Saturday, 9 December 2017

The Judas Face of Europe: What Can You Do With Thirty Coins of Silver? The EU and Refugees once again

The Judas Face of Europe: What Can You Do With Thirty Coins of Silver? The EU and Refugees Once Again

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

According to the biblical narrative, thirty coins of silver was the price for which Judas betrayed Jesus and handed him over to the temple priests. According to the same narrative, these exact thirty coins of silver were used later to buy a graveyard, after the remorse made Judas return them back to the priests before committing suicide by hanging. The priests decided it is a price of blood thus can not be used for holy or noble purposes, so they used it to buy a graveyard for strangers; Haceldama; the field of blood, as it is called until today. Europe is now using another thirty silver coins to buy a new Haceldama for the black migrants and refugees coming from Africa.

Thirty silvers was also the price to buy a human slave two thousand years ago. It is almost equivalent to 600 USD of today’s money, which is the average price to buy a slave in the modern human auctions. Recently, CNN broadcasted an investigative report[1] that revealed the full-scale return of slave trade to the world. The investigation of the CNN anchor Nima Elbagir contained video footage of human auction that took place in Libya, in which bidders’ voices are heard putting prices for buying slaves for prices that are not more than 400 USD for some. African refugees are the commodity in these auctions. Young people from Ethiopia, Eretria, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Nigeria and Niger to the end of the long list of the failed projects of post-colonial state in Africa, who are trying to escape some of the worst humanitarian and despotic situations, are the victims of this crime. They are being sold, over and over, repeatedly until they are damaged “goods” for their “sin” in attempting to escape tyranny and sufferings. They are being punished for trying to enjoy their basic human right of refuging and seeking asylum. The Classical Liberal, Pro-Market, Increasingly Conservative British Newspaper “The Independent” did not shy of referring to them as (sleepwalking)[2] while the rest of the world is walking up to the crisis in Libya. According to The Independent, it seems to be a behavioural disorder now to seek a human right that is provided for by the rules of international law and global agreements. What Bethan McKernan (the writer of the Independent article)[3] is not getting on his piece celebrating the West’s outrageous reaction to the CNN report is that it is not a choice for these migrants -as he described them- to travel out of their countries. They are not tourists or adventurer travellers who are sleepwalking their way to Libya slave markets ignoring the dangers. They already know that they are risking their lives escaping from situations that would definitely cost them their lives. They are risking presumable dangers to avoid a definite misery.  Because simply they are not migrants, as he perceives or trying to make the reader perceive. They are refugees and Asylum seekers, which is a right for all human who are in danger and a darker colour of skin does not take this right away. This change of discourse in referring to the African refugees is very serious. It gradually creates a new reality in which refugees rights are not their rights anymore, because they are not refugees, they are migrants according to the new tongue[4].

Moreover, the risks that refugees are facing are created, maintained and exaggerated by others who do not represent them, not just happened because of sleepwalking. Ms. McKernan celebrated West is among those others. The West cannot walk clean out of the blood shedding over this crime of modern Slavery, particularly Europe. If we choose to forget about the heritage of centuries of colonization that intercepted the natural evolution and development in the Global South and the gruesome plundering of the wealth of African nations for the benefit of capital accumulation in Europe (Which are factors to different extents in the creation of the current situations in Africa), how can we set a blind eye to the consequences of the current European anti-migration policies that unleash militias to hunt down refugees in the African borders to stop them of reaching Europe. Khartoum Process[5] and other dozens of bilateral agreements between EU member states and African countries are in place to achieve one objective of stopping refugees far away from the borders of Europe.

Taking Sudan as an example, the EU continues to support Sudan efforts to fight irregular migration[6] and millions of Euros are being paid from the European taxpayer’s money for that purpose.  Efforts that EU knows very well that they are being implemented by the infamous, restructured Janjaweed militia, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)[7]. Although the EU continues to flatly deny all evidences of supporting the RSF while acknowledging its support to Sudan efforts in controlling migration, the Sudanese regime announced several times that it assigned border control duties and duties related migration control to its RSF militia. The numbers of those refugees arrested are even announced in a festive manner by the RSF leadership[8] in order to prove its effectiveness and worthiness to the world in an attempt to convince the world of setting a blind eye to its crimes. This happens every now and then with growing numbers of detainees[9]. RSF –which is a restructured Janjaweed militia that is described by the UN[10] as a tool for proxy war of the Sudanese Government and a factor for increasing violence, collective punishment and forced displacement in Darfur and it was also used by the government for killing of civilian protesters[11] along many other violations- is being accused with abuses against migrants[12] but nobody seems to be concerned. The detained migrants are brought to Khartoum in several occasions to face prison time before they are forcibly deported to their home countries[13]. Another crime and violation of the international law but still, nobody is concerned.

Sudan is not the only case where the EU and its member states are shamelessly using militias to push refugees back. Italy started recently to provide support to Libyan militias[14] to assist in tracking migrants and stopping them from passing to Europe; stemming migration as the term is coined. A funding deal that includes the provision of equipment, boats and salaries was made with the two most powerful militias in the western Libyan city of Sabrata, which is the biggest launching point for the African migrants in their attempt to cross the Mediterranean. The UN designates one of these two agreed-with militias as a main facilitator of human trafficking[15]. This deal has been reported to drastically decrease the numbers of those who arrive to the European borders, but at what cost? If we let alone the catastrophic impact of funding an illegal armed group and allowing it to enrich and empower its self, how can the EU and its member states deny the impact of that in the re-emergence of modern slavery. However, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini[16] saluted these Italian measures in her speech to the European Parliament[17].

The EU member states bilateral agreements with the African countries (particularly Sudan) are problematically controversial at best if not illegal and an open call for Human Rights violations by tyrannical regimes[18].  A recent legal analysis of the bilateral agreement between Italy and Sudan[19] found it to be in breach of internationally recognised human rights. Other countries like Germany[20] signed agreements with Sudan that includes training security forces to fight migration on behalf of Europe (A task that is officially assigned by the Sudanese government to RSF), United Kingdom continues in its bi-annual strategic dialogue meetings[21] with the Sudanese government that repeatedly emphasize on strengthening cooperation to fight migration. More recently UK and Sudanese army signed a Memorandum of Understanding[22] in British Army is to provide administrative and logistic services necessary to facilitate the East African Standby Force (EASF) Military Field Training. Such deals that includes security cooperation might be a breach to the UN arms embargo on Sudan, which also prohibits -according to the UK government[23]- technical assistance, brokering services and other military-related services. As well, it also prohibits financing or financial assistance related to military activities for use in Sudan. The EASF Military Field Training is an obvious military activity that will be taking place in Sudan.

The legal analysis of the Italian bilateral agreement with Sudan also pointed to the attempts made by the European governments to elude the official channels of negotiation of international agreements, the rules on ratification contained in Constitutions and, eventually, the respect of human rights by designating these agreements as Memorandum of Understanding. Then it is less binding, causes less media nagging and needs less formal procedures. But what is in the name, the crime is still smelly.
Although the EU continues to claim that the Khartoum Process interventions are of civilian and developmental nature, some of the proposed interventions are of a very security nature. For example, The Regional Operational Centre in support of the Khartoum Process and AU-Horn of Africa Initiative project (ROCK) is a 5 Million Euros project whose main beneficiaries are the law enforcement agencies of Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, Tunisia, Egypt and Djibouti. With possible engagement of Uganda and Libya as well. The project aims at capacity building, intelligence gathering and sharing between these agencies.  Well, we have seen examples for the so-called law enforcement forces when it comes to the current European approach of African border control on the RSF of Sudan and Sabrata militias in Libya. The ROCK will have a commanding centre in a police training centre in  Khartoum and the implementation authority will be a consortium of the EU Member States and the INTERPOL with “their highly technical competence and specialisation” in addition to the agencies from the countries of Khartoum Process. These controversial forces -at best- will then directly benefit of such capacity building. Given the records of all these countries in using Law Enforcement Agencies in human rights violations, the results of such capacity building will be nothing but more feeding of the beast. For capacity building in aspects other than security, it is enough to mention that a recent members of the EU Parliament concluded in a report of visit to Sudan in December 2016[24] that the main achievement of the  National Anti-trafficking Committee after two years of its creation; is the participation of its members in international gatherings in London, Addis Ababa, Italy, Bahrein and Qatar. While it does not have a physical work place nor a budget nor trained personnel and no safe houses for victims. I cannot find a more obvious example for how Khartoum Process is dispelling EU taxpayers' money other than that.

Currently in Sudan, the capacity of the physical infrastructure of the borders’ security is increasing rapidly. In addition to the celebratory media coverage of the RSF announcements of refugees’ detentions, investing in new detention centres for refugees is underway for instance in the Northern State. The aim of these increasing securitization plans is to expand the operational area of the RSF in its hunt of refugees. The Nubian Desert in northern Sudan is a main route for migrants heading to Libya and Egypt. The Northern City of Dongola is now on the list as a potential site for establishing one of the largest detention centres across the country. It goes without saying that Dongola was proposed with no consideration for the local context nor the community’s view on such new facility. This is important to mention as the local citizens in the Northern Nubian Sudan are very sensitive in regards to their lands and the demography of the region. Skirmishes between the citizens and Sudan’s ruling regime are already taking place in an alarming level around these issues. Building a refugee detention centre in this area  alongside the accompanied  RSF’s presence and activity and the forced transient (imprisoning) settlement of the refugees in local communities, will only lead to increasing tensions and more serious frictions. Migration strategists and policy makers have failed again to study the situation on the ground or consider understanding the local context and people’s concerns while putting their proposals or maybe they just chose to ignore that. The exclusion of the local communities’ perspective and the overlooking of their social, historical and demographic context reflects are part of the secrecy and the lack of transparency that surrounds the Khartoum Process and the subsequent European migration managements and interventions. This secrecy and lack of community engagement and consultation lead to nothing but more drowning in the securitization approach of dealing with repressive governments to attempt solving a problem they caused in the first place. As well, it creates further misunderstanding and confusion within the public opinion and feeds into notions of fear and exclusion of the other. While the EU, maybe aiming to reduce the fuss and criticism of its interventions through this obscurity, but in situations that lack enough space for the Freedom of Expression-like that of Sudan as per the EU own statements[25]- opening the space and minds and hearts to hear and listen to the criticism and appraisals from local forces and civil society is very crucial. Any attempts from the EU or its Member States to force donor agendas to silence critiques or set some lines of censorship on the civil society organizations that raise its voice with criticism to the process will be harmful and more catastrophic than the current mismanagement crisis and will increase the polarization around the whole migration issue. EU should listen to both its domestic and African voices that assess its current approach in tackling the issue of asylum and refugees, and try to come with a better community-based and participatory approach in addressing the root causes of what is being described now as a crisis.

With all of the above, the direction which the EU and its members states are currently taking in tackling the migration issue is nothing but securitization of new pushed-south "externalization of borders” by militias and regimes that have no great respect to the rule of law or the values of human rights. They are not bound by the European standards and do not even care to violate the international law and human rights. In the bottom line reality, it is the EU that violates these standards but by proxy.

The tightness of border control policies and the blockade of asylum routes is the main cause for the return of slave trade to the modern age by this scale. In reality, most of the refugees and/or migrants as the EU now want their name to be, are not being kidnapped against their will. They resort to smugglers as their only choice to find their way out of conditions of “well-founded fear of persecution[26] or in which their physical, legal and material safety and their dignity and basic rights cannot be made available. The international law gives them the right to seek refuge, but in the absence of safe pathways of obtaining this right, resorting to smugglers becomes the only choice. While refugees are right’s agents, smugglers are not rights’ defenders, they are doing this as for-profit business and they can easily turn sides as has been proven by the Italian measures. Putting a price tag on stopping refugees whether by aid packages to failed regimes that are part of the root-causes of the asylum phenomena or by direct payments to militias is the first step of the commodification of refugees and taking away their humane identity. This does turn them to goods in the eyes of illegal gangs. Then human trafficking finds its conducive environment to grow with the goods made available and free of charge or with a little price. The same smugglers are turned to traffickers by the currently implemented security measures for double profit. The other ugly fact about the outrageous western reaction to the slave trade crisis is about the attempts to use it to force asylum seekers/refugees back to the situations they were trying to flee in the first place[27] without working on solving the roots of their problems or guaranteeing their safety. This would be the most unethical, unprincipled and wicked European act, since Europe decided that it “discovered” Africa.

Make no mistake here, those who make this dangerous choice are not the ones who are pulled to migration to Europe for the life style, they are the ones who are in the most of need for a safe heaven that can protect their dignity and humanity and rights. Those pulled are the ones who can get asylum in Europe very easily after getting there by plane and entering with formal visas facilitated with their socio-economic privileges in their home countries. While those in most need are left to try the dangerous option. This whole Pull and Push factors of migration hypothesis is not suitable for explaining the current situation, simply because it is not migration, it is asylum. The real crisis that is being ignored is the catastrophic increase in the numbers of those who need refuge in our world of today. This surge is not only because of the failure of the states and tyranny in the global south, but also because of the increased severity of the global inequality, which has its own historical roots, and context that needs addressing. In the absence of a comprehensive vision of the migration issue, that takes all the roots and causes of refuging into account, the aid and development packages that EU is presenting to address migration, will not be other than thirty silver coins to buy a Haceldama for the stranger refugees.

[1] People for sale; Where lives are auctioned for $400. CNN exclusive report By Nima Elbagir, Raja Razek, Alex Platt and Bryony Jones,
[2] McKernan, B. (2017). The rest of the world has seen the horrors of Libya's slave markets. But African migrants are still sleepwalking into danger. [online] The Independent. Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[3] (2017). Bethan McKernan (@mck_beth) | Twitter. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[4] Amjed Farid (2017). The Judas Face of Europe: Why Is The EU-Khartoum Process So Wrong on So Many Levels. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[5] (2017). Home - Khartoum Process. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[6] (2017). Sudan receives 100 million euros from EU to stem irregular migrants - Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[7] (2017). Sudan says it is combating illegal migration "on behalf of Europe" - Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[8] (2017). Sudan’s RSF militia arrests 600 illegal migrants near Libyan and Egyptian border - Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[9] (2017). Sudan’s SRF militia arrests 1500 illegal migrants near Libyan border - Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[10] UN Security Council. Report of the Panel of Experts on the Sudan established pursuant to resolution 1591, January 2015. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[11] Human Rights Watch. (2015). "We Stood, They Opened Fire" | Killings and Arrests by Sudan’s Security Forces during the September Protests. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[12] Morgan, H. (2017). Sudan's RSF unit accused of abuses against migrants. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[13] Radio Dabanga. (2017). Sudan deports another 36 Eritrean migrants. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[14] AP News. (2017). Backed by Italy, Libya enlists militias to stop migrants. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[15] Final report of the Panel of Experts on Libya established pursuant to resolution 1973 [1 June 2017]. UN Security Council. Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[16] Federica Mogherini (@FedericaMog) | Twitter. [online] Available at:
[17] EEAS - European External Action Service. (2017). Speech by HR/VP Federica Mogherini at the European Parliament plenary session on the recent developments in migration - EEAS - European External Action Service - European Commission. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[18] (2017). Press conference: Italy, the EU and their deal with Sudan to combat migration | 14 February 5.30pm - GUE/NGL - Another Europe is possible. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[19] Memorandum of Understanding between Italy and Sudan: a legal analysis. (2017). HUMAN RIGHTS AND MIGRATION LAW CLINIC of TURIN. Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[20] (2017). Sudan and Germany in joint cooperation to combat illegal migration - Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[21] (2017). UK, Sudan agree to strengthen cooperation on fight terrorism and human trafficking - Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[22] (2017). Sudan, UK sign agreement over British army participation in regional drills - Sudan Tribune: Plural news and views on Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[23] (2017). Embargoes and sanctions on Sudan – Government of the UK. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[24] (2016). EU and Italian cooperation with Sudan on border control: what is at stake? Report GUE/NGL Delegation to Khartoum, Sudan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[25] (2017). European Parliament resolution of 16 November 2017 on freedom of expression in Sudan, notably the case of Mohamed Zine al -Abidine (2017/2961(RSP)). [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[26] 1951 Convention | Rights in Exile Programme. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
[27] (2017). Une force de renseignement UE-Afrique contre la traite des migrants. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].

Thursday, 9 November 2017

وجه يهوذا الأوروبي : لماذا خطة الاتحاد الأوربي لمكافحة الهجرة المعروفة باسم عملية الخرطوم خاطئة جداً على عدة مستويات.

وجه يهوذا الأوروبي : لماذا خطة الاتحاد الأوربي لمكافحة الهجرة المعروفة باسم عملية الخرطوم خاطئة جداً على عدة مستويات.
أمجد فريد الطيب

منذ عام 2014، دفع الاتحاد الأوروبي باجندته لمكافحة اللجوء الي أراضيه من خلال مبادرته التي أصبحت تعرف باسم عملية الخرطوم. نشأت هذه المبادرة عندما فرض ممثلي الاتحاد الأوروبي أنفسهم إلى على مؤتمر إقليمي منخفض المستوى للاتحاد الأفريقي عقد في الخرطوم في أكتوبر 2014، بهدف وضع نهج تعاوني للتصدي للاتجار بالبشر وتهريب الأشخاص في المنطقة؛ وهو هدف كان لا يمثل أولوية بالنسبة لتلك البلدان في ذلك الوقت. ومع ذلك، فإن مشاركة الاتحاد الأوروبي أصبحت موضع ترحيب كبير، وحولت المؤتمر الي حدث جاد، التزمت فيه 15 دولة أفريقية بمساعدة أوروبا على وقف تدفق اللاجئين إلى أراضيها الموعودة؛ مقابل سعر مناسب، بطبيعة الحال، لأن لا شيء رخيص في زماننا الحاضر.
بلهفة بالغة، وبسبب بعض الصراعات الأفريقية التقليدية حول أي بلد سيكسب الزخم الدبلوماسي، أعد الاتحاد الأوروبي اجتماعا آخر في روما في نوفمبر من العام نفسه للتوقيع على ما تم تسميته بـ(إعلان روما). أطلق إعلان روما رسميا العنان لمبادرة طريق الهجرة عبر القرن الأفريقي أو عملية الخرطوم التي وافقت فيها البلدان الأوروبية على مساعدة الدول المتأثرة بالاتجار بالبشر وتهريب المهاجرين بين القرن الأفريقي وأوروبا "من خلال إجراءات ملموسة، بروح من الشراكة، وتقاسم المسؤولية والتعاون ". كان من الواضح أن كل شيء يتم اعداده بهدف مساعدة الاتحاد الأوروبي لتقليل ما أصبح "عبئا" غير مرغوب فيه من اللاجئين الإنسانيين إلى أوروبا، ولكن الوثائق المكتوبة ظلت تنص دائما على أن الرجل الأبيض هو الذي يقدم المساعدة! حتى ذلك الوقت، كانت هناك معاهدة روما التي أنشأت منطقة الاتحاد الأوروبي وإعلان روما للأمن الغذائي العالمي ونظام روما للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية، وربما شعر اليمين السياسي في أوروبا بانه الوقت المناسب للتعبير عن بعض نزعاته الفاشية على طريقة إعلانات روما الحديثة.
كانت النسخة الرسمية الأطول لاسم المبادرة (مبادرة طريق الهجرة عبر القرن الأفريقي الي أوروبا) أكثر دقة في الإشارة إلى الأهداف الحقيقية لهذه العملية. حيث لم يتعلق الأمر بمكافحة الاتجار بالبشر أو تهريبهم. كانت هذه مجرد أطباق جانبية للوجبة الرئيسية؛ والتي كانت محاربة الهجرة (اللجوء الإنساني بلفظ ادق) من القرن الأفريقي. عملية الخرطوم هي اسم بليغ آخر لهذه المبادرة. حيث لم تتوانى أوروبا عن استخدام أنظمة قمعية مثل نظام الخرطوم لحماية حدودها من تدفق اللاجئين السود إلى أراضيها. اختار الاتحاد الأوروبي أن يتجاهل الحقيقة الواضحة البسيطة بأن قمع نظام الخرطوم والأنظمة المشابهة له هي التي تدفع هؤلاء اللاجئين إلى المخاطرة بحياتهم ومحاولة الفرار.
في عام 2015، قام الاتحاد الأوروبي بانشاء "صندوق الاتحاد الأوروبي الاستئماني للطوارئ  الافريقية : The EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa" لتمويل حوافز تنفيذ عملية الخرطوم. ونظرياً تم انشاء الصندوق لمعالجة الأسباب الجذرية للهجرة غير النظامية / غير القانونية (وهي المصطلحات التي يجري استخدامها بشكل متزايد في الوقت الحاضر للتشويش على الطبيعة الحقيقية ووصف اللجوء الإنساني). من الناحية النظرية، خصصت موارد الصندوق لإنشاء الوظائف، والتنمية الاقتصادية، والتدريب المهني، وتمويل المشاريع الصغيرة. كذلك، وبغض النظر عن مدى سخرية الامر ، من اجل تعزيز الاستقرار والحكم في ظل حكم نفس الأنظمة القمعية التي دفعت اللاجئين إلى البحث عن ملجأ  في المقام الاول. وتم توزيع ملايين اليوروهات على البلدان الشريكة للاتحاد الأوروبي في أفريقيا للقيام بهذه المهمة. وحصل السودان وحده على أكثر من 215 مليون يورو من هذا الصندوق الاستئماني منذ انشائه وحتى أبريل 2017، بالإضافة إلى منح أحادية من بعض دول الاتحاد الأوروبي مثل ألمانيا وإيطاليا التي اتخذت أشكال التدريب الأمني ​​والامداد بمعدات الرصد في بعض الحالات. وقد حظي السودان باهتمام كبير من الاتحاد الأوروبي في هذه المبادرة باعتباره طريق مرور رئيسي للاجئين من القرن الأفريقي. وبما لا يثير أي قدر من الدهشة، فقد كانت الترجمة العملية والتنفيذ لعملية الخرطوم، عبارة عن استخدام الأدوات القمعية للأنظمة الأفريقية لصالح تحقيق المصالح الأوروبية.
في السودان، عهد النظام بمهام حماية الحدود إلى ميليشياته سيئة السمعة: قوات الدعم السريع، والتي هي عبارة عن إعادة هيكلة لميليشيات الجنجويد التي استمرت في تأجيج المآسي الإنسانية للصراع في دارفور منذ عام 2003. وكانت قوات الدعم السريع في شكلها الجديد تحت قيادة زعيمها الشهير محمد حمدان دقلو، المعروف ايضاً باسم حميدتي، تحت امرة جهاز الأمن ، ولكن تم وضعها في وقت لاحق تحت القيادة المنفردة للرئيس البشير وحده. ويتمتع أفراد هذه الميليشيا بحصانة قانونية تامة للإفلات من العقاب وليسوا ملزمين قانونا بالمحاسبة امام أي شخص –بما في ذلك القضاء- وفقا للإطار القانوني السوداني، مما جعلهم يمارسون سلطة شاملة ومطلقة دون حدود قانونية. وأشارت الأمم المتحدة إلى قوات الدعم السريع عدة مرات كعامل رئيسي من عوامل عدم الاستقرار في دارفور بالإضافة إلى سمعتها الإجرامية المنتشرة في السودان. أعلن البشير علنا ​​أنه كلف قوات الدعم السريع رسميا بمهام مراقبة وحماية الحدود ومكافحة الهجرة غير الشرعية. وتفاخر حميدتي عدة مرات في وسائل الإعلام بدور ميليشياته في حماية أوروبا. وذهب إلى حد مطالبة اوروبا بفدية في شكل معدات مراقبة وطائرات بدون طيار أو أنه سيفتح الحدود لطالبي اللجوء. إن قوات الدعم السريع المعروفة جدا بمعاملتها الوحشية للمدنيين، مدت هذه الوحشية الآن إلى اللاجئين وطالبي اللجوء في الحدود من أجل تنفيذ أجندة أوروبا. رفض الاتحاد الأوروبي جميع الاتهامات بتمويل قوات الدعم السريع مباشرة مع اعترافه بدعم جهود السودان لمكافحة الهجرة غير المشروعة والاتجار بالبشر. وهي الجهود التي بات معروفا ​​ان تنفيذها يتم بواسطة قوات الدعم السريع. وظهرت الحقيقة ناصعة الي العيان هي أن الاتحاد الأوروبي يستعين في نهاية الأمر بميليشيا شبه قانونية وإجرامية لتحقيق مصالحه واجندته في المنطقة.
إن ما يحدث في حدود السودان لا ينتهك حقوق اللاجئين وملتمسي اللجوء فحسب، ولكنه قد تم تصميمه بطريقة تجعلهم عمدا فريسة سهلة لميليشيا إجرامية سيئة السمعة. لقد كان الأمر في غاية الذكاء من قبل نظام الخرطوم الذي يتوق لإثبات شرعيته للعالم بإرغام الدول الاوروبية على التغاضي عن جرائم قوات الدعم السريع من خلال تكليفها بخدمة مصالح الاتحاد الأوروبي في المنطقة. وبغض النظر عن مدى عدم مبدئية هذا الامر، ومخالفته للقانون الدولي، فان الاتحاد الأوروبي يبدو سعيداً به ويقبله باعتباره حقيقة واقعة ومناسبة تماما لتحقيق اهدافه. وعلى ما يبدو فإن القانون الدولي والمعاهدات العالمية ليست ملائمة إلا لحماية التجارة الحرة وفتح أسواق جديدة، ولكن ليس لها مكان للاعتبار عند التعامل مع القضايا الإنسانية، خصوصا في دول الجنوب.
اغلاق الحدود بهذا الشكل في وجه اللاجئين هو انتهاك واضح للقانون الدولي وفقا لاتفاقية جنيف لعام 1951. ومع ذلك، فإنه ليس الانتهاك الوحيد الذي يتم ارتكابه لصالح الاتحاد الأوروبي. حيث تقرر اتفاقية ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية والبروتوكولات المتصلة بها، ثلاثة خيارات كحلول نهائية للاجئين؛ العودة الطوعية إلى الوطن؛ التوطين المحلي؛ وإعادة توطين في بلد ثالث. ولا يوجد ترتيب تفضيلي بين هذه الحلول ولكن القاعدة العامة هي أن اللاجئين أنفسهم يجب أن يكونوا جزءا من عملية اتخاذ القرار من أجل إعطاء الحل أفضل فرصة للنجاح. ويستند هذا إلى المفهوم الأساسي بأن هذه الحلول ليست عطايا او هبات خيرية بل هي حقوق للاجئين. فاللاجئون ليسوا مجرمين ولا ضحايا قصر غير كفؤين ولا ينبغي معاملتهم على هذا الاساس. بل هم أصحاب حقوق اصيلة بحسب القانون الدولي. وهم أشخاص يتمتعون بأهلية قانونية كاملة وهم خارج بلدهم الأصلي وغير قادرين على أو غير راغبين في العودة اليه بسبب خوف له ما يبرره من الاضطهاد. وبالتالي، لا يتم اعتبار خيار الإعادة إلى الوطن إلا عندما يختاره اللاجئ طوعا من دون إكراه، واستنادا إلى معلومات موضوعية وموثوقة. وينبغي أن يعود اللاجئون الذين يختارونه إلى "ظروف السلامة الجسدية والقانونية والمادية الكاملة، مع استعادة الحماية الوطنية لهم بالكامل، وضمان أن تتم العودة بأمان وبكرامة مستدامة". ولكن هذه القواعد ليست هي الحال في الحدود الأوروبية الجديدة التي نجح الاتحاد الأوروبي في صناعتها جنوباً.
حيث تفيد التقارير أن قوات الدعم السريع في السودان تقوم باحتجاز اللاجئين وطالبي اللجوء، وتصفهم بأنهم مهاجرين غير شرعيين. وتبعا لذلك، يواجهون عقوبة السجن ثم يرحلون قسرا إلى بلدانهم بعد ذلك. يتم اعتقال المئات من اللاجئين الإريتريين بتهمة الدخول غير القانوني – وهي التهمة التي لا تسري في حالات اللجوء وفقا للقانون الدولي وحتى وفقا للقوانين السودانية – ويتم الحكم عليهم بدفع غرامة، ثم السجن لفترات تصل الي عامين قبل ترحيلهم إلى أريتريا حيث يواجهون مخاطر موثقة وعميقة. وهذا ليس فقط انتهاكا للقانون الدولي بل هو أيضا ارسال اشخاص –بعضهم أطفال- الي قبورهم بشكل مباشر. وعلى النقيض من ذلك، فإن أي إريتري ينجح في الوصول إلى الأراضي الموعودة في أوروبا يمنح حقوق اللجوء، كقاعدة عامة في الغالب. وبما ان دول الاتحاد الأوروبي يجب ان تظهر تحضرها والتزامها بالقانون الدولي في أراضيها فان حلها لمشكلة اللجوء المتزايدة كان بتيسير انتهاك هذه القوانين في مكان اخر.
نجح الاتحاد الأوروبي في دفع الحدود الأوروبية جنوباً، الي حيث يمكن استئجار قوات لمراقبة الحدود يمكنها ارتكاب الجرائم وانتهاك القوانين الدولية دون أي أسئلة غير ضرورية، ولا التزام صوري بالقانون او الشكل الحضاري الذي تحرص عليه دول الاتحاد الأوروبي على اراضيه. وفي المقابل لم تتوانى قوات الدعم السريع وحكومة الخرطوم عن المطالبة بالحوافز المناسبة مقابل أداء هذه المهام. في مطلع العام 2017، صرح قائد قوات الدعم السريع علنا ​​أن قواته اعتقلت أكثر من 1500 مهاجر في طريقهم إلى أوروبا خلال 2016، وطالب برفع العقوبات المفروضة على السودان في مقابل ذلك. ولم يكلف احد نفسه عناء الشرح لهذا الرجل ان تصريحه هذا هو اعتراف بارتكاب 1500 جريمة إنسانية.
علاوة على ذلك، فإن مراكز صنع السياسات المهيمنة تقوم بالتلاعب بالخطاب السائد من أجل خلق واقع جديد لا تكون فيه حقوق اللاجئين حقوقا. حيث يتم بشكل متعمد الخلط بين مفاهيم اللجوء الإنساني بالجرائم المنظمة والاتجار بالبشر والتهريب بشكل يقصد به تجريم اللاجئين وملتمسي اللجوء. مكافحة هذه الجرائم تكون عن طريق تحديد طرق وسبل واضحة ومقدور عليها لحق اللجوء الانساني بدلا من ترك أولئك الذين يفرون من التهديدات العميقة عرضة لخطر الموت وفريسة سائغة لتجار البشر في طرق التهريب. المصطلحات مثل الهجرة غير القانونية / غير النظامية تحل بشكل متزايد محل الإشارة إلى اللجوء. والمقصود بهذا الاستبدال اللفظي هو تغذية نزعات الشعبوية وسياسة الخوف التي أصبحت الأدوات الانجع استعمالا لممارسة السياسة في الغرب في عصرنا. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، يتم خلق المزيد من الارتباك باستخدام مصطلحات قد تبدو حسنة المظهر الا انها خبيثة المقصد مثل "المجتمعات العائلة"، والذي يستبطن النظر الي اللاجئين كطفيليات. وبغض النظر عن مدى او احتمالية حسن النوايا الكامنة وراء هذه المصطلحات، فإنها لا تفعل سوى اقصاء صورة اللاجئين في تصور الجمهور عن هويتهم الحقيقية كاصحاب حقوق اصيلين وإذلال كرامتهم وإنسانيتهم ​​وخرق حقوقهم كبشر ذو أهلية كاملة.
لا يمكن إنكار أن أوروبا تواجه مشكلة متنامية وهي تحاول استيعاب (أو تفادي) الأعداد متزايدة من اللاجئين من الجنوب العالمي، ولكن عسكرة الحدود بالشكل الحالي ليست هي الحل. أولئك الذين يخاطرون بحياتهم مع المهربين أو عند عبور البحر الأبيض المتوسط ​​في قارب صيد لن يمانعوا في ركوب مزيد من المخاطر لتجنب بنادق قوات الدعم السريع. يموت الناس مرة واحدة، وبالتالي فإن زيادة المخاطر عليهم لن يدفعهم إلى الوراء لأنهم يخاطرون بالفعل بحياتهم. لن يؤدي ذلك الي غير زيادة غضبهم وخيبة أملهم وزراعة بذور الكراهية في قلوبهم.
هناك امران مهمان يجب تذكرهم بالضرورة عند النظر الي الوضع الحالي. الأول هو أن العوامل الدافعة للهجرة واللجوء هي عوامل سياسية في جذورها. وعليه، فإن المحاولات الرامية إلى إنشاء مشاريع تجارية صغيرة أو تمويل تنمية قاعدية في ظل نفس الأنظمة التي يسود فيها الفساد وسوء الإدارة والقمع هي مجرد محاولات عبثية لا يمكن لها حل المشكلة. الصعوبات الاقتصادية ورهق المعيشة هي أعراض كلاسيكية لانظمة الديكتاتوريات، وسيتسمر تفاقم وطأتها باستمرار وجود هذه الانظمة. ناهيك عن الانتهاكات البارزة لحقوق الإنسان، والتي هي العامل المميز الأكبر والمستمر لانظمة القمع الافريقية. محاولة التعامل مع مشاكل اللجوء الانساني دون معالجة سياقها السياسي، يكون مثل معالجة مريض بالسرطان عبر التخفيف من احساسه بالصداع مع تجاهل انتشار المرض في جسده، والتعامل مع الأنظمة الاستبدادية لمعالجة المشكلة أشبه بتشجيع السرطان للانتشار أكثر في جسم المريض. لا يمكن لأوروبا أن تتجاهل ببساطة أكثر من 300 سنة من العبودية والاستعمار، التي أوقفت التطورات التاريخية الطبيعية لمجتمعات الجنوب وأسهمت بشكل مباشر في خلق الصيغة المشوهة لدول ما بعد الاستعمار في الجنوب العالمي. ولا يمكن للاتحاد الأوروبي أن يشكو من أزمة الهجرة دون مواجهة هذا السياق التاريخي. إن البشر في أفريقيا وآسيا وبقية انحاء العالم يستحقون التمتع بالديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان والدولة المدنية وسيادة القانون تماما مثل ما هو عليه الحال في اوروبا.
والأمر الثاني هو أن نظام اللجوء بأكمله في الغرب قد تعرض للافساد وسوء الاستخدام، ولكن الذين قاموا بافساده وإساءة استخدامه ليسوا هم الذين يحاول الاتحاد الأوروبي وقفهم في حدود السودان وليبيا ومصر. فعلت ذلك الطبقة المتميزة والاوفر حظاً والاقل معاناة في دول الجنوب والتي يمكنها أن تذهب بسهولة إلى أوروبا من خلال التأشيرات القانونية التي تمنحها لهم السلطات الأوروبية بسعادة بعد التحقق من خلفياتهم ومقدار المال في حساباتهم المصرفية، حين كان كثير منهم يقرر البقاء في أوروبا بتقديم مبررات ليست حقيقية تماما إذا لم تكن ملفقة بالكامل. ومن ينبغي توجيه اللوم اليه هنا هو اطر وأنظمة الهجرة في البلدان الأوروبية التي لم تقم بدراسة الحالات بالعمق الكافي واكتفت بالالتزام بشكل سطحي بممارسات تقليدية موروثة منذ منتصف القرن الماضي، دون اتاحة حقوق اللجوء الي أولئك الذين هم اكثر حوجة اليها. لقد أرهقت أوروبا نفسها عبر تقديمها هذه الحقوق بسطحية إلى الأشخاص الخاطئين ويبدو ان معالجتها لهذا الأمر هو معاقبة الأشخاص المحتاجين فعلا الي التمتع بهذه الحقوق. وذلك العقاب ليس فقط من خلال عدم الوفاء بالتزاماتها الدولية تجاه اللاجئين ولكن بجعل حياتهم أكثر بؤسا عبر دعم الأنظمة القمعية لحراسة الحدود واستخدامها لمنع اللاجئين من الوصول الي اراضيها. ويبدو ان أنظمة تقديم اللجوء الإنساني الأوروبية ليست هي وحدها التي تحتاج الي مراجعة، ولكن ربما اتفاقية جينف لحقوق اللاجئين الدولية لعام 1951 تحتاج ايضا إلى إعادة النظر.

 وأخيرا، فإن أخطر نتائج عملية الخرطوم لوقف الهجرة بالطريقة التي تنفذ بها الآن، هو تشجيع نمو ثقافة الكراهية. فمن أجل منع اللاجئين من البحث عن ملاذات آمنة في أوروبا، يدعم ويتعامل الاتحاد الأوروبي مع الأنظمة التي تقمع الناس في بلدانهم الأصلية، بحيث لا يمكن للناس الاختباء ولا يمكنهم الهرب،  ويتم مطالبتهم بالاستمرار في البقاء تحت وطأة أنظمة القمع فيما يستمر مضطهديهم في ممارسة الطغيان عليهم، بل تزداد وطأة هذا الطغيان كل يوم لمنعهم من الهرب. لا يمكن توقع أي شيء من هولاء الناس سوى الشعور بالغضب العميق وخيبة الأمل. وفي عالم اليوم، تكون هذه الحالة أفضل بيئة لنمو التطرف والأرهاب وهي مشكلة أخرى ستزيد ستفاقمها أوروبا عبر سعيها للحلول قصيرة النظر.

Monday, 6 November 2017

The Judas Face of Europe: Why Is The EU-Khartoum Process So Wrong on So Many Levels

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

Since 2014, the European Union (EU) has been pushing its anti-migration agenda through its initiative that came to be known as Khartoum Process. The initiative started with EU representatives forcing themselves on a low-level African Union Regional Conference that took place in Khartoum in October 2014, aiming at creation of a collaborative approach to tackle human trafficking and people smuggling in the region; an objective that is not a priority for those countries at the time. However, the surprising but very welcomed engagement of the EU made it a serious event, in which 15 African countries committed to help Europe in stopping the flow of refugees to its promised lands; for a worthy price, of course, since nothing is cheap nowadays.

Eagerly and quickly, and due to some typical African conflict over which country should take the diplomatic merit, EU prepared another meeting in Rome in November of the same year to sign what have been called (Rome Declaration). Rome Declaration officially launched the EU-Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative or Khartoum Process in which European Countries agreed to assist the States affected by human trafficking and migrant smuggling between the Horn of Africa and Europe "through concrete actions, in a spirit of partnership, shared responsibility and cooperation". Obviously, the whole thing was designed to manage and decrease what have become unwelcomed “burden” of humanitarian refugees to Europe but however, documents shall always state that the white man is the one who is providing assistance!. Well, there was a Rome Treaty that established the EU zone and Rome Declaration for World Food Security and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and maybe it was a suitable time for the right wing to express some of its fascistic notions in a modern Rome Declaration-ing way.

The official extended version of the initiative’s name (EU-Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative) was more accurate in pointing to the underlining real objectives of the process. It is not about fighting human trafficking or smuggling, these would be side dishes for the main course; which is stopping migration (actually Refuging) from Horn of Africa. Khartoum Process is another eloquent name for it. Europe was not shying from moving to using oppressive regimes like the one of Khartoum to guard its borders from the influx of black people to its lands. EU chose to ignore the simple clear fact that the oppression of the Khartoum and Khartoum-like regimes are the drivers for those Dreamers to risk their lives attempting to flee.

EU keeping its eyes firmly fixed on the prize, created in 2015 “The EU emergency Trust Fund for Africa” to fund the operations/incentives of its Khartoum Process.  It was supposedly created to address the root causes of irregular/illegal migration (terms that are being increasingly used nowadays to shadow the real nature and description of humanitarian asylum). Resources were theoretically assigned for creation of jobs, economic development, vocational training and creation of micro and small enterprises. As well, for promoting stability and governance under the same regimes that pushed refugees to seek refuge; no matter how ironically that is. Millions of Euros were distributed to the EU partners’ countries in Africa to do the job. Sudan alone received over 215 Million Euros from this trust fund by April 2017, in addition to other unilateral grants from individual EU countries like Germany and Italy that took forms of security training and monitoring equipment in some incidences. Sudan as a major passage route for refugees from the Horn of Africa received most of EU attention in this initiative. However, on the practical translation of the abstract of Khartoum Process, it was literally about using the oppressive tools of African regimes for the benefit of Europe.

In Sudan, the regime assigned the duty of protecting the borders to its infamous presidential militia, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The RSF is a restructured layout of the Janjaweed Militias that continued to fuel the humanitarian tragedies of Darfur conflict since 2003. The RSF in its new assembly under the leadership of its notorious leader Mohamed Hamdan Daglo, AKA Hemeti was under the command of the security apparatus, but was placed later under the sole command of president Bashir alone. Members of the militia enjoy full impunity and are not legally bound to answer to anyone but the ICC indicted Sudan’s President Omar El-Bashir according to the Sudanese legal framework, making them exercise absolute authority with no legal boundaries. UN referred to the RSF several times as one major factor of instability in Darfur in addition to its criminal reputation everywhere in Sudan. Bashir publically announced that he formally tasked the RSF with the borders control duties. Hemiti bragged several times in the media about the role of his militia in protecting Europe. He went as far as to demand a ransom in the form of monitoring equipment and drones or he will open the borders to the asylum seekers. The RSF is very well-known for its brutal treatment of civilians, and this brutality is now extended to refugees and asylum seekers in the borders for the sake of implementing Europe agenda. EU continued to deny all accusations of directly funding the RSF while acknowledging supporting Sudan’s efforts to combat illegal migration and human trafficking. Efforts that are publically known to be implemented by the RSF. The only remaining solid fact from this dilemma is that EU is ultimately hiring a paralegal and criminal militia to achieve its interests.
What is happening in Sudan’s borders is not only violating the rights of the refugees and asylum seeker to enjoy better situations and seek protection, but it is constructed in a way that intentionally leaves them an easy prey for a notorious and criminal militia. It was smart indeed, of Khartoum regime who is desperate to prove its legitimacy to the world to force EU countries into sitting a blind eye to the crimes of the RSF by tasking it to serve EU’s interests. No matter how unprincipled that is, EU seems accepting it. As a reality of course, hence according to EU, international law and treaties seems to be only fitting in protecting free trade and opening new markets but has no place of consideration in addressing humanitarian issues.

This refuging blockade is a clear violation of the international law according to the 1951 Geneva Convention.  However, it is not the only violation. The post World War 2 convention and its related protocols decides three options as Durable Solutions for refugees; voluntary repatriation; local integration; and third country resettlement. There is no order of preference between these solutions but the general rule of thumb that refugees themselves need to be part of the decision process in order to give the solution the best chance of success. This is based on the basic concept that these solutions are not charitable but are rights of refugees. Refugees are not criminals nor incompetent victims and should not be treated so. They are agents of rights. They are people with full legal capacity who are outside their country of origin and who are UNABLE OR UNWILLING to return there because of a well-founded fear of persecution. Thus, repatriation is only considered when its choice is made voluntarily by the refugee, free from coercion, and based on objective information. Refugees should be returning toconditions of physical, legal and material safety, with full restoration of national protection as the ultimate end, ensures that return takes place in safety and with dignity and that it is sustainable”. This does not seem to be the case in the new pushed-south borders of Europe.

Reportedly, Sudan’s RSF tend to detain refugees and asylum seekers, labelling them as criminal illegal migrants. Accordingly, they face imprisonment time and then forcibly deported to their countries without any further consideration. Hundreds of Eritreans are being arrested with charges of illegal entry –that should be waived in the cases of refugees even in accordance to the Sudanese laws- paying a fine, and spend prison time before deported back to Eretria where they face eminent, deep and profound hazards. This is not only a violation of the international law but it is practically sending people –including minors- to their graves. On contrast, any Eritrean who manage to reach the promised lands of Europe is granted the asylum rights, mostly as a general rule. EU countries need to show its commitment to the international law on its lands, so their solution is to violate it somewhere else. It seems that Europe have managed to push its borders souther, where it has borders control forces who can do the job, no questions asked, and no unneeded commitment to the law. Incentives for perfectly doing the job were shamelessly asked for by RSF and Khartoum regime. In early 2017, The RSF commander publically estimated that his troops arrested over 1500 migrants in their way to Europe in 2016, demanding for lifting sanctions imposed against Sudan for human rights violations as a price for this. No one cared to explain to this blockhead that this accounts for 1500 humanitarian crimes.

Furthermore, the hegemonic centers of policy-making are tampering with the discourse in order to create a new reality in which refugees rights are not rights any more. The Intentional deliberate mix-up between the humanitarian asylum and refuging with the organized crimes and human trafficking and smuggling is projected to criminalize refugees and asylum seekers. Fighting such crimes would be by allowing clear, accessible, and apparent ways of refuging and asylum instead of leaving those fleeing profound dangers to risk their lives in smuggling routes. Similarly, terms like illegal/irregular migration are increasingly replacing the reference to asylum and refuging. This stigmatization is feeding the populist notions and the politics of fear that are becoming the handy tools of politics in the west in our time.  Additionally, more confusion is created by good-looking, bad-substance terms like “host communities”, which in worse sense perceive refugees as parasites. No matter how good are the intentions behind such terms, it results in distancing refugees in the public perception from their real identity as agents of rights, humiliate their dignity and humanity and breach their rights as fully eligible human beings.

It is not deniable that Europe is facing a growing problem trying to accommodate (or to avoid) the increasing numbers of refugees from the global south, but the current securitization of border is not the answer. Those risking their life with smugglers or by crossing the Mediterranean in a fishing boat will not mind taking a further risk to avoid RSF’s guns. People die once, so increasing the risk on them will not push them back since they are already risking their lives. It will only increases their anger, disappointment and seed hatred in their hearts.

There are two important facts to remember in addressing this. The first is that drivers of migration and seeking refuge are political in their roots. Thus attempts to create micro-businesses or fund grass-root development within the same environments in which corruption, mismanagement and oppression prevail will not work. Economic hardships and difficult life are classical symptoms of dictatorships that will continue to exist with the existence of its causative factor. Let alone, the human rights violations, which are the cardinal signs of these regimes. Attempting to deal with these problems without addressing its political context would be like imaging that you could treat a patient with cancer by relieving his headache while ignoring the spreading of the disease in his body, and dealing with the autocratic regimes would be like encouraging the cancer to spread more. Europe cannot simply ignore over 300 years of slavery and colonization, which interrupted the historical developments of the societies and contributed to the deformed structure of the post colonization states in the global south. EU cannot complain about the migration crisis out of its context. Human beings in Africa and Asia and other parts of the world deserve to enjoy democracy, human rights, civil state and rule of law just like Westerns.

The second thing is that the whole system of asylum and refuging in the west has been abused but those abused it are not the ones whom EU is trying to stop in borders of Sudan, Libya and Egypt. The privileged class that can easily go to Europe through legal visas that checks their backgrounds and the amount of money in their bank accounts were the abusers. Many of them decide to stay with justifications that are not entirely real if not entirely fabricated. European migration frameworks are to be blamed for that, for not looking deep enough, while committing its practice to solutions from mid previous century. Europe was exhausted from providing to the wrong people so it decided to punish the right ones not only by not standing to its commitments but making their lives more miserable. It is not only the domestic remedies of Asylum in Europe that need to be updated, but maybe the international 1951 convention needs revisiting as well.

Lastly, the most dangerous consequence of the Khartoum Process for stopping migration in the way that it is implemented now, is encouraging the growth of hate culture. For the sake preventing refugees to seek safe heavens in Europe, EU is dealing with regimes that oppress people in their home countries. Therefore, people cannot run and cannot hide. They are been asked to stay still and just suffer while their oppressors are growing the strength to prevent them from fleeing. You would not expect those people to develop any feeling but profound anger and disappointment. In the world of today, this situation will be the greatest environment for the growth of radicalization and extremism. Which another problem created by continuing feeding the beast.