Category: refugees

  • With that orange haired brute of a president supposedly ushered out of the White House with moralising delight, the Biden administration was all keen to turn over a new leaf.  There would be more diplomacy, and still more diplomacy.  There would be a more humanitarian approach to refugees and asylum seekers – forget, he claimed, the Border Wall.  Kindness would come over border officials and guards of the imperium.

    Instead, we have had secret diplomacy culminating in the trilateral security pact of AUKUS, one reached unbeknownst to allies in Europe, Asia and the Indo-Pacific.  And we have had a particularly ugly spectacle concerning Haitian refugees, with many being bundled into planes to be sent back to their country, having been taken from the burgeoning border camp around a bridge in Del Rio, Texas.

    Having been blooded in the mass evacuation exercise from Afghanistan, the Biden administration was now doing the reverse in an exercise of expulsion, promising the deportation of 14,000 Haitians over a period of three weeks.  The jarring contrast was not lost on Nicole Melaku, executive director of the National Partnership for New Americans.  “When you contrast the welcome mat that was rolled out for many Afghan refugees who are deserving – of course – of our support and resettlement, with the deplorable treatment of Black migrants on our home soil, it is just an unfathomable contrast.”

    At the Rio Grande River, US border agents, crowned by cowboy hats and sporting a thuggish élan, left a remarkable impression of ugliness by their free use of reins in pushing migrants back across the river.  Many members of their quarry had made the journey to obtain food.  “I can’t imagine what context would make that appropriate,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki expressed with the sort of wonder that is becoming her hallmark style.  “But I don’t have additional details and certainly I don’t think anyone seeing that footage would think it was acceptable or appropriate.”

    Political atmosphere and atmospherics is everything, and while Psaki might be puzzled, her colleagues in the Biden administration are happy to maintain a firm line against mischievous incursions.  The US Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas has been firm.  “If you come to the United States illegally,” he declared on September 20, “you will be returned.  Your journey will not succeed, and you will be endangering your life and your family’s life.”

    Such conduct did not sit well with the May announcement by Secretary Mayorkas that Haiti had been designated for Temporary Protection Status (TPS) for 18 months.  “Haiti is currently experiencing serious security concerns, social unrest, an increase in human rights abuses, crippling poverty, and lack of basic resources, which are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic,” Mayorkas stated at the time.

    Despite that official characterisation, the administration has taken comfort in using Title 42 of the United States code Section 265, a public health statute freely employed by the Trump administration, to prohibit “the introduction of persons or property, in whole or in part, from Mexico and Canada” into the US for fears of pandemic spread.  The liberal use of the statue has received judicial excoriation, with US District Judge Emmet Sullivan claiming it “collectively deprived” asylum seekers and refugees facing “real threats of violence and persecution” of “certain statutory procedures”.

    Public health officials have also been disconcerted.  As Dr Ronald Waldman of the human rights group Doctors of the World remarks, “The prohibition for crossing the border has been applied selectively to asylum seekers”.  It certainly has not been applied to students and those doing business.

    In a sober assessment of Biden’s report card so far, Natasha Lennard of The Intercept points out that the Trump administration’s use of the law saw half a million people removed. During the short tenure of the Biden administration, the current number stands at 700,000.  Over the course of January, 62,530 migrants were expelled according to the figures of Customs and Border Protection. For the month of April, it was 110,846.

    In a resounding judgment of Biden’s policy towards Haitians and Haiti in general, Washington’s envoy to the country, Daniel Foote, has resigned.  His September 22 letter to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was an effort of extrication from “the United States inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs in control of daily life.”

    Foote also took a stab at a long standing practice of US foreign policy: that habitual meddling in the affairs of a country that had “consistently produced catastrophic results”.  The de facto, unelected prime minister Ariel Henry had received yet “another public statement of support as interim leader of Haiti” from the US embassy, among others. They had continued touting “his ‘political agreement’ over another broader, earlier accord shepherded by civil society.”  The now resigned envoy, sniping at this policy of backing “winners”, stated the essential heresy of the imperium: What Haitians needed was “the opportunity to chart their own course, without international puppeteering and favoured candidates, but with genuine support for the cause.”

    In response to the resignation, US State Department spokesman Ned Price was a picture of regret and hollow advice. “It is unfortunate that, instead of participating in a solutions-oriented policy process, Special Envoy Foote has both resigned and mischaracterised the circumstances.”

    Psaki was icily dismissive.  “Special Envoy Foote had ample opportunity to raise concerns about immigration during his tenure.  He never once did so.” Such bitchiness is a nice summation of the Biden administration so far: policies that continue to furnish us the acceptable face of Trumpism.

    The post Trumpism with a Biden Face: US Haitian Policy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On Thursday September 23, 2021, at 9am ET, the first day of the Annual Strategic Litigation Roundtable 2021 will take place virtually, co-hosted by UNHCR, HIAS, Asylum Access and, this year, the new Global Strategic Litigation Council for Refugee Rights….

    This post was originally published on Human Rights at Home Blog.

  • Berlin, September 17, 2021 – Polish authorities should drop all criminal charges filed against a reporting team from the local news website Onet, and ensure that members of the press can cover refugees and other sensitive issues without fear of prosecution, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

    On September 3, police in Hajnówka, a Polish town near the border with Belarus, summoned Onet reporter Bartłomiej Bublewicz and a camera operator for the website, who did not want their name revealed, to a local police station, according to a report by Onet and Bublewicz, who communicated with CPJ via email.

    Police interrogated both journalists about a report they had published earlier that day covering refugee movements at the border, and charged them with violating a state of emergency decree governing the border region by reporting from that area and taking pictures and video of border infrastructure, according to those sources. Authorities released them after about 30 minutes, according to Bublewicz and that Onet report.

    On September 2, Polish authorities passed a 30-day state of emergency decree covering the border area with Belarus, which bars journalists from reporting from the area, according to news reports.

    “Polish authorities must immediately drop all charges against Bartłomiej Bublewicz and an Onet camera operator, who were simply doing their jobs covering newsworthy events near the country’s border with Belarus,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Authorities must allow reporters to cover refugee movements freely. This level of obstruction only implies that the Polish authorities have something to hide.”

    During the interrogation, police asked to search the journalists’ car and examine their phones and camera memory card, but Bublewicz said that he and his colleague refused those requests. He added that when police first summoned him, he thought they were requesting an informal talk so did not have a lawyer present.

    If convicted of violating the state of emergency, each journalist could face a prison sentence of up to 30 days or a fine of up to 5,000 Polish złoty (US$1300 USD), Bublewicz said. He said that no court date for their case has been set.

    Jakub Kudła, a lawyer for Onet parent company RASP, told Onet in an interview that the charges are baseless, saying that the journalists were simply doing their jobs. He added that the videos they published did not illegally show any border infrastructure, as the journalists did not reach the border itself.

    “I have the impression that the charges in this case are only intended to intimidate and obstruct the work of journalists,” he said.

    On September 14, 30 newsrooms in Poland issued a joint appeal to the government to allow journalists to work freely in the border zone, calling emergency decree “a manifestation of unlawful press restrictions in the work of journalists and suppression of press criticism,” according to reports.

    CPJ emailed the Polish police office in Białystok, which oversees Hajnówka, but did not immediately receive any reply.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Friend of the Murugappans welcomes announcement by immigration minister but says family ‘are still essentially trapped in Perth in community detention’

    The Murugappan family from Biloela will be allowed to stay in Australia for at least another three months after the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, told a court he intended to renew their bridging visas next week.

    Hawke initially announced in late June he had granted three-month bridging visas to parents Nades and Priya and their daughter Kopika, so they could live in community detention in Perth while the youngest daughter, Tharnicaa, received medical treatment after being evacuated from Christmas Island.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Washington, D.C., September 13, 2021 — Iranian authorities should immediately release photojournalist Majid Saeedi, drop any charges against him, and let him work freely, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

    On August 25, security forces in the city of Khoy, in West Azerbaijan province near the border with Turkey, arrested Saeedi, a photographer for the state-run newspaper Shargh Daily, while he was photographing camps housing Afghan refugees, according to reports by the Iranian semi-official news website Ensafnews and the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), and a person familiar with the case who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of government reprisal.

    Ensafnews reported that Saeedi “was arrested due to taking photos of forbidden border regions.” However, the journalist had permission from authorities to cover the refugee camps, according to those reports and the person who spoke to CPJ. No charges against him have been disclosed, according to those sources.

    “Iranian authorities must free photojournalist Majid Saeedi immediately and unconditionally, and let him do his job documenting the lives of Afghan refugees in Iran,” said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator Sherif Mansour. “Journalists must be able to cover such events of national and international interest without fear that they will be arbitrarily detained.”

    Authorities also arrested a Shargh Daily reporter at the scene, and released the reporter a few hours later on bail, according to the HRANA report, which did not disclose the journalist’s name.

    CPJ emailed Alireza Miryousefi, the head of the media office of Iran’s mission to the United Nations, for comment on Saeedi and the unnamed journalist, but did not receive any reply. CPJ also emailed Shargh Daily for comment, but did not receive any immediate response.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • ANALYSIS: By Kalinga Seneviratne in Sydney

    Since the attacks on the United States by 15 Saudi Arabian Islamic fanatics on 11 September  2001 — now known as 9/11 —  the world has been divided by a “war on terror” with any protest group defined as “terrorists”.

    New anti-terror laws have been introduced both in the West and elsewhere in the past 20 years and used extensively to suppress such movements in the name of “national security”.

    It is interesting to note that the 9/11 attacks came at a time when a huge “global justice” movement was building up across the world against the injustices of globalisation.

    Using the internet as the medium of mobilisation, they gathered in Seattle in 1999 and were successful in closing down the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting.

    They opposed what they saw as large multinational corporations having unregulated political power, exercised through trade agreements and deregulated financial markets, facilitated by governments.

    Their main targets were the WTO, International Monetary Fund (IMF), OECD, World Bank, and international trade agreements.

    The movement brought “civil society” people from the North and the South together under common goals.

    Poorest country debts
    In parallel, the “Jubilee 2000” international movement led by liberal Christian and Catholic churches called for the cancellation of US$90 billion of debts owed by the world’s poorest nations to banks and governments in the West.

    Along with the churches, youth groups, music, and entertainment industry groups were involved. The 9/11 attacks killed these movements as “national security” took precedence over “freedom to dissent”.

    Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, a former vice-president of the UN Human Rights Council and a Sri Lankan political scientist, notes that when “capitalism turned neoliberal and went on the rampage” after the demise of the Soviet Union, resistance started to develop with the rise of the Zapatistas in Chiapas (Mexico) against NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and culminating in the 1999 Seattle protests using a term coined by Cuban leader Fidel Castro “another world is possible”.

    “All that came crashing down with the Twin Towers,” he notes. “With 9/11 the Islamic Jihadist opposition to the USA (and the war on terror) cut across and buried the progressive resistance we saw emerging in Chiapas and Seattle.”

    Geoffrey Robertson QC, a British human rights campaigner and TV personality, warns: “9/11 panicked us into the ‘war on terror’ using lethal weapons of questionable legality which inspired more terrorists.

    “Twenty years on, those same adversaries are back and we now have a fear of US perfidy—over Taiwan or ANZUS or whatever. There will be many consequences.”

    But, he sees some silver lining that has come out of this “war on terror”.

    Targeted sanctions
    “One reasonably successful tactic developed in the war on terror was to use targeted sanctions on its sponsors. This has been developed by so-called ‘Magnitsky acts’, enabling the targeting of human rights abusers—31 democracies now have them and Australia will shortly be the 32nd.

    “I foresee their coordination as part of the fightback—a war not on terror but state cruelty,” he told In-Depth News.

    When asked about the US’s humiliation in Afghanistan, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, founder of the International Movement for a Just World told IDN that the West needed to understand that they too needed to stop funding terror to achieve their own agendas.

    “The ‘war on terror’ was doomed to failure from the outset because those who initiated the war were not prepared to admit that it was their occupation and oppression that compelled others to retaliate through acts of terror.” he argues.

    “Popular antagonism towards the occupiers was one of the main reasons for the humiliating defeat of the US and NATO in Afghanistan,” he added.

    Looking at Western attempts to introduce democracy under the pretext of “war on terror” and the chaos created by the “Arab Spring”, a youth movement driven by Western-funded NGOs, Iranian-born Australian Farzin Yekta, who worked in Lebanon for 15 years as a community multimedia worker, argues that the Arab region needs a different democracy.

    “In the Middle East, the nations should aspire to a system based on social justice rather than the Western democratic model. Corrupt political and economic apparatus, external interference and dysfunctional infrastructure are the main obstacles for moving towards establishing a system based on social justice,” he says, adding that there are signs of growing social movements being revived in the region while “resisting all kinds of attacks”.

    Palestinian refugee lessons
    Yekta told IDN that while working with Palestinian refugee groups in Lebanon he had seen how peoples’ movements could be undermined by so-called “civil society” NGOs.

    “Alternative social movements are infested by ‘civil society’ institutions comprising primarily NGO institutions.

    “‘Civil society’ is effective leverage for the establishment and foreign (Western) interference to pacify radical social movements. Social movements find themselves in a web of funded entities which push for ‘agendas’ drawn by funding buddies,” noted Yekta.

    Looking at the failure of Western forces in Afghanistan, he argues that what they did by building up “civil society” was encouraging corruption and cronyism that is entangled in ethnic and tribal structures of society.

    “The Western nation-building plan was limited to setting up a glasshouse pseudo-democratic space in the green zone part of Kabul.

    “One just needed to go to the countryside to confront the utter poverty and lack of infrastructure,” Yekta notes.

    ”We need to understand that people’s struggle is occurring at places with poor or no infrastructure.”

    Social movements reviving
    Dr Jayatilleka also sees positive signs of social movements beginning to raise their heads after two decades of repression.

    “Black Lives Matter drew in perhaps more young whites than blacks and constituted the largest ever protest movement in history. The globalised solidarity with the Palestinian people of Gaza, including large demonstrations in US cities, is further evidence.

    “In Latin America, the left-populist Pink Tide 2.0 began with the victory of Lopez Obrador in Mexico and has produced the victory of Pedro Castillo in Peru.

    “The slogan of justice, both individual and social, is more globalised, more universalised today, than ever before in my lifetime,” he told IDN.

    There may be ample issues for peoples’ movements to take up with TPP (Transpacific Partnership) and RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) trade agreements coming into force in Asia where companies would be able to sue governments if their social policies infringe on company profits.

    But Dr Jayatilleka is less optimistic of social movements rising in Asia.

    Asian social inequities
    “Sadly, the social justice movement is considerably more complicated in Asia than elsewhere, though one would have assumed that given the social inequities in Asian societies, the struggle for social justice would be a torrent. It is not,” he argues.

    “The brightest recent spark in Asia, according to Dr Jayatilleka, was the rise of the Nepali Communist Party to power through the ballot box after a protracted peoples’ war, but ‘sectarianism’ has led to the subsiding of what was the brightest hope for the social justice movement in Asia.”

    Robertson feels that the time is ripe for the social movements suppressed by post 9/11 anti-terror laws to be reincarnated in a different life.

    “The broader demand for social justice will revive, initially behind the imperative of dealing with climate change but then with tax havens, the power of multinationals, and the obscene inequalities in the world’s wealth.

    “So, I do not despair of social justice momentum in the future,” he says.

    Republished under Creative Commons partnership with IDN – In-Depth News.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The French interior minister Gerald Darmanin hit back at home secretary Priti Patel on Thursday amid reports she had sanctioned tactics to turn back refugee boats towards the continent to stop them from making the journey to the UK. This has led to a war of words between Britain and France .

    Patel is said to have ordered officials to rewrite maritime laws and Border Force staff have reportedly taken part in special training on handling migrant boats.

    G7 interior ministers meeting
    Home secretary Priti Patel met her French counterpart during the G7 interior minsiters’ meeting at Lancaster House in London. (Ian West/PA)

    A “cowardly” and “cruel” plan

    The suggestion has prompted an outcry from aid charities and campaigners who branded the plan “cowardly” and “cruel” and one which could risk the lives of refugees, while the legality of the tactic has been called into question.

    Darmanin said France would not accept any practices which breach maritime laws and that the country would not be subjected to financial blackmail.

    Earlier this week government sources confirmed Patel told MPs she was prepared to withhold millions of pounds of cash promised to France to help step up patrols unless an improvement in the number of migrants intercepted by French authorities is seen.

    The pair met on Wednesday to discuss the migrant crossings during the three-day G7 interior minister’s meeting at Lancaster House in London.

    Different accounts of the same meeting?

    A Government source said the meeting was “constructive”, adding:

    The home secretary was clear with the French interior minister that the British public expect to see results.

    But less than 24 hours later, according to translations of his posts on Twitter, Darmanin said:

    France will not accept any practice contrary to maritime laws, or financial blackmail.

    He said he had made it clear to his equivalent Patel that the arrangements with Britain must remain, adding:

    The friendship between our two countries deserves better than postures which harm cooperation between our services.

    Prime minister Boris Johnson’s official spokesman rejected the claims of “financial blackmail” and said the Government has “provided our French counterparts significant sums of money previously, and we’ve agreed another bilateral agreement backed by millions of pounds”.

    He added:

    I don’t think any single approach is going to solve this challenge, which sees criminal gangs target some of the most vulnerable people, and we want to work with our French counterparts, and indeed, the wider EU, on a range of options to address this long-standing problem.

    We are content that the tactics that our Border Force staff, our trained Border Force staff, are using are safe and legal.

    This could all be unlawful

    James M Turner QC, a barrister and arbitrator specialising in cross-border commercial and shipping disputes, said on Twitter that turnbacks are “highly unlikely to be lawful (even if it were practicable and safe).”

    Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, said:

    The Government’s pushback plan is senseless, dangerous and almost certainly unlawful.

    Labour’s shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said:

    Turning boats around at sea in the world’s busiest shipping channel is dangerous and risks lives.

    That the home secretary is even considering these dangerous proposals shows how badly she has lost control of this situation.

    Darmanin has also rejected a UK request to set up a joint command centre in northern France, with police and border force officers from both countries patrolling the coastline and the Channel, The Times said.

    According to the Home Office, the UK authorities had to rescue or intercept 456 people as part of 17 incidents on Tuesday, and 301 people as part of nine incidents on Wednesday, while the French reported a total of 18 events over the two days preventing a total of 628 people from reaching the UK.

    Dan O’Mahoney, clandestine Channel threat commander, said efforts so far have prevented more than 10,000 migrant attempts, led to almost 300 arrests and secured 65 convictions.

    What was the deal?

    Earlier this year, the UK and France announced an agreement to more than double the number of police patrolling French beaches. It was the second pledge of its kind in a year, in a bid to stop small boats from leaving France.

    As part of the deal, the Government pledged to give France £54 million to support its efforts to stop small boat crossings. At least 14,100 people have now crossed to the UK aboard small boats this year, data compiled by PA shows.

    The total for 2021 so far is already nearly 6,000 higher than the amount of people who made the crossing in 2020. Illegal migration is anticipated to be the subject of focus for the final day of the G7 meeting on Thursday as Border Force boats remained active in the Channel.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The Migrant Action Trust has condemned a proposal by a diversity academic calling for a New Zealand nation-building course before people are granted permanent residence or citizenship as “dangerous” and “discriminating”.

    “This proposal is dangerous. It is dangerous because it comes at a time when the world — including Aotearoa — has demonised a religion and those associated with that religion,” the trust said.

    “We have inculcated in the minds of others that ‘these people’, and by association, all people of colour are a danger.

    “That is a dangerous, discriminating, and damaging legacy. Just ask Māori.”

    The call for a “specific nation-building” course for potential citizens of Aotearoa has been made by Professor Edwina Pio, chair of diversity at Auckland University of Technology.

    She made the plea in a paper titled “Diffusing Destructive Devotions: Deploying Counter Terrorism” days after last Friday’s knife attack at Auckland’s Countdown supermarket in LynnMall.

    But the Migrant Action Trust chair, Associate Professor Camille Nakhid, described the proposal as “cynical”, saying it raised many questions.

    ‘Values of our colonisers?’
    “Firstly, whose values will inform this nation-building paper? Will they be the values of the colonisers or of our tangata whenua? Will it be the values of those whose labour built this land or those whose dubious transactions stole this land?,” Dr Nakhid asked in a statement.

    “Will it be the refugee with the ideologies of terrorist groups or the resident Pākehā with the ideologies of terrorist Pākehā  groups which hold the ideologies of the dominant Pākehā group which hold the ideologies of white supremacists?

    “Who will be made to take this nation-building paper? Will it only be potential citizens such as migrants, asylum seekers and those from refugee backgrounds but not those wanting to remain permanent residents?

    “What about citizens themselves who mistrust the government, challenge their laws and protest their policies?

    “Will they need to go back to school to take this nation-building paper?”

    Dr Pio’s research had found lone terrorists to be “dangerous and hard to combat” when compared to group terrorists.

    She said “higher impact” policies were needed to combat terrorism and she called for legislation to require people to pass nation-building courses before being granted citizenship or permanent residence.

    A Sri Lankan-born refugee, Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen, 32, stabbed seven people in the Countdown supermarket before he was shot dead by police.

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the Islamic State supporter as a “lone wolf terrorist”.

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Suggestion to home secretary condemned as breach of UN convention on human rights

    Conservative MPs have urged the home secretary, Priti Patel, to send back immediately anyone including children who boards an illegal crossing of the Channel from France.

    They claimed the measure should be enacted because the UK needed to “up the stakes” with the French government, which has been blamed by the home secretary for failing to curb the number of migrants sailing across the channel.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Refugees and asylum seekers provide rich pickings for demagogues and political opportunists.  The Australian approach politicises their plight by arguing that they are illegitimate depending on the way they arrive, namely, by boat.  The twentieth anniversary of the MV Tampa’s attempt to dock at Christmas Island with over 400 such individuals inaugurated a particularly vicious regime.  Intercepted by Australia’s SAS forces in August 2001, it presented the Howard government with a stupendously cruel chance to garner votes.  And my, did that government garner them with gusto!

    Various European countries have also adopted an approach akin to this: naval arrivals from the Middle East and Africa are to be contained, detained, and preferably processed in third countries through a range of agreements.  The common theme to all: firm border controls and deterrence.

    Belarus has added another option to the armoury of refugee use and abuse.  The country, under Alexander Lukashenko, has hit upon a shoddy plan to harry countries sympathetic to his opponents and responsible for imposing sanctions upon his regime: swamp them.  First: entice refugees and migrants from a number of countries – Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Cameroon – to arrive on tourist visas.  Mobilise said people to move across the Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian borders.

    Descriptions have been offered for the strategy.  Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis considered the acts on the part of Belarus as a “hybrid war operation” that threatened, he claimed with dramatic effect, “the entire European Union”.  In July, he told Deutsche Welle that the refugees concerned were being used as “human shields” and a type of “hybrid weapon”.   Lithuanian Deputy Interior Minister Arnoldas Abramavičius resented his country’s border guards “acting as a kind of hotel reception for the migrants for a long time. That had to stop.”

    Member states have been sharing experiences on how best to deal with the surge in these Lukashenko arrivals.  In a meeting between Landsbergis and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias in June, much solidarity was felt in discussing how to combat a common threat.  Human rights proved to be less important than territorial integrity and European defence.  As the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry stated, both ministers “underscored the importance of European solidarity and the need to pay attention to the processes in the EU neighbourhood, as well as to be ready to respond to dangerous threats emerging from the EU’s neighbourhood.”

    Guards along the Lithuanian border had, up till August, intercepted approximately 4,100 refugees and asylum seekers this year alone.  Last year, that number was a mere 81.  The numbers prompted the Baltic state to declare a state of emergency in July.  The resources of Frontex, that less than transparent body otherwise known as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, deployed personnel with haste that same month to aid policing the border with Lithuania and Latvia.

    According to Frontex, the initial support would involve “border surveillance and other border management functions.  The operation will start with the deployment of 10 officers with patrol cars, and their numbers will be gradually increased.”

    The agency’s executive director Fabrice Leggeri was brimming with praise for the organisation’s military-styled prowess, suggesting aid in the face of threatening barbarians at the frontier of Europe.  “The quick deployment in support of Lithuania and Latvia highlights the value of the Frontex standing troops, which allows the Agency to quickly react to unexpected challenges, bringing European solidarity to support Member States at the external borders.”

    Humanitarianism is the last thing on Leggeri’s mind as he speaks about the role of “additional border guards and patrol guards by Frontex” as they “work side-by-side with their Latvian and Lithuanian colleagues” to “protect our external borders” in common cause.

    Earlier this month Poland joined Lithuania with alarmist fervour, declaring a state of emergency.  It served the purpose of needlessly militarising the situation even as it appealed to the inner jingo.  Tellingly, it is the first such order since the country’s communist era, proscribing mass gatherings and limiting people’s movements within a 3 km strip of land along the frontier for 30 days.  Marta Anna Kurzyniec, resident of the Polish border town of Krynki, described an atmosphere that was “generally violent”.  There were “uniformed, armed servicemen everywhere … it reminds me of war.”

    To the use of troops can be added such inhospitable barriers as the construction of a 508 km razor-wire fence by the Lithuanian authorities.  Lithuania’s Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte considered it an essential part of her country’s strategy of repelling unwanted arrivals. “The physical barrier is vital to repel this hybrid attack, which the Belarus regime is undertaking against Lithuania.”

    Political figures such as Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and Lithuania’s Landsbergis have also encouraged disseminating stern messages of disapproval to those trying to enter their countries.  “We need to inform the people that they are being lied to,” huffed Landsbergis.  “They are being promised an easy passage to Europe, a very free life in Europe.  This is not going to happen.”  Morawiecki, despite claiming some sympathy for “the migrants who have been in an extremely difficult situation” felt that “it should be clearly stated that they are a political instrument.”

    The situation has also seen the European Court of Human Rights make a much needed appearance in its request that both Poland and Latvia “provide all the applicants with food, water, clothing, adequate medical care and, if possible, temporary shelter.”  The Court, however, wanted it known “that this measure should not be understood as requiring that Poland or Latvia let the applicants enter their territories.”

    The Polish government, for its part, insists that their hearts have not hardened, dabbling in its own bit of dissembling for the press.  As a spokeswoman for the interior ministry claimed, “These people are on the Belarusian side of the border.”

    The manipulation of such human traffic created its fair share of bestial realities ignoring the fundamentals of the UN Refugee Convention and an assortment of international instruments, including the Geneva Convention.  This is particularly so regarding a number of Afghan refugees who find themselves stuck at Usnarz Gorny, 55 km east of Bialystok.  “They’re the victims of the political game between countries,” came the accurate assessment from Amnesty International Poland’s Aleksandra Fertlinska.  “But what is the most important is that it doesn’t matter what is the source of this political game.  They are refugees, and they are protected by [the] Geneva Convention what we need to do is accept them.”

    One Iraqi refugee by the name of Slemen, finding himself in the drenched environs of Rūdninki, some 38 kilometres from the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, offers his own relevant observation.  “Just because we came through Belarus doesn’t make us bad people,” he explained to Der Spiegel. But bad he, and his fellow travellers, are being made out to be by states who overlook the compassion of processing claims in favour of an instinctive politics stressing deluge and threat rather than salvation and hope.

    The post Weaponised Refugees and Hybrid Attacks first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Afghans formerly employed by the British military who are now living in the UK have said home secretary Priti Patel owes it to them to evacuate their extended families too.

    Family

    Nazir is a former interpreter and Shams worked as a communications officer at the British embassy in Kabul for 10 years. They said their employment with Western forces means the Taliban will target the relatives they had to leave behind. Both men were safely evacuated from Kabul at the start of August with their wives and children. They’ve been staying at a hotel in Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, for more than a month along with hundreds of other Afghan families.

    The small town’s Baptist Church and council have been leading the resettling effort. They had organised a cricket match to welcome the families on Sunday 5 September. Shams and Nazir were among the refugees playing the friendly but fiercely competitive game with locals. They expressed deep gratitude for the town’s support, but they could not shake grave worries for people left in their homeland.

    Shams said:

    We feel safe, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here. But some of my colleagues and relatives are in hiding from the Taliban.

    They have been shifting their locations, but this is a very temporary measure… they are living in a life-threatening situation.

    Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan
    Recently arrived Afghans watch the match at Newport Pagnell Town Cricket Club in Buckinghamshire (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Asked if he feels the UK owes it to him to evacuate his remaining embassy colleagues and relatives, he said:

    Yes. I just remind Priti Patel of her words, when she said that she owes a debt of gratitude to the Afghan people, I think that’s the best way to put it, and we really hope the UK will continue to try its best to evacuate the people who deserve it.

    He added that his six children, aged between three and 14, are “very happy” in their temporary “second home”. And they’re “passionately waiting for their chance” to start school.

    Threats

    Nazir, 43, worked in Helmand between 2009 and 2012. He said his family of nine had to relocate 12 times in Afghanistan “due to being threatened by the Taliban”. Now he fears for his brother and sister-in-law who did not manage to escape. He said:

    I have spent 43 years in my homeland with my relatives and my countrymen so it was really very, very difficult for me to leave, but I was compelled with my family to leave, because we have to live.

    Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan
    Local minister Peter Young (right) talks to recently arrived Afghans (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Nazir added:

    One thing, to be very clear, the Taliban can’t be trusted… so we have deep concerns about our family left behind in Afghanistan. (My relatives) are being tortured, mentally tortured, threatened and they are being intimidated, asking them where we are, because they have got our list according to the information on social media, the Taliban have access to some of the interpreter list data…

    We will keep on trying to evacuate them from Afghanistan… but the process still belongs to the Government.

    In limbo

    Shams added that their own lives are still in limbo because they’re due to be relocated from Newport Pagnell. The Home Office has “not entertained questions” about when they can expect a permanent home.

    Speaking about life in the hotel, he said:

    The noise levels are not manageable, and we also have difficulty when it comes to creating a bank account…

    We really request them (the Home Office) to expediate and speed up the process to help us find suitable housing and start our life properly.

    He added:

    The tricky bit is that you can’t do anything.

    I can’t apply for a job because you don’t have a permanent address. You don’t have the status or the residents’ card so we really need to be moved to houses.

    Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan
    Adbullah watches his father takes part in the cricket match (Joe Giddens/PA)

    Warm welcome

    Nazir said that although their stay is temporary, the welcome his family has received in Newport Pagnell has been “outstanding”. He described the people as “fabulous”.

    Minister for the Newport Pagnell Baptist Church Steve Wood was among the locals playing cricket on Sunday. And he’s been a key coordinator of the Afghans’ settlement in their town. Wood said:

    It’s been a privilege to get to know these families.

    We put labels on people like the Afghans, we put labels on people who arrive into our countries – refugees is the one that is used so often.

    These families that have arrived from Afghanistan are just people like you and I and to get to know them and support them in this way and to help the community do that has been one of the biggest privileges I’ve ever had.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In an interview with Italian newspaper la Repubblica on 4 September, Booker prize-winning novelist dame Hilary Mantel said she hopes to become an Irish citizen. Mantel’s grandparents were Irish immigrants to the UK, so she hopes to reconnect with her family roots. And despite loving the part of England she lives in, she feels the need to “become a European again”. Mantel believes she “might breathe easier in a republic”. So what motivated this? Is that royal title finally weighing heavy?

    Mantel says she’s become ashamed to live in England because of the abuse refugees face and because of the UK’s immigration policies. Or rather its, anti-refugee and asylum-seeker policies.

    But it’s ironic, is it not, for a dame to want citizenship of a republic? And at this time too. To be fair, she did speak out about the Tory/Lib Dem coalition’s position on refugees. But neither that government’s position nor the war-mongering, anti-refugee stance of other governments was sufficient for her to seek Irish citizenship before. More pertinent is that it’s an option not available to the refugees she claims to be speaking up for.

    Disgusting treatment of refugees

    Mantel is right about one thing. This Brexiteer-government’s treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers is shameful. And, if Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders Bill becomes law, potentially criminal. This shameful treatment is evident in how its currently dealing with Afghan refugees.

    The UK has only promised to allow 5,000 refugees into the UK over the next year. Abdul Ghafoor, the director of the Afghanistan Migrants Advice and Support Organisation, said 5,000 isn’t enough when “there are millions of people suffering”. Ghafoor said the UK was “very tough towards refugees, especially Afghan refugees”. In the last 18 months, the UK has either refused entry or deported 177 Afghan refugees.

    But that’s hardly new for this Tory government. As reported by Mohamed Elmaazi in December 2020, the Home Office kept 400 refugees and asylum seekers in “unsanitary, overcrowded, and degrading” accommodation in Napier Barracks in Kent. Residents at the former military base had been self-harming. They also said conditions “were prison-like” and worse than what they had fled. That barracks still houses refugees and has been the site of major coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreaks.

    Additionally, in August 2020, Patel rightly faced criticism for attacking lawyers representing refugees. She said current regulations are “allowing activist lawyers to delay and disrupt returns”. Patel doesn’t seem to realise that words can sometimes be deadly. Such as in 1989, when a Tory junior minister claimed some lawyers were “unduly sympathetic to the IRA”. Belfast-based human rights solicitor Pat Finucane was killed by the UDA (a loyalist terror gang) just three weeks later.

    Not so ashamed of the past though?

    But what’s confusing about Mantel’s position is that she wasn’t motivated to adopt new citizenship while living under prime ministers Thatcher and Blair. Having written a book of fiction on Thatcher – The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher – Mantel said Thatcher “was worth hating”. And that was in comparison to the current Brexiteer government – who are “not worth a story” – that have motivated her big announcement.

    Yet despite such understandable loathing for Thatcher, Mantel didn’t feel compelled to seek refuge in the Irish republic during Thatcher’s tenure. Was it really that much easier to be British and feel European during the Thatcher years? Thatcher didn’t exactly have a free and easy relationship with Europe. Nor did she welcome refugees with open arms. And what of warmonger Blair?

    Both he and Thatcher fought unjust and dirty wars from the coast of Argentina to Ireland – not forgetting, of course, Afghanistan. It was Blair who led us there this time around. And during the miners’ strike, Thatcher’s government launched a war on its own people. Then in her final years, she introduced the dreaded poll tax. Yet none of that seems to have affected Mantel’s view of citizenship. Nor did her accepting a title from a royal family whose global colonisation created suffering for countless refugees. In the interview, Mantel made no mention of handing that particular title back, either.

    Irony lost

    There can be very little doubt that this and previous governments have held the British people and refugees in utter contempt. That record is written in blood. Yet it’s only now that the dame chooses to rethink her citizenship.

    All because she’s not happy that yet another British government is anti-refugee? But the real irony is this: just choosing citizenship of another country is a luxury not afforded to the refugees Mantel claims to empathise with. The fact that her views are a gross display of privilege appears to be lost on her.

    It’s understandable someone would feel so ashamed of right-wing Brexiteers they’d want to adopt new citizenship. But to have already lived as a British citizen for so many years under right-wing, war-mongering, anti-refugee governments, and not do anything about it, just doesn’t stack up. Nor does the acceptance of a title from a family steeped in colonialism. In the absence of doing something concrete for the plight of refugees, I’m afraid this declaration of solidarity rings hollow.

    Featured image via YouTube – Waterstones

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The mother of Auckland’s LynnMall shopping mall terror attacker in New Zealand says he was brainwashed by neighbours from the Middle East.

    Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen, a 32-year-old refugee originally from Sri Lanka, was shot dead by undercover police after stabbing six people inside Countdown in LynnMall on Friday.

    His mother, Ismail Fareeda, has told a television channel in Sri Lanka that neighbours from Syria and Iraq radicalised Aathil Samsudeen when he was injured in a fall in Sri Lanka in 2016.

    She said her son then started posting radical views on social media.

    Fareeda said there was a change in her son after he had left Sri Lanka and settled in New Zealand in 2011.

    She said her two other sons had reprimanded the 32-year-old over his radical views.

    ‘Heartbroken by this terrible act’
    In a statement released via a lawyer and credited to Samsudeen’s brother, Aroos, his whānau said they were “heartbroken by this terrible act” and they wanted to send love and support to those who were hurt.

    The statement said Samsudeen, who arrived in New Zealand in 2011 on a student visa, suffered from “political torture” and his mental health steadily declined over the years.

    Samsudeen spent a lot of time on social media, it said.

    “We saw his mental health got worse and worse during the last 10 years or so. He spent a lot of his time in prison and was always struggling with some court cases. When we heard that he was in prison in New Zealand, we thought it would do him some good but didn’t realise he would spend so much time there. He also had many problems in prison.”

    Members of the wider family visited New Zealand in 2013.

    “We love your country and your people and we know from what we have seen since the Christchurch attack that you are good people. We want to stand with you. We have lost Aathil. We don’t know what to do while our father is still very ill and doesn’t know about this situation.

    Sri Lankan government collaboration
    The Sri Lankan government was promising to work with New Zealand authorities over the supermarket stabbings, AFP reported.

    It had been investigating whether Samsudeen was linked to the bombings in Colombo on Easter Sunday 2019, which killed 279 people in attacks on three churches and three hotels.

    The bombings were blamed on a group that pledged allegiance to the then Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

    A spokesperson for Sri Lanka’s foreign ministry said the government there condemned the senseless violence of the west Auckland attack and would cooperate with the New Zealand authorities in any way necessary.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The quick collapse of the puppet government in Afghanistan and its army should not come as a surprise given the imperialists’ criminal  record. Sue Bolton argues that Australia’s war criminals need to be held accountable.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Hundreds of Afghan-Australians marched to the steps of Parliament House to demand the federal government lift the country’s humanitarian intake of refugees trying to flee Afghanistan. Kerry Smith reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Only the strong escaped to safety, as evidence builds that thousands of Afghans entitled to come to Britain still remain in Kabul

    When the email arrived last Tuesday, Faaiz Ghulam and his young family were euphoric. Approved for evacuation, they were instructed to head straight to the west gate of Kabul’s Baron Hotel. There, British officials would process their case. Next step, the UK.

    Yet Ghulam, his wife and their two children – an 18-month-old daughter and three-year-old son – are today in hiding in Kabul, terrified for their lives. Their first attempt to reach the hotel ended at a Taliban checkpoint. A second was abandoned over safety concerns as Ghulam and his wife carried their children through febrile crowds outside the airport.

    Related: Afghanistan live news: last dedicated civilian flight to UK has left Kabul, says Ministry of Defence

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • A mother leads her child towards a bus

    Afghan journalists and civil servants described desperation, terror and panic as they waited for a chance to evacuate after multiple bomb blasts killed dozens of people and injured scores in Kabul on Thursday.

    Sources on the ground told Truthout they heard multiple explosions and gunfire near the airport in Afghanistan’s capital city, where thousands of people have gathered in hopes of fleeing the country on U.S. military airplanes and international charter flights. At least two suicide bombers detonated themselves in separate attacks on Thursday outside the airport and near a hotel, killing at least 60 people, including at least 13 American servicemembers, according to reports. ISIS-K, a group reportedly affiliated with the Islamic State, claimed responsibility for the bombings and gun attacks on civilians and U.S. personnel.

    M.E.M, an Afghan journalist who declined to give his full name due to fear of reprisal, recently resigned from his position at a prominent Afghan television network and news outlet as the Taliban took over the country due to “serious threats” to his safety. M.E.M was still waiting to evacuate when Truthout reached him by phone at his home in Kabul on Thursday.

    “This morning a number of Taliban searched my house, but fortunately I was somewhere else,” M.E.M said, adding that he believes he has been accused by the Taliban of spying on behalf of the U.S. and assisting U.S. forces.

    M.E.M. says he is certainly not a spy, and his press credentials and related documents show that he has covered relations between NATO and the Afghan government for an independent news agency.

    M.E.M. has applied for a U.S. Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) under a State Department program that allows Afghans employed on behalf of the U.S. government relocate to the U.S. M.E.M says he is an independent journalist but is sponsored by an American colleague, and some of his coworkers have already been evacuated.

    M.E.M was advised that evacuations would continue after President Biden’s August 31 deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan, but he fears time is running out.

    “They are promising me to evacuate me, but I don’t know what they are going to tell me,” M.M.E said.

    The White House reports that U.S. and coalition airplanes evacuated 13,400 people from Kabul on Wednesday and Thursday, and the U.S. has relocated more than 101,300 people since July. However, Pentagon and NATO officials are still scrambling to evacuate Afghan colleagues in Kabul under the SIV resettlement program, according to prospective refugees stranded in Kabul. Others are still desperately searching for sponsors and approval under the SIV program.

    As Afghans rush to evacuate, it’s become increasingly unclear who is eligible for the SIV program, as many members of Kabul’s civil society have participated in one U.S.-backed development program or another. A group of 67 House Democrats sent a letter to President Biden on Thursday demanding that the U.S. increase the annual admissions cap for refugees from 125,000 to 200,000 in order to allow more Afghans to evacuate and resettle.

    “The urgent need to double down on our efforts to welcome and protect refugees is evidenced by the racist, virulent anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiment that exploded over the last decade — often as a result of U.S.-fueled wars — and was further heightened under the last administration and now with the evacuations occurring in Afghanistan,” the lawmakers wrote.

    White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki declined to comment specifically on the letter from House Democrats on Thursday but said that the U.S. is doing everything in its power to evacuate as many Afghans as possible. In an earlier news conference, Biden said that “millions” of Afghans would choose to come to the U.S. if given a chance, but indicated no plans to dramatically increase the U.S.’s refugee resettlement program. He emphasized the U.S. would stick to its original August 31 deadline for withdrawing forces from the country.

    Afghan journalists said the U.S. government must do more to address a humanitarian crisis that ultimately resulted from the invasion of Afghanistan 20 years ago.

    “We think the U.S. [is facing] a humanitarian issue and should help Afghans such as me who are in danger of death,” said Abdul Lafif Badii, a former freelance journalist and university student in Kabul who said he worked to promote free speech and fair elections in Afghanistan, in an interview.

    Badii said he was waiting near the airport for a chance to evacuate on Thursday and fled home after the first suicide bomb detonated, killing Afghan civilians as well as U.S. servicemembers running security at the airport. Badii said his brother was a soldier in the Afghan military and was killed by the Taliban in a battle in Ghazni province, and his father was killed earlier in the war by a landmine. He is currently hiding at home in Kabul with his mother, the last remaining member of his family.

    Abdul Khabeer Zhabzeez, a journalist, social activist and former civil servant in Kabul, said people were in a state of shock and panic near the airport and Afghan government offices as bomb blasts and gunfire erupted on Thursday. Zhabzeez, who was waiting to flee Kabul outside the airport on Thursday, fled home after the first blast. He said hundreds of people have been severely injured, including women and children. Other Afghan civil servants, journalists and students also said they fled the airport and are currently hiding in their homes.

    “Really after the U.S. abandoned us in the firewall and submitted Afghanistan to the Taliban, everything is devastated and destroyed,” Zhabzeez said in an encrypted text message. “Here we have no more way of breathing, and we don’t know [what the future will bring].”

    Like other desperate Afghans who contacted Truthout, Zhabzeez has contacted the State Department and requested a Special Immigrant Visa to be evacuated and relocated but has not received a response. To qualify for the visa, Afghans generally must have worked for a U.S. or coalition agency or have a sponsor within the U.S. government. This, of course, excludes millions of Afghans urgently wanting to leave. In some cases, Afghans are evacuating to countries such as Mexico, Uganda and Qatar, where visas are easier to obtain.

    Biden decided to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan after 20 years of war and occupation failed to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, but refugee and human rights groups say the U.S. failed to make adequate plans for evacuating and relocating vulnerable Afghans before the withdrawal.

    “It is also very clear that all those who worked and engaged in the ex-government, or in any other NGOs, civic groups and activists, are definitely under threat,” Zhabzeez said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Athens calls for a united response, as refugees already in Lesbos hope their asylum claims will now be reconsidered

    Greek officials have said that Greece will not become a “gateway” to Europe for Afghan asylum seekers and have called for a united response to predictions of an increase in refugee arrivals to the country.

    Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotaki, has spoken to Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, about the developing situation in Afghanistan this week. Greek migration minister Notis Mitarachi last week said: “We cannot have millions of people leaving Afghanistan and coming to the European Union … and certainly not through Greece.” The country has just completed a 25-mile (40km) wall along its land border with Turkey and installed an automated surveillance system with cameras, radars and drones.

    Related: Fleeing the Taliban: Afghans met with rising anti-refugee hostility in Turkey

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Coalition is finessing its obligations to the most desperate people on earth, calculating it will help keep them in power

    The sight of Peter Dutton’s eyes staring down the camera the other night warning that Afghans fleeing the Taliban posed unknown dangers to Australia showed the Tampa times aren’t 20 years in the past. They are now.

    What happened then is happening today as our planes lumber in and out of Kabul: a Coalition government is finessing its decent obligations to refugees to hold onto the vote of the 15 to 20% of the electorate most fearful of race, the constituency the Coalition wants to stay in power.

    Related: The Tampa affair, 20 years on: the ship that capsized Australia’s refugee policy

    Related: Peter Dutton suggests some former Afghan guards and interpreters could pose security risk to Australia

    Related: Australian citizens and visa holders turned back from Kabul airport despite having evacuation letters

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Seventy years after the UN Refugee Convention, the United States should refresh its commitment to displaced people.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Do not for a minute think that this is a kind, heart-felt thing in the aftermath of Kabul’s fall. True, a number of Afghans will find their way to Germany, to Canada, to the UK, US and a much smaller number to Australia.  But this will be part of the curtain act that, in time, will pass into memory and enable countries to return to their harsh refugee policies.

    Britain’s Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is none too enthused about welcoming high numbers of Afghan refugees.  “We have to be realistic in terms of those that we can bring to the country and resettle in a safe and secure way while giving them the right opportunities going forward in resettlement.”

    This waffly formulation has yielded the following formula: the UK will accept a mere 20,000 staggered over five years.  Only 5,000 will be admitted in the next year, after which, presumably, the situation will resolve itself.  “What are the 15,000 meant to do,” asked Labour’s Chris Bryant, “hang around and wait to be executed?”

    However inadequate Britain’s response has proven, Australia’s approach remains without peer. Every excuse has been made to delay, to obstruct, to prevent an orderly transfer of Afghan interpreters and former security personnel out of the country.  The Morrison government has become a specialist prevaricator, waiting for the horse to bolt before even finding the barn.  Instead of bothering to use strategic common sense and see the writing on the wall for the Afghan government based in Kabul, it waited months before deciding, abruptly, to close the embassy at the end of May only to then suggest it would need to put in Australian personnel to assist in the evacuation.

    The number of humanitarian visas currently being offered is a paltry 3,000.  This is sharply lower than the number of Vietnamese accepted by the Fraser government after the fall of Saigon in 1975, which one estimate puts at 60,000.  In 2015, 12,000 places were offered for Syrians fleeing their country.  The Morrison government, in contrast, finds expanding Australia’s resettlement program beyond the current 13,750 places something of a heresy.

    Behind the compassion argument, one constipated at best, is a marked reluctance to actually open the doors to the Afghans.  A good deal of this can be put down to the fact that Afghans have made up a sizeable complement of those maritime arrivals Australian politicians so detest as “illegals” deserving of indefinite detention in its system of Pacific concentration camps.  Many actually fled the Taliban to begin with, but that did not make immigration authorities any softer.

    As the Saturday Newspaper appropriately described it, Australia’s antipathetic refugee policy has induced “a kind of moral numbness that puts decisions outside the reach of logic or decency.”  Prime Minister Scott Morrison could never be said to have been taken by surprise: “he was already in the grip of indifference”, one “necessary to live with the refugee policy he has spent years shaping.”

    Despite the fall of the coalition-backed Afghan national government, Australian government officials did little to reassure the 4,200 Afghans already in Australia on precarious temporary protection visas that they would not be sent back when the time came.  Australian foreign minister Marise Payne offered an assessment on national radio that was far from reassuring. “All the Afghan citizens who currently are in Australia on a temporary visa will be supported by the Australian government and no Afghan visa holders will be asked to return to Afghanistan at this stage.”

    One dark reminder of the brutal, and distinctly non-honeyed approach of Australia’s authorities to Afghan refugees comes in the form of a refugee and former member of an Afghan government security agency who aided coalition forces. For doing so, he was attacked by the Taliban.  He arrived in Australia by boat in 2013 after having suffered a grenade attack on his home and being the recipient of various warning letters from the militants. For his efforts, he was sent to Manus Island, where he was formally found to be a refugee in 2015.  In 2019, he was moved to Australia for treatment during that brief window of opportunity under the now repealed medevac legislation.

    In total, he has spent eight years in detention, desperate to help his family out of the country.  He had previously asked no fewer than three times to be returned to Papua New Guinea.  “Every day Afghanistan is getting worse,” he writes in an email to his case manager from the behemoth that is the Department of Home Affairs.  “My family is in a dangerous place and I need help now please.  If you wait I will lose my family.  Why do you wait?  The Taliban want to kill my family.”

    The email, read in open court, forms part of a case the plaintiff, given the pseudonym F, has taken against the Australian government, seeking his release.  He argues that his detention prevents him from “moving my family out of Afghanistan to a safe country to save them from the Taliban.” The nature of his detention prevented him “from doing anything to help” his family.

    On August 3, 2021, the Federal Court judge Rolf Driver dismissed F’s claims that his detention was unlawful and refused an order “in the nature of the writ of habeas corpus requiring his release from detention forthwith”.  Judge Driver did find that the man was “a refugee and requires resettlement”, ordering mediation between him and the home affairs minister.  While Australia was not an option for resettlement, the applicant should have his request to return to PNG “acted upon”.

    Morrison’s ministers are full of excuses about Australia’s unimpressive effort.  Defence minister, Peter Dutton, has constantly reiterated the idea that processing the paperwork is a difficult thing indeed, because some of the visa applicants cannot be trusted.  Having aided Australian and other coalition forces in the past, they had proved flexible with shifting allegiances.  “I’m not bringing people to Australia that pose a threat to us or that have done us harm in Afghanistan.”  With such an attitude, shutting the door to the suffering, even to those who were part of the coalition’s absurd state building project in Afghanistan, will do little to trouble an unformed, unimaginative conscience.

    The post Reluctant Acceptance: Responding to Afghanistan’s Refugees first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • MPs have called on Priti Patel to launch an “urgent investigation” into how a five-year-old Afghan refugee fell to his death from a hotel window in Sheffield.

    Tragic

    South Yorkshire Police said Mohammed Munib Majeedi fell from the window of the Sheffield Metropolitan Hotel in Blonk Street at around 2.30pm on 18 August. The youngster, who is understood to have arrived in the UK with his family this summer, fell on to a car park behind the hotel.

    The force confirmed the boy was from Afghanistan and referred reporters to the Home Office for more details.

    Labour MPs from across the city have now echoed calls from refugee groups for an urgent investigation.

    Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley), Clive Betts (Sheffield South East), Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central), and Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) wrote to the home secretary on 20 August.

    They said:

    After fleeing the harrowing situation in Afghanistan they sought asylum and protection in our country, so it is devastating that this young boy lost his life in this way and here in the UK’s first City of Sanctuary. His death is felt across Sheffield and across the country.

    The lessons must be learned from this tragedy so it is never repeated. You will recognise that the Home Office has a duty of care for all those who are resettled under your programmes.

    In that context, we support the Refugee Council’s call for an urgent investigation into the circumstances of Mohammed Munib Majeedi’s death, which must be independently conducted to establish what was known by the Home Office about the suitability and safety of this accommodation, and what procedures were followed before commissioning its use for vulnerable families.

    The UK must be a safe haven for those fleeing the appalling horrors in Afghanistan, and we must see a clear commitment from the Government to ensure this is the case.

    Boy window fall death
    Mohammed Munib Majeedi and his family were housed in the hotel after fleeing Afghanistan just weeks ago (Peter Byrne/PA)

    “Not acceptable”

    The Refugee Council has also called for a review of accommodation offered to those fleeing the Taliban following the tragedy. A spokesperson for the Afghan Community Association in Sheffield said:

    Whether it was a mistake or something, I don’t know but what happened is not acceptable at all. As you can understand, it was somebody’s life, it has caused big, big trauma for the boy’s family.

    It is very, very sad for the whole community. Everybody has been devastated for this poor family who had just arrived from Afghanistan to have a life here.

    Boy window fall death
    People leave the Sheffield Metropolitan Hotel, where a young Afghan refugee died after he fell from a window (Peter Byrne/PA)

    Witnesses said the boy’s father had worked in the British Embassy in Kabul. One hotel resident, also an interpreter for the British in Afghanistan, said the family came to the UK three or four weeks ago, landing at Birmingham Airport, then staying in Manchester during quarantine for coronavirus (Covid-19).

    The family, including the parents and three boys and two girls, then moved to the hotel in Sheffield only three or four days ago.

    The interpreter added:

    If the dad is working for the Americans or the English then their lives are in danger in Afghanistan.

    They came here to save their lives

    The eight to 10 Afghan families staying at the hotel were being moved to another hotel, he added.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • There is a lot of conflicting information about Afghanistan but, as Curtis Daly explains, to understand the current situation we need to understand decades of interventionist policies and the ideological and corporate interests behind them.

    Video transcript

    In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in order to prop up the existing government. However, the Soviets were met with huge backlash from resistant fighters known as the mujahidin.

    The mujahidin were supported by the US as essentially a proxy war against the USSR. The mujahidin were religious fundamentalists, it’s not known whether the US knew that or not, or even if they cared.

    The Soviet Union disintegrated and therefore backed out, leaving the Afghan troops taking their place. They were fully responsible for fighting against rebels, who were backed by the US.

    Both the Russians and the US cut their funding to their respective proxy armies. However, this meant that the current Afghan government grew weak and were eventually overthrown. The country was amid a bloody civil war and destabilisation.

    This set the stage for the Taliban. The Taliban who are also known as ‘the students’ came from Islamist extremist fighters in Pakistan and Afghanistan who fought the Soviets.

    By 1996, the Taliban essentially had full control, pushing religious fundamentalism on its people.

    After 9/11, the US invades and bombs Afghanistan. This leads to a 20-year long occupancy. 

    The idea here is to realise that what happened in the last couple of days isn’t just down to Biden. Everything we see unfolding is the result of yet another US and imperial interventionist catastrophe.

    It only took 10 days for the Taliban to reassert control.

    Will our governments learn from these mistakes? No, just like we haven’t learned from the war in Iraq. Why? Because there is a winner – the Military Industrial Complex.

    What is the Military Industrial Complex? To understand it, you need to know first and foremost that when it comes to war, there are winners.

    Not winners in terms of liberation and peace, but in terms of profit.

    The human cost of war is never-ending, and ordinary people always lose. Large corporations, defence contractors, always win. It doesn’t matter who’s fighting, it doesn’t matter which side wins, there is always a customer for more weapons.

    That customer is the US. One thing the US loves is a big, bloated military. Austerity never touches it.

    In-fact, the military budget is so large that it’s bigger than China, India, Russia, UK, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia….. combined.

    Let’s not let the UK off the hook either. We are still the second biggest arms exporter, totalling £11bn worth.

    Specifically with Afghanistan, £45m worth have been approved in the last three years, with 16 unlimited value licenses.

    Arms suppliers essentially have a bottomless pit of profit. This in turn is then spent on lobbying politicians to vote in favour of contracts that benefit these companies, and war that also benefits them. A vicious cycle of war and profit… and human suffering.

    We have an ultimate duty to offer sanctuary for those who face danger.

    That video of the US aircraft leaving with hundreds running after it, with some falling to their deaths, will haunt me.

    I don’t care what those say that we shouldn’t take in refugees, ignore them.

    There is no humanity when it comes to war, and it’s up to us to show it. Refugees are welcome here, arms companies are not.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The UK government has announced its resettlement scheme for 20,000 Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban’s sudden takeover of the country. The government will only allow 5,000 Afghan refugees to enter the country in the first year, with more to follow over the coming years. Many have raised concerns that this proposal is insufficient, particularly given the UK government’s significant contributions to the crisis in Afghanistan. Others have highlighted the resurgence of dehumanising rhetoric about ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ refugees and asylum seekers.

    A far from generous proposal

    The government has heralded its plans to welcome up to 20,000 Afghan refugees over a number of years as “one of the most generous resettlement schemes in our country’s history”. Putting the scheme into perspective, Khaled Beydoun shared:

     

    Looking at the current distribution of Afghan refugees, Kevin Watkins shared:

     

    The crisis in Afghanistan – which the UK government helped create – comes in the midst of the home secretary’s harsh crack down on immigration. Indeed, under her proposed draconian immigration bill, Afghans desperately seeking safety could be criminalised. But the home secretary isn’t opposed to all immigration.

    In January, the home secretary announced a new visa for Hong Kongers fleeing persecution under the Beijing regime. As Byline Times‘ Hardeep Matharu highlighted, “people from this heritage have traditionally been categorised as a ‘model minority’”. This disparity in immigration policies begs questions about who our government – and society – deem worthy of safety and protection. This divisive qualification of ‘desirable’ asylum seekers and refugees versus ‘undesirable’ ones is deeply inhumane.

    Many are urging the government to do more to support Afghans fleeing violence and turmoil in the region. Responding to the proposed resettlement scheme, Detention Action director Bella Sankey shared:

    Indeed, according to Streatham MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the government has forcibly removed and denied asylum to tens of thousands of Afghans seeking safety in the UK:

     

    Setting out the devastating impact of this, Taj Ali said:

    The UK’s moral obligation

    Responding to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan following the western coalition’s swift departure from the region, prime minister Boris Johnson said that Britain’s “priority is to make sure we deliver on our obligations to UK nationals, to all those who have helped the British effort in Afghanistan over 20 years, and to get them out as fast as we can”.

    He made no mention of the people of Afghanistan. Rhetoric such as this creates a hierarchy of human lives, as it suggests that those who supported the West in the region are more deserving of safety than those who didn’t. At times like this, we must clearly and loudly state that no human life is worth more than another. Reflecting on rhetoric about ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ refugees, one Twitter user shared:

     

    Lola Olufemi added:

    Philip Lee said:

    Underlining just how preposterous ideas about ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ refugees and asylum seekers are, Jason Okundaye shared:

    What about Afghan men seeking safety?

    Others have highlighted the problematic mainstream focus on providing safety for Afghan women and girls but not Afghan men. This patronising rhetoric is racism and Islamophobia wrapped in false humanitarianism. Explaining this, Shahed Ezaydi said:

    Another Twitter user shared:

    They concluded:

    Someone else added:

    Another said:

    The UK has a moral obligation to provide safety for any Afghans fleeing the crisis which our government helped to create. We must urgently call on the government to meet its obligation by committing to resettling more refugees and ensuring amnesty for any Afghans already living in the UK. We must also reject divisive rhetoric peddled by politicians and the mainstream media about who is or isn’t deserving of safety. An understanding that human rights are universal and not subject to conditions must sit at the heart of efforts to support Afghans during this crisis.

    Featured image via Katie Moum/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Once upon a time Nationalism was an ideology reserved for extremists, but in recent years it has moved from the irrelevant fractious fringes to become a central movement in western politics. Rooted in fear, it feeds on tribal instincts and has become mainstream by offering oversimplified explanations to complex problems, such as poverty and immigration.

    The ideal of a post-cold war tolerant world where resources (including food and water), are shared equitably, governments cooperate and borders soften has been usurped by rabid intolerance and racism, wall building, flag waving, cruel unjust immigration policies and violent policing of migrants and migrant routes. Rather than addressing issues and tackling underlying causes the ardent nationalist blames some group or other, ethnic, religious or national.

    Love, distorted but potent, and hate sustain the monster: love and corrupted pride of nation and ‘our way of life’, seen among the flag wavers as somehow superior; hatred of ‘strangers’, and hatred of change to that which is familiar. It is an insular reactionary movement of introspection and division based on false and petty notions of difference: skin color, religion, language, culture, even food.

    Such prejudices lead to an agitation of suspicion and hatred of ‘foreigners’. National interests are favored over international responsibilities; minorities and refugees insulted, abused or worse. Covid has intensified such vile human tendencies, and highlighted what were already strained relations with ‘outsiders’ –  those that are differentwith ‘the other’.

    People of Asian appearance have been victimized in various countries, most notably the US, Australia and Britain; trapped in refugee camps, asylum seekers/migrants have been forgotten, and vaccine nationalism, the “me first approach”, with wealthy western countries buying up vaccines, has been widespread. As a result of this injustice, while the rich will have their populations vaccinated by late 2021, developing countries (relying on the inadequate COVAX scheme) are looking at mass vaccination by the end of 2023, if ever. It is a moral outrage that flows from and strengthens ideas of global separation, inflames resentment and will prolong the virus.

    Central to the fear-inducing nationalist program is reductive national identities and cultural images tightly packaged in ‘the flag’. Described as “primordial rag[s] dipped in the blood of a conquered enemy and lifted high on a stick” (in Flags Through the Ages and Across the World by Whitney Smith), national flags evolved from battle standards and means of group identification held aloft during the Middle Ages. They are loved by nationalists who always believe their country to be ‘the greatest on Earth’, their people the strongest and the ‘best’, their way of life superior.

    Such ignorant, meaningless and completely false ideas have become common elements of political rhetoric. Politicians (of all colors) in many, if not all, western democracies believe they must reinforce such crass sentiments, or face losing populist support, being attacked as ‘enemies of the people’ – as High Court Judges were in Britain during the Brexit fiasco, or labelled ‘traitors’.

    Torrents of abuse

    There are various interconnected threads to, and expressions of, Nationalism, from the political realm to mainstream and social media, popular culture to education. This suffocating network strengthens discrimination and prejudice of all kinds, including racism. During the recent Euro ’21 tournament black England players who had missed penalties in the final were subject to a torrent of abuse online. The same England ‘fans’ booed opposition teams singing national anthems and their own team, when they ‘took the knee’ before matches; a universal non-political act of solidarity that UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel disparagingly described as “gesture politics”.

    She was later (rightly) accused of “stoking the fires of racism”, by refusing to endorse the players’ actions. Her new widely condemned immigration policy, has also given license to nationalist bigots and racists. Some of them have recently been recorded hurling abuse from the beaches of southern England at refugees in boats crossing the English Channel.

    Irresponsible nationalist politicians like Patel (and the world is full of them), thick with ideology and ambition, are dogmatic in their beliefs and concerned solely with getting and retaining power. To this narcissistic end they employ the inflammatory rhetoric of nationalism – ‘our country’, ‘this great nation of ours’, ‘controlling immigration’, and ‘the flag’. Predictable and crude methods used to cajole the slumbering masses and agitate their tribal tendencies.

    In order to strengthen their nationalist credentials presidents, politicians and military men and women, adorn themselves with the national emblem: embossed badges, a trend led by the US, who are flag-waving world leaders, and at press briefings/interviews they are rarely seen without a flag at their side – two, where there was no pre-Covid, in the case of the totally inept UK Government, desperate one suspects to shift the focus away from their homicidal management of the pandemic, and the calamity that is Brexit Britain. The flag is not, in itself, the problem, but its growing use is a powerful sign of the unabated rise of nationalism, a trend that with the fall of Trump, many had hoped was in decline.

    Unifying acts of kindness

    Nationalism grows out of fear. It feeds hate, leads to violence, and creates a climate of ‘us’ and ‘them’.  Indeed it thrives and is dependent upon such divisions. The stranger, the foreigner, refugee, asylum seeker or migrant is targeted. Blamed for the country’s ills, slandered as criminals, rapists, murderers. Accused of stealing jobs, draining health care services, degrading housing, corrupting the pristine national culture with their vile, primitive habits and beliefs.

    In this way the ‘stranger’ becomes dehumanized, making it possible to abuse and mistreat him or her in varying degrees: From verbal insults on the street, the workplace or in the classroom to violent assault; detained in offshore prisons (Australia), imprisoned for years without charge (Guantanamo e.g.), housed in inhumane conditions in refugee camps, detention centers and/or temporary housing, or allowed to drown in the Mediterranean, North Sea and elsewhere.

    Such atrocities are all fine, because the men, women and children who are being mistreated constitute the ‘them’. ‘They’ are the enemy, the destroyer of civilisation and decency, less than human, even the children, and as such they deserve it. And the further away such ‘strangers’ are kept the easier it is to perpetuate the demonisation myth, maintain suspicion and strengthen hate. Conversely as Joe Keohane makes clear in The power of strangers: the benefits of connecting in a suspicious world, “connecting with strangers helps to dispel partisanship and categorical judgements, increase social solidarity and make us more hopeful about our lives.” Mistrust of ‘strangers’ is strengthened by division and dispelled by contact; by sharing a moment, by acts of kindness – given and received, in which our common humanity is acknowledged.

    Nationalism poisons the mind and the society and must be rooted out. Despite the apparent signs to the contrary, it is completely at odds with the tone of the times, which is towards unity – greater cooperation, tolerance and understanding. It is in reaction to this unifying movement that the demon of nationalism has risen; it is  cruel, ugly and extremely dangerous and must be countered by unifying acts of kindness and compassion wherever it is seen.

    If the unprecedented crises confronting humanity – environmental emergency, displacement of people, poverty and armed conflict – are to be faced, mitigated and overcome, individuals, communities, businesses and governments must increasingly come together, agree methods and global policies and build united integrated societies founded on compassion. Given the unprecedented scale and range of the issues, particularly climate change and the broader environmental calamity, there is no alternative.

    The post The Poison of Nationalism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • President Joe Biden has allocated $500 million in new funds for relocating Afghan refugees following the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. The U.S. had already vowed to help evacuate over 80,000 Afghan civilians who qualify for special immigrant visas and face possible retribution from the Taliban, such as translators and interpreters for the U.S. military or NATO, but critics say the Biden administration needs to move faster and expand refugee resettlement from the country. There is already a backlog of more than 17,000 Afghan nationals and 53,000 of their family members awaiting visa approval. “This entire backlog and this delay in evacuating people could have been handled very differently,” says Manoj Govindaiah, the director of policy and government affairs at RAICES, which has resettled more than 600 Afghan refugees since 2017, including 116 this year alone — among them, 79 children, and a family of 10 just last night. “Trump announced in February of 2020 that he was going to be withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan,” Govindaiah notes. “At that moment, we’ve known that this day is coming and these people are vulnerable.”

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    In response to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, President Biden has allocated half a billion dollars in new funds for relocating Afghan refugees, including those who applied for special immigrant visas, known as SIVs. The U.S. had already vowed to help evacuate over 80,000 Afghan civilians who qualify for these visas and risk retribution from the Taliban, such as translators and interpreters for the U.S. military or NATO. There’s already a backlog of more than 17,000 Afghan nationals, 53,000 of their family members, awaiting visa approval.

    For more, we go to Manoj Govindaiah. He is the director of policy and government affairs at the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, known as RAICES, which has resettled more than 600 Afghan refugees since 2017, including 116 this year — among them, 79 kids, and a family of 10 just last night.

    Welcome to Democracy Now!, Manoj. Start off by saying what is happening. You’re talking about hundreds. The number of people who are trying to get out of Afghanistan right now are in the thousands, perhaps the tens of thousands.

    MANOJ GOVINDAIAH: Thank you so much for having me, Amy.

    Yeah, I mean, we are talking about thousands of people who are trying to flee Afghanistan. About 18,000 to 20,000 have applied for something called special immigrant visas, SIVs, which are available to Afghan citizens who provided valuable and faithful service to the United States government or contractors to support their efforts during the U.S.-led war. The average processing time for this visa is over 800 days. So it takes several years, this process, and it involves all sorts of security checks and background checks and letters of support from U.S. military commanders that confirm an individual’s assistance — you know, all sorts of documents that need to be provided in order for someone to apply for this visa and make their way to the United States with permanent residency and eventually be able to bring their family over.

    Now, of course, if there’s 18,000 people who are in the pipeline, we have known for many years — at least 800 days — that there is this number of people who are trying to make their way here, who appear eligible for permanent residency in the U.S. And yet, our government, the administration, has taken very few efforts, to date, to actually support this population, knowing that we are withdrawing from Afghanistan and that this particular group of people, who have provided support to the United States, are at serious risk of harm once a different government — in this situation now, the Taliban — take over in the country.

    The Biden administration has evacuated, I think, around a couple thousand folks, nearly 2,000, to Fort Lee in Virginia and has announced that they will be working on evacuating additional SIV applicants to other military bases — which is a start, for sure. But, you know, I think the entire process could have been — this entire backlog and this delay in evacuating people could have been handled very differently, because we’ve known — you know, I think Trump announced in February of 2020 that he was going to be withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan. So, at that moment, we’ve known that this day is coming and these people are vulnerable.

    AMY GOODMAN: Are they preparing Fort Bliss, a place you know well because of all of the migrants who have been put there, Fort Bliss in Texas and Fort McCoy, as well? Are they preparing these two places for tens of thousands of Afghans?

    MANOJ GOVINDAIAH: Yeah, so, it is our understanding that Fort Bliss, near El Paso, and Fort McCoy, in Wisconsin, are likely to be used to house SIV applicants while they continue with the immigration process in the U.S., after they’ve been evacuated. But, you know, we only know that from the media reports. We don’t have any other information or knowledge to suggest that it’s accurate.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Refugees line up at night to board a plane

    As the Biden administration faces criticism for not doing enough to assist those fleeing Afghanistan, an analysis released Monday showed that the roughly $19 billion the Pentagon budgeted for the U.S. occupation of the country in 2020 alone could cover initial resettlement costs for 1.2 million refugees.

    Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project estimated that the $18.6 billion the Pentagon allocated for its 2020 operations in Afghanistan — where the Taliban is in the process of retaking power after two decades of deadly U.S. occupation — could pay up-front refugee relocation costs of $15,148 for the more than “250,000 Afghans displaced since the end of May (and growing)” and “a significant chunk of the 3.5 million Afghans who were internally displaced as of July.”

    “Refugees typically receive some assistance after their arrival, but even if we expanded to cover an additional four years of the approximately $4,600 in annualized social service aid that refugees typically receive, we could still resettle more than half a million people, for just one year’s worth of the cost of fighting,” Koshgarian noted. “We’d face even lower costs to help resettle Afghans in countries closer to home — all the more reason after 20 years of war to step up with some serious resources and get it done.”

    “After twenty years,” she added, “we owe the Afghan people at least that much.”

    The analysis came as progressive lawmakers in the U.S. and global humanitarian organizations implored the Biden administration to open the U.S. to vulnerable Afghans attempting to escape a growing humanitarian crisis and Taliban rule. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, 80% of those currently trying to flee Afghanistan are women and children.

    In a speech on Monday, U.S. President Joe Biden said that “in the coming days, the U.S. military will provide assistance to move more [Special Immigrant Visa]-eligible Afghans and their families out of Afghanistan.” The Pentagon confirmed Monday that it is planning to house up to 22,000 Afghans at two U.S. bases — Fort Bliss in Texas and Fort McCoy in Wisconsin.

    “We’re also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable Afghans who worked for our embassy: U.S. non-governmental agencies — or the U.S. non-governmental organizations; and Afghans who otherwise are at great risk; and U.S. news agencies,” the president added.

    Following his remarks, Biden directed the U.S. State Department to use up to $500 million from the nation’s Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund to meet “unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs of refugees, victims of conflict, and other persons at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan, including applicants for Special Immigrant Visas.”

    But critics have accused the Biden administration of failing to adequately plan for the rapid collapse of the Afghan government that followed the ongoing withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country — a still-deteriorating situation that has left countless people in limbo as they seek safety for themselves and their families.

    In his speech Monday, Biden claimed the administration didn’t begin evacuating at-risk civilians sooner “because the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, ‘a crisis of confidence.’”

    Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department expanded eligibility for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, opening it to tens of thousands of Afghans who worked for U.S. government contractors, U.S.-based media outlets, and U.S.-based non-governmental organizations. The families of eligible Afghans also have access to the program, whose application process consists of an arduous 14 steps.

    And as the Wall Street Journal observed on Monday, the program excludes the poorest Afghans by design. “To claim refugee status,” the Journal noted, “the Afghans must enter through a third country and cover the costs of travel and lodging on their own — a hurdle that is nearly impossible to surmount under the current, chaotic circumstances.”

    In a letter to Biden on Monday, the advocacy organization Refugees International called on the administration to “express its willingness initially to resettle up to 200,000 Afghan refugees, as part of an international responsibility-sharing effort to rescue and resettle Afghans at risk.”

    “While most would be resettled from countries of asylum,” the group wrote, “a program ultimately could involve direct resettlement from Afghanistan, akin to the Orderly Departure program that resulted in the resettlement of many hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese directly from their country of origin.”

    Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), part of a chorus of progressive lawmakers pushing Biden to do more to welcome refugees — in addition to ending the interventionist foreign policy approach that creates such humanitarian crises — noted in a tweet Monday that the U.S. “welcomed 120,000 refugees in a single year” in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

    “Yet the United States has only taken in ~2,000 Afghan refugees thus far,” Bush wrote. “We have a duty to save lives — and to do so, we must welcome many, many more refugees as quickly as possible.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), talks with reporters while leaving the U.S. Capitol on Monday, August 9, 2021.

    Progressive lawmakers are calling on the U.S. to accept Afghan refugees as the Taliban has taken over the country, forcing at least thousands of residents to attempt to flee.

    After the Afghanistan government collapsed, the Kabul airport has been flooded with Afghans desperate to flee the country. Particularly striking footage Monday showed hundreds of Afghans attempting to cling to a U.S. Air Force plane that was taking off. Meanwhile, earlier that day in Afghanistan, five people were killed at the Hamid Karzai International Airport amid chaos.

    The United Nations (UN) has warned of a coming refugee crisis as conditions worsen drastically for the people of Afghanistan. It also said that the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees who have fled the country over the past months have been women and children.

    Some countries are bracing for the sudden influx of refugees; Canada last week announced that it would be offering refuge to 20,000 Afghans, with an emphasis on women, children and LGBTQ people. Mediterranean countries have requested European Union-level talks on the situation.

    But the U.S. has yet to announce any mass refugee resettlement plans. President Joe Biden has been relatively quiet and, on Friday, Reuters reported that the U.S. is searching for countries willing to temporarily house Afghan refugees who have worked for the U.S. government. The U.S. is reportedly considering other resettlement plans but officials are still discussing details.

    Biden has announced that he will address the nation on Afghanistan on Monday afternoon.

    Progressives on Twitter say that the U.S. should open its doors to refugees immediately — not just because of the morality of the matter, but also because of the U.S’s role in imperializing the country and killing civilians, adding to chaos and destruction in the country over the past two decades.

    “Foreign policy matters: After 20 years of U.S. effort,” wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), “Afghanistan was left with a corrupt government and an ineffectual military. At this moment, we must do everything we can to evacuate our allies and open our doors to refugees.”

    “If we don’t start putting everyday people first, no matter what country they’re born in, this will keep happening,” wrote Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) on Sunday. “Let’s start by opening our country to shelter refugees fleeing the consequences of our actions.”

    Tlaib also pointed out that, while the U.S. has waged its forever war in Afghanistan, politicians and arms dealers have profited greatly from the conflict. “Innocent people suffer the horrors of war while political leaders and arms-dealing corporations sit back and make billions,” she said.

    Indeed, on top of the hundreds of thousands of people killed over the past 20 years in the country, the U.S. has also spent over $2.2 trillion on the war, according to research from Brown University.

    Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have profited massively from the U.S.’s military spending over the past decades. Members of Congress with stock in such companies, meanwhile, have profited from the aggressive U.S. defense spending — spending that the lawmakers themselves authorize.

    As Republicans scramble over messaging on Biden’s troop withdrawal from the country, liberal and Republican war hawks alike are saying that the Taliban’s takeover is justification for the U.S. troops to stay in the country, citing lies from American officials that the war is effectual in preventing terrorism.

    Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) pushed back against that idea over the weekend. “What’s happening in Afghanistan currently is a humanitarian crisis. Let’s be clear: there has never been, and will never be, a U.S. military solution in Afghanistan,” she wrote. “Our top priority must be providing humanitarian aid and resettlement to Afghan refugees, women, and children.”

    Indeed, many progressive advocates have said for decades that the U.S. should never have engaged in war in Afghanistan to begin with, arguing that the war would and has done more harm than good, especially to the citizens of Afghanistan.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) argued as such last year when she introduced a proposal to accelerate the U.S.’s withdrawal from the country and end the war. But she was shot down by Republicans and a whopping 103 Democrats in the House who voted down her proposal.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The increasingly desperate situation in Afghanistan has led to widespread calls for the UK to welcome Afghan refugees despite Priti Patel’s plans to crack down on immigration.

    Refugee Action summed up the situation:

    When Parliament reconvenes to discuss the crisis, the Government must recognise the cruelty of its current position, and abandon it. Can its message to desperate Afghan people really be that they must go to local embassies for visas and book commercial flights?

    Do they really think people in fear of their lives are going to wait around for a ‘safe route’ to be created by the UK Government, when it currently offers none?

    It also highlighted the need for “concrete action”:

    Thousands of Afghan people are currently trying to escape from Afghanistan. But the Home Office has yet to confirm how many refugees it will welcome.

    Fear in Afghanistan

    The Taliban took control of Kabul early on Sunday 15 August, and Afghanistan’s president has fled the country. The takeover is expected to mark the beginning of a new era of Taliban rule. The UNHCR reported in July that Taliban advances had already displaced 270,000 people in Afghanistan this year. As Taliban control increases across the country, this figure will only grow.

    Afghan women are scared they won’t be able to continue their education, careers, or independence. Writing in the Guardian, one women stated:

    I worked for so many days and nights to become the person I am today, and this morning when I reached home, the very first thing my sisters and I did was hide our IDs, diplomas and certificates. It was devastating. Why should we hide the things that we should be proud of? In Afghanistan now we are not allowed to be known as the people we are.

    International action?

    Despite the dire situation, international action in welcoming refugees has been slow.

    Canada has pledged to accept 20,000 ‘vulnerable’ Afghans who need protecting from the Taliban.

    But EU countries Germany, Greece, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium asked the EU for permission to continue deporting Afghan refugees they had already rejected for asylum. Since then, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands have reversed their position and paused deportations.

    Many are calling on the UK to follow in Canada’s footsteps.

    Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey said:

    Gov must provide answers and assurances today about what they will do to help those at grave risk in Afghanistan. They have a moral responsibility along with the international community to urgently evacuate refugees under threat to a safe and welcoming place.

    But these figures are a drop in the ocean when figures from July show that total number of displaced people is 3.5 million.

    The UK and refugees

    Home secretary Priti Patel recently criticised France for ‘failing’ to stop migrants crossing the channel. She further warned that the UK would be seeing more people wanting to enter the country due to them fleeing Afghanistan.

    The Home Office recently abandoned numerical targets for resettling refugees, instead claiming it will strengthen “safe and legal” ways for refugees to enter the country by ensuring:

    resettlement programmes are responsive to emerging international crises – so refugees at immediate risk can be resettled more quickly.

    This has left people in the UK asking where the UK’s response is.

    “Wrong and unsustainable”

    But the Home Office’s hostile environment is likely to only make the situation worse for those trying to flee to the UK. Refugee advocates have warned that the Nationality and Borders Bill, currently at the committee stage, could prevent thousands of people from claiming asylum in the UK.

    Refugee Action said that the bill could leave Afghan refugees unable to claim asylum, left in barracks, or sent elsewhere.

    It further stated:

    The #AntiRefugeeBill and the lack of commitment to resettlement are wrong and unsustainable. Both must now be swept away on the tide of compassion brought by the events in Afghanistan. We are witnessing how quickly people can be left desperately struggling to find safety.

    Welcoming refugees

    The UK must allow, pro-actively help and welcome Afghan refugees fleeing persecution and fear. And it must go further than following the Canadian model of accepting just 20,000 people.

    It is the UK that helped create the current situation and it is down to the UK to urgently take action and help those facing an increasing desperate situation. It must happen quickly and it must mean giving people housing and rights – not condemning people who have already suffered so much to unsafe and appalling conditions in places like Napier Barracks.

    This crisis further highlights the fight we have in ahead of us against the racist Nationality and Borders Bill. This bill, and the hostile environment created by this government, must be stopped.

    Featured image via YouTube/Al Jazeera English

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • According to Press Association, at least 592 people were rescued or intercepted attempting to cross to Britain on 12 August – a record for a single day. Tragically, a 27 year old Eritrean man died after he and four others jumped overboard as their boat started to sink. Altogether, more than 11,000 people have succeeded in crossing the Dover Strait aboard small boats in 2021.

    Meanwhile, home secretary Priti Patel’s response is to criminalise refugees. Her Nationality and Borders Bill has passed its second reading in parliament. Should it be enacted in its present form, the UK could be in contravention of several international laws and conventions. Ultimately, it may see the Johnson government open to condemnation and prosecution in the international courts.

    Provisions of the bill

    When the bill was first introduced, Patel told the Commons that:

    Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe third country.

    According to London Immigration Lawyers, if the bill is enacted, it will also mean that:

    Border Force officers would have the power to turn back migrant boats using ‘reasonable force if necessary’.

    Furthermore, according to the Refugee Council, if enacted the bill would mean that:

    Refugees who do not arrive in the UK directly from a country of persecution (for example, those who travel across Europe) will not enter the asylum system when they make a claim for protection. Instead their claim will be treated as inadmissible while the Government tries to remove them from the country. They will also be under threat of a four-year prison sentence for ‘entering illegally’. If removal isn’t possible within a particular period of time, then their asylum claim will be heard.

    However, even when these refugees are granted asylum, and therefore recognised as in need of protection after fleeing war, persecution, and tyranny, it will be under the guise of ‘temporary protection’. This means they will be given a lesser period of leave to live in the UK, which will need to be regularly renewed. They will be at risk of being removed from the country each time their leave is renewed.

    The Council points out that this approach:

    flies in the face of the Refugee Convention, which states that the status of an asylum claim should not be dependent on the mode of entry into a country.

    Indeed, Article 31 of the convention bans states from imposing any sanction or punishment on a refugee or asylum seeker because of the way in which they arrived.

    Criminalising aid

    In its explanatory notes to Patel’s bill, the Home Office states that anyone helping a refugee to enter the UK will be liable to life imprisonment.

    However, the Home Office denies this applies to certain organisations helping those in distress at sea:

    If the claim is genuine, this provision in the bill would presumably apply to individuals not party to officially recognised rescue organisations.

    It’s not clear if this would apply, for example, to Channel Rescue – a grassroots organisation that provides onshore assistance to refugees arriving ‘unofficially’ in the UK by boat:

    Duty of care

    Certain international laws and conventions require the UK to provide a duty of care to refugees. Erik Røsæg, professor at the Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law, points out that this duty is recognised by:

    • The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.
    • The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.
    • The International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.

    The UN High Commissioner for Refugees further clarifies that asylum-seekers and refugees who are smuggled should not be deprived of any rights regarding access to protection and assistance.

    More contraventions

    In March, a leaked Home Office document listed countries to which the UK was considering transporting refugees. These include Papua New Guinea, Ascension Island, St Helena, Morocco, and Moldova. Also under consideration were the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, and other islands off the British coast.

    However, should such transportation and incarceration proceed, the UK would be in contravention of more international laws and conventions. For example, the Council of Europe (CoE) is responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in which Article 5 prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. (The UK helped set up the CoE, which is distinct from the EU.)

    Lessons from Australia

    Australia notoriously imprisoned refugees and asylum-seekers, who were trying to enter Australia by boat, on offshore islands such as Manus (Papua New Guinea) and Nauru. The refugees, including children, were detained and abused over many years. Suicides were attempted, there were numerous instances of self-harm, and lives were lost.

    The leaked ‘Nauru Filesreveal events on the island state that include “attempts of self-harm, sexual assaults, child abuse, hunger strikes, assaults and injuries”. They include more than “2,000 incident reports” at the refugee centre: “seven reports of sexual assault of children, 59 reports of assault on children, 30 of self-harm involving children and 159 of threatened self-harm involving children”.

    But the International Criminal Court. has declared arbitrary detention of refugees and asylum-seekers unlawful. That judgement, which can apply to any state, was based on the Rome statute, to which the UK is signatory.

    A powerful video by Channel 4 News shows the dark side of Australia’s “Operation Sovereign Borders” policy, to which Patel’s proposed measures bear similarity:

    Ditch it!

    If Patel’s bill is enacted, there would be aspects – such as imprisonment of anyone helping a refugee to enter the UK – that would likely see condemnation and even prosecution. Likewise if the Johnson government adopts Australian-style ‘offshore processing’ (aka detention) of refugees.

    The bill is yet another expression of the Conservative government’s ‘hostile environment’. That’s enough reason for it to be ditched altogether.

    Featured image via Flickr/Global Justice Now

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.