Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: the French national crisis

All of the candidates – even Fillon, a socially conservative Thatcherite – can claim to represent change. Yet none appears capable of embodying what de Gaulle called “l’esprit de la nation”.

In 1958, as France reeled from the Algerian War, Charles de Gaulle established the Fifth Republic, creating the role of an all-powerful president. On the eve of its 60th anniversary, the Fifth Republic is in crisis. Economic stagnation, terrorism, a revolt against globalisation and a hatred of elites have destabilised France. “Our country is ill,” said the former prime minister Alain Juppé in a speech in March. “Resistant to reforms that it knows are necessary, angry with its political elites but susceptible to demagogic promises, it is experiencing today a terrible crisis of confidence.” With both the far right and the far left surging, the incumbent Socialist president, François Hollande, did not dare to stand in this month’s election, perhaps the most important in France since the Second World War.

The 2017 election has been among the most tumultuous in France’s history. Neither of the two early front-runners  – Marine Le Pen of the far-right Front National and the centrist Emmanuel Macron, running under the banner of the En Marche! movement (“Onward!”) – was drawn from the conventional governing parties. A third contender, the radical left-winger Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has similarly emerged from outside the political establishment. The greatest, perhaps sole, point of unity is a revulsion against the status quo.

Successive presidents have vowed to transform the country and have failed. Unemployment is at 10 per cent and among the youth the figure is an appalling 24 per cent. Horrific terrorist attacks in Paris and Nice have exacerbated fraught community relations. Mr Hollande, who cuts a tragicomic figure, has proved profoundly unequal to such challenges.

As voters prepare for the first round of the election, Marine Le Pen remains strong. The Front National leader has exploited jihadist attacks and France’s secularist tradition to demonise French Muslims. She has pledged to reduce immigration to a mere 10,000 per year and to seek EU withdrawal if Brussels does not accept her demands for the abandonment of the euro and the passport-free Schengen Area.

By also pledging to increase welfare spending and to reduce the retirement age to 60, she has attracted former Socialist and Communist voters aggrieved by years of economic decline. Though Ms Le Pen has sought to distance the Front National from its fascist and anti-Semitic roots (expelling her Holocaust-denying father from the party he once led), the mask routinely slips. On 9 April, she denied that the French state was responsible for the wartime round-up of more than 13,000 Jews at the Vel’ d’Hiv cycling track in Paris. That she remains a conceivable victor – and the most popular candidate among younger voters – is a mark of France’s malaise.

For liberals, Ms Le Pen’s rise – like the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s election – is cause for dismay. But Mr Macron’s emergence has provided consolation. The former merchant banker and economy minister bypassed the established party structures by declining to seek the Socialist candidacy and founding his own movement. Aged 39, he is charismatic and confident. He is an unapologetic defender of globalisation, the EU, the eurozone and open borders and is determined to match the boldness and self-confidence of the populist right.

Although the Socialist candidate, Benoît Hamon, has distinguished himself with proposals such as a 32-hour working week and a tax on robots, his association with Mr Hollande has marooned him. As a former member of the ancien régime, he may prove an inadequate representative of change.

The recent surge by the Communist-backed Mr Mél­enchon reflects a desire for a still greater upheaval. His bold interventionism (including a 100 per cent top-rate income tax) and hard Euroscepticism appeal to the disenchanted. More than any other candidate, he stands for fundamental constitutional change through the establishment of a Sixth Republic and a significant reduction in the powers of the presidency.

Yet so open and unpredictable is the contest that even the mainstream centre-right candidate for the Républicains, François Fillon, under investigation for alleged misuse of public funds, has a chance of making the final round.

All of the candidates – even Mr Fillon, a socially conservative Thatcherite – can claim to represent change. Yet none appears capable of embodying what de Gaulle called “l’esprit de la nation”. Victory for Mr Macron, who is committed to liberal economic reform (a hazardous path) and to the EU establishment, risks fuelling yet more discontent. 

This article first appeared in the 20 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, May's gamble

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the Saudis are making it almost impossible to report on their war in Yemen

The conflict is not getting anything like the media attention it deserves.

This article has been co-authored by Ahmed Baider, a fixer based in Yemen's capital Sana’a, and Lizzie Porter, a freelance journalist based in Beirut who is still waiting for a chance to report from Yemen.

Ten thousand people have died. The world’s largest cholera epidemic is raging, with more than 530,000 suspected cases and 2,000 related deaths. Millions more people are starving. Yet the lack of press attention on Yemen’s conflict has led it to be described as the “forgotten war”.

The scant media coverage is not without reason, or wholly because the general public is too cold-hearted to care. It is very hard to get into Yemen. The risks for the few foreign journalists who gain access are significant. And the Saudi-led coalition waging war in the country is doing its best to make it difficult, if not impossible, to report from the area.

Working in Sana’a as a fixer for journalists since the start of the uprisings of the so-called Arab Spring in 2011 has sometimes felt like the most difficult job in the world. When a Saudi-led coalition started bombing Yemen in support of its president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, in March 2015, it became even harder.

With control of the airspace, last summer they closed Sana’a airport. The capital had been the main route into Yemen. Whether deliberately or coincidentally, in doing so, the coalition prevented press access.

The media blackout came to the fore last month, when the Saudi-led coalition turned away an extraordinary, non-commercial UN flight with three BBC journalists on board. The team – including experienced correspondent Orla Guerin – had all the necessary paperwork. Aviation sources told Reuters that the journalists’ presence was the reason the flight was not allowed to land.

The refusal to allow the press to enter Yemen by air forced them to find an alternative route into the country – a 13-hour sea crossing.

After the airport closure in August 2016, an immensely complex set of procedures was created for journalists travelling on the UN flights operating from Djibouti on the Horn of Africa into Sana’a. The level of paperwork required offered only a glimmer of hope that the media would be allowed to highlight the suffering in Yemen. Each journalist’s application required visas, permits, return ticket fees of $1,100 per person (later reduced to $250) and a great deal of bureaucracy.

But there were other issues, too: equipment that all journalists take with them to war zones as standard – flak jackets, helmets and satellite phones – were not allowed on the UN flights, increasing fears about operating in the country.

The new arrangement significantly increased the cost and time involved – two things that most media organisations are short of. A team of two would have to budget for several thousand dollars for a week-long reporting trip. This was limiting for even large media organisations with big budgets.

Still, the system worked. A few journalists started to come and cover the situation from the ground. Yemenis were happy to share their stories. On one assignment to villages on the west coast, people ran to talk to us and show us their malnourished children as soon as we arrived. It was obvious from the look in their eyes that they wanted to tell people what had been happening.

That changed after last October, when three or four large international media teams had reported from Yemen, broadcasting images of starving children and bombed-out homes to TVs around the world. The Saudi-led coalition began refusing to let journalists fly in with the UN. They said that the flights were for humanitarian workers only, or that the safety of journalists could not be guaranteed. Members of the press who had been preparing trips suddenly had their plans quashed. Time assigned to reporting the conflict had to be given to more accessible stories.

Over the next few months, media access was again opened up, only to be followed by U-turns and further paralysis. And when the Saudi-led coalition did grant access, it was only under certain, excruciating conditions.

As well as a press visa granted by the opposition authorities in the capital, from February this year, journalists have required a second visa granted by the Saudi-backed government in Aden.

It felt impossible. Why would they give press visas for journalists to visit opposition territory? The doubts were proved correct when trying to convince Hadi government officials to issue press access. The consular envoy in Cairo refused. A call to their team in London resulted in another “no”. 

This meant applying to the authorities in Aden for secondary visas for the tenacious journalists who hadn’t already been put off by the cost and access hurdles. One example of the petty requirements imposed was that a journalist’s visa could not be on paper: it had to be stamped into his or her passport. Of course, that added a week to the whole affair.

After months of media blockade, journalists were finally able to access Yemen again between March and May this year. At present, members of the media are officially allowed to travel on the UN flights. But how many more times journalists will be refused entry remains unknown. Not all crews will have the resources to make alternative arrangements to enter Yemen.

The New Statesman interviewed one French documentary producer who has reported from Yemen twice but who has not been able to access the country since 2015, despite multiple attempts.

Upon each refusal, the Saudi-led coalition told the journalist, “to take commercial flights – which didn’t exist…” he explained, requesting anonymity. “Saudi Arabia and its coalition are doing everything they can to discourage journalists as well as organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.”

He said that blocking media access was part of the Saudi-led coalition’s strategy to “bring [Yemen] to its knees in an atmosphere of silence and indifference.”

Access is not the only problem. Reporting in Yemen carries great risks. The British Foreign Office warns of a “very high threat of kidnap and unlawful detention from militia groups, armed tribes, criminals and terrorists”. It specifically mentions journalists as a group that could be targeted.

Editors are increasingly nervous about sending journalists into war zones where kidnap is a significant danger. The editorial green light for arranging assignments to Yemen is – understandably – ever harder to obtain.

Although they are willing to work with recognised press teams, the Houthis and Saleh loyalists have also been known to be suspicious of journalists.

“Even before the Saudis banned access to Yemen, it is important to remember that Yemen is one of the most difficult countries for journalists to access,” added the anonymous journalist.

The amount of press attention dedicated to Yemen simply does not reflect the extent of country’s suffering and political turmoil. Journalists’ rights groups, international organisations and governments need to step up pressure on Saudi Arabia to ease media access to the country.

The coalition last month proposed that the UN take control of Sana’a airport, which it refused. Whoever runs it, the hub must be opened, so that journalists can get in, and Yemenis desperately needing medical treatment abroad can get out.

Failing this, coupled with the extreme risks and costs of reporting, the world will never see the graves of 10,000 people. Yemenis will continue to die starving and invisible, in destroyed homes.