Trump to appeal to evangelicals with unprecedented speech at anti-abortion rally

US President Donald Trump delivers a speech via video 

from the White House to the March for Life on January 19, 2018. 

© BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP

Text by:Ségolène ALLEMANDOU

Donald Trump will become the first sitting US president to address the March for Life anti-abortion rally when he speaks on Friday. Trump will use the rally to strengthen his ties with his conservative evangelical Christian base in the run-up to the 2020 US elections.

No US president has ever attended the March for Life, an annual anti-abortion rally protesting against both the practice and legality of abortion, in the event's 47-year history. It is held every year in Washington, DC around the anniversary of the landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court case.

In that case, the court ruled on January 22, 1973 that the Constitution must protect a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

Every year since becoming president, Trump has welcomed representatives from the March for Life to the White House. But this is the first time that he will go in person to the protest.


See you on Friday...Big Crowd! https://t.co/MFyWLG4HFZ— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2020

Trump made this surprise announcement on Twitter on Wednesday, writing “See you on Friday...Big Crowd!”

Trump’s critics see it as an attempt to divert attention from the impeachment trial, which opened on Tuesday in the Senate.

Also on Twitter, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Ilyse Hogue, described the president’s announcement as “a desperate attempt to divert attention from his criminal presidency and fire up his radical base”

BREAKING: In a desperate attempt to divert attention from his criminal presidency and fire up his radical base, Trump will be the 1st POTUS to attend the annual gathering of anti-choicers on Friday, which he announced today on the anniversary of #RoevWade bc that's how he rolls. https://t.co/xN5TzktwLL— ilyse hogue (@ilyseh) January 22, 2020

The planned address is the latest example of Trump continuing to woo evangelical Christians.

“This is definitely a watershed moment for the pro-life movement, but it is also the latest gesture of support from Donald Trump to a key part of his conservative base: the religious right,” said FRANCE 24’s Washington correspondent Kethevane Gorjesthani.

“As a political block, they’ve stood by him throughout all the controversies, despite his divorces, despite his lack of obvious interest in religion. All of that is because because Donald Trump has delivered on one of their key issues: abortion.”

“Since taking office, the man who once called himself very pro-choice has appointed countless very conservative judges from the lower courts all the way to the Supreme Court. He has also cut federal funding for abortion and has pushed for more laws restricting access to abortions. Donald Trump is now hoping that these same conservative voters will once again turn out at the polls for him,” said Gorjesthani.

‘The most pro-life president in history’

Trump’s administration has already embraced the march in unprecedented ways. In 2017, Mike Pence became the first sitting vice president to attend the event.

The following year, in January 2018, the White House incumbent himself addressed the march by video, promising that his administration “will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life”.

Writing in the conservative news outlet The Daily Wire on Wednesday, Russell Vought, Trump’s acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, called him “the most pro-life president in history” and celebrated what he called “a golden chapter for our movement”.

“Trump is seeking to reaffirm his pro-life position," confirmed Nicole Bacharan, a political scientist specialising in American politics and author of "Le Monde selon Trump" (The World According to Trump), speaking with FRANCE 24.

“Trump governs for his electorate: those that are anti-immigration, but also pro-life," Bacharan said. The latter category is widely represented among evangelical Christians, 81% of whom voted for the Republican candidate in 2016.

By speaking at the March for Life, the president intends to directly address his electoral base, “to prove his loyalty", says Bacharan. “But also to remind them of what he has already done for their movement and to tell them that he is prepared to commit even more to it".

‘Good people can have different opinions about what decisions they might make about their own bodies’ — Celebs including @DebraMessing, @BradleyWhitford, and @SophiaBush explain how the abortion debate is really about freedom and human rights #RoeVWade pic.twitter.com/x9X6bOL3Ao— NowThis (@nowthisnews) January 22, 2020

Abortion remains a highly divisive issue in America. According to a study published by Pew Research Center in August 2019, 61 percent of Americans believe that voluntary termination of pregnancy should be legalised in all cases, compared to 38 percent who believe it should be prohibited in all circumstances.

As soon as Donald Trump came to power in January 2017, his administration was particularly aggressive on the issue of abortion rights. It introduced a ban on funding international NGOs that support abortion, and a reduction in aid for abortions.

Trump also nominated two conservative judges for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who were both confirmed by the Senate. In 2019, several conservative states in the south and centre of the United States (the "Bible Belt") tightened the laws pertaining to abortion.

As a result, access to abortion is declining in the United States, according to a New York Times study published on 31 May 2019. Dozens of specialized clinics in the country have closed in recent years, with more than 11 million women in the United States living more than an hour's drive from one.

In January 2019, New York State passed a law protecting the right to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks in certain cases, while in the same year, the governors of Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio signed controversial ‘heartbeat’ bills banning abortions if an embryonic heartbeat could be detected.

Pro-life candidates receive ‘record’ funding

Trump’s announcement came a few days after the pro-life political action group the Susan B. Anthony List announced that it would spend $52 million to support the president and other pro-life Republican candidates throughout the 2020 election cycle, a sum the group called a record

President @realDonaldTrump is the most #ProLife president in U.S. history.
From the moment he was sworn in, his administration hit the ground running to defend LIFE.

Let's WIN in November to secure FOUR MORE YEARS of WINNING for babies & moms to Make America Pro-Life Again!! 👍 pic.twitter.com/yqkMpJyTcY— Susan B. Anthony List (@SBAList) January 23, 2020

Trump’s aim by breaking protocol to attend this Friday’s March for Life is clear: He wants to solidify his old evangelical base and attract those who are not regular voters.

"Up until now, evangelicals have long been considered a marginal group and uncultured. Above all, this gives them a sense of legitimacy,” Bacharan said.

This piece is an adaptation by Sophie Gorman from the original in French.

Is Canada shifting away from its pro-Israel stance on Palestine?

Ottawa supported a vote for Palestinian self-determination at the UN, but moved in the opposite direction on refugees and settlements

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland speaks after
 her meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
 in Jerusalem, 31 October 2018 (AFP)

Terry Rempel , Jeremy Wildeman

Canada is a close ally of Israel, something the Trudeau Liberal government has repeatedly and ardently reinforced. But the country recently reversed a years-long trend by voting in favour of a United Nations General Assembly resolution on the Palestinian right to self-determination.

The resolution was first introduced in 1994 and has since been reintroduced on an annual basis. Canada initially voted in favour of the resolution, but abstained for the first time in 2000, expressing concern that a reference to the Palestinian “right to a state” could prejudice a negotiated outcome to the conflict.

It had been a pillar of Canadian policy for decades that a solution should be found through talks between the parties, rather than a unilateral resolution.

Settlements are widely regarded as a major obstacle to a two-state solution, and Canada has long agreed with this in its official policy

In 2011, after winning a majority government, the Harper Conservatives voted against the resolution on Palestinian self-determination. John Baird, the former foreign minister, said Canada would not support unilateral efforts by the Palestinian Authority to secure international recognition for a Palestinian state.

That year, Canada voted against all but two of 16 UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, siding with Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. This was a voting pattern that the Trudeau government maintained - until now.

The recent shift restores a degree of consistency between Canadian policy and the country’s voting record prior to the Harper era, including its recognition of the Palestinian right to self-determination and “the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, as part of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement”.

Canadian officials explained that the latest vote aimed to shore up prospects for a two-state solution. By contrast, barely a month earlier, the US announced that it would “no longer recognise Israeli settlements as per se inconsistent with international law”.

Settlements are widely regarded as a major obstacle to a two-state solution, and Canada has long agreed with this in its official policy, stating that it does not recognise permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967, including the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

“Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention,” the government states. “The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
From Harper to Trudeau

In 2019, Canada voted against all but three out of 16 recurrent resolutions at the UN on the question of Palestine. The Trudeau government has consistently suggested that the resolutions are “biased” or seek to “single out Israel”.

The Trudeau government’s position is consistent with the Harper government’s view that Canada should take a stand with Israel, “the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation”.

Even so, Canada’s refusal, alongside six other countries, to condemn Israeli settlement-building at the UN seems strange in light of its support for Palestinian self-determination and long-standing official policy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former
 Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper shake hands 
in Jerusalem in 2014 (AFP)

Canada also continued this year to vote against a resolution on Palestinian inalienable rights, including the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties. The Trudeau government’s vote against a resolution on the operations of UNRWA, the UN agency that assists Palestinian refugees, also stands out.

In contrast, one of the Trudeau government’s biggest decisions upon gaining power several years ago was to restore funding to UNRWA, which had been cut by the Harper government.

Canada has mostly supported the agency since its inception in 1949, and was the third-largest donor to UNRWA in its first 20 years of operations, contributing tens of millions of dollars. Canada also oversaw the Refugee Working Group during the Oslo process in the 1990s.

'Absolutely unacceptable'

It is useful to put Canada’s international voting record into context with the hotly contested domestic politics of Israel and Palestine in Canada. A common site of contestation is the realm of higher education.

In November, a campus event at York University for an Israeli advocacy group was met with protests by Palestine solidarity activists. The event featured members of Reservists on Duty, a group founded by former members of the Israeli army with a goal to counter the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Also at the event were members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a group that has been classified as a terrorist organisation in the United States. Indeed, reports of violence followed.

How Israel became one of the world's worst rogue statesRead More »

The immediate response by Canadian politicians at all levels was, without investigation, to condemn the Palestine solidarity advocates. True to past form, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quick to denounce them, tweeting: “What happened that night was shocking and absolutely unacceptable. Antisemitism has no place in Canada.”

Yet, recognising that the real threat came from the JDL, two York students’ associations issued a statement noting: “We the students demand that the university take immediate action to ensure that known members of the JDL, and other organizations that are complicit in violent and harmful behaviour, are no longer allowed on our campus.”

Amnesty International joined many other civil society organisations in expressing concern about the violence students faced on campus.
Deeply one-sided

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government has been attempting to facilitate the sale of products from Israeli settlements in Canada through the renewed Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement. Unusually, the agreement lacks a human rights provision, and despite Canada’s official policy on settlements, the deal makes no distinction between products made in settlements and other Israeli products.

According to Amnesty International, “failure to make this distinction is destructive to the human rights situation for the Palestinian people” living in the occupied territories. Though a federal court ruled that these products could not be labelled as “product of Israel” in Canada, that ruling is currently being appealed by the Canadian government.


The real test of Canada's support for the Palestinian right to self-determination will lie in whether, and how, the Trudeau government translates the positive vote into action

For advocates of the Oslo two-state process or Palestinian rights, the recent vote in favour of Palestinian self-determination was unexpected, but welcomed as a positive development. Supporters of Israel in Canada, meanwhile, felt betrayed.

Overall, the vote for self-determination was significant because Canadian policy has been deeply one-sided for years, and the vote suggests a potential shift to a fairer approach of the sort that the Government of Canada consciously tried to adopt in the 1990s. Still, the gap between official policy and the country’s UN voting record remains significant.

The self-determination vote may mean nothing without transformative structural change, especially when we see concurrent moves in the opposite direction on refugees and settlements.

The real test of Canada’s support for the Palestinian right to self-determination will lie in whether, and how, the Trudeau government translates the positive vote into action.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Terry Rempel holds a PhD from the University of Exeter. He is a writer and an independent research consultant specialising in forced displacement in Palestine/Israel. He is a founding member of BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refugee Rights.

Jeremy Wildeman holds a PhD from the University of Exeter. He is a researcher of international relations, critical development and security studies, Middle East politics and Canadian foreign policy. He has conducted a number of major research studies on development programming in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and on Canada’s relationship with the Palestinians.

Recommended

Iran plane crash poses a challenge for Canada-US relations
'Foolish': Muslim convention criticised for hosting anti-Palestinian politician
Canada's Conservative Party to list Iran's IRGC as terrorist group if elected

Farming without pesticides: How can we make agriculture greener?

Cornflowers or potatoes? Wildflowers are disappearing due to increased fertilization in agricultural areas. An otherwise conventional farmer in Germany is testing organic farming methods — with varying success.

Hanging on a gate is a sign reading: "Potatoes — healthy and delicious." The slogan, to which the word "rare" could justifiably be added, is in line with Cornel Lindemann-Berk's philosophy of quality over quantity. "We don't have enough rain in the summer," he tells DW. "And since we don't want to water them, we've turned this weakness into a strength."

The yields are 50% lower than they might otherwise have been, but even the rare varieties such as Bergerac or Bamberg aren't watery. Customers from across the region come to the farm shop to buy these spuds known for their rich flavor and high mineral content.

Those who came last summer also got to witness the strips of brightly colored flowers around the edge of the Lindemann-Berk's fields. His mixes of brilliant red poppies, cornflowers and wild daisies attracted an abundance of insect life.

"The number of [plant] species has increased, and the number of each insect species has gone up fourfold," says the agronomist.

Scientists began recording the growth of the flowers after carrying out targeted planting for insects and birds. Here, the animals can find food and nectar, as well as a safe place to reproduce.

Read more: Germany's farmers feel the heat of climate change

This is conventional organic farming

This family-run business in Germany's Rhineland region is one of 10 farms across the country taking part in a project to test and implement practical and economically viable conservation measures alongside traditional agriculture.

Rare and exotic-looking, but from the region: Purple or Bergerac potatoes from the farm are a popular choice

Growing and thriving: Wildflowers bloom next to the cultivated field

By taking part in the project, which is known as F.R.A.N.Z. (Future Resources, Agriculture & Nature Conservation) and runs from 2017 to 2027, Lindemann-Berk is on his way to becoming an organic farmer.

"As part of this project, we don't use liquid manure or crop protection agents," he says. "The yield is sometimes zero, because weeds such as thistles and burdock are rampant here." For every crop plant, around 30 unwanted herbs and grass also push through the ground.

Lindemann-Berk has been making losses on grain and rapeseed for years. But when he took over the Gut Neu-Hemmerich farm three decades ago he converted several disused buildings into flats and offices, and so he doesn't have to rely on agriculture alone to make a living. Nonetheless, it's still important to him to plant a diversity of grains. He doesn't cultivate monocultures but practices crop rotation, just as farmers did centuries ago. Varying what he grows each year helps to regenerate the soil, while also reducing disease and pests.

As part of other experiments for F.R.A.N.Z, Lindemann-Berk has sown corn and runner beans together. The beans grow up the corn plants and prevent light from reaching the soil, thereby significantly reducing the growth of weeds. Because the beans are rich in protein and the corn contains starch, the mix also lends itself to cattle feed.

"Skylark-windows" — rectangular strips in the shape of windows which are cut into the crops — were also introduced in the fields. This allowed the heavily decimated bird population to breed undisturbed on the ground among the dense grain.

Lindemann-Berk only uses fertilizers and pesticides in an emergency — and even then in homeopathic doses.

"Too much fertilizer can even cause unwanted weeds to multiply. We've been calculating the requirements for more than 40 years. Using soil samples, we examine the amount of nutrients in the soil and calculate exactly how much fertilizer we need to use in order to get a good yield. Only then do we buy what we need," he says.

Read more: Why Germans are demanding a shift in agriculture

High tech in the fields

He also prefers to use organic fertilizer made of animal excrement. "It's delivered from the Netherlands, because there's hardly any livestock nearby," he says. His farm supplies grain for the Dutch cattle. "So why shouldn't we get the animal's excrement back?" he asks wryly. "Organisms in the soil digest the valuable liquid fertilizer and excrete minerals like nitrogen, which the plants then absorb through their roots."

Having a mixture of plants if part of the F.R.A.N.Z project

This liquid crop protection mixture can be applied to troublesome plants using a satellite-navigated and digitally controlled syringe. This kind of work is particularly effective after sunset.

With the help of his own weather station, data collected from the soil and the meteorological service, Lindemann-Berk can make forecasts in order to calculate the risk of attack from fungus. Even then, pesticides should only be used if the plant isn't able to help itself.

By using lactic acid bacteria, Lindemann-Berk was able to dramatically reduce his use of chemical fungicides.

Once the harvest is complete, he takes soil samples again. "So far, the measurements have shown no residues of glyphosate and its breakdown products within the grain," he says.

He points to the shelf behind him, which is full of files, explaining how he has to keep his records for five years. Although fertilizer regulations have been tightening for many years now — causing many farmers to give up on agriculture — he says the positive impacts won't show up in groundwater for 30 years.

Read more: How drones are challenging the face of British agriculture

Not an organic farm — but still environmentally friendly

Organic farms can only treat their plants with copper formulations, which stimulate growth and act as deterrents against fungus. Although it's a heavy metal, people still need copper in small doses to help with blood formation and to support a functioning nervous system.

Organic pesticides are preferred over chemical ones at the Gut Neu-Hemmerich farm — but they're only used in emergencies

Not everyone is enthusiastic about pulling weeds by hand

"We do everything we can to be environmentally friendly, and do what the organic farms do so well," says Lindemann-Berk. "Because no one wants to harm the environment. Agribusinesses have been working in the same places for hundreds of years."

Sustainable practice is a priority here. But in order to be certified as an organic farm, he would need to pluck the weeds by hand and — as was done centuries ago — regularly rake the soil around the plants to uproot unwanted herbs and grasses.

"No one wants to do this job, not even young people doing an internship," he says. And so the job is left to machines, in the age of industrial agriculture in Germany.

Lindemann-Berk gives his plants plenty of space to grow, which allows them to absorb enough nutrients from the soil, and in turn leads to well-aerated earth that is less susceptible to fungal diseases. He also calls on customers who pay too much attention to the appearance of their fruits and vegetables to reconsider.

"If I offer my customers tasty and untreated apples from the orchards, you'll always get complaints about a few marks on the fruit," he says, adding that people want produce that is both organic and flawless. "Those two things don't go together."

Could geoengineering strategies help tackle climate change?
A range of technologies — loosely defined as 'geoengineering' — are being explored as responses to climate change. Yet their effectiveness, and whether they should be implemented at all, is debated among scientists.

Australia's bushfires have brought the devastating consequences of a warming world into sharp relief. And with modelling pointing to temperature increases of between three and four degrees Celcius by 2100 in a business-as-usual scenario, predictions suggest such extreme events are set to become more frequent. 

What if we could reverse the warming that is fueling drought and causing flooding around the world?

Read more: Meet the scientists quitting academia for climate activism 

That is exactly what organizations like the US-based non-profit Foundation for Climate Restoration (F4CR), are proposing. The group wants to restore carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to under 300 parts per million, as was the case in the pre-fossil fuel age. Today, the global average measures more than 400 parts per million. 

Read more: To stop an insect die-out, the world needs pollinator-friendly policies, scientist warns 

"I'm very interested in leaving [behind] a world where our children can survive," Pieter Fiekowsky, an MIT-trained physicist who founded F4CR in 2015, told DW. To him, "that clearly requires getting CO2 back to safe levels.”

According to the foundation, achieving that involves "climate restoration," that is, making sure we're collectively removing more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than we produce. The foundation believes around a trillion tons of carbon dioxide needs to be extracted.

That would require large-scale implementation of nature-based or artificial technologies to suck vast quantities of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere to cool the planet —  strategies that fall under the loose definition of "geoengineering." However, which technologies are best suited, and whether to implement them at all, is hotly debated among scientists.

Air pollution resulting from emissions poses a serious health threat

F4CR have proposed restoring marine habitats that store carbon, such as underwater kelp forests

Climate benefits

Rob Jackson, an earth systems scientist at Stanford University,believes that restoring the climate to what it once was is a better goal than merely stabilizing Earth's temperatures.

Read more: The Brazilian megacity experimenting with eco-friendly waste disposal 

"We need a new story, a new narrative around climate change," says Jackson, who argues this should involve ambitions that go beyond merely limiting the damage of climate change. "[Climate restoration] will bring climate benefits. It will save lives by reducing air pollution. It will provide a host of other benefits."

One solution proposed by F4CR in awhite paper  last year entails restoring marine habitats that store carbon, such as underwater kelp forests. Another is a form of concrete  that binds carbon as it's made, which was used recently to build a new terminal at San Francisco airport.

Read more:  India's Himalayan apple farmers feel the heat

There are sectors where certain emissions are hard to remove entirely, such as methane — a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide — in the agricultural sector, says Jackson. He recently proposed  a technology to remove methane from the air by oxidizing it to carbon dioxide, which although stays around longer has less heat-trapping capacity. 

Climate scientists have included some geoengineering solutions, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) — the process of extracting carbon from crops and storing it underground — in the majority of pathways modelled in the Paris Climate Agreement to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.

A form of concrete  that binds carbon as it's made was used recently to build a new terminal at San Francisco airport

"It is actually not possible to limit global warming to 2 or 1.5 degrees Celsius, without [removal of greenhouse gases]," Avit Bhowmik, an assistant professor of risk and environmental studies at Sweden's Karlstad University, told DW. "Just stopping the increase of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses wouldn't be enough — we have to sequester them."

No silver bullet

Still, Jackson notes some geoengineering proposals, such as releasing large quantities of iron into the ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton—providing food for fish and thereby rebuilding carbon-sequestering fisheries — are still at the experimental stage.

More research is needed both into scaling up such ideas and into the ecological impacts, says Jackson. 

Read more: Building affordable, green housing in a South African township 

Even technologies like BECCS are still in testing. Many experts believe they also distract from the urgency of ceasing greenhouse gas emissions.

"I think these long-term goals [of climate restoration] take away focus from the really important challenge that we have today of bending the emissions curve downward," says Joeri Rogelj, a climate scientist at Imperial College London.

There is also concern that geoengineering technologies could create a false sense of security that increased emissions could be removed. Rogelj says ecosystems unable to adapt to current warming are not likely to return even if temperatures decrease.

"Climate restoration doesn't mean that the Earth will look the same [as it did before the pre-industrial era]," Rogelj adds.

Can we improve agricultural practices so farmland absorbs rather than emits carbon?

Reforestation has been flagged as one way of helping to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

A middle ground?

Bhowmik believes it should be possible to achieve a net decline in greenhouse gases without resorting to the most radical geoengineering approaches. The Exponential Roadmap report published in 2019, in which Bhowmik led the modelling work, lays out a strategy focused heavily on nature-based solutions.

To follow that roadmap, the world would need to halve global greenhouse gas emissions every decade from 2020 onwards, improve agricultural practices so farmland absorbs rather than emits carbon, restore large areas of forest and protect carbon-storing ecosystems like peatlands.

Read more: Mexicans turn to ancient Aztec floating gardens to revive mangrove forests 

"If you follow that route, it would actually be possible by the end of this century to have a substantial reduction in the atmosphere greenhouse gas concentrations. And soon thereafter we will reach the level that was in the preindustrial period," Bhowmik believes.

Climate restoration got a boost in September 2019 when F4CR joined scientists, venture capitalists and youth activists at a UN Forum aiming to spur investment for a range of nascent technologies to reverse global warming.

Even though there's disagreement on what — if any — form climate restoration should take, most scientists do agree that it shouldn't be a replacement for mitigating climate change or helping communities around the world cope with the impacts of rising tempertures.

That includes F4CR. "Climate restoration is a critical third pillar,” says Rick Parnell, CEO of the organization. “[It’s] a third leg of the stool, along with mitigation and adaptation." 

This is an updated version of a previous article.

World in Progress: Who decides what's healthy? Private donors impacting WHO's health policies

The current Corona virus outbreak highlights the importance or international coordination in health, and the World Health Organization plays and important role in that. But as UN members states have decreased regular contributions, the WHO now increasingly relies on private donors, whose agendas also influence international health policies. Conflicts of interest may harm millions of people.

LISTEN TO AUDIO HERE 

From pioneer to laggard: Animated film in Germany

One century ago Germany was at the forefront of animated film technology. But the avant-garde soon gave way to Nazi-sponsored attempts to rival Disney that didn't pan out quite as planned.



Dancing matchsticks are the stars of the "The mysterious matchbox" (Die Geheimnisvolle Streichholzdose). They arrange and rearrange themselves into shapes, meticulous movements captured frame by frame.

This 1910 experiment by photographer and pioneering cinematographer Guido Seeber is Germany's first known animated film. The genre quickly found fertile ground.

"It was an era when animators were producing drawings in their bedrooms alone at night," says Rolf Giesen, an animated film researcher and historian. In Germany, it was "the small manufacturers" that drove technological developments, Giesen explains, whereas in the US the industrialization of film was taking place.

Germany's golden era of animated film

In the 1920s Germany became an incubator for avant-garde animated film, with boundary-pushing artistic movements such as Bauhaus and Dada influencing the genre. Animators boldly attempting to create "absolute film" played with color, tone, geometry and shadow.

This new artistic freedom leads to many new animated films. Europe's first feature-length was produced in Germany: The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926) by Charlotte "Lotte" Reiniger, a paper silhouette specialist. She took her inspiration and motives from the Arabic folktale collection Arabian Nights.

Reiniger (right, with negative reel), and Walter Ruttmann were two pioneers of animated film

Since such creative films hardly proved profitable, animators turned to the exploding advertising industry. "Animators earned most of their money through filmed ads. Soups, canned goods and liquors were all promoted," Giesen says. In fact, most people went to the movie theaters for the ads, not for the films themselves, he adds.

Germany's creative and experimental animated-film era lasted from the end of World War I through the start of the 1930s. It resulted in many films and technical advancements, and German artists enjoyed artistic freedom. But it came to a decisive end.

Nazis' Disney obsession

With the start of the Nazi dictatorship, all art that failed to meet the regime's taste, in particular the abstract and modern, was branded "degenerate." The last abstract animated film that was shown in Germany was Tanz der Farben (1939), or "Dance of the Colors," by Hans Fischinger. Many animators could not or refused to come to terms with such attacks. Some emigrated alongside other film creatives in the 1930s. Others found ways to situate themselves within the Nazi power structure.

Adolf Hitler and his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels loved animated films, including Disney ones. Goebbels' diary entry from December 22, 1937 recounts how he gifted Hitler 18 Disney movies for Christmas.

Disney's 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves' was a favorite film of Hitler

(BECAUSE IT ORIGINALLY TOOK PLACE IN THE BLACK FOREST DURING ROMAN OCCUPATION OF GERMANY)

The Nazi leadership was set on showing this 1937 Disney film in German cinemas. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the high point," Giesen says. "Two [German] film production companies, Bavaria Film and Ufa, fought each another for the licensing rights. Disney demanded a lot of money. It was a daunting price. But it was Hitler's favorite movie. And it was clear that it should also run in Germany."

However, a boycott of German films was soon introduced in the US, and the outbreak of World War II followed not too long after in 1939. The Nazis decided to stop showing Disney films in Germany and set their sights on boosting domestic film production instead.

Read more: Why 'Bambi,' at 75, isn't just for kids

State-ordered animation
"Around 1939 or 1940 Goebbels saw a second American animated film, Gulliver's Travels, and then he thought, Germany could also build such an animation industry that would be in a position to become the European leader," Giesen says.

The Deutsche Zeichenfilm Company ("German Animated Film") was consequently founded in 1941. It received millions in financing. A giant studio was built and some 200 employees hired, but a mistake was made: Instead of hiring experienced directors, animators and artists, ranks were filled with Nazi loyalists, young and fresh from design school but who had little knowledge about filmmaking.

The result was a single short film: Armer Hansi, the story of a canary bird who flies out of his cage and is so scared by the freedom and adversity he encounters that he ultimately flies back into his cage.

"That was the line of thought back then. That's what was seen as good, that you are safe in your cage, in a dictatorship," Giesen says. Despite the great amount of effort invested into the film, it only achieved middling success, he added.

The Nazis wanted less to create direct propaganda than they wanted to depict a safe and idyllic world and to distract from the worries and hardship of war. However, their attempts to build a large animation industry failed.

At the same time, they supported studios in many of the territories of Europe that they occupied, including the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgian, France and Czechoslovakia. "[These countries'] productions were suddenly much better than the Germans'," Giesen said. Feature-length color productions began to be made, especially in Denmark.

After 1945, animated film production suddenly blossomed across Europe — just not in Germany.



GERMAN ANIMATED FILMS: FROM VANGUARD TO NAZI FAILURE
Scissors, paper, action!

"The Adventures of Prince Achmed" by Charlotte "Lotte" Reiniger from 1926 is thought to be the oldest surviving animated feature film in the world. Two earlier films made by Argentinean Quirino Cristiani are now lost. Reiniger pioneered the silhouette film form using cardboard cutouts animated frame by fram. She made more than 40 films.

Looking back at animated history

Today, Germany lags behind other countries when it comes to developing new animated technologies.

There are also very few experts and collections dedicated to the genre, but the German Institute for Animated Film (DIAF) in the eastern German city of Dresden is one exception. Founded in 1993, it undertakes archival, curatorial and scholarly research. One of its goals is to compile the history of German animated film into a comprehensive online chronology.

Most films from Germany's early animation years were destroyed or have disappeared. The trajectory of the country's animated film industry remains an area for further exploration.

German report spells out China human rights abuses against Uighur Muslims

A confidential document has indicated that the German government is aware of human rights violations in China's Xinjiang region, and warns that Uighurs deported back to China may disappear "indefinitely."



The human rights situation in China's northwestern Xinjiang region has "markedly worsened" in recent years, according to a confidential document compiled by the German Foreign Ministry that was leaked to DW and its German media partners NDR, WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Since late 2016, there has been an "alarming increase" in repressive measures and systematic discrimination in China targeting Uighurs, as well as other Muslim minorities, according to the report.

So far, the German government has been careful when it comes to openly condemning the Chinese internment camps. German industrial giants like Siemens, along with BASF and VW, operate factories in Xinjiang.

Read more: Why is Germany silent on China's human rights abuses?

The classified report on human rights in China was compiled by the Foreign Ministry in December 2019 as an advisory document for Germany's Federal Office of Migration and Refugees, which decides on asylum claims.

It was based on information provided by human rights organizations, lawyers, Western embassies and international organizations.

'Sexual violence and deaths' in Chinese camps

The Uighur are a Turkic-speaking minority based in China's northwestern Xinjiang region. They are predominantly a Sunni Muslim community, and one of the 55 recognized ethnic minorities in China.

In its assessment of the human rights situation in Xinjiang, the Foreign Ministry said that more than 1 million of the roughly 10 million Uighurs living in Xinjiang are thought to have disappeared into a network of prisons and camps that Chinese authorities have been constructing since late 2016.

Leaked papers document China's Uighur policy in Xinjiang

Many are held indefinitely. Some are moved to labor camps, and others are allowed to return home under the strict supervision of local authorities, with their freedom of movement strictly curtailed.

According to the report's authors, the Chinese motto of the camps: "transformation through education," is in actuality a "euphemistic term for draconian ideological training courses."

The report also said there are reports of mistreatment, sexual violence and deaths in the internment camps. Uighurs whose relatives live abroad are put under increased surveillance and having contacts abroad can lead to internment and interrogation.

The Chinese authorities claim that the camps are vocational training centers they set up to fight "extremist ideas" and provide Uighurs with "valuable skills." Detainees are said to undergo a rigorous indoctrination process and Mandarin language courses.

Deported to China and 'disappeared'

According to the report, China is pressuring the governments of Egypt, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand to deport Uighurs back to China. There is no information about these peoples' "whereabouts," the report said.

Chinese citizens considered as being what authorities call "subversive" minorities are in danger of disappearing "indefinitely" should they be deported back to China, it continued. These groups include Uighurs and Tibetans.


The German situation report said Uighur refugees deported back to China face danger

Due to the ethnic and territorial tensions, Uighur Muslims have long faced cultural and political discrimination in China, which has led to widespread discontent and, at times, violence.

In 2009, riots in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, left more than 140 people dead and hundreds injured, as protesters attacked Chinese residents and burnt buses.

In 2014, a terror attack was carried out on a market in Urumqi, killing 31 people. In response, the Chinese government intensified its surveillance and control of Uighurs.

The German situation report does acknowledge possible links between Uighur separatist factions and the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda.

However, under the guise of fighting terrorism, China is seemingly punishing an entire population, targeting the Uighur language, religion and culture and placing them under a tight-knit mesh of constant electronic surveillance.

German firms defend business in China

China, the report says, has placed any Muslim — be it Uighur or other Muslim minority — under a general suspicion of supporting and spreading extremist views.

The Uighur identify themselves as the original inhabitants of Xinjiang, which they describe as "East Turkistan." Experts say that many of the Turkic-speaking Uighurs feel closer to Central Asian states than China. They demand a separate homeland or at least a greater autonomy for their region.

Read more: HRW says China poses 'dire' threat to human rights

German leaders stay quiet

Although the German government is evidently aware of China's systematic violation of human rights, German leaders have been mealy-mouthed when addressing the situation publicly.

In November 2019, Chancellor Merkel told the German Parliament that Germany must "of course criticize" when hearing reports of Uighur internment camps, but she did not specify whom.

Last year, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called on China to comply with its human rights obligations and has urged Beijing to "clarify its position" on interning Muslim minorities.

In an interview with German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, Maas said, "If indeed hundreds of thousands of Uighurs are being detained in camps, then the international community cannot close its eyes."

Read more: US Congress condemns China for treatment of Uighurs

The situation report also said it will be important to monitor "the growth of an authoritarian state" with a tendency towards "totalitarian structures" under the hand of President Xi Jinping.

The goal of the Communist Party's oppression of civil liberties is preserving its power domestically, along with the entrenchment of Xi Jinping's claim to leadership. This is reflected in the human rights situation in the country, the report said.

China's Uighur — what you need to know

The Chinese government has been slammed for suppressing the Uighur community in the country's western Xinjiang province. Why is Beijing targeting the Uighur? Who are they, and what are their demands? (04.12.2019) 

AUDIOS AND VIDEOS ON THE TOPIC

Uighur exile in Turkey describes cruelty of Chinese camp

Uighur researcher: China destroying cultural symbols

German firms defend business in China

Leaked papers document China's Uighur policy in Xinjiang

Date 31.01.2020

MY BREXIT MEME

Opinion: Little Britain drifts into insignificance

And so it's official. The UK can have its cake crumbs and eat them. The divorce proceedings with the EU have been tortuous, but they're likely to pale in comparison with what lies ahead for the UK, writes Rob Mudge.

Just over three and a half years ago, on the morning of June 23, 2016, I forced myself to forego my daily news junkie ritual of checking my constant news feed drip and traveled into work blissfully unaware at that stage of what had happened.

I had prepared two opinion pieces for the day. One for the highly unlikely event that the UK had voted to leave the EU, the other that we would — naturally — be remaining in the bloc.

Read more: Opinion: Game over for Brussels, UK

I'm no friend of using these terms lightly, but I really was in a state of shock when I walked into the newsroom. My German colleagues told me later that I looked as if I'd seen a ghost.

Over the past couple of years the Brexit apparition has taken on a corporeal form. Even then I — naively as it turns out — clung to the hope that the country would come to its senses and reverse the decision. While friends and colleagues around me were applying for German citizenship, I put it off more or less until the last moment.

The empire strikes back

DW's Rob Mudge

While I fully accept the outcome of a democratic vote, I still refuse to acknowledge the process that got us here: a plot based on misconceptions, lies and disinformation. Many of those who had the wool pulled over their eyes by the solipsistic and self-serving leaders, from Brexit architect David Cameron to current Prime Minister Boris Johnson, are proponents of a UK stuck in the past. The notion that a nation that once boasted an empire of colonies that it oppressed needed to rid itself of the EU's shackles is ludicrous.

Those rules and regulations so despised by government figures both past and present were shaped and formed in some form or another by the UK. And if it didn't like them, it opted out. No other EU member state has enjoyed so many exemptions and rebates.

The EU is not perfect, far from it. But to think that the UK will get a better deal with EU member states and other leading competitors is delusional. So far the UK has signed so-called continuity deals with countries such as Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands, Georgia and Lebanon, to name but a few.

Read more: Can Britain really do the trade deal it wants with the EU?

No disrespect intended, but they aren't exactly economic powerhouses. No need to panic just yet though. Former Trade Secretary Liam "the-trade-deal-with-the-EU-should-be-one-of-the-easiest-in-human-history" Fox said at the time that he had 40 deals lined up to be signed the "second" after Brexit with, er, hang on, I'm trying to find that list ...

How attractive to outside investors is a country that is hemorrhaging key industries and services as a result of Brexit? It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why leading carmakers are shutting plants and moving to mainland Europe, or why key financial operators are moving to Paris and Amsterdam. Not to mention the brain drain when EU nationals who have been working in science and education pack their bags and leave.

Read more: Will Boris Johnson 'get Brexit done' in 2020?

In vino veritas?

But fear not, there is hope. One of the government's Brexiteers living in a parallel universe is Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay. He said recently that 99% of wine consumed in the UK is imported. Once the UK leaves the EU, however, this "vital sector" would be able to thrive. I am not making this up. Two things: Has he ever paused to wonder why all that wine is imported? And since when has the UK's wine-making industry been a "vital sector?"

Let's take the level of ignorance one step further. And again, you couldn't make this up. Brexit MEP June Mummery recently had an epiphany. She tweeted that once the UK leaves the EU it will no longer have representation in Brussels on fishing policy. If irony wasn't dead already, this would be its death knell (She could always check whether Johnson has some kippers stashed away in a fridge somewhere).

Read more: Opinion: Brexit — #Brexcrement horrors and howlers

Brexit will leave Britain broken, a disunited kingdom. Geographically it has always been removed from continental Europe. That distance will become increasingly palpable politically, economically and socially.

I may not be around to see it (a mixed blessing, in a way), but I predict that within the next 20 years, the UK will come begging with its tail between its legs to rejoin the EU — but the terms then will be infinitely worse than those it enjoyed for so long.

DW's Rob Mudge is a British-born journalist living in Germany who has followed Brexit developments with great trepidation.