GPPW

The Rohingya people are an ethnic Muslim group that inhabit a small section of the Western corner of Myanmar, and have done so for many years. Yet despite claim to the land, and deep roots of settlement, the Rohingya are not even considered Burmese in name. They exist in a precarious state with no guarantees of security, stability or even survival. This longstanding issue has worsened considerably over recent years, and indeed months, with diminishing political representation, increasing violent attacks against them and their enforced isolation from the outside. They remain the most persecuted minority in the world.

Officially deemed ‘stateless people,’ the Rohingya are denied nationality under Myanmar’s controversial 1982 Citizenship Law. To obtain recognition, they are required to show documentation that they have lived in Myanmar for over 60 years. However, coming from one of the poorest and most under-developed states in the country, Rakhine, this has proven near impossible for the Rohingya. Without citizenship they remain in suspended animation, routinely denied basic rights to work, study, practise religion or access vital health services. Their political persecution and severe state-imposed restrictions mean that the cyclical issues of poverty, disease and destitution have permeated deep into the fabric of life in the Rakhine state. It is estimated that around 140,000 Rohingya are forced to live in ghetto-like temporary camps prohibited from moving by the government. They are also frequently exposed to numerous human rights abuses, including a renewed crackdown in recent months with mass arrests, torture, forced removals and widespread reports of looting and rape. This is on top of the on-going discrimination and violence from militant Buddhist nationalists which has flared up many times, most prominently in April 2013 when 43 people were killed in four days of violence following a Buddhist led riot. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the Rohingya are effectively cut off from the world, as access to international observers and humanitarian agencies is severely restricted.

In February 2015, before the country’s national elections, the Rohyinga had their Temporary Registration Cards revoked, amounting to effectively having their entire identities revoked. Up to one million people were barred from voting in the November 2015 elections, and the matter was further worsened when nearly every Muslim candidate was removed from standing. An entire community was disenfranchised from political life, closing any hopes that democracy and the rule of law would offer a path to equality. With no end in sight, many in desperation have attempted to flee to neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Thailand. It is estimated that up to 100,000 people had fled on dangerous rickety boats, often perishing on the perilous journey. This amounts to ten per cent of the entire Rohingya population. Those that do survive are at risk of starvation, torture or enforced slavery at the hands of human traffickers and transnational criminal syndicates operating in Southeast Asia.

This is where the issue of the Rohingya’s plight evolves beyond national boundaries and the crisis begins to spill over and reverberate across the entire region. The flow of refugees in recent years has been met by impunity and inaction from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) community. The secretary-general of ASEAN had recognised the concern in 2012, stating, “the issue could potentially destabilize the whole region.” The international community and organisations such as the United Nations has remained painstakingly apathetic on the issue with even neighbouring countries proving reluctant to provide long-term help. What remains clear is that the solution must ultimately focus on the cause, not the symptoms of the problem.

The chance for a national solution to end to the years of suffering and subjugation, after fleetingly brief hopes with the 2015 victory of the liberal democratic National League for Democracy, is now looking increasingly less likely. The advent to leadership of Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, who for decades has fought to bring reform and democracy to Myanmar, appears to be offering no change for the Rohingya. Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times recently wrote, “soon the world will witness a remarkable sight: a beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner presiding over 21st-century concentration camps.”

The long ruling military junta before Suu Kyi had offered very little hope for the Rohingya, with President Thein Sein simply trying to avoid responsibility for the problem by requesting help from the international community to resettle the Rohingya elsewhere. They have consistently been viewed as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants with no claim to either being called Burmese or to basic human rights or rule of law.

Suu Kyi herself has remained painfully silent on this issue in the past, possibly not wanting to make politically risky moves in the eyes of the majority Buddhist voters in her country. However, in recent months she has been under increasing pressure in her new position of power to take a stance on the divisive problem. The issue of repressing, marginalising and disregarding Myanmar’s entire ethnic Muslim population hangs a darkening cloud over Suu Kyi’s global image of democracy and liberalism. The concept that they have no claim to citizenship and should not be Myanmar’s responsibility is dangerous rhetoric. It is the same cleansing and airbrushing that has taken place in history time and time again, from the tribal First Nations of North America to the land-tilling fellah of Palestine. It is a subtle and slow eradication, it is claimed they do not exist as a people, it is claimed that they never existed as a people.

Under recent scrutiny from the media and international community, Suu Kyi, the supposed champion of an all-inclusive democracy in Myanmar, has rebuffed claims of the abuses against the Rohingya and has urged the media not to exaggerate the problem. However the one million strong human rights catastrophe painfully unfolding in the corner of her country is not an exaggeration. In a recent BBC interview it was reported that she became angry over questions about the Rohingya and after the interview was heard fuming, “no one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim!” This potentially darker side to the deeply respected and revered Suu Kyi paints a potentially bleak picture for the future of the country. It is imperative that she dramatically changes her stance on the embattled people if she is to be the champion of democracy she has sought so long and hard to become.

This includes an immediate lifting of the ban on access to the Rohingya populated states, guaranteed protections for those that seek to return to their homes, a pacifying mission in the violence prone areas of country with a complete crackdown on nationalist groups inciting hate and meaningful efforts to reconcile and integrate communities. These need to be considered imperative priorities for the new Myanmar under Suu Kyi, all of which should be backed up by pressure from neighboring states and the wider international community. Immediate action should not only be taken to aid the stability of the region but also borne out of moral responsibility, to end the on-going appalling suffering and subjugation of an entire people.

Author Biography

Alex Firth is currently undertaking an MSc in Conflict, Rights and Justice at SOAS, University of London, as well as a research internship with Human Rights Watch. His areas of interest include both the Middle East and Africa as well as minority and indigenous rights, human rights violations in times of conflict and transitional justice.

Cover Image ‘Burma/Myanmar: Displacement and discrimination continue to affect Rohingya‘ via European Commission DG ECHO under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

The United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union (EU) has led to Nicola Sturgeon cautiously testing the waters of “IndyRef 2”, the pound sterling depreciating below a 31-year low, and the Prime Minister announcing his resignation. Regardless of whatever leanings people have on Brexit, it has undeniably led to some very obvious short-term instability in British politics. But Brexit has also had a very interesting implication on Irish politics, which needless to say, has a history of division and disunity itself.

The implications on Northern Ireland have been understated in the run up to the Referendum. Indeed, Leave voters have been centralised in England (excluding London) and Wales whereas Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, with the Northern Irish voting 55.7 percent remain. This of course suggests fragmentation between Northern Ireland and other parts of Britain, but it also represents a deeper underlying disunity within Northern Ireland. The map on the left shows counties that voted to remain in the EU in Yellow, and the counties that voted to leave are shown in Blue. This is even more interesting when compared to the 2010 General Election Results shown in the map below:

Dark green and light green represent Republican parties Sinn Fein and SDLP, who want to reunify with the Republic of Ireland. Red shows the DUP, a Unionist party which wants to stay in the United Kingdom. The striking correlation between these two maps illustrates that the predominantly Republican areas of Northern Ireland want to stay in the European Union, whereas predominantly Unionist areas want to leave the European Union.

Given Northern Ireland voted 55.8 percent in favour of remaining in the EU, there is a strong indication Republican sentiment in Northern Ireland may be increasing. Certainly, Republicanism is likely to have been catalysed by the Brexit result. Indeed, this can be demonstrated by the recent influx in Irish passport applications since Brexit.

Most notably of all, Ian Paisley Jr. recommended that Northern Irish citizens should apply for an Irish passport if eligible for one. Many Northern Irish citizens have taken this up, with Belfast Central Post Office even running out of application forms, symbolising that some Unionists are putting their support for the EU above their opposition to embracing Irish identity. Of course, Ireland’s continued presence as an EU member will mean that the desire of the Northern Irish to remain in the European Union may tip the balance of a border poll in favour of a united Ireland.

This is especially significant as Northern Ireland has not traditionally been in favour of reunifying with the Republic in the past. Having said that, it has never been put to a formal referendum, so it is difficult to know how people would vote if given the option in the polling booths, where they are protected from the influences of social and political pressures. There was the 1973 Border Poll, but Nationalists abstained from voting because of the biased way in which the question was phrased, so this is not considered a representation of the views of the people of Northern Ireland.

There is a plethora of reasons as to why the Northern Irish are worried about the Brexit decision. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland share culture, language, history, and of course, an open border. At present, passports are not needed to travel between the two countries, and checkpoints are limited. However, with this border now becoming a land border between the European Union and the United Kingdom, stricter borders may be put in place. This will reduce social cohesion between the North and the Republic, it will limit trade, and most importantly, it will infringe on the Good Friday Agreement, which has kept the peace in Ireland for 20 years.

Martin McGuiness, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and a member of Sinn Fein, has called for a Referendum on Northern Ireland’s Independence. There are no surprises here, given Sinn Fein’s political leanings.

However, it is not Sinn Fein’s calls for a referendum that is most newsworthy. This was always to be expected in the wake of a Brexit vote. What is most newsworthy is the fact that it isn’t a foregone conclusion that the North would remain in the United Kingdom. And given recent unexpected Referendum results in favour of “Leave”, who could blame one for wondering if a next referendum could favour leaving as well.

In the simplest terms, Northern Ireland must now decide what Unions they want to be a part of. Economically, Northern Ireland has performed poorly in the United Kingdom. It has some of the lowest economic growth in the UK and this is set to continue post Brexit. This is in stark contrast to the forecasts of benefit to both the Republic and the North of Ireland that could occur if a United Ireland was established. There is also a democratic mandate for a United Ireland given that the Northern Irish voted in favour of the European Union but would still be forced to leave under continued union with the UK. The cultural and political divides that are present in Northern Ireland will continue regardless of whatever outcome is decided on and there will be little chance of avoiding this. However, given the political and economic benefits, reunification with Ireland is likely to be the most beneficial outcome for Northern Ireland. Yet it is clear the North will face a minefield of political obstacles before this can be achieved.

Author Biography 

Jonathan Purcell recently finished school at Reading School in Reading, Berkshire. He is hoping to read History at University College London this September. As a citizen of both countries, he has a particular interest in Irish-British relations, and also has an interest in development politics.

Cover Image Union Jack by Smabs Sputzer

Whether many of us around the globe realize it or not the international human rights system impacts our lives on a daily basis. This system lays the foundations for and promotes legal norms and rights that every human being should have regardless of where they come from in the world and within their own societies. Another way of looking at this is that these international laws and norms are designed to make states responsible and accountable for their actions and inactions within their country and internationally. However, since the implementation of the international human rights system as recent global events has shown us, states are not always held accountable for their actions regardless of what’s mandated by international norms or legal standards or some states are held more accountable than others. I would argue that this impacts the human rights system the most and in order to make the system more effective we must hold all states accountable for their actions and inactions when it comes to human rights violations. I know this discussion about accountability for human rights is a cliché topic that is continuously argued by human rights activist and experts around the world. But the harsh reality is that in 2016, despite all the information we now have access to through various streams of traditional and social media about what goes on around the globe, accountability for human rights is still extremely poor.

Moreover, it is important to note that I don’t believe we necessarily need any more conventions or treaties globally. The various conventions and treaties we have now lay the all foundations we need. We now need states to respect them and live up to their commitments as signatories of the various agreements. This notion seems so simple, doesn’t it? After all human rights is often touted and promoted by some of the most influential countries in the world like the United States and Great Britain. However, when the realities of politics and interest come into play often times the “respect for human rights” discourse that is usually pressed seemingly is abandoned. A great example of this is the U.S. led counterterrorism measures following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. In the fight against terrorism many innocent people have died and thousands have been stripped of their human rights and denied access to justice. A prime example of this is the continued operation of the U.S.’s Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba, where prisoners have been held without charges for over 12 years, not to mention being the subject of human rights violations such as torture and forced disappearances.

Another example from the United States, but from within a domestic context is police brutality. Violence by the police and other law enforcement in the U.S. is at an alarming rate. The most critical part of this violence is that it continues to be seemingly racicalized. The incident that led to the killing of Freddie Gray, an unarmed black male in Baltimore, Maryland caused unrest and outrage internationally this past year. However, sadly and unfortunately Gray’s name is just one of hundreds over the last few years. These incidences have led to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to condemn the U.S’s record on dealing with police brutality and racial disparities in general and have urged that steps be taken for this to change during the U.S.’s Periodic Review. However, this condemnation has led to no major changes or legislation, except conversations about how to monitor police activity instead of conversations about how to retrain police across the country to respect the human and civil rights of all members of society. I know from what I have written thus far that I appear to be tough on the U.S., but as an American citizen I believe that’s my job.

Furthermore, I personally would argue that we have to start holding larger and wealthier states like the United States more accountable for not being more proactive in transforming human rights domestically and preventing them globally, in doing this as Americans, I believe we set a major precedent where our actions for once do in fact echo our core principles and values of freedom and democracy. The United States can’t continue to let lecture Myanmar about how it treats its Rhoinga Muslim population, while maintaining harmful law enforcement practices that operate to the detriment of minorities. It’s simply hypocritical and it’s a double standard. Even through the U.N. CRED gave the U.S. a not so stellar review, what’s the ultimate price or consequence? Myanmar and other states who committed gross human rights violations were and are subject to sanctions for years. Meanwhile, wealthier countries that commit human rights violations domestically and/or internationally never fear such reprisal from the international community. To conceive that the U.S., Britain, or even France be hit with sanctions for how it treats its minorities or for the horrible human rights violations committed in the name of counterterrorism would be considered laughable by many. And it should not be. We must remove this double standard within the international community, so that no state is above the law regardless of influence and wealth.

So now it comes down to the age old question of how to increase accountability for human rights? And my answer is education. Human Rights Education to be exact. Why? Because the more knowledgeable people are about their rights and the rights of others the more they are empowered to act. After all, Nelson Mandela said “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. And within the context of human rights accountability, I would argue that this is the only way of making change. Human Rights Education also allows individuals to not only see themselves as a member of a particular society, but as a part of major a greater order and in that greater order him or her matters regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, creed, and sexuality. And not only this, but a Human Rights Education also allows one to see the rights of others as being just as important as protecting our own individual rights.

Above, I mention that human rights accountability empowers people to act, but what exactly does that look like? Acting, I believe encompasses a number of things. And of course this varies from society to society. In my own society, I believe it’s not just protesting or criticizing one’s government, but it also requires people to check their own notions and ideas about who is deserving of rights, voting responsibly, and being involved and active. I understand that in many parts of the world that everyone is not as free to be open and active as I’m in the United States or others in democratic states, however if people know their rights they know that the international community has established norms and laws that protect their voice and that their state as well as other states has a responsibility to allow and protect that voice also. One thing I’ve tried to do in my recent scholarship concerning race and justice in the U.S. has been to connect the struggle here to a much larger international framework, to point out that the struggles for black lives failing to matter isn’t only recognized by activists in the U.S., but also internationally and that there is a human rights system where minorities can and should be heard.

In essence, what I’m arguing is that that human rights accountability can’t solely be based on states checking other states. Citizens have to check their own states for human rights abuses committed both domestically and internationally. In her article in the UN Chronicle, “Establishing Effective Accountability Mechanisms for Human Rights Violations” the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay notes that even where gross violations are well documented, states often require technical advice to determine what combination of law, regulation and policy is best suited to address them. She further explains that while decision makers may benefit from such advice and from knowledge about comparative experiences and lessons learned elsewhere, experience shows that accountability efforts must be nationally owned by the people. People simply can’t take ownership of accountability if they’re not sure what their states are responsible for, supposed to do, and not supposed to do, or even simply what human rights accountability even means.

Lastly, I believe that the more we educate people, the more we are empowering them to not only be vigilant in the face of human rights abuses, but to be Global Citizens. Global Citizenship is a new and emerging idea which holds that instead of recognizing ourselves as being citizens of one particular country, we are citizens of a much larger global community and that what impacts someone on the other end of the globe impacts us as individuals too. Right now the West is in a fierce battle with Islamic Jihadist. Regardless of the Hawkish rhetoric and military campaigns, groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still thrive. Why? Because the retaliatory violence has only become a recruiting tool for these groups. The only real way to defeat extremism is to show that there is a greater community outside the actions of our governments that does care about the welling being of others over our states’ interests. For instance, one amazing movement that emerged after September 11th was when women American women who had lost their husbands during the War in Afghanistan reached out to assist Afghani women who had also lost their husbands. Despite, the policies of the U.S. government and the realities of the war, these women connected on a human to human level and found hope in compassion through their shared grief. I believe this is what we can do with Human Rights Education too. By bringing educated masses together, who know their rights and stand together, states will have little or no choice but to live up to their responsibilities to protect, defend, and promote human rights.

References

Pillay, Navanethem. “Establishing Effective Accountability Mechanisms for Human Rights Violations | UN Chronicle.” UN Chronicle. Last modified December 2012. http://unchronicle.un.org/article/establishing-effective-accountability-mechanisms-human-rights-violations/.

Author Biography

Dr. Jared Bell holds a Master of Science Degree from the University of Baltimore’s School of Public and International Affairs in Negotiation and Conflict Management, and  a PhD from  Nova Southeastern University’s Conflict Analysis and Resolution program with a focus in international peace and conflict. During his doctoral studies, he  focused his research on  peace, transitional justice, and human rights. For his dissertation, he did a quantitative study on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s draft transitional Justice Strategy and its ability to foster reconciliation amongst the everyday populace. Jared has also studied at the  Al Akhawayn University in Infrane, Morocco, the Universities of Groningen and Rijeka’s Summer School in Cres, Croatia on “Transitional Justice and the Politics of Memory”, the European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation’s Venice Academy of Human Rights, and the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights studies.  Jared  has worked with various human rights, peace building, and development projects with a variety of organizations ranging from the United Nations Development Programme to the American Red Cross. He has also written and presented on a number of topics related to international affairs,  transitional justice, and human rights. Jared is currently working with The Global Citizens’ initiative’s Country Global Citizen’s Report Card Project   where he serves a country analyst for Indonesia, Cuba, and Poland. He  is also the author of the forth coming book “Moving Forward: The ABCs of Race and Reconciliation in the United States”.

Cover image ‘UNMISS and Partners Conduct Human Rights Community Awareness Programmme’ by United Nations Photo

In Paris, on the 12^th December 2015, a ‘historic agreement’ was reached between 186 nations, the largest of its kind. The agreement laid out plans to tackle the potential dangers of a global temperature rise of over 2°C. The much anticipated deal was hailed as a great step towards change – an uncommon feature of previous climate summits. President Barack Obama proudly stated “together, we’ve shown what’s possible when the world stands as one”.

However, current estimates by the UN Climate Panel (UNFCCC) suggest proposed action plans still see a rise of 2.7°C – 3°C. The agreement therefore asks the 186 nations to review such plans every 5 years from 2020 to stay on course in meeting targets. In addition to this, a further $100 billion is expected to be raised every year from 2020 onwards to finance projects and aid vulnerable countries. Undoubtedly, there is still much reason for creeping pessimism.

Whilst the hypothetical scenarios of climate change are most likely to occur and have occurred in the past, the problem that we have as a species in the present as opposed to the past is that our numbers have increased drastically over two centuries. Incorporated into this increase, has been the overconsumption of, and competition for resources as an attribute to development promoted by western economic policies. As of consequence, ‘developing’ states modelled their own development on the West. The strong correlation therefore between climate change and population growth inevitably increased the impact of climatic hazards and some would argue it is already too late to reverse global warming as depicted. If we are too late, is it then time, to now turn our attention to the problems posed by population growth as opposed to climate change?

Why Population Growth?

In 1798 the English economist and historian Thomas Malthus published ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’. In it, Malthus argued that whilst human populations could continuously multiply unrestrained, the ability for food supply to do the same was unlikely. Malthus proposed radical solutions to control population growth, however once the industrial revolution arrived, Malthus’ theory all but perished. Food supply had caught up with demand and surpassed it. Though Malthus’ theory was inaccurate, if viewed from the perspective of demand as opposed to supply, such that demands increase unrestrained beside population growth – does it give more precedence to Malthus’ argument? Current trends suggest so.

Since the 1960s, world population has more than doubled and with this growth, the human appetite for resources has also increased due to the processes of globalisation or what some call ‘westernisation’. This appetite could be met according to American economist Walt Rostow via stages of economic growth similar to the way the West modernised. Rostow suggested that these stages could eventually infiltrate the existing economic and social system in ‘developing’ nations thereby igniting a modernisation process. This mantle would then be carried on by Milton Friedman as neoliberal economics took to the fore but whilst the appetite remains, it has not yet been met.

Inequality persists among ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ economies whilst income disparities within both is causing a wider gap to emerge between the wealthiest and poorest citizens, which is highlighted by the fact half of the world’s wealth is owned by 1% of the world’s population according to the IMF. Nonetheless, modernisation still aims to do one thing and that is to offer the joys of materialism and capitalism as experienced in the West thereby maintaining the appetite. In doing so, as populations multiply along with economic aspirations, so too do the demands for a western lifestyle as a result of globalisation.   

Globalisation has meant that traditional, native and local [sustainable] ways of living have instantly been replaced partly if not completely by traditions and norms exported from the West, leading to some accusations of neo-colonialism/imperialism. This has also meant that under western inspired economic institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank), ‘developing’ economies have adopted Rostow’s and Friedman’s modernisation strategies.

The result of all of this is the mimicking of the ‘developed’ by the ‘developing’ (as dependency increases) – what Rostow had envisaged. For instance, the World Health Organisation (WHO) reports that obesity rates have doubled since 1980 (around the time neoliberal economics is enforced), further adding:

Once considered a high-income country problem, overweight and obesity are now on the rise in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in urban settings. In ‘developing’ countries with emerging economies (classified by the World Bank as lower- and middle-income countries) the rate of increase of childhood overweight and obesity has been more than 30% higher than that of ‘developed’ countries.

A high calorie intake per capita among the most populace regions in the world increases demand even when it is not needed as we are now seeing in countries like the UK with high protein-based diets – what was originally an exercise supplement is now a common demand among the public. Coupled with the overconsumption of food, urbanisation proves to be the next big hurdle. Though the UN has suggested that deforestation has declined, the same cannot be said for urbanisation as it continues to rise.

54% of the world population currently resides in urban areas, the UN estimates this to increase to 66% by 2050. Whilst urban population has drastically increased from 746 million in 1950 to 3.9 billion in 2014, rural population is expected to decrease as it is growing slowly. This proves problematic for coastal based cities like Mumbai, New York, Shanghai, Guangzhou and New Orleans, as sea levels rise due to climate change and surface run-off increases (due to a lack of natural permeation). The geological impact also extends beyond flooding as China recently learnt, cities including Beijing and Shanghai are sinking due to overdevelopment and excessive extraction of groundwater. It is likely in the near future alongside economic costs that social issues will also arise as a result of mass migration, already an experience for countries like Bangladesh.

A Tragedy of the Commons?

Modernisation alongside an increase in population growth also produces a demand for more fossil fuel-based resources as is evidenced by the current CO₂ emissions produced per capita in both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ economies. Despite an increase in greener and cleaner technologies, fossil fuel extraction has not slowed down. As Duncan Clark writes, though President Obama boasts of the US’ role in reducing emissions, the US is “extracting carbon and flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before”. Similarly, Australia and the UK have introduced reduction targets whilst also incentivising oil and coal extraction which then encourages oil exporting countries like Saudi Arabia to increase production as they are currently doing.

According to Journalist and author George Monbiot however the correlation between climate change and population growth is minute in comparison to the correlation that it has with wealth, the world’s poor do little to contribute to climate change according to Monbiot. But if only a small percentage of the wealthy could do this much damage, then wouldn’t the distribution of wealth inevitably make things worse as more people use more resources (renewable and non-renewable)?

For this reason, what Malthus recognised was a habitual problem of the human species, unrestrained population growth met with growing unrestrained demands will surely challenge the capacity to supply. Though his prophecy was false, some part of Malthusianism is still alive and well today. For instance, as the World Food Programme records, despite producing an excess of food, 795 million people “do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life”. Yet as mentioned previously our calorie intake per capita has increased in every part of the world since the 1960s but somehow almost a seventh of the world population has not had their food needs met.

What we arrive at here is the ‘tragedy of the commons’ as coined by Garret Hardin in 1968. Hardin argued that it is no longer a case of technical solutions but a moral one as we are constantly looking for ways to “avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges”. It is these privileges that we currently enjoy and want to enjoy which makes tackling climate change a very steep mountain to climb. Whilst Malthus sought to challenge these privileges, he also raised an important point – maybe it is less to do with whether we can adapt and more to do with whether we can change.

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 ‘System Change, Not Climate Change‘ by Joe Brusky

Background

A unified rebuke from President Joko Widodo’s Cabinet in response to the latest in a series of incursions into Indonesian waters by Chinese fishing and coast guard vessels could mark a potential watershed moment in the disagreement between China and Indonesia over the Natuna Islands. As the frustrations build, the fractious responses of the past from within the government have finally given way to a united voice but Indonesia must now decide if it the best approach is to keep going it alone, independent of its ASEAN neighbours. Given the scope of the issue as a wider potential flashpoint, Indonesia must also not forget its regional role.

Comment

Since the beginning of his presidency, Joko Widodo – better known as Jokowi – has outlined his intention for a maritime-oriented foreign policy, which was spelt out in his Global Maritime Fulcrum vision. In the months leading up to these recent escalations, however, Jokowi’s actions have not matched his vision. A mixture of domestic politics and fractured foreign policy-related responses have, in the past, led to inconsistencies in the Indonesian responses to China’s South China Sea claims and subsequent maritime violations. While the Cabinet has disagreed over how to deliver a measured and unified response, China has slowly pushed its claim that the waters around the Natunas, where the Chinese fishermen have been caught, were “traditional Chinese fishing grounds”. China has used the same argument in its current South China Sea dispute with the Philippines. After the latest incident, Jokowi and his Cabinet announced from the warship KRI Imam Bonjol that further incursions will no longer be accepted.

Historically, Indonesia’s response has been grounded in not laying claim to any territory within China’s self-declared “nine-dash line”. The status quo, agreed upon by the two countries in the mid-1990s, has always been that Indonesia did not recognise the nine-dash line and that China respected Indonesian sovereignty over the waters surrounding the Natuna Islands. China has certainly never been a threat to Indonesia, but the recent clashes and Chinese incursions have called this arrangement into question. China’s ongoing bilateral dialogues with the other ASEAN members (rather than as a multinational group), means that Beijing could be well-placed to be able to take advantage of this disunity by slowly chipping away at the sovereign maritime borders between its nine-dash line and the waters surrounding the Natuna Islands. It may not be such a farfetched theory, either, as Evan Laksmana has described in his piece in the Washington Post in April of this year.

With Indonesia’s reluctance to openly side with major powers like the United States to hedge against China, the return to the table of ASEAN can play an important role in defusing tensions and achieving clarification. Indonesia has traditionally played the role of the honest broker when it comes to the South China Sea dispute. ASEAN is the cornerstone of Indonesia’s foreign policy and Jakarta must remember the benefits of continuing to act as a neutral party that can help to prevent the South China Sea flashpoint from boiling over, despite recent events. Even if Indonesia cannot formulate a fully effective response in its own right, going back to its role as the ASEAN mediator could help to overcome that problem. It may not solve the balancing act that Jokowi must play in keeping a happy China as a vital economic partner, but it could at least restore some stability and help to prevent further clashes. The burden of responsibility should now lie with China to explain its “traditional fishing grounds” argument, which hopefully might be answered at the next ASEAN leaders’ summit, to be held in Laos in September.

Despite his impressive record in the U.S. Democratic primaries, including racking up wins in Indiana, Colorado, Michigan, Washington, and West Virginia , it is all but clear that Bernie Sanders will not be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President. What seems equally clear is that Sanders is determined to stay in the race until the end, resulting in a contested nomination, despite certain Democrats pressuring him to pull out. Whether Sanders follows through with his stated intentions or not, the history of left-wing populist movements tells us that Sanders has achieved all he can through pushing Clinton as far as he has; and that a Sanders presidency would probably do more to harm the grassroots movement that he has created than were he to be successful come November’s election.

That Sanders has been as successful as he has is in itself an achievement. In a country where President Obama has been called a socialist simply because of promoting a watered-down (by European standards) form of universal healthcare, for a self-proclaimed socialist to have won victories against a member of the political establishment, with as much political experience and financial backing as Hilary Clinton, is astonishing. It has raised awareness of the large grassroots left-wing movement that exists in the United States today, as well as providing an alternative channel for the anti-establishment feeling that on the right has manifested itself in the form of support for Donald Trump. Sanders, like Trump, has given voice to those who feel that “establishment” politicians represent “big money,” or are corrupt, and/or insincere. He has mobilised huge numbers of people who for the past few years have felt themselves disillusioned by the political class, and who now see, in Sanders, a candidate who truly represents them.

However, it has not all been rosy. An interview with the New York Daily News revealed huge holes in Sanders’ concrete policy proposals, which led to an intense media fire back of the kind that Sanders, up until then, had not really experienced. Further questions have also emerged over his stance on gun crime, and his popularity amongst minority voters, issues that would gain even greater attention if he were to be named the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. The fallout from the Daily News interview gave the Sanders campaign just a glimpse of the intense scrutiny he, and his ideas, would come under were he to be the single Democrat candidate against a single Republican. His vague answers during debates against Hilary Clinton would be targeted far more vocally (and aggressively) once the conservative US press moved away from debating the Republican race for nomination – and, when it has focused on the Democrat race, angling its attacks on Clinton – and turned its full attention to the Democrat nominee. It is not too much of a leap of imagination to see the popular Sanders suddenly become symbolic (for many) of an idealistic left, full of ideas but lacking substance. Past quotes would be mined for any inconsistencies, anything (no matter how insubstantial) that could tie him to the establishment or to “Big Money”, groups he has been vocal in opposing. After several months of an aggressive presidential campaign, Sanders’ image may not emerge unscathed. For the young activists who at the moment follow him devotedly, a tarnished Sanders may not be so easy to worship, and his movement may well suffer as a result.

The situation would not become any easier were Sanders to enter the White House. To start with, he would face a tough time with Congress. Whether Congress is majority Republican or slimly Democrat, Sanders would be forced to adopt one of two techniques: either compromise on the most radical of his policies to try and pass some sort of moderate legislation, or take on Congress directly, appealing to his democratic mandate. The former approach would alienate the grassroots youth support that has been the lifeblood of the Sanders campaign so far; the latter approach would likely lead nowhere. One can look not only at Obama’s forced compromises on things like Obamacare, but even further back in US presidential history. Before Obama, the last successful candidate to adopt such a messianic rhetoric of deep-seated political change was Jimmy Carter, who came from nowhere to defeat Gerald Ford in 1976. Carter’s message was one of left-wing liberalism, of openness and honesty. His approach, however, was to choose a confrontational approach to Congress (including accusing his own Congressional leaders of being “wasteful and corrupt,” and calling a Congressional Committee “a pack of ravenous wolves”). Looking back, Carter regrets his approach, stating that it was his poor relations with Congress that led to his failure to get them to budge on Social Security, as well as his proposal for a long-range energy program.

A Republican-dominated Congress would make passing any of Sanders’ most controversial proposals – on the minimum wage, for example – nearimpossible; the fact that many of Sanders’ own Democrat colleagues do not agree with some of his proposals even more so. Faced with either Congressional obstinacy or voluntary moderacy, Sanders would lose support amongst his core supporters, while making no friends amongst more moderate voters. The mid-term elections would likely be disastrous; re-nomination come 2020 seem impossible. All the momentum that Sanders has developed over the past few months in favour of progressive policies would be lost, and US politics would return to the centre ground.

Sanders, it is likely has achieved as much as he can in the short term in terms of shifting US politics to the left. Clinton has already altered her stance on some key issues in response to Sanders’ popularity, and come her nomination it is likely that she would have to make at least some concessions to Sanders’ demands on her platform. She may even decide to put some Sanders-like progressive Democrats in her cabinet. As Tony Blair demonstrated in the UK, shifting the location of the accepted political centre, rather than coming in as an acknowledged extreme on the spectrum, can be a far more successful tactic, and may have a vastly further-reaching effect. Presented with the same policy, voters (and members of Congress) are more likely to accept it when the politician proposing it is a perceived moderate bending slightly, than a perceived radical seen to be compromising. The fact that a politician universally known to be a centrist (Clinton) has shifted her political stance to the left, and as a result will most likely be able to garner far more support for her policies than Sanders, is one of Sanders’ most fundamental achievements. Clinton’s history of working successfully with Congress only increases the chances of some Sanders-influenced policies passing under a Clinton-, rather than a Sanders presidency. A structural shift in US politics towards a European-style spectrum, with “democratic socialist” policies seen as more politically viable, would represent far more of a victory for Sanders than a four-year stand-off with Congress, followed by a return to political “normality” with the election of an establishment Democrat – or, as a result of a backlash against Sanders’ left-wing politics, a reinvigorated Ted Cruz – come 2020.

Examples from Europe support this analysis:In the aftermath of the financial crisis, several European countries – such as Spain, Greece, and Portugal – saw voters shifting to the left, even occasionally electing “socialist” candidates, as the continent saw an upsurge of off-centre grassroots movements. However, in almost all cases, the realities of institutional rule (the need for political compromise, the frustrations of implementing political revolution in a democratic system, and so on) has resulted in moderation of policies, frustration of idealistic goals, and eventual disillusionment from core supporters, without gaining support from those the socialists have compromised with.

In France in 2012, Francois Hollande ran against incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy promising to raise taxes on big corporations, banks and the wealthy, create subsidised jobs in areas of high unemployment for the young, and promote French industry. He defeated Sarkozy in the run-off, but since then has overseen a plummeting in popularity, both personally and for his party, with personal approval ratings reaching a low of 12% in November 2014. Only his “strong” (and arguably authoritarian) reaction to the Paris shootings helped his ratings at all, and even that bounce has proved temporary. Having failed to win over most of France, Hollande has also alienated his party’s traditional core support, with labour unions uniting for a day of protest against Hollande’s proposed labour reforms.

A similar phenomenon has beset the Syriza party in Greece. Elected in protest to the austerity policies forced upon Greece by the European Union, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was forced to accept a Memorandum with the EU on Greece’s debt. Following this, 25 Syriza MPs split from the party (including finance minister Yanis Varoufakis), forcing a new election. The results of this election again allowed Syriza to enter government in a new coalition, but after a year in power polls showed that Tsipras’ personal approval ratings have declined, while the party has been accused of selling its soul in return for power. Worn down by the realities of political compromise, the EU’s refusal to compromise, and internal bickering, the Syriza movement, while not dead by any stretch of the imagination, now lacks the widespread public appeal that it once held. One can easily imagine such a scenario besetting a frustrating Sanders regime.

A slightly different phenomenon has been seen in the UK, with the election of socialist Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn has not overseen a loss of core support, but infighting and bickering, as well as an almost universally hostile media, has meant that the public continues to see Corbyn’s (and Labour’s) role as one of opposition, rather than a party ready to rule. Corbyn’s political background is strikingly similar to Sanders: while not politically inexperienced, they both lack experience of leading diverse coalitions, and are both unaccustomed to having to moderate their policies in the face of political realities. Sanders’ interview with the Daily Times exposed the lack of political tact and subtlety that would allow him to thrive were he to ascend to the presidency; statements that can appear prophetic in opposition suddenly seem impractical and unworkable when in power, and there is a real danger that President Sanders would seem weak and inept. A four-year lame-duck presidency could well follow.

Sanders’ grassroots campaign has seen over four million contributions, with only three percent of the total money raised coming from supporters who have contributed the maximum $2,700 that an individual may give to a candidate running in primaries and caucuses. Meanwhile, three-quarters of donations to Sanders have been below $200, compared to only 17% of Clinton’s. Sanders’ supporters have successfully mobilised supporters via the internet to organise events ranging from canvassing registering voters to creating carpools, while the “Grassroots for Bernie Sanders!” Facebook page has over 32,000 likes. Sanders would do well to harness this popular momentum, targeting the 2018 mid-term elections to send more of his supporters into Congress. It is in this way, rather than through top down politics, that Sanders is most likely to achieve long-lasting and deep-seated political change.

Sanders has already had a huge effect on this US presidential election; he has tapped into a previously-neglected electorate, while bringing previously fringe issues into the mainstream. A failed Sanders presidency would undo all the momentum he has created up until now, resulting in the unfolding of his grassroots movement and a continuation of traditional US politics come 2020. However, by continuing to apply pressure from the sidelines, building a grassroots movement, and taking a long-term strategy of changing the political makeup of the Democratic Party, and eventually Congress, he can have a long lasting effect on US politics.

Author Bio

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 ‘Bernie Sanders – Caricature‘ by DonkeyHotey (edited by GPPW)

If civil wars have taught us anything, it is that they can be particularly stubborn problems. This is often the result of interventions by external powers seeking to further their regional ambitions, and can last for decades. The Afghan conflict is now entering its 37^th year, Lebanon’s civil war lasted 15, and now the Syrian conflict is entering its 5th. When these complex conflicts spin into a cycle of perpetual war, it becomes increasingly tempting for powers lacking in political capital or a strategic advantage to align with questionable proxies to further their interests, without direct intervention. They are treated, as Henry Kissinger infamously stated about military men, as “Dumb animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy”.

This can explain a somewhat worrying trend with regards to Islamist groups in Syria. Some commentators have been tempted to brand fighters such as Radwan Nammous, aka Abu Firas Al Suri of Al Nusra Front, as “moderate”. The Independent’s Kim Sungupta inferred this when reporting his death on April 4th by an alleged US drone strike. In his article, he takes a comment made by Faisal Adburrahaman Ibrahimi, a soldier with Syrian Islamist group Ahrar ash Sham. Ibrahimi asserted that the fight against IS is stunted by this example of killing “real revolutionaries”.

Giving credence to the comments of a member of Ahrar Ash Sham indicates the growth of a common wisdom that the group is becoming less militant, expounding what Syrian analyst Sam Heller calls a “revisionist“ Jihadism. This emerging consensus does not account for their history, and underestimates their strategic depth. Ibrahimi’s backhanded appeal to this confluence of interest with The West makes it clear that he would have us categorize IS as the only immediate Islamist threat. And, judging by the above articles as well as the initial inclusion of Ahrar Ash Sham and Jaysh Al Islam in the High Negotiating Committee during the January Geneva III talks, he has good reason to believe that the western dog can be wagged this way. The mirror of IS makes just about everything look moderate, but policymakers should be aware of an old foe, playing a long game.

Al Suri, Al Quaeda and the Islamist Civil War

Al-Suri’s moderation was qualified by Sungupta, who highlighted his use of Marxist concepts when analysing the historical processes of Jihad and criticizing IS. This should not serve as an example of his moderation. Al-Suri was a disciple of Abdullah Azzam’s Makhtab Al- Khadimat (services bureau, the precursor to Al Qaeda), and was exposed to the Islamist doctrines of Sayyid Qutb to qualify Jihad as a participant in the Afghan conflict in the 1980’s. Qutb, regarded as the theoretical grandfather of the Jihadist movement, also borrowed heavily from Marxist concepts when writing his work Ma’alim (milestones) from Nasser’s brutal cells in the fifties and sixties. In it, he proposed the idea that a vanguard, or tali’a, would lead and guard the Muslim world in revolution against the unbelievers, or Jahiliyya. In much the same way that Lenin believed the Bolsheviks to be the anointed dictatorship of the proletariat, Al Qaeda at their peak believed they were the divinely anointed guardians of the revolution.

This consistency of this tali’a is precisely what cleaved apart Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s ascent within the Al Qaeda affiliate, and is the crux of Al Suri’s grievance. As Truls Tønneson asserts, a power struggle occurred within the organisation after the death of its charismatic leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the merger of Baghdadi’s core group with the diminished organisation in October 2006. After a failed rebellion attempt by Abd al-Karim al-Jubouri, a figure linked to the traditionalist Al Qaeda wing, the ‘Ba’athists’ consolidated power in late 2010. As a result, many pro AQ members were assassinated, exiled, or fled to other smaller groups.

Thus, the old “Afghan Arabs” were stifled as their old organisation became Iraq-ified, ruralised and Ba’athised. The old guard were left attempting to theoretically delegitimise IS on the side-lines as IS claimed more land and more recruits, using what Fawaz Gerges calls a ‘rational savagery’ to impress potential members by striking fear into opposing, mostly Muslim, forces. In executing the Ba’athist valorisation of al quiswa, or “harshness”, IS have indiscriminately slaughtered those who do not confirm to their takfiri (excommunicatory) ideology. In the process, they have alienated other Islamist groups who recoil at their barbarism, and have broken decisively with their mother organisation. Islamists such as Al Suri are thus desperate to discredit it.

Aq’s Regional Silhouette

But while it may be argued that Al Qaeda have diminished beyond the Rubicon, it is not quite the full picture. In fact, while the centrifuge of the Syrian conflict rumbles away, Al Qaeda have begun to seek both land and legitimacy amongst locals as a viable alternative to the barbarism of IS. Al Qaeda’s largest cell, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), have been busy consolidating control over communities in southern Yemen, and have seized the port town of Mukulla. They have successfully exploited the cleavage between themselves and IS to pacify local communities, providing a ‘jihadist lite’ approach to rule, looting banks and abolishing taxation, while refraining from overusing hudud punishments (extreme punishments for crimes against god) and even bartering with the government in exile for oil rights.

The prints of Al-Qaeda are visible on other smaller organisations, making a future convergence between them somewhat conceivable should AQAP create a strong fiscal base in Yemen.  What Charles Lister of the Brooking’s Doha Institute calls IS’ ‘Ink Spot Strategy’ (that of outsourcing their presence to external cells with the aim of converging borders) extends to what Al Qaeda has achieved inside smaller groups in Syria and elsewhere to survive the collapse of Al Qaeda central in 2011.

These “ink spot” connections extend not only to Abu Firas Al Suri and Jabhat Al Nusra, but to Abu Ayman al-Hamawi, leader of Ibrahimi’s Ahrar Ash Sham. He was purported to have been a close companion of Abu Zarqawi, leader of IS’ parent organisation, Al Qaeda in Iraq. This is problematic, as this extremely questionable organisation has an estimated 20,000 fighters, making them the largest rebel fighting force behind the Free Syria Army. This has been made possible by funding from US led coalition allies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar.

Affiliations also exist via reverence for the example set by the organisations past achievements in other Islamist organisations. The ex-leader of Jaysh Al Islam, Zahran Alloush has been documented on record as praising Osama Bin Laden, referring to him reverentially as ‘sheikh’. This is also problematic as this group were also included in the preliminary talks to resolve the Syrian conflict, and were also for a time affiliated to Ashar ash Sham as part of the Syrian Islamic Front before the organisation dissolved. This is evidence that an affinity that has been shared in the past could happen in the future under the right conditions.

So when Ibrahimi talks of “real revolutionaries” he is referring to old guard; the ones that hold links to Al Qaeda, were involved with Abdullah Azzam’s ‘caravan’ of jihadist fighters in the 1980’s, and who are now at war with IS over ownership of the brand rights of international Jihad. And when individuals such as former US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford advocate opening up to Ahrar Ash Sham to avoid being left behind in the struggle to influence Syria, they do so without looking at the present or the past to save the future – they do it due to a dangerous paucity of ideas wrought by an obvious strategic disadvantage.

Nowhere Left to Turn: American Fatigue

This strategic disadvantage can be seen in Russia’s intervention. The Kremlin have the advantage of knowing who their friends are, aggressively supporting the onwards march of Assad’s forces to support its historic regional ally. America and the west do not have this strategic luxury. The constant stop-start of brokered talks is representative of Western political exhaustion, as well as the lack of political capital at home and abroad to commit to a comprehensive strategy in Syria beyond air strikes and drone attacks. The failure of Libya, the fear of mission creep in Syria, and a desire for what Obama called ‘free riders’ in the region to step up to the plate mean that American strategic emphasis has pivoted to Asia. 

But the failure of the west in the sands of the Middle East should not distract them from security threats on the horizon. While IS may remain the most immediate of these threats, Al Qaeda is down, but it is certainly not out. So when including militias in peace talks, policy makers must always refer to their histories and connections to anticipate the content of their character, and treat them with a degree of caution. After all, groups that have remained inside civil conflicts for this long are far from the subservient “dumb animals” of Kissinger’s reckoning.

About the Author

Lloyd Whittaker holds a BA in Politics and International Relations from the University of Sussex, and an MSc in Theory and History of International Relations from the London School of Economics, where he specialised in Middle Eastern history. He is currently working as a researcher for the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and can be contacted via his linkedIn account at https://www.linkedin.com/in/lloydwhittaker.

Cover image ‘Return To Homs‘ by Chaoyue 超越 PAN 潘

Being the idealistic millennials that we are, many of us grew up in environments that were educationally, economically and culturally privileged enough to not overly worry about finances, about our access to education, or to intercultural experiences. As a consequence, we were exposed to one of the most influential sentences of the last 50 years over and over again:

Go your own way! You’re special, show it! Follow your dreams! If you can dream it, you can do it!

And we bought it. All of it. Be it intellectual insight, personal tragedy or the belief that the Hippies were actually right in the 60s, we all bought into it – and for good reason. Following one’s dream, becoming who we always were meant to be is without question a great thing to do.

What they don’t tell you is that there are helping factors to that pursuit – and a cost. These tiny little helpers are a) if you already know who you want to be and what you want to do (‘save the world’ does not (!) count) and b) if you have both the network and financial backing to help you through the glass ceiling early on. The cost comes in if you don’t have little helpers a) and b), meaning you are like most of us.

Sure, the base line of us means that we are a somewhat elitist group from the start, but that doesn’t change the one fundamental truth we all face: when you trip, stumble and fall, the face you land on and the bruises are your own. Understanding the phrase ‘paying your dues’ and actually realizing the cost of following your ideals and the attempt to see those magical phrases through to the end are two quite different things.

If you really want to go your own way, you might want to consider doing the following:

• Forget making meaningless internships just to have some famous letters on your CV
• Forget taking jobs that are not answers to ‘Where do you see yourself in 10 years?’
• Go volunteering for a three-people local NGO that is doing very important work in a very remote area
• Be a non-paid board-member in five different NGOs that all consist of the same 20 people
• Be Pete: everyone likes Pete, Pete helps everyone for free, if you don’t know Pete, you should, he is THE NICEST, I wish we all were a bit more like Pete…

Idealists who want to save the world, we all have likely done several of the above things and while Pete is genuinely a great guy, no one tells you how he pays his bills, no one warned him of the 7-70 years of draught that followed his one ‘magical’ idea. They don’t mention (or in the very least not while we were listening) that there actually was a chance that while indulging ourselves in Human Rights, Marx’ critique of capitalism and the struggle of some minority we first heard about 3 weeks ago, but whose problems we are definitely able to solve in a jiffy or two, that media production, oratory skills and more than a basic knowledge of economics and management (budgeting!) would have gotten us same as far or further than going to our 10^th International Exchange for Future Leaders in a Belgian village (not that anything is wrong with attending such an event in such a place, but opportunity costs ARE a thing).

You can only start and restart projects and ideas so many times between 25 and 40 – and while every step of the way towards eventual success makes sense after the fact, it is important to note that there is one quality and one quality alone that will get you through doing your own thing: stamina.

Along the way of doing what we do, we will get a lot of the things we strive for: validation internally and externally, recognition, peers we admire and projects to be proud of. That however does not negate in the least the amount of waiting, professional rejection, dependence on others, times of unemployment, as well as potential personal and professional problems that are so deeply ingrained and rooted in the other side of that coin and path we chose.

It takes stamina, time and experience to do what we do and to go where we are going. At the end of the day, though, when it works out, it is so very much worth it. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t do it, right?

The ability to admit defeat, reset and roll the dice again without loosing courage and trust in ourselves is a central part of staying the course, even if altered, but we cannot do it alone.

If you can’t run, you walk, if you can’t walk, you crawl and if you can’t crawl, if you can’t even do that, you find someone to carry you. – Never underestimate the power of others to keep you motivated, be it a random comment on the internet, be it a colleague or mentor to support you or a friend being a friend. Stamina is what keeps us going, sanity is what gets us there.

It is not an easy life we chose, and yes, knowing that in advance and living it day by day are two quite different things indeed, but that cannot distract from the reasons why we started doing what we do in the first place or from the strength and joy we get from doing it.

Ever.

Moritz Borchardt is a Co-Director of GPPW and the resident bloggy person onboard

Cover image: theaucitron under a BY-SA 2.0 generic creative commons license

In December 2013, two weeks after the start of South Sudan’s recent internal conflict, South Sudanese academic Jok Madut Jok told a New York Times interviewer: “The two men will eventually sit down, resolve their issues, laugh for the cameras, and the thousands of civilians who have died will not be accounted for. No one will be responsible for their deaths.” It was almost two years later, in August 2015, that the two men in question – President Salva Kiir, and former Vice President turned rebel leader Riek Machar – did finally smile, shake hands, and put pen to paper on an agreement to end hostilities and begin a process of national reconciliation.

The outcome for the people of South Sudan has been humanitarian crisis on a grand scale. The total number of those killed is unknown. Among the litany of horrors recorded in the interim have been indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations, extra-judicial killings, sexual violence, mass displacement, abductions, forced disappearances and the forced conscription of adults and children. The report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) found that both Kiir’s government forces and opposition forces allied to Machar had committed serious human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law.

Much of the formal peace process during 2014 and 2015 focused on bringing ‘the two men’ to the negotiating table. Mediation talks were held under the oversight of a regional trade body, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), in Addis Ababa. The centrality of Kiir and Machar, present on behalf of the two sides they were thought (or hoped) to control, reflected the initial source of the unrest, as divisions within the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) party led to violence between rival army factions. As a result, the path to resolution of the conflict has often been seen as a matter of finding a balance in the sharing of power – at the expense of underlying issues.

The IGAD mediation process was notable for its extensive involvement of outside actors. The talks became known as the ‘IGAD-Plus’ initiative, due to the presence of states beyond the group’s East African bloc, with representatives from the so-called ‘Troika’ group (the US, the UK and Norway, responsible for financing the talks), China, the European Union and the African Union joining. At the time of the signing of the final peace agreement, both parties still held reservations, but were reportedly forced to proceed under pressure from increasingly frustrated international partners.

Significant regional power dynamics were also evident around the formal peace talks. In June 2015, Kenya – seen, along with the Ethiopian hosts, to be vying for control of the process – hosted a parallel meeting between Kiir, Machar and a group of former political detainees. Further parallel talks were convened in Tanzania, intended to reunify the divided factions within the SPLM. Meanwhile both Uganda and Sudan, present as IGAD member states, had their own interests in the conflict: Uganda had deployed troops into South Sudan at the request of the government, while in certain areas Sudan was alleged to be providing logistical and intelligence support to the opposition.

There was, however, a much wider group of key actors who were not present for these high-level meetings and negotiations. Among the voices crowded out from the dialogue have been domestic civil society organizations, less powerful political parties, women’s groups, youth representatives, and the representatives of traditional authorities. For the deeper process of national reconciliation beyond the formal peace process, a more nuanced strategy is required: in the country’s fragmented institutional landscape, influence in the area of peacebuilding and reconciliation cannot necessarily be secured through the exercise of central state power alone.

Peacebuilding at the grassroots level, rather than solely among political and military elites, will therefore be pivotal. The recent crisis is the latest in many decades of insecurity which have severely damaged inter-communal relations, subsuming what low-level local tensions into the context of increasingly heavily armed conflicts. The AUCISS report recognised this pattern, stating that: “The multiple conflicts in South[ern] Sudan’s history have negatively impacted relations at multiple levels … a peace and reconciliation agenda that proceeds from the position that a genuine national dialogue – one that past peace initiatives have been unable to guarantee – is imperative.”

There has been a history of successful grassroots peace efforts, particularly those orchestrated by church groups. The 1999 Wunlit Conference, for example, convened by the then-New Sudan Council of Churches, has been celebrated for bringing together fueding community representatives around the West Bank of the Nile to commit to peaceful relations. Similarly, the Kuron Peace Village project in Eastern Equatoria State, set up by the Catholic Diocese of Torit, provides another lauded example of ‘people-to-people’ peacebuilding methods. Grassroots peacebuilding can also bring its own complexities: Alex de Waal has noted the potential for local conferences to be used to redefine larger political and military conflicts as mere inter-communal disputes.

External observers of the conflict have at times relied on reductive narratives around the role of inter-communal violence. In many areas, violence beginning with political and military tensions took on an ethnic dimension, with reports of attacks based on ethnicity (or perceived ethnicity) fuelling fear and consequent cycles of retaliation. This built upon a bitter history of leaders using identity politics to mobilise support behind their own political goals. Simplified understandings of this phenomenon meant that less attention was paid to other driving factors, such as failures of post-independence governance, issues of corruption and neopatrimonialism, a high level of militarisation across society and historic grievances.

It is clear that if future peace is to be ensured, sincere efforts towards accountability and redress for past crimes must be demonstrated. In January 2016, President Kiir issued a rare public apology, saying: “I apologise on behalf of the SPLM to the people of South Sudan for the suffering they are going through as a result of war… People will have to account for the crimes they have committed.” While a Truth, Reconciliation and Healing Commission and a Compensation and Reparations Authority are due to be established, Amnesty International and other human rights NGOs have demanded the creation of an independent hybrid court, with international jurists and prosecutors, to try crimes committed during the conflict.

Machar was recently reappointed to high office, as Kiir’s Vice President. The responsibility of those once again entrusted with power is now to ensure that the reconciliation process is a genuinely inclusive one, incorporating a range of South Sudanese voices, and which makes steps to take on difficult, sensitive issues of accountability and governance. Jok has written that such an approach is essential for sustainable peace: “A peace project that does not address the root causes of the conflict, make a commitment for institutional reforms, promise the provision of a minimum level of economic development and promise to increase the welfare of the citizen would simply be postponing the conflict for a while before it erupts again.”

This article was originally written in February 2016 as a submissions for the HART Prize for Human Rights, and was awarded first place in the senior essay category.

Author Biography 

Daniel Cullen is a Geneva-based researcher working in human rights. He was formerly a graduate attaché at the British Institute in Eastern Africa, Nairobi. He studied History and Economics at SOAS, University of London. He has recently written for African Arguments and WhyDev, and tweets at @DanJCullen.

Cover Image: Global Panorama under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license

The so-called Böhmermann Affair, orchestrated by public statements of both President Erdogan of Turkey (who claims to be the victim of lese majesty by virtue of an insulting poem) and German Chancellor Merkel, has made waves recently due to its implications for freedom of the press and freedom of speech in one of the more liberal countries of this day and age.

This past Sunday, media critic Oliver Kalkofe took to the German airwaves to help explain and interpret the case. Below you find his comments in translation.

“A few interpreting words on possibly the most absurd case of real-life satire in German history.

#Böhmermann – Erdogan – Goatf’cker – Question mark

[The affair is] already now part of the annals of history as the first satire that became a state-affair because important people didn’t get the joke at the wrong time.

Just to be on the safe side – and as it repeatedly becomes the centre of discussion – the poem (German: Schmähgedicht – inflammatory poem) as such is not what the discussion is about.

Similarly, the questions:

• Is this poem still satire or already an insult?
• Is it funny or not, was it a spark of genius or the opposite?
• Is it allowed to call the Turkish President a goat copulator?

have to be answered in the same way every time:

IT DOESN’T F’ING MATTER!

To each his own, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. However, the intended satire never was the entirely irrelevant poem itself, but the presentation of the very same. The poem itself is simple, crass, and insulting – in doing so, it is, mind you, over-exaggerated to the level of a kindergarten-bully, so that it was to be expected that any self-assured adult would understand the cartoonesque and brazenly stupid nature of it.

Böhmermann or any other sane comic would never have put him or herself in front of a camera and read this poem in earnest. Ever. The satirical point of the whole event – independent from whether it was done well or not – was just the one: to provide a provoking comment on the foaming anger of Rumpelstiltskin from Bosporus that had already been caused by a comparatively tame Erdogan song by their colleagues at [the statirical tv show] Extra 3. This Erdoganian outrage included repeated summons of the German Ambassador and the dickish demand of the insulted head of the Turks for the German government to step in and regulate.

Böhmermann consciously dialled this up to eleven and in his show explained the differences between freedom of speech, satire and vile, inflammatory critique by way of the ‘inflammatory poem’ only to distance himself from it.

Alright, sure, this was meant to be provoking, no question about it, we stupid.

However, the provocation was the satire [and the satirical context of the ‘explanation’], not the poem itself! And exactly that kind of provocation is the job of satire.

The point made here was to give the (far outstretched) middle finger to a raging despot, who is actively abusing the right to free speech in his own country, and to declare in righteous indignation: Listen up, angry old imp, luckily we live in a country in which humour is yet to be forbidden, in which we can speak freely. And if we are smart about it, we can annoy you even more without really insulting you. Because that is the whole point of satire and the freedom of speech! And [that’s] its power. Ha!

Sadly, this play on a meta-level was set too high for too many people.

The heedless and premature reaction by [GER public broadcaster] ZDF and most importantly the Chancellor, who wanted protect the fragile deal with Turkey in a case of pre-emptive obedience to prevent the indignation of the angered Mussulman, was only the first step of everything that should follow.

Additionally, any attempts to create one’s own opinion of the piece in its intended context are prevented by the premature deletion of the piece from the ZDF-Mediathek [online and streaming platform of ZDF].

Sadly, cowardly.

And shameful for a public broadcaster.

[Similarly] Important for the overall assessment: Never before in the history of the Federal Republic has a head of state provided an un-asked-for critique of humour on a piece of TV-satire.

Why would they?

Only the official interpretation of the poem by the chancellor, not as a private person but in her role as head of state – and in disregard of its original context – led to this satirical bit becoming an affair of state.

What followed was a whirlwind of insanity and absurdities which could have been stopped, standing tall and with a steady hand, by making the following statement: Yes, we do have a separation of powers – this question is not to be decided by the legislative, but by the judicative. And that it will in the case of a lawsuit on the basis of personal defamation by President Erdogan. However, the exaggerated demand for a lawsuit on the basis of ‘lese majesty’ will not be accepted as it is not in line with our understanding of the freedom of speech. This happens as a sign of our sovereignty with regards to the freedom of satire and the press.

Sadly, this didn’t happen.

Chancellor Merkel has allowed investigations, and thus a lawsuit, based on the much-harder-to-interpret case of ‘lese majesty’ – while at the same time announcing to get rid of the out-dated law soon as possible.

Regretfully, this tells us citizens and other countries:

Also in our case, the freedom of speech and right to satire are (theoretically) a given, they end, however, at the very point at which the subject of a joke doesn’t get it.

Even-though the admittance of the lawsuit is legally possible and explainable, the state of law would have been paid enough deference to by a personal lawsuit of Mr Erdogan. The courts would have decided, far away from politics.

As it should be.

Admitting the suit as an absurdist ‘lese majesty’ was thus neither needed, nor necessary. Legally it was correct and politically possible – as a signal to our country and the world it was fatal. This was no sign of strength, none of courage or determination.

And even if it wasn’t meant as such or the following statement is maybe wrong or exaggerated: This decision will likely stand tall as a spineless cave in and betrayal of the values of our country and liberty as such, that is being criticized even by the head of the Turkish community in Germany. They as well would have wished for an affirmation of the freedom of speech.

This decision, however, helps no-one.

And, fatally, it will be used by the wrong and radical forces [in our society] for their own goals. All those who have thus far – and without justification – accused Mrs Merkel to be a traitor of her own people, have now gotten proof for their statement and the opportunity to join in on a comfortable, if wrong-headed, string of argumentation. Doing so, I fear that the boomerang that was so weakly and feebly thrown by our chancellor will forcefully hit her in the neck [before long].

It is a sad day for our country and our freedom of speech. A small, if worthy of discussion, satirical bit was turned into an affair of state, a fart into a tsunami.

By virtue of a bizarre succession of bad decisions, the attempt to showcase freedom of satire with its own means was turned into a political showcase of how not to treat it.

Chances are, this decision was not the death of the freedom of satire, but in the very least it was a solid kick into its balls.

Balls, that our government just demonstrated not to have.

If it weren’t so sad, we would have to laugh about it.”

The translation of the above text was done by GPPW Co-Director Moritz Borchardt in coordination with other members of the GPPW staff, the original German text can be found here, the translation was made following the meaning of the text over the exact wording of it.

We share the text here because we think it is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion surrounding the referenced poem and the freedom of speech and because we think Mr Kalkofe’s interpretation deserves to be heard and read as well outside the sphere of German language.

Beyond that, we genuinely hope that in the future jokes will be understood as such and that rights such as ‘lese majesty’ will soon be part of the history books alone.

Cover image via https://www.youtube.com/user/OliverJanich