November, 17 2015, 12:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7413 5566,After hours: +44 7778 472 126,Email:,press@amnesty.org
Refugees Endangered and Dying Due to EU Reliance on Fences and Gatekeepers
In the wake of last Friday's atrocious attacks on Paris the European Union (EU) must resist the urge to further seal off its external borders, which would continue to fuel a range of human rights abuses while doing nothing to enhance security or halt the influx of desperate refugees, said Amnesty International as it published a new report today.
WASHINGTON
In the wake of last Friday's atrocious attacks on Paris the European Union (EU) must resist the urge to further seal off its external borders, which would continue to fuel a range of human rights abuses while doing nothing to enhance security or halt the influx of desperate refugees, said Amnesty International as it published a new report today.
The organization is calling for managed, safe, legal routes into Europe and fair, efficient, rigorous screening processes that would meet the needs of refugees seeking protection in Europe and address the need for identifying possible security threats.
The report, Fear and Fences: Europe's approach to keeping refugees at bay, reveals how moves to fence off land borders and enlist neighbouring countries, such as Turkey and Morocco, as gatekeepers, have denied refugees access to asylum, exposed refugees and migrants to ill-treatment and pushed people towards life-threatening sea journeys.
"The expanding fences along Europe's borders have only entrenched rights violations and exacerbating the challenges of managing refugee flows in a humane and orderly manner," said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International's Director for Europe and Central Asia.
"Giving in to fear in the wake of the atrocious attacks on Paris will not protect anyone. The numbers fleeing persecution and conflict have not gone away, nor has their entitlement to protection. In the wake of this tragedy, the failure to extend solidarity to people seeking shelter in Europe, often after fleeing the very same kind of violence, would be a cowardly abdication of responsibility and a tragic victory for terror over humanity.
"As long as there is violence and war, people will continue to come, and Europe must find better ways to offer protection. The EU and its front-line member states urgently need to rethink how they ensure safe and legal access to the EU both at its external land borders and in countries of origin and transit. This can be accomplished through the increased use of resettlement, family reunification and humanitarian visas."
Fear and Fences, as well as a new briefing by Human Rights Watch, Europe's Refugee Crisis: An Agenda for Action, also published today, make detailed recommendations calling on the EU and its member states to do much more to tackle the global refugee crisis.
The heavy toll of Fortress Europe's fences
In total, EU member states have built more than 235 km of fences at the EU's external borders costing in excess of 175 million Euros, including:
- a 175 km fence along the Hungary-Serbia border
- a 30 km fence along the Bulgaria-Turkey border, which is to be extended by a further 130 km
- 18.7 km of fences along the borders of the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla with Morocco, and
- a 10.5 km fence in the Evros region along the Greece-Turkey border.
Instead of stopping people from coming, these fences have only redirected refugee flows to other land routes or more dangerous sea routes. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the number of 2015 arrivals by sea into the EU reached 792,883 in November, compared to the 280,000 land and sea arrivals recorded by the EU border management agency Frontex for the entire year in 2014. So far this year, 647,581 people have arrived in Greece by sea, with 93% of arrivals coming from the world's top 10 refugee producing countries, according to UNHCR.
As of 10 November, 512 people have lost their lives in the Aegean this year and nearly 3,500 have died in the Mediterranean as a whole.
Push-backs and other violations at borders
People who attempted to cross the Greek, Bulgarian and Spanish land borders told Amnesty International how they were pushed back by border authorities without access to asylum procedures or a chance to appeal their return, in direct breach of international law. Push-backs are often accompanied by violence and put people's lives in danger.
A 31-year-old Syrian refugee gave a description of a typical push-back from Greece's land border with Turkey in April this year:
"They took us to the river bank and told us to get on our knees. It was dark by this time - about 8.30pm. There were other people there who were being sent back to Turkey. One of the police hit me on my back ... he hit me on my legs and on my head with a wooden stick. They took us closer to the river and told us to be quiet and not to move. They took me away from the group and started beating us with their fists and kicking us on the floor. They held me by my hair and pushed me towards the river."
Amnesty International's research shows that while push-backs at the Greece-Turkey land border are routine, reports of push-backs along the Bulgaria-Turkey remain constant.
In March 2015, Spain adopted legislation to legalize the push-backs of migrants and refugees that Spanish civil guards have been carrying out from Ceuta and Melilla, the two Spanish enclaves in North Africa bordering Morocco. In September, Hungary established transit zones at its border with Serbia to return asylum seekers back to Serbia after expedited procedures with dubious safeguards.
"Where there are fences, there are human rights abuses. Illegal push-backs of asylum-seekers have become an intrinsic feature of any EU external border located on major migration routes and no one is doing much to stop them," said John Dalhuisen.
"Regulating entry to the EU is one thing. Denying it to refugees altogether quite another. The first is sensible and legitimate, the second is inhuman and illegal, and has to stop."
In a further bid to keep refugees and migrants out of Europe, the EU and its member states are increasingly turning to third countries to act as Europe's gatekeepers.
Europe's 'gatekeepers'
The latest proposal on the table is for an EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan which commits Turkey to "preventing irregular migration". The deal turns a blind eye to rights violations refugees and migrants face there. In recent months, Turkey has been detaining intercepted migrants and asylum-seekers without access to lawyers and forcibly returning refugees to Syria and Iraq, in clear violation of international law. Many non-Syrian refugees wait for more than five years to have their asylum claims processed.
Moroccan border guards have also been complicit in the ill-treatment of people attempting to scale the fences surrounding the Spanish enclaves, while asylum system reforms in the country have yet to become effective.
"The EU should not be turning to states that cannot or do not respect the rights of refugees and migrants to do their dirty work for them. Neighbouring countries should be assisted in developing asylum and reception systems. They should not be enlisted as hired hands with blithe disregard for the consequences for refugees and migrants," said John Dalhuisen.
Recommendations to the EU
The EU can and should implement a series of achievable, realistic measures to respond to the global refugee crisis and to ensure protection for the hundreds of thousands who have already arrived in mainland Europe.
"The global refugee crisis represents a huge challenge for the EU, but it is far from an existential threat. In fact, managed, safe and legal routes into Europe would go a long way towards identifying security threats before they arrive. The EU needs to be responding not with fear and fences, but in the best tradition of the values it purports to hold dear," said John Dalhuisen.
- Amnesty International is calling on the EU and its member states to:
open up safe and legal routes, including through increasing resettlement, family reunification, and humanitarian admissions and visas; - ensure that refugees have access to territory and asylum at the EU's external land borders;
- end push-backs and other human rights violations at the borders, particularly through effective investigations into allegations of abuse at the national level, and the initiation of infringement proceedings by the EU Commission, where EU law is breached;
- significantly increase reception capacity and short-term humanitarian assistance in Europe's front-line countries; and
- accelerate and extend the implementation of its relocation scheme for asylum seekers.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
LATEST NEWS
Green Group Sounds Alarm Over Meta's Nuclear Power Plans
"In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way," said a leader at Environment America.
Dec 05, 2024
Environmental advocates this week responded with concern to Meta looking for nuclear power developers to help the tech giant add 1-4 gigawatts of generation capacity in the United States starting in the early 2030s.
Meta—the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and more—released a request for proposals to identify developers, citing its artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and sustainability objectives. It is "seeking developers with strong community engagement, development, ...permitting, and execution expertise that have development opportunities for new nuclear energy resources—either small modular reactors (SMR) or larger nuclear reactors."
The company isn't alone. As TechCrunchreported: "Microsoft is hoping to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island by 2028. Google is betting that SMR technology can help it deliver on its AI and sustainability goals, signing a deal with startup Kairos Power for 500 megawatts of electricity. Amazon has thrown its weight behind SMR startup X-Energy, investing in the company and inking two development agreements for around 300 megawatts of generating capacity."
In response to Meta's announcement, Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said: "The long history of overhyped nuclear promises reveals that nuclear energy is expensive and slow to build all while still being inherently dangerous. America already has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that we don’t have a storage solution for."
"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Neumann asked. "In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way. Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health."
"Data centers should be as energy and water efficient as possible and powered solely with new renewable energy," she added. "Without those guardrails, the tech industry's insatiable thirst for energy risks derailing America's efforts to get off polluting forms of power, including nuclear."
In a May study, the Electric Power Research Institute found that "data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—more than double the amount currently used." The group noted that "AI queries require approximately 10 times the electricity of traditional internet searches and the generation of original music, photos, and videos requires much more."
Meta is aiming to get the process started quickly: The intake form is due by January 3 and initial proposals are due February 7. It comes after a rare bee species thwarted Meta's plans to build a data center powered by an existing nuclear plant.
Following the nuclear announcement, Meta and renewable energy firm Invenergy on Thursday announced a deal for 760 megawatts of solar power capacity. Operations for that four-state project are expected to begin no later than 2027.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the Banks and Investors Funding the LNG 'Carbon Bomb'
"Banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion," the authors of a new report said.
Dec 05, 2024
Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.
A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.
"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."
"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."
The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.
Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.
"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.
Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.
The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
- JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
- Mizuho (Japan)
- Gazprombank (Russia)
- SMBC Group (Japan)
- Bank of America (U.S.)
- Citigroup (U.S.)
- Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
- Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
- RBC (Canada)
While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.
All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.
"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."
The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.
The top 10 LNG investors are:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
- Fidelity Investments
- Capital Group
- GPFG
- JP Morgan Chase
- Brookfield Asset Management
- Blackstone
- MSBI
Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.
Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.
"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."
To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.
"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pick to Lead IRS Signals 'Open Season for Tax Cheats'
The nomination of Billy Long, said one lawmaker, indicates "Trump's intention to make the agency less responsive to the American people, while giving a green light to wealthy tax cheats."
Dec 05, 2024
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run the Internal Revenue Service, former Rep. Billy Long, didn't serve on the House committee tasked with writing tax policy during his six terms in office, and his lack of relevant experience is likely "exactly what Trump was looking for," according to one economic justice advocate.
Progressive lawmakers joined advocates on Wednesday in denouncing Trump's selection of Long, who since leaving office in 2023 has promoted a tax credit that's been riddled with fraud and who spent his time in the House pushing to abolish the very agency he's been chosen to run.
As a Republican congressman from Missouri, Long repeatedly sponsored legislation to dismantle the IRS, which under President Joe Biden has recovered at least $1 billion from wealthy people who previously evaded taxes.
He also co-sponsored legislation to repeal all estate taxes, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthiest households, but "said almost nothing on the floor regarding taxes, the IRS, and taxation during his 12 years in Congress," said John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News.
Long's limited experience with tax policy "ought to set off alarm bells," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pointed to "vastly improved taxpayer service" under the leadership of IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who Biden chose to replace Trump's nominee from his first term, Charles Rettig, after Rettig served his full term.
Werfel has "set up a tremendous direct-file system, and begun badly needed crackdowns on ultra-wealthy tax cheats who rip off law-abiding Americans," said Wyden. "If Trump fires Mr. Werfel, it won't be to improve on his work; it'll be to install somebody Trump can control as he meddles with the IRS."
The appointment is likely to commence an "open season for tax cheats," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative.
"If he's confirmed, taxpayers can expect longer wait times for customer service, a more complicated process to file taxes, and free rein for the rich and powerful to continue rigging the system at the expense of everyone else."
Since leaving office, Long has promoted the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC), a pandemic-era credit that was intended to incentivize employers to continue paying workers during the economic shutdown when the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States.
He has worked to help businesses claim the credit from the IRS, but fraudulent and improper claims have so permeated the program that the IRS stopped processing new claims temporarily. The U.S. House passed a bill to entirely halt ERTC claims, but it has been stalled in the Senate.
"These ERTC mills that have popped up over the last few years are essentially fraud on an industrial scale, conning small businesses and ripping off American taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars," said Wyden. "I'm going to have a lot of questions about Mr. Long's role in this business, first and foremost why the American people ought to trust somebody involved with a fraud-ridden industry to run an agency that's tasked with rooting out fraud."
Wyden also pointed out that Long has not been named in a "typical nomination like you'd see after every presidential election." Werfel's term was set to go until November 2027, and the IRS typically operates as a nonpartisan agency.
"Replacing Commissioner Werfel with over three years remaining in his term is a terrible mistake," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "He has done an excellent job rebuilding the IRS, boosting customer service, and enhancing enforcement aimed at wealthy tax evaders. Removing him will clearly signal Trump's intention to make the agency less responsive to the American people, while giving a green light to wealthy tax cheats to evade their fair share of the tax burden."
"Trump's nominee has clearly stated that he wants to abolish the IRS," added Beyer. "The change Trump proposes in IRS leadership would be a gift to tax cheats and a blow to anyone who believes it is important to rein in deficits."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) added that Trump's nomination of Long signals "the weaponization of the tax agency."
"If he's confirmed," she said, "taxpayers can expect longer wait times for customer service, a more complicated process to file taxes, and free rein for the rich and powerful to continue rigging the system at the expense of everyone else."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular