August 9th, 2014. Famous businessman and TV personality Donald Trump tweets: “We need a President who isn't a laughing stock to the entire World. We need a truly great leader, a genius at strategy and winning. Respect!” September 25th, 2018. President Donald J. Trump speaks at the United Nations in New York, and the world openly laughs at him. The laughter came after the President said: “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” in the very beginning of his speech. He chuckled with his audience, and brushed it off saying: “Didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay,” before carrying on with the rest of his speech. The burst of laughter from the world leaders is a significant hint at the way the United States are perceived by said world leaders, and it is the point most media chose to focus on—and we will surely discuss it as well. First of all, let us take a look at what the President actually said, in his 25 minutes speech, in front of the United Nations. After the audience settled down, he carries on his celebration of the achievements of his administration: in his typically hyperbolic fashion, he says that the American economy is at an all time high, that unemployment is at an all time low. He mentions the growth of the military, as well as the construction of the border wall with Mexico. He then starts listing diplomatic achievements, such as the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, the departure from the Iran nuclear deal. He also mentions the newfound cooperation between the United States and several countries in the Middle East towards combatting terrorism, whilst deploring the horrors of the wars in the region and condemning ISIS, ensuring that the United States are involved in creating peace. He then heavily condemns Iran and its government, asking for the other countries to do the same. And it is then, when President starts talking about trade, that we truly get to the core of his message: America first, or rather, America only. “America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” he says. He accuses countries such a China of being unfair in their deals with America, of taking advantage of their economy. He accuses illegal immigration of funding criminal networks, and in turn, violence and poverty. He even goes as far as Germany for being dependent on Russia for their energy needs—and here, his intentions become even clearer: for everyone to stay at home. The less friction, the less chance for a fire, in other words—and of course, America first. This is only confirmed later, when he cites President Monroe, the man whose doctrine made the United States an isolationist country, cut off from the rest of the world, for almost a hundred years. In this speech, just over one month ahead of the midterm elections in November, President Trump is reaffirming his position; his listing of the many alleged achievements of his administration are not simply there to boost his ego, they are an attempt at convincing the world of the benefits of isolationism. Looking back, his speech does not stress on any demands or propositions, and is generally vague and unspecific, but that appears to be the intent of his administration: a statement of philosophy, rather than of immediate policy. Being unclear and ambiguous has always been a trademark of Donald Trump: a vague message can be interpreted differently by everyone, and, hopefully, reach more people. One can see many things in these two words, America first, from center-leaning republicans to ex-KkK leader David Duke. Donald Trump used to tweet this way, which got him elected. Now, he is applying the same strategy, though in a much more redacted, calm and thought through way, to the United Nations—and, by medium of the cameras present that day, to the world. Now, back to the laughter at the beginning. Speeches from every single one of the Presidents of the United States have, without failure, been interrupted by applause from the audience. To go from this, to open laughter and total absence of applause—save from the very end of the speech when President Trump left the stand—a shift happened in the perception of the United States, or at the very least, of its President. We are already seeing today the results of this change, as countries are now leaving the United States out of their discussions: in the final report of the meeting of the European Council earlier this year, the United States are mentioned only once. Meanwhile, other countries are now uniting to face an America now perceived as hostile and erratic: for the very first time, Russia and China are conducting joint military exercices, everywhere in the world. Wether countries choose to ignore or butt heads with the United States, their attitudes have drastically changed compared to the Obama administration, and almost always in a negative way towards the America government. Now, one can wonder if the international relationships of the United States will continue to deteriorate in the foreseeable future, past Donald Trump’s Presidency, or if the following President will attempt to erase the dramatic change of tone caused by President Trump. If this next President does indeed wish to reestablish America as the diplomatic center of the world, as well as repair its damaged relationships with major foreign powers, the question is then to see wether such a diplomatic feat is even possible. The laughter President Trump met at the United Nations was inconsequential, as he was able to read the rest of the speech without any more interruptions. This laughter will most likely not affect his policies, but it spawns a concern far much greater for Americans: the world was looking down on Donald Trump, yes, and they will continue. But for how long will they be laughing at America? Sources: Remarks by President Trump to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly | New York, NY, issued on September 25, 2018 European Council conclusions, issued on June 28, 2018 AuteurLéon X.
0 Commentaires
Last July, President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Judge Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Supreme Court. Although his place seemed to be secured, it is now endangered by accusations of sexual assault. Christine Blasey Ford, interviewed by the Washington Post, came to explain how Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her back in 1982, during a high school party. Though the federal judge keeps denying these allegations, everybody in the United States seems to have their own opinion on the subject. On 27 September, Christine Blasey Ford was heard by the Senate committee responsible for approving Kavanaugh’s nomination to decide whether or not her testimony is true. Alone in front of a group of men, she had to answer personal questions and detail her memories of the event. Now, as far as it appears terrifying, Christine Ford was not entirely alone. In fact, many people gathered in front of New York’s city hall and in several major places to deliver their support and protest against Kavanaugh’s nomination. It leads to a difficult situation. Not only does the Supreme Court need to decide on Kavanaugh’s fate, but they also have to deal with the people taking sides. We know for sure that social networks and media contribute to shaping people’s opinion. When I watched the hearing live on Youtube, I could see people commenting at the same time. Everyone was allowed to give their personal opinion, despite the legitimacy of their comments. Some celebrities, like Anne Hathaway, even chose to demonstrate their full support to Christine Blasey Ford on Instagram. Things have changed. 2018 is certainly a landmark year regarding women’s ability to speak out. If we have a look at a similar case, dating back from 1991, we can clearly see that mentalities have changed. In 1991, Anita Hill, alike Christine Balsey Ford, had to justify in front of the US Senate Judiciary committee her accusations of sexual harassment against Judge Clarence Thomas. However, in 1991 things did not follow the same pattern. Anita Hill was left on her own, answering degrading questions, asked by men determined to discredit her. Using her personal experience, she said in an interview for USA Today that she hoped things would improve. Her words were: “There is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to get better”. But, despite the impact of the #MeToo movement last year and the rise of female’s candidates can there really be an improvement when men are the one to detain the power to decide on the committee, nearly three decades after the Clarence Thomas’ case? Some studies have shown that although 1991 led to a rise of women running for national and federal offices, women still kept voting for men known for their inappropriate behaviors. Since the midterm elections are coming soon, we can assume that this case will have an impact on voters’ opinion. These elections are a great opportunity for a change since 2018 midterms are the witness of a rising number of women candidates. AuteurPauline Perrier-Drezen Blackkklansman – Racism is not a matter of the past There are movies whose only purpose is to make you laugh and leave the theatre with a long-lasting feeling of happiness, others whose whole point is to make you think and leaves you with constant questions and little answers, and then those which are going to make you cry even if you are fighting against it. Blackkklansman may tick all these categories for you. Spike Lee comes back this year –his last feature film being Chi-Raq in 2015- with arguably one of his best movies ever. The Festival de Cannes Grand Prize winner is not just telling a very well known story in the history of race and racism in the USA, it goes after very contemporary white supremacists. 1978, Ron Stallworth becomes the first African American police officer in the all-white Colorado Springs Police. Gradually climbing the ladder, he ends up answering a KKK ad in the newspaper and becomes one of their members by discussing with them over the phone. Even David Duke, the KKK Grand Wizard –their public figure, still active nowadays-is himself trapped into Stallworth act as a “typical” white supremacist. Meanwhile his White Jewish colleague Philippe “Flip” Zimmerman replaces him for on field missions. They end up infiltrating their domestic life in a very surreal way where bombs and crackers and beers are very suitable for a good meeting with friends. The constant duality of the movie is what makes it so interesting to watch. As, the events are set in the past, there are constant reminders that what we see is not that far away and sometimes not away at all. The footage of the Charlotteville’s March at the end of the movie is an all-too-real reminder that racism is not gone and not even fading and people are dying because of it. The tone of the movie is probably the most unforgettable part of it. It is brilliant how from one minute you are laughing at the awkwardness of Stallworth and then racism and prejudice hit you in the face in such a strong way it leaves you with a feeling of uneasiness. One can argue that the movie can be « in your face » at times, and well, let’s be honest here, racists and supremacists are probably not going to see this movie and definitely not in theatre, there is no need to be so repetitive in the attacks against them. However, one thing that cannot be argued is how the room is reacting to the movie. I saw it for myself, the people are laughing with and of the characters, they are caught up in the story, and you can hear people being utterly shocked by some of the racial slurs and actions. Some cried –mostly during the dreadful story of Jesse Washington’s lynching- and with no doubt everyone left the theatre in complete shock and silence after seeing the footage of the Charlottesville’s March and the car hitting people and killing Heather Heyer, completely breaking the usual bliss that viewers are in after the rather happy ending of the hero. Out on the 10th of August, a year after Charlottesvilles event, Lee went to asked Heather Heyer’s mother if he could dedicate his movie to her daughter and if he could share the footage of the attack. The shocking response given by President Trump was also part of the movie ending: “blame on both sides.” It is a symbolic date, and also only three months before the Midterms. Definitely not a coincidence as the comparison between David Duke and Donald Trump’s presidency is unambiguous as it is said rather bluntly in the movie “The United States would never elect somebody like David Duke,” says Ron and the room reacted quickly with a shared hollow laugh and whole heartedly agreed with his boss telling him how naïve he was. Lee said himself that he hopes to mobilize voters and coalition against Donald Trump and urge him to see his movie: “I want the guy in the White House to see it too. I don’t say his name though.” While not being the most subtle movie you may come across, Blackkklansman at least throws everything it could to make its point; capitalized Racism is not a long-lost memory. As, indeed, this movie depicts an idealistic black cop, but is it to be said about the actual US Police forces? One may ask oneself as, according to a Harvard study, black men aged 15-34 are 9 to 16 times more likely to be killed by police officers than any other races. AuteurMina Haki Voter suppression and other strategies to rig elections : gerrymandering Imagine this. You are Mr. or Ms. American and you are preparing yourself for the election. You have followed debates over the radio (pestering about a candidate or an other while stuck in traffic jam), the television (and quite frankly you are getting sick of their faces) and the social medias (‘there goes the facebook comments debate again’), but when comes the time to finally put that ballot paper in the ballot box, you find out that your polling site has been removed, and that the new one is more than 20 km away from where you live. Also that there are very little, or no public transportation to get there. For the lack of a car, (or time) the political party you support (or the one you would just rather be in power instead of the other choice) loses one vote. One vote, or more. In the US this is not a bizarre thing. Gerrymandering, as it is called, is a well-known voter suppression strategy. In order for a political party to tip the election in their favor, they will ‘reorganize’ the voting poll map, even suppressing some polling sites to cause discomfort for a certain population of the voters (voting can be a matter of several hours if many voting polls are suppressed), or just to “rearrange” majority groups. For example, Randolph’s county in Georgia is experiencing a very interesting case of terribly unfair gerrymandering. It is a rural, poor and where over 60% (of 7.000) of the population is Black and spread across almost 1.120 km². There currently are nine polling sites, however, and if the Republican party has it its way, seven of those sites will be closed. This, often surprisingly for a foreign audience, is a completely legal action. The Voting Right act, the Article 5 stated that it was forbidden for any state to change affecting voting without express permission from the US Attorney General or the US District court, and it was mandatory to prove to these authorities that this change would not discriminate in any way any minorities. This Article covered a long list of states but in 2013, because of the decision made by the Supreme court in Shelby County v. Holder, a great number of state and counties are no longer covered by Article 5, including : Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Alaska, and many counties in California, Florida, New York (both Bronx counties), North Carolina and South Dakota. A great majority of these states count a fairly large population of minorities. This will be the first election in five decades without the full protection of Article 5. With the article 5 weakened as it now is, other strategies preventing a fair and democratic vote are taking place, including massive ID-checks and other form of creative voter suppression. This article is the first in a thread to explain how and why such strategies take place during US elections, and how these midterm elections are even more involved in these reforms. AuteurSouad Takhtoukh Kavanaugh may be the name on every mouth in the US right now but life is still going on. Here is what you may have missed: Donald Trump strongly believes that China is interfering in this year’s Midterms. He suggests that China wants him to lose the election because of his capacity to compete with them on trade and claims that they are using Iowa newspapers to place propaganda ads. According to Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, his words are unjustified and against the beliefs of his country on the matter. Want to learn more ? Trump accuses China of meddling in midterms, citing Iowa newspaper ad California Governor, Jerry Brown, refused the opening of the country’s first supervised injection site in San Francisco. He rejected the legislation as he does not believe it to be an efficient way to stop drug abuse. According to the Mayor London Breed to recover from drug addiction such sites are fundamental and she regrets the unchanging situation for a city known for its drugs issues. Want to learn more ? California Governor Rejects Supervised Drug Injection Plan On January 8, Emily, a 14-years-old american citizen learned that her immigrants parents may soon be removed from the country. As President Trump has revoked the temporary protected status for El Salvador, a status granting immigration in case of situation such as an armed conflict, epidemic or natural disaster. The presidency put an end to it as they believe the dangerous situation to not be anymore. Want to learn more ? She learned that her Salvadoran parents might soon be kicked out of the country. And so, at 14, she began preparing for life without them. And more to come… AuteurMina Haki |