For over a year, refugees at the Humanitarian Centre near Agadez, Niger, have been protesting about their conditions of life and asking to be relocated elsewhere. Jeff Crisp, a volunteer with UAI, posed a number of questions to UNHCR about this situation, and received the following, unedited answers.

1. Please provide some details about the Humanitarian Centre near Agadez. When was it established, for what purpose, and who are the people living there?
The Centre was established in 2018 to provide a safe space where people could access shelter, protection, and humanitarian assistance while their claims for international protection were assessed. It is managed by Niger’s General Directorate for Civil Registry, Migration and Refugees (DGEC-MR), operating under the Ministry of Interior, with support and protection assistance provided by UNHCR and its national and international NGO partners. It hosts around 2,000 people as of early September 2025 – primarily from Sudan (along with others from West, Central, and the Horn of Africa).

2. What services and facilities are available to people living at the Humanitarian Centre in Agadez and which organizations are responsible for providing them?
Together with the authorities and partners, we continue to work to ensure that refugees and asylum-seekers at the Humanitarian Centre in Agadez have access to shelter, education, health services, water, sanitation, livelihood and protection support. Healthcare services are available to refugees and asylum-seekers through an integrated health centre in nearby Misrata, approximately seven kilometers from the Humanitarian Centre, which is supported by UNHCR.
Severe health cases are referred to the Agadez general hospital and transported with a dedicated ambulance provided by UNHCR. Emergency numbers of the Misrata integrated health centre available 24/7 have been regularly shared with the refugees and asylum-seekers at the Centre, especially those with chronic illnesses. In addition to dealing with emergency cases and referrals, the Misrata integrated health centre and UNHCR also organize rounds of vaccination and other health awareness raising sessions, directly at the Humanitarian Centre.

A primary school established by UNHCR within walking distance (700 metres) from the Humanitarian Centre is operational and transport is provided for older students to reach a secondary school in Agadez city. Bridge and language classes are offered to facilitate refugee integration into the Niger school system.

Food assistance has been provided since the Centre was established in 2018, initially in the form of hot meals and then food vouchers since 2024, to all residents at the Humanitarian Centre. From July 2025, in line with a longer-term plan to foster self-reliance but accelerated by the ongoing severe funding cuts, food assistance was reduced to cover only the most vulnerable refugees and asylum-seekers. Livelihood opportunities, such as vocational training and agricultural and livestock inputs, are available and have been strengthened.
Due to the ongoing financial crisis, UNHCR had to discontinue its partnerships with two NGOs in June, and is directly overseeing water provision, soap distribution, food voucher assistance, desludging and cleaning of latrines, as well as the maintenance, rehabilitation and construction of shelters.

While the situation is challenging, particularly amid shrinking humanitarian funding, UNHCR remains committed to ensuring that the basic rights and dignity of all refugees and asylum-seekers are safeguarded. We continue to advocate with donors for additional resources to maintain and further expand available services and opportunities.

3. What comments can UNHCR make about the longstanding protests by people at the Humanitarian Centre, who say that they do not want to live there anymore?
UNHCR acknowledges and understands the frustrations expressed by refugees and asylum-seekers in Agadez. Living conditions in the desert are harsh, and prolonged uncertainty about their futures adds to their distress. Since the establishment of the Centre, UNHCR has held weekly listening sessions with refugees and asylum-seekers. High-level discussions took place in December 2024 with Nigerien authorities and senior UNHCR officials to explore solutions.

In February 2025, the UNHCR Representative and Niger’s Ministry of Interior DG visited Agadez, but refugees declined to meet them. In May 2025, the Governor of Agadez and the Sultan encouraged refugees to use opportunities at the Centre and respect national laws. In June 2025, the Acting UNHCR Representative met the refugees, acknowledged funding challenges, and reaffirmed UNHCR’s commitment to dialogue and solutions, contingent on donor support.

It is however important to stress that the Humanitarian Centre is an open facility. Residents are free to move across Niger. Protestors are asking to be resettled to a third country. Unfortunately, resettlement opportunities globally are extremely limited. Fewer than 1 percent of the world’s refugees are resettled each year, and the available places are reserved for the most vulnerable cases, based on criteria established by resettlement countries. While UNHCR continues to advocate with governments to expand resettlement programmes, the demand far exceeds the supply of available places.

4. Some of the people at the Humanitarian Centre have been subject to arrest, detention and the withdrawal of their refugee status. Why have these taken place and what role has UNHCR played in them?
UNHCR has consistently affirmed that refugees and asylum-seekers have the right to peacefully express their concerns and to raise issues about their living conditions. As is the case for refugees worldwide, they are expected to respect the laws and regulations of the country of asylum. When UNHCR received information regarding arrests, detention, or decisions to withdraw refugee status or terminate the asylum process, we engaged the relevant authorities, including at both central and regional levels, to obtain further clarity, advocate for due process, and remind counterparts of their international obligations. In some cases, these interventions have led to the release of individuals.

In parallel, UNHCR has been working with national counterparts and legal partners to explore available remedies for those affected. We continue to underline the importance of procedural fairness, the safeguarding of dignity, and respect for rights throughout all processes. UNHCR recalls, in particular, the binding nature of the principle of non-refoulement and continues to advocate for the protection of individuals at risk, including by providing legal support and technical guidance on appeal procedures and other safeguards. Our role is to safeguard the rights and dignity of refugees and ensure that state actions remain consistent with international protection standards. We remain committed to constructive dialogue with refugees, authorities, and other partners to prevent further tensions, promote peaceful solutions, and ensure that those affected are treated fairly, with dignity, and in line with applicable legal frameworks.

5. UNHCR will be commenting on the recent arrest of six refugees at the Humanitarian Centre?
UNHCR is aware of, and is deeply concerned about, the situation involving the individuals whose refugee status was revoked, or whose asylum processes were interrupted, by the Nigerien authorities and who were subsequently apprehended at the Agadez Humanitarian Centre on 21 August 2025. UNHCR was not formally notified in advance and was not present when the arrests took place. Information was received only subsequently, on 22 August, through its governmental partner, the Commission Nationale d’Éligibilité (CNE).

Since then, UNHCR has been actively engaging with the Nigerien authorities, and has consistently advocated that any alleged violation of national laws and regulations should be dealt with by the ordinary judicial system applicable to both nationals and refugees, with full respect of procedural fairness and the need to safeguard the dignity and rights of all those concerned. UNHCR is aware that some of the individuals have minor children who remain at the Humanitarian Centre. We are deeply concerned by this separation, and we are calling for urgent and coordinated action by relevant authorities and partners to ensure the children’s protection, security, and well-being in line with the best interest principle. UNHCR has raised its concerns with the Nigerien authorities and has been recalling the binding nature of the principle of non-refoulement and the procedural standards necessary for expulsion.

6. Please explain the circumstances that have led to a withdrawal of food aid for many of the people at the Humanitarian Centre. What other livelihood opportunities are available to them, and has UNHCR undertaken a feasibility study of their ability to survive without such aid?
Since the Centre’s establishment in 2018 until mid-2025, food assistance was provided to all residents. Initially, this was delivered as hot meals, and since 2024 through food vouchers, enabling people to purchase and prepare their own food. However, the global funding crisis has severely impacted humanitarian operations in Niger, including those in Agadez. With donor contributions declining every year, UNHCR and partners are prioritizing assistance to the most vulnerable people with specific needs. Since July 2025, food assistance has therefore been limited to the most vulnerable groups—such as unaccompanied children, people with disabilities, older people, caregivers with multiple dependents, and those with serious medical conditions. Around 270 residents have been identified for continued assistance, with regular monthly assessments.

At the same time, UNHCR and partners have scaled up livelihood opportunities to help refugees and asylum-seekers build self-reliance. These include vocational skills training, support for small businesses, and agricultural and livelihood activities adapted to the Sahel environment. All programming is informed by assessments of feasibility and consultations with refugees themselves to ensure that opportunities are realistic, culturally appropriate, and accessible.

Available opportunities favoring self-sufficiency for refugees at the Humanitarian Centre include, among others: agricultural training through the Agadez University and access to 10 hectares of arable irrigated land, secured with the support of local authorities. 200 vocational training slots offered by the Agadez Municipal Youth Council (CCJ), against an initial 40 places.
This opportunity is still available, but despite information campaigns, a limited number of candidates has shown interest to register so far. Livelihoods support for 150 people, including both refugees and members of the host community, provided by UNHCR’s partner COOPI business starter kits, support for individual and group income-generating activities, as well as livestock kits from UNHCR.

7. What solutions are available to the people at the Humanitarian Centre, and what support is UNHCR providing to them in that respect?
The most immediate and realistic solution is greater inclusion in Niger’s national systems – schools, health services, and the local economy, where possible. This option provides continuity and stability, particularly for children, while contributing to peaceful coexistence with host communities.
Resettlement to third countries is currently not an available solution due to the extremely limited number of resettlement places offered by States worldwide. While UNHCR fully respects refugees’ decisions and is committed to ensuring the voluntariness, safety and dignity of returns, voluntary return is also not a viable solution at the moment for most refugees currently at the Centre, due to the ongoing conditions in their countries of origin and risks they would face.
Self-reliance and inclusion are therefore central to UNHCR’s current strategy. We are investing in vocational training, livelihood activities, and education to equip refugees with the skills and tools. In addition, we are working closely with the Nigerien authorities, donors, and development actors to expand opportunities and create a more favourable environment for integration and durable solutions.

8. UNHCR has recently appointed a new Representative to Niger. Are we now likely to see any changes in the organization’s country programme, and, more specifically, in the management of the Humanitarian Centre?
The overall direction of UNHCR in Niger remains consistent, with an emphasis on inclusion and sustainability, set against a backdrop of persistent financial constraints that continue to shape operational priorities. While we continue to advocate for more support for people forced to flee, UNHCR will keep working to ensure that international protection standards are upheld, and will facilitate the integration of refugees into national and local programmes and services. This includes the Humanitarian Centre in Agadez, where the vision is its gradual integration into the urban fabric of the city. This includes ensuring access to basic infrastructure and services aligned to required standards. UNHCR will continue to work with the authorities, refugee and host communities to ensure that this transition is gradual, orderly and responsive to community needs. Individual refugee cases will also continue to be carefully assessed to determine the most appropriate solutions, always within the existing legal and administrative frameworks, ensuring that responses remain both dignified and durable.

The post Distressed in the desert: UNHCR’s perspective on the refugee situation in Agadez, Niger appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

Could you discuss the resistance movement and the post-2021 coup events? How did you, as a young person, decide to join the youth movement?

My generation, including those a bit younger than me, witnessed the country opening up from 2010, fostering our hopes and dreams. We anticipated a lasting opening after years of closure, allowing us to explore the world. Personally, I received a scholarship to the US, and many of my peers traveled abroad for the first time and were able to participate in the 2020 election.

However, on February 1, 2021, everything changed, plunging us back to square one. The loss was profound for my generation, which had tasted a bit of freedom. In contrast, older generations, raised during times of closed borders, had lived under such a regime before.

We were curious about your journey into protesting. What actions did you take post-coup? 

I already had friends in the NGO and activist crowds, so I was able to gather more than a hundred people on a group chat on Signal. On the second day, we distributed posters and garnered media attention. By the sixth day in Yangon, we joined the streets with the General Strike Committee of Nationalities, which includes a lot of people of non-Bamar ethnicities. 

We were communicating with the Milk Tea Alliance, a network of activists from Thailand, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Myanmar. We sought guidance from the Hong Kong Team who gave us a manual on how to protect yourself as a protestor and how to organize the protests. Equipped with helmets and tear gas masks, we formed a defense team with shields. 

Unfortunately, we could only follow the Hong Kong manual for a few days before the military started shooting us and throwing hand grenades. Recognizing the escalating threat, some collaborators shifted to armed groups from March 2021.

Are you comfortable talking a little bit more about the armed struggle?

Very little action was taken by the UN apart from a few statements and closed-door meetings. Everyone in Myanmar had the hope R2P would be invoked and help the country but nothing happened.

After a certain point, people felt the need to defend themselves and started taking up arms. Personally, I have not embarked on the path of armed struggle yet, but I understand why people have done so and I share the same feelings as them. The international community failed to protect us even when our plight was broadcasted in front of international media. 

Many individuals outside Myanmar struggle to comprehend our resort to violence, often asserting that it is not the solution. In response, I would say that none of us choose war, we all want to live a peaceful life, there are no other means for us. 

While some people are still peacefully protesting, they are only a small group. We feel that if we do not resist right now, the country is going to evolve like North Korea, or other countries where populations are living in the dark. Our struggle today is not merely for ourselves but for future generations. We are fighting the same struggle as in 1988. We feel the need to invest in everything we have. 

International sources show that the military does not control all the territory. How have the people been resisting their expansion?

Even when the military has control over an area, it cannot subdue the people within. The majority opposes military rule. While not everyone is taking up arms, many are still resisting by supporting the Liberation Army or making donations. Various forms of resistance exist beyond armed struggle. If this collective effort endures, it is like a fire that cannot be shut down. As long as it persists, we maintain the potential to triumph in the revolution down the road.

What sort of aid would you most appreciate from the international community?

There are still parts of the country where humanitarian aid cannot reach. Life-saving humanitarian assistance is crucial as many people are facing starvation. In certain areas of Myanmar, the military has shut down the internet. We appeal to the international community to supply us with Starlink connections, similar to those currently available in Ukraine. 

The most important thing is to withhold legitimacy from the military and those responsible for bloodshed. A global arms embargo could be considered, as we have been talking about for a long time.

Could you talk a little more about the internet blackouts?

The military has employed the ‘Four Cuts’ strategy, aiming at disrupting the supply of food, funds, information, and recruits. Consequently, the internet has been severed in various locations, hindering people from accessing information about the situation on the ground and the data on casualties. The internet plays a crucial role in the revolution and has nearly become a human right.

One of the distinctive aspects that sets the youth apart from the 1988 generation is their engagement in the digital revolution. When the military restricted internet access, individuals began devising strategies to overcome these limitations. Even now, utilizing a VPN is needed to connect to platforms like Google, Facebook, and other foreign websites. We also use digital methods, such as click-to-donate, to support the revolution. We have something called the Blood Money Campaign, which exposes the businesses helping the military. All these initiatives depend on the internet, which is why it is so important right now. Moreover, people abroad need to communicate with those on the ground.

You mentioned that the youth has been approaching things differently compared to the previous generation. Could you elaborate on your relationship with ethnic minorities, particularly the Rohingyas?

Personally, I worked in Rakhine state in 2017 during the height of the crisis. I oversaw a humanitarian project and collaborated extensively with the Rohingyas, many of whom were my colleagues.

In a broader context, one thing that this revolution has changed is perception of Rohingyas and ethnic minorities among people of Bamar ethnicity. Before the coup, most of the Bamar population believed the struggles of ethnic minorities were unrelated to them and remained largely ignorant, despite the civil war persisting for over 70 years. When the military’s actions were broadcasted internationally, depicting the shooting of people, people realized that if such atrocities could be committed against the Bamar majority, even worse must have occurred to the Rohingyas in areas where there is no media, no internet. This realization built a connection between the Rohingyas, other ethnic minorities, and the Bamar majority.

This is a positive outcome of the revolution; it opened the eyes of many young people who realized that we are all collectively facing these challenges.

Even if you are residing outside of Myanmar, do you fear for your safety, and what types of security threats do you encounter?

When I was still in Myanmar, my sense of insecurity was a lot worse than now. When I first got out of the country, the sound of explosions triggered an immediate instinct to run, a reflex developed from the constant need to evade. This fear stayed with me to this day, I still have nightmares about being in Myanmar and having run for my life. 

Military-backed Telegram channels and Facebook accounts are often intruding into my posts and discussions because I often host panels. They have sent me many deaths threat and have said that they will send Muslim men to rape me as retaliation for my advocacy for the Rohingyas in 2017.

What are you hopes for the future of Myanmar? 

I believe that as long as we carry that fire within us, the resistance will persist. Every individual in Myanmar who has witnessed the violence and atrocities perpetrated by the military will retain those memories, no matter where they are in the world. As long as this collective memory endures, I am confident that, eventually, we will win the revolution. The victory may not be today or tomorrow—but when it happens, we will be able to release the pain that we have been holding onto. When we win the revolution, we will be able to cry peacefully. I am really hoping for that day.

We share in the hope for that day as well. Is there anything else you would like to add?

I will just add a little bit about the difference between young people and older people. Traditionally, because Myanmar is a very male-dominated society, there is a deep respect for the elders and the belief that wisdom comes with age. The country’s institutions, whether governmental, related to the National League for Democracy (NLD), or within the military, have consistently been led by older Burmese men. However, with the onset of protests and armed struggles, a realization has emerged that younger people, equipped with modern education and access to information in the digital age, possess valuable wisdom. Growing up in the era of social media has enabled us to learn from peers globally, as seen in movements like the Milk Tea Alliance. This, in turn, has been beneficial not only in the realm of the digital revolution but also in armed struggles, where creativity plays a crucial role.

Nevertheless, a notable drawback of the revolution and these generational shifts is the brain drain. Individuals like me and many others, who could contribute to the country’s development, now find ourselves outside of Myanmar. We are channeling our efforts into supporting countries like Australia, rather than contributing to the progress of Myanmar.

The content of this interview does not necessarily reflect the views of United Against Inhumanity or any of its other members.

The post “As long as we carry that fire within us, the resistance will persist” – Interview with the Burmese activist Hnin Thet Hmu Khin. appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

*Image Credits: UN Photo/Mohamed Alalem 

The post Detained and abused: Refugees in Libya – an interview with UNHCR appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

After marrying her sweetheart in 1948, the couple moved to Geneva, Switzerland where Campbell Ballantyne had a job with the International Labour Office. Working at the World Health Organization (WHO), life was busy with four young children, but two decades later Edith learned that WILPF was headquartered in Geneva. Working initially as a volunteer, Edith soon became its Secretary General, a post she held until 1992. From 1992 to 1998, Edith was WILPF’s International President.

United Against Inhumanity (UAI): Edith, it is a real honour to get your perspectives as we approach International Women’s Day (IWD) 2021 given your lengthy engagement on issues related to women and war.

It is 110 years, if my mathematics are correct given Gregorian calendar issues, since IWD was first celebrated in 1911 including here in Switzerland. In 1917, women in Russia on 8 March held a “Bread for Peace” event that helped trigger the Russian Revolution; they also demanded the end of Czarism and World War I. It was not until 1977, however, that the UN declared 8^th March as the UN Day for Women’s Rights and World Peace.

Edith, when did you first become aware of discrimination that downgraded the value and rights of women?

Edith: I grew up in a household where my parents debated and supported efforts to secure the rights of women. Both were active in the Social Democratic party that challenged the rise of Nazism. My father was badly wounded in WWI and spent time afterwards in a military hospital. Subsequently, he was a metal worker and a trade union activist in a factory where my parents met. Their relationship was as much a political as a romantic partnership. My mother, Rosa, a bright and energetic woman, grew up in the Ore mountain area in a large family that was quite poor so she was mostly self-taught. As a young woman with two small children, my mother had her hands full. She was very active, however, in women’s rights issues; she was vocal on the outsize role of women in holding families together however straightened their circumstances.

When we arrived in Canada in 1939 in a remote forested area in British Colombia it was difficult to “till the land” without any prior agricultural or hunting skills; we were provided with tools. We were also given a gun but even if we knew how to use it, we would not have wanted to do so! After about two years, we moved to Toronto where the most accessible employment included jobs in garment factories – sweatshops actually – doing “piece work”; a worker got paid by the number of sleeves, collars, or cuffs one produced daily.

Everyone worked hard to survive and save a little to help relatives back in the Sudetenland where they had lost their country by the end of WWII. This also meant there was no hope of returning to our former homes. Some relatives, including my mother’s younger sister and brother, were helped to migrate to Canada.

So, to answer your question, from a young age I was aware that women and girls were often treated as second-class citizens and were routinely exploited. I was also aware of my parent’s activism and their commitment to equality and fairness. It was an important part of my education.

UAI: What do you consider the most important achievement, or disappointment, in terms of women’s rights and gender equity – fair treatment for women and men, girls and boys – in your lifetime?

Edith: This is an important question! The biggest achievement in my lifetime is that, today, it is well recognized in the law, including in international treaties, that females are entitled to the same fundamental rights as their male counterparts. The convention, for example, on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women requires that all states that sign on to this treaty, are obliged to be proactive in tackling discrimination and practices that undermine the ability of women and girls to enjoy their human rights. The clear enunciation of the rights of women and girls in the law is a major achievement.

The biggest disappointment is the very slow pace of applying these laws at the national level. We have not made enough progress in undoing deeply engrained inequalities and some achievements are fragile. Advances cannot be taken for granted and crises show that some of these newer laws are on wobbly ground. We always need to be mindful of the inequities faced by women and girls and work to strengthen measures that enhance the status and circumstances of females.

The UN Decade for Women (1975-1985) was about equality, development, and peace. Some women organizations were opposed to the peace element arguing that the focus should be on women’s rights. Of course, WILPF and I did not agree with this. The Decade did help legitimize the important role of women in and outside the home, but women need to be more active in pushing for peace in all its manifestations.

UAI: WILPF has played an important role in promoting and supporting agendas geared to recognizing the value of females and feminism while simultaneously challenging patriarchy in relation to issues of war and peace. Could you elaborate, please, why a feminist perspective is important for the realization of lasting peace?

Edith: WILPF is an offspring of the suffragette movement. It is fair to say that nearly all of the founding members were feminists. But when speaking of feminism, we need to be conscious that there are different feminist agendas including those pursued by socialists, Marxists and also by those who are hawks and are not pro-peace. In 1915, the suffragettes were set to have a big policy conference in Berlin that was cancelled by the leadership; they were fearful that WWI would splinter the movement. Groups in Europe and North America that opposed this decision figured that it was important to take a stance on the war. They were also of the view that acquiring the right to vote was not enough; it was important that women use their voice to protest the war.

Back then, technology and mobility were very different compared to today, but some leading suffragettes decided it was critical to meet and discuss how to stop the war and stop the slaughter. Within a month, more than 1,300 women met in the Hague and decided to oppose the war. They established a Committee to work on this and agreed to set up national sections. The Hague congress concluded that neutral countries should take the initiative to achieve a ceasefire and find a path to peace. They formed delegations to advance their agenda; the story is that US President Wilson was keen on some of their ideas. These were reflected in his Fourteen Point Programme on the rebuilding of the postwar world, that he presented to the Versailles Peace Treaty conference (1919) that led to the League of Nations.

These were intelligent and courageous women. They were also ridiculed; women were not perceived to have anything useful to say that could help end the war. Many of these leading women had different responsibilities in their own countries and used their position to advance the women’s rights struggle. So, this is how WILPF started in 1915. At the end of WWI – after four long years of terrible death and destruction – WILPF, in line with its pro-peace agenda, was keen to attend the Paris Peace conference. It wanted to feed in its ideas to the conference but France objected to the presence of a delegation from Germany. So, instead, WILPF met in Zurich where women from Germany could participate. WILPF also had a small group in Paris that could not participate formally but could lobby delegates. WILPF denounced the terms of the peace treaty; they saw it as sowing the seeds for another war. In 1919, WILPF decided that it would persist until a lasting and sustainable global peace was achieved. This meant working to build a just economic system, sharing of the world’s natural resources, and protection of people and the planet. In many ways, they were ahead of their time.

Jane Addams, chair of the Hague Congress and founding member of WILPF, won the Nobel Peace in 1931. WILPF’s first International Secretary, Emily Greene Balch, also became a Nobel Laureate in 1946 when it was noted that if the men at Versailles had listened to women, the world might have avoided the horror of WWII.

UAI: Notwithstanding the rapid pace of globalization in recent decades, UN mechanisms developed after WWII to facilitate and foster multilateralism are facing tough times these days. What is your advice for everyone interested in IWD, and the values it represents, to correct current trends?

Edith: Erosion of the concept of multilateralism stared quite some time ago. When I arrived in Geneva in 1948 there was great enthusiasm to build a new world order under the UN Charter. It was a much smaller UN community then; in 1950, there were 60 UN member states. There was lots of hope that the UN would bring nations together to build a collective peace. There was a lot of sharing of ideas in a bubbling, enthusiastic environment. Multilateralism was not just about nations but also about acknowledging and benefiting from the diversity of people of different social, cultural, political and economic systems and backgrounds.

Decolonization was beginning to happen, and this was a huge priority. As many colonized countries became independent nations, they joined the UN where they collaborated in pushing for measures to address poverty; economically, they remained colonized. Thus, we saw the emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 (now 134 members), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and a series of policy-making conferences giving rise to the call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s. There was a lot of hope that the unity of purpose of the newly independent states would win the peace but, of course, this is not what happened and different camps emerged. It was difficult for these new states to overcome the strength of their former political and economic masters and we saw the return of the divisions of the 20^th century between capitalism and socialism.

The dissolution of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) signaled changes that saw the rise of corporate power and reduced the influence of peoples’ movements and disarmament processes. This obviously had an effect on multilateralism. The Non-Aligned Movement never realized its full potential even though it was clear that a large part of the world objected to being dominated by an economic model that was disadvantageous to it. These global divisions became more dangerous as expenditure on war and weapons increased and did not jive with meaningful multilateralism. It is a problem that is never fully acknowledged including, for example, in terms of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and, subsequently, the World Social Forum that emerged in opposition to the WEF.

Divisions and divisiveness in the world have increased as the UN has shifted to embrace corporate power and more resources are invested in armed conflict than in addressing the conditions that drive inequality. This provoked street protests as happened in Vancouver (2010) when demonstrators challenged G8 policies, declining investment in essential social services and deepening of neo-liberal agendas.

Multilateralism was also given a stab in the back by the UN itself when it opened its doors to the private sector and powerful corporations. As the Secretary General of WILPF, at the time, I was very involved in the Geneva-based NGO community and saw, firsthand, how NGOs were made to mimic the corporate world. At the same time the UN has met increasing difficulties as it was asked to do more with less. Also, some donors have pulled their funding if they consider that their interests are not being met. This is far from the original spirit of cooperation at the UN; smaller member states have lost influence.

The sidelining of the UN on many critical issues is very detrimental to multilateralism and beneficial to the rise of militarism. Women and everyone interested in peace need to re-organize to challenge current trends and rebuild the conditions that enable people to work together and not let corporate monopolies determine our future.

UAI: Edith, you have a unique advantage, if I can call it that, of having overcome the experience of needing refuge in a foreign land. The number of uprooted and displaced people, globally, continues to grow but many States, particularly in the rich world, invest in impeding the arrival of people fleeing persecution and armed conflict. What do you say to the mostly young people who are on the frontline of search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean or risk being treated as criminals when they challenge anti-refugee policies that often prove deadly?

Edith: As more people are pushed from their homes and those responsible add to their plight – at least there was some sense of responsibility when I was a refugee – we need to conclude that the world cannot afford war, morally or otherwise. We need to acknowledge the sources of armed conflict and invest in addressing them. We need a different kind of global leadership in and outside the UN. We need to work for conditions where people are not obliged to flee their homes. We need to end the machinery of warfare.

Search and rescue teams and everyone who assists people whose lives are at risk are real heroes! Everyone who has a conscience must join with others and organize to change things. We must stop the destruction of the planet and the armaments industry. We must stop the war industry. Young people must look to the future and help shape a different world.

UAI: One final question, Edith, please, if I may. Traditionally, and still today, women are routinely stereotyped as nothing other than “victims” in the context of warfare. Unquestionably, most war-affected people, whatever their gender, suffer tremendously even as their circumstances differ. But history shows that women are often agents of change and play a critical role in holding families and communities together. What are your views on the perspective that war often erodes patriarchal structures or armed conflict propels women to take on tasks and roles that were not available or viable in the pre-war situation?

Edith: I agree that war changes things including for women, but I do not agree that war is needed to change things for the better. International Women’s Day is actually a good time to remember that the struggle for the emancipation of females involved women getting organized, marching in the street, participating actively in the trade union movement, and going on strike when this was necessary. IWD is an important reminder that history is still being written when speaking of the rights of women and that genuine security is not about militarism and war but, rather, it is the realization of fair and just societies where the rights and wellbeing of everyone are respected and upheld.

If I look at my own experience in Canada as a young refugee, the war industry was booming in Toronto so many women left domestic service to work in factories. So, yes, war in that instance opened up opportunities for women that enabled them to work in relatively well-paid jobs outside the home. But if our societies are organized differently and we invest more in education, for example, women will automatically have better opportunities. And we need to acknowledge that it is not just in war zones that females are victims of rape for example; this also happens a lot in non-war settings and we need to invest more in addressing this problem.

We must also remember that history is told through wars. Everywhere we see statues with men on top holding guns but women who are central to the survival of families and communities are nameless. Unquestionably, women are key agents of change and make a huge contribution to society whatever the setting. We still have a long way to go in terms of gender equity, but we know where we want to go. Let’s invest in getting there!

With many thanks from UAI to ©Ahlam Almulaiki @cnvschq for the illustration of Edith Ballantyne.

The post International Women’s Day 2021: Interview with Edith Ballantyne on women and peace appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

United Against Inhumanity (UAI): Thank you Caroline for taking the time to be interviewed by UAI. And congratulations on the release of your ship, the Ocean Viking, on 21 December, after five months of detention in Italy. What exactly happened, and what are now the next steps?

Caroline Abu Sa’Da (CA): Thank you, it’s good to know that the Ocean Viking could finally leave the port in Marseille for a rescue mission again this morning. Almost six months ago now, there was a new interpretation by the Italian authorities regarding safety regulations on board vessels such as the Ocean Viking. They asked us to change quite dramatically the organisation of the ship itself so that the crew would be ready to leave the Ocean Viking in an emergency with rescued people on board. Meetings took place between the authorities and ourselves and we agreed on the plan going forward. We implemented the requested changes, and also received the “rescue” certification by the ship classification society RINA in August, although this was the result of a process that had started already before the Ocean Viking was detained. Different works were carried out on the ship and additions were made, such as new life rafts.

An inspection by the authorities was carried out in late November where 26 of the 29 deficiencies that were listed in July were lifted. The Ocean Viking was granted a single voyage permit to reach the shipyard of Augusta, Sicily, to complete the remaining works required for the release of the ship. On 21 December, after a last inspection by the coastguard, the last three deficiencies were lifted, which was when the ship was freed. We then left to Marseille where we prepared the boat and the crew had to quarantine under strict conditions. After the third PCR COVID-19 test came back negative for all crew members, the crew boarded the ship last Friday. They then waited for good enough weather conditions before leaving the port this morning. The crew will have to do trainings and drills in the next few days whilst heading to the Search and Rescue zone.

UAI: Every year is a difficult year for people trying to cross the Mediterranean. But 2020 seemed an even more challenging year. How did the COVID pandemic impact your work and what else has changed?

CA: The COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on our work. The last rescue we carried out before the pandemic (had a significant impact in Europe) was in February. When disembarking, the rescued people were already put in quarantine for 14 days; once it was over on the 8 March, we decided that the ship should go back to Marseille. It arrived right before all national borders and the Italian and Maltese ports were declared closed for all ships, not just ours. We then had major discussions with our then-partner MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières); we disagreed on the analysis of the situation, which is why we decided to split and end the partnership. That was a massive consequence of the pandemic.

We then had to stay in Marseille for a few months because the conditions were not right for us to properly carry out our work. The borders were closed, and we were not in a position to supply the ship or otherwise keep our operational policy the way we wanted. We left again end of June/early July for a difficult rotation. We carried out four rescues and the people we rescued were already in a very fragile state; the new set-up of the ship also made it more difficult to be in touch with the rescued people and to appease them. The set-up included a disinfection area for people coming on board of the ship, and all teams wore PPE equipment. We had to wait around 13 days to be given a disembarkation port. The crew couldn’t be in touch with the rescued people as much as they wanted to, and the equipment and masks make circumstances even more difficult. Then, we were quarantined again. So that was a very difficult rotation.

A lot of work went into developing the procedures and adapting protocols to make the ship as safe as possible for the rescued people and the crew. The masks and equipment were also not easy to organize. These were some challenges the team had to handle and will now have to handle again, as these rules are still valid for this rotation. This cost a lot of time at sea and a lot of money; it wasn’t easy to install a disinfection area and to organize the equipment; it was a tremendous challenge, and it’s not over yet. To compare, one rotation in 2017/2018 lasted 3 weeks. Now, a rotation includes at least two weeks of quarantine beforehand; you then do not know how long the rotation will be due to the search for a disembarkation port, and then there are two weeks of quarantine afterwards. So it is much more difficult to organise and plan our work than in the past.

UAI: Why do you think SOS Méditerranée’s specific cause has touched so many people?

CA: I think this cause touches so many people first of all because there is still an awareness for these problems somewhere in our society. The European Union has a difficult time in acting and handling its responsibilities right now, and that’s even an understatement. But people are still asking themselves – are we ok with being part of humankind that allows people to die at sea just to make a point? SOS Méditerranée’s purpose is to save lives at sea and also to remind European States of their responsibilities. And that’s a metaphor for a broader issue – do we consider that solidarity is a minor or a major issue to make us the humanity we want to be? This is part of why I think people feel concerned.

The second reason is that SOS was always conceived and built as a movement of concerned citizens. This is why I liked the idea of this organisation, and left MSF to join SOS. One of the frustrations of working for international NGOs was that we were working in other countries but with sometimes little impact or even a consciousness about what was going on at the border of countries where we came from and lived. It became difficult to turn a blind eye to what was happening at Europe’s borders, as a European citizen. The European Union idea was always extremely important to me – having grandparents who lived during the war, the European dream really meant something when I was growing up. Citizens mobilization is extremely important and one of the triggers for many people to engage themselves with this cause.

UAI: What sort of events or activities do you do for further outreach? And how can citizens everywhere support you?

CA: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected how we carry out our outreach activities. In normal years, there are a lot of events and activities organized by volunteers – they can vary from selling cakes at markets, organizing auctions, debates, panels etc. But essentially, everything that couldn’t be made virtual had to be cancelled in the past year. This was a massive blow. In 2020, the mortality rate in the Central Mediterranean exploded since there were no rescue ships and even merchant ships were prevented from rescuing. But how do you talk about this situation and mobilize people without opportunities to speak and meet people, and when our boat is being detained?

SOS Méditerranée needs support in different ways. Of course, we need money to carry out our operations, which cost 15,000 CHF a day (around 14,000 euros). Most existing funding sources diverted their own funding to COVID-19 related problems, so of course finances are an issue. But it’s also very useful for us when people become members of SOS and join this global movement of volunteers and mobilizers.

UAI:  Assuming that your work is also met with skepticism or even criticism from people, how do you respond to that?

CA: There are two different types of negative reactions. We do receive threats, to which we do not respond. We chose to not engage with that for the safety of our team. But we also get a lot of questions on how exactly we operate. We try to be as transparent as possible. There is a lot of information on our website, and it’s important to me that people also do their own homework and research this information that is easy to find. I have worked for SOS for three years now and people still ask the same questions, such as, “are you not doing the work of the smugglers when you rescue people at sea.” A lot of research and academic work has actually been carried out to show that there is no correlation between the presence of rescue NGOs at sea and departures from Libya. So I appreciate it when people look up this kind of information first but it’s also part of our work to explain repeatedly these things.

A lot of people also say that it would be better to increase development activities in the countries of origin of migrants; maybe yes, but this still has to be proven. And in the meantime, for SOS Méditerranée, it is not an option to let people die at sea to make a point. To me, what SOS is doing is very simple: people are leaving Libya where they are in awful conditions in detention centers, where they experience, amongst others, torture and rape. We have evidence for this and we know what it is that they try to escape when they go to sea. And SOS is only trying to save people at sea. We do not engage in larger public debates on migratory policy in Europe or on aid abroad. We are only working on the issue in the Central Mediterranean. People are traveling at sea in dangerous vessels and they need to be rescued.

UAI: How do you coordinate between the four different country offices (Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy), and do you reach out to people living in other countries than these four? Do you have partnerships with other NGOs or platforms across Europe?

CA: Aside from the operational partnerships with MSF and MdM in the past, SOS does not have partnerships with other NGOs. It is already sometimes complex to manage such an operation, being present in four countries. And at this point in time, we do not have the capacity to reach out to people in other countries than those four because SOS is a very small organisation, but of course we would like to do so in the future. It would be wonderful to see more national sections being created elsewhere.

But the work between these four countries works very well; it’s very organic. SOS is one project, with one ship, supported by four offices (Berlin, Geneva, Paris and Milan) that pull staff and resources for one project and operations department based in Marseille.

UAI: SOS Méditerranée in particular seeks to mobilize people and carries out activities such as workshops in schools. What advice would you give to people who see an injustice or want to bring about change?

CA: I also teach, and my main advice is, the first place to get involved is in your own society. Go vote, be involved in public debates where you live. There are injustices everywhere. Even here in Geneva, if I leave my house, I see people sleeping on the street, people affected by COVID in many ways… There is so much to be done. I don’t like when people say “you are so brave” – I am not brave; I am simply acting on the basis of something that triggers me. I had to get involved some way or another. You can join an association, volunteer, start a project, you can vote, even if it’s sometimes hard to believe in the change that comes from it. There are so many good different organisations doing a fantastic job, not just SOS, so linking with them can be a good first step.

UAI: Caroline, many thanks for taking the time to speak to us. We hope more people will join in supporting SOS Méditerranée’s vital life-saving work.

Photo credit © SOS Méditerranée
The Ocean Viking leaving the port of Marseille on 11 January 2021

The post Ocean Viking back to saving lives: Interview with Caroline Abu Sa’Da, Director General of SOS Méditerranée Switzerland appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

United Against InHumanity (UAI): Thank you for accepting to speak to us. What led you to begin volunteering and working with refugees?

Seán Binder: As a kid growing up right along the stormy Atlantic on the southern coast of Ireland, I spent much of my youth being pummelled by the surf. While I gained only mediocre wave-riding skills, I did develop a deep respect for the ocean. This led me to taking rescue diving and maritime search and rescue training. This aligned with my later academic interests, insofar as I specialised in European Defence and Security policy at the London School of Economics. I realised that while the so-called ‘migrant crisis’ is making European waters the deadliest in the world, the European response has been to not focus on rescuing people in distress. Instead, it is to view the problem through the prism of criminal networks, anti-smuggling efforts and the enforcement of security policies against asylum seekers.

We’ve become so polarised on the topic of legitimate migration in Europe, we fail to act on what we all agree upon: nobody deserves to be abandoned to drown. And so, to the slight extent I could, I felt I understood the policy context and had the practical training to lend a hand. Which is what I did in 2017 as part of the civilian rescue efforts of the North Aegean Sea between Greece and Tukey, one of the primary points of transit into Europe at that time.

UAI: What are your most poignant memories of your time volunteering with refugees?

SB: The most poignant memory from my year coordinating search and rescue wasn’t at sea. It was that people in search and rescue were being thanked. Being thanked by asylum seekers, incredulous that one might ask their opinion on some banal issue. Being thanked by European citizens for the work done. I’m not trying to be facetious. This is one of the most difficult memories. It should not be incredible to treat someone with the respect of valuing their opinion, it is not praiseworthy to distribute blankets and water (which is all we often did). It is the most normal thing to help someone in distress.

UAI: What is your perspective on the ways the situation for refugees has changed in Europe in the past years? Given your experience to-date, and the extent of anti-migrant sentiment in Europe and elsewhere, is there any room for optimism for people concerned about the current situation?

SB: I want to be very clear, the EU response foremostly views people in dinghies escaping conflict as a threat to security, not as a humanitarian tragedy which must activate human rights obligations.

As such, the EU response creates gaps in life-saving activities, through which asylum seekers too easily fall. At the same time, civilian humanitarian organisations that try to fill this gap are cast as complicit in criminal activity – and are thus prosecuted or face non-judicial disruption. Research I have helped compile shows at least 171 individuals have been prosecuted since 2016 in over 13 European states.

This topic is personal for me as I have spent over 100 days in prison and still could face 25 years behind bars, for what Human Rights Watch said was ‘the criminalisation of saving lives’.

These prosecutions happen because of our fear-driven and polarised politics which demonise the most vulnerable. Too often you can hear the claim that we must secure our borders in defence of “European values” of peace and justice. The irony of course is that when we criminalise help and let people drown in our oceans, we have already lost the values of peace and justice.

We must reject racism and misinformation, but we must also reach out to those who may be swayed by it. Even in a polarised world, it doesn’t matter if you’re on the right or the left, we should be able to agree that nobody should be abandoned to die.

UAI: What do you think the main effects of the criminalization of solidarity and sea rescue with refugees are? Has the tactic been successful?

SB: The main effect is the ‘chill factor’. The costly and lengthy prosecutions that rescuers face disincentivise humanitarian action, thereby gutting the few rescue operations in place. The underlying logic for this is known as the pull factor, namely that  the more asylum seekers are rescued in a body of water, the more smuggling happening in that water. Therefore, the logic goes, rescue missions must be stopped. It is a questionable argument – the worse we can make the conditions for seeking asylum, the fewer people will do so, the better this is – this is the logic of institutions like FRONTEX.

The problem of course is that it is not borne out by the available data. There is no proven correlation, positive nor negative, between rescue and movement. As Médecins Sans Frontières’ research reveals, there is evidence that rape and torture experienced by asylum seekers in the Libyan war is what pushes people into the sea, whether medical services are waiting or not.

Ironically, the policy aimed at ending smuggling only produces the demand for smuggling; as such it isn’t internally coherent. In the current system, it is illegal to be in Europe without the necessary documentation; however, one has to be in Europe in order to make an asylum or protection demand with a European country. Therefore, this must mean that the securitisation policy enables criminal networks. “When driven from their homes, asylum seekers must use false papers or seek the services of a smuggler” noted Shalini Ray (Ray, 2017) as there are no ‘legal’ ways to become an asylum seeker for the vast majority of people.

UAI: What are your thoughts on the recent EU policies on migration and asylum, including the New Migration Pact?

SB: My view is that asylum policies in the Med have not improved; key issues remain.

International Maritime Laws that concern responding to vessels in distress are yet to be fully observed. Devastating relationships that the EU has with third countries, such as Libya, continue. Research repeatedly vindicates what is intuitive: raging civil wars cannot be assigned the label of “safe third country” to obviate the principle of non-refoulment, namely that no one should be returned to an unsafe country.

Most concerning, however, is that this isn’t merely incidental, but concerted EU strategy. As indicated by Masood at Queen Mary University in London (to be published), the recent EU Migration Pact 2020 might be very vague, but to the extent that any policy decisions can be discerned they are focused on securitisation of the external border. It is devoid of a commitment to the rights of migrants. It only makes scant reference to the importance of rescue. Third country relationships are not re-examined. The aim seems to be to limit migration whatever the cost to asylum seekers. In sum, short-sightedness. All this contrasts with the Global Compact on Migration 2018, which the EU member states signed up to. This Compact stressed the need for sustainable long-term thinking. EU migration policy, such as it is, is devoid of this thinking.

UAI: In what ways have you been able to stay involved since leaving Greece in 2018?

SB: Hardly at all in any direct sense. The civilian rescue efforts on the southern shoreline of Lesvos are non-existent now. However, I’ve come to realise that search and rescue can only address the symptoms of a deeper problem. By the time you have extended a hand to someone in distress in the Med, it is in some sense too late. The asylum and immigration system more broadly must be the prophylactic. I have advocated for more benign policies toward humanitarian action in the EU Commission and Parliament, as well as with member states. However, I have also contributed to campaigns such as VoteEuropa, that aim to increase electoral participation. Whether one agrees with my views or not, it is important to make sure representatives capture the concerns of the European people.

UAI: And, finally, what are your plans for the future?

SB: The short answer: staying out of prison.

Beyond weathering the limbo of this ongoing case, I am fortunate to be able to formalise my legal training in law. I am training to become a lawyer as I was inspired by the tireless work being done by legal researchers and practitioners who work to ensure that individuals’ rights are respected and who attempt to bind EU policymakers to their legal duties.

UAI: Thanks a lot for your time, Seán. We wish you all the best in your law studies and most importantly of course, that you will be freed of all criminal accusations against you soon.

Interview conducted in December 2020
Illustration of Seán by artist ©Ahlam Cnvschq

The post An interview with Seán Binder – a young humanitarian volunteer and researcher celebrated by refugee aid and human rights organisations in Europe appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

United Against InHumanity (UAI): Thank you for taking time out from your busy schedule and before discussing your current role, I am interested in knowing more about your experience as a refugee in the UK.

Hassan Akkad (HA): Thank you, great to speak with you. I arrived in the UK in late 2015, nearly five years ago now. Living in exile is not easy for anyone. Then following arrival, navigating a new system while dealing with so many unfamiliar things can be daunting. The postal system, the Home Office bureaucracy, cultural barriers, accessing employment – all were very difficult despite being able to speak English fluently. Then following my arrival to the UK, Britain decided to leave the EU. The rise in anti-migrant and anti-refugee rhetoric was very evident, as Britain very publicly argued about the kind of country it wanted to be. It added another layer of pressure, because that started to make me feel unwelcome.

UAI: Many of your co-workers are not British nationals and, like you Hassan, are doing work that is vital for the safety and survival of people who have tested positive for Covid-19 (C-19) or are in danger of being infected. Can you please provide us with a brief overview of the situation of National Health Service (NHS) staff dealing with the pandemic?

HA: I joined the NHS two and a half months ago, during the peak of the pandemic. When I arrived, all my colleagues in the ward were putting in extra hours to combat this pandemic. It was a hugely challenging time for them all – professionally, emotionally, physically. For a long time we didn’t have a single empty bed in our Covid-19 ward. We always had patients. Covid-19 patients who have been hospitalised tend to be very sick, needing round the clock care. It was very intense. I have huge admiration for the work ethic and dedication of my colleagues on the ward – they come from all over the world, however they came together as a team, united in their mission to beat the virus. It’s only in the past week or two that most of us have had a chance to slow down and take some time off, and see our families. It’s very needed – the work was physically, emotionally exhausting and after these events it’s crucial to have time to slow down and process what you’ve just experienced. So many of us were running purely on adrenaline.

UAI: Could you please explain your campaign based, amongst others, on Twitter to secure equitable access to social safety and health care support for all staff keeping the NHS going irrespective of their nationality, ethnic background or place of origin?

HA: Of course. It wasn’t exactly a planned campaign – as you can see in my video, I was very emotional.
It was more of a knee jerk reaction to what felt like the government spitting in the face of my colleagues, and a demonstration that all of their promises of ‘protecting key workers’ really were just empty words. Words won’t protect us from the virus; PPE will. Words won’t protect our partners’ immigration status when we pass away; changes in policy will. I was walking into the hospital when I read the Independent article highlighting that the bereavement scheme would only apply to doctors and nurses; the work of NHS support staff clearly didn’t make the cut. This wasn’t a theoretical protection – every day we see on the news that more frontline health workers have died from Covid. There was a very real sense that, by going to work, we were risking our lives and those of our families. That’s not an easy decision to make. I felt powerless – I had a Twitter account with a moderate platform (9K followers), so I filmed a video in my car, to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, making a plea for him to change his mind. It clearly touched the mood of the public, because it quickly reached 5M views. That evening, the government U-turned on that policy. It was a really positive moment – however we need to keep it in perspective. There is still a lot more work to do.

UAI: Congratulations on your critical role in the reversal of the troubling and discriminatory UK Government Immigration Health Surcharge policy. Has this development, debated in Parliament and elsewhere, helped the wider British public understand the role of refugees and other migrants in maintaining essential services, in general, and their crucial role during the pandemic? Will it impact favourably, do you think, on anti-migrant sentiments? Are there insights, as well as inspiration, in this policy reversal for others concerned with challenging the many problems and indignities faced by asylum seekers and other migrants in the UK and elsewhere?

HA: I think language is very important. Before the pandemic, as Britain discussed its role leaving the EU, the phrase ‘low-skilled’ workers was thrown around a lot. Suddenly, within a matter of weeks, those very same workers were being described as ‘key’. The public would come out onto their doorsteps every Thursday evening to clap for them. Stacking shelves, cleaning pavements, delivering packages, cleaning toilets – these are the low-paid, invisible jobs that keep the world moving, and they are disproportionately done by immigrant workers.

My friends at the organisation ‘Choose Love’ recently summarised it perfectly. They said, “while the hard work and sacrifices many migrant workers are making on the frontline of this crisis should be recognised and remembered, no one should have to risk their lives in order to be recognised as a human being. A person’s ‘usefulness’ should not define their worth. We should recognise and respect our common humanity, regardless of immigration status. Not just in a crisis, but all the time.” There is no overnight solution to the injustices and inequalities faced by immigrants and refugees in the UK – but I feel optimistic that if this momentum and pressure is maintained by the general public, this has the potential to be a turning point.

UAI: Many in the media and political circles say that C-19 is “the great equaliser” or that  “we-are-all-in-this-together”. However, for people trapped in, or fleeing from, war zones – Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, or Afghanistan, to name just a few – the problems they face are of a different nature to self-isolating in London, Dublin, Berlin or the many small towns in countries with long-standing health care systems not battered by bombing raids.

You are busy in Whipps Cross hospital and know of the dangers posed by C-19 and we have all seen different examples of solidarity from food deliveries to help with home schooling.  But do you see a particular role that individuals, civil society groups, and governments can play in reducing or eliminating the threats posed by this deadly virus and its consequences for vulnerable groups?

HA: The pandemic is not levelling the playing field – it is exposing in greater detail the vast inequalities, divides and injustices, on a local and international level, and making them worse. All of these things will impact your experience of the pandemic on a short, medium and long-term basis.

In Britain, for example, those who live with multiple people, who are manual labourers who can’t work from home and have members of the household going outside every day, who might live in a tower block, will have a much higher risk of contracting the virus. If you get the virus, you are more likely to die from it if you are black or ethnic minority – these people are over-represented in coronavirus-hospital-fatality statistics so far. Looking forward to the future, it’s widely predicted now that we are about to head into a period of unprecedented global recession, estimated to be three times the size of the 2008 financial crash. This is going to cause a steep rise in poverty and unemployment. Those with secure jobs or savings will hopefully be able to stay afloat – those without are going to struggle immensely.

Conflict-affected areas will be some of the worst to suffer in this situation – the International Crisis Group has cited Yemen and Northern Syria as being some of the most at risk, due to the infrastructure that has been destroyed after years of conflict and blockade. Both have recently seen their first confirmed cases of coronavirus. There are currently over 320 camps in northern Idlib (and northern Aleppo) up to the Turkish border, which are overcrowded and lacking in medical care and basic infrastructure, leaving their residents extremely susceptible to coronavirus. I worry about what will happen if the virus reaches these camps.

Often, when it comes to scary things that feel out of our control, we want to turn away. But for these people, this is their reality, they can’t turn away. And we are not powerless to help them. While the virus is showing us some terrifying things, it’s also shown us how interconnected we are, and how willing we all are to change our lives and routines for the good of the community – mutual aid groups that have sprung up around the country, people 3D printing visors in their garages, sewing scrubs for their local hospitals, sending out food parcels. The community response is amazing, and grassroots organisations have done an incredible job of filling the gaps left by the government.

We are all global citizens, and the place to start is in our own communities, identifying and looking out for the most vulnerable. The after-effects of this experience are going to be felt for a long time. Protecting each other has never been more important.

UAI: Thank you Hassan for your time. Thank you, equally, for your thoughtful and inspiring observations on what is possible when we prioritise action that is in the best interest of our shared humanity and those who are most at risk in this time of crisis.  

Interview conducted in June 2020
Illustration of Hassan by Yemeni artist ©Ahlam Almulaiki @ cnvschq

The post An interview with Hassan Akkad – young English language teacher and photographer, award-winning film-maker, and Syrian refugee in England appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

An interview with Avril Loveless, Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group (GDWG)

UAI: Avril, could you tell us what you do at GDWG?
AL: I visit asylum seekers and others detained in Immigration Removal Centres at Gatwick Airport in southern England. I am also an active participant in the “Refugee Tales” project (www.refugeetales.org) and I am a Trustee of GDWG.

UAI: Could you say something about the detention facilities at Gatwick and the conditions for detainees?
AL: At the end of the runway at Gatwick are two ‘Houses’ – Brook House and Tinsley House. They are effectively prisons, somewhat euphemistically called Immigration Removal Centres. The key feature of immigration detention in the UK is that it is indefinite detention – when the door bangs shut behind them, people do not know whether they will be detained in these conditions for days, weeks, months or years. We can only begin to imagine what that does to the physical and mental wellbeing of those who are detained, and their families.

There is a wide range of reasons why people are detained, but asylum seekers are often detained as a risk to public security or the authorities consider they might abscond before their asylum case has been

resolved. They might have arrived in the UK by flying in to Heathrow, in the darkness of a back of a lorry or in a small boat in the Channel. People seeking asylum, seeking refuge, are what Agamben calls ‘the bare human’. They have left their homes and places of safety for a wide range of reasons and have lost so much, yet arrive with their essential humanity shining through.

UAI: In what ways do you consider detention centres to be inhumane?
AL: Detention centres are inhumane in several ways:

• The architecture of the centres is designed to brutalise all those contained within the walls, corridors of locked doors, cells with no exterior windows and barbed wire fences. Brook House was designed as a Category B prison. ‘Why am I here? ‘What crime or sin have I committed???’  ‘My grandmother told me that hell has 7 levels. As all the doors locked behind me and the guards shook their keys I thought that I was going down into hell’
• The rooms are shared between 2 or 3 people. There is a thin mattress on a hard bed. There is a toilet between the beds, often with no curtain. There is no privacy. There are no quiet places and the noise of shouting from other cells can be incessant
• Healthcare is often inadequate when people are without their medication, or given paracetamol for a range of conditions, from severe pain to depression
• If a person needs an external visit to hospital or the dentist they can be shackled, which can lead to PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) for many people seeking refuge from violent persecution. One person I visited had his wrists crushed when he resisted being shackled
• Activities are limited. There are some language classes, art classes and sometimes music workshops. Nothing is sustainable because detention is indefinite
• Some take part in work in the detention centre to relieve both the monotony and the sleepless nights. They can work as cleaners, or in the laundry, or in the canteen. They are paid £3 a day. Work is a privilege which can be taken away
• In a BBC Panorama programme of 2017, undercover filming exposed physical brutality of the officers against the people detained and the use of solitary confinement. There will be a public enquiry into the treatment of people in Brook House during the period covered by the programme

UAI: Can you tell us something about the process which detainees have to go through in order to be released or prevent their deportation?
AL: The inhumanity of the bureaucracy works through ‘Slow violence and murderous absences’:

• There is cruelty in the lack of information and clarity, the interminable waiting times, the cancelled bail hearings, the Home Office appeals against judges’ decisions which favour the detainees, the reduction of people to numbers. One person described it as ‘it is like being suspended in the air’.  We have a friend who was granted refugee status after 9 years. We have another friend who is still waiting for a decision after 11 years
• There is cruelty in the intimidating style of interviews and interrogation, from questions intended to trick to questions of sexual history if you’re gay
• There is cruelty in what is NOT done to people: they are not believed, they are ignored, they suffer from lack of information
• Families are separated and children’s births are missed

UAI: How would you like to see this situation change?
AL: There are alternatives to immigration detention within the community and we call for an end to indefinite detention, with a time limit of 28 days in alignment with the criminal justice system.

UAI: What do you feel you can do to help?
AL: We can take small steps to befriend within the detention centres and bear witness in the wider world. GDWG has been active for 25 years. With 6 members of staff and 70 volunteers we have a system of visiting people in detention once a week for as long as it takes. We recognise the human beings sitting across the table in the bleak visitors’ room and take an interest in their ‘bigger lives’. We can’t DO much, but we can offer some support with clothes and phone credit, as well as keep an eye out for any medical or legal needs for which we can make referrals. 

UAI: Can you tell us something about the Refugee Tales project?
AL: Refugee Tales is a project through which we seek to raise awareness of this situation, call for an END to indefinite detention and campaign for a 28 day time limit. The project, unashamedly based on the Canterbury Tales (written between 1387 and 1400), has a number of interweaving threads:

1. We  – visitors, former detainees and supporters – walk together  companionably and share our lives over 5 days,  a core of around 90, with day walkers joining us for parts of the route. Sometimes up to 150 people. We’ve walked 5 times. This is our 6^th year.
2. As we walk we claim the landscape. We are a spectacle of welcome across England’s green and pleasant land
3. Each night we hear the performance of Tales read by established authors who have met people with experience of indefinite detention, heard their story and used their talents and skills to present the tale to audiences. Last year and this year we have included tales told directly by the people with lived experience – the detainee’s tale; the soldier’s tale; the lover’s tale; the unaccompanied minor’s tale; the barrister’s tale; the counsellor’s tale; the lorry driver’s tale.
   Tales have also been told to writers such as Ali Smith, Chris Cleave, Kamila Shamsie, Dragan Tagorovic, Inua Ellams, Olivia Laing, Marina Warner, Jackie Kay, Will Self, and Neel Mukherjee.
4. There are three threads that run through this endeavour that we have to constantly think about and act upon in order to present this project with integrity:
   1. the ethics of telling other people’s stories when there is danger of misrepresentation, appropriation, and celebrity gilding for a middle class literary festival of misery porn
   2. the recognition of how the invited writers address this in order to honour the stories they are told, to give a deeper sounding and a luminosity in order to ‘ring true’
   3. the desires and responses of the detainees themselves:
      1. tell the stories that are whispered in the bleakness of the visitors’ rooms in Brook and Tinsley so that they are not abandoned and forgotten
      2. we trust you to use your language and your connections and your cultural capital to make our stories known in the call for an end to indefinite detention
      3. we realized that through these difficult times of waiting as we sustain our relationships with detainees and writers over months and years we have the potential for longstanding friendship

UAI: Can you bring us up to date since the arrival of COVID-19?
AL: Visiting has stopped now, and we are supporting those still in detention by phone. It isn’t easy at all. GDWG staff are maintaining contact with Brook House and Tinsley House management and Welfare department. They are also offering support for the visitors and setting up online groups for us to stay in touch with each other. GDWG has written to the Home Office asking for all detainees to be released. And, in fact, over 300 detainees were released shortly before the lock-down that began on 23 March 2020. We believe that this demonstrates that administrative detention of asylum-seekers is unnecessary and could be stopped. 

UAI: Thank you so much, Avril. Do you have any final thoughts?
AL: We consider indefinite detention to be expensive, ineffective (nearly half of those detained are eventually released into the community to await decisions), and a waste of human life.

Interview conducted early April 2020
Photo credits: ©Terry Freeman ©GDWG

The post Where is humanity? The human cost of detaining asylum-seekers appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.