Islamic State Hysteria – Should we be bombing Syria?

Hysteria surrounding the threat from the Islamic State in the UK has reached fever pitch this week after they supposedly planted a bomb on a Russian plane flying over Sinai province in Egypt killing all 224 passengers on board. At the same time defence secretary Michael Fallon has pronounced it morally indefensible for the UK not to join its allies in bombing Syria and the US have officially announced 20 special operations forces on the ground in Syria. You will notice a great deal of italics in those last few sentences demarking my cynicism here! Whilst I agree with the logic that bombing Iraq and not Syria is ridiculous given the ‘Caliphate’ spans both territories I still disagree with Fallon. I find it staggering and extremely suspect how quick the UK government has been to assume an Islamic State bomb downed the Sinai plane particularly before there was any evidence to support such claims. Media sensationalism is playing straight into the hands of the opportunistic Islamic State whether they are responsible or not. Hysteria is what they want. Terror is a synonym for fear – fear is what they want. It legitimises and encourages their war. This hysteria is extremely reminiscent of the post 9/11 era: it feels as though new boundaries are being drawn and extra-ordinary action is slowly being trickled into public acceptance. Would I be surprised if we saw a boots-on-the-ground debate in the House of Commons before Christmas? Not at all.

And where does gender come into this?

As usual according to mainstream narratives it doesn’t. Appeals to the need to bomb for the sake of ‘women and children’ remain abundant in arguments for air strikes. Particularly given the atrocities committed against women and girls by the Islamic State documented in that pivotal New York Times article. What the media doesn’t focus on is how previous intervention by the Middle East in the West has actually made things worse for Muslim women because of the backlash of extremism and jihadism which promotes a hideously patriarchal version of Islam. Women serve as cultural signifiers, their oppression is the ultimate rejection of western ideals. Furthermore, as mentioned before on this blog the media seems keen to ignore the progress being made by the Kurdish Peshmerga which is made up of predominantly women and remains the only force making real progress in pushing back Islamic State. Islamic State fighters believe that should they be killed by a woman they will go to hell so they are genuinely afraid of these women in contrast to the western bombs which only emblazon their ideological vengeance and recruit more willing martyrs. This is a difficult concept for the West to come to terms with because it subverts several narratives underpinning our entire identity. The ‘brown women victims in need of saviour from barbaric brown men by noble white men’ narrative underpins the very premise of the War on Terror ideology and the Peshmerga completely turns this on its head. When they have been reported on they have been glamorised and sensationalised rather than taken seriously and understood both politically and historically.

The highly militarised, hyper-masculine environment in which these events are perceived is also crucial to understanding why bombs and boots our presented as our only options. Foreign policy and defence remain masculine domains epitomised by men like Michael Fallow where stoicism, rationalism and aggression are heavily relied upon in decision making and the agenda is set by history instead of innovation or insight. Equally, it is overly-simplistic argument to say if there were more women in foreign policy positions more diplomatic or internationalist options may be put on the table in the fights against Islamic State. Hell, Hillary Clinton would be in there all guns blazing given her past! However, fighting fire with fire (fire being militarised, hyper-masculine warfare) only seems to have made things worse in the past and whilst I don’t claim to know any of the answers sticking to the same out-dated and ignorant strategy of simply throwing bombs at the problem seems mad to me. The male, pale and stale defence departments worldwide need new ideas to fight this new threat.

What would a Hillary Clinton administration look like for the Middle East?

Photo Via Flickr/ Marc Nozell April 2007 

@GendertheNews

When Hillary Clinton announced her entrance into the race for Obama’s successor in April this year critiques were quick to point to her age, gender and most significantly turbulent reputation as ex-secretary of state following the Arab Spring and Benghazi controversies. Conversely, her supporters herald Clinton as an expert in Foreign Policy given her record-breaking tenure as secretary of state where she visited 112 states and almost 100,000 miles of global travel. As the Middle East continues to be torn apart and the situation becomes ever more complex we need to turn to the future to ask, what would a Hilary Clinton administration look like for the Middle East? Evidently, this analysis is based upon speculation from her previous attitudes in specific policy areas.

Iraq and Syria

Clinton is famed and often criticised for her extremely hard-line interventionist approach to Foreign Policy: she voted for boots on the ground in both Libya and Iraq. Initially it seemed as though she would push for direct US involvement in Syria following the discovery of chemical weapon usage. Nonetheless, she takes a vastly different stance on the rampage of ISIL in the region and has made it clear that she considers US infantry back on the ground in Iraq a bad idea. That is not to say that she would not continue with on-going air strikes in the region. Whilst Obama has arguably taken a step back from the forcefully interventionist days of Bush’s War on Terror, Clinton’s entrance to the oval office could see this doctrine revived as the ideological threat of Islamic terrorism will be top of Clinton’s agenda.

Iran

Clinton has proved herself as a hard-liner towards Iran and there is possibility that given her comments in the past the nuclear deal could be jeopardised should it not be completed before Obama leaves office. She has been heard on record recently denouncing Iran’s right to enrich Uranium and that she would “obliterate” Iran should it go to war with Israel. That being said Clinton did put the wheels in motion for Obama by initially sending a closer advisor to Tehran and would be foolish to endanger her predecessor’s diplomatic efforts. The dynamic of a sealing the deal with Iran whilst simultaneously keeping up relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel would provide a challenging diplomatic act for any forthcoming president, particularly given the situation in Yemen. With opinions on Clinton polarised in the area it will be tough balancing act should she be successful in 2016 and there are many who doubt whether such a diplomatic feat is possible let alone achievable for the ex-secretary.

Arab- Israel Relations

Here in lies a large problem for Clinton: whilst she has openly recognised the oppression under which Palestinians live in during her time as secretary of state yet she also supported Israeli attacks on Gaza in Summer 2013, conflating the conflict to Hamas’ involvement and denounced the UN’s recognition of Palestine an ‘unfortunate and unhelpful.’ She has a close relationship with Netanyahu and yet she recognises the legitimacy of the two state solution. Like so many situations, these inconsistencies make it difficult to understand where Clinton stands on Arab-Israeli relations. What seems clear is that she has a strong rapport with Netanyahu and will be uneasy to speak out against him like Obama has done recently.

Libya

The Arab Spring particularly in both Egypt and Libya characterised Clinton’s time as secretary of state and arguably pushed her into resignation following the Benghazi catastrophe in 2012. The enduring turmoil in Libya may come back to haunt Clinton during the election race especially given the migrant crisis currently being faced in Europe.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf

Yet another bone of contention for Clinton’s critiques will be the Clinton Foundation’s inflow of funds from Gulf States. Although she has now resigned from the board of this foundation it is after all in her name and although it has done some good work some would argue with very dirty money. Or money that could have gone to other perhaps more legitimate non-governmental organisations such as the Red Cross.  As for the ubiquitous Saudi Arabian hypocrisy it looks extremely unlikely that Clinton will cross that bridge as it is a deep-rooted inconsistency in American foreign policy towards the Middle East that continues to economically benefit them and is politically silenced. Nevertheless, after Margret Wallstom spoke out against Saudi Arabia in her ‘feminist foreign policy’ there is a small possibility that in launching a campaign to integrate women’s rights concerns into foreign policy Clinton will be unable to brush over the outright hypocrisy here.

Women and Girls

Clinton has worked hard during her stint as secretary of state and throughout her career to integrate women’s rights issues across the board of American policy. She is committed to equality and emancipation for oppressed women both within and outside of US borders and considers that the US should lead the way on these issues. Not only would she be the first US president who is a woman but she is also arguably running on a ‘feminist ticket’ given her public support on these issues. She has made it extremely clear over the years that she is not just Bill’s wife and that her career is legitimate in its own right. In this way, just by running for president she becomes an icon for progress. However, in her dealings with the Middle East these issues must remain top of the agenda as sexual violence remains a widespread weapon of war and women continue to suffer disproportionately throughout the Middle East.

Overall, it looks unlikely that Clinton will provide anything new to US foreign policy towards the Middle East. Indeed, she may set it back to the Bush age with her hard-line interventionist agenda. She is arguably running on the ‘experience ticket’ so despite the national focus in this election hopefully we will see a proper debate about foreign policy in the lead up to 2016. Positives could come in other arenas where she will push for women’s rights internationally and social justice nationally.

This post was originally written as one of my contributions to www.futureforeignpolicy.com an online think tank run by the foreign policy minds of the future.

More: Where does Hilliary Clinton stand on the Middle East? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/23/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-the-middle-east/

Gender and the Death Penalty: who said chivalry was dead?

After both the Boston Bomber and Muhammad Morsi in Egypt were sentenced to death last week I began to think about whether I had ever heard of a woman being sentenced to death in the Western world. The substantial racial and class biases within death penalty prosecution has been exposed by many scholars but interrogation of the role of gender in deciding whether someone should live or die is less prevalent. In this case, as with many crime issues, gender roles favour women in that there have historically been no more than 2% women on death row. Indeed, in 2014 there were 57 women on death row in Texas, 1.88% of the overall 3,035. Women are also more likely to be able to appeal their sentence and since 1990 only 53 women have been executed by the United States. The rest have presumably been able to appeal their sentences. On the surface this may seem like a positive thing for women and a detrimentally negative thing for men however, the motivation for these decisions is rooted in traditional gender roles that continue to oppress women and men differently and disproportionately.

In regards to crime, women are usually seen as victims of persuasion, vulnerable or emotionally unstable whereas men are perceived to be inherently violent. We can see that these two stereotypes rely upon one and other in that they are constructed in direct opposition. Investigation into crime and gender speaks volumes about how gender is perceived more generally so for example women are often spared execution if they are mothers because they have dependents. Men who are executed are fathers too and these assumptions perpetuate the myth that women should be the primary care-giver whilst men the breadwinner. Similarly, women may be let off because they are considered to have been coerced or forced into committing a crime by a man and whilst this may sometimes be the case, judges may be quick to jump to these conclusions that then reinforce ideas that men hold power over women. Therefore whilst judges are influenced by perceptions of gender in the first place, their decisions also often serve to reify patriarchal assumptions about the behaviour of women and men in the public and private spheres. Additionally women should evidently not be held less accountable to men for their actions, equality means individuals being judged independent of their gender. Feminists must acknowledge that emancipation from gender roles may not always be better for women but that it is fair and just.

What we can see here, is that like much of the West’s constitutional frameworks, the death penalty is rooted in prejudice and discrimination on grounds of race, class and gender. In my own opinion the death penalty is never just but as it remains widespread in parts of the United States, China, Iran and many other countries worldwide a person’s gender, race or class should in no way determine whether they live or die.

Women and the Death Penalty: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty

N, Shatz & S, Shatz (2011) Chivalry is Not Dead: Gender and the Death Penalty: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1767508

We need to be Honest about Boko Haram’s Victims

Source:  http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nigeria-boko-haram-214-girls-women-rescued-sambisa-forest-visibly-pregnant-1499580

It’s Important we are honest and plain about reports from women reclaimed from Boko Haram’s grasp. It is progress that these women were rescued, but it is no time for celebration given they are estimated to be about 10% of those missing. Of the 234 women saved from the stronghold in the Sambisa forest by the Nigerian coalition, 214 were visibly pregnant. This confirms speculation that rape as well as forced marriage is an instrumental tactic of Boko Haram’s. The media’s response, in my opinion, has skimmed over these atrocities, presenting the problem as a humanitarian one. Whilst it is undoubtedly a hideous abolition of human rights it is evidently gendered and gender-based violence is at its core. Much of the overage has centred on lack of food, sanitation, shelter or privacy and not on the prevalence of sexual violence. This is a product of the taboo surrounding rape and sexual violence in the media, whilst many articles make suggestions towards sexual violence, very few explain just how instrumental and widespread it really is. Of the mainstream UK news sites including BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent, only the International Business Times revealed the statistics from the UNFPA about how many women were pregnant.

Equally, many of them do not focus on the needs of these women now aside from medical attention to cure malnutrition. It is proven that rape is the most psychologically damaging thing that can happen to anyone, comprehensive psychological treatment will be needed for these women. Furthermore, medically they need proper antenatal care and psychological support for a pregnancy that is a by-product of rape. Beyond medical psychological damage, there is a significant risk that these women will be ex-communicated from their communities and families as a result of dishonouring. Social support such as women only shelters and other gendered solutions are necessary to prevent these women from falling back into the hands of Boko Haram.

Another significant revelation exposed by the women telling of their trauma is that Boko Haram’s tactics are explicitly gendered in that they are killing men and boys in front of their families. Male lives are worth less to Boko Haram: but why? There is speculation that this is a long time strategy to impregnate women whose husbands they have killed in order to reproduce the next generation of soldiers. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen but the disclosures confirmed by the rescued women clarify that gender is fundamental to Boko Haram’s methodology and aims. Surely these confirmations of Boko Haram’s differential treatment of women and men should stand to challenge conventional combat against Boko Haram and how a gendered main-streamed solutions are so important.

Sources: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nigeria-boko-haram-214-girls-women-rescued-sambisa-forest-visibly-pregnant-1499580