Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Women in Writing

Women in Writing

Five ways in which Gilead from The Handmaid’s Tale and the Caliphate of ISIS share similarities

by

Hulu series ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ filming at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC USA.
Photo Credit: vpickering, licensed with CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Television programmes have an undeniable influence, both positive but also negative over one’s behaviour. We can take the example of Sex and the City which emancipated women’s voices when talking about sex and enormously increased the sale of sex toys but also, how Thirteen Reasons Why, unfortunately influenced young girls to kill themselves, who wanted to follow the same pattern of the main character. Thus, we cannot deny the repercussions that these programmes and platforms such as Netflix can have: repercussions that are either voluntarily desired or collateral damage of their own fame. Moreover, some try to replicate real world events and portray on our screen true metaphors of reality. But the latter can also be done unconsciously. My understanding is that the country of Gilead (former United States of America) in the TV adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, can be compared to the Caliphate of ISIS. Nonetheless, I do not believe that these similarities were made consciously. Indeed, Margaret Atwood explained in an interview that she was inspired by real-life events of baby stealing such as the ones in Argentina, the ones made by Hitler but also the ones on indigenous children in Australia, Canada and in the United States. Notwithstanding, as her dystopia is not something unrealisable, several comparisons can be made such as the one with the Islamist Caliphate. Indeed, in an interview, Margaret Atwood who followed closely the shooting of the show, said that what The Handmaid’s Tale display is not a dystopia that could never happen. On the contrary, she highlights the fact, when referring to the election of Donald Trump, that “the United States is not an authoritarian dictatorship, yet”. One rule for her book and the filming of the show “you can’t put anything that hasn’t already happen”.

A little context first, especially for those who haven’t watch the series. The Handmaid’s Tale retraces the history of June, a woman captured while trying to escape from Chicago with her husband and child. She is now prisoner of an authoritarian state that will transform her as a sexual slave. Indeed, she is taken to be a second-class citizen, a handmaid, with the purpose of bearing children for childless government officials of Gilead. The latter is actually the Northeastern coast and the Great South of the United States’s territory which is now governed by a religious-based autocracy. Gilead’s Officials’ explanation for such drastic measures is that the world is witnessing an unprecedented crisis, with fertility dropping among both men and women, this new society is made around the need to procreate. Thus, this television show has some interesting parallels in leadership and the treatment of humans which I will further elaborate upon. The Caliphate on the other hand, is the political-religious state comprising the Muslim community and the lands and peoples under its dominion in the centuries following the death (632 CE) of the Prophet Muhammad, that has been ill-revised by terrorist organisations such as ISIS, in order to proclaim their state.

First of all, both terms “Caliphate” and “Gilead” are referring to leadership. Indeed, Caliphate literally means “government of a caliph”, the caliph being a spiritual leader of Islam, the successor of the Prophet Muhammad. In Arabic, khalifa means “successor”. In Margaret Atwood’s creation, Gilead can be translated by Galaad which in the Bible represents a mountainous territory located in Jordan but also, the great-grandson of Joseph, son of Jacob. And the leaders of the Gilead’s Republic are called the Sons of Jacob. So here, in both cases being an official of the state is being someone linked to their religion.

Secondly, the place of women in both territories is similar. As Saltman and Frennet explain, ISIS’s pull factors regarding recruitment are based on (1) utopian ideals of building the Caliphate state, (2) individual duty and identity building, and (3) romanticization of the experience, both in travel and in forming a union with a jihadist. Furthermore, there is an idealization of gender roles where the roles of being a wife and a mother are emphasized. Contrary to the Islamic Caliphate, Gilead skip the recruitment phase as they kidnap all the handmaids. Nonetheless, this romanticization and idealization of the woman’s role in society is widely shared by other women present in Gilead, who willingly participate in this new society, such as the commander’s wives and the aunts (the women “educating” the handmaids). Women in both religious systems share the belief that they have the sacred duty to procreate[1], to give life to a new society where abortion is prohibited.

Thirdly, the narrative in both is very extremist and religiously fanatical. Gilead is a militarised, authoritarian, and theocratic regime, driven by religious fundamentalism. Through a series of coordinated attacks, Jacob’s sons assassinate the US President and members of Congress. In the series, White House staff and all nine Supreme Court Justices are also killed. Soon the US Constitution is suspended, bank accounts are frozen, and all women are fired. Outside of fiction, on June 29, 2014 the “State of the Islamic Caliphate” was declared by ISIS. This political-religious act is based on Qur’anic foundations of caliphal power. ISIS proclaims that it follows the principles of Islam, the Quran and Sharia law, that they are the drivers of their society[2]. Hence, the caliphate of today is the Islamist reappropriation of a classical political-religious ideal as Gilead is the reappropriation of the Bible by religious extremists.

Fourthly, following this ultra-extremism, in both societies, LGBTQ+, women committing adultery, people from other religions, and those breaking the law are rejected or even killed. In Gilead, the word “gay” doesn’t exist, they are rather qualified as ‘gender traitor’ and women committing adultery or from another religion or who broke the law are qualified as unwomen. On the other side of the spectrum, it is no secret that ISIS persecutes gay people. We have footage and proof of ISIS members killing gay individuals, or even suspected gay individuals, multiple times. For example, in 2015, an ISIS judge in Palmyra, Syria, sentenced two homosexuals to death, throwing them from the roof of a hotel.

Finally, both societies are built upon hatred of the Other. Indeed, after taking power, Jacob’s sons in Gilead blamed “Islamic fanatics” (more explicitly stated in the novel but not so much in the TV show), and thus the military declared a state of emergency. On the other hand, we have the Caliphate which is powered by the hatred of the West. More precisely, they believe in the existence of a War on Islam. This conspiracy theory considers that Islam is under an existential threat and that the West wishes to destroy it. Hofstadter wrote that Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups believe in a conspiracy generalized by the Judeo-Christian-Capitalist quest to destroy Islam. Hence, both societies articulate around an enemy to hate.

To conclude, both societies are gender-segregated parallel institutions. While one is fictive, the other exists and tries to survive in our modern world. I do not infer that the analogy made in this article is that simple. Rather, I have tried to find some similarities and give another reading of The Handmaid’s Tale. This exercise shows how we can apply theories and academic knowledge of terrorism to a contemporary product. Nowadays, we cannot deny the power of platforms such as Netflix, HBO or Hulu which broadcast TV programmes that do have some educating roles. Indeed, these programmes are evolving alongside our societies and some try to have a moral, that the audience learns a lesson. It can be very interesting and pertinent to make analogies of this kind in order to understand the political but also societal messages hidden in some series. To finish with the words of Margaret Atwood, “some of the states in the United States have gone all the way to Gilead pretty much, regarding the outfits”, maybe what we see on TV that seems outrageous and unbelievable is actually happening just in front of our eyes and not so far away.

[1] Nonetheless, I do not say that everything is black and white, especially in the Islamist Caliphate. Indeed, there are also many accounts of women being given birth control, in some cases against their will, because it was thought that some men would be less willing to be martyrs if they had children.

[2] ISIS lecture of Islam is a violent one, as many say “terrorism has no religion”. So, even though ISIS claims that it follows Islam principles, they actually read and interpret Islam as they see fit.

Changing the Patriarchal Mindset: Combatting Rape as a Weapon of War in Tigray

by

Photo Credit: Rod Waddington, licensed under Creative Commons

The Tigray Region in northern Ethiopia, once the core of the Aksumite Kingdom, is now witnessing a grinding civil war. Of grave international concern is the fact that this crisis has turned into an act of ethnic cleansing, whereby Ethiopian and Eritrean forces are using rape to cleanse the Tigrayan bloodline, and hence gradually eliminate the Tigrayan ethnic group from the region. Therefore, rape is being used, in effect, as a weapon of war. However, despite the scale of these atrocities, society has tools at its disposal to halt them and prevent their reoccurrence in the future. The answer lies, not in mere condemnation, nor in the use of force, but in a deep-rooted social change driven by the empowerment of women and the education of men in gender (in)equality matters. Only in this way, will Ethiopia be able to rise above this patriarchal violence and become a less gendered society.

Currently the Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers are employing rape as punishment towards those linked to the Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF), a former political party which dominated Ethiopian politics before Abiy Ahmed became Ethiopia’s Prime Minister in 2018. Since Abiy came to power, hostilities have been constant between his government and the leaders of the TPLF due to the latter not being recognised as an official Ethiopian party and being excluded from the ruling coalition government. Such enmities culminated with the TPLF going to war with the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments in November 2020. This is a conflict, which according to Abiy, has now ceased. However, violence continues to assail the region. The government’s forces keep on not only attacking the Tigray Defence Forces Armed movement (formerly TPLF), but also pursuing the systemic annihilation of the Tigray ethnic group. Civilian attacks have become a constant in the region, with women being the preferred target. Sexual violence against this demographic is rife, despite being prohibited under international humanitarian law and human rights laws, and the practice being condemned by the Ethiopian government itself.

A United States Institute of Peace special report on wartime sexual violence has concluded that a quest for power is the main motive behind sexual violence. The Ethiopian army uses this method to advance its quest to overthrow the Tigray Defence Forces, and exert its regional dominance. Army members have been attacking, beating, and raping civilians in a bid to demonstrate their power. For instance, allegations have surfaced of women coerced into exchanging sex for basic commodities due to their need to provide for their families. Moreover, a UN report confirmed that official soldiers have been forcing individuals to rape their own female family members in exchange for their lives. To make matters worse, most victims are part of those 735,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) who were forced by the outbreak of war to flee their homes. Thus, these purposeful, humiliating acts, are empowering the perpetrators whilst leaving the Tigray populous feeling vulnerable as they have no place where they can live in safety.

Nevertheless, the Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers are not the sole offenders of such violations; the Tigrayan forces have also been accused, albeit on fewer occasions, of similar sexual crimes. However, irrespective of allegiances, sexual violence is plaguing Tigrayan society and is unlikely to decrease any time soon. A coordinator of a gender-based violence crisis centre in Tigray told CNN reporters that rapes in the area have grown from averaging one a week prior to the outbreak of the conflict to more than 22 daily cases. However, the number of cases is probably even higher, as many go unreported due to most of victims keeping these atrocities to themselves.

Sexual violations are generally treated as a taboo topic, with many victims not reporting them due to fear, shame, or even guilt. As seen with the Tigray War, this sentiment only intensifies in conflict zones, where insecurity is the norm. Such insecurity has prevented countless women from seeking help and reporting their experiences. Many have sought to become less noticeable, using head coverings and long skirts, out of fear of being assaulted. Therefore, Tigrayan women need protection and education to empower them to fight for their freedom and to escape from the victim role which they are being forced into by the Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers.

However, as stated by the International Committee of the Red Cross in a report on sexual violence in conflict zones, the protection of civilians against sexual crimes in these environments is very complicated. Sexual violations in conflict are not carried out in isolation but are normally accompanied by other unlawful violations, ranging from looting to civilian killings or child recruitment. For instance, in early March 2021, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reported how Eritrean soldiers massacred more than one hundred civilians in Tigray, including children, in November 2020. These more visible war crimes overshadow the cruelty of sexual violations, a more silent and difficult crime to detect, but one that still leaves deep wounds in the victims, their families and communities. International Law, International Humanitarian Law, and Human Rights Law all deem acts of sexual violence unlawful, providing societal frameworks and conventions aimed at preventing such actions from occurring, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Furthermore, powerful institutions that condemn these violations exist, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), yet, sexual violence is still very much present, with the Tigrayan atrocities attesting to this.

A major hurdle to addressing the sexual abuse currently taking place in the Tigray War is the abundance of deliberate misinformation and contradicting reports being released from the conflict zone to mislead external opinions over the conflict. Although numerous recent reports and allegations about the possible atrocities taking place against the Tigrayan population have surfaced, much is still flying under the radar. The invisibility of these massacres has also been fomented by the Ethiopian government, which has imposed severe restrictive access measures for journalists and humanitarian workers, making it challenging to corroborate survivors’ stories. Thus, it is almost impossible to estimate the multitude of offenses that are taking place and who, in reality, is to blame. So, the opaque nature of the experiences of locals, together with the feelings of shame or fear are preventing the reporting of such actions, hindering the possibility of intervention to halt such cruelty.

Even prior to the present civil war, in Ethiopia, sexual and gender violence has been a common social problem for decades, with 35% of married women in 2016 reporting some sort of sexual violence. This number has dramatically increased in the Tigray region since the war broke out, with more than 500 cases officially reported in March 2021 in that region alone (with real numbers likely being much higher). This is occurring despite the Ethiopian government ratifying many women right’s conventions such as the CEDAW, and including women’s rights provisions and policies in its 1995 Constitution. The Ethiopian administration has also endeavoured to treat gender-based violence survivors with the establishment of more shelters and programmes to reintegrate them into society. However, gender inequalities are ingrained in the daily lives of women and girls, leading them to have a greater likelihood of living with violence in their homes compared with men. Combined with a lack of control over their bodies, this ensures they are more prone to violations of their sexual and reproductive rights; hence, why nationwide progress on gender equality is needed.

It is not enough for a country’s leaders to state their position against sexual violence, just like those in Ethiopia have done, whilst their own army is simultaneously executing such appalling actions. Thus, on top of halting hostilities, investigating into the grave violations committed and condemning the perpetrators of such acts, the latter being a process that has now been initiated through international communal pressure and headed conjunctly by the UN’s High Commissioner Office and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHCR), a more educational and cultural change is needed. As stated by the 48th Session of the Commission of Status of Women (CSW), to achieve that change towards gender equality, men need to engage in conversations around sexual health, gender-sensitive behaviour and toxic masculinity. Also, it is essential to break gender stereotypes, and to instigate a reconstruction of the concept of masculinity to allow for men’s patriarchal and violent mindsets to, with time, decrease. Likewise, women empowerment programmes can provide great value to sexual violence survivors and to the community itself. These can change participants’ beliefs and increase their self-confidence, making women more participative within their own communities. Furthermore, they can also make women more willing to support and educate others on gender violence, sexual assaults, and mistreatment of women. The damaging effects of these acts can include sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, psychological effects like PTSD (between 17% and 65% of women sexually assaulted in adulthood display symptoms of PTSD), self-harm, and relational and social adverse effects, such as loss of trust, isolation or fear of intimacy. Developing a nurturing community can thus assist in overcoming these devastating physical, psychological, emotional, and social consequences of gender violence. Hence, in Ethiopia, this more holistic approach to this challenge, engaging both men and women in the process of change, will not only help to prevent actions of sexual violence from occurring again but will also empower communities and the coming generations to speak out and defend human rights for all, forming and sustaining more equal and inclusive societies.

Unfortunately, changing mindsets and bringing about cultural change takes time. As efforts continue, strong prosecution and condemnation of sexual crimes remain essential to keep offenders in line and prevent future waves of atrocities like those currently taking place in Tigray. Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law must not be breached merely to wield power. Rape and other sexual crimes must not remain as tools of war in Tigray, nor anywhere else. Thus, the Ethiopian Government, its Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed (a Nobel Peace Prize winner) and the international community must denounce and take action to prevent such cruel tactics from continuing to be used. The Tigrayan population, and especially its women, deserve to feel safe again.

Still asking to vote

by

by Sonia Martínez Girón

Photo by Dominik Mecko on Unsplash

There seems to be some sort of 404 error in cartography. Internet maps plainly show ‘no data’ in Western Sahara. How exactly did this global anomaly to the twenty-first-century nation-state construction occur? Most importantly, can it change? Examining diverse perspectives can help venture into what could ease Western Sahara’s socio-political situation.

Western Sahara covers a 266,000-sq-km area within the Sahara Desert on the Atlantic coast of Northwest Africa. In this territory, the sovereignty of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) has not been internationally recognised. This is an intricate conflict where numerous parties and identities are involved. Morocco has just initiated military operations in the area, raising tensions within the ‘stable instability’ that characterises the territory and disrupting the brittle ceasefire of the last three decades. The Polisario Front, the pro-independence unit supported by Algeria, is based in Tindouf since 1975. The position of the Polisario is that the irresolution of the Security Council has given it no alternative than to “escalate its fight”, as the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) has been ineffective in preventing confrontations. Despite this state of affairs, the UN has accorded to extend the United Nations mission until 31 October 2021. Historical context can help appreciate the big picture.

To begin, the ‘Spanish Sahara’ was what the Territory of Western Sahara was called between 1884 and 1976, while it was occupied by Spain. It was within the context of the Berlin Conference of 1885 where Spain was permitted to occupy the region over which the country could make historical claims. In 1975, Spain withdrew from the colony. Spain was undergoing a period of instability, in which profound divisions and internal conflict marked by the end of Francisco Franco’s dictatorship. The United Nations (UN) mission had intervened in the territory in response to the Morocco-Mauritania campaign to prevent the self-determination vote that the Spanish government had professed in 1974.

In November of 1975, Hassan II of Morocco took advantage of the circumstances to organise the Green March, a protest aiming to annex the Spanish Sahara to Morocco where troops of volunteers crossed to the Spanish Sahara. Arias Navarro, the Spanish president at the time, ordered the colony to be withdrawn and abandoned. That same year, just days before Franco died, Morocco, Mauritania and Spain signed the Madrid Pact to formally end the Spanish occupancy of the Western Sahara territory, which stated that the decolonisation of the region and the opinions of the Saharan population would be respected. While the treaty came into force, its international recognition was not expressed. After the Spanish withdrew from the territory in the 1970s, Western Sahara was annexed by Morocco and Mauritania in 1976. In 1979, Mauritania renounced ‘its share’ of this land and Morocco constructed a 2,700-kilometre wall with landmines alongside that has retained the Polisario. Since then, Western Sahara has been a territory administered de facto by Morocco.

In September 1991 and after 16 years of war, a truce was signed by the parties of the conflict. Still, the intended plebiscite of auto-determination for Western Sahara has been recurrently suspended, as there seems to be no consensus between Rabat and the Polisario Front – who the UN considers to be the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people – over the conformation of the electorate and the status of the zone. A political settlement in Western Sahara has been even more difficult after Morocco intervened last month. According to Morocco, the country had merely erected a “security cordon”.

The Polisario Front considered the truce with Morocco to be over after Morocco’s attacks. Bachir Sayed, the Polisario Front leader, stated that the 13th of November was a turning point in the Saharawi national struggle and stressed how Sahrawi people support the Polisario Front. On that day, Moroccan soldiers had shot at civilians who had been protesting against what they consider to be Morocco’s exploitation of reserves. Sayed suggested that the war of national liberation was caused by Morocco’s violation of the ceasefire and the UN’s indifference. Since last month, the UN has multiplied its efforts to prevent further escalation in the Buffer Strip in the Guerguerat area. Morocco’s position on the sovereignty of the Guerguerat area is that it is a ‘no man’s land’; while the Front considers it its ground, appealing to the agreement signed by all parties in 1991. This back-and-forth between both sides is a continuation of previous themes of the territorial dispute. During these decades, the UN has been trying to balance the possible applications of sovereignty and self-determination. Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson of the UN, alleged that both Morocco and the Polisario should show some responsibility. Regarding how this unsolved dispute has affected the Sahrawi population, Amnesty International highlights that human rights abuses have been committed in the disputed territory over the last 40 years.

The Sahrawi population has waited for a legal referendum that has not yet arrived. Although this ceasefire was thought to entail peace, the absence of active conflict does not mean that the dispute has settled. The promise of a referendum remains crucial, especially for the many exiled Sahrawis involuntarily living in camps near Tindouf. Still, there seems to be no consensus regarding the census for a referendum for the West Sahara natives. Adding fuel to the fire, President Trump newly recognised Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara via Twitter as compensation for the normalisation of Morocco-Israel relations. While this can account for the existing trade relations between Rabat and Washington, Trump’s announcement shows little engagement with the conflict itself and the pleas of the Sahrawi’s.

In the future, the international community will continue to observe how Western Sahara events unfold, most likely with significant concern. Ironically enough, the etymology of the word ‘referendum’ means ‘that must be brought back or taken back’. Concerning the Sahrawi community, maybe the word choice of ‘election’ would be more accurate, as one cannot have back what one never had. In this sense, it is consistent to state that those who were part of the problem should be part of the solution. The UN should embrace a new approach, as this strategy has not proved efficient for the last decades. If the Sahrawi people had the choice of independence or incorporation to Morocco, this setting would feasibly alter.

Sonia is an MA International Affairs student at KCL. She holds a Bachelor in Modern Languages from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. In her Bachelor thesis she explored the use of language in the context of the Spanish Civil War. She is a gastronomy enthusiast. Sonia follows International Security issues with particular interest.

EU Migration Mismanagement: Canary Islands the new Lesbos?

by

by Cristina Romero-Caballero Cuttell

Hundreds of migrants crammed in unseaworthy boats.
Source: Council of Europe

Migrants embarking in unseaworthy boats from Northern and Western African shores or making arduous overland journeys on foot from Middle Eastern countries, such as Syria or Afghanistan, to reach Europe demonstrate the harsh reality of irregular migration. These movements are normally prompted by the perilous circumstances such as wars, ethnical violence or scarcity of essential resources affecting their home countries.

In addition to their tough past and uncertain future, many migrants find themselves alone and vulnerable in foreign lands, often enduring dangerous, inhumane, and degrading circumstances caused by governmental policies where they arrive. For its part, the EU continues to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian issues underlying such migratory movements, focusing mainly on the associated security and logistical matters. This failure to give help where it is most needed is causing extreme suffering at its borders, proving the lack of empathy and solidarity of EU migration laws and regulations towards the arrivals.

The EU aims to show on occasions, the apparent importance it places on safeguarding migrants, leading the European population to believe its actions are sufficient. Germany´s decision in 2019 to take in vulnerable refugees through the European Resettlement Programme, and the provision of EU aid to Turkey to support refugees escaping from Syria, are just some examples. Both overtures initially appear altruistic; yet closer examination reveals they are, by all accounts, insufficient. In March 2020, when the unsustainable situation in Turkey led it to threaten to allow migrants to cross the border into Greece, the EU acted swiftly by providing aid to Greece to seal its Turkish borders. This response was not born from a spirit of goodwill and solidarity; as expected, the EU was simply trying to secure its borders to prevent a reignition of the 2015 crisis. Likewise, the response from other powerful European actors, such as the UK and France, to the plight of migrants has been begrudging at best, and shameful at worst, as exemplified by the recent drownings in the English Channel.

Such a lacklustre response is a deeply controversial issue as the EU aims to protect the interests of all Europeans by ensuring their safety and economic growth; but it fails to do enough for the displaced, asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants. The EU is, in effect, preventing genuine refugees from seeking asylum through laws that disregard outsiders by complicating and slowing down such processes, as dictated, for instance, by the Dublin Regulation. Such law, only permits refugees to seek asylum in the country where they arrive, leaving many without protection since the receiving countries, such as Greece, Italy, Malta or Spain, are overwhelmed. Furthermore, through such laws, refugees are being denied their right to freely choose where to live. Denying such protection and freedom is in breach of the human rights upheld by international law through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and the 1990 Migrant Workers Convention. This insular and nationalistic approach is dehumanising the lives of those escaping from wars, genocides, terrorist regimes, and the effects of climate change in order to find a place where they can live, instead of remaining in one where they are simply trying to survive.

To confront African migration, the EU is seeking to establish Migration Agreements with third countries in Northern Africa, the ultimate territorial border before the Mediterranean and, hence, European waters. The strong relationship established with Morocco attests to this. Since the 1990s, a series of bilateral re-admission agreements have been signed between Morocco and Spain to cooperate in the control of irregular migration. This cooperation was later complemented by FRONTEX, the EU External Border Agency. In 2013, a new tool was put forward to North African countries as part of the EU Global Approach to Migration. This ‘Mobility Partnerships Facility’, a “long-term framework based on political dialogue and operational cooperation” for collaboration on migration, was accepted by Morocco and Tunisia. Although certain aspects have not yet been finalised, including the controversial readmission issue of third-country nationals (TCN), its implications are visible: higher securitization, and stricter border controls.

West African Maritime Route.
Source: International Organization for Migration

What sounds like a great step forward in helping Morocco to manage the large influx of migrants is, in reality, just shifting part of the migratory issue from the north of Morocco to the south and west, and to southern Sub-Saharan countries such as Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania, where less control exists. Thus, migrants seeking a better life in Europe now view the more dangerous West African Maritime route, crossing to Spain’s Canary Islands from Africa’s Western Coast, as their only viable option. This is a route that has witnessed over five hundred deaths in 2020, a figure which is likely much higher as not all shipwrecks are reported. Despite the patrols between the archipelago and the African coast, the abundancy of boats has overwhelmed the islands’ rescue and humanitarian services.

As a result, the Canary Islands are currently suffering a humanitarian emergency and Europe is once again ignoring another migratory issue affecting its southern border. Migrant arrivals in Spain’s Canary Islands are at their highest level in over a decade. Although the number of migrants arriving in Spain via the Mediterranean Sea has decreased by fifty per cent versus 2019, arrivals in the Canaries have increased by more than a thousand per cent. These are shocking numbers, but they fail to reflect the reality of the harsh journey as one in every sixteen migrants who embarks upon this gruelling journey dies along the way. For example, on 24 October 2020, a boat caught fire off the coast of Senegal and almost all of its 140 occupants drowned.

Problems do not end upon reaching land as Canary Island authorities lack the capacity to manage the enormous influx of migrants. Gran Canaria is the island feeling the heaviest toll, with its reception centres full and over two-thousand people at a time forced to camp on the dockside in the port of Arguineguin. Concurrently, this humanitarian crisis is impeding the maintenance of coronavirus prevention measures, putting at risk the lives of migrants and those involved in their rescue and care. Moreover, due to tedious bureaucratic and legal procedures, further hampered by COVID-19, these migrants are facing another deadlock as the Spanish government has hindered their transfer to other Spanish regions to prevent the establishment of a new migratory route into Europe. This, together with the closure of African countries’ borders due to the pandemic, is effectively converting the islands into an open-air prison for the 18,000 freedom-seekers currently being held on them, mirroring the appalling situation on the Greek island of Lesbos.

The Spanish Government and the EU both believe that protection should only be provided to those who have the right to it and those who comply with the Dublin Regulation. A study on arrivals in the Canary Islands completed by the UN Refugee Agency in 2020 revealed that over sixty-two per cent were escaping from generalised, gender-based, ethnic, religious or political violence, hence having the right to seek asylum; therefore, Spain and the EU are duty-bound to come to their aid. Nevertheless, there are also, the so-called economic migrants, escaping from the hardship exacerbated by COVID-19 in their home countries. This group is not entitled to international protection and such migrants are liable for deportation to their countries of origin.

To some extent, the caution shown by the Spanish authorities and the EU when handling the irregular arrivals is understandable. Whilst some are genuine refugees, striving to reach a destination where their life is not in danger, this does not assuage the fears of the Spanish government and the EU that some may be members of criminal groups, thereby endangering the security of Europe. For this reason, two measures are required: procedures that ensure protection is provided to all those entitled to it under international law; and, in parallel, the creation of safe deportation routes. Without these improvements to guarantee a dignified response, Gran Canaria risks suffering a similar humanitarian catastrophe to the one befalling Lesbos.

Although logistical processes have commenced, with migrants finally being transferred to tourist complexes unoccupied due to COVID-19, and receiving more dignified shelter, the problem remains unresolved as very few migrants are being transferred to other parts of Spain or Europe, or extradited, due to European and Spanish bureaucracy and the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, some experts suggest that a “Call Effect” has been created, as migrants encourage others to make the dangerous journey, putting further strain on the Spanish system, and placing more lives at risk. Consequently, collaboration between the EU, Spain, and African countries to address the underlying factors spurring migration in the countries of origin is the only way forward. It will not be easy, but the push factors driving migrants from Northern Africa to make the perilous voyage to Europe must be addressed to enable a more long-term solution than the piecemeal efforts undertaken to date. Until such a time, the EU’s moral duty must be to offer help and support to all of those who reach its shores.

Cristina Romero-Caballero Cuttell is a part-time MA International Relations student in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her research interests are around the topics of Migration, especially African migration into Europe, Gender and Human Rights. She is currently a Spanish Red Cross volunteer in the Canary Islands helping with the management of the latest influx of migrants to the islands.

Cristina is a part of the Strife Women in Writing Programme.

President Trump’s gift to Al Shabaab

by

by Marie Blessing Gilbert

US Troops in Somalia. Source: Commondreams

On the 4th of December last, the withdrawal of approximately 700 US troops and assets from Somalia was announced by the Pentagon. Some of these numbers will be deployed outside of East Africa whilst the rest will be repositioned in countries neighbouring Somalia. For decades Somalia has been devasted as a result of wars and famines. The burden carried by its people has been huge. Assistance from the US forces in Somalia in attempting to stabilise the country is vital if any hope of a better tomorrow is ever to be achieved.

Al Shabaab is an Al Qaeda linked militant group in Somalia whose aim is to establish a caliphate in Somalia that would in turn spread to neighbouring countries in the ‘Horn of Africa’ and beyond. They are not the only extremist group in Somalia, ISIS too has a footing there, however they are the primary source of terrorist offences in the Horn of Africa.

US troops have been present in Somalia since the early 1990s when at its height, there were approximately 25,000 troops assisting UN aid workers in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. This number was critically cut soon after by President Bill Clinton, and has dwindled since, to the 700 that were removed from Somalia in the last days of the Trump Administration.

The timing of the decision couldn’t be worse. Somalia has already missed the deadline of its general election which was due this month. Presidential elections are due to take place in February 2021. Tensions always run high in East Africa on the run up to and in the aftermath of elections. Anxiety in Somalia, which has been decimated for years at the hands of warlords and terrorist groups like Al Shabaab will hit a pinnacle soon. Pre- and post-election violence is expected no matter what the result of either election is due to the power struggle between elected officials, opponents, jihadist groups and clan elders. It is widely believed that the Somali security forces and African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) are not prepared to deal with a further escalation of violence within the country. Al Shabaab, as the most powerful jihadi extremist group in Somalia, is set to capitalise in the strife that will ensue.

Further to this, Somalia’s current fragile governmental system has long been aided by troops from neighbouring Ethiopia as part of AMISOM. Ethiopia has approximately 4000 troops currently in Somalia. However published reports have shown hundreds of Tigrayans troops forming part of this number have had their weapons seized by Ethiopian troops loyal to the government in Addis Ababa as a result of the current conflict between Tigrayan and Ethiopian forces in Ethiopia. Should AMISOM forces get distracted in any way from their peacekeeping mission in Somalia a vacuum will be created where militants can thrive even further than they do already. Somalia and Ethiopia have a long, porous border and traditionally strong ties. If the conflict in Ethiopia continues or escalates Somalia will undoubtedly suffer as a consequence.

To add to the problems of this highly vulnerable state the announcement that the US will remove their troops from within Somalia’s borders in weeks will further weaken the security forces in Somalia. The brunt of the American withdrawal is expected to be felt by the Somali commando force, Danab that was set up in 2014 as an elite force of combatants. Danab was established largely with US financial help, training and equipment. Its primary aim was that of a counter terrorist force in the country. Accompanied on many missions by US forces, Danab will surely be left to fend for itself when its US counterparts leave Somalia. Given they have worked together closely for 6 years it will, without doubt be a devastating blow to the Somali counter-terrorism efforts.

Al Shabaab members in Somalia. Source: Independent.ie

Leading politicians in Somalia and neighbouring countries have been left alarmed by the Pentagon’s announcement with Somalia’s President, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed expressing deep concern that the efforts to counter terrorism in the region were aided hugely by the existing US-Somali partnership. In Neighbouring Kenya, Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary, Kamau Macharia, has opined that the situation will worsen in Somalia after the US withdrawal. It had already been announced that AMISOM troops were to work towards a full withdrawal of their troops from Somalia by the end of 2021, with graduated withdrawal already underway. Should this take place on top of US withdrawal the future looks very bleak for this extremely fragile and volatile state.

It seems that everything is happening at once to hinder any hopes that Somalia has to rise from the ashes of decades-long conflict. Somalia’s loss will be Al Shabaab’s gain and undoubtedly Trump’s final actions as he leaves the White House to withdraw his forces from Somalia will have devastating effects. The final withdrawal of troops was completed just two days before the inauguration of Joe Biden as President. The hope would be that President Biden will reverse this decision. However, with the troops already out of Somalia and even the uncertainly surrounding Trump’s decision will unquestioningly strengthen Al Shabaab’s resolve and can be seen as Trump’s parting gift to these jihadi extremists.

Marie Blessing Gilbert is currently studying full time for a Masters degree in Terrorism, Security and Society in King’s College London with an interest in the terrorism threat in Ireland and East Africa.

Marie is a part of the Strife Women in Writing Programme.