Mediaboss Marketing

Anyone who has followed the internal politics of the European Union over the past few years will know that the bloc, which relies on unity and mutual appreciation of rules, has struggled to stay on the same page on several important issues.

Petty spats between the leaders of the EU's political institutions have led to critics saying that those at the top of the Brussels food chain are prioritizing their own careers and personal power over the lives of European citizens.

As the Covid-19 pandemic approaches something resembling its end, and geopolitical challenges -- such as the fallout from the crisis in Afghanistan -- take hold, this open disunity presents the bloc with a series of fundamental problems to which there are no obvious solutions.

First things first: The Union itself is not facing extinction. The EU has remarkable staying power and the self-interest of its member states means there is no real chance of it falling apart any time soon.

What is in question, however, is the Union's long-term purpose and legitimacy.

Last week, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote to the president of the EU Parliament, David Sassoli, declining to act on a resolution that had been passed by a huge majority in the EU's legislative and only publicly elected body.

The Parliament believes that two member states, Hungary and Poland, have violated the EU's rule of law and as such should have central funding halted. The offenses on which this is based range from violating the independence of the judiciary to discriminating against LGBT communities -- both assaults on fundamental cornerstones of EU membership.

Parliament says that the Commission must now apply a regulation that was agreed last year, as the EU negotiated its long-term budget alongside Covid recovery funds. At the time, the regulation -- which ties EU money to obeying the rule of law -- was a priority. The tools at the EU's disposal for punishing member states had proven inadequate.

However, when push came to shove and the two delinquent nations threatened to exercise their veto rights, the regulation was watered down to such an extent that it would require iron-clad evidence that EU funds were being used to violate the rule of law, rather than a broader interpretation of violations occurring in general.

"It's fair to say that after the regulation was agreed, the parties most keen on taking action against Hungary and Poland hoped the Commission would take the political decision to take a broad interpretation," says Ronan McCrea, professor of European law at University College London. "This could be the first sign it will take a more cautious approach."

In the letter, von der Leyen said that Sassoli's letter was not "sufficiently clear and precise" on exactly what violations had taken place, resting on the narrow nature of the "complex assessments" required to enact the regulation.

Parliamentarians who have spent the past few years highlighting abuses are spitting blood at what they see as von der Leyen's complicity with violations.

"It is literally written into the treaties that the Commission is accountable to the Parliament," says Sophie in 't Veld, a Dutch liberal MEP.

She and many of her colleagues and European officials believe that von der Leyen, rather than acting as guardian of the EU's treaties, is acting in the interests of the governments of the EU nations that make up the 27-member EU Council. The more support that von der Leyen can elicit from the member states, the more power she has to ignore the calls of Parliament and work exclusively to her own agenda.

"She is in the job because Parliament gave up on electing its own candidate and rubber-stamped the member states' candidate. She owes them to a certain extent," Veld adds.

Daniel Freund, a German Green MEP, says that it's always "difficult for the commission to go against a member state because they will always need their support down the line." He adds that this might be particularly difficult for von der Leyen because she was elected with a majority that included Hungary and Poland's political leadership -- votes for which she willingly lobbied.

Politicking in Brussels is nothing new, and ardent Europhiles are sick of narrow interests at HQ overshadowing real issues facing the Union.

"So many people working at the EU level become obsessed with arguments over how the EU operates and who should have what power rather than getting on with making the Union fit for the 21st century," says Neale Richmond, an Irish lawmaker who was previously appointed to represent Ireland in Brussels.

"For years now we've been debating the future of Europe and its position on the world stage. We all want a strong, open Europe that is united in promoting liberal values and a world leader on things like climate change and geopolitics. But that won't happen if these petty inter-institutional squabbles keep getting in the way of everything," he adds.

If the EU is to be its best self, its stakeholders at the very least need to believe that all parties are acting in good faith. This has become increasingly hard as the row over the rule of law has rumbled on.

"We have repeatedly seen Hungary block resolutions in the Council on things like human rights in Hong Kong or when fighting erupted in Israel earlier this year, presumably to poke the member states agitating against its own violations in the eye," says Freund. Disunity and inaction on issues like these, of course, somewhat fly in the face of the EU's goal to be a global promoter of democratic values.

And when the stakeholders are distrustful of one another, it can have real-world consequences.

"Previously when the question of refugees fleeing war zones has come up, the 27 member states have been more comfortable dealing with and paying autocrats to host refugees than reaching a sensible deal among themselves," says Veld.

The lack of unity and painful process with which each decision is made means that the EU's woes are often dealt with on an issue-by-issue basis, despite the fact its crises tend to dovetail.

Take the question of Afghan refugees. The EU said last week that it will aid those fleeing the Taliban by supporting regional partners to host refugees. It is also hellbent against repeating the migrant crisis of 2015 when millions traveled to Europe to escape Syria's brutal civil war.

In 2016, the EU gave Turkey -- a regional partner -- cash to host Syrian refugees. Turkey was subsequently able to weaponize those refugees when it became politically convenient to do so. Why? Because member states were reluctant to welcome large numbers of migrants into their countries and in some instances took extreme measures to keep them out.

That migrant crisis played a large part in driving Euroskeptic, populist sentiment across the continent, as well as the victory of the pro-Brexit campaign in the UK in 2016.

Obviously, none of this was good for the EU, and it's far from implausible that the current short-sightedness on Afghanistan could see this repeated.

This might seem a dramatic overreaction to a row between the European Parliament and Commission over whether to act on a resolution. But, as Freund points out, the rule of law debate really does get to the fundamentals of how the EU will face the challenges hurtling towards every corner of the planet: as a united group with a common purpose or a collection of more isolationist nation states.

"The way the row over Hungary and Poland has played is putting the whole EU into question. If member states don't follow the treaties, if the Commission and Council don't punish rule breakers, then what is left of the EU," he asks.

These are questions that the bloc's leadership will need to answer in the coming year, as Europe pieces itself back together after the pandemic, elections in its two biggest countries -- France and Germany -- and attempts to navigate the geopolitical minefield that the past 18 months has left the world in.

If the EU is serious about its ambitions to be a major power on the world stage and -- in light of what's happened in the past fortnight -- step in where America might have previously, it needs all members on the same page and playing by the same rules.

The reality of this latest dilemma, however, is that keeping all 27 member states happy at the same time is a near-impossible balancing act. The longer these divisions exist, the wider the gaps in trust between stakeholders become. And at some point, that distance might become too large for anyone to bridge.

The-CNN-Wire & 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Read more here:
Europe's disunity and lack of trust imperils the continent's future - wlfi.com

As I heard the news out of Afghanistanthe families scrambling to get on American planes, or the thousands of requests for assistance pouring into my officeI was taken instantly back to my childhood. I remembered sitting in a refugee camp in Kenya when I was about 10 years old and overhearing my father and grandfather discuss how we were going to get out. "Only in America can you ultimately become an American," my grandfather said. "Everywhere else we will always feel like a guest."

He was right. I was lucky to become an American, not a guest, and ultimately represent my new home of Minnesota in the halls of Congress. But right now there are thousands of Afghans, many of whom risked their lives to help the United States, who are wondering if they will have that same opportunity to make new lives here.

My family escaped civil war in Somalia when I was just eight years old, but life in the refugee camp was scarcely better. Every week, someone I knew died. Relatives of minea family of sixlost both parents in the span of two weeks. My aunts, uncles, cousins and siblings all contracted malaria.

It was our family's faith in humanity that ultimately saved my life. After nearly four years of survival in a refugee camp, and over a year of intense vetting by the United Nations and the United States, we finally got a golden ticket to come to America. I wouldn't be here today, raising my children in comfort without the generosity of the Kenyan people, the tireless efforts of UN workers and the welcoming spirit of the American people who gave me and my family a second chance at life.

In this critical moment, we must draw upon the best of our history and open our arms to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. We must, as President Joe Biden said during his presidential campaign, "never turn our backs on who we are or that which makes us uniquely and proudly American. The United States deserves an immigration policy that reflects our highest values as a nation."

For centuries, that has been the American ideal. In the early 20th century, as pogroms swept across Eastern Europe and extreme deprivation gripped the Mediterranean, the United States welcomed over 15 million immigrantslargely from Europeto our shores.

In the wake of the Vietnam War, the Ford administration immediately granted people fleeing the region permission to enter the US legally. Congress then passed and the President signed the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act in 1975providing over $450 million (that's $2.3 billion in today's dollars) to help resettle over 140,000 Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Lao refugees. As the situation remained unstable, we expanded that assistance. By 2017, over 1.3 million Vietnamese immigrants were living in the US. In my home state of Minnesota, the Hmongan ethnic group who fought alongside Americans in Vietnamhave been a vital and flourishing community since they first started coming here in 1975, eventually sending Minnesotans like Suni Lee to the Olympics to bring home a gold medal.

Of course, every new group of immigrants is met with resistance. After an initial wave of Chinese immigration in the mid-19th century, Congress shamefully passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law that wasn't repealed until 1943. After welcoming millions of European migrants at the dawn of the 20th century, nativism took hold and the Immigration Act of 1924 severely restricted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe.

This law would disgracefully remain fully on the books until 1952, barring millions of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, and forever staining our history. In fact, in 1939 these immigration restrictions were used to justify the denial of 900 Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi Germany to enter the United States on the MS St. Louis. Many would later die in Hitler's death camps.

It was in the wake of the unspeakable atrocities of the Holocaust, and the failure of countries around the world to grant asylum to those fleeing violence, that the United States led the creation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declared, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." This was later codified in international law in the Geneva Convention, our own laws, and migration laws around the world.

The question we face today is whether or not we will learn from the mistakes of our past. Will we follow the example of Vietnam and recognize the suffering and needs of the Afghan people? Or will we once again fall victim to the nativism and hate that sentenced thousands of people to death in the run-up to the Holocaust?

President Biden has an opportunity to lead a global effort to confront this reality. The President deserves credit for the evacuating over 70,000 people from Kabul in the past week alone, but there are tens of thousands more who need our help. My office alone has received over 5,000 requests from people trying to get family members and colleagues out of Afghanistan just in the past two weeksrepresenting tens of thousands of individuals who are afraid for their lives. Thursday's terrorist attack on Afghans and US service members was yet another reminder of the terror the people of Afghanistan continue to face. Now is the time to redouble our evacuation efforts and do everything we can to get people out who are most at risk.

We should not let paperwork and bureaucracy be a death sentence. Much like we did in the wake of Vietnam, we must allow Afghan citizens to emigrate here immediately using national interest waivers and humanitarian parolewhich the administration has the legal authority to do. We must hold the airport in Kabul and lead an international coalition to evacuate every person who is fleeing for their lives in Afghanistan.

We need to call on our NATO allies and neighboring countries to do their part, because we know when America leads with our values, others feel emboldened to do the same. And we cannot make the deadly mistake of sanctioning the Afghan economypunishing the millions of innocent Afghans who have endured so much and making a dangerous situation even worse.

Afghanistan is not the only test. Central America, Haiti, Syria, Libya, and countries around the world are currently facing large-scale human rights crises and need our help. The climate emergency is already fueling extreme weather events, and climate migration is sure to be one of the defining political challenges of the coming century. We should be leading a global migration compact, which would provide global funding to address the migrant crisis and establish clear benchmarks for each nation to take in refugees (I have introduced a bill on just this.) I'm glad that the President allocated $500 million to help resettle Afghans, but we must do more. The reconciliation package should include funding to address this. And we must live up to our promises to increase the refugee cap.

That is the choice our country faces right now. We owe it to the Afghan who risked his life to fight alongside the United States. We owe it to the little girl huddled in a refugee camp, wondering if she will have a shot to ultimately become not just a guest, but an American. I know, because that little girl was me.

The-CNN-Wire & 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Continue reading here:
Ilhan Omar: As a refugee, I want America to open its arms to those fleeing Afghanistan - Action News Now

Record low water levels have been recorded in parts of Syria and Iraq following a sustained drought, with more than 12 million people affected.

Carsten Hansen, of the Norwegian Refugee Council, one of a group of 13 aid agencies that has issued a warning about the deteriorating situation, said the drought will soon become an unprecedented catastrophe. The total collapse of water and food production for millions of Syrians and Iraqis is imminent, he said, adding this would push more people into becoming refugees.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

This plea came amid concern of a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis following the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban. In Greece, the authorities have built a border fence designed to prevent their safe and inviolable borders from possibilities for migrant flows.

Given the world is only going to get warmer, it should be obvious that in places which are already too hot and dry people will be forced to move by a lack of water. And in places where it is hot and humid, temperatures can become so high that the human body is unable to lose enough heat by sweating and going outside for long periods can prove fatal.

It may be tempting for some in this country to console themselves that, so far, the ravages of climate change have not been as bad as in other parts of the world. However, this is a false comfort because problems on such a global scale will eventually come to our door.

Greeces Trump-style strategy of building a wall is one easily defeated by the humble ladder and is not going to have much effect if millions of desperate people are forced to flee for their lives.

As this planet-wide storm continues to build, developed countries in temperate regions need to start coming up with better ways of dealing with climate refugees than simply turning them away. It is not only immoral but a policy that will, ultimately, fail.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Read more here:
Climate change: Walls are no answer to looming refugee crises as millions in Syria and Iraq face 'total collapse' of water supplies Scotsman says -...

This week Sky News has been identifying the gaps in Britain's border defences.

As the number of small boats crossing the Channel breaks new records and European countries brace for a new wave of people fleeing Afghanistan, the issue is rising up the public consciousness once more.

Ministers are meant to be able now to deliver on their promise to take back control post Brexit. So why does it not yet feel like that to some?

The government response to this issue is being led by Home Secretary Priti Patel. Nobody would doubt her right-wing credentials, and interestingly she has had plaudits from across the political spectrum for her handling of the migration aspects of the Afghanistan crisis.

Her answer to the questions around Britain's borders is the Nationality and Borders Bill currently in committee stage in the House of Commons. But does it answer the problems, many of which are caused beyond Britain's borders?

One area of concern is the Mediterranean where people flee from countries like Tunisia, often aided by people smugglers. Sky News' Adam Parsons talked to people smugglers acting with impunity, little worried about the consequences.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tom Tugendhat, Tory chair of the foreign affairs select committee told Sky News the answer is to send more Royal Navy vessels to help in the Med.

"Our great strength we have with NATO allies around is that our border doesn't start at Dover, it starts at the southern tip of Italy and Greece - working together and making sure these borders are defended and reinforced is exactly what we should be doing but we need to do more.

"It's not about being kind to Italians. It's about defending ourselves further out."

The Nationality and Borders Bill tightens the penalties for people smugglers in an attempt to tackle the problem.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Another issue comes when migrants who have made it to the EU then try and cross the Channel to Britain. Sky News' Michelle Clifford found that while French authorities would stop anyone still on land who looked like they would be attempting to cross the Channel, they would not stop boats once they were in the water, even when it was under French control.

They blame international law, though many in Britain including MPs on the home affairs select committee claim the French are wrongly interpreting this.

Tim Loughton, Tory member of the home affairs select committee, said the French interpretation was "completely wrong".

He added "We have evidence from maritime international lawyers - they made it clear that French authorities have power to intercept and repatriate passengers on boats, but actually have an obligation under international law - people on boats guilty of trying to enter UK illegally and paying organised crime to facilitate that journey, that would give grounds to French authorities to apprehend people, that is only what is going to stop that horrendous trade - people paying money to people smugglers, highly likely with them being taken backthat could stop that miserable trade stone dead."

Asked why the British government hasn't succeeded in convincing the French they're wrong, he said: "It's all excuses, we made it clear - the French claiming it's a different interpretation, that's wrong - also internal politics going on, a big row with those who run Calais and the federal government. They're each trying to make it each other's problem."

The Nationality and Borders Bill will mark a serious attempt to block illegal immigration, alongside the new post Brexit points based entry system.

It will make it easier to return some illegal asylum seekers more quickly, make some asylum seekers apply before they reach UK shores and give border officials powers to turn back boats in UK waters.

But this does not - and cannot - stop Britain being an attractive country for economic migrants and asylum seekers.

Alp Mehmet, Chairman of Migration Watch, said that Britain would remain a country many aspire to live in so more had to be done to turn back illegal arrivals.

"Britain is an attractive country, so is France, US - most people wanted to go to the US first, we are part of a wider picture of prosperous civilised fun countries.

"A lot of those coming are young men who want a better life - we are part of the story, in a way we have to create the opportunity for a lot of Afghans to want to come here."

But he added that once here, many were treated generously with little chance of being sent back.

"One of the principle reasons why the traffickers are able to sell Britain as the destination of choice is that having arrived here there's very little chance of being sent back - very few people who apply for asylum and fail actually are sent back.

"That is a huge factor, while they're here, we look after - hotels, detention centres that have been used - even these are not bad accommodations, there is a bit of money given for people to spend.

"Once you're in the system you're looked after - people see messages coming across, it is all made to be very attractive."

See the original post:
Migrant crisis: Tough new laws are planned, but the problems start far beyond the UK's borders - Sky News

Although Europes ongoing migrant crisis experienced a peak in 2015, the consequences of the pressure borne by European nations at the time particularly by the Mediterranean countries whoreceiveda majority of asylum-seekers are increasingly being felt today. In an attempt by the European Union (EU) to reduce migrant arrivals, a growing number of member states have begunadoptinganti-immigration policies, with little regard for the migrants consequently affected. In the case of Libya, European countries recently signed anagreementwith the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG), agreeing to provide financial and material support to the LCGin exchange for Libya taking on the responsibility of seizing and returning migrant boats leaving from their coast. This allows European nations to purposefully disregard the obligation they have to uphold international law, which states that they cannotreturnrefugees to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom, as declared under the1951 Refugee Convention. The core principle of nonrefoulement is thus technically respected since the signatory members are not those directly refusing refugees access to safety.

Since the fall ofLibyan leaderMuammar Gaddafis authoritarian regime in 2011, the country hasfacedworsening political instability. With no central government and rival militias dividing the nation, smuggling businesses based out of Libyan ports havethrived. The flow of migrants leaving for Europe through the central Mediterranean route usually Libya to Italy hasrisendrastically in past years. While all of Europe felt repercussions from the exceptionally high influx of migrants in 2015, seeing over 1.3 million arrivals from multiple war-torn countries in North Africa and the Middle East, Italy has been especially affected. Proximity to Northern Africa via the Mediterranean Sea has made it one of the most accessible European nations; as a result, Italy has continuouslyreceivedbetween 120,000 to 180,000 migrants each year since, with numbers only dropping after their agreement with the LCG in late 2017. At this point, with the EU refusing to help migrants andremovingmost of their naval forces from the Mediterranean, non-governmental organizations wereforcedto play an even more significant role in aiding refugees despite the struggle they faced in safely carrying them to shore. Frontiers were often closed, and ships full of refugees abandoned, causing more migrants to die at sea. Today, nearly twice as many migrants have died at sea in 2021 compared to 2017,risingfrom 1 in 42 deaths to 1 in 22. This marks an exorbitant increase, considering that the number ofarrivalsduring this time shrunk from 119,370 to 19,060 people.

The disproportionate impactof the crisis on Mediterranean countries spurred drastic anti-migration policies in 2018, beginning with the Italian governments closed ports approach that blocked NGO ships carrying migrants from docking at their ports. This was largely a response to the EUs system for verifying asylum claims, known as theDublin system, which makes nations responsible for such procedures on receiving the migrants. While bearing the brunt of the migrant crisis, coastal countries began to find ways to prevent arrivals on their territory. While Italy recentlyoverturnedits closed port policy, the EU is still far from providing a sustainable system forsharingresponsibilities amongst countries to support migrant arrivals. In a vicious cycle, a nationalistic approach to immigration has led far-right parties togain tractionin nearly every European nation, solidifying a widespread belief that migrants threaten European unity. Such thinking only reinforces the far-rights rhetoric, despite the true crisis at hand being a humanitarian one, revolving around the increasing number of migrants facing deadly or inhumane conditions, both at sea or within the repressive regimes from which they attempt to escape. The lack of solidarity with coastal countries shown by other EU member states has fueled Italysexteriorizationof border management, as exemplified by their agreement with the LCG.

By helping the LCG capture departing boats and ignoring theappallingconditions in Libyan detention camps, EU members are exacerbating the inhumane conditions experienced by migrants. By June 2021, 13,000 people had been forciblyreturnedto Libya,exceedingthe total brought back in all of 2020. Considering that the International Organization for Migration (IOM)reportshigher numbers of asylum-seekers attempting the passage this year, the final tally will likely be much higher. Nonetheless, many migrants continue to crossdespitethe blatant dangers awaiting them because any alternative seems better than being stuck in Libya, where horrifichuman rights violationsare experienced daily by those in detention camps. Detainees face constanttorture, from sexual violence to forced labour, andremaintrapped unless they escape or pay exorbitant ransoms for their freedom. One survivors account detailed conditions in theZintandetention centre, where approximately 700 migrants were held in overflowing and filthy living quarters; prisoners had no access to clean water and faced frequent malnutrition as food was withheld as a form of punishment.

European governments and even NGOs within Libya (often backed by the same EU funds that finance the LCG) have failed toadequately addressthe humanitarian crisis at hand, likely because of their role in engendering it. Many asylum-seekers, and even certain aid workers, havestatedthat there is little to no substantial assistance from the international community. They remain in the same conditions and continuously feel alone in dealing with the abuse they face, further highlighting how rare the prospect of support from European nations is today. Fear that the consequences of the 2015 migrant influx will recur, againspreadingcertain nations resources thin, is cited for the rise in support for anti-immigration policies.

However, the migrant issue remains rooted in the EUs system for receiving asylum-seekers, which has a major shortcoming in its uneven division of responsibility among all union members. Should better migrationmanagement practices [and] better migration governance tactics be adopted, as stated by the IOM, accommodating the number of arrivals to Europe each year would be a feasible task. By spreading the demands for refugee support, both financial and other, among all member nations, the integration of migrants could become both smoother and more beneficial to refugees and states alike. The human cost of this refugee crisis has long come second to other factors motivating the EUs decisions, a trend which desperately needs to change to reverse the recent trends of rising migrant deaths.

The challenges faced by North African migrants looking for a better life in Europe, from the dangerous sea crossings they attempt to the cruel treatment they face if returned to Libya, are unfortunately largely due to the EUs continuous contributions to repressive regimes and actors. The role played by European nations in this crisis is far from the first and will likely not be the last. In Turkey, the EU has long beenprovidingbillions of euros in funds in exchange for the Turkish government to block the migratory route coming from Turkey towards western European nations. Considering the influence and resources of the European continent, it is lamentable that they choose to utilize their capacities to further the humanitarian crises seen in war-torn and transit countries instead of addressing the systemic violations of human rights seen abroad. Instead, developed nations continue to benefit from the suffering of the less fortunate despite a legal obligation to uphold international law. Their eagerness to find loopholes in longstanding agreements shows that the moral side of their duty is dangerously ignored, with decisions being made at the expense of the vulnerable populations they are supposed to be protecting.

Featured image Refugees on a boat crossing the Mediterranean sea by Mstyslav Chernov is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Edited by Grace Parish.

Go here to read the rest:
The EU's Deal With Libya's Coast Guard: Funding the Continuation of the Global Refugee Crisis - The McGill International Review