It would be wrong for Labour to collude in the attack on the European convention. It’s fuelled by myths and false narratives
Here’s a recent quote from a Downing Street source: “We have to be able to say something on this that isn’t just defending the status quo.”
The aide was discussing the European convention on human rights (ECHR), a postwar treaty to protect the freedoms of people in Europe, ratified by the UK in 1951. Although it was also central to Keir Starmer’s entire pre-political career, his government is looking to water down some of the key provisions.
Jamie Burton is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. Finnian Clarke, also a barrister at Doughty Street, co-authored
The federal Health department will continue migrating on-premise systems to Amazon Web Services after striking a new $22 million three-year hosting deal with the US hyperscaler through its opaque single sourcing deal. The Department of Health and Aged Care’s (DHAC) new AWS contract will kick in next month, weeks before its current cloud contract with…
More than 130 women and children who fled Haiti to seek healthcare rounded up in hospitals and sent back
Pregnant women and new mothers are being rounded up in hospitals in the Dominican Republic and deported back to Haiti as part of what observers say is an openly cruel, racist and misogynist government policy.
Facebook and Instagram owner criticised for leaving up posts inciting violence during UK riots
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta announced sweeping content moderation changes “hastily” and with no indication it had considered the human rights impact, according to the social media company’s oversight board.
The assessment of the changes came as the Facebook and Instagram owner was criticised for leaving up three posts containing anti-Muslim and anti-migrant content during riots in the UK last summer.
The sentencing of opponents and other public figures to as much as 66 years in prison highlights the president’s dismantling of political achievements
Tunisia wasn’t just the birthplace of the Arab spring. In 2021, a decade after the movement swept across the region, it remained a flickering yet precious beacon of democracy when other nations had swiftly fallen into chaos or authoritarianism. Then President Kais Saied staged a self-coup and reversed most of his country’s progress, dismantling institutions and snatching away his compatriots’ hard-won civil liberties.
Following his re-election last year – in a contest from which all significant opposition had been removed, and on a historically low turnout – he has redoubled his efforts. Civil society, business, the judiciary and the media as well as political opponents have all felt the pain, but it hasn’t stopped with them. Last year, officials from the Tunisian Swimming Federation were arrested for plotting against state security over their failure to display the national flag at a competition.
Human rights groups say drop is partly due to EU policies that turn blind eye to rights abuses in countries such as Libya and Tunisia
Irregular crossings at Europe’s borders have fallen by 30% in the first quarter of the year compared with the same period last year, in a decrease that rights groups partly attributed to EU policies that have emphasised deterrence while seemingly turning a blind eye to the risk of rights abuses.
The decline was seen across all the major migratory routes into Europe, the EU’s border agency Frontex said in a statement, amounting to nearly 33,600 fewer arrivals in the first three months of the year.
Sudan is suffering from the largest humanitarian crisis globally and its civilians are continuing to pay the price for inaction by the international community, NGOs and the UN have said, as the country’s civil war enters its third year.
Two years to the day since fighting erupted in Khartoum between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, hundreds of people were feared to have died in RSF attacks on refugee camps in the western Darfur region in the latest apparent atrocity of a war marked by its brutality and wide-scale humanitarian impact.
Defence has contracted AWS and Microsoft to help with its migration and multi-cloud environment, inking fresh limited tender deals with the US hyperscalers worth more than $12 million. The cloud work comes after a significant shift in facilities last year when Defence migrated out of a Sydney data centre over concerns about Chinese ownership, and…
Defence has contracted AWS and Microsoft to help with its migration and multi-cloud environment, inking fresh limited tender deals with the US hyperscalers worth more than $12 million. The cloud work comes after a significant shift in facilities last year when Defence migrated out of a Sydney data centre over concerns about Chinese ownership, and…
Honduran Foreign Minister Eduardo Enrique Reina highlighted the significance of his country’s leadership of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and announced that Honduras will hand over the Pro Tempore Presidency (PPT) of this intergovernmental mechanism to Colombia during the IX Summit of Heads of State and Government, to be held on April 9 in Tegucigalpa.
During a press conference on Tuesday, the diplomat announced that the high-level summit will take place at the headquarters of the Central Bank of Honduras, starting at 8:00 a.m. local time.
In this ethnographic poem, Yağmur Çağatay focuses on the fractures of migration, gender, and literacy through the lived experiences of Kurdish women in Istanbul. She explores how language reshapes urban boundaries while simultaneously tracing the tensions that arise as literacy creates barriers of who is seen, heard, and included in the family and in the city.
five women, from a small neighbourhood, five women who, for five months, sat in a room, learning letters, learning a new life. each word, a negotiation of what they were allowed to be
tracing how literacy binds them to the city, how it is lived, how it is felt how it isolates them from it or how they map new borders with words.
Zahide, Dilber, Emine, Dilan, and Hacer. between thirty and forty-six, except for Hacer, the youngest, who cleaned tables in a restaurant, all the others stayed at home, unpaid.
yet, in their childhood, they all worked in the fields of their hometowns, gathering the harvest, planting the seeds bound to the land and to one another.
Now, in moments of trust, moments of vulnerability, the women lean into each other, as they speak of the city, of learning, of motherhood, of men, of kin and of those ties that bind.
today they all live in Şişli, Kurdish women, who moved to Istanbul for reasons of necessity, just as Zahide said: “I married in Batman, moved to Manisa as a bride, the jobs there were only for women, so we couldn’t get by and came to Istanbul.”
the men’s work brought them to the city, they followed, as if the men’s destinies were drawn first, and the women’s lives were woven around them. their migration was not their own, but “our husbands’ fate became the map we followed,” Dilber said.
the other day, Zahide’s brother-in-law came from Manisa. “I heard you’re going to literacy classes,” he said. “I’m not doing anything wrong,” she told him, “I take care of my children, I cook, and I go to the course afterwards.”
her mother-in-law stayed with them. she talked behind her back, as if Zahide was doing something shameful. she said, “After all this time, you think you’ll become a teacher? What will you do with words at this age?”
Zahide and the others, unable to write or read, it had never been needed before. but here in Şişli, when they arrived to see the city, literacy became a currency, a measure of belonging
Şişli stood before them, demanded the proof of a name written cleanly you must translate yourself, shape your tongue to their words, measure your worth in their terms
“When I first came here, I didn’t go out at all. but I lost so much weight. When I went back to my hometown, my family was so upset.” in the city, the unspoken rule to navigate the streets, and in that silence, Emine struggled, feeling that perhaps the city was swallowing her
five women, from a small neighbourhood, five women who, for five months, sat in a room, learning letters, learning a new life. each word, a negotiation of what they were allowed to be
“If I had learned to read and write earlier, I wouldn’t have married again. I would have raised my daughter alone. I could have had the chance then, because back there, I couldn’t get any job, illiterate,
Who would hire you? You have no skill, You could only clean, wash the dishes. Then, how could I raise my child?
I cried so much for my daughter, but what could I do?” Dilan’s new husband refused her daughter she had to leave her in the arms of her mother, who raises her as her own.
language, the price of belonging, their children already knewwith their hands already fluent in its curves and lines, women followed tracing the shapes
each letter a promise of a place they struggled to earn their right to the city
it was how they helped with the children’s homework, how they signed the papers no more leaving their names in someone else’s handwriting.
now they read the numbers on the bus, the ones that led them to places they never dared to go before writing words their husbands could not and never wanted to
“My husband didn’t want it,” Dilan said. “He liked me the way I was. Sometimes, we fought just because I came here.”
“Maybe he was jealous. ‘People do everything on computers,’ he said His ex-wife did that, and left him. That’s why he’s jealous”
literacy, a doorway, a threat, a threat to her place at home, the fear that she might step out
yet, in the quiet spaces between sentences, five women hoped that their children might adore them for learning the shapes of a language that would never be theirs.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Panama—and by extension, much of Latin America—is in an uproar. The news of deported migrants, stranded and detained in Panama, has stirred outrage and condemnation. Yet, this is not a new story. It is merely a chapter in a book that has been written, rewritten, and ignored for decades in the United States, even as families, migrants, and human rights advocates warned that such policies would not stay contained within U.S. borders forever.
The real question now is: Why is migration only becoming a pressing issue for Latin American nations when they are the ones forced to deal with the aftermath?
The European Commission has outlined proposals to increase deportations of people with no legal right to stay in the EU, but critics said it had opened the door to “prolonged detention” of people with plans for offshore detention centres.
The plans for a European returns system published on Tuesday came after EU leaders demanded “innovative solutions” to deal with undocumented migrants, in response to gains made by the far-right in last year’s European elections.
Following Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president of the United States, Jack Spehn examines the logistics behind his campaign promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. This analytic method exposes the entanglement of private capital and transnational biopolitics by examining the role of private airlines in executing deportation policies.
A harsher approach to immigration enforcement was central to United States (US) President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Throughout his campaign, he promised to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Already, his administration has arrested thousands, though reports quote Trump expressing anger that deportation numbers are not higher. If he is to make good on his promises, one thing is certain: any attempt to detain and deport such a large number of human beings will require extensive partnership with the private sector. A look at the history of private involvement in immigration enforcement shows us just how bad that may be.
Why and how does the US deport people?
Deportation in the US has a long and complicated history. Despite some politicians’ claims that only those with violent criminal histories have any reason to fear deportation, many of those forcibly removed from the country have long been living there legally. Many of them pay taxes and actively contribute to their communities. As Human Rights Watch reported, “mothers and fathers of US citizen children, tax-paying employees, and respected community members…are being arrested, locked up, and deported under a system that often does not even weigh their deep and longstanding ties in the balance.”
The US executes its immigration enforcement policies through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE, in turn, derives its authority to deport individuals from the country primarily under the Immigration and Nationality Act, oftentimes referred to as its Title 8 authority. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) manages the identification, arrest, detention, and deportation of noncitizens. Between October 2020 and July 2024, ERO deported 475,790 people under its Title 8 authority.
But Title 8 isn’t the only mechanism the US deploys to deport people. Between March 2020 and May 2023, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was temporarily granted authority to deport under Title 42, a public health authority used to block the entry of those who may pose a health risk. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 alone, the US removed 550,581 individuals under its Title 42 authority.
A majority of US deportations are done by air, and ICE’s primary air transportation division is called ICE Air Operations, or ICE Air. According to ICE’s website, ICE Air deports individuals “via charter and commercial air transportation.” In FY2023, ERO removed more than 140,000 individuals to over 170 countries via 1,178 chartered flights. More than half of those removed had no criminal charges or convictions against them.
Forcibly transferring such a large number of people requires extensive logistical capabilities. This is where the private sector comes in.
What role does the private sector play in deportation?
The private sector has long been involved in US immigration enforcement. The use of privately owned and operated immigration detention facilities, for example, expanded during Trump’s first presidency and peaked under Biden, when more than 90 percent of detained immigrants were held in privately owned or operated facilities. Well-documented rights abuses and horrific conditions persist at these facilities, even as the companies that own and operate them secure highly lucrative federal and state contracts.
In contrast to detention, the private sector’s involvement in deportation is much more opaque.
To date, one of the most thorough reviews of private companies assisting in the deportation of noncitizens comes from the University of Washington Center for Human Rights (UWCHR). Their 2019 report, Hidden in Plain Sight: ICE Air and the Machinery of Mass Deportation, analysed data on more than 1.7 million passenger records from almost 15,000 ICE Air deportation flights between October 2010 and December 2018. They found that ICE has contracted with numerous private entities over the years to coordinate, operate, and provide additional necessary services for deportation flights. Still, the US government is spending at least hundreds of millions of dollars on these contracts despite reports of unsafe conditions and other human rights concerns.
Review of ICE statistics on deportations to conflict states
Profiting off deportations is problematic enough, but many of those deported are sent to countries experiencing conflict or other humanitarian crises. UWCHR’s analysis of ICE Air deportation data highlighted increasing numbers of people deported to Somalia, where rights groups reported that many of those returned faced significant danger. A further review of ERO deportation statistics between October 2020 and June 2024 shows additional examples of large-scale Title 8 removals to counties where the safety of those returned is in question. In each case, most of those deported had no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
To Afghanistan: 153 total, 130 of whom had no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
To Haiti: 3,161 total, 2,600 of whom had no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
To Sudan: 10 total, all with no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
To Venezuela: 4,250 total, 3,711 of whom had no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
To Yemen: 21 total, all with no criminal convictions or pending criminal charges.
As Trump’s deportation policy expands, the administration will likely continue to make use of a wide variety of methods, including the military. There will be debates about both the costs and the legalities, but the morality should not be forgotten. The US has made a habit of deporting people with the help of private companies, who have in turn profited from these removals. The government’s business relationship with these private airlines continues despite numerous reports of abuse, unsafe conditions, and other human rights violations. To make matters worse, many of these private companies are carrying out deportations to countries that are actively experiencing a conflict or humanitarian crisis. The US should end the practice of contracting out private companies for deportation and immigration enforcement more broadly and ensure it does not violate the right against refoulement or otherwise deport people into potentially dangerous situations.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
International Women’s Day, March 8, is an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of women around the world.
Closer to home, here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we can take a moment to acknowledge Pasifika women, and in particular the contributions of Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban.
For her, “International Women’s day is an opportunity to acknowledge Pasifika women’s contribution to economic, social, and cultural development in New Zealand and our Pacific region.”
Luamanuvao has a significant string of “firsts” in her resume, including becoming the first Pasifika woman to be elected to Parliament in 1999.
Growing up, she drew great motivation from her parents’ immigrant story.
She told RNZ Pacific that she often contemplated their journey to New Zealand from Samoa on a boat. Sailing with them were their dreams for a better life.
‘Hard work and sacrifice’
“And it is that hard work and sacrifice that for me makes me reflect on why this award is so important.
“Because it acknowledges the Pacific journey of sacrifice and dreams. But more importantly, bringing up a generation who must make the best use of their opportunities.”
Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban and supporters during an International Women’s day event in Wellington. Image: RNZ Pacific
After serving as assistant Vice-Chancellor (Pasifika) at Te Herenga Waka/Victoria University since 2010, Dame Winnie is stepping down. As she prepares to move on from that role, she spoke to RNZ Pacific about the importance of Pasifika women in society.
“Our women teach us that our strength and resilience is in our relationship, courage to do what is right, respect and ability to work together, stay together and look after and support each other,” she said.
“We are also reminded of the powerful women from our communities who are strong leaders and contributors to the welfare and wellbeing of our families and communities.
“They are the sacred weavers of our ie toga, tivaevae, latu, bilum and masi that connect our genealogy and our connection to each other.
“Our Pacific Ocean is our mother and she binds us together. This is our enduring legacy.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Council of Europe’s Michael O’Flaherty urged leaders not to give in to populist rhetoric over migration
Europe’s most senior human rights official has said there is evidence of asylum seekers being forcibly expelled at EU borders, as he urged mainstream politicians not to concede to populists on migration.
The commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, Michael O’Flaherty, told the Guardian he was concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers at the EU’s external borders in Poland and Greece, as he warned against a “securitisation response” that goes too far.
The expansion of offshore asylum processing has raised international concerns over human rights. Alessia Corti examines whether the 2024 Italy-Albania Migration Agreement breaches Italy’s international human rights obligations.
Offshoring processing allows Western states to shift
the responsibility for asylum seekers onto third countries, distancing
themselves from direct accountability and potential human rights violations. Outsourcing
asylum procedures can create legal and practical barriers that hinder asylum
seekers’ access to fair protections under international law.
The Italy-Albania agreement applies to migrants
rescued in international waters by the Italian Coast Guard and the Italian
Navy. Crucially, decisions
on eligibility for transfer to Albania are made on board the rescue ships. Only individuals
from countries
designated as “safe”, excluding vulnerable groups such as children and
pregnant women (though this exclusion is not explicitly stated), are sent to
Albania. Initially brought to a centre in Shengjin for asylum processing, those
denied asylum are transferred to another facility in Gjader to await
repatriation. Unlike the UK-Rwanda migration plan, these
Albanian centres operate under Italian law.
In a report published in
January 2024, Amnesty International had already expressed the risks of
determining the “vulnerability” of the asylum seekers on the rescue boat. The organisation
emphasised the lack of resources and time required for accurate and fair
evaluations, noting that decisions made under such circumstances jeopardise migrants’ chances of
obtaining asylum.
Indeed, the test of vulnerability and the
determination of whether a migrant’s country of origin is “safe” have the
purpose of sending to Albania those whose asylum applications are expected, for
the majority, to be rejected. Amnesty also pointed out that international law
obliges states to minimise the time rescued migrants spend at sea and ensure
prompt disembarkation in a place of safety. Sending migrants to Albania—a journey of over 926 km — violates
this obligation and compounds
their trauma.
Let’s take a moment to consider the real-life
consequences of this agreement on those seeking asylum.
A migrant crosses the Mediterranean in a small,
overcrowded rubber boat, fleeing war, persecution, or extreme hardship. Under
the cover of night, the rubber boat capsizes. People fight to stay afloat,
gasping for air, as others succumb to the waves. Eventually, the Italian Coast
Guard rescues the survivors, offering a momentary sense of relief—but they
remain at sea. Many are in a state of shock, exhausted and traumatised, yet
they must immediately undergo questioning in a language they may not understand.
This happens without any legal aid, medical evaluation, or psychological
support. Their responses, given under extreme distress, determine their fate.
Some will be transferred to Albania—a country they may have no connection
to—where they face a fast-track asylum process, the haste of which comes from
the assumption that their application will be rejected.
Days at sea turn into weeks of detention, then months
of limbo. Those deemed ineligible face repatriation to the very dangers they
risked their lives to escape. Lacking empathy and violating international
obligations, this process erodes the migrants’ human dignity.
The agreement’s reliance on the
concept of “safe countries” has also been criticised. In October 2024, the Court of
Rome ordered the return of all migrants transferred to Albania, citing the “impossibility
of recognising as safe countries the countries of origin of the detained
persons”, namely Egypt and Bangladesh. The court referenced a
ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. In response, the
Italian government issued a decree law (decreto
legge) listing 19 “safe” countries, including Egypt and Bangladesh. However, the question
remains: safe for whom? The 1951 Convention (Article
1 (2)) defines a refugee as someone with a well-founded fear of persecution.
This includes people targeted due to their membership to a particular social
group, such as LGBTQI+ individuals or women and girls risking genital
mutilation. For these individuals, countries described as safe by the Italian
government, such as Bangladesh
or Egypt, might not be safe at all. Returning asylum seekers to such places
violates the principle of non-refoulment (1951
Refugee Convention, Article 33 (1)) which prohibits sending individuals
to countries where they might face serious harm; and is a non-derogable norm, meaning
that non-refoulment
cannot be
suspended or ignored, even upon the consent of states.
Concerns about the migrant’s human rights extend
beyond the transfer process. Drawing parallels with the 2017 Italy-Libya
memorandum, human rights groups fear a risk of recurrence, in
the Albanian centres, of the human rights abuses happening in the centres in
Libya, which include torture
and inhumane living conditions. Although Albania’s centres are
governed by Italian law, oversight mechanisms and transparency remain limited,
raising concerns about the treatment of migrants after transfer.
While addressing migration challenges is complex,
policies must adhere to international law and prioritise humanity and fairness.
This agreement, as it stands, risks threatening the dignity and rights of asylum
seekers and undermines the very principles of asylum.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Trump’s immigration crackdown could cause chaos for communities trying to rebuild after devastating wildfires and floods, as the vast majority of skilled disaster-restoration workers are immigrants, a leading expert has warned.
Republican and Democratic voters across the US are reeling from climate-fueled disasters, with thousands of homes and businesses destroyed and damaged by the ongoing fires in Los Angeles, as well as major hurricanes in Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia last year.
In each place, recovery depends on restoration or resilience workers, who travel from disaster to disaster cleaning up and rebuilding American communities while facing hazards such as unstable buildings, ash and other toxins, and water-borne diseases.
“Like farm workers in the fields, immigrants are indispensable to fire, flood, and hurricane recovery in the US. There is absolutely no rebuilding without them,” said Saket Soni, director of Resilience Force, a labor organization with almost 4,000 members, who are primarily immigrant workers.
“Mass deportations would completely upend the ongoing recovery in Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina from last year’s hurricanes. It would stall the rebuilding of LA after fires … and at this point, anyone anywhere is at risk of having their home impacted by a climate disaster. So everyone need these skilled workers.”
The disaster industry is growing in the US, as climate-fueled extreme weather events become more intense and destructive – and as rebuilding becomes more profitable.
While there is no official count, the current resilience workforce includes tens of thousands of mostly foreign-born workers from across Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as India and the Philippines, among other countries. It is a diverse mix of skilled workers that includes undocumented immigrants, as well as many documented asylum seekers, settled refugees and those with work permits through temporary protected status (TPS).
Trump’s flurry of executive orders and policy ambitions threaten to upend the entire immigration and asylum system. Expanding workplace raids and mass deportations may temporarily satisfy Trump’s anti-immigrant base, but the knock on labor shortages will likely be felt across multiple sectors including construction, food, hospitality, and disaster work.
“The deportations plan is so out of touch with the reality of the victims, who without immigrants will continue to spend months, maybe years in hotels living out of pocket. Recovery often makes the poor even poorer and getting back into your home is the key safeguard against spiraling inequality,” said Soni, who has been involved in 25 disaster-recovery efforts over the past two decades.
“We’re headed for a moment where there’ll be a reckoning between such political ploys and reality. And at some point this will become a moral question rather than a political one.”
Among the biggest obstacles facing families after a destructive fire, tornado, or flood are labor shortages – and funding. Trump’s policy pledges will make both worse.
On Friday, Trump announced his desire to potentially shutter the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during a visit to North Carolina, where rural Republican-voting communities faced some of the worst damage from Hurricane Helene – one of the most destructive and deadly storms to hit the US mainland in years. Helene was among 27 separate billion-dollar disasters to hit the US in 2024.
The estimated cost of the damage in North Carolina from Helene, which hit six states across southern Appalachia all of which voted for Trump, is almost $60 billion. Here, four months after the floods, there is much work still to do – from debris removal and mold remediation to roof replacements and geological repairs to hillsides.
Also on Friday, Trump visited Los Angeles, where more than 11,000 homes have been destroyed and the damage caused by just two of the blazes – the Palisades and Eaton fires – is now estimated at $275 billion. At least 150,000 people have been displaced, and many have applied to FEMA for help. “You don’t need FEMA, you need a good state government, you fix it yourself,” said Trump, after touring some of the fire-ravaged area.
FEMA provides emergency assistance for temporary accommodation, food and unemployment benefits, as well as reimbursing individuals and states for clean-up and rebuilding costs, which are not covered by private insurance.
“Abolishing FEMA would invite a pretty major response over the next few years because no state will absorb that amount of responsibility or spending. The states would rise up – especially the very red states like Florida, Texas, and Louisiana that this administration counts on for its constituents and where disasters happen again and again,” said Soni.
“We will need FEMA to be bigger, not smaller. Any resident who’s been through a hurricane or wildfire, whether Democrat or Republican, will agree with that. Fires aren’t making a distinction between political parties. We have Republicans in California who need FEMA just as much as the Democrats.”
On Monday, it emerged that the Trump administration had issued new quotas to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to ramp up raids and arrests, the Washington Post reported.
The expansion of workplace raids could force some restoration workers underground – as happened in 2022 after Hurricane Idalia when Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed draconian anti-immigrant legislation. “Immigrant workers put their tools down and left in fear, leaving homes to be rebuilt and families in limbo. That was very bad for Floridians who were depending on those workers, but the workers needed to be careful,” said Soni, speaking from North Carolina where he was meeting homeowners desperate to repair and return to their homes.
“Even among those who are documented, many restoration workers have a tenuous foothold in America – people who are not yet citizens and are being threatened by Trump. People are scared, and yet these workers have a deep sense of vocation. There’s something sacred about working after a fire or a hurricane so that a family can come home. What is more important than that?”
The resilience workforce has grown massively since Katrina flattened New Orleans in 2005, after which the city was rebuilt by mostly undocumented Latino workers. Since then, the industry has consolidated, with private-equity firms buying up small businesses, with minimal protection for workers and little regulatory oversight.
The working and living conditions can be brutal for the immigrant workers, many of whom come from countries hit hard by the climate crisis caused by planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions – of which the US is the largest historic contributor.
“We have workers from Honduras who right now are rebuilding the homes of Floridians – and are in Florida because a hurricane destroyed their home and forced them to leave. Do you know how much grace it takes to replace someone else’s roof while your own home is uninhabitable? And yet the workers persevere with grace and persistence,” said Soni, author of The Great Escape: A True Story of Forced Labor and Immigrant Dreams in America, which chronicles the story of Indians lured to the US to help rebuild New Orleans.
“Volunteer efforts in Appalachia and Los Angeles have been extraordinary, but the truth is that the scale of damage we’re seeing across the US requires a skilled, scaled workforce. If you deport one generation of restoration workers, you can’t just add water and have another generation appear. It’s taken two decades to build the workforce that we have. And without them, everyone’s at risk.”
Australia recently passed three contentious Migration Amendment Bills. Souniya Dhuldhoya examines how these bills may infringe on refugee rights and undermine international human rights obligations.
In a troubling turn of events, the Albanese government of Australia reached a consensus with the Opposition. It passed three contentious bills in the Parliament–the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024, and the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024–marking a concerning shift in the country’s immigration policies. These bills enable the government to impose sweeping travel bans, exercise autonomous deportation powers, and a blatant infringement of the international law principle of non-refoulement. Rushed through Parliament without meaningful scrutiny, these bills place unchecked authority in the hands of the government to determine who qualifies for asylum undermining due process and transparency in the asylum-seeking system.
This article seeks to critically examine the provisions of the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, exposing their far-reaching consequences for refugee rights and Australia’s adherence to international human rights obligations. Through this analysis, I aim to shed light on the broader implications of these regressive policies and underscore the urgent need for a more humane and rights-based approach to migration governance.
The NZYQ judgement
In NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the High Court of Australia delivered a landmark judgment that struck at the heart of indefinite immigration detention. The Court held that where there is no real prospect of deportation becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, continued detention becomes unlawful. This reasoning rests on the principle that detention without purpose shifts from administrative to punitive, violating the constitutional separation of powers enshrined in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. The judgment marked a significant departure from the earlier precedent set in Al-Kateb v Godwin, where the Court upheld the validity of indefinite detention even when deportation was not feasible.
Following NZYQ, the ruling in YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs provided further clarity on the constitutional limits of executive power. The Court scrutinised harsh conditions imposed on individuals—such as monitoring devices and curfews—and held that such measures are inherently punitive. As punishment lies within the exclusive domain of the courts, these executive-imposed conditions were found to violate the separation of powers doctrine.
These judicial decisions prompted the introduction of the Amendment Bills in Parliament, aimed at reversing the impact of this judgment. These bills seek to grant expanded powers to the authorities, fundamentally altering the framework for immigration laws in Australia.
The Migration Amendment Bill 2024
As the first of the three bills introduced in Parliament, the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958, which has long served as the cornerstone of Australia’s immigration and visa framework. The stated purpose of this amendment is to bolster removal arrangements for immigrants, granting the government the authority to engage in “third country reception arrangements” with foreign nations. These provisions enable the deportation of non-citizens to third countries, raising serious concerns over the principle of non-refoulement. The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention, prohibits returning asylum seekers or refugees to countries where they may face persecution, torture, or threats to their life. Recognised as a jus cogens norm—a fundamental principle of international law from which no derogation is permitted—this safeguard is vital to the global protection framework for refugees. By allowing deportations to third countries, the amendment risks violating this principle, undermining Australia’s commitments under both the Refugee Convention.
Australia currently maintains a third country arrangement with Nauru, However, Schedule 5 of the Bill introduces proposed section 198AHB, which authorises the Commonwealth country to make payments to foreign countries under these arrangements. While the Bill explicitly states that the Commonwealth itself cannot exercise restraint over an individual’s liberty within these arrangements, it permits the third country to do so. This practice effectively circumvents accountability by enabling the detention or restriction of asylum seekers in third countries, often in conditions that may not meet international human rights standards.
Moreover, Divisions 7 and 8 of Part 2 of the amended Migration Act empower authorities to mandatorily detain and remove individuals without valid visas from Australian territory. There are no clear policies or safeguards in the Bill or the Explanatory Memorandum to ensure that people sent to third countries are not subjected to human rights violations or returned to their home countries where they face persecution.
Disclosure of Personal Information
Schedules 3 and 4 of the Bill grant the government extensive powers to collect, use, and disclose personal information—including criminal history and spent convictions—overriding existing Commonwealth, state, and territory protections. Subject to specific exclusions, the existing legal framework ensures that when a conviction for an offence is deemed spent, the individual is no longer required to disclose the conviction. Furthermore, others are prohibited from disclosing the conviction or considering it without the individual’s consent. However, Proposed Section 501M (Item 1 of Schedule 3) seeks to override these established protections, even where Commonwealth, state or territory laws would otherwise prohibit such collection, use and disclosure. Not only this, it permits the disclosure of this information to external entities, including foreign governments. This is deeply concerning as it undermines the fundamental right to privacy, which is safeguarded under international human rights law. As enshrined in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), individuals are entitled to protection from arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence.
For refugees, this legislation carries devastating consequences. It risks weaponising their past circumstances to justify visa cancellations, deportations, and stringent immigration measures.
Ultimately, this legislation signals a disturbing shift in migration governance, where efficiency is prioritised over fairness, and vulnerable individuals are treated as disposable. It calls into question Australia’s commitment to upholding principles of justice, transparency, and compassion—values that must remain at the forefront of any humane immigration system.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
In a fervent appeal to the global community, Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea has called on US President Donald Trump to “rethink” his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and current global climate initiatives.
Marape’s plea came during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, on 23 January 2025.
Expressing deep concern for the impacts of climate change on Papua New Guinea and other vulnerable Pacific Island nations, Marape highlighted the dire consequences these nations face due to rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather patterns.
“The effects of climate change are not just theoretical for us; they have real, devastating impacts on our fragile economies and our way of life,” he said.
The Prime Minister emphasised that while it was within President Trump’s prerogative to prioritise American interests, withdrawing the United States — the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide– from the Paris Agreement without implementing measures to curtail coal power production was “totally irresponsible”, Marape said.
“As a leader of a major forest and ocean nation in the Pacific region, I urge President Trump to reconsider his decision.”
He went on to point out the contradiction in the US stance.
US not closing coal plants
“The United States is not shutting down any of its coal power plants yet has chosen to withdraw from critical climate efforts. This is fundamentally irresponsible.
“The science regarding our warming planet is clear — it does not lie,” he said.
Marape further articulated that as the “Leader of the Free World,” Trump had a moral obligation to engage with global climate issues.
PNG Prime Minister James Marape’s plea to President Trump. Video: PNGTV
“It is morally wrong for President Trump to disregard the pressing challenges of climate change.
He must articulate how he intends to address this critical issue,” he added, stressing that effective global leaders had a responsibility not only to their own nations but also to the planet as a whole.
In a bid to advocate for small island nations that are bearing the brunt of climate impacts, PM Marape announced plans to bring this issue to the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
He hopes to unify the voices of PIF member countries in a collective statement regarding the US withdrawal from climate negotiations.
US revived Pacific relations
“The United States has recently revitalised its relations with the Pacific. It is discouraging to see it retreating from climate discussions that significantly affect our region’s efforts to mitigate climate change,” he said.
Prime Minister Marape reminded the international community that while larger nations might have the capacity to withstand extreme weather events such as typhoons, wildfires, and tornadoes, smaller nations like Papua New Guinea could not endure such impacts.
“For us, every storm and rising tide represents a potential crisis. Big nations can afford to navigate these challenges, but for us, the stakes are incredibly high,” he said.
Marape’s appeal underscores the urgent need for collaborative and sustained global action to combat climate change, particularly for nations like Papua New Guinea, which are disproportionately affected by environmental change.
It didn’t come as a surprise to see President Donald Trump sign executive orders to again pull out of the Paris Agreement, or from the World Health Organisation, but the immediate suspension of US international aid has compounded the impact beyond what was imagined possible.
The slew of executive orders signed within hours of Trump re-entering the White House and others since have caused consternation for Pacific leaders and communities and alarm for those operating in the region.
Since Trump was last in power, US engagement in the Pacific has increased dramatically. We have seen new embassies opened, the return of Peace Corps volunteers, high-level summits in Washington and more.
All the officials who have been in the region and met with Pacific leaders and thinkers will know that climate change impacts are the name of the game when it comes to security.
It is encapsulated in the Boe Declaration signed by leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum in 2018 as their number one existential threat and has been restated many times since.
Now it is hard to see how US diplomats and administration representatives can expect to have meaningful conversations with their Pacific counterparts, if they have nothing to offer when it comes to the region’s primary security threat.
The “on again, off again” approach to cutting carbon emissions and providing climate finance does not lend itself to convincing sceptical Pacific leaders that the US is a trusted friend here for the long haul.
Pacific response muted
Trump’s climate scepticism is well-known and the withdrawal from Paris had been flagged during the campaign. The response from leaders within the Pacific islands region has been somewhat muted, with a couple of exceptions.
Vanuatu Attorney-General Kiel Loughman called it out as “bad behaviour”. Meanwhile, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape has sharply criticised Trump, “urging” him to reconsider his decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, and plans to rally Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders to stand with him.
It is hard to see how this will have much effect.
The withdrawal from the World Health Organisation – to which the US provides US$500 million or about 15 percent of its annual budget – creates a deep funding gap.
In 2022, the Lowy Pacific aid map recorded that the WHO disbursed US$9.1 million in the Pacific islands across 320 projects. It contributes to important programmes that support health systems in the region.
In addition, the 90-day pause on disbursement of aid funding while investments are reviewed to ensure that they align with the president’s foreign policy is causing confusion and distress in the region.
Perhaps now the time has come to adopt a more transactional approach. While this may not come easily to Pacific diplomats, the reality is that this is how everyone else is acting and it appears to be the geopolitical language of the moment.
Meaningful commitment opportunities
So where the US seeks a security agreement or guarantee, there may be an opportunity to tie it to climate change or other meaningful commitments.
When it comes to the PIF, the intergovernmental body representing 18 states and territories, Trump’s stance may pose a particular problem.
The PIF secretariat is currently undertaking a Review of Regional Architecture. As part of that, dialogue partners including the US are making cases for whether they should be ranked as “Strategic Partners” [Tier 1] or “Sector Development Partners [Tier 2].
It is hard to see how the US can qualify for “strategic partner” status given Trump’s rhetoric and actions in the last week. But if the US does not join that club, it is likely to cede space to China which is also no doubt lobbying to be at the “best friends” table.
With the change in president comes the new Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He was previously known for having called for the US to cut all its aid to Solomon Islands when then Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare announced this country’s switch in diplomatic ties from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China.
It is to be hoped that since then Rubio has learned that this type of megaphone diplomacy is not welcome in this part of the world.
Since taking office, he has made little mention of the Pacific islands region. In a call with New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters they “discussed efforts to enhance security cooperation, address regional challenges, and support for the Pacific Islands.”
It is still early days, a week is a long time in politics and there remain many “unknown unknowns”. What we do know is that what happens in Washington during the next four years will have global impacts, including in the Pacific. The need now for strong Pacific leadership and assertive diplomacy has never been greater.
Dr Tess Newton Cain is a principal consultant at Sustineo P/L and adjunct associate professor at the Griffith Asia Institute. She is a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific and has more than 25 years of experience working in the Pacific islands region. This article was first published by BenarNews and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
What will happen to Australia — and New Zealand — once the superpower that has been followed into endless battles, the United States, finally unravels?
With President Donald Trump now into his second week in the White House, horrific fires have continued to rage across Los Angeles and the details of Elon Musk’s allegedly dodgy Twitter takeover began to emerge, the world sits anxiously by.
The consequences of a second Trump term will reverberate globally, not only among Western nations. But given the deeply entrenched Americanisation of much of the Western world, this is about how it will navigate the after-shocks once the United States finally unravels — for unravel it surely will.
Leading with chaos Now that the world’s biggest superpower and war machine has a deranged criminal at the helm — for a second time — none of us know the lengths to which Trump (and his puppet masters) will go as his fingers brush dangerously close to the nuclear codes. Will he be more emboldened?
The signs are certainly there.
President Donald Trump 2.0 . . . will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division? Image: ABC News screenshot IA
So far, Trump — who had already led the insurrection of a democratically elected government — has threatened to exit the nuclear arms pact with Russia, talked up a trade war with China and declared “all hell will break out” in the Middle East if Hamas hadn’t returned the Israeli hostages.
Will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division?
This, too, appears to be already happening.
Trump’s rants leading up to his inauguration last week had been a steady stream of crazed declarations, each one more unhinged than the last.
Denial of catastrophic climate consequences
And will Trump be in even further denial over the catastrophic consequences of climate change than during his last term? Even as Los Angeles grapples with a still climbing death toll of 25 lives lost, 12,000 homes, businesses and other structures destroyed and 16,425 hectares (about the size of Washington DC) wiped out so far in the latest climactic disaster?
The fires are, of course, symptomatic of the many years of criminal negligence on global warming. But since Trump instead accused California officials of “prioritising environmental policies over public safety” while his buddy and head of government “efficiency”, Musk blamed black firefighters for the fires, it would appear so.
Will the madman, for surely he is one, also gift even greater protections to oligarchs like Musk?
“…pave the way for my Administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal agencies”.
So, this too is already happening.
All of these actions will combine to create a scenario of destruction that will see the implosion of the US as we know it, though the details are yet to emerge.
The flawed AUKUS pact sinking quickly . . . Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with outgoing President Joe Biden, will Australia have the mettle to be bigger than Trump. Image: Independent Australia
What happens Down Under?
US allies — like Australia — have already been thoroughly indoctrinated by American pop culture in order to complement the many army bases they house and the defence agreements they have signed.
Though Trump hasn’t shown any interest in making it a 52nd state, Australia has been tucked up in bed with the United States since the Cold War. Our foreign policy has hinged on this alliance, which also significantly affects Australia’s trade and economy, not to mention our entire cultural identity, mired as it is in US-style fast food dependence and reality TV. Would you like Vegemite McShaker Fries with that?
So what will happen to Australia once the superpower we have followed into endless battles finally breaks down?
‘Trump has promised chaos and chaos is what he’ll deliver.’
His rise to power will embolden the rabid Far-Right in the US but will this be mirrored here? And will Australia follow the US example and this year elect our very own (admittedly scaled down) version of Trump, personified by none other than the Trump-loving Peter Dutton?
If any of his wild announcements are to be believed, between building walls and evicting even US nationals he doesn’t like, while simultaneously making Canadians US citizens, Trump will be extremely busy.
There will be little time even to consider Australia, let alone come to our rescue should we ever need the might of the US war machine — no matter whether it is an Albanese or sycophantic Dutton leadership.
It is a given, however, that we would be required to honour all defence agreements should our ally demand it.
It would be great if, as psychologists urge us to do when children act up, our leaders could simply ignore and refuse to engage with him, but it remains to be seen whether Australia will have the mettle to be bigger than Trump.
Republished from the Independent Australia with permission.
Allegations of rape, beatings and collusion by EU-funded security forces prompt shift in migration arrangements
The European Commission is fundamentally overhauling how it makes payments to Tunisia after a Guardian investigation exposed myriad abuses by EU-funded security forces, including widespread sexual violence against migrants.
Officials are drawing up “concrete” conditions to ensure that future European payments to Tunis can go ahead only if human rights have not been violated.
By 2050, it is projected that 200 million people will require humanitarian assistance annually due to the devastating effects of climate change, creating one of the most pressing humanitarian crises of our time. Sneha Singal outlines potential methods of international cooperation to address this urgent crisis.
By 2050, it is projected that 200 million people will require humanitarian assistance annually due to the devastating effects of climate change, creating one of the most pressing humanitarian crises of our time. The 21st century has witnessed climate change transform from an environmental issue into a multifaceted global crisis, profoundly reshaping politics, societies, and human survival. Its consequences extend far beyond rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and extreme weather events, as a critical yet often neglected outcome of these environmental shifts is large-scale human displacement, giving rise to a category of individuals increasingly referred to as “climate refugees.” These “climate refugees,” also known as “environmental refugees” or “the world’s forgotten victims,” are individuals forced to flee their homes due to environmental degradation and climate-induced disasters. Climate change is not merely a challenge for existing refugees but a leading and accelerating cause of forced displacement globally.
Despite the urgency of this crisis, international frameworks continue to lack formal recognition of climate refugees, leaving millions of displaced individuals without adequate legal protection. The 1951 Refugee Convention, which serves as the cornerstone of international refugee law, narrowly defines refugees as individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, while excluding those forced to migrate due to environmental degradation or climate-induced disasters. This gap leaves climate refugees without the legal status and rights granted to individuals fleeing war, political persecution, or ethnic conflict, further exacerbating their vulnerability.
The primary challenge in establishing an internationally accepted definition of climate refugees lies in the complexity of environmental migration. Environmental factors may drive people to migrate, but these are often intertwined with other socio-political and economic causes. Climate change rarely acts as a sole motivator for migration, as individuals may also be fleeing poverty, instability, or violence. Additionally, many climate refugees remain within the borders of their country, making them internally displaced persons rather than international refugees. This complicates their legal status as international refugee law traditionally applies to those who cross borders.
Despite these challenges, the urgency of the situation demands immediate action. One proposal is to expand the 1951 Refugee Convention to include climate refugees as it would provide a legal framework for their protection. This framework would ensure fair treatment for climate refugees worldwide and promote cooperation among countries to address the crisis together. Critics, on the other hand, argue that broadening the refugee definition could grant governments more discretion in asylum decisions, which would potentially undermine asylum rights, strain resources, and complicate the refugee determination process without clear legal criteria. Similarly, expanding the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement to include environmentally-induced migration could be beneficial by establishing a framework for countries to respond to the internal displacement caused by climate change. However, as the guidelines are not legally binding, their practical impact is limited unless they are adopted by governments as part of their national laws and policies. Additionally, there have been calls for addressing the issue of climate refugees through international cooperation, particularly through bilateral agreements, as these could offer more tailored and flexible solutions. These agreements can facilitate shared responsibility, ensuring that both countries contribute to the welfare of displaced populations while providing specialised support for their needs and serve as a starting point to recognise these forgotten victims in the international community. Despite these advantages, such agreements remain rare and often fail to fully address the social and cultural integration of displaced populations into host communities, leaving gaps in the long-term stability and well-being of those affected.
One of the most promising solutions is to address the issue of climate-induced displacement is the establishment of a clear protocol under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) specifically focused on climate-induced migration. Such a protocol would provide a framework for the recognition, protection, and resettlement of climate refugees. While this proposal may face significant political challenges, particularly from wealthier nations reluctant to expand the refugee regime due to concerns about potential migrant influxes and the associated economic costs, addressing this issue remains imperative. Despite these political obstacles, it is essential for countries to collaborate beyond their political and economic interests in order to find a viable solution. Establishing a comprehensive legal framework for climate refugees would not only safeguard vulnerable populations but also ensure that the international community collectively responds to the growing challenges posed by climate change.
The issue of climate refugees is not only a legal one but also a moral one. The international community must take concrete steps to not only address the immediate needs of climate refugees but also tackle the root causes of climate change through comprehensive mitigation and adaptation efforts. As climate change impacts worsen, the urgency for a robust framework to safeguard climate refugees intensifies. It is crucial that the international community take immediate action to support and protect those affected by environmental disasters, emphasising the human toll of climate change and the urgent need for global cooperation.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Arrest of Osama Najim puts spotlight on pact with Italy amid claims he used detained migrants in ‘a form of slavery’
A Libyan general wanted for alleged war crimes and violence against inmates at a prison near Tripoli has been arrested in the northern Italian city of Turin.
Osama Najim, also known as Almasri, was detained on Sunday on an international arrest warrant after a tipoff from Interpol, a source at the prosecutors office for the Piedmont region confirmed.
The humanitarian pathway for those affected by the conflict was introduced in October 2024 for the more than 1,300 Palestinians in Australia on visitor visas but prevents them from applying for permanent protection.
Largest known deportation of people back to Niger to date comes as EU is accused of outsourcing cruelty to reduce Mediterranean crossings
More than 600 people have been forcibly deported from Libya on a “dangerous and traumatising” journey across the Sahara, in what is thought to be one of the largest expulsions from the north African country to date.
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) confirmed 613 people, all Nigerien nationals, arrived in the desert town of Dirkou in Niger last weekend in a convoy of trucks. They were among a large number of migrant workers rounded up by the authorities in Libya over the past month.
Australia violated the rights of asylum seekers arbitrarily detained on the island of Nauru, a UN watchdog has ruled, in a warning to other countries intent on outsourcing asylum processing.
The UN human rights committee published decisions in two cases involving 25 refugees and asylum seekers who endured years of arbitrary detention in the island nation.
In ‘potentially trailblazing’ decision, European court of human rights finds country engaging in illicit deportations
The European court of human rights has found Greece guilty of conducting “systematic” pushbacks of would-be asylum seekers, ordering it to compensate a woman forcibly expelled back to Turkey despite her attempts to seek protection in the country.
In a judgment described as potentially trailblazing, the Strasbourg-based tribunal awarded the complainant damages of €20,000 (£16,500), citing evidence that the frontline EU state was engaging in the illicit deportations when she was removed.
United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) provisional government interim president Benny Wenda has warned that since Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto took office in October, he has been proven right in having remarked, after the politician’s last February election, that his coming marks the return of “the ghost of Suharto” — the brutal dictator who ruled over the nation for three decades.
Wenda, an exiled West Papuan leader, outlined in a December 16 statement that at that moment the Indonesian forces were carrying out ethnic cleansing in multiple regencies, as thousands of West Papuans were being forced out of their villages and into the bush by soldiers.
Prabowo coming to top office has a particular foreboding for the West Papuans, who have been occupied by Indonesia since 1963, as over his military career — which spanned from 1970 to 1998 and saw rise him to the position of general, as well as mainly serve in Kopassus (special forces) — the current president perpetrated multiple alleged atrocities across East Timor and West Papua.
According to Wenda, the incumbent Indonesian president can “never clean the blood from his hands for his crimes as a general in West Papua and East Timor”. He further makes clear that Prabowo’s acts since taking office reveal that he is set on “creating a new regime of brutality” in the country of his birth.
Enhancing the occupation “Foreign governments should not be fooled by Prabowo’s PR campaign,” Wenda made certain in mid-December.
“He is desperately seeking international legitimacy through his international tour, empty environmental pledges and the amnesty offered to various prisoners, including 18 West Papuans and the remaining imprisoned members of the Bali Nine.”
Former Indonesian President Suharto ruled over the Southeast Asian nation with an iron fist from 1967 until 1998.
In the years prior to his officially taking office, General Suharto oversaw the mass murder of up to 1 million local Communists, he further rigged the 1969 referendum on self-determination for West Papua, so that it failed and he invaded East Timor in 1975.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto (left) and West Papuan exiled leader Benny Wenda . . . “Foreign governments should not be fooled by Prabowo’s PR campaign.” Image: SCL montage
Wenda maintains that the proof Prabowo is something of an apparition of Suharto is that he has set about forging “mass displacement, increased militarisation” and “increased deforestation” in the Melanesian region of West Papua.
And he has further restarted the transmigration programme of the Suharto days, which involves Indonesians being moved to West Papua to populate the region.
Wenda considers the “occupation was entering a new phase”, when former Indonesian president Joko Widodo split the region of West Papua into five provinces in mid-2022.
Oksop displaced villagers seeking refuge in West Papua. Image: ULMWP
And the West Papuan leader advises that Prabowo is set to establish separate military commands in each province, which will provide “a new, more thorough and far-reaching system of occupation”.
West Papua was previously split into two regions, which the West Papuan people did not recognise, as these and the current five provinces are actually Indonesian administrative zones.
“By establishing new administrative divisions, Indonesia creates the pretext for new military posts and checkpoints,” Wenda underscores.
“The result is the deployment of thousands more soldiers, curfews, arbitrary arrests and human rights abuses. West Papua is under martial law.”
Ecocide on a formidable scale Prabowo paid his first official visit to West Papua as President in November, visiting the Merauke district in South Papua province, which is the site of the world’s largest deforestation project, with clearing beginning in mid-2024, and it will eventually comprise of 2 million deforested hectares turned into giant sugarcane plantations, via the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands.
Five consortiums, including Indonesian and foreign companies, are involved in the project, with the first seedlings having been planted in July. And despite promises that the megaproject would not harm existing forests, these areas are being torn down regardless.
And part of this deforestation includes the razing of forest that had previously been declared protected by the government.
A similar programme was established in Merauke district in 2011, by Widodo’s predecessor President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who established rice and sugarcane plantations in the region, aiming to turn it into a “future breadbasket for Indonesia”.
However, the plan was a failure, and the project was rather used as a cover to establish hazardous palm oil and pulpwood plantations.
“It is not a coincidence Prabowo has announced a new transmigration programme at the same time as their ecocidal deforestation regime intensifies,” Wenda said in a November 2024 statement. “These twin agendas represent the two sides of Indonesian colonialism in West Papua: exploitation and settlement.”
Wenda added that Jakarta is only interested in West Papuan land and resources, and in exchange, Indonesia has killed at least half a million West Papuans since 1963.
And while the occupying nation is funding other projects via the profits it has been making on West Papuan palm oil, gold and natural gas, the West Papuan provinces are the poorest in the Southeast Asian nation.
Indonesian military forces on patrol in the Oksop regency of the West Papua region. Image: ULMWP
And part of the agreement was that West Papuans undertake the Act of Free Choice, or a 1969 referendum on self-determination.
So, if the West Papuans did not vote to become an autonomous nation, then Indonesian administration would continue.
However, the UN brokered referendum is now referred to as the Act of “No Choice”, as it only involved 1026 West Papuans, handpicked by Indonesia. And under threat of violence, all of these men voted to stick with their colonial oppressors.
Wenda presented The People’s Petition to the UN Human Rights High Commissioner in January 2019, which calls for a new internationally supervised vote on self-determination for the people of West Papua, and it included the signatures of 1.8 million West Papuans, or 70 percent of the Indigenous population.
The exiled West Papuan leader further announced the formation of the West Papua provisional government on 1 December 2020, which involved the establishment of entire departments of government with heads of staff appointed on the ground in the Melanesian province, and Wenda was also named the president of the body.
But with the coming of Prabowo and the recent developments in West Papua, it appears the West Papuan struggle is about to intensify at the same time as the movement for independence becomes increasingly more prominent on the global stage.
“Every element of West Papua is being systematically destroyed: our land, our people, our Melanesian culture identity,” Wenda said in November, in response to the recommencement of Indonesia’s transmigration programme and the massive environment devastation in Merauke.
“This is why it is not enough to speak about the Act of No Choice in 1969: the violation of our self-determination is continuous, renewed with every new settlement programme, police crackdown, or ecocidal development.”
