Skip to main content

Dirty-dealing with refugees the pawns and losers

The way leaders have dealt with Libya's Gadhafi over the years to try and stem the flow of refugees from Africa to Europe is revealed in a piece in The New York Times. It has been cynical, disgraceful and an indictment of many of Europe's leaders and their integrity - although that may not be all that surprising, especially in the case of Italy's PM.

"European leaders, confronted by anti-immigrant fervor at home, have tried to buy Colonel Qaddafi’s cooperation. In 2008, Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, signed a so-called friendship pact with Libya (since repudiated) worth $5 billion. The deal involves access to Libya’s oil and gas riches as well as a crackdown on undocumented migration. Last October, the European Union offered the Qaddafi regime around $70 million to stem the flow of illegal migrants.

The Italian money has been used to finance Libyan detention camps in which migrants from sub-Saharan Africa are held for indeterminate periods. In 2009, the Jesuit Refugee Service in Malta found that detainees had been sexually harassed, beaten and punished with stun guns. One migrant explained that her uncle was left for dead in a pile of garbage after being beaten and tortured with electric shocks; two days later, somebody realized he was still alive.

The willingness of European leaders to strike deals with Colonel Qaddafi demonstrates that high-risk, undocumented migration to Europe is no longer seen primarily as a humanitarian concern, but as a security threat that justifies harsh preventive measures. It also shows how close to betraying European ideals some leaders are willing to go.

As Colonel Qaddafi plays his migration card anew, Europe must ensure that the Mediterranean does not again become a mass grave for African asylum seekers."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...