While tens of thousands of refugees have died fleeing terrible violence and hardship to get to Europe, not everyone has lost out. This report exposes the military and security companies that have profited from the tragedy, winning contracts to provide the equipment to border guards, the surveillance technology to monitor frontiers, and the IT infrastructure to track population movements.
This briefing updates the July 2016 report ‘Border Wars: the arms dealers profiting from Europe’s refugee tragedy’ . It shows that the European policy response to the refugee tragedy continues to provide a booming border security market for Europe’s arms and security firms, some of whom are involved in selling arms to the Middle East and North Africa and all of whom encourage European policies focused on keeping refugees out. It’s a win-win for the security corporations, but the cost is a deadly toll for migrants forced into ever more dangerous routes as they flee wars, conflict and oppression.
This summer, Women Peacemakers Program staff interviewed Ben Hayes, a researcher on topics such as security policy, counterterrorism, border control and surveillance, about his current work. Ben Hayes has been one of the first to research and write extensively on how countering terrorism financing (CTF) policies have been affecting the right to freedom of association and financial access for nonprofits, and the role of intergovernmental institutions such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in these phenomena. In this interview, he talks about how this topic first came to his attention, current trends in trying to craft solutions for the obstacles faced by nonprofits, as well as his take on what it will take to move forward.
Local organisations have adopted different strategies towards the authoritarian government in Burma. Focussing on the dynamics of civil society Tom Kramer looks into the possibilities and risks of growing international interest in engagement with these groups.
Terwijl tienduizenden vluchtelingen om zijn gekomen op de vlucht van geweld en ontberingen naar Europa, is er een groep die grof geld verdient. Dit rapport onthult de militaire en beveiligingsbedrijven die profiteren van de tragedie. Die contracten hebben gewonnen om materieel te leveren voor grenswachten, surveillancetechnologie om grenzen te monitoren en de IT-infrastructuur om migratiestromen te volgen.
Mentres desenes de milers de refugiats moren intentant arribar a Europa fugint de la violència, alguns actors s'enriqueixen amb la seva tragèdia. Aquest informe denuncia les empreses militars i de seguretat que s'han beneficiat amb la crisi, primer venent armes i, després, obtenint contractes multimil·lionaris per subministrar equips i tecnologia de vigilància de fronteres.
Mientras decenas de miles de refugiados mueren al intentar llegar a Europa huyendo de la violencia, hay quien se lucra con su tragedia. Este informe denuncia a las empresas militares y de seguridad que se han beneficiado con la crisis, primero vendiendo armas y, después, obteniendo contratos multimillonarios para suministrar equipos y tecnología de vigilancia de fronteras.
Despite the economic crisis, EU funding for new security tools and technologies will double in the 2014-20 period compared to the previous 6 years. The biggest winners have been the “homeland security” industry whose influence on European policy continues to grow, constructing an ever more militarised and security-focused Europe.
Millions of dollars in international aid for drug enforcement is spent in countries with extremely poor human rights records and with little or no accountability for the resulting abuses, according to a this investigative report carried out by the UK-based drugs and human rights organisation, Harm Reduction International. The report tracks drug enforcement funding from donor states, often via the United Nations, to countries where executions, arbitrary detention, physical abuse and slave labour are weapons in the war on drugs.
Making banks and non-profits liable for the acts and social networks of their customers and beneficiaries while holding charities and CSOs responsible for the ‘extremist’ views and actions of their associates stifles freedom of association and expression and promotes self-censorship.
Debate over the 10-year-plus war in Afghanistan tends to focus on how and when it "can be won," obscuring the fundamental question of whether it was morally acceptable in the first place. Now as the US gets closer to consolidating its imperial presence in the region for decades to come, the high cost to the Afghani people continues to be ignored.