WHAT IF, THE YELL OF TECHNOLOGY CONVERTED TO PATHETIC SCREAM OF HUMAN (ITY)

Academic

  /   469   /   22 November 2016, Tuesday

 Print
WHAT IF, THE YELL OF TECHNOLOGY CONVERTED TO PATHETIC SCREAM OF HUMAN (ITY) PREFACE The profound philosophical question rises above the lines of evolution and progress recorded for the sake of Humanity versus the destruction of humanity VIA advanced technology or IN SPITE of advanced technology? Are we Human ? While radically expanding human capability design routinely constructs radical inequalities, added with the flavor of Neglect Do we design Sentinels that preparing the new pattern for apocalypse ,engraving humanity in the dim past or Phoenix Simurg will be revived from its ashes with a new design ? In this regard, personally getting inspired from one of the leading and bleeding humanitarian issue touched on IKSV 3rd Istanbul Design Biennial was depicting the Liquid Traces video “The Left-to-Die Boat Case” directed by Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani, offers a synthetic reconstruction of the events concerning what is known as the “left-to-die boat” case in which 72 passengers who left the Libyan coast heading in the direction of the island of Lampedusa on board a small rubber boat were left to drift for 14 days in NATO’s maritime surveillance area, despite several distress signals relaying their location, as well as repeated interactions, including at least one military helicopter visit and an encounter with a military ship. As a result, only 9 people survived. “The Left-to-Die Boat Case” is the case that reminds the attitude of the three wise monkeys. (in Western reference). Dealing with impropriety by turning a blind eye or a blind –ear hears no scream no matter the screams of machines ,technology or human scream.

  

H. Çiğdem Yorgancıoğlu

                cigdemyorgancioglu@gmail.com   Web sitesi :http://www.cigdemyorgancioglu.org/

 

WHAT IF, THE YELL OF TECHNOLOGY CONVERTED TO PATHETIC SCREAM OF HUMAN (ITY)

 

PREFACE

The profound philosophical question rises above the lines of evolution and progress recorded for the sake of Humanity versus the destruction of humanity VIA advanced technology or IN SPITE of advanced technology?  Are we Human ?  While radically expanding human capability design routinely constructs radical inequalities, added with the flavor of Neglect Do  we design Sentinels[i] that preparing the new pattern for apocalypse ,engraving humanity in the dim past or Phoenix[ii]   Simurg will be revived from its ashes  with  a new design ?

In this regard,  personally getting inspired from one of the leading and bleeding  humanitarian issue touched on IKSV 3rd Istanbul Design Biennial was depicting the Liquid Traces  video [iii]  “The Left-to-Die Boat Case”  directed by Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani,  offers a synthetic reconstruction of the events concerning what is known as the “left-to-die boat” case in which 72 passengers who left the Libyan coast heading in the direction of the island of Lampedusa on board a small rubber boat were left to drift for 14 days in NATO’s maritime surveillance area, despite several distress signals relaying their location, as well as repeated interactions, including at least one military helicopter visit and an encounter with a military ship. As a result, only 9 people survived.

“The Left-to-Die Boat Case”   is the case that reminds the attitude of the three wise monkeys.  (in Western reference).  Dealing with impropriety by turning a blind eye or a blind –ear hears no scream no matter the screams of machines ,technology or human scream.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARE  WE HUMAN ?  

 

IKSV 3rd Istanbul Design Biennial [iv] held from 22 October to 20 Nov  2016.  With the  concept of    ARE WE HUMAN? : The Design of the Species : 2 seconds, 2 years, 200 years, 200,000 years On the basis of the curators Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley  announcement of  concept  “design always presents itself as serving the human but its real ambition is to redesign the human. [v]The history of design is therefore a history of evolving conceptions of the human. To talk about design is to talk about the state of our species. Humans have always been radically remodeled by the designs they produce and the world of design keeps expanding. We live in a time when everything is designed, from our cautiously crafted individual looks and online identities, to the surrounding galaxies of personal devices, new materials, interfaces, networks, systems, infrastructures, data, chemicals, organisms, and genetic codes. The average day involves the experience of thousands of layers of design that reach to outer space but also reach deep into our bodies and brains. We literally live inside design, like the spider lives inside the web constructed from inside its own body. But unlike the spider, we have spawned countless overlapping and interacting webs. Even the planet itself has been completely encrusted by design as a geological layer. There is no longer an outside to the world of design. Design has become the world. Design is what makes the human. It is the basis of  social life, from the very first artefacts to the exponential expansion of human capability. Nevertheless design also engineers inequalities and new forms of neglect. More people than ever in history are forcibly displaced by war, lawlessness, poverty, and climate at the same time that the human genome and the weather are being actively redesigned. We can no longer reassure ourselves with the idea of “good design.” Design needs to be redesigned.”

In order to "rethink design from the very beginning of humanity," the Biennial organized into four overlapping “clouds” of projects: The array of projects presented in the Designing the Body section of the Biennial explores all the different ways in which the human body itself is an artefact that is continually reconstructed, from the unique way our hands work to the latest research on the brain. Designing the Planet presents a series of projects that ask us to rethink the human design of vast territories and ecologies. Designing Life looks at the new forms of mechanical, electronic and biological life that are being crafted. Designing Time presents a new kind of archaeology ranging from the deep time of the very first human tools and ornaments to the ways in which social media allows humans to redesign themselves and their artefacts in as little as 2 seconds.

DESIGN IS ALWAYS DESIGN OF THE HUMAN
THE HUMAN IS THE DESIGNING ANIMAL
OUR SPECIES IS COMPLETELY SUSPENDED IN ENDLESS LAYERS OF DESIGN 
DESIGN RADICALLY EXPANDS HUMAN CAPABILITY
DESIGN ROUTINELY CONSTRUCTS RADICAL INEQUALITIES
DESIGN IS EVEN THE DESIGN OF NEGLECT
“GOOD DESIGN” IS AN ANESTHETIC
DESIGN WITHOUT ANESTHETIC ASKS URGENT QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR HUMANITY

These propositions explored in events, classes, workshops, and online discussions

Again on the basis of the curators point of view, the biennial is an archaeological project. It is not about celebrating particular designers or about visualizing remarkable futures. It will be a multi-media documentary about the state of design today, when everyday reality has outpaced science fiction. It will place the extreme condition of contemporary design into the context of the extended 200,000 year history of our species – from the first standardized ornaments and the footprints of the first shoes to the latest digital and carbon footprints.

AREN’T WE HUMAN?  A BLURING SCREAM RISES FROM “LEFT TO DIE BOAT” to the SKY

Having observed the projects by designers, architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and scientists from thirteen countries,  in five primary venues in İstanbul namely the Galata Greek Primary School, Studio-X Istanbul , Depo in  Karaköy, Alt in Bomonti, and the Istanbul Archaeological Museums in Sultanahmet decide to emphasize some of  themes and  issues in   elaborated manner  verbally  in some instances  in various  contexts  and studies.

 The profound philosophical question rises above the lines of evolution and progress recorded for the sake of Humanity versus the destruction of humanity via advanced technology or IN SPITE of advanced technology?

 In this regard, one of the leading and bleeding  humanitarian issue touched on Design Biennial was depicting the Liquid Traces  video [vi]  “The Left-to-Die Boat Case”  directed by Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani,  offers a synthetic reconstruction of the events concerning what is known as the “left-to-die boat” case in which 72 passengers who left the Libyan coast heading in the direction of the island of Lampedusa on board a small rubber boat were left to drift for 14 days in NATO’s maritime surveillance area, despite several distress signals relaying their location, as well as repeated interactions, including at least one military helicopter visit and an encounter with a military ship. As a result, only 9 people survived.

“The Left-to-Die Boat Case”   is the case that reminds the attitude of the three wise monkeys.  (in Western reference).  Dealing with impropriety by turning a blind eye

In producing the reconstruction, FA research has used against the grain the “sensorium of the sea” – the multiple remote sensing devices used to record and read the sea’s depth and surface. Contrary to the vision of the sea as a non-signifying space in which any event instantaneously dissolves into moving currents, with FA  investigation  they demonstrated that traces are indeed left in water, and that by reading them prudently the sea itself can be turned into a witness for interrogation. As a time-based media, the animation also gives form to the Mediterranean’s differential rhythms of mobility that have emerged through the progressive restraint of legal means of access to the EU for certain categories of people and the synchronized acceleration of the flows of goods and capital.

Actually it was not the first display of the animation 3rd Istanbul Design Biennial . It was first produced for the exhibition “Forensis” at the House of World Cultures, Berlin, in March 2014.

 It was part of the research project Forensic Architecture – funded by the European Research Council and hosted by the Centre for Research Architecture at Goldsmiths, University of London. Later been exhibited in different venues and organizations in 2014 like  Secession, Berlin: screened within the exhibition “Maps of the Secession” at the French Institute, Pleasure Dome, Toronto: Screening Cine Cycle, 129 Spadina Ave, SABIRMaydan, Messina: screened as part of the “Dialogues around the Mediterranean Citizenship”, Internationale Ferrara: screened within the conference and exhibition “Migrations – Subversive Atlas”, MAXXI, Rome: screened within the conference and exhibition “The Art Of Bordering” and Kassel Documentary Film and Video Festival, Kassel.

The video that calls and trigger  one to make further  in depth exploration and googling concerning the crying subject with following lines on self-crying report namely  the Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat” Charles Heller, Lorenzo Pezzani and Situ Studio /Part of the European Research Council project “Forensic Architecture” Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths, University of London,     

[vii]Two to three hours after having placed the call and while the migrants’ vessel continued sailing in the direction of Lampedusa, it was flown over by a military helicopter, which bore the writing “ARMY” or “RESCUE ARMY” on its side. Despite the migrants’ clearly identifiable gestures for help - waving, holding the BABIES on board at arm’s length, showing the empty tanks of petrol -, the helicopter hovered over the boat but left without providing any immediate assistance.

 On the basis of this report  the unfortunate instance and  the relevant conjunction mentioned in  INTRODUCTION 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY as follows ;[viii]

The UNHCR defined 2011 as the “deadliest year” in the Mediterranean since the organization began recording these statistics in 2006, estimating that over 1,500 migrants died while fleeing Libya during the initial stages of the violent conflict.1 This number is extremely high in comparison to the 13,417 deaths documented from 1988 to March 2012 at the maritime borders of the EU, and the 6,226 deaths occurred solely in the Sicily Channel during the same period.2 Furthermore, the loss of lives at sea in 2011 occurred despite the significant naval and aerial presence in the area due to the military intervention in Libya launched by an international coalition of states and NATO (hereafter referred to as ”participating states/NATO”) under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.3 One particular event, reported by the international press, provoked widespread public outrage4 . In the case of what is now referred to as the “left-to-die boat”5 , 72 migrants fleeing Tripoli by boat on the early morning of March 27 2011 ran out of fuel and were left to drift for 14 days until they landed back on the Libyan coast. With no water or food on-board, only nine of the migrants survived. In several interviews, these survivors recounted the various points of contacts they had with the external world during this ordeal. This included describing the aircraft that flew over them, the distress call they sent out via satellite telephone and their visual sightings of a military helicopter which provided a few packets of biscuits and bottles of water and a military ship which failed to provide any assistance whatsoever. The events, as recounted by these survivors, appeared to constitute a severe violation of the legal obligation to provide assistance to any person in distress at sea, an obligation sanctioned by several international conventions. In response to this incident, several initiatives were undertaken to shed light on these deaths and demand accountability for them. On 10 May 2011, Human Rights Watch demanded that NATO and its member countries conduct a full investigation of the case.6 On 9 June 2011, the French NGO GISTI sent out a public call which led to the formation of a coalition of NGOs (constituted primarily by CIRÉ, FIDH, GISTI, LDH, and Migreurop) that sought accountability for the non-assistance of migrants at sea during and in the aftermath of Arab Spring in general and in the case of the “left-to-die boat” in particular.7 The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) appointed the Dutch Senator Tineke Strik to prepare an in-depth report on the deaths that have occurred in the Mediterranean in 2011. Her report titled “Lives lost in the Mediterranean Sea: who is responsible?” was presented in Brussels on 29 March 2012.

THE LEFT-TO-DIE BOAT chain of events explained in Forensic Architecture official page  by the Research Team (Charles Heller,Lorenzo Pezzani, SITU)  Research   [ix] is as follows,

The deadly drift of a migrants’ boat in the Central Mediterranean

The Forensic Oceanography project was launched in summer 2011 to support a coalition of NGOs demanding accountability for the deaths of migrants in the central Mediterranean Sea. That region was being tightly monitored by the NATO-led coalition intervening in Libya. [x]The efforts were focused on what is now known as the “left-to-die boat” case, in which sixty-three migrants lost their lives while drifting for fourteen days within the NATO maritime surveillance area. By going “against the grain” in their  use of surveillance technologies, they  were able to reconstruct with precision how events unfolded and demonstrate how different actors operating in the Central Mediterranean Sea used the complex and overlapping jurisdictions at sea to evade their responsibility for rescuing people in distress. The report they produced formed the basis for a number of ongoing legal petitions filed against NATO member states.

Monitoring the Mediterranean

In response to the Libyan uprising, [xi]an international coalition launched a military intervention in the country. As of March 23, 2011, NATO started enforcing an arms embargo off the coast of Libya. During the period of the events of the “left-to-die boat” case, the central Mediterranean Sea was being monitored with unprecedented scrutiny, enabling NATO and participating states to become aware of any distress of migrants—and therefore be effective in assisting them. The Forensic Oceanography report turned the knowledge generated through surveillance means into evidence of responsibility for the crime of non-assistance.

In FA team interview with Dan Haile Gebre (DHG) , one of the survivors, they tried to depart from formats of witnessing normally associated with humanitarian organizations. Rather than placing the emphasis on the subjective dimension of his experience, They  used various memory aids—such as photographs of naval and aerial assets that were present in the area at the time of the events—to assist him in recollecting precise elements that could support the reconstruction of the spatiotemporal coordinates of the event and the identification of the various vessels and aircrafts encountered by the migrants while at sea.

Summary of key events

1. The migrants’ vessel left the port of Tripoli between 00:00 and 02:00 GMT on March 27, 2011 with seventy-two migrants on board. At that time, as part of the military operations in Libya, NATO was enforcing an arms embargo in the central Mediterranean Sea, deducing  that during that period it was the most highly surveilled section of sea in the entire world [xii]    

2. At 14:55 GMT on March 27, the boat was spotted by a French aircraft that transmitted its coordinates (point A) to the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC).

3. After proceeding in the direction of Lampedusa for fifteen to eighteen hours, the migrants placed a distress call by satellite phone. The vessel’s GPS location was determined at 16:52 GMT on March 27, 2011 (point B) by the satellite phone provider Thuraya.  Shortly thereafter, the MRCC in Rome signaled the boat’s distress and position to all vessels in the area. It also alerted Malta MRCC and NATO HQ allied command in Naples.

4. The migrants’ vessel continued its course for roughly two hours before being flown over by a helicopter. As the satellite phone fell into the water shortly after this sighting, the last signal detected by Thuraya at 19:08 GMT on March 27 (point C) thus probably corresponds to the location of the helicopter sighting. Around the same position, the passengers approached several fishing boats but their requests for help went disregarded. They were then visited for a second time by a military helicopter that dropped just a few biscuits and water before leaving. Between 00:00 and 01:00 GMT the passengers resumed their course in a NNW direction towards Lampedusa.

5. At approximately 07:00 GMT on March 28, after having probably entered the Maltese Search and Rescue (SAR) area (see items 13A and B), the vessel ran of fuel and began to drift SSW (point D).[xiii]

6. The boat drifted SSW for seven to eight days before it encountered a military ship between April 3 and 5 (point E). Despite approaching them in circles and witnessing the distress of the passengers, the ship left without assisting them.

7. The boat continued to drift until April 10 when it landed southeast of Tripoli at Zlitan. Upon landing, eleven migrants were still alive; two died shortly thereafter.

Alerting the Coast Guard

Information about the migrants’ distress circulated through a complex assemblage of human feeds, electromagnetic signals, and various types of hardware. The initial call for help was made by the migrants themselves via a satellite phone, fifteen to eighteen hours after they had departed from Tripoli. The passengers called Father Zerai, an Eritrean priest based in Rome, who has received hundreds of distress calls from the Mediterranean over recent years. He informed the Italian coastguard, who, after obtaining the GPS location of the boat from the satellite phone provider Thuraya, informed their Maltese counterparts and NATO’s Naples Maritime HQ, as well as sending out two distress signals to all nearby ships. As such, all vessels in the area—civilian and military—should have been informed of the position and distress of the passengers.

Drift

According to the survivors, in the early hours of March 28, 2011 their vessel ran of fuel and began to drift aimlessly for the remainder of its trajectory. Where exactly did the boat begin its drift, and which course did it follow? These are questions that Report Team(RT)  [xiv] addressed in collaboration with oceanographer Richard Limeburner (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute), who is experienced in modeling the trajectory of objects in the open ocean. With his help, and by bringing the winds and currents to bear witness to the events, RT were able to reconstruct a model of the entire trajectory of the boat during its fourteen days of deadly drift. While RT  conclude that the vessel briefly entered the Maltese search and rescue zone, for the majority of its trajectory it remained drifting slowly within the NATO maritime surveillance area.

[xv]On the basis of  Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat” Charles Heller, Lorenzo Pezzani and Situ Studio drifting in the storm  is elucidated as follows  From the morning of the 28 March 2011, the migrants found themselves drifting in high waves for which their small, overcrowded rubber boat was unfit (AKK,). Dan Haile Gebre(DHG) recalls that “the sea was very dark with too much waves and wind. We lost our direction. From then on and for several days we don’t know anything” (DHG,). As part of this report a drift model has been created to simulate the trajectory of the vessel as it travelled from the morning of the 28th until eventually landing ashore in Ziltan on 10 April 2011 (figs. 16,17,18 [xvi]). Left without food or water, the migrants began drinking sea-water as well as their own urine mixed with toothpaste (DHG,). According to Dan Haile, after 2-3 days of this weather people started to die (DHG) [xvii]. According to Abu Kurke, the number of people dying increased daily. First two, then four, then five or six people died everyday (AKK,)[xviii]. While drifting the migrants sighted the lights of boats in the distance during the night. “During the night we would see the lights of other big boats in the distance, we could not see them but the reflection of their lights looked like a city in the distance” (DHG,.[xix] In the attempt to come closer to these vessels four people in the boat started paddling with their hands but the effort was unsuccessful (DHG,).

Use of satellite imagery

In the production of the Forensic Oceanography report, satellite imagery was crucial in confirming the presence of a high number of ships in close proximity to the drifting migrants’ boat. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite imagery is routinely collected over the Mediterranean Sea for various purposes, including the policing of illegalized migration. Using these media to document the crime of non-assistance of people in distress at sea thus involved a strategic repurposing of these images and the use of surveillance technologies “against the grain.” In this RT  exercised a “disobedient gaze,” one that refuses to disclose clandestine migration but seeks to unveil instead the violence of the border regime.

 

 

Sensing technologies

Optical and SAR satellites are only two among a vast array of sensing technologies—thermal cameras, sea-, air- and land-borne radars, vessel-tracking technologies, etc.—that scan and analyze the surface of the sea, turning certain physical conditions into digital data according to specific sets of protocols and determining the conditions of visibility of certain events, objects, or people. The constant emission and capture of different electromagnetic waves operated by these technologies confers a new material meaning on Fernand Braudel’s metaphor of the Mediterranean as an “electromagnetic field” in terms of its relation to the wider world. These technologies do not simply create a new representation of the sea, but rather constitute a new sea altogether, one that is simultaneously composed of matter and media.

Envisat-1 data, March 28, 2011. While the image reveals characteristics present on the surface of the sea—different degrees of sea roughness and currents, returns (bright pixels) indicating the presence of ships—it also shows a long band formed by regular stripes. The latter is not produced by the reflection of radar emissions from the surface of the Earth, but is a sensor-related error linked to the data transmission or to the sensor response. This distortion of the image importantly reveals the electromagnetic waves that supplement the sea’s flowing currents of water today.

Envisat-1 data, March 28, 2011. While the image reveals characteristics present on the surface of the sea—different degrees of sea roughness and currents, returns (bright pixels) indicating the presence of ships—it also shows a long band formed by regular stripes. The latter is not produced by the reflection of radar emissions from the surface of the Earth, but is a sensor-related error linked to the data transmission or to the sensor response. This distortion of the image importantly reveals the electromagnetic waves that supplement the sea’s flowing currents of water today.[xx]

While optical satellite imagery forms images of the Earth’s surface by detecting the solar radiation reflected from targets on the ground, SAR imaging uses an antenna to transmit microwave pulses towards the Earth’s surface. The microwave energy scattered back to the spacecraft is measured and an image is formed by utilizing the time delay of the backscattered signals. Calm sea surfaces appear dark in SAR images, whereas ships reflect most of the radar energy back to the sensor, appearing as bright pixels against a uniform background.

Analyzing Signals

AIS (Automatic Identification System) is a ship-borne transponder system that sends out a signal to coastal or satellite receivers, providing live information regarding the position of all registered vessels. While mandatory for large commercial ships, the carriage of AIS is not required for certain categories of ships such as warships. Forensic Oceanography analyzed AIS data in conjunction with SAR imagery in the attempt to identify “negatively” the military ships in the vicinity of the “left-to-die boat”—by determining which large vessels were not accounted for by the AIS data. The inconsistency of AIS data for that period and area (probably due to an absence of recorded data along the Libyan coast) did not allow AIS data to be matched with satellite imagery targets but nevertheless provided an impressive snapshot of commercial maritime traffic though the Straight of Sicily.

On the basis of report [xxi] “Watchstanders in the Maritime Operations Centre can process vast amounts of raw data received from shoredbased, sea-based, and airborne sensors. Some of this data comes in the form of AIS  signals, which all commercial vessels greater than 300 tons are legally obliged to transmit. With an expanding array of networked sensors based in over 15 countries around the Mediterranean and Black Sea, this information system provides real-time data on a daily average of 8,000 contacts. Today’s network represents a quantum leap in surveillance capacity over just a few years ago. With so much raw information available, the trend in MSA is to develop technological tools that can compare in real-time the transmitted data to database information in order to validate the contacts’ names, registry numbers, cargo, owners, recent and upcoming ports of call, etc. These tools enable watchstanders to focus on anomalous contacts and concentrate intelligence and maritime analyst resources on irregular behaviour, such as unexplained loitering or course deviations”.[xxii]

 Search and Rescue conventions

The 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) has divided the world’s oceans into different search and rescue areas, for each of which the countries concerned are responsible for assisting people in distress at sea. However, the elastic nature of international law has often been strategically mobilized by coastal states to avoid engaging in rescue missions. In the central Mediterranean Sea, in particular, the delimitation of SAR zones has a long and conflict-ridden history. Tunisia and Libya have refrained from defining the boundaries of their SAR zones, while Italy and Malta have overlapping SAR zones and are signatories to different versions of the SAR convention, a situation which has led to repeated standoffs and tragedies and certainly contributed to the events of the “left-to-die boat” case.

The third  section of the Report[xxiii]  attempts to answer the following question: who was involved and to what degree in the events leading to the deaths that occurred in the “left-to-die boat” case? With this objective in mind, we will review evidence that points to the involvement of different parties. While the tragic effects of Gaddafi’s forces facilitating and, in some cases, directly organising the exodus of hundreds of migrants in unseaworthy vessels was already addressed in sub-chapter 1.3, RT  focus exclusively on the involvement of those actors who, although informed of the distress of the people on the “left-to-die boat”, might have failed to assist them. Whereas the previous section looked at the chain of events from the point of view of the migrants by corroborating their testimony with verifiable data, third  section analyses the same events from the point of view of the former parties. While RT will limit ourselves to collecting and assessing the facts that will allow for a determination regarding the degree of involvement of different actors, the legal framework that sets out the obligations of ships and states to assist any person found in distress at sea provides a useful point of reference for our inquiry. This obligation is mainly framed by two essential texts, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS convention) and the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS convention). [xxiv] These provide that every state shall require the master of a ship (civilian or military) flying its flag to provide assistance to seafarers if informed of their distress and if the ship does incur danger in doing so. Furthermore, coastal states have the obligation to coordinate search and rescue operations within a given area (SAR zone) as defined by the UNCLOS, SOLAS and SAR conventions.[xxv] In the particular context of war in which the “left-to-die boat” case occurred, International humanitarian law may also provide an important point of reference, in that, it obliges parties to armed conflict ”to take all possible measures to search for, collect and evacuate the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment and to ensure their adequate care. There are also obligations on parties to take feasible measures to account for persons reported missing, with respect to the right of families to know the fate of their missing relatives, and with respect to the management of the dead and related issues”

Legal Cases

The ultimate destination of the report on the “left-to-die boat” has been a series of legal cases regarding non-assistance to people in distress at sea led by a “coalition of NGOs” [xxvi] Cases have been filed in France, Italy, Belgium, and Spain, while Freedom of Information requests have been submitted in Canada, the US, and the UK. These initiatives, as well as an investigation by the Council of Europe and by several journalists, have forced states and militaries concerned to release further data on the events. The reconstruction of facts in the Forensic Oceanography report has never been contested in these responses; however, the information provided so far remains vague and incomplete and has not allowed us to determine legal responsibility for the deaths of sixty-three people on board the “left-to-die boat.”

International Press

The map produced by Forensic Oceanography has been circulated widely in the international press, in activist circles, and in legal and political documents. Each time slightly modified, cropped, deformed, misspelled, and redrawn, it has allowed for the discussion around this case to occur across different arenas. In particular, it has for the first time given a specific form to the trajectory of the boat, thus allowing for the inscription of this event across the liquid surface and the contested jurisdictions of the sea.

In the lights of the activities mentioned above, the  fourth conclusion session of the Report covers the following message: The  report has led RT to inquire into the events that led to death of 63 passengers of the “left-to-die boat” case, one important case amongst the over 1,500 migrants who lost their life in the Mediterranean while fleeing Libya in 2011.168 All these losses occurred despite the significant naval and aerial presence in the area due to Participating states/NATO operations in Libya. In attempting to answer the question “what happened to the “left-to-die boat” and who was involved in the events leading to the deaths of 63 migrants?”, we employed novel forms of visualizations and spatial analysis, which allowed RT to cross-reference the testimonies of the survivors between each other and with other verifiable sources of data., such as GPS coordinates of the vessel provided for different moments of its trajectory and a drift model calculated specifically for this report. By combining these different sources RT arrived at the conclusion that the account of the survivors was highly accurate and credible and we were able to produce a coherent and precise picture of the how the events unfolded through space and time. Several actors were involved in the events leading to the tragic fate of the “left-to-die boat”. The Gaddafi regime made the crossing of the Mediterranean extremely dangerous for hundreds of people leaving Libya, and in the case of the “left-to-die-boat” specifically. Secondly, according to the testimonies of the survivors, fishermen failed to assist the migrants they encountered in the open sea. Thirdly, Italy and Malta, although informed of the distress of the migrants and while the migrants’ vessel was on the threshold of the Maltese SAR zone, did not intervene to rescue them or ensure that a rescue was coordinated. Finally, at least one patrol aircraft, one helicopter and a military ship, whose identities still remain unknown, had direct contact with the boat. All these parties, although they were informed of the migrants’ distress and while they had the technical and logistical capability to assist the migrants, did not intervene in a way that could have averted the tragic fate of the passengers. The migrants’ vessel drifted slowly, during 14 days, within one of the most surveilled maritime areas in the world, populated by at least 38 naval assets. Reviewing the different degrees of involvement on the part of all the actors involved in the “left-to-die boat” case, what emerges beyond individual acts or modes of inaction is a generalised reluctance on the part of all parties involved to assist the people on-board this vessel. How is it possible that the migrants were left to die despite these repeated encounters? Who exactly did they encounter? Who was present in the area, informed of their distress and yet failed to respond? The account of events  RT  have provided should serve as a first contribution to answering these questions, however only through further inquiry and disclosure by all parties involved will they receive the definite answers they deserve.

SUBJECTIVE DEDUCTION

Having gone through all report and related conventions, now   reviewing the  IOM[xxvii] reports  announcing 368,414 arrivals to EUROPE 2016 345,440 by sea  22,794 by land 4,646 dead/missing - Mediterranean 2016 (updates as of 20 November 2016 on the one hand and analyze and opinions mentioned on   UN Migration Agency IOM   report  titled   1,000 More Migrant Deaths in Mediterranean Compared to Same Period Last Year [xxviii]on the other hand and thinking about the root-cause analyze about the fact related issues generate various kinds of  displacement crisis all over the World which is the major sin convicted in the name of neglect   before the crime of non – assistance born.  The clouds turning blood red,. Munch’s Scream[xxix] pass by and leaving the questions behind, “Aren’t We human and embalm our ears in order to avoid hearing the scream of the left to die boat   rising above the reddish sky ? ”   

We don’t know the spirits of the victims ascended to sky or not, if so celestial wisdom whispers   no matter left  or right path you choose, go in a right way   in order not to leave the boats of the future to be submerged in the oceans of  dim NEGLECT. The tic tac of human heart  speaks louder than the  ship-borne transponder system  AIS that sends  out a signal to coastal or satellite receivers.

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

VIDEO   . http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

 


[ii] Phoenix In Greek mythology is a long-lived bird that is cyclically regenerated or reborn. Associated with the Sun, a phoenix obtains new life by arising from the ashes of its predecessor. According to some sources, the phoenix dies in a show of flames and combustion, although there are other sources that claim that the legendary bird dies and simply decomposes before being born again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology)

[iii]   Left  to Die Boat Case video animation (Pls see references 1)

[vi]   Left  to Die Boat Case video animation (Pls see references 1)

[vii] Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”  Page 10   http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[viii] http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat” Charles Heller, Lorenzo Pezzani and Situ Studio This report was prepared in the framework of “Forensic Oceanography”, a project by Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani, both PhD students at the Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths, University of London, as well as by SITU Studio, a creative practice in Brooklyn, New York committed to spatial investigations in a wide range of scales and media. Additional technical expertise was provided by Richard Limeburner, Senior Research Specialist in the Department of Physical Oceanography at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Lawrence Fox III, Humboldt State University Emeritus Professor of Remote Sensing, who was recruited for us by GIScorps. Ayesha Ahmed, a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths, University of London also contributed to the research informing this report. This study forms part of the European Research Council project

[x]   On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, ostensibly to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

[xi] Libya Uprising/Civil War  2011   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

[xiii]   Point D /   The Chain of  all events in the “left-to-die boat” case as reconstructed for the Forensic Oceanography report.  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

[xiv] Report Team, the people and /or Institutions provide contribution for the Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”     http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[xv] http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat” Charles Heller, Lorenzo Pezzani and Situ Studio Page 14

[xvi] Fig 16,17,18  Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”     http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[xvii]   Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page  40       http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[xviii]   Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page  26 ,27       http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[xix]    Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page 21  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[xx] Detailed analysis of Envisat-1 image taken on March 29, 2011. Depicted on  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

[xxi]     Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page 42  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[xxii]  How     Nato Review, How are the seas kept safe? How much does piracy cost ships and insurers? And are anti-terrorist operations at sea set to spread? In this edition, NATO Review sets out to see how what happens at sea affects lives on land. We ask military and business leaders about how important piracy really is and go on a live NATO operation to see up close what it does at sea.    http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/Maritime_Security/EN/index.htm

[xxiii] [xxiii]   Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page  24       

[xxiv] International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Rescue at sea, a guide to principles and practice as applied to migrants and refugees”, September 2006. URL: www.unhcr.org/450037d34.html The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS Convention) provides that: “Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him.” (Art. 98 (1)) The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the: “master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so....” (Chapter V, Regulation 33(1)

[xxv] Ibid. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS Convention) imposes an obligation on every coastal State Party to: “...promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate with neighbouring States for this purpose”. (Art. 98 (2)) The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) requires State Parties: “... to ensure that necessary arrangements are made for distress communication and coordination in their area of responsibility and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea around its coasts. These arrangements shall include the establishment, operation and maintenance of such search and rescue facilities as are deemed practicable and necessary ...” (Chapter V, Regulation 7) The 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) obliges State Parties to: “... ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea ... regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found” (Chapter 2.1.10) and to “ [...] provide for their initial medical or other needs, and deliver them to a place of safety.” (Chapter 1.3.2) The May 2004 amendments (which came into force in July 2006) to the SOLAS and SAR conventions as well as Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea further specify their application. The Guidelines contain the following provisions: The government responsible for the SAR region in which survivors were recovered is responsible for providing a place of safety or ensuring that such a place of safety is provided. (para. 2.5). A place of safety is a location where rescue operations are considered to terminate, and where the survivors’ safety or life is no longer threatened; basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met; and transportation arrangements can be made for the survivors’ next or final destination.

[xxvi] The list of organizations belonging to NGO coalition mentioned in http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/   includes: The Aire Centre, Agenzia Habeshia, Associazione Ricreativa e Culturale Italiana (ARCI), Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI), Boats4People, Canadian Centre for International Justice, Coordination et initiatives pour réfugiés et immigrés (Ciré), Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme (FIDH), Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI), Ligue belge des droits de l’Homme (LDH), Ligue française des droits de l’Homme (LDH), Migreurop, Progress Lawyers Network, Réseau euro-méditerranéen des droits de l’Homme (REMDH), and Unione Forense per la Tutela dei Diritti Umani (UFTDU).

 

[xxvii]   Migration Flows Europe    http://migration.iom.int/europe/

[xxix]  Scream , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream The original  German title given by Munch to his work was Der Schrei der Natur ("The Scream of Nature"). The Norwegian word skrik usually is translated as scream, but is cognate with the English shriek. Occasionally, the painting also has been called The Cry.In his diary in an entry headed Nice 22 January 1892, Munch described his inspiration for the image: “One evening I was walking along a path, the city was on one side and the fjord below. I felt tired and ill. I stopped and looked out over the fjord—the sun was setting, and the clouds turning blood red. I sensed a scream passing through nature; it seemed to me that I heard the scream. I painted this picture, painted the clouds as actual blood. The color shrieked. This became The Scream.”

 

 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_(comics)

[1] Phoenix In Greek mythology is a long-lived bird that is cyclically regenerated or reborn. Associated with the Sun, a phoenix obtains new life by arising from the ashes of its predecessor. According to some sources, the phoenix dies in a show of flames and combustion, although there are other sources that claim that the legendary bird dies and simply decomposes before being born again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology)

[1]   Left  to Die Boat Case video animation (Pls see references 1)

[1] http://bizinsanmiyiz.iksv.org/ziyaret/

[1] http://tasarimbienali.iksv.org/en/archive/newsarchive/p/1/1229

[1]   Left  to Die Boat Case video animation (Pls see references 1)

[1] Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”  Page 10   http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[1] http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat” Charles Heller, Lorenzo Pezzani and Situ Studio This report was prepared in the framework of “Forensic Oceanography”, a project by Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani, both PhD students at the Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths, University of London, as well as by SITU Studio, a creative practice in Brooklyn, New York committed to spatial investigations in a wide range of scales and media. Additional technical expertise was provided by Richard Limeburner, Senior Research Specialist in the Department of Physical Oceanography at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Lawrence Fox III, Humboldt State University Emeritus Professor of Remote Sensing, who was recruited for us by GIScorps. Ayesha Ahmed, a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Centre for Research Architecture, Goldsmiths, University of London also contributed to the research informing this report. This study forms part of the European Research Council project

[1] http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

[1]   On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, ostensibly to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

[1] Libya Uprising/Civil War  2011   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

[1] see items 2A, B, and C http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

[1]   Point D /   The Chain of  all events in the “left-to-die boat” case as reconstructed for the Forensic Oceanography report.  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

[1] Report Team, the people and /or Institutions provide contribution for the Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”     http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[1] http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat” Charles Heller, Lorenzo Pezzani and Situ Studio Page 14

[1] Fig 16,17,18  Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”     http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[1]   Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page  40       http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[1]   Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page  26 ,27       http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[1]    Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page 21  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[1] Detailed analysis of Envisat-1 image taken on March 29, 2011. Depicted on  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/

[1]     Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page 42  http://www.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FO-report.pdf

[1]  How     Nato Review, How are the seas kept safe? How much does piracy cost ships and insurers? And are anti-terrorist operations at sea set to spread? In this edition, NATO Review sets out to see how what happens at sea affects lives on land. We ask military and business leaders about how important piracy really is and go on a live NATO operation to see up close what it does at sea.    http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/Maritime_Security/EN/index.htm

[1] [1]   Forensic Oceanography Report on the “Left-To-Die Boat”   Page  24       

[1] International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Rescue at sea, a guide to principles and practice as applied to migrants and refugees”, September 2006. URL: www.unhcr.org/450037d34.html The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS Convention) provides that: “Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him.” (Art. 98 (1)) The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the: “master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so....” (Chapter V, Regulation 33(1)

[1] Ibid. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS Convention) imposes an obligation on every coastal State Party to: “...promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate with neighbouring States for this purpose”. (Art. 98 (2)) The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) requires State Parties: “... to ensure that necessary arrangements are made for distress communication and coordination in their area of responsibility and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea around its coasts. These arrangements shall include the establishment, operation and maintenance of such search and rescue facilities as are deemed practicable and necessary ...” (Chapter V, Regulation 7) The 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) obliges State Parties to: “... ensure that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea ... regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found” (Chapter 2.1.10) and to “ [...] provide for their initial medical or other needs, and deliver them to a place of safety.” (Chapter 1.3.2) The May 2004 amendments (which came into force in July 2006) to the SOLAS and SAR conventions as well as Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea further specify their application. The Guidelines contain the following provisions: The government responsible for the SAR region in which survivors were recovered is responsible for providing a place of safety or ensuring that such a place of safety is provided. (para. 2.5). A place of safety is a location where rescue operations are considered to terminate, and where the survivors’ safety or life is no longer threatened; basic human needs (such as food, shelter and medical needs) can be met; and transportation arrangements can be made for the survivors’ next or final destination.

[1] The list of organizations belonging to NGO coalition mentioned in http://www.forensic-architecture.org/case/left-die-boat/   includes: The Aire Centre, Agenzia Habeshia, Associazione Ricreativa e Culturale Italiana (ARCI), Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI), Boats4People, Canadian Centre for International Justice, Coordination et initiatives pour réfugiés et immigrés (Ciré), Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme (FIDH), Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI), Ligue belge des droits de l’Homme (LDH), Ligue française des droits de l’Homme (LDH), Migreurop, Progress Lawyers Network, Réseau euro-méditerranéen des droits de l’Homme (REMDH), and Unione Forense per la Tutela dei Diritti Umani (UFTDU).

 

[1]   Migration Flows Europe    http://migration.iom.int/europe/

[1] http://www.iom.int/news/1000-more-migrant-deaths-mediterranean-compared-same-period-last-year

[1]  Scream , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream The original  German title given by Munch to his work was Der Schrei der Natur ("The Scream of Nature"). The Norwegian word skrik usually is translated as scream, but is cognate with the English shriek. Occasionally, the painting also has been called The Cry.In his diary in an entry headed Nice 22 January 1892, Munch described his inspiration for the image: “One evening I was walking along a path, the city was on one side and the fjord below. I felt tired and ill. I stopped and looked out over the fjord—the sun was setting, and the clouds turning blood red. I sensed a scream passing through nature; it seemed to me that I heard the scream. I painted this picture, painted the clouds as actual blood. The color shrieked. This became The Scream.”

  

Comments