces all women, regardless of belief or religion, to wear the hijab and dress “modestly” through loose clothes and minimal to no makeup. Consequently, wearing an “improper” hijab or not wearing one at all, tight clothing or showing a little bit of skin is penalized. This general concept has existed since the 1979 revolution, but has been reshaped and taken its current institutionalized form during the Ahmadinejad presidency. The morality police operate as a patrol team in a van, generally including two to three women who lure in the victims and at least two men who may use force if she resists, as they did with Amini. They situate themselves in crowded areas of cities and their actions can range from a simple warning or a fine to taking women to the “center of education and commitment,” punishing those who resist, and occasionally arresting victims. The morality police’s abuse of power through the unjustifiable use of violence raises infinite distrust about their legitimacy. Furthermore, the police’s omnipresence shines a light on the ceaseless mistreatment of Iranian women who fear for their lives due to clothing further underscores their objectification by the regime as they are being obliged to cover up. The enforcement of the hijab strips women of their choice, acting as an instrument to control their bodies. Said instrument — this mere piece of fabric — symbolizes their oppression, informing Iranian women’s decision to burn it. After all, the hijab loses all meaning once imposed. By cutting their hair, Iranian women broadcast the tragic reduction of their existence to these few strands. This is not said to orientalize and pity Iranian women. As the face of the movement, their strength, bravery, and grace are to admire and undoubtedly to defend. Life The right to life should not be subject to negotiation because it is an essential and fundamental human right. Yet, it is clear that the regime values the lives of some over others’. This is epitomized by the discrimination against the Kurdish-Iranian population, illustrated through the murder of Zhina Mahsa Amini, who is believed by some to have provoked officials by speaking with a Kurdish accent. Amini’s choice to go by her Persian name (Mahsa) as opposed to her Kurdish birth name (Zhina) further confirms this perennial fear of ethnic intolerance. On a larger scale, Iran’s bombing of Iraqi Kurdistan on Sept. 26, accusing them of the protests happening in the country, displays the Iranian government’s hostility towards the Kurdish population. It goes without saying that the regime targets protestors, as the death count stemming from these protests has reached (at the time of writing this article) over 150 people. Let us turn to the Islamic Republic’s treatment of students — the future of their nation. How much does the government value a demographic that most would assume it would prioritize? How does it treat their “élite de la nation”? Even here, we find that students’ lives are practically worthless to the authorities who recently attacked Sharif University in Tehran, Iran’s highest-ranking engineering academy. They locked the entrances and exits, trapping the students, and started shooting, students even compared it to a “war zone”. Their identities no longer mattered — not whether they were innocent or guilty, nor whether they stayed longer to study or to talk with their friends. At this moment, they were all a threat, voices to be silenced, an existence that no longer served the government. One by one, with each bullet, another name, and another bright future was permanently crossed off the attendance list. Freedom The intense restrictions on freedom extend across almost every aspect of Iranian life, yet one kind of right — freedom of speech — is particularly endangered. I am sure, as Sciences Pistes, you have all seen the Fariba Adelkhah posters plastered in the corridors and amphitheater of campus. This Iranian Sciences Po Academic, this colleague of our professors and administration, was detained in 2019 simply for speaking against the regime. This fear lives within virtually every Iranian — extreme censorship is a pillar of the republic’s tight grip on power. The censorship ranges from day-to-day inconveniences, such as needing a VPN to access certain social media platforms, to fearing exile, arrest and even death for expressing one’s views. The magnitude of the repressive situation is highlighted throughout these protests as the government has shut down (or slowed) the internet for almost two weeks, so news cannot reach the electronics of everyday Iranians covering the process stays quiet. Moreover, countless journalists and political activists have been detained. As goes another slogan stated in the protests, “Evin has become a university and Tehran a prison.” “Evin” relates to a notorious prison in Tehran that incarcerates political prisoners. This same prison was recently set on fire by the regime, killing and injuring its prisoners often consisting of students, activists or protestors. This chilling reality is precisely the reason that it is vital that we, as the international community who can talk about this issue, do not cease to be the voice of Iranians living in Iran. The Iranian people depend on our efforts to spread the movement and prevent the dialogue from fading away. “Women. Life. Freedom.” A simple expression embodying a myriad of grievous realities that Iranians resist daily. The Iranian people are putting their lives on the line to be heard. From Rue Longue to Bastion, it is now our turn to show support. It is time for these three powerful words to resound through the Menton’s streets.

La pensée de Gramsci n’a rien d’une abstraite bataille des idées. , Iil s’agit tout au contraire de permettre la réalisation effective de la révolution et de l’émancipation en balisant son parcours. Aujourd’hui, plus que la vieille révolution prolétarienne dont on connaît les dérives possibles—c’est un euphémisme—il faut retenir de Gramsci son souci de préparer le changement radical. < Back Gramsci: la politique est une guerre de position Lubin Parisien April 30, 2025 « C’est l’écrivain communiste italien Gramsci qui écrit: les victoires idéologiques précèdent les victoires électorales » déclare Jean-Marie Le Pen le 1er mai 2007. La nécessité de gagner la bataille des idées est devenue une banalité des commentaires politiques notamment quand il s’agit d’expliquer la prééminence des thèmes de l’extrême-droite pour diffuser son racisme. Antonio Gramsci serait le créateur de cette vulgate des idées. Antonio Gramsci est pourtant un homme politique et un intellectuel qui peut nourrir d’une façon singulièrement plus heureuse la gauche et son projet émancipateur dans un contexte de montée de l’extrême-droite. Antonio Gramsci est un penseur de cette adversité, mais surtout de la stratégie pour changer en profondeur la société. De Turin à Moscou, un communiste original Né à Ales en Sardaigne en 1891, Antonio Gramsci « appartient à une famille de petits fonctionnaires ruinés » rapporte Hugues Portelli dans l’article consacré à Gramsci dans l’encyclopédie Universalis. La révolution russe de 1917 est un tournant pour Gramsci car elle suscite dans toute l’Europe des événements que certains ont cru pouvoir être le prélude de la révolution du prolétariat tant attendue. Dans le Nord industriel de l’Italie—à Turin notamment—commence le Biennio rosso , une période d’instabilité après la Première Guerre mondiale où les mouvements ouvriers s’organisent pour demander des droits, et font des grèves et des occupations pour reprendre le contrôle de la production. A Turin, Gramsci est le grand défenseur des conseils ouvriers et du conseillisme avec son journal Ordine Nuovo , ce qui consiste en la reprise en main de l’appareil de production par les travailleurs qui décident collectivement de l’allocation des fruits du travail sans le corporatisme syndical dont Gramsci se méfiait. Le Parti socialiste italien (PSI) ne soutient pas l’expérience qui échoue à terme et la rupture est consommée en 1921 avec la fondation du Parti communiste italien (PCI ) par Bordiga et Gramsci notamment. Le moment du Biennio rosso est perçu par Antonio Gramsci comme précédant soit la révolution soit un moment réactionnaire particulièrement violent: Gramsci prend très vite conscience du danger du fascisme de Mussolini qui monte auprès des élites désireuses du retour à l’ordre ancien grâce à la violence des chemises noires. De fait, après la Marche sur Rome des fascistes et l’accord entre les élites libérales et Mussolini, le PCI est interdit en 1923 et devient clandestin, les arrestations sont nombreuses et Gramsci est menacé. Il bénéficie du soutien de Moscou malgré des divergences progressives de fond, notamment au vu de la bureaucratisation du régime bolchevique. Arrêté et écroué, Gramsci ne peut que constater avec dégoût le tournant encore plus autoritariste et rigide de l’URSS de Staline—même s’il l’avait soutenu face à Trotsky. C’est en prison qu’il écrit ses Quaderni , ses Cahiers de prison où il fait le bilan du début des années 1920 en en tirant les leçons pour le mouvement communiste. Quatre jours après être sorti de prison, Antonio Gramsci meurt en 1937 suite à ses mauvaises conditions de détention. Le procureur fasciste ayant envoyé Gramsci en prison voulait « empêcher ce cerveau de fonctionner pendant vingt ans » a donné à son insu du temps à Gramsci pour approfondir une pensée qui n’a pas perdu de sa pertinence. Où est l’hégémonie ? L’idée gramscienne la plus connue est sans doute celle d’hégémonie culturelle, mais, c’est sans doute, aussi son idée la plus manipulée par l’extrême-droite. Il ne s’agit pas en effet d’un matraquage idéologique afin d’imposer partout sa ‘conception du monde.’, Ll’hégémonie résulte plutôt d’une guerre politique de position où il s’agit de rendre commun sa ‘conception du monde’ dans tous les lieux et instances de la vie sociale: dans l’entreprise et la politique, mais aussi dans les associations. En effet, la présence en Europe de l’Ouest d’une forte société civile avec ses Églises et ses œuvres de charité nécessite un travail plus patient pour les révolutionnaires occidentaux que pour les Russes. Dans un article du Monde diplomatique , Razmig Keucheyan explique que pour Gramsci, la société civile « détient une part importante de la somme totale du pouvoir, si bien qu’il ne suffit pas de s’emparer de l’Etat. » Pour résumer, les bonnes œuvres, au lieu d’afficher la fausse bienveillance des bourgeois, devraient dénoncer en parallèle de leurs activités les méfaits de ces bourgeois qui rendent la charité nécessaire. Nicolas Truong dans un article du Monde précise bien que l’idée d’hégémonie dans les mouvements communistes recouvrent concrètement et principalement « l’alliance des classes paysannes et ouvrières sous l’égide du prolétariat. » Gramsci a justement beaucoup travaillé sur la question dite méridionale, c’est-à-dire l’inclusion des paysans pauvres du Sud de l’Italie dans la lutte des ouvriers du Nord du pays. Ce n’est donc pas forcément la voie express vers le totalitarisme malgré la connotation du mot hégémonie. L’hégémonie est avant tout un travail de « persua[sion] permanente » où il faut susciter le consentement de la société en faisant émerger un « sens commun » réellement émancipateur. Pour cela, il ne faut pas partir de zéro mais plutôt s’appuyer sur les opinions banales du moment pour les canaliser et en extirper la dimension aliénante. Jean-Claude Zancarini, qui a beaucoup écrit sur Antonio Gramsci, résume l’idée en ces termes « le prolétariat, pour être hégémonique, doit se comporter en classe dirigeante, (qui montre le chemin, la direction à suivre,) et non en classe dominante qui impose ses points de vue. » Ce n’est pas un matraquage, car il y a une exigence de souplesse que doit satisfaire le mouvement révolutionnaire cherchant son succès: il ne faut pas imposer une idéologie préconçue. Gramsci applique cette grille de lecture pour analyser l’échec du Biennio rosso . La situation des capitalistes est chancelante mais les partis communistes et socialistes échouent car, selon Gramsci, ils ont méprisé la spontanéité populaire et ont laissé le mouvement couler entre leurs doigts. En face, la bourgeoisie s’abandonne aux fascistes, c’est-à-dire, toujours selon Gramsci, qu’elle renonce à être la « classe dirigeante » pour rester la « classe dominante » grâce à la propriété des moyens de production. Pour gagner la guerre de position, Mussolini incorpore les ouvriers dans le fascisme dans des corporations et des mouvements de jeunesse; c’est ainsi qu’il avance ses positions et garantit son hégémonie. Il y a quelque chose d’assez autoritaire dans la vision de l’action pré-révolutionnaire de Gramsci dans la mesure où les intellectuels doivent transformer le ‘sens commun’ pour le rendre émancipateur. Gramsci a conscience de ce biais en promouvant un rapport entre ces intellectuels et les ouvriers différent de celui entre le professeur et l’élève, il propose quelque chose de plus horizontal où, selon une comparaison revenant souvent, les intellectuels sont comme Machiavel conseillant le prince qu’est le prolétariat. Dans un entretien accordé à L’Humanité , Jean-Claude Zancarini affirme que « le parti bolchevique [tel que conçu par Gramsci] est un parti de révolutionnaires professionnels. Le parti, selon Gramsci, se situe entre la spontanéité des masses et le travail politique. » Il ne faut donc pas de coupures avec la base et la politique demeure une pratique nourrie par la réflexivité—et non pas une pratique justifiée après coup par une idéologie forcément implacable comme en URSS. Et de fait, c’est seulement dans les geôles de Mussolini que Gramsci se décide enfin à se distancer effectivement du bolchevisme Staliniste. Gramsci n’est pas mort On ne peut pas nier la liberté intellectuelle dont Gramsci a su se saisir face au PSI et même vis-à-vis d’une IIIème Internationale à laquelle il s’est pourtant rallié. Aujourd’hui, la complexité de sa pensée que nous avons effleuré est souvent réduite à une vague conquête—idée en soi problématique et peu gramscienne—du pouvoir par les idées—comme si les idées avaient une force en soi à laquelle Gramsci n’a jamais cru. Pourtant, la gauche, si elle veut être ambitieuse, ferait bien de relire Gramsci sans passer par l’intermédiaire de Jean-Marie Le Pen pour en retenir trois leçons. D’abord, il faut retenir de Gramsci l’idée d’une guerre de position. L, la victoire ne passe par l’acceptation de la tiédeur de la société face à un changement radical et par la modération de son propos mais plutôt par la diffusion de ses idées dans le ‘sens commun,’ en s’appuyant sur les structures en place pour faire ce changement radical. Les soutiens du mouvement #metoo , en manifestant, en communiquant sur les réseaux sociaux ou en utilisant des tribunaux connus pour leur mansuétude face aux délits et crimes sexistes, ont utilisé les méthodes et les canaux déjà existants pour insuffler dans l’espace publique et privé un souffle émancipateur pour les femmes, qui reste certes chancelant face aux attaques réactionnaires. A l’inverse, le naufrage électoral du mandat social-libéral du Président Hollande entre 2012 et 2017 où le PS a courtisé le patronat illustre l’inanité et l’inefficacité d’une volonté de recentrage politique au prix du mépris de la défense des intérêts des travailleurs. La seconde leçon consiste à ne pas délaisser le travail de fond idéologique que doit effectuer une gauche qui se veut ambitieuse, notamment en posant la question du système économique et en réfléchissant aux alternatives. Le travail des intellectuels est conçu par Gramsci comme une condition pour l’élévation des travailleurs et leur transformation en une classe dirigeante—et non pas dominante comme nous l’avons déjà fait remarquer. Le plein exercice de la démocratie par tous les citoyens devrait donc passer avant par ce moment de réflexion sur tous les espaces échappant à cette démocratie, en premier lieu l’entreprise et le travail. Enfin, Antonio Gramsci a une conception « jacobine » du parti qui doit mener la révolution, le parti reste une ‘centrale’ pour coordonner et ordonner tout le mouvement social. Avant de réfléchir à un parti unique pour la gauche, il faut plutôt retenir la nécessité de l’union des gauches dont le NFP est le dernier rejeton. La réflexion gramscienne sur le lien à nouer entre les paysans méridionaux et ouvriers du Nord rappelle la difficulté contemporaine à concrétiser la convergence des luttes en une seule lutte commune. L’unité est le problème majeur dans le parcours de Gramsci, notamment dans le rapport entre intellectuels et ouvriers en évitant que les premiers aient un ascendant sur les seconds. La division artificielle entre le social et le sociétal, ou les élucubrations de Fabien Roussel sur le racisme anti-blanc, menacent ainsi la cohérence du combat politique émancipateur que doit porter la gauche en acceptant le cadrage et le ‘sens commun’ faisant le lit au mieux des libéraux, au pire des vrais racistes. La pensée de Gramsci n’a rien d’une abstraite bataille des idées. , Iil s’agit tout au contraire de permettre la réalisation effective de la révolution et de l’émancipation en balisant son parcours. Aujourd’hui, plus que la vieille révolution prolétarienne dont on connaît les dérives possibles—c’est un euphémisme—il faut retenir de Gramsci son souci de préparer le changement radical. Fa ce aux arcs et autres figures géométriques républicaines, il faut construire concrètement une liberté pour tous, une égalité effective et une fraternité non-négociable et faire avancer partout où on le peut ces boussoles morales et politiques, sans craindre de reprendre la société à ceux qui jouissent de son iniquité et s’inquiètent à juste titre pour leurs positions et leurs privilèges. Photo source: Wikimedia commons

The pervasive use of historical analogy has not always had quite the same stranglehold over public discourse as it does today. These analogies have not always been used as a central axis in massively polarizing issues e.g., Israel-Palestine and U.S. domestic politics. In light of the growing use and misuse of historical comparisons, when should they be used or avoided? < Back The Use and Misuse of Historical Analogy in Contemporary Discourse Niccolo Gentile You’ve probably heard historical analogies deployed to describe contentious events: the Russo-Ukrainian War compared to World War II or Vietnam; the Jan. 6th, 2021 Capitol Building riots in the United States paralleled the burning of the Reichstag; Vladimir Putin likened to Adolf Hitler or the War in Gaza to the Holocaust. These links have become a typical element of political discourse for millions and a rhetorical tool levied to argue opposing cases in these conflicts. However, the pervasive use of historical analogy has not always had quite the same stranglehold over public discourse as it does today. These analogies have not always been used as a central axis in massively polarizing issues e.g., Israel-Palestine and U.S. domestic politics. In light of the growing use and misuse of historical comparisons, when should they be used or avoided? Linguists have long examined the use of analogy as a whole and how it can enhance the popular understanding of the present. In everyday communication, the use of rhetorical tricks like simile, metaphor and analogy all enhance one’s ability to understand and relate to the experiences of others. It is no surprise then that the comprehension of contemporary political matters, especially those taking place half a world away, often attracts comparisons with well-known past events. It is an innate element of the human condition that we confound the unknown with the knowable. The specific use of analogy in regard to history complicates matters. In relation to the history of these analogies, Professor Denis Charbit, specialist of the history of ideas at Sciences Po, argues that these comparisons emerged from the “crisis of modernity, of time” that occurred around the '60s and ‘70s. Hitherto, under the sway of modernism, humanity’s point of reference was placed firmly in the future, whether that be a proletarian revolution or a homogenous ethnostate. This is not to say that historical analogy emerged, contextless from a virgin birth, in the middle of the 20th century. Doubtlessly, it was employed far before this to relate like event to like event. The inundation of this method, however, in the popular imagination seems to be a phenomenon which can be roughly dated, traced and followed in its swell of use over the past few decades. From the historian’s perspective, analogy is a dangerously sweeping tool only to be used in the most damning of circumstances. As Dr. Augusto Petter, lecturer at Sciences Po Menton and expert in the philosophy of history, explained to me, the use of analogy in academic work is generally frowned upon today. Of course, a core element of the historian’s work is to compare events in the past. But drawing an actual link in the form of an analogy or metaphor necessitates an overwhelming, impossible burden of proof so as to make even rhetorical tricks practically absent from the field. Additionally, these analogies have the ability to imbue arguments with immense ethos, pathos and logos, often through cheap or inaccurate means. To quote Kenneth Minogue on the discourse analysis of Quentin Skinner, ‘historical’ analogies “are historical in the popular sense of referring to the past, but not historical in the sense of being contributions to the academic problem of attempting to understand some passage of events in a properly historical manner.” The historian’s highly restrictive and critical view cannot be expected of the wider public, nor should it be sought. To apply the same rigor to popular discourse would cripple any chance such discussion has of producing productive understanding and inspiring the action needed to keep democratic institutions functioning, which discourse should inculcate. To further illuminate the point of criticism here, take one prime example of this discourse and its accuracy in some of the issues from the past few years. What I’ve chosen to examine is not the most current events but one with relevance, some temporal removal and well-established facts from which to base this analysis. Today, commentators and politicians compare Western policy towards Russia with the policy of appeasement that much of Europe took towards Nazi Germany in the years preceding WWII. At a glance, this would seem like a cogent topic to bring into the discourse. Benoît Bréville takes a different position, stating that harkening back to events like the Munich Conference and the invasion of Poland only serves to aggravate tensions that should be soothed to bring an end to the bloodshed. Moreover, these connections simply do not stand up to deeper inquiry. For example, the war in Ukraine is isolated to one country and has dragged on for years whereas Munich and Poland were but brief glimpses of the global conflict to come—one which modern-day Russia is clearly not able to persecute given its performance in Ukraine. This is not to take away from the often rightful case made by these arguments but to encourage a greater level of discernment when choosing one’s evidence so that it holds up beyond our ephemeral present. A couple of caveats should be mentioned. One key difference that Professor Charbit argued for is the difference between using historical analogy and collective memory. This might take the form of an Israeli comparing something to the Holocaust or a Palestinian drawing a connection to the Nakba. However, heed care even here, for as Ada Yurman formulates , such terminology can be used “by those who do not grasp the dimensions of the catastrophe.” Another is to keep in mind the difference between drawing a sweeping analogy and a specific, evidence-based comparison. Though it is ridiculous to compare contemporary French government coordination with private industry to Italian fascism’s corporatism, particular elements can indeed be likened to one another to argue a broader point. The world is a fraught place where meaning seems increasingly intangible, even as the bonds linking our societies to the past are frayed or twisted. We are watching a large-scale military engagement take place around Kursk and Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad) while far-right parties are sweeping European elections in Germany, Italy and Hungary, and multipolarity is pushing most countries into two great blocs or into a position of non-alignment. It is nigh impossible to refute the importance of recalling the past and comparing its causes and outcomes to the present. Alongside this, though, a more critical examination of how and why we use these terms to describe the present and whether they are unjustly coloring our view of current events is due to better engage with both the past and the present.

Domenico Lucano was the mayor of the small Italian town, Riace. Now he is facing up to 13 years and 2 months in prison and a €700,000 fine for his lifelong devotion to the integration of migrants and refugees. < Back ‘If Humanity and Solidarity Have Become Crimes, He Is Guilty’: The Case of Dominico Luciano By Viola Luraschi November 29, 2021 On October 1, Maurizio Zavaglia started a message to his friends with “ti rispondo ora perché non ho più lacrime da cacciare fuori” — I am only answering now because I no longer have any tears in me . This message came following the events that took place in the small town of Riace, a commune of the city of Reggio Calabria, south of Italy. Since 1998 the community of Riace has been practicing what has come to be called “l’ospitalitá diffusa,” or widespread and spontaneous hospitality . The term describes the system of inclusion and integration that the community has implemented with regards to migrants and refugees; the hosting of families and individuals in the infrastructures available. In fact, one afternoon in 1988, the arrival of a boat overcrowded with Kurdish refugees first mobilized the town. The community made itself available to host the people who had abruptly arrived. For this reason, the concept of hospitality was not seen as a choice but rather as part of daily life in the town of Riace and its neighboring area. This initiative was led by Padre Giancarlo Maria Bregantini, who built all possible housing structures, and allowed Mimmo Lucano to start volunteering as a child. Zavaglia then refers to the period that followed as a time during which “no ci si é farmati” — they couldn’t stop — and for many years until 2004, they practiced “l’ospitalitá diffusa,” not only through housing but also through craft workshops that gave the refugees and migrants a chance to become involved in the community with a form of employment. Migrants and refugees were making glass utensils, ceramics, clay and textiles, and people started using Riace as a travel destination, making the town grow in numbers. In 2004, Riace became part of the system of accoglienza (hospitality) of the state, the same year Mimmo Lucano became mayor. Riace experienced a turnaround: it went from a town at a very high risk of being underpopulated, to a town that was full of life. In fact, in Riace and the contouring areas, the ‘ndragheta (organized crime specific to the region of Reggio Calabria), “il malaffare” ( ill deal ) and violence had been causing young people to flee towards other areas of Italy. As the years passed, more migrants as opposed to refugees started arriving in Riace, and with the integration of young people into the town, the school — previously at risk of being closed — was kept open. Schools and shops became areas of local development. The more Riace became known as “il luogo dell’anima e dello spirito,” or the place of the soul and the spirit , the more the place, which was previously depopulating, had a growing population of young people working for the local economy. For many, Riace stood as a symbol of hope, and potentially a new and improved life. The town became a place that housed more migrants than local citizens, and Maurizio described the older citizens coming back out onto the streets to sit and interact as a community. Statistics showed the rates of robberies, and general violence to have decreased, and the word “tranquilitá” ( tranquility ) was the one used by Maurizio to describe the town. It was not long before Riace had attracted national attention that, according to Maurizio, it started bothering some because it did not adhere to the notion that “gli immigranti rubano il lavoro,” or that migrants steal jobs ; the attacks against Riace and Mimmo Lucano began. The judiciary case that has been ongoing since 2016, when Mimmo was first arrested, came to a decision in September of this year when the sentence of 13 years and two months, along with 700,000 euros, was announced. The first degree sentence came as a shock to many as 13 years was seven more than the prosecution had asked for from the court. Judges within Italy have also disagreed with the sentence imposed on Mimmo Lucano, and it is a shared belief that the sentence was too harsh. In fact, the prosecution had asked for seven years less than what was given in the final sentence, creating dispute on the fairness of the judges and the judicial system in Italy. Journalists, magistrates and the public were all shocked by the sentence awarded. The sentence claimed that Mimmo misused public resources, these resources being 35€ awarded by the state, daily, per migrant. Mimmo believed this amount to be too much and said that hospitality could have been granted with a lot less money. Therefore, part of this budget was used for projects that he believed would better lead to the inclusion of migrants, including artisanal shops, collection of recycling, and fattorie didattiche, which is an educational program which attempts to promote a connection between the city and countryside. With this money, an oil sanctuary was also realized, and Maurizio said that, “i soldi sono stati usati per includere, no separate” — the money was used to unite, not separate . Mimmo was also accused of organizing a marriage of convenience between an Italian citizen and a refugee woman in order to help her obtain citizenship. Furthermore the accusations included a belief that he gave a four year-old an identity card. Maurizio describes Mimmo as “una persona che ha dedicato la sua vita agli altri, ai piu deboli, a chi non ha voce, a chi arriva dalle guerra, fame, poverta, a chi scappa da situazioni terribili rischiando la loro vita in mare, povera gente,” or a person who has dedicated his life to others, to those weaker, to those who have no voice, to those who come from war, hunger, poverty, to those running from terrible situations risking their life at sea, poor people . To Maurizio, Mimmo is a person who “ha dedicato la sua vita in termini di stabilità del suo nucleo familiare” — has dedicated his life in terms of familial stability . Maurizio says that Mimmo lives a spartanic lifestyle, at the limit of poverty but “é un idealista, una persona che ha sempre inseguito i valori della pace, del’egualianza, lui non ha mai commesso reati; l’unico reato commesso è il reato del’umanita” ( he is an idealist, a person who has always followed the values of peace, of equality, he has never committed any crime; the only crime committed is the crime of humanity ). Today, Riace is a community which has been bent but which wants to react, said Maurizio. Riace is not to be spoken of in the past tense, Riace is a part of the present and future. The current idea that holds the 60 people who decided to stay in Riace is that of not letting hope die. Maurizio finished the interview with this message: “Se l’umanitá e la solidarietá diventano un reato, lui è colpevole" — If humanity and solidarity have become crimes, he is guilty .

With the United States experiencing its highest level of inflation since 1981 and Europe following closely, inflation, a phenomenon that many economists claimed was long gone, seems to be back. How worried should we be? < Back Global Inflation: Is the Fairy Tale Beast Back to Haunting us? By Ata Tezel April 29, 2022 If you are a regular at Brioche Dorée, the recent 10% price increase of the student deal might have been catastrophic news. In fact, a double-digit inflation rate is becoming a reality in the developed world, with the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (OECD) average annual rate reaching 7.7 percent in March 2022. With the United States experiencing its highest level of inflation since 1981 and Europe following closely, inflation, a phenomenon that many economists claimed was long gone, seems to be back. But how worried should we be? Why is inflation back? The rise in inflation caught many economists and central banks off guard – as a matter of fact, nearly none of the central bank inflation forecasts in the developed world were accurate for 2021. This is surprising, as the recovery from the economic downturn of the pandemic signaled increased pressure on both the demand and supply sides of economies. Simply put, today’s inflation is the result of too much money chasing too few goods: an inevitable outcome of the economic policies of the pandemic era. The demand-side inflation (also known as demand-pull inflation) is, in large part, related to the drastic aggregate demand recovery fueled by the stimulus packages distributed by governments during the pandemic alongside the overall global employment recovery. The US federal government passed stimulus packages that injected more than 4.5 trillion dollars into the economy, with the EU following up with a package of 2 trillion euros. With many investing their stimulus money on mid- to long-term assets - such as government bonds, stocks, gold, and real estate - demand-side pressures increased prices for these highly attractive assets. In fact, all American indices have passed far beyond their pre-pandemic levels, signaling an unprecedented demand recovery from the pandemic. As the economy on the demand side is stronger than ever, theories suggest inflation should be expected. Though one might then ask: “how has the developed world grown at a stable rate for years while keeping inflation at bay and maintaining low unemployment and minimal monetary intervention?” The difference this time is that the pressure is on the supply-side. The impact of the pandemic was more drastic on the supply-side compared to demand-side simply because short to mid-term adjustments in supply tend to be more inelastic than demand-side adjustments. For example, the ongoing electronic chip shortage can be partly attributed to the automakers’ decision to slash orders during the early stages of the pandemic which led chipmakers to switch their products to fit the surging demand for consumer electronics. As the aggregate demand recovered, the supply of cars is now drastically halted due to the chipmakers' unwillingness and inability to switch their supply back to the automotive sector. This caused a spillover demand for substitutes, resulting in a 20 percent price increase in the second-hand car market in the US. Moreover, disruptions to supply chains triggered by the pandemic are now exacerbated by political tensions spurred by the Ukrainian war. The increase in energy prices has reached, on average, 27 percent in OECD due to the political tensions surrounding oil and natural gas supply. This cost-push inflation is only aggravated by the cutting of government subsidies to many sectors – subsidies that were instrumental in the survival of many businesses during the economic fallout of the pandemic. What to expect now? While the dramatic increase in inflation is worrying for many, central banks have been cautious in implementing monetary policy to combat rising inflation. Throughout 2021, the consensus among the developed world was that the increase in global inflation was temporary and would eventually fade out as market forces settle around pre-pandemic levels. The higher-than-usual inflation rates could also be attributed to the unusually low commodity prices in 2020 caused by the demand fallout which would have given rise to unnatural inflation once demand and prices returned to pre-pandemic levels. However, recent political developments in commodity markets are forcing central banks to take action. The US Federal Reserve had already started tapering its quantitative easing policy by the end of 2021, effectively increasing real interest rates without changing their near-zero policy rate. Leading emerging markets have also responded to inflation throughout the year, with many increasing policy interest rates by couple hundred basis points - a move that the developed world resisted to take. Nevertheless, by March 2022, the Federal Reserve was forced to increase its policy rate for the first time since 2018, an action soon replicated by the Bank of England. The Fed also signaled further increases in the policy rates up to 3.5 percent, citing the dangers of high inflation. Central banks around the developed world now hope to raise rates rapidly to avoid a “hard landing.” However, many are skeptical about central banks’ ability to use monetary policy effectively without causing a recession. Considering the track record of the Fed, recession risks are no doubt elevated, creating a low morale in the world of economics. As inflation is affected by expectations as much as by market forces (if not more), pessimism and distrust in the market could be the biggest worry of all. With the European Central Bank also signaling a potential switch from its zero-interest policy, the future is more unclear than ever. The question is, can the West curb its inflation as successfully as Japan or is it leading to a catastrophic fallout like Turkey? The answer, as with everything else, will probably lie somewhere in between.

“Les valeurs de la masculinité sont reniées par les féministes”, déclare un groupe d’hommes se définissant comme “masculinistes” à la journaliste Mélanie Gourarier dans un article paru dans Le Monde en 2017. < Back Le mouvement masculiniste: qu’est-ce que c’est, et pourquoi s’en méfier? By Calista Cellerier April 30, 2024 “Les valeurs de la masculinité sont reniées par les féministes”, déclare un groupe d’hommes se définissant comme “masculinistes” à la journaliste Mélanie Gourarier dans un article paru dans Le Monde en 2017. Vous avez sûrement déjà entendu sur les réseaux sociaux comme Instagram ou TikTok des discours similaires, clamant que la place des hommes dans la société est menacée par le mouvement féministe, considéré comme une forme de militantisme extrémiste. Depuis plusieurs années, ce discours monte en flèche partout dans le monde, et beaucoup s'inquiètent d’un retour en arrière pour l'égalité des genres. Alors, qu’est-ce que le mouvement masculiniste ? Il s'agit d'une idéologie, un mouvement social souvent vu comme réactionnaire et antiféministe. Parmi ses valeurs figurent la masculinité “conventionnelle”, la réaffirmation et la promotion des différences hommes-femmes, la défense des privilèges masculins et enfin la lutte contre les féministes. Il s’agit avant tout d’affirmer les “droits des hommes” sur certains points, tels que des positions favorables quant au divorce, les différences de rôle plus traditionnels entre hommes et femmes et même la demande d’un système de codécision en matière d’avortement. Un autre terme est aussi utilisé, celui “d’hoministe”, par des défenseurs masculinistes trouvant ce terme trop dépréciatif. Il y a de nombreux différents groupes plus ou moins nuancés s’identifiant à ce mouvement. Les moins extrême, tels que SOS Papa , SOS misandrie en France ou dans les pays anglo-saxons le groupe Father 4 justice déclarent qu’une nouvelle société matriarcale s’installe au détriment des hommes, et s’engagent pour les hommes victimes de violence sexuelle et les intérêts des hommes lors des divorces. Ils s'intéressent notamment à la fin des obligations matérielles telles que la pension alimentaire ou le partage des biens. En 2009, un ex-membre de l’association SOS Papa , aidé par 4 autres membres, a écopé de 6 ans de prison pour avoir kidnappé son enfant et tenté d’assassiner la mère. Plongeant plus profondément dans l'extrême, la communauté incels (ou hommes célibataires involontairement) dénonce les femmes comme responsables de leur célibat et de leur frustration sexuelle. Urban Dictionary définie les hommes incels comme : « persuadés que les femmes doivent leur offrir du sexe ». La communauté est présente surtout sur Reddit et 4Chan, et certains internautes peuvent aller jusqu’a demander un “droit de viol” ou l’appel au meurtre. Notamment, la tuerie de Toronto en 2018 avait été commise par un jeune homme membre de la communauté incels déclarant détester les femmes pour leur rejet de ses avances, menant à la mort de 8 femmes et 2 hommes. De nombreux autres groupes, tels que les MGTOW ou les Hommen , font la promotion de la prostitution, de la fin du mariage en faveur des relations à court terme, déclarant les femmes comme des fardeaux financiers, ou s’opposent au mariage homosexuel. Comme mentionné, ce mouvement s’exprime surtout à travers les réseaux sociaux, des associations et des forums de discussion dans des groupes appelés la “manosphère”. Vous les avez sûrement déjà vu, ces hommes se déclarant comme virils, comme hommes “alphas” promouvant une perspective conservatrice et traditionnelle du rôle des femmes et des hommes, allant à l'encontre du mouvement féministe. Nombre d’entre eux parviennent à influencer des millions de jeunes garçons et jeunes hommes sur Internet. En 2023, 37% des hommes en France considèrent que le mouvement féministe est une menace à leur place dans la société, selon le journal La Croix . A l’international, et sur TikTok surtout, des personnalités masculinistes, ou “alpha male” tels que Andrew Tate ou les membres du podcast Red Pills , sont en vogue, déclarant être en dehors du système, en dehors de la “Matrix” et pouvoir aider les autres hommes et garçons à séduire et retrouver leur place en tant qu’hommes dominants (et riches). Et cette tendance à renier les valeurs modernes de l’égalité homme-femme ne se limite pas aux hommes. Leur alter-ego féminins sont aussi en hausse, notamment sur TikTok pour promouvoir un style de vie “traditionnel”, déclarant que le mouvement féministe aujourd’hui ne sert plus à rien et qu’il faut retourner aux valeurs basées sur les rôles “biologiques” des femmes, sur la famille de l’homme comme gagne-pain et des femmes comme simples compagnes. Nous pouvons citer à l’international l’internaute sous le pseudonyme de Pearl ou en France Thais D’Escufon, clamant que les femmes sont manipulées par la société pour rejeter les hommes et se ralliant au mouvement masculiniste et incel . De nombreux membres de ces mouvements proposent d’ailleurs des formations en ligne, payantes, pour devenir des hommes et des femmes de “qualité” et sortir de la “matrix” pour contrôler le système sociétaire et leur futur. Dans le journal Le Monde , une journaliste explique que ce mouvement est en propagation dans le monde, et mène au renforcement des normes patriarcales. En effet, elle explique que plusieurs membres de ce mouvement déclare des “excès” de féminisme, se sentent rabaissés par le terme “porc” dans le #balancetonporc . Le mouvement masculiniste serait menacé par les mouvement tels que #MeToo , comme le clament haut et fort ces slogans “Not all men !”. Alors, il semble évident que de nombreux experts s’interrogent quant aux implications de la montée en flèche d’un tel mode de pensée. Nombreux sont ceux qui craignent pour le futur des femmes en société, allant jusqu'à considérer le masculinisme comme un mouvement terroriste. Si il est encore trop tôt pour étudier les effets de ce mouvement sur le féminisme et le combat pour l'égalité, beaucoup commencent à s’engager sur Internet pour adresser cette pensée montante, notamment en tentant d’éduquer de manière plus nuancée sur ce que signifie être un homme ou une femme. Par exemple, le compte Instagram Tu Bandes , tenu par un homme de 26 ans, prend en main la “masculinité bienveillante”, ou une perspective du monde visant à intégrer les hommes de manière saine et égalitaire dans les discussions, tout en éduquant sur la sexualité, le consentement et les stéréotypes. Si la liberté d’expression est un principe clé au 21eme siècle, l’incitation à la haine et la violence ne doit pas être tolérée. Ainsi , il est toujours bon de rappeler que le féminisme n’est pas la supériorité de la femme sur l’homme, mais bien l’égalité des genres dans notre société, et que les mouvements extrémistes peuvent et doivent être combattu avec bienveillance, éducation et discussions !

The political co-opting of the hijab has a long and violent history. As the French governmental and social domains continue to politicize Muslim head-coverings, it is vital to examine it. < Back The Hijab Is a Hot Political Topic for Islamists… but Also the Secular West By Ghazal Khalife November 30, 2022 Hijab is an Arabic word that translates to “curtain” or “covering.” It is now commonly used to refer to the headcovers sometimes worn by Muslim women. A lot of questions surround the hijab: Why is it worn? Is it a sign of oppression — an archaic symbol of patriarchal traditions? Does it fit in modern societies? What should we do about it? The fact that the hijab has become such a controversy shows how it has long left the private realm and become a matter of public debate and politicization. In Iran: From a symbol of protest to a symbol of oppression In its modern history, Iran has had a complicated relationship with its religious identity and, thus, the role of the hijab. Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran from 1925 to 1941, to abandon backwardness and tradition and promote modernization, issued the decree, “Kashef-e Hijab,” which banned all head coverings for women as well as the “chador,” a full-body Iranian covering. Unsurprisingly, this decision, which was swiftly and strongly enforced across the country, was not received well by the more conservative population. The ban restricted women’s freedom of movement, as many stayed at home or came out at night when they could hide from police, who were instructed to resort to physical violence to unveil hijabi women forcibly. The shah’s decree adhered to the premise that the hijab is antithetical to modernity and women’s integration into society, a view that resonates to this day. During the ceremony in which the shah announced “Kashef-e Hijab,” he stated that women “should stand out in society the same way they stand out in their homes.” Fast forward to the years leading up to the Islamic Revolution, the hijab resurged in the social and political spheres as a sign of protest against westernization and the Pahlavi dynasty’s attempt to repress Iran’s cultural and religious identity. It is worth noting, however, that at that point, wearing the veil was a choice, an expression of disenchantment with a regime that dictated women’s clothing. After the Islamic republic was established, veiling became mandatory and violently enforced by the morality police. Post-Revolution leader Ruhollah Khomeini described women who did not veil as “naked.” Consequently, the veil became a symbol of the resurrection of Islamic values and strict interpretation of the Quran. Women have been protesting the hijab mandate for decades in Iran — a movement that culminated in the recent and ongoing protests . The hijab is simply another manifestation of the Islamic state’s political oppression; it is a reminder that the Islamic Republic can and will dictate the public’s life choices, that it does not tolerate diversion from its interpretation of religion and that its version of society is the right one. The affiliation of the hijab with a political movement is not exclusive to Iran, however. The idea of the hijab was also politicized in post-colonial Arab liberation movements and their competing ideologies, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood. During the early period of decolonization (1930s-40s), Muslim women wore the hijab to reaffirm their pride in their heritage and Islamic identity, especially since European colonial soldiers unveiled indigenous women during “civilizing missions.” In Algeria, the veil became a focal point of the War of Independence as there was strong resentment against the French for their unveiling and sexualization of Algerian women. Unveiling ceremonies were popular, but the obsession with the hijab took on an even more sinister undertone. To many, it hid mysterious sexual objects cloaked beneath a layer of modesty, begging to be seen by the male gaze. This is epitomized by the school of French photographers who took photos of unveiled women and hypersexualized them; some of these images were even used in French postal cards. In France: The symbol of a struggle with religious diversity In contemporary France, the hijab remains a contentious topic in government and public realms. Despite being worn by less than 2% of France’s population, the hijab dominates political discussions about secularism, immigration and Islam. Under the pretext that it violates France’s sacred principle of “laicité,” a specific interpretation of secularism that guides French society, many lawmakers, even those affiliated with the centrist party, have fervently supported strict regulations on veiling. These include banning the headscarf in public schools and prohibiting citizens working in the public sector from wearing it. In February 2022, the French senate voted 160-143 in favor of banning the wearing of the hijab: “an ostentatious religious symbol” in sports competitions. How do these regulations fit into the larger context of French politics? The prevalent argument is that the hijab is an “ostentatious” religious symbol and, hence, incompatible with “laicité.” Many hijabis have countered this assertion by pointing out that the hijab is a religious obligation and a commitment to modesty as opposed to being an inherent symbol of faith. As such, the rhetoric in support of restricting the hijab in favor of laïcité minimizes its significance for hijabi women and is sometimes used to emphasize the “otherness” of France’s Muslim population. France, like many Western countries, has undoubtedly struggled with its increasing diversity in the post-colonial context, especially with recent migratory waves from predominantly Muslim countries. Since hijabi women are easily identifiable as Muslim, they have been subject to the most scrutiny and discrimination. When asked how wearing the hijab changed people’s perceptions about her in France, an anonymous Menton first-year answered that “people’s perceptions definitely changed towards me as I started wearing the hijab because I was no longer seen as (who I am), but as ‘the hijabi girl.’ I particularly noticed (this) when people confused me for another hijabi girl or when the first interaction I had with a stranger would be regarding my hijab.” Another angle from which to examine this issue is a more subtle extension of the “civilizing mission” justification in which the hijab is considered a symbol of patriarchal oppression and incompatible with modern society. This may also be interpreted as an argument that encourages Muslim women to abandon a potentially important element of their identity in order to be accepted into French society. The fundamental problem with this “savior complex” narrative is that it assumes that all women are forced or even conditioned into wearing the hijab and not wearing it out of their own free will. While this unfortunately, can be the case in many Muslim communities, it cannot be generalized. Moreover, instead of empowering women, banning the headscarf could inhibit many Muslim women from integrating productively into society since many civic and educational doors would be slammed shut for them. The hijab: An individual experience Ultimately, politicizing the hijab reduces women’s bodies to social matters; it risks ridding them of their bodily autonomy, as observed in both extremes of hijab regulations. Every Muslim woman experiences the hijab differently, and while it is normal and even vital to discuss the motivations behind wearing the hijab, employing it as a political tool to control women, garner votes or advance a political agenda constricts not only Muslim women but also distorts the deeply personal nature of this religious practice.

Now that I know two different worlds – an “elite” institution like Sciences Po and a “regular” public university like Heidelberg University – I have gained a whole new perspective on the academic and student life of Sciences Po. < Back Former Menton Student, Philipp Frank, Offers an Insider’s Outsider Perspective By Philipp Frank December 30, 2021 Questioning your past choices and worrying about the future are fundamental human traits. They are particularly prevalent among us young, adolescent students still trying to figure out how we want to live our lives. Studying at a university – especially if it is an international, multicultural and world-renowned institution like Sciences Po – is both exciting and stressful. However, it is first and foremost an unbelievably formative time that each and every one of us should try to get the most out of. As some (I hope not too few) of the current 2As know, I was a 1A student at the Sciences Po Paris Menton campus last year. I dropped out at the end of summer to begin studying law at Heidelberg University in Germany this winter. Now that I know two different worlds – an “elite” institution like Sciences Po and a “regular” public university like Heidelberg University – I have gained a whole new perspective on the academic and student life of Sciences Po. I believe that sharing this experience can give 2As some fresh insight and 1As – especially those among you still trying to figure out how to fit in or whether Sciences Po is the right choice for you – a different idea of what to expect. The academic life The educational system of Sciences Po is largely based on suffocating students with work. Whether it is presentations, exams, research papers, homework or simply revising lecture material – you are made to work a lot. There is some form of assessment that will influence your end-of-semester “relevé de notes” almost every week. There is free time, of course: days when you are free for a trip to Monaco or a swim at Sablettes. Moreover, all the work in the world will thankfully not stop people from going out and partying anyways. Nevertheless, no student can claim that Sciences Po does not significantly predetermine their daily and weekly schedule or that it leaves much room for them to manage their time themselves. Hence, the Sciences Po system is applying artificial pressure by making important decisions for you and requiring you to work long, hard and disciplined hours. This is training your physical and intellectual strength, resilience, and endurance to work successfully and effectively under pressure for a long time. Furthermore, you learn how to confront, analyze and summarize a lot of material and break it down to its essentials in the very short amount of time that is allocated to single tasks. In short, Sciences Po is aiming to transform you into a highly effective working machine – a very important trait to have personally and later in your career. However, there is a flipside to the Sciences Po system, for which the German language offers a wonderful word: “ verschulung .” Verschulung is negatively connotated. It means the implementation of educational methods from high school in educational programs that do not take place at high school (such as a university degree) and for which different educational methods are preferable. These educational methods include largely predetermined curricula, mandatory attendance, and dull knowledge transfer and retrieval — sound familiar? The consequence of verschulung at the university level is, in my opinion, that the ability to learn to work on your own and take personal responsibility falls short. To illustrate this problem, take the system of my current university: there is no mandatory attendance for any course, not even for the main ones. No professor or other lecturer checks or cares whether you come to class. There are no presentations, no oral contributions, no homework. Only exams and research papers count, which take place once during and in between semesters – and you do not have to take most of them right away. In short, everything is voluntary and, in theory, you do not have to work at all. This can be very liberating, but it puts a different kind of pressure on you because upon receiving your exam grades, you are confronted with reality. You see how well prepared you were and to what degree you lied to yourself. The university does not directly make you study; your motivation and your discipline have to come from yourself. Thus, in the long term, you learn to assess yourself, the limits of your knowledge and your intellectual capabilities, and how to make decisions based on that. You decide whether it is worth going to a lecture. You decide whether you have revised a topic enough or not. You decide whether you want to take one day off or maybe even four. Nothing is forced on you, everything lies in your hands, and at the end of the semester, you get what you deserve. This is not to say that Sciences Po students do not have or cannot learn these skills. However, having studied both at Sciences Po and Heidelberg University, I can confirm that the latter has challenged my discipline and motivation to study for the better. The tightness of the Sciences Po system has another consequence: the fact that there is only one degree for all students means that everyone is trained in more or less the same way of thinking. Regardless of where the people you meet come from, they are all social scientists in the making, hearing the same lectures, writing the same papers, learning the same logical methods. While I could not possibly claim that Sciences Po students generally have the same opinion (in fact, it is quite the opposite), I simply want to recommend to everyone to use the time abroad during your third year or your master’s degree to get to know people from a different academic background. I am a member of a debating club in Heidelberg and I cannot emphasize enough how fascinating it is to see students of law, maths, biology, and German literature debate each other and approach the same topic from four completely different perspectives. Social life My Heidelberg debating experience reminded me of another Sciences Po asset: the campus as a melting-pot of internationality and multiculturalism. Its importance and influence on personal development cannot be understated enough. The intercultural exchange taking place at Sciences Po comes in so many forms, whether it is language, food, associations, all forms of habit, or simple conversations. It might be boring to sit with six students of social sciences, but it can equally be exciting to sit with six students from six different countries and cultures. However, everyone living and cherishing this experience every day is well aware of this asset, so I have kept it short here. Much more interesting at this point is the nature of the social life of such a small campus as Menton. Here, everyone knows everyone, more or less. This has several implications, the first being that getting to know people and finding friends is much easier. A small campus and a well-connected student community in which various associations stage events for everyone to come to on an almost daily basis makes it easy to talk to new people, network to promote the new association that you founded, or look for a running buddy. This is in stark contrast to Heidelberg University, where lecture halls can be crammed with up to 400-600 people - try finding someone particular you met during Integration Week there… The small size of the campus has another implication though, as it makes social life in Menton much more personal, whilst leaving students with much less anonymity. This can be stressful and frightening in certain situations – gossip spreads much faster. Yet, overall, it gives the student community the chance and responsibility to integrate everyone. It is difficult to be lonely at Menton, because certain “student institutions'' hold the community together and, if needed, somewhat accountable. I am particularly thinking of the Feminist Union in this case, whose work and effort to raise awareness for sexual assault and educate about consent and sexual health I deeply admire, even more so now in retrospect after having left Menton and seeing that such associations are much needed elsewhere. Life at Sciences Po is hard-working, vibrant, and exciting. It is very formative because you are thrown into a stressful, multicultural melting-pot for only two short years. Time flies, especially at Menton, which is why – regardless of whether you like the system or how long you stay – you should dive all in and make the most of it.

Cancel culture is a movement denoted by the accountability of celebrities and people with platforms; however, it has more recently progressed into a worldwide attempt to exercise justice through online discourse. < Back Cancel Culture: The Delivery of Justice? By Rozy Betrosian “Ashton Kutcher fears being cancelled for sex trafficking scandal.” Kutcher is a public figure predominantly associated with the comedic series “That ‘70’s Show” and his inaugural organisation against sex trafficking. Recently, his co-star Danny Masterson was convicted of the sexual assault and rape of two women, rendering him sentenced to thirty years in prison. Danny Masterson's connection to Ashton Kutcher put him in the spotlight for Masterson’s transgression. Kutcher is a board member of Thorn: Digital Defenders of Children (i.e., Kutcher's and Moore’s sex trafficking organisation); therefore, fans expected a response to Masterson’s transgression. Kutcher provided a legal deposition for Masterson, including characterizations such as “dedicated and loyal [husband]” and “excellent role model” alluding to the support for Masterson. As the founder of an anti-sex trafficking organisation, Kutcher was scrutinised for his allegiance to his former cast member, and his punishment included reassigning his organisation to new leadership. Was the scrutinization of Kutcher efficient in promoting justice? Cancel culture is a movement denoted by the accountability of celebrities and people with platforms; however, it has more recently progressed into a worldwide attempt to exercise justice through online discourse. Believers of cancel culture argue that it resembles the public sphere– a means of democratic and open discourse, and “being cancelled” is the sheer and unavoidable consequence for people who have wronged, thereby violating the quest for social justice. Furthermore, fervent advocates for cancel culture have an imperative significance in holding celebrities with far reaching platforms accountable for harm to communities and minorities. However, further contemplation on cancel culture and counter-arguments to the movement highlight that it has degenerated into mass media bullying and revoking the right to free speech. The primary question of the efficacy of cancel culture lies on the legitimacy of the “enforcers of justice.” Are internet users legible social justice advisors? Criticising in an impersonal forum empowers people to become more vicious and spiteful, legitimising verbal violence. Hateful commentary against public figures enables and fuels the crowd, signalling an attack on an individual. This potent and overwhelming reception of negative and disapproving evaluation of behaviour, inevitably results in “cancelling.” It is understood that cancel culture is not serving its purpose of serving justice on the internet but rather initiates debate on the application of democracy online and the limitations of free speech. A common phenomenon is retrospective cancellation; this requires the inspection of a person’s past and questions problematic behaviour in the public arena. Common examples include the lead singer of The Smiths, Steven Patrick Morrissey. Morrissey has been outspoken about his extremist views that align with far-right ideology in Britain, he has been characterized as xenophobic and racist as he has claimed that “the gates of England are flooded [by foreigners].” His statement from 2010 has been reviewed under the cancel culture lens, with heavy media scrutiny of Morrissey and widespread boycotts of his music. Regardless of the reprehensibility of his statements, the artist is merely expressing his political ideas. One could argue that he is just acting upon his right to freedom of speech. Moreover, it is interesting how former claims and “problematic” behaviour resurfaces for the sole purpose of scrutiny. Overall, critics of retrospective cancel culture argue that it risks erasing the nuances of history and failing to acknowledge the context of past eras and diverse opinions. They suggest that judging figures solely based on contemporary values may oversimplify complex historical narratives and hinder the understanding of societal progress and transformation over time. Specifically, in the case of The Smiths singer, the question of whether cancel culture has been efficient, rematerialized. Is Morrissey’s cancellation stopping fans from listening to The Smiths? This brings about another debate known as separating the art from the artist dilemma. Cancel culture has brought the longstanding debate surrounding the separation of art from the artist into sharper focus, a phenomenon exemplified by the intense scrutiny directed at acclaimed author J.K. Rowling. Widely revered for her monumental contributions to literature, particularly through the globally cherished Harry Potter series, Rowling faced substantial backlash due to her contentious statements on matters related to gender identity and transgender rights. This provoked an intricate discussion concerning the balance between celebrating her literary achievements and critiquing her personal convictions – presenting a challenge to the concept of separating the artist from their art. While her literary works continue to resonate deeply with audiences worldwide, her vocal stance on issues related to transgender rights prompted a reevaluation of her public persona and creative legacy. As cancel culture advocates for the decisive reprimand of objectionable behavior, supporters of Rowling's work grappled with reconciling their appreciation for her literary contributions with their disapproval of her personal views. In the face of dynamic sociocultural shifts, her case reflects the ongoing challenges of navigating the relation of an artist's creations and their personal beliefs. The debate revolving around J.K. Rowling underscores the inherent tension between the desire to preserve an artist's creative legacy and the need to hold them accountable for their personal beliefs and actions Cancel culture, initially an emblem of accountability, has transformed into a global instrument for justice in the online sphere. Advocates contend that it represents a form of social justice, imposing repercussions for those who have caused harm, especially to marginalized communities. However, it has drawn censure for descending into mass media bullying, hindering free speech, and lacking a structured system of justice.The question of the legitimacy of online "justice enforcers" becomes inevitable. Impersonal criticisms often fuel online attacks, legitimizing verbal violence and leading to cancellations. This prevalent culture of "cancelling" frequently falls short of delivering online justice, prompting reflection on the boundaries of free speech and the application of democratic principles in the digital sphere.

When Luffy’s Jolly Roger was hoisted from Nepal’s Singha Durbar palace, it instantly became a symbol of something larger. Over the past few months, a wind of protests has swept across the globe. From Nepal to Madagascar, Kenya to Peru, Indonesia, the Philippines and Morocco: the youth, unwilling to inherit a broken system, have taken to the streets to prove that their future is daring and won’t be silenced. < Back #GenZ 212 Ibtissem Remdane November 13, 2025 When Luffy’s Jolly Roger was hoisted from Nepal’s Singha Durbar palace, it instantly became a symbol of something larger. Over the past few months, a wind of protests has swept across the globe. From Nepal to Madagascar, Kenya to Peru, Indonesia, the Philippines and Morocco: the youth, unwilling to inherit a broken system, have taken to the streets to prove that their future is daring and won’t be silenced. Nepalese Gen Z protesters in front of Bharatpur Mahanagarpalika Office हिमाल सुवेदी, Wikimedia Commons Unlike previous waves of political mobilization, the Gen Z protests distinguish themselves through their decentralized organization, digital coordination, and symbolic creativity. Simultaneously emerging across several regions of the world, they reflect a generational response to deep structural crises like economic precarity, political disillusionment or the distrust in traditional institutions. What really makes them Gen Z though, is the fact that these movements are enabled and amplified through social media platforms such as TikTok or Instagram, where humor becomes a political language. By September 2025, these protests became a transnational phenomenon. Although each local movement addresses specific national issues such as political corruption in Kenya or the restriction of free speech in the Philippines, they all share a common logic: the rejection of hierarchical authority and the demand for accountability in governance. Something else they have in common, is the means of transmitting symbolic messages. Young women protesting the increase of period products in the #RejectFinanceBill2024 in Nairobi, Kenya author:, Egotieno, Wikimeda commons Gen z’s the first generation to grow up fully online and has had a worldview shaped by an infinite access to information. Unlike previous generations, I believe our political awakening did not occur only through party affiliations or ideological schools but through our feeds. Many before now have witnessed global tragedies through media – from the TV broadcast of the Resistance War Against America in Vietnam to seeing 9/11 live in their living room. What differs for Gen Z is not exposure itself, but the proximity, the pace of it, and the line between those watching and those living the events becomes thinner. The result of this hyper-connected daily-life isn’t simply “more exposure to suffering,” but a system where this very suffering is always available to be seen, directly, at all times: close enough to tap into, and just as close enough to scroll past. For some this information overload fosters apathy, and to some extent, really does numb us to violence. But for some others it sparks indignation, because what this really means is injustice is never distant; it’s chronically always in our pockets. Since these movements are leaderless, they are also difficult to suppress. There is no single figure to arrest, no headquarters to shut down. Their anonymity democratizes participation: anyone with a smartphone can join. Only it is not without consequences, as governments, along with the protesters, have adapted. Affiliation alone can become grounds for punishment, such as in the US where supporting the Palestinian cause publicly has led students to face disciplinary action, surveillance or even barriers like visa denials. Still, this particular humor Gen Z has adopted online disarms power, and it transforms fear into creativity: because beneath the irony does lie a sharp moral core. Again, the memes are not just jokes; they are tools of political literacy. The use of images drawn from pop culture such as animes like One Piece, where a young pirate challenges the authority of the corrupt Marine Forces, or movies like The Hunger Games truly demonstrate Gen Z’s ability to merge digital culture with political activism. This led to the creation of a shared dissident language, and a sense of community despite the geographical distance. Within this wave, Morocco’s Gen Z #FreeKoulchi movement stands out as one of the most relentless. The word koulchi means “everything” in Arabic, which all of it then means “Free Everything.” Born after the tragedy at Hassan II Hospital in Agadir, where eight women died in childbirth after failed C-sections, what began as outrage over poor healthcare quickly evolved into a broader social movement. By the end of September of this year, Moroccan cities saw the emergence of a decentralized protest network. In a statement published on its official accounts and Discord server, the movement calls on “all Moroccan youth, as well as all citizens,” to gather “in large numbers.” while emphasizing the nonviolent nature of the demonstrations: “The protests are peaceful and civilized. Order and responsibility must be maintained.” The movement had no formal leaders or party affiliations, yet its organization was remarkably efficient. Teenagers and university students used TikTok, Instagram, and Discord to coordinate marches, share safety tips, and amplify testimonies of hardship. The digital sphere became both a meeting place and megaphone. Protests in Rabat Mounir Neddi, Mounir Neddi, Wikimedia commons The initial grievances were clear, such as collapsing public services or youth unemployment exceeding 25%. Later on, it gradually broadened to challenge the fact that national wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few. Many criticized the government’s investment in grand infrastructure projects for the Africa World Cup, AFCON, while hospitals and schools struggled to function. Phrases like “No World Cup, health comes first" and "We want hospitals not football stadiums" could be heard in the streets. Later, as the movement progressed and protesters were being massively repressed, arrested and prosecuted by the Moroccan police, the phrase “Free Koulchi” appeared. It called for the release of the peaceful protesters who exercised their right by coming to the streets. It thus became not only a slogan but a diagnosis, everyone and everything needs to be freed because everything feels trapped. Emotionally, the movement was fueled by hogra : a dialectal Arabic term used to describe humiliation and injustice. It’s the feeling of being ignored, of existing within a context that perpetuates oppression. For many young Moroccans, hogra had become a national condition. As a response to the uprisings, the Moroccan government, accustomed to containing dissent through a mix of reform and restraint, initially downplayed the protests. But as #FreeKoulchi gained visibility and international attention, the official rhetoric shifted. On 10 October 2025, King Mohammed VI delivered a rare televised address urging his administration to act “with greater speed” on healthcare, education, and youth employment. Days later, Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch’s government announced a package of social reforms: investment in hospitals, teacher recruitment programs, and targeted job creation schemes. Finance Minister Nadia Fettah Alaoui promised to redirect budget funds from luxury projects toward essential services. Yet these promises were met with skepticism. Many activists viewed them as performative gestures from Akhannouch aimed at cooling tensions rather than systemic change. The AMDH (Moroccan Association for Human Rights) reports around 2,068 arrests, intimidation, and police violence continued to surface, prompting condemnation from organizations such as Amnesty International. So while the government’s reformist language was conciliatory, its security practices remained repressive, a dual strategy that seems to have long characterized Moroccan governance. Still, the movement achieved something significant: it disrupted the narrative of Moroccan youth apathy. It revealed that beneath apparent stability lies a generation increasingly unwilling to accept a political order that limits them to symbolic participation. GenZ 212 demonstrations in Rabat , Mounir Neddi, flickr #FreeKoulchi encapsulates many features of Gen Z activism worldwide: decentralization, digital organization, and moral clarity. It demands dignity, opportunity and concrete actions. What sets Morocco apart is how these universal frustrations intersect with local realities: a constitutional monarchy balancing modernization with control, a rapidly urbanizing youth population, and stark inequalities between coastal elites and rural communities. The AFCON preparations have also exacerbated these disparities, making many Moroccans feel the government’s priorities are misplaced . The protest thus reflects both a national crisis and a generational awakening. For Moroccan youth, #FreeKoulchi is not only and solely about policy failure; it’s about belonging. Although the movement initially focused on social and economic rights rather than challenging the political system itself, it was later associated with broader democratic aspirations. It asserts their right to shape the country’s future rather than merely inherit it. In that sense, Morocco’s movement joins a larger global pattern: the rise of “connected dissent”, where young people mobilize simultaneously as citizens of their nations and participants in a transnational digital public sphere. Yet, the power of digital protest contains its own contradictions. The same algorithms that connect youth also fragment their attention. Sustaining momentum beyond the viral moment remains a challenge, one that many Gen Z movements from #M66 in Togo to #MilkTeaAlliance in Asia, have confronted. Indeed in Morocco too, sustaining #FreeKoulchi beyond the online moment remains a challenge. Without formal organization or negotiation structures, translating demands into policy becomes difficult. But its legacy may not lie in immediate reform; it may lie in the cultural and psychological shift it triggered. Milk Tea Alliance: Group called Humanity Beyond Borders distributes free Tiananmen cookies author: Prachatai, flickr The #FreeKoulchi movement in Morocco is both a symptom and a signal. For thousands of young Moroccans, protest is no longer taboo. It is part of civic life. Today, our generation does not seek revolution in the old sense. It seeks renewal of trust, of accountability, even of hope. Its politics are not about overthrowing systems but about demanding that they finally work, that the citizens can be heard. In Morocco and beyond, these protests announce a truth that governments keep on ignoring– not without cost– the youth are not the future, we’re the present. #FreeKoulchi

Tandis que les élections européennes approchent, l’Union européenne a décidé dans la nuit du 20 mars de réinstaurer des droits de douane sur certains produits agricoles ukrainiens. < Back Terres fertiles et défis amers : L’Union européenne et l’agriculture ukrainienne By Jonathan Smidtas March 30, 2024 Bon sens paysan ou trahison ? Tandis que les élections européennes approchent, l’Union européenne a décidé dans la nuit du 20 mars de réinstaurer des droits de douane sur certains produits agricoles ukrainiens. Le pays, un des principaux producteurs mondiaux, avait vu ses exportations vers l’Union européenne grimper en flèche à la suite de l’invasion du pays par la Russie car les taxes sur les importations agricoles ukrainiennes imposées par l’Union européenne avaient alors été supprimées. Depuis, la colère des agriculteurs européens dénonçant une concurrence insoutenable a marqué l’actualité. Alors que l’invasion à grande échelle de l’Ukraine a commencé il y a plus de deux ans, il semble de plus en plus clair qu’aucun camp n’est en mesure de l’emporter militairement, sauf retournement de situation majeur. L’on parle déjà de l’après-guerre, de la reconstruction de l’Ukraine et de son intégration à l’Union européenne. Alors que pendant des années les capitales européennes se sont opposées à l‘entrée de l’Ukraine au sein de l’UE, généralement en invoquant la faiblesse de l’état de droit et la corruption qui minent ce pays, une autre raison émerge aujourd’hui : l’agriculture. Des terres exceptionnelles Depuis des siècles, l’Ukraine a été surnommée le grenier à blé de l’Europe. Grâce à sa concentration en humus très élevées, les “terres noires” ukrainiennes sont extrêmement fertiles. Aucun pays au monde ne dispose de sols cultivables aussi productifs. Cela constitue un avantage comparatif certain pour ce pays, mais n’a pas été sans tragiques conséquences tout au long de son histoire. L’Ukraine a ainsi été conquise tantôt par les polonais, les autrichiens et les russes souhaitant, entre autres, assurer leur sécurité alimentaire grâce à l’Ukraine. Le pays était avant guerre le premier producteur mondial de tournesol, et dans le top dix pour ce qui est du blé, du maïs, de l’orge et du colza. Des salaires bas En comparaison avec les pays de l’Union européenne, l’Ukraine est un pays très pauvre. En dépit de l’héritage industriel de l’époque soviétique, le salaire moyen y est inférieur à 400 euros, sept fois plus faible qu’en France et encore trois fois moins important qu’en Pologne. Les coûts de la main-d'œuvre très faibles permettent à l’Ukraine de proposer des prix agricoles très intéressants sur le marché mondial. Un potentiel L’intégration de l’Ukraine dans l’UE permettrait d’assurer la sécurité alimentaire de cette dernière. Les capitaux et technologies des pays riches transférés en Ukraine entraîneront une hausse de la productivité des terres en dépit des normes environnementales européennes qui devront s’appliquer. La concurrence accrue sur le marché européen causera une baisse des prix de l’alimentation et augmentera le pouvoir d’achat des consommateurs européens. Les investissements d’entreprises agricoles européennes en Ukraine permettront de relancer l’économie du pays après la guerre et la pression exercée sur le marché de l’emploi poussera les salaires à la hausse. Les craintes Qu’adviendra-t-il des agriculteurs des autres pays européens ? Ils dénoncent déjà une concurrence insoutenable et craignent d’être les grands oubliés de l’entrée de l’Ukraine dans l’Union européenne. Après l’expérience de la désindustrialisation qui a entraîné une hausse du chômage dans les pays de l’Ouest et déstabilisé les sociétés, l’idée de voir le même schéma s’appliquer dans le domaine agricole est effrayante. De plus, concentrer la production agricole en Ukraine, c’est s’exposer à une vulnérabilité si la Russie décidait un jour d’attaquer de nouveau. Espoirs Il faudra donc assurer à l’Ukraine des garanties de sécurité afin de pouvoir sereinement y investir. Une démilitarisation de la Russie semblant irréaliste, l’intégration à l’OTAN et le stationnement de troupes occidentales nombreuses sur le sol ukrainien pourraient être une solution. L’agriculture des autres pays européens devra monter en gamme afin de pouvoir faire face à une nouvelle concurrence. La réduction du nombre d’agriculteurs, dont beaucoup ne parviendront vraisemblablement pas à demeurer compétitifs, implique la nécessité de penser dès maintenant aux solutions politiques afin d’éviter une catastrophe sociale. La formation semble être une des clés, alors que les subventions ne feront que créer une distorsion de concurrence inefficace. L’entrée future de l’Ukraine dans l’Union européenne représente un risque existentiel pour notre modèle agricole actuel. Transformer ce risque en opportunité est possible, mais nécessitera une implication forte des pouvoirs publics afin de repenser l’agriculture européenne. C’est bien plus facile à dire qu’à faire et cela explique pourquoi l’entrée de l’Ukraine dans l’UE ne semble pas être pour demain. Cette entrée soulève de véritables dilemmes. Certains suggèrent d’exclure initialement l’agriculture ukrainienne du libre marché et de progressivement abaisser les droits de douane. Ce serait une façon d’intégrer l’Ukraine dans l’Union en évitant un choc fatal aux agricultures européennes. Néanmoins, assumer de créer une Europe à différents niveaux c’est ouvrir la boîte de pandore. Quant à faire patienter trop longtemps l’Ukraine hors de l’UE, c’est la priver du développement économique qu’a entraîné l’UE pour ses États-membres. Il est dans l’intérêt des démocraties européennes d’avoir une Ukraine développée et prospère à ses frontières afin de contribuer à la stabilité et la paix de la région. Ne ratons pas le coche.

While viewers might think Trump has exhausted the myriad anti-immigration rhetoric, his comment at the most recent debate appeared to be a particularly bizarre innovation. The idea of immigrants eating residents' pet animals encapsulates both the image of invasion of property and barbarity. But this myth of foreigners feeding off domestic or protected animals is not new, and it has long been used to fuel xenophobic feelings. < Back They Are Eating the Pets: Animal Consumption as an Anti-Immigration Myth Pedro Meerbaum September 30, 2024 "In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating, they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country, and it's a shame." Former American President Donald Trump uttered these words during the 2024 presidential debate on Sept. 10 2024. In this jarring comment, the Republican candidate referred to a recent viral claim that illegal immigrants from Haiti who had settled in a small city in Ohio had eaten domestic pets. The assertions originally stated that the Haitians were slaughtering ducks and geese, and the discourse online "reports" that the city is a locus for the settling of illegal immigrants. The reports mainly originate from social media platforms, such as Reddit and Facebook groups, and were confirmed as not credible by BBC Verify. Trump's comment was followed by immediate laughter from the Democratic candidate and current Vice President, Kamala Harris. It was clear to Harris—and the viewers—that Trump's remark was preposterous. Most of the former president's campaign, both recently and in his other electoral years, has surrounded the topic of immigration to the U.S. His coining of the term "Illegal Aliens" is consonant to his aggressive approach to migration and border control. He is particular in his use and emphasis of language; he differentiates the people that came in from the people that live there . Trump actively constructs a narrative of “othering,” one where the "American" people are endangered by the "alien" and "undesired" foreigners. While viewers might think Trump has exhausted the myriad anti-immigration rhetoric, his comment at the most recent debate appeared to be a particularly bizarre innovation. The idea of immigrants eating residents' pet animals encapsulates both the image of invasion of property and barbarity. But this myth of foreigners feeding off domestic or protected animals is not new, and it has long been used to fuel xenophobic feelings. 20 years ago, Nick Medic, a Serbian ex-patriate and journalist, published an investigation into a dubious article from the British tabloid newspaper The Sun: "Swan Bake - Asylum Seekers Steal the Queen's Birds for Barbecues." The Sun’s article consisted of an exposé of East European asylum seekers poaching, stealing, and eating protected royal birds. It went on to assert that "To these people [Eastern Europeans], they [protected royal birds] are a perfectly acceptable delicacy." As one of "these people," an Eastern European former asylum seeker, Medic reminded his audience in the Telegraph that Swans and Geese are not a part of their cultural diet, nor is it considered a "perfectly acceptable delicacy." It does not come as a surprise that 20 years later, the streets of Britain would be occupied by far-right protesters who scream their hatred towards the "barbaric" immigrants. The anti-immigration feeling has dated roots that fed under this precise rhetoric of barbarity and invasion present in sensational faulty stories. But this issue did not begin 20 years ago. In 1904, soon after the US victory in the Philippine-American war, a "world fair" was hosted in St. Louis, Missouri, "exposing" different cultures and customs of the public, carnival-style. The main attraction of the circus-like event was a replica of a village with "authentic" Igorot people, an indigenous Filipino group. The Igorot people were instructed to grill and feed off dogs to an international audience during the fair. The exhibition aimed to celebrate the "civilizing" effect the U.S. would have in the Philippines post-victory. 120 years later, the dog-eating stereotype is still the most ubiquitous form of anti-Asian discrimination in the U.S. The East Asian dog-eating discourse took on a new shape during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the outbreak's initial locus in Wuhan, China and its association with the consumption of bats in local markets. According to the Pew Research Center , "about one-third of U.S. Asians know another Asian person who's been threatened or attacked since COVID-19." Additionally, federal-recognized hate crime incidents of anti-Asian bias increased by 372.15 percent from 2019 to 2021. It was former president Donald Trump himself who coined the term "Chinese Virus" to refer to COVID-19, fostering a hostile environment amidst the global crisis. Trump's language use during the COVID-19 pandemic is a prelude to his comment during the debate. The attempts to antagonize immigrants as "the people that came in" and position them against "the people that live there" is a dangerous narrative. History is stained by moments where groups of people who were labeled as “others” and dehumanized fell victim to unprecedented violence. The narrative that "pets are being eaten" is an indiscrete and dissonant effort to, through significant international broadcasting, degrade and generalize a group of individuals who are already at a high level of vulnerability. None of the Haitians were illegal immigrants or savages, and the pets were safe and sound. The truth is barbarity is not found in Ohio. Instead, it knocks on the doors of the White House and asks to reinstall itself again.

Over 7 million people have fled Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s war of aggression. The unity and warmth with which Europe has responded to the exodus of Ukrainian refugees is commendable. Yet it has highlighted the prejudice and bigotry that has plagued Europe’s willingness to welcome refugees from other parts of the world. < Back Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Exposes the Duality of European Hospitality By Hugo Lagergren October 31, 2022 Over 7 million people have fled Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s war of aggression. The unity and warmth with which Europe has responded to the exodus of Ukrainian refugees is commendable. Yet it has highlighted the prejudice and bigotry that has plagued Europe’s willingness to welcome refugees from other parts of the world. Over the summer, I had the privilege of spending one month working with an NGO called Quick Response Team (QRT). I witnessed first-hand the brilliant work they do in supporting refugees in and around Thessaloniki, both psychologically and physically, both of which are part of their self-proclaimed mission. Naturally, I was nervous before arriving as I had never done something like this before. However, I realize now that there was no need for such feelings. The warmth and kindness that I was met with upon my arrival, not only from the QRT team, but also from the refugees, surprised me. Many of the people who manage to complete the treacherous journey to Greece from Syria, Iran or Afghanistan have suffered innumerable hardships just to get to Europe. Despite this, they always, without fail, took the time to find out how we, the volunteers, were doing. They asked us about our home countries, how we liked Greece and constantly thanked us for anything and everything. To say it was moving would be an understatement. Even now, three months after, I still struggle to find the words to describe the impact this summer had on me. Knowing that these people, who I developed such a strong connection with, are stuck in a prison, while I have gone back to my day-to-day life as a student, saddens me deeply. And knowing that the conditions in which they are living are worsening because of the war in Ukraine makes me very angry. It is for these reasons that I felt compelled to write about the desperate situation that many refugees find themselves in and to relay the message, that it is time to change how Europeans view refugees arriving from the Middle East and North Africa, as the crisis is anything but over. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Europe has shown its solidarity with the people of Ukraine through the swiftness of its response to the crisis, through direct aid to Ukrainian forces in the fight against Russia, as well as welcoming the seven and a half million refugees that have been forced to flee their country due to the war, a number that continues to grow as the war drags on. There is no doubt that the impressive speed and efficacy with which Europe has acted with regard to the Ukraine crisis is to be applauded. However, before attitudes become overly self-congratulatory, it is important to think back to Europe’s response to the 2015 refugee crisis and to observe how it continues to respond to the steady influx of refugees from the MENA region since then. Notwithstanding, it is important to mention that I am in no way trying to belittle the plight of the Ukrainian people. What they are undergoing, both as individuals and as a nation, through Putin’s aggression is utterly tragic. Yet, the stark contrast in treatment remains relevant, not only because it highlights a clear divide on a humanitarian level in the treatment of refugees based on culture, religion and skin color, but also because it reveals lurking sentiments within Europe that have contributed to the rise of far-right politics. Within weeks of the war’s commencement, the European Union fast-tracked the repurposing of funds originally intended as a COVID relief package, a decision which would usually take many months of debating. The money was redirected to Ukraine’s neighboring countries, including Moldova, which is currently not a member of the union, to support the mass reception of Ukrainian refugees. Even on a macro level, EU citizens have been filled with humanity and compassion, with many people offering up their houses to refugees. The scenes of kindness and generosity visible in train stations across the continent illustrated Europe’s willingness to integrate these refugees into their society. In Poland, refugees were met with banners that read “you are safe here” in Ukrainian. People rushed to carry their luggage and make sure that they found their way. Local governments on the Polish-Ukrainian border have spent millions of Euros providing refugees with food, water and prepaid phones among other things. A survey conducted at the start of the war revealed that 64% of Polish people were willing to personally assist Ukrainian refugees, with 90% supporting their acceptance into the country. Poland has now accepted over 1.4 million Ukrainian refugees. Germany has followed suit by accepting one million refugees, with Italy and Spain having accepted 170,000 and 145,000, respectively. In the United Kingdom, where immigration policy has become a major point of controversy in the last few years, the government has facilitated the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees through the creation of various sponsorship schemes. Nearly 100,000 Ukrainians have taken advantage of this. Another country whose political discourse has revolved around immigration in recent years is France, yet it has managed to take in over 100,000 Ukrainians with little controversy. Of the seven and half million refugees that have been forced to flee Ukraine in the last seven months, already over 50% have been registered as having “Temporary Protection” under the Temporary Protection Directive of the EU or similar national protection schemes (The Temporary Protection Directive has never been activated previously since its conception in 2001). This grants them the same rights as EU citizens or residency permit-holders for an initial period of one year, thus opening the possibility of housing, work and access to social welfare and medical assistance. Many have jumped at the opportunity to praise the warm reception provided to Ukrainians by the European community. Rightly so. When hearing praise for the swift and effective efforts to aid Ukraine I can’t help but to think back to the conditions experienced by refugees in Diavata camp in Thessaloniki. I remind myself that such hospitality was not often shown when Middle Eastern and North African refugees arrived on the shores of Europe in 2015. Since 2014, two and a half million refugees have arrived in Europe from the MENA region. Civil war and political persecution are some of the reasons that they have been forced to flee their homes. There was no rush to alleviate the suffering of these people. Instead, the response has been marred by discord, lethargy and a lack of willingness to aid those seeking safety and opportunity. Many countries tightened their borders, implemented harsher immigration regulations, and suspended the Schengen Accords, which allows for the free movement of people inside of the EU. Notably along the Serbia-Hungary border, where the Hungarian government infamously built a large barbed-wire fence along the entirety of the border, thus blocking a frequently used route by refugees coming from Turkey seeking passage to Germany. Police were also given the right to detain any who try and force their way through. As of today, Hungary has taken in 30,000 Ukrainian refugees. photo by Mattia Bidoli This apparent reluctance to welcome non-white refugees has resulted in many displaced individuals being stuck in the countries that they initially arrive in, notably Greece and Italy. The resultant burden on these countries has been crushing, as they have largely been forced to deal with the repercussions of this crisis on their own. In Italy, this has contributed to the emergence of the far-right, with the election of a coalition led by Georgia Meloni. Greece has also begun to crack-down on immigration. Recent reports suggest that Greek authorities are attempting to block an additional 40,000 refugees from entering the country. Moreover, new cumbersome regulations concerning NGOs and journalists have also been put in place which may hinder their presence in the country. NGOs working in Greece are now being forced to rely more heavily on private humanitarian donors. This can prevent local NGOs from effectively in the face of larger humanitarian emergencies wherein donors often opt to fund more urgent causes, like that of Ukraine. Upon arrival in receiving countries, Middle Eastern and North African refugees are not met with signs of greeting and acts of civilian kindness, but are instead confronted by armed police, who then round them up into designated camps which have been built for one purpose: to contain and remove the refugees from the general population. The camps, which have been built out of tall concrete blocks with some having barbed wire along the top, can often be found in rural or industrial areas, isolated from central and suburban parts of cities. photo by Hugo Lagergren The managers of these camps can also be authoritarian in the way they govern the camps. For instance, traditional celebrations are blocked from taking place and personal gardening projects are forcefully prohibited. As of today, some of the refugees have been living in camps for upwards of five years as they wait for approval to continue their journey, often towards Germany, a popular destination for refugees due to their better record in the 2015 crisis compared to other European countries. On the Franco-Italian border between Menton and Ventimiglia, where I am currently a student, the gendarmerie routinely searches trains coming from Italy, removing and detaining anyone they deem to be illegal, often as a result of racial profiling. France has in fact suspended the Schengen Accords for the first time since 2015 to control the influx of illegal immigration from Italy – a move which the bishop of Ventimiglia said will have “very negative consequences” by stoking racial tensions. This decision also causes refugees to risk their lives, as they are pushed to take more dangerous paths across the border, specifically, a pathway along the Alpes-Maritimes which has now been dubbed the “Pass of Death” due to the dangers presented by the terrain. A couple of weeks ago, I found myself debating with a friend whether racial tensions were more prominent in the US or in Europe. I was adamant that the two weren’t comparable, both in terms of its scope and its radicalism. Now, I’m not so sure. After researching this article, I realize that Europe has simply been successful in pushing the issue to the periphery of the continent, thus removing the issue from day-to-day life in its society. For you, Zahra, Mina, Donia, Kowsar, Zohre, Iram, Gowsar, I hope it changes and Europe becomes the place you dreamed of.

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