The panel discussion ‘What Does Trump’s Presidency Mean for the Rest of the World?’ on 25 November clearly highlighted this as it careened wildly, swerving from the global implications and election autopsies, to passionate debates over racism and fascism.
Journalist and author Laurie Penny damned the evening as a ‘normalising’ discussion about ‘a fascist’. Echoing this, Shelina Janmohamed (a commentator on Muslim social and religious trends) urged the audience to think about the framing of the stories told. ‘The way we talk about identity,’ she argued, referring to the coverage of the trial of Jo Cox’s murderer, ‘…affects real peoples’ lives’. There is a potential ‘ripple’ effect on women’s rights movements globally, she argued, legitimising misogyny as ‘locker room talk’, disregarding women’s place in society, and signalling that it’s okay to talk about your daughter in ‘repulsive’ ways.
Trump’s rhetoric around climate change has some fearing the death of climate politics. He talks about ‘setting free coal,’ says Steven Erlanger, London bureau chief for the New York Times. But, this won’t go far: ‘No one’s going to invest in coal, it’s not worth their money,’ Erlanger argued. Many countries are ‘invested in a cleaner world’ for their own reasons, so ’just because the president thinks it can happen’ it doesn’t mean it will.
Having previously referred to NATO as ‘obsolete‘, will Trump oversee a shift in the global security landscape? Dan Roberts, The Guardian’s Washington bureau chief, argued Europe will be ‘looking after itself’: for Trump, world security isn’t ‘an American problem’. Erlanger demurred, pointing out that the USA’s NATO membership isn’t altruistic, but in American ‘interests’. President of the British International Studies Association, Inderjeet Parmar, agreed, ‘I don’t think America’s retreating’.
Author, broadcaster, and the chair of the event, Michael Goldfarb asked if Trump caught a ‘wave’ that’s sweeping the world. There is a ‘systemic’ element, Parmar mused; the populist surge is the ‘unravelling of an order’ unable to sustain the ‘Western’ dream. But did Trump’s supporters see themselves as part of a larger wave? One audience member disagreed, arguing that many who voted for Trump sought a conservative supreme court, and didn’t consider the ‘world economy’ or ‘globalism’.
To what extent Trump fulfils his campaign promises remains to be seen. ‘The office has a moderating influence’ argued Alex Sundstrom of Republicans Overseas UK, he will ‘tack to the centre to get stuff done’. Janmohamed disagreed, arguing that his appointees are ‘proof that he’s going to make good on those statements.’ Parmar, however, saw compromise ahead. ‘The education of Donald Trump is going to be the title of a really great book,’ he quipped, ‘that education began as soon as his election was through.’
]]>
The panel discussion ‘Breaking Point: The EU Referendum and its Aftermath’ on 15 November showed that whilst it’s hard to know how exactly what it means, there are clues about the shape it will take.
For example, despite the pivotal role migration played in the referendum rhetoric, migrants are likely to stay, argued Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s College London. ‘We have no earthly clue who the European citizens in this country are, unless they’ve registered to vote or are getting a benefit,’ Menon said. ‘People are going to be allowed to stay,’ he remarked bluntly, ‘because we can’t do anything about it.’ The notion of ‘taking back control’ of our borders is ‘nonsense’ because the British civil service ‘can’t deal’ with the ‘kind of promises that some people in the Leave campaign have made, and they won’t try to’.
We also know that Brexit lends itself to European food based analogies. A ’kind of Swiss cheese Brexit’, in which different sectors get different deals, is most likely, Macwhirter claimed. However, Menon rebuts, any ‘deals’ at this point are moot; there is no evidence, he argued, that the EU will allow the UK to ‘salami slice the market’.
But food may not be as important as the analogies would have us believe. It’s simply not true that ‘Bordeaux winemakers’, Bojan Pancevski (The Sunday Times’ European Union Correspondent) warned, or producers of any other foodstuff or product for that matter, will successfully persuade EU governments to be lenient when negotiating with the UK for fear of losing market share. At least in Germany, the trade union bodies representing such individuals, Pancevski remarked, are on a record, saying they ‘completely agree with the government policy’. That government policy, currently, will not be one of doing favours for Britain. To avoid fuelling the rise of their own Eurosceptics, Menon argued, these governments ‘need Brexit to look dreadful’. The German Chancellery’s approach to Brexit and its message to businesses, he suggests, is similar to it’s approach to sanctioning Russia following its invasion of Crimea: ‘the political imperative is more important than economic loss, suck it up.’
Possibly most strikingly, we also know that Europe and the UK are in what Pancevski described as ‘parallel universe[s]’. For example, Britain is the only country in the EU with a political issue about freedom of labour, Menon argued. European countries, Pancevski said, don’t understand the phenomenon as ‘migration’, but rather as ‘internal movement’ within the European Union.
Furthermore, since the referendum, politicians and commentators have claimed that Europe needs the UK so much that it will change the rules, compromising freedom of movement to keep Britain in the single market. ‘We are very happy in this country to assume that everyone loves us’ Menon deadpanned. But the parallel universe strikes again, and obscures what is really at stake; the EU’s ‘primary objective’ Pancevski argued, ‘is to preserve their own union and above all to preserve the single market’. The EU’s fundamental four freedoms of goods, services, movement, and capital are, Menon claimed, ‘sacrosant’.
]]>
The panel consisted of award-winning filmmakers Liam Saint-Pierre, Chloe White, Marc Silver, and Gemma Atkinson, with documentary programmer and DocHouse producer Jenny Horwell moderating the discussion.
The discussion began with an overview of techniques and inspirations from each filmmaker – and it was soon evident that the speakers did not stick to any unchangeable formula in their work.
“There is no process for when I’m making films,” Silver said, with White adding that he views himself as “more of a spontaneous filmmaker.”
Atkinson said: “I let the character dictate what direction the film goes in, rather than going into it with a big plan, which means it can go in any direction.”
“It has been quite nice to hear the others tonight, often I thought it was just me who was so haphazard!,”commented Saint-Pierre.
Great to see such a talented, eloquent bunch of documentary makers at @frontlineclub. Time I dusted off the camera. pic.twitter.com/JXSRVQbox4
— Peter Yeung (@ptr_yeung) February 15, 2016
Although there was a general consensus that the creative process should not be formulaic, three elements were highlighted for their significance at the start of a project: inspiration by way of specific characters, places, and issues.
“I like characters who are really passionate about something, and they are kind of on the edge of society,” said Saint-Pierre, as he explained how he found the shopkeeper around whom his first film centred.
Silver added: “for me, the place is a character. It’s not just the people, but also the essence of a place.”
Each of the panellists agreed that they aimed to spend as much time as possible with their subjects. Silver explained that on a five-day shoot, he would try and spend the first two days with his subjects without his camera. “I might take a stills camera, just for fun. But I’ve learnt from the past that I don’t need to over-shoot – and also I need to get past the first layer with that person and gain trust.”
However, the panel also reflected on how working with tight budgets and shorter timelines meant that the aim of spending significant time with their subjects was often unrealistic.
Horwell then moved the discussion onto one of the final stages of short documentary production: the editing process.
She asked the filmmakers to comment on their top tips for this stage, and how they avoid common mistakes.
“Hold the shot for longer than you plan. Whatever time you are holding it for, add an extra 5-10 seconds” Atkinson advised.
White agreed, and cemented the point with an extended clip from her film The Long Haul: “At the time I didn’t know that shot would be so useful, but trusting your shots and holding them for a long time, you’ll be thankful when it comes to the edit.”
Saint-Pierre added that for him “it was a matter of the character; you don’t want to turn the camera off. Often I’ve done it and then missed an amazing moment.”
The conversation did not run chronologically through the filmmaking process due to the non-linear nature of short documentary production – as Horwell had predicted – and the discussion touched on subjects including the use of ‘playful’ introductions, to how to best distribute your content online.
]]>The future of water isn’t a simple topic – it is vast and can often be overwhelming. During the discussion we will explore how this topic can be made accessible through the power of storytelling and film.
We will premiere four short documentaries which were produced as part of the global sH2Orts film competition, organised by WaterAid in partnership with the Public Media Alliance’s WorldView project. Each film offers a unique insight into the global water crisis and urges us to think about how we can respond to it.
The discussion which follows will focus on climate change, innovation, urbanisation and inequality – and how they relate to the global water crisis.
Panelists
Mark Galloway, Director of International Broadcasting Trust (Moderator)
Before joining IBT, Mark worked as a journalist, current affairs producer and documentary filmmaker. He’s been a Channel 4 Commissioning Editor, responsible for Education and Features, and has made films for ITV, Channel 4, the BBC, Discovery and Al Jazeera, winning more than a dozen national and international awards including a Gold Medal at the New York Film Festival, a Peabody Award and a BAFTA. At IBT, Mark is responsible for the day to day running of the organization, overall strategy, research and relations with IBT’s members.
Alok Jha is a journalist, broadcaster and author of The Water Book. He is the science correspondent at ITV News. Before that, he spent a decade at the Guardian and made programmes for the BBC.
Bethlehem Mengistu has over 12 years experience in the development sector, with special focus on gender equality, human rights, good governance and provision of basic services. She has worked within senior roles for organizations such as WaterAid, Care International, Action Aid and notable grassroots women’s organizations in East Africa. Bethlehem has solid experience in programme management, strategic campaigning and advocacy and policy analysis. Her educational background is in Law and Sociology and is currently working at WaterAid as Regional Advocacy Manager for East Africa and Acting Country Representative for WaterAid in Ethiopia.
Menka Sanghvi is an innovation researcher and facilitator focusing on global health and wellbeing. At the Humanitarian Innovation Fund she leads a dedicated fund to improve water, sanitation and hygiene conditions for vulnerable communities. In her role she supports a wide range of project teams in building ideas, testing them out, and scaling to achieve better impact. Menka brings over a decade of experience in delivering innovation projects with organisations such as Oxfam, Unilever, Barclays Bank, Impact Hub, and with local communities. She serves as a mentor for the Global Sustainability Jam, and a judge for the UNDP Equator Prize.
Sarah Mosses is CEO of Together Films, a new consultancy working with social issue film content to reach new audiences. She helps filmmakers craft Impact Distribution Campaigns to increase both their social impact, audience reach and revenue potential. As an award winning Producer, Sarah’s debut feature documentary They Will Have To Kill Us First had its World Premiere at SXSW 2015 and European Premiere at London Film Festival 2015. Sarah is a mentor for Documentary Campus, Eso Doc, Sheffield DocFest, On Screen Manitoba, working with emerging producers to enhance their film narrative and distribution/marketing potential.
Film lineup:
PLACE OF SWEET WATERS
Directed by: Sven Harding
2015/South Africa
www.svenharding.com
Place of Sweet Waters will take us to the underground tunnels which run beneath the city of Cape Town, transporting millions of litres of water from Table Mountain directly into the sea. As South Africa grapples with its worst drought in more than 30 years, the film raises questions about why this urban water source is being ‘wasted’.
BLANKETED SNOWS
Directed by: Vardan Hovhannisyan
2015/Armenia
caucadoconline.com/projects/author/25
Filmed in a stunning mountain region of Armenia, Blanketed Snows will encourage the panel to think about how climate change affects water supplies and livelihoods, and how the two are inextricably linked.
AUTOMATIC TUBIG MACHINE
Directed by: Giselle Santos
2015/Philippines
twitter.com/sampunglitro
Automatic Tubig Machine is a fly-on-the-wall documentary about remote communities in the Philippines who are using an innovative water supply technology. During this observational film we are offered a unique and fascinating insight into how children and adults gain access to this vital resource.
THE HOIST
Directed by: Ibrahim S Kamara
2015/Sierra Leone
http://www.wateraid.org/film-competition/sh2orts2016/winners
Set in Sierra Leone, The Hoist looks at the ingenuity of a local young woman who wants to simplify the time-consuming and physical task of collecting water. The film raises questions about the role new technology and innovation can play in the face of the global water crisis.
Last month, when the world’s attention was focused on the attacks in France, reports emerged that as many as 2,000 people had been killed in the northeast Nigerian town of Baga. This attack comes as part of an increased surge in violence linked to Boko Haram.
As Nigeria gears up for a presidential election on 14 February, we will be exploring what is being done to combat Boko Haram and why these efforts seem to be failing.
With attacks in neighbouring countries on the increase, as the group continues to expand its operations, we will be examining the regional impact and asking what needs to be done to confront this growing threat.
Chaired by BBC journalist Peter Okwoche.
The panel:
Alex Perry is an author, correspondent and a contributing editor at Newsweek’s international edition. His books include Falling Off The Edge, Lifeblood and The Rift, and The Hunt for Boko Haram. Prior to joining Newsweek, he was a correspondent for TIME.
Mike Smith is a foreign correspondent for AFP news agency and was bureau chief in Western Africa from 2010 to 2013, based in Nigeria. He has extensively covered the Boko Haram insurgency and is author of Boko Haram: Inside Nigeria’s Unholy War.
Funmi Iyanda is a Nigerian producer, talk show host and journalist. She is the co-founder and director of Creation UK. She independently produced and hosted Nigeria’s most popular talk show, New Dawn with Funmi Iyanda, which ran on the national network for eight years.
Bala Mohammed Liman is a doctoral candidate at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), where his research is examining the nexus between conflict and identity in Nigeria, with particular emphasis on the emerging culture of conflict in Northern Nigeria. His research also focuses on understanding the Boko Haram insurgency and its effect on the region.
]]>The recent abduction by militant Islamist group Boko Haram of more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls sparked global outrage, leading to the #BringBackOurGirls campaign and military assistance from Britain, the US, France and China.
With attacks in northern Nigeria on the increase we will be bringing together a panel of experts to examine the emergence of Boko Haram and what is being done to combat them. We will be examining the origins of the group, its affiliations and influence in the region.
Nigerian authorities have been heavily criticised for their slow response to the crisis. We will be asking whether they are losing the battle against Boko Haram and what can be done to support efforts to combat them.
Chaired by Jonathan Miller, foreign affairs correspondent at Channel 4 News.
The panel:
Fatima Akilu, is director of behavioural analysis in the National Security Advisors office responsible for drafting Nigeria’s a soft approach to counter terrorism, focusing on de-radicalisation, counter radicalisation and strategic communication. Previously she was head of communications for the Millennium Development Goals in Nigeria.
Andrew Walker is a writer and journalist who has been working on Nigeria since 2006. He is currently writing a book about northern Nigeria to be published next year.
Bala Liman is a doctoral candidate at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) where his research is examining the nexus between conflict and identity in Nigeria, with particular emphasis on the emerging culture of conflict in Northern Nigeria. His research also focuses on understanding the Boko Haram insurgency and its effect on the region.
Kayode Ogundamisi is a commentator on Nigerian affairs, he writes independent op-ed articles for major Nigerian media outlets as well as publishing on his blog The Canary. He travels between his base in the UK and his country of birth Nigeria, where he runs a programme on self-empowerment.
]]>On 21 September Somali insurgent group al-Shabaab launched a devastating attack on a shopping centre in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi. The confirmed death toll after the three-day siege is 61 civilians, six security officers and five militants, 61 people are still believed to be missing.
Kenya’s president Uhuru Kenyatta has reacted by saying: “We shall hunt down the perpetrators wherever they run to. We shall get them. We shall punish them for this heinous crime.”
For October’s First Wednesday we will be joined by a panel of experts and journalists to discuss how the Kenyan government will respond and what the implications will be for the region. We will be examining the threat posed by al-Shabaab in the neighbouring countries and further afield, and exploring their origins and motivations.
Chaired by BBC Africa Editor, Solomon Mugera.
The panel:
Mary Harper is the Africa Editor at the BBC World Service and author of Getting Somalia Wrong? Faith, War and Hope in a Shattered State. She has reported on Africa for the past 20 years, and has a special interest in Somalia. She reports frequently from the country, covering conflict, piracy, Islamism and other subjects.
Hamza Mohamed is an independent British-Somali journalist who has been based in Mogadishu, Somalia for the past year and a half. He is currently working with Al Jazeera English and was previously a BBC journalist.
Jamal Osman is a multi-award winning journalist and filmmaker specialising sub-Saharan Africa. He has been working with ITN/Channel 4 News since 2008.
Ben Rawlence is an Open Society Fellow working on a book about the lives of Somali refugees in Kenya. Previously he was a senior researcher on the Horn of Africa for Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Radio Congo: Signals of Hope from Africa’s Deadliest War.
]]>https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/first-wednesday-syria-crossing
On 20 August last year President Barack Obama gave a speech declaring that if Bashar al-Assad’s government used chemical weapons it would cross a “red line”. It appears that line has now been crossed. Secretary of State John Kerry has said it is “undeniable” that the Assad government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons after an attack on 21 August left hundreds dead.
With the shadow of Iraq hanging over them, MPs in the UK voted against possible military action in Syria. We will be asking what are the implications of this move towards inaction, and whether it will have any impact on a US-led attack.
As the rhetoric about intervention in Syria escalates, we will be bringing together a panel of experts to examine the arguments for and against, and the implications of action or inaction.
If intervention were to occur, what form would it take? What reaction would we see from Syria’s neighbours and other countries already involved in the conflict?
Chaired by Paddy O’Connell of BBC Radio 4′s Broadcasting House.
With:
Lina Sinjab was the BBC’s correspondent in Syria until a few months ago. She has been reporting for the BBC since 2007 and closely covered the uprising in Syria since it sparked in March 2011.
Scott Lucas is professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham and editor-in-chief of EA WorldView. He is a specialist in US and British foreign policy and international relations, especially the Middle East and Iran.
Shiraz Maher is a Senior Fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, King’s College London, and a contributor to The Spectator. He studies terrorism and Islamic groups in the Middle East, and is currently working on project to map the Syria opposition.
Jonathan Steele is a columnist at The Guardian, roving foreign correspondent and author. He has reported on Afghanistan, Russia, Iraq, and many other countries. He was Washington Bureau Chief, Moscow Bureau Chief, and Chief Foreign Correspondent for The Guardian. He is author of many books, most recently Ghosts of Afghanistan.
Picture courtesy of multimedia journalist Ayman Oghanna.
]]>Children pay the heaviest price for Afghanistan’s drugs trade – according to a powerful account by journalist Najibullah Quraishi and producer Jamie Doran in their documentary Opium Brides.
Opening to a packed screening at the Frontline Club on Friday 7 March, the film exposed the failure of the Afghan government and its international allies’ attempts to eradicate opium poppy cultivation in the region.
The documentary gave an intimate account of the stark choices made by ordinary farmers who are forced to hand over their children, especially young girls, to drug traffickers closely linked to Taliban when they fail to pay off their debts.
Farmers borrow money from drug traffickers to cultivate poppies in the hope of making repayment with the proceeds of their harvest. But, in line with the government’s aim to curb opium production, the crops are often destroyed, leaving the farmers indebted to the traffickers.
Internationally acclaimed director and producer Doran said:
“The traffickers will kill anyone who threatens their business. . . . One of the worst things for us is that we couldn’t show you . . . what happens to the farmers who say no. . . . We watched them beheaded in the most horrendous ways possible because they wouldn’t give up their daughters.”
The film claimed that 200,000 farmers and their families across Afghanistan produce 90% of the world’s opium, which in turn generates $200 billion annually for Afghanistan but very little trickles down to the poor farming communities.
https://twitter.com/nishat327/status/310122621662543873
In an answer to a question from the audience on any realistic plans to find alternatives to narcotic problems, award-winning Afghani reporter Quraishi expressed his dismay at what he saw as the British and US governments’ failure to show commitment to tackling the drug issue in Afghanistan:
“Five or six years ago we went to Afghanistan and spoke to around 300 farmers and talked to some of the big warlords and traffickers. . . . The farmers said if the government gave us $1,000 per year we’ll stop growing poppies . . .”
Doran who was also part of the negotiations at the time added that he approached the British and US governments with this agreement but the issue was sidelined and the opportunity was missed:
“We went to the Foreign Office and said you can cut off (poppy growing areas) from north of Kabul right down to Herat if you agree to give farmers $1,000 a year . . . and the person in charge of the drugs eradication in Afghanistan didn’t want to know. . . . I think it was going to cost around $6 million in total to cut off Badakhshan, Nangarhar and Helmand . . . you are talking about cutting off 30% of the country’s poppy growth and they didn’t want to know. . . . I contacted the Sate Department in United State and they didn’t want to know . . .”
Explaining giving subsidies to farmers to grow alternative crops, Doran said there is very little real monetary incentive for them to grow wheat or maize:
“If they grow maize or wheat they are going to starve. . . . The countryside in Afghanistan is in a mess . . . despite all the million and trillions of dollars. . . . Eighty-five percent of the people living in countryside are in a bad way . . . we are leaving a mess behind.”
https://twitter.com/nishat327/status/310123972337475584
A member of the audience who carried out field research on Afghanistan’s drug trade felt that the speakers had not given a fair account of the issue of subsidising farmers and claimed that it is only in pockets of Afghanistan that poppy is grown, and wheat and other diversified options can bring in a reasonable income.
Doran and Quraishi disagreed and said that it is in the rural areas where the Taliban have widespread influence and which is in the grip of poppy cultivation and rampant corruption. Doran said:
“If they had invested in the countryside things would have been different . . . for the farmers their biggest struggle is to give them security and food to their families.”
The documentary, produced by Clover Films, has been broadcast in over 30 countries, but despite this the main media outlets in UK have shown little interest. One voice in the audience reflected this, saying:
]]>“I served in Kabul . . . and my view is that everything is focused in Helmand. . . . There is no media interest in the rest of Afghanistan – it’s incredibly narrow and very disappointing.”
Inequality blights our societies – the panel that gathered for the Inequality Debate at the Frontline Club on 30 January had no doubts about that. Charles Sennot, of GlobalPost, put the problem into perspective: the gap between rich and poor in developed economies is growing so fast that inequality is reaching developing country levels.
You can watch the debate here:
For Chris Johnes of Oxfam, this is because trickle down hasn’t happened, and that “work is no longer a guarantee of moving out of poverty”. He further argued that inequality damages our economies:
“A lot of businesses would have survived [the recession] if people in the lower parts of the economy actually had more purchasing power.”
Alex Cobham, from Save the Children, chimed in, arguing that inequality also causes social as well as economic harm, as it undermines self-confidence – making it even harder for those at the bottom to move up the social ladder.
Author and journalist Michael Moran, put the problem into a global perspective. He argued that opening up global markets meant that “3.5 billion who were formally in state controlled economies, now compete with you and me”. Faced with global competition from low-waged workforces, raising salaries in developed economies to tackle inequality is impossible.
How could we have let our societies reach this stage? A member of the audience suggested that “mainstream economics . . . is providing a cover for the idea that resources are actually concentrated in the hands of the few”. For the chair, Paddy Coulter, this begged the question “have we got the right kind of economics”?
Probably not, suggested Faiza Shaheen, of the New Economics Foundation. For her, before any progress is made, economists and politicians must acknowledge that inequality is a problem in the first place – it can no longer be ignored.
However, some in the audience thought that a change in political outlook was unlikely:
“[In a society] which is obsessed with the short-term . . . how can you convince people that [tackling inequality] will pay off in the long run? If you don’t get results immediately, people will abandon the policy”.
Others were more optimistic, asking ‘How do we move to solutions? How do we implement policies that serve the collective interest?’
For Sennot, it has to start with awareness – more stories from the ground need to be told. Johnes cautioned the audience, however, that there could be no turning back to the golden age of capitalism:
“We can’t engineer it back again.”
In the end, Moran perhaps caught the essence of the issue, arguing that:
]]>“For the United States in the 21st century, or Britain, to be experiencing inequality levels that are essentially the same as they were at the turn of the 20th century . . . is a disgrace.”