Search Results

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

< Back How a Dispute Over Fuel Prices Set Off the Largest Protests in Kazakhstan Since 1989 By Saoirse Aherne January 31, 2022 Though Daniyar Khassenov has dedicated much of his life to monitoring the Kazakh government's consistent violations of human rights, the young activist is now far from home, residing in the Ukraine. It is from there that he joined me over zoom to provide insight into the recent unrest in Kazakhstan; a nation long heralded as the most stable in Central Asia. Khassenov did not leave Kazakhstan by choice, but rather was driven out due to his attempts to bring attention to its repressive regime. In 2019, the Khazakh government began to target Khassenov. In May of that year, a criminal case was launched against him for supposed participation in the activities of the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan (DCK) opposition movement. Then 23 years old, Khassenov was a student of medicine and a volunteer with the Italian Federation for Human Rights. Almaty police claimed that Khassenov actively participated in DCK rallies, though Khassenov was not present at any of the events in question. Khassenov was detained numerous times throughout 2019. One day before his criminal case was launched, he was banned from leaving Kazakhstan by Almaty Police. In June of 2019, police imposed restrictions on his and his family’s bank accounts. These restrictions were lifted due to pressures from NGOs and the international community. Rather than face continual persecution, and fearing future threats to his safety, Khassenov fled the country. Now 26 years of age, Khassenov is based in Ukraine and continues to work with Human Rights organisations across the world. He is unable to return to Kazakhstan, where, according to the activist, there is “No openness for criticising the government”: Indeed, the mere act of protesting is illegal. Khassenov’s experience as a young Kazakh activist, while tragic, is not uncommon. Yet the political repression endured in Kazakhstan over the past 30 years has rarely resulted in significant protests. That is until January of this year, when a series of demonstrations erupted across the nation. This unexpected turn of events is clearly of great interest to Khassenov, and it quickly became the focus of our discussion. On the second of January, the Kazakh government removed a fuel cap on liquified petroleum gas (LPG), causing prices to spike. Many people in Kazakhstan use LPG to power their vehicles and, according to Khassenov, the financial implications of rising fuel prices inspired the initial protests. Demonstrations were first carried out in the oil-producing city of Zhanaozen, however they spread across the nation and quickly reached Almaty, the former capital of Kazakhstan. It was there that protests escalated into violent clashes, leading Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to declare a state of emergency and shut down internet services nationwide on January 5. This decision came after President Tokayev’s Almaty home was surrounded by thousands of angry protesters and set aflame, as reported by Time magazine. On the 5 of January, President Tokayev also dismissed his cabinet and removed former President Nursultan Nazarbayev from his post as head of the security council. Tokayev appealed to the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) to send military forces to help deal with the protests. The CSTO is an intergovernmental military alliance between Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Tajikistan. In a bid to appease protestors, Tokayev reinstated the fuel cap on January 6. However, on the 6 of January, there were also heavy police crackdowns reported in Almaty by the BBC, as protestors attempted to take control of the police station. Demonstrators faced tear gas and stun grenades. Dozens were killed and hundreds were injured. The president insisted that the protests were led by foreign-backed bandits and terrorists, according to The Guardian. Russia announced the deployment of paratroopers through the CSTO to help stabilise the situation. In a televised address on January 7, Tokayev ordered security forces to “use lethal force without warning” against demonstrators. Over the following days, violence continued in Almaty. The full extent of the bloodshed is unknown. The BBC reported that internet access was restored to the city on January 10. Yet when Khassenov and I spoke on the 11, he maintained that access was only awarded for “one, maybe two hours a day.” Citizens are trapped in an “Information black hole,” said Khassenov. Families and friends are desperate to contact loved ones in Almaty, but this has become close to impossible due to the unpredictable internet restrictions. Moreover, Khassenov notes that these conditions posed a huge obstacle to organising protests as “coordination requires communication.” After over a week of unrest, the protests came to an end on the 11 of January and Russia announced that its troops had begun to withdraw on the 13. What do protestors want? Though the rise in fuel prices sparked the initial protests, demonstrations continued even after Tokayev reinstated the fuel price cap. Khassenov described how the nature of the protests changed abruptly and “in one day, demands became political. Suddenly, protestors were chanting ‘Old man go away.’” The “Old Man” to which protesters were referring is Nursultan Nazarbayev: president of Kazakhstan from 1989 until 2019, when he stepped down from office and appointed Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to take his place. While Tokayev was acting president of Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev retained a lot of practical control over the country as chairman of the security council and “Leader of the Nation:” a constitutional role that granted him immunity from prosecution along with many policymaking privileges. Nazarbayev no longer holds these positions having been ‘removed from government’ on the 5 of January. Khassenov asserted that protesters were not simply expressing discontent with Nursultan as an individual, but rather with his legacy and the system he represents. Protestors have “democratic aspirations” the activist stated. They are tired of the old regime controlling the country, tired of having no say in how their nation is governed. Khassenov reported that on the 3 of January, the Democratic opposition movement became involved in the protests — a further demonstration of the ideological currents driving the upheaval. When asked whether the dismissal of Nazarbayev and the dissolution of the Kazakh cabinet would satisfy protesters, Khassenov could barely hold back laughter. “The Government is a façade,” he said with resignation, maintaining that Nursultan is still in control behind the scenes. According to Khassenov, Tokayev cannot truly remove Nazarbayev from power without making constitutional changes. Beyond this, Nazarbayev’s economic and political ties run deep into the foundation of Kazakhstan as a Nation; to remove his influence would require the country to be rebuilt from the ground up. Khassenov reiterated that the people want “whole regime changes, not just cosmetic changes”. Unfortunately, the new cabinet that has been created in the wake of these protests is merely “a reconfiguration of the old.” Until the “Old Man” and the old system that he represents is removed from Kazakh politics, the unrest will continue. Khassenov is adamant that “In weeks, or maybe months, people will realize that nothing has changed.” What should the International Community be doing at this time? According to Khassenov, around ten thousand people were arrested in the protests. It is unclear where these protesters are being held, when, and if they will be released. One thing of which Khassenov is certain is that detainees are being subjected to inhumane conditions. He expressed worry for these civilians, many of whom were peaceful protesters simply expressing democratic aspirations. When asked what the international community ought to be doing with regards to Kazakhstan, Khassenov recommended an inquiry into the murders and detentions led by an intergovernmental organization such as the United Nations. “We cannot trust our own security organizations” he stated. He also felt that powerful players, such as the United States, “should be doing more to promote human rights in Kazakhstan.” According to Reuters, the State Department confirmed the "United States' full support for Kazakhstan's constitutional institutions and media freedom and advocated for a peaceful, rights-respecting resolution to the crisis." The reticence of the US government to definitively condemn the actions of Tokayev’s regime could be rooted in the fact that Kazakhstan sits atop some of the largest hydrocarbon and mineral reserves in the world along with the fact that it is the key to having a “business footprint in Central Asia, and a soft power presence,” according to Forbes. Washington sees Kazakhstan as the most developed former Soviet state in central Asia and is invested in maintaining positive relations; a US-Kazakhstan Business Council was even established in September of this year. Khassenov stated that perhaps the most important move the international community could take is the introduction of “personal sanctions,” as Kazakh politicians and elites hold their money in Western banks. The most effective way to compel them to respect human rights would be via restriction of their economic power. Khassenov also commented on the failure of many Western media sources to properly characterise the protestors, whom he said can be split into three groups. Firstly, there are peaceful protestors — most demonstrators fall into this category. The second group is made up of looters and criminals. They are responsible for causing much of the violence that has been reported. According to Khassenov, this group was organized by the state. Seeing that they could not control the large gatherings of pro-democracy protesters, the Kazakh government hired people to incite chaos thus justifying a violent police crackdown. Finally, the third group described by Khassenov is made up of poor and marginalized people who joined the looters out of desperation. Khassenov made sure to underline that these protests were intended to be peaceful and only became violent due to government interference. What these protests mean for the future When asked, Khassenov seemed to think these protests have yet to become a movement. He described them as somewhat random and lacking a central leader or mandate. Though certain political organizations became involved in the demonstrations, they remained unstructured. This lack of coordination was exacerbated by the internet blackout and other government interferences. Moreover, the activist stated that the protests have led to no actual regime change. On top of that, Khassenov worries that Russian involvement has set a “precedent which undermines international security.” The deployment of Russian troops via the CSTO is illegal and constitutes a “Russian invasion” stated Khassenov. The CSTO “can only act together if there is foreign threat.” Domestic political protests are not a legitimate cause for the deployment of CSTO troops. It is for this reason that President Tokayev accused “20 thousand international terrorists” of causing the unrest, though he failed to provide proof. By Khassenov’s account, the president went as far as to say that terrorists were “breaking into morgues and stealing the bodies of their comrades” to erase evidence of their involvement in the conflict. The false claim that the protests were foreign-backed provided an excuse for Russian intervention, and Khassenov now fears that the Russians will not leave. Though Russia has announced the withdrawal of its troops, it also claims its “soldiers are not in Ukraine:” Khassenov has no trust in a nation which continues to interfere with the affairs of former Soviet states, aiding in the preservation of an oppressive regime in Belarus, threatening Ukrainian sovereignty, and now, helping to put down pro-democracy demonstrations in Kazakhstan. Nonetheless, these protests were the largest in 30 years, since Kazakhstan first gained independence from the Soviet Union. Though they may not have achieved their democratic aspirations, they are certainly significant. With the eyes of the world finally on this often-forgotten nation, there is potential for the Kazakh government to be held accountable for its numerous violations of human rights and freedoms.

The rise to popularity of media set outside of the US created a gap for new works which happened to be produced by British and Irish creators and their coming of age stories. While having real world implications such as a shift in university preferences, this also allowed for a generation to realize that the dream of an American teenagehood was as unrealistic as it was unattainable. In their transition to adulthood, many can now better appreciate the coming of age experiences their—or neighboring—countries have to offer, and learn about a larger scope of history and culture. < Back Is Coming of Age Based on Geography? Melissa Çevikel December 31, 2024 I recently realized, after reading Tennis Lessons by British author Susannah Dickey, that I was very familiar with a lifestyle in a distant geography which I have never experienced. The narrator waiting for GCSE scores, attending an all girls Catholic school and celebrating at a pub after a long day of classes seems so dear and attainable despite never being experienced by me or by anyone I know. But what has changed from when the ultimate dream of any non-American teenager was to attend an American small town high school, be asked out for prom and homecoming and drive at the age of 15? Recently, media centering the “British Coming of Age” has become increasingly popular, with shows such as Skins resurfacing during early 2020s. The Irish coming of age has been dominating the media. Writers such as Sally Rooney and shows like Derry Girls gaining popularity have not only made the experience of being a teenager in Ireland more glamorized, but have also shone light on the Troubles, helping them become better understood and portrayed. What pieces of media have contributed to this shift in popularity, and what has helped them become the new young adult dream? I have a theory that the cycle of awe and amazement towards teenage experiences in different countries—for those living outside of the US, UK and Central European countries—happens in three stages, targeting specific age groups. This theory in no way applies to the current generations of pre-teens since televised media targeting this audience is no longer consumed as much as it was during the early 2010s. I would argue that this fascination first begins in one's pre-teen years, where the child is exposed to TV shows and movies mostly broadcasted on Disney Channel and Nickelodeon, featuring vibrant high school lives and diverse friend groups. Shows and movies such as High School Musical , Victorious and I-carly offered a slightly off-feeling transition to adolescence from childhood but also painted an image of a desirable and exciting high school experience which could only be achieved in the US. Decorated lockers, gym classes where everyone wore headbands and seemingly unhygienic and inconvenient lunch trays were not only high school experiences that foreign middle schoolers yearned to experience, but also glimpses of a foreign American life. During the adolescence of those born in early to mid 2000s , while Netflix was gaining popularity, TV shows such as Riverdale , 13 Reasons Why and the Vampire Diaries started to become household favorites. These series portrayed a side of the American high school experience that the aforementioned pieces of media did not, adding an element of mysticism and darkness to the small town American life. While more often than not having supernatural elements, they also spread a more realistic idea beyond the mysticism—that high school life was full of skipping classes, messy school fights and making out with insanely attractive people at house parties with red cups. Author John Green’s books were arguably the segway into this era even before they got turned into movies. The Fault in our Stars , Paper Towns , Looking for Alaska and Turtles All the Way Down were on almost every pre-teen girl's bookshelf and, for most, was the first introduction to mental illnesses and individuality complexes. Finally, in their later teen years, the same teenagers were exposed to American media such as Ladybird , Perks of Being a Wallflower and Edge of Seventeen . These were much less comedic compared to previous works targeting the audience and had much heavier philosophical and psychological undertones. These were not unexpected, since great literary American coming of age works such as The Catcher and the Rye and the Dead Poets Society had similar elements and predated them. They similarly tackled issues of coming of age but in an almost completely different world. I would argue that the release of Euphoria was what changed the narrative for American coming of age media, and the reason for that was how European and British-inspired the show was. Skins , the 2007 British TV show about Sixth Form students in Bristol was the pioneer for seemingly messy, disturbing and gory teenage media. Skins explored themes of drug abuse, sexual assault, teen pregnancy, homophobia and mental illness much more realistically and seriously than any U.S TV show with the same audience ever had. This was all done in a witty and psychedelic manner, without romanticizing the experience and rather showing the disgusting sides of all that was happening. None of the characters were particularly likable, but that didn’t stop many teenagers from glamorizing mentally ill and problematic characters such as Effy Stonem and Cassie, both of whom suffered from mental illnesses. Though presenting such characters to an impressionable audience was not the most pedagogical move, it was undeniably a much more realistic representation of the people one would meet during their high school years in a small town. Though Skins predated almost all of its American rivals, it was not until early 2020s that it started gaining popularity globally. This completely contrasted with the picture American TV shows had painted of the careless high school years with no consequences; it pushed producers to search for messier plot-lines which similarly handled heavy topics. Euphoria , motivated as such, tried to become the American Skins , with a larger emphasis on drug abuse. It was able to encapsulate a more realistic view of American life, similar to On My Block and Moonlight , but also missed the element of realism while portraying a high school experience completely. It was more successful than Skins in creating characters to whom one could relate but was unable to place them into the context of high school life. Before Skins , there was a strong stereotype of elite and poshness surrounding the coming of age experience in Britain held up by American movies like Wild Child , which presented private boarding schools with luxury uniforms and mandatory cricket lessons. On the other hand, Skins was the most extreme of the shows that were portraying the coming of age experience in Britain. It was nothing like what had been shown by the American media to be the said experience, and instead it offered the raw and angst lives of everyday teens. In the late 2010s, the media surrounding Ireland was much more popular than those surrounding Britain. Derry Girls for instance, was a 2018 sitcom that explored the lives of teenagers living in London-Derry, a city in Northern Ireland, during the 1990s amid the Troubles. The show was much less “messy” and did not hold the same emotional weight that Skins had, but nonetheless had a huge political element to it, which was what gave the show its depth. In addition, late 2010s were a time for 80s and 90s nostalgia in the media, with many American shows and movies such as Lady Bird , Call me by Your Name , Pen15 and I am Not Okay With This being set in that era. This nostalgia went beyond the US, and allowed for the creation of revolutionary shows for their respective countries such as Love101 in Turkey and Slova Patsana in Russia, which I could not avoid mentioning while on the topic of coming of age media. They changed the narrative of what TV shows could and could not discuss and explored the countries’ mostly untold pasts. Sally Rooney was a very influential author when it came to supporting the shift of popularity towards the British and Irish coming of age. With all her books set in Ireland, Sally Rooney almost created a new genre of novels—the scenery of which has now become all too familiar to her readers, such as Temple Bar and Trinity College. Her books dive deep into the lives of Irish young adults while discovering themes already conquered by authors such as John Green from a completely different and more mature perspective. This seemingly new genre filled the gap that arose during the transition from young adult books of authors such as John Green and general Wattpad novels, to “mature” literature which I cannot exactly put a finger on. Rooney offers a relatively light-hearted look on love lives and daily struggles of university students in their 20s, without lacking depth. It just so happened that these books were set in Ireland and not the U.S, which strengthened the romanticization of Ireland and Britain as a coming-of-age capital. Interestingly, Trinity College Dublin saw a 10% increase in their applications following the release of Normal People, further demonstrating how powerful this newly discovered coming of age media. Though not much of European media has had a global impact as influential as Skins or Normal People , the Norwegian show Skam had a popularity reign worth mentioning. Despite there being seven remakes , the original Skam was set in Norway and followed the lives of a high school friend group and dealt with themes such as teen pregnancy, drug abuse and Islamophobia. It had fights, club scenes and breakdowns, all of which largely resembled Skins . It had unique elements that Skins had missed to incorporate, such as sensitivity towards the themes that had been discussed and the deterrence of them. In my opinion, there are three stages of televised media consumption in adolescence, and those set in Britain and Ireland can be categorized under the fourth stage. While media produced for pre-teen and early teen years is largely based on the glamorization of the American high school experience, the third stage shifts the tides. This stage is the stage with the largest variety of media consumption options, being the stage of transition from teenage years to adulthood. While there are certain pieces still set in the US, it is much more global. As mentioned earlier, the rise to popularity of media set outside of the US created a gap for new works which happened to be produced by British and Irish creators and their coming of age stories. While having real world implications such as a shift in university preferences, this also allowed for a generation to realize that the dream of an American teenage-hood was as unrealistic as it was unattainable. In their transition to adulthood, many can now better appreciate the coming of age experiences their—or neighboring—countries have to offer, and learn about a larger scope of history and culture.

Préserver les traditions ou changer ? C'est le thème qui est devenu de plus en plus récurrent lors de notre séjour à Kakuma et de nos échanges avec les étudiants résidents du camp. Cette tension entre la tradition et l'universalité des droits humains est ressentie dans l'environnement, en espérant qu'un équilibre puisse être trouvé entre les deux concepts pour assurer la sécurité et le bien-être de l'individu. < Back Es-tu gay? By Amalia Heide for Sciences Po Refugee Help November 30, 2023 "Es-tu gay ?” Cette question a été posée par l'étudiant qui se trouvait à mon côté dans mon cahier de notes il y a quelques semaines dans le camp de réfugiés de Kakuma. À partir de cette question, une discussion écrite de quarante minutes sur l'homosexualité a commencé. Ecrite parce que, simultanément, un migrant géorgien queer a témoigné de son expérience et de son travail de recherche sur le thème de la migration LGBTQ+. Cette discussion a été retranscrite en partie : Amalia : Tu détestes ça ? Lui : L'homosexualité est contraire à notre culture. NOUS le détestons. Le pronom " nous " dans ce cas fait référence à la communauté. Mon interlocuteur se présente, pendant toute la durée de la conversation, comme un porte-parole de la vision générale de la communauté. Lui : Nous n'aimons pas les gays et les lesbiennes. C'est un crime ici. La société vous maudira si vous vous engagez dans cette voie. Les LGBTQIA+ sont-ils autorisés en Argentine ? Amalia : Nous croyons (j'ai également décidé de prendre le rôle de représenter la culture hégémonique de mon pays) que chacun est libre d'aimer qui il veut. Le mariage gay est légal. Lui : Je n'ai jamais vu de joueurs argentins se marier avec des joueurs masculins, par exemple Messi, Aguero, etc. C'est un manque de respect d'épouser un homme quand on est un homme. Amalia : Pourquoi ? Lui : Dieu a créé Adam (l'homme) et Eve (la femme). Pourquoi Dieu n'a-t-il pas créé le même sexe ? Amalia : Il est peut-être préférable de considérer la création du monde comme une légende, créée dans une société où les LGBTQIA+ n'étaient pas bien vus, comme c'est le cas aujourd'hui au Kenya. Mais si la légende était vraie, pourquoi cela signifierait-il que Dieu est nécessairement CONTRE les LGBTQIA+ ? Ne peut-il pas soutenir les deux? Quelle est la corrélation entre le fait qu'Adam soit un homme et qu'Eve soit une femme et le fait que Dieu ne puisse pas nous aimer tous, peu importe notre sexualité ? Lui : Le mariage est destiné à mettre au monde des enfants, mais les personnes du même sexe ne peuvent pas mettre au monde des enfants. Autoriser les LGBTQIA+ revient à aller à l'encontre de l'œuvre de Dieu. Pourquoi s'engager dans une relation si l'on ne peut pas avoir d'enfants? Nous pouvons nous aimer les uns les autres, mais pas nous engager dans des actes sexuels avec le même sexe. Adopter des enfants est une bonne chose [...] mais il faudrait savoir aussi à quoi ressemblerait ton produit (le bébé). J'ai estimé qu'il était important de transcrire cette conversation afin de contextualiser l'environnement dans lequel la communauté LGBTQIA+ est contrainte de se développer. Afin de ne pas baser ma déclaration uniquement sur une conversation, je voudrais souligner que la Commission nationale des droits de l'homme des gays et lesbiennes (NGLHRC) et Amnesty International ont publié cette année un rapport conjoint sur les expériences des réfugiés LGBTQIA+ vivant à Kakuma, au Kenya. Ils qualifient cette situation extrêmement dangereuse, caractérisée par des crimes de haine, des discriminations et d'autres violations des droits de l'homme. Malgré cet environnement hostile, il existe dans le camp de réfugiés de Kakuma un collectif LGBTQIA+ extrêmement actif qui cherche à sensibiliser les gens à leur statut dans le camp. Il s'agit de Free Block 13 Kakuma. Leur site web ( Free Block 13 - Free the LGBTQIA+ community from Kakuma ) contient des informations sur les activités du Pride month, une section "dons" et une section "histoires". J'ai pris le temps de lire plusieurs témoignages poignants et je vous invite à faire de même. Cependant, j'aimerais mettre en lumière l'histoire de Kevin, un homme transgenre qui a subi plusieurs attaques de la part de la communauté à Kakuma sans recevoir d'aide de la part du HCR. Kevin raconte que "le 25 juin 2020, des homophobes ont mis le feu à notre clôture, qui s'est propagée à notre maison malgré la présence de la police, aucun effort n'a été fait pour arrêter les agresseurs et, à ce jour, personne n'a jamais été appréhendé et les mêmes agresseurs jurent toujours de nous attaquer et de nous tuer pour mettre fin à la malédiction qui pèse sur nous, les LGBTQIA+ de Kakuma au Kenya". Une malédiction, c'est la même expression que celle utilisée par mon interlocuteur pour décrire cette communauté. Il est évident que cette série de discriminations doit être comprise à travers l'intersectionnalité. Prenons le témoignage de Shifra: sa mère, qui est homosexuelle, a dû fuir avec Shifra son pays d'origine, l'Ouganda, après avoir été victime de violences physiques et mentales. Elle et Kevin ont tous deux été victimes de mariages forcés parce qu'ils étaient des femmes et étaient incapables d'imposer leur volonté. Ainsi, le statut des femmes en matière de droits de l'homme est une question centrale dans le camp de réfugiés. Lors de la conférence internationale sur les mobilités et les immobilités à Kakuma, un groupe d'étudiants du camp a présenté le projet sur la santé et les droits des représentants sexuels. Composé de deux femmes et de quatre hommes, le groupe vise à sensibiliser les femmes (mais aussi les hommes) à leurs droits sexuels.En effet, l'une des fondatrices du projet a raconté, avec beaucoup de tristesse dans les yeux, comment plusieurs de ses camarades de classe ont dû épouser des "hommes de plus de 60 ans". Une autre a raconté comment l'absence d'éducation sexuelle a conduit des adolescentes à tomber enceintes contre leur gré. Cette initiative étudiante est rejointe par d'autres, comme dans le cas d'Amina Rowimoh Hortense. Amina est arrivée au camp de réfugiés de Kakuma en 2004, fuyant le conflit en République démocratique du Congo. Elle n'avait que 17 ans. Elle a réussi à suivre une formation de cinéaste grâce au HCR et réalise aujourd'hui des films pour sensibiliser à la situation des femmes dans le camp. Son dernier film traite par exemple des mutilations génitales féminines et l a été projeté dans le camp, incitant les femmes et les hommes à remettre en question cette pratique, toujours ancrée dans la société. Préserver les traditions ou changer ? C'est le thème qui est devenu de plus en plus récurrent lors de notre séjour à Kakuma et de nos échanges avec les étudiants résidents du camp. Cette tension entre la tradition et l'universalité des droits humains est ressentie dans l'environnement, en espérant qu'un équilibre puisse être trouvé entre les deux concepts pour assurer la sécurité et le bien-être de l'individu.

Pour préserver le pacte républicain dont la liberté est un des trois principes, il n’y a aucune difficulté à rejeter les diverses phraséologies que nous avons dénoncées. La liberté d’expression n’est pas un prétexte suffisant pour s’y opposer, au contraire, notre liberté d’expression n’est que la conséquence et l’outil du projet républicain qui va à l’encontre de tout ce que l’extrême-droite promeut. < Back Des tabous sont-ils nécessaires en politique ? Lubin Parisien October 31, 2024 Le 20 septembre, le corps de Philippine est retrouvé au bois de Boulogne. Thomas a été tué à Crépol en 2023. Lola est assassinée en 2022 dans des conditions abominables. Ces trois faits divers ont défrayé la chronique avant d’être oubliés. Ce qui a retenu l’attention d’une certaine presse et de politiques, ce n’est pas l’horreur que constitue l’assassinat d’enfants ou d’adolescents, mais un point précis du profil des accusés: des immigrés sous OQTF (obligation de quitter le territoire français). En quoi cette dernière information nous renseigne-t-elle sur la nature des affaires évoquées plus tôt? Cela ne nous éclaire en rien. En réalité, ces affaires cristallisent autre chose, une angoisse qui semble généralisée sur l’immigration. Ces discours suscitent une montée des violences de groupes ethno-nationalistes et de la violence verbale des politiques dans les médias. Au vu de la division du pays, il apparaît nécessaire de réfléchir collectivement aux bornes à imposer à la parole politique afin de préserver le vivre-ensemble. Des tabous bien présents en politique Pouvons-nous tout dire en politique? A l’évidence non: on ne peut pas nier l’existence de la Shoah—c’est la loi Gayssot de 1990. On ne peut pas inciter à la haine ni faire l’apologie du terrorisme, opérer des discriminations ou encore nier la Shoah. Contrevenir à ces lois ne fait pas qu’attirer les foudres de la justice mais aussi une vive réprobation, même si cela semble de moins en moins vrai. La négation de la Shoah est ainsi un tabou et heureusement. Robert Faurisson a de cette manière été lourdement dénoncé par Robert Badinter, qui incarnait le défenseur de la vérité historique et d’une certaine conception du pays, lors du procès qui lui a été intenté pour diffamation. Le négationnisme ou l’apologie du terrorisme font donc l’objet d’un tabou très fort. On associe souvent le terme de tabou à des pratiques moyenâgeuses et enfiévrées de mysticisme: en réalité un tabou est simplement l’interdiction dont est frappé une pratique ou un discours contrevenant aux normes ou aux valeurs communes. De fait, l’interdiction de la tenue de propos révisionnistes permet d’interdire les discours antisémites sous couvert de fausses controverses historiques. La liberté d’expression n’est pas absolue, on place au-dessus la nécessité de garantir l’effectivité de la devise républicaine pour l’ensemble de la population. Néanmoins, des discours qui excluent des parties entières de la population du pacte républicain sont tenus et semblent passer entre les mailles du filet. Le constat: des discours qui excluent Il nous faut d’abord voir comment une certaine phraséologie fracture le tissu social et l’unité du pays. C’est à partir de ce premier constat que l’on doit réfléchir à l’état actuel des débats politiques et aux éventuels rééquilibrages. Marine Le Pen déclarait le 21 novembre 2023 à Valeurs actuelles au sujet du meurtre de Thomas à Crépol qu’on « assiste à une attaque organisée, émanant d’un certain nombre de banlieues criminogènes dans lesquelles se trouvent des “milices” armées qui opèrent des razzias. » Il est nécessaire de décortiquer cette phrase pour comprendre les sous-entendus. Est criminogène ce « qui produit ou favorise la propagation du crime, des délits; qui donne naissance à la criminalité . » Pourquoi Mme Le Pen qualifie-t-elle les banlieues de criminogènes? Quelles caractéristiques ont les banlieues dans les discours du RN (Rassemblement National) de Marine Le Pen qui expliqueraient la qualité criminogène de ces banlieues? Parle-t-elle souvent des questions urbanistiques liées aux banlieues françaises? Quel critère commun réunit les banlieues des villes françaises dont elle parle dans l’ensemble de ses discours? C’est de l’immigration, en particulier une immigration extra-européenne et musulmane, dont parle couramment Marine Le Pen et ses alliés quand il s’agit de dénoncer les maux dont sont affectées les banlieues. Ainsi, analysons les « milices armées » qui auraient lancé contre Thomas à Crépol une « attaque organisée. » Il y a derrière une idée d’organisation qui permet de décrire ces mêmes banlieues assez fantomatiquement définies comme dotées de communautés propres, indépendantes et séparées: Marine Le Pen entérine là une supposée frontière entre les banlieues et le reste la France, sachant qu’elle associe aux premières une population immigrée. Nous avons là un faisceau d’indices que nous pouvons encore étoffer, et qui, accompagné de la connaissance du contexte idéologique dans lequel s’exprime Mme Le Pen, montre une volonté d’entériner la marginalisation—si ce n’est l’exclusion—de certains territoires et de certaines populations de la République. Ces discours, associant immigration et délinquance, islam et séparatisme, excluent une partie importante de la population en remettant en cause et en posant la question de leur volonté de faire nation ou de vivre en paix, et ce à cause de déterminants identitaires supposés qui leur seraient propres: l’islam et leurs origines. Faisons ensuite un second constat: ce genre de propos inquiète. Ils inquiètent notamment les immigrés, qu’ils soient français ou non, qu’ils soient sur le territoire de façon régulière ou non—avec dans ce dernier cas une grande diversité de situations, de la pure clandestinité au blocage administratif. Par exemple, le journal local L’Union a recueilli le témoignage d’Eliane , arrivée de Guinée en 2014. Son titre de séjour n’est pas renouvelé en 2023 alors qu’elle a trouvé un emploi stable, sa demande de naturalisation s’est perdue dans les oubliettes de la préfecture de la Marne: avec les législatives de 2024, « elle craint que l’étau ne se resserre par pure idéologie. [...]. “Je ne regarde pas trop la télévision parce que c’est l’heure où je rentre ou bien je m’occupe des enfants. Ils m’ont demandé si on allait devoir partir.” » Citons encore le témoignage d’Aliy (son prénom a été modifié): « L’année dernière, il [...] devait supporter un patron pro-Zemmour. “Quand son fils venait, il ne nous parlait pas, à nous les Noirs. Il ne nous regardait même pas”. » Les discours d’un parti comme le RN et de toute une galaxie d’extrême-droite ne sont pas de simples projets débatables sur la politique du pays, ce sont des discours qui remettent en question l’intégration de millions de personnes. Ces dernières n’ont plus—ou n’ont jamais eu—le sentiment d’appartenir à la même société à égalité avec le reste des habitants et citoyens. Ces discours heurtent, ils nous incitent à nous demander si notre pays est bien capable d’accepter des minorités comme les personnes racisées. A ce titre, la possibilité de porter de telles idées doit faire l’objet d’un débat clair car il s’agit de savoir quel commun nous voulons construire. La préservation d’une liberté d’expression Pour défendre la possibilité de prononcer des discours qui excluent et archipélisent la société, on invoque souvent la liberté d’expression, droit fondamental inhérent à chaque individu. L’article 11 de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du citoyen énonce: « tout citoyen peut donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement, sauf à répondre de l'abus de cette liberté dans les cas déterminés par la loi. » Tout le malice réside dans la notion d’« abus ». Remarquons cette chose sans doute banale: la liberté d’expression n’est pas absolue et sans bornes, nous l’avons déjà montré au sujet de la loi Gayssot contre la négation de la Shoah. La régulation de l’expression politique ou même de l’expression tout court quand elle a un impact politique est une vieille idée. Dans La République , Platon consacre des passages entiers à analyser des vers d’Homère afin d’expliquer pourquoi ceux-ci doivent être bannis de la cité cherchant à guérir des maux de l’injustice pour assainir les réflexions des gardiens de la cité. Il considère même que les poètes promouvant l’affadissement de l'esprit des gardiens de la cité et l’excès doivent être chassés. Platon a à peu près 2400 ans, il convient de hausser les sourcils sur ses préconisations. Néanmoins, abstraction faite du projet politique concret du philosophe, cela fait plus de 2400 ans que nous savons que les discours politiques prononcés dans la cité modèlent notre façon de penser et de percevoir. La maîtrise de la parole est un enjeu majeur identifié par Platon et par toutes les monarchies, dictatures et démocraties pour se maintenir en plus de deux millénaires. Cependant, il est vrai que la liberté, notamment celle d’expression, est souvent associée à un étrange relativisme qui consiste à dire que toutes les opinions se valent, qu’on peut tout dire. Il nous faut réfuter ces réflexions communes: tout projet politique—la République par exemple—porte un idéal absolu et non négociable. La liberté, l’égalité et la fraternité sont cet idéal en France, et nombreuses sont les interprétations possibles pour sa mise en application, c’est pourquoi il faut laisser un large pluralisme politique pour enrichir ces valeurs. Nous avons parlé des limites à la liberté d’expression, mais les contraintes à cette limitation sont les mêmes: la perpétuation de la liberté et le respect de l’égalité. Il ne faut pas de censure comme les dictatures savent en faire, il faut bien au contraire que les tabous à observer dans notre société fassent l’objet d’une réflexion collective éclairée. Si la liberté d’expression n’est pas une fin en soi, c’est un instrument indispensable. Une repolitisation de nos tabous? Aujourd’hui, après la décolonisation et les progrès permis par l’accroissement de la tolérance, il convient de ne pas utiliser des mots comme « négre » ou « bougnoul » car il s’agit désormais de termes qui renvoient à une mémoire douloureuse et à un présent qui doit toujours se défaire des griffes du fait colonial. Ces mots font l’objet de tabous tels qu’on n’ose pas les prononcer, remplacés par exemple par l’expression « n-word ». L’opprobre dont sont objets ces mots montrent que la société n’est plus encline à voir les manifestations éclatantes du racisme et de l’exclusion. Néanmoins, des discours comme celui de Marine Le Pen que nous n’avons que brièvement décortiqués sont publiés et presque normalisés. Nos tabous ne semblent pas être le fruit d’une réflexion collective aboutie. En ce sens, on peut proposer une repolitisation de nos tabous. Il ne faut pas éviter le mot « négre » car c’est inconvenant ou désagréable, mais parce que l’usage courant de ce terme perpétue des structures de domination blanche héritée de la colonisation. Il faut proscrire les discours racistes et dédaigneux de l’extrême-droite car ils vont à l’encontre de notre projet politique commun: faire nation. Ernest Renan, dans Qu’est-ce qu’une nation en 1882, écrit qu’une nation a deux facettes: « l’une est la possession en commun d’un riche legs de souvenirs; l’autre est le consentement actuel, le désir de vivre ensemble. » Lorsqu’un discours remet en cause l’appartenance ou la volonté d’appartenance d’une partie de la population, il sape méthodiquement la base de toute nation: la volonté commune de faire corps. En France, cette volonté s’incarne dans la devise républicaine. On peut céder à la grandiloquence en disant que pour défendre la nation, il faut faire taire le poison de la division. Par division, on n’entend pas les nécessaires désaccords sur les politiques à adopter, mais au contraire l’éclatement même de la nation. Et c’est bien là la conséquence des propos d’une Marine Le Pen. Le doute est instillé quant à l’inclusivité de la nation, car les immigrés, les personnes racisées, etc. se sentent et se savent exclus du pacte républicain. Pourtant, la tolérance s’accroît dans la société même si les résultats électoraux ne le marquent pas . Il faut sortir de ces situations mortifères, il faut stopper le poison avant qu’il puisse être proféré. Pour préserver le pacte républicain dont la liberté est un des trois principes, il n’y a aucune difficulté à rejeter les diverses phraséologies que nous avons dénoncées. La liberté d’expression n’est pas un prétexte suffisant pour s’y opposer, au contraire, notre liberté d’expression n’est que la conséquence et l’outil du projet républicain qui va à l’encontre de tout ce que l’extrême-droite promeut. Ces tabous doivent être investis de la force de la loi, à terme il n’y a pas à avoir de gêne à combattre structurellement les idées du RN, de Reconquête, de l’Action française et notamment la préférence nationale. La question aujourd’hui doit être de savoir comment procéder. Un fait apparaît désormais clairement: des tabous sont nécessaires en politique car ils protègent ce qui permet la politique: la volonté de vivre ensemble.

After winning Istanbul’s mayoral elections, Imamoğlu’s victory was annulled on the grounds that it was fraudulent. When he won for the second time, he called election officials “fools.” AKP officials viewed this as an insult to the Turkish administration and a defamation court case was opened in June 2019. < Back What Ekrem Imamoğlu’s Unjust Imprisonment Reveals About Erdoğan’s Plans For Turkey By Ecesu Basara January 31, 2023 “Şeytan tüyü,” a Turkish proverb that translates literally to "feather of the devil," is used to refer to persons who are thought to have an easy time winning the acceptance and love of others. If you are familiar with the name Ekrem Imamoğlu, you are aware of his undeniable possession of this special “feather.” Businessman and skilled communicator, he made his fortune in construction before entering politics. Member of the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP), a secular and leftist party founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Ekrem Imamoğlu knows how to seduce beyond his political affiliation; he appeals to the Kemalist and nationalist electorate but also the Kurds, which is surprising given the current dynamics of Turkish politics, which tend to isolate and divide different ethnic and religious groups. Despite his active participation in the construction sector, which he inherited from his family, Imamoğlu first appeared to be relatively obscure to the general public. However, his reputation and career took off in 2019. In one of its most humiliating defeats, he beat Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP), the conservative party in power since 2002, to win the Istanbul municipal elections with the help of CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Growing censorship and the outlawing of oppositional parties have been hallmarks of the AKP's administration. In light of this, the election of Imamoğlu presented itself as a beacon of hope for many Turks who do not identify with the ideology of Erdoğan, and for the first time in almost 20 years, it made them feel like their voices had been heard. These two political figures may seem irreconcilable to one another, but they share many uncanny traits that show Imamoğlu's potential as a future Turkish leader and justify Erdoğan’s desire to hinder Imamoğlu’s candidacy in the upcoming 2023 presidential elections. First, it is noteworthy to mention that Imamoğlu and Erdoğan both originate from the Black Sea region of Turkey, an area that has historically played a crucial role in Turkish politics. Also, both Erdoğan and Imamoğlu have served as mayor of Istanbul — Erdoğan from 1994 to 1998, and Imamoglu since 2019. In addition, both Imamoğlu and Erdoğan cherish religion and publicly express their devotion, despite the fact that Imamoğlu’s discourse on religion is substantially more inclusive of Islamic minorities and non-Muslim groups in Turkey while Erdoğan opts for an idealized global Sunni vision of Islam. The similarities between the two figures further demonstrate Imamoğlu's capability to be a leader as powerful as Erdoğan in the coming years and the voice of the long-silenced. Undoubtedly, Erdoğan is aware of this reality, and in an effort to maintain his position as ruler for a few more years, takes care to minimize Imamoğlu's exposure to the Turkish people. Even after winning Istanbul’s mayoral elections in March, Imamoğlu’s victory was short-lived — the vote was quickly annulled on the grounds that it was fraudulent and pushed to a date three months later. When he won for the second time, he used the term “fools” to describe election officials who had canceled the vote on unjust grounds. AKP officials viewed this as an insult to the Turkish administration and a defamation court case against Imamoğlu was opened immediately in June 2019. The court announced its decision in mid-December 2022 and Imamoğlu was sentenced to two years, seven months and 15 days in prison in addition to a political ban. He has decided to appeal this decision, so the sentence is currently suspended. What is most shocking about this brutal verdict is that the Minister of Internal Affairs, Süleyman Soylu, called Imamoğlu a “fool” before Imamoğlu had said it. Soylu escaped legal action or even mild consequences. Imamoğlu used this in his defense, but the court ruled that he had not meant the term “fool” in the same way that Soylu had. In his defense he also included that, in Turkey, the word “fool” is usually not regarded as an insult, but the Court had an answer for this as well. It determined, based on the manner the word "fool" was used in the sentence and the emphasis given to it, that Imamoğlu had meant for it to mean "dumb and idiotic." In short, the Court found that, when two people say the same word, the one who says it first should not get called out, whereas the other is condemned to prison and a political ban. It does not take long to see that this case, particularly given its timing (five months before the presidential elections), is politically motivated. Decided by a judge who has photos with AKP leaders and who demonstrated clear bias, this courtroom drama features ludicrous allegations and aggressive demands from the prosecution. Erdoğan’s fear of losing his position as president has once again undermined the integrity of Turkey's justice system and further eroded the democratic norms that the nation previously upheld strongly and proudly. Erdoğan has demonstrated yet again that he is willing to do whatever it takes to get reelected in May 2023.

Alors que les pays occidentaux et leurs soutiens s’enferrent à nier les fondements de l’ordre international qu’ils ont proclamé du haut de leur puissance, il apparaît qu’une nouvelle impulsion risque de renverser l’inconséquence complice des pays du Nord. En effet, le ‘Sud global’ entend bien chasser les marchands du Temple. < Back Au Sud global, rien de nouveau à l’horizon Lubin Parisien December 31, 2024 La France s’est félicitée du mandat d’arrêt de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) contre le président russe Vladimir Poutine, pourtant elle a fait grise mine quand ce fut au tour du premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu d’être recherché par la CPI. La France a critiqué l’argument de la Mongolie, qui, se basant sur l’article 98 du Statut de Rome fondateur de la CPI et dont la Mongolie est partie, a refusé d’arrêter Vladimir Poutine en visite dans le pays sous prétexte que la Russie n’est pas partie du Statut de Rome. Cependant, la France a ensuite mobilisé l’article 98 pour justifier son refus a priori de procéder à l’arrestation du premier ministre israélien car Israël n’est pas partie non plus de la CPI. Quelle différence entre MM. Netanyahu et Poutine au regard du droit international? Aucune, si ce n’est que le premier est l’allié de la France et le second son ennemi. Alors que les pays occidentaux et leurs soutiens s’enferrent à nier les fondements de l’ordre international qu’ils ont proclamé du haut de leur puissance, il apparaît qu’une nouvelle impulsion risque de renverser l’inconséquence complice des pays du Nord. En effet, le ‘Sud global’ entend bien chasser les marchands du Temple. L’expression est chic, elle est commune et elle semble depuis 15 ans avoir une utilisation constante . L’incurie de l’Occident au regard du droit international—l’Irak en 2003 et les Palestiniens peuvent témoigner des manquements des pays du Nord—n’est plus à prouver. Pour autant, est-ce un fait exclusif au Nord? La Mongolie aussi a dû mobiliser des trésors de mauvaises fois pour accueillir Vladimir Poutine : l’affirmation des Etats du Sud global ne se conjugue manifestement pas par une perspective meilleure pour un ordre international plus juste. Les bons vieux instruments de l’hypocrisie et de l’indignation sélective sont appropriés sans modération par un Sud global pourtant porteur de promesses évanescentes. 80 ans dans les marges du monde Avant même de définir le Sud global un fait révélateur s’offre à nous: le Sud se définit séparément ou contre le Nord, contre un Occident composé de pays indéniablement puissants, dominateurs et riches, en premier lieu les Etats-Unis, les Etats européens, le Canada, quelques pays d’Asie ainsi que l’Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande. Le reste, c’est le ‘Sud.’ Quand il y a un Sud, il y a un Nord, le truisme n’est pas révolutionnaire, mais il montre bien ce qu’induit l’expression de Sud global, c’est-à-dire une partie du monde autre, différente des puissances dominantes et dominatrices occidentales. Ainsi, le Sud global se définit en premier lieu par ce qu’il n’est pas. De tous ses ancêtres, le plus fameux est le concept de « Tiers-monde » énoncé pour la première fois par Alfred Sauvy en 1952, lequel dresse le parallèle avec le Tiers-Etat de l’Ancien Régime et son état de servitude. Les pays dont parle M. Sauvy sont en effet à peine sortis de la colonisation et de la sujétion aux puissances européennes déchues. En Afrique, après 1960, les pays anciennement colonisés par la France tombent souvent dans son escarcelle par une tutelle de fait et un ‘paternalisme’ pudiquement appelé « Françafrique. » Politiquement, la manifestation la plus ‘pure’ de l’originalité de ce Tiers-monde réside dans le mouvement des non-alignés. Alors que la Guerre froide sépare le monde en deux, des Etats comme la Yougoslavie de Tito, l’Indonésie de Soekarno ou l’Egypte de Nasser sont à l’initiative de nombreuses conférences de non-alignés, à Brioni en 1956 ou à Bandung en 1955 . En somme, deux faits sont à retenir: ces Etats non-alignés sont souvent portés par des figures et des membres plus éminents et importants comme l’Inde ou l’Egypte. En outre, il y a toujours la question du leadership et des batailles pour se l’accaparer. Tout parallèle avec l’Inde ou le Brésil aujourd’hui est purement fortuit. De uxièmement, ces pays se conçoivent à l’écart du grand jeu international, et c’est sur cette base qu’ils légitiment leur positionnement et leurs tentatives d’affirmation. Mais cette posture ne doit pas cacher des dissensions et la réalité des luttes de pouvoirs internes: en effet, un Nasser s’est singulièrement rapproché de l’URSS, la conférence des non-alignés de 1966 à La Havane est tout aussi singulièrement liée à l’URSS. A côté, des pays comme la Yougoslavie s’en sont toujours tenus à une prudente neutralité depuis 1948, bien que Tito soit communiste. Ces pays sont donc bien souvent totalement imbriqués dans les querelles de pouvoirs internationales structurantes, ils ne sont pas véritablement une alternative unique et réelle à l’ordre qui se construit alors sur la terreur du feu nucléaire. Le Sud global se nourrit aussi de la bipartition que font les géographes et les géopolitologues entre les pays du Nord et les pays du Sud, qui, en réalité, provient de la définition donnée précédemment. Cette bipartition séparait les pays sur un critère de développement, sur des données comme l’IDH ou le PIB par habitant. Dans les années 1980, une telle classification avait une certaine pertinence, les pays du Nord étant riches et développés, les pays du Sud étant mal classés sur la base des mêmes critères. L'Occident a beau jeu d’apparaître comme la pointe avancée du développement alors que le Sud est là encore dans les marges. Pourtant, cette ligne, dont le manichéisme a toujours été critiqué, est largement abandonnée aujourd’hui: un dossier publié par l’institut Géoconfluences de l’ENS de Lyon affirme ainsi que de « nettes et spectaculaires recompositions géographiques de l’architecture mondiale du développement [sont] intervenues ces quatre dernières décennies. » En outre, des pays comme la Russie sont désormais intégrés au Sud avec le Sud global au titre de son opposition à l’Occident et de sa participation au BRICS, non pas en raison de critères de développement, tandis que la Chine et l’Amérique latine demeure dans le Sud avec l’Afrique et les îles océaniennes malgré des écarts bien plus vastes avec ces derniers qu’avec l’Occident. Toutes ces dénominations—Tiers-monde, non-alignés, fracture Nord-Sud—ont précédé l’appellation de Sud global. Un point commun les réunit: être dans les marges de l’ordre international établi. Mais en fonction du vocable, ces termes peuvent sous-tendre une volonté politique subversive ou plus clairement anti-occidentale: ‘Sud global’ réunit tout cela. Pourtant, la subversion, si elle est proclamée, reste relative. Tout changer pour rien changer L’ordre occidental est démodé. Ses deux poids deux mesures en Palestine et en Ukraine ont récemment confirmé sa décrédibilisation. Sa propension aux guerres sans fin notamment au Moyen-Orient l’a affaibli. Sa prétention universelle ne tient pas longtemps face à l’affirmation de nouvelles puissances. Une formule du président turc Erdogan résume bien un esprit qui court dans les chancelleries du Sud global : « le monde est plus que cinq , » une allusion aux cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité et à l’absence de raisons valables à leurs privilèges en premier desquelle figure le droit de veto. Le concept de Sud global cristallise les critiques légitimes que l'on peut exprimer à l’égard de l’Occident dans le concert des nations. Mais les pays du supposé Sud global ne valent pas mieux. En discutant du Sud global, de son histoire, de ses espoirs, on en oublie un fait essentiel: une imposture fondamentale se cache dans les discours. Pour être honnête, il faut bien cadrer le propos. Il consiste à dénoncer le vernis moral dont se pare l'expression Sud global, un vernis qui se nourrit de la juste contestation de l’incurie occidentale. L’objet n’est pas de discuter de la réalité effective du concept et de sa pertinence dans la description des relations internationales— un article de Bertrand Badie dans la revue du conseil scientifique de l’ONG Attac Les possibles en 2014 résume bien la réalité géopolitique du concept. Notre objectif est plutôt de pointer du doigt les faussaires qui utilisent la dénomination de Sud global dans un discours de justification de politiques étrangères qui doivent nous inquiéter. Erdogan déclare que “le monde est plus que cinq” depuis 2016, mais il a ressorti la formule dans un communiqué du ministère des affaires étrangères en 2023 pour soutenir l'ajout de l’Inde comme membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité. Ce serait un grand changement, mais seulement superficiel, car cela ne s’attaque pas à la racine du problème: l’existence de membres privilégiés. Le but pour l’Inde et la Turquie par derrière est simplement de s’emparer de plus de pouvoirs, un objectif bien cynique et qui ne laisse entrevoir aucune voie de progrès dans le concert des nations. Dans un communiqué commun avec la Chine lors d’une rencontre à Astana en 2024, la Turquie affirme que: « en tant que grands pays en développement et membres du “Sud global,” la Chine et la Turquie [...] [s’inscrivent dans] le maintien des normes régissant les relations internationales. » La norme défendue est celle de la course à la puissance, et non pas un droit vigoureux et égalitaire entre les Etats, puisque la Turquie a approuvé de facto l’existence d’une hiérarchie des États qu’il souhaite simplement élargir. De plus, la question du leadership du Sud global présage d’une vision toujours plus prédatrice des relations internationales. Ainsi, les pays des BRICS (Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine et Afrique du Sud, avant l’élargissement), se disputent le rôle du chef de file ou simplement pour affirmer sa propre influence, d’où l’ aide apportée par Lula pour pousser la candidature, acceptée, de l’Argentine. La rivalité entre l’Inde et la Chine qui se cristallise au Cachemir ou dans le financement chinois du port de Gwadar au Pakistan est un exemple de ces rivalités au sein de la fausse unité qu’est le Sud global. Or, pendant ce temps, certains de ces chefs de file perpétuent de vieilles techniques de domination. Le ‘piège de la dette,’ bien que souvent fantasmé, demeure révélateur des techniques employées par la Chine pour s’assurer le soutien d’Etats fragiles peu regardants sur les taux d’intérêt de la dette et la bonne gestion des finances publiques, à l’instar du Sri Lanka sous la férule du clan Rajapaksa. Il mena le pays à la faillite notamment en acceptant des contrats d’entreprises chinoises telle que le port de Hambantota, dont l’utilité reste à démontrer. Le pays, exsangue, a dû accepter la cession d’un bail de 99 ans à la Chine en 2019. Les pays puissants du Sud global semblent faire peu de cas d’une quelconque éthique vis-à-vis des autres pays du Sud lui-même. Dans la construction d’un récit autour d’un Sud global, il y a la dénonciation du double-standard des Occidentaux quant au respect du droit international, visiblement optionnel quand il s’agit de M. Netanyahu ou de Georges W. Bush sur les actes commis par l’armée américain à Abou Ghraib par exemple. L’Afrique du Sud a décidé d’y remédier en décembre 2023 au sujet de la guerre menée par Israël à Gaza, dénoncé comme un génocide auprès de la Cour internationale de justice. Certains parlaient du pays comme du “ fer de lance ” du Sud global—toujours la question du leadership de ce Sud global. On peut toutefois croire que le motif de la plainte n’est pas qu’humanitaire, cet intérêt à être le “fer de lance” semble être déterminant. En effet, l’Afrique du Sud n’a eu aucune gêne d’accueillir sur son sol en 2015 Omar al-Béchir, dictateur à l’époque du Soudan, recherché par la CPI —dont l’Afrique du Sud est membre—pour notamment des faits de génocide durant la guerre du Darfour en 2003. Il y a eu environ 300 000 morts selon Amnesty international . Le deux poids deux mesures, loin d’être le fait propre de l’Occident, est aussi utilisé par des pays du Sud global qui profite du discours favorable induit par l’expression, une rhétorique d’atmosphère rudement pratique quand il s’agit de dissimuler ses propres contradictions et hypocrisies. Le Sud global incarne à bien des égards les espoirs pour un ordre international débarrassé des impérialismes et des néo-colonialismes. Pourtant, il y a une tension fondamentale entre l’usage qui en fait et l’image positive que l’on peut avoir de ces pays avec la réalité plus inquiétante de la politique de ces pays, renversant la table pour mieux jouer au même jeu que les grandes puissances d’antan. Ces espoirs sont nécessaires, mais il est illusoire d’attendre beaucoup du Sud global en tant que fausse unité. Tant que les ambitieux, les tribuns et les leaders autoproclamés d’un quelconque monde ‘libre’ seront aux commandes, le cynisme sera le gouvernail du concert des nations. En Occident comme dans le Sud, et comme le montre les protestations mondiales contre l’inaction occidentale par rapport à la politique israélienne en Palestine, c’est aux peuples de s’emparer des questions géopolitiques, c’est à eux de rappeler la nécessité d’un ordre mondial uni pour la paix, du Nord au Sud.

< Back Supreme Court Spot Opens: Is Progress Possible on America’s Most Influential Bench? By Luca Utterwulghe March 31, 2022 “Founding Father” Alexander Hamilton explains in his Federalist no. 78 that the judiciary is by constitution the weakest of the three branches in the American governmental system. The judicial branch lacks the “sword” of the executive branch and the “purse” of the legislature. Nonetheless, according to Hamilton’s conceptualization, the judiciary normatively plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and the superiority of the people. The doctrinal foundations of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) (and other local/state courts) are today threatened by the politicization of judicial processes and the underrepresentation of certain populations. The SCOTUS’s precarious situation is why we must pay particular attention to the open seat on the bench in light of Justice Stephen Breyer’s recent retirement announcement . Breyer’s exit signals an important choice for President Joe Biden, who has already committed to nominating the first Black woman to the Court. There are currently only two Justices of color on the bench, only one of whom is Black. Moreover, there are only three women (out of nine Justices). Of the candidates Biden is considering, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger, and Michelle Childs are the most prominent choices; each currently serves on an appellate or state supreme court. The nominated candidate “would be only the eighth person in the court’s 233 year history who was not a white man,” as mentioned in a Washington Post article . While Biden’s intention to nominate one of 10 Black women candidates is a strong step forward for the diversification of the Court, the bench is far from a mirror image of American ethnic and gender demography. Ellie Carter, an American Sciences Po 1A, highlighted that “significant disparities still exist in terms of race, sexual orientation, financial status, and even geographic location, with most justices throughout history being almost exclusively straight, white, wealthy Protestant men from the Northeast who graduated from an Ivy [League Institution].” Further, Carter argued that a critical element in the discussion on racial, ethnic, religious, and geographic discrepancies on SCOTUS is “the high cost of education” in the U.S., especially for law school, for which “average annual tuition and fees… is usually around $50k for three years.” Carter touches on the opportunity cost of pursuing a law degree considering that one “could have otherwise gone straight into a full time job,” especially if burdened by “loans from an undergraduate degree.” An NPR article discusses the barriers to entry to the professional law sphere in noting that “many first generation college grads applying to law school don’t know the ins and outs of the application process” and lack “personal connections” who can help them navigate the system. Carter does not “think it’s a stretch to say that making education more affordable could eventually make these types of [judicial] positions more accessible.” In another sense, Biden’s pick will have significant implications for the Court’s future decisions on major questions relating to the American Constitution. Biden has expressed his desire to select a nominee who values the existence of “unenumerated rights in the Constitution” and thus rejects a textualist approach to jurisprudence. According to NPR analysts , Biden’s pick will likely have little influence on “the ideological tilt of the court,” meaning that the confirmation process in the Senate may be less politically aggressive. Carter noted that “the fact that Biden’s nominee will need to be moderate enough to garner enough support to be confirmed by a pretty divided Senate means that, hopefully, [there] could be a positive outcome.” Celeste Abourjeili, a Lebanese-American 2A at Sciences Po, is slightly less hopeful: “The fact that we are even looking at the political affiliation of candidates and existing justices is already an indication that the neutrality of the court has been compromised.” The overarching issue, however, seems to be that there is a tendency for Justices to make decisions that, as Carter explains, are not “grounded in constitutional reasoning” and are instead based along “ideological lines.” It would be easy to conclude that Hamilton’s conceptualization of the judiciary was overly idealistic and naive to suggest that undoing two centuries of underrepresentation will be a smooth feat. It will take significant effort from all actors in the American political system to ensure that relying on reason, as opposed to partisan lines, remains the core of our judicial regime.

It was Feb. 6: the weather was cold, the sky was dark and the streets were silent. Many were asleep, unaware that life was never going to be the same after 4:17 a.m. < Back A Year After the Earthquakes in Turkey: Has Anything Changed? By Selin Elif Köse January 31, 2024 It was Feb. 6: the weather was cold, the sky was dark and the streets were silent. Many were asleep, unaware that life was never going to be the same after 4:17 a.m. It was Feb. 6: it lasted for 1 minute and 5 seconds, with a magnitude of 7.7, and it was fatal. It was Feb. 6 when everyone thought it was over, yet the ground started shaking again. And it was around 1:24 p.m., with a magnitude of 7.6, when it all happened once more. Then it was silent again, and everything was left under the rubble: photographs of distant memories, newly bought books and toys, unlived lives, and unfinished stories. It’s been a year since the two deadly earthquakes struck the southeastern part of Turkey, which also affected northern Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. According to the latest data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the death toll reached 50,500. Yet this number only includes the identified bodies; needless to say, the actual number is expected to be significantly higher. Turkey had previously experienced destructive earthquakes as it lies in the seismic zones and is categorized as one of the most earthquake-prone countries, yet this was the deadliest in history. For comparison, other earthquake-prone countries like Japan don't get nearly as affected by earthquakes. Most recently, on Jan. 1, 2024, an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.6 and a depth of 10 km (the same as the earthquakes in Turkey) struck Japan’s Noto peninsula. As of today, 202 deaths have been reported and 102 still missing. However, these numbers are strikingly low compared to that of Turkey. This brings the question: why? The answer is simple — the lack of precautions, not the earthquake, kills. The Turkish infrastructure and buildings were not ready to endure an earthquake, and the government failed to handle the crisis. Both of these issues boil down to politics essentially. The two main reasons were the delay and insufficiency in sending aid and construction amnesties. After the initial destruction, thousands of people were stuck under debris. The temperature fell below zero in most cities in the southern part of Turkey. Those trapped under the debris were racing against time, facing the dangers of hunger, thirst, and freezing. At that point, the most crucial action needed was the delivery of supplies such as food, drinkable water, and blankets to those injured and trapped under the rubble. The first three days were extremely critical to ensure that the victims could survive. People were sharing their locations on Twitter as a desperate attempt for aid . However, right at that moment, the government imposed a ban on Twitter. This ban aimed to prevent the public from witnessing and criticizing the government's inability to manage the crisis effectively. By doing so, the government also took away the only means of communication for those under the debris. Additionally, the search and rescue teams in the region were not adequately prepared for such a devastating earthquake and proved insufficient. Despite identifying the locations under the rubble, many individuals were abandoned to death due to the danger of collapse and the inadequacy of rescue equipment. Meanwhile, other cities sent numerous trucks loaded with aid, but due to the government's lack of organization, this effort also failed. Unplanned trucks hitting the roads created traffic jams, compounded by heavy snowfall closing roads. As a result, during the crucial first three days, essential aid couldn't reach the injured, leading to the loss of many lives under the debris due to hunger, thirst, or freezing. Following the earthquake, construction amnesties became a heated topic of discussion. More than 20 laws related to construction amnesties have been enacted since 1948 in Turkey. Yet, the most comprehensive one occurred in 2018 through an omnibus law passed in the Turkish National Assembly just before the presidential election. The construction amnesty, enacted by the AKP government to garner votes in the election, resulted in the registration of a total of 294,166 unlicensed houses in the ten cities most affected by the earthquake. Legalizing buildings not constructed in compliance with earthquake regulations was a major contributing factor to the collapse of 36,932 buildings. What is the condition of the southeastern region of Turkey today? Following the earthquake — according to the damage assessment report of the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change — 90,609 buildings were either determined to be in urgent need of demolition, heavily damaged or collapsed. The number of residences in these buildings was identified as 269,051; this, unsurprisingly, led a significant portion of the affected individuals to migrate to the western part of the country. However, despite rental assistance provided to earthquake victims, the amount was insufficient to cover the high rents in the country, signifying that those unable to afford these rents and find housing had to continue their lives in tent camps established for earthquake victims. These tent camps faced flooding during cold weather conditions and still serve as a home for many who couldn’t find or afford housing. President Erdogan failed to accomplish his promised goal, which he had stated to be “to build 650,000 houses within one year to revive the earthquake-stricken region." Additionally, Taner Yüzgeç, Chairman of the Board of the Chamber of Civil Engineers, commented on Erdogan's ambitions: "These are dangerous statements. A city is not merely composed of houses. For a housing project, its plans must be drawn up. Disaster risk plans and geological studies must be conducted, and plans should be developed accordingly. The issue is not only about housing. Certainly, housing is a burning need, but claiming that I can build houses wherever I want means determining the lives of those who will live there from now on." Yüzgeç emphasized that professional organizations, including the Chamber of Architects, were not involved in the reconstruction process of the earthquake-stricken region. He further pointed out that the approach to the issue was solely through the lens of construction and housing production. Currently, there is an increasingly widespread fear among the citizens regarding a potential earthquake in Istanbul. Turkish geologist and professor Naci Görür has warned multiple times against a possible earthquake with a magnitude above 7.0 centered in the Marmara Sea, highly affecting Istanbul and surrounding cities. This would be even more deadly as almost 20 percent of the country's population resides in Istanbul, and there are serious questions about the durability of the buildings due to construction amnesties. Görür emphasizes that there is an energy accumulation in the North Anatolian Fault, as the last major earthquake was in 1999, in which more than 17,000 lost their lives. As a result, the majority of the buildings today are damaged and not durable enough to withstand another earthquake. Yet, there are still no proper long-term measures taken as precautions. Observing the lack of necessary planning once again signals the potential repetition of history. Last February's events should be a lesson, urging the need for change in the country and hoping that misguided policies and neglect won't cost any more lives. In loving memory of the 2023 Earthquake Victims

MEDMUN’s President and Vice-President, Inès Jabri and Maria Azadian, respectively, have been unequivocally toiling away to put together a schedule and a plan so that you, dear Sciences Pistes, can get excited about the newest SPMUN and MEDMUN conferences of 2022 and 2023. < Back New Year and New Plans for the Mediterranean Model United Nations: What Should We Expect? By Georgia McKerracher September 30, 2022 Well, it’s becoming more than clear that the summer break is officially over. Despite the straggling remains of tourist crowds traipsing through the streets of Menton, ice creams in hand, Menton’s Sciences Pistes are starting to smell the beginnings of a new academic year. Readings are already stacking up, various looming assessment deadlines are being discernibly placed in calendars, and the once-toasty temperature feels as though it may be beginning to drop at Sablettes. However, with the onset of this fresh new year, Menton’s student organizations are beginning to get their acts together. The Mediterranean Model United Nations is no exception — not only have interviews been conducted, but the board is coordinating two major events to be hosted in Menton this year. MEDMUN’s President and Vice-President, Inès Jabri and Maria Azadian, respectively, have been unequivocally toiling away to put together a schedule and a plan so that you, dear Sciences Pistes, can get excited about the newest SPMUN and MEDMUN conferences of 2022 and 2023. Now, ‘what is the difference between these two conferences?’ you may well be asking yourself. Fortunately, Jabri and Azadian took the time to let us all in on this information. SPMUN is a conference that “caters to people with interests in all regions of the world,” Azadian states. It offers an opportunity for all Sciences Pistes with passions “from the Americas to East Asia” to come together and get to know one another. A pivotal part of this conference will be drawing inspiration from our fellow students’ passion, learning from one another’s experiences, and considering what it means to be a globally-engaged citizen in an ever-changing socio-political environment. The theme for this year’s SPMUN on the Menton campus is “Reconstruction and Redirection: Imagining a Post-Crisis World.” Intrigued by the decisions behind the choice of such a compelling theme, I quizzed Azadian about some of the thought processes that underpinned the MEDMUN board’s final choice. “We had many discussions about the theme for this year’s conference,” she said, “[and] we noticed that the discussion often centers around the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of conflicts today.” While deliberation about the current crises — the crippling consequences of climate change and the ongoing public health crises, to name a couple — were all taken into consideration, Jabri and Azadian considered how these everyday topics and questions “miss a part of the bigger picture.” “With the geopolitical, economic, environmental, political, social and judicial thematics,” Jabri says, “participants will get a multifaceted perspective of today’s global issues.” Instead, people need to think more openly of the disturbingly daunting question that humanity should be asking itself now: “how can we rebuild (our) world?” Under the umbrella of such a moving theme, SPMUN will bring together Sciences Pistes from all six of the Menton Campus’ neighbors — a unique opportunity for the Mentonese to get to know some of their otherwise distanced peers (and in some cases, rekindle a few close connections to other students from across campuses originally made in Reims last year). Moreover, for the first time in its history, the SPMUN conference will be trilingual — with committees discussing global issues in English and French and now in Spanish. MEDMUN also focuses on the Middle Eastern and Northern African regions, allowing for dialogue with delegates who either come specifically for the conference’s unique regional focus or who simply enjoy the opportunity to meet a few new faces and enhance their understanding of diverse worldviews and opinions. Jabri eagerly states that MEDMUN expects over 400 students from all over the globe to arrive in Menton, allowing for the “accomplishment of a year of teamwork,” which she reflects will “make our little city shine.” Regardless of some key differences in the content explored by the conferences, both will undoubtedly offer their participants a diverse number of unique and exhilarating opportunities. As Azadian puts it, “each conference, at the end of the day, creates its community of people passionate about debate and diplomacy.” Jabri further elaborates, saying that “having two MUN conferences on the Menton campus is an incredible opportunity” for all students to benefit from “not only… the intellectual aspect of these experiences, debating topical subjects in different committees,” but also to “share their culture, knowledge and advice.” Despite its poeticism, Jabri’s firm belief that “diversity and multiculturalism become the backbone of these events” rings true for all participants. Heads of Crisis, David Ederberg and Riwa Hassan, are also cooking up a storm. Ederberg emphasized his excitement at seeing “students from all campuses… use their different backgrounds and perspectives” to come to meaningful and insightful conclusions in their respective “captivating crisis” committees. Both conferences will offer Sciences Pistes some of the most fantastic opportunities to meet new and exciting people from France and the world. Menton’s upcoming MUNs create incredible opportunities to “learn about international relations,” and “expand network[s] and lifelong friendships,” according to Azadian However, aside from the cerebral rewards of conference participation, “debating with a stunning view of the Mediterranean right outside your window is not such a bad thing either!” Jabri correctly puts it when she states, “Get ready for the first intercampus event of the year, located on the beautiful Riviera, where you will have the opportunity to debate, create memories [and] share your experience!” SPMUN will be held in Menton from the 11th to 13th of November, 2022, and MEDMUN will be held from the 31st of March to 2nd of April, 2023.

The problem with playing Switzerland, playing neutral, is that it is not a fair game. Ban the state, and innocent athletes suffer. Do not ban the state, and those harmed by the state suffer instead. The sport of neutrality has no simple rules. And the question remains: how can sporting governing bodies criticize aggressor states while staying true to their values of inclusivity and togetherness through sport? < Back Playing Switzerland: An Unfair Game Rebecca Canton October 31, 2024 Germany and Japan in 1948, South Africa in 1964, Yugoslavia in 1992, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in 2000 and now Russia and Belarus in 2024: the list of nations banned from participating in the Olympic Games continues to expand. Historically, so-called “banned” nations were fully barred from sending athletes or delegates. Nowadays, a banned nation does not necessarily indicate banned athletes. Enter the “neutral” athlete, an exclusive title only few possess. Yet the problem with this apparent neutrality, much like the issues with Switzerland’s, is that, in practice, it is neither simple nor truly neutral. One’s nationality does not implicate them in their state’s actions. So then why should athletes of aggressor nations be penalized? Why should, for example, Viyaleta Bardzilouskaya, a 19-year-old trampoline gymnast who went on to take a silver medal in the 2024 Olympic games as a neutral athlete, not hear her national anthem like other athletes? Why should an athlete who has no direct control over their country’s policies be sanctioned? Sporting events like the Olympics are meant to be a celebration of sport and inclusivity, not a criticism of politics. The Olympic charter itself states that The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Olympics are apolitical. But if such is the case, what right does the IOC have to dictate political sanctions? Perhaps more importantly, can an institution as global, and as historically political, as the Olympics ever be truly neutral? The concept of officially “neutral” athletes is relatively modern. In 2016, following Russian doping scandals, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) proposed the idea. While Russia as a nation was allowed to compete in the 2016 Rio Olympics, in 2017 World Athletics, then IAAF, banned Russian athletes from competing at the World Championships with the exception of nineteen Russians who competed as neutral athletes . Apart from being politically-motivated neutrality, an athlete may also compete neutrally due to geopolitical realities. The Paris 2024 Olympics Games saw 37 athletes compete under the Refugee Olympic Team, representing more than 100 million displaced people around the world as opposed to a single country. Russia’s own participation in recent Games shows how blurred boundaries have become. In 2021, in light of mass doping allegations, Russia began competing under the acronym “ROC”, standing for the Russian Olympic Committee. Their flag was replaced with the Olympic Committee’s flag, and their anthem changed from the patriotic war song “Katyusha” to a piece from Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1, still distinctly Russian in cultural identity. Their uniforms contained the colors of the Russian flag. They were, undeniably, Russian athletes. None of this fits any real definition of neutrality. So what does? For an organisation designed to be apolitical, the IOC has several criteria for an athlete to be considered neutral. Athletes must qualify under their respective International Sports Federations’ definition of neutrality, most of which mirror the IOC rules. Belarusian and Russian athletes were banned from displaying their flag, colors and singing their national anthems. State officials were not invited, and any athlete found supporting the war or participating in military activities was deemed ineligible. Throughout all of this, the IOC has maintained that it fully supports Ukraine and Ukrainian athletes. Yet Ukrainian officials argue the IOC has not upheld its own rules. On 29 December 2023, an open letter signed by 261 Ukrainian athletes revealed that three of the six accepted Russian athletes had openly supported the war, by participating in pro-war rallies or by appearing in pro-war propaganda. Despite not following neutrality rules, such athletes were allowed to compete. The IOC continues to claim the Olympics are apolitical, yet the Games have consistently been used for political purposes. The 1936 Berlin Olympics, controversially awarded to the Nazi regime, became a propaganda tool for Hitler. The U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics protested the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which the Soviets returned with their boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. As arguably the biggest sporting event in the world, the Olympics cannot be neutral, nor can they appease all nations. Athletes inevitably represent more than themselves. Their victories can fuel nationalism, and in some cases, serve as state propaganda. Russia’s long-standing investment in figure skating illustrates this. Since the Soviet era, the sport has been used as a symbol of the “Russian Empire’s” greatness, with athletes becoming cultural icons who skate on behalf of “Mother Russia.” Even though athletes compete for themselves, in Russia an individual victory is a national one. Allowing aggressor states to compete without consequence can be seen as a form of appeasement, giving the impression that hostile actions are acceptable. By not banning athletes or imposing serious sanctions, the IOC risks legitimizing the actions of aggressor governments. Yet banning athletes punishes individuals for state violence they did not commit, and as such neutrality becomes a lose-lose game. Fairness is also questioned in how neutrality rules are applied. Iran and several other states have called for Israeli athletes to face the same bans imposed on Russia and Belarus, citing Israel’s escalation of aggression in Palestine since 7 October 2023. Israel has destroyed numerous Palestinian sporting facilities, reducing even the possibility of Palestinian athletes reaching the Olympics. The IOC’s justification is that Russia violated the Olympic Truce by invading Ukraine four days after the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics ended. Israel, they argue, has not violated it in the same way. This ambiguous differentiation, punishing one state's aggression but not another’s, creates a double standard. If neutrality and sanctions are to have legitimacy, they cannot be selectively enforced. At its core, the Olympics want to be Switzerland: neutral, impartial, untouched by political dispute. But even Switzerland is practically, not perfectly, neutral. It stayed out of both world wars, yet shut its borders for Jewish refugees during World War II and allowed Nazi bank accounts. Today it is not part of the EU or EEA, yet participates in the single market. A country or organization may claim neutrality, but the reality is far more complex. For athletes, this complexity is deeply personal. Their dreams, work, and sacrifice can be extinguished by decisions entirely beyond their control. The problem with playing Switzerland, playing neutral, is that it is not a fair game. Ban the state, and innocent athletes suffer. Do not ban the state, and those harmed by the state suffer instead. The sport of neutrality has no simple rules. And the question remains: how can sporting governing bodies criticize aggressor states while staying true to their values of inclusivity and togetherness through sport? If the Olympic Movement is meant to contribute to a more peaceful world, perhaps the first step is acknowledging that neutrality itself is not peace, but a complicated position. One that the Olympics, despite its ideals, has never been able to truly maintain.

< Back Tension Between Israel and Palestine Compounds as Ramadan and Passover Coincide By Hugo Lagergren April 30, 2022 A surge of violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories during the past month has stoked tensions between the two states. It has caused many to fear a repeat of the 11-day conflict that occurred last May, which resulted in the death of over 250 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. Two weeks ago, Israeli forces stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque during morning prayer, marking the most serious escalation at the holy site in over a year. Medics reported that over 158 Palestinians were injured during the raid, while hundreds more were detained. Clashes at the holy site have continued between Palestinian Muslims and Israeli security forces, who claim to have just been dispersing a violent crowd that lingered after morning prayer on April 15. However, eye-witnesses told Al-Jazeera that Israeli forces entered the Mosque unprovoked and proceeded to “brutally” empty the compound, attacking staff, elders, and young people in the process. Videos circulated online showing police using tear gas and stun grenades against worshippers, who hurled rocks back at the police. Other videos show people barricading themselves desperately within the Mosque to escape the violence. The Israeli forces also fired rubber bullets into the crowds, wounding many, including a 21-year-old Palestinian man named Walid al-Sharif. Al-Sharif recently fell into a coma after sustaining internal bleeding as a result of being struck in the head by one of the rubber bullets. The Palestinian Authority and Jordan, which has custodianship over Islam’s third holiest site, issued a joint statement condemning Israel and stating that it was responsible for a “dangerous and condemnable escalation that threatens to explode the situation.” Palestinian militant group Hamas also responded by launching a series of missile strikes against Israel, which were intercepted by its defense system. Israel responded to this by launching a series of its own strikes, destroying a military facility within the Gaza strip that was allegedly used to build missile engines. The violence comes after a series of terrorist attacks were carried out by Palestinian gunmen in Israeli cities, killing 14 Israeli citizens. These deadly attacks prompted Israel to reevaluate its defense strategy by broadening the scope of its operations against Palestine. Indeed, a few days ago, Israel’s coordinator for Palestinian affairs, Ghassan Alyan, announced that Israel would close the Erez Crossing, the only existing crossing connecting Gaza and Israel, which is essential for workers in Israel who live in Gaza. Over 12,000 Gazans currently hold work permits that allow them to cross over to Israel and make a living. The removal of such access will undoubtedly have a huge financial impact on Gaza, with many residents relying on the income of these workers. An Israeli radio station estimated that Palestinian losses will be around 1.5 million USD daily. Tension between the two groups had been expected this year, as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan coincided with the Jewish celebration of Passover. These celebrations usually see an increased number of visitors coming to Jerusalem to visit the Muslim and Jewish holy sites. This uptick in visitors angered many Palestinians as they believed it violated the long-held convention that Jews could visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but not pray there. This raised tensions between the two communities and is a likely explanation for the terrorist attacks carried out earlier this month. Israel has denied all accusations that it is looking to overturn this “status quo” by reaffirming its commitment to the preservation of the freedom of worship. However, its actions might suggest otherwise. The death toll of the recent violence has reached 38 and tensions between Israel and Palestine remain extremely high as clashes continue in and around Al-Aqsa Mosque. Many Palestinians are fearful of a repeat of the deadly conflict that took place in May of last year. Top United States diplomats have been sent to Israel to end “the cycle of violence.” However, Palestine has accused the US of wielding “limp diplomacy” and of double-standards compared to how the US has addressed the war in Ukraine. With no resolution in sight, one is left to wonder whether this long-term regional conflict will ever be solved, or whether the tensions are doomed to erupt into a wider conflict that would hugely impact an already struggling Palestine.

< Back Donald Trump vs The Stock Market Stanimir Stoyanov January 31, 2025 The results of the U.S. election in November 2024 have rippled across the country and the world. The election of Donald Trump has been received with both horror and joy across different fields of society. When it comes to the economy and the stock market, the implications of the election are undeniable. The day Trump was elected, the stock market saw unprecedented gains. This reignited debates about Trump's aggressive political presence and its impact on global markets. As can be seen with the way Trump’s 2024 bid shaped financial speculation, market trends are deeply intertwined with political realities. Trump’s history with the Stock Market Trump’s first term in office emanated mixed yet extreme feelings from investors. His corporate tax cuts and deregulatory agendas were simply manna for Wall Street, which reciprocated with record-breaking market highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average soared by nearly 60% during his first presidency, with much of this growth being attributed to Trump’s pro-business rhetoric and investor-friendly policies. Still, it wasn’t all smooth sailing. Tenuous trade relations with China introduced new uncertainties with material shortages across industries. Dips in the market became commonplace where tariffs were announced, then paused, and then escalated again. Trump’s practice of using Twitter (now X) to openly express his ideas and opinions has led to an unpredictable environment due to the high level of influence his words hold. A single tweet by him could lead to a company’s stock tanking or rallying. While Trump’s first term echoed the bullish market sentiment, investors and the market also have had to deal with many uncertainties during his office. With Trump’s second term having commenced in January 2025, the market is now preparing for a second round of turbulence, while simultaneously showing enthusiasm as seen on the day of the election. The November 2024 Fallout With the 2024 election approaching, the stock market entered a period of heightened volatility. Historically markets have indicated voter attitudes in this case, some predicted a political shift due to economic instability. Prior to the election, polls showcased a very tight race, with most declaring Harris as the candidate likely to emerge from the race victorious. However, online betting sites such as Polymarket saw people betting a total of more than two billion dollars, with Trump’s odds of winning being much higher than those of his opponent, Kamala Harris. This showed that people were ready to bet their money on Trump even if the data signaled against him. As votes were being counted and Trump’s victory became imminent, the stock market began to move rapidly. Nov. 6 saw the market indicators making record gains, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rocketing 3.6%, the S&P 500 up 2.5%, while the Nasdaq climbed nearly 3%. U.S bank shares were also on the rise, and the US dollar rose to its highest value since 2020. Still, this initial growth did not prove sustainable, with markets stabilizing around the end of November and even experiencing some losses at the end of the year. In December 2024, Jerome Powell, Head of the US Federal Reserve, stated that they expect inflation to continue rising in 2025, leading to negative reactions from the market. This act and its after-effects acted as a clear questioning of Trump’s actual influence over the market. The president-elect expressed his opposition to the Federal Reserve, raising concerns about future clashes between the two institutions and undermining Trump’s effective power over the U.S. economy. So, who was the real winner? Trump’s 2024 campaign saw him working closely with influential businessmen such as the richest person in the world, Elon Musk. Gathering increased public exposure and support in large part due to the popularity and social media influence Musk holds, Donald Trump began shaping his campaign around the billionaire and his companies. This led Musk and his companies to make a huge profit following the election. Even though Trump’s policies suggest fewer incentives for the electric vehicle market, Musk’s Tesla Corporation saw a rise of 15% right after the election. Trump’s personal net worth also experienced a substantial increase with his company Trump Media and Technology Group, seeing an initial 30% gain, which later fell to an overall gain of 6%, increasing Trump’s personal stake by around 290 million dollars. Probably the biggest market change following Trump’s win was seen in the cryptocurrency world. Bitcoin immediately surged to an all-time high on the day of the election and then in the following weeks reached over 100,000 dollars, after which it stabilized a bit above 90,000. Ethereum and other altcoins also saw double-digit gains. There might be various factors contributing to this, many of which are connected to Trump. Firstly, analysts believe people prefer decentralized assets amidst political uncertainty. At the same time, Trump’s campaign can be described as a fruitful romance with cryptocurrency. The president-elect has expressed his passion for crypto and has stated that he wants to make the US the “crypto capital of the planet,” pledging an increase of governmental cryptocurrency funds. Additionally, he has promised his campaign supporters Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy the creation of a so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in which they will have a role in improving the government's handling of funds. Why should the world care? Being the second-largest economy in the world and a leading player in global finance, the United States and its economy have implications in many aspects of social, political and financial life outside its borders too. The day of Trump’s election had effects on markets outside the U.S.; European stocks fell almost proportionally at the rate that U.S. stocks were rising. At the same time, European defense companies saw massive gains, marking both a shift from U.S. military reliance and echoing Trump’s stern stance on Europeans needing to increase military spending. Trump’s Middle East policies and his incentivization of the U.S. domestic oil industry have resulted in oil prices across the world taking a loss, while natural gas prices have spiked. Trump’s aggressive foreign policy and protective attitude towards the U.S. economy have led to increasing fears about possible material shortages in some industries that rely on imports from countries like China. Many things remain unknown concerning Trump's second term, but the only thing certain is that it will not be a mundane one. Amid this pressing backdrop, U.S. markets must brace for a period of both market-oriented policies and uncertainty. From what can be seen, crypto investors and stock market enthusiasts are both enthusiastic and cautious. It is up to us as individuals to decide whether or not we want to capitalize on the changing market, but if we do, it is clear that we should not only follow financial data but also closely monitor the actions of one man named Donald Trump. Photo credits: Gage Skidmore and James Smith on Wikimedia.

Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed by British hands. < Back Politics of Art: Greece’s Quest to Reclaim its Parthenon By Barna Sólyom March 31, 2023 Since its independence from the Ottoman Empire, Greece has been trying to regain its various historical artifacts from foreign powers that ruled over it. This struggle’s symbolic focus is the main building of Athens’ Acropolis, the Parthenon, specifically its decorative elements and pieces. These statues are up to 2,500 years old and were the fortress’ main sight until the early 19th century. The British Empire’s then-ambassador to Ottoman-controlled Greece was Thomas Bruce, more famously known as Lord Elgin, under whose control around half of the Parthenon was removed and transported to London, where he later sold the marbles to the British Museum. This action was already heavily criticized by his contemporaries, even in the United Kingdom, most famously by Lord Byron, who even wrote a passage dedicated to it in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage (1812): “Cold is the heart, fair Greece, that looks on thee, Nor feels as lovers o’er the dust they loved; Dull is the eye that will not weep to see Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed By British hands , which it had best behoved To guard those relics ne’er to be restored. Curst be the hour when their isle they roved, And once again thy hapless bosom gored, And snatched thy shrinking Gods to northern climes abhorred!” Lord Elgin’s action set an infamous precedent, as cultural vandalism --- when cultural treasures are illegally taken from one country to another, was named after him: elginism . His action, of course, was not the first of its kind; for thousands of years, it was a “common” practice during conflicts to pillage. Nor was it the last act of elginism. Why are the marbles not back in Greece yet? When Greece gained independence in 1832, the government immediately started campaigning to retrieve the artifacts, as the Acropolis is one of the most important symbols of the Greek national identity. However, the historical circumstances did not allow Greece to have a large influence on the British Empire, which was in its prime, having the largest overseas empire the world has ever seen. After the two world wars, the balance of power shifted, and the United Kingdom lost a lot of its former might and hard power. However, this change in influence did not change the artifacts’ situation because the British Museum Act of 1963 prevented the institution from permanently removing objects from its collections. Thus, by U.K. law, the museum can not give back the marbles. The 1983 National Heritage Act also considers them national heritage, further strengthening the British side, whose argument assumes that the sculptures were purchased legally. Consequently, the ownership is lawfully under the museum's for 200 years. However, Greece suggests that the sculptures are in the United Kingdom due to plunder and vandalism, as their seller basically took the statues and shipped them away, thereby denying the legality of the museum’s purchase. Greece also commonly refers to UNESCO’s multiple rulings against elginism and cultural vandalism, such as the 1954 Hague Convention, the 1970 Convention, the 1972 Convention, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention. International pressure also mounts on the British Museum to return other objects, further strengthening the Greek argument, as other artifacts like the Benin Bronzes have been repatriated. With the Vatican returning three parts of the Parthenon to Greece last December, all eyes are on Britain to make a similar conciliatory move. The debate is not solved yet; both sides defend their argument, not just on the museum level but even in higher political positions. In January, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the country is seeking a constructive solution. However, the government’s position has not changed on the topic, and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis put the Parthenon’s reassembly as one of his primary goals for his re-election campaign this year. The Deutsche Welle reports that discussion between the two parties is open. Still, a sudden position change is unlikely — a short-term loan from the British Museum is the foreseeable solution.

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

< Back What Happened to Freedom of Speech? Rose Harrill October 31, 2025 On Sep. 10, Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing political podcaster and media personality, was shot and killed at Utah Valley University during an outdoor debate with students. Kirk would often travel from university to university, challenging college students to “ prove him wrong ” in a debate, and was assassinated during one of these gatherings. Kirk’s murder came as a shock to many across the United States, sparking a wide range of reactions. Fellow right-wing activists and conservative politicians publicly grieved the loss of their friend and colleague, while left-wing politicians openly condemned the act of political violence, reiterating the need for gun reform in America. Online, however, the general reaction was much less mournful. People flocked online to criticize politicians for “martyring” Kirk, who spouted many racist, sexist and discriminatory views throughout his career. Many questioned whether this was a man who deserved to be honored. One of the foundational principles of the United States, outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, is freedom of speech. There are certain forms of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement of violence, fighting words, true violence or speech integral to criminal conduct. At the same time, all political and ideological statements are protected by the Constitution. Kirk himself was a big advocate for freedom of speech, often using this concept to defend his most controversial statements, writing on X that even “ugly,” “gross” and “evil” speech is protected and allowed under the law. However, the current Trump administration has begun to completely disregard this fundamental right of Americans, encouraging crackdowns on anyone who has been critical of Kirk following his assassination. In the days after Kirk’s death, President Donald Trump and his closest advisors threatened to utilize the extensive power of the federal government to uncover and penalize an alleged “left-wing network” that is funding and inciting violence towards conservatives, including the coordination of Kirk’s assassination. President Trump provided no evidence that could prove the existence of such a network, seemingly utilizing the death of Charlie Kirk as an excuse to go after any criticism from his political opponents. At least 145 people have been identified to have faced disciplinary actions in the workplace over the last few weeks for statements they have made or posted about Kirk in the aftermath of his murder, whether it be teachers, restaurant workers or lawyers. The U.S. government has encouraged this restriction of free speech, as Vice President JD Vance encouraged his supporters to call the bosses of those who had celebrated Kirk’s death and ensure they are disciplined. “Call them out,” he said , “and hell, call their employer.” The U.S. government has also revoked the visas of at least six foreign nationals on the grounds of celebrating Kirk’s death. On Oct. 13 the U.S. State Department posted screenshots of online comments by six people on its X account, writing “The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death of Americans” and that they would continue to “identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk”, implying they would continue to try and deport anyone critical of Kirk. The crackdown garnering the most attention from the general public has been the removal of Jimmy Kimmel’s late night ABC Network show from the air. On the episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live! that aired after Kirk’s assassination, Kimmel referred to the shooting’s suspect as a member of the right and mocked President Trump’s reaction to the shooting. Brendan Carr, the chair of broadcast regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), appointed to this position by President Trump, demanded an apology from Kimmel for his remarks, threatening to act against ABC and its parent company Disney if Kimmel did not comply. Subsequently, Nexstar Media, one of the most prominent owners of TV stations in the United States, confirmed it would pull Kimmel’s show from the air indefinitely. Kimmel’s show was ultimately put back on air only a couple of days later. However, this was entirely due to the massive pushback from viewers, politicians and other members of Hollywood who claimed it was an act of political censorship. The U.S.government made no effort to condemn the clear violation of free speech by the FCC. In fact, President Trump celebrated Kimmel’s suspension, calling it “great news for America.” While these crackdowns of free speech have definitely worsened in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, this exhibits a wider trend of suppression and constitutional violations that have been perpetuated by the Trump administration since his inauguration. Jimmy Kimmel was not the first news host to be pulled from the air due to unfavorable speech in the eyes of the Trump administration – CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert was cancelled back in July. This cancellation came just three days after Colbert criticized CBS’s parent company Paramount for its $16 million settlement with President Trump for its similarities with bribery. Colbert’s show has not been reinstated. In March, Columbia University was under scrutiny with free speech advocates for their creation of a disciplinary committee dedicated to investigating students who are critical of Israel. Despite the right to criticize Israel often being as a political statement, thus protected by the First Amendment. President Trump and his administration, instead of penalizing Columbia University for the flagrant violation of freedom of speech, cancelled $400 million in federal funding to the institution on the grounds that they had not done enough to protect its students from “antisemitic harassment.” President Trump and his administration continued by issuing a letter containing a list of demands for Columbia University to comply with that would further limit anti-Israeli speech. Columbia University responded with an even more extreme crackdown on students’ free speech by expelling, suspending and temporarily revoking the degrees of dozens of students involved in pro-Palestinian protests the previous school year. All this leads us to the question: what has happened to freedom of speech in the United States? The First Amendment of the Constitution reflects the quintessential ideals of being an American —freedom to say what you want, do what you want, and be who you want. And yet now, what used to be considered a fundamental liberty for all Americans is being infringed upon daily. Uncertainty in what used to be an undeniable fact of life raises many concerns. If not all speech is protected any more, who decides which kind is unprotected? If someone can’t even express their disagreement with a political figure following their assassination, where do we draw the line? Can anyone say anything anymore? Photo Source: Newton graffiti, flickr

It all started on a Thursday morning — at the crack of dawn to be exact — when around 40 Sciences Pistes walked across Menton to reach the bus that would take them to the first intercampus event in two years. < Back Menton à Reims: Sciences Pistes Converge at Intercampus Model UN Conference By Angeliki Vytogianni December 31, 2021 It all started on a Thursday morning — at the crack of dawn to be exact — when around 40 Sciences Pistes walked across Menton to reach the bus that would take them to the first intercampus event in two years. In reality, preparations for the SPMUN conference had started back in August when MEDMUN Secretariat leaders members Celeste Abourjeili, Florian Heydecker and Basile Rochet collaborated with RIMUN executives to organize and give life to this initiative. It took months of work for this event to come together, but in the end, everyone agreed that not only was it worth the work, but that it was one of the highlights of the semester. The Mentonese spirit was alive even at 5 a.m. waiting for Michel the bus driver to pick us up. Even though some of us had to walk for almost half an hour to get to the pick-up spot, and we were about to experience a 14-hour bus ride across the country, the vibes were immaculate. The bus ride had long cig breaks, numerous snack stops, and top notch music. Several pauses later, we reached frosty, cold and foggy Reims. The regal town looked intimidating and captivating from the moment we stepped off the bus. The fog, the champagne, the fancy buildings, the cathedrals… walking through the city was a different experience — a lovely change of scenery after many months in our cozy Menton. Our hosts were lovely, having filled entire living rooms with blankets and mattresses for us. They even showed us around and took us for late night kebabs, as the Mentonese were hungry (the gas station pasta boxes proved to not be very filling). The next day, everyone was dressed fancy and chic: it was time for the opening ceremony. By far outnumbering the other campuses, and making much more noise than everyone else, the Mentonese were ready to start the conference. We applauded our secretary general and our chairs; we listened to interesting points by different guest speakers on the current climate crisis and COP26. Then it was time for the most important part of the conference: the club. The ride there was long and we were late, but nevertheless we all got drunk together and had a wonderful time, with good music and lovely people. Day two of the conference was equally interesting: with everyone going to their committees, the debates officially began. From meat industry shenanigans to fishing incidents, each committee was special. The Menton campus had a very strong presence in UNEP, ECOSOC, Security Council, the Brazilian Amazon Crisis, the American Meat Industry, and much more. The conference ended with a loud bang in the form of another 14-hour bus ride, from the north to the south of France this time. We were all extremely happy, satisfied by unforgettable memories of the royal town near Champagne. We made strong impressions in each committee’s debate, and left with the winners’ champagne bottles and congratulations wishes. We got to know brilliant people from all Sciences Po campuses and invited them to our own MEDMUN conference in Menton, which will take place in April. We look forward to these experiences so much and hope to make it the best time for all staffers and participants.

Organized by none other than our Bureau Des Étudiants President, 2A Samy Bennouna, the Sciences Piste fall break trip to Morocco was a highly anticipated interlude to the semester. Our five days in the country solidified the spirit of the Menton Ummah. < Back Menton au Maroc: Sciences Pistes Spend Fall Break With the BDE By Peyton Dashiell November 30, 2022 After a long journey involving a late-night bus to Milan, three-a.m. airplane floor naps and a red-eye flight across the Mediterranean, 55 Sciences Pistes (and three Chilean tourists who were also part of our tour group) emerged from Marrakesh Menara Airport on Monday morning exhausted but eager for the adventure ahead. Organized by none other than our Bureau Des Élèves President, 2A Samy Bennouna, the Sciences Piste fall break trip to Morocco was a highly anticipated interlude to the semester. After hours of airport chaos — customs, currency exchange and the quest to collect the Bureau Des Élèves speaker from baggage claim unscathed, we departed the airport for a serene morning at the Jardin Majorelle. We were met with a botanical labyrinth — an endless maze of intricately tiled paths, alleys of flowers and cerulean Art Deco Buildings enclosed by cacti. While we witnessed cats, turtles and fish, some credible Sciences Piste sources also sparked rumors of a rare Moroccan panda lurking in the shadows. Following an afternoon of touring the medina, we began to explore the souq and main square of Marrakesh, Jemaa el-Fna, on our own. There we faced an overwhelming collection of vendors and entertainers, including snake charmers and well-dressed monkeys on leashes. When Bennouna promised the group a fancy restaurant experience, none of us knew what to anticipate. Yet, the experience at Chez Ali surpassed all of our wildest dreams. After a dinner of soup, couscous and tagine, we were met with a production rivaling any parade, movie or dance ensemble seen before. Featuring camels, horse racing, horseback acrobatics, sheep and belly dancing, the spectacle ended with a flaming, building-sized “maa salama” sign bidding us farewell as we returned to our riads. Our desert escapade began the following morning. Fueled by a traditional Moroccan breakfast, we escaped the urban sprawl of Marrakesh on a bus ride through the winding hills of the Dades Gorges. After several stops at scenic viewpoints overlooking valleys, we reached another riad in the evening — a collection of hotel rooms overlooking a tiled indoor garden. After dinner, the first international Bureau Des Élèves party began, proving that the transcontinental journey of the bureau’s speaker was for a good cause after all. The following day, we continued through the desert to Merzouga, stopping at a shop for souvenirs and “djellabas” — brightly colored dresses with embroidered designs typically worn on special occasions. With varying levels of coercion and enthusiasm, every Sciences Piste eventually donned a djellaba and matching scarf for one of the many group photos captured on the trip. Afterward, the souvenir shopping began in earnest, and many people experienced their first foray into bargaining — heated exchanges ensued as students battled for the best scarf prices. Our bus ride continued through the afternoon, with most of the bunch dozing off after the hectic two days of travel. However, several enthusiastic Sciences Pistes made an effort to rouse their bus-mates with music and chants. Second-year student Lisé Thorsen harnessed her creativity to create a new Menton chant, which she zealously taught to all of her sleepy travel companions: Menton in the flesh Shisha sesh in Marrakesh Wesh wesh You’re so fresh Mesh mesh Comme une pêche On Wednesday afternoon, we reached the Sahara desert frontier, close to Algeria's border. The trek through the sand dunes to our campsite began on ATVs and concluded with camel rides. After multiple mishaps on the ATV — our vehicles quickly became engulfed in the steep dunes — I can say that the camel portion of our journey may have been the more suitable leg for our group of largely-licenseless-Europeans. Balancing on the backs of camels (technically dromedaries) with the desert sunset flooding the horizon, we arrived at our camp as the sky blended into purple. The dinner menu, a familiar and comforting selection of salad, tagine and pasta with an unexpected platter of eggplant parmesan, elicited shrieks of surprise and joy from the vegetarian table. We gathered in the dunes till the wee hours of the morning for the long-awaited desert party featuring music by DJ Spencer. After the late night, a motivated group arose from bed at 7 a.m. to watch the sunrise from the dunes. Although the wait was frigid, the dawn’s light was well worth the early alarms. The morning excursion proved to be a refreshing wake-up for the day that awaited us. After nearly nine hours on buses, we reached Marrakesh late in the evening, splitting up to embark on our own adventures across the city for our last night in Morocco. Our final day started with a drive to Casablanca, Morocco’s economic capital and largest city. After the Casablanca pitstop, we embarked on a bus ride along the seaside. We reached the Hassan II Mosque, which overlooks the Atlantic Ocean and boasts a laser pointed towards Mecca atop its minaret. We hastened to stretch our legs, snap some pictures and take in the miles of marble floor in front of us before returning to Casablanca to catch our flight back home. We hurriedly used up the last of our dirhams in Morocco's final hour, shuffled our bags to the airplane's weight limit, and began to reflect on the trip as we settled into our seats. More than just a fall break trip, our five days in Morocco solidified the spirit of the Menton Ummah.

Reciprocal sounds from a boisterously anticipatory audience scratch at my ear. “Walls work…” reverberates between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. I believe I’ve heard it somewhere before.  < Back An Age of Political Narcissism: What We Gain in Insight (but Lose in Principle) by Drawing Parallels between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump By Maia Zasler Reciprocal sounds from a boisterously anticipatory audience scratch at my ear. “Walls work…” reverberates between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. I believe I’ve heard it somewhere before. … Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former United States President Donald Trump seem to have cultivated a symbiotic relationship, one that has had poisonous consequences for their constituents and for the rest of the globe. Although the U.S. and Israel differ immensely in their histories and inceptions, their population sizes and geographic territory, and their production and trade capacities, the countries’ political trajectories in the last couple of decades have converged. The rise of Netanyahu and the rapid popularization of Trump’s political doctrine and animated persona generate legitimate concerns for the future of modern democracies, for the efficacy of present-day political parties, and for the capacity that geopolitical conflicts may still be addressed. These two politicians are almost mirrored images of one another, employing nearly identical rhetoric at times, supporting one another in a perverse game of political strategy fueled by gall and greed. Netanyahu gained traction in the Israeli parliament—the Knesset—in 1993, when he was appointed Leader of the Opposition, the Likud party. He is currently in his third term as Prime Minister. His cumulative 16 years of public service have, at this point in time, amounted to just 15 percent of Israelis supporting him retaining his position following the current war in Gaza, according to a recent poll by Reuters . Despite this career objectively piling up to be, in large part, a political failure , Trump—a former businessman who was elected the 45th President of the U.S. in 2016—remains committed to modeling Netanyahu’s behavior and capitalizing on the xenophobic, right-wing extremist politics Netanyahu helped trailblaze. They both exist in contradiction, spending much of their charismatic capital on convincing the public of their brilliance. They insist on being the sole saviors of their respective nations, playing on fears and stereotypes to justify discriminatory policies, whether it be blurring separation of powers or espousing expansionist narratives. The pair have been known to claim “fake news,” to violate traditional political norms, and to employ islamophobia in both their speeches and policy. Trump’s ban of nationals emigrating from several Muslim / Arab countries proves to be a salient example. Netanyahu and Trump have been champions of dividing their parties and governments. Last year, Netanyahu’s plan for a complete judicial overhaul disrupted and divided Israeli society for more than nine months. With support from religious and far-right party members, Netanyahu was able to impose significant curtails on Israel’s judges and courts, consolidating his own power and undermining a fundamental tenet of the liberal democratic system: separation of powers. Trump has left his own mark on the American judicial branch, appointing three of the nine Supreme Court justices currently serving. This proportion is staggering, particularly so for a president who did not win the American popular vote. In fact, in his time as president, he did not once receive above a 50 percent approval rating (reaching 49 percent, at its highest). This calls for concern as the ideological justices that Trump selected—who serve life terms interpreting the highest laws of the land—do not hold the confidence of the American public. As it relates to dividing his own party, one must first understand that Trump’s ascension in the political world was largely in part due to a particular voter base, one who was comforted by an “outsider,” a man who set himself apart from the corrupt Washington elites. Thus, “trumpism” differed from conservatism, and following Trump’s term as president, the Republican party was left to salvage the pieces scattered about in part due to this inherent difference, to scramble to figure out ways to gain seats in the House and the Senate, to maintain relevance in a country historically Republican voters would go on to condemn Trump’s ways. The GOP was—and still remains—lost, diverging focuses leading to the spouting of nonsense on social issues and, more dangerously, the instituting of bans on abortion, the targeting of transgender youth, and the banning of books. Both Netanyahu and Trump are facing ongoing corruption charges—colloquially dubbed “witch hunts,” thanks to Trump’s language precedent. Amidst the ongoing war in Gaza, Netanyahu’s corruption trial persists, adding a sour note to an already stale leadership streak. He has been accused of bribery, fraud, and breaching of trust—all charges that he continues to deny. Trump, on the other hand, faces a whopping 91 felony counts including but not limited to charges of fraud, defamation, sexual assault, and election subversion. The question as to which states will allow Trump’s name on the ballot, or if his theoretical election in November would even be valid, remains unanswered. However, it is clear that his popularity surges: despite a lack of participation in Republican primary debates, he stays far ahead in the polls. One may speculate that the similarities between Netanyahu and Trump remain coincidental, rather than correlated or contextual. Analyzing Netanyahu’s appeal to a growing religious population and settlement enthusiasts, or his strategy in dismissing slowly accumulating minor charges alleging bribery as an excuse to crack down on his country’s judiciary may not, at first glance, provide insight into American democracy post-Trump… not to mention the 2024 presidential election. Conversely, Trump’s unfiltered commentary and, for a time, uninhibited social media posting, or his refusal to participate in the Paris Agreement and general denial of the climate crisis may not evoke thoughts of the leader of a country halfway across the world. But, Netanyahu and Trump are inextricably linked. Beyond the relationship they forged and their shared rhetoric, the two fit into a larger pattern of populist leadership. The company they keep, from Vladimir Putin in Russia to Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, illustrates a growing, global web of cult of personality leadership. Upon a close analysis, it is clear that their political careers highlight the corrosion of 21st century democracies. Perhaps all that more importantly, though, there exists a glaring difference between Netanyahu and Trump. Trump’s trajectory is solidified. Netanyahu still has a shot at a semblance of redemption. The irony cannot be lost; Trump has, to this date, been a single-term president. Netanyahu has held office as Prime Minister for more than a decade. But, the fact remains. Trump’s political legacy is an embarrassing, shameful one. He desecrated the respect for one of the most powerful political positions in the Global North. He fueled divides between Americans, on racial lines yes, but also purely on political orientation. The “all-or-nothing” mentality is a central characteristic of populist leadership; one must fully rally behind this irrational, charismatic spokesperson and part-time policy maker… or else why bother? Netanyahu is less abrasive than Trump. For many years, his rhetoric was easier to swallow, more likely to convince opposition of his “rightness.” Much like Trump, his modus operandi has been to conduct business-as-usual, ignoring—or exacerbating—fundamental issues that threaten the fabric of society. For Trump, this was racial discrimination, climate change, and an increasing urban versus rural divide. For Netanyahu, climate change has indeed been a part of the issue, but, more pertinently, it has been the Israel-Palestine conflict. Following the massacre on October 7, the dismal situation could no longer be ignored. Israelis remain shocked and angry. Many are angry at Netanyahu for failing them, for prolonging the war in Gaza, and for failing to make significant militaristic advantages and freeing hostages. If Netanyahu alters his strategy, if he chooses his people and humanitarian action as opposed to desperately attempting to extend his political career, he can gain more control over his legacy. He has the chance to set a different precedent, to diverge from populist leaders past and present. Maybe then there will be hope for change, and opportunity for further push back, for criticism. Hatred is cultivated, not innate. We are complicit in inaction when we are paralyzed by fear, and we cannot allow populism to paralyze us. A future where Netanyahu stays in office, or where Trump is re-elected, is not a sustainable one. But, the critical reflection must not stop there. What matters most, now, is looking for avenues forward. Apologies for the past can only go so far in rectifying action, and serves as an impediment for re-building democracy and repairing public trust. We should not look at the similarities between Netanyahu and Trump or other populist leaders with despair, but rather with reassurance of understanding, with a drive to draw up a blueprint for better leadership.

Administration failed its student body when it refused to host the Feminist Union’s (FU) annual Integration Week Consent Talks — an event that aims to initiate conversations about consent and sex — on campus this year. < Back Not Your Cup of Tea: Sciences Po Fails its Students in Consent Education By Lara-Nour Walton September 29, 2021 Consent! It’s simple as tea. Do not force tea down someone’s throat. Do not give an unconscious person tea. And if a person declines a cup of tea, then under no circumstances should you give them tea. This almost ludicrously intuitive line of reasoning was a message of Sciences Po’s mandated gender-based and sexual violence (GBSV) training session . The ubiquitous tea video has been viewed over 150 million times across different viewing platforms and serves as the default teaching tool for exposing youth to the idea of consent. Using tea as an analogy for sex is palatable. The slogan, “consent, it’s simple as tea,” is straightforward. The video, just under three minutes, is pithy. And because of that, it is a complete and utter cop-out. The last thing we need in our discourse surrounding sex is to oversimplify the meaning of consent. Its prevailing definition almost always hinges on the “yes means yes” and “no means no” binary. It preaches, “just don’t assault people.” A French track 1A, who opted to remain anonymous, seems to have internalized this mode of thinking. “[We’re always told] that we have to respect consent, to not rape people. But I know that. I’m not a rapist.” Nicole Cushman, executive director of Answer , a national organization that provides sex education to the masses, posits that “an effective lesson on consent is not just about providing a legal definition and a script that young people need to follow.” This, however, was precisely what Sciences Po’s GBSV training did. Rather than acknowledging that unequal power dynamics, coercion, and substance abuse (according to a 2009 study published in the Journal of American College Health, 80% of university sexual assaults involve alcohol) can lead to a consensual gray area, we were offered the cute but cursory tea video. Sciences Po Menton had the opportunity to redeem itself, to provide the venue and time necessary for students to have a more in-depth conversation about consent. But administration failed its student body when it refused to host the Feminist Union’s (FU) annual Integration Week Consent Talks — an event that aims to initiate conversations about consent and sex — on campus this year. Co-president of the Feminist Union, Zélie Savinien, reached out to the school administration hoping to secure a place in the Integration Week schedule to hold the talks. “They told us that they had institutional priorities. They had seminars regarding the institutions at Sciences Po, and they didn’t have space nor time for us,” said Savinien, who eventually resorted to presenting Consent Talks in the living room of Soundproof, the campus party house. “We think that if it had taken place on campus, we’d have had many more people coming.” The value of having conversations about consent cannot be overstated, especially on a college campus where hookup culture runs rampant and where students may be experimenting with alcohol for the first time. The anonymous 1A did not feel the need to attend the Feminist Union presentation. “We already have (obligatory consent training) with Sciences Po; I don’t think it’s useful to do it many times.” However, these discussions give us the lexicon to express our personal boundaries to our partners. According to a University of Arkansas study focusing on heterosexual college students, 61% of men use body language to gauge whether a woman is consenting. Conversely, only 10% of women actually express consent through nonverbal cues. This definitional disparity can only be reconciled through dialogue and active engagement with the idea of consent. Despite not being able to host her talks on campus, Savinien was pleased with the turnout. However, she still wished that more students had shown up. “People thought they were educated enough on this issue, but I think everyone should have come.” Further investigation into why some people did not attend reveals a plethora of different experiences and opinions at Sciences Po Menton. Some decided not to go because they feared that the mention of sexual assault would be a triggering experience. “Consent Talks should have the infrastructure to be more inclusive to survivors,” said a 1A who chose not to participate. For others, a deterrent was the Feminist Union itself. “What I didn’t like is that it’s done by an association that is not neutral at all. The Feminist Union has an agenda,” said another student. These grievances help shed light on how we might better structure or frame the Consent Talks so that they do not become potentially triggering or polarizing. Under capitalism , we have been conditioned to commodify our bodies, to treat sex as something merely transactional. Perhaps if we shifted this paradigm, if we tried to understand sex as a shared experience, a conversation between two people, that consent might be an easier notion for us to grasp in all its complexity and nuance. Perhaps it would mean that we wouldn’t have to use tea analogies anymore.