Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Migration

Migration

Cyprus’ policies on migration and their impact on the ethnic division of the island

by

“Refugee Camps in Cyprus” by sarah.ahmadia is licensed with CC BY-NC 2.0

Almost 20,000 asylum applications are currently pending in the Republic of Cyprus (RoC). According to the Ministry of Interior, asylum seekers on the island now account for 4% of the country’s population. This has an inevitable impact on the ethnic makeup of the island and on the future of the Cyprus Problem negotiations. The RoC has thus far followed a pushbacks policy and installed a razor wire to prevent irregular migration. “Pushbacks” refer to the practice of turning people away without giving them the opportunity to request asylum.. Under International Human Rights Law, however, states must respect the rights of all people moving across borders regardless of their migration status. As a result, the policies followed by the RoC have been in violation of the International Human Rights Law. This article explains the violations by the RoC in its attempt to control irregular migration and what implications this has on the Cyprus Problem.

In March 2020, Cypriot authorities carried out, for the first time, a number of pushbacks of boats carrying mainly Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian asylum seekers who departed from Turkish and Lebanese coastlines. Between March and September 2020, a total of 9 pushbacks were carried out according to Human Rights Watch. These incidents have drawn the attention of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, who called the expulsion of the boats illegal and requested additional investigations on how Cyprus treats asylum seekers currently on the island. Mijatovic wrote a letter to Nicos Nouris, the Minister of Interior of the RoC, calling for a constructive dialogue with Cyprus regarding the treatment of asylum seekers on the island and the illegal pushbacks that have taken place. In the letter, Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Refugee Conventions and notes of the violations that Cyprus has conducted were cited numerous times.

Nouris responded to Mijatovic with a letter that notably did not address any of the legal references to the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention made by Mijatovic.. Nouris’ response instead forefronted only that ‘Cyprus is facing a new trend of irregular arrivals of migrants on the island’, and no justification was given for the pushback policies that followed. In a statement he gave to the Guardian, he said: ‘Cyprus simply has no more space’. In addition, the RoC has accused Turkey of deliberately seeking to create a new migration route in the eastern Mediterranean to alter the demographics of Cyprus. Turkey still does not recognise the RoC, explaining the lack of cooperation between the two countries on the migration issue.

Turkey and the European Council signed an agreement in 2016, to stop irregular migration and monitor the arrival of asylum seekers to EU states. Turkey, however, has been warning that it may send asylum seekers and refugees to the EU despite their previous agreement – a threat that it eventually followed through on in February 2020. As a result, hundreds of asylum seekers and migrants have been arriving on Greek islands and Cyprus from February and March 2020. Cyprus has received hundreds of asylum seekers as a result of Turkey’s policy, but this cannot be used by the RoC as a justification for violating International Law. As stated by UNHCR Cyprus representative, Katja Saha, any pushbacks policy constitutes a violation of International Law and, before any policy response is implemented, the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘asylum seeker’ must be clearly distinguished. Saha has also stated that Cyprus has the legal right to control its borders as long as its policies respect International Law.

The implementation of the pushbacks policy and the refusal by the government to respond to the accusations made by the European Commission for Human Rights, has led to the mobilization of Cypriot humanitarian NGOs against the government. KISA, a Migrant and Refugee Centre, has said that that the living conditions at the refugee camps in Cyprus ‘constitute blatant violations of the Refugee Law’ and that they are ‘extremely dangerous for the health of asylum seekers and public health in general’. KISA has also stated that it has brought legal proceedings against the Cypriot Ministry of Interior before the European Court of Human Rights.

Following the pushbacks’ scandal, the Ministry of Interior of the RoC installed a 11km razor wire along the ‘green line’ to stop migrants and asylum seekers from entering the RoC from North Cyprus. According to the Asylum Information Database Report on Cyprus, created by the Cyprus Refugee Council, the wire will not solve the issue of migration because most people enter the RoC directly from the sea and not from border crossings on the island. In addition, it should be noted that many of the people crossing from Northern Cyprus are not illegal migrants as the RoC argues, but people with valid asylum and refugee claims. A group of political activists, known as ‘Os Dame’ (translated as “we’ve had enough”) have cut a piece of the wire and placed it in front of the Ministry of Interior to show their opposition to the government’s new approach to migration. The decision by the RoC to place a wire along the ‘green line’ has led, once again, to the opposition of the European Commission because it violates Article 10 of the Green Line Regulation which states that any change in the policy of the RoC on the crossing of persons should be approved by the Commission before being applied. The European Commission spokesperson, Vivian Loonela, said that the Commission did not receive any notification about the construction of a new fencing from the RoC. In addition, this decision has also been criticised by Cypriot opposition parties for legitimising the division of Cyprus. According to AKEL, the main opposition party, the razor wire is entrenching the ethnic division of the island and it is implying the official acceptance of borders between the RoC and Northern Cyprus.

Despite the opposition within Cyprus and from the European Commission, the President of the RoC, Nicos Anastasiades, has defended the installation of the razor wire along the UN controlled ‘green line’. The ‘green line’ which is also known as the UN Buffer Zone, is not an external border for the EU, although it separates Cyprus into two parts. It is monitored by the UN and, since the RoC entered the EU, the Green Line Regulation was also established setting the terms under which persons and goods can cross the line from the TRNC to the RoC. According to President Anastasiades the wire is a response to Turkey’s strategy on Cyprus, which is to alter Cyprus’ demographics through increased migratory flows. In response to the opposition that this policy has received from many Cypriots, the President said: ‘I am not aware as to how many residents have reacted but if any problems whatsoever are being caused then they will be resolved’. It is worth noting that in addition to the restriction of movement that the wire imposes to migrants and asylum seekers attempting to cross into the RoC, it also restricts access to local farmers who work land near the ‘green line’. The RoC’s spokesman, Kyriakos Koushos, has stated that this policy does not imply any ‘political or other message’ regarding the Cyprus Problem and that it has been made in accordance with Article 10 of the Green Line Regulation. Koushos insisted that the European Union and the UN were informed about the razor wire beforehand, despite the statements of the European Commission claiming the opposite.

The RoC has faced numerous criticisms over the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers on the island. Turkey’s strategy against the island cannot serve as a justification for the human rights violations that the RoC has conducted. The European Union and the UN have criticised Turkey’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, but they have nonetheless urged the RoC to stop its current policy of pushbacks. At the same time, the installation of a razor wire along the ‘green line’ has a negative impact on asylum seekers currently on Cyprus, who are unable to cross into the RoC and apply for asylum. The RoC should change its current policy on migration and asylum, stop committing human rights violations and follow the European Convention on Human Rights instead.

Conflict & Health in the Eastern Mediterranean Series: How does the Syrian Civil War affect health care workers?

by

by Dr Abdullah Alhouri

Syrian Health care workers gathered in New York City calling for an end to attacks on health care facilities in Syria

This article is part of our Conflict & Health in the Eastern Mediterranean Series. Read the Series Introduction.

Since 2011, Syria has been ensnared in an armed conflict [1] which has had a devastating impact on health care services. Most crucially, the foundations of Syria’s health care infrastructure have been destroyed. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in both morbidity and mortality in the country, and it is expected that this will only continue to worsen [2].

One of the most exacerbating factors behind the national health crisis is the falling numbers of trained health care workers (HCWs), who have often been victims of violence during the conflict and have been consequently forced to leave the country. These HCWs play a vital role in health care delivery during conflict and in the reconstruction of the health care system following a cessation of conflict [3].

Doctors, and other HCWs, flee because they or their families face the prospect of violent death or the threat of widespread violence. Some HCWs leave looking for a stable environment in which they can live and practice their profession safely. Reports indicate that the number of HCWs is exceptionally high among Syrian immigrants [1], with the World Health Organization (WHO) estimating that up to 70% of HCWs have left the country. Beyond those lost to migration, 782 medical personnel were reportedly killed between 2011- 2016 [4]. Because of the falling numbers of skilled medical professionals in Syria, the WHO had voiced concerns early in the conflict regarding the quality of current health services and uncertainties regarding how such medical expertise will be rebuilt.

Another important driver of the health crisis is the socioeconomic challenges that negatively affect HCWs currently operating in Syria. Like most Syrians, many HCWs have lost their property and savings. Moreover, their medical facilities are frequently unable to pay them a salary. Consequently, most are living below the poverty line. This has a marked impact on their ability to work and has forced many of them to accept, often without pay, incredibly challenging working conditions.

Furthermore, the quality of health care provided by the remaining HCWs is questionable since many of them experienced long interruptions to their training programmes, with continuous medical education impossible amidst constant conflict. These insufficiently trained physicians have been obliged to treat medical conditions and perform surgeries for which they lack specialization. This is because of the absence of qualified staff and the continued urgency of the situation. Looking for practical solutions to resume medical training and support the remaining HCWs is an important aspect that needs urgent exploration. Without it, there certainly are negative impacts on the quality of care provided to the Syrian people even after a cessation of conflict [4].

On top of the current situation, what rubs salt into the wound is the spread of Covid-19. The pandemic has created further pressure on Syrian medical staff, who are already exhausted after 10 years of conflict. Over 40,000 cases have so far been detected, and over half of them are in the Northern and North-western parts of the country, areas where health care system has been devastated by direct attacks on hospitals and other health care facilities. Moreover, Coronavirus continues to claim the lives of many Syrian medical staff. For instance, on 16th of February 2021 the Syrian Ministry of health announced that 22 health care providers died due to Covid-19 infection; the actual number could be much higher because of the scarcity of Covid-19 testing.

Despite a continuous deterioration of Syria’s health care system, no actions have been taken to deal with this issue. According to the WHO, more than half of the population in Syria (12 million out of 20 million) require medical attention. Additionally, WHO reported that only 50% of hospitals in Syria are fully functioning, with 25% of hospitals across the country only partially functioning because of a scarcity of medical staff, tools, medications or physical facilities. The remaining 25% are completely out of service. This is the stark reality of the present situation. It is a problem that must be tackled without further delay, because to continue as such will lead only to yet higher rates of mortality and morbidity.

To solve this crisis, several things need to happen. First and foremost, it is important to protect HCWs by enforcing legislation and laws that guarantee their rights and safety, providing them with modern equipment necessary for delivering adequate health care, and attracting them by increasing their salaries. This is the only way to curtail migration of HCWs and to ensure that they are able to practice in a safe work environment.

Second, it is important that the trust between the population and the doctors be restored since the political affiliation of doctors has been a factor affecting the relationship between patients and doctors. For example, patients are reluctant to go to doctors who are known to be part of the opposition because they fear retaliatory persecution by the state in light of the counter-terrorism law passed in July 2012. Therefore, to restore people’s trust, it is crucial to change how belligerents, including the government and the opposition, and individuals look at HCWs and affiliate them with one group or another. This, in turn, is key to increasing the safety of HCW’s.

Third, the international community needs to apply pressure on the Syrian state to force it to respect international humanitarian laws, which sternly prohibits attacks on health care facilities and workers, especially in opposition-held areas. Beyond this, it is also important to support dialogue around protecting health worker and facilities and mechanisms for achieving such protection. Such movements ideally involve civil society leaders, including community and religious leaders, who hold important status in their respective communities and are influential in times of conflict and crisis [5]. In conclusion, the health care system in Syria will continue to deteriorate, perhaps to a point of no return, unless serious actions are taken to ensure the safety and protection of HCWs, their facilities, and their livelihoods.

References

  1. Loss, Julika, Yamen Aldoughle, Alexandra Sauter, and Julia von Sommoggy. 2020. “‘Wait and Wait, That Is the Only Thing They Can Say’: A Qualitative Study Exploring Experiences of Immigrated Syrian Doctors Applying for Medical License in Germany”. BMC Health Services Research 20 (1). doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05209-2.
  2. Omar A. Understanding and Preventing Attacks on Health Facilities During Armed Conflict in Syria. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020;13:191-203
    https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S237256
  3. Bou-Karroum, Lama, Amena El-Harakeh, Inas Kassamany, Hussein Ismail, Nour El Arnaout, Rana Charide, Farah Madi, Sarah Jamali, Tim Martineau, Fadi El-Jardali, and Elie A. Akl. “Health Care Workers in Conflict and Post-conflict Settings: Systematic Mapping of the Evidence.” Plos One 15, no. 5 (2020). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233757.
  4. Omar, Abdulaziz. “Understanding and Preventing Attacks on Health Facilities During Armed Conflict in Syria.” Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Volume 13 (2020): 191-203. doi:10.2147/rmhp. s237256.
  5. Karroum, Lama Bou, Amena El-Harakeh, Inas Kassamany, Hussein Ismail, Nour El Arnaout, Rana Charide, Farah Madi, Sarah Jamali, Tim Martineau, Fadi El-Jardali, and Elie Akl. “Health Care Workers in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings: Systematic Mapping of the Evidence.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3458503.

Doctor Alhouri is a medical doctor. He graduated from the University of Jordan- School of Medicine.

Women and children first: how the Myth of Protection is harming… men

by

By Amber Holland

A refugee appears exhausted while swimming towards the shore after a dinghy carrying Syrian and Afghan refugees deflated about 100 meters before reaching the Greek island of Lesbos, Sept. 13, 2015. (Credit: Alkis Konstantinidis/Reuters)

Since the start of the refugee crisis, multiple media outlets have consistently portrayed male refugees as deceitful economic migrants, whilst only women and children are deemed to be fleeing violence. Although an attractive narrative due to the simplicity it involves, our collective failure to recognise men as victims of violent conflict potentially endangers the lives of many, whilst characterising women as eternal victims simultaneously robs them of their agency. Luckily, Feminist International Relations (IR) Theory offers both an explanation and a route to solving this, namely through deconstructing the Myth of Protection.

The Myth of Protection is one of the core philosophies of Feminist IR Theory. Intrinsically linking conflict and gender, it rests on the repeated lie that wars are fought to primarily protect women, children and the extremely vulnerable. This directly contradicts the shocking statistic that 90% of all casualties are civilian, the majority of whom are women and children. From this Myth, comes other fallacies, such as women playing little to no active role in conflict and the idea that inside a state’s borders, women are automatically considered ‘safe’. Both these concepts have been proven false, from the 40% female personnel rate in the Kurdish YPG, to the use of rape as a weapon of war in the DRC earning the grim title of the “rape capital of the world”.

Beyond robbing women of their agency, the Myth of Protection has also resulted in a worrying trend of discounting male victims of violent conflict. This is due to them not falling into the socially acceptable category of ‘vulnerable’, tied to traditional masculine and feminine gender roles. Perhaps the most visceral example of this is seen in the reaction of news outlets to the ongoing refugee crisis. Britain’s newly crowned best-selling newspaper, The Daily Mail, has regularly covered its front page with pictures and news relating to boats crossing The English Channel, although its reaction to stories involving men and children has been quite different. Whereas as harrowing pictures of three year old Aylan Kurdi dead on a beach in Turkey should make readers “shudder in collective horror”, males crossing in the same manner are described as an “influx”, which should make Britain “worried”. As unaccompanied men are portrayed as making the treacherous journey for economic reasons, they are judged as undeserving of our empathy and assistance just by virtue of their gender. Contrastingly, media outlets consistently highlight in their article titles instances that involve the deaths of women and children refugees, implying they are more deserving of our sympathy. When it comes to the continuing exemption of men as victims of violent conflict, the zeitgeist has remained quiet.

Unfortunately, this characterisation of male refugees as economic migrants is observable in influencing both national government and multinational organisation’s policies. Canada, a nation traditionally known for its welcoming attitude towards refugees, decided to exclude unaccompanied men from its fast track programme for 25,000 refugees in 2015. Although later confirming that men could still apply through other routes, it has been suggested that the discounting of lone males from this flagship policy, resulted in many being forced to pick up arms in the Syrian war and exacerbating the conflict. The demonisation of the ‘Other’ male refugee, built in part off the isolated (but nonetheless horrific) case of the Cologne New Year’s assaults on women, has resulted in the assumption that male victims of conflict are something to be feared, even in the upper echelons of power. In the UN’s 2008 Handbook for the Protection of Women and Girls, this dichotomised and gendered view of victims is present, with men characterised as the perpetrators of violence regardless of their refugee status.

Of course, some nuance is needed here. It is important to remember that 35% of women globally have experienced physical and/or sexual violence, and that 38% of all murders of women are committed by their partners. Across the globe, being a woman is still incredibly dangerous. Moreover, it could be argued that the prioritising of female victims of violent conflict is indeed necessary, especially when coming from nations where they lack the political, social and economic agency to protect themselves. However, this gender-differentiated policy can result in paternalistic and infantizing programmes, conceptualising women through virtue of their womb, as opposed to their humanity.

Fortunately, possible solutions to the Myth of Protection can be found by returning to Feminist IR theory, and feminism in general. At the core of the Myth of Protection, are the gendered values that are rife in a patriarchal society. Far from helping, the prizing of men as brave fighters, who hold the traits of aggression and force, has resulted in an inability to view them as victims of violent conflict. Instead, there is an expectation that men do not flee from violence, rather staying to fight and protect their values (I refer you to the Pub Brawl Analogy for an excellent deconstruction of this reductionist view). However, anyone can feel terror, and no one is invincible against the barrel of a gun. More importantly, more violence is not the answer to these conflicts.

Feminism, through deconstructing gender and unburdening individuals from the stereotypes they feel they must conform to, offers a route to accepting men as victims of violent conflict worthy of our support. Beyond liberating women and girls, destroying patriarchal norms is also beneficial to men and boys, with a direct correlation observable between the state of gender equality in a nation and lower rates of male mental health issues and suicide.

Under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, it is established in customary international law, that refugees should not face discrimination by virtue of their sex. By consigning the Myth of Protection to IR history books, this can finally become a reality. With the rate of male refugees steadily increasing, due to their ability to survive the treacherous journey to safety, this cannot come soon enough.

 

 

Amber is an MA Conflict, Security and Development student at King’s College London. Her research interests include the relationship between environmental scarcity and international development, and feminist solutions to conflict.

EU Migration Mismanagement: Canary Islands the new Lesbos?

by

by Cristina Romero-Caballero Cuttell

Hundreds of migrants crammed in unseaworthy boats.
Source: Council of Europe

Migrants embarking in unseaworthy boats from Northern and Western African shores or making arduous overland journeys on foot from Middle Eastern countries, such as Syria or Afghanistan, to reach Europe demonstrate the harsh reality of irregular migration. These movements are normally prompted by the perilous circumstances such as wars, ethnical violence or scarcity of essential resources affecting their home countries.

In addition to their tough past and uncertain future, many migrants find themselves alone and vulnerable in foreign lands, often enduring dangerous, inhumane, and degrading circumstances caused by governmental policies where they arrive. For its part, the EU continues to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian issues underlying such migratory movements, focusing mainly on the associated security and logistical matters. This failure to give help where it is most needed is causing extreme suffering at its borders, proving the lack of empathy and solidarity of EU migration laws and regulations towards the arrivals.

The EU aims to show on occasions, the apparent importance it places on safeguarding migrants, leading the European population to believe its actions are sufficient. Germany´s decision in 2019 to take in vulnerable refugees through the European Resettlement Programme, and the provision of EU aid to Turkey to support refugees escaping from Syria, are just some examples. Both overtures initially appear altruistic; yet closer examination reveals they are, by all accounts, insufficient. In March 2020, when the unsustainable situation in Turkey led it to threaten to allow migrants to cross the border into Greece, the EU acted swiftly by providing aid to Greece to seal its Turkish borders. This response was not born from a spirit of goodwill and solidarity; as expected, the EU was simply trying to secure its borders to prevent a reignition of the 2015 crisis. Likewise, the response from other powerful European actors, such as the UK and France, to the plight of migrants has been begrudging at best, and shameful at worst, as exemplified by the recent drownings in the English Channel.

Such a lacklustre response is a deeply controversial issue as the EU aims to protect the interests of all Europeans by ensuring their safety and economic growth; but it fails to do enough for the displaced, asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants. The EU is, in effect, preventing genuine refugees from seeking asylum through laws that disregard outsiders by complicating and slowing down such processes, as dictated, for instance, by the Dublin Regulation. Such law, only permits refugees to seek asylum in the country where they arrive, leaving many without protection since the receiving countries, such as Greece, Italy, Malta or Spain, are overwhelmed. Furthermore, through such laws, refugees are being denied their right to freely choose where to live. Denying such protection and freedom is in breach of the human rights upheld by international law through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and the 1990 Migrant Workers Convention. This insular and nationalistic approach is dehumanising the lives of those escaping from wars, genocides, terrorist regimes, and the effects of climate change in order to find a place where they can live, instead of remaining in one where they are simply trying to survive.

To confront African migration, the EU is seeking to establish Migration Agreements with third countries in Northern Africa, the ultimate territorial border before the Mediterranean and, hence, European waters. The strong relationship established with Morocco attests to this. Since the 1990s, a series of bilateral re-admission agreements have been signed between Morocco and Spain to cooperate in the control of irregular migration. This cooperation was later complemented by FRONTEX, the EU External Border Agency. In 2013, a new tool was put forward to North African countries as part of the EU Global Approach to Migration. This ‘Mobility Partnerships Facility’, a “long-term framework based on political dialogue and operational cooperation” for collaboration on migration, was accepted by Morocco and Tunisia. Although certain aspects have not yet been finalised, including the controversial readmission issue of third-country nationals (TCN), its implications are visible: higher securitization, and stricter border controls.

West African Maritime Route.
Source: International Organization for Migration

What sounds like a great step forward in helping Morocco to manage the large influx of migrants is, in reality, just shifting part of the migratory issue from the north of Morocco to the south and west, and to southern Sub-Saharan countries such as Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania, where less control exists. Thus, migrants seeking a better life in Europe now view the more dangerous West African Maritime route, crossing to Spain’s Canary Islands from Africa’s Western Coast, as their only viable option. This is a route that has witnessed over five hundred deaths in 2020, a figure which is likely much higher as not all shipwrecks are reported. Despite the patrols between the archipelago and the African coast, the abundancy of boats has overwhelmed the islands’ rescue and humanitarian services.

As a result, the Canary Islands are currently suffering a humanitarian emergency and Europe is once again ignoring another migratory issue affecting its southern border. Migrant arrivals in Spain’s Canary Islands are at their highest level in over a decade. Although the number of migrants arriving in Spain via the Mediterranean Sea has decreased by fifty per cent versus 2019, arrivals in the Canaries have increased by more than a thousand per cent. These are shocking numbers, but they fail to reflect the reality of the harsh journey as one in every sixteen migrants who embarks upon this gruelling journey dies along the way. For example, on 24 October 2020, a boat caught fire off the coast of Senegal and almost all of its 140 occupants drowned.

Problems do not end upon reaching land as Canary Island authorities lack the capacity to manage the enormous influx of migrants. Gran Canaria is the island feeling the heaviest toll, with its reception centres full and over two-thousand people at a time forced to camp on the dockside in the port of Arguineguin. Concurrently, this humanitarian crisis is impeding the maintenance of coronavirus prevention measures, putting at risk the lives of migrants and those involved in their rescue and care. Moreover, due to tedious bureaucratic and legal procedures, further hampered by COVID-19, these migrants are facing another deadlock as the Spanish government has hindered their transfer to other Spanish regions to prevent the establishment of a new migratory route into Europe. This, together with the closure of African countries’ borders due to the pandemic, is effectively converting the islands into an open-air prison for the 18,000 freedom-seekers currently being held on them, mirroring the appalling situation on the Greek island of Lesbos.

The Spanish Government and the EU both believe that protection should only be provided to those who have the right to it and those who comply with the Dublin Regulation. A study on arrivals in the Canary Islands completed by the UN Refugee Agency in 2020 revealed that over sixty-two per cent were escaping from generalised, gender-based, ethnic, religious or political violence, hence having the right to seek asylum; therefore, Spain and the EU are duty-bound to come to their aid. Nevertheless, there are also, the so-called economic migrants, escaping from the hardship exacerbated by COVID-19 in their home countries. This group is not entitled to international protection and such migrants are liable for deportation to their countries of origin.

To some extent, the caution shown by the Spanish authorities and the EU when handling the irregular arrivals is understandable. Whilst some are genuine refugees, striving to reach a destination where their life is not in danger, this does not assuage the fears of the Spanish government and the EU that some may be members of criminal groups, thereby endangering the security of Europe. For this reason, two measures are required: procedures that ensure protection is provided to all those entitled to it under international law; and, in parallel, the creation of safe deportation routes. Without these improvements to guarantee a dignified response, Gran Canaria risks suffering a similar humanitarian catastrophe to the one befalling Lesbos.

Although logistical processes have commenced, with migrants finally being transferred to tourist complexes unoccupied due to COVID-19, and receiving more dignified shelter, the problem remains unresolved as very few migrants are being transferred to other parts of Spain or Europe, or extradited, due to European and Spanish bureaucracy and the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, some experts suggest that a “Call Effect” has been created, as migrants encourage others to make the dangerous journey, putting further strain on the Spanish system, and placing more lives at risk. Consequently, collaboration between the EU, Spain, and African countries to address the underlying factors spurring migration in the countries of origin is the only way forward. It will not be easy, but the push factors driving migrants from Northern Africa to make the perilous voyage to Europe must be addressed to enable a more long-term solution than the piecemeal efforts undertaken to date. Until such a time, the EU’s moral duty must be to offer help and support to all of those who reach its shores.

Cristina Romero-Caballero Cuttell is a part-time MA International Relations student in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her research interests are around the topics of Migration, especially African migration into Europe, Gender and Human Rights. She is currently a Spanish Red Cross volunteer in the Canary Islands helping with the management of the latest influx of migrants to the islands.

Cristina is a part of the Strife Women in Writing Programme.

Crossing Borders: Technology and Migration in an Interconnected World - Conference Tickets on Sale

by

By: Johan Lammers

In times of travel bans and Brexit, as a foreign student from The Netherlands where the polls are led by a party whose official stance on immigration is literally ‘zero asylum seekers extra and no more immigrants from Islamic countries; border closed’, migration is never far from my thoughts and conversations. In this blogpost, I would like to give an idea of why migration is worthy of our growing concern in the interconnected, digitalized ‘Age of Information’. In doing so, I also set the scene for the upcoming annual Conflict, Security and Development Conference happening on the 3rd of March 2017 on this issue with the title ‘Crossing Borders: Technology and Migration in an Interconnected World’.

The UN documents over 243 million migrants around the world, or 3.3% of world population. Between 2014-2016, EuroStat recorded over 3 million first-time asylum requests to the EU; in the Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Lebanon, refugees make up 43%, 36% and 27% of the population. While the concept of a smartphone did not exist at the end of the Cold War, 37% of the world population is expected to own one in 2020; a 2015 survey found that close to 86% of the Syrian youth in a refugee camp in Jordan did. Unsurprisingly, both strongly upward trends have an influence on each other. Migrant and host communities are increasingly interconnected through constant and abundant live information. This increasingly blurs the lines that divide consumers and producers of generated news and public opinion about ongoing conflicts. The emergence of physical and virtual information and communication networks have an endogenous reinforcing effect and facilitate an unprecedented flow of people and ideas.

However, these flows are far from uncontrollable as numerous stakeholders with varying if not directly opposing interests seek to manage, coordinate or exploit this modern phenomenon of (forced) migration in an interconnected world. Whereas the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees seeks to manage global databases in camps based on biometric registrations, border police are using drones for monitoring. Separated families can remain in touch or even reunite across vast distances. Expectation management for aspiring migrants, educational information and preparing for integration greatly benefit from a wealth of online data, programs and apps. Meanwhile, migrants risk entire livelihoods based on the best practices, rumours and accounts of strangers via Facebook groups.

In addition to these parallel mechanisms that make up the interaction between technology and migration, single mechanisms do not have a uniformly beneficial or harmful effect. Does technology hamper the capacity of human traffickers through increased transparency in their practices, or does it provide them with unchecked informal advertising platforms and viral mouth-to-mouth networks? How does the constant feed of real-time available media material influence both mutual perceptions of migrant and host communities and the political climates that result for their political representatives?

Hence, a proper understanding of migration and technology cannot come from merely a single perspective but requires multiple lenses. Yet neither is it merely a ‘problem’ that should be ‘solved’, without also discussing the opportunities to be seized.

During the Conflict, Security and Development Conference on the 3rd of March 2017, we will address several of these issues by bringing together academics, NGOs, policymakers, journalists, entrepreneurs and migrants for discussion. Through this forum, we seek to compare and contrast how these combined perspectives provide an idea of what the current challenges and opportunities are, and how these integrated trends are likely to develop in the years to come.

In our first panel, we bring together migrants-turned-activists and entrepreneurs to identify how modern technologies have a personal impact on a migrant’s experiences, but also how businesses emerge to employ migrants and cater towards particular needs of these emerging target audiences. Our second panel discusses how NGOs and other migration managers seek to employ technologies to coordinate these flows of peoples. Our third panel considers what policy implications modern, digitalized migrants might have, and how technologies can be instrumentalized towards advancing these aims.

More information on how to buy tickets, our speakers’ profiles, and the schedule for the day can be found on our website. Payment: The conference welcomes all audiences, though students from the University of London can attend at a reduced fee.

Notes:

Beheshti-Kashi, Samaneh, Makki, Baharak (2013), ‘Social Media News: Motivation, Purpose and Usage’, International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.97-105

The author is pursuing his MA in Conflict, Security and Development at King’s College London. This piece was submitted by the 2017 Conflict, Security and Development Conference organisers as an advertisement for the annual student-led CSD Conference. You can buy tickets here.

Image source: http://www.wnyc.org/story/a-harrowing-journey-into-europe-aided-by-apps-and-internet-access/