Nato units left 61 African migrants to die of hunger and thirst

[go west young man]

Source: The Guardian UK

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

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

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

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/nato-ship-libyan-migrants

---

Sad and tragic. This sounds like race was a factor in deciding upon rescue. These are dark times we live in.

[xchrom]

1. The 'West' - the great paragon of virtue & law & order. Nt

[Hissyspit]

2. "Raft of the Medusa"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_of_the_medusa


...depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on July 5, 1816. At least 147 people were set adrift on a hurriedly constructed raft; all but 15 died in the 13 days before their rescue, and those who survived endured starvation, dehydration, cannibalism and madness. The event became an international scandal, in part because its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain perceived to be acting under the authority of the recently restored French monarchy.

- snip -

In June 1816, the French frigate Méduse departed from Rochefort, bound for the Senegalese port of Saint-Louis. She headed a convoy of three other ships: the storeship Loire, the brig Argus and the corvette Écho. Viscount Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys had been appointed captain of the frigate despite having scarcely sailed in 20 years.<5><6> The frigate's mission was to accept the British return of Senegal under the terms of France's acceptance of the Peace of Paris. The appointed French governor of Senegal, Colonel Julien-Désiré Schmaltz, and his wife Reine Schmaltz were among the passengers.

In an effort to make good time, the Méduse overtook the other ships, but due to its speed it drifted 100 miles (161 km) off course. On July 2, it ran aground on a sandbank off the West African coast, near today's Mauritania. The collision was widely blamed on the incompetence of De Chaumereys, a returned émigré who lacked experience and ability, but had been granted his commission as a result of an act of political preferment.<4><7><8> Efforts to free the ship failed, so, on July 5, the frightened passengers and crew started an attempt to travel the 60 miles (97 km) to the African coast in the frigate's six boats. Although the Méduse was carrying 400 people, including 160 crew, there was space for only about 250 in the boats. The remainder of the ship's complement—at least 146 men and one woman—were piled onto a hastily-built raft, that partially submerged once it was loaded. Seventeen crew members opted to stay aboard the grounded Méduse. The captain and crew aboard the other boats intended to tow the raft, but after only a few miles the raft was turned loose.<9> For sustenance the crew of the raft had only a bag of ship's biscuit (consumed on the first day), two casks of water (lost overboard during fighting) and a few casks of wine.

According to critic Jonathan Miles, the raft carried the survivors "to the frontiers of human experience. Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest."<4><10> After 13 days, on July 17, 1816, the raft was rescued by the Argus by chance—no particular search effort was made by the French for the raft.<11> By this time only 15 men were still alive; the others had been killed or thrown overboard by their comrades, died of starvation, or thrown themselves into the sea in despair.<12> The incident became a huge public embarrassment for the French monarchy, only recently restored to power after Napoleon's defeat in 1815.<13><14>

[Judi Lynn]

3. Sixty one of the original 72 people died. Unbearable.NO excuse. n/t

[DeSwiss]

4. ''Collateral damage'' in an othwerwise wonderful humanitarian-intervention success story. Right?

US and British forces have fired a barrage of at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya against Muammar Gaddafi's air defences, the US military said. A top officer confirmed on Saturday that the missile strikes after President Barack Obama said he had ordered "limited military action" to support a UN resolution backing armed intervention against Gaddafi's regime.

Admiral William Gortney told reporters that "earlier this afternoon over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from both US and British ships and submarines struck more than 20 integrated air defence systems and other air defence facilities ashore." The first missile struck at 1900 GMT following air strikes carried out earlier by French warplanes, said Gortney, director of the US joint staff.

"It's a first phase of a multi-phase operation" to enforce the UN resolution and prevent the Libyan regime from using force "against its own people," he said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9041640/over-100-tomahawk-missiles-fired-at-libya/">link

- Since we never said anything about "saving anyone" with anything other than explosives, then this really doesn't have anything to do with us. Right? Right???

K&R

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Yep, and the rest of it's working like a charm, too.

The sheer mendacity of the whole operation is breathtaking: we're not just there to "protect civilians", we're taking sides in a civil war, with virtually all of our concerns being to be able to get our mitts on other people's resources without annoyance. Qaddafi is a wild card, and when he started threatening to nationalize oil in 2009, we simply wouldn't hear of it.

We are openly buying oil from the rebels, openly talking of taking Libyan money from our banks and redistributing it as we please, targeting him, providing advisers, and allowing at least the Qataris to violate the arms embargo. We aren't doing anything like what was granted by the UN, and we never had any intention to: the very day the operation started, French ground-attack planes attacked Libyan vehicles near Benghazi. Doing so out of a mandate to "protect civilians" was a stretch even then, and it is now.

This sad incident just shows how we really don't give a fuck about the weak. We care somewhat about the various Islamists and turncoats forming the rebellion, but not the very weak. The migrants are the most pissed upon of all, enduring overt racism from the rebels and living in true peril.

Those who were suckered into this war of aggression and resource theft should be deeply offended by what it's shown itself to be, but no: the extremists among the interventionists will ignore anything that doesn't fit their self-aggrandized moral superiority. The whole thing is disgusting, and it's a shame to see liberals and leftists buy such naked swindling and deception.

Truly sad times, and yes, these victims are our fault.

[sabrina 1]

5. And this is who we are told the Libyan people can trust

to help them in their struggle for a democratic nation.

This is shameful. Those migrants were afraid for the lives in Libya, many of them having been attacked by the rebels who accused them of being mercenaries.

NATO are not the only ones who abandoned those workers. When the Western Corporations pulled their workers out of Libya, they left behind the African migrant workers, without pay and without jobs, in danger of attack and with no way to get out of there.

It reminded me of Rwanda when all the white people were evacuated and all but one of them left, leaving behind those who had worked with them, knowing many of them would not survive.

Europe doesn't want Africans. But this is outrageous as those people were refugees. I hope someone is held accountable for this.

[Kurska]

6. I didn't see Gadaffi rushing out there to help them.

He was too busy mining a harbor supplying his third largest city, but regardless, this is a real tragedy. People who don't assist the most vulnerable in their time of ought to get what is coming to them. I hope the people who dropped the ball on this are found and made certain not to be in positions of life and death in the future.

[joshcryer]

7. Gaddafi mines and shells the port that the IOM is trying to rescue migrants from.

What else would compel them to make their disastrous trip but Gaddafi's tyranny? It's only a shame that NATO didn't act to help and it's unclear if IOM was aware of them (as surely IOM would've sent a charter to check on them).

Sounds like Gaddafi put them on a boat without enough fuel. It's telling that he put them in prison when they made landfall.

[makhno]

20. Gaddafi mined and shelled Tripoli?

What else would compel them to make their disastrous trip but Gaddafi's tyranny?

What else, let's see. Could it be the NATO-fomented civil war? How about the NATO-induced instability in a country that had previously offered employment to large numbers of African migrants? Or the NATO-led dismantlement of a sovereign state?

No, of course not. "Gaddafi's tyranny" is surely the singular reason for the humanitarian disaster that's unfolding in the Med.

[joshcryer]

23. I was speaking of Misrata. I'm sure the 1k migrants shelled by Gaddafi...

...think he's a wonderful protector of black Africans. :sarcasm:

[makhno]

25. Wherever that 1k figure came from

Here's something that's been bugging me:

Were the migrants, or the locals for that matter, worse off, in material terms, not some abstract Jasmine freedom and democracy crap, before the NATO cluster bomb terror was unleashed?

Not to presuppose the answer, but I think you might find the experience of the liberated people of Iraq quite revealing.

[joshcryer]

31. Your question doesn't go back far enough.

Gaddafi started this thing.

I assure you Misrata would've been in a similar state regardless of NATO's actions. The migrants went to the port for one reason. To get the fuck out of there. They were there long before NATO started helping.

The 1k figure is well cited, it was likely more than that at one point. IOM has done a remarkable job taking the migrants out of Misrata and to Benghazi (they aren't going to EU because the Europeans won't have them, just today the Uk denied them access, it was really bad).

[makhno]

34. Did Gaddafi really start it?

Did Gaddafi start the war? The man ordered a heavy-handed suppression of secessionist elements, which in turn got him into a world of hurt with his former NATO allies taking the insurgents' side. I doubt Gaddafi thought it would play out this way. He was probably hoping for a Bahrain or Syria type of mild condemnation scenario.

As to the other point, I wholeheartedly agree with you. European behavior regarding African refugees has reached levels of callousness seldom seen before. The next port mining operation will probably take place in Lampredusa.

[makhno]

22. Gaddafi put them on a boat without enough fuel

I'm sure he did in the NATO narrative.

Meanwhile, in the real world: "... after 18 hours at sea the small vessel began running into trouble and losing fuel."

Funny how Gaddafi's thugs were evil enough to sabotage the boat and yet forgot to confiscate the sat phones.

[joshcryer]

24. A state has a responsiblity to make sure things like, you know, boats run and aren't overloaded.

Gaddafi's people are directly responsible for these unworthy boats being filled to the brim with desperate migrants.

[makhno]

26. Sure thing

And NATO is doing everything in its power to maintain the capability of the Libyan state to enforce any rules and regulations on its sovereign territory.

[joshcryer]

32. The fact that NATO overlooked several of these boats shows that Tripoli isn't a concern for them.

NATO is focusing on rebel held territory to make sure that Gaddafi's attempts to rid himself of the insurgency aren't affecting civilians. NATO has done a remarkable job clearing the Misrata port of mines so the UN IOM can rescue migrants who were there before NATO even came into the picture.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Nothing is ever wrong when you're the good guys

There's no problem with the rebellion; it's truly honorable and not propped up by foreigners. A group that forms a bank before a government isn't questionable, nor are the rich nations who come to their aid despite the embarrassing reality of the great financial gains to be had by doing so.

Migrants aren't killed, raped and abused by the insurgents, and civilians aren't cynically used as human shields. Only the bad guys do such things.

A mission fig-leafed with the justification of giving a tinker's cuss about innocent people shouldn't be held accountable for actions in a war zone of its own making, nor should any recriminations be brought forth at all: the good guys are good. Any bad stuff is all because the bad guys are so bad.

It's a crayola set with no colors and only two crayons: black and white.

[joshcryer]

8. They left TRIPOLI. Gaddafi's "stronghold." This baseless commentary doesn't belong here.

Gaddafi shelled the Misrata port where as many as a thousand black African migrants were held up. They weren't "attacked by the rebels who accused them of being mercenaries." They were attacked by Gaddafi trying to stop humanitarian aid from entering the port.

[Lars77]

9. Nato units left 61 African migrants to die of hunger and thirst

Source: The Guardian

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

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

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

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/nato-ship-libyan-migrants

[fasttense]

10. Everyone who ignored them should be prosecuted.

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

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

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

[dgibby]

11. Agreed!

Man's inhumanity to man never ceases to astound. So sad.

[BadtotheboneBob]

12. Shame!

As a former Coast Guard Coxswain this offends me deeply... The ancient 'First Law of the Sea' is to always help those afloat that are in distress. No matter the flag, nor the circumstances. The Captains of those vessels should be held liable in some manner. Perhaps in the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

[dipsydoodle]

13. They should've been given help

to return from whence they came.

[Blue_Tires]

15. The influx of refugees into Italy and Spain has been a touchy subject

It would not surprise me in the least if they were conveniently "forgotten" about by rescue authorities...

[pinboy3niner]

19. Italy rescues 500 Libya refugees in 'miracle' operation

by Dario Thuburn – Sun May 8, 3:23 pm ET


ROME (AFP) – Italian coast guards and local fisherman saved all 528 refugees on a boat from Libya early Sunday after their vessel hit rocks off the island of Lampedusa, an operation one rescuer described as a "miracle".

...


"There were about 500 people on board. It was a difficult situation. Our patrol boats couldn't come close because of the shallow water and the undertow was very strong," said Antonio Morana, a coast guard spokesman.

Coast guards later said 528 had been on board, including 24 pregnant women.

"The sea was rough and it was pushing the boat towards the coast," said one coast guard, Davide Miserendino.

"When the first immigrants jumped into the water, we immediately dived in to try and rescue as many as possible," he added.

"When we finished, to be honest, we burst out crying and embracing. We all thought about those children in the sea. It was incredible. It was a real miracle that we managed to rescue everyone," he said.

...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110508/wl_africa_afp/libyaconflictitalyimmigrationrefugeeaccident

[Blue_Tires]

21. I stand corrected...

[closeupready]

16. With re: Raft of the Medusa painting, someone should do something similar with this incident.

Shame those who let people die needlessly, while memorializing the victims. :mad:

[No Elephants]

17. I guess saving lives is unimportant when you're on a humanitarian mission.

The irony makes me want to retch.

[makhno]

18. Humanitarian action

A little kick for a post that strangely doesn't seem to generate as much interest as Gaddafi's "crimes against humanity."

Love the spin about "European or NATO" units. Any European military vessels in the Med that are not part of NATO? Dump the guilt on the Euros, we're better off this way.

Love the noncommital statements by various bodies regarding the responsibility of very specific NATO officers in this travesty. If the article is as well researched as the Guardian states, the captain of the Charles de Gaulle should probably end up in the brig before Gaddafi.

Finally, love the crickets among the bien-pensants here on DU. That's 61 people who got a taste of what imperial RTP really is about.

Carry on, armchair democracy crusaders.

[boppers]

27. A map:

There's a few nations that are non-NATO in there. Some non-European ones, as well.

[makhno]

29. Don't really see any non-NATO Euro countries there

Good point about the Tunisian navy though.

[boppers]

30. For comparison:

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO )

[makhno]

33. Malta and Montenegro aside

All of the European countries in the Med and Adriatic are NATO members, as this map points out. We weren't talking about Switzerland, Austria, or Serbia.

Given the NATO naval and air blockade of Libya, I cannot in good faith accept that any number of surface or airborne assets failed to intercept the boat's distress signals and act upon the information.

And even if the boat mostly drifted in Libyan territorial waters (which does not appear to be the case), NATO forces, on a purely practical level, would have had no problems intervening to prevent this tragedy.

But since NATO's mission is regime change and not some Jasmine-flavored RTP love-in, I'm not surprised that looking out for refugees fleeing the civil war is not part of the pre-flight briefings.

[boppers]

37. Not taking sides, just providing data. eom

[Baclava]

28. France denies its aircraft carrier left migrants to die

London/Brussels - The French military on Monday rejected allegations that its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier left migrants to die in the Mediterranean Sea in March. A spokesman for the French armed forces categorically denied the aircraft carrier, which went into operation off the Libyan coast in late March, was implicated.

'The reviews are unambiguous. There was no contact with any boat carrying migrants, neither with the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier nor any of the other vessels in the air and sea ensemble that is positioned off the coast of Libya,' Colonel Thierry Burkhard told France Info public radio.

Furthermore, he said, the Charles de Gaulle 'had never been less than 200 kilometres from the city of Tripoli', or in the trajectory of migrants heading for Lampedusa

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1638065.php/France-denies-its-aircraft-carrier-left-migrants-to-die

[makhno]

36. I'd love to see the research for the Guardian article

It's a pretty hefty accusation, which, given the libel laws in the UK and France, carries that much more weight.

What about other NATO vessels in the AO at the time? How about the USS Kearsarge? Then again, does it really matter? NATO officers violated the fundamental law of the sea and should be brought to trial, regardless of their nationality or the constraints of their mission. It's a disgrace and truly one of the more disturbing articles I've read in a while.