Issue 3
Airstrikes in Syria
Are you for, or against?
Incite
Cover Photo Source: Karam Almasri/NurPhoto/Sipa USA
Table of Contents Issue 3 Important disclaimer: This issue of Incite was originally edited and scheduled for release in December 2015, but was postponed until now. Please be aware of the timing difference, as all news and articles remain unchanged.
17 ... Term limits and leaders on the African continent Samira Sawlani 20 ... Storm Desmond: Our Attitude to Flood Defence Needs to Change Ryan Underwood
3... Note from the Editor
22... A (not-so-typical) day in Parliament: the Insider’s View George Guven
4... End of Last Years News
24... 9k? No way! Akanshya Gurung
6... Politics Society News
27... A Historic Turning Point: COP21 and the Paris Agreement Michael Thorogood
7... Are you interested in writing for Incite? 8... Recommended Articles
30... Contre nous de la tyrannie Joshua Martin
Opinion Articles 10... Why the decision to bomb Syria is a step forward, but still not enough Matej Lovrenovic
An Interview with 32... Jack Holland: Former Senior Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Surrey
14 ... Who should we support in the Syrian Civil War? Nabil Rastani Incite is an online journal published by the University of Surrey Politics Society. The views expressed in this journal are the opinions of the respective individual, and do not represent the views of the society, the Students’ Union or the University.
University of Surrey Politics Society
2
@SurreyPolSoc
ussu.politics@surrey.ac.uk
Politics Society
Note from the Editor
Source: Eartheasy
In this issue I would like to talk about one of the most important events of last year: a new agreement called the ‘Committee of Parties’ (also known as COP 21) which took place in Paris between the 30th November and the 7th December, and which concluded with a historical agreement. The first international political response on climate change began in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit. The main aim of that Summit was to set out a framework for action aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. After that, the Kyoto summit in 1997 resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, a legally-binding deal to cut emissions for the period 2008-2012, but it only applied to developed countries and the US did not ratify it. Since then, many further attempts to come to a wider agreement including the US and China (the two most important polluters) did not succeed in Doha or Copenhagen. Europe is the only large economic area which, after Kyoto and without a binding agreement, voluntarily imposed CO2 reductions on its member countries. Whereas progress has been made and renewable energy counts today for a large % of the total world energy supply, scientists have declared that if current conditions are maintained then the world temperature will increase by 2C and lead to some countries disappearing under rising sea levels. Therefore, it is important that countries commit to a common effort. The 2015 summit has been a very important international step towards a moral commitment and will have a radical impact on our lives. For the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, the COP 21 final agreement involved more than 190 nations, committed to reducing the increase in world temperature to no more than 1.5 C. Whilst the agreement is not legally biding, it is the first time that so many countries have agreed to take climate action seriously. Co-editor Laura Bichisao
3
Incite
End of Last Years News
Source: The Telegraph
Parliament voted to expand airstrikes against ISIS into Syria. The decision was the cause of a large rift within the Labour Party, with 66 MP’s, including shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn, voting against party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has claimed that there has been a “fairly impressive start” to the airstrikes. George Osborne delivered his combined autumn statement and spending review at the end of November. The biggest surprise was the change in decision on cutting tax credits that were announced in the summer budget. The Chancellor has cancelled plans for implementing the policy, claiming that recent improvements in public finances mean these cuts are no longer required.
coordinated terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, which killed 130 people and injured a further 368. The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attacks. Within the two weeks following the attacks, all perpetrators were either captured or killed.
receiving over 550,000 signatures. Fellow Republicans have also rejected Trump’s views, with Lindsey Graham declaring that Trump has taken “xenophobia and religious bigotry to a new level”. Yet Trump continues to lead in the polls with 41% in a Monmouth University poll.
A total of 1 million official refugees have entered Europe this year, which represents a fourfold increase in comparison to 2014. It is estimated that roughly half of the migrants are Syrians fleeing from the war raging in their country.
On 2nd December, 14 people were killed and 21 wounded in a shooting in the Inland Regional Center social services agency in San Bernardino, California. The shooters had reportedly swore allegiance to ISIS prior to the attacks, raising questions about the terrorist group’s involvement. In response, the House of Representatives passed a bill preventing foreign nationals who have visited Iraq, Syria and other countries in the past five years from entering the US without visa.
A consensus was reached in Paris at the UN Climate Summit by all 195 members, which aims to keep the global temperature “well below 2°C”. The Paris agreement must now be ratified by every state individually, and will become legally binding once 55 parties who produce over 55% of the world’s greenhouse gas have agreed to it.
Source: KUT
Source: Al-Arabiya
On the evening of 13 November 2015, a series of
4
Donald Trump has called for a “total and complete shutdown” of the US’s borders to Muslims. These comments have sparked outrage across the world, with a petition calling for a ban on UK entry for Trump
White House and congressional negotiators continued to search for a compromise on large tax and spending bills with a combined price tag over $1tn, with leaders hoping to clinch an agreement and let Congress adjourn for the year. President Obama wants tax cuts for lower to middle income families, children and students, whereas Republicans want to make permanent expiring tax breaks for businesses. The money is needed to finance federal agencies next year, and if no conclusion is reached it could lead to another government shutdown.
Politics Society
Source: CNN
After nearly three decades of autocratic rule followed by a civil using uprising, Burkina Faso has a new leader. The road to the elections has been bumpy. Just two months ago, a military plot tried to derail the elections. Experts are saying that this new elections seems to be the most democratic polling in the country’s history. Ever since a citizen uprising overthrew President Blaise Compaore a year ago-after he ruled over the country for 27 years- civil society has done a lot of work to assure the quality of this election.
ates, together with Islamic countries Turkey, Malaysia, Pakistan and Gulf Arab and African states are involved in the coalition. The joint statement published on state news agency SPA announced that “a duty to protect the Islamic nations from the evils of all terrorist and organizations whatever their sect and name which wreak death and corruption on earth and aim to terrorize the innocent.”
Source: BBC
Source: Al-Jazeera
In Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD party won a landslide victory in the general elections. This vote represented the first national vote since the countries nominally civilian government came into power in 2011, which ended over 5 decades of military rule in the Myanmar. The Chinese authorities issued the cities first-ever “redalert” for smog, which closed all schools and building sites and banned over half the cities cars from driving.
Source: The Telegraph
Saudi Arabia on Tuesday announced the formation of a 34state Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism. A long list of Arab countries such as Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emir-
because the Chinese economy is slowing down itself. Nonetheless the announcement of this funding indicates China’s commitment to Africa and their focus on 10 projects over the next three years.
Chinese President Xi Jinping announced Friday that the country will pledge a new round of funding support to Africa’s development, worth $60 billion. Analysts argued that the Chinese investment in Africa decelerated, particularly in infrastructure projects, mainly
Venezuela’s opposition won a resounding victory in parliamentary elections, winning two-thirds of seats in the National Assembly. Voters have become increasingly restless over the countries freefalling economy, which has been plagued by high inflation and shortages of basic goods. Pressure will now mount on the authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro, who could face proceedings brought against him by opposition lawmakers. Brazil’s economy shrank by an incredible 4.5% year on in year in the last quarter, marking a for what was previously one of the worlds fastest growing economies. The countries situation might further detroriate yet, with impeachment proceedings being brought against the highly unpopular President Dilma Rousseff. The speaker of Brazil’s lower house of Congress initiated proceedings in response to a corruption scandal involving illegal funding the government has received from state-owned institutions.
5
Incite
Politics Society News
Our Previous Events Airstrikes Debate
Thursday 10th December, TB14
On the 10th December we held a debate on the UK’s decision to launch airstrikes in Syria, and what a heated debate it turned out be! With lots of audience participation it became a very enjoyable event to be apart of. Chaired by Kundan Sawlini (President of the Politics Society), we had a panel of four students. This including Hermione Cross (Vice President of the Politics Society) and Jason Scarse (Incite’s Voting Systems Correspondent) arguing against the use of airstrikes in Syria. This was countered by Joshua Martin (Editor of Incite and President of the Conservative Society) and Nabil Rastani (Incite’s Middle East Correspondent) who argued in favour of the use of airstrikes in Syria. There was little agreement on the two sides and there appeared to be no clear winner due to the understandable complexities of the region. This was the first of many current issue debates we plan to hold this academic year.
Our Upcoming Events
Source: PressTV
Trip to Brussels
Date TBC. Approximately Easter time.
The Politics Society is currently in the process of planning an exciting trip to Brussels planned for next semester. It will cost approximately £135pp and include travel and accommodation with a range of different events in Brussels. Planned will be a tour of the European Parliament, tourist attractions around Brussels and more social events such as a bar crawl on one of the evenings. It will consist of leaving Surrey on a Friday and returning late Sunday. More information will be released shortly. This is a trip not be missed!
6
Politics Society
Are you interested in writing for Incite?
Would you like to get involved in politics and be politically active? Would you like to call yourself a journalist and a writer?
Incite is an online journal created and edited by the Politics Society, with the journal being released monthly during university term times. - Incite focuses primarily on political news and debates. You can submit your contributions on whatever political issue or topic you find interesting and you would like to write about! - We have no rules about word limits, write as little or as much as you wish. If you would like a recommendation, we would say around 500-1,000 words. Long enough to develop your arguments, but short enough to keep the reader interested. - We welcome controversial articles and opinions, and we encourage everyone to fully express their own views. However if we receive any submissions that are hateful or discriminatory, they will not be accepted. - Please submit your articles via email to ussu.politics@surrey.ac.uk along with any pictures (+ sources for said pictures) or other requirements you would like to accompany your article. - If you would like to be creative and submit something that is not an opinion article, feel free to let us know what you have in mind! If you have other questions, please contact us via email or Facebook. We will be happy to answer your queries!
7
Incite
Recommended Articles Zika virus: first case contracted in US was sexually transmitted, say officials The Guardian
“To date, only imported cases of Zika infection have been reported in America, with the exception of the US territory of Puerto Rico. Many virologists, however, expect at least some limited spread of the disease in US Gulf Coast states.
Source: News4jax
EU urges Turkey to open its borders to Syrians fleeing war-torn Aleppo The Guardian
Source: The Guardian
“An estimated 850,000 people arrived in Greece last year, overwhelming its coast guard and reception facilities. Aid groups say the country is able to provide shelter for just 10,000 people – just over 1% of the total.”
North Korea rocket launch prompts rise in Asian tensions
Source: FT
Financial Times (£)
“Pyongyang said the launch was
timed to celebrate the birthday of late ruler Kim Jong Il, which falls on February 16. “The complete success made in the Kwangmyongsong-4 lift-off is … an epochal event in developing the country’s science, technology, economy and defence capability by legitimately exercising the right to use space for independent and peaceful purposes,” it said.”
8
Politics Society
It’s Britain and not America that has the debate over gun ownership wrong International Business Times
“Except I’ve started to think that things aren’t so simple. The more I learn about the facts behind the gun debate, the more I’m starting to wonder if it’s we in Britain who are getting the wrong end of the stick. The first problem is that ditching the guns is pretty much impossible, practically Source: IBT speaking. There are 300 million guns in circulation in the US and no good ideas about how to dent that number. Gun amnesties and buybacks have been tried without much success.
Cosmic justice for Labour’s embattled moderates Financial Times (£)
“Once the party gets over itself and accepts the Conservatives on the same footing, it might start to drain the culture of moral presumption that gives rise to abusive letters and threats of deselection from hysterical activists. Until then it will continue to fry in the fat of its own sanctimony, and deserve to.”
Source: FT
How to run the British government when ‘things get sticky’ The Guardian
“Keep your eye on the ‘professional’ committee member who argues over every comma and wastes time. Always remain in control of the meeting. This does not mean hogging the discussion yourself or being dictatorial. A joke is often effective; a cutting remark almost never ... deal briskly and firmly with red herrings and trivia.”
Source: The Guardian
9
Incite
Why the decision to bomb Syria is a step forward, but is still not enough By Matej Lovrenovic
Source: Betanews
After a heated debate in the House of Commons, the British Parliament has decided to extend its operations against IS to Syria. The decision has caused a vicious debate on social media with people arguing for and against. In this article I will explain why I think it was a positive decision. What is IS? Islamic State, as it calls itself, is a self-proclaimed caliphate operating mostly in Syria and Iraq but also controlling territory in other places, most notably Libya, through groups which have pledged allegiance. It is notorious for brutality, extremism and destruction of cultural heritage. But what makes them different from other terrorist groups like al-Qaeda? The
10
answer is simple, they don’t see war as a means to an end. They see it as the end itself. By proclaiming the caliphate, and their leader Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi a caliph, they have effectively declared war on the rest of the world. In their view it’s a holy war that signifies the judgment day and the arrival of the saviour Mahdi. They value their philosophy and ideology highly and are extremely sensitive to any criticisms or disagreements. As many witnesses have confirmed, one of their most sensitive spots is the name Islamic State itself. Any use of other variants such as ISIS, ISIL and especially Daesh is severely punished. Other thing that differentiates them from other groups is the ambition to make an actual state. While it
has mostly been looked down upon by the international community as nonsense, recent leaked documents have shown that IS has an elaborate plan on making a fully functioning state with a judiciary, legislative, welfare and educational system. This appears to be functioning already in conquered cities like Raqqa where the IS rule is seen by local population as more efficient than previous governments. In Iraq many members of Ba’ath party who lost their jobs after the fall of Saddam’s regime have found their place in IS bureaucracy. In places like this, IS fighters hold only places of power in ‘law enforcement’ and defence while the rest is left with previous officials which have pledged allegiance to the caliphate.
Politics Society All this along with their strong propaganda, social media presence, and appeal to young muslims around the world, has made IS the greatest terrorist threat to the west in recent history. And this is why in my opinion we need to call it an Islamic State and not Daesh for we are in danger of falling into the trap of underestimating the opponent. At the same time we must not let this spread Islamophobia because of the word Islamic in its name. As President Obama said in his recent speech: “ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world - including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology.”
“All this [...] has made IS the greatest terrorist threat to the west in recent history.” Why must we fight them? Simple reasoning would be just to say they are terrorists and as such are a danger to international community. But as I have elaborated before they are much more than terrorists and as such require our full attention. Most common argument used against intervention in Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle-East, is that with our presence we are just inciting violence, helping to radicalise the population even more and are
effectively generating more support for the IS. While that may be true to some extent, people often overlook the fact that this goes back much more then Bush’s post-9/11 wars, the Gulf war or even the Iranian revolution. Most of the current borders of these states have been made by colonial powers at the time of the First World War without any regards to tribal, religious or sectarian allegiance of the people of said countries. Populations of those countries are not homogenous which has caused much instability in the region and subsequently led to the referred events in recent memory. IS is using this and exploiting tribalism in the region for its own aims. They use both the Shia/Sunni divide as well as general animosity toward Kurds for their own aims. They are effectively redrawing the map of Middle-East, and in my opinion, they have already succeeded in that. The establishment of an independent Kurdish state is almost inevitable at this point and the future of Iraq is questionable with growing Iranian influence
Source: MissingPeace
over country’s Shia population. IS is also notorious for destroying any non-Sunni artefacts and historical sites in a move to make a homogenous population that disregards modern state borers. As UNESCO’s Director-General Irina Bokova said: “We don’t have time to lose because extremists are trying to erase the identity, because they know that if there is no identity, there is no memory, there is no history”. If they succeed in that, there will be no more possibility of solving this problem. The simple truth is, while we were wrong in the past, we cannot go back in time and fix it but have to work with status quo. The biggest problem is that we have let it go too far. Instead of decisive action we have pondered on weak responses trying to protect our interests in the region. In the same way it would have been easier to deal with Hitler in 1936 than later, IS should have been taken more seriously from the start.
11
Incite Instead we were more interested in deposing Bashar al-Assad. Turkey, the West’s biggest ally in the region, is more interested in dealing with Kurds and there have been many accusations of Turkish government collaborating with IS on various levels. Iran, the strongest military force in the region, is held in disregard and any chance of cooperation with them is almost non-existent.
“The simple truth is, while we were wrong in the past, we cannot go back in time and fix it but have to work with status quo.” The reality of the threat wasn’t clear until the Paris attacks a month ago. The attacks showed that IS is a global threat. Until then we thought they were contained to the region and a few sympathizers elsewhere and all the western casualties were limited to humanitarian aid workers, journalists or military personnel already in the region. Paris showed us that we were also vulnerable, and all the sentry moralists complaining about Beirut not getting the same media attention as Paris should ask would they actually know about Beirut if Paris didn’t happen at the same time, or do they know about various terrorist attacks happening in the region practically on a daily basis that have happened since then. The
12
between themselves too. Russia supports president Assad. The West supports Free Syrian Army, a heterogeneous group of various militias and paramilitaries often described as Syrian ‘moderate’ (a highly objectionable use of the term) opposition. Iraqi army is ineffective because of the post-2003 purges and Iran is often looked upon as the enemy. Kurds cannot be fully embraced as allies because of The question is, will air strikes Turkey and other Gulf states fix the problem. The answer is no. It’s just a small step forward, have their own interest and have even been accused of but an important one. By destroying key targets in air strikes funding and collaborating with IS, not to mention their own in Iraq and reducing their monconflicts such as the current ey inflow we have contained Saudi-Iranian proxy war in YeIS and curbed their influence. Extending the air strikes to Syria men. Add Israel, Palestine and Hezbollah to the equation and is not a big change but it helps. The area is already under heavy you can just take your hands away from it completely. But we bombardment by Russian, cannot do that. One of the best American and French forces articulations comes from Hilaand another actor will just help ry Benn’s speech in House of the joint effort. But the problem arises how to follow up on those Commons (Highly recommended to listen to it in full, not just air strikes. In which ground read it): force do we put our trust in to use the strategical advantage to win territory from IS? It’s a hard “I hope the House will bear with question because many groups me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and that are fighting IS are fighting wake-up call worked, albeit only partially. European powers have finally realised that the danger is here. The refugee crisis that was caused by IS is threatening to destabilise the Union and the countries have realised that their citizens are in greater danger of a new type of terrorism that strikes the everyday lives, and not just high priority targets.
Source: The Guardian
Politics Society colleagues. As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road. We are faced by fascists—not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this Chamber tonight and all the people we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy—the means by which we will make our decision tonight—in contempt. What we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. It is why, as we have heard
Source: The Independent
tonight, socialists, trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It is why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. My view is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. That is why I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion tonight.” Final thoughts: In my personal opinion without boots on the ground and a joint operation with the forces in the region, there is no end in sight in fight against IS. That is why we must show greater initiative and set our priorities clear. We should favour stability over
democracy. We should prioritise the security of our own citizens. We must stop insisting on regime changes when we are facing greater problems. And most important of all, we must choose our allies carefully and fully mobilise the region in the struggle. If we fail to do so, Free Syrian Army may become the next Taliban or al-Qaeda and we must not let that happen. We must also be open to redrawing the borders according to people’s right to self-determination which would solve many problems in the region. In any case I fully support the British government’s decision and praise them for taking initiative, no matter how small, to defeat an enemy that is not just a threat to our way of life, but a threat to the people of the region.
13
Incite
Who should we support in the Syrian Civil War? By Nabil Rastani
Source: BBC
On the 2nd December, Parliament voted to support the coalition’s efforts in degrading ISIS by undertaking a series of airstrikes against the group in Syria, this comes at a time of great uncertainty within Syria and the wider region. The coalition doesn’t seem to have a consistent long term strategy to overcome this brutal civil war, which has lasted well over four years and has cost the lives of over 200,000 in addition to leading to the displacement of over 8 million Syrians. The war
14
is a tragedy and failure of the international community to act in a unified and efficient manner in solving this issue. Instead, the West in particular has stood by and allowed regional players such as Iran and Saudi to use Syria as a playground for their proxies, as they both vie for dominance in the Middle East. As a result of these factors, the Syrian civil war has become a mess- there are a plethora of actors all attempting to gain power in Syria. First and foremost is pro-Assad forces, most-
ly consisting of his overstrained army, Ba’athist loyalists and Hezbollah forces. The second major actor is this war is ISIS, which has overtaken the place of the weak but pro-democratic Free Syria Army as a primary opposition to Assad. A numerous number of other actors are also fighting against the regime and ISIS, such as the FSA, Kurds, Southern Coalition and al-Nusra Front. So, when looking at the civil war from this perspective- who should we support?
Politics Society Cut the head of the snake first…. Before answering this question, the first issue for the future of the survival of Syria is destroying ISIS. The coalition must first and foremost defeat ISIS through military, economic and political means, in the form of logistical and tactical support to Kurdish and rebel groups, but it should also acknowledge that the Syrian government should have a role in defeating ISIS. Similarly, the coalition must encourage a multinational army to be developed, consisting of regional players such as Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi, Iranian, Egyptian and Turkish troops in undermining ISIS. It must be clear that this is not a US led operation. Destroying ISIS’s sources of income, and de-sectarianizing the Iraqi government by re-writing the constitution into a secular one would a first step in the right direction. Grassroots outreaching into Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria in addition to promoting dialogue between Sunni tribesmen and Shias might also de-radicalise these populations. If necessary, Iraq and Syria both being inorganic countries formed after the Skyes-Picot arrangement, may need to be dismantled along more sectarian lines. In order to accommodate to the needs of Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and Alawites alike. This may happen- after all, what is the incentive for Sunnis to fight against ISIS without an effective incentive, such as their own nation in Iraq and Syria.
“The coalition [...] should also acknowledge that the Syrian government should have a role in defeating ISIS.” Assad- the lesser of two evils? Ostensibly, it appears that Assad is the undisputed adversary in this war- he is a ruthless despot who has utilised any means of brutal tactics (including chemical weapons and instigating general massacres) to cling to power. However, the coalition must be pragmatic, his regime acts as the last beacon of secularism in a land that has been plagued by barbaric Islamism- both in it’s so called ‘moderate’ and extremist forms. As a result, the regime has frequently espoused values that might be considered western, for example Assad’s regime has not introduced a mandatory headscarf for women- and has actually promoted the emancipation of women, encouraging the education of women. Minority religious groups, such as Syria’s ancient Druze and Orthodox Syrian Christians are also protected by the government. These core principles which have defined Syrian politics for over a generation- those of the freedom of religion and women’s rights must be upheld and strengthened during the transitional period.
However, this should not detract from the fact that Assad must go. Therefore, although Assad and his cronies be removed, the core institutions of the Baathist regime must not be completely erased, as was done with the collapse of Saddams regime in Iraq. Instead, these institutions must be gradually reformed and reorganised to facilitate democratic change. After all without strong institutions, democracy can never flourish. For salvation, look south… Now we have discovered that supporting Assad in the long run is out of the question, who then? The simple answer is no Islamist group- these tend to be dangerous and intolerant groups that even in their so called ‘moderate’ forms will invariably begin to show their true autocratic colours. Just look at the Muslim Brotherhoods short reign in Egypt and the AK party in Turkey, who moved those countries towards backwards authoritarianism. The issue is, is that most anti-governmental groups have some tint of Islamism within them. But there are a small clutch of groups that are not- such as the newly formed ‘Southern Front’, based in Southern Syria this secular pro-democratic opposition group acts as Syria’s last chance to truly succeed in its original aims set out in the Arab Spring in 2011. Consisting of moderates and former members of the now impotent FSA, this opposition group has already shown great promise- having already defeated Hezbollah
15
Incite and governmental forces in Daraa. Now is time for the coalition to act, first it must train these forces into competent fighting force, training their men in both ambush strategies against ISIS and pitched battles against Assad. The coalition must also provide these troops with high quality supplies, in the form of arms such as anti-tank equipment and small arms. It must also aid in grassroots outreaching programmes aimed at promoting the aims of Southern Coalitions across Syria, this would invariably garner it greater support amongst the population. Particularly disenfranchised youths who are desperate for a fresh alternative to Assad and the other rebel groups. Most crucially however, the coalition should divert much it is airpower in supporting the group’s eventual advance into Damascus- by any means, including both air support and most critically a boots on the ground force consisting of troops from neighbouring
16
countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi and Turkey. Defeating Assad’s army will not be as difficult as it may invariably seem, indeed his military is not well organised force it was in 2011 and instead it is a shadow of what is once was. The frailties of Assad’s forces are conveyed by his overreliance on foreign troops, such as Iranian Quds troopers and Hezbollah, in addition to Russian air power. However, Russia, unlike Iran is rather pragmatic in its policy over Assad’s regime, most interested in protecting its port in Tartus, rather than the Baathist regime in Damascus. Therefore, the coalition must act fast to cool off tensions with Russia and convince it that its interests in Syria will remain protected. This would be best achieved by working alongside the Russians by actively consulting them for their advice and support. Unlike the Russians, the Iranians may stand and fight alongside Assad, fearing the loss of their geopolitically important ally
Source: Wikimedia
who has such a close access to Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. But even so, there forces could be overcome with a well organised effort, and support from regional troops backed by Western airpower. Indeed, even Iran will eventually back down in face of this opposition, fearing a direct engagement with the US. It is therefore imperative for the west and the wider anti-ISIS coalition to support the Southern Coalition now rather than when it is too late- Syria desperately needs a strong pro-democratic and secular force to help stabilise it once more, if the West and the larger coalition stand idly by as they have done for four years, then I fear that this civil war will just become more brutal and perhaps fan the flames of a more dangerous, wider conflict in the region and left unchecked, even the world.
“If the West and the larger coalition stand idly [...] then I fear that this civil war will just become more brutal and perhaps fan the flames of a more dangerous, wider conflict in the region and left unchecked, even the world.”
Politics Society
Term Limits and leaders on the African Continent By Samira Sawlani Freelance Writer, Journalist and Analyst on East Africa
Source: NDTV
A phrase often thrown around in political circles to refer to a certain brand of leader is the ‘Strongman’; now for those not familiar with this, it refers to Heads of State who are accused of running some form of dictatorship; be this through the creation of an oppressive regime or as often is the case staying in power for-well a long, long time. And a part of the world which many associate with being home to quite a few of these strongmen is the African Continent. Human rights organisations, civil society and Governments in the West spend an awful lot of time highlighting, discussing and criticizing many of these leaders (Yet these Governments are conveniently silent about regimes like that in Saudi Arabia, but we’ll save that discussion for another day) In fact this year US President Barack Obama visited Kenya and Ethiopia and speaking at the African Union in Addis Ababa he said “Africa’s democratic progress is at risk from leaders who refuse to step aside when their terms end. I have to be honest with you- I just don’t understand this.”
This year bearing the brunt of Western criticism like that of President Obama are not the already existing strongmen, but the ones which many fear are in pursuit of that title. It all started in April of this year when Pierre Nkurunziza, President of Burundi launched his bid for a third term in power despite the fact that Burundi’s constitution states that a President can serve for only two terms. President Nkurunziza claimed he was eligible for another term because his first one was a result of being elected by Burundian lawmakers.
the elections. No surprise that he won and was sworn in August 20th 2015. The United Nations Election Observer Mission said the Burundian electoral process was not ‘inclusive, free and credible’ while the European Union, US Department of State and African Union also expressed doubts over the polls. Following what seemed to be a failed coup attempt Nkurunziza has what he wants, the Presidency, a victory which has been a heavy price to pay for the people of Burundi.
Reports of assassinations, oppression and arrests of Government critics are fast becoming Nkurunziza did run for the Presi- the norm while over 200,000 dency all of which led to viopeople have left Burundi and lence, protests and a number of registered as refugees in neighopposition leaders boycotting bouring states.
17
Incite
Source: Inyenyerinews
The cost of one man’s ambition. Similarly, President Sassou Nguesso of Congo- Brazzaville has ruled the Country for 31 of the past 36 years (brief breaks occurred due to a civil war). Under the current constitution President Nguesso would not have been allowed to run for Presidency in 2016 due to his having served two terms and as he is aged over 70. Not keen on this, the President called for a referendum on Constitutional changes which would allow him to stand again next year. The opposition called for a boycott and people took to the streets in protest.
cess story on the African Continent, rising since the horrific 1994 genocide. In recent years however his Government has been accused of human rights abuses and creating an atmosphere of fear and oppression within Rwanda.
Interestingly President Hollande of France stated that Nguesso had the right to consult his people over this third term bid, perhaps economic relations and Congo-Brazzaville being a former French colony has something to do with that opinion. The most recent African leader to upset Western Powers by contemplating running for a third term is Paul Kagame of Rwanda. President Kagame has often been hailed as a visionary, Rwanda is considered a suc-
Kagame came to power in 2000 and won elections in 2003 and 2010 with overwhelming majorities. Rwanda’s constitution puts a two seven year term limit on the Presidency. However, earlier this year petitioners called for an amendment which would remove the term limit. As a result, a referendum is due to be held in Rwanda on whether the people want the Constitution changed. Kagame has said based on the outcome of that he will decide whether to run for the Presidency in 2017. As expected the US are unimpressed with this, America’s Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said “We expect President Kagame to step down at the end of his term in 2017.
However, the referendum went ahead as planned in October of this year and official results suggested there was a 72% voter turnout with 92% of people voting in favour of the Constitution changes, meaning that the 71 year old will be running for the Presidency again next year.
18
Source: Red Pepper
Politics Society Source: IAfrica
President Kagame has an opportunity to set an example for a region in which leaders seem too tempted to view themselves as indispensable to their own countries trajectories.” As expected Kagame responded, never a man to mince his words he fired back saying “We can be good friends but there is a line when it comes to the interest of Rwandans. If you want something from me by looking down on me, you can be sure 100% sure you won’t get it. (International Powers) are happy to keep feeding you and keep you under pressure to answer them about democracy.” So is it the business of Western powers to criticise African or indeed Non-Western Leaders? In the case of Rwanda and Congo-Brazzaville referendums were and will be held, is this not democracy? In October 2014 President Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso, who had been in power for 27 years,
attempted to amend the Constitution to run for another term.
“So is it the business of Western powers to criticise African or indeed Non-Western Leaders?” An uprising began, protests were organised, demonstrators took to the streets and within 48 hours Compaoré had resigned as his regime collapsed. Thus another argument is that ultimately the power lies in the hands of the people and outsiders have no business commenting on their affairs. Whatever your view one can be sure that the next few years on the African Continent will be interesting. In February 2016 President Museveni of Uganda who has been in power almost 30 years will be going to the polls again, while President
Guelleh of Djibouti has just announced his plan to run for a fourth term in April 2016. Simultaneously leaders like President Buhari of Nigeria and the recently elected President Magufuli of Tanzania are, experts believe, bringing the winds of change to the Continent, and may well pave the way for more like themselves. Africa’s longest-serving leaders: • 36 years: Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo - Equatorial Guinea • 36 years: Jose Eduardo dos Santos - Angola • 35 years: Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe • 32 years: Paul Biya Cameroon • 31 years: Denis Sassou Nguesso - Congo • 29 years: Yoweri Museveni - Uganda
19
Incite
Storm Desmond: Our Attitude to Flood Defence Needs to Change By Ryan Underwood
our climate is becoming more erratic and more action needs to be taken. In 2012 the UK Climate Change Risk assessment conducted by DEFRA predicted the frequency of river flooding may double or quadruple by the 2080’s. The report also stated that by 2050 the amount of people in danger from flooding could increase by between 400,000 and 2.7 million people. This shows we as a country have a huge challenge in front of us to protect ourselves from the elements.
Source: Freeimages.com
Over one week the North of England and Scotland have been battered by storm Desmond. We still don’t know the full extent of the damage caused to property and infrastructure or
20
the human cost of this onslaught. But Storm Desmond is just one in the long list of storms and flooding that has hit the country in recent years. This is yet another clear message that
This requires a great deal of investment in our flood defences and response to help suit these changing demands. However over the tenure of the coalition government we saw substantial cuts in the spending on flood defences. With real terms total spending on flood defences decreasing by over £200 million in 2011 to 2015 compared to the total spent between 2007 and 2011. The consequences of these cuts were felt during storm Desmond with the Guardian reporting that the Kendal flood project was due to start in 2014, but it was since pushed back to 2016. Kendal was hit considerably by these floods with many parts of the town left 5ft underwater.
Politics Society Furthermore we need to be looking more closely at our guidelines and regulations regarding developments on or near flood risk areas. It was revealed by The Telegraph just days after the worst of Storm Desmond, that over 9,000 homes which are due to be built as part of a £200 million government development scheme are on land which has a serious or significant flood risk. This not only puts the new households at risk but the changes in drainage could cause the area of flood risk to spread to surrounding areas putting even more homes at risk of flooding. Currently as much as local authorities are
recommended to consult the Environment Agency they can’t stop them allowing projects permission.
“We have a reactive attitude to flooding [...] We need to start acting proactively” This is all a sign of our attitudes towards flood protection. Like our attitude to environmental issues in general. We have a reactive attitude to flooding. We wait till the floods hit and only
then do we act. We need to start acting proactively, increasing flood defence spending now; before major floods hit. Not wait until after as in 2012 where it took until 1000 homes were flooded for the government to partially reverse their planned cuts, putting £120 million back into flood defence spending. And also a greater push needs to be put on getting new legislation that clearly prohibits further developments on flood risk areas to ensure we don’t create new communities at risk of flooding and more moments of heartache like we have seen recently.
References (1) http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=15747 (2) www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05755.pdf (3) http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/08/tories-criticised-over-delayed-defences-instorm-desmond-flood-zone (4) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/30/flooding-120m-defence-spending (5) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/flooding/12042406/200-million-flagship-scheme-couldsee-new-homes-built-on-floodplains.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM69738&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FAM_ New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_2015_12_10&utm_campaign=DM69738
21
Incite
A (not-so-typical) day in Parliament: the Insider’s View By George Guven Former Vice-President of the Politics Society 2014/15
Source: Evening Standard
When I entered the Estate the excitement was palpable. Visiting the Palace of Westminster you will invariably be told of Central Lobby—the grand, cloistered atrium between both Chambers—that ‘this is the beating heart of Parliament’. Historically and officially, this is true. But in reality, the beating heart of Parliament resides across the road, on Bridge Street, in the glistening atrium of Portcullis House. It is here that the action takes place, and the pulse of the legislature can really be taken. It is where journalists skulk and gossip, backbenchers plot, the House Service talk shop and members are lobbied over coffee. When something big is happening all and sundry come to Portcullis to assess the mood. When I
22
arrived, journalists were already out in force, caffeinating themselves ahead of the Autumn Statement and Comprehensive Spending Review and there was a noticeable hum of anticipation. What, we all questioned, would George have in his goody (red) box today? I cleared my morning to sit in the Chamber and watch the proceedings. There are certain perks for those of us who word for the House—the imperatives such as subsidised coffee and 10% off in the gift shop at Christmas—but one of those perks, unfortunately, is not unrestricted access to the Commons Gallery. Members of Parliament can book tickets for the gallery on such auspicious occasions but the hoi polloi - House Staff,
like me, can not. (Hilariously, when a stranger at a train station enquired after my occupation, and I told him I worked for Parliament, they asked me if I was an MP. I told him that if I were an MP I’d have a much nicer suit.) This meant getting in early (8am, requiring a 5.30am wake up!) and finishing up a stack of work, despite having been in the office until 9.30pm the evening before, and joining the public queue as early as possible. In fact, I was so diligent (I really was desperate to see George and John going at it) that I had finished by 9, and I was in the public queue before the public had even been opened. This was extremely fortunate.
Politics Society I waited patiently from 9.30am until midday to be admitted and only got in just as Prime Minister’s Questions (or the ‘Dave and Jez Show’ as some discerning Parliamentarians refer to it) began. This was actually the first time I had managed to see PMQs as tickets are that thin on the ground, and it was a delightful show. Seeing PMQs in the flesh really brought the drama to life. The public always appear to have a riot in the gallery, laughing just as hard as MPs at the puns and jabs thrown across the despatch box. I really appreciated Cameron’s prowess as a a well-polished performer with 10 years of PMQs experience. Corbyn is clearly ill-at-ease with one-to-one combat over the despatch box, but only 9 weeks into his leadership it is difficult (though the mainstream press does not share this view) to slander him for that. Corbyn has smothered some of the theatrics with his ‘new politics’, there is still a glimmer of spectacle to be seen from the Government front bench.
Source: The Independent
The Autumn Statement was fascinating to watch. It is the first I have sat through fully, in confess, as I’d much rather read the documents than waste an hour watching it on the television. But this time, I enjoyed it and I was very impressed. Firstly, by the Chancellor’s oratorical skills. He is no Churchill or Benn, but his delivery was crisp, clear and his punches well received. My personal favourite was his assertion that a Labour MP’s constituency will ‘contribute to culture, whilst his front bench contributes to comedy’. Even better, though, was the intervention of Mr Speaker at the screaming (and I literally mean screaming) of Labour MP Clive Lewis. ‘Mr Lewis’, came those dulcet tones. ‘Get a grip of yourself, man! Calm! Take up yoga, you’ll find it beneficial, man!’ I cannot comment in a political capacity on the content of the budget due to my position in the House. What I will say is that the Shadow Chancellor’s deci-
sion to quote Mao’s Little Red Book, in what was probably the most ill thought out attempt and jocular debate undertaken in the history of British politics, was met with as much mirth in the public gallery as on the floor of the House.
“He is no Churchill or Benn, but his delivery was crisp, clear and his punches well received.” I spent two hours in the Chamber and delighted in every minute. I will end my ramblings by saying simply that it is your Parliament and you are welcome to roam its halls whenever you wish. If you can spare the time, bring yourself to Westminster to watch business in either Chamber or in Select Committee hearings. It is an experience that all Surrey politics students will, I am certain relish.
23
Incite
9k? No way! By Akanshya Gurung
The fourth of November 2015 signified the day when Surrey Labour Students embarked on their first field trip of the academic year. Armed with placards which were the product creativity and around three meetings’ worth of work, a team of seven dedicated members made their way into London to join thousands of people, mainly consisting of students. The purpose? To join the ‘Free Education’ demonstration organised by The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) and endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn himself, with the support of the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, also being shown through his participation
24
and speech in the march. It was an exciting day as the placards drew much attention and acclaim, leading the team to be featured on The Guardian online, numerous times on twitter and attracted the attention of several reporters and photographers. Jack Robinson, Campaigns Officer, in particular was interviewed many times, including by Anna O’Niell from BBC Radio London. Robinson humorously credited his homemade placard for this occurrence: “I think it was more of the sign I made that was quite colourful in its language!” which stated in plain white words: ‘Andrew Lloyd Webber is a C*nt’. Simple yet effective.
The other placards also caught the eyes and camera lenses of many in attendance. Jake Roberts, Membership Officer, and myself were lucky enough to be featured in a web article by ‘LBC’ in where our placards were adorned among others as some of the ‘Funniest Placards’. The first featured one of our pig-related signs: ‘Education Cuts Make Me Squeal’ with a crying pig painted on, while the second depicted the University of Surrey’s mascot, Steve the Stag, as hung with the ominous words ‘Don’t Choke Off Education’. Amidst all the excitement, Jack Robinson also expressed that he “felt in solidarity with a major
Politics Society
ity of the protestors”. When asked about the importance of the march and indeed all forms of protest, Robinson said “I think that it is the duty of all citizens in a democratic society like ours to resist the government when it creates policies that are ultimately unjust and will bring ruin to society in some way. The significance therefore of that protest was turning up en masse to say as one voice that we do not support the government and we will, one day, repeal these disastrous changes to higher education. This is only one day, one protest, but it is a part of a continuing resistance to this vicious Conservative administration.” With the slogan ‘Free education: no barriers, no border, no business’, although the demon-
stration was catalysed by the proposition of the scrapping of maintenance grants to turn them into loans by the current Conservative government, the NCAFC stressed the overarching aim of seeking free further education from the government, which was abolished in 1998 under the ‘New Labour’ government. Although the debate over whether further education should be entirely free has led to divisions in the Labour party, the possible scrapping of maintenance grants has raised much anger in students across the country and in the Labour party. Indeed, the Labour Students National Council conference on December saw a powerful speech by Rachel Holland, member of the Labour Students NUS group, address-
ing the issue of the plans for maintenance grants: “According to research by the National Union of Students, over a third of students said they would not have attended University without maintenance grants...That’s a third of future doctors, scientists, politicians who wouldn’t be able to make it through University. On one hand, they [the Conservative party] say we need more working-class MPs, and on the other hand they stop working-class students entering the very paths that they expect future MPs to follow.” Currently maintenance grants can cover for up to £3,387 for students whose family income is £25,000 or less. The new plans, however, means that students from low income families will have to take a loan instead.
25
Incite Although George Osborne, Chancellor, has claimed that the new £8,200 loans will mean more support for students, this actually targets 40% of the poorest students the most as estimates predict that the average debt of £40,500 will be increased to £53,000. While students who come from higher income families will be able to pay off their tuition fees and/ or pay for living costs up front, poorer students will be delved into more debt, especially with the implementation of interest rates. On top of this, Osborne has said that tuition fees may be raised by high-quality teaching universities if they so wish. The combination of all the education cuts and possible tuition increases will lead to the risk of students from middle to low income students being put off
by university. This means that thousands of intelligent and hardworking students may not go to university, just because of their family income.
“This means that thousands of intelligent and hardworking students may not go to university, just because of their family income.” Despite the great energy and important message of the march, it was not reported in any major news outlets apart from The Guardian and Sky News. However, the latter chose
to only report the very end of the protest in where a tiny minority of the protestors engaged in a violent conflict with the police. This was misleading and disheartening to see. Nevertheless, the team were inspired by both the march and the recent reporting of the South African victory, where students were able to beat the proposed tuition fee rises by the government through demonstrations much like the one on the 4th. When asked how it was to lead the team, Josh Chown, Chair of Surrey Labour Students, said “It was very good to lead a group of people who voted themselves to go. We built for the demo over a couple week, creating placards, advertising it, and it was great to finally get to go”. Source: Metro
To learn more about Surrey Labour Students, or if you are keen to get involved, contact ussu.labour@surrey.ac.uk
26
Politics Society
A Historic Turning Point: COP21 and the Paris Agreement By Michael Thorogood
“I am looking at the room, I see the reaction is positive, the Paris climate accord is accepted!” These were the words of French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, hushing a last minute Nicaraguan objection and wrapping up years of intense negotiations to finalize an unprecedented global deal on climate change. Although few would have admitted it afterwards, such a concrete deal – partly binding, unanimous across 195 states – would not have been expected by many. Although some would argue the deal should have gone further, the Paris Agreement is historic and unprecedented, marking an important turning point in the battle against climate change. To the greatest extent ever, common ground was found amongst the
vast spectrum of actors and viewpoints represented at the negotiating table. Paris, a city that has recently had to endure so much, finally had the opportunity to celebrate its crucial role in achieving global unity and agreement and the role of French negotiators in COP21’s success is undeniable. In particular, French leadership was instrumental in enforcing that each state submits a climate pledge pre-conference, ensuring delegates knew exactly what was on the table from each country and where each party stood before discussions began, ensuring the smooth running of the conference. Sceptics will argue that the deal does not go far enough and with only part of the deal binding -
Source: ClimateRealityProject
“Paris, a city that has recently had to endure so much, finally had the opportunity to celebrate its crucial role in achieving global unity and agreement.” the monitoring and reviewing phase – there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that pledges are met. Some will also question the fate of the US’s side of the deal if a Republic President should be next to enter the Whitehouse.
27
Incite The celebrations of the delegates in Paris and the urgency of Laurent Fabius to hush the last minute Nicaraguan objection to secure the deal was indicative of a shared feeling amongst the delegates – this month’s Paris talks were the culmination of years of work. This was a window of opportunity to secure a deal which could easily have passed by quickly. There was therefore an added urgency to the deal, as it was essential that the momentum was captured whilst it was still there.
“It was essential that the momentum was captured whilst it was still there.” What has been achieved in the Paris Agreement? There has, predictably, been a mixed reaction to the Paris Agreement, but relative to the success of past climate talks (or lack of), the Paris Agreement is unprecedented and there have been several major breakthrough achievements: • Global temperature rises should be limited to 2°C or even 1.5°C, which should avert what climate scientists describe as ‘dangerous warming’. This estimation is only a projection, but is worked out by combining the proposals set out in each country’s ‘climate plan’ presented pre-conference, plus the results of the $100bn cli
28
Source: FT
mate fund for developing states and the review mechanism of country progress incrementing up national targets, although actually meeting set targets is another considerable question. • The agreement is universal with all 195 country delegations in Paris agreeing unanimously on the agreement, although there has inevitably been watering down of its scope along the way. Getting island nations, India, China, the US, the EU and oil producing states to all agree on a deal is unprecedented and the deal is the first universal deal of its kind, accounting for all interests at the table. • Regular reviews of country targets are binding and these should incentivize states to fulfill their pledges as transparency has been a key focus of this agreement. However, it should be noted that actually fulfilling set objectives is not binding – there is no enforcement mechanism beyond monitoring to ensure the agreements are met.
• $100bn per year is pledged for developing states to ensure climate justice from 2020. The $100bn per year is to be funded by developed states to help poorer states cut emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, whilst continuing to tackle poverty. Pleasing both developed and developing countries has always been the biggest issue of global climate deals and agreement on climate justice was one of the greatest barriers in COP21. Although the $100bn was the lower limit agreed by the G77 (a coalition of 134 developing states) and is non-binding, the level is a ‘floor’ to be gradually increased and was a hugely important outcome of the talks. Do countries have to fulfill their obligations? No – there is no legal framework to implement the agreement and although it is binding that countries open themselves to full monitoring of their progress, there is no enforcement mechanism.
Politics Society If a country decides to avert from its climate pledges, there is little likelihood of any sanctions. As governments and priorities change, the fulfillment of pledges may be threatened (or advanced) in the future. With a number of Republican candidates denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change (Donald Trump, predictably, for instance), the US Presidential election will be eagerly followed by advocates of the climate deal. Is the problem of global warming now resolved? No – certainly not. The Paris agreement seems a case of capturing the positive momentum which has been developing through past climate talks and the urgency for a deal has never
ed steps to green their energy been greater, but the celebration is more focused upon finally mix and the Paris Agreement is a significant turning point. reaching a deal, than for what the content of the deal actually is. In theory, climate plans – if delivered upon – should limit “The $100bn global temperature rises to below that crucial 2°C ‘dangerous’ per year is to be limit, but there is always the funded by dechance that other, short-term political interests will take prece- veloped states dence. A 2°C temperature rise to help poorer is still negative and damaging, especially for developing states states cut emiswho are suffering from the sions and adapt ever-worsening brunt of climate change right now. A big aim to the impacts of of the talks has been to peak climate change, CO2 emissions and fossil fuel usage as soon as possible, but whilst continuing that means for years to come to tackle poverthe damage being done to the environment is still worsening. ty.” Nevertheless, states like China are already taking unprecedentSource: Telesur
29
Contre nous de la tyrannie, l’étendard sanglant est levé By Joshua Martin Editor of Incite
‘Against us tyranny’s bloody banner is raised’ – That is the rallying call in La Marseillaise, the French national anthem. Composed during France’s war with Austria in the 18th century, the anthem was a violent and bloody call to arms against foreign invaders. Still maintained as the national anthem today, its lyrics have long been controversial and calls to change them are a somewhat frequent topic of debate. After the Paris attacks however, the anthem and its lyrics have taken on a whole new meaning. Back in January in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, people took to the streets in defiance and in defence of free-
dom of speech. This time the reaction is more subdued. The repetition and sophistication of the attacks, the high number of casualties and ordinary citizens as targets has changed the discourse. This could no longer be framed as a symbolic attack on freedom of speech and liberal democracy; this was a violent act of terror. France is under a state of vigilance, and people are scared and afraid. Amidst all this, François Hollande has seized the moment and acted to defend the nation. He has imposed a state of emergency, escalated airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, and addressed the French Assembly (pictured) by saying of the
Source: RT
attacks “It’s an act of war perpetrated by a terrorist army”.
“France is under a state of vigilance, and people are scared and afraid.” Long unpopular for his failures domestically, the French President has been much more decisive on foreign and security affairs. Hollande has acted as a father figure to the nation in its time of need, and the public and his opponents have rallied around his hard-line response
to terrorism. Yet however admirable the response has been once again to these attacks, unity and solidarity will soon give way to division. Most of the perpetrators of the attacks were not foreigners, but were in fact French. Others were born in Belgium, and regularly exploited the loose border controls within the Schengen area to come and go as they pleased. The state of emergency in France has meant the re-imposition of border controls, Socialist party pulled some of its and questions are now being candidates out of the 2nd round, asked if Europe’s open borders allowing the centre-right candiare really sustainable given the dates to defeat the FN. Prime security risks. Hollande may Minister Manuel Valls warned of have experienced a boost in “civil war” if the FN was victothe polls, but the Front National rious. Well, civil war has been (FN) stands to gain the most po- avoided for now. litically from these events. This climate of civil war was cerThe FN reacted to the attacks tainly not apparent at the Enas it would, by condemning the gland vs. France game at Wemsecurity risks of open borders bley back in November, which to terrorists, and condemning I had the pleasure of attending the failures of multiculturalism to with the president of PolSoc. prevent home-grown extremism. What was originally going to be Regional elections were held a dull friendly with nothing to soon after in December, and play for became an incredibly the polls suggested the FN had emotional event. Both sets of a very good chance of winning fans sang La Marseillaise becontrol of 2-3 regions. Recogfore kick-off, and rose to their nising this, Hollande’s feet to applaud Lassana Diarra
and Antoine Griezmann - players who had lost close friends and family in the attacks. The French team were (understandably) never really in the game, and lost the match 2-0 to England. Despite the result, a group of French supporters high up in the stands continued to stand up and chant La Marseillaise. Not as it was originally intended, as a call to arms against foreign invaders. This time the anthem was sung in defiance of tyranny. Unity and solidarity will never last forever, alas is the nature of politics. What is clear is that whilst terrorism may scare us, it will never disrupt our way of life and our daily routines. Against us stands tyranny, and we raise our flags and live our lives in defiance.
Incite
An Interview with:
Jack Holland Former Senior Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Surrey Politics Department
32
Photo: Michael Thorogoood
Politics Society First of all thank you for talking to us Jack, it’s very much appreciated. Before we get started and delve into what we want to talk you about in terms of international relations and current affairs, could you give us a little bit of backdrop into yourself and your field of research? Yes, I’m Senior Lecturer in International Relations here at the University of Surrey for another two weeks up to Christmas. After that I’ll be Associate Professor in International Security at the University Of Leeds in the politics department there. My research is on US, UK and Australian foreign and security policy. I am particularly interested in constructivist approaches - role of language, culture, narrative, discourse. I’ve done quite a lot of work on terrorism and counter-terrorism, and I am interested in critical approaches to security. Perfect. If we can dive straight in because we are very interested to know about your opinion on the Paris attacks and the Syria Airstrikes. What is your opinion? Moreover, what is your opinion on the reactions from the attack? My first concern once you get over the abhorrent nature of the attacks and how distressing it is and how horrible it is. I should point out that I was actually watching this on TV in London with visiting family. My soon to be sister-in-law is German but
lives in Nantes, and her daughter so my soon to be niece is French and they were over visiting at the time. So they were watching this and my soon to be sister-in-law was texting family and friends to check if everyone was safe. You watch this, it’s abhorrent, it’s disgusting, it’s scary and it should be condemned without a doubt. But then my academic head kicked in and I started to think about what does this actually mean and what’s the likely response. My biggest concern as someone whose spent the last many, many years researching the war on terror - my concern is that western states might not have learnt the lessons of the war on terror and you might get Paris treated in a similar way to the events of September 11th of 2001, and some of those fears have been played out unfortunately.
“My concern is that western states might not have learnt the lessons of the war on terror, and you might get Paris treated in a similar way to the events of September 11th of 2001”
This was framed quite quickly and readily by [French President] Hollande as being an act of war, which I don’t think is helpful language. I would rather see this held up as being a heinous criminal act. I would rather see people pursued through international policing networks and ideally put on trial if they haven’t already been shot or blown up, rather than this framed as an act of war. Because if it is framed as an act of war you are more likely to have a policy of military intervention in response to what’s taking place. Now the French were already bombing the Islamic state, what you’ve seen is that’s been ramped up considerably and a discourse of war is taking hold. I think it’s an unhelpful narrative framing, it’s more than unhelpful, and it’s what underpins the damaging forms of policy response. We’ve seen the same thing happen now in the UK where Britain has been told it needs to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the French and with the Americans and ‘play its part’ in bombing what is seen to be a threat to British national security. That to me is problematic on many, many levels. I lobbied my local MP who is a Tory, Paul Scully, to try to persuade him that there were 10 good reasons to hesitate before his vote. He’d already outlined that he was going to vote to support the government and to authorise airstrikes so I thought what’s the best way to lobby
33
Incite an MP in today’s world? He was sat in the chamber listening to the debates at this point; I thought he’s not going to read his emails so I tweeted him… There were 11 points really that I chose to focus on to make the argument to him that I thought might have some purchase with him. The first one is that violence begets violence. One of the arguments that was put forward to us was that we need to bomb Islamic state to make the United Kingdom safer. I believe that’s false, because although you can downgrade Islamic state’s capability and infrastructure through bombing certainly which would lead to an increase of British security. I believe that that game is offset by the negative implications that come from increased political grievance.
When you bomb someone you inspire further radicalisation, more extremism and more violence in response to those airstrikes so I think the imminent critique of that argument is that actually we won’t be safer. We’ve already seen someone get stabbed in Leytonstone as a result of this. However misguided that individual is, they believe that’s why they’re acting and I think you are more likely to have insecurity on British streets as a result of airstrikes. The second point is that violence doesn’t solve very much. Islamic state’s timeline for actions is a hell of a lot longer than an airstrikes campaign or a parliamentary term. It’s not hard for an organisation to wait out western coalition military intervention. We’ve seen it happen
in Afghanistan where the Taliban are retaking territory and regaining influence quite rapidly. Third point is that solutions need conversations, so if you are going to solve an issue of political violence like terrorism you have to talk to all parties. Even if you don’t like them and even if as Mo Mowlam [former Labour Party MP] once said ‘They’re murdering bastards’, you have to talk to all parties. Syria is about the most complex civil war I can ever remember. The plethora of actors involved is incredible, the rebels and Kurds alone comprise 20 different forces, 20 different indistinct groups. So the 70,000 troops number was nonsense, and even arguably isolating Islamic state is naïve given the range of extremist actors on the ground Source: UK Parliament
Hilary Benn argues for the use of airstrikes during the debate in the House of Commons
34
Politics Society Source: Twitter
Jack’s tweet to Conservative MP Paul Scully for Sutton and Cheam in Syria. Fifth point is proxy war. Australia quite sensibly saw the Russians get involved and temporarily ceased airstrikes. They did that before the Turkish incident. They had a degree of foresight, and they saw the airspace was congested and Russian entry into the conflict changes the game. No one knows how this plays out, it’s great power proxy conflict and it’s something to be very wary of. Sixth is the complete lack of strategy, the main problem in Syria is not Islamic state. Yes of course they are a problem, but 7 Syrians are killed by Assad for every 1 Syrian that’s killed by Islamic state. There needs to be
“If you are going to solve an issue of political violence like terrorism you have to talk to all parties. Even if you don’t like them” a strategy for the creation of a peaceful and stable and secure Syria. That has to involve Assad and western states just don’t have that at the moment. Without that you’re likely to get mission creep. Barack Obama is defined in his foreign policy
by opposition to boots on the ground anywhere and yet American forces are operating on the ground in Syria by crossing the border from Iraq, and the numbers have already gone up from 50 to 250. You’ve already got mission creep from the most squeamish anti-boots on the ground, anti-interventionist president arguably of all time. If he’s doing it, surely we are going to reach the same conclusion. The yanks tried to train local forces and they spent 500 million US dollars… they trained a handful of local forces. The other points I want to make are that you’ve got to learn the lessons of history. Afghanistan,
35
Incite Source: Wikipedia
The 9 civilizations, according to Samuel Huntingdon Iraq, Libya - all do not look great right now and yet we’re about do this again. The cost of both types of missiles that have been dropped so far is absolutely huge and this is an era of austerity where everything has been cut left, right and centre. And the death toll in Syria is 250,000. The absolute last thing these people need is more things that can kill them. What you’ve seen in Raqqa is that there’s an organization that is very much anti-Islamic state and is calling for resistance and an alternative, but the last thing that it wants is additional coalition airstrikes. So even at the heart of Islamic state, it seems to be a bad idea. Related to what you were talking about how increasing airstrikes will just increase radicalism and violence. Do you think what Samuel Huntingdon talked about with a clash of civilization actions
36
like this will prove him right, if he has not been already proven right, of how there is a conflict between Islamic civilization and western civilization? No, Samuel Huntington is wrong and I reject his thesis in its entirety from its initial ontological starting points through to the claims of causation between religions, civilizational identity and therefore conflict, and I believe Samuel Huntington to be quite racist in his writings. So no, I will whole-heartedly reject all of Huntingdon’s arguments. In terms of the relationship between the Western and Islamic civilization, could you explain why you think this is wrong? So Samuel Huntington attempted to change the scale of
which we analyse international relations. The unit actors of IR shift from being states and a dominant realist understanding to civilization in his clash of civilizations thesis. Civilization seem to be an arbitrary decision to focus upon, it looks like it has contemporary resonance but there is no reason to stop there as supposed to say all cosmopolitans anywhere or the Anglo-sphere. Why not focus on English speaking nations? Why not focus on a level lower than the state? Why not look at middle England as an actor as opposed to the west or Britain or whatever else it is. So yes I think there are competing levels and layers of identity in the world that operate at different geographical scales, but not to focus on civilizations as an arbitrary decision that isn’t backed up by any empirical data. The things he identifies as civilizations, and bear in mind
Politics Society he’s not sure if Africa is a civilization for example - huge problems in this, the things that he identifies are marked by as much division as they are heterogeneous, as they are homogenous. One of the big problems with Huntingdon’s work is that the civilizations in his work get represented by some of their most extreme voices. So it’s ridiculous to say that Islamic state represents an Islamic civilization or that George W. Bush represents a western civilization. If some one tells me I am part of a western civilization and Hitler is my spokesperson, I would be angry about that and rightly so. This is a hugely flawed analysis. Going back to Syria, what is your opinion on the civil war? Do you think there will be a solution? Will there be perpetual war or peace? And do you think ISIS are part of that peace plan if so?
Yes, I think there will be peace at some point. No, I don’t think conflict will continue indefinitely. That said this is the most pressing crisis facing the world today and it’s the most difficult to find a solution for, because of the complexity of the situation on the ground. If you’re going to find a solution to this, one of the things you have to bare in mind is that the situation today does not look like the situation in 2011.
“Yes, I think there will be peace at some point. No, I don’t think conflict will continue indefinitely.” The Free Syrian Army for example are pretty much disbanded
because they can’t fund and finance their fighters. People who are fighting for the Free Syrian Army need to feed their family and still need to send money home. After four years of fighting, really long shifts of fighting, really horrible conditions and largely being massacred by government forces. If you add into that you can’t feed your family the chances are they’re going to find an alternative way to spend their time. It just makes more sense for them and their family. So that main opposition group and that was the opposition group that the Americans were challenging money through, pretty much doesn’t exist anymore. So who the opposition are, who the rebels are, who you support, who were the good guys are really difficult questions to answer. Assad certainly isn’t a good guy in this but Assad is definitely going to be part of the Source: BBC
Jack Holland speaking on BBC News after the 2013 Boston bombings
37
Incite discussions on how to move forward because Russia backs Assad. So the division on Assad runs through the heart of the UN Security Council. Assad is going to be factored into what happens next in some way even though he has definitely massacred his own people, including using chemical weapons against them. So this is a hideous regime but he’s going to be a part and parcel of it. Islamic state it seems to me hold so much territory in Syria that it would be naïve to think you can have some sort of negotiations towards a peaceful resolution in the future without talking to them. It’s hard and it’s horrible but it was hard and it was horrible talking to all the parties in Northern Ireland. There were some parties there you really did not want to talk to because they had killed people.
Islamic state is, I don’t want to use the word barbaric because that feeds into an orientalist discourse, but Islamic state is an organisation specialising in extreme and grotesque violence and believes in a lot of things that the rest of the world doesn’t seem to believe in. But if you want to genuinely move towards a resolution in Syria you do probably need to talk to all sides however hard, however unpalatable, however difficult it is to sell that back home to the people you represent. It probably needs to happen.
I mean Assad’s backers have always been Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Assad is an Alawite, a sub-sect of Shia Islam, which is why you’ve got Iran and Hezbollah. Iran has long been a Russian ally and vice-versa and Russia has long been Assad’s supporter and vice-versa. Russia’s support for Assad was clear well before 2011, even in 2011 when this first happened. The Russians are bombing opposition and rebels forces despite claiming to be bombing Islamic state. Russia’s position couldn’t be much clearer.
Let’s focus on America’s foreign policy. Do you think that Obama’s foreign policy has been successful? Particularly in relation to Russia and how can we see this played out over the civil war in Syria now.
America is founded on a belief of freedom, a belief of democracy, notions of American exceptionalism and the promotion of democracy and freedom around the world. It’s impossible for them not to support oppositions and rebels forces who are promoting democratic reforms in an
Jack Holland in the middle of a politics lecture
38
Politics Society
Source: Reuters
authoritarian regime. So Assad is not their guy and can’t be their guy, that fissure runs through the heart of UN Security Council. American foreign policy generally… (long deep breath) I think Obama has done almost as well as is possible for an American president to do. Which is a big claim. That said, the structural drivers of continuity in American foreign policy are really strong, He exists in a post-9/11 era where calls to defend American security and to counter violent Islamist extremism are incredibly strong. He’s faced calls throughout his two terms in office to do more, to do more aggressively and to do more in more places. Often send in boots on the ground, bomb people, whatever else might be. He tried to resist - he was reluctant to intervene in Libya, he was reluctant to intervene in Syria and yet he intervened in both. Libya it turns out, what looked like a really good intervention has gone pear-shaped pretty quickly without any post conflict reconstruction plan.
“I think Obama has done almost as well as is possible for an American president to do. Which is a big claim.” Syria I fear might go the same
President Obama speaking at the UN General Assembly way. Obama has been sucked back in there and he’s only come back into that. He didn’t intervene in 2011-12 when it was about human rights and democracy, he didn’t even intervene in 2013 when it was about chemical weapons. He has only intervened in 2014 when it’s about fighting terrorism. It’s the narrative of terrorism, it’s the fear that comes with the culture and climate of a War on Terror that have encouraged him to go to war in another state once again. In the same way as he can’t close Guantanamo, in the same way as some of the domestic policies of counter-terrorism have been rolled out again and again. It’s possible that he’s come to office and realised some of the arguments were right in the first place but more often not, I think there are limits on what a US president can do. Sure he holds the ultimate signoff on a lot of these things and he was quite happy
to kill Bin-Laden, that’s his sign off, but he structurally induced to act in certain ways. Even the President of United States can’t do whatever the hell they like and especially if they are an extremely anti-interventionist president. A Jeffersonian president, which is how I would describe Obama. I think he’s done pretty well at dismantling some of the apparatus of the War on Terror. I think domestically he has done very well despite what his detractors say. I think he’ll be remembered actually as one of the great American presidents. Someone once said ‘it’s 2 cheers for Bill Clinton’ and I think Obama doesn’t quite merit 3 but he merits more than 2. So he can get 2 and a half cheers, I would say that is a reasonable review of his presidency.
39
Incite Source: IzQuotes
A quote from Francis Fukuyama from his book The End of History Looking at the world today with Russia and how their influence has grown, and also the rise of China and how their influence has grown. As we’ve seen under Obama’s foreign policy there has been a reluctance to get as involved as previous presidents have. Do you think signs of this suggest that despite what Francis Fukuyama talked about, with the end of history and how liberal democracy is the best system, we are now seeing lots of authoritarian regimes challenging that? Do you think this proves that Fukuyama was wrong, and that this is now becoming a general trend? I think Fukuyama’s analysis is overly confident, triumphalist and teleological. I don’t think we inevitably move towards ultimate perfection and I don’t think necessarily think ultimate perfection is free market capitalism. That said it’s the best thing on offer as far as I can tell, empirically around the world at the
40
moment. There’s that wonderful line in Peep Show that says, “The miracle of modern capitalism is the only reason you’re not rolling around in your own shit.” That is broadly true, the wisdom of Mark Corrigan right? I think it’s Churchill who says democracy is the least bad form of political organisation… ‘It’s the worst system, apart from all the others.’ That’s it, so Fukuyama takes something that seems to be intuitively true but it glosses over all of those other things. Democracy doesn’t mean one thing, and free market capitalism doesn’t mean one thing. The combination of market-based democracies doesn’t mean one thing, there’s a huge variety of ways of organising yourself within that. Contrast Denmark and Germany with Britain and the United States, there’s different ways of doing
this. I think Fukuyama’s book is important, useful and it’s good to have in an Intro to IR module, but I don’t necessarily think what we’re seeing either proves or disproves him. I think his argument is too crass to apply across all space and time with all these different empirical cases. I don’t think a Russian-based system is threatening an American-led system anytime soon, but that doesn’t necessarily prove Fukuyama correct.
“The miracle of modern capitalism is the only reason you’re not rolling around in your own shit.”
Politics Society With the rise of China, in 50 years who do you think will be the main superpower? America or China? Not necessarily a Russian-led system we may live under, but a Chinese-led system? I would imagine that American hegemony is more durable than doomsayers suggest, and there are lots of reasons to suspect that might be true. But in 50 years we should expect things to look a lot more comparable between the two. America is the greatest superpower the world has ever known, bar none. The discrepancy between American military might and its next challenger is greater than any discrepancy in the history of people. So this is a very special state, it’s unlikely to be displaced easily.
Chinese economic might is going to continue and according to all the forecasts and projections the lines cross at some point. But pure GDP isn’t entirely and perfectly synonymous with power. Of course it’s going to matter, all the predictions suggest we’re moving towards an increasingly multi-polar system. So it won’t just be China, it will also be India, and maybe 1 or 2 others. That’s going to change the way international relations work, change the way international organisations work without a doubt. You need to reform the UN Security Council for example. But in 50 years, I think America will still be ok. Yeah, American military spending is off the charts. More than that, America has designed the international
system in its own image. The ‘sticky’ power of economics, the draw of neo-liberalism. The Chinese realise that like the Americans, they can get rich and fat by playing the same game the Americans are playing. So don’t de-stabilise the system atop of which America sits. Play the game with them and can everyone do the liberal thing, the absolute-gains thing, and get rich and fat together. That should prevent warnings of violent hegemonic transition or whatever else it is. The Chinese know what’s good for them, they behave very rationally in a realist way where they recognise that actually capitalism and trade on a global scale are the things that are going to deliver for them. They wanted to buy things and sell things to other people. Source: News.com.au
Who will be the dominant superpower in 50 years time?
41
Our last question is about the department of Politics. Why have you decided to go to Leeds, and if we can ask, was it related to the operational review that happened last year? I hadn’t planned on leaving until the operational review. The operational review was announced to us in March, and you may recall that in the original proposals from the university the department of Politics would have continued to exist but not in a form that you knew it. For example the university proposal didn’t include any posts at senior lecturer level. So my post would not have existed had that proposal been enacted. Luckily there was a big campaign and the proposal wasn’t enacted. Students opposed it well, staff opposed it very well and friends and colleagues from around the world opposed it very very well. The university recognised that it’s proposal wasn’t very good and accepted our proposal which was a hell of a lot more reasoned and made more sense in all measures. I was a co-author on that and that included a post for me in it, so I could have kept my job. I even applied for redundancy because I thought my post wouldn’t exist, so I thought I may as well leave with some money. I was declined redundancy because at some point someone must have read a CV and decided they wanted to keep me after all. So I didn’t get any money to leave with which would have been
42
nice, it would have been a nice convertible car to drive up to the Leeds with…. I had a chat with the Vice-Chancellor who outlined very clearly he wanted me to stay which was nice. It’s not a convertible car but it’s nice. So yeah, I was looking for jobs because I didn’t know if I would have one here. Nearly all staff were in the same position, so everyone had to go out and look for jobs. I was in a fortunate position of being offered multiple jobs so I got to weigh things up as to where I wanted to go. I chose to go to Leeds for lots of reasons. I used to work there 6 years ago, so I know it very well. Leeds is a nice place to live, the department is massive, they have lots of academics and for me that means there are loads of people to go write books and articles with. They have about 13 fulltime academic staff doing International Relations and Security, most of them do US or UK foreign policy. Lots do RTP and
they’re interested in Syria. So it’s an exciting place to go and work. But no, I hadn’t planned on leaving before the operational review. I just had bought a flat, about 14 months ago in Southwest London, so the timing was less than useful and clearly I had positioned myself to stay for at least a while. So yeah, directly a result of the operational review. No, I was not sacked. I was declined redundancy and I’ve taken a better job than the one I have here in that it’s at a higher level. It’s called Associate Professor, which covers Senior Lecturer and Reader, and the level I’m going to go in at is above a Senior Lecturer level. So it’s a Reader level, which would be a promotion if it were here. But they have just one label up in Leeds. Thank you to Jack for giving us his time. This interview was conducted by Joshua Martin and Laura Bichisao, the Editors of Incite.
Source: Wikimedia