

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

European Union governments' policy responses to migration undermine refugee protection and human rights and diminish the EU's moral standing, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 24-page report, "EU Policies Put Refugees at Risk: An Agenda to Restore Protection," analyzes the EU's efforts to outsource responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees to other parts of the world that already host the vast majority of refugees, the trend toward restricting refugee rights in the EU, and the failure to step up refugee resettlement. The report sets out recommendations to guide Europe's response to boat and other migration and says that EU governments should urgently change course on their policies.
"The year 2016 stands out as a time when the EU decided to shut the door to refugees, and make life harder for those already here," said Judith Sunderland, associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The rush to make the EU a hostile environment and keep people away at all costs belittles the enormous often life-endangering risks people take to escape conflict, persecution and human rights abuses, and runs counter to Europe's values."
Mismanagement and lack of coordination among EU governments contributed to a political and humanitarian crisis in 2015, when more than one million asylum seekers and migrants reached Europe by sea. While arrivals have been much lower in 2016 - less than 340,000 - significant challenges persist, with front-line EU countries shouldering the lion's share of responsibility. More than 4,600 people trying to reach Europe by sea have died or been reported missing at sea so far in 2016, the deadliest year on record.
In 2016, the EU focused on preventing arrivals and outsourcing responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees to regions and countries outside the EU, Human Rights Watch said. The EU-Turkey deal on refugees, a new framework for relations with third countries premised on migration cooperation, and the training the EU is providing to the Libyan Coast Guard and Navy all reflect this approach.
All three policies have positive aspects, including providing aid to improve the lives of refugees and host communities in countries of first arrival and asylum, and building capacity to save lives at sea. But the policies carry significant risks of human rights abuses against refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. The EU appears to have used aid as leverage to pressure Afghanistan into agreeing to accept back tens of thousands of rejected asylum seekers, despite the precarious security situation in much of the country.
Inside the EU, national governments are rolling back asylum rights, including the right to family reunification. The European Commission has proposed a raft of adjustments to EU asylum laws, including measures to make it harder to qualify for protection in EU countries, punish asylum seekers for moving between EU countries, and impose compulsory reviews to facilitate revoking protection and forced returns. More positively, the proposals would increase safeguards in asylum procedures and include siblings and families formed in transit in the definition of family.
The failure to share responsibility for asylum seekers fairly across the EU is one of the key shortcomings of the current system and was a major factor in the chaos at Europe's borders in 2015, Human Rights Watch said. But a European Commission proposal in 2016 to reform the Dublin Regulation, which determines the country responsible for processing an asylum claim, places overwhelming emphasis on restricting movement of asylum seekers from one EU country to another, through disincentives and punishment, while reinforcing the primary responsibility on often overburdened first EU countries of arrival.
The proposed changes to Dublin fail to take into adequate consideration asylum seekers' preferred destination within the EU, based on family, cultural, and linguistic ties or other considerations, all of which are key to long-term integration, Human Rights Watch said. The EU's emergency relocation plan adopted in 2015 has failed to function as needed, with only 7,000 asylum seekers transferred out of Greece and Italy out of the target number of 106,000.
The EU has also failed to step up significantly resettlement of recognized refugees from other regions. The European Commission has proposed an EU resettlement program that would effectively condition the choice of countries from which the EU would resettle refugees on the "effective cooperation" of those governments with EU migration control imperatives. Resettlement is a key way to help recognized refugees rebuild their lives without having to risk dangerous journeys. Holding that option hostage to their host country's level of cooperation with EU interests is a subversion of the principle of shared responsibility and thwarts the goal of providing durable solutions to the most vulnerable refugees, Human Rights Watch said.
The EU and its member countries should work collectively to make saving lives at sea a priority through sustained search-and-rescue operations along the main Mediterranean migration routes, increase safe and legal channels for refugees into the EU to reduce demand for smuggling and dangerous journeys, and demonstrate leadership in the global displacement crisis. It should respect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees already in Europe by ensuring the highest possible standards for asylum procedures, rights, and entitlements, and share responsibility equitably within the EU by implementing the emergency relocation plan and reforming the Dublin system in a way that addresses its fundamental flaws.
"With uncertainty over US leadership on refugees after Obama leaves office, the world needs principled leadership from Europe on refugees," Sunderland said. "It's not only the right thing to do, it's also critical if Europe wants other countries to continue to host and protect refugees."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"
"These hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
Rep. Ro Khanna this week was detained by a group of Israeli settlers whom he described as "hoodlums... with machine guns" while making a visit to a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank.
In an interview with Reuters published on Saturday, Khanna (D-Calif.) said he and his tour group were surrounded by armed settlers as they were traveling through the West Bank on Wednesday.
"We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it," said Khanna. "And these hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
The California Democrat said that the settlers called in members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to help them deal with him and his group.
"The IDF is on their side," Khanna remarked, "not on the side of the Americans."
Cameron Kasky, an aide to Khanna, told Reuters that the group was held for over an hour before officials whom he believed to be police intervened and secured their release.
The IDF told Reuters that both military troops and police officers dispersed the settlers who had set up a roadblock near the small Palestinian village of Khirbet Zanuta.
Khanna wasn't the only American to have a run-in with Israeli settlers this week, as CNN reported that four settlers attacked groups of journalists, including CNN reporters and crew, who were traveling through an area north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah on Saturday.
As the journalists were driving, four settlers blocked off the road with their cars and began attacking the reporters' vehicles with wooden clubs and metal rods.
"The settlers then began to jump on the vehicle behind CNN's—carrying another group of journalists—and smashed the windshield of that vehicle," the network reported. "Another group of settlers tried to block a separate exit route before chasing the journalists towards the town of Sinjil."
Israeli police arrived on the scene and arrested four settlers who were allegedly responsible for the attacks, CNN reported.
"The Israel Police and the IDF view any manifestation of violence or causing damage to property very seriously," the Israeli officers said after the arrests, "especially when it concerns media personnel performing their work."
Israeli settlers for years have carried out violent attacks on Palestinians living in the West Bank, and witnesses have regularly described IDF soldiers at the scene either standing by as the attacks occur or even actively helping the attackers.
In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that claims about settler violence have been "blown up beyond belief," describing attacks as being carried out by a small number of "juvenile delinquents."
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.