The long-term impact of the migrant crisis in Germany

The International Organisation for Migration contend that the volume of individuals living outside their country of birth has risen from 80 million three decades ago to approximately 180 million people. These vast demographic changes to a state’s population frequently result in many differing threats to the nations societal, economic, political and security structures. A key example of the negative impact interstate migration can have on a state’s status quo is the ongoing societal and political fallout to the Syrian migration crisis in Germany. Traditionally migration into Germany had been steadily increasing in accordance with global migration trends, however the ongoing Syrian civil war resulted in the state’s net migration increasing by 49% through 1 million individuals forcibly migrating into the state in 2015. Stemming from this dramatic rise in population has been a wave of political and social disturbances linked to xenophobia, crime, and far-right nationalism, leading to questions surrounding the stability of the state.

After all, despite the involuntary nature of these individual’s migration, they are often equated as security threats to the presumptive receiving state and its citizens. Primarily, this perception is formed through the idea that vast numbers of refugees will increase both the speed and likelihood of multiculturalism and the breakdown of the German identity. Consequently, in response to this belief Germany has seen a drastic increase in the distribution of anti-migrant rhetoric and has even seen its number of hate crimes targeted specifically against refugee’s double between 2014 and 2015. The overall sentiment of mistrust and fear of refugees was clearly observable during the Leipizig riots in 2016, in which over 200 right-wing extremists where arrested for various crimes linked to weapons, explosives, narcotics and the German right to assemble, thus displaying a sense of lawlessness within Germany.

Unfortunately, the actions and ideas of far-right extremist takes the focus away from the vulnerabilities and human rights of the refugees seeking asylum and gives it to concerns regarding the security of the state, resulting in increased social anxieties and instability towards migration. In this sense, it is therefore not so much the refugees directly contributing to societal tension but rather the inability to consider them not to be security threats.

Significantly, the political structures within Germany have also experienced disturbances resulting from increasing flows of refugees. Correlating with trends throughout Europe, Germany has seen an exponential rise in support for far-right nationalist parties. The Alternative Für Deutschland (AFD) who support an intrinsically anti-migrant agenda have seen their share of the national vote grow from 4.7% in 2013 to 15% according to polls in 2016, which places them as the third biggest party in Germany. The rapid growth in support for the AFD can be considered to be a societal reaction against both potential racial assimilation within the state and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to give all Syrian refugee’s the ability to apply for asylum in Germany. Although the AFD does not currently have a realistic chance of becoming the dominant party in Germany, it’s success does force the more mainstream parties to engage in uneasy and unproductive coalitions in order to prevent the AFD gaining further support. These coalitions threaten to fragment the German political landscape through the slowing of the long-term productivity of the German political system.


Reflecting upon the article, one can contend that Germany is being negatively impacted by the migrant crisis in two ways. Firstly, the increasing flows of migration into Germany has led to the formation of a xenophobic and combative society, creating instability through race riots and racial discrimination as seen in the rise in hate crimes being committed against refugees. Secondly, because of xenophobia within society the political establishment is made unstable through a rise in support for anti-immigration parties. The rise in support for far-right parties increases the pressure on the ruling party to enact more nationalistic policies, however the enactment of such policies would only serve to legitimise claims that migration should be perceived as a security issue and that refugees are a threat to national stability.

To conclude , it is worth noting that these impacts stem from negative reactions to refugees rather than the refugees themselves. In this sense, is it possible that these repercussions would not exist if there was an absence of xenophobia within society? And, additionally would there be such reactions if the hardship and human rights of the refugees were recognised and focused upon?


States or Companies? Whose responsible for the dumping of plastic into the ocean

A 2016 report produced by the Ellen MacArthur foundation studying the impact that the growing importance of plastic in global economies is having on the level of sea pollution in the region found that plastic production has increased twenty fold since 1964 and reached 311 million tonnes in 2014. Additionally, the report noted that currently the equivalent of one garbage truck of waste is being dumped into the ocean every minute and this figure is likely to double or triple by 2030 and 2050 if no action is taken. However, despite the damning evidence and blatant impact that rising levels of plastic in the world’s oceans is having on the environment there has been little to no interest in solving the crisis from the country’s most responsible:

  • China
  • Indonesia
  • Philippines
  • Vietnam
  • Thailand

These five South-East Asian countries contribute to 60% of plastic in the world’s oceans. A contribution which has been steadily rising at a time correlating with the increasing westernisation and industrialisation of the state’s economies. This correlation has slowed the process of solving the environmental crisis as there has been increasing debates as to where responsibility truly lies, as the responsible states have been keen to highlight the significant role that Western companies indirectly play in the dumping of plastic. Is it therefore possible that those directly dumping are not mainly responsible for the roughly 8 million tonnes of plastic being dumped into the ocean each year? And will the dumping continue and potentially grow if neither side is willing to acknowledge their accountability?

The core argument framing Western companies as the main culprits of plastic pollution in South-East Asian countries revolves around noting the impact the selling of cheap small products made in disposable non-recyclable plastic has on the environment. The size of the products sold by these companies is the most significant factor noted by the leaders of China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand as well as environmental actors such as Greenpeace. These states and NGOs contend that Western companies take advantage of people on low and limited incomes to sell cheap goods in small quantities without any thought for the environmental impact. The selling of goods in this manner has led to the coining of the phrase ‘Sachet economy’, and the Philippines is a great example of this, as products such as instant coffee, shampoo, cooking oil, food seasoning and tooth paste are sold in single use sachets to a country of 103 million people where the high levels of poverty minimise the financial ability of bulk buying. The problems resulting from ‘sachet economies’ are only likely to worsen as the increasing modernisation and westernisation of these states economies has led to a dramatic increase in demand for consumer products, and yet there is no interest from the western companies producing the small cheap goods polluting our oceans due to there being no acknowledgment of responsibility and financial benefit for them.


However, Western companies such as Nestle cannot be held totally accountable for the increasing rates of plastic pollution. In fact, in a 2016 report Greenpeace criticised and declared both Western companies and the South-East Asian countries as culpable for sea pollution. Using the Philippines as an example once again, Greenpeace found that 1.88 million tonnes of plastic being dumped into the ocean was in fact recyclable. This statistic becomes less shocking when one considers that 74% of plastic being dumped by the Philippines happens after the waste has been collected. In this sense, even if Western companies did improve the recyclability and size of its goods, it remains unlikely that we would see a drop-in the levels of plastic in the ocean unless collection facilities and transport systems were modernised.

This is a trend that is present throughout the five countries most responsible for dumping as on average only 50% of their total trash is collected. Therefore, a key method of improving levels of plastic in the ocean would be a modernising and expanding of garbage services, as well as closing leakage points in collection facilities, improving education on the benefits of recycling and increasing the financial incentives linked to being environmentally friendly. Should some or all of these suggestions be adopted then these five countries could reduce their plastic leakage by 65%, which would cut global leakage by 45% by 2025 at a cost of just $5 billion a year according to the Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment. However, the determination from these South-East Asian countries to grow economically at the expense of any other concerns including environmental makes the implementation of such changes extremely unlikely.

What is therefore required is a recognition of responsibility from both the Western companies supplying one-use throw away goods and the South-East Asian countries allowing the dumping to occur. Once there has been this recognition then the childish squabbling can cease and there can finally be effective discussions about how to end this growing crisis. Yet, when one considers that financial concerns consistently trump environmental worries then the implementation of real and lasting change on the volume of plastic being dumped into the ocean unfortunately remains slim.

How has America avoided paying compensation for Vietnamese Agent Orange victims

During my time in Vietnam, I found myself to be deeply moved by both the warmness of the Vietnamese people and the long-lasting influence of the war over fifty years later. The most recognisable by-product of the American war in Vietnam is the social, cultural and economic impact of the US’ use of Agent orange. Over the course of the war, in order to decimate Vietcong supply lines and food, America is thought to have dropped roughly 12 million gallons of the defoliant covering 12% of Vietnam’s land area. Alongside its ability to remove the leaves from trees and plants, Agent orange also contains dioxin which is widely considered in the scientific community to be the deadliest toxin known to man. It is therefore of no surprise that roughly 400,00 people were killed as a direct result of the distribution of Agent orange.

However, it is arguably the long-term impacts of Agent orange that a far more harrowing and saddening. You see, the toxin dioxin in Agent orange has been found to cause rashes, skin irritations, various forms of cancer, psychological disturbances and extreme birth defects which can last from at least the first to the fourth generation of families exposed to the defoliant. Currently there is roughly 3 million people living with cancer or other diseases due to agent orange exposure and since the war half a million children have been born with serious birth defects. Yet whilst America veterans and their next of kin have been paid a total of $180 million of compensation from the US Government and seven companies which manufactured the weapon, the hardship and ongoing struggle of the Vietnamese have been consistently ignored. Is it therefore possible that there is a lack of interest from both America and the wider international community in acknowledging the extreme suffering of the Vietnamese as a direct result of agent orange exposure? And is it possible that America has once again been able to publicly disobey international law, this time relating to chemical weapons, and has been able to get away with it purely because they are America?

Indeed there is plenty of evidence that supports this claim. For instance, as previously noted in 1984 chemical company Monsanto and several other companies agreed to a compensation package of $180 million to be paid to American veterans who may have suffered personally or their families have subsequently suffered from medical complications linked to Agent orange exposure. The conclusion reached within this court case seems to signify both an acceptance of Agent orange as a chemical weapon and an acknowledgement of guilt and responsibility from the companies hired to compose the defoliant. Yet, when a virtually identical case was finally raised on behalf of the 3 million Vietnamese suffering from the consequences of Agent orange exposure, the judge dismissed the case and sided with the chemical companies, despite the previous ruling in 1984. To justify his decision, Judge Jack Weinstein from Brooklyn, the same judge who heard the 1984 case, argued that the dropping of Agent orange did not amount to a war crime and therefore the companies held no responsibility due to their being no treaty, express or implied in the United States that conceived herbicides to be a weapon of war.



The conclusion reached within the 2004 case enabled the chemical companies such as Monsanto to deflect blame on the US government and continue to not acknowledge and pay victims of a chemical weapon they created. The narrowmindedness of the judge in this instance is staggering if he truly believes a defoliant which not only killed 400,000 people but has also detrimentally changed the lives of 3 million people can only be considered an herbicide. The discrepancies within the judicial process in America in cases related to Agent orange is clearly evident when you consider that the only two differences between the two cases in 1984 and 2004 is the nationalities of those seeking compensation and the conclusion.

Worryingly, the lack of interest in acknowledging and compensating Vietnamese victims of Agent orange is not limited to the judicial system in America. The United States Congress repeatedly heard and repeatedly struck down proposals on legislation which would give compensation to Vietnamese victims towards the end of the 20th century. In the 21st century, the flows of legislation relating to Agent orange has drastically slowed, with the most recent example being the proposed Victims of Agent orange relief act 2013 which died in Congress. The act would have directed the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Veterans affairs to provide assistance for Vietnamese individuals affected by exposure to Agent orange. However, the passing of such a bill would be an admission of guilt by the US government that they knowingly released a chemical loaded with poison on civilian populations. Of course, this is the case as even at the beginning of the Vietnam war dioxin was known to be the most toxic chemical known to man, yet justice will never be given to Vietnamese victims as an admission of knowledge by America would violate the rule of law that requires a distinction between military and civilian objects which is enshrined through The Hague Convention, Nuremberg principles, Geneva Conventions 1949, Optional Protocol of 1977 and the International Criminal Court statue. Therefore, making America completely guilty of war crimes against the Vietnamese public and yet America will never admit guilt, nor will any other country hold the US too its crimes due to its influence over the global economy, leaving victims of Agent orange uncompensated and unheard.

Reflecting upon the article, you can truly feel the hopelessness for Vietnamese victims of Agent orange seeking some form of compensation or even an apology for their suffering from America and the chemical companies. Unfortunately, however the 3 million Vietnamese living with deformities or cancer due to Agent orange exposure have joined the long list of war crimes committed by America stretching back to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima that will never be recognised, apologised or compensated for. The true irony of this unfortunate situation is that had a different country dropped Agent orange on civilians then America would likely lead the prosecution. Yet, as has become evident over time America abides by a different set of international rules and laws making it exempt from prosecution for war crimes.



Is there a stigma surrounding breast cancer in the British South Asian community?

Data collated by the American Cancer Society found breast cancer to be the second most common cancer for women, with roughly 1 in 8 developing an invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) at some point in their lifetime. Similar statistics are found within studies focusing on global cancer trends, yet there is still a sizeable stigma attached to receiving treatment for the disease in certain cultures. In fact, recently a multitude of news outlets have reported there to be cases where the victim has died from breast cancer due to a reluctance to seek diagnosis and medical help. In this sense, one must question how a stigma can exist that is seen as so socially damaging that it comes before the victims own health or on the other hand the desire to protect and ensure the survival of a family member or friend.

In Britain, the South Asian community is most frequently associated with carrying a breast cancer stigma. Primarily, the stigma attached to breast cancer comes from perceiving the disease as a taboo subject culminating in a lack of understanding about the causes, symptoms and treatments associated with an IDC. The minimal knowledge surrounding the disease enables the spread of incorrect and stigmatising cultural and religious beliefs which make women less likely to seek diagnosis and medial help. Most commonly, the damning religious belief found within the South Asian community in the UK is that the finding of a cancerous lump is due to that individual living a sinful life and thus God is punishing her.

Widespread support for this belief likely results in an increase self-misdiagnosis of breast cancer as a skin abnormality in order to avoid the idea that God is punishing you, as well as a rise in depression amongst those diagnosed with breast cancer due to feeling deserted by both their community and their religion. In this case it should be considered unsurprising that a report conducted by Bridgewater NHS in 2015 found South Asian women aged between 15-64 years had a significantly reduced survival rate for breast cancer.

A final influencing factor on the stigma attached to breast cancer to be considered is the impact of the cultural expectations of how the wife and family should be. Principally these expectations are related to the marriage prospects of both the children and the patient. In the case of the children, the lack of widespread knowledge about cancer means that it is perceived as a certain cause of death for any future generations who are directly linked to the original patient. In this sense, admittance and seeking medical help for breast cancer has detrimental ramifications for the marriage prospects of the children.

Furthermore, the importance placed upon purity extends to the wife as well as the children with there being multiple reports of an unwillingness to go for smear tests due to fear of being considered defiled by the community. These two consequences further highlight the extreme and long-lasting implications of breast cancer stigma within the South Asian community in the UK.

Seemingly the main cause of breast cancer stigma in South Asian community’ in the UK is the absence of factual knowledge about the disease enabling the spread of cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, one must question whether increased funding for teaching and training about how to spot breast cancer and the dangers of it would have an immediate impact on the rates of South Asian women surviving the disease?

4 things you didn’t know about the DUP

Since the Conservative party’s failure to acquire a working majority in the House of Commons, the Democratic Unionist party of Northern Ireland have been at the forefront of discussions regarding the future of British politics. Through seemingly holding the key to the continuation of the Conservatives agenda, the DUP have been able to acquire an unprecedented £1 billion in additional funding for Northern Ireland despite warranted protestation from Wales and Scotland as well as accusations of threatening the continuation of the Good Friday Agreement. While there has been much coverage of the DUP’s policies and beliefs shown in their 2017 electoral manifesto, this article has identified four key facts about the DUP which have been overlooked by mainstream media. The facts identified seemingly infer that historically the DUP have been continually linked to Ulster Loyalist paramilitary groups, therefore questioning their suitability for a case by case allegiance with the Conservative party.

  • DUP was founded by a protestant fundamentalist preacher

Ian Paisley founded the DUP in 1971 after forging a successful and influential career as a protestant evangelical minister. Using this influence, Paisley involved himself in ulster unionist/loyalist politics and eventually become identifiable as the face of hard-line unionism which opposed any effort at power sharing between the unionist and Irish nationals. In this sense, Paisley rejected the principles of peace outlined in the Good Friday Agreement and in fact attempted to form a loyalist union militia out of reaction to the beginning of the Northern Irish peace process. Notably, Paisley’s extremist views were also evident within his sermons which were frequently anti-Catholicism, anti-ecumenism and in particular anti-homosexuality. The anti-homosexuality sentiment seen within Paisley’s religious and political views culminated in the formation of the ‘save ulster from sodomy’ campaign in 1977. The campaign headed by Paisley was formed in opposition to the Northern Ireland campaign for homosexual law reform and regularly involved picketing gay rights events whilst also denouncing homosexuality as a crime against god which would inevitably lead to the total demoralisation of society, an opinion Paisley held onto throughout his political career. Although, it is worth noting that Paisley’s views did become more progressive in a political sense, as seen through his acceptance of the St. Andrews agreement in 2007 which ensured shared power between the DUP and the Republican Sinn Fein.

  • In 2017 the DUP was endorsed by the Loyalist Committees Council whose members include groups proscribed under the Terrorist Act 2000

In the build, up to the 2017 General Election the DUP received endorsement by the Loyalist Committee’s Council who are regarded as an umbrella collective of loyalist paramilitary groups which have been labelled as being engaged in terrorist activities. Notable groups within the DCC are the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Red hand committee who all were charged with engaging in politically motivated guerrilla terrorist attacks including murder during the troubles for the purposes of conserving the union. Unsurprisingly, resulting from the committee’s links with domestic terrorism, the DUP’s leader Arlene Foster rejected the endorsement and cited the party’s fundamental objection to support from groups involved in paramilitarism and criminality.

On the other hand, despite this, the support given to the DUP from the Loyalist Committee Council is reflective of the party’s historical ties with far-right extremism. After all, as previously noted the DUP’s founder Ian Paisley was seen as a leading figure in the resistance to the peace process in Northern Ireland and even tried to form his own paramilitary group. In this sense, one can conclude that despite the rejection by the modern DUP, support and ties with right wing extremism is continually evident throughout the party’s history.

  • The DUP support the Orange order

The DUP has historically been a member of and voiced their support for the Orange order organisation. The Orange order organisation was formed in 1795 as an international protestant fraternal organisation which is primarily based in Northern Ireland. The Orange order was founded with the sole aim of protecting and furthering global Protestantism through the defence of civil and religious liberties including being anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality. Furthermore, due to their fundamental protestant standing, the Orange order do not accept non-protestant members unless they convert and maintain protestant values, as a consequence critics of the order have accused it of being sectarian, triumphalist and supremacist. The sentiment of superiority and supremacy within society from the Orange order frequently results in divisions within society and also infers that the policies of the DUP will favour protestants over Catholics. A claim further supported when one considers that the sermons of the DUP’s founder Ian Paisley were frequently anti-Catholic and anti-ecumenism.

Equally, critics assert that the Orange order also supports loyalist paramilitary groups such as the UVA, thus proving the legitimacy of the claim that the DUP has ties to far-right extremism in Northern Ireland. Worryingly, the Orange order is seemingly deliberately provoking violence and religious hatred within society by conducting pro-protestant marches through known Catholic and nationalist neighbourhoods. Therefore, the DUP’s suitability for the role it currently holds in British politics is incredibly questionable given its close relationship with an organisation which is intentionally inciting violence in Northern Irish society.

  • Arlene Foster oversaw the Renewable Heat initiative which collapsed over claims of corruption and overspending.

The failure of the Renewable Heat initiative and the political fall-out which followed has arguably been the greatest controversy in Northern Irish politics in the last five years. Overseen by now DUP leader Arlene Foster in her role as Minister for enterprise, trade and investment, the renewable heat initiative was designed to pay applicants to use renewable energy instead of more environmentally harmful fuels, however the rate paid was more than the cost of heating, meaning that the applicant was constantly making a profit. In fact, the lack of proper cost control and knowledge of the price of energy is projected to cost the tax payers roughly £500 million. However, despite being in charge and thus holding clear culpability, DUP leader Arlene Foster refused to stand down during the allegations on the basis that doing so would admit guilt. Consequently, Sinn Fein leader and deputy minister of the Northern Irish assembly Martin McGuiness resigned in protest to Foster’s stubbornness and determination to remain as DUP party leader and minister of the Northern Irish assembly. In this sense, Foster’s inability to admit her guilt for the renewable heat initiative controversy threw the balance of Northern Irish politics into turmoil.

Notably, Fosters replacement as minister for enterprise, trade and investment Jonathan Bell claimed he was pressured and forced by the DUP to keep the renewable heat initiative operational despite its clear faults. Intriguingly, Bell’s outspokenness resulted in him being suspended from the DUP, thus implying there is a need for conformity within the party and that differing opinions on policy are not welcomed. In the end, the political fall-out and resignation of key members of the Northern Irish Assembly lead to a snap election being called on March 2nd 2017, in which the DUP registered a catastrophic set of results and lost 10 MLA’s which placed the party only one seat ahead of Sinn Fein as Northern Ireland’s dominant party.

To conclude, the article has shown that the DUP’s history has been continuously dogged by controversy and links to far-right Northern Irish extremism. Therefore, one must truly question whether the DUP is the best party for the Conservatives to enter a case by case agreement with. Despite this, the reality is that the DUP are now a vital aspect of British politics and will remain so regardless of their questionable views and history.

By Jonathan Evans