Author: kasmir

“No taxation without representation”, an early rallying cry of American revolutionaries, remains a fundamental principle of government throughout the western world. Citizens agree to allow the intrusion of the state into their lives on condition that it is they who decide who is to govern and control the levers of the state. However, particularly since the discovery of oil in the region, politics in the gulf has been determined by a rather different relationship. Rulers have been able to accrue vast fortunes, such that they have had no need to extract revenue from citizenry in order to expand the state and exert control over the populace. This wealth finances a highly developed security service, as well as providing citizens with employment, healthcare, housing, and a range of other services. The upshot is that the quiescent compliance of the ruled is bought by the ruler, with his (and it is invariably his, not her) legitimacy directly purchased. Accordingly, the citizens of modern Gulf States have next to no say in how they are governed.

That is not to say that there is a complete disjunction between the Sheiks, Emirs and Sultans of the region and their people. Traditional “majlis” councils, small advisory bodies occupied by tribal leaders, have provided some form of representation and a method of allowing the grievances of the masses to come to the attention of the rulers. However, such bodies have never really had any power to constrain or oversee the exercise of executive power. These councils would not be understood as manifestations of a true democracy by western standards.

Over time, however, there have been shifts, and recent developments have been particularly noteworthy. This December will see the first election in Saudi Arabia where women will be able to both vote and stand as candidates for election to the King’s advisory council. The Kuwaiti parliament, having played a decisive role in the appointment of the current Emir in 2006, has enjoyed an increasingly prominent role in the running of the state and has been so assertive as to be dissolved twice in 2008 and 2012 due to its unwillingness to acquiesce to the will of the ruling Al-Sabah family. Even in Qatar the Emir has felt it necessary to promise elections for positions on his Shura (advisory) Council, however no date has been set, with citizens having to settle for voting in municipal elections, the most recent having been held in May of this year.

The reason for this increased willingness of the region’s ruling houses is to open up the political space is largely underpinned by economics and modernisation. As oil revenues have dwindled it has been necessary for the state to recede. It is no longer possible to fund extensive state programmes providing comprehensive welfare and employment for all. As the state cannot afford to do this there is a breakdown in the tacit agreement between the ruler and his subjects. Whilst matters have not stretched as yet to need a need to extract revenue from citizens via taxation on a large scale, it would seem this is almost inevitable and will lead to widened demands for participation. Allied to this, there is a significant demographic “youth bulge” with 30% of the population in these countries aged between 15-29. Many of these young people are also western educated. With the state unable to provide them with opportunities for employment and advancement there is a growing unrest and desire to see western freedoms replicated in their home nations. Rulers see limited elections as a sort of safety-valve and calculate that if they can provide some representation they can gain legitimacy in compensation of that which they have lost.

The example of Qatar is a salient one. Abundant natural gas reserves, allied to its investment in industries outside of oil and diversification into financial markets, have meant that the state retains significant revenue independent of the need to tax citizenry. Accordingly, it is here that the shift towards representation has been most limited. Along with a homogenous ethno-religious population, there has been little civil unrest as the Emir has been able to continue to generously subsidise the lives of his people. Significant unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain in 2011 provides a neat contrast in that significant ethnic heterogeneity coupled with an ability to provide for the welfare of citizens is a recipe for civil strife unless the ruled can be persuaded to feel they have a say in how they are governed.

It is my view, however, that these steps cannot be truly said to represent the beginnings of a process that will lead to western style democratisation. I see no evidence that rulers in the region wish to actually concede any power. Whether they can prevent unrest depends on their ability to allow an opening of the political space in such a way that is viewed as legitimate, whilst simultaneously ensuring that this is nothing more than sham democracy and retaining all real power themselves. Poor turnout is a hallmark of elections in the region thus far, suggesting that rulers have a way to go to persuade their people as to the sincerity of their belief in the role of the ballot box. The willingness of other Gulf Monarchies to provide military support to put down the uprising in Bahrain in 2011, and the very existence of the Gulf Cooperation Council, along with the significant rise in spending on military and state security since the Arab Spring, all point to an underlying desire of regional rulers to cling to their positions. It is my firm belief that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no real democratisation. Rulers can and will rely on the extensive repressive capacities that they possess to hold on. Shifts towards more elections and parliaments are and will continue to be mere facades. The Arab Spring appeared to herald a new democratic dawn in the region. It was, regrettably, a false one.

Author Biography

Nat Guillou is a current student on the MSc in Arab World Studies at the University of Durham. Research interests include domestic British and French politics and the Middle East, with particular reference to the State system and political developments subsequent to the Arab Spring.

You can find him on Twitter and academia.edu 

*Cover image ‘View of Doha downtown area from Katara beach ‘ by Aitor Garcia Viñas

The question of race is an issue nearly as old America itself. And, as the world still looks to America for guidance through the most concerning issues of our time: ISIS, global migration and before that, the unrelenting spread of Ebola. It is America that must now look inward to reflect upon its own internal problems.

When Dylann Roof opened fire on a church of innocent people, the civilised world, after initial gasps and condemnations for the innocent lives lost, for the most part, quietly moved on as yet another blood red blot fell upon the copy book of America’s record of domestic security. Yet for some people a pertinent question remains unanswered: why was this racially motivated murder not unanimously labelled an act of terrorism?

Upon the face of it, Roof bore all the hallmarks of the publicsed Islamic terrorist. An American flag was set alight, a pre-rampage photo was taken with the weapons of his murderous act, and most fundamentally, Dylann Roof had the ‘political’ motivation – to take back his America from an unwelcome invader. Roof saw the South African Apartheid not as a fantasy, but a solution and an alternate governmental and societal model.

To look at varying definitions of terrorism, Roof fulfils the qualifying criteria for all of them – a desire to influence government and wider society by force of terror. MI5 defines it as the use of violence in order to advance a “political, religious, racial or ideological cause”. The FBI, under a separate definition for “domestic terrorism”, speaks of violence used to “affect the conduct of a government.” The United Nations speaks of terrorism a contravention of its own principles, notably “tolerance among peoples.” While Roof cannot have believed that his actions would instigate wholesale change in Charleston, he saw actions as meaningful and necessary, bringing his cause to the attention of the wider world.

Considering this, it is puzzling that Dylann Roof has not yet been classed in the same category as Seifeddine Rezgui, the murderer of 38 people in Sousse, or Yassin Salhi, who beheaded his boss and later attempted to blow up a chemical factory. Interestingly, Rezgui, unlike Roof, as gleefully been pointed out by western media, was a relatively educated individual, who, at least superficially, bought into many facets of modern western culture. Both, however, shared the same frustration that society had lost its “purity” despite undergoing radical social and political transformations. Rezgui was not satisfied with the society created by the Arab Spring, while Roof’s grievance date back as far as the days of slavery.

Recently attempts have been made to attack the traditional values Roof was ostensibly fighting for, notably the evocative symbol of an outdated society – the Confederate flag. The outcry in America was deafening, with even former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney weighing in and asking for its removal. Popular TV show the Dukes of Hazzard could not be saved from the national uproar. However, these actions miss the salient point. The Confederacy, no matter how ugly, is engrained in American history. It was the obstacle to liberal society that was overcome. Its past existence strengthens American society today, offering a stark reminder of what could have been. Moreover, removing flags does not strike at the heart of the problem. Certain streets are named after famous Confederate generals and American dollar notes bear the faces of those who at one time owned slaves, not to mention those in the South who speak proudly of this part of history. People’s attachment to it will not just fade away, not like this. Labelling Roof a terrorist would raise uncomfortable questions of how to actually eradicate the extreme and unwelcome values upheld by individuals such as Roof, questions that Americans would expect answers to.

Past cultural history aside, to elevate white supremacy to the table of terrorism would lay damning accusations of historic ignorance at the door of those responsible for keeping Americans safe. It would bring into the public eye the inertia of the authorities, who have been largely unsuccessful in combating the issue of right-wing extremism; seen by law enforcement agencies as of the greatest danger to American people. It is a brand of terrorism that has been responsible for much bloodshed, notably the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1993. Since 9/11, over the past 13 and a half years, studies have shown that there have only been 50 fatalities on American soil linked to Islamist groups, compared with 254 fatalities resulting from attacks linked to right-wing extremists. Despite the validity of labelling the Charleston shooting an act of terrorism, John D Cohen, former terrorism coordinator for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed the importance of semantics, arguing instead that more important is to “understand it and stop it”. On the contrary, the ways official bodies label these events carries huge weight. In a CNN poll, 57% of all Americans and 61% of white Americans did not see Roof as a terrorist. Daryl Johnson, formerly of the same organisation of Cohen, argued that failing to define right-wing attacks as terrorism minimises their importance and can lead to their threat level being lowered. The report Johnson published in 2009 on right-wing terrorism was eventually withdrawn amidst consternation from conservative groups for highlighting the potential threat of returning veterans.

Helen Lewis of the New Statesman has suggested that part of the reason for this reluctance to term Roof a terrorist lies in the solution. As she says, there is a reassurance in painting Roof as crazed lone wolf. It allows people the comfort of believing nothing could have been done to prevent the attack, and to ignore the structural racism and intolerance within the United States. And while it is eminently clear that right-wing extremism need to be addressed, what it is not clear is whether the means or motivation exist for a meaningful effort against it. In the past, America has attempted to tackle international terrorism with haphazard military expeditions in the Middle East, as well as seismic reorganisations of its National Security apparatus at home. To many, harnessing such might to target Americans themselves, would be uncomfortable and uncharted territory. If the right-wing extremism of people like Roof was seriously credited as terrorism by those in authority, then there would be a similar expectation on the part of the authorities to match this will in trying to combat domestic terrorism. While most recognise the racial challenges still facing America today, few in positions of power are willing to go that extra step and call it as it is. It is for these reasons that Roof and many more to follow in his footsteps will have their acts of terrorism degraded and disregarded.

Author Biography

Hugh Coates is a recent graduate of Southampton University having studied History. He is particularly interested in American foreign affairs. His areas of specific knowledge include: covert operations and intelligence, particularly in the North African and Middle Eastern region.

You can find him on Twitter 

*Cover image ‘StandWithCharleston‘ by The All-Nite Images

Nigera – the sleeping giant of Africa – could finally be awoken this week as President Muhammadu Buhari is set to appoint ministers of the first ever cabinet of a Nigerian opposition party since democratisation in 1999. Yet with the Niger Delta Amnesty Programme for ex-militants set to end in December, responsibility for stability in the region is set to be the toughest assignment in the Federation.

After the peaceful handover of power in in May this year, Buhari and his team have been on a non-stop global tour of heads of state, last seen addressing world leaders at the UN general assembly last week.

This has been good publicity, boosting the legitimacy of the one-time military dictator and long-time malfunctioning country on the global stage. But Nigerians are apprehensive that he is shying away from the seemingly insurmountable domestic issues he pledged to resolve, namely the likelihood of renewed violence at both poles of the nation.

Buhari rode to success on his reputation as a disciplinarian, which voters prescribed was the tonic the corrupt and disorderly military needed to tackle the threats to national security.

Yet launching a military onslaught to annihilate the insurgency in the northeast has had little to no effect, and Boko Haram has been able to maintain the rate of attacks, killing at least 1,593 since his inauguration in May 2015.

The results are likely to be even more disastrous if Buhari’s appointees pursue the same ill-advised approach in the Niger Delta.

In the context of the drop in global oil price, Buhari has acknowledged that sustaining the Amnesty Programme – which provides financial support to ex-militants – is fiscally implausible for the Federal Government, and will therefore come to an end in December.

This decision, made by a northerner, has created added animosity amongst the southern population, which has historically been alienated by successive northern heads of state.

Alongside payments to all agitators, notable ex-militant leaders in the region were subdued by the previous administration with lucrative security contracts to protect the very oil pipelines they were attacking. Buhari has also refused to renegotiate deals with these actors.

The ex-militant leaders have used these funds to formalise their mobs, stock arsenals, and even procure warships.

Therefore, even if the security contract payments cease, ex-militants do not face the same financial restraints as insurgents in the northeast who are forced to rob banks and loot homes to replenish their armouries. Instead, their proven links to the highly organised multi-billion dollar oil theft syndicates that flourish in the region could be expanded to sustain a long, bloody battle.

To avoid triggering a return to militancy in the creeks, the new Minister of Niger Delta Affairs must take a more nuanced approach to the militancy that addresses the drivers of the conflict that have roots in the environmental destruction left by oil extraction, and the inequality the revenues reinforce.

Because the drivers of conflict are not specific to those who took up arms, the cause militants were fighting for has support across communities and ethnic groups in the region. A priority for the appointed minister must therefore be to consult Niger Deltans so that the policy approach taken responds to their needs.

This will not be an easy process, especially with an authoritarian leader at the helm used to military solutions. Hopefully Buhari recognises his own limitations here and has taken the four-months since inauguration to find the right Ministerial candidate. They must be capable enough to take a ‘softer’ development-led approach, and be endowed with the power to take a ‘harder’ line to leverage resources from Federal ministries and State governments.

About the Author

Alexander holds a masters degree in International Development, and is currently working as a West Africa Analyst with a keen interest in the political ecology of resources. 

*Cover image ‘General Muhammadu Buhari, Presidential Candidate, All Progressives Congress, Nigeria’ by Chatham House

The ongoing refugee crisis within Europe’s borders has undoubtedly caused divisions between European governments over whether the common ideals of free movement are mutually acceptable and whether all 26 Schengen states share the same desire for a common European identity.  Therefore the current topic of discussion is whether the fundamental principles of the Schengen Zone are under threat from reactionary national immigration policies amidst a resurgence of state sovereignty.

For readers who are unfamiliar with the European Schengen system, the fundamental basis of the policy is the maintenance of passport-free travel and the absence of internal border controls between both European Union (EU) and non- member states. This arrangement was formally implemented in 1995 by 26 European states, with the sole intention to protect the right to free movement for European citizens and those travelling legally within Europe. Schengen has built on a policy of European integration, which has been heralded as healing the divisions of the Cold War era, and has also been conducive towards achieving greater economic prosperity. The European political establishment has until recently upheld a broad consensus on maintaining the right of over 400 million EU citizens to travel unrestricted over much of the European continent, but is this about to change?

Firstly, and most importantly, there is the dilemma of consensus between states participating in the Schengen system. EU countries on the front line of the refugee influx, such as Hungary, have resorted to exercising their sovereignty and reintroducing physical borders and barriers against the flow of people. It would be reasonable to argue that Hungary’s government regards the seemingly endless flow of foreign people as a threat to its culture and its integrity. For many Hungarian citizens it could be viewed that Hungary’s actions are justified, if this is the reasoning behind their sudden change in immigration policy. However, this attitude seems to be a world-away from the regard to pan-European identity and citizenship, which brought European countries together in the early days of implementing the Schengen system. This swift return to state sovereignty has not stopped with Hungary alone. Slovenia has resorted to using pepper spray on crowds of migrants trying to cross into the country from Croatia, in response to the unprecedented numbers of restive people. Furthermore, Croatia itself has blamed Hungary’s actions on the bottleneck of refugees within its borders and has also closed several border points, all this within a region notorious for its sectarian divisions.

However, the actions taken by central and eastern European countries have been criticised by the EU institutions and other neighbouring states, including Romania who views Hungary’s motives as being self-centred and merely passing the problem on to other surrounding governments. On the other hand, Germany has broadly pursued a different response to the crisis and has agreed to accept many thousands of refugees, welcoming them in many areas and inviting them to cross borders to reach their territory. However, even in the face of welcome migration German authorities have reinstated temporary border controls along their southern border with Austria to cope with the sheer numbers constantly arriving. Therefore, it seems that even those states with an embracing attitude towards the outside are struggling to respond to the sheer demands that the crisis is placing on the integrity of the policy.

Finally, there is the perception that the European Union has been impotent in dealing with the crisis. This is significant because the foundations of the Schengen system lie with the political direction of the EU. The intergovernmental nature of the union means that member and associate states have the right to pursue national approaches to immigration policy in a time of geopolitical crisis. Indeed, the terms of the Schengen agreement state that a person must be “legally present” on a Schengen territory. This has given a mandate to countries such as Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia to apply proper national immigration procedures against those who they deem to be on their territory without a proper asylum claim. Ironically, in this instance, these people are the refugees desperately trying to use the European right to freedom of movement.

The Schengen system can only survive if the European ideals of freedom of movement stay intact. If division between participating states continues and a tide of national border controls remains the trend, then there is the risk that the policy will fail and a borderless European continent will become something of a failed past experiment. This is a dilemma because the Schengen policy was conceived on the premise of common and consensual European identity. The refugee crisis has challenged the cooperative foundations of Schengen because it has tested the resolve of national governments to adhere to consensus and has caused divisions over how to handle the mass movement of people across national borders.

About the author

Alistair Donophy holds a Bachelors degree in Politics from the University of Surrey (UK), and has a particular interest in national and international immigration policy. Alistair’s principle interests involve both national and international politics, with a particular emphasis on social and public policy making, having carried out previous policy analysis on UK alcohol licensing policy and the integration of Roma peoples across Europe. He has also had considerable involvement with the British Liberal Democrat party, being a local activist and a researcher for a former liberal MP, as well as writing scholarly articles for his university department magazine.

—

Cover image ‘P1160711‘ by dm1795 / ‘Schengen-17‘ by Arno Langenfeld

The issue of inequality is of great concern for the U.S.; wealth inequality is a rampant problem and has had a profoundly negative effect on the national economy in recent years. This is a problem which has been persisting for decades, with wealth now seen to be concentrating at an ever increasing rate. Since 2009 the combined net worth of the Forbes 400 has nearly doubled from $1.27 trillion to £2.29 trillion, almost equivalent to the GDP of Brazil, and in only 5 years the likes of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have increased their net worth by over $30 billion each, demonstrating the striking increase in wealth concentration. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) claims that inequality has a negative and significant impact on medium term growth, so this is an issue that should take precedent in a time when the U.S. faces the economic problems of debt, deficit and sluggish growth that it currently does.

So where did this problem begin? The problem of wealth and income inequality and its sharp increase in recent decades can be traced back to the 1970’s. Between the 1940’s and the 1970’s the lowest to highest workers experienced similar growth in income, in a period in which a rising tide really did lift all boats. The watershed decade of the 1970’s and the increase in inequality which followed can largely be attributed to one process, that process is called financialisation. Noam Chomsky is a key proponent of the idea, he states that the falling profits in manufacturing in the 1970’s saw a shift away from productive enterprise which led to a process of deindustrialisation and an offshoring of production. This created a shift in emphasis towards financial institutions which led to a concentration of wealth and capital within the 0.1% and a stagnation and decline for the majority; this wealth concentration also created a concentration of political power which accelerated the cycle. Ever since this watershed moment in U.S. history, the top 1% have been capturing an ever increasing share of income growth. This has significantly contributed to the profound economic problems facing the United States today.

The process of financialisation since the 1970’s has left the U.S. with numerous issues regarding manufacturing. Today the U.S. runs a trade deficit in manufacturing; the level of consumption has not declined over the past 40 years, only production has fallen and imports have grown. The offshoring of production initiated due to financialisation has seen a flow of capital out of the U.S. in imported goods, which is having negative economic consequences in terms of the deficit. But the manufacturing sector is suffering from a lack of competitiveness on the international markets, it is estimated in a study by the Federal Reserve that Chinese imports alone are responsible for between 750,000 and 3.5 million lost manufacturing jobs in the 2000’s. All of this is detrimental to the U.S. economy, who should be looking to the manufacturing sector to create jobs and increase exports to address the trade deficit.

It has been shown by the OECD that higher income inequality is associated with lower social mobility. So when considering that the U.S. has the highest inequality rate across the OECD, excluding Mexico and Turkey, there is cause for concern. The lack of shared prosperity over the recent decades has had an impact on social progress, which is contributing to the nation’s problems. The growth in inequality in the U.S. has hindered the accumulation of capital for the majority which undermines education opportunities for the disadvantaged and hampers skill development. Therefore inequality is damaging the U.S. far beyond just individual net worth, it is impacting the education opportunities of the underprivileged and causing a stagnation in social mobility which is significantly detrimental to the future of both the people of the United States, and the economy.

The U.S. is facing mounting economic challenges and their ability to deal with them is understandably coming into question. When a nation has a huge national debt and deficit, rampant inequality and a political system which cannot agree on how to move forward then questions must be raised over their economic future. Changes must be made to the economic system in the U.S. in order to combat inequality. A shift in government policy towards long term investment and redistribution of wealth are imperative and must be implemented in order for the U.S. to be able to face the economic challenges of the likes of China and the E.U. in the future.

Author Biography

Daniel Millward is currently a postgraduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Daniel’s main areas of interest are U.S. domestic politics, the politics of the EU, U.K politics, human rights, and social justice.

*Cover image ‘Newberg City Flag‘ by Stuart Seeger

In the aftermath of mid-term elections, many US Presidents enter the final quarter of their Presidency with limited political influence if their party has lost popular support. They are seen as ineffective occupants of office and are referred to as “lame ducks”.

As Barack Obama enters the final stages of his Presidency, and the 2016 Presidential Campaign begins, he is far from exempt from this lame duck challenge given the Democrats’ recent poor electoral performance.

In November 2014, the Republicans seized control of both Houses of Congress in mid-term elections. At this point, the prospects of continued significant domestic and legislative reform were much reduced, with many in the Washington establishment describing the elections as a ‘referendum on the President’.

The resulting collapse of Democratic representation in Congress has resulted in political deadlock and the most dysfunctional period in US legislative history.

This has forced the Administration to revert to extensive use of executivepowers to deliver Obama’s electoral promises to the American people. Whilst similar to the lame duck challenges faced by past Presidents such as Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton and Bush, the question is whether Obama can keep delivering regardless.

Obama Constrained But Resilient On The Domestic front

Second Term Presidents have historically struggled to implement significant domestic policy reform as the momentum of re-election quickly disappears, and many look beyond the incumbent towards who will be the President’s successor.

At the heart of Domestic policy is the economy, and here in the aftermath of the Great Recession, Obama is criticised by many for overseeing one of the weakest economic recoveries in modern times. In addition, issues such as the budget sequester and the Government shutdown of 2013 have cast significant shadows on the country’s economic performance.

Most recently however, the economy has grown at its fastest pace for over a decade, the deficit has shrunk by over two-thirds; 13 million private-sector jobs have been created, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.1%, it’s lowest since 2008. All of this is beginning to add up to a much more substantial presidential legacy, especially if momentum can be maintained in the face of a greatly strengthened dollar.

Much of this is credited to action taken in Obama’s first term such as the 2009 Stimulus bill, but since then little domestic reform has been achieved. Specifically, the Obama Administration continues to struggle in implementing its vision of ‘middle-class economics’; its proposals to increase the minimum wage, reform taxation, ensure equal pay and boost job growth face strong Republican opposition in Congress. 

In June, the Supreme Court upheld Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). This aims to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, expand insurance coverage and reduce healthcare costs. Its introduction has witnessed positive outcomes for the health security of Americans with 15 million attaining the security of coverage. In addition, health spending has slowed and healthcare inflation is at its lowest level for 50 years. Despite these achievements, all Republican presidential candidates want the law repealed. Many believe the law represents a Government takeover of healthcare and have turned to court action to prevent its progress.

Obama’s remaining reform agenda may well be challenged domestically due in part to the political capital he invested in implementing this radical reform. For now however, his Healthcare reform is here to stay.

On the issue of sexual equality, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry right across the US, a cause that Obama had publically announced his support for in 2012. He described it then as a ‘victory for America’ in its long battle against inequality, making the Union a little more perfect. This is seen as a further domestic success for a President who advocated support for civil rights and gay marriage in his second inaugural address.

With regard to other domestic reforms, the numbing weight of Congressional deadlock is evident. For example, Obama’s pursuit of unilateral Immigration reform, to shield illegal immigrants and their children from deportation, faces significant legal challenges from Republicans who regard such actions as unconstitutional. Similarly, Obama’s attempts to reform gun control laws have failed in the face of congressional opposition, leaving the President all but powerless. His lack of influence and legislative ability within Congress on this subject has led him to describe gun control reform as the greatest frustration of his presidency.

Overall, while the Supreme Court has delivered two significant victories for the President and the economy continues to recover, the administration is severely limited in its ability to implement further domestic reforms without support from the Republican-controlled Congress.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Doctrine – A Remarkable Multi-lateral Transformation?

In recent months the President has used his relative autonomy over foreign affairs, both as Commander in Chief and with his Presidential authority to negotiate foreign treaties, and to cement significant and historic reforms into US Foreign Policy.

In July 2015, the US and the P5+1, reached an agreement on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of action, Iran agreed to limit its medium-enriched uranium, cut its low-enriched uranium by 98% and reduce by two-thirds its centrifuges for 15 years in exchange for sanctions relief. This deal continues to cause division across the US, with Republicans arguing that no deal is better than a bad deal. However, with enough confirmed Democratic congressional support declared, the President can be almost certain that the deal can go ahead without the need for a Presidential veto of Congressional objections. If this deal lives up to the Obama promise it could reshape the geopolitics of the Middle East and influence the future of nuclear security globally, demonstrating what can still be achieved through effective diplomacy.

Furthermore, a radical change in US foreign policy has seen the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba. At the end of 2014, Obama stated that, under his Presidency, the US was changing its outdated relationship with Cuba. Accordingly, the opening of the US Embassy in Cuba marks the long overdue re-establishment of diplomatic relations, which had been suspended since 1961. Here, lawmakers have accused Obama of legacy shopping and, as the President needs to nominate a US ambassador to Cuba, some Republicans aim to delay the confirmation process to reinforce their opposition. However this is likely to be in vain.

Obama’s key Middle Eastern objective of degrading and ultimately destroying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), through an international coalition using airstrikes and providing military and financial assistance has presented mixed results so far. Overall, ISIL has lost over a quarter of the territories in Iraq it held and around 10,000 fighters across Iraq and Syria. However the group has continued to expand in Syria placing the Assad regime and US backed opposition forces on the back foot, meaning that the effect of this policy appears to be two steps forward, one step back.

The President has also led the international community in combating Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, brought about by their annexation of the Crimea and alleged support for pro-Russian rebel forces in the east of the country. This has been achieved by negotiating, and then imposing sanctions, which have applied significant economic pressure on an aggressive Putin regime, by helping plunge the Russian economy into a deep recession.

On climate change, another of Obama’s strategic priorities, the US has agreed a comprehensive climate deal with China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and introduce environmental safeguards. The US and China together, as the world most powerful nations, are responsible for 45% of carbon dioxide emissions globally.

Finally, the administration is currently negotiating two hugely significant trade deals. The first, with the EU is known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the second, with Asia, is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If successfully negotiated and fully implemented, these agreements would represent the most ambitious trade deals in history. In combination the agreements cover 40-50% of global GDP and TTP, and would embed US influence in Asia-Pacific in the face of the burgeoning economic influence of China. Obama was given fast track authority to complete these trade deals due to Republican support with 144 Democrats opposing the measure. This was a rare case in which Democrats opposed their own President, and a rampantly anti-Obama opposition saw beyond personal antipathy to support the Administration.

It is clear that President Obama continues to oversee a remarkable transformation in US foreign policy making. With authority to negotiate foreign treaties, he has been able to lead not only the US but also the world towards a more liberal-minded and multilateral foreign policy. Obama is clearly far from a lame duck president in foreign affairs due to his policy doctrine and the power that the US Constitution provides a President.

Lame Duck at home perhaps, but most certainly a Revitalised President Abroad

In Barack Obama’s own words: “My presidency is entering the fourth quarter; interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter”.  So far this has certainly been the case. Overall, it is clear that, while being somewhat of a Lame Duck at home, Obama is defying this narrative abroad. To quote an anonymous White House official “we are on the offensive”, and it is clear from Obama’s recent successes and the momentum that goes with them, that this is more than the usual hyperbole. Whether these successes, which are primarily associated with foreign policy, can spillover positively on to the domestic stage remains unlikely.

Author Biography

Christopher Bowerin is currently an undergraduate studying Politics and Business Management at Oxford Brookes University. Christopher has a strong interest in European and American politics, Middle Eastern Affairs, international conflicts and post-war reconstruction.

Twitter: @KBowerin

*Cover image ‘Barack Obama Visit 038‘ by Penn State

It has become a norm to hear, that the Muslim ‘extreme’ is of the minority, a thesis perpetuated by the Muslim ‘normal’. But when those within the majority Muslim-bracket prefer the deeds exemplified by Daesh (Arabic name for Islamic State) propaganda, the argument proves inconsistent. The opposing premise then inscribed by mainstream media and politicians alike, is that a problem persists within Muslim communities who fail to openly condemn such extremism. To which one response is, that foreign policy further aggravates Muslim grievances; a point epitomised by Baroness Warsi’s resignation in 2014 when Britain failed to condemn Israel’s bombing of Gaza. This unfortunately reinvigorates the all too familiar binary of ‘us and them’.

As such, the ‘us and them’ narrative purportedly reimbursed by both state and non-state terrorism is not only an experience within the West however. There are those for instance who construct the threat of Islamism (politicised Islam) to sustain their own political agendas further isolating Muslims, for example: Burma, Egypt, Bangladesh and Israel. As a result, Muslims unable to legitimately claim recognition politically respond in various ways, most commonly by reviving the ‘us and them’ narrative when all else has failed. The victims in this case are those who not only sympathise but are also prepared by the failed promises of their faith and culture in secular societies, ready to transform this sympathy into something more; what we may term the post post-colonial experience.

This preparation for ‘something more’ has its roots within a smaller spectrum devoid of politics and religion, which deserves more attention. How and why the Muslim identity has become the apparatus of expression, through which individuals feel relieved of their former selves has much to do with social and cultural atavisms. With the case of those joining Daesh, it follows a process of decolonisation, the better-known post-colonial experience which Frantz Fanon described as “the veritable creation of new men”. Under this pretense, a certain level of dissatisfaction has sought to create once more a myth that strives beyond what was either achieved or lost during and after colonialism. The Islam that arose from thereon remained confined by its authorisers and so myths or prophecies, revived and exaggerated gave precedence to alternatives, freeing Muslims from their confinement. But this tradition is nothing new and the myth it often gives birth to is a reaction to that confinement, at times perpetuating from the ‘normal’ to the ‘extreme’. Nevertheless the Daesh myth has appealed to a new generation and it is one that is sired by the post post-colonial experience, made easier by the foundations set in mainstream Islam, that which is of the majority.

Religious/Philosophic Traditions 

We begin in twelfth-century Muslim-Spain, when Islamic Philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd) would warn of the dangers of leaving scripture to the theologian, who merely carried personalised popular beliefs but could not interrogate scripture through rational reasoning. Averroes surmised that theologians used their religious authority to exercise power over the Muslim masses. Hence, theologians as Ibrahim Najjar writes [citing Averroes] “defined true belief and heresy, thereby setting the ground for defining the true Muslim and exercising a tremendous influence on the political life of the Muslim community. They monopolized the access to the true faith”. On that basis, Averroes concluded that as human societies progressed, in order to avoid the dangers of scriptural hermeneutics, philosophical interrogation should supersede theological interpretation. With the current issues facing Muslim communities today, Averroes’ warning and council surely deserves more attention than has been warranted, as to why we will now discover.

Many of those who have often radicalised have done so with either little knowledge of that which they claim to know so much of, or by locating a resonance elsewhere which accommodates for both their sympathies and grievances. As noted by Mehdi Hasan, many, if not all search for religious reasons to justify their ‘extreme’ stance, as did British Muslims Mohammad Ahmed and Yusuf Sarwar when they were reading Koran for Dummies before their ascent into the ‘extreme’. In other instances, Nabeelah Jaffer’s attempt at clarifying misreadings of the Quran to Daesh jihadis was met with complete silence and Alaa Murabit found her fight for women’s rights in Libya was denounced as anti-scriptural. Whilst in Malaysia, Prime Minister Najib Razak has cited the mufti (religious legal expert) in declaring protests to be ‘haram’ (religiously impermissible).

This tradition of reading scripture based on a particular understanding and then applying it to suit one’s personal circumstance is nothing new of course, nor specific to Islam, yet with all the various forms of information available, a lack of independent thinking seems to reign supreme and unchallenged. It is a tradition that emanates from the role presupposed by the (male) theologian or the Imam (priest) who supposedly represents the ideal Muslim, who also prohibits the intellectual vigour to preach beyond scripture. This tradition is reproduced and embedded into the Muslim masses that cannot themselves go beyond scripture, fearing the reprisal in doing so. The struggle that ensues is that of decolonising one-self, so to dissolve any reprisals by crediting one-self as the ‘ideal’. This involves the creation of something ‘new’ by destroying the ‘old’, whilst adhering to the ‘common sense’ constituted by the theologian.       

In his Prison Notebooks Antonio Gramsci asserted, that a social class could achieve hegemony through consent if only by inserting a ‘common sense’ with associated classes. Applying Gramsci’s theory, in the West what we find is a Muslim trans-national association with one particular brand of Islam – the Salafist-Wahabi school, a doctrine exported by Saudi Arabia and one that Daesh also follow. According to Jocelyn Cesari “contemporary Salafism has become the most widespread” form of Islam. Cesari further states whilst Salafism originated with a more diverse and open approach, its revived look under Saudi Wahabism in 1932 sought to reject not only critical approaches to Islam but also secular concepts. A statement typified by the assassination of King Faisal in 1975 after he sought to modernise the kingdom.

The Salafist-Wahabi flame ignited in the 1970s when Saudi Arabia injected copious amounts of wealth into Wahabi-receptive organisations in Muslim-minority states. For instance, in 2002, a Saudi magazine Ain al-Yaqin had reported Saudi investment included 2,000 Islamic schools abroad. Additionally, King Fahd is reported to have spent $75 billion in the 70s/80s on Islamic institutions outside of the kingdom. Whilst Yahya Birt estimates Saudi has been spending $2-3bn a year since 1975 on Islamic-based causes, including the production of leaflets, CDs, websites and books.

Furthermore, according to Yousaf Butt approximately 2,500 members of Daesh are from Saudi and it is not surprising that they have sought to usurp the kingdom by claiming a caliphate in Iraq/Syria, because it is relevant for the myth they are trying to portray. This myth is aimed at fulfilling prophecies linked to the end of days, stories theologians embed into Muslims from a young age. Inevitably, the theologian’s word is used as a manifestation of the ‘ideal’ whilst also used to oppose the theologian’s ‘ideal’. The resulting entrapment of this paradox leaves open a vacuum, which gives prominence to the likes of Daesh, whom re-invent the religious fervour on the basis that they are truly creating something new, or so they believe.          

Muslims in Need of a Myth

In Ancient Greece, muthos (myth) was a way of expressing a truth through story-telling, writes Catalin Partenie. Plato suggested that while philosophers could rationally provide evidence for an argument, the masses at times required myths in order to be persuaded. The ‘noble lie’ as Plato termed it, contained some truths, and muthos enabled an understanding of these truths. In the nineteenth century however, Friedrich Nietzsche would highlight a problem that would come about in the absent of Plato’s muthos. It was for Nietzsche a cultural problem post-Enlightenment, as modernity was anti-mythical. The Enlightenment sought to do-away with myths through science but science could never replace the socio-cultural value of myth which had been reduced to fictitious fairy-tales. Myth according to Nietzsche “communicates an idea of the world” and “man…stripped of myth, stands famished among all his pasts and must dig frantically for roots, be it among the most remote antiquities”. This was Nietzsche’s concern, that if science could not replace myth, then what would or could? What we witness today, in the context of Muslim extremism, is that Nietzsche’s concern has unravelled a disastrous consequence.            

This consequence, though engulfed by the political atmosphere of post-colonialism and 9/11, is made more so disastrous by the incited warnings of Averroes in the twelfth century. Islam as Cesari argues could now be left for the student, engineer or doctor to preach, much thanks to the internet; the theologian merely taught but his authority elsewhere declined. This authority only declined as it failed to deliver on some promises and so it is common to find groups like Daesh promise an Islamic utopia as a part of the myth which Muslims have been deprived of in both East and West. In Europe, Akbar Ahmed best describes how and why this occurs:

“When they need to discuss their problems, the youth find it difficult, if not impossible, to speak to the local imam in the mosque… [They] have little idea or interest in European history or culture…often unable to speak the local European language fluently. So when young Muslims approach them to talk of the social problems facing European youth – alcohol, drugs, sex, bullying – they have no idea how to effectively advise them…in short, they have made themselves almost irrelevant to the Muslim community…the parents as well, in their desire to establish themselves economically in European society, have become disconnected from the next generation as is evident from their shock and horror when their sons and daughters are charged in terrorist cases”

Despite the outright demeaning role allocated for Muslim/non-Muslim women and the heinous punishments carried out on both Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women continue to join Daesh. In addition to Akbar Ahmed’s explanation for this, Deeyah Khan proposes escapism as a reason – escaping the fundamental difficulties of being Muslim in a secular society, especially for women. Daniel Hannan on the other hand suggests that those joining Daesh “are convinced that they can see things more keenly than others, and that this clarity of vision elevates and ennobles their aggression”. Whilst Suraj Lakhani’s research suggests a certain level of romanticism is involved, whereby the excitement of travelling and fighting for a cause presents an imagined utopia. Similarly, Nabeelah Jaffer’s recorded communications with young Daesh jihadis brings to the fore the many different explanations from escapism and narcissism to romanticism. But what they all have in common is the complex asserted by Nietzsche, they are all trying to fill the vacuous nature of their post post-colonial experience and Daesh merely offer an opportunity to do so. As succinctly summed up by Deeyah Khan “[Daesh] Islamic State positions itself as a place of refuge, a shining mirage in which Muslim fantasies can come to a glorious fruition, where domination and power can be reclaimed”.

The Muslim Efficacy   

Whilst Muslims continue to follow and remain loyal to the Salafist-Wahabi teachings, Averroes’ warning becomes ever more apparent that philosophical interrogation is a necessity. The failure to go beyond the confinement established by the theologian has left the new generation of Muslims dissatisfied and thus seeking an alternative, unfortunately with the added political disillusionments extremism has become a popular choice. Whether or not Muslims of the ‘normal’ condemn extremism, extremism will continue to flourish under the guise of the theologian, desperately seeking a better myth. Furthermore, if we are to take Nietzsche seriously, then we may find that under the ‘common sense’ of the theologian, these myths will continue to be created even after the death of Daesh. They will become more extreme and absurd as we continue to search for a myth that accommodates for the post post-colonial experience.

Author Biography

Rubel Mozlu has recently obtained an MSc from the University of Bristol in International Relations with the intention of pursuing a PhD on the topic of philosophy, religion and terrorism. His MSc main thesis focused on ‘Liberal Democracy and Culture’ with a particular focus on Egypt’s revolutions and Bangladesh’s election boycott. His current interests are in the MENA region, Islamic history, Western and Eastern Philosophy and Culture.

—

Cover image ‘État Islamique – Daesh P1050161‘ by Thierry Ehrmann

In 2014, supporters of the Islamic State (ISIS) used at least 46,000 accounts from the popular social media platform Twitter (Nicholas & Paletta, 2015). ISIS is using Twitter in order to spread the word of their organization and recruit fighters to join their foreign army. The active presence of ISIS on Twitter has generated numerous ethical questions on how to regulate. In response to the presence of the Islamic State on Twitter, US public officials and Twitter should adopt a regulatory framework that combines self-regulation with command and control, because such an outcome would maintain that government does not become too focused on preemptive security and therefore, infringe on individual rights.

Self-regulation mandates the compliance of individual firms in order to reach a certain outcome. It is attractive because it is not compulsory and therefore, does not typically require enforcement mechanisms. Instead, firms obtain such an outcome through information, education, technology sharing, commitment from their participants, and peer group pressure. Nevertheless, pure self-regulation has its weaknesses: often firms who want to self-regulate are met with the reality that they do not have the capabilities to do so on their own (Sinclair, 1997). This imperfection in self-regulation is evident in the case of the ISIS presence on Twitter. For example, Islamic State militants have used Twitter to recruit new members by following individuals they believe would join ISIS. The militants then send these people private direct messages over Twitter to redirect the conversation to another platform. The platforms ISIS typically will use then consists of encrypted social media applications. In response, Twitter has tried multiple times to identify and suspend Islamic State militants from using their network as a platform. However, every time Twitter has blocked a person, they quickly sign up for a new Twitter account under a different name (Mazzetti & Gordon, 2015). In other words, ISIS recruitment mechanisms are too fast for Twitter to keep up with.

The alternative to self-regulation is command and control regulation. Command and control regulation is a government intervention by which government commands a firm or group to meet specific standards and controls the firm through the threat of negative sanctions. Command and control regulation is conceptualized by the theory of deterrence, by which compliance is the severity of the penalty and the probability of an offender to be punished. Command and control regulation assumes that the relevant actors are rational and will therefore comply. In this case, Twitter has already agreed to comply, even in the absence of a policy mandating them to do so. Nevertheless, command and control regulation is an ineffective means to achieve an outcome, because national public agencies and officials responsible with implementing command and control regulation often have limited resources which prevent them from adequately detecting offenders (Tietenberg, 1992). In the case of the Islamic State’s Twitter presence, the biggest hurdle for US intelligence services is the fact that ISIS is a global threat by which the digital world knows no borders. It is possible to block Twitter all together, the national governments of China, Iran, and North Korea have already done so (The Economist, 2015).

However, US public officials are arguing for the more difficult but less radical solution of blocking some individual IP addresses from Twitter. The National Security Agency (NSA) or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)  may find a way to jam or block the Islamic State from using Twitter in Iraq, Syria, or parts of Libya. However, it is extremely difficult to impossible to block ISIS’s access to Twitter in more technologically advanced countries such as the US, France, or the United Kingdom without blocking Twitter all together (Golan, 2015). The other issue at stake is that European countries have their own national agencies and the right to decide how to handle the Islamic State’s Twitter usage. Consequently, US intelligence agencies are rather limited in the extent to which they can actually block the Islamic State from Twitter.

The question of to regulate or not to regulate comes back to the ability of firms or public agencies to achieve their outcome. Twitter is unable to keep Islamic State militants off of Twitter and US agencies and public officials are unable to block ISIS militants from using IP addresses from around the world. Assuming the desired outcome is to demolish the threat posed by the Islamic State, the best policy outcome would consist of a combination of self-regulation and command and control, asit would enable firms to willingly commit to work with national governments, all while limiting the dangers of a too powerful state.

Before creating a regulatory framework that combines self-regulation with command and control, there are a couple ethical issues that need to be considered. First, it must be questioned if Twitter’s blocking of Islamic State militants’ accounts is a violation of the freedom of speech. Under US constitutional law, speech that presents a clear and present danger is punishable and therefore, not included in freedom of speech. However, the question of what is a clear and present danger is highly debatable. For example, there is a difference between using Twitter to tweet an idea of the Islamic State or sympathizing with them, and using Twitter to collect foreign fighters to join ISIS in order to commit international crimes. Arguably, the first does not present a clear and present danger but the ladder does. Consequently, potential policy options should protect freedom of speech while still providing national security. Another ethical question returns to the highly polarized  privacy versus security debate: US Federal Investigators have used Twitter to extract GPS coordinates.

Such data is extremely useful to investigators because it can provide them with the exact location of Islamic State territories, militants, and potential fighters (Berger & Morgan, 2015). Theoretically, investigators can then use this data to prevent terrorist attacks. The ethical issue at hand is that in response to the Islamic State, the US has pushed the pendulum further away from the right to privacy (Solove, 2011). It should be questioned if it is ethical to track the private location of potential fighters before they have even joined the Islamic State. All the same, if internet users know that using the internet decreases their privacy, then theoretically, tracking them is not a complete violation of their privacy. In this case, the most ethical solution would provide that Twitter users are fully aware of who can obtain, process, analyze, and store their data (Nissenbaum, 2004).

Taking all of these ethical issues into consideration, the best option for Twitter would be  to utilize its own right to freedom of speech by launching a Twitter page against the Islamic State. This page could make frequent tweets asking its users to refrain from using Twitter to incite violence. In addition, they could ask users to report suspicious activities. Twitter could even warn users that data implying suspicious activity will be extracted, investigated, and stored by the US government. By doing so, the firm would display to its users that it respects its users right to privacy by informing them of their rights, but that they also care about its users public safety. This outcome could be achieved by US officials mandating that Twitter hand over suspicious activity that they believe may be linked to the Islamic State. It is assumed that Twitter would comply with this mandate. Nevertheless, the US needs to exercise caution in the data it chooses to investigate and store: If the data is coming from an IP address outside the US, than the US should hand over that intelligence to the national government in which it belongs. That is, unless the US has permission to process, analyze, and store the foreign data in question. As it stands, the US already has the technological capabilities to do so. The State Department already agreed to expand its Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications.

The center, established in 2011, hires experts fluent in Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi and Somali in order to find ISIS propaganda and counter it with competing ideas (Mazzetti, & Gordon, 2015). All the same, US public officials need to consider that the US does not always have the best reputation with foreign policy. It could be more effective if the alternative ideology to the Islamic State came from the tweets of celebrities and popular companies because they could reach a broader spectrum of people and are further detached from US foreign policy. Therefore, the US could encourage Twitter to launch a campaign informing its users of their rights. US public officials could help Twitter in this process by agreeing to subsidize the campaign as well as advertizing it on the Twitter accounts of US public officials and public offices. This is an innovative option because it generates an outcome through both self-regulation and command and control regulatory frameworks.

The 2016 Presidential election presents the perfect time to outline what direction US foreign policy will take. Historically, the question has been to regulate or not to regulate. Today, the problems have expanded but so have the ideas. The US can loosen its tight grip and work with companies, such as Twitter, in order to generate collaborative outcomes.

About the Author

Bonnie Bethea is currently a Master in Public Policy (MPP) Candidate at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy at the University of Erfurt. Bethea’s research,writing, and academic interests include Eastern European politics, regulatory affairs, and Transatlantism.

Bibliography

A peaceful explosion. (2015, May 27). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/05/religion-twitter-and-freedom
Berger, J. & Morgan, J. (2015). The ISIS Twitter Census finding and describing the population of ISIS supporters on Twitter. The Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World. The Brookings Institute. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/03/isis-twitter-census-berger-morgan
Golan, G. (2015). Can the U.S. Counter ISIS on Social Media?  The Huffington Post Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/guy-golan/can-the-us-counter-isis-o_b_7912020.html
Mazzetti, M., & Gordon, M. (2015, June 12). ISIS Is Winning the Social Media War, U.S. Concludes. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/isis-is-winning-message-war-us-concludes.html?_r=0
Nicholas, P., & Paletta, D. (2015). Hillary Clinton Wants Islamic State Off Twitter. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/28/hillary-clinton-wants-islamic-state-off-twitter/
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Review Association. Print.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Sinclair, D. (1997). Self Regulation Versus Command and Control? Beyond False Dichotomies. Law & Policy, Vol. 19. No. 4. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Solove, D. (2011). Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security. Yale University Press. Print.
Tietenberg, T.H. (ed.) (1992). Innovation in Environmental Policy: Economic and Legal Aspects of Recent Developments in Environmental Enforcement and Liability. Aldershot, Hants.: E. Edgar.

Picture credit: Karl Ludwig Poggemann under a Attribution 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license (CC-BY 2.0)

In the aftermath of Colonel Gadaffi’s regime and personal demise in 2011, Libya has slipped back into Civil War as the country’s hoped for transition from dictatorship to democracy has stalled, and the country has fragmented.

Today, Libya is facing political, economic and social turmoil with the two rival governments of the Toburk Government in the East and the New General Congress in Tripoli fighting for power and resources, each backed by several militias.

Since the Fall of Gaddafi, Libya has become a power vacuum- Photo Credit via The Daily Telegraph

As a result of these tensions between Nationalists, Islamists and militias, ISIL has been able to establish a presence; migrants have crossed the Mediterranean and died in the process; criminal gangs have flourished, and the economy is in meltdown. As the conflict unfolds, so does the true complexity of the situation as the major political challenges move into yet sharper focus.  Time is running out, and the need for a peace agreement is pressing, but do the politicians and the powerful militias have an appetite for peace or for the continued turmoil of an extended civil war?

 How did Libya Descend into Chaos? 

In the Post-Gaddafi era, Libya has failed to cement a strong and stable Government despite the 2012 elections which partially achieved a peaceful transition of power to a democratically elected government. However, the ever-increasing power of militia groups and the government’s failure to control and disarm revolutionary brigades, has meant that the elected Libyan authorities never achieved full control over the country.

In early 2014, protests began in response to the then elected General National Congress (Libya’s legislative authority) refusal to disband despite the expiration of its electoral mandate. As a result, in May 2014 General Haftar, who later became the military leader of Operation Dignity, tried to dissolve the General National Congress (GNC) by force through conducting military operations in Benghazi.  The GNC responded by calling national elections in June 2014.

In the resulting election for the Council of Deputies Islamic representation suffered a landslide defeat, however the 18% (630,000) turnout, down from 60% in 2012, provided the Islamic movement with a rationale for rejecting the outcome.  In the uncertainty prevailing at the time, the self-proclaimed new GNC used militia groups such as Misratan and Berber to take control of Tripoli by force, obliging the internationally recognised Council of Deputies to retreat to Toburk in the East. At one point the Council had to meet on a car ferry, such was the confusion caused by the crisis.

From then on, Libya has had two separate administrations vying for power – a clear indication of a divided and troubled nation.

The Role of the UN Peace Negotiations

The United Nations (UN), in the aftermath of the original 2011 civil war, launched a support mission in Libya (UNSMIL), which was political in nature, seeking to help the National Transition Council rebuild state institutions and the rule of law, control unsecured arms and support Libya’s transition to democracy. With Libya’s path to democracy collapsing and a new civil war breaking out, UNSMIL has led a political dialogue to find a solution to the crisis.

The UN envoy to Libya, Bernardino Leon, has been successful in initiating talks between the two rival governments and some of the militia groups to try to reach a political settlement, but both Governments have rejected various UN proposals for reconciliation and unification.

In January 2015 there were promising signs with a partial ceasefire agreed after UN-sponsored talks. In May, after months of talks Leon issued a promising statement that 80% of UN proposals had been agreed and that a Unity Government could be established in weeks.

The UN’s proposal to date, announced in June, was to bring the two rival governments together to form a one-year National Unity Government where a Council of Ministers would be headed by a Prime Minister, which would reinstall the Toburk parliament in Tripoli, in conjunction with a Libyan Dawn-Affiliate consultative body. This represents an attempt to bring the factions together, control the Militia groups and establish a new constitution.

Other measures such as the UN Arms Embargo have remained in place since the 2011 Civil War despite actors in Libya and Egypt urging an end to the embargo so the Libyan Army could use heavy weaponry and increase its strength in the east.

Where does the Toburk Government stand?

The Toburk Government, also known as the Council of Deputies or House of Representatives, is the internationally recognized government of Libya. It is supported by a military alliance known as Dignity, led by General Hafter, a former servant and a later opponent of Gaddafi. The Council has received strong support from Egypt and the UAE through airstrikes and the confidence of the US.

However, international support is only a part of the story. Domestically, the Libyan Supreme Court based in Tripoli declared last November that the 2014 election result was unconstitutional and that the House of Representative should be dissolved. This ruling was decisively rejected by the Toburk Government who continue to make a stand with superior military assets such as air power and artillery at its disposal. Dignity forces are currently fighting to take full control of Benghazi and other eastern cities to establish a stronghold in the East. General Hafter has called those who serve with Libyan Dawn ‘extremists and terrorists’, making it clear that Dignity is out to eliminate political Islam wherever it is found.

When it comes to the prospects of a negotiated settlement, the Council rejected the UN’s June proposals on a potential power-sharing agreement between the two rival governments. The UN proposal of a one-year government would have created a 120 member state council, including 90 members from the General National Congress.

The Council of Deputies spokesman stated categorically that they would not accept any deal that compelled it to share power with the second legislative body. The Council continues to oppose sharing or increasing the power of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in the Dawn Coalition. However there is the potential for compromise with the Toburk Government signing peace agreements with some local factions to live, work and govern together.

Where does the New General National Congress stand?

The rival government is the New General National Congress (GNC), led by Nouri Abushamain as its President. The Muslim Brotherhood, who is supported by its own militia alliance known as Libya Dawn, masterminds the GNC and The Dawn coalition took over Tripoli and its international airport in August. Allegedly the GNC is supported through cash and weapons by states such as Turkey, Qatar and Sudan. The GNC claims that Dignity’s Army Chief Hafter is a Gaddafi Loyalist, and they have issued a warrant for his arrest.

In April 2015, the GNC, along with the Council, rejected the UN’s earlier draft proposals which called for a two-year transitional period to respect the results of a parliamentary election, the expansion of the mandate of the Council and the creation of a new Libyan army and police force. Representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood described the proposal as ‘shocking and disappointing’ as the proposal did not mention the GNC and stated that the Council was the only legislative authority in the country. However encouraging signs have recently emerged as it has been reported that the GNC support the UN’s latest June 2015 proposal for a one-year unity Government that the GNC believe is necessary to combat terrorism and illegal immigration and ensure stability.

 ISIL Affiliates Step In and Establish Safe Havens

ISIL has seized the opportunities presented by Libya’s Civil War to establish a footprint in Libya, overrunning the city of Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown, while also capturing many neighborhoods within the cities of Derna and Benghazi. These cities are strategically significant as it is widely believed that ISIL is using its strongholds to smuggle fighters across the Mediterranean to expand and execute terror operations in Europe and Africa, causing major international concern. In February ISIL beheaded 20 Egyptian Christians, and Egypt responded with airstrikes on ISIL positions.

It is estimated the ISIL has around 3,000 fighters at their disposal in Libya. In addition, they have gained the support of the Ansia-Al Sharia Islamist terror group who are fighting against the Dignity coalition. It is this group who is accused of conducting the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi back in 2012, resulting in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Despite the divisions between the rival governments, it is increasingly clear that ISIL and its affiliates represent the greatest impediment to peace, security and democracy in Libya.

Future Prospects – Hope is not a strategy!

Libya faces two options: a peace settlement requiring compromises and the political will from both sides to break the political and military deadlock, or full-scale civil war for the foreseeable future.

The devastation from civil war is already clear. According to a report from the UN Secretary General, since the conflict began the number of people displaced is estimated at around 400,000, and over 3,000 Libyans have died. This could be just the start of the humanitarian cost the country could face if it continues on its path towards becoming a failed state.

The UN can only go so far in bringing the two Libyan governments together. Support and pressure from major international partners such as the US, UK and France, and in particular other countries in the region, to secure a diplomatic solution is essential. Their influence and powers of persuasion is required to bring the two sides together and reunite the nation. This could put the country back on the road to democracy and help a new government combat the greatest threat to Libya’s stability and prosperity, ISIL.

Author Biography

Christopher Bowerin is currently an undergraduate studying Politics and Business Management at Oxford Brookes University. Christopher has a strong interest in European and American politics, Middle Eastern Affairs, international conflicts and post-war reconstruction.

Twitter: @KBowerin

*Cover image ‘Libya crisis 2012‘ by European Commission DG ECHO

Naomi Klein’s recent book ‘This Changes Everything’ presents the argument that our global systems will change whether we act on climate change or not and we should therefore act now to avoid the grave environmental impacts we could face.

However, international policy and large multinational companies are not acting; at least certainly not fast enough to avoid dangerous climate change, deemed by the UNFCCC as a rise in global average temperatures of 2 degrees C. The picture that Klein presents in her book is not entirely bleak as she goes on to suggest that many of the grassroots environmental movements are presenting real opposition to extractive industries and other entities responsible for climate change. This article highlights a few of these grassroots movements in the fight against climate change and suggests why they play an important role in protecting the environment.

In the UK, and elsewhere, the fracking of natural gas and oil has become a contentious issue as governments push for the technology, suggesting that it helps improve energy security by becoming less reliant on importing fuels from overseas. The fracking process involves fracturing rock or shale by pumping high pressure water under the earth’s surface in order to extract gas. There have been concerns about the safety of the process, with reports of earthquakes near to fracking sites, and the environmental impacts, particularly the large volumes of water involved in the process which have to be transported to the drilling site.

In the UK, the organisation ‘Frack Off’ have been protesting the use of fracking in a number of high profile locations. In Balcombe, a village in West Sussex, the company Cuadrilla were granted permission to frack for petroleum in 2013. This led to widespread public opposition, with 85% of local residents against fracking, and protests arose at the proposed fracking site, including a “No Dash for Gas” camp in August 2013. In an additional response to the proposed fossil fuel extraction in the area, the local people in Balcombe have set up ‘REPOWER Balcombe’ to invest in renewable, community energy generation and is installing solar panels on homes in the village. More recently, Cuadrilla’s plans to begin fracking for natural gas in Lancashire were rejected by the local council after widespread public opposition and a lengthy campaign by Frack Free Lancashire.

The Transition Network is another example of a grassroots movement working to increase sustainable lifestyles and reduce environmental impact. Beginning in 2006 in just two locations (Totnes, Devon, UK and Kinsale, Ireland), the network of Transition Towns has grown to over 1,107 initiatives worldwide. The aim of the Transition Network is to allow communities to become more resilient and reduce their CO2 emissions, through initiatives such as community energy projects or food growing schemes.

The examples of Transition Towns and Frack Free are just two grassroots movements, and happen to be large scale and high profile, particularly having a presence in the media in recent years. However, there are many, many more grassroots movements at a local level, from community wind turbines and energy cooperatives, to local projects reducing food waste or community allotments, which are reducing environmental impact.

So, why are these grassroots movements important?

The challenge of reducing emissions and combating climate change is immense, so every little helps. But grassroots movements are important in another way. Evidence has shown that large corporations have strong links into government departments developing policy for energy and climate change. In order to combat this, grassroots movements have an important role to play in balancing the arguments to government, fighting for local communities and protecting the environment. Just last week, the UK government made it easier to get permission for fracking operations, demonstrating that the need for grassroots movements to protect the environment is becoming ever more critical.

Author Biography

Clare Linton is a researcher at the University of Leeds. Her research examines pathways to a sustainable transport future, exploring both technological and behavioural approaches to the challenge. She has worked with the Institute for Public Policy Research and holds an MSc in Climate Change and Policy from the University of Sussex. Follow on Twitter: @ClareLLinton and LinkedIn

*Cover image ‘Save the world!!‘ by pavel ahmed