Expert commentary, op-eds & interviews on refugee issues — Refugees Deeply

/community

  • Why Every University Should Take in Refugee Students and Scholars

    The Institute of International Education’s Allan Goodman and Katherine Miller speak with Refugees Deeply about their work to help more refugee students access higher education and to protect refugee scholars.

    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/04/10/why-every-university-should-take-in-refugee-students-and-scholars

    #études_universitaires #université #asile #migrations #intégration_professionnelle #éducation #réfugiés #intégration

  • How Borders Are Constructed in West Africa

    The E.U. has led an expensive and often contradictory effort to modernize African borders. Author #Philippe_Frowd looks at the gap between policy and outcomes.

    Over the past 15 years there has been a surge in E.U. spending on borders outside Europe. The impact of this funding on West Africa has received little attention until recently.

    A new book by Philippe M. Frowd, an expert on the politics of borders, migration and security intervention, seeks to correct this. In “Security at the Borders: Transnational Practices and Technologies in West Africa,” Frowd details both the high politics and everyday culture clashes that have shaped European interventions and the way they have been received in countries like Senegal.

    An assistant professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, Frowd coins the term “border work” to denote how everything from training to technology to migration deals work in combination with each other. Here in conversation with Refugees Deeply, he shares some of his main observations.

    Refugees Deeply: You talk about tracing the “who” of border work in West Africa. Can you explain your findings?

    Philippe Frowd: One of my book’s points is to use the term “border work” to identify how seemingly disparate practices such as negotiating migrant readmission agreements, deploying citizen identification technologies, funding border management projects and routine police cooperation actually combine. To try and make sense of what seems to be a bewildering but also often opaque set of actors operating at the intersection of these fields in West Africa specifically.

    One of the most striking developments of the past 10-15 years has been the phenomenal growth of E.U. border security-related spending, much of it in “third countries,” mainly in Africa. This has gone hand in hand with a growing salience of “border security” on the part of many African states as a way of understanding flows at borders.

    One of my main findings was the sheer diversity of actors involved in determining policies, experiences and practices of borders in the region. The African Union is the successor to the Organisation of African Unity which accepted Africa’s inherited borders in 1964, and the A.U. continues to provide assistance for demarcation of borders and dispute resolution. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is one of the guarantors of free movement in the region and generally pursues an ambitious agenda of greater harmonization (e.g., of visa policy).

    Yet other actors, such as the E.U. and U.N. specialized agencies (such as the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime), tend to have agendas driven by primarily Western security concerns. Then there are the more immediately visible police and gendarmeries who directly enact border controls. More recently, the G5 Sahel force consistently invokes border security and transnational crime.

    Beyond simply tracing who does what, there is tracing the interconnections and tensions between these different institutions. Looking sociologically at the diverse range of actors, we can see how knowledge is a crucial part of the equation: What is the vision of borders, security and migration each actor puts forward? On one hand, institutions like ECOWAS are focused on legal mobility rights while those such as Interpol envision mobility as a regulated, digitally legible practice. The range of actors who contribute to this border work is often a patchwork in which uneasy bedfellows co-exist. E.U. funding, for instance, goes to supporting free movement projects at the ECOWAS level but also to train and equip the security forces of states like Niger to crack down on irregular migration routes. West African borders are the product of the balance of forces between this range of competing visions.

    Refugees Deeply: Can you talk us through the way in which border practices move between different regions. Is there a model for the process of emulation?

    Frowd: Border security is made up of everyday routines but also of various digital and other technologies, both of which are potentially mobile. I point to a couple of ways that these tools of doing border security can travel: One of these is emulation of existing (often Western) methods and standards, but this also goes alongside what I describe as “pedagogy” and the role of exemplars.

    “West African borders are the product of the balance of forces between this range of competing visions.”

    All of these interact in some way. As an example, a border management project led by the IOM [International Organization for Migration] might include training sessions during which members of the local police and gendarmerie learn about key principles of border management illustrated by best practices from elsewhere. Emulation is the desired outcome of many of these trainings, which are the backbone of international border security assistance. The EUCAP Sahel missions, for example, put a heavy emphasis on training rather than equipping so there is a strong faith that mentalities matter more than equipment.

    Equipment also matters and plays its part in shaping how border security works. Biometrics, which aim to verify identification using some kind of body measurement, require ways of reading the body and storing data about it. Senegal adopted, in one decade, a range of biometric technologies for national I.D. cards and controls at borders. There is a very obvious mobility of technology here (a Malaysian company providing e-Passport infrastructure, a Belgian company providing visa systems) but movement of border practices is also about ideas. The vision of biometrics as effective in the first place is one that I found, from interviews with Senegalese police commanders, was strongly tied to emulating ideals of modern and selective borders found elsewhere.

    Refugees Deeply: In your work you identify some of the gaps between policy goals and to actual outcomes and practices. Can you talk us through the greatest discrepancies?

    Frowd: Some of the discrepancies I found showed some interesting underlying factors. One of these was the shifting role of global private sector companies in frustrating public policy goals. Not through deliberate sabotage or state capture, but rather through the diverging incentives around doing border work. In the case of Senegal’s biometric systems, the state has been keen to make as coherent an infrastructure as possible, with connections between various elements such as biometric passport issuance, automated airport arrivals for holders of this passport and systems such as the national I.D. card. Given the need for private companies to compete based on technological advantage, rival systems made by rival companies could not interconnect and share data without sharing of valuable corporate information.

    Another underlying factor for the discrepancies I point to is that, once again, the sociological dynamics of the people doing the border work come into play. Many border management projects bring together a diverse range of actors who can have competing visions of how security is to be performed and achieved. For instance the ways police and gendarmerie competed over border post data in Mauritania leading to separate databases. It can also happen at a larger scale through the lack of integration across the donor community, which leads to a huge amount of duplication.

    Refugees Deeply: You spent a section of your book on Spanish-African police cooperation to show the limits of European knowledge and technology. You mention a clash of cultures, can you elaborate?

    Frowd: This is a particularly salient point today for two reasons. First because we are hearing more elite (e.g., Frontex) discourse about the “reopening” of a migration route to Spain. Second because Spain itself is increasingly active in E.U. projects across the Sahel. My book tells some of the story of Spanish security ambitions in Africa. But these ambitions, and those of other Western partners, have hard limits. Some of these limits are quite straightforward: Climate is often a barrier to the functioning of surveillance technologies and some countries (like Mauritania) are harder to recruit international experts for if they cannot or do not bring their families along.

    In terms of Spanish-African cooperation, much of the narrative about clashes of cultures comes down to perceptions. One of the elements of the clash is a temporal one, with Spanish security officials often considering local partners as existing at a completely different stage of progress.

    More broadly in terms of the limits of knowledge itself, the ambitions of experts to implicitly recreate aspects of European best practice are flawed. Part of this form of border security knowledge involves supporting technological solutions to make African mobility more legible to states. This comes up against the reality that movement in West Africa is already quite free but highly informalized. European experts are well aware of this reality but seek to formalize these flows. A police expert I spoke to recently suggested co-located border posts, and many international funders are supportive of specific I.D. cards for residents of border regions. This is not to impede movement, but rather to rationalize it – in much the same way that common I.D. standards and databases underpin free movement within Europe.

    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/07/18/how-borders-are-constructed-in-west-africa
    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #Mauritanie #Sénégal

  • Why Spain is a Window into the E.U. Migration Control Industry

    Spain’s migration control policies in North Africa dating back over a decade are now replicated across the E.U. Gonzalo Fanjul outlines PorCausa’s investigation into Spain’s migration control industry and its warning signs for the rest of Europe.

    There was a problem and we fixed it.” For laconic President José María Aznar, these words were quite the political statement. The then Spanish president was speaking in July 1996, after 103 Sub-Saharan migrants who had reached Melilla, a Spanish enclave in North Africa, were drugged, handcuffed and taken to four African countries by military aircraft.

    President Aznar lay the moral and political foundations of a system based on the securitization, externalization and, increasingly, the privatization of border management. This system was consolidated by subsequent Spanish governments and later extended to the rest of the European Union, setting the grounds for a thriving business: the industry of migration control.

    Between 2001 and 2010, long before Europe faced the so-called “refugee crisis,” Spain built two walls in its North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, signed combined development and repatriation agreements with nine African countries, passed two major pieces of legislation on migration, and fostered inter-regional migration initiatives such as the Rabat Process. Spain also designed and established the Integral System of External Surveillance, to this day one of the most sophisticated border surveillance mechanisms in the world.

    The ultimate purpose of these efforts was clear: to deter irregular migration, humanely if possible, but at any cost if necessary.

    Spain was the first European country to utilize a full array of control and cooperation instruments in countries along the migration route to Europe. The system proved effective during the “cayuco crisis” in 2005 and 2006. Following a seven-fold increase in the number of arrivals from West Africa to the Canary Islands by boat, Spain made agreements with several West African countries to block the route, forcing migrants to take the even riskier Sahel passage.

    Although the E.U. questioned the humanitarian consequences of these deals at the time, less than a decade later officials across the continent have replicated large parts of the Spanish system, including the E.U. Emergency Trust Fund for Africa and agreements between the Italian and the Libyan governments.

    Today, 2005 seems like different world. That year, the E.U. adopted its Global Approach on Migration and Mobility, which balanced the “prevention of irregular migration and trafficking” with promising language on the “fostering of well-managed migration” and the “maximization” of its development impact.

    Since then, the combined effect of the Great Recession – an institutional crisis – and the increased arrival of refugees has diluted reformist efforts in Europe. Migration policies are being defined by ideological nationalism and economic protectionism. Many politicians in Europe are electorally profiting from these trends. The case of Spain also illustrates that the system is ripe for financial profit.

    For over a year, Spanish investigative journalism organization porCausa mapped the industry of migration control in Spain. We detailed the ecosystem of actors and interests facilitating the industry, whose operations rely almost exclusively on public funding. A myriad private contractors and civil society organizations operate in four sectors: border protection and surveillance; detention and expulsion of irregular migrants; reception and integration of migrants; and externalization of migration control through agreements with private organisations and public institutions in third countries.

    We began by focusing on securitization and border management. We found that between 2002 and 2017 Spain allocated at least 610 million euros ($720 million) of public funding through 943 contracts related to the deterrence, detention and expulsion of migrants. Our analysis reached two striking conclusions and one question for future research.

    Firstly, we discovered the major role that the E.U. plays in Spain’s migration control industry. Just over 70 percent of the 610 million euros came from different European funds, such as those related to External Borders, Return and Internal Security, as well as the E.U. border agency Frontex. Thus, Spanish public spending is determined by the policy priorities established by E.U. institutions and member states. Those E.U. institutions have since diligently replicated the Spanish approach. With the E.U. now driving these policies forward, the approach is likely to be replicated in other European countries.

    Secondly, our data highlights how resources are concentrated in the hands of a few businesses. Ten out of the 350 companies included in our database received over half of the 610 million euros. These companies have enjoyed a long-standing relationship with the Spanish government in other sectors such as defence, construction and communications, and are now gaining a privileged role in the highly sensitive areas of border surveillance and migration control.

    Our research also surfaced a troubling question that has shaped the second phase of our inquiry: to what extent are these companies influencing Spanish migration policy? The capture of rules and institutions by elites in an economic system has been documented in sectors such as defence, taxation or pharmaceuticals. That this could also be happening to borders and migration policy should alarm public opinion and regulators. For example, the key role played by private technology companies in the design and implementation of Spain’s Integral System of External Surveillance demonstrates the need for further investigation.

    Spain’s industry of migration control may be the prototype of a growing global phenomenon. Migration policies have been taken over by border deterrence goals and narratives. Meanwhile, border control is increasingly dependent on the technology and management of private companies. As E.U.-level priorities intersect with those of the highly-concentrated – and possibly politically influential – migration control industry, Europe risks being trapped in a political and budgetary vicious circle based on the premise of migration-as-a-problem, complicating any future reform efforts towards a more open migration system.

    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/05/21/why-spain-is-a-window-into-the-e-u-migration-control-industry
    #Afrique_du_Nord #externalisation #modèle_espagnol #migrations #contrôles_migratoires #asile #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #asile #réfugiés #histoire

  • L’Austria esce dal patto Onu per le migrazioni: “Limita la sovranità del nostro Paese”

    L’accordo internazionale che punta a difendere i diritti dei rifugiati entrerà in vigore a dicembre. Prima di Vienna, anche Usa e Ungheria si sono sfilati. Il governo Kurz: “Migrare non è un diritto fondamentale”.

    L’Austria esce dal patto Onu per le migrazioni: “Limita la sovranità del nostro Paese”

    L’accordo internazionale che punta a difendere i diritti dei rifugiati entrerà in vigore a dicembre. Prima di Vienna, anche Usa e Ungheria si sono sfilati. Il governo Kurz: “Migrare non è un diritto fondamentale”

    L’Austria annuncia il suo ritiro dal patto delle Nazioni Unite sulle migrazioni, e segue così l’esempio di Stati Uniti e Ungheria, che prima di lei sono uscite dall’accordo internazionale, in controcorrente con gli oltre 190 Paesi che l’hanno firmato. Lo ha comunicato il cancelliere Sebastian Kurz, motivando la scelta sovranista come una reazione necessaria per respingere un vincolo Onu che “limita la sovranità del nostro Paese”. Non ci sarà, dunque, nessun rappresentante di Vienna alla conferenza dell’Onu a Marrakech, in Marocco, il 10 e 11 dicembre. Mentre all’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite dell’anno prossimo l’Austria si asterrà.

    COSA PREVEDE L’ACCORDO

    Il patto per le migrazioni era stato firmato da 193 Paesi a settembre 2017 ed entrerà in vigore a dicembre con la firma prevista al summit di Marrakech. Prevede la protezione dei diritti dei rifugiati e dei migranti, indipendentemente dallo status, e combatte il traffico di esseri umani e la xenofobia. E ancora, impegna i firmatari a lavorare per porre fine alla pratica della detenzione di bambini allo scopo di determinare il loro status migratorio; limita al massimo le detenzioni dei migranti per stabilire le loro condizioni, migliora l’erogazione dell’assistenza umanitaria e di sviluppo ai Paesi più colpiti. Facilita anche il cambiamento di status dei migranti irregolari in regolari, il ricongiungimento familiare, punta a migliorare l’inclusione nel mercato del lavoro, l’accesso al sistema sanitario e all’istruzione superiore e ad una serie di agevolazioni nei Paesi di approdo, oltre che ad accogliere i migranti climatici.

    LE RAGIONI DI VIENNA

    Un documento di 34 pagine, per politiche in favore di chi lascia il proprio Paese che promuovano una migrazione sicura. L’Austria in un comunicato respinge tutti i criteri stabiliti da quella che è stata ribattezzata la “Dichiarazione di New York”. Kurz, che da giovanissimo ministro degli Esteri fece il suo esordio mondiale proprio all’Assemblea generale dell’Onu, decide così di strappare e imporre il suo giro di vite sui migranti, spinto dal suo alleato al governo, l’ultradestra dell’Fpö di Heinz-Christian Strache, il quale a margine dell’annuncio del ritiro ha aggiunto: “La migrazione non è e non può essere un diritto fondamentale dell’uomo”. Il governo di Vienna, in particolare, spiega che “il patto limita la sovranità nazionale, perché non distingue tra migrazione economica e ricerca di protezione umanitaria”, tra migrazione illegale e legale. “Non può essere - continua il governo Kurz - che qualcuno riceva lo status di rifugiato per motivi di povertà o climatici”.

    “SEGUIAMO IL LORO ESEMPIO”

    Il patto, in realtà, non è vincolante ai sensi del diritto internazionale, una volta firmato. Si delinea come una dichiarazione di intenti, per mettere ordine nelle politiche sulle migrazioni a livello mondiale, all’insegna della solidarietà. Per questo, la mossa di Vienna assume un valore simbolico, sull’onda delle dichiarazioni di Kurz e i suoi che vorrebbero chiudere le porte dell’Europa all’immigrazione e controllare i confini. Trascina dietro di sé la lodi di altri partiti populisti europei, uno tra tutti l’AfD tedesca, con la leader Alice Weidel che non ha tardato a twittare: “Anche la Germania non aderisca, il Global Compact apre la strada a milioni di migranti africani e legalizza l’immigrazione irregolare”.

    https://www.lastampa.it/2018/10/31/esteri/laustria-esce-dal-patto-onu-per-le-migrazioni-limita-la-sovranit-del-nostro-paese-GbGo3HsbsGygjZ3aOjVfkJ/pagina.html
    #Global_compact #global_compact_on_refugees #migrations #réfugiés #asile #Autriche #Hongrie #USA #Etats-Unis

    • Austria to shun global migration pact, fearing creep in human rights

      Austria will follow the United States and Hungary in backing out of a United Nations migration pact over concerns it will blur the line between legal and illegal migration, the right-wing government said on Wednesday.

      The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was approved in July by all 193 member nations except the United States, which backed out last year.

      Hungary’s right-wing government has since said it will not sign the final document at a ceremony in Morocco in December. Poland, which has also clashed with Brussels by resisting national quotas for asylum seekers, has said it is considering the same step.

      “Austria will not join the U.N. migration pact,” said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, a conservative and immigration hard-liner who governs in coalition with the far-right Freedom Party.

      “We view some points of the migration pact very critically, such as the mixing up of seeking protection with labor migration,” said Kurz, who argues that migrants rescued in the Mediterranean should not be brought straight to Europe.

      U.N. Special Representative for International Migration Louise Arbour called the move regrettable and mistaken and said the compact simply aimed to improve the management of cross-border movements of people.

      “It is no possible sense of the word an infringement on state sovereignty - it is not legally binding, it’s a framework for cooperation,” she told Reuters.

      Vienna currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, a role that usually involves playing a mediating role to bridge divisions within the bloc. Instead its move highlighted the disagreements on migration that have blighted relations among the 28 member states for years.

      The Austrian government is concerned that signing up to the pact, even though it is not binding, could eventually help lead to the recognition of a “human right to migration”. The text of a cabinet decision formally approving its move on Wednesday said it would argue against such a right.

      “We reject any movement in that direction,” Freedom Party leader and Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache told a news conference after the weekly cabinet meeting.

      Arbour said such concerns were unfounded.

      “The question of whether this is an invidious way to start promoting a ‘human right to migrate’ is not correct. It’s not in the text, there’s no sinister project to advance that.”

      Austria took in roughly 1 percent of its population in asylum seekers in 2015 during a migration crisis in which more than a million people traveled to Europe, many of them fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

      That experience dominated last year’s parliamentary election and helped propel Kurz’s conservatives to power. He has said he will prevent any repeat of that influx and has implemented policies that include restricting benefits for new immigrants.

      The U.N. pact addresses issues such as how to protect people who migrate, how to integrate them into new countries and how to return them to their home countries.

      The United Nations has hailed it as a historic and comprehensive pact that could serve as a basis for future policies.

      Austria will not send an envoy to the signing ceremony in Morocco and will abstain at a U.N. General Assembly vote on the pact next year, Kurz’s office said.

      In a paper this month, the Brookings Institution, a U.S. think tank, said the pact “reflects widespread recognition, among even the most skeptical member states, that managing migration effectively is in the common interest”.

      Amnesty International criticized Vienna’s stance.

      “Instead of facing global challenges on an international level, the government is increasingly isolating Austria. That is irresponsible,” the rights group said in a statement.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-migrants-austria/austria-to-withdraw-from-u-n-migration-agreement-apa-idUSKCN1N50JZ

    • Communication Breakdown in Austria – How Far-Right Fringe Groups Hijacked the Narrative on the Global Compact for Migration

      Yesterday Austria announced its withdrawal from the UN Global Compact for Migration (GCM), thus joining the United States and Hungary. The decision was met with little surprise. It followed an announcement in early October that Austria would reconsider its continued participation in the GCM process. And it followed weeks of efforts by the right-wing Freedom Party (FPÖ) and other far-right actors to discredit the GCM.

      As the Austrian decision gained media attention, many outside the world of migration policy wondered what the Global Compact for Migration is. This post is both for newcomers and long-time observers. For the newcomers, I explain how the GCM came about and why it is significant. Long-time observers may want to skip to the section discussing the context and implications of the Austrian decision to withdraw.
      What is the UN Global Compact for Migration?

      The short answer is that it is a non-binding agreement on migration at the UN level. The lengthy intergovernmental negotiations concluded in July, which means that the text of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is already available. The text lays out 23 objectives covering a wide array of policies, including objectives on addressing the drivers of migration, better data gathering, border management, enhanced regular pathways and more. In December, states will adopt the GCM in Marrakesh, right after the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD).

      The long answer is that the Global Compact for Migration encompasses more than the final text. The process leading up to the agreement is just as noteworthy. The negotiations between states and with close participation of civil society actors stretched over eighteen months. At several thematic sessions, states, non-governmental organisations, researchers, grassroots organisations, and think tanks came together in New York, Vienna, and Geneva. In the sessions, actors mostly read out their condensed two- or three-minute statements. But intense discussions happened during panels, outside, at side-events, and during breaks. And parallel to the global proceedings, there were regional and, in some cases, also national consultations. It was thus also a process of learning and coalition-forming.
      Why did Austria decide to leave the Global Compact for Migration?

      The official Austrian critique of the Global Compact for Migration rests on two points. First, it argues that the GCM would eventually be a legally binding document. Second, the GCM is portrayed to diminish states’ national sovereignty. Neither of these statements holds true. Already in the preamble, it clearly says that it is “a non-legally binding, cooperative framework” and that it “upholds the sovereignty of States.” And during the lengthy negotiations, states overwhelmingly emphasized their sovereignty. The decision to leave therefore appears to be much more about short-term domestic politics than about the above-stated concerns.

      Already during the parliamentary election in 2017, the conservative People’s Party (ÖVP) and the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) outdid each other with anti-immigration rhetoric. Now that they form the current governing coalition, they have passed increasingly restrictive migration and integration policies. Their recent measures stretch from budget cuts for language courses parallel to restricting welfare based on language skills. In light of this, the Austrian decision is not surprising.

      But until recently, the Global Compact for Migration had not been a point of contention for the Freedom Party. In fact, the Austrian foreign ministry – currently headed by a minister affiliated with the FPÖ – took part in the negotiations. The timing of this withdrawal therefore merits attention. Some weeks ago, fringe groups on the far-right started to mobilize against the GCM. With online petitions, posters, and a protest in front of the UN headquarters in Vienna. The websites contain close to no information on the GCM. Instead, they make the baseless assertion that it would lead to “limitless migration” and repeat the alarmist imagery that Nigel Farage used for his “Breaking Point” banner ahead of the Brexit referendum. At the helm of this disinformation campaign is Martin Sellner, leader of the far-right Identarian movement.

      Shortly after, the Austrian Freedom Party also started to publicly criticize the Global Compact for Migration in widely read Austrian tabloids. During the evening news on the day of the official withdrawal, Armin Wolf confronted FPÖ Vice-Chancellor Strache with the question why the FPÖ had only begun its criticism after far-right fringe group activism had started. Strache denied any connection in the timing. Meanwhile, Martin Sellner celebrated the success of the imitative. Instead, Strache argued that it took time to reach a judgment on the final product. However, the text had been in its final shape for months.
      What can be learned from this?

      To be clear, one should not be tempted to overstate the significance of fringe actors. But one also should not leave the debate in the wider public about the Global Compact for Migration in their hands. The GCM negotiation process has been inclusive to those actors wishing to participate and all previous drafts of the agreement had been available online. The efforts were thus comparatively transparent. But, nonetheless, the communication with the wider public was not proactive.

      In the months that I had been involved with the GCM process, I was repeatedly surprised how many people within the world of migration and integration were unaware of the negotiations, even less so the wider public. And while it is not necessary to indulge in the technicalities of such a lengthy process, it meant that many people in Austria heard about the GCM only when far-right groups brought it to the fore. In the absence of wider public engagement, there was no counter-movement to challenge the misinformation that was spreading.

      What are the implications of this decision? And what is next?

      There is already talk of other countries following the path of Austria, Hungary, and the US. But instead of getting stuck in speculations about who else may withdraw, efforts should concentrate on the majority that upholds the Global Compact for Migration. This incident provides an opportunity to start a conversation beyond those tightly involved in migration policy.

      And it is important to remember that December will just be the beginning, not the end. Ahead lies a long road of implementation. Then, inclusiveness – especially of those directly affected by the GCM – and proactive communication will remain crucial.


      https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2018/communication-breakdown-in-austria-how-far-right-fringe-groups-hijacked

      –-> et sur cette image, le fameux slogan australien #No_Way (you won’t make Australia home)
      #modèle_australien #Australie

    • Le Pacte de l’ONU pour les migrations divise le parlement

      Le gouvernement souhaite signer, avec une réserve, un projet de traité international sur les réfugiés. Des commissions parlementaires délivrent des messages contradictoires.

      Le Conseil fédéral doit-il approuver le Pacte mondial des Nations unies pour les migrations les 10 et 11 décembre à Marrakech ? C’est son intention. Il l’a annoncée le 10 octobre. Mais cette perspective fait des vagues, à tel point qu’une commission parlementaire émet de sérieuses réserves à ce sujet alors que d’autres sont divisées. Comme il l’avait promis, le gouvernement les a consultées avant de prendre une décision définitive.

      La Commission des institutions politiques du Conseil national (CIP-N) s’est manifestée la première. Le 19 octobre, elle a adopté une motion qui demande que la décision d’approbation soit soumise aux Chambres fédérales. Une semaine plus tard, la Commission de politique extérieure du Conseil des Etats (CPE-E) a adressé au Conseil fédéral une lettre annonçant son intention de déposer une requête similaire. Vendredi dernier, la CIP-N a franchi un pas de plus : par 15 voix contre 9, elle a formellement décidé de recommander au Conseil fédéral de ne pas approuver ce traité migratoire. Cette revendication sera discutée en séance plénière du Conseil national le 6 décembre.

      Ambassadeur actif et décrié

      Lundi, la CPE-N a émis un avis différent. Par 14 voix contre 10, elle recommande au Conseil fédéral d’apposer sa signature au bas du pacte de l’ONU. Dans des proportions similaires, elle a refusé de soumettre celui-ci au vote obligatoire ou de recueillir formellement l’avis des Chambres fédérales. La commission sœur du Conseil des Etats n’a pas encore rendu son verdict. Elle se réunit une nouvelle fois lundi prochain.

      C’est l’UDC qui a ouvert les feux. Mi-septembre, alors que personne à Berne ne se préoccupait de la prochaine signature de cette convention migratoire, elle a condamné ce texte, contraignant politiquement mais pas juridiquement, avec la plus grande virulence. Celui-ci prône une « migration sûre, ordonnée et régulière ». Selon le Conseil fédéral, ses objectifs recoupent les siens : réduire la migration irrégulière, renforcer l’aide sur place, lutter contre la traite des êtres humains et le trafic des migrants, sécuriser les frontières, respecter les droits humains, faciliter le rapatriement, la réintégration ou l’intégration durable dans le pays d’accueil. La Suisse a même joué un rôle moteur dans l’élaboration de ce texte, puisque l’ambassadeur auprès de l’ONU, Jürg Lauber, en a été l’une des chevilles ouvrières avec son homologue mexicain, Juan José Gomez Camacho, et la représentante spéciale de l’ONU pour les migrations internationales, Louise Arbour.
      Plusieurs pays ont renoncé

      L’UDC fait de ce document une lecture très différente. Elle y voit un moyen de permettre « aux migrants d’accéder plus facilement aux pays de leur choix, indépendamment de leurs qualifications ». Elle brandit la menace d’une immigration massive vers la Suisse. A quelques semaines du vote sur l’initiative contre les juges étrangers, et en vertu de l’article constitutionnel qui dit que la Suisse doit gérer son immigration de manière indépendante, l’UDC exige le rejet de ce pacte. Elle n’est pas seule. Le projet est aussi controversé au sein du PLR.

      Pour le Conseil fédéral, la situation n’est pas simple. Les Etats-Unis, la Hongrie et l’Autriche ont déjà fait savoir qu’ils ne participeraient pas à la signature. Comme l’ambassadeur Lauber, sur qui l’UDC tire à boulets rouges et qui est aussi la cible d’une campagne sauvage de la droite identitaire, a contribué activement aux négociations, un refus de la Suisse serait considéré comme un affront au sein de l’ONU.

      Par ailleurs, on rappelle volontiers que les fondements de ce texte, dont l’élaboration a débuté en 2016, recoupent la politique migratoire défendue par Didier Burkhalter et Simonetta Sommaruga. Or, le premier nommé a quitté le Conseil fédéral et c’est son successeur Ignazio Cassis, à qui l’on reproche de ne pas défendre suffisamment son émissaire auprès des Nations unies, qui a repris le flambeau. Début octobre, le gouvernement a proposé d’approuver le pacte assorti d’une réserve portant sur le traitement des mineurs âgés d’au moins 15 ans.

      https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/pacte-lonu-migrations-divise-parlement

    • Ne pas signer le Pacte de l’ONU sur les migrations est « une erreur politique »

      La #Suisse ne signera pas le Pacte de l’ONU sur les migrations, du moins pas pour l’instant, a décidé le Conseil fédéral. « Une erreur politique », selon le président du Parti socialiste Christian Levrat.

      Le Conseil fédéral a reconnu mercredi que ce Pacte est dans l’intérêt de la Suisse, mais estime qu’il est trop tôt pour le signer.

      https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10013083-ne-pas-signer-le-pacte-de-l-onu-sur-les-migrations-est-une-erreur-polit

    • Pour Louise Arbour, la volte-face de la Suisse porte atteinte à sa crédibilité multilatérale

      La représentante spéciale de l’ONU pour les migrations démonte le mythe de la perte de souveraineté des Etats qui adopteront le pacte à Marrakech en décembre. Elle ne comprend pas non plus la peur des « soft laws » qui saisit le parlement fédéral

      Alors que le Conseil des Etats débat ce jeudi d’une motion de l’UDC exhortant le Conseil fédéral à ne pas adopter le Pacte mondial de l’ONU pour les migrations ainsi que d’une proposition de la Commission des institutions politiques de soumettre son adoption à l’Assemblée fédérale, les Nations unies mettent les choses au point.

      Interrogée par Le Temps au Palais des Nations à Genève, Louise Arbour, représentante spéciale du secrétaire général de l’ONU pour les migrations, s’étonne des discussions au sujet du pacte qui serait, selon certains parlementaires fédéraux, « de la soft law [droit souple, ndlr] susceptible de se transformer en droit coutumier (obligatoire) ».

      « Je suis avocate moi-même. Je ne comprends pas cette notion selon laquelle ce pacte deviendrait subrepticement obligatoire contre la volonté de la Suisse. Je vous rassure. Ce n’est pas le cas. Aucune disposition du pacte n’empiète sur la souveraineté des Etats qui l’adoptent. »

      Un débat particulièrement agressif

      La responsable onusienne relève que le pacte, qui sera formellement adopté à Marrakech les 10 et 11 décembre prochain (sans la Suisse qui a, sur proposition du conseiller fédéral Ignazio Cassis, finalement renoncé à s’y rendre), offre un menu d’options et de bonnes pratiques que les Etats peuvent choisir d’adopter ou non. « Je suis étonnée que la Suisse s’inquiète de ce pacte. Elle applique elle-même déjà pleinement ce que prévoit le document », précise la Canadienne.

      A Berne, la tonalité du débat demeure très agressive. Certains parlementaires UDC vont jusqu’à demander que l’ambassadeur de Suisse auprès des Nations unies à New York, Jürg Lauber – par ailleurs diffamé dans une campagne menée par des mouvements identitaires et d’extrême droite autrichiens, allemands et suisses – soit traduit en justice pour « trahison ».

      Ignorance ou mauvaise foi ?

      Là encore, Louise Arbour n’en revient pas : « Ce genre de discours montre comment les processus internationaux sont mal compris. J’espère que c’est de l’ignorance et non de la mauvaise foi. Il faut savoir comment un tel processus fonctionne. Quand l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU décide de mettre en place un processus, le président de l’assemblée nomme des cofacilitateurs pour leurs qualités personnelles et non pour leur appartenance nationale.

      L’élaboration du pacte a été cofacilitée de façon neutre par l’ambassadeur Jürg Lauber et son homologue mexicain, Juan José Gomez Camacho. Tant la Suisse que le Mexique avaient des délégations complètement distinctes de leurs ambassadeurs. Il ne faut pas tout mélanger quant à la réelle implication de la Suisse. »
      Un pacte basé sur les faits

      Pour la responsable onusienne, le revirement de la Suisse par rapport à ses positions de négociation est problématique. « Que les Etats qui ont négocié dans leur capacité nationale et même obtenu des concessions d’autres Etats se dissocient aujourd’hui des positions qu’ils ont prises est très décevant. Une telle volte-face porte atteinte à leur crédibilité comme partenaires dans un environnement multilatéral. »

      Louise Arbour tente d’identifier la raison des résistances : « La migration peut être une question traitée de manière très fractionnée, parfois par plusieurs ministères. Sans grande cohésion. Cela peut avoir contribué à la difficulté de faire passer le message. »

      Pas le fruit de bureaucrates

      Quant à l’idée que le pacte migratoire serait le produit de l’imagination de bureaucrates de New York, elle s’en défend : « Le processus ayant mené au pacte a été très respectueux, et surtout basé sur la réalité et des faits. » Les crispations (sensibles en Hongrie, aux Etats-Unis, en Israël, en Suisse, etc.) autour du pacte ne sont pas justifiées, estime-t-elle.

      La meilleure manière de mener une politique migratoire nationale efficace est de coopérer avec ses voisins. La migration implique forcément une interdépendance. C’est ce cadre coopératif que propose le pacte, « négocié non pas en secret, mais avec la société civile, le secteur privé, les syndicats », ajoute Louise Arbour.

      Hors de l’ONU, la pression sur le Conseil fédéral est venue mercredi du CICR dont le président, Peter Maurer, appelle à adopter le pacte « négocié de façon totalement transparente pendant près de trois ans ». La Commission fédérale des migrations abonde dans le même sens, jugeant nécessaire de s’associer à cet effort mondial de réguler la migration.

      https://www.letemps.ch/monde/louise-arbour-volteface-suisse-porte-atteinte-credibilite-multilaterale

    • Global Compact, il governo sospende il patto Onu sull’immigrazione

      L’annuncio del premier Conte su input del ministro Salvini: l’Italia non parteciperà neanche al summit di Marrakech di dicembre.
      L’Italia sospende l’adesione al Global Compact sull’immigrazione, il patto firmato da oltre 190 Paesi il 19 settembre 2016 e ribattezzato “Dichiarazione di New York“. Inoltre l’Italia non parteciperà nemmeno al summit Onu di Marrakech, in Marocco, che tra il 10 e l’11 dicembre adotterà il documento.

      https://www.tpi.it/2018/11/29/global-compact-immigrazione-italia
      #Italie

    • What’s to Fear in the U.N. Global Compact for Migration?

      The forthcoming adoption of the United Nations’ global migration compact has sparked turmoil, particularly among members of the European Union. But the compact itself refutes much of the criticism, says Solon Ardittis, director of Eurasylum.

      After two years of intense intergovernmental negotiations, the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration will be formally adopted on December 10-11 in Marrakech. Though the compact went largely unnoticed by most political parties and the public throughout the negotiation period, its forthcoming adoption is now sparking turmoil in Europe and around the world.

      To date, at least a dozen U.N. member states have declared they do not intend to sign it or are considering doing so. Last fall, the United States became the first to withdraw. Hungary followed earlier this year, which set off a domino effect of withdrawals in the European Union over the past few weeks. Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia have said they won’t sign, and Italy has signaled its disapproval, too. In Belgium, profound disagreement among coalition partners over the compact is threatening to bring down the government.

      So what exactly does the compact proffer to make it the source of such growing discontent? The 30-page document is an international, nonbinding agreement that aims “to make an important contribution to enhanced cooperation on international migration in all its dimensions.” Emerging in the wake of Europe’s 2015 refugee crisis, it draws on a range of existing international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the vast majority of member states are signatories. And it aims to develop an international cooperative framework acknowledging that no nation can address the contemporary problems of migration alone. This is the first time in history that all U.N. member states have come together to negotiate an agreement on migration in such a comprehensive manner.

      The compact is comprised of 23 objectives. These include, inter alia: collecting adequate data; ensuring all migrants have legal proof of identity; saving lives and establishing coordinated international efforts on missing migrants; strengthening the transnational response to smuggling and trafficking; managing borders in an integrated manner; and giving migrants access to basic services. The compact also includes a follow-up and review mechanism.

      Crucially, while acknowledging states’ shared responsibilities, the compact reaffirms their sovereign right to determine their national migration policies and to govern migration within their jurisdictions. It also stresses that the compact’s implementation will account for different national realities, capacities and levels of development; and will respect national policies and priorities.

      Given such lenient and largely unthreatening policy objectives, what’s behind the growing resentment?

      First, after only recently appearing on the radar of political parties in Europe and internationally, the compact now seems to offer a golden opportunity for populist parties and opinion-makers to push their claims that nations are losing control over their sovereignty and borders. Ironically, the same parties that now criticize the compact have traditionally challenged national governments for not taking sufficiently coordinated action to manage irregular migration, migrant smuggling and human trafficking, or for addressing the growing number of migrant fatalities at sea. The compact represents a foundation for such coordinated action.

      Its most vocal opponents claim, among other things, that the compact does not sufficiently distinguish between legal and illegal migration, that it mixes up the rights of asylum seekers with those of economic migrants, or even stipulates the number of migrants that each member state will need to accept. All this is strictly contradicted in the compact itself.

      Nevertheless, such unfounded criticism has eventually led many governments to adopt a low profile, avoid media exposure and be represented at the Marrakech conference next week at a much less senior level than anticipated. One notable exception is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has intensified efforts to reassure “concerned citizens” and to reaffirm that the compact aims to strengthen the protection of national borders rather than weaken them.

      Also worthy of mention is E.U. migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos’s Dec. 4 warning that withdrawal from the compact could hamper cooperation with third countries to control migration and send mixed messages about the E.U.’s resolve to cooperate on an equal basis with its African partners to address future migration challenges. While the E.U. of course has its own cooperation channels and modalities with key migration origin and transit countries, particularly on development and migration management policies, there is little doubt the Global Compact would open additional avenues for the E.U. (and indeed other U.N. member states) to engage in more informal, multistakeholder and non donor-dominated discussions on a range of migration-related policy initiatives.

      The second point that needs be stressed, particularly with respect to the E.U., is that the compact bears no comparison to some of the remarkably more constraining transnational legal and policy frameworks on migration adopted over the past decade. In particular, there have been a wide array of E.U. directives on immigration (legal and irregular), migrant integration policies, migrant smuggling, trafficking in human beings and a range of related policy areas that have been regulated at European Union, rather than member state, level after the E.U. executive gained increased competences to legislate in this field.

      Of course, the E.U. has a history of controversial policy interventions on migration. However, with the exception of the E.U. refugee relocation program, which has generated limited consensus among member states, and of the United Kingdom and Denmark’s decision to opt out of some of the E.U.’s most stringent migration policy instruments, to date none of the bloc’s migration-related policies, including those that were legally binding and requiring transposition into national law, has generated as much turmoil as the U.N. Global Compact for Migration.

      The compact may have some inherent weaknesses, such as not sufficiently demonstrating that it will be relevant and actionable in member states with such contrasting migration features and policy approaches. Doubts also persist on the levels of financial resources that will be allocated to implement such a nonbinding and largely aspirational policy framework.

      It remains that the agreement to be signed next week need not become a cause for concern for any member of society, and even less so be used as a scapegoat by potentially ill-intentioned or ill-informed commentators. Despite its nonbinding nature, the Global Compact looks set to establish some potentially innovative ways for all key stakeholders – in government, civil society and the private sector – to communicate and cooperate on a range of contemporary migration issues.

      At this stage, what should really matter is the degree of genuine commitment signatory parties will express in the next few years and the quality and political clout of the follow-up and review mechanisms to be established after the compact is adopted. All the rest is unnecessary and unhelpful noise.

      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/12/05/whats-to-fear-in-the-u-n-global-compact-for-migration

    • Dispute over UN migration pact fractures Belgian government

      Belgium’s center-right government is fighting for its survival this week after the largest coalition party broke away from its three partners and said it would not back a global U.N.-backed migration pact.

      The right-wing N-VA party started a social media campaign against the migration pact Tuesday, more than two months after Prime Minister Charles Michel pledged he would sign the pact for Belgium at a meeting next week in Marrakech, Morocco.

      Instead of a coalition breakup, Michel announced late Tuesday he would take the issue to parliament for vote in the days to come.

      “I want parliament to have its say,” Michel said, staving off an immediate collapse of the government that has been in power for three years. “I have the intention to go to Marrakech and let the position of the parliament be known.”

      Michel’s statement came at the end of a hectic day dominated by an anti-pact social media campaign by the N-VA, of the biggest coalition partner.

      The in-your-face campaign featured pictures of Muslim women with their faces covered and stated the U.N. pact focused on enabling migrants to retain the cultural practices of their homelands.

      The party quickly withdrew the materials after the campaign received widespread criticism.

      “We made an error,” N-VA leader Bart De Wever told VRT network.

      De Wever apologized for the pictures of women wearing face-covering niqab in western Europe, but immediately added “these pictures are not fake. You can take pictures like this every day in Brussels. It is the stark reality.”

      Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel pledged at United Nations headquarters in September that he would go to a meeting in Marrakech, Morocco where the U.N.’s Global Compact Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration is to be signed next week.

      Amid the N-VA upheaval, a Cabinet meeting was canceled Tuesday afternoon and Michel resumed consultations with vice-premiers looking for a way out of the crisis.

      Remarking on the party’s withdrawn campaign, Christian Democrat Vice Premier Kris Peeters said: “I only have one word for this — indecent.”

      Even with the parliamentary vote, the options for ensuring the government’s survival were slimming down.

      The United Nations says the compact will promote safe and orderly migration and reduce human smuggling and trafficking.

      The N-VA said it would force Belgium into making immigration concessions. “In our democracy, we decide. The sovereignty is with the people,” the party said in a statement.

      Many experts said the accord is non-binding, but the N-VA said it still went too far and would give even migrants who were in Belgium illegally many additional rights.

      The U.N. compact was finalized in July with only the U.S. staying out. Several European nations have since pulled out of signing the accord during the Dec. 10-11 conference in Morocco.

      https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/belgian-government-fights-for-survival-over-un-migrants-pact

      #Belgique

    • Le pacte migratoire de l’ONU sème la discorde

      191 pays ont approuvé un accord sur la migration échafaudé par l’ONU. Ce jeudi à Berne, les Chambres devraient empoigner le pacte qui en découle, sous tension, et les pays favorables l’adopteront bientôt au Maroc. Histoire d’un texte controversé

      L’Europe s’est-elle remise de la crise migratoire de 2015 ? A voir les résistances qui ont émergé ces dernières semaines contre l’adoption du Pacte mondial de l’ONU sur les migrations, qui doit être formellement adopté à Marrakech le 11 décembre, il est permis d’en douter. Le pacte suscite un déferlement de propos haineux, voire complotistes. A l’ONU, on enregistre avec incompréhension, voire avec une once de panique, les critiques virulentes qui font florès, surtout en Europe. Le pacte est-il devenu un monstre qu’on ne contrôlerait plus ? Sur les 191 pays qui avaient accepté l’accord sur un tel pacte à New York en juillet dernier, seuls deux tiers disent désormais vouloir se rendre au Maroc. Les volte-face se multiplient.

      #Libre_circulation_mondiale

      Mercredi, en Belgique, le premier ministre, Charles Michel, a évité de peu une possible chute de son gouvernement. Au sein de la coalition gouvernementale, le parti flamand N-VA s’oppose avec véhémence au pacte. Le parlement belge a finalement apporté son soutien au premier ministre. Le mouvement des « gilets jaunes » en France, qui est aussi divers que peu structuré, est également happé par la vague anti-pacte. Sur Facebook, des « gilets jaunes » disent vouloir empêcher le président Emmanuel Macron de se rendre à Marrakech. Selon eux, le pacte va créer « un #chaos total » et permettra à quelque 900 000 migrants (voire 4 millions d’entre eux selon certains) d’entrer en France.

      Ils réclament la destitution du chef de l’Elysée. A l’image de l’UDC en Suisse, qui estime à tort que l’adoption du pacte équivaudrait à instaurer une libre circulation mondiale des personnes, les républicains et le Rassemblement national de Marine Le Pen en France soufflent aussi sur les braises. Ce samedi, cette dernière participera à Bruxelles à un meeting du parti nationaliste flamand Vlaams Belang en compagnie de Steve Bannon, l’ex-chef stratège de Donald Trump et héraut du souverainisme.

      Un pacte épouvantail de la #globalisation

      Des « gilets jaunes » allemands réunis sous la bannière du mouvement #Pegida à Berlin ont véhiculé le même type de message, exigeant la démission de la chancelière Angela Merkel, laquelle s’était distinguée en autorisant l’arrivée sur sol allemand d’un million de migrants de Syrie en 2015. L’onde de choc ne s’arrête pas là. Si Budapest a tout de suite exprimé son opposition au pacte onusien, d’autres pays de l’Europe de l’Est et du centre ont suivi : la #Bulgarie, la #Pologne, la #République_tchèque et l’Autriche. En #Slovaquie, le ministre des Affaires étrangères, qui soutenait le pacte, a démissionné face au refus de son gouvernement.

      En Italie, le ministre de l’Intérieur et chef de file du parti d’extrême droite de la Lega, Matteo Salvini, a été catégorique : « Le gouvernement italien, comme les Suisses qui ont porté à bout de bras le pacte avant de faire marche arrière, ne signera rien et n’ira pas à Marrakech. C’est le parlement qui devra en débattre. » Le pacte est devenu une sorte d’épouvantail de la globalisation dont se sont saisis les mouvements populistes et extrémistes. La bataille symbolise celle qui oppose désormais violemment les élites globalisées et les populations qui estiment subir la #mondialisation.

      Aux Etats-Unis, l’opposition de l’administration de Donald Trump n’est pas surprenante tant sa politique migratoire ultra-restrictive est le moyen de cimenter une base électorale remontée contre ce que le président appelle le « #globalisme ». L’#Australie, #Israël mettent aussi les pieds au mur. Même la #République_dominicaine s’est ralliée au camp du refus, craignant que les centaines de Haïtiens tentant chaque jour de franchir la frontière puissent venir s’établir sans problème dans le pays.

      Souveraineté intacte

      Ce pacte, juridiquement non contraignant, ne touche pas à la #souveraineté des Etats. Il ne contraint aucun pays à modifier sa #politique_migratoire, aussi dure soit-elle. Sert-il dès lors à quelque chose ? Il remplit un vide. Aucun cadre n’existait pour améliorer la coordination internationale du phénomène global de la migration. Avec ses 23 objectifs, il vise à encourager les potentiels migrants à rester dans leur pays d’origine en traitant au mieux les problèmes structurels qui les poussent à partir. Il prévoit une feuille de route que les Etats peuvent utiliser ou non pour gérer les 260 millions de migrants qui se déplacent chaque année. Il veut améliorer les voies de migration régulières.

      Face à cette #rébellion inattendue, la haut-commissaire de l’ONU aux Droits de l’homme, Michelle Bachelet, a déclaré hier à Genève : « Certains responsables politiques n’agissent pas en leaders. Ils suivent les sondages. » Directeur de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations, le Portugais Antonio Vitorino exprime lui aussi son courroux : « Nous assistons de la part de certains secteurs politiques à la #manipulation, à la distorsion des objectifs du pacte. On a la sensation que la migration est devenue le #bouc_émissaire des problèmes culturels et sociaux. »

      https://www.letemps.ch/monde/pacte-migratoire-lonu-seme-discorde
      #populisme

    • European governments in melt-down over an inoffensive migration compact

      IT WAS LIKE watching paint dry, or other people’s children play baseball. Last month Gert Raudsep, an Estonian actor, spent two hours on prime-time television reading out the text of a UN migration agreement. Estonia’s government was tottering over whether to pull out of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, to give it its full name. So Mr Raudsep was invited to present the source of the discord to worried viewers. Thoughts of weary migrants from Africa and Latin America kept him going, he said. “But my eyes got a bit tired.”

      Mr Raudsep’s recital made for dull viewing because the compact is a dull document. Its 23 “objectives” are peppered with vague declarations, platitudes and split differences. Partly in the spirit of other global agreements like the Paris climate deal, it encourages states to co-operate on tricky cross-border matters without forcing them to do anything. It urges governments to treat migrants properly, but also to work together on sending them home when necessary. At best it helps build the trust between “sending” and “receiving” countries that is the foundation of any meaningful international migration policy.

      None of this has prevented European governments from melting down over it. In the end Estonia resolved its row; it will join more than 180 other countries in Marrakesh on December 10th-11th to adopt the compact. But so far at least ten others, including seven from Europe, have followed the lead of Donald Trump and pulled out of a deal that they helped negotiate. The agreement is agitating parliaments, sparking protests and splintering coalitions; Belgium’s is on the verge of collapse. More withdrawals may follow.

      Why the fuss? The text explicitly states that governments retain the sovereign right to make immigration policy. But critics say that cannot be trusted. Although the compact is not legally binding, they argue it is “soft law” that might one day be used to press governments into hard commitments, such as acknowledging a “human right” to migration or expanding the grounds for asylum.

      This is, largely, codswallop. The compact is hardly perfect; the drafters should have refrained from urging governments to “educate” journalists on migration, for example, or to hold “culinary festivals” to celebrate multiculturalism. Yet until cynical politicians started paying attention, the main charge the compact faced was toothlessness. Most of the political arguments against it emerged after governments had already approved the draft in July.

      That suggests other forces are at work. In Slovakia, the compact stirred passions only after the speaker of parliament, embroiled in a plagiarism scandal, sought a way to change the subject. The government has since withdrawn from the compact, which led the foreign minister, a former president of the UN General Assembly, to offer his resignation. In Germany a row over the compact, triggered by the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD), has forced the candidates running to succeed Angela Merkel as leader of the Christian Democratic Union to declare themselves: for or against? (The party chooses her successor on December 7th.) Now the AfD boasts, correctly, that its ideas have infiltrated the mainstream.

      As has become depressingly routine in Europe, the row over the UNcompact has little to do with its ostensible target and everything to do with the smouldering embers of a culture war that the drastic reduction in illegal immigration since the surge of 2015 has failed to extinguish. (A pointless spat over border controls nearly destroyed Mrs Merkel’s coalition earlier this year.) Immigration remains a potent topic for the right; the trouble in Belgium started when the country’s largest party, the nationalist New Flemish Alliance, began a social-media campaign against the compact, replete with imagery of women in niqabs and the like (it later apologised). But in the absence of a genuine crisis to mobilise support, fake problems must be confected. The UN compact is a sitting duck. There is no downside to hammering a multilateral agreement on a controversial subject negotiated by obscure officials in air-conditioned rooms abroad. That it was agreed by governments in plain sight, with parliamentarians invited to participate, is by-the-by.
      Displacement activity

      In Berlin, where outrage over the compact took the establishment by surprise, some say the government should have forcefully made the case for it as soon as it was agreed. Instead, caught on the back foot, Mrs Merkel and other defenders of the deal are locked into an awkward argument: that fears about the compact are overblown because it is not legally binding, but that it is also an important tool for managing migration. Yet aside from Mrs Merkel’s perennial reluctance to lead rather than react to debates, arguing for the deal earlier would simply have given opponents a bigger target and more time to shoot at it. A more sobering conclusion is that, for now, it has become impossible to have a level-headed conversation about managing migration in Europe.

      UN insiders profess themselves frustrated but unbowed by the string of withdrawals. (Many blame Sebastian Kurz, the Austrian chancellor, whose decision in October to pull out inspired several others to follow.) Although the idea for the compact was drawn up just after Europe’s refugee crisis of 2015-16—indeed, partly at the request of panicked European leaders—its provisions are global. Europe’s navel-gazing arguments have little bearing on the lot of Bangladeshi workers in the Gulf or Zimbabweans in South Africa.

      True enough. But Europe’s rejectionist governments are shooting themselves in the foot nonetheless. Even a hard-headed policy of tough border controls, swift return of illegal immigrants and encouraging would-be migrants to stay home obliges governments to work with others, if only to strike grubby repatriation deals. Building trust by sticking to international commitments lays the foundations for that. That so many governments are choosing to do precisely the opposite does not inspire hope that Europe is groping towards a more sensible migration policy.


      https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/12/08/european-governments-in-melt-down-over-an-inoffensive-migration-compact

      #dessin_de_presse #caricature

    • Under far-right pressure, Europe retreats from UN migration pact

      A previously obscure 34-page, jargon-filled document is causing political convulsions across Europe — even though it’s not even legally binding.

      Italy this week became the latest in a string of European countries to say it would not sign the U.N.’s Global Compact on Migration at a ceremony in Marrakech in just under two weeks. From the Netherlands through Belgium and Germany to Slovakia, the pact has triggered infighting in ruling parties and governments, with at least one administration close to breaking point.

      The fight over the pact illuminates how migration remains a combustible issue across the Continent, three years after the 2015 refugee crisis and with next May’s European Parliament election on the horizon. Far-right parties keen to make migration the key campaign issue have seized on the pact while some mainstream parties have sought to steal their thunder by turning against the agreement. Liberals and centrists, meanwhile, have found themselves on the defensive — arguing that the agreement poses no harm and migration is best handled through international cooperation.

      Louise Arbour, the senior U.N. official overseeing the pact, said she is surprised by the controversy, as diplomats from 180 countries — including many that have now pulled out — signed off on the text last summer after two years of negotiations.

      The initiative was launched at the request of Europe after the migration surge of 2015, Arbour said. The countries now having “second thoughts or misgivings” were very active during the negotiations and “extracted compromises from the others,” she told POLITICO in an interview.

      Arbour, a former Canadian judge and U.N. human rights commissioner, said the recent backtracking illustrates a clear “disconnect” between some countries’ foreign policies “and domestic pressures or national concerns that were not included into the process.”

      She stressed the compact is not binding and, after its formal adoption next month, “there is not a single member state that is obligated to do anything that it doesn’t want to.”

      The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, to give it its full name, sets out a “cooperative framework” for dealing with international migration. Signatories agree, for example, to limit the pressure on countries with many migrants and to promote the self-reliance of newcomers. The document states that no country can address migration alone, while also upholding “the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.”

      That assurance has not been enough to placate many in Europe. Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has made anti-migrant policies his signature issue, pulled out while the pact was being negotiated. But the recent wave of European withdrawals was triggered by conservative Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, who renounced the pact at the end of October.

      Heinz-Christian Strache, the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, Kurz’s coalition partner, declared that “Austria must remain sovereign on migration” and said the country is “playing a leading role in Europe.” At least in terms of the pact, that turned out to be true with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia and Switzerland all following Vienna’s lead. (Croatia caused confusion after its president declared she would not sign the document but the government later said a minister would go to Marrakech and support the adoption of the pact.)
      Bratislava, Berlin and beyond

      Slovakia is among the most recent countries to withdraw its support for the pact. After an EU summit on Sunday, Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini said Bratislava would not support the pact “under any circumstances and will not agree with it.”

      Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajčák on Thursday said he would resign after parliament decided to reject the pact. Lajčák was president of the U.N. General Assembly when the migration pact was adopted.

      Populist parties in other countries have forced the pact to the top of the political agenda. The Dutch government under Prime Minister Mark Rutte has come under pressure from far-right leaders, including Geert Wilders and Thierry Baudet, who refers to the agreement as the “U.N. Immigration Pact.” The government ordered a legal analysis of the text last week to ensure that signing it will not entail any legal consequences. The Cabinet finally decided on Thursday that it would support the pact, but would add an extra declaration, a so-called explanation of position, to prevent unintended legal consequences.

      In Germany, the pact has become an issue in the battle to succeed Angela Merkel — the EU politician most associated with a more liberal approach to migration — as leader of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Two of the leading contenders for the post, Jens Spahn and Friedrich Merz, have both criticized the agreement and called for it to be amended.

      The German chancellor mounted a spirited defense of the pact, telling the Bundestag last week that the agreement is in Germany’s national interest as it will encourage better conditions for refugees and migrants elsewhere in the world.

      Arbour argued that although the pact is not legally binding, it is still worthwhile. “The pact is a major cooperation project ... a political initiative to align initiatives for the common benefit,” she said.

      But such arguments cut little ice with the WerteUnion ("Union of Values"), a group of thousands of conservative members of the CDU and its Bavarian sister party. It takes issue with multiple sections of the pact, such as a declaration that migrants “regardless of their status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services.” The group argues that as German social benefits are high, such a commitment would encourage migrants to come to Germany.

      In Belgium, the pact has put liberal Prime Minister Charles Michel’s coalition government at risk. The Flemish nationalist N-VA, the biggest party in government, has demanded Belgium withdraw from the agreement. Michel is caught between his commitment to the pact and his coalition partner’s rejection of it — while seeking to fend off a Francophone opposition that will take any opportunity to portray him as a puppet of the Flemish nationalists ahead of federal, regional and European elections next May.

      Searching for a way to keep his government afloat, Michel has been consulting with a handful of European countries including Denmark, Estonia, the U.K. and Norway, to produce a joint statement to be attached to the pact, according to Belgian media. Another idea is for several of those countries to join the Netherlands in signing a common “explanation of position,” Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant reported.

      Arbour said it’s too late to start making changes to the pact itself. Renegotiating the text or attaching an extra statement is “not what other [countries] have signed up to,” she said.

      https://www.politico.eu/article/migration-un-viktor-orban-sebastian-kurz-far-right-pressure-europe-retreats

    • Apparemment, la #Suisse a soutenu le pacte, mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi elle a soutenu à New York, mais pas à Marrakech... reste le mystère pour moi, si je trouve la réponse à ma question, je la posterai ici.

      La CFM salue le soutien de la Suisse au Pacte mondial sur les réfugiés

      La Commission fédérale des migrations CFM salue le vote par la Suisse du Pacte mondial sur les réfugiés à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU.

      Ce document marque la volonté internationale de mieux répondre aux défis des exodes de réfugiés. Il a le grand mérite de présenter un projet cohérent afin de soulager la pression sur les pays qui accueillent les réfugiés, de renforcer l’autonomie des réfugiés, de développer l’accès aux possibilités de réinstallation dans des pays tiers et de promouvoir les conditions permettant aux réfugiés de rentrer dans leurs pays d’origine lorsque cela redevient possible.

      Ce document n’est pas contraignant pour les États et ne va pas au-delà des engagements internationaux existants liés à la Convention de 1951 et au protocole de 1967 qui règlent les modalités d’accueil des réfugiés. Il marque cependant une volonté forte de la Communauté internationale déjà exprimée dans la déclaration de New York de 2016. Le pacte met en avant la nécessité de trouver des solutions globales et collectives au plan international pour soulager les souffrances des réfugiés au moyen de différents instruments allant de l’aide sur place à la réinstallation des plus vulnérables. Il institue un #Forum_Global_sur_les_réfugiés qui réunira tous les quatre ans des délégations de haut niveau et favorisera le dialogue et la mise en œuvre de projets communs. Cette volonté de favoriser une réponse globale et solidaire à l’échelle mondiale correspond à la tradition humanitaire de la Suisse et doit être saluée.

      https://www.ekm.admin.ch/ekm/fr/home/aktuell/stellungnahmen/2018/2018-12-14.html

    • Pacte migratoire : une large coalition de sympathisants anti-islam, extrême droite et néo-nazis a influencé les partis traditionnels en Europe

      Sur le site d’information POLITICO Europe (https://www.politico.eu/article/united-nations-migration-pact-how-got-trolled) deux chercheurs universitaires – #Laurens_Cerulus et #Eline_Schaart – racontent la virulente campagne en ligne de nombreux activistes d’#extrême_droite contre le Pacte migratoire de l’ONU. Elle a réussi à influencer les principaux partis traditionnels en Europe.

      Depuis le mois de septembre dernier une coalition de sympathisants #anti-islam, extrême droite et #néo-nazis s’est mobilisée sur les #réseaux_sociaux contre le Pacte migratoire. Le texte non contraignant n’avait jusque là pas inquiété les gouvernements, régulièrement consultés durant le processus de rédaction à l’ONU.

      Analyse du #cyber_activisme de groupuscules d’extrême droite

      L’intensité des interventions coordonnées sur Twitter notamment, les nombreuses vidéos et les pétitions en ligne, ont incité les responsables politiques de plusieurs pays à revenir en arrière sur leurs positions initiales. En Suisse, le Conseil fédéral a fait marche arrière sur son engagement favorable initial et a demandé au parlement de se prononcer. En Belgique, la controverse a conduit à la chute du gouvernement.

      Selon Laurens Cerulus et Eline Schaart, l’engouement initial quasi planétaire autour du Pacte migratoire – seuls les Etats-Unis et la Hongrie s’étaient initialement opposés au Pacte migratoire – a été stoppé par les attaques d’un réseau mondial de militants nationalistes d’extrême droite.

      Elles ont été menées par des “youtuber” populaires et des influenceurs politiques d’extrême droite comme l’activiste autrichien Martin Sellner. Ces efforts ont été coordonnés via des groupes de discussion et des sites Web hyper-partisans. Sur YouTube, les vidéos de Sellner figurent en tête de liste des clips les plus regardés, selon Tagesschau, un journal télévisé de la chaîne publique allemande.

      Ico Maly chercheur et enseignant sur les nouveaux médias et la politique à l’Université de Tilburg aux Pays-Bas est du même avis, selon lui les partis nationalistes du monde entier agissent ensembles sur des réseaux spécifiques. Tous ces acteurs s’informent mutuellement et adoptent les mêmes positions politiques.

      L’Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), un centre d’information et de recherche contre l’extrémisme basé à Londres surveille les activités de certains groupuscules sur internet et est arrivé à la même constatation, les comptes des médias sociaux gérés par le site Web Epoch Times, celui du chroniqueur populiste de droite Thomas Böhm, qui dirige le site d’information journalistenwatch.com et le blog anti-islam Philosophia Perennis figurent tous parmi les 10 comptes les plus cités dans plus d’un million de tweets analysés dans le monde après le 31 octobre, expliquent Laurens Cerulus et Eline Schaart.

      Que votera le parlement suisse ?

      Le 19 décembre dernier lors du vote à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU, 152 pays ont approuvé l’accord. Les États-Unis, la Hongrie, Israël, la République tchèque et la Pologne ont voté contre le texte, 12 autres pays se sont abstenus (l’Algérie, l’Australie, l’Autriche, la Bulgarie, le Chili, l’Italie, la Lettonie, la Libye, le Liechtenstein, la Roumanie, Singapour et la Suisse) tandis que 24 autres pays membres n’ont pas pris part au vote.

      En Suisse trop de politiciens ont été lamentablement influencés par des groupuscules ignares, désinformés et xénophobes. Ils auront bientôt la possibilité de démontrer leur confiance dans les avis déjà exprimés des experts suisses en matière de migration (1).

      Le 14 décembre, le Conseil fédéral décidait de mandaté le Département fédéral des affaires étrangères (DFAE) pour préparer un arrêté fédéral simple permettant aux chambres de se prononcer sur la signature ou non par la Suisse de ce pacte onusien. Le DFAE a jusqu’à fin 2019 pour préparer l’arrêté.

      On espère qu’il parviendra à convaincre car le texte ne crée pas de droit à la migration mais réaffirme simplement et justement le respect des droit fondamentaux des personnes migrantes. Je vous recommande la lecture de l’article de Laurens Cerulus et Eline Schaart dans POLITICO, How the UN Migration Pact got trolled.
      https://blogs.letemps.ch/jasmine-caye/2019/01/08/pacte-migratoire-une-large-coalition-de-sympathisants-anti-islam-extre

  • Uganda’s refugee policies: the history, the politics, the way forward

    Uganda’s refugee policy urgently needs an honest discussion, if sustainable solutions for both refugees and host communities are to be found, a new policy paper by International Refugee Rights Initiative (IRRI) reveals.

    The paper, entitled Uganda’s refugee policies: the history, the politics, the way forward puts the “Ugandan model” in its historical and political context, shines a spotlight on its implementation gaps, and proposes recommendations for the way forward.

    Uganda has since 2013 opened its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees from South Sudan, bringing the total number of refugees to more than one million. It has been praised for its positive steps on freedom of movement and access to work for refugees, going against the global grain. But generations of policy, this paper shows, have only entrenched the sole focus on refugee settlements and on repatriation as the only viable durable solution. Support to urban refugees and local integration have been largely overlooked.

    The Ugandan refugee crisis unfolded at the same time as the UN adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, and states committed to implement a Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF). Uganda immediately seized this opportunity and adopted its own strategy to implement these principles. As the world looks to Uganda for best practices in refugee policy, and rightly so, it is vital to understand the gaps between rhetoric and reality, and the pitfalls of Uganda’s policy. This paper identifies the following challenges:

    There is a danger that the promotion of progressive refugee policies becomes more rhetoric than reality, creating a smoke-screen that squeezes out meaningful discussion about robust alternatives. Policy-making has come at the expense of real qualitative change on the ground.
    Refugees in urban areas continue to be largely excluded from any support due to an ongoing focus on refugee settlements, including through aid provision
    Local integration and access to citizenship have been virtually abandoned, leaving voluntary repatriation as the only solution on the table. Given the protracted crises in South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo, this remains unrealistic.
    Host communities remain unheard, with policy conversations largely taking place in Kampala and Geneva. Many Ugandans and refugees have neither the economic resources nor sufficient political leverage to influence the policies that are meant to benefit them.

    The policy paper proposes a number of recommendations to improve the Ugandan refugee model:

    First, international donors need to deliver on their promise of significant financial support.
    Second, repatriation cannot remain the only serious option on the table. There has to be renewed discussion on local integration with Uganda communities and a dramatic increase in resettlement to wealthier states across the globe.
    Third, local communities hosting refugees must be consulted and their voices incorporated in a more meaningful and systematic way, if tensions within and between communities are to be avoided.
    Fourth, in order to genuinely enhance refugee self-reliance, the myth of the “local settlement” needs to be debunked and recognized for what it is: the ongoing isolation of refugees and the utilization of humanitarian assistance to keep them isolated and dependent on aid.


    http://refugee-rights.org/uganda-refugee-policies-the-history-the-politics-the-way-forward
    #modèle_ougandais #Ouganda #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    Pour télécharger le #rapport:
    http://refugee-rights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/IRRI-Uganda-policy-paper-October-2018-Paper.pdf

    • A New Deal for Refugees

      Global policies that aim to resettle and integrate displaced populations into local societies is providing a way forward.

      For many years now, groups that work with refugees have fought to put an end to the refugee camp. It’s finally starting to happen.

      Camps are a reasonable solution to temporary dislocation. But refugee crises can go on for decades. Millions of refugees have lived in their country of shelter for more than 30 years. Two-thirds of humanitarian assistance — intended for emergencies — is spent on crises that are more than eight years old.

      Camps are stagnant places. Refugees have access to water and medical care and are fed and educated, but are largely idle. “You keep people for 20 years in camps — don’t expect the next generation to be problem-free,” said Xavier Devictor, who advises the World Bank on refugee issues. “Keeping people in those conditions is not a good idea.” It’s also hard to imagine a better breeding ground for terrorists.

      “As long as the system is ‘we feed you,’ it’s always going to be too expensive for the international community to pay for,” Mr. Devictor said. It’s gotten more and more difficult for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to raise that money; in many crises, the refugee agency can barely keep people from starving. It’s even harder now as nations turn against foreigners — even as the number of people fleeing war and violence has reached a record high.

      At the end of last year, nearly 70 million people were either internally displaced in their own countries, or had crossed a border and become a refugee. That is the largest number of displaced in history — yes, more than at the end of World War II. The vast majority flee to neighboring countries — which can be just as badly off.

      Last year, the United States accepted about 30,000 refugees.

      Uganda, which is a global model for how it treats refugees, has one-seventh of America’s population and a tiny fraction of the wealth. Yet it took in 1,800 refugees per day between mid-2016 and mid-2017 from South Sudan alone. And that’s one of four neighbors whose people take refuge in Uganda.

      Bangladesh, already the world’s most crowded major nation, has accepted more than a million Rohingya fleeing ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. “If we can feed 160 million people, then (feeding) another 500,00-700,000 …. We can do it. We can share our food,” Shiekh Hasina, Bangladesh’s prime minister, said last year.

      Lebanon is host to approximately 1.5 million Syrian refugees, in addition to a half-million Palestinians, some of whom have been there for generations. One in three residents of Lebanon is a refugee.

      The refugee burden falls heavily on a few, poor countries, some of them at risk of destabilization, which can in turn produce more refugees. The rest of the world has been unwilling to share that burden.

      But something happened that could lead to real change: Beginning in 2015, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees crossed the Mediterranean in small boats and life rafts into Europe.

      Suddenly, wealthy European countries got interested in fixing a broken system: making it more financially viable, more dignified for refugees, and more palatable for host governments and communities.

      In September 2016, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution stating that all countries shared the responsibility of protecting refugees and supporting host countries. It also laid out a plan to move refugees out of camps into normal lives in their host nations.

      Donor countries agreed they would take more refugees and provide more long-term development aid to host countries: schools, hospitals, roads and job-creation measures that can help both refugees and the communities they settle in. “It looked at refugee crises as development opportunities, rather than a humanitarian risk to be managed,” said Marcus Skinner, a policy adviser at the International Rescue Committee.

      The General Assembly will vote on the specifics next month (whatever they come up with won’t be binding). The Trump administration pulled out of the United Nations’ Global Compact on Migration, but so far it has not opposed the refugee agreement.

      There’s a reason refugee camps exist: Host governments like them. Liberating refugees is a hard sell. In camps, refugees are the United Nations’ problem. Out of camps, refugees are the local governments’ problem. And they don’t want to do anything to make refugees comfortable or welcome.

      Bangladesh’s emergency response for the Rohingya has been staggeringly generous. But “emergency” is the key word. The government has resisted granting Rohingya schooling, work permits or free movement. It is telling Rohingya, in effect, “Don’t get any ideas about sticking around.”

      This attitude won’t deter the Rohingya from coming, and it won’t send them home more quickly. People flee across the closest border — often on foot — that allows them to keep their families alive. And they’ll stay until home becomes safe again. “It’s the simple practicality of finding the easiest way to refuge,” said Victor Odero, regional advocacy coordinator for East Africa and the Horn of Africa at the International Rescue Committee. “Any question of policies is a secondary matter.”

      So far, efforts to integrate refugees have had mixed success. The first experiment was a deal for Jordan, which was hosting 650,000 Syrian refugees, virtually none of whom were allowed to work. Jordan agreed to give them work permits. In exchange, it got grants, loans and trade concessions normally available only to the poorest countries.

      However, though the refugees have work permits, Jordan has put only a moderate number of them into jobs.

      Any agreement should include the views of refugees from the start — the Jordan Compact failed to do this. Aid should be conditioned upon the right things. The deal should have measured refugee jobs, instead of work permits. Analysts also said the benefits should have been targeted more precisely, to reach the areas with most refugees.

      To spread this kind of agreement to other nations, the World Bank established a $2 billion fund in July 2017. The money is available to very poor countries that host many refugees, such as Uganda and Bangladesh. In return, they must take steps to integrate refugees into society. The money will come as grants and zero interest loans with a 10-year grace period. Middle-income countries like Lebanon and Colombia would also be eligible for loans at favorable rates under a different fund.

      Over the last 50 years, only one developing country has granted refugees full rights. In Uganda, refugees can live normally. Instead of camps there are settlements, where refugees stay voluntarily because they get a plot of land. Refugees can work, live anywhere, send their children to school and use the local health services. The only thing they can’t do is become Ugandan citizens.

      Given the global hostility to refugees, it is remarkable that Ugandans still approve of these policies. “There have been flashes of social tension or violence between refugees and their hosts, mostly because of a scarcity of resources,” Mr. Odero said. “But they have not become widespread or protracted.”

      This is the model the United Nations wants the world to adopt. But it is imperiled even in Uganda — because it requires money that isn’t there.

      The new residents are mainly staying near the South Sudan border in Uganda’s north — one of the least developed parts of the country. Hospitals, schools, wells and roads were crumbling or nonexistent before, and now they must serve a million more people.

      Joël Boutroue, the head of the United Nations refugee agency in Uganda, said current humanitarian funding covered a quarter of what the crisis required. “At the moment, not even half of refugees go to primary school,” he said. “There are around 100 children per classroom.”

      Refugees are going without food, medical care and water. The plots of land they get have grown smaller and smaller.

      Uganda is doing everything right — except for a corruption scandal. It could really take advantage of the new plan to develop the refugee zone. That would not only help refugees, it would help their host communities. And it would alleviate growing opposition to rights for refugees. “The Ugandan government is under pressure from politicians who see the government giving favored treatment to refugees,” Mr. Boutroue said. “If we want to change the perception of refugees from recipients of aid to economic assets, we have to showcase that refugees bring development.”

      The World Bank has so far approved two projects — one for water and sanitation and one for city services such as roads and trash collection. But they haven’t gotten started yet.

      Mr. Devictor said that tackling long-term development issues was much slower than providing emergency aid. “The reality is that it will be confusing and confused for a little while,” he said. Water, for example, is trucked in to Uganda’s refugee settlements, as part of humanitarian aid. “That’s a huge cost,” he said. “But if we think this crisis is going to last for six more months, it makes sense. If it’s going to last longer, we should think about upgrading the water system.”

      Most refugee crises are not surprises, Mr. Devictor said. “If you look at a map, you can predict five or six crises that are going to produce refugees over the next few years.” It’s often the same places, over and over. That means developmental help could come in advance, minimizing the burden on the host. “Do we have to wait until people cross the border to realize we’re going to have an emergency?” he said.

      Well, we might. If politicians won’t respond to a crisis, it’s hard to imagine them deciding to plan ahead to avert one. Political commitment, or lack of it, always rules. The world’s new approach to refugees was born out of Europe’s panic about the Syrians on their doorstep. But no European politician is panicking about South Sudanese or Rohingya refugees — or most crises. They’re too far away. The danger is that the new approach will fall victim to the same political neglect that has crippled the old one.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/opinion/refugee-camps-integration.html

      #Ouganda #modèle_ougandais #réinstallation #intégration

      avec ce commentaire de #Jeff_Crisp sur twitter :

      “Camps are stagnant places. Refugees have access to water and medical care and are fed and educated, but are largely idle.”
      Has this prizewinning author actually been to a refugee camp?

      https://twitter.com/JFCrisp/status/1031892657117831168

    • Appreciating Uganda’s ‘open door’ policy for refugees

      While the rest of the world is nervous and choosing to take an emotional position on matters of forced migration and refugees, sometimes closing their doors in the face of people who are running from persecution, Uganda’s refugee policy and practice continues to be liberal, with an open door to all asylum seekers, writes Arthur Matsiko

      http://thisisafrica.me/appreciating-ugandas-open-door-policy-refugees

    • Ouganda. La générosité intéressée du pays le plus ouvert du monde aux réfugiés

      L’Ouganda est le pays qui accueille le plus de réfugiés. Un million de Sud-Soudanais fuyant la guerre s’y sont installés. Mais cette noble intention des autorités cache aussi des calculs moins avouables : l’arrivée massive de l’aide internationale encourage l’inaction et la #corruption.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/ouganda-la-generosite-interessee-du-pays-le-plus-ouvert-du-mo

    • Refugees in Uganda to benefit from Dubai-funded schools but issues remain at crowded settlement

      Dubai Cares is building three classrooms in a primary school at Ayilo II but the refugee settlement lacks a steady water supply, food and secondary schools, Roberta Pennington writes from Adjumani


      https://www.thenational.ae/uae/refugees-in-uganda-to-benefit-from-dubai-funded-schools-but-issues-remai

    • FUGA DAL SUD SUDAN. LUIS, L’UGANDA E QUEL PEZZO DI TERRA DONATA AI PROFUGHI

      Luis zappa, prepara dei fori per tirare su una casa in attesa di ritrovare la sua famiglia. Il terreno è una certezza, glielo ha consegnato il Governo ugandese. Il poterci vivere con i suoi cari non ancora. L’ultima volta li ha visti in Sud Sudan. Nel ritornare a casa sua moglie e i suoi otto figli non c’erano più. É sicuro si siano messi in cammino verso l’Uganda, così da quel giorno è iniziata la sua rincorsa. É certo che li ritroverà nella terra che ora lo ha accolto. Quella di Luis è una delle tante storie raccolte nei campi profughi del nord dell’Uganda, in una delle ultime missioni di Amref, in cui era presente anche Giusi Nicolini, già Sindaco di Lampedusa e Premio Unesco per la pace. 



      Modello Uganda? Dell’Uganda il mondo dice «campione di accoglienza». Accoglienza che sta sperimentando da mesi nei confronti dei profughi sud sudanesi, che scappano da uno dei Paesi più drammaticamente in crisi al mondo. Sono 4 milioni le persone che in Sud Sudan hanno dovuto lasciare le proprie case. Chi muovendosi verso altri Paesi e chi in altre regioni sud sudanesi. In questi ultimi tempi arrivano in Uganda anche persone che fuggono dalla Rep. Democratica del Congo.

      https://www.amref.it/2018_02_23_Fuga_dal_Sud_Sudan_Luis_lUganda_e_quel_pezzo_di_terra_donata_ai_pro

    • As Rich Nations Close the Door on Refugees, Uganda Welcomes Them

      President Trump is vowing to send the military to stop migrants trudging from Central America. Europe’s leaders are paying African nations to block migrants from crossing the Mediterranean — and detaining the ones who make it in filthy, overcrowded camps.

      But Solomon Osakan has a very different approach in this era of rising xenophobia. From his uncluttered desk in northwest Uganda, he manages one of the largest concentrations of refugees anywhere in the world: more than 400,000 people scattered across his rural district.

      He explained what he does with them: Refugees are allotted some land — enough to build a little house, do a little farming and “be self-sufficient,” said Mr. Osakan, a Ugandan civil servant. Here, he added, the refugees live in settlements, not camps — with no barbed wire, and no guards in sight.

      “You are free, and you can come and go as you want,” Mr. Osakan added.

      As many nations are securing their borders and turning refugees away, Uganda keeps welcoming them. And they keep coming, fleeing catastrophes from across this part of Africa.

      In all, Uganda has as many as 1.25 million refugees on its soil, perhaps more, making it one of the most welcoming countries in the world, according to the United Nations.

      And while Uganda’s government has made hosting refugees a core national policy, it works only because of the willingness of rural Ugandans to accept an influx of foreigners on their land and shoulder a big part of the burden.

      Uganda is not doing this without help. About $200 million in humanitarian aid to the country this year will largely pay to feed and care for the refugees. But they need places to live and small plots to farm, so villages across the nation’s north have agreed to carve up their communally owned land and share it with the refugees, often for many years at a time.

      “Our population was very few and our community agreed to loan the land,” said Charles Azamuke, 27, of his village’s decision in 2016 to accept refugees from South Sudan, which has been torn apart by civil war. “We are happy to have these people. We call them our brothers.”

      United Nations officials have pointed to Uganda for its “open border” policy. While the United States, a much more populous nation, has admitted more than three million refugees since 1975, the American government settles them in the country after they have first been thoroughly screened overseas.

      By contrast, Uganda has essentially opened its borders to refugees, rarely turning anyone away.

      Some older Ugandans explain that they, too, had been refugees once, forced from their homes during dictatorship and war. And because the government ensures that spending on refugees benefits Ugandans as well, younger residents spoke of how refugees offered them some unexpected opportunities.

      “I was a farmer. I used to dig,” Mr. Azamuke said. But after learning Arabic from refugees from South Sudan, he got a better job — as a translator at a new health clinic that serves the newcomers.

      His town, Ofua, is bisected by a dirt road, with the Ugandans living on the uphill side and the South Sudanese on the downhill side. The grass-thatched homes of the Ugandans look a bit larger and sturdier, but not much.

      As the sun began to set one recent afternoon, a group of men on the Ugandan side began to pass around a large plastic bottle of waragi, a home brew. On the South Sudanese side, the men were sober, gathered around a card game.

      On both sides, the men had nothing but tolerant words for one another. “Actually, we don’t have any problems with these people,” said Martin Okuonzi, a Ugandan farmer cleaning his fingernails with a razor blade.

      As the men lounged, the women and girls were still at work, preparing dinner, tending children, fetching water and gathering firewood. They explained that disputes did arise, especially as the two groups competed for limited resources like firewood.

      “We’ve been chased away,” said Agnes Ajonye, a 27-year-old refugee from South Sudan. “They say we are destroying their forests.”

      And disputes broke out at the well, where Ugandan women insist they should be allowed to skip ahead of refugees.

      “If we hadn’t given you the land you live on, wouldn’t you be dying in Sudan?” said Adili Chandia, a 62-year-old refugee, recounting the lecture she and others got from a frustrated Ugandan woman waiting in line.

      Ugandan officials often talk about the spirit of Pan-Africanism that motivates their approach to refugees. President Yoweri Museveni, an autocratic leader who has been in power for 32 years, says Uganda’s generosity can be traced to the precolonial days of warring kingdoms and succession disputes, when losing factions often fled to a new land.

      This history of flight and resettlement is embedded in some of the names of local groups around western Uganda, like Batagwenda, which means “the ones that could not continue traveling.”

      The government encourages the nation to go along with its policy by directing that 30 percent of foreign aid destined for refugees be spent in ways that benefit Ugandans nearby. So when money for refugees results in new schools, clinics and wells, Ugandans are more likely to welcome than resent them.

      For Mr. Museveni, hosting refugees has given him relevance and political capital abroad at a time when he would otherwise have little.

      A former guerrilla fighter who quickly stabilized much of his country, Mr. Museveni was once hailed as an example of new African leadership. He was relatively quick to confront the AIDS epidemic, and he invited back Ugandans of Indian and Pakistani descent who had been expelled during the brutal reign of Idi Amin in the 1970s.

      But his star has fallen considerably. He has clung to power for decades. His security forces have beaten political opponents. Freedom of assembly and expression are severely curtailed.

      Even so, Uganda’s openness toward refugees makes Mr. Museveni important to European nations, which are uneasy at the prospect of more than a million refugees heading for Europe.

      Other African nations also host a significant number of refugees, but recent polls show that Ugandans are more likely than their neighbors in Kenya or Tanzania to support land assistance or the right to work for refugees.

      Part of the reason is that Ugandans have fled their homes as well, first during the murderous reign of Mr. Amin, then during the period of retribution after his overthrow, and again during the 1990s and 2000s, when Joseph Kony, the guerrilla leader who terrorized northern Uganda, left a trail of kidnapped children and mutilated victims.

      Many Ugandans found refuge in what is today South Sudan. Mark Idraku, 57, was a teenager when he fled with his mother to the area. They received two acres of farmland, which helped support them until they returned home six years later.

      “When we were in exile in Sudan, they also helped us,” Mr. Idraku said. “Nobody ever asked for a single coin.”

      Mr. Idraku has since returned the favor, loaning three acres to a South Sudanese refugee named Queen Chandia, 37. Ms. Chandia said the land — along with additional plots other Ugandans allow her to farm — has made all the difference.

      Her homestead of thatched-roof huts teemed with children tending their chores, grinding nuts into paste and maize into meal. Ms. Chandia is the mother of a girl and two boys. But over the years, as violence hollowed out her home country, Ms. Chandia started taking in the orphaned children of relatives and friends. Now 22 children call her “mom.”

      A refugee for nearly her entire life, Ms. Chandia arrived in Uganda as a young girl nearly 30 years ago. For years, she worried about being expelled.
      Image

      “Maybe these Ugandans will change their minds on us,” she said, describing the thought that plagued her. Then one day the worry stopped.

      But Mr. Osakan, the administrator who oversees refugee affairs in the country’s extreme northwest, is anxious. There is an Ebola outbreak over the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mr. Osakan fears what might happen if — or when — a refugee turns up in Uganda with the dreaded illness.

      “It would destroy all the harmony between refugees and host communities,” he said, explaining that it would probably lead to calls to seal the border.

      For now, the border is very much open, although the number of refugees arriving has fallen significantly. In one of the newer settlements, many of the refugees came last year, fleeing an attack in a South Sudanese city. But some complained about receiving too little land, about a quarter acre per family, which is less than previous refugees had received.

      “Even if you have skills — in carpentry — you are not given a chance,” said one refugee, Simon Ludoru. He looked over his shoulder, to where a construction crew was building a nursery school. The schoolhouse would teach both local Ugandan and South Sudanese children together, but the workers were almost entirely Ugandan, he said.

      At the construction site, the general contractor, Sam Omongo, 50, said he had hired refugees for the job. “Oh, yes,” he exclaimed.

      How many?

      “Not a lot, actually,” he acknowledged. “I have about three.” Mr. Omongo called one over.

      “Are you a refugee?” Mr. Omongo asked the slight man.

      “No, I’m from Uganda,” he said softly. His name was Amos Chandiga, 28. He lived nearby and owned six acres of land, though he worked only four of them. He had lent the other two to a pair of refugees.

      “They asked me, and I gave it to them,” Mr. Chandiga explained. He patted his chest. “It comes from here, in my heart.”


      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/africa/uganda-refugees.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

    • Uganda: a role model for refugee integration?

      Uganda hosts the largest refugee population in Africa and is, after Turkey and Pakistan, the third-largest refugee recipient country worldwide. Political and humanitarian actors have widely praised Ugandan refugee policies because of their progressive nature: In Uganda, in contrast to many other refugee-receiving countries, these are de jure allowed to work, to establish businesses, to access public services such as education, to move freely and have access to a plot of land. Moreover, Uganda is a pilot country of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF). In this Working Paper the authors ascertain whether Uganda indeed can be taken as a role model for refugee integration, as largely portrayed in the media and the political discourse. They identify the challenges to livelihoods and integration to assess Uganda’s self-reliance and settlement approach and its aspiration towards providing refugees and Ugandan communities receiving refugees with opportunities for becoming self-reliant. Drawing on three months of field research in northern and southern Uganda from July to September of 2017 with a particular focus on South Sudanese refugees, the authors concentrate on three aspects: Access to land, employment and education, intra- and inter-group relations. The findings show that refugees in Uganda are far from self-reliant and socially integrated. Although in Uganda refugees are provided with land, the quality and size of the allocated plots is so poor that they cannot earn a living from agricultural production, which thus, rather impedes self-reliance. Inadequate infrastructure also hinders access to markets and employment opportunities. Even though most local communities have been welcoming to refugees, the sentiment has shifted recently in some areas, particularly where local communities that are often not better off than refugees feel that they have not benefitted from the presence of refugees....

      https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/62871

    • Uganda has a remarkable history of hosting refugees, but its efforts are underfunded

      Uganda has agreed to a request from the United States to temporarily accommodate 2,000 refugees from Afghanistan while Washington processes their applications to live in the US. The move underscores the reputation Uganda has of being progressive on refugee issues. Refugee expert Dr Evan Easton-Calabria provides insights into why.
      When did Uganda start hosting refugees?

      Uganda has a long history of hosting refugees. This started in the early 1940s with Polish refugees who fled from Nazi-occupied Europe. The Nakivale refugee settlement – formed in 1959 – in southwest Uganda is the oldest refugee camp in Africa.

      Uganda also hosts huge numbers of refugees. In the mid-1950s almost 80,000 Sudanese refugees, fleeing the first civil war, sought refuge in the country. They were only the first of many waves of refugees from different neighbouring countries to arrive. Uganda has hosted significant numbers of refugees ever since.

      Today, almost 1.5 million refugees live in Uganda, making it the top refugee-hosting country in Africa and one of the top five hosting countries in the world.

      Its longstanding ‘open-door’ policy has benefited it both politically and financially, with hundreds of millions of donor funds provided each year for humanitarian and development projects. These target both refugees and locals. While Kenya, for example, has received Euros 200 million in humanitarian aid from the European Union since 2012, Uganda has received this much from the EU in just over four years.
      Is the country more progressive towards refugees than its neighbours?

      Uganda’s policies towards refugees have been hailed as progressive. It has even been called “the world’s best place for refugees”.

      Refugees have the right to work and freedom of movement, thanks to Uganda’s 2006 Refugee Act and 2010 Refugee Regulations, which provide a strong legal and regulatory framework for refugee rights.

      Refugees have the right to the same social services as Ugandans, including health care and free primary education. They are not confined to camps but can also live in urban areas. The country has, therefore, received a lot of positive attention for ‘fostering’ the self-reliance of refugees.

      However, despite rights on paper in Uganda, refugees still struggle.

      They are not legally recognised as refugees if they live in cities besides the capital, Kampala. As ‘self-settled’ urban refugees, they risk being misclassified as economic migrants. Lacking official refugee status (unless they have been registered in a settlement), urban refugees also often lack assistance.

      Although refugees in Uganda are economically diverse – one study even identified over 70 different types of livelihoods activities by refugees in Uganda – for many in settlements, subsistence farming is their primary livelihood. But, despite plots of land being provided in settlements, many don’t have enough land to farm on and soil quality is often low. This means that, for many, farming is no longer a viable livelihood. This shows that liberal refugee policies, like those promoting self-reliance in Uganda, must be backed with adequate resources if they are to be more than just words on paper.

      Comparatively, Uganda’s neighbours – such as Kenya and Ethiopia – have traditionally been more restrictive. Kenya relies on a system of encampment, where most refugees live in camps, and Ethiopia has only recently expanded its out-of-camp policy to all refugees and aslyum-seekers, although regulatory gaps remain. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that both are major refugee-hosting countries. They host far more refugees than many western (and wealthier) countries. Kenya hosts over half a million refugees, mainly from Somalia and South Sudan. Ethiopia hosts over 788,000 and is the third largest refugee-hosting country in Africa.
      How effectively does Uganda manage its refugee community?

      ‘Effectiveness’ is an interesting word in this context. On one hand, Uganda provides an important foundation in terms of providing the legal infrastructure to allow many refugees to lead independent lives. But refugees also enter a challenging context: Uganda struggles to provide adequate services for its own citizens and unemployment is high. It has one of the world’s lowest rankings in the Human Capital Index.

      In addition, the 2021 presidential election saw increased political and social unrest which has led to the violation of rights such as the freedom of assembly and expression for citizens and other residents, including refugees. While many Ugandans have welcomed refugees, there are increasing accounts of overburdened cities and strains on resources, like firewood, in some parts of the country.

      The corruption of humanitarian aid is also a problem, with UNHCR Uganda accused of mismanaging tens of millions of dollars in 2016-2017. This illustrates the clear need for effective financial management so that refugees can actually be helped.

      There is also another important question of responsibility. Despite the positive attention the international community has given the country, donor funds have not often matched the praise. If schools and health facilities are crowded, in part because of refugees, the responsibility to provide additional support should not fall on a refugee-hosting country such as Uganda alone. Limited resources mean limited management. As of June, the 2020-2021 Uganda Refugee Response Plan was only 22% funded, leaving a shortfall of US$596 million to cover all sectors ranging from protection to food security to sanitation.
      Does it look likely that Uganda will continue in its role as a leading refugee destination?

      Uganda has had a strong commitment to hosting refugees for over 70 years –- about the same length that the 1951 Refugee Convention has existed. A spirit of pan-Africanism and first-hand understanding of displacement by many Ugandans have all contributed to its willingness to host refugees. Its recent temporary accommodation of Afghan refugees indicates that it is interested in continuing this role.

      That said, no country should host refugees without significant international support. Many refugee response plans, such as Uganda’s, remain significantly underfunded even as displacement rises and challenges – such as the COVID-19 pandemic – remain. Even though Uganda receives a significant amount of money, it’s not enough to support the number of people arriving as evidenced by a funding appeal by refugee response actors in June this year.

      Mechanisms such as the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework offer a means to channel resources and increase collaboration on refugee hosting. But it is important to consider what displacement in Central, Eastern, and the Horn of Africa would look like if Uganda closed its borders. Uganda is making an effort in a neighbourhood where few other countries have the same enthusiasm.

      https://theconversation.com/uganda-has-a-remarkable-history-of-hosting-refugees-but-its-efforts

  • Italian government pressures #Panama to stop #Aquarius rescues on world’s deadliest maritime route

    Central Mediterranean– SOS MEDITERRANEE and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) are reeling from the announcement by the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA) that it has been forced to revoke the registration of the search and rescue ship Aquarius, under blatant economic and political pressure from the Italian government. This announcement condemns hundreds of men, women and children who are desperate to reach safety to a watery grave, and deals a major blow to the life-saving humanitarian mission of the Aquarius, the only remaining non-governmental search and rescue vessel in the Central Mediterranean. Both organisations demand that European governments allow the Aquarius to continue its mission, by affirming to the Panamanian authorities that threats made by the Italian government are unfounded, or by immediately issuing a new flag under which the vessel can sail.

    On Saturday, 22 September, the Aquarius team was shocked to learn of an official communication from the Panamanian authorities stating that the Italian authorities had urged the PMA to take “immediate action” against the Aquarius. The PMA message explained that, “unfortunately, it is necessary that [the Aquarius] be excluded from our registry, because it implies a political problem against the Panamanian government and the Panamanian fleet that arrive to European port.” The message came despite the fact that Aquarius meets all maritime standards and is in full compliance with rigorous technical specifications as required under the Panama flag.

    SOS MEDITERRANEE and MSF strongly denounce the actions as further proof of the extent to which the Italian government is willing to go to, knowing that the only consequence is that people will continue to die at sea and that no witnesses will be present to count the dead.

    “European leaders appear to have no qualms implementing increasingly abusive and vicious tactics that serve their own political interests at the expense of human lives,” said Karline Kleijer, MSF’s Head of Emergencies. “For the past two years, European leaders have claimed that people should not die at sea, but at the same time they have pursued dangerous and ill-informed policies that have brought the humanitarian crisis in the Central Mediterranean and in Libya to new lows. This tragedy has to end, but that can only happen if EU governments allow the Aquarius and other search and rescue vessels to continue providing lifesaving assistance and bearing witness where it is so desperately needed.”

    Since the beginning of the year, more than 1,250 people have drowned while attempting to cross the Central Mediterranean. Those that attempt the crossing are three times more likely to drown than those who made the same journey in 2015. The real number of deaths is likely much higher, as not all drownings are witnessed or recorded by authorities or U.N. agencies. This underreporting is represented in shipwrecks like the one in early September in which it is estimated that at least 100 people drowned.

    Meanwhile, the European-sponsored Libyan coastguard continues to make an increasing number of interceptions in international waters between Italy, Malta and Libya, while denying survivors their right to disembark in a place of safety as required by International Maritime and Refugee Law. Instead, these vulnerable people are returned to appalling conditions in Libyan detention centres, several of which are now affected by heavy fighting in Tripoli’s conflict zones.

    “Five years after the Lampedusa tragedy, when European leaders said ‘never again’ and Italy launched its first large scale search and rescue operation, people are still risking their lives to escape from Libya while the death rate on the Central Mediterranean is skyrocketing” said Sophie Beau, vice president of SOS MEDITERRANEE international. “Europe cannot afford to renounce its fundamental values.”

    News from the PMA arrived at the Aquarius while the team was engaged in an active search and rescue operation in the Central Mediterranean. Over the past three days, Aquarius has assisted two boats in distress and now has 58 survivors on board, several of whom are psychologically distressed and fatigued from their journeys at sea and experiences in Libya, and who must be disembarked urgently in a place of safety in accordance with international maritime law. Throughout its current operation and during all previous rescue operations, the Aquarius has maintained full transparency while operating under the instructions of all maritime coordination centres and following international maritime conventions.

    SOS MEDITERRANEE and MSF demand that European governments allow the Aquarius to continue its rescue mission by reassuring the Panama authorities that the threats made by the Government of Italy are unfounded, or by immediately issuing a new flag under which the vessel can sail.

    https://www.msf.org/italian-government-pressures-panama-stop-aquarius-rescues-worlds-deadliest-mari
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Méditerranée #ONG #sauvetage #pavillon

    • Le gouvernement italien fait pression sur le Panama pour stopper les opérations de sauvetage de l’Aquarius

      Les autorités maritimes du Panama ont annoncé à SOS Méditerranée et Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) avoir été forcées de révoquer l’enregistrement du navire de secours en mer Aquarius. Cette révocation résulte de la pression économique et politique flagrante exercée par le gouvernement italien et condamne des centaines d’hommes, de femmes et d’enfants en fuite à rejoindre le cimetière marin qu’est devenu la Méditerranée. Elle porte un coup violent à la mission humanitaire vitale de l’Aquarius, le seul navire de recherche et de sauvetage non gouvernemental encore présent en Méditerranée centrale. Nos deux organisations demandent aux gouvernements européens d’autoriser l’Aquarius à poursuivre sa mission en intercédant auprès des autorités panaméennes et en réaffirmant que les menaces de rétorsion formulées à leur égard par les autorités italiennes sont infondées, ou en lui délivrant immédiatement un nouveau pavillon sous lequel naviguer.

      Le samedi 22 septembre, l’équipe de l’Aquarius a été choquée d’apprendre qu’une communication officielle émanant des autorités panaméennes, indiquait que le gouvernement italien les avait exhorté à prendre des « mesures immédiates » contre l’Aquarius. Le message des autorités maritimes du Panama expliquait alors que « malheureusement, il faut qu’il [l’Aquarius] soit exclu de notre registre, car maintenir ce pavillon impliquerait de sérieuses difficultés politiques pour le gouvernement panaméen et pour la flotte panaméenne qui travaille dans les ports européens ». Cela intervient en dépit du fait que l’Aquarius répond à toutes les normes maritimes en vigueur et qu’il respecte scrupuleusement les spécifications techniques exigées par les autorités du Panama.

      Les deux organisations humanitaires dénoncent ces actions comme une preuve supplémentaire du jusqu’au-boutisme du gouvernement italien qui choisit sciemment de laisser les gens se noyer en mer Méditerranée, et cherche à se débarrasser des derniers témoins de ces naufrages.

      "Les dirigeants européens semblent n’avoir aucun scrupule à mettre en œuvre des tactiques de plus en plus violentes et sordides qui servent leurs propres intérêts politiques au détriment des vies humaines", a déclaré Karline Kleijer, responsable des urgences chez MSF. « Au cours des deux dernières années, les dirigeants européens ont affirmé que plus personne ne devait mourir en mer, mais elles ont parallèlement mis en place des politiques dangereuses qui n’ont fait que renforcer la crise humanitaire en Méditerranée et en Libye. Cette tragédie doit cesser, et pour cela, il faut que les gouvernements de l’Union européenne autorisent l’Aquarius et d’autres navires de recherche et de sauvetage à continuer à fournir une assistance, là où elle est nécessaire, pour sauver des vies et témoigner de ce qu’il se passe. »

      Depuis le début de l’année, plus de 1 250 personnes se sont noyées alors qu’elles essayaient de traverser la Méditerranée centrale. Ceux qui tentent la traversée à présent ont trois fois plus de risque de se noyer que ceux qui ont fait le même trajet en 2015. Le nombre réel de décès est probablement beaucoup plus élevé, les autorités ou les agences des Nations unies n’étant pas témoins de toutes les noyades. Cela a été clairement mis en évidence lors du naufrage survenu au début du mois de septembre au large des côtes libyennes, où plus de 100 personnes se sont noyées.

      Pendant ce temps, les garde-côtes libyens, soutenus par l’Europe, continuent d’intercepter dans les eaux internationales entre l’Italie, Malte et la Libye un nombre croissant de personnes fuyant la Libye, les privant de leur droit à débarquer dans un lieu sûr, comme l’exige le droit international maritime et le droit international relatif aux réfugiés. Ces personnes vulnérables sont renvoyées dans un dangereux système de détention en Libye, où plusieurs centres de détention sont d’ailleurs actuellement touchés par les violents combats qui se déroulent à Tripoli, la capitale.

      "Cinq ans après la tragédie de Lampedusa, lorsque les dirigeants européens ont déclaré ‘plus jamais ça’ et que l’Italie a lancé sa première opération de recherche et de sauvetage à grande échelle, les gens risquent toujours leur vie pour fuir la Libye tandis que le taux de mortalité en mer Méditerranée grimpe en flèche », a tancé Francis Vallat, président de SOS MEDITERRANEE France.

      L’annonce des autorités maritimes du Panama est parvenue à l’Aquarius alors que ses équipes étaient engagées dans une opération active de recherche et de sauvetage en Méditerranée. Au cours des trois derniers jours, l’Aquarius a porté assistance aux passagers de deux bateaux en détresse et compte maintenant 58 rescapés à son bord. Plusieurs d’entre eux sont dans un état de détresse psychologique, épuisés par les expériences traumatisantes vécues en mer et en Libye Ces rescapés doivent être rapidement débarqués dans un port sûr conformément au droit international maritime.

      Tout au long de son opération de sauvetage actuelle et au cours de toutes les opérations précédentes, l’Aquarius a maintenu une transparence totale sur ses actions, intervenant sous les instructions des centres de coordination maritimes et respectant les conventions maritimes internationales en vigueur.

      SOS Méditerranée et MSF insistent de nouveau sur le fait que l’Aquarius doit être autorisé à poursuivre sa mission de secours humanitaire. Elles exigent que les gouvernements européens lui attribuent un nouveau pavillon ou qu’ils intercèdent auprès des autorités panaméennes, leur confirmant que les menaces de rétorsion formulées par le gouvernement italien sont infondées.

      http://www.sosmediterranee.fr/journal-de-bord/CP23-09-2018-Panama

    • Migranti, Panama blocca la nave #Aquarius_2. Msf e Sos Méditerranée: «Pressioni dal governo italiano»

      Le autorità panamensi hanno revocato l’iscrizione dai propri registri navali, informando il proprietario della richiesta italiana di «azioni immediate». Il Viminale nega ogni intervento. Salvini: «Nessun Paese vuole essere identificato con una nave che intralcia i soccorsi in mare e attacca governi democratici»

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/09/23/news/aquarius2-207151404

    • Pressioni italiane su Panama che cancellerà Aquarius dai registri navali, l’accusa è per non aver restituito alla Libia i migranti salvati

      SOS Méditerranée e Medici Senza Frontiere sono «sconvolte dall’annuncio dell’Autorità marittima di Panama di essere stata costretta a revocare l’iscrizione dell’Aquarius dal proprio registro navale sotto l’evidente pressione economica e politica delle autorità italiane.

      Questo provvedimento condanna centinaia di uomini, donne e bambini, alla disperata ricerca di sicurezza, ad annegare in mare e infligge un duro colpo alla missione umanitaria di Aquarius». Così in una nota le due organizzazioni umanitarie.

      SOS Mediterrannee e MSF chiedono all’Europa di permettere all’Aquarius di poter continuare ad operare nel Mediterraneo centrale e di far sapere alle autorità panamensi che «le minacce del governo italiano sono infondate o di garantire immediatamente una nuova bandiera per poter continuare a navigare».

      E’ quanto chiedono le due Ong in una nota nella quale è riportata anche una dichiarazione di Karline Kleijer, responsabile delle emergenze per Msf. «I leader europei - afferma Kleijer - sembrano non avere scrupoli nell’attuare tattiche sempre più offensive e crudeli che servono i propri interessi politici a scapito delle vite umane. Negli ultimi due anni, i leader europei hanno affermato che le persone non dovrebbero morire in mare, ma allo stesso tempo hanno perseguito politiche pericolose e male informate che hanno portato a nuovi minimi la crisi umanitaria nel Mediterraneo centrale e in Libia. Questa tragedia deve finire, ma ciò può accadere solo se i governi dell’Ue permetteranno all’Aquarius e alle altre navi di ricerca e soccorso di continuare a fornire assistenza».

      Salvini,denuncerò ong che aiutano scafisti - «Denuncerò per favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione clandestina chi aiuta gli scafisti». Lo afferma il Ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini che aggiunge: «Nelle ultime ore i trafficanti hanno ripreso a lavorare, riempiendo barchini e approfittando della collaborazione di qualche Ong. Tra queste c’è Aquarius 2, che poco fa ha recuperato 50 persone al largo di Zuara. Altri due gommoni, con a bordo 100 immigrati ciascuno, sarebbero in navigazione».

      Aquarius 2 recupera 50 persone,altre 100 in arrivo - Aquarius 2 ha recuperato 50 persone al largo della Libia, più precisamente al largo della città di Zuara. A renderlo noto è il Ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini.
      Salvini riferisce anche che Aquarius 2 sta per essere cancellata dai registri navali di Panama. La notizia era stata pubblicata due giorni fa dal quotidiano panamense La Prensa.

      "Per aver disatteso le procedure internazionali in materia di immigranti e rifugiati assistiti al largo delle coste nel Mediterraneo - si legge nell’articolo - l’amministrazione marittima panamense ha avviato l’iter per annullare d’ufficio la registrazione della nave «Aquarius 2», ex «Acquarius», con numero IMO 7600574. Questa nave ha registrato la prima immatricolazione in Germania e circa un mese fa è arrivata a Panama".

      «L’autorità marittima di Panama - riporta ancora la Prensa - ha riferito che la denuncia principale proviene dalle autorità italiane, che hanno riferito che il capitano della nave si è rifiutato di restituire gli immigranti e i rifugiati assistiti al loro luogo di origine».

      Nell’articolo si ricorda inoltre che già «l’amministrazione marittima di Gibilterra aveva negato il permesso di ’Aquarius’ di agire come un battello di emergenza e anche nel mese di giugno e luglio di quest’anno, ha chiesto formalmente che ’sospenda le sue operazioni’ e ritorni al suo stato di registrazione originale come ’nave oceanografica’».

      Galantino, strano parlare di migranti in dl sicurezza - «A me sembra strano che si parli di immigrati all’interno del decreto sicurezza. Inserirlo lì dentro significa giudicare già l’immigrato per una sua condizione», «per il suo essere immigrato e non per i comportamenti che può avere. E’ un brutto segnale sul piano culturale, perché si tratta di un tema sociale che va affrontato nel rispetto della legalità ma non possiamo considerare la condizione degli immigrati come una condizione di delinquenza». Lo ha detto a «Stanze Vaticane» di Tgcom24, Mons. Nunzio Galantino, Segretario Generale Cei.

      https://dirittiumani1.blogspot.com/2018/09/pressioni-italiane-su-panama-che.html

    • The Aquarius : Migrant rescue ship has registration revoked

      A rescue vessel operating in the central Mediterranean Sea has had its registration revoked, leaving its future operations in jeopardy.

      When the Aquarius next docks, it will have to remove its Panama maritime flag and cannot set sail without a new one.

      It is the last private rescue ship operating in the area used for crossings from Libya to Europe.

      The charities who run the vessel accuse the Italian government of pressuring Panama into deflagging the Aquarius.

      The two groups who lease it, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and SOS Mediterranée, say they were notified of the decision by the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA) on Saturday.

      The authority is said to have described the ship as a “political problem” for the country’s government, and said Italian authorities had urged them to take “immediate action” against them, according to SOS Mediterranée.

      Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, who has previously described the aid boats as a “taxi service” for migrants, denies his country put pressure on Panama.

      On Sunday, he tweeted he “didn’t even know” what prefix Panama has for telephone calls.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45622431

    • Dopo le accuse alle ong da oggi Mediterraneo senza presidi umanitari

      Oggi, 20 settembre 2018, uno degli obiettivi politici di molti governi europei sembra pienamente raggiunto: il Mediterraneo centrale è privo di presidi umanitari, di imbarcazioni destinate a prestare soccorso, di mezzi attrezzati e personale formato al fine di salvare vite umane.

      Dunque, con la sola eccezione della nave Aquarius, dove opera Medici Senza Frontiere, il Mediterraneo è stato, per così dire, sgomberato dalla presenza di tutti i soccorritori e i volontari. E di tutti gli operatori umanitari (medici, psicologi, mediatori e interpreti) – a partire dal 2015 – hanno realizzato centinaia di missioni e centinaia di salvataggi, risparmiando migliaia e migliaia di vittime, offrendo riparo e protezione ai fuggiaschi di tante guerre e di tante miserie. E riducendo il numero delle stragi che, non da ieri ma dai primi anni novanta (attenzione: dai primi anni novanta), si ripetono in quel tratto di mare. Ora lì operano, quando operano, solo navi e organismi degli stati europei, in genere indirizzati verso la difesa delle frontiere piuttosto che verso il soccorso dei naufraghi.

      E alcune guardie costiere prive di indirizzi politici univoci e le motovedette della Libia (meglio sarebbe dire: delle diverse milizie libiche). È ciò che alcuni governi europei, compreso quello italiano, si sono proposti da tempo: cancellare, o comunque ridurre al minimo, il ruolo delle organizzazioni non governative finalizzate al soccorso per lasciare campo libero all’attività di respingimento di migranti e profughi attraverso il blocco del Mediterraneo con la chiusura di porti, vie d’accesso, canali di fuga e rotte alternative. L’obiettivo è chiarissimo: attraverso l’esclusione delle Ong si persegue la mortificazione, fino all’annullamento, del diritto/dovere al soccorso.

      E per ottenere quest’ultimo scopo, nel corso degli ultimi due anni si è attuata una sequenza micidiale: prima una campagna di delegittimazione delle Ong tramite lo sfregio della loro identità e della loro immagine e l’indecente assimilazione dei soccorritori ai criminali («Le ong complici degli scafisti»); poi una successione di iniziative giudiziarie tendenti ad assimilare l’attività di soccorso a una fattispecie penale: ovvero il salvataggio come reato. Infine, un attacco politico fondato sulla rappresentazione di migranti e richiedenti asilo come nemici della stabilità e della sicurezza dell’Europa – e in particolare dell’Italia – e delle ong come loro complici e sicari.

      Oggi, a distanza di qualche anno da quando questa manovra politica è iniziata, sul piano giudiziario non c’è stato nemmeno un rinvio a giudizio per un solo membro di una sola ong e, all’opposto, si sono avute ordinanze e sentenze che riconoscevano la loro attività come fondamentale e pienamente rispettosa delle leggi e del diritto internazionale. Tuttavia, come si è detto, oggi nel Mar Mediterraneo i presidi umanitari sono ridotti al lumicino e le conseguenze materiali e il relativo carico di sofferenze è stato onerosissimo. Le navi delle Ong hanno dovuto percorrere molte miglia in più durante ciascuna missione e sono rimaste in mare per giorni senza l’indicazione di un porto di approdo sicuro – costringendo donne, uomini e bambini, già provati fisicamente e psicologicamente, ad affrontare lunghissime traversate, spesso in condizioni meteorologiche avverse. Non solo, quindi, le recenti politiche nazionali e internazionali hanno messo in pericolo la loro incolumità e quella degli equipaggi delle Ong, ma perfino la Guardia Costiera italiana, come è noto, ha dovuto attendere dieci giorni prima di poter sbarcare a Catania le persone salvate.

      Eppure la partita è tutt’altro che conclusa. I flussi di migranti e profughi continuano e le morti non si arrestano. E la riduzione delle cifre relative agli sbarchi corrisponde, in una certa misura, all’incremento del numero di quanti vengono rinchiusi nei centri di detenzione in Libia, e lì torturati, stuprati, uccisi. L’assenza di presidi umanitari nel Mediterraneo fa sì che sempre meno si sappia di quanto lì accade: ma se è vero, come è vero, che appena qualche giorno fa ben 184 persone sono sbarcate a Lampedusa, ciò significa che le fughe continuano ma che si sono fatte meno visibili e meno controllabili.

      Per tutte queste ragioni, ieri si è tenuta una conferenza stampa alla Camera dei Deputati dove Sandro Veronesi, i rappresentanti di Proactiva Open Arms, Sea Watch e Medici Senza Frontiere, Eleonora Forenza, Riccardo Magi e chi scrive, hanno ragionato intorno al tema «Mediterraneo. Mare loro». Si è ricordato che Proactiva Open Arms ha deciso di trasferire le sue missioni nel Mediterraneo Occidentale, in attesa di tornare il prima possibile a fare il suo lavoro: salvare vite umane. Altrettanto intendono fare Sea Watch e Medici Senza Frontiere, come hanno affermato Giorgia Linardi e Marco Bertotto, convinti che il diritto/dovere al soccorso costituisca una prerogativa fondamentale della civiltà umana.

      https://ilmanifesto.it/dopo-le-accuse-alle-ong-da-oggi-mediterraneo-senza-presidi-umanitari

      #ONG #Méditerranée #asile #migrations #Méditerranée_centrale #sauvetage #réfugiés

    • Le Panama retire son pavillon à l’“Aquarius 2”, le dernier bateau d’ONG en Méditerranée

      Les autorités panaméennes ont annoncé leur intention de retirer son pavillon au bateau Aquarius 2. SOS Méditerranée et Médecins sans frontières, qui affrètent le bateau, dénoncent des pressions du gouvernement italien.


      https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/le-panama-retire-son-pavillon-laquarius-2-le-dernier-bateau-d

    • L’Aquarius demande à accoster en France, Paris préfère une « solution européenne »

      Bientôt privé de pavillon, le navire humanitaire Aquarius était lundi « en route vers Marseille » après avoir demandé « à titre exceptionnel » à la France de pouvoir y débarquer les 58 migrants secourus à son bord. Mais Paris y semblait peu favorable, évoquant plutôt une « solution européenne ».

      « Aujourd’hui, nous faisons la demande solennelle et officielle aux autorités françaises » de donner, « de manière humanitaire, l’autorisation de débarquer » les rescapés, parmi lesquels 17 femmes et 18 mineurs, a indiqué le directeur des opérations de SOS Méditerranée, Frédéric Penard.

      Il est pour l’instant impossible de prévoir « quand le navire arrivera » sur les côtes françaises, a souligné M. Penard lors d’une conférence de presse à Paris, l’Aquarius étant « toujours susceptible d’être mobilisé » pour une opération de sauvetage.

      Mais il faudrait « environ quatre jours » au navire, qui se trouve actuellement au large de la Libye, pour gagner Marseille, a précisé Francis Vallat, le président de l’ONG en France.

      Depuis le début de la crise provoquée cet été par la fermeture des ports italiens aux migrants, la France n’a jamais accepté de laisser débarquer les navires humanitaires, arguant qu’en vertu du droit maritime les naufragés doivent être débarqués dans le « port sûr » le plus proche.

      « Nous avons alerté d’autres pays mais nous avons du mal à imaginer que la France puisse refuser, compte tenu de la situation humanitaire », a ajouté M. Vallat. Sans préjuger de la réponse, il a assuré qu’à aucun moment les autorités, qui ont été prévenues en amont, « ne nous ont dissuadés de monter vers Marseille ».

      Mais Paris semblait dans la soirée peu favorable à cette hypothèse. Contacté par l’AFP, Matignon a d’abord indiqué chercher « une solution européenne » selon le principe du « port sûr le plus proche ». « Et en l’occurrence ce n’est pas Marseille », a ensuite précisé le porte-parole du gouvernement, Benjamin Griveaux, sur Canal+.

      Pour SOS Méditerranée et Médecins sans frontières (MSF), qui ont affrété le navire, la situation est également « extrêmement critique » parce que le navire risque de perdre le pavillon du Panama au moment de toucher terre, a fait valoir M. Penard. Regagner Marseille, port d’attache du navire et siège de SOS Méditerranée, est donc crucial pour « mener ce combat, qui va être difficile, pour repavilloner l’Aquarius ».

      – « Du jamais vu » -

      Les autorités maritimes panaméennes ont annoncé samedi qu’elles allaient retirer son pavillon à l’Aquarius, déjà privé en août de pavillon par Gibraltar, pour « non-respect » des « procédures juridiques internationales » concernant le sauvetage de migrants en mer Méditerranée.

      « Du jamais vu et en soi un scandale », selon M. Vallat, qui a demandé au Panama « de revenir sur sa décision » et sinon aux Etats européens de fournir un pavillon à l’Aquarius. « Nous ne voulons pas nous arrêter, nous ne cèderons qu’à la force ou à la contrainte », a-t-il lancé.

      Les deux ONG avaient précédemment dénoncé « la pression économique et politique flagrante exercée par le gouvernement italien » sur les autorités panaméennes — allégation contestée par le ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini.

      Aujourd’hui « l’Aquarius est le seul navire civil en Méditerranée centrale, qui est la route maritime la plus mortelle du monde », a fait valoir SOS Méditerranée, avec « plus de 1.250 noyés » depuis le début de l’année.

      Les autres navires humanitaires, qui étaient encore une dizaine il y a un peu plus d’un an au large de la Libye, ont quitté la zone pour des raisons diverses. Le Lifeline est bloqué à La Valette où les autorités ont ouvert une enquête administrative, tandis que le Iuventa, soupçonné de collusion avec des passeurs, a été saisi par les autorités italiennes en août 2017.

      « Non seulement les Européens ne mettent pas en place de mécanisme de sauvetage pérenne, mais ils essaient de détruire la capacité de la société civile à répondre à cette crise en Méditerranée », s’est indignée AssiBa Hadj-Sahraoui de MSF.

      Même si on est loin du pic des arrivées de 2015, la question migratoire divise encore profondément l’Europe, qui cherche à empêcher les départs clandestins.

      En juin, l’Aquarius avait déjà été au cœur d’une crise diplomatique, après avoir récupéré 630 migrants au large de la Libye, débarqués en Espagne après le refus de l’Italie et de Malte de les accepter. Le scénario s’était répété en août pour 141 migrants débarqués à Malte.

      https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2018/09/24/l-aquarius-demande-a-accoster-en-france-paris-prefere-une-solution-europe

    • La marine royale ouvre le feu sur un go-fast et fait 1 mort et 3 blessés

      Les personnes à bord étaient toutes marocaines, à l’exception du pilote, espagnol.

      Un bateau qui naviguait dans les eaux marocaines de la Méditerranée, a été, ce mardi 25 septembre, la cible de tirs d’une unité de la marine royale, annonce un communiqué de la préfecture de M’diq-Fnideq. L’embarcation avait refusé de se conformer aux avertissements qui lui avaient été adressés, poursuit le communiqué.

      Le bateau rapide de type “Go fast”, qui a été arrêté, était piloté par un citoyen espagnol et transportait des candidats à l’immigration clandestine, selon les données initiales rapportées par la préfecture. Les migrants à bord seraient quant à eux de nationalité marocaine, rapportent 2M.ma.

      La #fusillade a causé 4 blessés qui ont été transférés à l’hôpital régional de Fnideq pour recevoir les traitements nécessaires.

      Une première information rapportée par nos confrères de 2M, citant une source hospitalière dans un post sur Twitter, indiquait qu’une femme parmi les blessés avait succombé à ses blessures à l’hôpital. Ce post a été supprimé dans la soirée, avant de repartager l’info après 22h.

      https://www.huffpostmaghreb.com/entry/la-marine-royale-ouvre-le-feu-sur-un-go-fast-et-fait-un-mort-et-tro
      #Maroc

      Une des victimes:
      Una joven, víctima de los disparos de la Marina Real de Marruecos cuando huía a España


      https://elpais.com/politica/2018/09/26/actualidad/1537984724_391033.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CC

    • L’"Aquarius", un bateau pirate ? Quatre questions sur l’imbroglio juridique qui menace le navire humanitaire

      Le Panama a décidé de retirer le pavillon accordé cet été au bateau géré par l’ONG SOS Méditerranée, remettant en cause sa mission de sauvetage de migrants récupérés au large de la Libye.

      Les obstacles à la navigation de l’Aquarius s’accumulent. Le Panama a annoncé, samedi 22 septembre, qu’il allait retirer son pavillon au navire humanitaire, alors que celui-ci cherche un port pour débarquer 58 naufragés secourus au large de la Libye. L’Aquarius avait repris ses activités de sauvetage la semaine dernière après une escale forcée de 19 jours, faute de pavillon, et a annoncé qu’il faisait désormais route vers Marseille. Franceinfo fait le point sur cette décision et ses conséquences pour le navire humanitaire.

      Comment le Panama justifie-t-il cette décision ?

      Les autorités maritimes du Panama se sont fendues d’une explication de quelques lignes dans un communiqué diffusé sur leur site. « L’administration maritime panaméenne a entamé une procédure d’annulation officielle de l’immatriculation du navire Aquarius 2, ex-Aquarius (...) après la réception de rapports internationaux indiquant que le navire ne respecte pas les procédures juridiques internationales concernant les migrants et les réfugiés pris en charge sur les côtes de la mer Méditerranée », établit ce communiqué.

      Le Panama évoque également le fait que le navire s’est déjà vu retirer son pavillon par Gibraltar. En août, le gouvernement de Gibraltar avait révoqué le pavillon de l’Aquarius après lui avoir demandé de suspendre ses activités de sauvetage pour lesquelles il n’est pas enregistré dans le territoire britannique. Le bateau s’était alors tourné vers le Panama.

      L’"Aquarius" a-t-il enfreint le droit international ?

      A quelles « procédures juridiques internationales » le Panama fait-il référence ? L’Etat d’Amérique centrale indique que la principale plainte émane des autorités italiennes, selon lesquelles « le capitaine du navire a refusé de renvoyer des migrants et réfugiés pris en charge vers leur lieu d’origine ».

      Une référence, ici, au refus du navire de ramener en Libye des naufragés qui avaient pris la mer depuis les côtes libyennes, selon Alina Miron, professeure de droit international à l’université d’Angers et spécialisée dans le droit maritime, « puisque tous les naufragés secourus par l’Aquarius, depuis qu’il bat le pavillon panaméen, venaient de Libye », souligne-t-elle à franceinfo.

      Et « de ce point de vue-là, l’Aquarius ne contrevient nullement au droit international », explique Alina Miron. « L’Aquarius a surtout l’obligation de ne pas les ramener en Libye », fait-elle valoir. En effet, les conventions maritimes internationales prévoient que toute personne secourue en mer, quels que soient son statut et sa nationalité, soit débarquée dans un lieu sûr. Or, la Libye n’est pas considérée comme un lieu sûr de débarquement, comme l’a rappelé le Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés des Nations unies (HCR) en septembre.

      Quel est le rôle de l’Italie dans cette décision ?

      « Cette révocation résulte de la pression économique et politique flagrante exercée par le gouvernement italien » sur le Panama, ont déclaré les ONG Médecins sans frontières et SOS Méditerrannée, qui gèrent l’Aquarius, dans un communiqué.

      « Le communiqué du Panama établit que les autorités ont pris cette décision suite à une communication avec l’Italie. Cela veut bien dire que le Panama n’a pas pris cette décision de son propre chef, d’autant plus qu’il avait pris le temps de vérifier la situation de l’Aquarius avant de lui accorder son pavillon cet été », souligne de son côté Alina Miron.

      Le communiqué du Panama précise par ailleurs que « l’exécution d’actes portant atteinte aux intérêts nationaux constitue une cause de radiation d’office de l’immatriculation des navires ».

      Cela illustre les pressions de l’Italie qui ont conduit le Panama à prendre cette décision.Alina Miron, spécialiste du droit maritimeà franceinfo

      Qu’est-ce que cela change pour l’"Aquarius" ?

      Le retrait du pavillon panaméen n’est pas effectif immédiatement. Les conventions internationales établissent qu’aucun changement de pavillon ne peut intervenir au cours d’un voyage ou d’une escale. L’Aquarius conserve donc son pavillon pendant toute la durée de son voyage, jusqu’à ce qu’il rejoigne son port d’attache au Panama ou qu’il fasse une longue escale technique.

      « Ça, c’est en théorie, détaille Alina Miron, mais le Panama a créé une situation de confusion et certaines marines nationales, notamment la marine libyenne, vont utiliser cette confusion pour considérer l’Aquarius comme un navire sans nationalité. » Or, les marines nationales peuvent exercer des pouvoirs de police sur des navires sans nationalité en haute mer, ce qui est impossible sur un navire qui bat pavillon, développe la juriste. « Le risque le plus immédiat, pour l’Aquarius, c’est que la marine libyenne monte à bord pour opérer des vérifications, même sans accord du capitaine », explique Alina Miron.

      Face à cette situation, SOS Mediterrannée et Médecins sans frontières « demandent aux gouvernements européens d’autoriser l’Aquarius à poursuivre sa mission, en intercédant auprès des autorités panaméennes et en réaffirmant que les menaces de rétorsion formulées à leur égard par les autorités italiennes sont infondées, ou en lui délivrant immédiatement un nouveau pavillon sous lequel naviguer ».

      https://mobile.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/migrants/aquarius/l-aquarius-un-bateau-pirate-quatre-questions-sur-l-imbroglio-juridique-qui-menace-le-navire-humanitaire_2954663.html#xtref=http://m.facebook.com

    • Aquarius, "Stati Ue concedano bandiera”. E spunta l’ipotesi Vaticano

      Dopo le pressioni Panama cancella Aquarius II dal suo registro. Penard (Sos Mediterranée): “Stati che dicono di aderire a solidarietà propongano soluzione”. Lodesani (Msf): “Stanchi di menzogne e attacchi, nostro obiettivo salvare vite, a bordo anche famiglie libiche che scappano da inferno”

      Un appello a tutti gli Stati europei, in particolare a quelli che “ripetono di aderire a valori di solidarietà” perché consentano l’iscrizione della bandiera della nave Aquarius II, in uno dei loro registri nazionali. “L’unico gesto concreto per rendere ancora possibile il salvataggio in mare di persone in difficoltà all’ultima nave di ong rimasta nel Mediterraneo”. Lo hanno ribadito in una conferenza stampa oggi a Roma Frederic Penard, direttore delle operazioni Sos Mediterranee e Claudia Lodesani, presidente di Medici senza frontiere.

      Il caso politico diplomatico è noto: dopo gli ultimi salvataggi in mare operati da Aquarius II, a largo della Libia, e il rifiuto di riconsegnare le persone alla cosiddetta guardia costiera libica, Panama ha comunicato di voler ritirare la sua bandiera alla nave, per evitare di avere “problemi politici” con l’Italia. Ma l’assenza di una bandiera vuol dire di fatto fermare la nave. “Per noi è stato uno shock - spiega Penard - In questo momento siamo l’ultima nave a fare ricerca e soccorso nel Mediterraneo. Per l’iscrizione al registro di Panama abbiamo fornito oltre 70 certificazioni alle autorità, siamo perfettamente in regola e abbiamo sempre agito nella legalità - aggiunge il responsabile di Sos Mediterranèe -. Abbiamo chiesto spiegazioni, anche per capire il perché di questo passo indietro”. Le due ong spiegano che in una nota riservata dell’autorità marittima panamense inviata all’ armatore di Aquarius, si dice esplicitamente che la nave deve essere esclusa dal registro perché la sua permanenza provocherebbe un “problema politico” con l’Italia. L’armatore di Aquarius ha parlato esplicitamente di “pressioni politiche” sul governo panamense.

      “La nostra richiesta è che Panama torni indietro sulla sua decisione, riconsiderandola - aggiunge Penard -. Inoltre chiediamo agli Stati europei di proporre una soluzione per Aquarius, e alla società civile di fare pressione sui propri governi per sostenere il nostro lavoro, il soccorso in mare non può essere criminalizzato”. In queste ore alcuni parlamentari si sono mossi in Svizzera per chiedere che il governo elvetico conceda la propria bandiera.

      Un appello dal basso, che inizia a circolare anche sui social, chiama in causa anche il Vaticano: “Non so se sia possibile, ma se lo fosse, sarebbe bello che il Vaticano offrisse la propria bandiera alla nave Aquarius - sottolinea don Luca Favarin, parroco di Padova su Facebook-. Una chiesa in acqua non farà mai acqua. Così limpidamente e semplicemente schierata dalla parte degli ultimi, sbilanciata sui diritti dei poveri”. Penard ha spiegato di non aver contattato direttamente nessuno stato, e che l’appello vale per tutti quindi semmai fosse offerto il registro Vaticano sarebbe accettato con favore, anche se “probabilmente quel registro, che esiste, non viene usato da secoli”.

      Intanto, le due organizzazioni non nascondono il malumore per i continui attacchi politici, e mediatici, nei confronti del loro operato. "Siamo stanchi di menzogne, attacchi e intimidazioni, di essere additati come quelli che violano le norme internazionali. È il momento di accusare chi sono i veri responsabili del business degli scafisti: le scellerate politiche europee” sottolinea Claudia Lodesani. “Siamo stati chiamati noi vicescafisti - aggiunge - ma oggi gli Stati europei non prendono neanche in considerazione l’ipotesi di pensare a vie legali di ingresso. Sono queste politiche che aiutano gli scafisti, non certo noi. Il nostro obiettivo è la salvaguardia della vita umana e in nome di questo operiamo salvataggi in mare”. Lodesani ricorda che dall’inizio dell’anno, pur a fronte di una diminuzione di arrivi dell’80 per cento, ci sono già stati 1260 morti in mare. “Siamo passati da 1 morto ogni 32 a 1 morto ogni 18 - Ostacolare il soccorso e l’azione umanitaria vuol dire solo eliminare testimoni scomodi dal Mediterraneo. La vita delle persone non è più al centro delle politiche, ma ora le persone sono usate come ostaggio dalla politica - aggiunge - . Questa situazione è responsabilità è di tutti i paesi europei, anche perché parlando di poche persone. Inoltre, bisogna ricordare che il salvataggio in mare va distinto dall’accoglienza ed è governato da leggi internazionali. Va assicurato il porto più sicuro e più vicino di sbarco. Poi - continua - come sempre abbiamo fatto, chiediamo la solidarietà europea nell’accoglienza”.

      Tra le 58 persone tratte in salvo da Aquarius II nel Mediterraneo ci sono anche 37 libici: “ si tratta di famiglie che scappano dall’Inferno della Libia, un paese attualmente in guerra. E che quindi non può essere considerato un luogo sicuro, le persone non possono essere respinte in Libia. Ci chiediamo se riportarle in quell’inferno sia etico e se sia legale”. “Tra le altre persone a bordo - aggiunge Mathilde Auvillain, di Sos Mediterranée, ci sono 18 minori, 17 donne, di cui una incinta. Ci siamo rifiutati di fare il trasbordo di queste persone sulle motovedette libiche, perché riportarle indietro è illegale”. Lo sbarco, dopo il rifiuto dell’Italia dovrebbe avvenire nei prossimi giorni a Malta, ma non si sa ancora quando. I migranti saranno poi accolti in 4 paesi: Francia, Portogallo, Spagna e Germania.

      “Il soccorso in mare è regolato da principi fondamentali e regole precise - spiega Lorenzo Trucco, presidente di Asgi (Associazione studi giuridici sull’immigrazione) - In particolare, dalla Convenzione Soas sulla salvaguardia in mare, dalla Convenzione Sar e dalla Convenzione europea sul soccorso in mare. Tutte queste convenzioni sono state ratificate con leggi in Italia e tutte dicono che il principio primario è la salvaguardia della persona, che va salvata e portata in un luogo sicuro. Per questo la questione libica non è un’opinione, è certificato che non si tratti un luogo sicuro, quello che accade nei centri di detenzione è stato denunciato a settembre anche da Unhcr. Il respingimento di persone in Libia è grave - afferma - La questione del soccorso non è solo diritto ma un obbligo sanzionato da tutte le nazioni. E’ paradossale, quindi, quello che sta succedendo”.

      Duro il commento anche di Filippo Miraglia di Arci sulle pressioni dell’Italia verso il governo panamense: “Msf e Sos Medierranée in questo momento rappresentano tutti noi in mare, mi fa accapponare la pelle pensare che il governo italiano abbia intimidito in maniera mafiosa il governo panamense - afferma - E’ un gesta che fa venire i brividi, come fa venire i brividi il combinato disposto tra la chiusura dei porti e il decreto Salvini. C’è da vergognarsi”.

      http://www.redattoresociale.it/Notiziario/Articolo/598417/Aquarius-Stati-Ue-concedano-bandiera-E-spunta-l-ipotesi-Vaticano
      #Vatican

    • Appel à donner le pavillon suisse à l’Aquarius : interview de Guillaume Barazzone

      Le Conseil fédéral doit accorder un pavillon suisse à l’Aquarius, ont demandé mercredi trois parlementaires. Depuis trois jours, ce navire qui porte secours aux migrants en mer Méditerranée, n’a plus de drapeau. Interview de Guillaume Barazzone (PDC/GE), l’un des auteurs de cette interpellation.

      https://www.rts.ch/play/radio/forum/audio/appel-a-donner-le-pavillon-suisse-a-laquarius-interview-de-guillaume-barazzone?i

    • Vive émotion au Maroc après les tirs meurtriers de la marine sur un bateau de migrants

      La jeune femme tuée tentait d’atteindre l’Espagne. Un trajet de plus en plus emprunté, sur fond de tension migratoire accrue dans le royaume.

      L’émotion était vive au Maroc, mercredi 26 septembre, au lendemain de la mort d’une femme de 22 ans, originaire de la ville de Tétouan, tuée alors qu’elle tentait d’émigrer vers l’Espagne. Selon les autorités locales, la marine a été « contrainte » d’ouvrir le feu alors qu’un « go fast » (une puissante embarcation à moteur) piloté par un Espagnol « refusait d’obtempérer » dans les eaux marocaines au large de M’diq-Fnideq (nord). Outre la jeune Marocaine décédée, trois autres migrants ont été blessés, a confirmé une source officielle à l’AFP.

      Le drame s’est produit dans un contexte de tension migratoire au Maroc, confronté à une forte hausse des tentatives d’émigration depuis ses côtes et autour des enclaves espagnoles de Ceuta et Melilla. Rabat a ainsi indiqué avoir empêché 54 000 tentatives de passage vers l’Union européenne depuis janvier. De son côté, le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) chiffre le nombre d’arrivées en Espagne à quelque 40 000 personnes depuis le début de l’année (contre 28 000 en 2017 et 14 000 en 2016).

      Rafles et éloignements forcés

      La route migratoire Maroc-Espagne, qui était très utilisée il y a une dizaine d’années, a connu une nouvelle hausse d’activité depuis le renforcement des contrôles sur la Libye et les témoignages d’extrême violence contre les migrants par les réseaux de passeurs dans ce pays. Mais le Maroc voit également augmenter le nombre de ses nationaux candidats au départ, poussés par l’absence de perspectives dans un pays où 27,5 % des 15-24 ans sont hors du système scolaire et sans emploi. Selon le HCR, les Marocains représentaient 17,4 % des arrivées en Espagne en 2017, la première nationalité devant les Guinéens et les Algériens.

      Depuis 2015, le palais royal avait mis en avant une nouvelle politique migratoire avec deux campagnes de régularisation de 50 000 clandestins, principalement des Subsahariens. Mais ces derniers mois, le royaume a considérablement durci ses pratiques, multipliant les rafles et les éloignements forcés. Selon le Groupe antiraciste de défense et d’accompagnement des étrangers et migrants, une association marocaine, 6 500 personnes ont ainsi été arrêtées et déplacées du nord du pays vers des villes reculées du centre et du sud entre juillet et septembre.

      Le gouvernement a eu beau plaider que ces déplacements se font dans le « respect de la loi », les associations dénoncent des violences et l’absence de cadre légal concernant ces pratiques. Mi-août, deux migrants sont morts après avoir sauté du bus qui les éloignait de Tanger. Amnesty International a souligné une « répression choquante », « à la fois cruelle et illégale ». « Depuis fin juillet, la police marocaine ainsi que la gendarmerie royale et les forces auxiliaires procèdent à des raids majeurs dans les quartiers de plusieurs villes où vivent les réfugiés et les migrants, d’une intensité particulière dans les provinces du nord du pays de Tanger, Nador et Tétouan, qui bordent la frontière espagnole », écrit l’ONG. Les zones entourant les deux enclaves espagnoles en terre africaine, Ceuta et Melilla, sont traditionnellement le lieu de regroupement des migrants qui veulent tenter de rejoindre l’Europe.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/09/27/vive-emotion-au-maroc-apres-les-tirs-meurtriers-de-la-marine-sur-un-bateau-d

    • Migranti, la sfida delle associazioni italiane: una imbarcazione nel Mediterraneo per salvarli

      Ong e Onlus hanno organizzato un’imbarcazione battente la bandiera del nostro Paese per «un’azione di disobbedienza morale contro gli slogan delle destre nazionaliste e di obbedienza alle leggi del mare, del diritto internazionale e della Costituzione»

      A BORDO DELLA NAVE APPOGGIO BURLESQUE - Il rimorchiatore battente bandiera italiana “Mare Ionio” è partito nella notte di mercoledì dal porto di Augusta alla volta della costa Libica. Si tratta della prima missione in acque internazionali completamente organizzata in Italia ed è stata ribattezzata “Mediterranea”.
      Il progetto, promosso da varie associazioni (tra cui Arci nazionale, Ya Basta di Bologna, la Ong Sea-Watch, il magazine online I Diavoli e l’impresa sociale Moltivolti di Palermo) e sostenuto politicamente e finanziariamente da Nichi Vendola e tre parlamentari di Leu (Nicola Fratoianni, Erasmo Palazzotto e Rossella Muroni). E’ stato avviato nello scorso luglio ed ha preso corpo nei mesi successivi. L’attività del “Mar Ionio” sarà ufficialmente circoscritta di “monitoraggio, testimonianza e denuncia”, spiegano gli organizzatori. Tuttavia tra le dotazioni a disposizione del “Mare Ionio” ci sono anche gli equipaggiamenti per il Sar, l’attività di search and rescue per la quale però non è abilitato.

      Nelle prossime ore l’imbarcazione, seguita dalla barca appoggio Burlesque (uno sloop Bavaria 50 battente bandiera spagnola con a bordo giornalisti nazionali e internazionali, attivisti e mediatori culturali), entrerà in azione nella stessa zona in cui da qualche giorno incrocia il veliero Astral dell’ong spagnola Open Arms, più volte definita dal ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini, un “taxi del mare”.

      “Non potevamo più stare a guardare – dicono da bordo gli attivisti - bisognava agire e trovare il modo di contrastare il declino culturale e morale che abbiamo davanti. Quella di Mediterranea è un’azione di disobbedienza morale ed al contempo di obbedienza civile. Disobbediamo al prevalente del discorso pubblico delle destre nazionaliste obbedendo alle leggi del mare, del diritto internazionale e della nostra Costituzione che prevedono l’obbligatorietà del salvataggio di chi si trova in condizioni di pericolo”.


      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/10/04/news/migranti_una_nave_delle_ong_italiane_nel_mediterraneo_per_salvarli-208134

      –-> reçu par la mailing-list Migreurop, en commentaire de l’article italien:

      FR : Plusieurs ONG ont organisé un bateau battant le drapeau de l’Italie comme une « action de désobéissance morale contre les slogans des droites nationalistes et d’obéissance aux droits de la mer, au droit international et à la Constitution »
      Le remorqueur battant le drapeau italien « #Mare_Ionio » est parti dans la nuit de mercredi du port d’Auguste (Sicile) vers les côtes libyennes. C’est la première mission en eaux internationales entièrement organisée en Italie et a été nommée « #Mediterranea ».
      Le projet, à l’initiative de diverses associations (dont Arci, Ya Basta de Bologne, l’ONG Sea-Watch, la revue en ligne I Diavoli et Moltivolti de Palerme) est politiquement soutenue et financée par Nichi Velonda et trois autres parlementaires LeU (Nicola Fratoianni, Erasmo Palazzotto e Rossella Muroni).
      Le projet a commencée en juillet dernier et a pris forme dans les mois suivants. L’activité de « Mare Ionio » sera officiellement circonscrite à celles de la « surveillance, le témoignage et la dénonciation », expliquent les organisateurs. Cependant, parmi les équipements et les dispositifs du « Mare Ionio », on retrouve des équipements Sar, l’activité de Search and Rescue pour laquelle il ne dispose pas d’habilitation.
      Dans les prochaines heures, l’embarcation, suivie par le bateau Burlesque (un voilier Bavaria 50 battant le drapeau espagnol, avec à bord des journalistes nationaux et internationaux, des activistes et des médiateurs culturels), entrera en action dans la même zone que le voilier Astral de l’ONG espagnole Open Arms, défini à plusieurs reprises comme un « taxi de la mer » par le ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini.

    • New Italian-flagged migrant rescue ship heads into Mediterranean

      A new Italian-flagged migrant rescue ship was headed for the waters off Libya on Thursday, one of the aid groups running the boat said, after similar vessels were prevented from operating.

      “The #MareJonio is on its way!” Sea-Watch tweeted. “In cooperation with #Mediterranea we are back at sea, to keep a sharp lookout and to challenge the European policy of letting people drown.”

      The announcement came on the same day that the Aquarius rescue ship sailed into Marseille harbour and an uncertain fate after Panama pulled its flag, meaning it cannot leave port without a new flag.

      The Mare Jonio is a tug flying the Italian flag that left Augusta in Sicily on Wednesday evening, headed south, maritime tracking websites said. The 37-metre vessel – around half the length of the Aquarius – is not intended to rescue migrants and bring them to a safe port, but to spot and secure migrant-carrying boats that are in distress.

      It will also provide a civilian presence in an area where they say the Libyan coastguard and international military vessels are failing to rescue people, despite several shipwrecks in September. Spanish NGO Proactiva Open Arms sent the Astral sailboat to the area on a similar mission a few days ago.

      The Astral was off the coast of Lampedusa on Wednesday to commemorate the fifth anniversary of a shipwreck there in which 366 migrants died in 2013. The disaster pushed Italy to launch its Mare Nostrum military operation to rescue migrants making the perilous journey from North Africa to Europe.

      Since then European Union and NGO boats have joined in, although most of the aid group boats have now stopped work, some because of what they say are trumped-up administrative charges.

      The International Organisation for Migration says that around 15,000 migrants have drowned in the central Mediterranean since the Lampedusa disaster. During the same period Italy has received around 600,000 migrants on its coast, while other European nations have closed their borders.

      Italy’s former centre-left government tried to stem the flow of migrants by working with the Libyan authorities and limiting the NGO effort. Anti-immigrant Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who came to power as part of a populist government in June, has since then closed Italian ports to civilian and military boats that have rescued migrants, saying Italy bears an unfair share of the migrant burden.


      https://www.thelocal.it/20181004/new-italian-flagged-migrant-rescue-ship-heads-into-mediterranean
      #Mare_Jonio

    • Tweet de Matteo Villa:

      Tutto sbagliato nella missione di #Mediterranea. Un disastro pronto per succedere, sotto tutti i punti di vista: tecnico, logistico, politico. Non è così che si fa salvataggio in mare. E non è così che si fa azione politica.
      Il problema è molteplice. Non si va in mare: (a) con gente impreparata; (b) con navi scassate e che contengono a malapena l’equipaggio; (c) con intenti solo politici, senza possibilità di salvare vite; (d) con lo scopo di forzare, portando violenza dove dovrebbe esserci soccorso.

      https://twitter.com/emmevilla/status/1047886597071548416

    • Italian-flagged migrant rescue boat defies anti immigration minister

      Vessel Mare Jonio sets out towards Libya despite Matteo Salvini clampdown on rescued migrants entering Italian ports

      The first non-military, Italian-flagged, rescue boat to operate in the Mediterranean since the migration crisis began has left for waters off Libya, in a direct challenge to Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini.

      NGO rescue boats have all but disappeared from the main migration routes since Salvini announced soon after taking office this summer that he was closing Italian ports to non-Italian rescue vessels.

      The Italian flag on the 38-metre Mare Jonio will make it harder for Salvini to prevent it from docking, though he could still move to prevent people from disembarking. The boat has been bought and equipped by a coalition of leftwing politicians, anti-racist associations, intellectuals and figures in the arts, under the supervision of two NGOs. Its mission has been called Mediterranea.
      “We want to affirm a principle of humanity that rightwing policies seem to have forgotten,” Erasmo Palazzotto from the leftwing LeU (Free and Equal) party said.

      Anti-immigration policies by the Maltese and Italian governments, which have closed their ports to rescue vessels, have driven a sharp decrease in rescue missions. People seeking asylum are still attempting the risky crossing. But without the rescue boats, shipwrecks are likely to rise dramatically.
      Advertisement

      In August, Salvini refused a landing to 177 people saved in the central Mediterranean by an Italian coastguard ship. The vessel was authorised to dock at the port of Catania but the people on board were forced to remain on board for almost a week.

      ‘‘Should we expect Salvini to close the ports to us too? We are an Italian boat, flying the Italian flag. They will have to answer to this,” Palazzotto said. “If they then attempt to refuse to let the migrants disembark we will not remain silent and will give voice to them from the ship.”

      The ship has received support from the Spanish NGO Pro-Activa and the aid group Seawatch, as well as the writer Elena Stancanelli and the film director Paolo Virzì.

      “This is a moral disobedience mission but also a civil obedience one,” the Mediterranea mission’s press office said in a statement. “We will disobey nationalism and xenophobia. Instead we will obey our constitution, international law and the law of the sea, which includes saving lives.”

      The death toll in the central Mediterranean has fallen in the past year, but the number of those drowning as a proportion of arrivals in Italy has risen sharply in the past few months, with the possibility of dying during the crossing now three times higher. So far in 2018, 21,041 people have made the crossing and 1,260 have died.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/04/italian-flagged-migrant-rescue-boat-mare-jonio-sets-sail-in-challenge-t

    • Giovedì 4 ottobre – ore 16.25 – Salvini: “Nave Mediterranea? In Italia non ci arrivate”. “Ho saputo che c’è una nave dei centri sociali che vaga per il Mediterraneo per una missione umanitaria e proverà a sbarcare migranti in Italia. Fate quello che volete, prendete il pedalò. Andate in Tunisia, Libia o Egitto, ma in Italia nisba”. Lo ha detto il vicepremier e ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini in una diretta Facebook con riferimento alla nave italiana Mediterranea, salpata oggi per svolgere un’attività di monitoraggio, testimonianza e denuncia della situazione nel Mediterraneo.

      “Potete raccogliere chi volete però in Italia non ci arrivate”, ha aggiunto Salvini.

      https://www.tpi.it/2018/10/05/governo-ultime-news

    • *Perché la missione umanitaria «Mediterranea» rischia di diventare un boomerang*

      Mezzi inadeguati, personale non preparato, ricerca dello scontro diplomatico. «Politicizzare i salvataggi in mare rischia di non portare benefici», dice Matteo Villa dell’Ispi.

      Una piccola missione umanitaria nel Canale di Sicilia rischia di compromettere le operazioni di salvataggio dei migranti nel Mediterraneo, già rese complesse dalla politica dei respingimenti adottata dal governo italiano. Nella notte tra mercoledì e giovedì il piccolo rimorchiatore Mare Jonio è salpato dal porto di Augusta per dirigersi verso le acque sar (search and rescue) della Libia, nell’ambito dell’operazione denominata “Mediterranea”. La missione è stata preparata in gran segreto durante gli ultimi mesi e coinvolge ong (Sea Watch), associazioni (Ya Basta Bologna e Arci), e politici (Fratoianni, Palazzotto, Vendola e Muroni) che hanno raccolto i finanziamenti necessari. L’obiettivo – spiega il sito di “Mediterranea” – è quello di svolgere l’“essenziale funzione di testimonianza, documentazione e denuncia di ciò che accade in quelle acque, e che oggi nessuno è più messo nelle condizioni di svolgere”. Quasi un assist per il ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini, che l’ha subito definita una «nave di scalcagnati dei centri sociali che va a prendere tre merluzzetti». «E’ una sentinella civica, benvenga», ha commentato invece l’altro vicepremier, Luigi Di Maio, ribadendo la scarsa condivisione di vedute con la Lega in tema di immigrazione.

      Mare Jonio è un’imbarcazione datata – varata nel 1972 – e rimessa a nuovo per l’occasione, ma soprattutto piccola, con appena 35 metri di lunghezza e 9 di larghezza. E’ coadiuvata dal veliero Astral dell’ong Proactiva Open Arms, l’unica nave umanitaria ancora attiva nel Mediterraneo centrale (anch’essa con soli compiti di osservazione) e da una goletta con a bordo giornalisti e mediatori culturali. Degli 11 membri dell’equipaggio a bordo del Mare Jonio, fatta eccezione per due operatori dell’ong Sea Watch, nessuno ha esperienze di operazioni sar in mare. La nave è dotata di un solo Rhib (la sigla sta per Rigid Inflatable boats), uno dei piccoli motoscafi adatti a svolgere salvataggi, anche in condizioni difficili. Un container è stato invece adattato a ospedale di bordo, pronto a prestare soccorso in caso di emergenza.

      Nonostante la missione voglia essere una risposta delle ong alla campagna anti-migranti voluta dal governo gialloverde, le criticità sono diverse. “L’idea di fondo, quella di aumentare l’attenzione generale nel Mediterraneo, è giusta. Ma politicizzare i salvataggi in mare rischia di non portare benefici, soprattutto nel lungo periodo”, spiega al Foglio Matteo Villa dell’Ispi. Secondo il ricercatore, che da anni studia i flussi migratori attraverso il Mediterraneo, gli strumenti a disposizione di “Mediterranea” sono inadeguati rispetto all’obiettivo della missione: “Pensare di pattugliare una zona tanto vasta con una sola imbarcazione non ha senso, oltre a comportare un esborso eccessivo tra carburante e strumentazione. Se davvero l’attività principale è quella di monitorare, è molto più efficace usare gli aerei, come succede già con i ’Piloti volontari’, attivi con ottimi risultati da maggio”.

      Ma l’aspetto ancora più preoccupante riguarda i rischi cui saranno sottoposti sia i migranti sia l’equipaggio di “Mediterranea”. Dice Villa: “Le perplessità sono tante e sono condivise anche da molti altri operatori umanitari che con professionalità compiono attività sar. Sotto diversi punti di vista, sia logistici sia politici, la missione è pronta a trasformarsi in un disastro a causa della notevole approssimazione con cui è organizzata, dice il ricercatore dell’Ispi. Nella migliore delle ipotesi l’operazione potrebbe risolversi in una magra figura, come già successo un anno fa con ’Defend Europe’, la nave anti-ong partita per ostacolare le missioni umanitarie e poi finita in avaria”. Ma potrebbero crearsi anche circostanze più complesse. “In caso di identificazione di un barcone in emergenza non è chiaro come si comporterà Mare Jonio. Sulla base di quanto avviene già adesso, è probabile che contatterà il comando Mrcc di Roma che coordina le operazioni di salvataggio e che, a sua volta, contatterà le autorità libiche. Nel caso di intervento delle motovedette di Tripoli potrebbe succedere di tutto: il rimorchiatore come intende agire? Interverrà? Segnalerà l’emergenza e basta?”, si chiede Villa. Per non parlare delle difficoltà logistiche: “In quei momenti concitati i migranti, soprattutto alla vista delle motovedette libiche, sono presi dal panico, molti si gettano in acqua per paura di essere riportati indietro. A bordo del rimorchiatore pare possano essere raccolte poche persone, e certo non per lunghi periodi di tempo”. Andare a cercare lo scontro aperto o l’incidente diplomatico per riaccendere l’attenzione dei governi sui salvataggi in mare può trasformarsi in un boomerang per le ong. La mobilitazione è figlia senza dubbio della politica migratoria più stringente adottata dal governo italiano. “Ma affidare a gruppi antagonisti le operazioni di salvataggio, senza una preparazione e una visione di lungo periodo – conclude Villa – rischia di essere controproducente per chi ritiene i salvataggi in mare una questione molto seria”.

      https://www.ilfoglio.it/cronache/2018/10/05/news/perche-la-missione-umanitaria-mediterranea-rischia-di-diventare-un-boomeran

    • « On doit veiller à ce que ces gens ne se noient pas »

      L’Aquarius vient de perdre pour la deuxième fois son pavillon. Le navire de sauvetage fait route vers Malte avec 58 migrants à son bord. Sans pavillon, il devrait interrompre sa mission. Des parlementaires demandent qu’on lui donne le pavillon suisse.

      Avec les organisations d’entraide Médecins sans frontières (MSFLien externe) et SOS MéditerranéeLien externe, l’Aquarius sauve des migrants en détresse. Il est le dernier navire de sauvetage non gouvernemental en Méditerranée centrale. Depuis que l’Italie a fermé ses ports aux bateaux humanitaires, toutes les ONG se sont retirées du secteur.

      Le week-end dernier, le Panama a annoncé qu’il retirerait son pavillon à l’Aquarius, car celui-ci n’aurait pas respecté le droit international de la mer. En août, Gibraltar avait déjà biffé le navire de son registre maritime. Sans pavillon, l’Aquarius ne peut plus remplir ses missions de sauvetage.

      Cette semaine, trois parlementaires suisses ont demandé, par voie d’interpellation, un geste humanitaire de la Suisse, afin qu’elle accorde son pavillon à l’Aquarius. L’un d’eux est #Kurt_Fluri, conseiller national du Parti libéral-radical et maire de la ville de Soleure. Interview.

      swissinfo.ch : Vous avez la réputation d’être un politicien réaliste. Cette idée humanitaire a-t-elle des chances de passer ?

      Kurt Fluri : Ce qui nous émeut, ce sont les tragédies qui se jouent en Méditerranée. Et c’est peut-être une solution possible pour atténuer le problème. Je ne sais pas si c’est une illusion. C’est pourquoi nous posons la question au gouvernement.
      La Suisse n’a qu’une petite flotte marchande de 30 navires. Pourquoi devrait-elle précisément accorder son pavillon à un bateau de sauvetage ?

      Nous sommes tous d’accord qu’il s’agit d’une situation tout à fait exceptionnelle. Pour moi, cela ne change rien au fait que l’on devrait faire en sorte que ces gens n’essaient même pas de traverser la Méditerranée. Mais s’ils le font quand même, on doit veiller à ce qu’ils ne se noient pas et à ce qu’ils soient admis en Europe.
      Selon la loi, le pavillon suisse est réservé aux navires de commerce. S’il faut modifier la loi pour répondre à votre demande, cela va prendre beaucoup de temps pour que l’Aquarius puisse hisser le pavillon suisse. Or, il a besoin d’une solution rapide…

      Le sens de notre interpellation, c’est de clarifier à quelles conditions il serait possible d’arriver à quelque chose. Ce que nous allons faire concrètement dépendra de la réponse du gouvernement.
      Si l’Aquarius battait pavillon suisse, est-ce qu’il n’en résulterait pas automatiquement l’exigence que les migrants qu’il sauve soient conduits en Suisse ?

      Ici comme ailleurs, c’est le système de Dublin qui s’applique. Il définit quel pays est en charge de l’examen de la demande d’asile. Les requérants doivent demander l’asile dans le premier pays de l’UE ou pays signataire de l’accord, comme la Suisse, où ils arrivent. La répartition se fait ensuite.

      Toutefois, l’UE est invitée à décider d’une répartition plus équitable, afin de soulager le plus vite possible les pays méditerranéens, l’Italie, la Grèce et l’Espagne, des réfugiés qui arrivent chez eux.
      Avez-vous pleine confiance en les responsables de ce navire de sauvetage, auquel vous voulez accorder le pavillon suisse ?

      Oui, je fais confiance à ces responsables.
      Le Panama leur a pourtant retiré son pavillon au prétexte qu’ils auraient violé le droit maritime international…

      D’après moi, c’était pour se protéger. Le Panama veut se débarrasser de ce devoir, qui est apparemment devenu un fardeau pour lui.
      MSF et SOS Méditerranée disent que le Panama a retiré son pavillon sur pression de l’Italie. Ça vous paraît possible ?

      Il y a certainement eu des tentatives de pression.
      Cette pression ne pourrait-t-elle pas s’exercer sur la Suisse, si elle intervient ?

      C’est possible. Nous soutenons l’appel lancé à l’UE pour qu’elle décide d’une répartition plus équitable des réfugiés. L’Italie serait alors également satisfaite. Malheureusement, l’UE n’y arrive pas.

      https://www.swissinfo.ch/fre/pavillon-suisse-pour-l-aquarius-_-on-doit-veiller-%C3%A0-ce-que-ces-gens-ne-se-noient-pas-/44434264

    • Nous avons un navire !

      Dans un texte confié à Mediapart, le sociologue et activiste italien #Sandro_Mezzadra revient sur la mise à l’eau du « Mare-Ionio », ce navire battant pavillon italien, affrété jeudi par des activistes de la gauche italienne pour secourir des migrants en Méditerranée, en opposition aux politiques de l’extrême droite au pouvoir à Rome.

      Les noms des victimes résonnent les uns après les autres, des noms sans corps qui racontent une multitude de vies et d’histoires, brisées sur les frontières de l’Europe : le court-métrage de Dagmawi Yimer s’intitule Asmat-Nomi, une des œuvres les plus puissantes et évocatrices sur le naufrage du 3 octobre 2013 [visible ici : https://vimeo.com/114343040]

      . Au fond, l’anonymat est une des caractéristiques qui définissent les femmes, les hommes et les enfants en transit dans la mer Méditerranée — comme dans de nombreux autres espaces frontaliers. Réhabiliter la singularité irréductible d’une existence est le geste extrême de résistance que nous propose Asmat-Noms.

      Cinq ans après ce naufrage, alors que l’on continue de mourir en Méditerranée, nous avons mis un navire à la mer, le Mare-Ionio. Nous l’avons fait après un été marqué par un gouvernement italien qui a déclaré la guerre contre les migrations et contre les organisations non gouvernementales, en fermant les ports et en séquestrant sur un navire de la Garde côtière des dizaines de réfugié.e.s et de migrant.e.s. La criminalisation des opérations « humanitaires » a vidé la Méditerranée des présences gênantes, a repoussé les témoins et a réaffirmé l’anonymat de femmes et d’hommes en transit : à l’abri des regards indiscrets, la Garde côtière libyenne a pu renvoyer aux centres de détention, c’est-à-dire à la torture, à la violence et à l’esclavage, des centaines de personnes, tandis que d’autres ont fait naufrage. Et certains se réjouissent de cela, en criant victoire...

      Cela n’a pas été facile de réaliser la mise à l’eau du Mare-Ionio. La plateforme qui s’est appelée très simplement Operazione Mediterranea n’est pas une ONG : celles et ceux qui ont travaillé à la recherche et à la préparation de l’embarcation ces dernières semaines n’avaient aucune expérience de ce monde associatif. Mais sur les docks de nombreux ports, nous avons rencontré des gens qui nous ont aidé.e.s sur la base de rapports professionnels, mais aussi guidé.e.s par une solidarité instinctive et par l’élan de refus de plus en plus partagé par les gens de la mer, une réponse au mépris de la vie et du droit international — en particulier après l’affaire du navire Diciotti.

      L’expérience et la collaboration de diverses ONG actives ces dernières années dans la Méditerranée ont joué un rôle décisif dans la réalisation de notre projet. L’une d’entre elles (Sea-Watch) fait partie de la plateforme, tandis qu’Open Arms coordonnera ses activités avec les nôtres. D’autre part, l’opération que nous avons lancé affronte ouvertement la criminalisation actuelle des interventions « humanitaires ». Ils sont loin les jours où la « raison humanitaire » pouvait être analysée comme un élément appartenant à un système de gouvernance (des migrations, notamment) bien plus large. Le défi ne peut être que radicalement politique. Il s’agit d’investir en particulier cela : l’affirmation pratique du droit d’un ensemble de sujets non étatiques à intervenir politiquement dans une zone où les « autorités compétentes » violent de manière flagrante le devoir de préserver la vie des gens en transit.

      C’est autour de ce point que la plateforme Operazione Mediterranea : une plateforme ouverte à l’adhésion et à la participation de celles et ceux qui voudront nous soutenir dans les semaines à venir (notamment via un crowdfunding, ce qui est vraiment essentiel pour assurer la réalisation d’un projet ambitieux et prenant). Cet aspect est évidemment fondamental. Mais l’objectif est plus général : il s’agit d’ouvrir, à travers une pratique, un espace de débat, d’action et de conflit à propos des migrations en Italie et en Europe.

      Nous voudrions que notre navire fende la mer, comme la terre des mobilisations qui, sur la question migratoire, se sont déployées ces derniers mois, de Vintimille aux Pouilles, de Catane à Milan ; nous voudrions que le Mare-Ionio devienne une sorte de forum, que des milliers de femmes et d’hommes se l’approprient, qu’il soit présent sur les places et dans les rues, que de lui se propagent des récits d’une migration radicalement différente de celle incarnée par les menaces et les décrets de Salvini : nous voudrions que le navire soit un instrument pour proposer une Italie et une Europe autres.

      Nous ne sous-évaluons pas la difficulté de cette période. Nous savons que nous agissons en tant que minorité, que nous devons affronter une hégémonie qui nous est hostile concernant la migration ; nous savons que ces derniers mois l’équation entre le migrant et l’ennemi (à laquelle même des forces politiques qui ne se définissent pas de droite ont donné une contribution essentielle) a été exacerbée, autorisant et promouvant la diffusion en Italie d’un racisme de plus en plus agressif. Mais nous savons aussi que cette hégémonie peut et doit être renversée, en assumant les risques et le hasard qui sont inévitables. L’opération qui a commencé ce 3 octobre, date chargée d’une valeur symbolique, est une contribution qui va dans ce sens.

      Un navire, comme le disait C.L.R. James dans son grand livre sur Melville (écrit en 1952 dans une cellule d’Ellis Island, en attendant son expulsion des États-Unis pour « activité anti-américaine »), n’est au fond qu’un ensemble divers et varié des travaux et des activités à bord, qui littéralement le constituent. Voilà, notre navire ne serait rien sans la passion et l’engagement de centaines de femmes et d’hommes qui ont travaillé et qui travaillent pour le faire naviguer, mais aussi pour construire et démultiplier de nouvelles passerelles entre mer et terre. Un navire, comme le rajoutait James, « est une miniature du monde dans lequel nous vivons ». Dans notre cas, c’est une miniature du monde que nous nous engageons à construire. Et nous sommes certain.e.s que nous serons bientôt des milliers à partager cet engagement.

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/les-invites-de-mediapart/blog/061018/nous-avons-un-navire

    • L’Aquarius, sous pavillon suisse ? Carlo Sommaruga face à Hugues Hiltpod

      Trois parlementaires suisses - Ada Marra (PS/VD) Guillaume Barrazone (PDC/GE) et Kurt Fluri (PLR/SO) - ont déposé à Berne une interpellation pour que notre pays octroie le pavillon national à l’Aquarius. Le navire affrété par SOS Méditerranée, qui est en mer depuis 2016, a recueilli quelque 30 000 personnes en danger de mort. Sur change.org, près de 20 000 personnes ont signé une pétition dans ce sens. Carlo Sommaruga, conseiller national socialiste et Hugues Hiltpold, conseiller national PLR exposent leurs point de vue.

      Pour un pavillon suisse humanitaire

      Carlo Sommaruga, conseiller national socialiste

      La Suisse doit accorder le pavillon à l’Aquarius, le bateau humanitaire affrété par SOS Méditerranée, pour secourir les migrants en perdition en pleine mer. C’est une nécessité humanitaire destinée à sauver des milliers de vies. Un geste qui s’inscrit dans la tradition humanitaire de la Suisse. En cohérence tant avec la générosité de la population suisse pour les populations en difficulté qu’avec la position défendue jusqu’à aujourd’hui par notre pays sur la scène politique et diplomatique internationale. Le dernier rapport de l’Organisation internationale des migrations montre que les traversées de la Méditerranée par des hommes et des femmes de tout âge, accompagnés de leurs enfants, voire de nouveau-nés, ont commencé dès les années 70.

      La cause en est la fermeture progressive de la migration légale par les pays européens, qui ont rejeté les migrants sur les routes clandestines et dangereuses, notamment la Méditerranée. Or, ceux qui depuis des décennies empruntent ces routes ne le font pas par plaisir ou par goût de l’aventure. Comme les Suisses du XIXe siècle dont plus de 500 000 rejoignirent les USA ou les 29 millions d’Italiens qui quittèrent leur pays de 1860 à nos jours, les migrants d’aujourd’hui se mettent en marche pour les mêmes raisons. La croissance démographique et le manque d’opportunités de travail dans les campagnes et dans les villes.

      Aujourd’hui s’ajoutent les affres des dictatures, comme en Érythrée, des conflits civils, comme en Libye, et des guerres internationales, comme en Syrie. En 2013, suite au naufrage de 366 migrants au large des côtes italiennes, le premier ministre Enrico Letta lançait l’opération Mare Nostrum. La marine italienne sauvait plus de 150 000 êtres humains de la noyade en Méditerranée. L’opération fut close en raison de la lâcheté des pays européens qui refusaient de venir en appui à l’Italie. L’Union européenne remplaça le dispositif de sauvetage par un dispositif de défense des frontières géré par Frontex. Depuis lors, ce sont les organisations humanitaires et leurs bateaux qui assument l’immense et courageuse tâche de sauver les naufragés en Méditerranée.

      Les bateaux se nomment Sea-eye, Lifeline, Aquarius et, depuis peu, le Mare Jonio. Au cours des deux dernières années SOS Méditerranée, organisation créée et soutenue par des citoyens européens, par son navire l’Aquarius, a sauvé 29 600 personnes, soit l’équivalent de la population de Lancy. L’Aquarius comme les autres bateaux humanitaires doivent poursuivre leur mission aussi longtemps que les États se défaussent de leurs responsabilités.

      Il est inacceptable que l’Aquarius reste à quai sans pavillon alors que des personnes meurent en pleine Méditerranée. La Suisse neutre doit rester fidèle à ses engagements humanitaires, qu’elle a poursuivi en soutenant le CICR, le HCR et bien d’autres organisations. Elle doit accorder le pavillon. La loi le permet et cela ne coûte rien. Il faut saluer l’intervention de parlementaires du PLR, PDC, Verts et PS dans ce sens, tout comme la lettre adressée ce jour par des personnalités au Conseil fédéral. Refuser le pavillon à l’Aquarius, c’est un choix politique. Celui de mépris de la vie et du rejet de la solidarité humaine. Il faut tous espérer que Conseil fédéral ne s’inscrive pas dans cette logique.

      Haut de la page

      Aquarius : le respect de la loi avant tout !

      Hugues Hiltpold, conseiller national PLR

      La crise des migrants en Méditerranée est terrible, personne ne peut le contester. Bon nombre de personnes sont attirées par l’Europe et se livrent à la merci de passeurs peu scrupuleux, avec à la clé de nombreux et épouvantables drames humains. Durant deux ans, le navire humanitaire Aquarius, ancien navire des gardes-côtes allemands battant pavillon panaméen, a secouru près de 30 000 personnes en détresse. Avec un certain succès il faut le reconnaître. Puis, sous pression internationale, il a cessé de battre pavillon panaméen, errant en mer quelque temps à la recherche d’un port d’accueil voulant bien l’accueillir.

      Ayant mouillé l’ancre aujourd’hui à Marseille, il attend de pouvoir naviguer à nouveau, mais a besoin pour ce faire qu’un pays accepte qu’il puisse battre son pavillon. Certains élus fédéraux estiment que ce navire humanitaire devrait battre pavillon suisse. Or, la loi suisse ne le permet tout simplement pas. L’article 3 de la loi fédérale sur la navigation maritime sous pavillon suisse stipule qu’un pavillon suisse ne peut être arboré que par des navires suisses. L’article 35 de cette même loi précise, s’agissant de la navigation non professionnelle, que des exceptions peuvent être autorisées par le Département fédéral des affaires étrangères pour inscrire, dans le registre des navires suisses, un bâtiment exploité par une société suisse ou ayant son siège en Suisse, à des fins notamment humanitaires.

      Cette dérogation doit faire l’objet d’une enquête minutieuse permettant de fixer les conditions de la dérogation, notamment eu égard aux intérêts pour la Suisse de justifier cette dérogation. Il convient de noter qu’une telle dérogation est exceptionnelle. On constate que la situation actuelle du navire humanitaire Aquarius n’est pas conforme à la loi.

      Il n’est pas contesté que l’association SOS Méditerranée, qui exploite l’Aquarius, n’est pas suisse, n’a pas son siège en Suisse et n’a aucune relation particulière avec notre pays.

      Dès lors, permettre à l’Aquarius de battre pavillon suisse reviendrait purement et simplement à bafouer la loi ! Ce faisant, nous violerions de surcroît les accords de Schengen et Dublin qui nous lient avec l’Union européenne, au respect desquels ceux qui voudraient accorder le pavillon Suisse à l’Aquarius sont notoirement attachés. Aussi terrible que soit cette catastrophe humanitaire, elle ne doit pas conduire notre pays à bafouer notre État de droit et le droit international. Il en va de notre crédibilité et du respect de nos institutions.

      https://www.tdg.ch/blog-wch/standard/aquarius-pavillon-suisse-carlo-sommaruga-face-hugues-hiltpod/story/31191020

    • Migrants : le hold-up de la Libye sur les sauvetages en mer

      Cet été, en Méditerranée, la Libye a créé en toute discrétion sa propre « zone de recherche et de secours », où ses garde-côtes sont devenus responsables de la coordination de tous les sauvetages, au grand dam de l’Aquarius et des ONG. Enquête sur une décision soutenue par l’Union européenne qui jette toujours plus de confusion en mer.

      Vu de loin, c’est un « détail ». Un simple ajout sur une carte maritime. Cet été, la Libye a tracé une ligne en travers de la Méditerranée, à 200 kilomètres environ au nord de Tripoli. En dessous, désormais, c’est sa zone SAR (dans le jargon), sa « zone de recherche et de secours ». Traduction ? À l’intérieur de ce gigantesque secteur, les garde-côtes libyens sont devenus responsables de l’organisation et de la coordination des secours – en lieu et place des Italiens.

      Pour les navires humanitaires, la création de cette « SAR » libyenne, opérée en toute discrétion, est tout sauf un « détail ». Il n’est pas un sauveteur de l’Aquarius, pas un soutier du Mare Jonio ni de l’Astral (partis relayer sur place le bateau de SOS Méditerranée) qui ne l’ait découvert avec stupeur. Car non seulement les garde-côtes libyens jettent leurs « rescapés » en détention dès qu’ils touchent la terre ferme, mais certaines de leurs unités sont soupçonnées de complicité avec des trafiquants et leurs violences sont régulièrement dénoncées.

      Pour les migrants qui s’élancent en rafiot de Sabratha ou Zaouïa, ce « détail » est surtout une trahison supplémentaire : l’Union européenne a budgété plus de 8 millions d’euros en 2017 pour aider Tripoli à créer cette zone « SAR » bien à elle. Alors que les vingt-huit ministres de l’intérieur doivent discuter vendredi 12 octobre du renforcement des frontières de l’UE, Mediapart a enquêté sur ces trois petites lettres qui mettent les humanitaires en colère et jettent la confusion en mer.

      Pour comprendre, il faut d’abord savoir que la Libye, comme n’importe quel État côtier, est souveraine dans ses « eaux territoriales ». Sur cette bande de 19 kilomètres, les garde-côtes de Tripoli ont toujours joué à domicile et jamais l’Aquarius n’y aventurerait sa quille. Mais au-delà, la Méditerranée se complique, elle se découpe en zones SAR : celle de l’Italie ici, celle de la Grèce là-bas, celles de Malte ou encore de l’Égypte, toutes déclarées auprès de l’Organisation maritime internationale (OMI), chacune associée à un « centre de coordination des secours » national (ou MRCC), qui reçoit l’ensemble des signaux de détresse émis dans sa zone, de même que les appels des navires humanitaires qui repèrent des migrants aux jumelles.

      Selon les conventions internationales, chaque MRCC, celui de Rome par exemple, a ensuite la responsabilité d’organiser les secours dans son secteur, de solliciter les navires les mieux placés (tankers et militaires compris), de dépêcher ses propres garde-côtes si nécessaire.

      Jusqu’ici, au large de ses eaux territoriales, la Libye n’avait pas déclaré de zone SAR, faute d’une flotte suffisante et surtout d’un « centre de coordination » en état de marche, capable de communiquer avec la haute mer par exemple. Pour éviter un « triangle des Bermudes » des secours, les Italiens s’y étaient donc collés ces dernières années, élargissant de fait – sinon en droit – leur champ d’activité. Puis le 28 juin dernier, sans prévenir, Tripoli a déclaré sa zone « SAR » et son « centre de coordination » auprès de l’OMI, officialisés du jour au lendemain. Les Italiens ont passé la main. Changement de régime.

      Depuis, dans l’esprit des Libyens, « aucun navire étranger n’a le droit d’accéder [à leur SAR] sauf demande expresse [de leur part] ». C’est ainsi, en tout cas, que le commandant de la base navale de Tripoli, Abdelhakim Bouhaliya, interprétait les choses en 2017 – quand les autorités avaient esquissé une première SAR avant de se rétracter. Dans leur viseur : « les ONG qui prétendent vouloir sauver les migrants clandestins et mener des actions humanitaires », selon les mots sans fard du général Ayoub Kacem, l’un des porte-parole de la marine à l’époque. Un an plus tard, la SAR est bel et bien là. Et il devient urgent que les garde-côtes ouvrent un manuel de droit.

      Car en principe, « la navigation dans leur SAR reste libre, décrypte Kiara Neri, spécialiste de droit maritime et maîtresse de conférences à l’université Jean-Moulin-Lyon-III. Ils n’ont absolument pas le pouvoir d’interdire leur SAR aux navires humanitaires, ce n’est pas devenu leur chasse gardée ». Dans les faits, pourtant, « ils font comme s’ils étaient souverains, s’indigne Nicola Stalla, coordinateur des sauvetages sur l’Aquarius. Ils étaient déjà agressifs avant, mais ils se comportent de plus en plus comme s’ils étaient dans leurs eaux territoriales. Ils ordonnent aux ONG de s’éloigner, ils menacent, par le passé ils ont déjà ouvert le feu plusieurs fois ».

      Concrètement, depuis cet été, « ce n’est plus Rome mais le MRCC de Tripoli qui reçoit les signaux d’alerte et désigne le navire le plus proche pour intervenir », insiste Kiara Neri. À supposer qu’ils répondent aux appels, déjà. « Le MRCC de Rome, lui, était efficace, regrette Nicola Stalla. Quand j’appelais, il y avait toujours un officier à qui parler. Là c’est tout le contraire : les garde-côtes libyens ne répondent pas, ou ne parlent pas bien anglais, ou ne répercutent pas les infos à tous les navires présents sur la zone… » Il y a quelques jours, l’association Pilotes volontaires, qui scrute la mer depuis le ciel à bord de son petit Colibri, s’est aussi arraché les cheveux. « On a repéré une embarcation avec une vingtaine de migrants, raconte un bénévole. On a vite appelé Rome, qui nous a renvoyés automatiquement sur Tripoli, qui n’a jamais répondu. » Ils ont fini par contacter, en direct, un tanker qui croisait à proximité. Du bricolage impensable jusqu’à cet été.

      À supposer qu’ils réagissent correctement, les Libyens peuvent aussi être tentés d’ignorer les humanitaires, de « privilégier » leurs garde-côtes pour les sauvetages, voire des navires marchands. Car ces derniers acceptent parfois de remettre aux Libyens les migrants qu’ils « repêchent », de les transborder en pleine mer pour s’en débarrasser sans trop se dérouter, sans égard pour le droit international qui impose de débarquer ses rescapés dans un « port sûr » où les droits de l’homme sont respectés – ce que la Libye n’est certainement pas, de l’avis même du HCR, l’agence des Nations unies pour les réfugiés. « Sans ONG pour témoigner, ces personnes sont perdues dans la narration », dénonce l’Italien Nicola Stalla, d’une formule presque poétique.

      Et si les humanitaires repèrent un pneumatique par eux-mêmes, peuvent-ils désormais être interdits de sauvetage ? « Il y a une subtilité, répond Kiara Neri. Dans leur SAR, les Libyens ont compétence pour coordonner les opérations. Donc s’ils approchent d’une embarcation en détresse [en même temps que l’Aquarius par exemple – ndlr], ils peuvent toujours dire : “On s’en occupe.” Mais ils n’ont certainement pas le droit de monter à bord, aucun pouvoir de police… » Dans les faits, la confusion est à son maximum.

      Ainsi, le 23 septembre, l’Aquarius et les garde-côtes libyens se sont disputés quarante-sept vies en pleine nuit, pendant des heures. Directement alerté par Alarm Phone (une sorte de « central téléphonique » associatif à disposition des migrants qui tentent la traversée), l’Aquarius a foncé vers le secteur indiqué tout en contactant le MRCC de Tripoli, conformément à ses obligations. Au début, pas de réponse. Puis un accord de principe. Puis un patrouilleur libyen arrivé sur le tard a voulu stopper le sauvetage entamé (des femmes et des enfants d’abord), pour reprendre l’affaire en mains. « Quittez la zone ! », ont hurlé les garde-côtes à la radio, selon une journaliste du Monde à bord. « Vous connaissez Tripoli ? Vous voulez venir faire une petite visite ? (…) Vous allez avoir de gros problèmes, on ne veut plus coopérer avec vous parce que vous nous désobéissez. » Le capitaine a tenu bon, mais l’Aquarius a quitté la zone à l’issue de l’opération – sa dernière à ce jour, puisque le Panama l’a privé de pavillon.

      « Le comble du cynisme »

      « Si nous trouvons une embarcation en détresse dans la SAR libyenne, nous ferons le sauvetage même si les garde-côtes demandent de ne pas intervenir », annonce aussi l’équipe de l’Aita Mari, un chalutier basque espagnol sur le point de prendre la route de la Méditerranée centrale, à l’initiative de deux ONG (Salvamento maritimo humanitario et Proem-Aid) soutenues par le gouvernement régional de centre-droit (qui a déboursé 400 000 euros), ainsi que de petites communes basques et andalouses. « La loi, c’est celle du port sûr. Peu importe que l’OMI ait dit “Oui” à la Libye », résume Daniel Rivas Pacheco, porte-parole du projet.

      D’ailleurs, comment une telle zone de « secours » a-t-elle pu être créée ? La Libye, membre de l’OMI (institution des Nations unies) et signataire des conventions internationales sur le secours en mer, a simplement déclaré les coordonnées géographiques de sa zone et de son MRCC. En fait, l’OMI ne « reconnaît » pas les SAR, elle les enregistre, sans audit préalable. N’a-t-elle pas le pouvoir de rejeter l’initiative d’un pays dénué de « port sûr » ? « L’OMI n’a pas le droit de décider si tel ou tel pays est un lieu sûr », nous répondent ses services. Elle peut toujours intervenir en cas de « coordonnée non valide » ou d’« erreur typographique ». Pour le reste…

      Ce processus de déclaration suppose tout de même une coordination préalable avec les pays voisins et des discussions préparatoires (Mediapart a retrouvé un point d’étape soumis à l’OMI en décembre 2017 par l’Italie, qui évoque le soutien de l’UE). Rome et l’Europe ont bien encouragé Tripoli à prendre ses « responsabilités ».

      Pour s’en convaincre, il faut se plonger dans les détails d’un vaste programme européen de soutien à la Libye datant de 2017, doté de 46 millions d’euros, qui vise tout à la fois le renforcement de ses frontières, la lutte contre son immigration illégale et l’amélioration de ses opérations de sauvetage en mer. On y découvre que l’UE a budgété plus de 6 millions d’euros, sur plusieurs années, rien que pour aider Tripoli à créer sa propre SAR et son MRCC « maison » – auxquels s’est ajouté 1,8 million via le Fonds pour la sécurité intérieure de l’Union.

      Les activités programmées ne peuvent être plus claires : « Assister les autorités libyennes pour qu’elles soient en capacité de déclarer une zone SAR », « Évaluations techniques pour la conception d’un véritable MRCC », « Formation pour le personnel opérationnel du MRCC », « Aider les garde-côtes à organiser leur unité SAR » ou encore « à développer des procédures SAR standard », etc.

      Jusqu’ici, on avait surtout entendu parler des fonds européens engagés pour former les garde-côtes (au droit international, au droit des réfugiés, etc.) ou de la fourniture d’équipements censés améliorer la qualité et l’efficacité de leurs opérations de « secours » (voir ici notre précédent article). Les ONG s’en étaient indignées, moult fois. Mais c’est encore autre chose que d’aider les Libyens à élargir leur périmètre d’action, à endosser la responsabilité des opérations au-delà même de leurs eaux territoriales.

      « L’idée n’est évidemment pas de les mettre en compétition avec les ONG et les autres acteurs, plaide-t-on à la Commission. C’est de lutter contre les trafiquants et de sauver des vies. » L’UE n’en démord pas.

      Les services de la Commission tiennent tout de même à préciser qu’à ce stade, sur les quelque 8 millions d’euros budgétés, seul 1,8 million a effectivement été déboursé pour une « étude de faisabilité » de la SAR libyenne. Rien d’autre n’aurait été mis en place avant que la Libye ne dégaine le 28 juin, plus vite que son ombre, aiguillonnée par l’Italie de Matteo Salvini.

      « Le secours n’est absolument pas la priorité de l’Union européenne, dénonce Charles Heller, chercheur associé à l’agence Forensic Architecture, collectif basé à l’université londonienne de Goldsmiths qui enquête sur les violations des droits humains, notamment en Méditerranée. Ce que font les garde-côtes libyens, ce sont des interceptions, de pures opérations de contrôle des frontières pour le compte de l’UE. »

      En 2012, rappelle-t-il, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme avait condamné l’Italie pour ses pratiques de « refoulement direct » de migrants, après qu’un vaisseau de la marine nationale avait récupéré à son bord (soit sur le sol italien juridiquement) des Somaliens et des Érythréens, raccompagnés illico à Tripoli sans qu’ils aient pu exercer leur droit fondamental à demander l’asile. La nouvelle politique consiste donc « à opérer des “refoulements indirects”, à externaliser auprès des Libyens le contrôle de nos frontières », analyse Charles Heller. « Après une phase de criminalisation des ONG, après l’aide au rétablissement d’une institution de garde-côtes à peu près fonctionnelle, la déclaration d’une SAR libyenne était fondamentale pour donner à ces opérations un vernis humanitaire. Il fallait que les garde-côtes libyens aient tous les attributs : une SAR, un MRCC, etc. C’est la consécration d’un processus. Sachant que ces opérations de “secours” ont pour effet de ramener des gens sur un territoire où leurs droits sont systématiquement violés, c’est le comble du cynisme. »

      Sauvé le 21 juin dernier par le Lifeline, un exilé du Darfour a confié à Mediapart qu’il avait été intercepté trois fois en mer par les garde-côtes libyens, et ramené trois fois dans des centres de détention officiels où les gardiens « frappent tout le monde, tout le temps, avec des bâtons ». « On nettoyait, on lavait le linge, on faisait de la peinture sans être jamais payés », raconte Abazer, aujourd’hui réfugié en France, évoquant une forme d’« esclavage ». Ça, un port sûr ?

      « L’UE fait décidément preuve d’un grand courage, grince Patrick Chaumette, professeur de droit à l’université de Nantes. On laisse les Libyens menacer les ONG, tirer en l’air, confondre leur SAR avec leurs eaux territoriales, dire : “Vous devez nous obéir !”… On a des politiques qui trouvent des prétextes fallacieux pour poursuivre leur véritable objectif : aider la Libye à empêcher les départs en mer. Comme si le droit ne servait plus à rien. Pour nous, universitaires, c’est terrifiant. »

      D’après des chiffres provisoires compilés par Matteo Villa, chercheur pour un think tank italien (l’ISPI), 1 072 migrants se seraient lancés depuis la Libye en septembre, 713 auraient été interceptés, 125 auraient posé le pied en Europe, 234 auraient disparu. Soit un taux de mortalité de plus de 21 %, treize fois plus élevé qu’il y a un an, jamais atteint depuis des années.


      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/111018/migrants-le-hold-de-la-libye-sur-les-sauvetages-en-mer
      #SAR #zone_SAR #cartographie #visualisation

    • Barcone in avaria con 70 persone al largo di Lampedusa: l’Italia prima dice no, poi interviene

      Dopo il braccio di ferro con la nave «Mare Jonio» che ha raccolto l’sos e si è diretta sul posto. E con Malta che non aveva mezzi per i soccorsi. Soddisfatti gli attivisti del progetto umanitario Mediterranea: «Siamo felici che tutti siano in salvo»

      Un barcone con 70 migranti partito dalla Libia venerdì mattina è stato scortato dalle motovedette della Guardia Costiera italiana fino al porto di Lampedusa dove ha attraccato in banchina intorno alle tre del mattino. Di lì a poco, è iniziato lo sbarco dei suoi passeggeri. E questa, già di per sé, è una notizia in epoca di porti chiusi, respingimenti e frontiere blindate. Ma lo è ancora di più se si considera che il gesto della Guardia Costiera è stato solo l’atto finale, la resa, di una lunga partita a scacchi giocata sin dalle sette del pomeriggio dal rimorchiatore Mare Jonio – la nave del progetto Mediterranea – contro le autorità, maltesi prima, e italiane poi.

      La Mare Jonio, giunta al suo ultimo giorno di missione nelle acque libiche, stava lentamente tornando verso l’Italia quando, poco dopo il tramonto, è stata raggiunta da un Navtext, un messaggio di allerta, inviato dalle autorità di La Valletta (l’Mrcc, maritime rescue coordination center): nel testo si segnalava “un gommone in avaria con 70 persone a bordo in acque maltesi”. L’imbarcazione, stando alle coordinate messe nero su bianco nel messaggio, si trovava sì in una zona di competenza maltese ma molto vicino all’isola di Lampedusa. Praticamente al confine. Il messaggio non dava altri elementi.

      La Mare Jonio si trovava, in quel momento, a 40 miglia di distanza dal gommone. Ci sarebbero volute almeno quattro ore buone. Dopo aver modificato la rotta, la plancia del rimorchiatore italiano ha così deciso di mettersi in contatto con Mrcc Malta per avere eventuali altre informazioni o, quanto meno, capire la fonte di quella notizia. I maltesi, però, non avevano altri elementi utili. E soprattutto non avevano mezzi a disposizione per arrivare “fino là” a vedere che cosa era capitato al gommone. Quanto alla fonte, era l’Alarmphone: un servizio dedicato che smista allarmi raccolti dalle varie imbarcazioni che incrociano nel Mediterraneo.

      La Mare Jonio ha così provato a tirare quel filo, ha chiamato Alarmphone e ha chiesto informazioni, scoprendo che di quell’allarme, loro, non sapevano nulla. Malta, dunque, aveva mentito.Mentre il rimorchiatore procedeva verso le coordinate impostate subito dopo l’arrivo del Navtext, gli italiani hanno quindi chiamato l’Mrcc di Roma. E’ vero che l’imbarcazione era in zona di competenza maltese, ma è vero anche che era in avaria e che, stando alle informazioni, la corrente la stava spingendo verso le acque italiane. E poi Malta aveva dichiaratamente rinunciato a intervenire. Il naufragio di quelle settanta anime, insomma, era un rischio più che concreto. La risposta delle autorità italiane è però stata piuttosto rigida. Burocratica. “In acque di competenza maltese coordina Malta. Non è un problema nostro, quando verranno in acque italiane, vedremo”.

      La situazione agli occhi degli attivisti cominciava a farsi preoccupante. Né La Valletta né Roma volevano intervenire e la Mar Jonio era a quattro ore di distanza. E’ cominciata così una lunga serie di telefonate tra il parlamentare di Sinistra Italiana, Erasmo Palazzotto – uno degli ideatori della Missione Mediterranea – la Guardia Costiera e il ministero delle Infrastrutture. Danilo Toninelli aveva il telefono staccato, e dunque il dossier era gestito dal capo di Gabinetto, Gino Scaccia. Il quale però non ha voluto andare oltre il concetto iniziale: “Acque maltesi-problema maltese”.

      Il comandante della Guardia Costiera di fronte alle insistenze di Palazzotto, “siamo una nave italiana e le segnaliamo un problema a due miglia dalle acque italiane”, ha spiegato che “nessuna nave italiana quando ha un problema in Brasile si sogna di chiamare la Guardia Costiera italiana”. Il resto della triangolazione è stato utile solamente per capire tre cose. Uno quello che inizialmente doveva essere un gommone era in realtà un barcone di legno. Due, l’avevano trovato due pescherecci tunisini (il Fauzi e l’Adamir) che però dopo aver dato l’allarme se ne erano andati. Tre, a distanza di quattro ore, il Mare Jonio continuava ad essere l’unica imbarcazione che si stava dirigendo verso il barcone per cercare di trarre in salvo le settanta persone che erano a bordo.

      Era l’una del mattino, ormai. E il rimorchiatore era quasi arrivato alla zona indicata dal primo allarme. Ma in mare non c’era nessuno. Dalla plancia hanno ricontattato sia Roma che La Valletta per avere coordinate più precise. Ma dai due Mrcc sono arrivate le indicazioni di due punti diversi. A distanza di dodici miglia l’uno dall’altro, più di un’ora di navigazione: mentre i maltesi davano l’imbarcazione in acque italiane, molto vicino a Lampedusa, secondo gli italiani il barcone si trovava ancora nel mare di Malta.

      A quel punto il rimorchiatore ha smesso di contare sugli aiuti via radio delle autorità che evidentemente stavano giocando a nascondere la barca più che a fargliela trovare e hanno cominciato a perlustrare la zona, partendo dalle coordinate fornite dall’Mrcc italiano. Dopo nemmeno mezz’ora, via radio, l’ultima comunicazione della nottata: “La Guardia Costiera italiana ha intercettato il barcone a 2,7 miglia da Lampedusa. E l’ha scortato in porto. I migranti stanno tutti bene”. Festeggiano quelli di Mediterranea: “Siamo felici di apprendere che dopo una notte di monitoraggi e segnalazioni queste persone siano in salvo, in Italia”.


      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/10/12/news/gommone_con_70_persone_in_avaria_davanti_a_lampedusa_mare_jonio_chiede_in

    • Un jeune migrant marocain de 16 ans blessé par balles par la #Marine_royale

      La Marine royale a encore tiré à balles réelles sur des migrants. Après la mort de #Hayat, c’est cette fois-ci un jeune de 16 ans qui est blessé par balles à l’épaule lors de l’interception d’une barque transportant 50 migrants, tous marocains, qui tentaient de rejoindre illégalement l’Europe, selon 2M.ma citant une source sécuritaire et précisant sur Twitter qu’il s’agissait « de tirs de sommations d’usage en direction de l’embarcation ». L’adolescent blessé a d’ores et déjà été transporté vers l’hôpital de Tanger, précise la même source. L’embarcation interceptée tôt ce matin se trouvait entre Assilah et Larache, sur la façade Atlantique des côtes marocaines. Contactée par Le Desk, une source militaire autorisée confirme l’information précisant qu’un communiqué officiel est en cours de préparation.

      https://ledesk.ma/encontinu/un-jeune-migrant-marocain-de-16-ans-blesse-par-balles-par-la-marine-royale

    • Au Maroc, deux ans de prison pour avoir dénoncé sur #Facebook la mort d’une migrante

      La jeune femme originaire de Tétouan a été tuée fin septembre par des tirs de la marine royale alors qu’elle tentait de rejoindre clandestinement les côtes espagnoles.

      Un Marocain a été condamné à deux ans de prison ferme pour avoir protesté sur les réseaux sociaux contre la mort d’une jeune migrante tuée fin septembre par des tirs de la marine marocaine, a-t-on appris jeudi 18 octobre auprès de son avocat.

      #Soufiane_Al-Nguad, 32 ans, a été condamné dans la nuit de mercredi à jeudi par le tribunal de Tétouan, ville du nord du Maroc, pour « #outrage_au_drapeau_national », « #propagation_de_la_haine » et « #appel_à_l’insurrection_civile », selon son avocat Jabir Baba. Il avait été interpellé début octobre, après des troubles lors d’un match de football le 30 septembre à Tétouan.

      Selon son avocat, avant ce match, M. Al-Nguad avait appelé, à travers des publications sur sa page Facebook, le groupe des ultras Los Matadores du club de football local à « manifester et à porter des habits noirs de deuil » pour protester contre le décès de #Hayat_Belkacem.

      La mort de cette étudiante de 22 ans, tuée le 25 septembre par la marine marocaine alors qu’elle tentait de gagner clandestinement les côtes espagnoles en bateau, avait suscité la colère dans le pays. Les autorités marocaines avaient dit avoir visé l’embarcation en raison de ses « manœuvres hostiles ».

      « Venger Hayat »

      Dix-neuf supporters âgés de 14 à 23 ans sont également jugés à Tétouan pour « outrage au drapeau national », « manifestation non autorisée » et « destruction de biens publics et privés », pour avoir manifesté le soir du même match.

      Ces supporters avaient été arrêtés peu après pour avoir brandi des drapeaux espagnols et crié des slogans comme « Viva España » (« Vive l’Espagne ») lors du match. Ils avaient aussi manifesté sur le chemin du stade en appelant à « #venger_Hayat ».

      Ces dernières semaines, des dizaines de vidéos montrant des jeunes Marocains en route vers l’Espagne à bord de bateaux pneumatiques sont devenues virales sur les réseaux sociaux, dans un pays marqué par de grandes inégalités sociales sur fond de chômage élevé chez les jeunes.

      Depuis le début de l’année, l’Espagne est devenue la première porte d’entrée vers l’Europe, avec près de 43 000 arrivées par voie maritime et terrestre, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM).

      https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2018/10/18/au-maroc-deux-ans-de-prison-pour-avoir-denonce-sur-facebook-la-mort-d-une-mi
      #réseaux_sociaux #délit_de_solidarité #condamnation #résistance #manifestation

    • Avec l’équipage du « Mare Ionio », les anti-Salvini retrouvent de la voix en Italie

      Le Mare Ionio, parti des côtes italiennes le 4 octobre, sillonne la Méditerranée pour une mission de surveillance et de contrôle. Dans un pays gouverné par l’extrême droite, une myriade d’acteurs de la société civile a imaginé cette aventure, humanitaire mais aussi très politique.

      Palerme (Italie), correspondance.- Sur le mur de la cour du centre Santa Chiara, en plein cœur de la Palerme populaire, cinq visages s’affichent, vidéo-projetés dans l’obscurité. Tee-shirts blancs siglés du logo bleu et rouge de la plateforme civile Mediterranea, traits fatigués, les membre de l’équipage du Mare Ionio s’apprêtent à dresser un bilan de leur première semaine en mer.

      « Regardez, on peut dire qu’il y a du monde ce soir, vous les voyez ? » interroge Alessandra Sciurba, face aux mines circonspectes de l’équipage. Au moins 200 personnes sont venues écouter les cinq hommes. « Ça fait plaisir, on se sent parfois très seuls en mer », sourit Luca Casarini, un activiste italien connu pour sa participation au mouvement de désobéissance civile Tute Bianche (« Les Blouses blanches »), particulièrement actif de 1994 à 2001.

      Malgré la connexion parfois hésitante de l’équipage, qui se trouve à 35 miles de Khoms et de la côte libyenne, Erasmo Palazzotto se lance, en direct sur Skype : « Le climat est surréaliste ici. On n’a croisé personne d’autre, la radio est silencieuse. C’est comme si la mer était déserte. » Copropriétaire du bateau Mare Ionio, député palermitain de la Sinistra italiana (« Gauche italienne », à la gauche des sociaux-démocrates), il se réjouit : « On ne sait pas si c’est parce que nous sommes présents en mer mais Malte a effectué un sauvetage de deux embarcations de migrants. Ça faisait près d’un an que ce n’était pas arrivé. »

      La remarque sur le sauvetage de 220 personnes les 6 et 7 octobre au large des eaux maltaises n’est pas anodine. Depuis la formation du nouveau gouvernement italien et la nomination de Matteo Salvini au ministère de l’intérieur en juin, la Méditerranée centrale est devenue le terrain d’une véritable bataille navale. Les ONG évincées, les cartes sont redistribuées entre gardes-côtes italiens, maltais et libyens.

      Battant pavillon italien, composé d’un équipage italien, le Mare Ionio s’est donné pour mission de surveiller, contrôler et témoigner de ce qui se passe en Méditerranée centrale, dans ce tronçon de mer emprunté par les migrants pour rejoindre les côtes italiennes et déserté par les bateaux des ONG depuis quelques semaines. Il ne s’agit donc pas d’un bateau de sauvetage, même si l’équipage est paré à cette éventualité.

      Matteo Salvini a bien compris la portée politique de cette aventure. Quelques heures après l’annonce du départ de l’embarcation, le 4 octobre, il avait offert à ses sympathisants un direct Facebook plus exalté qu’à son habitude. « Prenez un pédalo, faites ce que vous voulez », a-t-il ironisé, mais hors de question d’amener des migrants en Italie, a-t-il poursuivi, ricanant au sujet de ce « bateau des centres sociaux qui erre en Méditerranée ».

      Parmi les protagonistes de la plateforme civile Mediterranea, personne ne s’aventure sur le terrain de la politique partisane. Comme si, d’une certaine manière, le paysage politique italien n’était pas à la hauteur des enjeux. « Attention, on n’est pas là pour reconstruire la gauche italienne », met en garde Fausto Melluso de l’Arci Porco Rosso, un local associatif particulièrement impliqué dans l’aide aux migrants.

      Même le député de Gauche italienne évite les joutes politiques et élude : « Je représente des milliers de personnes indignées par ce qui se passe et qui n’ont peut-être pas voté pour moi mais avaient besoin de savoir qu’une partie des institutions italiennes se trouve ici, au milieu de cette bataille historique entre barbarie et civilisation. » Une indignation qu’ils ont voulu « transformer en action », ajoute-t-il.

      « On discute de politique à terre, pas en mer. En mer, on ne laisse personne mourir, on amène les gens dans un port sûr et ensuite on discute de ce que vous voulez », tranche Giorgia Linardi, porte-parole en Italie de l’ONG allemande Sea Watch, qui est associée au projet Mediterranea.

      « C’est une mission d’obéissance civile et de désobéissance morale. On ne pouvait pas se résoudre à se dire que c’était la seule société possible », résume Alessandra Sciurba, l’une des membres de la plateforme Mediterranea et chercheuse à l’université de Palerme. Tous répètent à l’envi cette formule, énoncée par Marta Pastor, jeune diplômée de 26 ans qui s’est embarquée sur le bateau comme bénévole : « L’important, pour nous, c’est aussi de nous sauver nous-mêmes, de nous sauver des saletés qui se passent tous les jours sous nos yeux. »

      Pour Alessandra Sciurba, ce défi va bien au-delà de l’Italie : « Dans le débat politique, tout un monde n’est plus représenté, entre l’Europe démocratico-progressiste qui a accepté les plans économiques de la Troïka [FMI, BCE et Commission européenne – ndlr] et joué avec les politiques migratoires, et l’Europe de Visegrad [Hongrie, Pologne, Slovaquie, République tchèque – ndlr], souverainiste et nationaliste. Nous sommes convaincus qu’il existe une troisième Europe, et c’est surréaliste qu’il faille aller en mer pour lui redonner de la voix. »

      Ce projet européen doit « partir de la société civile, des citoyens et surtout des villes », défend l’équipage. Ce n’est pas un hasard, expliquent les membres de Mediterranea, si les deux drapeaux hissés sur le mât sont celui de l’Union européenne et celui de la ville de Palerme. Dans son habituel costume noir, entouré par quelques journalistes et par les membres de Mediterranea, Leoluca Orlando, le maire de la ville, a profité de la première escale technique du Mare Ionio sur le quai trapézoïdal de Palerme pour marteler, une fois encore, ce discours si singulier dans le reste de l’Italie : « Le port de Palerme sera toujours ouvert ! »

      Sur le pont du bateau, Claudio Arrestivo a moins l’habitude de ces raouts que son voisin. Il représente le Moltivolti, un espace de restauration et de coworking au cœur de Palerme, qui a rejoint la plateforme Mediterranea dès ses débuts, en juin : « On prend plus de risques à ne pas s’embarquer qu’à faire partie du projet. » Les entrepreneurs rêvent désormais de faire des émules à travers le reste du pays.

      C’est le défi majeur de la plateforme civile : réussir, à terre, à susciter l’adhésion. « Dans tout le pays, nous allons organiser une “via terra”, un parcours sur terre de Mediterranea en organisant des événements culturels qui nous permettront de recueillir des fonds », explique Evelina Santangelo, écrivaine palermitaine à la tête d’un groupement national d’artistes, écrivains et acteurs du monde de la culture qui soutiennent l’initiative.

      La tâche est grande : près de 195 000 euros ont déjà été récoltés grâce à une cagnotte participative soutenue par 1 892 personnes, sur un budget total estimé à 700 000 euros pour deux mois de mission en mer.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/221018/avec-l-equipage-du-mare-ionio-les-anti-salvini-retrouvent-de-la-voix-en-it

    • Migrant campaign ship confronts Italy in the Mediterranean

      A Mediterranean coalition of campaigners against Italy’s hardline migration policies have bought a ship in a crowdfunding appeal to shame authorities into rescuing stranded migrants off the North African coast.

      The group, Mediterranea Saving Humans, raised more than 250,000 euros in three weeks, to buy and launch the Italian-flagged Mare Jonio to raise the alarm about migrant boats in distress in the Mediterranean Sea.

      Its first mission launched on October 4 from the southern Italian island of Sicily and succeeded in pressuring the Italian Coast guard into rescuing 70 people aboard a dinghy eight days later, according to the group.

      “The presence of Mediterranea was fundamental in raising attention to what is really happening in the waters south of Sicily and to prevent our governments from turning their backs to tragedies that call upon human compassion,” the group wrote on its website.

      https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/migrant-campaign-ship-confronts-italy-in-the-mediterranean-1.787355

    • E infine restò solo la Mediterranea a salvare le vite in mare

      Ormai, quelli della Mediterranea sono rimasti i soli a cercare di rendere meno amaro il bilancio delle morti di migranti in mare in questo terrificante 2018. Soltanto nel mese di settembre, il 20 per cento di chi è partito dalla Libia risulta morto o disperso. Si tratta di uno degli anni peggiori di sempre, da questo punto di vista. E poco importa che in Italia siano diminuiti gli sbarchi se ciò coincide con un tasso di mortalità maggiore nelle acque internazionali.

      Dopo le 13 di oggi, la nave è salpata dal porto di Palermo per la seconda missione di monitoraggio e denuncia nelle acque internazionali tra le coste italiane e la Libia. C’era stata, nei mesi scorsi, l’avvio della missione, iniziata lo scorso 4 ottobre e durata 12 giorni, aiutata anche dal parlamentare di Liberi e Uguali Erasmo Palazzotto.
      Mediterranea, il suo ruolo in mare per sorvegliare una frontiera letale

      In questi ultimi giorni, la nave italiana della piattaforma Mediterranea era all’ancora nel porto siciliano per una sosta tecnica e di rifornimento: si tratta dell’unica nave in navigazione nel Mediterraneo centrale con l’essenziale funzione di testimonianza e pronta a intervenire, qualora fosse necessario, in soccorso di imbarcazioni in difficoltà. Un vero e proprio baluardo ultimo per evitare quella che può a buon diritto essere considerata una tragedia del nostro secolo.

      Il fatto che non ci siano più imbarcazioni a monitorare le rotte dei migranti è una diretta conseguenza della campagna di criminalizzazione delle ONG e delle politiche di chiusura dei confini, portata avanti in maniera risoluta dalla Lega e dal ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini. Non dobbiamo dimenticarci, che il Mediterraneo è considerato la frontiera più letale al mondo e che nello scorso mese di settembre ha registrato il numero drammatico di una persona morta o dispersa su cinque, tra coloro che hanno tentato la traversata.
      L’importanza di Mediterranea nei giorni scorsi

      Il 12 ottobre scorso, la nave Mediterranea ha avuto un ruolo determinante nel sollecitare il salvataggio tempestivo di settanta persone in pericolo al largo di Lampedusa, dopo il rimpallo di responsabilità tra Malta e Italia. Non solo: ha tenuto accesa l’attenzione dell’opinione pubblica su quanto realmente accade nelle acque a sud della Sicilia.

      Alla missione iniziata oggi parteciperà anche Riccardo Gatti di Proactiva Open Arms e un team di soccorso in mare della Ong tedesca Sea-Watch partner del progetto.


      https://www.giornalettismo.com/archives/2682517/mediterranea-unica-nave-mare-migranti

    • Trois ONG lancent une opération de sauvetage au large de la Libye

      Plus aucun bateau d’ONG ne menait d’opération de sauvetage dans la zone depuis celle menée fin septembre par l’« Aquarius ».
      Trois ONG ont lancé une mission de sauvetage de migrants au large de la Libye, où il n’y avait plus de bateaux humanitaires depuis fin septembre. Les trois navires engagés dans cette mission, l’#Open-Arms de l’ONG espagnole Proactiva Open Arms, le #Sea-Watch3 de l’ONG allemande Sea-Watch et le Mare-Jonio de l’ONG italienne Mediterranea, naviguent depuis vendredi dans les eaux internationales entre l’Italie et la Libye.

      Le Mare-Jonio était déjà parti début octobre patrouiller dans la zone pour témoigner du drame des migrants. Plus aucun bateau d’ONG ne menait d’opération de sauvetage dans la zone depuis celle menée fin septembre par l’Aquarius. Ce navire, affrété par Médecins sans frontières et SOS Méditerranée, est à quai à Marseille dans l’attente d’un pavillon lui permettant de naviguer, après le retrait de ceux de Gibraltar puis du Panama. La justice italienne a par ailleurs demandé mardi son placement sous séquestre pour une affaire de traitement illégal de déchets.

      La mission n’avait pas été annoncée en amont pour « ne pas se retrouver bloquée par une quelconque ruse, comme cela a été le cas pour l’Aquarius », a dit le fondateur de Proactiva Open Arms, Oscar Camps. Plongée dans le chaos depuis la chute du dictateur Mouammar Kadhafi dans une insurrection soutenue par l’OTAN en 2011, la Libye est l’un des principaux pays de transit pour les migrants subsahariens tentant de rejoindre l’Europe à partir de ses côtes. L’Espagne est devenue cette année la première porte d’entrée des migrants en Europe devant l’Italie mais la route de la Méditerranée centrale reste la plus dangereuse avec 1 277 des 2 075 morts recensés cette année par l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2018/11/23/trois-ong-lancent-une-operation-de-sauvetage-au-large-de-la-libye_5387774_32

    • What It Means for Migrants When Europe Blocks Sea Rescues

      With no NGO vessels to rescue migrants crossing the central Mediterranean, people are drowning. Dr. David Beversluis, physician onboard one of the last rescue ships in the Mediterranean, looks at what it means when Europe turns its back.

      There is no more tragic place to witness the consequences of populist politics and anti-immigrant fears than the central Mediterranean Sea, where people are dying trying to reach safety in Europe.

      Many flee violence and poverty in forgotten places across Africa and beyond, before being kidnapped by traffickers and horribly abused in Libya. In a final bid for freedom, they board crowded, flimsy rafts that launch from the Libyan shore into Mediterranean waters.

      This year alone, more than 1,200 men, women and children have died trying to make this journey to Europe, according to the International Organization for Migration’s Missing Migrants project. These are just the deaths we know about.

      This summer I served as the physician onboard the Aquarius, a search and rescue ship operated by the aid organizations Doctors Without Borders and SOS Mediterranee that has assisted nearly 30,000 people since it launched in 2016. It was one of the ship’s last missions before the Italian government pressured Panama to revoke its registration after months of blocking rescue ships from Italian ports. In its current predicament, the Aquarius is unable to conduct search and rescue operations. Currently, there are no NGO aid vessels to rescue people crossing the central Mediterranean, and because of this people are drowning.

      On missions, we rescue people from boats in distress, we pull drowning people from the water, and we give food, water and lifesaving medical care. After we stabilize our patients, we sit and talk to people and hear their stories.

      I spoke with a young man who told me his brothers were targeted and killed last year during a violent conflict in Cameroon. He decided to leave his wife and young son behind because he was being threatened himself, and he was hopeful that if he made it to Europe he could eventually build a better life for his child. I could feel the pain in his words; he had no choice but to leave his loved ones behind.

      Several Somali boys told me of the months they spent traveling from country to country, first across the sea to Yemen, then to Sudan and eventually through the Sahara to Libya. Each step was a gamble for a better life. Along the way they faced extortion, imprisonment and death.

      An Eritrean boy told me he was kidnapped in Sudan and spent more than a year in captivity in Libya, where countless men and women are imprisoned by human traffickers and subjected to torture, rape and death. Another soberly described how his brother was shot in the head next to him, his body left behind in the desert.

      Each person has horrific stories of their time in Libya. They pause and shake their heads as they remember, deciding how to replay their experiences for somebody who can’t even imagine. One Nigerian man told me, “My mouth can’t form the words to describe what happened to me in Libya.”

      But he slowly opened up about his months spent in captivity. He described extreme sexual violence – rapes and genital mutilation – stories we hear repeatedly from both men and women who are trafficked in Libya.

      A Somali teenager said he was held in Libya for seven months inside a small room with more than 300 people where they had one latrine, were never able to shower or change clothes and were given meager food and water.

      And they were lined up every day, beaten with sticks and shouted at for money they didn’t have. He showed me scars on his back and arms as he mimicked the daily beating motion. The violence he lived through is written permanently in these scars on his body.

      Libya is simply not a safe place for refugees and migrants. But instead of responding humanely through a dedicated search and rescue system in the Mediterranean, or by creating safe and legal ways to apply for asylum, the European Union has poured money into building up the Libyan coast guard, which intercepts thousands of migrants and refugees as they attempt to flee. They are returned to Libya and held in official detention centers in atrocious, inhumane conditions. And as conflict erupts again between warring militias in the capital, Tripoli, many of them are directly in the line of fire.

      The stories we hear on the Aquarius highlight how people are repeatedly stripped of their humanity and dignity. And while they also have flashes of hope for a brighter future, each person understands that their difficult journey is far from over.

      In today’s political climate, Doctors Without Borders and other organizations have had to fight to disembark each rescued person in a safe place where their human rights will be respected. We’ve had to take people as far away as Spain after closer countries such as Italy have repeatedly closed their ports and European governments have refused to find sustainable and humane solutions.

      These difficulties grow as narratives of fear and hate toward migrants and refugees are repeated over and over, from Europe to America and elsewhere around the world. People are being treated as pawns by politicians unwilling to take responsibility for human lives. Borders close, walls are built and people are left to suffer and die.


      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/11/19/what-it-means-for-migrants-when-europe-blocks-sea-rescues

    • Italy orders seizure of migrant rescue ship over ’HIV-contaminated’ clothes

      Prosecutors allege garments on Aquarius should have been labelled as ‘toxic waste’.

      Italian authorities have ordered the seizure of the migrant rescue ship Aquarius after claiming that discarded clothes worn by the migrants on their voyage from Libya to Italy could have been contaminated by HIV, meningitis and tuberculosis.

      Prosecutors from Catania, eastern Sicily, alleged that the waste was illegally labelled by the ship’s crew as “special waste” rather than “toxic waste”.

      The Aquarius is currently docked in Marseilles, France, where so far it is beyond the reach of the Italian authorities.

      The ship is operated by the charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and SOS Méditerranée. Prosecutors in Catania said: “If Aquarius would disembark to Italy, it will be immediately put under seizure.”

      Nevertheless, the Italian authorities have placed 24 people under investigation for ‘‘trafficking and the illegal management of waste,” including the captain of the Aquarius, Evgenii Talanin, and Michele Trainiti, deputy head of the Italy mission of MSF Belgium. The Sicilian prosecutors also fined MSF a total of €460,000 (£409,000) and froze some of its bank accounts based in Italy.

      A total of 24 tonnes of discarded material – including leftover food and medical materials as well as clothes – was being investigated.

      Aids campaigners criticised the prosecutors’ claims that clothing could have been contaminated with HIV. “Clothing categorically is not, and has never been, an HIV transmission risk,” said Deborah Gold, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust.

      “This would have stood out as ridiculous even amongst the misinformation of the 1980s, never mind in 2018. Migrants and people seeking asylum have historically been attacked using myths about HIV and infectious conditions, and we condemn this both for its stigmatising of people living with HIV and of migrants fleeing hardship.”

      The Aquarius has been stuck in Marseilles since the Panamanian authorities revoked its flag, after “complaints by the Italian authorities”. But the ship seemed to have reached an agreement with a country that would offer the NGO its flag and was ready to leave the French port in few days to reach the waters of Libya.

      Matteo Salvini, Italy’s far-right deputy prime minister, hailed the seizure order for the Aquarius, tweeting: “It seems I did well to close the Italian ports to the NGOs.”

      NGO rescue boats have almost all disappeared from the central Mediterranean since Salvini announced soon after taking office that he was closing Italian ports to non-Italian rescue vessels.

      The chief prosecutor of Catania, Carmelo Zuccaro, who is leading the investigation against the Aquarius and who is known for having launched several investigations against the rescue boats operated by aid groups, has recently dropped the charges for illegal detention and kidnapping against Salvini, after the minister of the interior was placed under investigation for preventing the disembarkation of migrants from the coastguard ship Ubaldo Diciotti, last August.

      In a statement released on Tuesday, MSF described the allegations against the Aquarius crew as “disproportionate and unfounded, purely aimed at further criminalising lifesaving medical-humanitarian action at sea’’.

      “After two years of defamatory and unfounded allegations of collusion with human traffickers against our humanitarian work, we are now accused of organised crime aimed at illicit waste trafficking. This latest attempt by the Italian authorities to stop humanitarian lifesaving search and rescue capacity at any cost is sinister” says Karline Kleijer, MSF’s head of emergencies.

      “This is another strike in the series of attacks criminalising humanitarian aid at sea. The tragic current situation is leading to an absence of humanitarian search and rescue vessels operating in the central Mediterranean, while the mortality rate is on the rise,” said Frédéric Penard, SOS Méditerranée’s head of operations.

      People seeking asylum are still attempting the risky crossing but, without the rescue boats, the number of shipwrecks is likely to rise dramatically.

      The death toll in the Mediterranean has fallen in the past year, but the number of those drowning as a proportion of arrivals in Italy has risen sharply in the past few months, with the possibility of dying during the crossing now three times higher.

      According to the International Organization for Migration, so far in 2018 more than 21,000 people have made the crossing and 2,054 have died.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/20/italy-orders-seizure-aquarius-migrant-rescue-ship-hiv-clothes
      #maladies #contamination

      La réponse de MSF:
      Sequestro nave Aquarius. Inquietante e strumentale attacco per bloccare azione salvavita in mare
      https://www.medicisenzafrontiere.it/news-e-storie/news/sequestro-nave-aquarius-inquietante-e-strumentale-attacco-per-b

      v. aussi:
      https://seenthis.net/messages/740369

    • L’Italie demande la mise sous séquestre de l’« Aquarius » à Marseille

      La justice italienne a demandé le placement sous séquestre de l’Aquarius, actuellement bloqué à Marseille, a annoncé, mardi 20 novembre, l’ONG Médecins sans frontières (MSF). Des comptes bancaires en Italie de MSF ont également été placés sous séquestre.

      Le navire humanitaire affrété par les ONG SOS Méditerranée et MSF pour secourir les migrants au large de la Libye est soupçonné d’avoir fait passer vingt-quatre tonnes de déchets potentiellement toxiques pour des déchets classiques.

      L’enquête, coordonnée par le parquet de Catane (Sicile), porte sur le traitement des déchets à bord – restes alimentaires, vêtements des personnes secourues, déchets issus des activités médicales – dans les ports italiens où l’Aquarius débarque des milliers de migrants secourus en mer.

      « Empêcher les actions médicales et humanitaires »

      « Les opérations portuaires de nos navires de secours en mer ont toujours suivi les normes en vigueur, s’est défendu MSF dans un communiqué. Les autorités compétentes n’ont jamais questionné nos procédures ni identifié un quelconque risque pour la santé publique depuis que MSF a commencé ses opérations de secours. »

      La mise sous séquestre de l’Aquarius est « mise en œuvre dans l’unique but d’empêcher les actions médicales et humanitaires pour sauver des vies en mer en les criminalisant encore davantage », dénonce l’ONG.

      Depuis que le Panama a annoncé sa décision de retirer au bateau humanitaire son pavillon à la fin de septembre pour « non-respect » des « procédures juridiques internationales » concernant le sauvetage des migrants en mer, l’Aquarius est bloqué dans le port de Marseille.

      L’Aquarius est le dernier navire humanitaire à parcourir la Méditerranée pour secourir des migrants qui tentent la traversée clandestine vers l’Europe, fait valoir l’association. Depuis quatre ans, plus de 15 000 personnes sont mortes noyées en Méditerranée en tentant la traversée sur des embarcations de fortune, selon l’ONG. En deux ans et demi, SOS Méditerranée dit avoir secouru 29 523 personnes dont 23 % sont des mineurs.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2018/11/20/l-italie-demande-la-mise-sous-sequestre-de-l-aquarius-a-marseille_5385916_32

    • Migrants : la justice italienne demande la mise sous séquestre à Marseille de l’Aquarius

      La justice italienne a demandé le placement sous séquestre du navire humanitaire Aquarius à Marseille pour une affaire de traitement illégal de déchets, un nouveau coup dur pour les ONG qui se portent au secours des migrants en mer.

      L’ONG Médecins sans frontières (MSF), qui affrète l’Aquarius avec SOS Méditerranée depuis 2016, a réfuté toute malversation et dénoncé « une mesure disproportionnée et instrumentale, visant à criminaliser pour la énième fois l’action médico-humanitaire en mer ».

      A la demande du parquet de Catane (Sicile), la justice italienne « a ordonné le placement sous séquestre » du navire et de comptes bancaires de MSF, selon un communiqué du parquet. Mais MSF a annoncé son intention de faire appel.

      Interrogé par l’AFP, le procureur de la République de Marseille, Xavier Tarabeux, a déclaré n’avoir reçu « à ce jour » aucune demande des autorités italiennes concernant l’Aquarius.

      La mesure ne change de toute façon pas la donne au large de la Libye, où les ONG ont secouru plus de 120.000 migrants depuis 2014 mais sont désormais quasi-absentes après 18 mois d’incessantes attaques politiques — de gauche comme de droite —, judiciaires et administratives.

      Plusieurs ONG ont suspendu ou déplacé leurs activités, tandis que d’autres voient leur navire bloqué en Italie, à Malte ou en France, comme c’est le cas de l’Aquarius.

      L’Aquarius est amarré à Marseille depuis début octobre dans l’attente d’un pavillon lui permettant de naviguer après le retrait de ceux de Gibraltar puis du Panama.

      « J’ai bien fait de bloquer les navires des ONG », a réagi Matteo Salvini (extrême droite), ministre italien de l’Intérieur depuis juin. « J’ai arrêté non seulement le trafic des immigrés clandestins mais aussi celui des déchets toxiques ».

      Selon le parquet, l’Aquarius et le Vos Prudence, un autre navire affrété par MSF en 2017, sont soupçonnés d’avoir fait passer pour des déchets classiques un total de 24 tonnes de déchets présentant un risque sanitaire, économisant au total 460.000 euros.

      – « Aucune mise en garde » -

      L’enquête porte sur le traitement des vêtements trempés et souillés abandonnés par les migrants à bord, ainsi que des restes alimentaires et déchets sanitaires, que les deux navires ont confiés aux services des ordures des ports où ils débarquaient les migrants secourus en mer.

      Or, les équipes médicales de MSF à bord ont signalé parmi les migrants de nombreux cas de gale, HIV, méningites ou infections respiratoires comme la tuberculose et ne pouvaient ignorer le risque de transmission de virus ou d’agents pathogènes via leurs vieux vêtements, selon le parquet.

      « Nous avons suivi les procédures qui nous étaient indiquées. La preuve en est qu’en trois ans d’activité, dans un contexte très surveillé, nous n’avons reçu aucune mise en garde, aucune amende, aucune forme d’alerte préventive de la part des autorités », a déclaré Marco Bertotto, un responsable de MSF, lors d’une conférence de presse.

      « En ce moment, nos équipes travaillent avec le virus Ebola au Congo, le choléra au Congo également et dans d’autres pays d’Afrique Centrale. Donc le fait d’être accusés de comportement irresponsable (...) est ridicule », a dénoncé Gianfranco de Maio, médecin de MSF.

      En Italie, des voix se sont également élevées pour demander comment avaient été traités les déchets similaires sur les navires de la marine ou des garde-côtes italiens, qui ont secouru plus de 300.000 migrants depuis 2014.

      Pour l’instant, plusieurs comptes bancaires de MSF ont été placés sous séquestre dans le cadre de cette enquête, qui concerne aussi deux agents maritimes qui faisaient l’interface avec les autorités portuaires, les capitaines des navires et plusieurs responsables de MSF à bord.

      Mais pour Gabriele Eminente, directeur général de MSF en Italie, le « seul crime que nous voyons aujourd’hui en Méditerranée est le démantèlement total du système de recherches et de secours ».

      Grâce à des accords controversés conclus en Libye par le précédent gouvernement de centre gauche pour empêcher les migrants de prendre la mer, puis à la politique des ports fermés de M. Salvini, l’Italie a vu le nombre d’arrivées sur ses côtes chuter drastiquement à partir de l’été 2017.

      Cette année, l’Italie a enregistré 22.500 arrivées sur ses côtes, soit une baisse de plus de 80% par rapport aux années précédentes. Mais selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), faute de navires de secours, la traversée depuis la Libye a coûté la vie à au moins 1.267 migrants cette année.


      https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Migrants-justice-italienne-demande-mise-sequestre-Marseille-Aquarius-2018-

    • How the Debate Over Flags Sidelined Europe’s Migrant-Rescue Ships

      Europe’s aggressive migration policy has seen Italy dive into the obscure world of national shipping flags to sabotage rescue missions. Researcher Hannah Markay argues that such moves undermine the international legal requirement to save human lives at sea.

      To deter migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea, European authorities have seized upon a seemingly innocuous bit of international maritime law to block NGO-run rescue ships from their lifesaving work: the requirement that every vessel with seaward ambitions – from search-and-rescue vessel to pleasure boat – carry a national flag.

      The debate over whether NGO boats that rescue migrants are lifelines or “taxis of the sea” is old news. Lately, Italy and other European states have pursued a similar tactic to the one used by the United States in 1931 when it caught gangster Al Capone on charges of tax fraud: Unable to find legal issues with actual rescue missions, authorities are trying to sideline NGO vessels by diving into the minutiae of ships’ national registrations. Italian prosecutors got even more creative this week when they ordered the seizure of the rescue ship Aquarius, operated by Doctors Without Borders, over “illegal waste disposal.”

      Thus, debates over bureaucratic details have eclipsed another requirement of international law: the duty to save human lives at sea.

      Another way in which Italy has used bureaucracy to sabotage NGOs’ rescue missions is by asking them to sign a “code of conduct.” The 11-point code – aimed at stopping what Italy viewed as the groups’ facilitation of people-smuggling across the sea – barred them from entering Libyan territorial waters to undertake rescues; banned them from making calls or sending up flares to signal their location to migrant boats in distress; and threatened to bar access to Italian ports if groups did not sign or comply. Several NGO vessels refused to sign. In retaliation, Italy ordered some of them to be seized.

      These disputes have prevented ships with hundreds of just-rescued, vulnerable people aboard from disembarking in Europe. This happened recently with the Aquarius, the Lifeline and even the Diciotti, an Italian coast-guard ship barred from disembarking 177 refugees and migrants in Italy’s port of Catania for several days.

      Humanitarian groups have found ways around Europe’s bureaucratic obstacles. When Italian deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini threatened to close Italian ports to rescue vessels not bearing the country’s flag, a coalition of activists launched the first-ever Italian-flagged rescue ship, Mare Jonio, to conduct missions off Libya earlier this fall.

      But more often bureaucracy wins. Desperate migrants do not have the luxury of waiting for courts to rule on the legality of states’ actions. The bureaucratic games are directly responsible for the rising rate of deaths in the Mediterranean.
      A Game of Migrant ‘Hot Potato’

      Under international maritime law, every state must require any ship flying its flag – whether it’s a civilian, military or humanitarian vessel – to assist persons in distress at sea, without endangering the ship or crew. Coastal states must also render assistance in areas identified as their search-and-rescue (SAR) zones.

      In theory, the duty to assist applies to any ship able to hear a distress signal. Maritime rescue coordination centers around the world coordinate rescue missions in their respective zones and determine the national authority responsible for responding.

      But in reality this resembles a game of hot potato in the central Mediterranean, in which states quickly delegate or refuse responsibility.

      This was evident when Malta recently gave life-vests, petrol and a compass to a migrant boat in its SAR zone, then directed it to the shores of Lampedusa. European ships within reach of the distress signal are starting to preemptively avoid the waters near Libya altogether or are (illegally) turning around before acknowledging a migrant boat’s mayday signals.

      In this political climate, the few still-operational NGO rescue vessels are more important than ever. In their absence, rescues coordinated by European authorities end with migrants being returned to Libya, which may breach international laws around non-refoulement. With its ongoing civil war and record of detaining migrants, Libya is hardly a safe haven.

      This was the fate of 92 rescued refugees and migrants aboard a cargo ship docked in Libya’s port of Misrata who defiantly claimed they would rather die than return to Libya. The 10-day standoff ended when Libyan authorities used rubber bullets and tear gas to force disembarkation.

      Meanwhile, Libya is also playing the bureaucratic game. Under international law, territorial waters consist of the 12 nautical miles (13.8 miles/22.2km) off the coast of any state, but last year Libya declared its own SAR zone of 74 nautical miles. There is no legal basis for this expansion. Libyan authorities warned NGOs to stay out. Three European NGOs stopped sea rescue missions after Libya’s threats of violence.

      Martin Taminiau, a volunteer with the NGO vessel Sea-Watch, which Malta detained for months over its national registration, said NGO ships must weigh bureaucratic roadblocks against the need to help migrants in distress.

      “We have the right to enter these waters to save lives, but we also want to be able to operate long term,” he said.
      Responsibility to Save Lives ‘Lost at Sea’

      The legal and moral responsibility to save lives has been lost at sea, overshadowed by the technical debates over national flags, zones of responsibility, territorial waters and waste-disposal procedures.

      Watchdog and humanitarian groups must maintain pressure on the European Union to respond promptly to distress calls in their SAR zones and to communicate transparently with any boats prepared to make the rescue, in accordance with international law.

      The 1979 Search and Rescue Convention clearly designates areas of responsibility for responding to distress calls. This must translate into true responsibility and life-saving.

      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/11/22/how-the-debate-over-flags-sidelined-europes-migrant-rescue-ships

    • Che cosa può una nave?

      Si può fare!

      Era la metà di giugno quando ha cominciato a prendere forma quella che sarebbe poi divenuta la piattaforma “Mediterranea”. Salvini aveva da poco chiuso i porti italiani alla nave Aquarius, di “Medici Senza Frontiere” e “Sos Méditerranée”, definendo una “crociera” la lunga traversata che avrebbe portato in Spagna gli oltre novecento profughi e migranti che si trovavano a bordo. Era il coronamento di una vera e propria guerra alle ONG, avviata nell’aprile del 2017 dal procuratore di Catania Carmelo Zuccaro e poi proseguita dal ministro Minniti – il coronamento e al tempo stesso un’intensificazione senza precedenti: se negli anni scorsi molti di noi avevano analizzato criticamente la svolta governamentale della “ragione umanitaria”, cioè l’incorporazione delle ONG nei dispositivi di governo dei confini e delle migrazioni, era evidente che ci trovavamo davanti a una brutale soluzione di continuità. L’intervento umanitario era ora direttamente criminalizzato, azzerando quelle reti di soccorso volontario che negli anni precedenti, spesso integrate con le operazioni SAR delle diverse guardie costiere e delle forze armate, erano state comunque dispiegate nel Mediterraneo.

      Che fare di fronte a questa svolta, evidentemente sintomatica di un atteggiamento destinato a improntare l’azione del governo per mare e per terra nei mesi successivi? La domanda non poteva essere aggirata, e ha cominciato a risuonare con insistenza nelle conversazioni tra compagni e compagne. La resistenza, certo: la denuncia di quanto stava accadendo, i presìdi di protesta, le iniziative di pressione per la riapertura dei porti. E il tentativo di comprendere il significato più profondo di quanto stava accadendo, di anticipare le mosse successive del governo definendo un quadro interpretativo generale della “fase”. Ma ci sembrava che tutto questo non fosse sufficiente, che si dovesse e si potesse fare di più: che fosse necessario mettere in campo una pratica, capace di determinare spiazzamento e quantomeno di alludere a una mossa “offensiva”, al di là del carattere necessariamente difensivo della resistenza – e per riqualificare il terreno su cui quest’ultima si determina. E allora, perché non agire direttamente nel vivo delle contraddizioni del dispositivo retorico e politico della campagna governativa? Perché non comprare e mettere in mare una nave? Una nave battente bandiera italiana, in modo che nessun governo potesse chiuderle i porti del nostro Paese…

      Nei mesi successivi abbiamo misurato a pieno il carattere quasi donchisciottesco dell’impresa in cui avevamo deciso – letteralmente – di imbarcarci: una scommessa, un azzardo in qualche modo al buio. Qualche compagno, con conoscenza professionale dei mondi che ruotano attorno alle navi, ci ha aiutato a orientarci. Per un po’ abbiamo accantonato la filosofia e la teoria politica, cercando di farci almeno un’idea del diritto della navigazione, dell’ingegneria navale e della scienza logistica applicata. Mentre la ricerca della nave proseguiva, abbiamo trovato molti complici e sodali, a volte inaspettati e spesso proprio in quei mondi dello shipping dove il principio per cui “ogni singola vita a rischio in mare deve essere messa al sicuro” appare profondamente radicato e viene ritenuto intangibile. E abbiamo incontrato la disponibilità di Banca Etica a sostenere il progetto dal punto di vista finanziario, aprendo una linea di credito dedicata.

      Dentro e contro i mondi della logistica e della finanza ha dunque cominciato a prendere corpo “Mediterranea”, mentre un insieme di soggetti collettivi di diversa provenienza e natura si aggregava a prefigurare un’originale piattaforma sociale e politica. Quando infine abbiamo trovato e siamo riusciti ad acquistare la nave (la “Mare Jonio”), abbiamo subito capito che il lavoro più importante – costruire la nostra nave – cominciava allora: si trattava intanto, letteralmente, di adeguarla alle operazioni di “ricerca e salvataggio” (un compito a cui si sono dedicati con entusiasmo decine di compagne e compagni, con l’essenziale collaborazione della ONG tedesca Sea Watch); e poi di preparare gli equipaggi e di tessere le reti di terra che avrebbero sostenuto e reso possibile l’azione in mare della “Mare Jonio”. Questo lavoro di costruzione collettiva è ben lungi dall’essere terminato. E tuttavia, nella notte tra il 3 e il 4 ottobre, la nostra nave è salpata per la sua prima missione. Senza alcuna supponenza abbiamo pensato che un primo obiettivo era stato raggiunto. Avevamo dimostrato che si può fare.

      Per mare …

      Tra il 4 ottobre e il 4 dicembre scorsi la “Mare Jonio” ha percorso in tre distinte missioni più di 4.800 miglia marine, più o meno la distanza che separava i migranti italiani tra la fine dell’Ottocento e l’inizio del Novecento dall’agognato approdo a Ellis Island. Ci siamo mossi all’interno di quello che viene chiamato il Mediterraneo Centrale, entro un mare solcato e striato da tensioni geopolitiche che si traducono in confini elusivi, ma non per questo meno cogenti. Il caleidoscopio composto da acque territoriali, zone contigue, zone economiche esclusive, aree SAR (Search And Rescue) è come tagliato trasversalmente dalle linee di attrito tra Grecia e Turchia (che solcano il Mediterraneo Orientale), tra Marocco e Spagna (il Mediterraneo Occidentale) e tra Italia e Libia (appunto il Mediterraneo Centrale), con altri Paesi costieri a fare ciascuno il proprio gioco (dalla Tunisia a Malta, dall’Algeria all’Egitto).

      Non è affatto casuale che le aree marittime appena menzionate corrispondano anche alle tre principali “rotte” seguite dai flussi migratori verso l’Europa e che la maggiore o minore pressione lungo ciascuno di questi corridoi di transito rinvii, di volta in volta, a cangianti condizioni economiche, sociali e politiche nei Paesi di partenza e di arrivo; alle spinte soggettive che caratterizzano la propensione a migrare di questa o quella composizione; alle differenti e articolate strategie di gestione dei flussi, prima fra tutte la progressiva esternalizzazione dei confini dell’Unione Europea stessa, in un gioco di continui ridislocamenti che sembra ben lungi dall’aver trovato un suo punto di equilibrio. Basti pensare al ruolo che il Marocco si sta oggi preparando (nuovamente) a giocare sul terreno – mercantile! – degli accordi per il contenimento e il respingimento, entro un quadro in cui l’accordo tra UE e Turchia e i patti stretti da diversi governi italiani con tribù e milizie libiche hanno fatto, negli ultimi tre anni, da apripista. O, in quest’ultimo quadrante, ai tentativi di spostare più a sud, alla frontiera tra Niger e Libia, il “lavoro sporco” svolto in questi anni da apparati “formali e informali” in Tripolitania e Cirenaica.

      In questa cornice, di cui abbiamo potuto registrare le continue modificazioni perfino nel corso delle otto settimane delle nostre prime tre missioni, la presenza e l’attività della “Mare Jonio” hanno messo in tensione il regime SAR, costringendo più volte imbarcazioni della Guardia Costiera maltese e italiana a muoversi in soccorso dei migranti, e hanno svolto una rilevante funzione di inchiesta, facendo luce là dove si pretendeva (obiettivo essenziale dell’attacco alle ONG) che non ci fossero più testimoni attenti e consapevoli. L’Operazione Mediterranea ha conteso con successo alle “autorità competenti” il diritto a intervenire in aree di crisi e ha così aperto un campo in cui sono divenute visibili le trasformazioni già intervenute e in atto nel regime SAR, le cui aree di competenza funzionale sono state via via interpretate come veri e propri spazi di esercizio di sovranità nazionali, sostituendo nei fatti la logica del primato della concreta efficacia nel salvataggio in mare con quella mortifera della sclerotizzazione burocratica dei protocolli operativi nella gestione di rigide “frontiere” acquee. Abbiamo così disvelato e misurato nei fatti la ormai costitutiva inadeguatezza dell’attuale regime SAR a esercitare funzioni di soccorso in mare, ma anche una serie di elementi di cruciale importanza: il fatto che dalla Libia, al contrario di quanto affermato dalla propaganda del governo italiano, si continui a partire, seppure con modalità diverse rispetto al passato; le mutate geografie, i nuovi assetti logistici, la composizione variabile degli attraversamenti del Mediterraneo; la dipendenza dell’intervento sui flussi a monte, cioè sul territorio libico, dalla contingenza di complessi e tutt’altro che trasparenti giochi di potere, economico e politico (come si è visto in coincidenza con lo svolgimento a Palermo, nel novembre scorso, della Conferenza Internazionale sulla Libia); la continuità dell’intervento della “Guardia Costiera” libica (le virgolette sono d’obbligo, visto che al suo interno operano, sotto diretta supervisione del Viminale, soggetti che fino a pochi mesi fa sarebbero stati considerati “trafficanti di esseri umani”) nell’agire dentro e fuori le acque territoriali del Paese africano per operare veri e propri respingimenti collettivi; la resistenza, la formidabile determinazione delle donne e degli uomini in fuga dai campi di detenzione libici a non farsi ricondurre in quei luoghi di violenza e di sfruttamento (le due vicende della nave “Nivin” e del peschereccio “Nuestra Madre de Loreto” sono da questo punto di vista esemplari).

      A metà novembre il ministro dell’Interno italiano ha annunciato trionfalmente che il Mediterraneo era stato infine liberato dalla presenza delle navi delle ONG. “Mediterranea”, con la sua azione, ha al contrario determinato le condizioni di possibilità di un’alleanza transnazionale senza precedenti tra diverse ONG: nel corso di quella che è stata per noi la terza missione ci siamo coalizzati con Open Arms e Sea Watch, dando vita a United4Med e mettendo in mare un piccola flotta, sostenuta dal cielo da due velivoli da ricognizione. Indipendentemente dagli esiti di questa missione (caratterizzata dall’intervento a sostegno del peschereccio “Nuestra Madre de Loreto”), sono state poste le condizioni per un coordinamento operativo destinato a durare nel tempo e per ulteriori nuove alleanze nei prossimi mesi. Ma un momento di significativa importanza è stata anche la sosta di diversi giorni nel porto di Zarzis, in Tunisia, dove l’incontro con le associazioni dei pescatori – da sempre impegnati nelle operazioni di soccorso in mare, e per questo criminalizzati in Italia – e con gli attivisti del “Forum Tunisino per i Diritti Economici e Sociali”, ci ha consentito di cominciare a gettare ponti con la terra non solo verso Nord, ma anche verso Sud.

      … e per terra.

      La costruzione di una forte e strutturale connessione tra “terra e mare” è stata per noi fin dall’inizio, del resto, uno degli obiettivi essenziali di “Mediterranea”. Abbiamo spesso affermato che non siamo una ONG, senza per questo mancare di riconoscere l’importanza fondamentale, per il nostro progetto, della collaborazione con Sea Watch e Open Arms, la straordinaria passione che anima molte volontarie e molti volontari delle ONG, e i risultati concreti ottenuti negli anni da queste ultime, in termini di vite umane strappate a morte certa. Quest’affermazione significa piuttosto che non consideriamo il nostro intervento semplicemente limitato ai luoghi in cui si produce l’emergenza “umanitaria”; che ne enfatizziamo il carattere politico e non semplicemente “tecnico” o “neutrale”; che rivendichiamo la possibilità di agire, laddove se ne determinino le condizioni, al di fuori dei quadri giuridici stabiliti, per alludere semmai alla fondazione conflittuale di nuovi diritti.

      È su queste basi che valutiamo l’indubbio successo che “Mediterranea” ha raccolto in terra (tra l’altro per i risultati, inediti per il contesto italiano, del crowdfunding, con quasi quattrocentomila euro raccolti in poco più di due mesi). Tanto nel corso delle iniziative organizzate da un gruppo di donne e uomini di cultura e spettacolo (la “Via di Terra”), quanto nelle decine e decine di assemblee che si sono tenute in tutta Italia (e in qualche città europea) abbiamo fatto esperienza di un entusiasmo e di una passione, di una partecipazione anche emotiva, di una curiosità e di un’adesione che da tempo non ricordavamo. Si badi: queste “tonalità emotive” non corrispondono in alcun modo a un’omogeneità politica. La nostra nave è stata appropriata e in qualche modo reinventata dalle posizioni più diverse, all’interno di centri sociali così come di parrocchie, di università e di scuole, di piccoli circoli di Paese e di assemblee metropolitane; mentre il 24 novembre, ci piace ricordarlo, sulla “Mare Jonio” la bandiera di “Mediterranea” ha sventolato accanto a quella del movimento più forte e radicale dei nostri giorni, “Non Una di Meno”. Ma è proprio questa eccedenza di significati attribuiti a “Mediterranea”, anche al di là delle intenzioni iniziali di questo progetto, a rappresentare per noi il dato più significativo. E a costituire la potenzialità più rilevante per l’immediato futuro.

      La situazione “in terra” è del resto anch’essa cambiata nei due mesi in cui la “Mare Jonio” ha effettuato le sue missioni nel Mediterraneo. Il consolidamento dell’egemonia di Salvini all’interno del governo “giallo-verde” e l’indubbio consenso che circonda la sua azione si sono coniugati con la conversione in legge del cosiddetto “Decreto sicurezza” (mentre un discorso a parte meriterebbe la vicenda della legge di Bilancio e lo “scontro” con la Commissione Europea). Non è questo il luogo per un’analisi nel dettaglio delle disposizioni di legge in esso contenute. Basti dire che il drastico ridimensionamento del sistema SPRAR punta a radicare ulteriormente nel tessuto sociale una logica emergenziale, producendo “illegalità” e rendendo sempre più fragile e insicura la condizione di migliaia di profughi e migranti. Mentre il sostanziale smantellamento della “protezione umanitaria” colpisce tra l’altro duramente, e in modo selettivo, le donne migranti, in particolare quelle in fuga da condizioni di violenza. Al tempo stesso, l’inasprimento delle sanzioni penali per blocchi stradali e occupazioni abitative colpisce in primo luogo ancora i e le migranti, protagonisti in questi anni di straordinarie lotte sul lavoro (si pensi ai blocchi dei magazzini della logistica) e per la casa.

      Siamo di fronte a un tendenziale azzeramento delle mediazioni, che si manifesta prima di tutto sul terreno della migrazione, ma che si indirizza selettivamente contro un insieme più ampio di soggetti. Come agire di fronte a questa rottura? “Mediterranea” non ha certo lezioni da impartire a chi quotidianamente pratica la resistenza. Ha forse però, a partire dalla sua parziale esperienza, almeno due indicazioni da proporre.

      In primo luogo, mostra l’importanza di accompagnare all’azione di resistenza la messa in campo di pratiche capaci di intervenire direttamente sui problemi che si presentano. Si può pensare che oggi queste pratiche possano e debbano dispiegarsi anche sul terreno della costruzione di infrastrutture, materiali e immateriali, una costruzione aperta e in divenire, come aperta e in divenire è stata ed è la costruzione della nostra nave. Proviamo a immaginare un’azione che combini, in modo aperto ed espansivo, la resistenza allo smantellamento del sistema SPRAR e della protezione umanitaria con la costruzione di infrastrutture alternative per l’ “accoglienza”, coinvolgendo il mondo degli operatori e delle operatrici e facendo tesoro dell’esperienza dei centri anti-violenza e delle case rifugio all’interno del movimento femminista. Non ne risulterebbe straordinariamente più forte la stessa resistenza?

      In secondo luogo, “Mediterranea” può offrire l’esperienza di quella che vorremmo chiamare una politica del diritto, ovvero di un tentativo di affermare (ancora una volta: con una pratica) la legittimità e la legalità di qualcosa di tanto elementare quanto il dovere di salvare i naufraghi in mare. In questo tentativo, ha “testato” l’intreccio tra molteplici sistemi giuridici (quelli nazionali, quello europeo, il “diritto internazionale del mare”), tentando di allargare le tensioni all’interno e tra di essi, aprendo varchi e scontrandosi con limiti. È un tentativo che bisogna continuare a fare (per mare così come per terra) con maggiore determinazione. E con la necessaria spregiudicatezza e radicalità, perché siamo convinti che di fronte ai limiti occorra forzare, sia cioè indispensabile praticare, dal nostro punto di vista, la rottura.

      To be continued.

      Che cosa può dunque una nave? Va da sé che c’è un tratto ironico in questa variazione sul tema di una celebre domanda deleuziana. Pur non disdegnando imprese donchisciottesche, cerchiamo di mantenere una qualche sobrietà. Indubbiamente, la nostra nave ha dimostrato di poter intervenire operativamente nel Mediterraneo, svolgendo tra le altre cose un’efficace funzione di inchiesta e denuncia sulle trasformazioni del regime SAR e delle dinamiche di attraversamento e rafforzamento del confine marittimo. Ha messo in collegamento le due sponde del Mediterraneo e ha prodotto straordinari effetti di risonanza in terra, aprendo spazi nuovi attraverso una molteplicità di incontri imprevisti. Ma una nave può essere soltanto uno dei molti dispositivi di cui dobbiamo dotarci nella lotta per costruire un mondo in cui sia possibile, tanto per cominciare, respirare più liberamente.

      In ogni caso, la nostra nave – lo abbiamo detto più volte – è in costruzione, ed è in fondo questo ininterrotto processo di costruzione collettiva che ci sembra prezioso. Che cosa diventerà “Mediterranea” nei prossimi mesi? È una domanda che deve rimanere aperta nelle sue linee generali. Certamente, proseguiremo le operazioni marittime. Questo richiederà un’ulteriore “professionalizzazione” del lavoro, un salto di qualità nella strutturazione dell’ “impresa per fare l’impresa”, una rinnovata cura per gli aspetti logistici e finanziari, la formazione di attivisti e attiviste auspicabilmente nel quadro di una cooperazione rafforzata con diverse ONG. È questo un aspetto fondamentale di “Mediterranea”, nata da un patto tra soggetti diversi che si sono riconosciuti uguali nella condivisione dell’urgenza dell’intervento di soccorso in mare.

      Al tempo stesso, sarà necessario riaffermare e riqualificare il significato della nostra affermazione secondo cui “non siamo una ONG”. Si tratterà cioè di riprendere gli elementi essenziali che abbiamo indicato in precedenza: il carattere politico del progetto, la moltiplicazione di ponti tra il mare e la terra, una “politica del diritto” certo consapevole dei quadri ordinamentali dati (e delle forzate interpretazioni consuetudinarie che i più recenti rapporti di forza politici hanno orientato), ma anche determinata nella capacità di praticare rotture. E occorrerà farlo allargando le relazioni e approfondendo il lavoro tanto sul piano sociale quanto nello spazio europeo, puntando in primo luogo al coinvolgimento delle tante città che si sono costituite, esplicitamente o implicitamente, come “città rifugio” negli ultimi anni.

      Sono questioni attorno a cui è aperto il confronto tra tutti coloro che partecipano al progetto. La nostra proposta è quella di lavorare – da qui alla primavera – alla costruzione di una sorta di “stati generali” di “Mediterranea”: non un evento, ma l’esito di un percorso di inchiesta e di discussione, che riprenda i fili delle molte risposte che “Mediterranea” ha raccolto e che ci permetta di avanzare sul terreno della costruzione collettiva. Ripartire dai territori in cui si sono svolte (e continuano a svolgersi) le iniziative di sostegno al progetto, valorizzare gli “incontri imprevisti” per quel che riguarda tanto eterogenee aree politiche e culturali quanto i diversi “mondi” che abbiamo attraversato in questi mesi (da quelli dello shipping ai medici e agli operatori del diritto con cui abbiamo collaborato, per fare solo qualche esempio particolarmente importante): questo ci sembra possa essere il metodo da seguire, per continuare a essere là dove è necessario essere e agire – per mare e per terra.


      http://www.euronomade.info/?p=11437

  • Après des décennies au Pakistan, des réfugiés afghans se préparent au retour en Afghanistan

    Le Pakistan cherche à rapatrier vers l’Afghanistan des réfugiés afghans parmi 1,6 million au total qui vivent dans le pays. Le HCR a réservé des fonds pour le rapatriement de 60 000 réfugiés.

    Des familles sont installées, silencieuses. De jeunes enfants se promènent entre les chaises. Ils vont rentrer chez eux en Afghanistan, alors que certains d’entre eux vivent au Pakistan depuis plusieurs décennies. Et ils rentreront chez eux à titre définitif.

    Ce sont des réfugiés afghans et la scène se déroule au Centre de rapatriement volontaire de Peshawar, qui est géré par le HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés.

    Payenda Bibi Shahnaz est installée dans un fauteuil roulant. Son mari Shamamud dans un autre. Cela fait 33 ans qu’ils ont trouvé refuge au Pakistan, mais ils rentrent également en Afghanistan avec leurs deux fils qui s’occuperont d’eux.

    Le HCR les aidera également une fois qu’ils seront rentrés au pays.

    « Je n’ai simplement pas les moyens de payer le coût de mon traitement médical ici », explique-t-elle. « Nous n’avons pas le choix. »

    Le Haut Commissaire des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés Filippo Grandi a eu l’occasion de faire leur connaissance aujourd’hui pendant sa visite au Centre et il leur a souhaité bonne chance. Le HCR apporte également une aide de 200 dollars aux rapatriés destinée à couvrir leurs dépenses initiales de voyage et de logement.

    Le gouvernement du Pakistan met en oeuvre une politique concertée de rapatriement pour beaucoup parmi presque un million de réfugiés qui vivent dans la région de Peshawar. Le HCR a réservé des fonds pour le rapatriement de 60 000 réfugiés.

    Mais depuis le début de l’année, le nombre de réfugiés qui a passé la frontière de manière définitive dépasse tout juste 6000 personnes.

    Pour nombre d’entre eux, le moment de rendre leur carte de réfugié au Pakistan est chargé d’émotions. Les élèves sont souvent en larmes, car ils se disent qu’ils ne reverront jamais leurs amis.

    La pression économique est ce qui les pousse le plus au retour.

    Qudsia a 40 ans et elle a quatre enfants. Elle était elle-même un enfant quand elle est arrivée au Pakistan. Et aujourd’hui son mari et elle ont décidé de rentrer.

    « Nous avons décidé de rentrer, parce que c’est très cher ici. Nous avons beaucoup de problèmes. Mon mari est diabétique et on ne trouve pas de travail ici. »

    Mais ils sont bien plus nombreux à décider de rester. Au cours de la ‘shura’, la réunion de la communauté, ils ont expliqué à Filippo Grandi qu’ils restent au Pakistan à cause des opportunités que le pays offre sur le plan de l’éducation et de l’économie. Ils ont également évoqué leur crainte de la violence qui règne dans leur pays. Quelque 31 des 34 provinces que compte l’Afghanistan ont été le théâtre de conflits ces derniers mois.

    La carte PoR (Proof of Registration) de Preuve d’enregistrement au Pakistan est également cause de souci majeur. Toutes ces cartes arrivent à échéance le 30 juin. Sans ces cartes, les réfugiés sont passibles d’arrestation, voire même d’expulsion. Filippo Grandi a confirmé qu’il avait instamment demandé au Pakistan de proroger la validité des cartes. La décision sera prise par l’exécutif du Pakistan.

    Filippo Grandi a expliqué aux réfugiés qu’il comprenait leurs craintes et leurs inquiétudes par rapport au fait que 200 dollars ne suffisent pas à se réinstaller dans un pays peu sûr.

    « J’ai entendu les participants de la Shura », a-t-il déclaré. « Nous allons très bientôt augmenter l’indemnité de rapatriement. Nous allons œuvrer pour améliorer les conditions de retour des rapatriés. J’en ai parlé avec les dirigeants du gouvernement afghan. »

    Il a parlé de sa rencontre avec le Président afghan Ashraf Ghani. Le Président lui a confirmé qu’il a demandé un inventaire des terrains disponibles appartenant au gouvernement. Il s’agirait de mettre en place un programme de réinstallation des réfugiés similaire au programme pilote de Hérat en faveur des personnes déplacées à l’intérieur du pays.

    Comme pour les personnes déplacées à Hérat, il s’agirait d’attribuer aux réfugiés des terrains à bâtir. L’eau et l’électricité seraient fournies.

    Filippo Grandi a aussi abordé les préoccupations des réfugiés qui craignent de servir de boucs émissaires après des attaques ou des incidents violents le long de la frontière pakistano-afghane.

    « J’ai bien entendu ce que vous dites. Les réfugiés ne sont pas des terroristes. Je suis tout à fait d’accord. »

    Il a déclaré qu’en s’adressant aux dirigeants du gouvernement du Pakistan, il avait souligné qu’on ne pouvait mettre en cause ou pénaliser toute la population de réfugiés quand de tels événements se produisaient.


    http://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/stories/2016/6/576d401ea/apres-decennies-pakistan-refugies-afghans-preparent-retour-afghanistan.html

    #Pakistan #réfugiés_afghans #Afghanistan #réfugiés #asile #migrations #retour_au_pays

    • Amid Mass Returns, a Teacher’s Hopes for Refugee Girls in Afghanistan

      As hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees return from Pakistan, we speak to Aqeela Asifi, a prize-winning educator of refugee girls in the country’s Punjab province, about how the mass returns will impact girls’ education and thus the future of Afghanistan.

      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2017/03/09/amid-mass-returns-a-teachers-hopes-for-refugee-girls-in-afghanistan
      #filles #femmes #éducation

    • Facing problems in Pakistan, Afghans return home in droves

      For years, Afghans have fled the violence in their country, seeking asylum in Europe or elsewhere in the Middle East. But over the past year, about 600,000 Afghans have crossed the border back into Afghanistan, coming from Pakistan, Iran and Europe when they are denied asylum.

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/facing-problems-pakistan-afghans-return-home-droves

    • Afghans Returned from Pakistan Struggle on Kabul Career Ladder

      As hundreds of thousands of Afghans return from neighboring countries, young graduates face discrimination, language barriers and a dearth of connections in a country many had never been to before, Valerie Plesch reports for Al-Fanar Media.


      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2017/12/11/afghans-returned-from-pakistan-struggle-on-kabul-career-ladder

    • Viaggio tra i rifugiati afghani respinti dal Pakistan

      Fin dagli anni ‘70 gli afghani fuggiti dal proprio paese hanno cercato rifugio in Pakistan. Tuttavia la loro situazione negli ultimi anni è diventata critica. Utilizzati per esercitare pressioni politiche su Kabul, subiscono continue pressione per far ritorno nel loro paese. A queste poi si sono aggiunte minacce e violenze crescenti. Una strategia che ha funzionato, come ci racconta Giuliano Battiston: migliaia sono i rifugiati tornati nel loro paese dove all’assenza di casa e lavoro fa da contraltare la presenza della guerra

      «A Peshawar avevo una mia bottega. Era piccola, ma andava bene. Vendevo zucchero, sale, olio, sapone. Non potevo lamentarmi. Ora eccomi qui, vendo meloni e angurie che compro da altri. Lo faccio da pochi giorni e non so per quanto ancora. Ma non mi basta per mandare avanti la famiglia».

      Rabihullah ha 45 anni e 12 figli. Nato in Afghanistan, fuggito dalla guerra, ha trascorso gran parte della vita in Pakistan, ma pochi mesi fa è stato costretto a tornare. Lo incontriamo all’inizio di una via sterrata che si dipana verso i campi coltivati, all’incrocio con la strada principale che conduce fuori città dal centro di Jalalabad, capoluogo di Nangarhar, provincia orientale al confine con il Pakistan. Seduto sulla paglia, alle spalle decine e decine di meloni profumati, in testa uno zuccotto chiaro, Rabihullah indossa un semplice vestito bianco, rattoppato qua e là. «Sono nato nel distretto di Bati Kut, qui nel Nangarhar. Ci siamo trasferiti in Pakistan quando ero adolescente. Di preciso non saprei quando. Ricordo che il mio primo digiuno per il Ramadan l’ho fatto lì. Non stavamo male a Peshawar. Ma 3 mesi fa siamo dovuti tornare. I poliziotti pachistani prima hanno cominciato a chiederci i documenti, poi a picchiarci. Ci attaccavano perfino di notte. Entravano nelle nostre case all’una, alle due del mattino. Ci dicevano di andar via. Nel nostro quartiere, che era come un villaggio, eravamo tutti afghani. Ci attaccavano per questo».

      La storia di Rabihullah è simile a quella di decine di migliaia di connazionali, costretti a rientrare in Afghanistan a causa delle politiche repressive del governo di Islamabad. Già nel 2015, Human Rights Watch denunciava «minacce ripetute, arresti frequenti, richieste regolari di mazzette, violenze occasionali da parte della polizia pachistana nei mesi successivi all’attacco alla scuola di Peshawar», l’attentato terroristico che il 16 dicembre 2014 ha provocato la morte di 145 persone, tra cui 134 bambini.

      Anche se l’attentato è stato rivendicato dai Talebani pachistani, per le autorità i responsabili andavano cercati all’interno dell’ampia comunità di rifugiati afghani che, sin dalla fine degli anni Settanta, hanno trovato protezione dalla guerra sull’altro lato della Durand Line, in Pakistan. Quei rifugiati erano parte della più ampia diaspora che ha reso l’Afghanistan per molti anni, fino allo scoppio della guerra siriana, il primo Paese al mondo di provenienza per numero di rifugiati. Una diaspora ancora oggi numerosa.

      Secondo i dati dell’ultimo rapporto dell’Alto Commissariato dell’Onu per i rifugiati (Unhcr), Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2017, nel mondo ci sono 2,6 milioni di rifugiati afghani, il 5% in più rispetto all’anno precedente. L’Afghanistan è il secondo paese di provenienza dei rifugiati dopo la Siria (6,3 milioni). La maggior parte vive in Pakistan (poco meno di 1,4 milioni) e in Iran (poco meno di 1 milione), ma i due Paesi ospitano anche un gran numero di emigrati privi di documenti, non registrati dalle Nazioni Unite (circa 1 milione in Pakistan, 1 milione e mezzo in Iran). «Nel corso degli ultimi 40 anni, dall’inizio della guerra in Afghanistan nel 1978, l’Iran e il Pakistan hanno ospitato il più alto numero di rifugiati afghani», ricorda la ricercatrice Jelena Bjelica, che incontriamo nell’ufficio di Kabul dell’Afghanistan Analysts Network, il più accreditato centro di ricerca del Paese.

      Molti sono tornati. Dal 2001, dal Pakistan sono rientrati ben 3,9 milioni di rifugiati afghani. Quanti non lo hanno fatto sono diventati armi diplomatiche nelle mani del governo di Islamabad, il cui establishment militare è accusato di alimentare il conflitto per ragioni strategiche. «I rifugiati vengono usati per esercitare pressioni politiche su Kabul. La prassi di non estendere la validità dei documenti di registrazione è uno degli strumenti più comuni», nota Jelena Bjelica.

      «Nel 2016 e in parte nel 2017, le autorità pachistane hanno esercitato molte pressioni sugli afghani affinché tornassero indietro» conferma il ricercatore indipendente Wali Mohammad Kandiwal, autore di diverse pubblicazioni sui processi migratori, che incontriamo a Jalalabad. Alle pressioni si sono aggiunte minacce e violenze crescenti, come testimoniato nel 2017 da un altro rapporto di Human Rights Watch. La strategia ha funzionato. Lo certificano i numeri. Tra gennaio 2016 e dicembre 2017, almeno 1,2 milioni di afghani sono rientrati dall’Iran e dal Pakistan. Nel 2017, 460.000 afghani senza documenti sono rientrati o sono stati deportati dall’Iran, 100.000 dal Pakistan e 7.000 da Paesi europei, a cui vanno aggiunti almeno altri 60.000 rifugiati registrati, tornati dal Pakistan. «Il loro è stato un vero dilemma: rimanere o tornare? Entrambe le opzioni erano rischiose. Chi è tornato, spesso non è convinto di aver fatto la scelta giusta», aggiunge Kandiwal.

      Anche Rabihullah non ne è certo. «Il lavoro non c’è, la casa costa troppo, non parliamo della sicurezza: qui si combatte dovunque», spiega sconfortato mentre ci guida lungo i viottoli del quartiere in cui vive, nella periferia di Jalalabad. Dietro un cancello di metallo c’è casa sua. Un atrio di pochi metri quadrati, delimitato da alte mura. Sulla destra, un ripiano di legno con una bombola del gas e qualche stoviglia: «è la cucina». Appena sopra, un filo con dei panni stesi. Una porta blu spicca contro il marrone delle pareti di fango. «Come vedi, la casa è fatta di un’unica stanza». C’è un’unica finestra e, di fronte all’entrata, un letto di corde intrecciate con la base in legno, tipico di queste parti. Una scala in bambù raggiunge il tetto della stanza, dove sono stesi altri panni. «È tutto qui», dice guardandosi intorno e lamentando la scarsa assistenza del governo, inefficiente e corrotto. «Le risorse ci sono, ma vengono dirottate su progetti privati, sottratte, rubate», ci dice un funzionario della sede locale dell’Organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni (Oim), che chiede l’anonimato.

      Non si tratta soltanto di denaro. La risorsa più importante, qui, è la casa. Meglio ancora, la terra. Secondo il «Policy Framework on IDPs and Returnees» del governo, «l’assegnazione della terra sarà un contributo fondamentale nel successo di soluzione durature» per i rifugiati. Ma la realtà è diversa. «Il piano governativo è molto ambizioso, e i politici non fanno mai mancare promesse elettorali su questo tema. Ma l’assegnazione delle terre è uno dei processi più corrotti che ci siano», nota Jelena Bjelica, che sull’argomento ha scritto un articolo molto informato.

      Lo conferma Wali Mohammad Kandiwal, che ci anticipa i risultati della sua ultima ricerca, promossa dal Feinstein International Center dell’Università statunitense di Tufts. Si intitola «Homeland, but no land for home. A Case Study of Refugees in Towns: Jalalabad» e l’autore la sintetizza così: «la terra è il problema principale soprattutto qui, nella provincia di Nangarhar. Il governo punta a far tornare gli emigrati, ma non riesce a soddisfarne i bisogni e le legittime richieste. La burocrazia e soprattutto la corruzione sull’assegnazione delle terre rendono l’intero sistema dell’accoglienza del tutto fallimentare».

      Alla corruzione e all’inefficienza del governo si sommano altri ostacoli. Il primo è il costo della terra, il bene più ambito. Secondo i dati riportati dallo Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (Sigar), l’organo di controllo che riferisce al Congresso degli Stati Uniti sui soldi pubblici spesi nel Paese centro-asiatico, dal 2001 il costo della terra è aumentato del 1.000%. Un aumento ancora più significativo si registra nella provincia di Nangarhar, a causa delle speculazioni legate al rientro dei profughi dal Pakistan, delle mafie locali, delle dispute sui terreni e del landgrabbing.

      C’è poi il problema strutturale dell’enorme peso demografico, sociale ed economico delle migrazioni forzate. Secondo una recente ricerca coordinata dall’Oim, in 15 delle 34 province afghane con la maggiore mobilità transfrontaliera e interna, tra il 2012 e il 2017 più di 3,5 milioni di persone sono ritornate dall’estero o sono state costrette a lasciare la propria casa, per trasferirsi in altre zone del paese. Tra coloro che sono rientrati in patria, 1 milione e 355 mila provenivano dal Pakistan, 398 mila dall’Iran. Il 25% di tutti i returnees si sono stabiliti proprio nella provincia di Nangarhar, che ha registrato 499,194 nuovi arrivi – ufficiali – tra il 2012 e il 2017.

      Tra questi c’è Hejrat, 33 anni, carnagione scura, occhi celesti e un sorriso rassicurante. «Siamo tornati nel giugno 2017. Era un periodo in cui tante famiglie decidevano di tornare indietro», racconta. «Sono nato in Pakistan, ma la mia famiglia è originaria del distretto di Rodat, non distante da Jalalabad». Hejrat ha vissuto a lungo in Pakistan, a Peshawar, prima di essere costretto a tornare: «per i pachistani, gli afghani sono un fastidio. Abbiamo sopportato a lungo, poi siamo partiti». Per farlo ha dovuto chiedere un prestito: «I miei genitori erano già tornati. Ho chiesto un prestito di 10.000 rupie pachistane (circa 70 euro, ndr), ho fatto i bagagli e sono partito. Eravamo 5 persone, tutta la mia famiglia. Al confine, l’Onu ci ha dato una tenda, 100 chili di farina e 3 coperte. Ora eccoci qui». Hejrat sostiene che l’assistenza ricevuta sia insufficiente. «Abbiamo bisogno di tutto: cibo, lavoro, soldi. Con i soldi potrei cominciare un’attività e restituire quel che devo. Ho ancora debiti da pagare in Pakistan».

      Hejrat è tornato in Afghanistan nel giugno 2017, quando la morsa delle autorità pachistane cominciava ad allentarsi. «In quel periodo le autorità hanno prolungato la validità dei documenti degli afghani e il ministero afghano per i Rifugiati ha trovato un accordo con la controparte a Islamabad», ricorda Kandiwal. Nel 2018, la pressione è ulteriormente diminuita. Eppure, i rientri dal Pakistan continuano, così come gli abusi. Da gennaio a oggi, secondo l’Oim circa 23.000 afghani senza documenti sono tornati in Afghanistan dal Pakistan (mentre sono circa 510.000 quelli rientrati dall’Iran, a causa delle crescenti pressioni delle autorità iraniane e della svalutazione del rial). «Siamo tornati da 5 mesi», racconta Hakim, 25 anni. «Siamo stati costretti ad andarcene. I poliziotti ci picchiavano ogni giorno con i bastoni, ci perseguitavano, continuavano a crearci problemi. Quando hanno esagerato, abbiamo deciso di partire. Molta gente ha preso la nostra stessa decisione».

      Hakim si considera afghano, ma è nato in Pakistan. «Sono nato vicino a Peshawar, nel campo (rifugiati, ndr) di Akora. Poi siamo finiti a vivere su Charsadda road, fuori dai campi, con altre famiglie afghane. La mia famiglia si è trasferita in Pakistan 35 anni fa a causa della guerra». La guerra continua ancora oggi, ma Hakim – pur non essendoci mai vissuto – è tornato nella patria dei genitori. «Non era più possibile vivere a Peshawar: troppi problemi».

      Anche qui non mancano. «In Pakistan facevo il lavoratore a giornata, lo stesso provo a fare qui. Ma è più difficile. Ho provato ad andare a Kabul, ma non ho trovato niente. Vivo con mia madre e mio padre, con mia moglie e i miei 5 figli. In tutto, siamo 8 persone». Hakim ci mostra casa, una tenda di plastica marrone, fornita dal Norwegian Refugee Council. Il tetto è in lamiera, le pareti in plastica e tela. Sopra l’ingresso svetta una bandiera afghana. Sui lati, una stampella di fil di ferro sorregge un vassoio di metallo con qualche utensile. Un intricato giro di fili porta l’elettricità. «Ma va e viene». All’interno, diversi materassi, arrotolati per risparmiare spazio, un peluche spelacchiato e qualche pentola. La tenda si trova in un ampio parcheggio sterrato, per gran parte occupato da ferraglia e calcinacci. Dietro la tenda c’è un palazzo in costruzione, lasciato a metà. Accanto, un’altra tenda, più bassa e più piccola.

      Qualche metro più in là, un orticello di due metri per due. Pomodori, melanzane e poco altro. Hakim vorrebbe tornare nel villaggio dei genitori, nel distretto di Bati Kut, ma non può: «lì c’è la guerra».


      http://openmigration.org/analisi/viaggio-tra-i-rifugiati-afghani-respinti-dal-pakistan

    • Coming home to conflict: Why Afghan returnees say they were better off as refugees

      Life as an Afghan refugee in Pakistan was never easy for Halima Bibi. But living in her own country has been even harder.

      Bibi, 60, is among more than 3.8 million refugee and undocumented Afghans who have returned to Afghanistan – by choice or by force – over the last five years. In 2016, after spending their entire lives as refugees, she and her three children were driven over the border on the back of a truck – one family among hundreds of thousands of Afghans pushed out of Pakistan that year in a refugee crackdown.

      Today, she lives in a small brick house in Bela, a village hosting around 1,500 returnee families outside the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad. None of her three children have jobs, and Bibi worries about her health: she hasn’t been able to find a clinic to treat complications from her leprosy.

      “Life’s much more difficult here,” she said, sitting on the steps outside her concrete home, tears rolling down her wrinkled cheeks. “All of our extended family is in Pakistan and we struggle to survive.”

      Bibi’s troubles are common among Afghans coming home to a country at war after decades away, but data showing how returnees are faring has been scarce. Now, new research tracking Afghan returnees is painting a clearer picture of what people like Bibi are going through as authorities and aid groups prepare for more returns.

      A study released in July by the World Bank and the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, found that most returnees are worse off financially than those who had stayed behind in Pakistan. Researchers interviewed thousands of Afghans who returned between 2014 and 2017 – a period that saw both a sharp rise in civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and mounting pressure on Afghan refugees living on the margins in Pakistan.

      The study found returnees face significantly higher unemployment, resorted to more precarious or unstable jobs like day labouring, and earned lower wages than they did back in Pakistan. They were also more likely to be unemployed or racking up debt compared with Afghans who never left the country.

      The research comes at a critical period for the government and aid groups in Afghanistan. UN agencies are forecasting that at least 680,000 refugees and undocumented migrants will return from Pakistan and Iran this year. But there are few jobs available and little help to reintegrate in a country in crisis.

      A record 3,800 people were killed in conflict last year, and hundreds of thousands were displaced by clashes or by disasters. Afghanistan is heading toward presidential elections in late September, yet insurgent attacks and military operations continue to kill civilians.

      The study’s proponents say the new data can be used to better understand returnees’ humanitarian needs, to shape more targeted aid and development responses – and to prepare for the next wave of returns and displacement.
      War and migration in Afghanistan

      With their country at war for the past four decades, millions of Afghans have been pushed out by both insecurity and a struggling economy. The UNHCR says the global Afghan refugee population – which includes some 2.7 million registered refugees and millions more undocumented – is the second-largest in the world.

      For decades, neighbouring Pakistan and Iran have hosted the majority of these refugees. But returns have surged over the last five years, driven by volatile public sentiment against refugees, geopolitical manoeuvring – Pakistan has previously threatened new rounds of deportation after political tussles with Afghanistan’s main backer, the United States – or economic crises.

      Some Afghans choose to come home, taking advantage of voluntary return programmes that supply cash grants to registered refugees. Other undocumented Afghans are fleeing sporadic police crackdowns in Pakistan. The majority of recent returnees are from Iran, where an economic crisis has driven Afghans out in droves.

      But there are few services for returning refugees and migrants. At Afghanistan’s four main border crossings with Pakistan and Iran, returning refugees are registered and the most vulnerable – unaccompanied children and single women – receive short-term assistance like food, clothing, and onward transport. But most of this assistance is short-lived, and migration flows are difficult to track once people have entered the country.

      Hafizullah Safi, 50, returned to Afghanistan four years ago along with his wife and 10 children. His family had never set foot in Afghanistan. His last visit was 35 years ago.

      Originally from the eastern province of Kunar, a lush rural area with one of Afghanistan’s few remaining forests, Safi decided to settle in Kabul instead – further from the war’s front lines, he said, and closer to schools and hospitals.

      But adjusting to his new life has been difficult. He rents a two-room mud home in Kabul’s city centre, but he struggles to pay the monthly rent of 5,000 afghanis, or about $60.

      “In Pakistan, I owned a small shop selling dried fruit, but here in Kabul I can barely keep my job as a taxi driver,” he said.

      Outside his house, a garbage-filled river breeds mosquitoes and smells of faeces. The roads are unpaved and electricity is scarce, if available at all. His son, a university graduate with a business degree, has been looking for a job since finishing his studies.

      Safi said there’s little to no assistance from both the government and aid groups. Four years after leaving, the family survives on money sent from relatives still in Pakistan.

      High expectations

      Rights groups say Afghanistan has failed to implement large-scale land programmes for refugees. Government policy aims to include returnees and displaced communities within the country’s development programmes, but the conflict itself makes progress difficult for all Afghans.

      “Returnees often have high expectations and it doesn’t line up with what we can provide,” said Abdul Basit Ansari, a spokesman at the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation, which oversees programmes for returnees and the displaced. “Both security and employment continue to be big challenges – not only for those who return, but for Afghans across the country.”

      The return to Afghanistan has been difficult for Safi and his family, but he said some aspects are better, compared with living an undocumented existence in Pakistan.

      “We were never fully integrated. We always lived in fear of being found out,” he said. “Afghanistan might be dangerous, but in some ways it is safer. This is our home. We are free here.”

      Still, in a crisis marked by precarious returns and long-lasting displacement, many Afghans are looking to leave.

      At Pakistan’s embassies and consulates across Afghanistan, more than 5,000 visa applications are made daily, according to Pakistan’s ambassador, with many people waiting in line for days.

      The Pakistan-Afghanistan border has traditionally been porous, but Safi said regulations have toughened in recent years: “We now need passports and visas to cross the border,” he said. “These are expensive and hard to come by.”

      If it wasn’t for paperwork, he admitted, his family would have returned to Pakistan long ago. Instead, he’s eyeing other migration opportunities for his university-educated but jobless son.

      “Pakistan is becoming less of an option,” he said. “My son is now trying to go to Europe instead.”

      https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/08/01/Afghan-conflict-returnees-better-off-refugees

      #Pakistan

    • Coming home to conflict: Why Afghan returnees say they were better off as refugees

      Life as an Afghan refugee in Pakistan was never easy for Halima Bibi. But living in her own country has been even harder.

      Bibi, 60, is among more than 3.8 million refugee and undocumented Afghans who have returned to Afghanistan – by choice or by force – over the last five years. In 2016, after spending their entire lives as refugees, she and her three children were driven over the border on the back of a truck – one family among hundreds of thousands of Afghans pushed out of Pakistan that year in a refugee crackdown.

      Today, she lives in a small brick house in Bela, a village hosting around 1,500 returnee families outside the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad. None of her three children have jobs, and Bibi worries about her health: she hasn’t been able to find a clinic to treat complications from her leprosy.

      “Life’s much more difficult here,” she said, sitting on the steps outside her concrete home, tears rolling down her wrinkled cheeks. “All of our extended family is in Pakistan and we struggle to survive.”

      Bibi’s troubles are common among Afghans coming home to a country at war after decades away, but data showing how returnees are faring has been scarce. Now, new research tracking Afghan returnees is painting a clearer picture of what people like Bibi are going through as authorities and aid groups prepare for more returns.

      A study released in July by the World Bank and the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, found that most returnees are worse off financially than those who had stayed behind in Pakistan. Researchers interviewed thousands of Afghans who returned between 2014 and 2017 – a period that saw both a sharp rise in civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and mounting pressure on Afghan refugees living on the margins in Pakistan.

      The study found returnees face significantly higher unemployment, resorted to more precarious or unstable jobs like day labouring, and earned lower wages than they did back in Pakistan. They were also more likely to be unemployed or racking up debt compared with Afghans who never left the country.

      The research comes at a critical period for the government and aid groups in Afghanistan. UN agencies are forecasting that at least 680,000 refugees and undocumented migrants will return from Pakistan and Iran this year. But there are few jobs available and little help to reintegrate in a country in crisis.

      A record 3,800 people were killed in conflict last year, and hundreds of thousands were displaced by clashes or by disasters. Afghanistan is heading toward presidential elections in late September, yet insurgent attacks and military operations continue to kill civilians.

      The study’s proponents say the new data can be used to better understand returnees’ humanitarian needs, to shape more targeted aid and development responses – and to prepare for the next wave of returns and displacement.
      War and migration in Afghanistan

      With their country at war for the past four decades, millions of Afghans have been pushed out by both insecurity and a struggling economy. The UNHCR says the global Afghan refugee population – which includes some 2.7 million registered refugees and millions more undocumented – is the second-largest in the world.

      For decades, neighbouring Pakistan and Iran have hosted the majority of these refugees. But returns have surged over the last five years, driven by volatile public sentiment against refugees, geopolitical manoeuvring – Pakistan has previously threatened new rounds of deportation after political tussles with Afghanistan’s main backer, the United States – or economic crises.

      Some Afghans choose to come home, taking advantage of voluntary return programmes that supply cash grants to registered refugees. Other undocumented Afghans are fleeing sporadic police crackdowns in Pakistan. The majority of recent returnees are from Iran, where an economic crisis has driven Afghans out in droves.

      But there are few services for returning refugees and migrants. At Afghanistan’s four main border crossings with Pakistan and Iran, returning refugees are registered and the most vulnerable – unaccompanied children and single women – receive short-term assistance like food, clothing, and onward transport. But most of this assistance is short-lived, and migration flows are difficult to track once people have entered the country.

      Hafizullah Safi, 50, returned to Afghanistan four years ago along with his wife and 10 children. His family had never set foot in Afghanistan. His last visit was 35 years ago.

      Originally from the eastern province of Kunar, a lush rural area with one of Afghanistan’s few remaining forests, Safi decided to settle in Kabul instead – further from the war’s front lines, he said, and closer to schools and hospitals.

      But adjusting to his new life has been difficult. He rents a two-room mud home in Kabul’s city centre, but he struggles to pay the monthly rent of 5,000 afghanis, or about $60.

      “In Pakistan, I owned a small shop selling dried fruit, but here in Kabul I can barely keep my job as a taxi driver,” he said.

      Outside his house, a garbage-filled river breeds mosquitoes and smells of faeces. The roads are unpaved and electricity is scarce, if available at all. His son, a university graduate with a business degree, has been looking for a job since finishing his studies.

      Safi said there’s little to no assistance from both the government and aid groups. Four years after leaving, the family survives on money sent from relatives still in Pakistan.

      High expectations

      Rights groups say Afghanistan has failed to implement large-scale land programmes for refugees. Government policy aims to include returnees and displaced communities within the country’s development programmes, but the conflict itself makes progress difficult for all Afghans.

      “Returnees often have high expectations and it doesn’t line up with what we can provide,” said Abdul Basit Ansari, a spokesman at the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation, which oversees programmes for returnees and the displaced. “Both security and employment continue to be big challenges – not only for those who return, but for Afghans across the country.”

      The return to Afghanistan has been difficult for Safi and his family, but he said some aspects are better, compared with living an undocumented existence in Pakistan.

      “We were never fully integrated. We always lived in fear of being found out,” he said. “Afghanistan might be dangerous, but in some ways it is safer. This is our home. We are free here.”

      Still, in a crisis marked by precarious returns and long-lasting displacement, many Afghans are looking to leave.

      At Pakistan’s embassies and consulates across Afghanistan, more than 5,000 visa applications are made daily, according to Pakistan’s ambassador, with many people waiting in line for days.

      The Pakistan-Afghanistan border has traditionally been porous, but Safi said regulations have toughened in recent years: “We now need passports and visas to cross the border,” he said. “These are expensive and hard to come by.”

      If it wasn’t for paperwork, he admitted, his family would have returned to Pakistan long ago. Instead, he’s eyeing other migration opportunities for his university-educated but jobless son.

      “Pakistan is becoming less of an option,” he said. “My son is now trying to go to Europe instead.”

      https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/08/01/Afghan-conflict-returnees-better-off-refugees

  • Lessons from Tanzania’s Historic Bid to Turn Refugees to Citizens

    Tanzania was lauded for offering citizenship to 200,000 Burundians, the largest-ever mass naturalization of refugees. But a political stalemate emerged between humanitarians and the government, leaving refugees stuck in the middle, explains researcher Amelia Kuch.

    During Europe’s so-called migrant crisis of 2015, the Tanzanian government gave over 200,000 Burundian refugees a choice between repatriation – returning to Burundi – and naturalization – obtaining Tanzanian citizenship.

    Given the choice, 79 percent of the refugees – 171,600 people – opted for Tanzanian citizenship. It is understood to be the first time in history any state has naturalized such a large group of refugees under the protection of the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) in a single move.

    This group of refugees had fled Burundi following ethnic violence and killings in 1972 and now live in three rural settlements in Tanzania: Katumba, Mishamo and Ulyankulu. Since the 1970s, these settlements had transformed into towns: People made improvements to their homes, electricity poles were laid out and the local markets began to expand.

    Research has shown that access to citizenship is an important means of resolving long-term displacement. Yet in most countries, granting citizenship to refugees is still politically unthinkable.

    Tanzania has long been held up as a safe haven for refugees in the region, giving shelter to some 315,000 mainly Burundian and Congolese refugees. The naturalization of Burundian refugees was hailed as a model for progressive solutions to displacement. Yet it has led to a political stalemate between humanitarian organizations and the government, with the “refugees-turned-citizens” stuck in the middle.

    Last month, the Tanzanian government halted the naturalization of another group of more recently arrived Burundian refugees and has since pulled out of the U.N.’s Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework, citing lack of international funding.

    During my research in the former Burundian refugee camps in Western Tanzania since 2014, I have spoken with many former refugees about the naturalization process, as well as NGO employees and government officials.

    The difficulties in Tanzania are important to understanding the challenges of mass naturalization. It is not easy to turn a camp of refugees into a settlement of citizens. They also demonstrate how important it is for refugees to be able to hold both governments and humanitarian organizations accountable when things go wrong.
    A Progressive Solution is Born

    Negotiations around Tanzania’s naturalization policy began in 2007. They resulted in the Tanzania Comprehensive Solution Strategy (TANCOSS), which was adopted that year by the governments of Tanzania and Burundi in partnership with UNHCR. The agreement had three pillars: repatriation to Burundi, granting citizenship to those who opted to pursue naturalization and relocation of naturalized refugees from the settlements to other regions of Tanzania.

    Major investments were promised to facilitate the process. Some $103 million was earmarked for relocation and integration of naturalized refugees in the 2011-15 United Nations Development Assistant Plan (UNDAP).

    Eventually, the resettlement pillar was abandoned because of logistical problems and local resistance to resettling refugees. As a result, the new citizens were permitted to remain in the areas of the settlements in which they had lived for the past four decades. They can now vote in national elections and join political parties.

    “Obtaining citizenship and being allowed to stay here brought peace into my heart. Before I lived in fear,” said one former refugee named Daniel.
    Left in Limbo

    Yet the initial TANCOSS agreement did not include any detailed plans for the refugee settlements after the naturalization of their residents. As a consequence, today the area remains in a governance limbo.

    Every refugee camp had a settlement officer who represented the Ministry of Home Affairs and was responsible for governing the area. Settlement officers remain in power in all three settlements, and they continue to act as the highest authority and arbiters of conflicts.

    “Naturalization certificates are important because they allow us to move, but opening of this space is crucial and still needs to happen,” said one church leader in Ulyankulu, referring to the full integration of the settlements. “As long as we still have a settlement officer and a closed space, the process is not complete.”

    It remains unclear when and how a transition to local governance will take place and what rights to the land the new citizens have. The Tanzania Strategy for Local Integration Program for the New Citizens (TANSPLI), drafted in 2016, stipulates the creation of a master land use plan for the settlements and the surrounding areas, followed by the registration of villages in each settlement and provision of documentation for land rights.

    However, the timeline for implementation is unclear. It “hinges on the availability of funding for the planned development projects,” according to Suleiman Mziray, who is assistant director of refugee services at Ministry of Home Affairs.

    “People here don’t have ownership, you can be taken off your land at any time,” said one elderly man from Kaswa village in Ulyankulu settlement. “It’s like a marriage with no certificate.”
    Lack of Accountability

    Some of these challenges have led to a political stalemate between humanitarian organizations and the government, with each claiming the other has not kept its promises. Meanwhile, residents of the settlements suffer the consequences, as they wait for citizenship documents and investment in infrastructure like access to clean water.

    Due to major delays in the distribution of citizenship certificates by the government, international funding for the promised development projects was redirected to other emergencies. Some of the aid was initially meant for resettlement, so once the refugees were allowed to stay in the former camps, funds were reallocated. Now that they are no longer refugees but citizens, they fall into a responsibility gap. “We have done our part,” a UNHCR official told me on condition of anonymity.

    On the other side is the Tanzanian government: frustrated and disillusioned. They say they were promised that major investments will follow the distribution of citizenship but they never arrived. “We kept our part of the deal and distributed citizenship. But none of the promises materialized,” said an official at the Ministry of Home Affairs.

    The government says it does not intend to invest in the settlements for now, as they are still hoping that international funding might come through eventually.

    Earlier agreements left it ambiguous who would be responsible for implementing the administrative, developmental and social programs that were designed to turn former refugee settlements into properly integrated towns and villages. Without accountability mechanisms, it is hard for former refugees to hold humanitarian organizations or the government to their initial promises.
    Three Lessons from Tanzania

    Clearly, the design and implementation of the naturalization policy was far from perfect. The experience of Tanzania offers a few important lessons.

    First, if similar mass naturalization policies are to be implemented elsewhere, it is key that they are drafted as binding documents, where the parties dedicated to the process (both national governments and international organizations) can be held accountable if they do not deliver on the promises and commitments made within an agreed timeline.

    Second, such policies should be more carefully drafted, incorporating provisions on post-naturalization arrangements regarding local governance and land ownership.

    Finally, despite the pitfalls and unforeseen challenges, my interviews with former refugees shows that naturalization is very important to them. They are acutely aware that citizenship is not a panacea, but firmly maintain that access to legal status provides them with a sense of security and the right to remain in the country, allaying fears of forced repatriation and deportation.

    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/02/22/lessons-from-tanzanias-historic-bid-to-turn-refugees-to-citizens?platfor
    #naturalisation #citoyenneté #nationalité #modèle_tanzanien #Tanzanie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_burundais

    v. aussi le #modèle_ougandais qui donne un lopin de terre aux réfugiés

  • How Photographing Lost Objects Revealed Another Lens on — Refugees Deeply
    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/07/02/how-photographing-lost-objects-revealed-another-lens-on-migration

    For years, Sicilian photographer Mario Badagliacca has been documenting migrants’ journeys – as they land on the shores of Lampedusa or trek across Europe’s borders. His striking series “Frammenti” (Fragments) documents the personal belongings recovered from the so-called Cemetery of Boats on Lampedusa. Another series, “The Game,” explores the harsh environments and survival strategies along the Balkan route through Europe.

    As part of our series “Picturing Refugees,” we talk to Badagliacca about the constraints of the photojournalism industry and his work documenting a broader scope of migrant experiences.

  • Why Comics Are So Effective at Telling Refugees’ Stories

    Our series Picturing Refugees continues with Poppy Ogier from PositiveNegatives explaining the power of illustrative storytelling and why it works in depicting human stories of refuge and migration.


    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/06/26/why-comics-are-so-effective-at-telling-refugees-stories
    #BD #bande_dessinée #méthodologie #efficacité #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • Alors que les #Etats-nations (notamment l’#Italie dans ce cas précis) ferment les portes aux exilés, les #villes semblent aujourd’hui faire preuve de #solidarité.

    Il y a eu l’exemple de #Valence, mais #Barcelone et #Berlin se disent prêtes à accueillir les personnes sauvées par les navires des #ONG en #Méditerranée.

    Ici, des liens sur les #villes-refuge :
    http://seen.li/eh64

    Et ci-dessous, dans le fil de la discussion, des liens plus récents.

    #Etat-nation #villes #urban_matter #migrations #réfugiés #asile

    • Barcelona urges Spain to allow migrant ship to dock

      Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau is calling on Spain’s prime minister to grant the city docking rights to help a Spanish aid boat that rescued 60 migrants in the Mediterranean near Libya.

      The Open Arms boat, run by Spanish aid group Proactiva Open Arms, was the cause of a political row Saturday between Italy and Malta, who both rejected taking in the aid boat’s migrants.

      Mr Colau tweeted that Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez should “save lives” because Barcelona “doesn’t want to be an accomplice to the policies of death of Matteo Salvini,” referring to Italy’s hard-line interior minister.

      Mr Salvini, head of an anti-migrant party in the Italian coalition government, has vowed that no more humanitarian groups’ rescue boats will dock in Italy.

      The Spanish vessel said it rescued the migrants Saturday — including five women, a nine-year-old child and three teenagers — after it spotted a rubber boat patched with duct tape floating in the sea. All the migrants appeared in good health.

      "Despite the hurdles, we continue to protect the right to life of invisible people,’ said Open Arms.

      Mr Salvini quickly declared that the rescue boat “can forget about arriving in an Italian port” and claimed the boat should go to Malta, the nearest port.

      But Malta swiftly pushed back, with its interior minister contending that the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, south of Sicily, was closer to the boat.

      Earlier this month, Rome rejected the Aquarius ship carrying 630 migrants, forcing it to eventually dock in Spain.

      “For women and children really fleeing the war the doors are open, for everyone else they are not!” Mr Salvini tweeted.

      https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/barcelona-urges-spain-to-allow-migrant-ship-to-dock-1.745767
      #villes-refuge

    • Migrants rescue boat allowed to dock in Barcelona

      A Spanish rescue boat which plucked 60 migrants from a patched-up rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean Sea near Libya has been given permission to sail to Barcelona, following another political row between Italy and Malta over where the vessel should dock.

      The boat, Open Arms, run by Spanish aid group Proactiva Open Arms, said it rescued the migrants – including five women, a nine-year-old child and three teenagers – after it spotted a rubber boat patched with duct tape floating in the sea. All the migrants appeared in good health.

      Italy’s right-wing interior minister Matteo Salvini quickly declared that the rescue boat “can forget about arriving in an Italian port”, and claimed it should instead go to Malta, the nearest port.

      Malta swiftly pushed back, with its interior minister contending that the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, south of Sicily, was closer to the boat.

      http://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-30/migrants-rescue-boat-allowed-to-dock-in-barcelona

    • #Palerme:

      La Commission régionale de l’Urbanisme a rejeté le projet de pré-faisabilité du « #hotspot » à Palerme, confirmant l’avis du Conseil municipal de Palerme. L’avis de la Commission régionale reste technique. Le maire de Palerme a rappelé que "la ville de Palerme et toute sa communauté sont opposés à la création de centres dans lesquels la dignité des personnes est violée (...). Palerme reste une ville qui croit dans les valeurs de l’accueil, de la solidarité et des rencontres entre les peuples et les cultures, les mettant en pratique au quotidien. En cela, notre « non » à l’hotspot n’est pas et ne sera pas seulement un choix technique, mais plutôt un choix relatif à des principes et des valeurs".
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT) : http://www.palermotoday.it/politica/hotspot-zen-progetto-bocciato-regione.html

      – Leoluca Orlando, le maire de Palerme, continue de défier le gouvernement et les politiques migratoires de Salvini. La nouvelle querelle fait suite à une circulaire envoyée aux préfets et présidents de commissions sur la reconnaissance de la protection internationale. Matteo Salvini souhaite une accélération de l’examen des demandes et un accès plus strict au titre de séjour pour motif(s) humanitaire(s), un des avantages les plus accordés (cette année, ils représentaient 28% des trois titres de séjour prévus par la loi). La circulaire invite les commissions à être plus rigoureuses dans l’examen de la vulnérabilité.
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT) : www.palermotoday.it/politica/migranti-polemica-orlando-salvini-querela.html ?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      – 8 Juillet, 18h : manifestation citoyenne des oppressé.es à Palerme.
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT), lien vers l’évènement : http://palermo.carpediem.cd/events/7342024-prima-le-oppresse-e-gli-oppressi-at-piazza-giuseppe-verdi

      –-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • Migranti: parte l’offensiva degli amministratori locali contro la deriva xenofoba e razzista del Governo

      Primo firmatario dell’appello «inclusione per una società aperta» Nicola Zingaretti; tra gli aderenti Sala, Pizzarotti e De Magistris.

      Trentatré episodi di aggressioni a sfondo razzista da quando il governo Salvini - Di Maio si è insediato, tre solo nelle ultime ore; porti chiusi e criminalizzazione delle Ong; ruspe sui campi rom e una narrazione costante e diffusa che parla di invasione, sostituzione etnica, pericolo immigrazione: qualcuno ha deciso di non restare in silenzio e mostrare che esiste anche un’Italia che rifiuta tutto questo, rivendica lo stato di diritto e sostiene l’inclusione sociale come valore assoluto.

      Per questo oggi stato lanciato - e ha già raccolto più di 200 adesioni in tutta Italia - il manifesto «Inclusione per una società aperta», ideato e promosso dai consiglieri regionali del Lazio Alessandro Capriccioli, Marta Bonafoni, Paolo Ciani, Mauro Buschini e Daniele Ognibene e rivolto a tutti gli amministratori locali che rifiutino «la retorica dell’invasione e della sostituzione etnica, messa in campo demagogicamente al solo scopo di ottenere consenso elettorale, dagli imprenditori della paura e dell’odio sociale; rifiutino il discorso pubblico di denigrazione e disprezzo del prossimo e l’incitamento all’odio, che nutrono una narrazione della disuguaglianza, giustificano e fanno aumentare episodi di intolleranza ed esplicito razzismo», col fine di costruire «una rete permanente che, dato l’attuale contesto politico, affronti il tema delle migrazioni e dell’accoglienza su scala nazionale a partire dalle esperienze e dalle politiche locali, con l’obiettivo di opporsi fattivamente alla deriva sovranista e xenofoba che sta investendo il nostro paese», come si legge nell’appello diffuso quest’oggi.

      «In Italia viviamo una situazione senza precedenti», ha spiegato Alessandro Capriccioli, capogruppo di +Europa Radicali durante la conferenza stampa di lancio dell’appello insieme ai colleghi Paolo Ciani, Marta Bonaforni e Marietta Tidei. «Attraverso una strategia quasi scientifica è stato imposto un racconto sull’immigrazione che alimenta l’odio e lo sfrutta per ottenere consensi. Questo manifesto si rivolge agli amministratori locali che affrontano sul campo il tema dell’immigrazione con risultati virtuosi che spesso smentiscono quel racconto, ed è uno strumento per formare una rete istituzionale che potrà diventare un interlocutore autorevole e credibile in primo luogo di questo Governo, dettando indicazioni, strategie e proposte».

      Paolo Ciani, capogruppo di Centro Solidale, ha sottolineato come «questa narrazione distorta sta portando a un imbarbarimento della nostra società. Gli episodi di questi giorni rappresentano solo la punta dell’iceberg di un atteggiamento diffuso: sappiamo tutti che esistono degli istinti bassi che appartengono a tutti gli esseri umani e che, se trovano una loro legittimazione nelle istituzioni, diventano un problema». Marietta Tidei, consigliera regionale del Pd ha posto l’attenzione sul fatto che «oggi viene raccontato solo il brutto dell’immigrazione, ma noi siamo qui per dire che c’è anche molto che ha funzionato: il programma Sprar è un esempio virutoso», mentre la capogruppo della Lista Civica Zingaretti Marta Bonafoni ha sottolineato come ciò che conta sia «la quantità e la pronta risposta che stiamo avendo: la distribuzione geografica ci dice che c’è un’altra italia, che con questo appello diventa una rete istituzionale che si pone come interlocutrice del Governo».

      Oltre al Presidente della regione Lazio hanno già sottoscritto l’appello Beppe Sala, sindaco di Milano, Federico Pizzarotti, sindaco di Parma, Luigi De Magistris, sindaco di Napoli e più di 200 tra assessori e consiglieri regionali, sindaci, presidenti di municipi e consiglieri comunali e municipali da ogni parte d’Italia.

      http://www.repubblica.it/solidarieta/immigrazione/2018/08/03/news/migranti_parte_l_offensiva_degli_amministratori_locali_contro_la_deriva_x
      #xénophobie #racisme #anti-racisme

    • Espagne : #Bilbao accueille de plus en plus de migrants

      Dernière étape avant la France ou une autre destination, Bilbao accueille de plus en plus de migrants débarqués sur les plages du sud de l’Espagne. Le Pays basque, connu pour être doté d’un réseau de solidarité citoyenne très développé, prend en charge le sort de ces migrants en transit. C’est le cas de l’association #Ongi_Etorri_regugiak - « Bienvenue réfugié » - qui depuis trois mois aide un groupe de 130 subsahariens livrés à eux-mêmes.

      Dans la cour de récréation, une vingtaine d’Africains jouent au football en attendant l’heure du dîner. C’est dans cette ancienne école primaire du quartier populaire de Santuxtu, transformée en centre social, que sont hébergés ces migrants âgés de plus de 18 ans. Tous ont débarqué en zodiac sur les côtes espagnoles, puis ont été transportés jusqu’à Bilbao dans des bus affrétés par les autorités espagnoles. Mais à leur arrivée, ils sont très vite livrés à eux-mêmes.

      La solidarité d’une centaine de personnes a permis d’aider ces migrants et de prendre la relève des autorités locales comme le souligne Martha, une des volontaires. « On a ouvert ce dispositif entre personnes qui n’ont aucun moyen économique, c’est autofinancé, et on apprend sur le tas un peu de tout, explique-t-elle. Il y a des gens qui restent dormir pour voir si tout se passe bien. On est là pour les accompagner, pour créer aussi le lien avec les gens d’ici, avec la ville. C’est très émouvant de voir comment s’est créée une chaîne de solidarité entre différents quartiers peu à peu, qui ne devrait pas s’arrêter là et on espère qu’elle ne va pas se rompre ».

      Parmi ces migrants, Zacharia, un Camerounais de 29 ans, désigné chef cuisinier. C’est lui qui prépare les repas pour les 130 personnes avec les vivres donnés par les habitants du coin. Il espère l’obtenir l’asile politique, mais il va devoir attendre six mois pour avoir son premier rendez-vous avec les autorités, ce qui le préoccupe.

      Les autorités basques ont promis de se pencher sur le sort de ces migrants, mais d’ordinaire, ils sont très peu à choisir de rester au Pays basque. La plupart décident de continuer leur périple vers le nord de l’Europe avec ou sans aide.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/11498/espagne-bilbao-accueille-de-plus-en-plus-de-migrants

    • #Atlanta says NO to detention and YES to increased legal services and support for family reunification:

      Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms Issues Executive Order to Permanently End City of Atlanta Receiving ICE Detainees

      Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has signed an Executive Order directing the Chief of the Atlanta City Department of Corrections to take the necessary action to permanently stop receiving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees under the current agreement with the United States Marshals Service.


      https://t.co/9jZoIICiIi
      #détention_administrative #rétention

      #USA #Etats-Unis

    • How Cities Are Demanding a Greater Voice on Migration

      Cities are developing their own solutions to help fast-growing migrant and refugee populations in urban areas. Cities expert Robert Muggah describes the swell of initiatives by urban leaders and what it will take to overcome the barriers ahead.

      Most refugees and internally displaced people live in cities. Yet urban leaders are regularly excluded from international discussions about refugee response.

      Robert Muggah, cofounder of the Brazil-based think-tank the Igarape Institute and Canadian risk consultancy The SecDev Group, is among a growing chorus of city and migration experts calling for that to change. His recent paper for the World Refugee Council describes how cities are developing their own solutions and offers a blueprint for better cooperation.

      “Cities will need resources to scale up their activities,” Muggah told Refugees Deeply. “This may require changes in laws so that cities can determine their own residence policies and keep tax revenues generated by migrants who move there.”

      Refugees Deeply talked to Muggah about how city leaders are championing new approaches to displacement and the barriers they’re trying to overcome.
      Refugees Deeply: Are the global compacts on refugees and migration a missed opportunity for a smarter international approach to urban refugees and migrants?

      Robert Muggah: The international response to the urbanization of displacement has been woefully inadequate. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in particular, was remarkably slow to empower cities to assume a greater role in protecting and assisting refugees and other groups of concern. And while it has made some modest improvements, the UNHCR’s strategic plan (2017–21) makes just one reference to urban refugees – acknowledging that they constitute the majority of the agency’s caseload – but offers no vision or concrete recommendations moving forward.

      The global compacts on migration and refugees were never going to be revolutionary. But so far they have been a disappointment seen from the vantage point of cities. While still under review, the new compacts only tangentially address the central role of urban authorities, businesses and civic associations in supporting displaced populations. While they offer a suite of sensible-sounding proposals to ensure a more predictable approach to protection and care and “regularize” population movements more generally, they are silent on the role of cities. The global compact on refugees mentions the word “urban” just four times and “cities” just once. These omissions have not gone unnoticed: cities and inter-city networks are agitating for a greater voice.

      The global compacts on migration and refugees were never going to be revolutionary. But so far they have been a disappointment seen from the vantage point of cities.
      Refugees Deeply: What are some of the main political and institutional blockages to better equipping cities around the world to protect and care for migrants and refugees?

      Muggah: For most of the 20th and 21st centuries, nation states have actively resisted giving cities more discretion in responding to issues of cross-border and internal population displacement. Cities will not find recourse in international law, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also have nothing to say about urban displacement. More positively, the nonbinding New Urban Agenda offers more concrete direction on cooperation between national and subnational authorities to address the needs of refugees and internally displaced people.

      Cities have also received comparatively limited support from international organizations to support urban refugees and displaced people. On the contrary – the UNHCR has instead emphasized the need to reduce assistance and promote self-reliance. Under immense pressure from U.N. member states, and host states in particular, the UNHCR sought to limit refugees from moving to cities where possible. UNHCR made tentative gestures to move beyond the minimalist approach and advocate for refugee rights in cities in the 2000s, but a camp-based model prevailed. There were concerns that the focus on refugees in cities could antagonize host countries, many of whom saw displaced people as a threat to domestic and international security.
      Refugees Deeply: What are some of the factors common to the most proactive and innovative cities on these issues?

      Muggah: A growing number of cities are demanding a greater voice on issues of migration and displacement. Earlier in 2018 a small delegation of cities – led by New York – sent recommendations to improve the overall wording and content of the Global Compact. Likewise, in 2017, the International Organization for Migration, together with the United Cities and Local Government (UCLG), assembled 150 cities to sign the Mechelen Declaration demanding a seat at the decision-making table. And in 2015, Eurocities also issued a statement on refugees in the wake of the influx of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. They set up Solidarity Cities, which provides support to help cities deliver services and identify effective long-term solutions to protect social cohesion and integration.

      Cities are also getting on with developing legislative and policy frameworks to welcome refugees and promote protection, care and assistance. Good examples include more than 100 “welcoming cities” in the U.S. that have committed to promoting integration, developing institutional strategies for inclusion, building leadership among new arrivals and providing support to refugees. Meanwhile, some 500 jurisdictions describe themselves as “sanctuary cities.” Despite threats of cuts to funding, they are resisting federal efforts to enforce immigration law and are on the front line of supporting refugees. In the U.K., at least 80 “cities of sanctuary” offer another approach to providing compassionate solutions for refugees. Large and medium-sized cities across Europe are also adopting similar strategies, in cooperation with Eurocities – a network of major European cities founded in 1986.

      While it can generate tension with federal counterparts, these city-level responses can help contribute to greater safety and economic progress in the long run. Cities, states and countries with sanctuary policies tend to be safer and more prosperous than those without them. Sanctuary cities can build trust between law enforcement agencies and migrant communities. Likewise, the economies of sanctuary cities, towns and counties are largely more resilient than nonsanctuary counterparts, whether measured in terms of the population’s income, reliance on public assistance or labor force participation.
      Refugees Deeply: Many cities face financial and political limitations on their ability to respond to refugee crises. Where have you seen good examples of devolution of power and resources helping cities to respond better?

      Muggah: There are countless examples of cities strengthening their protection and care for urban refugees in a time of austerity. In New York, for example, city authorities launched ActionNYC, which offers free, safe legal assistance for migrants and refugees in multiple languages. In Barcelona, the SAIER (Service Center for Immigrants, Emigrants and Refugees) program provides free advice on asylum and return, while Milan works with the UNHCR and Save the Children to offer services for unaccompanied minors.

      Montreal established the BINAM (Bureau d’integration des nouveaux arrivants a Montreal) program to provide on-the-job training and mentoring to new arrivals, and Sao Paulo has created municipal immigration councils to help design, implement and monitor the city’s policies. Likewise, cities such as Atlanta and Los Angeles are requiring that migrants – in particular, refugees – have equal access to city facilities, services and programs regardless of their citizenship status.

      Cities are also banding together, pooling their resources to achieve greater influence on the urban refugee agenda. Today there are more than 200 intercity networks dedicated to urban priorities, ranging from governance and climate change to public safety and migration. Several of them have dedicated guidelines on how cities can protect and care for refugees. For example, the Global Parliament of Mayors, established in 2016, focuses on, among other things, promoting inclusive cities for refugees and advocating on their behalf. The International Coalition of Inclusive and Sustainable Cities and the UCLG are others, having teamed up with think-tanks and international agencies to strengthen information-sharing and best practices. Another new initiative is Urban20, which is promoting social integration, among other issues, and planning an inaugural meeting in October 2018.
      Refugees Deeply: Most cities at the forefront of refugee crises are in the Global South. What recommendations would you offer to ensure that international responses to urban displacement do not become too North-centric?

      Muggah: This reality is often lost on Northern policymakers and citizens as they seek to restrict new arrivals and reduce overseas assistance. The Carnegie Mellon University’s Create Lab and the Igarape Institute have developed a range of data visualization tools to highlight these trends, but a much greater effort is required to educate the public. These outreach efforts must be accompanied with a dramatic scaling-up of assistance to redressing the “causes” of displacement as well as supporting front-line cities absorbing the vast majority of the world’s displaced populations.


      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/09/21/how-cities-are-demanding-a-greater-voice-on-migration

    • Création de l’#association_nationale des #villes et #territoires accueillants

      À l’heure où l’échec des politiques migratoires européenne et nationale entraîne une montée des populismes tout en restreignant les droits humains fondamentaux, nous, élu.e.s de villes et collectivités, décidons de nous unir sous une bannière commune : celle de l’accueil inconditionnel.

      Nous demandons ainsi que l’Etat assume ses missions et assure les moyens pour créer des solutions d’accueil, d’hébergement et d’accompagnement plus nombreuses et plus qualitatives que celles existantes aujourd’hui. Cela doit passer par la mise en place d’une stratégie nationale d’accueil afin de répartir et d’accompagner l’effort de solidarité.

      Nous l’enjoignons à respecter le droit et ses engagements internationaux (Protocole de Quito de l’ONU, Convention de Genève), européens (Pacte d’Amsterdam) et nationaux (Code des Familles et de l’Action Sociale)

      Néanmoins, dépositaires d’une tradition d’accueil et de valeurs humanistes, nous, élu.e.s locaux et territoriaux, mettons en oeuvre et expérimentons déjà sur nos territoires, au quotidien, des réponses aux impératifs de l’urgence humanitaire et d’inclusion de tout un chacun, même quand l’Etat est défaillant.
      Surtout, nous agissons en responsabilité, conformément à nos obligations règlementaires et législatives.

      L’association que nous avons constituée à Lyon 1er le 26 septembre 2018, rassemble tout.e.s les élu.e.s promouvant l’hospitalité, source de politiques inclusives et émancipatrices. Fort.e.s de notre expérience, animé.e.s par la volonté d’agir collectivement, nous donnerons à voir que des solutions dignes sont possibles et adaptées à chaque situation locale. Il n’y a pas UNE politique d’accueil, mais autant que de particularismes locaux.

      Elle permettra de mettre en avant toutes les réussites locales en matière d’accueil sur notre
      territoire et les réussites que cela engendre lorsque chacun assume ses responsabilités.
      Elle permettra aussi, la mise en commun de bonnes pratiques, l’accompagnement de territoires volontaires, la mobilisation autour d’enjeux liés aux politiques migratoires, la proposition de mesures adaptées. En partenariat avec toutes les forces vives volontaires : acteurs associatifs, citoyen.ne.s, universitaires, juristes, militant.e.s, etc.

      Nous souhaitons la bienvenue aux élu.e.s de tous horizons et de tout territoire, qui, partageant nos valeurs humanistes et notre volonté politique, veulent rejoindre notre association.

      Damien CARÊME, Maire de #Grande-Synthe, Président de l’Association
      Catherine BASSANI, Représentante de la ville de #Nantes
      Philippe BOUYSSOU, Maire d’#Ivry-Sur-Seine
      Marie-Dominique DREYSSE, Maire-adjointe de #Strasbourg
      Gérard FROMM, Maire de #Briançon
      Corinne IEHL, Elue de #Lyon 7ème arrondissement
      Myriam LAÏDOUNI-DENIS, Elue de la #Région_Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
      Bernard MACRET, 4ème Adjoint aux Solidarités Internationales, #Grenoble
      Halima MENHOUDJ, Adjointe au Maire de #Montreuil
      Jaklin PAVILLA, 1ère Adjointe au Maire de #Saint-Denis
      Nathalie PERRIN-GILBERT, Maire du 1er arrondissement de Lyon
      Eric PIOLLE, Maire de #Grenoble
      Laurent RUSSIER, Maire de #Saint-Denis
      Bozena WOJCIECHOWSKI, Adjointe au Maire d’Ivry-sur-Seine

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/fini-de-rire/blog/280918/creation-de-l-association-nationale-des-villes-et-territoires-accuei
      #villes_accueillantes #territoires_accueillants #France
      #ANVITA

    • How Cities Can Shape a Fairer, More Humane Immigration Policy

      National governments do not have all the answers on immigration says Bristol mayor Marvin Rees. Ahead of a mayors’ summit he outlines a better city-led response.

      People have always been on the move, both within nations and across borders, but increasingly migrants tend to settle in cities. This puts cities and their responses at the heart of the conversation, something we are looking to highlight at the Global Parliament of Mayors (GPM) Summit here in Bristol.

      There is a steady upward trend in the number of people who have left their homelands voluntarily for economic or other reasons, or who are forced to leave their homes as refugees or displaced persons for reasons of conflict or environmental disaster. Population diversity in most developed countries can be attributed to international migration, whereas in developing nations it is mostly internal migration that contributes to this diversity.

      This is an important moment in the United Kingdom’s approach to the issue of migration. The upcoming Immigration Bill, expected toward the end of this year, will bring unprecedented reform of U.K. immigration policy. At the same time, the scandal over the treatment of the Windrush generation has brought to public consciousness the impact of this government’s “hostile environment” policy and the burdensome bureaucracy the Home Office is inflicting on individual human lives. A fairer, more compassionate system is needed, one in which no one is detained without knowing why and when they will be released. It is everyone’s legitimate right to enjoy a family life with loved ones and to realize the aspiration to provide for oneself and one’s family and contribute to society through employment.

      However, national governments clearly do not have all the answers. Around the world, it is cities that are increasingly collaborating nationally and across borders, learning from each other and replicating good practice. Cities’ experiences have to be included in the national debate on how to take advantage of the full potential of migration and drive a change in policies and mind-set to ensure that migration is embraced as an opportunity rather than seen solely as a challenge.

      That is why this will be high on the agenda at the GPM summit opening on October 21, with almost 100 mayors representing both developed and emerging states in attendance. Cities are where migrants interact with communities, society and, if only indirectly, with the host country. The social, economic, political and cultural activities in a city can play a crucial role in countering the anxiety and fears associated with migration, and help integration and inclusivity. Where the right policies and practices are in place, migration can bring huge benefits to communities and cities, fueling growth, innovation and entrepreneurship.
      City Responses

      City responses to migration and refugees have been varied and multifaceted but they are characterized by the theme of inclusion, with city leaders attempting to design and implement policies that allow newcomers to contribute to, and benefit from, the flourishing of their new communities. These responses are rooted in an approach that is both principled and pragmatic – seeking to uphold human rights and dignity while at the same time identifying practical solutions to the challenges affecting local residents. At a time when, at national and international level, migration has been used by some as a political weapon to stoke resentment and tension, this city perspective has never been more vital in bringing both humanity and reality back into public discourse.

      In seeking to develop inclusive solutions on migration, cities across the globe are innovating and developing new models of best practice.

      Amsterdam has adopted a programme called “Everyone’s Police,” which encourages the reporting of crimes in the interest of more effective policing and community engagement.

      New York City has created the I.D. NYC scheme, a government-issued identification card available to all residents regardless of immigration status that enables people to access a variety of services and discounts in the city.

      Barcelona supports children and families applying for family reunification by providing comprehensive and personalized guidance on the legal, practical and psychological aspects of the process.

      Sao Paulo has established the Coordination of Policies for Migrants’ Unite within its municipal structures to promote city policies for migrants across departments and disciplines and in a participative manner.

      Amman has welcomed almost 2 million migrants and refugees in the last two decades as a result of conflicts in neighboring countries. And cities in Uganda have played a key role in implementing national policies designed to allow refugees to own land and set up businesses.

      These are just a handful of examples of the great work already being done by many cities on these issues. These innovations will be examined in detail at the GPM summit, with city representatives sharing their valuable learning and experience.

      A number of initiatives and networks have been established to support and catalyze such innovations and share best practice across different city contexts, from the World Economic Forum Global Future Council on Migration to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Champion Mayors for Inclusive Growth – and many more. Together these networks provide a wealth of resources and insight for cities seeking to make inclusion a reality.
      A Voice for Cities on the Global Stage

      Despite this vital work on the ground, cities remain underrepresented on the global stage when it comes to key decision-making on migration and refugee issues. This is the challenge the GPM summit will address.

      The GPM has already been actively engaged in the negotiations on the United Nations global compacts on migration and refugees. As the mayor of Bristol I become the first city leader to speak in the deliberations on the compact on migration in May 2018.

      At the summit we will debate and decide how, collectively, we can take a leadership role for cities in the implementation of the global compacts. We will hear from other key international stakeholders, as well as from mayors with direct and varied experience. And we will agree on practical steps to enable cities to implement the compacts in their areas of influence.

      The price of inaction is huge – a critical global diplomatic process could once again largely pass cities by and leave national-level politicians bickering over watered-down commitments. The potential prize is just as significant – a recognized seat at the table for cities to review and implement global compacts, and a range of practical resources to maximize the contributions that migrants and refugees can bring to our communities.

      Our conversations in Bristol represent a critical opportunity to better grasp the key issues for cities related to migration and integration, and to amplify the voice of city leaders in international policymaking relating to migrants and refugees.


      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/10/19/how-cities-can-shape-a-fairer-more-humane-immigration-policy

    • Migranti, «Venite al porto di Napoli, vi accogliamo»

      E sul fronte migranti: «Io faccio una proposta ai timonieri di navi: la prossima volta che avete un problema per le autorizzazioni avvicinatevi alle acque territoriali di una città povera ma dalla grande dignità. Avvicinatevi al porto di Napoli. Noi disponiamo di due gommoni come Comune, un po’ malandati ma funzionanti. Vi assicuro che ci sono pescatori democratici e tanta gente in grado di remare e venire a prendere. E mi metto io nella prima barca, voglio vedere se ci sparano addosso».

      https://napoli.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/12/01/news/incontro_con_de_magistris_a_roma_nasce_terzo_fronte_-213118777/?ref=fbpr

    • Italie : #Palerme, l’exception

      En juin, il a été l’un des premiers à proposer d’accueillir l’Aquarius et ses passagers indésirables : Leoluca Orlando, le maire de Palerme, s’affiche comme l’un des plus farouches opposants à la politique migratoire du gouvernement italien. Il milite entre autres, pour la disparition du permis de séjour et la libre-circulation des personnes.

      Ces trois dernières années, la capitale sicilienne a accueilli des dizaines de milliers de migrants. Ils sont nombreux à y être restés et, parmi eux, beaucoup de mineurs isolés. Pour les prendre en charge, une multitude d’associations travaillent main dans la main avec le soutien de la mairie.
      Reportage à Palerme, où les initiatives se multiplient, à contre-courant de la politique du ministre de l’intérieur, Mateo Salvini.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/084352-000-A/italie-palerme-l-exception

      signalé par @sinehebdo
      https://seenthis.net/messages/743236

    • Le temps est venu pour des villes solidaires...


      https://twitter.com/seawatchcrew/status/1078595657051574272?s=19

      Stuck at Sea for over 6 days – the New Year for the rescued on Sea-Watch 3 must start ashore!

      Already on Saturday, the crew of the Sea-Watch 3 has saved 32 people from drowning, including four women, three unaccompanied minors, two young children and a baby. Five countries (Italy, Malta, Spain, Netherlands, Germany) refused to take responsibility and grant the rescued a port of safety for Christmas.
      In Germany only, more than 30 cities and several federal states have declared themselves to be safe havens and are willing to accept those rescued from distress at sea.

      https://sea-watch.org/en/stuck-at-sea-for-over-6-days-without-port-of-safety

    • NYC to Fund Health Care for All, Including the Undocumented, Mayor Says

      New York Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a $100 million plan that he said would provide affordable “healthcare for all,” reaching about 600,000 people, including undocumented immigrants, low-income residents not enrolled in Medicaid and young workers whose current plans are too expensive.

      The plan, which de Blasio dubbed “NYC Care,” will offer public health insurance on a sliding price scale based on income, the mayor said during an interview Tuesday morning on MSNBC. It will begin later this year in the Bronx and will be available to all New Yorkers in 2021, and would cost at least $100 million once it reaches full enrollment, according to the mayor’s office.

      The proposed city-funded health insurance option would assign a primary care doctor to each plan participant and help patients find specialists if needed. De Blasio said the plan, which would be financed out of the city’s public health budget, would ultimately be cost effective by reducing hospital emergency room visits by uninsured patients and by improving public health.

      The program builds upon the city’s $1.6 billion a-year Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene budget and the separately funded public hospital system, which already serves 475,000 under-insured and uninsured patients annually, including undocumented immigrants, in more than 11 hospitals and 70 neighborhood clinics. The city already has an insurance plan, MetroPlus, that will be used as the template for the coverage. The program may take two years to get “to full strength,” de Blasio said.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-08/nyc-to-fund-health-care-for-all-including-the-undocumented

      #NYC #New_York

    • Avec la « ville-refuge », ce serait un nouveau concept de Ville qui pourrait émerger, un autre droit d’asile, une autre hospitalité qui transformerait le droit international

      Intervenant devant le Parlement international des écrivains pour répondre à un appel lancé en 1995 pour constituer un réseau de villes-refuges susceptibles d’accueillir un écrivain persécuté, Jacques Derrida s’interroge sur les implications de cette proposition. Une Ville peut-elle se distinguer d’un Etat, prendre de sa propre initiative un statut original qui, au moins sur ce point précis, l’autoriserait à échapper aux règles usuelles de la souveraineté nationale ? Peut-elle contribuer à une véritable innovation dans l’histoire du droit d’asile, une nouvelle cosmopolitique, un devoir d’hospitalité revisité ? Inventer cela peut être considéré comme une utopie, mais c’est aussi une tâche théorique et critique, urgente dans un contexte où les violences, les crimes, les tragédies, les persécutions, multiplient les réfugiés, les exilés, les apatrides et les victimes anonymes.

      Le droit d’asile est un vestige médiéval, qui a survécu aux guerres du 20ème siècle. Appeler les villes à renouer avec cette tradition en accueillant les réfugiés comme tels, sans leur proposer ni la naturalisation, ni le retour dans leur région d’origine, implique de déborder les limites fixés par les traités entre Etats souverains. On peut imaginer une nouvelle figure de ville, une ville franche qui bénéficierait d’un statut d’exemption, d’immunité, comparable à celui qui est encore parfois attaché à certains lieux, religieux ou diplomatiques.

      On trouve la notion de ville-refuge dans la bible, chez certains stoïciens grecs, chez Cicéron, Saint Paul (qui la sécularise), dans la tradition médiévale et religieuse (les églises comme lieu de « sauveté »). Les Lumières en héritent et Kant, dans son Article définitif en vue de la paix perpétuelle, en donne une formulation rigoureuse mais restrictive : (1) il limite l’hospitalité au droit de visite, excluant le droit de résidence ; (2) il la fait dépendre du droit étatique. Pour faire progresser le droit, il faut analyser ces restrictions. D’une part l’hospitalité selon Jacques Derrida est une Loi, un droit inconditionnel offert à quiconque, un principe irréductible ; mais d’autre part il faut répondre à l’urgence, à la violence et à la persécution. Cela peut ouvrir la possibilité d’une expérimentation - dans la pratique et dans la pensée, d’une autre idée du cosmopolitisme et de la démocratie à venir.

      En France, le droit d’asile est assez récent. La constitution de 1946 ne l’accorde qu’aux pesonnes persécutées à cause de leur action « en faveur de la liberté », une définition élargie en 1954 (par suite de l’adhésion à la Convention de Genève de 1951) à ceux dont la vie ou la liberté se trouve menacée « en raison de leur race, de leur religion ou de leurs opinions politiques ». L’application de cette Convention n’a été élargie aux personnes hors d’Europe et aux événements survenus après 1951 qu’en 1967. Mais les Etats-nations n’acceptent, en pratique, d’accorder ce droit que sous des conditions qui le rendent parfois presque impossible. En France, il faut que l’exilé ne puisse attendre aucun bénéfice économique de son immigration. Souvent, devant l’imprécision des règles, on laisse la police faire la loi - une confusion inquiétante, voire ignoble, comme le dénonçait Walter Benjamin, quand les limites de l’action de la police deviennent insaisissables, indéterminées. Le droit d’asile implique une subordination stricte de toutes les administrations policières au pouvoir politique.

      https://www.idixa.net/Pixa/pagixa-1308210805.html
      via @nepthys

    • #Jacques_Derrida und die Idee der Zufluchtsstädte

      Nach islamistischen Anschlägen in Algerien Anfang der 90er-Jahre flohen viele Kulturschaffende aus dem Land. Zusammen mit anderen internationalen Intellektuellen initiierte der französische Philosoph Jacques Derrida von Staaten unabhängige Zufluchtsorte für Verfolgte. Welche Kraft hat diese Idee heute?

      Der Exodus arabischer Intellektueller in den Westen hat eine lange Tradition. Vor über 20 Jahren wütete der islamistische Furor in Algerien. Viele Journalisten wurden damals ermordet, den Überlebenden blieb nur die Flucht ins westliche Ausland. Dieses Horrorszenario wiederholt sich heute in Syrien. Karim Chamoun, ein in Mainz lebender Radiojournalist, gibt den syrischen Flüchtlingen eine Stimme. Seine Landsleute informiert er über die eskalierenden Zustände in der Heimat. Offenbar – so berichtet Chamoun – läuft dem regierenden Assad-Clan die noch verbliebene Bildungselite davon:

      „In den letzten 18 Monaten sind sehr viele Pro-Assad-Intel­lektuelle ausgewandert und sind in Deutschland gelandet. Viele sind in der jetzigen Zeit ausgewandert, vor Angst, vor Terror. Die haben keine Organisation, die sie vereint.“

      Das Medieninteresse für Syrien lässt vergessen, dass schon vor über 20 Jahren islamistische Fanatiker eine tödliche Hetzjagd auf Journalisten und Künstler veranstalteten. Der Algerier Tahar Djaout war in den 80er-Jahren bekannt für seine Kommentare im Wochenmagazin Algérie-Actualité. Anfang 1993 gründete Djaout Ruptures – „Brüche“ –, eine Zeitschrift, die sich als Stachel im Fleisch einer autoritär regierten Gesellschaft verstand. Die Redakteure fürchteten allerdings nicht nur die Zensur, sie bangten um ihr Leben, da die „Islamische Heilsfront“ ihnen offen den Kampf angesagt hatte. Im Mai 1993 wurde Tahar Djaout vor seiner Haustür in Algier ermordet. Der Journalist war nicht das erste Opfer der Islamisten, aber das prominenteste. Unzählige andere folgten.

      Tahar Djaouts Ermordung war ein Fanal für die französische Intelligenz. Nicht länger wollte man sich auf den mutlosen internationalen PEN verlassen. Der Philosoph Jacques Derrida und der Soziologe Pierre Bourdieu, die lange Zeit in Algerien gelebt hatten, fühlten sich den Algeriern, den Opfern eines langen, erbitterten Bürgerkrieges gegen die französische Kolonialmacht, eng verbunden. Sie wollten den „Terrainverlust“ der Intellektuellen, einer Elite ohne Macht, wettmachen.
      Die Öffentlichkeit wachrütteln

      Christian Salmon, Gründer des Straßburger Zirkels „Carrefour de littérature“, startete eine Unterschriftenaktion. Weltweit verbündeten sich namhafte Schriftsteller mit den verfolgten Algeriern. Salmon schrieb:

      „Algerische Journalisten und Schriftsteller, die glücklich einem Attentat entkommen sind, müssen sich verbergen, während sie vergeblich auf ein Visum warten. Sie harren ungeduldig vor unseren Grenzen. Hunderte algerische Intellektuelle, dem Hass islamistischer Attentäter ausgeliefert, verdanken ihr Überleben entweder purem Glück oder der Überbeschäftigung der Henker. (…) Wir sagen jetzt: Es reicht! Genug der Morde in Algerien! Schriftsteller, Künstler und Intellektuelle zeigen ihren Widerstand. In aller Deutlichkeit sagen wir: Keine Demokratie ohne Solidarität, keine Zivilisation ohne Gastfreundschaft.“

      Aus Solidarität mit den algerischen Kollegen kamen im November 1993 im Straßburger „Carrefour de littérature“ zahlreiche internationale Autoren zusammen, um die Öffentlichkeit wachzurütteln. 200 Schriftsteller unterzeichneten den Appell. Bei einer rituellen Aktion wollte man es aber nicht belassen: Unter der Leitung des indischen Autors Salman Rushdie, der seit der Fatwa Ayatollah Chomeinis von den iranischen Häschern verfolgt wurde, gründeten sie das Internationale Schriftsteller-Parlament. Währenddessen rief Rushdie, zusammen mit Straßburgs Bürgermeisterin Catherine Trautmann und dem Generalsekretär des Europarats, zur Gründung von Zufluchtsstädten auf – von „villes- refuges“, um verfolgten Schriftstellern und Künstlern Asyl zu gewähren. Salman Rushdie schrieb das Gründungsdokument:

      „Heute widersetzt sich die Literatur ein weiteres Mal der Tyrannei. Wir gründeten das Schriftsteller-Parlament, damit es sich für die unterdrückten Autoren einsetzt und gegen ihre Widersacher erhebt, die es auf sie und ihre Werke abgesehen haben. Nachdrücklich erneuern wir die Unabhängigkeitserklärung, ohne die Literatur unmöglich ist, nicht nur die Literatur, sondern der Traum, nicht nur der Traum, sondern das Denken, nicht nur das Denken, sondern die Freiheit.“
      Kommunen können schneller auf neue Situationen reagieren

      Catherine Trautmann stellte später die Initiative der „villes-refuges“ vor, die zuvor vom Internationalen Schrift­steller-Parlament beschlossen wurde:

      „Es kommt darauf an, dass multikulturell sich verstehende Städte bereit sind, Gedankenfreiheit und Toleranz zu verteidigen. Die in einem Netz verbundenen Städte können etwas bewirken, indem sie verfolgte Künstler und Schriftsteller aufnehmen. Wir wissen, dass Euro­pa ein Kontinent ist, wo über alle Konflikte hinweg Intellektuelle leben und schreiben. Dieses Erbe müssen wir wach halten. Die bedrohten Intellektuellen müssen bei uns Bürgerrecht erhalten. Zu diesem Zweck sollte ein Netz der Solidarität geschaffen werden.“

      Das Projekt der „villes-refuges“ war anfangs äußerst erfolgreich: 1995 beschlossen Vertreter von mehr als 400 europäischen Städten die „Charta der villes-refuges“. Eine Resolution des Europäischen Parlaments förderte ein weltweites Netz von „villes-refuges“. Straßburg und Berlin gehörten zu den ersten „Zu­fluchts­städten“, es folgten Städte wie Venedig und Helsinki.

      Die Skepsis gegenüber den nationalen und überstaatlichen Organisationen wächst. Kommunen, die politische Macht auf lokaler Ebene ausüben, seien imstande, wesentlich schneller und flexibler auf neue, unvorgesehene Situationen zu reagieren, meint der amerikanische Politikwissenschaftler Benjamin Barber:

      „Der Unterschied zu Staaten liegt in der Eigenart der Städte: Sie sind zutiefst multikulturell, partizipatorisch, demokratisch, kooperativ. Städte interagieren und können viel erreichen, während Staaten eigensinnig sind und gemeinsames Handeln behindern. Die Welt globaler Demokratie führt uns nicht zu Staaten, sondern zu Städten. Demokratie entstand in der griechischen polis. Sie könnte ein weiteres Mal in der globalen kosmopolis entstehen.“

      Jacques Derrida ist im Oktober 2004 gestorben. Angesichts der unlösbar scheinenden Flüchtlingsprobleme wäre der Philosoph heutzutage ein verantwortungsvoller und sachkundiger Diskussionspartner. Vielleicht würde er darauf hinweisen, dass sich die Gesetze der Gastfreundschaft keineswegs geändert haben. Denn auch heute müssen Pflichten und Rechte, Grenzen und Freiheiten neu austariert werden. Im Interesse beider – der Gäste und der Gastgeber.

      https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/villes-refuges-jacques-derrida-und-die-idee-der.976.de.html?dr
      #Derrida
      via @nepthys

    • #ICORN

      The #International_Cities_of_Refuge_Network (ICORN) is an independent organisation of cities and regions offering shelter to writers and artists at risk, advancing freedom of expression, defending democratic values and promoting international solidarity.

      Writers and artists are especially vulnerable to censorship, harassment, imprisonment and even death, because of what they do. They represent the liberating gift of the human imagination and give voice to thoughts, ideas, debate and critique, disseminated to a wide audience. They also tend to be the first to speak out and resist when free speech is threatened.

      ICORN member cities offer long term, but temporary, shelter to those at risk as a direct consequence of their creative activities. Our aim is to be able to host as many persecuted writers and artists as possible in ICORN cities and together with our sister networks and organisations, to form a dynamic and sustainable global network for freedom of expression.

      https://icorn.org
      #réseau #art #artistes #liberté_d'expression #écrivains

    • #New_Sanctuary_Coalition

      The New Sanctuary Coalition of #NYC is an interfaith network of congregations, organizations, and individuals, standing publicly in solidarity with families and communities resisting detention and deportation in order to stay together. We recognize that unjust global and systemic economic relationships and racism form the basis of the injustices that affect immigrants. We seek reform of United States immigration laws to promote fairness, social and economic justice.

      http://www.newsanctuarynyc.org
      #New_York

    • #Eine_Stadt_für_Alle

      Eine Stadt, aus der kein Mensch abgeschoben wird, in der sich alle frei und ohne Angst bewegen können, in der kein Mensch nach einer Aufenthaltserlaubnis gefragt wird, in der kein Mensch illegal ist. Das sind die grundlegenden Vorstellungen von einer Solidarity City. In einer solchen Stadt der Solidarität sollen alle Menschen das Recht haben zu leben, zu wohnen und zu arbeiten. Alle Menschen soll der Zugang zu Bildung und medizinischer Versorgung gewährt werden. Alle Menschen sollen teilhaben und das Stadtleben mitgestalten können – unabhängig von Aufenthaltsstatus, finanziellen Möglichkeiten, Hautfarbe, Geschlecht, Sexualität, Religion,…
      In vielen Städten in Deutschland, Europa und der ganzen Welt ist der Prozess, eine Solidarity City zu werden schon in vollem Gang.

      https://solidarity-city.eu/de
      #solidarity_city

    • The Cities Refugees Saved

      In the cities where the most refugees per capita were settled since 2005, the newcomers helped stem or reverse population loss.

      Mahira Patkovich was eight years old in 1997 when her family left Bosnia. After a long and complicated war, Muslim families like hers had found themselves without jobs, food, and any semblance of safety. So they sought refuge in America.

      The first year in their new home in Utica, New York, Patkovich felt uprooted—torn from her childhood and everything she knew, and thrust into an alien environment. She knew no one and didn’t speak English. But as time went by, she began to acclimate.

      “The next thing you know, you’re home,”she says in a recent mini-documentary by New American Economy, a bipartisan immigration reform group, and Off Ramp Films. “This is home.”

      Patkovich, the film shows, is now thriving. She works at the office of the Oneida County Executive, owns a small business, and is on her way to a master’s degree. She is also pregnant, and excited to raise her first-born in a community she loves.

      Utica—it’s clear—saved Patkovich and her family. But the truth is: They’re helping to save this town as well. Like many Rust Belt cities, Utica suffered enormously in the second part of the 20th century, losing jobs and bleeding out residents as major employers like General Electric and Lockheed Martin shuttered or left the Mohawk Valley.

      Adam Bedient, director of photography and editor at Off Ramp Films grew up in the nearby town of Clinton in the 1980s and ’90s. He wasn’t tracking Utica’s trajectory too closely then, in part, because not much was happening there. What he remembers of Utica in that era is a typical fading factory town, a place where shuttered storefronts and exposed bricks belied neglect. “Foundationally, there were beautiful things there, they just didn’t look cared for,” he says.

      Now, he’s working on a full-length feature about the refugee communities in Utica, and when he drives through town, he finds it simmering with new life. Old buildings are getting refurbished. Construction cranes bob up and down. And at the center of town is a long-vacant historic Methodist church that has been renovated and converted into a beautiful mosque—a symbol of the new Utica.

      Without its new Bosnian community, Utica would have faced a 6 percent population drop.

      “It’s really symbolic—it was previously a church that was going to be torn down,” Bedient told CityLab. “The Bosnian community bought it from the city, and now it’s a part of the skyline.”

      For CityLab, NAE crunched the numbers on the 11 cities that have resettled the most refugees per capita between 2005 and 2017 to gauge how welcoming these newcomers affected overall population. In almost all cases, refugee resettlement either stemmed population loss or reversed it completely. Without its new Bosnian community, for example, Utica would have faced a 6 percent population drop. With them, the city saw a 3 percent gain.

      But what Andrew Lim, NAE’s director of quantitative research, found surprising was that this list didn’t just include industrial towns hungry for newcomers—places like Syracuse, New York, and Springfield, Massachusetts; it also features places in the South and Sunbelt. Take Clarkston, Georgia, for example, a diverse Atlanta exurb of 13,000 (whose young mayor you may recognize from a recent episode of Queer Eye). Since the 1970s, Clarkston has taken in tens of thousands of refugees from various parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. In Bitter Southerner, Carly Berlin recently explained how it gained its nickname as the “Ellis Island of the South.”

      As many white residents fled farther out to more fashionable developing Atlanta suburbs, Clarkston became perfect for refugees, with its hundreds of vacated apartments and access to public transportation, a post office, and a grocery store, all within walking distance. The little city became one of now 190 designated resettlement communities across the country.

      Using the data NAE extracted from the Census Bureau and from the Department of Homeland Services, CityLab’s David Montgomery created this nifty chart to show exactly how much refugees boosted or stabilized population in these 11 cities:

      But the pipeline that funneled refugees into cities like Utica is being closed up. In 2018, the Trump administration lowered the maximum number of refugees it takes in for the third year in a row—to 30,000, which is the lowest in three decades. Resettlement agencies, from Western Kansas to Florida, are having to close shop.

      Some places are already seeing the effects. In cities with large concentrations of refugees and refugee services, recent arrivals have been waiting for loved ones to join them. Because of the slash in numbers being accepted, some of these people have been thrust into uncertainty. Muslim refugees from countries listed in the final travel ban have been doubly hit, and may not be able to reunite with their families at all.

      But the effects of the Trump-era refugee policy don’t just affect individual families. In Buffalo, New York—another Rust Belt city that has been reinvigorated by new residents from refugee communities—medical clinics have closed down, housing developments have stalled, and employers have been left looking for employees, The Buffalo News reported. The loss for refugees hoping to come to America appears to also be a loss for the communities they might have called home

      The biggest argument for refugee resettlement is that it is a moral imperative, many advocates argue. Refugees are human beings fleeing terrible circumstances; assisting them is just the right thing to do. Foes of taking refugees—most notoriously, White House advisor Stephen Miller, who is quoted as saying that he would “be happy if not a single refugee foot ever touched American soil again” in a new book by a former White House communication aide—point to the perceived costs and dangers of taking in more. Past analyses shows little basis to that fear. In fact, cities with large refugee populations have seen drops in crime, per a previous NAE’s analysis. And according to NBC News, an intelligence assessment that included inputs from the FBI concluded that refugees did not pose a major national security threat. The Trump administration dismissed its findings.

      https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/01/refugee-admissions-resettlement-trump-immigration/580318
      #USA #Etats-Unis #démographie

  • J’essaie de compiler ici des liens et documents sur les processus d’ #externalisation des #frontières en #Libye, notamment des accords avec l’#UE #EU.

    Les documents sur ce fil n’ont pas un ordre chronologique très précis... (ça sera un boulot à faire ultérieurement... sic)

    Les négociations avec l’#Italie sont notamment sur ce fil :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/600874
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    Peut-être qu’Isabelle, @isskein, pourra faire ce travail de mise en ordre chronologique quand elle rentrera de vacances ??

    • Ici, un des derniers articles en date... par la suite de ce fil des articles plus anciens...

      Le supplice sans fin des migrants en Libye

      Ils sont arrivés en fin d’après-midi, blessés, épuisés, à bout. Ce 23 mai, près de 117 Soudanais, Ethiopiens et Erythréens se sont présentés devant la mosquée de Beni Oualid, une localité située à 120 km au sud-ouest de Misrata, la métropole portuaire de la Tripolitaine (Libye occidentale). Ils y passeront la nuit, protégés par des clercs religieux et des résidents. Ces nouveaux venus sont en fait des fugitifs. Ils se sont échappés d’une « prison sauvage », l’un de ces centres carcéraux illégaux qui ont proliféré autour de Beni Oualid depuis que s’est intensifié, ces dernières années, le flux de migrants et de réfugiés débarquant du Sahara vers le littoral libyen dans l’espoir de traverser la Méditerranée.

      Ces migrants d’Afrique subsaharienne – mineurs pour beaucoup – portent dans leur chair les traces de violences extrêmes subies aux mains de leurs geôliers : corps blessés par balles, brûlés ou lacérés de coups. Selon leurs témoignages, quinze de leurs camarades d’évasion ont péri durant leur fuite.

      Cris de douleur
      A Beni Oualid, un refuge héberge nombre de ces migrants en détresse. Des blocs de ciment nu cernés d’une terre ocre : l’abri, géré par une ONG locale – Assalam – avec l’assistance médicale de Médecins sans frontières (MSF), est un havre rustique mais dont la réputation grandit. Des migrants y échouent régulièrement dans un piètre état. « Beaucoup souffrent de fractures aux membres inférieurs, de fractures ouvertes infectées, de coups sur le dos laissant la chair à vif, d’électrocution sur les parties génitales », rapporte Christophe Biteau, le chef de la mission MSF pour la -Libye, rencontré à Tunis.

      Leurs tortionnaires les ont kidnappés sur les routes migratoires. Les migrants et réfugiés seront détenus et suppliciés aussi longtemps qu’ils n’auront pas payé une rançon, à travers les familles restées au pays ou des amis ayant déjà atteint Tripoli. Technique usuelle pour forcer les résistances, les détenus torturés sont sommés d’appeler leurs familles afin que celles-ci puissent entendre en « direct » les cris de douleur au téléphone.

      Les Erythréens, Somaliens et Soudanais sont particulièrement exposés à ce racket violent car, liés à une diaspora importante en Europe, ils sont censés être plus aisément solvables que les autres. Dans la région de Beni Oualid, toute cette violence subie, ajoutée à une errance dans des zones désertiques, emporte bien des vies. D’août 2017 à mars 2018, 732 migrants ont trouvé la mort autour de Beni Oualid, selon Assalam.

      En Libye, ces prisons « sauvages » qui parsèment les routes migratoires vers le littoral, illustration de l’osmose croissante entre réseaux historiques de passeurs et gangs criminels, cohabitent avec un système de détention « officiel ». Les deux systèmes peuvent parfois se croiser, en raison de l’omnipotence des milices sur le terrain, mais ils sont en général distincts. Affiliés à une administration – le département de lutte contre la migration illégale (DCIM, selon l’acronyme anglais) –, les centres de détention « officiels » sont au nombre d’une vingtaine en Tripolitaine, d’où embarque l’essentiel des migrants vers l’Italie. Si bien des abus s’exercent dans ces structures du DCIM, dénoncés par les organisations des droits de l’homme, il semble que la violence la plus systématique et la plus extrême soit surtout le fait des « prisons sauvages » tenues par des organisations criminelles.

      Depuis que la polémique s’est envenimée en 2017 sur les conditions de détention des migrants, notamment avec le reportage de CNN sur les « marchés aux esclaves », le gouvernement de Tripoli a apparemment cherché à rationaliser ses dispositifs carcéraux. « Les directions des centres font des efforts, admet Christophe Biteau, de MSF-Libye. Le dialogue entre elles et nous s’est amélioré. Nous avons désormais un meilleur accès aux cellules. Mais le problème est que ces structures sont au départ inadaptées. Il s’agit le plus souvent de simples hangars ou de bâtiments vétustes sans isolation. »

      Les responsables de ces centres se plaignent rituellement du manque de moyens qui, selon eux, explique la précarité des conditions de vie des détenus, notamment sanitaires. En privé, certains fustigent la corruption des administrations centrales de Tripoli, qui perçoivent l’argent des Européens sans le redistribuer réellement aux structures de terrain.

      Cruel paradoxe
      En l’absence d’une refonte radicale de ces circuits de financement, la relative amélioration des conditions de détention observée récemment par des ONG comme MSF pourrait être menacée. « Le principal risque, c’est la congestion qui résulte de la plus grande efficacité des gardes-côtes libyens », met en garde M. Biteau. En effet, les unités de la marine libyenne, de plus en plus aidées et équipées par Bruxelles ou Rome, ont multiplié les interceptions de bateaux de migrants au large du littoral de la Tripolitaine.

      Du 1er janvier au 20 juin, elles avaient ainsi reconduit sur la terre ferme près de 9 100 migrants. Du coup, les centres de détention se remplissent à nouveau. Le nombre de prisonniers dans ces centres officiels – rattachés au DCIM – a grimpé en quelques semaines de 5 000 à 7 000, voire à 8 000. Et cela a un impact sanitaire. « Le retour de ces migrants arrêtés en mer se traduit par un regain des affections cutanées en prison », souligne Christophe Biteau.

      Simultanément, l’Organisation mondiale des migrations (OIM) intensifie son programme dit de « retours volontaires » dans leurs pays d’origine pour la catégorie des migrants économiques, qu’ils soient détenus ou non. Du 1er janvier au 20 juin, 8 571 d’entre eux – surtout des Nigérians, Maliens, Gambiens et Guinéens – sont ainsi rentrés chez eux. L’objectif que s’est fixé l’OIM est le chiffre de 30 000 sur l’ensemble de 2018. Résultat : les personnes éligibles au statut de réfugié et ne souhaitant donc pas rentrer dans leurs pays d’origine – beaucoup sont des ressortissants de la Corne de l’Afrique – se trouvent piégées en Libye avec le verrouillage croissant de la frontière maritime.

      Le Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR) des Nations unies en a bien envoyé certains au Niger – autour de 900 – pour que leur demande d’asile en Europe y soit traitée. Cette voie de sortie demeure toutefois limitée, car les pays européens tardent à les accepter. « Les réfugiés de la Corne de l’Afrique sont ceux dont la durée de détention en Libye s’allonge », pointe M. Biteau. Cruel paradoxe pour une catégorie dont la demande d’asile est en général fondée. Une absence d’amélioration significative de leurs conditions de détention représenterait pour eux une sorte de double peine.

      http://lirelactu.fr/source/le-monde/28fdd3e6-f6b2-4567-96cb-94cac16d078a
      #UE #EU

    • Remarks by High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini at the joint press conference with Sven Mikser, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Estonia
      Mogherini:

      if you are asking me about the waves of migrants who are coming to Europe which means through Libya to Italy in this moment, I can tell you that the way in which we are handling this, thanks also to a very good work we have done with the Foreign Ministers of the all 28 Member States, is through a presence at sea – the European Union has a military mission at sea in the Mediterranean, at the same time dismantling the traffickers networks, having arrested more than 100 smugglers, seizing the boats that are used, saving lives – tens of thousands of people were saved but also training the Libyan coasts guards so that they can take care of the dismantling of the smuggling networks in the Libyan territorial waters.

      And we are doing two other things to prevent the losses of lives but also the flourishing of the trafficking of people: inside Libya, we are financing the presence of the International Organisation for Migration and the UNHCR so that they can have access to the detention centres where people are living in awful conditions, save these people, protect these people but also organising voluntary returns to the countries of origin; and we are also working with the countries of origin and transit, in particular Niger, where more than 80% of the flows transit. I can tell you one number that will strike you probably - in the last 9 months through our action with Niger, we moved from 76 000 migrants passing through Niger into Libya to 6 000.

      https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/26042/remarks-high-representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-joint-press
      #Libye #Niger #HCR #IOM #OIM #EU #UE #Mogherini #passeurs #smugglers

    • Il risultato degli accordi anti-migranti: aumentati i prezzi dei viaggi della speranza

      L’accordo tra Europa e Italia da una parte e Niger dall’altra per bloccare il flusso dei migranti verso la Libia e quindi verso le nostre coste ha ottenuto risultati miseri. O meglio un paio di risultati li ha avuti: aumentare il prezzo dei trasporti – e quindi i guadagni dei trafficanti di uomini – e aumentare a dismisura i disagi e i rischi dei disperati che cercano in tutti i modi di attraversare il Mediterraneo. Insomma le misure adottate non scoraggiano chi vuole partire. molti di loro muoiono ma non muore la loro speranza di una vita migliore.

      http://www.africa-express.info/2017/02/03/il-risultato-dellaccordo-con-il-niger-sui-migranti-aumentati-prezzi

    • C’était 2016... et OpenMigration publiait cet article:
      Il processo di esternalizzazione delle frontiere europee: tappe e conseguenze di un processo pericoloso

      L’esternalizzazione delle politiche europee e italiane sulle migrazioni: Sara Prestianni ci spiega le tappe fondamentali del processo, e le sue conseguenze più gravi in termini di violazioni dei diritti fondamentali.

      http://openmigration.org/analisi/il-processo-di-esternalizzazione-delle-frontiere-europee-tappe-e-conseguenze-di-un-processo-pericoloso/?platform=hootsuite

    • Per bloccare i migranti 610 milioni di euro dall’Europa e 50 dall’Italia

      Con la Libia ancora fortemente compromessa, la sfida per la gestione dei flussi di migranti dall’Africa sub-sahariana si è di fatto spostata più a Sud, lungo i confini settentrionali del Niger. Uno dei Paesi più poveri al mondo, ma che in virtù della sua stabilità - ha mantenuto pace e democrazia in un’area lacerata dai conflitti - è oggi il principale alleato delle potenze europee nella regione. Gli accordi prevedono che il Niger in cambio di 610 milioni d’ euro dall’Unione Europea, oltre a 50 promessi dall’Italia, sigilli le proprie frontiere settentrionali e imponga un giro di vite ai traffici illegali. È dal Niger infatti che transita gran parte dei migranti sub-sahariani: 450.000, nel 2016, hanno attraversato il deserto fino alle coste libiche, e in misura inferiore quelle algerine. In Italia, attraverso questa rotta, ne sono arrivati 180.000 l’anno scorso e oltre 40.000 nei primi quattro mesi del 2017.


      http://www.lastampa.it/2017/05/31/esteri/per-bloccare-i-migranti-milioni-di-euro-dalleuropa-e-dallitalia-4nPsLCnUURhOkXQl14sp7L/pagina.html

    • The Human Rights Risks of External Migration Policies

      This briefing paper sets out the main human rights risks linked to external migration policies, which are a broad spectrum of actions implemented outside of the territory of the state that people are trying to enter, usually through enhanced cooperation with other countries. From the perspective of international law, external migration policies are not necessarily unlawful. However, Amnesty International considers that several types of external migration policies, and particularly the externalization of border control and asylum-processing, pose significant human rights risks. This document is intended as a guide for activists and policy-makers working on the issue, and includes some examples drawn from Amnesty International’s research in different countries.

      https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/6200/2017/en

    • Libya’s coast guard abuses migrants despite E.U. funding and training

      The European Union has poured tens of millions of dollars into supporting Libya’s coast guard in search-and-rescue operations off the coast. But the violent tactics of some units and allegations of human trafficking have generated concerns about the alliance.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/libyas-coast-guard-abuses-desperate-migrants-despite-eu-funding-and-training/2017/07/10/f9bfe952-7362-4e57-8b42-40ae5ede1e26_story.html?tid=ss_tw

    • How Libya’s #Fezzan Became Europe’s New Border

      The principal gateway into Europe for refugees and migrants runs through the power vacuum in southern Libya’s Fezzan region. Any effort by European policymakers to stabilise Fezzan must be part of a national-level strategy aimed at developing Libya’s licit economy and reaching political normalisation.

      https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/north-africa/libya/179-how-libyas-fezzan-became-europes-new-border
      cc @i_s_

      v. aussi ma tentative cartographique :


      https://seenthis.net/messages/604039

    • Avramopoulos says Sophia could be deployed in Libya

      (ANSAmed) - BRUSSELS, AUGUST 3 - European Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos told ANSA in an interview Thursday that it is possible that the #Operation_Sophia could be deployed in Libyan waters in the future. “At the moment, priority should be given to what can be done under the current mandate of Operation Sophia which was just renewed with added tasks,” he said. “But the possibility of the Operation moving to a third stage working in Libyan waters was foreseen from the beginning. If the Libyan authorities ask for this, we should be ready to act”. (ANSAmed).

      http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2017/08/03/avramopoulos-says-sophia-could-be-deployed-in-libya_602d3d0e-f817-42b0-ac3

    • Les ambivalences de Tripoli face à la traite migratoire. Les trafiquants ont réussi à pénétrer des pans entiers des institutions officielles

      Par Frédéric Bobin (Zaouïa, Libye, envoyé spécial)

      LE MONDE Le 25.08.2017 à 06h39 • Mis à jour le 25.08.2017 à 10h54

      Les petits trous dessinent comme des auréoles sur le ciment fauve. Le haut mur hérissé de fils de fer barbelés a été grêlé d’impacts de balles de kalachnikov à deux reprises, la plus récente en juin. « Ils sont bien mieux armés que nous », soupire Khaled Al-Toumi, le directeur du centre de détention de Zaouïa, une municipalité située à une cinquantaine de kilomètres à l’ouest de Tripoli. Ici, au cœur de cette bande côtière de la Libye où se concentre l’essentiel des départs de migrants vers l’Italie, une trentaine d’Africains subsahariens sont détenus – un chiffre plutôt faible au regard des centres surpeuplés ailleurs dans le pays.

      C’est que, depuis les assauts de l’établissement par des hommes armés, Khaled Al-Toumi, préfère transférer à Tripoli le maximum de prisonniers. « Nous ne sommes pas en mesure de les protéger », dit-il. Avec ses huit gardes modestement équipés, il avoue son impuissance face aux gangs de trafiquants qui n’hésitent pas à venir récupérer par la force des migrants, dont l’arrestation par les autorités perturbe leurs juteuses affaires. En 2014, ils avaient repris environ 80 Erythréens. Plus récemment, sept Pakistanais. « On reçoit en permanence des menaces, ils disent qu’ils vont enlever nos enfants », ajoute le directeur.

      Le danger est quotidien. Le 18 juillet, veille de la rencontre avec Khaled Al-Toumi, soixante-dix femmes migrantes ont été enlevées à quelques kilomètres de là alors qu’elles étaient transférées à bord d’un bus du centre de détention de Gharian à celui de Sorman, des localités voisines de Zaouïa.

      On compte en Libye une trentaine de centres de ce type, placés sous la tutelle de la Direction de combat contre la migration illégale (DCMI) rattachée au ministère de l’intérieur. A ces prisons « officielles » s’ajoutent des structures officieuses, administrées ouvertement par des milices. L’ensemble de ce réseau carcéral détient entre 4 000 et 7 000 détenus, selon les Nations unies (ONU).

      « Corruption galopante »

      A l’heure où l’Union européenne (UE) nourrit le projet de sous-traiter à la Libye la gestion du flux migratoire le long de la « route de la Méditerranée centrale », le débat sur les conditions de détention en vigueur dans ces centres a gagné en acuité.

      Une partie de la somme de 90 millions d’euros que l’UE s’est engagée à allouer au gouvernement dit d’« union nationale » de Tripoli sur la question migratoire, en sus des 200 millions d’euros annoncés par l’Italie, vise précisément à l’amélioration de l’environnement de ces centres.

      Si des « hot spots » voient le jour en Libye, idée que caressent certains dirigeants européens – dont le président français Emmanuel Macron – pour externaliser sur le continent africain l’examen des demandes d’asile, ils seront abrités dans de tels établissements à la réputation sulfureuse.

      La situation y est à l’évidence critique. Le centre de Zaouïa ne souffre certes pas de surpopulation. Mais l’état des locaux est piteux, avec ses matelas légers jetés au sol et l’alimentation d’une préoccupante indigence, limitée à un seul plat de macaronis. Aucune infirmerie ne dispense de soins.

      « Je ne touche pas un seul dinar de Tripoli ! », se plaint le directeur, Khaled Al-Toumi. Dans son entourage, on dénonce vertement la « corruption galopante de l’état-major de la DCMI à Tripoli qui vole l’argent ». Quand on lui parle de financement européen, Khaled Al-Toumi affirme ne pas en avoir vu la couleur.

      La complainte est encore plus grinçante au centre de détention pour femmes de Sorman, à une quinzaine de kilomètres à l’ouest : un gros bloc de ciment d’un étage posé sur le sable et piqué de pins en bord de plage. Dans la courette intérieure, des enfants jouent près d’une balançoire.

      Là, la densité humaine est beaucoup plus élevée. La scène est un brin irréelle : dans la pièce centrale, environ quatre-vingts femmes sont entassées, fichu sur la tête, regard levé vers un poste de télévision rivé au mur délavé. D’autres se serrent dans les pièces adjacentes. Certaines ont un bébé sur les jambes, telle Christiane, une Nigériane à tresses assise sur son matelas. « Ici, il n’y a rien, déplore-t-elle. Nous n’avons ni couches ni lait pour les bébés. L’eau de la nappe phréatique est salée. Et le médecin ne vient pas souvent : une fois par semaine, souvent une fois toutes les deux semaines. »

      « Battu avec des tuyaux métalliques »

      Non loin d’elle, Viviane, jeune fille élancée de 20 ans, Nigériane elle aussi, se plaint particulièrement de la nourriture, la fameuse assiette de macaronis de rigueur dans tous les centres de détention.

      Viviane est arrivée en Libye en 2015. Elle a bien tenté d’embarquer à bord d’un Zodiac à partir de Sabratha, la fameuse plate-forme de départs à l’ouest de Sorman, mais une tempête a fait échouer l’opération. Les passagers ont été récupérés par les garde-côtes qui les ont répartis dans les différentes prisons de la Tripolitaine. « Je n’ai pas pu joindre ma famille au téléphone, dit Viviane dans un souffle. Elle me croit morte. »

      Si la visite des centres de détention de Zaouïa ou de Sorman permet de prendre la mesure de l’extrême précarité des conditions de vie, admise sans fard par les officiels des établissements eux-mêmes, la question des violences dans ces lieux coupés du monde est plus délicate.

      Les migrants sont embarrassés de l’évoquer en présence des gardes. Mais mises bout à bout, les confidences qu’ils consentent plus aisément sur leur expérience dans d’autres centres permettent de suggérer un contexte d’une grande brutalité. Celle-ci se déploie sans doute le plus sauvagement dans les prisons privées, officieuses, où le racket des migrants est systématique.

      Et les centres officiellement rattachés à la DCMI n’en sont pas pour autant épargnés. Ainsi Al Hassan Dialo, un Guinéen rencontré à Zaouïa, raconte qu’il était « battu avec des tuyaux métalliques » dans le centre de Gharian, où il avait été précédemment détenu.

      « Extorsion, travail forcé »

      On touche là à l’ambiguïté foncière de ce système de détention, formellement rattaché à l’Etat mais de facto placé sous l’influence des milices contrôlant le terrain. Le fait que des réseaux de trafiquants, liés à ces milices, peuvent impunément enlever des détenus au cœur même des centres, comme ce fut le cas à Zaouïa, donne la mesure de leur capacité de nuisance.

      « Le système est pourri de l’intérieur », se désole un humanitaire. « Des fonctionnaires de l’Etat et des officiels locaux participent au processus de contrebande et de trafic d’êtres humains », abonde un rapport de la Mission d’appui de l’ONU en Libye publié en décembre 2016.

      Dans ces conditions, les migrants font l’objet « d’extorsion, de travail forcé, de mauvais traitements et de tortures », dénonce le rapport. Les femmes, elles, sont victimes de violences sexuelles à grande échelle. Le plus inquiétant est qu’avec l’argent européen promis les centres de détention sous tutelle de la DCMI tendent à se multiplier. Trois nouveaux établissements ont fait ainsi leur apparition ces derniers mois dans le Grand Tripoli.

      La duplicité de l’appareil d’Etat, ou de ce qui en tient lieu, est aussi illustrée par l’attitude des gardes-côtes, autres récipiendaires des financements européens et même de stages de formation. Officiellement, ils affirment lutter contre les réseaux de passeurs au maximum de leurs capacités tout en déplorant l’insuffisance de leurs moyens.

      « Nous ne sommes pas équipés pour faire face aux trafiquants », regrette à Tripoli Ayoub Kassim, le porte-parole de la marine libyenne. Au détour d’un plaidoyer pro domo, le hiérarque militaire glisse que le problème de la gestion des flux migratoires se pose moins sur le littoral qu’au niveau de la frontière méridionale de la Libye. « La seule solution, c’est de maîtriser les migrations au sud, explique-t-il. Malheureusement, les migrants arrivent par le Niger sous les yeux de l’armée française » basée à Madama…

      Opérations de patrouille musclées

      Les vieilles habitudes perdurent. Avant 2011, sous Kadhafi, ces flux migratoires – verrouillés ou tolérés selon l’intérêt diplomatique du moment – étaient instrumentalisés pour exercer une pression sur les Européens.

      Une telle politique semble moins systématique, fragmentation de l’Etat oblige, mais elle continue d’inspirer le comportement de bien des acteurs libyens usant habilement de la carte migratoire pour réclamer des soutiens financiers.

      La déficience des équipements des gardes-côtes ne fait guère de doute. Avec son patrouilleur de 14 mètres de Zaouïa et ses quatre autres bâtiments de 26,4 mètres de Tripoli – souffrant de défaillances techniques bien qu’ayant été réparés en Italie –, l’arsenal en Tripolitaine est de fait limité. Par ailleurs, l’embargo sur les ventes d’armes vers la Libye, toujours en vigueur, en bride le potentiel militaire.

      Pourtant, la hiérarchie des gardes-côtes serait plus convaincante si elle était en mesure d’exercer un contrôle effectif sur ses branches locales. Or, à l’évidence, une sérieuse difficulté se pose à Zaouïa. Le chef local de gardes-côtes, Abdelrahman Milad, plus connu sous le pseudonyme d’Al-Bija, joue un jeu trouble. Selon le rapport du panel des experts sur la Libye de l’ONU, publié en juin, Al-Bija doit son poste à Mohamed Koshlaf, le chef de la principale milice de Zaouïa, qui trempe dans le trafic de migrants.

      Le patrouilleur d’Al-Bija est connu pour ses opérations musclées. Le 21 octobre 2016, il s’est opposé en mer à un sauvetage conduit par l’ONG Sea Watch, provoquant la noyade de vingt-cinq migrants. Le 23 mai 2017, le même patrouilleur intervient dans la zone dite « contiguë » – où la Libye est juridiquement en droit d’agir – pour perturber un autre sauvetage mené par le navire Aquarius, affrété conjointement par Médecins sans frontières et SOS Méditerranée, et le Juvena, affrété par l’ONG allemande Jugend Rettet.

      Duplicité des acteurs libyens

      Les gardes-côtes sont montés à bord d’un Zodiac de migrants, subtilisant téléphones portables et argent des occupants. Ils ont également tiré des coups de feu en l’air, et même dans l’eau où avaient sauté des migrants, ne blessant heureusement personne.

      « Il est difficile de comprendre la logique de ce type de comportement, commente un humanitaire. Peut-être le message envoyé aux migrants est-il : “La prochaine fois, passez par nous.” » Ce « passez par nous » peut signifier, selon de bons observateurs de la scène libyenne, « passez par le réseau de Mohamed Koshlaf », le milicien que l’ONU met en cause dans le trafic de migrants.

      Al-Bija pratiquerait ainsi le deux poids-deux mesures, intraitable ou compréhensif selon que les migrants relèvent de réseaux rivaux ou amis, illustration typique de la duplicité des acteurs libyens. « Al-Bija sait qu’il a commis des erreurs, il cherche maintenant à restaurer son image », dit un résident de Zaouïa. Seule l’expérience le prouvera. En attendant, les Européens doivent coopérer avec lui pour fermer la route de la Méditerranée.

      http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2017/08/16/en-libye-nous-ne-sommes-que-des-esclaves_5172760_3212.html

    • A PATTI CON LA LIBIA

      La Libia è il principale punto di partenza di barconi carichi di migranti diretti in Europa. Con la Libia l’Europa deve trattare per trovare una soluzione. La Libia però è anche un paese allo sbando, diviso. C’è il governo di Tripoli retto da Fayez al-Sarraj. Poi c’è il generale Haftar che controlla i due terzi del territorio del paese. Senza contare gruppi, milizie, clan tribali. Il compito insomma è complicato. Ma qualcosa, forse, si sta muovendo.

      Dopo decine di vertici inutili, migliaia di morti nel Mediterraneo, promesse non mantenute si torna a parlare con una certa insistenza della necessità di stabilizzare la Libia e aiutare il paese che si affaccia sul Mediterraneo. Particolarmente attiva in questa fase la Francia di Macron, oltre naturalmente all’Italia.

      Tra i punti in discussione c’è il coinvolgimento di altri paesi africani di transito come Niger e Ciad che potrebbero fungere da filtro. Oltre naturalmente ad aiuti diretti alla Libia. Assegni milionari destinati a una migliore gestione delle frontiere ad esempio.

      Ma è davvero così semplice? E come la mettiamo con le violenze e le torture subite dai migranti nei centri di detenzione? Perché proprio ora l’Europa sembra svegliarsi? Cosa si cela dietro questa competizione soprattutto tra Roma e Parigi nel trovare intese con Tripoli?

      http://www.rsi.ch/rete-uno/programmi/informazione/modem/A-PATTI-CON-LA-LIBIA-9426001.html

    • Le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique adopte un programme de soutien à la gestion intégrée des migrations et des frontières en Libye d’un montant de 46 millions d’euros

      À la suite du plan d’action de la Commission pour soutenir l’Italie, présenté le 4 juillet, le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique a adopté ce jour un programme doté d’une enveloppe de 46 millions d’euros pour renforcer les capacités des autorités libyennes en matière de gestion intégrée des migrations et des frontières.

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-2187_fr.htm

    • L’Europe va verser 200 millions d’euros à la Libye pour stopper les migrants

      Les dirigeants européens se retrouvent ce vendredi à Malte pour convaincre la Libye de freiner les traversées de migrants en Méditerranée. Ils devraient proposer d’équiper et former ses gardes-côtes. Le projet d’ouvrir des camps en Afrique refait surface.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/020217/leurope-va-verser-200-millions-deuros-la-libye-pour-stopper-les-migrants

      –-> pour archivage...

    • Persécutés en Libye : l’Europe est complice

      L’Union européenne dans son ensemble, et l’Italie en particulier, sont complices des violations des droits humains commises contre les réfugiés et les migrants en Libye. Enquête.

      https://www.amnesty.fr/refugies-et-migrants/actualites/refugies-et-migrants-persecutes-en-libye-leurope-est-complice

      #complicité

      Et l’utilisation du mot « persécutés » n’est évidemment pas été choisi au hasard...
      –-> ça renvoie à la polémique de qui est #réfugié... et du fait que l’UE essaie de dire que les migrants en Libye sont des #migrants_économiques et non pas des réfugiés (comme ceux qui sont en Turquie et/ou en Grèce, qui sont des syriens, donc des réfugiés)...
      Du coup, utiliser le concept de #persécution signifie faire une lien direct avec la Convention sur les réfugiés et admettre que les migrants en Libye sont potentiellement des réfugiés...

      La position de l’UE :

      #Mogherini was questioned about the EU’s strategy of outsourcing the migration crisis to foreign countries such as Libya and Turkey, which received billions to prevent Syrian refugees from crossing to Greece.

      She said the situation was different on two counts: first, the migrants stranded in Libya were not legitimate asylum seekers like those fleeing the war in Syria. And second, different international bodies were in charge.

      “When it comes to Turkey, it is mainly refugees from Syria; when it comes to Libya, it is mainly migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and the relevant international laws apply in different manners and the relevant UN agencies are different – the UNHC

      https://www.euractiv.com/section/development-policy/news/libya-human-bondage-risks-overshadowing-africa-eu-summit
      voir ici : http://seen.li/dqtt

      Du coup, @sinehebdo, « #persécutés » serait aussi un mot à ajouter à ta longue liste...

    • v. aussi:
      Libya: Libya’s dark web of collusion: Abuses against Europe-bound refugees and migrants

      In recent years, hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants have braved the journey across Africa to Libya and often on to Europe. In response, the Libyan authorities have used mass indefinite detention as their primary migration management tool. Regrettably, the European Union and Italy in particular, have decided to reinforce the capacity of Libyan authorities to intercept refugees and migrants at sea and transfer them to detention centres. It is essential that the aims and nature of this co-operation be rethought; that the focus shift from preventing arrivals in Europe to protecting the rights of refugees and migrants.

      https://www.amnesty.org/fr/documents/document/?indexNumber=mde19%2f7561%2f2017&language=en
      #rapport

    • Amnesty France : « L’Union Européenne est complice des violations de droits de l’homme en Libye »

      Jean-François Dubost est responsable du Programme Protection des Populations (réfugiés, civils dans les conflits, discriminations) chez Amnesty France. L’ONG publie un rapport sur la responsabilité des gouvernements européens dans les violations des droits humains des réfugiés et des migrants en Libye.

      https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-invite-de-6h20/l-invite-de-6h20-12-decembre-2017
      #responsabilité

    • Accordi e crimini contro l’umanità in un rapporto di Amnesty International

      La Rotta del Mediterraneo centrale, dal Corno d’Africa, dall’Africa subsahariana, al Niger al Ciad ed alla Libia costituisce ormai l’unica via di fuga da paesi in guerra o precipitati in crisi economiche che mettono a repentaglio la vita dei loro abitanti, senza alcuna possibile distinzione tra migranti economici e richiedenti asilo. Anche perché in Africa, ed in Libia in particolare, la possibilità concreta di chiedere asilo ed ottenere un permesso di soggiorno o un visto, oltre al riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato da parte dell’UNHCR, è praticamente nulla. Le poche persone trasferite in altri paesi europei dai campi libici (resettlement), come i rimpatri volontari ampiamente pubblicizzati, sono soltanto l’ennesima foglia di fico che si sta utilizzando per nascondere le condizioni disumane in cui centinaia di migliaia di persone vengono trattenute sotto sequestro nei centri di detenzione libici , ufficiali o informali. In tutti gravissime violazioni dei diritti umani, anche subito dopo la visita dei rappresentanti dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM, come dichiarano alcuni testimoni.

      https://www.a-dif.org/2017/12/12/accordi-e-crimini-contro-lumanita-in-un-rapporto-di-amnesty-international

    • Bundestag study: Cooperation with Libyan coastguard infringes international conventions

      “Libya is unable to nominate a Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC), and so rescue missions outside its territorial waters are coordinated by the Italian MRCC in Rome. More and more often the Libyan coastguard is being tasked to lead these missions as on-scene-commander. Since refugees are subsequently brought to Libya, the MRCC in Rome may be infringing the prohibition of refoulement contained in the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. This, indeed, was also the conclusion reached in a study produced by the Bundestag Research Service. The European Union and its member states must therefore press for an immediate end to this cooperation with the Libyan coastguard”, says Andrej Hunko, European policy spokesman for the Left Party.

      The Italian Navy is intercepting refugees in the Mediterranean and arranging for them to be picked up by Libyan coastguard vessels. The Bundestag study therefore suspects an infringement of the European Human Rights Convention of the Council of Europe. The rights enshrined in the Convention also apply on the high seas.

      Andrej Hunko goes on to say, “For two years the Libyan coastguard has regularly been using force against sea rescuers, and many refugees have drowned during these power games. As part of the EUNAVFOR MED military mission, the Bundeswehr has also been cooperating with the Libyan coastguard and allegedly trained them in sea rescue. I regard that as a pretext to arm Libya for the prevention of migration. This cooperation must be the subject of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, because the people who are being forcibly returned with the assistance of the EU are being inhumanely treated, tortured or killed.

      The study also emphasises that the acts of aggression against private rescue ships violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Nothing in that Convention prescribes that sea rescues must be undertaken by a single vessel. On the contrary, masters of other ships even have a duty to render assistance if they cannot be sure that all of the persons in distress will be quickly rescued. This is undoubtedly the case with the brutal operations of the Libyan coastguard.

      The Libyan Navy might soon have its own MRCC, which would then be attached to the EU surveillance system. The European Commission examined this option in a feasibility study, and Italy is now establishing a coordination centre for this purpose in Tripoli. A Libyan MRCC would encourage the Libyan coastguard to throw its weight about even more. The result would be further violations of international conventions and even more deaths.”

      https://andrej-hunko.de/presse/3946-bundestag-study-cooperation-with-libyan-coastguard-infringes-inter

      v. aussi l’étude:
      https://andrej-hunko.de/start/download/dokumente/1109-bundestag-research-services-maritime-rescue-in-the-mediterranean/file

    • Migrants : « La nasse libyenne a été en partie tissée par la France et l’Union européenne »

      Dans une tribune publiée dans « Le Monde », Thierry Allafort-Duverger, le directeur général de Médecins Sans Frontières, juge hypocrite la posture de la France, qui favorise l’interception de migrants par les garde-côtes libyens et dénonce leurs conditions de détention sur place.

      https://www.msf.fr/actualite/articles/migrants-nasse-libyenne-ete-en-partie-tissee-france-et-union-europeenne
      #hypocrisie

    • Libye : derrière l’arbre de « l’esclavage »
      Par Ali Bensaâd, Professeur à l’Institut français de géopolitique, Paris-VIII — 30 novembre 2017 à 17:56

      L’émotion suscitée par les crimes abjectes révélés par CNN ne doit pas occulter un phénomène bien plus vaste et ancien : celui de centaines de milliers de migrants africains qui vivent et travaillent depuis des décennies, en Libye et au Maghreb, dans des conditions extrêmes d’exploitation et d’atteinte à leur dignité.

      L’onde de choc créée par la diffusion de la vidéo de CNN sur la « vente » de migrants en Libye, ne doit pas se perdre en indignations. Et il ne faut pas que les crimes révélés occultent un malheur encore plus vaste, celui de centaines de milliers de migrants africains qui vivent et travaillent depuis des décennies, en Libye et au Maghreb, dans des conditions extrêmes d’exploitation et d’atteinte à leur dignité. Par ailleurs, ces véritables crimes contre l’humanité ne sont, hélas, pas spécifiques de la Libye. A titre d’exemple, les bédouins égyptiens ou israéliens - supplétifs sécuritaires de leurs armées - ont précédé les milices libyennes dans ces pratiques qu’ils poursuivent toujours et qui ont été largement documentées.

      Ces crimes contre l’humanité, en raison de leur caractère particulièrement abject, méritent d’être justement qualifiés. Il faut s’interroger si le qualificatif « esclavage », au-delà du juste opprobre dont il faut entourer ces pratiques, est le plus scientifiquement approprié pour comprendre et combattre ces pratiques d’autant que l’esclavage a été une réalité qui a structuré pendant un millénaire le rapport entre le Maghreb et l’Afrique subsaharienne. Il demeure le non-dit des inconscients culturels des sociétés de part et d’autre du Sahara, une sorte de « bombe à retardement ». « Mal nommer un objet, c’est ajouter au malheur de ce monde » (1) disait Camus. Et la Libye est un condensé des malheurs du monde des migrations. Il faut donc les saisir par-delà le raccourci de l’émotion.

      D’abord, ils ne sont nullement le produit du contexte actuel de chaos du pays, même si celui-ci les aggrave. Depuis des décennies, chercheurs et journalistes ont documenté la difficile condition des migrants en Libye qui, depuis les années 60, font tourner pour l’essentiel l’économie de ce pays rentier. Leur nombre a pu atteindre certaines années jusqu’à un million pour une population qui pouvait alors compter à peine cinq millions d’habitants. C’est dire leur importance dans le paysage économique et social de ce pays. Mais loin de favoriser leur intégration, l’importance de leur nombre a été conjurée par une précarisation systématique et violente comme l’illustrent les expulsions massives et violentes de migrants qui ont jalonné l’histoire du pays notamment en 1979, 1981, 1985, 1995, 2000 et 2007. Expulsions qui servaient tout à la fois à installer cette immigration dans une réversibilité mais aussi à pénaliser ou gratifier les pays dont ils sont originaires pour les vassaliser. Peut-être contraints, les dirigeants africains alors restaient sourds aux interpellations de leurs migrants pour ne pas contrarier la générosité du « guide » dont ils étaient les fidèles clients. Ils se tairont également quand, en 2000, Moussa Koussa, l’ancien responsable des services libyens, aujourd’hui luxueusement réfugié à Londres, a organisé un véritable pogrom où périrent 500 migrants africains assassinés dans des « émeutes populaires » instrumentalisées. Leur but était cyniquement de faire avaliser, par ricochet, la nouvelle orientation du régime favorable à la normalisation et l’ouverture à l’Europe et cela en attisant un sentiment anti-africain pour déstabiliser la partie de la vieille garde qui y était rétive. Cette normalisation, faite en partie sur le cadavre de migrants africains, se soldera par l’intronisation de Kadhafi comme gardien des frontières européennes. Les migrants interceptés et ceux que l’Italie refoule, en violation des lois européennes, sont emprisonnés, parfois dans les mêmes lieux aujourd’hui, et soumis aux mêmes traitements dégradants.

      En 2006, ce n’était pas 260 migrants marocains qui croupissaient comme aujourd’hui dans les prisons libyennes, ceux dont la vidéo a ému l’opinion, mais 3 000 et dans des conditions tout aussi inhumaines. Kadhafi a signé toutes les conventions que les Européens ont voulues, sachant qu’il n’allait pas les appliquer. Mais lorsque le HCR a essayé de prendre langue avec le pouvoir libyen au sujet de la convention de Genève sur les réfugiés, Kadhafi ferma les bureaux du HCR et expulsa, en les humiliant, ses dirigeants le 9 juin 2010. Le même jour, débutait un nouveau round de négociations en vue d’un accord de partenariat entre la Libye et l’Union européenne et le lendemain, 10 juin, Kadhafi était accueilli en Italie. Une année plus tard, alors même que le CNT n’avait pas encore établi son autorité sur le pays et que Kadhafi et ses troupes continuaient à résister, le CNT a été contraint de signer avec l’Italie un accord sur les migrations dont un volet sur la réadmission des migrants transitant par son territoire. Hier, comme aujourd’hui, c’est à la demande expresse et explicite de l’UE que les autorités libyennes mènent une politique de répression et de rétention de migrants. Et peut-on ignorer qu’aujourd’hui traiter avec les pouvoirs libyens, notamment sur les questions sécuritaires, c’est traiter de fait avec des milices dont dépendent ces pouvoirs eux-mêmes pour leur propre sécurité ? Faut-il s’étonner après cela de voir des milices gérer des centres de rétention demandés par l’UE ?

      Alors que peine à émerger une autorité centrale en Libye, les pays occidentaux n’ont pas cessé de multiplier les exigences à l’égard des fragiles centres d’un pouvoir balbutiant pour leur faire prendre en charge leur protection contre les migrations et le terrorisme au risque de les fragiliser comme l’a montré l’exemple des milices de Misrata. Acteur important de la réconciliation et de la lutte contre les extrémistes, elles ont été poussées, à Syrte, à combattre Daech quasiment seules. Elles en sont sorties exsangues, rongées par le doute et fragilisées face à leurs propres extrémistes. Les rackets, les kidnappings et le travail forcé pour ceux qui ne peuvent pas payer, sont aussi le lot des Libyens, notamment ceux appartenant au camp des vaincus, détenus dans ce que les Libyens nomment « prisons clandestines ». Libyens, mais plus souvent migrants qui ne peuvent payer, sont mis au travail forcé pour les propres besoins des miliciens en étant « loués » ponctuellement le temps d’une captivité qui dure de quelques semaines à quelques mois pour des sommes dérisoires.

      Dans la vidéo de CNN, les sommes évoquées, autour de 400 dinars libyens, sont faussement traduites par les journalistes, selon le taux officiel fictif, en 400 dollars. En réalité, sur le marché réel, la valeur est dix fois inférieure, un dollar valant dix dinars libyens et un euro, douze. Faire transiter un homme, même sur la seule portion saharienne du territoire, rapporte 15 fois plus (500 euros) aux trafiquants et miliciens. C’est par défaut que les milices se rabattent sur l’exploitation, un temps, de migrants désargentés mais par ailleurs encombrants.

      La scène filmée par CNN est abjecte et relève du crime contre l’humanité. Mais il s’agit de transactions sur du travail forcé et de corvées. Il ne s’agit pas de vente d’hommes. Ce n’est pas relativiser ou diminuer ce qui est un véritable crime contre l’humanité, mais il faut justement qualifier les objets. Il s’agit de pratiques criminelles de guerre et de banditisme qui exploitent les failles de politiques migratoires globales. On n’assiste pas à une résurgence de l’esclavage. Il ne faut pas démonétiser l’indignation et la vigilance en recourant rapidement aux catégories historiques qui mobilisent l’émotion. Celle-ci retombe toujours. Et pendant que le débat s’enflamme sur « l’esclavage », la même semaine, des centaines d’hommes « libres » sont morts, noyés en Méditerranée, s’ajoutant à des dizaines de milliers qui les avaient précédés.

      (1) C’est la véritable expression utilisée par Camus dans un essai de 1944, paru dans Poésie 44, (Sur une philosophie de l’expression), substantiellement très différente, en termes philosophiques, de ce qui sera reporté par la suite : « Mal nommer les choses, c’est ajouter aux malheurs du monde. »

      http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2017/11/30/libye-derriere-l-arbre-de-l-esclavage_1613662

    • Quand l’Union européenne veut bloquer les exilé-e-s en Libye

      L’Union européenne renforce les capacités des garde-côtes Libyens pour qu’ils interceptent les bateaux d’exilé-e-s dans les eaux territoriales et les ramènent en Libye. Des navires de l’#OTAN patrouillent au large prétendument pour s’attaquer aux « bateaux de passeurs », ce qui veut dire que des moyens militaires sont mobilisés pour empêcher les exilé-e-s d’atteindre les côtes européennes. L’idée a été émise de faire le tri, entre les personnes qui relèveraient de l’asile et celles qui seraient des « migrants économiques » ayant « vocation » à être renvoyés, sur des bateaux ua large de la Libye plutôt que sur le sol italien, créant ainsi des « #hotspots_flottants« .

      https://lampedusauneile.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/quand-lunion-europeenne-veut-bloquer-les-exile-e-s-en-lib

    • Le milizie libiche catturano in mare centinaia di migranti in fuga verso l’Europa. E li richiudono in prigione. Intanto l’Unione Europea si prepara ad inviare istruttori per rafforzare le capacità di arresto da parte della polizia libica. Ma in Libia ci sono tante «guardie costiere» ed ognuna risponde ad un governo diverso.

      Sembra di ritornare al 2010, quando dopo i respingimenti collettivi in Libia eseguiti direttamente da mezzi della Guardia di finanza italiana a partire dal 7 maggio 2009, in base agli accordi tra Berlusconi e Gheddafi, si inviarono in Libia agenti della Guardia di finanza per istruire la Guardia Costiera libica nelle operazioni di blocco dei migranti che erano riusciti a fuggire imbarcandosi su mezzi sempre più fatiscenti.

      http://dirittiefrontiere.blogspot.ch/2016/05/le-milizie-libiche-catturano-in-mare.html?m=1

    • Merkel, Hollande Warn Libya May Be Next Big Migrant Staging Area

      The European Union may need an agreement with Libya to restrict refugee flows similar to one with Turkey as the North African country threatens to become the next gateway for migrants to Europe, the leaders of Germany and France said.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/merkel-hollande-warn-libya-may-be-next-big-migrant-staging-area
      #accord #Libye #migrations #réfugiés #asile #politique_migratoire #externalisation #UE #Europe

    • Le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique adopte un programme de 90 millions € pour la protection des migrants et l’amélioration de la gestion des migrations en Libye

      Dans le prolongement de la communication conjointe sur la route de la Méditerranée centrale et de la déclaration de Malte, le fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique a adopté ce jour, sur proposition de la Commission européenne, un programme de 90 millions € visant à renforcer la protection des migrants et à améliorer la gestion des migrations en Libye.

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-951_fr.htm

    • L’Europa non può affidare alla Libia le vite dei migranti

      “Il rischio è che Italia ed Europa si rendano complici delle violazioni dei diritti umani commesse in Libia”, dice il direttore generale di Medici senza frontiere (Msf) Arjan Hehenkamp. Mentre le organizzazioni non governative che salvano i migranti nel Mediterraneo centrale sono al centro di un processo di criminalizzazione, l’Italia e l’Europa stanno cercando di delegare alle autorità libiche la soluzione del problema degli sbarchi.

      http://www.internazionale.it/video/2017/05/04/ong-libia-migranti

    • MSF accuses Libyan coastguard of endangering people’s lives during Mediterranean rescue

      During a rescue in the Mediterranean Sea on 23 May, the Libyan coastguard approached boats in distress, intimidated the passengers and then fired gunshots into the air, threatening people’s lives and creating mayhem, according to aid organisations Médecins Sans Frontières and SOS Méditerranée, whose teams witnessed the violent incident.

      http://www.msf.org/en/article/msf-accuses-libyan-coastguard-endangering-people%E2%80%99s-lives-during-mediter

    • Enquête. Le chaos libyen est en train de déborder en Méditerranée

      Pour qu’ils bloquent les flux migratoires, l’Italie, appuyée par l’UE, a scellé un accord avec les gardes-côtes libyens. Mais ils ne sont que l’une des très nombreuses forces en présence dans cet État en lambeaux. Désormais la Méditerranée devient dangereuse pour la marine italienne, les migrants, et les pêcheurs.


      http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/enquete-le-chaos-libyen-est-en-train-de-deborder-en-mediterra

    • Architect of EU-Turkey refugee pact pushes for West Africa deal

      “Every migrant from West Africa who survives the dangerous journey from Libya to Italy remains in Europe for years afterwards — regardless of the outcome of his or her asylum application,” Knaus said in an interview.

      To accelerate the deportations of rejected asylum seekers to West African countries that are considered safe, the EU needs to forge agreements with their governments, he said.

      http://www.politico.eu/article/migration-italy-libya-architect-of-eu-turkey-refugee-pact-pushes-for-west-a
      cc @i_s_

      Avec ce commentaire de Francesca Spinelli :

    • Pour 20 milliards, la Libye pourrait bloquer les migrants à sa frontière sud

      L’homme fort de l’Est libyen, Khalifa Haftar, estime à « 20 milliards de dollars sur 20 ou 25 ans » l’effort européen nécessaire pour aider à bloquer les flux de migrants à la frontière sud du pays.

      https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/8837947-pour-20-milliards-la-libye-pourrait-bloquer-les-migrants-a-sa-frontiere-

    • Bruxelles offre 200 millions d’euros à la Libye pour freiner l’immigration

      La Commission européenne a mis sur la table de nouvelles mesures pour freiner l’arrivée de migrants via la mer méditerranée, dont 200 millions d’euros pour la Libye. Un article de notre partenaire Euroefe.

      http://www.euractiv.fr/section/l-europe-dans-le-monde/news/bruxelles-offre-200-millions-deuros-a-la-libye-pour-freiner-limmigration/?nl_ref=29858390

      #Libye #asile #migrations #accord #deal #réfugiés #externalisation
      cc @reka

    • Stuck in Libya. Migrants and (Our) Political Responsibilities

      Fighting at Tripoli’s international airport was still under way when, in July 2014, the diplomatic missions of European countries, the United States and Canada were shut down. At that time Italy decided to maintain a pied-à-terre in place in order to preserve the precarious balance of its assets in the two-headed country, strengthening security at its local headquarters on Tripoli’s seafront. On the one hand there was no forsaking the Mellitah Oil & Gas compound, controlled by Eni and based west of Tripoli. On the other, the Libyan coast also had to be protected to assist the Italian forces deployed in Libyan waters and engaged in the Mare Nostrum operation to dismantle the human smuggling network between Libya and Italy, as per the official mandate. But the escalation of the civil war and the consequent deterioration of security conditions led Rome to leave as well, in February 2015.

      http://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/stuck-libya-migrants-and-our-political-responsibilities-16294

    • Libia: diritto d’asilo cercasi, smarrito fra Bruxelles e Tripoli (passando per Roma)

      La recente Comunicazione congiunta della Commissione e dell’Alto rappresentante per la politica estera dell’UE, il Memorandum Italia-Libia firmato il 2 febbraio e la Dichiarazione uscita dal Consiglio europeo di venerdì 3 alla Valletta hanno delineato un progetto di chiusura della “rotta” del Mediterraneo centrale che rischia di seppellire, di fatto, il diritto d’asilo nel Paese e ai suoi confini.

      http://viedifuga.org/libia-diritto-d-asilo-cercasi-smarrito-fra-bruxelles-e-tripoli

    • Immigration : l’Union européenne veut aider la Libye

      L’Union européenne veut mettre fin à ces traversées entre la Libye et l’Italie. Leur plan passe par une aide financière aux autorités libyennes.

      http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/19h30/video/immigration-lunion-europeenne-veut-aider-la-libye?id=8360849

      Dans ce bref reportage, la RTS demande l’opinion d’Etienne Piguet (prof en géographie des migrations à l’Université de Neuchâtel) :
      « L’Union européenne veut absolument limiter les arrivées, mais en même temps on ne peut pas simplement refouler les gens. C’est pas acceptable du point de vue des droits humains. Donc l’UE essaie de mettre en place un système qui tient les gens à distance tout en leur offrant des conditions acceptables d’accueil » (en Libye, entend-il)
      Je m’abstiens de tout commentaire.

    • New EU Partnerships in North Africa: Potential to Backfire?

      As European leaders meet in Malta to receive a progress report on the EU flagship migration partnership framework, the European Union finds itself in much the same position as two years earlier, with hundreds of desperate individuals cramming into flimsy boats and setting off each week from the Libyan coast in hope of finding swift rescue and passage in Europe. Options to reduce flows unilaterally are limited. Barred by EU law from “pushing back” vessels encountered in the Mediterranean, the European Union is faced with no alternative but to rescue and transfer passengers to European territory, where the full framework of European asylum law applies. Member States are thus looking more closely at the role transit countries along the North African coastline might play in managing these flows across the Central Mediterranean. Specifically, they are examining the possibility of reallocating responsibility for search and rescue to Southern partners, thereby decoupling the rescue missions from territorial access to international protection in Europe.

      http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/new-eu-partnerships-north-africa-potential-backfire

    • Migration: MSF warns EU about inhumane approach to migration management

      As European Union (EU) leaders meet in Malta today to discuss migration, with a view to “close down the route from Libya to Italy” by stepping up cooperation with the Libyan authorities, we want to raise grave concerns about the fate of people trapped in Libya or returned to the country. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has been providing medical care to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers detained in Tripoli and the surrounding area since July 2016 and people are detained arbitrarily in inhumane and unsanitary conditions, often without enough food and clean water and with a lack of access to medical care.

      http://www.msf.org/en/article/migration-msf-warns-eu-about-inhumane-approach-migration-management

    • EU and Italy migration deal with Libya draws sharp criticism from Libyan NGOs

      Twelve Libyan non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have issued a joint statement criticising the EU’s latest migrant policy as set out at the Malta summit a week ago as well as the Italy-Libya deal signed earlier which agreed that migrants should be sent back to Libya and repartiated voluntarily from there. Both represented a fundamental “immoral and inhumane attitude” towards migrants, they said. International human rights and calls had to be respected.

      https://www.libyaherald.com/2017/02/10/eu-and-italy-migration-deal-with-libya-draws-sharp-criticism-from-libya

    • Libya is not Turkey: why the EU plan to stop Mediterranean migration is a human rights concern

      EU leaders have agreed to a plan that will provide Libya’s UN-backed government €200 million for dealing with migration. This includes an increase in funding for the Libyan coastguard, with an overall aim to stop migrant boats crossing the Mediterranean to Italy.

      https://theconversation.com/libya-is-not-turkey-why-the-eu-plan-to-stop-mediterranean-migration

    • EU aims to step up help to Libya coastguards on migrant patrols

      TUNIS (Reuters) - The European Union wants to rapidly expand training of Libyan coastguards to stem migrant flows to Italy and reduce deaths at sea, an EU naval mission said on Thursday, signaling a renewed push to support a force struggling to patrol its own coasts.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-libya/eu-aims-to-step-up-help-to-libya-coastguards-on-migrant-patrols-idUSKCN1GR3

      #UE #EU

    • Why Cooperating With Libya on Migration Could Damage the EU’s Standing

      Italy and the Netherlands began training Libyan coast guard and navy officers on Italian and Dutch navy ships in the Mediterranean earlier in October. The training is part of the European Union’s anti-smuggling operation in the central Mediterranean with the goal of enhancing Libya’s “capability to disrupt smuggling and trafficking… and to perform search-and-rescue activities.”

      http://europe.newsweek.com/why-cooperating-libya-migration-could-damage-eus-standing-516099?rm
      #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Europe #UE #EU #Libye #coopération #externalisation #Méditerranée #Italie #Pays-Bas #gardes-côtes

    • Les migrants paient le prix fort de la coopération entre l’UE et les garde-côtes libyens

      Nombre de dirigeants européens appellent à une « coopération » renforcée avec les garde-côtes libyens. Mais une fois interceptés en mer, ces migrants sont renvoyés dans des centres de détention indignes et risquent de retomber aux mains de trafiquants.

      C’est un peu la bouée de sauvetage des dirigeants européens. La « coopération » avec la Libye et ses légions de garde-côtes reste l’une des dernières politiques à faire consensus dans les capitales de l’UE, s’agissant des migrants. Initiée en 2016 pour favoriser l’interception d’embarcations avant leur entrée dans les eaux à responsabilité italienne ou maltaise, elle a fait chuter le nombre d’arrivées en Europe.

      Emmanuel Macron en particulier s’en est félicité, mardi 26 juin, depuis le Vatican : « La capacité à fermer cette route [entre la Libye et l’Italie, ndlr] est la réponse la plus efficace » au défi migratoire. Selon lui, ce serait même « la plus humaine ». Alors qu’un Conseil européen crucial s’ouvre ce jeudi 28 juin, le président français appelle donc à « renforcer » cette coopération avec Tripoli.

      Convaincu qu’il faut laisser les Libyens travailler, il s’en est même pris, mardi, aux bateaux humanitaires et en particulier au Lifeline, le navire affrété par une ONG allemande qui a débarqué 233 migrants mercredi soir à Malte (après une semaine d’attente en mer et un blocus de l’Italie), l’accusant d’être « intervenu en contravention de toutes les règles et des garde-côtes libyens ». Lancé, Emmanuel Macron est allé jusqu’à reprocher aux bateaux des ONG de faire « le jeu des passeurs ».

      Inédite dans sa bouche (mais entendue mille fois dans les diatribes de l’extrême droite transalpine), cette sentence fait depuis bondir les organisations humanitaires les unes après les autres, au point que Médecins sans frontières (qui affrète l’Aquarius avec SOS Méditerranée), Amnesty International France, La Cimade et Médecins du monde réclament désormais un rendez-vous à l’Élysée, se disant « consternées ».

      Ravi, lui, le ministre de l’intérieur italien et leader d’extrême droite, Matteo Salvini, en a profité pour annoncer mercredi un don exceptionnel en faveur des garde-côtes de Tripoli, auxquels il avait rendu visite l’avant-veille : 12 navires de patrouille, une véritable petite flotte.

      En deux ans, la coopération avec ce pays de furie qu’est la Libye post-Kadhafi semble ainsi devenue la solution miracle, « la plus humaine » même, que l’UE ait dénichée face au défi migratoire en Méditerranée centrale. Comment en est-on arrivé là ? Jusqu’où va cette « coopération » qualifiée de « complicité » par certaines ONG ? Quels sont ses résultats ?

      • Déjà 8 100 interceptions en mer
      À ce jour, en 2018, environ 16 000 migrants ont réussi à traverser jusqu’en Italie, soit une baisse de 77 % par rapport à l’an dernier. Sur ce point, Emmanuel Macron a raison : « Nous avons réduit les flux. » Les raisons, en réalité, sont diverses. Mais de fait, plus de 8 100 personnes parties de Libye ont déjà été rattrapées par les garde-côtes du pays cette année et ramenées à terre, d’après le Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés (le HCR). Contre 800 en 2015.

      Dans les écrits de cette agence de l’ONU, ces migrants sont dits « sauvés/interceptés », sans qu’il soit tranché entre ces deux termes, ces deux réalités. À lui seul, ce « / » révèle toute l’ambiguïté des politiques de coopération de l’UE : si Bruxelles aime penser que ces vies sont sauvées, les ONG soulignent qu’elles sont surtout ramenées en enfer. Certains, d’ailleurs, préfèrent sauter de leur bateau pneumatique en pleine mer plutôt que retourner en arrière.

      • En Libye, l’« abominable » sort des migrants (source officielle)
      Pour comprendre les critiques des ONG, il faut rappeler les conditions inhumaines dans lesquelles les exilés survivent dans cet « État tampon », aujourd’hui dirigé par un gouvernement d’union nationale ultra contesté (basé à Tripoli), sans contrôle sur des parts entières du territoire. « Ce que nous entendons dépasse l’entendement, rapporte l’un des infirmiers de l’Aquarius, qui fut du voyage jusqu’à Valence. Les migrants subsahariens sont affamés, assoiffés, torturés. » Parmi les 630 passagers débarqués en Espagne, l’une de ses collègues raconte avoir identifié de nombreux « survivants de violences sexuelles », « des femmes et des hommes à la fois, qui ont vécu le viol et la torture sexuelle comme méthodes d’extorsion de fonds », les familles étant souvent soumises au chantage par téléphone. Un diagnostic dicté par l’émotion ? Des exagérations de rescapés ?

      Le même constat a été officiellement dressé, dès janvier 2017, par le Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l’homme de l’ONU. « Les migrants se trouvant sur le sol libyen sont victimes de détention arbitraire dans des conditions inhumaines, d’actes de torture, notamment de violence sexuelle, d’enlèvements visant à obtenir une rançon, de racket, de travail forcé et de meurtre », peut-on lire dans son rapport, où l’on distingue les centres de détention officiels dirigés par le Service de lutte contre la migration illégale (relevant du ministère de l’intérieur) et les prisons clandestines tenues par des milices armées.

      Même dans les centres gouvernementaux, les exilés « sont détenus arbitrairement sans la moindre procédure judiciaire, en violation du droit libyen et des normes internationales des droits de l’homme. (…) Ils sont souvent placés dans des entrepôts dont les conditions sont abominables (…). Des surveillants refusent aux migrants l’accès aux toilettes, les obligeant à uriner et à déféquer [là où ils sont]. Dans certains cas, les migrants souffrent de malnutrition grave [environ un tiers de la ration calorique quotidienne minimale]. Des sources nombreuses et concordantes [évoquent] la commission d’actes de torture, notamment des passages à tabac, des violences sexuelles et du travail forcé ».

      Sachant qu’il y a pire à côté : « Des groupes armés et des trafiquants détiennent d’autres migrants dans des lieux non officiels. » Certaines de ces milices, d’ailleurs, « opèrent pour le compte de l’État » ou pour « des agents de l’État », pointe le rapport. Le marché du kidnapping, de la vente et de la revente, est florissant. C’est l’enfer sans même Lucifer pour l’administrer.

      En mai dernier, par exemple, une centaine de migrants a réussi à s’évader d’une prison clandestine de la région de Bani Walid, où MSF gère une clinique de jour. « Parmi les survivants que nous avons soignés, des jeunes de 16 à 18 ans en majorité, certains souffrent de blessures par balles, de fractures multiples, de brûlures, témoigne Christophe Biteau, chef de mission de l’ONG en Libye. Certains nous racontent avoir été baladés, détenus, revendus, etc., pendant trois ans. » Parfois, MSF recueille aussi des migrants relâchés « spontanément » par leurs trafiquants : « Un mec qui commence à tousser par exemple, ils n’en veulent plus à cause des craintes de tuberculose. Pareil en cas d’infections graves. Il y a comme ça des migrants, sur lesquels ils avaient investi, qu’ils passent par “pertes et profits”, si j’ose dire. »

      Depuis 2017, et surtout les images d’un marché aux esclaves diffusées sur CNN, les pressions de l’ONU comme de l’UE se sont toutefois multipliées sur le gouvernement de Tripoli, afin qu’il s’efforce de vider les centres officiels les plus honteux – 18 ont été fermés, d’après un bilan de mars dernier. Mais dans un rapport récent, daté de mai 2018, le secrétaire général de l’ONU persiste : « Les migrants continuent d’être sujets (…) à la torture, à du rançonnement, à du travail forcé et à des meurtres », dans des « centres officiels et non officiels ». Les auteurs ? « Des agents de l’État, des groupes armés, des trafiquants, des gangs criminels », encore et encore.

      Au 21 juin, plus de 5 800 personnes étaient toujours détenues dans les centres officiels. « Nous en avons répertorié 33, dont 4 où nous avons des difficultés d’accès », précise l’envoyé spécial du HCR pour la situation en Méditerranée centrale, Vincent Cochetel, qui glisse au passage : « Il est arrivé que des gens disparaissent après nous avoir parlé. » Surtout, ces derniers jours, avec la fin du ramadan et les encouragements des dirigeants européens adressés aux garde-côtes libyens, ces centres de détention se remplissent à nouveau.

      • Un retour automatique en détention
      Car c’est bien là, dans ces bâtiments gérés par le ministère de l’intérieur, que sont théoriquement renvoyés les migrants « sauvés/interceptés » en mer. Déjà difficile, cette réalité en cache toutefois une autre. « Les embarcations des migrants décollent en général de Libye en pleine nuit, raconte Christophe Biteau, de MSF. Donc les interceptions par les garde-côtes se font vers 2 h ou 3 h du matin et les débarquements vers 6 h. Là, avant l’arrivée des services du ministère de l’intérieur libyen et du HCR (dont la présence est autorisée sur la douzaine de plateformes de débarquement utilisées), il y a un laps de temps critique. » Où tout peut arriver.

      L’arrivée à Malte, mercredi 27 juin 2018, des migrants sauvés par le navire humanitaire « Lifeline » © Reuters
      Certains migrants de la Corne de l’Afrique (Érythrée, Somalie, etc.), réputés plus « solvables » que d’autres parce qu’ils auraient des proches en Europe jouissant déjà du statut de réfugiés, racontent avoir été rachetés à des garde-côtes par des trafiquants. Ces derniers répercuteraient ensuite le prix d’achat de leur « marchandise » sur le tarif de la traversée, plus chère à la seconde tentative… Si Christophe Biteau ne peut témoigner directement d’une telle corruption de garde-côtes, il déclare sans hésiter : « Une personne ramenée en Libye peut très bien se retrouver à nouveau dans les mains de trafiquants. »

      Au début du mois de juin, le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU (rien de moins) a voté des sanctions à l’égard de six trafiquants de migrants (gel de comptes bancaires, interdiction de voyager, etc.), dont le chef d’une unité de… garde-côtes. D’autres de ses collègues ont été suspectés par les ONG de laisser passer les embarcations siglées par tel ou tel trafiquant, contre rémunération.

      En tout cas, parmi les migrants interceptés et ramenés à terre, « il y a des gens qui disparaissent dans les transferts vers les centres de détention », confirme Vincent Cochetel, l’envoyé spécial du HCR. « Sur les plateformes de débarquement, on aimerait donc mettre en place un système d’enregistrement biométrique, pour essayer de retrouver ensuite les migrants dans les centres, pour protéger les gens. Pour l’instant, on n’a réussi à convaincre personne. » Les « kits médicaux » distribués sur place, financés par l’UE, certes utiles, ne sont pas à la hauteur de l’enjeu.

      • Des entraînements financés par l’UE
      Dans le cadre de l’opération Sophia (théoriquement destinée à lutter contre les passeurs et trafiquants dans les eaux internationales de la Méditerranée), Bruxelles a surtout décidé, en juin 2016, d’initier un programme de formation des garde-côtes libyens, qui a démarré l’an dernier et déjà bénéficié à 213 personnes. C’est que, souligne-t-on à Bruxelles, les marines européennes ne sauraient intervenir elles-mêmes dans les eaux libyennes.

      Il s’agit à la fois d’entraînements pratiques et opérationnels (l’abordage de canots, par exemple) visant à réduire les risques de pertes humaines durant les interventions, et d’un enseignement juridique (droit maritimes, droits humains, etc.), notamment à destination de la hiérarchie. D’après la commission européenne, tous les garde-côtes bénéficiaires subissent un « check de sécurité » avec vérifications auprès d’Interpol et Europol, voire des services de renseignement des États membres, pour écarter les individus les plus douteux.

      Il faut dire que les besoins de « formation » sont – pour le moins – criants. À plusieurs reprises, des navires humanitaires ont été témoins d’interceptions violentes, sinon criminelles. Sur une vidéo filmée depuis le Sea Watch (ONG allemande) en novembre dernier, on a vu des garde-côtes frapper certains des migrants repêchés, puis redémarrer alors qu’un homme restait suspendu à l’échelle de bâbord, sans qu’aucun Zodiac de secours ne soit jamais mis à l’eau. « Ils étaient cassés », ont répondu les Libyens.

      Un « sauvetage » effectué en novembre 2017 par des garde-côtes Libyens © Extrait d’une vidéo publiée par l’ONG allemande Sea Watch
      Interrogée sur le coût global de ces formations, la commission indique qu’il est impossible à chiffrer, Frontex (l’agence de garde-côtes européenne) pouvant participer aux sessions, tel État membre fournir un bateau, tel autre un avion pour trimballer les garde-côtes, etc.

      • La fourniture d’équipements en direct
      En décembre, un autre programme a démarré, plus touffu, financé cette fois via le « Fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique » (le fonds d’urgence européen mis en place en 2015 censément pour prévenir les causes profondes des migrations irrégulières et prendre le problème à la racine). Cette fois, il s’agit non plus seulement de « formation », mais de « renforcement des capacités opérationnelles » des garde-côtes libyens, avec des aides directes à l’équipement de bateaux (gilets, canots pneumatiques, appareils de communication, etc.), à l’entretien des navires, mais aussi à l’équipement des salles de contrôle à terre, avec un objectif clair en ligne de mire : aider la Libye à créer un « centre de coordination de sauvetage maritime » en bonne et due forme, pour mieux proclamer une « zone de recherche et sauvetage » officielle, au-delà de ses seules eaux territoriales actuelles. La priorité, selon la commission à Bruxelles, reste de « sauver des vies ».

      Budget annoncé : 46 millions d’euros avec un co-financement de l’Italie, chargée de la mise en œuvre. À la marge, les garde-côtes libyens peuvent d’ailleurs profiter d’autres programmes européens, tel « Seahorse », pour de l’entraînement à l’utilisation de radars.

      L’Italie, elle, va encore plus loin. D’abord, elle fournit des bateaux aux garde-côtes. Surtout, en 2017, le ministre de l’intérieur transalpin a rencontré les maires d’une dizaine de villes libyennes en leur faisant miroiter l’accès au Fonds fiduciaire pour l’Afrique de l’UE, en contrepartie d’un coup de main contre le trafic de migrants. Et selon diverses enquêtes (notamment des agences de presse Reuters et AP), un deal financier secret aurait été conclu à l’été 2017 entre l’Italie et des représentants de milices, à l’époque maîtresses des départs d’embarcations dans la région de Sabratha. Rome a toujours démenti, mais les appareillages dans ce coin ont brutalement cessé pour redémarrer un peu plus loin. Au bénéfice d’autres milices.

      • L’aide à l’exfiltration de migrants
      En même temps, comme personne ne conteste plus l’enfer des conditions de détention et que tout le monde s’efforce officiellement de vider les centres du régime en urgence, l’UE travaille aussi à la « réinstallation » en Europe des exilés accessibles au statut de réfugié, ainsi qu’au rapatriement dans leur pays d’origine des migrants dits « économiques » (sur la base du volontariat en théorie). Dans le premier cas, l’UE vient en soutien du HCR ; dans le second cas, en renfort de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM).

      L’objectif affiché est limpide : épargner des prises de risque en mer inutiles aux réfugiés putatifs (Érythréens, Somaliens, etc.), comme à ceux dont la demande à toutes les chances d’être déboutée une fois parvenus en Europe, comme les Ivoiriens par exemple. Derrière les éléments de langage, que disent les chiffres ?

      Selon le HCR, seuls 1 730 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile prioritaires ont pu être évacués depuis novembre 2017, quelques-uns directement de la Libye vers l’Italie (312) et la Roumanie (10), mais l’essentiel vers le Niger voisin, où les autorités ont accepté d’accueillir une plateforme d’évacuations de 1 500 places en échange de promesses de « réinstallations » rapides derrière, dans certains pays de l’UE.

      Et c’est là que le bât blesse. Paris, par exemple, s’est engagé à faire venir 3 000 réfugiés de Niamey (Niger), mais n’a pas tenu un vingtième de sa promesse. L’Allemagne ? Zéro.

      « On a l’impression qu’une fois qu’on a évacué de Libye, la notion d’urgence se perd », regrette Vincent Cochetel, du HCR. Une centaine de migrants, surtout des femmes et des enfants, ont encore été sortis de Libye le 19 juin par avion. « Mais on va arrêter puisqu’on n’a plus de places [à Niamey], pointe le représentant du HCR. L’heure de vérité approche. On ne peut pas demander au Niger de jouer ce rôle si on n’est pas sérieux derrière, en termes de réinstallations. Je rappelle que le Niger a plus de réfugiés sur son territoire que la France par exemple, qui fait quand même des efforts, c’est vrai. Mais on aimerait que ça aille beaucoup plus vite. » Le HCR discute d’ailleurs avec d’autres États africains pour créer une seconde « plateforme d’évacuation » de Libye, mais l’exemple du Niger, embourbé, ne fait pas envie.

      Quant aux rapatriements vers les pays d’origine des migrants dits « économiques », mis en œuvre avec l’OIM (autre agence onusienne), les chiffres atteignaient 8 546 à la mi-juin. « On peut questionner le caractère volontaire de certains de ces rapatriements, complète Christophe Biteau, de MSF. Parce que vu les conditions de détention en Libye, quand on te dit : “Tu veux que je te sorte de là et que je te ramène chez toi ?”… Ce n’est pas vraiment un choix. » D’ailleurs, d’après l’OIM, les rapatriés de Libye sont d’abord Nigérians, puis Soudanais, alors même que les ressortissants du Soudan accèdent à une protection de la France dans 75 % des cas lorsqu’ils ont l’opportunité de voir leur demande d’asile examinée.
      En résumé, sur le terrain, la priorité des États de l’UE va clairement au renforcement du mur de la Méditerranée et de ses Cerbère, tandis que l’extraction de réfugiés, elle, reste cosmétique. Pour Amnesty International, cette attitude de l’Union, et de l’Italie au premier chef, serait scandaleuse : « Dans la mesure où ils ont joué un rôle dans l’interception des réfugiés et des migrants, et dans la politique visant à les contenir en Libye, ils partagent avec celle-ci la responsabilité des détentions arbitraires, de la torture et autres mauvais traitements infligés », tance un rapport de l’association publié en décembre dernier.

      Pour le réseau Migreurop (regroupant chercheurs et associations spécialisés), « confier le contrôle des frontières maritimes de l’Europe à un État non signataire de la Convention de Genève [sur les droits des réfugiés, ndlr] s’apparente à une politique délibérée de contournement des textes internationaux et à une sous-traitance des pires violences à l’encontre des personnes exerçant leur droit à émigrer ». Pas sûr que les conclusions du conseil européen de jeudi et vendredi donnent, à ces organisations, la moindre satisfaction.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/280618/les-migrants-paient-le-prix-fort-de-la-cooperation-entre-lue-et-les-garde-

    • Au Niger, l’Europe finance plusieurs projets pour réduire le flux de migrants

      L’Union européenne a invité des entreprises du vieux continent au Niger afin qu’elles investissent pour améliorer les conditions de vie des habitants. Objectif : réduire le nombre de candidats au départ vers l’Europe.

      Le Niger est un pays stratégique pour les Européens. C’est par là que transitent la plupart des migrants qui veulent rejoindre l’Europe. Pour réduire le flux, l’Union européenne finance depuis 2015 plusieurs projets et veut désormais créer un tissu économique au Niger pour dissuader les candidats au départ. Le président du Parlement européen, Antonio Tajani, était, la semaine dernière dans la capitale nigérienne à Niamey, accompagné d’une trentaine de chefs d’entreprise européens à la recherche d’opportunités d’investissements.
      Baisse du nombre de départ de 90% en deux ans

      Le nombre de migrants qui a quitté le Niger pour rejoindre la Libye avant de tenter la traversée vers l’Europe a été réduit de plus de 90% ces deux dernières années. Notamment grâce aux efforts menés par le gouvernement nigérien avec le soutien de l’Europe pour mieux contrôler la frontière entre le Niger et la Libye. Mais cela ne suffit pas selon le président du Parlement européen, Antonio Tajani. « En 2050, nous aurons deux milliards cinq cents millions d’Africains, nous ne pourrons pas bloquer avec la police et l’armée l’immigration, donc voilà pourquoi il faut intervenir tout de suite ». Selon le président du Parlement européen, il faut donc améliorer les conditions de vie des Nigériens pour les dissuader de venir en Europe.
      Des entreprises françaises vont investir au Niger

      La société française #Sunna_Design, travaille dans le secteur de l’éclairage public solaire et souhaite s’implanter au Niger. Pourtant les difficultés sont nombreuses, notamment la concurrence chinoise, l’insécurité, ou encore la mauvaise gouvernance. Stéphane Redon, le responsable export de l’entreprise, y voit pourtant un bon moyen d’améliorer la vie des habitants. « D’abord la sécurité qui permet à des gens de pouvoir penser à avoir une vie sociale, nocturne, et une activité économique. Et avec ces nouvelles technologies, on aspire à ce que ces projets créent du travail localement, au niveau des installations, de la maintenance, et de la fabrication. »
      Le Niger salue l’initiative

      Pour Mahamadou Issoufou, le président du Niger, l’implantation d’entreprises européennes sur le territoire nigérien est indispensable pour faire face au défi de son pays notamment démographique. Le Niger est le pays avec le taux de natalité le plus élevé au monde, avec huit enfants par femme. « Nous avons tous décidé de nous attaquer aux causes profondes de la migration clandestine, et l’une des causes profondes, c’est la #pauvreté. Il est donc important qu’une lutte énergique soit menée. Certes, il y a les ressources publiques nationales, il y a l’#aide_publique_au_développement, mais tout cela n’est pas suffisant. il faut nécessairement un investissement massif du secteur privé », explique Mahamadou Issoufou. Cette initiative doit être élargie à l’ensemble des pays du Sahel, selon les autorités nigériennes et européennes.

      https://mobile.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/en-direct-du-monde/en-direct-du-monde-au-niger-l-europe-finance-plusieurs-projets-p
      #investissements #développement #APD

    • In die Rebellion getrieben

      Die Flüchtlingsabwehr der EU führt zu neuen Spannungen in Niger und droht womöglich gar eine Rebellion im Norden des Landes auszulösen. Wie Berichte aus der Region bestätigen, hat die von Brüssel erzwungene Illegalisierung des traditionellen Migrationsgeschäfts besonders in der Stadt Agadez, dem Tor zur nigrischen Sahara, Zehntausenden die Lebensgrundlage genommen. Großspurig angekündigte Ersatzprogramme der EU haben lediglich einem kleinen Teil der Betroffenen wieder zu einem Job verholfen. Lokale Beobachter warnen, die Bereitschaft zum Aufstand sowie zum Anschluss an Jihadisten nehme zu. Niger ist ohnehin Schauplatz wachsenden jihadistischen Terrors wie auch gesteigerter westlicher „Anti-Terror“-Operationen: Während Berlin und die EU vor allem eine neue Eingreiftruppe der Staatengruppe „G5 Sahel“ fördern - deutsche Soldaten dürfen dabei auch im Niger eingesetzt werden -, haben die Vereinigten Staaten ihre Präsenz in dem Land ausgebaut. Die US-Streitkräfte errichten zur Zeit eine Drohnenbasis in Agadez, die neue Spannungen auslöst.
      Das Ende der Reisefreiheit

      Niger ist für Menschen, die sich aus den Staaten Afrikas südlich der Sahara auf den Weg zum Mittelmeer und weiter nach Europa machen, stets das wohl wichtigste Transitland gewesen. Nach dem Zerfall Libyens im Anschluss an den Krieg des Westens zum Sturz von Muammar al Gaddafi hatten zeitweise drei Viertel aller Flüchtlinge, die von Libyens Küste mit Ziel Italien in See stachen, zuvor das Land durchquert. Als kaum zu vermeidendes Nadelöhr zwischen den dichter besiedelten Gebieten Nigers und der Wüste fungiert die 120.000-Einwohner-Stadt Agadez, von deren Familien bis 2015 rund die Hälfte ihr Einkommen aus der traditionell legalen Migration zog: Niger gehört dem westafrikanischen Staatenbund ECOWAS an, in dem volle Reisefreiheit gilt. Im Jahr 2015 ist die Reisefreiheit in Niger allerdings durch ein Gesetz eingeschränkt worden, das, wie der Innenminister des Landes bestätigt, nachdrücklich von der EU gefordert worden war.[1] Mit seinem Inkrafttreten ist das Migrationsgeschäft in Agadez illegalisiert worden; das hatte zur Folge, dass zahlreiche Einwohner der Stadt ihren Erwerb verloren. Die EU hat zwar Hilfe zugesagt, doch ihre Maßnahmen sind allenfalls ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein: Von den 7.000 Menschen, die offiziell ihre Arbeit in der nun verbotenen Transitreisebranche aufgaben, hat Brüssel mit einem großspurig aufgelegten, acht Millionen Euro umfassenden Programm weniger als 400 in Lohn und Brot gebracht.
      Ohne Lebensgrundlage

      Entsprechend hat sich die Stimmung in Agadez in den vergangenen zwei Jahren systematisch verschlechtert, heißt es in einem aktuellen Bericht über die derzeitige Lage in der Stadt, den das Nachrichtenportal IRIN Ende Juni publiziert hat.[2] Rangiert Niger auf dem Human Development Index der Vereinten Nationen ohnehin auf Platz 187 von 188, so haben die Verdienstmöglichkeiten in Agadez mit dem Ende des legalen Reisegeschäfts nicht nur stark abgenommen; selbst wer mit Hilfe der EU einen neuen Job gefunden hat, verdient meist erheblich weniger als zuvor. Zwar werden weiterhin Flüchtlinge durch die Wüste in Richtung Norden transportiert - jetzt eben illegal -, doch wachsen die Spannungen, und sie drohen bei jeder neuen EU-Maßnahme zur Abriegelung der nigrisch-libyschen Grenze weiter zu steigen. Das Verbot des Migrationsgeschäfts werde auf lange Sicht „die Leute in die Rebellion treiben“, warnt gegenüber IRIN ein Bewohner von Agadez stellvertretend für eine wachsende Zahl weiterer Bürger der Stadt. Als Reiseunternehmer für Flüchtlinge haben vor allem Tuareg gearbeitet, die bereits von 1990 bis 1995, dann erneut im Jahr 2007 einen bewaffneten Aufstand gegen die Regierung in Niamey unternommen hatten. Hinzu kommt laut einem örtlichen Würdenträger, dass die Umtriebe von Jihadisten im Sahel zunehmend als Widerstand begriffen und für jüngere, in wachsendem Maße aufstandsbereite Bewohner der Region Agadez immer häufiger zum Vorbild würden.
      Anti-Terror-Krieg im Sahel

      Jihadisten haben ihre Aktivitäten in Niger in den vergangenen Jahren bereits intensiviert, nicht nur im Südosten des Landes an der Grenze zu Nigeria, wo die nigrischen Streitkräfte im Krieg gegen Boko Haram stehen, sondern inzwischen auch an der Grenze zu Mali, von wo der dort seit 2012 schwelende Krieg immer mehr übergreift. Internationale Medien berichteten erstmals in größerem Umfang darüber, als am 4. Oktober 2017 eine US-Einheit, darunter Angehörige der Spezialtruppe Green Berets, nahe der nigrischen Ortschaft Tongo Tongo unweit der Grenze zu Mali in einen Hinterhalt gerieten und vier von ihnen von Jihadisten, die dem IS-Anführer Abu Bakr al Baghdadi die Treue geschworen hatten, getötet wurden.[3] In der Tat hat die Beobachtung, dass Jihadisten in Niger neuen Zulauf erhalten, die Vereinigten Staaten veranlasst, 800 Militärs in dem Land zu stationieren, die offiziell nigrische Soldaten trainieren, mutmaßlich aber auch Kommandoaktionen durchführen. Darüber hinaus beteiligt sich Niger auf Druck der EU an der Eingreiftruppe der „G5 Sahel“ [4], die im gesamten Sahel - auch in Niger - am Krieg gegen Jihadisten teilnimmt und auf lange Sicht nach Möglichkeit die französischen Kampftruppen der Opération Barkhane ersetzen soll. Um die „G5 Sahel“-Eingreiftruppe jederzeit und überall unterstützen zu können, hat der Bundestag im Frühjahr das Mandat für die deutschen Soldaten, die in die UN-Truppe MINUSMA entsandt werden, auf alle Sahelstaaten ausgedehnt - darunter auch Niger. Deutsche Soldaten sind darüber hinaus bereits am Flughafen der Hauptstadt Niamey stationiert. Der sogenannte Anti-Terror-Krieg des Westens, der in anderen Ländern wegen seiner Brutalität den Jihadisten oft mehr Kämpfer zugeführt als genommen hat, weitet sich zunehmend auf nigrisches Territorium aus.
      Zunehmend gewaltbereit

      Zusätzliche Folgen haben könnte dabei die Tatsache, dass die Vereinigten Staaten gegenwärtig für den Anti-Terror-Krieg eine 110 Millionen US-Dollar teure Drohnenbasis errichten - am Flughafen Agadez. Niger scheint sich damit dauerhaft zum zweitwichtigsten afrikanischen Standort von US-Truppen nach Djibouti mit seinem strategisch bedeutenden Hafen zu entwickeln. Washington errichtet die Drohnenbasis, obwohl eine vorab durchgeführte Umfrage des U.S. Africa Command und des State Department ergeben hat, dass die Bevölkerung die US-Militäraktivitäten im Land zunehmend kritisch sieht und eine starke Minderheit Gewalt gegen Personen oder Organisationen aus Europa und Nordamerika für legitim hält.[5] Mittlerweile dürfen sich, wie berichtet wird, US-Botschaftsangehörige außerhalb der Hauptstadt Niamey nur noch in Konvois in Begleitung von nigrischem Sicherheitspersonal bewegen. Die Drohnenbasis, die ohne die von der nigrischen Verfassung vorgesehene Zustimmung des Parlaments errichtet wird und daher mutmaßlich illegal ist, droht den Unmut noch weiter zu verschärfen. Beobachter halten es für nicht unwahrscheinlich, dass sie Angriffe auf sich zieht - und damit Niger noch weiter destabilisiert.[6]
      Flüchtlingslager

      Hinzu kommt, dass die EU Niger in zunehmendem Maß als Plattform nutzt, um Flüchtlinge, die in libyschen Lagern interniert waren, unterzubringen, bevor sie entweder in die EU geflogen oder in ihre Herkunftsländer abgeschoben werden. Allein von Ende November bis Mitte Mai sind 1.152 Flüchtlinge aus Libyen nach Niger gebracht worden; dazu wurden 17 „Transitzentren“ in Niamey, sechs in Agadez eingerichtet. Niger gilt inzwischen außerdem als möglicher Standort für die EU-"Ausschiffungsplattformen" [7] - Lager, in die Flüchtlinge verlegt werden sollen, die auf dem Mittelmeer beim Versuch, nach Europa zu reisen, aufgegriffen wurden. Damit erhielte Niger einen weiteren potenziellen Destabilisierungsfaktor - im Auftrag und unter dem Druck der EU. Ob und, wenn ja, wie das Land die durch all dies drohenden Erschütterungen überstehen wird, das ist völlig ungewiss.

      [1], [2] Eric Reidy: Destination Europe: Frustration. irinnews.org 28.06.2018.

      [3] Eric Schmitt: 3 Special Forces Troops Killed and 2 Are Wounded in an Ambush in Niger. nytimes.com 04.10.2017.[4] S. dazu Die Militarisierung des Sahel (IV).

      [5] Nick Turse: U.S. Military Surveys Found Local Distrust in Niger. Then the Air Force Built a $100 Million Drone Base. theintercept.com 03.07.2018.

      [6] Joe Penney: A Massive U.S. Drone Base Could Destabilize Niger - And May Even Be Illegal Under its Constitution. theintercept.com 18.02.2018.

      [7] S. dazu Libysche Lager.

      https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/7673

      –-> Commentaire reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      La politique d’externalisation de l’UE crée de nouvelles tensions au Niger et risque de déclencher une rebellion dans le nord du pays. Plusieurs rapports de la région confirment que le fait que Bruxelle ait rendu illégal la migration traditionnelle et de fait détruit l’économie qui tournait autour, particulièrement dans la ville d’Agadez, porte d’entrée du Sahara nigérien, a privé de revenus des dizaines de milliers de personnes. Les programmes de développement annoncés par l’UE n’ont pu aider qu’une infime partie de ceux qui ont été affectés par la mesure. Les observateurs locaux constatent que une augmentation des volontés à se rebeller et/ou à rejoindre les djihadistes. Le Niger est déja la scène d’attaques terroristes djihadistes ainsi que d’opérations occidentales « anti-terreur » : alors que Berlin et l’UE soutiennent une intervention des forces du G5 Sahel - les soldats allemands pourraient être déployés au Niger - les Etats Unis ont étendu leur présence sur le territoire. Les forces US sont en train de construire une base de #drones à Agadez, ce qui a déclenché de nouvelles tensions.

      #déstabilisation

    • Libya: EU’s patchwork policy has failed to protect the human rights of refugees and migrants

      A year after the emergence of shocking footage of migrants apparently being sold as merchandise in Libya prompted frantic deliberations over the EU’s migration policy, a series of quick fixes and promises has not improved the situation for refugees and migrants, Amnesty International said today. In fact, conditions for refugees and migrants have largely deteriorated over the past year and armed clashes in Tripoli that took place between August and September this year have only exacerbated the situation further.

      https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde19/9391/2018/en
      #droits_humains

      Pour télécharger le rapport:
      https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1993912018ENGLISH.pdf

    • New #LNCG Training module in Croatia

      A new training module in favour of Libyan Coastguard and Navy started in Split (Croatia) on November the 12.
      Last Monday, November the 12th, a new training module managed by operation Sophia and focused on “Ship’s Divers Basic Course” was launched in the Croatian Navy Training Centre in Split (Croatia).

      The trainees had been selected by the competent Libyan authorities and underwent a thorough vetting process carried out in different phases by EUNAVFOR Med, security agencies of EU Member States participating in the Operation and international organizations.

      After the accurate vetting process, including all the necessary medical checks for this specific activity, 5 Libyan military personnel were admitted to start the course.

      The course, hosted by the Croatian Navy, will last 5 weeks, and it will provide knowledge and training in diving procedures, specifically related techniques and lessons focused on Human Rights, Basic First Aid and Gender Policy.

      The end of the course is scheduled for the 14 of December 2018.

      Additionally, with the positive conclusion of this course, the threshold of more than 300 Libyan Coastguard and Navy personnel trained by #EUNAVFOR_Med will be reached.

      EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia continues at sea its operation focused on disrupting the business model of migrant smugglers and human traffickers, contributing to EU efforts for the return of stability and security in Libya and the training and capacity building of the Libyan Navy and Coastguard.


      https://www.operationsophia.eu/new-lncg-training-module-in-croatia

    • EU Council adopts decision expanding EUBAM Libya’s mandate to include actively supporting Libyan authorities in disrupting networks involved in smuggling migrants, human trafficking and terrorism

      The Council adopted a decision mandating the #EU_integrated_border_management_assistance_mission in Libya (#EUBAM_Libya) to actively support the Libyan authorities in contributing to efforts to disrupt organised criminal networks involved in smuggling migrants, human trafficking and terrorism. The mission was previously mandated to plan for a future EU civilian mission while engaging with the Libyan authorities.

      The mission’s revised mandate will run until 30 June 2020. The Council also allocated a budget of € 61.6 million for the period from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2020.

      In order to achieve its objectives EUBAM Libya provides capacity-building in the areas of border management, law enforcement and criminal justice. The mission advises the Libyan authorities on the development of a national integrated border management strategy and supports capacity building, strategic planning and coordination among relevant Libyan authorities. The mission will also manage as well as coordinate projects related to its mandate.

      EUBAM Libya responds to a request by the Libyan authorities and is part of the EU’s comprehensive approach to support the transition to a democratic, stable and prosperous Libya. The civilian mission co-operates closely with, and contributes to, the efforts of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya.

      The mission’s headquarters are located in Tripoli and the Head of Mission is Vincenzo Tagliaferri (from Italy). EUBAM Libya.

      https://migrantsatsea.org/2018/12/18/eu-council-adopts-decision-expanding-eubam-libyas-mandate-to-include-

      EUBAM Libya :
      Mission de l’UE d’assistance aux frontières (EUBAM) en Libye


      https://eeas.europa.eu/csdp-missions-operations/eubam-libya_fr

    • Comment l’UE a fermé la route migratoire entre la Libye et l’Italie

      Les Européens coopèrent avec un Etat failli, malgré les mises en garde sur le sort des migrants dans le pays

      L’une des principales voies d’entrée en Europe s’est tarie. Un peu plus de 1 100 personnes migrantes sont arrivées en Italie et à Malte par la mer Méditerranée sur les cinq premiers mois de l’année. Un chiffre en fort recul, comparé aux 650 000 migrants qui ont emprunté cette voie maritime ces cinq dernières années. Le résultat, notamment, d’une coopération intense entre l’Union européenne, ses Etats membres et la Libye.

      En 2014, alors que le pays est plongé dans une guerre civile depuis la chute du régime de Kadhafi, plus de 140 000 migrants quittent ses côtes en direction de l’Italie, contre quelque 42 000 l’année précédente pour toute la rive sud de la Méditerranée centrale. Cette dernière devient, deux ans plus tard, la principale porte d’entrée sur le continent européen.

      Inquiète de cette recrudescence, l’Italie relance en mars 2016 ses relations bilatérales avec la Libye – interrompues depuis la chute de Kadhafi –, à peine le fragile gouvernement d’union nationale (GNA) de Faïez Sarraj installé à Tripoli sous l’égide de l’ONU. Emboîtant le pas à Rome, l’UE modifie le mandat de son opération militaire « Sophia ». Jusque-là cantonnée à la lutte contre le trafic de migrants en Méditerranée, celle-ci doit désormais accompagner le rétablissement et la montée en puissance des gardes-côtes libyens.

      Dans cette optique, dès juillet 2016, l’UE mandate les gardes-côtes italiens pour « assumer une responsabilité de premier plan » dans le projet de mise en place d’un centre de coordination de sauvetage maritime (MRCC) à Tripoli et d’une zone de sauvetage à responsabilité libyenne dans les eaux internationales. C’est une étape majeure dans le changement du paysage en Méditerranée centrale. Jusque-là, compte tenu de la défaillance de Tripoli, la coordination des sauvetages au large de la Libye était assumée par le MRCC de Rome. Les migrants secourus étaient donc ramenés sur la rive européenne de la Méditerranée. Si Tripoli prend la main sur ces opérations, alors ses gardes-côtes ramèneront les migrants en Libye, même ceux interceptés dans les eaux internationales. Une manière de « contourner l’interdiction en droit international de refouler un réfugié vers un pays où sa vie ou sa liberté sont menacées », résume Hassiba Hadj-Sahraoui, conseillère aux affaires humanitaires de Médecins sans frontières (MSF).

      Les premières formations de gardes-côtes débutent en octobre 2016, et les agences de l’ONU sont mises à contribution pour sensibiliser les personnels au respect des droits de l’homme. « C’est difficile d’en mesurer l’impact, mais nous pensons que notre présence limite les risques pour les réfugiés », estime Roberto Mignone, l’ancien représentant du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés en Libye.

      Au sein de l’UE, tous les outils sont mobilisés. Même les équipes du Bureau européen d’appui à l’asile sont sollicitées. Un fonctionnaire européen se souvient du malaise en interne. « Le Conseil a fait pression pour nous faire participer, rapporte-t-il. On n’était clairement pas emballés. C’était nous compromettre un peu aussi dans ce qui ressemble à une relation de sous-traitance et à un blanc-seing donné à des pratiques problématiques. »
      Le travail des ONG entravé

      Le pays est alors dans une situation chaotique, et les migrants en particulier y encourent de graves violences telles que le travail forcé, l’exploitation sexuelle, le racket et la torture.

      Mais l’Europe poursuit son plan et continue de s’appuyer sur l’Italie. Le 2 février 2017, le gouvernement de gauche de Paolo Gentiloni (Parti démocrate) réactive un traité d’amitié de 2008 entre Rome et Tripoli, avec l’approbation du Conseil européen dès le lendemain. Des moyens du Fonds fiduciaire de l’UE pour l’Afrique sont fléchés vers les enjeux migratoires en Libye – 338 millions d’euros jusqu’à aujourd’hui –, bien que l’Union fasse état de « préoccupations sur une collusion possible entre les bénéficiaires de l’action et les activités de contrebande et de traite ».

      A cette époque, les Nations unies dénoncent l’implication des gardes-côtes de Zaouïa (à 50 km à l’ouest de Tripoli) dans le trafic de migrants. En mai 2017, Marco Minniti, ministre italien de l’intérieur (Parti démocrate), remet quatre bateaux patrouilleurs à la Libye. Trois mois plus tard, Tripoli déclare auprès de l’Organisation maritime internationale (OMI) qu’elle devient compétente pour coordonner les sauvetages jusqu’à 94 milles nautiques au large de ses côtes.

      Le travail des ONG, lui, est de plus en plus entravé par l’Italie, qui les accuse de collaborer avec les passeurs et leur impose un « code de conduite ». S’ensuivront des saisies de bateaux, des retraits de pavillon et autres procédures judiciaires. L’immense majorité d’entre elles vont jeter l’éponge.

      Un tournant s’opère en Méditerranée centrale. Les gardes-côtes libyens deviennent à l’automne 2017 les premiers acteurs du sauvetage dans la zone. Ils ramènent cette année-là 18 900 migrants sur leur rive, presque quarante fois plus qu’en 2015.

      Leur autonomie semble pourtant toute relative. C’est Rome qui transmet à Tripoli « la majorité des appels de détresse », note un rapport de l’ONU. C’est Rome encore qui dépose en décembre 2017, auprès de l’OMI, le projet de centre libyen de coordination des sauvetages maritimes financé par la Commission européenne. Un bilan d’étape interne à l’opération « Sophia », de mars 2018, décrit d’ailleurs l’impréparation de Tripoli à assumer seule ses nouvelles responsabilités. La salle d’opération depuis laquelle les sauvetages doivent être coordonnés se trouve dans « une situation infrastructurelle critique »liée à des défauts d’électricité, de connexion Internet, de téléphones et d’ordinateurs. Les personnels ne parlent pas anglais.

      Un sauvetage, le 6 novembre 2017, illustre le dangereux imbroglio que deviennent les opérations de secours. Ce jour-là, dans les eaux internationales, à 30 milles nautiques au nord de Tripoli, au moins 20 personnes seraient mortes. Une plainte a depuis été déposée contre l’Italie devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Des rescapés accusent Rome de s’être défaussé sur les gardes-côtes libyens.« Un appel de détresse avait été envoyé à tous les bateaux par le MRCC Rome, relate Violeta Moreno-Lax, juriste qui a participé au recours. L’ONG allemande Sea-Watch est arrivée sur place quelques minutes après les gardes-côtes libyens. C’est Rome qui a demandé aux Libyens d’intervenir et à Sea-Watch de rester éloignée. »

      Les gardes-côtes présents – certains formés par l’UE – n’ont alors ni gilets ni canot de sauvetage. Sur les vidéos de l’événement, on peut voir l’embarcation des migrants se coincer sous la coque de leur patrouilleur. Des gens tombent à l’eau et se noient. On entend aussi les Libyens menacer l’équipage du Sea-Watch de représailles, puis quitter les lieux en charriant dans l’eau un migrant accroché à une échelle.

      Tout en ayant connaissance de ce drame, et bien qu’elle reconnaisse un suivi très limité du travail des gardes-côtes en mer, la force navale « Sophia » se félicite, dans son bilan d’étape de mars 2018, du « modèle opérationnel durable » qu’elle finance.

      L’année 2018 confirme le succès de cette stratégie. Les arrivées en Italie ont chuté de 80 %, ce qui n’empêche pas le ministre de l’intérieur, Matteo Salvini (extrême droite), d’annoncer à l’été la fermeture de ses ports aux navires humanitaires.
      « Esclavage » et « torture »

      L’ONU rappelle régulièrement que la Libye ne doit pas être considérée comme un « port sûr » pour débarquer les migrants interceptés en mer. Les personnes en situation irrégulière y sont systématiquement placées en détention, dans des centres sous la responsabilité du gouvernement où de nombreux abus sont documentés, tels que des « exécutions extrajudiciaires, l’esclavage, les actes de torture, les viols, le trafic d’être humains et la sous-alimentation ».

      La dangerosité des traversées, elle, a explosé : le taux de mortalité sur la route de la Méditerranée centrale est passé de 2,6 % en 2017 à 13,8 % en 2019.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/05/07/comment-l-ue-a-ferme-la-route-entre-la-libye-et-l-italie_5459242_3210.html

  • Eritrea-Etiopia – Si tratta la pace ad Addis Abeba

    Una delegazione eritrea di alto livello è arrivata in Etiopia per il primo round di negoziati di pace in vent’anni. Il ministro degli Esteri eritreo Osman Sale è stato accolto in aeroporto dal neo premier etiopico Abiy Ahmed che, ai primi di giugno, ha sorpreso il Paese dichiarando di accettare l’Accordo di pace del 2000 che poneva fine alla guerra con l’Eritrea.

    L’Accordo, nonostante la fine dei combattimenti nel 2000, non è mai stato applicato e i rapporti tra i due Paesi sono rimasti tesi. Etiopia ed Eritrea non hanno relazioni diplomatiche e negli ultimi anni ci sono stati ripetute schermaglie militari al confine.


    https://www.africarivista.it/eritrea-etiopia-si-tratta-la-pace-ad-addis-abeba/125465
    #paix #Ethiopie #Erythrée #processus_de_paix

    • Peace Deal Alone Will Not Stem Flow of Eritrean Refugees

      The detente with Ethiopia has seen Eritrea slash indefinite military conscription. Researcher Cristiano D’Orsi argues that without a breakthrough on human rights, Eritreans will still flee.

      Ethiopia and Eritrea have signed a historic agreement to end the 20-year conflict between the two countries. The breakthrough has been widely welcomed given the devastating effects the conflict has had on both countries as well as the region.

      The tension between the two countries led to Eritrea taking steps that were to have a ripple effect across the region – and the world. One in particular, the conscription of young men, has had a particularly wide impact.

      Two years before formal cross-border conflict broke out in 1998, the Eritrean government took steps to maintain a large standing army to push back against Ethiopia’s occupation of Eritrean territories. Initially, troops were supposed to assemble and train for a period of 18 months as part of their national service. But, with the breakout of war, the service, which included both military personnel and civilians, was extended. All Eritrean men between the ages of 18–50 have to serve in the army for more than 20 years.

      This policy has been given as the reason for large numbers of Eritreans fleeing the country. The impact of the policy on individuals, and families, has been severe. For example, there have been cases of multiple family members being conscripted at the same time. This denied them the right to enjoy a stable family life. Children were the most heavily affected.

      It’s virtually impossible for Eritreans to return once they have left as refugees because the Eritrean government doesn’t look kindly on repatriated returnees. Those who are forced to return to the country face persecution and human rights abuses.

      In 2017, Eritreans represented the ninth-largest refugee population in the world with 486,200 people forcibly displaced. By May 2018, Eritreans represented 5 percent of the migrants who disembarked on the northern shores of the Mediterranean.

      Things look set to change, however. The latest batch of national service recruits have been told their enlistment will last no longer than 18 months. The announcement came in the midst of the dramatic thawing of relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It has raised hopes that the service could be terminated altogether.

      With that said, it remains to be seen whether the end of hostilities between the two countries will ultimately stem the flow of Eritrean refugees.

      It’s virtually impossible for Eritreans to return once they have left as refugees because the Eritrean government doesn’t look kindly on repatriated returnees. Those who are forced to return to the country face persecution and human rights abuses.

      The Eritrean government’s hardline position has led to changes in refugee policies in countries like the UK. For example, in October 2016, a U.K. appellate tribunal held that Eritreans of draft age who left the country illegally would face the risk of persecution and abuse if they were involuntarily returned to Eritrea.

      This, the tribunal said, was in direct violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result, the U.K.’s Home Office amended its immigration policy to conform to the tribunal’s ruling.

      Eritrean asylum seekers haven’t been welcome everywhere. For a long time they were persona non grata in Israel on the grounds that absconding national service duty was not justification for asylum. But in September 2016, an Israeli appeals court held that Eritreans must be given the chance to explain their reasons for fleeing at individual hearings, overruling an interior ministry policy that denied asylum to deserters.

      The situation is particularly tense for Eritreans in Israel because they represent the majority of African asylum seekers in the country. In fact, in May 2018, Israel and the United Nations refugee agency began negotiating a deal to repatriate African asylum seekers in western countries, with Canada as a primary destination.

      An earlier deal had fallen through after public pressure reportedly caused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to back out of it.

      Eritreans living as refugees in Ethiopia have been welcomed in Australia where they are one among eight nationalities that have access to a resettlement scheme known as the community support program. This empowers Australian individuals, community organizations and businesses to offer Eritrean refugees jobs if they have the skills, allowing them to settle permanently in the country.

      The government has always denied that conscription has anything to do with Eritreans fleeing the country. Two years ago it made it clear that it would not shorten the length of the mandatory national service.

      At the time officials said Eritreans were leaving the country because they were being enticed by certain “pull factors.” They argued, for example, that the need for low cost manpower in the West could easily be met by giving asylum to Eritreans who needed just to complain about the National Service to obtain asylum.

      But change is on the cards. After signing the peace deal with Ethiopia, Eritrea has promised to end the current conscription regime and announcing that national service duty will last no more than 18 months.

      Even so, the national service is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future to fulfil other parts of its mandate which are reconstructing the country, strengthening the economy, and developing a joint Eritrean identity across ethnic and religious lines.

      Eritrea is still a country facing enormous human rights violations. According to the last Freedom House report, the Eritrean government has made no recent effort to address these. The report accuses the regime of continuing to perpetrate crimes against humanity.

      If Eritrea pays more attention to upholding human rights, fewer nationals will feel the need to flee. And if change comes within Eritrean borders as fast as it did with Ethiopia, a radical shift in human rights policy could be in the works.

      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/08/09/peace-deal-alone-will-not-stem-flow-of-eritrean-refugees

      #asile #réfugiés

    • Eritrea has slashed conscription. Will it stem the flow of refugees?

      Ethiopia and Eritrea have signed an historic agreement to end the 20-year conflict between the two countries. The breakthrough has been widely welcomed given the devastating effects the conflict has had on both countries as well as the region.

      The tension between the two countries led to Eritrea taking steps that were to have a ripple effect across the region – and the world. One in particular, the conscription of young men, has had a particularly wide impact.

      Two years before formal cross border conflict broke out in 1998, the Eritrean government took steps to maintain a large standing army to push back against Ethiopia’s occupation of Eritrean territories. Initially, troops were supposed to assemble and train for a period of 18 months as part of their national service. But, with the breakout of war, the service, which included both military personnel and civilians, was extended. All Eritrean men between the ages of 18 – 50 have to serve in the army for more than 20 years.

      This policy has been given as the reason for large numbers of Eritreans fleeing the country. The impact of the policy on individuals, and families, has been severe. For example, there have been cases of multiple family members being conscripted at the same time. This denied them the right to enjoy a stable family life. Children were the most heavily affected.

      In 2017, Eritreans represented the ninth-largest refugee population in the world with 486,200 people forcibly displaced. By May 2018 Eritreans represented 5% of the migrants who disembarked on the northern shores of the Mediterranean.

      Things look set to change, however. The latest batch of national service recruits have been told their enlistment will last no longer than 18 months. The announcement came in the midst of the dramatic thawing of relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It has raised hopes that the service could be terminated altogether.

      With that said, it remains to be seen whether the end of hostilities between the two countries will ultimately stem the flow of Eritrean refugees.
      The plight of Eritrean refugees

      It’s virtually impossible for Eritreans to return once they have left as refugees because the Eritrean government doesn’t look kindly on repatriated returnees. Those who are forced to return to the country face persecution and human rights abuses.

      The Eritrean government’s hard line position has led to changes in refugee policies in countries like the UK. For example, in October 2016 a UK appellate tribunal held that Eritreans of draft age who left the country illegally would face the risk of persecution and abuse if they were involuntarily returned to Eritrea.

      This, the tribunal said, was in direct violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result, the UK’s Home Office amended its immigration policy to conform to the tribunal’s ruling.

      Eritrean asylum seekers haven’t been welcome everywhere. For a long time they were persona non grata in Israel on the grounds that absconding national service duty was not justification for asylum. But in September 2016 an Israeli appeals court held that Eritreans must be given the chance to explain their reasons for fleeing at individual hearings, overruling an interior ministry policy that denied asylum to deserters.

      The situation is particularly tense for Eritreans in Israel because they represent the majority of African asylum-seekers in the country. In fact, in May 2018, Israel and the United Nations refugee agency began negotiating a deal to repatriate African asylum-seekers in western countries, with Canada as a primary destination.

      An earlier deal had fallen through after public pressure reportedly caused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to back out of it.

      Eritreans living as refugees in Ethiopia have been welcomed in Australia where they are one among eight nationalities that have access to a resettlement scheme known as the community support programme. This empowers Australian individuals, community organisations and businesses to offer Eritrean refugees jobs if they have the skills, allowing them to settle permanently in the country.
      The future

      The government has always denied that conscription has anything to do with Eritreans fleeing the country. Two years ago it made it clear that it would not shorten the length of the mandatory national service.

      At the time officials said Eritreans were leaving the country because they were being enticed by certain “pull factors”. They argued, for example, that the need for low cost manpower in the West could easily be met by giving asylum to Eritreans who needed just to complain about the National Service to obtain asylum.

      But change is on the cards. After signing the peace deal with Ethiopia, Eritrea has promised to end the current conscription regime and announcing that national service duty will last no more than 18 months.

      Even so, the national service is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future to fulfil other parts of its mandate which are reconstructing the country, strengthening he economy, and developing a joint Eritrean identity across ethnic and religious lines.

      Eritrea is still a country facing enormous human rights violations. According to the last Freedom House report, the Eritrean government has made no recent effort to address these. The report accuses the regime of continuing to perpetrate crimes against humanity.

      If Eritrea pays more attention to upholding human rights, fewer nationals will feel the need to flee. And if change comes within Eritrean borders as fast as it did with Ethiopia, a radical shift in human rights policy could be in the works.

      https://theconversation.com/eritrea-has-slashed-conscription-will-it-stem-the-flow-of-refugees-

      #conscription #service_militaire #armée

    • Out of Eritrea: What happens after #Badme?

      On 6 June 2018, the government of Ethiopia announced that it would abide by the Algiers Agreement and 2002 Eritrea-Ethiopian Boundary Commission decision that defined the disputed border and granted the border town of Badme to Eritrea. Over the last 20 years, Badme has been central to the dispute between the two countries, following Ethiopia’s rejection of the ruling and continued occupation of the area. Ethiopia’s recently appointed Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed acknowledged that the dispute over Badme had resulted in 20 years of tension between the two countries. To defend the border areas with Ethiopia, in 1994 the Eritrean government introduced mandatory military service for all adults over 18. Eritrean migrants and asylum seekers often give their reason for flight as the need to escape this mandatory national service.

      Since 2015, Eritreans have been the third largest group of people entering Europe through the Mediterranean, and have the second highestnumber of arrivals through the Central Mediterranean route to Italy. According to UNHCR, by the end of 2016, 459,390 Eritreans were registered refugees in various countries worldwide. Various sources estimate Eritrea’s population at 5 million people, meaning that approximately 10% of Eritrea’s population has sought refuge abroad by 2016.
      Mandatory military service – a driver of migration and displacement

      As data collection from the Mixed Migration Centre’s Mixed Migration Monitoring Mechanism Initiative (4Mi) shows, 95% of Eritrean refugees and migrants surveyed gave fear of conscription into national service as their main reason for flight out of Eritrea. Men and women from 18 to 40 years old are required by law to undertake national service for 18 months — including six months of military training followed by 12 months’ deployment either in military service or in other government entities including farms, construction sites, mines and ministries.
      In reality, national service for most conscripts extends beyond the 18 months and often indefinite. There are also reported cases of children under 18 years old being forcefully recruited. Even upon completion of national service, Eritreans under the age of 50 years may been enrolled in the Reserve Army with the duty to provide reserve military service and defend the country from external attacks or invasions.

      According to Human Rights Watch, conscripts are subject to military discipline and are harshly treated and earn a salary that often ranges between USD 43 – 48 per month. The length of service is unpredictable, the type of abuse inflicted on conscripts is at the whim of military commanders and the UN Commission of inquiry on human rights in Eritrea reported on the frequent sexual abuse of female conscripts. Eritrea has no provision for conscientious objection to national service and draft evaders and deserters if arrested are subjected to heavy punishment according to Amnesty International, including lengthy periods of detention, torture and other forms of inhuman treatment including rape for women. For those who escape, relatives are forced to pay fines of 50,000 Nakfa (USD 3,350) for each family member. Failure to pay the fine may result in the arrest and detention of a family member until the money is paid which further fuels flight from Eritrea for families who are unable to pay the fine.

      The government of Eritrea asserts that compulsory and indefinite national service is necessitated by continued occupation of its sovereign territories citing Ethiopia as the main threat. In its response to the UN Human Rights Council Report that criticised Eritrea for human rights violations including indefinite conscription, Eritrea stated that one of its main constraints to the fulfilment of its international and national obligations in promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms is the continued occupation of its territory by Ethiopia.

      In 2016, Eritrea’s minister for Information confirmed that indefinite national service would remain without fundamental changes even in the wake of increased flight from the country by citizens unwilling to undertake the service. The Minister went on to state that Eritrea would contemplate demobilization upon the removal of the ‘main threat’, in this case Eritrea’s hostile relationship with Ethiopia. Eritrea and Ethiopia have both traded accusations of supporting opposition/militia groups to undermine each other both locally and abroad. If the relations between the countries turn peaceful, this could potentially have an impact on Eritrean migration, out of the country and out of the region.

      In the absence of hostilities and perceived security threats from its neighbour, it is possible that Eritrea will amend – or at least be open to start a dialogue about amending – its national service (and military) policies from the current mandatory and indefinite status, which has been one of the major root causes of the movement of Eritreans out of their country and onwards towards Europe. Related questions are whether an improvement in the relations with Ethiopia could also bring an immediate or longer term improvement in the socio-economic problems that Eritrea faces, for example through expanded trade relations between the two countries? Will this change usher in an era of political stability and an easing of military burdens on the Eritrean population?
      A possible game changer?

      The border deal, if it materialises, could at some time also have serious implications for Eritrean asylum seekers in Europe. Eritreans applying for asylum have relatively high approval rates. The high recognition rate for Eritrean asylum seekers is based on the widely accepted presumptionthat Eritreans who evade or avoid national service are at risk of persecution. In 2016 for example, 93% of Eritreans who sought asylum in EU countries received a positive decision. This recognition rate was second to Syrians and ahead of Iraqis and Somalis; all countries that are in active conflict unlike Eritrea. If the government of Eritrea enacts positive policy changes regarding conscription, the likely effect could be a much lower recognition rate for Eritrean asylum seekers. It is unclear how this would affect those asylum seekers already in the system.

      While Eritreans on the route to Europe and in particular those arriving in Italy, remain highly visible and receive most attention, many Eritreans who leave the country end up in refugee camps or Eritrean enclaves in neighbouring countries like Sudan and Ethiopia or further away in Egypt. After they flee, most Eritreans initially apply for refugee status in Ethiopia’s and Sudan’s refugee camps. As Human Rights Watch noted in 2016, the Eritrean camp population generally remains more or less stable. While many seek onward movements out of the camps, many refugees remain in the region. With these potentially new developments in Eritrea, will the Eritreans in Sudan, Ethiopia and other neighbouring countries feel encouraged or compelled to return at some, or will they perhaps be forced to return to Eritrea?
      What’s next?

      Conservative estimates in 2001 put the cost of the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia at USD 2.9 billion in just the first three years. This has had an adverse effect on the economies of the two countries as well as human rights conditions. In 2013, Eritrea expressed its willingness to engage in dialogue with Ethiopia should it withdraw its army from the disputed territory which it further noted is occupied by 300,000 soldiers from both countries. Ethiopia has previously stated its willingness to surrender Badme, without in the end acting upon this promise. Should this latest promise be implemented and ties between two countries normalized, this might herald positive developments for both the economy and the human rights situation in both countries, with a potential significant impact on one of the major drivers of movement out of Eritrea.

      However, with the news that Ethiopia would move to define its borders in accordance with international arbitration, the possibilities for political stability and economic growth in Eritrea remain uncertain. On 21 June 2018, the President of Eritrea Isaias Aferwerki issued a statement saying that Eritrea would send a delegation to Addis Ababa to ‘gauge current developments… chart out a plan for continuous future action’. The possibility of resulting peace and economic partnership between the two countries could, although a long-term process, also result in economic growth on both sides of the border and increased livelihood opportunities for their citizens who routinely engage in unsafe and irregular migration for political, humanitarian and economic reasons.

      http://www.mixedmigration.org/articles/out-of-eritrea

    • Despite the peace deal with Ethiopia, Eritrean refugees are still afraid to return home

      When Samuel Berhe thinks of Eritrea, he sees the sand-colored buildings and turquoise water of Asmara’s shoreline. He sees his sister’s bar under the family home in the capital’s center that sells sweet toast and beer. He sees his father who, at 80 years old, is losing his eyesight but is still a force to be reckoned with. He thinks of his home, a place that he cannot reach.

      Berhe, like many other Eritreans, fled the country some years ago to escape mandatory national service, which the government made indefinite following the 1998-2000 border war with Ethiopia. The war cost the countries an estimated 100,000 lives, while conscription created a generation of Eritrean refugees. The UNHCR said that in 2016 there were 459,000 Eritrean exiles out of an estimated population of 5.3 million.

      So, when the leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea signed a sudden peace deal in July 2018, citizens of the Horn of Africa nations rejoiced. Many took to the streets bearing the two flags. Others chose social media to express their happiness, and some even dialed up strangers, as phone lines between the nations were once again reinstated. It felt like a new era of harmony and prosperity had begun.

      But for Berhe, the moment was bittersweet.

      “I was happy because it is good for our people but I was also sad, because it doesn’t make any change for me,” he said from his home in Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa. “I will stay as a refugee.”

      Like many other Eritrean emigrants, Berhe fled the country illegally to escape national service. He fears that if he returns, he will wind up in jail, or worse. He does not have a passport and has not left Ethiopia since he arrived on the back of a cargo truck 13 years ago. His two daughters, Sarah, 9, and Ella, 11, for whom he is an only parent, have never seen their grandparents or their father’s homeland.

      Now that there is a direct flight, Berhe is planning on sending the girls to see their relatives. But before he considers returning, he will need some sort of guarantee from Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki, who leads the ruling People’s Front for Democracy and Justice, that he will pardon those who left.

      “The people that illegally escaped, the government thinks that we are traitors,” he said. “There are many, many like me, all over the world, too afraid to go back.”

      Still, hundreds fought to board the first flights between the two capitals throughout July and August. Asmara’s and Addis Ababa’s airports became symbols of the reunification as hordes of people awaited their relatives with bouquets daily, some whom they hadn’t seen for more than two decades.

      “When I see the people at the airport, smiling, laughing, reuniting with their family, I wish to be like them. To be free. They are lucky,” Berhe said.

      Related: Chronic insomnia plagues young migrants long after they reach their destination

      Zala Mekonnen, 38, an Eritrean Canadian, who was one of the many waiting at arrivals in Addis Ababa, said she had completely given up on the idea that the two nations — formerly one country — would ever rekindle relations.

      Mekonnen, who is half Ethiopian, found the 20-year feud especially difficult as her family was separated in half. In July, her mother saw her uncle for the first time in 25 years.

      “We’re happy but hopefully he’s [Afwerki] going to let those young kids free [from conscription],” she said. “I’m hoping God will hear, because so many of them died while trying to escape. One full generation lost.”

      Related: A life of statelessness derailed this Eritrean runner’s hopes to compete in the Olympics

      Mekonnen called the peace deal with Ethiopia a crucial step towards Eritrean democracy. But Afwerki, the 72-year-old ex-rebel leader, will also have to allow multiple political parties to exist, along with freedom of religion, freedom of speech and reopening Asmara’s public university while also giving young people opportunities outside of national service.

      “The greeting that Afwerki received here in Ethiopia [following the agreement to restore relations], he didn’t deserve it,” said Mekonnen. “He should have been hung.”

      Since the rapprochement, Ethiopia’s leader, Abiy Ahmed, has reached out to exiled opposition groups, including those in Eritrea, to open up a political dialogue. The Eritrean president has not made similar efforts. But in August, his office announced that he would visit Ethiopia for a second time to discuss the issue of rebels.

      Laura Hammond, a professor of developmental studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said that it is likely Afwerki will push for Ethiopia to send Eritrean refugees seeking asylum back to Eritrea.

      “The difficulty is that, while the two countries are normalizing relations, the political situation inside Eritrea is not changing as rapidly,” Hammond said. “There are significant fears about what will happen to those who have left the country illegally, including in some cases escaping from prison or from their national service bases. They will need to be offered amnesty if they are to feel confident about returning.”

      To voice their frustrations, thousands of exiled Eritreans gathered in protest outside the UN headquarters in Geneva on Aug. 31. Amid chants of “enough is enough” and “down, down Isaias,” attendees held up placards calling for peace and democracy. The opposition website, Harnnet, wrote that while the rapprochement with Ethiopia was welcomed, regional and global politicians were showing “undeserved sympathy” to a power that continued to violate human rights.

      Sitting in front of the TV, Berhe’s two daughters sip black tea and watch a religious parade broadcast on Eritrea’s national channel. Berhe, who has temporary refugee status in Ethiopia, admits that one thing that the peace deal has changed is that the state’s broadcaster no longer airs perpetual scenes of war. For now, he is safe in Addis Ababa with his daughters, but he is eager to obtain a sponsor in the US, Europe or Australia, so that he can resettle and provide them with a secure future. He is afraid that landlocked Ethiopia might cave to pressures from the Eritrean government to return its refugees in exchange for access to the Red Sea port.

      “Meanwhile my girls say to me, ’Why don’t we go for summer holiday in Asmara?’” he laughs. “They don’t understand my problem.”


      https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-09-13/despite-peace-deal-ethiopia-eritrean-refugees-are-still-afraid-return-home

    • Etiopia: firmato ad Asmara accordo di pace fra governo e Fronte nazionale di liberazione dell’#Ogaden

      Asmara, 22 ott 09:51 - (Agenzia Nova) - Il governo dell’Etiopia e i ribelli del Fronte nazionale di liberazione dell’Ogaden (#Onlf) hanno firmato un accordo di pace nella capitale eritrea Asmara per porre fine ad una delle più antiche lotte armate in Etiopia. L’accordo, si legge in una nota del ministero degli Esteri di Addis Abeba ripresa dall’emittente “Fana”, è stato firmato da una delegazione del governo etiope guidata dal ministro degli Esteri Workneh Gebeyehu e dal presidente dell’Onlf, Mohamed Umer Usman, i quali hanno tenuto un colloquio definito “costruttivo” e hanno raggiunto un “accordo storico” che sancisce “l’inizio di un nuovo capitolo di pace e stabilità in Etiopia”. L’Onlf, gruppo separatista fondato nel 1984, è stato etichettato come organizzazione terrorista dal governo etiope fino al luglio scorso, quando il parlamento di Addis Abeba ha ratificato la decisione del governo di rimuovere i partiti in esilio – tra cui appunto l’Onlf – dalla lista delle organizzazioni terroristiche. La decisione rientra nella serie di provvedimenti annunciati dal premier Abiy Ahmed per avviare il percorso di riforme nel paese, iniziato con il rilascio di migliaia di prigionieri politici, la distensione delle relazioni con l’Eritrea e la parziale liberalizzazione dell’economia etiope.

      https://www.agenzianova.com/a/5bcd9c24083997.87051681/2142476/2018-10-22/etiopia-firmato-ad-asmara-accordo-di-pace-fra-governo-e-fronte-nazional

    • UN: No Rights Progress in Eritrea After Peace Deal With Ethiopia

      U.N. experts say Eritrea’s human rights record has not changed for the better since the government signed a peace agreement with Ethiopia last year, formally ending a two decades-long border conflict. The U.N. Human Rights Council held an interactive dialogue on the current situation in Eritrea this week.

      After a 20-year military stalemate with Ethiopia, hopes were high that the peace accord would change Eritrea’s human rights landscape for the better.

      U.N. Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kate Gilmore said that has not happened. She said Eritrea has missed a historic opportunity because the government has not implemented urgently needed judicial, constitutional and economic reforms.

      She said the continued use of indefinite national service remains a major human rights concern.

      “Conscripts continue to confront open-ended duration of service, far beyond the 18 months stipulated in law and often under abusive conditions, which may include the use of torture, sexual violence and forced labor,” she said.

      Gilmore urged Eritrea to bring its national service in line with the country’s international human rights obligations.

      “The peace agreement signed with Ethiopia should provide the security that the government of Eritrea has argued it needs to discontinue this national service and help shift its focus from security to development…. In the absence of promising signs of tangible human rights progress, that flow of asylum-seekers is not expected to drop,” Gilmore said.

      Human rights groups say unlimited national service forces thousands of young men to flee Eritrea every month to seek asylum in Europe. They say many lose their lives making the perilous journey across the Sahara Desert or while crossing the Mediterranean Sea to Europe.

      The head of the Eritrean delegation to the Council, Tesfamicael Gerahtu, said his country has had to adopt certain measures to counter the negative effect of the last 20 years on peace, security and development. He insists there is no human rights crisis in his country.

      He accused the Human Rights Council of exerting undue pressure on Eritrea by monitoring his country’s human rights situation and adopting detrimental resolutions. He called the actions counterproductive.

      “The honorable and productive way forward is to terminate the confrontational approach on Eritrea that has been perpetrated in the last seven years and that has not created any dividend in the promotion of human rights. And, there is no crisis that warrants a Human Rights Council agenda or special mandate on Eritrea,” Gerahtu said.

      Daniel Eyasu , head of Cooperation and International Relations of the National Youth Union and Eritrean Students, agrees there is no human rights crisis in Eritrea. He offered a positive spin on the country’s controversial national service, calling it critical for nation building.

      Unfortunately, he said, the reports of the council’s special procedures characterizing national service as modern slavery is unwarranted, unjustified and unacceptable.

      The Founder of One Day Seyoum, Vanessa Tsehaye, said the government has not changed its stripes. She said it is as repressive today as it was before the peace accord with Ethiopia was signed.

      Tsehaye’s organization works for the release of her uncle, a journalist who has been imprisoned without a trial in Eritrea since 2001 and for all people unjustly imprisoned. She said they continue to languish in prison.

      “The standoff at the border cannot justify the fact that all capable Eritreans are enlisted into the national service indefinitely. It cannot justify the fact that the country’s constitution still has not been implemented and that the parliament still has not convened since 2002. It does not justify the fact that the only university in the country has been shut down, that the free press has still not been opened and that tens of thousands of people have been imprisoned without a trial simply for expressing their opinions, practicing their religion or attempting to leave their country,” Tsehaye said.

      But delegates at the council welcomed the peace process and expressed hope it will result in better protection for the Eritrean people. But they noted the prevailing abusive conditions are not promising.

      They urged the government to reform its military service, release all political prisoners, stop the practice of arbitrary arrests, and end torture and inhumane detention conditions.

      https://www.voanews.com/a/eritrea-human-rights/4834072.html
      #processus_de_paix #droits_humains

  • Deeply Talks: Picturing Refugees

    In our latest Deeply Talks we explored why images of refugees and migrants are dominated by “boats and camps.” Award-winning photographer #Kalpesh_Lathigra and researcher #Jelena_Jovicic talk to our senior editor, Daniel Howden, about shifting dominant perceptions.


    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/03/06/deeply-talks-picturing-refugees

    #photographie #réfugiés #migrations #asile #représentations #image #perceptions #camps #bateaux

    Page internet de Jelena Jovicic (doctorante), Université de Stockholm:

    My PhD project explores the criminalization of certain forms of migration through visual framing.

    By looking at the developments in the mainstream media discourses – I deconstruct the images that frame the prison-like conditions in which many people fleeing find themselves on their journeys. While photography in the journalistic and activist context can be a highly powerful tool for addressing the inhumane conditions of strandedness and flight, I move beyond the mere content and point to the intersections of racialized and gendered imagery often constructing what the audience makes of the visual information and who a ‘refugee’ might be.

    https://www.su.se/english/profiles/jjovi-1.291842
    #médias #discours_médiatique

  • Turkey: Between Hospitality and Hostility

    Turkey’s state of emergency and changes to its asylum law have left millions of refugees more vulnerable that ever, says European migration expert Margarite Helena Zoeteweij-Turhan.


    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/02/27/turkey-between-hospitality-and-hostility
    #réfugiés #hospitalité #hostilité #accueil #Turquie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Etat_d'urgence #vulnérabilité
    cc @isskein

  • Je pensais avoir archivé sur seenthis un article (au moins) qui montrait qu’une partie des personnes rapatriées (#retours_volontaires), par l’#OIM (#IOM) notamment, du #Niger et de #Libye vers leurs pays d’origine reprenaient la route du Nord aussitôt...
    Mais je ne retrouve plus cet article... est-ce que quelque seenthisien se rappelle de cela ? ça serait super !
    #renvois #expulsions #migrations #réfugiés #retour_volontaire

    J’étais presque sûre d’avoir utilisé le tag #migrerrance, mais apparemment pas...

    • #merci @02myseenthis01, en effet il s’agit d’articles qui traitent du retour volontaire, mais non pas de ce que je cherche (à moins que je n’ai pas loupé quelque chose), soit de personnes qui, une fois rapatriées via le programme de retour volontaires, décident de reprendre la route de la migration (comme c’est le cas des Afghans, beaucoup plus documenté, notamment par Liza Schuster : https://www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/liza-schuster)

    • Libya return demand triggers reintegration headaches

      “This means that the strain on the assistance to integration of the country of origin has been particularly high because of the success, paradoxically of the return operation,” said Eugenio Ambrosi, IOM’s Europe director, on Monday (12 February).

      “We had to try, and we are still trying, to scale up the reintegration assistance,” he said.

      Since November, It has stepped up operations, along with the African Union, and helped 8,581 up until earlier this month. Altogether some 13,500 were helped given that some were also assisted by African Union states. Most ended up in Nigeria, followed by Mali and Guinea.

      People are returned to their home countries in four ways. Three are voluntary and one is forced. The mixed bag is causing headaches for people who end up in the same community but with entirely different integration approaches.

      “The level of assistance and the type of reintegration assistance that these different programmes offer is not the same,” noted Ambrosi.

      https://euobserver.com/migration/140967
      #réintégration

      Et une partie de cet article est consacrée à l’#aide_au_retour par les pays européens :

      Some EU states will offer in-kind support, used to set up a business, training or other similar activities. Others tailor their schemes for different countries of origin.

      Some others offer cash handouts, but even those differ vastly.

      Sweden, according to a 2015 European Commission report, is the most generous when it comes to cash offered to people under its voluntary return programme.

      It noted that in 2014, the maximum amount of the in-cash allowance at the point of departure/after arrival varied from €40 in the Czech Republic and €50 in Portugal to €3,750 in Norway for a minor and €3,300 in Sweden for an adult.

      Anti-migrant Hungary gave more (€500) than Italy (€400), the Netherlands (€300) and Belgium (€250).

      However, such comparisons on cash assistance does not reveal the full scope of help given that some of the countries also provide in-kind reintegration support.

    • For Refugees Detained in Libya, Waiting is Not an Option

      Niger generously agreed to host these refugees temporarily while European countries process their asylum cases far from the violence and chaos of Libya and proceed to their resettlement. In theory it should mean a few weeks in Niger until they are safely transferred to countries such as France, Germany or Sweden, which would open additional spaces for other refugees trapped in Libya.

      But the resettlement process has been much slower than anticipated, leaving Helen and hundreds of others in limbo and hundreds or even thousands more still in detention in Libya. Several European governments have pledged to resettle 2,483 refugees from Niger, but since the program started last November, only 25 refugees have actually been resettled – all to France.

      As a result, UNHCR announced last week that Niger authorities have requested that the agency halt evacuations until more refugees depart from the capital, Niamey. For refugees in Libya, this means their lifeline to safety has been suspended.

      Many of the refugees I met in Niger found themselves in detention after attempting the sea journey to Europe. Once intercepted by the Libyan coast guard, they were returned to Libya and placed in detention centers run by Libya’s U.N.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA). The E.U. has prioritized capacity building for the Libyan coast guard in order to increase the rate of interceptions. But it is an established fact that, after being intercepted, the next stop for these refugees as well as migrants is detention without any legal process and in centers where human rights abuses are rife.

      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/03/12/for-refugees-detained-in-libya-waiting-is-not-an-option

      #limbe #attente

      #réinstallation (qui évidemment ne semble pas vraiment marcher, comme pour les #relocalisations en Europe depuis les #hotspots...) :

      Several European governments have pledged to resettle 2,483 refugees from Niger, but since the program started last November, only 25 refugees have actually been resettled – all to France.

    • “Death Would Have Been Better” : Europe Continues to Fail Refugees and Migrants in Libya

      Today, European policies designed to keep asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants from crossing the Mediterranean Sea to Italy are trapping thousands of men, women and children in appalling conditions in Libya. This Refugees International report describes the harrowing experiences of people detained in Libya’s notoriously abusive immigration detention system where they are exposed to appalling conditions and grave human rights violations, including arbitrary detention and physical and sexual abuse.

      https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/libyaevacuations2018

      #rapport

      Lien vers le rapport :

      The report is based on February 2018 interviews conducted with asylum seekers and refugees who had been evacuated by UNHCR from detention centers in Libya to Niamey, Niger, where these men, women, and children await resettlement to a third country. The report shows that as the EU mobilizes considerable resources and efforts to stop the migration route through Libya, asylum seekers, refugees and migrants continue to face horrendous abuses in Libya – and for those who attempt it, an even deadlier sea crossing to Italy. RI is particularly concerned that the EU continues to support the Libyan coast guard to intercept boats carrying asylum seekers, refugees and migrants and bring them back to Libyan soil, even though they are then transferred to detention centers.

      https://static1.squarespace.com/static/506c8ea1e4b01d9450dd53f5/t/5ad3ceae03ce641bc8ac6eb5/1523830448784/2018+Libya+Report+PDF.pdf
      #évacuation #retour_volontaire #renvois #Niger #Niamey

    • #Return_migration – a regional perspective

      The current views on migration recognize that it not necessarily a linear activity with a migrant moving for a singular reason from one location to a new and permanent destination. Within the study of mixed migration, it is understood that patterns of movements are constantly shifting in response to a host of factors which reflect changes in individual and shared experiences of migrants. This can include the individual circumstance of the migrant, the environment of host country or community, better opportunities in another location, reunification, etc.[1] Migrants returning to their home country or where they started their migration journey – known as return migration—is an integral component of migration.

      Return migration is defined by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as the act or process of going back to the point of departure[2]. It varies from spontaneous, voluntary, voluntary assisted and deportation/forced return. This can also include cyclical/seasonal return, return from short or long term migration, and repatriation. Such can be voluntary where the migrant spontaneously returns or assisted where they benefit from administrative, logistical, financial and reintegration support. Voluntary return includes workers returning home at the end of their labour arrangements, students upon completion of their studies, refugees and asylum seekers undertaking voluntary repatriation either spontaneously or with humanitarian assistance and migrants returning to their areas of origin after residency abroad. [3] Return migration can also be forced where migrants are compelled by an administrative or judicial act to return to their country of origin. Forced returns include the deportation of failed asylum seekers and people who have violated migration laws in the host country.

      Where supported by appropriate policies and implementation and a rights-based approach, return migration can beneficial to the migrant, the country of origin and the host country. Migrants who successfully return to their country of origin stand to benefit from reunification with family, state protection and the possibility of better career opportunities owing to advanced skills acquired abroad. For the country of origin, the transfer of skills acquired by migrants abroad, reverse ‘brain drain’, and transactional linkages (i.e. business partnerships) can bring about positive change. The host country benefits from such returns by enhancing strengthened ties and partnerships with through return migrants. However, it is critical to note that return migration should not be viewed as a ‘solution’ to migration or a pretext to arbitrarily send migrants back to their home country. Return migration should be studied as a way to provide positive and safe options for people on the move.
      Return migration in East Africa

      The number of people engaging in return migration globally and in the Horn of Africa and Yemen sub-region has steadily increased in recent years. In 2016, IOM facilitated voluntary return of 98,403 persons worldwide through its assisted voluntary return and re-integration programs versus 69,540 assisted in 2015. Between December 2014 and December 2017, 76,589 refugees and asylum seekers were assisted by humanitarian organisations to return to Somalia from Kenya.

      In contexts such as Somalia, where conflict, insecurity and climate change are common drivers for movement (in addition to other push and pull factors), successful return and integration of refugees and asylum seekers from neighbouring countries is likely to be frustrated by the failure to adequately address such drivers before undertaking returns. In a report titled ‘Not Time To Go Home: Unsustainable returns of refugees to Somalia’,Amnesty International highlights ongoing conflict and insecurity in Somalia even as the governments of Kenya and Somali and humanitarian agencies continue to support return programs. The United Nations has cautioned that South and Central parts of Somalia are not ready for large scale returns in the current situation with over 2 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the country and at least half of the population in need of humanitarian assistance; painting a picture of returns to a country where safety, security and dignity of returnees cannot be guaranteed.

      In March 2017, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ordered all undocumented migrants to regularize their status in the Kingdom giving them a 90-day amnesty after which they would face sanctions including deportations. IOM estimates that 150,000 Ethiopians returned to Ethiopia from Saudi Arabia between March 2017 and April 2018. Since the end of the amnesty period in November 2017, the number of returns to Ethiopia increased drastically with approximately 2,800 migrants being deported to Ethiopia each week. Saudi Arabia also returned 9,563 Yemeni migrants who included migrants who were no longer able to meet residency requirements. Saudi Arabia also forcibly returned 21,405 Somali migrants between June and December 2017.

      Migrant deportations from Saudi Arabia are often conducted in conditions that violate human rights with migrants from Yemen, Somalia and Ethiopia reporting violations. An RMMS report titled ‘The Letter of the Law: Regular and irregular migration in Saudi Arabia in a context of rapid change’ details violations which include unlawful detention prior to deportation, physical assault and torture, denial of food and confiscation of personal property. There were reports of arrest and detention upon arrival of Ethiopian migrants who had been deported from Saudi Arabia in 2013 during which the migrants were reportedly tortured by Ethiopian security forces.

      Further to this, the sustainability of such returns has also been questioned with reports of returnees settling in IDP camps instead of going back to their areas of origin. Such returnees are vulnerable to (further) irregular migration given the inability to integrate. Somali refugee returnees from Kenya face issues upon return to a volatile situation in Somalia, often settling in IDP camps in Somalia. In an RMMS research paper ‘Blinded by Hope: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Ethiopian Migrants’, community members in parts of Ethiopia expressed concerns that a large number of returnees from Saudi Arabia would migrate soon after their return.

      In November 2017, following media reports of African migrants in Libya being subjected to human rights abuses including slavery, governments, humanitarian agencies and regional economic communities embarked on repatriating vulnerable migrants from Libya. African Union committed to facilitating the repatriation of 20,000 nationals of its member states within a period of six weeks. African Union, its member states and humanitarian agencies facilitated the return of 17,000 migrants in 2017 and a further 14,000 between January and March 2018.[4]
      What next?

      Return migration can play an important role for migrants, their communities, and their countries, yet there is a lack of research and data on this phenomenon. For successful return migration, the drivers to migration should first be examined, including in the case of forced displacement or irregular migration. Additionally, legal pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration should be expanded for all countries to reduce further unsafe migration. Objective 21 of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Draft Rev 1) calls upon member states to ‘cooperate in facilitating dignified and sustainable return, readmission and reintegration’.

      In addition, a legal and policy framework facilitating safe and sustainable returns should be implemented by host countries and countries of origin. This could build on bilateral or regional agreements on readmissions, creation of reception and integration agencies for large scale returns, the recognition and assurance of migrant legal status, provision of identification documents where needed, amending national laws to allow for dual citizenship, reviewing taxes imposed on the diaspora, recognition of academic and vocational skills acquired abroad, support to vulnerable returnees, financial assistance where needed, incentives to returnee entrepreneurs, programs on attracting highly skilled returnees. Any frameworks should recognize that people have the right to move, and should have their human rights and dignity upheld at all stages of the migration journey.

      http://www.mixedmigration.org/articles/return-migration-a-regional-perspective

    • Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, le 20.09.2018

      Niamey, le 20 septembre 2018

      D’après des témoignages recueillis près du #centre_de_transit des #mineurs_non_accompagnés du quartier #Bobiel à Niamey (Niger), des rixes ont eu lieu devant le centre, ce mardi 18 septembre.

      A ce jour, le centre compterait 23 mineurs et une dizaine de femmes avec des enfants en bas âge, exceptionnellement hébergés dans ce centre en raison du surpeuplement des structures réservées habituellement aux femmes.

      Les jeunes du centre font régulièrement état de leurs besoins et du non-respect de leurs droits au directeur du centre. Certains y résident en effet depuis plusieurs mois et ils sont informés des services auxquels ils devraient avoir accès grâce à une #charte des centre de l’OIM affichée sur les murs (accès aux soins de santé, repas, vêtements - en particulier pour ceux qui sont expulsés de l’Algérie sans leurs affaires-, activité récréative hebdomadaire, assistance légale, psychologique...). Aussi, en raison de la lourdeur des procédures de « #retours_volontaires », la plupart des jeunes ne connaissent pas la date de leur retour au pays et témoignent d’un #sentiment_d'abandon.

      Ces derniers jours certains jeunes ont refusé de se nourrir pour protester contre les repas qui leur sont servis (qui seraient identiques pour tous les centres et chaque jour).
      Ce mardi, après un vif échange avec le directeur du centre, une délégation de sept jeunes s’est organisée et présentée au siège de l’OIM. Certains d’entre eux ont été reçus par un officier de protection qui, aux vues des requêtes ordinaires des migrants, s’est engagé à répondre rapidement à leurs besoins.
      Le groupe a ensuite rejoint le centre où les agents de sécurité du centre auraient refusé de les laisser entrer. Des échanges de pierres auraient suivi, et les gardiens de la société #Gadnet-Sécurité auraient utilisé leurs matraques et blessé légèrement plusieurs jeunes. Ces derniers ont été conduits à l’hôpital, après toutefois avoir été menottés et amenés au siège de la société de gardiennage.

      L’information a été diffusée hier soir sur une chaine de télévision locale mais je n’ai pas encore connaissance d’articles à ce sujet.

      Alizée

      #MNA #résistance #violence

    • Agadez, des migrants manifestent pour rentrer dans leurs pays

      Des migrants ont manifesté lundi matin au centre de transit de l’Organisation Internationale pour les Migrations (OIM). Ce centre est situé au quartier #Sabon_Gari à Agadez au Niger. Il accueille à ce jour 800 migrants.

      Parmi eux, une centaine de Maliens. Ces migrants dénoncent la durée de leurs séjours, leurs conditions de vie et le manque de communication des responsables de l’OIM.


      https://www.studiotamani.org/index.php/magazines/16726-le-magazine-du-21-aout-2018-agadez-des-migrants-maliens-manifest
      #manifestation #Mali #migrants_maliens

  • Recognizing the Economic Winners and Losers of Hosting Refugees

    In response to a recent study on the positive economic impact of Kenya’s #Kakuma camp, Cory Rodgers argues that the term ‘host population’ obscures divergent and conflicting economic interests among locals and may mask trends of marginalization and growing inequality.


    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2017/12/27/recognizing-the-economic-winners-and-losers-of-hosting-refugees
    #réfugiés #asile #migrations #économie #impact_économique #économie_locale #camps_De_réfugiés #Kenya #inégalités #marginalisation

    Une réponse à cet article, qui parle des effets positifs de l’installation des réfugiés sur l’économie locale :
    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2017/12/08/nighttime-lights-illuminate-positive-impacts-of-refugee-camps

    Article scientifique :
    Do refugee camps help or hurt hosts ? The case of Kakuma, Kenya

    We combine nighttime lights data, official statistics, and new household survey data from northern Kenya in order to assess the impact of long-term refugee camps on host populations. The nighttime lights estimates show that refugee inflows increase economic activity in areas very close to Kakuma refugee camp: the elasticity of the luminosity index to refugee population is 0.36 within a 10 km distance from the camp center. In addition, household consumption within the same proximity to the camp is 25% higher than in areas farther away. Price, household survey, and official statistics suggest that the mechanisms driving this positive effect are increased availability of new employment and price changes in agricultural and livestock markets that are favorable to local producers.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387817300688

  • Nighttime Lights Illuminate Positive Impacts of Refugee Camps

    Satellite data from Kenya’s remote northeast shows increased economic activity around Kakuma camp. New research suggests a connection between refugees and growing agricultural production.

    To help answer some of these questions we examined the impact of long-run refugee inflows on the host population in Kakuma, northwestern Kenya. Previous studies of refugee-host interactions, which have largely been qualitative, have established continuous and important relationships without being able to directly estimate net benefits to locals of refugee and aid presence. One exception to this is recent work showing positive net impacts of cash aid to refugees on the local economy in a calibrated simulation of Congolese refugee camps in Rwanda. The long-run impacts of refugee presence, however, remain unclear.

    To tease out these different effects, we combined data from a recent household survey with price data, refugee population and food aid deliveries to examine changes in labor, livestock and agricultural markets. The data showed that proximity to the refugee camp is associated with more low skill jobs and wage labor, particularly for households with secondary education.

    In a traditionally pastoralist region like Turkana, these findings are meaningful. If there is labor market competition from refugees, its overall impacts are swamped by the job opportunities provided by the camp and the increased demand generated by refugees.

    With regard to agricultural markets, in a context where food aid is externally provided, as it is in Kakuma, food prices may decrease for products in the aid package as a result of increases in supply. However, they may also increase across a variety of products due to the increase in the number of people purchasing goods, and from the sale of aid packages for income. Information from our household surveys showed that agriculture in the Turkana region occurs almost exclusively close to the refugee camp, suggesting that the camp presence incentivizes increases in, rather than depression of, agricultural production.

    We also find that livestock prices are positively correlated with high refugee and aid presence, and although absolute numbers of livestock are not higher closer to the camp, larger amounts of livestock sold in the immediate vicinity of the camp suggests that herding households benefit from the presence of the refugee market.

    Overall, the positive effect of refugees on the local economy seemed to come through the availability of employment opportunities and price changes in agricultural and livestock markets that encourage new production.

    Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that refugee camps can provide important economic opportunities to local populations, and that policies could be designed to amplify these positive effects. For example, interventions supporting locals’ ability to exploit the increased demand from the refugees could result in even more beneficial outcomes. These interventions might include equipping locals with the skills necessary to take advantage of new wage work, and providing technical support to improve agricultural and livestock production could help spread the benefits more widely.


    https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2017/12/08/nighttime-lights-illuminate-positive-impacts-of-refugee-camps
    #Kenya #camps_de_réfugiés #Kakuma #aide_en_cash #Turkana #agriculture #nourriture #travail #économie #économie_locale #aide_in_cash #cash_based_intervention #monétisation

    Au-delà l’étude sur le camp, voici un extrait qui met en lien #lumière et #consommation :

    Using a census of household data collected in 2012, we estimate the correlation between lights and consumption. Back of the envelope calculations suggest that a 10 percent increase in the refugee population raises consumption by approximately 5.5 percent within the same proximity of the camp.

  • Media reporting of migrants and migration

    Chapter 8 critically discusses media reporting on migration and migration around the world. Drawing on existing research in different countries, the analysis addresses four key questions: (a) What do media around the world say about migration and migrants? (b) What impacts does this coverage have on what members of the public, policymakers and migrants themselves think and do? (c) How does the practice of journalism itself contribute to coverage? (d) What implications arise from recent experiences of media and migration for future research and practice?

    While there is a growing body of research on the relationships between media, public opinion and policies on migration, the chapter shows that much more research needs to be done into the role of the media in transit and origin countries – and particularly migrants’ own use of, and preferences for, different types of media. The chapter makes a strong case for the need to encourage media coverage of migrants that is reasonable, measured and moves away from an assumed position of suspicion.

    https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2018-chapter-8-media-reporting-migrants-and
    #médias #journalisme #presse #migrations #asile #réfugiés #rapport #opinion_publique

    • Media coverage frames public thinking on migrants and migration – UN report

      Changes in traditional media and growing use of social media are offering new avenues for “migrant-led” media and journalism as well as a unique opportunity for migrants to highlight their concerns and contributions – in their own words – the United Nations International Organization for Migration (IOM) has said.

      “Ranging from films and newspapers to tweets, [media] coverage may have portrayed migration in one way or another, or simply raised it as a topical issue,” said the UN agency in the latest edition of its flagship report, the World Migration Report.

      http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=58204
      #préjugés

  • La industria del control migratorio ¿Quién gana con las políticas fronterizas de la Unión Europea?

    La investigación de porCausa permite, por primera vez, probar que existe en España una Industria del Control Migratorio, identificar a los actores que operan en ella, estimar su magnitud y acceder a las herramientas para estudiarla en detalle.

    https://porcausa.org/industriacontrolmigratorio
    #rapport #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #business #Espagne #INDRA #AMPER #EUROCOPTER #ALBIE #TELECOMUNICACIÓN-ELECTRÓNICA Y CONMUTACIÓN #ATOS #DRAGADOS #FERROVIAL #SIEMENS #TELEFÓNICA_ESPAÑOLA_Y_GMV #industrie #complexe_militaro-industriel #frontex

    Lien vers le rapport:
    https://www.porcausa.org/industriacontrolmigratorio/media/porcausa_LaIndustriaDelControlMigratorio.pdf

    • How the Security Industry Reaps the Rewards of E.U. Migration Control

      In austerity-stricken Europe, increasing funds are flowing to arms and security firms positioning themselves as experts on border control. Researcher Mark Akkerman documents the companies profiting from E.U. border externalization and the industry’s lobbying power.

      At a time when European Union budgets are threatened by Brexit, Italian political instability and an unfinished economic crisis, the European Commission’s proposal for triple funding for borders, migration and asylum suggests an unusual consensus in favor of border security.

      The increase in funding gained considerable press attention, but the role of the European military and security industry in shaping these policies and then reaping the plentiful financial rewards remains largely underexposed.

      Research by the United Kingdom’s Statewatch and Belgian NGO “Vredesactie” shows how successful these industries have been in shaping E.U. military and security policies. Large European arms companies, such as #Airbus (Pan-European), #Leonardo (Italian, formerly called #Finmeccanica) and #Thales (French) engage in extensive lobbying. Their lobby associations, notably the #European_Organisation_for_Security (#EOS) and the #AeroSpace_and_Defence Industries Association of Europe (#ASD), have gained influence to the point that their proposals are sometimes adopted almost wholesale by E.U. bodies.

      E.U. and member states’ officials and industry executives forge strong relationships through a constant cycle of congresses, conferences, roundtables, security fairs and industry days by E.U. border agency #Frontex. Since December 2014, senior European Commission officials met with EOS 15 times and ASD 29 times, as well as holding many meetings with Airbus (131), Leonardo (25) and Thales (18).

      Concrete proposals that were first advocated by the industry, such as the establishment of a European border guard and of the E.U.-wide border monitoring system #EUROSUR, eventually become E.U. policies. These then create the demand that fuels an expanding global border security market, valued at more than 16 billion euros ($18.7 billion) in 2017 and estimated to grow 8 percent annually in coming years.

      According to Martin Lemberg-Pedersen at the Aalborg University in Copenhagen, arms companies “establish themselves as experts on border security, and use this position to frame immigration to Europe as leading to ever more security threats in need of ever more” purchases of the products they sell.

      The increasing focus on exporting border control measures to countries neighboring Europe has further expanded the market, as my recent report “Expanding the Fortress” for the research groups Stop Wapenhandel and the Transnational Institute (TNI) shows.

      Many non-E.U.-countries, especially in Africa, get donations of border security equipment or funding for such purchases. Some examples include donations of large amounts of equipment from Airbus and #Hensoldt (the former border security division of Airbus) to Tunisia by Germany, Italian donations of patrol boats from shipbuilder Intermarine to Libya and the E.U.-funded purchase of six vessels from Dutch shipbuilder #Damen to Turkey, to strengthen the capacities of its coast guard.

      Despite the austerity measures in place in some areas of Europe, the increase in funding for militarizing border security seems to be limitless. Frontex, which now has new powers to buy its own equipment, could see its current annual budget of 320 million euros ($375 million) increase almost sixfold to 1.87 billion euros ($2.19 billion) by 2027.

      During 2018, Frontex will test two military drones for maritime border surveillance in the Mediterranean Sea: the #Heron from #Israeli_Aerospace_Industries (#IAI) and the #Falco from #Leonardo. IAI will be paid 4.75 million euros ($5.57 million) for 600 hours of trial flights, while Leonardo will secure 1.7 million euros ($2 million) for 300 hours of trial flights.

      The proposed E.U. Integrated Border Management Fund will have a 9.3 billion euro ($10.9 billion) budget for 2021–27, almost double the combined budget of its predecessors for the period 2004–20 (#External_Borders_Fund, the #Internal_Security_Fund – Borders and the Schengen Facility). With these funds, member states have purchased thousands of vehicles for border patrol, dozens of patrol vessels, airplanes, border surveillance systems, cameras, thermal vision equipment, biometric and I.T. systems – many bought from European arms and security firms.

      In the case of Finland and Romania, E.U.-financed helicopter purchases came from Airbus, while Leonardo delivered helicopters to Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Italy, Latvia and Malta. This has led to the perverse outcome that some of these companies profit from both sides of the refugee tragedy. As our 2016 report “Border Wars” shows, some firms are both arming countries at war, repressive regimes and human rights violators in the Middle East and North Africa – thereby fueling the reasons people are forced to flee – and then winning the contracts to prevent refugees entering Europe.

      The preferential role for industry is no coincidence nor just the result of the industry’s own efforts. In fact, it is a stated objective of the E.U. to support the global competitiveness of the European military and security industry. And the E.U. does all it can to further intensify the close ties.

      In February 2018, for example, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG Home) organized an “Industry Day on Border Surveillance and Integrated Border Management” in which Giorgi Gulienetti of Italian arms firm Leonardo gave a keynote address. Later DG Home wrote that it hoped the day “on a longer term […] would set the foundations of an improved cooperation with research and industry communities in the area of border surveillance and border management.”

      While the proposed increases of the E.U. border security and control budget clearly respond to a number of factors, the increasing role, funding and support for industry will ensure that they become one of the few beneficiaries from the refugee “crisis.” Ultimately this is not just a concern about corporate influence but also about entrenching a militarized response to a complex crisis. This will do little to tackle the root causes of the refugee crisis but rather provides another arena for profiteering from human suffering.

      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/06/04/how-the-security-industry-reaps-the-rewards-of-e-u-migration-control