Racism and Bigotry is encouraged from the top, but the real enemy is Global Inequality

The other day – about two weeks ago, the British Prime minister referred to the migrants at Calais trying to cross into the UK as ‘swarming..’ It was an insensitive term and many people rightly took offence. On twitter, many condemned such a wording as dehumanizing.

A few days ago, Philip Hammond, the British Foreign Secretary joined Mr Cameron, speaking of ‘marauding migrants‘ threatening the standard of life of British nationals in the UK. Again, Like Cameron, you have to wonder on which planet these people live on. Amnesty International called the language shameful. The Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael had this to say:

“The Tories’ language is becoming increasingly hostile and unsavoury. In reality, they are too scared to deal with the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Calais.

“Britain can’t escape the problem just by sounding ‘tough’, it needs to take a lead.

“It’s time we proved our worth on the world stage, signed up to the EU asylum policy and accept our share of vulnerable refugees, rather than expect other countries to do it for us.”

I think it is insensitive to describe other human beings in such animate and dehumanizing terms, and just goes to show how out of touch politicians really are. It also shows that humans from Africa, Asia and the Middle East are not valued in the same way British or European people are.

It’s a fallacy to see British leaders going around the world preaching democracy and peace, when right on their doorsteps, they are treating foreigners like crap. You can’t make that up, and you’d hope the world is watching.

Asylum Aid criticised the Foreign Secretary’s words as

“inaccurate and inflammatory statements”,

I agree, they present a skewed picture that divorces nuance for the situation. I’m waiting for the day a sensible British politician will rise up who will say to the people of the world that the actions of British leaders in the past have caused immense human pain, and damaged other lands far away from British shores. And some of that damage is still being felt today. I may not be alive when that happens, but I hope one day someone will be honest and brave enough call a spade a spade.

Knowing what I know about British History (both what you are taught in school, and what you find out for yourself), and having experienced first hand the institutional racism in the UK, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that in some sections of the UK population non-white people are treated differently to white people. There is extreme hostility against foreigners, which is not entirely surprising since the media fans hatred all the times. But it’s kind of strange seeing migrants contribute so much to the UK (not only via the NHS, but in the taxes they pay).

The government’s attitude towards immigration is so frustrating precisely because it is so wrong-headed. There is endless proof that the long-term benefit of migrants and asylum seekers are manifold – Ugandan refugees, for instance, have created approximately 30,000 jobs in the Leicester since 1972. Last year the Treasury’s independent advisers said that immigration is beneficial to the economy as new arrivals are most likely to be of working age – and even the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, stated that growing immigration to the UK “does tend to produce a more beneficial picture” for the economy. Read more here

So then why would a leader or a minister speak so negatively about migrants? Cameron and Hammond are hardly Nigel Farage, they can’t possibly be that ignorant not to see the repurcussions of their statements.

Isn’t such talk exactly the kind of talk which sows the seeds of racism, hatred and bigotry in society? Are these the kind of behaviours these leaders want to encourage in Britain? I think not, my guess is there is an agenda – some political capital is to be carved from all this.

To me this is how it looks: they are saying migrants, whose ancestors, Europeans took advantage of, looted their lands of every natural resource, enslaved their peoples, raped their women, made wars against them, divided up their lands along nothing but profit-driven motives, and generally reduced to poverty entire peoples – as they did in India and China; and whose descendants – the migrants – are now trying to find a way of escaping hardship, poverty, discrimination and violence in their own lands,  are not worthy of peace, of security, of assistance – seeing their past troubles, of prosperity. Essentially that they are subhuman, thats what the actions say.

https://soundcloud.com/rttv/calais-ryan

The Greatest Cover-Up in History ? How Imperial Britain’s Racist India, Africa & China Narrative ‎Still Persists

Actions speak louder than words, and what we are seeing here is an entitlement mentality. That it’s okay for historical European abuse of non-European peoples to be swept under the carpet; that the bombing of Libya, Iraq and support for Syrian rebels is irrelevant to the migrant crisis and must be brushed over, that if you plunder resources of other countries, and create economic and political instability…  its okay because if s**t happens, you can always close the borders. It’s the sort of things these people on this poster would say

criminals

During Nazi Germany’s reign, Hitler’s honchos put out propaganda which was later enacted upon to make life difficult for foreigners in Germany, in particular for Jews. What followed was a human atrocity that culminated in the holocaust, but which the Nazi machinery justified with all sorts of abominable stories. But there was a sinister motive behind the hostile rhetoric, and the Nazis made a lot of money out of it.

There’s always a sinister motive behind hostile rhetoric.

Today, the migrants at Calais are not being threatened by gas chambers or execution, but the language directed towards them – by politicians, not least the likes of the Daily Mail – is no better than that which was used by the Nazi machinery. Still, most of these migrants have no access to land or capital in the countries they flee; a polar opposite to Western corporations operating in Eritrea, Ethiopia, the various West African Countries, Syria and Iraq  – who have access to land and capital in those same countries.

The migrants have no security, and indeed may be at the mercy of criminal gangs and trafficking networks – something which expats in the aforementioned countries do not have to fear. The expats can get on with their easy and comfortable lives seamlessly, while the nationals of those countries – and their migrant brothers and sisters drowning in the mediterranean – struggle with day to day living, and can’t afford an existence, never mind a luxurious lifestyle.

Why do we keep on blaming the poor migrants whose poverty the West is partly responsible for? Countries where corruption, tax-evasion, profit-shifting and white-collar crime are responsible for the loss of over US$1tn in illicit financial outflows

ChristianAidDeath & Taxes – the true toll of tax-dodging

That is the real problem driving migrants to Europe – Inequality. Because if you have security, a good job, great educational and financial prospects and a social life – in your own country, why would you want to leave and risk your life for a pie in the sky?

British Red Cross managing director Norman McKinley recently said about the cuts to the money asylum seekers receive in the UK:

“These cruel cuts will plunge families into further poverty, making it agonisingly tough for parents to feed their children, and practically impossible to buy clothes and other essential items.”

What he forgot to mention is that many foreigners support family members back home. I know people who send as little as £20 every other month to a relative in Africa for one thing or another; to help someone pay for school, or for food, or to settle some bill. It’s not much, but it does the job, and helps people at the other end.

So then, if a government introduces policies that have the effect of creating economic hardship for an already deprived community/ section of the population, how will they be able to help their relatives abroad – who are in worse financial circumstances? It doesn’t make sense and if anything it’s counterproductive…

One final thing I should say is this. How many Swiss ‘migrants’ do you bump into everyday? Or how many ‘Norwegians’ or ‘Mauritians’ do you know or do you bump into on a regular basis?

Switzerland, Mauritius and Norway are rich countries, and their nationals live in their own countries because the countries have the capacity to create jobs and distribute wealth fairly amongst their people. When you look at Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and most countries in West Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, the story is rather different.

Further, European and American corporations are not paying bribes (in exchange for lax tax arrangements) in Norway or in Switzerland, or are they? At least you rarely hear of such corruption, unlike in the countries from whence migrants come.

If Western businessmen continue to fleece the countries from whom migrants originate,of valuable resources, how can European leaders realistically expect migrants to stay in their own countries? When the funds the country is losing is exactly the kind of money that would create jobs and an economy that can support that country’s citizens… Let’s be honest here… it’s not going to happen, and some of this rhetoric is a smokescreen to the real problems.

Mr Cameron, and Mr Hammond, if you are really serious about reducing immigration, begin by pushing for real global economic equality, at national level, within the EU, within Commonwealth, at UN level and beyond. That in my view has got a much higher chance of curbing migration to Europe than anything else.

The Last Words of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi

If there was a country in Africa that had an admirable social welfare system, it was Libya. At the height of Gaddafi’s rule, Libya was the richest country in Africa and fewer people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. However, recent reports about the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians by ISIS in Libya, exposes the magnitude of lawlessness which has plagued the country since the fall of Gaddafi. Libya is currently ruled by militia groups who were once the united rebels who managed to topple Gaddafi’s regime in 2011. In early January 2015, the head of US Defense intelligence warned of the growing influence of ISIS in countries like Libya, which are compounded with governance issues. Currently, Libya has two governments, one based in Tripoli and the other in Tobruk. And Benghazi, the second largest city in Libya, is controlled by Islamist fighters with links to al-Qaeda.
In 2011, the British Prime Minister David Cameron and the French President Nicolas Sarkozy, travelled to Libya in the wake of a defeated Gaddafi. A jubilant crowd received Cameron and Sarkozy as the liberators of Libya that was to begin a new lease of life after Gaddafi’s tyrannical regime.

Cameron addressed the crowd saying “It is great to be in a free Benghazi and in a free Libya”.

Sarkozy also addressed the crowd and in his speech he had this to say, “You wanted peace, you wanted liberty, you want economic progress. France, Great Britain and Europe will be on the side of the Libyan people”

Cameron and Sarkozy reassured the population of Libya that Gaddafi was cornered and that Libya was to be free of his despotic rule.

The last minutes of Gaddafi’s life were captured on video by one of the rebel fighters Ali Algadi, who filmed a captured bloody and dazed Gaddafi. Both Gaddafi and his son Mo’atissim were captured alive, but were later reported to have died at the hands of the rebels who captured them in Sirte. Amnesty International and UN human rights officials raised concerns with the dubious way that Gaddafi and his son died, when conflicting reports of their deaths surfaced.

This should have been the first indication of what was to become of Libya which was once a prosperous and peaceful country. However, Libyans and the West hailed Gaddafi’s death as a victory for freedom and democracy, but what they did not realise is that some of the rebels they were aiding were Islamic radicals with known links to terrorist organisations.

Since the fall of Gaddafi, it is difficult to talk about Libya as a nation-state because the country has broken up into city-states. The central government which is supposed to be based in Tripoli has little control of affairs in a country which is ruled by about a 1000 militias. In 2012, the US ambassador to Libya was killed in Benghazi when a group of militants stormed his compound. In early 2014, there were attempts to unify Libya through a draft constitution, but the process failed miserably due to minimal support by the Libyans. Only 500,000 people participated in the votes of the draft constitution, when about 3 million people turned out to vote in the parliamentary elections in the previous year.

Since the fall of Gaddafi, Libyans have bemoaned the greed for power and money that has consumed militia groups who have reined terror in the once prosperous country. GlobalPost engaged with civilians on the streets of Tripoli and all of them complained about the current situation in Libya. On the streets, no one openly embraced Gaddafi’s rule, but in private many spoke fondly of the period before the revolution that was under Gaddafi’s rule. One rebel fighter said:

“I would say the majority of Libyans used to like Gaddafi and they still like Gaddafi especially now they see the chaos…But none of them can say this in public. In Gaddafi’s time we were all afraid of the regime, but now we have multiple powerful groups in Libya. Now you don’t know who could arrest you, detain you, beat you or even kill you without shame”

Another Tripoli native refused to believe that Gaddafi’s tenure was better even though a lot of people in Tripoli thought so. He believes that it is normal for a country to go through turmoil after a war, and he is optimistic that things will change in Libya.

It should be disheartening for some of the Libyan people to witness the destruction that has engulfed Libya since the fall of Gaddafi. NATO played a pivotal role in defeating Gaddafi, but they have chosen to ignore the chaos that is Libya today and leading western countries such as the United States, France and the United Kingdom, have all shut down their embassies. The task of brokering peace between the many militia factions in Libya has been left to the UN mediator, Bernadino Leon who has called it a difficult task.

Thus, it is not rash to suggest that the West should therefore bear a large part of the responsibility for the destruction of Libya because they were the ones who supported the rebels to topple Gaddafi. In fact some intellectuals have suggested that Western countries were at the forefront of orchestrating regime change in Libya, primarily because they were after oil, and profit from trading arms with the new regime that would be installed (see another source here). Whichever way one chooses to view the intervention, it was very premature for the West to support rebels they knew very little about, and evidently, we can all see now that their involvement in the Libyan civil war has helped to hand the country over to militias and Islamic fundamentalists of all shades.

The change the West promised the Libyan people is a far cry from the benefits that the Libyan citizen used to enjoy under Gaddafi’s rule. Under Gaddafi’s rule some of the benefits for a Libyan citizen included free electricity, no interest on bank loans, all newlyweds would receive US$50,000 from the state to buy an apartment, the country had no external debt and 87 percent of the population was literate. Gaddafi was indeed a dictator, and like all dictators, had a long list of imperfections and human rights abuses to his name. No one sensible can condone that list of errors.

But if you take an objective view of the situation from then and up till now, then it is clear that recent events in Libya prove that the country was far better off under Gaddafi’s rule, than under the so-called NTC government (and subsequent governments of the General National Congress and Council of Deputies), which again and again have demonstrated their failure to govern or unite the country.

The last words of  a bloodied Gaddafi did not make sense when he posed the question to his captors,

“Do you know right from wrong?”

After all the bloody chaos (recently the beheading of Coptic Christians by Isis), one would hope that some of those militants who blindly fought Gaddafi’s rule under some misguided anti-dictator cum liberation sentiment now know right from wrong.

Links