When the "bulwark of humanity" shows the differential value of who and what is human: a year of the Red Cross in Lampedusa"
After more than three years of (mis)management by the Badia Grande cooperative, on June 1st, 2023, the hotspot of Lampedusa came under the management of the Italian Red Cross (hereafter CRI). This happened within the broader terms (narrative, logistical, and economic) of the declaration of "State of Emergency" for migration made by the Italian government in April of the previous year. It is no coincidence that the CRI, along with Civil Defence centre, has been called upon, involved from the beginning for "their wealth of experience and equipment in emergencies." Simultaneously, the emergency plan aimed to increase and strengthen the facilities for repatriation (CPR) by enhancing identification and expulsion. These operations begin immediately after disembarkation, often in cooperation with, if not led by, the CRI. The allocation of 5 million euros was also used to implement a system for transferring people from Lampedusa. Until then, they were almost routinely forced to stay there for weeks - without being able to leave, except if unseen, despite the illegitimacy of this deprivation of personal freedom.
What has changed over the course of this year?
On June 13th 2024, CRI organized a press conference with the title "A year of CRI in Lampedusa". A white and red flyer tries to enhance, with numbers and statistics, the work of the organization: "the numbers of one year of assistance and hospitality". They report:
94.290 people assisted
1827 vulnerabilities and specific needs signaled and taken on charge
2 days of average stay
698 daily medical presences
299 cases of family ties restoration and maintenance
Rosario Valastro, President of the organization, during the press conference, underlines multiple times the effort of the organization on taking care of people beyond the numbers. That would arrive, according to the President, up to the point that after a year of activity, the hotspot has become a bulwark of humanity. Migration, the President says, should be seen more as a complementary part of our history and of our present, rather than an extraordinary event.
As members of the civil society present in Lampedusa, however, sadly, we daily see a much different reality. The presence of a hotspot itself - and of the broader approach that the structure carries with it - rather represents a key element of limitation of freedom of movement and violation of people's rights.
How does CRI position itself in this political arena of control, filter, selection and pushback - structurally rooted in racism - of non-European and undocumented individuals arriving in Italy? What does the CRI represent in the broader context of managing European borders?
According to Rosario Valastro, "[CRI provides] help everywhere for everyone in all circumstances. With a great sense of responsibility [...] the hotspot is the bulwark of humanity and honors this citizenry, which over the centuries has guaranteed hospitality and dignity. The hotspot upholds these principles of hospitality and the sense of welcome that the Lampedusans have had for centuries."
We would like to offer a counterpoint to these statements: citizenship and hospitality are principles that must be embraced by people to exist and are not guaranteed by the functioning of a structure. The history of Lampedusa is characterized by movements and encounters, not by segregation. In this context, however, what is at stake is not really a struggle for a hypothetical reclaiming of the values and stories of the island, which are instead still being instrumentally invoked with the effect of flattening political tensions.
The arrival of CRI and, above all, of the adequate resources to handle the reception of undocumented people was greeted very positively by all parties involved. Last summer, the declarations regarding the improvements to the facility's interior, the construction of new pavilions, and the infamous play area were striking.
In counterpoint, there were years of denounce against the state's de-responsibility in managing the hotspot, which was outsourced through tenders awarded to the lowest bidders, to private cooperatives such as Badia Grande in the case of Lampedusa (already known for mismanagement and contract revocations since 2022[1]). However, in June 2023, Badia Grande, removed from managing the hotspot, was awarded the management of the Mattei Hub in Bologna. This clearly shows that the choice is neither ethical nor political but purely technocratic and strategic. With the state of emergency for migration declared, Lampedusa once again becomes the spectacular arena where the government has to demonstrate its strength. This has nothing to do with the rights and dignity of people.
However, that's not the only aspect: the choice of the CRI as manager continues to fit into a much more problematic framework. The State takes control of reception, effectively expropriating the island from the ability to decide how to deal with people crossing borders illegally. There was a strong, yet largely ignored by the media, claim by many Lampedusans in September 2023 when over 10,000 people arrived within hours. This protest was not against "migrants" but against the State, surely not absent, but conspicuously present.
We cannot, therefore, confine the recognition of the improvements in resources and facilities that came with CRI's investment in Lampedusa (under Badia Grande, there wasn't even a forklift to move water crates within the hotspot, buses had a maximum of 7 seats, whereas now buses can carry dozens of people and various vehicles constantly circulate on the island) acknowledging CRI as the "guarantor of hospitality and dignity". One does not necessarily imply the other.
To add further complexity, it is essential to consider another aspect: while various civil society organizations have long been advocating for faster transfers from the island to the mainland (to alleviate overcrowding and dismantle the often-cited image of an "invasion"), it is positive that there is finally a more efficient system in place. However, the issue is simply being moved, not resolved, to other transit locations such as the new hotspot in Porto Empedocle. Where (both there and at the Hub in Catania or at the Hotspot in Pozzallo, which resemble administrative-detention facilities) living conditions for individuals remain inadequate. Additionally, if the claim of an "average two-day stay" at the Lampedusa hotspot is true, it would be interesting to question what services can be provided within such timeframes. Often, people who have just arrived, especially at night, stay on Lampedusa for only a few hours before being taken to the commercial pier and boarded onto the first ferry (facing another 9 hours of travel). Therefore, it is natural to ask: what happened to psychological assistance? And to efforts to reunite families who arrive on different boats and are therefore separated? What about the necessary attention to individual needs?
Moreover, if CRI boasts "299 cases of family ties restoration and maintenance," we would instead like to remember the numerous cases of families separated due to the procedures and their rush, because no one had the time, the means, and perhaps the interest to ensure their relational needs.
In the new Hotspot-CRI system, the paradox of the hotspot emerges clearly: the more efficient and "works well" the more violent.
This does not surprise us at all, instead, it lines perfectly with the broader intent - such as the new accelerated border procedures - to manage the requests of each person as quickly as possible (and therefore more superficially), in order to dispose of them as soon as possible.
The main theme, here, is the internal erosion of rights. At the Lampedusa hotspot, the first step is taken to undermine the meaning of the right to asylum.
Moreover, when we talk about "help to everyone to anyone in every circumstances" we omit that the situations of intervention take in consideration the situation of precariousness and need caused by state policies and institutional management. What is the relationship that CRI has with the Italian governmental policies (in this case), if not being complementary ?
What images does Valastro refer to, when he talks about dignity?
We are well aware of the images depicting an extremely unbalanced system focused on logistics and the disposal of migration. For instance, the constant overcrowding at the hotspot—directly exacerbated by the revitalization of the hotspot system at both European and national levels under the Meloni government—where people endure the sun without beds or adequate sanitary facilities. We vividly remember scenes of a closed facility with 400 minors confined inside for two months (July 2023), and of newly arrived individuals rioting within the hotspot, demanding to continue their journey (July 2023). We paint a picture of September 2023, where the CRI attempted to distribute meals in a hotspot housing 6000 people (far exceeding its capacity of about 600), yet still keeping it closed—a clear symptom of the logistical dullness underlying its management.
Nevertheless, it's necessary to look beyond the Island to understand the structural dimension: just by looking at the thousands of people thrown into makeshift reception centers in response to the so-called crisis of September 2023. Some young people who arrived in September 2023 have told us they were placed in a "anti-cold shelter" opened in Parma, where the maximum support they received was food twice a day. In more serious cases, Tunisian minors with clear signs of depression were abandoned in the hub in Turin, whose conditions were denounced by the center's own manager [2].
Perhaps the president of the Italian Red Cross has in mind the images of women, men, and children transferred on regular ferries with hundreds of people forced to sit in spaces intended for far fewer, or the reception upon arrival in Porto Empedocle.
Is it perhaps necessary to remember the scene of Tchux, forced to leave the hotspot because the Immigration Office couldn't take care of it? The boy, clearly traumatized, had arrived in Lampedusa from Sicily with the intention of returning to Nigeria from there. Instead, he was taken to the hotspot simply because he was black and poor, but it was later discovered that he had received political asylum. Without knowing how to handle the situation, he was escorted out of the facility and left to fend for himself.
The Italian Red Cross (CRI), therefore, fits into a much larger mechanism that extends beyond the island of Lampedusa, although this island often becomes its media symbol.
This is evident even when considering the practices of other actors that CRI supports or endorses with its silence. What role does the organization decide to take with its tacit consent on the discretionary practices of police officers during pre-identification phases or on the imposition of restrictions on entering and leaving the center? How does this complicit and anti-rights position make CRI a bastion of dignity?
How does CRI justify the systematic impossibility for disembarked people to leave the hotspot? Throughout the entire year of managing the hotspot, only one case of departure was recorded. In the case of October 2023, a recently arrived Egyptian boy was "stopped" at the hotspot without being informed of the reasons. Thanks to the intervention of a lawyer from ASGI present in Lampedusa, it was possible to allow him to leave because there were no restrictive orders from the police. The boy had to sign a register at the hotspot to enter and exit, a tool already used in other centers but never before in Lampedusa. When ASGI and the Lampedusa Solidarity Forum submitted civic access requests in April 2024 to verify the existence of this register (which would demonstrate the theoretical possibility of legally allowing people to leave the hotspot after pre-identification and photo identification), the Agrigento Police Headquarters first stated that it did not have the requested information. Subsequently, after a request for reconsideration due to the lack of response, it denied the existence of such a register.
Therefore, it is the police headquarters itself that declares the impossibility of guaranteeing exit from the hotspot when requested.
For the rest, there is organized civil society in more or less formal structures, there is reference and recognition of organizations that ensure their presence at sea and of fishermen who have put into practice (and continue to do so) acts of solidarity, and there are organizations that maintain a critical view on the injustices of the border regime and city networks of active solidarity, in Italy and elsewhere, especially where forms of solidarity are suppressed and criminalized. To all the people who in September, beyond any macro-political assessment and after the collapse of the "bulwark of humanity," mobilized in solidarity with those who arrived.
Valastro's final note on "the challenge of the summer that arrives" seems to us to be yet another proof of a great misunderstanding.
Only those who view migration with a logistical gaze can think of it as the challenge of the summer. It is a focal point from such a narrow angle that it fails to contextualize Lampedusa on a more comprehensive and complex level, within which the number of arrivals cannot be disconnected from the dangers and violence of irregular migration routes. In 2023, the psychophysical condition of people was critical, as evidenced by reports from doctors upon their arrival: for example, in July, people arrived in Lampedusa after walking across the desert territory from Libya and Algeria - where they had been deported - to the departure points on the coasts. These were not random incidents, "critical conditions" decontextualized, or "challenges" emerging by chance: migration and the hardship of oppressed people in motion are the direct result of state policies in which Western powers, through neoliberal and neocolonial policies, play a central role.
On the other hand, are we sure, echoing Valastro's own words, that volunteers and operators, along with cultural mediators, have come into contact and engaged with the forms of oppression that migrants are forced into, albeit quickly, within a system that even steals your time to look each other in the eyes? We hope that these encounters also serve the leaders of the Red Cross.
Is untrue that the Red Cross arrives anywhere there's the need. Rather, anywhere there's need for the State, the Red Cross arrives.
For the rest, there is organized civil society in more or less formal structures, there is reference and recognition of organizations that ensure their presence at sea and of fishermen who have put into practice (and continue to do so) acts of solidarity, and there are organizations that maintain a critical view on the injustices of the border regime and city networks of active solidarity, in Italy and elsewhere, especially where forms of solidarity are suppressed and criminalized. To all the people who in September, beyond any macro-political assessment and after the collapse of the "bulwark of humanity," mobilized in solidarity with those who arrived.
Valastro's final note on "the challenge of the summer that arrives" seems to us to be yet another proof of a great misunderstanding.
Only those who view migration with a logistical gaze can think of it as the challenge of the summer. It is a focal point from such a narrow angle that it fails to contextualize Lampedusa on a more comprehensive and complex level, within which the number of arrivals cannot be disconnected from the dangers and violence of irregular migration routes. In 2023, the psychophysical condition of people was critical, as evidenced by reports from doctors upon their arrival: for example, in July, people arrived in Lampedusa after walking across the desert territory from Libya and Algeria - where they had been deported - to the departure points on the coasts.
These were not random incidents, "critical conditions" decontextualized, or "challenges" emerging by chance: migration and the hardship of oppressed people in motion are the direct result of state policies in which Western powers, through neoliberal and neocolonial policies, play a central role.
On the other hand, we sure, echoing Valastro's own words, that volunteers and operators, along with cultural mediators, have come into contact and engaged with the forms of oppression that migrants are forced into, albeit quickly, within a system that even steals your time to look each other in the eyes. We hope that these encounters also serve the leaders of the Red Cross.
The president's words, in short, that "there are no exceptions of any kind to human dignity" ring extremely disingenuous to us.
One must really not want to see the structural racism that allows different treatments for people of different race and class from the prototype of bourgeois white supremacism.
Beyond logistical support, CRI, in Italy and elsewhere, is a mechanism that participates in the reproduction of structural racism toward which Europe is heading.