By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Last week, as Cyclone Harry ravaged the Mediterranean, a shipwreck near Malta claimed 50 lives, with only one survivor rescued after clinging to wreckage. The Italian coastguard has also reported that up to 380 migrants may have drowned in separate incidents, with searches underway for eight vessels launched from Tunisia amid the storm. These tragedies highlight the continued perilous journey undertaken by migrants seeking refuge in Europe, despite intensified measures by Italy to curb arrivals. The central Mediterranean route, a major landing point, remains one of the world’s deadliest migration routes, with thousands of deaths and disappearances recorded since 2014.
Read the original article here
Hundreds feared dead in attempt to cross Mediterranean during cyclone; it’s a gut-wrenching headline, isn’t it? The sheer scale of potential loss of life is almost unfathomable. It’s a tragedy that triggers so many complex thoughts and feelings. There’s a natural instinct to try and understand how such a horrific event could occur and, more importantly, how we can prevent it from happening again.
The immediate reaction for many, is that it’s just so devastating. The idea of families, of children, risking everything in search of safety and opportunity, and then facing such a brutal fate… it’s almost too much to bear. It’s hard not to feel a deep sense of sadness and empathy for those who perished, and for those who are left behind.
Of course, the debate inevitably pivots to the policies that might have contributed to this. The conversations often include the word “asylum” and what it should mean. Some suggest that the very existence of guaranteed asylum policies encourages people to make these perilous journeys. The argument follows that if the promise of a safe haven didn’t exist, fewer people would risk the crossing. But, the question becomes, what happens to the people fleeing from war, violence, or abject poverty? Where do they go?
Then there’s the focus on the human traffickers, the criminal organizations that profit from these desperate situations. They are painted as the true villains, the ones exploiting vulnerable people and putting them in harm’s way for financial gain. The discussion often focuses on whether authorities are doing enough to dismantle these networks.
And then the discussions go further, considering the conditions that lead people to take such risks in the first place. The focus shifts to the situation they are fleeing from, suggesting that the root causes need to be addressed. It’s a recognition that the desperation driving these journeys is often born from circumstances that are far more dangerous than the open sea during a storm. If these problems were solved, would people still risk their lives?
It becomes easy to see how this becomes an incredibly difficult situation. The discussion quickly becomes incredibly polarized. There are those who feel that the EU, or other groups are somehow encouraging the deaths by allowing them to seek asylum, while others suggest that those in power are not doing enough to help these immigrants.
The complexities of the situation are amplified by the human cost. These are not just statistics; they are individuals, families, and communities impacted by war and economic hardship. They are seeking a better life and putting their trust in these journeys. No one would take such a massive risk unless they felt the alternative was even worse.
There’s the sentiment that we need to acknowledge the reality of the situation; some feel there should be safer ways for people to come to Europe. The argument continues that, for many, the decision to leave isn’t driven by a desire for handouts or free benefits. It’s about survival.
Some look at the various non-governmental organizations involved in search-and-rescue operations. The debate arises whether these organizations are inadvertently facilitating these dangerous crossings. Some believe these rescue ships may inadvertently be human smuggling in its own way, perhaps not directly, but providing a service that encourages more people to try and get to the EU.
Ultimately, the core of the issue boils down to a question of humanity, of empathy. It’s about seeing these people as individuals and understanding the forces that compel them to take such extreme risks. The problem is incredibly complicated.