Society and Culture

the fusion and fission of cultures i.e. local perceptions of a foreign film, lessons from overcoming language barriers, cultural implication of immigration in the EU

Source

Featured Globalization Human Rights Internet Journalism Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Multinational Corporations and the EU’s New Data Laws

written by Eden Ballard

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

This sentiment is echoed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17, Right to Privacy. On April 8th 1988 the UN adopted general comment number 16 to article 17 which states that:

The gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law. Effective measures have to be taken by States to ensure that information concerning a person’s private life does not reach the hands of persons who are not authorized by law to receive, process and use it, and is never used for purposes incompatible with the Covenant. In order to have the most effective protection of his private life, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, Whether, and if so, What personal data is stored in automatic data ﬁles, and for What purposes. Every individual should also be able to, ascertain which public authorizes or private individuals or bodies control or may control their ﬁles. If such ﬁles contain incorrect personal data or have been collected or processed contrary to the provisions of the law, every individual should have the right to request rectification or elimination.

Nearly 31 years old, this statement has gone largely ignored as the internet exploded and user engagement far outpaced any thought to user privacy. This changed on May 25th, 2018 when the European Union took a major step in protecting the privacy rights of individual users by adopting the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The website created for the GDPR boasts that it is “the most important change in data privacy regulation in 20 years.” This regulation impacts how the the privacy of more than 500 million EU citizens will be protected from exploitation by online service providers. With the approval of the General Data Protection Regulation, the European Union has shown that it holds individual privacy to be of the utmost importance.

The GDPR applies to the conduct of all companies that provide services for EU residents, even if it is only for one EU resident. It aims to safeguard against individual users’ data being used in ways they do not knowingly consent to and mandates that consent can be withdrawn as easily as it is granted. This ability to withdrawal consent protects what they call “The Right to Be Forgotten.” One of the main ways that this is protected is by prohibiting from using “long illegible terms and conditions full of legalese.” Apple’s “Terms and Conditions” updated as of September 17, 2018 was a lengthy 7,006 words. The contract ambiguously ends: “Children under the age of majority should review this Agreement with their parent or guardian to ensure that the child and parent or legal guardian understand it.” However, the parents or legal guardians themselves are likely not reviewing nor understanding it; it’s unfair to expect that average users feel comfortable or have the spare time to try to understand the needlessly verbose contracts drawn up by lawyers working for multimillion dollar firms. Now behemoth companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, each serving a network of users across the globe, are being asked to rise to the occasion… and they will.

The amount of revenue generated from the more than 400 million internet users in the EU is more than enough to incentivize companies to adhere to the GDPR. If they fail to change their policies or decide to pull out of the European market, the business face the loss of millions of dollars through fines or from decreased profits respectively For violations of the GDPR’s stipulations on consent, among other legal issues, fines are the greater of twenty million euro or 4% of the entity’s gross global revenue. That said, Google and Facebook were quick to make sure that they updated their user policy to adhere to the GDPR.

Google will be making data they collect viewable under “My Activity” and users will be able to delete specific activity or data from entire time frames that they would rather not have associated with their account. Data privacy information has been made more easily accessible and users are provided with clearer explanations of Google’s data practices through a series of video tutorials outlining a user’s options for managing, exporting, and deleting data.

Both Facebook and Google will have special protection features for their users who are under 18 years old. Facebook’s include requiring parent or guardian permission for the use of target ads and restricted sharing.

On April 17th, 2018 Facebook’s Newsroom published an outline of changes being made to accommodate the GDPR. In addition to allowing the data to be more easily deleted, Facebook will ask users to agree to their updated terms of service and data policy, whether they want to see ads targeted to the information they have filled out on their profile, and if they want to turn off Facebook’s face recognition features. This last option will also be available to users in Canada.

All of this comes shortly after Facebook’s now infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal in which data mined on Facebook was collected and used to strategically place ads pertaining to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Users were inadvertently handing over their data to a third party by playing games and taking quizzes that were seemingly innocuous.

This particular application of mined data, and many other similar instances, highlights that as our dependence on technology and virtual programs has increased over the years, we have slowly but steadily bought into a system without taking the time to critique it. Collectively, people have become complacent about what contracts they absentmindedly agree to mean in the context of their everyday lives. Although we understand that anything shared on the internet will never truly disappear, we fail to ponder what happens when we hand over our addresses, credit card information, age, and other personal statistics to sites like Amazon, Twitter, banking sites, and dating services.

Unfortunately, even with the publicized steps corporations are taking to meet the expectations of the GDPR, business is business and companies continue to look for ways to maximize profits and minimize accountability. In response to the GDPR, Facebook now handles their user responsibility out of their offices in California instead of their international headquarters in Dublin, Ireland. This allows them to circumvent the GDPR and that user rights are now subject to the much lighter U.S. data protection regulations. On top of that, Facebook is still able to advantage of comparable tax breaks by booking their revenue through their Irish office. Alex Hern of The Guardian summed up the issue on April 18th, 2018: “Facebook has moved more than 1.5 billion users out of reach of European privacy law, despite a promise from Mark Zuckerberg to apply the “spirit” of the legislation globally.”

The GDPR is a step in the right direction for privacy rights but the fact remains that the very companies that so many people depend on in their day to day lives continue to abuse their global dominion. As illustrated by Facebook’s move to California, regulations lack strength unless they are implemented globally. The data privacy values outlined by the Article 17 of the ICCPR should be regarded equally around the world. Until there are universal norms, corporations will exploit legal irregularities to serve themselves, not their trusting customers. Looking to the EU as an example, one can only hope that soon the international community will begin to ask, and rightly so, about individuals’ right to privacy on the world wide web.

March 11, 2019 0 comment

#MeToo Featured Human Rights Society and Culture Women's Rights

The #MeToo Movement

written by Sanah Mehta

Legacy

I stand

on the sacrifices

of a million women before me thinking

what can I do

to make this mountain taller so the women after me

can see farther

– Rupi Kaur

According to the UN Women Website, 35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual violence, and less than 40% of these cases ever get reported. Encountering such a case of sexual violence with a young girl, Tarana Burke, an African-American activist who suffered from sexual abuse herself, said, “I watched her put her mask back on and go back into the world like she was all alone and I couldn’t even bring myself to whisper…me too.” Burke finally did say #MeToo and took the first step by uniting and building an extended network of women who too have suffered sexual exploitation and enabling them to voice their traumas openly through a non-profit organization called Just Be Inc., and the #MeToo movement on MySpace. The movement focuses on the mantra of ‘empowerment through empathy,’ turning “victims into survivors and survivors into thrivers” through constant dialogue and the reassurance that someone, even if they are half a world away, has had the same experience.

The United Nations Secretary-General’s Bulletin, Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, defines sexual exploitation as “any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust, for sexual purposes, including, but not limited to, profiting monetarily, socially or politically from sexual exploitation of another.” Sexual abuse, similarly, is defined as “the actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force or under unequal or coercive conditions.” In simpler terms, it is curtailing a woman’s freedom and subjecting her to a position of inferiority due to actions of a sexual nature. It can range from being cat-called on the streets, to being pinned down and raped –– it has many iterations. The recent outpouring of stories by victims using the #MeToo hashtag from places all over the world including, but not limited to, the United States, India, Vietnam, and Uganda, has proven the unfortunate uniformity of the issue. Irrespective of the country or culture, sexual harassment, exploitation, and abuse exist everywhere in the world.

#MeToo in Other Languages Sounds the Same

Given the extensive global outreach of this movement, reaching 85 countries with 1.7 million tweets, I would like to highlight the key instances that marked its pinnacle in the following countries.

United States

In the United States, sexual harassment is most prominent in the workplace. According to a 2016 EEOC comprehensive study, 25% to 85% of sexual harassment cases reported by women are in the workplace, spread across a variety of industries such as entertainment, politics, and media, among others. With several strong speeches by the likes of Meryl Streep and Viola Davis advocating for a harassment-free work environment, the #MeToo Movement sprung into action with a violent force, drawing attention to big names such as Harvey Weinstein, Brett Kavanaugh, and Bill O’Reilly as possible perpetrators.

Harvey Weinstein, the former Miramax mogul, and legendary Hollywood producer, faced charges of sexual harassment and rape, filed officially by 2 women, but brought to light by numerous others including actresses Angelina Jolie, Uma Thurman, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Lupita Nyong’O, among others. Weinstein’s efforts to hide his antics, through continuous threats of ending careers or forcing further assault, went in vain when he was arrested in May 2018.

Similarly, Fox News entertainer Bill O’Reilly had complaints of “verbal abuse, unwanted advances and lewd comments” levied against him by at least 6 women. His long history of sexual propositions and threats were exposed in a New York Times article, where he is said to have settled legal claims with his accusers for about $13 million over the years. Thanks to the #MeToo movement, several women have come forward to voice their experiences and despite O’Reilly’s power and President Donald Trump’s support for him, he was ousted from his job at Fox News in April of 2017.

However, perhaps the #MeToo movement’s biggest challenge was witnessed during the hearing of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. In the midst of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a high school acquaintance- Christine Blasey Ford- accused him of sexual misconduct in the 1980s. Kavanaugh denied all charges, saying, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” With the #MeToo movement at its peak, the FBI was brought in to investigate. In spite of the allegations and ongoing controversy, Kavanaugh was confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate and was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, while women and men alike chanted “Shame!” in the streets.

India

Being born and brought up in India, I have always been surrounded by the social stigma that exists around talking about any sort of sexual harassment. In a society that has long inferioritized women and given entitlement to men, sexual harassment or abuse is always considered to be the woman’s fault and blamed on factors as wide-ranging as the way she dresses, who she goes out with, what time she’s out until, or even the fact that she’s educated. The ‘blame the victim’ mentality is perpetuated even by the Ministers of Parliament through their comments on sexual assault cases. Ranked as the ‘Most Dangerous Country for Women’ by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, about 29% of women are physically and/or sexually assaulted in their lifetime.

The #MeToo movement in India gained momentum following the gang-rape of 23-year old Jyoti Singh Pandey in the capital New Delhi in 2012. Suffering massive injuries, Nirbaya (Hindi for ‘fearless’) as she became known died undergoing treatment in Singapore for injuries she sustained during the assault. The instance shook the nation with severe outrage. The perpetrators were given death sentences, and the Indian law for rape (Section 375/376 of IPC) was expanded beyond penovaginal intercourse to include voyeurism, stalking, and acid attacks. Moreover, The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 now makes it easier for survivors to seek medical help and justice. And with this, the #MeToo movement began in India. Today millions of Indian women are standing up and reporting assaults and instances of harassment on social media to the authorities. While sex crimes have not reduced overall, the strong silver lining is that they are now reported more than they once were.

Vietnam

About 87% of Vietnamese women are sexually harassed in public. Of these, the most vulnerable group is journalism student interns and entry-level female journalists, according to research conducted by a Swedish international media development institute, and the Hanoi-based Center for Media and Development Initiatives (MDI).

Although Vietnam has been lauded for having one of the “world’s highest female labor force participation rates, similar educational attainment for men and women, and better-than-average representation of women in its legislature,” sexual violence against women persists. The #MeToo movement began in Vietnam with a sexual assault allegation at Tuoi Tre, a major daily newspaper in Vietnam. A young intern accused her supervising editor of sexual assault, and then afterword attempted suicide. This scandal brought out thousands of female journalists on Twitter with the tags #toasoansach (clean newsroom), #ngungimlang (stop staying silent), and #MeToo. Khuat Thu Hong, founder, and director of the Institute for Social Development Studies said, “The phenomenon of sexual harassment in Vietnam is politicized in a way [that] there are a lot of efforts to silence the victims or cover up what occurred.” Consequently, Tuoi Tre denied all charges against the senior editor in a statement.
The movement has a long way to go in Vietnam, as the Vietnamese Labor Code lacks a clear definition of sexual harassment, and the country lacks clear data on the issue. However, as more women begin standing up for themselves and one another, even the most powerful culprits will be punished.

Uganda

In Uganda, as in a shocking and saddening number of countries, many women are wary of telling their stories of sexual abuse. For one, many of the perpetrators are renowned businessmen, politicians, or people whose power prevents the victims from getting the justice they deserve. In many cases, evidence is destroyed, and in some, the survivors are silenced through bribery or even murder. A second factor is undoubtedly Ugandan culture. The Baganda, the largest ethnic group in Uganda have a saying, ‘ebyomunju tebitotolwa,’ which translates to ‘No woman is supposed to tell stories from their home,’ preventing women in abusive marriages to seek respite. Moreover, Onesmus Twinamasiko, a Member of the Ugandan Parliament, even gave a televised interview encouraging men to beat their wives to “discipline” them. Just like India, the ‘blame the victim’ mentality is prevalent in Uganda as well, preventing women from reporting cases.
But with the #MeToo movement spreading across the globe, many women in Uganda are refusing to be silenced and have come out with their experiences. A University student in Kampala was harassed by her professor to trade sex for grades. Similarly, a secondary school student reported that she too had been sexually harassed but “never complained about it for fear of reprisals from teachers.” Many such instances reveal the gender inequality in Uganda, and although the #MeToo movement resonated with women, it is the apathetic justice system which fails them.

Louise Burke, a reporter for The Daily Telegraph, wrote that #MeToo “exposed an epidemic of sexual assault and harassment across every corner of the world and unbottled a collective fury which can no longer be contained.” With humble roots, this movement gained rapid momentum and created a worldwide phenomenon of helping survivors of sexual abuse deal with their experiences with fearlessness, encouragement and most importantly, empathy. However, even though this movement is up and running and yielding results through changing laws, arresting and prosecuting offenders, and spreading awareness, there is still a long way to go towards changing the mindset and innate behaviors and attitudes of not just men, but women as well, that allow sexual exploitation and gender inequality to persist. This is just the first step towards learning from the sacrifices of millions of women who have gone through such trauma and hopefully creating a stable system to make the world a more equal place for women and preventing future generations from ever having to experience similar pain in the future.

November 17, 2018 0 comment

Environmental Change Featured Global Health Globalization History Human Rights International Trade Society and Culture The International Economy

Bayer Acquires Monsanto: Controversy & Implications for Global Agriculture

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Following two years of negotiations and approval seeking from various governmental bodies, the acquisition of the American agricultural biotechnology company known as Monsanto by the German pharmaceutical and life sciences giant Bayer was approved in spring 2018. Less than half a year later in August, Dewayne Johnson of the Bay Area was awarded $289 million in a civil suit which charged Monsanto’s infamous Round-Up Ready herbicide–also known as glyphosate–with causing Mr. Johnson’s diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

For years, Monsanto has been decried by environmentalists and farmers alike for its pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified seeds, and seed policies. Additionally, with Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, there are concerns for monopolization of the global seed market, as Bayer itself is a highly important player in the field of agriculture. This article seeks to understand the implications of a potential monopolization of the global agriculture system. First, however, this article will provide a background with a brief overview of the various controversies associated with Monsanto.

Criticism of Monsanto has spanned decades. During the Vietnam War, Monsanto was the largest American manufacturer of Agent Orange, an herbicide and tool of warfare used by the American military. Research in this area suggests that exposure to Agent Orange is associated with negative health effects. Vietnamese people and American veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been found to have higher cancer incidence rates than those who were not exposed. Meanwhile, the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam resulted in serious environmental problems, namely deforestation and reduction in the diversity of animal species.

Additionally, the seeds produced and patented by Monsanto have been a major source of controversy. One common charge involves cross-pollination lawsuits. For example, if a farm has planted the seeds of a patented GMO and, by way of cross-pollination, these seeds reach a neighboring farm and produce plants, it is often believed that Monsanto will sue, and has sued, the latter farm simply because of wind patterns affecting the movement of pollen. However, in reality, as one NPR article notes, there have been no such suits. But in 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard a seed saving case involving Monsanto. Based on patent law, the Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, which had sued a farmer from Indiana for saving seeds. Saving seeds refers to the practice whereby after harvest, seeds are saved and planted during the next year. Monsanto requires farmers who purchase their seeds to sign contracts in which they pledge not to save the patented Monsanto seeds they purchase in a given year. Still, this issue and the surrounding debate remain controversial as many question the practice of granting companies patents of living things. Arguably, patenting seeds is especially problematic as seeds are, both literally and symbolically, one of the most important living things on the Earth. Further, in India, over ninety percent of the cotton seed is controlled by Monsanto. In fact, some have even argued that increased suicide rates among Indian cotton-farmers is associated with Monsanto’s practices and patents of seeds. The evidence regarding a causal relationship is not conclusive, and many argue that a causal relationship does not exist; still, it is striking that Monsanto owns over ninety percent of the Indian cotton seed.

Additionally, the biotechnology of Monsanto has serious implications for agriculture and the environment. Round-Up Ready, also known as the chemical glyphosate, is the most popular herbicide used in agriculture. Glyphosate is a powerful chemical that is able to eliminate the growth of unwanted plants such as weeds. Yet glyphosate is also capable of killing valuable plants too. It is for this reason that Monsanto created genetically engineered crops that are resistant to glyphosate. The first of the company’s genetically engineered crop was the soybean in 1996. However, the use of glyphosate has the potential of developing so-called superweeds, which are resistant to glyphosate. Also, the development of such superweeds may induce the increased use of herbicides and pesticides by farmers attempting to contain such weeds. It is for these reasons that some protest Monsanto on environmental grounds.

Another issue is that there are concerns about the impact of glyphosate on human health. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research concluded that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen. And, as discussed, a recent court ruling in San Francisco ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson, who claimed that Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready herbicide caused him to develop cancer. Monsanto, now considered a ‘unit’ of Bayer, faces thousands of other similar lawsuits, with many dying individuals in Northern California being given expedited trials. Still, Bayer is arguing that Mr. Johnson and the court ignored certain pieces of scientific evidence which claim that their is no link between cancer and glyphosate, and are seeking a mistrial.

However, it ought to be noted that the link between glyphosate and cancer is one that is under debate. For example, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have concluded that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. Monsanto has also been accused both of attempts to suppress scientific research reports which offer a negative assessment of Monsanto pesticides, and also instances of ‘ghostwriting’ scientific research findings which hold that glyphosate is safe for human health. For example, The New York Times notes of one 2015 article posted on the Forbes website that is believed to be ghostwritten by Monsanto but is credited to an academic named Henry I. Miller. Still, however, a study published in Scientific Reports found a link between glyphosate and fatty liver disease. Along with the recent court ruling, the possibly carcinogenic nature of glyphosate has been particularly salient in the last several weeks following a report that found traces of glyphosate in cereal such as Cheerios. The environmental research and advocacy group that published this report, Environmental Working Group, claim that such traces of glyphosate can says could “increase cancer risk for children.” However, as stated, findings about the nature of glyphosate remain inconclusive.

Amid the debate on the health and safety of glyphosate, there has been much talk in the European Union on the question of whether or not glyphosate should be a banned chemical. Many contend that glyphosate should be banned across all EU member states. While states such as Belgium voted against re-licensing glyphosate in the European Union in 2017, the vote ultimately ended in Monsanto’s favor with glyphosate’s license being extended for an additional five years. It will be interesting to see whether the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, a German company, will have any effect on the use of glyphosate in the EU.

Further, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto suggests that alterations in the agricultural arena await. First, it should be noted that there has been a recent trend of consolidation in the agriculture industry. For example, before the Bayer-Monsanto merger, the companies Dow and DuPont merged, as did Syngenta and ChemChina. As Mark Connelly, an agriculture analyst notes, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto indicates that “$1 out of every $3” that farmers spend on seeds, pesticides, and herbicides will go to Bayer. In other words, a third of the world’s agriculture supply is now controlled by one company–Bayer. This consolidation has farmers across the globe concerned. For many, the increased trend of monopolization means increased prices. This is supported by data and research from the Farmers Business Network. In research that focused on the price of corn seeds and chemicals, this group found that greater market share was associated with higher market prices for products. As mentioned, Bayer now controls a third of the market share. Dow-Dupont and Syngenta-ChemChina are not far behind.

Monsanto has historically been associated with a variety of controversial products and practices. Despite all this, it is undeniable that the science and innovation of Monsanto has been remarkable. For instance, in the 1990s, the ringspot virus threatened to destroy the papaya industry in Hawaii. However, Monsanto, which had a patent on transgenic technology, allowed for this technology to be used to create the Rainbow Papaya, a genetically modified papaya that is resistant to the ringspot virus. This saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. However, there is the the fact that Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange, a biochemical weapon with possible long-term health effects, that was used in Vietnam. But Monsanto was not the only company contracted by the American government to produce this war chemical. There is also the fact that Monsanto’s patents over biological entities, such as seeds, has also received considerable attention. However, sensational claims of Monsanto suing small farmers because of wind patterns and pollen drift appear unsubstantiated. Also, the health and safety of Round-Up Ready is a current and hotly-debated topic. Thus, while Monsanto has been a topic of debate for decades, it is not clear whether Monsanto has done more harm than good, especially with regard to the agriculture industry, human health, and the environment.
Finally, while the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer means that, legally, the name Monsanto refers to a company of the past, doubtless, the issues associated with (what was) Monsanto will continue to persist. Further, this recent acquisition marks a highly significant moment for the global agricultural sector. It is especially important to see how all of this will unfold in the coming years.

September 24, 2018 0 comment

Photo: Operation Enduring Freedom: Marines operate near Combat Outpost Ouellette. Gunnery Sgt. Bryce Piper via Flickr; (goo.gl/gSoT5c) CC0 1.0 (goo.gl/rjriA5)

Featured Middle East Society and Culture

US Involvement in Afghan Poppy Fields

written by Changyeun Hahn

In 2012, pictures emerged of US soldiers in the Helmand province guarding poppy fields. These fields are the sources of opium, which is used to make heroin. Afghanistan is currently the supplier for 90% of the world’s heroin. The United States should invest in destroying the poppy fields in Afghanistan for three reasons: to stop the rampant addiction in the region, to stop the illegal drug trade, and to help the Afghani government gain more control of the Taliban. In order to do this, the US should negotiate with the Afghani government to have the Drug Enforcement Agency Kabul Country Office take a greater lead on drug operations in Taliban controlled regions, address the the ways that heroin is leaving the country, and offer alternative occupation for those who currently work in poppy fields.

As of 2014, the US spent $8 billion in Afghanistan for counter narcotics. There is about 824 square miles (224,000 hectares) of land used for poppy cultivation in 2014. While clearly rampant throughout the country, growing poppies is illegal under Afghan law. This drug trade accounts for over a third of the Taliban’s income. The terrorist group profits from taxing poppy farmers and merchants, getting money from the truckers and opium labs, and selling to international narcotics cartels. The largest cultivation province is the Helmand province. Coincidentally, there are US troops still stationed in the Helmand province. The US may be avoiding eradication of the poppy fields in fear of potential consequences for local farmers under Taliban rule. However, allowing the illegal production to continue is not the answer to employment issues in the country.

By getting rid of the poppy fields, Afghanistan can better address the growing problem with drug addiction. The number of drug addicts in Afghanistan has gone from 1.6 million in 2012 to 3 million in 2015, accounting for 10% of the population. Furthermore, the drug that once was transported into the country is now supplied domestically, building upon the existing child addiction problem. Without the money to feed their children, parents have resorted to using puffs of heroin to help stave off hunger. This quick solution has terribly detrimental long-term effects on children. Repeated use of heroin changes the physical structure as well as the physiology of the brain. This creates an imbalance within the brain that is very difficult to fix. Long term use affects decision-making abilities, ability to regulate behavior, and responses to stressful situations. While there is no quick fix for opium addicts, decreasing the amount of heroin available is a start. Furthermore, addressing addiction will help ensure a stable Afghani government in the future.

From another angle, eliminating the Taliban’s drug source can effectively slow down the drug trade. The number heroin addicts in the US has been rising exponentially in the last decade. Decreasing the amount available generates a feedback effect that also lowers the number of addicts. With fewer addicts, less money will need to go into drug treatment–in turn helping the US government save money on future aid expenses. Similar trends would be seen in other countries considering that Afghanistan sources 90% of the drug.

Furthermore, removing heroin would cause the Taliban to lose a third of its budget and affect its capabilities to fight. While the US government has been working with the Afghani government to gain power back from the Taliban, the fundamentalist movement still maintains a strong grip in Afghanistan. Although a smaller budget may not destroy the group, it would slow down their ability to attack. With fewer attacks and the Taliban searching for other avenues of income, the Afghani government can have a better chance at dismantling the terrorist organization.

However, there are people that reside within the Taliban controlled regions. Although this accounts for only 6.4% of the population, many of these people that are working in the poppy fields rely on the drug trade. While this is already part of the strategy used by the United States, more funds should be dedicated to finding other avenues of income for local people.

Furthermore, eradicating the poppy seeds should only be one part of the solution. The US should negotiate with the Afghani government to have the DEA Kabul Country Office take a greater lead on drug operations in Taliban controlled regions. Within any unstable and weak government, corruption runs rampant; there has been much evidence indicating corruption in Afghanistan. Therefore, if the US is able to take greater control of the drug reduction operations, there may be better oversight to prevent corruption. Part of the DEA’s approach should involve addressing the different ways that heroin is leaving the country. This may require stricter airport security or border control. If the Taliban has less funds, less resources, and less ways of selling the heroin, it will be substantially weakened, which may ultimately allow the central government to reclaim control more easily.

December 1, 2016 2 comments

Wall art against FGM. Source

Featured Global Health Society and Culture Women's Rights

Cutting Them Close: Female Genital Mutilation Today

written by Pallabi Chakraborty

A few months ago, I read the heartbreaking story of Mariya Karimjee, an American girl of South Asian origin who underwent a female genital mutilation (FGM) procedure when she was four years of age. She had very faint memories of being pinned down with her legs apart while a group of ladies hovered around her. She remembered the pain, and the special treatment she received for a while, as if it made up for this heinous crime. Only years later, upon reaching sexual maturity, did she actually understand the magnitude of the events of that day, and the fact that her body and life had been irreversibly damaged.

FGM is defined by the United Nations Population Fund as the “partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons”. Its inception is rooted in gender inequality, as it marks an attempt to curb a woman’s sexual desire and ensure she remains pure, modest, faithful and loyal. A cut woman’s genitalia is also seen as aesthetically pleasing by the men in the communities where cutting is the norm. Modifications to the female genitalia are often carried out by midwives–women with some medical experience who have taken on the role of cutter–or male barbers who lack medical expertise entirely. Their tools are varied and range from knives, razors, scissors, sharpened rocks, and glass to fingernails. These tools are often reused on multiple girls, tremendously increasing the chances of disease transmittance. If the hole left behind is too large according to the girl’s family, the procedure might have to be repeated. Usually, the hole is just big enough to allow the passage of urine or menstrual blood. Sometimes general anesthesia is used, sometimes local, sometimes none at all.

FGM causes permanent damage to the female sex organ. Apart from excruciating pain during intercourse, childbirth, and menstruation, it can be responsible for chronic complications to women’s sexual and reproductive health. Also, it is important to note that the whole purpose of FGM is based on the status of women as second class citizens. It revolves around their subjugation, ensuring that pleasure is removed from a woman’s sexual activity, thus keeping her desires ‘in control’. Female chastity is the goal, while the negative physical and mental outcomes are overlooked. For the purpose of sexual intercourse after marriage, typically a midwife cuts the opening with a knife, or the work is left to the husband. To be able to fully make the opening through the latter process may take up to days, the hole opening up little at a time, causing tremendous pain to the woman throughout. There are no known health benefits of FGM.

The number of women who are at risk of undergoing FGM procedures in the United States has doubled in the last ten years. Part of this could be attributed to increased immigration from countries where FGM is widely practiced. It is estimated that over 300,000 women and girls in the US have undergone the procedure or are at risk. Some parents take their daughters out of the country for “vacation cutting” to complete the procedure in their home countries before coming back to the US. Vacation cutting is illegal in the US at the federal level, but many states do not have any laws that criminalize it. There have been attempts by politicians trying to push for stricter regulations, and adopt some policies commonly used in other countries. One example of such a country is the United Kingdom, where law enforcement agencies at airports are constantly on the lookout for parents trying to send or take their daughters abroad for cutting. Travellers to certain countries are given passport inserts informing them that cutting British citizens, even if they are abroad, is illegal. In the US, things are quite different. For instance, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website has a page detailing what FGM is, and advises anyone at risk to call a hotline number listed there. However, this hotline number is that of the Office of Women’s Health, within the Department of Health and Human Services. It is not a line dedicated to FGM. This is important because a girl will typically call this number when she is tremendously fearful of what might be coming, and is in imminent danger. Also, if the victim happens to be abroad at the time of the incident, the US State Department can help in transporting her back to the US, but would have to seek help from local law enforcement.

It is clear that having laws is not enough to stop FGM. An enormous amount of change in thoughts and ideologies is required. Victims are almost always shamed into silence. The thought of going to the police against your own parents’ wishes can loom heavy on a child. Also, it is difficult to charge the perpetrator in the absence of a witness, as it is possible that the crime may have been committed by relatives and against the wishes of the parents. Also, many teachers, healthcare providers and social workers do not always understand the enormity of the crime, especially because it is coupled with foreign cultural beliefs. Besides, parents, the perpetrators in this case, are otherwise extremely caring, in all other aspects just like how parents should be. These are usually the only exceptions to their behaviour, steeped in their inability to break through the shackles of blind traditions forced upon them.

While legislative action is welcome, countries showing the fastest progress have seen tremendous initiative from community leaders and organizations, such as in Burkina Faso and Senegal. In Tanzania, traditional cutters stopped practicing this trade after being educated in the dangers of FGM and the impact it has on women. To ensure they had another source of income, they were trained in other vocations, for example, batik making. Social grassroot movements have had the strongest impact on cultural beliefs and traditions, primarily because activists are most aware of how these communities think and which arguments are most effective. Sensitivity towards local cultures and traditions is important. Emphasis should be on educating people about the harm caused by FGM, as opposed to attacking it as a cultural malpractice. Bringing in powerful figures well known in the community to advocate against these practices will be helpful. Since there is often a belief that not getting circumcised is haram (religiously immoral), community outreach and advocacy by religious leaders and community elders would be especially beneficial.

Dahabo Musa, a Somalian poet, beautifully articulates the emotional trauma of FGM in a poem called Feminine Pains, part of which is presented below:

As the birth bursts, I cry for help, when the battered flesh tears.

No mercy, push! They say.

It is only feminine pain!

And now I appeal:

I appeal for love lost, for dreams broken,

For the right to live as a whole human being.

If anything, this poignant piece of writing should be reason enough to stop this practice.

August 2, 2016 0 comment

Swedish police officers observe as refugees arrive at a tram station in Malmö, Sweden. Source

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Immigration Religion Society and Culture

A closer look at refugee integration in Europe (Part II)

written by Sarah Wyman

The first part of this article addresses integration policies in France and may be read in full here.

Sweden: A multicultural model

Sweden has struggled with sub-replacement fertility since millions of Swedes fled poverty and religious persecution during the great emigration, a wave of migration which endured between 1850 and 1939. The process of accepting and integrating refugee and immigrant populations in Sweden has therefore been a mutually-beneficial one. In exchange for asylum, refugees augment Sweden’s dwindling population of young laborers. As highlighted in a 2015 article about a hospital in Gävleborg where around 10% of doctors are refugees, their contribution has been significant.

Sweden is developing a reputation abroad for being particularly hospitable to immigrants and received over 160,000 individuals in 2015 alone. In many ways, Sweden’s response to the refugee crisis has been exemplary. The country has instituted a number of integration programs aimed at easing immigrants’ transitions into Swedish society by teaching them about Swedish culture and instructing them in the language. The government extends a multitude of benefits to refugees including welfare and housing. Progressive legislation demonstrates Sweden’s commitment to “diversity, multiculturalism, and international cooperation” and communicates to immigrant populations that their cultural traditions are welcome and valued by the Swedish population.

Despite these victories, Sweden too has experienced social turmoil as a result of immigration. According to an annual survey conducted by Gothenburg University this year, 53% of Swedes identify immigration and integration as the most pressing social issue facing their country, marking a nearly twofold increase from last year’s result of 27%. This rising concern is likely correlated to the dramatic increase in the volume of immigrants entering the country, many of whom Sweden is struggling to acommodate.

Like France, Sweden is home to a number of densely populated, urban, and largely immigrant-inhabited cities riddled with poverty and violence. For example, Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city—where 32% of the population is foreign-born (the national average hovers around 14%)—made international headlines last year for its sudden spike in violent crime, and the community remains unstable. Sverigedemokraterna, Sweden’s right-wing conservative party, is responding in full force with xenophobic rhetoric and anti-immigration policy.

However, contrary to what critics of immigration in Sweden are suggesting, the rise of violence in major metropolitan areas like Malmö is not evidence of the failure of multicultural integration programs. The fact that violence and crime perpetrated by immigrants occurs almost exclusively in isolated urban communities instead speaks to the success of integration programs operating in small villages. The meaningful, one-on-one interactions taking place in rural communities are simply less feasible in rapid-pace city environments where etiquette demands less from people to begin with.

Sweden would do well to implement the sort of one-on-one, community-led mentorship efforts which have been successful in smaller towns and cities in urban areas. In order to prevent the formation of socially isolated immigrant communities, genuine channels of communication between native and immigrant populations must be open from the start, and they must remain so throughout the integration process.

A European model for integration

When the EU begins—as it must—to design European guidelines for integration, it should consider the strengths and weaknesses of existing models. Like Sweden, it should encourage mentorship programs that allow native and non-native individuals to get to know one another. However, it also should improve the efficacy and reach of these programs by ensuring that they are successfully implemented in urban environments as well as villages. In the French vein, the EU must ensure that its legal systems are prepared to serve individuals of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds equally. However, it must also be wary of assimilationist policy and prepared to accept that the process of integration will involve reciprocal cultural exchange. If Europe fails to take these steps, poorly-integrated immigrant communities will continue to grow in size and scope and social isolation will increase accordingly.

Europe’s plan to redistribute refugees and asylum seekers proportionally across Europe is a good one. As the success of small-scale programs in Sweden has demonstrated, integration is most successful where the ratio of immigrants to native population is low enough to allow for meaningful interaction between the two groups. However, if, like in France, enough is not done to facilitate this sort of cross-cultural exchange in the first place, the EU’s redistribution plan will do little to resolve the social turmoil unleashed by the inundation of refugees into Europe and will further deteriorate inter-cultural relations moving forward.

The urgency of the refugee crisis demands an immediate response from Europe. However, it also presents an excellent opportunity for countries like France and Sweden to reconsider their models of integration, identify their weaknesses, and construct the foundation for societies richer in empathy and culture.

June 24, 2016 0 comment

A young boy plays in the abandoned complex where he lives with more than 135 other refugees in Toulouse, France. Source

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Immigration Religion Society and Culture

A closer look at refugee integration in Europe (Part I)

written by Sarah Wyman

In 2015, over 1.3 million people displaced by war and conflict sought asylum in Europe. Of this number, only 292,540 were refugees—individuals approved for asylum and guaranteed protection by the European Union (EU)—and one million were migrants—individuals who have not completed the legal process of claiming asylum. This massive wave of forced migration has proved a challenge for the EU, whose member states have responded with varying commitments to accepting displaced people. Thus far, Greece and Italy have borne the burden of processing applications for asylum, and the vast majority of refugees have settled in Germany, Hungary, and Sweden.

When David O’Sullivan, Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, spoke at UCLA earlier this month, he emphasized the need for a unified European response to the refugee crisis. According to O’Sullivan, the solution to what many Europeans perceive as an insurmountable problem is the proportionate redistribution of refugees and asylum seekers between the European member states. This perspective is the driving force behind recent EU legislation outlining redistribution procedures and controlling the safe and legal arrival of refugees by land and sea.

However, the EU has failed to address a third, equally necessary response to the refugee crisis: integration. Europe does not currently have an integration plan for the millions of people resettling across the continent, a fact which is made more disconcerting by Europe’s long history of unsuccessful immigrant integration.

Over the course of the past few decades, isolated and predominantly immigrant communities have become an increasingly common feature of European suburbs. One such community, Molenbeek St. Jean—the so-called “jihadi capital of Europe” in western Brussels—has been under scrutiny in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels. Five individuals involved in November’s Paris attacks were tied to the community, and it was implicated again during the investigation of the Brussels attacks in March. Molenbeek St. Jean and its association with a violent and poorly-integrated immigrant population represents a larger European problem: the social segregation of native and non-native populations.

While the refugee crisis differs from Europe’s tradition of immigration in many respects, the process of refugee integration will face many of the same challenges. Namely, in order for successful integration to take place, native and non-native communities must overcome the profound socio-cultural divides which separate them. There is no apparent answer for how to address this problem. However, there are lessons to be learned from legislation and policies already implemented by European nations.

Two particularly interesting targets for comparison are France and Sweden, which have adopted opposing methodologies with respect to immigration. France, commanding a clearly-defined and longstanding national identity, expects immigrants and refugees to assimilate to French culture and traditions. Meanwhile, the Swedish government has adopted a multicultural approach, incorporating the customs of refugees and immigrants into a broader Swedish identity. Neither strategy has been wholly successful in producing social harmony, and closer study reveals why: both models fail to produce organic social interaction between native and immigrant populations. Without this crucial ingredient, Europe will not arrive at a sustainable solution for the refugee crisis.

France: An assimilationist model

Any discussion about immigration in France must begin with the French tradition of laïcité. The term, which was coined during the French Revolution and ultimately formalized in a 1905 law, can be loosely summarized as an equivalent to the United States’ separation of church and state. However, its definition relies on a different set of principles which, in practice, render its implementation problematic on a social scale.

While the American tenet of separation of church and state seeks to protect freedom of religion and individual liberty, laïcité’s end goal is to achieve social equality by preventing religiously-motivated discrimination. It draws a sharp distinction between private and public life and decrees that while individuals are free to practice whichever religion they choose in their private life, religion shall in no capacity infringe on the public sphere. Unlike the separation of church and state in the United States—which seeks to grant equal religious liberty to all US citizens—laïcité promotes equality by preventing anyone from practicing their religion in the public sphere. The strategy here is to achieve equality by removing religion from the social equation. Laïcité privileges French identity over other cultural and religious identities so as to ensure that all French citizens are viewed as French first and foremost and that their status in the eyes of the law is protected from religious bias.

Laïcité achieved international controversy following a March 2004 law banning students from wearing symbols or clothing denoting religious affiliation in schools. Other laws apply this precedent to all public institutions, ranging from government offices to post offices. This legislation has proved particularly problematic for French Muslim women who wish to wear headscarves in accordance with their religious values, making laïcité’s incompatibility with current societal truths clear.

Laïcité is a system designed for a mono-cultural, Catholic—or Christian at best—French society. It was not conceived during a time in which multiculturalism was prevalent, nor has it evolved to match the needs of France’s diversifying population. Instead, it is reinforcing a narrow definition of French national identity which does not include the multi-faceted racial, cultural, and ethnic dimensions of modern France.

The ideology which shaped laïcité is a deeply-ingrained component of the French identity. Although its ramifications on the reception of immigrants in France are complex and far-reaching, they may be condensed broadly into two categories:

Firstly, the restrictive cultural norms imposed by laïcité make little room for immigrants’ diverse religions and cultures. While studying in France, I asked a French person I knew well to explain to me what one had to do to “be French” in modern France. His answer was simple: “you just have to obey our laws.” That’s precisely the problem. French laws, as they stand, are not feasible for segments of the population that don’t resemble the sort of French people they were designed for. This is especially true for France’s growing Muslim population, which continues to challenge France’s cultural norms. Most recently, a Muslim student in Northwestern France was sent home for wearing a long skirt—a choice which her school’s administration interpreted as a religious statement. There has also been controversy surrounding French schools’ refusal to serve Halal food in cafeterias. These incidents stand in sharp contrast to the norm of institutionalized Catholicism in France, where many schools hold mass daily and nearly all Roman Catholic holidays are observed by the French state.

However, those aspiring to earn the social status of citizen in France have no choice but to assimilate to French cultural and religious norms. This is made difficult by the popular disdain of many native French for immigrant communities, perpetuating a vicious circle of social isolation. The French are inclined to distrust and disapprove of growing immigrant neighborhoods like those in Seine-Saint-Denis and Marseilles because they perceive their failure to integrate as an affront to French tradition and hospitality rooted in immigrants’ lack of interest in integrating. This attitude contributes to the stigma which makes it difficult for immigrants and refugees to integrate in the first place, widening the social gap between these populations and attesting to the inefficacy of laïcité as a strategy for integration.

Secondly, because religion—and, by extension, religious and cultural differences—are taboo in France, relations between the ethnically French and the multicultural “new French” are plagued by a fundamental lack of mutual understanding. Lines of communication between these increasingly isolated populations are cut in part because their social spheres do not overlap, but also because dialogue about the issues which separate them is made uncomfortable by prevailing cultural norms.

France’s policies, built around the notion of laïcité, reinforce the ideological divide between native and non-native populations before they have an opportunity to interact. The sociocultural repercussions of this method have already posed a problem in ethnically-divided France, and the addition of hundreds of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers is likely to escalate existing tensions within France if efforts are not made to bridge these polarized communities.

The second part of this article details Swedish integration policy and proposes a model of integration for Europe. Visit The Generation website later this week to read more.

June 21, 2016 1 comment

Violence Against Women Source

Africa Featured Society and Culture Women's Rights

Domestic Violence in Ghana: Socially Accepted and Judicially Trivialized

written by Tala Ahmadi

The West African country of Ghana’s deeply entrenched patriarchal culture, where the husband’s exclusive rights to his wife trump her own, condones domestic violence. Most Ghanaian women are told that to be successful in life, they must find a husband and serve him adequately by fulfilling gender roles and continuing his lineage. Wives are told to be socially smaller than their husbands, who are their superiors, breadwinners and protectors. Across all the hundreds of ethnic groups in Ghana, women are viewed as inferior to men. One of the many social dimensions arising from this gendered culture includes an acceptance of domestic violence. The few women that legally report their instances of abuse are supposed to be supported by Ghana’s Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DOVVSU), a branch of the Ghana Police Services. However, Ghanaian women still face extreme obstacles in preventing and reporting domestic violence as well as seeking and receiving justice from the Ghanaian criminal system. Despite the normal inefficiencies that plague most of Ghana’s institutions (the DOVVSU does not even have a website), the root of the Unit’s ineffectiveness remains Ghana’s deeply entrenched gendered culture.

Traditionally, when women are born they belong to their fathers. Once married, their cultural property title moves to their husband and his family— a sister-in-law can refer to her husband’s wife as, “my wife.” If a wife is disobedient, which includes failing to fulfill her traditional obligations like cooking, cleaning, taking care of children and being sexually available whenever her husband desires, domestic violence is often socially accepted by both men and women. According to Ghana’s 2003 Demographic and Health Survey,19.8% of men and 34% of women found it socially acceptable for a husband to beat his wife if she went out without telling him. The survey also showed that 10.1% of men and 19.9% of women considered it acceptable for a husband to beat his wife for refusing to have sex with him. These statistics are unfortunately not unique to Ghana and are part of an international and regional epidemic.

Within West Africa, domestic violence is widespread and often legally allowed. Globally, 30% of women experience violence from intimate partners and 36.6% of African women experience lifetime intimate partner violence. Section 55(1)(d) of Nigeria’s Penal Code legally condones an assault by a husband on his wife for, “the purpose of correcting his wife, such husband and wife being subject to any native law or custom in which such correction is recognized as lawful.” Spousal rape is also not criminalized in Togo, Ghana’s neighbor. In Benin, 68.6% of women experience violence at the hands of men, and 69.5% of those perpetrators are spouses or partners. One in four women in Senegal are victims of domestic abuse. These high statistics are the consequence of deeply gendered cultures where domestic abuse is socially accepted and frequently legal.

These embedded cultural norms were challenged in the past four decades by a global wave of women’s rights advocacy. Several international and regional treaties, bills, covenants and conventions geared towards women’s rights were adopted, including the UN’s notable Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. One of Ghana’s responses to this push included establishing the DOVVSU in February 2007. However, women who seek the DOVVSU’s support are often discouraged to report their claims and rarely see their spouses brought to justice. The DOVVSU fails in its mission to provide victims with adequate support services because it remains shackled to Ghana’s patriarchal culture.

Many Ghanaians traditionally believe that domestic abuse should be resolved within the household rather than externally via the justice system. This mindset causes judges to trivialize domestic violence cases or pressure women to drop their claims. Often times, Ghanaian women are too embarrassed, disheartened or discouraged to even report their cases of abuse—95% of Ghanaian women who have been raped do not report the incident. Even when women do pursue criminal charges many of their claims never get sent to court, they experience societal shaming and hardly any cases lead to convictions. A statistic from 2010 found that out of 12,706 cases in the country, only 954 were sent to court and of those only 118 convictions were obtained. These numbers are unacceptable given that the DOVVSU’s intent is to provide victims with the support necessary to seek justice. In actuality, those who are entrusted with the power to help victims find justice convince and encourage women to drop their claims and return to their abusive relationships to avoid disturbing the peace of their communities.

Another traditional belief contributing to the DOVVSU’s ineffectiveness and the prevalence of domestic violence is the cultural mindset that marriage equals consent. A 2007 survey found that 20.6% of Ghanaian women have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime and 44.5% have experienced physical and/or sexual abuse from intimate partners and/or non-partners in their lifetime. These high numbers are not surprising considering until 2007, Ghanaian Criminal Code section 42 (g) explicitly allowed marital rape by stating, “the consent given by a husband or wife at marriage, for the purposes of marriage, cannot be revoked until the parties are divorced or separated by a judgment or decree of a competent Court.” After the DOVVSU was established, section 42 (g) was revised to state, “The use of violence in the domestic setting is not justified on the basis of consent.” While the changes imply husbands can be criminally prosecuted for marital rape, there is no direct prohibition of marital rape statutorily in the Ghanaian Criminal Code. In addition, the revision in the law has yet to change cultural and patriarchal mindsets that contribute to the extent of marital rape and the attitudes of law enforcement officers who trivialize domestic violence cases.

The DOVVSU’s establishment marked a significant first step in improving the Ghanaian domestic violence landscape, however its effectiveness is marred by prevailing cultural norms. How can Ghana create an effective DOVVSU when major sources of its inadequacy are beliefs that can only be changed with time? This is a difficult question to answer, but the solution must include more rigorous sensitivity training for judges, police officers and leaders of communities, national emphasis on the issue and increased marketing about the DOVVSU. Queen mothers, who are the female leaders of many Ghanaian communities and dedicated advocates for women and children, and DOVVSU representatives should organize community discussions about gender roles and domestic violence. Similar conversations should be conducted in classrooms so from a young age children can start a normally nonexistent discussion regarding domestic abuse. Queen mothers should also spearhead female support groups as forums for women to talk freely about sexism and gender roles. Female focused NGOs must also work with Queen mothers and take advantage of their unique position with women and children. These open conversations regarding gender constructs and their societal influence will work to challenge the prevailing norms and change the mindsets that leave many Ghanaian women disentitled to their own bodies.

May 26, 2016 3 comments

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Immigration Internet Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Territorial disputes Terrorism Uncategorized

An Interview with Mubin Shaikh: Former Jihadist Turned Counter-Terrorism Operative

written by Madison Weil

In light of recent radical Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide, individuals everywhere are feeling uneasy and unsafe. The topic of national security has moved to the forefront of political agendas and has become an integral part of international discussions. In the United States, 49% of citizens are worried that they, or someone in their family, will become a victim of terrorism. This percentage is the highest it has been since the year following 9/11. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, “Over three-quarters of Americans doubt the nation’s ability to stop ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own.” Additionally, 59% of Republicans, 38% of Independents, and 15% of Democrats support a ban on all Muslims wishing to enter the United States. For a nation that prides itself on freedom and equal opportunity for all, these are surprising numbers, which reveal the success of radical extremists in their ability to create widespread fear and anti-Muslim sentiment.

In an effort to learn more about the goals and recruitment strategies of ISIS, a colleague and I recently interviewed Mubin Shaikh—an ex-extremist turned counter-terrorism operative, and author of the book Undercover Jihadi. Born in Canada, Shaikh was raised Muslim and became influenced by the radical ideas of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He began actively recruiting other young Muslims for the cause of jihad. After the events of 9/11, however, he questioned Islamic extremism and travelled to Syria, where he underwent deradicalization—a process he defines in his interview as “a full cognitive shift away from extremist thinking.” Upon his return home, he began working undercover with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the “Toronto 18” case, in an effort to prevent extremist attacks. Today, he works to stop radicalization using social media to directly engage Islamic State sympathizers, while also speaking out against Islamophobia, which he believes only fuels and encourages radicalization.

What many people do not understand is that the fulfillment of ISIS’ agenda is actually dependent upon worldwide discrimination against Muslims—all Muslims, even moderate, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. According to Shaikh, “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious how easily people are falling into that trap. ISIS has actually written a document in which they wrote and said ‘we will commit these attacks so as to create retaliation on Muslims to make them feel so isolated and marginalized that they will be pushed into our waiting arms.’”

Shaikh is referring to both a manifesto called “The Black Flags from Rome,” as well as the February edition of ISIS’ online magazine, Dabiq, in which the Islamic State warned, “Muslims in the West will soon find themselves between one of two choices.” This statement was published in the weeks following the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris—an abhorrent act that only heightened the pre-existing tension between French Muslims and their fellow citizens. The group boasted that the attack had “further [brought] division to the world,” and “eliminated the grayzone,” representing the coexistence between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors. The text further explains that Muslims living in the West will soon feel so isolated and marginalized, they will be forced to “either apostatize … or [migrate] to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” The term “crusader” is the title given by ISIS to every Western soldier, civilian, and politician, regardless of party or nation.

In the weeks following the most recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, ISIS has seen their goal come to fruition—innocent Muslims everywhere have been experiencing acts of violence, hatred, and discrimination at the hands of angry, fearful Western citizens. Many in the West believe that Islam is a religion that promotes violence, without understanding that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Shaikh explained that ISIS manipulates the Quran, “cherry-picks” verses, and uses phrases out of context in order to piece together an outline for their violent mission.

In a more recent interview with VICE, Shaikh reemphasizes that widespread Islamophobia provides a major advantage to ISIS recruiters: “The sad reality is, you have people on the right who might as well directly take the marching orders from ISIS because they’re doing the work for them.” ISIS targets individuals who feel isolated and rejected. Youths are an easy target given their desire to formulate their own identity and find a community to which they belong. Shaikh comments, “Your brains are still developing until your mid-twenties. That’s a time when you’re susceptible to influences from adults, community members, and religious members.” ISIS preys on the vulnerability of ostracized youths, reaching out to them via social media platforms such as Facebook, Skype, Twitter, Instagram, etc. “They’ll take screenshots and continue to engage you until they feel like they can successfully recruit you,” says Shaikh. He also solemnly discusses the impossibility of quitting ISIS once an individual has been recruited: “Their lives are destroyed. And it will be very, very difficult for them to leave that place. Some of them have been executed because they were creating ‘too many problems’ because they wanted to go home.”

While widespread fear and anger might seem inevitable in light of current events, Shaikh encourages individuals to educate themselves on the goals and strategies of extremists, and to resist the temptation to perpetuate the anti-Muslim sentiment which only further fuels radicalization and polarization.

December 28, 2015 1 comment

Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Humanitarian Aid Immigration Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Terrorism Uncategorized

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case

written by Madison Weil

“It is nationalism which endangers nations, and not the other way round.” –Ernest André Gellner (British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist)

French President Francois Hollande recently issued a statement that his country is prepared to open its borders and welcome 24,000 migrants seeking asylum over the next two years. This statement, issued on September 7, 2015, is part of a new plan designed by the European Union to accept and appropriately distribute the massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other surrounding nations. When asked to comment on French polls that indicated 55% of the national population was opposed to accepting more refugees, Hollande responded that asylum is a constitutional right and a moral duty, and that “France’s image and standing in the world were at stake.”

In light of the recent terrorists attacks on Paris, and amid reports that one of the attackers held a Syrian passport, Hollande has emphasized the necessity of making proper background checks prior to accepting these refugees. Hollande has declared war on ISIS, but made it clear that France will maintain its “humanitarian duty” and promise to welcome refugees over the next two years.

While many refugees initially identified Germany as the most ideal place to relocate with supposed security and job opportunities abound, other European countries are now offering comparable conditions and welcoming the migrants. In fact, because Germany has been accommodating such a massive influx of individuals in recent months, France has offered to help by offering an expedited asylum application to migrant families arriving in Munich: temporary housing in France along with a two-week approval process as opposed to the usual six-month process.

These recent political and cultural strides made by France are particularly notable given the nation’s sticky history with immigration and ethnic tension. Having just spent a month living and learning in France, I can attest that it is challenging to go more than a day without hearing an allegation that the presence of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and immigrants creates a grave problem for the nation. A commonly held belief among French traditionalists is that these groups directly threaten and compromise the very essence of true “Frenchness.” Many harbor a sense of nationalism that transcends the concept of national pride and actually results in extreme and egregious discrimination—for example, some believe that to be truly “French” is to be white, Catholic, and multi-generationally French. This statement parades as protectionism when in reality it is rooted in racism. This has created an ongoing and very heated dialogue surrounding immigration policy in the last century.

This French perception of nationalism (hopefully) seems foreign to us in the United States. Our nationality law is based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), meaning that individuals gain immediate citizenship upon being born in the U.S. This has subsequently created the notion that America is a mixing pot of racial identities—our sense of national pride comes from being united as American, not from being one united race. In contrast, most states in Europe, Asia, and Oceania grant citizenship based on principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) or a restricted version of jus solis—as is the case in France. Under this philosophy, individuals become citizens depending on their parents’ citizenship and not by birthplace. This has fostered and accentuated the cultural division in France between natives and immigrants which has resulted in the emergence of a perceived social hierarchy. Because of this heated history and conflicting cultural dynamic, President Hollande’s decision to welcome refugees in spite of opposition (and in spite of recent events) deserves recognition.

France’s situation forcibly evokes a particularly challenging set of questions: at what point should international leaders place a greater emphasis on obligations to humanity than on obligations to their own national interests? How do leaders of the Western community in particular negotiate or reconcile national interests with moral duty? Is there such a thing as a moral duty to the international community? According to the UNHCR: “Since, by definition, refugees are not protected by their own governments, the international community steps in to ensure they are safe and protected.” In fact, in the past few decades 142 nations have signed on to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. By signing this international treaty and its 1967 amendment, the UNHCR states nations are essentially agreeing that “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.”

While we have historically seen that most national actions, even humanitarian ones, are often out of self-interest, it is my sincere hope that international authorities will continue to improve and open their borders to those in need. Afterall, those of us born in Western nations with relatively safe conditions could have just as easily been born into a nation experiencing a crisis. Wouldn’t we then hope and pray for assistance and asylum in the E.U.? In the U.S.?

This debate reminded me of an excerpt from Shakespeare’s play “Sir Thomas More.” Sir Thomas More is a lawyer, sent to address an angry crowd of individuals rioting to get rid of “those immigrants” or “strangers.” Shakespeare delivers a powerful message that transcends time and place when More challenges the natives to consider what they would do if they had to flee their home country:

“Whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,–

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.”

(Sir Thomas More, Act II, Scene IV)

This is the stranger’s case—the immigrant’s case. For many, it’s near impossible to fully comprehend the plight and experiences of today’s refugees, but so important to try. While it’s challenging to reconcile national interests with humanitarian needs, our nationality shouldn’t supersede our humanity.

November 20, 2015 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts