The refugees…untruth masks revealed

By: Dr. Yasser Mahjoub Al-Hussein

With the escalation of international crises and the intensification of global polarisation, it has become increasingly difficult to conceal the state of international and political hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is evident both at the level of state governments and international institutions and organisations. Expressions of concern are no longer effective in masking this ugly truth.

It was noteworthy when United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declared that he was “very concerned” about the conditions of detention of the ousted President of Niger, Mohamed Bazoum. Guterres denounced that Bazoum was being held in miserable living conditions. However, Guterres seemed to forget that approximately 27 million Nigerians were also suffering in the same conditions, due to the sanctions imposed by ECOWAS countries following the coup d’état against President Bazoum. Nigeria, which supplies 70% of Niger’s electricity, cut off the power supply to Niger. The miserable living conditions described by Guterres may have been the result of these electricity cuts. These sanctions, encouraged by the international community and the West, are already negatively affecting the general public rather than the leaders responsible for the coup.

Not far from Niger, on the Tunisian-Libyan border, there is a heartbreaking human tragedy. However, the United Nations and its Secretary-General have deemed the conditions of Mr Bazoum’s as more important and urgent. In this desolate border area, 21 African asylum seekers, including children and women, starved to death in a brutal desert that reflects the cruelty of some human hearts. They were thrown into the desert like waste or a bunch of cockroaches, with the world taking notice, although the response from Guterres, the African Union, the ECOWAS group, and those with French interests focused solely on the return of Bazoum at any cost, even if it meant the annihilation of the entire people of Niger; an act that serves the establishment of colonial interests.

The Tunisian Observatory for Human Rights, as well as Human Rights Watch, have reported that African asylum seekers have been confined to a military buffer zone between Tunisia and Libya, facing serious violations of their rights. Both organisations have called for the respect of human rights and the elimination of racial discrimination. They also demanded the suspension of EU funding for immigration control directed at security forces, and the imposition of rights-based conditions for any further support. This request refers to a memorandum of understanding reached last month between the EU and Tunisia, which outlined a strategic partnership including a funding package worth 1 billion euros.

Violence based on hatred and racism towards refugees at the African continent’s gates and frontiers is not a mere coincidence. It coincided with the treatment of refugees in Britain and France, acting as an encouragement and green light for smaller countries. The British government’s refugee policy is not only exasperating and disgusting but also includes the forced deportation of migrants and asylum seekers to Rwanda until their status is finally determined. This policy has recently expanded to address the issue of boat-trafficking activities through the English Channel, which separates Britain and France. After years of tension, a new policy and “close partnership” have been established between Britain and France to combat violence against refugees, marking their first meaningful interaction since 2018.

Today, states often depict refugees and immigrants as superstitious ghouls, akin to frightening and grotesque creatures found in folk stories and tales. They are treated as exotic oddities, worthy of discrimination. However, the United Nations has remained completely silent on these matters, failing to even express concern for these refugees. Over the past 10 years, the issue of refugees has risen to the top of the agenda as one of the chronic global problems. Europe has grown tired of this issue and is seeking solutions through any means necessary, resorting to Machiavellian tactics. Governments and voluntary organisations, once demonstrating the “humanity” of the civilised world, now struggle to compensate for their past negligence towards the colonised world, which has endured years of war, political crises, and the theft of its wealth.

In the Sudanese crisis, the United Nations insists on appointing its head of mission in Khartoum, Volker Peretz, despite his rejection for reasons it considers objective. Even if these reasons are not objective, there is no way to impose this individual. The mission of UNITAMIS is to assist in a safe transitional period and to end with transparent and fair elections. This requires minimum acceptance of the Head of Mission and his impartiality. During the last Security Council meeting, Volker was forced to abandon his briefing after Khartoum insisted on his refusal. The US envoy to the council expressed resentment, stating that they were informed Volker would be briefing the council but his name was withdrawn from the agenda on the morning of the session, which had not happened since his appointment. If the United Nations respected the wishes of all members without prejudice, it would avoid such an embarrassing position. Khartoum commented on the event, stating it was exercising its legitimate right to accept whoever it believed was serving Sudan and its people, and who refused to act against it.

Today, the United Nations, including its various arms such as the United Nations Security Council, appears to be a crumbling institution. Despite being established in October 1945, its successes have been modest and not in line with the amount of money spent or the amount of media attention it receives. It has primarily served as a tool for powerful nations to justify and achieve their ambitions, and to exert control over weaker states and impose their political visions on them.

In conclusion, the United Nations and its various institutions need comprehensive reform to improve their effectiveness. However, without a political will for reform, there is likely to only be limited and superficial changes, as the major powers capitalise on this imbalance that is serving their interests.