Latest news with #RefugeeConvention
Morocco World
4 days ago
- Business
- Morocco World
Germany Moves to Classify Morocco as ‘Safe Country of Origin'
The German federal government is set to adopt a draft law granting it the authority to determine the list of safe countries, on June 4, with the list of safe countries reportedly including Morocco. Led by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD) coalition, this new law would allow the government to bypass the upper house of the federal parliament, the Bundesrat, where several attempts to expand the list of safe countries have mostly failed. The law will allow the German federal government to tighten its migration policy, beginning with stricter controls on asylum applications. By granting the executive branch the authority to unilaterally designate 'safe countries of origin,' the law paves the way for faster rejections of asylum claims from nationals of those countries, reduced appeal options, and more rapid deportations. This approach marks a shift toward policies focused on deterrence, emphasizing faster processing and stronger border control over thorough, individual assessments of asylum claims — thus raising concerns about whether the right to seek protection is being fully upheld. Read also: Earlier in March, the 'Interior, Law, Migration, and Integration' committee of the lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, stated in its official report that the federal government would begin implementing 'pushbacks at shared borders,' including for asylum seekers. This refers to the practice of forcibly turning away individuals at the border—often without allowing them to file for asylum or undergo individual case assessments. In Germany's case, 'shared borders' typically refer to crossings with neighboring EU countries like Austria, Poland, or France. Such pushbacks are widely criticized by human rights organizations as violations of international refugee law, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention, which protects the right to seek asylum and prohibits the return of individuals to places where they may face danger. As of now, Germany's official list of safe countries includes all EU member states, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ghana, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Senegal and Serbia. In addition to Morocco, Germany is considering expanding this list to include Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Nigeria, India and Mongolia. Under the proposed law, the government would no longer require approval from the Bundesrat to implement these changes, drastically speeding up the process and centralizing power within the executive branch. Critics argue that this move could lead to rushed decisions and further erode the legal protections designed to safeguard those fleeing persecution or conflict. While specific figures for Moroccan asylum seekers are not prominently featured in the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) public reports, data from 2018 indicated that there were 76,200 Moroccan nationals residing in Germany without German citizenship, with 505 individuals granted asylum status at that time.
The Citizen
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
What those on the plane to Washington said prior to Trump- Ramaphosa showdown
President Cyril Ramaphosa will have four ministers at his side as the delegation meets with US President Donald Trump this week. South Africa's delegation to the United States is in transit en route to its most high-profile diplomatic engagement in recent memory. President Cyril Ramaphosa is leading a team of four ministers this week for bilateral discussions with the Trump administration. The President is set to meet his US counterpart on Wednesday in Washington, and the nation is eager to see how the heads of state's contrasting personalities mesh. Question of national pride The delegation consists of Minister of International Relations Ronald Lamola, Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau, and Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshebe. The team will be tasked with protecting South Africa's interests on multiple fronts in the face of a US Presidency that has been on the offensive since taking office. The public wants a strong performance by Ramaphosa and the ministers, and the outcome of the engagement will have implications for national pride. Aid, tariffs, expropriation, the expulsion of an ambassador and an argument over what constitutes a refugee are all flashpoints that may raise the temperature in the Oval Office this week. Here is who makes up the delegation and what they have said about SA–USA relations in 2025. 'Sovereign and Democratic' Department of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola is the youngest of the group at 41 years old. The former ANC Youth League deputy president was junior only to then-leader Julius Malema and has backed the constitutionality of the Expropriation Act. In February, Lamola requested that President Trump's advisors rethink their position on the Expropriation Act. 'This approach will promote a well-informed viewpoint that values and recognises our nation's dedication to democratic ideals and governance,' stated Lamola. Refugee status for Afrikaners Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni was spirited in her refusal to acknowledge the refugee status recently granted to a group of departing South Africans. 'The decision by the United States to confer refugee status to a group of Afrikaner South Africans is misinformed, as they do not fit the definition of refugees as set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol,' Ntshavheni stated. Nshavheni confirmed last week that civil interest groups portraying South Africa in a negative light would be investigated for treason. However, Ntshavheni said she is not expecting a hostile reception at the White House, as it was the US that initiated the talks. 'There is no one who invites a guest to mistreat them, so we are expecting the highest level of decorum and necessary protocol,' the minister said. An experienced head In Parks Tau, the delegation has an experienced head who has successfully conducted business in Washington before, albeit under less tense circumstances. Tau led South Africa's delegations to the 21st African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) summit last year, and is well-versed in the legislature. In the wake of the US president's implementation of reciprocal tariffs, Tau said it was important to view the tariffs and their effect on AGOA through the prism of shifting global trends. 'As a country, we have had to begin to think about how we diversify our own trade and supply chains, so it is work we have actively been doing to ensure that we adapt to the new realities.' The odd man out DA leader John Steenhuisen will be the only member from an opposition party or government of national (GNU) unity partner on the trip. Steenhuisen stated on Monday that his priority would be to secure trade relations with the US, repeating his party's mantra of jobs and economic growth. Steenhuisen said the delegation would prioritise the interests of South Africans over party or ideological positions. 'As a proud member of this GNU delegation, I will endeavour to ensure every effort is made to mend and improve relations between the US and SA,' stated Steenhuisen. The President President Cyril Ramaphosa's stately demeanour could be tested by Trump as the South African juggles the need to appear firm in the face of aggression. Ramaphosa said that he was not worried, downplaying the meeting as a conventional engagement. 'Just as he meets with other people and I also meet with other people, it's state to state; we're representing our peoples,' Ramaphosa said on Saturday. He was adamant in challenging the US leadership's assertion that life in South Africa was not how it was being promoted. 'The false narratives about a genocide are not a reflection of who we are as a nation. During our working visit to the US, we will be advancing a proudly South African message,' he said recently. NOW READ: Ramaphosa meets Trump: Will Steenhuisen speak out on race-based laws?
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: The U.S. failed refugees during the Holocaust. Trump's Libya plan would too
In May 1939, a ship called the St. Louis departed from Hamburg, Germany, with 937 passengers, most of them Jews fleeing the Holocaust. They had been promised disembarkation rights in Cuba, but when the ship reached Havana, the government refused to let it dock. The passengers made desperate pleas to the U.S., including directly to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to allow them entry. Roosevelt never responded. The State Department wired back that they should 'wait their turn' and enter legally. As if that were a realistic option available to them. After lingering off the coast of Florida hoping for a merciful decision from Washington, the St. Louis and its passengers returned to Europe, where the Nazis were on the march. Ultimately, 254 of the ship's passengers died in the Holocaust. In response to this shameful failure to provide protection, the nations of the world came together and drafted an international treaty to protect those fleeing persecution. The treaty, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its 1967 Protocol, has been ratified by more than 75% of nations, including the United States. Because the tragedy of the St. Louis was fresh in the minds of the treaty drafters, they included an unequivocal prohibition on returning fleeing refugees to countries where their 'life or freedom would be threatened.' This is understood to prohibit sending them to a country where they would face these threats, as well as sending them to a country that would then send them on to a third country where they would be at such risk. All countries that are parties to the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are bound by this prohibition on return (commonly referred to by its French translation, 'nonrefoulement'). In the U.S., Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act, expressly adopting the treaty language. The U.S. is also a party to the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the return of individuals to places where they would be in danger of 'being subjected to torture.' In both Trump administrations, there have been multiple ways in which the president has attempted to eviscerate and undermine the protections guaranteed by treaty obligation and U.S. law. The most drastic among these measures have been the near-total closure of the border to asylum seekers and the suspension of entry of already approved and vetted refugees. However, none of these measures has appeared so clearly designed to make a mockery of the post-World War II refugee protection framework as the administration's proposals and attempts to send migrants from the U.S. to Libya and Rwanda. Although there are situations in which the U.S. could lawfully send a migrant to a third country, it would still be bound by the obligation not to return the person to a place where their 'life or freedom would be threatened.' The choices of Libya and Rwanda — rather than, for example, Canada or France — can only be read as an intentional and open flouting of that prohibition. Libya is notorious for its abuse of migrants, with widespread infliction of torture, sexual violence, forced labor, starvation and slavery. Leading advocacy groups such as Amnesty International call it a 'hellscape.' The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stated in no uncertain terms that Libya is not to be considered a safe third country for migrants. The U.S. is clearly aware of conditions there; the State Department issued its highest warning level for Libya, advising against travel to Libya because of crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping and armed conflict. Although conditions in Rwanda are not as extreme, the supreme courts of both Israel and the United Kingdom have ruled that agreements to send migrants to Rwanda are unlawful. The two countries had attempted to outsource their refugee obligations by calling Rwanda a 'safe third country' to which asylum seekers could be sent to apply for protection. Israel and the U.K.'s highest courts found that Rwanda — contrary to its stated commitment when entering these agreements — had in fact refused to consider the migrants' asylum claims, and instead, routinely expelled them, resulting in their return to countries of persecution, in direct violation of the prohibition on refoulement. The U.K. court also cited Rwanda's poor human rights record, including 'extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture.' If the Trump administration had even a minimal commitment to abide by its international and domestic legal obligations, plans to send migrants to Libya or Rwanda would be a nonstarter. But the plans are very much alive, and it is not far-fetched to assume that their intent is to further undermine internationally agreed upon norms of refugee protection dating to World War II. Why else choose the two countries that have repeatedly been singled out for violating the rights of refugees? As in Israel and the U.K., there will be court challenges should the U.S. move forward with its proposed plan of sending migrants to Libya and Rwanda. It is hard to imagine a court that could rule that the U.S. would not be in breach of its legal obligation of nonrefoulement by delivering migrants to these two countries. Having said that, and despite the clear language of the treaty and statute, it has become increasingly difficult to predict how the courts will rule when the Supreme Court has issued decisions overturning long-accepted precedent, and lower courts have arrived at diametrically opposed positions on some of the most contentious immigration issues. In times like these, we should not depend solely on the courts. There are many of us here in the U.S. who believe that the world's refugee framework — developed in response to the profound moral failure of turning back the St. Louis — is worth fighting for. We need to take a vocal stand. The clear message must be that those fleeing persecution should never be returned to persecution. If we take such a stand, we will be in the good company of those who survived the Holocaust and continue to speak out for the rights of all refugees. Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law, San Francisco. She is also lead co-author of 'Refugee Law and Policy: A Comparative and International Approach.' If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
The U.S. failed refugees during the Holocaust. Trump's Libya plan would too
In May 1939, a ship called the St. Louis departed from Hamburg, Germany, with 937 passengers, most of them Jews fleeing the Holocaust. They had been promised disembarkation rights in Cuba, but when the ship reached Havana, the government refused to let it dock. The passengers made desperate pleas to the U.S., including directly to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to allow them entry. Roosevelt never responded. The State Department wired back that they should 'wait their turn' and enter legally. As if that were a realistic option available to them. After lingering off the coast of Florida hoping for a merciful decision from Washington, the St. Louis and its passengers returned to Europe, where the Nazis were on the march. Ultimately, 254 of the ship's passengers died in the Holocaust. In response to this shameful failure to provide protection, the nations of the world came together and drafted an international treaty to protect those fleeing persecution. The treaty, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its 1967 Protocol, has been ratified by more than 75% of nations, including the United States. Because the tragedy of the St. Louis was fresh in the minds of the treaty drafters, they included an unequivocal prohibition on returning fleeing refugees to countries where their 'life or freedom would be threatened.' This is understood to prohibit sending them to a country where they would face these threats, as well as sending them to a country that would then send them on to a third country where they would be at such risk. All countries that are parties to the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are bound by this prohibition on return (commonly referred to by its French translation, 'nonrefoulement'). In the U.S., Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act, expressly adopting the treaty language. The U.S. is also a party to the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the return of individuals to places where they would be in danger of 'being subjected to torture.' In both Trump administrations, there have been multiple ways in which the president has attempted to eviscerate and undermine the protections guaranteed by treaty obligation and U.S. law. The most drastic among these measures have been the near-total closure of the border to asylum seekers and the suspension of entry of already approved and vetted refugees. However, none of these measures has appeared so clearly designed to make a mockery of the post-World War II refugee protection framework as the administration's proposals and attempts to send migrants from the U.S. to Libya and Rwanda. Although there are situations in which the U.S. could lawfully send a migrant to a third country, it would still be bound by the obligation not to return the person to a place where their 'life or freedom would be threatened.' The choices of Libya and Rwanda — rather than, for example, Canada or France — can only be read as an intentional and open flouting of that prohibition. Libya is notorious for its abuse of migrants, with widespread infliction of torture, sexual violence, forced labor, starvation and slavery. Leading advocacy groups such as Amnesty International call it a 'hellscape.' The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stated in no uncertain terms that Libya is not to be considered a safe third country for migrants. The U.S. is clearly aware of conditions there; the State Department issued its highest warning level for Libya, advising against travel to Libya because of crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping and armed conflict. Although conditions in Rwanda are not as extreme, the supreme courts of both Israel and the United Kingdom have ruled that agreements to send migrants to Rwanda are unlawful. The two countries had attempted to outsource their refugee obligations by calling Rwanda a 'safe third country' to which asylum seekers could be sent to apply for protection. Israel and the U.K.'s highest courts found that Rwanda — contrary to its stated commitment when entering these agreements — had in fact refused to consider the migrants' asylum claims, and instead, routinely expelled them, resulting in their return to countries of persecution, in direct violation of the prohibition on refoulement. The U.K. court also cited Rwanda's poor human rights record, including 'extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture.' If the Trump administration had even a minimal commitment to abide by its international and domestic legal obligations, plans to send migrants to Libya or Rwanda would be a nonstarter. But the plans are very much alive, and it is not far-fetched to assume that their intent is to further undermine internationally agreed upon norms of refugee protection dating to World War II. Why else choose the two countries that have repeatedly been singled out for violating the rights of refugees? As in Israel and the U.K., there will be court challenges should the U.S. move forward with its proposed plan of sending migrants to Libya and Rwanda. It is hard to imagine a court that could rule that the U.S. would not be in breach of its legal obligation of nonrefoulement by delivering migrants to these two countries. Having said that, and despite the clear language of the treaty and statute, it has become increasingly difficult to predict how the courts will rule when the Supreme Court has issued decisions overturning long-accepted precedent, and lower courts have arrived at diametrically opposed positions on some of the most contentious immigration issues. In times like these, we should not depend solely on the courts. There are many of us here in the U.S. who believe that the world's refugee framework — developed in response to the profound moral failure of turning back the St. Louis — is worth fighting for. We need to take a vocal stand. The clear message must be that those fleeing persecution should never be returned to persecution. If we take such a stand, we will be in the good company of those who survived the Holocaust and continue to speak out for the rights of all refugees. Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law, San Francisco. She is also lead co-author of 'Refugee Law and Policy: A Comparative and International Approach.'
Daily Maverick
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
White flight, black facts: Debunking the myth of Afrikaner persecution
We live in a world of smoke and mirrors, where fact is sometimes stranger than fiction and where (some) powerful people declare untruths to be true. These lies gain currency among those who would exploit a particular moment for their own personal or political gain or, among those who believe that complex problems have easy solutions. There has been much 'breaking news' 'just in' on local South African television about the Afrikaner 'refugees' who boarded an airplane chartered by the US government to provide safe haven for these people who have claimed 'refugee' status and are having their US citizenship expedited. The entire exercise is quite obviously absurd (not to mention a waste of US taxpayer money, but let that not be our problem). But it is entirely in keeping with the lies, drama and illogic of the Trump administration. For Trump the show is the point. And it's quite a show having people virtually airlifted from South Africa, so great is their suffering. One can almost guarantee that once these so-called refugees are deposited in Texas, Wyoming, Nebraska (insert flyover state name here) they will be forgotten by the Trump administration. Trump has not kept his word about much. His entire presidency is simply an exercise in grift, racism, revenge and ignorance, after all. This little group will also come to learn that the US is no land of milk and honey. The white utopia that they believe will greet them is in fact a country at odds with itself as it deals with its own racial tensions and inequality. And one in which they will have neither special protection nor special voice. The lesson will be a hard one. What is the definition of a refugee? Despite the show of performative politics, we must not be distracted. Facts do still matter. It is helpful to be reminded of the actual definition of 'refugee', Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone who 'owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of [their] nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of [their] former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it'. Regional refugee instruments complement the 1951 convention and have built upon its definition, by referencing a number of 'objective' circumstances compelling refugees to flee their countries of origin. For example, the definition outlined in the 1969 OAU (Organisation of African Unity) Refugee Convention includes 'external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order' (Article 1 (2)). The 1984 Cartagena Declaration includes 'generalised violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violations of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order' (paragraph III (3))'. (The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR). In addition, Trump has said that among the 'terrible things' happening in South Africa is the 'genocide' of Afrikaners. He actually uses the word loosely all the time. But, in all respects he is a careless man. To be clear again, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law… In the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes | United Nations) No quick fixes for SA challenges No one denies that South Africa has serious challenges and has (and has had) some pretty unserious policy proposals from the ANC in response. The current Employment Equity Amendment Act that is being challenged in court by the Democratic Alliance is an example. The ANC has often been more interested in ideology and race essentialism than actually fixing things. It's easier to endlessly legislate targets than to negotiate policies that grow the economy. Employment equity is important. It is important that the workforce looks different after 31 years of democracy and also important that the bureaucracy looks different and delivers effective, corruption-free services to citizens. But often (not always) employment equity and Black Economic Empowerment have been blunt instruments, succeeding in making a small percentage of South Africans very wealthy with little 'trickle down' effect. The proposed legislation and an Empowerment Fund (as proposed by Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau) cannot be a substitute for the hard work of growing the economy for the benefit of all. The first order of business should be to fix education and to build a country in which knowledge matters and is rewarded. In that way we grow a society of worth and wellbeing. And in all of this affirmative action has its constitutional place because our past remains with us. Denying that is also ahistorical and singularly unhelpful. There are no quick fixes to the complexity of our challenges. But, back to the refugees, two things can be true at once: the ANC has led with little integrity, specifically since the Zuma years. We are all still paying the price for State Capture. Many things do not work in our country given the dysfunction of the ANC, which has filtered down to our cities and towns. What is also equally true is that despite the perceived victim status many Afrikaners (and some other white South Africans) may feel, the facts simply do not bear out the perception that white South Africans, and in particular Afrikaners, have been victims of economic or other persecution. The reality is that intergenerational wealth and past privilege still contribute to the relative wealth and privilege of white people in our country. That should not be a controversial statement, but it often is, sadly. Unemployment tragically high According to the latest Quarterly Labour Force Survey released at the time of writing, South Africa's unemployment rate remains tragically high at 32.9%. The expanded rate is even higher at 43.1%. The report states: 'The unemployment rate among the black African (37,0%) population group remains higher than the national average and other population groups. The unemployment rate among coloured people is 23.6%, Indians/Asians 13.3% and whites 7.3%. Black African women continue to be the most vulnerable with an unemployment rate of 39,8% in Q1:2025. Coloured women accounted for 24% of the unemployment rate, Indian/Asian women 17.3% and white women 8.6%.' These statistics, while frightening, are both helpful and show a continued and commendable commitment to the power and utility of data in public life — important for policy discussions and fact-based solutions to our challenges. So, the true shame (and crisis) is in the fact that the majority of people who have borne the brunt of ANC misrule have been the black majority, not those fleeing to the United States. But what this unhinged Trump Executive Order shows is that US democracy is being held to ransom by a too-powerful president and very few countervailing forces to hold him back. Civil society and democracy's guardrails One thing we do understand in South Africa is that we need to protect our democracy. Our young democracy's guardrails have held up proudly against the pressure of State Capture; our vibrant civil society has stood up for both civil and political rights repeatedly. It was civil society that stopped Zuma's nuclear deal with the Russians, shrouded in secrecy and almost certainly corrupt. This past week we also heard that President Cyril Ramaphosa sent back the Protection of State Information Bill, or the so-called 'Secrecy Bill'. This bill was the reason for the start of the Right to Know campaign in 2008. Civil society organisations fought a valiant fight to ensure our right to media freedom, against broad definitions of 'national security' and problematic classification processes bent towards excessive secrecy and securitisation of the state. Ramaphosa sent the bill back to Parliament in 2020, and last week Parliament's legal services agreed that the bill could result in an abuse of power. And so after almost 17 years the matter has come full circle, thanks to activism from the media and civil society organising against such potentially egregious incursions on our freedoms. The world feels as if it is spinning off its own axis with blinding speed. As facts and reality are increasing casualties, we must not succumb to the show of it all. And importantly we must continue building a country for all who live in it, with our constitution as a touchstone. That is all of our task and not merely that of mostly failed and flawed politicians. DM
