The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Femicides in Germany

Racist instrumentalization of violence against women and actual pathways to Women’s security


30/12/2025

This year in Germany, at least 132 women and two girls were killed in femicides. While using women’s security to push its racist agenda, the CDU is only endangering women even more.

As the end of December approaches, and about one month after the International Day for the Elimination of Gender-based violence, it is time to look back at the situation for women in Germany this year. One thing has not changed compared to previous years: women are still killed for being women—this year, at least 134. 

While the CDU claims to defend women’s rights, it simultaneously endangers women by cutting the very budgets meant to protect them and by instrumentalizing women’s rights to justify racist policies. Fighting femicide is only possible by increasing funding for women’s projects and finally paying women (fairly) for the (unpaid) work they do.

In Germany, there is no legal term for femicide. It is however described by the Istanbul Convention, signed by Germany in 2018, as the killing of a woman because of her gender. Under this definition, two different kinds of femicides are sometimes distinguished: when women are killed for a sexist motive—for example, because they do not follow typical gender roles—and when women are killed because their position in society makes them vulnerable to such killings—for example, because of their lack of financial independence or their care duties.

The definition of femicide is still broad and leads to different ways of counting femicides, as there are different ways of identifying the motivations behind the killings. The quickest way to shed light on femicide is to look at press reports and count the cases of women killed by someone they knew. This is what onebillionraising.de does, and this is where the number of 134 girls and women comes from. 

Another way of getting statistics on femicides is to use criminal and police statistics. This allows access to more cases than press reports but has the drawback that the waiting time to get the data is a bit longer. In the “Femicide in Germany” report, the German Institute for Human Rights analyzed criminal and police statistics in order to quantify and analyze femicides in Germany. 

What the authors find is that in 2024 in Germany, 824 women and girls were victims of attempted femicides. This means that in 2024, there were more than 2 attempts per day to kill a woman. 300 of these attempts were perpetrated by the victims’ partner or ex-partner. In Germany in 2024, almost every day a woman or a girl was the victim of a killing attempt by her partner or ex-partner. Moreover, 144 perpetrators were family members of the victims.

This means that more than 50% of attempted killings of women come from the close circle of the victim. By comparison, less than 15% of attempted killings of men were perpetrated by their (ex-)partner or family members. This indicates that the place where women are least safe is the private space and contradicts the racist uses of feminism by right-wing actors, who argue that the real threat to Western women comes from immigrants in public spaces. The most dangerous people for women are their (ex-)partners or family members. In Berlin, however, CDU mayor Kai Wegner decided to close the Görlitzer Park at night after an accusation of rape in the park. He did so while reducing the budget for women’s projects and spaces, spaces that are crucial in fighting femicides, as they offer an escape to the outside for women who are victims of violence in the private sphere. Moreover, in 2024, the CDU closed two girls’ projects in Berlin Kreuzberg-Friedrichshain because of the private engagement of some of its workers against the genocide in Palestine, a genocide in which thousands of women are killed with German weapons. 

Indeed, a recent study on femicide in Germany shows that the lack of places in women’s shelters (buildings dedicated to women who are victims of domestic violence) is decisive in femicide: several cases analyzed occurred because of failed attempts to secure a place in a women’s shelter. According to German law, the country should have 21,000 places in women’s shelters to protect women against domestic violence, but it currently only has 7,000–8,000. Moreover, other spaces are crucial to protect women from domestic violence and femicides, such as cultural spaces or (legal) advice centers, as they allow women to maintain connections with the outside world while being at risk in the private sphere. Education and support programs for violent men are also needed, as well as educational programs for children, to combat sexist violence. By cutting the budget for women’s spaces—including shelters and associative projects that provide women with a connection to the outside—the CDU thus decides to endanger women and put them even more at risk, while using their security as a fake argument to pursue its racist agenda and criminalize people of color living in or spending time in Görlitzer Park at night.

At the national level, a new law introduced by the Greens and the SPD has been passed with the support of the CDU. It will provide more funding for women’s shelters and new rights for women who are victims of domestic violence. This, however, will only come into effect in… 2032. In the meantime, men continue to kill women: this year, at least 134.

Finally, women’s shelters and women’s projects won’t do the job alone: women will only be safe once they are financially independent from men. This is only possible by achieving economic equality between men and women. Currently, women are paid 16% less than men in Germany. This gap is even larger for women of color and does not take into account the reproductive work that women do for free. It also does not capture the full extent of economic inequality, as other factors play a role, such as the unequal distribution and taxation of money in heterosexual marriages. Providing fair wages for care and reproductive work, which is disproportionately performed by women, often migrant women and either unpaid or poorly paid, is one of the many necessary steps to achieve economic equality between men and women, and, with it, to protect women from violence by men This, however, is only possible by changing the structure of the capitalist system, which relies on the exploitation of women, and especially women of color, in order to persist.

We won’t achieve security for women by racist measures, and the CDU won’t defend our rights. Moreover, we want more than the weak law pushed by the SPD and the Greens. What we wish for in 2026 to fight femicide in Germany is therefore an immediate increase in the budget to protect women when they are at risk by creating more places in women’s shelters and financing women’s projects instead of cutting their budgets. But also, and perhaps even more importantly, we want women to finally get paid (fairly) for their work so that they are independent from the greatest danger they face: the men in their private spaces. 

1 January 1994: Zapatista Uprising

This week in working class history

On 1 January 1994, the presidents of the USA, Canada and Mexico launched the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA removed trade restrictions and opened up Mexico to exploitation by the so-called “free” market. Mexican president Carlos Salinas had prepared the way with a massive privatisation plan four years earlier. In 1992, Salinas repealed Article 27, which had enabled peasants to use disused land.

1 January also saw the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas. Mayan Indigenous people took control of four cities, including San Cristóbal de las Casas. They demanded land reform, Indigenous rights and democracy. The EZLN, which led the uprising, was named after the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata. The spokesperson for the movement was its masked leader, Subcomandante Marcos, who announced that the EZLN were fighting not only for Mayan rights, but against global neoliberalism.

Addressing movements in other countries, Marcos issued a statement declaring:
“We are you. Marcos is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian on the streets of San Cristóbal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the streets of the metro at 10pm, a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student.”

The Zapatistas became a symbol of the international struggle against globalisation. They organised the first major defeat for Western capitalism after the fall of the Eastern Bloc in 1989. They forced the Mexican government to make concessions, including improved healthcare and sanitation and increased farm prices. However, following pressure from multinational corporations, most of these agreements were never respected.

As a result of the Zapatista uprising, the PRI ruling party lost its first presidential election in seven decades. It was replaced by the right-wing PAN. When the PRI returned to government, it continued to impose cuts and privatised the national oil company, PEMEX, in 2013. The Zapatistas said they were building autonomous spaces and were not interested in taking state power. Unfortunately, this left neoliberal capitalism firmly in control of Mexico. We should celebrate their victories and learn from their mistakes.

The currency of celebrity loyalty, from Minaj to Reiner

The responsibility (and cost) of wielding influence with empathy


28/12/2025

Michelle Singer Reiner and Robert Reiner posing at an event.

Rap star Nicki Minaj officially joined the ranks of MAGA during Turning Point USA’s America Fest convention. Accompanying Charlie Kirk’s widow Erika onstage, she heaped extravagant praise upon President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Not so long ago, Minaj was heartily critical of Trump, particularly in response to his attitude towards immigrants; then, during the pandemic, she began spouting anti-vaccination rhetoric—an indicator for the descent into an alt-right grifting career. While Minaj following this path isn’t totally surprising, listening to her dub Trump as a “dashing, handsome […] role model” was not on my 2025 Bingo Card.

Many online have—probably accurately—designated this as Certified Broke Behavior. Some have posited that she’s cosying up to the Tangerine Man in the hopes he will pardon her husband for crimes including attempted rape and failure to register as a sex offender. It’s shudder-inducing to watch anyone fawn over Trump, and the sheer transparency of it is cringeworthy. Even worse is that he laps it up. Trump, a man who ought to operate with a modicum of class and decency and sophistication—as any President should—preens and poses and rewards loyalty of any kind with oily words and metaphorical head-pats. He doesn’t even care if loyalty and praise stems from an authentic place. What he expects is a bend of the knee and a toe of the line. Bend to his power and submit to his regime, and you’re in with MAGA. 

In 2025 the topic of celebrity endorsement was dwelled-on with vigor. Some consider it to be the duty of the rich and famous: their privilege and exposure give them the unique power to step to the government in a tangible way. Others push back against this, insisting that pop stars and actors should stick to their own sphere and restrain themselves from attempting to sway the political landscape. Taylor Swift received both criticism and defence when she did not speak out against the official White House Tiktok using one of her new songs for the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agency. The anger towards her silence was exacerbated by the fact that younger pop girls Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter both swiftly and angrily denounced the usage of their art for such a cause. Be it complacency or a lesson in emotional intelligence, the incident drove an extra-charged train of discourse through the planes of the entertainment industry’s overlap with politics. 

I can understand that acknowledging Trump and his administration’s antics can sometimes only stoke their flames. Like a typical schoolyard bully, they prod incessantly with the intent to provoke frustration, fury, despair. They don’t just like to make bruises, they want to press at them until their opponent yelps. That being said, with the Trump administration wheeling out any celebrity who is willing to lay at its feet for a chunk of change, it feels important to have equally powerful counterparts who signal resistance. Even when that resistance can feel fluffy, or a trifle performative, it can do wonders for a cause. Pop Princess and Wicked star Ariana Grande shared a link to the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund on her instagram story in 2024, which reportedly saw a significant spike in donations. Grammy darling Billie Eilish called out billionaires for their excessive greed in an impassioned speech at the Wall Street Journal Innovator Awards before donating $11.5 million to charities focused on food security and climate justice. The late actor Robert Redford staunchly endorsed the Democrats and opposed Trump’s reelection until his death this year. And the recently deceased director Robert Reiner and his wife, photographer and producer Michele Singer Reiner, were deeply entrenched in politics for decades, prompting comments from the President so loathsome and classless that even his Republican peers have recoiled. 

The aforementioned Erika Kirk, whom Minaj joined onstage, lost her husband Charlie on 10 September 2025. The right-wing influencer was assassinated during an outdoor campus debate at Utah Valley University. Rob Reiner’s politics could not possibly have further diverged from Kirk’s; they stood firmly on opposite ends of the political spectrum. And yet, during an interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Reiner was horrified by the murder, unequivocally condemning the assassination: “that should never happen to anybody. I don’t care what your political beliefs are.”

The Singer Reiners were discovered in their California home and their cause of death was pronounced as homicide. Their son Nick was accused of murdering them and is currently being held in custody. The news was the sort of tragedy that can barely be approached with words. The stark dreadfulness of it; the shocking, relentless surrealness. The chronically online are usually a verbose set, but when the story broke, the comment section was dumbstruck. Instead of platitudes, there were remote, helpless comments, unable to grasp the immensity of reaction. 

I expect very little from Trump. Few who lean my way politically do. He has shown himself to be a power-hungry, vulgar buffoon, boasting narcissistic tendencies and an insatiable hunger for oppressing those who question the status quo. His response when questioned about the death of the Reiners, though: it still had the power to startle me. 

Taking to Truth Social, he described Reiner as “a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, [who] has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS.” Friends and admirers of Reiner, including celebrated director James Cameron, met the comments with undistilled anger. The Hill reported that almost two-thirds of Americans considered the statement “inappropriate.” I briefly visited conservative forums online—whose users often play Devil’s Advocate for Trump et. al.—and even those threads were unable to see such a reaction in a positive or neutral stance. 

I prefer to refrain from weaponizing therapy-talk, but I don’t think you could conjure up a more fitting case-study for projection than the President of the United States. Alleging that Reiner caused others anger and suffered from derangement? I doubt anybody this year has caused more fury and shown themselves to be more unhinged than Trump. In every public address, every interview, every post made online, he provokes without the slightest whiff of subtlety, he meanders alarmingly, he presents us with baffling word-salads instead of simple answers to questions. He’s shown himself to be reactive, snarling at a reporter who asked an Epstein-related question to “quiet, piggy.”

A lot of Trump’s outrageous antics this year seem to be deliberate attempts to distract from the release of the Epstein Files. It’s a role well-suited to Trump, even if it didn’t come about by design but necessity. Since day dot of his initial bid for Presidency, Trump employed the crude tactic of diversion and subtraction to tremendous effect. Seeing as the tranche of files are being released—slowly and with a high volume of redactions—his diversions may become even wilder. Regardless of whether he really meant it or not, though, what he said probably rings true to what he feels. I won’t say believes, because I don’t think anybody as abjectly cruel and egomaniacal as him really holds beliefs. But I do think he feels, fundamentally, that those who oppose him—and anyone who cannot be of immediate use to him—are disposable. Those who see him for what he is—Rob Reiner declared Trump as “mentally unfit” to serve as President—are to be disassembled, shunned, and slandered without a shred of empathy or humanity. We should expect so little from Trump, but his post reverberated around the world nonetheless. That such a needless, fathomless, abyssal tragedy was incapable of permeating Trump’s viciousness underlined what many already knew: empathy is to the US President what sodium is to water.

The Singer Reiners seemed to have empathy by the truckload. While many celebrity endorsements begin and end with a fat cheque and a photo-op, the couple were steadfast in their philanthropic and political efforts for much of their careers. They put their money and their time where their mouths were. Rob was instrumental in overturning bans on same-sex marriage; he later said that Michele was the driving force behind his passion for the cause. Together the couple propelled forward a tobacco tax in California providing funding for early childhood programs. In her final years, Michele worked with those who had been wrongfully convicted via the Innocence Project, showing a commitment to a fair and equitable justice system. By all accounts, the pair felt deeply and used their humanity and conscience to guide their lives. It would have been possible for them to live a charmed and superficial life, perched atop of Hollywood amidst the glitz and glamour. They could have avoided the residue of a burning world around them and become engulfed in their own privilege. But they didn’t. And while they left too soon and in a manner deserved by no-one, they left a legacy that matters, and reminds us that change can come from the force of belief and determined, consistent action. 

I don’t think that talent is a virtue. Bad people can make good art and good people can make bad art. I also don’t think we should treat the Hollywood elite like royalty. That being said, it takes empathy and humanity to craft the kind of films Reiner directed, and that talent ought to be celebrated. When Harry Met Sally, The Princess Bride, Stand By Me: while all different, they are stories brimming with love and longing, friendship and affection. Whether under the rusty canopy of Central Park or the desolate countryside of a childhood, they are worlds formed with warmth and care. Even Misery, the psychological horror thriller featuring a chilling performance by Kathy Bates, is evocative and frighteningly moving, a sinister foray into the psyche of an obsessive fan-girl. The magic of these films is probably lost on Trump and his cronies, the feckless billionaires who deal only with unfettered power, explosive, havoc-wreaking fuels, and ever-rising bank accounts, who see art as easily replaced by AI slop.

Not every celebrity or high-profile individual will be capable of, or inclined to, embrace political and social issues as Rob and Michele did. What they have left behind them shows the power of those with higher profiles engaging with causes beyond solitary donations (although of course donations should not be sniffed at). Maybe it shines a light on the question of duty that many grappled with this year: maybe it confirms that, yes, while pop stars and Oscar winners and Grammy darlings and producers and filmmakers should not decide a vote or a stance for you, their inextricable link with the culture should be harnessed for good. That any artist worth their salt should have the compassion so sorely lacking by the billionaire bigwigs, and not only use it to create works that allow us to transcend, but use it to drive social change and remind us that there is more than one regime. 

In the end, the question isn’t whether celebrities should endorse or abstain. It’s whether power is exercised with any sense of responsibility to others. Trump’s orbit thrives on empty loyalty: praise given for proximity to power, devotion rewarded without conviction, empathy treated as weakness. Minaj’s turn toward MAGA is jarring not because it is unique, but because it exemplifies how easily influence can be stripped of meaning and repurposed for self-preservation.

Rob and Michele Singer Reiner offered a different model. Their politics were not costumes donned for attention or leverage, nor were they contingent on applause. They were sustained, imperfect, deeply human commitments to fairness, dignity, and care. In a culture increasingly shaped by spectacle, grievance, and transactional allegiance, their legacy reminds us that influence is not measured by proximity to power, but by what (and who) it ultimately serves. Empathy may not win elections, curry favor, or trend online. But without it, no amount of talent, fame, or authority means anything at all.

Free the boys!

How teenage boys from war-torn Sudan end up serving life sentences in Greek prisons


23/12/2025

On the popular tourism island of Crete lies the ancient city of Chania. Inhabited since the Neolithic era, it is steeped in history with its pastel-coloured Venetian townhouses and Ottoman mosques. Revered for its rich history, white sandy beaches and Mediterranean cuisine, it’s considered the most beautiful city on the island and a top holiday destination.

Behind the façade of a dream-like escape from reality for European tourists lies an altogether different reality for the approximately 300 Sudanese refugees held in detention centres across Greece, facing life sentences in prison for crossing the Mediterranean to seek safety on European shores.

In recent weeks, the court in Chania has handed down several egregious sentences. On 1 December 2025, a 26-year-old looking for asylum received, after just minutes of the hearing, 335 years in prison and a fine of €200,000. The next sentence that the court handed down was 200 years.

Support groups de:criminalize, 50 out of Many, Mataris Sudan Solidarity Committee and Border Violence Monitoring Network, are among the few reporting on this violation of the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention and raising awareness for the, oftentimes still underage, Sudanese boys facing life sentences in prison.

The exorbitant sentences are not unusual for the young men and boys seeking refuge in Crete. The refugees fleeing Sudan’s brutal war, surviving dangerous routes through the Sahara, Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea, are being held and sentenced on smuggling charges, for being forced to steer the boat under duress or being held responsible for other small tasks such as handing out water or holding a satellite navigation device.

A young Sudanese man imprisoned in Greece explains: ‘Most of us had no choice—either cooperate or risk our lives at sea.’

Despite their age and vulnerability, the boys are being tried as adults and smugglers. In recent weeks, the support groups reported, a 16-year-old boy was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Under Greek law that came into effect in 2014, anyone steering a boat or appearing to assist in crossings faces charges of smuggling with sentences of up to 25 years per person transported. A 2023 study by Borderline Europe found that:

‘Trials lead to an average prison sentence of 46 years and a fine of 332.209 Euros’ and

‘52% of all convicted people are serving a prison sentence of 15 years to life’.

People imprisoned on smuggling charges now form the second largest group of inmates in Greek prisons.

The lawyer, Spyros Pantazis, defending one of the teenagers held in Greece, says: ‘The very tough anti-smuggling law has been a timeless governmental weapon to minimise illegal immigration. In reality, it is completely useless, only filling up Greek prisons with people who have no record or connection to criminal offences.’

Meanwhile, de:criminalize reports, many of the accused are pressured by the court-appointed lawyers or prosecutors to make a plea deal with little to no knowledge of what that entails or what the consequences are. By signing a confession of guilt in exchange for a reduced sentence, the defendants, many of whom have already spent months or even years in pre-trial detention, forfeit ‘almost all chances of asylum’.

Almost every case in Chania is now settled through a plea deal. Sentences of hundreds of years, of which at least 25 must be served, are often reduced to a uniform 10 years behind bars under the plea deal.

The practice of plea deals, originally introduced to relieve the overburdened Greek legal system of insignificant cases, undermines the right to a fair trial for the Sudanese refugees. The irreversible guilty plea deal means there is no examination of evidence, witnesses or substantive review, nor the chance of appeal. Frequently, their court-appointed lawyers are ill-prepared and only meet shortly before the hearing, if not in the courtroom itself. The defendants have little to no opportunity to understand or reflect on the confession they are signing or the consequences thereof. Oftentimes, they do not have access to a qualified interpreter.

Borderline Europe reports: ‘Arrests and preliminary investigations are riddled with gross human rights violations; including arbitrary arrests, violence and coercion, little to no access to interpretation or legal support as well as problems in accessing the asylum procedure during detention.’

With 84% of cases studied for the 2023 Borderline Europe study resulting in pre-trial detention of an average of 8 months, the relentless violation of their human rights and with the prospect of prison sentences of hundreds of years, these vulnerable young men and boys signing plea deals are a foregone conclusion.

Recently, several defendants have been acquitted on the basis that, according to international law, asylum seekers must not be criminalised for their migration.

De:criminalize states, ‘These rulings make clear that in certain situations—for example, for people from countries with high asylum recognition rates—immediate release is not only theoretically possible but realistic.’

The 1951 Refugee Convention states that: ‘refugees should not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay. This recognises that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum’.

Just this week, however, on 17 December 2025 31 defendants stood before the court in Chania facing decades in prison on smuggling charges. None were acquitted, most received 10-year sentences, some longer; ten cases were postponed. Birth certificates indicating that some defendants are minors were not accepted.

Images: Louise Truc.

As militarisation of EU borders increases and criminalisation of search and rescue is implemented, safe and legal routes disappear—the most vulnerable refugees are forced into ever more perilous journeys.

In the Guardian documentary How Europe’s immigration crackdown is fuelling smuggling gangs, Ashifa Kassam investigates whether the EU’s hardline policies are actually enriching the criminal gangs behind the scenes.

In the documentary, she flies over the Mediterranean with Omar El Manfalouti, a pilot at Humanitarian Pilots Initiative, where they encounter a vessel in distress. El Manfalouti explains: ‘People suffer from dehydration, heat-stroke, burns from the fuel, but death comes in many forms unfortunately on this route’

They put out a Mayday call, to little effect.

El Manfalouti states: ‘You have a legal obligation to hand assistance to a boat in distress, to people whose lives are at risk, but that’s not happening. And that’s not happening because states refuse to take over coordination of these cases, so any vessel that might rescue people now is going to get stuck with them.’

Eventually, after several hours, the Mayday call to a nearby oil rig prompts one ship to move towards the boat, before suddenly a boat suspected of belonging to a Libyan militia group speeds up to the vessel in distress to recapture the people, prompting some of the passengers to jump in the water, preferring to die than go back to Libya. The passengers are forced onto the boat and likely escorted back to Libya.

In the documentary, El Manfalouti details: ‘What we see here is a result of a policy. This is not an accident, it doesn’t have to be like that.

‘Ten years ago, this would not have happened. Ten years ago, we had European navies, European coast guards, for example the German navy, Italian navy deploying active assets to get people out of the water. People would not have been exposed to the immediate loss of life for half a day, or a day or even longer. And crucially people would not have been brought to that vicious cycle of smuggling, human trafficking and the Libyan militia system. They would have been brought to a place of safety, extracted from that criminal environment in Libya, and Libyan militias would not have had a chance to cash in twice or thrice on the same human cargo.

‘They are returned to detention camps. There they either die from torture, malnourishment, preventable disease, or they cross again.

‘I think the most important thing that we’re observing is that thousands of people are losing their lives, because of these policy choices, year, after year, after year.

‘There’s a belief in European capitals that what happens at the border can be isolated, can be kept apart from what is happening domestically. But whatever happens in your borderlands, whatever is funded by your own taxpayers’ money, will sooner or later come back to haunt you. And I think we are already seeing this with the rise of the far right across Europe—an erosion of the rule of law. But the EU is in one way or another sustaining these human trafficking networks through its policy choices.’

On the EU side, Frontex, the EU border and coast guard agency, is increasingly linked to arms and security companies on the receiving end of the approximately €2bn budget.

Abolish Frontex points out that large European arms companies such as Airbus, Leonardo and Thales, are the biggest winners, positioning themselves as experts, taking part in advisory bodies and shaping EU border and migration policies and selling equipment and services to ‘combat’ the ‘security threat’ posed by those fleeing war.

Abolish Frontex goes on to point out the irony that these same arms companies export weapons to the very conflict zones people are fleeing.

Frontex and other border security authorities increasingly use autonomous systems for border surveillance. Over the last few years the agency has paid tens of millions of euros to arms companies Airbus, Elbit, Israel Aerospace Industries and Leonardo for providing drone surveillance services in the Mediterranean. This includes the use of so-called ‘killer drones’ which are promoted as ‘battlefield tested’ in wars and repression.’”

Furthermore, Maritime Frontex makes use of so-called border-externalisation operations, whereby third countries act as outpost border guards for the EU, stopping refugees before they ever reach EU shores. This practice directly legitimises and strengthens authoritarian regimes and their security forces.

In addition to the threat of Frontex’s practices, Libyan militia groups and the danger of being on open waters in unseaworthy vessels, the Greek coast guard has also long been accused of breaching international and European law by human rights organisations and NGOs.

On 7 January this year, for the first time, the European Court of Human Rights officially found Greece ‘systematically’ conducted illegal push-backs and ordered it to pay the victim of an illegal push-back conducted in 2019 a sum of €20,000.

The practice of push-backs and so-called ‘drift-backs’, whereby boats carrying refugees are towed further into the Aegean Sea and abandoned there, has been widely documented by NGOs and human rights organisations. The research agency, Forensic Architecture, has found that, between March 2020 and March 2023, the Greek coast guard pushed back 2,010 boats, endangering and risking the lives of some 55,445 people.

The systematic and widespread practise of endangering migrants’ and refugees’ lives again stands in stark contrast to the Geneva Convention, which declares: ‘Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of non-refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.’

With some 117 million forcibly displaced individuals world-wide, the highest number of people in search of safety on record, it is clear that global international security is waning and more people than ever need protecting.

However, the European Commission’s ‘ReArm Europe/Readiness 2030’ plan aims to unlock up to €800bn to incentivise increased defence spending among Member States, while the European Justice and Home Affairs council make amendments to harden European Asylum policies. Europe is demonstrating ‘shrinking political will and financial support for long-term investments in peace’.

Born out of a shared ambition to establish enduring peace after the Second World War, peace was one of the EU ‘s core values. Placed within its broader colonial legacies and resulting global inequalities, this means a truly secure Europe must prioritise inclusive dialogue, long-term conflict resolution, and human security, regardless of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

This article is dedicated to Sultan, 19, from Sudan, who died last week during his second attempt at crossing the Mediterranean to seek refuge in Spain. 

25 December 1989: Execution of Nicolae Ceaușescu

This week in working class history

On Christmas Day 1989, Nicolae Ceaușescu, the president of the Socialist Republic of Romania, and his wife Elena were executed by an impromptu firing squad. Events had accelerated at breakneck speed in the previous ten days. After state forces opened fire on protesters against the eviction of a Hungarian pastor in Timișoara, Ceaușescu called a rally in Bucharest to reassert control. The crowd quickly became agitated and started chanting against the regime. The Ceaușescus fled the capital the next day, on December 22, but were quickly apprehended.

The Romanian Revolution, as these events would come to be known, is famous as the only 1989 regime change that involved bloodshed, with an estimated 700 to 1300 deaths. The killings came out of a nebulous violence that has still not been elucidated. More than half of the victims died after Ceaușescu’s capture, in clashes with “terrorists” whose identities remain a mystery.

The opacity of the fighting has led many Romanians to believe that the revolution should rather be considered a coup. That Romania’s post-1989 leaders overwhelmingly came from the nomenklatura has not helped dispel these suspicions. Former communist elites oversaw and profited from the privatization of Romania’s economy. Industries were dismantled and state services discontinued, causing millions to take exploitative jobs in Western Europe.

Despite the post-socialist disaster, there is little to romanticize about Ceaușescu’s Romania. After some early years of relative well-being and liberalization, his presidency became a personalist, tyrannical regime. The natalist abortion ban led to women’s deaths and to children growing up in abusive state orphanages, while the ambition to completely pay off the state’s external debts was successful only at the price of the utter immiseration of Romanians throughout the 1980s.

Today, Ceaușescu’s legacy is still disputed. Those who remember pre-1989 job and housing guarantees see him as the leader of a golden era. Neoliberals see him as a totalitarian devil whose legacy still holds Romania back. Far-right sympathizers, meanwhile, see him as the kind of patriarchal, nationalist authority needed today.

The trial’s recording, broadcast on the day of the execution, shows a confused old couple who cannot comprehend that anyone dares to judge them, but who slowly realize that they are facing their death. 36 years later, the video plays on Romanian TV every December for commentators to litigate political issues by using and abusing Ceaușescu’s ghost.