Agora - content

The open forum for foreign policy

Blogs

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.

By ratifying the Istanbul Convention, the UK can send a signal to the rest of the world on violence against women

Almost nine years after signing the Istanbul Convention (IC), the United Kingdom has yet to ratify it. Turkey’s recent withdrawal from the IC makes now the perfect time for the UK to send an important message. The legal protection of women and girls is essential, and could catalyse a shift in our society’s towards a better understanding of how they should be able to enjoy public spaces.

Identified as the most common form of gender-based violence within the UK, public sexual harassment (PSH) lacks any specific legislation to tackle it. PSH can be anything from unwelcome and unwanted attention, sexual advances and intimidating behaviour that occurs in public spaces, happening both in-person and online. Not all experiences of PSH are the same and, as an intersectional issue, different identity categories influence an individual’s experience.

Despite several countries – including France, Peru and Chile – implementing legislation to tackle PSH, the UK still refuses either to ratify the IC or to enforce a dedicated legal framework to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG). Given the recent tragic death of Sarah Everard, coupled with the findings by UN Women UK that 97% of women aged between 18-24 have experienced sexual harassment and 80% of women of all ages have experienced PSH, the need for ratification and additional legislation is blatant.

Beyond just the UK, a 2014 survey by the European Union (EU) Fundamental Rights Agency revealed that sexual harassment was the most prevalent form of violence against women across the EU. As a result, countries such as France and Portugal have implemented legislative measures. In 2018, France introduced a law allowing on-the-spot fines of up to €750. Within the first eight months, 447 fines had been handed out for street harassment. Backed by 90% of the French public, these laws provide the building blocks to form better protection for women and girls across France.

British law must go further still. As 97% of young women have experiences of sexual harassment, it is unlikely that the perpetrators of these incidents would have been caught committing the offence by police if a similar law had been in place. Instead, legislation similar to that in Chile (where Fair Planet report that 85% of women had experienced harassment prior to legislation) could prove more beneficial at protecting women, girls, and marginalised genders as laws carry financial penalties as well as possible jail time for those found guilty. Yet still, the UK is in a unique position regarding VAWG.

In 2016, former Prime Minister and then Home Secretary Theresa May said in her department’s Ending Violence Against Women Strategy that “no woman should live in fear of violence, and every girl should grow up knowing she is safe, so that she can have the best start in life”. The Government argued that their strengthened legislative framework was underpinned by work to change the attitudes to prevent offences and improve police response. Yet five years later, particularly following the harrowing death of Sarah Everard, thousands of women across the UK are sharing their countless stories of PSH online. The lack of legislation, alongside the normalisation of harassment in UK culture and communities, has deterred women from reporting these offences.

All of these statistics present the fundamental need for legislation against PSH. This is crucial to prevent an environment and culture that disregards historically vulnerable and oppressed groups of people, diminishes their sense of self-worth, and denies equal access to public space.

The UK government must do more. It must protect and prepare its citizens by ratifying the Istanbul Convention and introduce a new bill. Turkey’s departure should not be viewed as an excuse for the UK to ignore their failings. Instead the UK should use this as a platform to steer and encourage other global powers into signing, ratifying and ensuring that their country enshrines the safety and legal protection that women and girls so desperately need.

Kendal Sefton is Researcher, Public Affairs and Partnerships Officer at Our Streets Now.

How Trinidad became an incubator for Islamist terrorism

Once a colony at the fringes of the British Empire, Trinidad was an epicentre of human importation. Initially slaves from Africa, then nearly one hundred thousand indentured laborers from India, were brought to the island, mainly to produce and harvest sugarcane. But after generations of cohabitation, Trinidad has developed a unique multicultural social fabric, and with it, unique problems resulting from a history of colonial subjugation.

In the wake of emancipation, British authorities imported Indian indentured workers to fill the labour vacuum left by freed black slaves who typically refused to continue working for their former masters. Ethnic studies researcher Nasser Mustapha has noted that, unlike the Afro-Trinidadians, the newly arrived Indians “were able to maintain their religious identity due to their isolation on the estates”. Further, “because of the need to preserve their faith in an alien and somewhat hostile environment, Indo-Trinidadian Muslims became very defensive and introverted, with an emotional attachment to their ancestral traditions”. Nonetheless, “common external pressures led to greater mutual respect and acceptance between Indian Muslims and Hindus in the Caribbean”.

Although initially intended to prevent African and Indian Trinidadians unifying to revolt against British rule, colonial policies to encourage ethnic separation unintentionally pressured Indo-Trinidadians to forgo prior inter-ethnic religious rivalries out of a mutual interest to preserve shared cultural traditions. Similarly, slavery eroded Afro-Trinidadian slaves’ prior cultural identity, reenforcing absolute subservience to the British colonial system.

At the time of Trinidad’s independence, the Nation of Islam’s anti-imperialist political ideology appealed to descendants of slaves seeking to distance themselves from the legacy of colonial subjugation. Just as race became inseparable from religion amongst Indian Muslims, and in response to centuries of colonial oppression, Afro-Trinidadian Muslim converts embraced a particular brand of Sunni fundamentalist Islam which fused black-power rhetoric with anti-western-imperialist sentiments. Consequently, pervasive ethno-social divisions became only further entrenched as Afro-Trinidadian Muslim converts resented Indo-Trinidadian Muslims for incorporating ‘blasphemous’ cultural elements into worship, Indo-Trinidadian Hindus for practicing the ‘wrong’ religion, and demonised Afro-Trinidadian Christians for not rejecting the religion of their former colonial oppressor.

Ethno-religious tensions reached their peak in 1990 when a Trinidadian Islamic radical group, Jamaat al-Muslimeen (JAM), carried out an attempted coup which held various political officials hostage, including the Prime Minister, for six days and left at least 24 people dead. While the vast majority of Trinidadians, regardless of ethnicity or religion, disavowed the coup attempt, the Counter Extremism Project notes “Yasin Abu Bakr, the notorious leader of JAM […] targeted urban Afro-Trinidadian youth in his sermons through a mix of Islamic doctrine and Black Power rhetoric”.

The pervasive legacy of colonial oppression meant disempowered Afro-Trinidadians saw potential for Islam to rectify perceived social injustices. However, Afro-Trinidadian Muslim converts found themselves only more socially isolated as their particular interpretation of Islam demonised the established Muslim community on the grounds of race, or even members of their own race for their religion.

Although the majority of modern Trinidadians see their society as a patchwork of multicultural customs and racial unity, many of the social divisions which originally drove the 1990 coup attempt remain unaddressed. For example, political parties are often divided along racial lines, and Trinidadians still tend to marry within their own racial group.

More perniciously, the rise of the Islamic State has seen radicalised Trinidadians to channel their resentment elsewhere. Generations of compounded resentment preconditioned a subset of the Afro-Trinidadian Muslim community to be especially receptive to rhetoric promising social reordering, and therefore vulnerable to radicalisation. Predatory ISIS recruiters have been able to lure a disproportionately large number of Afro-Trinidadian Muslims by manipulating feelings of alienation towards their local community through the promise of global social reordering. In fact Trinidad is at the top of the list of Western and English speaking countries for rates of Islamic State recruitment.

Social isolation breeds resentment and the legacy of British colonial rule established a toxic precedent of disunity, making Trinidad fertile ground for extremist recruitment. As the only nation in the Western Hemisphere to ever experience an attempted Islamic coup, and as one of the largest ISIS recruitment centres, Trinidad exemplifies how the legacy of colonialism does not disappear with independence. It also shows how short sighted policies can have long-term consequences. Although British colonists could not have predicted that their actions would lead to the rise of Islamic extremism on the island, policies enacted in bad faith rarely end well. History cannot be undone, but similar blunders can be avoided in future by recognising that policy actions may have unintended consequences, especially those involving race and religion.

Christopher Lindrud is International Coordinator at the Trade Center of the Americas.

The UK must uphold asylum seekers’ rights with its new immigration system

The UK risks failing to uphold its international legal commitments to asylum seekers with its post-Brexit immigration regime. Pursuing an ‘Australian-style’ system will only make this worse.

The UK and international asylum law

The UK is party to several international treaties which afford rights to individuals seeking asylum in foreign countries. These legal instruments grant the right to seek asylum when escaping persecution in another country. Additionally, when fleeing ones own country due to a well-founded fear of persecution, those seeking asylum may legally enter foreign countries without any documentation. States cannot impose penalties on individuals who do this.

It is therefore not illegal to cross the English Channel by boat without documentation under certain circumstances, despite the claims of several media outlets and the Prime Minister. When discussing migrants crossing the Channel, he stated that “[w]e will send you back […] you are an illegal migrant and […] the law will treat you as such”.

Whilst their asylum claim is being processed, asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK and must rely on £37.75 per week, provided by the state. This often results in such individuals living in poor-quality housing and sharing a room with several others. These conditions arguably contravene the right to adequate housing, which includes a right to non-discriminatory access to adequate housing and the right to choose one’s own residence.

Moving to Australia?

Despite the harshness of these conditions, those seen in Australia’s offshore detention centres are much worse.

The UK Government has to some extent sought to replicate Australia’s approach to asylum, even mirroring tactics they have used to try and deter asylum seekers from attempting to enter the country. Following Australia’s offshoring policies, which involve holding asylum seekers in costly detention centres on islands off mainland Australia, the Home Secretary Priti Patel suggested building detention centres on St Helena and Ascension Island to house unauthorised arrivals into Britain by boat. Although rejected for logistical reasons, this consideration of using overseas British territory to hold asylum seekers suggests the UK is moving towards much harsher treatment of these individuals.

Under the Dublin III Regulation, the UK has so far been able to legally expel many asylum seekers. Following Brexit, the Government has replaced this law with its own legislation to enable it to return asylum seekers to a “safe third country” if they have travelled through one on their way to the UK. Whilst Article 28 of Dublin III states that asylum seekers should not be detained prior to removal to the safe third country unless deemed a flight risk, the UK has detained many asylum seekers and has no laws on maximum detention periods as restrictions on detention are not mentioned in the revised regulations. Evidence suggests that this practice will remain, raising questions around the UK’s respect for the right to not be arbitrarily detained.

As Priti Patel implements a new post-Brexit immigration system, rhetoric around ‘taking back control of our borders’ and ‘tackling illegal migration and asylum claims’ has become commonplace. This clearly mirrors Australia’s tactics, where asylum-seeking is framed as synonymous to illegal immigration in need of a harsh reaction. The Government has been open about wanting to send this message to those attempting to exploit the system.

Additionally, new immigration commitment to support “the most vulnerable” refugees – such as children, women and those already subjected to torture – implies a hierarchy of asylum seekers, where only those at the top will have their rights recognised. This could result in the UK disregarding its obligations to asylum seekers it deems to be less vulnerable, in clear contravention of the Refugee Convention and Protocol.

Doing what’s right, not what’s popular

Both Australia and the UK continue to fail to uphold the human rights of asylum seekers attempting to enter their countries. They manage this by finding loopholes within the laws on refugees, however they ultimately cannot avoid the fact that they are violating people’s human rights in doing this.

It remains unclear what Australia’s – and soon, potentially, the UK’s – reasoning is for opting for costly offshore detention centres over housing individuals on the mainland for less. They may argue this is for deterrence, but there is no evidence deterrence works. Attempting to outdo the harshness of the conditions asylum seekers are fleeing from seems a questionable goal for any democratic government.

The UK should refrain from following Australia’s lead and instead fulfil its obligations to asylum seekers by upholding their basic human rights.

Katy Adams is an MA Human Rights student at University College London

This is the second of two blogs exploring the British government’s desire to mirror Australia’s immigration policies; the first outlined international law for asylum seekers and refugees, discussing Australia’s approach to immigration and their practice of offshoring.

European governments must understand the Middle East’s borders before taking action in the region

In the 20th century, British and French governments in the Middle East laid the foundations for mass displacement. Today, their policies continue to shape the region, but fall short of resolving this issue.

Today’s map of the Middle East was shaped by European powers. In 1916, Britain and France divided it up in the Sykes-Picot agreement, laying claims over lands thousands of miles away. Borders were created without consideration for local ethnic groups or pre-existing territorial powers, changing the geo-political landscape and causing discontent amongst populations who were separated from their local groups and organised into different states.

This paved the way for subsequent instability in the Middle East. The UK and France should recognise the role they have played in destabilising their former mandates and take action to help end conflict and provide safe countries for returning migrants.

Complicated British-Israeli-Palestine relations

The Sykes-Picot agreement also created historical ties between Britain and Palestine. After the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, there was considered to be an urgent need for a Jewish homeland. In 1947, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 181 for the partition of Palestine, which was predominantly Arab, but gave the minority Jewish population over 50% of the land. Following Israel’s founding in 1948 and the Arab-Israeli war, the Israelis received 78% of the Palestinian Mandate.

This triggered mass displacement for the Palestinians and further territorial disputes. Britain kept a close eye on these affairs, sponsoring the UN Security Council Resolution 242 to bring an end to Israel’s 1967 war with its Arab neighbours.

Today, British-Israeli relations remain amicable. Last year marked 70 years of diplomatic relations between the two states, with Israel being one of the first countries to sign a trade continuity agreement with the UK. British diplomatic relations with Israel tend to avoid strong criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Nevertheless, in January 2021, the UK government expressed concern at Israel’s decision to build new settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as this exceeds Israel’s 78% share of the Palestinian territories. The UK, in line with most of the international community, maintains that the former territory is Palestinian. It does not recognise Palestine as a state, but continues to advocate for a two-state solution. This raises the uncomfortable question of where these two states should draw their borders.

French lessons?

The French government also continues to have a vested interest in Middle East affairs, as evidenced by its actions in Syria. French withdrawal from that country in 1946 resulted in decades of violence, with the al-Assad family’s torture and killing of peaceful protestors sparking the 2011 civil war and mass displacement.

Along with members of an international coalition, France has attempted to end the conflict, committing over €1bn towards Syrian civilians between 2019-21. Much of that money has gone to neighbouring countries Lebanon and Jordan which are hosting fleeing Syrian refugees. France participates in military operations under Operation Chammal and founded the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons in 2018. It also advocates for peace negotiations, to protect civilians and bring about an end to the root causes of continuous mass displacement.

Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is different to that in Syria, France’s foreign policy is an example of what more the UK could do in the Middle East. For instance, it could provide more aid money for the Palestinians and be a more vocal advocate for finding a peaceful solution. Aiding peace in the Middle East would help the UK government in its desire for the country to be seen as a global player as well as providing much-needed stability for millions. Resolving decades of conflict could help resettle those who have fled and allow them to rebuild their lives in a safe environment.

Nearly ten years after it began, there is no sign of the Syrian conflict abating. There is also little indication of peace between Israel and Palestine. Continuous Israeli expansion and violence committed by both sides continue to fuel distrust. As of 2019, there were 5.6m Palestine refugees, according to UNRWA. Many remain in Palestine in desperate conditions and with no opportunity to leave.

It is important that European states prioritise the establishment of stable democratic governance, rather than anything which would exacerbate tensions by encouraging actors to struggle for power. Countries such as the UK and France must tread carefully in advocating peace and crisis resolution.

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