The ethics of criminalisation of solidarity of NGOs and refugees in Europe

V. Tais Yáñez.

15 Nov, 2021

On 19th of October, 2021, the Israeli Defence Ministry outlawed six well known Palestinian humanitarian organisations for alleged connections with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a left-wing group designated as terrorist by both the State of Israel and the European Union.

These organisations, some of whom work closely with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (HRW, 2021), support women, children and disabled people, compile evidence of human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians, and provide detainee and prisoner support. The staff of all six groups now risk becoming prisoners themselves.

This particular decision by the State of Israel cannot be seen as an isolated case but as part of the global phenomena of criminalisation of solidarity.

I find there are similarities between what UN experts deemed Israel’s "frontal attack on the Palestinian human rights movement, and on human rights everywhere"(UNHR, 2021) and the current actions of some European Union Member States like Italy whose response at the beginning of the so-called refugee crisis was scrapping the rescue Operation Mare Nostrum altogether and substitute it with the monitoring and patroling Operation Triton run by Frontex. In addition to this the EU has also chosen to systematically persecute Search and Rescue organisations operating in the Mediterranean, a process that started in 2017 with the seizure of Jugend Rettet’s ship Iuventa and the prosecution of her crew.

Militarising the borders signals the lack of political will of governments to implement humane asylum and migration policies that comply with International and Maritime Laws. Solidarity is built as an act of resistance, just like migratory dissent, states Stierl (2018), therefore removing this political meaning allows for the treatment of refugees and SAR workers as mere criminals.

A lot has been said about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of detention of asylum seekers and persecution of Human Rights workers and Sea Rescue, as well as the practice of refoulement

or pushbacks,which is forbidden by articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention signed by all EU States. Therefore, this paper is not focused on the legal aspect of Fortress Europe’s border control or persecution of refugees and NGOs, instead, it is a reflection on the ethics of what Derrida (2001) succinctly puts as “permitting the prosecution, and even the imprisonment, of those who take in and help foreigners whose status is held to be illegal. This ‘crime of hospitality”.

Here, I will examine the moral grounds for the repression of active empathy that prioritises state security over human security in countries which claim to possess liberal values of egalitarianism, harmony, collectivism and commitment to others (Vignoles, Smith, et al, 2018). I evaluate the contradiction of promoting diversity, solidarity, tolerance, hospitality in a context where thousands of people are forced to use unsafe routes to seek asylum and safety in Europe, and many end up losing their lives because of the EU’s response.

Let us take Greece as an example. Voutira (2016) refers to the ancient principle of Xenos Zeus that imposes a moral obligation to welcome and protect strangers. This concept has been co-opted by the right wing Greek government to market the country as a great tourist destination but, she explains, many scholars have pointed out the duplicity of inviting certain foreigners for a holiday whilst normalising and promoting xenophobia and violent attacks on the ‘other’ unwanted foreigners, namely, refugees and migrants, as well as aid workers and antifascist activists including the 2013 murder of 27-year-old Pakistani refugee Shehzad Luqman, and the fatal stabbing of 34-year-old antifascist activist and rapper Pavlos Fyssas for which parlamentarians of the neo-nazi party Golden Dawn were found guilty of collusion just in October 2020.

The labeling of the issue as a European ‘refugee crisis’ as an ‘invasion’, especially by the far-right but not only, allows for a selective Xenos Zeus and interpretations of other philosophical principles of hospitality . On one hand the sun-loving Northern European holiday makers own " the right of a stranger not to be treated as an enemy when he arrives in the land of another… only a right of temporary sojourn, a right to associate, which all men have” (Kant, 1795) In stark contrast should poor and dispossessed people just displaced fleeing war-torn zones attempt to enter Greece, or indeed, the European Union ‘one may refuse to receive him'' (ibid). Should we choose to interpret this line of Kant’s Third

Definitive Article for a Perpetual Peace as a right to reject strangers we could have a philosophical, but not legal, framework to justify the EU’s refusal of asylum seekers, however Kant specifies the process must be done in a way that the foreigner is not destroyed.

Moreover Kant compares the intentions and actions of outsiders in European soil, to those of European nations during their invasions to the American continent, Africa and India, some of which are ongoing in the 21st century, and in fact are root causes of displacement. He calls out the “powers which make a great show of their piety, and, while they drink injustice like water, they regard themselves as the elect in point of orthodoxy” (ibid)

The paradoxes between Europe’s values and actions are, as Mainwaring and DeBono (2021) put it, “made possible through an oscillating neo-colonial imagination of the sea as mare nostrum and mare nullius, our sea and nobody’s sea” . Our sea to control and protect at all cost and yet nobody’s which , they say, “allows the EU and its member states to avoid responsibility for deaths at sea”(ibid) . In contrast, the humanitarian workers seem to work on Barnett’s premise that ‘there is no natural geographical scene for the cultivation of responsibility’(2005) to protect human life.

Schark and Witcher (2020) state that NGOs are “criminalized because they challenge and interfere with state policies and practices of hostile hospitality”. NGOs place the three pillars of human security: “freedom from fear, freedom from want and freedom from indignities… before states, institutions and the regional/international system” (Tadjbakhsh, 2014). NGOs are the enemy within threatening sovereignty and state security by aiding ‘illegals’ who, the highly xenophobic and racist rhetoric goes, aim to cause the destruction of European identity, values and way of life and provoke what Balibar (2009) calls a ‘clash of civilisations’ whereby the ideal of civilisation for the EU is based on past historical events.

Ethical considerations matter because the paradoxical interpretation of European ethics and values underpin the justification the EU has for the creation of policy that has caused thousands of deaths of people seeking protection they are legally entitled to, and which, at the same time, criminalises search and rescue operations carried out by NGO volunteers motivated by these values such as Sarah Mardini, a former refugee herself, Sean Binder,

Nassos Karakitsos and other eighteen volunteers, collectively known as the Free Humanitarians, who are currently awaiting trial in Greece for severe charges such as breaking the NGO’s Code of Conduct, aiding illegal immigration, espionage, human trafficking and terrorism.

The crackdown on solidarity actions at sea in particular has deadly consequences as it makes it impossible for the crews to operate as criminalisation implies withdrawal of permits, closing of ports, and seizure of ships such as the Iuventa in 2017, the Acquarius operated by Doctors without Borders and SOS Mediterranee in 2018.

Therefore one of the main objectives of criminalising saving lives of refugees at sea or helping in the Balkan Route, the French mountains, and other unsafe routes, is to deter not only potential immigrants but also sympathetic European citizens and residents who might wish to take action despite the years of constant use of what Cusumano and Bell (2021) call “discursive criminalisation strategies that hinder their legitimacy and access to the humanitarian space”.

The dissemination of negative anti-refugee and anti-activist propaganda would not be possible without the European media. For instance, Cusumano and Bell (ibid) carried out a thorough research of the behaviour of the Italian media from 2014 to 2019, among their conclusions is that:

“criminalisation in a narrow sense, consisting of direct accusations of unlawful behaviour, was mainly confined to the right-wing outlet. Both the conservative and… the progressive paper, however, have indirectly contributed to the criminalisation of humanitarianism through four framing devices: associational links, metaphors, frame-jacking, and othering processes.”

This preponderance of negative frames and the legal battles that ensue also divert the conversation away from the real issue as denounced by Captain Carola Rackete: “the refugees fleeing conflicts who are stranded in the Mediterranean Sea and the European Union's lack of action to help them.” (Deutsche Welle, 2019)

Although this paper is a reflection on how European values of hospitality and solidarity can be interpreted by all the actors involved, criminalisation versus saving lives is a colonial narrative that turns the voiceless migrant into, either, an aggressor or a victim. Nevertheless, it is important to realise migrants themselves do not lack agency inasmuch as the migrant is not a nameless monolith who ‘has merely moved into a geographic space that is transformed by the activist… into a space of politics”(Stierl, 2019).

Migrant resistance, says Skleparis (2016) is not “ isolated incidence of mobilization of irregular migrants against the government in support for their rights in existing institutions” . Migrant resistance starts with movement. Refugees and migrants are being demonised and criminalised in Europe for their origin, for resisting oppression, for fleeing violence to seek a better life. They are also being increasingly charged with henious crimes like terrorism for taking emergency actions to prevent the wreckage of their own boats, thus saving the lives of the people making the risky crossing with them as is the case of Lamin, Abdalla and Abdul known as El HIblu 3 in Malta; and that of the Samos 2, Hasan and N, in Greece.

In conclusion, although the criminalisation of solidarity is a global phenomena, we can see that Europe is foregoing its own humanitarian values of which it prides itself such as hospitality and compassion in favour of a xenophobic securitization of borders by outlawing not only Search and Rescue operations but migrant action and survival itself as well.

REFERENCES

Amnesty International. 03 March 2020. Europe: Punishing compassion: Solidarity on trial in Fortress Europe. Online. Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur01/1828/2020/en/

Balibar, E. 2009. “Europe as borderland” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, volume 27, pp. 190 - 215. Available at:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1068/d13008 05/11/2021

Barnett, C. 2005, “Ways of relating: hospitality and the acknowledgement of otherness” Progress in Human Geography 29, 1, pp. 1–17. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42792806_Ways_of_relating_Hospitality_and_the_ acknowledgement_of_otherness. 09/11/2021

Cusumano, E. and Bell, F. 2021. Guilt by association? The criminalisation of sea rescue NGOs in Italian media. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Ahead-Of-Print, pp. 1-23 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1935815

Deutsche Welle, 10 July 2019.. Rescue boat captain: Don't let my case distract from the refugee crisis.Online. Accessed 03/11/2021

https://www.dw.com/en/rescue-boat-captain-dont-let-my-case-distract-from-refugee-crisis/a-4 9543791

ECCHR. Nd. Sea rescuers under attack: Iuventa crew criminalized by Italian government. Online. Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at:

https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/sea-rescuers-under-attack-iuventa-crew-criminalized-by-italian government/

Free El Hiblu3. Nd. The El Hiblu3. Online. Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at https://elhiblu3.info/index

Free Humanitarians. Nd. After three years of uncertainty, still at risk of years in jail for saving lives in Greece. Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at https://www.freehumanitarians.org/news

Human Rights Watch. 07 October, 2020. Justice Delivered in Greece

Historic Conviction Against Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party. Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/07/justice-delivered-greece#

Human Rights Watch. 22 October, 2021. Israel/Palestine: Designation of Palestinian Rights Groups as Terrorists. Online. Accessed 03/11/2021. Available at:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/22/israel/palestine-designation-palestinian-rights-groups-t errorists

Kakoliris G. 2015. Jacques Derrida on the Ethics of Hospitality. In: Imafidon E. (eds) The Ethics of Subjectivity. Palgrave Macmillan, Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137472427_9

Kant, I, 1795. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. E Reader version. Accessed from KIndle Library, Amazon.

Mainwarning, C and Bono, D. 2021 Criminalizing solidarity: Search and rescue in a neo-colonial sea, In: EPC: Politics and Space. Vol. 39(5) pp. 1030–1048. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2399654420979314. 01/11/2021

OHCHR. 2021. UN experts condemn Israel’s designation of Palestinian human rights defenders as terrorist organisations. Online. Accessed 03/11/2021. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27702&LangID= E

National Public Radio. 20 November, 2018. Italy Wants Rescue Ship Seized, Accuses Doctors Without Borders Of Illegal Dumping. Accessed 03/11/2021. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669596607/italy-wants-rescue-ship-seized-accuses-doctors without-borders-of-illegal-dumpin?t=1636502288996

Schack L, Witcher A. 2021. Hostile hospitality and the criminalization of civil society actors aiding border crossers in Greece. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 39(3) pp. 477-495. Available at:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0263775820958709 05/11/2021

Scherer, S., and Di Giorgio, M. 2014. “Italy to end sea rescue mission that saved 100,000 migrants” Reuters. 31 October. Available at:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-migrants-eu-idUSKBN0IK22220141031

Skleparis. D, 2016. The Politics of Migrant Resistance amid the Greek Economic Crisis. In: International Political Sociology. pp. 1–17. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307886879_The_Politics_of_Migrant_Resistance_a mid_the_Greek_Economic_Crisis

Stierl, M. 2018. Migrant resistance in Europe. Online. London Routledge. Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/MMV1DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT11& dq=migrant+resistance+in+contemporary+europe

Tadjbakhsh. S. (2014) "Human Security Twenty Years On", NOREF (Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Center), pp. 1-7 , Accessed 05/10/2021. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/7659209/_Human_Security_Twenty_Years_On_NOREF_Norweg ian_Peacebuilding_Resource_Center_June_26_2014 05/10/2021

Vignoles, V., Smith, P., Becker, M., Easterbrook, M. (2018). In search of a pan-European culture: European values, beliefs and models of selfhood in a global perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, pp. 868-887. Available at:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022022118779144#_i1

Voutira, E. 2016, The Pervasion of the Ancient and Traditional Value of "Hospitality" in Contemporary Greece. From Xenios Zeus to "Xenios" Zeus. In: Wonneberger, A., Gandelsman-Trier, M., and Dorsch. H. ed. Migration Networks Skills: Anthropological Perspectives on Mobility and Transformation. Online. Germany, Transcript, pp. 83-98. Accessed 02/11/2021. Available at:

https://www.academia.edu/22745025/The_Pervasion_of_the_Ancient_and_Traditional_Value _of_Hospitality_in_Contemporary_Greece._From_Xenios_Zeus_to_Xenios_Zeus

Stierl, M. 2018. Migrant resistance in Europe. Online. London Routledge. Accessed 01/11/2021. Available at:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/MMV1DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT11& dq=migrant+resistance+in+contemporary+europe

 

REACTION PAPER to ''When was ‘the post-colonial’? Thinking at the limit” by Stuart Hall 

V. Tais Yáñez.

1 Nov 2021

In his paper “When was ‘the post-colonial’? Thinking at the limit” ,  Stuart Hall poses the question of what postcolonial theory is. He starts by examining what the prefix ‘post’ even implies,  whether we should think of it epistemologically or chronologically, whether both, critics and proponents, benefit or may find common ground. The answers, it seems, may not be absolute.

 Hall draws from previous analysis by critics of postcolonial thought like Ella Shohat, Arif Dirlik, Anne McClintock, Lata Mani and Ruth Frakenberg to touch on many of the different aspects of  postcolonial theorisation, namely, eurocentric discourse, capitalism, power, hybridity and cultural hegemony, and knowledge. 

Firstly, it was thought-provoking for me how just examining the prefix ‘post’ alone gives a sense on how to approach the question of when postcolonialism was.  I realised how it confirmed some of my existing views, and made me lean more to the critical side of the debate as a starting point.  Thinking of other examples of ‘post’ such as post-structuralism, post-impressionism, post-war I interpret it as a response to a main event or movement which proceeds to become significant on its own merit but still carries the legacy.   

 Hall’s paper shows why semantics matter. Why, in my view, ‘post’ should not mean ‘end of’ and “It is not only ‘after’ but ‘going beyond’ the colonial” (Hall, 2002).  Approaching postcolonialism as a Eurocentric theory of termination of colonisation defies its purpose because it explores non colonist cultures and politics from the coloniser’s perspective. 

 Therefore, post-colonialism as an ongoing process beyond the historical period challenges the post-colonialism that implies an end of colonialism altogether. This idea of it as an event in the distant past is often expressed by the current leaders of former colonising powers, and many sectors of society on the right, left and center in Europe, the USA, and, tellingly, some elites in former colonies because it cannot be expected that the end of colonisation in a chronological sense implies actual  automatic decolonisation.

This rhetoric is used to dismiss the calls for reparations and land back claims. They  fail to acknowledge the fact that the development of Europe and the USA as dominant capitalist and ideological powers has been possible thanks to the ongoing exploitation of people and resources from the former colonies, which they left underdeveloped and which play a mere secondary role in the narrative, including in Marxism and Left wing ideologies.

In his paper Hall says that “The post-colonial critics are, in effect, unwitting spokespersons for the new global capitalist order”.  I first agreed with Hall in this assertion but upon consideration,  I think it should only be applied to those who see post-colonialism from ‘the strict chronologies of history tout court’ (Shohat, 1992,), as though the colonial period is gone and took its legacy with it. 

It is important to remember most processes of independence were only beneficial to the ‘criollo’ class, the local Europeanised elite who kept the colonial structures and borders, and whose descendants in many cases are still part of the ruling classes in their countries. In this sense the word ‘post-colonialism’ is nothing but a ‘diplomatic gesture’ (Shohat, 1992), not to be confused with actual ‘decolonisation’. 

Another elite I agree to include in this group are “Third World intellectuals making good in prestige ‘Ivy League’ American universities”' (Dirlik, 1994, as cited in Hall, 2002)  who take advantage of the “marketability’ of the term ‘post-colonial’” (McClintock, 1992, as cited in Hall, 2002) and yet follow eurocentric thought, and political movements in an attempt to assess, define and solve local problems based on colonial values and frameworks, be it Neoliberalism or Marxism and in between. I think this to be true in the Latin American context, for instance.

Some of these intellectuals, and the education systems in modern independent nations even justify colonisation, and theorise its apparent beneficial effect.  The meaning of post-colonialism here is simply “different ways of ‘staging the encounters’ between the colonising societies and their ‘others’ (Mani and Frakenberg, 1993, as cited in Hall, 2002).  A close, binary, symbiotic, and positive relationship between the colonial powers and  the post independence elite is a social and political construct that dominates history and the discourses of national and personal identity, culture, and even the economy. 

Like Shohat (1992,)  I find the concepts of hybridity and syncretism rather problematic. The post-colonial  invention of ‘mestizaje’ in Latin America, for instance, erases indigenous and afro descendant identities, cultures, and all the human and collective rights they grant. I think post-colonial theory should be used to assess and challenge the colonial structures still in existence but is instead used to consolidate hegemonic power of the former colonists. (Shohat, 1992)  

This Eurocentric hegemonic discourse, which is controlled no longer just by Europe but also by the in-house colonist elites,  is damaging to the many worldwide anticolonial and anticapitalist struggles in their fight against systemic racism, extractivism, occupation, ethnic cleansing and displacement of Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples inasmuch as  “it dissolves the politics of resistance “because it posits no clear domination and calls for no clear opposition”(Shohat, 1992) or solidarity. 

In this regard, a question Dirlik (1994, as cited in Hall, 2002) makes which I see of great significance is why “a consideration of the relationship between post-colonialism and global capitalism should be absent from the writings of post-colonial intellectuals.” 

I think this omission has the purpose of preventing the discussion on how capitalism has developed and thrived thanks to colonisation and post-colonial trade relations, or neo-colonisation. It denies responsibility for the exploitative asymmetric relationship and development divide  between the Global North and the Global South, between former empires and their former colonies. 

Post-colonialism, if seen as a brand new chapter in the history of humanity, also erases unacknowledged acts of genocide, crimes perpetrated by the powers, forced migrations and assimilation, cultural and religious imposition, and resistance during and, indeed, after the historical colonial period. 

In Shohat’s (1992)  words “post-colonial discourse sometimes seems to define any attempt to recover or inscribe a communal past as a form of idealisation, despite its significance as a site of resistance and collective identity”. As though political struggle or economic considerations did not fall into the postcolonial remit but only certain approved hybridised remnants of the colonised cultures. Such idealisation causes a disconnect between history and the present and only picks cultural aspects. That is why, for instance, people can admire pre-colonial Indigenous artifacts in museums or enjoy aspects of African cultures and yet participate in the oppression of the living descendants at all levels of society.

Hall (2002) then wonders if thinking of the cultural consequences of colonisation through a hybrid point of view, and using the post-colonialism framework implies questioning “cultural power and political struggle (which) had to be different from how cultures would have developed”. Here I ponder who would be invited to answer these questions and whether the Black, Brown, Asian and Indigenous peoples currently rising up in resistance against systemic racism and colonial-era structural violence, and in defense of the environment, their territories and autonomy,  would lead the discussion. 

In my view, history has taught us that, more often than not, when non colonising cultures have tried to work within the coloniser’s frameworks, post-colonial or other, it has resulted in further erasure, invalidation of their struggle and co-option of identity to sanitise neo-colonial policies including aid, displacement of people, invasion, and forced assimilation. Even now. 

In addition to this I think this question is, in itself, an example of  post-colonial thought (in the termination of colonialism sense), as well as othering, inasmuch as it plays with the prevalent Western narrative that those cultures either do not exist anymore or they have not developed at all or, indeed, not developed in comparison to the coloniser’s  idea of civilisation. This is in fact what “the dominant western historiographical tradition has often tried to do.” (Hall, 2002)

 In closing, I don’t think Hall’s question may elicit a simple ‘right or wrong’ answer, nor is it ‘either...or’. Hall (2002) himself in his conclusion admits that “we always knew that the dismantling of the colonial paradigm would release strange demons from the deep”. I think that in order for post-colonialism to effectively tame the demons to address the latent legacy of colonisation, for decolonisation to truly happen,  it must focus on its intertwinement with capitalism and modern imperialism, prioritising the human and environmental negative effects it still has on non colonising cultures. For this it is vital to understand the prefix ‘post’ to mean ‘going beyond and transcend’  as opposed to ‘the end of’ and “re-read the very binary form in which the colonial encounter has for so long itself been represented” (Hall, 2002) 

REFERENCES

Hall, Stuart (1996) “When was ‘the post-colonial‘? Thinking at the Limit,” The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons, eds. Iain Chambers and Lidia Curti , London: Routledge. https://readingtheperiphery.org/hall/

Shohat, E. (1992). Notes on the “Post-Colonial.” Social Text, 31/32, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/466220