In this week’s episode, Rai is joined by Michael Page. Page is the Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division (MENA) at Human Rights Watch. The two discuss migrant workers rights in relation to international labour, and especially as it relates to the FIFA World Cup. When Qatar won the FIFA World Cup bid in 2010, they immediately began recruiting labourers to build all the necessary infrastructure. This has meant roads, stadiums, hotels – and anything you can think of that would host millions of people over the course of a month.
Thousands of people have fled to Qatar from Nepal, India, Bangladesh, and other Southeast Asian and African countries looking for employment opportunities to feed their families. Unfortunately, their rights have not been protected and many have been injured, if not killed, in the process. Find out more from Michael Page about how Qatar’s FIFA representatives exploited these vulnerable populations, and how you can help from home.
With the aftermath of the Afghanistan and Ukrainian conflicts, and unprecedented 100 million people around the world have been displaced[1]. European frontier countries such as Spain, France, Italy and Greece receive a disproportionate amount of refugees as compared to other Schengen countries. Many arrive from along the Central Mediterranean route, where Migrant boats leave from Libya and cross the Mediterranean sea to Malta or Italy.
According to the International Organization for Migration, over 650,000 migrants from over 41 nationalities arrived in Libya in 2022[2].
Since 2014, there have been over 20,000 deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. Roughly 1,900 in 2021 alone[3]. The accurate number of deaths cannot be ascertained, as some of the bodies of those who’ve drowned were never recovered. During the 2016 European refugee crisis, over 5000 lives were lost on the Mediterranean Sea, on average 6 per day, making the Central Mediterranean route the deadliest in the world[4].
With climate change, conflict, and economic collapse, the number of displaced people globally is growing. The 2016 refugee crisis revealed major shortcomings in how the EU manages refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. This sparked heated conversation within the EU, and materialized into a series of sequential agreements, policies, and laws that landed on the newly designed EU framework which aimed to manage and normalize the new face of migration for the long term.
Part of this agreement was to invest in external border controls within the EU. FrontEx was established to reinforce national border fences, protect EU external borders, and ensure tighten passport controls existed across EU’s external border. FrontEx has the capacity to go beyond frontier countries, where they have the mandate and manpower to patrol countries where the migrant flows originate from. This is an attempt to thwart migration at its source.
The budget since onset of FrontEx has grown exponentially. From just under €100-million in 2014, EU’s multiannual framework for 2022-2029 forecasts €5.6-billion will be spent, which can be surmised as €800-million per annum. These funds are growing towards building personnel, purchasing and adapting new technologies, and increasing overall reach[5]. For instance, in 2020 FrontEx was granted a €50-million contract to the defense arm of airbus and Israel airbus industries to operate maritime surveillance with drones[6]. Though these drones are not capable of carrying weapons, an additional €50-million contract was awarded to a separate Israeli weapons manufacturer to use drones to survey the same region.
According to international and EU law, naval patrols are obligated to assist vessels in distress. Drones therefore operate outside of said laws and are not legally obligated to assist and or deliver migrants to shore[7].
Other preventative tactics have been through humanitarian or economic incentives. According to ODI, between 2014-2016, Europe spent €17-billion trying to reduce refugee and migrant numbers before they arrived at European shorelines[8]. This has been spent in Libya’s surrounding countries such as Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt.
In Tunisia, Italy spent €200-million in aid and credit lines to Tunisian citizens to create jobs and was given to stem the flow of migrants[9]. Niger was paid over €1-billion in development aid to stop the flow of migrants[10]. Germany was sending development aid to Chad for €300-million even though Chad has an abysmal human rights record[11]. In 2018, Sudan made a $200-million migration deal with the EU to stop the flow of migrants[12]. In 2022, the European commission provided €80-million euros to Egypt’s coast guard for “better equipment”[13]. In 2022, Italian energy group Eni signed an energy deal with Algeria’s Sonatrach to gradually raise flows in the transmed pipeline. As a result, Algeria plans to grant residency rights and job permits to illegal migrants as a way of responding to the shortage of agriculturalists[14].
Europe will threaten to cut development or humanitarian aid programming if Libya’s neighbouring countries do not stop the flow of migration. Many of Libya’s neighbouring countries lack a clear and legal framework to manage migrants or asylum seekers, or to govern asylum in general. Libya for instance still does not have one. In 2008, Algeria adopted Law No. 08-1 which made it more difficult to migrants to normalize their status in Algeria, forcing many to leave or work informally at risk of detention or deportation[15].
There are no safeguards in place to ensure the funds are being allocated appropriately. Many of the deals use ambiguous language, suggesting it is up to the receiving country or aid group to determine use of funds. Unfortunately, this leads to the creation of new unlawful institutions or enriching questionable organizations with funds which legitimize their actions. For instance, Libya has received more than €327-million from the EU to stem the flow of migrants[16]. Libya does not have a unified government, where these huge sums of money have been diverted amongst the intertwined networks of militia, human traffickers, and the Libyan coast guard.
Though these funds are detailed by the EU to provide humanitarian aid, or equipment for Libya’s coast guard, it has been found these funds are directly going into the pockets of those who receive them. They have been repurposed to strengthen trafficking networks, detainment centers, and militia strengthening. Detainment in Libya is through both official and unofficial detention centers where migrants have cited abuse, sexual exploitation, starvation, slavery, and other human rights abuses. Critica Research & Analysis (2020) stated “an entire government unit has profited from the trafficking, detainment and human rights abuse of migrants”[17].
[17] Nadia Al-Dayel, Aaron Anfinson & Graeme Anfinson (2021): Captivity, Migration, and Power in Libya, Journal of Human Trafficking, DOI: 10.1080/23322705.2021.1908032, p.5
Migration governance can be defined as policies, laws or frameworks, to govern foreign nationals. As of March 2023, over 117 million people have become forcibly displaced. Over 69% of refugees are hosted in their neighbouring countries, which are oftentimes low- or middle-income. Many of these countries do not have measures to govern foreign nationals which leaves them unprotected and vulnerable.
Without migration governance, displaced persons are stuck in limbo. They are often left in protracted refugee situations which can average 20 years or more. This means that displaced persons are unable to integrate into their hosts’ economy and can be subjected to strict encampment policies, arbitrary arrests and detention, harassment and discrimination, human trafficking, abuses in many forms, and so much more.
Refugee situations are unique because they do not fall under typical aid criteria. Notably, aid can be understood as humanitarian programming which supports natural disasters such as floods, or development programming which supports economic opportunities such as livelihood training. Refugees thereby fall between the cracks.
Historically, refugee situations have been funded through the humanitarian aid model. This has been coupled with qualifying for durable solutions which can be understood as being integrated into the host country, returning to their country of origin when/if it becomes safe, or being repatriated to a third country if the other two solutions are unviable. Yet as the refugee crisis has intensified, less than 4% of refugees are qualified to benefit from one of the three solutions.
Both refugee populations and host countries rely on international donors to support the vulnerable population. Donors however are reaching a peak and are becoming fatigued to provide ongoing aid for protracted refugee situations, and would prefer to prioritize sudden onset natural disasters, such as the earthquakes in Syria.
In recent years, the refugee crisis has become insurmountable. Ongoing and newly developed conflicts, poverty, inequality, discrimination, poor governance, lack of resources, environmental degradation, food insecurity among others are the main drivers of displacement. UNHCR[1] reported the number of people displaced has more than doubled as compared to a decade ago.
So, if the number of people being forcibly displaced is growing year to year, how should the international community react?
This became the focus in 2015 at the outset of the Syrian migration crisis. As Syrians fled their war-torn country and set sail to Europe, European leaders recognized their inability to extend infinite resources to the global demand. The answer then became socio-economic inclusion for displaced persons. In 2016, world leaders convened in New York to host the New York Declaration (NYD). The NYD birthed the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) which established a set of commitments to enhance the protection of refugees and migrants. The CRRF has four key objectives:
1. Ease pressure on host countries
2. Enhance refugee self-reliance
3. Expand access to third-country solutions and
4. Support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity
Self-reliance counteracts the claim that refugee populations are a burden and is an important part of understanding how to approach the refugee situation in the future. Self-reliance can be defined as the “social and economic ability of an individual, a household or a community to meet essential needs (including protection, food, water, shelter, personal safety, health and education) in a sustainable manner and with dignity. Achieving self-reliance enables refugees to participate in the social and economic life of their host communities and contribute to rebuilding their countries should they be able to return home”[2],[3].
Ultimately, self-reliance will end aid-dependency, which can be achieved through creating, strengthening and implementing migration governance. This will protect refugees’ rights, integrate them into the economy, increase the host country’s GDP and benefit all of us globally.
For more information about migration governance, check out the Migration Data Portal to see which countries have some form of policy, program or structure to manage migration.
Season 1, Ep 12: How Can Latin America Receive the Attention it Deserves? – Tamara Taraciuk Broner
In this week’s episode, Rai Jordan is joined by Tamara Taraciuk Broner. Taraciuk is the Deputy Director for the Americas Division with Human Rights Watch. The two discuss the humanitarian issues in Latin America, the Migration Crisis in the region, the harmful policies designed to keep refugees and migrants out of receiving countries, difficulties accessing basic services like healthcare, and so much more.
Taraciuk also shed light on the different ways violence been detrimental in the region, negative affects of the pandemic within the political structure in Latin America, and successful advocacy efforts which need continued support.
Finally, Taraciuk reminded listeners how they can help from home, and to not forget about Latin America when they are advocating for human rights issues.
If you want to keep up with Tamara Taraciuk Broner:
Global Rights Defenders is a non-profit dedicated to advocating alongside marginalized, displaced, and vulnerable populations. Through podcast interviews, youtube videos, and articles, GRD aims to shed light on human rights issues worldwide.
This week’s episode, Rai Jordan is joined by Nhial Deng. Nhial is a South Sudanese refugee, writer, community activist, founder, humanitarian consultant and so much more. He has held positions with Global Affairs Canada, the University of Oxford, the United Nations, and the list goes on. Today he tells us his unique story of living in Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya for 11 years, describes what advocacy means to him, discusses the initiatives he has founded and supports, as well as encourage others to do more.
In light of the Afghanistan and Ukrainian crisis, over 100 million people are currently displaced. Nhial uses an interpersonal lens and reminds us all that every displaced person is an individual with aspirations and dreams of their own. Nhial encourages us all to talk with refugees, listen to their stories, and rather than speak for them, provide them a platform so they can share their stories.
Global Rights Defenders is a non-profit dedicated to advocating alongside marginalized, displaced, and vulnerable populations. Through podcast interviews, youtube videos, and articles, GRD aims to shed light on human rights issues worldwide.
Global Rights Defender’s Newest #podcast #episode out now: Deep Dive: Europe’s War on Refugees.
This week Rai Jordan does a deep dive into the European Migration Crisis. Not only is #europe preventing #refugees from entering the #schengen area, but they are waging a “war”.
Rather than help refugees, Europe is spending billions of dollars to prevent further #migration. Find out how programs such as return and reintegration, #frontex, and #humanitarian aid are being used to incentivize countries to keep people out. Are European states acting outside of #internationallaw?
In 2011, then Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi was overthrown by a NATO backed intervention over humanitarian concerns. NATO’s intervention created a political divide between government parties in Libya – a UN backed government is situated in Tripoli, a rival administration rules in the East and there are numerous militias in-between. This enabled a power vacuum, rife with armed militias contending for power and profit. Human trafficking networks have established as a symptom of absenteeism from the lack of a unified government.
Migratory populations are blended with refugees, migrants, asylum seekers, and individuals seeking better social and economic opportunities. It includes, women, children, men, families, prior victims of trafficking, accompanied, and unaccompanied and so on. Identities and categories overlap and are not mutually exclusive. For instance, a woman could be a migrant searching for better economic opportunities, a child could be unaccompanied and a former trafficking victim, and thenceforth.
Criminal networks generate profit through a myriad of avenues. In lieu of legitimate, safe immigration routes from Africa to Europe, militia’s offer a service that desperate people cannot obtain legally. Smugglers exploit individuals throughout the entire journey. Upfront, they are paid anywhere between US $200 – $US 1,200 per person, and require to be compensated throughout each leg en route to Europe[1]. Women, men and children of all ages are expected to raise the necessary funds in transit to continue on the next leg of their journey. Additionally, migrants are expected to pay for basic necessities such as food and water. If an individual does not have the necessary funds, a family member, neighbour, or friend from their country of origin may pay[2].
Economic opportunities for migrants en route are limited. In some cases, migration packages are offered, where a smuggler promises transportation through land, sea, air or other means, as well as provisions of counterfeit documents. Once in their destination country, the individual is expected to pay back their debt with incurred interest. Nigerian victims for instance are offered a package of 50,000 – 70,000 Nigerian nair (roughly 250 euros) for transportation, including counterfeit documents, then upon arrival in Europe, the debt is converted to 50,000 – 70,000 euros which they are expected to pay back in full. Women are then forced into prostitution and eventually human trafficking networks that may last 3 years or longer[3]. In other cases, women are forced into prostitution en route as the only viable means to pay for basic necessities and pay down their debt along the way[4]. Men have been forced into labor, prostitution, or malnutrition indefinitely[5]. Victims are also subjected to torture camps where they will be brutally tortured, raped, or mutilated until they pay down their debts. Ransom will be paid by either them or a loved one, where price varies per individual. For instance, one woman’s ransom was US $15,000 since her husband and children were located in the United Kingdom[6].
As quoted by Mr.Abiker, an IOM Staff in Libya “What we know is that migrants who fall into the hands of smugglers face systematic malnutrition, sexual abuse and even murder”[7].
[6] Nadia Al-Dayel, Aaron Anfinson & Graeme Anfinson (2021): Captivity, Migration, and Power in Libya, Journal of Human Trafficking, DOI: 10.1080/23322705.2021.1908032
Human trafficking networks are a well known profiteer for Libyan officials. Before the NATO backed military intervention occurred in Libya in 2011, then leader Mu’ammar Gaddafi would boast about the success human traffickers had in bringing African asylum-seekers to European countries. Today, these human trafficking networks exist in abundance. Government officials, individual traffickers, and arguably the Libyan economy have financially benefited from smuggling.
The global migration crisis has left millions fleeing their home countries in search of a better life. Unfortunately, they have been subject to abuse and oftentimes left to rot in detention centers along the smuggling routes, in Libya, or in underground economies. European countries, especially those on the frontier of shared Mediterranean Sea channels with Libya, have financed and implemented preventative tactics which abandon, trap, or forget transient populations. This then begs the question “Are European countries defying the law of non-refoulement?”
In this week’s episode, Rai is joined by a team from Critica Research and Analysis. She is joined by Founder Dr. Nadia Al-Dayel, Executive Director Dr. Aaron Anfinson, and Research Practitioner Graeme Anfinson. The four discuss human trafficking networks in Libya, who and why people are leaving their home countries, the details of the journey these victims endure, the dangers of the route itself, and the lack of aid from the international community. Lastly, the team discuss different ways listeners can help from home.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the participants are not policy views (official or unofficial) from any federal agency or the United States government. Critica Research and Analysis Critica is non-partisan research center with multidisciplinary expertise drawn from international institutions and contexts. It provides insight on issues of conflict, security, and human rights. Their analysis meets the highest standard of scholarship. Their research is published in peer reviewed journals aimed at policy makers and academia.
If you want to keep up with our speakers: Critica Research and Analysis – https://www.criticaresearch.com/ Dr. Nadia Al-Dayel | @N_Al_Dayel Dr. Aaron Anfinson | @AaronAnf Graeme Anfinson | @AnfinsonGraeme
Rape has been a weapon of war for millennia. Though, historically rape was viewed as a mere spoil of war or as an act of sexual gratification, it is a strategic tactic used for ethnic cleansing and social control.
History of Rape as a Weapon
In the 1990s, while observing human rights violations throughout their programming, Medicines Sans Frontiers (MSF) began examining rape as a weapon of war. MSF observed “rape camps” in Bosnia as a strategy for ethnic cleansings, where women were raped to birth Serbian babies[1]. In 1994, MSF observed systematic rape in Rwanda following the genocide, where Tutsi women were raped by HIV-infected men, recruited, and deployed by the Hutu led government[2]. Though this was the first-time rape was defined as a strategy of war, it was not the first time such tactics had been used.
During World War II, rape was used to terrorize and demoralize enemy populations and troops. Sexual enslavement of women in Japanese conquered territories occurred to prevent troops from raping women in other villages. Their school of thought was that if they had a secured group of women to relieve their sexual pleasures with, it would deter them from sexually assaulting the masses[3]. German women also experience systemic rape by advancing Russian soldiers. In 1971, state-backed Pakistani troops raped anywhere between 200,000 – 400,000 Bengali women during the Bangladeshi Liberation movement[4]. And this was seen time and time again in more places like Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In recent times, we are seeing this same deployment of strategy in Ethiopia where Ethiopian and Eritrean forces are aggressing several forms of sexual violence against the Tigrayan population including rape, sexual slavery, gang rape, sexual mutilation, and torture[5]. Or for women in the Ukraine who are grappling with the threat of rape as a weapon of war as evidence of sexual violence emerges from areas overtaken by Russian forces[6].
Intentionality and Reasoning
Rape and sexual violence are gendered weapons used to terrorize and displace communities[7]. Though rape has been implored on men and boys, the literature denotes majority of attacks are against women and girls. Women and girls are responsible for child rearing and domestic duties.
In Darfur for instance, women and girls living in displaced persons camps or towns are required to collect firewood, water, frequent the market in exchange for goods and tend to the livestock.
Leaving their areas of refuge often pose a great risk of being raped[8]. These communities are almost entirely dependent on humanitarian aid where there are “minimal employment opportunities”[9]. Therefore, collecting firewood for cooking and fodder for livestock is essential to supplement the families’ income. Men face threats of death or violence when leaving their perimeters of residence. By leaving their perimeters and relative safety of the camps to collect firewood, water or other household supplies, women risk being attacked. Due to deforestation, women are “compelled to venture even further away”[10].
Rape when used as a “weapon of war” affects the social fabric of communities. Rape stigmatizes the woman, her family members and community at large. Men are unwilling to marry a woman who has been raped, husbands may abandon their wives after the fact, and she may be disowned for disgracing her family[11]. Moreover, communities in Darfur are unwilling to discuss the violence.
Consequences to Rape
Rape and sexual violence have numerous social, economic and medical consequences. Women and girls who suffer from sexual violence have a spectrum of health concerns that require action. As discussed in Sexual Violence and its Consequences Among Displaced Persons in Darfur and Chad by Human Rights Watch (2005), this may include:
“treatment of injuries that may have occurred in the course of the sexual violence, information and preventative treatment for sexually transmitted infections, (including HIV and hepatitis), information and access to services to prevent or terminate unwanted pregnancies, and counseling to address the emotional and psychological impact of sexual violence. Sexual violence can result in numerous medical consequences, including internal bleeding, fistulas, incontinence, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases such as Hepatitis B and C and HIV/AIDS.”[12]
In addition, rape purports social and economic consequences such as the loss of familial support, becoming unmarriageable due to stigma, and pressure to provide economic security through other means[13].
What is being done?
In the late 20th century, efforts were made to prosecute rape as a weapon and strategy of war under existing international law[14]. The primary statute, Article 27 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) had existing language that protected women “against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault”; this protection was extended in an additional protocol adopted in 1977[15]. In 1993, the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights (now termed the UN Human Rights Council) “declared systemic rape and military sexual slavery” as crimes against humanity “punishable as violations of women’s human rights”[16]. In 1995, the UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women recognized that rape by armed groups during wartime as a war crime. In 2008, the UN Security council denoted that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity of a constitutive act with respect to genocide”[17]. In 2010, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women at its forty-seventh session pursued article 21 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, “to adopt a general recommendation of women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations[18].” In 2016, the 17 sustainable development goals were adopted by the UN for the 2030 Agenda. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls aims to end violence against women.
Are These Institutions Doing Enough?
Though international laws prohibit the use of rape as a weapon of war, the endemic use of rape as a weapon has often been committed by states with impunity. In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to end impunity for international crimes “such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity”[19]. Though defendants have been charged with breaking international laws of rape and sexual violence as acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, it has not yet been brought to the ICC. The ICC has limited resources and a restrictive mandate, enabling it to prosecute the very few at the top. Moreover, because of the deep-rooted history of rape during times of war, the issue of gender-based violence in conflicts receives inadequate attention in the discourse on gender equality and sustainable development[20]. According to the Global Justice Center (2012) “The failure to treat war rape like other illegal weapons or war tactics removes the central protection of the laws governing the conduct of war from rape victims”[21].
By recognizing and enforcing consequences we will…
Promote deterrence by changing norms which legitimize rape during times of war
Raise awareness regarding the number of women and girls injured or killed by rape. According to the Global Justice Center (2012), “Global indices that track fatalities and injuries by weapons type do not consider rape to be a weapon for these purposes”[22]
Provides new avenues for victim compensation including to the victim’s family, or to the victim for the purposes of restitution such as: becoming “HIV infected, forced pregnancy and child-bearing, and child rearing costs for children born of war rape”[23]
This week, Rai Jordan is joined by Paria Saremi. Paria is the case monitor for Iran for Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada, is the Director and co-chair for the Civic Association of Iranian Canadians in North Vancouver, and a recent law graduate currently pursuing a career in Human Rights and Public Interest Law.
Rai and Saremi discuss the proposed internet legislation bill for Iran, what it would mean for Iranians if this bill were to be imposed, and how it will further harm freedoms within the country. The proposed bill would block Iranians from accessing the internet outside of national borders. This would mean that services like Google, Twitter, Instagram, etc would be unavailable to Iranians within national borders and would thereby create a wall of silence for Human Rights harms within the country. The new bill is being called ‘Draconian’ by many and would allow the Iranian government impunity when engaging in Human Rights violations like arbitrary detention, disappearing of civilians, unlawful killings and more. The two also discussed the history of Human Rights in Iran and shed light on the amazing strides Iranian people have taken in fighting for their rights to freedoms.
If you want to keep up with Pariam Saremi’s work, check out:
Global Rights Defenders is a non-profit dedicated to advocating alongside marginalized, displaced, and vulnerable populations. Through podcast interviews, youtube videos, and articles, GRD aims to shed light on human rights issues worldwide.
Global Rights Defenders 