Last week, the European Parliament made headlines when it held a debate that deviated from the pressing issues plaguing the continent, such as the climate crisis, rising Islamophobia, and conflicts in Ukraine. Instead, the debate centered on Manipur, a state in India, which raised eyebrows as Europe seemingly had no direct involvement in the region’s violence. As we delve into the details of this debate and Europe’s approach to managing migration, it becomes evident that the continent’s human rights record demands closer examination.
The Confusing Manipur Debate
The European Parliament’s debate on Manipur was organized by about six parliamentary groups and lasted a mere 20 minutes. While it attempted to address the decades-long struggle in the region, it left many puzzled as Europe had no tangible connection to the issue. India had consistently maintained that Manipur was an internal matter, making it unclear why some in Europe believed it warranted their attention.
During the debate, speeches focused on three main themes. First, Manipur was portrayed as a symptom of a larger problem, denigrating Indian democracy. Second, it was presented as a communal war against Christians. Finally, the image of India and its Prime Minister was tarnished through direct, sponsored, and personal attacks. India promptly rejected this debate, prompting some to question whether Europe would react similarly if the roles were reversed.
Migration Policies and Outsourcing
Another aspect of Europe’s human rights record came to light when it was discovered that Europe had outsourced the task of managing migrants to Tunisia, a North African country where migrants intending to reach Europe gathered. Europe’s goal was to prevent African migrants from crossing into Europe via Tunisia. Under the pretense of a ‘Comprehensive Strategic Partnership,’ Europe offered Tunisia one billion dollars in return for stopping migrant entries.
Essentially, Europe paid Tunisia to keep migrants away, avoiding direct involvement that might raise concerns about human rights violations. Europe attempted to defend this approach by asserting concern for the safety of those trafficked. However, it became apparent that racial considerations were at play, as Europe had welcomed white refugees from Ukraine but sought to restrict migrants from Africa.
Migration Statistics and Double Standards
The numbers highlighted Europe’s inconsistent approach. The European Union registered around 8 million Ukrainian refugees, who arrived in a span of just 500 days. On the other hand, reports from Italy indicated that only 75 thousand refugees had come from Africa in the last six months. While Europe has the right to control its borders, the selective measures and outsourcing raised questions about the continent’s hypocrisy in handling migration issues.
Empowering a Questionable Leader
Another concerning aspect was Europe’s choice to empower a dictatorial leader in Tunisia for this purpose. Tunisia, though a democracy on paper, has faced accusations of curbing freedom and suppressing opposition. Two years ago, the European Union criticized the same Tunisian leader for stifling his countrymen’s freedoms. Now, by relying on him to manage migration, Europe exposed its perceived convenience in disregarding concerns about human rights abuses.
Conclusion
The recent debate in the European Parliament regarding Manipur and Europe’s migration policies have shone a spotlight on the continent’s human rights record. While Europe may have every right to manage its borders and tackle illegal migration, the double standards and apparent racial considerations raise legitimate concerns. As Europe scrutinizes the actions of others, it should also take a hard look at its own practices to ensure consistency and fairness in its approach to human rights issues. Only then can Europe rightfully advocate for and uphold the principles of human rights and justice globally.
