Matt Roderick

The Foreign Perspective: the issue of citizenship

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks in November last year the French President, Francois Hollande, saw his chance to unite the French people against a common enemy. He announced his decision to join the coalition bombing campaign against ISIS and introduced a policy change regarding French citizenship, stating on November 16th, “We must be able to revoke the French citizenship of a person convicted for threatening the nation’s interests or for terrorist attacks.”

Whilst on the face of it this seems to be applicable to all French citizens, Hollande’s reform only applies to dual nationality citizens and involves revoking the citizenship of an individual carrying both a French passport and another nation’s, as opposed to stripping a French-born citizen of his citizenship.

President Francois Hollande, Image: Wikimedia.org

The proposed reform gained immediate traction amongst the French public and in an opinion poll it was estimated that 80-85% of France supported Hollande’s new policy. However, as time has gone on and France has slowly come to terms with the Paris attacks, Hollande has had to face up to criticisms of his new reforms.

Many see the proposals as fundamentally against France’s moto of ‘Liberté, fraternité et égalité.’ It deliberately discriminates against those who possess dual citizenship (approximately 3 million in France), and calls into question France’s ability to support immigrants’ integration into society. The country is notorious for its failure to integrate either 1^st or 2^nd generation immigrants into society, and Hollande’s citizenship policy will further emphasise immigrants’ feelings of being different and stigmatised by society. In addition, it will serve to increase their distrust in the principles of ‘Liberté, fraternité et égalité’ – words which will be considered to be exceptionally hollow if the reform passes.

As well as criticisms of Hollande’s betrayal of Republican values, many politicians have expressed their horror at the Government’s decision to swing dangerously to the right – beating a drum which has been championed by Marine Le Pen and the National Front for some time.

it will serve to increase their distrust in the principles of ‘Liberté, fraternité et égalité’

For years Le Front National has promoted this policy. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father and founder of the extreme right wing party, supported the idea of removing people’s nationalities and finally saw it tabled and suggested by Sarkozy in 2010. However, it is this recent proposal by Hollande which has worried people most and is viewed as the most extreme. Former minister Cecile Duflot has said that the reform is an “ideological gift to the National Front.” Hollande is drawing into the mainstream an idea which should remain on the banks of the political spectrum, as it is akin to legitimising the institutionalised racism implicit in Le Front National’s policies.

Front Nationale Leader Marine Le Pen, Image: Wikimedia.org

While some point to Hollande’s decision to appeal to right wing voters as the main criticism, it is important to consider whether a policy of stripping dual nationals of their French citizenship is even a solution to preventing terrorism. In seems to me to represent France’s unwillingness to take responsibility and it’s populist naivety in thinking that stripping someone’s nationality is an effective means to limit terrorism.

No terrorist is going to have his or her ideology determined by whether they will still be able to claim French nationality after the event, a sentiment echoed by Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, “stripping someone’s nationality is not a weapon against terrorism.” It seems to me that the reform is a knee jerk reaction to try and gain public support in a time when the French public are impressionable and vulnerable.

the reform is a knee jerk reaction to try and gain public support

Not only will the reform not prevent terrorism, but it does not deal with the question of what to do with jihadists who are native Frenchmen. How is it possible to strip a jihadist of their nationality when they have two nationalities but not when they only claim French nationality? It creates a dangerous double standard which legitimises discrimination and categorically denies French citizens the chance of égalité.

However, the issue of responsibility is most concerning. By acting in this way France has demonstrated a failure of collective responsibility for Europe as a whole and has looked only at immediate self-preservation. This sort of isolationist attitude is not feasible or desirable in the 21^st Century and France a key member of the EU and with responsibilities under the Schengen agreement. By stripping an individual of their French citizenship merely passes the responsibility to another country which adds further strain between European countries at a time where diplomacy and goodwill are essential.

While one can understand Francois Hollande’s desire to present France as a strong and united country in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, in my opinion his proposed reform is a dangerous precedent for one of Europe’s leading countries to be setting. Integration and unity is what is needed, not discrimination and isolation.

The Foreign Perspective: The danger of propaganda

One of the more entertaining items of news this week was the erecting of a giant golden statue of Chairman Mao in Tongxu county in rural China. The slightly excessive statue was erected to commemorate the former Chinese leader and the influence he had in propelling China towards modernisation. Yet it raises the issue of a new trend called ‘Mao worship’ which is currently gaining traction in China, and reveals the astonishing power decades of propaganda and indoctrination have had on China’s population.

The statue cost a small fortune to build, coming in at £312,000, and is located in Henan Province, an area which was one of the worst hit by famine during Mao’s efforts to rapidly industrialise China. There are no exact figures but tens of millions of people died during the “Great Leap Forward,” and so it seems natural to question how and why people are commemorating their former leader. Mao prioritised his own ideology and goals over the well-being of his people, and I find it hard to understand the motives behind remembering a man who killed more of his own people than anyone else in history.

The reality is, however, that Mao’s three decades in power have never been open to critical assessment by the Chinese population. The Communist Party of China has never revealed facts, such as the death toll resulting from Mao’s policies, as the government’s own legitimacy is based on Mao’s legacy and it relies on Mao’s image to maintain support.

It seems as if the lack of honest press in China, free from censorship and from global sources, has caused the majority of the Chinese public to be indoctrinated into maintaining a specific view of Chairman Mao. The cumulative effect of decades of censorship and propaganda forced down the throats of the Chinese public, allied with the current government’s legitimacy issues and the continued presence of Mao in Chinese society has resulted in the phenomenon of ‘Mao worship.’

the government’s own legitimacy is based on Mao’s legacy

Mao’s following is so extreme that in 2013, at celebrations to commemorate the 120^th anniversary of Mao’s birth, one individual was quoted as saying, “Mao is a god in the East.” This view of Mao and his role in people’s lives has led Xi Jinping, the current President of China, to say, “revolutionary leaders are not Gods, but human beings.” However, whilst downplaying Mao’s transcendent nature, the government only has itself to blame for allowing people’s views to escalate to this level. The suppression of freedom of thought and speech in China, especially in the media, denies the public the chance to learn the truth about Mao and the failures of some of his policies.

It is not just China which continues to suppress freedom of thought in the 21^st century; North Korea and Iran use the same policy, and it is most apparent in the Middle East in areas controlled by the terror group ISIS. These countries’ governments use propaganda to indoctrinate their populations into a specific way of thinking, suppressing freedom of thought and demanding loyalty to their cause. For example, in North Korea, televised audiences were seen uncontrollably weeping after Kim-Jong-Il’s death as the population knew there would be severe punishments for anyone who was not openly distraught.

When considering ISIS in particular, it is worrying how successful the terrorist organisation’s propaganda has been in recruiting new members, and especially its members devotion to their extremist ideology.

For example, there were reports of an ISIS member publicly executing his own mother this week because she had attempted to persuade him to leave the terror group. Examples like this, or the British man who executed five prisoners and threatened David Cameron force us to confront how such an extreme group has been able to effectively brainwash so many.

However, we cannot separate the propaganda used by the terrorist organisations from the impact the West’s actions have had. Killing innocent civilians in raids on Syrian towns and cities will only serve to incite hate against Western countries, potentially radicalising younger generations. This combined with well-publicised attitudes and remarks by individuals such as Donald Trump and Katie Hopkins fuel the extremist group’s rhetoric and provide it with all they need to gain the attention and following of vulnerable, impressionable young adults.

Living in a country where blatant propaganda has no real role means that we often forget about the power and impact it can have on individuals. We are fortunate to have freedom of speech in Britain, enabling us to criticise and nullify any effective attempts at propaganda, unlike in China or the Middle East. Contrast this with China’s sustained propaganda campaign during Chairman Mao’s rule, or ISIS’ use of propaganda in the Middle East where propaganda is a tool and a weapon. It is used to ensure people show their loyalty to an extreme ideology and dangerously makes such extremism the norm.

The Foreign Perspective: Yemen’s Forgotten War

Last week, a Médecins sans Frontières hospital in northern Yemen was bombed by the Saudi-American coalition, destroying the only hospital where Yemenis from the surrounding local area could go for aid and health care. However, despite the controversial nature of the strike it was given little to no airtime on news outlets, and highlights a much larger point; the lack of attention the Yemeni Civil War receives. In this era, where news is accessible 24 hours a day through a variety of mediums, how is it possible for such suffering to go unnoticed and unreported?

Like most news stories, the air strike quickly faded into obscurity. Image: Wikimedia.org

When the war broke out in March earlier this year, the war was tracked attentively by all the major news channels and papers. Yet, as it continued and evolved into somewhat of a stalemate between the Houthi rebels and the Yemeni forces loyal to President Hadi (the UN recognized president), coverage diminished to the point of non-existence, despite the plight of the Yemeni people.

The initial reporting focused on Saudi Arabia’s military campaigns in the country and the Houthis advances towards Sana’a, the capital city. However, the news coverage failed to report on the devastating reality the violence caused for Yemen’s citizens. Rather than focusing on what was quickly becoming a humanitarian crisis, news outlets turned their attention to the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and a struggle for power within the Middle East.

Yemen remains the Arab world’s poorest country, and so the humanitarian situation that it currently resides in is catastrophic. Of a population of 26.7 million people, 21 million are considered in need of aid by the United Nations, a further 12.9 million are considered food insecure and 20 million are without access to safe drinking water and sanitation. To make matters worse, the US and British backed Saudi blockade of cargo ships means that very little aid is even entering the country, let alone being distributed.

In addition to the humanitarian situation, 4,800 people have been killed of which 2,112 were civilians; startling numbers to be ignored by the world’s press and European governments, and so the question remains; why has the Yemeni Civil War been forgotten?

Unlike the Syrian Civil War, there is no refugee crisis affecting Europe caused by the instability in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has built a 930-mile fence along its border with Yemen, and this combined, with the blockade of ports in the country, means that the potential for the Yemeni people to flee the country is limited – a significant contrast from the situation in Syria. Thousands are fleeing Syria each day, some to neighboring Arab countries such as Jordan and Turkey, but many of them to European shores, thus making immigration an extremely divisive and hot topic throughout the continent. As a result, governments are much more inclined to donate money to try to solve the Syrian crisis, especially after the recent EU emergency summit on the issue.

Last year the British Government donated £55 million to help Yemen, compared to £1.1 billion over the last three years to Syrian related NGOs. Surely this disparity in amounts is evidence of the varying commitments to finding long-lasting solutions in the two countries?

It is not only the aid donations that you have to question when assessing the Government’s role in the Yemeni crisis. The British government has assumed a relatively ambiguous position, as it continues to donate financial aid to NGOs whilst allowing Saudi Arabia to use bombs, produced in Britain, as part of the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis. This is despite the condemnation from the UN and various other human rights groups about the legality of the bombing, considering the civilian death toll.

The Saudi intervention in Yemen has resulted in multiple human rights violations. Image: Wikimedia.org

Personally, I cannot understand how the British Government can criticise Assad’s well-documented bombing campaign in Syria, where numerous war crimes against civilians have been committed, whilst supporting Saudi Arabia’s campaign in Yemen where similar crimes have occurred. It appears to be a hypocritical approach that prioritises diplomatic relations over preserving the lives of those most at risk, and in need. Rather than acting on a moral level, the Government has done what it sees to be strategically advantageous to preserve the diplomatic relations it has in the region.

As the Middle East continues to struggle with instability, it has to be the role of developed countries governments, such as the UK, to shoulder the burden of providing aid, without prejudice. Yemen has to be treated in the same manner that Syria, or any other humanitarian crisis has been, regardless of the political affiliations of the various governments.

The Foreign Perspective: Gun control in the USA

Two weeks ago, gun control was thrust back into the limelight in America after yet another college shooting, this time at Umpqua Community College, where 9 people were killed. As Obama said in his national broadcast, these shootings are becoming all too familiar. So why does the self-proclaimed “greatest nation on earth” not do something about it? How can the world’s most powerful and developed country have laws allowing such random killings to take place?

Sanders has been surprisingly nihilistic about gun control. Image: Wikimedia.org

The shooting and subsequent arguments over the current gun control regulations were a major focal point of the Democratic Party debate last week. All five candidates on stage strongly condemned the shooting, and talked of the need for new weapon regulations. Further, current front-runner Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders over his previous support for pro-gun legislation back in 2005.

However, it was Sanders’ response to Clinton’s attack that in my view is the most eye-opening, “all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I hope all of us want,” (implement more restrictions on firearms). It is shocking how a US senator, democratically elected and currently attempting to win the Democratic party nomination, has so reluctantly accepted that there is very little any one can do on the subject of gun restrictions.

It is a very similar standpoint to that of Obama, who in an interview with the BBC earlier this year admitted that his inability to change gun regulations was one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. Back in 2012, Obama attempted to reintroduce President Clinton’s assault weapon ban after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, (where 20 children and 6 adults were killed) but the law never passed, being defeated 60-40 in the Senate. His failure to pass this bill,and from simply watching his broadcast and statement after the shooting at
Umpqua Community College, made his own intense personal frustration over the situation abundantly clear.

From an outsider’s point of view, as a British citizen, it seems alien that a country that has suffered such tragic deaths as a result of gun crime is unable, and more importantly unwilling to do anything about it. For example, in 2013, 33,169 people were killed in gun-related incidents, or 1.3% of all deaths that year, but no new laws or restrictions were passed.

It is also the accessibility of weapons, and the ease with which anyone can buy a weapon, that is shocking. Unlike in Britain, where a license is required to own a gun, any individual has the right to buy a weapon from a private seller in the United States without a background check. This immediately allows potentially unstable characters, such as James Holmes – the shooter at the Batman screening in 2012, and Christopher Harper-Mercer – the assailant at the shooting at Umpqua Community College two weeks ago, the chance to buy heavy duty weapons, especially since the ban on civilian assault weapons ended in 2004.

Rather than trying to combat this issue, there is potential new legislation which will legalise carrying weapons on university campuses in a number of states. Whilst common sense would suggest that this is to supposedly allow students to defend themselves against a potential shooting, in fact the argument being put forward by the National Rifle Association and other advocates of weapons on campuses is that carrying a weapon will deter people from committing sexual assault and rape, as women will be able to act in self-defense. However, it will also drastically increase the number of weapons present at universities, and thus the chances of either accidental, or intentional shootings.

Florida is one of the states where this legislation is in effect, and the state representative, Dennis Baxley, was quoted as saying, “If you’ve got a person that’s raped because you wouldn’t let them carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think you’re responsible.” Whilst reducing the rate of sexual assaults and rapes on American university campuses is obviously an important and sensitive issue, this is surely not the most effective method.

Is this really the ideology universities should be promoting? Image: Flickr.com

What’s more, there is a huge disconnection between those passing the laws and campaigning for their existence, and those who are affected by them. Lawmakers such as Dennis Baxley in Florida, and Michelle Fiore – a Nevada state assembly member – strongly support the guns on campus bills, despite the fact that 78% of students, 95% of college presidents and 89% of police chiefs do not believe that guns on campus will help protect women. In fact, some think that the presence of weapons on university campuses will only increase the rate of sexual assault, as it will arm the perpetrators.

Surely the time has come for American lawmakers, at both state and federal level, to listen to the public outcry against weapons, and to finally resort to common sense and restrict their use and accessibility. For too long, policy makers have been unwilling to take on politically powerful groups such as the National Rifle Association, at the expense of young lives. Unless there is a drastic change in attitude and approach in Washington, mass shootings will continue to plague America.