Mediaboss Marketing

Vice President Harris attends a meeting with CEOs about economic development in the Northern Triangle on May 27. She plans to meet with entrepreneurs on her trip to the region this week. // AP, Jacquelyn Martin

When Vice President Kamala Harris arrives in Guatemala on Sunday for her first foreign trip in office, she'll follow the same politically treacherous path President Joe Biden took when he was in the role. The mission: to help solve deep-seated problems driving tens of thousands of Central American people to try to seek asylum at the U.S-Mexico border.

"She is really picking up where then-Vice President Biden left off," said Symone Sanders, press secretary to Harris.

The record number of migrants has created a humanitarian challenge, as well as massive political headache for the Biden administration. Polling indicates it's a red flag for President Biden, with approval of his handling of immigration much worse than his overall job approval rating.

Biden asked Harris to take on the problem though not all of it. Her portfolio, like his in 2014 and 2015, is to try to address the root causes of the migration crisis. Republicans have criticized Harris for not visiting the border, taking their own trips to draw attention to conditions there.

On her trip, Harris will meet with the Mexican President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador and Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei, as well as civil society groups and business leaders.

"We have the capacity to give people hope," Harris said at a recent White House event to promote business investments in the region. "And hope, in particular in this case, that if they stay, help is on the way."

Harris' focus is on countries known as the Northern Triangle: Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. They've been hit by natural disasters and have problems with violence, corruption and poverty that go back decades. The pandemic has only made matters worse. Six years ago, then-Vice President Biden was in Guatemala talking about some of the very same problems.

"Let me be frank: some in my own government and in the U.S. Congress have asked me, 'How do we know this isn't just going to be business as usual? How is this any different than anything that's come before?'" Biden said on that trip, back in 2015. "Well, the president and I believe that this is the time that it will be different."

But it wasn't different. The leaders have changed, but the problems in the region persist.

"It's really clear we have a refugee crisis in our hemisphere," said Cecilia Muoz, a top aide to former President Barack Obama when he gave Biden this very same vice presidential portfolio. By running the same play now, Biden is signaling that the administration is taking this seriously, Muoz said.

Corruption a top priority: Ziga

The top priority for the United States is getting tough on corruption and anti-democratic practices by governments in the region, said Ricardo Ziga, the State Department's special envoy to Central America.

"This is not us imposing the United States, or imposing U.S. values, or imposing U.S. laws," Ziga told NPR. "All we are saying is, comply with law that is on the books and comply with local demands for accountability."

The message may not go over well. U.S.-Mexico relations have hit some bumps lately, especially when it comes to sharing security intelligence, and U.S. funding of Mexican free speech groups.

Lpez Obrador had a good working relationship with former President Donald Trump, who was focused on Mexico stopping Central American migrants from getting to the U.S. border, but otherwise stayed out of Mexico's affairs, said Carlos Heredia, a Mexican economist at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics.

"So now it is different. And the president of Mexico does not feel comfortable dealing with a neighbor that is opinionated and has a lot to say about issues that should be of common interest," Heredia said.

Mexico's approach to the migration issue continues to rely heavily on the police and military, said Tonatiuh Guillen Lopez, a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico who resigned as head of Mexico's Immigration Institute after Lpez Obrador sent in the military to stop migrants.

"We still have the control, police, migration plan that was imposed on Mexico by President Trump," Guillen said.

Despite still enjoying high popularity, Lpez Obrador is facing rising criticism for his attacks on the media, defunding independent institutions and publicly criticizing judges who rule against his populist policies. But Mariana Aparicio Ramirez of the Binational Mexico-United States Relationship Observatory said she expects the meeting will focus more on cooperation than U.S. concerns over these issues.

Vaccines on the way

Harris has already announced $310 million in funding to help with immediate food shortages and disaster recovery in the region. She will also arrive with good news about U.S. vaccine sharing. The administration is donating U.S.-produced vaccines to Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries as part of a larger plan to share millions of doses with countries in need.

But beyond this short-term aid, a question looming over Harris's trip is how to make sure this time really will be different from previous U.S. efforts.

"We are taking a very critical eye at the programs that have and have not been successful and looking to scale up ones that have been," said Mazin Alfaqih, a senior adviser to Harris focused on the Northern Triangle. "We're also looking to broaden partnerships, understanding that the U.S. government and foreign assistance alone cannot tackle this problem."

But Alfaqih said Harris needs willing partners in the region. That's something that stymied previous U.S.-led efforts, said Jos Crdenas, who served in the George W. Bush administration.

"The problem year after year is that entrenched interests in these countries are not interested in economic reform," Crdenas said. "They will tell the Yankees everything that they want to hear, but when the Yankees leave, it's back to business as usual."

And while the work Harris is undertaking could yield long-term improvements, Crdenas says there's an immediate political crisis with damning images and heart-wrenching stories coming from the border. He says the Biden administration's softer approach to border enforcement is likely drawing migrants to try to make it, creating pull factors in addition to the strong push factors in these countries.

"The president knew just what kind of buzz saw he was sending his vice president into when he gave her this assignment," said Benjamin Gedan, who worked on Obama's National Security Council and is now at the Wilson Center. He says Harris has an impossible assignment because there's an expectation that she should somehow be able to deliver immediate results.

The problems in the region are all interconnected. Without cutting corruption and violence, it's hard to convince companies to invest. Without investments, job opportunities are limited and people look to America. But all the migration drains human capital, making the region less attractive for business investment.

"One of the ways to help reduce the impulse of migration is to really create a sense of participation in the local economy and opportunities for that to happen," said Eric Farnsworth, who worked on these issues in the Clinton Administration and is now at the Council of the Americas. "That will require some investment, and I think the investment will materialize if the conditions there are appropriate."

See the article here:
Harris Heads To Guatemala And Mexico As Part Of A 'Buzz Saw' Assignment | NPR - Houston Public Media

Thank you for your report highlighting the governments grab of GPs data (GPs warn over plans to share patient data with third parties in England, 30 May) and the accompanying editorial (The Guardian view on medical records: NHS data grab needs explaining, 30 May). There are even more issues than you cite.

First, the governments website is disingenuous and misleading. At the top it says patients can opt out at any time; at the bottom it says that when opting out, all existing information will be retained only new information will not be collected. It states that there is no deadline, but if you opt out after your records have been uploaded, the existing information will not be deleted.

Second, the websites assurances of anonymity are worthless. Few people realise how easy it is to identify individuals from medical records, even if obvious personal details are removed. If there is enough information to be useful, most patients will be identifiable.

Third, a massive centralised database cannot be adequately secured against serious attack or accidental breach. There are other less risky means of achieving the same ends, as demonstrated by the Covid research cited in the editorial.

Fourth, there is no discussion of what will actually be shared the data or access to the data. If the data itself is shared, there is no way to control how it is used once it is in the hands of a third party; if only the ability to query the data under monitored conditions is shared, the holder remains in control.

And finally, there is minimal detail on the governance of access to the information, and no mention of any independent body responsible either to the public or to the medical professions.

NHS data is a major potential resource for medical research. However, its use must be carefully managed and controlled, both to retain public trust and to satisfy medical ethics. I strongly support your call for the programme to be scrapped and restarted with suitable technology and safeguards.Alan RectorEmeritus professor of medical informatics, University of Manchester

Your editorial said: Allowing access to NHS data has led to some groundbreaking research, notably helping to identify dexamethasone as an effective Covid therapy.

This is not relevant to the issue of data scraping from primary care. Patients recruited into the Recovery trial give consent before they are randomised into the study. As you can see on the studys website, data for the trial is collected within the hospital. Some data may be collected later from NHS Digital or other databases, but patients are able to withdraw consent for collection of their data from other sources at any time.Irene StrattonOxford

The headline on your report implies that all doctors are opposed to NHS Digitals General Practice Data for Planning and Research scheme itself. In contrast, your article shows that the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association were involved in planning the scheme. Their concern is about the way NHS Digital has failed to communicate with patients about it, leaving this to general practitioners, who have been poorly informed themselves.

Explanations are clearly needed, especially about the handling of sensitive data and the projects for which permission can be obtained, as social media is now increasingly full of misinformation. NHS Digital and Health Data Research UK seem to be disinclined to provide the explanations needed, GPs are too busy and Matt Hancock could not be trusted. In this vacuum, why doesnt the Guardian commission some of the researchers hoping to use the data to explain their research and how it will benefit the public, especially as the first example that NHS Digital cites is to Research the long-term impact of coronavirus on the population?Alison MacfarlaneProfessor of perinatal health, City, University of London

Ive been invited by our clinical commissioning group to an understanding and using patient data workshop (GPs urged to refuse to hand over patient details to NHS Digital, 1 June). Date of meeting: 29 June. Date of deadline for opting out my medical record from the big upload: 23 June.Robert OultonGodalming, Surrey

For those readers who wish to opt out of the NHS data grab (The Tories have worked out how to pull off an NHS data grab: do it during a pandemic, 5 June), the NHS Digital website will send you round in circles. Just go to the web page medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out and you will find the link instantly. The completed form must be handed physically to your GP surgery by the 23 June deadline.Celia BerridgeRodmell, East Sussex

Have an opinion on anything youve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

View post:
The NHS data grab: why we should be concerned about plans for GPs records - The Guardian

Who lost what, exactly, when Naomi Osaka announced she wouldnt participate in news conferences at the French Open last week, citing her mental health?

The fans lost a few minutes of potentially vulnerable but generally formal interviews with Ms. Osaka. Ms. Osaka was unburdened of what she felt was an irrelevant obligation, but also burdened with potentially tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

The French Tennis Federation lost control over a tradition, and the public narrative. (On Twitter, an account for the French Open posted and then deleted photos of tennis stars engaging with the media, with a withering caption: They understood the assignment.)

The press, however, stood to lose the most, and not just a scheduled chance to ask a few questions. As Jonathan Liew, writing for The Guardian, put it: The great conceit of the press conference is that it is basically a direct line from the athlete to the public at large.

But hard as it is to believe, Ms. Osakas function as an entertainer and corporate billboard is contingent on her playing tennis at an appointed hour, rather than being forced to sit in a windowless room explaining herself to a roomful of middle-aged men, he wrote.

That particular practice of access journalism, Mr. Liew suggested, hadnt produced much in the way of illuminating results for a while. Ms. Osaka, in a statement posted to social media, described the experience as being subjected to people who doubt me and recalled seeing numerous other athletes breaking down in the midst of a scheduled spectacle. I dont understand the reasoning behind it, she said.

And it was that, combined with Ms. Osakas decision to leave the tournament entirely, that revealed a much broader, and largely already complete, loss of stature and relevance.

A profession full of practiced questioners was thwarted by a singular subject with a question of her own, and plenty of other places to ask it: Whats the idea here, exactly?

Its no longer a requirement of the job of being famous to trust other people to construct your public persona, which is surely, in some obvious ways, a relief. (To Ms. Osaka, an athlete born in 1997, the notion may seem absurd in the first place.) This obligation, however, has been replaced by one thats easy to underestimate, and even harder to avoid: Once a celebrity has taken control of her story, its up to her to keep telling it. The demand remains unyielding. Its just coming directly from the public.

In professional tennis, a conspicuously tradition-bound sport where even small breaks with superficial norms are assigned suffocating meaning, the presss post-match ritual wasnt just a relic it had been actively protected through regulations. (Tennis, to be sure, is not the only sport where athletes are expected to face the news media postgame.)

The rules for appearing at news conferences, which are set up by the tournaments and the mens and womens tours, are considered part of the deal for getting paid to be in the tournament. Ms. Osaka recast this as an irrelevant distraction, a source of anxiety and as damaging to the well-being of athletes.

Some critics have paid particular attention to the language Ms. Osaka used in her explanations, in which she invoked the need to protect her mental health, identified as an introvert and described coping with her depression. Where fans saw a rare example of honestly and candor, some critics saw the use of therapeutic language as a conversation-ending shield, or an example of weakness incompatible with the demands of the jobof being an athlete, of being famous or of greatness in general.

This is less an argument about the conditions of being famous Ms. Osakas detractors and supporters seem to agree that its an enormous psychological burden than it is a suggestion that these conditions are an unavoidable and necessary cost, either to be handled cheerfully or understood, miserably, as a fair exchange for wealth and celebrity. (Celebrities of many types have talked openly about mental health in recent years, many on their own social media channels.)

Some retired tennis greats weighed in to agree. While its important that everyone has the right to speak their truth, I have always believed that as professional athletes we have a responsibility to make ourselves available to the media, Billie Jean King posted on Twitter.

Once you become a professional athlete, you decide to play by certain rules of the game, Patrick McEnroe said in an interview on Good Morning America.

This discussion can sound like a disagreement over a job description. The pay is great. It might destroy your brain, as decades of celebrity wreckage can attest, but youll be adored by millions, who will have sympathy for you but perhaps not empathy. A surprisingly high number of strangers will revile you. Everyone else will feel the need to have an opinion about you.

Its not unreasonable to suspect powerful people of hiding behind carefully chosen words, of course. (Its probably unreasonable, however, to believe that a post-match Q. and A. is the tool for piercing the veil of secrecy.) But the sudden rise of therapeutic concepts and language in celebrity communication can also be understood as a predictable result of the new demands of the job.

Consider how famous people told their own stories before social media. They could flatter, manipulate or go to war with the press on a regular basis, participating in a storytelling process over which they had real but ultimately limited control.

Under duress, they might have submitted to tell-all interviews. To construct images, they could have granted access to friendly press in hopes of a gauzy portrait. Mutated forms of celebrities, like politicians, had their own native ways of appearing to go direct, such as speeches. If people cared about you long enough, you might have been able to cap your career with a score-settling memoir.

Now, however, everyone can just post online. And so thats what they do. This transition has been extensively described by the press as a loss of its power to hold public figures accountable a zero-sum trade-off that has mostly been liberating for the people who need liberation the least.

There is some truth to this. (See: electoral politics!) Posting on social media, however, is never just posting. You have to tell a story, and you have to figure out how to tell it. Celebrities who are said to be famous for being famous have always, in truth, been people who are preternaturally good at telling their own stories. Some people who are famous for other things have this talent as well. And whether it comes naturally or not, its always work.

Previously, this part of the job was largely about presenting yourself in media-centric contexts: being a good interview; giving a good quotation; being charming, or game, or otherwise compelling when you were asked to participate in, for example, a post-match news conference.

Instagram, on the other hand, provides an open if not yawning prompt for a famous person. There, people have not stopped asking you things. Millions of people have millions of questions. They also have critiques, expectations, and their own small demands of you once distant and mediated, now much more nearby.

You have more control over how and when youd like to engage, but its still a condition of fame that you engage somehow. Pointed interviews have been replaced with a general prompt: explain yourself.

Put another way, reporters were once tasked with humanizing celebrities through the media, and now celebrities have to humanize themselves through social media. In both situations, however, the storyteller begins from the natural state of celebrity: near-total dehumanization.

So, how is a famous person particularly one who did not become famous though careful cross-platform narrative construction, but rather by being one of the most talented tennis players ever to live supposed to address this near infinite demand that she explain herself or tell her story?

You lend support to things that you care about, that you see as bigger than your sport; you try, and maybe fail, to ignore the things that bother you. You get sponsorships. (And Ms. Osaka has done plenty of that.) You talk to the press when you want to, with lots of conditions.

Most of all, you figure out how to post. Either enthusiastically or out of necessity, you end up running a media empire of your own, large and consuming enough that the outside media is recast perhaps healthily, for them! as interrupters and interlopers.

Some celebrities may relish the opportunity to construct narratives on social media day in and day out, but even the most devoted posters end up talking about it like its a burden. Some take breaks from certain social platforms or become obsessed with their critics. Many others experience it as a form of obligation that, like conventional press engagements, is something that theyve been told they cant not do.

Absent a contrived persona or deliberate plan, modern celebrities are left to process their fame in public, and to attempt to assert boundaries where there are none. Its no wonder they sound like theyre in treatment.

Naomi Osaka did not, in declining to submit to a particular form of media interaction that was waning in relevance before she was born, opt for actual privacy. Thats rarely a choice for a celebrity, and besides, she ultimately did share her intimate thoughts, or something that sounded like them, on Instagram for public consumption, celebration and ridicule. Nor did she demand sympathy.

What Ms. Osaka really did was, from her peculiar vantage point, and in the best way she knew how, explain what her job really is, updating its description to bring it in line with her actual peers: the other most famous people on earth, who, regardless of how they got there, spend their lives in a new sort of press room that theyre not allowed to leave.

Visit link:
Naomi Osaka and the Language of Fame - The New York Times

By Lloyd Waters| Columnist

McCleary Hill

U.S. Rep. David Trone and Hagerstown Housing Authority Executive Director Sean Griffith discuss the McCleary Hill residential community.

Alexis Fitzpatrick, The Herald-Mail

Have you ever sat down and pondered the future?

What will things be like tomorrow?

As I was growing up, life seemed kind of simple.

Going to a big city was, for sure, the cats meow for some Dargan kid.

An occasional trip to Hagerstown was special.

Those visits to Newberrys, Rosens, McCrorys, Peoplesand the Majestic Restaurant, with those tasty burgers and hotdogs, were something of an adventure.

And a movie house and theater were there, too. If I only had some money.

Previous columns: Lloyd 'Pete' Waters: Holy Mother, hear my prayer speaks to search for solace

More: The fickle American voter

And then I sort of graduated from small-town visitsto bigger places, like Chicago, Portland, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Baltimore, D.C. and even Sidney, Australia;and Saigon, Vietnam.

Big cities offered a different view of the world. Museums, history, art, the theater, libation houses, sports events, concerts, libraries, mass transportation, hospitals, collegesand all sorts of things to do.

And then there were those increasing negatives of poverty, crime, riots, looting, homelessness, burnings, illiteracy, unemploymentand social unrest.

Technology would arrive. Shopping centers would soon beckon consumers to malls beyond the city.

Amazon ordering would make store visits less necessary.

Working at home would become a new routine for many.

Hagerstown, like most, has a desire to keep its city alive.

Lets build a baseball stadium to attract the population downtown.

Did you ever imagine the Herald-Mail building being sold and, possibly, a baseball stadium replacing it?

More: Building is going up for sale, but Herald-Mail Media is not going anywhere

Will a new stadium prosper there? History holds the answer.

Gov. Larry Hogan recently announced a plan to relocate 3,300 state employees from 12 state agencies to the downtown Baltimore central business district.

The state is committing $50 million to pay for the relocation. It comes at a time when the city is experiencing a nearly 24% vacancy rate.

A shot in the arm for Baltimore is how Hogan explainedhis decision.

A "bad aim" might be another opinion.

As economics change, turmoil increases, and many other factors begin to arrive at the big citys doorsteps, will these measures be enough to prevent the exodus of people from Baltimore's downtown?

Today, there seems a diminishing desire to live in places like Seattle, Chicago, Portland, New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, D.C. and many others.

Even the city lights of Hagerstown have dimmed a little. However, a Maryland Theater show is nice; a cool libation at Bennys Pub is refreshing; and a hot honey and clover elixir on the front porch of Pura Vida with friends is pleasurable.

Other local venues are beckoning customersto come back downtown, but that decay seen in some larger American cities seems underway, too.

Consider some of those large cities mentioned above.

Cops are retiring in greater numbers; recruitment is difficult. Some major city streets are plagued with homeless tents, feces, increased crime and drug paraphernalia.

People are showing up at some city libraries, but not to read.

Answers and responses to these problems have been elusive for unprepared political leaders.

Can you imagine business owners attempting to operate in many of todays volatile cities? What would you do if you owned a business in downtown Portland these days?

And lawlessness was in the daily forecast while social activists cried, Defund the police."

Politics, too, plays an important role. Cities with effective leadership, planning, crime reduction, promising education centers, might continue to prosper and expand growing populations.

But others will not be so fortunate.

As many large metropolitan areas become less equipped to solve bigger problems, the exodus of city residents will continue.

Baltimore will be no exception.

As businesses leave, crime and other social problems will then rule. Perhaps newly arriving immigrants will be assigned to vacant apartment buildings in many downtowns.

As these cities become economically bankrupted, socially defunct, and poorly managed, what then?

Will the exodus increase?

Will citizens prefer to watch ballgames on TV?

City homelessness will remain an unsolved problem. Beggars will be found on more street corners.

People will prefer to shop over a computer.

Working at home next to the kitchen with some iced tea wont seem so bad after all.

You think you have the future figured out?

Some well-managed cities will likely prosper, while others will evolve slowly toward decay and bankruptcy.

Hope you end up in the right one to live.

Lloyd Pete Waters is a Sharpsburg resident who writes for The Herald-Mail.

Original post:
What will the future look like for America's cities? Here's one take - Herald-Mail Media

COLLEVILLE-SUR-MER, France (AP) When the sun rises over Omaha Beach, revealing vast stretches of wet sand extending toward distant cliffs, one starts to grasp the immensity of the task faced by Allied soldiers on June 6, 1944, landing on the Nazi-occupied Normandy shore.

Several ceremonies were being held Sunday to commemorate the 77th anniversary of the decisive assault that led to the liberation of France and western Europe from Nazi control, and honor those who fell.

These are the men who enabled liberty to regain a foothold on the European continent, and who in the days and weeks that followed lifted the shackles of tyranny, hedgerow by Normandy hedgerow, mile by bloody mile, Britains ambassador to France, Lord Edward Llewelyn, said at the inauguration of a new British monument to D-Days heroes.

On D-Day, more than 150,000 Allied troops landed on the beaches code-named Omaha, Utah, Juno, Sword and Gold, carried by 7,000 boats. This year on June 6, the beaches stood vast and nearly empty as the sun emerged, exactly 77 years since the dawn invasion.

For the second year in a row, anniversary commemorations are marked by virus travel restrictions that prevented veterans or families of fallen soldiers from the U.S., Britain, Canada and other Allied countries from making the trip to France. Only a few officials were allowed exceptions.

At the U.K. ceremony near the village of Ver-sur-Mer, bagpipes played memorial tunes and warplanes zipped overhead trailing red-white-and-blue smoke. Socially distanced participants stood in awe at the solemnity and serenity of the site, providing a spectacular and poignant view over Gold Beach and the English Channel.

The new monument pays tribute to those under British command who died on D-Day and during the Battle of Normandy. Visitors stood to salute the more than 22,000 men and women, mostly British soldiers, whose names are etched on its stone columns. Giant screens showed D-Day veterans gathered simultaneously at Britains National Memorial Aboretum to watch the Normandy event remotely. Prince Charles, speaking via video link, expressed regret that he couldnt attend in person.

On June 6, 1944, In the heart of the mist that enveloped the Normandy Coast ... was a lightning bolt of freedom, French Defense Minister Florence Parly told the ceremony. France does not forget. France is forever grateful.

Charles Shay, a Penobscot Native American who landed as an U.S. army medic in 1944 and now calls Normandy home, was the only surviving D-Day veteran at the Ver-sur-Mer ceremony. He was also expected to be the only veteran taking part in a commemoration at the American memorial cemetery later in the day.

Most public events have been canceled, and the official ceremonies are limited to a small number of selected guests and dignitaries.

Denis van den Brink, a WWII expert working for the town of Carentan, site of a strategic battle near Utah Beach, acknowledged the big loss, the big absence is all the veterans who couldnt travel.

That really hurts us very much because they are all around 95, 100 years old, and we hope theyre going to last forever. But, you know... he said.

At least we remain in a certain spirit of commemoration, which is the most important, he told The Associated Press.

Over the anniversary weekend, many local residents have come out to visit the monuments marking the key moments of the fight and show their gratitude to the soldiers. French World War II history enthusiasts, and a few travelers from neighboring European countries, could also be seen in jeeps and military vehicles on the small roads of Normandy.

Some reenactors came to Omaha Beach in the early hours of the day to pay tribute to those who fell that day, bringing flowers and American flags.

On D-Day, 4,414 Allied troops lost their lives, 2,501 of them Americans. More than 5,000 were wounded. On the German side, several thousand were killed or wounded.

Later on Sunday, another ceremony will take place at the American cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer, on a bluff overseeing Omaha Beach, to be broadcast on social media.

The cemetery contains 9,380 graves, most of them for servicemen who lost their lives in the D-Day landings and ensuing operations. Another 1,557 names are inscribed on the Walls of the Missing.

Normandy has more than 20 military cemeteries holding mostly Americans, Germans, French, British, Canadians and Polish troops who took part in the historic battle.

Dignitaries stressed the importance of keeping D-Days legacy alive for future generations.

In the face of the threats of today, we should act together and show unity, Parly said, so that the peace and freedom last.

___

By Sylvie Corbet. Nicolas Garriga contributed.

Read more:
Remembering D-Day: Small crowds, big heart on 77th anniversary - AL.com