Last year, more than 190,000 people risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa to Europe. About 3,500 lost the gamble, dying as they tried to traverse what has become the world’s deadliest frontier. There can be no doubt that some who undertook the perilous journey did so simply to search for better-paying jobs. However, the origins of those attempting the trip indicate that many are political refugees, not economic migrants.
The majority of those who crossed the Mediterranean last year come from Eritrea and Syria. Many have been formally recognized as refugees by the UN refugee agency in the countries to which they initially fled. About 90 percent of those who apply for asylum in Europe are granted some sort of protection — a further testament to their status as bona fide refugees.
It is time for the EU to separate the discussion of the crisis in the Mediterranean from its broader immigration debate. The policies, language and response to the events unfolding on the EU’s southern border must be different from those concerning the voluntary movement of jobseekers from one safe country to another. Indeed, the proper context of the discussion is European countries’ obligations under international refugee law.
The policies put in place by the EU and its member states are directly responsible for the plight of those who die attempting to cross the Mediterranean. Efforts to discourage refugees from arriving have not diminished the number of people who are granted asylum in Europe; they have merely made the process of being granted refugee status more random and dangerous.
Every country in Europe is party to international treaties that recognize the rights of refugees to seek asylum and not be forcibly returned to countries where they will be unsafe. However, despite calls by frontline Mediterranean states to establish systems to improve the handling of the crisis and share the burden, little is being done to make things safer for refugees or more manageable for the countries in which they arrive.
PIECEMEAL MANNER
The countries neighboring Syria and Iraq are facing the largest inflows of refugees fleeing the violence there, and the UN refugee agency has appealed for assistance in resettling a limited number of the neediest. So far, however, the response from the countries that can most easily afford to take in refugees has been pathetic. Even worse, many people who, as recently as a few years ago, would have easily obtained permission to study, work, or visit relatives in Europe are being denied visas simply because of their refugee status.
There is no reason to require people seeking an asylum hearing to run a gamut of desert crossings, abuse by smugglers, beatings, extortion, rape, and exploitation — or to have them experience the trauma of watching their friends and family die along the way. Doing so is cruel and inhumane, and it violates the spirit of all refugee, human rights and immigration laws.
In the past, resettlement programs in Africa, Asia and the Middle East screened people to establish their status as refugees; assessed their education, skills and family relations to determine where they might be integrated most easily; and worked with European, North American and Australian governments to find them new homes. In the 1980s, such programs helped thousands of Ethiopians, Vietnamese and Argentines, and a look at the communities in which the beneficiaries were resettled reveals that the vast majority have become self-reliant taxpayers.
There is no reason that something similar cannot be done for those fleeing violence and persecution today. If asylum seekers were provided with opportunities to present their claims in the countries where they currently find themselves, they would not be forced to risk their lives at sea to reach Italy or Greece. Eritreans could file applications in Khartoum for asylum in Sweden, Germany or the UK. Syrians in Cairo or Beirut could do the same. The claims could be prioritized and processed in a regular manner, and the refugees could arrive in Europe healthy and ready to work or study.
The crisis in the Mediterranean cannot be managed in a piecemeal manner. The financial costs of patrolling its waters and rescuing those adrift are exorbitant. The loss of lives is inexcusable. However, we do not have to wait until the root causes of displacement — state failure and civil war — are addressed. We need only to find the courage to create a system in which desperate people do not have to risk their lives to apply for asylum and resettlement.
Peter Sutherland is UN special representative of the secretary-general for international migration and development.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS