London Mayor Sadiq Khan has been named the Politician of the Year at an annual awards ceremony held in the UK's House of Commons complex for his ongoing contribution to the political life in the British capital.

The annual Political and Public Life Awards presented by Britain's 'Asian Voice' weekly newspaper here on Thursday also recognised UK defence secretary Gavin Williamson as Cabinet Minister of the Year and Indian-origin politician Priti Patel as Conservative Party MP of the Year.

"Our armed forces are made strong by being made up of people of every single community and background... Contributing to keep us safe," said Williamson, on receiving his award.

"I continue to be your public servant," added Patel, a former UK Cabinet minister.

Khan, 48, whose grandparents were born in India and parents migrated from Pakistan to the UK, was named 'Politician of the Year' at an awards ceremony held in the UK's House of Commons complex.

Among other winners from the field of politics at the event, now in its 13th year, included Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Arlene Foster, Labour Party MPs Dan Carden and Thelma Walker.

The other award categories included International Hotel of Year which was won by India's Leela International hotel chain. Comedian of Year award went to British Indian comedian Paul Chowdhry and Restaurant of the Year for London's Delhi street food restaurant Hankies.

"We are hosting the Asian Voice Political and Public Life Awards at a time when dissent is rife, and arguably unprecedented, in our political stage and the future of the economy hangs in the balance, perhaps perilously so," said C B Patel, the Publisher and Editor of 'Asian Voice'.

"In the din and tumult of the current scenario, I believe it is important for us to recognise and honour leaders in our political and public life who make a tremendous contribution to preserving Britain's enviable stature as one of the leading economies of the world," he said.

The awards are held annually to honour people who have made a special impact in the preceding 12 months, ranging from international politicians to individuals who make an impact in their local communities.

Readers of the weekly 'Asian Voice' newspaper nominate potential winners and an independent panel of judges comprising eminent personalities from different walks of life in the UK, select the winners.&nbsp;

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has been named the Politician of the Year at an annual awards ceremony held in the UK's House of Commons complex for his ongoing contribution to the political life in the British capital.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has been named the Politician of the Year at an annual awards ceremony held in the UK's House of Commons complex for his ongoing contribution to the political life in the British capital. The annual Political and Public Life Awards presented by Britain's 'Asian Voice' weekly newspaper here on Thursday also recognised UK defence secretary Gavin Williamson as Cabinet Minister of the Year and Indian-origin politician Priti Patel as Conservative Party MP of the Year. "Our armed forces are made strong by being made up of people of every single community and background... Contributing to keep us safe," said Williamson, on receiving his award. "I continue to be your public servant," added Patel, a former UK Cabinet minister. Khan, 48, whose grandparents were born in India and parents migrated from Pakistan to the UK, was named 'Politician of the Year' at an awards ceremony held in the UK's House of Commons complex. Among other winners from the field of politics at the event, now in its 13th year, included Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Arlene Foster, Labour Party MPs Dan Carden and Thelma Walker. The other award categories included International Hotel of Year which was won by India's Leela International hotel chain. Comedian of Year award went to British Indian comedian Paul Chowdhry and Restaurant of the Year for London's Delhi street food restaurant Hankies. "We are hosting the Asian Voice Political and Public Life Awards at a time when dissent is rife, and arguably unprecedented, in our political stage and the future of the economy hangs in the balance, perhaps perilously so," said C B Patel, the Publisher and Editor of 'Asian Voice'. "In the din and tumult of the current scenario, I believe it is important for us to recognise and honour leaders in our political and public life who make a tremendous contribution to preserving Britain's enviable stature as one of the leading economies of the world," he said. The awards are held annually to honour people who have made a special impact in the preceding 12 months, ranging from international politicians to individuals who make an impact in their local communities. Readers of the weekly 'Asian Voice' newspaper nominate potential winners and an independent panel of judges comprising eminent personalities from different walks of life in the UK, select the winners.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan named UK 'Politician of the Year'

Britain will hand diplomatic protection to British-Iranian aid worker Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to underline the government's belief that Iran has behaved unjustly in its treatment of her, foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt said on Thursday.

Hunt said that while the move - a little-used way for governments to seek protection on behalf of their nationals - was unlikely to be a "magic wand," it may help Zaghari-Ratcliffe's case.

Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a project manager with the Thomson Reuters Foundation, was arrested in April 2016 at a Tehran airport as she headed back to Britain with her daughter after a family visit.

She was sentenced to five years in jail after being convicted of plotting to overthrow Iran's clerical establishment, a charge denied by her family and the Foundation, a charity organisation that operates independently of Thomson Reuters and Reuters News.

"I have today decided that the UK will take a step that is extremely unusual and exercise diplomatic protection," Hunt said in a statement, adding that the move signalled to Tehran that "its behaviour is totally wrong".

"It is unlikely to be a magic wand that leads to an overnight result. But it demonstrates to the whole world that Nazanin is innocent and the UK will not stand by when one of its citizens is treated so unjustly."

Diplomatic protection is a mechanism under international law through which a state may seek reparation for injury to one of its nationals on the basis that the second state has committed an internationally wrongful act against that person.

Earlier this year, Zaghari-Ratcliffe went on hunger strike in protest at her treatment in jail.

"We have been working hard to secure her release but despite repeated efforts have not been successful. We have not even been able to secure her the medical treatment she urgently needs despite assurances to the contrary," Hunt said.

"No government should use innocent individuals as pawns for diplomatic leverage so I call on Iran to release this innocent woman so she can be reunited with her family."

Britain will hand diplomatic protection to British-Iranian aid worker Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to underline the government's belief that Iran has behaved unjustly in its treatment of her, foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt said on Thursday.

Britain will hand diplomatic protection to British-Iranian aid worker Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to underline the government's belief that Iran has behaved unjustly in its treatment of her, foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt said on Thursday. Hunt said that while the move - a little-used way for governments to seek protection on behalf of their nationals - was unlikely to be a "magic wand," it may help Zaghari-Ratcliffe's case. Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a project manager with the Thomson Reuters Foundation, was arrested in April 2016 at a Tehran airport as she headed back to Britain with her daughter after a family visit. She was sentenced to five years in jail after being convicted of plotting to overthrow Iran's clerical establishment, a charge denied by her family and the Foundation, a charity organisation that operates independently of Thomson Reuters and Reuters News. "I have today decided that the UK will take a step that is extremely unusual and exercise diplomatic protection," Hunt said in a statement, adding that the move signalled to Tehran that "its behaviour is totally wrong". "It is unlikely to be a magic wand that leads to an overnight result. But it demonstrates to the whole world that Nazanin is innocent and the UK will not stand by when one of its citizens is treated so unjustly." Diplomatic protection is a mechanism under international law through which a state may seek reparation for injury to one of its nationals on the basis that the second state has committed an internationally wrongful act against that person. Earlier this year, Zaghari-Ratcliffe went on hunger strike in protest at her treatment in jail. "We have been working hard to secure her release but despite repeated efforts have not been successful. We have not even been able to secure her the medical treatment she urgently needs despite assurances to the contrary," Hunt said. "No government should use innocent individuals as pawns for diplomatic leverage so I call on Iran to release this innocent woman so she can be reunited with her family."

UK to give jailed British-Iranian aid worker Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection

WION Fineprint: Theresa May speaks ahead of next week's vote on Brexit

Eight years after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan, radioactive particles collected from the site are undergoing new forensic investigation in Britain in an effort to understand the exact sequence of events.

A 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck on March 11, 2011, off the Japanese coast, triggering a tsunami that killed some 18,000 people and the world`s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. Meltdowns at three of the Fukushima Daiichi plant`s six reactors spewed radiation into the air, soil and ocean, forcing over 100,000 residents to flee. Many have still not returned.

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) is currently collaborating with British researchers to learn more about the state of the radioactive particles created by the meltdown.

Dr Yukihiko Satou from the JAEA oversaw the transportation of particles collected from within the restricted zone, very close to the disaster site, to Britain. 
"The particles were fundamentally extracted from those attached to soil, dust and debris," Satou told Reuters.

Encased in protective tape, the samples were brought to the Diamond Light Source, Britain`s national synchrotron, or cyclic particle accelerator, near Oxford.&nbsp;

Here electrons are accelerated to near light speeds until they emit light 10 billion times brighter than the sun, then directed into laboratories in `beamlines` which allow scientists to study minute specimens in extreme detail.

Researchers have created a 3D map of a radioactive sample using the synchrotron, allowing them to see the distribution of elements within the sample. 
Understanding the current state of these particles and how they behave in the environment could ultimately determine if and when the area could be declared safe for people to return.

The head of the team leading the analysis, Tom Scott of Bristol University, said the particles have a structure like a pumice, a very light, porous volcanic rock.

"Studying... this glassy matrix tells us how available within the environment they are," he said.

The British and Japanese governments have awarded funding to the research team to examine larger particles closer to the site of the meltdown at Fukushima to better define radiation risk in the surrounding area.

The research could have significance beyond nuclear accidents, the team said, because the techniques employed could also be used to image particles in air pollution to better understand the risk they pose to human health.

Eight years after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan, radioactive particles collected from the site are undergoing new forensic investigation in Britain in an effort to understand the exact sequence of events.

Eight years after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan, radioactive particles collected from the site are undergoing new forensic investigation in Britain in an effort to understand the exact sequence of events. A 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck on March 11, 2011, off the Japanese coast, triggering a tsunami that killed some 18,000 people and the world`s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. Meltdowns at three of the Fukushima Daiichi plant`s six reactors spewed radiation into the air, soil and ocean, forcing over 100,000 residents to flee. Many have still not returned. The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) is currently collaborating with British researchers to learn more about the state of the radioactive particles created by the meltdown. Dr Yukihiko Satou from the JAEA oversaw the transportation of particles collected from within the restricted zone, very close to the disaster site, to Britain. "The particles were fundamentally extracted from those attached to soil, dust and debris," Satou told Reuters. Encased in protective tape, the samples were brought to the Diamond Light Source, Britain`s national synchrotron, or cyclic particle accelerator, near Oxford. Here electrons are accelerated to near light speeds until they emit light 10 billion times brighter than the sun, then directed into laboratories in `beamlines` which allow scientists to study minute specimens in extreme detail. Researchers have created a 3D map of a radioactive sample using the synchrotron, allowing them to see the distribution of elements within the sample. Understanding the current state of these particles and how they behave in the environment could ultimately determine if and when the area could be declared safe for people to return. The head of the team leading the analysis, Tom Scott of Bristol University, said the particles have a structure like a pumice, a very light, porous volcanic rock. "Studying... this glassy matrix tells us how available within the environment they are," he said. The British and Japanese governments have awarded funding to the research team to examine larger particles closer to the site of the meltdown at Fukushima to better define radiation risk in the surrounding area. The research could have significance beyond nuclear accidents, the team said, because the techniques employed could also be used to image particles in air pollution to better understand the risk they pose to human health.

UK, Japan scientists study radioactive Fukushima particles

The United States, Britain and France proposed on Wednesday that the United Nations Security Council blacklist the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/india-to-push-for-listing-jem-chief-masood-azhar-as-global-terrorist-at-ric-meet-in-china-199779">head of Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad</a>, which said it attacked an Indian paramilitary convoy in disputed Kashmir.

However, the move is likely to be opposed by China, which previously prevented the Security Council's Islamic State and Al-Qaeda sanctions committee from sanctioning JeM leader Masood Azhar in 2016 and 2017.

Also read:<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/jem-chief-masood-azhar-shifted-to-facility-near-bahawalpur-from-rawalpindi-military-hospital-intel-sources-199732"> Masood Azhar shifted from military hospital to highly protected facility, says Intel sources</a>

China's UN mission did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new proposal.

The February 14 attack, the most deadly in Kashmir during a 30-year-long insurgency, increased tensions between Pakistan and India with the nuclear-armed neighbours both saying they had shot down each other's fighter jets on Wednesday.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-asks-india-and-pakistan-to-de-escalate-tension-avoid-military-to-resolve-differences-200141">United States</a>, Britain and France have asked the 15-member Security Council sanctions committee to subject Azhar to an arms embargo, global travel ban and asset freeze. The committee operates by consensus and members have until March 13 to raise objections, according to the proposal seen by Reuters. 
 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/india-pakistan-tension-unless-nation-presents-united-front-terrorism-will-not-be-defeated-200191">Also read: Unless nation presents </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/india-pakistan-tension-unless-nation-presents-united-front-terrorism-will-not-be-defeated-200191">united</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/india-pakistan-tension-unless-nation-presents-united-front-terrorism-will-not-be-defeated-200191"> front, terrorism will not be defeated</a>

When the council committee previously considered blacklisting Azhar in 2017 the Chinese Foreign Ministry said there were clear rules for listing a person or group as a terrorist, and that China has always believed the relevant UN&nbsp;committee should operate on the principles of objectivity.

JeM is a primarily anti-India group that forged ties with Al-Qaeda and was blacklisted by the UN Security Council in 2001. In December 2001, Jaish fighters, along with members of another Pakistan-based militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, attacked India's parliament, which almost led to a fourth war.

The Security Council condemned the February&nbsp;14 attack in a statement last week, which was agreed after several days of negotiation. Diplomats said China had been opposed to a reference of JeM, however, the agreed statement did eventually note that JeM has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has written at least twice to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and they spoke on the phone on Tuesday. In a Feb. 26 letter, seen by Reuters, Qureshi called on Guterres and the Security Council to urge India to halt "acts of aggression."

India's UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin told Reuters on Wednesday: "Our efforts are focused on countering terrorism and we are working with many global partners in pursuit of that objective."

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that the United Nations has had contacts with India at "various levels." He said on Wednesday that Guterres was available to mediate should both parties agree.

"The United Nations message both publicly and privately to both sides is to urgently take steps to lower tensions through meaningful mutual engagement and meet the responsibilities to maintain peace and security in the region," Dujarric said.

The United States, Britain and France proposed on Wednesday that the United Nations Security Council blacklist the head of Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad, which said it attacked an Indian paramilitary convoy in disputed Kashmir.

The United States, Britain and France proposed on Wednesday that the United Nations Security Council blacklist the head of Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad, which said it attacked an Indian paramilitary convoy in disputed Kashmir. However, the move is likely to be opposed by China, which previously prevented the Security Council's Islamic State and Al-Qaeda sanctions committee from sanctioning JeM leader Masood Azhar in 2016 and 2017. Also read: Masood Azhar shifted from military hospital to highly protected facility, says Intel sources China's UN mission did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new proposal. The February 14 attack, the most deadly in Kashmir during a 30-year-long insurgency, increased tensions between Pakistan and India with the nuclear-armed neighbours both saying they had shot down each other's fighter jets on Wednesday. The United States, Britain and France have asked the 15-member Security Council sanctions committee to subject Azhar to an arms embargo, global travel ban and asset freeze. The committee operates by consensus and members have until March 13 to raise objections, according to the proposal seen by Reuters. Also read: Unless nation presents united front, terrorism will not be defeated When the council committee previously considered blacklisting Azhar in 2017 the Chinese Foreign Ministry said there were clear rules for listing a person or group as a terrorist, and that China has always believed the relevant UN committee should operate on the principles of objectivity. JeM is a primarily anti-India group that forged ties with Al-Qaeda and was blacklisted by the UN Security Council in 2001. In December 2001, Jaish fighters, along with members of another Pakistan-based militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, attacked India's parliament, which almost led to a fourth war. The Security Council condemned the February 14 attack in a statement last week, which was agreed after several days of negotiation. Diplomats said China had been opposed to a reference of JeM, however, the agreed statement did eventually note that JeM has claimed responsibility for the attack. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has written at least twice to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and they spoke on the phone on Tuesday. In a Feb. 26 letter, seen by Reuters, Qureshi called on Guterres and the Security Council to urge India to halt "acts of aggression." India's UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin told Reuters on Wednesday: "Our efforts are focused on countering terrorism and we are working with many global partners in pursuit of that objective." UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters that the United Nations has had contacts with India at "various levels." He said on Wednesday that Guterres was available to mediate should both parties agree. "The United Nations message both publicly and privately to both sides is to urgently take steps to lower tensions through meaningful mutual engagement and meet the responsibilities to maintain peace and security in the region," Dujarric said.

US, UK, France ask UN to blacklist JeM leader Masood Azhar; move likely to face opposition from China

Britain is "deeply concerned" about rising tensions between India and Pakistan, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Wednesday.

May told parliament that the government was working with international partners including through the United Nations to de-escalate tensions and monitor developments.

Pakistan carried out air strikes and shot down two Indian jets on Wednesday, Pakistani officials said, a day after Indian warplanes struck inside Pakistan for the first time since a war in 1971.

Tensions have been elevated between the nuclear neighbours since a suicide car bombing by Pakistan-based militants in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary police on February 14, but the risk of conflict rose dramatically on Tuesday (February 26) when India launched an air strike on what it said was a militant training base.

The latest escalation marks a sudden turnaround in relations between the two countries, that both claim the mountainous Himalayan region of Kashmir in full but rule in part.

Britain is "deeply concerned" about rising tensions between India and Pakistan, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Wednesday. May told parliament that the government was working with international partners including through the United Nations to de-escalate tensions and monitor developments.

Britain is "deeply concerned" about rising tensions between India and Pakistan, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Wednesday. May told parliament that the government was working with international partners including through the United Nations to de-escalate tensions and monitor developments. Pakistan carried out air strikes and shot down two Indian jets on Wednesday, Pakistani officials said, a day after Indian warplanes struck inside Pakistan for the first time since a war in 1971. Tensions have been elevated between the nuclear neighbours since a suicide car bombing by Pakistan-based militants in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary police on February 14, but the risk of conflict rose dramatically on Tuesday (February 26) when India launched an air strike on what it said was a militant training base. The latest escalation marks a sudden turnaround in relations between the two countries, that both claim the mountainous Himalayan region of Kashmir in full but rule in part.

UK deeply concerned about rising tension between India and Pakistan: Theresa May

A teenager who was stripped of her British citizenship after leaving London to join the Islamic State group has asked the government to re-evaluate her case and show "a bit more mercy" as she seeks to return to Britain.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bangladesh-says-is-teen-shamima-begum-not-eligible-for-citizenship-198689">Shamima Begum, 19, left to join IS</a> when she was 15 but now wants to come back. Her British citizenship was revoked on security grounds.

"I would like them (British politicians) to re-evaluate my case with a bit more mercy in their heart, you know," she told Sky News. Asked whether she could change or be rehabilitated, she said: "I am willing to change."

Begum was found in a detention camp in Syria last week, and her fate has sparked a dispute over the ramifications of leaving a 19-year-old mother with a jihadist fighter's child to fend for herself in a war zone.

A teenager who was stripped of her British citizenship after leaving London to join the Islamic State group has asked the government to re-evaluate her case and show "a bit more mercy" as she seeks to return to Britain.

A teenager who was stripped of her British citizenship after leaving London to join the Islamic State group has asked the government to re-evaluate her case and show "a bit more mercy" as she seeks to return to Britain. Shamima Begum, 19, left to join IS when she was 15 but now wants to come back. Her British citizenship was revoked on security grounds. "I would like them (British politicians) to re-evaluate my case with a bit more mercy in their heart, you know," she told Sky News. Asked whether she could change or be rehabilitated, she said: "I am willing to change." Begum was found in a detention camp in Syria last week, and her fate has sparked a dispute over the ramifications of leaving a 19-year-old mother with a jihadist fighter's child to fend for herself in a war zone.

Islamic State teen Begum asks UK to show 'more mercy'

By Elizabeth Pearson

Just days after Shamima Begum called for public sympathy for her return to the UK, another young woman was jailed in Baghdad for her role with the so-called Islamic State. Linda Wenzel is German and, like Begum, was 15 years old when she joined Islamic State in 2016. Wenzel has also asked to return to Europe to serve her sentence. There are no signs this will be allowed.

In 2016 I was in Germany, trying to understand young women like Wenzel, for a five-country study on the gender dynamics of violent extremism with my colleague Emily Winterbotham, a senior research fellow at the RUSI think tank. We talked to communities and families affected by radicalisation in the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Canada.

These countries had diverse approaches to radicalisation. France produced counter-radicalisation strategies after the Paris attacks of 2015, while the UK and Netherlands have worked on policy to counter violent extremism since the mid-2000s. Both the Netherlands and UK permit deprivation of citizenship without criminal conviction – which is what has now happened to Begum.

We heard stories of people prevented from travel by police, as well as of both women and men who left for Syria and Iraq. Across the five countries, we noted differences in how men and women were recruited, such as more cases of online approaches to women. We also saw how Muslim community anger was often reserved for the young men who fled to join the Islamic State. Focus groups within Muslim communities often told us women were “naïve”, lacking in self-esteem, “tricked” by “lover-boys” they met online. They were seen as victims.

Back in 2015-16 this sentiment was mirrored in government policy. France, Germany and the Netherlands tended to treat women jihadists as “victims” of Islamic State. Recent research on returning foreign fighters in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands noted that back then women were “treated with more clemency” and routinely not prosecuted.

That position has changed, with toughening measures for both men and women across Europe. Countries including the UK, Netherlands, Germany and France now investigate and risk-assess both men and women returners. From a position where women and their agency in joining Islamic State were not recognised, the pendulum swung firmly in the other direction.

Hardening attitudes

The first reason why this shift happened was numbers. Countries have had to evolve to catch up with events on the ground. From the Islamic State’s announcement of a “caliphate” in 2014, Europe saw a significant minority of women travel – and women made up around 16-17 per cent of the approximately 6,000 people who left Europe to join the caliphate.

In the case of France, which was new to counter-radicalisation strategies at home and where women made up around 28 per cent of its returners, the shift in policy meant sharp changes to the law and procedures. Canada, which had fewer fighters, adopted a liberal response with few prosecutions of returners – both fighters and others.&nbsp;

This prompted accusations from Canada’s opposition Conservative Party of a policy of “group hug sessions”.

A second reason for the hardening of attitudes to women who joined IS was increased knowledge of women’s role in Islamic State. Women were active propagandists, recruiters, ideologues, supporters of current warriors and producers of the next generation. They were involved in the abuse of other women, whether enslaved Yazidis, or in the al-Khansaa brigade, which policed women. Both Begum and Wenzel suggested they were only housewives. But for Islamic State, the wife is the key to the endurance – or baqiya – of both ideology and “caliphate”.

The perception of women’s threat was also explicitly influenced by cases involving women and a seemingly new phenomenon: the all-female jihadist cell. In 2016, three women were arrested in France after a failed attack near Notre Dame. This proved a game-changer for both public opinion and policy regarding returners, despite the fact that these women were radicalised in France. In the UK, another all-female plot was uncovered in 2017.

An increase in threat levels linked to male returners also had an influence on how women were viewed. In 2015, male returners were involved in the Paris attacks and the following year in attacks in Brussels. While women have not yet returned in large numbers, the fear is that women, newly recognised as ideologically committed, might also carry out an attack. 
 
The gender dimension

Both policy and public opinion are shifting from ignoring women in jihadist movements, to “adding” them into counter-extremism strategies, and increasingly treating the threat they pose as equal to men. There is now an increased assumption in France, the Netherlands and Germany of parity in male and female potential for violence. However, it’s not enough to just to “add women” into existing strategies – governments must recognise the ways in which terrorist groups understand men and women differently.

This means acknowledging two important facts related to power. First, compared to men, instances of women perpetrators of jihadist violence are rare, not because women are “naturally” less violent, or do not support jihad, but because patriarchal jihadi ideology judges female violence is highly transgressive.&nbsp;

The second relates to the power imbalances in women’s radicalisation. Islamic State ran a systemised online recruitment campaign targeting women, with parallels to child sexual exploitation and grooming. Often older men sought out teenage girls. Women desperate to return emphasise their own victimhood. Some women radicalised to join Islamic State report experiences of sexual abuse, domestic or honour-based violence.

This doesn’t deny women agency or excuse them from complicity in Islamic State atrocities but recognises the context within which their choices were made. It is more important now, in the current chaos of the end of the caliphate when many women may return to their countries of origin, including within Europe and North America, to recognise the complexity of what it meant to be involved in Islamic State.

 
(Elizabeth Pearson is Lecturer at the Cyber Threats Research Centre, Swansea University)

(This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/shamima-begum-how-europe-toughened-its-stance-on-women-returning-from-islamic-state-112048">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

 
&nbsp;

By Elizabeth Pearson Just days after Shamima Begum called for public sympathy for her return to the UK, another young woman was jailed in Baghdad for her role with the so-called Islamic State.

By Elizabeth Pearson Just days after Shamima Begum called for public sympathy for her return to the UK, another young woman was jailed in Baghdad for her role with the so-called Islamic State. Linda Wenzel is German and, like Begum, was 15 years old when she joined Islamic State in 2016. Wenzel has also asked to return to Europe to serve her sentence. There are no signs this will be allowed. In 2016 I was in Germany, trying to understand young women like Wenzel, for a five-country study on the gender dynamics of violent extremism with my colleague Emily Winterbotham, a senior research fellow at the RUSI think tank. We talked to communities and families affected by radicalisation in the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Canada. These countries had diverse approaches to radicalisation. France produced counter-radicalisation strategies after the Paris attacks of 2015, while the UK and Netherlands have worked on policy to counter violent extremism since the mid-2000s. Both the Netherlands and UK permit deprivation of citizenship without criminal conviction – which is what has now happened to Begum. We heard stories of people prevented from travel by police, as well as of both women and men who left for Syria and Iraq. Across the five countries, we noted differences in how men and women were recruited, such as more cases of online approaches to women. We also saw how Muslim community anger was often reserved for the young men who fled to join the Islamic State. Focus groups within Muslim communities often told us women were “naïve”, lacking in self-esteem, “tricked” by “lover-boys” they met online. They were seen as victims. Back in 2015-16 this sentiment was mirrored in government policy. France, Germany and the Netherlands tended to treat women jihadists as “victims” of Islamic State. Recent research on returning foreign fighters in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands noted that back then women were “treated with more clemency” and routinely not prosecuted. That position has changed, with toughening measures for both men and women across Europe. Countries including the UK, Netherlands, Germany and France now investigate and risk-assess both men and women returners. From a position where women and their agency in joining Islamic State were not recognised, the pendulum swung firmly in the other direction. Hardening attitudes The first reason why this shift happened was numbers. Countries have had to evolve to catch up with events on the ground. From the Islamic State’s announcement of a “caliphate” in 2014, Europe saw a significant minority of women travel – and women made up around 16-17 per cent of the approximately 6,000 people who left Europe to join the caliphate. In the case of France, which was new to counter-radicalisation strategies at home and where women made up around 28 per cent of its returners, the shift in policy meant sharp changes to the law and procedures. Canada, which had fewer fighters, adopted a liberal response with few prosecutions of returners – both fighters and others. This prompted accusations from Canada’s opposition Conservative Party of a policy of “group hug sessions”. A second reason for the hardening of attitudes to women who joined IS was increased knowledge of women’s role in Islamic State. Women were active propagandists, recruiters, ideologues, supporters of current warriors and producers of the next generation. They were involved in the abuse of other women, whether enslaved Yazidis, or in the al-Khansaa brigade, which policed women. Both Begum and Wenzel suggested they were only housewives. But for Islamic State, the wife is the key to the endurance – or baqiya – of both ideology and “caliphate”. The perception of women’s threat was also explicitly influenced by cases involving women and a seemingly new phenomenon: the all-female jihadist cell. In 2016, three women were arrested in France after a failed attack near Notre Dame. This proved a game-changer for both public opinion and policy regarding returners, despite the fact that these women were radicalised in France. In the UK, another all-female plot was uncovered in 2017. An increase in threat levels linked to male returners also had an influence on how women were viewed. In 2015, male returners were involved in the Paris attacks and the following year in attacks in Brussels. While women have not yet returned in large numbers, the fear is that women, newly recognised as ideologically committed, might also carry out an attack. The gender dimension Both policy and public opinion are shifting from ignoring women in jihadist movements, to “adding” them into counter-extremism strategies, and increasingly treating the threat they pose as equal to men. There is now an increased assumption in France, the Netherlands and Germany of parity in male and female potential for violence. However, it’s not enough to just to “add women” into existing strategies – governments must recognise the ways in which terrorist groups understand men and women differently. This means acknowledging two important facts related to power. First, compared to men, instances of women perpetrators of jihadist violence are rare, not because women are “naturally” less violent, or do not support jihad, but because patriarchal jihadi ideology judges female violence is highly transgressive. The second relates to the power imbalances in women’s radicalisation. Islamic State ran a systemised online recruitment campaign targeting women, with parallels to child sexual exploitation and grooming. Often older men sought out teenage girls. Women desperate to return emphasise their own victimhood. Some women radicalised to join Islamic State report experiences of sexual abuse, domestic or honour-based violence. This doesn’t deny women agency or excuse them from complicity in Islamic State atrocities but recognises the context within which their choices were made. It is more important now, in the current chaos of the end of the caliphate when many women may return to their countries of origin, including within Europe and North America, to recognise the complexity of what it meant to be involved in Islamic State. (Elizabeth Pearson is Lecturer at the Cyber Threats Research Centre, Swansea University) (This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Shamima Begum: How Europe toughened its stance on women returning from Islamic State

Britain's finance minister Philip Hammond said Thursday there had been "some movement" by the European Union that could lead to a breakthrough in Brexit talks in "the next few days".

Hammond said progress in the ongoing negotiations could result in a fresh vote next week on prime minister <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/three-uk-conservatives-quit-party-in-protest-over-disastrous-brexit-198557">Theresa May's EU divorce deal</a>, which was rejected by lawmakers last month.

"There may be an opportunity to bring a vote back to the House of Commons," he told the BBC.&nbsp;

"But that will depend on the progress that's made over the next few days. These discussions are ongoing."

May and the other 27 EU leaders approved a Brexit withdrawal agreement at a summit on November 25 last year, but the British parliament voted against it overwhelmingly on January 15.

Since then, she and her ministers have repeatedly urged EU leaders and their negotiator, Michel Barnier, to revise a "backstop" clause in the text on the Irish border that is hated by eurosceptic MPs.

EU chiefs have insisted they will not reopen the legally-enforceable withdrawal deal but could add to an accompanying political declaration which sets out aspirations for the future relationship.

May met with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday hoping for movement on the contentious backstop, as fears grow Britain could crash out of the bloc without a deal on March 29.

In a joint statement, they said the "constructive" talks covered what legal "guarantees could be given with regard to the backstop that underlines once again its temporary nature".

The pair also noted discussing "the role alternative arrangements could play in replacing the backstop in future".

Hammond said the statement constituted "some movement from the European side".

Despite officials in both Brussels and London playing down suggestions that an EU-Arab summit this weekend could become a Brexit "deal in the desert" meeting, Hammond added May's attendance was an "opportunity to talk to some of the European counterparts there".

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay and Attorney General Geoffrey Cox were set to hold "detailed discussions" with Barnier in Brussels on Thursday, according to Downing Street.

Cox -- whose previous legal analysis of May's deal confirmed Brexiteer fears the backstop could "trap" Britain indefinitely in an EU customs union -- is seen as an influential figure if the prime minister is to get her agreement through parliament.

Britain's finance minister Philip Hammond said Thursday there had been "some movement" by the European Union that could lead to a breakthrough in Brexit talks in "the next few days".

Britain's finance minister Philip Hammond said Thursday there had been "some movement" by the European Union that could lead to a breakthrough in Brexit talks in "the next few days". Hammond said progress in the ongoing negotiations could result in a fresh vote next week on prime minister Theresa May's EU divorce deal, which was rejected by lawmakers last month. "There may be an opportunity to bring a vote back to the House of Commons," he told the BBC. "But that will depend on the progress that's made over the next few days. These discussions are ongoing." May and the other 27 EU leaders approved a Brexit withdrawal agreement at a summit on November 25 last year, but the British parliament voted against it overwhelmingly on January 15. Since then, she and her ministers have repeatedly urged EU leaders and their negotiator, Michel Barnier, to revise a "backstop" clause in the text on the Irish border that is hated by eurosceptic MPs. EU chiefs have insisted they will not reopen the legally-enforceable withdrawal deal but could add to an accompanying political declaration which sets out aspirations for the future relationship. May met with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday hoping for movement on the contentious backstop, as fears grow Britain could crash out of the bloc without a deal on March 29. In a joint statement, they said the "constructive" talks covered what legal "guarantees could be given with regard to the backstop that underlines once again its temporary nature". The pair also noted discussing "the role alternative arrangements could play in replacing the backstop in future". Hammond said the statement constituted "some movement from the European side". Despite officials in both Brussels and London playing down suggestions that an EU-Arab summit this weekend could become a Brexit "deal in the desert" meeting, Hammond added May's attendance was an "opportunity to talk to some of the European counterparts there". Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay and Attorney General Geoffrey Cox were set to hold "detailed discussions" with Barnier in Brussels on Thursday, according to Downing Street. Cox -- whose previous legal analysis of May's deal confirmed Brexiteer fears the backstop could "trap" Britain indefinitely in an EU customs union -- is seen as an influential figure if the prime minister is to get her agreement through parliament.

Brexit breakthrough possible within days: UK finance minister Philip Hammond

UK Debates Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

Letter to Shamima's family: UK revokes Shamima's Citizenship

The fate of foreigners who joined Islamic State has become an increasingly urgent issue as US-backed fighters prepare to capture the militant group's last stronghold in eastern Syria.

The Kurdish-led, US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces say they are holding 800 foreign fighters, with 700 of their wives and 1,500 of their children living separately in camps. Dozens of more militants and family members have been arriving daily.

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump said on Sunday European countries must do more to take back their citizens or they will be released. The SDF says it has no intention of freeing them, but they could escape in future if the area is attacked.

European countries say they are working on how to deal with their citizens who want to come home, including investigating and prosecuting those guilty of crimes.

But they say this is made more complicated because diplomats cannot operate in territory held by the SDF, which is not internationally recognised, and they worry that the Trump administration's decision to withdraw its 2,000-strong force from Syria means there will not be enough time to respond.

According to European police agency Europol, some 5,000 Europeans -- most from Britain, France, Germany and Belgium -- went to fight in Syria and Iraq, of whom some 1,500 have returned.

Following is a breakdown by country of Europeans believed to have travelled to Syria or Iraq.

Britain

British officials estimate around 900 people from the United Kingdom went to the Syria region. Around a fifth have died and about half have returned, so around 360 remain in the region. Officials noted that not all of those who went to the Syria region were extremists: some went with genuine charitable intentions. Of those who went to fight, not all joined Islamic State, though most of those left in the region are thought to represent militant elements.

The issue has gained greater attention in recent days as news organisations have run interviews with Shamima Begum, a pregnant 19-year-old who left London to become an Islamic State bride as a schoolgirl.

Belgium

The Belgian threat assessment centre OCAD/OCAM says 442 Belgians left for Syria or Iraq, of whom 130 have returned and 142 have been killed. Six Belgian men, 17 women and 32 children are being held in Syria, and two men are jailed in Iraq.

Denmark

The latest data available from Denmark's security and intelligence service dates to January 2018. The authorities believe at least 150 people have left Denmark for Syria or Iraq since the summer of 2012 to join militant Islamist groups. More than a third have returned to Denmark and at least a quarter are presumed dead. Roughly one fifth are still in the conflict zone, with the rest located in third countries.

France

French officials and the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence estimate that 800-1,500 people have travelled from France to join Islamic State. French officials estimate that around 300 have been killed and a similar number have returned to France.

Of those that remain in Syria and Iraq, diplomats and military officials said two weeks ago that Kurdish-led forces were holding about 150 French citizens in northeastern Syria. An estimated 100 French citizens are believed to be left in the last pocket of Islamic State fighters, although it is not clear if that includes families and children. A further 150 French fighters and children are in Idlib, French officials have said.

Germany

According to the German authorities, around 1050 people from Germany have travelled to Syria and Iraq since 2013, around one-third of whom have returned. Around 270 women and children from Germany are now in Syria and Iraq. Around 75 per cent of the children are under the age of three years old and believed to have been born in the conflict zone. The Interior Ministry estimates the number of Germans in the custody of the Kurdish-led forces in northern Syria as in the high double digits.

Netherlands

The Dutch intelligence agency AIVD says about 315 people left the Netherlands for Syria or Iraq with the intention of joining the militants, about two-thirds of the men and one-third women. About 55 are believed to have returned, 85 are believed to have died, 135 are still in the conflict area and 40 are either in third countries or in detention in the region.

Sources told Reuters last year that as many as 175 children with the right to Dutch citizenship were believed to be in the conflict zone.

Switzerland

In its 2018 annual report, Switzerland's intelligence service identified 93 cases of jihadi travellers who had left the country for war zones, including 79 who went to Syria or Iraq. Dozens of them had died and 16 had returned to Switzerland, it said. 
&nbsp;

The fate of foreigners who joined Islamic State has become an increasingly urgent issue as US-backed fighters prepare to capture the militant group's last stronghold in eastern Syria.

The fate of foreigners who joined Islamic State has become an increasingly urgent issue as US-backed fighters prepare to capture the militant group's last stronghold in eastern Syria. The Kurdish-led, US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces say they are holding 800 foreign fighters, with 700 of their wives and 1,500 of their children living separately in camps. Dozens of more militants and family members have been arriving daily. US President Donald Trump said on Sunday European countries must do more to take back their citizens or they will be released. The SDF says it has no intention of freeing them, but they could escape in future if the area is attacked. European countries say they are working on how to deal with their citizens who want to come home, including investigating and prosecuting those guilty of crimes. But they say this is made more complicated because diplomats cannot operate in territory held by the SDF, which is not internationally recognised, and they worry that the Trump administration's decision to withdraw its 2,000-strong force from Syria means there will not be enough time to respond. According to European police agency Europol, some 5,000 Europeans -- most from Britain, France, Germany and Belgium -- went to fight in Syria and Iraq, of whom some 1,500 have returned. Following is a breakdown by country of Europeans believed to have travelled to Syria or Iraq. Britain British officials estimate around 900 people from the United Kingdom went to the Syria region. Around a fifth have died and about half have returned, so around 360 remain in the region. Officials noted that not all of those who went to the Syria region were extremists: some went with genuine charitable intentions. Of those who went to fight, not all joined Islamic State, though most of those left in the region are thought to represent militant elements. The issue has gained greater attention in recent days as news organisations have run interviews with Shamima Begum, a pregnant 19-year-old who left London to become an Islamic State bride as a schoolgirl. Belgium The Belgian threat assessment centre OCAD/OCAM says 442 Belgians left for Syria or Iraq, of whom 130 have returned and 142 have been killed. Six Belgian men, 17 women and 32 children are being held in Syria, and two men are jailed in Iraq. Denmark The latest data available from Denmark's security and intelligence service dates to January 2018. The authorities believe at least 150 people have left Denmark for Syria or Iraq since the summer of 2012 to join militant Islamist groups. More than a third have returned to Denmark and at least a quarter are presumed dead. Roughly one fifth are still in the conflict zone, with the rest located in third countries. France French officials and the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence estimate that 800-1,500 people have travelled from France to join Islamic State. French officials estimate that around 300 have been killed and a similar number have returned to France. Of those that remain in Syria and Iraq, diplomats and military officials said two weeks ago that Kurdish-led forces were holding about 150 French citizens in northeastern Syria. An estimated 100 French citizens are believed to be left in the last pocket of Islamic State fighters, although it is not clear if that includes families and children. A further 150 French fighters and children are in Idlib, French officials have said. Germany According to the German authorities, around 1050 people from Germany have travelled to Syria and Iraq since 2013, around one-third of whom have returned. Around 270 women and children from Germany are now in Syria and Iraq. Around 75 per cent of the children are under the age of three years old and believed to have been born in the conflict zone. The Interior Ministry estimates the number of Germans in the custody of the Kurdish-led forces in northern Syria as in the high double digits. Netherlands The Dutch intelligence agency AIVD says about 315 people left the Netherlands for Syria or Iraq with the intention of joining the militants, about two-thirds of the men and one-third women. About 55 are believed to have returned, 85 are believed to have died, 135 are still in the conflict area and 40 are either in third countries or in detention in the region. Sources told Reuters last year that as many as 175 children with the right to Dutch citizenship were believed to be in the conflict zone. Switzerland In its 2018 annual report, Switzerland's intelligence service identified 93 cases of jihadi travellers who had left the country for war zones, including 79 who went to Syria or Iraq. Dozens of them had died and 16 had returned to Switzerland, it said.

Factbox: Europeans who joined Islamic State

Honda's decision on Tuesday to close its only British car plant in 2021 with the loss of up to 3,500 jobs was discussed in the British parliament, with British Business Minister Greg Clark describing it as a "bitter blow".

The closure of the plant marks a major departure of Japanese investment and was announced just over a month before the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union.

The automaker is Britain's fourth-biggest automaker, building more than a tenth of the 1.5 million cars made in the country.

Honda said the move was not related to Brexit and it needed to focus activities in regions where it expects to sell most cars, after struggling in Europe.

The loss of such a major employer in Swindon, which backed Brexit in the June 2016 referendum, risks a further 10,000 jobs in the supply chain, which could have knock-on effects for other carmakers due to the interconnected nature of the sector.

Honda's decision on Tuesday to close its only British car plant in 2021 with the loss of up to 3,500 jobs was discussed in the British parliament, with British Business Minister Greg Clark describing it as a "bitter blow".

Honda's decision on Tuesday to close its only British car plant in 2021 with the loss of up to 3,500 jobs was discussed in the British parliament, with British Business Minister Greg Clark describing it as a "bitter blow". The closure of the plant marks a major departure of Japanese investment and was announced just over a month before the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union. The automaker is Britain's fourth-biggest automaker, building more than a tenth of the 1.5 million cars made in the country. Honda said the move was not related to Brexit and it needed to focus activities in regions where it expects to sell most cars, after struggling in Europe. The loss of such a major employer in Swindon, which backed Brexit in the June 2016 referendum, risks a further 10,000 jobs in the supply chain, which could have knock-on effects for other carmakers due to the interconnected nature of the sector.

Honda decision a 'bitter blow' to UK: Business minister

Shamima Begum wants to return to UK after giving birth to boy

By Simon Usherwood

A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

The backstop is intended to provide a safety net for arrangements on the UK-Ireland border, should it not be possible to agree on a new relationship between the UK and EU by the end of the Brexit transition period (which stops by December 2022 at the latest). It does this by keeping Northern Ireland closely aligned to EU rules, while also creating a UK-wide customs arrangement, all designed to avoid border controls, for as long as needed to get to that new relationship.

There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic.

The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The fact that the UK is moving from member to non-member status means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London.

This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation – it can’t make decisions based on informal or emotive buy-in from its citizens. It must ultimately follow the frameworks it has set for itself. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement count for a considerable amount. The same goes for the EU’s own requirements for market integration. It cannot allow access to the single market to a country that won’t commit to the free movement of workers across borders.

Third, World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of a customs union and a single market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints, by creating a structure that removes differences in regulation between the UK and EU. In so doing, the UK will effectively be acting – either as a whole or with part of its territory – as a member of several key EU policies.

All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen&nbsp;as a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Brexit, in both procedural and substantive terms. The numerous public statements from senior British politicians about their desire to completely change or even tear up the backstop creates the strong impression that the UK’s commitments are less than concrete. This does not create much trust in European capitals, pointing to the need to have binding legal text to pin the UK down.

When UK prime minister Theresa May supported the Brady amendment to her Brexit deal on January 29 and agreed to go back to Brussels to seek changes to the backstop, it merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the Irish border poisoning the entire withdrawal agreement.

Stalemate

So, given all this, how could the EU move on this issue? The three roots point towards inflexibility but it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms. Instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option, given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found.

If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs – protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation – then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative, given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union.

This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. But any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in parliament.

And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge – Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to renegotiate for yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line.

(Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-could-the-eu-really-be-convinced-to-budge-on-the-backstop-111515">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

&nbsp;

By Simon Usherwood A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

By Simon Usherwood A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the Brexit backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre – albeit within carefully prescribed limits. The backstop is intended to provide a safety net for arrangements on the UK-Ireland border, should it not be possible to agree on a new relationship between the UK and EU by the end of the Brexit transition period (which stops by December 2022 at the latest). It does this by keeping Northern Ireland closely aligned to EU rules, while also creating a UK-wide customs arrangement, all designed to avoid border controls, for as long as needed to get to that new relationship. There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic. The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The fact that the UK is moving from member to non-member status means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London. This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation – it can’t make decisions based on informal or emotive buy-in from its citizens. It must ultimately follow the frameworks it has set for itself. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement count for a considerable amount. The same goes for the EU’s own requirements for market integration. It cannot allow access to the single market to a country that won’t commit to the free movement of workers across borders. Third, World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of a customs union and a single market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints, by creating a structure that removes differences in regulation between the UK and EU. In so doing, the UK will effectively be acting – either as a whole or with part of its territory – as a member of several key EU policies. All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen as a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Brexit, in both procedural and substantive terms. The numerous public statements from senior British politicians about their desire to completely change or even tear up the backstop creates the strong impression that the UK’s commitments are less than concrete. This does not create much trust in European capitals, pointing to the need to have binding legal text to pin the UK down. When UK prime minister Theresa May supported the Brady amendment to her Brexit deal on January 29 and agreed to go back to Brussels to seek changes to the backstop, it merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the Irish border poisoning the entire withdrawal agreement. Stalemate So, given all this, how could the EU move on this issue? The three roots point towards inflexibility but it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms. Instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option, given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found. If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs – protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation – then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative, given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union. This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. But any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in parliament. And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge – Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to renegotiate for yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line. (Simon Usherwood is Reader in Politics, University of Surrey) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Brexit: Could the EU really be convinced to budge on the backstop?

British Prime Minister Theresa May told her top team of ministers on Tuesday that parliament would not be asked to vote on a revised <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/we-must-hold-our-nerve-on-brexit-may-to-tell-uk-lawmakers-196941">Brexit deal</a> this week as she needed more time to negotiate with the European Union, her office said.

May is seeking changes to the deal she agreed with the bloc last year, after lawmakers rejected it largely due to concerns over an insurance policy aimed at avoiding the return of border controls on the island of Ireland.

"She said it is clear that these discussions with the EU will need a little more time to conclude and so we will not be bringing forward a meaningful vote this week," a spokeswoman for May's office said in a statement following May's weekly meeting with her cabinet of ministers.

British Prime Minister Theresa May told her top team of ministers on Tuesday that parliament would not be asked to vote on a revised Brexit deal this week as she needed more time to negotiate with the European Union, her office said.

British Prime Minister Theresa May told her top team of ministers on Tuesday that parliament would not be asked to vote on a revised Brexit deal this week as she needed more time to negotiate with the European Union, her office said. May is seeking changes to the deal she agreed with the bloc last year, after lawmakers rejected it largely due to concerns over an insurance policy aimed at avoiding the return of border controls on the island of Ireland. "She said it is clear that these discussions with the EU will need a little more time to conclude and so we will not be bringing forward a meaningful vote this week," a spokeswoman for May's office said in a statement following May's weekly meeting with her cabinet of ministers.

UK parliament will not vote on revised Brexit deal this week: PM May's office

The European Union started an 18-month process on Monday that could lead to the suspension of Cambodia's duty-free trade access over its record on human rights and democracy.

The European Commission, which coordinates trade policy for the 28-member EU, said that its decision to start the process would be published in the EU official journal on February 12, triggering a countdown that could run until August 2020.

Cambodia benefits from the EU's "Everything but Arms" (EBA) trade regime, which allows the world's poorest countries to sell any goods, except weapons, tariff-free into the bloc.

The EU warned Cambodia last July that it could lose this special status after elections maintained Prime Minister Hun Sen in power and gave his party all parliamentary seats. He has led the country since 1985.

Cambodia said the move was unfortunate but expected: "I had little doubt about it. And I regret the decision," said a foreign ministry spokesman.

The EU is Cambodia's largest trading partner, accounting for 45 per cent of its exports in 2018. Clothing factories there employ around 700,000 workers, and garments are a large share of exports to the bloc worth some 4.9 billion euros.

The European Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia, representing European businesses, said the move was counterproductive to the aim of such trade programmes to eradicate poverty in vulnerable developing countries, and dialogue was the most effective tool.

Cambodia is the second largest user of EBA preferences, behind only Bangladesh. Businesses and unions there last month urged the European Union not to withdraw the preferences, saying such a decision would harm millions of workers and their families.

The European Commission said that its goal was to ensure Cambodia improved the situation for its people, with withdrawal of preferences only a last resort.

"It should be clear that today's move is neither a final decision nor the end of the process. But the clock is now officially ticking and we need to see real action soon," EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said in a statement.

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini said the EU recognised Cambodian authorities had taken positive steps in recent months, such as releasing political figures and addressing some restrictions on civil society and trade union activities.

"However, without more conclusive action from the government, the situation on the ground calls Cambodia's participation in the EBA scheme into question," she said.

The process consists of six months of monitoring and talks with the Cambodian authorities followed by another half-year period for the Commission to produce a report and take a decision on whether or not to withdraw the trade preferences.

Any withdrawal would take effect after a further six months.

The European Union started an 18-month process on Monday that could lead to the suspension of Cambodia's duty-free trade access over its record on human rights and democracy.

The European Union started an 18-month process on Monday that could lead to the suspension of Cambodia's duty-free trade access over its record on human rights and democracy. The European Commission, which coordinates trade policy for the 28-member EU, said that its decision to start the process would be published in the EU official journal on February 12, triggering a countdown that could run until August 2020. Cambodia benefits from the EU's "Everything but Arms" (EBA) trade regime, which allows the world's poorest countries to sell any goods, except weapons, tariff-free into the bloc. The EU warned Cambodia last July that it could lose this special status after elections maintained Prime Minister Hun Sen in power and gave his party all parliamentary seats. He has led the country since 1985. Cambodia said the move was unfortunate but expected: "I had little doubt about it. And I regret the decision," said a foreign ministry spokesman. The EU is Cambodia's largest trading partner, accounting for 45 per cent of its exports in 2018. Clothing factories there employ around 700,000 workers, and garments are a large share of exports to the bloc worth some 4.9 billion euros. The European Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia, representing European businesses, said the move was counterproductive to the aim of such trade programmes to eradicate poverty in vulnerable developing countries, and dialogue was the most effective tool. Cambodia is the second largest user of EBA preferences, behind only Bangladesh. Businesses and unions there last month urged the European Union not to withdraw the preferences, saying such a decision would harm millions of workers and their families. The European Commission said that its goal was to ensure Cambodia improved the situation for its people, with withdrawal of preferences only a last resort. "It should be clear that today's move is neither a final decision nor the end of the process. But the clock is now officially ticking and we need to see real action soon," EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said in a statement. EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini said the EU recognised Cambodian authorities had taken positive steps in recent months, such as releasing political figures and addressing some restrictions on civil society and trade union activities. "However, without more conclusive action from the government, the situation on the ground calls Cambodia's participation in the EBA scheme into question," she said. The process consists of six months of monitoring and talks with the Cambodian authorities followed by another half-year period for the Commission to produce a report and take a decision on whether or not to withdraw the trade preferences. Any withdrawal would take effect after a further six months.

EU begins process to hit Cambodia with trade sanctions

India has taken note of the anti-India events held in the United Kingdom on February 4 and 5 and in which Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had participated.&nbsp;

Top Indian government sources, responding to WION's questions on a "Kashmir conference" held in the UK parliament and in which Qureshi participated, said, "Pakistan seems to be working on 2 Ks — Kashmir and Khalistan and Pakistan FM's London visit was reflective of his personal ambition and linkages with the deep state."

Another government source added that Qureshi's visit did not help "scale up the event" and that the event was largely a "damp squib" with the UK giving it a complete miss.&nbsp;

The "<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-foreign-minister-qureshi-leaves-for-london-to-attend-conference-on-kashmir-194877">Kashmir conference</a>" was held in the committee room of the UK parliament.&nbsp;

The official however added that there was no official participation of the UK government and not all members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Kashmir (APPG) had attended the meet.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The UK has already clarified that Qureshi's visit was a private one.&nbsp;

The Indian official highlighted that "it is very uncommon that the (Pakistani) FM visited and did not have a meet with UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt".&nbsp;

India had strongly taken up the matter with London, and the official told WION: "UK understood our sensitivities."&nbsp;

On an interesting note, the India DGMO (director general of military operations) was contacted by his Pakistani counterpart over the hotline on Tuesday evening, and informed about a rally at the LoC to mark what the Pakistanis call "Kashmir solidarity day".

The Pakistani DGMO informed the Indian side not to be surprised by it, to which the Indian DGMO replied that if any anything happens, "you will be responsible". 
&nbsp;

India has taken note of the anti-India events held in the United Kingdom on February 4 and 5 and in which Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had participated.

India has taken note of the anti-India events held in the United Kingdom on February 4 and 5 and in which Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had participated. Top Indian government sources, responding to WION's questions on a "Kashmir conference" held in the UK parliament and in which Qureshi participated, said, "Pakistan seems to be working on 2 Ks — Kashmir and Khalistan and Pakistan FM's London visit was reflective of his personal ambition and linkages with the deep state." Another government source added that Qureshi's visit did not help "scale up the event" and that the event was largely a "damp squib" with the UK giving it a complete miss. The "Kashmir conference" was held in the committee room of the UK parliament. The official however added that there was no official participation of the UK government and not all members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Kashmir (APPG) had attended the meet. The UK has already clarified that Qureshi's visit was a private one. The Indian official highlighted that "it is very uncommon that the (Pakistani) FM visited and did not have a meet with UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt". India had strongly taken up the matter with London, and the official told WION: "UK understood our sensitivities." On an interesting note, the India DGMO (director general of military operations) was contacted by his Pakistani counterpart over the hotline on Tuesday evening, and informed about a rally at the LoC to mark what the Pakistanis call "Kashmir solidarity day". The Pakistani DGMO informed the Indian side not to be surprised by it, to which the Indian DGMO replied that if any anything happens, "you will be responsible".

Pakistan foreign minister at anti-India events in UK: India says Qureshi visit reflective of 'personal ambition'

Farhan Akhtar is all set to launch his debut album 'Echoes' and has flown to London, UK for it.

Farhan took to his social media handle and announced that he is headed to London for the launch.&nbsp;

Sharing an image of the boarding pass, Farhan wrote, "Off to talk music #Seagull #Echoes".

Speaking about the album’s title, Farhan notes, “It’s about chapters in my life and voices in my head that have influenced the writing. All of us have our personal journeys through life, through love. We struggle at times to make sense of our emotions and of the world around us. So here I am, speaking as honestly as I can about my journey."

Earlier in September 2018, Farhan had released his first English single ‘Rear View Mirror’ and ‘Jaane Ye Kyun Kiya’ his first Hindi single. He went on to release `Why Couldn`t it be Me?’ on December 20.

Last year, Farhan sang his first Telugu song, `I Don`t Know` for Mahesh Babu`s political-thriller, ‘Bharat Ane Nenu’ as well.

The actor will be next seen in 'The Sky Is Pink' &nbsp;co-starring Priyanka Chopra and starting the shoot of the recently announced film 'Toofan', in which, he is essaying the role of a boxer.&nbsp;

Farhan Akhtar is all set to launch his debut album 'Echoes' and has flown to London, UK for it. Farhan took to his social media handle and announced that he is headed to London for the launch.

Farhan Akhtar is all set to launch his debut album 'Echoes' and has flown to London, UK for it. Farhan took to his social media handle and announced that he is headed to London for the launch. Sharing an image of the boarding pass, Farhan wrote, "Off to talk music #Seagull #Echoes". Speaking about the album’s title, Farhan notes, “It’s about chapters in my life and voices in my head that have influenced the writing. All of us have our personal journeys through life, through love. We struggle at times to make sense of our emotions and of the world around us. So here I am, speaking as honestly as I can about my journey." Earlier in September 2018, Farhan had released his first English single ‘Rear View Mirror’ and ‘Jaane Ye Kyun Kiya’ his first Hindi single. He went on to release `Why Couldn`t it be Me?’ on December 20. Last year, Farhan sang his first Telugu song, `I Don`t Know` for Mahesh Babu`s political-thriller, ‘Bharat Ane Nenu’ as well. The actor will be next seen in 'The Sky Is Pink' co-starring Priyanka Chopra and starting the shoot of the recently announced film 'Toofan', in which, he is essaying the role of a boxer.

Farhan Akhtar flies to UK for the launch of debut album ‘Echoes'

Gravitas: UK orders Vijay Mallya's extradition to India

Grammy nominee 21 Savage was arrested in Atlanta on Sunday by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox. &nbsp;According to the agency, the rapper was arrested on charges of being in America illegally.&nbsp;

According to ICE, the rapper is originally a citizen of the UK and that he entered the US legally in July 2005 when he was still a minor. But did not leave after his when his nonimmigrant visa expired in July 2006.&nbsp;

The rapper, whose real name is Shayaabin Abraham-Joseph has been in the US illegally since 2006.&nbsp;

"Mr. Abraham-Joseph is presently in ICE custody in Georgia and has been placed into removal proceedings before the federal immigration courts," ICE said in a statement. "ICE will now await the outcome of his case before a federal immigration judge to determine future actions."

An attorney for Abraham-Joseph said his representatives were working to secure his release.

"We are working diligently to get Mr. Abraham-Joseph out of detention while we work with the authorities to clear up any misunderstandings," Dina LaPolt said in a statement to CNN. "Mr. Abraham-Joseph is a role model to the young people in this country, especially in Atlanta, Georgia, and is actively working in the community leading programs to help underprivileged youths in financial literacy."

Earlier, Abraham-Joseph was also convicted on felony drug charges in October 2014 in Georgia.&nbsp;

The rapper's arrest sent shock waves among his fans, who have till now associated him with Atlanta and its music scene. He had said earlier that '21' in his name was a reference to a street gang in Decatur and his songs even referred to his past in East Atlanta. 
&nbsp; 
21 Savage features on the song 'Rockstar' by Post Malone, which was nominated for Record of the Year and Best Rap Performance at the Grammys.

Grammy nominee 21 Savage was arrested in Atlanta on Sunday by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox. According to the agency, the rapper was arrested on charges of being in America illegally.

Grammy nominee 21 Savage was arrested in Atlanta on Sunday by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox. According to the agency, the rapper was arrested on charges of being in America illegally. According to ICE, the rapper is originally a citizen of the UK and that he entered the US legally in July 2005 when he was still a minor. But did not leave after his when his nonimmigrant visa expired in July 2006. The rapper, whose real name is Shayaabin Abraham-Joseph has been in the US illegally since 2006. "Mr. Abraham-Joseph is presently in ICE custody in Georgia and has been placed into removal proceedings before the federal immigration courts," ICE said in a statement. "ICE will now await the outcome of his case before a federal immigration judge to determine future actions." An attorney for Abraham-Joseph said his representatives were working to secure his release. "We are working diligently to get Mr. Abraham-Joseph out of detention while we work with the authorities to clear up any misunderstandings," Dina LaPolt said in a statement to CNN. "Mr. Abraham-Joseph is a role model to the young people in this country, especially in Atlanta, Georgia, and is actively working in the community leading programs to help underprivileged youths in financial literacy." Earlier, Abraham-Joseph was also convicted on felony drug charges in October 2014 in Georgia. The rapper's arrest sent shock waves among his fans, who have till now associated him with Atlanta and its music scene. He had said earlier that '21' in his name was a reference to a street gang in Decatur and his songs even referred to his past in East Atlanta. 21 Savage features on the song 'Rockstar' by Post Malone, which was nominated for Record of the Year and Best Rap Performance at the Grammys.

Rapper 21 Savage arrested for staying in America as an illegal immigrant

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-mays-brexit-deal-finally-wins-majority-support-in-parliament-193817">British Prime Minister Theresa May</a> said on Sunday she would be "armed with a fresh mandate and new ideas" when she meets European Union negotiators over her <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/britains-may-faces-defeat-in-parliament-over-brexit-plan-190530">Brexit deal.</a>

EU officials have insisted that the deal is not open for renegotiation.

But May wrote in the Sunday Telegraph that she would be "battling for Britain and Northern Ireland" in her efforts to get rid of the agreement's unpopular backstop provision.

"If we stand together and speak with one voice, I believe we can find the right way forward," she said.

The backstop is intended to ensure there is no return to a hard border with Ireland, but Brexit supporters fear it will keep Britain tied to the EU's customs rules.

MPs voted last week to send May back to Brussels to renegotiate the clause, suggesting her deal would then be able to pass after it was roundly rejected in parliament last month.

"I am now confident there is a route that can secure a majority in the House of Commons for leaving the EU with a deal," she wrote.

"When I return to Brussels I will be battling for Britain and Northern Ireland, I will be armed with a fresh mandate, new ideas and a renewed determination to agree on a pragmatic solution".

The EU insists that the deal "remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal," but with the clock running down until the March 29 exit date the risks of a no-deal Brexit for both Britain and the bloc are coming into sharp focus.

May said opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn "also believes the potential indefinite nature of the backstop is an issue", and that the EU has "already accepted the principle of 'alternative arrangements' superseding the backstop should it ever be required."

The backstop would kick in if Britain and the EU have not agreed to a trade deal on their future relationship after a time-limited transition period of up to two years.

The prime minister rejected accusations that plans to reopen the backstop talks risked upsetting the Irish peace process.

"Nor do I have time for those who believe the verdict passed by the British people in 2016 should be overturned before it is even implemented," she added, referring to the rump of MPs calling for a second referendum.

"I'm determined to deliver Brexit, and determined to deliver on time — on March 29, 2019," she wrote.

May has promised MPs that she will bring any revised deal back to be voted on by MPs on February 13.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Sunday she would be "armed with a fresh mandate and new ideas" when she meets European Union negotiators over her Brexit deal.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Sunday she would be "armed with a fresh mandate and new ideas" when she meets European Union negotiators over her Brexit deal. EU officials have insisted that the deal is not open for renegotiation. But May wrote in the Sunday Telegraph that she would be "battling for Britain and Northern Ireland" in her efforts to get rid of the agreement's unpopular backstop provision. "If we stand together and speak with one voice, I believe we can find the right way forward," she said. The backstop is intended to ensure there is no return to a hard border with Ireland, but Brexit supporters fear it will keep Britain tied to the EU's customs rules. MPs voted last week to send May back to Brussels to renegotiate the clause, suggesting her deal would then be able to pass after it was roundly rejected in parliament last month. "I am now confident there is a route that can secure a majority in the House of Commons for leaving the EU with a deal," she wrote. "When I return to Brussels I will be battling for Britain and Northern Ireland, I will be armed with a fresh mandate, new ideas and a renewed determination to agree on a pragmatic solution". The EU insists that the deal "remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal," but with the clock running down until the March 29 exit date the risks of a no-deal Brexit for both Britain and the bloc are coming into sharp focus. May said opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn "also believes the potential indefinite nature of the backstop is an issue", and that the EU has "already accepted the principle of 'alternative arrangements' superseding the backstop should it ever be required." The backstop would kick in if Britain and the EU have not agreed to a trade deal on their future relationship after a time-limited transition period of up to two years. The prime minister rejected accusations that plans to reopen the backstop talks risked upsetting the Irish peace process. "Nor do I have time for those who believe the verdict passed by the British people in 2016 should be overturned before it is even implemented," she added, referring to the rump of MPs calling for a second referendum. "I'm determined to deliver Brexit, and determined to deliver on time — on March 29, 2019," she wrote. May has promised MPs that she will bring any revised deal back to be voted on by MPs on February 13.

UK's May says she is 'armed with fresh' Brexit mandate

British officials have begun "serious work" on the UK staying in a permanent EU customs union as a way to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-pm-may-seeks-to-reopen-brexit-deal-193735">rescue the Brexit deal,</a> the Independent newspaper reported on Friday.

Preparations for the customs union are underway at a high level with some Cabinet ministers pushing <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-mays-brexit-deal-finally-wins-majority-support-in-parliament-193817">Prime Minister Theresa May</a>&nbsp;to accept that she would have to drop her opposition to a customs union to get Labour parliament members to back her deal, the Independent said, citing a "well-placed Whitehall source."

“There is serious work going on about a customs union. We need to be prepared, so we are ready if the politics moves in that direction," the newspaper quoted the source as saying.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn wants Britain to be in a permanent customs union with the EU after Brexit, something May has opposed so far, saying it would hinder Britain's ability to pursue independent trade deals around the world.

British officials have begun "serious work" on the UK staying in a permanent EU customs union as a way to rescue the Brexit deal, the Independent newspaper reported on Friday.

British officials have begun "serious work" on the UK staying in a permanent EU customs union as a way to rescue the Brexit deal, the Independent newspaper reported on Friday. Preparations for the customs union are underway at a high level with some Cabinet ministers pushing Prime Minister Theresa May to accept that she would have to drop her opposition to a customs union to get Labour parliament members to back her deal, the Independent said, citing a "well-placed Whitehall source." “There is serious work going on about a customs union. We need to be prepared, so we are ready if the politics moves in that direction," the newspaper quoted the source as saying. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn wants Britain to be in a permanent customs union with the EU after Brexit, something May has opposed so far, saying it would hinder Britain's ability to pursue independent trade deals around the world.

British government begins 'serious work' on UK staying in EU customs union: Report

*By&nbsp;Steven Friedman

One day, if they follow instructions, Africa’s new democracies will grow up to be “real” like those of Western Europe and North America. This assumption makes little sense – but it influences the way many people in the West and in Africa think about African democracies.

Challenging this myth is a central theme of my book Power in Action: Democracy, Citizenship and Social Justice, which has just been published by Wits University Press.

Over the past two decades, the book notes, democracy has blossomed in Africa: in 1990, the continent housed, at most, four democracies. Today, countries in which the government is not at least elected in a free vote in which opposition parties contest are a small minority. But there is still a deep-rooted feeling among Western academics, policymakers and journalists that African democracies are not yet “the finished product” – that they are still on their way to becoming full democracies.

This view gave birth to a field of academic study in the West – the search for “democratic consolidation”. It emerged because academics assumed that the new democracies were not yet “complete”, even though they called themselves democratic. And so they set out to discover whether democracies in Africa (and Asia and Latin America) were “consolidated”, which meant that they were the finished product.

The academics have never said how we would know a “complete” democracy when we saw one. They don’t have to – it is obvious from their writing that, to become the “finished article”, democracies have to become like those in the West.

The academics are reflecting a widely held view. Western governments that set out to make the world democratic were trying to “help” democracies outside the West to become just like those in it. European and US politicians who care about democracy elsewhere share this view. So do many Africans.

Colonial mindset&nbsp;

Academics on the African continent are keen to study whether their democracies are on the way to being “consolidated” and much commentary on the continent assumes that a “grown-up” democracy looks like Britain, France or the US. This is particularly so in countries like South Africa which house a significant minority of people of Western origin, many of whom believe that the West is the home of civilisation to which the rest of the world should aspire.

This view has a distinctly colonial flavour. The moral excuse for colonialism was that it was bringing to the colonised “civilisation”, which meant whatever people in the colonising country valued. There is no difference between this and trying to persuade the formerly colonised that their democracies can only become “real” if they mimic those in the West.

But it makes very little sense to claim that Western democracies are the “finished product”.

First, Western democracies differ between themselves. So which version are people in Africa meant to mimic? Must their countries become unitary states like Britain or France, or federal like the US and Germany? Must African states give unions and business associations a say in decisions as Sweden, Austria and Switzerland have done? Must language or religious groups be allowed a special say as Belgium and Holland have done? It is not clear which of the many forms of Western democracy Africans are meant to want to be.

Second, the “finished products” of the West are not that finished. Britain has an unelected house of traditional leaders and clergy – the House of Lords. The US system allows the half-million residents of one state to have the same say in the Senate as the 35 million of another. Several Western democracies detain suspects without trial – the US has done this for nearly two decades at Guantanamo Bay, far longer than South Africa’s apartheid state ever detained anyone without trial.

The media in several Western countries is judged by specialists to be less free than those in some non-Western democracies. To show the absurdity of claiming that Western democracies are always better, think what would happen if an African president was elected because he won the vote in a state where the voting machines were faulty and the governor was his brother? This happened in the US in 2000 – and no-one has declared it an “incomplete” democracy.

Third, the democratic idea is that every adult should have an equal say in the decisions which affect them. Where does that happen? Nowhere. So no democracy is a “finished product”. All fall short of the democratic goal and so Western democracies are no more real than those elsewhere. It also makes little sense to claim that one democracy is further down the road to “completion” than another – democracy has many aspects and on some, newer democracies outside the West are further down the road than those they are meant to want to be.

More people vote in some African countries than in some in the West. South Africa does more to promote women’s participation than most Western countries. A study of Botswana complained that its people did not value democracy because only 45% of voters knew the name of their member of Parliament – but the equivalent figure in Sweden was only 33% and several other European countries lagged far behind Botswana, whose voters are better informed than Swedes.

Inferiority complex 

In sum, the democratic inferiority complex of many Africans is unwarranted. The idea that our democracies are “B Grade” and those of the West are prime quality is false.

None of this means that African democracies are better than those in the West. It means that the idea of “real” and “not yet real” democracies expresses a colonial mentality, not reality.

Like all democracies, Africa’s have much room for improvement. But they will never become what they could be if they struggle to become a copy of a romanticised Western democracy. Africa’s democracies will progress if they concentrate on the core democratic principle – giving more and more people a say over more and more issues – and debate how to do that in their particular conditions.

*(Steven Friedman is Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Rhodes University and the University of Johannesburg)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-claim-that-democracy-fares-better-in-the-west-than-in-africa-is-a-fallacy-110408">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

*By Steven Friedman One day, if they follow instructions, Africa’s new democracies will grow up to be “real” like those of Western Europe and North America. This assumption makes little sense – but it influences the way many people in the West and in Africa think about African democracies.

*By Steven Friedman One day, if they follow instructions, Africa’s new democracies will grow up to be “real” like those of Western Europe and North America. This assumption makes little sense – but it influences the way many people in the West and in Africa think about African democracies. Challenging this myth is a central theme of my book Power in Action: Democracy, Citizenship and Social Justice, which has just been published by Wits University Press. Over the past two decades, the book notes, democracy has blossomed in Africa: in 1990, the continent housed, at most, four democracies. Today, countries in which the government is not at least elected in a free vote in which opposition parties contest are a small minority. But there is still a deep-rooted feeling among Western academics, policymakers and journalists that African democracies are not yet “the finished product” – that they are still on their way to becoming full democracies. This view gave birth to a field of academic study in the West – the search for “democratic consolidation”. It emerged because academics assumed that the new democracies were not yet “complete”, even though they called themselves democratic. And so they set out to discover whether democracies in Africa (and Asia and Latin America) were “consolidated”, which meant that they were the finished product. The academics have never said how we would know a “complete” democracy when we saw one. They don’t have to – it is obvious from their writing that, to become the “finished article”, democracies have to become like those in the West. The academics are reflecting a widely held view. Western governments that set out to make the world democratic were trying to “help” democracies outside the West to become just like those in it. European and US politicians who care about democracy elsewhere share this view. So do many Africans. Colonial mindset Academics on the African continent are keen to study whether their democracies are on the way to being “consolidated” and much commentary on the continent assumes that a “grown-up” democracy looks like Britain, France or the US. This is particularly so in countries like South Africa which house a significant minority of people of Western origin, many of whom believe that the West is the home of civilisation to which the rest of the world should aspire. This view has a distinctly colonial flavour. The moral excuse for colonialism was that it was bringing to the colonised “civilisation”, which meant whatever people in the colonising country valued. There is no difference between this and trying to persuade the formerly colonised that their democracies can only become “real” if they mimic those in the West. But it makes very little sense to claim that Western democracies are the “finished product”. First, Western democracies differ between themselves. So which version are people in Africa meant to mimic? Must their countries become unitary states like Britain or France, or federal like the US and Germany? Must African states give unions and business associations a say in decisions as Sweden, Austria and Switzerland have done? Must language or religious groups be allowed a special say as Belgium and Holland have done? It is not clear which of the many forms of Western democracy Africans are meant to want to be. Second, the “finished products” of the West are not that finished. Britain has an unelected house of traditional leaders and clergy – the House of Lords. The US system allows the half-million residents of one state to have the same say in the Senate as the 35 million of another. Several Western democracies detain suspects without trial – the US has done this for nearly two decades at Guantanamo Bay, far longer than South Africa’s apartheid state ever detained anyone without trial. The media in several Western countries is judged by specialists to be less free than those in some non-Western democracies. To show the absurdity of claiming that Western democracies are always better, think what would happen if an African president was elected because he won the vote in a state where the voting machines were faulty and the governor was his brother? This happened in the US in 2000 – and no-one has declared it an “incomplete” democracy. Third, the democratic idea is that every adult should have an equal say in the decisions which affect them. Where does that happen? Nowhere. So no democracy is a “finished product”. All fall short of the democratic goal and so Western democracies are no more real than those elsewhere. It also makes little sense to claim that one democracy is further down the road to “completion” than another – democracy has many aspects and on some, newer democracies outside the West are further down the road than those they are meant to want to be. More people vote in some African countries than in some in the West. South Africa does more to promote women’s participation than most Western countries. A study of Botswana complained that its people did not value democracy because only 45% of voters knew the name of their member of Parliament – but the equivalent figure in Sweden was only 33% and several other European countries lagged far behind Botswana, whose voters are better informed than Swedes. Inferiority complex In sum, the democratic inferiority complex of many Africans is unwarranted. The idea that our democracies are “B Grade” and those of the West are prime quality is false. None of this means that African democracies are better than those in the West. It means that the idea of “real” and “not yet real” democracies expresses a colonial mentality, not reality. Like all democracies, Africa’s have much room for improvement. But they will never become what they could be if they struggle to become a copy of a romanticised Western democracy. Africa’s democracies will progress if they concentrate on the core democratic principle – giving more and more people a say over more and more issues – and debate how to do that in their particular conditions. *(Steven Friedman is Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Rhodes University and the University of Johannesburg) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The claim that democracy fares better in the West than in Africa is a fallacy

Ever since the Brexit vote, Ireland has had the rest of the European Union behind it in insisting there can be no hard border with Northern Ireland when Britain leaves.

But with a draft UK-EU deal that would guarantee an open border looking increasingly frail, and the growing risk that Britain could withdraw from the union with no agreement at all, cracks are starting to emerge.

Over months of talks, both Dublin and Brussels have been loath to spell out the implications of having to carry out EU customs and regulations checks on what would become the bloc's new frontier.

A comment from the European Commission's chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas earlier this week shattered the taboo.

"In a no-deal scenario in Ireland, I think it's pretty obvious, you will have a hard border," he said.

The remark caught Dublin off-guard and the government pointed to EU promises to keep the border open.

The Irish Independent branded Schinas's comments a "Brexit backstab", suggesting they were intended "to prepare Dublin for some difficult discussions in the weeks ahead".

Schinas softened his remark the following day, saying the EU would do "all it can" to avoid a hard border.

But Ireland, which considers itself an unwilling bystander to Britain's decision to leave the EU after 46 years, is feeling under pressure to compromise over its demands.

"Why is it the country being victimised that's always being asked to give?" Prime Minister Leo Varadkar asked in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Friday.

Cooling comments

Varadkar has come under some domestic criticism for failing to prepare for the possibility of a hard border.

But Federico Fabbrini, director of Dublin City University's Brexit Institute, said the government's position was "reasonable".

"It doesn't want to take action on the border for as long as reimposing a border is avoidable," he said.

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier sought to de-dramatise the concerns, but only raised more questions.

"We will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border," he said.

The EU-UK deal includes a "backstop" plan to keep the border open by keeping Britain tied to EU trade rules, but Brexit supporters in London hate it.

They seized on Barnier's comments, saying they proved the backstop was not needed to prevent a hard border.

The backstop is a major block in getting the Brexit deal agreed by the British parliament, and London is pressing the EU to modify the plan.

After months of seeming like the consistent and mature voice in Brexit negotiations, Ireland now risks appearing the stubborn obstacle to a smooth Brexit.

'A period of chaos'

Varadkar this week also warned that a no-deal would lead to a "period of chaos" and that ultimately the EU, Britain and Ireland would have to "agree on full alignment" between Northern Ireland and the Republic to avoid a hard border.

What that chaos might look like and how the EU-brokered accord would function on the 310-mile (500-kilometre) border traversed by more than 200 roads is hard to say.

Brexiteers in London say checks on the border could simply be replaced by trusted trader schemes and as-yet-untested technology.

Speaking in Davos on Friday, Varadkar said it could "involve people in uniform" -- as well as "cameras, physical infrastructure, possibly a police presence, or an army presence to back it up".

That would be a concerning development on a border where the last military checkpoints were dismantled 20 years ago after a peace accord ended three decades of conflict.

Given Ireland's refusal to prepare for a hard border, there could also be days or even weeks when the frontier is effectively ungoverned by international law.

"You could have hundreds of lorries parking up at the border awaiting some kind of clearance," said Seamus Leheny, policy manager of the Freight Transport Association in Northern Ireland.

"We could be left in a situation where some hauliers will have to take the decision to turn away any freight going across the border. The concern they have is they technically could be seen as smuggling."

Ever since the Brexit vote, Ireland has had the rest of the European Union behind it in insisting there can be no hard border with Northern Ireland when Britain leaves.

Ever since the Brexit vote, Ireland has had the rest of the European Union behind it in insisting there can be no hard border with Northern Ireland when Britain leaves. But with a draft UK-EU deal that would guarantee an open border looking increasingly frail, and the growing risk that Britain could withdraw from the union with no agreement at all, cracks are starting to emerge. Over months of talks, both Dublin and Brussels have been loath to spell out the implications of having to carry out EU customs and regulations checks on what would become the bloc's new frontier. A comment from the European Commission's chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas earlier this week shattered the taboo. "In a no-deal scenario in Ireland, I think it's pretty obvious, you will have a hard border," he said. The remark caught Dublin off-guard and the government pointed to EU promises to keep the border open. The Irish Independent branded Schinas's comments a "Brexit backstab", suggesting they were intended "to prepare Dublin for some difficult discussions in the weeks ahead". Schinas softened his remark the following day, saying the EU would do "all it can" to avoid a hard border. But Ireland, which considers itself an unwilling bystander to Britain's decision to leave the EU after 46 years, is feeling under pressure to compromise over its demands. "Why is it the country being victimised that's always being asked to give?" Prime Minister Leo Varadkar asked in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Friday. Cooling comments Varadkar has come under some domestic criticism for failing to prepare for the possibility of a hard border. But Federico Fabbrini, director of Dublin City University's Brexit Institute, said the government's position was "reasonable". "It doesn't want to take action on the border for as long as reimposing a border is avoidable," he said. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier sought to de-dramatise the concerns, but only raised more questions. "We will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border," he said. The EU-UK deal includes a "backstop" plan to keep the border open by keeping Britain tied to EU trade rules, but Brexit supporters in London hate it. They seized on Barnier's comments, saying they proved the backstop was not needed to prevent a hard border. The backstop is a major block in getting the Brexit deal agreed by the British parliament, and London is pressing the EU to modify the plan. After months of seeming like the consistent and mature voice in Brexit negotiations, Ireland now risks appearing the stubborn obstacle to a smooth Brexit. 'A period of chaos' Varadkar this week also warned that a no-deal would lead to a "period of chaos" and that ultimately the EU, Britain and Ireland would have to "agree on full alignment" between Northern Ireland and the Republic to avoid a hard border. What that chaos might look like and how the EU-brokered accord would function on the 310-mile (500-kilometre) border traversed by more than 200 roads is hard to say. Brexiteers in London say checks on the border could simply be replaced by trusted trader schemes and as-yet-untested technology. Speaking in Davos on Friday, Varadkar said it could "involve people in uniform" -- as well as "cameras, physical infrastructure, possibly a police presence, or an army presence to back it up". That would be a concerning development on a border where the last military checkpoints were dismantled 20 years ago after a peace accord ended three decades of conflict. Given Ireland's refusal to prepare for a hard border, there could also be days or even weeks when the frontier is effectively ungoverned by international law. "You could have hundreds of lorries parking up at the border awaiting some kind of clearance," said Seamus Leheny, policy manager of the Freight Transport Association in Northern Ireland. "We could be left in a situation where some hauliers will have to take the decision to turn away any freight going across the border. The concern they have is they technically could be seen as smuggling."

With two months to Brexit, cracks form on Irish border

British MPs could sit long hours and their February holiday may be scrapped as the government races to pass its Brexit legislation before Britain leaves the EU on March 29, Downing Street said Sunday.

Prime Minister Theresa May's government is looking at making the House of Commons sit on more Fridays — which it does not normally do — and extend debating time well into the evening on some days.

It is also "reviewing" the week-long February recess, a Downing Street spokeswoman said.

There are still eight laws the government wants to pass to prepare the statute books for Brexit, covering areas of trade, fisheries, and agriculture, immigration, the environment, and healthcare.

These include any bill needed to implement a divorce deal with the EU, which MPs have yet to agree to.

"We remain committed to ensuring all necessary legislation is in place for exit day on March 29, 2019, and it is important to stress we are confident of meeting that commitment," the spokeswoman said.

"We are aware this is a challenging timetable, so as a precautionary measure we are in preliminary discussions about extending sitting times -- but only if necessary."

She said MPs would have a chance to debate and vote on any decision, adding that the government recognised the need to balance their constituency and family responsibilities.

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, suggested this week that Brexit could be delayed if necessary by a few weeks to get the bills through.

"I'm absolutely certain that if we needed a couple of extra weeks or something, that that would be feasible," she told the BBC's "Newsnight" programme.

But she added that "with goodwill and a determination, we can still get the legislation through in time".

Meanwhile, officials are looking at whether they might need sweeping powers, including the introduction of martial law, if there is disorder after Brexit, the Sunday Times newspaper reported.

There has been a discussion about using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which allows curfews, travel bans and the deployment of the army to quell any social unrest if Britain leaves the EU with no deal.

A separate Downing Street spokeswoman said: "The prime minister has said that there will be the disruption in the event of no deal."

"But as a responsible government, we are taking the appropriate steps to minimise this disruption and ensure the country is prepared."

British MPs could sit long hours and their February holiday may be scrapped as the government races to pass its Brexit legislation before Britain leaves the EU on March 29, Downing Street said Sunday.

British MPs could sit long hours and their February holiday may be scrapped as the government races to pass its Brexit legislation before Britain leaves the EU on March 29, Downing Street said Sunday. Prime Minister Theresa May's government is looking at making the House of Commons sit on more Fridays — which it does not normally do — and extend debating time well into the evening on some days. It is also "reviewing" the week-long February recess, a Downing Street spokeswoman said. There are still eight laws the government wants to pass to prepare the statute books for Brexit, covering areas of trade, fisheries, and agriculture, immigration, the environment, and healthcare. These include any bill needed to implement a divorce deal with the EU, which MPs have yet to agree to. "We remain committed to ensuring all necessary legislation is in place for exit day on March 29, 2019, and it is important to stress we are confident of meeting that commitment," the spokeswoman said. "We are aware this is a challenging timetable, so as a precautionary measure we are in preliminary discussions about extending sitting times -- but only if necessary." She said MPs would have a chance to debate and vote on any decision, adding that the government recognised the need to balance their constituency and family responsibilities. Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, suggested this week that Brexit could be delayed if necessary by a few weeks to get the bills through. "I'm absolutely certain that if we needed a couple of extra weeks or something, that that would be feasible," she told the BBC's "Newsnight" programme. But she added that "with goodwill and a determination, we can still get the legislation through in time". Meanwhile, officials are looking at whether they might need sweeping powers, including the introduction of martial law, if there is disorder after Brexit, the Sunday Times newspaper reported. There has been a discussion about using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which allows curfews, travel bans and the deployment of the army to quell any social unrest if Britain leaves the EU with no deal. A separate Downing Street spokeswoman said: "The prime minister has said that there will be the disruption in the event of no deal." "But as a responsible government, we are taking the appropriate steps to minimise this disruption and ensure the country is prepared."

UK government may scrap MPs' holiday to pass Brexit laws

Brexit fallout; Companies leave UK amid fear of uncertainty

Queen Elizabeth II has emphasised the need for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/50-50-chance-of-second-brexit-referendum-ex-british-pm-tony-blair-192476">Britons to come together</a> to "seek out the common ground", in what has been viewed as an appeal to overcome divisions over Brexit.

Speaking to members of the Women's Institute (WI) <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/airbus-ceo-warns-of-harmful-decisions-for-uk-jobs-in-a-no-deal-brexit-192414">near her Sandringham estate in eastern</a> England, the 92-year-old queen said people should never lose sight of the bigger picture.

"Reflecting on a century of change, it is clear that the qualities of the Women's Institute&nbsp;endure," she said, noting the foundation of the institute in 1915, to encourage contributions to World War-I.

"The continued emphasis on patience, friendship, a strong community-focus, and considering the needs of others, are as important today as they were when the group was founded all those years ago.

"Of course, every generation faces fresh challenges and opportunities.

"As we look for new answers in the modern age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view; coming together to seek out the common ground; and never losing sight of the bigger picture."

"To me, these approaches are timeless, and I commend them to everyone."

Her message, delivered in a meeting late on Thursday, comes amid intense argument in parliament about Britain's exit from the European Union, which is scheduled for March 29.

The royals tend to steer well clear of politics, and as head of state, the queen in particular is careful to stay neutral in public.

In her traditional Christmas broadcast to the nation last month, she offered a similar message of unity, warning against "tribalism".

"Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding," she said.

Queen Elizabeth II has emphasised the need for Britons to come together to "seek out the common ground", in what has been viewed as an appeal to overcome divisions over Brexit.

Queen Elizabeth II has emphasised the need for Britons to come together to "seek out the common ground", in what has been viewed as an appeal to overcome divisions over Brexit. Speaking to members of the Women's Institute (WI) near her Sandringham estate in eastern England, the 92-year-old queen said people should never lose sight of the bigger picture. "Reflecting on a century of change, it is clear that the qualities of the Women's Institute endure," she said, noting the foundation of the institute in 1915, to encourage contributions to World War-I. "The continued emphasis on patience, friendship, a strong community-focus, and considering the needs of others, are as important today as they were when the group was founded all those years ago. "Of course, every generation faces fresh challenges and opportunities. "As we look for new answers in the modern age, I for one prefer the tried and tested recipes, like speaking well of each other and respecting different points of view; coming together to seek out the common ground; and never losing sight of the bigger picture." "To me, these approaches are timeless, and I commend them to everyone." Her message, delivered in a meeting late on Thursday, comes amid intense argument in parliament about Britain's exit from the European Union, which is scheduled for March 29. The royals tend to steer well clear of politics, and as head of state, the queen in particular is careful to stay neutral in public. In her traditional Christmas broadcast to the nation last month, she offered a similar message of unity, warning against "tribalism". "Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding," she said.

Seek out common ground, says Queen Elizabeth in veiled reference to Brexit

After Japan, India overtakes UK as most attractive investment market:  PwC survey

WION Gravitas, 21st January, 2019

Theresa May to present Brexit plan B today

Uk, News on Uk, stories on Uk, articles on Uk, Uk stories at Wion, Uk news, Uk latest news