Battle Over French Identity Continues to Rage

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB] Times & Transcript

Following his re-election for a second term as president of France, Emmanuel Macron delivered his acceptance speech at the Elysée Palace May 7 with an addendum to the French motto, with the words “liberté, égalité, fraternité et laicité.”

The French principle of “laicité” governing the separation of church and state has long been central to France’s democracy. The goal has been to guarantee freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

This has relevance to Canada, as Quebec takes this position as well. Passed in 2019, Bill 21, “An Act Respecting the Laicité of the State,” prohibits any public employee, including teachers, police officers, government lawyers, and others in positions of authority in Quebec, from wearing religious symbols in the workplace. Its opponents claim it discriminates against minorities, particularly Muslims.

In France, then French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in 2009 that the burqa, an Islamic garment that conceals the face, was “not welcome on the territory of the French Republic.” A year later, the French National Assembly passed a law “prohibiting the concealment of the face in public space.”

Six years earlier, another ban had sparked debates pertaining to religious accommodation, religious identity, citizenship, Republicanism, and, most notably, laicité, usually translated as secularism. The March 2004 law stipulated that “in public schools, the wearing of symbols or clothing by which students conspicuously manifest a religious appearance is forbidden.”

Laicité is deeply embedded in French national culture, dating back to the French Revolution, which abolished all the privileges held by institutions which had dominated the French social and political landscape, including the Roman Catholic Church.

The final blow was struck in 1905 with the promulgation of the 1905 “French Law on the Separation of the Churches and State.” Public funding of faith-based schools ceased, ownership of religious buildings was transferred to the state, and the display of religious symbols was abolished.

The legislation reinforced the neutrality of the state on religious matters while simultaneously demarcating the boundary between the private and public spheres. But in the very different circumstances of 21^st century France, with its large Muslim population, this debate has been renewed.

On Oct. 16, 2020, French schoolteacher Samuel Paty was beheaded by an Islamist zealot after showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the prophet Muhammad to his class. Soon after, a group of French academics published a “Manifesto of the Hundred” in the Oct. 21 newspaper Le Monde, denouncing what they termed French academia’s persistent denial of Islamism.

On Nov. 2, another group of academics published a rebuttal in Le Monde, accusing the signatories of “an attack on civil liberties and the democratic rule of law,” of which academic freedom constituted an integral part. They accused their one hundred colleagues of waging a “McCarthyist witch hunt.”

While identity theory, or communautarisme as it is known in France, with its definition of communities along racial, ethnic, or religious lines, has not caught on among the public, it has gained considerable traction in academic circles. Macron himself warned against social science theories “imported” from the United States.

So the dispute not only underscored the fight between contending approaches to Islamism but also the transformation of French universities into a battleground between those seeking to preserve France’s universalist and secularist values and proponents of “multicultural” and “decolonization” theories, which often view Islamism as a legitimate response to long-standing white colonial oppression.

Despite the French left’s tradition of opposing religious symbols in the public sphere and its support of religion as belonging in the private domain, some currently denounce France’s limitations on religious symbols as evidence of Islamophobia. It has even been suggested that the law exploits laicité by making it an excuse for increasing anti-Muslim prejudice.

For instance, sociology professor Jean-François Bayart of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, asserted the existence of a “capitalist Islamophobia” in the Le Monde of Oct. 31, 2020, and claimed that a “republican McCarthyism” was at the heart of the French state and media.

Because France has one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe and its universities are widely seen as guardians and transmitters of the nation’s universalist values, the outcome of the debate will continue to have far-reaching implications.

 

U.S. Reverses Course on Saudi Arabia

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Running for election in 2020, presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to make Saudi Arabia an outcast as punishment for the killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

He had declared that he would make the Saudis “pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are,” for orchestrating the Khashoggi murder, while adding that there was “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia.”

The new president froze weapons sales to the country pending a review of how they would be used and informed the Saudis he would deal only with King Salman rather than Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, whom he held responsible for ordering the assassination.

Rebuking the Saudis allowed the Biden administration to get off to a good start with Democratic members of Congress. It was a seemingly cost-free political win.

But with the price of a gallon of gasoline exceeding five dollars in much of the country, Biden has begun making efforts to mend ties with Riyadh and the crown prince, its de-facto ruler since 2017.

OPEC OIL CARTEL

For months, the OPEC oil cartel, which is led by the kingdom, balked at calls to relieve the pressure on global petroleum prices. But earlier this month it announced that it would finally bend to global demand and increase oil production by about 50 per cent in the coming months.

This breakthrough tracks conspicuously with the news Biden will be making a visit to Saudi Arabia next month and will meet with the crown prince. The trip comes as overriding U.S. strategic interests in oil and security have pushed the administration to rethink the arms-length stance that Biden had pledged to take with the Saudis.

Biden can’t afford to take the high road now. After all, other states have been moving into the vacuum. In March, Saudi Arabia announced that it was close to agreeing with Beijing to price some of its oil sales to China in yuan and not dollars, thereby damaging the U.S. dollar’s dominance of the global petroleum market.

If nothing else, this is hugely symbolic and showed deep unease with Biden’s administration. Saudi Arabia is China’s top crude supplier — it sells more than 25 per cent of its output to Beijing — and the kingdom remains committed to supplying crude oil to China.

Saudi Minister of Economy and Planning Faisal al-ibrahim indicated that Riyadh is also interested in collaborating with China on issues ranging from climate change to curbing inflation.

China is Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner — an arrangement that extends to military cooperation. Beijing is offering Riyadh a simple deal: Sell us your oil and in return, help us to stabilize global energy markets. In other words, the Chinese are offering what increasingly appears modeled on the American-saudi deal that stabilized the Middle East for 70 years.

The Saudis fear Iran above all and now look at America’s attempts to curry favour with the Tehran regime with anger. They view the current attempts to renegotiate the nuclear treaty with the Islamic republic as an assault

Biden can’t afford to take the high road now. After all, other states have been moving into the vacuum.

on the regional order that the United States established in the aftermath of the Second World War.

And Iran is getting ever closer to becoming a fullfledged nuclear power. It has started to remove 27 surveillance cameras from nuclear sites in the country, according to Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who warned the world about the move on June 9.

Now that the Iranians reportedly have enough fissile material for a nuclear device, the United States will have to rally a regional coalition, with Saudi Arabia as a central member, to contain and deter Iran. So a Washington turnabout has become imperative.

UKRAINE WAR

As well, the war between Russia and Ukraine has made it also necessary for Biden to rebuild relations with the Saudis as he seeks to lower gas prices and isolate Moscow.

The administration was pleased that Saudi Arabia joined an American-backed United Nations resolution condemning Russia in March and that more recently Riyadh sent a message pressing the Kremlin to release food exports blockaded at the Ukrainian port of Odesa.

Also, in early April, a twomonth truce between the warring parties in Yemen went into effect, providing some hope for a reduction of violence in a seven-year war in which the Saudis have been heavily involved, one that has roiled the Arabian Peninsula and caused a humanitarian crisis.

Biden welcomed the truce and praised the role played by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ahead of the president’s trip to Riyadh. The visit will represent the triumph of realpolitik over moral outrage.

 

Boris Johnson is Running Out of Road

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB] Times & Transcript

At least Volodymyr Zelensky likes him – unlike many of his fellow Conservative members of parliament!

“I'm glad we haven't lost an important ally, this is great news,” the Ukrainian president said about British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an interview at a virtual conference hosted by the Financial Times on June 7.

This followed a major revolt in Johnson’s own caucus that saw 148 of his own Tory MPs vote to remove him a day earlier. He retained the support of 211 members.

Though he scored a sweeping election victory in 2019, Johnson has faced a backlash from MPs and the public after he was fined by police for breaking his own lockdown laws at a 2020 party at 10 Downing Street, where the prime minister lives and works.

The Gray Report, a finding by a senior civil servant, criticized failures of leadership, where officials and staff were issued with a total of 123 fines for breaking COVID rules on indoor gatherings during the pandemic.

Johnson contended it was the wrong time for “unforced domestic political drama” while Ukraine was fighting Russia. He won the backing of 59 per cent of his MPs, describing the result as “extremely good, positive, conclusive” and insisting his leadership was now secure.

Not so fast. This is a wound that may result in a political death sooner rather than later. A sign? He was met with jeers and boos at events to celebrate the Platinum Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II.

Johnson’s own anti-corruption champion John Penrose resigned. “I think it’s over. It feels now like a question of when not if,” he told Sky News.

For many in Britain, the revelations of what went on in Downing Street, including fights and alcohol-induced vomiting, while many people were prevented from saying goodbye to loved ones at funerals, were difficult to stomach. One such gathering took place on eve of the April 2001 funeral for Prince Philip.

Perhaps only someone with as privileged a background and with such an obvious sense of entitlement as Johnson’s can try to shake this off.

Precedents are certainly not in Johnson’s favour. Backbench MPs in the Conservative Party have far more independence than their Canadian counterparts and have forced other leaders out in the past.

In a vote over her Brexit policy, Theresa May survived a confidence vote with a majority of 83 in December 2018. Despite winning, she resigned as prime minister six months later, leading to Johnson becoming leader.

 Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith lost a confidence vote in October 2003 and resigned, while John Major triggered a contest in 1995 by resigning as leader (though not as prime minister) amid disagreements inside the party over the country’s place in Europe. Though he beat challenger John Redwood, he went on to lose the 1997 election.

 Most famously, despite 11 mostly successful years in office, Margaret Thatcher resigned as prime minster in 1990 after failing to win an outright victory as party leader. She beat Michael Heseltine by 204 votes to 152 but was persuaded to stand down by her own cabinet.

Although the leadership rules give Johnson a year’s respite from another such vote, party rebels could change the rules to force another attempt. Two by-elections in Conservative-held constituencies are scheduled for June 23. Should either or both fall to opposition parties, Johnson could find himself under further pressure to resign.

Likely successors include Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, Britain’s chief diplomat in the Ukraine crisis, who is also the country’s lead negotiator with the European Union on lingering issues following Britain’s exit from the bloc.

Another contender would be Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak. Born to Indian parents who moved to the U.K. from today’s Kenya and Tanzania, he would be Britain’s first prime minister of colour.

Jeremy Hunt, a former health secretary and foreign secretary, who ran against Johnson in the 2019 leadership race, billed himself as the more serious candidate. He lost heavily and was dumped from the cabinet when Johnson took over.

Finally, there’s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, a key government voice in Britain’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They’re all waiting and ready to take over.

 

Philippines Election: Back to the Future

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Waves seem to move through an ocean, yet the water always returns to its rest position, since the particles really travel in circles. So it’s a type of optical illusion. This is an apt metaphor for politics in the Philippines, now that a Marcos is back in power.

Filipinos are a Malay people who have a political culture unique to southeast Asia. Other than in the southern island of Mindanao, where there is a Muslim population, the vast majority are Roman Catholics.

Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines, the country named for King Philip II of Spain, began in 1565, with the arrival of an expedition from Mexico. It also saw the introduction of Christianity.

The Philippines was ruled under the Mexico-based Viceroyalty of New Spain, a vital link between Spain’s American empire and its Asian and South Pacific possessions, until Mexico became independent in 1821. After that, the colony was directly governed by Spain.

Because it was under Spanish rule for 333 years the Philippines has many affinities with Latin America, including its political culture.

The archipelago became an American possession after the 1898 Spanish-American War and was under U.S. tutelage for a further 48 years, until granted independence in 1946. This added a veneer of democracy to its political structures.

The country was wracked by political turmoil in the last quarter of the 20th century. After enduring more than a decade of authoritarian rule under President Ferdinand Marcos, the People Power movement in 1986 led a bloodless uprising against his regime.

Marcos had declared martial law in 1972 and took control of the country’s courts, businesses, and media. The army and police arrested and tortured thousands of dissidents. The years that followed were one of the darkest periods in the nation’s history, with widespread human rights abuses.

Marcos, his wife Imelda, and his cronies plundered an estimated $10 billion from public funds while millions of people lived in extreme poverty. They fled to Hawaii where Ferdinand Marcos died in exile three years later.

The 1986 uprising resulted not only in the ouster of Marcos but also in the restoration of democratic government to the Philippines. However, it remained a shaky superstructure.

What’s past is prologue, because the country has again seen rule by autocratic politicians since the election that brought Rodrigo Duterte to power in 2016. He ran on a populist platform and implemented a so-called War on Drugs that led to thousands of extra-legal deaths.

Duterte is facing an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity. Despite this, he retained the support of many in the Philippines, who see him as the man who tackled street crime and stood up to the country’s rich oligarchs.

Due to term limits, Duterte retired last year, and the 2022 presidential election saw Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, son of the late dictator, win the presidency in a landslide.

He gained 58.3 per cent of the vote in the May 9 balloting. Leni Robredo, the incumbent vice-president under Duterte, came a very distant second, with 28 per cent.

The young Marcos previously served in the Philippines House of Representatives and as governor of the family’s stronghold in the province of Ilocos Norte. He unsuccessfully ran for vice president in 2016.

His 2022 running mate, Sara Duterte, who is the new vice-president, is the daughter of outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte.

Rodrigo Duterte is close to the Marcos family and had Ferdinand Marcos buried in the country’s Heroes’ Cemetery when he took office. The families came together prior to the 2022 election and began a social media campaign to rebrand the old Marcos era as a golden age of crime-free prosperity.

The victorious pair were backed up by a host of powerful political names including former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who reportedly brokered their alliance, and the family of former president Joseph Estrada. They grouped together to oppose Robredo, who wanted to pass an anti-dynasty law.

According to a 2019 study by Manila’s Ateneo School of Government, about 80 per cent of governors belonged to “fat dynasties”, meaning clans with two or more members in power at the same. Political families also held 67 per cent of seats in the House of Representatives, and 53 per cent of mayoral posts

By staying away from all the presidential debates and refusing media interviews, Marcos also avoided having his family’s record challenged

The pro-Marcos propaganda campaign also benefited from widespread public disappointment over the failure of the post-1986 administrations to bring significant improvements to the lives of poorer Filipinos.

 “Judge me not by my ancestors, but by my actions,” Marcos said in a statement following his victory. But it is a blow to those in the Philippines who have campaigned for accountability for the abuses of the old Marcos era.