Man, these numbers are starting to get out of control.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/italy-pm-matteo-renzi-migrant-shipwreck-crisis-srebrenica-massacre
Quote
Italy counts up to 900 migrants dead and launches rescues of two more boats
PM Matteo Renzi says Europe cannot 'close our eyes and commemorate later' the tragedy, as another migrant boat runs aground on Rhodes
Alessandra Bonomolo in Catania and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Rome
Monday 20 April 2015 19.08 BST Last modified on Tuesday 21 April 2015 00.07 BST
On a day that 27 survivors of the weekend's Mediterranean boat disaster were taken to Sicily and salvage crews scoured the waters off Libya for the bodies of up to 900 more victims, reports came in of many more desperate migrants heading for Europe in unseaworthy craft, oblivious to the overwhelming odds against them.
Matteo Renzi, Italy's prime minister, said rescues were under way to help save migrants trapped on two vessels carrying about 450 people off the Libyan coast. Earlier, the International Organisation for Migration said "at least" 20 fatalities had been reported from one of the vessels, carrying about 300 people, although that could not be immediately confirmed.
Meanwhile, a fragile wooden boat with more than 80 people aboard ran aground off the Aegean island of Rhodes. The Greek authorities reported at least three people had been killed, including a child.
As the Italian rescue crews returned to base after fruitless searches for more survivors from the weekend shipwreck, the scale and horror came into ever sharper focus of what is likely to be the worst maritime disaster of its kind.
Vincenzo Bonomo, one of the Italian rescuers, told La Repubblica: "It was a sight that broke the hearts of even men of the sea like us.
"I saw children's shoes, clothing, backpacks floating in the water. Every time we saw a shoe or a bag, any sign of life, we thought we might have found a survivor. But every time we were disappointed. It was heart-breaking," Bonomo said.
"We didn't find a single survivor – not one. We didn't leave the area until the last shred of hope had gone. We wanted to at least find more bodies so that they could be given a dignified burial."
"They told us that there were between 700 and 900 people on board, mostly in the hold where they were trapped after the boat capsized," said Gianluigi Bove, the rescue boat captain. "There was no trace of the boat, just debris and traces of petrol."
An Italian prosecutor, Giovanni Salvi, says the smugglers' boat that sank near Libya this weekend had three levels and the doomed migrants were locked in the hull and middle deck.
One survivor, identified as a 32-year-old Bangladeshi, has put the number of people on board the smugglers' boat at as many as 950, though Salvi said that number should be treated with caution. He added that the Italian coast guard had estimated 700 people had been on board, based on observations at the scene of the sinking.
Anger spread across Italy at what is increasingly perceived as a humanitarian tragedy to which the rest of Europe is turning its back. Renzi compared the situation to the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims supposedly under international protection in Srebrenica 20 years ago.
"Twenty years ago, we and Europe closed our eyes to Srebrenica. Today it's not possible to close our eyes again and only commemorate these events later," an agitated Renzi said in a press conference.
Before Sunday's disaster, aid agencies estimated that 20,000 migrants had reached the Italian coast this year and 900 had died.
The Italian coastguard ship Bruno Gregoracci docked in Malta at about 8am and dropped off two dozen bodies recovered from this weekend's wreck, including children, according to the aid agency Save the Children. They will be buried on Malta.
Maltese citizens were urged to send bouquets of flowers for the victims to the mortuary of Mater Dei hospital by the hospital's chief executive, Ivan Falzon.
"I'm asking you to go ahead and order a bouquet, a little thought for these people. They don't have anyone to do it for them in little Malta," he said, according to a report in the Times of Malta. "Most probably their family, relatives, friends, don't even know that they've ceased to exist."
Fourteen bouquets have already arrived.
While search-and-rescue operations continued near the site of the shipwreck, the captain of the Italian vessel Gianluigi Bove told reporters in Malta that it was unlikely any more survivors would be found.
"We did what was possible. At the time of the alert, we were 80 miles off the incident site," he said. "It took us six hours to reach the area."
While aid agencies have not yet had access to the survivors of the wreck, one survivor airlifted to Sicily for medical treatment said the fishing boat had been carrying about 950 people, including many women and children.
When a commercial vessel passed by, the passengers surged to one side to call for help and the ship capsized. It was the second time in recent weeks that such an accident was reported.
Upon arrival in Italy, the 27 survivors are expected to be given blankets, food and water before being moved to a reception centre run by the Italian government. Aid agencies such as the International Organisation for Migration and Save the Children have officials in these welcome centres that can help evaluate the victims' needs, particularly those of children who have been traumatised by the treacherous voyage and might be travelling without a parent.
Such reception areas are nearing full capacity and Italian officials on Monday warned that asylum policies in Europe needed to be amended to spread migrants more equally throughout the EU.
When pressed for answers on how to stem the crisis, Renzi suggested that a Europe-wide focus on rooting out and arresting human traffickers – whom he repeatedly compared to slave traders – was a first step.
"We are in the presence of a criminal organisation that is making a lot of money but mostly is ruining many human lives. Our country cannot allow this kind of trade in human lives," he said.
However, Renzi ruled out a naval blockade in international waters, which has been touted as a possible solution. The prime minister said that would be a gift to smugglers because it would essentially allow them to send migrants off by the thousands to be picked up by the European vessels.
Police in Palermo announced on Monday that they had arrested two men suspected of being important human traffickers who operate on the Italy-Libya route, Ermias Ghermay and Medhane Yehdego Redae.
Ghermay is an Ethiopian who is believed by authorities to be responsible for the 2013 shipwreck that killed 366 people off the coast of Lampedusa.
Also on Monday, at least three people died when a boat ran aground off of Rhodes. Video footage showed a large, wooden, double-masted vessel packed with people just metres from the land. It rocked wildly in the waves and passengers were seen jumping into the sea and swimming towards the shore.
Well UKIP said migrants would be less likely to attempt this if the UK was to leave the EU.
While human smuggling is a pretty horrible thing and perhaps Europe could do a better job shutting these guys down I have a hard time comparing that to genocide.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2015, 07:26:07 PM
Well UKIP said migrants would be less likely to attempt this if the UK was to leave the EU.
It is true. The US is not in the EU and we have no problems like this on our borders.
Nothing a 700 foot tall wall couldn't fix.
Tony Abbott has the answer it seems. Turn the boats around! Because if 900 deaths doesn't dissuade you from trying yourself then those 900 people returning unsatisfied to your shore will?
Turning the boats around doesn't work, because they'll simply turn around again as soon as the navy isn't looking. In the 80s and 90s, HK had to deal with tons of Vietnamese boat people. What finally worked was to send them back after they had landed.
Remarkably, the British still considers its Libya policy a success.
There are 30 year-olds with OBEs from the Libya operation. The mind boggles.
Quote from: Warspite on April 21, 2015, 06:06:20 AM
Remarkably, the British still considers its Libya policy a success.
There are 30 year-olds with OBEs from the Libya operation. The mind boggles.
Agreed, the mind boggles. Libya is now a hotbed of different extremist groups fighting for control. ISIS is so brazen there, feels so safe, that they again put on a public display and video of murdering a group of Christians.
Should never have gotten involved, should have left Ghadaffi alone there as there was no good solution. He had changed his ways quite a bit, was cooperating with the West on intel vs extremist Islam, as he was likely as much worried about it as the West is. And I would think he would also have helped Nigeria against Boko Haram. Now it's another failed state that the world has to deal with.
We do not talk about Libya. It might make Hillary or Obama look bad.
Quote from: KRonn on April 21, 2015, 10:09:29 AM
Should never have gotten involved, should have left Ghadaffi alone there as there was no good solution. He had changed his ways quite a bit, was cooperating with the West on intel vs extremist Islam, as he was likely as much worried about it as the West is. And I would think he would also have helped Nigeria against Boko Haram. Now it's another failed state that the world has to deal with.
I distinctly remember taking Gadhafi's side in our Libyan Civil War thread and this is why. :)
That was a no win scenario. Either you intervene with a good chance of totally destabilizing the country, or you prop up an aging dictator whose inevitable death will probably have the same result.
The only way to win is not to play? :hmm:
I thought it was a reasonable course of action.
Anyway, the US was only playing a supporting role, so the blame for the ensuing disaster falls mostly on the Yuros. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2015, 10:22:15 AM
I thought it was a reasonable course of action.
Anyway, the US was only playing a supporting role, so the blame for the ensuing disaster falls mostly on the Yuros. :)
I'm not so sure. I think the US deserves at least some of the blame. After all, they didn't help Britain recolonize Africa, and that's the only way that any of this could have been avoided.
If the USA had collapsed into anarchy in the 1780s, would it have been France's fault?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 21, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
If the USA had collapsed into anarchy in the 1780s, would it have been France's fault?
To some degree. After all, the French did do a lot of work in removing the civilized government of the American colonies and replacing it with a lynch mob.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 21, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
If the USA had collapsed into anarchy in the 1780s, would it have been France's fault?
I would say no. The rule doesn't come into effect until WWI at the earliest and Vietnam at the latest.
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2015, 10:33:46 AM
I'm not so sure. I think the US deserves at least some of the blame. After all, they didn't help Britain recolonize Africa, and that's the only way that any of this could have been avoided.
Maybe, but didn't the British WANT to dissolve their colonial empire? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 21, 2015, 11:42:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2015, 10:33:46 AM
I'm not so sure. I think the US deserves at least some of the blame. After all, they didn't help Britain recolonize Africa, and that's the only way that any of this could have been avoided.
Maybe, but didn't the British WANT to dissolve their colonial empire? :hmm:
Indeed. And it shouldn't have been allowed. The lands of Africa and Asia are like pets: When you take them in, they become your responsibility. You can't just toss them out because you're bored of them.
Random thoughts I had thinking about this yesterday-
We really need a good solid world agreement between free and democratic countries to share the burden of refugees about.
Everyone takes some percentage based on their population and what they can handle. With countries of course being free to volunteer to take more above their quota.
The whole thing is also funded based on some gdp level above which you pay subsidies and below which you receive them.
That would help cut out some of the economic migrants and leave just the genuine refugees if there's the risk of them being allocated to Botswana or India rather than a cushy place in Europe.
(yeah yeah, they'll still try anyway.)
QuoteWell UKIP said migrants would be less likely to attempt this if the UK was to leave the EU.
I live in Switzerland. This place is swarming with African migrants. UKIP aren't just mistaken in their policies, they're utterly wrong on all the assumptions they base them on.
Countries should have a quota, but should be able to pay other countries to take their quota (the original country still being responsible for the cost of supporting the refugees). Then, you won't see refugees ending up in countries with the highest welfare benefits, as opposed to the greatest number of jobs.
The main issue is that the border states, which also are the poorest, are left with all the work and the refugees. Norway's a Schengen treaty member, yet do little to support the operations in the Med, like Triton and Mare Nostrum before that.
I will not send European boys to do something that African boys should be doing for themselves.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2015, 05:49:56 AM
Turning the boats around doesn't work, because they'll simply turn around again as soon as the navy isn't looking. In the 80s and 90s, HK had to deal with tons of Vietnamese boat people. What finally worked was to send them back after they had landed.
Yes, stopping this sort of thing is rather easy technically, but the political will for that isn't there in modern Europe, at least not yet.
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2015, 12:20:03 PM
Random thoughts I had thinking about this yesterday-
We really need a good solid world agreement between free and democratic countries to share the burden of refugees about.
Everyone takes some percentage based on their population and what they can handle. With countries of course being free to volunteer to take more above their quota.
The whole thing is also funded based on some gdp level above which you pay subsidies and below which you receive them.
That would help cut out some of the economic migrants and leave just the genuine refugees if there's the risk of them being allocated to Botswana or India rather than a cushy place in Europe.
(yeah yeah, they'll still try anyway.)
Wouldn't it make more sense to just eliminate the problem altogether by not allowing any refugees, anywhere?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 21, 2015, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 21, 2015, 05:49:56 AM
Turning the boats around doesn't work, because they'll simply turn around again as soon as the navy isn't looking. In the 80s and 90s, HK had to deal with tons of Vietnamese boat people. What finally worked was to send them back after they had landed.
Yes, stopping this sort of thing is rather easy technically, but the political will for that isn't there in modern Europe, at least not yet.
We've been trying to send them back home for aeons. That's why nobody crosses with papers.
The only thing that keeps smugglers ashore is bribing North African rulers, and rarely for long.
Quote from: Caliga on April 21, 2015, 10:21:35 AM
The only way to win is not to play? :hmm:
Even that doesn't work, both in Libya and Syria, there was too often the "Why isn't freedom-loving America helping us rebels?!" to lay on the giant guilt trip...and then those few, freedom-loving rebels get ROFL-stomped by the Islamists.
Well, in line with the plan by the Europan Commission, Spain and Italy submitted to the UN a proposal that envisages the sinking of the ships on the Lybian ports, before they can set sail for Italy.
http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/04/21/actualidad/1429646930_191803.html (http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/04/21/actualidad/1429646930_191803.html)
The idea seems good. Europe cannot allow a mass landing in Sicily while we are trying to stop the Russians in the Ukraine.
But I would hardly trust the Italians to such a task. Better send in the Luftwaffe. Maybe the Italian Air Force can perform an auxiliary role (and perhaps some French planes can be scrounged to help?)
That handled, we can go back to pressing affairs: quashing the resistance in Greece before they can call upon the Russian or American (?) 'aid' they 'claim' they can get.
When it comes to attacking ships in port, the RN is probably your best bet.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 22, 2015, 09:13:21 AM
That handled, we can go back to pressing affairs: quashing the resistance in Greece before they can call upon the Russian or American (?) 'aid' they 'claim' they can get.
:lol:
Quote from: Neil on April 22, 2015, 09:16:49 AM
When it comes to attacking ships in port, the RN is probably your best bet.
True, but London seems to have issues at the moment with their carriers and getting planes on them. :bowler:
Not to mention the Brits would love to see Europe flounder :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi
:lol:
That was my reaction, too. But the statement remains:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31350547 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31350547)
[quote)
Panos Kammenos, who heads the junior coalition partner Independent Greeks, said Greece had an obligation to go to "plan B" if proposals are rejected.
(...)
"But if there is no deal, and if we see that Germany remains rigid and wants to blow apart Europe, then we have the obligation to go to plan B.
"Plan B is to get funding from another source. It could be the United States at best, it could be Russia (...)"
Aren't you kind of a commie Martim, and as such, sympathetic to these loons?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2015, 09:36:02 AM
Aren't you kind of a commie Martim, and as such, sympathetic to these loons?
Ignoring the obvious slander, I will add that I am an European first and foremost.
And Syriza's ideology has detalis - unappopriate to discuss in a thread about migrants - that prevent me from being that sympathetic to them.
Quote from: Syt on April 21, 2015, 10:20:29 AM
That was a no win scenario. Either you intervene with a good chance of totally destabilizing the country, or you prop up an aging dictator whose inevitable death will probably have the same result.
I think Ghaddafi would have put down the revolt. It was likely way overblown as a humanitarian issue in order to get NATO to intervene. If Ghaddafi remained in power, when he died then likely one of his sons would take over. Not great but there were really no good solutions and our meddling sped up the place becoming a failed state ruled by extremists. We could hope that with the sons in power, let them make the transition to a better type of government in a more peaceful way. They were already working and cooperating with the US and West to some extent, which was in their interest in several ways, so perhaps over time other types of influence to encourage a gradual change in government policy would have been a better course.
I'm not sure that he would have been able to put the revolt down completely without outside support. I think it might have devolved into a Syria-like situation with him perhaps not regaining full control of Cyrenaica. I definitely think he wouldn't have fallen from power though.
So what would be better exactly then Cal? :P
The only reason NATO did shit was to protect Euro oil supplies anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2015, 01:51:56 PM
So what would be better exactly then Cal? :P
The only reason NATO did shit was to protect Euro oil supplies anyway.
It would have been better for us to support him and help him crush the rebels, of course. That way he'd firmly be our bitch and would have behaved even better than he had been behaving recently.
Fucked up. Feel bad for that fisherman.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/greek-fishermans-despair-rhodes-migrants-wreck-n346086