A report from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) reported that 3,072 migrants have drowned in the Mediterranean this year out of a worldwide total of 4,077 deaths worldwide. These figures are almost certainly underestimates, because many migrant deaths in the Mediterranean are not reported. The worst incident in this period took place on Sep 11. when 500 men, women and children, many of them refugees from Syria and Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, drowned after their boat was deliberately rammed by their traffickers in Maltese territorial waters. Most governments condemn the smugglers and organised criminals who profit from such journeys, and wring their hands whenever a particularly terrible tragedy takes place. Men who sink migrant boats or send them to sea without lifebelts certainly deserve to be castigated. But the European Union has also been conspicuously absent from the unfolding tragedy.
‘Frontex’,the European border agency, is primarily concerned with immigration enforcement rather than search and rescue, and the joint operations that it coordinates are entirely dependent on resources provided by E.U. member states. However, many governments clearly regard the Mediterrean Sea as an essential moat between ‘Fortress Europe’ and its unwanted migrants. Amnesty International points out, Europe’s ”woeful response” has also contributed to the death toll. And it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Mediterranean has become an instrument in a policy of deterrence, in which migrant deaths are tacitly accepted as a form of ‘collateral damage’ in a militarised response to 21st century migration whose overriding objective is to stop people coming.
There are many things that European governments could do to implement to reduce migrant deaths. They could use their navies to establish the ‘humanitarian corridors’ between North Africa and Europe, as the U.N. refugee agency UNCHR once suggested during the Libyan Civil War. They could facilitate legal entry, so that men, women and children fleeing war and political oppression can reach Europe safely without having to place their lives in the hands of smugglers. The European Union could also abolish or reform the Dublin Regulation that obliges asylum seekers to make their applications in one country only. This law has placed too much responsibility on European ‘border countries’ like Malta, Italy, Spain and Greece, all of which have experienced surges in irregular migration over the last twenty years.
Most migrants who cross the Mediterranean are refugees from nationalities that UNHCR considers to be in need of some form of protection under the terms of the Geneva Convention. But in order to obtain this, they have to reach Europe first and undergo all the risks that these journeys entail. All this has transformed the Mediterranean into what Amnesty calls a “survival test” for refugees and migrants. Few politicians will openly admit this because such an admission would directly contradict the values that the European Union has set out to uphold. Amnesty International has urged European governments to fulfil their humanitarian obligations to save lives in the Mediterranean and warned that “the EU as a whole cannot be indifferent to this suffering.” Until priorities change, migrants will continue to die, and 2014’s grim record may well be superseded. Italy has already threatened to stop its search and rescue operations.
From here
‘Frontex’,the European border agency, is primarily concerned with immigration enforcement rather than search and rescue, and the joint operations that it coordinates are entirely dependent on resources provided by E.U. member states. However, many governments clearly regard the Mediterrean Sea as an essential moat between ‘Fortress Europe’ and its unwanted migrants. Amnesty International points out, Europe’s ”woeful response” has also contributed to the death toll. And it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Mediterranean has become an instrument in a policy of deterrence, in which migrant deaths are tacitly accepted as a form of ‘collateral damage’ in a militarised response to 21st century migration whose overriding objective is to stop people coming.
There are many things that European governments could do to implement to reduce migrant deaths. They could use their navies to establish the ‘humanitarian corridors’ between North Africa and Europe, as the U.N. refugee agency UNCHR once suggested during the Libyan Civil War. They could facilitate legal entry, so that men, women and children fleeing war and political oppression can reach Europe safely without having to place their lives in the hands of smugglers. The European Union could also abolish or reform the Dublin Regulation that obliges asylum seekers to make their applications in one country only. This law has placed too much responsibility on European ‘border countries’ like Malta, Italy, Spain and Greece, all of which have experienced surges in irregular migration over the last twenty years.
Most migrants who cross the Mediterranean are refugees from nationalities that UNHCR considers to be in need of some form of protection under the terms of the Geneva Convention. But in order to obtain this, they have to reach Europe first and undergo all the risks that these journeys entail. All this has transformed the Mediterranean into what Amnesty calls a “survival test” for refugees and migrants. Few politicians will openly admit this because such an admission would directly contradict the values that the European Union has set out to uphold. Amnesty International has urged European governments to fulfil their humanitarian obligations to save lives in the Mediterranean and warned that “the EU as a whole cannot be indifferent to this suffering.” Until priorities change, migrants will continue to die, and 2014’s grim record may well be superseded. Italy has already threatened to stop its search and rescue operations.
From here
No comments:
Post a Comment