
Year after Exodus, Silence Fills Panama Island Threatened by Sea
The evacuation of around 1,200 members of the Indigenous Guna community to a new life on the mainland was one of the first planned migrations in Latin America due to climate change.
The exodus from Gardi Sugdub in the Caribbean left those who remained with a sense of sadness, said Delfino Davies, who has a small museum on the island with spears, jars and animal bones.
"There are no friends left or children playing," he told AFP.
Gardi Sugdub now has the silence of a "dead island," he said.
Dusty desks and empty classrooms are all that remain of a school that once bustled with children.
Many of the island's wooden houses are padlocked.
"There's no one here. Sometimes I get sad when I'm here alone," Mayka Tejada, 47, said in the small store where she sells bananas, pumpkins, clothes, toys and notebooks.
Like Davies and about 100 others, she decided to stay.
But her mother and two children, aged 16 and 22, moved to one of the 300 houses built by the Panamanian government in a new neighborhood called Isber Yala on the mainland, a 15-minute boat ride away.
Gardi Sugdub, the size of around five football fields, is one of 49 inhabited islands in the Guna Yala archipelago -- also known as San Blas -- which scientists warn is in danger of disappearing by the end of the century.
'I'll die here'
Sitting in a hammock in her earthen-floor house filled with the aroma of medicinal herbs, 62-year-old Luciana Perez said she had no intention of leaving.
"I was born in Gardi and I'll die here. Nothing is sinking. Scientists don't know, only God," she said.
Perez said that she was not afraid because since she was a child she had seen big waves and rising waters flooding houses at times.
Steven Paton, a scientist at the Panama-based Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, said climate change meant that sea levels were expected to rise by up to 80 centimeters.
"Most of the Guna Yala islands are about 50 centimeters above sea level," he told AFP. "They'll be underwater."
Ana Toni, CEO of the United Nations' COP30 climate conference, told AFP that the mass evacuation "shows the reality we already have to face on the planet."
Sidewalks, water, electricity
The arrival of the rainy season has left puddles dotting the dirt roads of Gardi Sugdub.
In contrast, in the new settlement of Isber Yala -- "land of loquats" in the Guna language -- the streets are paved and have sidewalks.
The nearly 50-square-meter (500-square-feet) concrete houses have flushing toilets and there is a plot of land to grow vegetables.
On Gardi Sugdub "we lived crowded together, and I had to go fetch water from the river in a small boat," said Magdalena Martinez, a 75-year-old retired teacher.
In Isber Yala, water is available for an hour in the morning, she said.
"I can fill the buckets. And I have electricity 24 hours a day," said Martinez, who lives with her granddaughter in the new neighborhood.
Tejada's children also have no regrets about leaving the island, she said.
"I miss them, but they're happy there. They have a place to play football and walk around," Tejada said.
While the island's school relocated to Isber Yala, its dilapidated clinic remained in Gardi Sugdub.
"Before, people came on foot. Now, they have to travel by land and sea to get here. There are fewer visitors," said 46-year-old doctor John Smith.
Some of the islanders divide their time between the two communities, while others visit occasionally to check on their homes.
This week, there will be more activity than normal: seven jars of chicha -- a fermented corn drink -- are ready for Isber Yala's first anniversary.
Martinez is looking forward to the celebration, even though it will be bittersweet.
Although she may not see it herself, "the islands will disappear because the sea will reclaim its territory," she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arab News
4 days ago
- Arab News
As security tightens, migrants take more risks to reach EU
LONDON: The number of people arriving illegally in Europe has fallen in 2025, but experts warn that irregular migration will persist as conflict and economic hardship intensify and migrants forge new pathways to avoid tougher security measures. Arrivals fell by 20 percent in the first six months of the year, continuing 2024's downward trend, according to the EU's border agency Frontex, which credited the drop to increased cooperation with transit countries. Since 1 million people entered Europe irregularly during the so-called migrant crisis in 2015, the EU has taken an increasingly tough stance on illicit arrivals. However, experts say migrants are adapting to stricter EU measures at borders and becoming more reliant on smugglers and newer, often more dangerous routes. While overall numbers are down, arrivals have not decreased across every route to Europe, and new corridors have emerged as migrants and smugglers adapt. 'As one route declines, others usually surge or re-emerge,' said Jennifer Vallentine, an expert at the Mixed Migration Center, a research organization. Irregular crossings dropped to 240,000 in 2024 after surpassing 300,000 in 2022 and 2023 for the first time since 2016. Amid the downward trend, a new Mediterranean Sea corridor between Libya and Greece has emerged, with more than 7,000 people arriving in Crete this year. The Greek government has proposed a new law to criminalize illegal entry and impose a temporary ban on asylum applications. 'Harsh restrictions won't stop the need and desire to migrate, and with irregular migration the only option for some, smuggler services will stay in demand,' said Vallentine. The main irregular entry points across the Mediterranean and over the Greek-Turkish land border have remained consistent over the last decade. But activity on specific routes has fluctuated as people try to avoid increasing surveillance and border controls, according to experts. The EU has sought to shutter access at key entry points, said Helena Hahn, an expert at the European Policy Center think tank. The bloc has struck deals with Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, key departure points for crossing the Mediterranean, bolstering the countries' border forces with speed boats and surveillance and offering cash in exchange for preventing illegal migration. 'Cooperation with North African countries has certainly played a role in reducing arrivals,' said Hahn. Arrivals across the Central Mediterranean route from North Africa to Italy and Malta decreased by 58 percent from 2023 to 2024, which the International Organization for Migration attributed to more boats being stopped at sea and migrants returned to Libya and Algeria. But the organization also said the EU-North Africa partnerships contribute to increased activity on the Atlantic Ocean route from West Africa to the Canary Islands. The Central Mediterranean route emerged as the sea's busiest after the EU struck a deal with Turkiye in 2016, paying Ankara €6 billion ($6.95 billion) to care for Syrians who had fled their country's civil war. Turkiye also agreed to 'take any necessary measures' to block new illegal routes into the EU. Over the last decade, Europe has spent billions on surveillance systems and detection equipment and has posted Frontex staff at its external and internal borders. The Western Balkan Route that connects arrivals in Greece with Western Europe via an arduous journey through the Balkan states has been a target of these efforts and last year, Frontex reported detections of irregular crossings on the route had dropped by 78 percent from 2023. But the IRC only recorded a 16 percent drop over the same time period, which the organization said suggests people are traveling more covertly to avoid detection. 'There's a lot of deterrence, but it just makes people take more dangerous routes,' said Martha Roussou, a senior advocacy adviser at the International Rescue Committee, a global humanitarian charity. Migrants are paying smugglers higher fees and traveling more quickly by night, stopping less often to seek help, according to the IRC. The EU is set to triple its spending on borders in the 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework to €81 billion. '(Europe's) reactive approach fails to acknowledge migration as both inevitable and beneficial,' said Vallentine. 'Until regular and accessible pathways are established, we will continue to see irregular migration — and smuggling networks will continue to adapt to facilitate it.'


Arab News
4 days ago
- Arab News
From preventing harm to the maximization of suffering: How Europe fumbled migration
Europe's hastily constructed migration frameworks have evolved from mere bureaucratic missteps into the calibrated engine of devastation that we see today. What began as fatally misguided attempts at containment, fixated on hardened borders and outsourced deterrence at a cost of billions, has mutated into a self-perpetuating source of misery, amplifying human suffering to gain an edge in the face of the ever-changing winds of domestic politics. Naysayers will argue that the crisis that emerged as migrant arrivals increased, and the death tolls from unsuccessful attempts mounted, forced Brussels into what proved to be such a sloppy response and so there was bound to be some 'policy drift' — unfortunate mishaps to be temporarily endured until future interventions corrected them. However, the reality of the situation is rather different, because the sum total of Europe's failures is now a measurable, accelerating retreat from its proclaimed values, which is being executed using a cold political calculus. Humanitarian obligations are being discarded not through neglect but as conscious strategy. The driving imperative? Electoral survival at any cost, even if it means dismantling the very principles and ideals Europe projects globally. The initial failures have hardened into a purposeful architecture in which harm is not a byproduct but the main output. Consider the numbers: Brussels channels more than $5.2 billion into outsourcing its border enforcement, transforming Libya, Tunisia and Morocco into de facto migration buffer zones that inevitably become markets for cruelty in which payment hinges on suppression of arrival numbers, regardless of the methods used. The result? A 59 percent reduction in Mediterranean crossings in 2024. However, this masks woeful operational realities in the strategic abandonment of tens of thousands of people in desert expulsion zones, including surging death tolls, many of which go undocumented, and the identification of mass graves near the border between Libya and Tunisia. That is without even taking account of the domino effects of illicit economies and networks that thrive on 'double-dipping.' In Libya, for example, non-state armed groups easily obtain EU funding for containment efforts while simultaneously actively trafficking desperate people via 'safe route taxes,' boat fees and even 'auctions.' Europe has engineered a self-sustaining machinery of harm. By outsourcing brutality, legitimizing xenophobic rhetoric, and criminalizing humanitarian acts, it has rendered its own asylum norms obsolete. Hafed Al-Ghwell The fault for this lies primarily with programs, initiatives and sources of funding such as the EU's Neighborhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument, which financially rewards autocrats for migrant suppression while omitting any binding safeguards on human rights. Naturally, such myopic policies allow, inadvertently or not, evil to metastasize through impunity: regimes that often score the lowest on human rights indices face zero consequences for systemic abuses, precisely because they deliver the required reduction in arrival numbers. In Tunisia, for instance, EU-funded operations enable the regime of President Kais Saied to detain, extort and forcibly abandon sub-Saharan migrants in the desert, a policy explicitly designed to 'make life difficult' until refugees 'ask for voluntary return.' It is a chilling calculus that reduces human lives to the level of deterrence metrics, all underwritten by funding and tacit endorsement from Europe. Clearly, this externalization machinery is not a passive drift, or the handiwork of overzealous actors with a blank check empowered by Europe's tilt toward far-right populism. Europeans are now actively fortifying authoritarian governance abroad while simultaneously feeding political radicalization domestically. By providing funding and technical support, Europe is empowering its 'partners' to enact violent crackdowns and forced displacements, actions that in turn validate and intensify the nativist rhetoric within European capitals. This cycle is mutually reinforcing: electoral anxieties drive the funding, the funding manufactures containment 'successes' at the cost of human suffering, and these manufactured results further entrench the political forces demanding increasingly harsh action. Humanitarian principles are not eroded by accident, they are traded for a '59 percent' statistic. Simultaneously, the political landscape in Europe has been irrevocably poisoned by the very xenophobia its policies help to cultivate. Political corrosion now manifests as a self-inflicted contagion, wherein the mainstream parties that adopt increasingly nativist rhetoric inevitably accelerate their own irrelevance while empowering the very extremism they claim to combat. Germany's center-right Christian Democrats promised intensified border theatrics and mass deportations of Syrians while hemorrhaging support to extremists despite initial leads in polls, ultimately resulting in the far-right Alternative for Germany party securing 21 percent of the vote at the federal election in February. Meanwhile, the suspension of asylum rights in Poland, a move rubber-stamped by Brussels, failed to act as an electoral shield and instead merely paved the way for anti-migrant populists to secure executive and veto authority. The 16.6 million forcibly displaced persons in the Middle East and North Africa are confronted not only by razor wire but a continent that is actively investing in their suffering. Hafed Al-Ghwell These far-right parties now wield ministerial authority that is normalizing the dismantling of international protection frameworks. Their playbook is consistent: manufacture consent through spectacle, in the calculated normalization of cruelty and abandonment. Germany's Interior Ministry, for example, illegally rejected 330 asylum seekers within two months of performative border operations, a spectacle divorced from efficacy yet potent in terms of political messaging. Similarly, Poland concealed the documented deaths of dozens of migrants in the Bialowieza exclusion zone since 2021, a direct consequence of systemic pushbacks. Beyond the Mediterranean, other countries historically remote from front-line arrivals are also actively pursuing regressive policies, as European values capitulate to misguided reactionism. The human toll of this is both immediate and intergenerational. Germany's suspension of family reunification rights for subsidiary protection holders (individuals who do not meet the criteria for refugee status but have been granted international protection because of the risk of serious harm in home countries), primarily Syrians, will result in fractured households for years to come, severing integration pathways. Moreover, Germany now processes a mere 2.8 asylum claims per 100,000 people. The rate in Poland has plummeted to a negligible 0.4. These figures are dwarfed by the 8,900 in Jordan. This deliberate institutional collapse facilitates the next regression: the targeted erosion of protections for even Ukrainian refugees. Once deemed 'acceptable,' and initially welcomed as 'European kin,' they now face punitive means-testing, reduced child benefits in Poland, and the denial of social provisions in Germany under Merz's spurious 'social tourism' libel. Solidarity, it seems, expires when usefulness diminishes. The capitulation of the more moderate center-right has failed to contain the surge in anti-migrant populism or reduce its appeal to enterprising politicians seeking office or reelection. It has succeeded only in commodifying human suffering as electoral currency, and entrenching the dismantling of protection frameworks as standard operating procedure. Worse still, Europe is even criminalizing compassion. The 'Hajnowka 5' face five-year prison sentences in Poland for providing water and clothing to an Iraqi family. In Belgium, police colluded with far-right militants to violently dismantle solidarity vigils. The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, set for implementation in 2026, codifies this moral collapse by incentivizing 'remigration,' a euphemism for coercive strategies of attrition that effectively abandon migrants in a lethal state of limbo. The conclusion to draw from all this is inescapable: Europe has engineered a self-sustaining machinery of harm. By outsourcing brutality, legitimizing xenophobic rhetoric, and criminalizing humanitarian acts, it has rendered its own asylum norms obsolete. The 16.6 million forcibly displaced persons in the Middle East and North Africa are confronted not only by razor wire but a continent that is actively investing in their suffering. With far-right parties now entrenched in governments from Warsaw to Berlin — for now — and the EU institutionalization of deterrence-as-doctrine, any return to protection-based policies is politically foreclosed. Europe has not merely failed to manage migration, it has weaponized despair. The ruins of its values are now scattered in deserts, forests and voting booths alike. • Hafed Al-Ghwell is senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center in Washington D.C. and senior fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies. X: @HafedAlGhwell


Arab News
13-08-2025
- Arab News
The story behind world court's landmark climate ruling
Although the International Court of Justice turned 80 this year, there is a sense in which it has never felt younger. In a David versus Goliath moment, the tiny Pacific Island state of Vanuatu recently changed international law forever by bringing the world's most important issue before its highest court. The result was last month's advisory opinion on 'the legal obligations of states in respect of climate change,' as requested — at Vanuatu's urging — by the UN General Assembly (with 132 states co-sponsoring the resolution). The questions posed to the court were as simple as they were seismic: What obligations, under international law, do states have to tackle climate change? And what are the legal consequences if they fail to do so? The answer was unequivocal. States have a duty to protect their citizens from climate change — a duty rooted not only in treaties like the Paris Agreement, but also in environmental law, human rights law and customary international law. 'Climate change,' said the court's president, Yuji Iwasawa, speaking from the Peace Palace in The Hague, 'is an urgent and existential threat of planetary proportions.' 'The science is clear,' noted John Silk, the Marshall Islands' representative to the UN, 'and now the law is, too.' The fact that this bold message was delivered unanimously by the highest court in the international system would have been extraordinary enough. But the path that led to this outcome is even more remarkable. The most significant climate case ever heard by the International Court of Justice began not in a ministry or a think tank, but in a classroom. It was conceived by a group of 27 Pacific Islands law students who formed the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, led initially by Solomon Yeo and then by Cynthia Houniuhi, both from the Solomon Islands, as well as Vishal Prasad from Fiji, Siosiua Veikune from Tonga and others. These were not seasoned diplomats, nor were they backed by billionaires. But they were determined. 'Whether you win or lose, some fights are worth fighting,' argued Justin Rose, a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, whose classroom exercise first planted the seed of this unlikely revolution in 2019. The most significant climate case ever heard by the court began not in a ministry or a think tank, but in a classroom. Antara Haldar The ruling delivers a resounding victory for the climate justice movement, which has been gaining momentum ever since the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg staged her first solo protest. Now, for the first time, the movement's intergenerational demand for dignity and legal recognition has a concrete judicial imprimatur. It is also a triumph for the Global South. For decades, developing countries have called attention to the injustice of being exposed to the gravest consequences of a problem they did not cause. Now, the world court has acknowledged this asymmetry and taken the first step toward correcting it, vindicating, in particular, the countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change: small island states with vanishing coastlines, salinizing freshwater and intensifying cyclones. Countries long treated as voiceless victims have become the protagonists in a world-spanning legal story. This was not the first attempt to bring climate justice to The Hague. Palau and the Marshall Islands made a similar effort in 2012, but it stalled for lack of political backing. The difference this time lay not just in the Pacific Islanders' persistence, but also in their strategy for building solidarity. Refusing to follow the usual, stodgy diplomatic script, they brought the warmth of the South Pacific to international law. Houniuhi always wore a rorodara (a seashell-studded ceremonial headdress) to address the UN and her group treated the courtroom drama as an occasion for song and dance. Hearings were celebrated as watch parties. The Pacific Islanders also built coalitions across oceans and generations — working with Vanuatu's then-Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu, Caribbean allies and youth activists worldwide. With some countries even calling for financial reparations, the court process became a movement in itself. The International Court of Justice's ruling comes at a time when other international courts are converging on similar conclusions. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has just affirmed that states must curb marine pollution from greenhouse gas emissions; the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has, in an opinion on climate obligations, recognized the right to a healthy climate as a human right; and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is in the process of weighing in on the matter. Countries long treated as voiceless victims have become the protagonists in a world-spanning legal story. Antara Haldar The world court's opinion is not legally binding, but it is far from toothless. Its authority comes not from enforcement, but from amplification. It crystallizes a set of norms for courts, lawmakers and activists around the world and it sharpens the tools of transnational litigation. Hence, the decision is already expected to influence domestic cases, such as Greenpeace's suit against the Italian oil company Eni. It may also mean that countries can sue each other over climate change. The evolution of climate justice from a slogan into a legal standard may be the most important signal yet that a genuinely global legal system is emerging. By that I do not mean a world government, but rather a legal system defined by what the legal theorist H.L.A. Hart called 'the union of primary and secondary rules' recognized across jurisdictions. Climate law, once a patchwork of soft pledges and nonbinding resolutions, is being stitched into something more cohesive and robust. What the Pacific Islands students lacked in money and influence, they made up for in conviction. They worked on shoestring budgets, faced visa barriers and were repeatedly told that their campaign would go nowhere. But they kept going, proving that legal innovation does not have to come from men in suits; it can come from the margins and eventually change international law. 'We were there. And we were heard,' said Houniuhi in disbelief when the opinion was published, speaking for the two communities most impacted by climate change — Pacific Islanders and young people. The subaltern spoke and the world's highest court listened. Flawed and slow-moving though it may be, international law still holds transformative potential. As Rose told me, 'international law is itself a repository of stories.' The International Court of Justice's decision is a much-needed reminder that happy endings are still possible. • Antara Haldar, associate professor of Empirical Legal Studies at the University of Cambridge, is a visiting faculty member at Harvard University and the principal investigator on a European Research Council grant on law and cognition. Copyright: Project Syndicate