BBC - Future - The remote Arctic town that is melting away
▻http://www.bbc.com/future/gallery/20181109-qaanaaq-greenland-is-melting-away-from-climate-change
As the Arctic loses ice at dramatic rates, people in Qaanaaq, the northernmost town in Greenland, are finding their homes, livelihoods, customs and very survival at risk.
BBC - Travel - Užupis: A tiny republic of free spirits
▻http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20181014-uupis-a-tiny-republic-of-free-spirits
Located within the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, Užupis is one of the smallest republics in the world, covering less than 1 sq km. But don’t be fooled by its size – it boasts its own president, government, constitution and currency, and even has a navy consisting of three or four small boats (used mainly for ceremonial purposes). Until recently, it also had an army of around 10 men, but given the republic’s peace-loving attitude, it has been retired.
Užupis is an eclectic juxtaposition of Soviet Bloc architecture and artistic flair. Following the fall of the USSR in the early 1990s, many plinths that had held statues of Soviet icons stood empty across Vilnius. In 1995, a group of local artists used one of them to erect a statue of US rock icon Frank Zappa (despite the fact he had never been there) as a symbol of freedom and a call to democracy. Two years later, on 1 April 1997, they went a step further, declaring their neighbourhood of Užupis independent from the rest of Lithuania. Although Užupis is not recognised by foreign governments as an official nation, the micro-nation has become a source of pride in Vilnius and throughout Lithuania.
BBC - Future - The places that escaped the Spanish flu
▻http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181023-the-places-that-escaped-the-spanish-flu
It’s not clear why those attempts to delay the arrival of the disease reduced the mortality rates in these places. But research has suggested that over time, as the virus burned its way through populations, it accumulated mutations that naturally reduced its capacity to cause disease.
Another possibility could be that some populations may have acquired a degree of immunity against the pandemic strain from comparatively harmless seasonal flu strains that were circulating in the years running up to 1918.
While the idea is still debated, it has provided some clues that could help health officials in the fight against future pandemics. Today some countries offer annual vaccinations against seasonal flu strains that can help their populations build up temporary immunity. According to research by Jodie McVernon, an immunologist at the University of Melbourne, this could “provide important protection in the early stages of a new pandemic”.
“The more times you get vaccinated, the more you are exposed to different versions of the flu virus,” adds Markel.
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.
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?
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
Is Uganda the best place to be a refugee?
The country’s unusual open policy gives refugees land, education and a chance to work – but instability in neighbouring nations is putting pressure on resources
Why Uganda is a model for dealing with refugees
Uganda’s population of some 500,000 refugees can work, vote and start businesses
Uganda farming classes transform refugees into entrepreneurs
Trained to expand their rice and pepper harvests, Congolese refugees in Uganda use earnings to start new businesses and become more self-reliant.
Uganda : An Oasis Of Light For Refugees Fleeing War
PAGRINYA REFUGEE SETTLEMENT, Uganda – Ayen looked directly into my eyes as she gripped her children’s hands tightly, calmly recounting the moment she was forced to flee her home in South Sudan in the middle of the night after rebels murdered her husband and eldest son in her presence.
▻http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uganda-an-oasis-of-light-for-refugees-fleeing-war_us_581b5b06e4b0f1c
The Reality Behind Uganda’s Refugee Model
Uganda has been hailed as a world leader in dealing with refugees. African Great Lakes expert David Kigozi argues that praise for progressive policies must be tempered with the harsher reality that many refugees actually experience in the country.
▻https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2017/05/30/the-reality-behind-ugandas-glowing-reputation
Why a Ugandan farmer gave land to a refugee
In less than a year, a camp in northern Uganda has taken in more refugees than any other in the world, and all of them from war-torn South Sudan.
▻http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40365249
#modèle_ougandais #terre
Is Uganda the world’s best place for refugees?
Once refugees themselves, Ugandans look to ‘return the good’ to people fleeing war in South Sudan by offering land and help
▻https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/01/is-uganda-worlds-best-place-for-refugees-south-sudan?platform=hootsuite
The refugee scandal unfolding in Uganda
Uganda, the country with the world’s fastest growing refugee burden, is failing to secure the help it needs to care for those forced across the border from South Sudan by war and hunger.
►https://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/07/25/refugee-scandal-unfolding-uganda
How can countries help refugees while also raising their GDP? Let them work.
Uganda is an eye-opening example of how displaced people can lift up a nation, say economics professor Paul Collier and refugee researcher Alexander Betts.
▻http://ideas.ted.com/how-can-countries-help-refugees-while-also-raising-their-gdp-let-them-wor
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
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://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/29/world/00refugees1/merlin_145673475_8c42e47d-e665-40f5-a021-704bfd702dcb-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp#.jpg 
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/22/world/00refugees8/merlin_145674360_f6c51f09-28e1-4edb-a3c2-cb2642ba0889-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp#.jpg
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....
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
BBC - Culture - Anni Albers and the forgotten women of the Bauhaus
▻http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180919-anni-albers-and-the-forgotten-women-of-the-bauhaus
Many brilliant female designers were part of the famously forward-thinking German movement. But how progressive was it really? By Dominic Lutyens
The Bauhaus, the interwar German design school that profoundly influenced later developments in art, architecture, product design and typography, was a complex, contradictory crucible of ideas.
Founded by architect Walter Gropius in 1919 on the principle of the Gesamtkunstwerk – a total work of art that fused art, architecture and design – the school theoretically treated these disciplines in a non-hierarchical way. In practice, however, the Bauhaus viewed architecture as the apogee of these fields, even though its architecture department didn’t open until 1927.
The legend of Benin’s fearless female warriors
▻http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180826-the-legend-of-benins-fearless-female-warriors
Actors Chadwick Boseman and Michael B Jordan earned high praise for their roles in the 2018 Marvel film Black Panther. But for me, the real stars were the Dora Milaje, the special forces unit of the fictional Kingdom of Wakanda. Fearsome yet principled, these female bodyguards provided the film’s moral compass.
I was thrilled to find out that the inspiration for these powerful women is rooted in reality, and that the descendants of these women still keep their traditions alive.
BBC - Future - The giant coal plant converting to green energy
▻http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180821-the-giant-coal-plant-converting-to-green-energy
On the train to visit one of the last places in Britain that burns coal for electricity, I pass three solar farms soaking up sunshine. I also pass a coal plant called Eggborough that has all but ceased operations. No steam rises from its giant cooling towers. It will shut in September.
But the coal plant I’m visiting is different. It’s named Drax, after a local village, and is the largest power plant in Western Europe. By 2023, its owners plan to stop burning coal entirely. They hope that instead their plant will consume only natural gas and biomass – wood pellets crushed into powder.
#électricité #énergie #énergie_verte #reconversion #royaume_uni
BBC - Future - Are forgotten crops the future of food?
▻http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180821-are-forgotten-crops-
the-future-of-food
Just four crops - wheat, maize, rice and soybean - provide two-thirds of the world’s food supply. But scientists in Malaysia are trying to change that by reviving crops that have been relegated to the sidelines.
By Preeti Jha
22 August 2018
On a small fruit farm near the Straits of Malacca Lim Kok Ann is down to just one tree growing kedondong, a crunchy, tart berry that Malaysians mostly use in pickles and salads. “It’s not very well-known,” says the 45-year-old, who is instead focusing on longan berries and pineapples, which have bigger markets. For a smallholder like Lim, demand for kedondong would have to grow rapidly to justify scaling up his business. “We have to grow what is profitable,” he says.
La chanson la plus triste...
BBC - Culture - Can data reveal the saddest number one song ever?
▻http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180821-can-data-reveal-the-saddest-song-ever
Data journalist Miriam Quick put Spotify’s new algorithm to the test, analysing over 1000 tracks to find the saddest pop songs to top the charts. The results were surprising.
By Miriam Quick
22 August 2018
When I was 15 I discovered The Smiths, a band whose name had by then long been synonymous with misery. But it was Morrissey’s unique style of being miserable – coquettish and laced with Northern English humour, flipping between self-pity and irony – that appealed to my teenage self. That and the grandiose but intricately layered sweeps of Johnny Marr’s guitar. I’d always cry at the same points in each song: the end of Hand in Glove, the chord changes before the chorus of Girl Afraid, the line in The Queen is Dead where he sings “we can go for a walk where it’s quiet and dry”. I’m still not sure why the last one had such an effect.
Roberta Flack - The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face
1. The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face – Roberta Flack (1972)
2. Three Times a Lady – Commodores (1978)
3. Are You Lonesome Tonight ? – Elvis Presley (1960)
4. Mr Custer – Larry Verne (1960)
5. Still – Commodores (1979)
A mon avis, l’algorithme est loin d’être au point et le classement est hautement critiquable, non seulement subjectivement (parce qu’elles sont assez mauvaises ! Les Commodores ? Seriously ?! Et deux fois en plus ?), mais même objectivement si on se rend compte que les paroles des deux premières chansons sont en fait joyeuses !
J’avais commencé une liste moi aussi, mais je ne l’ai jamais terminée...
–Trouble of the World, Mahalia Jackson
–Double Trouble, Otis Rush
–Walking the Backstreets and crying, Little Milton
–Part Time Love, Clay Hammond
–Let Me Down Easy, Bettye Lavette
–Unfair, Barbara Lynn
–Nothing Takes The Place Of You, Toussaint Mc Call
–Please come home for Christmas, Charles Brown
–Lost Someone, James Brown
–Nothing compares to you, Sinead O’Connor
–Walk on by, Dionne Warwick
–In The Rain, The Dramatics
–Inner City Blues, Marvin Gaye
–I wish I knew how it would feel to be free, Nina Simone
–In the ghetto, Candi Staton
–Crying time, Ray Charles
–Gloomy Sunday, Billie Holiday
–Ne me quitte pas, Jacques Brel
BBC - Capital - What if we have to work until we’re 100 ?
▻http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180710-whats-it-like-working-past-your-100th-birthday
Aucune remise en question du modèle politique responsable de cette infamie,
Retirement is becoming more and more expensive – and future generations may have to abandon the idea altogether. So what kinds of jobs will we do when we’re old and grey? Will we be well enough to work? And will anyone want to employ us?
Why no-one speaks Indonesia’s language — BBC travel
▻http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180703-why-no-one-speaks-indonesias-language
Bahasa Indonesia was adopted to make communication easier across the vast Indonesian archipelago, but its simplicity has only created new barriers.
BBC - Capital - The cost of changing a country’s name
▻http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180621-the-cost-of-changing-a-countrys-name
“African countries, on getting independence, reverted to their ancient names before they were colonised,” His Royal Highness, King Mswati III told those gathered there. At that moment he was still king of Swaziland – but Swaziland was to be no more. “So, from now on the country will be officially known as the Kingdom of eSwatini.”
BBC - Travel - The Dutch city with a constantly changing name
▻http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180423-the-dutch-city-with-a-constantly-changing-name
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/live/624_351/images/live/p0/64/ll/p064llrt.jpg 
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/624_351/images/live/p0/64/lm/p064lm7x.jpg 
Known as Leeuwarden, Ljouwert and Liwwadden, along with hundreds of variants over the centuries, 2018’s European Capital of Culture is the world’s undisputed capital of place names.
BBC - Culture - What #Art_Nouveau can teach us about national identity
▻http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180525-what-art-nouveau-can-teach-us-about-national-identity
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/live/624_351/images/live/p0/68/73/p06873xw.jpg 
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/976_549/images/live/p0/68/74/p068749p.jpg 
Art Nouveau was the first self-consciously international modern art movement. Frustrated by the rigid constraints of 19th Century academic art and disillusioned with the way industrialised production had sacrificed quality for quantity, a growing number of artists sought to develop a new style which would embrace the modern to transform society for the better. For its motif they chose nature, which since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 had come to represent evolution and therefore progress.
Hungary to criminalise migrant helpers in crackdown
The Hungarian government has drafted new laws to criminalise those who help irregular migrants seeking asylum.
If passed in its current form, the legislation could make printing leaflets with information for asylum-seekers and offering them food or legal advice a criminal offence.
The constitution will also be amended to prevent other EU countries from transferring asylum seekers to Hungary.
Nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban is defying EU policy on migration.
Ungheria, il reato di solidarietà
In Ungheria, il governo di Viktor Orban ha presentato in Parlamento un “pacchetto” di misure – che comprendono anche una modifica alla Costituzione – volte a “contrastare l’immigrazione irregolare”.
La stampa magiara ha ribattezzato le riforme col nome di “Stop Soros”, perché lo scopo dichiarato dal governo è quello di colpire le Ong impegnate in attività di solidarietà e di sostegno ai richiedenti asilo e ai rifugiati: e poiché alcune di queste Ong fanno capo a George Soros, o ricevono finanziamenti dalle sue Fondazioni, tutto viene presentato come una battaglia tra il premier ungherese e lo stesso Soros.
In realtà, ciò che Orban intende colpire è quella parte della società civile ungherese che si impegna per fornire assistenza ai rifugiati, ma anche per garantire i diritti umani dei migranti e dei transitanti. Così, le riforme proposte dall’esecutivo Orban sono un esempio, sicuramente estremo, di una tendenza che si va diffondendo in Europa: quello di criminalizzare la solidarietà e l’impegno civile, trasformandoli in reati.
Chi scrive non è esperto di cose ungheresi, né conosce a fondo il dibattito che si è sviluppato nel paese magiaro. Per la vicenda della riforma cosiddetta “Stop Soros” si rimanda, in lingua italiana, agli articoli usciti in questi giorni su Il Manifesto, Il Fatto Quotidiano, o su Il Post. Chi è in grado di leggere in inglese può rivolgersi al Guardian, o può vedere i comunicati dell’Hungarian Helsinki Committee, una delle Ong prese di mira dalla furia di Orban.
Qui, più semplicemente, si propone la traduzione in italiano di una delle norme più controverse del “pacchetto”, quella che riguarda appunto il reato di solidarietà.
Il testo che trovate qui sotto è tradotto dalla versione non ufficiale in inglese a cura dello stesso Hungarian Helsinki Committee. È quindi la “traduzione di una traduzione”, con i limiti che questo può comportare, e che si possono facilmente immaginare: ma sembra comunque utile per capire più a fondo le forme e i modi in cui viene articolato il “reato di solidarietà” nel dispositivo della riforma. I fortunati lettori che sono in grado di leggere in lingua ungherese possono trovare la versione originale qui.
▻https://www.a-dif.org/2018/06/01/ungheria-il-reato-di-solidarieta
La Hongrie criminalise les #ONG qui aident les demandeurs d’asile
Le parti du Premier ministre hongrois a voté ce mercredi une loi qui pourrait conduire à des peines de prison pour toute personne assistant des migrants en situation illégale ou non.
Viktor Orbán ne se soucie décidément plus des injonctions européennes sur ses dérives autoritaires. Ce mercredi, le Premier ministre hongrois et son parti ultraconservateur, le Fidesz, qui a une large majorité au Parlement, ont voté la loi dite « Stop Soros », du nom du milliardaire américano-hongrois devenu la bête noire du régime. Cette loi initialement présentée en février a été modifiée après les élections législatives du 8 avril qui ont vu une large victoire pour le parti au gouvernement. Elle prévoit maintenant une criminalisation des personnes qui viendraient en aide aux demandeurs d’asile et aux réfugiés.
« Un avocat pourrait se trouver condamné à une peine jusqu’à un an d’emprisonnement pour avoir apporté des informations sur la procédure de demande d’asile, par exemple, explique le porte-parole d’Amnesty International Hongrie, Aron Demeter. Le but de cette loi est clairement de viser le personnel des ONG. »
A lire aussi:Hongrie : soupçons de fraudes électorales autour du clan Orbán
Le texte prévoit aussi qu’en cas de suspicion d’aide aux demandeurs d’asile, l’Etat pourra interdire à la personne concernée de se rendre dans un rayon de 8 kilomètres autour de la frontière. « La loi est assez vague, dans son état actuel, pour que l’aéroport soit compris dans la définition de frontière, détaille András Lederer du Comité Helsinki hongrois pour la défense des droits de l’Homme, une des ONG visées. Des personnes seulement suspectées de violer cette loi pourraient se trouver interdites de quitter le territoire hongrois. »
Présenté sous sa nouvelle version le 29 mai, le projet de loi a été soumis à l’étude d’un comité parlementaire, jeudi 14 juin. « C’est incroyable, il n’y a eu absolument aucun débat lancé par l’opposition sur ce texte », reprend András Lederer. Quelques minutes auront suffi pour adopter le texte.
Acharnement législatif
Ce dernier texte arrive après un an d’attaques répétées par le Fidesz contre les organisations internationales. Depuis juin 2017, le gouvernement force toutes les organisations qui reçoivent des financements de l’étranger à se déclarer et à inscrire la mention « Financé par une institution étrangère » sur tous leurs documents. Une inscription rendue péjorative par la rhétorique gouvernementale.
Peu après les élections, en avril, des médias proches de Viktor Orbán ont sorti une liste de soi-disant « mercenaires » de George Soros, qui l’aideraient à mener « son plan pour faire venir des immigrés illégaux en Europe », selon les propos du Premier ministre. Dans cette liste, étaient nommés des universitaires, des journalistes d’opposition et des membres du personnel d’ONG qui aident les demandeurs d’asile et réfugiés.
Le 12 juin, un ancien parlementaire du parti allié au Fidesz, les Chrétiens-Démocrates, a tenu une conférence de presse devant l’immeuble où se trouvent les locaux d’Amnesty International à Budapest. « Il a collé des affiches sur notre porte, disant que nous promouvons la migration », décrit Aron Demeter. Deux jours plus tard, c’est l’ONG hongroise Menedék d’entraide aux réfugiés qui a fait les frais d’une même action.
La droite européenne impuissante
Ces campagnes de discréditations portent leurs fruits. Le 15 mai dernier, la fondation philanthropique Open society de George Soros a annoncé que, sous les pressions du gouvernement, elle quittait ses bureaux européens de Budapest pour déménager à Berlin, en Allemagne. De leur côté, Amnesty International et le Comité Helsinki hongrois assurent qu’ils ne partiront pas du pays, quitte à attaquer cette nouvelle loi devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne.
Aron Demeter comme Andra Lederer appellent la Commission européenne à lancer immédiatement une procédure d’infraction contre cette loi. « Les Etats de l’UE devraient exprimer fortement leur indignation face à cette attaque contre la société civile, l’Etat de droit et le principe de solidarité », déclare le porte-parole d’Amnesty International.
Jusqu’à présent, les critiques contre le régime de Viktor Orbán ont été mesurées au niveau européen. Le Parti populaire européen (PPE) qui réunit plusieurs partis de centre droit et dont fait partie le Fidesz, a tout de même demandé au Premier ministre hongrois d’attendre les conclusions de la Commission Venise pour la démocratie par le droit du Conseil de l’Europe sur ce projet de loi, qui doivent être publiées vendredi. Le 2 juin, le CDA, parti néerlandais membre du PPE, a adopté une motion pour que le Fidesz soit exclu du groupe européen.
Ignorant ces menaces, le gouvernement hongrois a voté le texte « Stop Soros » ce mercredi. « Le fait que le projet de loi suive son cours en Hongrie et la publication de l’avis de la Commission de Venise sont des procédures indépendantes, affirme le directeur Presse du groupe PPE au Parlement européen, Pedro Lopez de Pablo. Comme on l’a fait par le passé avec la Hongrie et avec la Pologne, nous allons demander aux gouvernements hongrois de faire tous les changements au projet de loi que la Commission de Venise demande. Si ce n’est pas fait, comme on l’a aussi déjà effectué pour la Pologne, on demandera l’ouverture des procédures prévues dans les traités européens pour atteinte aux principes fondamentaux de l’UE. »
▻http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2018/06/20/la-hongrie-criminalise-les-ong-qui-aident-les-demandeurs-d-asile_1659369
‘Hungary is the worst’: Refugees become punching bag under PM Viktor Orban
A proposed law seeks to criminalise anyone who helps refugees, as atmosphere turns ’toxic’
Hidden behind an overbearing, protective metal door in the centre of Budapest is the entrance to the Hungarian branch of Amnesty International.
For Julia Ivan, the director of Amnesty here, the events of recent months have certainly given her reason to feel cautious.
“The atmosphere towards migrants and those trying to support them has become so toxic here.”
She pauses, her voice expressing the incredulity she feels.
A former human rights lawyer, Ms Ivan joined the organisation to advocate for human rights defenders abroad.
“However, as things in Hungary are changing we are now trying to raise awareness about Hungarian human rights defenders who are being attacked,” Ms Ivan tells The Independent.
Interns, she says, are too scared to return to the NGO, after a narrative shift when it comes to humanitarian work.
“The interns that we took on last year to work for us this summer all completed their basic training and orientation.
“Then we had the “Stop Soros” bill in February and Viktor Orbán’s re-election in April and not one of them will still come to work here this summer.
“They are all terrified what working for an organisation like Amnesty International will mean for them and their futures – this is in a EU country.”
In 2018 – despite its rich multicultural history – Hungary has become the most anti-migrant country in Europe.
Consulting firm Gallup recently devised a Migrant Acceptance Index to measure how accepting populations were on issues such as “an immigrant becoming your neighbour”.
Hungary recorded the third-worst score in the entire world.
Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán of the Fidesz party, was re-elected for a fourth term in April’s landslide election win, and relentlessly campaigned to a drumbeat of xenophobic rhetoric – laying the blame for the entirety of Hungary’s woes, from its collapsing education system to widespread political corruption, at the feet of the migranj.
Mr Orban, who enjoys near messianic levels of popularity, has been labelled the EU’s answer to Vladimir Putin and has referred to all refugees as “Muslim invaders” and migrants trying to reach Hungary as a “poison” that his country does not need.
Buoyed by the election outcome, Mr Orbán’s government has submitted a new piece of anti-migrant legislation, informally called the “Stop Soros” bill.
The proposition is named after the American/Hungarian billionaire and civil society donor, George Soros, who Mr Orbán claims is trying to “settle millions from Africa and the Middle East” to disrupt Hungary’s homogeneity.
Controversially, the bill declares that any NGOs that “sponsor, organise or support the entry or stay of third-country citizens on Hungarian territory” will be viewed as a “national security risk”.
NGOs will have to obtain permission from Hungary’s interior minister to continue to operate and those breaking the rules to support migrants of any kind have been told they will be fined and shut down.
Incredibly, their employees could then also face jail time.
“The constant stoking of hatred by the current government for political gain has led to this latest shameful development, which is blatantly xenophobic and runs counter to European and international human rights standards and values,” Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights (Unhcr), has said.
According to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), just 1,216 asylum seekers were granted protection in Hungary in 2017.
In the same year, 325,400 asylum seekers were granted protection in Germany, followed by 40,600 in France, 35,100 in Italy, 34,000 in Austria and 31,200 in Sweden.
A further 2,880 applications were rejected and recognition rates for those arriving from war zones such as Syria and Iraq even remain low.
The country also refused to resettle even one refugee from the inundated Italy and Greece as part of the EU’s mandatory quota programme.
Orbán’s government has implemented a three-pronged strategy to attempt to eradicate the arrival of refugees in Hungary.
The “keep them out” policy was signposted by the triumphant construction, in June 2015, of a mammoth 175km long, 4m high razor wire fence on the Hungarian-Serbian border.
This impenetrable barrier was later extended to the Hungarian-Croatian frontier.
A highly controversial “pushback law” was also introduced, whereby potential refugees caught in the country with no legal documentation could be removed by any means possible to Serbia.
Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), which provides medical treatment to refugees on the Serbian side of the frontier, has recorded hundreds of cases of intentional injuries allegedly perpetrated by Hungarian border patrols during “pushbacks” – a claim that the Hungarian government has denied.
They include beating injuries, dog bites and irritation from tear gas and pepper sprays.
Between January 2016 and February 2017, MSF also recorded that just over one in five of these alleged attacks were inflicted on children.
“This pushback law is completely arbitrary and massively contradicts EU law,” says Gabor Gyulai, director of the HHC.
“Violence is a clear accompanying phenomenon of the pushback policy.”
To action asylum requests from those fleeing conflict, the government has set up two transit camps outside the Hungarian border towns of Tompa and Roeszke to house applicants.
In 2016, 60 refugees were allowed to enter the transit zones per day but the HHC believes this has plunged to a mere one person a day, on average, at each site.
This tactic is designed to split up entire families for an infinite time period.
Refugees fortunate to be allowed to cross into Hungary then experience the second carefully calculated prong – “detain them all”.
Living conditions are “absolutely inhumane”, according to the HHC.
“We know what is going on there, it is like a military camp where you are guarded everywhere, minimal privacy,” Mr Gabor says.
“Plus you live in a shipping container and we have a continental climate. In the summer, temperatures can easily reach 40 degrees inside.
“Many of the adults who arrive are already in poor mental health; they have been tortured or witnessed death.
“Then they are then stuck in a space a few metres squared in size.
Although NGOs are offering psychological assistance to the asylum-seekers, they are denied the opportunity to take it.
“We have an NGO here, the Cordelia Foundation, which can provide specialist psycho-therapeutic assistance to these individuals but they are not allowed to do so by the government.”
“It is totally senseless and completely inadequate for the vulnerable.”
The third deterrent strategy deployed is the “withdrawal of integration support”, which occurs if a refugee is granted permanent residency in Hungary.
Individuals are transferred to a reception centre near the remote Austrian border town of Vámosszabadi.
They are given 30 days free board and food and then left to fend for themselves, provided with no language courses or labour integration – as occurs in many other European countries.
Abdul, a young man from Afghanistan, currently resides in the run-down and very decrepit facility in Vámosszabadi.
Granted asylum in Hungary after an arduous journey via Iran, Turkey and Serbia, Abdul received death threats from the Taliban for working as an English translator for American troops stationed in his home country.
“I want to scream, I am going crazy,” he says.
Abdul claims that those staying at the centre have been the victim of beatings from both security personnel and local residents, which is why he would like to use a pseudonym.
When approached by The Independent for comment, the Hungarian government refused to address the accusations.
“I have travelled through so many different places, I thought I would drown in the sea, but Hungary is the worst.
“The people here, they hate us and the conditions here and on the border are not fit for animals.
“I have seen my friends beaten, refused food, we are treated like inmates here, second class humans, not actual people with needs and hopes.”
Like others granted refugee status in Hungary, Abdul planned to leave as soon as his reception permit expired and head for Western Europe.
The Unhcr has now taken the unprecedented step of urging EU states to stop returning asylum seekers to Hungary over fears about their security on arrival.
“There is no future here unless you are Hungarian,” Abdul adds. “Europe has forgotten us.”
▻https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-refugees-immigration-viktor-orban-racism-border-fence-a844604
La Hongrie taxe toute activité présentant les migrations sous un angle positif
La nouvelle loi, adoptée le 20 juillet, impose à 25 % les dons perçus par des organismes traitant des migrations.
►https://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2018/07/25/la-hongrie-taxe-toute-activite-presentant-les-migrations-sous-un-angle-posit
signalé ici sur seenthis :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/710493
La Commission européenne forme un #recours contre la Hongrie devant la #CJUE
19.07.2018 – Commission européenne - Recours en manquement -
Migration et asile
(...)
MIGRATION ET ASILE : LA COMMISSION FRANCHIT DE NOUVELLES ÉTAPES DANS DES
PROCÉDURES D'INFRACTION OUVERTES CONTRE LA HONGRIE
La Commission européenne a décidé aujourd’hui de former un recours
contre la Hongrie devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne pour
non-conformité de sa législation en matière d’asile et de retour avec
le droit de l’Union. La Commission a également envoyé aujourd’hui une
lettre de mise en demeure à la Hongrie concernant une nouvelle
législation hongroise qui érige en infractions pénales les activités
de soutien aux demandes d’asile et de séjour et restreint davantage
encore le droit de demander l’asile. Au sujet de la saisine de la Cour
pour non-respect de la législation de l’Union en matière d’asile et de
retour : la Commission a lancé pour la première fois une procédure
d’infraction contre la Hongrie au sujet de sa législation en matière
d’asile en décembre 2015. À la suite d’une série d’échanges au
niveau tant administratif que politique et de l’envoi d’une lettre de
mise en demeure complémentaire, la Commission a adressé un avis
motivé à la Hongrie en décembre 2017. Après avoir analysé la
réponse fournie par les autorités hongroises, la Commission considère
que la plupart des préoccupations soulevées n’ont toujours pas été
abordées et a donc à présent décidé de former un recours contre la
Hongrie devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, la dernière
étape de la procédure d’infraction. Au sujet de la lettre de mise en
demeure concernant la nouvelle législation hongroise qui érige en
infractions pénales les activités de soutien aux demandes d’asile :
cette nouvelle législation – baptisée « Stop Soros » par les
autorités hongroises – érige en infraction pénale toute assistance
offerte par des organisations nationales, internationales et non
gouvernementales ou par toute personne à des personnes qui souhaitent
introduire une demande d’asile ou de permis de séjour en Hongrie. Cette
législation comprend également des mesures qui restreignent les
libertés individuelles, en empêchant toute personne faisant l’objet
d’une procédure pénale au titre de cette législation d’approcher les
zones de transit aux frontières hongroises où les demandeurs d’asile
sont retenus. Les sanctions vont d’une détention temporaire à une
peine d’emprisonnement pouvant aller jusqu’à un an et à l’expulsion du
pays. En outre, la nouvelle législation et une modification
constitutionnelle ont instauré de nouveaux motifs pour déclarer une
demande d’asile irrecevable, en limitant le droit d’asile aux seules
personnes qui arrivent en Hongrie directement depuis un lieu où leur
vie ou leur liberté sont menacées. La Commission est donc parvenue à
la conclusion que la Hongrie manque aux obligations qui lui incombent en
vertu des traités de l’Union, de la législation de l’Union et de la
charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne. Les autorités
hongroises disposent de deux mois pour répondre aux préoccupations
exprimées par la Commission. La Commission est prête à soutenir les
autorités hongroises et à les aider à remédier à ce problème. Pour
de plus amples informations, voir la version intégrale du communiqué
de presse.
Lettres de mise en demeure
MIGRATION LÉGALE : LA COMMISSION INVITE INSTAMMENT LA HONGRIE À METTRE
EN ŒUVRE CORRECTEMENT LA DIRECTIVE SUR LES RÉSIDENTS DE LONGUE DURÉE
La Commission a décidé ce jour d’envoyer une lettre de mise en demeure
à la Hongrie au motif qu’elle exclut les ressortissants de pays tiers
ayant le statut de résident de longue durée de l’exercice de la
profession de vétérinaire et ne met donc pas correctement en œuvre la
directive sur les résidents de longue durée (directive 2003/109/CE du
Conseil). La directive exige que les ressortissants de pays tiers qui
résident légalement dans un État membre de l’UE depuis au moins cinq
ans bénéficient d’un traitement égal à celui des ressortissants
nationaux dans certains domaines, y compris l’accès aux activités
salariées et indépendantes. La législation hongroise n’autorise pas
les ressortissants de pays tiers ayant la qualité de vétérinaire
professionnel, y compris ceux ayant obtenu leur diplôme en Hongrie, à
exercer leur profession dans le pays. La Hongrie dispose à présent de
deux mois pour répondre aux arguments avancés par la Commission.
MIGRATION LÉGALE : LA COMMISSION DEMANDE À 17 ÉTATS MEMBRES DE METTRE
EN ŒUVRE LA DIRECTIVE SUR LES ÉTUDIANTS ET LES CHERCHEURS DE PAYS
TIERS
La Commission a décidé aujourd’hui d’envoyer des lettres de mise en
demeure à 17 États membres (AUTRICHE, BELGIQUE, CROATIE, CHYPRE,
RÉPUBLIQUETCHÈQUE, FINLANDE, FRANCE, GRÈCE, HONGRIE, LETTONIE,
LITUANIE, LUXEMBOURG, POLOGNE, ROUMANIE, SLOVÉNIE, ESPAGNEET SUÈDE)
pour défaut de communication de la législation nationale destinée à
transposer intégralement la directive relative aux conditions
d’entrée, de séjour et de mobilité sur le territoire de l’Union des
ressortissants de pays tiers à des fins de recherche, d’études, de
formation, de volontariat et de programmes d’échange d’élèves ou de
projets éducatifs et de travail au pair (directive 2016/801). Les
États membres avaient jusqu’au 23 mai 2018 pour mettre leur
législation nationale en conformité avec cette directive et en
informer la Commission. Ils ont à présent deux mois pour transposer
intégralement la directive en droit national. À défaut, la Commission
pourrait envisager de leur adresser des avis motivés.
Source : Commission européenne - Communiqué de presse
The rise of the Kazakh capital
▻http://www.bbc.com/capital/gallery/20180510-the-rise-of-the-kazakh-capital
The rise of the Kazakh capital
By Dene-Hern Chen and Taylor Weidman 15 May 2018
From an international expo centre to a massive indoor beach, #Astana, the capital of the world’s largest landlocked country, is entering the limelight.
BBC - Future - How a city that floods is running out of water
▻http://www.bbc.com/future/gallery/20180510-how-a-city-that-floods-is-running-out-of-water
One of the world’s largest cities, Mexico City is home to about 21 million people – rising to 27 million if you include the surrounding areas. About 20% of Mexico’s population lives there. By the year 2030, the authorities estimate that the population will grow to 30 million people.
Among other challenges, such a large population puts a costly strain on Mexico City’s water supplies. In fact, the parts of Mexico City’s infrastructure that supply water are crumbling. Its natural water reserves are also at risk; if trends continue, they are expected to dry out as soon as in 30 years. With so many people affected, this means one of the world’s largest water crises is in the making on the doorstep of the US.
Asylum decision-maker : ’It’s a lottery’
The Home Office has denied taking “arbitrary” decisions on asylum cases in order to meet deportation targets, but an asylum caseworker says staff have to work so fast that the results are a “lottery” - one that could result in people being sent home to their deaths. He contacted the BBC because he wants the public to know how the system operates. As he would lose his job if identified, we have called him “Alex”.
L’auteure mentionne le fait que le #Home_Office ait utilisé le Lonely Planet pour montrer que le Vietnam est un pays sûr... Ici le passage dans l’article :
When Asylum Aid represented a gay client from Vietnam recently, the Home Office caseworker referred to a Lonely Planet guide to establish whether or not it would be safe for him to return home. Based on the guide’s description of Ho Chi Minh city, the caseworker suggested it would be safe for him to go back.
... je me rappelle d’une conversation avec une juriste du CSP (Genève), qui avait utilisé, pour un recours contre une décision du SEM, le #Guide_du_Routard. Elle a montré au SEM que le récit de son mandant était vraisemblable quand il a répondu « je ne sais pas, il n’y a rien à voir » à la question de l’auditeur du SEM : « Dites moi le nom de 3 monuments présents dans votre ville d’origine »...
BBC - Culture - Why Orwell’s #1984 could be about now
▻http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180507-why-orwells-1984-could-be-about-now
By Jean Seaton
7 May 2018
Reading 1984, #George_Orwell claustrophobic fable of totalitarianism, is still a shock. First comes the start of recognition: we recognise what he describes. Doublethink (holding two contradictory thoughts at the same time), Newspeak, the Thought Police, the Ministry of Love that deals in pain, despair and annihilates any dissident, the Ministry of Peace that wages war, the novel-writing machines that pump out pornography to buy off the masses: Orwell opened our eyes to how regimes worked.
Today it is social media that collects every gesture, purchase, comment we make online
But now we can read 1984 differently: with anxious apprehension, using it to measure where we, our nations and the world have got to on the road map to a hell Orwell described. Prophetic? Possibly. But stirring, moving, creative, undeniable and helpful? Yes. A book published on 8 June 1949, written out of the battered landscape of total war, in a nation hungry, tired and grey, feels more relevant than ever before, because Orwell’s 1984 also arms us.