Agora - content

The open forum for foreign policy

Blogs

The UK risks repeating America’s disenfranchisement disaster

The Elections Bill introduced in 2021 includes a requirement for voters to show certain forms of ID when at a polling station. Voter ID laws are an unnecessary hindrance to the voting process, dissuading new voters and minority voters. There is little evidence of electoral fraud in the UK. Evidence from abroad shows that these laws often have an effect on voter turnout. Participation in the electoral system should be encouraged and aided, not blocked.

Impact on turnout

The proposal to introduce voter ID laws will have a disproportionate impact on underrepresented voters, as otherwise unnecessary pieces of identification are less commonly held by those from minority groups. Between 7.5-24% of the electorate do not hold a required form of ID, depending on how acceptable ID is categorised. Adding another step to the voter registration process, which should and does try to be a relatively painless process, risks dissuading many voters.

This proposed law would apply to all voters in general elections, as well as those going to the ballot box in English local elections. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said that she would not introduce ID requirements in Scotland, which creates a complication given that local and national elections are regularly held at the same time. If voters believed they could not vote in any election without ID, they might not turn up on polling day, and lower turnout for Scottish local elections could be a side effect.

As well as reducing voter turnout by 1-2% in certain American states, studies have found that it also leads to lower voting turnout by voters who incorrectly believe that they have the wrong form of ID. Thus, the appearance of formal barriers has the consequence of making voting seem like an intimidating and difficult process.

The holding of ID often has trends which correlate to racial background, socioeconomic class, and profession. As these factors often align with voting direction, there are also certain correlations between the holding of ID and the party voted for. Take drivers’ licenses for example. There is an association between holding a driver’s license and voting patterns (not holding: 57% Labour, 27% Conservative voting).

The over-estimated problem of voter fraud

The UK does not have a significant problem with voter fraud and, as such, this proposed law is a distraction from the issue of voter turnout and political education. Reported incidence of election fraud is low, and prosecution lower still; many instances are resolved locally without further action required. The proposed ID checks are countering a problem that hardly exists, and will only negatively impact turnout in the groups that already struggle with high turnout (first time voters being a significant one). It will cost an extra £40m in election expenses, money that could be better used to encourage higher levels of voter registration.

Again, America tells a cautionary tale. The US has seen similar attempts involving the requirement of voter ID checks, many of which have been struck down in the courts as restrictive or targeted, and many states have seen countless problems during elections stopping potential voters from casting their votes. The proposals in the UK are likely to create serious and harmful effects that are greater than the supposed problem they are seeking to resolve.

The US has received criticism on an international level for its restrictive voting laws and voting rights violations. If the UK goes ahead with measures that hinder the ease of voting then it will rightfully receive similar international attention and assessment for such a move.

Mathilda Walters is a recent graduate of the University of Oxford. She works in political fundraising and campaigning.

Bad tactics, good strategy: Britain’s inconsistent commitment to Security Council reform

Though the UN Security Council can appear defunct, it remains a crucial feature in the architecture of international governance. It is in British, and global, interests to reform it. But if Britain wants to transform its rhetoric on this issue into reality then it must take steps to expedite the process.

US Presidential confidante Daisy Suckley recalls that Franklin Roosevelt was in bed when it hit him. Next morning, as soon as he had finished breakfast, he climbed into his chair to be wheeled to Winston Churchill’s room. He knocked on the door. Hearing no answer, he went in and called for his guest. Churchill had just appeared, nude, in the bathroom door, when the President exploded: “The United Nations!”. “Good!”, the Prime Minister replied.

The UN was born in a Washington bedroom as the name for a wartime alliance. Yet in the face of newer, non-conventional threats such as cybercrime, terrorism, climate change, and now COVID-19, its executive body can appear deadlocked, even defunct.

Of course, the UN Security Council is not the only organisation confronting these challenges. NGOs and regulators worldwide are also working to tackle them, as are private corporations. But allowing our response to the 21st century’s most pressing problems to be outsourced to external actors is perilous.

NGOs are able to energise the public and policymakers on particular issues, but are often unable to take the kind of open, holistic approach that governing bodies are built for. Unelected advisors and businesses suffer from a similar paucity of democratic accountability.

For all their flaws, bodies like the Security Council remain a crucial feature in the architecture of international governance. It is in global interests that they are reformed rather than rejected.

It is also in British interests. By expanding the Council to redress its regional imbalances – there are 54 African UN member states but none are permanent members – the UK can help relocate important debates to a chamber where it enjoys disproportionate influence. Britain is a veto-wielding permanent member with a strong diplomatic reputation, and ‘penholder’ on 11 of the 41 issues regularly considered by the Council, meaning it leads negotiations and resolution writing on them. Leading Council expansion could also help signal that Whitehall is serious when it claims that the UK will be “more active in shaping the international order of the future”, as the Integrated Review reads.

The Government appears to recognise these arguments. Britain has been committed to securing permanent seats for a G4 of Japan, Brazil, India, and Germany as well as permanent African representation since 2008. It is also in favour of a moderate expansion in the number of non-permanent members, taking total membership to around 25.

This looks like bad tactics. Indeed it entails the dilution of Britain’s power in an important international body. Yet it is good long-term strategy, challenging efforts by the UK’s systemic rivals to claim that they are the sole supporters of developing nations.

Still, good strategy suffers without implementation. As the German Permanent Representative to the UN argued in a 2020 debate, citing one of Grimm’s fairy tales, if the UK wants to “kiss sleeping beauty” it must find the courage to “cut through the rose bushes” and act.

Cutting through the rose bushes might cause some scratches. Two-thirds of the General Assembly would have to approve any reform proposal, and Britain’s is opposed by G7 allies Italy and Canada.

Yet change has been achieved before – in 1963, when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to 10 – and there are some steps the UK can take to expedite the process.

First, the UK should seek appointment by the President of the General Assembly as Chair of the next round of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform.

Second, and preferably from that position, the UK should push for consultations on the basis of a single text. This text could be developed from the ‘commonality’ and ‘convergence’ documents produced over past years as well as an updated version of 2015’s Framework, which provided attributed positions on particular reform ‘clusters’. It could then be amended and rolled over into successive sessions, with the aim of drawing it steadily closer to a formal resolution.

This will likely be divisive. There is no consensus on moving to text-based negotiations, and building the text itself will require member states to pick sides as they give public opinions. Yet members have moved pressing issues to text without prior consensus before – on COVID-19 for example – and this could preclude another restatement of views, moving parties immediately into negotiations and, hopefully, compromise.

Britain can make its commitment to Security Council reform more than rhetoric. But it has to act.

Dylan Rogers is a Fellow at UN Watch. He writes in a personal capacity.

Framing the climate crisis as a security threat

The issue of climate change has long been discussed by states around the world. As the issue becomes more prominent, the threat of climate change must be understood and the necessary response agreed by all.

International organisations, domestic governments, media outlets, and non-governmental organisations have all played a part in securitising the invisible war against climate change. Securitisation as a process allows a state or, in this case, a network of interconnected states to transform an issue into a security threat. This in turn allows for extreme measures to be taken, mitigating said threat.

The securitisation has taken many forms, ranging from international law to domestic policies. The Paris Agreement (2015) is a clear example of how climate change has been securitised on an international level; a mutual understanding has been provided and a clear dialogue created to discuss the issues. The collective understanding is that a response to the threat is essential to securitisation. The Paris Agreement provided this, with 195 states, including the UK, signing the treaty. The Paris Agreement has not fully securitised climate change by any means, however it is a huge step in that direction. Climate change has been an issue for a long time, recognised by numerous states. The securitisation of climate change starts with recognition of the issue, then a reaction: the Paris Agreement. In short, the treaty outlined a clear goal for states: to reduce their contribution to climate change, therefore stopping the global temperature rising by more than two degrees, with a further emphasis on 1.5 degrees where possible.

Securitisation has unfolded as states have agreed that climate change is a threat to their security, with the potential to compromise their domestic policies on economics, migration, society, welfare, and so on. Although each state that signed the treaty acknowledges this threat, the level of threat perceived by each state varies.

For example, the Alliance of Small Island States experiences higher threats due to rising sea levels. It is essential to recognise that the commitment demonstrated by states reflects the level of threat they perceive.

This influences the way states deal with the issue. The Paris Agreement allows for perceptual differences creating legal obligations to the agreed target of temperature change, while allowing space for individual domestic policy.

Securitisation is clear as this process relies on the collective understanding which, in practice, is almost impossible to achieve. However, the Paris Agreement is a successful tool in the securitisation of climate change as it creates a mutual agreement and collective understanding by the states.

It can be argued the UK has securitised climate change domestically. The Government has passed legislation committing the country to reducing carbon emissions relative to that of 1990 by 100% by 2050, commonly referred to as ‘net zero’.

Although the policy attempts to contribute towards the global target outlined in the Paris Agreement, the UK was not legally obliged to reduce emissions by 100% and could have taken alternative measures. As climate change has been securitised domestically, however, the UK government was able to draft policy to reduce the level of threat.
The policy implemented in the UK, such as banning the sale of fossil fuel cars by 2030, will affect many people everyday. The effects could damage the economy with job losses due to the limited number of electrical car manufactures in the UK and the increased costs that businesses will incur. Nevertheless it can be observed that the securitisation of climate change has taken place, thus leading to this policy. This subsequently might have negative economic consequences, but this is viewed as acceptable as the threat of climate change is mitigated by policy and mutually agreed by citizens, as they elected the Government and granted them the legitimacy to implement policy.

Securitisation is a useful process to tackle a large-scale issue such as climate change as mutual agreement and collective understanding is the best weapon a state can deploy when fighting an invisible security threat. As such, climate change has become securitised internationally using legally binding obligations, while simultaneously being securitised domestically through government legislation. Therefore a legitimacy to intervene is created, which leads to legislation and government policy designed to reduce the threat. Overall framing climate change through a security lens is positive, because it directly affects nations and their citizens – similarly to an ordinary security threat. As the issue is securitised further it would be reasonable to assume a greater understanding and agreement on retaliation will arise, furthermore reducing the level of threat and eradicating climate change altogether.

Bailey Gould studies International Relations and Politics at the University of Sheffield.

Dissecting the situation in Lebanon: six things we learned from speaking with Dr Filippo Dionigi

The multi-layered turmoil currently unfolding in Lebanon has sparked much global concern. As well as its impact on the population at large, the country’s 1.5m refugees are at particular risk. Comprising over a fifth of Lebanon’s 6.8m people, their plight has been dubbed a “crisis within a crisis”. Speaking to us for an Agora Radio podcast, Dr Filippo Dionigi of University of Bristol argued that Lebanon’s situation stems from a convergence of three ‘mega-crises’ and three long-term issues. Combined, these six factors have had an overwhelming impact on Lebanese people and refugees alike.

The Economic crisis

Due to years of political and economic governance mismanagement, Lebanon’s economy collapsed in 2020. The resulting devaluation of the Lebanese Lira has had far-reaching impacts, from reduced foreign currency reserves causing a shortage of basic goods to the rationing of medical supplies for surgeries and lack of medicine in pharmacies. Unemployment rates are high, and it is estimated that more than 50% of the population struggles to access essential supplies such as food.

COVID-19

The pandemic hit Lebanon just as it hit the rest of the world, bringing both social and economic consequences. It exacerbated pre-existing issues like the country’s unequal, largely privatised, healthcare system, and lockdowns had an especially harmful impact on the refugee population, deepening these inequalities. Refugees are only allowed to work in three sectors: agriculture, construction, and waste management. These jobs are often seasonal and fall under irregular employment, resulting in the UNHCR recently reporting that almost 90% of Syrians displaced in Lebanon now live in poverty.

2020 Beirut explosion

The 4 August blast in the Lebanese capital was a demonstration of negligent management that resulted in hundreds of people losing their lives and thousands losing their homes. Speaking about the accident, Dr Dionigi said that “never before has the recklessness of the Lebanese governmental system been so clearly displayed”. This disaster, which occurred only a little over a year ago, traumatised many in Lebanon and showed the irresponsibility of the state more clearly than ever before.

Political system

The current Lebanese power-sharing model of government originated through colonial domination by France, and is based on sectarian and confessional rules. This system is so fractionalised that it is not able to implement meaningful reform. Despite country-wide protests against the system, this is the current institutional context of Lebanon.

Corruption

Just as many Lebanese people have been protesting against the political system, there have also been widespread protests against corruption. New anti-corruption laws have been adopted to some extent, in particular following the 2019 protests. The lack of trust in the government has led to doubts as to whether this will bring consequential changes, however.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is a political and military actor that is unique to Lebanon in that it holds a military force that is significantly stronger than the Lebanese army itself. The organisation undermines the legitimacy of the state by holding power over some government institutions without being held accountable or responsible to the Lebanese people.

Together, these six factors present huge challenges for Lebanon and its people. While the future remains very uncertain, Dr Dionigi finished by affirming that “the future of Lebanon is in the hands of the Lebanese” and that “the greatest hope for Lebanon is its society and civil society”.

If you would like to learn more, listen to our full conversation with Dr Dionigi here.

Hannah Kuehn and Shona Warren are co-Heads of Agora’s Migration Programme.

Why the ‘staycation’ trend isn’t necessarily the environmental win we think it is

Reduced tourism numbers may have meant a drop in CO2 emissions, but local travel carries environmental risks too, particularly for the biodiversity of national parks.

It was inevitable that international travel would be limited when Britain first went into lockdown in March of last year. In the summer of 2020, ‘staycations’ were up 500%; families had traded their all-inclusive week in Corfu for a less exotic trip to Cornwall. Even as the possibility of travel abroad reemerges, the risks and uncertainty involved will still deter many.

In light of this, Britons may utilise the beauty of their 15 national parks to escape to, with lockdown lifted. From the Lake District to the Brecon Beacons, national parks have been a feature of the UK landscape since 1951. The regions aim to preserve nature and heritage against property developers, whilst providing the public with a glimpse of the picturesque scenery that their country has to offer.

Tourists are not wrong to take advantage of the parks. Their existence is crucial to exhibit the beauty of the environment. Yet, the worry remains that, if 2020 saw record numbers of visitors flock to these places, 2021 may see a correlation between swelling tourist numbers and lamentable damage to the habitats that these areas strive to protect.

Using the USA as an example, sightseers have congregated around the Grand Canyon or Niagara Falls since air travel was invented. Areas of national beauty are appreciated, but at the same time spoilt by litter, air pollution, and noise. Rangers at Yellowstone label tourists as the real “wild animals” due to their swamping of local car parks, road rage, and debris that they spew all over the local ecosystems. More than 300m people visited American national parks in 2015 and this number has only grown since.

Britain’s parks accommodate significantly fewer visitors every year, totalling 13.71m in 2019 over all 15 locations. Although this figure is far less than numbers recorded in the USA, it is tallied pre-COVID. This summer, the appeal of the parks will only lure more sightseers in if many international destinations are placed on the Government’s so-called “red list”. Tourism to British parks has a very realistic potential to follow the same upwards trajectory as the USA. This could leave British national parks vulnerable to the environmental issues seen in places such as Yellowstone.

Preserving national parks is of global interest too. Foreign and domestic forests aid in carbon sequestration. Trees drain carbon dioxide from the air by acting as natural sinks. Tourists harming these designated basins with pollution only creates a further imbalance of carbon in the air. Consequently, Britain should not be the only country that takes into account the effects of staycations this year.

The Government must make the protection of national parks’ biodiversity a priority. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s 30 by 30 pledge commits to protecting 30% of the UK’s landmass by 2030 in efforts to enhance biodiversity. Westminster has also promised £40m for creating green jobs in these areas in the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution.

However, these policies may face difficulty this summer. Any limitations on sightseer numbers could result in the hospitality sectors of the rural towns surrounding the parks to perish, and the pandemic has already cost the Government a great deal of money. The industry has suffered significantly from lockdowns and any spike in tourism could greatly benefit the local communities.

Perhaps as the threat to national parks is an international issue, there should be cross-border solutions to ensure their protection globally. For instance, 14.7% of Earth’s landmass is protected by a national park status, however less than a fifth of countries have actually committed to their duties of preserving biodiversity in these places. There must be an international response to prevent countries neglecting their nature reserves as they create balance for the rest of the world.

The Foundation for Environmental Education’s creation of the Blue Flag Beach Award provides countries with an incentive to keep their beaches clean. The achievement grants coastlines prestige for preserving the environmental integrity of their waters. Perhaps, a similar scheme could run to preserve the biodiversity of national parks. Countries could be given an internationally recognised ‘Green Trophy’ certificate for maintaining their parks.

National parks are there to be enjoyed, not squandered. However, the world must start treating them with respect to ensure their continuation and contribution to hindering climate change.

Emily Wilson studies Politics and International Relations at the University of Manchester.

The Brexit campaign’s rhetoric against migration needs rewriting

There are 26m refugees around the world. In 2019, 133,094 of them were being hosted by the UK. Some British newspapers assert that they had ‘flooded in’ and deprived Britons of jobs and services. The Government should take the lead on creating a more empathetic discourse around migration.

The normalisation of nationalism

COVID paused the UK’s resettlement scheme and the Government is now rolling out a new points-based immigration system to demonstrate just how much control of the borders it has ‘taken back’.

Xenophobia in Europe is nothing new, dating back to fears of medieval Middle Eastern Muslims invading Christian Europe. But Brexit normalised and facilitated anti-immigrant discourse, culminating in the UK’s toughest immigration policies in living memory.

Recent migration to the UK

Following the addition of new countries to the EU in 2004, British policy-makers forwent the transition periods that most member states used and instead immediately granted freedom of movement to those from the newly joined states. Headlines spoke of “hordes” of Eastern Europeans arriving, arguing that they wanted to exploit the benefits system, and exacerbating fears of job insecurity. By 2019 around 3.7m EU citizens had settled in the UK, but this happened over several years and was a consequence of the EU enlargement that the UK had supported.

The 2015 migrant crisis prompted further debate on those coming to the UK. Millions of refugees fleeing poverty and persecution in the Middle East and Africa sought safety elsewhere during this period. Although the majority became either internally displaced or lived in neighbouring host countries, the Vote Leave Brexit campaign used concerns about immigrants to its advantage.

Dominic Cummings’ 2016 tweet that remaining in the EU risked a repeat of attacks against women by migrant men carried out in Cologne in 2015, and Nigel Farage’s famous ‘breaking point’ poster of long queues of migrants actively stoked these fears. In this way, the Leave campaign successfully politicised the issue of migration and asylum. The focus was placed on the EU’s attempts to forcibly resettle migrants amongst its member states, supposedly diminishing British sovereignty.

Post-Brexit migration policy

Boris Johnson stated that migrants crossing the Channel in dinghies were “very bad and stupid and dangerous and criminal”, omitting the fact that his party’s policies are a driving factor of such bahaviour. Post-Brexit, the Government stepped up its existing hostile policies and proposed the new UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS). Official figures suggest it will settle 5,000 refugees, but it threatens the safety of thousands more. Its removal of legal routes and safe schemes, like the Dublin Agreement, causes asylum seekers to risk their lives at sea.

Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel create a false narrative of criminal migration. They normalise anti-immigrant rhetoric and portray asylum seekers and refugees as threats to British safety and sovereignty, rather than vulnerable people fleeing war and persecution. In 2016, the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination declared that “divisive” language used by UK politicians during the Brexit campaign prompted a rise in hate crime. A poll in 2017 also found that anti-immigrant sentiment garnered support for the Leave vote.

This narrative is also reflected in the Government’s excessive detention of asylum seekers. The UK is the only country in western Europe without a detention time limit. This means that British authorities can indefinitely detain asylum-seekers (698 people as of June 2020), often keeping them in poor conditions.

The Napier Barracks are one such example. After numerous reports of suicide attempts, unsanitary conditions, and the spread of COVID-19, the Home Office temporarily removed those held there, only to return them after the Easter weekend. Criminalising migrants and depriving them of their dignity in this way contributes to their ‘othering’. It implies that they are burdens on the state, solidifying the narratives of suspicion and division that developed in waves around 2004 and 2015.

Rewriting the narrative

The UK’s new asylum laws were prompted by a Brexit vote that aimed to ‘take back control’ from Brussels but, ironically, replicate the EU’s famous red tape by creating yet more paperwork.

More troublingly, efforts to ‘take back control’ have jeopardised the dignity and safety of people fleeing conflict. The Government must implement a more humane policy. Practically, it should expand the UKRS and end indefinite detention, but rhetorically it should also encourage more empathy. In doing so, politicians can attempt to articulate a positive vision for refugees in the UK.

Lara Brett is studying for an MA in Contemporary European Studies at the University of Bath.