April, 24 2018, 12:00am EDT
Turkey: Thousands of Afghans Swept Up in Ruthless Deportation Drive
WASHINGTON
At least 2,000 Afghans who fled to Turkey to escape conflict and the worst excesses of the Taliban are in detention and at imminent risk of being forced back to danger, Amnesty International said today. The Turkish authorities appear to be ramping up a deportation spree that has seen 7,100 Afghans rounded up and returned to Afghanistan since early April.
The Turkish authorities told Amnesty International that all these returns are voluntary, and that the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR has periodic access to places of detention. However, in telephone interviews with detainees in the Duzici container camp in southern Turkey, where at least 2,000 Afghans are believed to be held, Amnesty International heard how detainees have been pressured to sign documents written in Turkish, which they are unable to understand.
These could be "voluntary repatriation forms," which the Turkish authorities have previously used in coercive circumstances with Syrian and other refugees. While some families have reportedly been allowed to seek asylum and then released, potentially thousands of people - mainly men - are at imminent risk of being forced back to Afghanistan. Amnesty International also interviewed a man in Kabul who was forcibly deported with his wife and five children, even though they wanted to claim asylum.
"The scale of this crackdown is extraordinary. In recent weeks the Turkish authorities have escalated a ruthless deportation drive which has seen thousands of Afghans rounded up, packed onto planes and returned to a warzone. Thousands more are in detention, being treated more like criminals than people fleeing conflict and persecution," said Anna Shea, Amnesty International's Researcher on Refugee and Migrants Rights.
"Afghans in Turkey have made hazardous journeys to escape even greater dangers at home, and forcing them back is both unconscionable and unlawful. Indiscriminate violence routinely claims scores of lives in Afghanistan and no part of the country is safe. There is no doubt that Turkey is under pressure - it has accepted huge numbers of refugees, mostly financed from its own budget - but these deportations will put lives at risk."
For each of the past four years, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed or injured in Afghanistan, many in indiscriminate attacks by armed groups.
Turkey has one of the largest refugee populations of any country, including around 145,000 Afghans. In 2018, increasing numbers of Afghans have entered Turkey through the country's eastern border with Iran, with Turkey's Ministry of the Interior citing a figure of 27,000 arrivals this year. Turkey has followed the lead of many EU countries by seeking to seal its borders to people seeking asylum, and is currently constructing a 144 km-long wall along the Iranian border, expected to be finished within a year. In the meantime, Turkish authorities have responded to the arrival of increasing numbers of Afghans by detaining them ready for deportation.
On 17 April, Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency reported that 6,846 Afghans had been deported in recent weeks, basing the figure on a written statement from the Interior Ministry's General Directorate of Migration Management. Today the Minister of the Interior reported that the number had risen to 7,100. Although Amnesty International has not been able to independently verify this number, it is clear that deportations of Afghans are taking place on a vast scale. The Minister of the Interior told media on 23 April that they were aiming to reach 10,000 deportations by the end of the week.
This increase in deportations could be linked to a migration agreement signed between Turkey and Afghanistan on 9 April, in which the two governments agreed a deal to facilitate the deportation of Afghan nationals from Turkey.
At present, at least 2,000 Afghans appear to be detained in Turkey and are at risk of deportation. Amnesty International has received credible information that about 2,000 Afghans are being held in a container camp in Duzici in Osmaniye province, with potentially hundreds of others at a detention center in Erzurum province. The legal basis for these detentions is unclear. Given the fact that thousands of people appear to have been apprehended and detained in a short amount of time, there is a high risk that the detention of these Afghans is arbitrary and unlawful.
Amnesty International spoke to two men and one woman detained in the Duzici camp. "Farhad" (name changed), a 23-year-old lawyer from Baghlan province, said he travelled to Turkey by foot after fleeing forcible recruitment by the Taliban. He was apprehended at the border and had spent around 24 days in detention.
He said:
"They don't say to us that we will be deported - they say nothing - they invite people to their offices and they take their fingerprints. The paper is only written in Turkish - we can't read it. I will never sign that paper, even if they kill me."
Amnesty International also spoke by telephone to a father of five, deported to Kabul from Turkey's western Izmir province in mid-April. "Ghodrat" (name changed), a 42-year old man from Kandahar province, said that he and his family refused to sign a paper which they didn't understand, but were nonetheless forced back to Afghanistan. He said that they were not provided with any financial or logistical assistance upon return.
Ghodrat said:
"The police gave us a sheet to sign, and I refused to sign it. I cried - I was so devastated. We left Afghanistan in the hope of meeting UN people - we thought they would help us. Kandahar is not safe, especially for young children. I thought if I sell everything I had, which isn't much, I could go to Turkey and register with the UN."
Under the international legal principle of non-refoulement, Turkey cannot transfer anyone to a place where they are at real risk of serious human rights violations - such as persecution, or torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. At present, given the grave security and human rights situation across the country, all forced returns to Afghanistan constitute refoulement, unlawful under international law
Amnesty International is calling on the Turkish authorities to immediately release all Afghans who are being arbitrarily detained; ensure Afghans have access to national asylum procedures; and halt all returns to Afghanistan, until they can take place in safety and dignity.
This statement can be found at: https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/turkey-thousands-of-afghans-swept-up-in-ruthless-deportation-drive/
Follow Amnesty International USA and Amnesty International USA Media on Twitter.
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
In First TikTok, AOC Says Solution Is Not Ban But Strong Privacy Laws
"Our first priority should be in protecting your ability to exist without social media companies harvesting and commodifying every single piece of data about you without you and without your consent," the Democrat argues.
Mar 26, 2023
Amid a national debate over whether Congress should ban TikTok, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday posted her first video on the social media platform to make the case for shifting the focus to broad privacy protections for Americans.
The New York Democrat's move follows TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testifying before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as rights content creators, privacy advocates, and other progressive lawmakers rallying against a company-specific ban on Capitol Hill earlier this week.
Supporters of banning TikTok—which experts say would benefit its Big Tech competitors, Google, Meta, and Snap—claim to be concerned that ByteDance, the company behind the video-sharing platform, could share data with the Chinese government.
Meanwhile, digital rights advocates such as Fight for the Future director Evan Greer have argued that if really policymakers want to protect Americans from the surveillance capitalist business model also embraced by U.S. tech giants, "they should advocate for strong data privacy laws that prevent all companies (including TikTok!) from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone."
Ocasio-Cortez embraced that argument, saying in her inaugural video: "Do I believe TikTok should be banned? No."
"I think it's important to discuss how unprecedented of a move this would be," Ocasio-Cortez says. "The United States has never before banned a social media company from existence, from operating in our borders, and this is an app that has over 150 million Americans on it."
Advocates of banning TikTok "say because of this egregious amount of data harvesting, we should ban this app," she explains. "However, that doesn't really address the core of the issue, which is the fact that major social media companies are allowed to collect troves of deeply personal data about you that you don't know about without really any significant regulation whatsoever."
"In fact, the United States is one of the only developed nations in the world that has no significant data or privacy protection laws on the books," the congresswoman stresses, pointing to the European Union's legislation as an example. "So to me, the solution here is not to ban an individual company, but to actually protect Americans from this kind of egregious data harvesting that companies can do without your significant ability to say no."
"Usually when the United States is proposing a very major move that has something to do with significant risk to national security, one of the first things that happens is that Congress receives a classified briefing," she notes, adding that no such event has happened. "So why would we be proposing a ban regarding such a significant issue without being clued in on this at all? It just doesn't feel right to me."
The "Squad" member further argues that "we are a government by the people and for the people—and if we want to make a decision as significant as banning TikTok," any information that could justify such a policy "should be shared with the public."
"Our first priority," Ocasio-Cortez concludes, "should be in protecting your ability to exist without social media companies harvesting and commodifying every single piece of data about you without you and without your consent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Passing on Senate Run, Ro Khanna Endorses 'Progressive Leader' Barbara Lee
"I know Barbara will not only fight for, but will deliver on our progressive priorities that are long overdue like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and ending the filibuster," said the Democratic congressman.
Mar 26, 2023
Congressman Ro Khanna announced on CNN Sunday that he will not run for U.S. Senate and is endorsing fellow California Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee in the closely watched 2024 race for retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein's seat.
"I have concluded that despite a lot of enthusiasm from Bernie folks, the best place, the most exciting place, action place, fit place, for me to serve as a progressive is in the House of Representatives," said Khanna, who co-chaired the 2020 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"And I'm honored to be co-chairing Barbara Lee's campaign for the Senate and endorsing her today. We need a strong anti-war senator and she will play that role," the congressman told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."
In a statement, Khanna stressed that "Barbara is the progressive leader Californians need right now, and her solid record as one of Congress' most outspoken champions of justice speaks for itself."
"I know Barbara will not only fight for, but will deliver on our progressive priorities that are long overdue like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and ending the filibuster," he continued. "There's a reason she's beloved by Gen Z. Because Barbara understands the issues facing young people today and knows it is our responsibility to protect our rights, our democracy, and the planet for the next generation."
"What's more, I believe that representation matters. And for far too long, our country's institutions have failed to reflect that reality," added Khanna, noting that there is not currently a Black woman serving as a Democratic senator.
So far, Lee's opponents are two other Democrats representing California in the U.S. House of Representatives: Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. Feinstein, who is 89, confirmed her long-anticipated retirement plans last month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Internet Archive to Appeal 'Chilling' Federal Ruling Against Digital Books
"For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books," said Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle. "This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors."
Mar 25, 2023
Internet Archive vowed to appeal after a U.S. district court judge on Friday sided with four major publishers who sued the nonprofit for copyright infringement.
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Internet Archives operated a controlled digital lending system, allowing users to digitally check out scanned copies of purchased or donated books on a one-to-one basis. As the public health crises forced school and library closures, the nonprofit launched the National Emergency Library, making 1.4 million digital books available without waitlists.
Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House sued Internet Archive over its lending policies in June 2020. Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York on Friday found in Hachette v. Internet Archive that the nonprofit "creates derivative e-books that, when lent to the public, compete with those authorized by the publishers."
A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech's licensing software and Big Media's most popular titles would be awful—but that's where we're headed if this decision stands.
Internet Archive "argues that its digital lending makes it easier for patrons who live far from physical libraries to access books and that it supports research, scholarship, and cultural participation by making books widely accessible on the Internet," the judge wrote. "But these alleged benefits cannot outweigh the market harm to the publishers."
In a statement responding to the ruling, Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle pledged to keep fighting against the publishers.
"Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books," Kahle said. "This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it."
Internet Archive's supporters have shared similar warnings throughout the ongoing court battle, including after the ruling Friday.
"In a chilling ruling, a lower court judge in New York has completely disregarded the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books in favor of maximizing the profits of Big Media conglomerates," declared Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at the digital rights group Fight for the Future.
"We applaud the Internet Archive's appeal announcement, as well as their steadfast commitment to preserving the rights of all libraries and their patrons in the digital age," they said. "And our admiration is shared—over 14,000 people having signed our pledge to defend libraries' digital rights at BattleForLibraries.com this week alone."
Holland continued:
From a basic human rights perspective, it is patently absurd to equate an e-book license issued through a surveillance-ridden Big Tech company with a digital book file that is owned and preserved by a privacy-defending nonprofit library. Currently, publishers offer no option for libraries to own and preserve digital books—leaving digital books vulnerable to unauthorized edits, censorship, or downright erasure, and leaving library patrons vulnerable to surveillance and punishment for what they read.
In a world where libraries cannot own, preserve, or control the digital books in their collections, only the most popular, bestselling authors stand to benefit—at the expense of the vast majority of authors, whose books are preserved and purchased by libraries well after publishers have stopped promoting them. Further, today a disproportionate number of traditionally marginalized and local voices are being published in digital-only format, redoubling the need for a robust regime of library preservation to ensure that these stories survive for generations to come.
A future in which libraries are just a shell for Big Tech's licensing software and Big Media's most popular titles would be awful—but that's where we're headed if this decision stands. No book-lover who wants an equitable and trustworthy written world could find such a future desirable. Accordingly, we plan to organize an in-person action to demand robust ownership and preservation standards for digital books and libraries. For updates on when and where, check BattleForLibraries.com.
More than 300 authors last September signed an open letter led by Fight for the Future calling out publishers and trade associations for their actions against digital libraries, including the lawsuit targeting Internet Archive.
"Libraries saved my life as a young reader, and I've seen them do as much and more for so many others," said signatory Jeff Sharlet. "At a time when libraries are at the frontlines of fascism's assault on democracy, it is of greater importance than ever for writers to stand in solidarity with librarians in defense of the right to share stories. Democracy won't survive without it."
Fellow signatory Erin Taylor asserted that "the Internet Archive is a public good. Libraries are a public good. Only the most intellectually deprived soul would value profit over mass access to literature and knowledge."
Koeltl's ruling came just two days after the American Library Association released a report revealing that in 2022, a record-breaking 2,571 titles were challenged by pro-censorship groups pushing book bans, a 38% increase from the previous year.
Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed the so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act, which education advocates and progressive lawmakers argue is intended to ban books and further ostracize marginalized communities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.