20 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/26/18 7:39pm)
Today, we find ourselves in a globally-connected world with equally global problems. While we may not realize it, certain events affect us all –indirectly or otherwise.
Two such events have occurred in the past few weeks: a decision in China and an election in Russia.
CHINA AND TERM LIMITS
In mid-March, Chinese President Xi Jinping successfully abolished the two-term limit from the country’s constitution, meaning he could theoretically rule for life.
Some worry this is a step toward autocracy, and a central concentration of power in the hands of Xi alone.
China’s government is broken into three branches: the Communist Party, the People’s Liberation Army and the Central People’s Government. It can essentially be broken into the party side and the state side. President Xi is the meeting point between the two, since he serves as the leader of the People’s Government and of the Communist Party.
This abolishing of term limits goes against the common consensus held by the two branches that a leader will willingly step down after two terms.
It centralizes power under Xi, meaning he is now in pretty much complete control.
John Kojiro Yasuda, Associate Professor in East Asian languages and culture at SGIS, said he agrees with those who see this as a big deal.
“We used to joke, for example, that Xi Jinping had become China’s ‘COE’ –China’s ‘Chief of Everything,’” Yasuda said. “And this is even more true now.”
He calls this move a fundamental shift of policy, which raises issues of divisions between factions and the problem of who would succeed Xi, especially if he does not succeed in his reform policy.
“[Xi] knows that it’s a life or death struggle at this point,” Yasuda said. “[It] is not that he’s a power-hungry sort of megalomaniac. He does see severe crises within the Chinese body politic that he feels need to be addressed by a strongman authoritarian.”
Yasuda sees it as Xi’s attempt to gather enough power to face the issues looming on the horizon –the chance of economic slippage, the possibility of a trade war with the U.S., the nuclear threat posed by North Korea.
Though international threats certainly are emerging, Xi seems to be focusing on domestic issues, like unemployment, the so-called ‘debt-bomb’ and rising labor unrest.
One of his main focuses was a massive reform of party and state officials, in order to avoid the same internal crumbling that brought down the Soviet Union. When he first took office in 2013, President Xi made a documentary about the collapse of the USSR required viewing for officials.
He’s continued this in the form of anti-corruption purges targeting “tigers and flies” in the government. In 2017, BBC reported some 1.34 million officials had been removed on charges of corruption, and it’s likely that number has only grown in the months since.
“When you see it in that light, you see it not as ‘corruption is endemic to the Chinese body politic, it’s always been a problem, I’m going to deal with it,’” Yasuda said. “It’s ‘no, corruption is going to completely destroy the peoples’ trust in the party state, it’s also going to destroy the organizational capacity of the party, and we cannot have this because I will not have China going the way of the Soviet Union.’”
But Xi has proven he’s also willing to step forward and take the place left by the U.S. to handle multilateral issues.
One of these international issues was mentioned earlier: the trade war with the U.S.
In the past few weeks, there’s been a ramping-up of tariffs from both China and the U.S. It’s caused severe fluctuations in the global markets, which shows global fear of an international trade war.
Xi is a nationalist, suspicious of Western presence in Asia.
“One thing he has shown is that he is not going to back down from western pressure, whether that’s emanating from Washington or Europe,” Yasuda said. “Xi Jinping will definitely want to show he can move tariff-for-tariff, but it’s a downward spiral.”
One of the first targets for Chinese tariffs was the soybean industry, which Yasuda says is because Xi knows this area makes up many of Trump’s voter base.
“If the U.S. backs down, China will back down,” he said. “They have a huge domestic economic reform program that they have to get underway. A trade war and instability at a global scale is the last thing that the Chinese government wants.”
Moving forward, it’s hard to say what will happen. Yasuda says we’ll probably have to wait three or four years before we can really get a sense of what’s to come.
“After Mao [Zedong] died, there was this general sense among the party leadership that the party couldn’t afford to have another person rise above the party in the way that Mao had,” Yasuda said.
Deng Xiaoping was hailed as the man who helped oust the remnants of Mao’s authoritarianism and establish Chinese party politics as we know it today. These are the norms that currently are being challenged, something Yasuda says should be concerning. It suggests Xi is willing to reform party power, which would be a major change.
“I would have to disagree with anybody who says this is an instance of Chinese politics as usual," Yasuda said. "This is not Chinese politics as usual.”
This change casts the government into a search for equilibrium and, again, though Xi has proclaimed a new sense of stability in the nation, it’s impossible to say exactly what will come next.
Jump north to Russia, and you'll see similarly looming shifts in government.
RUSSIA AND RE-ELECTION
On March 18, Putin won another term as Russia’s president. This will be his fourth term, but this election was somewhat different.
Russians are facing a wall of uncertainty –from rising tensions on the international front, especially in Syria, to domestic concerns about the economic infrastructure, no one is sure what will come next.
On one hand, there’s the simple fact of Putin’s age. He’s 68 years old now, and facing what some are saying will likely be his last term. When it ends, he’ll be 74; not the oldest currently serving world leader, but certainly near the top of the list.
Another issue is Russia’s shifting place on the global stage.
Regina Smyth, Associate Professor of Political Science, says this comes from Putin’s attempts to ‘make Russia great again.’
“Much of what Putin has done is smoke and mirrors,” Smyth said. “He makes himself look stronger by creating discord and chaos in other countries.”
A few years ago, he did it by annexing Crimea. Recently, it’s taken the form of the conflict in Syria, which Smyth said Putin has used to set off a sort of domino effect.
Military action there increased the refugee crisis, which caused problems for European powers like Germany and France, which resulted in an increase in right-wing, authoritarian waves that have been sweeping the continent.
And he’s not just flexing the muscle of the Russian state abroad.
“This election wasn’t about politics or policy,” Smyth said, of the 2018 election. “It wasn’t even about Putin. It was about power.”
After the last election cycle in 2011, there was a wave of protests across Russia. In response, the state cracked down.
It passed laws to control protests, restricted the voice of Putin’s opponents and made examples of protestors who spoke out against the government, even arresting social media activists for retweeting something seen as ‘an affront to society’ or to Putin.
“They arrest one guy…and you only have to do it five, six times, even in a giant country,” Smyth said. “The word gets around and people start changing their behavior.”
There were Russia-wide voter mobilization efforts, from competitions and prizes awarded for showing up to vote, to encouragement from teachers and landlords and employers that, according to some reports, bordered on coercion.
There were also widespread allegations of voter fraud and ballot-stuffing.
Smyth said she thinks there certainly was manipulation in this election, but that it’s important to remember Putin does have support in Russia.
“There’s a core of people who, if it was just a free and fair election, would show up and vote for Putin,” she said. “He has core support, he’s not unpopular.”
They might not necessarily agree with everything he does, but there is no one else who has risen to the forefront with better answers. This is because Putin and his government have been skillful in eliminating political enemies.
“Putin has been really brilliant in getting out of tricky spots,” Smyth said.
She brought up the example of the 2008 election, when Putin was bound by constitutional term limits –the President may serve only two consecutive terms. To solve this, Putin elevated his protégé to be elected as President and himself served as Prime Minister; in that way, he was able to sidle around the regulations, while still keeping a grip on the power.
Now he’s once again facing the problem of term limits.
“This is a critical juncture because of Putin’s age, because he’s not going to be there forever,” Smyth said. “They don’t have any mechanism to replace him as a leader.”
While cracks in the Russian elite show a struggle for power, no one has managed to rise above the rest. So no one is quite sure who would be able to succeed Putin.
“It feels really uncertain,” Smyth said. “Most people are arguing that it will only surely become more repressive in the short-term because Putin has to keep the elite fragmentation under control.”
That uncertainty extends to the economy, easily the biggest issue facing Putin in the short-term.
Russia’s economy is in desperate need of reform and modernization. The nation is still running on an oil- and gas-based economy, and is in need of Western technology and investment, Smyth said.
But Putin’s wish to restore Russia’s place as a global power goes against that –he has to balance the fact he needs Western help with a desire for Russian self-dependence.
“In that way, this is what’s different about the Cold War and now,” Smyth said. “Now domestic and foreign policy are so linked and publicly linked. So the cost of standing up to the West in Russia has been fairly high.”
For the sake of wish to leave Russia better off, Putin will have to compromise at some level.
On the domestic front, he’s facing some difficulty from the Russia people in the form of ‘non-political protest’ –this is social movement not aimed at unseating the government or changing the regime, rather asking for change in policy, said Smyth.
Putin allows these protests on environmental and local issues because he doesn’t see them as a threat to the state. But they are a way for demonstrators to gain skills and tactics that could be applied to a political protesters.
If this were to happen, it would be a major problem. Opponents like Alexei Navalny have managed to organize a base among the youth of Russia, which Smyth said raises an interesting point.
“We’re now dealing with a generation that never knew anything but Putin,” she said. “How does that change how they’re going to respond if he tries to stay too long? We don’t know.”
As for what’s to come on the global front, it’s just as unknown.
“Putin went into the international arena because of domestic concerns,” Smyth said. “Once you’re in the international arena, it takes on an unpredictable life of its own. And that’s where he is now.”
The possibility of a drawn-out war in Syria is looming. The face-off with the West, especially Trump and the U.S., continues. Protests continue daily in cities all across the nation.
All these factors will determine how Putin will spend the rest of his term, but it’s hard to say just what will happen and what will come next.
IN SUM: A BRIEF EDITORIAL
In writing this piece, I saw two clear themes emerge: uncertainty and control.
Of leaders flexing their power on both the foreign and domestic fronts, as a way to ensure their control.
This can really be broken into two fronts: on one side, U.S.-China relations and the possibility of a trade war; on the other, U.S.-Russia relations and the possibility of a conflict in/over Syria.
Since I started writing this, Trump tweeted a warning of strikes on Syria, then stepped back, then ordered them (which came as somewhat of a surprise), then declared them a success.
Also backed by Britain and France, the strikes were reportedly targeting “research, storage and military targets,” according to the New York Times.
Soon after, the U.S.’s Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced sanctions on Russia. The White House almost immediately denounced that announcement, saying sanctions weren’t, in fact, coming. Confusion has followed.
So why am I writing this now?
We’ve always clashed with China over economic policy, and always had tense military relations with Russia. What’s changed?
Importantly, Chinese President Xi Jinping is no longer bound by term limits. The leader of both the Communist Party and the People’s government, he’s got pretty much untethered power.
Russian President Vladimir Putin just won another re-election. There’s been a crackdown on protesting and an uptick in (alleged) coercion of voters.
Two major powers, both willing and able to jockey with the West for power. Both who’ve made it clear they won’t back down, and who plan to assert themselves on a world stage.
This is important, but the most important thing about it is uncertainty –we don’t know what will happen next.
Government officials don’t know. The experts I talked to don’t know (and freely admitted it). I certainly don’t know.
That’s the point I’m trying to make, and, forgive me for editorializing, but this is important. This uncertainty should tell us a lot about the communication –or lack thereof– between not just the U.S. and other nations, but between the leadership and citizens of those very nations.
In the eyes of many scholars and analysts, democracy and free elections are being threatened on a global scale. This threat is accompanied by a wave of nationalism, both domestic and abroad.
And while this may not seem like a problem on its face, remember nationalism is often accompanied by xenophobia and scapegoating of certain groups of people –something that we can already actively see happening.
So I’m cautioning you to look to the past while you look ahead. As you look to where we’re going, remember where we’ve been.
Most of all, stay informed.
(02/18/18 9:19pm)
A 15-day state of emergency has been declared in the Maldives after security forces entered the island nation’s highest court.
A tweet by the Maldives Judiciary on Feb. 5 reported the Maldives National Defense Forces stormed the Supreme Court in the capital city of Male. This comes after the court’s ruling last week to release nine political prisoners and return 12 legislators to power. Doing so would give majority power to the President’s opposition.
BREAKING NEWS:
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE FORCES OF THE MALDIVES HAVE BROKEN INTO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE MALDIVES.
— Maldives Judiciary (@judiciarymv) February 5, 2018
President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom declared a state of emergency Monday. Al Jazeera reported Tuesday that Yameen ordered the island nation’s security forces to arrest two Supreme Court justices – Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Judge Ali Hameed – and former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, his estranged half-brother.
Just hours later, three Supreme Court justices announced their annulment of the decision to release the political prisoners.
The state of emergency restricts some constitutional liberties and grants, like the right to assembly and protest, and grants certain policing powers to Yameen, according to an official release by the President’s office.
The declaration was amended late Tuesday to also “restrict or suspend” Article 48 of Maldives’ Constitution. The article allows any individual arrested the right to be informed of the reason for their arrest, to receive immediate legal counsel and to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of their arrest.
Former president Mohamed Nasheed has asked India for aid in enforcing the now-retracted Supreme Court order releasing the prisoners, reports BBC. Nasheed has also petitioned the U.S. to apply financial pressure on the leaders, and requesting that it “stop all financial transactions of Maldives regime leaders going through US banks,” according to a tweet from the former president’s official account.
On behalf of Maldivian people we humbly request:
1. India to send envoy, backed by its military, to release judges & pol. detainees inc. Prez. Gayoom. We request a physical presence.
2. The US to stop all financial transactions of Maldives regime leaders going through US banks.
— Mohamed Nasheed (@MohamedNasheed) February 6, 2018
Many world leaders have condemned President Yameen’s declared state of emergency. Heather Nauert, spokesperson for the State Department, said the U.S. was “troubled and disappointed” by the action, and called on Yameen to return order and constitutional liberty to the people of the Maldives.
A spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “seriously concerned” about the situation, and demanded President Yameen lift the state of emergency “as soon as possible.”
Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called the restrictions on constitutional liberties “an all-out assault on democracy.”
Journalists within the Maldives are facing difficulties reporting on the situation. Maldives Independent, an online news outlet, said it was targeted in a cyberattack meant to “coincide with the announcement” of the state of emergency. It moved to Twitter to live-tweet the event, and continues to liveblog on its website.
The state of emergency continues, and it is yet unclear if Yameen will stick to the 15-day limit, or lift the restrictions early.
Read President Yameen’s full statement, delivered Feb. 6, here.
(02/06/18 8:28pm)
[audio mp3="https://wiux.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Rea_Cape-Town-Water.mp3"][/audio]
South Africa's second-largest city is due to run out of water on April 12. According to city officials, Cape Town is dangerously close to running completely dry. As the so-called “Day Zero” looms, the available water supply is being rationed for the city's nearly 4 million citizens. International efforts to help have been organized through social media, to provide some relief to Capetonians. But no definitive solution has been found, and Day Zero is moving ever closer.
(12/13/17 3:28pm)
On December 6, President Trump announced his decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Eventually, steps will be taken to move the U.S. embassy there, from its current location in Tel Aviv.
Why is this so important?
For one, it reverses 20 years of American diplomatic policy. Since the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 was enacted by Congress, U.S. presidents have had a choice: recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. embassy there, or delay the decision.
This choice has come up every six months since its 1995 passage, and each president has signed a waiver pushing the decision back another six months, according to Time.
Until now, that is.
In a statement delivered this week, Trump said he was delivering on a promise made during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“I've judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” Trump said, in the statement. “This is a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement.”
He continued to say that recognizing Israel is a sovereign nation and has a right to choose its own capital is “a necessary condition for achieving peace.”
And this brings up the second major point of importance: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes back decades. At the center of this conflict is the city of Jerusalem, an important center in Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
The city was divided by an armistice border in 1949, which gives Israel control of the western half of the city (Here's a good explanation from CNN). The eastern half, called the ‘Old City,’ includes the incredibly sensitive religious sites and was officially put under Palestinian control.
Israeli forces occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem after the Six Day War and later annexed it in 1980. Palestine claims Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital.
After Trump’s announcement, the U.S. becomes the first country to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The decision sparked criticism from world leaders.
(12/04/17 9:49pm)
After a week of self-imposed exile, Zimbabwe’s former Vice President returns and is sworn in as interim President.
Emmerson Mnangagwa, 75, fled to South Africa when then-President Robert Mugabe, 93, replaced the Vice President with his wife, Grace Mugabe. What followed was a confusing but peaceful military coup to take control of Zimbabwe’s government.
Correspondents and world officials, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, labeled the event as a coup and called it a chance for civilian rule to return in the country; though the military refused to acknowledge that it was a military takeover.
Mugabe and other officials were placed under house arrest as a military official appeared on television to say they were “targeting criminals” surrounding Mugabe, reported the New York Times.
For several tense days, Mugabe resisted calls to resign which came from both his own party and the opposition. Protestors took to the streets to demand he bring an end to his 37-year rule, whether by resignation or impeachment, reported USA Today. Mugabe had been the leader of Zimbabwe since its 1980 declaration of independence from Britain.
Hopes were raised as Mugabe delivered an address November 19, but, Reuters reported, that the “rambling” speech merely acknowledged economic and other troubles in the country and concluded without the expected resignation. His own party, ZANU-PF, gave him the deadline of midday Monday to resign, at which time they would begin the process of impeachment.
Mugabe’s resignation didn’t come until Tuesday, November 21, and was met by celebration across Zimbabwe.
Mnangagwa was sworn in November 24, and delivered a speech in which he promised to rid the nation of poverty and attack corruption in the government. While he claimed his support for free and fair elections, Mnangagwa did not directly address the protection of the people’s rights.
The peaceful transfer of power came as a relief to those who had expected the worst as military tanks and soldiers appeared on the streets of the capital, Harare.
Though it seems a dawning of a new age of Zimbabwe’s re-entry into the world scene, many are still nervous that Mnangagwa –who earned the nickname ‘Crocodile’ for his role in Mugabe’s “ruthless” political actions and in the nation’s feared intelligence agency– will not be so different from his predecessor.
So far, though, he seems to be delivering on his promise of governmental reforms as, just a few days after his inauguration, Mnangagwa dissolved Mugabe’s cabinet and is in the process of appointing new ministers, according to AFP.
A main area of uncertainty is Zimbabwe's relationship with China, which has been accused of involvement in the coup. President Xi Jinping's administration has denied involvement; though many point out how Chinese business interests would benefit from Mnangagwa's leadership, reports CNBC.
The new president has made clear his intent to improve Zimbabwe's economy, and is expected to strengthen the ties between the two countries.
(11/11/17 1:40am)
The Lebanese Prime Minister attempted to resign this past weekend, and is now allegedly under house arrest.
On Saturday, PM Saad al-Hariri made a televised announcement of his abrupt resignation, citing fears of an assassination plot as the reason. His father, former PM Rafik Hariri, was assassinated in 2005.
In his announcement, Hariri mentioned the threat posed by Hezbollah, a powerful Shi’a religious group and political party with some Iranian financial backing in Lebanon. Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel’s invasion of the country in 1982, and was at least in part responsible for Israel’s withdraw.
He went on to assert “Iran has a strong desire to destroy the Arab world,” and cautioned that “Iran’s hands in the region will be cut off.”
Hariri made the announcement from Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, rather than from Lebanon. Many are pointing to this as an indication of the Saudi connection to his resignation.
A pro-Hezbollah news source has since reported Hariri is being held under house arrest in Saudi Arabia, though Hariri’s aides have denied the reports and say the former Prime Minister has flown to the UAE.
The President of Lebanon, Michel Aoun, is required to accept the resignation in order for it to become official, and Aoun has so far refused to accept Hariri’s announcement. If he does accept it, the Parliament would appoint a new Prime Minister, though many of the qualified candidates have shown no interest in the position.
Tensions are high in Lebanon as citizens are unsure what will come next.
As of Friday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has said that Saudi Arabia has declared war on Lebanon and Hezbollah, and continues his claim that Hariri is being held in Riyadh.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have both denied involvement in Hariri’s resignation.
(11/03/17 5:46pm)
This week, a federal judge took steps to block President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked implementation on the grounds that it was likely the transgender service members who had sued the Trump administration over the ban would win their suit.
The ban, which was publicly announced over Twitter in July 2017, cited “tremendous medical costs and disruption” caused by transgender individuals serving in the military, This claim was met with backlash from the LGBTQ+ community.
Trump signed an executive memo that reaffirmed the decision in August. It directed the departments of Defense and Homeland Security to implement the ban in direct response to the departments’ June 2016 decision to lift the general ban on transgender individuals serving in the army.
One of the main issues raised was the financial cost raised by Trans soldiers – multiple studies have disagreed on the exact number of transgender individuals serving in the military, but have all agreed that their medical care constitutes just a fraction of the military’s overall budget.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued an order which required both parties to file detailed reports on how they planned to proceed by November 10, and ordered a return to the policy as it stood before Trump’s reversal.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision.
(10/31/17 5:07pm)
PM Theresa May has made some decidedly big promises for the future of the UK post-Brexit. Even though the ruling was declared final after the 2016 referendum, there were and are still many details that need to be hammered out before the UK will be able to leave the European Union. Here’s a breakdown of what’s what.
The Promise:
The UK will be out of the EU by March 2019.
The Issues:
Citizen Rights
There are still about 3.6 million EU nationals living in the UK, and an estimated 1.2 million UK citizens living in EU nations. The most pressing question after the Brexit decision concerned the preservation of their rights –after ties are severed, will EU nationals be allowed to remain in the UK, and vice versa? Will they be able to continue working?
So far the answer has been a lot of assurances that rights would be preserved, but very little description of what steps will actually be taken to do so. And this question keeps coming up, time and time again. The most recent development came this week, as a suggestion to force EU nationals to register with the Home Office was nixed. Critics from multiple parties called the plans illegal and would not be approved by the European parliament.
Another aspect of this issue lies in Scotland –the nation very nearly achieved independence in its 2014 referendum, and voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Now Scotland is fighting to be allowed to remain in the EU, and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said she’ll hold a vote in late 2018 to the country’s parliament to determine if there will be another independence referendum. More issues can be found in Northern Ireland, which also largely voted Remain, where the issue of the long-contested border with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member, is being raised.
As of right now, no definitive progress has been made on arguably the most contested issue of the Brexit debate.
Future Trade Deals
May met with EU officials in Brussels last week to discuss trade relations, among other topics. Everyone agreed in regards to the need for speed and clarity in the talks, but that seems to be where the agreement ended. The discussion on just how the split will go down continued to be just as deadlocked as they were before the meeting; one of the main points of contention concerns financial obligations the UK previously made – estimated at anywhere from 60 billion to 100 billion euros. The UK has refused to pay this amount, and suggested other sums which the EU has rejected.
Though May seems optimistic, EU officials are saying much more needs to be done before divorce talks will be able to continue. There was even a report in a German newspaper saying May was desperate and ‘begging’ for help from EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, though both Juncker and May have denied this.
Most recently, UK officials seem to be calling for a deal similar to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the deal recently struck between Canada and the EU. It entails simpler importing and exporting with slashed tariffs, as well as making it easier for European firms to sell services in the country, according to a CETA factsheet. That deal, though, took seven years of negotiation and was very nearly derailed at the last minute by an unexpected veto. Still, it fits most with what the UK wants – trade relations without the EU Customs Union’s control (though this last part is under debate, as remaining in the Customs Union would allow for free trade within the EU, but not allow negotiations of deals with those nations that aren’t also members).
Specific guidelines on future economic relations are expected by December.
Economic Fears
The continued conflict over trade deals leads to the next major issue: fears for the UK’s domestic economy. Specifically, how its national economy will fare once it leaves the EU’s Single Market. The single market sees the EU as a single state without borders, meaning goods, services and people can travel freely within it. If the UK leaves that, it’s hard to say how difficult relations could become.
And, according to many of the speeches May has made laying out the Brexit basics, the UK plans to leave the single market.
As mentioned in the previous section, no definitive deals have been struck about trade relations between the UK and the EU, meaning it’s not yet clear just how the economy will be affected. It’s not just a matter of migration, as many EU citizens have already left the UK in the wake of the Brexit decision – it’s a question of laborers, of university students, of highly-skilled directors and staff.
Directly after the decision, there were widespread fears of economic reprisal, fears which were largely assuaged as the economy has stayed stable in the months since. The pound fell dramatically following the vote, though, and currently £1 is equivalent to about $1.33. For the most part, projections show the economy will stay steady, but is likely to fluctuate as difficult negotiations continue.
The Backlash:
Both the Labour and Conservative parties were against Brexit in the beginning, but changed their position after the referendum to support the decision of the British people. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly expressed disdain at what he sees as the Prime Minister’s inability to produce details of the divorce process, and the party shifted in August of this year to support a ‘softer’ Brexit, which draws out the transition period and attempts to ease the shift out of the European market. The Conservative party, led by PM May, released a party manifesto planning a ‘hard’ Brexit; that is, the UK will completely leave the European Single Market and the Customs Union, take steps to reduce immigration (including migration of EU nationals) and fully allow the possibility of global trade deals.
For the most part, the British people are sticking firm to the decision they made in last year’s vote. Opinion polls show both those who voted Remain and those who voted Leave agree the process is proceeding with difficulty, and most seem not to be too hopeful about the future facing the UK on the other side. At 62%, a majority of Leave voters stick with the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ philosophy advocated by the Prime Minister, saying Britain should leave the EU in March as planned, with or without a deal.
The Future:
Just after the Brexit decision, there was a notable spike in hate crime directed at EU citizens. A year on, emigration rose to a record high as immigration fell to a record low, driving net migration to – you guessed it – a record in itself: the lowest net migration since 2014.
So what’s next?
On the trade front, we won’t know until the promised plans are proposed in December.
As for the general outlook, May’s Sept. 22 speech in Florence, Italy, seemed to encompass the spirit of Brexit: a continuation of previous positions with a call for a two-year transition period, and a hearty promise to preserve and promote British values. The promised ‘no deal better than bad deal’ rhetoric made an appearance yet again.
But there was a change regarding just how hard ‘hard’ Brexit would be – now May’s stance seems to be that the UK would remain in the EU's Single Market and Customs Union during the transition. This shift to mirror Labour’s position was met with ridicule from critics, and hesitance from allies expecting a definitive split.
And that seems to be the recurring theme of both May’s Brexit speeches and the negotiation efforts in general. Strong language and buzzwords like ‘implementation’ and ‘partnership’ flying in the face of the lack of detailed plans on just how the divorce is going to go through. There is a definite feeling of uncertainty among both the British populace and its politicians, one that doesn’t seem like it will be resolved anytime soon.
(10/19/17 6:21pm)
Two Dead Stars Collide
In August, the collision of two dead stars was observed. Two neutron stars in a distant galaxy –NGC 4993, some 130 million light-years from us– spun around each other, drawing closer and closer until they finally met in a violent explosion. A ‘nova’ is the abrupt increase in a star’s brightness; this collision was so bright, it’s being called a kilonova, 1,000 times more powerful than a nova. The distance of this galaxy from us means we’re just now witnessing an event that happened back when dinosaurs walked the Earth; so why should we care?
This is coming off of a Pulitzer Prize win by three American astrophysicists for work on gravitational waves. Gravitational waves, first proposed by Albert Einstein a hundred years ago in his theory of general relativity, are disturbances caused in the fabric of space-time, allowing us to ‘witness’ distant events and get a better understanding of objects in faraway galaxies, like black holes and neutron stars.
The collision was observed by LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, and scientists all over the world are excited with the results.
Neutron stars are formed when intense pressure crushes together protons and electrons to form neutrons; this explosion got rid of that pressure, and threw the newly-separated protons and electrons into space to form various chemical elements. Now the Hubble Telescope is looking into just what kind of elements are formed, and scientists are proposing that some of the elements we use here on Earth –like gold and plutonium– come from collisions of neutron stars. Further study may prove them right, and turn up answers on just how these heavy elements made it to Earth.
The Out-of-Control Chinese Space Station
China’s space laboratory, Tiangong 1, is about to make an abrupt return to Earth. The 8-and-a-half ton station was launched in September 2011, and China reported in September 2016 that they had lost control of the station. Recent predictions say the station will land anytime between October 2017 and April 2018. The problem is, they don’t know where.
China is monitoring the station’s progress through the atmosphere, and assured the United Nations that it wasn’t likely to do any serious damage. But is definitely still is worth keeping an eye on the sky –even though most of it will burn up on reentry, there will certainly still be debris that could cause some problems.
ISS, this is the Pope Calling
Pope Francis will make a call to the International Space Station on October 26. He’s garnered praise from the scientific community for speaking out about the dangers of climate change, and for encouraging solutions to world problems through the Pontifical Academy of Science. The six-member crew of the ISS will receive the satellite call at 3 p.m. (GMT), but this isn’t the first time papal hailing frequencies have been opened –Pope Benedict XVI made the Vatican’s first call to space in 2011.
(10/11/17 8:10pm)
Since 1901, Nobel Prizes have been awarded nearly every year in the categories of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economic Studies. The decisions, announced in Stockholm, Sweden (except for the Peace Prize, which is announced from Oslo, Norway), are always eagerly awaited by the international community. Though the ceremony is not held until December 10, the selections for this year’s prizes were announced this past week.
Physics
Who: This year’s prize was jointly awarded to three American physicists – Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne.
Why: For work on the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) and further work on the observation of gravitational waves, which were originally predicted by Albert Einstein.
So What?: Gravitational waves let us learn more about the universe around us, giving us a way to examine black holes and other anomalies.
Chemistry
Who: This year’s prize was jointly awarded to three biophysicists – Jacques Dubochet of Switzerland, Joachim Frank, a German-born U.S. citizen, and Richard Henderson of Scotland.
Why: For the creation of cryo-electron microscopy, a method that enables the viewing of proteins and other atomic-level structures of molecules.
So What?: It gives a clearer picture of cell structures and the proteins within; higher-resolution images allow for better identification.
Physiology or Medicine
Who: This year’s prize was jointly awarded to three American scientists – Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young.
Why: For their work in isolating the genetic reasoning behind the circadian rhythm, or the so-called ‘biological clock.’
So What?: All of our bodily processes rely on rhythms, and learning more about them can help us better deal with disruptions, such as the disorientation that comes with jet lag.
Literature
Who: This year's prize was awarded to Kazuo Ishiguro, a Japanese-born British citizen.
Why: For novels that reveal “our illusory sense of connection with the world,” according to the official press release.
So What?: His work, which spans different genres and settings, is full of subtext that addresses different human experiences, like the fragility of memory.
Peace
Who: This year's prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
Why: For its efforts to share the dangerous nature of nuclear weapons and its attempts to “achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons", according to the official press release.
So What?: In an environment of rising tensions between nuclear-capable nations, the fact that a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an anti-nuclear organization is a powerful statement about the danger posed by such weapons.
Economic Sciences
Who: This year's prize was awarded to Richard H. Thaler of the United States.
Why: For his study on the behavior that affects economic decisions.
So What?: Thaler is known for his work in the humanity of economics and the reminder that models and decisions must take human nature into account.
(10/04/17 8:42pm)
Over the weekend, a region in northeast Spain voted to become independent. Even so, it’s entirely possible that won’t happen.
Catalan officials announced a staggering 90 percent of those who had voted had said ‘yea’ to the question of independence, according to the New York Times. (To put that in perspective, about half of Catalonia’s registered voter population participated in the Sunday referendum.) The question of independence isn’t new –the region has been at odds with the central government of Spain, based in the nation’s capital, Madrid, for centuries.
Catalonia was made part of Spain with the marriage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in 1469 and has been one of the most autonomous of the regions ever since, with its own strong social and cultural identity. The War of Spanish Succession only served to cement the relationship; the city of Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia, allied itself with Austria’s Archduke Charles against Spain’s Philip V. After a brutal, fourteen-month-long siege, the city surrendered to Philip in 1714, and was made a part of Spain, the beginning of the nation’s system of centralized government.
One of the first major pushes for independence came in the nineteenth century, along with an attempt to preserve the region’s dialect, Catalan. The largest push for the region’s autonomy came after the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, who was known for his nationwide attempts to quell regional dialects and cultures in favor of a centralized Spanish identity and language. The bitterness caused by Franco’s efforts remain still today, all across Spain, but especially in regions such as Catalonia.
Recently, the Catalan independence movement once again rose to prominence, led by Carles Puigdemont, a former journalist-turned-politician. But why now?
The October 1 referendum certainly wasn’t the first of its kind, even just in the past few years. There was an attempt in 2014, which was declared unconstitutional, just as Sunday’s was, and held more of a symbolic role in gauging the stance of the public.
An opinion poll in March 2017 showed uncertain results, as more people seemed in favor of remaining a part of Spain; though in the past few months, the movement had started to gain favor.
It followed the international trend of nationalism –like the imagery used in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum; the ‘America First’ rhetoric that got President Trump elected; the ‘Leave’ vote that triggered Brexit; and, most recently, the alt-right movements that gave President Macron of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany a run for their money in this year’s elections.
The central government in Madrid attempted to stop the vote, first by declaring it unconstitutional, then by sending police to physically stop Catalans from voting. There were reports of police blocked polling stations, using riot gear and in some cases rubber bullets in an attempt to stop the referendum from proceeding.
The most commonly cited reason is an economic one: Catalonia is an influential region in Spain for many reasons, including the draw of cities like Barcelona to tourists. In fact, Catalonia makes up an estimated 20 percent of Spain’s economy, and produces a fourth of the country’s exports, according to CNN reports.
In addition to these hefty economic costs, the split –which some are dubbing ‘Catalexit’– would lead to uncertainty within Spain on a small scale, and the EU at large. It’s not clear if Catalonia would be given a seat on the European Central Bank, despite the fact they’ll likely still be using the euro. Madrid also worries that Catalonia won’t step up to handle their part of the national debt, and will continue to fight against the central Spanish government, leading to further conflicts and little progress.
The international reaction has been less than enthusiastic. Few leaders have made a statement either in favor or in opposition to Catalan; the ones who did respond focused on condemning the violence that has continued in the days since the vote. Though, the European Commission, an executive branch of the EU, made a brief statement Monday siding with Madrid in saying the vote violated Spanish law.
On Tuesday, Spain’s King Felipe VI appeared in a televised statement to voice his disapproval at the vote, and reassert that it was unconstitutional.
“With their decisions, they have systematically undermined the rules approved legally and legitimately, showing an unacceptable disloyalty towards the powers of the state –a state that represents Catalan interests,” he said.
So what now? In just the past few days, protests have continued across the region, with thousands blocking streets in Barcelona. Madrid seems to be sticking to their guns that the vote was illegal and that the result is not valid; it’s likely they won’t recognize the Catalonian state, which Puigdemont says will attempt at full independence in the next week or so.
So far, more than 700 people have been injured in the protests. And that number is rising every day.
Why should Americans care? It’s understandable that most Americans wouldn’t be bothered to think about a region in Spain fighting for its independence; most probably couldn’t point to Catalonia on a map. But Spain and the U.S. have had close economic and diplomatic ties for several decades, and history has shown that any problem of an ally is a problem of ours, whether it affects us directly or not.
Not to mention the fact that independence movements are infectious. One needs only to look at the recent past: at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, many analysts immediately looked to Catalonia to see how the region would react to the outcome.
In a time of nationalist movements and political turmoil across the world, the need to understand motivations behind such independence movements is more important than ever. People don’t act without reason; they don’t make such powerful demands without a deep-seated feeling that they have been wronged.
If leaders create a dialogue about these feelings and address them as a unified nation, it may just be possible to create solutions –solutions that don’t involve blood being spilled.
(09/27/17 4:48pm)
This past Sunday, Angela Merkel won her fourth term as Chancellor of Germany, though the celebrations felt a little hollow.
While Merkel was victorious over rival Martin Schulz, of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) failed to win a majority of seats in Germany’s Bundestag, the national parliament.
The CDU won 246 of a total 709 seats, and 33 percent of the total vote, according to Bloomberg reports.
Schulz’s SPD came in at a close second, with 20 percent of the vote and 153 seats. This may prove to be a problem for Merkel, as she will now have to work with the rival party to pass anything through the legislative body.
In addition to domestic matters, Germany will be one of the main players in the ongoing removal of Britain from the European Union. Evidenced by British PM Theresa May’s speech this past weekend in Florence, Italy, Brexit is proving to be a hard sell with Brits who fear the ramifications of leaving the European Single Market, among other uncertainties. As one of the major economic powers in the EU, Germany will certainly feel the loss of British trade and free travel.
Brexit is just one of the many international issues facing the administration, adding to the pressure already present from the rising threat of North Korea’s nuclear program, and President Trump’s oft-controversial ‘America First’ platform, which has alienated many of the U.S.’s allies.
The most telling outcome of the German election, though, is the rise of nationalist feelings within the country.
Far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) came in at a solid third, with 12.6 percent of the national vote and winning 94 seats. This percent is up from the 4.7 percent they had won in the 2013 election, showing a definite rise in popularity. AfD stands largely on a platform of anti-immigration, and criticizes Merkel for her ‘open door’ policy of 2015, which she championed with then-French President François Hollande. Merkel still stands behind her policy, as reported by CNN.
Though the CDU is billed as a conservative-leaning party, it is centrist in many respects, and has adapted the immigration policy in the past few years, after Germany’s borders were overwhelmed by migrants seeking asylum. The majority of the party is open to allowing skilled laborers entrance, while opponents are much more in favor of cutting off the flow of immigrants entirely.
This is just the newest case of the far-right, nationalist movement sweeping across Europe, one that has made its presence known in recent elections.
In Merkel’s post-election press conference, she seemed determined to look toward the future and address what caused a portion of voters to switch parties.
“We have of course analyzed, to the extent that one can, the migration of voters to other parties,” Merkel said, announcing that further investigation was to come.
But, ultimately, she was confident in the ability of her party to unite Germany and in the CDU’s willingness to work with other parties to strengthen the nation.
“We are certainly the strongest party. We have emerged from the election the strongest.”
(09/21/17 4:37pm)
The trademark ‘Oh, my’ was met with thunderous applause as its speaker stepped onto the stage, hands raised high and fingers spread in the Vulcan salute.
Actor and activist George Takei spoke September 19 at the IU Auditorium as part of the 2017 Themester. The talk, in a series along the theme of Diversity, Difference and Otherness, was co-sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences, Union Board, the Media School, the Arts and Humanities Council, and the Office of the Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Multicultural Affairs.
Takei began with his childhood, describing how he, aged five years old, and his family were forced into an internment camp with other Japanese-American families. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, E.O. 9066 was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, authorizing the imprisonment of citizens with Japanese heritage in ten camps across the nation. The citizens were labeled as alien enemies of the state.
“We were Americans, and yet hysteria and racism took over,” Takei said. “It was crazy – we weren’t aliens, and we weren’t the enemy.”
As a child, Takei said he did not fully understand what was happening, nor did he acknowledge the irony of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance – especially the line ‘with liberty and justice for all’ – in full view of a sentry tower and the barbed wire fence right outside the internment camp’s makeshift classroom.
A turning point came when the U.S. government realized the need for more soldiers to fight overseas, and, as a solution, presented the families imprisoned in the camps with a loyalty questionnaire. Takei related the survey’s most degrading question, number 28:
“Will you swear your loyalty to the United States of America, and foreswear your loyalty to the emperor of Japan?”
A ‘yes’ would mean there was loyalty to the emperor to be sworn, Takei explained, but a 'no' that there was no preexisting loyalty would apply to the first part of the question, as well.
“It was a no-win question,” Takei said.
Those who “bit the bullet” and answered 'yes' were allowed entry into the U.S. military, and served in a segregated unit, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, with the motto ‘Go for broke.’ These soldiers were fighting not just for American ideals overseas, but for freedom and respect on the home front, Takei said. After several successful missions, they returned home as the single most decorated unit of its kind throughout America’s history of warfare, and were greeted by President Harry S. Truman as heroes on the lawn of the White House.
“The war ended and, as suddenly as they rounded us up, the gates were opened,” Takei said.
The families had lost all their property and savings when they were interned, and were given $25 and a one-way ticket to a destination of their choice upon release. They had to rebuild their lives from there.
Takei spoke of how his own experience in his teenage years, seeking to understand the why behind the internment, led to more questions than answers as he found the same ideals repeated in history and civics books: liberty and justice for all.
“I couldn’t reconcile that with what I knew to be the reality of my childhood,” Takei said.
He said his father taught him what he knew about American democracy, that just believing in the ideals is not enough: one must be active.
“People make mistakes,” Takei said. “Democracy is dependent on people who cherish those ideals…and actively engage in that process to make that democracy work.”
Years of passionate social activism led to a breakthrough in 1988, when President Ronald Reagan issued an official apology on behalf of the U.S. Government to those Japanese-Americans who had been interned decades before.
“Democracy moves slowly,” Takei said. “But if we are actively involved, actively push…it bears fruit.”
He continued that, though the success renewed the faith of many in the efficacy of activism, there was still one area in which he felt he could not participate.
Since the age of ten, “I felt different in more ways than just my Japanese face,” Takei said.
But he had a promising career as an actor ahead of him, and, though he found comfort and relaxation in gay bars, he still felt the constant fear of being outed.
“If you wanted to be an actor, you couldn’t be known as a gay person,” Takei said. “I felt a constant, needle-prick anxiety.”
Then in the early 2000s, things began to change. In 2003, Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage and became the first state to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Things were looking up, Takei said, especially as California, his home state, introduced a marriage equality act that passed through the legislature – only to be vetoed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Takei and his then-partner, now-husband Brad Altman, decided it was time for Takei to publicly voice his support for the LGBTQ+ movement, and his outrage at Schwarzenegger’s veto.
“We decided, ‘I’ve had an alright career,’” Takei said. “I’m gonna come out.”
A major victory for civil rights came in 2015 with the Supreme Court’s decision that all states must recognize same-sex marriage. Takei describes the joy he felt at hearing that decision, and his pride in “our America.”
“It was founded on shining ideals by great men,” he said. “But great men are also human beings, and human beings are fallible.”
Despite the pain caused in the past and the struggle that still faces the quest for equality, Takei assured the audience, “We are moving forward.”
He ended with a Q&A session, taking questions from Twitter that audience members were encouraged to send in during the show with the hashtag #TakeiTonight.
“We are living in interesting times, and I thank you for an interesting evening,” Takei concluded.
(04/01/17 6:44pm)
Earlier this week, the U.S. government announced that questions about sexual orientation and gender identity will not be included on the 2020 U.S. Census or the American Community Survey.
As required by Title 13 of the U.S. Code, the Census Bureau submitted a summary of the census to Congress on March 28. Called “Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey,” the 77-page document outlined what questions will be asked.
“Additional information beyond the population count has been collected with each census in response to the challenges facing the nation and a national desire to understand ourselves,” read the text, available on census.gov.
It described the regular content reviews, which are done “to ensure that all of the information collected through the decennial census program is required by federal programs.”
Sexual orientation and gender identity were not included as proposed questions.
Efforts to add such questions to the Census and the ACS have long been ongoing.
They came to a head last April as about 70 legislators, led by Rep. Paul Grijalva (D-Ariz), proposed H.R. 5373, the LGBT Data Inclusion Act. It was suggested “to improve Federal population surveys by requiring the collection of voluntary, self-disclosed information on sexual orientation and gender identity in certain surveys, and for other purposes.” The text of the bill, which can be found on congress.gov, suggested the voluntarily gathered data would be used to get a better idea of how many LGBT-identifying people live in the U.S. and how they could best be helped by legislators.
Attention to the efforts was drawn by transgender rights activist Laverne Cox, who emphasized the importance of collecting data as a way to better understand the needs of the LGBT community.
“LGBT people exist, we are a vital part of the fabric of this country and we just want to be counted,” Cox said, in a press conference held in tandem with House Democrats on June 9, 2016.
The bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in May 2016.
The issue was taken on by several federal agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, which attempted to find a better way to collect such data, according to Time. Many were hoping this would also be taken into account for the upcoming census.
Similarly, this past week questions of sexual orientation were removed from surveys sent out from the Department of Health and Human Services.
For some, this was cause for concern.
President and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Sarah Ellis, released a statement attacking the Trump administration for the alleged repeated blows to LGBT rights in the U.S.
“The Trump Administration is trying hard to erase the LGBTQ community from the fabric of America, but visibility has always been one of the LGBTQ community’s greatest strengths,” Ellis said.
Coordinator of Indiana University’s LGBTQ+ Culture Center, Doug Bauder, expressed similar concerns.
“It’s just a dismissal of a portion of the population,” Bauder said. “I think it’s a sign of ignorance.”
Advances toward equality for minorities and undermined populations are a way of saying they are there, he said. Whether programming or policies concerning the safety and security of minorities, such steps are vital.
“Interest and awareness are important,” he said. “[This] is a step backward. It’s another example of the dumbing of America.”
The Census Bureau has not released a statement addressing the outcry.
(03/26/17 12:06am)
As PM Theresa May delivered her statement on the Westminster attack Wednesday night, it was clear she had chosen her words carefully.
“The United Kingdom’s threat level has been set at severe for some time, and this will not change,” May said in the statement. “Our thoughts and prayers go out to all who have been affected – to the victims themselves, and their family and friends who waved their loved ones off but will not now be welcoming them home.”
Four were killed – a police officer, Police Constable Keith Palmer, 48; an American tourist, Kurt Cochran, 54; a British teacher, Aysha Frade, 43; and Londoner Leslie Rhodes, 75.
At least 50 people are being treated for their injuries. They hail from nearly a dozen countries, including Romania, France, South Korea, Germany, Poland, Ireland, China and Greece.
Here’s the information as we know it, 24 hours later:
The attack began around 2:40 p.m. (GMT) on Wednesday, March 22. The attacker, now identified as Adrian Russell Ajao, 52, drove a gray Hyundai Tucson onto Westminster Bridge, hitting at least 20 pedestrians. He veered onto the sidewalk for the remainder of the bridge, then crashed into the wall outside the New Palace Yard, near Parliament Square.
Many more pedestrians were left lying injured in the road as Ajao exited the car and ran on foot around the corner, entering Carriage Gates and attacking two police officers. One, PC Palmer, was stabbed and later died of his injuries. Ajao was shot and killed by police.
Ajao was previously identified as Khalid Masood and Adrian Elms, names which were determined to be aliases. His name was not released until early Thursday afternoon, as the police were conducting raids across the London area and have arrested at least ten people in the ongoing counter-terrorism investigation. Two of those arrests have been deemed "significant." The Met Police were able to determine Ajao's identity in the course of their investigation.
ISIL has claimed the man acted as a “soldier of the Islamic State.”
Further video of the attack has been released, showing a Romanian woman who fell into the Thames after Masood drove on the sidewalk of Westminster Bridge. It is unclear if she was pushed or jumped into the water.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan condemned the attack at a candlelight vigil held in Trafalgar Square on Thursday evening.
“Those evil and twisted individuals who tried to destroy our shared way of life will never succeed and we condemn them,” Khan said. “Our response to this attack on our city, this attack on our way of life, this attack on our shared values, shows the world what it means to be a Londoner.”
Tributes and condolences have poured in from world leaders. In one of many demonstrations of solidarity from across the world, the UN held a moment of silence for the victims.
Thursday’s session of Parliament was held as normal, and the Westminster Tube station and bridge were reopened fewer than 24 hours after the attack.
(03/22/17 8:51pm)
An attack Wednesday afternoon at several locations around London’s Houses of Parliament left several critically wounded. Latest reports list the number killed as four, including the suspected attacker, though information is as yet unclear.
Videos of the attack show pedestrians running, being ordered by police to get to cover and clear the area.
A car, at first reported to have been driven by two suspects, hit multiple people on Westminster Bridge. One victim was confirmed dead at the scene. The car then hit the railing near the end of the bridge, apparently hitting more people. After reports of bodies in the water, a woman was pulled from the Thames River and was treated for severe injuries.
Ambulance crews arrived on scene to treat wounded pedestrians, reporting injuries which ranged from minor to “catastrophic,” according to BBC. As many as 12 were taken for treatment at local hospitals in the Westminster borough.
A police officer was then stabbed near Parliament, and his attacker was shot by plain-clothes police officers. The officer later died on scene; the suspected attacker was being treated by emergency workers and reportedly also died of his injuries.
Gunshots were heard around Westminster, and the Houses of Parliament were locked down and the day’s session adjourned. People in nearby buildings were instructed to stay inside, and those on the street were ordered to clear the scene. Across the Thames, the London Eye was halted and also locked down with people still in each car.
As the news broke, the debate on the upcoming Scottish independence referendum was pushed back by Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who tweeted her condolences to those injured. The Welsh Assembly was adjourned, as well.
Prime Minister Theresa May was reported to have been safely evacuated to 10 Downing Street. She later left Downing Street for an emergency meeting of ministers to address the situation, and ordered flags to be flown at half-mast.
President Trump has reportedly been briefed on the situation, according to a tweet by Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Spicer later condemned that attacks and announced the UK had “full support” of the US government moving forward.
The Met Police released a statement calling the attack a terrorist incident, and said there was an ongoing investigation. As of latest reports they believe a single suspect was responsible, who had been shot and killed by police.
The area was cordoned off and the public was ordered to stay away as ambulances and further police officers arrived on scene to continue the investigation. The lockdown on Parliament ended several hours later, but the borough is still on high alert.
(03/02/17 2:51pm)
The usual daily press briefing didn’t happen on February 24. Instead, an untelevised briefing of a selected few media outlets took place at the White House.
It is clear CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin is working to hide her shock as she broke the news at 2:01 p.m., Friday afternoon.
“We have just learned here at CNN that CNN has been blocked from a White House gaggle,” Baldwin said in the breaking news report, as the block letters on the news ticker below her read ‘CNN & Others Blocked From White House Media Briefing.’
“This is so incredibly significant because this has never happened in this administration.”
A gaggle is an informal, on-the-record briefing. It is smaller than the normal press briefings, and instead is for the press pool: a group of reporters from various media outlets which pool resources to collect and then disseminate the news.
This, however, was no normal gaggle.
Sara Murray, a CNN White House Correspondent who was one of those excluded from the briefing, explained how Friday diverged from the norm. Usually a gaggle would include one person per media outlet, who would then share the information, Murray said.
“That is not what the White House was doing today,” she said. “What the White House was doing was hand-picking the outlets they wanted in for this briefing.”
CNN, Politico, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, the Guardian, USA Today and BuzzFeed were some of those outlets which were not allowed into the briefing.
Among those organizations allowed in?: NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox News, Breitbart News and One America News Network.
The restrictions caused the Associated Press and Time to boycott in protest.
Earlier that day at the Conservative Political Action Conference, President Trump made a point of criticizing media outlets, saying, “The fake news doesn’t tell the truth.” He continued, “It never will represent the people, and we’re gonna do something about it.”
That something, critics and First Amendment defenders are saying, was to exclude certain news outlets in a move that’s unprecedented.
The White House Correspondents Association said it is “protesting strongly.” CNN released a statement calling the move “unacceptable.” The Wall Street Journal announced it “strongly objects” to the decision. USA Today called it “rather unsettling.”
CNN anchor Jake Tapper summed up many people’s feelings when he called it “un-American.”
New York Times editor Dean Baquet said this: “Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties.”
Press Secretary Sean Spicer denied that outlets were not allowed entry, saying instead certain outlets were specifically invited.
“We don’t need to do an on-camera briefing every day,” Spicer said.
Many outlets released statements saying they will not let this move stop them from covering the news moving forward.
(02/24/17 12:22pm)
On Monday, a French court determined a police officer should go to trial and face charges of rape.
The decision comes after weeks of often violent rallies, sparked by “L’Affaire Théo”: the February 2nd arrest of Théo Luhaka, 22, which resulted in surgery and a hospital stay. Three police officers involved were accused of unnecessary violence and one was under investigation for alleged rape.
The trial Monday saw a previous, similar case be recalled to court, and the municipal police officer involved be sent to an assizes court –a court designed for cases involving felonies, and the only French court to conduct trial by jury– to face charges of rape.
On October 29, a man, identified only as ‘Alexandre’, then 27, was arrested in Drancy, a suburb of Paris. In the process of the arrest, he alleged a police officer thrust their baton into his anus; a 1.5-centimeter open wound, attributed to the officer’s actions with the baton, was later discovered by doctors. In a trial the following January, charges of rape were denied for the officer involved.
Monday’s trial concerned this previous case, but it is tied closely to “L’Affaire Théo.”
Oana Panaïté is an associate professor of French and director of graduate studies (French/Francophone studies) in Indiana University’s Department of French and Italian.
Panaïté described how recent events caused this case from 2015 to gain more attention, especially since Luhaka’s arrest was caught on video and Alexandre’s was not. This put a spotlight on police brutality in France, and caused a deeper investigation into the evidence present in the October 2015 case.
“The French court has tasked the prosecution with an investigation that could ultimately carry a harsher penalty for the policeman, and therefore hold the French police more accountable for such actions,” Panaïté said.
These two cases have been compared in news coverage to American instances of police brutality, and the subsequent riots have been likened to the Black Lives Matter protests. Similar to President Obama’s calls to address inherent biases in American society, French President François Hollande visited Théo in the hospital and called for justice.
“This similarities with cases of police brutality in the US lie in the fact that these events typically occur in socio-economically disadvantaged suburbs,” Panaïté said. “They follow a pattern that has long been both denounced and justified by politicians and the press, depending on their political and cultural leanings. In recent decades, riots precipitated by cases of police violence have not gained the sympathy of the French public, and have even split the supporters of the fight against discrimination and police abuse."
“The larger question is how these incidents of police brutality, their media representation, and their legal resolution tie into the current French and international climate of immigration, islamophobia and populism.”
(02/15/17 10:48pm)
After similar riots earlier this month, protests in Paris got violent again over the weekend.
On February 2, a black man, identified only as ‘Theo,’ aged 22, was arrested in the district of Aulnay-Sous-Bois by police. He alleged that one of the officers sexually assaulted him with a baton during the arrest. The arrest was caught on video and showed him beaten so badly that his injuries required surgery after. It was not clear that he was raped from the video evidence, though.
After the arrest, riots raged in Paris for several nights and spread to surrounding neighborhoods. The Telegraph reported at least 17 people were arrested in relation to the riots. Cars were set aflame and Molotov cocktails were thrown at police, according to reports by CBS/AP.
In a statement released by the French Interior Ministry, they claimed that one of the officers was under investigation for rape, and three others were being investigated for unnecessary violence, according to NBC News.
So why riots now, weeks later? The riots began as peaceful rallies outside the Bobigny court, where a hearing on the officers charged is due to be held February 20. After a police source said there was enough video and witness evidence to prove there was in fact a sexual assault, according to AFP news agency, the crowd gathered outside the courthouse to protest.
It quickly turned violent as some people began throwing things at riot police, according to Al Jazeera’s correspondent, David Chater, who was on scene: “Instead of being a peaceful demonstration trying to get justice outside the courthouse where we will hear what will happen to those police officers, this has turned into a series of running fights, in what I'm hearing will continue into the night.”
The decision has taken on a much deeper meaning than just a simple court ruling; it represents France’s tolerance –or lack of tolerance– toward police brutality. This comes on the heels of a previous assault on January 26 of a black male who was allegedly beaten by one of the four officers currently standing accused; an investigation into this account has now also been launched, according to Al Jazeera.
French President Francois Hollande visited Theo in the hospital shortly after the attacks, tweeting “Theo reacted with dignity and responsibility.” Hollande released a statement February 14 condemning the riots and saying, “Justice must be served.”
The hearing, due to be held in just under a week, will determine whether or not a trial will be held for the four officers.
(02/11/17 9:39pm)
Some people are saying Trump made a bit of a questionable diplomatic decision this week.
The relationship between the U.S. and China has always been a bit strained, so Trump’s phone call Thursday night to Chinese President Xi Jinping to wish him a happy Chinese New Year might seem like a good move on his part, right?
In that call, Trump said he would honor the “One China” policy, which recognizes the People’s Republic of China and ceases recognition of Taiwan. Under this, Beijing is the only governing capital. While Taiwan sees itself as an independent territory with a democracy and elected government, many countries do not recognize it, nor has it been permitted to join the United Nations as a member state.
The problem arises because right after winning the election, in December 2016, one of Trump’s first moves was to accept a congratulatory phone call –from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This was the first conversation between a U.S. president and Taiwan’s leader since 1979, when the U.S. officially severed diplomatic ties with the country. That year, then-President Jimmy Carter officially recognized Beijing as the sole government of China, essentially saying Taiwan didn’t exist.
That’s a problem now because, following the “One China” policy, Taiwan doesn’t exist, which is in accordance with our official U.S. stance for over four decades.
So President Trump’s cordial speaking to their leader right after his 2016 election is in direct violation and really grinds China’s gears; not to mention Trump had previously expressed disinterest in the policy, saying he “wasn’t committed to a longstanding agreement with China over Taiwan,” according to an interview the Wall Street Journal published in January.
Then, Thursday night, he affirmed the U.S.’s accordance with the ‘One China’ policy while talking to President Xi. China’s state broadcaster CCTV has since announced Xi “praised” Trump’s stance, and continued that the countries were going to work together to “bring ‘more fruitful gains for the benefit of our two peoples and those in every country’”.
Some people are defending the December phone call, saying he wasn’t technically President until he was sworn in in January, so really it was just the action of a man, not a representative of the U.S. Shen Dingli, a professor of international relations at Fudan University addressed these remarks and the threats of Trump to legally declare China a “currency manipulator” thusly: “Trump has not taken office yet, so he is an ordinary person now.” Needless to say, China was having a hard time swallowing that explanation and Taiwan, who honestly came out to have a good time and is feeling so attacked right now, wasn’t too happy, either.
It’s important to remember that Trump has business interests in Taiwan; in November 2016, Trump was exploring the idea of constructing luxury hotels and resorts in northern Taiwan, the mayor of the Taoyuan county, Zheng Wencan, confirmed in the China Times. He also has previously cast strong criticisms at China –most recently, during his campaign, Trump accused the country of devaluing its currency and subsequently endangering American business, according to Reuters.
It is difficult to say how relations will develop moving forward, as this is a change to the policy the U.S. has followed since the 1970s.
In an article published by Stanford, Nicholas Hope, former director of the Stanford Center for International Development, had this to say: “The history of the 21st century is going to be determined by whether China and the U.S. develop a cooperative relationship for the good of us all or whether they don’t. Going forward, China will not accept the U.S. telling it what to do…It’s up to the U.S. to exercise leadership in a way that promotes a peaceful, productive world.”