According to the Guardian, dozens of African migrants were left to die in the Mediterranean Sea after a number of European and NATO military units apparently ignored their cries for help. On board were 72 passengers, including several women, young children, and political refugees (twenty were women and two were small children, one of whom was just one year old). All but 11 of those on board died from thirst and hunger after their vessel was left to drift in open waters for 16 days.
Despite alarms being raised with the Italian coastguard and the boat making contact with a military helicopter and a NATO warship, no rescue effort was attempted.
“Every morning we would wake up and find more bodies, which we would leave for 24 hours and then throw overboard,” said Abu Kurke, one of only nine survivors. “By the final days, we didn’t know ourselves … everyone was either praying, or dying.”
“We’d finished the oil, we’d finished the food and water, we’d finished everything,” said Kurke, a 24-year-old migrant who was fleeing ethnic conflict in his homeland, the Oromia region of Ethiopia. “We were drifting in the sea, and the weather was very dangerous.” At some point on 29 or 30 March the boat was carried near to a Nato aircraft carrier – so close that it would have been impossible to be missed. According to survivors, two jets took off from the ship and flew low over the boat while the migrants stood on deck holding the two starving babies aloft. But from that point on, no help was forthcoming. Unable to manoeuvre any closer to the aircraft carrier, the migrants’ boat drifted away. Shorn of supplies, fuel or means of contacting the outside world, they began succumbing one by one to thirst and starvation.
For most of the migrants, the failure of the Nato ship to mount any rescue attempt proved fatal. Over the next 10 days, almost everyone on board died. “We saved one bottle of water from the helicopter for the two babies, and kept feeding them even after their parents had passed,” said Kurke, who survived by drinking his own urine and eating two tubes of toothpaste. “But after two days, the babies passed too, because they were so small.”
This took place from late March to early April. What was NATO doing at that time? It was busy bombing Gaddafi forces and deliberating whether or not to arm the Libyan rebels. Meanwhile, 600,000 civilians in eastern Libya were in need of humanitarian assistance, as they suffered dire shortages of food, water and medicine. At Libya’s borders with Egypt and Tunisia, were tens of thousands of Libyans and refugees, who remained stuck following attempts to flee the fighting and were also running severely low on vital supplies, causing a parallel humanitarian catastrophe.
If NATO were truly interested in humanitarian intervention, it would focus on providing food, water, and medical supplies to Libyans, instead of instigating a civil war through a bombing campaign that is only leading to more violence. Will the pleas of civilians slowly dying from thirst and starvation continue to be ignored by the US-led NATO efforts to “protect Libyans” with bombs and assassination attempts? If history is any indication, then be prepared for more stomach-wrenching, fatal consequences of “humanitarian intervention” comparable to the fate of the 72 passengers that NATO could not be bothered to save.
The only way to remedy the continual problem of refugees seeking asylum and a better life outside their own country is to destroy all immigration barriers worldwide. Such a measure would also solve a lot of other big problems the world is facing now.. humanitarian and environmental. In our time a free flowing humanity is has become absolutely necessary to the survival of the natural life systems on our planet.
I completely share the sentiments of this blog post and I’m incensed, though not surprised by the exposed hypocrisy. This is a failure to help, which constitutes a criminal offense in civilized societies and also in international law. The case should be brought to the International Court of Justice. Going on from here I would though like to address the broader perspective of migration:
I live in a small Middle European country which experiences a constant influx of immigrants from all sides. I would gladly accommodate every needy person from all around the globe, but there are two points that make me worried:
1. Overpopulation
The earth cannot provide for a prognostic 10 billion people and obviously not even for the 6.8 billion who are already crowding this planet. A carrying capacity of 2 – 4 billion seems to be more realistic and a reduction of the human population to sustainable levels will occur in one way or the other. If this reduction is forced upon us it could become very ugly (the “Pianca” solution).
I live in a country with a fertility rate of 1.42 and we take in people from African countries with up to 7,19 birth per women (Niger, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, DRC). To let populations flow freely from areas with high birth rates to ones with low rates may relieve the ecological pressure and the misery of impoverished people in the short term, but will also make a change of directions less urgent and increase the prospect of a global catastrophe in the long term.
Countries with a patriarchal society, with sexual discrimination and lack of education for woman have the highest birth rates. Religion (Islam as well as Christian nominations) plays a role and power politics play a role. The Middle East sees a demographic race between Jews and Arabs, which the Palestinians are about to win (Palestinian territories 5.09, Israel 2.72), but which also makes a peaceful solution impossible. An Israeli uses in average 5 times more water than a Palestinian and the aquifers in the West Bank provide the water for Tel Aviv. Israel can only feed its citizens and even export food because of costly irrigation. There is not enough water for both nations. I support BDS and boycott Israeli and US goods, but what does this help, when high birth rates make peace impossible?
How can birth rates be reduced?
Educating and empowering women is the obvious solution, but it can only be applied, if the cultural/social paradigms of patriarchal societies are changed.
2. Cultural incompatibilities
I would be glad to welcome every needy person from all around the globe who is willing to respect the social and cultural values of my country (as imperfect or even fraud they may be). Many male immigrants from Africa though are not willing to integrate or accept the culture of the host country. They separate themselves in ghettos and openly show their aversion and dislike for western culture.
The native population is understandably disturbed and is flocking to right wing populists. Right wing parties are on the rise everywhere in Europe and their success will make the pursuit of sensible solutions impossible.
On a side note: One should not underestimate the sexual energy that drives humans. Ben Ali and Mubarak would still be in power, if there were not tens of thousands of young unemployed and unmarried man ready to direct their frustration towards the regime. A few tyrants were toppled, others, who are on the right position in the geopolitical chess game, are propped up by the USA (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia). Until now it seems that the Arab revolution is not built on a general cultural shift to gender equality (Laura Logan). Can a truly democratic and just society emerge from this configuration?
======================
http://mato48.wordpress.com/
We could fix this kind of problem ahead of time by destroying all immigration barriers.
Why not create a free flowing humanity the world over? For God’s sake and the sake of the planet let’s do something creative for once. Getting rid of international borders would mean the absolute end of the some of the worst evils of our time. It has to start here in America. Just look at the words engraved at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty.
@mato48: Disagree with what you say and will explain later why!
Great article!