‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’? Paris’ Tumultuous Journey

Hattie Goldstaub

Paris: City of Light, City of Love

The titles for Paris developed in our vernacular draw on the reputation enjoyed by the French capital as a melting-pot of culture, romance and beauty, for which the association of enlightenment in both the spiritual and tangible senses is entirely justified. However, as one looks more closely at this glittering European diamond, the cracks beneath the lustre begin to emerge. Shaken by indefensible terrorist attacks as recently as January 2015 and November 2015, the need for Parisian solidarity, freedom and equality is more important now than ever before, and yet, whilst peaceful, anti-terrorist demonstrations are evidence that such an attitude does exist, latent inequalities in terms of employment, housing and economic potential continue to lurk underneath the surface. So, what is the truth about Paris?

The Centre of Europe

As the capital of France since as early as 508 AD, Paris has had a turbulent coming-of-age. The focal point of its country’s own bloody revolution, it has alternately been both a shelter for conservative elements such as exiled Russian aristocrats in the early twentieth century, and a hub of forward-thinking political thought and intellectualism, currently boasting Anne Hidalgo as its mayor: a female politician with socialist views. It has therefore played out its role as the centre of France - and one of the most important centres of Europe - in a truly diverse manner. Its 12.3 million citizens’ flare for cultural innovation can be seen in its biannual Fashion Weeks, its art museums (the Louvre is the most visited art museum in the world) and renowned cuisine. In addition to this, the city is the financial heart of France, producing 30% of its total GDP. The significance that Paris holds is evinced by its twentieth century track record: a war front in World War One, an occupied victim in World War Two, and a key player in the anti-colonial struggle of the Algerian war for independence during the 1950s and 1960s.

A Diamond in the Rough

However, despite Paris’ position as an enlightened and economic centre, discontent is still rife among its socially conscious populace. A quick internet search for demonstrations in Paris will reveal multiple hits in the last month alone, with marchers pushing for change in various ways: supporting trade unions, calling for a greater response to climate change, attacking austerity measures and so on. These protests address both the bigger picture and the local situation in a tradition stemming from 1789’s major republican revolution. To mirror East-European demonstrations against the powers that be – albeit very different ones – in 1968, Parisian students and blue-collar workers also took to the streets to protest against capitalism and consumerism, resulting in a two-week general strike that nearly brought France to its knees. Indeed, the almost polar distribution of different social classes within Paris - the affluent centred around the west and the lower middle and working classes in the north - could help to explain these consistent rebellions against the status quo. For whilst the city of Paris is itself a gem, it is immediately encircled by an area unequal to its beauty: riskily constructed, unevenly distributed and sporadically deserted social housing in the ‘quartiers sensibles’ (sensitive quarters), wealth inequality that sees a quarter of the city’s populace living below the poverty line, rising unemployment, and homelessness statistics comprising 43% of the country’s total homeless population. Like many European capitals, Paris is a hotbed of inequality and social tension.

The Future

But unlike the population of many other European capitals, the Parisian population appears determined to do something about it, and its government – possibly partially coerced by popular movements – is taking steps to create a more unified city. An initiative started by ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy involves the creation of a new administrative body, aimed at strengthening ties between the city and its surrounding areas. The so-called Metropolis of Greater Paris formally came into existence on 1st January 2016 and is made up of 210 officials from the elected committees of member communes. Its focus will be to deal with problems and inequalities in housing, urban planning and the environment, and it is hoped that it will help to solidify the Paris area into a unified and thus even more influential entity. If such initiatives keep being devised, it remains hopeful that Paris will continue to grow and resist those who wish to smash the diamond.

Syrian peace talks suspended

Hubert Cruz

The Syrian peace talks mediated by the United Nations (UN) have been suspended just two days after its commencement. UN special envoy, Staffan de Mistura, who is responsible for channelling negotiations between the Syrian government and opposition forces, admitted that more work has to be done by all sides before the peace talks reconvene on 25 February.

The breakdown of the peace talks was catalysed by the Syrian Army’s most recent military breakthrough, where they breached a three-year siege of two towns in the Aleppo province with the aid of Russian aerial bombardment. The High Negotiations Committee (HNC) that represents opposition forces announced they will not be returning to the negotiating table unless there is a cessation of airstrikes and improvement of ground conditions.

Meanwhile Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated that its airstrikes against terrorists would continue. Nevertheless, the United States argues that only 10% of Russian bombing has targeted Daesh, with the vast majority striking opposition groups instead. Local human rights organisations and opposition forces also report that Russian airstrikes have extended into civilian areas in the past few days, where refugee camps in the west of the country are being targeted.

What is the way forward for the Syrian peace process? What could the international community do to support the millions who are threatened by airstrikes, starvation and military siege in Syria? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. Check out the news articles below to find out more about the issue:

The Guardian – UN suspends Syria peace talks until end of February

Al Jazeera – Syria peace talks plunged into new crisis

The New York Time – Syrian Peace Talks Are Suspended

Sámi: the only indigenous people in the EU

Miina Hiilloskivi

The Sámi are the only indigenous people the European Union. Inhabiting the Arctic area of Sápmi in northern Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Kola Peninsula of Russia, the total Sámi population stands at around 75,000, of which the majority lives in Norway. Within this diverse group, there exists ten different Sámi languages - all of which are endangered. In spite of the ancient ties this indigenous people has to the land of these regions, there exists a long and sad history of discrimination towards the Sámi, which is marked by active suppression of their language and culture. Despite gradual progress over the past century, systematic oppression by centralised Nordic governments has scarred the Sámi population permanently.

Today Finland, Sweden and Norway have Sámi Parliaments which function as institutions defending the cultural autonomy of the Sámi people. In all these Nordic countries, the Sámi are legally recognised as an indigenous people, giving them the right to maintain their own language and culture. National legislation concerning the right to use Sámi languages in institutions of authority and education has been brought into force. Co-operation has also been established between Sámi organisations in Sámiráđđi, the Sámi Council, which unified the disparate Sámi clans to create a united front fighting for the representation of the Sámi.

The traditional Sámi livelihoods include reindeer husbandry, fishing, hunting, gathering, and handicrafts, and are all based on the sustainable use of natural resources. Their diet and habits are shaped by the environment, resulting in a traditionally nomadic lifestyle with loose and unofficial ties to the land. Indeed, today the core of the disputes with the Sámi is focused on land use rights. The issue lies in the fact that Sámi society is based on an oral culture, meaning that there is little to no written proof of ownership of the land that has been inhabited and used for generations. Even in cases where land use rights are recognised, there is limited legal protection as the richness of natural resources in these areas, such as iron ore, nickel and timber, often lead to Sámi interests being overlooked.

Out of the three countries, Norway is the only one to have ratified what seems to be the most significant international agreement concerning the rights of indigenous groups: the ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Articles 14 and 15 concern the right of indigenous people to own water, land and natural resources. These propose identifying and delimiting the land traditionally occupied by the Sámi in order to protect their ownership of the land. This vital agreement would not only eliminate costly court disputes over land use but also help to preserve this indigenous culture that is based on sustainable use of natural resources.

Indeed, it is shocking that Sweden and Finland are still not showing signs of ratifying the convention, despite overwhelming calls to do so. The role of the EU in particular in pushing for indigenous people’s rights should not be underestimated. The European Council's criticism of Finland in 2011 for not having ratified the Convention aided significantly in increasing the pressure on the Finnish government to revaluate their policy towards Sámi. If the EU continued such measures, the highlighting of the systematic discrimination of an ethnic minority could seriously damage the international reputation of Nordic countries, and the added international pressure could speed up the process of ratification.

The support of the EU has the potential to become significant force in the fight for Sámi people’s rights, of which the calling out the Nordic countries’ failings would comprise just the first step of a long road.

Denmark seizes migrant assets

Hubert Cruz

On Tuesday (26 January), the Danish parliament overwhelmingly approved of a controversial new measure that would allow immigration authorities to seize assets that worth over 10000 kroner (£1000) from asylum seekers to cover the cost of their stay. In addition, several other policies were concurrently introduced to deter the influx of migrants. These include extending the waiting period for refugees to apply for family reunion from one year to three, and tightening conditions required for permanent residency permits.

The proposals have been strongly criticised by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) as well as many human right organisations. They denounced the seizures as an affront to the dignity of refugees, while arguing the delay of family reunion was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Danish government defended the seizure of migrants’ assets, claiming that unemployed Danes also need to relinquish assets above a certain threshold before they become eligible for benefits.

The Danish parliament’s action follows a similar seizure policy in Switzerland and southern states of Germany. As migrants continue to enter Europe in record levels, countries have moved to adopt more restrictive policies to stem further inflows. Earlier this week, the interior ministers of member states of the European Union have signalled their intentions to temporarily suspend the Schengen Agreement, which allows free movement across most EU countries, after a meeting in Amsterdam.

Are the new Danish policies appropriate and justified? Is the Schengen Agreement all but certain to collapse? What is Europe’s best long-term response to this ongoing migrant crisis? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. Here are a few pieces of news articles for you to find out more about the issue:

BBC – Migrant crisis: Why are countries taking refugees' valuables

The Independent – Denmark approves controversial refugee bill allowing police to seize asylum seekers' cash and valuables

Crimea: Settlement and the problem with historical context in questions of sovereignty

Christian Amos

One of the most frequent issues arising from questions of sovereignty is that of historical context vis-a-vis self-determination. When Woodrow Wilson put forward his Fourteen Points at the deliberations in 1918, his support for self-determination (if not consistently applied personally) appeared to many to be a powerful and decisive recognition of the ideal of the nation as ‘sovereign state', as fought for in 19th century literature and revolutions. The idea that a people, united by a common culture, language, or custom, should be able to govern themselves, is an important expression of liberty and its ideal. Stability is of course important, but the freedom of decision making, of self governance, is the very reason for stability in the first place — not the other way around.

What I argue is that the notion of self-determination has been applied inconsistently. Rather than respect the will of a people, commentators and governments often decline to accept self-determination when it conflicts with their own political pragmatic ends, even though this constitutes an inconsistent application of their own ideals.

Take Crimea, for example. Putin’s paramilitary sponsored invasion of Crimea can be seen as a gross violation of international law and a terrifying expression of thuggish, expansionist tendencies reminiscent of the 1930s. Amidst all the condemnation of Putin’s actions, and bewildering support of maverick sympathizers, what was lost was self-determination. Obama said in a 2014 press conference that the “United States supports [the Prime Minister of Ukraine’s] government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine.” The issue of ‘territorial integrity’ if referring to safety from invasion is absolutely essential. Yet the ambiguity of the term ‘territorial integrity’ is reflective of popular attitudes towards the Ukraine and Crimea – that’s to say that this is black and white: either you sympathize with Russian annexation, or you support Crimea being a part of Ukraine in absolution regardless of consequences. Given controlled and comfortable conditions, it seems right to say that the people of Crimea should be allowed to have a democratic, monitored plebiscite on their sovereignty.

Of course the difficulty with a plebiscite is that status-quo in Crimea has been severely challenged and altered – people have left, fears have been raised, and others have migrated to the region. Principally, fears of Russian intervention or pressure from other powers would undoubtedly affect the outcome of any democratic vote. In that sense, perhaps any democratic vote on Crimean sovereignty, whether to be Ukrainian or Russian, is a flawed venture. With the passing of time perhaps a vote is more conceivable, but equally integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation may simply increase Russification in the region.

Alternatively, perhaps Crimea can serve as an important historical example – a warning of the dangers of rejecting tensions of sovereignty and regional identity, if we take it that that Crimean uncertainty over being part of Ukraine is a factor prior to Euromaidan. The 'possibility' of Crimeans feeling like they should be part of Russia rather Ukraine should be acknowledged and treated seriously, rather than written off as a far-fetched oddity. People all too often forget that Crimea was part of the Russian SFSR until 1954, but also that the Crimea was up to 50% ethnically Tartar in the 1920s – until Stalin’s policy of forced-deportation and violence decimated the population. Foreign policy should not be about suiting the interests of a particular nation, but should serve to peacefully and democratically enable the freedoms of groups of people – particularly when it comes to questions of self-determination.