will ‘regional disembarkation’ help save lives ? – PRIO Blogs

/record-deaths-at-sea-will-regional-dise

  • Over 200 Migrants Drown in Three Days in Mediterranean — Death Toll for 2018 Passes 1,000

    This weekend, some 204 migrants have died at sea off Libya, pushing the total number of migrant drownings in the entire Mediterranean so far this year to over 1,000 people.

    Today (1/07), a small rubber boat packed with migrants capsized off AlKhums, east of Tripoli, with an estimated 41 people surviving after rescue. On Friday (28/06), three babies were among the 103, who died in a shipwreck similar to Sunday’s incident, also caused by smugglers taking migrants to sea in completely unsafe vessels.

    So far this year, the Libyan Coast Guard has returned some 10,000 people to shore from small vessels.

    “I am traveling to Tripoli once again this week and will see firsthand the conditions of migrants who have been rescued as well as those returned to shore by the Libya Coast Guard,” said William Lacy Swing, IOM Director General. “IOM is determined to ensure that the human rights of all migrants are respected as together we all make efforts to stop the people smuggling trade, which is so exploitative of migrants,” said Swing.

    IOM staff were deployed to provide support and first aid to the the 41 migrants who survived the capsize of their small rubber vessel that capsized off AlKhums. This is the second major shipwreck in as many few days. On Friday, a rubber dinghy capsized north of Tripoli and the 16 survivors (young men from Gambia, Sudan, Yemen, Niger and Guinea) were rescued by the Libyan Cost Guard. However, an estimated 103 people lost their lives.

    Adding to grim and tragic scene, the bodies of three babies were taken from the sea by the Libyan Coast Guard. IOM provided assistance at the disembarkation point, including provision of food and water and health assistance. IOM is also in the process of providing psychosocial aid at Tajoura detention centre where the survivors have been transferred. The need for physcosocial support is high as the survivors spent traumatizing time in the water as their engine broke only 30 minutes after departing Garaboli. The survivors have received psychosocial first aid at the detention centre and IOM continues to monitor their condition.
    From Friday to Sunday, close to 1,000 migrants were returned to Libyan shore by the Libyan Coast Guard, who intercepted small crafts as they made their way towards the open sea. Upon disembarkation to shore, migrants have received emergency direct assistance, including food and water, health assistance and IOM protection staff has provided vulnerability interviews. Those rescued and returned by the Libyan Coast Guard are transferred by the Libyan authorities to the detention centres where IOM continues humanitarian assistance.
    “There is an alarming increase in deaths at sea off Libya Coast,” said IOM Libya Chief of Mission Othman Belbeisi, adding: “Smugglers are exploiting the desperation of migrants to leave before there are further crackdowns on Mediterranean crossings by Europe.”

    “Migrants returned by the coast guard should not automatically be transferred to detention and we are deeply concerned that the detention centres will yet again be overcrowded and that living conditions will deteriorate with the recent influx of migrants,” added Belbeisi.

    https://www.iom.int/news/over-200-migrants-drown-three-days-mediterranean-death-toll-2018-passes-1000
    #Méditerranée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_en_mer #morts #décès #statistiques #chiffres #2018 #mer_Méditerranée

    en français:
    https://news.un.org/fr/story/2018/07/1018032

    • Dopo l’allontanamento delle ONG è strage quotidiana sulla rotta del Mediterraneo centrale

      Nel giorno in cui il ministro dell’interno e vice-presidente del Consiglio rilancia da Pontida l’ennesimo attacco contro le ONG, che vedranno “solo in cartolina” i porti italiani, e mentre tre navi umanitarie sono bloccate nel porto de La Valletta, per decisione del governo maltese, nelle acque del Mediterraneo Centrale si continua a morire. Si continua a morire nell’indifferenza della maggior parte della popolazione italiana, schierata con chi ha promesso che, chiudendo i porti, e le vie di fuga, ai migranti da soccorrere in mare, le condizioni di vita degli italiani colpiti dalla crisi potranno migliorare. Una tragica illusione. Il vero pericolo per tutti oggi non viene dal mare, ma dalla costituzione di un fronte sovranista ed identitario europeo, che potrebbe cancellare lo stato di diritto e la democrazia rappresentativa. E allora non ci sarà più spazio nè per i diritti umani nè per i diritti sociali. i più forti imporranno le loro leggi ai più deboli.

      Questa volta nessuno potrà accusare le navi umanitarie, come hanno fatto fino a oggi direttori di giornali in Italia ed esponenti della sedicente Guardia costiera libica. Adesso i libici, in assenza delle navi umanitarie, sono costretti ad avvalersi delle navi commerciali in navigazione nelle loro acque, per operazioni di soccorso che da soli non sono in grado di garantire, salvo poi attaccare le ONG. Per le persone “soccorse” in mare da questi mezzi il destino è segnato, lo sbarco avviene a Tripoli, porto più vicino ma non “place of safety“, e dopo poche ore, per coloro che sono trasferiti dal centro di prima accoglienza al porto, ai vari centri di detenzione gestiti dalle milizie, il destino è segnato.

      Si ripetono intanto attacchi scomposti contro gli operatori umanitari, che rilanciano la macchina del fango che da oltre un anno si rivolge contro le ONG, accusate di tutti i possibili reati, per il solo fatto di salvare vite umane in mare. Si vogliono eliminare tutti i testimoni dell’Olocausto nel Mediterraneo. Senza un voto del Parlamento si è cercato di introdurre in via surrettizia il reato di solidarietà, in spregio al principio di legalità, affermato dalla Costituzione italiana.

      Questa striscia di morte, che si allunga giorno dopo giorno, con una cadenza mai vista prima, deriva direttamente dalla eliminazione delle navi umanitarie e dall’arretramento degli assetti militari italiani ed europei che in passato, anche se si verificavano gravi stragi, riuscivano tuttavia a garantire più solleciti interventi di soccorso. Il blocco di tre navi umanitarie a Malta, come il sequestro della Juventa lo scorso anno, potrebbero essere stati causa di una forte riduzione della capacità di soccorso in acque internazionali, tra la Libia e ‘Europa, una capacità di soccorso che gli stati non hanno voluto mantenere negli standards imposti dalle Convenzioni internazionali a ciascun paese responsabile di una zona SAR ( ricerca e soccorso). La presenza delle navi umanitarie è stata bollata come un fattore di attrazione delle partenze, se non come vera e propria complicità con i trafficanti, come ha ripetuto in più occasioni Salvini. Ne vediamo oggi le conseguenze mortali.

      Anche l’UNHCR ha espresso la sua preoccupazione per la diminuzione degli assetti navali in grado di operare interventi di soccorso nelle acque del Mediterraneo centrale. Secondo l’OIM negli ultimi tre giorni sono annegate oltre 200 persone, una serie di stragi ignorate dall’oipinione pubblica italiana e nascoste dai politici concentrati nel rinnovato attacco contro le ONG. La “banalità” della strage quotidiana in mare costituisce la cifra morale del governo Salvini-Di Maio. Con il sommarsi delle vittime, e l’allontanamento dei testimoni, si vuole produrre una totale assuefazione nella popolazione italiana. Per alimentare altro odio ed altra insicurezza, utili per le prossime scadenze elettorali.

      Nelle prime settimane di insediamento del nuovo governo, ed in vista del Consiglio europeo di Bruxelles del 28-29 giugno scorso, il ministero dell’interno ha disposto in modo informale la chiusura dei porti ed il divieto di ingresso nelle acque territoriali, per alcune imbarcazioni delle Organizzazioni non governative che avevano effettuato soccorsi nelle acque internazionali antistanti le coste libiche. Sono state anche ritardate le operazioni di sbarco di centinaia di persone, soccorse da unità militari ( come la nave americana Trenton), o commerciali ( come il cargo Alexander Maersk), che, solo dopo lunghi giorni di attesa, hanno potuto trasbordare i naufraghi che avevamo a bordo e proseguire per la loro rotta. In molti casi si sono trasferite le responsabilità di coordinamento dei soccorsi alle autorità libiche, con i risultati che sono sotto gli occhi di tutti.

      Le ultime vicende delle navi umanitarie Acquarius , Lifeline e Open Arms, dopo il sequestro, lo scorso anno, della nave Juventa, ancora bloccata a Trapani, hanno aperto una nuova fase di tensioni anche a livello internazionale, in particolare con il governo maltese e con le autorità spagnole. Il governo italiano ha chiuso i porti alle poche navi umanitarie ancora impegnate nelle attività di ricerca e salvataggio (SAR) sulla rotta del Mediterraneo centrale, mentre si è rilanciata la criminalizzazione delle Ong, e più in generale di chiunque rispetti il dovere di salvare vite umane in mare, malgrado importanti decisioni della magistratura (di Ragusa e di Palermo) riconoscessero come lecite, anzi doverose, le attività di soccorso umanitario delle stesse Ong sotto inchiesta.

      Da ultimo si è appreso che ci sarebbero motivi “di ordine pubblico” alla base della decisione del ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini di vietare l’accesso ai porti italiani alla Open Arms.
Questi motivi, stando a informazioni che non sono state formalizzate in un provvedimento notificato agli interessati, sarebbero costituiti dalle “vicende giudiziarie” in cui è stata coinvolta la nave delle Ong spagnola, dissequestrata con una sentenza del Gip poi confermata dal tribunale di Ragusa, e dalle “manifestazioni”(rischio proteste) che si sono verificate in occasione del sequestro preventivo alla quale era stata sottoposta nel porto di Pozzallo.

      Si configura così come problema di “ordine pubblico” il doveroso espletamento di una operazione SAR che si è svolta nel pieno rispetto della legge e del diritto internazionale, per legittimare un provvedimento, ancora segretato, forse una circolare probabilmente da redigere, del ministro Toninelli, che vieta l’ingresso alle navi delle Ong nelle acque territoriali e nei porti italiani .

      L’allontanamento delle ONG per effetto delle “chiusure” informali dei porti, e la istituzione unilaterale di una zona SAR libica, oltre al blocco imposto alle navi umanitarie dalle autorità maltesi, riducono la presenza dei mezzi di soccorso nel Mediterraneo centrale e hanno già comportato un aumento esponenziale delle vittime.

      La realizzazione del progetto italiano di istituire una zona SAR , completata con una forte pressione sull’IMO a Londra, sta producendo tutti i suoi effetti mortali, considerando che la Guardia costiera “libica” non può coprire tutte le azioni di soccorso che è chiamata ad operare (spesso da assetti italiani), avendo a disposizione soltanto sei motovedette. Si tratta di mezzi ceduti dai precedenti governi italiani, oggi abbastanza logorati malgrado siano stati curati nella manutenzione dai marinai delle unità italiane, di stanza nel porto di Tripoli, nell’ambito della missione NAURAS. Non si sa come e quando arriveranno in Libia le 12 motovedette promesse alla Guardia costiera di Tripoli da Salvini, che doveva fare approvare la sua proposta in Consiglio dei ministri, approvazione che ancora non c’e’ stata. Una iniziativa che potrebbe infuocare ancora di più lo scontro tra le milizie libiche per il controllo dei porti, e del traffico di gas e petrolio.
      La creazione fittizia di una zona SAR libica, che sembra sia stata notificata anche all’IMO, sta legittimando gli interventi più frequenti della Guardia costiera di Tripoli, che arrivano a minacciare anche gli operatori umanitari mentre sono impegnati negli interventi di soccorso in acque internazionali. Interventi di soccorso che sono sempre monitorati dalle autorità militari italiane ed europee, che però non intervengono con la stessa tempestività che permetteva in passato il salvataggio di migliaia di vite.

      Il cerchio si chiude. Adesso arriva anche il supporto europeo alla chiusura contro le ONG, anche se non si traduce in alcun atto dotato di forza normativa vinclante. Tutte le politiche europee sull’immigrazione, anche i respingimenti, avverranno “su base volontaria”. Ma le navi di Frontex ( e di Eunavfor Med) rimangono vincolate agli obblighi di soccorso previsti dai Regolamenti europei n.656 del 2014 e 1624 del 2016. Atti normativi, vincolanti anche per i ministri,che subordinano le azioni contro i trafficanti alla salvaguardia della vita delle vittime, non esternazioni di leader sull’orlo di una crisi di nervi alla fine di un Consiglio europeo estenuante ed inconcludente.

      L’illegalità di scelte politiche e militari che vanno contro il diritto internazionale viene giustificata con lo spauracchio di manifestazioni democratiche di protesta. Non e’ a rischio soltanto la libertà di manifestazione o il diritto a svolgere attività di assistenza e di soccorso umanitario. Il messaggio lanciato dal governo italiano, e ripreso dal governo maltese, è chiaro, riguarda tutti, non solo i migranti. E’ la strategia mortale della dissuasione, rivolta ai migranti ed agli operatori umanitari. Altro che “pacchia”. Per chi si trova costretto a fuggire dalla Libia, senza alternative sicure per salvare la vita, il rischio del naufragio si fa sempre più concreto. Anche se gli “sbarchi” sono drasticamente calati, rispetto allo scorso anno, è in forte aumento il numero delle vittime, morti e dispersi, abbandonati nelle acque del Mediterraneo.

      In questa situazione la magistratura italiana è chiamata a fare rispettare le regole dello stato di diritto e gli impegni assunti dall’Italia con la firma e la ratifica delle Convenzioni internazionali di diritto del mare. Ma è anche importante il contributo della società civile organizzata, delle associazioni, di tutto quel mondo del volontariato che in questi ultimi mesi è stato messo sotto accusa con lo slogan della “lotta al business dell’immigrazione”. Quando erano state proprio le Organizzazioni non governative a denunciare chi faceva affari sulla pelle dei migranti e chi ometteva i controlli, denunce fatte in Parlamento e nel lavoro quotidiano di tanti cittadini solidali. L’attacco contro il sistema di accoglienza è stato utilizzato per delegittimare e bloccare chi portava soccorso in mare, mentre gli stati venivano meno ai loro obblighi di salvataggio. Verranno dalla società civile europea e dagli operatori umanitari le denunce che inchioderanno i responsabili delle stragi per omissione.

      Rispetto alle richieste di soccorso, e persino rispetto alle istanze che si stanno proponendo per avere chiarite le basi normative e i contenuti dei provvedimenti amministrativi, sulla base dei quali si sta interdicendo l’ingresso nelle acque territoriali e nei porti italiani alle navi delle ONG, impegnate in attività SAR nelle acque internazionali a nord delle coste libiche, silenzi e ritardi. Si può riscontrare silenzio e ritardo nell’attività delle pubbliche amministrazioni riconducibili al Ministero delle infrastrutture ( quanto al divieto di ingresso) e dell’interno (quanto alle note di rilevazione ed alla dichiarazione di una situazione di pericolo per l’ordine pubblico). Le decisioni dei ministri, su materie così importanti che incidono sulla vita ( e sulla morte) delle persone, non possono essere comunicate sui social, con messaggi Twitter o attraverso Facebook.

      Se gli avvistamenti iniziali ed il coordinamento “di fatto” (come rilevato dalla magistratura) della Guardia costiera “libica” sono effettuati da parte di autorità militari italiane, in sinergia con gli assetti aero-navali europei delle missioni Themis di Frontex ed Eunavfor MED, le autorità italiane non possono dismettere la loro responsabilità di soccorso.

      In questi casi il ministero dell’interno italiano ha l’obbligo di indicare un porto sicuro (place of safety) di sbarco in Italia, dal momento che la Libia non offre porti sicuri, e che Malta ha negato in diverse occasioni l’attracco a navi commerciali o umanitarie, che avevano operato soccorsi nelle acque del Mediterraneo centrale.

      Contro la scelta di chiudere i porti e di interdire l’ingresso delle navi delle ONG nelle acque territoriali, tanto per sbarcare naufraghi soccorsi in alto mare, quanto per effettuare rifornimenti e cambi di equipaggio, occorre rilanciare una forte iniziativa sul piano sociale, politico e legale. Per affermare il diritto alla vita, un diritto incondizionato, che non può essere piegato a finalità politiche o giudiziarie. Per battere quell’ondata di disinformazione e di rancore sociale che sta disintegrando il tessuto umano della nostra Repubblica, e la stessa Unione Europea, indicando nei migranti e in chi li assiste la ragione di tutti i mali che affliggono i cittadini italiani. Come se si trattasse di nemici interni da eliminare. Di fronte a tutto questo, la resistenza è un dovere.

      https://www.a-dif.org/2018/07/01/dopo-lallontanamento-delle-ong-e-strage-quotidiana-sulla-rotta-del-mediterran

    • La rotta più pericolosa del mondo

      Nel primo weekend in cui Tripoli ha coordinato i soccorsi in mare ci sono stati tre naufragi che hanno portato il numero complessivo dei morti e dei dispersi nel solo mese di giugno a 679. Secondo l’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (Unhcr), il dato in meno di un mese è più che raddoppiato. Matteo Villa, un ricercatore dell’Ispi, ha elaborato i dati dell’Unhcr e dell’Organizzazione internazionale delle migrazioni (Oim) sulle morti registrate in relazione alle partenze dalla Libia e ha stabilito che dal 1 giugno la rotta del Mediterraneo è diventata la più pericolosa al mondo: “Muore una persona ogni dieci”.
      Un dato allarmante che riporta il tasso di mortalità e il numero assoluto dei morti ai livelli di quelli registrati prima della riduzione delle partenze nel luglio del 2017. “Dopo la repentina diminuzione delle partenze dal 16 luglio 2017, il numero assoluto dei morti e dei dispersi si è ridotto, ma ora siamo tornati incredibilmente ai livelli di prima”, afferma Villa (il tasso di mortalità invece era comunque aumentato nell’ultimo anno). Per il ricercatore questo fattore è legato a tre elementi: “Le ong sono coinvolte sempre di meno nei salvataggi, i mercantili non intervengono perché temono di essere bloccati per giorni in attesa di avere indicazioni sul porto di sbarco (come è successo al cargo danese Maersk) e la guardia costiera libica non ha né i mezzi né la competenza per occuparsi dei salvataggi”.


      https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2018/07/03/morti-migranti-mediterraneo-libia
      #mortalité

    • Les tweet de Matteo Villa sur les morts en 2018 :

      Since June 1st, #migrant attempted crossings from #Libya have become THE RISKIEST since accurate public recordings started in 2016. ALMOST 1 IN 10 died or went missing upon departure from the Libyan coast bettween June 1st and July 2nd.

      After the sudden drop in #migrant departures from #Libya since 16 July 2017, the absolute number of dead and missing had abated. Astoundingly, we are now BACK to pre-drop levels. 679 persons have died or gone missing upon leaving Libya since June 1st.

      n 2018 so far, only about HALF of those departing from #Libya has made it to Italy (vs 86% last year). 44% have been brought back by the Libyan Coast Guard (vs 12% last year). 4.5% have died or gone missing (vs 2.3% last year).

      The increase in absolute dead and missings and in the risk of journey has occurred WHILE the Libyan Coast Guard rescued the highest number of persons in a single month since May 2016.

      Why is this happening: - NGOs carry out less and less SARs, may stop altogether; - commercial ships fear high losses if they do SARs and are held for days waiting for port; - Libyan Coast Guard understaffed and underequipped.

      https://twitter.com/emmevilla/status/1014068492872704000

      data set
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ncHxOHIx4ptt4YFXgGi9TIbwd53HaR3oFbrfBm67ak4/edit#gid=0
      (si @simplicissimus n’a rien à faire dans les prochains jours...)

      MAJOR CORRECTION: dead and missing from Libya since 1 June amount to 565, not 679 as previously stated. Risk of journey skyrocketed from 2.3% in Jan-May 2018 to 7.6% (NOT 9.0%). Absolute levels are still maximum since drop in sea arrivals in July 2017.

      https://twitter.com/emmevilla/status/1014266248094474240

    • Record deaths at sea: will ‘regional disembarkation’ help save lives?

      Never has it been more dangerous for people in search of protection to make the crossing to Europe. The estimated death rate on boat migration journeys across the Mediterranean has risen from 4 per 1000 in 2015 to 24 per 1000 in the first four months of 2018, according to available data.

      While the death rate is higher than ever, the size of migration flows across the Mediterranean has shrunk dramatically. The number of refugees and other migrants who crossed the Mediterranean in June was down 94% compared to the peak of the migration and refugee crisis in 2015. This means that migration policy-makers now have an opportunity to move on from crisis response to a search for long-term solutions.

      Yet, Mediterranean boat migration is an increasingly thorny issue for intra-European relations, and a new surge in arrivals remains imaginable. It still dominates the political discourses of all major European countries. In Germany, Angela Merkel’s coalition remains wobbly due to disagreements over migration policy. Anxiety about migration is therefore much higher than the current number of border-crossings would suggest, and continues to shape policy-making. This was evident in the fraught discussions in the lead-up to the agreement reached by the European Council on 29 June. In fact, the pressure to reach agreement and deliver action seems to have overshadowed concerns about the feasibility of the proposed schemes.


      https://blogs.prio.org/2018/07/record-deaths-at-sea-will-regional-disembarkation-help-save-lives
      #mortalité
      signalé par @isskein

    • Responsibility for surging death toll in Central Med laid squarely at Europe’s door

      The number of people drowning in the Central Mediterranean or being taken back to squalid detention centres in Libya has surged as a result of European policies aimed at closing the central Mediterranean route, Amnesty International said in a new briefing published today.

      https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/08/surging-death-toll-in-central-med
      #responsabilité

      Lien vers le briefing:
      https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/8906/2018/en

    • Combien de migrants sont morts en Méditerranée ? Où sont-ils enterrés ?
      L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) recense près de 17000 morts et disparus en Méditerranée depuis 2014

      Bonjour,

      Votre question renvoie vers un tweet de Pierre Sautarel (administrateur de Fdesouche, revue de presse consacrée aux thèmes favoris de l’extrême droite - immigration, sécurité, identité, etc.) qui s’appuie sur une erreur de chiffre dans une dépêche Reuters pour remettre en cause le décompte du nombre de migrants décédés en Méditerranée.

      « Plus de 100 000 migrants sont morts noyés [entre la Libye et l’Italie] depuis 2014, selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) », lit-on dans l’extrait du texte de l’agence que poste Sautarel. Et celui-ci de commenter : « Mais pas trace d’un cadavre sur une plage ou dans un filet de pêche… Plus c’est gros plus ça passe… »

      De fait, il y a un « 0 » de trop dans la dépêche Reuters dont Sautarel reproduit un extrait. Il s’agit probablement d’une erreur de traduction, puisque sur le site de Reuters, le texte en français fait état de « plus 100 000 morts », mais la version originale en anglais, en compte « more than [plus de] 10 000 ». Cette erreur a donné l’occasion à Pierre Sautarel (et à d’autres) de remettre en cause le décompte des migrants morts, s’appuyant par ailleurs sur le fait que (selon lui) il n’y a aucune trace des cadavres.

      Comment, et par qui, sont comptés les morts ? Où sont-ils enterrés ?
      16862 morts et disparus en Méditerranée depuis 2014, selon l’OIM

      La source de Reuters (et de quasiment tous les médias) sur ce sujet est l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM). Entre le 1er janvier 2014 et le 30 juillet 2018, l’OIM, rattachée à l’ONU, a recensé 5773 « morts », dont on a retrouvé les corps, et 11089 « disparus », dont les dépouilles n’ont pas été récupérées immédiatement après les naufrages mais qui ont généralement été signalés par des survivants.

      Au total, l’OIM comptabilise donc 16 862 victimes en Méditerranée en quatre ans et demi.

      Selon l’organisation, dans leur immense majorité, ces décès et ces disparitions surviennent en Méditerranée centrale, entre la Libye, la Tunisie, Malte et l’Italie : 14587 morts et disparus dans cette zone selon l’OIM (on retrouve les « plus de 10 000 » dont parle Reuters).

      Cela représente plus de 86% du total méditerranéen. Il s’agit de la route migratoire la plus meurtrière au monde, selon l’OIM.
      Des sources essentiellement secondaires

      L’Organisation internationale pour les migrants collecte ces chiffres via le Missing Migrants Project (Programme des migrants disparus). Dans une publication de 2017, des chercheurs en charge du MMP précisent (en anglais) la méthodologie de cette comptabilité : « La base de données du MMP fournit une vue d’ensemble des données sur les morts des migrants, mais il dépend premièrement de sources secondaires d’information. » Ces sources secondaires sont évaluées en fonction de leurs avantages et de leurs inconvénients.

      Dans chaque cas (CheckNews a isolé ceux survenus en Méditerranée) l’OIM recense la date, le « nombre de morts », le « nombre minimum estimé de disparus », « le nombre de survivants ». Et renvoie vers des sources en ligne. A chaque type de source un chiffre (voir la méthodologie de collecte des données) : 1 quand un seul média a rapporté l’événement, 2 pour des témoignages de migrants à l’OIM, 3 quand plusieurs médias en font état, 4 si une organisation non-gouvernementale ou internationale en atteste, et 5 s’il y a au moins une source officielle (étatique ou gardes-côtes notamment) ou plusieurs sources humanitaires.

      Par exemple, le 30 juillet une personne meurt et deux survivent dans un naufrage près de Tanger selon un média local arabophone (indice : 1). Autre exemple : le 18 juillet, l’OIM enregistre 19 morts et (au moins) 25 disparus dans un naufrage au nord de Chypre, dont 103 personnes réchappent. Elle s’appuie sur Reuters, CNN en turc et un média turc, qui tiennent leurs infos des gardes-côtes turcs (indice : 5).

      L’OIM estime que le décompte n’est pas exhaustif, des cas de décès pouvant ne pas être portés à la connaissance des médias, ONG ou autorités locales. « Dans la plupart des régions, les chiffres sont probablement largement sous-estimés par rapport au nombre de vies perdues », selon un de ses rapports (en anglais).
      « Mortes sans laisser de traces »

      Autre source pour prendre la mesure des morts sur les routes migratoires : le réseau United for intercultural action. Se fondant également sur les articles de presse et les rapports d’ONG, une équipe basée à Amsterdam a compté, entre 1993 et 2018, 34 361 migrants morts lors de leur voyage vers l’Europe ou après leur arrivée. La liste a été publiée dans le quotidien britannique The Guardian, le 20 juin 2018, journée mondiale des réfugiés. Près de 80% de ces personnes sont mortes en mer.

      Le Guardian précise que cette liste non plus n’a pas de prétention exhaustive : « le vrai nombre pourrait être beaucoup plus élevé, puisqu’au fil des ans plusieurs milliers de personnes sont mortes sans laisser de traces lors de leur voyage par la terre ou la mer. »
      « Les Etats ne semblent pas faire d’efforts »

      Vous nous demandez aussi où sont les dépouilles des noyés de la Méditerranée. Comme nous l’écrivions plus haut, une majorité des corps ne sont pas retrouvés. Interrogée par CheckNews, Julia Black, qui coordonne le Missing Migrants Project à l’OIM fait le point : « 5773 corps et 11 089 disparus ont été enregistrés par le MMP depuis 2014, ce qui veut dire qu’à peu près 34% des migrants morts sont effectivement retrouvés. » Mais, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations « n’a malheureusement pas de données sur où sont enterrées ces personnes », regrette Julia Black.

      « En général, les corps sont récupérés quand cela peut être fait sans compromettre les efforts de sauvetage », résume pour CheckNews Simon Robins, chercheur à l’université de York et responsable du projet Mediterranean Missing (auquel prend part l’OIM), qui vise à retrouver et identifier les morts en mer. Et de déplorer : « Les Etats ne semblent pas faire du tout d’effort pour recenser et publier des données concernant les corps qu’ils récupèrent. Cela est fait par la société civile et l’OIM. »
      « Cadavres traités comme des déchets »

      D’abord, donc, une majorité des victimes n’est pas retrouvée après les naufrages. Mais quand des corps arrivent sur des plages, la gestion s’avère compliquée. D’autant que « renvoyer une dépouille coûte cher et nécessite de la documentation. Cela n’est fait que si la famille est prête à investir la somme nécessaire et à remplir les papiers administratifs. Surtout, il faut que le corps soit identifié », souligne Simon Robins.

      Il incombe donc aux locaux de s’occuper des dépouilles non réclamées. Mediterranean Missing a consacré des rapports à la gestion des corps en Sicile (Italie) et à Lesbos (Grèce). Dans de nombreux cas, impossible d’identifier les migrants. Début 2016, la BBC publiait une enquête rapportant l’existence (d’au moins) 1278 tombes anonymes réparties dans 70 sites entre la Turquie, la Grèce et l’Italie (à l’époque, l’OIM recensait 8412 morts et disparus depuis 2014). Et le média britannique d’écrire : « En Turquie et en Grèce, les autorités locales, qui ont du mal à faire face à l’afflux de migrants et à la quantité inédite de corps qui s’échouent sur leurs plages, ont reconnu ne pas pouvoir tenir un compte précis des enterrements. » Des cimetières anonymes existent aussi en Tunisie, a constaté La Croix, et en Espagne, remarque RFI.

      En Libye, l’existence de fosses communes a même été rapportée (ici ou là). Les fondateurs de l’association Last Rights, qui veut donner un nom et une sépulture à tous les morts des migrations, Syd Bolton et Catriona Jarvis, confirment à CheckNews avoir recueilli « plusieurs témoignages » allant dans ce sens : « En Afrique, les autorités sont débordées et on entend parfois parler de cadavres traités comme des déchets. Ce n’est pas le cas, à notre connaissance, en Europe. »
      « Catastrophe »

      Cependant, « l’Union européenne n’a pas de politique vis-à-vis des migrants morts. C’est un problème qui incombe à chaque Etat, en fonction de sa loi et de ses pratiques nationales et régionales. Ces lois ne sont pas coordonnées ou harmonisées », détaille auprès de CheckNews la juriste Stefanie Grant, qui a rédigé un mémo juridique sur la question (en anglais) pour Mediterranean Missing. En revanche, au mois de juillet 2018, tous les Etats membres à l’exception de la Hongrie ont signé un engagement auprès de l’ONU sur les migrations. Le chapitre « Sauver des vies et faire des efforts coordonnés pour les migrants disparus » impose aux signataires de :

      Collecter, centraliser et systématiser les données concernant les corps, et assurer la traçabilité après l’enterrement […] établir des chaînes de coordination au niveau transnational pour faciliter l’identification et l’information des familles […] faire tous les efforts, y compris au travers de la coopération internationale pour retrouver, identifier et rapatrier les restes des migrants décédées à leurs pays d’origine […] et dans le cas d’invididus non identifiés, faciliter l’identification et la récupération des restes mortuaires.

      « Il ne manque plus qu’aux dirigeants de faire preuve de bonne volonté, c’est un processus très long », estiment les fondateurs de Last Rights, Syd Bolton et Catriona Jarvis. Ils expliquent à CheckNews que pour l’heure « les municipalités européennes doivent enterrer les morts qui arrivent sur leur territoire », mais qu’en termes de statistiques et de décompte, les pratiques varient d’une ville à l’autre.

      Pour les militants de Last Rights, cette situation explique pour partie le scepticisme de certains citoyens devant le drame des migrants : « Si l’Europe avait pris le parti de recenser exactement les disparus en mer et de s’occuper des dépouilles, personne ne pourrait douter de la catastrophe qui se déroule en Méditerranée. »

      http://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2018/08/09/combien-de-migrants-sont-morts-en-mediterranee-ou-sont-ils-enterres_16713

    • « La traversée de la Méditerranée se révèle plus mortelle que jamais »

      Plus de 1600 personnes ont trouvé la mort durant les premiers mois de 2018 lors de leur traversée de la Méditerranée. Selon un nouveau rapport publié lundi par le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR), la route maritime « est plus mortelle que jamais pour les migrants ».

      Le rapport, intitulé Voyages désespérés, constate que, même si le nombre de migrants tentant de rejoindre l’Europe a diminué, le taux des décès a augmenté vertigineusement. Entre janvier et juillet 2018, une personne sur 18 tentant la traversée est morte ou a disparu en mer. Au cours de la même période en 2017, on enregistrait un décès pour 42 personnes s’entassant dans les embarcations de fortune.

      « Le rapport confirme une fois de plus que la route méditerranéenne est l’un des passages maritimes les plus meurtriers du monde », affirme Pascale Moreau, directrice du bureau du HCR pour l’Europe, dans un communiqué.
      Mesures sécuritaires en ligne de mire

      Les mesures européennes de contrôle qui visent l’immigration irrégulière, les restrictions infligées aux ONG qui limitent les opérations de secours, ainsi que l’accès restreint aux ports italiens, en particulier depuis le changement de gouvernement dans la Péninsule, ont certes conduit à une diminution du flux migratoire. Mais le HCR tient à souligner que ces mesures entraînent une hausse du taux de mortalité.

      Comme solution, le HCR appelle les pays européens à s’engager en faveur de la mise en place de voies d’accès alternatives, légales et sécurisées pour les personnes fuyant la guerre et les persécutions. L’organisation onusienne suggère aussi aux Européens de s’entendre sur des ports de débarquement dans plusieurs pays, afin que l’accueil des migrants ne repose pas uniquement sur l’Espagne, la Grèce et l’Italie.

      https://www.letemps.ch/monde/traversee-mediterranee-se-revele-plus-mortelle-jamais

    • La traversée de la Méditerranée est plus meurtrière que jamais, selon un nouveau rapport du HCR

      Trois ans après la diffusion des images choquantes d’Alan Kurdi, cet enfant syrien dont le corps sans vie avait été retrouvé échoué sur une plage turque, la traversée de la mer Méditerranée est un itinéraire encore plus meurtrier qu’auparavant, indique un nouveau rapport du HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés.

      Selon le nouveau rapport « Voyage du désespoir », plus de 1600 personnes ont déjà perdu la vie ou ont disparu cette année en tentant de rejoindre l’Europe.

      Si le nombre de personnes arrivées en Europe est en diminution, le taux de décès, surtout parmi ceux qui rejoignent le continent par la Méditerranée, a considérablement augmenté, souligne le rapport. En Méditerranée centrale, pour chaque groupe de 18 personnes ayant entrepris la traversée entre janvier et juillet 2018, une personne est décédée ou a disparu, contre une sur 42 au cours de la même période en 2017.

      « Ce rapport confirme une fois de plus que la traversée de la Méditerranée est l’une des voies les plus meurtrières au monde », a déclaré Pascale Moreau, la Directrice du bureau du HCR pour l’Europe. « Alors même que le nombre d’arrivants sur les côtes européennes diminue, il ne s’agit plus de tester la capacité de l’Europe à gérer les chiffres mais à faire preuve de l’humanité nécessaire pour sauver des vies. »

      Ces derniers mois, le HCR et l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) ont appelé à une approche prévisible et régionale afin de garantir le sauvetage et le débarquement des personnes en détresse en mer Méditerranée.

      Le HCR exhorte également l’Europe à accroître les possibilités de voies d’accès légales et sûres pour les réfugiés, notamment en augmentant le nombre de places de réinstallation et en éliminant les obstacles au regroupement familial – ce qui permettrait de fournir d’autres options à des périples dont l’issue risque d’être fatale.

      Le rapport souligne également les dangers auxquels sont confrontés les réfugiés lorsqu’ils voyagent le long des routes terrestres vers l’Europe ou lorsqu’ils traversent celle-ci. Notant les mesures prises par certains pour empêcher les réfugiés et les migrants d’accéder à leur territoire, le rapport exhorte les États à faire en sorte que les personnes cherchant la protection internationale puissent facilement accéder aux procédures d’asile. Il lance également un appel aux États afin que ceux-ci renforcent les mécanismes de protection des enfants qui voyagent seuls et demandent l’asile.

      L’auteur à succès et Ambassadeur de bonne volonté du HCR, Khaled Hosseini, lui-même réfugié afghan, a publié un livre illustré dont la parution coïncide avec le tragique troisième anniversaire de la mort d’Alan Kurdi. Intitulé « Sea Prayer », l’ouvrage rend hommage aux milliers de réfugiés qui ont perdu la vie en fuyant la guerre, la violence et les persécutions à travers le monde.

      « Quand j’ai vu ces images épouvantables du corps d’Alan Kurdi, j’ai eu le cœur brisé », a déclaré Khaled Hosseini. « Pourtant, trois ans plus tard et malgré le fait que des milliers d’autres personnes perdent la vie en mer, notre mémoire collective et l’urgence que nous avions à vouloir faire mieux semblent s’être estompées. »

      En juin et juillet 2018, Khaled Hosseini s’est rendu au Liban et en Italie, où il a pu constater les conséquences désastreuses pour les familles qui ont perdu des proches alors que ceux-ci tentaient de rejoindre l’Europe.

      « En Sicile, j’ai vu un cimetière isolé et mal entretenu qui était rempli de tombes d’anonymes, dont de nombreux enfants, qui se sont noyés durant leur périple ces dernières années, comme Alan Kurdi », a-t-il expliqué. « Chacune de ces personnes n’est plus qu’un chiffre, un code sur une tombe, mais il s’agissait d’hommes, de femmes et d’enfants qui ont osé rêver d’un avenir plus prometteur. Trois ans après le décès d’Alan, il est temps d’unir nos forces pour éviter d’autres tragédies et rappeler à nos amis, nos familles, nos communautés et nos gouvernements que nous sommes solidaires avec les réfugiés. »

      L’intégralité du rapport (en anglais) est disponible à l’adresse : http://www.unhcr.org/desperatejourneys

      Faits marquants

      Le long de l’itinéraire de la Méditerranée centrale, dix incidents ont eu lieu depuis le début de l’année, au cours desquels 50 personnes, voire davantage, sont décédées. La plupart d’entre elles étaient parties de Libye. Parmi ces incidents, sept se sont déroulés depuis juin.
      Depuis l’Afrique du Nord vers l’Espagne, plus de 300 personnes ont perdu la vie jusqu’à présent, soit déjà une nette augmentation par rapport au total de l’année 2017, durant laquelle 200 décès avaient été enregistrés.
      En avril dernier, lorsque 1200 personnes ont rejoint l’Espagne par la mer, le taux de décès est passé à une personne qui trouve la mort pour chaque groupe de 14 personnes qui arrive en Espagne par la mer.
      Plus de 78 décès de réfugiés et de migrants ont été enregistrés jusqu’à présent le long des routes terrestres en Europe ou aux frontières de celle-ci, contre 45 au cours de la même période l’an dernier.

      http://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/press/2018/9/5b8ccee9a/traversee-mediterranee-meurtriere-jamais-nouveau-rapport-hcr.html

      Lien vers le #rapport :
      http://www.unhcr.org/desperatejourneys

    • En septembre, près d’un migrant sur 5 partant de Libye aurait disparu en Méditerranée

      Sur les six premiers mois de 2018, une personne sur 18 qui tentait de traverser la Méditerranée y a disparu. D’après un chercheur italien, en septembre ce chiffre a radicalement augmenté, passant à un mort ou disparu sur cinq.

      Ils sont plus de 30 000. Trente mille hommes, femmes et enfants, qui ont trouvé la mort en Méditerranée en essayant d’atteindre l’Europe sur des embarcations de fortune. Depuis le début de l’année, et encore plus au cours des quatre derniers mois, la mortalité du trajet a explosé. Et ce, même si le nombre de personnes qui tentent la traversée a chuté.

      En septembre, le Haut commissariat aux réfugiés de l’ONU (HCR) révélait qu’en 2017, une personne qui essayait d’atteindre l’Europe sur 42 trouvait la mort en Méditerranée et qu’en 2018, ce chiffre était passé à une personne sur 18. En septembre, ce chiffre a encore grimpé : ils étaient un sur cinq à perdre la vie ou à « disparaître » entre la Libye et l’Europe, selon le chercheur Matteo Villa, de l’Institut italien pour les études de politique internationale. Il a compilé, sur la base des chiffres officiels du HCR, de l’Organisation internationale des migrations (OIM), des récits publiés dans la presse et de témoignages récoltés lui-même, les données concernant les départs de Libye, les arrivées en Europe et les interceptions réalisées par les garde-côtes libyens (1). Il en ressort, pour le mois de septembre, qu’une personne sur dix a réussi à atteindre l’Europe, sept sur dix ont été interceptées par les Libyens et ramenées sur la rive sud de la Méditerranée, et deux sur dix ont disparu.
      « Politiques de dissuasion »

      « La chose la plus importante est qu’autant le risque de mourir que les décès avérés ont considérablement augmenté si vous comparez deux périodes : celle allant de juillet 2017 à mai 2018, soit avant l’arrivée du gouvernement actuel et le durcissement des politiques de dissuasion contre les ONG, et celle allant de juin à septembre 2018, soit après le changement de gouvernement italien et le début des politiques de dissuasion », explique Matteo Villa à Libération.

      Selon le chercheur, l’effet du durcissement de la politique migratoire du gouvernement italien, en particulier, est tangible : « Avant les politiques menées par Minniti [l’ancien ministre de l’Intérieur italien, en poste entre décembre 2016 et juin 2018, ndlr] ne fassent effet, à peu près 12 migrants mouraient chaque jour. Pendant les politiques de Minniti, il y en avait 3 par jour. Depuis Salvini [le nouveau ministre de l’Intérieur italien d’extrême droite, ndlr], le chiffre est monté à 8 morts par jour », détaille encore le chercheur.
      « Navires sous-équipés »

      Peut-on pour autant faire le lien direct entre la fermeture des ports italiens, depuis cet été, aux ONG qui portent secours aux migrants en mer, ou les difficultés rencontrées notamment par l’Aquarius, que le Panama ne veut plus immatriculer, et la hausse de la mortalité ? « C’est difficile à dire, mais à mon avis, oui. Les données racontent une histoire spécifique : sans les ONG en mer, les seuls navires qui restent sont ceux des garde-côtes libyens, qui sont sous-équipés et sous-staffés, donc ils ne pourront pas éviter un grand nombre de décès en mer », explique Matteo Villa.

      Dans le même temps, les départs de Libye n’ont jamais été aussi peu nombreux, depuis 2012, signale-t-il : « C’est plus difficile de trouver une place dans un bateau aujourd’hui. » Pour autant, la politique de dissuasion menée envers les migrants ne peut être considérée comme satisfaisante, selon lui : « L’hypothèse était que, étant donné le risque de mourir, les gens ne tenteraient plus de traverser la mer depuis la Libye. Mais les gens essaient toujours, et cela débouche sur un nombre très haut de morts avérées. »


      https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2018/10/01/en-septembre-pres-d-un-migrant-sur-5-partant-de-libye-aurait-disparu-en-m
      #mortalité

    • Migrant Deaths in Western Mediterranean This Year Double Those Recorded in 2017: UN Migration Agency

      IOM’s Missing Migrants Project (MMP) team, based at IOM’s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) in Berlin, has confirmed that two migrant boats were lost in the Alboran Sea in late August and early September and at least 113 people lost their lives. Since the beginning of the year, 547 people are estimated to have died in these waters, more than double the 224 deaths documented in all of 2017.

      On 30 August, a boat carrying 52 migrants, including six women (one of whom was pregnant) disappeared, according to the NGO Alarm Phone. The boat left on 29 August from Nador, Morocco, and both Spanish and Algerian authorities were involved in the unsuccessful search for the lost boat.

      Days later, on 3 September, another boat, with 61 migrants on board, went missing in the Alboran Sea after it departed for mainland Spain. The bodies of 13 people were found on the shores of Morocco and Algeria in the following days.

      “What’s concerning is that we’ve seen a consistent increase in the number of migrant deaths recorded in the Western Mediterranean each year since IOM began keeping track,” said Frank Laczko, Director of IOM’s Data Analysis Centre. “These numbers, however, tell only a partial story of the tragedy unfolding in the Western Mediterranean. For each person lost at sea, families are left wondering if their loved one is dead or alive.”

      The families of the 113 people who disappeared in these two shipwrecks are forced to live in limbo, not knowing the fate of their loved ones. They will have no place to mourn and lay their loved ones to rest.

      Unfortunately, deaths in the waters between North Africa and the Spain are not a new phenomenon. The Andalusian Association for Human Rights has documented the deaths of over 6,000 people on this route since 1997.

      Laczko noted, “The increase in recorded deaths in 2018 is linked to the increase in attempted sea crossings from North Africa to Spain compared with the past five years, as well as the number of fatalities in each shipwreck.” Of the 547 deaths and disappearances recorded so far in 2018, more than half (289) occurred in seven shipwrecks in which more than 20 people died or were lost at sea. Between 2014 and 2017, two or fewer such incidents were recorded each year.

      There are also strong indications that many migrants have been lost without a trace in the Western Mediterranean this year. The remains of more than 60 people have been found on beaches in Spain, Morocco and Algeria in 2018 that are not associated with any known shipwreck.

      Furthermore, non-governmental organizations operating in Spain and Morocco have received numerous requests from family members reporting loved ones lost in the Alboran Sea in shipwrecks which cannot be confirmed.

      IOM’s Missing Migrants Project collects data on migrant deaths from various sources, including coast guards, non-governmental and civil society organizations, and media reports. However, reports on migrant deaths are scattered and incomplete, and there are no complete data on border deaths released by Spanish or Moroccan authorities.

      In general, Missing Migrants Project data on migrant deaths and disappearances are best understood as minimum estimates: the true number of fatalities during migration is likely much higher. This lack of data reinforces the marginality and invisibility of migrant deaths and leads to an environment in which deaths seem to be tolerated as an assumed risk of irregular migration.


      https://reliefweb.int/report/spain/migrant-deaths-western-mediterranean-year-double-those-recorded-2017-un-m
      #mortalité #Méditerranée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #statistiques #chiffres #mourir_en_mer #2017 #morts #décès #2014 #2015 #2016 (et estimations #2018)

      Pour télécharger le pdf:
      https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Migrant%20Deaths%20in%20Western%20Mediterranean%20This%20Year%20Double%20

      ping @isskein @reka

    • #Méditerranée_occidentale : les décès de migrants ont doublé cette année par rapport à 2017 (OIM)

      Selon l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les migrations (OIM), la mer Méditerranée reste l’une des voies les plus meurtrières pour les migrants, malgré la baisse du trafic sur la partie centrale. D’après le Projet de l’OIM sur les migrants disparus (MMP), en date du 24 octobre, 1.969 migrants « irréguliers » sont morts en Méditerranée, dont plus des deux tiers dans les eaux entre l’Afrique du Nord et la Sicile.

      Mais la voie de la Méditerranée occidentale reste la plus meurtrière parmi les routes méditerranéennes menant en Europe.

      « Depuis le début de l’année, 547 personnes ont péri dans la Méditerranée occidentale. Ce chiffre s’élevait à 224 pour toute l’année 2017 », a déclaré le porte-parole de l’OIM, Joel Millman, lors d’un point de presse vendredi à Genève.

      Selon Joel Millman, l’illustration de cette tragédie est le naufrage de deux bateaux sur la mer d’Alboran qui ont fait au moins 113 morts entre fin août et début septembre.

      Le 30 août, un bateau transportant 52 migrants, dont six femmes (une enceinte), a disparu, selon l’ONG Alarm Phone. Le bateau est parti le 29 août de Nador (Maroc) et les autorités espagnoles et algériennes ont participé à la recherche infructueuse de l’embarcation portée disparue.

      Le 3 septembre, un autre bateau, avec 61 migrants à bord, a disparu à une centaine de kilomètres au sud de l’île espagnole d’Alboran. Les corps de 13 personnes ont été retrouvés par la suite sur les côtes marocaines et algériennes.

      L’OIM rappelle que les décès dans les eaux entre l’Afrique du Nord et l’Espagne ne sont pas « malheureusement un phénomène nouveau ». « L’Association andalouse des droits de l’homme a documenté le décès de plus de 6.000 personnes sur cette route depuis 1997 », a ajouté M. Millman.
      L’Espagne reste la porte d’entrée en Europe des migrants arrivées par la Méditerranée en 2018

      « L’augmentation des décès enregistrés en 2018 est liée à l’augmentation du nombre de tentatives de traversées par la mer entre l’Afrique du Nord et l’Espagne par rapport aux cinq dernières années, ainsi que par le nombre de morts dans chaque naufrage », a déclaré de son côté Franck Laczko, le Directeur du Centre mondial d’analyse des données sur la migration (CMADM) de l’OIM. Sur les 547 décès et disparitions enregistrés à ce jour en 2018, plus de la moitié (289) ont eu lieu lors de sept naufrages au cours desquels plus de 20 personnes sont mortes ou portées disparuesen mer. Entre 2014 et 2017, deux incidents de ce type ou moins ont été enregistrés chaque année.

      Il existe également de fortes indications selon lesquelles de nombreux migrants sont portés disparus cette année, sans laisser de traces dans la Méditerranée occidentale. Les restes de plus de 60 personnes ont été retrouvés sur des plages en Espagne, au Maroc et en Algérie en 2018, qui ne sont pas pourtant associés à des naufrages connus.

      Malgré une traversée périlleuse en Méditerranée, les migrants continuent d’emprunter cette voie pour tenter de rejoindre l’Espagne, l’Italie ou la Grèce. D’après l’OIM, 95.909 migrants et réfugiés sont arrivés en Europe cette année par la mer en date du 24 octobre, dont 45.976 rien qu’Espagne, la principale destination de débarquement cette année.

      En réalité, depuis les arrivées de fin septembre, l’Espagne a accueilli, en 2018, plus de migrants irréguliers qu’elle ne l’a fait pour toutes les années 2015, 2016 et 2017 combinées. En comparaison, ils étaient 147.170 à la même période dans la région l’an dernier et 324 267 au même moment en 2016.

      Recensant 46% de toutes les arrivées irrégulières cette année, l’Espagne (45.976 arrivées par la mer en plus de 5.202 par voie terrestre) continue de recevoir près de trois fois plus de migrants que la Grèce (26.340) et huit fois et demi de plus que l’Italie (21.935).

      https://news.un.org/fr/story/2018/10/1027622

    • Plus de 2.260 migrants sont morts en tentant de traverser la Méditerranée en 2018

      Des arrivées en baisse, mais plus de 2.260 morts : la Méditerranée est restée l’an dernier la voie maritime la plus meurtrière pour les migrants, selon le HCR qui a appelé les pays européens à « sortir de l’impasse ».

      Un total de 2.262 migrants sont « morts ou portés disparus » en tentant de traverser la Méditerranée en 2018, contre 3.139 l’année précédente, selon les chiffres publiés par le Haut commissariat de l’ONU aux réfugiés (HCR) sur son site internet.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/depeche/plus-de-2260-migrants-sont-morts-en-tentant-de-traverser-la-m

      Sur le site de l’HCR (04.01.2019) :


      https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean

    • Méditerranée : forte baisse des traversées en 2018 et l’Espagne en tête des arrivées (HCR)

      C’est toujours la voie maritime la plus meurtrière au monde pour les migrants : plus de 2 260 personnes sont mortes en tentant de traverser la Méditerranée en 2018, selon les chiffres publiés par le Haut-Commissariat de l’ONU aux réfugiés (HCR), jeudi 3 janvier.

      https://news.un.org/fr/story/2019/01/1032962

    • Irregular migration death, disappearance toll exceeds 30,000 during 2014-2018: IOM

      At least 30,510 deaths occurred between 2014 and 2018 during irregular migration around the world, the UN International Organization for Migration (IOM) said in a report Friday.

      More than 19,000 deaths and disappearances were recorded due to drowning, not only in the Mediterranean Sea but also in the Rio Grande, the Bay of Bengal and many other overseas routes, said the IOM citing data gathered by its Missing Migrants Project.

      Nearly half of the five-year total fatalities of at least 14,795 men, women and children were recorded on the central Mediterranean route between North Africa and Italy.

      The Missing Migrants Project estimates that at least 17,644 lives were lost at sea on all three trans-Mediterranean routes in the last five years, equivalent to roughly 10 times the number of people who drowned when the luxury liner Titanic sank in 1912.

      “Irregular migration poses significant risks to those who undertake such journeys, and safe, legal pathways are urgently needed so that fewer people resort to this option,” said Dr. Frank Laczko, director of IOM’s Global Migration Data Analysis Centre.

      “Even though many focus on the Mediterranean, the truth of the matter is that people die on migratory routes worldwide,” he said.

      Due to the lack of official information on deaths during migration, and a lack of detail on most of those who die during migration, the IOM said the figures are best understood as a minimum estimate.

      Deaths recorded during migration throughout Africa comprise the second-largest regional total of the 30,000 deaths logged since 2014, with 6,629 fatalities recorded since 2014.

      Nearly 4,000 of those deaths occurred in northern Africa, where a lack of reliable data and extensive anecdotal reports indicate that many more migrants have died than are recorded.

      In Asia, where data are similarly scarce, the deaths of more than 2,900 people were recorded during migration, including 2,191 in Southeast Asia and 531 in the Middle East.

      At least 2,959 people died migrating in the Americas in the last five years, more than 60 percent of whom (at least 1,871) lost their lives on the border between Mexico and the United States.

      There were more than 1,000 deaths in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean between 2014 and 2018, although the difficulty in obtaining reliable reports — particularly at sea or through remote jungle areas — means that migrant deaths were likely far higher, said the IOM.

      http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-01/12/c_137737134.htm

  • EU leaders consider centers outside bloc to process refugees

    Draft conclusions for the European Council summit next week propose the creation of ‘disembarkation platforms.’

    European Council President Donald Tusk has proposed that EU leaders create “regional disembarkation platforms” outside the European Union, where officials could quickly differentiate between refugees in need of protection and economic migrants who would potentially face return to their countries of origin.

    The proposal is an effort to break the acute political crisis over migration and asylum that has bedeviled EU leaders since 2015 — and even threatened in recent days to topple the German government — even as the numbers of arrivals have plummeted since the peak of the crisis.

    The disembarkation platform concept — which officials said would have to be implemented in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) — could create a formal mechanism by which the EU can bridge the divide between hard-line leaders calling for tough border controls and those insisting that EU nations obey international law and welcome refugees in need of protection.

    But the idea could also open EU leaders to criticism that they are outsourcing their political problem by creating centers for people seeking entry in countries on the periphery of the bloc. Among the potential partner nations are Tunisia and Albania, but officials say it is far too soon to speculate.

    The idea to create such facilities was suggested in 2016 by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the strongest critic of the EU’s policies on migration — especially on the relocation of refugees across Europe.

    More recently, French President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the idea, and on Sunday Italian Foreign Minister Enzo Moavero said Italy wants to officially put the idea on the table at the European Council summit.

    According to the draft guidelines, the new sites would “establish a more predictable framework for dealing with those who nevertheless set out to sea and are rescued in Search And Rescue Operations.”

    The conclusions state: “Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection, and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.”
    https://www.politico.eu/article/regional-disembarkation-platforms-eu-leaders-consider-camps-outside-bloc-to

    Nouveau #mots, nouvelle absurdité #disembarkation_platform...!!!
    #tri #migrations #migrants_économiques #réfugiés #catégorisation #hotspots #externalisation #novlangue
    #regional_disembarkation_platforms #Tunisie #Albanie #plateformes_régionales_de_désembarquement

    cc @reka @isskein @i_s_

    • European Council meeting (28 J une 2018) – Draft conclusions

      In order to establish a more predictable framework for dealing with those who nevertheless set out to sea and are rescued in Search And Rescue Operations, the European Council supports the development of the concept of regional disembarkation platforms in close cooperation with UNHCR and IOM. Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection , and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.

      https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/draftEucoConclusionsJune.pdf
      #HCR #OIM #IOM

    • Une idée qui vient de la Hongrie...

      From protest to proposal : Eastern Europe tries new migration tactic

      “Asylum procedures should be completed outside the EU in closed and protected hotspots before the first entry on the territory of the EU,” states Orbán’s plan. “Third countries should be supported in establishing a system of reception and management of migratory flows … which should foresee careful on-site screening of refugees and economic migrants,” reads Renzi’s.

      https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-hungary-slovakia-from-protest-to-propose-eastern-europe-tries-

    • La UE estudia instalar centros de clasificación de inmigrantes en el norte de África

      Un borrador de documento para la cumbre afirma que la idea podría facilitar «un procesamiento rápido que distinga entre migrantes económicos y refugiados»

      La Unión Europea estudia la idea de construir centros para el procesamiento de inmigrantes en el norte de África en un intento por disuadir a la gente de emprender viajes a través del Mediterráneo que puedan poner en riesgo su vida, según indica un documento al que ha tenido acceso The Guardian.

      El Consejo Europeo de líderes de la UE «apoya el desarrollo del concepto de plataformas de desembarque regional», según señala un borrador de conclusiones de la cumbre europea que se llevará a cabo la próxima semana.

      La UE quiere estudiar la viabilidad de instalar estos centros en el norte de África, donde comienza la mayoría de los viajes de los inmigrantes que quieren llegar a suelo europeo. «Estas plataformas podrían facilitar un procesamiento rápido que distinga entre migrantes económicos y aquellos que necesitan protección internacional, y así reducir los incentivos a embarcarse en viajes peligrosos», sostiene el documento.

      La inmigración es un tema prioritario en la agenda de la próxima cumbre de dos días que se iniciará el 28 de junio. Los líderes de la UE intentarán llegar a un consenso sobre cómo manejar la crisis de los miles de refugiados e inmigrantes que llegan a Europa cada mes.

      Los líderes de Alemania y Francia, Angela Merkel y Emmanuel Macron, se han reunido este martes cerca de Berlín para fijar una posición común respecto a la inmigración y la eurozona, en medio de los temores sobre el desmoronamiento del proyecto europeo.

      Antes de la reunión, el ministro de Hacienda francés, Bruno Le Maire, afirmó que Europa está «en proceso de desintegración». «Vemos Estados que se están cerrando, intentando encontrar soluciones nacionales a problemas que requieren soluciones europeas», señaló. Así, llamó a construir «un nuevo proyecto europeo sobre inmigración», así como sobre asuntos económicos y financieros «que consoliden a Europa en un mundo en el que Estados Unidos está a un lado, China al otro y nosotros quedamos atrapados en el medio».

      El ministro de Interior alemán, Horst Seehofer, de línea dura, está presionando a la canciller Angela Merkel para que diseñe un plan europeo para finales de mes. Alemania sigue siendo el país europeo que más solicitudes de asilo recibe. Si no hay avance a nivel europeo, Seehofer quiere que la policía de las fronteras alemanas comience a negar la entrada a los inmigrantes.

      No queda claro cómo se llevaría a la práctica la propuesta europea de «plataformas de desembarque regional», o dónde se instalarían.

      En 2016, la UE llegó a un acuerdo con Turquía que redujo drásticamente el flujo migratorio, pero al bloque le ha resultado más difícil trabajar con los gobiernos del norte de África, especialmente con Libia, punto de partida de la mayoría de las embarcaciones que intentan llegar a Europa por el Mediterráneo.

      La Comisión Europea ha rechazado la posibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo con Libia parecido al de Turquía, debido a la inestabilidad del país. Sin embargo, el anterior Gobierno de Italia pactó con las milicias y tribus libias y colaboró para reconstituir la guardia costera libia. Estas acciones han contribuido a reducir drásticamente el número de personas que intenta cruzar el Mediterráneo, pero los críticos han denunciado un aumento en las violaciones de los derechos humanos.

      Según el documento filtrado, la UE prefiere construir los centros en colaboración con ACNUR, la agencia de la ONU para los refugiados, y con la Organización Internacional para la Migración, otro organismo relacionado con la ONU que con anterioridad ha criticado la escasez de rutas legales que tienen los inmigrantes y refugiados africanos para llegar a Europa.

      https://www.eldiario.es/theguardian/UE-instalar-procesamiento-inmigrantes-Africa_0_783922573.html

    • Commentaire d’Emmanuel Blanchard, via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Au contraire de ce que suggère le titre choisi par ce journaliste (article ci-dessous), la proposition de créer ces plateformes de débarquement n’est pas vraiment « étonnante » tant elle ressemble aux « #processings_centers » et autres « #centres_d'identification » dont les projets ressurgissent régulièrement depuis le début des années 2000. Il y a cependant des évolutions (ces centres étaient pensés pour cantonner les exilés avant qu’ils prennent la mer et pas pour débarquer les boat-people secourus en mer) et le danger se rapproche : maintenant que ces camps existent sous le nom de hotpsots dans les iles grecques, il apparaît possible de les étendre dans des pays extérieurs ayant besoin du soutien financier ou politique de l’UE.

      #camps #cpa_camps

    • Europe Pushes to Outsource Asylum, Again

      With Dublin reform stalled, European leaders began to cast around for new ideas to solve the ongoing political crisis on migration and settled on a recurring proposition: the creation of asylum processing centres beyond the (strengthened) borders of the European Union.

      What exactly is up for discussion remains unclear. The plans championed by various EU leaders are diverse, yet the details remain fuzzy. What they have in common is a near-universal focus on shifting responsibility for dealing with refugees and migrants upstream. The idea of external processing looks good on paper, particularly in demonstrating to skeptical voters that governments have control over migration flows. But leaders also hope that by reducing inflows to the European Union, they will face less pressure to compromise on sharing responsibility for asylum within the bloc.

      The devil is in the detail. Proposals to externalize the processing of asylum claims are not new, but have largely fallen flat. Previous leaders balked at the idea of such elaborate constructions, especially when confronted with their significant practical complications. But public pressure to further slow arrivals of refugee and migrant boats has mounted in many countries, and leaders feel compelled to find an agreement. The result is a debate on migration increasingly divorced from reality.

      But before sitting down to the negotiating table, EU leaders may want to reflect on the exact model they wish to pursue, and the tradeoffs involved. Critically, does the concept of “regional disembarkation platforms” set out in the draft European Council conclusions offer a potential solution?

      Key Design Questions

      From Austria’s so-called Future European Protection System, to the “centres of international protection in transit countries” suggested by Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, to an outlier idea from the Danish Prime Minister to create centres to host failed asylum seekers in “undesirable” parts of Europe —a variety of models for externalization have been floated in recent weeks.

      Several proposals also envisage the simultaneous creation of joint processing centres within the European Union, coupled with the use of reception centres that restrict residents’ freedom of movement. While it is still unclear how such a plan would unfold, this commentary focuses on the external dimension alone.

      Where Would People Be Stopped and Processed?

      The proposals differ regarding where in the journey they would stop migrants and potential asylum seekers. French President Emmanuel Macron has vaguely referred to centres in key transit countries, such as Niger, Libya, and Chad, as well as closer to regions of origin. Others have focused more squarely on the North African coast.

      Centres operating far away from the European Union would likely function as a form of resettlement, stopping people en route (or even prior to the journey), and offering selected individuals an additional channel of EU entry in hopes that this would discourage the use of smugglers. Indeed, nascent EU efforts to resettle refugees evacuated from Libya to Niger (under the Evacuation Transit Mechanism, or ETM), demonstrate how this might work. At the other extreme, the model championed by Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz would see migrants and refugees returned to “safe zones” in Africa, where they would stay, even after arriving at the external EU border.

      The latter concept is problematic under current EU and international law. By returning arrivals to third countries without giving them the opportunity to submit an asylum claim, governments would be likely to run afoul of the EU Asylum Procedures Directive, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits signatories from the “collective expulsion of aliens.” European Court of Human Rights case law also precludes the pushback of migrants rescued by European boats while crossing the Mediterranean. Conversely, however, if migrants and potential asylum seekers are stopped before entering EU waters, and without the involvement of European-flagged vessels, then no EU Member State has formal legal responsibility.

      A framework for regional cooperation on the disembarkation of migrant boats—being developed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) —may offer a middle ground. While details are scarce, it seems likely that the proposal would focus first on the development of a system for determining who would rescue migrants crossing the Mediterranean, and where they would be landed. Absent consensus within the European Union on responsibility sharing for asylum claims, UNHCR would attempt to create a new framework for responsibility sharing with both Northern and Southern Mediterranean states on search and rescue. However, to prove palatable to partners, such a scheme would require strong EU support, not least through the creation of regional disembarkation centres across North Africa where migrants and refugees “pulled back” from their journey would be sent. This approach would sidestep the application of EU law. To be viable, the European Union would likely need to offer North African partner states some assurance of support, including resettling some of those found in need of protection (as with the Niger ETM).

      Who Would Do the Processing?

      Once asylum seekers are pulled back, there is the question of who would make determinations regarding their protection. There are three options.

      First, Member States’ own asylum agencies could adjudicate protection claims, as Macron has occasionally suggested. Aside from the logistical challenges of seconding officials outside Europe, the question quickly arises as to who would adjudicate which applications? Member States have very different asylum systems, which produce markedly different outcomes for applicants, and would need extensive coordination.

      As a result, there is growing interest in developing an EU asylum agency capable of undertaking assessments on behalf of Member States. This appears a neat solution. However, governments would have to agree joint procedures and standards for processing claims and have confidence in the decisions made by through a joint processing arrangement. This is, if anything, an option only in the long term, as it would be years before any such agency is operational.

      Should the regional disembarkation idea gain ground, the European Union would have no legal responsibility to undertake assessment. Most Member States would be likely to consider UNHCR a key partner to manage any external process. But doing so could require UNHCR to redeploy limited staff resources from existing resettlement operations or from pressing humanitarian situations elsewhere. Moreover, outsourcing to UNHCR could still raise the issue of trust and transferability of decisions. Many Member States remain reluctant to rely solely on UNHCR to select refugees for resettlement, preferring to send their own teams to do the final selection.

      What Happens Next?

      The issue of what happens to people after their protection claims are assessed remains at the crux of questions around the feasibility of external processing. Proposals here differ starkly.

      On the one hand, some proposals would allow those recognized as in need of protection to subsequently enter the European Union. This is the option that—even if the European Union has circumvented any legal responsibility—would be deemed necessary to host countries as it would give them assurance that they are not overly burdened with providing protection. But doing so would require Member States to agree on some sort of distribution system or quotas for determining who would be settled where—crashing back into a responsibility-sharing problem that has plagued the European Union.

      By contrast, proposals that would explicitly not allow entry to anyone who had attempted to travel to Europe via the Mediterranean, taking a page from Australia’s playbook, are meant to assuage fears that such centres would become magnets for new travellers. Those with protection needs brought to such centres would be settled in countries outside the bloc. The challenges with this model centre squarely on the difficulty finding a “safe” country that would allow the settlement of potentially unlimited number of protection beneficiaries. Neither is likely to be the case in any arrangements the European Union would seek to make with external countries.

      Finally, there is the troubling question of what to do with those denied status or resettlement in the European Union. While the International Organization for Migration (IOM) or another agency might be able to help facilitate voluntary return, some might not be able to return home or may have been denied resettlement but nonetheless have protection needs. They are at risk of becoming a population in limbo, with long-term implications for their well-being and for the host country.


      https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/europe-pushes-outsource-asylum-again
      #schéma #visualisation

    • "L’UE devrait demander à la Tunisie ou l’Algérie d’accueillir des migrants"

      Afin d’éviter toute complicité des ONG, #Stephen_Smith propose notamment une participation des pays du sud de la Méditerranée. « L’Europe se bat un peu la coulpe et a l’impression que tout est pour elle. Or, la Libye a beaucoup de pays voisins. Pourquoi n’a-t-on pas songé à demander le soutien de la Tunisie ou de l’Algérie ? Habituellement, en cas de naufrage, la règle veut que les voyageurs soient transportés vers la prochaine terre sûre. Et, à partir de la Libye, cette terre n’est pas l’Italie. »

      http://www.rts.ch/info/monde/9678271--l-ue-devrait-demander-a-la-tunisie-ou-l-algerie-d-accueillir-des-migran
      #Tunisie #Algérie

    • Macron y Pedro Sánchez proponen «centros cerrados de desembarco» para los inmigrantes que lleguen a Europa

      Con el apoyo de Pedro Sánchez, el presidente francés expone su apuesta para la gestión de las llegadas de migrantes a las costas del sur de Europa

      En estos centros se tratarían los expedientes de los demandantes de asilo o se tramitaría su devolución a los países de origen

      https://www.eldiario.es/desalambre/Macron-propone-centros-desembarco-inmigrantes_0_785321746.html
      #Espagne

    • EU admits no African country has agreed to host migration centre

      The European Union’s most senior migration official has admitted that no north African country has yet agreed to host migrant screening centres to process refugee claims.

      Details of an EU plan to prevent migrants drowning at sea emerged on Thursday after Italy criticised the agenda of an emergency summit for not offering enough to help it cope with arrivals.

      Dimitris Avramopoulos, the European commissioner for migration, said the EU wanted to “intensify cooperation” with Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Niger and Morocco, as he announced the intention to create a “regional disembarkation scheme”.
      Malta’s ’barbaric’ finch traps ruled illegal by EU court
      Read more

      So far no African country had agreed to host screening centres, he confirmed. “It has to be discussed with these countries, he said. “An official proposal has not been put on the table.”

      The idea for offshore migrant processing centres remains sketchy, with numerous political, practical and legal questions unanswered. It remains unclear, for example, whether migrants on a rescue ship in European waters could be returned to a north African country.

      Tahar Cherif, the Tunisian ambassador to the EU said: “The proposal was put to the head of our government a few months ago during a visit to Germany, it was also asked by Italy, and the answer is clear: no!

      “We have neither the capacity nor the means to organise these detention centres. We are already suffering a lot from what is happening in Libya, which has been the effect of European action.”

      He said his country was facing enough problems with unemployment, without wishing to add to them while Niger said its existing centres taking migrants out of detention camps in Libya are already full.

      The idea for the centres was thrown into the mix of EU migration policy before a series of crucial summits on migration in the next week.

      About 10 EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Sunday in a hastily convened emergency meeting aimed at preventing the collapse of the German coalition government.

      But the Italian government has been angered by draft conclusions for the summit, which stress the need to counter “secondary movements” – an issue that affects Germany.

      Under EU rules, a member state usually has responsibility for asylum seekers who have arrived in its territory, a regulation that has put frontline states Italy and Greece under huge pressure.

      But claimants often move to a second EU state, seeking a faster decision or to unite with family members.

      So-called “secondary movements” is the issue driving a wedge between Germany’s ruling coalition. The Bavarian CSU party has set the chancellor, Angela Merkel, a deadline of two weeks to find a solution. The interior minister, Horst Seehofer, has threatened to send away migrants at the border – a breach of EU rules that threatens to unravel the common asylum system.

      Tensions are running high after Italy’s prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, said he was not ready to discuss secondary movements “without having first tackled the emergency of ‘primary movements’ that Italy has ended up dealing with alone”.

      Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, said: “If anyone in the EU thinks Italy should keep being a landing point and refugee camp, they have misunderstood.”

      The election of a populist government in Italy, combined with tensions in Germany’s ruling coalition, has created a political storm over migration despite the sharp fall in arrivals. In the first six months of this year 15,570 people crossed into Italy, a 77% drop on last year.

      The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, reluctantly agreed to host the weekend summit to help Merkel, after her governing coalition came close to breaking point.

      Avramopoulos stressed that the summit would be about “consultations” to prepare the ground for decisions to be taken by all 28 EU leaders at a European council meeting next Thursday.

      Warning that the future of the EU’s border-free travel area was at stake, Avramopoulos said: “The European leadership of today will be held accountable in the eyes of future generations if we allow all these forces of populism to blow up what has been achieved”.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/eu-admits-no-african-country-has-agreed-to-host-migration-centre
      #cpa_camps

    • IOM-UNHCR Proposal to the European Union for a Regional Cooperative Arrangement Ensuring Predictable Disembarkation and Subsequent Processing of Persons Rescued at Sea

      Approximately 40,000 refugees and migrants have arrived in Europe via maritime routes in 2018 to date. This is almost six times less than over the same period in 2016, following a peak in arrivals by sea in 2015. According to EUROSTAT, approximately 30 per cent of those arriving on the European shores were in need of international protection; moreover, some have faced extreme hardship and abuse at the hands of unscrupulous traffickers during the journey.

      Despite the reduced arrival rates, new challenges resulting from divergent EU Member State views have revealed a need to revisit regional arrangements to relieve front line states from having the sole responsibility for the disembarkation and further processing of people rescued at sea.

      IOM and UNHCR stand ready to support a common approach, and call on all countries in the Mediterranean region to come together to implement a predictable and responsible disembarkation mechanism in a manner that prioritizes human rights and safety first, delinked from the subsequent processing of status and related follow-up responsibilities, post-disembarkation, for those rescued in international waters.

      It is increasingly recognized that disembarkation cannot be the sole responsibility of one country or regional grouping. It should be a shared responsibility across the Mediterranean Basin, with due respect for the safety and dignity of all people on the move. A comprehensive approach is required to realize effective and sustainable responses.

      People on the move to and through the Mediterranean have different migratory status, with the majority of them not qualifying for international or subsidiary protection. Addressing the drivers of forced displacement and irregular migration needs to be given renewed attention through effective conflict-prevention and crisis settlement processes, strengthening good governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights efforts, stabilization and recovery, as well as poverty reduction.

      Priority efforts need to focus on strengthening protection capacities in regions of origin, including through developing sustainable asylum systems; providing sufficient needs-based support for humanitarian operations and adopting a development-oriented approach to assistance; as well as expanding opportunities for resettlement, family reunification and safe pathways for refugees which are currently well below existing needs and pledges being made. Efforts toward opening safe and regular pathways for migrants need also to be undertaken (family reunification, labour and education opportunities, humanitarian visas for vulnerable migrants).

      Against this background, with a focus on the immediate disembarkation concerns at hand, the current proposal for a regional disembarkation mechanism aims to ensure that:

      People rescued-at-sea in international waters are quickly disembarked in a predictable manner in line with international maritime law, in conditions that uphold respect for their rights including non-refoulement, and avoid serious harm or other risks;
      Responsible post-disembarkation processing, supported – as appropriate- by IOM and UNHCR, leads to rapid and effective differentiated solutions and reduces onward movement through an effective cooperative arrangement.

      Functioning of the mechanism is premised on a set of principles and common objectives:

      The effective functioning of maritime commerce requires ships’ masters to have full confidence in prompt and predictable disembarkation;
      Efforts to reduce loss of life at sea are maximized, in line with existing international obligations and frameworks, and saving lives remains the international community’s priority;
      Strengthened efforts to build the capacity of Coast Guards in Mediterranean countries (not just in Libya) to perform effective rescue operations in their respective SAR;
      National Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres (MRCC) are able to carry out their work effectively for the purposes of search and rescue operations based on long- standing and effective practices to save lives;
      People rescued at sea in the Mediterranean are quickly disembarked in safe ports in a predictable manner in line with established rescue at sea arrangements and international maritime law, coordinated through the responsible MRCCs;
      Measures for cooperative arrangements to support States providing for disembarkation are well-established;
      The right to seek asylum is safeguarded, and the human rights of all individuals such as non-refoulement are respected, including the right not to be disembarked in or transferred to a place where there is a risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm;
      Efforts to address human smuggling and trafficking are reinvigorated, including measures to ensure protection and/or referrals for victims of trafficking and ensuring the effective prosecution of those involved in / or facilitating human trafficking or smuggling;
      Rescue at sea capacity coordinated by effective MRCCs that operate in accordance with international law is reinforced.

      As such, the proposal does not affect existing legal norms and responsibilities applicable under international law (Note 1) Rather it seeks to facilitate their application in accordance with a regional collaborative approach and the principle of international cooperation. This proposal relies on functional arrangements for intra-EU solidarity in managing all consequences of rescue, disembarkation and processing. It also relies on operational arrangements which would need to be sought and formalised through a set of understandings among all concerned States.

      https://www.iom.int/news/iom-unhcr-proposal-european-union-regional-cooperative-arrangement-ensuring-pre

      Question : c’est quoi la différence entre la proposition IOM/HCR et la proposition UE ?

    • THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY OF DISEMBARKATION OPTIONS

      This note presents a first assessment of the legal and practical feasibility of the three different scenarios on disembarkation presented at the Informal Working Meeting of 24 June 2018. Under international maritime law, people rescued at sea must be disembarked at a place of safety. International law sets out elements of what a place of safety can be and how it can be designated, without excluding the possibility of having regional arrangements for disembarkation.


      https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/migration-disembarkation-june2018_en.pdf
      #scénario

    • #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

      –-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • Ne dites pas que ce sont des #camps !

      Les camps devraient être la solution. C’est en Afrique, peut-être en Libye ou au Niger, que les migrants seront arrêtés avant qu’ils puissent commencer leur dangereux voyage en mer vers l’Europe. Ainsi l’a décidé l’UE. Des camps attendront également les réfugiés qui réussiraient toutefois à arriver dans un pays de l’UE. Des camps sur le sol européen. Où seront-ils établis ? Cela n’est pas encore défini, mais ce seront des installations fermées et surveillées parce que les détenus devront être « enregistrés » et les personnes non autorisées seront expulsées. Ils ne pourront pas s’enfuir.

      L’intérêt pour les camps concerne également les responsables politiques allemands. Le gouvernement allemand veut élargir le no man’s land à la frontière germano-autrichienne afin que les réfugiés puissent être arrêtés avant d’entrer officiellement en Allemagne et avoir ainsi droit à une procédure d’asile régulière. Une « fiction de non-entrée » est créée, comme le stipule précisément l’accord. Un État qui magouille. Pendant ce temps, la chancelière Angela Merkel a déclaré que personne ne sera détenu plus de quarante-huit heures, même dans le no man’s land. Il reste encore à voir si l’Autriche y accédera. Le plan est pour l’instant plus un fantasme qu’une politique réalisable, ce qui est bien pire. Bien sûr, tous ces centres fermés de rassemblement de migrants ne peuvent pas être appelés camps. Cela évoquerait des images effrayantes : les camps de concentration nazis, le système des goulags soviétiques, les camps de réfugiés palestiniens de plusieurs générations, le camp de détention de Guantánamo.

      Non, en Allemagne, ces « non-prisons » devraient être appelées « centres de transit ». Un terme amical, efficace, pratique, comme la zone de transit d’un aéroport où les voyageurs changent d’avion. Un terme inventé par les mêmes personnes qui désignent le fait d’échapper à la guerre et à la pauvreté comme du « tourisme d’asile ». Les responsables politiques de l’UE sont encore indécis quant à la terminologie de leurs camps. On a pu lire le terme de « centres de protection » mais aussi celui de « plateformes d’atterrissage et de débarquement », ce qui fait penser à une aventure et à un voyage en mer.

      Tout cela est du vernis linguistique. La réalité est que l’Europe en est maintenant à créer des camps fermés et surveillés pour des personnes qui n’ont pas commis de crime. Les camps vont devenir quelque chose qui s’inscrit dans le quotidien, quelque chose de normal. Si possible dans des endroits lointains et horribles, si nécessaire sur place. Enfermer, compter, enregistrer.

      La facilité avec laquelle tout cela est mis en œuvre est déconcertante. Deux ans seulement après que le public européen a condamné l’Australie pour ses camps brutaux de prisonniers gérés par des sociétés privées sur les îles de Nauru et Manus, dans l’océan Pacifique, nous sommes prêts à abandonner nos inhibitions. Pourquoi ne pas payer les Libyens pour intercepter et stocker des personnes ?

      Derrière le terme allemand « Lager » (« camp ») se cache un ancien mot correspondant à « liegen », qui signifie « être allongé ». Les camps sont ainsi faits pour se reposer. Aujourd’hui, le terme de « camp » implique quelque chose de temporaire : un camp n’est que pour une courte période, c’est pourquoi il peut aussi être rustique, comme un camp de vacances pour les enfants ou un dortoir. Des camps d’urgence sont mis en place après des catastrophes, des inondations, des glissements de terrain, des guerres. Ils sont là pour soulager les souffrances, mais ne doivent pas être permanents.

      Si les responsables politiques participent activement à l’internement de personnes dans des camps en l’absence de catastrophe, alors il s’agit d’autre chose. Il s’agit de contrôle, d’#ordre, de #rééducation, de #domination. Les puissances coloniales tenaient des camps, depuis les camps de barbelés des Britanniques au Kenya jusqu’aux camps de Héréros dans le Sud-Ouest africain. C’est dans des camps que les États-Unis ont enfermé des Américains d’origine japonaise pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Les responsables de ces camps n’avaient pas pour préoccupation le logement, mais bien la garde et la gestion de « personnes problématiques ».

      Dans de tels camps, la #violence extrême et la #déshumanisation des détenus allaient et vont généralement de pair avec une gestion froide. Exploiter un camp nécessite de l’#organisation. La technologie de #contrôle à distance aide le personnel à commettre des atrocités et transforme des gens ordinaires en criminels. Dans son essai controversé « Le siècle des camps », le regretté sociologue #Zygmunt_Bauman qualifie le camp de symptôme de #modernité. Pour lui, l’association d’une #exclusion_brutale et d’une #efficacité dans l’ordre semblable à celle d’un jardinier est une caractéristique de notre époque.

      Que Bauman fasse des camps de concentration nazis un « distillat » d’un problème majeur et moderne pour sa thèse lui a justement valu des critiques. Il ignore la singularité de l’Holocauste. Contrairement aux camps coloniaux, les camps de concentration étaient en effet des camps d’extermination qui n’avaient plus pour fonction d’apprêter des groupes ou de les rééduquer, ni même de les dissuader. Il s’agissait de « violence pour elle-même », comme l’écrit le sociologue #Wolfgang_Sofsky, de folie de la #pureté et d’éradication des personnes #indésirables.

      L’Europe croit être à l’abri de cette folie. Pour les gouvernants allemands, le slogan « Plus jamais de camps en Allemagne » est un slogan ridicule parce qu’il évoque des images qui n’ont rien à voir avec le présent. Dans les différents camps de migrants en Europe et à l’extérieur, il n’est certes pas question d’une extermination mais « seulement » de contrôle de l’accès et de #dissuasion. C’est ce dernier objectif qui est explicitement recherché : répandre dans le monde l’idée de camps de l’horreur au lieu du paradis européen.

      Mais il n’y a pas de raison de maintenir la sérénité. L’analyse de Zygmunt Bauman parlait de la mince couche de #civilisation par-dessus la #barbarie. La leçon tirée de l’expérience des camps du XXe siècle est la suivante : « Il n’y a pas de société ordonnée sans #peur et sans #humiliation ». La #pensée_totalitaire peut à nouveau prospérer, même dans les sociétés apparemment démocratiques.

      https://www.tdg.ch/monde/europe/dites-camps/story/31177430
      #totalitarisme

      Et ce passage pour lequel je suis tentée d’utiliser le tag #frontières_mobiles (#Allemagne et #Autriche) :

      L’intérêt pour les camps concerne également les responsables politiques allemands. Le gouvernement allemand veut élargir le no #man’s_land à la frontière germano-autrichienne afin que les réfugiés puissent être arrêtés avant d’entrer officiellement en Allemagne et avoir ainsi droit à une procédure d’asile régulière. Une « #fiction_de_non-entrée » est créée, comme le stipule précisément l’accord.

      Et sur la question de la #terminologie (#mots #vocabulaire) :

      Bien sûr, tous ces #centres_fermés de rassemblement de migrants ne peuvent pas être appelés camps. Cela évoquerait des images effrayantes : les camps de concentration nazis, le système des goulags soviétiques, les camps de réfugiés palestiniens de plusieurs générations, le camp de détention de Guantánamo.

      Non, en Allemagne, ces « #non-prisons » devraient être appelées « #centres_de_transit ». Un terme amical, efficace, pratique, comme la zone de transit d’un aéroport où les voyageurs changent d’avion. Un terme inventé par les mêmes personnes qui désignent le fait d’échapper à la guerre et à la pauvreté comme du « #tourisme_d’asile ». Les responsables politiques de l’UE sont encore indécis quant à la terminologie de leurs camps. On a pu lire le terme de « #centres_de_protection » mais aussi celui de « #plateformes_d’atterrissage_et_de_débarquement », ce qui fait penser à une aventure et à un voyage en mer.

      Tout cela est du #vernis_linguistique. La réalité est que l’Europe en est maintenant à créer des camps fermés et surveillés pour des personnes qui n’ont pas commis de crime. Les camps vont devenir quelque chose qui s’inscrit dans le quotidien, quelque chose de normal. Si possible dans des endroits lointains et horribles, si nécessaire sur place. Enfermer, compter, enregistrer.

      #shopping_de_l'asile #normalisation
      #cpa_camps

    • L’#Autriche veut proscrire toute demande d’asile sur le territoire de l’Union européenne

      A la veille d’une réunion, jeudi, entre les ministres de l’intérieur de l’UE sur la question migratoire, Vienne déclare vouloir proposer un changement des règles d’asile pour que les demandes soient étudiées hors d’Europe.

      https://mobile.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2018/07/10/l-autriche-veut-proscrire-toute-demande-d-asile-sur-le-territoire-de-

    • Record deaths at sea: will ‘regional disembarkation’ help save lives?
      ❝What is the aim of European policy on Mediterranean migration?

      Europe’s strategic ambition is clear: reduce the number of people who embark on journeys across the Mediterranean by boat. The more European countries struggle to share responsibility for those who are rescued at sea and brought to Europe, the stronger the desire to dissuade migrants from getting on a boat in the first place. Moreover, stemming the departures is said to be the only way of reducing the death toll.

      The challenge, as the European Council put it, is to ‘eliminate the incentive to embark’ on journeys across the Mediterranean. And the new migration agreement proposes a solution: setting up ‘regional disembarkation platforms’ outside the European Union. The logic is that if people rescued at sea are sent back to the coast they left, nobody will take the risk and pay the cost of getting on smugglers’ boats.
      Would this even work?

      Addressing the challenges of irregular migration is truly difficult. Still, it is baffling how the proposal for regional disembarkation platforms is embroiled in contradictions. The agreement itself is scant on specifics, but the challenges will surface as the policy makers have to make key decisions about how these platforms would work.

      First, will they be entry points for seeking asylum in Europe? The agreement suggests that the platforms might play this role. But if the platforms are entry points to the European asylum procedure, they will attract thousands of refugees who currently have no other option to apply for asylum in Europe than paying smugglers to set out to sea.

      This scenario raises a second question: what will be the possible ways of accessing the platforms? If they are reserved for refugees who have paid smugglers and are rescued at sea, access to protection will be just as reliant on smugglers as it is today. But if anyone can come knocking on the gate to the platforms, without having to be rescued first, the asylum caseload would swell. Such an outcome would be unacceptable to EU member states. As a recent EC note remarked, ‘to allow individuals to “apply” for asylum outside the EU […] is currently neither possible nor desirable.

      These two questions lay out the basic scenarios for how the regional disembarkation platforms would operate. Thinking through these scenarios it’s not clear if these platforms can ever be workable. Moreover, putting these platforms in place directly contradicts the European Council’s stated objectives:

      – dissuading smuggling journeys
      – distinguishing individual cases in full respect of international law
      – not creating a pull factor

      How does this relate to broader EU policies on migration?

      In some way, regional disembarkation platforms are a logical next step along the course the EU has been pursuing for years now. To stop refugees and other migrants from reaching its shores, the EU has been using a multi-pronged approach. On the one hand, the bloc has increased the use of aid to tackle the ‘root causes’ of migration – the logic being that if potential migrants are given other opportunities (e.g. skills training), they will be deterred from leaving. Similarly, information campaigns targeting aspiring migrants seek to deter people from setting out on dangerous journeys.

      Another major focus has been that of externalisation of border management – basically shifting border management to countries outside the EU: a key component of the EU-Turkey Deal is Turkey agreeing to take back refugees who crossed into Greece. Externalisation serves two purposes: keeping migrants physically out of Europe, but also as a deterrence measure sending potential migrants the implicit message that it won’t be easy to come to Europe.

      Regional disembarkation platforms are part of this process of externalisation. But there are key differences that make this proposal more extreme than policies pursued so far. Other externalization measures have aimed at preventing potential asylum seekers from reaching the point where they become eligible to launch a claim in Europe. The platforms will apparently serve a different role, by enabling the physical return of asylum seekers who have become Europe’s responsibility after being rescued by European ships in international waters.
      What do we know about efforts to deter irregular migration?

      The dim outlook for regional disembarkation platforms reflects more general limitations of deterrence measures in migration policy. Using decades worth of data, Michael Clemens and colleagues have shown that along the US-Mexico border greater deterrence and enforcement efforts have only reduced irregular migration when accompanied by greater legal migration pathways. Research by ODI has shown that information about deterrence measures and anti-migration messages rarely featured in migrant decision-making process. We will explore this further in our upcoming MIGNEX research project, which includes large-scale analyses of the drivers of migration in ten countries of origin and transit.
      Blocking access to asylum is not a life-saving measure

      The European Council presents regional disembarkation platforms as a strategy for ‘preventing tragic loss of life’. The irony of this argument is that these platforms will only deter sea crossings if they are dead ends where people who are rescued at sea are barred from seeking asylum in Europe. It is difficult to see how such a setup would be legally feasible, or indeed, ‘in line with our principles and values’, as the Council states.

      If the legal obstacles were overcome, there may indeed be fewer deaths at sea. But some of the deaths would simply occur out of sight instead. Refugees flee danger. Blocking access to seeking asylum puts more lives at risk and cannot be justified as a measure to save lives at sea.

      For now, the European Council glosses over the dilemmas that the regional disembarkation platforms will create. Facing the realities of the situation would not make perfect solutions appear, but it would enable an open debate in search of a defensible and effective migration policy.


      $https://blogs.prio.org/2018/07/record-deaths-at-sea-will-regional-disembarkation-help-save-lives

    • Austrian Presidency document: “a new, better protection system under which no applications for asylum are filed on EU territory”

      A crude paper authored by the Austrian Presidency of the Council of the EU and circulated to other Member States’s security officials refers disparagingly to “regions that are characterised by patriarchal, anti-freedom and/or backward-looking religious attitudes” and calls for “a halt to illegal migration to Europe” and the “development of a new, better protection system under which no applications for asylum are filed on EU territory,” with some minor exceptions.

      See: Austrian Presidency: Informal Meeting of COSI, Vienna, Austria, 2-3 July 2018: Strengthening EU External Border Protection and a Crisis-Resistant EU Asylum System (pdf): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/jul/EU-austria-Informal-Meeting-%20COSI.pdf

      The document was produced for an ’Informal Meeting of COSI’ (the Council of the EU’s Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security) which took place on 2 and 3 July in Vienna, and the proposals it contains were the subject of numerous subsequent press articles - with the Austrian President one of the many who criticised the government’s ultra-hardline approach.

      See: Austrian president criticises government’s asylum proposals (The Local, link); Austrian proposal requires asylum seekers to apply outside EU: Profil (Reuters, link); Right of asylum: Austria’s unsettling proposals to member states (EurActiv, link)

      Some of the proposals were also discussed at an informal meeting of the EU’s interior ministers on Friday 13 July, where the topic of “return centres” was also raised. The Luxembourg interior minister Jean Asselborn reportedly said that such an idea “shouldn’t be discussed by civilized Europeans.” See: No firm EU agreement on Austrian proposals for reducing migration (The Local, link)

      The Austrian Presidency paper proposes:

      "2.1. By 2020

      By 2020 the following goals could be defined:

      Saving as many human lives as possible;
      Clear strengthening of the legal framework and the operational capabilities of FRONTEX with respect to its two main tasks: support in protecting the Union’s external border and in the field of return;
      Increasing countering and destruction of people smugglers’ and human traffickers‘ business models;
      Significant reduction in illegal migration;
      More sustainable and more effective return measures as well as establishment of instruments that foster third countries’ willingness to cooperate on all relevant aspects, including the fight against people smuggling, providing protection and readmission;
      Development of a holistic concept for a forward-looking migration policy (in the spirit of a “whole of government approach“) and a future European protection system in cooperation with third countries that is supported by all and does not overburden all those involved – neither in terms of resources nor with regard to the fundamental rights and freedoms they uphold.

      2.2. By 2025

      By 2025 the following goals could be realised:

      Full control of the EU’s external borders and their comprehensive protection have been ensured.
      The new, better European protection system has been implemented across the EU in cooperation with third countries; important goals could include:
      no incentives anymore to get into boats, thus putting an end to smuggled persons dying in the Mediterranean;
      smart help and assistance for those in real need of protection, i.e. provided primarily in the respective region;
      asylum in Europe is granted only to those who respect European values and the fundamental rights and freedoms upheld in the EU;
      no overburdening of the EU Member States’ capabilities;
      lower long-term costs;
      prevention of secondary migration.
      Based on these principles, the EU Member States have returned to a consensual European border protection and asylum policy.”

      And includes the following statements, amongst others:

      “...more and more Member States are open to exploring a new approach. Under the working title “Future European Protection System” (FEPS) and based on an Austrian initiative, a complete paradigm shift in EU asylum policy has been under consideration at senior officials’ level for some time now. The findings are considered in the “Vienna Process” in the context of which the topic of external border protection is also dealt with. A number of EU Member States, the EU Commission and external experts contribute towards further reflections and deliberations on these two important topics.”

      “...ultimately, there is no effective EU external border protection in place against illegal migration and the existing EU asylum system does not enable an early distinction between those who are in need of protection and those who are not.”

      “Disembarkment following rescue at sea as a rule only takes place in EU Member States. This means that apprehensions at sea not only remain ineffective (non-refoulement, examination of applications for asylum), but are exploited in people smugglers’ business models.”

      “Due to factors related to their background as well as their poor perspectives, they [smuggled migrants] repeatedly have considerable problems with living in free societies or even reject them. Among them are a large number of barely or poorly educated young men who have travelled to Europe alone. Many of these are particularly susceptible to ideologies that are hostile to freedom and/or are prone to turning to crime.

      As a result of the prevailing weaknesses in the fields of external border protection and asylum, it is to be expected that the negative consequences of past and current policies will continue to be felt for many years to come. As experience with immigration from regions that are characterised by patriarchal, anti-freedom and/or backward-looking religious attitudes has shown, problems related to integration, safety and security may even increase significantly over several generations.”

      See: Austrian Presidency: Informal Meeting of COSI, Vienna, Austria, 2-3 July 2018: Strengthening EU External Border Protection and a Crisis-Resistant EU Asylum System (pdf)

      http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/jul/eu-austrian-pres-asylum-paper.htm

    • Libya rejects EU plan for refugee and migrant centres

      Blow to Italy as Tripoli snubs proposal to set up processing centres in Africa

      Libya has rejected a EU plan to establish refugee and migrant processing centres in the country, adding that it would not be swayed by any financial inducements to change its decision.

      The formal rejection by the Libyan prime minister, Fayez al-Sarraj, is a blow to Italy, which is regarded as being close to his Tripoli administration.

      In June, Italy proposed reception and identification centres in Africa as a means of resolving divisions among European governments.

      The impasse came as the EU said it was willing to work as a temporary crisis centre to oversee the distribution of refugees and migrants from ships landing in Europe from Libya. Italy has said it is not willing to open its ports and may even reject those rescued by the EU Sophia search and rescue mission, a position that has infuriated other EU states.

      Speaking to the German newspaper Bild, Serraj said: “We are absolutely opposed to Europe officially wanting us to accommodate illegal immigrants the EU does not want to take in.”

      He dismissed accusations that Libya’s coastguard had shot at aid workers in ships trying to rescue people from the Mediterranean.

      “We save hundreds of people off the coast of Libya every day – our ships are constantly on the move,” he said. In practice, Libya is already running detention camps, largely as holding pens, but they are not run as EU processing centres for asylum claims.

      European foreign ministers agreed at a meeting on Monday to do more to train the Libyan coastguard by setting up the EU’s own training team inside Libya.

      The European parliament president, Antonio Tajani, said after a trip to Niger, one of the chief funnels for people into Libya, that the EU needed to plough more money into the Sahel region to reduce the need to leave the area. He said the number of people reaching Libya from Niger was collapsing.

      Tajani said: “Until 2016, 90% of irregular migrants travelled through the Niger to Libya and Europe. In just two years, Niger reduced migration flows by 95%, from over 300,000 to about 10,000 in 2018.”

      He said he would host a European conference in Brussels in October to support democratic elections in Libya scheduled for December.

      At the same time, Italy is to host a further conference in Rome in September seen as a follow-on to a conference held in May by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, that led to a commitment to hold elections this year.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/20/libya-rejects-eu-plan-for-migrant-centres?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherSpeakin

    • UNHCR ed OIM discutono con la Commissione europea sulle piattaforme di sbarco, ma gli stati dicono no.

      Lunedì 30 luglio si svolgerà a Ginevra un incontro di rappresentanti dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM con la Commissione Europea per discutere sulle piattaforme di sbarco che Bruxelles vorrebbe imporre nei paesi di transito, come gli stati nordafricani, e negli stati di sbarco, soprattutto in Italia. Per selezionare rapidamente migranti economici e richiedenti asilo, e dunque procedere al respingimento immediato dei primi, senza alcuna garanzia di difesa, ed all’avvio delle procedure di asilo, per gli altri, senza alcuna garanzia di resettlement o di relocation ( ricollocazione) in un paese diverso da quello di primo ingresso. La Commissione dichiara che, soltanto dopo avere trovato un “approccio comune a livello europeo “, si rivolgeranno proposte ai paesi terzi. Gli stati nordafricani hanno però respinto in blocco questa proposta, e le autorità locali dei paesi di primo ingresso più interessati dagli sbarchi, confernano la loro opposizione a nuovi Hotspot. Le risorse previste per questa esternalizzazione delle frontiere sono ridicole. Per non parlare dei costi in termini di vite e di sfregio dei diritti umani.

      Un progetto che si salda strettamente con l’incremeno degli aiuti alla sedicente Guardia costiera “libica”, alla quale si affida già adesso, nella prassi quotidiana, un numero sempre più elevato di intercettazioni in acque internazionali, di fatto respingimenti collettivi, perchè realizzati con il coordinamento e l’assistenza di unità militari della Marina italiana che ha una base a Tripoli, nell’ambito della missione Nauras. Intanto la accresciuta assistenza italiana alla Marina ed alla Guardia costiera di Tripoli rischia di contribuire all’inasprimento del conflitto tra le diverse milizie ed allontana le probabilità di una reale pacificazione, premessa indispensabile per lo svolgimento delle elezioni. Le stesse milizie che continuano a trattenere in Libia, in condizioni disumane, centinaia di migliaia di persone.

      Dietro la realizzazione delle “piattaforme di sbarco” in Nordafrica, proposte anche dal Consiglio europeo del 28 giugno scorso, il ritiro dalle responsabilità di coordinamento dei soccorsi in acque internazionali da parte degli stati che fin qui ne sono stati responsabili in conformità al diritto internazionale generalmente riconosciuto. Per ragioni diverse, nè la Tunisia, ne la Libia, possono essere riconosciuti come “paesi terzi sicuri” con porti di sbarco che siano qualificabili come place of safety. Come avveniva fino a qualche mese fa, secondo il diritto internazionale, dopo i soccorsi in acque internazionali, i naufraghi vanno sbarcati non nel porto più vicino, na nel porto sicuro più vicino. Ma questa regola, a partire dal caso della nave Aquarius di SOS Mediterraneè, il 10 giugno scorso, è stata continuamente violata dal governo italiano e dalle autorità amministrative e militari che questo governo controlla. Molto grave, ma prevedibile, il comportamento di chiusura da parte di Malta, che continua a trattenere sotto sequstro due navi umanitarie, la Lifeline e la Seawatch. Sempre più spesso le dispute tra stati che negano a naufraghi un porto sicuro di sbarco rischiano di fare altre vittime

      La soluzione che si prospetta adesso con la nave SAROST 5,dopo gli appelli delle ONG tunisine, lo sbarco a Zarzis dei migranti soccorsi il 15 luglio, un caso eccezionale ben diverso da altri soccorsi operati in precedenza in acque internazionali, non costituisce un precedente, perchè la SAROST 5 batte bandiera tunisina. Dunque i naufraghi a bordo della nave si trovavano già in territorio tunisino subito dopo il loro recupero in mare. In futuro, quando i soccorsi in acque internazionali saranno comunque operati da imbarcazioni miitari o private ( incluse le ONG) con diversa bandiera, il problema del porto sicuro di sbarco si proporrà in termini ancora più gravi, con un ulteriore incremento delle vittime e delle sofferenze inflitte ai sopravvissuti, a fronte dei dinieghi degli stati che non rispettano il diritto internazionale ed impediscono la individuazione, nei tempi più rapidi, di un vero “place of safety”.

      Nel 2013 il caso del mercantile turco SALAMIS, che sotto cooordinamento della Centrale operativa (IMRCC) di Roma, aveva soccorso naufraghi a sud di Malta, in acque internazionali, si era concluso con lo sbarco in Italia, in conformità del diritto internazionale. Con lo sbarco dei migranti soccorsi dalla SAROST 5 nel porto di Zarzis,in Tunisia, per ragioni di emergenza sanitaria, si consuma invece una ennesima violazione del diritto internazionale, dopo i rifiuti frapposti dalle autorità italiane e maltesi. Stati che creano sofferenze, come strumento politico e di propaganda, fino al punto da costringere i comandanti delle navi a dichiarare lo stato di emergenza. Alla fine il governo tunisino, nel giorno della fiducia al governo e dell’insediamento del nuovo ministro dell’interno, ha ceduto alle pressioni internazionali, ed ha accettato per ragioni umanitarie lo sbarco di persone che da due settimane erano bloccate a bordo di un rimorchiatore di servizio ad una piattaforma petrolifera, in condizioni psico-fisiche sempre più gravi. Un trattamento inumano e degradante imposto da quelle autorità e di quegli stati che, immediatamente avvertiti dal comandante della SAROST 5 quando ancora si trovava in acque internazionali, hanno respinto la richiesta di garantire in tempi più rapidi ed umani un porto di sbarco sicuro.

      Di fronte al probabile ripetersi di altri casi di abbandono in acque internazionali, con possibili pressioni ancora più forti sulla Tunisia, è importante che l’UNHCR e l’OIM impongano agli stati membri ed all’Unione Europea il rispetto del diritto internazionale e l’obbligo di soccorso in mare, nel modo più immediato. Le prassi amministraive di “chiusura dei porti” non sono sorrette ada alcuna base legale, e neppure sono concretizzate in provvedimenti amministrativi, motivati ed impugnabili davanti ad una qualsiasi autorità giurisdizionale. Non si può continuare a governare tratendo in inganno il corpo elettorale, distorcendo persino le posizioni delle grandi organizzazioni internazionali. Fino ad un mese fa sia l’UNHCR che l’OIM avevano respinto la proposta della Commissione che voleva creare piattaforme di sbarco al di fuori dei confini europei. Una proposta che adesso viene ripresentata con vigore ancora maggiore, sotto la presidenza UE affidata all’Austria di Kurz, con la spinta di Orban e di Salvini verso la “soluzione finale” verso migranti ed ONG.

      Le Nazioni Unite conoscono bene la situazione in Libia. Occorre garantire a tutti i naufraghi soccorsi in acque internazionali un porto sicuro di sbarco, che non deve essere quello più vicino, se non offre la piena garanzia di una tutela effettiva dei diritti fondamentali e del diritto di chiedere asilo delle persone sbarcate. Non basta la presenza fisica di operatori dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM in alcuni punti di sbarco, come si sta verificando da mesi in Tripolitania, per riconoscere l’esistenza di un place of safety in paesi che anche secondo le grandi istituzioni internazionali, come per i tribunali italiani, non sono in grado di garantire place of safety in conformità alle Convenzioni internazionali.

      Se si dovesse decidere di riportare i migranti intercettati in acque internazionali e sbarcati nei paesi nordafricani, ammesso che posa succedere( anche se i migranti considerati “illegali” in Nordafrica saranno costretti a firmare una richiesta di resettlement, se non di rimpatrio volontario), magari per essere riportati indietro in un campo profughi in Niger, sarebbero violati i principi base di protezione delle persone, in quanto eseri umani, ai quali si ispirano le Convenzioni internazionali e la Costituzione italiana. La Convenzione di Ginevra non esclude il diritto dei richeidenti asilo a rivolgersi ad paese piuttosto che ad un altro. L’evacuazione dalle aree di crisi non esclude il diritto di accesso alle frontiere di un paese europeo perchè la richiesta di asilo sua valutata con le garanzie sostanziali e procedurali previste dalla normativa interna e sovranazionale.

      Se l’UNHCR e l’OIM cederanno alle pressioni dei governi, diventeranno complici degli abusi che i migranti continuano a subire nei paesi del nordafrica nei quali vengono respinti e detenuti.

      Le Organizzazioni non governative che, insieme ai naufraghi che soccorrono, continuano ad essere bersaglio di una campagna di odio che non accenna ad attenuarsi, continueranno, nei limiti dei propri mezzi a denunciare quanto accade ed a soccorrere le persone che in acque internazionali potranno raggiungere prima che facciano naufragio. La loro attività di ricerca e salvataggio appare tuttavia fortemente ridotta, anche per la illegittima “chiusura dei porti” decisa dal governo italiano, in assenza di qualsiasi provvedimento che ne fornisca una base legale, tale almeno da potere essere impugnato. Una lesione forse irreversibile dello stato di diritto (rule of law) alle frontiere marittime.Una responsabilità ancora maggiore per le autorità militari alle quali sarebbe affidato il coordinamento delle attività di ricerca e soccorso in mare (SAR). La percentuale delle vittime calcolate sul numero dei migranti che ancora riescono a fuggire dalla Libia non è mai stata tanto alta. Non si deve ridurre il valore del rispetto della vita umana alla riduzione numerica degli arrivi o dei soccorsi in mare.

      Dietro la conclamata esigenza di contrastare i trafficanti si cela una micidiale arma elettorale che sta permettendo il capovolgimento della narrazione dei fatti e la criminalizzazione della solidarietà. Il ruolo delle città dell’accoglienza e dei rappresentanti politici che ancora si oppongono a questa deriva disumana contro i migranti e le ONG, devono passare dalle parole ai fatti e dare concretezza alle dichiarazioni di solidarietà ed all’impegno di aprire i porti, ed aprire le città. Tutti i cittadini solidali sono chiamati ad esporsi in prima persona, saldando il ruolo delle autonomie locali con la capacità di autorganizzazione. Sarà una stagione lunga e dolorosa di conflitto, senza una rappresentanza polkitica capace di praticare una vera opposizione. Ma non ci sono possibilità di mediazione con chi dimostra di valutare una parte dell’umanità come “untermenschen” ( sottouomini), praticando l’abbandono in mare ed il respingimento collettivo verso luoghi di internamento e tortura, in modo da creare le premesse per una discriminazione istituzionale che nei territori si sta già traducendo in una violenza diffusa contro i più deboli. Oggi tocca ai migranti, dai naufraghi a quelli accolti nei centri in Italia, domani saranno nel mirino le componenti minoritarie dell’intera popolazione.

      https://www.a-dif.org/2018/07/29/unhcr-ed-oim-discutono-con-la-commissione-europea-sulle-piattaforme-di-sbarco

    • Libya rejects establishment of reception centres for irregular migrants on its territory

      Foreign Minister of the Presidential Council’s government Mohamed Sayala said Libya refuses the idea of setting up reception centres for irregular migrants on its territory, as did Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

      “The country’s immigrant housing centres are sheltering around 30,000 immigrants, and Libya has cooperated with the European Union to return migrants to their countries of origin, but some countries refused to receive them,” Sayala said to the Austrian newspaper Die Presse.

      “Libya has signed agreements with Chad, Niger and Sudan to enhance the security of the crossing borders in order to curb the flow of migrants,” the Foreign Minister added.

      https://www.libyaobserver.ly/inbrief/libya-rejects-establishment-reception-centres-irregular-migrants-its-t

    • Juncker says N.Africa migrant “camps” not on EU agenda

      European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday that a suggestion that the European Union might try to set up migrant camps in North Africa was no longer on the agenda.

      EU member states are in disagreement over how the bloc should deal with tens of thousands of migrants arriving every year in Europe, the bulk of them by sea from Turkey and North Africa.

      In June, a summit of all EU leaders asked the Commission to study ways to set up “regional disembarkation platforms” in North African countries, including Tunisia, for migrants rescued by European vessels in the Mediterranean.

      However, there has been little appetite in Africa and EU officials have long questioned the legality and practicality of such camps — a view underlined in Juncker’s blunt reply.

      “This is no longer on the agenda and never should have been,” Juncker told a news conference in Tunis with Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed.

      http://news.trust.org/item/20181026131801-1t7he
      #cpa_camps

    • Juncker says North Africa migrant ’camps’ not on EU agenda

      European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday that a suggestion that the European Union might try to set up migrant camps in North Africa was no longer on the agenda.

      EU member states are in disagreement over how the bloc should deal with tens of thousands of migrants arriving every year in Europe, the bulk of them by sea from Turkey and North Africa.

      In June, a summit of all EU leaders asked the Commission to study ways to set up “regional disembarkation platforms” in North African countries, including Tunisia, for migrants rescued by European vessels in the Mediterranean.

      However, there has been little appetite in Africa and EU officials have long questioned the legality and practicality of such camps — a view underlined in Juncker’s blunt reply.

      “This is no longer on the agenda and never should have been,” Juncker told a news conference in Tunis with Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed.


      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-africa/juncker-says-north-africa-migrant-camps-not-on-eu-agenda-idUSKCN1N01TU

    • Refugee centers in Tunisia ’out of the question’, president says

      The Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi, has said his country will not host EU refugee reception centers. He also told DW that Tunisia was a safe country, despite a terrorist attack in the capital earlier this week.

      President Essebsi made the statement in Berlin, where he attended Chancellor Angela Merkel’s African business summit. In an interview with DW’s Dima Tarhini, the 91-year-old leader said opening refugee reception centers in countries such as Tunisia was “out of the question.”

      “Tunisia has much more experience with refugees than many European countries. After the Libyan revolution, more than 1.3 million refugees from various countries streamed into Tunisia. Fortunately, most of them returned to their home countries with our help. Europe has never experienced anything comparable. And we, unlike Europe, do not have the capacities to open reception centers. Every country needs to pull its own weight on this issue.”

      The European Union wants greater cooperation on migration with North African nations Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Niger and Morocco. Earlier this year, the EU migration commissioner announced a plan for a “regional disembarkation scheme”. Under the proposed deal, African countries would host migrant screening centers to process refugee claims. The Tunisian government has already expressed opposition to the idea.

      Despite terrorism, a ’safe country’

      During President Essebsi’s visit to Berlin, a 30-year-old woman blew herself up with a homemade bomb in the Tunisian capital, injuring at least eight people.

      “We thought we had eradicated terrorism, but it turns out that it still exists and that it can strike in the heart of the capital,” President Essebsi said in a statement to the press.

      The suicide attack led to renewed questions about whether Tunisia should be considered a safe country of origin for asylum seekers.

      Tarhini: In Germany, in the context of repatriating asylum-seekers, it has been questioned just how safe Tunisia really is. Tunisia is considered a safe North African country. What is your opinion on this?

      Beji Caid Essebsi: "Tunisia is a safe country; that is the truth. It is much safer than many other countries. Regarding refugees and the problem that they pose for Europe and other regions: Tunisia guarantees the freedom of its citizens, no matter what their conduct. If Tunisians abroad do something wrong and are sent back, then we will take them in. But not citizens of other countries.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/13062/refugee-centers-in-tunisia-out-of-the-question-president-says?ref=tw
      #Tunisie
      ping @_kg_

    • Les plateformes de débarquement pour migrants enterrées ?

      « Les Plateformes de débarquement en Afrique ne sont plus à l’ordre du jour et n’auraient jamais dû l’être », a déclaré le président de la Commission européenne Juncker, ce 26 octobre, lors d’une conférence de presse à Tunis avec le Premier ministre tunisien, Youssef Chahed .

      Etonnant ? Rembobinons la bande-son 4 mois en arrière...

      Les plateformes de débarquement sont une proposition de la Commission européenne faite, à Bruxelles, le 28 juin lors d’un Conseil européen. Son objectif était d’empêcher l’arrivée des personnes migrantes, dites irrégulières, sur le sol européen. Comment ? En les bloquant, en amont, dans des centres fermés, le temps d’examiner leur profil et demande. Et en y débarquant systématiquement les naufragés repêchés en Méditerranée. Ces plates-formes seraient situées sur les côtes africaines notamment en Tunisie et au Maroc. L’Egypte a été également évoquée.

      Cette proposition s’inscrivait dans l’approche dominante de « l’externalisation » de la gestion des frontières prônée de façon croissante par les institutions européennes et ses membres depuis une vingtaine d’années. Depuis 2015, cette approche constitue l’une des orientations majeures des politiques migratoires européennes.

      Pourquoi dès lors, la Commission fait-elle marche arrière quant à ce projet ? Plusieurs raisons peuvent être avancées.

      La première réside dans le fait que cette approche n’atteint pas ses objectifs (endiguer les départs et augmenter les expulsions des personnes en situation irrégulière). Il suffit de voir la situation dans les hotspots d’Italie et de Grèce depuis 2015. A Moria, sur l’île de Lesbos, MSF parle de crise humanitaire due au surpeuplement, aux infrastructures et conditions d’accueil déplorables, ainsi qu’à l’insécurité mettant à mal l’ensemble des droits fondamentaux des personnes, notamment ceux des femmes et des mineurs. Les plus vulnérables se retrouvent dans un cul-de-sac.
      « Moria est devenu pour beaucoup un lieu de transit prolongé le temps que leur demande d’asile soit étudiée », souligne Dimitris Vafeas, le directeur adjoint du camp de Moria. D’autres exemples sont ceux du Niger ou encore de la Libye qui laissent les personnes migrantes dans une situation « d’encampement » permanent ou d’errance circulaire sans fin, faute de voies légales de migrations.

      La seconde explication trouve sa source dans le fait que cette approche ne respecte pas le droit international. En effet, d’une part, selon la Convention de Genève, chacun a le droit de quitter son pays et de demander l’asile dans un pays où sa sécurité sera assurée. Le droit international, s’il autorise un pays à refuser l’immigration, prohibe l’instauration du délit d’émigration : la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme stipule ainsi en son article 13 le droit de « quitter tout pays y compris le sien ». De plus, le droit maritime prévoit que tout naufragé sauvé en mer doit être conduit vers le port proche le plus sûr, ce qui implique que les personnes rescapées au large des côtes européennes doivent y être conduite. Enfin, plusieurs pays, à commencer par la Libye, ne représentent en aucun cas des « lieux sûrs », au regard des conditions auxquelles y font face les migrants. Même au Maroc, il y a quelques semaines, le GADEM, association marocaine de défense des droits de l’homme, sortait un rapport dramatique faisant état des violences multiples qu’encourent les personnes migrantes au Maroc.

      La troisième raison est que la majorité des pays en développement ne veulent pas entendre parler de ces plates-formes. Ils accueillent déjà 85 % des personnes réfugiées alors que l’Europe n’en accueille que 6%. Les pays africains tentent donc de faire bloc afin d’installer un rapport de force face aux Européens. Ils savent qu’ils sont désormais des acteurs incontournables du dossier migratoire sur la scène internationale. Cependant, les sommes mises sur la table, tels que les budgets de l’APD, risquent à terme d’effriter ce bloc d’argile, même si ces montants doivent être mis en regard des transferts des diasporas (remittances), nettement plus importants et qui rendent donc les dirigeants des pays d’origine enclins à favoriser les migrations.

      Il est donc temps, vu cet échec, que la Commission européenne change de cap et axe ses politiques non pas sur l’externalisation des questions de l’asile et de la migration, mais sur le renforcement de la solidarité intra-européenne dans l’accueil et sur la mise en œuvre de nouvelles voies sûre et légales de migration. Cela lui permettrait, enfin, de respecter le droit international et de consacrer son APD à la réalisation des Objectifs de développement plutôt qu’à la lutte contre les migrations, fussent-elles irrégulières.

      https://www.cncd.be/Les-plateformes-de-debarquement

    • L’UE bat partiellement en retraite sur les hotspots en Afrique

      Le Conseil voulait débarquer les migrants sauvés en Méditerranée sur les côtes africaines. Face à l’opposition des États africains, le projet a été abandonné, mais l’UE fait toujours pression sur les pays de transit.

      Au sommet du Conseil de juin dernier, les dirigeants européens ont demandé à la Commission d’étudier la possibilité d’instaurer des « plateformes de débarquement régionales » en Afrique, afin d’y envoyer les migrants repêchés par des bateaux européens en Méditerranée.

      L’initiative a tourné court. Dans les jours qui ont suivi le sommet, le Maroc et l’Union africaine se sont mobilisés pour assurer un rejet généralisé des « hotspots » sur les territoires africains.

      Nasser Bourita, le ministre marocain aux Affaires étrangères, a accusé les dirigeants européens de réagir de manière excessive, et souligné que le nombre de migrants tentant d’entrer en Europe a largement chuté. À ce jour, ils sont 80 000 à être arrivés cette année, contre 300 000 en 2016.

      La société civile s’est aussi opposée au projet, estimant que ces camps de migrants seraient contraires aux engagements de l’UE en termes de droits de l’Homme.

      Lors d’une visite en Tunisie le 26 octobre, Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la Commission européenne, a assuré que l’UE ne tentait pas de mettre en place des camps de réfugiés dans le nord de l’Afrique. « Ce n’est plus au programme, et ça n’aurait jamais dû l’être », a-t-il indiqué lors d’une conférence de presse avec le Premier ministre tunisien, Youssef Chahed.

      Une semaine après, la porte-parole de la Commission, Natasha Bertaud, a expliqué que l’exécutif européen préférait à présent parler d’« arrangements de débarquement régionaux ». L’UE a donc commencé à préparer des accords spécifiques avec chacun des pays concernés, dont un échange de financements contre un meilleur contrôle migratoire. Le but est ainsi d’empêcher les migrants d’arriver en Europe.

      Accords en négociations

      Depuis le mois de septembre, des discussions sont en cours entre Bruxelles et le gouvernement égyptien d’Abdel Fattah al-Sissi. Un accord « cash contre migrants » devrait être finalisé avant le sommet UE-Ligue arabe qui aura lieu en février au Caire.

      S’il parait évident que l’Europe ne répétera pas son offre de 4 milliards à la Turquie, l’Égypte devrait demander une aide considérable et des prêts avantageux en échange d’un durcissement du contrôle migratoire. Des accords similaires devraient être conclus avec le Maroc, la Tunisie et la Libye.

      Le timing n’est pas dû au hasard, puisque Abdel Fattah al-Sissi succédera en janvier au Rwandais Paul Kagame à la présidence de l’Union africaine, et que le sommet de février sera centré sur l’immigration.

      Ce n’est pourtant pas parce que l’idée des « hotspots » a été abandonnée que les pays africains échappent aux pressions européennes.

      Le 1er novembre, Reuters indiquait que le ministère marocain des Affaires étrangères avait mis en place une nouvelle obligation pour les ressortissants du Congo Brazzaville, de Guinée et du Mali, qui devront à présent demander un permis de voyage quatre jours avant leur arrivée au Maroc. La plupart des migrants espérant atteindre l’Europe via le Maroc sont guinéens ou maliens.

      L’Espagne fait en effet pression sur Rabat pour réduire le nombre d’arrivées de migrants, notamment via ses enclaves de Ceuta et Melilla.

      Redéfinitions à venir

      Par ailleurs, les conditions de renvoi des migrants seront redéfinies dans le texte qui remplacera l’accord de Cotonou, mais il est clair que l’Europe ne voudra pas les rendre plus strictes. Les discussions entre l’UE et les pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique, viennent de commencer.

      L’accord, qui expire en 2020, prévoit que les États africains réintègrent les migrants qui n’obtiennent pas l’autorisation de rester en Europe, une mesure qui n’a cependant pas été mise en pratique. « Les dirigeants africains ne respecteront jamais ces articles sur la migration », indique une source proche des négociations.

      L’Union africaine n’est pas parvenue à unir ses membres pour négocier le successeur de l’accord de Cotonou sur la base d’une position commune face à l’UE, mais les avis sont plus convergents sur la question migratoire. Selon une représentante de la société civile, son plan d’action sur l’immigration est « l’un des meilleurs documents sur la migration ».

      Contrairement à l’UE, divisée entre des pays plutôt accueillants et d’autres comme la Hongrie, la Pologne ou l’Italie, qui défendent des règles extrêmement strictes, les membres de l’Union africaine sont sur la même longueur d’onde sur le sujet. « L’UE n’est pas en position de négocier sur l’immigration, mais l’Union africaine l’est », conclut cette même source.

      Pour montrer à ses citoyens qu’elle agit, l’UE pourrait donc finir par mettre en place des arrangements de contrôle migratoire fragmentés et chers.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/eu-lowers-its-ambitions-on-african-migration-control

    • EP lawyers back EU plans for migrant centres in Africa

      Lawyers working at the European Parliament on Tuesday (27 November) struggled to provide a detailed analysis of whether stalled EU plans to offload rescued migrants in north Africa were legal - but ultimately backed the controversial concept.

      “It was at least a brave attempt to piece together, sort of like bits of circumstantial evidence from a kind of a crime scene, to see what the hell this is,” British centre-left MEP Claude Moraes said of their efforts.

      Speaking at the parliament’s civil liberties committee, a lawyer from the legal service was only able to provide an oral summary of their report, citing confidentiality issues.

      But EUobserver has obtained a full copy of the 10-page confidential report, which attempted to provide a legal analysis of stalled EU plans to set up so-called ’regional disembarkation platforms’ in north Africa and controlled centres in Europe.

      The report broadly rubber stamps the legality of both concepts, but with conditions.

      It says “controlled centres and/or disembarkation platforms of a similar nature could be, in principle, lawfully established in the European Union territory.”

      It states disembarkation platforms “could lawfully be established outside of the European Union, in order to receive migrants rescued outside the territory of the Union’s member states.”

      It also says EU law does not apply to migrants rescued at high sea, even with a boat flying an EU-member state flag.

      “We can’t consider a vessel flying a flag of a member state to be an extension of a member state,” the lawyer told the MEPs.

      EU law is also not applied if the migrant is rescued in the territorial waters of an African coastal state, states the report.

      It also notes that people rescued in EU territorial waters cannot then be sent to disembarkation platforms in an non-EU state.

      Morocco and other bordering coastal states must apply the 1951 Geneva Convention and must be considered safe before allowing them to host any disembarkation platform.

      Earlier this year, the European Commission tasked the EU’s asylum support office to analyse the safety of both Morocco and Tunisia.

      But neither country has voiced any interest in hosting such platforms.

      The two countries were then presented over the summer by EU heads of state and government as a possible solution to further stem boat migrants from taking to the seas in their efforts to reach Europe.

      The concepts, initially hatched by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), were met with disdain by north African states, who viewed them as a veiled attempt by the EU to outsource its problem back onto them.

      Furthermore, not a single EU state has expressed any interest to host a controlled centre.

      Human rights defenders have also raised alarm given the poor treatment of thousands of refugees and migrants stuck in over-crowded camps on the Greek islands.

      Attempting to replicate similar camps or centres elsewhere has only heightened those fears.

      But the EU says it is pressing ahead anyway.

      “The disembarkation arrangement, the discussion, is proceeding in the Council,” said Vincet Piket, a senior official in the EU’s foreign policy branch, the EEAS.

      https://euobserver.com/migration/143513

    • Et il y a des personnes, qui travaillent pour le HCR, ici #Vincent_Cochetel, qui croient en les plateformes de désembarquement évidemment...

      Good statement of search and rescue organisations, but I would like to see the same advocacy efforts with North African countries. A predictable regional disembarkation mechanism must be a shared responsibility on both sides of the Mediterranean.

      https://twitter.com/cochetel/status/1073190725473484801?s=19

    • African Union seeks to kill EU plan to process migrants in Africa

      Exclusive: Leaked paper shows determination to dissuade coastal states from cooperating.

      The African Union is seeking to kill off the EU’s latest blueprint for stemming migration, claiming that it would breach international law by establishing “de facto detention centres” on African soil, trampling over the rights of those being held.

      A “#common_African_position_paper” leaked to the Guardian reveals the determination of the 55-member state body, currently headed by Egypt, to dissuade any of its coastal states from cooperating with Brussels on the plan.

      The EU set plans for “regional disembarkation platforms” in motion last summer to allow migrants found in European waters to have their asylum requests processed on African soil.

      Brussels has a similar arrangement in place with Libya, where there are 800,000 migrants, 20,000 of whom are being held in government detention centres. The Libyan authorities have been accused of multiple and grave human rights abuses. A UN report recently stated that migrants in the country faced “unimaginable horrors”.

      Some northern states, including Morocco, have already rejected the EU’s proposal over the new “platforms”, but there are concerns within the African Union (AU) that other member governments could be persuaded by the offer of development funds.

      Italy’s far-right interior minister Matteo Salvini has called for the centres to be based around the Sahel region, in Niger, Chad, Mali and Sudan. An inaugural summit between the EU and the League of Arab States is being held in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt on Sunday and Monday, and migration is expected to be discussed.

      “When the EU wants something, it usually gets it,” said a senior AU official. “African capitals worry that this plan will see the establishment of something like modern-day slave markets, with the ‘best’ Africans being allowed into Europe and the rest tossed back – and it is not far from the truth.”

      They added: “The feelings are very, very raw about this. And it feels that this summit is about the EU trying to work on some countries to cooperate. Bilaterally, some countries will always look at the money.”

      EU officials, in turn, have been coy about the purposes of the summit, insisting that it is merely an attempt to engage on issues of joint importance.

      The leaked draft joint position of the AU notes that Brussels has yet to fully flesh out the concept of the “regional disembarkation platforms”. But it adds: “The establishment of disembarkation platforms on the African Continent for the processing of the asylum claims of Africans seeking international protection in Europe would contravene International Law, EU Law and the Legal instruments of the AU with regard to refugees and displaced persons.

      “The setup of ‘disembarkation platforms’ would be tantamount to de facto ‘detention centres’ where the fundamental rights of African migrants will be violated and the principle of solitary among AU member states greatly undermined. The collection of biometric data of citizens of AU Members by international organisations violates the sovereignty of African Countries over their citizens.”

      The AU also criticises Brussels for bypassing its structures and warns of wider repercussions. “The AU views the decision by the EU to support the concept of ‘regional disembarkation platforms’ in Africa and the ongoing bilateral consultation with AU member states, without the involvement of the AU and its relevant institutions, as undermining the significant progress achieved in the partnership frameworks and dialogues between our two unions,” the paper says.

      Confidential legal advice commissioned by the European parliament also raises concerns about the legality of establishing processing centres on African soil for those found in European waters.

      The paper, seen by the Guardian, warns that “migrants, after they have been rescued (or a fortiori after they have been brought back on to European Union territory), could not be sent to platforms outside of the European Union without being granted access to the EU asylum procedures and without being granted the possibility to wait for the complete examination of their request”.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/24/african-union-seeks-to-kill-eu-plan-to-process-migrants-in-africa