organization:oxford university

  • View from Nowhere. Is it the press’s job to create a community that transcends borders?

    A few years ago, on a plane somewhere between Singapore and Dubai, I read Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983). I was traveling to report on the global market for passports—how the ultrawealthy can legally buy citizenship or residence virtually anywhere they like, even as 10 million stateless people languish, unrecognized by any country. In the process, I was trying to wrap my head around why national identity meant so much to so many, yet so little to my passport-peddling sources. Their world was the very image of Steve Bannon’s globalist nightmare: where you can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many passports.

    Anderson didn’t address the sale of citizenship, which only took off in earnest in the past decade; he did argue that nations, nationalism, and nationality are about as organic as Cheez Whiz. The idea of a nation, he writes, is a capitalist chimera. It is a collective sense of identity processed, shelf-stabilized, and packaged before being disseminated, for a considerable profit, to a mass audience in the form of printed books, news, and stories. He calls this “print-capitalism.”

    Per Anderson, after the printing press was invented, nearly 600 years ago, enterprising booksellers began publishing the Bible in local vernacular languages (as opposed to the elitist Latin), “set[ting] the stage for the modern nation” by allowing ordinary citizens to participate in the same conversations as the upper classes. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the proliferation (and popularity) of daily newspapers further collapsed time and space, creating an “extraordinary mass ceremony” of reading the same things at the same moment.

    “An American will never meet, or even know the names of more than a handful of his 240,000,000–odd fellow Americans,” Anderson wrote. “He has no idea of what they are up to at any one time.” But with the knowledge that others are reading the same news, “he has complete confidence in their steady, anonymous, simultaneous activity.”

    Should the press be playing a role in shaping not national identities, but transnational ones—a sense that we’re all in it together?

    Of course, national presses enabled more explicit efforts by the state itself to shape identity. After the US entered World War I, for instance, President Woodrow Wilson set out to make Americans more patriotic through his US Committee on Public Information. Its efforts included roping influential mainstream journalists into advocating American-style democracy by presenting US involvement in the war in a positive light, or simply by referring to Germans as “Huns.” The committee also monitored papers produced by minorities to make sure they supported the war effort not as Indians, Italians, or Greeks, but as Americans. Five Irish-American papers were banned, and the German-American press, reacting to negative stereotypes, encouraged readers to buy US bonds to support the war effort.

    The US media played an analogous role in selling the public on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But ever since then, in the digital economy, its influence on the national consciousness has waned. Imagined Communities was published seven years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, twenty-two years before Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat, and a couple of decades before the internet upended print-capitalism as the world knew it (one of Anderson’s footnotes is telling, if quaint: “We still have no giant multinationals in the world of publishing”).

    Since Trump—a self-described nationalist—became a real contender for the US presidency, many news organizations have taken to looking inward: consider the running obsession with the president’s tweets, for instance, or the nonstop White House palace intrigue (which the president invites readily).

    Meanwhile, the unprofitability of local and regional papers has contributed to the erosion of civics, which, down the line, makes it easier for billionaires to opt out of old “imagined communities” and join new ones based on class and wealth, not citizenship. And given the challenges humanity faces—climate change, mass migration, corporate hegemony, and our relationships to new technologies—even if national papers did make everyone feel like they shared the same narrative, a renewed sense of national pride would prove impotent in fighting world-historic threats that know no borders.

    Should the press, then, be playing an analogous role in shaping not national identities, but transnational ones—a sense that we’re all in it together? If it was so important in shaping national identity, can it do so on a global scale?

    Like my passport-buying subjects, I am what Theresa May, the former British prime minister, might call a “citizen of nowhere.” I was born in one place to parents from another, grew up in a third, and have lived and traveled all over. That informs my perspective: I want deeply for there to be a truly cosmopolitan press corps, untethered from national allegiances, regional biases, class divisions, and the remnants of colonial exploitation. I know that’s utopian; the international working class is hardly a lucrative demographic against which publishers can sell ads. But we seem to be living in a time of considerable upheaval and opportunity. Just as the decline of religiously and imperially organized societies paved the way for national alternatives, then perhaps today there is a chance to transcend countries’ boundaries, too.

    Does the US media help create a sense of national identity? If nationalism means putting the interests of one nation—and what its citizens are interested in—before more universal concerns, then yes. Most journalists working for American papers, websites, and TV write in English with a national audience (or regional time zone) in mind, which affects how we pitch, source, frame, and illustrate a story—which, in turn, influences our readers, their country’s politics, and, down the line, the world. But a news peg isn’t an ideological form of nationalism so much as a practical or methodological one. The US press feeds off of more pernicious nationalisms, too: Donald Trump’s false theory about Barack Obama being “secretly” Kenyan, disseminated by the likes of Fox and The Daily Caller, comes to mind.

    That isn’t to say that global news outlets don’t exist in the US. When coaxing subscribers, the Financial Times, whose front page often includes references to a dozen different countries, openly appeals to their cosmopolitanism. “Be a global citizen. Become an FT Subscriber,” read a recent banner ad, alongside a collage featuring the American, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, and European Union flags (though stories like the recent “beginner’s guide to buying a private island” might tell us something about what kind of global citizen they’re appealing to).

    “I don’t think we try to shape anyone’s identity at all,” Gillian Tett, the paper’s managing editor for the US, says. “We recognize two things: that the world is more interconnected today than it’s ever been, and that these connections are complex and quite opaque. We think it’s critical to try to illuminate them.”

    For Tett, who has a PhD in social anthropology, money serves as a “neutral, technocratic” starting point through which to understand—and tie together—the world. “Most newspapers today tend to start with an interest in politics or events, and that inevitably leads you to succumb to tribalism, however hard you try [not to],” Tett explains. “If you look at the world through money—how is money going around the world, who’s making and losing it and why?—out of that you lead to political, cultural, foreign-policy stories.”

    Tett’s comments again brought to mind Imagined Communities: Anderson notes that, in 18th-century Caracas, newspapers “began essentially as appendages of the market,” providing commercial news about ships coming in, commodity prices, and colonial appointments, as well as a proto–Vows section for the upper crust to hate-read in their carriages. “The newspaper of Caracas quite naturally, and even apolitically, created an imagined community among a specific assemblage of fellow-readers, to whom these ships, brides, bishops, and prices belonged,” he wrote. “In time, of course, it was only to be expected that political elements would enter in.”

    Yesterday’s aristocracy is today’s passport-buying, globe-trotting one percent. The passport brokers I got to know also pitched clients with the very same promise of “global citizenship” (it sounds less louche than “buy a new passport”)—by taking out ads in the Financial Times. Theirs is exactly the kind of neoliberal “globalism” that nationalist politicians like Trump have won elections denouncing (often hypocritically) as wanting “the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.” Isn’t upper-crust glibness about borders, boundaries, and the value of national citizenship part of what helped give us this reactionary nativism in the first place?

    “I suspect what’s been going on with Brexit and maybe Trump and other populist movements [is that] people. . . see ‘global’ as a threat to local communities and businesses rather than something to be welcomed,” Tett says. “But if you’re an FT reader, you see it as benign or descriptive.”

    Among the largest news organizations in the world is Reuters, with more than 3,000 journalists and photographers in 120 countries. It is part of Thomson Reuters, a truly global firm. Reuters does not take its mandate lightly: a friend who works there recently sent me a job posting for an editor in Gdynia, which, Google clarified for me, is a city in the Pomeranian Voivodeship of Poland.

    Reuters journalists cover everything from club sports to international tax evasion. They’re outsourcing quick hits about corporate earnings to Bangalore, assembling teams on multiple continents to tackle a big investigation, shedding or shuffling staff under corporate reorganizations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, “more than half our business is serving financial customers,” Stephen Adler, the editor in chief, tells me. “That has little to do with what country you’re from. It’s about information: a central-bank action in Europe or Japan may be just as important as everything else.”

    Institutionally, “it’s really important and useful that we don’t have one national HQ,” Adler adds. “That’s the difference between a global news organization and one with a foreign desk. For us, nothing is foreign.” That approach won Reuters this year’s international Pulitzer Prize for uncovering the mass murder of the Rohingya in Myanmar (two of the reporters were imprisoned as a result, and since freed); it also comes through especially sharply in daily financial stories: comprehensive, if dry, compendiums of who-what-where-when-why that recognize the global impact of national stories, and vice versa. A recent roundup of stock movements included references to the US Fed, China trade talks, Brexit, monetary policy around the world, and the price of gold.

    Adler has led the newsroom since 2011, and a lot has changed in the world. (I worked at Reuters between 2011 and 2013, first as Adler’s researcher and later as a reporter; Adler is the chair of CJR’s board.) Shortly after Trump’s election, Adler wrote a memo affirming the organization’s commitment to being fair, honest, and resourceful. He now feels more strongly than ever about judiciously avoiding biases—including national ones. “Our ideology and discipline around putting personal feelings and nationality aside has been really helpful, because when you think about how powerful local feelings are—revolutions, the Arab Spring—we want you writing objectively and dispassionately.”

    The delivery of stories in a casual, illustrated, highly readable form is in some ways more crucial to developing an audience than subject matter.

    Whether global stories can push communities to develop transnationally in a meaningful way is a harder question to answer; it seems to impugn our collective aptitude for reacting to problems of a global nature in a rational way. Reuters’s decision not to fetishize Trump hasn’t led to a drop-off in US coverage—its reporters have been especially strong on immigration and trade policy, not to mention the effects of the new administration on the global economy—but its stories aren’t exactly clickbait, which means ordinary Americans might not encounter them at the top of their feed. In other words, having a global perspective doesn’t necessarily translate to more eyeballs.

    What’s more, Reuters doesn’t solve the audience-class problem: whether readers are getting dispatches in partner newspapers like The New York Times or through the organization’s Eikon terminal, they tend to be the sort of person “who does transnational business, travels a good deal, is connected through work and media, has friends in different places, cares about what’s going on in different places,” Adler says. “That’s a pretty large cohort of people who have reason to care what’s going on in other places.”

    There are ways to unite readers without centering coverage on money or the markets. For a generation of readers around the world, the common ground is technology: the internet. “We didn’t pick our audience,” Ben Smith, the editor in chief of BuzzFeed, tells me over the phone. “Our audience picked us.” He defines his readers as a cohort aged 18–35 “who are on the internet and who broadly care about human rights, global politics, and feminism and gay rights in particular.”

    To serve them, BuzzFeed recently published a damning investigative report into the World Wildlife Fund’s arming of militias in natural reserves; a (not uncontroversial) series on Trump’s business dealings abroad; early exposés of China’s detention of Uighur citizens; and reports on child abuse in Australia. Climate—“the central challenge for every newsroom in the world”—has been harder to pin down. “We don’t feel anyone has cracked it. But the shift from abstract scientific [stories] to coverage of fires in California, it’s a huge change—it makes it more concrete,” Smith says. (My husband is a reporter for BuzzFeed.)

    The delivery of these stories in a casual, illustrated, highly readable form is in some ways more crucial to developing an audience than subject matter. “The global political financial elites have had a common language ever since it was French,” Smith says. “There is now a universal language of internet culture, [and] that. . . is how our stuff translates so well between cultures and audiences.” This isn’t a form of digital Esperanto, Smith insists; the point isn’t to flatten the differences between countries or regions so much as to serve as a “container” in which people from different regions, interest groups, and cultures can consume media through references they all understand.

    BuzzFeed might not be setting out to shape its readers’ identities (I certainly can’t claim to feel a special bond with other people who found out they were Phoebes from the quiz “Your Sushi Order Will Reveal Which ‘Friends’ Character You’re Most Like”). An audience defined by its youth and its media consumption habits can be difficult to keep up with: platforms come and go, and young people don’t stay young forever. But if Anderson’s thesis still carries water, there must be something to speaking this language across cultures, space, and time. Call it “Web vernacular.”

    In 2013, during one of the many recent and lengthy US government shutdowns, Joshua Keating, a journalist at Slate, began a series, “If It Happened There,” that imagined how the American media would view the shutdown if it were occurring in another country. “The typical signs of state failure aren’t evident on the streets of this sleepy capital city,” Keating opens. “Beret-wearing colonels have not yet taken to the airwaves to declare martial law. . . .But the pleasant autumn weather disguises a government teetering on the brink.”

    It goes on; you get the idea. Keating’s series, which was inspired by his having to read “many, many headlines from around the world” while working at Foreign Policy, is a clever journalistic illustration of what sociologists call “methodological nationalism”: the bias that gets inadvertently baked into work and words. In the Middle East, it’s sectarian or ethnic strife; in the Midwest, it’s a trigger-happy cop and a kid in a hoodie.

    His send-ups hit a nerve. “It was huge—it was by far the most popular thing I’ve done at Slate,” Keating says. “I don’t think that it was a shocking realization to anyone that this kind of language can be a problem, but sometimes pointing it out can be helpful. If the series did anything, it made people stop and be conscious of how. . . our inherent biases and perspectives will inform how we cover the world.”

    Curiously, living under an openly nationalist administration has changed the way America—or at the very least, a significant part of the American press corps—sees itself. The press is a de facto opposition party, not because it tries to be, but because the administration paints it that way. And that gives reporters the experience of working in a place much more hostile than the US without setting foot outside the country.

    Keating has “semi-retired” the series as a result of the broad awareness among American reporters that it is, in fact, happening here. “It didn’t feel too novel to say [Trump was] acting like a foreign dictator,” he says. “That was what the real news coverage was doing.”

    Keating, who traveled to Somaliland, Kurdistan, and Abkhazia to report his book Invisible Countries (2018), still thinks the fastest and most effective way to form an international perspective is to live abroad. At the same time, not being bound to a strong national identity “can make it hard to understand particular concerns of the people you’re writing about,” he says. It might be obvious, but there is no one perfect way to be internationally minded.

    Alan Rusbridger—the former editor of The Guardian who oversaw the paper’s Edward Snowden coverage and is now the principal at Lady Margaret Hall, a college at Oxford University—recognizes the journalistic and even moral merits of approaching news in a non-national way: “I think of journalism as a public service, and I do think there’s a link between journalism at its best and the betterment of individual lives and societies,” he says. But he doesn’t have an easy formula for how to do that, because truly cosmopolitan journalism requires both top-down editorial philosophies—not using certain phrasings or framings that position foreigners as “others”—and bottom-up efforts by individual writers to read widely and be continuously aware of how their work might be read by people thousands of miles away.

    Yes, the starting point is a nationally defined press, not a decentralized network, but working jointly helps pool scarce resources and challenge national or local biases.

    Rusbridger sees potential in collaborations across newsrooms, countries, and continents. Yes, the starting point is a nationally defined press, not a decentralized network; but working jointly helps pool scarce resources and challenge national or local biases. It also wields power. “One of the reasons we reported Snowden with the Times in New York was to use global protections of human rights and free speech and be able to appeal to a global audience of readers and lawyers,” Rusbridger recalls. “We thought, ‘We’re pretty sure nation-states will come at us over this, and the only way to do it is harness ourselves to the US First Amendment not available to us anywhere else.’”

    In employing these tactics, the press positions itself in opposition to the nation-state. The same strategy could be seen behind the rollout of the Panama and Paradise Papers (not to mention the aggressive tax dodging detailed therein). “I think journalists and activists and citizens on the progressive wing of politics are thinking creatively about how global forces can work to their advantage,” Rusbridger says.

    But he thinks it all starts locally, with correspondents who have fluency in the language, culture, and politics of the places they cover, people who are members of the communities they write about. That isn’t a traditional foreign-correspondent experience (nor indeed that of UN employees, NGO workers, or other expats). The silver lining of publishing companies’ shrinking budgets might be that cost cutting pushes newsrooms to draw from local talent, rather than send established writers around. What you gain—a cosmopolitanism that works from the bottom up—can help dispel accusations of media elitism. That’s the first step to creating new imagined communities.

    Anderson’s work has inspired many an academic, but media executives? Not so much. Rob Wijnberg is an exception: he founded the (now beleaguered) Correspondent in the Netherlands in 2013 with Anderson’s ideas in mind. In fact, when we speak, he brings the name up unprompted.

    “You have to transcend this notion that you can understand the world through the national point of view,” he says. “The question is, What replacement do we have for it? Simply saying we have to transcend borders or have an international view isn’t enough, because you have to replace the imagined community you’re leaving behind with another one.”

    For Wijnberg, who was a philosophy student before he became a journalist, this meant radically reinventing the very structures of the news business: avoiding covering “current events” just because they happened, and thinking instead of what we might call eventful currents—the political, social, and economic developments that affect us all. It meant decoupling reporting from national news cycles, and getting readers to become paying “members” instead of relying on advertisements.

    This, he hoped, would help create a readership not based on wealth, class, nationality, or location, but on borderless, universal concerns. “We try to see our members. . . as part of a group or knowledge community, where the thing they share is the knowledge they have about a specific structural subject matter,” be it climate, inequality, or migration, Wijnberg says. “I think democracy and politics answers more to media than the other way around, so if you change the way media covers the world you change a lot.”

    That approach worked well in the Netherlands: his team raised 1.7 million euros in 2013, and grew to include 60,000 members. A few years later, Wijnberg and his colleagues decided to expand into the US, and with the help of NYU’s Jay Rosen, an early supporter, they made it onto Trevor Noah’s Daily Show to pitch their idea.

    The Correspondent raised more than $2.5 million from nearly 50,000 members—a great success, by any measure. But in March, things started to get hairy, with the publication abruptly pulling the plug on opening a US newsroom and announcing that staff would edit stories reported from the US from the original Amsterdam office instead. Many of the reasons behind this are mundane: visas, high rent, relocation costs. And reporters would still be reporting from, and on, the States. But supporters felt blindsided, calling the operation a scam.

    Today, Wijnberg reflects that he should have controlled the messaging better, and not promised to hire and operate from New York until he was certain that he could. He also wonders why it matters.

    “It’s not saying people who think it matters are wrong,” he explains. “But if the whole idea of this kind of geography and why it’s there is a construct, and you’re trying to think about transcending it, the very notion of Where are you based? is secondary. The whole point is not to be based anywhere.”

    Still: “The view from everywhere—the natural opposite—is just as real,” Wijnberg concedes. “You can’t be everywhere. You have to be somewhere.”

    And that’s the rub: for all of nationalism’s ills, it does instill in its subjects what Anderson calls a “deep, horizontal comradeship” that, while imagined, blossoms thanks to a confluence of forces. It can’t be replicated supranationally overnight. The challenge for a cosmopolitan journalism, then, is to dream up new forms of belonging that look forward, not backward—without discarding the imagined communities we have.

    That’s hard; so hard that it more frequently provokes a retrenchment, not an expansion, of solidarity. But it’s not impossible. And our collective futures almost certainly depend on it.
    #journalisme #nationalisme #Etat-nation #communauté_nationale #communauté_internationale #frontières #presse #médias

  • Chaos, hope, change: stories from 70 years of the People’s Republic of China | World news | The Guardian

    had fought its way through two wars and was on its knees and battered – the idea that in 70 years it would be the second biggest economy in the world… and a major global player would have seemed very unlikely indeed,” said Rana Mitter, a professor of history and politics of modern China at Oxford University.

    But for those who lived through these years, the pace of change has been dizzying and at times jolting. Almost no other country has experienced shifts as dramatic as China has – almost as if each generation has lived in an entirely different country.

    #chine #histoire #mao

  • Rammstein Deutschland video : We got an Oxford University professor to explain what on earth is going on | Louder

    Poised to release their first album in a decade and about to embark on a European tour, Rammstein have returned with a new song: Deutschland. Clocking in at nine minutes and 22 seconds, the video is a mini-epic spanning Germany history. Directed by Specter Berlin, it’s a cinematic and controversial clip that’s confusing if you’re not up on your history. We asked Dr Alexandra Lloyd, lecturer in German at the University of Oxford, to explain what the fuck is happening.

    By Dr Alexandra Lloyd (Metal Hammer) 2 days ago Metal Hammer
    Rammstein have just released a jaw-dropping video for new single Deutschland – but what exactly is it all about?

    Rammstein’s Deutschland takes us on a thrilling, violent, and moving journey through German history. At over nine minutes, it gives us a panorama of events and historical and mythical figures, and there are so many references and Easter eggs that fans and commentators will be poring over it for some time to come.

    The video opens in AD 16, on the ‘barbarian’ side of the limes, the border of the Roman Empire. Roman soldiers creep through the woods in the aftermath of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. The Romans were ambushed by an alliance of Germanic Tribes, led by a chieftain called Arminius (the original Hermann the German). Three legionary standards were captured, a loss symbolic and moral, as well as physical, and decades were spent trying to recover them. Rome never again attempted to take the lands east of the River Rhine, known as Germania.

    ‘Germania’ refers not just to a place, somewhere partly defined by where it isn’t (Rome) as well as where it is, but also to a national figurehead, traditionally representing the German people. Germania is a strong woman, usually armour-clad and battle-ready. Various symbols appear with her, among them a breastplate with an eagle, a black, red, and gold flag, and a crown. Look out for these in the video – they come up again and again – and the colours of the contemporary flag are there in every scene.

    We get our first glimpse of Germania here (played by Ruby Commey), who stands holding Till Lindemann’s severed head. Next, astronauts appear carrying a metal and glass box shaped like a coffin. In the background we see a U-boat – a German submarine, used in World Wars I and II. Then we move to a scene set at a boxing match which takes us to Weimar Germany (1918-1933), a period known for its political instability but also greater cultural liberalism. Here, Germania appears in the cabaret costume of a flapper girl, and the boxers fight with knuckle-dusters as a crowd cheers them on.

    We see the former East Germany, complete with busts of Marx and Lenin, the national emblem of East Germany, and a lookalike of the long-serving, insular, and repressive GDR leader Erich Honecker. There’s another astronaut, or rather a cosmonaut: Sigmund Jähn, the first German in space, who flew with the USSR’s space program (and who’s also a character in the 2003 film, Good Bye Lenin!). Medieval monks feast grotesquely on the supine Germania, tearing sauerkraut and sausage from Ruby Commey’s body, prison inmates are beaten by guards dressed in police and military uniforms from different historical periods.

    The most obviously shocking scene references the Holocaust and the Nazi period. Four members of the band, in the striped uniforms of camp inmates, wait at the gallows, about to be hanged. They wear the cloth emblems used to identify their ‘crimes’: a pink triangle for homosexual prisoners, a yellow star for Jewish prisoners, a red and yellow star for Jewish political prisoners.

    This sequence, teased in an earlier promo video, has already caused controversy. Have Rammstein the right to do this? Do they trivialise the suffering of Holocaust victims? How can they justify using Holocaust imagery to promote their new video? These are important questions that are part of a much bigger debate about the ethics of using the Holocaust in art and media.

    Other scenes include the band walking away from a flaming airship, referring to the 1937 Hindenburg Disaster, in which 36 people died. Rats scuttle across the floor when the monks first appear, suggesting the Pied Piper of Hamelin, a legend with origins in the 13th century.

    Germania walks towards the camera in a leather jacket, gold jewellery and a string of bullets across her chest, resembling the chariot drawn by four horses (the ‘Quadriga’) on top of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. The band members’ heads are shown as white marble busts, taking us to the 19th century Walhalla memorial in Bavaria, built as German Hall of Fame, its sculpted heads of German worthies on display to this day.

    In the prison, hundreds of banknotes fall from above, suggesting the devastating hyperinflation Germany suffered in the 1920s. Nazis burn books, intercut with religious fanatics burning witches. We recognise members of the Red Army Faction (also known as the Baader-Meinhof group), a militant organisation active in the 1970s in West Germany. And in a blink-or-you-miss-it exchange, we are reminded of the much-criticised relationship between the churches and the state during the Third Reich.

    Each scene captures in a moment the icons of an era, and the video cuts between them more and more frenetically as it goes on. Events bleed into each other, linked by the presence of the band members and the red laser beam that appears throughout the video, a ‘roter Faden’ (red thread or central theme), connecting each event.

    Germany engages with its history in a very particular way. Try to imagine the video about Britain, with Britannia played by Ruby Commey. What would the equivalent events be? Quite a few of the tableaux might be similar – Romans, Crusaders, monks, 18th-century soldiers, collarless shirts and bareknuckle boxing – but would it have the same impact?

    There’s no affection, and perhaps not much hope: its pessimistic tone seems to be quite an off-brand message for post-1989 Germany, which wants to acknowledge its past critically, while also looking to its future as a state at the heart of Europe. And actually, while we get a lot of medieval and twentieth-century history, the video’s tour through the past seems to stop in the late 1980s, before the fall of the Berlin Wall and Reunification of East and West Germany. Instead, we jump into the future, where the space-suited band take Germania into the unknown, travelling in that coffin-shaped glass box.

    There’s an echo of the video for Sonne, where Snow White is trapped in a glass coffin. In fact, a piano version of Sonne plays over the end credits of Deutschland. This is a useful link for understanding something of what Rammstein is doing here. In Sonne, where the band’s characters free themselves of Snow White (naturally, they’ve been her sex-slaves), only to realise that they have made a mistake and long for her return, the overwhelming feeling of Deutschland seems to be that when it comes to Germania (or Germany): you can’t love her, and you can’t live without her.

    Alex Lloyd | Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages

    Alexandra Lloyd, MA, PGCE, DPhil, FHEA
    Stipendiary Lecturer in German, Magdalen College & St Edmund Hall
    Alex Lloyd’s main research interests are in twentieth-century literature and film, particularly cultural memory, depictions of children and childhood, and visual culture. Her AHRC-funded doctoral thesis (Wadham College, 2012) examined post-1989 representations of childhood and youth under Nazism. She is currently running a project on the White Rose resistance movement, working with undergraduates on a new translation of the group’s pamphlets which will be published in June 2019.

    Rammstein - Engel (Official Video)

    Rammstein - Deutschland (Official Video)

    Rammstein – DEUTSCHLAND Lyrics

    [Songtext zu „DEUTSCHLAND“]

    [Strophe 1]
    Du (du hast, du hast, du hast, du hast)
    Hast viel geweint (geweint, geweint, geweint, geweint)
    Im Geist getrennt (getrennt, getrennt, getrennt, getrennt)
    Im Herz vereint (vereint, vereint, vereint, vereint)
    Wir (wir sind, wir sind, wir sind, wir sind)
    Sind schon sehr lang zusammen (ihr seid, ihr seid, ihr seid, ihr seid)
    Dein Atem kalt (so kalt, so kalt, so kalt, so kalt)
    Das Herz in Flammen (so heiß, so heiß, so heiß, so heiß)
    Du (du kannst, du kannst, du kannst, du kannst)
    Ich (ich weiß, ich weiß, ich weiß, ich weiß)
    Wir (wir sind, wir sind, wir sind, wir sind)
    Ihr (ihr bleibt, ihr bleibt, ihr bleibt, ihr bleibt)

    Deutschland – mein Herz in Flammen
    Will dich lieben und verdammen
    Deutschland – dein Atem kalt
    So jung – und doch so alt

    [Strophe 2]
    Ich (du hast, du hast, du hast, du hast)
    Ich will dich nie verlassen (du weinst, du weinst, du weinst, du weinst)
    Man kann dich lieben (du liebst, du liebst, du liebst, du liebst)
    Und will dich hassen (du hasst, du hasst, du hasst, du hasst)
    Überheblich, überlegen
    Übernehmen, übergeben
    Überraschen, überfallen
    Deutschland, Deutschland über allen

    Deutschland – mein Herz in Flammen
    Will dich lieben und verdammen
    Deutschland – dein Atem kalt
    So jung – und doch so alt
    Deutschland – deine Liebe
    Ist Fluch und Segen
    Deutschland – meine Liebe
    Kann ich dir nicht geben

    Du (übermächtig, überflüssig)
    Ich (Übermenschen, überdrüssig)
    Wir (wer hoch steigt, der wird tief fallen)
    Ihr (Deutschland, Deutschland über allen)

    Deutschland – dein Herz in Flammen
    Will dich lieben und verdammen
    Deutschland – mein Atem kalt
    So jung – und doch so alt
    Deutschland – deine Liebe
    Ist Fluch und Segen
    Deutschland – meine Liebe
    Kann ich dir nicht geben

    #musique #Allemagne #heavy_metal

  • UN envoy fears ’new crisis’ for Rohingya Muslims if moved to remote Bangladesh island

    A United Nations human rights investigator on #Myanmar has voiced deep concern at Bangladesh’s plan to relocate 23,000 Rohingya refugees to a remote island, saying it may not be habitable and could create a “new crisis”.
    #réfugiés #îles #île #Bangladesh #rohingya #réfugiés_rohingya #asile #migrations #Birmanie

    • Polly Pallister-Wilkins signale sur twitter ( le lien à faire avec le concept de #penal_humanitarianism (#humanitarisme_pénal)

      Introducing the New Themed Series on Penal Humanitarianism

      Humanitarianism is many things to many people. It is an ethos, an array of sentiments and moral principles, an imperative to intervene, and a way of ‘doing good’ by bettering the human condition through targeting suffering. It is also a form of governance. In Border Criminologies’ new themed series, we look closer at the intersections of humanitarian reason with penal governance, and particularly the transfer of penal power beyond the nation state.

      The study of humanitarian sentiments in criminology has mainly focused on how these sensibilities have ‘humanized’ or ‘civilized’ punishment. As such, the notion of humanism in the study of crime, punishment, and justice is associated with human rights implementation in penal practices and with normative bulwark against penal populism; indeed, with a ‘softening’ of penal power.

      This themed series takes a slightly different approach. While non-punitive forces have a major place in the humanitarian sensibility, we explore how humanitarianism is put to work on and for penal power. In doing so, we look at how muscular forms of power – expulsion, punishment, war – are justified and extended through the invocation of humanitarian reason.

      In the following post, Mary Bosworth revisits themes from her 2017 article and addresses current developments on UK programmes delivered overseas to ‘manage migration’. She shows that through an expansion of these programmes, migration management and crime governance has not only elided, but ‘criminal justice investment appears to have become a humanitarian goal in its own right’. Similarly concerned with what happens at the border, Katja Franko and Helene O.I. Gundhus observed the paradox and contradictions between humanitarian ideals in the performative work of governmental discourses, and the lack of concern for migrants’ vulnerability in their article on Frontex operations.

      However, in their blog post they caution against a one-dimensional understanding of humanitarianism as legitimizing policy and the status quo. It may cloud from view agency and resistance in practice, and, they argue, ‘the dialectics of change arising from the moral discomfort of doing border work’. The critical, difficult question lurking beneath their post asks what language is left if not that of the sanctity of the human, and of humanity.

      Moving outside the European territorial border, Eva Magdalena Stambøl however corroborates the observation that penal power takes on a humanitarian rationale when it travels. Sharing with us some fascinating findings from her current PhD work on EU’s crime control in West Africa, and, more specifically, observations from her fieldwork in Niger, she addresses how the rationale behind the EU’s fight against ‘migrant smugglers’ in Niger is framed as a humanitarian obligation. In the process, however, the EU projects penal power beyond Europe and consolidates power in the ‘host’ state, in this case, Niger.

      Moving beyond nation-state borders and into the ‘international’, ‘global’, and ‘cosmopolitan’, my own research demonstrates how the power to punish is particularly driven by humanitarian reason when punishment is delinked from its association with the national altogether. I delve into the field of international criminal justice and show how it is animated by a humanitarian impetus to ‘do something’ about the suffering of distant others, and how, in particular, the human rights movement have been central to the fight against impunity for international crimes. Through the articulation of moral outrage, humanitarian sensibilities have found their expression in a call for criminal punishment to end impunity for violence against distant others. However, building on an ethnographic study of international criminal justice, which is forthcoming in the Clarendon Studies in Criminology published by Oxford University Press, I demonstrate how penal power remains deeply embedded in structural relations of (global) power, and that it functions to expand and consolidate these global inequalities further. Removed from the checks and balances of democratic institutions, I suggest that penal policies may be more reliant on categorical representations of good and evil, civilization and barbarity, humanity and inhumanity, as such representational dichotomies seem particularly apt to delineate the boundaries of cosmopolitan society.

      In the next post I co-wrote with Anette Bringedal Houge, we address the fight against sexual violence in conflict as penal humanitarianism par excellence, building on our study published in Law & Society Review. While attention towards conflict-related sexual violence is critically important, we take issue with the overwhelming dominance of criminal law solutions on academic, policy, and activist agendas, as the fight against conflict-related sexual violence has become the fight against impunity. We observe that the combination of a victim-oriented justification for international justice and graphic reproductions of the violence victims suffer, are central in the advocacy and policy fields responding to this particular type of violence. Indeed, we hold that it epitomizes how humanitarianism facilitates the expansion of penal power but take issue with what it means for how we address this type of violence.

      In the final post of this series, Teresa Degenhardt offers a discomforting view on the dark side of virtue as she reflects on how penal power is reassembled outside the state and within the international, under the aegis of human rights, humanitarianism, and the Responsibility to Protect-doctrine. Through the case of Libya, she claims that the global north, through various international interventions, ‘established its jurisdiction over local events’. Through what she calls a ‘pedagogy of liberal institutions’, Degenhardt argues that ‘the global north shaped governance through sovereign structures at the local level while re-articulating sovereign power at the global level’, in an argument that, albeit on a different scale, parallels that of Stambøl.

      The posts in this themed series raise difficult questions about the nature of penal power, humanitarianism, and the state. Through these diverse examples, each post demonstrates that while the nation state continues to operate as an essential territorial site of punishment, the power to punish has become increasingly complex. This challenges the epistemological privilege of the nation state framework in the study of punishment.

      However, while this thematic series focuses on how penal power travels through humanitarianism, we should, as Franko and Gundhus indicate, be careful of dismissing humanitarian sensibilities and logics as fraudulent rhetoric for a will to power. Indeed, we might – or perhaps should – proceed differently, given that in these times of pushback against international liberalism and human rights, and resurgent religion and nationalism, humanitarian reason is losing traction. Following an unmasking of humanitarianism as a logic of governance by both critical (leftist) scholars and rightwing populism alike, perhaps there is a need to revisit the potency of humanitarianism as normative bulwark against muscular power, and to carve out the boundaries of a humanitarian space of resistance, solidarity and dignity within a criminology of humanitarianism. Such a task can only be done through empirical and meticulous analysis of the uses and abuses of humanitarianism as an ethics of care.

    • Most Rohingya refugees refuse to go to #Bhasan_Char island – Xchange survey

      Nearly all Rohingya refugees asked about relocating to a silt island in the Bay of Bengal refused to go, a new survey reveals.

      According to a new report published by the migration research and data analysis outfit Xchange Foundation, the vast majority of their respondents (98.4%) ‘categorically refused’ to go to Bhasan Char, while 98.7% of respondents were aware of the plan.

      From the over 1,000 respondents who expressed their opinion, concerns were raised about their safety, security and placement in a location further from Myanmar.

      Decades long limbo

      The findings obtained by the recent Xchange Foundation Report entitled ‘WE DO NOT BELIEVE MYANMAR!,’ chart the protracted living conditions and uncertain future of almost three quarters of a million recent Rohingya refugees living in Cox’s Bazar region of Bangladesh. Accumulated together with previous generations of Rohingya, there are approximately 1.2m living across over a dozen camps in the region.

      This is the sixth survey carried out by the Xchange Foundation on the experiences and conditions facing Rohingya refugees.

      The region has been host to Rohingya refugees for just over the last three decades with the recent crackdown and massacre by the Myanmar military in August 2017 forcing whole families and communities to flee westward to Bangladesh.

      While discussions between the Bangladeshi and Myanmar government over the repatriation of recent Rohingya refugees have been plagued by inertia and lukewarm commitment, the Bangladeshi government has been planning on relocating over 100,000 Rohingya refugees to the silt island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal. This process was expected to take place in the middle of April, according to a Bangladeshi government minister.

      State Minister for Disaster and Relief Management Md Enamur Rahman, told the Dhaka Tribune ‘Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has instructed last week to complete the relocation 23,000 Rohingya families to Bhashan Char by Apr 15.’

      Is it safe?

      Numerous humanitarian organisations including Human Rights Watch, have expressed their concerns over the government’s proposals, saying there are few assurances that Rohingya refugees will be safe or their access to free movement, health, education and employment will be secured.

      HRW reported in March that the Bangladeshi authorities had issued assurances that there wouldn’t be forcible relocation but that the move was designed to relieve pressure on the refugee camps and settlements across Cox’s Bazar.

      The move would see the relocation of 23,000 Rohingya families to a specially constructed complex of 1,440 housing blocks, equipped with flood and cyclone shelter and flood walls. The project is estimated to have cost the Bangladeshi government over €250 million.

      To prepare the island, joint efforts of British engineering and environmental hydraulics company HR Wallingford and the Chinese construction company Sinohydro, have been responsible for the construction of a 13km flood embankment which encircles the island.

      When asked by the Xchange survey team one Male Rohingya of 28 years old said, ‘We saw videos of Bhasan Char; it’s not a safe place and also during the raining season it floods.’ An older female of 42 said, ‘I’m afraid to go to Bhasan Char, because I think there is a risk to my life and my children.’

      Threat of flooding

      Bhasan Char or ‘Thengar Char,’ didn’t exist 20 years ago.

      The island is understood to have formed through gradual silt deposits forming a island around 30km from the Bangladeshi mainland. Until now, human activity on the island has been very minimal with it being largely used for cattle and only reachable by a 3.5 hour boat trip.

      But, the island is subject to the tides. It is reported that the island loses around 5,000 square acres of its territory from low to high tide (15,000 – 10,000 acres (54 square kilometres) respectively).

      This is worsened by the threat of the monsoon and cyclone season which according to HRW’s testimony can result in parts of the island eroding. This is recorded as being around one kilometre a year, ABC News reports.

      Golam Mahabub Sarwar of the Bangladeshi Ministry of Land, says that a high tide during a strong cyclone could completely flood the island. This is exemplifed by the 6 metre tidal range which is seen on fellow islands.

      New crisis

      The UN Envoy Yanghee Lee has warned that the Bangladesh government goes through with the relocation, it could risk creating a ‘new crisis’.

      Lee warned that she was uncertain of the island was ‘truly habitable’ for the over 23,000 families expected to live there.

      The Special Rapporteur to Myanmar made the comments to the Human Rights Council in March, saying that if the relocations were made without consent from the people it would affect, it had, ‘potential to create a new crisis.’

      She stressed that before refugees are relocated, the United Nations, ‘must be allowed to conduct a full technical and humanitarian assessment’ as well as allowing the beneficiary communities to visit and decide if it is right for them.

    • Rohingya Refugees to Move to Flood-Prone Bangladesh Island

      Thousands of Rohingya living in Bangladesh refugee camps have agreed to move to an island in the #Bay_of_Bengal, officials said Sunday, despite fears the site is prone to flooding.

      Dhaka has long wanted to move 100,000 refugees to the muddy silt islet, saying it would take pressure off the overcrowded border camps where almost a million Rohingya live.

      Some 740,000 Rohingya fled Myanmar in August 2017 in the face of a military crackdown, joining 200,000 refugees already in makeshift tent settlements at Cox’s Bazar.

      Relocations begin soon

      Bangladesh’s refugee commissioner, Mahbub Alam, said officials overseeing the relocation would be posted to #Bhashan_Char_island in the next few days.

      Approximately 6,000-7,000 refugees have expressed their willingness to be relocated to Bhashan Char, Alam told AFP from Cox’s Bazar, adding that “the number is rising.”

      He did not say when the refugees would be moved, but a senior Navy officer involved in building facilities on the island said it could start by December, with some 500 refugees sent daily.

      Bangladesh had been planning since last year to relocate Rohingya to the desolate flood-prone site, which is an hour by boat from the mainland.

      Rights groups have warned the island, which emerged from the sea only about two decades ago, might not be able to withstand violent storms during the annual monsoon season.

      In the past half-century, powerful cyclones have killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Meghna river estuary where the island is located.

      Rohingya leaders would be taken to Bhashan Char to view the facilities and living conditions, Alam said.

      Safety facilities built on the island include a 9-feet (3 meter) high embankment along its perimeter to keep out tidal surges during cyclones, and a warehouse to store months’ worth of rations, he added.

      Overcrowding in camp

      Rohingya father-of-four Nur Hossain, 50, said he and his family agreed to relocate to #Bhashan_Char after they were shown video footage of the shelters.

      “I have agreed to go. The camp here (at Leda) is very overcrowded. There are food and housing problems,” the 50-year-old told AFP.

      There was no immediate comment from the U.N., although Bangladeshi officials said they expect a delegation would visit the island in the next few weeks.

    • Bangladesh : des réfugiés rohingyas acceptent de partir sur une île

      Des milliers de Rohingyas vivant dans des camps de réfugiés au Bangladesh ont accepté de partir pour une île isolée du golfe du Bengale, ont annoncé dimanche les autorités, en dépit des risques d’inondations.

      Dacca a depuis longtemps fait part de son intention de transférer 100.000 réfugiés musulmans rohingyas des camps de réfugiés surpeuplés, près de la frontière birmane, vers un îlot de vase boueux et isolé du golfe du Bengale.

      Le gouvernement du Bangladesh y voit une solution pour résoudre le problème des camps de réfugiés surpeuplés où vivent près d’un million de Rohingyas.

      Environ 740.000 Rohingyas ont fui la Birmanie pour le Bangladesh en 2017 pour échapper à une répression militaire massive. Ils ont rejoint les quelque 200.000 réfugiés vivant déjà dans le district bangladais frontalier de Cox’s Bazar (sud-est).

      Le commissaire bangladais aux réfugiés, Mahbub Alam, a indiqué que des fonctionnaires seront détachés, dans les prochains jours, afin de superviser cette installation.

      « Environ 6.000 à 7.000 réfugiés ont déjà exprimé leur volonté d’être réinstallés à Bhashan Char », a déclaré Alam à l’AFP depuis Cox’s Bazar, affirmant que « leur nombre est en augmentation ».

      Il n’a cependant pas donné de chiffres sur le nombre de réfugiés qui seront ainsi déplacés.

      Selon un officier supérieur de la marine qui participe à la construction d’installations sur l’île, cette opération pourrait débuter en décembre et environ 500 réfugiés seraient envoyés quotidiennement sur cette île située à une heure de bateau de la terre ferme la plus proche.

      Des groupes de défense des droits affirment que Bhashan Char est susceptible d’être submergée lors des moussons.

      Au cours des cinquante dernières années, de puissants cyclones ont fait des centaines de milliers de morts dans l’estuaire de la rivière Meghna, où l’île se situe.

      Des responsables rohingyas seront conduits à Bhashan Char afin d’y découvrir les installations et leurs conditions de vie, a affirmé M. Alam.

      Des responsables locaux ont assuré qu’une digue de trois mètres a été construite autour de l’île pour la protéger de la montée des eaux en cas de cyclone.

      Nur Hossain, un réfugié rohingya, père de quatre enfants, a déclaré que sa famille et lui ont accepté de partir pour Bhashan Char après avoir vu des images vidéo des abris.

      « Le camp ici (à Leda) est très surpeuplé. Il y a des problèmes de nourriture et de logement », a déclaré à l’AFP cet homme de 50 ans.

      L’ONU n’a jusqu’à présent pas fait de déclaration à ce sujet. Des responsables bangladais ont cependant déclaré qu’une délégation des Nations unies se rendra sur l’île au cours des prochaines semaines.

    • Rohingya: il Bangladesh vuole trasferirli su un’isola sperduta e pericolosa

      Le violenze dell’esercito del Myanmar avevano costretto centinaia di migliaia di Rohingya a rifugiarsi in Bangladesh nel 2017. E quando ancora un rientro nelle loro terre d’origine sembra lontano, Dacca cerca di mandarne 100 mila su un’isola remota e pericolosa nel Golfo del Bengala

      Non sono bastate le violenze dell’esercito del Myanmar e degli estremisti buddisti, che nell’agosto 2017 hanno costretto centinaia di migliaia di Rohingya a rifugiarsi in Bangladesh. E non bastano neanche le condizioni precarie in cui vivono nei fatiscenti campi profughi gestiti da Dacca. Il dramma di questa popolazione, che secondo le Nazioni Unite è una delle minoranze più perseguitate al mondo, non sembra avere fine.

      La scorsa settimana il governo del Bangladesh ha annunciato che alla fine di novembre inizierà il trasferimento di 100 mila rifugiati Rohingya a Bhasan Char, una remota isola nel Golfo del Bengala. Per le autorità questa mossa sarebbe necessaria a causa del «disperato sovraffollamento» nei campi di Cox’s Bazar, una città al confine con la ex-Birmania, che ora ospita oltre 700 mila sfollati. Ma la scelta della nuova collocazione ha sollevato una serie di preoccupazioni per la salute e la sicurezza dei Rohingya che verranno trasferiti.

      Rohinghya in Bangladesh: l’isola in mezzo al nulla

      Yanghee Lee, relatore speciale delle Nazioni Unite sulla situazione dei diritti umani in Myanmar, che ha visitato l’isola nel gennaio 2019, ha espresso seri dubbi e preoccupazioni sul fatto che «l’isola sia davvero abitabile». Bhasan Char, infatti, è soggetta frequentemente ad inondazioni e cicloni. Lee ha anche avvertito che «un trasferimento mal pianificato e senza il consenso degli stessi rifugiati, creerebbe una nuova crisi per i Rohingya».

      Il governo di Dacca ha spiegato che tutte le ricollocazioni a Bhasan Char saranno rigorosamente volontarie e che oltre 7 mila rifugiati hanno già accettato di trasferirsi. Non sappiamo, però, se questi Rohingya siano effettivamente consapevoli dell’isolamento e della pericolosità del contesto in cui andranno a vivere. L’isola, infatti, è a ore di navigazione dalla terraferma e le condizioni del mare non sono delle migliori. Durante il periodo dei monsoni i pochi residenti sono bloccati in mezzo alle acque per lunghi periodi.

      Rohingya a rischio sussistenza

      Sebbene le autorità abbiano migliorato le infrastrutture a Bhasan Char, per cercare di contrastare i rischi di inondazioni e costruito più di 1.400 edifici per ospitare gli sfollati, l’isola non ha un adeguato sistema di agricoltura e le attività commerciali sono quasi inesistenti. Inoltre vanno aggiunte le difficoltà per quanto riguarda l’istruzione e la sanità. Problematiche già presenti nei campi di Cox’s Bazar, che nei mesi scorsi avevano anche lanciato l’allarme del radicalismo islamico.

      Nell’ultimo periodo, infatti, nelle strutture dove hanno trovato rifugio i Rohingya scappati dal Myanmar sono proliferate centinaia di scuole coraniche gestite da Hefazat-e-Islam, un gruppo estremista locale fondato nel 2010, che in passato ha organizzato numerose proteste di piazza. Questa organizzazione, finanziata da alcuni Paesi del Golfo, ha di fatto riempito il vuoto educativo imposto da Dacca, che ha vietato alla minoranza musulmana di frequentare gli istituti locali.

      Chi sono i Rohingya e perché sono perseguitati

      I Rohingya sono un popolo invisibile. Di fede musulmana, dall’ottavo secolo vivono nel Nord-Ovest del Myanmar, ma non vengono considerati ufficialmente un’etnia dal governo. Proprio per questo non hanno alcun diritto e la maggior parte di loro non ha cittadinanza nel paese guidato dal premio Nobel per la pace Aung San Suu Kyi. Senza il diritto di avere cure mediche e istruzione, non possono possedere nulla e non possono avere più di due figli.

      Si è tornato a parlare della loro drammatica situazione nell’agosto di due anni fa, a causa delle persecuzioni dei militari birmani, che li hanno costretti ad un esodo nel vicino Bangladesh. Le poche testimonianze di prima mano arrivate in quei giorni del 2017 parlavano di brutalità inaudite e quotidiane: centinaia di morti, stupri, mine, sparizioni, villaggi dati alle fiamme e torture.

      Rohingya: il difficile ritorno in Myanmar

      Negli ultimi due anni, il governo del Myanmar ha negato la sua colpevolezza per le atrocità commesse e ha vietato alle organizzazioni e agli osservatori internazionali, incluso il relatore speciale delle Nazioni Unite Lee, di accedere nello stato Rakhine, dove la maggior parte dei Rohingya viveva prima dello spargimento di sangue del 2017.

      Proprio per queste ragioni, un ritorno in sicurezza in patria per la popolazione musulmana sembra, per ora, molto difficile. Lo stesso Lee, a settembre, ha dichiarato che il Paese della Suu Kyi «non ha fatto nulla per smantellare il sistema di violenza e persecuzione contro i Rohingya».

    • Rohingya relocation to #Bhashan_Char to begin next week

      The first batch of Rohingyas would be shifted to Bhashan Char next week from overcrowded camps in Cox’s Bazar as part of the Bangladesh government’s plan to relocate 100,000 Rohingyas temporarily to the island until permanent repatriation to their homeland in Myanmar.

      “The exact date for shifting the first batch of Rohingyas to Bhashan Char has not been fixed yet but preparations have been taken to send the first group next week. First, a small group of Rohingyas will be relocated to the island and the process will continue,” said #Commissioner_of_Rohingya_Refugee_Repatriation_Commission (#RRRC) and Additional Secretary Shah Rezwan Hayat.

      These displaced Rohingya people are believed to have become a security threat to regional peace and the host communities as many of them have got involved in criminal activities, and drug and arms trading, reports UNB.

      Seeking support from big countries to find a durable solution to the Rohingya crisis, Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen on October 7 last said, “We’ve long been saying that uncertainty might be created in the region if the Rohingya crisis is not resolved."

      The government has information that trafficking of girls and children was taking place and traffickers share images of girls and children through smartphones using high-speed internet as part of trafficking, he said.

      Nur Mohammad Shikdar, general secretary of Ukhiya Rohingya Repatriation Movement Committee, said: “The relocation process could have been started long ago had a vested quarter of them not gone against the move at the provocation of some international organisations.”

      He stressed the need for implementation of the government plan to relocate 100,000 Rohingyas to Bhashan Char.

      Visiting the camps and talking to some Rohingyas, the UNB correspondent found a greater number of Rohingya people willing to be shifted to Bhashan Char due to uncertainty over their repatriation to their homeland.

      A resident and also leader of a shade in Kutupalong Rohingya Camp said, wishing anonymity, “They’re going through unimaginable suffering as some Rohingya criminals torture them. They want to return to their own country and are also ready to be shifted to Bhashan Char and stay there until the repatriation begins.”

      As part of the government move to relocate Rohingyas to Bhashan Char, a delegation of Rohingya leaders along with the representatives of 22 local and international NGOs have visited Bhashan Char recently.

      Saiful Islam Kalim, executive director of local a NGO, said, “The propaganda against Bhashan Char is totally false and fabricated. I myself visited Bhashan Char. Had I not visited the island I might have been confused with the propaganda. The government has created a wonderful environment there for Rohingyas where many NGOs have expressed their keenness to work with Rohingyas.”

      There is a lack of a conducive environment in Myanmar and two repatriation attempts have failed as Rohingyas are not feeling comfortable with the environment in Rakhine.

      Bangladesh urged the global community to convince Myanmar to bring changes in Rakhine and implement the repatriation arrangements.

      Bangladesh is now hosting over 1.1 million Rohingyas and most of them have entered the country since August 25, 2017.

      Bangladesh and Myanmar signed a repatriation deal on November 23, 2017.

      On January 16, 2018, Bangladesh and Myanmar inked a document on “Physical Arrangement”, which was supposed to facilitate the return of Rohingyas to their homeland. But no Rohingya has been repatriated so far.

    • Rohingya relocation to #Bhashan_Char to begin next week

      The first batch of Rohingyas would be shifted to Bhashan Char next week from overcrowded camps in Cox’s Bazar as part of the Bangladesh government’s plan to relocate 100,000 Rohingyas temporarily to the island until permanent repatriation to their homeland in Myanmar.

      “The exact date for shifting the first batch of Rohingyas to Bhashan Char has not been fixed yet but preparations have been taken to send the first group next week. First, a small group of Rohingyas will be relocated to the island and the process will continue,” said #Commissioner_of_Rohingya_Refugee_Repatriation_Commission (#RRRC) and Additional Secretary Shah Rezwan Hayat.

      These displaced Rohingya people are believed to have become a security threat to regional peace and the host communities as many of them have got involved in criminal activities, and drug and arms trading, reports UNB.

      Seeking support from big countries to find a durable solution to the Rohingya crisis, Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen on October 7 last said, “We’ve long been saying that uncertainty might be created in the region if the Rohingya crisis is not resolved."

      The government has information that trafficking of girls and children was taking place and traffickers share images of girls and children through smartphones using high-speed internet as part of trafficking, he said.

      Nur Mohammad Shikdar, general secretary of Ukhiya Rohingya Repatriation Movement Committee, said: “The relocation process could have been started long ago had a vested quarter of them not gone against the move at the provocation of some international organisations.”

      He stressed the need for implementation of the government plan to relocate 100,000 Rohingyas to Bhashan Char.

      Visiting the camps and talking to some Rohingyas, the UNB correspondent found a greater number of Rohingya people willing to be shifted to Bhashan Char due to uncertainty over their repatriation to their homeland.

      A resident and also leader of a shade in Kutupalong Rohingya Camp said, wishing anonymity, “They’re going through unimaginable suffering as some Rohingya criminals torture them. They want to return to their own country and are also ready to be shifted to Bhashan Char and stay there until the repatriation begins.”

      As part of the government move to relocate Rohingyas to Bhashan Char, a delegation of Rohingya leaders along with the representatives of 22 local and international NGOs have visited Bhashan Char recently.

      Saiful Islam Kalim, executive director of local a NGO, said, “The propaganda against Bhashan Char is totally false and fabricated. I myself visited Bhashan Char. Had I not visited the island I might have been confused with the propaganda. The government has created a wonderful environment there for Rohingyas where many NGOs have expressed their keenness to work with Rohingyas.”

      There is a lack of a conducive environment in Myanmar and two repatriation attempts have failed as Rohingyas are not feeling comfortable with the environment in Rakhine.

      Bangladesh urged the global community to convince Myanmar to bring changes in Rakhine and implement the repatriation arrangements.

      Bangladesh is now hosting over 1.1 million Rohingyas and most of them have entered the country since August 25, 2017.

      Bangladesh and Myanmar signed a repatriation deal on November 23, 2017.

      On January 16, 2018, Bangladesh and Myanmar inked a document on “Physical Arrangement”, which was supposed to facilitate the return of Rohingyas to their homeland. But no Rohingya has been repatriated so far.

  • Bruxelles contre l’Europe Christian Rioux - 8 Février 2019 - Le Devoir

    Faut-il y voir un nouvel exemple du déclin de l’Europe ? Mercredi, la commissaire à la Concurrence, Margrethe Vestager, a annoncé qu’elle imposerait son veto à la fusion des entreprises Alstom et Siemens. Selon Bruxelles, la fusion des géants français et allemand du chemin de fer, pourtant souhaitée par les deux pays, enfreint les règles de la concurrence européenne. C’est ainsi que Bruxelles vient d’immoler sur l’autel du sacro-saint marché libre la possibilité de créer un géant européen du chemin de fer, et cela, alors même que le mastodonte chinois CRRC est déjà numéro un mondial.

    Pourtant, faites le test. Demandez à n’importe qui de nommer la plus grande réalisation de l’Europe depuis 50 ans et il y a fort à parier que surgira le nom d’Airbus. Mais ce qui était possible dans l’Europe de de Gaulle et de Willy Brandt pour contrer l’Américain Boeing ne l’est plus aujourd’hui. Avec pour résultat que l’Europe ne compte pratiquement aucun géant dans des domaines aussi importants que le nucléaire, la téléphonie, l’Internet et le numérique.

    De là à conclure qu’en passant du Marché commun à la monnaie unique, le continent a fabriqué son propre déclin, il n’y a qu’un pas. C’est la thèse que défend brillamment le livre de l’économiste Ashoka Mody intitulé Eurotragedy (Oxford University Press). Ancien du FMI et de la Banque mondiale, Mody ne flirte ni avec le Rassemblement national, en France, ni avec Syriza, en Grèce. Son livre a d’ailleurs remporté le prestigieux prix du Livre économique de l’année décerné par l’Association des éditeurs américains.

    Dans ces 600 pages, l’économiste de Princeton raconte une tragédie qui, depuis vingt ans, mène l’Europe de déboires en déboires. Selon lui, non seulement la monnaie unique fut une erreur magistrale, mais depuis, l’Europe s’est enfermée dans une véritable « bulle cognitive » qui ne fait qu’aggraver son erreur et la rend sourde à ce que disent les peuples et la réalité économique.

    Les esprits les plus éclairés avaient pourtant tiré la sonnette d’alarme. Trente ans avant la crise grecque, Nicholas Kaldor, de l’Université de Cambridge, avait mis en garde les Européens contre un projet qui, en obligeant les pays les plus riches à soutenir les plus pauvres, diviserait profondément les vieilles nations européennes. Car il a toujours été clair que jamais l’Allemagne n’accepterait la moindre forme de péréquation, une condition pourtant indissociable de toute union monétaire.

    Bien avant la monnaie unique, le « serpent monétaire européen » et le Mécanisme européen des taux de change avaient montré l’impossibilité d’imposer une discipline monétaire commune à des pays aussi différents, explique Mody. Mais l’idéologie ne s’embarrasse ni du réel ni des peuples et de leur histoire. Les résultats ne se feront pas attendre. Sitôt les taux de change devenus fixes, la France verra ses excédents commerciaux fondre au soleil. Avec le recul, on voit que Paris a été pris à son propre jeu, dit Mody, lui qui croyait harnacher ainsi l’étalon allemand. Non seulement l’économie allemande a-t-elle continué à dominer l’Europe, mais l’euro permet aujourd’hui à Berlin de dicter ses réformes économiques à la France.

    Parodiant Aristote, l’économiste se demande comment « des hommes et des femmes éminemment bons et justes » ont pu déclencher une telle tragédie « non par vice et dépravation », mais par « erreur et faiblesse ». Selon lui, l’euro fut d’abord et avant tout un choix idéologique défiant toutes les lois de l’économie et de la géopolitique. Dans un monde de taux flottants, les pays européens se privaient de cette souveraineté monétaire qui agit comme un « pare-chocs ». Les dévaluations permettent aux plus faibles de reprendre leur souffle, contrairement à ce que croyaient Pompidou et Giscard d’Estaing, qui y voyaient un objet de honte.

    En entrevue sur le site Atlantico, l’économiste note que les électeurs qui avaient voté en France contre le traité de Maastricht (1992) ressemblent étrangement à ces gilets jaunes qui ont récemment occupé les ronds-points. C’est de cette époque que date, dit-il, le début de la rébellion d’une partie de la population contre l’Europe. « Au lieu d’entendre la voix du peuple et de colmater la fracture, les responsables européens ont décidé de l’ignorer. »

    Ashoka Mody n’est pas antieuropéen. Au contraire, il rêve même d’une « nouvelle république des lettres » fondée sur la diversité des peuples européens. Selon lui, l’idéologie du « toujours plus d’Europe » est en train de déconstruire l’extraordinaire réussite économique qui avait caractérisé le Marché commun. Le refus de fusionner Alstom et Siemens en fournit aujourd’hui la preuve par l’absurde. Même le « couple franco-allemand » s’en trouve ébranlé.

    Soit Bruxelles accepte de redonner leur souveraineté aux États membres, dit l’économiste, soit l’euro continuera à agir comme « une force de décélération économique ». Dans ce cas, l’optimisme n’est guère de mise. Chaque nouvelle crise « surviendra dans un contexte de vulnérabilité financière et économique encore plus grand ». Or, la prochaine pourrait bien « déchirer durablement le délicat tissu européen ».

    #Ashoka_Mody #économie #monaie #euro #monaie_unique #UE #union_européenne #marché_commun #déclin #Alstom #Siemens

    • #Ashoka_Mody est professeur de politique économique internationale à l’Ecole Woodrow Wilson de l’Université de Princeton. Il fut Directeur Adjoint du Fonds Monétaire International, et a également travaillé à la Banque Mondiale, et aux Laboratoires AT&T Bell. Ashoka Mody a conseillé des gouvernements pour des projets financiers et de politique de développement. Il est le lauréat du prix du livre économique de l’année 2018, de l’association des éditeurs américains pour son livre EuroTragedy A Drama in 9 acts (éditions OUP USA).

  • Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car
    C’est brillant, mais RD oublie que derrière ces jugements aberrants se cache toujours un intérêt de classe sociale. Les jugements ne sont pas la conséquence d’un atavisme humian.

    RICHARD DAWKINS - Evolutionary Biologist, Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science, Oxford University; Author, The Ancestor’s Tale

    Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction’ to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement’ for "sin’.

    Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.

    Basil Fawlty, British television’s hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn’t start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. “Right! I warned you. You’ve had this coming to you!” He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?

    Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn’t surprise me).

    But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?

    Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

    #droit #justice #philosophie

  • New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists | Environment | The Guardian

    The planetary health diet resembles those already known to be healthy, such as the Mediterranean or Okinawa diets, the researchers said.

    “The planetary health diet is based on really hard epidemiological evidence, where researchers followed large cohorts of people for decades,” said Marco Springmann at Oxford University and part of the commission. “It so happens that if you put all that evidence together you get a diet that looks similar to some of the healthiest diets that exist in the real world.”

    #miam #anthropocène #viande

  • Self-Sovereign #identity: Will your universal digital ID be secure in the quantum future?

    Data today: The Wild West.If you have digital tracks, the latest revelation of corporate data intrusion will leave you shaking in them.According to a newly released Oxford University study, Android is a data monster with a voracious appetite for your data. The mobile operating system with 85 percent market share is harvesting and sharing data from 90 percent of the apps running on its OS. More disconcertingly, 43 percent of these apps transfer data to third parties, including Facebook and Twitter.Such data intrusion is characteristic of the current age of data. Users have been used to seeing their data harvested by the giants of this world, be it companies or governments.What will it take to re-instill public #trust in Google and Android apps? Consider that the recent report of a data (...)

    #big-data #universal-digital-id #blockchain

  • Migration: the riddle of Europe’s shadow population
    Lennys — not her real name — is part of a shadow population living in Europe that predates the arrival of several million people on the continent in the past few years, amid war and chaos in regions of the Middle East and Africa. That influx, which has fuelled Eurosceptic nativism, has if anything complicated the fate of Lennys and other irregular migrants.

    Now she is using a service set up by the Barcelona local administration to help naturalise irregular migrants and bring them in from the margins of society. She is baffled by the anti-immigrant rhetoric of politicians who suggest people like her prefer living in the legal twilight, without access to many services — or official protection.❞

    The fate of Lennys and other irregulars is likely to take an ever more central role in Europe’s deepening disputes on migration. They are a diverse group: many arrived legally, as Lennys did, on holiday, work or family visas that have since expired or become invalid because of changes in personal circumstances. Others came clandestinely and have never had any legal right to stay.

    The most scrutinised, and frequently demonised, cohort consists of asylum seekers whose claims have failed. Their numbers are growing as the cases from the surge in migrant arrivals in the EU in 2015 and 2016 — when more than 2.5m people applied for asylum in the bloc — work their way through the process of decisions and appeals. Almost half of first instance claims failed between 2015 and 2017, but many of those who are rejected cannot be returned to their home countries easily — or even at all.

    The question of what to do about rejected asylum applicants and the rest of Europe’s shadow population is one that many governments avoid. Bouts of hostile rhetoric and unrealistic targets — such as the Italian government’s pledge this year to expel half a million irregular migrants — mask a structural failure to deal with the practicalities.

    Many governments have sought to deny irregular migrants services and expel them — policies that can create their own steep human costs. But authorities in a growing number of cities from Barcelona to Brussels have concluded that the combination of hostile attitudes and bureaucratic neglect is destructive.

    These cities are at the frontline of dealing with irregular status residents from Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. Local authorities have, to varying degrees, brought these populations into the system by offering them services such as healthcare, language courses and even legal help.

    The argument is part humanitarian but also pragmatic. It could help prevent public health threats, crime, exploitative employment practices — and the kind of ghettoisation that can tear communities apart.

    “If we provide ways for people to find their path in our city . . . afterwards probably they will get regularisation and will get their papers correct,” says Ramon Sanahuja, director of immigration at the city council in Barcelona. “It’s better for everybody.”

    The size of Europe’s shadow population is unknown — but generally reckoned by experts to be significant and growing. The most comprehensive effort to measure it was through an EU funded project called Clandestino, which estimated the number of irregular migrants at between 1.9m and 3.8m in 2008 — a figure notable for both its wide margin of error and the lack of updates to it since, despite the influx after 2015.

    A more contemporaneous, though also imprecise, metric comes from comparing the numbers of people ordered to leave the EU each year with the numbers who actually went. Between 2008 and 2017, more than 5m non-EU citizens were instructed to leave the bloc. About 2m returned to countries outside it, according to official data.

    While the two sets of numbers do not map exactly — people don’t necessarily leave in the same year they are ordered to do so — the figures do suggest several million people may have joined Europe’s shadow population in the past decade or so. The cohort is likely to swell further as a glut of final appeals from asylum cases lodged since 2015 comes through.

    “The volume of people who are in limbo in the EU will only grow, so it’s really problematic,” says Hanne Beirens, associate director at Migration Policy Institute Europe, a think-tank. “While the rhetoric at a national level will be ‘These people cannot stay’, at a local community level these people need to survive.”

    Barcelona: cities seek practical solutions to ease migrant lives

    Barcelona’s pragmatic approach to irregular migration echoes its history as a hub for trade and movement of people across the Mediterranean Sea.

    It is one of 11 cities from 10 European countries involved in a two-year project on the best ways to provide services to irregular status migrants. Other participants in the initiative — set up last year by Oxford university’s Centre on Migration, Policy, and Society — include Athens, Frankfurt, Ghent, Gothenburg, Lisbon, Oslo, Stockholm and Utrecht.

    A report for the group, published last year, highlights the restrictions faced by undocumented migrants in accessing services across the EU. They were able to receive only emergency healthcare in six countries, while in a further 12 they were generally excluded from primary and secondary care services.

    Some cities have made special efforts to offer help in ways that they argue also benefit the community, the report said. Rotterdam asked midwives, doctors, and schools to refer children for vaccinations, in case their parents were afraid to reveal their immigration status.

    The impact of some of these policies has still to be demonstrated. Ramon Sanahuja, director of immigration at the city council in Barcelona, says authorities there had an “intuition” their approach brought benefits, but he admits they need to do a cost-benefit analysis. As to the potential for the scheme to be exploited by anti-immigrant groups, he says Europe needs “brave politicians who explain how the world works and that the system is complicated”.

    “A lot of people in Barcelona are part of the system — they have [for example] a cleaning lady from Honduras who they pay €10 per hour under the counter,” he says. “Someone has to explain this, that everything is related.” Michael Peel
    #naturalisation #villes-refuge #ville-refuge #citoyenneté #sans-papiers #migrerrance #régularisation #statistiques #chiffres #Europe #Etat-nation #limbe #pragmatisme #Barcelone

    cc @isskein


    Au niveau de la #terminologie (#mots, #vocabulaire), pour @sinehebdo:

    Belgian policy towards irregular migrants and undocumented workers has stiffened under the current government, which includes the hardline Flemish nationalist NVA party. It has prioritised the expulsion of “transmigrants”— the term used for people that have travelled to Europe, often via north Africa and the Mediterranean and that are seeking to move on from Belgium to other countries, notably the UK. Several hundred live rough in and around Brussels’ Gare du Nord.

    –-> #transmigrants

  • Aux #Etats-Unis, lumière sur les disparitions et meurtres d’#Amérindiennes

    Autre facteur : les polices tribales n’ont pas autorité pour poursuivre les non-#Amérindiens, même pour des agressions commises sur leurs terres. La police fédérale délaisse beaucoup de cas et quand elle prend en charge un dossier, des mois ont parfois été perdus.

  • #Memes That Kill: The Future Of #Information Warfare

    Russia is not the only country responsible for distorting public #opinion on the #internet. An Oxford University study found instances of social media #manipulation campaigns by organizations in at least 28 countries since 2010. The study also highlighted that “ authoritarian regimes are not the only or even the best at organized social media manipulation ”.

    Typically, cross-border information wars are waged by state-sponsored cyber-troops, of which the world has many and the US has the most.


    Source: Oxford University

     The world is already facing the uncomfortable reality that people are increasingly confusing fact and fiction. However, the #technologies behind the spread of disinformation and deception online are still in their infancy, and the problem of authenticating information is only starting to take shape.

    Put simply, this is only the beginning.

    There is no Geneva Convention or UN treaty detailing how a nation should define digital information attacks or proportionally retaliate. As new technologies spread, understanding the tactics and circumstances that define the future of information warfare is now more critical than ever.

    #propagande #etats-unis

  • The #Opioid Timebomb: The #Sackler family and how their painkiller fortune helps bankroll London arts | London Evening Standard

    We sent all 33 non-profits the same key questions including: will they rename their public space (as some organisations have done when issues arose regarding former benefactors)? And will they accept future Sackler philanthropy?

    About half the respondents, including the Royal Opera House and the National Gallery, where Dame Theresa Sackler is respectively an honorary director and a patron, declined to answer either question.

    Of the rest, none said it planned to erase the Sackler name from its public space. The organisations’ positions were more guarded on future donations.

    Only the V&A, Oxford University, the Royal Court Theatre and the National Maritime Museum said outright that they were open to future Sackler grants.

    The V&A said: “The Sackler family continue to be a valuable donor to the V&A and we are grateful for their ongoing support.”

    Millions for London: Where Sackler money has gone

    Serpentine Galleries

    Grants received/pledged: £5,500,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Serpentine Sackler Gallery
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say


    Grants received/pledged: £4,650,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Gallery, Sackler Escalators, Sackler Octagon
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    Dulwich Picture Gallery

    Grants received/pledged: £3,491,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Centre for Arts Education
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    V&A Museum

    Grants received/pledged: £2,500,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Courtyard
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Yes

    The Design Museum

    Grants received/pledged: £1,500,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Library and Archive
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? No reply

    Natural History Museum

    Grants received/pledged: £1,255,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Biodiversity Imaging Laboratory
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    National Gallery

    Grants received/pledged: £1,050,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Room (Room 34)
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    National Portrait Gallery

    Grants received/pledged: £1,000,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Pledged grant still being vetted
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Being vetted. Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    The Garden Museum

    Grants received/pledged: £850,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Garden
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? No reply

    National Maritime Museum

    Grants received/pledged: £230,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Research Fellowships
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Yes

    Museum of London

    Grants received/pledged: Refused to disclose grants received
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Hall
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    Royal Academy of Arts

    Grants received/pledged: Refused to disclose grants received
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Wing, Sackler Sculpture Gallery
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”


    Old Vic

    Grants received/pledged: £2,817,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Productions and projects
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    Royal Opera House

    Grants received/pledged: £2,500,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Won’t say
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    National Theatre

    Grants received/pledged: £2,000,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Pavilion
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    Shakespeare’s Globe

    Grants received/pledged: £1,660,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Studios
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    Royal Court Theatre

    Grants received/pledged: £360,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Trust Trainee Scheme
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Yes


    University of Oxford

    Grants received/pledged: £11,000,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Bodleian Sackler Library, Keeper of Antiquities
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Yes

    University of Sussex

    Grants received/pledged: £8,400,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    King’s College, London

    Grants received/pledged: £6,950,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    The Francis Crick Institute

    Grants received/pledged: £5,000,000
    Used to fund (among other things): One-off funds raised via CRUK to help build the Crick
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? N/A


    Grants received/pledged: £2,654,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Institute for Musculo-Skeletal Research
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    Royal College of Art

    Grants received/pledged: £2,500,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Building
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    The Courtauld Institute of Art

    Grants received/pledged: £1,170,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Research Fellowship, Sackler Lecture Series
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    Royal Ballet School

    Grants received/pledged: £1,000,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Won’t say
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    Imperial College London

    Grants received/pledged: £618,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Knee research
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    Old Royal Naval College

    Grants received/pledged: £500,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Gallery
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say


    Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

    Grants received/pledged: £3,100,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Sackler Crossing footbridge
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    Moorfields Eye Hospital

    Grants received/pledged: £3,000,000
    Used to fund (among other things): New eye centre (pledged only)
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    The London Library

    Grants received/pledged: £1,000,000
    Used to fund (among other things): The Sackler Study
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    The Prince’s Trust

    Grants received/pledged: £775,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Programmes for disadvantaged youth
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Subject to vetting that typically takes into account “reputational risk” and “all relevant new information about the donor in the public domain”

    Westminster Abbey

    Grants received/pledged: £500,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Restoration of Henry VII Chapel
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? Won’t say

    Royal Hospital for Neurodisability

    Grants received/pledged: £350,000
    Used to fund (among other things): Won’t say
    Will you accept future Sackler grants? No reply

    cc @hlc

    • Rob Reich, an ethics professor at Stanford University, has said that non-profits taking future Sackler donations could be seen as being “complicit in the reputation-laundering of the donor”.

      La liste ci dessus ne concerne que la GB mais en France la liste doit être longue aussi et encore plus aux USA et probablement un peu partout dans le monde.

      But our FoI requests revealed that at least one major Sackler donation has been held up in the vetting process: namely a £1 million grant for the National Portrait Gallery.

      The gallery said: “The Sackler Trust pledged a £1 million grant in June 2016 for a future project, but no funds have been received as this is still being vetted as part of our internal review process.

      Each gift is assessed on a case-by-case basis and where necessary, further information and advice is sought from third parties.”

      It added that its ethical fundraising policy sets out “unacceptable sources of funding” and examines the risk involved in “accepting support which may cause significant potential damage to the gallery’s reputation”.

    • What do the Sacklers say in their defence? The three brothers who founded Purdue in the Fifties — Arthur, Mortimer and Raymond — are dead but their descendants have conflicting views.

      Arthur’s daughter Elizabeth Sackler, 70, said her side of the family had not benefited a jot from OxyContin, which was invented after they were bought out in the wake of her father’s death in 1987. She has called the OxyContin fortune “morally abhorrent”.

      Her stepmother, British-born Jillian Sackler, who lives in New York and is a trustee at the Royal Academy of Arts, has called on the other branches of the family to acknowledge their “moral duty to help make this right and to atone for mistakes made”.

      But the OxyContin-rich branches of the family have remained silent. Representatives of Mortimer’s branch — the London Sacklers — said nobody was willing to speak on their behalf and referred us to Purdue’s communications director, Robert Josephson. He confirmed that the US-based Sacklers — Raymond’s branch — would not speak to us either, but that a Purdue spokesman would answer our questions.

      We asked the Purdue spokesman: does Purdue, and by extension the Sacklers, acknowledge the opioid crisis and a role in it?

      “Absolutely we acknowledge there is an opioid crisis,” he said, from Purdue’s HQ in Stamford, Connecticut. “But what’s driving the deaths is illicitly manufactured #fentanyl from China. It’s extremely potent and mixed with all sorts of stuff.”


      Philip Hopwood, 56, whose addiction to OxyContin and other opioids destroyed his £3 million business and his marriage, said: “If the Sackler family had a shred of decency, they would divert their philanthropy to help people addicted to the drugs they continue to make their fortune from.

      “The non-profits should be ashamed. At the very least they should be honest about the source of their funds.

      The V&A should rename their courtyard the OxyContin Courtyard and the Serpentine should call their gallery the OxyContin Gallery.

      “The money that built these public spaces comes from a drug that is killing people and ruining lives. They can no longer turn a blind eye. I’d feel sick to walk into a Sackler-named space.”

  • Libéralisme : l’heure de payer l’addition Alternatives Economiques - Christian Chavagneux - 15 Mars 2018

    Un sondage ne fait pas un pays mais celui d’OpinionWay pour le Printemps de l’économie 2018 surprend par la violence qu’il exprime du rejet de la mondialisation par les Français. Avec pour conséquence une forte demande de protectionnisme et un pessimisme qui n’augurent rien de bon. En prônant l’ouverture à tout crin et en refusant d’en traiter les effets anti-redistributifs, le libéralisme économique finit par produire sa propre remise en cause.

    Un rejet généralisé
    Premier résultat : 60 % des Français ont une mauvaise opinion de la mondialisation. En termes d’âge, on trouve les plus récalcitrants chez les 50 ans et plus. Mais la moitié des moins de 35 ans déclarent également leur méfiance : terrible constat d’une jeunesse pour moitié repliée sur elle-même ! Et le discours sur la différence entre des élites bien formées mondialisées et des ouvriers peu formés nationalistes ne fonctionne pas : 58 % des CSP+ ont une mauvaise opinion de la mondialisation.

    Sur quoi se fonde ce rejet ? Plusieurs points saillants émergent : ce sont les multinationales qui font majoritairement la loi, l’Asie et les Etats-Unis sont les gagnants et l’Europe est parmi les perdants. La mondialisation est perçue comme poussant à l’innovation technologique mais dégrade l’environnement, ne réduit pas la pauvreté et va à l’encontre de l’égalité entre hommes et femmes. De plus, quasiment la moitié des Français pensent qu’elle a des effets négatifs sur la croissance, 58 % qu’elle réduit leur pouvoir d’achat, 64 % qu’elle a des effets négatifs sur l’emploi et 65 % sur les salaires.

    Un sentiment pessimiste
    A partir de ce constat, nulle surprise sur les solutions : le protectionnisme commercial est plébiscité. 66 % des Français souhaitent l’imposition de normes plus strictes sur les produits entrants et sortants.
    L’avenir n’est pas rose : les trois-quarts des sondés pensent que la mondialisation économique va continuer à s’étendre, 60 % que c’est incompatible avec la lutte contre le changement climatique et 54 % cela se traduira par encore plus d’uniformisation culturelle.
    Les débats entre économistes sur le ralentissement de la mondialisation et le fait qu’elle ait atteint un plateau n’ont donc pas d’effets sur l’opinion française, pas plus que le travail des anthropologues du politique soulignant combien face à un capitalisme mondialisé chaque territoire se l’approprie de manière différente, loin de toute uniformisation.
    Du fait de la mondialisation, 71 % des Français sont inquiets pour leurs enfants, 67 % pour l’avenir de la France, 65 % pour l’avenir du monde et 63 % pour leur propre avenir. Un tableau noir.

    Le prix d’un trop fort libéralisme
    Ce sondage ne fait que confirmer ce que le Brexit, l’élection de Donald Trump et la montée des partis nationalistes nous clament plus fortement : faute d’avoir reconnu les #coûts_sociaux qu’il engendre et accepté de les traiter, le #libéralisme_économique fait désormais l’objet d’un rejet croissant.
    Les libéraux vantent les effets positifs de la mondialisation commerciale sur le pouvoir d’achat puisque l’on achète des produits moins chers ailleurs. Mais un pays peut également y perdre des emplois ou connaître une pression à la baisse sur les salaires. Quel effet l’emporte ? La seule étude récente sur le sujet a été proposée à l’été 2017 par la Banque d’Angleterre sur le secteur textile britannique. Résultat : d’un côté, un gain de pouvoir d’achat cumulé grâce à l’ouverture de 3 %, de l’autre, une perte de 1,25 %.
    Au niveau macroéconomique, les gains s’avèrent donc supérieurs aux pertes. Généralement, les libéraux s’arrêtent là. Sauf que les gains bénéficient à tous les consommateurs tandis que les pertes sont concentrées sur quelques territoires. L’étude regarde alors de près les marchés du travail : les régions qui concentraient une plus grande part d’industrie textile au début des années 1980 ont connu une plus faible croissance de l’emploi que les autres et un retrait plus marqué des personnes du marché du travail. Un effet qui se fait toujours sentir…

    Les coûts locaux de la mondialisation

    Une étude récente de la Banque de France s’interroge, elle, sur le coût local des importations chinoises en France. Résultat : sur la période 2001-2007, une perte d’environ 90 000 emplois dans le secteur manufacturier, soit 13 % du déclin sur la période... mais aussi 190 000 en dehors de ce secteur. L’explication ? La baisse de l’emploi manufacturier induit une baisse de la demande locale, qui fait largement sentir ses effets sur les secteurs a priori protégés de la concurrence internationale.
    Enfin, une récente recherche du Fonds monétaire international aboutit à trois résultats importants. Tout d’abord, participer à la mondialisation accroît la richesse d’un pays. Ensuite, plus le niveau d’intégration internationale d’un pays est élevé, plus les gains qu’il tire d’une poursuite de l’intégration diminue. Enfin, les gains de la mondialisation profitent aux plus riches et accroissent les #inégalités. La France se situe clairement dans la catégorie des pays mondialisés qui ne profitent plus d’une ouverture supplémentaire, la mondialisation étant l’un des facteurs expliquant la montée des inégalités.

    Bref, la #mondialisation fait des gagnants mais aussi des #perdants. Les #politiques suivies ces dernières décennies n’ont pas suffisamment cherché à aider ceux qui sont tombés du mauvais côté. Aujourd’hui, ils répondent. Si cela conduit finalement à une mondialisation raisonnable et à un capitalisme moins libéral et moins inégalitaire, on s’en sortira bien. Mais la probabilité d’une montée des #guerres_commerciales n’est pas exclue. Ni même qu’au-delà du seul libéralisme économique débridé, la démocratie soit aussi emportée par le flux.

    • L’intérêt de cet article est dans le chiffrage du rejet de la mondialisation par les français.
      En tant qu’ économiste et éditorialiste , Christian Chavagneux essaye de justifier à tous prix la #mondialisation_heureuse.
      Il ne doit pas souvent aller dans la rue ce monsieur, il est vrai qu’il écrit avant tout pour ses lecteurs.

      Article tiré de la revue de presse du site Les Crises, ( Olivier Berruyer ) mis à l’index par le décodex du nomde.

    • Article tiré de la revue de presse du site Les Crises, ( Olivier Berruyer ) mis à l’index par le décodex du nomde.

      Du « nomde » ? mais de quoi l’Immonde est-il le nom ?

      Sinon, c’est bien de mettre l’intégralité des articles munis d’un « paywall » à retardement.

    • Un sondage d’OpinionWay vient d’être réalisé sur la « mondialisation » et ses résultats sont sans appels[1]. Les français rejettent dans leur grande majorité cette « mondialisation » et se prononcent même, à près de 66%, pour une forme de retour au protectionnisme. Certains vont se lamenter sur le « manque de culture économique » des français. D’autres feront remarquer, et cela est vrai, que ce sondage n’est qu’un sondage. Mais, ce sondage a été réalisé pour le « Printemps de l’Economie », une manifestation soutenue par la Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations[2].
      Ce sondage survient après l’interruption du processus du TAFTA mais après, aussi, l’approbation du CETA par l’Union européenne[3]. Il a donc valeur de témoignage. Il a été réalisé par des personnes et pour des personnes qui sont en réalités favorables à la mondialisation. Le fait qu’il donne des résultats aussi contraires à leurs attentes est, de ce point de vue, hautement symbolique.

      Un rejet général
      La première chose qu’il convient de retenir de ce sondage, c’est qu’il exprime un rejet quasi-général de la « mondialisation ». Pas moins de 60% des personnes interrogées ont une opinion négative de la mondialisation. En fait, seul 3% des personnes interrogées ont une « très bonne » opinion de la mondialisation alors que 14% en ont une « très mauvaise ». Le clivage est net.

      Source : sondage OpinionWay, réalisé au mois de mars 2018 pour le Printemps des économistes
      Par ailleurs, quand on regarde la répartition de ces opinions, on constate que le taux le plus élevé de « mauvaise opinion » est situé dans la tranche d’âge qui va de 50-64 ans, autrement dit les personnes les plus vulnérables au risque prolongé de chômage. Il est ici important de noter que l’appartenance aux catégories socio-professionnelles les plus élevées (CSP+) n’a pratiquement pas d’impact sur les mauvaises opinions quant à la mondialisation. Les CSP+ ont une mauvaise opinion à 58% et les CSP- à 60%.

      Cela signifie qu’une majorité absolue de nos concitoyens n’adhère plus à la doxa libérale qui veut que le libre-échange et la mondialisation soient de bonnes choses pour tous. C’est, ici, un changement important de l’opinion. Il n’est pas étonnant car cette même doxa ne s’appuyait pas sur des faits mais sur une forme de présentation de l’histoire économique et sociale hautement tendancieuse.

      On a pu avoir en effet l’impression, et peut-être l’illusion, que c’était par l’abolition des barrières aux échanges que l’on avait obtenu la croissance très forte. Des travaux, parmi lesquels on doit inclure ceux de Dollar, en 1992[4], de Ben-David, en 1993[5], de Sachs et Warner, en 1995[6], et de Edwards en 1998[7], ont cherché à établir ce fait.

      Mais, de manière générale, les tests statistiques et économétriques pratiqués donnent des résultats qui sont pour le moins très ambigus. On peut en déduire que, pour certains pays, l’ouverture a eu des résultats positifs, mais non pour d’autres. Cependant, on peut aussi en déduire que si une politique qui associe l’ouverture à de bonnes mesures macroéconomiques est meilleure qu’une politique associant le protectionnisme à des mauvaises mesures macroéconomiques, ceci tient bien plus à la qualité des dites mesures macroéconomiques qu’à celle de l’ouverture[8]. De fait, les pays qui ont associé des politiques protectionnistes à des bonnes politiques macroéconomiques connaissent des taux de croissance qui sont largement supérieurs à ceux des pays plus ouverts, ce qui invalide le résultat précédent sur l’ouverture[9]. Ceci nous ramène à la problématique du développement, qui s’avère être autrement plus complexe que ce que les partisans d’un libre-échange généralisé veulent bien dire. Les travaux d’Alice Amsden[10], Robert Wade[11] ou ceux regroupés par Helleiner[12] montrent que dans le cas des pays en voie de développement le choix du protectionnisme, s’il est associé à de réelles politiques nationales de développement et d’industrialisation[13], fournit des taux de croissance qui sont très au-dessus de ceux des pays qui ne font pas le même choix. Le fait que les pays d’Asie qui connaissent la plus forte croissance ont systématiquement violé les règles de la globalisation établies et codifiées par la Banque mondiale et le FMI est souligné par Dani Rodrik[14].

      En fait, le protectionnisme s’avère bien souvent une voie plus sure et plus rapide vers la croissance que le libre-échange et, ce point est d’ailleurs régulièrement oublié par les thuriféraires du libre-échange, c’est la croissance dans chaque pays qui porte le développement des échanges internationaux et non l’inverse.

      L’opinion des personnes interrogées dans le cadre du sondage OpinionWay réalisé pour Le Printemps des Economistes met d’ailleurs bien en lumière que pour plus de 56% des personnes interrogées, les règles du commerce international sont conçues pour et par les multinationales.

      Les raisons de ce rejet
      Il est alors important de regarder quelles sont les raisons pour lesquelles les personnes interrogées rejettent la « mondialisation ». La raison majeure est l’opinion très négative des conséquences de la mondialisation sur l’environnement. Pour 70% des personnes interrogées, la mondialisation a des effets négatifs ou n’améliore pas vraiment la situation. Puis, viennent les questions liées à la santé, à la pauvreté et aux inégalités. C’est dire à quel point la « mondialisation » est mal perçue par les français.

      Si l’on pose aux personnes interrogées des questions concernant la situation en France, on voit alors surgir la question des salaires et de l’emploi (plus de 64% des personnes pensent que la mondialisation est mauvaise sur ces points), mais aussi les questions de l’environnement, du pouvoir d’achat et de la croissance. C’est donc un bilan très négatifs que tirent les français de la « mondialisation ».

      De fait, le passage progressif à la globalisation marchande a permis de faire passer, dans le discours tenus par les principaux pays européens, les mesures destinées à faire baisser la part des salaires et surtout les salaires d’ouvriers pour une évidence, une sorte de « loi de la nature ». Il n’y avait pourtant rien de « naturel » à cela. Les transformations du cadre d’insertion international sont bien le produit de politiques. Mais, par l’illusion d’une « contrainte extérieure » s’appliquant hors de toute politique, ce discours a produit un mécanisme progressif d’acceptation des mesures qui étaient ainsi préconisées. On constate alors, pour presque tous les pays[15], un accroissement du coefficient, et donc des inégalités qui se creusent entre le milieu des années 1980 et le milieu des années 1990, au moment où l’on procède aux grandes déréglementations dans le domaine du commerce international.

      Le phénomène de pression à la baisse sur les salaires engendré par le libre-échange et la « mondialisation » est évident pour les pays les plus développés. On le constate aux Etats-Unis par exemple[16]. Pour mesurer l’impact de la déflation salariale importée, il faut commencer par établir l’écart entre les gains de productivité et ceux de l’ensemble des salaires nets à l’image de ce qui s’est passé dans d’autres pays[17]. On rappelle que l’on avait fait ce calcul dans l’ouvrage de 2011 « La Démondialisation »[18], ouvrage que l’on peut considérer comme largement validé par ce sondage de 2018. L’évolution des rémunérations salariales a ainsi été très désavantageuse pour les salariés à bas revenus à partir de 1983. Ce phénomène s’est amplifié au tournant des années 1999-2002. On peut donc bien parler d’une contre-révolution conservatrice qui s’est jouée en deux temps. La déflation salariale est donc indiscutable et c’est elle qui explique le phénomène de ralentissement de l’inflation générale à la fois directement, par la modération des salaires et donc par des coûts à profit égal et même croissants, et indirectement, par le biais de la pression qu’exercent les chômeurs. Cette déflation salariale a été le résultat de la mise en concurrence des travailleurs français avec les travailleurs d’autres pays dont le niveau de salaires était incomparablement plus bas.

      La phase dans laquelle nous sommes toujours plongés, a vu les salaires évoluer sous la contrainte des importations de produits issus des pays à faibles coûts salariaux. C’est le résultat de la politique d’ouverture qui a été menée dans la période précédente. Ici, on peut mesurer directement les effets de la globalisation marchande sur l’économie française. Celle-ci se traduit non seulement par un accroissement plus faible que celui de la productivité pour la moyenne des salaires (ce phénomène étant particulièrement sensible dans l’industrie manufacturière), mais aussi par une augmentation des inégalités au sein du salariat et, en particulier, la stagnation du salaire médian par comparaison à la faible – mais constante – hausse du salaire moyen. Dans cette phase, la loi sur les 35 heures a bien joué un rôle correctif, contrairement à ce qui avait été affirmé avant et après qu’elle soit votée. Mais le rôle de cette dernière a été des plus limités. Dès les années 2000-2002, les effets du passage aux 35 heures semblent s’épuiser.

      La globalisation peut donc être tenue responsable d’une très large part de ce processus qui a abouti à un retard salarial important dans notre pays. Ce retard a aussi engendré un déficit de croissance, qui est venu lui-même renforcer les effets de la globalisation marchande par la montée du chômage et la pression que ce dernier exerce sur les rémunérations des personnes les plus exposées.

      Un retour vers le protectionnisme ?
      Ce sondage OpinionWay valide aussi l’idée d’un retour vers des formes de protectionnisme. Il montre que 66% des personnes interrogées sont en faveur de normes plus strictes sur les produits entrants ou sortants.

      Il faut ici revenir sur l’impact de la globalisation sur l’économie française, tout en précisant que des conclusions analogues pourraient être tirées pour la plupart des grands pays développés. Les conséquences sur l’économie française ont été importantes. Elles tendent à se diviser en un effet de délocalisation[19] (direct et indirect) et un effet sur la formation et répartition des revenus[20].

      Il ne fait donc aucun doute que la pression concurrentielle issue des pays à faibles coûts salariaux, mais où la productivité tend, dans certaines branches, à se rapprocher des pays développés, est aujourd’hui extrêmement forte. Le problème semble particulièrement grave à l’intérieur de l’Union européenne puisque l’on constate un très fort avantage compétitif des « nouveaux entrants », qui couvre désormais une très grande gamme de produits. L’idée de compenser l’écart abusif des coûts salariaux unitaires entre les différents pays par des taxes touchant les produits pour lesquels ces coûts sont les plus dissemblables, a donc fait son chemin. Par rapport aux protections qui ont été mises en place antérieurement, il faut ici signaler que ces taxes devraient être calculées à la fois par pays et par branche d’activité. En effet, l’une des caractéristiques de la situation actuelle est que le niveau de productivité des pays susceptibles d’être visés par un tel système varie de manière tout à fait considérable d’une branche à l’autre. Il est ici clair qu’un seul niveau de taxe serait inopérant.

      L’heure est venue de revenir à des politiques nationales coordonnées, qui sont seules capables d’assurer à la fois le développement et la justice sociale. Ces politiques sont déjà à l’œuvre dans un certain nombre de pays. À cet égard, le retard qui a été pris sur le continent européen est particulièrement tragique. Sous prétexte de construction d’une « Europe » dont l’évanescence politique se combine à l’incapacité de mettre en œuvre de réelles politiques industrielles et sociale, nous avons abandonné l’horizon de ces politiques. Mais, comme le rappelle Dani Rodrik, le problème n’est plus le pourquoi de telles politiques mais il doit désormais en être le comment[21]. De telles politiques se doivent d’être globales et d’inclure la question du taux de change et celle de l’éducation et du développement des infrastructures. Il faut aujourd’hui constater que sur la plupart de ces points l’Union européenne, telle qu’elle fonctionne, s’avère être un redoutable obstacle. C’est en effet à l’Union Européenne que l’on doit les politiques d’ouverture qui ont accéléré la crise structurelle de nos industries depuis les années 1990. C’est toujours à l’Union européenne que l’on doit la détérioration croissante du système d’infrastructures dans le domaine de l’énergie et du transport qui fit pendant longtemps la force de notre pays. Il est possible de changer ces politiques. Mais, si les résistances devaient apparaître comme trop fortes, il faudrait se résoudre à renationaliser notre politique économique. Une action concertée avec d’autres pays européens est certainement celle qui nous offrirait le plus de possibilités, mais on ne doit nullement exclure une action au niveau national si un accord se révélait temporairement impossible avec nos partenaires.

      Pour la démondialisation
      Tels sont les enseignements de ce sondage. La mondialisation a été porteuse de bien des passions contradictoires. Elle a été adulée par les uns, vilipendée par les autres. Elle a eu ses thuriféraires comme ses opposants acharnés. Aujourd’hui qu’elle recule, certains y verront une régression alors que d’autres applaudiront un progrès.

      Pourtant, il ne devrait pas y avoir de problèmes à penser ce phénomène de la démondialisation. Le monde a connu en effet bien des épisodes de flux et de reflux. Mais il est vrai que cette démondialisation survient dans le sillage d’une crise majeure. Alors se réveillent de vieilles peurs. Et si cette démondialisation annonçait le retour au temps des guerres ? Mais ces peurs ne sont que l’autre face d’un mensonge qui fut propagé par ignorance, pour les uns, et par intérêts, pour les autres. Non, la globalisation ou la mondialisation ne fut pas, ne fut jamais « heureuse ». Le mythe du « doux commerce » venant se substituer aux conflits guerriers a été trop propagé pour ne pas laisser quelques traces… Mais, à la vérité, ce n’est qu’un mythe. Toujours, le navire de guerre a précédé le navire marchand. Que l’on se souvienne ainsi des « Guerres de l’Opium » qui vit la Grande-Bretagne alors triomphante imposer à la Chine l’ouverture de ses frontières au poison de la drogue. Les puissances dominantes ont en permanence usé de leur force pour s’ouvrir des marchés et modifier comme il leur convenait les termes de l’échange.

      La mondialisation que nous avons connue depuis près de quarante ans a résulté de la combinaison de la globalisation financière, qui s’est mise en place avec le détricotage du système hérité des accords de Bretton Woods en 1973, et de la globalisation marchande, qui s’est incarnée dans le libre-échange. À chacune de leurs étapes, ces dernières ont imposé leurs lots de violences et de guerres. Nous en voyons aujourd’hui le résultat : une marche généralisée à la régression, tant économique que sociale, qui frappe d’abord les pays dits « riches » mais aussi ceux que l’on désigne comme des pays « émergents ». Elle a conduit à une surexploitation des ressources naturelles plongeant plus d’un milliard et demi d’êtres humains dans des crises écologiques qui vont chaque jour empirant. Elle a provoqué la destruction du lien social dans un grand nombre de pays et confronté là aussi des masses innombrables au spectre de la guerre de tous contre tous, au choc d’un individualisme forcené qui laisse présager d’autres régressions, bien pires encore[22].

      De cette mondialisation, on a fait un mythe. Elle est apparue sous la plume de ses thuriféraires comme un être doté de conscience et d’omniscience, capable de réaliser le bonheur de tous. On nous a fait oublier que, produit de l’action humaine, elle était condamnée à connaître le sort des autres produits de l’action humaine, et donc à disparaître. On a voulu la comparer à une force transcendante pour mieux masquer les intérêts qu’elle a servis. En ceci, il faut voir une capitulation de la pensée. Dans ce fétichisme de la mondialisation, il y eut donc beaucoup de calculs, et donc beaucoup de mensonges. Ce livre a, entre autres, la volonté de rétablir quelques vérités sur la nature réelle du phénomène.

      Le tournant qui s’amorce sous nos yeux nous confronte à nos responsabilités. La démondialisation qui se met aujourd’hui en route à travers l’amorce d’une dé-globalisation, tant financière que marchande, ne se fera pas sans nous et sans notre action. Il est de notre pouvoir de construire l’avenir.

      [4] D. Dollar, « Outward-Oriented Developeng Economies Really Do Grow More Rapidly : Evidence From 95 LDC, 1976-1985 », Economic Developemnt and Cultural Change, 1992, p. 523-554.
      [5] D. Ben-David, « Equalizing Exchange : Trade Liberalization and Income Convergenge », Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 108, n° 3, 1993.
      [6] J. Sachs, A. Warner, « Economic Reform and The Process of Global Integration », Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, n° 1, 1995, p. 1-118.
      [7] S. Edwards, « Opennes, Productivity and Growth : What We Do Really Know ? », Economic Journal, vol. 108, mars 1998, p. 383-398.
      [8] Voir D. Ben-David, « Equalizing Exchange : Trade Liberalization and Income Convergenge », op. cit.
      [9] Voir H.-J. Chang, « The Economic Theory of the Developmental State » in M. Woo-Cumings (dir.), The Developmental State, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1999 ; Kicking away the Ladder : Policies and Institutions for Development in Historical Perspective, Londres, Anthem Press, 2002.
      [10] A. Amsden, Asia’s Next Giant, New York, Oxford University Press, 1989.
      [11] R. Wade, Governing the Market, Princeton (N. J.), Princeton University Press, 1990.
      [12] G. K. Helleiner (dir.), Trade Policy and Industrialization in Turbulent Times, Londres, Routledge, 1994.
      [13] Voir C.-C. Lai, « Development Strategies and Growth with Equality. Re-evaluation of Taiwan’s Experience », Rivista Internazionale de Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, vol. 36, n° 2, 1989, p. 177-191.
      [14] D. Rodrik, « What Produces Economic Success ? » in R. Ffrench-Davis (dir.), Economic Growth with Equity : Challenges for Latin America, Londres, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Voir aussi, du même auteur, « After Neoliberalism, What ? », Project Syndicate, 2002 (
      [15] L’exception étant la Grèce dont le coeeficient passe de 0,330 à 0,321. Pour la Suède, l’accroissement est important dans les années 1990 mais est compensé par une baisse dans les années 2000.
      [16] Voir A. Aaron-Dine, I. Shapiro, « Share of National Income Going to Wages and Salaries at Record Low in 2006 », Center of Budget and Policies Priorities, Washington (D. C.), 29 mars 2007 ; U. S. Department of Commerce, « Historical Income Tables – Income Inequality, Table IE-1 », Washington (D. C.), 13 mai 2005.
      [17] Voir J. Bernstein, E. McNichol, A. Nicholas, Pulling Apart. A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends, Washington (D. C.), Center of Budget and Policy Priorities et Economic Policy Institute, avril 2008 ; J. Bivens, « Globalization, American Wages and Inequality », Economic Policy Institute Working Paper, Washington (D. C.), 6 septembre 2007.
      [18] Sapir J., La Démondialisation, Paris, Le Seuil, 2011.
      [19] Voir P. Artus « Pourquoi l’ouverture aux échanges semble être défavorables dans certains cas ? », Flash-IXIS, n° 2004-53, 17 février 2004.
      [20] Voir P. Artus, « Quels risques pèsent sur les salariés européens ? », Flash-IXIS, n° 2006-153, 11 avril 2006.
      [21] D. Rodrik, « Industrial Policy : Don’t Ask Why, Ask How », Middle East Development Journal, 2008, p. 1-29.
      [22] Voir J. Généreux, La Grande Régression, Seuil, 2010.

      Source : [RussEurope-en-Exil] France : le rejet massif de la mondialisation, par Jacques Sapir

  • Can research quality be measured quantitatively?

    In this article I reflect on ways in which the neoliberal university and its administrative counterpart, #new_public_management (NPM), affect academic publishing activity. One characteristic feature of NPM is the urge to use simple numerical indicators of research output as a tool to allocate funding and, in practice if not in theory, as a means of assessing research quality. This ranges from the use of journal impact factors (IF) and ranking of journals to publication points to determine what types of work in publishing is counted as meritorious for funding allocation. I argue that it is a fallacy to attempt to assess quality of scholarship through quantitative measures of publication output. I base my arguments on my experiences of editing a Norwegian geographical journal over a period of 16 years, along with my experiences as a scholar working for many years within the Norwegian university system.
    #qualité #recherche #quantitativisme #université #édition_scientifique #publications_scientifiques #indicateurs #indicateurs_numériques #impact_factor #impact-factor #ranking

    • How global university rankings are changing higher education

      EARLIER this month Peking University played host to perhaps the grandest global gathering ever of the higher-education business. Senior figures from the world’s most famous universities—Harvard and Yale, Oxford and Cambridge among them—enjoyed or endured a two-hour opening ceremony followed by a packed programme of mandatory cultural events interspersed with speeches lauding “Xi Jinping thought”. The party was thrown to celebrate Peking University’s 120th birthday—and, less explicitly, China’s success in a race that started 20 years ago.

      In May 1998 Jiang Zemin, China’s president at the time, announced Project 985, named for the year and the month. Its purpose was to create world-class universities. Nian Cai Liu, a professor of polymeric materials science and engineering at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, got swept up in this initiative. “I asked myself many questions, including: what is the definition of and criteria for a world-class university? What are the positions of top Chinese universities?” Once he started benchmarking them against foreign ones, he found that “governments, universities and stakeholders from all around the world” were interested. So, in 2003, he produced the first ranking of 500 leading global institutions. Nobody, least of all the modest Professor Liu, expected the Shanghai rankings to be so popular. “Indeed, it was a real surprise.”

      People are suckers for league tables, be they of wealth, beauty, fame—or institutions of higher education. University rankings do not just feed humanity’s competitive urges. They are also an important source of consumer intelligence about a good on which people spend huge amounts of time and money, and about which precious little other information is available. Hence the existence of national league tables, such as US News & World Report’s ranking of American universities. But the creation of global league tables—there are now around 20, with Shanghai, the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS the most important—took the competition to a new level. It set not just universities, but governments, against each other.

      When the Shanghai rankings were first published, the “knowledge economy” was emerging into the global consciousness. Governments realised that great universities were no longer just sources of cultural pride and finishing schools for the children of the well-off, but the engines of future prosperity—generators of human capital, of ideas and of innovative companies.

      The rankings focused the minds of governments, particularly in countries that did badly. Every government needed a few higher-educational stars; any government that failed to create them had failed its people and lost an important global race. Europe’s poor performance was particularly galling for Germany, home of the modern research university. The government responded swiftly, announcing in 2005 an Exzellenzinitiative to channel money to institutions that might become world-class universities, and has so far spent over €4.6bn ($5.5bn) on it.

      Propelled by a combination of national pride and economic pragmatism, the idea spread swiftly that this was a global competition in which all self-respecting countries should take part. Thirty-one rich and middle-income countries have announced an excellence initiative of some sort. India, where world rankings were once regarded with post-colonial disdain, is the latest to join the race: in 2016 the finance minister announced that 20 institutions would aim to become world-class universities. The most generously funded initiatives are in France, China, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. The most unrealistic targets are Nigeria’s, to get at least two universities in the world’s top 200, and Russia’s, to get five in the world’s top 100, both by 2020.

      The competition to rise up the rankings has had several effects. Below the very highest rankings, still dominated by America and western Europe—America has three of the THE’s top five slots and Britain two this year—the balance of power is shifting (see chart). The rise of China is the most obvious manifestation. It has 45 universities in the Shanghai top 500 and is now the only country other than Britain or America to have two universities in the THE’s top 30. Japan is doing poorly: its highest-ranked institution, the University of Tokyo, comes in at 48 in the THE’s table. Elsewhere, Latin America and eastern Europe have lagged behind.

      The rankings race has also increased the emphasis on research. Highly cited papers provide an easily available measure of success, and, lacking any other reliable metric, that is what the league tables are based on. None of the rankings includes teaching quality, which is hard to measure and compare. Shanghai’s is purely about research; THE and QS incorporate other measures, such as “reputation”. But since the league tables themselves are one of its main determinants, reputation is not an obviously independent variable.

      Hard times

      The research boom is excellent news for humanity, which will eventually reap the benefits, and for scientific researchers. But the social sciences and humanities are not faring so well. They tend to be at a disadvantage in rankings because there are fewer soft-science or humanities journals, so hard-science papers get more citations. Shanghai makes no allowance for that, and Professor Liu admits that his ranking tends to reinforce the dominance of hard science. Phil Baty, who edits the THE’s rankings, says they do take the hard sciences’ higher citation rates into account, scoring papers by the standards of the relevant discipline.

      The hard sciences have benefited from the bounty flowing from the “excellence initiatives”. According to a study of these programmes by Jamil Salmi, author of “The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities”, all the programmes except Taiwan’s focused on research rather than teaching, and most of them favoured STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). This is no doubt one of the reasons why the numbers of scientific papers produced globally nearly doubled between 2003 and 2016.

      The rankings may be contributing to a deterioration in teaching. The quality of the research academics produce has little bearing on the quality of their teaching. Indeed, academics who are passionate about their research may be less inclined to spend their energies on students, and so there may be an inverse relationship. Since students suffer when teaching quality declines, they might be expected to push back against this. But Ellen Hazelkorn, author of “Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education”, argues that students “are buying prestige in the labour market”. This means “they want to go to the highest-status university possible”—and the league tables are the only available measure of status. So students, too, in effect encourage universities to spend their money on research rather than teaching.

      The result, says Simon Marginson, Oxford University’s incoming professor of higher education, is “the distribution of teaching further down the academic hierarchy”, which fosters the growth of an “academic precariat”. These PhD students and non-tenured academics do the teaching that the star professors, hired for their research abilities, shun as a chore. The British government is trying to press universities to improve teaching, by creating a “teaching-excellence framework”; but the rating is made up of a student-satisfaction survey, dropout rates and alumni earnings—interesting, but not really a measure of teaching quality. Nevertheless, says Professor Marginson, “everybody recognises this as a problem, and everybody is watching what Britain is doing.”

      A third concern is that competition for rankings encourages stratification within university systems, which in turn exacerbates social inequality. “Excellence initiatives” funnel money to top universities, whose students, even if admission is highly competitive, tend to be the children of the well-off. “Those at the top get more government resources and those at the bottom get least,” points out Ms Hazelkorn. That’s true even in Britain, which, despite not having an excellence initiative, favours top universities through the allocation of research money. According to a study of over 120 universities by Alison Wolf of King’s College London and Andrew Jenkins of University College London, the Russell Group, a self-selected elite of 24 universities, get nearly half of the funding for the entire sector, and increased their share from 44.7% in 2001-02 to 49.1% in 2013-14.

      The rankings race draws other complaints. Some universities have hired “rankings managers”, which critics argue is not a good use of resources. Saudi Arabian universities have been accused of giving highly cited academics lucrative part-time contracts and requiring them to use their Saudi affiliation when publishing.

      Intellectual citizens of nowhere

      Notwithstanding its downsides, the rankings race has encouraged a benign trend with far-reaching implications: internationalisation. The top level of academia, particularly in the sciences, is perhaps the world’s most international community, as Professor Marginson’s work shows. Whereas around 4% of first-degree students in the OECD study abroad, a quarter of PhD students do. Research is getting more global: 22% of science and engineering papers were internationally co-authored in 2016, up from 16% in 2003. The rankings, which give marks for international co-authorship, encourage this trend. That is one reason why Japan, whose universities are as insular as its culture, lags. As research grows—in 2000-14 the annual number of PhDs awarded rose by half in America, doubled in Britain and quintupled in China—so does the size and importance of this multinational network.

      Researchers work together across borders on borderless problems—from climate change to artificial intelligence. They gather at conferences, spend time in each other’s universities and spread knowledge and scholarship across the world. Forced to publish in English, they share at least one language. They befriend each other, marry each other and support each other, politically as well as intellectually. Last year, for instance, when Cambridge University Press blocked online access to hundreds of articles on sensitive subjects, including the Tiananmen Square massacre, at the request of the Chinese government, it faced international protests, and an American academic launched a petition which was signed by over 1,500 academics around the world. CUP backed down.

      The rankings race is thus marked by a happy irony. Driven in part by nationalistic urges, it has fostered the growth of a community that knows no borders. Critics are right that governments and universities obsess too much about rankings. Yet the world benefits from the growth of this productive, international body of scholars.

      #Chine #classement_de_Shanghai #compétition #classement #ranking #QS #Times_Higher_Education #THE #excellence #Exzellenzinitiative #Allemagne #Inde #France #Singapour #Taïwan #Corée_du_Sud #Nigeria #Russie #USA #Etats-Unis #Angleterre #UK #recherche #publications #publications_scientifiques #enseignement #réputation #sciences_sociales #sciences_dures #précarité #précarisation #travail #inégalités #anglais #langue #internationalisation #globalisation #mondialisation

      La fin est très en phase avec le journal qui a publié cet article, hélas :

      Critics are right that governments and universities obsess too much about rankings. Yet the world benefits from the growth of this productive, international body of scholars.

      La première version de cet article a été apparemment corrigée :

      Correction (May 22nd, 2018): An earlier version of this piece suggested that non-English data and books are not included in the rankings. This is incorrect. The article has been amended to remove that assertion.

      –-> mais en fait, en réalité, il n’aurait pas dû l’être. Pour avoir expérimenté moi-même une fois le #H-index sur ma liste de publications, je peux vous dire qu’aucun article en d’autres langues que l’anglais avait été retenu dans l’index. Et même pas tous les articles en anglais que j’ai publiés...

  • Even Oxford University Is Mixed up With Corrupt Monsanto | Alternet

    Even Oxford University Is Mixed up With Corrupt Monsanto
    An unscientific report completely discounts Monsanto’s role in climatic and ecological damage.
    By John W. Roulac / AlterNet
    November 4, 2017, 9:30 PM GMT

    A University of Oxford thinktank, the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), has come out with a report, “Grazed and Confused,” that likens 100-percent grass-fed beef to that produced on a 10,000-cow confined animal feedlot operation (CAFO) like Harris Ranch on Interstate 5 in Central California—calling them basically the same in climate impacts.

    Think, for a moment, how absurd that is. One has to wonder why this Oxford thinktank is being so deferential to Monsanto and the GMO/fertilizer industry, which profits via the planet-killing, health-destroying CAFO model.

    The Monsanto Connection to Oxford University

    It seems that Monsanto has a deep and enduring connection to the University of Oxford (UO). Monsanto has paid out to UO through various business ventures more than $50M pounds ($75M US).

    Also, Oxford University Press has published a flattering book, written by Robert Paarlberg, full of Monsanto puffery: Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know.

    In 2006, the Guardian reported that UO professor and Oxford resident Dr. Richard Droll wrote and testified that Monsanto chemicals did not cause cancer, while he “was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.”

    Oxford University has advertised a Monsanto Senior Research Fellowship.

    The distinguished and well-respected U.K. Sustainable Food Trust was also critical of the report, stating:

    The report focuses exclusively on greenhouse gas emissions, and while it does accept that grassland can sequester carbon, it fails to understand the vital necessity of returning degraded cropland to rotations that include grass and grazing animals, in order to rebuild carbon and organic matter levels, and the potential of integrating grazing livestock production with crop production in genuine mixed farming systems, to address a wide range of the food system problems currently faced…The only sustainable way to obtain food from grassland is to graze it with ruminants. With the growing global population it would be irresponsible not to do that.

    In one conclusion, the FCRN report states, “Grain-fed intensive livestock systems use less land and so cause less damaging land use change.” Yet the destruction of forest and savannah lands in South America for soybean farms to feed CAFO animals is in the millions of hectares. GMO corn and soy are two of the most damaging systems for land and habitat that the world has ever seen.

    Cows eat grass; therefore they don’t need to consume vast amounts of GMO corn and soybeans. Less GMO corn planted means less cancer-linked, soil-killing RoundUp being sprayed. If consumers can understand that pasture-raised beef is better for them than CAFO meat, they’ll change their buying preferences and sales of beneficial pasture-raised beef will go up, while Monsanto profits from agricultural products with a multitude of negative impacts for animals, humans and the environment will go down.

    Ces rapports payés par les industries sont en fait des supports pour la promotion cachée des médias. Il s’agit de se cacher derrière une « science » qui ne dit pas d’où viennent ses financemets et quelles sont ses allégeances. Et puis les rapports ne passent jamais devant des instances de contrôle...

    After the “Grazed and Confused” report came out, it began spreading virally across the web. One headline in the New York Post read: “Your Grass-Fed Burger Is Making Climate Change Worse.”

    To quote from this article:

    Environmentally conscious meat eaters have touted grass-fed meat as a solution to help negate the impact of cows on the environment. But unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Raising grass-fed cows also leads to deforestation—another big climate change issue—as farmers chop down forests in order to expand their pastures.

    #Monsanto #Université #Conflits_intérêt

  • The Angry Arab News Service/وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب: This is by far the most Islamophobic disgusting thing the #New_York_Times ever published: if a Muslim is accused of rape, what does this have to do with Islam?

    Look at this disgusting headline: “Could this be the Harvey Weinstein of Islam?” What does this have to do about Islam. Now we know that if an individual Muslim commits a terrorist act, his act is blamed on Islam, the religion. But now it got to the point that if an individual Muslim commits a crime of any kind, it will also be blamed on Islam, the religion? David Duke and other Nazi anti-Semites used the Harvey Weinstein scandal to spew their anti-Semitic trash. But the New York Times is doing the same. if someone were to relate the Harvey Weinstein scandal to Judaism it would be seen—and rightly so—as anti-Semitism and the Times would be outraged. But the Times with its long history of bigotry and racism against Arabs and Muslims, found no problem in publishing this headline? I don’t know the person in question and the crime of rape should be investigated but why relate it to 1) Harvey Weinstein? and 2) to Islam? This is a new low for the Times. So if an individual Muslim were to steal, the New York Times will publish a headline about “Theft in Islam”?

    • Juste un détail, mais j’ai peut-être raté un épisode à propos de

      despite scandals surrounding him, including his acceptance of female genital mutilation and the stoning of women.

      Je crois qu’il s’agit de son frère Hani Ramadan et pas Tariq Ramadan au moins pour la lapidation

      En septembre 2002, il avait fait scandale en défendant dans une tribune publiée dans Le Monde l’application de la charia et la lapidation des femmes adultères.

      Pour les mutilations génitales, je ne sais pas. Par ailleurs, j’ai
      vu deux vidéos au moins dans lesquelles Tariq Ramadan estime que l’homosexualité est tout à fait anormale pour ne pas dire plus.

    • @reka Non il s’agit bien de Tariq Ramadan, TR a lancé un appel international à un moratoire sur les châtiments corporels, la lapidation et la peine de mort dans le monde musulman. Tariq Ramadan discutait avec Nicolas Sarkozy, ministre de l’intérieur à cette époque. Lorsque le ministre s’enquit de l’avis de Tariq Ramadan à propos de la lapidation des femmes dans l’islam, celui-ci répondit qu’il était favorable à un « moratoire. »
      Début de la polémique.

      "Tariq Ramadan a tenu des propos particulièrement détestables en se refusant à condamner, du fond du cœur, la peine de mort, encore prononcée de nos jours contre des femmes accusées d’adultère, par certains tribunaux religieux musulmans, dans des pays comme le Nigéria, l’Arabie Saoudite, voire l’Iran ."
      "Pour quelle raison ne demandait-il pas tout simplement l’annulation pure et simple d’une mesure aussi barbare que celle-ci ? Comment ne pas s’opposer de toutes ses forces à une attitude digne du Moyen-Âge ?"

      Il y a une vidéo de la réponse de TR...
      "Tariq Ramadan se déclare musulman croyant et pratiquant. Partant, il donne un aspect divin au Coran et aux paroles de ceux qui se déclarent comme prophètes. Ceci est important à réaliser : un texte divin ne peut être réformé, modifier ou simplement annulé. En même temps, Tariq Ramadan s’oppose à la lapidation des femmes. Alors ?

      Le seul choix qui s’offre à Tariq Ramadan est celui-ci : plutôt que de demander une annulation des lapidations (ce qui ne peut être fait par aucune autorité religieuse), il préfère y mettre un terme en les déclarant « inapplicables. » L’idée d’un moratoire permettrait de suspendre ces mesures d’un autre âge et de reconnaître que nos sociétés ne peuvent plus admettre ce type de justice.

      Le moratoire pourrait être formulé de différentes façons, mais l’idée maîtresse serait d’admettre qu’il est actuellement impossible de lapider des femmes et que cette situation devrait changer lorsque les sociétés admettraient de nouveau de telles punitions.

      En se prononçant pour un moratoire, les législateurs islamiques ne s’opposeraient pas de plein fouet avec leurs écritures saintes ; en même temps, ils mettraient fin à un des aspects les plus inhumains de la justice islamique.

      J’ajoute que même si mon article fait référence seulement à la lapidation des femmes, Tariq Ramadan s’est opposé maintes fois aux punitions corporelles au nom de l’islam (voir vidéo ci-dessous). Sa position et ma conclusion peuvent donc s’appliquer au-delà des lapidations."

    • Merci cher @unagi pour avoir exhumé ces documents qui éclaire un peu ces positions. Il me semble que dans toutes les vidéos que j’ai vu, Tariq Ramadan adopte - pour l’essentiel de ces questions cruciales - une stratégie de contournement qui colle bien avec la position que tu signales. Lequel discours a largement de quoi nous mettre vraiment mal à l’aise, et particulièrement ce vendredi soir, après cette deuxième plainte contre TR pour viol.

      A propos de l’extrait du texte de Lucas Martin que tu cites :

      un texte divin ne peut être réformé, modifier ou simplement annulé.

      Tariq Ramadan se déclare musulman croyant et pratiquant. Partant, il donne un aspect divin au Coran et aux paroles de ceux qui se déclarent comme prophètes. Ceci est important à réaliser : un texte divin ne peut être réformé, modifier ou simplement annulé.

      En même temps, Tariq Ramadan s’oppose à la lapidation des femmes. Alors ?

      Le seul choix qui s’offre à Tariq Ramadan est celui-ci : plutôt que de demander une annulation des lapidations (ce qui ne peut être fait par aucune autorité religieuse), il préfère y mettre un terme en les déclarant « inapplicables. » L’idée d’un moratoire permettrait de suspendre ces mesures d’un autre âge et de reconnaître que nos sociétés ne peuvent plus admettre ce type de justice.

      Puisqu’il ne peut pas faire autrement, il contourne. Mais fondamentalement, le problème c’est quand même de ne « pas pouvoir réformer ou annuler » un texte divin. On peut changer la loi, mais pas les textes divins combien mêmes ils ne correspondent à aucune des exigences fondamentales du droit et de la justice. Si TR pense comme ça, c’est déjà très grave, ce qui serait plus humains serait de dire que les textes divins ne sont plus valables puisqu’ils violent la déclaration des droits humains par exemple.

    • Struggling UK universities warn staff of possible job cuts

      Deteriorating balance sheets and political uncertainty blamed for redundancy threats.

      Universities are warning staff to prepare for redundancies in the new year as a result of deteriorating balance sheets and lowered forecasts for student recruitment, coupled with the uncertainty of Brexit and sudden shifts in government policy.

      In recent days more than half a dozen universities have told staff there could be job cuts in 2019, including members of the research-intensive Russell Group such as Cardiff University, while others are privately bracing for cuts later in the year.

      Universities are in the midst of reporting their financial results for 2017-18 and are monitoring student applications coming in for next year. Several have been alarmed by the projections they are seeing before a 15 January deadline for undergraduates.

      Insiders say universities are more likely to cut staff because of a number of other threats in the next 12 months, including the potential effect on international students of a no-deal Brexit, as well as cuts to tuition fees in England as a result of a review of funding ordered by Theresa May that will report early next year.

      “Knee-jerk cuts to staff will harm universities’ ability to deliver high-quality teaching and research and provide the support students need. Staff are already overstretched and asking those who remain to do even more is not a sustainable strategy,” said Matt Waddup, head of policy for the University and College Union (UCU).

      “Students repeatedly say they want greater investment in their staff as a top priority, yet the proportion of expenditure spent on staff has fallen. Cutting staff will send out entirely the wrong signal to potential students. Axing educators is obscene at any time, let alone during the current uncertainty when we need our universities firing on all cylinders.”
      Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
      Read more

      Among the group of universities that have gone public, the University of Reading told staff in an email on Monday evening that a voluntary redundancy scheme was being drawn up and would open in January.

      “I want to emphasise that voluntary redundancies are only one tool available to us,” wrote Prof Robert Van de Noort, the acting vice-chancellor, suggesting that staff should consider early retirement, reduced hours or changes to contracts to help to avoid compulsory redundancies.

      Reading’s accounts, published a few days ago, reveal that the university made a £20m loss for the financial year, including a £27m loss on its subsidiary in Malaysia. Reading’s balance sheet was brought into the black only by £36m of pension “remeasurements”.

      Van de Noort told staff: “There is no doubt that the year ahead will be difficult at times, but I am confident that as a university community we can address these difficulties and remain a leader in teaching and research in the UK and globally.”

      Despite Reading’s deficit, the previous vice-chancellor, Sir David Bell, saw his total pay rise by £10,000 to £329,000. Bell announced his departure this year and is now vice-chancellor of the University of Sunderland.

      At Cardiff, the vice-chancellor, Colin Riordan, has also written to staff telling them they will be offered voluntary redundancy from January. The university has said compulsory staff cuts “cannot be ruled out”.

      In a joint statement the Cardiff University branches of the Unite, Unison and UCU unions said: “We are astonished that Cardiff University staff are facing their third voluntary severance scheme in six years, and we are very worried that the vice-chancellor still refuses to rule out further compulsory redundancies.”

      At the University of Gloucestershire, based in Cheltenham, unions say they have been advised of more than 100 job cuts and other redundancies as a result of what the university called a “rebalancing” in challenging conditions.

      “There is a demographic fall in the number of 18-year-olds in the population, which is affecting demand for higher education, the level of tuition fees universities are permitted to charge home undergraduate students is capped by the government, and there is increasing competition for recruitment,” the university said.

      “At the same time, we are facing large increases in some of our costs, particularly external increases in what we are required to spend on staff pensions. The combined effect of these factors is that, in common with many other universities, our costs are rising faster than our income. That is not a situation we can allow to continue.”

      In Scotland, union members at Queen Margaret University in Musselburgh begin voting on Wednesday on strike action over the possibility of 40 job cuts – about 10% of its staff – although the university says it hopes to meet the number through voluntary redundancies.

      Other universities considering redundancies include Birkbeck, University of London and Bangor University in Wales.

      The university financial reporting season also reveals that some universities continue to thrive. The University of Oxford said its income topped £1.5bn for the first time in 2017-18, with an overall surplus of £150m.

      Oxford’s investments grew by £286m, which was £68m more than the previous year, while the Oxford University Press contributed a further £205m.

      The financial statements suggest the public controversy over vice-chancellors’ high rates of pay has had some effect, with many leading universities showing little or no growth in pay for their leaders.

      At the University of Manchester, where revenue topped £1bn for the first time, the total earnings of the vice-chancellor, Nancy Rothwell, fell from £306,000 to £276,000 owing to lower pension contributions.

    • Bitter sweet citizenship: how European families in the UK cope with Brexit

      About 80,000 EU nationals have applied for British citizenship since the UK voted to leave the European Union. The decision has rarely been easy. On the contrary, it has often been perceived as “forced” or as an attempt to “take back control” of life amid the Brexit uncertainty, a new research has revealed.

      The contrasting feelings were highlighted in a study by “EU families and Eurochildren in Brexiting Britain”, a project by the University of Birmingham in cooperation with civil rights group the3million, Migrant Voice, and immigration barrister Colin Yeo.

      Researchers interviewed 103 families in the UK in which at least one of the partners is a non-British EU national. They wanted to understand how Brexit is impacting the decisions they make about their legal status.

      The study shows that while many are applying for naturalization, many more are still uncertain and “considering their options.” Better off and educated EU nationals from Western European countries are the most resistant to the idea of becoming British citizens as a solution to Brexit. This is especially true for Germans, “who feel like they somehow betray the European ideal in doing so,” says the report.

      Others, particularly from Eastern Europe, take a more pragmatic approach. Those who apply often do it to protect their children. But instead of being seen as “the culmination of a path to integration”, naturalisation often generates “feelings of un-belonging and of disintegration”.

      Lead author Nando Sigona, deputy director of the Institute of Research into Superdiversity at the University of Birmingham, discusses the research findings with Europe Street News.

      Why a research on families rather than individuals?

      We focused on families in which at least one of the partners is a non-British EU national because Brexit has legal implications for their rights and social implications for their choices. We wanted to explore the dilemmas these families face. For example, in a mix family ‘going back home’ is a complex issue: if you are a Polish-German couple who has met in the UK and speak English as main language, where is home? Probably in the UK.

      We also thought about their children, the next generation. Even pro-migration groups have been very utilitarian in their approach to European migrants. They say they are needed because they work hard, they are young and they contribute to the economy. I personally hate this narrative because I do not like to have a price tag on my head. And for children the situation is even more complicated: they are not productive, they use schools and services, and yet they are in the UK as legitimate residents. According to Migration Observatory, there are more than 900,000 children of EU parents (Ireland excluded) in the UK. How will British society look like in 20 or 30 years, when these children will be adult? What will be the impact of the way they have been treated? These are the questions we wanted to examine.

      Is this why the project refers to ‘Eurochildren’?

      Yes, but let’s not forget that in these families there are British nationals too. We could have called the project “British families with European heritage” and probably we would have got more attention from politicians who have a responsibility towards their citizens, those they do not treat as “others”.

      We usually refer to the 3.8 million EU nationals in the UK, according to the latest Eurostat data. But, as you say, many of them have British partners and children. How many people are really impacted by Brexit?

      It is almost impossible to know because of the way official data are collected. In case of dual nationality, the Office for National Statistics prioritises the British one so people disappear from the statistics on EU nationals. Our research also looked at the census data of the past 40 years, with children of earlier migrants now registered as British. The legacy of EU’s free movement in the UK is much larger that what people think.

      This means that no one knows how many people might or might not be protected by the withdrawal agreement – if there is one – or by the “settled status” scheme.

      The situation is so complicated. Within the same family different members may have different rights. The problem with European families is also that, when they moved to the UK, this was not part of the deal. Their legal status was not something they had to worry about. The government is now ignoring or underestimating this situation by imposing a retroactive bureaucratic monstrosity like the “settled status”. The risk is that many will be left out. The only solution would be to turn the process into a registration rather than an application, and to leave it open. Some people will be inevitably left out, but at least they won’t become unlawful.

      Based on your interviews, what has changed for these families since the Brexit vote?

      Most people feel unsettled because they failed to see Brexit coming. They did not think a majority would vote against the EU and they were not prepared for it. Secondly, they feel forced to consider their options and to make important decisions such as applying for British citizenship or leaving. The configuration of the family, for example whether or not the partners are from the same EU country, can make a difference for their opportunities. There is also a sense of being forced to define themselves. Previously mix families could reconcile their identities under a European umbrella, but Brexit is changing that. However, it is important to acknowledge that people have different feelings about the situation and to not monopolise their voices.

      Are the responses you received uniform across the UK?

      There are places where people feel more secure. London feels safer, respondents said, as a majority voted to stay in the EU, the environment does not feel hostile and there are long standing EU communities. In Scotland, the positive narrative coming from the government helped too. In contrast, people in areas with a strong leave vote felt very isolated. Outside big cities, where immigration is a fairly new phenomenon, Polish and Eastern Europeans in particular did not have established communities and social networks to support them in this hostile transition.

      Many of the people we interviewed were reflecting on neighbours and family members who voted for Brexit. It felt very personal. We heard of families avoiding Christmas meals and, in the most tragic situations, splitting up because the additional tension brought by Brexit pushed them beyond the tipping point. We have also seen tensions between parents and children, for example children asking parents not to speak their mother tongue in public or parents not speaking with their children in the native language because they do not feel safe. The Home Office and migration policies do not consider the reverberations within families of big geopolitical shifts.

      What is the approach of these families to naturalisation?

      Part of our respondents showed a lot of resistance to naturalisation. Especially those with higher social stardards do not want to be forced into it. Some who never felt the urge to become British eventually applied. Among the people who did so, there were often feelings of anger and frustration but this was seen as a strategy to secure the future of children, a sort of parental duty.

      A number of people said they have lost trust in the British government, they are sceptical about the settled status and they think naturalization is the safest option. Others want to retain the right to move freely in and out of the country: becoming British for them does not necessarily mean wanting to stay but keeping all options open for themselves and their children. A minority also said they want to be able to vote. But there are large groups who are not applying. Some cannot because their countries do not allow dual citizenship. The cost attached to the process is also a factor. There are strict eligibility criteria and the test is not easy. Citizenship is not a right: it is something you have to earn, pay for and deserve.

      What do you think of Michael Gove’s proposal to grant citizenship for free to EU nationals, if he becomes the leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister?

      Great, but I’d feel uncomfortable if this applies only to Europeans. Fees are unfair for everyone and the government makes a large profit from them. Fees should be cut and the process simplified in general, especially for children. It would guarantee their future status and it would be good for the country.

      Are there groups of EU nationals applying more than others?

      Central and Eastern Europeans started to apply for British citizenship early, before the EU referendum. They were already victim of the hostile environment and they felt negatively targeted by populist media, so they tried to secure their rights earlier on. Free movement is also fairly recent for them [the country joined the EU in 2004].

      For French, Spanish, Italian and German nationals there has been a 250-300% increase in applications since the referendum, but this is mostly because few were applying before June 2016. Before the Brexit vote they felt their position in Britain was fully secured.

      Who is not applying?

      There are people who cannot apply because they do not have regular jobs, they are from minorities, for example the Roma, they struggle with the procedure or cannot afford it. We heard of parents who had to prioritize which one of their children could apply for naturalisation, as they could not afford to pay for all. There were people at the margins before Brexit and they will be even more so when they will lose the protections of EU law.

      How do children feel about these changes?

      It depends on the age. Children up to 3 years old are usually shielded by their parents. The 5-6 years old are aware that something is going on and ask questions. Teenagers are aware and sometimes join the conversation, for example participating in demonstrations. Maybe they are more conflicted about family decisions. But kids are the ones normalising the situation trying to be like others.

      Is the European identity of these families at risk?

      Not necessarily. For the first time in Britain we see large numbers of European flags. In a sense, the European identity has become a topic of conversation. For many British citizens and policy makers the EU has only just been an economic project, but now it is a political one and this can further develop. The European heritage is not going to disappear. If anything, some of the people we interviewed started teaching their language to the kids or sending them to language schools. What is clear is that the EU is a topic we will have to confront for years to come. The issue of belonging will have repercussions that can go in many directions, depending on how things will settle. One of the challenges of this research is precisely that it is happening while event are unfolding.

  • Anthropocene world | Chatham House

    This map shows the global connections which characterize the world of the Anthropocene, the period when human activity has been the dominant influence on the environment. In this view of the world, the most highly populated areas get the most space, reducing the sparsely populated such as central Australia to insigificance. The built-up areas are shown by the strength of the light pollution produced by cities, which are connected by shipping routes (white/blue over sea), roads (green), railway lines (orange), pipelines (red) and submarine cables (yellow over sea).

    Benjamin Hennig, an Oxford University geographer who created the map, says: ‘For a large part of the world’s population the planet is far less aglobal village than a one-way street that channels their resources to the spaces that are the real worlds of the Anthropocene’.

    #anthropisation #cartographie #monde

  • #Louise_Pennington : Le féminisme radical et l’accusation d’essentialisme.

    La critique la plus courante adressée à la théorie féministe radicale veut que nous soyons « essentialistes » parce que nous croyons que l’oppression des femmes, en tant que classe, se fonde sur les réalités biologiques de nos corps. L’hypothèse selon laquelle les féministes radicales seraient essentialistes est basée sur une incompréhension de la théorie féministe radicale, issue de la définition du mot « radicale » lui-même. Le terme « radicale » désigne la racine ou l’origine. Notre féminisme est radical dans la mesure où il situe la racine de l’oppression des femmes dans les réalités biologiques de nos corps (le sexe) et vise à libérer les femmes en éradiquant les structures sociales, les pratiques culturelles et les lois basées sur l’infériorité des femmes aux hommes. Le féminisme radical conteste toutes les relations de pouvoir qui existent dans le patriarcat, y compris le capitalisme, l’impérialisme, le racisme, l’oppression de classe, l’homophobie et même l’institution de la mode et de la beauté.

    Les féministes radicales ne croient pas en l’existence de caractéristiques qui soient exclusivement masculines ou exclusivement féminines. Les femmes ne sont pas naturellement plus nourrissantes que les hommes, et eux ne sont pas meilleurs en mathématiques. Le genre n’est pas fonction de notre biologie. C’est une construction sociale créée pour maintenir des hiérarchies de pouvoir inégal. L’amalgame entre le sexe et le genre est un autre malentendu commun au sujet de la théorie féministe radicale. Le sexe est la réalité de votre corps sans qu’y soient liées des caractéristiques négatives ou positives. Le genre est une construction sociale qui privilégie les hommes/la masculinité en regard des femmes/de la féminité. Le féminisme radical est accusé d’essentialisme parce que nous reconnaissons ces hiérarchies de pouvoir et cherchons à les détruire. Nous ne croyons pas, comme on le suggère souvent, que ces hiérarchies sont naturelles. Il faut voir là une tactique de censure à notre égard.

    L’oppression des femmes en tant que classe repose sur deux construits reliés : la capacité de reproduction et la capacité sexuelle. Le genre est créé pour accorder aux hommes le contrôle du travail reproductif et sexuel des femmes pour que les hommes puissent profiter de ce travail, qu’il soit effectué à la maison, dans les espaces publics ou via la procréation et l’éducation des enfants. Ou, pour reprendre les mots de Gerda Lerner dans The Creation of Patriarchy (Oxford University Press, 1986), la marchandisation des capacités sexuelles et reproductives des femmes est ce qui a fondé la création de la propriété privée et d’une société de classes. Sans la matière première exploitée du travail des femmes, on n’assisterait pas à la hiérarchie inégale de pouvoir entre les hommes et les femmes qui s’est avérée fondamentale à la création et au maintien du patriarcat capitaliste.

    Traduction : #Tradfem
    Version originale :
    Autrice, militante, analyste médiatique et éditrice, Louise Pennington tient un blogue au et collabore à
    #féminisme_radical #essentialisme #reproduction #exploitation #violences_masculines

  • Rock’n’roll shrimp named after Pink Floyd because of its deafening vocal ability

    A shrimp that produces a sound louder than a rock concert has been named after the band Pink Floyd by a rock fan zoologist.

    The pistol shrimp, named Synalpheus pinkfloydi, has a distinctive pink snapping claw that it uses to stun prey with sonic energy.

    Zoologist and Pink Floyd fan Dr Sammy de Grave, from Oxford University’s Museum of Natural History, had been waiting for the chance to honour the prog rock legends by giving their name to a new species.
    Like any self-respecting rock band, pistol shrimps have the ability to generate a huge amount of volume.

    By snapping its enlarged claw shut at rapid speed the shrimp creates a high-pressure #cavitation bubble which collapses to produce one of the loudest sounds in the ocean.

    The sonic blast can reach 210 decibels - far louder than the sound of a gunshot - and is powerful enough to stun or even kill small fish.

    For a split-second, the imploding bubble also generates temperatures of 4,400C, which is nearly as hot as the surface of the sun.

    Some species of pistol shrimp use their sonic weapon to drill burrows into solid basalt rock.

  • How the ‘Safe Country’ Concept Is Putting Refugees Out in the Cold

    Following Trump’s executive order, Canadians stepped up calls to revoke an agreement designating the U.S. a safe country for asylum seekers. Oxford University’s Cory Rodgers examines how such ‘safe country’ agreements can put asylum seekers at risk.

    #pays_sûr #réfugiés #asile #migrations

  • Kazimir Malevich’s Arkhitektons – SOCKS

    Polish-Russian artist Kasimir Malevich is mostly known for his paintings that accompanied the artist’s evolution from abstract art to suprematism.

    From 1923 to the early 1930s, #Malevich also produced several three-dimensional models, assemblages of abstract forms which appear similar to models of skyscrapers, called “arkhitektons“. The drawings accompaining the construction of the models are called “planits“.

    In a series of prismatic, quasi architectural sculptures (which he called ‘Arkhitektons’) (Malevich, n) sought to demonstrate the timeless laws of architecture underlying the ever changing demands of function. (…)
    (caption beside a photograph of an Arkhitekton, 1924): Malevich’s Arkhitektons resemble early #De_Stijl compositions in which ornament is non-figural and ‘form’ and ‘ornament’ are differentiated only by scale. These studies are purely experimental and the buildings have no function and no internal organization.
    Alan Colquhoun: Modern Architecture (Oxford University Press – 2002).

    The #arkhitektons are mostly white plaster models made up by several rectangular blocks added one another. Usually a central bigger block is the main compositional element and smaller parallelepipeds are progressively added to it. No function is shown or translated into form, the final shape being the pure result of assembling abstract masses in vertical or horizontal. With their spatialization of #abstraction and their formal non-objectivity, the arkhitektons embody Malevich effort to translate the suprematist principles of composition to three-dimensional forms and architecture.

    #art #architecture #design #sémantique #sémiologie