The Windrush Generation and Wales

By: Niamh Mannion

The African Community Centre has undertaken an intergenerational project focusing on the experiences of the Windrush Generation in Wales.

The Swansea based charity has centred the project on recording the culture, journey and settlement of people from the West Indies who settled in and around Swansea in the 1950s and 60s.

Intergenerational Effort

The Windrush generation from the Swansea area are now enjoying a well-deserved retirement and have some incredible stories to tell. Young people from the African Community Centre have been trained in interviewing and filming techniques, so they can positively record the Windrush generations extraordinary stories.

Personal Accounts

The African Community Centre’s interviews have shed light on the culture, personal experiences and challenges of the Windrush experiences in Wales. The interviews have also given a chance for younger generations to gain an insight into the hardship experienced by older generations. The second generation Windrush descendants heard about racism and hardship endured by older generations. However, the second generation also became aware of the massive societal change in Wales.

Interviewees talked about their personal experiences of being refused service in shops. Interviewees also shed light on their experiences of suffering racist abuse whilst in the workplace. Interviewees also touched on their unfair treatment at the hands of police officers, including being stopped multiple times by police.

However, interviewees also talked about the changing attitudes of Wales. Interviewees said they now felt part of the community and very much settled in Wales. However, they also spoke of a dual identity between Wales and Jamaica.

Get Involved!

The African Community Centre’s Windrush project is ONGOING!

If you or anyone you know arrived in Swansea, Neath or Port-Talbot in the 1950s, 60s or 70s get in contact with The African Community Centre to participate and have your story heard.

You can contact the African Community Centre: 01792470298 / isioma.ikediashi@africancommunitycentre.org.uk

To find out more about the project visit: https://africancommunitycentre.org.uk/portfolio-item/windrush-intergenerational-project/

Advertisements

Foreign Languages

Anglophone privilege, or handicap, and the world-opening effect of bilingualism

By Anna Lockwood

Globalisation has fundamentally changed the place of foreign languages in our lives forever. But what does this mean for British people who place as the worst in Europe at learning foreign languages? The reason is relatively simple: for brits who wish to work and spend their lives on this island, foreign languages carry no utility. But could the consequences run deeper? The disappearance of welsh is a dire shame to say the least and a very real danger to some. This relates to the argument I want to make in this post that languages are not just valuable for their utility but valuable in themselves.

English is without doubt the language of business and global affairs. This fact motivates millions each year to improve their English in pursuit of career goals and internationalism. Meanwhile, the reasons for monolinguals to pick up another language are numerous. Foreign languages are inherently linked with an interest in global affairs- they create international bonds and require and promote connection and empathy with other national identities.

Through language we express our relationship with the world around us. The amazing ability of humans to express thoughts with such detail in such a diverse number of ways is inherently linked to our equally incredible ability to form bonds with one another. It is essentially what makes us human.

The privilege of having English as a native language is clear. Many of us manage to travel and live without knowing a second language, but this comes at both an internal and external price. We lose the gift multilingualism could have given us, and externally, our human relations are damaged by arrogantly expecting the rest of mankind to communicate in a way that benefits us the most. The linguistic sacrifice is always on the other side, and because language is such a big part of who we are, what we really do is say, who I am is more important than who you are, and what I have to say is more important than what you have to say.

I have become convinced that a dangerous assumption exists in Anglophone countries that languages are ‘just not for us’. That we are wired to be terrible at languages, cast forever into the corner of the classroom to be unfairly hounded by an aggressive German teacher who continuously overestimates, over-commands, and just doesn’t understand that language is not for us. I would like to argue that this position is not just unfortunate or lazy but fundamentally detrimental.

So why are we so bad at languages? As someone who overcame this, I believe I know the answer. We treat foreign language as just another subject. A category of information to be banged into your head word by word until you can temporarily reproduce it on paper. But language is not a category and when treated as such this is the result you have- a nation of people that hesitantly stammer bonjour un café s’il-vous-plaît on command. Your second language does not exist inside a box inside your life but runs parallel and in complete correspondence to your life. Your life can equally be expressed in your second language as in your first, and this is an amazing thing to realise. They say there have been cases where brain damage has caused people to completely lose their first language but remembered their second fully. When pursuing a second language seriously, it is essential that you treat this kind of rarity as likely. In the later stages of learning a language it is not about how much of it you speak, but how little of your first language you speak. I would now like to address any young people considering a linguistic year abroad. I cannot convey how useless moving abroad can be for language learning if you continue to use English. If you truly want to learn Spanish, find a job where you are forced to speak Spanish, set all your devices into Spanish including Netflix, make Spanish-speaking friends, surround yourself with Spanish-speaking people. Temporarily cut English out of your life as much as you can.

Of course, moving abroad is not an option for many, but what I’d like to argue is that having a minimum awareness and respect for other languages is deeply intertwined with gaining an interest and understanding for other cultures. The problems that Wales faces in struggling to keep alive its native language, encouraging its youth to branch out to foreign languages, and promoting a deep-set curiosity in global affairs are essentially the same problem that needs to be addressed collectively.

Annual Law Lecture: Christine Chinkin: Violence Against Women and the Istanbul Convention

By Georgia Marks

On 3 May 2018, the Welsh Centre for International Affairs held their Annual Law Lecture at the Temple of Peace. This lecture looked at the violence women face and discussed potential solutions, both within Wales and worldwide, with particular focus on the Istanbul Convention.

The event began with a speech by Jeremy Miles, AM for Neath and Counsel General for Wales, who gave us a background on how the Welsh Government was committed to tackling all forms of violence against women. This can be shown, he said, by the introduction of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, which aims to improve the Public Sector response in Wales to gender based violence. This commitment is further reinforced by the National Strategy on Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence which was published in November 2016, and the Delivery Framework which is still in development. With regards to implementing the Act, Miles drew particular attention to the “Ask and Act” training carried out on over 70,000 employers of the Public Sector. The training aims to encourage an open dialogue for people to share their experiences so that this violence can be stopped. I think this training is a proactive and welcome addition to any campaign, but particularly one surrounding violence, as raising awareness on such prevalent issues will help form a united front in order to try and prevent such violence in the future. However, of course, given the delicate subject matter it is crucial that we approach this with sensitivity.

Capture.PNG

Live Fear Free website

Miles then touched upon events surrounding gender-based violence awareness happening in Wales, of particular note was the “Don’t be a bystander” campaign which reinforced the importance of positive intervention and the Live Fear Free guidance available online. This campaign has been circulating throughout Wales and yet again reiterates the active role we, as members of society, must play. This is true- change does not happen if people remain passive and being fully educated is all part of the process.

Miles then went on to introduce Christine Chinkin, and provided us with a little bit of her background. Christine Chinkin, FBA, is an Emerita Professor of International Law and Director of the Centre on Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics. Also, together with Hilary Charlesworth, she won the American Society of International Law, 2005 Goler T. Butcher Medal ‘for outstanding contribution to the development or effective realization of international human rights law.’ Her academic work has taken her worldwide, she is a renowned feminist and an expert in post-conflict resolution. This puts her in good stead to comment on the issue of violence against women as she is an expert in her field.

Chinkin

Professor Christine Chinkin

Christine Chinkin took to the podium and began her speech by explaining the Istanbul Convention and how it addresses crime against women. She started off by expressing the view of the UN that gender based violence is a pandemic. She then went on to list some statistics: ¼-1/5 of women have experienced sexual violence; 15-20% of women have been in an abusive relationship; and 26% of women and 15% of men aged 16-59 have experienced some form of violence. The period of most heightened vulnerability, Chinkin stated, is on separation.

A task force was set up to assess the impact on women which concluded that this violence reduces women’s productivity and lowers their overall educational development. The task force also stated that there was a clear need for a European wide convention, which is now the Istanbul Convention. Chinkin emphasised that this Convention was not negotiated in a vacuum, it was built upon a normative standard, with the idea of bringing violence against women into the discourse of human rights. This appears to be positive, as a Convention must reflect the needs of society, so it is quite right that a rigorous negotiation process was carried out to ensure that the Convention provided well rounded protection.

Chinkin then went on to establish violence against women in the background on international law, and gave us the history surrounding the creation of the Istanbul Convention in 2011. She stated that originally human rights advocates criticised the Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979 (1979 Convention) due to the fact that in reality state action fails to address violence against women and by non-state actors. This focus on state agents is a problem, Chinkin stated, due to the fact that the statistics that she gave above concerned violence carried out by non-state actors, which is a major societal issue. However, it is worth noting that Article 2(e) of the 1979 Convention committed to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise. This horizontal application (private individual against another private individual) of Human Rights Law, which moves away from the classic human rights framework (which is vertical and focuses on violations of the individual by the state). Subsequent recommendations were made, by the General Assembly and in the Beijing Conference which both regarded violence against women as a concern. Chinkin established that the need to target gender based violence was only expressed in soft law form (in the shape of opinions and reports) at that point. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had to read issues of violence against women into their judgments as there was no legally binding instrument to refer to. The only legally binding instruments were regional, so the Treaties in the Americas and Africa. Therefore, Chinkin noted, Europe was lacking behind. As a result of the uncertainties of the scope of obligations, the Istanbul Convention was adopted in 2011, of which 30 states are party to it.

Chinkin then went on to establish why the Istanbul Convention is so important. First and foremost, it is a hybrid convention that brings human rights and domestic law into the Convention in an innovative way. The human rights Treaty locates violence against women within the family, community and state. The Treaty sets out state’s both the state’s negative obligation (to refrain from acting in a way that will contribute to the issues of violence against women) and positive obligation (to provide a legal and social framework through active measures). This requires compensation through reparations and provides a monitoring body for the Council of Europe. Importantly it is applicable in conflict and in peace. In terms of the criminal law element, the Convention incorporates legislative change domestically. Violence against women is not exactly an international crime, so within an international treaty there is a need to identify specific crimes within the rubric of violence against women. Importantly, criminal law incorporates specificity in comparison with human rights. This was one of the most important parts of Chinkin’s speech as what appeared to be lacking previously within the law was resolved by incorporating everything into a fused system, which can be positively viewed as providing a larger scale of protection to women.

The hybrid system meant that a lot of time was spent within the drafting process on deciding which crimes come within the Convention. Chinkin expressed that by bringing crimes within the concept of violence against women adds coherence, resolving the original uncertainty of what constituted such violence. The crimes that were discussed were regarded by some as social problems as opposed to criminal, but now crimes such as economic and psychological harm, stalking and sexual violence come within the Istanbul Convention and gives the first legal definitions of these crimes. At the end of the event, a member of the audience commented on the Islamophobia in relation to violence against women that is prevalent in today’s society and asked the speakers’ view of whether this should come under criminal law. Chinkin answered with the conclusion that it should be criminalised. The behaviour that the member of the audience described comes within the Convention and should be recognised as unacceptable. However, there are always others ways of accountability as criminalisation might not be appropriate in all circumstances. This is true, every response to a certain abuse must be tailored.

Chinkin remarked that during negotiations, there was particular debate surrounding whether the crimes would be defined in light of men’s perceptions, or by women’s experiences. However, the focus was on that of the victim in definitions. I think this is crucial to the Convention as the opposite conclusion could have easily led to the isolation and hostility towards women of which the Convention was supposed to protect. Importantly, the speaker stated that there are no defences on justification for violence against women for reasons such as culture or custom. Chinkin also noted that State parties are required to undertake assessment and management of risk of the overall social environment whilst also looking at the appropriate measures for individual women. In this sense, the speaker points out, the convention has a holistic and practical approach. This is a positive aspect of the Convention as it is important to place the Convention within the relevant society so that it can be at its most effective. In particular, Chinkin drew attention to the holistic approach of the Council of Europe of the 4 Ps: prevention of violence against women, protection, provision of services and participation of women in policy. However, the speaker also mentioned an extra P: integrated government policy. Therefore, the Convention brought together standards into a legally binding instrument. Such an instrument requires both pre-emptive and protective measures as well as accountability. The Convention builds on international law and supplements, whilst also recognising violence as a serious crime and within the problem of social hierarchy. When asked to give the audience a flavour of the impact of the Istanbul Convention and the difference it will make to women, Chinkin answered by stating that the Convention was the first step and particularly that actions that will bring in laws are important. There needs to be a holistic approach with reference to the CEDAW reports. Importantly, however, now there is a level of awareness surrounding these issues in most states.

Chinkin then went on to talk about the tensions within the negotiation stage of the Convention. These negotiations, she said, were not straightforward, particularly because the delegates were not human rights experts, but were more experienced in the field of criminal law. They did not understand human rights instruments nor which Conventions states were party to. There was a priority, however, to ensure that the language in The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was kept. Chinkin expressed that the major issue within the negotiations was rooted in gender, in particular the definition of gender. It was argued, she said, that domestic violence is not gender based, and that the issue was regarded as social rather than legal. However, Chinkin argued, this contention was wrong as violence is disproportionate against women. She further argued that all children should be educated with comprehensive sexuality education, however, this in regards to gender sensitive policy is contentious as there are freedom of expression problems. For example, Croatia made an interpretive statement that there is no requirement for gender ideology. At the end of the talks, a member of the audience mentioned Chinkin’s reference to how gender ideology is used and misused and asked her to elaborate. Chinkin expressed that in terms of misuse, gender is becoming a code word for sexual identity and any mention was viewed as an attempt to bring rights around such identity, for example in the Columbia Peace Process gender was used to refer to family, homosexuality and gender identity. She went on to emphasise that this misinterpretation was beginning to spread and the further difficulties in trying to undo.

The most controversial definition given was within the context of domestic violence, which is defined as gender neutral, which in turn makes it inappropriate to have a woman specific convention. However, Chinkin established that a compromise was reached by providing a definition of gender neutral that is encouraged to all but with a particular focus on women. The Former Special Rapporteur stated that violence against men occurs but has less impact and is not grounded in structural discrimination, thus, to give the two issues the same treatment and resources would ignore reality whilst also ignoring the systematic nature of violence against women. This view has merit and appears to be a particular issue as if their resources are the same, Chinkin stated, that this would not be balanced in reality. Violence against everyone, she said, is important but the treatment needs to be adjusted, rather than having a one size fits all approach. This is a valid response which recognises violence generally while tailoring the treatment to fit with the reality, thus fully utilising all resources in an appropriate way.

Chinkin then continued her speech by looking at the United Kingdom’s role in the Convention. She said that the UK government would be a prominent country to become party, but they took a passive role, signing the Convention in June 2012 but having not ratified the Treaty yet. However, the UK are party to CEDAW and the Treaty of Rights Against the Child, as well as adopting some of the measures already contained in the Convention, such as criminalising forced marriage. The UK claims that it cannot ratify until all domestic law is amended. However, Chinkin noted, the UK exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction, so should it really be that difficult to ratify the Convention?

The speaker then established whether we have a global treaty to combat violence against women. The Former Special Rapporteur claimed that there was no such treaty. However, Chinkin noted, the Istanbul Convention would be a good model for such a treaty. There is potential for the Istanbul Convention to be universal, but no state outside of the Council of Europe is party to it. In this sense then, she said, the Convention being universalised would be problematic as it is European. Additionally though, CEDAW was updated through soft law in 1992; over 25 years of practice has endorsed the interpretation that the prohibition of violence against women has evolved into custom, which may remove the need for a global treaty. As a general recommendation, Chinkin suggested that violence against women in all spaces should be emphasised and that different legal responses should be devised. For example, the approach for disabled women who have undergone medical procedures without their consent should be different from looking at women’s vulnerability through immigration. Chinkin then established that a global treaty could have a large impact but could lead to dilution of what we already have. Having a global treaty would appear to have merit in building on well established custom, however, if countries have not signed the Istanbul Convention outside of the Council of Europe, would they be likely to ratify a global treaty? For now it seems that custom is the strongest route to globalising the approach to.

Chinkin concluded her speech by expressing that there is enough in the Convention to provide a framework, but it needs to be applied with resources and kept in review. The evolution of the Istanbul Convention should be with reference to CEDAW. She finished by stating that if the UK government became a party it would be of strength to the Convention.

Chinkin’s speech had many valid points, in particular that the Convention should keep up to date with reality. In this sense then, there is a push towards the Convention being a living instrument that is flexible to meet the needs of an evolving society. This idea should be welcomed.

The Chair of the event, Jackie Jones, Professor of Feminist Legal Studies at the University of the West of England, then came to the podium to speak about the UK and Wales’ response to violence against women. Jones started off by stating that there is a continued call for a global treaty for violence against women and girls. In regards to the UK’s response, they have taken a back seat role, having never nominated someone to CEDAW and are only finally considering doing so now. Jones rightly stated that from this it seems that the UK is not a leader in gender equality. Nevertheless, Jones established that the UK has done good work but more could be done, for example, ratifying the Istanbul Convention is just one thing that it could do. The issue of having to amend their domestic legislation is not a good enough reason not to ratify given their powers of extraterritoriality.

Jones then drew particular attention to Wales, which she said has proven to be good for normative instruments. However, she reiterated that there is always more to do, particularly within the pushbacks about gender in the making of legislation. Nevertheless, the 2015 Act in Wales, she said, is what due diligence looks like. It is also worth noting that the funding for these Welsh policies are coming from Westminster, which shows that Wales are prioritising the protection of women and that the money isn’t just coming from thin air. This point is of particular importance as it shows that Wales appears to be a lot more active than the UK in general but also this is a good thing as it could push the UK to be a leader of gender equality. The Istanbul Convention, she says, has added value in Wales, as putting a human rights perspective within criminal law is really important. Jones expressed that a lot of provisions were already there but more is needed, such as specialist measures and services because of need, for example FGM clinics. However, in the Q&A session after the event, the view was expressed within the audience that Wales have created effective policies but that she disagreed with the criminalisation of female genital mutilation and the introduction of the clinic. How is it effective, she said, if people are being stigmatised? In her response, Jones likened FGM to arranged marriage in that both should, and are, criminalised. She viewed the criminalisation as justified, however there were no successful prosecutions yet. Chinkin added to the debate by saying that human rights have to be crafted and put into effect in consultation. The top-down approach will not work, she said, as although we need normative standards we also need to include a bigger level of consultation. This idea of consultation appeared to be desirable in the context that the individual was referring to. Both of these responses are valid but it looks to be beneficial if the solution is to combine these views: FGM is a clear human rights abuse but consultation may be needed to try and work around the stigmatisation of the criminalisation in these cultural communities.

Jones concluded by reiterating the importance of the 2015 Act in Wales but that there is always more to do in the realm of violence against women.

Overall, this event provided the audience with a well-informed discussion on how the issue of violence against women is being dealt with both here in Wales and across Europe. This issue seems prevalent everywhere, which is why it seems a shame that the UK are not at the forefront of the debate. However, it seems hopeful that Wales’ commitment to eradicating violence against women will set an example for the rest of the UK. In regards to the Istanbul Convention, it appears to be having a positive impact in at least raising awareness to the issues discussed whilst also providing a newly legal platform which will hopefully pave the way for progress in this area.

Women to Women for Peace – Exchange between Cuba, the US and Wales‘, 1998-2001

Kathyrn Evans

Women to Women for Peace’ – The Mission

The mission statement of Women to Women for Peace (W2W4P) was “World Peace will come through the will of ordinary people like yourselves”. This encapsulates in a nutshell why the organisation – founded in 1984 – enjoyed thirty years of success.

“No young mother in this country or any other wants her son to go and kill the sons of other young mothers and I believe that if inter-visitations were arranged between parties of young mothers from Britain … and from other countries who chose to join in, bridges of understanding could be built … as a REAL contribution to world peace”

 

Lucy Behenna, founder of Mothers for Peace (later became W2W4P).

This was a powerfully motivated group of people who came together to build bridges between people from countries which have contrasting and conflicting political, philosophical, cultural and religious interests. The aim was to promote the message that war was not the answer to resolving conflict by supporting intercultural understanding on a transnational level. W2W4P had numerous highlights throughout their duration as a non-profit organisation that accentuate their success as an international solidarity movement. I will illuminate some highlights over the course of two articles about the South West and Wales group of W2W4P who achieved undoubtable success for peacekeeping from Wales to Cuba, America, Israel and Palestine, starting with their achievements in Cuba and America.

Why you need to know about Women to Women for Peace

It is my hope that when you read the articles I have written on the inspirational work of Women to Women for Peace, you will feel the same as I felt; that there are lessons to take away and how vital it is to have international solidarity movements. The work of W2W4P has left me feeling proud of Wales for being part of an amazing peacemaking organisation that strove for pacifism internationally as well as locally; they brought solidarity to our front doors. I feel positive that there is always something an individual or collective group can do to reach out and show support to other countries in distress. I am also questioning whether we are lacking this sense of solidarity and peacemaking now, which I evaluate further in a second article. I have had an uncomfortable realisation that many issues addressed over the course of these articles can be directly related to today’s struggles (inequality, discrimination, oppression, exploitation to name a few). Perhaps we are led to think about more conflicts going on around the world but we may be doing less to help now, than we were in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It is my pleasure to take you through some major turning points and highlights of W2W4P. I want to draw upon their links to Wales, explain what they stood for and to take some lessons from this organisation in the hope that you too are inspired to keep fighting to make a difference.

Women to Women for Peace visit Cuba, 1998

 

In 1998, four delegates of W2W4P (including a Welsh representative) were given the opportunity to travel to Cuba for the ‘International Independence, Sovereignty and Peace’ conference. There were roughly 3,000 women from 75 countries present and they were all women from dramatically diverse circumstances. This represents an amazing collaboration of peace organisations across the globe who were all striving for the same goal; peace. This was a chance to build bridges with other organisations worldwide and such links were made with peace workers from Brazil, Cyprus, US, Italy, Cuba, Ireland and many more. There were many positive far-reaching consequences from the experience; strong networks were built on cooperation and it showed that international solidarity can counteract powerful negative influences.

A highlight of the Cuba visit was a speech from Fidel Castro. In his speech he passionately explained his world view – that the world’s preoccupation with profit was at the cost of humanity … for the sake of the global economy. This statement rang alarm bells for me as it seems there are parallels with our situation in 2018, hence my view that we need a resurgence of a group such as W2W4P.

Women from Cuba and America visit Wales, 2001
The most successful outcome of the W2W4P visit to Cuba in ‘98 was the building of friendships with women from Cuba and America; this led to a reunion in Wales in 2001. W2W4P were eager to raise further, real awareness of the Cuban situation because they had witnessed first-hand the extent of the suffering that Cuba was enduring because of the blockade imposed by America; far more than had ever been published by the media. The ladies from the peacemaking organisations across the three countries all sought this opportunity to develop closer and stronger relations with each other, to deepen the understanding of the situations in each country and to bring awareness to Wales about the injustice of the American Blockade. It was the perfect opportunity for the ladies of Cuba and America, two conflicting countries, to tell their official and unofficial story of the US blockade as a method of spreading the message and fighting for peace. It was quite special to have women from Cuba and America over to Wales to enjoy and appreciate our city of Cardiff, vibrantly multicultural and home to fascinating buildings such as the Temple of Peace.

Veronica Alvarez, of the Cuban peacemaking organisation that visited was warmed by the kindness and concern of W2W4P because it showed a humbling sign of solidarity, that other countries and people care for peace in societies other than their own. One of the American visitors Robin Melavalin had some encouraging words about W2W4P; that they were impressive and showed an excellent model for peacemaking. Robin was able to meet people from Cuba in a neutral country and have time to get to know them. It really helped build bridges, relations and gain a key understanding of an array of perspectives on international issues confronting them.

Lessons we should take away from Women to Women for Peace movements
The W2W4P delegates who attended the conference in Cuba witnessed a multiracial society with no visible signs of prejudice or discrimination. This ought to be a lesson that many countries and communities today could take away with them. Cuban citizens also held a political and economic view about the blockade which was very reasoned and factual; the people showed no signs of aggression or bitterness towards their political oppressor America; another lesson that some nations could learn.

The ladies from W2W4P who spent time in Cuba noticed that partly because of the blockade Cuban streets were visibly deteriorating and crumbling due to lack of resources and materials, yet the atmosphere was still vibrant with a huge amount of culture that was itching to be shared. It was moving to experience a country who was suffering terribly but who still stood strong, where people were passionate and proud to be who they were. Isn’t this the kind of lens through which we need to look at Palestine, Iraq, Yemen or Afghanistan, for example? Each have their own cultural and political background yet are under immense pressure to conform to a particular version of democracy. The work of W2W4P brings me to the daunting conclusion that we still don’t seem to be capable or accepting a multi-faceted world.

One thing that is apparent here is that media has a powerful influence over international conflicts and issues, by promoting often superficial views. W2W4P’s visit to Cuba, and the return visit to Wales made it possible to witness and understand the true impact of the American blockade – aspects that weren’t seen in the media. What Cuba and America’s differences came down to and what we still witness today is that they have different political systems, a different ideology and different priorities which is part and parcel of a multipolar world. The government and organisations in Cuba were able to create solidarity with organisations across the globe, and it is in my belief that every country still needs to fight for this. Today, we are still witnessing vicious cycles of exploitation and suffering and although peace may be unattainable to many, the situation could still be improved. The first step is perhaps to create awareness, as is shown in the story of W2W4P.

For more information and stories from the Women to Women for Peace successes, please read my other article about the time when women from Israel and Palestine came to visit Wales!

Sources:
Mothers for Peace report on International Encounter of Solidarity among Women: Havana, Cuba – April 1998.
Jane Harries, ‘Pesar de todo…’, The Friend, 31 July 1998.
Emma James, ‘Mothers rise above the arguments of nations’, The Western Mail. 22 August 2001.
Sheila Ward, ‘A Most Remarkable Old Lady: Mother For Peace: Lucy Behenna’, Quaker Home Service, London, 1989

The future of international development?

By Rosa Brown

The International Development Secretary Priti Patel is not one to shy away from controversy. However, last month Patel appears to have outdone herself as she revealed her desire to use the UK’s aid budget for post-Brexit trade deals. In an interview with the BBC, Patel asserted that “We have to make sure that our aid works in our national interest and also that it works for our taxpayers – much more openness, much more transparency and much more accountability.” priti_patel_20161

Patel’s vision for the Department for International Development (DfID) would be concerning had it belonged to any public official. But coming from the current International Development Secretary, it sounds ill-conceived at best. To insert the taxpayer at the heart of DfID’s objectives completely neglects the countries, communities and individuals reliant on UK funding. These are the people Patel should be talking about, many of whom have been empowered by the inter-governmental organisations supported by the aid budget.

The UK’s position on the world’s stage is recognised by Patel but used to justify her take on aid, “we have a strong footprint overseas and it is right that we use that footprint in the national interest”.

Whether the UK will have such a ‘strong footprint overseas’ if Patel gets her way is questionable to say the least. Patel’s crackdown on inefficient use of public money has also inspired the MP to claim that her department should no longer support the UN’s cultural body, UNESCO. This recent move earnt the MP a ‘major rap on the knuckles’ from No 10, according to a senior government official who spoke to The Sun newspaper last week.

Whilst some have wondered whether Patel’s sole objective is to make the UK appear greedy and cruel, I think she is genuinely convinced that free trade agreements are the answer to economic prosperity for the UK. But for poor countries, free trade agreements have been found to drive economies into deeper poverty. It has been over twenty years since the Northern American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted between the United States, Canada and Mexico. Since the agreement, Mexico’s annual per capital growth flat-lined to an average of 1.2 percent, which happens to be one of the lowest rates in the hemisphere. Twenty million Mexicans currently live in ‘food poverty’, with twenty five percent of the population unable to access basic food. This increase in poverty in the country has helped nurture organised crime recruitment and the breakdown of local communities.

Not all of Mexico’s problems can be blamed on NAFTA. But it is possible to trace a direct link between the agreement and the country’s declining economy; as NAFTA was responsible for closing alternative development paths for the economy in its prohibition of protective tariffs. The impact of NAFTA upon Mexico’s economy indicates the dangers caused by the removal of such tariffs, along with the fact that these agreements are rarely ever ‘free’.6624096043_60551c99cb_o

The implications of Patel’s comments on the international aid budget cannot be detached from its post-Brexit context. These comments have come at a time when many political agreements relating to the EU are riddled with uncertainty. Now Patel has used the topic of Brexit trade agreements as a topical soundbite to deliver her stress on ‘value for money’ for the ‘good, hardworking, British taxpayer’. But this is a time when it is more important than ever to look outward rather than in, to work with others, to help others, rather than simply act upon British vested interests.

International development is not currently devolved in Wales. However the National Assembly has asserted its desire to engage in international issues, one shining example of which is the Wales for Africa Programme, launched to work in line with the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals. Now on the tenth anniversary of the programme, is an opportunity for the nation to celebrate Wales for Africa’s successes, but also look to the future to the work that can be done.

On the subject of the Wales for African Programme, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that the “people in Wales have big hearts. They belong in a small country but, oh man, they really have the kick of a mule!”. Now is the time to nurture our country’s commitment to international development and continue to empower those in poverty. Not for the sake of ‘strong footprints overseas’ but because it is simply the right thing to do.

From war to Olympic glory, the Refugee Olympic Team are competing for tolerance

Rio2016.jpg

By Fflur Jones

“We were the only four who knew how to swim. I had one hand with the rope attached to the boat as I moved my two legs and one arm. It was three and half hours in cold water.” This is 18-year old Syrian refugee Yusra Mardini explaining how her Olympic sport of swimming, saved her life whilst crossing the freezing Aegean Sea as she pushed a sinking dinghy to sanctuary saving 20 other lives.

Among the 200+ countries and territories competing in the Olympic Games in Rio, Mardini’s team stands out: Refugee Olympic Team (or ROT). The International Olympic Committee announced in March the creation of this team, the first of this kind, made up of 10 members who fled from 4 different countries: South Sudan, Ethiopia, Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The IOC’s open minded decision to include these athletes in these games comes at a period when refugees have been breaking records and not Olympic ones. Today, according to the UNHCR 63.5 million people have been displaced by conflict and persecution with 15 million refugees worldwide. 60% of these refugees come from 5 specific countries: Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan.

Each member’s road to Rio has been an uphill battle from the start, having to flee persecution whilst at the same time completing the gruelling training needed to secure a spot at the Olympic Games. Yet in the face of rising anti-immigration and xenophobic feelings in many developed countries can this team really change attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers?

Anti-immigration and racist sentiments have been growing in parts of Europe and the United States. Last year a renovated shelter destined for asylum seekers in the town of Vorra in Germany was subject to an arson attack, and many eastern European countries have used tear gas to prevent groups of refugees from crossing their borders. Time and time again we have heard the growing concerns over the mass of asylum seekers “flooding” the UK. In reality, refugees represent 0.19% of the UK’s population, whilst in Lebanon, a country 23 times smaller, 1 in 5 people are refugees. But despite these relatively low numbers, some British citizens still feel threatened by a mass influx of refugees, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council reporting significant increases in hate crimes nationwide since the Brexit vote. On the other side of the pond, Donald Trump’s angry rhetoric on Muslim communities and immigrants is also spreading like wildfire. This toxic mix of anger, hate and xenophobia has seemed to dominate recent headlines. But the Refugee Olympic team are hoping to challenge people’s views and opinions on the millions of refugees worldwide at this year’s Olympics.

IOC president Thomas Bach said that “By welcoming the team of Refugee Olympic Athletes to the Olympic Games Rio 2016, [he wants] to send a message of hope for all refugees in our world. Having no national team to belong to, having no flag to march behind, having no national anthem to be played, these refugee athletes will be welcomed to the Olympic Games with the Olympic flag and with the Olympic Anthem.”

This message has been embraced by all the team’s members; Popole Misenga, a ROT member from Congo (Judo) said that the team were “fighting for all the refugees in the world”.

Mardini, when asked if her experience of pushing the dinghy was traumatic responded with her trademark positivity: “Not at all. I remember that, without swimming, I would never be alive maybe because of the story of this boat. It’s a positive memory for me.” Very few Olympians can claim that their sport has saved their life.

She’s also stood up in defense of the refugees across the world saying that she “want[s] [Olympic fans] to think that refugees are normal humans that had to leave their homelands. Not because they wanted to, not because they wanted to be refugees or run away or have drama in their lives. They had to leave. To get a new life. Get a better life”.

Hers is not the only story of survival in the team. James Chiengjiek fled South Sudan at age 13 to avoid being forced into service as a child solider. Popole Misenga’s mother was murdered when he was a child in Democratic Republic of Congo; Yonas Kinde feared for his life in Ethiopia and eventually fled to Luxembourg. Each of member of the team bring their own story, their own culture and their own message to these Olympics. As Yusra Mardini said:  “We don’t have the same language. We’re all from different countries. But the Olympic flag united us together, and now we are representing 60 million [people] around the world. We want to show everyone that we can do anything. Good athletes. Good people.”

The Refugee Olympic Team are not only the flag bearers for millions of refugees across the world but are also carrying a message of hope and tolerance at a time when it is so desperately needed.

UK defence policy – under any political party – risks being penny wise and pound foolish

Iwan Benneyworth

For a brief time before the General Election campaign commenced, it seemed that UK defence policy was quietly making its way up the news agenda. What was generally regarded as a lower tier issue crowded out by more pressing concerns such as health, education and the economy, started to gain traction, which will tend to happen when you have Russian nuclear bombers buzzing our airspace.

Continue reading