Nato left 61 African migrants to die of hunger and thirst

[wautd]

Link

Nato units left 61 African migrants to die of hunger and thirstExclusive: Boat trying to reach Lampedusa was left to drift in Mediterranean for 16 days, despite alarm being raised

Dozens of African migrants were left to die in the Mediterranean after a number of European and Nato military units apparently ignored their cries for help, the Guardian has learned.

A boat carrying 72 passengers, including several women, young children and political refugees, ran into trouble in late March after leaving Tripoli for the Italian island of Lampedusa. Despite alarms being raised with the Italian coastguard and the boat making contact with a military helicopter and a Nato warship, no rescue effort was attempted.

All but 11 of those on board died from thirst and hunger after their vessel was left to drift in open waters for 16 days. "Every morning we would wake up and find more bodies, which we would leave for 24 hours and then throw overboard," said Abu Kurke, one of only nine survivors. "By the final days, we didn't know ourselves … everyone was either praying, or dying."

International maritime law compels all vessels, including military units, to answer distress calls from nearby boats and to offer help where possible. Refugee rights campaigners have demanded an investigation into the deaths, while the UNHCR, the UN's refugee agency, has called for stricter co-operation among commercial and military vessels in the Mediterranean in an effort to save human lives.

"The Mediterranean cannot become the wild west," said spokeswoman Laura Boldrini. "Those who do not rescue people at sea cannot remain unpunished."

Her words were echoed by Father Moses Zerai, an Eritrean priest in Rome who runs the refugee rights organisation Habeshia, and who was one of the last people to be in communication with the migrant boat before the battery in its satellite phone ran out.

"There was an abdication of responsibility which led to the deaths of over 60 people, including children," he claimed. "That constitutes a crime, and that crime cannot go unpunished just because the victims were African migrants and not tourists on a cruise liner."

This year's political turmoil and military conflict in north Africa have fuelled a sharp rise in the number of people attempting to reach Europe by sea, with up to 30,000 migrants believed to have made the journey across the Mediterranean over the past four months. Large numbers have died en route; last month more than 800 migrants of different nationalities who left on boats from Libya never made it to European shores and are presumed dead.

Underlining the dangers, on Sunday more than 400 migrants were involved in a dramatic rescue when their boat hit rocks on Lampedusa.

The pope, meanwhile, in an address to more than 300,000 worshippers, called on Italians to welcome immigrants fleeing to their shores.

The Guardian's investigation into the case of the boat of 72 migrants which set sail from Tripoli on 25 March established that it carried 47 Ethiopians, seven Nigerians, seven Eritreans, six Ghanaians and five Sudanese migrants. Twenty were women and two were small children, one of whom was just one year old. The boat's Ghanaian captain was aiming for the Italian island of Lampedusa, 180 miles north-west of the Libyan capital, but after 18 hours at sea the small vessel began running into trouble and losing fuel.

Using witness testimony from survivors and other individuals who were in contact with the passengers during its doomed voyage, the Guardian has pieced together what happened next. The account paints a harrowing picture of a group of desperate migrants condemned to death by a combination of bad luck, bureaucracy and the apparent indifference of European military forces who had the opportunity to attempt a rescue.

The migrants used the boat's satellite phone to call Zerai in Rome, who in turn contacted the Italian coastguard. The boat's location was narrowed down to about 60 miles off Tripoli, and coastguard officials assured Zerai that the alarm had been raised and all relevant authorities had been alerted to the situation.

Soon a military helicopter marked with the word "army" appeared above the boat. The pilots, who were wearing military uniforms, lowered bottles of water and packets of biscuits and gestured to passengers that they should hold their position until a rescue boat came to help. The helicopter flew off, but no rescue boat arrived.

No country has yet admitted sending the helicopter that made contact with the migrants. A spokesman for the Italian coastguard said: "We advised Malta that the vessel was heading towards their search and rescue zone, and we issued an alert telling vessels to look out for the boat, obliging them to attempt a rescue." The Maltese authorities denied they had had any involvement with the boat.

After several hours of waiting, it became apparent to those on board that help was not on the way. The vessel had only 20 litres of fuel left, but the captain told passengers that Lampedusa was close enough for him to make it there unaided. It was a fatal mistake. By 27 March, the boat had lost its way, run out of fuel and was drifting with the currents.

"We'd finished the oil, we'd finished the food and water, we'd finished everything," said Kurke, a 24-year-old migrant who was fleeing ethnic conflict in his homeland, the Oromia region of Ethiopia. "We were drifting in the sea, and the weather was very dangerous." At some point on 29 or 30 March the boat was carried near to a Nato aircraft carrier – so close that it would have been impossible to be missed. According to survivors, two jets took off from the ship and flew low over the boat while the migrants stood on deck holding the two starving babies aloft. But from that point on, no help was forthcoming. Unable to manoeuvre any closer to the aircraft carrier, the migrants' boat drifted away. Shorn of supplies, fuel or means of contacting the outside world, they began succumbing one by one to thirst and starvation.

The Guardian has made extensive inquiries to ascertain the identity of the Nato aircraft carrier, and has concluded that it is likely to have been the French ship Charles de Gaulle, which was operating in the Mediterranean on those dates.

French naval authorities initially denied the carrier was in the region at that time. After being shown news reports which indicated this was untrue, a spokesperson declined to comment.

A spokesman for Nato, which is co-ordinating military action in Libya, said it had not logged any distress signals from the boat and had no records of the incident. "Nato units are fully aware of their responsibilities with regard to the international maritime law regarding safety of life at sea," said an official. "Nato ships will answer all distress calls at sea and always provide help when necessary. Saving lives is a priority for any Nato ships."

For most of the migrants, the failure of the Nato ship to mount any rescue attempt proved fatal. Over the next 10 days, almost everyone on board died. "We saved one bottle of water from the helicopter for the two babies, and kept feeding them even after their parents had passed," said Kurke, who survived by drinking his own urine and eating two tubes of toothpaste. "But after two days, the babies passed too, because they were so small."

On 10 April, the boat washed up on a beach near the Libyan town of Zlitan near Misrata. Of the 72 migrants who had embarked at Tripoli, only 11 were still alive, and one of those died almost immediately on reaching land. Another survivor died shortly afterwards in prison, after Gaddafi's forces arrested the migrants and detained them for four days.

Despite the trauma of their last attempt, the migrants – who are hiding out in the house of an Ethiopian in the Libyan capital – are willing to tackle the Mediterranean again if it means reaching Europe and gaining asylum.

"These are people living an unimaginable existence, fleeing political, religious and ethnic persecution," said Zerai. "We must have justice for them, for those that died alongside them, and for the families who have lost their loved ones."

Additional reporting by John Hooper and Tom Kington in Rome, and Kim Willsher in Paris

What a nightmare must it be for those people on that boat. To expect rescue that never comes, unless to show its face but ignore them.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't know about you, but just about any EU nation is reluctant to give them citizenship of any sort to any refugees. The current fracas between France and Italy proves that much.

[Thanas]

Whoever was responsible for this should at the very least be sacked and face trial.

(What actually would most likely happen is that the French will go "nah, not us" and given their current support of their military this will go nowhere, whereas the Italians are just probably too incompetent to find out who actually messed up and Malta will just stonewall everything.)

[K. A. Pital]

This will be stonewalled and ignored, just as Thanas says. After all, it's more important to discuss how to keep the brown horde out of Europe reinstall passport control in the Shengen zone at an extraordinary European congress.

[Alyeska]

This is appalling. France even tried to lie about their involvement in this. People need to be sacked and sent to prison over this.

[cosmicalstorm]

What distinguishes the starving Africans in that boat from the thousands of Africans who starve to death elsewhere every day?
If that was the criterion on which you would be granted or not granted asylum into the EU, would there not be at least tens of millions of starving people and refugees who ought to be granted asylum right away?
I know I sound like some kind of nazi right now but this has bugged me for a long time.
If there were only two or three million starving people in the world, then by all means, take care of them, but thats not exactly the case.
It seems to me that the easier it becomes to cross into the EU, more people will take the chance, and the immigration problem will grow ever bigger. Especially when things like rapid climate change has the potential to set off huge waves of immigration.

Or am I being a complete moron now? Is there any really nice way to deal with a place like the EU-Africa border-zone? Would it really be realistic to grant citizenship to anyone who showed up there? My gut feeling says no, but I'm certainly no expert in these things.

(Note that I'm thankful to be born in Sweden and I'm sure I'd try to get to the EU if I was born in some poor place and had no other option than to flee my home due to war or famine)

[Samuel]

If that was the criterion on which you would be granted or not granted asylum into the EU, would there not be at least tens of millions of starving people and refugees who ought to be granted asylum right away?

Most of the people starving in Africa are too poor to emigrate. The individuals you get are from North Africa, which hasn't experienced any famines recently.

Of course, you could send ships to help pick up people from countries that are starving, but that would require helping non-voters at a cost to voters. Sure, net benefit is positive, but it will be a cold day in hell before "it is good for humanity" is an acceptable reason.

[Raxmei]

What distinguishes the starving Africans in that boat from the thousands of Africans who starve to death elsewhere every day?

Maritime law. Africans starving to death on land are not covered by the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.

2.1.10 Parties shall ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea. They shall do so regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found.

[Broomstick]

Reminds me of people dying crossing the Mexico-US border, although there the problem is a desert, not a sea.

Or people of the Caribbean trying to sail for Florida. With the difference that former refugees in Florida who have done well formed Hermanos al Rescate which, among other things, used to patrol those waters from the air and report people on rafts and small boats in distress for pickup.

Immigration policy does have an affect - in years when the US was much more liberal about granting asylum to any who reached shore the US got more refugees making the attempt. When the procedure was repatriation of those picked up at sea or on shore there were fewer making the attempt.

Of course, how bad the situation people are fleeing also has an effect - at a certain point people will risk death at sea in the hope of sneaking in somewhere.

I am saddened but not entirely surprised - abandoning refugees in distress at sea is hardly a new thing in the world. It IS a violation of international law and long standing custom. You're supposed to pick up the distressed, give them food, water, and first aid if needed, and THEN sort out who they are and where they should go. The guys in the helicopter apparently did what they could (you can't always pick up people at sea, that requires the proper equipment and training and it may not have been aboard) by lowering provisions. They most certainly should have reported the ship - maybe they did, but there are numerous such refugee boats in the sea off North Africa right now, it's possible it was reported and confused with another, or another boat in distress was picked up in its stead.

The aircraft carrier though - WTF? That's inexcusable. It surely had the means to pull those people out of the water, and surely had the room and supplies to house them until they were transported ashore.

[Uraniun235]

What distinguishes the starving Africans in that boat from the thousands of Africans who starve to death elsewhere every day?

Well, it sounds like their boat broke down after they'd sailed out to sea. At which point the key difference is that on land, you can attempt to buy food if you have any money, or beg for it on the street, or even steal it if necessary; you can do none of these things at sea. Even if it was only to take them back to Libya, some sort of aid should have been rendered. To leave them helplessly adrift at sea is both cruel and illegal.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah. If they deported them back, it wouldn't be nearly the same level of cruelty. On land a person still has more chances to survive.

The aircraft carrier though - WTF? That's inexcusable.

Routine, deeply engraved nationalism and lack of empathy. Same as earlier when NATO kills the rebels they're supposed to help with airstrikes and then doesn't issue any apologies, even half-assed ones.

[Broomstick]

Yes, I know how and why it happens - it's still inexcusable, as in, there's no excuse that justifies that behavior.

[Sarevok]

I get the feeling they did not help because it was a boat full of poor, black people trying to illegally migrate. As chilling as it might sound I think the crew on the carrier does not treat everyone at sea equally. Some peoples lives are worth far less than others.

[Broomstick]

Yes, bigotry exists. It's related to the stories of the brown people of North Africa pressuring black people from other parts of Africa to get on small, inadequate boats and go elsewhere during the current chaos.

Read an account yesterday of a man who has twice been on a boat fleeing Libya and both times the boat sank, but he managed to survive and get back to shore. Yet he's planning to get on yet another boat to get the hell away from Libya... The boats are overcrowded, inadequately supplied, and in poor condition, yet people still try to flee (with some "encouragement").

The people on the aircraft carrier likely assumed there would be no survivors to tell tales, if they cared enough to think matters through at all.

[Molyneux]

I get the feeling they did not help because it was a boat full of poor, black people trying to illegally migrate. As chilling as it might sound I think the crew on the carrier does not treat everyone at sea equally. Some peoples lives are worth far less than others.

It's still fucking inexcusable, and I certainly am hoping that someone who was on the helicopter comes forward and points out exactly who they reported it to; that person, at the absolute least, needs to see jail time. You don't let bureaucracy get in the way of saving lives, unless you're the kind of fuckhead who's unfit for human society already.

[Broomstick]

If we could sort out the business with the helicopter we might find that it wasn't some racist bureaucrat failing to send rescue, but perhaps another boat in distress picked up in place of the reported boat. That, at least, needs to be held as a possible case as there are many distressed boats out there right now and one could easily be mistaken for another. That would be simple confusion, and may not involve any malice or prejudice whatsoever. It's a possibility.

I find the aircraft carrier more disturbing, as that seems clearly a matter of lethal indifference at best, if not outright negligent homicide.

[Stravo]

As the father of an infant son when I read the part about the babies being fed the last of the water even after their parents passed on and then they died as well because they were too small I was just devastated. Unfortunately because these people don't have any political power aside from the sympathy they can generate from the general public so we may never have anyone pay for this.

[Edward Yee]

Yes, bigotry exists. It's related to the stories of the brown people of North Africa pressuring black people from other parts of Africa to get on small, inadequate boats and go elsewhere during the current chaos.

Read an account yesterday of a man who has twice been on a boat fleeing Libya and both times the boat sank, but he managed to survive and get back to shore. Yet he's planning to get on yet another boat to get the hell away from Libya... The boats are overcrowded, inadequately supplied, and in poor condition, yet people still try to flee (with some "encouragement").

Interesting take on this at Reuters:

PARIS, May 11 (Reuters) - The Libyan government may be forcibly expelling migrants in an attempt to flood Europe, the United Nations refugee chief said on Wednesday.

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has previously warned European leaders backing the revolt against his 41-year rule that he would unleash a wave of migrants against Europe to retaliate against military strikes on his country.

The arrival of large numbers of migrants fleeing Libya has already caused strains among European Union nations, with Italy, where most have arrived, saying it should not have to bear the whole burden.

"There are elements to make us think that at least some of the actors involved in what's happening today in western parts of Libya may be attempting to use this weapon of forcing people to move into Europe," Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Comissioner for Refugees, told a conference in Paris.

The war has caused misery for tens of thousands forced to flee overland or by boat, with hundreds of immigrants from north Africa feared to have died attempting to reach Italian shores.

The International Organisation for Migration has said more than 10,000 had arrived on Italian islands since unrest erupted in northern Africa earlier this year, including roughly 2,000 last weekend alone.

Migrants said they had been forced onto boats by Libyan soldiers who fired warning shots. Others said that although they had not officially had to pay for their crossing, they had been stripped of their possessions and savings.

"One thing is clear. You have a number of people that is totally inadequate for the (size of) boats and whoever is organising the movement must know that there is an enormous risk to these boats sinking," Guterres, a former Portuguese prime minister, said. "The second thing is that some people who arrived are saying they were forced to remain on the boats."

Not meant as a defense of this particular incident of course.

[Shroom Man 777]

NATO was too busy bringing freedom and democracy to the North African people of Libya and saving their lives to bother with these guys.

[Sarevok]

NATO was too busy bringing freedom and democracy to the North African people of Libya and saving their lives to bother with these guys.

Ironic is not it ? An aircraft carrier sent to save people from being massacred by a dictator ignores cries of refugees dying at sea in the most inhuman manner.

[K. A. Pital]

It's still fucking inexcusable, and I certainly am hoping that someone who was on the helicopter comes forward and points out exactly who they reported it to; that person, at the absolute least, needs to see jail time. You don't let bureaucracy get in the way of saving lives, unless you're the kind of fuckhead who's unfit for human society already.

Surprise-surprise, but most "societies" constist of a multitude of members, and many are bigoted. They are just never in a position to make their bigotry deadly (well, unless they can vote on a war, like, elect a crazy like George W. Bush, but that aside...).

When you suddenly give ordinary First Worlders weapons and power to save lives, take lives or ignore lives... they sometimes SUDDENLY don't live up to the high standard the more moral people among us expect them to. But the problem isn't they are misfits. The problem is that the society is full of bigots. Armies are drafted from bigots. Leaders are elected from bigots. To say they are misfits and the society is not at fault is to pretend a society does not carry any responsibility for its members.

The responsibility is very limited, but it exists. Forgive my sarcasm, but I'm not expecting much justice to be served here. After all, a bunch of "others" died. They weren't citizens or a matter of internal policy. They wouldn't even decide who is going to command that carrier by voting. They were nobodies and died like nobodies; and the press will mull over it for a few weeks and then forget this story for a tastier bit - like, the wedding or whoring of another celebrity.

[Shroom Man 777]

NATO was too busy bringing freedom and democracy to the North African people of Libya and saving their lives to bother with these guys.

Ironic is not it ? An aircraft carrier sent to save people from being massacred by a dictator ignores cries of refugees dying at sea in the most inhuman manner.

But Sarevokerritch, they didn't have a team of NAVY SEALS nearby designating the refugee boat with lasers for a JDAMRAAMLRSLBM9F-117/11 strike! If they couldn't save them by killing people... how else could they have helped them and change the Middle East and Africa for the better by... giving them free elections or free land mines or free shit or something.

[Sidewinder]

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has previously warned European leaders backing the revolt against his 41-year rule that he would unleash a wave of migrants against Europe to retaliate against military strikes on his country.

I wonder if this moron realizes that, by depopulating his own damn country, he's dooming its economy. Say what you will about socialist parasites, but without people to work in your businesses and industries, provide goods and services, serve as consumers of goods and services, etc., your national economy is FUCKED- and with it, the nation itself.

[Siege]

The responsibility is very limited, but it exists. Forgive my sarcasm, but I'm not expecting much justice to be served here. After all, a bunch of "others" died. They weren't citizens or a matter of internal policy. They wouldn't even decide who is going to command that carrier by voting. They were nobodies and died like nobodies; and the press will mull over it for a few weeks and then forget this story for a tastier bit - like, the wedding or whoring of another celebrity.

Or maybe the Council of Europe is already demanding an "immediate and comprehensive inquiry":

Libyan migrants' boat deaths to be investigated by Council of Europe
Human rights body demands inquiry into failure of European military units to save 61 migrants on boat fleeing Libya

Europe's paramount human rights body, the Council of Europe, has called for an inquiry into the deaths of 61 migrants in the Mediterranean, claiming an apparent failure of military units to rescue them marked a "dark day" for the continent.

Mevlüt Çavusoglu, president of the council's parliamentary assembly, demanded an "immediate and comprehensive inquiry" into the fate of the migrants' boat which ran into trouble in late March en route to the Italian island of Lampedusa.

Yesterday, the Guardian reported that the boat encountered a number of European military units including a helicopter and an aircraft carrier after losing fuel and drifting, but no rescue attempt was made and most of the 72 people on board eventually died of thirst and hunger.

"If this grave accusation is true – that, despite the alarm being raised, and despite the fact that this boat, fleeing Libya, had been located by armed forces operating in the Mediterranean, no attempt was made to rescue the 72 passengers aboard, then it is a dark day for Europe as a whole," Çavusoglu declared. "I call for an immediate and comprehensive inquiry into the circumstances of the deaths of the 61 people who perished, including babies, children and women who – one by one – died of starvation and thirst while Europe looked on," he added.

Çavusoglu's intervention came as news emerged of another migrant boat which sank last Friday, according to the UN's refugee agency. Up to 600 were on board the overcrowded vessel as it fled the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

Witnesses who left on another boat shortly afterwards reported seeing remnants of the ship and the bodies of passengers in the sea. The International Organisation for Migration, which has staff on Lampedusa, said it had spoken to a Somali woman who lost her four-month-old baby in the tragedy, and said that it was unclear how many passengers had managed to swim to safety.

According to testimony collected by UNHCR workers in Lampedusa, migrants on the second boat setting sail from Tripoli attempted to disembark when they saw the first boat sink, but were prevented from doing so by armed men.

The UNHCR has insisted that more communication is needed between coastguards, military and commercial ships to minimise migrant deaths at sea.

"We need to take heed of a situation that is very much evolving. We have to cooperate much more closely," said a spokesperson, Laura Boldrini, adding that ships should not wait for a problem to arise before attempting to help migrant boats. "Rescue should be automatic, without waiting for the boat to break apart or the engine to stop running," she said.

Following the Guardian report into the plight of the migrant boat left to drift in the Mediterranean after suffering mechanical problems, Nato rejected suggestions that any of its units were involved in apparently ignoring the vessel. Officials pointed out that the Charles De Gaulle, a French aircraft carrier identified as having possibly encountered the boat, was not under direct Nato command at the time – although it was involved in the Nato-led operations in Libya.

"Nato vessels are fully aware of their responsibilities with regard to international maritime law regarding safety of life at sea," said a spokesman.

French defence officials denied that any of their ships were involved. "The [Charles De Gaulle] was never less than 200km (160 miles) from the Libyan coast," read a statement. "It is therefore not possible that it could have crossed the path of this drifting vessel which came from the Misrata region. If this was the case, it would have obviously come to the rescue of these people, in some way or another."

In 2010, the statement added, French naval vessels intercepted around 40 refugee boats and came to the assistance of more than 800 people.

Campaigners believe that calls for European ships to be more active in assisting migrants are now becoming more urgent. "All of these migrant boats are incredibly overcrowded and these are desperate people," said Professor Niels Frenzen, a refugee law specialist at the University of Southern California. "Given the hundreds of deaths we know about – and many more we probably aren't aware of – any migrant boat that's being observed right now is by definition a vessel that is in distress, and one which needs rescue."

Frenzen added that with Nato, the EU border agency Frontex, national coastguards and other unilateral forces all operating simultaneously in the Mediterranean, there was an "incredible mess of overlapping missions and jurisdictional confusion over the boundaries of different search and rescue regions".

"We've got this incredible concentration of ships and aircraft in that sea, many of which are there under security council resolution 1973 [which authorises military operations in Libya], the primary purpose of which is to protect civilian life," he said.

The UN refugee agency issued a warning for all vessels to keep an eye out for unseaworthy migrant boats in the Mediterranean.

[K. A. Pital]

Or maybe the Council of Europe is already demanding an "immediate and comprehensive inquiry"

I know you seem to think that demanding or starting an inquiry is already enough to prove that "they care" (TM). Sorry, but I'll be convinced only when I see results of this "immediate and comprehensive inquiry". Many inquiries resulted in nothing.