Author: Jillian Matthews

New Italy-Albania Migration Deal Raises Human Rights Concerns

Throughout the past decade, the European Union (EU) has seen a rapid influx of refugees entering its countries as people flee violence, war, and persecution. Though this number peaked in 2015, a notable amount of migrants have continued to enter Europe, with roughly 385,000 seeking safety in European countries throughout 2023 alone. While irregular border crossings make up a small percentage of total immigration, concerns surrounding asylum-seekers and migrants have risen throughout the EU and have become highly politicized topics. Today, many countries in the region argue for strict border protections and harsher policies to be implemented into the union.

Being a coastal nation, Italy claims it has received a greater burden than other EU countries have, taking in over one million migrants since 2013. To counter this, Italy has recently entered into a deal with Albania, hoping to minimize immigration numbers. This agreement, pushed forward by Italy’s anti-immigration prime minister Giorgia Meloni, allows Italy to build and manage immigration detention centers within Albania’s borders and promises quicker screening of asylum claims. Albania will only receive those from “safe” countries, or nations the agreement deems free from violence and persecution; those seeking refuge from countries outside this list will continue to have their claims heard in Italy. While many argue that this system is an innovative solution to the question of immigration throughout the European Union, these decisions have been criticized by human rights advocates and Italy’s own judicial branch and raise concerns surrounding the treatment of asylum-seekers on a global scale.

A large groups of asylum-seekers sit near the Italian coast after their journey from their home country.
Image 1: Migrants sit on the Italian coast. Source: Yahoo Images

What is the Italy-Albania Agreement on Migration?

The Italy-Albania migration deal, finalized earlier this year and set into force in October, is an agreement between the two countries and is meant to reduce the number of immigrants entering Italy. Under this program, male asylum-seekers from predetermined “safe” countries found outside the European Union’s territorial waters are transferred to detention centers in Albanian cities. At these centers, detained migrants will experience expedited screenings, receiving their claim results in 28 days or less, with each person’s claim being reviewed by special courts. Based on the verdict, those granted asylum will be transferred to Italy, and those whose claims are rejected will be repatriated or sent back to their home country. Women, children, and vulnerable groups will be immediately sent to Italy, and it is promised that families will not be separated.  

This project is set to last for five years, process 36,000 claims annually, and have a total cost of 670 million euros, or $729 million. Albanian detention facilities will fall entirely under Italian jurisdiction and be fully staffed by Italian citizens, obligating these centers to remain compliant with the European Union’s laws on immigration and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. As mentioned, these centers will only detain those from “safe” countries. These are countries that the agreement deems free of persecution, torture, and other forms of inhuman treatment. This list originally included 22 nations but was recently reduced to 19. It lists countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Bangladesh, and happens to include nations with some of the highest migration numbers. Migrants from these countries can still apply for asylum, though the odds of being granted are slim, as the agreement acknowledges that most of these claims will be rejected. Those whose claims are rejected will remain in Albania until plans are made to return them to their country of origin. 

Albanian and Italian prime ministers shake hands after singing new immigration deal
Image 2: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni shakes hands with Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama. Source: Yahoo Images

Objectives of the New Italy-Albania Migration Deal

One of the primary objectives of this initiative is to reduce overcrowding along the Italian coast and islands, where an average of 100,000 migrants arrive each year. Typically, asylum claims are applied for at the Border Police Station. By relocating potential immigrants before they reach this destination, the average is expected to shrink. Similarly, by targeting refugees from safe countries, the likelihood that these claims receive an asylum grant is small, meaning fewer people are taken into Italy. This all feeds into one of the biggest reasons behind this deal: deterrence. As asylum claims are rejected in higher numbers and refugees cannot reach the European Union, the Italian government hopes that this will discourage others from attempting this journey. 

Threats to Human Rights

This agreement has remained controversial since its inception, with many people questioning its adherence to human rights protection, mainly regarding the treatment of vulnerable populations, prolonged detention, and the right to nationality. Under this agreement, those considered “vulnerable,” such as those in need of specific medical attention or with serious medical conditions, are at risk of not receiving proper treatment, as the law lacks written procedures to help such groups. As Amnesty International points out, “there is no clarity on whether such procedures would take place on board the rescue vessels or after disembarkation in Albania,” meaning there is no reassurance that at-risk groups will receive medical attention in a timely manner. This concern has appeared to have some validity, as it has recently been exposed that there are no mechanisms aboard ships that could properly classify someone as vulnerable. Similarly, a majority of asylum-seekers experience some sort of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse prior to or during their journey that would grant them protection from detention. 

This program also puts refugees at risk of prolonged detention. International migration standards assert that migration-related detention should avoid being prolonged or indefinite. While the Italy-Albania agreement writes that asylum claims should be granted within 28 days of detention, all necessary procedures, including organizing repatriation, could take up to 18 months. Similarly, the treaty does not write out an explicit cap for detention, meaning detention could continue to surpass the initial 28-day goal. 

The Italy-Albania migration deal also raises concerns regarding the right to nationality. Following a rejected asylum claim, plans regarding repatriation are then made with the refugee’s country of origin. However, states may ignore these requests or refuse to work with Italy. Being rejected by Italy and without the support of their home country, asylum-seekers may be left without international representation, thus rendering them devoid of nationality. 

Migrants fill an entire boat which is on route to Italy
Image 3: Refugees begin their journey to Italy. Source: Yahoo Images

Pushback

This program has also been relatively controversial within Italy, with the Italian courts pushing back against Prime Minister Meloni’s plan. Following the first ship of migrants arriving in Albania, the national courts ruled that all 16 asylum-seekers be transferred to Italy rather than remain in the outsourced detention centers. Though coming from the list of safe countries, the judges concluded that the repatriation of the refugees would put them at risk of violence, thus accepting their asylum claims. More recently, the courts ordered the transfer of seven more men from Albania to Italy, again going against the vision presented by Meloni’s government. In this case, the courts explained that for a country to be deemed safe, all cities and regions must be free of persecution and violence, not just select areas. Between these two cases, all 24 detainees have been sent to Italy following their forcible detention in Albania.

This program is also largely unpopular among the Italian populace, with only 30% approval. 

This deal follows other agreements Prime Minister Meloni has made with other states regarding immigration. In 2023, the Italian government and the European Union provided monetary and technical support to Libya, encouraging their coast guard to intercept fleeing citizens and forcibly bring them back to the country. Those who attempted to escape were left vulnerable once they returned, often being subjected to various human rights abuses such as torture and sexual exploitation. Prime Minister Meloni has also offered to provide financial assistance to North African countries in an attempt to minimize immigration. 

Conclusion 

Though initially regarded as a promising answer to European migration, the Italy-Albania agreement has been frequently challenged by both human rights institutions and Italy’s own courts. Though all Albanian detainees have been transferred to Italy, this program raises questions regarding the treatment of refugees, making this issue important to monitor. 

Human Rights Concerns About the 2024 Austrian National Council Elections

The recent National Council elections in Austria, held on September 29th, saw the rise of the Freedom Party (FPO), as they won a plurality of the total vote and overtook the current administration in support. This far-right party has maintained moderate support since its founding in 1956; however, in the past few years, it has seen both a sizeable shift towards conservatism and a significant uptick in support. While only 28.8% of the total vote was garnered, this was more than the Austrian People’s Party’s (OVP) 26.3%, which, up until this election, held the most parliamentary seats. This electoral success has increased FPO representation in the National Council, now having 57 out of 183 total seats. While it seems unlikely that the party will be able to form a coalition and thus achieve a majority in government, this victory still raises questions regarding minority rights and foreign policy and warrants concern due to Austria’s history with far-right regimes. This rise in conservatism also follows a general shift to the right among European countries, making Austria and its surrounding states worthy of monitoring. 

A crowd of Austrian citizens rally together in support of the Freedom Party.
Image 1: Austrians rally in support of the FPO. Source: Yahoo Images

Austrian Government: Structure and History

Structure 

The Austrian government is a parliamentary system, meaning the percentage a party gains through voting directly translates into representation in government. Similarly, the country is home to numerous political parties, meaning multiple political platforms can receive representation. Considered the backbone of the Austrian government, the National Council is where bills are developed into laws before being passed over for Federal approval. It has a total of 187 seats. Having multiple platforms represented means that parties rarely receive an outright majority, forcing movements to coalesce or form political alliances with one another. This way, legislation can be passed quickly since a majority is held. This system allows for accurate representation of the country’s political views; however, without some sort of coalition, the government might not be able to agree on policies, thus leading to a stalemate. 

Impacts of Modern History

Modern history plays an important role in Austria’s political landscape of today. During World War Two, Austria was ruled by the Nazi regime after being annexed into the German Reich. Under this leadership, discriminatory legislation was codified, subjecting Jewish and other minority groups to grossly inhumane treatment. Following the war, the country came under Allied occupation, ultimately leading to its independence in 1955. During this time, Austria declared itself a neutral nation and was generally center-right in social and economic policy. It was also around this time that the FPO was founded by a former Nazi officer.  However, the policies were regarded as fitting the center-right norm. Since then, the FPO has slowly gained national recognition and pushed itself to the right, blossoming throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. 2017 showed the biggest jump in support with the FPO forming a coalition with the OVP, causing a noticeable shift to the right within the government, especially regarding views on immigration, Islam, and Austria’s role in the European Union. Though this coalition ultimately collapsed two years later, this period led to a normalization of right-wing and discriminatory rhetoric, setting the path for increased support of the FPO.

Image 2: Herbert Kickl stands in front of a crowd of supporters, all holding pro-FPO signs.
Image 2: FPO leader Herbert Kickl stands amongst supporters. Source: Yahoo Images

FPO: Policies and Potential Implications Regarding Human Rights

Anti-Immigration 

The FPO has taken a strong stance against immigration, with its party manifesto claiming that “Austria is not a country of immigration.” The party argues that by minimizing immigrants within the country, taxes can be lowered while still maintaining social welfare programs, going along with its proposal of welfare attached to citizenship. Furthermore, the FPO has shown interest in deportation, lowering accepted asylum claims, and banning new immigrants from entering the country based on family unification. Party leader Herbert Kickl has also shared his belief that migrants who “refuse to assimilate” should lose their citizenship and be forced out of the country. This anti-immigration attitude is additionally concerning when considering the refugee crisis occurring within Europe. The war in Ukraine, civil war in Syria, and earthquakes in Turkey have led to a dramatic increase in asylum claims throughout the continent. Limiting immigration can have detrimental effects on refugees seeking safety, basic necessities, and better living conditions for themselves and their families. 

Islamophobia 

The FPO has uncharitable views on Islam, claiming it will pass a law to ban so-called “political Islam” and utilizing the slogan “Home, not Islam” during its campaign. This follows a general rise in Islamophobia throughout Austria, with an increase in anti-Muslim-related attacks in the past year, and anti-Muslim policies being implemented in 2015. These policies are argued to have violated Austria’s right to religious freedom, as they banned the use of Islam-related foreign funding and increased state surveillance over Islamic institutions. 

Kickl’s proposed ban on political Islam continues Austria’s pattern of violating its citizens’ constitutional right to religious freedom and gives the government more power to legally carry out anti-Muslim acts. 

Gender and Sexuality

The FPO holds extremely conservative views on issues regarding gender and sexuality. The party is against same-sex marriage, writing out in its manifesto that “We are committed to the primacy of marriage between a man and a woman as a distinct way of protecting child welfare.” The movement also hopes to codify the existence of only two genders in the constitution, exclude transgender athletes from participating in sports competitions, and ban the public use of gender-inclusive language. Harmful rhetoric has also been utilized by the campaign, deeming increased representation and inclusivity of LGBTQ+ members as “propaganda” and “indoctrination.” This is part of a broader agenda to reinstate traditional gender norms and conservative family values. The passing of such discriminatory legislation would further marginalize members of the LGBTQ+ community, limiting their personal autonomy and ability to freely navigate their lives. 

Foreign Policy

One key component of the FPO’s foreign policy revolves around its skepticism of the European Union, believing the institution holds too much power over signatory countries. In July 2024, the party joined Patriots for Europe, a far-right European Parliamentary group. This movement is supported by various right-wing parties found around the EU. Its platform is centered around weakening the authority of the EU and takes a strong stance against illegal immigration and the implementation of and adherence to the European Green New Deal. Similarly, the FPO is against providing aid to Ukraine on the premise of its 1955 commitment to neutrality. It also rejects the EU’s sanctions on Russia. These ties go back further than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with evidence showing that FPO leader Herbert Kickl might have ties to Russian intelligence agencies. These behaviors show a turn away from the commitments of the European Union and alignment with other Eurosceptic countries.

Austrians manage a table asking citizens to sign a petition for Austria to leave the European Union.
Image 3: Austrian citizens take signatures to exit the European Union. Source: Yahoo Images

Kickl Controversies

Party leader Herbert Kickl has also been part of numerous controversies, raising questions about the intentions of the FPO and his ability to coalesce. One major issue has been his use of Nazi rhetoric, with his team labeling him as “Volkskanzler,” meaning “people’s chancellor,” a term used to describe Hitler during his reign. Similarly, Kickl gave a speech in which he accused centrist politicians of “Volksverrat,” or “treason against the people.” Again, this term was often used by Hitler and the greater Nazi regime. Kickl has also verbalized his support for the Identitarian Movement, a platform that, at its core, argues for the upholding and protection of white supremacy. He has also utilized hateful rhetoric specifically targeted toward the Muslim community. Throughout his time in politics, he has argued that Islamist fundamentalists should be deported, that hijab-wearing should be banned, and that anti-Semitism within Austria is the fault of Islamic teachings and not due to their Nazi history. Kickl has also been vocal about his opposition to vaccines, claiming COVID-19 vaccinations are “a genetic engineering experiment.” 

Due to his countless controversies, the OVP is not seeking a coalition with the FPO, making it unlikely that Kickl and his party will reach a majority within the parliament. While this may ring true, the rise in Kickl’s support highlights the normalization of discriminatory and science-reluctant rhetoric throughout the country, along with aligning with a broader shift towards conservatism within Central Europe as a whole. 

Conclusion 

Though it is unlikely that Kickl and his party will gain a majority within the parliament, the ability of this far-right movement to gain a plurality signals a broader shift in the country towards conservatism. Not only this, but it highlights the normalization of harmful rhetoric against minority and historically mistreated groups. While FPO’s influence might be limited, the situation in Austria warrants being monitored due to its past with extremist regimes. Similarly, this follows a trend towards conservatism among other European countries, such as Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, which might also have serious implications regarding the commitments and authority of the European Union.

Syria: An Update on the Current Crisis

Syria has been home to numerous atrocities over the past few decades, making it an important country to monitor. Since 2011, the country has experienced the collapse of its society due to civil war. However, human rights abuses have existed prior, with the suppression of freedoms being carried out by the government. Not only has the country undergone a history of suppression and state-sanctioned terror campaigns, but the recent earthquakes hitting its Northern and Western territories in 2023 have worsened its humanitarian crisis, resulting in a bleak reality being subjugated upon the Syrian people. 

The Syrian flag stands above a war-destroyed town.
Image 1: Syrian Flag Stands Amidst Destruction. Source: Yahoo Images

Context

Throughout the 1970s, Syria experienced the rise of the Assad dynasty, as Hafez al-Assad declared himself president. During his reign, he used his power to crush civil liberties and freedoms, utilizing force and violence to do so. Hafez also altered the constitution, removing Islam as the state religion in exchange for a secular state. Though this choice was unpopular amongst his constituency, his dictatorial tendencies, along with extreme party loyalty, allowed him to silence the opposition. 

Basar al-Assad, Syria’s current leader and successor to his father Hafez, came to power in 2000. Though promising economic and social reform, he failed to provide meaningful change, and the policies that were implemented did nothing but increase inequality within the nation. Alongside these failed governmental measures, an extreme drought increased food prices and saw heightened migration into city centers, thus worsening unemployment. The poor and ignored policies, along with the economic and societal impacts of a five-year drought, caused governmental resentment among citizens as they were desperate for change. 

In March 2011, inspired by other Arab Spring movements, which occurred throughout North Africa and the Middle East, Syrian citizens mobilized, calling for regime change and an expansion of personal freedoms and liberties. Though peaceful, these demands were met with extreme violence on behalf of the Syrian government. Labeled as terrorists, the government implemented a “shoot-to-kill” policy on these protestors, with these commands carried out by military officials and paramilitary members. Some concessions were made in April, though not enough to appease protestors. As uprisings continued, so did government violence and pushback. The Syrian Army seized numerous cities, such as Daraa, where they killed hundreds of protestors, cut off water and power, and forced its citizens into starvation. In response, resistance militias began to form and fight against Syrian Army soldiers, unraveling throughout 2012 into a civil war. It later developed into a proxy war, as foreign governments, such as the United States and Russia, involved themselves in the conflict.

Human Rights Abuses

Many human rights abuses have been brought upon Syrian citizens, such as displacement, unlawful arrests, detention and killings, subjection to torture, sexual violence, and disproportional military attacks. Displacement has been one of the largest and most discussed issues that have occurred due to the civil war, with an estimated 12 million citizens forced to move, with six million remaining in the country and six million migrating to other countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. There are many reasons for such migration, but a leading cause is military actions. The 2022 Syrian Network for Human Rights Report found that in 2022 alone, 75,000 people were forcibly moved due to either government or opposition hostility. Though relocating, approximately 70% of refugees still experience poverty and limited access to basic necessities. Syrian civilians also experience arbitrary arrests and detention, with victims commonly subjected to torture. The report also found a minimum of 2,221 cases of inappropriate arrests and signals that extortion could be a primary cause, as they tend to target previous prisoners and those receiving remittance payments. Relationships with political figures or activist leaders are another trend among victims. Civilian casualties frequently occur, with many the direct result of excessive use of force. However, deaths have also been caused by torture and medical negligence. While opposition groups do contribute to these numbers, a majority of the killings have been found to be the fault of the Syrian military. The civil war also led to an unprecedented rise in sexual violence, having some of the highest rates globally. While this impacts men as well, it’s important to note that women and children have been especially targeted. The Syrian military has also repeatedly used excessive force against civilian groups, including the deployment of chemical weapons, cluster bombs, and missiles. Though other human rights violations have occurred, this paragraph is meant to provide insight into some of the most prevalent and recurring forms of abuses.

A large group of Syrian refugees, including men, women, and children, flee a city after it was ruined by the war.
Image 2: Syrian Refugees Flee Demolished City. Source: Yahoo Images

Earthquake Impacts

The February 6, 2023, earthquakes, which primarily impacted Syria and Turkey, worsened the country’s ongoing battle with poverty and human rights struggles. These earthquakes led to the death of some 60,000 Syrian citizens and injured many more. Today, roughly 90% of the population lives below the poverty line. Within that, 50% are living in abject poverty, unable to attain proper food for survival. For reference, in 2010, only 1% of citizens experienced this level of poverty. Even for those outside this statistic, access to food, clean water, and shelter has been extremely limited and seen alongside a rise in violent crime and gender-based exploitation. These earthquakes also contributed to an economic crisis, triggering rampant inflation in the preceding years. The Syrian Center for Policy Research found that, in 2023, consumer prices doubled when compared to the previous year. Average wages have also declined. 

Accessing healthcare and treatment are also significant issues. The destruction of the civil war left more than half of the nation’s hospitals nonoperational, leaving injured citizens limited access to treatment. This is gravely concerning as roughly 14.9 million people require medical assistance for survival. For those seeking refuge in other countries, inequality and discrimination still exist, making care inaccessible even in countries with better health facilities. Furthermore, a majority of Syrians have lost the ability to return to their homeland, facing the complete destruction of their livelihoods. 

While the civil war resulted in the mass destruction of infrastructure and society, the earthquakes worsened the impacts of such decimation and created new economic issues that citizens were forced to endure. 

Buildings are destroyed in a Syrian city, leaving them unlivable.
Image 3: Ruined Buildings in the City of Homs. Source: Yahoo Images

Today

The Syrian civil war has reached somewhat of a stalemate. With the Syrian government controlling roughly 70% of the country’s territory, outright violence and wartime tactics have decreased. However, the regime remains repressive, regularly violating the human rights of its citizens. As for the near future, it seems unlikely that any peace agreements will be formally signed. It also appears that the current president will remain in power, with some regional powers questioning their opposition to al-Assad. 

While fighting has greatly decreased, Syria still faces major roadblocks to improvement. Surrounding conflict has interfered with recovery. The conflict in Gaza has carried into Syria, with Syrian civilians being subjects of numerous attacks likely initiated by Israel. The United Nations Human Rights Council Report on Syria writes how three separate air strikes have led to civilian deaths. Though no party has taken credit for these attacks, the report suspects they are carried out by the Israeli military. 

Another key issue is funding. Support for humanitarian aid programs in Syria has dried up, with organizations finding it difficult to raise appropriate funds. It was estimated that $5.3 billion was needed to assist Syria following the earthquakes; however, in 2023, the United Nations was only able to fund 37% of this target. This leaves a $3.38 billion funding gap. Foreign governments also deliver a considerable amount of aid, though it is unfortunately not enough to provide to all Syrians in need. Lacking necessary financing, some programs are forced to reduce their scope or shut down altogether. Earlier this year, UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Fund) ended water deliveries to certain refugee camps due to a lack of financing. Without adequate funds, aid cannot be delivered to those in need. 

Regardless of its human rights abuses, the international community seems to be normalizing its relations with the Syrian government. Surrounding countries have begun to open diplomatic channels, and the United Arab Emirates has reopened its embassy. With the Assad dynasty continuing forward, it seems other countries are choosing to embrace this reality rather than continue rebelling against this brutal regime. 

Conclusion

Syria is facing a humanitarian crisis. The ongoing civil war, along with the destruction caused by the 2023 earthquakes, has led to a huge rise in poverty and displacement. Furthermore, citizens are subjected to excessive violence and inhumane treatment by their government and opposition groups. Though largely funded by humanitarian organizations, a lack of donations has dried up financing abilities, causing a huge gap between the required aid amount and what has been received. While there appears to be a stalemate, nothing signals that the situation within the country will improve in the near future. This is an urgent crisis. 

 

If able, consider donating to aid organizations:

UNCHR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

https://donate.unhcr.org/int/en/syria-emergency

Karam Foundation

https://www.karamfoundation.org/

Save the Children Organization

https://www.savethechildren.org/us/where-we-work/syria

IRUSA (Islamic Relief United States of America)

https://irusa.org/middle-east/syria/