The Europeans' Wrong Address Regarding Refugees
Hanif Ghaffari / Ph.D. in International Relations - The publication of news about the shocking incident of the sinking of a boat carrying hundreds of refugees in the Mediterranean waters has once again led to European officials providing wrong addresses regarding the origin of the incident: In order to explain these challenging and unthinkable circumstances, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and other officials in this group assert the involvement of human smugglers in the Mediterranean waters and, as usual, place the decentralization of the European Union on the agenda!
In elucidating the current event, it is unquestionably impossible to move on to the intermediate and secondary components of the catastrophe without establishing trust with the "source of the story." In actuality, the majority of migrants who perish in the Mediterranean Seas and while attempting to enter Europe illegally are nationals of nations where Europeans and Washington have contributed most to the development of ongoing security challenges.
Everyone recalls how the European Parliament and Council, the official institutions of power, viewed themselves as championing the rights of vulnerable people during the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe (following the rise of ISIS), all the while playing an unmatched role in the formation of ISIS and other terrorist organizations in West Asia. Here, the "crisis creator" is trying to present himself as the "savior of the crisis victims"! Throughout the history of international relations, the United States and the European Union have contributed significantly to the creation of this dilemma.
The specific claim made by the President of the European Commission about the recent incident in the Mediterranean waters—that the European Union will put a tough fight against human trafficking networks on the agenda to prevent such tragedies in the future—is the subject of another question. Von der Leyen's repeated claim has turned into a bitter joke within the European Union, making it obvious that refugee smuggling networks in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, and other waterways have enjoyed tangible but unwritten protection in recent years.
Van der Leyen should address this crucial and fundamental question rather than drawing a distinction between refugee smuggling networks and official institutions of power in the European Union, particularly security institutions: why have refugee smuggling networks across Europe continued their operations in recent years on a larger scale and, of course, with a more relaxed imagination than in the past, rather than losing their power due to the influence of European security agencies' supervision and control?
It seems that a deal has been made in this regard between official European institutions and smugglers in the Mediterranean and other water and land borders of entry into Europe, which even the European public is not aware of.
In any event, the West's interventionist actions in the internal affairs of the crisis-affected nations are the root cause of the refugee issue and the risky and unlawful migration to Europe. Furthermore, the actual relationships between European institutions and human trafficking networks are undoubtedly impacted by factors that are not discussed openly or in the media in the superstructure of the problem. Von der Leyen and other European officials would be better off not giving any more incorrect instructions than this.