Thread by @SimonFRCox

Stripping Shamima Begum of Brit cit’ship attacks rules-based international order & threatens conflict between states. Thread 1/20

https://twitter.com/ericfripp/status/1098170420405116933

No state wants Shamima Begum. She’s not a Syrian citizen and is illegally there. She’s never been to Bangladesh & their Gov says she’s not a citizen. Under international & UK law, the state she has strongest ties to is UK. 2/

Shamima Begum’s support for ISIS explains why UK doesnt want her - but not why any other country is responsible for her. So when a UK politician strips Shamima Begum of the British Citizenship she has by birth, can they explain why she’s not the UK’s problem? 3/

I see 3 explanations.
All bad.

1. she’s “essentially” Bangladeshi, not British

2. “we’re British, it’s your problem”

3. “let’s create a new class of stateless outlaws”. 4/

Option 1. Shamima Begum was never “really” British. Being born in UK, being a citizen, living all her formative years - that’s not “enough”. (*whispers* she’s a brown Muslim...)

This essentially racist notion of “citizenship” is what many believe. 5/

British politicians may dogwhistle to racists’ idea of “citizenship”, but it’s hard to use it openly:

A. it runs against UK law, which doesn’t make “Britishness” - whatever that is - a requirement for people born in UK to be citizens. (How would you assess baby’s Britishness? 6/

B. racists’ idea of citizenship has no agreed boundaries. Anyone can be accused of being un-British. Is Javid “British-enough”? Boris Johnson? Duke of Edinburgh? 7/

C. Open British racism isn’t an easy sell at home or abroad. “We’re all anti-racists now.” Foreign Office has spent decades trying to present UK as modern & liberal. 8/

Javid’s Option 2:

Tell RoTW to just deal with it. (Because Britain is special?)

This is the flip side of the racism of Option 1 - dangerous people are other countries’ problem. (Because they’re not British?) /9

UK has been key second fiddle to USA in persuading - or bullying - other states into co-operating with US/UK dominated actions against individuals considered to be threats. 10/

This mix of neo-imperialism & efforts of many states to strengthen UN’s rules-based international order has led to law-based co-operation (International Criminal Courts) and illegal acts against international law (rendition, Guantanamo). 11/

For UK to offload responsibility for its citizens on to RoTW is to abandon the logic of the rules-based international order.

“She’s not British because we say so! She’s your problem!” is easy to understand. It means “we do what we want, we don’t care about rules.” 12/

This is an invitation to states to compete - not co-operate - when dealing with people who threaten public safety.

Bad idea. 13/

Option 3: “she’s no-one’s problem”

The formal logic of UK position is “race to denationalise”. The last state to act is responsible.

So states should race to take away rights & protection. 13/

This approach puts pressure on states to minimise legal protection. The practical effect would be to create a class of people unprotected by any state.

Outlaws. 14/

We saw this in case of Mr Pham. Vietnamese born, British naturalised. Both VN & UK deny he is their citizen. Now in a US jail - what would be done with him if he were released? 15/

When states can execute people, outlawry isn’t the same problem. And several of those stripped of UK citizenship were killed soon after. But UK can’t even try to justify targeted killing of non-combatants - like Shamima Begum. 16/

So when states create outlaws, whom no state will take responsibility for, they are surrendering the idea of a world of states. They are accepting that some people, some places, are beyond the rule of law.

Which is also what ISIS want. 17/

For a democracy to strip a person of citizenship is to give up on the aim of a world of democracies where state power is used to protect all of us using rule of law. 18/

May, Javid hope that their problems, like Abu Qatada or Shamima Begum - will be “solved” somewhere that isn’t UK, by people willing to commit inhumane & illegal acts. (Like Blair turned a blind eye to Libyan torture.) 19/

So Javid offers us a world of weak democracies. Too weak to cope with a teenage mother holding a new born baby. Too scared of democratic values to want them to be respected by others.

The world that ISIS wants. 20/20

Reading on this:

Prof Audrey Macklin : how citizenship deprivation is a form of “political / civil death penalty” queensu.ca/lawjournal/sit…

And articles by @EricFripp @aliceross_ @aliromah & more here sprc.info/migration-law-…