Author: kasmir

Migration from Kosovo has been a part of several difficult steps of development that the country has undergone. It has been patterned gradually from being politically driven to economically driven but is still affected by internal political turbulences. From the recent studies from UNDP, one out of every four Kosovars currently lives abroad.

The last massive migration from Kosovo was in 1999 when people were fleeing war in order to survive. Many of the Kosovo Albanians (inhabitants of the erstwhile Yugoslavian province of Kosovo who mainly speak Albanian) were politically persecuted long before the war, hence they had to leave the country in advance. Similarly, there were other cases of those who had family ties abroad and moved.

The war migrants were refugees and were treated well in the destination countries. They were helped by different international organisations to escape the country. Different forms of support, including financial resources, were offered to them in order to feel safe and secure. Whereas, the politically persecuted ones (those that were political and human rights activists) were usually men and migrating on their own seeking asylum in another country.

Before 1999, Kosovo was considered by ex-Yugoslavia (that by 1991 consisted of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (including regions of Kosovo and Vojvodina) and Slovenia) an ‘Autonomous Province’ of the Serbian Republic within the Yugoslav state, “but its constitutional status was still to be determined by the Serbian parliament.” The Kosovo Albanians were treated as a minority and had no right to their own republic. Even though they were given the rights to some schools and cultural institutions, there was a lot of control imposed over them and their institutions and there were a lot of harassments by the Serb security police. They felt threatened, underrepresented and economically disadvantaged by the Serbs. As a result, many left the country and went to countries such as Turkey. This dissatisfaction was also manifested with protests and a lot of tension between the two groups. Serbs took over their possession many of the Kosovo’s institutions such as radio and TV. They closed newspapers, libraries, theatres, museums, etc. They also sacked predominantly ethnic Albanian teachers from schools. The tension reached the limit and erupted into a war conflict in 1998.

During the war in 1999 many Kosovo Albanians were killed and raped and the country was destroyed and burnt. The war ended by the intervention of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) air strikes against Serbian forces. When the situation settled, many of the Kosovo Albanian emigrants were returning home. They had high hopes of the security in Kosovo and believed that the situation will improve eventually. Nevertheless, when they returned, they faced problems such as unemployment as the country was in transitional development. As any other post war country, Kosovo faced a lot of challenges in building its own institutions and building the houses that were destroyed during the war from scratch. During these developments, just after the war Kosovo was administered by United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and later by European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) that was trying to help in general transition processes, but focusing their support on legislation and effective implementation of laws.

Eight years after the war, Kosovo was considered ready to take its own powers and administer itself without the help of the international community, or at least limited help. The international security troops were brought back from Kosovo as security was believed to be sufficiently good. In 2008, the state of Kosovo was born and proclaimed an independent and sovereign state, ready to take its own initiatives, border control and become recognised by everybody. The migration after the war until recently was mostly family reunification, for the purposes of education and temporary work abroad, and because of poverty, corruption and high unemployment. Many grants and funds were awarded by different international organisations and Kosovo’s government to Kosovar students to study abroad in order to increase capacities and return to contribute in Kosovo in different areas. Since the independence proclamation, Kosovo was gradually consolidating its statehood, but with political, social and economic difficulties. By 2015 it has been recognised by US and major European Union countries except Greece, Spain, Romania, Cyprus, and Slovakia. But, this has not been enough to make it part of the major European treaties and part of EU. The state building components such as health, education, economy, politics, rule of law, stability, security, standard of living have not developed to that level as to make it part of EU. The extreme poverty, deadlock of political and legal system and corruption has brought darkness into Kosovo’s population and the normal function of the state.

A recent and sudden wave of migration from Kosovo has likely been caused by this chaotic situation. Kosovars are the second largest group after Syrians to have migrated lately. It is estimated that 100,000 Kosovars left the country from August, 2014 to February, 2015. Because of the agreement between governments of Kosovo and Serbia in 2013 to “remove restrictions and ease the traveling rules” many Kosovars migrated through Serbia to Hungary and from Hungary mostly to Germany. Basically they were heading to Schengen countries. As their migration into the Schengen area was illegal, they had to use illegal routes to enter and hence, they used criminal groups to help them. They spent hundreds and thousands of euros to migrate, even though many of them were stopped during their journey and those who reached the countries of destination were deported later.

There are many factors conspiring of why this sudden migration happened, the situation has raised many debates not only nationally, but also internationally. According to different international media such as Reuters, Voice of America, Aljazeera, DW, Kosovo’s exodus happened as a result of poverty, unemployment and political turbulence and this remains the most usual debate among the population and analysts. However, many others say that this has been inflicted from the agreement between Kosovo and Serbia to free movement between the two countries. Kosovars saw this as an opportunity to find easier channels to migrate to EU countries. And so they did. This desire to migrate has accumulated for many years due to the high rate of unemployment reaching 35.1% unemployed of active people. Political changes and corruption seem to have demotivated people thus, they headed to other countries for better life opportunities.

Other theories are that many people wanted to migrate, mostly to Germany because they heard that Germany is looking for foreign workers and accepting refugees. Therefore, Kosovars saw this as a good opportunity to go and find work.

Kosovo has a very young population: There are many young Kosovars who finish their undergraduate and postgraduate degrees and remain without a job. Out of this, economic policy questions may raise such as is there more demand and less supply in the labour market or there is a mismatch of skills of the potential labour with the jobs offered? Should there be a revision of the academic curriculum and the fields offered to study in Kosovo, or are the choices imposed indirectly to Kosovars of what to study? These remain some questions that would bring some interesting facts.

The latest occurrences in migration explained above show that there have been ongoing push and pull factors that have influenced migration from Kosovo. The push factors may have been based on the idea of maximising the utilities considering the everyday difficult life experiences and limited opportunities, and the pull factors such as better life opportunities offered by other countries. These factors would explain the complexity of the influences of migration from Kosovo best, without excluding the influence of the global trends and developments. Networking with relatives who live abroad continues to have a huge impact in incentivising migration from Kosovo. The culture of migration in Kosovo has remained affluent as the remittances continue to have a huge impact in helping Kosovo’s economy.

The economic factors influencing migration from Kosovo are interrelated with the political developments in Kosovo: The political sphere in Kosovo is facing a lot of tension, there is a lot of pressure and disagreement between the governing coalition and opposition, i.e. when making any deal or cooperation with Serbia. These disagreements evolved into verbal and physical violence among the members of these political entities and are blocking the parliamentary procedures and with this the normal developments. Many Kosovars argue in media that they feel victimised from the political corruption; they say that only those who have ties with the specific powerful political party have a job and money. Another part of the society is in poverty and remains bystander of what is happening. Additionally, in this situation, Kosovo is undergoing a political crisis in addition to that of economic one and hence, there is a lot of imbalance and instability in the functions of the state and many seem terrified.

Considering the situation explained above, it seems that Kosovo could benefit from cooperation, first, between the political elite, and the cooperation of the political elite with the population. Community engagement would bring light to the real needs and the ways to fulfil them.

The increase on security measures and implementation of rule of law could decrease the crime rates and corruption. Better Investment in monitoring and inspection could increase efficacy in public institutions and help to lessen corruption.

It seems as well likely that an effective and efficient use of resources could boost the economic development. This could include the increase of investments and incentives to open new businesses and as a result could help to open new employment places.

Better investment in education could help in determining the labour market and fulfilling the labour gaps. The policies are there, but effective implementation is very important in making all these components work.

Finally, further developments are left to be seen and the migration situation as well. Let’s hope that a strong cooperation between all the entities in Kosovo would help in revitalising the state and the dream of an effective implementation of the rule of laws remains.

About the Author

Vlora Berbatovci is a PhD candidate at London Metropolitan University researching on the influence of employment skills support and inequalities at work in migration. She has previously worked as a researcher for The Children’s Society, London Borough of Redbridge, World Bank and United Nations Development Programme.

Cover image ‘Pristina‘ by Marco Fieber

The current refugee crisis hitting Europe has been the biggest wave of mass immigration since the Second World War. The International Organization for Migration (IOM), estimates that between January and November 2015, more than 750,000 migrants were detected at EU borders, compared with the 280,000 in 2014. Figures like these exemplify the stark rise in comparison to last year’s situation.

European countries have responded in varying ways to this crisis. The United Kingdom has decided to opt out of the quota system altogether, and has instead offered to take in 20,000 migrants over the next parliament directly from migrant camps in countries such as Lebanon and Jordan. Many regard this figure to be insufficient, especially since Germany had pledged to take in refugees with open arms, expecting between 1.5 million refugees this year. Germany remains the most generous country in Europe when it comes to welcoming refugees. In contrast to Germany’s generosity, Hungary has built barbed wire fences along its borders, trying to stop the flow of migration altogether; Slovenia, a small country of around 2 million people, has also started to erect a razor wire fence along parts of its border with Croatia to curb the flow of refugees.

The responses and action plans of various European countries have been extremely diverse. The three countries with the highest GDPs in Europe are reacting in different ways. Whilst Germany has been proactive in making efforts to take in a larger proportion of refugees, and also France to an extent, the UK has been fairly passive in this area and has preferred to give financial aid directly to refugee camps instead. In September, Prime Minister David Cameron announced an extra £115 million in response to the migration crisis. Nevertheless, the UK has not been as proactive and welcoming as some of its European neighbours.

Outside of Europe, there are many other wealthy countries who have been criticized for not taking in more refugees and not doing more to help. The Gulf States in particular have been heavily criticized. Not one single Syrian refugee has been taken in by countries such as Bahrain, UAE, or Kuwait, neighbouring countries to war-torn Syria. They too, have taken an argument similar to that of the UK, by insisting that their donation of millions of dollars towards the crisis should be taken into account. Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon however, who are much poorer and economically unstable, have taken in millions of refugees. According to Amnesty international, as of September more than 4 million refugees from Syria (95% of total) are just in five countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

Other wealthy countries who have been sparing with their intake include South Korea, Russia, Singapore, and Japan. In 2014, Japan accepted 11 refugees out of 5000 applications. One might ask themselves why the third largest economy in the world is doing next to nothing when it comes to taking in refugees, whilst poorer countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in so many. There are many reasons for why Japan has not taken in refugees. One being that the openness and welcoming attitude that many European citizens have shown towards refugees is not as abundant in Japan. There has not been a large citizen’s movement to take in refugees, and neither has there been real inquisition to the Japanese government to take in more refugees.

This is partly to do with geography. The crisis affecting Europe is very far away from Japan, and the refugee crisis is not something which will directly affect the lives of average Japanese people. The refugee crisis has not been making the front page daily of main Japanese news outlets as it has been in the European media. In contrast, the Greek debt crisis earlier this year had a heavier presence on the front page of Japanese newspapers. This is because the Greek debt crisis was more likely to have a direct effect on the average Japanese person compared to the current refugee crisis.

Another reason for their low intake is just the fact that Japan does not have a refugee taking ‘culture.’ Japan first started taking refugees in the late 1970s, when the country became part of the G7. Japan was pressured by the international community to take in refugees, and subsequently began to take in Vietnamese refugees who were fleeing from war. Yet from that point on, the number of refugees Japan took in continued to be drastically low. Between 1982 and 2008, Japan accepted only 508 refugees. It was as if Japan felt like it had done its job to please the international community, and was not going to go further than that. Japan is a largely homogenous country, unused to ‘cultural melting pots’ or ‘multiculturalism’ that is so very vibrant in many Western cities such as London, Paris and New York. 

Japan is also a signatory of the UN’s 1951 Refugees Convention, which is intended to guarantee protection for anyone who has fled their homeland because of a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” However, the government does not class escaping war as a legitimate reason for claiming asylum. For Japan, taking in refugees is not something that they consider to be a necessary thing to do as a rich and developed nation. Shinzo Abe, the Prime minister of Japan said at the UN general assembly in September, “As an issue of demography, I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees, we need to have more activities by women, by elderly people and we must raise (the) birthrate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants.”

While Japan donated $181.6m to the UNHCR, second only to the United States, there has been barely any movement with regards to taking in refugees proactively. Countries in Western Europe and also the United States have a long history of refugees. Many successful people were refugees. To name just a few, Albert Einstein, Arnold Schoenberg and Sigmund Freud were all people who fled the Nazi occupation. Economic aid is always a very good thing, and it is reassuring that Japan have continued to give a large amount of aid. (Although nothing compared to the 13 billion dollars they spent on the Iraq war). It is hard to imagine a mass influx of refugees would come all the way to Japan to seek shelter, but it would be a good thing for Japan, as the third largest economy in the world, to make the gesture of taking in even a couple of thousand refugees.

Although this is not something which is part of their culture, Japan as a wealthy and affluent country with a dwindling population definitely has the capability to take in more refugees. I think that taking in more refugees would not only be a moral thing to do, but also a symbolic gesture, that would portray Japan not only as a generous financial donor, but also as a hospitable nation which opens its arms to the plight of citizens all around the world.

About the Author

Lucy Tasker was born and raised in Japan, and holds a degree in Japanese and Korean from Soas, University of London. Having grown up in Tokyo until her early teens, she has a solid grounding and understanding of Japanese culture and society. She currently works for a Japanese newspaper in London. Her interests include Japanese foreign policy, EU-Japan relations, Japan-Korea relations and jazz. When she is not busy working, she spends her time playing the clarinet.

Cover image ‘IOM and Japan continue to help Syrian refugees‘ by International Organization for Migration

More than 125 million women and girls worldwide are thought to be currently living with the effects of female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM, sometimes also referred to as female circumcision or female genital cutting, is a procedure carried out on young girls, sometimes only infants, which intentionally changes or causes injury to the female genital organs for non-medical purposes.

The procedure is seen as a rite of passage in many countries, and is most prevalent in the western, eastern and north-eastern parts of Africa, as well as in some countries in the Middle East and Asia. Practitioners are often motivated by the wish to preserve a girl’s purity and decrease her libido, and a girl who has not undergone the operation can be considered sexually out of control and unmarriageable (Eltahawy, 2015). As a woman, simply reading through the descriptions of the various types of FGM is enough to make me squirm in pain.  The process can involve either complete or partial removal of the clitoris and narrowing the vaginal opening by sewing it up or creating a covering seal, and is usually performed without the use of anaesthetics and in unclean conditions.

FGM has zero benefits in terms of health for girls and women, but instead carries with it a plethora of risks. These include severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later the formation of cysts, infections and infertility. The risk of complications during childbirth and newborn deaths are increased, while pleasure derived from sex is also decreased. The risks are reduced when the procedure is performed in a medical setting, a trend towards which is rising – over 18% of FGM is now performed by health care providers. However, this represents a problematic development as it serves to legitimise such a harmful practice (Eltahawy, 2015).

It is important to clarify that FGM is not linked to any one particular religion. In Egypt, for example, it is practiced by both Muslims and Christians, where many believe it to be a religious duty, despite the fact that is it mentioned neither in the Qur’an nor the Bible (Eltahawy, 2015); in fact, the Islamic Shari’a Council, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim College have all denounced the practice within the Muslim community. Rather, female genital mutilation can be attributed to a combination of cultural, religious and social factors.

So what is being done to prevent it from happening here in the UK? It has been prohibited since 1985, and in 2003 it was made illegal also to aid or participate in arranging for FGM to take place on a person inside or outside Britain. However, this has as yet not led to a single conviction. A report by Trust for London and the Home Office published this summer estimated that there are 137,000 girls and women living with FGM in England and Wales, while recent figures from the NSPCC stating that 70 women a month seek treatment for the crime suggest the practice is still rife. Insufficient evidence appears to lie behind the lack of successful prosecutions, giving an indication of how closely guarded the practice may be within some communities.

As a result, the Government strengthened legislation in March of this year in an effort to support the criminal justice response. The new measures that came into force in October mean that failing to protect a girl from risk of FGM constitutes an offence, and that failing to report a known case is illegal; regulated health and social care professionals and teachers will be obligated to report known cases in under 18s to the police.

The government is also funding a £3 million Department of Health and NHS England national FGM programme and working in collaboration with the NSPCC to facilitate a 24 hour helpline directed at health practitioners as well as victims.

Nevertheless, I believe that much of the onus falls on education – a sentiment echoed by the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. As we have seen, legislation is not enough to eliminate FGM, but must be accompanied by educational campaigns in schools and elsewhere, as well as working with imams to make them aware of the extent of the problem.  It is imperative that we emphasise the practice as a fundamental violation of human rights. Although already internationally recognised as such, this point needs to be reiterated at the local, national and global level with real conviction. Skirting around the issue due to fear of causing offence is, in my view, morally wrong. This sentiment is explained brilliantly by Mona Eltahawy, award-winning journalist and commentator on Arab and Muslim issues,  in the following passage taken from her (highly recommended) book ‘Headscarves and Hymens’ (Eltahawy, 2015:28):

“Culture evolves, but it will remain static if outsiders consistently silence criticism in a misguided attempt to save us from ourselves.  Cultures evolve through dissent and robust criticism from their members. When Westerners remain silent out of ‘respect’ for foreign cultures, they show support only for the most conservative elements of those cultures. Cultural relativism is as much my enemy as the oppression I fight within my culture and faith”.

So, if opposing FGM and implementing harsher measures to stop it constitutes an attack on culture, then so be it. In my view cultural sensitivity is simply not justified when doing so is likely to perpetuate the suffering of millions of girls who undergo severe pain and serious risks to their health, with consequences that can follow them for the rest of their lives.

About the Author

Ellinor Ottosson recently graduated from LSE where she studied social policy, having previously studied psychology at the university of Lund in Sweden. She is passionate about social issues and the impact they have on the individual. She enjoys travelling and learning languages and is hoping to find a career within events in the public sector.

Cover image ‘Changing parents’ views on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C)‘ by DFID – UK Department for International Development

One year after the annexation of Crimea, Russia is looking ever more like an expansionist state. Aside from its maneuvers to control Central and Eastern Europe, Russia has started to expand its influence in countries that have traditionally belonged to the United States’ sphere of influence, and thus has managed to gain footing in the United States’ “backyard” via Nicaragua. Russia’s move to set up military bases and satellites in Nicaragua as well as arming the Central American country’s military with fighter jets currently represents the first active Russian presence in the Americas since Russia’s  failed 13 day standoff with the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis. To this day Russia has negotiated new arms sales and security cooperation agreements including joint police and military drills with Nicaragua.

Earlier this year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s visited Nicaragua to further discuss the prospects for bilateral cooperation where the topics discussed included Russia’s assistance to Nicaragua’s military, specifically the acquisition of Russian fighting jets, and the setup of a Russian military base and satellites in the country. This visit was one of many by high-ranking Russian officials including President Vladimir Putin, who in his visit to the country on July 2014 proposed the establishment of a Russian naval base in Nicaraguan territory, and hailed Nicaragua as a “very important ally for Russia in Latin America.”

The acquisition of Russian offensive weapons, supposedly a squadron of MIG-29 fighter jets, has the ability to shift the power dynamics in Central America. This fear lead Costa Rican officials to seek a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry, to voice their concerns that the Nicaraguan armament might lead to an arms race in the region. The national Assembly Deputy of Nicaragua Jacinto Suárez, defended the possible acquisition of the fighter planes by stating that “everyone has the right to defend their national sovereignty. Why should anyone feel threatened by this?” However, in the case of military confrontation having Nicaragua as part of Russia’s sphere of influence will allow Russia to counterattack any potential threat from the west more effectively, due to the striking capabilities, the proximity allows. In other words, Nicaragua has presented Russia with the chance to strategically place its military bases and offensive capabilities within close proximity to the United States, something Russia has been trying to achieve since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Additionally, on April 24 2015, Daniel Ortega the President of Nicaragua issued an urgent letter to the National Assembly, instructing the immediate approval of Russian GLONASS satellites for ‘supposed’ non-military use but that can also be used as espionage tools against the U.S and Canada. To the dismay of Nicaraguan opposition leaders, who doubt the agreement with Russia will be a peaceful one the 21 Russian satellites were approved two days later on April 28, 2015. In a game of geopolitical strategies, Nicaragua seems to be permanently stuck in the role of the jester; juggling more than it can possibly handle in an effort to please foreign governments.

Despite the efforts of the Nicaraguan government to allow Russian military bases in the country it is important to note that the Nicaragua’s constitution states that no foreign government is allowed to have military bases in Nicaraguan territory, which makes the setting of Russian military naval bases a direct violation of Nicaragua’s sovereignty. However, Russia, no stranger to disregarding the supreme sovereignty, and territorial integrity of other nation-states has met its partner in President Ortega, who is no stranger to sabotaging the constitution to meet his own aims. The setting of Russian military bases and satellites in Nicaragua would provide Russia with possible pull over the United States and Ortega is glad to provide the platform for such taunting.

Given the proposal made this year by the United States to set up battle tanks, troops and heavy weapons in Eastern European countries, concerns have arisen about the possible implications of such a geopolitically charged move and its potential cataclysmic effects. The possibility that Russia might see the prepositioning of such weapons as a first step towards actual conflict were established when the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement stating that the prepositioning of weapons in Eastern Europe might herald the start of a competitive arms buildup. The wildcard in this situation lies in the fact that if such claims were to be true, Russia seems to already have the upper hand with a yearlong negotiation with Nicaragua and incredible leeway to do as they please. Former admiral and NATO commander, James Stavridis, was quoted stating, “I don’t think we are in the Cold War again-yet. I can kind of see it from here.”

The fact that the Nicaraguan government is hostile towards the United States offers a great opportunity for Russia to exercise and solidify its military and political power in the American continent. The appraisal of U.S Secretary of Defense announcement to pre-position American heavy weaponry in Central and Eastern Europe merely represents the United States support for its allies however Russia’s demonstration of support to Nicaragua embody greater strategic benefits for the Kremlin.  If the United States’ future armament of Eastern Europe is about demonstrating its commitment to its Baltic allies in case of a Russian attack; then Russia’s satellite and possible naval bases in Nicaragua is about demonstrating that they too subscribe to such a deterrence policy and as such are already establishing their foothold in Nicaragua.

Author Biography

Valeria Gomez Palacios is a native of Nicaragua with a Bachelors degree in Diplomacy and International Relations and Modern Languages from Seton Hall University. Fluent in German, French, Spanish and Italian, Valeria volunteers as an independent translator for various NGOs and has experience serving in nonprofit and governmental organizations including: the United Nations offices in Vienna, the Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry and the European Union Delegation to Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama where she contributed to the efforts of the E.U to promote rule of law and sustainable development. Her current research interests lie in human rights law, conflict resolution and peace and security.

Cover Image: United Nations Photo under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license

In December 1979 Leonid Brezhnev, then leader of the Soviet Union, ordered his military forces to invade Afghanistan. Soviet troops were to re-establish some degree of order in the increasingly unstable Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, a socialist state and Soviet satellite. What Premier Brezhnev and the leadership of the USSR did not realise was that they were taking their country into a bloody and nearly decade long war. This conflict would have a deeply damaging effect on the long term security both of the region and the wider world, and would be a contributing factor in the dissolution of the USSR itself in 1991.

Fast forward nearly 25 years since the end of the Soviet-Afghan war and the Russian Federation, under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, finds its military once again ‘invited’ to intervene in the Middle East. What lessons can Russia learn from its disastrous intervention in the late 1970s if its government is to portray its involvement in Syria as a success?

Afghanistan 1979 vs. Syria 2015

There are, indeed, many differences between the situation faced by the USSR in Afghanistan in the late 1970s and that faced by Russia in Syria in 2015. The nature of today’s relationship between the governments of Russia and Syria is radically different to the strained Soviet-Afghan relations which preceded the military intervention of 1979. The prevailing Soviet view of then Afghan President Hafizullah Amin was so low that one of the USSR’s first acts of the intervention was to ensure his assassination and replacement. At present there seems to be no suggestion that Russia will look to force out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even if it has the power to do so.

The entire nature of the Syrian conflict is also very different to the situation in Afghanistan in 1979. While in the Soviet-Afghan War there were a number of anti-Soviet Islamic forces, these disparate groups were all united in defence of their country, traditions and religion against a foreign aggressor. In contemporary Syria, Russia enters into a conflict with myriad different parties all broadly fighting for different ends. The picture in Syria seems even more complicated than that faced by the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Similarly it appears that the level of force Russia is prepared to commit to its Syrian intervention is decidedly less than the full scale deployment the former Soviet Union exercised in Afghanistan. Russia’s military presence in Syria has featured aerial bombardment, the launching of cruise missiles and the use of artillery. There remains speculation as to whether President Putin has authorised Russian troops to be deployed in Syria itself.

On the other hand, the reaction of the West (and particularly the United States) to Russian intervention in Syria seems markedly similar to its reaction to Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. In the Soviet-Afghan War the CIA supplied the Mujahideen, the religiously motivated Muslim guerrilla opposition to the Soviets, with funding and military hardware, including Stinger missiles, transforming the conflict into a Cold War proxy war. While the context of international politics has admittedly changed a great deal since the 1980s, it has been noted that Russia’s bombing of American-backed Syrian rebels serves to turn the conflict into a proxy war. All of this comes amidst a downturn in Russia-West relations, which some have labelled as “more dangerous” than a new Cold War.

Learning from past mistakes

As has been noted, there are a number of differences between the conflict which rages in Syria today and the war in Afghanistan in the late 1970s. Yet this does not mean that there are no lessons for today’s Russian political and military leadership to learn from failures of the past.

The reasons for Soviet failure in Afghanistan in the late 20^th century are too vast and complex to consider in any great depth here. Among the many explanations for the USSR’s eventual withdrawal include the mismatch between Soviet conventional forces and the tactics of the Mujahideen which lead to an unceasing stalemate, and a failure on the part of the Soviet leadership to prevent their intended surgical intervention from snowballing into a much larger and complicated military effort to keep Afghanistan a socialist state.

Perhaps most important of all, however, was a failure on the part of the USSR’s military and political leadership to appreciate the complexities of Afghan culture, history and society. The USSR wanted to keep Afghanistan a socialist state without appreciating the sociocultural difficulties this would entail, and the inevitable support for the Mujahideen this would generate among many Afghans. This proved a unifying factor for the Afghan Sunni and Shia Mujahideen and the numerous factions within each group. The Soviet incursion was a rallying point for Afghans already disillusioned with their country’s experiment with socialism, and had a major impact on the outcome of the war.

Reasons for Russian intervention in Syria

For President Putin the main aim of Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict at its start appeared much clearer than the more ideologically driven rationale behind Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Russia, it is widely acknowledged, has sent its planes to bomb Syria in an attempt to keep its ally Bashar al-Assad in power. There are also a number of political benefits stemming from Mr Putin’s authorisation of military action. In late September Russia appeared to seize the initiative on Syria, in contrast to the caution of Western nations, publicly flexing its military muscle in the process. There are also, as has been noted elsewhere, numerous domestic motives for President Putin’s intervention in Syria.

Just by entering the conflict President Putin appears to have achieved much politically. Yet the terrible events in Paris on the 13^th November and the suspected downing of Metrojet Flight 9268 on 31^st October by an onboard explosive device might force a temporary change in priorities. Russia, it appears, has now greatly increased its targeting of ISIL, although it continues to strike Western-backed rebels. A grand coalition against ISIL might in the short term assist Russia in its aim of keeping President al-Assad in control of the country, if Western powers focus their attentions on eradicating ISIL first. And the recent downing of a Russian Sukhoi Su-24M bomber by a Turkish F-16 fight jet has demonstrated how quickly diplomatic relations can turn sour and strategies change in the midst of conflict.

Identifying and Achieving Aims

The events of the last month, however, have shown how unstable and unpredictable the Syrian conflict can be. To avoid the fate of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, President Putin must communicate to his military officials and to his public how long he is prepared to wait, and what cost he is willing to pay, in order to achieve his aims in Syria.

If the Syrian Civil War rages on until 2020, will economically troubled Russia still be prepared to spend money and risk its armed forces’ lives to prop up Bashar al-Assad? If the conflict escalates further and further, even beyond a ‘proxy war’, will Russia be prepared to increase the support it provides to the Syrian government and risk open confrontation with the United States? Is Russia prepared to become a target for Islamist extremists if it presses on with its military action? Would President Putin be able to survive the political embarrassment of a Russian plane being shot down over Syria, or worse, the public outrage if a Russian pilot were to fall into the hands of ISIL? If al-Assad’s position looks close to hopeless will the Russian leadership be able to justify both at home and abroad the deployment of Russian troops inside Syria? And if a grand coalition emerges between Western powers and Russia for the purpose of destroying ISIL, how will Russia respond if and when ISIL is gone and Western nations once again turn their sights to the Syrian president? All these are questions that Russian military and political strategists must answer if they are to avoid a repeat of the disaster of 1979-89.

There are many differences between the Soviet-Afghan war and today’s Syrian Civil War, but for Russia the prospect of getting sucked into a long, bloody and ultimately unsuccessful conflict remains a real risk. Vladimir Putin must learn from the mistakes of his Soviet predecessors and not underestimate the complexities of the conflict into which he has ordered his nation’s military. Identifying clear aims and methods for success are essential if Russia is to portray its intervention in Syria as positive, but this can only be the start.

At home, the Russian President must be honest with his generals and the Russian people as to how long the intervention will last. He must push for greater co-operation with Western nations who are also bombing Syria, both to avoid mid-air confrontations and to perpetuate the image of Russia as an equal partner in a coalition of powers dedicated to destroying ISIL. And perhaps most importantly and uncharacteristically of all, President Putin must be prepared to compromise with the West over the fate of the Assad regime. He must realise that the prospect of President Assad remaining in power for the long term is simply untenable for the West, and that for as long as Assad stays in office the civil war will not end. If President Putin and Western leaders can somehow come to a solution which sees the removal of President Assad from power, alongside the preservation of Russian strategic interests in Syria (such as the Russian naval facility at Tartus), then both parties will be able to claim a victory. Such a compromise would pave the way for a swift destruction of ISIL and an eventual withdrawal of Russia military forces from the country.

Yousaf, Mohammad & Adkin, Mark (1992) Afghanistan, the bear trap: the defeat of a superpower

Author Bio

Thomas Cowie is currently an undergraduate at the University of Cambridge studying Classics. His particular interests include Chinese foreign and domestic policy and China’s relations with the West. Other interests include the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU.

Email: [email protected]

Cover image: IoSonoUnaFotoCamera under a CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license

“Ours is the last generation which can head off the worst effects of climate change and the first generation with the wealth and knowledge to eradicate poverty”, said Helen Clark at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit on 25 September 2015.

It is estimated that by the middle of this century, climate change could put some 400 million people at risk of food and water shortages, as well as posing significant economic and business risks. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than any preceding decade, with global average surface temperature showing a warming of 0.85 deg. C between 1880 and 2012. The great ‘global warming myth’ is a myth no more and it is fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) that are most regularly admonished as the single greatest contributing factor to climate change; hence, UN Sustainable Development Goal 7.

Last month, 150 world leaders met at the UN Headquaters in New York to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These 17 Global Goals aim to end poverty, hunger, and inequality, as well as improving access to health and education and taking action on climate change.

SDG 7 has as its targets that we will, by 2030: ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services; increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix; double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency; enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and technology; and expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries.

Even in advance of these new, global objectives promoted by the UN, many countries have individually been looking at how they can start to reduce their environmental impact and tackle climate change head-on. Sweden for instance has long since been trying to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, for political and economic reasons as much as environmental ones. The Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Löfvén, has recently declared he believes that with a concerted national effort, Sweden could be fossil-fuel free by 2030 – and Sweden is not alone. Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France and Germany are all well-suited to end their reliance on fossil-fuels over the next couple of decades, with many of their government’s having made pledges to that effect over the last 12 months.

A commitment to creating effective environmental policy has been growing over the last few decades as public expectations shifted and more and more governments became aware of the damages that fossil fuels are causing. However, despite SDG 7, these attitudes have not yet been adopted by every UN member state. The US, China, Japan, Russia and Brazil continue to be some of the world’s fastest growing economies, , and at the same time the greatest consumers of oil: The global energy market is still big business: China alone builds a new coal-fired power station every two weeks; and in 2013 the fossil fuel companies were reported to have spent over $213 million lobbying US and EU decision makers to protect their industry. With this reality, it is questionable to what extent SDG 7 will really put a halt to global warming. Any fight against climate change must ignore the oil producers and include significant commitments by all economies that go far beyond the requirements of SDG 7.

While individual country’s commitments often seem insufficient, it would be unfair to suggest that there has been no effort at all among those states.

In November 2014, US President Barack Obama and Chinese President, Xi Jinping signed a deal setting up target emissions for CO2 up to 2030 but with energy needs of the global population having risen six-fold in the past 50 years, and 90 per cent of all global energy continues to be made by burning fossil fuels, targets will need to be far more ambitious than at present.

While we can have such expectations of the more advanced global economies, a policy change such as eliminating or even reducing the consumption of fossil fuels in an effort to combat climate change would have a far more significant impact on those countries seeking to ‘catch-up’ with the rest of the world than for those having had a history of economic growth already.

The industrial revolution, and the 250 years of growth that followed, can largely be attributed to the contributions made by the use fossil fuels as a source of cheap and plentiful energy. With increased globalisation, the developing world is highly aware of the benefits that have followed high fossil fuel consumption: a competitive advantage in the production of many goods; increased international trade; and the socio-economic improvements that come from having strong industrial sector. Limiting developing country’s access to the same growth – which the western economies have been enjoying for the last 200 years – can at best be viewed as hypocritical. With 637 million African’s living below the poverty line, but an abundance of available fossil fuels across the continent, Africa’s consumption of energy is going to rise dramatically in spite of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. With an allocation of only $1bn a year for climate change adaption and mitigation, funding for Africa’s energy to come from alternative sources is simply not available in the quantities necessary to transform the continent, leaving Africa will little choice but to consume high quantities of fossil fuels to foster its development.

The economic impact of an artificially created reduced demand for fossil fuels could also be staggering for the current energy exporters. The recent oil crash has given many economies an insight into a world without a successful trade in fossil fuels, and it is a troubling picture: since June, oil prices have more than halved from around $110 a barrel to less than $50 for the first time since 2009. Russia, as one of the world’s largest oil producers (70 per cent of exports) has raised interest rates by 17 per cent and the World Bank has warned, that if prices remain as they are, Russia could see a 0.7 per cent shrinking of their economy by the end of the year. The Gulf states have not been so heavily hitAlthough energy makes up as much as 90 per cent of exports and 80 per cent of government revenue for some states, their considerable foreign currency reserves give them some room for manoeuvre in case of a arising deficit. Russia and the others are not so fortunate. According to IMF predictions, Russia would need oil prices in excess of $105 to balance their budget; this figure is equally high for Nigeria ($123) and Libya ($184). The revenue shortfalls experienced by all energy exporting nations has been significant: only a sustained return to high oil prices would remedy this. Yet, with a global consensus to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, a rapid diversification of exports will be necessary in the near future. This will be a testing feat for experienced leaderships such as Russia and Kuwait but for economies such as South Sudan it may be almost impossible – even with substantial international assistance.

Whatever effects the changing attitudes towards fossil fuels may bring, the time for action is now. For every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is delayed until after 2020, an additional $4.30 will be needed to compensate for the additional carbon emissions. If we are to slow global warming, we as citizens must apply greater pressure to our own governments to implent policy that goes far beyond the demands of SDG 7, including: reducing our carbon footprint; investing more to develop alternative fuels sources; and providing far greater financial assistance to help developing economies to mitigate their environmental impact without hampering their growth prospects. SDG 7 is a comprehensive commitment and a valuable starting point for any plans for climate change reduction. The more advanced UN member states must now take inspiration from this goal and prioritize the development of strong, specific commitments to stopping global warming. In doing so they will take up much of the slack from the less advanced economies whose priorities must continue to be their own development.

Author Biography

Emma Christie is an Economist at the Greater London Authority where she specialises in London-centric policy. Her most recent research has focussed on social impact investing and sports participation. Emma holds a MA in Conflict, Security and Development from King’s College London and a BA in Economics and Politics from Durham University where her primary interests included economic development, peacebuilding, and defence policy. You can find her on LinkedIn and Twitter

Cover Image: CGP Grey under a CC BY 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license

David Cameron recently announced that he will be sending British troops to Somalia to assist with the efforts of African Union forces to eradicate al-Shabab in the country. While by no means a large force, estimated at some 70 military advisors, the decision has caused some public concern. Anxiety over the Prime Minister’s decision has, in small part, been stoked by the grim warning posted by the terrorist group of the treatment British soldiers can expect. For the time being, this announcement has been smuggled through the front-page headlines.

Cameron sees British involvement in the country as a means of taking more direct action against global problems, such as overseas terrorism and more pressingly, the migration crisis that engulfs Europe today. As stated in Britain’s Annual Report on National Security Strategy and Strategic Defense, to intervene in Somalia would be in keeping with Britain’s “objective” for Somalia — to make it more secure in order to reduce threats to Britain. There are reports that Britain has already been exerting military power in the area, with British Special Forces alleged to have been working in partnership with their international counterparts, disrupting al-Shabab with raids and leadership targeting operations. This alleged involvement has been unequivocally denied by the British government.

Experts and those with rudimentary knowledge of modern conflict will be wary. Many infamous conflicts involving major powers began with the presence of just advisors. Russia can recall Afghanistan in the 80s, and appears to be in the early stages of this cycle in Syria today. As it stands, it seems unlikely that Britain will increase its involvement in the country. However, question marks should still be raised as to whether Britain should seek to exercise a “greater role” in world affairs in this manner. Britain has already sought to cultivate a positive presence in Somalia, with UK Government Minister Grant Shapps announcing a green energy initiative in July, in an effort to regenerate Somaliland, in the north of the country.

Nominally, British troops will be providing logistical support and training for African Union forces already on the ground. The British Public, however, should be under no illusions. While 70 specialists and advisors will be inserted into the region, as David Cameron has emphasised, it is paramount that there will be the ‘right force protection.’ What this likely means, is that that British Military leaders and Cameron himself will not leave the overall safety of British troops to the forces of the African Union. So while it has not been explicitly stated to the public, there is likely to be a greater British military presence in Somalia than has been publicised in order to facilitate these security measures.

Those planning the protection of British forces in the country should not underestimate the task in hand. Al-Shabab controls large swathes of the region. It has frequently been able to mount attacks on Mogadishu. The group succeeded in murdering the nephew of Somalia’s president in the capital in October. At the beginning of this month, the luxury Sahafi Hotel suffered an attack by the terrorist group. Among the dead were journalists, a Somali general and the hotel owner himself. Somalia’s President, Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, sought to play down fears that the attack represented a revitalisation of the terrorist group, but that it instead showed the final throws of a slowly decaying group.

It is true that hard-fought territorial gains have been made by African Union forces against al-Shabab. While President Mohamoud may claim that the group is struggling, al-Shabab has retained its ability to strike almost anywhere in the country. Furthermore, the prize of European soldiers should not be underestimated, nor should the lengths such groups will go to incite further involvement from participating countries.

Historically, Britain has seen involvement in Somalia during the days of colonial rule. Since then, the country has been torn apart by competing tribal factions. While a recognised national government exists in the present day, the importance of tribal ties should not be underestimated. Al-Shabab has largely been able to circumvent these powerful loyalties by extolling a potent brand of Islam. It has drawn upon the ideas and poems of the revolutionary Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, or the so-called “mad mullah”, who waged a successful propaganda offensive in the early 20^th Century, uniting Somalis together to drive out the British. The former leader of al-Shabab, Ahmed Abdi Godane – killed in a drone strike in September – himself a fine orator, was inspired by the work of the “mullah.” Without a doubt, the poetry of Sayyid Mohammed still resonates in Somalia today. The introduction of British troops would do no favours for the counter-information campaign being run by the African Union, in a country where the tradition of oral communication is still very important.

David Cameron should take a full view of the potential risk to British forces before signing off on this operation. He should consider whether risking British lives in an adversarial role, is really worth the propaganda boon for al-Shabab and the danger of escalating British involvement in such an event. Moreover, he should consider the adverse effect that British forces will have on the sensible efforts of the African Union to counter the message of al-Shabab. Cameron should take into account such measures to discredit al-Shabab and seek to take advantage of the clear evidence that the group is beginning to target its own members. Clearly, security can only be totally restored with “boots on the ground”, but in view of the level of risk that will face British forces in Somalia, British resources would surely be better served assisting undermining the malignant message being extolled by al-Shabab.

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.

Cover image: Number 10 under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license

Climate change has become the hot-button issue in environmental policy over the previous decade. Environmental policy, however, encompasses so much more than debates over carbon emissions or rising sea levels. Wildlife conservation efforts face a complex web of challenges, from climate-induced changes like those threatening polar bears, to ecotourism. Many of these challenges are the result of government policy, whether it be an ill-conceived regulation or lack of enforcement. While policies allowing such things as deforestation or waste dumping are obvious dangers to wildlife, ecotourism can be surprisingly harmful.

In theory, ecotourism is a great tool to promote conservation in delicate, endangered ecosystems. Defined by the World Conservation Union, ecotourism is “environmentally responsible travel to natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and accompanying cultural features, both past and present) that promote conservation, have a low visitor impact and provide for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local peoples.” In other words, allowing ordinary citizens to visit these natural locations to appreciate the beauty of nature while boosting the local economy and providing employment for local peoples.

In fact, the ecotourism industry may do more harm than good by distracting from more effective environmental protections, although it is certainly preferable to recreational hunting or poaching. However, simply allowing an influx of foreign tourists and wealth into sensitive ecological areas can cause serious degradation to the habitat and its inhabitants. According to Daniel Blumstein of the University of California, Los Angeles, “Recent data showed that protected areas around the globe receive 8 billion visitors per year; that’s like each human on Earth visited a protected area once a year, and then some. This massive amount of nature-based and eco-tourism can be added to the long list of drivers of human-induced rapid environmental change.” A lack of government policies to promote and regulate sustainable ecotourism is paramount to wildlife conservation as the industry of ecotourism grows from “a niche industry to a global cash cow.”

Take, for example, the case of the whale shark that makes its home off the coast of Isla Mujeres, Mexico. This species is considered vulnerable, meaning that it is likely to become categorized as endangered. Approximately 1,500 sharks inhabit the Caribbean, and the gatherings off the Yucatan coast have been declining. Several factors may be contributing to this, including the lift on the ban on Cuban boats fishing in the shark’s territory as well as whale shark tourism.

The Direccion General de Vida Silvestre who in Mexico, is tasked with overseeing this aspect of tourism, issuing licenses to tourist boats. The number of licenses has grown dramatically, with nearly 320 issued this year. These boats cluster together to fight for the best whale shark spotting position. While there are regulations, such as the distance required between boat and animal, the number of snorkelers per boat allowed in the water, and length of time spent within the water, there are no enforcement mechanisms. As a result, the waters are overcrowded, the animals are injured or killed by the boats, and their feeding patterns are disrupted.

Whale sharks are not the only animals put at risk by ecotourism. Such constant regular contact with humans can have another, less obvious risk than diminishing food supplies. In practice, ecotourism acts similarly to domestication of wild species. Researchers at UCLA argue that:

“If individuals selectively habituate to humans — particularly tourists — and if invasive tourism practices enhance this habituation, we might be selecting for or creating traits or syndromes that have unintended consequences, such as increased predation risk. Even a small human-induced perturbation could affect the behavior or population biology of a species and influence the species’ function in its community.”

Repeated benign interaction with humans embolden animals, making them less fearful. This is obvious to anyone walking through any major city: the squirrels and pigeons who call them home are almost unflappable, allowing pedestrians to approach close enough to touch them. This is bad news for both prey and predators: prey are more likely to pay the price for their boldness, while predators find it difficult to permeate the safe haven created for prey by human bystanders.

While the dangers are not as obvious to the common observer, ecotourism can pose serious risk to fragile ecosystems. The countries in which these habitats exist have done little to regulate the industry, instead capitalizing on its explosive popularity. While this type of tourism can have great economic impact on local economies, it can also breed exploitation. In addition, lack of regulation and enforcement that does not promote sustainability simply sets the industry up for failure; as the environment this industry relies on diminishes, it will be unable to survive.

Governments need to assist wildlife conservation efforts by establishing comprehensive rules for those involved in ecotourism and most importantly, be able to implement these rules. It is vital to the survival of the world’s species and to the people who rely on them.

Author Biography

Beth Bickerton is a graduate of the School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, holding a degree in International Relations and French. She has previously worked in both nonprofit and governmental organizations, including the United States Supreme Court and the Social Science Research Council.  Her interests include the European Union, human rights, and wildlife conservation.

Cover Image: Starley Shelton under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license

These insights from social science have particular relevance in the field of education: sociology now sees the concept of the child, and of childhood, as a social construct, not as an objective reality consistent across all societies and cultures. Cultural characteristics (e.g. values, beliefs, child-rearing practices) suppress the manifestation of certain behavioural problems, and facilitate the manifestation of others, in a process known as the suppression-facilitation model. This means that the way a child has been raised will influence what types of learning they find most beneficial. Research shows that ethnic minority students use a different set of cultural values when engaged in activities that foster cognitive skill development than children who are part of the dominant culture. Subsequently, this fact influences which teaching methods they are most receptive to. A curriculum based on teaching techniques directed only at children from the dominant culture, therefore, could be extremely harmful to the development of ethnic minority students.

That such a phenomenon is occurring in the United States is born out of the data: research shows that Native Americans have the highest dropout rates among all students going to public school, while the majority of Latino and African-American students remain at or below basic performance on standardized achievement tests. This is of particular importance considering that by 2020 over two-thirds of the public school population in the US will be African-American, Asian-American, Latino, or Native American. Currently, these children are being sent into schools where their culture is suppressed, where they are forced through hoops designed for children with a different cultural upbringing, and it is having a detrimental impact on their achievement. Something, it is clear, needs to change.

At its most basic, cultures can be placed into one of two categories: independent, or interdependent. The former idealises personhood in terms of individual achievement and autonomy, and socializes children to “be unique”, “express themselves”, and “realize their inner goals”. An interdependent culture, on the other hand, idealises personhood in terms of dependence with family and community, and socializes children to “be sympathetic”, “play their assigned role”, and to “adjust to the group to which they belong”.

These two contrasting ways of idealizing either personhood or socialization have an impact on how the two types of culture have traditionally conceived intelligence, and therefore on the different ways they pass on knowledge. Independent societies use verbal teaching to bridge the separation between mother and child that occurs in an independently-minded society, whereas interdependent societies prefer teaching by “osmosis”, a method only achievable in the closeness obtained in a milieu of interdependence.

Modern western schooling, however, has been designed for, and embraces the principles of, an independent-based style of teaching, something that many children from interdependent societies, such as African-Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos, find difficult to adjust to. Parents from interdependent cultures value social intelligence more than “encyclopedic” forms of intelligence, and the value of a child’s knowledge is measured by how much that knowledge contributes to the group. Native American children, for example, learn by observing their parents, not by talking with them, and so it is no surprise that it has been found that portfolio and performance styles of assessment are better-suited to Native Americans than written tests.

Similarly, in sub-Saharan Africa, practices are embedded in family traditions, daily routines, and social and community life, and skills that count towards a person’s intelligence are helpfulness, obedience, respect, and familial responsibility, while more technological skills (e.g. quick learning, memory) are only valued if they are put into the service of the social group. The approach that promotes a growth in abilities is not instruction, therefore, but participation. In most white middle-class homes, on the other hand, children learn from having their parents talk to and with them.

Despite this, the model of schooling that has emerged in the West, and which is replicated in schools across western nations, promotes solely principles of independence. This model has also been propagated across the world, often imposed in the form of imperialism and colonialism, despite the fact that 70% of the world’s population is interdependent. Developers of modern curricula assume that children should talk about their learning, and so the forms of assessment are based around this assumption, thereby removing many children from the interdependent milieu with which they are comfortable and familiar.

Schooling promotes independence in a number of ways: in school assessment cooperation is perceived negatively (it is called cheating); it also undermines social intelligence, where parents and grandparents are the repositories of knowledge. It is no surprise, therefore, that a vast number of ethnic minority students experience what is known as “cultural discontinuity”, where the cultural learning preferences of many ethnic minority students are discontinued at school. Many ethnic minority students find that they must abandon their own cultural values at school in order both to succeed academically and to optimise their psychological well-being.

However, such a process of cultural discontinuity can leave its mark, both mentally and academically. Students who reported high levels of dissonance between home and school values reported lower levels of academic and emotional well-being and higher levels of anger and self-deprecation, while a separate study showed that children who witness denials or discrimination of their culture experience higher levels of behavioural and mental health problems than those whose cultures were positively reinforced.

Such cultural discontinuity also is felt in the day-to-day aspect of teacher-pupil relations. Teachers’ expectations for student achievement are associated with their perceptions of whether students adhere to mainstream cultural value-based behaviours while at school, while when teachers believed parents’ education values differed from their own they were more likely to rate their students as less competent and to have lower expectations of them, as well as perceiving poor literacy and numeracy skills. This, obviously has little to do with objective intelligence but simply with the different ways in which different cultures conceive intelligence as well asthe different ways learning is facilitated.

Mexican children, for example, are often criticised for being silent, but in fact this is the result of having been taught to respect their elders. Native American children, on the other hand, experience problems when they are asked in school for answers immediately, without having time to reflect on what they have just been taught. Such a question-and-answer format fits with independent cultures’ verbal style of teaching, but poses problems for children of interdependent cultures: as well as not giving them enough time to reflect on the question, they also feel that not giving the question its proper attention is a sign of disrespect.

What could be the solution for such cultural discontinuity? Answers may be found in the studies of education policies adopted by development organisations in developing countries; these policies have often held children back by immersing them into a system of western schooling that does not take account of their own culture. Western models of early child development have often been imposed in the name of “best practice”, without considering that what might be best practice for one culture might not be best practice for another. The studies that have been carried out suggest several solutions, several of which have already been adopted: these include integrating local teaching methods into curricula, and understanding that early child development requires a contextual approach prioritizing cultural factors.

Such an approach was adopted at Keshena Primary School on the Menominee Indian Reservation in Northeastern Wisconsin in the development of a new curriculum for its Native American children. The teachers, in conjunction with academics, chose to focus on a method of teaching known as “whole language teaching”: an integrated curriculum where content area subjects are taught around a theme without separating the different areas. The school held a meeting for tribal members to discuss what values they thought should be emphasised in a curriculum, out of which three values came out: respect for elders, each other, and surroundings; traditional tribal values; and the problem of high absenteeism. It was decided that the theme would be “Mother Earth”, so all curriculum planning was done with this central theme in mind.

From this central theme several broad topics were identified, each of which was then fleshed out into narrower topics. In order to promote greater community involvement, which was seen to promote children’s appreciation of their own culture, younger children were taught tribal legends they had been taught in kindergarten, and elderly tribal members were invited to act as unofficial “grandparents” to the children.

Going forward, it is this type of culturally-sensitive teaching that needs to be adopted. This approach would not only benefit children of ethnic minorities, but for children of all backgrounds, and for the society as a whole. Schools are one of the few places within a community that can build both bonding and bridging capital, and if children are taught about the importance both of integration, and of respect for other cultures, from a young age, there is no doubt that the wider community will benefit. Similarly, more and more children are growing up expecting and needing, to be “global citizens” – a curriculum that simply reinforces an independent culture, without exploring other ways of learning, thinking, and being, leaves all children worse off, and under-prepared for life in our increasingly integrated, connected, and global world.

Author Biography

Joe Mansour is a history graduate from the north of England. He loves travelling and experiencing different cultures, and it is this that informs most of his work. He is interested in British and US politics, global inequality, and structural barriers to social mobility, and seeks to use his knowledge of history to inform his understanding of current affairs and events. In the future, he wants to go into journalism or public policy, using his writing raise awareness of the problems of inequality societies around the world face.

Cover image: Penn State under a CC BY-NC 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license

Why so many Junior Doctors are choosing to practice their profession abroad

The United Kingdom is globally respected for its healthcare. Last year the UK’s National Healthcare System (NHS) was declared to be the best healthcare system out of the top 11 industrialised nations by an international panel of experts conducted by the respected commonwealth fund foundation. Having been a receiver of its free services all of my life I’d proudly count myself as one of its supporters. I was inspired by the recent events in Britain, over a controversial new contract which is to be imposed by the current Conservative  government on junior doctors in August 2016, to get the opinion of the professionals who would be affected by its implementation.

I asked 75 doctors who work for the NHS and questioned them if they were satisfied with their lives whilst currently working within the service; the answer was a resounding ‘no’.

Why do you feel overworked, demoralised or stressed within your profession?

“A few years ago, I almost couldn’t even attend my own wedding because my request for unpaid leave was denied even though I had requested this many months in advance. Reason given was that it would cost too much to hire locums to cover my on-calls and also they would have left the ward I was on uncovered, again as locums would be ‘too expensive’”.

From the people I talked to, statements such as these were commonplace; a melancholy tone surrounded every response to my inquiries. For Britain it seems, the pillars that make up the medical profession are at risk of collapsing into crisis, and it is the UK Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt’s new contract that is providing the wrecking ball.

The main point of contention is the proposition of changing the definition of the working week from 9am-7pm Monday – Friday, to 9am-10pm Monday-Saturday. The effects of this would amount in a direct pay cut; many employees already work past the standard working week due to staff shortages which entitles them to overtime pay. So many doctors who already work Saturdays out of necessity would no longer receive the extra pay for working out of regular hours. Working extra hours out of the regular working week has become the de-facto standard of employment, so if these changes are implemented many doctors could face a 30% pay cut.

British doctors regularly work more than 60 hours a week and longer shifts than their comparable international counterparts, who not only manage to preserve the full time average of 40-45 hours a week, but are also allowed to attend their own weddings. The effects of this contract will damage the already extremely difficult job of maintaining a happy work life balance, which allows time for family and friends – staples of a happy and prosperous life that are seemingly hard to come by when you practice medicine in England. 

If this contract is imposed in August 2016, all 75 doctors I talked to said they would definitely consider leaving. This isn’t an isolated view; surveys by the British Medical Association have shown that half of NHS staff regularly think about quitting, with many of them beginning to look at their options abroad. When a timetable for implementation of the new contract was announced in the middle of September, the number of doctors who were applying for ‘Certificates of professional status’ – a key certification for those looking to work abroad – went up from 20-25 a day to over 1000.

Britain is facing a mass exodus of their newest doctors, who instead of being enticed to stay by the government are being extorted. Only 3 of the 75 I talked to said they would never consider leaving and 6 said they already had plans to leave. 95% of the doctors I asked said they believe the NHS will be privatised if the government continues the way it is. The public needs to know the plight that our current medical professionals are facing, otherwise our country’s health services will be taken from us.

Australia and New Zealand are the prime destination for the under appreciated English doctor. I endeavoured to find out why. Why would a British medic wish to travel as far as possible for the chance at a better life? Distance-wise you can’t get much further away from Britain than these two Australasian countries, yet the cultural and historical ties the three nations share through their joint commonwealth have made them all relatively similar societies. 

Yet the ease at which acclimatisation within Australia or New Zealand can be achieved only forms the basis of appeal for emigration for struggling British doctors. The real motives for moving up to 11,000 miles away lies in the amount of respect attributed to the medical profession seen through governmental policy in these countries.

The Australian government offers many benefits to their doctors that the UK does not. Simple things that an outsider could mistakenly assume would be provided by their employer are lacking. Many of my participants highlighted small touches such as the provision of beds to sleep in for staff who are working 2 shifts consecutively, proper parking for staff and free lunches are all provisions provided by our Southern Hemisphere partners which the UK government does not. Yet it is the bigger picture where the differences are most striking.

What makes Australia or New Zealand an appealing choice?

‘By the 7^th nightshift in a row I am not able to make as sensible or as timely decisions as on night 1. Australia understands that you need a minimum of 23 hours off a week’,

‘Britain is overworked understaffing of hospitals in general – having to cover the role of 3 doctors when the rota is already short staffed’.

‘I get several job offers a month [from Australia and New Zealand]. They promise to double my current salary and a better life/work balance.’ ‘There is no question, when I’m qualified I will move to Australia to be a GP. 1) 2-3 times higher pay 2) less out of hours commitments means more time with family. 3) more respect from the people and media. 4) more emphasis on learning. I get the feeling sometime that the public here feels that they “own me” and can talk to me in a horrible way’.

In both Australia and New Zealand, hospitals and medical facilities guarantee time off as a reward for working unsociable hours. Yet in the UK, the government wishes to remove the ‘unsociable’ label from Saturdays, further impeaching the employee’s individuality.

The very worst feature of the contract put forward by Jeremy Hunt truly exemplifies the dire relationship Britain has with its medical professionals. The contract wishes to remove paid leave for those who need time out of their profession, including: Maternity leave, cancer research and examination preparation. Meanwhile, Australia pays for all of their staff’s education, sponsors their research inquiries and guarantees their pregnant staff are paid time off – it is 2015 after all, not 1910.

Many media outlets within the UK have tried to attribute doctors’ desire to move abroad as a selfishly economic enterprise and waste of taxpayer money – it costs over £600,000 to train a doctor. However, my research showed that money was only one facet of the appeal of emigration, in my questioning, not a single respondent stated money as their sole or primary motive for leaving.

Respect, or rather lack thereof, was a common theme of my enquiries, placing second behind ‘better work life/balance’. Because of attacks by the media and the government, many doctors feel like they aren’t appreciated members of society, and that their altruism isn’t as respected as it would be in another country.

In light of my investigation, it’s hardly surprising that the newest and increasingly in-demand generation of doctors in the UK feel let down by their employers and society as a whole. The accusatory line taken by the government and the media, that professional medical exodus is driven purely by economic self-interest is an easy line to promote in order to convince the general public to support the proposed contract. However this view only takes the face value of the issue – it is easy to see on a piece of paper that an emigrant will be paid more for working abroad – but this method fails to look at the real issues. Beneath the surface it is clear to see a generation of demoralised workers who, rather than being appreciated, feel as if they are under attack by their government, the media, and the very people they exist to help.

Australia and New Zealand offer huge benefits, from guarantees of time off, paid research leave and up to triple the salary offered by the UK. Yet back in Britain, we are faced with the frightening prospect of someone being employed by the British government with no access to maternity leave. Many of the labour movements of the early 20^th century that fought for rights such as these were born here – their lessons shouldn’t so soon be forgotten. My research has shown the enormity of the crisis the UK is currently facing. I intend to carry on trying to work with doctors in order to reveal their side feelings because it is vital for Britain to sit up and take note of the needs of our doctors, because the threat of an exodus if this contract is implemented is alarmingly real.

Author Bio

Connor Parker is a History graduate from Sheffield Hallam University and was awarded scholarship for a Masters in Sociology and Policy and the end of his undergraduate studies. He has a keen interest in British domestic issues and has previous experience carrying out a array of independent research within the sector and working for the University of Sheffield Political Economic Research Institute.

Cover image ‘One of the huge NHS billboard ads that are going up across the country today‘ by 38 degrees