Kept out of the debate over the Zeit pro/contra article over private rescue initiatives for refugees and migrants in the Med because my views don't strictly match either side of a problematic binary format
Faced with mass tragedy there is undoubtedly space for private rescue initiatives as there were for such initiatives in the South China Sea with ships like Cap Anamur in the 1970s and 1980s. The idea that rescue operations are a primary pull factor is spurious
As with the South China Sea during and after the fall of Saigon, rescue attempts of state and private actors influence how people and smugglers shift refugees across the water, but pressures are such that flow of people would happen anyway even with less rescue efforts there
Yet it both state and private rescue initiatives must remain as transparent as possible over their methods and interactions with all actors in the area. In a fraught environment mistakes are inevitable and all actors need to be subject to analysis and if necessary criticism
Enormous financial gains made by Italian, Maltese, Libyan and Tunisian organised crime through people smuggling is having a distorting effect on economy and society throughout the Med. Everyone involved in state and private rescue efforts must remain vigilant against corruption
Both private as well as state rescue and border control efforts remain vulnerable to collusion in their efforts to save lives and bring things under control. Private initiatives inevitably interact with people smugglers on boats. State actors, particularly the Italian military >
and intel services are running several programmes in which they are trying to buy out people smugglers and turn Libyan militiamen involved in various rackets into coastguards and cops willing to shut them down. For Italian officers and NGO activists desperately difficult dilemmas
By structuring the tragedy unfolding in the Med in a binary pro/contra debate, @berndulrich and @DIEZEIT structured a complex debate with terrible moral dilemmas in simplistic terms that hinder rather than foster tough debate.
By responding in such a uncontrolled fashion, @DIEZEIT's critics replicated the simplistic this binary pro/contra pattern in a way that channeled discourse into the language of culture war rather than engagement with actual dynamics faced by private and state actors saving lives
There is a moral imperative to save lives in the Med. There is also a moral imperative to use security assets to shutdown organised crime and stabilise communities on both sides of the Med to to prevent situations in which large numbers of people pay criminals to take fatal risks
Finally respect is due to those working to save lives in the Med. That includes NGO activists on private ships. It includes Italian and Tunisian naval personnel saving lives. And it includes Carabinieri, Guardia di Finanza and Tunisian NG officers hunting criminal gangs.
Perhaps one other thing. By asking them to press their complex views into an inappropriate pro/contra format, the Die Zeit editorial team has done Mariam Lau and Caterina Lobenstein a disservice.
