Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:31:46 +0200
Nizar Visram
2015-06-25, Issue 732
Some 3,500 people drowned at sea while trying to cross the Mediterranean in 2014, while 1,865 people have died so far in 2015. Such tragic deaths hardly make headlines, but there was a shockwave when, on April 19 this year, more than 800 migrants died when their overcrowded boat capsized in the Mediterranean Sea off the Libyan coast.
According to an Amnesty International report, over 600,000 migrants asked for asylum in the EU in 2014, while 23,000 to 24,000 migrants tried to cross over to Italy since the beginning of the year. As the number of migrants soars, that of migrants perishing at sea has hit the roof.
Things are bound to get worse before they get better. It is estimated that by the end of 2015, between 500,000 and one million refugees will cross the Mediterranean and land in the European Union. Regarding those who have died during crossing, these are the known cases, while many more having died in undetected vessels. The numbers are on the rise.
Most of the migrants that risk the dangerous sea journey come from as far away as the Sudan, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Eritrea, Somalia, Senegal, Ghana, Afghanistan and Syria, running for their lives due to either foreign fuelled sectarian conflicts at home or pervasive poverty. They come from countries torn apart by war and violence.
They have scraped together $2,000 for the trip across the sea on wobbly vessels, run by gangs of human traffickers. Many more come from countries that face serious internal crises intensified by western military interference.
“The majority of those crossing the Mediterranean are taking terrible risks because they have to, not because they want to,” said Judith Sunderland, a senior Western Europe researcher at the Human Rights Watch.
THE CEMETERY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA
The coastguard of Italy, Malta and Greece have rescued thousands of such migrants from the hazard of the Mediterranean Sea. They have been feeling isolated and left alone to deal with what they termed “the cemetery of the Mediterranean Sea.”
The EU put forward a proposal to rescue the African migrants, but the suggestion went under with a deadlock as to who is going to “share the burden.” The proposals included joint search-and-rescue patrols, establishing resettlement quotas.
Some EU members such as France, Spain, and Britain rejected the idea of quotas for sharing migrants among them, while others suggested deploying military forces to Libya to keep migrants as far away from Europe as possible.
The European Commission reacted to the boat tragedy with plans to set up offshore camps in Libya and Tunisia, to lock up and pre-empt asylum seekers before they cross the Mediterranean. It has been described ingenuously as “outsourcing border control and containment mechanisms to prevent departures.” Italy's foreign minister even called for air strikes in Libya against ISIL positions there.
The general agreement among EU members is that something needs to be done, and their first proposal was to send more ships to the Mediterranean to ensure that fewer people die due to unseaworthy vessels crammed with their human cargo.
On the other hand, some European bureaucrats are toying with the idea of military strikes to destroy smuggling vessels before they leave Libya. However, they have been cautioned by activists that the last thing the African refugees need is more assaults and bombing – especially coming from the very countries that they expect to beg for asylum.
EU ministers sanctioned a plan for a new naval force to intercept smugglers before their boats reach Europe. It was reported that the EU parliament was drafting a United Nations resolution to authorize the deployment of military off the coast of Libya in order to “capture” and “destroy” the boats. The problem is that two rival “governments” in Libya have indicated their rejection of the plan, saying any deployment of troops to Libyan waters would be a violation of the country's sovereignty.
Meanwhile, some European political parties have resorted to anti-immigrant and xenophobic tendencies to prevent immigrants from entering their countries, while deporting those who manage to sneak in. Italy's ultra-nationalist Northern League called on the authorities to stop “by any means” any accommodation of further refugees. The party said it “was ready” to take steps to prevent their arrival. Similarly, German refugee centers have been targeted with fire bombings, while ultra-right groups such as Pegida have conducted racist campaigns, attacking immigrants as “social spongers”. Such right-wing ultra nationalist groups have even received implicit sympathy from governing parties such as the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD).
POLITICAL SOLUTION, NOT MILITARIZATION
Meanwhile, it is revealed that the EU is planning a military strategy against the refugee transport networks in the Mediterranean. Documents disseminated by WikiLeaks say the operation contains “detailed plans to conduct military operations to destroy boats used for transporting migrants and refugees in Libyan territory, thereby preventing them from reaching Europe.”
The whistleblower website exposed two classified documents, with the plan being approved by delegates of all 28 EU member states on May 18. The project has no well-defined “political end state”, which means they are looking at a sweeping military operation without an unambiguous end goal.
In reaction to this, more than 300 European migration academics and scholars have condemned the EU's envisioned use of military might against migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean. They have come out against the EU's plan of military intervention against the boats crossing the Mediterranean. The academics argued that any attempt to justify military intervention by comparing the Mediterranean boats with the 18th century clampdown on the slave trade is “entirely self-serving” and based on “a parody of history.”
It is widely believed that military action will do nothing to curtail the flow of immigrants escaping conflicts in their destabilized countries or looking for jobs. For them the long-term solution lies in social development of the countries they come from.
Europe and NATO countries have to take responsibility. They can find money for global warfare, yet they can't find the money to rescue the refugees running away from the war zones.
Meanwhile, the European Union foreign ministers have approved the launch of a military operation to stop human traffickers from bringing migrants.
The ministers gave their approval for the mission to head into its Phase 1, which would see fifteen warships, two submarines and three maritime patrol aircraft carry out intelligence gathering operations with drones and helicopters in attendance.
The European Union Naval Force Mediterranean Sea (EU NAVFOR Med) aims to target the smugglers in the Mediterranean. EU NAVFOR Med also envisages two follow-up phases, which require a United Nations Security Council Resolution and Libya’s approval. Phase 2 would see active intervention to board and disable smuggler vessels, while the third stage would extend these actions into Libyan territorial waters and possibly inside the country itself.
Critics, however, insist that taking military action in Libyan waters or halting a vessel flying the country's flag without an international mandate would be in violation of the international law.
What is needed is a total prohibition on the sale of weaponry to these countries. EU countries have to criminalize the arms trade, thus abolishing wars in countries such as Syria. It means investment in sustainable development, an end to plundering of resources. It means better education systems, better medical system and better shelters. Europe and NATO countries have to take responsibility because they have in one way or another created the current turmoil. They can find money for global warfare, yet they can't find the money to rescue refugees running away from the war zones.
Apart from the influx of migrants from Africa, we have also to look at those coming from the Middle East. This is the direct result of the military invasion carried out by the U.S., and its NATO allies. They have sustained and shared the military operations in Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Yemen. As a result the Middle East and a large portion of Africa has plunged into disarray and disorder. It is estimated that by 2014 two million of the six million inhabitants of Libya had fled the country as a result of U.S.-French-British bombardments.
The current U.S.-led drive toward regime change in Syria has immersed the country in total disarray, disorder and deaths, with the subsequent exit of an estimated four million refugees. Most of them fled to neighboring countries, while many others take the difficult and deadly path to Europe.
Meanwhile, a new theatre is unfolding, with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia embarking on a new battlefront in Yemen. This is bound to lead to a great number of refugees seeking asylum.
And so, as an increasing number of distressed citizens seek sanctuary in Europe, the EU is converting the Mediterranean into a graveyard, hoping that this will serve as a deterrent to others.
*Nizar Visram, a free-lance writer, can be reached at: nizar1941@gmail.com)
According to an Amnesty International report, over 600,000 migrants asked for asylum in the EU in 2014, while 23,000 to 24,000 migrants tried to cross over to Italy since the beginning of the year. As the number of migrants soars, that of migrants perishing at sea has hit the roof.
Things are bound to get worse before they get better. It is estimated that by the end of 2015, between 500,000 and one million refugees will cross the Mediterranean and land in the European Union. Regarding those who have died during crossing, these are the known cases, while many more having died in undetected vessels. The numbers are on the rise.
Most of the migrants that risk the dangerous sea journey come from as far away as the Sudan, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Eritrea, Somalia, Senegal, Ghana, Afghanistan and Syria, running for their lives due to either foreign fuelled sectarian conflicts at home or pervasive poverty. They come from countries torn apart by war and violence.
They have scraped together $2,000 for the trip across the sea on wobbly vessels, run by gangs of human traffickers. Many more come from countries that face serious internal crises intensified by western military interference.
“The majority of those crossing the Mediterranean are taking terrible risks because they have to, not because they want to,” said Judith Sunderland, a senior Western Europe researcher at the Human Rights Watch.
THE CEMETERY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA
The coastguard of Italy, Malta and Greece have rescued thousands of such migrants from the hazard of the Mediterranean Sea. They have been feeling isolated and left alone to deal with what they termed “the cemetery of the Mediterranean Sea.”
The EU put forward a proposal to rescue the African migrants, but the suggestion went under with a deadlock as to who is going to “share the burden.” The proposals included joint search-and-rescue patrols, establishing resettlement quotas.
Some EU members such as France, Spain, and Britain rejected the idea of quotas for sharing migrants among them, while others suggested deploying military forces to Libya to keep migrants as far away from Europe as possible.
The European Commission reacted to the boat tragedy with plans to set up offshore camps in Libya and Tunisia, to lock up and pre-empt asylum seekers before they cross the Mediterranean. It has been described ingenuously as “outsourcing border control and containment mechanisms to prevent departures.” Italy's foreign minister even called for air strikes in Libya against ISIL positions there.
The general agreement among EU members is that something needs to be done, and their first proposal was to send more ships to the Mediterranean to ensure that fewer people die due to unseaworthy vessels crammed with their human cargo.
On the other hand, some European bureaucrats are toying with the idea of military strikes to destroy smuggling vessels before they leave Libya. However, they have been cautioned by activists that the last thing the African refugees need is more assaults and bombing – especially coming from the very countries that they expect to beg for asylum.
EU ministers sanctioned a plan for a new naval force to intercept smugglers before their boats reach Europe. It was reported that the EU parliament was drafting a United Nations resolution to authorize the deployment of military off the coast of Libya in order to “capture” and “destroy” the boats. The problem is that two rival “governments” in Libya have indicated their rejection of the plan, saying any deployment of troops to Libyan waters would be a violation of the country's sovereignty.
Meanwhile, some European political parties have resorted to anti-immigrant and xenophobic tendencies to prevent immigrants from entering their countries, while deporting those who manage to sneak in. Italy's ultra-nationalist Northern League called on the authorities to stop “by any means” any accommodation of further refugees. The party said it “was ready” to take steps to prevent their arrival. Similarly, German refugee centers have been targeted with fire bombings, while ultra-right groups such as Pegida have conducted racist campaigns, attacking immigrants as “social spongers”. Such right-wing ultra nationalist groups have even received implicit sympathy from governing parties such as the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD).
POLITICAL SOLUTION, NOT MILITARIZATION
Meanwhile, it is revealed that the EU is planning a military strategy against the refugee transport networks in the Mediterranean. Documents disseminated by WikiLeaks say the operation contains “detailed plans to conduct military operations to destroy boats used for transporting migrants and refugees in Libyan territory, thereby preventing them from reaching Europe.”
The whistleblower website exposed two classified documents, with the plan being approved by delegates of all 28 EU member states on May 18. The project has no well-defined “political end state”, which means they are looking at a sweeping military operation without an unambiguous end goal.
In reaction to this, more than 300 European migration academics and scholars have condemned the EU's envisioned use of military might against migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean. They have come out against the EU's plan of military intervention against the boats crossing the Mediterranean. The academics argued that any attempt to justify military intervention by comparing the Mediterranean boats with the 18th century clampdown on the slave trade is “entirely self-serving” and based on “a parody of history.”
It is widely believed that military action will do nothing to curtail the flow of immigrants escaping conflicts in their destabilized countries or looking for jobs. For them the long-term solution lies in social development of the countries they come from.
Europe and NATO countries have to take responsibility. They can find money for global warfare, yet they can't find the money to rescue the refugees running away from the war zones.
Meanwhile, the European Union foreign ministers have approved the launch of a military operation to stop human traffickers from bringing migrants.
The ministers gave their approval for the mission to head into its Phase 1, which would see fifteen warships, two submarines and three maritime patrol aircraft carry out intelligence gathering operations with drones and helicopters in attendance.
The European Union Naval Force Mediterranean Sea (EU NAVFOR Med) aims to target the smugglers in the Mediterranean. EU NAVFOR Med also envisages two follow-up phases, which require a United Nations Security Council Resolution and Libya’s approval. Phase 2 would see active intervention to board and disable smuggler vessels, while the third stage would extend these actions into Libyan territorial waters and possibly inside the country itself.
Critics, however, insist that taking military action in Libyan waters or halting a vessel flying the country's flag without an international mandate would be in violation of the international law.
What is needed is a total prohibition on the sale of weaponry to these countries. EU countries have to criminalize the arms trade, thus abolishing wars in countries such as Syria. It means investment in sustainable development, an end to plundering of resources. It means better education systems, better medical system and better shelters. Europe and NATO countries have to take responsibility because they have in one way or another created the current turmoil. They can find money for global warfare, yet they can't find the money to rescue refugees running away from the war zones.
Apart from the influx of migrants from Africa, we have also to look at those coming from the Middle East. This is the direct result of the military invasion carried out by the U.S., and its NATO allies. They have sustained and shared the military operations in Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Yemen. As a result the Middle East and a large portion of Africa has plunged into disarray and disorder. It is estimated that by 2014 two million of the six million inhabitants of Libya had fled the country as a result of U.S.-French-British bombardments.
The current U.S.-led drive toward regime change in Syria has immersed the country in total disarray, disorder and deaths, with the subsequent exit of an estimated four million refugees. Most of them fled to neighboring countries, while many others take the difficult and deadly path to Europe.
Meanwhile, a new theatre is unfolding, with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia embarking on a new battlefront in Yemen. This is bound to lead to a great number of refugees seeking asylum.
And so, as an increasing number of distressed citizens seek sanctuary in Europe, the EU is converting the Mediterranean into a graveyard, hoping that this will serve as a deterrent to others.
*Nizar Visram, a free-lance writer, can be reached at: nizar1941@gmail.com)