Germany scraps funding for sea rescues of migrants
For decades, migrants driven by war and poverty have made perilous crossings to reach Europe's southern borders, with thousands estimated to die every year in their bid to reach a continent grown increasingly hostile to migration.
"Germany is committed to being humane and will help where people suffer but I don't think it's the foreign office's job to finance this kind of sea rescue," foreign minister Johann Wadephul told a news conference.
"We need to be active where the need is greatest," he added, mentioning the humanitarian emergency in war-shattered Sudan.
Under the previous left-leaning government, Germany began paying around €2m (R41.87m) annually to non-governmental organisations carrying out rescues of migrant-laden boats in trouble at sea. For them, it has been a key source of funds: Germany's Sea-Eye, which said rescue charities have saved 175,000 lives since 2015, received around 10% of its total income of around €3.2m (R67m) from the German government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
The hypocrisy of South Africa's arms trade: Job creation or genocide?
IOL As South Africa grapples with its legacy of apartheid, the arms trade raises profound ethical questions. This article explores how economic arguments for job creation mask a troubling complicity in global atrocities, argues EFF MP, Carl Niehaus Image: File By Carl Niehaus As a proud South African and a staunch member of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), I am compelled to speak out against the grotesque hypocrisy embedded in our nation's arms manufacturing industry. Companies like Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM), a joint venture between German arms giant Rheinmetall and South Africa's state-owned Denel, are churning out weapons of death—155mm Assegai artillery shells, high-explosive munitions, and components linked to incendiary horrors like white phosphorus bombs. These are exported to NATO countries, only to be funnelled onward to conflict zones where they fuel atrocities. In Ukraine, they bolster a grinding war; in Gaza, they enable a wanton genocide against Palestinians. And let's not forget shipments to places like Sudan, where human rights abuses are rampant. This is not economic progress—it's blood money, and the tired excuse of 'job creation' is a morally bankrupt shield that crumbles under scrutiny, much like the defences of German companies complicit in Nazi crimes after World War II. RDM's operations exemplify this depravity. As recently as July 2025, Rheinmetall announced a massive order for 155mm artillery ammunition from a European NATO member, with production heavily reliant on its South African subsidiary. Similar deals have poured in: Sweden signed a $526 million contract with RDM for ammunition, and multiyear frameworks supply NATO states with Assegai 155mm projectiles. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading These aren't benign exports—they feed into a shadowy supply chain. NATO allies, including Germany, have ramped up arms transfers to Ukraine, with Rheinmetall directly involved in delivering 155mm rounds to Kyiv under Bundeswehr frameworks. But the trail doesn't stop there. Rheinmetall's global network has been implicated in arming Israel, whose military operations in Gaza have drawn well documented accusations of war crimes from bodies like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Apartheid Israel has repeatedly used white phosphorus munitions—incendiary weapons that burn through flesh and cause excruciating, long-term suffering—in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon, violating international humanitarian law when deployed against civilians. While Rheinmetall publicly disavows certain 'controversial' weapons like cluster munitions, their denial rings hollow amid reports of phosphorus use in ongoing conflicts, and their ammunition often ends up in the hands of those who wield it indiscriminately. This isn't speculation; it's a pattern of complicity. Rheinmetall's secretive factory expansions cater to 'friendly' NATO countries while parallel businesses arm volatile regions. Exports have reached Sudan, where civil war rages with documented atrocities, and Malaysia, a market for RDM's munitions amid regional tensions. But the most egregious is the indirect flow to Israel. German arms exports to Israel surged in recent years, including Rheinmetall components, enabling the bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and razed infrastructure in what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has termed genocidal acts. South Africa's own history of apartheid should make us viscerally opposed to such enablement—yet here we are, manufacturing the tools of oppression in our factories, exporting them under the guise of legitimate trade, and watching as they rain down terror on innocents. The defenders of this industry—corporate executives, government officials, and even some economists—invariably trot out the 'job creation' argument. They claim that RDM's operations in South Africa provide employment for thousands, boosting local economies in a country plagued by unemployment rates hovering above 30%. Yes, factories hum with activity, workers earn wages, and supply chains ripple through communities. But this is a deeply flawed, ethically void rationale. Manufacturing weapons that enable mass murder cannot be justified by economic gains, no matter how desperate our nation's need for growth. The EFF is unapologetically committed to job creation and economic liberation— we fight for land redistribution, nationalization of mines, and policies that uplift the black majority disenfranchised by centuries of colonialism and apartheid. But we draw a red line: prosperity cannot come at the expense of human rights, nor can it rationalize the production of instruments of genocide and war crimes. This principle isn't novel; it's etched in the annals of history, particularly in the aftermath of World War II when German companies like Mercedes-Benz (then Daimler-Benz) and BMW faced reckoning for their collusion with the Nazis. During the Third Reich, Daimler-Benz transformed into a pillar of the Nazi war machine, producing vehicles, aircraft engines, and tanks while exploiting forced labor from concentration camps, prisoners of war, and Jewish slaves under barbaric conditions. Adolf Hitler himself favoured Mercedes vehicles for propaganda parades, and the company donated cars and funds to the regime. BMW, meanwhile, manufactured aircraft engines for the Luftwaffe and motorcycles for the Wehrmacht, with its founding Quandt family amassing fortunes through expropriated Jewish businesses and slave labor that claimed lives at an appalling rate—up to 80 deaths per month in factories. These companies weren't passive; they actively profited from the Holocaust, enforcing racial hierarchies and supplying the machinery of genocide. Post-war, the Allies imposed denazification, stripping Nazi-affiliated executives and seizing assets under the Potsdam Agreement. Factories were dismantled, foreign holdings lost, and production halted temporarily. While not dissolved outright—due to the need for West Germany's reconstruction—these firms faced investigations, management purges, and later, voluntary reparations. Daimler-Benz paid $12 million in 1988 to forced labor survivors, and BMW contributed to a 2000 industry fund totaling $5 billion for victims. Crucially, neither could hide behind 'job creation.' Their employment of thousands didn't absolve them; it compounded their guilt, as jobs were sustained through slave labor and war profiteering. The Nuremberg trials targeted industrialists like those from IG Farben for similar crimes, establishing that economic arguments don't excuse complicity in atrocities. BMW's Günther Quandt was classified a 'collaborator' and was forced to issue a public acknowledgement and apologies and also pay restitution to the families of the victims of the Nazis, but the moral stain lingers up to today. South Africa must learn from this. RDM's exports mirror that era's moral failure: producing arms that end up in genocidal hands, all while claiming economic benefits. In Gaza, white phosphorus shells—linked to suppliers like Rheinmetall—have caused horrific burns and environmental devastation, with Israel admitting use in past operations. In Ukraine, incendiary weapons have been deployed amid accusations of war crimes. Sudan and Malaysia add layers of instability, where munitions exacerbate conflicts. The EFF rejects this unequivocally. We demand an end to such exports, sanctions on complicit firms, and a pivot to ethical industries—renewable energy, agriculture, manufacturing for peace. Jobs yes, but not built on graves. Our nation's soul is at stake. We overthrew apartheid; we cannot now arm modern equivalents. Let history judge us not as enablers of evil, but as warriors for justice. The EFF stands firm: no rationalization of the indefensible. Stop any arms trade with enablers of genocide and war crimes now, before more blood stains our hands. *** Carl Niehaus is an EFF member of Parliament ** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL IOL Opinion
eNCA
2 days ago
- eNCA
EU defends Trump trade deal in face of backlash
STOCKHOLM - The European Union on Monday defended its trade deal with President Donald Trump, with EU capitals and businesses sharply divided on an outcome some branded a "capitulation". "I'm 100-percent sure that this deal is better than a trade war with the United States," top EU trade negotiator Maros Sefcovic told journalists. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched the framework accord with Trump on Sunday after dashing to Scotland as the 1 August deadline loomed for steep levies that threatened to cripple Europe's economy. EU exports are now set to face across-the-board tariffs of 15 percent -- higher than customs duties before Trump returned to the White House, but much lower than his threatened 30 percent. The 27-nation bloc also promised its companies would purchase energy worth $750 billion from the United States and make $600 billion in additional investments -- although it was not clear how binding those pledges would be. "This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances," Sefcovic said. Full details of the agreement -- and crucially which sectors could escape the 15-percent levy -- will be known in the coming days, although the EU says it has avoided steeper tariffs on key exports including cars and medicines. - European criticism - The reaction from European capitals -- which gave von der Leyen the mandate to negotiate -- ranged from muted to outright hostile. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was a "dark day" for Europe and that the accord was tantamount to "submission". Speaking for Europe's biggest economy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country would face "substantial damage" from the tariffs but that "we couldn't expect to achieve any more". He argued that the deal's negative effects "will not only be limited to Germany and Europe, but we will see the effects of this trade policy in America as well". Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he gave his support for the deal "without any enthusiasm". Industry groups in both countries made plain their disappointment, with Germany's main auto sector body saying the 15-percent levy "burdens" carmakers while its VCI chemical trade association said the rates were "too high". Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban attacked the deal in blunt terms, saying: "Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast." European stock markets dipped later on Monday, wiping out early gains and reflecting unease at terms viewed as lopsided. "It looks a bit like a capitulation," said Alberto Rizzi of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). "The EU accepted a fairly unbalanced deal," he added, saying it delivered a "political victory for Trump". - Europe security stakes - Von der Leyen had faced intense pressure from EU states to strike a deal quickly with the bloc's biggest partner and protect a $1.9-trillion trading relationship. Defending Brussels' approach, Sefcovic warned that a no-deal scenario -- meaning a 30-percent tariff and the prospect of further escalation -- would have risked up to five million jobs in Europe. Throughout the months-long talks, Brussels prioritised stability and maintaining good relations with Washington over escalation. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Trump ally, said the deal had avoided "potentially devastating" consequences. Hanging over the negotiations was the risk to other areas of cooperation -- such as the war in Ukraine -- if the EU descended into a trade war with its closest security partner. "It's not only about the trade -- it's about security, it's about Ukraine," Sefcovic told reporters Monday. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics acknowledged it was "clearly an imbalanced deal" if judged purely on trade terms. "But if you're trying to avoid worse national security outcomes, well then maybe the deal is not so bad," he said. - Cautious approach - The EU had sought to ramp up the pressure in the final stretch of talks, fearing a bad deal and higher levies, with countries approving a $109-billion package of counter-tariffs at the last minute. And states led by France were pushing for a more robust response including the option to deploy the trade "bazooka" known as the anti-coercion instrument. But the threat of retaliation was consistently framed by Brussels as a last resort should talks fail, and experts suggested the hardening stance may have come too late to make a real difference. "If the EU had played hardball at the very beginning, it probably could have got a better deal," ECFR's Rizzi told AFP.
Eyewitness News
2 days ago
- Eyewitness News
EU defends Trump trade deal in face of backlash
BRUSSELS - The European Union on Monday defended its trade deal with President Donald Trump, with EU capitals and businesses sharply divided on an outcome some branded a "capitulation". "I'm 100% sure that this deal is better than a trade war with the United States," top EU trade negotiator Maros Sefcovic told journalists. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched the framework accord with Trump on Sunday after dashing to Scotland as the 1 August deadline loomed for steep levies that threatened to cripple Europe's economy. EU exports are now set to face across-the-board tariffs of 15% - higher than customs duties before Trump returned to the White House, but much lower than his threatened 30%. The 27-nation bloc also promised its companies would purchase energy worth $750 billion from the United States and make $600 billion in additional investments - although it was not clear how binding those pledges would be. "This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances," Sefcovic said. Full details of the agreement - and crucially which sectors could escape the 15% levy - will be known in the coming days, although the EU says it has avoided steeper tariffs on key exports including cars and medicines. EUROPEAN CRITICISM The reaction from European capitals - which gave von der Leyen the mandate to negotiate - ranged from muted to outright hostile. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was a "dark day" for Europe and that the accord was tantamount to "submission". Speaking for Europe's biggest economy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country would face "substantial damage" from the tariffs but that "we couldn't expect to achieve any more". He argued that the deal's negative effects "will not only be limited to Germany and Europe, but we will see the effects of this trade policy in America as well". Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he gave his support for the deal "without any enthusiasm". Industry groups in both countries made plain their disappointment, with Germany's main auto sector body saying the 15% levy "burdens" carmakers while its VCI chemical trade association said the rates were "too high". Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban attacked the deal in blunt terms, saying: "Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast." European stock markets dipped later on Monday, wiping out early gains and reflecting unease at terms viewed as lopsided. "It looks a bit like a capitulation," said Alberto Rizzi of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). "The EU accepted a fairly unbalanced deal," he added, saying it delivered a "political victory for Trump". EUROPE SECURITY STAKES Von der Leyen had faced intense pressure from EU states to strike a deal quickly with the bloc's biggest partner and protect a $1.9-trillion trading relationship. Defending Brussels' approach, Sefcovic warned that a no-deal scenario - meaning a 30% tariff and the prospect of further escalation - would have risked up to five million jobs in Europe. Throughout the months-long talks, Brussels prioritised stability and maintaining good relations with Washington over escalation. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Trump ally, said the deal had avoided "potentially devastating" consequences. Hanging over the negotiations was the risk to other areas of cooperation - such as the war in Ukraine - if the EU descended into a trade war with its closest security partner. "It's not only about the trade - it's about security, it's about Ukraine," Sefcovic told reporters Monday. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics acknowledged it was "clearly an imbalanced deal" if judged purely on trade terms. "But if you're trying to avoid worse national security outcomes, well then maybe the deal is not so bad," he said. CAUTIOUS APPROACH The EU had sought to ramp up the pressure in the final stretch of talks, fearing a bad deal and higher levies, with countries approving a $109-billion package of counter-tariffs at the last minute. And states led by France were pushing for a more robust response including the option to deploy the trade "bazooka" known as the anti-coercion instrument. But the threat of retaliation was consistently framed by Brussels as a last resort should talks fail, and experts suggested the hardening stance may have come too late to make a real difference. "If the EU had played hardball at the very beginning, it probably could have got a better deal," ECFR's Rizzi told AFP.
