Thursday 19th November 2020 | PALATINATE
16
Politics
UAE honour killing punishments reconsidered
Barney Bolton Honour killings are attacks on women who are believed to have dishonored their families. The attacks take the form of physical abuse and, occasionally, murder. They are carried out for a variety of reasons including suspected pre- or extra-marital sex.
These changes aim to “consolidate the UAE’s principles of tolerance” On Saturday 7th November, President His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan announced an alteration of federal laws regarding the penal code of the UAE. These laws changed the historic leniency that had been shown when punishing honour crimes. In previous years, honour crimes carried sentences between three and fifteen years in prison. Following the changes made to the law, those who have been judged to have committed an honour killing will receive punishments of life imprisonment or execution, the same sentence as any murder. In addition to the alterations
regarding abuse, the government has amended laws on the cohabitation of unmarried couples as well as the possession and sale of alcohol for those over the age of 21. The Emirates news agency, WAM, stated that these changes aim to “consolidate the UAE’s principles of tolerance.” These amendments have been made to give a more secular and, to an extent, a more Western impression of the UAE. Former US president, Donald Trump, contributed significantly to the UAE’s previous efforts to alter their image. During his time in office, Trump played a part in the normalisation of relations between the UAE and neighboring Israel. Previously, the two nations had a shaky relationship, with the UAE not recognising Israel until 15th September 2020, when a Trump-driven deal was signed between the two. The deal was most likely signed to encourage the increase in investment from Israel to the UAE. Additionally, by improving relations, the oil-rich UAE stood to benefit from an increase in tourism, a sector which according to The Daily Mail makes up 5% of the nation’s GDP. The changes to laws regarding
honour killings follow in the same vein as the deal signed in September. The lenient punishments for honour criminals gave the UAE an image problem in the West. Potential investors have been put off by the Sharia law that dominates the country. The severity of Shariah law is alien to many Westerners and marked the UAE as fundamentally different from other developed nations. As well as encouraging investment into the UAE, these changes, which move towards a more secular government, have
likely been made to accommodate the number of expatriates living in the UAE. Dubai Online reports that in 2019, over 8.5 million migrants were living in the UAE, making up 87.9% of the total population. What is striking, and telling, in the population statistics of the UAE is the proportion of male to female citizens. Dubai online reports that in 2019 only 31% of the population of the UAE were female. A possible reason for this disparity is the historic mistreatment of women in the UAE, meaning that female
migrants may be deterred by the consequences of Sharia law. The laws aim to make westerners, and particularly women, feel more comfortable with the legal system of the UAE. The significant proportion of migrants, many of whom have come from Western countries, means that pressure has been applied to alter the laws of the country. Foreign business links have always been vital in an area that is driven by money and, by removing laws which disproportionately punish women, the UAE expects immigration and investment to rise. There is no doubt that the UAE is becoming more secular, with the laws moving the courts away from the traditional Islamic laws, but the extent to which the changes in the law have been installed to reassure natives is questionable. The recent alterations have been made predominantly for foreigners who may be uncomfortable with the current penal code. Regardless of the motive behind the changes, the UAE has made a positive step towards the improvement of human rights in the country.
(Chatham House, Flickr)
How did Trump dismantle Obama’s legacy? Jonty Head At the Democratic Conference back in August, Barack Obama said that President Trump had treated the presidency like a “reality show”, that he was only interested in helping “himself and his friends”, and criticised four years of “lies and conspiracy theories”. Tradition dictates that former US Presidents maintain a respectful silence about their successors. But, while Trump and Biden were battling for the presidency, Obama’s legacy was on the line, and he knew it. In the build up to the 2016 vote, Trump made no secret of his desire to reverse key Obamaera policies. Recently, he said that his predecessor was not a great president because ‘much of what he’s done we’ve undone.’ But how effectively has Trump managed to dismantle Obama’s legacy, and will Biden be able to restore it?
Healthcare Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was perhaps Obama’s proudest achievement in (Michael Vadon via Creative Commons)
office. It aimed to ensure that all Americans would have access to affordable health insurance. Key features included offering tax credits to help cover the cost of government-sponsored health insurance plans and regulating the private market to protect those with pre-existing medical conditions from having their applications for health insurance turned down. Despite his frequent criticism of the policy, Trump never managed to repeal the ACA, nor to gain sufficient support for an alternative. While
Biden has resisted pressure from the left of the Democratic party for an NHS-style “Medicare for All”, in the days since winning the election he has pledged to expand the ACA. This will prove tricky while the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, but shows that he plans to build on Obama’s healthcare legacy rather than rescind it.
Immigration Obama’s only real legacy in terms of immigration was the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. Introduced in 2012, this provided those who had been brought into the US illegally as children with a temporary legal status. Attempts by Trump to end the programme have been largely
frustrated. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that his administration could not repeal DACA immediately, citing a failure to comply with “the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action”. Trump’s presidency has been characterised by antiimmigration policies, including a travel ban that targeted mainly Muslim-majority nations and a (subsequently reversed) move to separate parents and children in families found to be crossing the US-Mexico border illegally. Biden has made clear his commitment to DACA, but addressing the more than 400 policy changes implemented by Trump to restrict immigration will be a lengthy process, and will no doubt be met with resistance by the many who have been stoked by four years of antiimmigration rhetoric.
Climate In 2015, Obama unveiled the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a scheme by which the US could meet its Paris Agreement targets. The aim was to cut carbon emissions by 26-28% relative to 2005 levels, the equivalent
of taking 70% of the nation’s cars off the road. Trump has since replaced the CPP with the less ambitious Affordable Clean Energy rule, which has no targets for cutting emissions, and has also withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement. Trump’s legacy here should be relatively straightforward to undo. Biden has pledged to re-join the Paris Agreement immediately upon taking office, and even to go further than Obama did by bringing in policies to make the US carbon-neutral by 2050.
Iran Under Obama, the US entered the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Iran would drastically reduce uranium enrichment and stockpiling in return for the reduction of economic sanctions. Trump withdrew from this in 2018. Two years later, and despite Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign to cripple the Iranian economy, Iran is yet to agree to begin negotiations for a new deal. Biden has pledged to offer Iran “a credible path back to diplomacy”, promising to re-join the deal if Iran first complies with the agreement’s nuclear restrictions.
