“Please help, today one person self dead by petrol because hopeless,” was a test message that Sally Hayden received in October 2018.
The Irish Times journalist was one of the few outsiders trusted by refugees locked up in Libya. The text was about Abdulaziz, who had been forced to flee his native Somalia to escape al-Shabaab, an Islamist group waging terror in east Africa.
After a perilous journey across the desert, Abdulaziz was locked up in Triq al-Sikka, a grim prison in Tripoli. Why? Because the EU pays Libyan militias millions of euros to detain anyone deemed a possible migrant to Europe.
Like many other similar prisons across Libya, Triq al-Sikka is a place of hunger, disease, beatings, rape, torture and death. Death by starvation, death by beatings, death by execution. And death by suicide.
After nine months of incarceration, Abdulaziz felt so bereft of hope that he seized a container of gasoline used to fuel a generator, doused himself and lit a match. Hayden was the only journalist to report on his death.
I do not know whether British Minister of State for Immigration Robert Jenrick knows about Abdulaziz. Last week, he visited countries on either side of the Mediterranean, but not Libya, to persuade political leaders to take tougher measures against asylum seekers and undocumented migrants crossing the Mediterranean, to get north African governments to “stop the boats.”
In all this, Jenrick was coat-tailing EU politicians who for more than a decade have been stitching up deals with virtually every coercive force in the region, however reactionary or repulsive, funding them handsomely to lock up potential migrants to Europe. These deals have done little to undermine smuggling gangs, but have been catastrophic for asylum seekers and migrants, and for the people of north and east Africa and the Sahel.
The charred body of Abdulaziz is a reminder of the human cost of these deals.
From the EU’s 2010 compact with Muammar Qaddafi; to its subsequent agreements with militias and warlords after Western intervention had shattered Libya; to the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa set up in November 2015 as the Syrian war caused a sharp peak in migrants and panic in European capitals; to the Khartoum Process, which drew in countries in the east of Africa, including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan and South Sudan; to bilateral deals with countries such as Turkey and Niger — the EU has disbursed billions of euros in an effort to persuade non-European countries to act as its immigration police.
The result has been the creation of a huge kidnap and detention industry from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, from the Mediterranean to the Sahel. Prisons, warehouses and even zoos have been repurposed to cage migrants.
A leaked EU internal memorandum in 2020 acknowledged that capturing migrants was now “a profitable business model.”
In Libya, militias and people smugglers have rebadged themselves as “coast guards” trained and funded by the EU to capture migrants at sea and force them into Libyan detention.
In Triq al-Sikka and other detention centers, “acts of murder, enslavement, torture, rape and other inhumane acts are committed against migrants in furtherance of a state policy,” a damning UN report said.
European leaders have long been aware of this, but have shut their eyes to the reality of their policies, pretending, as British politicians do, that they are moral crusaders challenging the evils of people smugglers.
The EU, after all, is the organization that has given money to Omar al-Bashir, the former leader of Sudan indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, to “manage migration” to Europe.
The Janjaweed, a militia that pursued genocidal violence in Darfur, now calls itself the Rapid Support Forces and hunts down migrants for the EU rather than rebels for al-Bashir.
The EU approach has also been disastrous for local people. The externalization of Europe’s migration policy has led to the dismantling of economies, the breakup of communities, the creation of new opportunities for human smugglers and Islamist militias, and the undermining of trust in elected authorities.
Take Niger, a country in the Sahel, abutting Libya. It is among the 10 poorest countries in the world, which is why it has been turned into “Europe’s migration laboratory.” It is, in per capita terms, the largest recipient of EU aid, in return for which Nigerien authorities are forced to distort domestic policies to fit with the EU’s migration needs, including the adoption in 2015 of a law against smuggling migrants.
Migration was woven into Sahel life long before Europe felt threatened by it. Much of the economy is rooted in that tradition of people movement. The Brussels-enforced policy has not only acted as a block to Europe-bound migration, but destroyed regional migration and made freedom of movement, that hallowed policy within the EU, much more difficult within Niger.
It has destroyed the livelihoods of many who used to service migrant routes without creating new means of making a living. It has also, ironically, helped establish a new industry of human smuggling.
EU demands have led also to an even greater erosion of the already low public trust in the authority of the government, leading people to ask why “we work for the EU rather than for them, the people who got us elected,”
It is a pertinent question given the description of the region by former EU special representative for the Sahel Angel Losada as “Europe’s new forward border.”
There is the irony. Politicians and policymakers who normally place such great store on “defending sovereignty” and “protecting borders” are more than happy to trample over the sovereignty of poorer nations and to disregard their borders so long as it allows them to “stop the boats.”
Britain, Jenrick told the Times last week, is “taking the fight to the people-smuggling gangs upstream” so as to save migrants from making “dangerous and unnecessary journeys.”
That is about as morally honest as the EU’s presentation get when describing its migration policy as being for the good of African nations.
It might provide a morally acceptable soundbite, but Jenrick’s real aim is to push other nations to act as Britain’s immigration police.
Britain might have left the EU, but the EU’s migration mentality remains firmly lodged in British policy.
Kenan Malik is a columnist for the Observer.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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.
RSS