Show Hide image

In cartoons: the global response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo

How cartoonists around the world reacted to the murder of journalists and cartoonists at the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo.

Saudi Arabia

(The word in the sand says "Islam". The word in the think bubble says "Islam" upside-down.)

(Tweet: "Harmed Islam 
Abusing his understanding 
And ill- defined by the World")



(Words on the wall: "Ratatatatatatatatatatatatat")


(Neyestani was exiled from Iran a few years ago, and is based in France)


(Words along the top: "In condemnation of the terrorist act that targeted the magazine 'Charlie Hebdo'")

(Pencil: "Freedom of speech", bullet: "Terror")






(Top right-hand corner: "The terrorist attack on the Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris")

Armband: "Freedom of press"

Gun: "Terror")

(By Stavro Jabra. Facebook post here)

(By Stavro Jabra. Facebook post here)


("We are very sorry . Still continue to draw, we will take our next issue of Charlie Hebdo...")

(Penguen is a satirical Turkish magazine)


("The idiots kill me")





The Netherlands 



(“Ducks will always fly higher than guns”)

("Ducks" in French is also slang for newspaper)

("Oh no, not them...)


(Cartoon: “Today, I am a press cartoonist. Today, I am a journalist. Today, I draw for Charlie Hebdo.”)

(Tweet: "How to draw today? How not to draw today?")

("This is a tragedy for France...")




("Take up your arms, comrades!)

("The bullet today. Share and/or comment if you want").

The US






(Lucille Clerc is French but based in London)

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.